Sola Scriptura..."norma normans"

[CaliforniaJosiah]

CJ,

Please let me ask a clarifying question...since you've mentioned physics and scientific processes several times, maybe I can make an analogy. Please correct me if I'm completely mistaken, but which of the following four options would best represent the "norma normans" as you describe it, if the question on the table is "How can the scientific community determine the mass of an object?"

(a) We shall measure mass against an internationally agreed-upon unit (doesn't say which unit).

(b) We shall measure mass against an internationally agreed-upon unit, and this unit shall be the international kilogram (doesn't define the kilogram itself, but much more specific than (a)).

(c) We shall measure mass against an internationally agreed-upon unit, and this unit shall be the international kilogram defined by the metal cylinder in Paris (leaves no room for doubt as to what the kilogram shall be considered to be).

(d) The norm is the metal cylinder in Paris itself.

Based on the post that you continually reference, my guess is that (b) is the closest analogy to your understanding of using Scripture as the "norm that norms all norms" for judging doctrine. It defines praxis, but it works regardless of exactly how one defines the unit of measure itself.

-Bill

ps. Let's ignore for the present that the international kilogram in Paris has itself lost mass, and therefore introduces the real philosophical conundrum of "just what the heck is a kilogram anyway?"

I realize that no other denomination agrees with the EOC on what is and is not Scripture.

As you know, the practice of embracing Scripture as the norma normans does not teach what is and is not Scripture (practices can't teach anything). Yes - as a practice - Orthodox COULD employ the Rule of Scripture with their altogether unique embrace of what is and is not Scripture, just as the Jews did when Scripture we only two stone tablets.

This is well related in the section "what it is not" here http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/


Interestingly, the RCC also has a unique embrace of what is and is not Scripture - no other denomination on the planet (including yours) agrees with. In 500 years of discussions between Lutherans and Catholics, this has never been a problem (or even an issue). Indeed, Lutherans have never seen as necessary a need to ACCEPT or REJECT those extra books - it just seems altogether irrelevant in our discussion with Catholics. We've allowed them to use their extra books (in my discussions with the Catholics here, I do as well). It's irrelevant to any doctrine in dispute. The ONLY time ANYTHING from these disputed books comes up is in a discussion of Purgatory (they at times will quote a verse in a book the EOC also accepts), but like the EOC, we don't view that as confirming the unique RCC dogma of Purgatory. The "issue" then has never been "that's not Scripture!" but rather "that doesn't confirm your unique dogma." I've read the RCC books. I've read Psalm 151 (the extra Psalm I understand the EOC throws in) but not the other unique EOC books - but I suspect the same issue would be involved there.

In any case, we are wholly OFF TOPIC. The issue here is not why the EOC agrees with no denomination on what is and is not Scripture. The issue is the sometimes Protestant practice of embracing Scripture as the norma normans in the evaluation of disputed dogmas among us.




Form http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/

An illustration:


Let's say Dave and Fred are neighbors. They decided that they will hire a contractor to build a brick wall on their property line, six feet tall. Dave and Fred hire Bob the Builder. He agrees to build the wall on the property line - six feet tall.

Bob is now done. He claims the wall is six feet tall. Does it matter? If it doesn't, if his work and claim are entirely MOOT - then, nope - truth doesn't matter. And can just ignore what he said and did. OR we can consider that of the nearly 7 billion people in the world, there is ONE who is incapable of being wrong about measurements - and that ONE is Bob the Builder, claims ONE - Bob the Builder. IF Bob the Builder alone is right about what he alone claims about he alone here, it's pretty much a waste of time to wonder if what he said about this is true or not. But, IF truth matters and IF Bob the Builder will permit accountability (perhaps because he is confident the wall IS six feet tall), then we have the issue of accountability: Is the wall what we desire and what Bob the Builder claims it is?

If so, we just embraced norming. Norming is the process of determining correctness of the positions among us. For example, Bob claiming the wall is 6 feet tall. Is that correct? Addressing that question is norming.


Norming typically involves a norm: WHAT will serve as the rule (straight edge) or canon (measuring stick) - WHAT will be embraced by all parties involved in the normative process that is the reliable standard, the plumbline. Perhaps in the case of Fred and Dave, they embrace a standard Sears Measuring Tape. They both have one, Bob does too. Dave, Fred and Bob consider their carpenter's Sears Measuring Tape as reliable for this purpose, it's OBJECTIVE (all 3 men can read the numbers), it's UNALTERABLE (none of the 3 can change what the tape says) and it's OUTSIDE and ABOVE and BEYOND all 3 parties. Using that could be called "The Rule of the Measuring Tape." The Sears Measuring Tape would be the "canon" (the word means 'measuring stick') for this normative process.



Why Scripture?


In epistemology (regardless of discipline), the most sound norma normans is usually regarded as the most objective, most knowable by all and alterable by none, the most universally embraced by all parties as reliable for this purpose. My degree is in physics. Our norma normans is math and repeatable, objective, laborative evidence. Me saying, "what I think is the norm for what I think" will be instantly disregarded as evidential since it's both moot and circular. I would need to evidence and substantiate my view with a norm fully OUTSIDE and ABOVE and BEYOND me - something objective and knowable. This is what The Handbook of the Catholic Faith proclaims (page136), "The Bible is the very words of God and no greater assurance of credence can be given. The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does that mean? It means that God Himself is the Author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as He wished.... the authority of the Bible flows directly from the Author of the Bible who is God; it is authoritative because the Author is." Those that accept the Rule of Scripture tend to agree. It's embrace as the most sound Rule flows from our common embrace of Scripture as the inscriptured words of God for God is the ultimate authority.

The embrace of Scripture as the written words of God is among the most historic, ecumenical, universal embraces in all of Christianity. We see this as reliable, dependable, authoritative - it as a very, very, broad and deep embrace as such - typically among all parties involved in the evaluation. (See the illustration above).

