"In response to the liberal/slippery slope dilemma, the question you could ask is "What did the author mean to say, and what would the original hearers have heard?" These questions are speculative, but they may be questions you can ask without sliding down the slope of cherry-picking or interpreting scripture on whims. I'd like to hear your thoughts on Ryrie's response to an author's intent charge."
On page 81, Ryrie discusses how God is sovereign and the language God chose the Scriptures to be written in would be clear to its readers in future generations. He writes:
"If God is the originator of language and if the chief purpose of originating it was to convey His message to humanity, then it must follow that He, being all-wise and all-loving, originated sufficient language to convey all that was in His heart to tell mankind. Furthermore, it must also follow that He would use language and expect people to understand it in its literal, normal, and plain sense. The Scriptures, then, cannot be regarded as an illustration of some special use of language so that in the interpretation of these Scriptures some deeper meaning of the words must be sought. If language is the creation of God for the purpose of converying His message, then a theist must view language as sufficient in scope and normative in use to accomplish that purpose for which God originated it."I think that the author's intent question is a good question. But, I think that most of the time people who are committed to a given theological perspective think that the author's intent supports their perspective. In other words, trying to "figure out" the author's intent could lead to complete subjectivity that appears to be objectivity.