That's a more palatable way of saying some people don't wish to be as discerning as others.
If the IRS says I should pay something, and they have a regulation on it, and I find that their language allows me to be very broad in my interpretation, then I'm not going to pay them.
LOL. That reminds me of the classic W.C. Fields response when he was found reading the Bible and was asked what he was doing.
"Lookin' for loopholes."
One can use such interpretive methods and claim to be in compliance all day long, but eventually if it is not in keeping with the meaning and intent it will be shown as such. That's precisely what happened at Dordt.
Apparently, we disagree.
I just sent a letter to a fellow pastor in our area who wanted me to oppose a ballot initiative against alcohol in our heretofore dry precinct. We have a major grocery chain that wants to build here, and they sell beer and wine. (The jobs in the area sure would be nice.)
I told him that I could not join in because I do not think the bible forbids the consumption of alcohol, that it only forbids drunkenness.
It is also true that many folks shop in this same chain in the communities around us, and all of those outlets do sell alcohol. I told him I thought it would be hypocritical for me to oppose in my own town what I do elsewhere.
Now, I suppose that there is a very narrow biblical interpretation of alcohol consumption or hypocrisy that will permit him to say that alcohol consumption is forbidden and that this would not be hypocrisy.
I will choose the broader interpretation BECAUSE I think it is the right, honest interpretation. It will not be because I want it to fit my opinions.
It is the same with understanding the reformation. It was originally viewed very broadly, and then some narrowed it to a movement narrowly focused on determinism.
I just don't see it that way. I'm not trying to be dishonest or anything. I simply don't see it that way.