Subject: Just a question |
Bible Note: Hank:: Thank you for your responce. Sorry for the mistake, I used "text proof" because that is what I read in a post form St John. Your example), "a favorite proof text used by promoters of baptismal regeneration is Acts 2:38" What makes the verse you have cited, out of context, in relation to the context, of the chapter in which it has been used? I'm not fully grasping the way in which this "proof text" thing really works. If a verse is taken out of context, it is to me just out of context, but calling it a "proof text" makes it sound more egregious. In the instance you use the term, is it because the text being used, is to define some sort of doctrinal belief? If this is what you are talking about, then wouldn't it be better to call it a Doctrinal Text. (you say) Genesis 6:14 provides a dramatic example of how misleading proof texting can be. Suppose we remove the verse from its natural context and interpret it soley on the basis of the command it contains. How about instead of doing that, we take the original verse you cited. "a favorite proof text used by promoters of baptismal regeneration is Acts 2:38" Are you saying, if we remove the verse from its natural context, and interpret it solely on the basis of the command it contains, in an attempt to use it in promoting the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, it then falls into the category of "proof text" is that correct? I am assuming, you are using the term baptismal regeneration, for another more well known term, being born again? (Questions) 1- If said verse is left exactly where it has always been, does it then leave the "proof text" penalty box? 2- If so then now being left in it's original context, what changes about it's meaning, understanding when it retains it's position, within the context of the whole chapter, that it can no longer be used, by a promoter of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration? 3- Is this verse ever put forward, to promote any other doctrinal belief? 4- Having then left the verse in question, in it's original contextual position, how is this verse now to be interpreted, in the context of the chapter in which it appears? I have heard it said, the Jews do not read "Isaiah 53" in the Synagogues. Does that constitute a "proof text" to them, or is it just something they Do Not want to see, acknowledge because if they did, they would then have to deal, with just what it did say? I agree whole heartedly with your following statements. If we do not handle the word of God righteously, by arguing over the doctrinal differences that divide us, rather than "honestly contending" to find the truth in God's word, regardless wether it fits our doctrine or not, then "WE" become the ones deceived. (you say) We can "prove" or "disprove" about any doctrinal position we wish if we handle God's word recklessly and abuse it to further our own suppositional errors. In his second letter to Timothy, Paul charged him to "be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15). And indeed those who do not accurately handle the word of truth have every reason to be ashamed. God Bless Brother Nevvvvine |
Up | Down View Branch | ID# 209868 | ||
Questions and/or Subjects for Bible general Archive 4 | Author | ||
|
mandynichole | ||
|
joquintac | ||
|
Nevvvvine | ||
|
Hank | ||
|
Nevvvvine | ||
|
DCSI | ||
|
DCSI | ||
|
cookboy | ||
|
janetp | ||
|
janetp | ||
|
jwg | ||
|
confused??? |