Reading posts and arguments I noticed @Martin Marprelate used a common fallacy (in an argument it is a fallacy men use when they have no legitimate argument), which h was "the obvious meaning of Scripture".
We see this fallacy in many forms (the obvious meaning, normal reading, Scripture when properly understood, etc).
These types of fallacies are used when the text in question does not actually relate to the conclusion. It is a way to bridge that gap without actually bridging the gap but by trying to shut down discourse.
For example, Steve says "the obvious meaning of John 10:34" is that we will become gods over our own worlds". Steve could not connect the verse to his conclusion so he tries to shut down the argument by using a fallacy.
What @Martin Marprelate did, and what others sometimes do, is try to escape the fact that their conclusion is not an interpretation but a theory that is trying to use Scripture as support (it is not derived from the Biblical text itself). As such, there is no argument that can be made to defend the conclusion.
Men flock to men who share their theories (they look for "teachers" who tickle their ears). This is why Calvinists will look to men like Owen and Knox as "God given teachers" while Methodists look to men like Wesley and Miley.
The problem here is ultimately those who do this are placing themselves as the authors of their faith (they choose Owen or Miley because those men echo their belief).
BUT . . . What IF the Bible is God's revelation to man, God's actual words? What if the Bible actually teaches "what is written" and what Christians need is the guidance of the Spirit in illuminating and applying God's Word?
Christians will still hold different interpretations, but disagreements would be about the meaning of "what is written" in Scripture. Christians would disagree because we see now as through a glass, but we would be united in Christ with the same standard of doctrine. We would also have to recognize that our understanding is flawed, not yet full, and evolving throughout our lifetime. We would have to leave ideas about God that are not revealed in the text of Scripture as unknowable, at least in the present.
This is something many Calvinists, like @Martin Marprelate , cannot accept.
We see this fallacy in many forms (the obvious meaning, normal reading, Scripture when properly understood, etc).
These types of fallacies are used when the text in question does not actually relate to the conclusion. It is a way to bridge that gap without actually bridging the gap but by trying to shut down discourse.
For example, Steve says "the obvious meaning of John 10:34" is that we will become gods over our own worlds". Steve could not connect the verse to his conclusion so he tries to shut down the argument by using a fallacy.
What @Martin Marprelate did, and what others sometimes do, is try to escape the fact that their conclusion is not an interpretation but a theory that is trying to use Scripture as support (it is not derived from the Biblical text itself). As such, there is no argument that can be made to defend the conclusion.
Men flock to men who share their theories (they look for "teachers" who tickle their ears). This is why Calvinists will look to men like Owen and Knox as "God given teachers" while Methodists look to men like Wesley and Miley.
The problem here is ultimately those who do this are placing themselves as the authors of their faith (they choose Owen or Miley because those men echo their belief).
BUT . . . What IF the Bible is God's revelation to man, God's actual words? What if the Bible actually teaches "what is written" and what Christians need is the guidance of the Spirit in illuminating and applying God's Word?
Christians will still hold different interpretations, but disagreements would be about the meaning of "what is written" in Scripture. Christians would disagree because we see now as through a glass, but we would be united in Christ with the same standard of doctrine. We would also have to recognize that our understanding is flawed, not yet full, and evolving throughout our lifetime. We would have to leave ideas about God that are not revealed in the text of Scripture as unknowable, at least in the present.
This is something many Calvinists, like @Martin Marprelate , cannot accept.