It is controversial whether there are four other kinds. I got my number from David Chilton in his Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt-Manipulators.

Here is his count of four “legalisms”:

Let’s begin with a working definition of legalism. Legalism cannot be defined simply as rigorous obedience to the law: after all, Jesus Christ obeyed the law fully, in its most exacting details and He, certainly was no legalist. The true legalist is the person who subscribes to one or more of the following heresies—ideas which are roundly condemned in Scripture:

1) Justification by works. This is the most critical aspect of the legalistic faith. It was abhorred and refuted by the writers of both Old and New Testaments. We must note here that no one–not even in the days of Moses—-was ever justified by his works. The only basis of salvation is the finished work of Jesus Christ, in fully satisfying the demands of God’s law, and suffering its penalties, in the place of all His people. The view that God accepts us as His children because of our works is completely at odds with the teachings of Scripture. One who is a legalist in this sense is certainly not an orthodox Christian.

2) The requirement of obedience to Old Testament ceremonial laws. Before Christ came, God’s people were required to observe certain ceremonies–sacrifices, feasts, and so forth—-which symbolically portrayed the way of restoration to God’s favor. These received their completion in Jesus Christ, and are no longer literally binding upon us. There is a very real sense, of course, in which we still keep these laws: Jesus Christ is our priest, He is our sacrificial atonement, and we cannot approach God apart from Him. Thus, in their real meaning, all these laws are observed by all Christians. But consider what a literal observance of these laws would mean, now that Christ has fulfilled these shadows: if you were to sacrifice a lamb today, you would be saying, in effect, that Christ’s atonement on the cross was insufficient–that you need an additional sacrifice to be accepted with God. That is heresy. Before the coming of Christ, observance of the ceremonial law was obedience after His death and resurrection, it is disobedience. The false teachers opposed by Paul in Galatians held to both of these two aspects of legalism–salvation by works and the requirement of Old Testament ceremonies.

3) A third form of legalism is addressed in Romans 14 and Colossians 2: The requirement of obedience to man-made regulations. The Galatian legalists at least maybe commended for their insistence upon biblical regulations. They were very wrong, but their standards were derived from Scripture. But Paul also had to contend with a host of regulations which originated from mere human prejudice, and which some Christians attempted to impose upon others. “Touch not; taste not; handle not” they demanded when God had said nothiig of the kind. There are many matters of individual conscience, taste, and idiosyncrasy which should remain so. But we are all dictators at heart, and we often like nothing better than to force others to submit to our eccentricities.

4) Another form of legalism… is confusion of sins with civil crimes. There are many things the Bible
condemns as sins, for which there is no civil penalty attached. For example, God certainly regards unjust hatred as a form of murder. Yet while He commanded that the murderer be executed, He made no such stipulation for the sin of unjust hatred. In the same way, God’s word condemns the slave mentality of gluttonous consumption as a sin — yet it mentions no civil penalties (or “tax incentives”) against it.

The most idiosyncratic of Chilton’s suggestions is number four. So maybe my own idiosyncrasy does not count as the fifth, but here it is.

Treating Christians like children in the church

To wit:

Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.

There are a lot of good ideas that can be derived from Scripture. To what extent should churches make these good ideas mandatory? What happens when a church becomes a micro-managed community in which decisions are made for everyone as the standard of Christian behavior? Arguably, treating Christian adults like children should count as a reversion to the law, in a sense.

Do I have the courage to list the issues I’m thinking about?

No, I don’t. I’m a coward that way.

But I think we need to realize that Paul expects Christians to grow up and wants us to treat each other like adults rather than like children. Kindergarten has more rules than twelfth grade even though there are plenty of judgment calls that need to be made that can have consequences. Treating seniors like kindergarteners has its own negative consequences.

Paul thinks we should be optimistic about one another, that we will learn best for ourselves:

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

Postscript: Of course, arguably some will see this as number three. Maybe, but I at least think it is helpful to state the principal in other ways since this can be practiced in the same churches which pride themselves on freedom from the regulations that other Christians inflict on one another. So at least this gives us another diagnostic tool.