GDL

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2020
4,247
1,255
SE
✟97,887.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Non-responsive. . .more grammatical gymnastics. . .the hallmark of a certain crowd (though admittedly not to their degree of it, at least not yet).
Show my specifically stated equivocation presented as a direct quote from Scripture.
Anything less is not my "rewriting" of Scripture.

Spoken like a true eisegete.

It's really all very simple:
  • Be non-responsive to questions about the definitions of words and long-standing translations of Scripture - and charge your opponent with being non-responsive
  • Change the meaning of a word & charge those using the actual definition with grammatical gymnastics.
  • Admit you don't need God's commandments/rules and erringly use lesser rules to accuse others of breaking rules
  • anakefalaioō means to bring together, to summarize. It does not mean in lieu of.
    • In Ephesians 1:10 it means all things in Heaven and on earth will be brought together in Christ
      • It does not mean Christ will exist in lieu of all things in Heaven & earth
    • In Romans 13:9 it means all pertinent commandments in God's Law are brought together in one of God's Commandments in God's Law
      • It does not mean that one Commandment exists in lieu of all of God's other Commandments
In lieu of is being put forth by someone who doesn't like rules, makes up her own meaning of words, and is now artfully free to continue the process and define other words - e.g., "love".

Sorry, Clare, you're outed. Your game is simple in the end. You're fairly pointed in your tactics - you can see how I value what God actually says - so you attack my use of grammatical rules & even venture into hermeneutics. The problem for you is that you are ultimately attacking leagues of translators, lexicographers, and ultimately the words inspired by God that all stand in open & clear disagreement with you.

The word in question does not mean what you say it does and you obviously don't care about rules whether they be of grammar or of all of God's Commandments. It's easy to say you're all about love when you shed much of what defines it and make up your own definition in lieu of God's definition.

This is the "hallmark of a certain crowd" I've already mentioned. They too like to make up their own definitions and aggressively oppose God's rules. The way I read God's Word, once we shed God's rules, we shed God's rule and in practice turn Him into less than He is or deny His existence altogether. Once done, there's no actual, biblical faith, or love for that matter.

Do not steal, Paul says. Notice how he didn't say "do not be unloving"? Well, actually he did because they are equated (as you said earlier before you changed what equate means). It's just that specific points of love need to be addressed and Paul knows what a summary statement is and how and when to use it. Thank God for all of His Commandments - His Word.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,005
5,621
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,875.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Spoken like a true eisegete.

It's really all very simple:
  • Be non-responsive to questions about the definitions of words and long-standing translations of Scripture - and charge your opponent with being non-responsive
  • Change the meaning of a word & charge those using the actual definition with grammatical gymnastics.
  • Admit you don't need God's commandments/rules and erringly use lesser rules to accuse others of breaking rules
  • anakefalaioō means to bring together, to summarize. It does not mean in lieu of.
    • In Ephesians 1:10 it means all things in Heaven and on earth will be brought together in Christ
      • It does not mean Christ will exist in lieu of all things in Heaven & earth
    • In Romans 13:9 it means all pertinent commandments in God's Law are brought together in one of God's Commandments in God's Law
      • It does not mean that one Commandment exists in lieu of all of God's other Commandments
In lieu of is being put forth by someone who doesn't like rules, makes up her own meaning of words, and is now artfully free to continue the process and define other words - e.g., "love".

You are aware, I suppose, of how someone with a different viewpoint from you can do careful exegesis and still come up with something that opposes your exegesis? It is not even that either one wasn't careful and precise, but that they still assume something at the outset, that the exegesis does not oppose.

"In lieu of" was not said in the use you make of it. She was saying that a believer's focus, pursuit, reason for obedience, etc etc, was the one law, in lieu of some, or former, attendees' use of the many laws. You are beating a strawman, making much of what you, (let's be kind and say), 'misunderstood' her to say.

Sorry, Clare, you're outed. Your game is simple in the end. You're fairly pointed in your tactics - you can see how I value what God actually says - so you attack my use of grammatical rules & even venture into hermeneutics. The problem for you is that you are ultimately attacking leagues of translators, lexicographers, and ultimately the words inspired by God that all stand in open & clear disagreement with you.

You don't even know what she was doing! So how can you know her motives for doing it?

The word in question does not mean what you say it does and you obviously don't care about rules whether they be of grammar or of all of God's Commandments. It's easy to say you're all about love when you shed much of what defines it and make up your own definition in lieu of God's definition.

This is the "hallmark of a certain crowd" I've already mentioned. They too like to make up their own definitions and aggressively oppose God's rules. The way I read God's Word, once we shed God's rules, we shed God's rule and in practice turn Him into less than He is or deny His existence altogether. Once done, there's no actual, biblical faith, or love for that matter.

Do not steal, Paul says. Notice how he didn't say "do not be unloving"? Well, actually he did because they are equated (as you said earlier before you changed what equate means). It's just that specific points of love need to be addressed and Paul knows what a summary statement is and how and when to use it. Thank God for all of His Commandments - His Word.

You have gone to a lot of trouble to throw your whole army at this strawman. Yet you have failed to completely disassemble it!
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Clare73
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,924
6,050
North Carolina
✟273,614.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Spoken like a true eisegete.
It's really all very simple:
Be non-responsive to questions about the definitions of words and long-standing translations of Scripture - and charge your opponent with being non-responsive
Change the meaning of a word & charge those using the actual definition with grammatical gymnastics.
Admit you don't need God's commandments/rules and erringly use lesser rules to accuse others of breaking rules
anakefalaioō means to bring together, to summarize. It does not mean in lieu of
In Ephesians 1:10 it means all things in Heaven and on earth will be brought together in Chris
It does not mean Christ will exist in lieu of all things in Heaven & earth
In Romans 13:9 it means all pertinent commandments in God's Law are brought together in one of God's Commandments in God's Law
It does not mean that one Commandment exists in lieu of all of God's other Commandments,
Straw man. . .more misrepresentation and grammatical gymnastics.

And still no demonstration of my "rewriting of Scripture" in a specifically stated equivocation presented as a direct quote from Scripture.

The problem remains:
Paul gives us one rule, and Jesus gives us an example of what it means to obey than one rule.
You give us multiple rules, not trusting the work of the Holy Spirit in the born again to obey that one rule.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0