Optional discussions related to this part

• Were there good aspects of the medieval Roman Catholic Church?
• Doesn't downplaying the human origins of Scripture make the Bible more exciting?
• When Christians are illiterate, is it helpful for the church make authoritative decisions?
• Is it legitimate for the church to use images to teach illiterate Christians?
• Did classical polyvalence always ground the figurative meanings of Scripture in its literal meaning?
• How does the modern Roman Catholic Church interpret the Bible?
• How did the interpretive methods of the Reformers accord with Scripture?
• How did first-century Christians interpret the Bible?
• Was Matthew concerned with the original meaning of the Hosea?
• Did the Reformers base their theology entirely on their exegesis of Scripture?
• Did the Reformers really get their methods of interpretation from the Renaissance?
• How clear are the teachings of Scripture?
• no discussions related to this part
• no discussions related to this part
• Does the modern church overemphasize the divine origin of Scripture?
• How does a polyvalent approach differ from a search for literal meaning?
• Did the Reformers believe that Scripture could have multiple meanings?
• Why did the church move away from a polyvalent view of Scripture?
• Is every passage of Scripture limited to one, unified meaning?
• Should we use clear passages of Scripture to interpret unclear passages?
• Should we hold all our beliefs with equal conviction?
• no discussions related to this part
• no discussions related to this part
• no discussions related to this part
• no discussions related to this part
• no discussions related to this part
• no discussions related to this part
• no discussions related to this part