"I reject Sensus Plenior simply because the original authors, divinely inspired, knew what they were implying."
 
Are you saying that when they told of Jonah being in the belly of the great fish for three days that they knew our Savior would be in the tomb for three days as well?
 
Are you saying that because they spoke so plainly about God entering into covenants with Noah, Abraham, etc that we would understand that there were also covenants of works, grace, creation, and redemption even though they never mentioned them?
 
Most of the time the Apostle who walked with Christ had no understanding of what He was saying, do you really believe that all the OT writers fully understood all the pictures, types,and prophecies their writings inferred? Or was it more of a matter of progressive revelation with each one adding another part? Even Paul stated we know in part...
 
"Inference doesn't go beyond what is written. It simply affirms God through 
the original authors implied in "what is written"."

I have been told repeatedly that baptism replaces circumsion as the sign of the covenant and this is found by inference in Colossians. Are you saying that this is what God is telling us since inferece affirms it?
Harry 

Chad Richard Bresson <breusswane@...> wrote:
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "H Dorrington" 
>I wonder what percentage of theological disagreements happen because we 
>accepted Sensus Plenior (the "Exegetical >application wherein a deeper 
>meaning is inferred from a Scriptural verse or passage.")

This definition of Sensus Plenior is only partial. SP also assumes this 
deeper meaning isn't implied by the original authors themselves and meaning 
is drawn from the text that the original authors never intended or never 
knew about. I can't speak for the others, but I reject Sensus Plenior 
simply because the original authors, divinely inspired, knew what they were 
implying.

>over Paul's exhortation in 1Cor 4:6 "Do not go beyond what is written."

Inference doesn't go beyond what is written. It simply affirms God through 
the original authors implied in "what is written".

I can only guess the underlying assumption, but the onus is on those who 
deny divinely inspired implication to prove 1. the original authors never 
meant to imply (were not theologizing in their narrative/imperative), and 2. 
the reader/hearer is not expected to pick up on the divinely inspired 
implications in the text.

Christ slapped the wrist of Nicodemus precisely because He expected 
Nicodemus to have inferred the necessity of "new birth"/"regeneration", 
which is all over the Old Testament.

Chad Bresson
Xenia, OH 


		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
--
Read the Sound of Grace pages at
http://www.soundofgrace.com

To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...

To view our online archive go to our web page at
http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace