Please wait while my tweets load 
Is ‘license’ really the opposite of ‘legalism’?
Apr 29 | Pastor J.D. | 17 Comments |
I’m working something out theologically… will you help me?
Quite often I will hear legalism and license presented as two ditches on either side of the Gospel that we must avoid. By “legalism” I mean the idea that Christianity is a set of commands which, if you obey them, will improve your standing in the eyes of God and make you a “faithful Christian.” By “license” I mean the idea that because Christ has redeemed us from any curse on our sin, we can “do whatever we want” because our sin is already paid for.
I think we should reconsider that polarization, because I think they may be more like stepbrothers than polar opposites.
“License” is not the polar opposite of legalism, it is simply another type of legalism. Religious legalists attempt to overcome that emptiness and shame by conforming to a religious standard which makes them good and acceptable people. They find their fulfillment in knowing they are “good Christians,” because they have obtained a sufficient level of obedience. Non-religious legalists attempt to find their fulfillment not by pursuing religious accomplishment, but by pursuing some secular goal—making money, looking good in the eyes of others, etc. They hope that when they have “done enough,” i.e. made enough money, bought enough stuff, obtained the higher position, found enough sensual pleasure, etc., they will be fulfilled.
Both religious and non-religious legalists operate from a position of emptiness and shame. They both think that they must obtain something in order to overcome that emptiness and shame.
Both legalism and license reject what God has declared about us in the Gospel and attempt to build an identity and find fulfillment based on what we can obtain or what we accomplish. You see, the “licentious sinner” is really nothing but a secularized legalist. How so? The licentious sinner thinks that by obtaining some “law” (meeting some standard, finding some degree of pleasure) he can find identity and happiness.
In other words, both legalism and license flow out of unbelief in the Gospel. Thus, they are not opposites, but two flowers that share the same root.
The opposite of both “legalism” and “licentiousness” is faith in the Gospel—believing what God has declared about His relationship to us in the Gospel and finding your fulfillment in that. The Gospel declares that our identity before God is a gift God gave to us that we simply receive, and we find fulfillment in the fact that the God of the Universe is our Father, Protector, and Friend. In response to that, out of love and adoration for the God that gave Himself to us, we become loving, unselfish people who pursue righteousness and generosity because that is the desire of our hearts.
Christians who are still pursuing sin do not need a little “legalism” thrown in to balance them out and curb their sinful tendencies. What they need is the Gospel.
Christians who still pursue sin are either not saved or so far removed from the Gospel that they have “forgotten they have been cleansed from their former sins.” (2 Peter 1:9) You should correct their sinful desires not through giving them a law they should try and obey, but by pointing out to them what their behavior says about the depravity of their hearts and driving them in despair to the Fountain of love and grace.
Trying to correct a sinning, selfish Christian’s behavior by preaching a rousing sermon to him about what he must go and do to be a “faithful” Christian is the WORST thing you can do… because he will go and do what you tell him to the degree he feels like he needs to for his conscience to be satisfied. But when the sting of your sermon wears off he’ll go right back to his old selfish ways because his heart has never really been changed.
Our hearts are only changed through faith in the Gospel (Galatians 3:1-3; 1 John 4:19). Even the most radical obedience cannot produce the 1st drop of love for God in the heart. Thus, Paul says, even if your sermon makes people rush out to “give up their bodies to be burned,” as impressive as that is, it has not produced the first drop of love for God and others in their heart and is thus, in the eyes of God, utterly useless (1 Cor 13:1-3).
As my friend Tullian Tchividjian says, God is not after just obedience, He’s after a whole different kind of obedience.
