Rather than prohibit sexual activity “outside marriage” as Dalrock claims, Paul actually said “it is good to not have sex a woman who is not your wife”. Meaning, “yes, that is permitted, but it’s good not to do that.”
The same day I wrote my original post (Aug 9th), I predicted how the discussion would play out:
The challenge as is the rationalizers want to play a game of theological rope a dope, firing off rationalizations faster than you can refute them with references from the text, hoping that eventually you or the people reading will grow exhausted and give up. But this still leaves the fact that they have inverted the fundamental teaching on marriage, holding it as the cause of sexual immorality instead of the way to avoid it.
After a thorough filibuster, Toad is now claiming that I didn’t give him a chance to make his argument! A month later, he now comes back claiming that I banned him:
Dalrock banned me before I could respond and 1) call him out for not actually answering the question and 2) point to the real issue. Of course, I’d have also called him out for lying, once again, but that’s beside the point.
This is a lie, but I will happily ban him now. With that in mind, for those who want more Toad feel free to follow the link above and read him on his own blog.