Sola scriptura ...Yeah try to find this in the Bible...among other things

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Of course truth matters

EXCEPT when stating that the practice of Sola Scripture "is the Antichrist?"

As for self-substantiation, adherence to Sola Scriptura as a standard is precisely that; there is no directive to adhere to SS in the Scripture.

... then it's not self-substantiating.

What IS self-substantiating is for self (a person, congregation, denomination - such as the EOC or RCC or LDS or UMC or WELS) declaring that either
1) Self is exempt from the issue of truth because self claims that self has the POWER or authority or right to lord it over others as the Gentiles do, and the power to appoint self as the sole "authoritative" interpreter and the power to mandate to all that self be given a "pass" on truth and rather all are to be in quiet, docilic submission to self alone as unto God. Power that self alone claims that self alone has "trumping" the issue of truth (in the sole case of self). This is the EVASION of accountability and the issue of truth.
2) Self declares that the views of self ("Tradition") are the norma normans for the evaluation of the views of self - self declares that self must look in the mirror at self and if self concludes that self looks like self, then self is correct - but ONLY if self is self, no other may do this. This is self-substantiation.

Thus to embrace SS one must engage in arbitration and interpretation

Obviously not.

Sola Scriptura is NEITHER arbitration OR interpretation.

IF you have a problem with self designating self as the sole, authoritative, unaccountable "interpreter" then take that up with denominations that do that - none of which are Protestant. You may want to read the Catholic Catechism #85. There is NO Protestant denomination that does what CCC 85 does. Does the EOC do it, as well?

declare that oneself is "true".

Obviously not.

This is what the RCC and LDS do. I don't know if the EOC does.

The issue for them is that self declares that self CANNOT err in matters of doctrine, that if SELF is saying it, then God is saying it (CCC 87 for example) - and to question the denomination is to question GOD. It begins with a rejection of accountability and a rejection of norming (by ANY norma normans).

There will be no embrace of ANY norma normans without first an embrace of accountability - that one may NOT be "true." As long as one insists, "I CANNOT be wrong! What I say, God says!" then there is no NEED for a norma normans OR arbitration. By embracing Scripture as the norma normans, those doing so are embracing accountability. It's the exact reverse of what you describe.



My experience is that 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 of a foundational rejection of 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).






.

 

[Thekla]

... then it's not self-substantiating.

What IS self-substantiating is for self (a person, congregation, denomination - such as the EOC or RCC or LDS or UMC or WELS) declaring that either
1) Self is exempt from the issue of truth because self claims that self has the POWER or authority or right to lord it over others as the Gentiles do, and the power to appoint self as the sole "authoritative" interpreter and the power to mandate to all that self be given a "pass" on truth and rather all are to be in quiet, docilic submission to self alone as unto God. Power that self alone claims that self alone has "trumping" the issue of truth (in the sole case of self). This is the EVASION of accountability and the issue of truth.
2) Self declares that the views of self ("Tradition") are the norma normans for the evaluation of the views of self - self declares that self must look in the mirror at self and if self concludes that self looks like self, then self is correct - but ONLY if self is self, no other may do this. This is self-substantiation.

The EO etc. has not said that it is "exempt from the issue of truth" - find where this is said. We do say that Christ is the Truth.

The praxis of Sola Scriptura is self substantiating -- unless you can find it commanded in Scripture. Adherents of SS just declare it to be true, and not tradition. A "because I say so" is calling self correct because self is.

How is the praxis of Sola Scriptura not a "tradition" ?

Obviously not.

Sola Scriptura is NEITHER arbitration OR interpretation.

Exactly. And because SS is not Scripturally commanded, one must rely on either arbitration, interpretation, or tradition to establish SS as a praxis.

IF you have a problem with self designating self as the sole, authoritative, unaccountable "interpreter" then take that up with denominations that do that - none of which are Protestant. You may want to read the Catholic Catechism #85. There is NO Protestant denomination that does what CCC 85 does. Does the EOC do it, as well?

If one has a "problem with self designating self as the sole authoritative, unaccountable interpreter", one can not adhere to SS as praxis, "because designating self as the sole authoritative, unaccountable interpreter" is the only way to claim that the praxis of SS is valid. Established as valid "because I say so".

Obviously not.

This is what the RCC and LDS do. I don't know if the EOC does.

The issue for them is that self declares that self CANNOT err in matters of doctrine, that if SELF is saying it, then God is saying it (CCC 87 for example) - and to question the denomination is to question GOD. It begins with a rejection of accountability and a rejection of norming (by ANY norma normans).

And SS adherence that self cannot err in establishing the praxis of SS.

There will be no embrace of ANY norma normans without first an embrace of accountability - that one may NOT be "true." As long as one insists, "I CANNOT be wrong! What I say, God says!" then there is no NEED for a norma normans OR arbitration. By embracing Scripture as the norma normans, those doing so are embracing accountability. It's the exact reverse of what you describe.

Then demonstrate the outcome accountability of the praxis of SS.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

... then it's not self-substantiating.


