I saw this soundbite on a comment on Daniel Newman's blog by rjs1 and rather liked it:
"Sola Sriptura not solo scriptura".
I've no idea how it mangles the Latin tongue but I think it makes a good point.
It reminds me of an article by Prof Tony Lane in which he points out that even "sola scriptura" is a post-reformation slogan.
The reformers believed in the supreme final authority and unique infalibility of Scripture. They did not believe in hyper-strict version of "Scripture Alone". They accepted other lesser sources of "authority" (such as reason, tradition etc.) in addition to the Bible and knew that Scripture could never be understood strictly "alone" for example, apart from the illuminating work of the Spirit or an understanding of the language in which Holy Writ is writ.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
Marc,
I realise you probably don't want to know this but...
Solo Scriptura would just be gibberish. Scriptura is a feminine noun, whereas solo would be a masculine or neuter, dative or ablative singular form of the adjective.
Can't happen!
Good point though.
I'm glad it can't happen! It reminds us that there are no neutral readings of the Bible alone on its own terms. As I say above, this is true of the meaning of words, especially of words that only occur once in the Bible. In addition readers always bring their frameworks and apply what they read to their situation etc.
Check out Keith Mathison's "A Critique of the Evangelical Doctrine of Solo Scriptura"
Post a Comment