Defense of Sola Scriptura

[benedictus2]

No. Sola Scriptura has nothing to do with arbitration.

Duh! I am no talking about arbitration. The point I was making there is that your argument begs the question. Re-read the point I was making there.

As to the rule/canon/norma normans, what Sola Scriptura embraces is ANOTHER rule - outside, above, beyond all the parties to which ALL are subject. It is the alternative rubric of The Catholic Church that demands that it and it itself exclusively serve as the judge and that the rule/canon/norma normans is: The Tradition of itself as interpreted by itself, the Scripture in the heart of itself as interpreted by itself, and the Magisterium of itself and the decisions, rulings, interpretations and arbitrations of itself - these three things equally and inseparately.

Don’t you just get it. You cannot set up a rule because that (the Bible) which we are trying to asses was measured against another rule (Tradition).

The books of the Bible ended up being included in the Bible because the past muster against tradition. Those that did not conform to tradition were left out.

1. Moot, since we’re not discussing the doctrine of Scripture, this thread is about the embrace of such as the rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of positions.

Not moot. Your point on the other hand is all just words that don’t mean anything because in the end, who has the right to interpret a book is the one who wrote it. Since the Catholic church wrote and canonized the Bible then she is the one who has the right to interpret it and set the norm by which it will be interpreted. And from the beginning that norm has been tradition.

1. You seem to be missing your own point! WE ALL embrace it - it, something outside and above and beyond ALL OF US. Equally knowable by all, equally unalterable by all. NO ONE is pointing to self (whether the Tradition or interpretations or magisteriums or views), it is a rule we ALL accept and its a rule OUTSIDE and above ALL parties.

But you have not come up with a sound argument for what it is and why it is. No I do not embrace what ever it is you are trying to explain here. You are not making any sense at all because you are couching your post in thoughts that meander here there and everywhere.

1. Since we all view it as inerrant, that makes it a PARTICULARLY good rule!! An IDEAL rule for us would be the very inscriptured words of God Himself - written in black and white so that we ALL know exactly what such is, knowable, unalterable.

But this is the whole point. We don’t know that. The only know it is inerrant because the Church who wrote it said so. If we view it as inerrant, that is not the sole rule because the rule before the Bible being inerrant was Tradition. Don’t you get that?

If you believe the Bible is inerrant then you have to accept that the Church is infallible and therefore the rightful interpreter of her own book.

Viewed by all as inerrant, reliable. THAT would be an ideal rule/canon/norma normans!!! Thing is, it exists. **If you can think of something MORE the inscriptured written words of God Himself, MORE inerrant, MORE knowable/unalterable, MORE outside and above all parties (including The Catholic Church, you, me, Luther, Pope Benedict, etc.) - thus a better rule/canon, then propose it. **

Okay then, WHAT IS IT THAT IS MORE “aninerrt, MORE knowable/unalterable, MORE outside and above all parties (including The Catholic Church, you, me, Luther, Pope Benedict, etc.) - thus a better rule/canon, then propose it” ?

 

[benedictus2]

.

1. The Catholic Church had nothing to do with it.
2. You seem to be missing your own point: WE ALL AFFIRM IT AS RELIABLE. Why we do is moot to the point.

Maaan, here is it is slowwwly.

1. The Catholic Church has EVERYTHING to do with it because SHE WROTE IT, THEN SHE CANONIZED IT.

If you wrote a book and some people were arguing over certain points in it, the best person to explain what the book means is you.

1. If WE ALL AFFIRM IT AS RELIABLE, then we all must accept that Catholic Church is realiable and infallible. And if the Catholic Church is relliable and infallible then we have no need of another norm which you insist in makig up. Or is that logic too hard to follow?

In Physics, we all embrace math as reliable. I don’t recall anyone is asking WHY we do. The critical points are: 1) It’s OUTSIDE, ABOVE and BEYOND all parties - knowable, unalterable. 2) It’s regarded as reliable sufficient for the process.

The reason we cannot get someoe to interpret this that is above and beyond all parties, because the only one who can do that is God.

Now do you really expect me to believe that God whispers the meaning of the Bible to you?

1. Again, a rule/canon need not be INERRANT. I will pay my taxes by April 15th because the Rule of Law applies in the USA and that law so states - it is the canon for that issue. Do I think that law is inerrant? Nope. Do I need to? Nope. If a policeman stops me for going 50 MPH and says I was speeding, he may direct BOTH of us to that big, white, square sign next to us that proclaims, “MAX SPEED LIMIT 35 MPH” - he is subject to that, I’m subject to that. It’s called The Rule of Law. Now, THAT law is not inerrant. THAT law is not historically and ecumenically embraced. THAT law is not the inscripturated words of God Himself - and yet you accept it as the canon in that situation. Friend, you seem to be missing your own point. Scripture is viewed by ALL OF US as the inerrant, inspired, inscripturated words of God Himself. What can you propose is regarded by all of us as MORE inerrant, inspired, and the inscripturated words of God Himself so as to be MORE reliable and a better canon/rule/norma normans? And you seem to be missing your point that Scripture is not you. It’s not me. It’s not The Catholic Church. It’s not Martin Luther or Pope Benedict or Joseph Smith or Joel Osment or me or you - it’s ABOVE, OUTSIDE all of us, knowable equally to all of us, unalterable by all of us.

Sorry but you write a lot of senseless analogies. The logic of the my argument is simple. Stick to the point.

If you will stoop writing for a while and try understanding what I have written we will get much farther than this.

I thought I was verbose but you beat me hands down.

 

[benedictus2]

I never said I support gay marriage

Good to know.

just pointed out common argued points some denominations use with regard to Continuous Revelation, although to me such matters in the end are a matter of those involved and God. Personally in the few cases where two people are confirmed homosexuals and come to each other, since it is in fact very small a percentage of people I would consider an Affirmation of Love in the matter.

