Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost and Found
I never said what you said I did here. Never one time. It also is NOT my belief. You not only misrepresent me, but you also do it to Paul. As far as Paul saying what you claim, look again:
Too much use of "I" here to merit saying your points establish biblical Truth. The context bears out that the context of Paul's writing is only concerned with reminding a WIDOW’S children and grandchildren to supply her daily sustenance needs. Sorry, but your opinion just does not carry as much weight as Paul's CONTEXT. Remember, in biblical hermeneutics, context is KING.
The no-scripture-needed crowd always use "I think, "I believe," "I think," “could be” or “PERHAPS” when describing private interpretations of Scripture. Where does such a process agree with "rightly diving the WORD of GOD"?
Sola Scriptura, Sister!
|
Are you saying you never say 'I believe' when speaking about your beliefs in regard to scripture? Don't make me do a search of your posts!
Paul said a man who doesn't provide (this verb is left open with no supporting noun, ever wonder why?) for his family is worse than an infidel. You claim that Paul is speaking of the same support he admonishes those same men to give to the widows and fatherless, yet he doesn't tell them they are worse than infidels if they don't provide for those people. Why not?
You say Paul is referring to monetary support only. I'm telling you that fathers do that all the time, even though they don't even see nor speak to their own children but pay because the court said they had to. And you don't think those men are worse than infidels because they are at least sending money to the children? Give me a break!
If Paul is speaking only of monetary issues, does this mean the man is exempt (if he so chooses) from giving them food, clothing, and shelter because Paul didn't tell him to? I mean, by what you are saying, you give every deadbeat an excuse for his actions, IMO.
Paul wanted men to provide. Period.
Threaded Mode
