Despite feeling like I have one foot in the grave and one foot on a banana peel, I wanted to very, very quickly respond to Mr. Enloe. I had asked him to provide me with what should be fairly easily provided if, in fact, his assertions carry water. Specifically, should he not be able to provide clear examples from my writings where the application of sola scriptura (as Mr. Enloe understands the phrase) produces a marked, noticable difference in interpretation than that produced by nuda scriptura? Now, I confess, I have read Mr. Enloe’s comments only briefly, as my internet time is limited here in England, but I didn’t see any examples offered by Mr. Enloe. I will keep asking to see that kind of example.
But very briefly, Mr. Enloe did write this:
The most glaring example I have found in White’s writings is the October 22, 2004 entry (go here, scroll down) which, via a metaphor, openly questions the IQ of people who try to sail boats (theological systems) without removing the trailer (tradition) first.
Now, my point, of course, is that the folks in the boat didn’t know the trailer was there. Not only was it not supposed to be there in the first place (that was the IQ part), but the whole point was that these folks were treating their boat as if there was nothing “attached” to it. Since I have spoken of the necessity of recognizing and examining our traditions, and the grave danger of allowing our traditions to over-rule Scripture itself, I once again have to ask just what it means to assert someone believes in “nuda scriptura.” That will be the focus of my replies when I return to the US.