Hmmm, means the same thing minus the legality. It still means an affirmation that gay sex is okay.

As for Tradition verses Continuous Revelation the RC uses both in your councils its clear you call on the latter but shore it up with the former. Most who use Continuous Revelation shore it up with the Tradition I will note many faiths do have strong conservative aspects such as the Evangelical Charismatic movements are very much anti-homosexualin practicing it. And like you would say if such persons abstain they are not living in sin, I think that is correct of the RC position. But these same movements often have women ministers drawn from the simple fact God doesn’t see men and women as different creatures before Him. So they and I note He can call to ministry and leadership whome He wishes. The same if He calls a black person or a asian person He doesn’t see race.

Ministry yes. Priesthood no. There are many women who have lay leadership in the Church.

Also, revelation ended with the death of the last apostle.

As for Sola Scriptura I will note that its not true tradition doesn’t matter to denominations. I was raised in the WELS (Wisconsin Evagelical Lutheran Synod) and they draw on what they refer to as core teachings and Old Church Traditions noted in the Bible but focus on the superiority of scripture. I suspect that is not unique. They just don’t support Papal Traditions but Luther’s work.

But that is exactly what is laughable about it. They reject tradition in favour of their own tradition. So here again, it is the rearing of the head of the unholy trinity of i/me/myself.

I don’t ignore tradition I look at the example of Jesus and the first organized faith after the Pentacost that were Christian. That is tradition after all the Apostles led it and its clear the early days the faith grew and they honored Jesus.

And that first organized faith happens to be the same Catholic Church that exists now. Then it was but an acorn. Now it is a full blown tree.

When I see the later formation of a central faith and later the RCC formed centuries of horrors made in the name of Christ, for one example the Spanish Inquisition.

You ought to read a bit more about the Spanish Inquisition. Don’t rely on what you have been fed by your protestant colleages. I would say 95% of them would be lies.
The Inquisition
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/inquisition.htm

I can point out many others that the Pope as the head of the Church should be held accountable for.

No doubt. Abuse and corruption is certainly documented. But this is where you need to exercise a bit more of rational thinking. We never claimi impeccability. Only infallibility. There is no error in doctrine and moral teaching. There was much to be desired in the way they lived up to this teaching. They were hypocrites, that’s all.

They never practiced what they preached, but they never preached the evil that they practiced.

I agree there was good done but that cannot be used to overlook evils done.

No. I did not say that. But if you are going to look at the evil done by the some members of the Church, then you really ought to look at the evil and henous practices of the reformation which they managed to keep hidden from your view. I would do a little bit of digging if I were you.

So when you say Tradition of the Church I question that for the reason if your right the Jesus of the Bible and the grace of the NT mean nothing to the Councils and Popes in many cases. Not all but reigns of terror are not the Way as far as Jesus taught.

I think I answered this point about regarding not preaching what they practiced. But remember, the books that made it to the Bible were first measured against sacred tradtion. This is how they determined which ones are in or out, if it measured up to apostolic tradition.

As guanophore rightly pointed out in another thread, the gospel was already proclaimed by the Church even before a single word of the NT was written.

So my question would be what Tradition with a Big T are we to use to shore up Sola Scriptura and Continuous Revelation that of the Bible leaning to the former, or the RC view and their Tradition?

As I have already explained above, Scripture was measured up against Apostolic Tradition. Before Scripture, there was the Church and her Tradition.

Remember, Christ did not write a book, He built a Church.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Maaan, here is it is slowwwly.1. The Catholic Church has EVERYTHING to do with it because SHE WROTE IT, THEN SHE CANONIZED IT.

Let me respond slowwwly…

The Catholic Church doesn’t even claim that it even EXISTED when most of the Bible was written.
The Catholic Church doesn’t have hands or eyes and thus CANNOT write ANYTHING.
The Catholic Church didn’t tell the Israelites that the Ten Commandments is Scripture (or any other Scripture).
The Catholic Church had NOTHING to do with what books are embraced as Scripture (read the history!) - it didn’t even exist when most of this happened. It didn’t do ANYTHING whatsoever related to this until OVER THREE CENTURIES AFTER the last Scripture was penned, and all it did was acknowledge the books ALREADY accepted.

And none of this has a thing to do with the topic of this thread.

]Now do you really expect me to believe that God whispers the meaning of the Bible to you?

1. Entirely moot to the issue of this thread, we’re discussing the embraced rule for norming - not ANY principle of hermeneutics.
2. If you have an issue with self insisting that God only whispers and leads self so that self is the sole interpreter - then take that up with The Catholic Church (hint: read The Catholic Catechism # 85), not with me. I don’t hold to that view, The Catholic Church does. And you are again off topic, this thread is not about any principle of hermeneutics, it’s about the embraced rule in norming.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

The only know it is inerrant because the Church who wrote it said so. If we view it as inerrant, that is not the sole rule because the rule before the Bible being inerrant was Tradition. Don’t you get that?

1. So, the Jews in 1400 BC accepted The Ten Commandments as normative because The Catholic Church told them that? Or they checked it against the specific Tradition as chosen and currently defined by The Catholic Church? I don’t think so…
2. Yes, The Catholic Church teaches that Scripture is inerrant. But then so did Judaism CENTURIES earlier, and so does The Eastern Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church, and most Protestant denominations. Your denomination is not alone in this - which is the point I made. In embracing Scripture, we are ALL embracing a rule accepted by ALL. And it is not you or me or Pope Benedict or Martin Luther or Joel Osment - it is outside, above and beyond ALL parties involved in the norming. It is knowable to ALL, unalterable by ALL, historically and ecumenically embraced as reliable.
3. A rule need not be inerrrant to be embraced as such. In physics, we use math and repeatable experimental evidence - neither of which is necessarily “inerrant.” But it is regarded as sufficiently reliable as the norma normans. But in theology, the IDEAL would be something objective, written in knowable, unalterable words ALL can read; the very inscripturated words of GOD HIMSELF, historically and ecumenically embraced including by the parties in the process of evaluating. Above and beyond ALL parties. Protestants believe this ideal actually exists!! The Catholic Church rejects this rule, insisting that the only rule/canon/norma normans it will permit to be used to norm it’s own teachings is: 1) It’s own teachings, called Catholic Traditions, which it alone chooses, defines and interprets PLUS 2) The Scriptures in its own heart as interpreted by its own self so as to conform to the teachings of its own self PLUS 3) the Magisterium of its own self as chosen by its own self and the rulings, decisions, interpretations, views and arbitrations of its own self. If these 3 things affirm the teachings of its own self as determined solely by its own self, then - ergo - the teachings of its own self are deemed correct. We think this is not only a perfect circle of self authentication, but actually is entirely moot to the issue of correctness: self is simply looking at self and determining that self agrees with self. Self usually does. It has nothing to do with self being correct.

