Comment: There's more to legalism than that.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Rather than doing (see in situ)

There's more to legalism than that.

Re:" An accurate translation is not a word for word translation, but a translation of what the author is wanting to communicate... Scholars, therefore, are often the worst people to read or listen to, as they often have a reputation to uphold in the eyes of the public, and therefore add more than what an author intended in order to appear smart."

I think you are conflating translation with interpretation. There are different types of translation, and the more you stray from literal word for word translation, the more you head towards thought for thought translation and ultimately paraphrases. I don't want to have to rely on a translators interpretation of the authors thoughts, I want the authors words to speak for themselves. The translators job should account for things like figures of speech and colloquialisms in the original language that may have historical or geographical context, but I don't think they should stray from scholarly translation and get into theological judgement when 'translating' someone else's message, that's not their job. Your aversion to scholars wanting to appear smart can be mirrored by non-scholars wanting to appear spiritual. I don't believe that all of scholarship is based on ego. Some scholars are Christians who actually care about the truth and accurate translation.

Re:"Legalism is believing that the keeping of the laws will help one obtain eternal life."

That is legalism, but that is not all that legalism is. If you say that it is a sin to dance or to remain uncircumcised as a Christian gentile, that is legalism as well. What legalists would say is that they don't think that refraining from dancing will get you to heaven, but they will say it's unacceptable sinful behavior that Christians should avoid and repent of or else they will lose blessings in heaven or quality of fellowship with God. This approach allows for all kinds of legalism. They say they believe that the only way to salvation is Jesus alone apart from works(and that is true), but then they think that holding that belief exempts them from possibly being legalistic about anything. It's like a license to be legalistic. They can require circumcision, respect of new moons and Sabbaths, dietary laws and whatever other forms of legalism the apostles explicitly criticized as wrong (in Colossians 2 for example), and they will feel justified in proposing those requirements as long as they say it doesn't add to salvation. Holiness isn't the issue, I'm not talking about blatant sin here like drunkenness, fornication, murder, etc. The issue is when legalists say that you need to do frivolous things to be holy, like cutting your hair a certain way, wearing certain color of clothing, not traveling on Sunday, not listening to back beats in music, etc. Sure someone may have a holy reason for doing some of those things at some point as it pertains to their specific situation, but someone may have a holy reason for doing the opposite of those as well. Imposing unbiblical standards on people is considered another aspect of legalism, and a form of bondage. Galatians 5:1 "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage."

Re:"KJV-only churches do indeed have a tendency to have higher standards of holiness in the standards of conduct which they encourage their members to follow. After all they have a stronger faith in the veracity of the Word of God than most churches;"

This sort of sounds like boasting. An argument can be made that Ephesians 2:8-9 teaches that faith is a gift that we shouldn't boast about. We should boast in Christ and his merits rather than in our own faith and holiness.

Re:"He was going to fulfill the prophecy of Jesus in Matthew 21:43. Just as He raised up Israel as a great nation and gave them His Word; since they rejected the Cornerstone (Christ), He fulfilled His promise to give the vineyard of his fruits to "a nation". That nation is none other than America."

It seems more straightforward to take the passage as talking about the gentiles, and not America specifically. The theme of the gentiles being newly accepted is all over the new testament. Saying it speaks of America just seems arbitrary.