Replies

I think we're close enough to having the same hermeneutic. I do believe that one can read the Scriptures alone and come to an orthodox faith simply by understanding the plain meaning of the text and comparing Scripture to Scripture. I know this because it has happened before. But I would also agree that when digging into the Scriptures and dealing with obscure passages, having the historical, cultural, linguistic, and even traditional backgrounds is useful at the very least and imperitive in some cases. In all cases, however, Dominor Scriptura should be the rule.

Now, returning to the issue of Matthew 18, why should I have to prove that the money wouldn't show up? Or that it would? You've not yet demonstrated that the context makes this statement a blank check. Until you do, why should I have to defend any proposition based on the blank check theory? You're the one claiming that's what it says, not I. Prove your premise.

Now, is the believer's authority over demons absolute? No, and I never claimed it was. There are certain things that we overstep our granted authority if we order them, like trying to command a demon to the Abyss before Judgement Day (which even Jesus didn't do), or commanding them for our own pleasure instead of casting them out to reclaim ground from and tear down the strongholds of the Enemy--that would be using the name of Jesus for sorcery, which is clearly forbidden by Scripture. And as I've already pointed out, there are rules, like never trying to deliver someone who isn't a Christian or against their will. Which is why I said in my previous post that you were partly right.

But that doesn't diminish Christ's promise that all believers would have authority over demons. It just means that our authority is still subject to a higher authority, that being His.

why should I have to prove that the money wouldn't show up? Or that it would? You've not yet demonstrated that the context makes this statement a blank check. Until you do, why should I have to defend any proposition based on the blank check theory? You're the one claiming that's what it says, not I. Prove your premise.

Law of Identity. "A" cannot equal "non-A." There is nothing in the context to lead one to conclude the promise is anything *but* a blank check. My premises are proven by your acknowledgement it's not a blank check. Your problem is to prove all the other promises under discussion *are*. That is, that they are blanket mandates.

And as I've already pointed out, there are rules, like never trying to deliver someone who isn't a Christian

This is the one point in your post that I disagree with. I've seen many non-Christians delivered. In fact the Gadarene demonaic was not a Christian yet Christ delivered him. For that matter, no one who had devils cast out of them in the NT was a Christian. They got saved AFTER the devils were gone. (and as seen before we will do greater works that Jesus did)

The trick is not in delivering the lost but in keeping them delivered (as Luke 11:24-26 applies)