Defense of Sola Scriptura

[benedictus2]

Thank you. Please reference the quotes.

I have. I did as well in my previous post in this thread.

Now, you posted that Luther and Calvin both stated that it is an error to embrace Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans. And yet neither of these unreferenced quotes REMOTELY states such. As I noted earlier when you made the claim but didn’t offer any support for it, neither of these have anything whatsoever to do with Sola Scriptura or with this thread.

Yes it does.

Here is why.

You propose that Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) be our guide for interpreting Scripture itself.

If this is the case, then Scripture would be crystal clear. If there is anything unclear in one chapter or verse, another will explain it so clearly there will be no dispute as to its meaning. With me so far?

Question is, how come there are differing interpretations?

This is what Luther and Calvin realized but they somehow did not connect it with Sola Scriptura. By proposing SS, we are therefore negating the necessity of an interpreter other than scripture itself. But Scripture cannot interpret itself. It is the one reading the scripture who has to make the interpretation.

So everyone by virtue of Sola Scriptura comes up with their own interpretation. Which one then is correct?

Is that still too hard for you to understand?

As I noted then, yes - you can find where Luther rejects the appointment of self as the sole interpreter of Scripture (as The Catholic Church does, see its Catechism # 85). And as I noted earlier, both also reject self appointing self as the sole arbiter (as The Catholic Church does). Both are rejections of the claims of The Catholic Church for The Catholic Church.

Duhh! The Catholic Church is not self, that is just the thing you got so terribly wrong. I can’t believe that your understanding of the church is so deficient.

The Church has a Magisterium. It is not just one person that comes up with the interpretation. Furthermore, the church has all that teaching that comes down from the Fathers of the Church from the time of the apostles and right after… It is also very clear in the Bible that Christ has promised her the guidance of the Holy Sprit so that she will be led into truth. Therefore her interpretation of the Bible will be the truth.

But let’s see if we can return to the subject of this thread, the most sound rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of positions. Sola Scriptura embraces Scripture as such.

Maaan, you are so completely dense. That is not the most sound rule That is the most deficient rule that even the framers of the rule recognize that.

What does The Catholic Church suggest is MORE inspired by God, MORE inerrant, MORE the inscripturated words of God, MORE historically embraced (to 1400 BC), MORE ecumenically embraces, MORE outside and above and beyond all parties (including The Catholic Church), MORE knowable to all and alterable by none? It doens’t have a better alternative. In fact, it doesn’t have an alternative at all - why? Because it rejects ALL norma normans since it rejects accountability (well, of one exclusively - itself, all others ARE regarded as accountable, just not itself). It circumvents the entire issue by itself alone declaring itself alone to be “infallible” in official matters of faith and morals, thus above accountability and this whole issue.

The Church is SO VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY, MUCH MORE, THAN SOLA SCRIPTURA. That is the only sound rule.

As my niece would say… TEN MILLIONS VERYS MORE.

I agree with you, the reason why The Catholic Church itself alone for itself alone rejects the Rule of Scripture for the norming process is that it rejects accountability (well, for one - itself, exclusively): “I’m right, so when I say I’m right ergo I must be right so I’m right; just accept whatever with docility” (CCC 87, etc., etc., etc.). It rejects the Rule of Scripture because it rejects all accountability (for one: itself) and thus a rule/canon/norma normans is MOOT in the case of one (itself). If one insists that one alone (self) is INCAPABLE of error, then accountability is moot and the rule/canon/norma normans is moot (for self anyway). THAT’S the Catholic objection to Sola Scriptura. Self is jsut right so self is. And self is the SOLE authority, so it’s not subject to anything (except God as self alone so arbitrates).

Accountability has nothing to do with determining which rule to read the Bible by. And it accountability matters, then Sola Scriptura IS THE MOST NON-ACCOUNTABLE RULE OF ALL.

I’m curious, have you read the writings of Brigham Young or any of the many cult leaders in regard to accountability, norming, and what rule/canon they accept? Have you read the LDS Apostle and Prophet Bruce McConkie’s work, “On The Authority of the Church?” Their insistence on self being infallible/unaccountable, their reasons for rejecting the Rule of Scripture? I have. I recommend you study these.

Brigham Young is not worth reading. The back of a cornflakes box is probably more enlightening.

 

[Trilor]

Thanks for the reference, Benedictus

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Thank you. Please reference the quotes.

I have. I did as well in my previous post in this thread.

Nope.

You posted words and credited them to Luther and Calvin, giving no reference for it. When and where did they write such?

Now, you posted that Luther and Calvin both stated that it is an error to embrace Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans. And yet neither of these unreferenced quotes REMOTELY states such. As I noted earlier when you made the claim but didn’t offer any support for it, neither of these have anything whatsoever to do with Sola Scriptura or with this thread.

Yes it does.

Here is why.

You propose that Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) be our guide for interpreting Scripture itself.

If this is the case, then Scripture would be crystal clear. If there is anything unclear in one chapter or verse, another will explain it so clearly there will be no dispute as to its meaning. With me so far?

Question is, how come there are differing interpretations?

This is what Luther and Calvin realized but they somehow did not connect it with Sola Scriptura. By proposing SS, we are therefore negating the necessity of an interpreter other than scripture itself. But Scripture cannot interpret itself. It is the one reading the scripture who has to make the interpretation.

So everyone by virtue of Sola Scriptura comes up with their own interpretation. Which one then is correct?

Is that still too hard for you to understand?

You are evading the point:

YOU posted that Luther and Calvin taught that Sola Scriptura (embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans) is wrong. I asked you for the quotes on that. You provided quotes that have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Sola Scriptura - and are actually a rebuke of CATHOLCISM’S insistance on private, individual interpretation (as long as self is exclusively itself) - CCC 85, and a rebuke of CATHOLICISM’S insistence on self appointing self as the sole arbiter for the correctness of self. The quotes you provided do not say that Sola Scriptura is wrong - they have absolutely, completely NOTHING to do with that subject (or the issue of this thread); they are saying that it’s wrong for self to designate self as the sole interpreter (as The Catholic Church does) and for self to designate self as the sole arbiter (as The Catholic Church does)

As I noted then, yes - you can find where Luther rejects the appointment of self as the sole interpreter of Scripture (as The Catholic Church does, see its Catechism # 85). And as I noted earlier, both also reject self appointing self as the sole arbiter (as The Catholic Church does). Both are rejections of the claims of The Catholic Church for The Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church is not self, that is just the thing you got so terribly wrong.