What IS self-substantiating is for self (a person, congregation, denomination - such as the EOC or RCC or LDS or UMC or WELS) declaring that either

1) Self is exempt from the issue of truth because self claims that self has the POWER or authority or right to lord it over others as the Gentiles do, and the power to appoint self as the sole "authoritative" interpreter and the power to mandate to all that self be given a "pass" on truth and rather all are to be in quiet, docilic submission to self alone as unto God. Power that self alone claims that self alone has "trumping" the issue of truth (in the sole case of self). This is the EVASION of accountability and the issue of truth.

2) Self declares that the views of self ("Tradition") are the norma normans for the evaluation of the views of self - self declares that self must look in the mirror at self and if self concludes that self looks like self, then self is correct - but ONLY if self is self, no other may do this. This is self-substantiation.


​

The praxis of Sola Scriptura is self substantiating

No. Read what you quoted from me.

How is the praxis of Sola Scriptura not a "tradition" ?

IF you mean "tradition" in the sense of an embraced custom, then the PRACTICE is. Just as driving on the right hand side of the road (typically) in the USA is "tradition" in this sense.

Thus to embrace SS one must engage in arbitration and interpretation.

Obviously not. Sola Scriptura is NEITHER arbitration OR interpretation.

Exactly!

... make up your mind.

IF you have a problem with self designating self as the sole, authoritative, unaccountable "interpreter" then take that up with denominations that do that - none of which are Protestant. You may want to read the Catholic Catechism #85. There is NO Protestant denomination that does what CCC 85 does. Does the EOC do it, as well?




If one has a "problem with self designating self as the sole authoritative, unaccountable interpreter", one can not adhere to SS as praxis, "because designating self as the sole authoritative, unaccountable interpreter" is the only way to claim that the praxis of SS is valid. Established as valid "because I say so".

The issue for them is that self declares that self CANNOT err in matters of doctrine, that if SELF is saying it, then God is saying it (CCC 87 for example) - and to question the denomination is to question GOD. It begins with a rejection of accountability and a rejection of norming (by ANY norma normans).


​

And SS adherence that self cannot err in establishing the praxis of SS.

No. The EXACT REVERSE is the case.


In embracing accountability and looking to a rule OUTSIDE, and ABOVE self, there is an embrace of accountability.

In shouting, "I can't be wrong! When I speak, GOD speaks! I have the POWER and AUTHORITY to be the sole intepreter, sole arbiter! I have the POWER and AUTHORITY to give self a "pass" on the issue of truth and rather mandate that you be in quiet, docilic submission to ME!" Those claims of self for self are the basis of rejecting norming (by any norma normans).

There will be no embrace of ANY norma normans without first an embrace of accountability - that one may NOT be "true." As long as one insists, "I CANNOT be wrong! What I say, God says!" then there is no NEED for a norma normans OR arbitration. By embracing Scripture as the norma normans, those doing so are embracing accountability. It's the exact reverse of what you describe.

Then demonstrate the outcome accountability of the praxis of SS.

I've read and re-read your sentence and can make no sense of it at all; I have no idea what in the world you are asking.

Read what you quoted from me.





.

 

[Thekla]

.






No. Read what you quoted from me.

I did; though your description is hyperbolic and slanted, it still rests on the idea of self appointed authority. The praxis of SS relies on a self appointed authority to establish the praxis of SS as authoritative; ie there is something outside Scripture which establishes SS. And thus this 'outside authority' lords it over all (persons and Scripture) by stating only SS is authoritative.

IF you mean "tradition" in the sense of an embraced custom, then the PRACTICE is. Just as driving on the right hand side of the road (typically) in the USA is "tradition" in this sense.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, except that SS is a tradition (which it is). On what grounds was this custom of SS embraced ? Those who appointed themselves authority higher than Scripture to norm from a praxis that is not commanded in Scripture.

... make up your mind.

I think you might need to reread what I stated - that establishing the praxis of SS requires engaging in arbitration, hermeneutics, and self appointing oneself an authority (all things not in the praxis of SS). Thus, the appointing of self as the authority to establish SS as praxis gives one greater authority than Scripture (which does not command the praxis of SS).

No. The EXACT REVERSE is the case.


In embracing accountability and looking to a rule OUTSIDE, and ABOVE self, there is an embrace of accountability.

By appointing self to establish the norming rule which is not inherent on the norm oneself claims is norm. Where is the accountability for the self-appointing oneself as true and correct to appoint a norm ?

In shouting, "I can't be wrong! When I speak, GOD speaks! I have the POWER and AUTHORITY to be the sole intepreter, sole arbiter! I have the POWER and AUTHORITY to give self a "pass" on the issue of truth and rather mandate that you be in quiet, docilic submission to ME!" Those claims of self for self are the basis of rejecting norming (by any norma normans).

Exactly - shouting "I have the authority to establish the sole authoritative norm of Sola Scriptura.