**Okay then, WHAT IS IT THAT IS MORE “aninerrt, MORE knowable/unalterable, MORE outside and above all parties (including The Catholic Church, you, me, Luther, Pope Benedict, etc.) - thus a better rule/canon, then propose it” **

Yes, do. If you reject using Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans as positions (including those of The Catholic Church) are evaluated, then WHAT is more reliable, more inspired, more the inscripturated words of God, **more **historically (back to 1400 BC) historically embraced, more ecumenically embraced BEYOND just one participant (such as The Catholic Church), more knowable to all and unalterable by all? If you have something that meets these things more than Scripture - then propose it.

The alternative demanded by The Catholic Church as we evaluate positions of The Catholic Church is that The Catholic Church (exclusively) declares The Catholic Church (exclusively) to be “infallible” in these matters of faith and morals - and thus exempt from the whole issue of norming: self alone declares self alone correct so self alone is, and you must accept whatever it alone says “with docility” cuz it alone says so. Is THAT a process of norming at all? No! It’s just a circumvention of such. The exemption of self by self (all others are accountable, of course, just not self - says self alone). “I’m right cuz I’m right so when I say I’m right ergo I’m right - so just accept whatever with docility.” That’s not norming AT ALL, it’s a circumvention of it, for self alone.

Now,* theoretically,* The Catholic Church does have a norma normans/ rule/ canon. But it’s just itself. It is the “three-legged-stool” of 1) The Tradition of itself as chosen, defined and interpreted by itself. 2) The Scripture not on any page in words known to all but rather “in the heart” of itself as interpreted by itself so as to agree with itself. 3) The Magisterium of itself as chosen by itself and the views, positions, rulings, decisions, interpetations and arbitrations of itself. These 3 things inseparately are the rule, canon, norma normans to which The Catholic Church is “accountable.” But obviously, undeniably, it’s just self looking in the mirror at self. It has NOTHING to do with Catholic positions being correct, it ONLY has to do with whether Catholic views agree with the self same. Friend, EVERYONE agrees with self! It substantiates NOTHING. Again, it’s just a circumvention of the whole issue of correctness.

.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, AJ,

The Catholic Church was found by Christ on Peter in about 33AD. Obviously the Jews of 1400BC are not the issue here - but the 16th Century Lutherans were!

1. So, the Jews in 1400 BC accepted The Ten Commandments as normative because The Catholic Church told them that? Or they checked it against the specific Tradition as chosen and currently defined by The Catholic Church? I don’t think so…

The issue of the Jews accepting what was written in the OT is not in question by anyone but you. And, you agenda is to confuse the issue with spurious arguments. Get real and pick up Christianity when it started - beginning with the birth of Christ - and bursting onto the world stage at the Resurrection

1. Yes, The Catholic Church teaches that Scripture is inerrant. But then so did Judaism CENTURIES earlier, and so does The Eastern Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church, and most Protestant denominations. Your denomination is not alone in this - which is the point I made. In embracing Scripture, we are ALL embracing a rule accepted by ALL. And it is not you or me or Pope Benedict or Martin Luther or Joel Osment - it is outside, above and beyond ALL parties involved in the norming. It is knowable to ALL, unalterable by ALL, historically and ecumenically embraced as reliable.

You really are not paying attention. Benedictus2 was really quite patient with you. It is not so much that Catholic Church teaching that Scripture is inerrant - it DEFINED THEM AS INERRANT BECAUSE THEY CONFORMED WITH TRADITION. Luther had these inerrant texts in his hands before he decided to modify them and form a religion in his own image. You will find that the NT is the same throughout - yet, SS totally flies in the face of Christ’s words to eat His Flesh, it flies in the face of Christ’s words to go to His representatives - the priest - to have your sins forgiven. Luther had to expalin all of this away - and in so doing introduced the SS error.

1. A rule need not be inerrrant to be embraced as such. In physics, … . The Catholic Church rejects this rule, insisting that the only rule/canon/norma normans it will permit to be used to norm it’s own teachings is: 1) It’s own teachings, called Catholic Traditions, which it alone chooses, defines and interprets **(actually I must stop your blather at this point - your off the road again) **

As previously identifed, there was a Catholic Church BEFORE the first word of the NT was written. That goes to the heart of the argumet. Chruch first - and then they produced the Bible you cling to (or, at least that modified version you have). Note it was not Bible and then Chruch. The Bible did not authenticate itself. It was authenticated by men - leaders of the Catholic Chruch - under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Now, you either buy into that historical fact or all is lost.

If you reject using Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans as positions (including those of The Catholic Church) … Consider your idea rejected. Scripture is not the rule BECAUSE…Scripture does NOT stand alone. We only have Scripture BECAUSE of the Cahtolic Church - and certainly not becuse of the works of Martin Luther!

