Thursday, September 04, 2008

Proof-Texting The Gospel?

This is an adaptation of what I thought would be a good reply to a question regarding the validity of saying that 1 Cor 15:1-11 fully defines the Gospel as it is in whole, indivisible, irreducible, and missing no part.

The question was actually a number of statements but they really all dove-tail into one distinct question or statement, which the author actually ended up posing in clear writing. Is saying that “The Gospel” is represented in it’s entirety with no extra information included beyond the scope of the actual “Gospel” that must be received to be Eternally Saved actually just Proof-Texting? Well, “Proof-Texting” which is a real concern of mine, and it affects almost every theological “system.” If you’ve read any amount of my writing you should know that I detest the practice.

I know it’s Wikipedia that I’m linking to but I really like the short description they have of Proof-Texting
…the practice of using decontextualised quotations from a document to establish a proposition rhetorically an appeal to authority. Critics of the technique note that often the document, when read as a whole, may not in fact support the proposition.
So the two questions I need to answer are these – is using anything less than the whole of Scripture to define something always Proof-Texting, and if it is not then does THIS instance of using a portion (instead of the whole) to define something actually Proof-Texting. To answer these I will test this instance against the definition I have just quoted above.

How do we know that God created the Heavens and the Earth? Because in Gen 1:1 it says In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. There is a multitude of information in the Bible about Creation and all of God’s purposes in it. But we can define that Creation was Created by God from this one verse. It is a declaration of a fact. The context is not abused, and the remainder of Scripture does not change the context of that single verse being used in isolation. In short this being true is not dependent on other Scriptures, but other Scriptures are absolutely dependent on it being true. This may seem like an overly simplified example but it actually matches our topic completely (at least as completely as I can see at this moment).

So I have established that something can be defined, or declared, by just a portion of Scripture without it being Proof-Texting. So we must now move on to question if defining The Gospel by 1 Cor 15:1-11 is Proof-Texting or not.

At this moment I feel prompted to make this comment. I am not mocking anyone who has thought these thoughts, or questioned this way at all. This is a valuable question that has been asked by many people in various ways. I have not answered it, and I have not seen it answered to date. I've decided to make this an article so that everyone can be exposed to it. I think it's a very valuable conversation to have.

The Apostle Paul spent much of his ministry defending his Apostleship. He said that his Gospel, and the entirety of the “revelation of the mystery” was given to him directly from the Risen Christ. Gal 1:11-12; Eph 3:1-7 Scripture declares Paul’s authority and his ministry to the Church. It would take up needed time and space to defend this at this point. I will assume your agreement as I go forward and I will lean on the fact of his confirmed authority and his fidelity in preaching the Message received directly from Christ Himself.

1 Cor 15:1-2 in the NKJV reads as the following.
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
There is a TON to cover in these two verses that relates to our discussion. Forgive me if I fail to encompass it all.

Paul says he’s going to declare the Gospel which he had preached to them in the past. He is going to “define” it to them again with great knowledge and understanding. They had come to question parts of it. His purpose in defining it to them again was to bring them out of their questioning and back into proper fellowship – their Sanctification was his purpose as he declared to them again how they were Justified.

He reminds them that they had received this message. They had “obeyed the Gospel” because they believed it, they received this Truth and accepted it as such. Rom 10:16 2 Thes 1:8

He then assures them that it is in this message that they are caused to stand. It is this message that provides their standing before God.

He then declares that it is by this message that they are saved now this is an important word for a number of issues. This word, in the declaration of the purpose and effect of The Gospel provides undisputable proof of Eternal Security and at the same time shows that the Apostle is declaring a message of Eternal Salvation and not Temporal (or Progressive) Sanctification. If we look at the “form” of the word in the Greek we can see the following at

The Tense is Present The Voice is Passive and the Mood is Indicative

This tells us that Paul is making a statement of absolute truth, a statement of fact, of their condition right now of something they have received – not achieved, or arrived at. By this we know Paul is speaking of Eternal Salvation and not progressive Sanctification which can only be absolutely true (complete) when we are in resurrected in Glory. Philippians 3:12

