Featured Sin Essential to God's Purpose in Christ !

Did this guy really just indicate we should ignore context?....

 

That seems to have almost been his MO from the start...

 

I believe it is a misguided female type

 

Really?! It is usually customary to actually make a case proving your point, rather than just saying that scripture makes your point. You should try making a case stating why scripture makes your point.

It is a very small-minded statement to say one is defeated because they cite your understanding of context, or lack-thereof. In reality, the onus is on you to say why scripture says and means what you're reporting it says and means. Simply saying "it says ______" isn't a sufficient statement. The text has meaning and the meaning must be brought to bear on our understanding of the text. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance what the author of any given text means to convey. If you cite that author without properly citing the meaning of the words, all you've done is proof-texted something to fit your own philosophy.

The Archangel

 

You are neither Paul nor Christ.

The Archangel

 

If this is truly what you believe, then you must believe that 1 Peter 3:20 says we must be baptized to be saved.

If you disagree, then you understand that other parts of scripture say otherwise. You understand that when you couple 1 Peter 3:20 with verse 21, it modifies verse 20 so that you gain context that says baptism is a "like figure," not a requirement for salvation.

And thus, you should see the dilemma you've created by not looking at ALL of scripture for your view of one verse--and thus, "context."

If you agree that 1 Peter 3:20 requires baptism to be saved, well, we have nothing further to talk about.

 

Ah, yes... You are so right about that--

Which is why I don't ever want to say "[Archangel] says..." I always want to say, "Thus says the Lord." The only way to do that is to use His words according to context and according to the author's (Author's?) intent.

Any believer only has "authority to speak from God only so long as they speak His message and unfold His words."[1] Any Christian seeking to speak what God has said can only do so if the preaching, writing, teaching makes the point of a particular passage of Scripture the point of what the Christian is speaking.[2]

If you're taking things out of context and gerrymandering passages of Scripture into your own philosophy, you are essentially putting words into God's mouth--which is a very dangerous thing to do (see: The penalty for false prophets in the Old Testament).

Unfortunately, you have been demonstrating that you have an over-arching philosophy into which you try to squish Scripture. I've seen many do this with Calvinism and Covenant Theology in particular. When your philosophy becomes detached from a true biblical theology, all you're left with is a christianized, secularistic philosophy, nothing else.

For example... The hyper-Calvinists deny that evangelism has to be done. In other words, it is thought that if someone is elect, there is no need for them to respond to God in repentance and faith. That's a philosophy that is devoid of any true biblical theology. While a purely philosophical understanding of Calvinism can and often does lead to the rejection of missions work, a Calvinism that is derived from a robust biblical theology cannot support the purely philosophical conclusion that the elect will be saved without hearing the gospel and responding to the gospel in repentance and faith. Romans 10 simply will never allow for any understanding in which missions and responding to the gospel in repentance and faith is unnecessary.

So, yes, context matters--greatly. And, I might add, this is why a proper understanding of hermenutics is so important. If we were to mimic the way you're trying to handle some passages that you've posted here, when reading Revelation describing Him as a "Lamb", we would could make no other conclusion that Jesus has fleece and talks with a "b-a-a-a-a" accent.

Verbs matter. Participles matter. The author's use of a particular word matters. What type of genre the book is matters. You would do well to learn these things.

The Archangel

__________

[1] Mark Dever, 9 Marks of a Healthy Church (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004, 41.

[2] See: Ibid., 40.

 

God does not use third parties to bring His will to pass then?

God did not use satan, nor evil nations/people to make sure that through their wicked deeds he still had His plans work out, as i ncase of Joseph?

 

seems many reformed baptist hold to that view of his though!

 

[16] For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. [17] For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” [18] we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. [19] And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, [20] knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. [21] For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:16-21 ESV)​

Peter is encouraging his hearers, especially as it relates to the truthfulness of the claims of and about Christ. Here are some highlights:

1. These things are not myths; Peter (and others) were eyewitnesses.
2. Jesus was "confirmed" by God the Father Himself; Peter (and others) heard His very words.
3. The Prophetic word (referring back to the Prophets who foretold the coming of Christ; see 1 Peter 1) is more fully confirmed (as if it even needed to be confirmed in the first place).
4. The prophecy found in scripture is not the product of man nor his imagination. True prophets spoke the very words of God carried along by the Holy Spirit.

So, what Peter is saying here is that there is, essentially, one interpretation of scripture and it's what God, through the power of the Holy Spirit, conveyed through men. Moreover, what was prophesied will come to pass--since it has been spoken by God.

The Archangel

 

So.... I take it you think yourself on the same level with Jesus or Paul, then????

First, the Ephesians passage mentions nothing about what you say it does. It is simply a non-sequitur to come to the conclusion you've come to from that passage.

And, I didn't say anyone had to cite the entire context. I said YOU, specifically, needed to cite the context since you are so happily breaking the context to pieces.

Perhaps you should try explaining this passage:

[12] Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him. [13] Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. [14] But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. [15] Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death. (James 1:12-15 ESV)​

The Archangel

 

"..he himself tempts no one..."

Lol, but Satan and the spirits sure get played like a banjo string...