So I say that legalism is good when defined as strict conformity to a code of deeds and observances as the basis of justification, if these codes and observances are the expressed and plain will of God. Such legalism cannot disturb the churches but if observed by all would bring peace and unity to the whole of Christendom in practice, life and doctrine. When the liberal element among the churches accuse of legalism those who insist on the strict observance of baptism in its New Testament form and of other so-called formal aspects of the Christian faith, they are right. We are legalists in this dictionary definition of the word and I, for one, am proud to be a legalist from this point of view. Thus, they argue, conformity to the letter of the commands of Christ is unimportant and actually deadens the spiritual life so only the right spirit is necessary.
Sincerity is all that counts.
Obedience is discounted. The right spirit, they claim, is love, but as practiced by them love is manifestly compromise. In this argument they are definitely in error for they have taken this scripture out of its context. Paul is saying that observance of the Mosaic law by the Christian kills for it brings no hope of salvation. But the gospel of grace gives life for through it the law is fulfilled and salvation is achieved.