Paul then returns to his purpose in declaring these this Truth, their holding to it and being Sanctified (separated from the World) by saying “if you hold fast what I preached to you” Not that their salvation is conditional on “holding fast” but that he is looking for their return to agreement with this thing he has stated as fact. This interpretation is confirmed with his next words – “unless you have believed in vain.” He defines vain belief in 1 Cor 15:12-19, it is not a failure to “really believe” , it’s a belief in something that isn’t true. If the Gospel is not true then we are all the most pitiful of men. Further indication that while his purpose is to return these believers to full fellowship (Sanctification) he is actually declaring the message that saves Eternally is found in that same section of Scripture 1 Cor 15:19. The hope (assurance that something is actually going to happen because God said so) is beyond this present life.

Paul then goes on to give the details of The Gospel of Jesus Christ in 1 Cor 15:3-8 Finally he closes the doctrine as a complete message in verse 11
Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
This is what was preached by the Apostles, this is what Paul received, this is what Believers receive.

So far I have shown that Paul is making a declaration based on in-depth knowledge and in full authority. And that reception of this message results in a secure Eternal Salvation. And, since I have defined what Paul is doing, now I must determine if using only this declaration to define the content of “The Gospel” qualifies as Proof-Texting or not. This is no small task. I have to admit that from my own point of view I think that it’s clearly not, since the Apostle himself is declaring it.. would Paul be doing something akin to proof-texting himself? But my point of view is not what is needed.

First is the content exhaustive? Does it cover everything that any and all other Scriptures having to do with attaining Eternal Salvation require. It would be well beyond my time constraints to list and examine every verse that deals with this. I’m sure as the conversation progresses through comments that most, and maybe even all of them, will be discussed and what I write here can be vetted against them. For my defence of how exhaustive Paul’s Gospel declaration is I offer part of a document I prepared for TCC. This was entitled “A Semi-Detailed View Of The Gospel” it is not intended to cover every bit of what is contained but it ought to server for our purposes of showing the scope of what Paul wrote in these few verses.
Verse 1:
“In which you stand” We are held by He who is able to keep us from
stumbling. Jude verse 24.

Verse 2:
This is the "Gospel" (Good News) that saves.

“If you hold fast” Paul is re-explaining the Resurrection of Christ to the
Corinthians. We see in verse 1 that they “received” this teaching from him. He's saying you know we stand in this if you still believe what I told you before. Not that we are only saved as long as we “hold fast”.

“unless you believed in vain” if we don't “stand” in this, if it doesn't save then we have all believed in vain. If the Gospel is powerless to save then we are the most pitiable men (1 Corinthians 15:19)

Verse 3:
“First of all” the Gospel is what makes a person a Christian. It is what we
bring first. It is of “first importance” but it is also the first thing we talk about.

“Christ” - God's Anointed because God gave Him for this purpose and God Himself because all of Creation was cursed to suffer death so the person who died for all sins legally could not have already been under a sentence of death (Genesis 3:14-19; Romans 8:20-22).

“died for our sins” we are each sinners. The righteous requirement to satisfy God for our sins is death (Genesis 2:17; Romans 6:23; Hebrews 9:22). This did satisfy God (Ephesians 1:7, Colossians 1:14) and is provision for forgiveness for all persons. Anyone can have this forgiveness applied to them (1 John 2:2).

“according to the Scriptures”, Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 are prophecies of
this and, it happened exactly when God said it would (Daniel 9).

Verse 4:
“buried” means He was really dead.

“rose again the third day according to the Scriptures” (Psalm 16:9-11). Corruption starts on the fourth day (such as with Lazarus John 11:39). We are risen up in Christ's rising (Pauline Epistles) so Hosea 6:2 is also prophecy of this. Then the Sign of Jonah (Matthew 12:38-40; Jonah 1:17)

Verses 5-10:
He was seen alive after His resurrection in the flesh by real people. Over
five hundred on some twelve occasions. At the time of the writing of this
letter most of these people were still alive.

