We hear the words “legalism” and “liberalism” tossed out a lot in religious discussions nowadays. Usually it is implied that it is bad or unscriptural to be a “legalist” or a “liberal”. What do these two terms even mean? The definition of these two terms can differ even among sincere interpreters of the Bible, but here is a slide from the Borger Church of Christ that I think really nails it on what legalism is and what it is not.

WHAT LEGALISM IS. Let’s discuss these points. 1) Mattew 23:23 The Pharisees stressed tithing even if they were hypocrites in their hearts. They would tithe even of garden spices that they grew, and yet they neglected mercy and compassion. So legalism includes hypocritically keeping laws of God. You are a legalist if you think that keeping God’s laws can save you even if you are an insincere hypocrite.
2) Mark 7:6-7 The Pharisees condemned Jesus’ disciples for not washing their hands before eating based on their traditions that they had added to the Law of Moses. Jesus said that their worship was vain b/c they taught as doctrine the commandments of men (i.e. their tradition and commandments that they bound on others). Actually, tradition itself is not necessarily bad. In 2 Thessalonians 3:6 Paul called the teachings he had given them “tradition received from us”. Taking the Lord’s Supper every week becomes a tradition based on the commands of Jesus. Even traditions not based on the commands of the Bible are not necessarily bad. Many churches had a weekly tradition of 2 songs, a prayer, another song, and then the sermon every Sunday week after week. Nothing wrong with that. Tradition becomes wrong when, like the Pharisees, someone or some church binds its way of doing things on others, judging and condemning those who don’t follow their example. The Jehovah’s Witnesses have a long standing doctrinal tradition of “no blood transfusions”. They legalistically condemn those who use blood transfusions medically. They don’t allow their members to use them. I would call that legalism. If someone chooses not to have a blood transfusion, that is their choice based on their interpretation of the Bible, but they should not bind that on others.
3) Romans 14:1-3 Paul is discussing differences among believers on eating meats or not, and observing special days. Some say that was just different opinions and not doctrine, but Paul gave a clear doctrine about eating meats (or eating anything). In 1 Timothy 4:1-4 he said that a Christian can eat anything that he wants as long as he gives thanks for it. Paul even said that eating meats offered to idols is not wrong unless it causes someone to stumble by their eating and violating their conscience. But even if there is a clear doctrine about eating meats, Paul said that two believers who disagreed on that should not judge each other and should not withdraw fellowship from one another over that issue. That issue is not a “heaven/hell” issue. God’s grace covers many doctrinal misunderstandings or else none of us would make it to heaven b/c no one understands every single Bible doctrine or teaching perfectly. There are a few “heaven/hell” doctrines like the Deity of Jesus, salvation by grace through faith in the sacrifice of Jesus, loving one another, and obeying God’s moral laws (with right and wrong being defined by God). These are discussed in 1 John as tests of walking in the light and of fellowship with God and other believers. But almost all issues that believers divide over are not heaven/hell issues. Eating meats or not, observing special days (Lent, Sabbath observance), having and eating in kitchens in your church building, using one cup or many cups in the Lord’s Supper, etc. are not heaven/hell issues. Someone might claim they have Bible verses on each of those issues, but that it not the point. The point is that even if someone disagrees with you on the issue, you should not judge them or withdraw fellowship from them b/c those are not heaven/hell issue. Even if you think that you are the one with the correct understanding of the doctrine in question, you still should not condemn those who disagree. I realize that we might even disagree of what the heaven/hell issues are but we should be very reluctant to not make a non heaven/hell issue or doctrine to be a heaven/hell one that we bind on others, causing division.
4) Acts 15 was the conference to decide if circumcision should be demanded of Gentile Christians which is what some Jewish Christians were doing (the Judaizers). The conference, using the inspired testimony of Paul and others, decided that circumcision should not be bound on Gentile Christians. Paul said that circumcision was not a heaven/hell issue in itself, but that binding the practice on others causing division becomes a heaven/hell issue (Galatians 5:1-4). It’s okey to have your opinion about any and all doctrines and issues. Follow your conscience. But if its not a heaven/hell issue then don’t bind your opinion on others, judging and condemning others and causing division.
5) Luke 18:9-14 The Pharisee bragged in his prayer about how he tithed and fasted. He bragged how he was not a sinner like the publican who prayed “God be merciful to me the sinner”. The Pharisee was self-righteous. You are a legalist if your keeping the Laws of God makes you feel superior to others who don’t keep God’s laws as you interpret them. If you do that, you are acting like you own keeping of laws of God saves you, like you are earning your salvation which is legalism in its worst form. You are no longer giving full credit to the grace of God in your salvation and you will probably not be compassionate toward others.
6) 3 John 1:9-11 John condemned Diotrephes harshly. In 3 John, John told the Christians to receive evangelists who came to them teaching the truth about Jesus. Diotrephes claimed to be first among his church. He disagreed with John and those sent out by John on doctrines (mainly the Deity of Jesus), so he unjustly accused John with malicious words and refused to help those sent by John. Not only that, he forbade any other church members from helping them: he even put those who helped them out of the church. This Diotrephes is the kind of church leader whom Paul warned about, those who cause dissension and division, who try to be dictators of others in the church (Romans 16:17). Many such men have split churches time and time again.
WHAT LEGALISM IS NOT. Luke 6:46; John 14:15; Matthew 7:21-23; Rom 6:17. Someone keeping the laws of God as they interpret them is not legalism. They might even have some really strict law keeping that you think is unnecessary in you opinion. A lady thinks she should wear a little covering in the assembly. She should follow her conscience on that, just don’t condemn those who don’t wear it. You can abstain from alcohol completely, just don’t condemn those who drink in moderation. You can choose to not eat pork, just don’t condemn those who do. Over and over the Bible stresses obedience to God’s commands. Someone who tries to keep all of God’s commands in the strictest, most literal sense is not a legalist. He can be a strict keeper of God’s law and yet still trust in the grace of God for salvation and not in his own law keeping. So we should not call him a a legalist and mock him b/c he is such a strict law keeper One final note. Today, if I insist on following a literal interpretation of Paul’s passages where he condemns homsexuality, then some will say that I am a “legalist”, that I am more interested in laws than love. That is not Biblical. If the Bible clearly condemns a practice, then I am nto a legalist if I boldly denounce that practice. If the issue is a heaven/hell issue, like LGBTQ or the Deity of Jesus or universlaissm, then I am not a legalist for condemning such things

