The Rule of Scripture ("Sola Scriptura" as Luther and Calvin called it)

[Thekla]

1. How do you know Jesus was opening up His leather bound tome with "HOLY LXX" printed on the cover in genuine imitation gold letters - and read the Scriptures? I was taught in the Catholic Church that unless one was in a synogogue - Scriptures typically were shared by memory. I was taught a LOT of things incorrectly, so maybe that was too.

Whoa I wasn't aware that I said anything so silly re: Jesus using His "leather bound tome with "HOLY LXX" printed on the cover in genuine imitation gold letters". Why do you restate what you were taught in the RCC as you find fault with their "self-authenticating authority" ?

Your response entirely skips what I posted
Is there a reason for that ?

2. So what? Even if Jesus was carrying around a tome like students at a Baptist Bible college, how does that mean that He ergo accepted as Scripture all and only the books contained in that collection? I have a little Bible tome that is just the NT and Pslams, if I quoted John 3:16 from that, am I thereby declaring that there are ONLY 28 books that are Scripture? I don't follow you AT ALL. Why does quoting a verse in Isaiah (perhaps being translated into Aramaic or Greek) mean that ERGO He accepted the books translated by the LXX as Scripture? That seems entirely baseless.

Your premise is a complete mischaracterization of my statement; to construct a valid counterargument, you should use a valid premise (ie material vs. formal alone).

3. But you continue to raise a moot point. The same 66 books are embraced by 49,995 denominations (assuming Catholics are right and there are 50K denominations). 1 has a 5 less, 4 have a few more (the OO, EO, RC and LDS). With the exception of the LDS - it's all moot. I don't think any has any "problem" with the Arminian Orthodox using their tome or the EO quoting Psalm 151. DO YOU HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE that is MORE ecumenically embraced, by MORE than 49,995 denominations? And something MORE inspired by God, MORE inerrant, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable by all and alterable by none than is Scripture?

The Rule of Scripture for Christians as disputed Christian doctrines are normed would be the Christian Scriptures. For 49,995 denominations - that's the content of 66 books, for 1 it is 61 books and for 4 it's a few more books (none of those 5 agree with any but self on that issue - but it's largely moot anyway). Do you have an alternative embraced by all 50,000 and not just 49,995? And is MORE inspired by God, MORE inerrant, MORE reliable, MORE historically embraced (say to 1400 BC), MORE objectively knowable by all and alterable by none? IF so, please present it and show how it IS more embraced, inspired, inerrant, objective/knowable. Thanks.

So your norma normans is based on practice ... ie Scripture = majority use (number of books, not content of books) ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Let me see if I get this right:

You don't. All you did was CHANGE what I posted. You quoted me - but with whole sentences I never said. (Is that a rule violation)?

IF you had read the opening post we're discussing here, you'd know your issue is entirely moot to the practice.

YOUR point is that your denomination agrees with NO OTHER on what is and is not Scripture. I know. We all know. IF you want to discuss why NONE agree with your denomination on that - start a thread on that, stop trying to hijack this one with the problem your denomination has (as does the OO, RC and LDS). Start a thread on, "WHY DOES MY DENOMINATION REGARD BOOKS AS SCRIPTURE THAT NO OTHER DENOMINATION AGREES WITH?" I'll post in it...

IF you had read the Opening Post (and a great many others in this thread), you would know that the practice of embracing Scripture as the rule in norming is embracing Scripture as the rule in norming - it is not a teaching of what is or is not Scripture (being valid for Jesus to use as well, as He did - even though the corpus of Scripture was smaller than a bit after Him). As has been noted repeatedly, you are welcome to embrace Psalm 151.

The content of these 66 books is embraced as Scripture by 49,999 denominations. I has less. Additionally, 3 have more content. Yes, I know. IF this thread was about why 4 denominations have UNIQUE sets of Scripture that NO ONE BUT SELF ALONE agrees with - your point would be valid (if entirely moot to anything - unless you are Mormon). But it's not. Read the opening post.


Again, IF you have a rule that is embraced by all 50,000 denominations and not just 49,999 - one that is embraced as MORE inspired by God, MORE inerrant, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable by all and alterable by none, MORE historically embraced (say to 1400 BC), then share it. We can discuss it.







.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

So your norma normans is based on practice

Perhaps you could read the Opening Post. I will help you a lot.

No, the practice of embracing Scripture as the norma normans is not making norma normans a practice. Read the opening post.

Embracing the law as the rule in the rule of law does not make the law a practice. Those laws quoted in my Driver's Handbook are not verbs doing things. One can practice the application of law, but law doesn't practice anything. Law is not a verb.



