The Rule of Scripture ("Sola Scriptura" as Luther and Calvin called it)

[Philothei]

Better look more closely at what you've been taught. Even RC is willing to so admit:

We are therefore forced to admit that the leaders of Alexandrian Judaism showed a notable independence of Jerusalem tradition and authority in permitting the sacred boundaries of the Canon, which certainly had been fixed for the Prophets, to be broken by the insertion of an enlarged Daniel and the Epistle of Baruch. On the assumption that the limits of the Palestinian Hagiographa remained undefined until a relatively late date, there was less bold innovation in the addition of the other books, but the wiping out of the lines of the triple division reveals that the Hellenists were ready to extend the Hebrew Canon, if not establish a new official one of their own.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Canon of the Old Testament

New official one. Egypt and Rome. Lovely.

The Septuagint is nothing but a priduct of the Jewish hellenized Jews... What is the fuss again? The Apostles used it the fathers used it ...period!

 

[Thekla]

Better look more closely at what you've been taught. Even RC is willing to so admit:

We are therefore forced to admit that the leaders of Alexandrian Judaism showed a notable independence of Jerusalem tradition and authority in permitting the sacred boundaries of the Canon, which certainly had been fixed for the Prophets, to be broken by the insertion of an enlarged Daniel and the Epistle of Baruch. On the assumption that the limits of the Palestinian Hagiographa remained undefined until a relatively late date, there was less bold innovation in the addition of the other books, but the wiping out of the lines of the triple division reveals that the Hellenists were ready to extend the Hebrew Canon, if not establish a new official one of their own.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Canon of the Old Testament

New official one. Egypt and Rome. Lovely.

The LXX is used in the NT (both by quotation and allusion); for someone who is Sola Scriptura, wouldn't its use in the NT qualify the LXX as Scripture ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The LXX is used in the NT (both by quotation and allusion); for someone who is Sola Scriptura, wouldn't its use in the NT qualify the LXX as Scripture ?

I invite you to read the opening post.


1. I'm not aware that the LXX is so much as mentioned in the New Testament...


2. Again, as you know, the teaching of WHAT exactly are the Scirptures is not a teach of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is not a teaching of anything, it' a practice. It is the practice of embracing Scripture as the Rule in the norming of doctrines (especially those in dispute among us). I invite you to read the opening post, including "what it is/ what it is not." IF you want to have a discussion on why 4 (of the world's 50,000) denominations have a unique canon that no other denomination agrees with, that's an interesting discussion - just not this one; start a thread on "Why Doesn't ANY Denomination Agree With Mine on What Is Holy Scripture?" I'll post in it.



Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Better look more closely at what you've been taught. Even RC is willing to so admit:<snip>
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Canon of the Old Testament

New official one. Egypt and Rome. Lovely.

Which leads me to ask where Rome is ever mentioned in the OT?

Blue Letter Bible - Search Results for YNG
(egypt)
occurs 616 times in 561 verses in the YNG

Blue Letter Bible - Search Results for KJV
(rome)
occurs 15 times in 15 verses in the KJV

 

[Thekla]

I invite you to read the opening post.


1. I'm not aware that the LXX is so much as mentioned in the New Testament...


2. Again, as you know, the teaching of WHAT exactly are the Scirptures is not a teach of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is not a teaching of anything, it' a practice. It is the practice of embracing Scripture as the Rule in the norming of doctrines (especially those in dispute among us). I invite you to read the opening post, including "what it is/ what it is not." IF you want to have a discussion on why 4 (of the world's 50,000) denominations have a unique canon that no other denomination agrees with, that's an interesting discussion - just not this one; start a thread on "Why Doesn't ANY Denomination Agree With Mine on What Is Holy Scripture?" I'll post in it.



Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah





.

It is both directly quoted and alluded to.
Which does raise a question re: Sola Scriptura -
why doesn't Sola Scriptura apply to the OT canon ?

IE, Sola Scriptura is inconsistent at its core.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

It is both directly quoted and alluded to.

So, where is the LXX mentioned?

You must have a mistaken idea that Scriptures existed in the First Century in a single, leather bound tome with nice, genuine imitation gold letters on the front "HOLY BIBLE" and that Jesus (and everyone else) went around with their own copy as if students at a Baptist Bible college, and that if one quoted John 3:16 from that tome - ergo, one was rejecting 1 Mac from Scripture since such doesn't exist in any such tome of any such Bible student at the college.... I disagree both with your assumption and with the huge leap you make in the application.