The alternative demanded by The Catholic Church as we evaluate positions of The Catholic Church is that The Catholic Church (exclusively) declares The Catholic Church (exclusively) to be “infallible” in these matters of faith and morals - and thus exempt from the whole issue of norming: self alone declares self alone correct so self alone is, and you must accept whatever it alone says “with docility” cuz it alone says so. It is obvious that you simply do not believe the words of Christ Who founded His Chruch on Peter - and did not come back in the 16th Century to re-found it on Luther! You have been given historical facts and links that you obviously have either not read or simply chosen to ignore. That is fine - your choice either way, but it does not change these historic facts.

But obviously, undeniably, it’s just self looking in the mirror at self. It has NOTHING to do with Catholic positions being correct, it ONLY has to do with whether Catholic views agree with the self same. Friend, EVERYONE agrees with self! It substantiates NOTHING. Again, it’s just a circumvention of the whole issue of correctness. You will notice that Christ promised no such traits to Luther! Christ did not tell Luther that the Gates of Hell would not prevail. Chrsit did not tell Luther that Christ would send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church of Christ (and, that would be the Catholic Church. I encourage you to read your own Bible and see where Christ founded a Church -and, did not write a book

God bless
.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

The Catholic Church was found by Christ on Peter in about 33AD.

Then I suspect you agree with me that The Catholic Church did not write the Bible, since most of it is MUCH older than that, some going back 14 centuries before The Catholic Church was even founded (according to you).

Now, back to the discussion of this thread…

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

. You will notice that Christ promised no such traits to Luther! Christ did not tell Luther that the Gates of Hell would not prevail. Chrsit did not tell Luther that Christ would send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church of Christ (and, that would be the Catholic Church. I encourage you to read your own Bible and see where Christ founded a Church -and, did not write a book

1. Luther never claimed anything for himself, except that he was a sinner.
2. Christ did not say that the “gates of hell” would not prevail against The Catholic Church, either.
3. God wrote a book, I wonder why that is not sufficient for you. You would regard ANYTHING as an inappropriate norma normans unless Jesus wrote it?
4. Yes, Jesus founded the church. But there’s zero evidence that He founded The Catholic Church. He certainly never promised it anything or authorized it for anything, He never even mentioned it.

Now, back to the issue of the embraced norma normans for the evaluation of positions - including those of self. If you reject using Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans as positions (including those of The Catholic Church) are evaluated, then WHAT is more reliable, more inspired, more the inscripturated words of God, more historically (back to 1400 BC) embraced, more ecumenically embraced BEYOND just one participant (such as The Catholic Church), more knowable to all and unalterable by all? If you have something that meets these things more than Scripture - then propose it.

The alternative demanded by The Catholic Church as we evaluate positions of The Catholic Church is that The Catholic Church (exclusively) declares The Catholic Church (exclusively) to be “infallible” in these matters of faith and morals - and thus exempt from the whole issue of norming: self alone declares self alone correct so self alone is, and you must accept whatever it alone says “with docility” cuz it alone says so. Is THAT a process of norming at all? No! It’s just a circumvention of such. The exemption of self by self (all others are accountable, of course, just not self - says self alone). “I’m right cuz I’m right so when I say I’m right ergo I’m right - so just accept whatever with docility.” That’s not norming AT ALL, it’s a circumvention of it, for self alone. IMHO, The Catholic Church rejects Sola Scriptura because it rejects accountability (well, of one - itself), the issue is moot in the view of The Catholic Church alone in reference to The Catholic Church alone because The Catholic Church alone insists that The Catholic Church alone is INCAPABLE of error in matters of official faith and morals. It’s not that Scripture is a poor rule/canon in its view, it’s just ANY rule or canon is moot - for one (itself). Itself becomes the rule for all others.

Now, theoretically, The Catholic Church does have a norma normans/ rule/ canon. But it’s just itself. It is the “three-legged-stool” of 1) The Tradition of itself as chosen, defined and interpreted by itself. 2) The Scripture not on any page in words known to all but rather “in the heart” of itself as interpreted by itself so as to agree with itself. 3) The Magisterium of itself as chosen by itself and the views, positions, rulings, decisions, interpetations and arbitrations of itself. These 3 things inseparately are the rule, canon, norma normans to which The Catholic Church is “accountable.” But obviously, undeniably, it’s just self looking in the mirror at self. It has NOTHING to do with Catholic positions being correct, it ONLY has to do with whether Catholic views agree with the self same. Friend, EVERYONE agrees with self! It substantiates NOTHING. Again, it’s just a circumvention of the whole issue of correctness.

.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, AJ,

You are obviously content to remain in your own world. I obvious was wrong … to think you came to a Catholic List to find answers rather then simply repeat over and over again this fixation of yours.

Go back to the previous posts by Benedicts2 and me. God is the principal author - but, HE DID NOT WRITE the Bible. The Bible was written by men - men inspired by God - but, everyone one of them was a human being. Christ never wrote one word in the Bible - the NT was written about him.

Please, do yourself - and everyone else a favor. Read the responses you have been freely given and respond to them. Please stop this repeition of worn out nonsense. It has gone beyond tedious and makes me wonder if you have read anything anyone else has given you - except your own material.

Tell you what. I am going to stop. You work on this assignment and I will chekck on you and see what has come of it. Remember you are on a Catholic list - the idea is dialogue, not beating others down with cut 'n paste material. And, you can take that as a norm/norma/normorum or anyother derivation you want.

God bless

1. Luther never claimed anything for himself, except that he was a sinner.
2. Christ did not say that the “gates of hell” would not prevail against The Catholic Church, either.
3. God wrote a book, I wonder why that is not sufficient for you. You would regard ANYTHING as an inappropriate norma normans unless Jesus wrote it?
4. Yes, Jesus founded the church. But there’s zero evidence that He founded The Catholic Church. He certainly never promised it anything or authorized it for anything, He never even mentioned it.

Now, back to the issue … no more cut n’ paste, AJ

God bless.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

You came to a Catholic List to find answers rather then simply repeat over and over again this fixation of yours.