It is knowable by all and alterable by none. We can all see the very words of Romans 3:25 for example, they are black letters on a white page - knowable! And they are unalterable. I can't change what is on the page in Romans 3:25, nor can any other; what is is.

It is regarded as authoritative and reliable. It is knowable by all and alterable by none. Those that reject the Rule of Scripture in norming ( the RCC and LDS, for example ) have no better alternative (something more inspired, more inerrant, more ecumenically/historically embraced by all parties, more objectively knowable, more unalterable), they have no alternative that is clearly more sound for this purpose among us.

To simply embrace the teachings of self (sometimes denominational "tradition" or "confession") as the rule/canon is simply self looking in the mirror at self - self almost always reveals self. In communist Cuba, Castro agrees with Castro - it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Castro is correct. We need a Rule outside, beyond, above self.



Why do some so passionately reject it?


Those that reject the Rule of Scripture in norming tend to do so not because they reject Scripture or have an alternative that is MORE inerrant, MORE the inscripturated words of God, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable, MORE unalterable, MORE ecumenically embraced as authoriative. Rather the rejection tends to be because each rejects accountability (and thus norming and any norm in such) in the sole, singular, exclusive, particular, unique case of self alone. From The Handbook of the Catholic Faith (page 151), "When the Catholic is asked for the substantiation for his belief, the correct answer is: From the teaching authority. This authority consists of the bishops of The Catholic Church in connection with the Catholic Pope in Rome. The faithful are thus freed from the typically Protestant question of 'is it true' and instead rests in quiet confidence that whatever the Catholic Church teaches is the teaching of Jesus Himself since Jesus said, 'whoever hears you hears me'." The Catholic Church itself says in the Catechism of itself (#87): Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, The faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their [Catholic] pastors give them in different forms." IF self declares that self is unaccountable and that self is exempt from the issue of truthfulness, then the entire issue of norming (and the embraced norma normans in such) becomes irrelevant (for self). The issue has been changed from truth to power (claimed by self for self).

Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[Ignatius21]

This thread is a discussion of what is and is not the praxis of Sola Scriptura.

I said in the first post of this thread that I would attempt to interact with your post on what it is, and what it isn't. Evidently you wish to restrict my interaction to either saying "Yep, that's the historic Lutheran definition" or else just bowing out. Neither of which is interactive. My original post concluded with the way in which I wish to move forward with this thread, namely:

My objection, then, is not so much with the idea that we should be normed by God's truth and God's truth alone. My objection is that, by formulating such a philosophically precise and nuanced definition, we have actually produced something that is unworkable in any kind of practice. We can distinguish between "theory" and "practice" in philosophy, but here in the real world where we live, move and have our being, we cannot separate them. And SS believers acknowledge the same....but having defined the term so carefully, they have set up something that can never be blamed for any failure of men. No matter how badly we may fail at applying SS, SS itself can't ever be blamed. Essentially (though they would not state this), to blame SS is to blame Scripture, which is to blame God himself...and such is unthinkable.

In other words, granting that your definition of Sola Scriptura and your exposition of it in the thread that you continually link to (literally, in every post, and sometimes twice because I believe it's in your signature also) in fact represents THE historical Protestant position, I have put forward an interaction alledging that the praxis is of little value outside the realm of abstract ideals, and that hammering away at the distinction really doesn't get anyone anywhere. In other words, I'm asking you to show the value of this nuanced distinction in the real world. I am also claiming that even the nuanced distinction carries within itself certain philosophical and theological presuppositions that, themselves, cannot be normed by the norm because they necessarily precede the norm.

I gave you the official, historic definition.
If you don't agree with it, then we're talking past each other.
And there's nothing I can do about that.
I gave you the official, historic definition. Verbatim.

I don't disagree that it's the verbatim quote from the Lutheran confession. Why would I disagree with that? As I've stated, I disagree with whether the fine distinction being made is of value, and also whether it resolves the problem you and the Reformers were trying to solve...namely, the problem of establishing a 100% objective standard that breaks the self-referential circle of ultimate authority. I believe that in application, SS becomes every bit as self-referential as any other method of determining doctrine. I believe that as an abstract "praxis," it still has the same characteristic because it basically assumes itself.

I gave you what has been here described as a good explanation of such.
If you think it's wrong, then I've done all I can.

Give my clarification of what I'm trying to do in my interaction with your post, I think there's plenty you can do

As I stated, in the 6 years I've been at CF and have discussed this, to date not a single Protestant has disgreed (even in a micro way) with what is in that post. Indeed, more than one Reformed Protestant has used the exact, verbatim wording from the Lutheran Confessions. But if you think it's the wrong definition, so be it.

Score one for Protestant ecumenism. As I said above, I'm trying to interact with your definition and the consequences of adopting it. The definition is fine.

 

[Ignatius21]

I realize that no other denomination agrees with the EOC on what is and is not Scripture.

As you know, the practice of embracing Scripture as the norma normans does not teach what is and is not Scripture (practices can't teach anything). Yes - as a practice - Orthodox COULD employ the Rule of Scripture with their altogether unique embrace of what is and is not Scripture, just as the Jews did when Scripture we only two stone tablets.

This is well related in the section "what it is not" here http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/

What on earth are you talking about? What does this have to do with anything? Do you actually read my posts or do you just cut-and-paste your own thread ad nauseum? Did you see that I referenced your thread in my original post? Did you see that I asked that anyone interacting with this thread not do so until they've first read your definition?

Interestingly, the RCC also has a unique embrace of what is and is not Scripture - no other denomination on the planet (including yours) agrees with.

In 500 years of discussions between Lutherans and Catholics, this has never been a problem (or even an issue). Indeed, Lutherans have never seen as necessary a need to ACCEPT or REJECT those extra books - it just seems altogether irrelevant in our discussion with Catholics. We've allowed them to use their extra books (in my discussions with the Catholics here, I do as well). It's irrelevant to any doctrine in dispute. The ONLY time ANYTHING from these disputed books comes up is in a discussion of Purgatory (they at times will quote a verse in a book the EOC also accepts), but like the EOC, we don't view that as confirming the unique RCC dogma of Purgatory. The "issue" then has never been "that's not Scripture!" but rather "that doesn't confirm your unique dogma." I've read the RCC books. I've read Psalm 151 (the extra Psalm I understand the EOC throws in) but not the other unique EOC books - but I suspect the same issue would be involved there.

