Sola Scripturists guide on the authority of the Bible

[OpenDoor]

What is hypocritical?

From what it looked like to me, it appeared that a standard was being applied to SS that would not be applied to EO.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

A council that radifies the canon of the NT is "God inspired" but the rest of the counsils are NOT...
*

1. WHY Scripture is embraced as sufficient reliable as the rule/norma normans is not the point in Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura does not teach ANYTHING about the Bible, it does not teach ANYTHING about what is or is not Scripture, Sola Scriptura doesn't teach ANYTHING about ANYTHING - it's not a teachingl it's a practice: the practice of our using Scripture as the rule in the evaluation of the correctness/validity/truthfulness of doctrines among us. Yes, the practice does flow from the embrace that Scripture is reliable for this but the doctrine of Scripture is not the same as the practice of using such normatively. And yes, the practice as just as sound (IMO) when Scripture consisted of nothing more than two stone tablets at Mount Sinai as it was in 100 AD when the corpus of such was much larger.


2. There has never been an Ecumenical Council on what is or is not Scripture in Christianity. The embrace is an ecumenical, historic matter of consensus. Yes, the EO has a UNIQUE collection - shared by no other denomination. The RC has a UNIQUE collection - shared by no other denomination. The other 49,998 denominations (assuming some are correct and there are 50K denominations) share virtually all the books with the EO and RC but leave the DEUTERO books, the disputed ones as disputed. It's largely moot to anything, and it's certainly moot to this practice. Yes, for a Greek Orthodox, embracing Psalm 151 as a rule in norming would be embracing Scripture as the rule - otherwise known as Sola Scriptura. The RCC would not regard it as Scripture I realize, but that's moot to the practice here being discussed. If we were discussing the Rule of Law and you noted that that law is not IDENTICAL in Nevada as it is in California, the practice would be the same even if the object would be slighty different.


3. You can find a detailed description of the practice here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/



I hope that helps.


Pax


- Josiah






.

 

[MrPolo]

IIRC I was focusing on the 27 books of the NT. Which I thought all Christians agreed on up to today...

You've been arguing for the Protestant canon in this thread. But anyway:

1. Did you know that Hebrews, Revelation, 2 Peter, for instance were denied as Scripture by some in the early Church? Why do you accept the 27 books? Is the measure: "Majority rules"?
2. So, yes or no, do you believe God revealed to the early Church the 66-book-only canon?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You've been arguing for the Protestant canon in this thread. But anyway:

1. Did you know that Hebrews, Revelation, 2 Peter, for instance were denied as Scripture by some in the early Church? Why do you accept the 27 books? Is the measure: "Majority rules"?
2. So, yes or no, do you believe God revealed to the early Church the 66-book-only canon?

1. WHY Scripture is embraced as sufficient reliable as the rule/norma normans is not the point in Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura does not teach ANYTHING about the Bible, it does not teach ANYTHING about what is or is not Scripture, Sola Scriptura doesn't teach ANYTHING about ANYTHING - it's not a teachingl it's a practice: the practice of our using Scripture as the rule in the evaluation of the correctness/validity/truthfulness of doctrines among us. Yes, the practice does flow from the embrace that Scripture is reliable for this but the doctrine of Scripture is not the same as the practice of using such normatively. And yes, the practice as just as sound (IMO) when Scripture consisted of nothing more than two stone tablets at Mount Sinai as it was in 100 AD when the corpus of such was much larger.


2. There has never been an Ecumenical Council on what is or is not Scripture in Christianity. The embrace is an ecumenical, historic matter of consensus. Yes, the EO has a UNIQUE collection - shared by no other denomination. The RC has a UNIQUE collection - shared by no other denomination. The other 49,998 denominations (assuming some are correct and there are 50K denominations) share virtually all the books with the EO and RC but leave the DEUTERO books, the disputed ones as disputed. It's largely moot to anything, and it's certainly moot to this practice. Yes, for a Greek Orthodox, embracing Psalm 151 as a rule in norming would be embracing Scripture as the rule - otherwise known as Sola Scriptura. The RCC would not regard it as Scripture I realize, but that's moot to the practice here being discussed. If we were discussing the Rule of Law and you noted that that law is not IDENTICAL in Nevada as it is in California, the practice would be the same even if the object would be slighty different.


