Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide

[AmericanJosiah]

.

**
The official, historic definition of Sola Scriptura:**

“The Scriptures are and should remain the rule and norm of all doctrine” (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 9). “We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged” (Ditto, 3). “The Latin expression “sola scriptura” refers to the authority of the Holy Scriptures to serve as the sole norm (norma normans) for all that is officially confessed in the church.” (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod at official website)

Sola Scriptura IS…

An embrace of God’s inerrent, holy, written word as the final “Rule” (staight edge) or “Canon” (measuring stick) or “norma normans” to serve as the final Standard, Plumbline as Christians evaluate positions (norming), especially doctrine.

**
Sola Scriptura is NOT…**

1. Doctrine. It’s praxis, but yes it is an application of a doctrine - the doctrine of Scripture, which Catholics and Protestants share. Here is the Catholic position: “The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does that mean? It means that God is the author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as God wished.” Sola Scriptura applies this doctrine, but it itself is not a doctrine - it’s praxis. Thus, we need to be clear as to the doctrine part (Scripture is God’s inerrant holy written word) and the praxis part (using such as the norma normans). Sola Scriptura refers to the later.
2. Hermeneutics. It is not a praxis for the intepretation of Scriptures. It’s not hermeneutics, it’s norming. Bob says Jesus was 15 feet tall (a position he may or may not have come to by the interpretation of Scriptures). Sola Scriptura addresses the norming or evaluating of that position by using Scripture the Rule/Canon/Norma Normans.
3. Sola Toma or Sola Biblica. WHATEVER the Scripture is at that point, it is the Rule. Sola Scriptura “existed” just as much at Mt. Sinai as it does today, only the “size” of the Scripture was smaller. Christians (excluding Mormons) believe that the “canon” (authoritative books of Scripture) is closed so this is now a moot issue (except, perhaps, for the largely moot DEUTEROcanonical books about which there is no consensus but since no dogma comes from such anyway, it’s moot to the praxis).
4. Arbitration. Obviously some process is needed to determine if the position “measures up” (arbitration) to the “measuring stick” (the Canon). Sola Scriptura does not address this issue; it only addresses the Canon issue. SOME who embrace the Rule of Scripture (Sola Scriptura) join the RCC in embracing private, individual arbitration (although rarely as radically or as extreme as the RCC does). This is called “private arbitration.” SOME that embrace Sola Scriptura embrace corporate arbitration in various forms. This is called “public arbitration.” It largely depends on whether one embraces the Holy Spirit and this process to be singular/individual or corporate/joint. But the Rule of Scripture deals with the Rule - not the arbitration according to that Rule.
5. Revelation. Sola Scriptura does not affirm that all divine revelation is confined to Scripture. Indeed, Scripture itself teaches that the heavens declare the glory of God. It’s just that the praxis of Sola Scriptura does not use star gazing as the Canon for the evaluation of doctrines.

Some Notes:

1. TECHNICALLY, Sola Scriptura does NOT say that all dogma must be taught in the Bible (again, remember - its a praxis and not a teaching). However, this IS a ramification of the praxis. If Sam taught that Jesus was 15 feet tall, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture does not “norm” this - thus we’d have an unnormed or abiblical teaching that we’d not regard as dogma. If Sam said that Jesus was born in Los Angeles, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture reveals this to be in error and thus heresy. If Sam said that Jesus’ mother was named Mary, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture norms this and it is correct. Thus, for a teaching to be normed via this praxis, it would need to be found in Scripture to a suffient degree to be so arbitrated. Because this ramification is rather clear, it is sometimes mentioned in connection with the praxis - but it’s not technically a part of it.
2. The Doctrine of Scripture says that SCRIPTURE is inerrant. The praxis of Sola Scriptura does not say that every use of such will be infallible. I may have a perfect hammer but it doesn’t guarentee that I will make a perfect table. But it probably is better than using my finger.

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[CWBetts]

.

**
The official, historic definition of Sola Scriptura:**

“The Scriptures are and should remain the rule and norm of all doctrine” (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 9). “We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged” (Ditto, 3). “The Latin expression “sola scriptura” refers to the authority of the Holy Scriptures to serve as the sole norm (norma normans) for all that is officially confessed in the church.” (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod at official website)

Sola Scriptura IS…

An embrace of God’s inerrent, holy, written word as the final “Rule” (staight edge) or “Canon” (measuring stick) or “norma normans” to serve as the final Standard, Plumbline as Christians evaluate positions (norming), especially doctrine.