Ummm...yay?

In any case, we are wholly OFF TOPIC. The issue here is not why the EOC agrees with no denomination on what is and is not Scripture. The issue is the sometimes Protestant practice of embracing Scripture as the norma normans in the evaluation of disputed dogmas among us.

I gave an analogy from physics (which you keep bringing up) attempting to clarify the points made in your thread (which you've cut-and-pasted so many times I could wallpaper my house with it). On which planet is this wholly off topic? What does "why the EOC agrees with no denomination" have to do with anything? When did I bring that up?

I thought there was some potential for constructive dialogue here. I would like to believe there still is. If we wish to move forward, let's agree to the following for the remainder of this thread:

(1) Give answers to direct questions when asked,
(2) Never again post a link to your definition thread, and certainly not cut-and-paste the whole thing and waste half a page of posting space when the link was already given in my OP with the precondition that everyone please read it, especially considering that you already give the link in every one of your responses via your signature,
(3) Allow the topic of THIS THREAD to be what the OP said it was, namely, an interaction with your thread and a discussion of whether such a nuanced definition actually benefits anyone, or can even stand on its own without assuming itself.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

just bowing out. Neither of which is interactive.

Friend, I'm participating. I never "bowed out."
I'm MORE THAN WILLING to be "interactive" concerning the topic. And I have been, and will continue to be.

In other words, granting that your definition of Sola Scriptura and your exposition of it in the thread that you continually link to in fact represents THE historical Protestant position, I have put forward an interaction alledging that the praxis is of little value outside the realm of abstract ideals, and that hammering away at the distinction really doesn't get anyone anywhere. In other words, I'm asking you to show the value of this nuanced distinction in the real world.

Again, you may want to begin a thread on arbitration.
But, again, such is typically of very limited value unless we're agreed on the first two issues in norming: accountability and what will serve as the rule.

As I've stated, I disagree with whether it resolves the problem you and the Reformers were trying to solve...namely, the problem of establishing a 100% objective standard that breaks the self-referential circle of ultimate authority.

Again, we're WAY off topic. If you want to discuss arbitration - we can do that....

I never said that embracing Scripture as the norma normans means that all disagreements are ended, everyone agrees with everyone on everything, and we can be 100% sure about everything. Sola Scriptura doesn't teach that (it's a practice, it doesn't teach ANYTHING), I never said that, I'm not aware of any Lutheran saying that. What I've said is I think Scripture is the most sound norma normans - and that I think it is better than:
1) Self exempting self from the issue of correctness, replacing such with the insistence of self that self has the POWER/authority to be exempt and our role is quiet, docilic submission to that self (a rejection of accountability) I could quote the RCC Catechism and Handbook for you here, as well as some statements from the LDS.
2) That the veiws of self are the most sound rule for the views of self - "Tradition" being the rule for 'Tradition" since this is simply a pure circle of self-authentication, self will always conclude that self looks like self. Looking in a mirror at self is unrelated to the issue of self being correct.

Is Scripture perfect? Yes - WE ALL AGREE. Is OUR using such perfect? Nope. But for all the reasons expressed in opening post linked to, it seems more sound than the alternatives of self exempting self or of self agreeing with self. See this:

Why Scripture?


In epistemology (regardless of discipline), the most sound norma normans is usually regarded as the most objective, most knowable by all and alterable by none, the most universally embraced by all parties as reliable for this purpose. My degree is in physics. Our norma normans is math and repeatable, objective, laborative evidence. Me saying, "what I think is the norm for what I think" will be instantly disregarded as evidential since it's both moot and circular. I would need to evidence and substantiate my view with a norm fully OUTSIDE and ABOVE and BEYOND me - something objective and knowable. This is what The Handbook of the Catholic Faith proclaims (page136), "The Bible is the very words of God and no greater assurance of credence can be given. The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does that mean? It means that God Himself is the Author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as He wished.... the authority of the Bible flows directly from the Author of the Bible who is God; it is authoritative because the Author is." Those that accept the Rule of Scripture tend to agree. It's embrace as the most sound Rule flows from our common embrace of Scripture as the inscriptured words of God for God is the ultimate authority.

The embrace of Scripture as the written words of God is among the most historic, ecumenical, universal embraces in all of Christianity. We see this as reliable, dependable, authoritative - it as a very, very, broad and deep embrace as such - typically among all parties involved in the evaluation. (See the illustration above).

It is knowable by all and alterable by none. We can all see the very words of Romans 3:25 for example, they are black letters on a white page - knowable! And they are unalterable. I can't change what is on the page in Romans 3:25, nor can any other; what is is.

It is regarded as authoritative and reliable. It is knowable by all and alterable by none. Those that reject the Rule of Scripture in norming ( the RCC and LDS, for example ) have no better alternative (something more inspired, more inerrant, more ecumenically/historically embraced by all parties, more objectively knowable, more unalterable), they have no alternative that is clearly more sound for this purpose among us.

To simply embrace the teachings of self (sometimes denominational "tradition" or "confession") as the rule/canon is simply self looking in the mirror at self - self almost always reveals self. In communist Cuba, Castro agrees with Castro - it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Castro is correct. We need a Rule outside, beyond, above self.


.

Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[Joshua G.]

CJ: if you would like to talk about starting new threads, you are more than welcome to start a new thread about starting new threads. Until then, that is off topic and I wish that you would remain on topic, that being your linked post, its magical normative powers and, enfin, its superbness.

I don't want to remind you again!

Josh

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

CJ: if you would like to talk about starting new threads, you are more than welcome to start a new thread about starting new threads. Until then, that is off topic and I wish that you would remain on topic, that being your linked post, its magical normative powers and, enfin, its superbness.