Verse 11:
“so we preached, so you believed.” Paul closes the Gospel with the

statement that no matter which of the Apostles preached to them (the Corinthians were torn between the Apostles in their loyalties), this is the Gospel they preached and this is what Christians have believed. This along with Verses 1& 2 closes the doctrine of the Gospel. Nothing can be added or taken away from this message detailed in these few verses.
For a much more exhaustive look at the contents of these 11 verses I suggest a reading of Free Grace Free Speech’s articles on the content of the Gospel. I hope this will not be seen as an “appeal to authority” I’m not looking for those articles to prove my point but simply to complete the information that I can not provide here but that the more noble minded reader would use to aid his or her examination of the subject.

We find in various areas of the NT that belief that Jesus is “The Christ” brings Salvation. That believing He is the Son of God brings Salvation. That belief that Jesus is God brings Salvation. We read that obeying – believing – the Gospel brings Salvation. I think of sections like John 20:30-31 Rom 10:8-13 Rom 10:16 2 Thes 1:8 I don’t want to get to deep into repentance in this post, but let it suffice that Repentance Unto Salvation is a requirement, it is the change from disbelief to belief. It is “afterthought” or a “change of mind.” You hear the Word of God and you repent from unbelief to belief. Rom 10:17 Eph 1:13 come to mind.

We read much about the testimony of Christ in the NT. This is here to prove to the Jew and the Gentile Who He is. These proofs are not part of The Gospel, they are things that demonstrate Christ’s qualification to carry out the work of the Gospel. John 20:30-31

So… given all of this does citing 1 Cor 15:1-11 as the definition of the Gospel of Jesus Christ qualify as Proof-Texting? I will remind you of our working definition of this practice.
…the practice of using decontextualised quotations from a document to establish a proposition rhetorically an appeal to authority. Critics of the technique note that often the document, when read as a whole, may not in fact support the proposition.
The quotation of 1 Cor 15:1-11 as The Gospel does not abuse the context, it echoes the Apostle’s own words.

It does not attempt to establish a proposition rhetorically through an appeal to authority. Mainly because the authority in this case gives the direction. This quotation is not in support of my idea, my idea is driven only by the Apostle’s declaration. Just exactly the same way that my idea of God being the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth is not supported by Gen 1:1, it is driven by it.

Finally, the rest of the Document (the Bible) confirms there is no other content required to know and that each of the points in 1 Cor 15:1-11 is required for belief. It identifies the person, character, qualification, and completion that is in Christ Jesus. There are many things in Scripture which are dependant on this section being The Gospel, but other than the statements actually being true (unless our belief is in vain) The Gospel is completely true independent of the rest of the NT. If one only had the Gospel and they believed it they would be saved.

Therefore after all of this I submit that quoting 1 Cor 15:1-11 does not qualify as Proof-Texting and is self-evidently, and also established by God given authority, to be The Gospel that saves eternally.


Kevl said...

This post was originally intended just to answer Michele's questions and statements about the possibility of saying 1 Cor 15:1-11 might be "proof-texting" however I think there is a lot here to learn and talk about.


Sanctification said...

Hi Kevin,

I'm causing quite a stir and rally I see...


Thank you for answering the question I ask so thoroughly.

This blog format is really unnerving (I'm used to forums.)

I thought your comparison to the declaration of creation in the Word was fair to the declaration of the gospel. In that sense, if you are correct that 1 cor 15 is the one and only place where the gospel is being defined, all others would have to incorporate their complex on that foundation.

I just want to be clear on where I am at.

I don't know what I would include as "the gospel." I don't know if it should be 1 cor 15 or 1 cor 2:2 or acts 16:31. I don't know if it should variate based on the Spirit's promptings, or what I pick up as the weakness of the one who is listening to my message.

I want to take your analogy of genesis 1:1 and how it might be used as a theoretical "foundational text," if there is such a thing, in terms of the message.

I don't think there should be such a thing as a primary text and a secondary text, or a "complete" text and an "insufficient" text. I think that poses problems with the way we think about the Word of God as we find it in the form it is; infallible, yet not revealing all things at all times in all places in every matter.

For instance there is this passage describing creation:

“ You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
They will perish, but You remain;
And they will all grow old like a garment;
Like a cloak You will fold them up,
And they will be changed.
But You are the same,
And Your years will not fail.”

heb 1:10-12 (I know this is from the OT but I'm not going to run downstairs and look up the note on it.)