(And thus ignoring that Jesus Christ is the authority and the norm; perhaps this is why Kristos called SS "antichrist".)

I've read and re-read your sentence and can make no sense of it at all; I have no idea what in the world you are asking.

Read what you quoted from me.

I did.
Perhaps you might ask a question, allowing me to get a glimpse of what confuses you and thus attempt to clarify.

 

[Thekla]

.

There will be no embrace of ANY norma normans without first an embrace of accountability - that one may NOT be "true." As long as one insists, "I CANNOT be wrong! What I say, God says!" then there is no NEED for a norma normans OR arbitration. By embracing Scripture as the norma normans, those doing so are embracing accountability. It's the exact reverse of what you describe.

​

Then demonstrate the outcome accountability of the praxis of SS.

I've read and re-read your sentence and can make no sense of it at all; I have no idea what in the world you are asking.

Read what you quoted from me.

.

The establishment of SS requires that someone/s state:
"I CANNOT be wrong! What I say, God says! Sola Scriptura is the sole authoritative norming praxis !"

But, in fact, as God has not commanded SS as the sole norming praxis, those who establish SS as the sole norming praxis place themselves above God !

And where is the test of SS based on outcome ? A praxis is evaluated by its outcome, yet SS adherents deny any test of accountability for the establishing of the praxis of SS (as God has not established this as the sole norming praxis), and for the outcome of the praxis of SS.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The praxis of SS relies on a self appointed authority

Um, no.... Not at all.

Read what I've posted to you.

Obviously, those that embrace the practice of Sola Scriptura are REJECTING self designating self as unaccountable, REJECTING self designating the views of self as the best norma normans for the evaluation of the correctness of the views of self.

to establish the praxis of SS as authoritative

PLEASE read the following: http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/

Where does it say that the practice of Sola Scriptura is authoritative?
How CAN a practice be authoritative?

there is something outside Scripture which establishes SS

Yes, there is an embrace. When you embrace the Rule of Law by driving (typically) on the right hand side of the road in the USA, YOU are embracing that rule. But the rule is not embracing the rule, YOU are - thus it's not self-authenticating. You seem to be going to some length to show your view that SS is "self authenticating" is wrong. Again, make up your mind.

When those with various positions all agree to a rule/canon/norma normans OUTSIDE, ABOVE and BEYOND self, they are not designating themselves. Nor is that rule designating itself.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, except that SS is a tradition (which it is).

Likely, I often have no idea what you are getting at. In some cases, the grammar of the sentences makes them impossible to understand. Yes, the PRACTICE of embracing Scripture as the norma normans is a PRACTICE - and if it's done customarily, thus it is a custom. I agree with you IN THAT. I just have no idea what your point is.

On what grounds was this custom of SS embraced ?

It probably varies. All this is embraced at length (complete with illustrations) in the link provided. You might want to read that, it will help enormously.


SOME of the common reasons:


1. Accountability is accepted. One or more disputed dogmas among us might be wrong (including those taught by self). Truth matters more than ego. Truth matters more than the power self alone claims for self alone.

2. A recognition that a rule/canon/norma normans is needed in norming.

3. A recognition that the most sound norma normans tends to be the most reliable and objective, the most historically and universally embraced, and one that is OUTSIDE, ABOVE and BEYOND all parties involved.


Let's say two cars go into an intersection. They collide. Yes - either or both can say, "I'm unaccountable! Responsibility doesn't apply to me! The issue of who is at fault doesn't apply to ME - exclusively - because I'm exempt from the whole issue!" Or either or both could say, "The opinion of ME about the driving of ME is what matters, and I declare that I don't cause accidents." I'm not sure either helps much.... Another option would be to hold BOTH parties accountable for their actions, and to enter norming- the evaluation of correctness here. In most civilized nations, the Rule of Law is embraced. ALL are subject to the written, objective, knowable, unalterable law - and equally so. No one is "exempt" because self alone so declares for self alone. What each regards as good driving is not the rule, rather all are subject to the Rule of Law OUTSIDE, ABOVE and BEYOND all parties. Perhaps it is noted that you ran a red light - causing the accident. IN THE ARBITRATION (another issue for another day and thread), it might be determined that you were wrong in this case- an arbitration according to the Rule of Law, an arbitration that holds ALL parties (both drivers) as equally accountability, an arbitration that does NOT embrace the opinion of each self as the norma normans but an objective, knowable, unalterable Rule above and beyond BOTH of you.

establishing the praxis of SS requires engaging in arbitration, hermeneutics

No. You need to read the link previously provided.

NORMING likely includes those things, but this thread isn't about norming, it's about embracing Scripture as the norma normans in such.

self appointing oneself an authority

... is fundamentally rejected by those that embrace Sola Scriptura and is the basis for the rejection of such. Those that appoint SELF as the "sole authority," "sole interpreter," "sole voice of God," "when I speak it is GOD speaking," "I myself alone say that I myself alone can't be wrong!" THAT'S the one who rejects the Rule of Scripture in norming (indeed, norming itself).