If you have an alternative rule that is embraced identically by 50,000 denominations and not just 49,995 of them, if you know of one what is MORE inspired by God, MORE inerrant, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable by all (say in black and white written words), MORE unalterable by all, MORE historically embraced (say before 1400 BC) than is Scripture - offer it. We can discuss it.






.

 

[Thekla]

I do sincerely hope you don't do this with your Sunday School students.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I do sincerely hope you don't do this with your Sunday School students.

Not addressing the post but instead trying to flame the poster is often regarded as a compliment. IF you had a response - you would have offered it. Having no reasoned response.... I, on the other hand, am saddened by it. I'd rather discuss. MY practice generally is that if I have nothing to add and no reasoned reply - I don't reply. But do what you feel best....




.

 

[Thekla]

Not addressing the post but instead trying to flame the poster is often regarded as a compliment. IF you had a response - you would have offered it. Having no reasoned response.....
.

You should consult the moderation team to determine if it is flaming.

As for "no response - ever", I do think a minimum of two interacting is required for actual dialogue.

The form of communication you use concerns me re: your Sunday School students.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

You should consult the moderation team to determine if it is flaming.

As for "no response - ever", I do think a minimum of two interacting is required for actual dialogue.

The form of communication you use concerns me re: your Sunday School students.

I'm VERY concerned about theology that is divorced from praxis, and vice versa.

Christian life is not courtroom testimony and yes/no answers. It's mysterious, wonderful, awful brilliant and ridiculous. It requires much more than information.

"For though ye should have ten thousand tutors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers"

Sad state of affairs- wouldn't want to see this affliction spread, either.

 

[Thekla]

I'm VERY concerned about theology that is divorced from praxis, and vice versa.

Christian life is not courtroom testimony and yes/no answers. It's mysterious, wonderful, awful brilliant and ridiculous. It requires much more than information.

"For though ye should have ten thousand tutors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers"

Sad state of affairs- wouldn't want to see this affliction spread, either.

Form and content are both important (and actually both are components of teaching) when dealing with children.

They tend to ask questions that are often deeply important to them; rejecting or ignoring their question can be experienced as personal rejection. And even if the question itself is not important to them, any question is in a sense a request for interaction, to recognize the child as a real person.

Sunday School teachers have an "awesome" job; both in the sense of wonderful and also one of deep responsibility to both the students and to God.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I'm VERY concerned about theology that is divorced from praxis, and vice versa.

Read the opening post, under the section "Why Scripture?" Your point is well addressed there.

Christian life is not courtroom testimony and yes/no answers.

Read the opening post. It's not about piety or spiritualism or sanctification, it's about the norming of disputed doctrine. YES, I fully realize, if truth is moot then the whole issue of this thread is moot (and frankly, I'm not sure why you are posting in it). At most state, "We don't care if doctrine is true or not" and leave it at that. Point will be taken, and your thus lack of interest and posting will be understood.





.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Form and content are both important (and actually both are components of teaching) when dealing with children.

They tend to ask questions that are often deeply important to them; rejecting or ignoring their question can be experienced as personal rejection. And even if the question itself is not important to them, any question is in a sense a request for interaction, to recognize the child as a real person.

Sunday School teachers have an "awesome" job; both in the sense of wonderful and also one of deep responsibility to both the students and to God.

Amen!

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Read the opening post, under the section "Why Scripture?" Your point is well addressed there.





Read the opening post. It's not about piety or spiritualism or sanctification, it's about the norming of disputed doctrine. YES, I fully realize, if truth is moot then the whole issue of this thread is moot (and frankly, I'm not sure why you are posting in it). At most state, "We don't care if doctrine is true or not" and leave it at that. Point will be taken, and your thus lack of interest and posting will be understood.

And you were saying something before about quoting sentences you allegedly never wrote?
/irony.

You and I are both quite well aware that you have misstated and in fact distorted my counter-argument. This transparent tactic does nothing to serve the cause of truth.

Here is how the conversation has gone:

CJ: "This liter is the universal standard for measure"
RI: "I agree- except that is a quart in your hands"
CJ: "You are changing the subject. This Liter is the standard"
RI: "Cool. Who will measure and decide when the measure is full and level? Who will fill it?"
CJ: "This Liter is THE MEASURE, and it's clear to me that you don't care whether the soda is measured, You just want to drink."


To be clear:
Holy Scripture is kanon. It is that wthe true measure of that which true, a testimony of the faithful, inspired by God, given to us.




.[/quote]

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

To be clear: Holy Scripture is kanon. It is that wthe true measure of that which true, a testimony of the faithful, inspired by God, given to us.

Are you aware that embracing Scripture as the canon is embracing Scripture as the canon? Do you know what that is called? I invite you to read the opening post....



