"Sola Scriptura" - The Rule of Scripture in Norming

[Josiah]

.



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, verbatim definition: "The Scriptures are and should remain the sole rule in the norming of all doctrine among us" (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 9).




What it IS:

1. An embrace of accountability for the doctrines among us (especially those in dispute). This is the reason the RCC and LDS so passionately reject this practice.

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." Nor a teaching on what is and is not Scripture. 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) is often needed. But 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, completely irrelevant - then, nope - truth doesn't matter. And can just ignore what he said and did (don't matter). 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 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 do the RCC, LDS and additionally also the "cults" 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. 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 entirely irrelevant (for itself). The issue has been changed from truth to power (claimed by itself for itself, exclusively).

This is probably THE most rejected, repudiated, condemned practice in Protestantism by the Roman Catholic Denomination. But typically, strawmen are created then destroyed - all the hide the real issue, the real thing the RCC so passionately, so foundationally rejects: accountability of it itself exclusively.




- Josiah





.

 

[popsthebuilder]

That was a lot of words to convey the point that scriptural reference should be the measuring stick used when judging the validity of one's doctrines.

Good main point though.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[Lamb]

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 entirely irrelevant (for itself). The issue has been changed from truth to power (claimed by itself for itself, exclusively).

The first sentence of this paragraph grabbed my attention. They don't reject all of scripture and I know you don't mean that.

I'm curious though if some of their main tenets of faith have changed over the past 2,000 years?

 

[Josiah]

The first sentence of this paragraph grabbed my attention. They don't reject all of scripture and I know you don't mean that.

No, indeed, my view is that the RC Denomination holds Scripture in esteem equal to that in classic Protestantism. It also holds accountability in at least equal esteem. It's just that it exempts one exclusively from that: itself. THAT is the reason why it objects so passionately to this practice. It's NOT that it objects to Scripture.... it's just that it objects to accountability in the sole, singular, exclusive, particular, individual case of it itself alone (in offical, formal doctrine, at least), it itself simply declaring that it itself exclusively is infallible and thus unaccountable; when it itself exclusively speaks ergo God Himself is speaking. It's using Scripture NORMATIVELY ("Sola Scriptura") vis-a-vis unique Catholic Dogmas that it so passionately rejects. I hope that helps.

I re-posted this (after over a year) because I had quite an interesting discussion with a kind Greek Orthodox man at a Greek Festival on this..... He told me (a Lutheran) what "Sola Scriptura" is - and got every single part of it ENTIRELY, WHOLLY wrong. Eventually, it lead to an interesting MUTUAL disagreement with the RCC's rationale for rejecting this - but we had one big difference: he looks to the Seven Ecumenical Councils as the norma normans, I to Scripture - but we both rejected each tradition looking at itself.

In my Catholic days, this was a common thing to rebuke Protestants for: only what I was told Sola Scripture is has nothing at all to do with Sola Scriptura at all; they just fabricated a myth and then took pleasure in destroying it, THINKING they were rebuking Protestantism in the process but only revealing a major flaw in Catholicism: Self don't need no norming cuz self says self can't be wrong.



Thank you.


- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

.

 

[MoreCoffee]

.

 

[Josiah]

Correct.

The reason for the extremely passionate condemnation of Sola Scriptura by the RC Denomination has nothing to do with its view of Scripture, it has it do with its exemption of it itself uniquely from accountability; it's Scripture being used normatively vis-a-vis the unique dogmas of it itself that it protests. I think a Catholic CAN make a case that the RC Denomination has as high a view of Scripture as can be seen anywhere in Protestantism (often higher, IMO) - it's just that the RC Denomination's view of it itself exclusively is even higher. Yes, all are to submit to Scripture - but then all are to submit to it itself alone, it itself insists for it itself exclusively - for when it itself speaks (formally, officially) God Himself speaks (just as with Scripture) and what it itself individually claims God MEANT in Scripture (but God neglected to actually say), so that God agrees with the RC Denomination individually, institutionally, uniquely, solely even when such is not obvious from Scripture. Thus, effectively, the RC Denomination itself insists must "docilicly" SUBMIT to it itself individually/institiutionallly even more than to Scripture. It itself alone CANNOT be wrong anymore than God Himself can be wrong, the individual/institutional RC Denomination itself alone claims for it itself uniquely (in formal, official dogma, AT LEAST). Thus, the whole issue of accountability, norming, what is or is not the best norma normans is all regarded as IRRELEVANT in the singular, exclusive, unique, sole, particular case of it itself alone, the RC Denomination itself claims for it itself. THUS the protest, the condemnation of the practice of Sola Scriptura - using Scripture as the rule in the norming 0f doctrines among us.