3. You can find a detailed description of the practice here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/



I hope that helps.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[MrPolo]

I hope that helps.

No, sorry. Neither of these discourses (which you have posted on these forums numerous times and have gotten responses to by folks including myself), confronts either of my questions to OpenDoor in post #144.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

1. WHY Scripture is embraced as sufficient reliable as the rule/norma normans is not the point in Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura does not teach ANYTHING about the Bible, it does not teach ANYTHING about what is or is not Scripture, Sola Scriptura doesn't teach ANYTHING about ANYTHING - it's not a teachingl it's a practice: the practice of our using Scripture as the rule in the evaluation of the correctness/validity/truthfulness of doctrines among us. Yes, the practice does flow from the embrace that Scripture is reliable for this but the doctrine of Scripture is not the same as the practice of using such normatively. And yes, the practice as just as sound (IMO) when Scripture consisted of nothing more than two stone tablets at Mount Sinai as it was in 100 AD when the corpus of such was much larger.


2. There has never been an Ecumenical Council on what is or is not Scripture in Christianity. The embrace is an ecumenical, historic matter of consensus. Yes, the EO has a UNIQUE collection - shared by no other denomination. The RC has a UNIQUE collection - shared by no other denomination. The other 49,998 denominations (assuming some are correct and there are 50K denominations) share virtually all the books with the EO and RC but leave the DEUTERO books, the disputed ones as disputed. It's largely moot to anything, and it's certainly moot to this practice. Yes, for a Greek Orthodox, embracing Psalm 151 as a rule in norming would be embracing Scripture as the rule - otherwise known as Sola Scriptura. The RCC would not regard it as Scripture I realize, but that's moot to the practice here being discussed. If we were discussing the Rule of Law and you noted that that law is not IDENTICAL in Nevada as it is in California, the practice would be the same even if the object would be slighty different.


3. You can find a detailed description of the practice here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/

No, sorry. Neither of these discourses confronts either of my questions to OpenDoor in post #144.

You raised the issue of WHAT books are regarded as Scripture.
MY reply is that that is moot to this thread.
Yes, your denomination since Trent has a UNIQUE canon - one NO other agrees with - but that's another discussion for another day and thread, derailing here.

I don't know WHY your denomination agrees with no other on this point, but again - it's moot to the issue of this thread. Start a thread on "The RCC Agrees with None on What is and What is Not Scripture" and I'd be glad to discuss that there. Reasonable?


Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah






.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

You raised the issue of WHAT books are regarded as Scripture.
MY reply is that that is moot to this thread.

I'm sorry, but this just doesn't make sense. If scripture is your norm, don't you want to make sure you have all the right 'scripture'?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I'm sorry, but this just doesn't make sense. If scripture is your norm, don't you want to make sure you have all the right 'scripture'?

Probably, but it's not the point here. Let's say we were talking about the Rule of Law. The Rule of Law is the embrace of the law as normative for civil behaviors. The practice is embracing the law as the rule. And the practice of the Rule of Scripture (what Luther and Calvin called "Sola Scriptura") is embracing Scripture as the rule. We're talking about the practice here....

Again, the practice of embracing Scripture is not a dogma of what Scripture is - it's a practice. Yes, I realize that the RC denomination since the 16th century has a totally unique set of books embraced as Scripture (no other agrees with it, it agrees with no other on this point) - but that's moot to the issue here. The RCC does NOT reject Sola Scriptura because it disagrees with all others on exactly what Scripture is.





Read this (especially what is embolden in blue font for you)....


The Rule of Scripture in Norming (What Luther and Calvin called "Sola Scriptura")



The Definition:


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.


Here is the official, historic definition: "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). "We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the pure and clear fountain of Israel, which is the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged" (ditto, 3).




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.


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 doesn'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 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 moot (for self). The issue has been changed from truth to power (claimed by self for self).