So, when The Catholic Church designates The Catholic Church as the sole interpreter and sole arbiter, what is The Catholic Church pointing to? One is designation one - self. Self alone insists that self alone is infallible/unaccountable. One alone is designating one alone as the sole interpreter of the Scripture in the heart of one alone (self) and the Tradition of one alone (self). If you have concerns about this, take it up with The Catholic Church. Nothing does this as extremely as The Catholic Church does.

What does The Catholic Church suggest is MORE inspired by God, MORE inerrant, MORE the inscripturated words of God, MORE historically embraced (to 1400 BC), MORE ecumenically embraces, MORE outside and above and beyond all parties (including The Catholic Church), MORE knowable to all and alterable by none? It doens’t have a better alternative. In fact, it doesn’t have an alternative at all - why? Because it rejects ALL norma normans since it rejects accountability (well, of one exclusively - itself, all others ARE regarded as accountable, just not itself). It circumvents the entire issue by itself alone declaring itself alone to be “infallible” in official matters of faith and morals, thus above accountability and this whole issue.

The Church is SO VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY, MUCH MORE, THAN SOLA SCRIPTURA. That is the only sound rule.

So, The Catholic Church is MORE inspired by God than Scripture?
The Catholic Church is MORE inerrant than Scripture?
The Catholic Church is MORE the inscripturated words of God than Scripture?
The Catholic Church is older than Scirpture (older than 1400 BC)?
The Catholic Church is more outside The Catholic Church than The Catholic Church?
The Catholic Church is more unalterable by The Catholic Church than Scripture?
I find you position bordering on absurd.

If your rubric had ANY credibility, than you CANNOT reject the exact thing you are suggesting when the LDS and the cults do what you are suggesting: self designates self as the rule/canon, self looking in the mirror at self. Friend, think about that. Your rubric has NOTHING to do with whether self is correct, it ONLY has to do with whether self AGREES with self. Well, the LDS agrees with itself. Your alternative has NOTHING to do with correctness, it’s an evasion of the issue. You’ve simply replaced the entire issue with self proclaiming self in agreement with self.

**
Continues in next post because of that annoying 6000 character limit, lol**

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Continuing the post above…

I agree with you, the reason why The Catholic Church itself alone for itself alone rejects the Rule of Scripture for the norming process is that it rejects accountability (well, for one - itself, exclusively): “I’m right, so when I say I’m right ergo I must be right so I’m right; just accept whatever with docility” (CCC 87, etc., etc., etc.). It rejects the Rule of Scripture because it rejects all accountability (for one: itself) and thus a rule/canon/norma normans is MOOT in the case of one (itself). If one insists that one alone (self) is INCAPABLE of error, then accountability is moot and the rule/canon/norma normans is moot (for self anyway). THAT’S the Catholic objection to Sola Scriptura. Self is jsut right so self is. And self is the SOLE authority, so it’s not subject to anything (except God as self alone so arbitrates).

Accountability has nothing to do with determining which rule to read the Bible by.

This thread is not about hermeneutics, it’s about the embraced rule/canon/norma normans.

What you are continuing to do is take the position of The Catholic Church that accountability is moot in the case of one alone: The Catholic Church. Self exclusively exempts self exclusively. “I’m right so ergo I’m right when I say I’m right - just accept it with docility” (CCC 87, etc., etc., etc.). It rejects Sola Scriptura NOT because it has a better, more sound norma normans (it doesn’t) or because it has a different theology of Scripture (it doesn’t) but because it rejects accountability of one (itself exclusively).

I’m curious, have you read the writings of Brigham Young or any of the many cult leaders in regard to accountability, norming, and what rule/canon they accept? Have you read the LDS Apostle and Prophet Bruce McConkie’s work, “On The Authority of the Church?” Their insistence on self being infallible/unaccountable, their reasons for rejecting the Rule of Scripture? I have. I recommend you study these.

Brigham Young is not worth reading.

IMHO, if you were more familiar with the cults you’d see the need for accountability and the absurdity of the rubric you are suggesting (for it is always theirs). Since you desire to be ignorant of them, then perhaps you’d note that Scripture tells us to beware of false teachers, false prophets, antichrists and those that lead many astray and it NEVER exempts The Catholic Church from that.

Again, self alone insisting that self alone evaluate if self along agrees with self alone means NOTHING vis-a-vis if self is correct. Whether self is The Catholic Church or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or the Davidians or Mary Baker Eddy or any other. It ONLY means that self agrees with self. The Catholic Church (as well as the cults) all reject Sola Scriptura for the same reason: Each exempts ONE from accountability: self. Thus ANY rule/canon/norma normans is moot. Thus the rejection.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[benedictus2]

You are evading the point:

YOU posted that Luther and Calvin taught that Sola Scriptura (embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans) is wrong.

I did not say that they “taught’ SS is wrong. I said they came to that realization when that cult in in Munster started. They realized that if you just go by SS then that means there is no other guide than scripture itself. That is exactly what this apocalyptic group in Munster used – SS. So they realized that SS can’t be very sound because it leads to something quite concerning like this group. So here we have Luther, Calvin and the Munster cult and they are all disagreeing with each other on the interpretation of the Bible

How can you then claim that SS is reliable as a canon.
If that is our rule then we will forever be in a state of uncertainty as to what God is really saying.

I asked you for the quotes on that. You provided quotes that have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Sola Scriptura –

Oh but it has EVERYTHING to do with SS. As I explained above. Which you seem to keep failing to understand.