Or are you suggesting that it is not canon but rather just ONE canon? Is it Luther and Calvin's use of the term "sola" that has you so very upset? IF so, I invite you to read the opening post. And if so IF so, I invite you to share with us what you regard as ABOVE or EQUAL to it? If so, WHAT, pray tell, is MORE or EQUALLY inspired by God, MORE or EQUALLY inerrant, MORE or EQUALLY objectively knowable by all (say more than in black and white physical words), MORE or EQUALLY unalterable by none, MORE or EQUALLY embraced by 49,995 of the 50,000 denominations (your previous note of objection - your denomination agress with no other), MORE or EQUALLY historically embraced (say before 1400 BC) as Scripture?

Now, if you want to place something BELOW it - subject to it - that's in no sense outside of Sola Scriptura since Scripture remains the rule. And if you want to include Tradition, grammar, history, reason or other things in hermeneutics - that's fine with me, too - but that's not the issue here, is it? The issue here is the Rule in norming, not principles or tools in hermeneutics. And if you think that Psalm 151 should be regarded as Scripture - that's just glorious, but that's not the issue here, is it? All this you would know if you've read the opening post.


So, are you opposed to the whole issue of this thread because you regard truth in doctrine as moot because it is not Christian living? Or are you opposed to the whole issue because your denomination doesn't agree with ANY other as to what is and is not Scripture (but 49,995 do - and it's all moot to the issue here anyway)? Or because you're waiting to tell us WHAT is a BETTER rule for the norming of disputed doctrines among us - what is MORE inspired by God, MORE inerrant, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable by all and alterable by none, MORE ecumenically embraced (say by 50,000 denominations instead of 49,999), MORE historically embraced (say BEFORE 1400 BC) than is Scripture? You're waiting to tell us what that is until.......?






.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Are you aware that embracing Scripture as the canon is embracing Scripture as the canon? Do you know what that is called? I invite you to read the opening post....

This is like my child congratulating me on embracing the speed laws of my state.

It is in fact YOU and YOURS who embraced the kanon after you left Rome- or rather, part of the canon. You can name it in Latin, and truncate its application, but it is OUR concept, not yours.

You're welcome.

 

[Kristos]

That's right. Scirpture does not norm anything, Scripture is the embraced norm. Read the opening post.





.

You're changing the subject.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

It is in fact YOU and YOURS who embraced the kanon or rather, part of the canon.

You're welcome.

Sure. Thank you. Next time a Catholic posts that Luther "invented" embracing Scripture as the canon in norming, I'm directing them to this post of yours - indicating that actually the EO did. Okay.


Why you went on for pages trying to denounce your praxis and hijack this thread is something I'm just going to leave as mystery (and your stuff, anyway). I do (just a bit) lament the wasting of our time and the attempts to hijack - but it's not unusual in these forums and nothing I'll give any concern to...

Your concern seems singular: That NONE agrees with what your denomination regards as Scripture (the canon). I can understand that; of course the opening post SPECIFICIALLY STATES this thread is not about what is or is not Scripture and so you've been attempting to hijack it - but I suspect because it's such a major disappointment to you. Rather than trying to hijack this one with your lament, my counsel to you is to start a thread on that: "Why Do the 49,999 Other Denominations All Disagree with Mine on What Is and Is Not Scripture?" I'll post in it. Then we can discuss YOUR point there. Seem reasonable?



Back to the issue here.
Since it has been completely derailed, I suggest re-reading the opening post.





.

 

[GandolftheWhite]

California Josiah you said you have been a Catholic before you became a Lutheran. Could you tell us how old you were when you started the Catholic Church? at Birth? on your own? and could you tell us how long you stayed in the Catholic Church?

thanks

 

[Kristos]

so why aren't all the walls six feet tall?

 

[sunlover1]

so why aren't all the walls six feet tall?

Because a different contractor built each wall.
And even though their RULE was the same (standard tape),
THEY stink at measuring.
There, that's much easier to understand.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

This is like my child congratulating me on embracing the speed laws of my state.

It is in fact YOU and YOURS who embraced the kanon after you left Rome- or rather, part of the canon. You can name it in Latin, and truncate its application, but it is OUR concept, not yours.

You're welcome.

canon-balls


Santa Ana [Pope]: Our canon-balls will blot out the sun!
Travis [Luther]: Then we will fight in the shade

YouTube - The Battle of The Alamo - Final Assault (Original Soundtrack by Dimitri Tiomkin)

 

[Kristos]

Because a different contractor built each wall.
And even though their RULE was the same (standard tape),
THEY stink at measuring.
There, that's much easier to understand.

then they are following teachings of men?