Keeping the Law was not "Legalism." Legalism is trying to obtain, by means of the Law, something that requires more than what the Law alone can give. As well, it is the attempt to obtain standing with God apart from God's means of obtaining that standing. Christ and his atonement is, in fact, the exclusive means of obtaining lasting standing with God.
Paul's statement that the Law is not based on Faith (Gal 3.12) is actually a statement claiming that its form of justification was purposefully shown to be temporary and inadequate with respect to final justification. But Paul was *not* saying that the system of justification in place under the Law was invalid as a *temporary* form of justification! On the contrary, Paul sang the praises of the Law, obviously when it had been a current covenant (Rom 7.12).
So the fact the Law is no longer in service as a covenant means that trying to live by the Law is a form of Legalism today, even though it wasn't earlier. It is trying to serve God by a means that God no longer sanctions.
But living by the Law while the Law was in service was not Legalism. It was obedience to God's Word. People get confused when they read from Paul that the Law amplifies our Sin and cannot Justify us (Rom 5.20). But Paul is not decrying the value of the Law. Again, Paul sings the praises of the Law for the time it had been in effect.
What Paul was really saying is that Jews who *now* try to follow the Law, when it is no longer in service, are no longer serving God's Word *today!* The fact it is no longer a current covenant has everything to do with whether God accepts obedience to the Law today.
He obviously does not recognize obedience to the Law when it is no longer in use. The major element in this involves what God's Word is saying to us *today*. Obeying a covenant that is not currently in use is therefore "Legalism," and not serving the cause of God's living Word.
On the other hand, when the Law was in use, obedience to that Law constituted a form of faith in God's Word. It was a temporary form of justification, even though it could not be a permanent form of justification.
The condemnation of sin under the Law was designed to show precisely that, that the Law was a purely *temporary* form of Justification because the Law could not get around the fact Man was a sinner and had to be justified apart from his own works. His own works were already contaminated by sin, making justification something that only Christ, a perfect man, could bring (Heb 7.l1-28; 9.23; 10.1,11).
Antinomianism views "Faith" as somehow separate from Divine Law, and therefore separate from our own righteousness, including our own participation in his righteousness (2 Pet 1.4). But in reality, Christ cannot become our righteousness unless we, by our faith, let his Word into our heart by our choice to obey him.
And it is God's Law that we obtain final justification only by our faith in Christ's atonement, and not by our own independent works. When we respond to God's command to put our faith in Christ and in his atonement for final Justification, we are choosing to comply with God's Law and so participate in His righteousness.
It is by our choice to respond to God's Word that we allow God's Law entrance into our heart, resulting in a partnership with Him (Deut 30.11-14). In this we do not generate righteousness on our own. Rather, in complying with God's Law, we allow entrance into our heart God's Word so that we may be able to obey Him, displaying His righteousness in us.
This is not Self-Justification, but rather, obedience! Faith is not disobedience--it is the exercise of cooperation with God by depending upon Him for our righteousness. By choosing the Law of Christ we are choosing to participate in his righteousness.
To Antinomianism, "Law" is an evil word. It always means Self-Justification. But while the Law was in effect it was intended to only be a form of temporary justification. It was not Legalism, which is an attempt to obtain final Justification by any means apart from access to Christ.
Clearly, Paul was teaching that Faith must be defined ultimately as looking to Christ for final Justification. Faith in the Law before Christ was faith in a purely *temporary justification,* as a prelude to looking to Christ in the future for *final justification.*
Anything that leaves Christ out of the mix is a form of Legalism, including following the Law and its system of atonement, which is the opposite of looking to Christ and his atonement. But faith in the Law was never intended to be faith in the Law as a *permanent and final form of Justificaiton!* On the contrary, it was in fact a form of faith in the need for Christ for final Justification.
The bottom line is: the Law was not "evil" in its time. Following the Law of Moses *today* is indeed a form of Legalism because it is no longer in use. But following the Law of God today as a command to obey the word of Christ is *not* Legalism. It is simply our response, in faith, towards God's Word and in regard to Christ's atonement for our sins. In obeying the command to believe in Christ's atonement we are indeed obeying God's Law as it concerns final Justification.
But Divine Law is always operational, and can be accessed by simply responding to God's Word to our conscience. As for Justification unto Eternal Life, that only comes by our response to the Gospel of Christ, indicating that only *his* atonement must be the object of our faith for this to take place.
Anything apart from choosing to participate in the righteousness associated with *Christ's atonement* is a form of Legalism. But it is not divorced from Divine Law, which is *always* the operation of God's Word speaking to our conscience! We can follow God's Law of righteousness today. We can also follow the righteousness that depends on Christ's atonement for final Justification.
