Abused texts of Scripture: What is your example?

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Judge not, lest ye be judged (Matthew 7:1)

In vain do they worship me teaching as doctrines, the commandments of men.’ (Mark 7:7)

Where there is no vision, the people perish. – Proverbs 29:18

So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. James 2:17

I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.” 2 Sam. 7:23

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Col 2:16 no one ever quotes the context which is Col 2:14KJV and Col 2:17 points us to Heb 10:1-22 not to Exo 20:8-11 which points us back to Creation Gen 2:1-3 where God made everything perfect, before sin, before the fall of mankind. As if man has the authority to change something God blessed Num 23:20 , made holy and personally wrote with His own finger. Exo 32:16 Exo 31:18 It's a sadly misinterpreted and abused scripture.

 

[The Liturgist]

Luke 11:28 hands-down. It’s literally the Gospel for the Feast of the Dormition being abused by the anti-dicomarianists.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Luke 11:28 hands-down. It’s literally the Gospel for the Feast of the Dormition being abused by the anti-dicomarianists.

Now I just had to look that one up. That is the great thing about Koine Greek....just add prefixes or suffixes to words to get new words.

[ad. med.L., ad. Gr. ἀντιδικομαριανῖται, f. ἀντίδικ-ος adversary + Μαρία Mary.] pl. Adversaries of Mary; a name applied to Oriental Christians, in the 4th c., who denied the perpetual virginity of the mother of Jesus.

 

[The Liturgist]

Now I just had to look that one up. That is the great thing about Koine Greek....just add prefixes or suffixes to words to get new words.

[ad. med.L., ad. Gr. ἀντιδικομαριανῖται, f. ἀντίδικ-ος adversary + Μαρία Mary.] pl. Adversaries of Mary; a name applied to Oriental Christians, in the 4th c., who denied the perpetual virginity of the mother of Jesus

Well more generally an antidicomarian is someone who refuses all veneration of our Most Glorious Lady Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary, as opposed to a Collyridian, who worships her. These two extremes were contrasted by St. Epiphanius the Bishop of Salamis, not to be confused with St. Epiphanius the patron saint of lost things, in his book known as the Panarion, which I would translate as “First Aid Kit” (it literally means “medicine-chest”, his theme in writing it was to liken each ancient cult to a venomous or otherwise unpleasant critter, as if the book provided a cure for how to deal with the wounds inflicted by that cult).

Basically, the neo-antidicomarians of today abuse Luke 11:28 to claim the Theotokos is not blessed, which contradicts Luke 1, and is thus eisegesis, when in reality Luke 11:28 is a verse about how the Theotokos heard the word of God and kept it, which is why she was deemed worthy to give birth to God the Son, being the means by which God became incarnate, asumming our fallen humanity in order to heal it through his Incarnation, Baptism, Transfiguration, and above all, his salvific, glorious and triumphant Passion on the Cross and subsequent Resurrection and Ascension, which is why we preach Christ crucified.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

when in reality Luke 11:28 is a verse about how the Theotokos heard the word of God and kept it

The whole of the Christian life....summed up.

 

[okay]

My understanding is that Genesis 9 was often used to justify the Atlantic slave trade - the curse of Ham and how Canaan was destined to slavery.

 

[concretecamper]

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:

As a proof for Sola Scriptura

 

[okay]

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:

As a proof for Sola Scriptura

And also used as a club to try and bludgeon those of is who don’t happen to believe in inerrancy.

 

[The Liturgist]

And also used as a club to try and bludgeon those of is who don’t happen to believe in inerrancy.

Well the rejection of inerrancy is an indefensible position. It’s primarily used by the collapsing mainline churches like the UMC, UCC, PCUSA and so on to justify their departure from Christian teachings on human sexuality and other moral issues which can be traced back to the very Early Church. When one discards the Fathers, discards Holy Tradition and discards Holy Scripture, and in many cases discards the Creeds as well, one puts oneself in a position to tolerate whatever the prevailing cultural norms say you should tolerate. Thus mainline churches become lukewarm, salt which has lost its saltiness.

 

[PloverWing]

Well inerrancy is an indefensible position. It’s primarily used by the collapsing mainline churches like the UMC, UCC, PCUSA and so on to justify their departure from Christian teachings on human sexuality and other moral issues which can be traced back to the very Early Church.

