Come on, I have had debates with Atheist but I have also had to pretty much break up potential fights between two persons of
Faith over an interpretation of a scripture.
Not exact matches
Many questions ensue, not only from representatives of other
faiths but also among members of one
faith who may disagree
over the
interpretation of their scripture.
Evangelicals are those who believe in (1) the need for personal relationship with God through
faith in the atoning work of Jesus Christ, and (2) the sole and binding authority of the Bible as God's revelation, but they are at an impasse
over the
interpretation of major theological matters.
Ever since the Reformation there has been a dispute among exegetes
over the central word of this phrase, but today a way towards a common
interpretation seems to be opening up once more -LSB-...]: «
Faith is the hypostasis of things hoped for; the proof of things not seen».
The subsequent interpreter who received the text has labored diligently
over the text, as does the contemporary interpreter, because
faith requires
interpretation.
Yet even on these terms it should remain possible for an interpretive community to make a conscious decision to hear the Bible as scripture, to believe in the coercive and constraining force of the Bible's own unique literary construction, and to regard itself as trying to live out the demands of a word and a God that stand
over it, in continuity with communities of
faith within the Bible and in the church's ongoing history of
interpretation.
Over the past two centuries, Old Testament theology has been shaped by two countervailing forces: since the Reformation, the church has been reluctant to free the Bible from its doctrinal
interpretations; but since the Enlightenment, the history - of - religions approach that prevails in the academy has refused to be limited by the constraints of
faith.