Defining sola scriptura.

[Standing Up]

The differences in the truth taught by the Holy Spirit speaking in the holy scriptures are caused by what, exactly?

Don't blame the earth for lack of rain.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Okay, great. Now you've told us that sola scriptura is, in your opinion, nothing but a practise that does not guarantee anything.

You didn't give any scripture to justify the practise of sola scriptura. Is there some logic to justify it? The law of non-contradiction in Logic doesn't have chapter and verse from the bible to support it but it does have experience and history to point to its practical value. Does sola scriptura have something like that?

No. I have [given] you the official, formal, historic, verbatim definition From 1577. ...

Yes, you gave a sentence from a 1577 document and I read it several times (you've been very zealous to post it and have done so many times). But you offered the opinion that it is a practise and not a doctrine and it is to the opinion that sola scriptura is not doctrine but practise that I referred.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Here is the historic, formal, official definition. From 1577:


"The Scriptures are and should remain the sole rule in the norming of all doctrine among us"

(Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Rule and Norm, 9).



The Rule of Scripture is the practice of embracing Scripture as the rule ("straight edge") - canon ("measuring stick") - norma normans (the norm that norms) as it is called in epistemology, as we examine and evaluate the positions (especially doctrines) among us.


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 US to USE for THIS process.


What it is NOT:

1. A teaching that all revelation or truth is found in Scripture. It's not a teaching at all, it is the PRACTICE of using Scripture as the rule in the norming of doctrines. Scripture itself says that "the heavens declare the glory of God" but our visual reception of the stars is not used as the norma normans for the evaluation of doctrines among us in the practice of Sola Scriptura.

2. A teaching that Scripture is "finished." It's not a teaching at all. While probably all that practice Sola Scripture agree with all others that God seems to have inscribed His last book around 100 AD and doens't seem to be adding any more books, the Rule of Scripture was just as "valid" in 1400 BC when Scripture consisted of just two stone tablets as it is today - only the corpus of Scripture is larger, that has no impact on the practice of embracing it as the rule/canon/norma normans in our evaluation of doctrines among us. The Rule of Scripture embraces the Scripture that is.

3. Hermeneutics. The Rule of Scripture has to do with WHAT is the most sound rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of the doctrines among us, it is not a hermeneutical principle. Obviously that Scripture needs to be interpreted, but that's a different subject or another day and thread. The Rule of Scripture has to do with norming, not interpreting.

4. Arbitration. Obviously, some process of determining whether the doctrine under review "measures up" (arbitration) to the "measuring stick" (the canon). This is also beyond the scope here, the Rule of Scripture is the embrace of Scripture AS that canon, it does not address the issue of HOW it is best determined if a position "measures up" to that canon.




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 irrelevabnt - 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 (page 136), "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 does the RCC so passionately reject this practice?


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, MORE above and beyond and outside all disputing parties. Rather the rejection is because the protestors rejects accountability (and thus norming and any norm in such) in the sole, singular, exclusive, particular, unique, individual case of it itself alone, uniquely, individually. 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 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 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 entirely irrelevant (for itself). The issue has been changed from truth to power (claimed by itself for itself, exclusively).


The RCC's "fathers" on Sola Scriptura:


"We are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone." St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Soul and the Resurrection NPNF II, V:439) Note: Gregory of Nyssa died in 394, quite a few years BEFORE Luther or Calvin were born. Compare to the definition of the practice.


Here are just a few other cases....

"Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast." St. John Chrysostom (Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC)


"Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Holy Trinity, NPNF, p. 327).



"What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin' as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,' everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin." Basil the Great (The Morals, p. 204, vol 9 TFOTC).


"We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the the Scripture." St. Basil the Great (On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 7, par. 16)


For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in NPNF, Volume VII, p. 23.)


Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God. St. Augustine (De unitate ecclesiae, chp. 10)





.

 

[MoreCoffee]

So when the Westminster Confession of Faith says "scripture alone is the only infallible rule of faith by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest is the Holy Spirit speaking in the holy scriptures" it is talking about truth taught by the Holy Spirit.

So the truth taught by the Holy Spirit by some conservative magisterial Protestants is that the Eucharist is a symbol with no real presence, no physical presence of Christ, but rather a real absence of the physical body and blood of Christ while others say that the truth taught by the Holy Spirit is that Christ really is physically present?

Some conservative non-Catholics say that the truth taught by the Holy Spirit is that baptism is to be administered only to those who give a credible profession of faith while others say that the truth taught by the Holy Spirit is that infants are to be baptised?

The differences in the truth taught by the Holy Spirit speaking in the holy scriptures are caused by what, exactly?

Don't blame the earth for lack of rain.

