The following is a (rearranged) transcript of a discussion I had in an atheist Facebook group. Names have been changed to preserve their anonymity. I've addressed my fuller views on Sola Scriptura and (its compatibility with) continuationism in my various comments on the Comboxes of other people's Blogs HERE. Presumably, "Buzz" is an atheist. I'm not sure.
Buzz wrote: For those of you who subscribe to 'Atheism Fails', don't bother. If you prove them wrong, they'll delete your last post and kick you out of their group. The original question was, 'Does the bible say if the bible is the word of god?' I guess theism failed in this case.
Annoyed Pinoy: To ask 'Does the bible say if the bible is the word of god?' is to misunderstand the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura. See James White's debates with Roman Catholics on the topic of Sola Scriptura. For example:
White vs. Matatics (1992)
Transcript: http://vintage.aomin.org/SolaTop.html
White vs. Madrid (1993)
Video: https://youtu.be/2IJYWqFjKb0
Transcript: http://vintage.aomin.org/SANTRAN.html
White vs. Staples (1996)
Audio: https://youtu.be/E1nDiyGeBNI
White vs. Matatics (1997)
Video:https://youtu.be/pmYWBwIvejY
White vs. Pacwa (1999)
Video: https://youtu.be/nxTEtArbCgs
White vs. Williams (2013)
Audio: https://youtu.be/ziAGNdXqHqo
Zins vs. Matatics (date?)
Video: https://youtu.be/oKs0QUfJ_b8
Buzz: Does the bible say Sola Scriptura is the right pathway to God? lol
Annoyed Pinoy: To ask the question is again to misunderstand the doctrine. That's the same type of objection Roman Catholics give.
Buzz: Does the bible explain the correct understanding of Sola Scriptura?
Annoyed Pinoy: By its very nature Sola Scriptura couldn't have been taught or practiced during times when verbal Revelation on par with Scripture was being given. Because the very moment an Old Testament Prophet or New Testament Apostle taught Sola Scriptura, it would mean that they could no longer give verbally inspired Revelation from then on out. To make a long explanation short, Sola Scriptura necessarily follows from the fact that new inspired Revelation has ceased being given, and because Scripture is the the only source of infallible and inerrant teaching. This basic explanation (is over-simplified a bit) but should suffice a professing Christian. Of course if I were talking to an atheist I would have to use other wider arguments.
Buzz: From my perspective, it just seems like an extra-biblical doctrine endorses the authority of a book that eschews extra-biblical doctrines. Catch 22 perhaps?
Annoyed Pinoy: Not at all since (and in addition to what I've already written) 1. the Scriptures teach we're only to accept as fully authoritative inspired Revelation (whether it be in the form of Scripture, Verbal proclamation, Visionary, Oneiric [i.e. dreams]). 2. Ever since Moses and the giving of the Law/Torah, all further revelations in any form (written, verbal, visionary etc.) were to be tested by the already established Scriptures at the time. So for example, before the book of Ruth could be included in the Canon, it had to be tested by the Penteteuch/Torah. Similarly, before any of the NT books could be included, they had to be tested by the Tanakh.
Annoyed Pinoy: Same with any prophet. If every a professing prohet (say Isaiah) allegedly gave a revelation, his revelation had to be tested by the then already established Canon. The Scriptures always held highest authority above all other further alleged revelations.
Catholics will claim that some inspired revelation has been passed down through Tradition. The problem is that there is no instance of an alleged orally transmitted inspired Revelation that can be documented down through history. Moreover, oral tradition is notoriously untrustworthy. Think for example of Irenaeus' claimed oral tradition that Jesus was approximately 50 years old when He was crucified. No one believes that anymore (historian, scholar, theologian etc.).
Finally, Jesus gave the example that the traditions of men must be tested by the Word of God. He faulted the Jews of His time for teaching doctrines of men as if they were the Commandments of God. Jesus taught tradition was not infallible. That's why Karaite Jews (who are sola scripturarians) think Jesus was either a Karaite or influenced by them.
Annoyed Pinoy: By the way, Michael L. Brown (a Messianic Jew himself), considered to be the foremost living expert in apologetics dealing with Jewish Counter-Missionaries, cites the works of modern Karaite Jews like Nehemia Gordon in support of Sola Scriptura.
Buzz: The problem with visions, dreams, revelations and interpretations of scripture is subjectivity. If two or more people are inspired, who's proclamations are considered to be more true or accurate? How does one test for such things? I thought the NT books were voted into the cannon, there's no way to be sure they were tested to meet OT criteria. Paul wasn't an authority but taught doctrines and traditions anyway, some of those not Jewish in character. Several of the NT authors make claims mentioned in the OT which aren't actually found in the OT and a few of those are found in the oral Mishnah. Jesus, Paul and Pharisees in general also accepted non-biblical traditions, both written and oral. The authority and proclamations of church leaders is taken for granted in the NT. At which point does the bible specifically state that church authority and instruction ends after Revelations?
Annoyed Pinoy: The scope of my answer would depend on who is asking (whether Atheist, supernaturalist [e.g. witch, New Ager, Wiccan, Muslim, Hindu], Christian supernaturalist, Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox etc.).
//If two or more people are inspired, who's proclamations are considered to be more true or accurate?//
As a Evangelical/Protestant continuationist [and Calvinist], I would point out that Scripture has highest authority and is alone to be trusted because it alone is infallible. As I wrote to someone else in this thread, I believe inspired public revelation on par with Scripture which is universally binding has ceased because the Canon of Scripture is closed. However I do believe that private revelation below the authority of Scripture continue. The New Testament iteself teaches us to test prophecies [cf. 1 Thess. 5:19-22; Acts 17:11; Rev. 2:2; Gal. 1:8 are just some examples].
19 Do not quench the Spirit.
20 Do not despise prophecies,
21 but test everything; hold fast what is good.
22 Abstain from every form of evil. - 1 Thess. 5:19-22
//How does one test for such things? //
Test it by how the the person's personal theology is with Scripture. Test it by how consistent the alleged private revelation is with or against Scripture. Test it by whether they come to pass or are empirically confirmed. Words of Knowledge and/or Prophecies are sometimes foretelling/predictive, sometimes forth-telling. So for example, if a predictive prophecy is fulfilled or not. Or if a word of knowledge about something can be confirmed as being true (e.g. say if I had a word of knowledge that your uncle Jeff sexually abused you in his car when you were 12 during your cousin Joe's birthday party). Test it by whether the revelation results in good fruit/results/consequences. Test it by whether it results or entails personal gain by the alleged prophet (which might suggest evil manipulation). Remember, I don't believe these private revelations are on par with Scripture. So, they naturally must be taken tentatively/provisionally.
//I thought the NT books were voted into the cannon, there's no way to be sure they were tested to meet OT criteria.//
That's not technically how they were received into the Canon. The canonization process was different for the OT and NT. