Monday, October 22, 2007

Request for Clarification from TheoJunkie

TheoJunkie wrote:

"any utterance TODAY that attempts to institute a new rule of faith or practice is false prophecy on its face. For that would violate Sola Scriptura."

TheoJunkie was asking me to confirm my agreement (or was confirming his agreement with me - I don't want to be stickler about the purpose of the comment), but I'm afraid I still don't understand his position well enough to know whether I agree.

One aspect of Sola Scriptura is that Scripture alone is an infallible rule in matters of doctrine and the only conscience-binding authority in matters of practice. In other words, any doctrine that is not rooted in Scripture is not properly dogma, and any rule of behavior that is not rooted in Scripture is a matter of preference.

But this doctrine is not in a vacuum. There is a reason for this doctrine. The reason for this doctrine is the perfection of Scriptures. Scriptures have always been the supreme authority even in the age of the prophets, but the word of God from the mouth of a true prophet was as infallible as the same word from the pen of the same prophet. Furthermore, Peter (for example) received new rules of behavior in a vision from God and properly conveyed them to the church before Luke completed the Acts of the Apostles in which they were recorded. Same goes for the counsel of Jerusalem.

Sola Scriptura is a practical reality more than a positive doctrine. Scripture is supreme because Scripture is known (by faith) to be the Word of God. Thus, both Paul's writings and preaching were subject to confirmation by the Word of God.

Indeed, precisely because of the primacy of Scripture, we can reject Mohamed as a false prophet because of his denial of the death and resurrection of Christ, without regard to a view on cessationism and even without regard to the fact that Mohamed lived after the time that Scripture was completed.

Similarly, we can reject the Gnostic's writings (even those purporting to be early) not simply because of the historical evidence that they were written much later, but also because they are inconsistent with the known (by faith) Scriptures.

Ever since Moses was given the law (part orally and part in writing) and placed the unwritten portion in writing, that writing has been the measure of all prophecy. The Scriptures grew as more revelation was provided. The Scriptures are now complete.

But if God speaks today, what (except for an a priori commitment to Sola Scriptura) would constrain him to reveal nothing new in terms of doctrine or practice? Presumably nothing.

But then why commit to Sola Scriptura a priori? What is the justification for Sola Scriptura if there are still prophets of God?

-Turretinfan

8 comments:

  1. TF,

    Firstly, I thought my statement was clear. But put another way: Premise: Scripture is THE authoritarian rule of faith and practice. Mandatory Conclusion: NOTHING else is binding on the conscience as a rule of faith or practice. Corollary: "Today" (that is, any time following the closure of the canon), if God reveals anything to anyone about anything, He will ensure that it 1) does not impinge upon any statement found in Scripture, and 2) it will not be binding on the conscience as a rule of faith or practice but will be some OTHER message that has nothing to do with faith or practice of faith.

    Given: Anything God says is infallibly true.

    Secondly, addressing the balance of your post:

    I believe you are carrying the doctrine of Sola Scriptura farther than it goes.

    The doctrine simply asserts that the Bible is God's self-authenticating writen word, clear to the rational reader, is it's own interpreter, and is sufficient in and of itself to be the final authority in all matters of Christian doctrine.

    It (the doctrine) does not preclude other revelation from God. Rather, it states (by inference) that any other revelation will not conflict with Scripture-- and this means inherently that ALL revelation MUST be tested against scripture before being accepted as true. AND (by inference) no other revelation will be binding on the conscience or suitable for the formulation of doctrine.

    Scripture is indeed known by faith to be the Word of God. But you seem to view it as THE SOLE word of God (instead of THE AUTHORITARIAN word of God in matters of faith and practice).

    The practical reality comes in the sole-authority of scripture-- not it's sole-exclusivity. There is a difference.

    You are correct that prophets must be tested against Scripture... and that we reject any who conflict with it. I feel I have affirmed this numerous times in this extended dialogue.

    You asked:

    But if God speaks today, what (except for an a priori commitment to Sola Scriptura) would constrain him to reveal nothing new in terms of doctrine or practice? Presumably nothing.

    I answer (depending on your question-- i.e., who you mean by "him"):

    GOD constrains the TRUE prophet in this manner. The true prophet need not be self-constrained, for if the revelation is from God, God will not lead the prophet astray.

    GOD's NATURE constrains Himself in this manner. How can you say "presumably nothing"? Nothing outside of God, to be sure-- but we know by faith (through Scripture) that God cannot change.

    You asked:
    But then why commit to Sola Scriptura a priori? What is the justification for Sola Scriptura if there are still prophets of God?

    I answer:
    The justification for us (the witnesses/hearers of alleged prophecy) to commit to Sola Sciptura, is the very reason Scripture exists... to be The Rule. We test ALL things against scripture.

