|
Tab Menu 1
| Fellowship Hall The place to go for Fellowship & Fun! |
 |
|
05-03-2007, 08:39 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,289
|
|
|
It is so amazing to me to witness an entire religious movement cannonizing their scriptural inferences.
It is equally amazing to me how the UPC is now more than ever a one scripture religious movement.
They base entire doctrines on one verse of scripture here one there and neither have any context or connection.
One-scripture wonders...
|
05-03-2007, 08:42 AM
|
 |
Registered Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,792
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carpenter
It is so amazing to me to witness an entire religious movement cannonizing their scriptural inferences.
It is equally amazing to me how the UPC is now more than ever a one scripture religious movement.
They base entire doctrines on one verse of scripture here one there and neither have any context or connection.
One-scripture wonders...
|
Get a new schtick Carp. Some of us are way beyond one scripture basis for what we teach. I do understand what you are saying and nknow some have little foundation.
And if you are going to be fair and unbiased how about the one scripture wonders for the liberal view? I see as much on that side as I do on this side.
|
05-03-2007, 08:48 AM
|
|
Non-Resident Redneck
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,523
|
|
|
Before someone trots it out and runs it around the corral for us to check the brand, let me say that the old argument about the mouth of two ro three witnesses is out of context the way it is generally used.
That was speaking of receiving accusations of wrongdoing, not formulating doctrine.
And the one-Scripture argument is also bogus.
Likke rrford said, most of us are a little more advanced than that.
|
05-03-2007, 08:48 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,289
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrford
Get a new schtick Carp. Some of us are way beyond one scripture basis for what we teach. I do understand what you are saying and nknow some have little foundation.
And if you are going to be fair and unbiased how about the one scripture wonders for the liberal view? I see as much on that side as I do on this side.
|
Absolutely not. That is not my point. I am not saying anything about the liberal position. When Coonskinner said he preaches the spirit of I Cor 11 he is saying his opinion of 1 Cor 11 as scriptural cannon and it is flat wrong. The problem is that he HAS to teach the spirit as sovereign because there IS no...absolutely no supportive scriptures throughout the rest of the bible.
I keep wondering as well why in this spirit of interpretation is verse 16 totally avoided...But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. What spirit of the regulation does this imply?
|
05-03-2007, 08:51 AM
|
|
Non-Resident Redneck
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,523
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carpenter
Absolutely not. That is not my point. I am not saying anything about the liberal position. When Coonskinner said he preaches the spirit of I Cor 11 he is saying his opinion of 1 Cor 11 as scriptural cannon and it is flat wrong. The problem is that he HAS to teach the spirit as sovereign because there IS no...absolutely no supportive scriptures throughout the rest of the bible.
I keep wondering as well why in this spirit of interpretation is verse 16 totally avoided...But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. What spirit of the regulation does this imply? |
There is no way verse 16 is avoided...that is Paul saying that if anybody teaches it any other way, they are being contentious, because this is the doctrine of the church.
|
05-03-2007, 08:56 AM
|
 |
Strange in a Strange Land...
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Island
Posts: 5,512
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carpenter
Absolutely not. That is not my point. I am not saying anything about the liberal position. When Coonskinner said he preaches the spirit of I Cor 11 he is saying his opinion of 1 Cor 11 as scriptural cannon and it is flat wrong. The problem is that he HAS to teach the spirit as sovereign because there IS no...absolutely no supportive scriptures throughout the rest of the bible.
I keep wondering as well why in this spirit of interpretation is verse 16 totally avoided...But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. What spirit of the regulation does this imply? |
Good idea there Carp, but other translations state this, 16 But if anyone wants to argue about this, I simply say that we have no other custom than this, and neither do God’s other churches.
I do not agree that women cutting their hair is wrong, but what you said was incorrect scripture. Although you would think that what it is saying is "we have no such custom," but the other translations state what I wrote above
|
05-03-2007, 08:56 AM
|
|
Non-Resident Redneck
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,523
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carpenter
Absolutely not. That is not my point. I am not saying anything about the liberal position. When Coonskinner said he preaches the spirit of I Cor 11 he is saying his opinion of 1 Cor 11 as scriptural cannon and it is flat wrong. The problem is that he HAS to teach the spirit as sovereign because there IS no...absolutely no supportive scriptures throughout the rest of the bible.
I keep wondering as well why in this spirit of interpretation is verse 16 totally avoided...But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. What spirit of the regulation does this imply? |
NIV: "If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice–nor do the churches of God."
NLT: " But if anyone wants to argue about this, all I can say is that we have no other custom than this, and all the churches of God feel the same way about it. "
NASB: "But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. "
RDV: "If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God."
You picked the wrong tactic that time, carp.
|
05-03-2007, 08:58 AM
|
|
Non-Resident Redneck
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,523
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JTULLOCK
Good idea there Carp, but other translations state this, 16 But if anyone wants to argue about this, I simply say that we have no other custom than this, and neither do God’s other churches.
I do not agree that women cutting their hair is wrong, but what you said was incorrect scripture. Although you would think that what it is saying is "we have no such custom," but the other translations state what I wrote above
|
It would be dumb for Paul to spend 16 verses of Holy Writ making a case for something, and then say, "Oh, but if anybody disagrees with this, nix it."
Yeah, right.
|
05-03-2007, 08:59 AM
|
|
Strange in a Strange Land...
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Island
Posts: 5,512
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coonskinner
It would be dumb for Paul to spend 16 verses of Holy Writ making a case for something, and then say, "Oh, but if anybody disagrees with this, nix it."
Yeah, right.
|
coon, that is not what I said. I told Carp that verse he quoted was not what was being said.
|
05-03-2007, 09:00 AM
|
|
Non-Resident Redneck
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,523
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JTULLOCK
coon, that is not what I said. I told Carp that verse he quoted was not what was being said.
|
I was agreeing with you. 
Affirming part of what you were saying.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:19 PM.
| |
Linear Mode
