Angela Wittman wrote: Just what is wrong with following the plain spoken Word of God?
There you go again. Substituting the word "plain" for "simply" is playing a semantic game.
Angela Wittman wrote: On what basis have I interpreted Scripture? On the basis of Scripture interpreting Scripture.
Everyone 'claims' to do that. It does not give a divine stamp of approval to your own (or borrowed) interpretive choices.
Angela Wittman wrote: I'm not playing semantics with you -
You have made it very clear that you have been playing semantics for almost 20 years with many people. You have demonstrated that for almost 20 years you have been unteachable, and that your exasperation and anger rises up repeatedly, and how swiftly you turn to insults and false accusations as if there was no law at all.
I fear that you will continue in this manner, and so I will not respond to you further at this time as it seems to provoke the worst in you.
22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Angela Wittman wrote: I have a pet peeve about folks who try to take a serious discussion about the authority of Christ and His Word and turn it into a silly discussion about wearing clothes made out of mixed fibers. I have heard that lame comment for almost 20 years now and at my age I'm running out of patience.
Agreed, your exasperation is self-evident. The good news is that you can cure it!
If you stopped repeating the evident untruth that you "simply" follow the law of God, when you simply do not - then it would not be incumbent on a multitude of other people (for almost 20 years!) to continue to point out the obvious (e.g. mixed fibres) to show you your falsehood.
The fact is that nobody "simply" follows the law of God, not even pharisaic or hassidic Jews.
Whether someone is a biblical Christian holding to the Reformed Confessions of old, - or a theonomist, or a follower of new covenant theology, or dispensationalism, or charismaticism, or pentecostalism, - or whatever they all follow their own, highly nuanced, interpretation of the law.
The key issue is, on what basis have you interpreted? And, having done so, do you represent the basis of your own nuanced interpretation honestly?