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

[razeontherock]

Interesting doctrine. Never heard it before. Can you produce two explicit areas either in the NT or the OT (but not both since OT Jews didn't have that luxury), teaching what you just said above?

Very basic precept:

"at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established." (Deut 19:15)

"in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." (Mt 18:16)

(2 Cor 13:1) This [is] the third [time] I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."

(Isa 28:10) For precept [must be] upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little:"

 

[ivebeenshown]

Very basic precept:

I agree, the proposed precept is basic and simple to understand in idea, but where is its foundation?

"at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established." (Deut 19:15)

This verse is truncated. Here is the entire verse:

"One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established."

Now, what about the context of this verse relates to the interpretation of Scripture? Does it not instead relate to establishing the guilt of a sinner?

"in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." (Mt 18:16)

Again, this verse is cut short. Here is the proper context:

"Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established."

This also appears to be speaking of establishing the fault of a brother, not the interpretation of Scripture.

(2 Cor 13:1) This [is] the third [time] I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."

This verse appears to recall the declarations within the previous verses discussed, and does not appear to relate to the interpretation of Scripture.

(Isa 28:10) For precept [must be] upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little:"

"But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken."

This does not appear to comment on the manner in which Scripture is to be interpreted. Rather, it appears to state that 'precept upon precept' was purposed for 'that they might go and fall backward and be broken.' It sounds to me like the 'precepts upon precepts' of the law of Moses.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Raze, the quotes are taken completely out of context, and betray an ignorance of the full corpus of the author's works, as well as the facts of the lives they lived.

There is a tendency for many SS adherents to dichotimize; thus implying that if one is not a SS adherent, one does not value Scripture. This is just plain false. Also, to take it the other direction, to dichotimize thusly: if one truly values Scripture, one must be a SS adherent. This is also false.

In point of fact, the ECFs dearly valued Scripture, and were also not SS adherents; the EO continues this.

The EO likes to provide snippets from those it regards as "fathers." IF they can be interpreted as agreeing with what the EO thinks is good, then their "Fathers" are teaching it.

I gave the verbatum quotes of several EO "Fathers." I find it.... impossible.... to read them in ANY possible way but to affirm what the opening post shares is Sola Scriptura.




.

 

[Thekla]

The EO likes to provide snippets from those it regards as "fathers." IF they can be interpreted as agreeing with what the EO thinks is good, then their "Fathers" are teaching it.

I gave the verbatum quotes of several EO "Fathers." I find it.... impossible.... to read them in ANY possible way but to affirm what the opening post shares is Sola Scriptura.

Actually, I have encouraged you and others to read more of the ECFs in order to understand more fully the context so that a more accurate analysis is possible.

Perhaps you can describe which ECFs you have read, how much of their works, which works, etc.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

This thread is not about Sola Scriptura per se, but about its use as Luther and Calvin called it. That, as I understand it from earlier posts by our esteemed brother, CaliforniaJosiah, was as the norma norms for determining faithfulness and accuracy of doctrinal teaching. I do not think that either Luther or Calvin ever stated that SS was commanded by God or stated in Scripture; nevertheless they firmly believed in the sole use of scripture as the norma norms for doctrine.

... and yes, the mods have come to remind all to stay on topic (as defined in the opening post). I don't know what happened to that advise, but yes - it's been officially given in the thread.


Without a doubt, Scripture needs to be interpreted. Without a doubt, issues need to be arbitrated. Without a doubt, some claim that self is exempt from accountability by ANY norm. Without a doubt, there are many false, "strawmen" misconceptions surrounding all this. I'm not permitted to reference the opening post, but I affirm staff's counsel that we stay on topic.


IF the Rule of Scripture is different than something you read on the internet or were told by someone rejecting accountability (for self anyway), or IF you see issues related to it - I'm not TOO shocked. A significant part of my purpose in starting this thread was to convey, historically and officially, what it IS and what it is NOT. I've not yet read anything to say I was/am wrong, only things constantly reminding me of Staff's advise.





.

 

[Thekla]

The Rule of Scripture in Norming

(What Luther and Calvin called "Sola Scriptura")

Perhaps, if the the OP is meant to be about "the use of Sola Scriptura in norming", it should be thus titled.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Perhaps, if the the OP is meant to be about "the use of Sola Scriptura in norming", it should be thus titled.

If I said "car" rather than "automobile" it should not be SO entirely confusing, especially if in the opening (governing) post I go to GREAT length to note they mean the same thing and if the entire purpose of said thread was to define what such is and is not.




.

 

[Thekla]

If I said "car" rather than "automobile" it should not be SO entirely confusing, especially if in the opening (governing) post I go to GREAT length to note they mean the same thing and if the entire purpose of said thread was to define what such is and is not.

There is a difference between the rule and its implementation (use).
At least this is what I have been told in numerous SS threads in GT.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

There is a difference between the rule and its implementation (use).

Sometimes it's helpful to read the title of a thread. Even, at times, the opening post.




.