    PAUL, as you note, was tested against Scripture, even as he revealed Scripture. (See that your question presents a double standard... what is the justification for the Bereans checking Paul against scripture, if Paul was a prophet of God?)

    But I affirm again that new Scripture would NOT be revealed by a prophet of God today. ...again, inherently because God has sealed Scripture. The Rule is complete, by His own decree.

    Therefore, while a prophet of God would indeed speak truth (for the revelation came from God)... we witnesses would always test it against Scripture.

    I find no difference here between a public prophet of God, and someone listening to the "still quiet voice" in their head. The "still quiet voice" in a believer's personal head is God-- but we test THAT against scripture as well.

    ReplyDelete
  2. TJ:

    You have a lot of misconceptions of my pov in your comments. Let me try to focus like a laser on the main issue:

    "Scripture is THE authoritarian rule of faith and practice."

    Why believe that?

    -Turretinfan

    P.S. One point is worth addressing without getting on too much of a tangent: "See that your question presents a double standard... what is the justification for the Bereans checking Paul against scripture, if Paul was a prophet of God?"

    Actually, the double standard disappears if you understand what I'm saying. The justification for the Bereans checking is the primacy of Scripture: which is precisely the same with you. I fully agree.

    But there is a subtle difference between the Berean's position and your position: the Berean's were still bound by Paul's preached Word. Paul's preached Word was authoritative and revelatory. Paul preached things that were not yet in Scripture, and yet which the audients were bound to believe - not without comparing them to Scripture - but bound nevertheless to believe.

    Do you see the difference?

    ReplyDelete
  3. "we can reject the Gnostic's writings because they are inconsistent with the known (by faith) Scriptures."

    Let's assume that then...


    "Ever since Moses was given the law (part orally and part in writing) and placed the unwritten portion in writing, that writing has been the measure of all prophecy."

    So are you saying you can take the book of Romans, measure it against the Torah, and say yep, these are clearly the same thing?

    ReplyDelete
  4. O, yes.

    Paul takes away the veil - he provides greater revelation - but he in no way contradicted Moses.

    -Turretinfan

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Scripture is THE authoritarian rule of faith and practice."

    Correct.

    "Why believe that?"

    Because it is.

    Practically: we can/should/must/do measure all statements and ideas and writings and thoughts against it before agreeing with said statement/etc.

    "Do you see the difference?"

    Yes. My position (regarding modern prophecy) is that modern prophecy, unlike the prophecy of Paul, is not binding on the conscience in matters of faith and practice.

    ReplyDelete
  6. TF wrote: "Why believe that?"

    TJ responded: "Because it is."

    I suppose you can imagine how unhelpful that kind of explanation is to me.

    I didn't think you believed it because you thought it wasn't.

    But how does one know that it is?

    -Turretinfan

    ReplyDelete
  7. TF,

    Perhaps you missed my practical reason for "why to believe that" in the paragraph immediately following "because it is."

    Again:
    Practically: we can/should/must/do measure all statements and ideas and writings and thoughts against it before agreeing with said statement/etc.

    By your most recent comment, however, it appears that you meant something different by "why".

    The answer to the question of "why believe that" has three components:
    1) Faith (i.e., "because it is")...
    2) Practicality (addressed above)...
    3) Evidentially (i.e., "But how does one know that it is?").

    The evidential reason for "why to believe that" is: Scripture internally declares itself to be The authoritarian rule of faith and practice.

    Hope this helps.

    ReplyDelete
  8. TJ:

    For the sake of public peace, I'm responding to your comments backchannel.

    -Turretinfan

    ReplyDelete

Comment Guidelines:

1. Thanks for posting a comment. Without you, this blog would not be interactive.

2. Please be polite. That doesn't mean you have to use kid gloves, but please try not to flame others, even if they are heretics, infidels, or worse.

3. If you insult me, I'm more likely to delete your comment than if you butter me up. After all, I'm human. I prefer praise to insults. If you prefer insults, there's something wrong with you.

4. Please be concise. The comment box is not your blog. Your blog is your blog. If you have a really long comment, post it on your blog and post a short summary of it here.

5. Please don't just spam. It's one thing to be concise, it's another thing to simply use the comment box to advertise.

6. Please note, by commenting here, you are relinquishing your (C) in your comments to me.

7. Remember that you will give an account on judgment day for your words, including those typed in comment boxes. Try to write so you will not be ashamed if it is read back before the entire world.

8. Stay on topic. If your comment has nothing to do with the post, email it to me (my email can be obtained through my blogger profile), or simply don't post it.

9. Don't post as "Anonymous." If you are going to post anonymously, at least use some kind of recognizable "handle," so we can tell you apart from all the other anonymous folks. (This is moot at the moment, since recent abuse has forced me to turn off "anonymous" commenting.)

10. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; and abstain from doing to others what you would not wish upon yourself.