— Edited

After ten years, I am trying again to see if we can get a serious book discussion going. The books I chose will lean towards apologetics, hermeneutics, and worship simply because those are the areas I can easily annotate. When (and if) it the discussion aspect is fruitful, others may have permission to add books of interest to them. For the first book I have chosen Vadney, Victor. The Arrogant Journey: Hermeneutics and Church History. Abilene, TX: Desert Willow Publishing, 2012. link The Arrogant Journey | Logos Bible Software This is chosen because most of the critique revolves around the author's presentation/argumentation rather than the hermeneutical principle itself. It is a good example of how I read critically. First, I read the text adding notes where I especially like how a concept is present, where I find the text confusing or incomplete, and where I believe the author to be factually incorrect or logically flawed. Then I go back through my notes, add information for clarity or history, consolidating notes where appropriate etc. I have shared the notebook TheArrogantJourney collaboratively. Please choose a different icon than I have used for notes you add and mark your additions to existing notes. I expect most back and forth will occur here rather than the notebook. The book I am working on annotating next is a bit more mainstream: Rhodes, Ron. Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2000.

  2. As to your first question, I do not see your presentation as a fair description of the situation. I think history plays an important role in the development of theological belief systems, and I think most Protestant scholars (of which I am NOT) would agree. I agree with the importance of the first three axioms, taking care to note that the first has priority. In other words, 2 and 3 are important, but only if they do not contradict 1. I know, I know, here's where it gets messy. Who determines if a contradiction exists? I may have to leave that as a rhetorical question for now.

  3. Basically, Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would preserve the Gospel message in the Church through the Church as a whole ... the whole Church can never go astray although parts of it may. The way this has played out historically is arguing to consensus in councils - regional and ecumenical. Interestingly, the Mennonite retain a version of this by arguing to consensus at the congregational level. In short, 1,2, & 3 can never disagree; when they appear to, it's time for a council to figure it out collectively. Where things fall apart is when individual judgment replaces collective judgment.

  4. I like the general idea of what this means, but I see it working out differently in this messy world. For example, consider indulgences. You have Peter in acts absolutely disgusted by the idea that the gifts of the Holy Spirit could be purchased by money, and then you have the church saying that forgiveness can be purchased by money. In my mind, this represents a contradiction centered around the value of money. I do see plenty of contradictions throughout history that I don't think only exist because of individual interpretation. I agree with your statement that Christ promised to preserve the Gospel message through the Church, but I think the majority can go astray (wide is the way that leads to destruction), and God chooses to use individuals like Martin Luther to preserve that message in the Church.