"You’re just a legalist," Calvin said to Chris. "No, the problem is that you are a worldly Christian who just looks for a license to sin," was the quick reply Chris offered. The two young men continued their heated discussion for over an hour. Calvin had gone out partying the night before with some of his unsaved friends, and when he had shared this with Chris, he was shocked by the reaction he received. Chris told him he was completely opposed to it. "But, this is how I witness to my old friends," Calvin said. Chris replied by arguing that Calvin wasn’t witnessing, but simply looking for an excuse to continue participating in the "things of the world." Calvin became quite upset at this remark and pointed out that it was only a little fun he was having. "Did you do anything Jesus would have been ashamed of," Chris asked? Calvin replied that he had one beer and listened to some secular music, but that was it. "And you can’t tell me that’s wrong," Calvin said emphatically! Both young men were very sure they were right in their beliefs and the other was wrong. And now the issue had come to a head.

Legalism and Worldliness. These two words, or ones very similar to them, are heard on a daily basis in churches, homes, and gatherings of all kinds. The issue of legalism and it’s polar opposite, license (to sin), have raged down through church history. In many instances, the discussions on these topics revolve around "questionable" or "doubtful" issues. Ones that are often not precisely outlined in the Bible. Of course the Word of God doesn’t specifically mention things like going to movies, definite clothing styles (other than the admonition to be modest), and similar things. What does a person mean when they call someone else a legalist? And what does it mean to be called worldly? My prayer is that this article will shed some light and balance on these two terms and their respective meanings for Christians.

Let’s begin this study by looking at both the biblical definition of legalism, and the definition that many people ascribe to it when they use the term to describe other Christians. The best example of legalism is found in the book of Galatians. It was here that the Apostle Paul dealt with a serious issue that could properly be called legalism. As many are aware, in the first century Church a tremendously important and volatile debate raged concerning Grace and the Law. Many of the early Christians were Jews, and came from a background of strict adherence to the Law of Moses. In the churches of Galatia men had begun teaching that in order to be saved one must not only believe in Jesus Christ, but ALSO keep the Mosaic Law. This would include the eating of certain foods and being circumcised. When Paul heard that these Jewish teachers were creating so much confusion in the churches he wrote to the Galatians. He had two primary reasons for writing to them:

The problem in Galatia was that certain people were rejecting the gospel of grace through faith alone. They were adding works to the message of salvation in Jesus Christ. Paul addressed a similar situation in Ephesus when he said "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast." – Eph 2:8,9 (NAS). Nothing could be clearer! We are saved ONLY by faith in Jesus Christ. Legalism says otherwise.

"Legalism is a slavish following of the law in the belief that one thereby earns merit. It is completely ineffectual in that it ignores the facts that we never outgrow the need for divine grace and that the essence of the law is love."²

Are there "Christian" churches, denominations, and groups that teach this type of legalism? Absolutely! One need not look very far to find entire religious systems that are based on works for salvation, or a combination of works and grace.³

Some teach that a person must be baptized to be saved. Others teach that one must speak in tongues, must partake in their communion service, must do this and must do that. Any church that tells you that you must perform outward duties to be saved is completely in the wrong! They are preaching, as Paul said, "ANOTHER GOSPEL" (Gal. 1:6-9).

As mentioned above, there are some churches that are, in the literal sense of the word, preaching a LEGALISTIC gospel. But generally, when the term Legalism is used, people don’t mean just that. They usually mean that someone is insisting on a certain rule or standard which they don’t think God requires of them personally. Let me give you an example where this would be true. A missionary friend of mine was home from the field once in order to visit some churches and report on what God was doing in the foreign country where he was working. One fateful Sunday morning he drove up to a small country church where he would be ministering. He had never been to this church before and really knew nothing about it (his services in different churches were set up for him by presbyters in the particular denomination he was affiliated with). As he got out of his car, the senior Pastor of the church came out to greet him. They were talking as the missionary began unloading some of his equipment for the morning service. When he opened the trunk of his car to pull out a projector, the senior Pastor noticed a set of golf clubs. He asked the missionary why he had golf clubs. The missionary responded by stating that while on the mission field for the last 3 years he hadn’t had any opportunity to play golf, something he enjoyed as a recreation. Immediately the senior Pastor got a disgusted look on his face and said, "We don’t believe in playing golf, or anything else like that around here." "We think those worldly amusements are a waste of time and you should know better", he continued. The missionary was shocked! He was told to pack up his things and leave right away. He wasn’t even allowed to minister at that small country church. Friends, this is legalism at its worst and should be opposed!