But what if Christians in our churches hear this and use this as an excuse not to be generous and to pursue worldliness and sin? Well… Martin Luther said, “If you are never accused of antinomianism (preaching in a way that communicates to some that they are free to go and sin) you are not really preaching Gospel.” So, if my preaching the Gospel causes some whose hearts are darkened and calloused by sin to interpret it as license to do whatever they want, that’s fine. Their condemnation is written in their own behavior, which reveals the damnable filthiness of their hearts. But motivating them to obey by giving them a “you better do this or else” is, from the perspective of the Gospel, utterly useless. It is “legal obedience,” but not obedience that flows from love, and obedience that is useless, eternally speaking, to God. In fact, curbing their materialism and sinful tendencies by “go and do” sermons may only cover up the fact to them that their hearts are depraved and wicked and keep them from running to Christ for salvation.
So, if you want to set up polar opposites, don’t polarize legalism and license, polarize faith and unbelief. Faith is believing what God says about you in the Gospel and finding your fulfillment in that. Unbelief rejects God’s declaration, and seeks fulfillment in something else. We may pursue favor in the eyes of God and man by living up to some religious standard, or we might pursue fulfillment in the lusts of the flesh, the lusts of the eyes, and the pride of life. Either way, we are pursuing fulfillment and righteousness out of unbelief and idolatry, not from faith in the Gospel.
Thus, the opposite of legalism is not license, it is Gospel. Legalism and license are fruits of the same root, unbelief. Only the Gospel pulls up that root.
Thoughts?
17 Responses to “Is ‘license’ really the opposite of ‘legalism’?”
Leave a Reply
Subscribe via Email
Pages
Summit Links
J.D.’s Resources
Facebook
Vimeo
Good stuff!
It makes me think of (and curious about your take on) the saying that is often attributed to Augustine: “Love God and do whatever you want.”
In the last ‘Ask Pastor John’ marathon, he pretty much said, “Yes. As long as you have a high view of the holiness of God.”
A great article by Todd Wilken titled, “Legalism & License” that looks at how these two are basically the same error can be read here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24711983/Legalism-License
The argument you made is primarily against “Christians” who unrepentantly take too many licenses which you imply are actually non-believer. I see that argument and I probably agree with it. What you didn’t do is address the actually regenerate believer who struggles with legalism. What are it’s pitfalls and where is it’s root?
I don’t think you are wrong to polarize faith and unbelief but I do think its a little reductionists to say license is actually unbelief and idolatry without addressing legalism…both of which are problems regenerate believers struggle with.
How does the Gospel which makes all things lawful help us regulate which things we should and should not do and thus prevent legalism like in 1 Cor. 10?
What are the differences and pit-falls for a christian who advocates one of those positions. You still may be right but I think the case you made isn’t as helpful to believers struggling with those issues as it could be.
In the situation of two believers I think license and legalism are opposites (though not polar) primarily because those who advocate license would say we are free to do all things except be legalistic. Never mind the logical contradiction here the fact remains that they are at odds and some are not able to walk the line between. The answer isn’t as simple as you don’t really believe the gospel because both can be very faithful and have a clear conscience while either taking their religious licenses or maintaining their religious legalism.
And for context I probably lean to the legalistic side.
Great word! I appreciate you bringing it all back to the gospel. I have been beating this drum for a long time as well. Legalism says that Jesus did not do enough FOR me, so I need to add to what He did for good standing. License says that Jesus did not do enough TO me to change my heart and my desires, so I will continue pursuing all the old things to satisfy me.
I also once heard Kevin Twitt say that legalists try to make themselves right by keeping the law; the licentious try to make themselves right by creating their own law. Sound very similar to what you’re saying here.
While the two are set up as polar opposites, I don’t know of anyone with solid, Biblical theology who would say that preaching one is the answer for the other. They have always been the mucky pits down the slopes on either side of the narrow track of Christian faith. I like the point that both are fundamentally issues of unbelief, even though they express themselves in ways that are opposite. Because they are, at root, issues of unbelief, the antidote must consist chiefly in a hearty dose, clearly taught, of the Gospel.
Do you think the categories are unhelpful, then? Even within a faithful Christian walk there is room for discussion of law and freedom. You seem to take a Lutheran slant on this, so I wonder, what do you think is the place of the law(Law?) for the believer?
