Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaias
What I see is, once again, a different hermeneutic. We approach scripture two very different ways. You say I am in effect taking a scribal, Pharisaic approach to scripture. I say you are taking a modernist, liberal approach to scripture.
"Man shall live by EVERY WORD that proceeds out of the mouth of God."
I find no rational basis for rejecting scripture, as "just for them, not for us". I do not agree with this radical, liberal, unhistorical view of the Word of God.
Paul said women are to be taught to be keepers at home. YOU disagree with that..Fine. But your argument then is not with me, but Paul, and therefore God.
|
I know even before I make this statement, I will get the guns pointed at me again. I think I am getting used to it now.
Your argument seems to be that every word that proceeds from the mouth of God it every word written by "men of God". Why then do you think that in the book of Acts that the church council only laid upon the Gentile converts these three things?
Act 15:20 but that we write to them that they should abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
Yet now you want to add more, why did not the apostles foresee these necessary things and add them to the requirements then?
Yes I think you are adding unnecessary doctrines for today in reading Paul's words as God given law and all time doctrine.
Do you still subscribe to the teaching that a man cannot grow facial hair? After all that was a doctrine place on man during the 50's and 69's by God fearing men, it must be God's law as it was preached by men of God.
This is the same thing Paul was doing addressing an issue for that day and time.
Threaded Mode