Which ones have this lack of rain? Specifically, which of the denominations listed in my post lack the rain you've mentioned?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Here is the historic, formal, official definition. From 1577:"The Scriptures are and should remain the sole rule in the norming of all doctrine among us" ...

Yes, you posted this before, several times.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Which ones have this lack of rain?

Read post 103. Especially the Illustration, Why Scripture and Why Does the RC Denomination So Passionately Protest This Practice. I'm very confident that addresses your questions.




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Read post 103. ...

Read it; not relevant to the questions I posed to Standing Up in the reply shown below.

So when the Westminster Confession of Faith says "scripture alone is the only infallible rule of faith by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest is the Holy Spirit speaking in the holy scriptures" it is talking about truth taught by the Holy Spirit.

So the truth taught by the Holy Spirit by some conservative magisterial Protestants is that the Eucharist is a symbol with no real presence, no physical presence of Christ, but rather a real absence of the physical body and blood of Christ while others say that the truth taught by the Holy Spirit is that Christ really is physically present?

Some conservative non-Catholics say that the truth taught by the Holy Spirit is that baptism is to be administered only to those who give a credible profession of faith while others say that the truth taught by the Holy Spirit is that infants are to be baptised?

The differences in the truth taught by the Holy Spirit speaking in the holy scriptures are caused by what, exactly?

Don't blame the earth for lack of rain.

Which ones have this lack of rain? Specifically, which of the denominations listed in my post lack the rain you've mentioned?

 

[hedrick]

Okay, let's move on. We've seen your many posts in another thread about your view of sola scriptura, others have offered views drawn from the WCF, Belgic confession, and other sources from magisterial Protestantism and I'd like to see how they justify the belief and what scripture they use for justifying it.

Speaking for the PCUSA, you will note that C67 (which I quoted above at length) says that Christ is the Word of God, and Scripture is a witness to him.

I believe the use of Scripture comes from the fact that we are followers of Christ. Scripture contains all of the plausible accounts of his life and teachings, as well as the understandings of his first followers about them. For me, the role of Scripture is basically pragmatic: it’s our most direct witness to the person we claim to follow. Since Christians should by definition do what our Lord wants us to, from a practical point of view that we means we should check everything with Scripture.

Christ also established a community, and gave the power of the keys to it. Hence the Church has a role is applying Scripture. We approach it as part of that community. However just as the OT people of God were held accountable by Prophets, there needs to be a way to hold the Church accountable to Jesus’ teachings. The only way I know is to demand that traditions and interpretations be consistent with Jesus’ message as recorded in Scripture.

There is a continuing tension between these two priorities: that Scripture is understood in the community of the Church, and that the Church is accountable to Scripture. Overemphasis of either can lead to serious problems.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Speaking for the PCUSA, you will note that C67 (which I quoted above at length) says that Christ is the Word of God, and Scripture is a witness to him.

I believe the use of Scripture comes from the fact that we are followers of Christ. Scripture contains all of the plausible accounts of his life and teachings, as well as the understandings of his first followers about them. For me, the role of Scripture is basically pragmatic: it’s our most direct witness to the person we claim to follow. Since Christians should by definition do what our Lord wants us to, from a practical point of view that we means we should check everything with Scripture.

Christ also established a community, and gave the power of the keys to it. Hence the Church has a role is applying Scripture. We approach it as part of that community. However just as the OT people of God were held accountable by Prophets, there needs to be a way to hold the Church accountable to Jesus’ teachings. The only way I know is to demand that traditions and interpretations be consistent with Jesus’ message as recorded in Scripture.

There is a continuing tension between these two priorities: that Scripture is understood in the community of the Church, and that the Church is accountable to Scripture. Overemphasis of either can lead to serious problems.

Some of the views that main-line churches propagate would not accord with Catholic teaching but on this point you are saying something that seems to echo similar ideas within the Catholic Church; namely, that the holy scriptures speak to us in practical ways about living a Christian life. That's the same as saying that holy scripture is intended to promote life more than it is intended to act as a doctrinal source book.

Of course the scriptures do teach doctrine. That isn't in dispute. But it is important to read holy scripture with the knowledge that it was written to make us wise for the purpose of being saved from sin and living in righteousness.

Thanks hedrick.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

That isn't in dispute. But it is important to read holy scripture with the knowledge that it was written to make us wise for the purpose of being saved from sin and living in righteousness.

Thanks hedrick.

That's entirely off-topic, not in dispute and has nothing to do with Sola Scripture.

But yes, if one rejects accountability in the sole case of self then that one will reject the normative use of Scripture (at least in the case of self) although perhaps keeping OTHER, DIFFERENT roles of Scripture. Nice story telling, for example.


Thanks More Coffee




.

