tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27046650.post7201529357913985679..comments2024-01-03T05:26:38.706-06:00Comments on Journey To orthodoxy: The Commenter's CommentaryUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27046650.post-2165293542080121482008-10-31T14:31:00.000-05:002008-10-31T14:31:00.000-05:00Nathan, Yes, that is the translation of the Latin,...Nathan, <BR/><BR/>Yes, that is the translation of the Latin, but the concept of "Sola Scriptura" does not necessarily mean that "nothing is needed to aid the original text," though there are some (particularly in the fundamentalist camp) who might try to make such an argument. For most, it simply means that if there is ever a contest between what Scripture seems to be plainly saying, and some theological idea, the Scripture holds more weight of authority than the theological tradition. Even Luther (who I believe popularized the phrase) said "Unless I shall be convinced by the testimonies of the Scriptures or by clear reason...," thus appealing to both scripture and reason. That "nothing else is needed" is most certainly not a premise held by all Protestants. Most Protestant theologians I know of hold more to what is called the "Wesleyan Quadrilateral" (attributed to John Wesley) as an approach to theological authority. The four sources here are: Scripture, Tradition, Reason, Experience. This is what we were taught at Ouachita, and this is more or less what is practiced at Truett Baptist Seminary. <BR/><BR/>The idea of "Sola Scriptura" is being increasingly rejected among Protestant theologians as being an inadequate term, precisely because it is impossible to ONLY have scripture, and it is important to--as you say--"give the early church fathers a vote."<BR/><BR/>You may be interested to know that a Baptist church in Waco actually reads from the early church fathers every Sunday--http://www.ourdayspring.org.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10682585331782239902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27046650.post-23398011180344891652008-10-31T13:15:00.000-05:002008-10-31T13:15:00.000-05:00ADAM,Sola Scriptura is "Scripture Alone". Any conc...ADAM,<BR/>Sola Scriptura is "Scripture Alone". Any concordance, commentary, whether it be categorizing of text or interpretaton, is not Sola Scriptura and is not consistant with the Protestant premis that nothing is needed to aid the original text including history or the Early Church Fathers. Why do Sola Scriptura Advocates preach sermons full of man's words and explanations? Why not just stand and read the scripture if it is sole sufficient? Sola Scriptura Advocates are not consistant in their methods of interpretation. They do use sources outside the scripture but refuse to give the early church fathers a vote. This was my point.JTO Editor Nathan Lee Lewishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01508044089049795771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27046650.post-85208013166103558112008-10-25T01:03:00.000-05:002008-10-25T01:03:00.000-05:00Hey Nathan! I hope all is well with you. Sorry I...Hey Nathan! I hope all is well with you. Sorry I've not stopped in to you blog in a while. I've tried to e-mail you a few times, but I'm not sure if you're getting them because I never hear back. Shoot me an e-mail sometime, or give me a call even. I'm still at the same mobile number.<BR/><BR/>I don't know if this will help in your conversation with "The Commenter", but "Strong's Concordance" is not a "commentary" (i.e. an interpretation of scripture) but a "concordance." I could very well be misreading you here, but your response to him sounds a little like you might be confusing the two, because there is no "interpretation" involved in a concordance. Concordances are simply a list of the places in which a certain Hebrew or Greek word is used in the scripture. <BR/><BR/>That doesn't make his argument valid though. I'm not sure what he means by "go back to Pentecost." If by that he assumes that he can strip off all interpretive goggles of Reformation, Romanism, Orthodoxy, etc., and be able to see what the "real" church looked like, he is quite mistaken. Even when you strip off all interpretive lenses of past traditions, you are still looking through the interpretive lens of your own context and presuppositions. It makes much more sense, I think, to listen carefully to the voices of the past instead of trying to get past them altogether. If Pentecost means anything, it is that Holy Spirit has been with the church, so I'd say it's worth listening to.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10682585331782239902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27046650.post-48837637104352709312008-10-23T17:00:00.000-05:002008-10-23T17:00:00.000-05:00Why is it that protestants accept the decision of ...Why is it that protestants accept the decision of the Council of Carthage that determined which books went into the New Testament yet they reject the very Church which made that decision?VSOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12400266818545081938noreply@blogger.com