A response, sort of, to @UTSDoc, in which I slam

…some bad beats.

Watson writes,

What’s interesting about this is that it essentially reverses the role of scripture during the period of canonization. Scripture was used to teach the faith of the church, a faith one could locate in various forms of the Rule of Faith.

via Church Coffee: Scripture and Tradition…. Just Sayin’.

I intend to agree with this statement. Because I do not feel like writing much, I’ve made a video.

Scripture does not come first — therefore, no solo/sola scriptura. We can settle for prima scriptura, however. Why? Because Tradition creates the Canon by authorizing it. Note, literary works existed before and after Tradition, often in conflict with Tradition. The canon – the set of books considered authoritative – is authorized by the Tradition shaped and shaping those literary works. Later, the canon becomes to shape tradition.

I know… right?

You Might Also Like

7 Replies to “A response, sort of, to @UTSDoc, in which I slam”

      1. I’m probably carrying the analogy too far. But in an amplifier, you provide negative feedback (taking part of the output, invert it, and feeding it back to the input), which instantaneously adjusts the output to keep it within normal specified values. Prevents deviation of the output from normal values. But in social sciences and social engineering, I assume they place moral values on the terms. So “normal”, “deviation from normal”, have a moral value. And negative feedback, becomes positive feedback as provided by, say, the canon and tradition. In EE, positive feedback causes the output to hit the stops, saturating the amplifier, and is a bad thing, not a good thing. I prefer electrical engineering over social engineering. Also, nothing instantaneous about social feedback. I am rambling too much.

        1. hahaha… yeah a little.
          What I meant was that Social Sciences are closer to engineering than to natural sciences because social sciences, as engineering, look to solve (explain) an specific problem (phenomenon) that is in an specific location. Sciences on the other hand function in the natural realms which must be applied equally across the board.
          For example, the theory of secularization, when Weber, Durkheuim, et al, developed it, they assumed that religion would subside by now and pushed to the boundaries or the personal. Of course that theory failed when applied globally because it was Eurocentric. Even then, perhaps it is Westo-centric (Western europe). So by localizing the phenomenon/problem, it is possible to create a solution/explanation that is localized also. That was what I meant… but Im waffling aswell 🙂

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.