**
Sola Scriptura is NOT…**

1. Doctrine. It’s praxis, but yes it is an application of a doctrine - the doctrine of Scripture, which Catholics and Protestants share. Here is the Catholic position: “The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does that mean? It means that God is the author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as God wished.” Sola Scriptura applies this doctrine, but it itself is not a doctrine - it’s praxis. Thus, we need to be clear as to the doctrine part (Scripture is God’s inerrant holy written word) and the praxis part (using such as the norma normans). Sola Scriptura refers to the later.
2. Hermeneutics. It is not a praxis for the intepretation of Scriptures. It’s not hermeneutics, it’s norming. Bob says Jesus was 15 feet tall (a position he may or may not have come to by the interpretation of Scriptures). Sola Scriptura addresses the norming or evaluating of that position by using Scripture the Rule/Canon/Norma Normans.
3. Sola Toma or Sola Biblica. WHATEVER the Scripture is at that point, it is the Rule. Sola Scriptura “existed” just as much at Mt. Sinai as it does today, only the “size” of the Scripture was smaller. Christians (excluding Mormons) believe that the “canon” (authoritative books of Scripture) is closed so this is now a moot issue (except, perhaps, for the largely moot DEUTEROcanonical books about which there is no consensus but since no dogma comes from such anyway, it’s moot to the praxis).
4. Arbitration. Obviously some process is needed to determine if the position “measures up” (arbitration) to the “measuring stick” (the Canon). Sola Scriptura does not address this issue; it only addresses the Canon issue. SOME who embrace the Rule of Scripture (Sola Scriptura) join the RCC in embracing private, individual arbitration (although rarely as radically or as extreme as the RCC does). This is called “private arbitration.” SOME that embrace Sola Scriptura embrace corporate arbitration in various forms. This is called “public arbitration.” It largely depends on whether one embraces the Holy Spirit and this process to be singular/individual or corporate/joint. But the Rule of Scripture deals with the Rule - not the arbitration according to that Rule.
5. Revelation. Sola Scriptura does not affirm that all divine revelation is confined to Scripture. Indeed, Scripture itself teaches that the heavens declare the glory of God. It’s just that the praxis of Sola Scriptura does not use star gazing as the Canon for the evaluation of doctrines.

Some Notes:

1. TECHNICALLY, Sola Scriptura does NOT say that all dogma must be taught in the Bible (again, remember - its a praxis and not a teaching). However, this IS a ramification of the praxis. If Sam taught that Jesus was 15 feet tall, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture does not “norm” this - thus we’d have an unnormed or abiblical teaching that we’d not regard as dogma. If Sam said that Jesus was born in Los Angeles, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture reveals this to be in error and thus heresy. If Sam said that Jesus’ mother was named Mary, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture norms this and it is correct. Thus, for a teaching to be normed via this praxis, it would need to be found in Scripture to a suffient degree to be so arbitrated. Because this ramification is rather clear, it is sometimes mentioned in connection with the praxis - but it’s not technically a part of it.
2. The Doctrine of Scripture says that SCRIPTURE is inerrant. The praxis of Sola Scriptura does not say that every use of such will be infallible. I may have a perfect hammer but it doesn’t guarentee that I will make a perfect table. But it probably is better than using my finger.

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

Do you deny the authority of the Church as the final arbiter of Truth?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

.

The official, historic definition of Sola Scriptura:

“The Scriptures are and should remain the rule and norm of all doctrine” (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 9). “We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged” (Ditto, 3). “The Latin expression “sola scriptura” refers to the authority of the Holy Scriptures to serve as the sole norm (norma normans) for all that is officially confessed in the church.” (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod at official website)

Sola Scriptura IS…

An embrace of God’s inerrent, holy, written word as the final “Rule” (staight edge) or “Canon” (measuring stick) or “norma normans” to serve as the final Standard, Plumbline as Christians evaluate positions (norming), especially doctrine.

Sola Scriptura is NOT…

1. Doctrine. It’s praxis, but yes it is an application of a doctrine - the doctrine of Scripture, which Catholics and Protestants share. Here is the Catholic position: “The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does that mean? It means that God is the author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as God wished.” Sola Scriptura applies this doctrine, but it itself is not a doctrine - it’s praxis. Thus, we need to be clear as to the doctrine part (Scripture is God’s inerrant holy written word) and the praxis part (using such as the norma normans). Sola Scriptura refers to the later.
2. Hermeneutics. It is not a praxis for the intepretation of Scriptures. It’s not hermeneutics, it’s norming. Bob says Jesus was 15 feet tall (a position he may or may not have come to by the interpretation of Scriptures). Sola Scriptura addresses the norming or evaluating of that position by using Scripture the Rule/Canon/Norma Normans.
3. Sola Toma or Sola Biblica. WHATEVER the Scripture is at that point, it is the Rule. Sola Scriptura “existed” just as much at Mt. Sinai as it does today, only the “size” of the Scripture was smaller. Christians (excluding Mormons) believe that the “canon” (authoritative books of Scripture) is closed so this is now a moot issue (except, perhaps, for the largely moot DEUTEROcanonical books about which there is no consensus but since no dogma comes from such anyway, it’s moot to the praxis).

