Why do they call it a worldview?

Anyone who has read Luther's Small Cathecism knows that in the 16th century Lutheran worldview, Christians fell into three categories:

• Lutherans


• Catholics


• Reformed

Although Arminianism didn't exist at the time, this worldview pretty much lumps the Reformed and the Arminians together, something to which both groups would object.

I was reminded of this when I read this statement from Positive Liberty:

There is a presumption amongst reformed and fundamentalist Christians, that revelation reigns Supreme and Alone — Sola Scriptura.

Now this is where the Lutherans pipe up, "Hey, we're the Sola Scriptura people! What about us?"

Anyway, the Positive Liberty post goes on to discuss faith and reason.

There are two problems here to be addressed when looking at the fundamentalist’s view. First, the Bible itself does not advocate Sola Scriptura. Second, this need not be a stricter either/or situation, but rather can be a fuzzier both/and....

Sola Scriptura is strictly a religious construction. It is a Reformation doctrine that arose in response to the corruption of the Catholic Church. That response is understandable and was, initially, liberating.

But a lot of time has passed since then and the situation is different. We’ve passed through the Enlightenment, the age of Reason, the modernist/scientific era, and are now in a postmodern era where the assumption is that truth is relative, authority has to prove itself worthy, and people choose their beliefs from a cafeteria of systems.

Nailing Sola Scriptura to a door these days is an invitation to ridicule at best, and a court case, at worst.

Needless to say, I disagree with the relativistic viewpoint, or any claim that Scripture itself promotes this. More later.

[mrontemp business] | [mrontemp politics] | [mrontemp technology] | [mrontemp del.icio.us tags]

Sphere: Related Content