If SS is a good rule/canons/Normans for interpreting Scripture, then Luther, Calvin and the Munster cult would not be arguing about it.

SS is a useless ruler/canon/Normans or whatever else term you want to use.

and are actually a rebuke of CATHOLCISM’S insistance on private, individual interpretation (as long as self is exclusively itself) - CCC 85, and a rebuke of CATHOLICISM’S insistence on self appointing self as the sole arbiter for the correctness of self. The quotes you provided do not say that Sola Scriptura is wrong - they have absolutely, completely NOTHING to do with that subject (or the issue of this thread); they are saying that it’s wrong for self to designate self as the sole interpreter (as The Catholic Church does) and for self to designate self as the sole arbiter (as The Catholic Church does)

This is where I again say Duh.

It is not us individual Tom, Drake and Harriet who does the interpretation. We bow to the Magisterium and the 2000 year Sacred Tradition of the Church.

Yes, there is a certain individual interpretation that happens when God speaks to a person through the Bible. It is the living Word of God so has the capacity to grasp and instruct each and every person according to his/her situation. But the universal aspects of the Word of God regarding salvation, that only the Church can rightfully interpret.

The tradition of the Church is reliable because it is the tradition of the Apostles, the same Apostles that Christ appointed to spread His Gospel.

SS is a rule in a vacuum.

And no, the Catholic Church did not appoint itself as the interpreter of Scripture. Christ did that. The only reason you have the Bible is because of the Catholic Church, because this is the way CHrsit WILLED it to be so.

A point you just have not the capacity to grasp.

 

[benedictus2]

So, The Catholic Church is MORE inspired by God than Scripture?

Well yes of course. She was the one Christ built to write the New Testament. She was the one God INSPIRED TO WRITE THE NT. Before the Bible, there was the Church.

We only know the Bible (both NT and OT) is inspired because the Church says so.

When 2Tim says that scripture is God breathed, well, guess what, the author of 2 Tim was (is really) a member of the Catholic Church.

Think about this, if God really meant us to be people of the book, Christ would have just written the NT Himself and been done with it.

The Catholic Church is MORE inerrant than Scripture?

Yes, because we only know Scripture is inerrant because the Church said so. That is why those who do not believe in Christ, question the inerrancy of Scripture. You still haven’t quite worked out the logic of that have you?

The Catholic Church is MORE the inscripturated words of God than Scripture?

Refer to my previous answer.

The Catholic Church is older than Scirpture (older than 1400 BC)?

Gotcha. Not all scripture is BC. Only some of Scripture is BC. So yes, if we are talking about the Bible as the collection of books itself, then yes, the Catholic Church is older than the Bible.

The first canon was discussed around 200 AD, the Church was born at Pentecost on 31AD. Yes, that group of people upon whom the Holy Spirit descended, well, that was the infant Catholic Church. But yes, in 2000 years, she matured.

The Catholic Church is more outside The Catholic Church than The Catholic Church?

The Catholic Church is more unalterable by The Catholic Church than Scripture?
I find you position bordering on absurd.
Ah, finally you got it right. Those last two point are indeed absurd.

 

[benedictus2]

. This thread is not about hermeneutics, it’s about the embraced rule/canon/norma normans.

No but you are proposing we use SS as the rule/canon/normans for hermeneutics.

What you are continuing to do is take the position of The Catholic Church that accountability is moot in the case of one alone: [/qutoe]
That is right. Because no matter how accountable you may feel or act, it does not mean that Truth is with you.

The reason for establishing a rule/norman/canon for hermeneutics is to get to the truth.
[qutoe] The Catholic Church. Self exclusively exempts self exclusively. “I’m right so ergo I’m right when I say I’m right - just accept it with docility” (CCC 87, etc., etc., etc.). It rejects Sola Scriptura NOT because it has a better, more sound norma normans (it doesn’t) or because it has a different theology of Scripture (it doesn’t) but because it rejects accountability of one (itself exclusively).

As I have said before, you really just don’t get it. I have explained it before, many times over. If you haven’t got it by now, I doubt you ever will.

You have wearied me by your failure to comprehend so this is my last post to you (for the meantime). I am taking a break from CAF for Chrsitmas.

May God our Father fill you and your family with His Joy and Peace as we remember the Incarnatio of His Son - His entry into our human history, to pitch His tent among us.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Joisah:

So, The Catholic Church is MORE inspired by God than Scripture?
The Catholic Church is MORE inerrant than Scripture?
The Catholic Church is MORE the inscripturated words of God than Scripture?
The Catholic Church is older than Scirpture (older than 1400 BC)?
The Catholic Church is more outside The Catholic Church than The Catholic Church?
The Catholic Church is more unalterable by The Catholic Church than Scripture?
I find you position bordering on absurd.

If your rubric had ANY credibility, than you CANNOT reject the exact thing you are suggesting when the LDS and the cults do what you are suggesting: self designates self as the rule/canon, self looking in the mirror at self. Friend, think about that. Your rubric has NOTHING to do with whether self is correct, it ONLY has to do with whether self AGREES with self. Well, the LDS agrees with itself. Your alternative has NOTHING to do with correctness, it’s an evasion of the issue. You’ve simply replaced the entire issue with self proclaiming self in agreement with self.

.

Ah, finally you got it right. Those last two point are indeed absurd.

I agree, thus The Catholic Church is not the best rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of positions (including those of The Catholic Church). You just declared the Catholic alternative to Sola Scriptura as “indeed absurd.”

But again, The Catholic Church rejects the Rule of Scripture not because it has a better alternative (it doesn’t) or because it has a different theology of Scripture (it doesn’t) but because it rejects any and all canons/norma normans; it simply rejects accountability (well exclusively for one - itself, alone). It’s norming it rejects (or itself), thus it rejects any and all norma normans.

