徳川 家康

なぜ多文化主義は白人の国だけのものなのでしょうか?

[Dr. Eli David @DrEliDavid]

Thank you Germany 🇩🇪 and UK 🇬🇧 for heroically sacrificing your economy to save the planet 💪
_

[徳川 家康 @The_Shogun8]

@compliantvc Don’t look up chinas and indias impact on the climate 😂😭🫵🏼🤡

[Steve 🇺🇸 @SteveLovesAmmo]

This is such a good point.

[徳川 家康 @The_Shogun8]

@LDS_Dems Amen to this

[徳川 家康 @The_Shogun8]

@BasicBaptistGuy @itsforourday The irony is you’ve spent this entire thread proving my point.

You mocked LDS for “not being able to exegete,” yet every passage you’ve cited required inserting “Scripture alone” or “faith alone” where the text never says either.

That’s textbook eisegesis. You’re a hypocrite.

[徳川 家康 @The_Shogun8]

@BasicBaptistGuy @itsforourday That’s a complete non sequitur.

Whether I believe Jesus rose from the dead has absolutely nothing to do with whether Isaiah 55 or 2 Timothy 3 teaches Sola Scriptura.

You’re changing the subject because you still haven’t exegeted your doctrine from the texts you’ve cited

[徳川 家康 @The_Shogun8]

@BasicBaptistGuy @itsforourday I didn’t ask you to define Sola Scriptura. I asked you to derive it exegetically from Scripture.

Defining a doctrine isn’t demonstrating the doctrine from the text. That’s the distinction you’ve avoided this entire thread.

[Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows]

That thing that never happens happened again.

[徳川 家康 @The_Shogun8]

@BasicBaptistGuy @itsforourday Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith and practice. My question wasn’t what the doctrine means. My question was where you derive that doctrine from the text through exegesis.

[徳川 家康 @The_Shogun8]

@BasicBaptistGuy @itsforourday Another category error.

I’m not claiming my interpretations are infallible. I’m asking you to derive your Solas from the text instead of asserting them.

Pointing out your eisegesis doesn’t require claiming my exegesis is infallible.

[徳川 家康 @The_Shogun8]

@BasicBaptistGuy @itsforourday Happy to. But don’t pivot.

We’re discussing whether you read Sola Scriptura into Isaiah 55. Exegeting Mark 12 and Matthew 3 doesn’t establish your claim.

Finish defending your exegesis of Isaiah 55 first.

[徳川 家康 @The_Shogun8]

@BasicBaptistGuy @itsforourday So your argument is from silence?

The NT never narrates each apostle receiving a post-ascension baptism. But the absence of a narrative isn’t evidence they weren’t. That’s not exegesis, it’s an argument from silence.

[徳川 家康 @The_Shogun8]

@BasicBaptistGuy @itsforourday Nobody disputes the force of “shall.”

The dispute is over the referent. Isaiah says God’s word shall accomplish His purpose. He never identifies “my word” as a future closed canon or teaches Sola Scriptura.

That’s the leap you’re inserting into the text.

[徳川 家康 @The_Shogun8]

@BasicBaptistGuy @itsforourday That’s a pedestrian objection.

Of course God knew the future. The question is how you know Isaiah 55 refers to a future closed canon.

The canon was disputed for centuries. God’s foreknowledge doesn’t make Isaiah 55 a prooftext for Sola Scriptura.

[徳川 家康 @The_Shogun8]

@BasicBaptistGuy @itsforourday That’s not exegesis, it’s a rule you’ve imposed on the text.

You don’t establish an interpretation by declaring alternatives “contradictions.” You establish it by showing it best fits the historical context, grammar, literary flow, and authorial intent.

[徳川 家康 @The_Shogun8]

@BasicBaptistGuy @itsforourday At this point I don’t think you coherently can, much less with the Bible

[徳川 家康 @The_Shogun8]

@BasicBaptistGuy @itsforourday More relevant than a low tier ministry BA if this is how you approach scripture obviously. You’re embarrassingly incompetent with how you analyze scripture and are quite literally projecting what you claim Mormons so.

[徳川 家康 @The_Shogun8]

@Mike___Kilo @korashimenojoel @gaptoothdummy Dude yes 😂😭

[徳川 家康 @The_Shogun8]

@BasicBaptistGuy @itsforourday Easy.

Read the text in its historical, literary, and grammatical context.

Determine what the author intended to communicate to his audience

Derive conclusions from the text rather than importing them into it.

I don’t read Sola Scriptura into Isa 55. I don’t assume conclusions