Which does raise a question re: Sola Scriptura -
why doesn't Sola Scriptura apply to the OT canon ?

Because it isn't a teaching, it's a practice.

I invite you to read the opening post. It will help you enormously to understand the practice, it really will. Give it a try!







.

 

[Kristos]

If that is what it is supposed to do (norming of doctrine), then what's wrong? Why isn't is working? Would you honestly say that Christian doctrine among SS practitioners has become more normative in the last 100 years? If this were case wouldn't we see a reduction in denominations/synods/sects?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

If that is what it is supposed to do (norming of doctrine), then what's wrong? Why isn't is working? Would you honestly say that Christian doctrine among SS practitioners has become more normative in the last 100 years? If this were case wouldn't we see a reduction in denominations/synods/sects?

And you can't blame it on solo scriptura, since that doesn't exist...(per CJ)

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

And you can't blame it on solo scriptura, since that doesn't exist...(per CJ)

That does appear to be a "touchy" topic here on GT

http://www.christianforums.com/t7488934/
Is SOLO Scriptura Scriptural? (2)

MOD HAT​

Closing this for staff review​

 

[Standing Up]

If that is what it is supposed to do (norming of doctrine), then what's wrong? Why isn't is working? Would you honestly say that Christian doctrine among SS practitioners has become more normative in the last 100 years? If this were case wouldn't we see a reduction in denominations/synods/sects?

Perhaps it isn't really being used as the practice. IOW, all groups are spinoffs of groups (yes even the groups who think they are exactly the same as the one group 2000 years ago).

Each group has its traditions and use them as the norm. Even the SS folks. We all do. But we are instructed to renew the mind. To what? Tradition or the scripture or both or what? So, yeah, lots of divisions from many years and many practices carried from one group to the next IMO.

 

[sunlover1]

If that is what it is supposed to do (norming of doctrine), then what's wrong? Why isn't is working?

Because prideful men are involved
(Good to see you Kristos)
Seriously, if they were to be DOERs of the Word
and not hearers only they might just get a thing
or two right! Not gonna lie, ... nothing new under
the sun there.

Would you honestly say that Christian doctrine among SS practitioners has become more normative in the last 100 years? If this were case wouldn't we see a reduction in denominations/synods/sects?

I say down with sects! That too is man's doing.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

If that is what it is supposed to do (norming of doctrine), then what's wrong? Why isn't is working?

Suppose to do? Where did anyone say anything about anything doing anything? I'm not following you.



You might be changing the subject to arbitration? That's already been clearly addressed in the opening post - read that.

No one said that having the same rule means all dispute disappears. We have the same driving laws in California, does that mean we have no driving problems, no courts, all drive perfectly and the same, no accidents happen?

I'd GLADLY compare the dogmas I hold and those by any strong Calvinist here at CF - both of us accepting accountability and the Rule of Scripture to a comparison of the RCC and the LDS both rejecting accountability, rejecting norming, rejecting any rule, insisting that self alone is uniquely lead by the Holy Spirit, uniquely follows and learns from the Holy Spirit, and whatever self says is what Jesus says. I think our rule is "working" better than yours - although for several reasons, doesn't always lead to full resolution (a topic not permitted in this thread, this thread specifically is not about arbitration/resolution - hijacking is a rule violation at CF).

Thank you.




.

 

[Thekla]

So, where is the LXX mentioned?

It isn't mentioned, it is used in the NT.

You must have a mistaken idea that Scriptures existed in the First Century in a single, leather bound tome with nice, genuine imitation gold letters on the front "HOLY BIBLE" and that Jesus (and everyone else) went around with their own copy as if students at a Baptist Bible college, and that if one quoted John 3:16 from that tome - ergo, one was rejecting 1 Mac from Scripture since such doesn't exist in any such tome of any such Bible student at the college.... I disagree both with your assumption and with the huge leap you make in the application.

I disagree with your assessment of my "idea"
The LXX version of the OT is the dominant source of OT quotes in the NT.

Because it isn't a teaching, it's a practice.

Practices are taught through word or example.

I invite you to read the opening post. It will help you enormously to understand the practice, it really will. Give it a try!

I have, thank-you
But my question is re: the use of Scripture in NT Scripture.