1. Read the title and thus permitted discussion of this thread.
2. This is the non-Catholic forum.
3. Did you expect The Catholic Church to give a defense of Sola Scriptura?

Go back to the previous posts by Benedicts2 and me. God is the principal author - but, HE DID NOT WRITE the Bible. The Bible was written by men - men inspired by God - but, everyone one of them was a human being.

I agree. God is the author of the Bible. People were the penmen. Thus, I disagree with the point to which I replied: that The Catholic Church wrote the Bible.

Christ never wrote one word in the Bible

As far as we know, but what puzzles me is why that’s signficant, why is a rule unreliable if God wrote it but not Jesus? Your Christology confuses me; I realize that the Incarnate Second Person is not to be equated with “God” but why would Jesus’ books be reliable but not God’s? Can you explain the Christology of that? How does it comply with your view of the Trinity and of the Two Natures of Christ that JESUS would need to write what is the norma normans - God doing so is less than that?

Remember the idea is dialogue

I agree, and the topic is the defense of Sola Scriptura. What is your defense of it? Or what to YOU propose is MORE reliable, MORE inspired, MORE the inscripturated words of God, MORE historically (to 1400 BC) embrace, MORE ecumenically embraced, MORE knowable by all and alterable by none, MORE outside and beyond all parties - so that it would be a BETTER norma normans/rule/canon as we evaluate doctrines? If you have something BETTER as we evaluation positions (including those of The Catholic Church), propose it. That would be dialogue.

I’m of the view that The Catholic Church opposes Sola Scriptura NOT because it has a better rule/canon but because it rejects the idea of norming - for one, itself. The whole idea of accountability (which norming addresses) is regarded by one (The Catholic Church) to be moot in the case of one (The Catholic Church) since one (The Catholic Church) claims that one (The Catholic Church) is infallible (incapable of being wrong) in official matters of faith and morals. It simply circumvents the entire issue of accountability and replaces it with, “I’m right so ergo I’m right when I say I’m right - just accept it with docility.” It’s not SCRIPTURE it rejects, it’s accountability (well, of itself exclusively - it demands it for all OTHERS). The ONLY ‘rule’ it will accept, the only thing it will allow it’s positions to be held up to is - it’s positions (as arbitrated by itself) - but it’s moot since it can’t be wrong. Is THAT a better rule for norming? No, it’s just circumventing it.

But again, if you have a BETTER rule/canon than Scripture for the evaluation of doctrines (including those of The Catholic Church), one MORE reliable, MORE knowable by all, MORE objective, MORE historically embraced (before 1400 BC), MORE ecumenically embraced, MORE outside and beyond all parties, MORE inspired by God, MORE the inscripturated words of God - then propose it.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

 

[benedictus2]

Let me respond slowwwly…

The Catholic Church doesn’t even claim that it even EXISTED when most of the Bible was written.

Sorry petal, but the Catholic Church does CLAIM SO. Pentecost is the bithday of the Catholic Church. Expand your reading material to include history.

The Catholic Church doesn’t have hands or eyes and thus CANNOT write ANYTHING.

The Catholci Church is the body of Christ and the her members wrote the NT.

The Catholic Church didn’t tell the Israelites that the Ten Commandments is Scripture (or any other Scripture).

No she didn’t tell the Israelites whether it was Scripture. But she recognized it as scripture because she is dvinely instituted by Christ. She saw in Christ the fulfillment of God’s promise of a Messiah because she is Christ’s own Church.

The Catholic Church had NOTHING to do with what books are embraced as Scripture (read the history!) - it didn’t even exist when most of this happened.

No. the read history advise is for you. The Catholic Church canonized scripture i.e. determined which books are to be included or not.

It didn’t do ANYTHING whatsoever related to this until OVER THREE CENTURIES AFTER the last Scripture was penned, and all it did was acknowledge the books ALREADY accepted.

Okay, newsflash, here is the timeline of the Bible.
Reference: davidmacd.com/catholic/timeline_of_how_the_bible_where.htm

Date

Event**AD **

51-125

The New Testament books are written.140

Marcion, a businessman in Rome, taught that there were two Gods: Yahweh, the cruel God of the Old Testament, and Abba, the kind father of the New Testament. Marcion eliminated the Old Testament as scriptures and, since he was anti-Semitic, kept from the New Testament only 10 letters of Paul and 2/3 of Luke’s gospel (he deleted references to Jesus’s Jewishness). Marcion’s “New Testament”, the first to be compiled, forced the mainstream Church to decide on a core canon: the four Gospels and Letters of Paul. 200

The periphery of the canon is not yet determined. According to one list, compiled at Rome c. AD 200 (the Muratorian Canon), the NT consists of the 4 gospels; Acts; 13 letters of Paul (Hebrews is not included); 3 of the 7 General Epistles (1-2 John and Jude); and also the Apocalypse of Peter. 367

The earliest extant list of the books of the NT, in exactly the number and order in which we presently have them, is written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in his Festal letter # 39 of 367 A.D… 382

Council of Rome (whereby Pope Damasus started the ball rolling for the defining of a universal canon for all city-churches). Listed the New Testament books in their present number and order. 393

the Council of Hippo, which began “arguing it out.” Canon proposed by Bishop Athanasius.397

The Council of Carthage, which refined the canon for the Western Church, sending it back to Pope Innocent for ratification. In the East, the canonical process was hampered by a number of schisms (esp. within the Church of Antioch). However, this changed by …AD787

The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II, which adopted the canon of Carthage. At this point, both the Latin West and the Greek / Byzantine East had the same canon. However, … The non-Greek, Monophysite and Nestorian Churches of the East (the Copts, the Ethiopians, the Syrians, the Armenians, the Syro-Malankars, the Chaldeans, and the Malabars) were still left out. But these Churches came together in agreement, in 1442A.D., in Florence.1442

AD : At the Council of Florence, the entire Church recognized the 27 books. This council confirmed the Roman Catholic Canon of the Bible which Pope Damasus I had published a thousand years earlier. So, by 1439, all orthodox branches of the Church were legally bound to the same canon. This is 100 years before the Reformation.1536

In his translation of the Bible from Greek into German, Luther removed 4 N.T. books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) and placed them in an appendix saying they were less than canonical. 1546

At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church reaffirmed once and for all the full list of 27 books. The council also confirmed the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books which had been a part of the Bible canon since the early Church and was confirmed at the councils of 393 AD, 373, 787 and 1442 AD. At Trent Rome actually dogmatized the canon, making it more than a matter of canon law, which had been the case up to that point, closing it for good.