I hope that helps extend understanding of this praxis.



Pax



- Josiah





.

 

[OpenDoor]

You've been arguing for the Protestant canon in this thread.

Did this happen by default?

 

[OpenDoor]

1. Did you know that Hebrews, Revelation, 2 Peter, for instance were denied as Scripture by some in the early Church? Why do you accept the 27 books? Is the measure: "Majority rules"?

Yes I did know about Hebrews and Revelation, but I did not know about 2 Peter.

Why do you accept the 27 books? Is the measure: "Majority rules"?

I agree with the finding of the council. I recognize Hebrews, Revelation and 2 Peter as scripture.

 

[OpenDoor]

2. So, yes or no, do you believe God revealed to the early Church the 66-book-only canon?

From my understanding, the way God revealed the truth of the OT was not through the Christian Church but through the Jewish faith.
The Christian Church (for the most part) agrees with the Jewish faith when it comes to the OT.

Now did God reveal the NT to the Christian Church? Yes!
That is why Christians believe the Christian faith and accept the NT.

 

[MrPolo]

I agree with the finding of the council. I recognize Hebrews, Revelation and 2 Peter as scripture.

Which council is that? I don't remember you specifying earlier.

From my understanding, the way God revealed the truth of the OT was not through the Christian Church but through the Jewish faith.
The Christian Church (for the most part) agrees with the Jewish faith when it comes to the OT.

This tells me that you are not sure if your OT canon is correct. You say the Christian Church "mostly" agrees with the Jewish faith (and which Jewish group I'm not sure because there was no unanimous canon of Scripture in Judaism at the time of Christ, or even today (i.e. the Palestinian Jews had a different canon than Ethiopian Jews, etc...).

 

[OpenDoor]

This tells me that you are not sure if your OT canon is correct. You say the Christian Church "mostly" agrees with the Jewish faith (and which Jewish group I'm not sure because there was no unanimous canon of Scripture in Judaism at the time of Christ, or even today (i.e. the Palestinian Jews had a different canon than Ethiopian Jews, etc...).

Outside of the apocrypha (or deuterocanonical) books both Jews and Christians agree on the OT.

 

[OpenDoor]

Which council is that? I don't remember you specifying earlier.

Any council that agrees with the 27 books of the NT I agree with. So even if you would like to use the council of Trent I would agree that the 27 books of the NT are correct.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Yes I did know about Hebrews and Revelation, but I did not know about 2 Peter.

I agree with the finding of the council. I recognize Hebrews, Revelation and 2 Peter as scripture.

Why then do you agree with the findings of this council and not of another council, since it is the same Holy Spirit acting through them?

 

[MrPolo]

Outside of the apocrypha (or deuterocanonical) books both Jews and Christians agree on the OT.

That is tantamount to saying: Outside of the books they don't agree on, Christians and Jews agree. So whose canon on the OT is correct? Palestinian Jews? Ethiopian Jews?

 

[OpenDoor]

Why then do you agree with the findings of this council and not of another council, since it is the same Holy Spirit acting through them?

This is were we will differ. I don't view the councils as "magical", or the people that attended as infallible. As such I can agree with some of their findings and disagree with others.

The problem you are going to have (at least I presume) is that you will now be trying to use EO, OO, or RC standers to someone who does not recognize them-self as EO, OO, or RC.

While I may agree with parts (possibly even a great majority) of the EO, OO, or RC teachings. I am not (at least at this time) EO, OO, or RC.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

This is were we will differ. I don't view the councils as "magical", or the people that attended as infallible. As such I can agree with some of their findings and disagree with others.

based on what criteria though do you agree with some and not with others?

 

[OpenDoor]

That is tantamount to saying: Outside of the books they don't agree on, Christians and Jews agree. So whose canon on the OT is correct? Palestinian Jews? Ethiopian Jews?

Can you please provide me with a list the shows the difference in Torah of the PJ and EJ?

 

[OpenDoor]

based on what criteria though do you agree with some and not with others?

I added to the original post. Hopefully that will help.