- Apr 25, 2016
- 34,124
- 19,006
- 43
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
2. You impute extra-biblical ideas into it, such as marriage equality
Nope. I have built and presented my argument on Scriptural grounds. Nothing extra-Biblical about it.
3. You reinterpret every verse that disagrees with you.
There are three options available to us.
1. That Scripture puts forward a completely coherent view of marriage that is roughly your position.
2. That Scripture puts forward a completely coherent view of marriage that is roughly my position.
3. That Scripture presents a mixture of views of marriage which cannot be entirely reconciled.
I actually think 3) is true to some degree, but we as humans can't hold and live from a mixture of views. We have to choose which we think most closely adheres to the will of God. And I can justify my position from Scripture.
It is common knowledge that when a general statement is followed by specific statements, the specifics clarify the general. You are doing the opposite, using the general to nullify the specifics.
Sure, the specifics clarify the general; they cannot negate the general. So the specifics here tell wives that they are to specifically direct their submission to their husbands. But this does not let husbands off the hook of the general direction to "submit to one another," including their wives!
Even lawyers know you can't get away with this shoddy argumentation.
Jesus said: Woe also to you lawyers! For you load people with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not lift a finger to ease them.
Legal argumentation is hardly held up as a model for us to emulate.
Upvote
0