Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | exegesis allegoric vs literalist being d | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 199047 | ||
Hi, mighty... You asked, "how do you know God never intended eternity and infinity of meanings to stream from the initial primary context" (sic) Well, for one thing, He was speaking to human beings in a rational fashion (Hebrews 1:1-2). For a second reason, because Scripture is very clear that there is only one interpretation of any given passage (2 Peter 1:20). For a third reason, this is how Jesus handles the Word (Luke 24:27 and elsewhere). For a fourth reason, we have all the wonderful examples of the exegesis of the apostles in the rest of the New Testament. Etc. Etc. Our forum is rooted in the doctrine of sola Scriptura. We do not see the Scriptures as a "crystal ball" or even a manual on life. It is the revelation of Christ. It is not something mystical. Profound, yes! Mystical, no. I'd be particularly suspect of Philo. We interpret the Scriptures using sound hermeneutical rules (see post #156918 and the associated thread). "Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary..." (LBCF chapter 1, paragraph 6). Philo gives no clear evidence of having been a Christian -- despite the earnest efforts of many to paint him as a "closet Christian" (an idea alien to the clear teachings of the Scriptures). What you are describing -- that "infinity of meanings" et al -- is at the very heart of the Alexandrian School (see post #170341). Sola Scriptura is rooted in the Antiochian School. If you want to read a really great, ancient, exegete, read John Chrysostom. In Him, Doc |
||||||
2 | exegesis allegoric vs literalist being d | Bible general Archive 4 | BradK | 199052 | ||
Doc, Well said! Amen! BradK |
||||||