In this passage we learn:

-creation deteriorates, God doesn't
-God is timeless, our times matter
-God doesn't change, creation does


-God made the heavens and earth

Now, you're asking me to choose between the revelation he gave to David hundreds of years after Moses wrote this first sentence of revelation about God/creation.

Which one is better? Which is better at establishing the truth of creation for an unexposed or unbelieving world? I like Gen 1:1 because it is the first thing said, given an aire of importance therefore. But I like the other one because it so efficiently lays out how God is something beyond spacetime, and eternal.

Just because you use gen 1:1 with others to establish the truth with your listeners that creation is true, does not mean your are in any way forsaking the other various passages in scripture which may address, in a random or topical manner, associated understandings of the pertinent issues.

I would say it like this: like you, the doctrine of what saves men could most sufficiently be said by 1 cor 15. All other texts on salvation, or the invitations themselves in various passages, should be understood as efforts to point or arrive at 1 cor 15. So, there is no contradiction here of the content of 1 cor 15, no denial.

Just as the creationist uses the rest of scripture about God's creation they would not deny the content of "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," I too make great use of 1 cor 15.

Are you sure it is a good idea for people to practice using the Word of God in terms of primary and secondary texts... of truths?

But that does not negate the centrality of 1 cor 15 for many other reasons.

Thanks, Michele

Sanctification said...

Hi Kevin,

"Proof texting" can mean what you said above, de-contextualizing.

But I am familiar with it having a second meaning, which is, to answer a question of scripture... with one scripture.

You and I, I am sure have agreement on the general message of the word of God on many, many subjects. We both read the whole thing and share the same doctrines -- "summaries of what it is saying."

But since you come to me with the claim that 1 cor 15 holds a special significance in defining "gospel," you automatically set yourself for weakness, that weakness being having only one scripture to answer a question, and one scripture is never quite a safe thing.

So, no worries, all I was trying to say is that, taking you on the claim that it is a "foundational" text, let's drown it in context and all the other passages so that it doesn't stand alone.

Does the rest of the scripture speak to exalt 1 cor 15 as the way to understand gospel?

:) Michele

Sanctification said...

Forgive me, Kevin.

I start always (or often) with what I think is your weakest point, not my weakest point. You have many other assertions worthy of my time in that post. I will get to them next and not ignore them. I wish I was better at this, but, it's so easy to start where things are positive for me.


Kevl said...

Hi Michele,

I wouldn't say there are "primary" and "secondary" texts.

It's clear that Scripture interprets Scripture so that no part of Scripture is truly above any other, or can truly stand by it's self.

But there are places where a complete truth is shown and there are places where that complete truth is referenced.

For example the often quoted - What must I do to be saved? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, you and your whole household. (incidentally it's making it clear that it's available to everyone, not just those who seem to have been thrust into a situation where it's become available to them).

In this case found in Acts 16 I'll quote verses 30-32 to show how this concept plays out.

30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.

What must you do to be saved? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

Then they spoke the Word (logos) of the Lord to them, the whole household.

The condition was belief, but he had to be told what to believe. Not just the name of the Person, but the "Word" of Him.

That "Word" of Him is the Gospel.

Then we read that he believed and was baptized.

So the statement in Acts 16:30 is absolutely true - but it does not contain all the "information" that their belief was to be in. The only condition was belief, but that belief must be in the specific truth of Who Jesus is, and what He has done on our behalf.


Kevl said...

errr I meant the statement of Acts 16:31...



Jonathan Perreault said...


Great post and discussion! I think your comments on Acts 16:31ff were especially cogent. I will probably reference them in the future. Thanks!

I'm going to write a brief post addressing Michele's question: "Does the rest of the scripture speak to exalt 1 cor 15 as the way to understand gospel?" This is how I had understood proof-texting as well so I would like to address it in more detail. I'll post a link later.


Sanctification said...


You said:
"But there are places where a complete truth is shown and there are places where that complete truth is referenced. "

Fair. K.

I can see how you would read Acts 16:31 that way. In fact, how could I read it any differently than you, because what comes next -- the Word -- I would not dispute. No apostle would withhold the story of Jesus when the church was being born.

Can I ask you a question?