I don't want to remind you again!

Josh

I sense your tone making anything more less than good....

As you KNOW, I never posted anything about "magical" or "powers"

I do think it a more sound rule than none or the views of self. I expressed this AND my reasons why. You never engaged me in any discussion of that. I also expressed why I think Scripture the most sound rule. You never discussed that either - except to hint that perhaps the ECF might have agreed with me.

Oh well....

IF you better understand what Sola Scriptura is, then progress was made.





.

 

[Joshua G.]

Okay, my snarky post was given in jest and I hope it found you well. But it served to show how frustrating this post is. Honestly, you have confined the terms of a thread (that isn't even yours... certainly we can allow the OP some ability to interpret the bounds of his own thread) so narrowly that we are talking about nothing here.

CJ, there is so much that is not good about CF as a conglomeration of one billion Christians that don't agree on anything. But what is beautiful about it is that when used correctly, we can come to another's house and explore and ask questions. And if that house is cool enough to have a public square where you won't be flogged for disagreeing with the host (like our debate section) then we can have honest and sincere discussion with the focus on trying to understand each other.

Ignatius and I are here not so that we can understand your post. It's so that we can understand what SS TRULY is. IF an Orthodox ever meets your criteria for not parroting Catholics and actually give a truly Orthodox response to Sola Scriptura, it will not be ultimately because of that post of yours because while that is useful for a starting point, it can't go much beyond that and this is a major reason why:

Sola Scriptura and every praxis and doctrine that is formulated in the Lutheran Confessions is a response to the Medieval Catholic Church and her doctrines understood in her way with her emphasis, her beauty and her blemishes. A part from a hadful of letters between Melancthon (sp) et al and the Patriarch of Constantinople, Lutheranism does not attempt to interact at all with Orthodoxy. And that is completely logical because Orthodoxy had NOTHING to do with them at all.

Lutheranism is a protestant denomination and its very DNA, it defines itself by how it is and how it is not Catholic. The Lutheran Confessions are basically a dear John letter to the Catholic Church. I am not criticizing that, but we need to understand that because in this way we (both Lutherans and Orthodox) accept that the way in which the praxis and described and the doctrines are explained is not meant for the Orthodox audience. Much of it may very well not pertain at all to Orthodox-Lutheran relations and none of it pertains directly (as we were not even understood or thought of when the Confessions were drawn up). All of this is perfectly reasonable so there is not ONE part of my paragraph here that is meant to be critical of Lutheranism.

With that said, what you quote from the Confessions was not written with us Orthodox in mind and it takes a very nuanced perspective to really get what I am saying here. I know that on the surface one might think that the Confessions are not at all geared towards the Catholic Church but rather towards expounding truth. But the very fact that, for example, the Lutheran confessions do not speak to the issue of, say, science in the light of Scriptures is because they were written before the rennaissance. Just as they can't confront an issue that hadn't yet taken place, they can't properly confront issues and all of their nuances that have taken place outside of their sphere of awareness (i.e. Constantinople).

So, PERHAPS a Catholic could take your post have a very fruitful conversation about your post because your post (even your own editorials) are written (wittingly or unwittingly, I suspect mostly the latter) to a Western Audience that is built on a Roman Catholic understanding of the faith and/or doctrine written in protest thereto. Orthodoxy plays no part in that.

So, your post is nice. And it caught my attention because it was nuanced, showed some thinking outside of the box and I THOUGHT I saw in your personality someone who was willing to have an open and interactive discussion with the primary goal of each side understanding the other better. Not the primary goal of proclaiming the awesomeness of Sola Scriptura according to your take on the Confessions (because your post is only in part a quote of the Confessions, a lot of it is your understanding of them and I am not criticizing your understanding, I'm only saying this to point out that there is interpretation here that comes from your mind). Honestly, Ingatius and I are not difficult here. Snarky, yes, but I think if you step outside of yourself for a moment, you can understand why we felt the need to let loose a bit with some (mostly) well-intentioned humor. We honestly are looking to understand SS better. We are not pretending that in the end we will agree with SS or you will deny it. We are only looking for understanding.

You say you are sad that you don't understand our take on authority better which I suppose is supposed to imply that you would love to understand it better. Ignatius gave you an EXCELLENT post or two about our take and you came back not with "huh, I never heard it put that way" or "Right, but when you say this, I don't think I can agree becuase of this" or anything remotely interactive. Rather, you came back with the rather robotic answer of "this is off topic".

But you see, it's not. You need to understand how we view the Scriptures and we need to really understand what you mean by norms and why it seems to not matter what books are in the Scriptures (I am still confused on that, but I am afraid to ask much more because I imagine you will tell me I am off topic... seriously. I KNOW you will tell me I am off topic here but Im going for a hail mary pass in hopes we can make sense out of this stifled "conversation"). We need to understand each other so that we can have a proper explanation.

When I read your post about yoru thoughts about the Confessions and how we are to understand it, I feel like I see some important areas where we actually do agree although we have a COMPLETELY different historical and theological context in which we shape these perspectives into words so we can't just duel it out with excerpts from the Confessions.

I'm going in circles. You need to loosen up though if you sincerely wish for others to understand you. Not one person I have ever met in CF applies the off-topic rule like you do and it makes threads absolutely useless. I am beginning to feel like you use it as a defense mechanism. Against what, I am not sure because neither Ignatius or I have called your Confessions absurd, only your unwillingness to interact.

Josh

 

[Joshua G.]

I sense your tone making anything more less than good....

As you KNOW, I never posted anything about "magical" or "powers"

c'mon. I'm being straight with you in my humor, taking the kid gloves off. I know you've never said anything about magical and this and that. It's joke and you need to lighten up.

I do think it a more sound rule than none or the views of self. I expressed this AND my reasons why. You never engaged me in any discussion of that. I also expressed why I think Scripture the most sound rule. You never discussed that either - except to hint that perhaps the ECF might have agreed with me.

