Two or three witnesses?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

I will post it. However, I don’t believe it changes the context of the passage. It rather seems to reinforce it.

[9] Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
[10] For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
[11] For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
[12] To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
[13] 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.
[14] Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.
[15] Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:
[16] Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

Your thoughts?

This passage was suggested as evidence in favor of a hermeneutical rule, that "an essential doctrine must be found taught in two or more distinct passages of Scripture". I had asked where such a rule is found in Scripture, and the above passage was supplied.

In regards to the passage, I notice it does not state the proposed hermeneutical rule in any fashion that I can determine. What it does suggest is that teaching is built piece by piece "here a little, there a little, precept UPON precept", etc. Israel was rejecting the teaching of God because they felt it was childish, as when a child is taught by rote memorization, and by "a little here, a little there, precept upon precept". So they rejected it, and stumbled and fell. Yet God's way is precept upon precept, etc, and this is for them that are weaned (ie mature). It is not childish or beneath anyone's dignity.

Precept upon precept etc indicates that learning doctrine starts somewhere, with a foundation, and the rest is built upon that, each layer or level being built upon the one before. Sadly, this approach is lacking in many places, as doctrine is often taught as a hodgepodge of unconnected propositions to be accepted and propagated. As a result, many doctrines exist in a vacuum for many folks, who cannot understand where the doctrines come from or why they even exist.

But as to the proposed hermeneutical rule that essential doctrines must be repeated in two or more passages, I do not see THIS passage saying anything of the sort.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Costeon

In the bolded part I was asking if he could think of any other essential doctrine that was based on only one passage--as is the case for uncut hair.

But to answer your question, I think a sound guide for establishing the essentiality of any doctrine would be “By the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established” (2 Cor 13.1).

If spiritual life or death are on the line I would only feel comfortable embracing or teaching something that was attested to by multiple witnesses.

The Bible provides multiple witnesses for the Oneness of God, water baptism in Jesus's name, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the sign of speaking in tongues. Regarding the major changes from the Old Covenant to the New, we see Jesus or the apostles teaching on those places in more than one place. So it would seem this would be the case for other essential doctrines.

In all that I've studied on hermeneutics, establishing truth on multiple witnesses (and the related principle of Scripture interpreting Scripture) has always been taught as one of the fundamental principles of interpreting Scripture. I haven't heard of another principle that seems more reasonable than this.

Rules of hermeneutics are a funny thing, in that they are often man made and designed to buttress existing doctrinal paradigms. For example, certain cessationist hermeneutic schemes have a rule that "Historical genres of Scripture are not used to develop or discover doctrine". They have that rule in order to avoid the clear implications from the book of Acts that their Christianity is severely deficient and un-apostolic.

Most Protestants have another hermeneutical rule which states essentially that all doctrine must conform to and not contradict "historic orthodoxy", by which they mean certain cherry-picked elements of the main Ecumenical (catholic) Councils. They do this in order to maintain trinitarianism and a few other doctrines.

So, "what we are taught in hermeneutics class" I have found to often be biased and lacking, and even unscriptural.

Now, the two witness rule was not invented by Paul. He simply reiterated what is demanded in the Law of God (Deut 17:6, Deut 19:15). The two witness rule has to do with capital crimes. Nobody could be judged and condemned to death if there is only one witness. Jesus reaffirmed the Law when giving ordinances for ecclesiastical judicial proceedings ultimately resulting in excommunication (Matt 18:16-17). The reference by Paul is in a metaphorical reference to his third coming to the Corinthians in a judicial capacity. All of the occurrences of the two witness rule have to do with judicial proceedings (see also Rev ch 11 and the Two Witnesses, and Paul's instructions to Timothy about accusations against elders in 1 Tim 5:19). No occurrence of the two witness rule has to do with establishing doctrine or obligatory commandments.

The Ten Commandments were spoken once by God to Israel, and that was sufficient to make them binding. The rewriting of them upon replacement tablets was not due to some two witness rule, but to Moses' breaking the tablets in a fit of rage. The repetition of the Decalogue 40 years later was not due to a two witness rule, but to the fact the hearers were all chdren or not even born at the original Sinai event. The Decalogue was, however, still binding during the 40 years prior to Moses' final speech (the Deuteronomy). Which refutes the proposed two witness rule.

There is no second witness for the prohibition against cross dressing (Deut 22:5). Even if you consider 1 Cor 11:4 to be about men wearing women's veils (!) your supposed two witness rule would have made cross dressing perfectly allowable UNTIL the moment Paul said what he said, which necessary conclusion is absurd.

Which means there is not and in fact CANNOT be any two witness rule concerning doctrine.

[Esaias]

Now, it is certainly a happy circumstance when we have multiple authors teaching the same thing. But that does not translate to any supposed requirement that multiple passages must repeat a doctrine for it to be binding, obligatory, "essential", etc.

