Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Springfield Reformer

He did reference the text, knowing its context, and therefore, he ignored the context of the verse in order to make a point that could theologically and contextually be made with other passages.

He did not merely make a logical statement, he blatantly referenced Scripture, knowing other Christians would pick up on the reference, and he did so carelessly, ignoring its context.


258 posted on 06/29/2011 9:28:46 AM PDT by Immerito (Reading Through the Bible in 90 Days)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies ]


To: Immerito

IMHO, not only are you completely correct on your understanding, your perseverance is simply astonishing! God bless.


261 posted on 06/29/2011 10:36:51 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies ]

To: Immerito

Whatever. Yes, we’ve reached “whatever.” He used the verbal formula that Paul used. He didn’t say “this is Romans 8:31 and this is what Romans 8:31 means.” There is a huge difference, and the fact you can’t see that tells me all I need to know about the future of this conversation. Wish it were different.

Peace,

SR


263 posted on 06/29/2011 11:21:45 AM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson