Very few people would disagree the pharisees represents legalism. Jesus talked many times about their inconsistencies. The woman caught in adultery was the prime example of the incosistency of legalism. Legalism is consistent in lack of applying principle...
It's ironic how you are insistent on using the dictionary to define legalism. Want to try to use the diction on defining apostolic? Webster's New World Dictionary second edition defines apostolic as 1. of the apostles and their teachings, work, etc.. 2. of the pope; so Webster has a catholic leaning towards defining apostolic. (Thrown in at no extra charge)...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Praxeas
That's not legalism. That's an inconsistancy, or a double standard or hypocrisy. Again what you are doing is not giving a definition. You are giving an example, but even a non-legalist can look for loopholes under the same circumstances. A Legalist by definition is a strict adherence to the letter of the law and salvation by works
Again a non-legalist can do that too. This is not a definition of a legalist. This just tells me what a legalist or any person can do. Heterosexuals can do this. Liberals can do this.
Again you are not giving a definition, you certainly aren't using the dictionary definition of the word. Really what you have been doing is ignoring my points and just listing more examples.
Wrong. Legalism is a word that signifies a strict adherence to the letter of the law AND that one can be justfied by their works. All the other stuff you seem to be adding. Anyone can selectively apply principles and not be a legalist (strict adherence to the letter of the law and salvation by works)
|
Threaded Mode
