Sola Scriptura

[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).

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). 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. 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 (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

 

[Josiah]

Does truth matter? Do teachings matter (especially the ones that foundationally separate and divide Christians today)?


IF not, then we simply embrace uber-relativism and/or a rejection of truth. We simply disagree - and it doesn't matter. In our post-modern world, in the extremely relativistic milieu of our time, many embrace this - agreeing with Pontius Pilate, "What is truth?"


IF so - to any extent at all - then there needs to be in place SOME means for resolution, at least to a point mutually embracable. This involves three aspects:

1. Accountability. Among the various conflicting teachers among us, is there one who is above all this, one who is simply unaccountable, one among us now who is infallible, one among the disputing parties that when that individual speaks GOD is (or God is mandated to affirm such, even if wrong)? IF so, is there confirmation of this outside of the claims of that one? IF not, then are all the parties in dispute equally accountable? If accountability is rejected, resolution is impossible. The whole issue of truth/correctness/validity/soundless has simply been side-stepped and replaced by the issue of POWER ("Authority") that one claims for one (typically self exclusively). And we're stuck with the divisions.

2. Rule. There needs to be some MUTUALLY embrace rule, canon, norma normans to which ALL the disputed parties submit and view as the standard. The Rule (as it is called in epistemology) is the "plumbline" or "standard" which is viewed as authoritative or at least reliable enough that all will submit to it. In the Rule of Law, the written law is the rule for the resolution of disputed behaviors. In my work (physics), math and laborative evidence are the rule. In all disciplies, there is a rule (although in secular things, this step is often fuzzy). The issue of "The Rule of Scripture" (Sola Scriptura) concerns this second aspect.

3. Arbitration. There needs to be some process MUTUALLY accepted to determine if the disputed position "measures up" to the "measuring stick" (canon, the rule)? In Christianity, we ONCE (long, long ago) had such a process: the Ecumenical Councils. But these were always very limited and the last one ended around 800 AD. Today, we have nothing beyond the thousands of individual denominations: the RCC holds meetings to "resolve" things for the individual RC Denomination.... the LCMS holds meetings to "resolve" things for the individual LCMS Denomination... but we have nothing ecumenical - and haven't for over 1200 years.


Each of these aspects need to be addressed in order. In the discussion of Sola Scriptura, CATHOLICS and MORMONS and CULTISTS "bail" on the first point - their protest of the practice is that their denominations reject accountability (in the singular, sole, individual, exclusive case of it itself alone) and demand docilic obedience and submission instead as each one insists that it itself is infallible, what it itself exclusively says (official doctrine at least) is binding (even to God, who must agree). Among Protestants, the problem is at the third step: we have never developed anything even to the equal of the Ecumenical Councils that the Roman Empire forced upon us for 500 years (325 - 800 AD). All such attempts have failed completely. But at least Protestants embrace the first 2 points (theoretically, anyway).... In some ways, the EOC does, as well.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[Tigger]

Being Lutheran myself I fully ascribe to the proper definition of 'sola scriptura' as described in the OP. It seems to me those that ascribe to a higher impute of Tradition into doctrines try to argue our position from a more 'solo scriptura' perspective and those of the 'solo scriptura' groups try to mislabel us as more of a 'prima scriptura' position.