If implied meanings are used as a principle of interpretation, where then does the boundary lay for the conclusion changing the meaning of the text?  What is the difference between a biblical implication and a premise based on conclusions?  Seems to me that allowing non-explicit premises(those alluded to from "conclusions") to have the same authority as Scripture is to open the gate so wide that we are drowning in a sea of information while yet starving for knowledge.  As I stated in an earlier email, where the method of allegory is allowed, the only interpretative brake is the creativity of the imagination.  If Scripture can not be broken it is because it is its own brakes.  Secretly induced heresies ride in as half-truths from abstracted ideas or generalizations, implied ideas, conclusions, (all unresolved tensions or "happy" inconsistencies) and etc etc etc.  Something must control the boundaries.  I say, don't move the marker and let libertinism get a foothold to control  where the boundary marker may be moved.  Sincerely, Doug Skiles.
--
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