Honestly, I checked out for a while and just read your posts and Bills'.

So, if I started a new thread and simply wanted to open up understand between Lutherans and Orthodox on how they understand where authority in doctrine comes from, would you participate in that thread? would you allow me to allow leeway as long as it enhances such understanding.

You said you were sad that you didn't get to understand Orthodoxy better in this way. Do you want a chance at happiness? (yes, I was being ironci there and smartalekcy... you can take it... I'm just lightening up the german-ness around here -- I'm German, I can't say that lol).

If you have no real interest in what we beliee (because I KNOW... I know.. i know... this is about your post and Lutheran Confessions and such discussion would be off-base here, inappropriate, inadmissible), then that's fine and in such case, let's just end this thread now. Because I know Ignatius pretty well, and I know myself very well, and I think he would agree with me that useful dialog only happens when both sides are truly intersested in truly understanding what the other side believes (I didn't say interested in agreeing).

Josh

 

[Joshua G.]

And honestly... I had a winky face!.. cmon! Those take care of any misgivings in forums, right?!

 

[Ignatius21]

Okay, my snarky post was given in jest and I hope it found you well. But it served to show how frustrating this post is. Honestly, you have confined the terms of a thread (that isn't even yours... certainly we can allow the OP some ability to interpret the bounds of his own thread) so narrowly that we are talking about nothing here.

I didn't say that myself for fear of seeming like I was pulling rank, but really, we keep coming back to "this thread is about Point #2 of the post on Sola Scriptura," and I keep saying "No, it's about an attempt to interact with that post and explain why it does not fit the categories of Orthodox thought, and why I don't think the distinctions made there (a) work with Orthodoxy and (b) work at all in any kind of real world practice. So, I believe that all of what I've said so far in this thread has been WAY on topic, not WAY off topic, because frankly when I started this post I WAY stated what the topic was.

Sola Scriptura and every praxis and doctrine that is formulated in the Lutheran Confessions is a response to the Medieval Catholic Church and her doctrines understood in her way with her emphasis, her beauty and her blemishes. A part from a hadful of letters between Melancthon (sp) et al and the Patriarch of Constantinople, Lutheranism does not attempt to interact at all with Orthodoxy. And that is completely logical because Orthodoxy had NOTHING to do with them at all.
...

So, PERHAPS a Catholic could take your post have a very fruitful conversation about your post because your post (even your own editorials) are written (wittingly or unwittingly, I suspect mostly the latter) to a Western Audience that is built on a Roman Catholic understanding of the faith and/or doctrine written in protest thereto. Orthodoxy plays no part in that.

Well said, and I think CJ is aware of the near total lack of interaction with Orthodoxy. I'm not sure (forgive me) whether he realizes that in attempting to cast the entire discussion in terms of his existing thread, he is imposing categories and a "grid" that simply does not fit Orthodoxy. And when we try to show that it doesn't fit, despite continued pleas for "Will somebody please explain Orthodoxy?", the response is "You're off topic!" We're the round peg to CJ's square hole. Protestantism is truly beholden to medieval Roman Catholicism and is almost indistinguishable in many regards, especially in thought categories, philosophical methods and overall framework. Protestantism kept the framework and attempted to reform Catholicism from within that framework. Orthodoxy never had the framework and as such, Protestantism makes very little sense.

But you see, it's not. You need to understand how we view the Scriptures and we need to really understand what you mean by norms and why it seems to not matter what books are in the Scriptures (I am still confused on that, but I am afraid to ask much more because I imagine you will tell me I am off topic... seriously. I KNOW you will tell me I am off topic here but Im going for a hail mary pass in hopes we can make sense out of this stifled "conversation"). We need to understand each other so that we can have a proper explanation.

Josh, a Hail Mary is a Catholic thing...GET BACK ON TOPIC!!!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

CJ: if you would like to talk about starting new threads, you are more than welcome to start a new thread about starting new threads. Until then, that is off topic and I wish that you would remain on topic, that being your linked post, its magical normative powers and, enfin, its superbness.

I don't want to remind you again!

CJ, there is so much that is not good about CF as a conglomeration of one billion Christians that don't agree on anything. But what is beautiful about it is that when used correctly, we can come to another's house and explore and ask questions.

Is the thread asking questions about Sola Scriptura?
Or is it about accountability?
Or is it about norming?
Or what is and isn't Scripture?
Take your pick.

I thought it about Sola Scriptura...



I'd be more than willing to talk about any of the other topics, if you want to begin a thread on them and invite me in. But, AGAIN, on the arbitration issue, MY experience is that such lasts about 3 (meaningful) posts - and then comes to a complete stop unless those first 2 things are first agreed upon, namely accountability (if one's position CAN'T be false - it's a waste of time taking it to arbitration) and a commonly embraced norma normans (arbitrate according to WHAT?).

Ignatius and I are here not so that we can understand your post. It's so that we can understand what SS TRULY is.

I see. So, where is the definition I gave wrong?

Sola Scriptura and every praxis and doctrine that is formulated in the Lutheran Confessions is a response to the Medieval Catholic Church and her doctrines understood in her way with her emphasis, her beauty and her blemishes. A part from a hadful of letters between Melancthon (sp) et al and the Patriarch of Constantinople, Lutheranism does not attempt to interact at all with Orthodoxy. And that is completely logical because Orthodoxy had NOTHING to do with them at all.

Lutheranism is a protestant denomination and its very DNA, it defines itself by how it is and how it is not Catholic. The Lutheran Confessions are basically a dear John letter to the Catholic Church. I am not criticizing that, but we need to understand that because in this way we (both Lutherans and Orthodox) accept that the way in which the praxis and described and the doctrines are explained is not meant for the Orthodox audience. Much of it may very well not pertain at all to Orthodox-Lutheran relations and none of it pertains directly (as we were not even understood or thought of when the Confessions were drawn up). All of this is perfectly reasonable so there is not ONE part of my paragraph here that is meant to be critical of Lutheranism.