4. Arbitration. Obviously some process is needed to determine if the position “measures up” (arbitration) to the “measuring stick” (the Canon). Sola Scriptura does not address this issue; it only addresses the Canon issue. SOME who embrace the Rule of Scripture (Sola Scriptura) join the RCC in embracing private, individual arbitration (although rarely as radically or as extreme as the RCC does). This is called “private arbitration.” SOME that embrace Sola Scriptura embrace corporate arbitration in various forms. This is called “public arbitration.” It largely depends on whether one embraces the Holy Spirit and this process to be singular/individual or corporate/joint. But the Rule of Scripture deals with the Rule - not the arbitration according to that Rule.

1. Revelation. Sola Scriptura does not affirm that all divine revelation is confined to Scripture. Indeed, Scripture itself teaches that the heavens declare the glory of God. It’s just that the praxis of Sola Scriptura does not use star gazing as the Canon for the evaluation of doctrines.

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.Do you deny the authority of the Church as the final arbiter of Truth?

If your question had any relevance to the topic of this thread and replying would not be a rule violation, I’d reply. But I doubt in a way satisfactory to you (given that you capitolized the adjective).

Your interest seems to be in absolute/unaccountable power, the issue of norming is truth.

Again, Sola Scriptura is not a theory and it’s not a doctrine and it has nothing whatsoever to do with justification. Here’s the definition: “The Scriptures are and should remain the rule and norm of all doctrine” (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 9). “We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged” (Ditto, 3). “The Latin expression “sola scriptura” refers to the authority of the Holy Scriptures to serve as the sole norm (norma normans) for all that is officially confessed in the church.” (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod at official website).

Bob the Builder constructs a fense. He says it’s 6’ tall. Now, IF Bob the Builder alone simply declared himself alone to be INCAPABLE of being wrong about such things and thusly exempted one - himself - from accountability, insisting that one (self) simply be accepted “with docility” - then you could accept such, but then you’ve simply circumvented the issue of whether he is correct and chosen instead to just docilicly accept that he (alone) is because he (alone) says he (alone) is. But if truth matters to you, then the issue becomes: is it true? Addressing that question is called “norming.” The first issue in norming is WHAT will serve as the rule/ canon/ norma normans for such. The Rule of Scripture embraces/uses Scripture as the rule.

.

 

[paul_c]

.

**
The official, historic definition of Sola Scriptura:**

“The Scriptures are and should remain the rule and norm of all doctrine” (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 9). “We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged” (Ditto, 3). “The Latin expression “sola scriptura” refers to the authority of the Holy Scriptures to serve as the sole norm (norma normans) for all that is officially confessed in the church.” (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod at official website)

Sola Scriptura IS…

An embrace of God’s inerrent, holy, written word as the final “Rule” (staight edge) or “Canon” (measuring stick) or “norma normans” to serve as the final Standard, Plumbline as Christians evaluate positions (norming), especially doctrine.

**
Sola Scriptura is NOT…**

1. Doctrine. It’s praxis, but yes it is an application of a doctrine - the doctrine of Scripture, which Catholics and Protestants share. Here is the Catholic position: “The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does that mean? It means that God is the author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as God wished.” Sola Scriptura applies this doctrine, but it itself is not a doctrine - it’s praxis. Thus, we need to be clear as to the doctrine part (Scripture is God’s inerrant holy written word) and the praxis part (using such as the norma normans). Sola Scriptura refers to the later.
2. Hermeneutics. It is not a praxis for the intepretation of Scriptures. It’s not hermeneutics, it’s norming. Bob says Jesus was 15 feet tall (a position he may or may not have come to by the interpretation of Scriptures). Sola Scriptura addresses the norming or evaluating of that position by using Scripture the Rule/Canon/Norma Normans.
3. Sola Toma or Sola Biblica. WHATEVER the Scripture is at that point, it is the Rule. Sola Scriptura “existed” just as much at Mt. Sinai as it does today, only the “size” of the Scripture was smaller. Christians (excluding Mormons) believe that the “canon” (authoritative books of Scripture) is closed so this is now a moot issue (except, perhaps, for the largely moot DEUTEROcanonical books about which there is no consensus but since no dogma comes from such anyway, it’s moot to the praxis).
4. Arbitration. Obviously some process is needed to determine if the position “measures up” (arbitration) to the “measuring stick” (the Canon). Sola Scriptura does not address this issue; it only addresses the Canon issue. SOME who embrace the Rule of Scripture (Sola Scriptura) join the RCC in embracing private, individual arbitration (although rarely as radically or as extreme as the RCC does). This is called “private arbitration.” SOME that embrace Sola Scriptura embrace corporate arbitration in various forms. This is called “public arbitration.” It largely depends on whether one embraces the Holy Spirit and this process to be singular/individual or corporate/joint. But the Rule of Scripture deals with the Rule - not the arbitration according to that Rule.
5. Revelation. Sola Scriptura does not affirm that all divine revelation is confined to Scripture. Indeed, Scripture itself teaches that the heavens declare the glory of God. It’s just that the praxis of Sola Scriptura does not use star gazing as the Canon for the evaluation of doctrines.