Interesting… I agree. Both license and legalism expose the underlying condition of completely missing what the Gospel is really about and what was accomplished with the sacrifice of Christ. Having just written an essay comparing the warning passages in Hebrews 6 and 10, one could wonder if that’s not exactly what he was referring to?
I love your overall line of thinking here. It seems the animosity between legalism and license is more sibling rivalry than anything else.
I’m trying to think if there is a better way to term “secular” or “non-religious” legalism. because deep-down there’s a religious pulse to that as well, hence the similarities with “religious legalism.” and if we call license “non-religious legalism”, we may give some people a way out of self-examination because they may be living that way with a “Christian” label on it and think they are somehow exempted from being guilty of “non-religious” legalism. I’m not sure what is a better way to term the two, but perhaps someone out there smarter than me can think of it.
I follow this argument. However, I have trouble teasing out the difference between a believer who struggles with sin and a religious nonbeliever who pursues legalism. This question came to mind in your last sermon at Summit. I understand that salvation comes from belief in the Gospel. I understand that true belief will cause a believer to respond to the Gospel by imitating Jesus (and fighting temptation). I also understand that believers are not sinless, and some sins are hard to break. So, what is the difference between a believer who struggles with a sin such as substance abuse or lust and a nonbeliever who, thinking he/she is saved, pursues these sins instead of the Gospel?
My question is, should this be taught in the church like a Basic Beliefs course? Would this benefit new Christians with their discipleship? I believe it should be something seriously considered.
This is legit and very biblical!! Thanks Pastor JD for your insight.
My small group discussed the exact same question James brought up. We would all love to hear the answer too!
this is exactly what i see paul dealing with in I corinthians, especially in regard to idolatry & sacrificial food eating: permissible vs. beneficial.
“permissible” speaks to “legalism.” i mean really, if paul says it’s ok and “allowable” then where do we have a place to be judgmental and put boundaries on God’s grace?
“beneficial” speaks to “license.” it is wrong to apply the old adage: “it’s easier to ask forgiveness than to ask for permission.” we must always be on guard against causing our fellow brethren to stumble. what is much worse we must never become a stumbling block to the lost accepting the gospel! what comfort and enjoyment is worth causing a brother to sin or a lost person to have reason to reject the gospel? (so often we show ourselves to be the “weaker brother” by not being able to control/discipline ourselves and causing a weaker brother to stumble!)
like a youth pastor being seen by his students drinking or at a party (not getting drunk or perhaps hot even drinking at all). (or a pastor by his flock)
like a new(er) believer seeing his friend that brought him to the faith doing something that the newbie doesn’t yet understand as “ok/permissible.”
like a seminarian going to the bar with his coworkers after a long shift (whether he’s drinking or not, it’s the perspective of others that is the concern).
like a professor going out to the bars to just simply hangout with lost friends or to try to befriend and have an “entry strategy” for engaging the lost.
these are not black & white issues per se, but they are all issues i’ve either personally or indirectly dealt with.
the legalist seems to act out of fear or ignorance in order to try to protect themselves or others. the licensee seems to act out of no fear/no respect for holiness or judgment of themselves or others. perhaps the goal is to be self-aware or ones own sinfulness/sinful-inclination and the reality of your own actions having much greater ramifications and a much greater audience than you realize (especially seen in your kids).
I love the theoretical/systematic/academic discussion here, but let me ask a practical question that I deal with all of the time.
What do you do with people who are “legalists” and “licentious” at the same time? It seems like this is the case with Christian guys who are “addicted” to porn. I meet so many guys who are just dominated by porn but I think they are really Christians. They are a mess that can’t be summed up by theological system. One day they feel guilty and unloved, the next day they feel like they have to try harder, the next day they feel like everything would be ok if they just knew they were loved and accepted by God and then the next day they are back looking at porn. All that to say, how am I supposed to disciple these guys? I feel like nothing works. Any suggestions?
Good discussion going here. I think most of us can agree that both are issues that do not fully embrace the gospel, while doing so in different (and somewhat opposite) ways. Obviously all the theological and practical applications of this cannot be simplified in one blog post.
