They certainly are, about the interpretation of events that happened 3,8000 years ago. The issue is not necessarily whose faith is older, but whose faith traces to Jesus better.
You are only talking about the things we disagree on
Of course. When I say Reformed faith I only mean these parts that meke it distinctly Reformed, and I realize that there is, thank God, great overlap of common belief. Moreover, even though unlike the ever-patient Jo Kus, it is not so apparent with me, I share his view that in fact the Protestants are much closer to us than they themselves realize.
Catholics seem to say that plain meaning is that meaning which agrees with Tradition. Protestants seem to say that plain meaning is that meaning which agrees with the words of the text
The sticky point is "plain at what time?" No one wants an extravagant interpretation, but we want the reading that conforms with the intent of the writer, and he lived 2,000 years ago.
Living God, living Word of God.
Good point. That is not an easy thing to do, considering we are 2000 years removed. Things that were "obvious" to those people hidden in the writings are not so obvious to us.
Regards
If that's true, then I'll take it. :) My preference would be for all true Christians to be as unified as possible.
The sticky point is "plain [meaning of scripture] at what time?" No one wants an extravagant interpretation, but we want the reading that conforms with the intent of the writer, and he lived 2,000 years ago.
You're right, the writer did live 2,000 years ago. He also lives today. He also lived before the creation of the earth. Since God invented time, He knew how to get the maximum benefit out of language in order to communicate ideas that would become timeless. The writer used different voices to convey one perfect message. The intent of one part of the message can be discerned by looking at other parts of the message to see if there is unity of purpose within the message as a whole.