Against modernist hermeneutics

[FSSL]

Your side is all about how information, wording, readings, understanding, etc. has been lost over time, and all the various methods and safeguards you need to employ to try to recover or get what God meant in the Scriptures. That's a very weak view.

The Reformation was all about recovering what God meant in the Scriptures....

One striking example of this in practice has been the idea that the recent decades new interpretation of Revelation 3:15 must now trump pre-existing interpretations.

The Reformation is all about rejecting interpretative traditions that have existed for over a millinea and letting the Bible speak for itself WITHOUT support from previous traditions/interpretations, no matter how popular.

Modernism makes everything have unmeaning, except the great Meaning of modernism.

Ummm.... was this statement intended to be ironic because the meaning is lost.

 

[bibleprotector]

The Reformation was all about recovering what God meant in the Scriptures....

Except that modernism is largely anti-Reformation, in that it considers things can never be recovered, and in its ongoing recovery process, never actually arrives at any conclusion, thus, allowing the complete undoing of anything recovered in the Reformation.

The Reformation is all about rejecting interpretative traditions that have existed for over a millinea and letting the Bible speak for itself WITHOUT support from previous traditions/interpretations, no matter how popular.

Yet, this very principle is being used to say that "cold" means something good in Revelation 3:15, which was not the view of the Reformation, nor for years after, but may be dated to after the mid-20th century.

 

[prophet]

The Reformation was all about recovering what God meant in the Scriptures....

Except that modernism is largely anti-Reformation, in that it considers things can never be recovered, and in its ongoing recovery process, never actually arrives at any conclusion, thus, allowing the complete undoing of anything recovered in the Reformation.

The Reformation is all about rejecting interpretative traditions that have existed for over a millinea and letting the Bible speak for itself WITHOUT support from previous traditions/interpretations, no matter how popular.

Yet, this very principle is being used to say that "cold" means something good in Revelation 3:15, which was not the view of the Reformation, nor for years after, but may be dated to after the mid-20th century.

Once more, for the simple:

You order drinks both cold and hot.
If you pick one up, and take a sip, and it has sat around for hours and gone to room temperature, you might spit it back out,  and say "yuk".
I've done it with both cold and hot drinks.

The comparison is between cold and hot..both which take effort and lukewarm, which is a result of no effort at all, but rather apathy and stagnation.

If the Reformers got this wrong, so what.
Luther had a lot of glaring errors:
Like, persecuting those other sects.

 

[bibleprotector]

I've done it with both cold and hot drinks.

This illustrates the confusion that results of not keeping in line with the Scripture.

 

[prophet]

I've done it with both cold and hot drinks.

This illustrates the confusion that results of not keeping in line with the Scripture.

No, this illustrates the point God is plainly making.
That you are expecting either a cold or hot temp, when you put it in your mouth, and when you get neither,  you spit it back out.

Cold is enjoyable, refreshing, desirable.

Hot is great,  in its place : On a cool  morning,  at the end of the day.

I've taken you to task on your English grammar capabilities.
You refuse to answer, sticking with your lame interpretive method of leaning on the Reformers.
If all you use is the English Bible, to ascertain the meaning of this passage, and you understand English grammar rules, then you can't possibly assign a negative inference to "cold" in this passage.
Rather, obvious by the text, cold is God's expressed Will, and to be desired, and equal to hot, and  IN KEEPING WITH THE ILLUSTRATON OF TAKING A DRINK.

 

[bibleprotector]

Cold is enjoyable, refreshing, desirable.

Except, that is not stated nor implied in Revelation 3:15. You have to go outside the Scripture itself to make that wrong conclusion.

 

[Ransom]

Except, that is not stated nor implied in Revelation 3:15.

Neither are "cold" and "hot" as antitheses stated or implied in Revelation 3:15.

However, that's your assumption, so it's the one you claim is the right one.

 

[FSSL]

Bibleprotector calls this a Protestant interpretation YET even the Catholics believed that "cold" meant unbelieving.

I would thou wert either cold or hot. This is not an absolute wish, because the condition of the cold is certainly worse in itself... Haydcock 1859

There is no so-called Protestant interpretation of this passage. Smoke and Mirrors.

Who knows? Maybe the Catholics came up with this interpretation and it wasn't shed until a PROTESTANT gave an alternate interpretstion in the 1950s

 

[bibleprotector]

Who knows? Maybe the Catholics came up with this interpretation and it wasn't shed until a PROTESTANT gave an alternate interpretstion in the 1950s

Classic modernistic statement.

The "Who knows?" is an appeal to imperfection because the main principle of modernism is that error prevails.

And the idea that somehow the Reformation apparently failed, the Spirit of God apparently failed, until the 1950s, is modernistic and erroneous in the most extraordinary sense, because it is essentially arguing AGAINST the Reformation and calling the Protestant view the Romanist one.

Upholding something from the 1950s over and above 1900 years of history appears likely to be complete modernism.

 

[bibleprotector]

There is no so-called Protestant interpretation of this passage.

There is no so-called about it. How can you deny what multitudes of credible Protestant sources state?

 

[FSSL]

How can you deny what so many Catholics say about it?

 

[prophet]

Cold is enjoyable, refreshing, desirable.

Except, that is not stated nor implied in Revelation 3:15. You have to go outside the Scripture itself to make that wrong conclusion.

You mean, Nicodemus, that you have to understand the earthly half of the parable, through earthly wisdom, and natural understanding?
Isn't that the point of parables?

There isnt a shred of distaste ,for cold , mentioned in this passage, yet you want me to see it.
Sorry.

I see Rome, instead.

 

[bibleprotector]

How can you deny what so many Catholics say about it?

So, you are willing to ignore the fact of what many Bible believing Christians say, in order to attempt to smear them with the fact that Roman Catholics said the same thing. You know they do say some right things sometimes, when they agree with truth.

 

[bgwilkinson]

What arguments would bp have if he couldn't use constant ad hominem?

 

[FSSL]

What arguments would bp have if he couldn't use constant ad hominem?

So, you ... You know they do ... when they...

 

[FSSL]

So, you are willing to ignore the fact of what many Bible believing Christians say, in order to attempt to smear them with the fact that Roman Catholics said the same thing. You know they do say some right things sometimes, when they agree with truth.

So this ISN'T an exclusive Protestant interpretation. Why should we be tempted to add our assumptions to Scripture since the interpretation is not exclusive of Protestant OR Catholic?

 

[subllibrm]

Jesus says he has a preference. On one side hot or cold and on the other side lukewarm. I don't care if it is about water or tea or soup or your seasonal wardrobe. He made the distinction as being between hot and cold (good) or lukewarm (bad).

 

[FSSL]

Jesus says he has a preference. On one side hot or cold and on the other side lukewarm. I don't care if it is about water or tea or soup or your seasonal wardrobe. He made the distinction as being between hot and cold (good) or lukewarm (bad).

Oh posh! Another one who reads his Bible.

 

[bibleprotector]

So this ISN'T an exclusive Protestant interpretation. Why should we be tempted to add our assumptions to Scripture since the interpretation is not exclusive of Protestant OR Catholic?

That's a massive non sequitur.

 

[FSSL]

I think we all saw you calling it a Protestant interpretation...

http://www.fundamentalforums.org/index.php?topic=5033.msg92503.msg#92503