However, I believe there is another issue here that goes deeper and may bring some clarity to this…the issue of being “saved.” There is a lot of talk of the “believer” and the “unbeliever.” James brought up a good question, “what is the difference between a believer who struggles with a sin such as substance abuse or lust and a nonbeliever who, thinking he/she is saved, pursues these sins instead of the Gospel?”
If we view (as I do) sanctification as a lifelong process, without one specific moment that we get “saved,” then sin has consequences no matter what side of our “salvation moment” we’re on. I realize most would disagree, but if we have free will to freely choose God, then we continue to have free will to not choose Him as well (our gift of free will does not dissapear after being “saved”, nor is it a one way street where we can only choose FOR Him after being “saved”).
CS Lewis said the world is not composed of 100% Christians and 100% non-Christians, which is why you can’t neatly divide the world into two parts and compare sides. I agree. So to answer James’ question, both these parties need grace and healing to wipe away that separation from God (sin) they have created. It is a continuous process (1 Cor 9:27).
In light of this view, both the “believer” and “unbeliever” benefit from keeping the law, because sin is still separation for both, and to avoid what is sin is a good thing (here the law meaning a set of guidelines that define objective sin and direct us to stay away from those). And license affects both the “believer” and “unbeliever” the same, because if a license to act freely causes them to sin, then sin always causes separation from God, no matter if one is “saved” and one isn’t. Both are in constant need of sanctification.
Ultimately, both legalism and licence do not fully embrace the gospel of Christ, one that invites us to first RECEIVE grace AND act on it out of love for God. But if some sin is objective and the law directs us not to submit to these, then it is always a good thing (especially in setting an example for those weaker brothers, as rynoyak mentioned). If sin is always separation from God, then it affects all the same, no matter what standing with God you’re in (some would call that place “saved”). And so a license (if that license includes sin) to do whatever you want, even if you know God, has no place in Christian teaching.
[...] can access the article HERE. Then, please drop back by to share your [...]
They are related in that they are both stumbling blocks to the Gospel. Our weekly Life Group has begun a study on “Establishing a Right Reputation in Order to Avoid Stumbling Blocks to the Gospel”. We are seeing how Satan would like us so PREOCCUPIED with sin (our own and/or others) that we would neglect doing the work that God has called us to do. This causes us to become self focused instead of Jesus focused. Jesus told us that if we love Him we will keep his cammandments (John 14:15) and that others will see our good works and GLORIFY THE FATHER (Matt 5:16).
Sin is a heavy burden whether we are working hard to avoid it or whether we are in the midst of reaping what we’ve sown. The works of the flesh are MANY (Gal 5:19-21) and are a constant distraction from the TWO things that Jesus has called us to do: LOVE GOD…LOVE EACH OTHER.
As we focus on establishing a right reputation as Jesus followers we will break down the barriers of preoccupation with sin/flesh. Then people will begin to experience a REAL relationship with Jesus and His Holy Spirit will lead them to true freedom.
When Jesus gave the Great Commission He said “go and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost”(Matt 28:19) not “go to church and take all the classes you can and work on yourself ’til I come back, and it’s okay if you never get it right and never talk about me to anyone else.” Both legalism and license are self-centered and are rooted in pride.
Let’s work on establishing our reputation as Jesus Lovers so that even if we do mess up along the way people know who we are and whose we are. Let’s not allow Satan to BURDEN us with preoccupation with sin. Let’s be Jesus centered and do as he said: “Come to me all who labor and are heavy laden and I will give you REST. Take my yoke upon you and LEARN OF ME….my yoke is EASY and my BURDEN is LIGHT” (Matt 11:28-30) Following Jesus should be EASY work if we could ever learn to focus on the “field” in FRONT of us and not become distracted by what is happening to the left or right.
“It is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” Rom. 2:13.
I think you need to find out which law he is talking about since one has been added after Jesus was crucified.