Thus, the appointing of self as the authority to establish SS as praxis gives one greater authority than Scripture (which does not command the praxis of SS).

So, when a policeman pulls you over - and you stop rather than shoot the cop, you are setting yourself up as the Authority? Lost me.... Aren't you rather submitting to something OUTSIDE of you?

IF the EOC appoints itself as the Authority (or at least itself ALONE "interprets" what God says as appointing itself alone as the Authority), how is that not self-authoritization - indeed of SELF, not something outside of self?

Jesus Christ is the authority and the norm

Sure, but that's of little help in the evaluation of disputed dogmas among us. I can assure you, ALL parties will say that their position is Christ's position.

Let's go back to the car accident. So, both of you say, "Jesus says I'm innocent and correct - I can't quote Him, but I say that's what He says!" Okay, how did that help? Why are you thus in favor of throwing away all laws and the Rule of Law in favor of whether self says Jesus is on their side?






.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The establishment of SS requires that someone/s state: "I CANNOT be wrong!

Obviously not.

One would not embrace accountability and the norming process according to a rule outside of self if self declared self as incapable of being wrong.

You have those that REJECT Sola Scriptura confused with those that practice 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 The Catholic Church (#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 and authority (claimed by self for self), norming is rejected (made irrelevant to self because self alone says self alone can't be wrong) and replaced with a requirement of quiet, docilic submission to self.





.

 

[Thekla]

Um, no....

Read what I've posted to you.

Obviously, those that embrace the practice of Sola Scriptura are REJECTING self designating self as unaccountable, REJECTING self designating the views of self as the best norma normans for the evaluation of the correctness of the views of self.

I have read it (and same/similar posts you've made over months etc.).

Where is the accountability for establishing SS as the sole norming praxis ?

The claim that SS is the sole norming praxis is antecedent to the praxis of SS. On what authority was SS made the sole norming praxis ? To claim that SS is the sole norming authority requires that something/someone outside of Scripture claims the authority to establish the norm of SS.

Someone/s self designates self as the sole authority for establishing the norm; designating self as both unaccountable (as neither SS or its establishment has any regard for outcome or that God is the sole authority) whilst relying on the basis that only self has the authority to establish SS as the sole norm. The unaccountable authority - I can do and establish whatever I want to, and "get away with it". Responsibility arising from an irresponsible ithos.

PLEASE read the following: http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/

Where does it say that the practice of Sola Scriptura is authoritative?

Of course, the praxis is not, but the Scripture is - though neither God nor the Scripture state that Sola Scriptura is the sole authoritative norm.

Yes, there is an embrace. When you embrace the Rule of Law by driving (typically) on the right hand side of the road in the USA, YOU are embracing that rule. But the rule is not embracing the rule, YOU are - thus it's not self-authenticating. You seem to be going to some length to show your view that SS is "self authenticating" is wrong. Again, make up your mind.

Someone had to make the rule, Josiah.
Someone had to claim the authority to make SS the rule/norm.
Who was that ? God ? Is it in Scripture ?

When those with various positions all agree to a rule/canon/norma normans OUTSIDE, ABOVE and BEYOND self, they are not designating themselves. Nor is that rule designating itself.

When all those various positions agree, we've got tradition !

Likely, I often have no idea what you are getting at. In some cases, the grammar of the sentences makes them impossible to understand. Yes, the PRACTICE of embracing Scripture as the norma normans is a PRACTICE - and if it's done customarily, thus it is a custom. I agree with you IN THAT. I just have no idea what your point is.

That to establish a custom not commanded is to seize authority - to appoint self/s as the authority to claim that SS is the norming praxis. (Which is false - Christ is the norm.)

It probably varies. All this is embraced at length (complete with illustrations) in the link provided. You might want to read that, it will help enormously.

As long as the praxis of SS is not in Scripture, nor commanded by God, then it is a tradition of men. No thanks

SOME of the common reasons:


1. Accountability is accepted. One or more disputed dogmas among us might be wrong (including those taught by self). Truth matters more than ego. Truth matters more than the power self alone claims for self alone.

2. A recognition that a rule/canon/norma normans is needed in norming.

3. A recognition that the most sound norma normans tends to be the most reliable and objective, the most historically and universally embraced, and one that is OUTSIDE, ABOVE and BEYOND all parties involved.

Except the establishment requires some to place themselves above God to establish what the norm is.

Let's say two cars go into an intersection. They collide. Yes - either or both can say, "I'm unaccountable! Responsibility doesn't apply to me! The issue of who is at fault doesn't apply to ME - exclusively - because I'm exempt from the whole issue!" Or either or both could say, "The opinion of ME about the driving of ME is what matters, and I declare that I don't cause accidents." I'm not sure either helps much.... Another option would be to hold BOTH parties accountable for their actions, and to enter norming- the evaluation of correctness here. In most civilized nations, the Rule of Law is embraced. ALL are subject to the written, objective, knowable, unalterable law - and equally so. No one is "exempt" because self alone so declares for self alone. What each regards as good driving is not the rule, rather all are subject to the Rule of Law OUTSIDE, ABOVE and BEYOND all parties. Perhaps it is noted that you ran a red light - causing the accident. IN THE ARBITRATION (another issue for another day and thread), it might be determined that you were wrong in this case- an arbitration according to the Rule of Law, an arbitration that holds ALL parties (both drivers) as equally accountability, an arbitration that does NOT embrace the opinion of each self as the norma normans but an objective, knowable, unalterable Rule above and beyond BOTH of you.