With that said, what you quote from the Confessions was not written with us Orthodox in mind and it takes a very nuanced perspective to really get what I am saying here. I know that on the surface one might think that the Confessions are not at all geared towards the Catholic Church but rather towards expounding truth. But the very fact that, for example, the Lutheran confessions do not speak to the issue of, say, science in the light of Scriptures is because they were written before the rennaissance. Just as they can't confront an issue that hadn't yet taken place, they can't properly confront issues and all of their nuances that have taken place outside of their sphere of awareness (i.e. Constantinople).

So, PERHAPS a Catholic could take your post have a very fruitful conversation about your post because your post (even your own editorials) are written (wittingly or unwittingly, I suspect mostly the latter) to a Western Audience that is built on a Roman Catholic understanding of the faith and/or doctrine written in protest thereto. Orthodoxy plays no part in that.

1. It's true that Lutheranism is the excommunicated children of the RCC (so to speak, lol) and yes, the Confessions were written solely in that context, largely TO the RCC. However, the issue here is really broader than that. It exists (in some form) in every discipline (not just theology but wherever accountability is embraced). And when the Jews used the Ten Commandments normatively, some 3000 years before Luther was born, they were practicing Sola Scriptura. When Jesus used Scripture normatively, some 1400 years before Luther was born, He too was practicing Sola Scriptura - at least generally.

2. No one claims that Scripture is the most sound norma normans for the evaluation of biology. It is embraced for the norming of disputed doctrines among us, by that I mean CHRISTIAN THEOLOGICAL doctrines, although in a sense for all THEOLOGY.

I THOUGHT I saw in your personality someone who was willing to have an open and interactive discussion with the primary goal of each side understanding the other better.

Did you come to better understand what Sola Scriptura is and is not?

No, I'm not sure I've learned what rule you believe is MORE sound for this purpose. I did ask (I think, lol - maybe I only meant to) WHAT, specifically, you regard as MORE inspired by God, more reliable for this purpose, more objectively knowable and unalterable, more ecumenically and historically embraced than is Scripture.

Not the primary goal of proclaiming the awesomeness of Sola Scriptura according to your take on the Confessions

You keep coming back to this....

Could you please quote me? I just have no idea what you are responding to.

We honestly are looking to understand SS better.

Ask questions. I'll try to answer. It's how this works.

We are not pretending that in the end we will agree with SS or you will deny it. We are only looking for understanding.

Nor have I EVER asked ANYONE at CF to agree with me - on ANYTHING.
I don't have the ego for that.

You need to understand how we view the Scriptures and we need to really understand what you mean by norms and why it seems to not matter what books are in the Scriptures (I am still confused on that, but I am afraid to ask much more because I imagine you will tell me I am off topic... seriously. I KNOW you will tell me I am off topic here but Im going for a hail mary pass in hopes we can make sense out of this stifled "conversation").

1. If you want to talk about our views of Scripture, we can do that. Since this is the EO forum, you are the one who should open that thread.


2. A norm is the standard or plumbline in the evaluation. Go to the link I provided, it's explained there. There's an illustration provided, as well. I'd be pleased to answer any questions about that.


3. As you know, Sola Scriptura does not teach what is and is not Scripture. It's a practice, it cannot teach ANYTHING. In the USA, we embrace the Rule of Law, but the PRACTICE of embracing the written law normatively does not define what are the current laws of every jurisdiction as of Monday, September 19, 2011. It matters not to the practice. Indeed, I'm under the impression that they follow the Rule of Law in Australia too - albeit with a different set of laws. Same practice, different laws. IF you want to take about the Scriptures - let's do that. If you want to talk about the practice - let's do that.


4. I TRIED to address that point - and I got rebuked for it. Let me quote it here:

I realize that no other denomination agrees with the EOC on what is and is not Scripture.

As you know, the practice of embracing Scripture as the norma normans does not teach what is and is not Scripture (practices can't teach anything). Yes - as a practice - Orthodox COULD employ the Rule of Scripture with their altogether unique embrace of what is and is not Scripture, just as the Jews did when Scripture we only two stone tablets.

This is well related in the section "what it is not" here http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/


Interestingly, the RCC also has a unique embrace of what is and is not Scripture - no other denomination on the planet (including yours) agrees with. In 500 years of discussions between Lutherans and Catholics, this has never been a problem (or even an issue). Indeed, Lutherans have never seen as necessary a need to ACCEPT or REJECT those extra books - it just seems altogether irrelevant in our discussion with Catholics. We've allowed them to use their extra books (in my discussions with the Catholics here, I do as well). It's irrelevant to any doctrine in dispute. The ONLY time ANYTHING from these disputed books comes up is in a discussion of Purgatory (they at times will quote a verse in a book the EOC also accepts), but like the EOC, we don't view that as confirming the unique RCC dogma of Purgatory. The "issue" then has never been "that's not Scripture!" but rather "that doesn't confirm your unique dogma." I've read the RCC books. I've read Psalm 151 (the extra Psalm I understand the EOC throws in) but not the other unique EOC books - but I suspect the same issue would be involved there.

The issue here is not why the EOC agrees with no denomination on what is and is not Scripture. The issue is the sometimes Protestant practice of embracing Scripture as the norma normans in the evaluation of disputed dogmas among us.


.

I feel like I see some important areas where we actually do agree although we have a COMPLETELY different historical and theological context in which we shape these perspectives into words

As I stated a few times, that doesn't surprise me at all. Perhaps you'd like to share where you agree with the post we are discussing.

Not one person I have ever met in CF applies the off-topic rule like you do

[Staff Edit]




Thank you.


Blessings


- Josiah




.

 

[Philothei]

True.

I only BRIEFLY responded to a post where they were brought up.








I don't.







Did I say "ONLY Lutherans?" If not, then I don't understand your question.





.