.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, AJ,

Sorry there was a delay in my responding - just got back from a wonderful vacation and celebration of our 39th wedding anniversary! Ah, but from the looks of things…I really have not missed much:

1- You are still using circular reasoning

2- Benedictus2 is still being incredibly patient with you as you duck and weave around the isssues presented.

3- You are demonstrating a genuine lack of both argumentation and a knowledge of history.

Let me clarify this last point (I think the first two are self-evident)…

I disagree with that observation, but I DO think that became the insistence of The Catholic Church - and is the reason why it rejects Sola Scriptura.

Merely stating you ‘disagree’ with something is fine as far as it goes … the trouble is, it really does not go very far at all. The issue is WHY do you disagree. And, this you simply fail to provide. But, you do not evade with a brevity of words, but with a torrent that floods the page, nearly drowns the reader, but, misses the point. There was a time when I really thought you could do better - but, considering your repitition and failure to establish anything other then you disagree, well… you really do need to rise to the occasion and respond in a logical manner. Honest. Especially, if you claim the name of Josiah - he was not only a learned and blessed king, but one who presented his case well. Heads up!

Now, the Catholic Church did not ‘wake up one morning’ and opted to ‘…reject(s) Sola Scriptura’. There were multiple reasons given for this new (at the time) heretical doctrine. Benedictus2 and others advised you on several, and you failed to respond. Merely repeating what you have said before is not considered a response to questions that posters give you and you fail to acknowledge.

Let’s go over a couple, just to brush up on what is going on… and let’s just look at Scripture.

Timothy 3:16-17 “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.” Please note it does NOT say that ONLY SCRIPTURE is to be used as the means for finding God’s Word. Christ promised His Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church) would have the Holy Spirit always and the Gates of Hell would not prevail. Christ did not promise a Book.

Revelation 22:18-19, “For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from these things that are written in this book.” Please note Sacred Tradition existed (as St. Paul tells us) before John wrote Revelations. If you just read what is there - no one is to add to the Book of Revelation.

1 Corinthians 11:2, “Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you.” Please note Paul is writing to the Corinthians to keep ORAL TRADITION ("…my ordinances…") and praising them for doing so. Paul’s letter is not the oral tradition, he established that when he was with them. 1st Corinthians confirms what has already taken place.

1Timothy 3:15, But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth. Please note that Paul tells us that it is the CHURCH and not Scripture that is the pillar and foundation of truth. This is no oversight on the part of Paul - but, the inspired Word of God. But, just in case you doubt Paul - let’s see what Christ said on this very subject.

Matthew 18:15-18 "If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Please note, it is the CHURCH and not Scripture that makes the determination here - and this is the order established for the Church of Christ - for His Church (ah, that would be the Catholic Church).

I hope these help you to set a course that focuses on the subject matter presented.

God Bless

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

1- You are still using circular reasoning

Nope.

I’m simply noting that in ALL disciplines, there is the issue of norming (the evaluation of whether a position is true, correct, valid, substantiated). And the first aspect of that process or praxis is the embrace of a rule (“straight edge”), canon (“measuring stick”) or as it’s called in this, the norma normans (“the norm that norms”).

Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scirpture as such. I’ve given sound and good reasons for such praxis.

2- you as you duck and weave around the isssues presented.

I’ve patiently addressed every single issue of Sola Scriptura. What I’m not interested in doing is discussing Catholic strawmen or a plethora of diversions and goose chases.

Let me clarify this last point (I think the first two are self-evident)…

Adding to what a person posted and crediting such to them is usually a rule violation. I’m not especially welcoming of you giving a long quote and doing so as if I posted it. But I suspect you simply forgot to code your response. I’ll correct the mistake for you and reply to anything that relates to the subject of this thread (not wishing to violate the rule here on hijacking).

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Now, the Catholic Church did not ‘wake up one morning’ and opted to ‘…reject(s) Sola Scriptura’. There were multiple reasons given for this new (at the time) heretical doctrine.

1. It’s not a doctrine. Let me state once again: Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the norma normans in evaluating positions.
2. It’s not new. Around 1,400 BC (LONG before the Pope was in Rome or The Catholic Church even existed), Moses came down the mountain with the first Scripture. It became the rule/canon for those issues - NOT The Catholic Church or the bishops in communion with the successors of Peter. Jesus embraced Scripture some 50 times normatively, but He didn’t once so much as even mention The Catholic Church or the Bishop in Rome or the successor(s) of Peter - for anything, as anything, in any capacity. The “new” adjective would not apply to the Rule of Scripture but to The Catholic Church’s alternative of itself.

Timothy 3:16-17 “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.” Please note it does NOT say that ONLY SCRIPTURE is to be used as the means for finding God’s Word. Christ promised His Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church) would have the Holy Spirit always and the Gates of Hell would not prevail. Christ did not promise a Book.

I never said ANY Scripture TAUGHT Sola Scriptura. Very, very few praxis’ are TAUGHT in Scripture. And yet that doesn’t mean they are thus unsound and should not be used. Here we are discussing on the internet - and yet there’s no verse that says, “Thou shalt discuss issues on the internet at the Catholic Answers Forum.”

Yes, Christ promised much to His church. Agreed. But perhaps you’ve not noticed that He promised NOTHING to The Catholic Church. Nothing. He promised it NOTHING. He authorized it for NOTHING. He never even mentioned it. Never referred to it.

Yes, Christ did not promise a tome. But He did use Scripture normatively some 50 times, and He NEVER used The Catholic Church thusly. And God wrote a book. I’ve always wondered why Catholics seem unimpressed by that; the only book that would matter is if JESUS wrote it. Why? Isn’t it good that the Holy Spirit wrote a book?

But could we please return to the subject of this thread? If you have a better norma normans, something MORE inerrant, MORE inspired, MORE the inscripturated words of God, MORE historical (before 1400 BC), MORE above and beyond all parties (including The Catholic Church), MORE knowable to all and alterable by none - if you have something that meets all of these MORE than Scripture and thus would be a better canon/norma normans - then state it.

