J_Edwards said:
Natural Revelation is always to be interpreted by special revelation and then appropriately applied.

What is your basis for this?

Why do you think that your fallible interpretation of the biblical text will always be more correct than your fallible interpretation of God's natural revelation that is relevant to that text?

Given your logic, you cannot argue with a Flat-Earth person.

His fallible interpretation of the biblical text trumpts his fallible interpretation of the natural world. According to your methodology he _cannot_ compromise and let his interpretation of the natural world affect his interpretation of the text.

My stance is this:
I am fallible in my interpretations of BOTH the biblical text AND natural revelation. When there is a conflict I cannot give one automatic preference over the other. I must weigh the evidence first and see which of my positions is in error. I know the sources from which I draw my interpretations are infallible (because God's biblical revelation is consistent with his natural revelation) but I cannot claim that EITHER of my interpretations are.


Last edited by BrianB; Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:38 PM.