 

[concretecamper]

I simply pointed out that in norming, having a rule doesn't equate to eliminating problems. I'm SURE you realized that, but.... The Rule of Law is that the Law is the embraced rule in the norming of disputed behavors - but it does not mandate that simply embracing that rule means therefore there is no crime, no disputes, that simply embracing that practice equates to a sinless heaven. In the same way, embracing the Rule of Scripture (Sola Scriptura) does not mandate there simply having that rule means there are not more disputes, no more wrong ideas. It simply means that were accountability is permitted, there is a rule for the norming.

Read post #11, I'm confident if you do, you'll come to understand.





.

Wow....who knows who is in error? By your explanatoon,much of what you believe could be error. Furthermore, since you have no guarentee, the RC dogmas you object to could be true.

 

[hedrick]

Some of the views that main-line churches propagate would not accord with Catholic teaching but on this point you are saying something that seems to echo similar ideas within the Catholic Church; namely, that the holy scriptures speak to us in practical ways about living a Christian life. That's the same as saying that holy scripture is intended to promote life more than it is intended to act as a doctrinal source book.

Of course the scriptures do teach doctrine. That isn't in dispute. But it is important to read holy scripture with the knowledge that it was written to make us wise for the purpose of being saved from sin and living in righteousness.

Thanks hedrick.

I have noted similarities between Catholic and mainline approaches to Scripture. These similarities are extensive. Mainline and Catholic Biblical scholarship are closely related. However we differ in a critical way, which is at the heart of the Reformation:

* Protestants, including the mainline, believe that the Church can err and has erred, and that the way we use Scripture must make provisions for correcting these errors.

Ideally errors would be minor and quickly corrected. However in my view (which I don't think is unique to me) there are two causes that happened fairly early, and had widespread effect:

* An intentional distancing of Christianity from Judaism. Much of modern Jesus scholarship (and the new perspective on Paul) result from attempts to reestablish the Jewish background for understanding the NT, and a corresponding suspicion of ways of describing Jesus' role that seem based more on Greek patterns of thought that Jewish ones (or approaches to Paul that seem based more on 16th Cent conflicts than Paul's original concerns).

* "lex orandi, lex credendi," which in practice seems to mean that there is insufficient protection against the influence of "popular piety." Catholics generally share mainline views on recent Protestant thought that is the result of this kind of popular piety, but are not committed to using the same kind of critical approach to the effects of ancient popular piety.

------

I think we're making progress on the first of these two, particularly among scholars. I don't see much progress on the second.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Wow....who knows who is in error? By your explanatoon,much of what you believe could be error. Furthermore, since you have no guarentee, the RC dogmas you object to could be true.

You seem to be unaware of the different between rule and arbitration. See post 11.

Yes, it is at least possible that the disputed dogmas of an individual (teacher, denomination, sect, cult) COULD be wrong - unless you are Catholic or Mormon. But yes, you have a point. If one rejects accountability and the issue of truth in the sole, singular, unique, particular, individual case of self alone - then yes, Sola Scriptura will be rejected, as will any arbitration. In which case, one cannot know if the teaching is true - that issue has been abandoned - and now there is just the issue of the one now teaching this dogma insists you be submissive to that self alone as unto God Himself: submission to self having been substituted for the issue of truth. See post # 11.






.

 

[concretecamper]

You seem to be unaware of the different between rule and arbitration.

Who is the arbiter in the arbitration?

YYes, it is at least possible that the disputed dogmas of an individual (teacher, denomination, sect, cult) COULD be wrong - unless you are Catholic or Mormon

At least your 1/2 right

But yes, you have a point.

Thank you

If one rejects accountability and the issue of truth in the sole, singular, unique, particular, individual case of self alone

Accountability to who or what? Rejects what issue of truth?

 

[MoreCoffee]

... Nice story telling, for example.
Thanks MoreCoffee

Thanks CaliforniaJosiah

 

[Metal Minister]

Wow....who knows who is in error? By your explanatoon,much of what you believe could be error. Furthermore, since you have no guarentee, the RC dogmas you object to could be true.

Considering many of them (RCC Dogmas) either go against scripture or scripture is utterly silent on them, I think there's little chance of that.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Considering many of them (RCC Dogmas) either go against scripture or scripture is utterly silent on them, I think there's little chance of that.

Holy scripture is a little larger in my bible and the teaching of Christ a little wider too so I've never found the Catholic Church teaching against holy scripture.

Metal Minister, what do you teach your congregation?

 

[concretecamper]

Considering many of them (RCC Dogmas) either go against scripture or scripture is utterly silent on them, I think there's little chance of that.

I suspect by your silence, you agree that the way Baptists practice SS, you may believe much that is not true? Or do you hold that all you believe is true.