'


Is the NT Scripture considered the norma normans in Sola Scriptura ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

It isn't mentioned, it is used in the NT. The LXX version of the OT is the dominant source of OT quotes in the NT.

1. How do you know Jesus was opening up His leather bound tome with "HOLY LXX" printed on the cover in genuine imitation gold letters - and read the Scriptures? I was taught in the Catholic Church that unless one was in a synogogue - Scriptures typically were shared by memory. I was taught a LOT of things incorrectly, so maybe that was too.

2. So what? Even if Jesus was carrying around a tome like students at a Baptist Bible college, how does that mean that He ergo accepted as Scripture all and only the books contained in that collection? I have a little Bible tome that is just the NT and Pslams, if I quoted John 3:16 from that, am I thereby declaring that there are ONLY 28 books that are Scripture? I don't follow you AT ALL. Why does quoting a verse in Isaiah (perhaps being translated into Aramaic or Greek) mean that ERGO He accepted the books translated by the LXX as Scripture? That seems entirely baseless.

3. But you continue to raise a moot point. The same 66 books are embraced by 49,995 denominations (assuming Catholics are right and there are 50K denominations). 1 has a 5 less, 4 have a few more (the OO, EO, RC and LDS). With the exception of the LDS - it's all moot. I don't think any has any "problem" with the Arminian Orthodox using their tome or the EO quoting Psalm 151. DO YOU HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE that is MORE ecumenically embraced, by MORE than 49,995 denominations? And something MORE inspired by God, MORE inerrant, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable by all and alterable by none than is Scripture?

Is the NT Scripture considered the norma normans in Sola Scriptura ?

The Rule of Scripture for Christians as disputed Christian doctrines are normed would be the Christian Scriptures. For 49,995 denominations - that's the content of 66 books, for 1 it is 61 books and for 4 it's a few more books (none of those 5 agree with any but self on that issue - but it's largely moot anyway). Do you have an alternative embraced by all 50,000 and not just 49,995? And is MORE inspired by God, MORE inerrant, MORE reliable, MORE historically embraced (say to 1400 BC), MORE objectively knowable by all and alterable by none? IF so, please present it and show how it IS more embraced, inspired, inerrant, objective/knowable. Thanks.







.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Perhaps it isn't really being used as the practice. IOW, all groups are spinoffs of groups (yes even the groups who think they are exactly the same as the one group 2000 years ago).

Each group has its traditions and use them as the norm. Even the SS folks. We all do. But we are instructed to renew the mind. To what? Tradition or the scripture or both or what? So, yeah, lots of divisions from many years and many practices carried from one group to the next IMO.

LOL
Human beings are the ONLY animals that run faster when it becomes clear they are going the wrong direction.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

It isn't mentioned, it is used in the NT.

That's an interesting point that may have escaped those who are getting their talking points from certain online resources

What Thekla is referencing here:
There is some degree of variability between the LXX renderings and those of the Masoretic and other ancient OT sources.

It seems that, when quoting the OT, Jesus seemed pre-disposed to quote the LXX rendering. The notion that He did so from memory, rather than by choice, is beset by two problems:
1. We see Him reading the scroll in the Synagogue
2. Memorize? Heck, He authored it, right?

The Reformed argument for the text of the Christ-rejecting Masoretes, compiled 5 centuries after the Incarnation, over the text quoted by Christ, compiled 200 years prior to His Incarnation, and utilized by Christ-worshipping first century Christians...well, it's quite an interesting choice, to me.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

That's an interesting point that may have escaped those who are getting their talking points from certain online resources

What Thekla is referencing here:
There is some degree of variability between the LXX renderings and those of the Masoretic and other ancient OT sources.

It seems that, when quoting the OT, Jesus seemed pre-disposed to quote the LXX rendering. The notion that He did so from memory, rather than by choice, is beset by two problems:
1. We see Him reading the scroll in the Synagogue
2. Memorize? Heck, He authored it, right?

The Reformed argument for the text of the Christ-rejecting Masoretes, compiled 5 centuries after the Incarnation, over the text quoted by Christ, compiled 200 years prior to His Incarnation, and utilized by Christ-worshipping first century Christians...well, it's quite an interesting choice, to me.

