tirtlegrrl wrote:Yes, I have no problem with the idea that God can "make the text say what it needs to say." But the claim that all other authorities are subject to the text doesn't make sense to me at all. The Bible doesn't sit up on a lectern by itself and tell people what to do. People read the Bible and then tell other people what to do.
tirtlegrrl wrote: The first aspect of the doctrine, that the Bible is all people need to come to proper knowledge of God (as opposed to them having to be a member of a particular religious club) to know anything true about God) is a good idea in theory, as it removes one level of bureaucracy between people and God. But the second part, that all other authorities are to be corrected by the word of God, doesn't really happen. What happens is that people with similar ideas about the most plausible interpretation band together and hold to that as the "true" teaching of the Bible, with varying degrees of confidence and arrogance. There's only correction within a particular hermeneutic community, there's not much inter-community correction happening, because interpretations can be and are disputed all over the place.
Yeah, I think it is quite clear that what you say is correct and true. Just because some evangelicals make the role of tradition less obvious does not mean that it isn't there. They learn from one another and those that dispute the accepted understanding there simply go elsewhere. So the idea that their understanding comes from the Bible only is just nonsense.