Some Notes:

1. TECHNICALLY, Sola Scriptura does NOT say that all dogma must be taught in the Bible (again, remember - its a praxis and not a teaching). However, this IS a ramification of the praxis. If Sam taught that Jesus was 15 feet tall, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture does not “norm” this - thus we’d have an unnormed or abiblical teaching that we’d not regard as dogma. If Sam said that Jesus was born in Los Angeles, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture reveals this to be in error and thus heresy. If Sam said that Jesus’ mother was named Mary, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture norms this and it is correct. Thus, for a teaching to be normed via this praxis, it would need to be found in Scripture to a suffient degree to be so arbitrated. Because this ramification is rather clear, it is sometimes mentioned in connection with the praxis - but it’s not technically a part of it.
2. The Doctrine of Scripture says that SCRIPTURE is inerrant. The praxis of Sola Scriptura does not say that every use of such will be infallible. I may have a perfect hammer but it doesn’t guarentee that I will make a perfect table. But it probably is better than using my finger.

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

It restates your position but does not answer the number one objection: How can it be the norma norman if any two people can read the same passage and come to completely different conclusions. A book is not a measuring tape. Jesus did notleave a written word to tell us about faith and morals, he left a church with Peter in charge, because people can explain things, while a book can not.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

A book is not a measuring tape. Jesus did notleave a written word to tell us about faith and morals, he left a church with Peter in charge, because people can explain things, while a book can not.

Actually, written words works exactly like written numerals. The point is: it’s not self. It’s above, beyond, outside all the parties involved. It’s knowable by all and alterable by none (including the teacher of the teaching/position/doctrine under review). And it’s accepted as reliable by all parties. Whether that be a Sears Measuring Tape we use vis-a-vis Bob the Builder’s teaching that the fense is 6 feet tall or a big white sign with black numerals and letters proclaiming “MAX SPEED LIMIT 45 MPH” vis-a-vis your driving speed.

Yes, people can explain things. Good point, just moot to the topic here - UNLESS one such simply exempts himself alone from accountbility. But self excluding self form the question doesn’t in any way address the question, it jsut shouts “don’t examine me alone - I demand that I be exempt, just simply accept “with docility” whatever I alone say cuz I alone insist that you do.” That, obviously, is not a better (or even alternative) praxis of norming, it’s just self alone excluding self alone from norming.

Yes, we all know the ways The Catholic Church alone tries to exempt The Catholic Church alone from norming, and that it alone demands that all accept whatever it says “with docility” (CCC 87, etc., etc., etc., etc.). It’s essentially the same way the LDS and all the cults to for the same exemption of self by self. We all know that. Again, it’s not an alternative approach to norming or an alternate, suprior norma normans - it’s just self alone circumventing the whole issue exclusively for one: self.

.

 

[CWBetts]

Actually, written words works exactly like written numerals. The point is: it’s not self. It’s above, beyond, outside all the parties involved. It’s knowable by all and alterable by none (including the teacher of the teaching/position/doctrine under review). And it’s accepted as reliable by all parties. Whether that be a Sears Measuring Tape we use vis-a-vis Bob the Builder’s teaching that the fense is 6 feet tall or a big white sign with black numerals and letters proclaiming “MAX SPEED LIMIT 45 MPH” vis-a-vis your driving speed.

Yes, people can explain things. Good point, just moot to the topic here - UNLESS one such simply exempts himself alone from accountbility. But self excluding self form the question doesn’t in any way address the question, it jsut shouts “don’t examine me alone - I demand that I be exempt, just simply accept “with docility” whatever I alone say cuz I alone insist that you do.” That, obviously, is not a better (or even alternative) praxis of norming, it’s just self alone excluding self alone from norming.

Yes, we all know the ways The Catholic Church alone tries to exempt The Catholic Church alone from norming, and that it alone demands that all accept whatever it says “with docility” (CCC 87, etc., etc., etc., etc.). It’s essentially the same way the LDS and all the cults to for the same exemption of self by self. We all know that. Again, it’s not an alternative approach to norming or an alternate, suprior norma normans - it’s just self alone circumventing the whole issue exclusively for one: self.

.

Considering the Scriptures name the Church as authority…and it was the Catholic Church back in the day…all of your rantings are little more than claptrap to help you sleep at night

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Considering the Scriptures name the Church as authority…and it was the Catholic Church back in the day…all of your rantings are little more than claptrap to help you sleep at night

Again, you are simply using the same rationale as used in the LDS and all the cults to try to justify the exemption of one by the self same one from norming. Okay, but that’s not an alternative (and certainly not BETTER) approach to norming or a better rule/canon/norma normans for such. It’s just self alone exempting self alone from the entire issue. “I’m right so when I say I’m right, ergo I’m right - so simply accept whatever I say with docility.” Again, self may try to “justify” that circumvention any way self so desires (and such always do it in pretty much the same way), but it remains what it is: self alone excluding self alone from the issue. It’s not addressing the issue, it’s CIRCUMVENTING the issue (for exclusively one: self).