**
Continues in next post…
**

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Continues from post above…

Revelation 22:18-19, “For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from these things that are written in this book.” Please note Sacred Tradition existed (as St. Paul tells us) before John wrote Revelations. If you just read what is there - no one is to add to the Book of Revelation.

Lost me, I haven’t a clue what any of what you posted there has to do with the Rule of Scripture in norming.

Yes, Tradition existed before 95 AD when John penned Revelation. But it’s the Tradition of Paul, Timothy and Silas - there’s NOTHING in the Bible about the Tradition of The Catholic Church. Nothing. Positive or good or affirming. Negative or rebuking or cautious. It never mentions Catholic Tradition. And what does that have to do with the subject we’re discussing?

1 Corinthians 11:2, “Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you.” Please note Paul is writing to the Corinthians to keep ORAL TRADITION ("….my ordinances…") and praising them for doing so. Paul’s letter is not the oral tradition, he established that when he was with them. 1st Corinthians confirms what has already taken place.

I’ve not a clue what this has to do with anything…

Yes, it seems Paul probably communicated some things orally, and they are to remember that. Where does it say, “And whatever The Catholic Church tells you is infallible/unaccountable, inerrant because The Catholic Church CANNOT err in matters of faith and morals, accept whatever it says with docility.” Friend, Paul is talking aobut what PAUL said, not what The Catholic Church says. And note: he’s simply telling them to remember IT (and he doesn’t tell us - by inspiration - what “it” was, therefore, we don’t know).

Let’s get back to the subject of this thread. Okay?

1Timothy 3:15, But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth. Please note that Paul tells us that it is the CHURCH and not Scripture that is the pillar and foundation of truth. This is no oversight on the part of Paul - but, the inspired Word of God. But, just in case you doubt Paul - let’s see what Christ said on this very subject.

No, he doesn’t say that Scripture should not be the rule/canon for the evaluation of doctrines. And he says NOTHING about The Catholic Church. He says that what is the pillar and foundation is “the oikos of God” - the people of God, not The Catholic Denomination. And a pillar UPHOLDS the true, a foundation SUPPORTS the true - it doesn’t invent it. And even lifeless pillars are not infallible/inerrant, unaccountable. Even a pillar is evaluated by a canon…

Matthew 18:15-18 "If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Please note, it is the CHURCH and not Scripture that makes the determination here - and this is the order established for the Church of Christ - for His Church (ah, that would be the Catholic Church).

Jesus addresses an issue of interpersonal dispute (one regards himself as sinned against) so this isn’t a norming of doctrine at all. But what does He advise? TELL it to the church. That, IMHO, requires that the church has ears, an ability to hear and understands the spoken language - thus it must be PEOPLE, not The Catholic Denomination. Yes, the idea of Christians as arbiters is a common one in Scripture, but The Catholic Church is never mentioned in that regard.

Yes, the keys are given to PEOPLE and not to The Catholic Church. We agree on that, I’m just at a complete loss to know what in the world this has to do with our discussion.

God Bless

and also you.

.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, AJ

.

I certainly did not mean to misquote or in any way distort your content. If it appeared that way, I certainly apologize.
AmericanJosiah;6089723:

.

1. It’s not a doctrine. Let me state once again: Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the norma normans in evaluating positions.

As has been explained several times, someone has to do the norming - the Bible did not one day suddenly appear - and this seems to be an issue with you that you just continue to ignore. Benedictus2 gave you an excellent historicial presentation of how you have the Bible you hold in your hand (ah, well make that the abridged version you hold in your hand… ) And, guess what organization gave you the inerrant Bible…? It was the inerrant Catholic Church!

Now, I know you like to rave on about there being no mention of the Catholic Church in Scripture. And, you know… you are right! But, Lutherans are not mentioned either! Now what? Why do you ignore the history of what has taken place prior to Luther?

The meat of the nut is right here: if SS had any validity, then there would be no difference in any of the doctrines proclaimed by the various Protestant groups. If SS were valid, each group would have a uniform doctrine about Baptism and Holy Eucharist - to name just two items. But, if you are honest and look around - you will observe that there is a multiplicity of fragmented errors trying to pass as doctrine. How can all of these groups that hold SS as valid - come up with contradictory beliefs? The only logical conclusion is that SS is NOT valid - and this explains why there are splintered groups that continue to splinter.

.

1. It’s not new. Around 1,400 BC (LONG before the Pope was in Rome or The Catholic Church even existed), Moses came down the mountain with the first Scripture. It became the rule/canon for those issues - NOT The Catholic Church or the bishops in communion with the successors of Peter. Jesus embraced Scripture some 50 times normatively, but He didn’t once so much as even mention The Catholic Church or the Bishop in Rome or the successor(s) of Peter - for anything, as anything, in any capacity. The “new” adjective would not apply to the Rule of Scripture but to The Catholic Church’s alternative of itself.

Really, AJ, this is a truly tragic line of argumentation. Just what group do you think the Apostles formed after the Holy Spirit came on Petecost? The Lutherans? Seriously, name the group that held everything together before Luther & Co in the 16th Century decided to make a religion in their own image and likeness and one to fit their understanding? It just did not suddenly appear in that Luther was a Catholic Priest

.

I never said ANY Scripture TAUGHT Sola Scriptura. Very, very few praxis’ are TAUGHT in Scripture. And yet that doesn’t mean they are thus unsound and should not be used. Here we are discussing on the internet - and yet there’s no verse that says, “Thou shalt discuss issues on the internet at the Catholic Answers Forum.”

Yes, Christ promised much to His church. Agreed. But perhaps you’ve not noticed that He promised NOTHING to The Catholic Church. Nothing. He promised it NOTHING. He authorized it for NOTHING. He never even mentioned it. Never referred to it.

Yes, Christ did not promise a tome. But He did use Scripture normatively some 50 times, and He NEVER used The Catholic Church thusly. And God wrote a book. I’ve always wondered why Catholics seem unimpressed by that; the only book that would matter is if JESUS wrote it. Why? Isn’t it good that the Holy Spirit wrote a book?

