Re: [asa] An Evangelical Manifesto

True -- but the point there is that if you want to discuss theology, or
anything else, you have to work at it and not remain naive. In theology, as
in any field, there are terms of art with special meanings. In law, for
example, we talk about "binding precedent" -- except that not every prior
case is precedent, and no binding precedent is binding in an absolute
sense. In fact, alot of legal education is introducing basic terms and then
spending weeks showing all the ways in which those terms don't mean exactly
what they seem to mean.

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu>
wrote:

> A naïve Cuban would read "sola scriptura"' and understand it as "only
> scripture." As such, then it is an incomplete statement, which needs an
> object. For instance, "only scripture can tell us about Jesus" and so on.
>
>
>
> Moorad
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Rich Blinne
> Sent: Fri 5/9/2008 9:30 AM
> To: David Opderbeck
> Cc: John Walley; Dick Fischer; ASA; Mark Whorton
> Subject: 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 09:58:00 2008