Ryan, my friend, after reading several of these posts about verses "against the use of P&W," I can't seem to find the relevance. I know someone asked you and you declined to answer anything but that you were for "reverence" in worship. I think we all are in favor of reverence, even the P&W crowd, of which I am not a part. However, I am curious as to whether or not these arguments or Scriptures you are posting can actually be considered proof against P&W. Shouldn't we raise the bar of argumentation?
I think we should. I think it is arguments like these that harm our position rather than help it.
I'm not sure what you mean, Larry. I am not really providing any arguments. I am putting up Scripture that inform my views on P&W. After all, is that not what the constant cry today is: "show me a chapter and verse"? I would think that this service I am rendering would be considered invaluable.
Perhaps you can help "our position" by citing the Scripture on your blog that you would use against P&W.
Not to go down a path if you would rather not, so feel free to edit my comments, but as I read these verses, I see nothing in them that informs my view of P&W. They inform my view about the nature of God, and that has ramifications for P&W to be sure, but not apart from demonstrating that, it seems to me.
To cite these verses as "against the use of P&W" without showing how they are "against the use of P&W" leaves a lot of people scratching their heads, it seems to me. Because I am quite sure they don't disagree with those verses.
I was simply wondering what point you were trying to make since it was unexplained.
5 Comments:
Ryan, my friend, after reading several of these posts about verses "against the use of P&W," I can't seem to find the relevance. I know someone asked you and you declined to answer anything but that you were for "reverence" in worship. I think we all are in favor of reverence, even the P&W crowd, of which I am not a part. However, I am curious as to whether or not these arguments or Scriptures you are posting can actually be considered proof against P&W. Shouldn't we raise the bar of argumentation?
I think we should. I think it is arguments like these that harm our position rather than help it.
I'm not sure what you mean, Larry. I am not really providing any arguments. I am putting up Scripture that inform my views on P&W. After all, is that not what the constant cry today is: "show me a chapter and verse"? I would think that this service I am rendering would be considered invaluable.
Perhaps you can help "our position" by citing the Scripture on your blog that you would use against P&W.
Not to go down a path if you would rather not, so feel free to edit my comments, but as I read these verses, I see nothing in them that informs my view of P&W. They inform my view about the nature of God, and that has ramifications for P&W to be sure, but not apart from demonstrating that, it seems to me.
To cite these verses as "against the use of P&W" without showing how they are "against the use of P&W" leaves a lot of people scratching their heads, it seems to me. Because I am quite sure they don't disagree with those verses.
I was simply wondering what point you were trying to make since it was unexplained.
No problem ...
Perhaps you can help "our position" by citing the Scripture on your blog that you would use against P&W.
This is exactly the wrong methodology. It is illogical to start with an extra-biblical conclusion, and then expect to find clear biblical support.
"illogical"?
Post a Comment
<< Home