The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Armor of God

Hermeneutically your position is far more than a "stretch". It violates the fundamental and biblical principle for interpreting Scripture. Secondly, it ignores basic grammar in that Paul's enumeration of what a believer is to DO is ignored or at best illogical. For example, if we take your view that the armor is actually Christ, then by substituting "Christ" for every place where the individual pieces of armor are mentioned it would be sheer nonsense. Nowhere in Scripture can one find such redundancy.

Again, sanctification and the battle against the world, the flesh and the Devil (which is Paul's main focus here) is synergistic; man has a part in putting off the old man and putting on the new.

Why I don't know, but I am continually perplexed by your "SOLO Scriptura" approach to understanding the Bible. You are so quick to dismiss the writings of men who have proven themselves to be theologically solid and who God has given biblical wisdom. To flippantly toss Hendriksen into the trash bin is incredible! So, yes once again we are going to have to disagree as will 99%+ of those here as well as the writings of the Reformers and Puritans.

Why is it you think your conclusions are to be more valid than the historical testimony of thousands of others? What comes to mind is your standing in front of a long line of such men as Calvin, Knox, Owen, Edwards, Hodge, Warfield, Bavinck, Spurgeon, Sproul, Hendriksen, et al and as each man moves forward to present you with their conclusion, you simply dismiss them with, "Sorry, but you're wrong... Next!" Oh vey!