Are you married, or are you committing adultery?

[The Revolting Man]

Again, this topic isn’t one I’m taking a side on.
However, I think I understand your point in this post.

Am I close to what you’re thinking?

Interpretation is not application.
Interpretation is direct and unequivocal to a strict constructionist. It’s point blank (“Whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved).

Doctrinal Application is nuanced. There may be a body of evidence that can be used to extrapolate implications, but they are still subject to point of view (Free will vs. Sovereign election).

Are you arguing that without a direct “Father has right to…such and such” it’s not possible to derive a truth, only an opinioned perspective that is subject to misapplication?

I’m sorry Mojo but you and I just aren’t connecting lately. I have no idea what this means.

I think verses about the sabbath are about the sabbath and verses about a father’s authority would be a out a father’s authority and looking for doctrines about a father’s authority in verses about the sabbath seems a little desperate.

 

[The Revolting Man]

"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." - Proverbs 25:2

I'll stick with Solomon's understanding.

Yes, and the revealed things have been given to you for an inheritance but the secret things belong to the lord. You are not a king, so it is not honorable for you to act like one.

Also, you should read verse 8. A lot.

 

[Mark C]

Whereas you are simply not honorable. Nor, obviously, a scholar.


PS> And this is why I try to ignore you. Sorry, to the others here, I knew better.

 

[Mojo]

I’m sorry Mojo but you and I just aren’t connecting lately. I have no idea what this means.

I think verses about the sabbath are about the sabbath and verses about a father’s authority would be a out a father’s authority and looking for doctrines about a father’s authority in verses about the sabbath seems a little desperate.

I used soteriology as an example. There are things almost all orthodox/traditional Christians agree on. We agree that one who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. It’s plainly written.

Where doctrines get sticky is in the how (do we call out of complete free will or because of the sovereign hand of God?). It depends on your point of view or reference, and estimation of a body of scripture

My point was that in the verses being presented as “ownership” or sovereign over daughters, there are plain, direct verses about the relationship between father and daughter. Where it’s not strict and plain language, it depends on your viewpoint of a body of scripture and is not appropriate to declare one point of view settled doctrine.

The discussion included more than just using sabbath as justification for the doctrine. Perhaps that’s where our disconnection happened. I was talking about your holistic argument, you were focused just on Sabbath.