Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I agree with "a text without context is a pretext." But providing we make sure that we don't misinterpret texts by quoting them whilst ignoring the context, I don't think it is always necessary to quote a whole passage of Scripture.
Yes, nobody was expecting full exposition of the text. And scriptural points can certainly be presented concisely, but using them as prooftexts implies a lack of contextual consideration, which is precisely the issue being highlighted here.
Yes, so long as you mean either quoting a few surrounding verses, or including a statement such as: "Looking at the surrounding verses indicates that in the context, the verse I quote is referring to such-and-such," then I agree with you, though I would usually give the poster who doesn't provide context the benefit of the doubt, and politely ask them to do so.
The discussion was not about whether we should be presenting full exegesis in dialogue. But I appreciate you desiring to add a disclaimer for clarity. I don't think anyone ever errs in wanting to be clear.
Now here you go proof texting without presenting what all the various context are. Very hypocritical, to condemn me about it, then turn around and do it yourself.
Not hypocritical,illustrative. I'm glad it's making sense. In this post #220 I'm actually illustrating the problem with proof texting by comparing Judges 14 and Philippians 4:13. These passages show how similar words don't necessarily mean the same thing, as there contexts differ. The example demonstrates the importance of considering the broader context and the thrust of the books to avoid misinterpretation.
Yes it makes sense, when you want to reject a truth, tell the person they just proof texting, to make them feel obligated they have to give a summary of the context. Most people dont feel the need to do that. In the final analysis, all that matters is whether the scripture provided was the Truth or not. If you reject it because I just provided the text without providing a context and yet it was true, you still rejected the truth and are accountable for it.
Ok, I see there is still some misunderstanding. The point of the post 220 was not to reject Scripture's authority, but rather to emphasize the importance of understanding truth in context. Otherwise we can use scripture to say whatever we want it to. A prime example of this is when Satan tempted Jesus by quoting scripture. It was scripture afterall, but the context and reason for using it were misguided. To clarify the point again, I'll emphasize that understanding scripture in context is crucial.
Okay, I seen it earlier. Now what about 225, do you understand the points made and why ?
Not really. You said things I basically see all the time. In the final analysis, you as most, make salvation depended on what the person does.
Yes, we are born with a natural tendency to sin, but we certainly do not sin as babies or as young children who do not even know what sin is. God's wrath is not on us as soon as we are born. That is ridiculous. We're not asked to defy all logic when interpreting scripture. Paul indicated that he did not become dead in sins until he knew what sin was (Romans 7:9-11).
You are very lacking in spiritual discernment and you are unteachable. Being spiritually dead in sins has nothing to do with not being able to hear the word of God, understand it and respond to it with repentance and faith. You are making that up. Scripture never teaches that. Being dead in sins simply means to be separated from a personal relationship with God.
Clearly, you would not have answered the jailer's question about what he had to do to be saved the same way that Paul and Silas did.