 

[Thekla]

Sometimes it's helpful to read the title of a thread. Even, at times, the opening post.

I did; in all previous threads (started by yourself) on the Rule of SS, I was told by yourself that the "rule" was not the same as it's "use" or implementation.

This thread (though the OP is a repetition of the information you have provided in previous threads (started by yourself) is titled "The Rule of Sola Scriptura", not "The Use of the Rule of Sola Scriptura".

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I did; in all previous threads (started by yourself) on the Rule of SS, I was told by yourself that the "rule" was not the same as it's "use" or implementation.

Interesting....

This thread is titled "The Rule of Sola Scriptura", not "The Use of the Rule of Sola Scriptura".

Hum. Fascinating!

Do you think that has any significance to anything?

What do YOU theorize the mods may have mean by the "mod hat" post to stay on topic?








.

 

[Thekla]

Interesting....



Hum. Fascinating!

Do you think that has any significance to anything?

What do YOU theorize the mods may have mean by the "mod hat" post to stay on topic?

That we were to discuss "The Rule of Sola Scriptura".

As you are the OP, do you understand the discussion to include discussion about "the rule" and its implementation ?

 

[ivebeenshown]

I still don't understand how we can accept Scripture as the sole norma normans in matters of Christian faith. After all, the canon of Scripture is a matter of Christian faith, and what rule do we use to evaluate our canon of Scripture?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

This thread is titled "The Rule of Sola Scriptura", not "The Use of the Rule of Sola Scriptura".

​

​

Hum. Fascinating!

Do you think that has any significance to anything?

What do YOU theorize the mods may have mean by the "mod hat" post to stay on topic?That we were to discuss "The Rule of Sola Scriptura".

As you are the OP, do you understand the discussion to include discussion about "the rule" and its implementation ?

I remind you of what you said, what I said and what the mods said.
There's your answer.




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I still don't understand how we can accept Scripture as the sole norma normans in matters of Christian faith

1. I can and DO understand your great concern over the reality that not a denomination on the planet agrees with yours on what is and is not Scripture. I felt the same way when I was Catholic, it IS a grave, deeply disturbing reality. But, it's not the subject here. If you want to discuss this, I suggest you begin a thread entitled, "Why Does No Denomination on the Planet Agree with Mine on What Is and Is Not Scripture?" I'll post in it, sharing the grave concern Catholics feel and now my perspective on that as a Protestant (I'm much less disturbed by your situation than I was when I too was Catholic).


2. Do you embrace the Rule of Law? Did you know that there is not one corpus of law - there are MILLIONS of different ones, and it changes daily (hourly)? You likely are not even aware of all the laws on the planet - or even in your own jurisdiction! And yet.....




.

 

[Fotina]

After spending a little time on GT, I see SS used to justify some strange and outrageous doctrines. Accountability is non-existent. It's "me and Jesus" and my SS understanding are supreme. It does not safe-guard Truth, instead multiplies false doctrines and division. The new rallying cry should be "Return to the Fathers and Holy Tradition."

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

After spending a little time on GT, I see SS used to justify some strange and outrageous doctrines.

After spending much time at GT, studying various "cults" and the early LDS, I've seen how "I exempt me from accountability, when I speak Jesus speaks, all are accountable but ME" used to justify some strange and outragious doctrines.

It's "me and Jesus"

Of course, that's why the RCC rejects the Rule of Scripture. Read the opening post, "Why Some Reject the Rule of Scripture." The profound, dogmatic insistence of the RC Denomination of "ME and Jesus" is one of the main reasons I left the RCC. But yes - this insistence of self on self IS the chief reason why the RCC rejects this practice; you'd hit the nail on the head. I tried to say the same in the last section of the opening post.






.

 

[Rick Otto]

I still don't understand how we can accept Scripture as the sole norma normans in matters of Christian faith. After all, the canon of Scripture is a matter of Christian faith, and what rule do we use to evaluate our canon of Scripture?

Is any of it obviously scripture to you, or would you doubt all of it without permission to trust it?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by ivebeenshown I still don't understand how we can accept Scripture as the sole norma normans in matters of Christian faith. After all, the canon of Scripture is a matter of Christian faith, and what rule do we use to evaluate our canon of Scripture?

After spending a little time on GT, I see SS used to justify some strange and outrageous doctrines. Accountability is non-existent. It's "me and Jesus" and my SS understanding are supreme. It does not safe-guard Truth, instead multiplies false doctrines and division. The new rallying cry should be "Return to the Fathers and Holy Tradition."

Good point!
You were around when this thread was started and you may even have posted on it ehehe

http://www.christianforums.com/t1157334-46/
Why are Protestants afraid of the Holy Tradition?

What makes protestants reject the Tradition? What in particular they don't like in it?

1st response

Protestants are afraid of Tradition because of the way the Roman Catholic church misused it during the time of the Reformation. If the Church can claim any kind of corrupt practices, like sale of indulgences, are supported by Tradition, then Tradition becomes untrustworthy.

 

[brinny]

There is only One Who is holy, my brother.