 

[rockytopva]

Here is the what we believe statement from the Joel Osteen Ministries... I like to see a doctrinal statements like this...

… the entire Bible is inspired by God, without error and the authority on which we base our faith, conduct and doctrine.
… in one God who exists in three distinct persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God who came to this earth as Savior of the world.
… Jesus died on the cross and shed His blood for our sins. We believe that salvation is found by placing our faith in what Jesus did for us on the cross. We believe Jesus rose from the dead and is coming again.
… water baptism is a symbol of the cleansing power of the blood of Christ and a testimony to our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
… in the regular taking of Communion as an act of remembering what the Lord Jesus did for us on the cross.
… every believer should be in a growing relationship with Jesus by obeying God’s Word, yielding to the Holy Spirit and by being conformed to the image of Christ.
… as children of God, we are overcomers and more than conquerors and God intends for each of us to experience the abundant life He has in store for us.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Who is the arbiter in the arbitration?

Diversion.... ANYTHING to avoid discussing the issue? If you want to discuss arbitration, you'll need to start a different thread (but, I assure you, if you reject any rule in such, you've made the entire issue irrelevant....)

Accountability to who or what? Rejects what issue of truth?

The RCC rejects this practice because it rejects accountability; it individually exempts it itself uniquely and individually from the entire issue (in formal doctrine, AT LEAST), replacing the issue of truth with the issue of the unmitigated power that it itself claims that it itself alone has, according to it itself.



This is from post # 11 (which it seems you've not yet read)....

Why does the RCC so passionately protest this practice?


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 authoritative, MORE above and beyond and outside all disputing parties. Rather the rejection is because the protestors rejects accountability (and thus norming and any norm in such) in the sole, singular, exclusive, particular, unique, individual case of it itself alone, uniquely, individually. 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 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 latest edition of the Catechism of it 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 pastors give them in different forms." Since it itself declares that itself uniquely and individually is unaccountable and that itself is exempt from the issue of accountability, then the entire issue of norming (and the embraced norma normans in such) becomes entirely irrelevant (for itself). The issue has been changed from truth to power (claimed by itself for itself, exclusively).


.

As stated in post # 11 and many other times (but it seems no Catholic yet has read this), norming involves 3 essential parts (it being rendered IMPOSSIBLE by the elimination of any of them).....


1. Accountability. All parties and positions must be regarded as accountable. The one who insists "I'M like God - I can't be wrong" has therefore exited the process, the issue of truth being replaced with the issue of the power that that self claims for that self alone. This, as we know, is why the RCC and LDS won't permit norming or the issue of truth (see above).


2. Rule. There needs to be an agreed upon rule, canon, plumbline, standard, "norma normans" which all agree is reliable for this purpose, and the more objective, knowable, unalterable it is - the better, the more outside and above and beyond all parties (unalterable by them) - the better. This SECOND part is the subject of this thread, the issue of the practice of the "Rule of Scripture" (aka Sola Scriptura). Sola Scriptura assumes # 1 (which precedes it) but doesn't have anything to do with arbitration. The RCC and LDS don't engage in this point #2 because they exited the whole thing in the first step. They won't allow norming by any rule (unless such is simply itself - and technically, even that is rejected since it would imply accountability which it forbids - in the sole, singular, exclusive, unique, particular, individual case of it itself alone - in formal doctrine AT LEAST).


3. Arbitration. It MAY be necessary to determine if the disputed dogma among us "measures up" (arbitration) to the "measuring stick" (the meaning of the word "canon" - the rule, the norma normans). This is beyond the scope of this discussion since Sola Scriptura doesn't address this issue. It's irrelevant to the RCC since it exited all this back at the first step and it does not submit to ANY arbitration- it rather just insists that all swallow whatever it itself says cuz it itself does and it itself tells all to do that, NOT because something other than it itself ever arbitrated anything in this regard. It won't participate because it has abandoned the issue of truthfulness and replaced it with the issue of all the unmitigated, God-like POWER and "authority" that it itself alone claims that it itself uniquely and individually has. See the section above, "Why Does the RC Denomination So Passionately Protests This Practice?"




I honestly think that if you'd read the posts directed to you, this would all be understood and these constant diversions, strawmen, incredible mistakes would be avoided. I KNOW you cannot accept this rule (or any accountability) - you'd have to leave the RCC to do that, you are a Catholic BECAUSE you exempt the singular RCC from accountability/responsibility - but it would be good if you understood this. NO ONE expects you to agree with this (you'd have to leave the RCC to do so, to be Catholic is to exempt the RCC alone from accountability), but we HOPE after all this effort, you'd at least understand. But that may be too intimidating.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.