But could we please return to the subject of this thread? If you have a better norma normans, something MORE inerrant, MORE inspired, MORE the inscripturated words of God, MORE historical (before 1400 BC), MORE above and beyond all parties (including The Catholic Church), MORE knowable to all and alterable by none - if you have something that meets all of these MORE than Scripture and thus would be a better canon/norma normans - then state it.

Thought you’d never ask, AJ - it was (is) the same group that gave you the Book to begin with! Now, I know you will dismiss this as quickly as you have dismissed the other valid arguments - but, bear with me for three more sentences.

1- Christ founded His Church on Peter (Matt 16) and there is a historic line from Peter to Benedict XVI - no Protestant group claims this.

2- Only an inerrant group can produce an inerrant work - just like a flawed group (just look at all the doctrinal disputes amongst the various Protestant denominations) can only produce flawed work.

3- Do a time line yourself and follow Christ giving the keys to Peter and trace a line all the way to where you are now and tell me how you got there if not via the Catholic Church.

God bless

.

**
Continues in next post…
**

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

.

1. It’s not a doctrine. Let me state once again: Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the norma normans in evaluating positions.

Well, arbitration is needed - a different issue for another day and thread, one that Sola Scriptura does not address and therefore is beyond the scope of what we can discuss in this thread.

The issue before us is this: WHAT will serve as the rule (“straight edge”) or canon ("measuring stick’) or norma normans (“the norm that norms”) as it is called in epistemology? Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture for that role.

In all disciplines, the best rule/canon is generally regarded to be the one most universally and historically embraced, the one most outside and above and beyond all parties (including the one presenting the position), the most objective (knowable to all, alterable by none). In theology, the IDEAL canon/rule/norma normans would be the inscripturated words of God Himself, regarded as infallible, authoritative, ecumenically and historically embraced (including by all parties involved). Protestants believe such exists (so does The Catholic Church). It’s called “Scriptures.”

The Catholic Church passionately rejects the Rule of Scripture (Sola Scriptura). But this is not because it has a better alternative (it doesn’t) or because it has a different theology of Scripture (it doesn’t). It rejects the Rule of Scripture because it rejects any and all rule/canon/norma normans, indeed it rejects the entire issue of accountability and norming IN THE CASE OF EXCLUSIVELY ONE: itself. It’s positions that it presents are NOT to be evaluated vis-a-vis the Rule of Scripture (Sola Scriptura) because they are not accountable, they are infallible. They are to be accepted “with docility” - not evaluated BY ANY CANON (CCC 87, etc., etc., etc.).

We need to agree on the rule/canon/norma normans BEFORE we can agree on what arbitive process will be used. But in the case of The Catholic Church, NO rule is permitted and it regards one as unaccountable - itself, exclusively. Thus, we never get to the arbitative process.

Benedictus2 gave you an excellent historicial presentation of how you have the Bible you hold in your hand (ah, well make that the abridged version you hold in your hand… ) And, guess what organization gave you the inerrant Bible…? It was the inerrant Catholic Church!

I think this is an impossible conclusion given history. Most of the Bible predates even the claims of The Catholic Church for itself (by up to FOURTEEN CENTURIES!) - making this claim incredible and impossible. And The Catholic Church didn’t write a single letter or word of ANY of it - from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21 - not a single letter. Yes, I agree, EVENTUALLY, it formally embraced the list of books (as have most denominations - nothing unique about the Catholic one doing so) but acknowledging something has nothing to do with giving or causing such. I acknowledge the sun rose this morning, I had nothing to do with it. You seem to be confusing what nearly every denomination (including The Catholic Church) as officially/formally done at some point with the entirely impossible and incredible claim being made. And it’s entirely moot to the issue: A Rule need not be regarded as infallible to be sound. I typically drive on the right hand side of the road in the USA, why? Because the Rule of Law applies, I submit to the Rule of Law for determining if I’m right in driving on the right hand side of the road. Do I have to agree that that law is INFALLIBLE to be sound? No. But you seem to be missing the point: WE DO SO AFFIRM Scripture.

there being no mention of the Catholic Church in Scripture. And, you know… you are right! But, Lutherans are not mentioned either!

Right. But then no Lutheran is insisting that he/she is infallible/unaccountable, incapable of error, exempt from accountability, right because he/she insists that he/she exclusively is right, the sole authority, sole arbiter, sole interpreter, and all must accept whatever self alone says “with docility” so that no rule/canon/norma normans is appliciable since there’s one (just one - self) that is exempt any need for norming.

if SS had any validity, then there would be no difference in any of the doctrines proclaimed by the various Protestant groups.

Again, you seem to be confusing the rule/canon with the arbitration. The rule is infallible, the arbitration is not.

Again, then you must reject the Rule of Law in all civilized societies, since in spite of having the Rule of Law, there are still crimes.

Have you spent effort and time studying all the cults? The one thing they all have in common is this: There is ONE that is the sole authority, sole interpeter, sole arbiter - and that one is self. There is ONE protected by God from error (at least in some sense and in some conditions) - and that ONE is self. There is ONE that infallibly follows God’s leading and that ONE is… you guessed it. Now, does this rubric of self declaring that self is infallible/unaccountable, the sole interpreter, sole authority, sole arbiter - does it mean they all are in total agreement? Friend, I am in FAR greater agreement with my Calvinist friend under Sola Scriptura than The Catholic Church is with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints both exempting one (self) from accountability by claiming that there’s one (self) founded by Jesus, protected by God, the sole authority, sole interpreter, sole arbiter, without need for any rule/canon/norma normans.

**Continues in the next post…
**

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Continues from the post above…

.

1. It’s not new. Around 1,400 BC (LONG before the Pope was in Rome or The Catholic Church even existed), Moses came down the mountain with the first Scripture. It became the rule/canon for those issues - NOT The Catholic Church or the bishops in communion with the successors of Peter. Jesus embraced Scripture some 50 times normatively, but He didn’t once so much as even mention The Catholic Church or the Bishop in Rome or the successor(s) of Peter - for anything, as anything, in any capacity. The “new” adjective would not apply to the Rule of Scripture but to The Catholic Church’s alternative of itself.

