Anonymous 09/01/2019 (Sun) 23:51:15 No.129 del
>>126
Because it stays directly with unbelievers and entire phrase talks about difficulties of married life with spouse that is not of the faith. You can make scriptures say whatever you want if you ignore context.
>Did you read Rushdoony's explanation quoted in the article?
Skimmed through it. I've reread it before making this reply just to be sure. Listen, simply because guy is a theologian doesn't mean he can't miss the point. Pharisees and Sadducees were theologians of their time. Let's go trough it piece by piece.
First "mixed marriages between believers and unbelievers and is clearly forbidden" which is simply not true. There's no sin in marrying non believer, it's great if it works out because spouse and children are sanctified through believing parent but there are some things that can go wrong and there's no guarantee that you can bring your loved one to Christ so it can end in a distress. Paul just advises against it just like he advises elsewhere against marriage in general. It's just easier for a persecuted Christian to live according to his words.
"This means that an unequal marriage between believers or between unbelievers is wrong." Whoa if that's not one broad statement. Then he tries to cage it in "woman must have something religiously and culturally in common with her husband" which simply does not follow from passages he quotes to support his idea. His argument is it's own demise since there are no bounds in original statement to guide the interpretation of his way of reading into it. Again that biblical verse is encapsulated in a talk about difficulties of life with unbeliever not with someone of different culture or ethnicity.

>its still only an argument from silence.
The meaning is clear. The context is given with detail. They're both trying to wring out of it meanings that aren't there. It cannot be used to support claims that Bible condemns or even discourages mixed ethnicity marriages because it's talking about something entirely else. I think you're misusing 'argument from silence' tag here.