You said Lutherans as they are the only ones 'sad" about not having a union if you did not mean ONLY you would not have exclude the others but said all christians IMHO. Anyhow now back to the topic

SS trying to establish a "norm" actually IMHO is arbirtray and dependant of who is setting the context on that peticular verse and its itnerpretation. Dogma on the other hand and Scripture is dependant on the Church interprettion that uses intpretation not arbitrarily but according to the previous 'traditions-dogma" that way the truth is safeguarded as the scripture is indeed not the authority in self interpreting but a "martyria" a testimony of God's revelation through the experiences of people of this world.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You said Lutherans as they are the only ones 'sad" about not having a union

Provide the quote. I recognize no such thing.





.

 

[Philothei]

You said Lutherans as they are the only ones 'sad" about not having a union if you did not mean ONLY you would not have exclude the others but said all christians

That is what I wrote ^ The fact you wrote Lutherans seemed to me that had excluded the rest of the chuches Ok?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

Sola Scriptura is Anti-Christ.

What it IS:

1. An embrace of accountability for the doctrines among us (especially those in dispute).

2. An embrace of norming (the process of examining positions for truth, correctness, validity).

3. An embrace of Scripture as the best, most sound rule/canon/norma normans for this process.

I will say that I do not think that...as worded...the Orthodox would object. After all, statements rather similar to these can be found among some church fathers, such as:

So, is it "The Antichrist" or something to which the Orthodox would not object?

Kind of a big range there....
Which is it?

.
​

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

That is what I wrote ^ The fact you wrote Lutherans seemed to me that had excluded the rest of the chuches Ok?

Then you were wrong. I said no such thing (and I think you know that).







.

 

[Ignatius21]

.2. A norm is the standard or plumbline in the evaluation. Go to the link I provided, it's explained there. There's an illustration provided, as well. I'd be pleased to answer any questions about that.

Really? You give a definition there? And an example, too? Gosh, if only I'd known that, I might have not only read it but also linked to it from my original post.

I'm not sure I've see you actually answer any questions about that. Each time I've asked for any clarification you've told me I'm off topic in my own thread and dodged the question or turned it sideways.

The ONLY thing I have seen you do thus far is paste your link, then paste links to your link, and then for good measure, cut-and-paste the entirety of that link into your post. Please forgive me, but that tactic has gone from helpful, to amusing, to obnoxious, to flatly insulting. We are perfectly literate and capable of reading your thread the first time you post it.

You seem to sincerely think you're participating in a discussion, but no discussion is taking place. You are attempting to so tightly control the definition and framework of the discussion that no progress of any kind can be made, except to say "ok, I agree with you" and leave it there, or else simply end any attempt at pursuing it further.

As of now I will take the latter option.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

CJ: if you would like to talk about starting new threads, you are more than welcome to start a new thread about starting new threads. Until then, that is off topic and I wish that you would remain on topic, that being your linked post, its magical normative powers and, enfin, its superbness.


I don't want to remind you again!

​

CJ, there is so much that is not good about CF as a conglomeration of one billion Christians that don't agree on anything. But what is beautiful about it is that when used correctly, we can come to another's house and explore and ask questions.

​

Is the thread asking questions about Sola Scriptura?
Or is it about accountability?
Or is it about norming?
Or what is and isn't Scripture?
Take your pick.

I thought it about Sola Scriptura...



I'd be more than willing to talk about any of the other topics, if you want to begin a thread on them and invite me in. But, AGAIN, on the arbitration issue, MY experience is that such lasts about 3 (meaningful) posts - and then comes to a complete stop unless those first 2 things are first agreed upon, namely accountability (if one's position CAN'T be false - it's a waste of time taking it to arbitration) and a commonly embraced norma normans (arbitrate according to WHAT?).

Ignatius and I are here not so that we can understand your post. It's so that we can understand what SS TRULY is.

I see. So, where is the definition I gave wrong?

Sola Scriptura and every praxis and doctrine that is formulated in the Lutheran Confessions is a response to the Medieval Catholic Church and her doctrines understood in her way with her emphasis, her beauty and her blemishes. A part from a hadful of letters between Melancthon (sp) et al and the Patriarch of Constantinople, Lutheranism does not attempt to interact at all with Orthodoxy. And that is completely logical because Orthodoxy had NOTHING to do with them at all.Lutheranism is a protestant denomination and its very DNA, it defines itself by how it is and how it is not Catholic. The Lutheran Confessions are basically a dear John letter to the Catholic Church. I am not criticizing that, but we need to understand that because in this way we (both Lutherans and Orthodox) accept that the way in which the praxis and described and the doctrines are explained is not meant for the Orthodox audience. Much of it may very well not pertain at all to Orthodox-Lutheran relations and none of it pertains directly (as we were not even understood or thought of when the Confessions were drawn up). All of this is perfectly reasonable so there is not ONE part of my paragraph here that is meant to be critical of Lutheranism.With that said, what you quote from the Confessions was not written with us Orthodox in mind and it takes a very nuanced perspective to really get what I am saying here. I know that on the surface one might think that the Confessions are not at all geared towards the Catholic Church but rather towards expounding truth. But the very fact that, for example, the Lutheran confessions do not speak to the issue of, say, science in the light of Scriptures is because they were written before the rennaissance. Just as they can't confront an issue that hadn't yet taken place, they can't properly confront issues and all of their nuances that have taken place outside of their sphere of awareness (i.e. Constantinople). So, PERHAPS a Catholic could take your post have a very fruitful conversation about your post because your post (even your own editorials) are written (wittingly or unwittingly, I suspect mostly the latter) to a Western Audience that is built on a Roman Catholic understanding of the faith and/or doctrine written in protest thereto. Orthodoxy plays no part in that.

1. It's true that Lutheranism is the excommunicated children of the RCC (so to speak, lol) and yes, the Confessions were written solely in that context, largely TO the RCC. However, the issue here is really broader than that. It exists (in some form) in every discipline (not just theology but wherever accountability is embraced). And when the Jews used the Ten Commandments normatively, some 3000 years before Luther was born, they were practicing Sola Scriptura. When Jesus used Scripture normatively, some 1400 years before Luther was born, He too was practicing Sola Scriptura - at least generally.