Paul's statement that the Law is not based on Faith (Gal 3.12) is actually a statement claiming that its form of justification was purposefully shown to be temporary and inadequate with respect to final justification. But Paul was *not* saying that the system of justification in place under the Law was invalid as a *temporary* form of justification! On the contrary, Paul sang the praises of the Law, obviously when it had been a current covenant (Rom 7.12).
So the fact the Law is no longer in service as a covenant means that trying to live by the Law is a form of Legalism today, even though it wasn't earlier. It is trying to serve God by a means that God no longer sanctions.
But living by the Law while the Law was in service was not Legalism. It was obedience to God's Word. People get confused when they read from Paul that the Law amplifies our Sin and cannot Justify us (Rom 5.20). But Paul is not decrying the value of the Law. Again, Paul sings the praises of the Law for the time it had been in effect.
What Paul was really saying is that Jews who *now* try to follow the Law, when it is no longer in service, are no longer serving God's Word *today!* The fact it is no longer a current covenant has everything to do with whether God accepts obedience to the Law today.
He obviously does not recognize obedience to the Law when it is no longer in use. The major element in this involves what God's Word is saying to us *today*. Obeying a covenant that is not currently in use is therefore "Legalism," and not serving the cause of God's living Word.
On the other hand, when the Law was in use, obedience to that Law constituted a form of faith in God's Word. It was a temporary form of justification, even though it could not be a permanent form of justification.
The condemnation of sin under the Law was designed to show precisely that, that the Law was a purely *temporary* form of Justification because the Law could not get around the fact Man was a sinner and had to be justified apart from his own works. His own works were already contaminated by sin, making justification something that only Christ, a perfect man, could bring (Heb 7.l1-28; 9.23; 10.1,11).
Antinomianism views "Faith" as somehow separate from Divine Law, and therefore separate from our own righteousness, including our own participation in his righteousness (2 Pet 1.4). But in reality, Christ cannot become our righteousness unless we, by our faith, let his Word into our heart by our choice to obey him.
And it is God's Law that we obtain final justification only by our faith in Christ's atonement, and not by our own independent works. When we respond to God's command to put our faith in Christ and in his atonement for final Justification, we are choosing to comply with God's Law and so participate in His righteousness.
It is by our choice to respond to God's Word that we allow God's Law entrance into our heart, resulting in a partnership with Him (Deut 30.11-14). In this we do not generate righteousness on our own. Rather, in complying with God's Law, we allow entrance into our heart God's Word so that we may be able to obey Him, displaying His righteousness in us.
This is not Self-Justification, but rather, obedience! Faith is not disobedience--it is the exercise of cooperation with God by depending upon Him for our righteousness. By choosing the Law of Christ we are choosing to participate in his righteousness.
To Antinomianism, "Law" is an evil word. It always means Self-Justification. But while the Law was in effect it was intended to only be a form of temporary justification. It was not Legalism, which is an attempt to obtain final Justification by any means apart from access to Christ.
Clearly, Paul was teaching that Faith must be defined ultimately as looking to Christ for final Justification. Faith in the Law before Christ was faith in a purely *temporary justification,* as a prelude to looking to Christ in the future for *final justification.*
Anything that leaves Christ out of the mix is a form of Legalism, including following the Law and its system of atonement, which is the opposite of looking to Christ and his atonement. But faith in the Law was never intended to be faith in the Law as a *permanent and final form of Justificaiton!* On the contrary, it was in fact a form of faith in the need for Christ for final Justification.
The bottom line is: the Law was not "evil" in its time. Following the Law of Moses *today* is indeed a form of Legalism because it is no longer in use. But following the Law of God today as a command to obey the word of Christ is *not* Legalism. It is simply our response, in faith, towards God's Word and in regard to Christ's atonement for our sins. In obeying the command to believe in Christ's atonement we are indeed obeying God's Law as it concerns final Justification.
But Divine Law is always operational, and can be accessed by simply responding to God's Word to our conscience. As for Justification unto Eternal Life, that only comes by our response to the Gospel of Christ, indicating that only *his* atonement must be the object of our faith for this to take place.
Anything apart from choosing to participate in the righteousness associated with *Christ's atonement* is a form of Legalism. But it is not divorced from Divine Law, which is *always* the operation of God's Word speaking to our conscience! We can follow God's Law of righteousness today. We can also follow the righteousness that depends on Christ's atonement for final Justification.
