Comments on: Using Scripture References in Books http://www.pantokrator.org/2005/07/27/using-scripture-references-in-books/ Pantokrator.org ~ The Christianos.org Blog ~ 2 Timothy 4:2 Tue, 06 Jan 2009 06:28:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Bobby http://www.pantokrator.org/2005/07/27/using-scripture-references-in-books/#comment-94 Bobby Fri, 29 Jul 2005 02:01:41 +0000 http://www.pantokrator.org/?p=53#comment-94 I suppose for some of us, distinguishing between our opinion and scripture proves more difficult than many of us would like to admit :). I suppose for some of us, distinguishing between our opinion and scripture proves more difficult than many of us would like to admit :).

]]> By: BA http://www.pantokrator.org/2005/07/27/using-scripture-references-in-books/#comment-93 BA Thu, 28 Jul 2005 21:10:13 +0000 http://www.pantokrator.org/?p=53#comment-93 Well I think your comment has merely added to the conversation. I would have to say that I agree with your additions. My point was that using Scripture as a basis gives us something to "argue" about heh should you disagree. Where as your opinion (without Scripture) or my opinion (without Scripture) isn't worth arguing over at all really. I do not mean to say that one side is the right side and one is the wrong as both sides may be wrong. AMDG Well I think your comment has merely added to the conversation. I would have to say that I agree with your additions.

My point was that using Scripture as a basis gives us something to “argue” about heh should you disagree. Where as your opinion (without Scripture) or my opinion (without Scripture) isn’t worth arguing over at all really. I do not mean to say that one side is the right side and one is the wrong as both sides may be wrong.

AMDG

]]> By: Bobby http://www.pantokrator.org/2005/07/27/using-scripture-references-in-books/#comment-92 Bobby Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:47:54 +0000 http://www.pantokrator.org/?p=53#comment-92 I agree, Brian, although I think you have more confidence than I do about our ability to get to the "one intended" (which I know is there) meaning of scripture; i.e. given our various "a priori" committements to our interpretive traditions. Also the Reformers spook of the persciputiy of the scripture, i.e. this very issue. They made the distinction of the "inner clarity" (i.e. the essentials are clear for even a child to grasp--e.g. the gospel, etc.), and the "outer clarity" (i.e. secondary/peripheal issues, e.g. eschatology, spiritual gifts, etc.). I think this is a healthy distinction that points to the reality of the "humanness" of the interpreters (us). This in no way undercuts the fact that its possible to get at the "intended" meaning of scripture, just that we won't "know" for sure if our "tradition" was right until heaven--that's why I'm sure that when Covenant/Amilleniarian/Hyper-Calvinists get to heaven they are absolutely stunned to realize that us Pre-mil/dispensational/moderate free grace guys were right after all :). Talk later, Brian! I agree, Brian, although I think you have more confidence than I do about our ability to get to the “one intended” (which I know is there) meaning of scripture; i.e. given our various “a priori” committements to our interpretive traditions. Also the Reformers spook of the persciputiy of the scripture, i.e. this very issue. They made the distinction of the “inner clarity” (i.e. the essentials are clear for even a child to grasp–e.g. the gospel, etc.), and the “outer clarity” (i.e. secondary/peripheal issues, e.g. eschatology, spiritual gifts, etc.). I think this is a healthy distinction that points to the reality of the “humanness” of the interpreters (us). This in no way undercuts the fact that its possible to get at the “intended” meaning of scripture, just that we won’t “know” for sure if our “tradition” was right until heaven–that’s why I’m sure that when Covenant/Amilleniarian/Hyper-Calvinists get to heaven they are absolutely stunned to realize that us Pre-mil/dispensational/moderate free grace guys were right after all :).

Talk later, Brian!

]]>