What happened at Pentecost?

[Idolater]

You're a legalist, Idolater.

No. And let me help you with your legalism. Grace is not a license to commit adultery and murder. But it is not imputed against you.

This tells me that you don't know what legalism is.

Or what love is.

Or the difference between the two.

How is it even possible to be this biblically illiterate?

There are people who have been Christians for ten minutes that can tell you the difference between morality and legalism.

I mean, have you ever read Romans chapter 6 or Galatians 3? It is literally one of the most basic principles of the Christian faith, Idolater! You don't even have to have studied that bible at all, apart from having simply read it - once!

This is all vague posting. Define your term legalism, or stop using it. This all started because I insinuated that you aren't allowed to commit adultery. I'm sure every single one of you (and @Right Divider too, who hasn't directly participated in the vague posting nonetheless 'likes' all you guys's posts against me) all agree with me that adultery is gravely sinful, and you're not allowed to do it. But you call me a legalist even though we all agree on that.

So I know I can pull a definition from Merriam Webster or Wiktionary or even the OED but all we're going to do with that is pick it apart until it means exactly what you all actually mean by legalism, so let's just start where most people end up, and you just give me your definition for legalism. You're charging me with a crime—then explain what the crime is that I'm allegedly guilty of.

(Clete you even moreso are guilty of vague posting in mentioning Romans 6 and Galatians 3—what about them? You need to actually make an argument not just naked claims with no attestation or accreditation.)

 

[Idolater]

Hey @Right Divider thanks for 'liking' my post with your 'lol'. If you want to engage I'm sure you could. Tell me what you think legalism means so that I can defend myself against the charge you all are making against me. I have a right.

 

[Right Divider]

I have a right.

Do tell...

 

[Idolater]

Do tell...

If you charge me with a crime, I have a right to understand the charges.

And I also have a right that my accusers aren't themselves guilty of what they're charging me with.

 

[Right Divider]

If you charge me with a crime, I have a right to understand the charges.

Have I charged you with a crime? You're such a loon.

And I also have a right that my accusers aren't themselves guilty of what they're charging me with.

Like I said earlier, you've been more hilarious then usual lately.

 

[JudgeRightly]

This is all vague posting. Define your term legalism, or stop using it. This all started because I insinuated that you aren't allowed to commit adultery. I'm sure every single one of you (and @Right Divider too, who hasn't directly participated in the vague posting nonetheless 'likes' all you guys's posts against me) all agree with me that adultery is gravely sinful, and you're not allowed to do it. But you call me a legalist even though we all agree on that.

So I know I can pull a definition from Merriam Webster or Wiktionary or even the OED but all we're going to do with that is pick it apart until it means exactly what you all actually mean by legalism, so let's just start where most people end up, and you just give me your definition for legalism. You're charging me with a crime—then explain what the crime is that I'm allegedly guilty of.

(Clete you even moreso are guilty of vague posting in mentioning Romans 6 and Galatians 3—what about them? You need to actually make an argument not just naked claims with no attestation or accreditation.)

Go read this post (and perhaps a few of the previous posts, if you need context).

The Plain Reading of Scripture

A recent exchange on another thread here on TheologyOnline struck me as a nearly perfect example of a problem that comes up constantly in discussions about Scripture: RightDivider: The body of Christ is not Israel and Israel is not the body of Christ. Derf: True. And Israel is not Israel...

theologyonline.com

...

Done? Good.

Now apply it to this conversation.

Use the same definition of legalism (and legalist) that everyone in the world uses.

I'll meet you halfway and provide the definition of love.

Love is the commitment to the good of someone.

That's it. If you can't figure out why I said what I said in posts 73 and 79, based on those two or three things, then maybe you really do need to take an introspective look at what you believe and why you believe it.

 

[JudgeRightly]

If you charge me with a crime, I have a right to understand the charges.

And I also have a right that my accusers aren't themselves guilty of what they're charging me with.

...





No one has charged you with a crime, Idolater.

We've called you a legalist.

And your second sentence is a tu quoque fallacy. Whether your accuser is guilty of the same thing has no bearing whatsoever on whether you are guilty of it.

But since you've just laid down a rule by which your accusers must be judged before they're permitted to judge you...

...shall we hold you to your own standard?

You know, like a law does...

 

[Idolater]

I insist you hold me to my own standard. How else can I know, if I am deceived, that my standard is the wrong standard? How else can I learn? if I'm not held to my own standard? and get a taste of my own medicine?

 

[Right Divider]

I insist you hold me to my own standard.

What if your standard is completely wrong?

How else can I know, if I am deceived, that my standard is the wrong standard?

EXACTLY! You cannot know that your standard is correct by being judged by it.

How else can I learn?

You can learn by using reason and sound logic.

if I'm not held to my own standard?

The standard that might be completely bogus?

and get a taste of my own medicine?

Your standard needs serious work.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I insist you hold me to my own standard. How else can I know, if I am deceived, that my standard is the wrong standard? How else can I learn? if I'm not held to my own standard? and get a taste of my own medicine?

And there it is.

You establish a standard.

You insist that people be held to it.

You speak in terms of accusation, guilt, and judgment according to that standard.

And you still don't understand why I'm calling you a legalist.

I already told you what love is:

Love is the commitment to the good of someone.

Not conformity to a standard.

Worse, as Right Divider pointed out, holding you to your standard can only tell us whether you conform to it.

It cannot tell us whether the standard itself is right.