Search results

Yes, but that's separate from interpretation. There is only one meaning to each Scripture, though the applications of each verse are endlessly being revealed by the Spirit.

My exegetical method has remained the same for every verse that I've discussed. Identify the genre in order to know what type of literary devices to expect, identify the pericope and the immediate topic being discussed, identify where this fits within the particular book, identify where the book...

Calling you out for hypocrasy is not self-pity. It's just calling you a hypocrite.

I suspect that's a large part of why they cycle through them rather than getting into contextual discourse. If they accepted any doubt to their "plain text" interpretation the entire system gets undermined.

And cv's "pity and mercy" excuse? If it weren't for double standards, I doubt you'd have any.

I rarely present individual texts because I despise the practice of proof texting, so to accuse me of cherry picking is absolutely out of touch with my methodology. cv's accusation of philosophizing is much closer, but that's because I prefer to wrestle with what the proof texts presented mean...

You must have a really loose grasp of reality.

Is that meant to be ironic? Because it is really, really ironic.

Oh I am well aware how pervasive and pernicious it is. More than one of my textbooks has been thrown across the room because they drip with catchwords and priming to predispose the reader to accepting the mindset.

Oh but of course, you know it's the plain text meaning.

Somehow I doubt you'll get a response to this. As if all their claims of wanting Scripture are just smokescreens...

Not at all, I just insist on a consistent exegetical method instead of slapping together a bunch of proof texts to create a doctrine and then interpreting according to that doctrine. Scripture must first be understood in its own terms, which means understanding the literature style and its...

I'm not saying that you're an atheist, I'm saying that evolutionary biology is atheistic. It's a deception to draw men away from God through appealing to our sense of reality. Dissecting the various proposals to rescue faith by abandoning the literal reading doesn't address the underlying...

You may not think it, but you're drawn by the same spirit I was. Fighting against what is plainly in Scripture and the theological conclusions that have to be tossed in order to maintain reasoning faculties and faith in Christ. The specifics of how you go about it, what reasoning you use to...

I assume you're genuine because I used to be in a similar position, striking out at literal interpretations in order to maintain faith. But something's going to give eventually. All your escape hypotheses, all the ways you distort both evolutionary science and theology to make them compatible...

The explanation is in the discussion that's been going on. And it's not theoretical, both of those verses have received the different treatment by him in the threads we've been going back and forth in. Romans 8:29 is treated as if all of the words in it can simply be taken for a plain meaning...

You want a specific example of the dishonest scales? Romans 8:29 receives one treatment, yet John 12:32 receives another.

Thank you. I've been growing tired too but as long as you were persistent I was determined to draw other eyes.

The specific Scripture that I had in mind from Romans 8 is the constant proof texting of Romans 8:29 which several have attempted to discuss with both of the prime perverters of Scripture in this thread based on its context only to either receive no reply, or to be dismissed entirely as...

When it comes to discussions of Romans 8 and 9, you and other calvinists in these threads have conveniently ignored discussion of the context stating that the plain text is sufficient, or bringing in other proof texts devoid of context. So you treat your proof texts as not needing to speak to...