Scottish Common Sense Realism

Implicit in Scottish commonsense realism is a "picture theory" of language, which say that "words are directly knowable by the mind and, in addition, are direct representations of the objects to which they refer. Logically, therefore, words and sense impressions are identical in that each refers directly to objects. Those objects, in turn, are directly and with utmost certainty known by the mind." The most important Scottish commonsense realist, Thomas Reid (1710-96), put it this way: "Language is the express image and picture of human thoughts; and from the picture we may draw same certain conclusions concerning the original [object to which language refers]."

In Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2011), 56.

Inerrancy and disunity

Recall that among committed inerrantists we will find those who believe in "predestination" and "free will," and in "premillennial" and "postmillennial" eschatology, in "infant baptism" and "believer's baptism," in the "elder rule" and "congregational rule." On almost every important interpretive question in every biblical book, we find a wide variety of "inerrantist" readings. So it is clear that inerrancy does not guarantee a correct reading of Scripture, nor does it prevent all sorts of exegetical tomfoolery...Even though evangelicals deny the diversity of Scripture, the theological diversity within evangelicalism is a good and ready indicator of Scripture's truer nature...It is nardly conceivable that evangelicals could assent to so many differing and contradictory viewpoints if the Bible spoke as clearly and univocally as we are wont to suppose.

Kenton Sparks in Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2011), 26.

Interpretive Pluralism

...as the Reformation began to spin out of control (from his point of view) with the spread of Anabaptist and other sectarian groups, Luther had to back away fromt he perspecuity of only one "correct" view and recognize the potential to prove a wide variety of doctrinal positions from scripture, admitting, "I learn now that it is enough to throw many passages together helter-skelter, whether they fit or not. If this be the way, then I can easily prove from Scripture that beer is better than wine." In another, more general  sense, this problem of pervasive interpretive pluralism goes all the way back to teh recognition of the early church fathers Tertullian (155-230) and Vincent of Lerins (early fifth century) about the impossibility of using scripture to persuade heretics of the error of their ways. Vincent wrote, "Owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another, so that it seems capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters." According to Tertullian, scriptural "ambiguity" and the possibility of reading the Bible in different ways means that a "controversy over the Scriptures can clearly produce no other effect than help to upset either the stomach or the brain." Tertullian observed: "Though most skilled in the Scriptures, you will made no progress, when everything which you maintain is denied on the other side, and whatever you deny is (by them) maintained. As for yourself, indeed, you will lose nothing but your breath, and gain nothing but vexation from their blasphemy...Our appeal, therefore, must not be made to the Scriptures."

In Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2011), 21.

Joseph Smith and the problem of interpretive pluralism

In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinion, I often said to myself, What is to be done? who of all these parties are right? Or, are they all wrong together? If one of them is right, which is it, and how shall I know? The teachers of religion of the diferent sects destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible. At length I came to the conclusion that I must...ask of God.

In Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2011), 20.

Inerrancy and disunity

N.T. Wright observes, "It seems to be the case that the more you insist that you are based ont eh Bible, the more fissiparous you become; the church splits up into more and more little groups, each thinking that they have got biblical truth right." Likewise,Kevin Vanhoozer admits that "inerrancy--the belief that the Bible speaks truly in all that it affirms--does not necessarily generate interpretative agreement among those who hold to it...It is one thing to posit the Bible's truthfulness in all that it affirms, quite another to say what the truth of the Bible is." Similarly, D.A. Carson notes that "I apeak to those with a high view of Scripture: it is very distressing to contemplate how many differences there are among us as to what Scripture actually says...The fact remains that among those who believe the canonical sixty-six books are nothing less than the Word of God written there is a disturbing array of mutually incompatible theological opinions." As far back as 1958, Geoffrey Bromiley had observed--anticipating the present book's view--that "We have to recognize that the Bible is...a fruitful source of dissension and disunity in and among churches, so that acceptance of its authority does not solve at once the problem of unity...The interpretation of the Bible gives rise to a whole series of more or less important and divisive differences...These are obviously very real difficulties which cannot be ignored even if they cannot be fully embraced and answered....Even in this sphere (of the Bible) there is the constant bias to disunity."

In Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2011), 18-19

Augustine and obscure passages

“In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it.”

from The Literal Meaning of Genesis
 
Alister McGrath (The Passionate Intellect) points out that by "literal" Augustine really meant "literary." Interpretations should be faithful to the literary intent of a passage. (For instance, a passage intended to be taken figuratively should be taken figuratively.)  Augustine applied this principle first of all to the interpretation of Genesis 1-2 leaving open the possibility of various potential intepretations of the text other than a literal six day creation. (Notice that Augustine also says that these different interpretations are not necessarily outside of what we might call orthodoxy.) Augustine's words however have a much broader application than just the beginning chapters of Genesis. It is helpful to always remember that our interpretations of a great number of difficult passages should be held onto lightly.

when nationalism and dispensationalism collide on a church sign

By the way, bad theology aside - Psalms!!!!! Really?! Almost as bad as Revelations.

via Ed Stetzer