2. No one claims that Scripture is the most sound norma normans for the evaluation of biology. It is embraced for the norming of disputed doctrines among us, by that I mean CHRISTIAN THEOLOGICAL doctrines, although in a sense for all THEOLOGY.



No, I'm not sure I've learned what rule you believe is MORE sound for this purpose. I did ask (I think, lol - maybe I only meant to) WHAT, specifically, you regard as MORE inspired by God, more reliable for this purpose, more objectively knowable and unalterable, more ecumenically and historically embraced than is Scripture.

Not the primary goal of proclaiming the awesomeness of Sola Scriptura according to your take on the Confessions

You keep coming back to this....

Could you please quote me? I just have no idea what you are responding to.

We honestly are looking to understand SS better.

Ask questions. I'll try to answer.
It's how this works.

We are not pretending that in the end we will agree with SS or you will deny it. We are only looking for understanding.

Nor have I EVER asked ANYONE at CF to agree with me - on ANYTHING.

I don't have the ego for that.

You need to understand how we view the Scriptures and we need to really understand what you mean by norms and why it seems to not matter what books are in the Scriptures (I am still confused on that, but I am afraid to ask much more because I imagine you will tell me I am off topic... seriously. I KNOW you will tell me I am off topic here but Im going for a hail mary pass in hopes we can make sense out of this stifled "conversation").

1. If you want to talk about our views of Scripture, we can do that. Since this is the EO forum, you are the one who should open that thread.


2. A norm is the standard or plumbline in the evaluation. Go to the link I provided, it's explained there. There's an illustration provided, as well. I'd be pleased to answer any questions about that.


3. As you know, Sola Scriptura does not teach what is and is not Scripture. It's a practice, it cannot teach ANYTHING. In the USA, we embrace the Rule of Law, but the PRACTICE of embracing the written law normatively does not define what are the current laws of every jurisdiction as of Monday, September 19, 2011. It matters not to the practice. Indeed, I'm under the impression that they follow the Rule of Law in Australia too - albeit with a different set of laws. Same practice, different laws. IF you want to take about the Scriptures - let's do that. If you want to talk about the practice - let's do that.


4. I TRIED to address that point - and I got rebuked for it. Let me quote it here:


I realize that no other denomination agrees with the EOC on what is and is not Scripture.


As you know, the practice of embracing Scripture as the norma normans does not teach what is and is not Scripture (practices can't teach anything). Yes - as a practice - Orthodox COULD employ the Rule of Scripture with their altogether unique embrace of what is and is not Scripture, just as the Jews did when Scripture we only two stone tablets.


This is well related in the section "what it is not" here http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/


Interestingly, the RCC also has a unique embrace of what is and is not Scripture - no other denomination on the planet (including yours) agrees with. In 500 years of discussions between Lutherans and Catholics, this has never been a problem (or even an issue). Indeed, Lutherans have never seen as necessary a need to ACCEPT or REJECT those extra books - it just seems altogether irrelevant in our discussion with Catholics. We've allowed them to use their extra books (in my discussions with the Catholics here, I do as well). It's irrelevant to any doctrine in dispute. The ONLY time ANYTHING from these disputed books comes up is in a discussion of Purgatory (they at times will quote a verse in a book the EOC also accepts), but like the EOC, we don't view that as confirming the unique RCC dogma of Purgatory. The "issue" then has never been "that's not Scripture!" but rather "that doesn't confirm your unique dogma." I've read the RCC books. I've read Psalm 151 (the extra Psalm I understand the EOC throws in) but not the other unique EOC books - but I suspect the same issue would be involved there.


The issue here is not why the EOC agrees with no denomination on what is and is not Scripture. The issue is the sometimes Protestant practice of embracing Scripture as the norma normans in the evaluation of disputed dogmas among us.

Really? You give a definition there? And an example, too?

Yes. See the link (or I can copy/paste to here if prefer).
Did you have a question about that?



Do you have NOTHING to say about ANYTHING else I posted to you? To others? Are you discussing the topic? Nearly everything I'm posting seems ignored. In just this one post alone (I put my stuff in red font), note all that was never responded to. I trust you at least read it.






.

 

[Protoevangel]

You are attempting to so tightly control the definition and framework of the discussion that no progress of any kind can be made, except to say "ok, I agree with you" and leave it there, or else simply end any attempt at pursuing it further.

Yes, I've known CJ's posting style for years, and this is exactly how he works.

You are wasting your time trying to have an honest conversation with him. He will have none of it.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You are attempting to so tightly control the definition and framework of the discussion that no progress of any kind can be made, except to say "ok, I agree with you" and leave it there, or else simply end any attempt at pursuing it further.

Yes, I've known CJ's posting style for years, and this is exactly how he works.
.

Yes. I just don't waste my time playing "the shell game" - constantly shifting topics so as NONE ever gets addressed.

Nor am I continuing to fall pray to being lead down countless rabbit holes - and then reported to Staff for hijacking the thread when I try to respond.

I will GLADLY address anything - if it's in accord with the topic of the thread and if it's one topic at a time (no shell game, no rabbit chases, no reporting me for hijacking the thread).

Again, THIS thread is very specifically directed to ONE topic: the practice of embracing Scripture as the norma normans. I have FULLY responded to everything on that topic - although most of what I've posted has been ignored.

IF one wants to talk about what is and is not embraced as Scripture - AGAIN, I'm more than willing - start a thread on that. IF one wants to talk about processes of arbitration - AGAIN, I'm MORE than willing to discuss that - start a thread on that (although again, it's a worthless discussion if accountability for self - typically self - is rejected and if there is no common rule). IF you want to talk about principles of hermeneutics - I'm MORE than willing to do so, just start a thread on that. But I'm not going to play the shell game, I'm not going to waste all day chasing a rabbit, I'm not going to try to reply to your questions and then get reported for hijacking the thread. Been there, done that - I'm not doing that again. IF that's what you want to do - then, yes - count me out.






.