Friend, surely you know that the Scriptures never authorizes or promises The Catholic Church anything at all. It never so much as even MENTIONS it. It is simply claiming all that for itself. Now, sure, anyone can say “whenever the word ‘church’ appears in the Bible, it means The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod” - and if you are required with docility to accep that that’s true cuz it just is, then okay. But at least have the honesty to admit the undeniable and obvious: SCRIPTURE isn’t saying that, not at all. All Scripture is saying is “church.” And friend, authority in no way, shape or form - anywhere - implies infalliblity/unaccountability. I have the authority to do my job, but I guarentee you I’m NOT regarded as infallible/unaccountable! You are confusing two entirely unrelated things: authority and unaccountability.

.

 

[CWBetts]

Again, you are simply using the same rationale as used in the LDS and all the cults to try to justify the exemption of one by the self same one from norming. Okay, but that’s not an alternative (and certainly not BETTER) approach to norming or a better rule/canon/norma normans for such. It’s just self alone exempting self alone from the entire issue. “I’m right so when I say I’m right, ergo I’m right - so simply accept whatever I say with docility.” Again, self may try to “justify” that circumvention any way self so desires (and such always do it in pretty much the same way), but it remains what it is: self alone excluding self alone from the issue. It’s not addressing the issue, it’s CIRCUMVENTING the issue (for exclusively one: self).

Friend, surely you know that the Scriptures never authorizes or promises The Catholic Church anything at all. It never so much as even MENTIONS it. It is simply claiming all that for itself. Now, sure, anyone can say “whenever the word ‘church’ appears in the Bible, it means The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod” - and if you are required with docility to accep that that’s true cuz it just is, then okay. But at least have the honesty to admit the undeniable and obvious: SCRIPTURE isn’t saying that, not at all. All Scripture is saying is “church.” And friend, authority in no way, shape or form - anywhere - implies infalliblity/unaccountability. I have the authority to do my job, but I guarentee you I’m NOT regarded as infallible/unaccountable! You are confusing two entirely unrelated things: authority and unaccountability.

.

If you keep calling the Church a cult, I will have to report you

 

[AmericanJosiah]

If you keep calling the Church a cult, I will have to report you

Obviously, I did not - and we all know that. You keep evading what you quote from me and trying, desperately, to change the topic from the embraced rule/canon in norming to why you think one can/should exempt self from norming.

For the record (and I’m already on record for this), while I disagree with the epistemology of The Catholic Church simply declaring itself to be infallible and thus unaccountable and exempt from norming (and yes, the LDS and all the cults do this as well), I do NOT in any sense regard the LDS or The Catholic Church as “cults.” Never have, don’t now.

My published here position on The Catholic Chruch is this (and I’ve posted it a few times now): I regard The Catholic Church as valid, good and esteemed. I regard her ministries, ministers and Sacraments as all valid. I regard nothing she teaches to be heresy or contrary to Scripture and/or Tradition (indeed, I agree with probably 95% of it - which, as my priest stated, “is a lot better than most Catholics”). I regard all believers in her to be my FULL, EQUAL and UNSEPARATED brothers and sisters in Christ. And I pray daily for God’s richest blessings to her, her ministries and ministers, and Holy Father. THAT’S my view on The Catholic Church. Now, if you will say MORE than that about my organization: The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, then I’ll accept that you more embracing and less “anti” than I am. Otherwise…

.

 

[CWBetts]

The Church is infallible. God is not so cruel as to leave us with a Church that is subject to error.

 

[paul_c]

Actually, written words works exactly like written numerals. The point is: it’s not self. It’s above, beyond, outside all the parties involved. It’s knowable by all and alterable by none (including the teacher of the teaching/position/doctrine under review). And it’s accepted as reliable by all parties. Whether that be a Sears Measuring Tape we use vis-a-vis Bob the Builder’s teaching that the fense is 6 feet tall or a big white sign with black numerals and letters proclaiming “MAX SPEED LIMIT 45 MPH” vis-a-vis your driving speed.

Yes, people can explain things. Good point, just moot to the topic here - UNLESS one such simply exempts himself alone from accountbility. But self excluding self form the question doesn’t in any way address the question, it jsut shouts “don’t examine me alone - I demand that I be exempt, just simply accept “with docility” whatever I alone say cuz I alone insist that you do.” That, obviously, is not a better (or even alternative) praxis of norming, it’s just self alone excluding self alone from norming.

Yes, we all know the ways The Catholic Church alone tries to exempt The Catholic Church alone from norming, and that it alone demands that all accept whatever it says “with docility” (CCC 87, etc., etc., etc., etc.). It’s essentially the same way the LDS and all the cults to for the same exemption of self by self. We all know that. Again, it’s not an alternative approach to norming or an alternate, suprior norma normans - it’s just self alone circumventing the whole issue exclusively for one: self.

.

Josiah, you can not get around the problem that you are using the bible as norma norman when you and I both know that it can’t serve that purpose unless everyone interprets it the same way. It is clear, very clear that his is not the case.

