Re: [asa] An Evangelical Manifesto

Sorry that was snippy. The reason the Reformers wouldn't say "scripture and
reason" is because they were dealing with a particular theological question
of authority. For them, only scripture has the authority as God's word.
This was in contrast to the Roman Catholic view that the Church tradition
was authoritative in addition to scripture. It was also tied to the
Reformation emphasis on the priesthood of all believers -- every individual
believer has the right and responsibility to read and apply scripture
himself, apart from the authority of the Church. However, in this context,
sola scriptura doesn't mean scripture is the only source of human knowledge,
or that reason and tradition can't be brought to bear on interpreting
scripture. Remember, even Calvin said we should ask astronomers about
astronomy, not scripture. So, "sola scriptura" does mean what it says, if
you understand the context of what it is actually addressing.

You might be interested in reading about the Wesleyan Quadrilateral of
"Scritpure, Tradition, Reason, Experience." It doesn't come directly from
Wesley but is based on his work. Even here, scripture remains the normative
authority for faith and life; the other sources form a lense or matrix
through which we can understand the Bible.

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 11:23 PM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:

> David,
>
> Granted I am not a credentialed Church Historian but I hardly think it is
> shooting from the hip to point out the inconsistency of you saying
> the phrase "scripture alone" does not mean "scripture alone". I would think
> anyone versed in the English language could catch on to this.
>
> Regardless of what it is supposed to mean, just like inerrancy, it does not
> mean what it says, A much better phrase than scripture alone would be
> scripture and reason, and this is not scripture alone.
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *David Opderbeck
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 08, 2008 11:09 PM
> *To:* John Walley
> *Cc:* Dick Fischer; ASA; Mark Whorton
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] An Evangelical Manifesto
>
> John, if you don't know what a theological term means, don't criticize
> it. You might not like it, but it hasn't mean what you think it means since
> Luther and Calvin, when it became a key distinctive of the Reformation.
> Have you actually read any Church history or do you prefer to just shoot
> from the hip all the time?
>
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 10:51 PM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Like the term "inerrancy", I have no use for terms whose
>> proponents contend it does not mean what it says. If sola Scripture doesn't
>> mean Scripture alone, then I think it it is disingenuous to say it has any
>> specific meaning at all. Keep in mind that historically sola Scruptura has
>> not necessarily incorporated reason. Thanks to sola Scriptura Luther
>> demonized Copernicus and dismissed him as a fool.
>>
>> Therefore again I say we need a modern term that captures this significant
>> distinction.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
>> Behalf Of *David Opderbeck
>> *Sent:* Thursday, May 08, 2008 10:23 PM
>> *To:* John Walley
>> *Cc:* Dick Fischer; ASA; Mark Whorton
>> *Subject:* Re: [asa] An Evangelical Manifesto
>>
>> Sola scriptura does not, even in its classical formulation, mean "solo
>> scriptura." It means scripture alone is the final authority for faith and
>> practice. It does not mean and never has meant that scripture is to be
>> understood in a vacuum, apart from reason and tradition.
>>
>> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 9:19 PM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with David's overall assessment of this being positive and a
>>> much needed response for Evangelicals to the Chicago Statement and the very
>>> significant absence of "inerrancy", however I also agree with Merv that the
>>> inclusion of sola Scriptura makes it almost nearly as flawed.
>>>
>>> Instead, I think we need a modern day term that captures the concept of
>>> Scripture + Spirit + the Body + nature and science and then I think this
>>> would be very positive. I don't know if there is a term for such a concept
>>> but if there is I would love to hear it. I am encouraged that are at least
>>> getting close however and I think this is a very good sign.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
>>> Behalf Of *David Opderbeck
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, May 08, 2008 1:00 PM
>>> *To:* Dick Fischer
>>> *Cc:* ASA
>>> *Subject:* Re: [asa] An Evangelical Manifesto
>>>
>>> Dick: Dallas Willard and Os Guiness are heavyweights. Check out
>>> their work on Amazon. I think you'd probably appreciate them both. While
>>> both emphasize basic orthodoxy, I don't think you'd find either of them to
>>> be interested in the "closed set" category. Same for Timothy George and
>>> Richard Mouw.
>>>
>>> I don't see this as anything like the Chicago Statement. The Chicago
>>> Statement was primarily a bunker reaction against a supposed liberalization
>>> of evangelicals. This I see as an effort to move some conservatives towards
>>> the center. Did you notice, BTW, that it express a high view of scripture
>>> but does not use the word "inerrancy?"
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 12:49 PM, Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Dave:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I took the "Steering Committee" as the committee and only saw three or
>>>> four, pardon me. That included only these that I could see had credentials:
>>>>
>>>> Timothy George; Dean, Beeson Divinity School, Samford University
>>>>
>>>> John Huffman, Pastor, St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Newport Beach,
>>>> CA, Chair, Christianity Today International
>>>>
>>>> Rich Mouw, President, Fuller Theological Seminary
>>>>
>>>> David Neff, Vice President and Editor in Chief, Christianity Today
>>>> Media Group
>>>>
>>>> Then there are also:
>>>>
>>>> Jesse Miranda, Founder & Director, Miranda Center for Hispanic
>>>> Leadership, Vanguard University
>>>>
>>>> Richard Ohman, Businessman
>>>>
>>>> Larry Ross, President, A. Larry Ross Communications
>>>>
>>>> Dallas Willard, Professor of Philosophy, University of Southern
>>>> California, Author
>>>>
>>>> Os Guinness, Author/Social Critic
>>>>
>>>> Heck, any of us could fit on that list, and maybe should have. Still,
>>>> I agree that it is probably a step in the right direction. My guess,
>>>> though, is that they regard it as a finished piece of work such as the 1978
>>>> Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy which unfortunately is etched in
>>>> stone and long outlived relevancy, and not a living document subject to
