Legalism Practices

To understand the second type of legalism, we must remember that the New Testament distinguishes between the letter of the law (its external form) and the spirit of the law. The second form of legalism separates the letter of the law from the spirit of the law. He obeys the letter but hurts the spirit. There is only one subtle difference between this form of legalism and the one mentioned above. In imperial times, the position of legalism was somewhat paradoxical. On the one hand, their ideas have remained very influential, particularly in the field of administrative practice, but also with regard to the policy of enrichment and empowerment of the State, as well as in certain legal practices. On some occasions, some of the leading imperial reformers – from Zhuge Liang 諸葛亮 (181-234) to Su Chuo 蘇綽 (498-546), from Wang Anshi 王安石 (1021-1086) to Zhang Juzheng 張居正 (1525-1582) – were able to openly confess their guilt to the legalistic methods of reviving the government apparatus and restoring the economic and military capabilities of the state. On the other hand, most political reformers and activists remained underground legalists at best. For the vast majority of scholars, Shang Yang, Han Fei and others were negative examples; As a result, most of the texts associated with the legalistic school ceased to circulate, and very few merited comment. Open support for Shang Yang, for example, would be virtually impossible for a respected man of letters. Citing Philippians 2:12, Christian interpreter Tony Cooke explained that the term “legalistic” has often been misapplied to those who follow biblical guidelines “relating to holiness, obedience, and godly living,” concluding that “God`s grace leads us to obedience, not far from it.” [9] In the same vein, theologian Leonard Ravenhill summed up: “If there is something in the Bible that churches do not like, they call it `legalism.`” [9] To further illustrate what legalism can look like, R.C.

Sproul describes three forms of legalism. In Christian theology, legalism (or nomism) is a pejorative term applied to the idea that “by good works or obedience to the law, a person deserves and deserves salvation.” [1] [2] [3] “Legalism exists when people try to obtain justice in God`s eyes through good works. Legalists believe that they deserve or can earn God`s approval by following the requirements of the law,” said Thomas R. Schreiner. A legalist believes that their good works and obedience to God affect their salvation. Legalism focuses more on God`s laws than on the relationship with God. He keeps the outer laws without a truly subjugated heart. And legalism adds human rules to divine laws and treats them as divine. Fundamentally, legalism involves abstracting God`s law from its original context. Some people seem to be busy in the Christian life following rules and regulations, and they see Christianity as a set of do`s and don`ts, cold, deadly moral principles. It is a form of legalism that consists only of keeping God`s law as an end in itself. This second type of legalism can be exemplified by the Pharisees who confronted Jesus for healing on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:9-14).

They only cared about the letter of the law and avoided anything that might look like work for them. These teachers lacked the spirit of the law, which was directed against ordinary work, which is not necessary to sustain life, and not against efforts to heal the sick. For more than 200 years, the Chinese people have experienced war as their daily reality, and a legalistic approach to trying to control people`s worst impulses – controlling people through the threat of severe punishment for injustice – would have been the best way to deal with the chaos. Shang Yang`s legalism dealt with everyday situations, but also extended to how to behave in wartime, and he is credited with the tactic of total war, which allowed the Qin state to defeat other warring states in order to control China. In order to effectively govern and control the people, the government should rely on a vast bureaucracy; But this bureaucracy, in turn, should be adequately staffed and strictly monitored. In this regard, legalists have made a lasting contribution to China`s administrative thinking and administrative practices. Their strong suspicions of scheming ministers and selfish officials have fostered the spread of impersonal means of recruitment, promotion, downgrading and performance monitoring. These resources became indispensable to the Chinese bureaucratic apparatus for millennia to come (Creel 1974).