 

[benedictus2]

And none of this has a thing to do with the topic of this thread.

It does so because the Scripture we are talking about is the one that the church wrote (the NT part) and canonized.

1. Entirely moot to the issue of this thread, we’re discussing the embraced rule for norming - not ANY principle of hermeneutics.

There is NO “embraced rule of norming” that is pertinent to the discussion of sola scriptura if it does not take into account who set the canon of scritpures.

1. If you have an issue with self insisting that God only whispers and leads self so that self is the sole interpreter - then take that up with The Catholic Church (hint: read The Catholic Catechism # 85), not with me.

But I have no issue with that. She can very well make the claim since she wrote and canonized the book.

I don’t hold to that view, The Catholic Church does. And you are again off topic, this thread is not about any principle of hermeneutics, it’s about the embraced rule in norming.

Refer to my answer above.

 

[benedictus2]

1. So, the Jews in 1400 BC accepted The Ten Commandments as normative because The Catholic Church told them that? Or they checked it against the specific Tradition as chosen and currently defined by The Catholic Church? I don’t think so…

But honey, we are not talking about the jews. We are talking about Christians. And all the Christian denominations came fromt he Catholic Church.

1. Yes, The Catholic Church teaches that Scripture is inerrant. But then so did Judaism CENTURIES earlier, and so does The Eastern Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church, and most Protestant denominations.

The scripture that Judaism taught was inerrant was only the Old Testament.
Everything that protestantism accepted as inerrant they did so based on what the Catholic Church said. Refer to the timeline I posted above.

Your denomination is not alone in this - which is the point I made. In embracing Scripture, we are ALL embracing a rule accepted by ALL.

All Christians embrace Scripture (both OT and NT) based on the Catholic Church’s say so.

And it is not you or me or Pope Benedict or Martin Luther or Joel Osment - it is outside, above and beyond ALL parties involved in the norming. It is knowable to ALL, unalterable by ALL, historically and ecumenically embraced as reliable.

If it is knowable to all then we would come up with the same interpretation all that time but we don’t.

1. A rule need not be inerrrant to be embraced as such. In physics, we use math and repeatable experimental evidence - neither of which is necessarily “inerrant.” But it is regarded as sufficiently reliable as the norma normans. But in theology, the IDEAL would be something objective, written in knowable, unalterable words ALL can read; the very inscripturated words of GOD HIMSELF, historically and ecumenically embraced including by the parties in the process of evaluating. Above and beyond ALL parties. Protestants believe this ideal actually exists!! The Catholic Church rejects this rule, insisting that the only rule/canon/norma normans it will permit to be used to norm it’s own teachings is: 1) It’s own teachings, called Catholic Traditions, which it alone chooses, defines and interprets PLUS 2) The Scriptures in its own heart as interpreted by its own self so as to conform to the teachings of its own self PLUS 3) the Magisterium of its own self as chosen by its own self and the rulings, decisions, interpretations, views and arbitrations of its own self. If these 3 things affirm the teachings of its own self as determined solely by its own self, then - ergo - the teachings of its own self are deemed correct. We think this is not only a perfect circle of self authentication, but actually is entirely moot to the issue of correctness: self is simply looking at self and determining that self agrees with self. Self usually does. It has nothing to do with self being correct.

I don’t know how many words that was but you have not said exactly what norming it is.

In one or two short sentences, WHAT IS THIS NORMING that is above everyone.

Yes, do. If you reject using Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans as positions (including those of The Catholic Church)

Have you no grasp of what circular reasoning is? You cannot use Scripture as the norm because it is precisely scripture that we are trying to determine the interpretation of.

So once again, WHAT IS THE RULE THAT ONE CAN USE (EXLUDING THE BIBLE BECUASE THE BIBLE CANNOT BE THE RULE OF ITSELF OR ELSE YOU FALL INTO CIRCULAR REASONING)?

 

[benedictus2]

Then I suspect you agree with me that The Catholic Church did not write the Bible, since most of it is MUCH older than that, some going back 14 centuries before The Catholic Church was even founded (according to you).

Now, back to the discussion of this thread…

.

Let me make a clarification here. She wrote the NT. She recognized the OT because the NT is hidden in the OT and the OT is revealed in the NT.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Let me make a clarification here. She wrote the NT. She recognized the OT because the NT is hidden in the OT and the OT is revealed in the NT.

Of course, the NT is not The Bible…

IMHO, The Catholic Church wrote not a single letter of the NT. The Catholic Church as no hands, no eyes, no means by which to write. Now, you COULD amend the often Catholic claims that “The Catholic Church wrote the Bible” by claiming that CATHOLICS penned the New Testament. That would be much more credible. But then you have to substantiate who penned about half of the books - because the books don’t say who penned them. And then you have the very difficult (impossible?) task of revealing that every one of them was officially registered in a congregation formally associated with The Catholic Church AND that they all held to the official dogmas of the specific, singular, particular The Catholic Church. Otherwise, the claim that they were specificly CATHOLICS would be baseless.

But regardless of the identity of the penmen of the books from Genesis - Revelation, and regardless of what congregations they held formal membership and what denominations those congregations were officially associated with, the issue remains: Are teachers among us ACCOUNTABLE for what they teach? Whether they be Pope Benedict or Billy Graham or Martin Luther or Joel Osment or Joseph Smith or Thomas Aquainas or me or you? Do all the divine, stern warnings about false prophets, false teachers, antichrists and those that lead many astray, are those divine warnings valid or not? If accountability is embraced for all, and if the divine warnings are valid, then norming (the evaluation of positions) is necessary for ALL (including The Catholic Church, The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, Martin Luther, Billy Graham, etc.). And the first question in norming is: WHAT will serve as the rule/canon/norma normans? Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as such. It is embraced by all as reliable (even inerrant!), it has historic (back to 1400 BC) and ecumenical embrace - inlcuding by all parties in the evaluation, it is knowable by all and alterable by none; many even embrace it as the very inscripturated words of God Himself. This, in the view of those that use this praxis, it is a more sound rule/canon than the alternative of self looking to the views of self as the rule for the evaluation of the views of self.

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

But honey, we are not talking about the jews. We are talking about Christians.

We were talking about Scripture, and honey, most of it is OLD TESTAMENT - predating even when The Catholic Church claims it came into existence.

Everything that protestantism accepted as inerrant they did so based on what the Catholic Church said. Refer to the timeline I posted above.

And everything The Catholic Church accepted as Scripture was because it affirmed with JEWS and early CHRISTIANS embraced as such. All it did was acknowledge such, formally at The Council of Trent in the 16th century. Honey, almost ALL denominations have done this - nothin’ unique about The Catholic Church’s doing it. My denomination embraced Scriptures officially and formally in 1847 in St. Louis, MO. Yours did it at Trent, Italy. But ACKNOWLEDGING something is not creating or causing or forming it. I acknowledge the sun came up this morning. I had nothing to do with it. Friend, that’s ALL any denomination (including yours) did - acknowledge what already had happened.

But lets see if we can return to a discussion of the praxis of Sola Scriptura.

If it is knowable to all then we would come up with the same interpretation all that time but we don’t.

You are confusing hermeneutics and arbitration with the issue of the rule/canon.

The words of Romans 3:23 are what they are. They are there. Black letters on a white page forming words. I can’t change the words, you can’t change the words. They are knowable and unalterable.

Now, let’s change subjects and talk about interpretation, yes - there more than one view may be possible. Let’s go back to the driving illustration. A friendly man in blue stops you, indicating that his radar read you going 53 in a 35 MPH zone, and he points to the big, white sign right next to the two of you there by the side of the road, the one that reads in black, bold letters and numerals: “MAX SPEED LIMIT: 35 MPH” That would then be the rule/canon/norma normans to which BOTH you and he are accountable. Is it knowable? Unalterable? Now, yes, you COULD say that it says "53 “MPH” (perhaps you have a reading disorder) and you and the policeman might be in disagreement on that - such is possible, and that will need to be arbitrated. But the interpretation AND the arbitration would all be according to the Rule of Law - in this case, that sign. Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as that rule in matters of Christian doctrine.

I don’t know how many words that was but you have not said exactly what norming it is.

I have, dozens of times. But okay, once again…

Norming is the process of determining if a position is correct, true, valid.
Bob builds a fense for me.
He states that it’s six feet tall.
THAT becomes the position.
Follow?

Now, if you are a raging relativist or existentialist, it may not matter if the position is correct or not - you may not even believe that truth exists. Or maybe Bob insists that there is one homo sapien that is INCAPABLE of being wrong - and that ONE just happens to be himself, and thus it is moot to ask if he’s right since he cannot be wrong. But let’s proceed with the assumption that accountability is embraced and that truth matters to you. Thus, we have entered the realm of norming - the process of determining if a teaching (“the wall is 6 feet tall”) is correct. Follow?

There are two principle factors involved in this. the FIRST is the mutual embrace of a common rule (“straight edge”) or canon (“Measuring stick”) or norma normans (“the norm that norms”) as this is called in epistemology (“how we know”). Perhaps we choose a Sears Measuring Tape. It’s outside and above Bob and I (and you). Knowable to us all, alterable by none of us. We accept it as sufficiently reliable for our purpose here. It would then be the norma normans/rule/canon. “Sola Sears Measuring Tape” (lol). Follow? THIS IS THE FACTOR ADDRESSED BY SOLA SCRIPTURA. IT ADDRESSES THE ISSUE OF WHAT SERVES AS THE RULE/CANON/NORMA NORMANS. Follow? The Catholic Church rejects this as the rule, and thus rejects Sola Scriptura. Thus the constant “debate” of it with the praxis.

The SECOND factor is the arbitration. HOW will it be determined if the wall “measures up” (arbitration) to the “measuring stick” (the canon - in this case, that Sears Measuring Stick)? This is not a part of Sola Scriptura and thus outside of the discussion of such.

This is necessary in ALL disciplines - there is nothin’ unique about Christian theology. My degree is in physics. I assure you, I cannot submit a paper to a serious scientific journal (well, without being laughed at!) without substantiating my position via the canon we use in physics (math and/or repeatable, observable experimental evidence). My position is not regarded as valid simply because I hold it or becfause I agree with me. I must substantiate my position using a rule OUTSIDE, ABOVE me. IF I do so adequately, the journal my publish it - and do so for one reason: to invite other scientists to rip it apart, again - according to the SAME rule/canon/norma normans (Math and experimentive evidence). We are ALL subject to the SAME external, objective, knowable, accepted canon/rule.
.

**
Continues in next post (because of that annoying 6000 character limit for posts, lol).**

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Continues form the post above…

]So once again, WHAT IS THE RULE THAT ONE CAN USE (EXLUDING THE BIBLE BECUASE THE BIBLE CANNOT BE THE RULE OF ITSELF OR ELSE YOU FALL INTO CIRCULAR REASONING)?

No. Scripture is not the rule for Scripture. No more than the speed limit sign by the side of the road is the norm for itself.