Jesus gave us a proper hermeneutical rule when He reaffirmed the Law's statement that "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD of God." If the Word of God says it, even once, it is valid, obligatory, and essential (within its proper context).

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Now, it is certainly a happy circumstance when we have multiple authors teaching the same thing. But that does not translate to any supposed requirement that multiple passages must repeat a doctrine for it to be binding, obligatory, "essential", etc.

Jesus gave us a proper hermeneutical rule when He reaffirmed the Law's statement that "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD of God." If the Word of God says it, even once, it is valid, obligatory, and essential (within its proper context).

[1ofthechosen]

Very well said Brother Esaias, while I believe proper Hermeneutic's can help to put things in proper context of interpretation. I started to realize a long time ago, that it's only a invention of man though, aimed at trying to explain God. Most often embraced and clung to by those who try to understand God through logic, who don't even have the Holy Ghost.

While they do help, they can't be the deciding factor on everything in the Bible.

[Wilsonwas]

I think the ideal you mentioned is often ties to 2Cor 13

1This is the third time I am coming to visit you (and as the Scriptures say, “The facts of every case must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses”13:1 Deut 19:15.). 2I have already warned those who had been sinning when I was there on my second visit. Now I again warn them and all others, just as I did before, that next time I will not spare them.
3I will give you all the proof you want that Christ speaks through me. Christ is not weak when he deals with you; he is powerful among you. 4Although he was crucified in weakness, he now lives by the power of God. We, too, are weak, just as Christ was, but when we deal with you we will be alive with him and will have God’s power.
5Examine yourselves to see if your faith is genuine. Test yourselves. Surely you know that Jesus Christ is among you13:5 Or in you.; if not, you have failed the test of genuine faith. 6As you test yourselves, I hope you will recognize that we have not failed the test of apostolic authority.
7We pray to God that you will not do what is wrong by refusing our correction. I hope we won’t need to demonstrate our authority when we arrive. Do the right thing before we come—even if that makes it look like we have failed to demonstrate our authority. 8For we cannot oppose the truth, but must always stand for the truth. 9We are glad to seem weak if it helps show that you are actually strong. We pray that you will become

[FlamingZword]

there must be two witness or scriptures for any doctrine to be accepted and established.
This is widely shown by multiple references in the Bible.

Jesus clearly confirmed it by saying it.
But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'

and also Paul taught it.
Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.

It is pure nonsense to say that one does not need a second scripture to establish a doctrine.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

there must be two witness or scriptures for any doctrine to be accepted and established.
This is widely shown by multiple references in the Bible.

Jesus clearly confirmed it by saying it.
But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'

and also Paul taught it.
Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.

It is pure nonsense to say that one does not need a second scripture to establish a doctrine.

My first two posts in this thread thoroughly refute what you here claim. I am amazed at how often people will read (I suppose?) a post with a claim and supporting documentation, then simply assert the contrary with no supporting documentation and no interaction with what was actually stated originally.

In other words, most people seem content to simply blurt out what they believe and are satisfied that in itself successfully "proves" something.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Esaias

My first two posts in this thread thoroughly refute what you here claim. I am amazed at how often people will read (I suppose?) a post with a claim and supporting documentation, then simply assert the contrary with no supporting documentation and no interaction with what was actually stated originally.

In other words, most people seem content to simply blurt out what they believe and are satisfied that in itself successfully "proves" something.

Dear Esaias, I normally side with you, because you usually make good solid biblical arguments, but this time you simply blew it.

Every single sermon I have preached has had at least two scriptures backing up my point, never, not once have I ever preached a sermon without two scriptures to back me up.

If you can not find two scriptures to support a doctrine, my advice is simple, just drop it.

If you do not have at least two scriptures as witness to your teaching then your teaching is 100% wrong.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Dear Esaias, I normally side with you, because you usually make good solid biblical arguments, but this time you simply blew it.

Every single sermon I have preached has had at least two scriptures backing up my point, never, not once have I ever preached a sermon without two scriptures to back me up.

If you can not find two scriptures to support a doctrine, my advice is simple, just drop it.

If you do not have at least two scriptures as witness to your teaching then your teaching is 100% wrong.

Is cross dressing wrong? According to your criteria, you could not teach a man is prohibited by Scripture from going in drag.

You once again make your claim, but utterly failed to provide even ONE scripture that supports your position. Not only is your doctrine not based on "two witnesses", it doesn't even have ONE witness.

If you think I normally make good solid biblical arguments, then perhaps you should consider this might be one of them. But it denies an often repeated cliche and so people are startled to hear that ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE a doctrine does NOT require twice or thrice repetition to be true.

Reread my opening posts, and if you think I made an error show it to me. Point it out, show how I have misunderstood the Scriptures or misapplied them, and show where the Bible teaches that "every doctrine must be repeated in two or more separate places". And be sure you find that doctrine clearly stated or taught in at least two separate places.