You see, you need one interpretation of the Bible to be the Gold standard for you to have a real norma norman. That interpretation must be the Catholic church’s because it is the only one that can’t be traced back to the source. And your arguments that the church exempts itself from norming is false. The church norms against its historical teaching, which goes back 2000 years and the documentation is far better than anythiing else in antiquity. Further, the church norms itself against the worldwide belief of over 1 Billion Catholics.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

The Church is infallible.

ie, unaccountable. But that’s not an alternative approach to norming and that’s not a better alternative rule/canon for such. It’s just The Catholic Church alone exempting The Catholic Church alone from the question of correctness, substituting it’s claim of self for self and it’s demand that all accept whatever it says (under certain conditions) “with docility.” "I’m right cuz I’m right so ergo I’m right when I say I’m right - norming is moot for just one: me - thus accept whatever I alone say “with docility.” Okay, do what it demands if you so choose. But it’s moot to the issue of this thread and the subject of Sola Scriptura.

You ARE correct as to the “justification” The Catholic Church gives for itself alone exempting itself alone from norming and accountability - I don’t challenge that. I just challenge whether that’s a better approach to norming; IMHO it’s a CIRCUMVENTION of the issue - not a better approach to determining correctness.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah, you can not get around the problem that you are using the bible as norma norman when you and I both know that it can’t serve that purpose unless everyone interprets it the same way. It is clear, very clear that his is not the case. .

So, I presume you also reject the Rule of Law in the USA (and most civilized nations), since not everyone interprets every law in exactly the same way - thus, the Rule of Law is moot and every one must exempt self alone from accountability for what he/she does, says, etc.? And you seem to be confusing the norm with the arbitration.

And frankly, my studies of the LDS and the cults has shown clearly to me that a far, far less practical and useful tool is for each to just exempt self from examination, each alone declaring self alone to be the sole and infallible and unaccountable authority, incapable of error, speaking for God, and exempt from norming. Eliminating a rule/canon OUTSIDE and ABOVE all parties, self exempting self from examination - these are not useful in determining correctness. Self alone determining if self alone agrees with self alone simply indicates if self agree with self, it has no relevance to truth or validity (claims of self alone for self alone not withstanding).

.

 

[Des]

So, I presume you also reject the Rule of Law in the USA (and most civilized nations), since not everyone interprets every law in exactly the same way - thus, the Rule of Law is moot and every one must exempt self alone from accountability for what he/she does, says, etc.?

The difference is that this ‘rule of law’ can eventually be resolved as to who has the correct interpretation. It’s not left up to the individiuals themselves without some sort of higher court making the final binding decision.

 

[Des]

Bob the Builder constructs a fense. He says it’s 6’ tall. Now, IF Bob the Builder alone simply declared himself alone to be INCAPABLE of being wrong about such things and thusly exempted one - himself - from accountability, insisting that one (self) simply be accepted “with docility” - then you could accept such, but then you’ve simply circumvented the issue of whether he is correct and chosen instead to just docilicly accept that he (alone) is because he (alone) says he (alone) is.

Do you think the Apostles thought they were ever wrong when they binded their teachings on the faithful? If you do, then question every writing you deem inspired.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

The difference is that this ‘rule of law’ can eventually be resolved as to who has the correct interpretation. It’s not left up to the individiuals themselves without some sort of higher court making the final binding decision.

Of course. Arbitration is the second part of norming.

Yes, I too reject individualism (one of my reasons for leaving The Catholic Church since it rejects any role or authority of anything but itself - itself alone insisting that itself alone is the SOLE authority, sole interpreter, sole arbiter, sole…)

But I suspect you missed my point. In the Rule of Law, there is a rule/canon/norma normans that is knowable, unalterable, outside and beyond you and the policeman. And that all are regarded as accountable to said Rule. This is the same embrace in the Rule of Scripture. A party is not exempt because the self same alone excludes the self same alone from all such - self insisting that self is incapable of wrong - norming is embraced for all. And in the Rule of Scripture, there is an embraced rule/canon. One that is knowable by all and alterable by none, outside and beyond all parties (including the teacher under review), and it is regarded as MORE than the Law in civil societies with more MORE reason to embrace such as the canon: All parties view it as the very inscripturated words of God Himself, inerrant and thus reliable to the ultimate degree. While the Rule of Scripture in norming theology is similar to the Rule of Law in norming activities, the Rule of Scripture is far better and stronger since it comes from God and is inerrant.

The Catholic Church has no alternative norma normans/canon/rule. It has no alternative process of norming. It rejects the Rule of Scripture because it rejects norming (but exclusively, solely, only in the case of ONE - itself). Since it rejects norming (for self alone), it thus rejects all aspects of it - including whatever might be the embraced Rule in such.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[paul_c]

Originally Posted by paul c
Josiah, you can not get around the problem that you are using the bible as norma norman when you and I both know that it can’t serve that purpose unless everyone interprets it the same way. It is clear, very clear that his is not the case.

