12.
Eisegesis is reading one’s presuppositions into the biblical
text, in contrast to exegesis, which means to draw out of the text what
the inspired writer intended to convey. In religious circles where Martin
Luther’s doctrine of justification by faith ‘alone’ has been embraced, it is
not uncommon for Rom. 10:13 to be cited (“For ‘whoever calls on the name of the
Lord shall be saved’”)1 to affirm the acceptance of Jesus into one’s
heart through prayer as salvation’s sole requisite, independent of and prior to
baptism. However, Paul had already penned the words of Rom. 6:1-18 (inclusive
of baptism in the salvation process) before writing chap. 10. Therefore,
whatever is stated in chap. 10 does not cancel out and must be understood in
light of what was previously affirmed. In fact, Paul’s own baptism for the
forgiveness of sins was an integral part of his “calling on the name of the
Lord” (Acts 22:16; cf. 2:21, 38-41).
13. Inventing “facts” and propagating false information
takes place when one attempts to support a claim by citing evidence that is
unverifiable or simply not true. In commenting on a view for which he sees vague
historical support, Gordon Fee remarks: “it seems to be the case of one
scholar’s guess becoming a second scholar’s footnote and a third scholar’s
assumption” (First Corinthians 511). While
such an argument may appear convincing on the surface, upon further
investigation it proves to be empty and misleading. The editors of the gay-friendly Queen James Bible
claim that the sin of Lev. 18:22 is not homosexuality but idolatry, “having sex
with male pagan temple prostitutes .... in the temple of Molech.”2
However, Molech was worshiped with child sacrifice (Lev. 18:21; 20:1-5; Deut.
12:31; 2 Kings 23:10; Jer. 32:35), and there is no conclusive evidence that sex
(homosexual or otherwise) was any part of the ancient ritual. Based on this
misinformation the QJV editors have altered the
biblical text and distorted its meaning to suit a personal agenda (cf. 2 Pet.
3:16-17).
14. Creating God in one’s own image is the result
of interpreting the divine will through one’s own subjective thinking and
presumptuously speaking on the Lord’s behalf. In a July 2015 interview with Marc Lamont
Hill
of the Huffington Post, former U.S. president Jimmy Carter stated, “I believe
Jesus would approve gay marriage …” <Link>.
Without any scriptural foundation for his claim, and in direct opposition to
what the Bible actually says (see Delusion of Gay Marriage), Carter
equates his own personal judgment with what the Lord allegedly accepts. In the words of Tim
Keller, “If your god never disagrees with you, you might just be worshiping an
idealized version of yourself” (Facebook
post, 15 May 2014).
15. Redefining terms is a cunning tactic that builds a
seemingly biblical case on non-biblical concepts. “Love” is a catchword in our
postmodern society that is synonymous with the unconditional acceptance of
practically anyone’s beliefs and lifestyle. To verbally disagree with the views
and behavior of others, even in a respectful manner, is to stand accused of
fearing or hating them and discounting the compassionate love of Christ. But the biblical concept of
love is not some flimsy emotional state void of conviction and moral principle.
It is a conscious decision to pursue the interests
of others beyond oneself (cf. 1 Cor. 13:4-7).
Genuine love, therefore, does not overlook, justify, or tolerate the
sinful conduct condemned in God’s word (1 Cor. 5:1-5; 13:6). It compels us to
warn of divine judgment (Matt. 5:29-30; 2
Cor. 5:9-11) and to plea for humble submission to the will of God (Luke 3:8;
13:3; 2 Cor. 7:9-12).
--Kevin
L. Moore
Endnotes:
1 Unless
otherwise noted, scripture quotations are from the NKJV.
2 “The Gay
Bible,” <Link>; and “Editor’s Note,”
<Link>. For a more detailed response,
see The Queen James Bible.
Related
posts: Religious Dialogue Part 1, Part 2, Part 4
Related
articles:
No comments:
Post a Comment