If the norm is truly outside self, then it must be established directly and only by God.

I do understand the pragmatic aspect of rules and norms - I'm a mom.

No. You need to read the link previously provided.

NORMING likely includes those things, but this thread isn't about norming, it's about embracing Scripture as the norma normans in such.

Excuse me, you need to read what I've posted.
Embracing Scripture as the norma normans means that either God commanded it be so, or self appointed self as authority to claim that SS is the sole norma normans.

... is fundamentally rejected by those that embrace Sola Scriptura and is the basis for the rejection of such. Those that appoint SELF as the "sole authority," "sole interpreter," "sole voice of God," "when I speak it is GOD speaking," "I myself alone say that I myself alone can't be wrong!" THAT'S the one who rejects the Rule of Scripture in norming (indeed, norming itself).

Though preceedes action, Josiah, unless one is an automaton.

The thought of establishing SS as the sole norma normans means that someone/s decided it be so. Thought comes from within self (and typically involves arbitrating with self, recognized as part of the process of decision making). There is indeed self appointed authority that results in establishing SS as the sole norma normans.

So, when a policeman pulls you over - and you stop rather than shoot the cup, you are setting yourself up as the Authority? Lost me.... Aren't you rather submitting to something OUTSIDE of you?

The system works if we agree on the authority, yes.
Who is the authority that established the rule that I broke causing the cop to pull me over - God or man ?

IF the EOC appoints itself as the Authority (or at least itself ALONE "interprets" what God says as appointing itself alone as the Authority), how is that not self-authoritization - indeed of SELF, not something outside of self?

And SSists appoint self as sole authority for establishing SS as the sole norma normans. (Man, those Normans were trouble, btw ! Europe has never been the same ...)

Sure, but that's of little help in the evaluation of disputed dogmas among us. I can assure you, ALL parties will say that their position is Christ's position.

Sure, you could say that.

Let's go back to the car accident. So, both of you say, "Jesus says I'm innocent and correct - I can't quote Him, but I say that's what He says!" Okay, how did that help? Why are you thus in favor of throwing away all laws and the Rule of Law in favor of whether self says Jesus is on their side?

And the establishment of SS as the sole norma normans requires one to either prove this was a norm established by God, or claim greater authority than God.

 

[Protoevangel]

As long as the praxis of SS is not in Scripture, nor commanded by God, then it is a tradition of men. No thanks

QFT!

 

[Thekla]

Obviously not.

One would not embrace accountability and the norming process according to a rule outside of self if self declared self as incapable of being wrong.

You have those that REJECT Sola Scriptura confused with those that practice 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 The Catholic Church (#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 and authority (claimed by self for self), norming is rejected (made irrelevant to self because self alone says self alone can't be wrong) and replaced with a requirement of quiet, docilic submission to self.

So was it wrong to establish Sola Scriptura as the sole norma normans ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

Um, no....

Read what I've posted to you.

Obviously, those that embrace the practice of Sola Scriptura are REJECTING self designating self as unaccountable, REJECTING self designating the views of self as the best norma normans for the evaluation of the correctness of the views of self.
​

Where is the accountability for establishing SS as the sole norming praxis ?

1. Sola Scriptura is not a norm.

2. Praxis is not doctrine.

3. In norming, we need to select the most sound norma normans. Again, if you have an alternative that is MORE inspired by God, MORE reliable, MORE objective, MORE knowable by ALL and alterable by NONE, MORE ecumenically and historically embraced by all parties - then present it. All you've offered is "Jesus" - however, as noted, ANYONE can (and Christian teachers likely will) say "Jesus agrees with ME" If not quote is needed, then we just have a room full of people saying "jesus agrees with ME." A sound rule is OUTSIDE of self, ABOVE all parties involved, objective (as in black and white words), knowable by all (rather than "in the heart of SELF"), alterable by none, historically and ecumenically embraced.

The claim that SS is the sole norming praxis is antecedent to the praxis of SS.

There is no such claim. Read the link provided.


What is embraced is Scripture as the most sound norma normans in the norming of disputed doctrines among us.
SCRIPTURE is the embraced norm, not ANY practice.


The "antecedent" to the practice is...

1. An embrace that truth matters, not simply the POWER that self alone claims for self alone.

2. An embrace of accountability. Self is not correct simply because self claims self is exempt from the issue of truth or self claims that self alone is INCAPABLE of being wrong.

3. A norma normans is needed in norming.

On what authority was SS made the sole norming praxis ?

