To regard the context is proper. I disagree with deception, wilful misrepresentation and misquoting people, however, I maintain that it is entirely valid to take several quotations from authors and show connections between them, despite the so-called limitations of context.
It is dangerous to make people say things which they did not say, or to make them champions of personal opinions when they are not. Whether others have done this improper thing while attempting to defend the King James Bible does not mean that I am in the same position or predicament.
To pendant upon "contextualism" is out of order when viewing the greater matters. Note how the Holy Ghost has quite a different meaning concerning the oxen than the original context seemed to indicate: "For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written" (1 Cor. 9:9, 10a). Should we accuse the Holy Ghost of impropriety because He did not actually care so much for oxen? And should we doubt that God was really speaking about Christians, when no such meaning was evident when that law was written by Moses?
Therefore, it is a greater thing to give a whole or fuller meaning, and that to be chained to context is to restrict from the proper and higher use of conference of passages. However, such a thing must be done out of wisdom, learning and lawfulness. If I have misrepresented or been mistaken concerning whom I have quoted, I would seek to rectify that. This should be a sufficient and adequate explanation of the matter at hand.
|