""The Constitution is not a living organism," he said. "It's a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say.""
~ US Supreme Court Justice Scalia, Fox News
This is what I mean when I say that the liberals vs. "conservatives" parallel each other in both politics and religion. The same argument made about the Constitution and how one reads and interprets is is pretty much the same ones re: Scripture. Liberals in both arenas want the law or the Law to be flexible and changing, ie "living"; while conservatives want to go by the authors or Author's original intent, using historical-grammatical-literal interpretation.
This is what I mean when I say that the liberals vs. "conservatives" parallel each other in both politics and religion. The same argument made about the Constitution and how one reads and interprets is is pretty much the same ones re: Scripture. Liberals in both arenas want the law or the Law to be flexible and changing, ie "living"; while conservatives want to go by the authors or Author's original intent, using historical-grammatical-literal interpretation.
"You want the death penalty? Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and enact it. You think it's a bad idea? Persuade them the other way and repeal it. And you can change your mind. If you repeal it and find there are a lot more murders, you can put it back in," he argued. "That's flexibility." ~Fox News
And therein lies the problem, even with "conservatives" in both arenas. Claiming to be "originalists" they want flexibility. Well, perhaps with a man-made document like the Constitution, you can. It's not written in stone.
However, a biblicist cannot be flexible with Scripture. It's solely the Author's Law which is inflexible because HE is inflexible. Those who claim "Sola Scriptura" and then want flexibility with Charismaticism are akin to Scalia in the "Christian" circles.
God's Law is written in stone.
No comments:
Post a Comment