Re: [asa] An Evangelical Manifesto

On May 9, 2008, at 5:57 AM, David Opderbeck wrote:

> 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 see that from the get go that Sola Scriptura was all about the
authority of the teaching office of the church. Note Luther at the
Diet of Worms:

> "Unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reason - I do not
> accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have
> contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of
> God."

David O. quoted Wesley. Wesley underscored what Sola Scriptura was
about -- church authority -- this way:

> "In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the
> Scripture by the Church."

Dana Sovel in Gailleo's Daughter noted Gallileo's argument to the
church authorities concerning Scripture:

> The troubling news of Madama Cristina’s displeasure inspired an
> immediate response from Galileo. Even more than he regretted her
> opposition, he dreaded the drawing of battle lines between science
> and Scripture. Personally, he saw no conflict between the two. In
> the long letter he wrote back to Castelli on December 21, 1613, he
> probed the relationship of discovered truth in Nature to revealed
> truth in the Bible.
>
> “As to the first general question of Madama Cristina, it seems to me
> that it was most prudently propounded to you by her, and conceded
> and established by you, that Holy Scripture cannot err and the
> decrees therein contained are absolutely true and inviolable. I
> should only have added that, though Scripture cannot err, its
> expounders and interpreters are liable to err in many ways … when
> they would base themselves always on the literal meaning of the
> words. For in this wise not only many contradictions would be
> apparent, but even grave heresies and blasphemies, since then it
> would be necessary to give God hands and feet and eyes, and human
> and bodily emotions such as anger, regret, hatred, and sometimes
> forgetfulness of things past, and ignorance of the future.”
>
> These literary devices had been inserted into the Bible for the sake
> of the masses, Galileo insisted, to aid their understanding of
> matters pertaining to their salvation. In the same way, biblical
> language had also simplified certain physical effects in Nature, to
> conform to common experience. “Holy Scripture and Nature,” Galileo
> declared, “are both emanations from the divine word: the former
> dictated by the Holy Spirit, the latter the observant executrix of
> God’s commands.”
>
The arguments above reflect the Protestant (and Evangelical) tradition
and not some overly simplified sloganeering.

Rich Blinne

Member ASA

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri May 9 09:31:30 2008