...NKJV. But I swears I only listen to commentary as according to my Study Bible

I still prefer ESV

Yeah

I use the ESV

Awesome translation

But I am still unanswered, how does the Reformed determine infallibility of an interperation of Scripture?

"The general rule of interpreting Scripture is this: the literal sense of every text is to be taken, if it be not contrary to some other texts: but in that case the obscure text is to be interpreted by those which speak more plainly. Wesley, Letters, 3:129; 5:328."

In some ways though, a literal translation is not prefereable, like for instance where poetical or allegorical language is used

But for the most part, most if not the vast majority of passages of scriputre are pretty obviously meant to be taken literally

this is just method, who declares it?

Because I'm a protestant I will be honest, its up to the church and their theolgical statements.

which church?

However, I think we can differ on secondary and tertiary matters

I thought you said you were reformed when I asked if you're protestant

However, when it comes to primary matters, such as the ressurection, the gospel and whatnot those are non-negotiable

I am protestant bro

The reformed camp is from the protestant tradition

>Because I'm a protestant I will be honest, its up to the church and their theolgical statements.
literally moral relativism

Well not exactly man

The Bible stands as the single authorative, infallible inerrant piece of scripture

Interepretion thereof is not divine

It's relativist if interperation cannot be infallible

The Bible as it stands, is the anchor and the foundation, along with the Holy Spirit man

Well, not really

I think that mis characterises quite of lot of Christianity man

I mean have you been granted the gift of infallibility?

No, that's why we have Eccumenial Councils

The early church tooks years to hammer out the doctrines on the trinity and the person of christ

In that sense those councils were helpful

yes, they determine what is heresy or not

But it is authorative because it is derived from what has been said in scripture

yes, and you're saying we let fractured churched determine theological matters

They are not authorative because some bishop was like, 'meh, screw it.. that verse means this'

that's not how the Councils worked

Its authorative because they all were knoweledagble and debated like crazy about the passages

and looked at the scriputres in context and in reference to other parts of scripture

yes, so they deserve to determine what is heretical or not

Protestant churches haven't really decided much on primary matters man. Not much of the very central primary stuff has change, if at all

Protestant churches differ on secondary matters that don't determine whether someone is saved or not

They didn't declare sola fide as infallible truth, because they read the Book of John and declared that faith without works is dead

Yes