>>>> revision.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dick Fischer, author, lecturer
>>>>
>>>> Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham
>>>>
>>>> www.historicalgenesis.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
>>>> *On Behalf Of *David Opderbeck
>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, May 08, 2008 9:58 AM
>>>> *To:* Dick Fischer
>>>> *Cc:* ASA
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [asa] An Evangelical Manifesto
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dick said: I also noticed that only about three of a rather short list
>>>> of committee members had any credentials to speak of.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I respond: You need to read that list again. When you have Richar
>>>> Mouw, Timothy George, Os Guiness, and Dallas Willard on the steering
>>>> committee, and Miroslav Volf, Mark Noll, Alvin Plantinga, J.P. Moreland,
>>>> David Gushee, Darrell Bock, Justo Gonzalez, Kevin Vanhoozer, Amos Yong, Ron
>>>> Sider, and Jim Wallis as charter signatories, you've got some major
>>>> credentials floating around.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Again -- is anyone likely to agree with the whole thing? No. Do all of
>>>> the people above even agree on exactly what it means? Probably not. But
>>>> jeesh, if we can't recognize some positive affirmations when they happen,
>>>> what are we doing here but grumbling and whining to each other?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It struck me as an overly condemning opinion as to what liberalism can
>>>> lead to as opposed to a more benign characterization of liberal theology as
>>>> an honest attempt by sincere Christians to divide the word with a view
>>>> toward reconciling the words of Scripture with what is now an abundance of
>>>> scientific evidence. I also noticed that only about three of a rather short
>>>> list of committee members had any credentials to speak of. And where is
>>>> their feedback form to allow for refinements from critics? Any "kissing
>>>> Judases" got anything to add, you "sorry capitulators," you :>).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dick Fischer, author, lecturer
>>>>
>>>> Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham
>>>>
>>>> www.historicalgenesis.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
>>>> *On Behalf Of *Merv
>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, May 08, 2008 8:01 AM
>>>> *To:* Dick Fischer; asa@calvin.edu
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [asa] An Evangelical Manifesto
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dick Fischer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Any comments on this part?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Evangelicalism should be distinguished from two opposite tendencies to
>>>> which Protestantism has been prone: liberal revisionism and conservative
>>>> fundamentalism. Called by Jesus to be ―in the world, but not of it, Christians,
>>>> especially in modern society, have been pulled toward two extremes. Those
>>>> more liberal have tended so to accommodate the world that they reflect the
>>>> thinking and lifestyles of the day, to the point where they are unfaithful
>>>> to Christ; whereas those more conservative have tended so to defy the world
>>>> that they resist it in ways that also become unfaithful to Christ. The
>>>> liberal revisionist tendency was first seen in the eighteenth century and
>>>> has become more pronounced today, reaching a climax in versions of the
>>>> Christian faith that are characterized by such weaknesses as an exaggerated
>>>> estimate of human capacities, a shallow view of evil, an inadequate view of
>>>> truth, and a deficient view of God. In the end, they are sometimes no longer
>>>> recognizably Christian. As this sorry capitulation occurs, such ―alternative
>>>> gospels represent a series of severe losses that eventually seal their
>>>> demise:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> First, a loss of authority, as sola Scriptura (―by Scripture alone‖) is
>>>> replaced by sola cultura (―by culture alone); Second, a loss of community
>>>> and continuity, as ―the faith once delivered becomes the faith of
>>>> merely one people and one time, and cuts itself off from believers across
>>>> the world and down the generations; Third, a loss of stability, as in Dean
>>>> Inge's apt phrase, the person ―who marries the spirit of the age soon
>>>> becomes a widower; Fourth, a loss of credibility, as ―the new kind of
>>>> faith‖ turns out to be what the skeptic believes already, and there is
>>>> no longer anything solidly, decisively Christian for seekers to examine and
>>>> believe; Fifth, a loss of identity, as the revised version of the faith
>>>> loses more and more resemblance to the historic Christian faith that is true
>>>> to Jesus. In short, for all their purported sincerity and attempts to be
>>>> relevant, extreme proponents of liberal revisionism run the risk of becoming
>>>> what Søren Kierkegaard called ―kissing Judases – Christians who betray Jesus
>>>> with an interpretation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dick Fischer, author, lecturer
>>>>
>>>> Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham
>>>>
>>>> www.historicalgenesis.com
>>>>
>>>> While the general concern seems sound enough, it is still ... very
>>>> general. The criticized extremes are not specified. They are only labeled
>>>> as "exaggerated", "shallow", "inadequate", and "deficient". So of course
>>>> then, by definition, they are not where a Christian should be, but we are
>>>> still left wide open to decide what views or camps merit those words and to
>>>> apply them to whatever other category of thought we wish to criticize.
>>>>
>>>> Also, do participants here advocate "sola Scriptura" ---or do we
>>>> rather, as it seems to me, advocate more of a Scripture interpreted by the
>>>> help of other tools such as the wider body (the Church), and even nature
>>>> (the two book model)? Which is NOT, to my thinking, the same as
>>>> diminishing the authority of Scripture to a level below those other things,
>>>> but rather, recognizing that our interpretation of it can never happen in a
>>>> vacuum, and it is unhealthy to try and pretend so.
>>>>
>>>> --Merv
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> David W. Opderbeck
>>>> Associate Professor of Law
>>>> Seton Hall University Law School
>>>> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> David W. Opderbeck
>>> Associate Professor of Law
>>> Seton Hall University Law School
>>> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> David W. Opderbeck
>> Associate Professor of Law
>> Seton Hall University Law School
>> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> David W. Opderbeck
> Associate Professor of Law
> Seton Hall University Law School
> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.