Regarding Dr. Lamerson's comment:
It is my contention that the only way this debate will ever make progress is for both Rev. Enyart and myself to “do hand to hand combat” over particular texts.
There are many issues within the church today that are debated by using nothing more than proof texts. Does this usually help to make progress in sorting out these issues? Not really. Each side genuinely feels that he has used the best possible biblical evidence to support his beliefs. When this happens it should be an indicator that something more is needed. Dr Lamerson and Bob Enyart could throw verses at each other till the cows come home and it would get this issue no where. Sometimes deeper study is needed to get to the heart of the matter. God is not the author of confusion. He doesn't purposely put seemingly contradictory verses in the bible. Sometimes we have to dig a little deeper.
Somewhere along the line, verses were interpreted differently than what was simply stated, i.e. God said "Now I know" but He really already knew and if God said "It never entered my mind" it was really already there. For the sake of argument, even if this were true, wouldn't you think that giving scripture a totally opposite meaning at least deserves to be investigated to see if this is the correct way to interpret it? I would think that big time banners should be going off if people are suggesting that one should do this to at least see if they are on the right track. And one way to see if one is on a the right track is to investigate the origins of interpreting verses in such a way which is what Bob did in his last post and I find it very discouraging that Sam refused to even acknowledge it.
