FSSL said:
"My side"??? No sir. That is your side. You are grasping from anything you can get your hands on. Your interpretations are capricious and seek multiple meanings.
Not at all, my side, the Protestant side, is structured and believes in a high view of Scripture, so that the pattern of multiple senses will be very rigid in formation.
FSSL said:
You have learned well from Roman Catholicism!
That's mere rhetoric, whereas, there is a direct and definite link between your views and Infidelity.
FSSL said:
"'Come in, -- come in! and know me better, man!" You misrepresent Bernard Ramm... He DID teach that a single passage has a single meaning: "“But here we must remember the old adage: ‘Interpretation is one, application is many.’ " His statement on multiple fulfillments has no bearing on a single passage having a singular meaning.
There are in fact a large variety of different views of how and how much there are multiple meanings. The point is that Ramm is someone from YOUR side, who at least does not limit Scripture to just one and only one fulfilment. I have whole quotes from Ramm and others in my book on this subject.
FSSL said:
Here is a journal article consistent with Protestant tradition and my understanding:
http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj12c.pdf
And yet, your own side admits that there are many others, on your own side, who do not take a singularist view.
The MacArthurite view is far too narrow and wooden, and ironically gives credence to a doubtful view of Scripture (and yet MacArthur and his pals think that they are able to stand up for the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture as great witnesses, when they have such meagre views on Scripture).
I have answered and addressed R. L. Thomas' modernism and improper approach in my book on the subject.
Sadly, you are opting for a view which seeks to explain away so much of the Scripture, to lock away so much of the proper teaching of Scripture by your modernistic, one meaning onlyism.
The problem is that your specific part of the spectrum of your side uses dishonest propaganda against everyone else, accusing all and sundry of being as guilty as an Alexandrian, and susceptible to wild allegoricalism.
Notice that R. L. Thomas' foundation is also not a Gospel-based understanding, for he claims that interpretations not conforming to a MacArthurist view, and variety of interpretations, must all be the work of Satan. He says, "The entrance of sin in Genesis 3 brought a confusion in this area that has continued ever since."
Whereas, a Gospel based understanding says that proper understanding is the work of God, and is possible and resolvable by the Spirit.
What R. L. Thomas is actually advocating is the modernistic adage that men cannot attain to knowledge of the perfect (which is why Infidelity is the key component behind the attack on the KJB).
Anyway, I address all this and related issues in my book, Multiple Fulfilments of Bible Prophecy by Matthew Verschuur.