READ the link provided. It will help you enormously!


It's not dogma. It's not mandated.


Unlike the Rule of Law in the USA, it is not imposed. For example, where did I (or any Protestant in this thread or any other here on this topic) post, "The EOC is mandated to practice Sola Scriptura and accept the Rule of Scripture in norming?" Quote any who mandated suc

To claim that SS is the sole norming authority

No one does.

READ the link provided. Note what the Rule of Scripture is. It will help you ENORMOUSLY.

PLEASE read the following: http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/

Where does it say that the practice of Sola Scriptura is authoritative?

​

Of course, the praxis is not, but the Scripture is - though neither God nor the Scripture state that Sola Scriptura is the sole authoritative norm.

When you make up your mind, let me know.

Yes, there is an embrace. When you embrace the Rule of Law by driving (typically) on the right hand side of the road in the USA, YOU are embracing that rule. But the rule is not embracing the rule, YOU are - thus it's not self-authenticating. You seem to be going to some length to show your view that SS is "self authenticating" is wrong. Again, make up your mind

.

Someone had to make the rule, Josiah.
Someone had to claim the authority to make SS the rule/norm.
Who was that ? God ? Is it in Scripture ?

Sola Scriptura is not the norm.

Sola Scriptura is not doctrine.

No one mandates the use of this practice (unlike in most civilized nations were using the Rule of Law IS mandated - you've yet to see any "problems" there, yet to reveal why we should replace such with each claiming for self alone if Jesus agrees with them or not).

Yes, I believe God wrote the Scriptures. This is what the RCC teaches (from The Handbook of The Catholic Church page 136), "The Bible is the very Word of God and there can be no greater assurance of credence. The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does that mean? It means that God himself is the very author of the Bible. He inspired the penmen to write as God wished so that it is his Book.... the authority of the Bible springs from the Author of the Bible, who is God himself." Lutherans agree. Do Orthodox disagree? Read on...

IF you regard the Bible as a fallible, misleading, human book - unsuitable as a rule in norming, then AGAIN, tell us WHAT, exactly, is MORE inspired by God, MORE reliable, MORE objective (more than black and white words all literate persons can read), MORE historically (before 1400 BC) and ecumenically embraced than is Scripture.

When those with various positions all agree to a rule/canon/norma normans OUTSIDE, ABOVE and BEYOND self, they are not designating themselves. Nor is that rule designating itself.

When all those various positions agree, we've got tradition !

...I have NO IDEA what your reply has to do with what you quoted....

... Yes, when a practice becomes customary, it is a custom. It is customary in the USA to answer the phone by saying, "hello." Thus. that practice is a custom. Do you have a point?

It probably varies. All this is embraced at length (complete with illustrations) in the link provided. You might want to read that, it will help enormously.
​

SOME of the common reasons:


1. Accountability is accepted. One or more disputed dogmas among us might be wrong (including those taught by self). Truth matters more than ego. Truth matters more than the power self alone claims for self alone.


2. A recognition that a rule/canon/norma normans is needed in norming.


3. A recognition that the most sound norma normans tends to be the most reliable and objective, the most historically and universally embraced, and one that is OUTSIDE, ABOVE and BEYOND all parties involved.


​

Except the establishment requires some to place themselves above God to establish what the norm is.

No, it requires us to place ourselves UNDER a common rule.

Let's say two cars go into an intersection. They collide. Yes - either or both can say, "I'm unaccountable! Responsibility doesn't apply to me! The issue of who is at fault doesn't apply to ME - exclusively - because I'm exempt from the whole issue!" Or either or both could say, "The opinion of ME about the driving of ME is what matters, and I declare that I don't cause accidents." I'm not sure either helps much.... Another option would be to hold BOTH parties accountable for their actions, and to enter norming- the evaluation of correctness here. In most civilized nations, the Rule of Law is embraced. ALL are subject to the written, objective, knowable, unalterable law - and equally so. No one is "exempt" because self alone so declares for self alone. What each regards as good driving is not the rule, rather all are subject to the Rule of Law OUTSIDE, ABOVE and BEYOND all parties. Perhaps it is noted that you ran a red light - causing the accident. IN THE ARBITRATION (another issue for another day and thread), it might be determined that you were wrong in this case- an arbitration according to the Rule of Law, an arbitration that holds ALL parties (both drivers) as equally accountability, an arbitration that does NOT embrace the opinion of each self as the norma normans but an objective, knowable, unalterable Rule above and beyond BOTH of you.


​

If the norm is truly outside self, then it must be established directly and only by God.

1. I see. So, you reject the Rule of Law since God did not write all the laws of every jurisdiction on the planet. Got it. So, do you just run red lights? If a cop tries to pull you over, do you ignore him?


2. So, does the EOC reject the divine inspiration of Scripture? Does it teach that it is a purely human book and ergo errant and full of lies?

No. You need to read the link previously provided.

NORMING likely includes those things, but this thread isn't about norming, it's about embracing Scripture as the norma normans in such.