The issue of why the OO, EO, RC and LDS have UNIQUE "sets" of books regarded as Scripture (none of the 4 agreeing with ANY other on this) is moot to the issue here. If you want to discuss this, begin a thread entitled: "WHY DOES NONE OTHER AGREE WITH THE EO ON WHAT IS AND IS NOT SCRIPTURE?" I'd be glad to post in it... You might consider adding the other 3 - the OO, RC and LDS - they are in the same unique situation.


If you read the opening post, Sola Scriptura does not teach what is or is not Scripture (it's a practice - it doesn't teach ANYTHING); if you read the opening post, the practice was the same and just as valid when Scripture consisted of only two stone tablets in 1400 BC- embracing the Rule of Scripture means embracing Scripture as the Rule.



You (and one other) seem to be TRYING to make a huge point that while 49,995 denominations embrace the same exact content as Scripture - one has less and 4 have more (the OO, EO, RC and LDS). Frankly, it's moot (except for the LDS - which rejects Sola Scriptura even by it's own embrace of what is Scripture so it's moot there, too). Go ahead and embrace Psalm 151 as Scripture, it's fine with me (I've read it).

AND if you know of some rule embraced by all 50,000 denominations (and not just 49,995) and is regarded by them as MORE inspired by God, MORE inerrant, MORE reliable, MORE historically (say to 1400 BC) embraced, MORE objectively knowable than is Scripture, PLEASE PRESENT IT.









.

 

[Kristos]

Suppose to do? Where did anyone say anything about anything doing anything? I'm not following you.



You might be changing the subject to arbitration? That's already been clearly addressed in the opening post - read that.

No one said that having the same rule means all dispute disappears. We have the same driving laws in California, does that mean we have no driving problems, no courts, all drive perfectly and the same, no accidents happen?

I'd GLADLY compare the dogmas I hold and those by any strong Calvinist here at CF - both of us accepting accountability and the Rule of Scripture to a comparison of the RCC and the LDS both rejecting accountability, rejecting norming, rejecting any rule, insisting that self alone is uniquely lead by the Holy Spirit, uniquely follows and learns from the Holy Spirit, and whatever self says is what Jesus says. I think our rule is "working" better than yours - although for several reasons, doesn't always lead to full resolution (a topic not permitted in this thread, this thread specifically is not about arbitration/resolution - hijacking is a rule violation at CF).

Thank you.




.

So it does nothing?


Is this a Seinfeld episode???

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

So it does nothing?

That's right. Scirpture does not norm anything, Scripture is the embraced norm. Read the opening post.





.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

The issue of why the OO, EO, RC and LDS poisoning the well fallacy have UNIQUE "sets" of books regarded as Scripture (none of the 4 agreeing with ANY other on this) is moot to the issue here. If you want to discuss this, begin a thread entitled: "WHY DOES NONE OTHER AGREE WITH THE EO ON WHAT IS AND IS NOT SCRIPTURE?" I'd be glad to post in it... You might consider adding the other 3 - the OO, RC and LDS ibid- they are in the same unique situation.


If you read the opening post, Sola Scriptura does not teach what is or is not Scripture (it's a practice - it doesn't teach ANYTHING); One cannot agree on the tool of measure unless one agrees as to which tool it is. The Protestant version of a liter is a quart in measure. Three ounces difference adds up over time and thirstif you read the opening post, the practice was the same and just as valid when Scripture consisted of only two stone tablets in 1400 BC- embracing the Rule of Scripture means embracing Scripture as the Rule.



You (and one other) seem to be TRYING to make a huge point that while 49,995 denominations Truth by popular vote- fallaciousembrace the same exact content as Scripture - one has less and 4 have more (the OO, EO, RC and LDS poisoning the well again). Frankly, it's moot (except for the LDS - which rejects Sola Scriptura even by it's own embrace of what is Scripture so it's moot there, too). Go ahead and embrace Psalm 151 as Scripture, it's fine with me (I've read it).

AND if you know of some rule embraced by all 50,000 denominations (and not just 49,995) and is regarded by them as MORE inspired by God, MORE inerrant, MORE reliable, MORE historically (say to 1400 BC) embraced, MORE objectively knowable than is Scripture, PLEASE PRESENT IT. We embraced the concept of kanona when your denomination was but a twinkle in the Pope's eye.









.

Let me see if I get this right:
You went off topic to tell me I'm off-topic.

/irony

See my notes above
I've no further interest in addressing the fundamentally flawed premise of your thread, CJ- my point has been made:
There is no agreed-to canon.




















.
Thanks