Talk:Legalism (theology)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See also: Archive 1
This article is unusally Christo-centric. I've seen legalism in more terms than christianity. Like aichent china, for example, but that all seems to be missing here..
Wow, a lot of talk has crept up in the past couple of days! My understanding is that legalism is inherently a POV term of criticism, much like idolatry, antinomianism, etc. Few groups that I'm aware of admit or call themselves "legalist" (unless perhaps in an act of self-criticism), and groups accused of legalism often think of their own view as emphasizing righteousness, holy living, or some such. This makes an NPOV article on the topic challenging but not impossible. Thus, to treat a POV term in an NPOV manner, it is important to:
- Clearly state that the term is pejorative or a term of criticism.
- Delineate the concerns motivating those who make the charge of legalism, and the practices that typically give rise to the charge.
- State that those accused of the charge generally do not accept the charge, but view the issue somewhat differently, and explain how.
- Give examples of contexts in which the charge of legalism is typically made, eg. Protestant against Catholics, Christians against Jews and Muslims, etc.
A discussion of the role of law in Christianity, probably belongs in a separate article, with appropriate cross-references. SCCarlson 04:15 May 15, 2003 (UTC)
---
At some point Legalism and Antinomianism should probably be combined since a lot of the material is the same.
Contents |
[edit] No Dancing or alcoholic Beverages when the Bible was written?
"Various ordinances and customs that address subjects not directly covered in Scripture, such as customs disapproving of dancing, playing cards or alcoholic beverages. Believers in these practices often defend them as addressing issues and controversies unknown at the time the Bible was written."
Dancing unknown when the Bible was written? Come on, that is clearly WRONG! One example that immediately pops into my mind is when John the Baptist was beheaded at the request of a girl who danced for Herod at his birthday party. (See Matthew 14:6.)
Alcoholic beverages (wine and beer) were around thousands of years before the first book of the bible was written, and some historians say could be as old as 10,000 years. Come on, the Egyptians even had their own beer.
Obviously, the above quoted sentence is in desperate need of revision. Is "believers in these practices" referring to the people who believe in the ordinances or those who believe they should be allowed to do them?
- I have revised that particular sentence, to make it clear that the controversies, rather than the practices themselves, arose since the Bible. Smerdis of Tlön 16:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Primary definition
The article says that the "primary definition of legalism . . . refers to works for salvation." Is this really the primary defintion? The primary defintion nowhere else appears in the article: it is never used here. I think it ought to be stated that a formal definition could be that "adherence to the law is necessary for salvation," but because that is a heresy and not a mere error, legalism within Christianity is impossible in this sense. Thus, only legalism in another sense (i.e. manmade rules) is used w/i the Christian churches to refer to other Christians. Srnec 05:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Works Righteousness
What does it take to have this article merged with Works Righteousness (or to begin discussing the prospect of doing so)?69.253.185.185 13:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Last section of current article
The last section of the article as currently written seems to consist of no more than a POV essay on someone's concept of what they think legalism in religion is, with no pretence of neutrality on any level. I don't feel up to trying to edit it toward neutrality right now and don't think that it should go unchallenged/uneidted, so I have tagged it. I didn't want to remove it outright since it represents a lot of time and effort on someone who might later become a good contributor/editor, but it has no place in a valid encyclopedia article as it currently stands. Of course, "legalism" is an inherently POV term, like "heresy", so it is not surprising that the discussion of it is POC also. Rlquall 14:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this section is not written in a "neutral" style. However the content is excellent in describing the the basic use of legalism in Christian churches (and likley in other communities, but I am not qualified to judge.) I am concerned that the content might fall victim to being edited out to meet a writing style. --RFranklin 01:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Man-made rules
The essay entitled, "As a label for adherence to manmade rules", has been deleted as POV, and not verifiable by reference to third-party sources. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