​

Embracing Scripture as the norma normans means that either God commanded it be so, or self appointed self as authority to claim that SS is the sole norma normans.

1. SS is NOT the norma normans. You need to read the link provided. It will help you ENORMOUSLY, I'm sure.


2. Parties accepting the role of Scripture as the norma normans is not self setting self up as The Authority, it is all parties agreeing to submit to an authority OTHER THAN, ABOVE all.

... is fundamentally rejected by those that embrace Sola Scriptura and is the basis for the rejection of such. Those that appoint SELF as the "sole authority," "sole interpreter," "sole voice of God," "when I speak it is GOD speaking," "I myself alone say that I myself alone can't be wrong!" THAT'S the one who rejects the Rule of Scripture in norming (indeed, norming itself).


​

The thought of establishing SS as the sole norma normans

No one has. No one does.

So, when a policeman pulls you over - and you stop rather than shoot the cup, you are setting yourself up as the Authority? Lost me.... Aren't you rather submitting to something OUTSIDE of you?

​

The system works if we agree on the authority, yes.
Who is the authority that established the rule that I broke causing the cop to pull me over - God or man ?

Even though it's FALLIBLE man, you think it best to embrace the Rule of LAW (human, fallible, errant law). But when it's the Rule of SCRIPTURE (divine, inerrant), THAT you see as condemnable. You might want to think about that....

IF the EOC appoints itself as the Authority (or at least itself ALONE "interprets" what God says as appointing itself alone as the Authority), how is that not self-authoritization - indeed of SELF, not something outside of self?
​

Sure, but that's of little help in the evaluation of disputed dogmas among us. I can assure you, ALL parties will say that their position is Christ's position.
​

Let's go back to the car accident. So, both of you say, "Jesus says I'm innocent and correct - I can't quote Him, but I say that's what He says!" Okay, how did that help? Why are you thus in favor of throwing away all laws and the Rule of Law in favor of whether self says Jesus is on their side?


​

And the establishment of SS as the sole norma normans requires one to either prove this was a norm established by God, or claim greater authority than God.

1. I fail to see how your "reply" has ANYTHING remotely to do with what you quoted from me.


2. NO ONE has established Sola Scriptura as a norm.


3. I disagree with you that the ONLY sound norma normans is an embrace of something written by God. IF so, why do you embrace the Rule of Law? IF so, why go to school? Why not just accept WHATEVER anyone says or claims? Why do you accept that the Earth is basically round?


4. I disagree with you that Scripture is a purely human, fallible, errant book - unreliable.





.

 

[Joshua G.]

Thekla. If you refuse to understand his words, what else can he do for you? The ball's in your court. Read his words and understand them.

 

[Protoevangel]

Thekla. If you refuse to understand his words, what else can he do for you? The ball's in your court. Read his words and understand them.

Joshua,

Understanding his self-refuting lies does not equal not reading or not understanding them.

Sola Scriptura is the norm; the rule. It can be nothing else. It is a praxis placed above Scripture itself, because it itself is neither Scripture, nor is it suggested by Scripture. Any attempt to slither out of that truism is deceitful.

 

[Thekla]

.

1. Sola Scriptura is not a norm.

2. Praxis is not doctrine.

3. In norming, we need to select the most sound norma normans. Again, if you have an alternative that is MORE inspired by God, MORE reliable, MORE objective, MORE knowable by ALL and alterable by NONE, MORE ecumenically and historically embraced by all parties - then present it. All you've offered is "Jesus" - however, as noted, ANYONE can (and Christian teachers likely will) say "Jesus agrees with ME" If not quote is needed, then we just have a room full of people saying "jesus agrees with ME." A sound rule is OUTSIDE of self, ABOVE all parties involved, objective (as in black and white words), knowable by all (rather than "in the heart of SELF"), alterable by none, historically and ecumenically embraced.





There is no such claim. Read the link provided.


What is embraced is Scripture as the most sound norma normans in the norming of disputed doctrines among us.
SCRIPTURE is the embraced norm, not ANY practice.


The "antecedent" to the practice is...

1. An embrace that truth matters, not simply the POWER that self alone claims for self alone.

2. An embrace of accountability. Self is not correct simply because self claims self is exempt from the issue of truth or self claims that self alone is INCAPABLE of being wrong.

3. A norma normans is needed in norming.





READ the link provided. It will help you enormously!


It's not dogma. It's not mandated.


Unlike the Rule of Law in the USA, it is not imposed. For example, where did I (or any Protestant in this thread or any other here on this topic) post, "The EOC is mandated to practice Sola Scriptura and accept the Rule of Scripture in norming?" Quote any who mandated suc





No one does.

READ the link provided. Note what the Rule of Scripture is. It will help you ENORMOUSLY.



When you make up your mind, let me know.

Sola Scriptura is not the norm.

Sola Scriptura is not doctrine.

No one mandates the use of this practice (unlike in most civilized nations were using the Rule of Law IS mandated - you've yet to see any "problems" there, yet to reveal why we should replace such with each claiming for self alone if Jesus agrees with them or not).

