Did Paul take scripture out of context?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

That's a good example. And while I think it's acceptable (in a homiletic sense) to point to an analogy to establish a biblical truth independent of that analogy, I think we should be careful. Particularly with types and shadows, which have a completely different hermeneutic grid for usage.

The thing is, when we lean heavily on this sort of usage of scripture, we make the Bible appears as some mystic code with hidden meanings and magical powers. While there is definitely a mystical element to poring over its pages, the Bible has a message that meant something to its authors and its original audiences. We need to discover that and learn what it means to us. This is why I lean more toward Exegetical teaching.

VERY VERY GOOD WORDS!

Types cannot relate something to us that the bible, itself, does not explicitly teach somewhere. So many go hog-wild with types. They concoct ideas that are never laid out plainly in the Bible and validate it as though the Spirit told them to do it.

When I exegeted certain passages, after time I became increasingly more and more amazed at the true divine inspiration of the scriptures. Man's mind simply cannot come up with the thoughts the apostles presented in the New Testament when we come to learn what they taught and appreciate how it relates to the rest of scripture.

[A.W. Bowman]

Originally Posted by HaShaliach

The word ‘perfect’.

Of the 109 occurrences of the word “perfect” (as rendered in KJV English Bible), they reflect a dazzling array of original language words.

As is my want, after posting something I'll go back later and discover some glaring error/omission or some other such problem with my submission. Such is the case here.This sentence should have read:

"Of the 98 occurrences (as rendered in KJV English Bible) of the word “perfect” (115 when the words perfected, perfection and perfecting are included), they reflect a dazzling array of original language words."

Just another example of nimble fingers being just too nimble quick. -- Sorry --

[Standards]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Absolutely not, but I don't think Paul was giving new meaning to it. I think he was using the old meaning to make a point on a new topic

Wonderful post. Very well put.

[rabbiriley]

Originally Posted by mfblume

That is a classic case of arguing from silence, though.

I can see the point, and I don't necessarily disagree.

But I Cor. 7:1 does lead us the fact that he is responding to a letter from the church.

So it would not be surprising to see him quote their points. (So it's not completely silent).

Secondly, there are several other places that Paul seems to be quoting the counter point that is more widely accepted ("So that grace may now abound?," "Everything is permissible to me." "Food for the stomach and the stomach for food.")

WHile it is not explicit in the text that he is quoting the Corinthians, I lean to this verdict by probabilty. What makes more sense? Paul says one thing and immediately contradicts it within the next sentence (and thus we have a postmodern Paul!), or that he is quoting a counter argument (or a perceived rebuttal) and then rebuts the point.

While it may be from silent, how else are we to explain these verses as well as many more?

*i realize you may have been saying that this is a classic argument from silence with no negative implications, and if this is so, disregard everything I wrote.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

And furthemore, if it be the case, should today's ministers take the same license, liberty and authority as Paul?

Yes, why not as long as Christ is the center and it doesn't contradict other clear passages of scripture.