0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Hhmmm.From what I can tell, Dillow says that things could be about oral sex, not that things are about oral sex.Whereas Driscoll takes it, runs with it, and says that it not only is about oral sex, but that there is an underlying command for the activity from God.http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2012/01/real-marriage-is-mark-driscoll-fudging-in-the-footnotes-by-peter-lumpkins.htmlThere is a huge difference between could maybe be and definitly is. It appears that Driscoll boldly crosses a line that Dillow doesn't. Therefore, I respect Dillow's perhap and... at Driscoll's must be.
Dallasapple, about your reply #18: That would have been a literal interpretation, if the word only meant sex.1Co 7:3 Let the husband render unto the wife her [due benevolence/ due goodwill] : and likewise also the wife unto the husband. :4 The wife hath not power over her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power over his own body, but the wife. :5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be by consent for a season, that ye may give yourselves unto prayer, and may be together again, that Satan tempt you not.But that same word is translated with benevolence and goodwill, in a non-sexual context, elsewhere in the New Testament. The partner who wants it now will not render due goodwill if he takes without consent.
Page created in 0.503 seconds with 27 queries.