Yes, I believe God wrote the Scriptures. This is what the RCC teaches (from The Handbook of The Catholic Church page 136), "The Bible is the very Word of God and there can be no greater assurance of credence. The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does that mean? It means that God himself is the very author of the Bible. He inspired the penmen to write as God wished so that it is his Book.... the authority of the Bible springs from the Author of the Bible, who is God himself." Lutherans agree. Do Orthodox disagree? Read on...

IF you regard the Bible as a fallible, misleading, human book - unsuitable as a rule in norming, then AGAIN, tell us WHAT, exactly, is MORE inspired by God, MORE reliable, MORE objective (more than black and white words all literate persons can read), MORE historically (before 1400 BC) and ecumenically embraced than is Scripture.





...I have NO IDEA what your reply has to do with what you quoted....

... Yes, when a practice becomes customary, it is a custom. It is customary in the USA to answer the phone by saying, "hello." Thus. that practice is a custom. Do you have a point?





No, it requires us to place ourselves UNDER a common rule.



1. I see. So, you reject the Rule of Law since God did not write all the laws of every jurisdiction on the planet. Got it. So, do you just run red lights? If a cop tries to pull you over, do you ignore him?


2. So, does the EOC reject the divine inspiration of Scripture? Does it teach that it is a purely human book and ergo errant and full of lies?




1. SS is NOT the norma normans. You need to read the link provided. It will help you ENORMOUSLY, I'm sure.


2. Parties accepting the role of Scripture as the norma normans is not self setting self up as The Authority, it is all parties agreeing to submit to an authority OTHER THAN, ABOVE all.

No one has. No one does.





Even though it's FALLIBLE man, you think it best to embrace the Rule of LAW (human, fallible, errant law). But when it's the Rule of SCRIPTURE (divine, inerrant), THAT you see as condemnable. You might want to think about that....



1. I fail to see how your "reply" has ANYTHING remotely to do with what you quoted from me.


2. NO ONE has established Sola Scriptura as a norm.


3. I disagree with you that the ONLY sound norma normans is an embrace of something written by God. IF so, why do you embrace the Rule of Law? IF so, why go to school? Why not just accept WHATEVER anyone says or claims? Why do you accept that the Earth is basically round?


4. I disagree with you that Scripture is a purely human, fallible, errant book - unreliable.





.

You've failed to engage in discussion, ignored what I have said, made wildly inaccurate (mis)characterizations of other's belief, all while denying the existence of the cause and effect relationship.

No thanks.

 

[Thekla]

Thekla. If you refuse to understand his words, what else can he do for you? The ball's in your court. Read his words and understand them.

One of the core problems with Sola Scriptura (aside from the fact that it is established by someone claiming an authority above God) - reading is interpretation.

(Action and discussion are two ways of clarifying meaning and gaining understanding - the praxis of SS denies both.)

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Joshua,


Understanding his self-refuting lies

So, your response is personal flames? Okay, quote me where I purposely expressed an erroneous statement of fact.

Sola Scriptura is the norm; the rule

No. This has been corrected numerous times. I don't even know how it is POSSIBLE for a process to be a norma normans - the accusation is impossible.

It can be nothing else.

It's not the rule. Anywhere.


Things other than Scripture CAN be the norma normans. Although this thread is not about those, we can't talk about them HERE (at least in depth). The views of self is sometimes used as such, for example. Or one can simply reject any norma normans - indeed the entire process of norming - by simply exempting self from accountability.

It is a praxis placed above Scripture itself

Do you regard the Rule of Law as above the Law?

Embracing Scripture as the norma normans is not placing embracing above Scripture since Scripture is what is embraced.

it itself is neither Scripture

The practice of embracing Scripture as the norma normans is not the same as Scripture. I agree. Nor is the practice of embracing the Law in the Rule of Law the same as the law. But I fail to see why that means you regard the Rule of Law as condemnable. What use is the law if it is not embraced?





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Obviously not.

One would not embrace accountability and the norming process according to a rule outside of self if self declared self as incapable of being wrong.

You have those that REJECT Sola Scriptura confused with those that practice 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 The Catholic Church (#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 and authority (claimed by self for self), norming is rejected (made irrelevant to self because self alone says self alone can't be wrong) and replaced with a requirement of quiet, docilic submission to self.

So was it wrong to establish Sola Scriptura as the sole norma normans ?

It's not the norma normans, sole or otherwise.




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Thekla. If you refuse to understand his words, what else can he do for you? The ball's in your court.

Indeed. IF you don't understand the meaning of a term I'm using, first read the link provided - it's probably well defined there already (no need to keep rehashing the same questions), if not - ASK. I'm more than glad to express what I mean by the term.





.

 

[Joshua G.]

It's like a riddle that we must break together before crossing the bridge.

 

[Thekla]

It's not the norma normans, sole or otherwise.

So what is "the norma normans" ?

(Not "a norma normans".)