None.

Jesus found the church that is one, holy and catholic - the communion of saints, the mystical union of all believers. There’s ZERO evidence that any Apostle founded any denomination.

Now, we know that Paul founded a number of congregations (the one in Rome not being one of them). We don’t know if Peter founded any (we know he didn’t found any in Rome). But none of them founded any denomination.

And what in the world does that have to do with the most sound norma normans in the evaluation of doctrines? OR are you doing just as all the cults do, just as the LDS did, and TRYING to suggest that while Scripture IS the most sound canon in norming, it’s just that one may exempt one from all norming and accountability - and thus the whole issue is moot for that one if that one so exempts that one from such? If so, that’s not the presentation of a better norma normans and it’s CERTAINLY not a better alternative in norming - it’s just one (self) exempting one (self) from the entire issue: “I’m right so when I say I’m right ergo I must be right - thus I’m not accountable, just accept whatever I say with docility.” (CCC 87, etc., etc., etc., etc. “On the Authority of the Church” by LDS Apostle and Prophet Bruce McConkie, every single one of the cults).

.

I never said ANY Scripture TAUGHT Sola Scriptura. Very, very few praxis’ are TAUGHT in Scripture. And yet that doesn’t mean they are thus unsound and should not be used. Here we are discussing on the internet - and yet there’s no verse that says, “Thou shalt discuss issues on the internet at the Catholic Answers Forum.”

That “group” never heard of The Catholic Church (or any other denomination).

And you are making claims for The Catholic Church that EVEN IT does not claim. It is not older than 1400 BC, it is not MORE inspired by God than Scripture, it is not MORE the inscripturated words of God than Scripture, it is not MORE infallible than Scripture, it is not MORE ecumenically embraced by all Christians than Scripture, and it certainly is not more OUTSIDE and BEYOND itself than Scirpture. I find your claims for The Catholic Church to not only be entirely unfounded and absurd - but The Catholic Church itself does not agree with a single one of them.

AmericanJosiah:

Continues in next post…

.

.

 

[benedictus2]

I agree, thus The Catholic Church is not the best rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of positions (including those of The Catholic Church). You just declared the Catholic alternative to Sola Scriptura as “indeed absurd.”

Why have you resorted to LYING? Are you so bereft of rational arguments you have decided twisting the truth might do just as well? Don’t you know that the devil is the father of lies and by doing this you have proclaimed to everyone that you are its child?

---

**And you even went to such great pains (extreme premeditation and determination here to lie) because you cannot get that kind of embedded quote by simply clicking on the “quote” button. **

---

Were you hoping that no one will reference back to my previous post?

---

My reply of “Ah finally you got it right. Those last two points are indeed absurd were in reference to these two sentences from you: “1) The Catholic Church is more outside The Catholic Church than The Catholic Church? 2) The Catholic Church is more unalterable by The Catholic Church than Scripture?”

These are indeed absurd and your phrasing is the one that is absurd. So infact you are the one who is absurd because you are the one who came up with those statements.

The Catholic Church never claimed to be the rule for evaluating scripture because she is the one evaluating scripture. The rule is her sacred tradition. Now a high school kid can understand that but it seems you can’t. The Catholic Church is the one who has the authority to decide what rule is to be used in evaluating Scripture becase the Bible is her book.

But again, The Catholic Church rejects the Rule of Scripture not because it has a better alternative (it doesn’t) or because it has a different theology of Scripture (it doesn’t) but because it rejects any and all canons/norma normans; it simply rejects accountability (well exclusively for one - itself, alone). It’s norming it rejects (or itself), thus it rejects any and all norma normans. [/qquote]
The Catholic Church has every right to reject Sola Scriptura because it is a man made doctrine. She is not here to follow man made doctrines. Only God’s. Now if you want to follow man that is up to you.

And that will not be surprising since protestants have always followed man made doctrines.

 

[benedictus2]

.

1. It’s not a doctrine. Let me state once again: Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the norma normans in evaluating positions.

Duhh, It is a doctrine. Sola Scriptura means scripture alone. Your saying that it is a canon is your own invention. Or probably someone elses but it is a new take yet again on SS.

1. It’s not new. Around 1,400 BC (LONG before the Pope was in Rome or The Catholic Church even existed),

The Pope was in Rome from the 1st centrury. Get your facts right. In the same way you tell lies, you also believe lies. It seems you are mired in lies.

Moses came down the mountain with the first Scripture. It became the rule/canon for those issues -

Moses came down from the mountain with two tablets. The two tablets are not the entrie scripture.
NOT The Catholic Church or the bishops in communion with the successors of Peter. Jesus embraced Scripture some 50 times normatively,
And the Scripture that Jesus embraced was OT.

but He didn’t once so much as even mention The Catholic Church

Except in Matthew 16:18 when he said He will build His Church upon Peter. And that Church He built upon Peter which started at Pentecost IS THE SAME CATHOLIC CHURCH WE HAVE NOW. Take the blinkers off and you will see the truth.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

benedictus2:

Josiah:

So, The Catholic Church is MORE

inspired by God than Scripture?
The Catholic Church is MORE inerrant than Scripture?
The Catholic Church is MORE the inscripturated words of God than Scripture?
The Catholic Church is older than Scirpture (older than 1400 BC)?
The Catholic Church is more outside The Catholic Church than The Catholic Church?
The Catholic Church is more unalterable by The Catholic Church than Scripture?
I find you position bordering on absurd.

If your rubric had ANY credibility, than you CANNOT reject the exact thing you are suggesting when the LDS and the cults do what you are suggesting: self designates self as the rule/canon, self looking in the mirror at self. Friend, think about that. Your rubric has NOTHING to do with whether self is correct, it ONLY has to do with whether self AGREES with self. Well, the LDS agrees with itself. Your alternative has NOTHING to do with correctness, it’s an evasion of the issue. You’ve simply replaced the entire issue with self proclaiming self in agreement with self.

