I wonder... #22

I wonder...

How many people read the OT and subconsciously/implicitly think God is legalistic? Do our theological categories allow us to understand the Mosaic law in any other way?

Legalism has developed into a sort of trump card in Protestant circles and it has been used rather frequently (and I would say, 'recklessly') against tradition, structured liturgy, church government, dogma, etc. If any practice or view can possibly be called "legalistic" (that is, if its execution, premises, or conclusions can be easily misconstrued as "works based" salvation) it is not worth trying to understand on its own terms--however, there is often not much care put into defining legalism, let alone properly identifying it. In most of the cases I have seen, I think that the accuser conflates perfectly neutral things (i.e. tradition, dogma, etc.) with a legalistic motivation.

I wholeheartedly agree with Paul when he says that we are saved by grace through faith. Grace must remain grace ("But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace." Romans 11:6)! Men are justified by faith alone--which is to say that no deeds will save a man or contribute to the atonement that Christ had made for our sins, or add to His righteousness. Yet, we are created in Christ Jesus for good works, and the very nature of saving faith is that of a synergism between doctrinal confession and obedience (see James). Even Luther said that though we are saved by faith alone, faith alone is not saving faith.

So what is legalism? Where does it start?

How do you understand the law? Can you sing Psalms 1, 19, and 119 about the Torah without being legalistic?

(Really, I do want your opinions. How do you read the OT? How do you view the relationship between the NT and OT?)