Posted by turmarion
One of the keystones of traditional Protestant theology is the concept of sola scriptura. This means literally “by Scripture alone”. That is, all doctrines and practices of Christianity must be derived from Scripture. Tradition, commentary, and development are not necessarily bad, but they may never be normative for belief and practice. My post from some time back, “Nulla Scriptura” was a deliberate pun on this, as it means, “by nothing [of] Scripture.”
Back here, I said the following:
Of course, I’d say that open theism, as well as many other flavors of Protestantism, has too high a view of Scripture, anyway. I don’t mean that in the sense of saying that Scripture isn’t inspired, or of encouraging a “low” view of it. Rather, I mean the tendency to take it more or less as is without looking at context or the philosophical implications. I’ve read essays by open theologians in which they’ve gone so far as to say that if the theology or philosophy says one thing, and Scripture says another, then Scripture must be preferred, even if it seems to paint God in peculiar ways (e.g. limited knowledge, changing His mind, etc.). By that logic we’d have to jettison the value of pi!
What I want to do here is to elaborate on that concept, both in a general, theoretical way, as it pertains to Christianity and Christian thought in general; and also in a concrete, specific way, as it pertains to my own church, the Catholic Church, particularly in 21st Century America.
Tags: Archibald McLeish, Ars Poetica, atheism, Bible, C. S. Lewis, Catholicism, Christianity, communication theory, epistemology, metaphor, poetry, religion, Scriptural interpretation, scripture, St. John of the Cross, Stanley Hauerwas, T. S. Eliot, The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, William Blake, William Lane Craig