Why can't I answer the same way he does. If you would assert the object was just as important as faith, or more important, then Paul could not have felt comfortable without pretexting the content of the gospel before telling him to believe in Jesus.

I'm just saying, if believing in Jesus is the beginning of the answer in this case, can't that be the first part of my answer too?

Thank you, Michele

Jonathan Perreault said...


I just posted a new article at Free Grace Free Speech expanding on these thoughts. Please read: 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 In Apostolic Preaching.


Kevl said...

I'm just saying, if believing in Jesus is the beginning of the answer in this case, can't that be the first part of my answer too?

Who said it could not be the first part of your answer? It's just not the complete answer, because one must know Who Jesus is as testified through the Gospel.

The Apostle said to believe on Him, and then he spoke the Word of Him so the person would be ABLE to believe on Him.

Which Jesus? He might have rightly asked.


Kevl said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kevl said...

If a person asked me "What must I do to fix airplanes?"

I could rightly answer, you've got to know how to fix them.

And then I could rightly show them everything they need to know how to fix them.

And when I was done showing them, they could make use of that new knowledge and fix airplanes.

But telling them simply "You've got to know how to fix planes" though accurate is not a complete solution.

So is our example in Acts 16:30-32

He asked what must I do to be saved?

The Apostle said he had to believe.

Then the Apostle told him what he had to believe, and since it says the Apostle told him the logos (word) of the Lord I believe that he also supported the Gospel with the Scripture that pointed for the necessity of the Gospel. If it was just testimony about Jesus it would have likely been rhēma word of the Lord. *not 100% sure of that.. but that's what I'm thinking.

Once the Apostle told him the Word of the Lord - everything that he needed to believe, and showed that it is true, then the Jailer believed and was saved. Just like my new aircraft mechanic started fixing planes. ;)


Jonathan Perreault said...


A few thoughts. This is great stuff! I totally agree with you and Michele about Acts 16:30-32. The question was "What must I DO to be saved?" (Acts 16:30). The question was not "What is the Gospel?" But Paul knew that this question was also important, and so after he answered the jailor's question Paul went on to explain "the word [logos] of the Lord" (Acts 16:32). Compare Acts 16:32 with 1 Cor. 15:2 where Paul says he preached "the word [logos] of "the gospel" (1 Cor. 15:1) to the Corinthians. This is the "word" (1 Cor. 15:2) Paul preached "of first importance" (1 Cor. 15:3).


Jonathan Perreault said...


I also wanted to add a thought about proof-texting. I understand proof-texting to be when a person simply cites a Bible reference without providing the exegesis or context. In our discussions of 1 Cor. 15:1-11 we have always been careful to base our conclusions on the exegetical and contextual points of the passage. Therefore we are in no way proof-texting the Gospel.


Kevl said...

JP, wow.

1Co 15:2 δι ου και σωζεσθε τινι "λογω" ευηγγελισαμην υμιν ει κατεχετε εκτος ει μη εικη επιστευσατε

wow check it out.

I didn't even know that logos was in that verse.

This kinda changes what I thought the difference significances were between logos and rhema but I REALLY don't mind being wrong. I love learning what's right.

Very very cool. I'm going to have to spend some time with this.


Kevl said...

JP you said I understand proof-texting to be when a person simply cites a Bible reference without providing the exegesis or context.

I agree this is proof-texting as well. But it wasn't nearly dramatic enough to help me make my point above. :) hehe

When someone has a proof-text that they can't explain by context and exegesis it is often just that they are parroting something they've been told to say.


Daniel Wilson said...

I think the key on "proof-texting" is the removal from context, as you said.

One can say something that is quite true and valid bouncing from John to Genesis to Romans and back. But it is suspect.

Working with major portions of a chapter, in order, bringing in the broader context -- that takes more work. But when dealing with a skeptical audience, it is necessary.

A Jehovah's Witness just accused me of "proof-texting" Jesus' Diety a couple weeks ago. He was right. I was attempting to prove truth through a weak, suspect means. I am now going through the Gospel of John, noting each passage that bears on His Deity. It takes a lot more work!

Jonathan Perreault said...


