Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roger Pearse · 11-16-2007, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timetospend

Anyway, I do not see sola scriptura as contradicting teaching or instructions. The problem that Luther encountered (again, I am not a fan) is that the Catholic church had interpreted scriptures whatever way that it wanted and added greatly to them. Since there was not any reason to believe that these interpretations/additions were acturate, he tried to reset Christian teaching back to the original using the only tool available.

Specifically he was objecting to the cynical use of indulgences as a tool to raise money by exploiting the desire of believers to do the right thing.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Toto · 11-16-2007, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

But are atheists endorsing such?

Just my habit of reading what people actually write, as opposed to what they think they write. I found myself wondering whether there was anything in Toto's reply that could not have been written by the most Ultramontane Catholic.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

I guess I should have added "The Pope Smokes Dope!"

I would disagree with Clouseau that Sola Scriptura merely indicates a preference for an interesting bit of writing. The Shakespeare Society might prefer Shakespeare, and the Thomas Paine society The Age of Reason, but I don't think that anyone would claim that all morality and truth is found in their favorite writings.

And I would like to know the implications of this for Sola Scriptura in modern evangelical thinking (since I am always interested in understanding evangelicals.)

Fighting 'Bibliolatry' at the Evangelical Theological Society

Quote:

...
"In the actual practices of the Evangelical community in North America, there is an over-commitment to Scripture in a way that is false, irrational, and harmful to the cause of Christ," he said. "And it has produced a mean-spiritedness among the over-committed that is a grotesque and often ignorant distortion of discipleship unto the Lord Jesus."

The problem, he said, is "the idea that the Bible is the sole source of knowledge of God, morality, and a host of related important items. Accordingly, the Bible is taken to be the sole authority for faith and practice."

This sounds good, except then he goes on to claim that "Demons do not exist in the Bible. They exist in reality," and that churches should work with the experts - exorcists - to understand them better.

:devil1: :devil3:

And also that "Rather than developing a robust epistemology in response to secularism, ... evangelicals reacted and retreated. Now evangelical theologians aren’t allowed to come to any new conclusions about the truths in Scripture, and they’re not allowed to find truths outside of Scripture. As a result, he said, they’re engaged in "private language games and increasingly detailed minutia."

That sounds like modern academia. . .

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.