Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
Equivocating would indicate that I am shifting meanings of a word to create a fiction-as-fact that could not exist without the smoke and mirrors. And reading just a small part and trying to define it alone is the real problem.
Just like trying to interpret scripture just based on a word or two, coupled with an insistence on a singular meaning (what Lee did with 1 Cor 15:45) without any reference to the context which would have destroyed his preferred meaning for the word in question (which is "spirit"). Lee was engaged in a kind of equivocation. There is a word that has multiple meanings, and a context that narrows the selection, but then insists that the word can only mean what the context would not have provided as a reasonable selection.
That is equivocation. It is a word play that works very well on those whose minds have been turned off. Who have willfully gotten "out of their mind." Talk about a fertile ground for evil to enter. It is like what Jesus said about casting out a demon but leaving his old place empty. The thing we called "getting your spirit in gear" was really a void — waiting to be filled by whatever came along.
And despite what I said about systematic theology, if you read it all carefully (rather than bits and pieces like fortune cookies) you will see that I am not opposed to systematic theology. Just to the idea that any particular system can be complete and/or rigid. That it does not need both constant revisiting, openness, and flexibility.
|
How typical of you to write four paragraphs and never answer my question. Perhaps you quoted my question,but never actually read it. Or maybe you're just having fun with me. Anyway, I quote myself again : "Is that your way of saying in many words that there is no general principle for determining what Biblical propositions can be used as factual premises for a logical systematic theology?" If there is a general principle for determining what Biblical propositions can be used as factual premises, please supply it. UntoHim opined that Paul's writings are excellent sources for these. But, I don't think he intended to imply that Paul's were the only ones or even that every statement of Paul's is suitable. The general principle would specify which are suitable and which are not. Now one might say the context is determinative. But, then the question would be what about the context is determinative?