Is this what you meant to say? Inerrancy is usually associated with the churches on the conservative side of the 19th/20th century disputes -- LCMS, Orthodox Presbyterian, and so on. The mainline churches tend not to believe in inerrancy.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Well inerrancy is an indefensible position. It’s primarily used by the collapsing mainline churches like the UMC, UCC, PCUSA and so on to justify their departure from Christian teachings on human sexuality and other moral issues which can be traced back to the very Early Church. When one discards the Fathers, discards Holy Tradition and discards Holy Scripture, and in many cases discards the Creeds as well, one puts oneself in a position to tolerate whatever the prevailing cultural norms say you should tolerate. Thus mainline churches become lukewarm, salt which has lost its saltiness.

Inerrancy is an article of faith. It cannot be proven.

In all my posts and threads, inerrancy is presupposed as the text is authoritative. I don't weigh any text to determine if it CONTAINS the Word of God or not.

 

[The Liturgist]

Inerrancy is an article of faith. It cannot be proven.

In all my posts and threads, inerrancy is presupposed as the text is authoritative. I don't weigh any text to determine if it CONTAINS the Word of God or not.

Forgive me, I meant the rejection of inerrancy.

 

[The Liturgist]

Is this what you meant to say? Inerrancy is usually associated with the churches on the conservative side of the 19th/20th century disputes -- LCMS, Orthodox Presbyterian, and so on. The mainline churches tend not to believe in inerrancy.

Typo. I positively believe in the inerrancy of scripture.

 

[trophy33]

Typo. I positively believe in the inerrancy of scripture.

Which version of Scripture is inerrant? And in that version, which of the three synoptic gospels is inerrant?

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

And in that version, which of the three synoptic gospels is inerrant?

What part of each gospel contain the Word of God and which passages of each Gospel do not contain the Word of God. Be specific.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

when in reality Luke 11:28 is a verse about how the Theotokos heard the word of God and kept it

But it's not, the verse does not say that. The verse is saying keep your focus on God and don't make objects of worship out of the Mother of Jesus.

 

[The Liturgist]

The verse is saying keep your focus on God and don't make objects of worship out of the Mother of Jesus.

Strawman. We do not worship the Blessed Virgin Mary (who is Mother of God - calling her Mother of Jesus has the effect of denying the full deity of our Lord, his status as God the Son, the incarnate Logos, and anything that interferes with the doctrine of the Incarnation is to be rejected as an error. Furthermore, worshipping the Theotokos is Collyridianism, which, along with failing to venerate her - Antidicomarianism, is an error, as defined by the early church fathers (see the Fount of Wisdom of St. John of Damascus, and the Panarion of St. Epiphanius of Salamis).

Now, if we modified your argument to say “venerate” instead of “worship”, it would still eisegesis, which is a common thread to all abuses of scriptural verses in this thread. Go back and read Luke 1, and read the Magnificat - the only way of interpreting Luke 11:28 exegetically, that is to say, without contradicting Luke ch. 1, is the orthodox interpretation I presented. This is why Martin Luther prayed a version of the “Ave Maria.”

 

[The Liturgist]

Which version of Scripture is inerrant? And in that version, which of the three synoptic gospels is inerrant?

From our previous dialogue in the Flat Earth thread it appears you are deeply bothered by what are frankly very minor differences in wording, and you are doing this while ignoring a thorough study of Patristics and the writings of the Lutheran reformers, both groups having addressed this issue thoroughly.

 

[The Liturgist]

And also used as a club to try and bludgeon those of is who don’t happen to believe in inerrancy.

So by the way, due to my typo, it may have been lost that I absolutely disagree with those who would reject the material inerrancy of inspired scripture.

The use of the verse in question to correct people who reject inerrancy is correct and seemly, and while it is usually impossible to persuade via debate someone to return to a position of doctrinal orthodoxy such as that of myself or my friend @Ain't Zwinglian on issues such as scriptural inerrancy, these corrections can be effective at convincing other people to not fall for the relativism and postmodernism that drives the rejection of the Inerrancy of Scripture.

it should therefore not be belittled as an attempt to “bludgeon,” for it is not an attack of those who reject a belief in inerrancy, but rather a means of apologetics intended to promote doctrinal orthodoxy. St. Paul commands us to hold those who come preaching another Gospel to be anathema, and if we deny the material inerrancy of the Sacred Scriptures according to their correct interpretation, this introduces numerous opportunities for error. It is on a par with those churches which do not recite the Nicene Creed, and thus practically invite heterodox beliefs concerning the Holy Trinity, Christology, the Incarnation, and Pneumatology.