The example I just gave is somewhat extreme. Nevertheless, things like that do go on. But what about other Christians who cry legalism? Is the believer who claims others are legalistic always in the right? Absolutely not! In fact, I will make a statement now that many will disagree with, nevertheless it is the truth. I believe that the vast majority of those who howl about legalism have no idea what they are talking about. These people simply want an excuse to continue in sinful habits, so they claim that others who hold to moral standards and principles (either directly or indirectly taught in the Word of God) are legalists.

The exact opposite of Legalism is Worldliness. There is a fancy name the theologians give this practice. They call it Antinomianism (which literally means "one who speaks against law"). This belief existed in the early church just like legalism. Only it was far more prevalent and dangerous. Of the seven churches mentioned in Revelation, none are rebuked for being too legalistic. But a number of them are rebuked for being too worldly, or harboring Antinomian attitudes, if you will.

To the church in Pergamum:

Rev 2:14-16 - But I have a few things against you, because you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam, who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit acts of immorality. Thus you also have some who in the same way hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Repent therefore. (NAS)

To the church in Thyatira:

Rev 2:20 - But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray, so that they commit acts of immorality. (NAS)

And to the church in Sardis:

Rev 3:3-4 - Remember therefore what you have received and heard; and keep it, and repent. If therefore you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come upon you. But you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their garments; and they will walk with Me in white; for they are worthy. (NAS)

Paul also noticed the practice of Antinomianism taking root in many churches and he addressed this practice in a number of places in Scripture. Let’s look at just one instance, found in the book of Romans.

Rom. 6:1 – "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase?"(NAS).

Adam Clarke, a close friend of John Wesley, wrote the following about this problem in the church at Rome:

"The apostle proceeds in this chapter to show the obligations under which both [Jew and Gentile] were laid to live a holy life, and the means and advantages they enjoyed for that purpose. This he does, not only as a thing highly and indispensably necessary in itself - for without holiness none can see the Lord (Heb 12:14) - but to confute a lie which appears to have been gaining considerable ground even at that time, namely, that the doctrine of justification by faith alone, through the grace of Christ Jesus, rendered obedience to the moral law useless…[Paul] shows both Jew and Gentile that the principles of the Christian religion absolutely require a holy heart and a holy life, and make the amplest provisions for both."⁴

It should be obvious to all by now that the problem of worldliness is nothing new. There will always be people in the Church who refuse to abide by the Apostle John’s command in I John 2.

1 John 2:15-17 - Do not love the world, nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. And the world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God abides forever. (NAS)

John makes it very clear that we are not to "love the world, neither the things in the world." Yet, by the looks of it, many Christians are doing exactly that. They flatly refuse to give up any type of entertainment to obey the higher calling of God. Their attitude generally is one of looking to see how close to the world they can get, rather than how far away from its deadly principles they can get!

Let me give one quick example where some say Antinomianism has crept into the Church. Let’s look at Hollywood and the Christian’s response to it. I know of many believers that have no problem watching anything and everything Hollywood puts out. A couple of years ago, when the movie "Titanic" came out, many Christians saw it. I personally did not, and have no desire to see it now. In fact, many people ask me what I think about such and such a movie or TV show, and I end up saying, "I don’t know anything about it." I just don’t watch that stuff. But the movie "Titanic" came out and many flocked to see it. I wonder if they realize what they actually saw and heard. According to one movie/video review source, there were 3 scenes involving the drinking of alcohol, 59 profanities uttered (many of which took God’s name in vain), 4 scenes involving sexual situations (including nudity), and numerous violent scenes. And this is just a small sample!

Now, if someone doesn’t think it’s proper for a Christian to see that type of movie, are they being legalistic? Or is it the other way around? Is a Christian who views that type of movie being worldly? Think about it. The real question to be answered is this: Was there anything in the movie that was contrary to what the Bible says a Christian should or should not do in word, thought or deed? Remember, no one is forced to see a movie. It is not only a form of entertainment, but it is a paid form of entertainment!

The question of legalism vs. license, more often than not, revolves around what we call "matters of conscience", or "questionable things." This refers back to the Apostle Paul’s writings in Romans and I Corinthians. He states that a problem had arisen in the churches between Jewish converts and Gentile converts. Rom 14:1 - Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions (NAS). Adam Clarke sums up the situation here.