There are many passages in John that highlight the Savior's Deity. I think this is a good book to study in this regard. I've heard of Bible studies where people come only to read John's Gospel. Maybe you could suggest this to your J.W. acquaintance.


Sanctification said...


I have written five papers each about 10-30 pages long, of just scripture and the greek and hebrew meaning of words, for my JW ladies.

Their titles are:
"The Glory of Jesus"
"Proskyneo and Latreuo"
"Trinity proof texts?"

And a couple more without titles. I worked through the OT to prove the deity, in fact identity, of Jesus as YHWH. Let me pass them on to you if you would be blessed to have them -- I need to find a way to load them up publicly anyway.

Let me give you a little flava from "The glory of Jesus":

Does Jesus get Jehovah’s glory? Additionally, is Jesus, if served (latreuo) and worshiped (proskyneo), therefore an idol?

Can I revere Jesus as a divine Lord? Can I call Him not only a god, but my god?

If inappropriately given too much proskyneo, does He become...

--an idol?
--an image?
--a false god?

--Ex 23:24 “Do not bow down before their gods or worship them or follow their practices.”

--Ex 20:3 “You shall have no other gods (466) before me.”

gods (#466) - elohiym - the most common Hebrew word translated “God “ in the OT. When in plural form, can be translated as divine rulers or judges, angels, gods, or men who represent God.

before me - panah - to turn, presence, in front of, front.

--Ex 20:4 “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on earth or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, YHWH your God, am a jealous God.”

idol - pasal - to carve, cut; idol, whether carved, cut, cast, or made of wood.

bow down - hawah - to prostrate oneself, bow down, crouch; to do obiesance, worship. Denotes act of respect before one’s superior in position, and essentially signifies submission. This term is especially used in the sense of worshiping a diety. It signifies to honor God w/ prayers even without prostrating the body. Those who use this mode of salutation, however, fell upon their knees and touched the ground with their foreheads. The equivaent Greek word proskyneo, to worship.

worship - Abad - to serve, minister, worship; to do work, do. Denotes service or work which may be directed toward things, or flax or toward people. In a specialized sense, Abad means to serve YHWH as a Levite. The Septuagint uses Latreuo, to serve, for the exclusive service provided by the priests.

--Ex 20:23 “Do not make any gods (466) to be alongside me.”

alongside - et - with, to, upon, beside, among, against.

--John 1:18 “No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.”

--Ex 23:13 “Do not invoke the names of other gods (466); do not let them be heard on your lips.”

invoke - zakar - to remember, recollect, reflect upon, to mention, declare, proclaim, to commemorate.

--Col 1:28 “We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ.” (Col 4:3 says that ‘we’ “proclaim the mystery of Christ.”)

--2 thess 2:4 “He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.”

Thanks for letting me share, everyone,

Kevl said...

Hey Guys,

here are some EXHAUSTIVE resources on the subject.

The Tank - Trinity

The Tank - Trinity 2

Jesus info in the OT

Jesus OT

Jesus OT

Jesus OT

Jesus OT

Look at the Messiah links

Glenn is very long winded but he is like a lawyer with his defense of things. His work is trustworthy.


Sanctification said...


On proof texting, I want you to understand that do not believe you proof text here or anywhere else, but just that the potential exalt of one passage as defining still seems... like a wrong approach to any scripture for any topic.

I can't blame you. When I think of what the JW ladies need to hear, I think of one, defining text:

"But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus’ sake. For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."

So I don't blame you. I do the same thing.

They have a point of stumbling. And so I am obliged to camp.

Unfortunately that whole bit about referencing the more material in the less, also smacks a bit of eisegesis; being caught up about some other way-off passage when trying to let the scripture speak about what it is saying.

I unfortunately smack of it too when it comes to things that are important.

Once again, not accusing by any means.... Just trying to show you how the methodology, the attitude behind the exalt, could be a little more theologically divorced for the sake of fairness.

I hope I was both respectful and honest in these thoughts....


David Wyatt said...

Just fantastic, bro. Kev! Thank you. As you probably know, I had been rather bummed by all this debate between RFG & TFG, so to speak, but you have done a fantastic job here of bringing out the important points, & you did it quite a while back. Wish I'd come upon it sooner, but the Lord has a reason for everything. God Bless you.