It reminds me of a old, BAD joke. Decades ago, Muhammed Ali was a boxing champ famous/infamous for his enormous ego. The "story" is that he boarded a plane and soon was instructed to put on his seat belt for the take off. But he ignored this. Eventually, the flight attendant came to him and politely asked him to put on his seat belt. He replied, "Superman don't need no seat belt." To which the flight attendant said, "Superman don't need no airplane either." He put on the seat belt..... Well, nothing - NOTHING - has an ego bigger than the RC Denomination. It's protest of Sola Scriptura is: "God don't need no accountability" simply equating itself authoritatively with God. Thus, the whole idea of norming.... of the best rule in norming.... it's all just laughed at by the RCC. "That's for everyone ELSE, I don't need no accountability cuz I got me." Which is why Catholics never offer anything better, a better norma normans.... they just start parroting the enormous, incredible, Jupiter sized ego of the RC Denomination for it itself uniquely, it's claims of it itself for it itself that when it itself speaks, ergo God does..... that It is the one, exclusively, infallible, authoritative "teacher," the Mouth of God - claims it itself for it itself individually, uniquely. "Superman don't need no seat belt."


I hope that helps.



- Josiah




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=60]MoreCoffee[/MENTION]


See post # 7.


No one is claiming that the individual RC Denomination has a low or wrong view of Scripture. That's not why it rejects using Scripture normatively vis-a-vis itself. See post # 7.




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

.

 

[Josiah]

MoreCoffee -


See post # 7. No one is claiming that the individual RC Denomination has a low or wrong view of Scripture. That's not why it rejects using Scripture normatively vis-a-vis itself. See post # 7.



Also see this from the op....

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 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 do the RCC, LDS and additionally also the "cults" 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. 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 entirely irrelevant (for itself). The issue has been changed from truth to power (claimed by itself for itself, exclusively).

This is probably THE most rejected, repudiated, condemned practice in Protestantism by the Roman Catholic Denomination. But typically, strawmen are created then destroyed - all the hide the real issue, the real thing the RCC so passionately, so foundationally rejects: accountability of it itself exclusively.

- Josiah




.

 

[Pedrito]

In Post #1 on Page 1, Josiah presented:

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, verbatim definition: "The Scriptures are and should remain the sole rule in the norming of all doctrine among us" (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 9).

But if we simply have a look at the writings of those people termed the early church fathers and early church writers during the extended post-apostolic period, do we not in fact see the development of seriously conflicting theological ideas based on human reasoning?

Do we not see that human reasoning introducing unnecessary major complications into God's simple revelation and simple Gospel? Do we not see those mutually hostile extensions being superimposed on what God Himself had revealed? Were there not many battles between those mutually hostile ideas until political intervention determined which extensions to God's revelation were to be accepted and embraced?

And were not those human-sourced extensions progressively added to, expanded, by a succession of “church councils”?


And are not the doctrines of most churches (at least in part) based on those extra-Biblical, post-apostolic superimpositions?


"Sola Scriptura"?

I think I can say with a high degree of accuracy, "My foot!"

 

[Lamb]

In Post #1 on Page 1, Josiah presented:

But if we simply have a look at the writings of those people termed the early church fathers and early church writers during the extended post-apostolic period, do we not in fact see the development of seriously conflicting theological ideas based on human reasoning?

Do we not see that human reasoning introducing unnecessary major complications into God's simple revelation and simple Gospel? Do we not see those mutually hostile extensions being superimposed on what God Himself had revealed? Were there not many battles between those mutually hostile ideas until political intervention determined which extensions to God's revelation were to be accepted and embraced?

And were not those human-sourced extensions progressively added to, expanded, by a succession of “church councils”?


And are not the doctrines of most churches (at least in part) based on those extra-Biblical, post-apostolic superimpositions?


"Sola Scriptura"?