What is “circular reasoning” is to assume a position (the wall is 6 feet tall) is correct, then using that position as the rule/canon to determine if the wall is 6 feet tall. But ALL PARTIES - Bob the builder, me (the owner), you - all God’s children - are subjecting the position (the wall is 6 feet tall) to a rule OUTSIDE and BEYOND and ABOVE Bob and I and you and all God’s children. A rule that is knowable and unalterable.

Of course, The Catholic Church rejects the Rule of Scripture - and all other rules outside of itself alone. Why? Becuase it rejects accountability of one - itself (exclusively). Self is not subject to norming because self declares that self (alone) is INCAPABLE of being wrong in official matters of faith and morals, thus accountability (and the issue of norming) is moot in ONE case only - the case of self. It’s not that The Catholic Church knows of a better norma normans. It’s not that The Catholic Church has a different doctrine of Scripture. It alone just exempts one alone from the whole issue: itself. NO ONE is permitted to norm anything one (itself) posits, rather all must accept what ONE (itself) says “with docility” (CCC 87, etc.). It’s not Sola Scriptura it rejects, it’s accountability it rejects. Self excludes self from the whole issue, but all others ARE to be held accountable - just not self, insists The CAtholic Church, thus rejecting Sola Scriptura.

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[ntisawesome]

AmericanJosiah,

Thank you for your efforts to explain your position on the topic. However I cannot help but feel you are continually avoiding the question by trying to distract people with big words and immensely long repetetive posts. Maybe this is not your intent and I hope it is not.

But either way it is becoming quite exhausting to try to follow what you are saying and I think I will seek the answer elsewhere.

Best,

-nt

 

[AmericanJosiah]

AmericanJosiah,

Thank you for your efforts to explain your position on the topic. However I cannot help but feel you are continually avoiding the question by trying to distract people with big words and immensely long repetetive posts. Maybe this is not your intent and I hope it is not.

But either way it is becoming quite exhausting to try to follow what you are saying and I think I will seek the answer elsewhere.

Best,

-nt

Sola Scriptura is a simply praxis to understand. It is the embrace of Scripture as the rule/canon.

Norming is the process of determining if a position is correct, true, valid.
Bob builds a fense for me.
He states that it’s six feet tall.
THAT becomes the position.
Follow?

Now, if you are a raging relativist or existentialist, it may not matter if the position is correct or not - you may not even believe that truth exists. Or maybe Bob insists that there is one homo sapien that is INCAPABLE of being wrong - and that ONE just happens to be himself, and thus it is moot to ask if he’s right since he cannot be wrong. But let’s proceed with the assumption that accountability is embraced and that truth matters to you. Thus, we have entered the realm of norming - the process of determining if a teaching (“the wall is 6 feet tall”) is correct. Follow?

There are two principle factors involved in this. the FIRST is the mutual embrace of a common rule (“straight edge”) or canon (“Measuring stick”) or norma normans (“the norm that norms”) as this is called in epistemology (“how we know”). Perhaps we choose a Sears Measuring Tape. It’s outside and above Bob and I (and you). Knowable to us all, alterable by none of us. We accept it as sufficiently reliable for our purpose here. It would then be the norma normans/rule/canon. “Sola Sears Measuring Tape” (lol). Follow? THIS IS THE FACTOR ADDRESSED BY SOLA SCRIPTURA. IT ADDRESSES THE ISSUE OF WHAT SERVES AS THE RULE/CANON/NORMA NORMANS. Follow? The Catholic Church rejects this as the rule, and thus rejects Sola Scriptura. Thus the constant “debate” of it with the praxis.

The SECOND factor is the arbitration. HOW will it be determined if the wall “measures up” (arbitration) to the “measuring stick” (the canon - in this case, that Sears Measuring Stick)? This is not a part of Sola Scriptura and thus outside of the discussion of such.

This is necessary in ALL disciplines - there is nothin’ unique about Christian theology. My degree is in physics. I assure you, I cannot submit a paper to a serious scientific journal (well, without being laughed at!) without substantiating my position via the canon we use in physics (math and/or repeatable, observable experimental evidence). My position is not regarded as valid simply because I hold it or becfause I agree with me. I must substantiate my position using a rule OUTSIDE, ABOVE me. IF I do so adequately, the journal my publish it - and do so for one reason: to invite other scientists to rip it apart, again - according to the SAME rule/canon/norma normans (Math and experimentive evidence). We are ALL subject to the SAME external, objective, knowable, accepted canon/rule.

**
What part of that is too hard for you to understand? I’d be glad to clarify.**

Now, this thread (as varient from another) is about the “defense” of using such. THAT is more complicated, of course, But the issue actually is not hard to understand. The Catholic Church rejects the Rule of Scripture because it rejects accountability, it rejects all norma normans because it alone simply proclaims that there is one alone (itself) that is incapable of being wrong (in official positions of faith and morals anyway) thus it is exempt from examination. All OTHERS are accountable (and so a rule applies there) but it is not. It rejects the Rule of Scripture not because it has a better rule and not because it has a different view of Scripture, it does so becuase it rejects norming and thus all norma normans; it replaces the whole process of examination with a claim: “I’m right cuz I’m right so ergo I’m right when I say I’m right - accept it with docility.” No rule/canon is needed because no examination is needed because self proclaims that self is incapable of being wrong. All OTHERS are (adn thus are accountable) but there’s one that isn’t: self.

.

 

[ntisawesome]

OK. I would like to point out that I am the OP of this thread and I disagree with you about what the thread was about. It was about defending Sola Scriptura from seeming inherent contradiction.

You just keep copying and pasting earlier posts (you just did it again too…), and as soon as you are asked to defend your position on anything, you just dismiss it as off topic and repeat yourself again. I feel like you are not really reading the posts of myself and others fully but just spending the time typing your next post instead.

I’m sorry but as I said I will look elsewhere for the answer.

Best,

-nt