The more I live, the more I am convinced that there is no such thing as "scripture alone." Every reading of scripture is an interpretation. Every translation of scripture is an interpretation. No matter how objective I think I might be, I still come to the text as a 21 year old, white, female, middle class, graduate student, who thinks a certain way, and has lived a certain experience-- all things which will necessarily influence how I read the text.
Even Martin Luther, the espouser of the doctrine, is perhaps the best example of all. Certainly he read into Paul his experience the Catholic church and his distaste of legalism. If you ask N.T. Wright, we've all misunderstood Paul ever since.
Just a little something I've been thinking. Comments welcome.
Here's to embracing the entire quadrilateral.
Cheers.
Having spent the last 2 years around mostly Reformed types (which has been informative for me), I can say that no thoughtful Reformed/Lutheran thinkers use sola scriptura quite like that. In fact, and I feel like I can say this without equivocation, they tend to cherish and use tradition much more than others I know. The point of sola scriptura is that scripture is to be the 'norma normans' (I think that's the right phrase!) - the norm against which everything else is measured. Thus, it's not about wiping away the rest of the quadrilateral (or what have you), but setting it all in proper relation to scripture. Still, you don't necessarily have to agree with that but it's not the same thing.
ReplyDeleteEnjoy reading your blog! - Orrey