"It seems very likely, from this and the following chapter, that there were considerable misunderstandings between the Jewish and Gentile Christians at Rome, relative to certain customs which were sacredly observed by the one and disregarded by the other. The principal subject of dispute was concerning meats and days. The converted Jew, retaining a veneration for the law of Moses, abstained from certain meats, and was observant of certain days; while the converted Gentile, understanding that the Christian religion put him under no obligations to such ceremonial points, had no regard to either. It appears, further, that mutual censures and uncharitable judgments prevailed among them, and that brotherly love and mutual forbearance did not generally prevail. The apostle, in this part of his letter, exhorts that in such things, not essential to religion, and in which both parties, in their different way of thinking, might have an honest meaning, and serious regard to God, difference of sentiments might not hinder Christian fellowship and love; but that they would mutually forbear each other, make candid allowance, and especially not carry their Gospel liberty so far as to prejudice a weak brother."⁵

Some people misapply the principle Paul taught here and believe that Christians who are opposed to watching Hollywood’s films are simply being legalistic. Why? Because in these individuals’ minds it is only a matter of conscience, or opinion, as to whether viewing a movie like "Titanic" is right or wrong.

If we look at the Scriptural principle of "questionable things" we see that the two examples Paul gave us (days of worship and eating meats sacrificed to idols) revolve around issues that are NOT moral in nature. Whether one worships on Sunday or Monday, or every day of the week, is NOT a moral issue. Neither does meat have any moral quality in it. Thus Paul says that to enforce one’s opinion, or conviction, on others in these non-moral issues is wrong! But if the thing in question involves a moral principle, or if it entails a Christian becoming involved in sin (either sins of commission or omission), it can NOT qualify as a "matter of conscience!" This is where so many miss the proverbial boat on determining issues of legalism or license. Many Christians want to broaden the "questionable matters" to include numerous things, and thus create a lot of gray areas in Christian living. This way each person can "do their own thing" and not be held accountable for it.

I often times think that a big problem in Christianity today is that believers have a very limited view of sin. We tend to think of sin only in terms of what we actually do in the body. But sin is far more than that. Listen to what William Gurnall, 17^th century Puritan, had to say on this topic.

"Some sins are more specifically "spiritual sins" than others. Paul calls them "filthiness of the spirit" and sets them apart from filthiness of the flesh (II Cor. 7:1). When the spirit or the heart is the stage whereon sin is enacted, it is a spiritual sin; such are all impure thoughts, vile affections, and desires which do not break forth into overt action but are nonetheless real acts of the inner man. As with all sin, Satan is the great, unseen instigator of every sin of the heart…Besides evil thoughts, there are others that should also be unwelcome. These are empty, frothy, vain imaginations. Though you may not find them so abominable in themselves, still they keep you from something better."⁶

Let’s take the example I mentioned concerning the film "Titanic." One need not look far in their Bible to see that numerous Scriptures and scriptural principles would have been violated by seeing that movie! I can’t even begin to list them all, but look up Rom. 12:1,2; I Cor. 10:6-13; II Cor. 6:14-7:1; Eph. 2:3; 4:17-5:21; Phi. 4:8,9 & I Thes. 5:23 for a few examples. And all for the sake of entertainment, which one pays to see!

The primary principle that should guide every Christian is one of total love and surrender to the perfect will of God. For those who truly want to make pleasing their heavenly Father their chief purpose in life, the following guideline laid forth by Charles Finney will serve them well:

"The natural question with them [true friends of God] concerning doubtful or questionable things is NOT, "Is this something which God expressly forbids?" Instead, their first question is, "What will be the bearing of this upon my relationship with God, and my witness to the lost?" If the thing in doubt has any tendency toward pulling them down they don’t need the thunders of Sinai to be pealed in their ears forbidding them to do it. It is contrary to the Spirit of Holiness, and that is enough!" [emphasis mine]⁷

For Christians, the cardinal issue shouldn’t be whether or not the activity in question is particularly prohibited in the Scriptures! That is the half-hearted Christian’s response. For the child of God who truly wants to plug into the truth found in Galatians 2:20 (Christ, not self, living and ruling in my heart) the greater principle will always revolve around whether or not something is beneficial for us. Will I grow closer or further away from Jesus if I engage in this activity or thought process? That, my friends, is the question.

TO BE LIKE JESUS! Is this the all-consuming vision that directs your life? If so, the question of legalism or license will be settled for you as you seek to love and serve Him with all your heart and soul and mind and strength!

1 Full Life Study Bible, p. 1807

2 Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, Baker House, 1983), p. 978

3 Catholicism, Islam, and all other world religions and cults are based on this assumption. Christianity alone teaches salvation by grace and faith in Christ only.

4 Adam Clarke's Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1996 by Biblesoft

5 Ibid

6 William Gurnall, The Christian in Complete Armor (Moody Press, 1994), p. A13, A15

7 Charles Finney, True Saints (Grand Rapids, Kregel Publications, 1967), p. 66