The Fundamentalists never learn: They are likely very "solo" scriptura, but then anything they use that's reformed, is stolen from the Reformed. I said stolen because it is not their own and they do not give credit to the source, other than to God or "solo" scriptura. Some of them realized this, including David Tong, and try to do better, but they're just stuck at textbooks level, they still fail to get out of the fundamentalism circle: which is being a copycat. To get out, they need to engage in the struggles of people around them, not just understanding. This criticism, is probably the only one I give for the only son of Pak Tong.
Solo Scriptura? Bad grammar:
I guess my comment wasn't taken notice of. Again with this "solo". Probably related to this source (due to same image he copied):
There are enough online resources on this. Start here(1) (Keith Mathison/Doug Jones admitting their ungrammatical usage of it in the comments): Strictly speaking, it's irresponsible, but I wouldn't bother with it too much, because how many speak Latin? just for my own education. (2). (3).
The Chinese Translation of Keith Mathison's article is also available. It's interesting how the Chinese translated Sola Scriptura vs. Solo Scriptura = 唯獨聖經 與 唯讀聖經, got to love Chinese.
O Latin Case/declension:
Soli (dative="to something/someone" of solus) Deo (dative of Deus) Gloria
Sola Scriptura (ablative feminine="by/of/from/with/to" not nominative="to indicate subject" of solus)
Solus Christus (nominative masculine)
By using ablative form of Sola Scriptura, we say the Bible ALONE is the highest authority, NOT the only authority. Therefore, we should also take creeds, traditions and history seriously instead of blatantly reject them.
So the key is Sola Scriptura being in ABLATIVE case and NOT nominative case, which spells the same but would indicate that the Bible stands alone apart from God/anything else, and thus confusing, hence, it is likely the reason they chose "solo scriptura". But that would make either an ablative masculine or neuter of Scriptura, which is feminine.
However, technically, it can be differentiated. Using macrons, a modern approach, though I believe still grounded in ancient Latin in pronunciation and thus: rather than solo scriptura, they should use sōla scrīptūra (nominative), contrasting sōlā scrīptūrā (ablative). Basically, pronouncing the last "a" vowel longer, to have the doctrinally correct version.
Joined men's fellowship (of Redeemer) today, 2nd time after my own hiatus. Last week, saw Matt, was very encouraged. This week, not grouped with Matt, but it was ok. A few interesting topics were brought up, not enough time. Scott was kind enough to proactively invite me to speak up, twice.
This (Why Abba Fther does NOT mean Daddy) was circulated among the group in email but not touched on. But after quickly reading through it, my response is this: Abba sounds like the same as baba in Chinese. This "daddy" is more of an American thing, I can't relate it much. When I use "dad", it's equal to baba, just in English. But I guess Americans, or at least the author of this article considers dad is less respectful than abba. That's fine, I get that, but I'm sure "dad" can be used in a respectable way. Semantics.
Drew, coincidentally to my surprise, noticed the contrast between Matthew 5:16 and Matthew 6:1. I merely emphasized Matthew 5:16d: ...they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven, as the key difference.
Another play of words by Alex. Though he has some good stuff from time to time, but these play of words only displays jumping to conclusion on motives of others. A risk which often times ends on error and why I don't need to spend more time looking into at its face value. I just need to be aware of it.
