It's an interesting perspective, but I'm not sure how helpful it really is. Yes, it's true that many discussions within Protestant churches are about the limits of interpretation. But that article doesn't give much help in deciding where those limits should be.I found this article yesterday which might be an interesting take on the question of how Protestants, in particular, tend to navigate such issues: A Protestant View: Bibliolatry or Conscience?
It is also more appropriate to a Baptist group than a Presbyterian one. Presbyterians are confessional. Hence interpretation of Scripture isn't just an individual matter. While there are individual disagreements over details, most Presbyterians interpret Scripture within our specific tradition. However there are by now two different Reformed traditions, which differ on fundamentals, starting with what Scripture is.
The other problem with the article is that it doesn't deal with one of the core issues: how do people understand the way other people work? Just about everyone has not only their own beliefs, but beliefs about those who disagree. That seems pretty inevitable. I think it's obvious that X. How in the world could anyone believe non-X? When you think people believe not-X because they don't have the courage to maintain the truth against pressure from outside, or that they are operating in bad faith, it's unlikely that you're going to extend the limits of acceptable behavior to include them.
Last edited:
Upvote
0