The Gospel is not "too good to be true"

I heard a beautiful and compact (those are often correlated attributes) definition of legalism: legalism:  the belief that the Gospel is too good to be true.

I really like that definition, because it includes but is not limited to the form of legalism that probably first comes to mind: imbuing the law (either actual biblical law or man-made laws that apparently God didn’t have time to mention, such as a prohibition on voting for a Democrat) with necessary salvific power.

This definition of legalism is richer: it includes doctrinal legalism. Doctrinal legalism is when the Gospel plays second fiddle (at best) to other (derived) doctrines. You can tell a doctrine (say, Doctrine A) is elevated above the Gospel when there is an explicit claim that denying Doctrine A will ultimately lead to a denial of the Gospel. That makes the Gospel subservient to Doctrine A. May it never be.

In my life, I have heard this most often when it comes to creation.  I can’t count the number of times that I have been told (either directly or in word) that denying the young earth view of creation will inexorably lead, slippery-slope style, to a denial of the Gospel. Al Mohler, for one, is quite fond of this argument.

But I have encountered other examples of this legalism. Where secondary doctrines (many/most of which are very important and worthy doctrines) trump the doctrine: the Gospel.  To be sure this is not made explicit (usually) but rather effectively through the same slippery-slope mechanism. I have seen this with eschatology and with the litany of doctrines under the “Doctrine of God” umbrella. While important,  worthy of study,  and edifying, these secondary doctrines often become the tail wagging the dog.

Consider the thief on the cross. There is no indication that he had any doctrine of creation, doctrine of eschatology, doctrine of God, etc. What he appeared to have was a rudimentary gospel, the knowledge that he deserved his punishment while next to him was a man who did not, and that he was utterly dependent on this innocent man for admittance into the Kingdom of God. This limited doctrine, a mere micro-subset of the Gospel (but a proper subset) was sufficient.

Note this is not a “just give me Jesus” plea. Anyone who knows me knows I love studying and discussing (although for years I haven’t had the chance to do that, except with myself on these pages and Mrs. Calvinist at home) doctrine and theology, and the more esoteric the more I like it, which is not necessarily healthy.