.
Ah, finally you got it right. Those last two point are indeed absurd.

I agree, thus The Catholic Church is not the best rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of positions (including those of The Catholic Church). You just declared the Catholic alternative to Sola Scriptura as “indeed absurd.”

But again, The Catholic Church rejects the Rule of Scripture not because it has a better alternative (it doesn’t) or because it has a different theology of Scripture (it doesn’t) but because it rejects any and all canons/norma normans; it simply rejects accountability (well exclusively for one - itself, alone). It’s norming it rejects (or itself), thus it rejects any and all norma normans.

You are the one who argued that the best norma normans for evaluating The Catholic Church is The Catholic Church because, as you stated, it is CORRECT that…
So, The Catholic Church is MORE inspired by God than Scripture
The Catholic Church is MORE inerrant than Scripture
The Catholic Church is MORE the inscripturated words of God than Scripture
The Catholic Church is older than Scirpture (older than 1400 BC)
The Catholic Church is more outside The Catholic Church than The Catholic Church
The Catholic Church is more unalterable by The Catholic Church than Scripture

YOU posted that this is correct, as you said, “You finally got it right!”

THEN you said that actually, the last two points (which you just declared were right) were “absurd” namely:
The Catholic Church is more outside The Catholic Church than The Catholic Church
The Catholic Church is more unalterable by The Catholic Church than Scripture

In so doing you declared that it’s “absurd” to state that The Catholic Church is more outside The Catholic Church than The Catholic Church and that The Catholic Church is more unalterable BY The Catholic than is Scripture. In so noting, you are indicating that The Catholic Church is absurd as a canon for The Catholic Church since a canon must be outside and alterable by the one under review (in this case, The Catholic Church).

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Duhh, It is a doctrine. Sola Scriptura means scripture alone. Your saying that it is a canon is your own invention.

1. No. Once again, Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans in the evaluation of doctrine.
2. Yes, Sola Scriptura is Latin for “Scripture alone.” It means that Scripture alone is embraced as the rule/canon/norma normans in the evaluation of doctrine.
3. No, I’m not saying that the canon is my invention. I’m saying that Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans in the evaluation of doctrines.

The Pope was in Rome from the 1st centrury. Get your facts right. In the same way you tell lies, you also believe lies. It seems you are mired in lies.

I haven’t a clue what that has to do with anything, but okay. Find me just one quote (just one - I’m in the Christmas, gracious spirit) were ANYONE is referred to as the infallible pope before the year 100 AD.

Moses came down from the mountain with two tablets. The two tablets are not the entrie scripture.

Yes, and what do we call something written by God? Ah, Scripture. So, when does Scripture first appear? With Moses. It’s usually dated around 1400 BC. Unless you have ripped The Ten Commandments out of your Bible or you reject them as Scripture, then that makes the oldest Scripture more than FOURTEEN CENTURIES before even The Catholic Church itself claims (entirely unsubstantiated) that it came into existence. So, no, it’s IMPOSSIBLE for The Catholic Church to have given us Scripture or to be older than Scripture, unless you reject the claim of The Catholic Church and have documentation that the denomination was actually founded over 14 centuries before it itself so claims.

Except in Matthew 16:18 when he said He will build His Church upon Peter.

Nice try, but nope. He said, “on this rock.”

But if you are right, and He built it on Peter, then it died with Peter around 67 AD and Christianity now lies in a vault under St. Peter’s in Rome. Horrible thought. Because Jesus is NOTHING about The Catholic Church, nothing about any successors, nothing about any bishops in Rome, nothing about ANYONE or ANY denomination being infallible or unaccountable or incapable of error or to be accepted with docility. he NEVER referenced The Catholic Church as authoritative and never once used it normatively. Did He so use Scripture?

Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans as doctrines are evaluated. This is sound because it is the very inscripturated words of God Himself, regarded by us all as inerrant. It is historical (to 1400 BC), ecumenically embraced (including by all parties in the evaluation), outside and above all parties, and both knowable to all and alterable by none. But The Catholic Church rejects the Rule of Scripture NOT because it has a better rule/canon (it doesn’t) or because it has a different theology of Scirpture (it doesn’t). It rejects it because it rejects norming (for self exclusively, it insists upon it for all OTHERS - just not self). It alone declares that it alone is infallible in official matters of faith and morals and thus it exempts one (itself) form examination and accountability - form the entire issue of which Sola Scriptura is a part.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[benedictus2]

You are the one who argued that the best norma normans for evaluating The Catholic Church is The Catholic Church because, as you stated, it is CORRECT that…
So, The Catholic Church is MORE inspired by God than Scripture
The Catholic Church is MORE inerrant than Scripture
The Catholic Church is MORE the inscripturated words of God than Scripture
The Catholic Church is older than Scirpture (older than 1400 BC)
The Catholic Church is more outside The Catholic Church than The Catholic Church
The Catholic Church is more unalterable by The Catholic Church than Scripture

YOU posted that this is correct, as you said, “You finally got it right!”

THEN you said that actually, the last two points (which you just declared were right) were “absurd” namely:
The Catholic Church is more outside The Catholic Church than The Catholic Church
The Catholic Church is more unalterable by The Catholic Church than Scripture

In so doing you declared that it’s “absurd” to state that The Catholic Church is more outside The Catholic Church than The Catholic Church and that The Catholic Church is more unalterable BY The Catholic than is Scripture. In so noting, you are indicating that The Catholic Church is absurd as a canon for The Catholic Church since a canon must be outside and alterable by the one under review (in this case, The Catholic Church).
.

No your statement is the one that is absurd because the Catholic Church is not the rule/canon of Scripture. She is the one who declared the rule, canon of Scripture. That is why your statements are absurd so you are the one is absurd.

I think that is called the fallacy of the strawman.

And yes I still maintain that your intent with your post was to lie.