No, I’m not confusing norm with the arbitration. I am pointing out that your claim that scripture is the authoritative norma norman is completely unworkable. People have authority, books do not. In this case you propose, the courts were put in place to interpret the law because it was obviously needed. In just the same way, the Church has the authority to interpret the scripture.

And frankly, my studies of the LDS and the cults has shown clearly to me that a far, far less practical and useful tool is for each to just exempt self from examination, each alone declaring self alone to be the sole and infallible and unaccountable authority, incapable of error, speaking for God, and exempt from norming. Eliminating a rule/canon OUTSIDE and ABOVE all parties, self exempting self from examination - these are not useful in determining correctness. Self alone determining if self alone agrees with self alone simply indicates if self agree with self, it has no relevance to truth or validity (claims of self alone for self alone not withstanding).

.

Lets face it, Josiah, you are no better than the LDS or the Cults you distain here because you to take it upon yourself to interpret scripture as you yourself see fit. You claim its the scripture talking, but it is not. It is your interpretation of the scripture.

Scripture must be interpretted by an authoritative source to be be validly understood, just as the law must be interpretted by an authoritative source (the appropriate courts) to be validly understood. The question is, who has that authority. All others are pretenders. The Catholic Church has a much stronger claim to that authority than any other entity. It alone has continuity to St. Peter, who was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven in Matthew 16 by Jesus himself. Those keys are a symbol of his authority. And the Catholic Church alone has a history of doctrinal precedents (to use your court analogy) going back to the Apostles. And it alone has verbal tradition passed down the last 2000 years through its clergy on how to understand the scripture that it created through the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Cease your unbelieve and believe…

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

No, I’m not confusing norm with the arbitration. I am pointing out that your claim that scripture is the authoritative norma norman is completely unworkable. People have authority, books do not. In this case you propose, the courts were put in place to interpret the law because it was obviously needed. In just the same way, the Church has the authority to interpret the scripture.

Picking up on your point, the courts are suppose to operate according to a rule! A written, knowable by all and alterable by none, above and beyond all RULE. It’s called The Rule of Law. NO ONE may circumvent the issue of accountability (and thus norming) by self alone exempting self alone.

Yes, UNDER THAT, there is in civil societies that embrace the Rule of Law, an arbitive process. As I’ve posted, ALL NORMING involves arbitration. That is the SECOND major aspect of norming. As I’ve noted, there are TWO major aspects. The first (and the issue that needs to be addressed first) is WHAT will serve as the rule (straight edge)/ canon (measuring stick) / or as it is called in epistemology, the norma normans (the norm that norms). THAT is the issue before us - WHAT will serve as the rule/canon/norma normans as doctrines are evaluated (including those of The Catholic Church)? That is the only issue addressed by Sola Scriptura since Sola Scriptura is the praxis of using Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans.

If we could talk about arbitration (such would be hijacking and a rule violation), I’d note that what is done in secular legal issues, is that there is a court OUTSIDE all the parties involved, and it operates and evaluates according the Rule of Law - NOT the opinions of the defendant. In Catholicism, there is no case permitted because The Catholic Church alone exempts The Catholic Church alone from any hearing, investigation, norming. "I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right so ergo I’m right - a day is court is moot in the case of my alone, just accept whatever my position is “with docility.” And IF any investigation IS to be done, it will be done by The Catholic Church alone according to the teachings of The Catholic Chruch alone. Rather like the defendant staying, “I’m INCAPABLE of being wrong, but I alone will be the judge and jury of whether I’m wrong and I will use the Rule of my own thoughts and actions, so if I alone conclude that I alone agree with I alone, then I’m correct - but it’s moot since I CANNOT be incorrect.”

.

Lets face it, Josiah, you to take it upon yourself to interpret scripture as you yourself see fit

Actually, the only one that does that is The Catholic Church. Read your Catechism, # 85.

.

 

[paul_c]

Picking up on your point, the courts are suppose to operate according to a rule! A written, knowable by all and alterable by none, above and beyond all RULE. It’s called The Rule of Law. NO ONE may circumvent the issue of accountability (and thus norming) by self alone exempting self alone.

Yes, UNDER THAT, there is in civil societies that embrace the Rule of Law, an arbitive process. As I’ve posted, ALL NORMING involves arbitration. That is the SECOND major aspect of norming. As I’ve noted, there are TWO major aspects. The first (and the issue that needs to be addressed first) is WHAT will serve as the rule (straight edge)/ canon (measuring stick) / or as it is called in epistemology, the norma normans (the norm that norms). THAT is the issue before us - WHAT will serve as the rule/canon/norma normans as doctrines are evaluated (including those of The Catholic Church)? That is the only issue addressed by Sola Scriptura since Sola Scriptura is the praxis of using Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans.

