While not I'm not agreeing 100%, this point by R.C. Sproul in The Agony of Deceit is generally reliable.
If, upon reading a particular passage, you have come up with an interpretation that has escaped the notice of every other Christian for two thousand years, or has been championed by universally recognized heretics, chances are pretty good that you had better abandon your interpretation.
HT:BRD
2 comments:
In general, I agree. But not in all cases.
I know that Dallas Willard blew my mind with his unusual interpretations of the Sermon on the Mount in his book The Divine Conspiracy. New? Perhaps not, but definitely different.
That may be true in other cases, too. What is "new" to us may not be all that new, just rediscovered or reemphasized.
Good example. I use this as my start point but allow "wiggle room" ... :)
Post a Comment