I am reading this to mean that scripture is the standard by which all doctrine will be judged.
Well, if employing the Rule of Scripture, then Scripture is the Rule.
Also, the norming process assumes a universal understanding of scripture.
No. If you read what I posted, Sola Scriptura has to do with norming, not hermeneutics.
I don't think I mention "universal" anywhere. About anything. Accept that the embrace of Scripture as inerrant is universal.
As stated before, the meaning of scripture isn't always clear.
I'm sorry, so what? I'm ENTIRELY lost as to what that has to do with anything. I never mentioned in my post about anything being clear to anyone.
Let's say the Law isn't clear to you. Does that mean you reject the Rule of Law as thus invalid and instead each is exempt from accountability/responsibility?
on.
This can apply to the subject of interpreting scripture.
No. Sola Scriptura has to do with norming, not hermeneutics.
If you are opposed to self appointing self as the sole interpreter of Scripture, take that up with the only one that does that - the RC Denomination. But that has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura.
I do accept the Bible as the Word of God but only because I can objectively verify what it claims is true and because I can verify the claims of those put the Bible together and maintained it.
Okay. WHATEVER reasons you do, you accept it. All others do to. And it's OUTSIDE and ABOVE you and me and everyone else too. By your advise, it thus is the best norma normans. The RCC is not above and beyond and outside all, it's simply the RCC.
I'm not opposing the Bible as the Word of God or as an Authority. What I'm opposing is the idea that the Bible carries authority but those that wrote, canonized and maintained it do not.
God wrote it, according to the RCC. God canonized it, according to the RCC. I agree with the RCC in this.
Except for what I can do is make a copy of it and alter it to suit me own ends.
No. You can do that with RCC Tradition, but not with Scripture. I know what words are in Romans 3:23. So you do. So do all. I can't change them, you can't change them - they are objective, unalterable.
I'm not advocating using Oral Tradition in place of or in opposition to the Bible but rather in cooperation with the Bible.
If this phantom of "oral tradition" is equal to Scripture, then Scripture MUST agree with this phantom - and thus is irrelevant. All you've done is replace an OBJECTIVE, OUTSIDE rule ABOVE all with self looking at a phantom of it's own creation.
The claims of the Church as an Authority are every bit as legitimate as the claim that the Bible is the Word of God.
An yet YOU suggested that what we need is not self claiming that self is the sole Authority but rather an OBJECTIVE, OUTSIDE Authority, knowable to all and alterable by none. Self looking at a phantom of it's own creation is not embracing some Authority outside, above and beyond self - it's just self alone declaring that self alone IS the Authority.
I don't agree that the authority of the Bible can be established without establishing the authority of those that produced it.
The CANON of Scripture perhaps - although that's another issue for another day and thread. We all agree that GOD produced His Scriptures. We all agree that HE is the Authority (although the RCC and LDS equate self with God in this - see CCC 87 for example).
our own private interpretation which may or may not be any more valid than anyone else's.
As you well know, Sola Scriptura is a praxis of norming, it has nothing to do with hermeneutics.
If you disagree with self appointing self as the sole, authoritarian, unaccountable interpreter of Scripture, I understand. But take that up with the only one on the planet that does that - the RCC. Let's try to stay on topic here, okay?
Josiah said:
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 moot (for self). The issue has been changed from truth to power (claimed by self for self).
Except for the teachings of the Pope and the Bishops ARE the teachings of Christ.
Of course, you are just cooperating with the RCC's attempt to exempt itself alone from accountability and the whole issue of this thread: Norming. You are simply agreeing that self alone can exempt self alone from the issue of truth. What happened to your call for some rule OUTSIDE, ABOVE, BEYOND self? If truth is irrelevant to you, then yes - any and all canons will be too - which is why your denomination rejects Sola Scriptura, it rejects accountability in the sole, singular, particular, unique case of it itself alone alone.
.