If we could talk about arbitration (such would be hijacking and a rule violation), I’d note that what is done in secular legal issues, is that there is a court OUTSIDE all the parties involved, and it operates and evaluates according the Rule of Law - NOT the opinions of the defendant. In Catholicism, there is no case permitted because The Catholic Church alone exempts The Catholic Church alone from any hearing, investigation, norming. "I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right so ergo I’m right - a day is court is moot in the case of my alone, just accept whatever my position is “with docility.” And IF any investigation IS to be done, it will be done by The Catholic Church alone according to the teachings of The Catholic Chruch alone. Rather like the defendant staying, “I’m INCAPABLE of being wrong, but I alone will be the judge and jury of whether I’m wrong and I will use the Rule of my own thoughts and actions, so if I alone conclude that I alone agree with I alone, then I’m correct - but it’s moot since I CANNOT be incorrect.”

Josiah,
The courts interpret the law, Just as the Catholic Church interprets scripture. The courts were authorized in to do this by the local government. The Catholic Church was authorized to do this by Jesus Christ. The courts are ultimately held accountable for their decisions by the local government that authorized them, which also has the authority to replace the judges or change the courts configurations. The Catholic Church is held accountable by God, who could damn any offending Church member to hell and of course can replace any offending party more effectively and more permanently than the local government could replace a judge.

Just as the courts are held accountable by precedent, so too the Catholic leaders, who must teach what they learned from their predecessors. Any change of doctrine would be immediately obvious so there is a clear forcing function to keep the Church on the path set out by Christ and passed on through the Apostles.

Like the local courts, the Catholic church has jurisdiction over you , whether you like it or not. If you don’t follow the legal interpretations of the local courts, you are liable to fines and imprisonment. If you don’t follow the scriptural interpretations of the Catholic Church, you are liable to eternal damnation.

I like this court analogy you introduced, by the way. Its very effective for proving my points.

.

Actually, the only one that does that is The Catholic Church. Read your Catechism, # 85.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah,
The courts interpret the law, Just as the Catholic Church interprets scripture.

1. Yes, the Rule is the LAW - not the views/opinions/position of the defendent.
2. The defendent doesn’t arbitrate the correctness or uncorrectness of himself - according to the Rule of himself, moot because he himself alone exempts he himself alone from accountablity - declaring one (himself) to be incapable of incorrectness.

The model you are using fits a bit with Sola Scriptura but contradicts the position of The Catholic Church.

In civil societies, NO ONE is exempt from accountability. This is contrary to The Catholic Church that exempts one (exclusively) - itself. Which is why it rejects Sola Scriptura - it’s just moot in the exclusive case of just one - itself. It alone circumvents the entire issue of norming by alone declaring that self alone is infallible and thus unaccountable, incapable of error in official matters of faith and morals thus norming (along with its issue of the embraced rule/canon) is simply moot in the case of just one - self, exclusively. In civil society, a defendent may not simply declare one (himself) exempt from accountability and the process of norming.

In civil societies, the rule/canon is OUTSIDE, ABOVE and BEYOND all parties. Even the Supreme Court and the President of the United States is under and accountable to the Law (written, knowable). IF The Catholic Church embraced any rule/canon for itself (and it doesn’t simply because it rejects accountability for itself exclusively - the issue is moot for itself alone), it would not permit any rule/canon outside of itself. How is this known? Becuase it DOES have a rule/canon/norma normans for ALL OTHERS (just not itself). And what is that? “The three-legged-stool” of 1) The Tradition as IT currently defines, chooses and interprets - essentially what it teaches PLUS 2) The Scripture NOT knowable and unalterable on any page or in any tome but “in the heart” of itself, as currently understood and interpreted by itself PLUS 3) the Magisgerium of itself, as chosen by itself, from those pledged to uphold all the teachings of itself - and the rulings, decisions, interpretations, arbitrations and thoughts of one, itself. These 3 inseparately form the rule/canon/norma normans for all OTHERS, but as is perfectly and undeniably obvious, it’s just self. So OTHERS are accountable for what THEY teach (just not itself) and the Rule is this, “Do they agree with me?” Do you know of any court in civil societies where the Defendent alone may declare himself alone infallible and thus unaccountable, incapable of wrong? And all OTHERS will be judged right or wrong NOT according to the Law but whether their thoughts, actions, words conform to those of the Defendent? Where the Defendent is the judge/jury and rule for himself - moot since the defendant declares that there is exclusively one who cannot be wrong - self?

The courts were authorized in to do this by the local government. The Catholic Church was authorized to do this by Jesus Christ.

No. Actually, the courts are authorized by the Law. The US Constitution and the constitutions of every State in the USA establish the courts and their authorities. BTW, there’s NEVER any “infallibility” implied in that. You seem to though the word “authority” around as if it has anything whatsoever to do with infallibility/unaccountability. Obviously,it doesn’t.

But what is abundantly and undeniably obvious is that Scripture never authorized The Catholic Church for or about or concerning anything whatsoever. It’s not so much as even MENTIONED - in passing or for or about anything whatsoever. I know you, you know that, we all know that.

Lets face it, Josiah, you to take it upon yourself to interpret scripture as you yourself see fit

Actually, the only one that does that is The Catholic Church. Read your Catechism, # 85

.

.