I think I can say with a high degree of accuracy, "My foot!"

No, those people were not influenced by traditions but rather the traditions reinforced what scripture flatly stated.

 

[Josiah]

"Sola Scriptura"?

I think I can say with a high degree of accuracy, "My foot!"[/color]

Then WHAT specifically do you regard as a better norm for us to use when evaluating conflicting dogmas among us? What specifically do you regard as MORE objectively knowable, MORE reliable for theology, MORE inerrant, MORE inspired by God, MORE universally accepted by all parties in the debate? What "trumps" Scripture as the best norm for this process? What is your alternative?



- Josiah

 

[Josiah]

Then WHAT specifically do you regard as a better norm for us to use when evaluating conflicting dogmas among us? What specifically do you regard as MORE objectively knowable, MORE reliable for theology, MORE inerrant, MORE inspired by God, MORE universally accepted by all parties in the debate? What "trumps" Scripture as the best norm for this process? What is your alternative?



- Josiah

Bump especially for Pedrito




.

 

[Pedrito]

In reply to my observations in Post #12 on Page 1:

But if we simply have a look at the writings of those people termed the early church fathers and early church writers during the extended post-apostolic period, do we not in fact see the development of seriously conflicting theological ideas based on human reasoning?

Do we not see that human reasoning introducing unnecessary major complications into God's simple revelation and simple Gospel? Do we not see those mutually hostile extensions being superimposed on what God Himself had revealed? Were there not many battles between those mutually hostile ideas until political intervention determined which extensions to God's revelation were to be accepted and embraced?

And were not those human-sourced extensions progressively added to, expanded, by a succession of “church councils”?

And are not the doctrines of most churches (at least in part) based on those extra-Biblical, post-apostolic superimpositions?

Lämmchen in Post #13 on Page 1, stated:

No, those people were not influenced by traditions but rather the traditions reinforced what scripture flatly stated.

Did the Reader catch that?

“Those people were not influenced by traditions.” Of course not. Those people created them.

“But rather the traditions reinforced what scripture flatly stated.” If the Scriptures state something flatly, which they indeed do, there is no need for any “tradition” to reinforce those statements. That is especially true of “traditions” that require the retrospective invoking of out-of-context Scripture for support.

 

[Lamb]

Which "Traditions" are you arguing with here in this thread about sola scriptura? I'm assuming you're thinking some things are traditions when they are not but given in scripture and you refuse to see it.

In reply to my observations in Post #12 on Page 1:


Lämmchen in Post #13 on Page 1, stated:


Did the Reader catch that?

“Those people were not influenced by traditions.” Of course not. Those people created them.

“But rather the traditions reinforced what scripture flatly stated.” If the Scriptures state something flatly, which they indeed do, there is no need for any “tradition” to reinforce those statements. That is especially true of “traditions” that require the retrospective invoking of out-of-context Scripture for support.

 

[Josiah]

Then WHAT specifically do you regard as a better norm for us to use when evaluating conflicting dogmas among us? What specifically do you regard as MORE objectively knowable, MORE reliable for theology, MORE inerrant, MORE inspired by God, MORE universally accepted by all parties in the debate? What "trumps" Scripture as the best norm for this process? What is your alternative?



- Josiah

Bump especially for Pedrito




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

.

 

[Josiah]

One group says baptise only people who can give a credible profession of faith and another says baptise the children of believers. Who decides the dispute?

Nice diversion attempt......


MoreCoffee, as you know, that's ARBITRATION - a different issue for a different thread. You know that.


The issue before us is entirely different. As you know. The issue before us is WHAT will serve as the rule, the norm, the standard as we evaluate disputed teachings among us. It seems there's a need to remind you of the opening post, so I'll do that for you - highlighting the sections you've not read (or perhaps forgot or perhaps wish to evade), don't skip the red font:




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, verbatim definition: "The Scriptures are and should remain the sole rule in the norming of all doctrine among us" (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 9).


What it IS:

1. An embrace of accountability for the doctrines among us (especially those in dispute). This is the reason the RCC and LDS so passionately reject this practice.

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." Nor a teaching on what is and is not Scripture. 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) is often needed. But 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, completely irrelevant - then, nope - truth doesn't matter. And can just ignore what he said and did (don't matter). 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.



Continues in next post.....




.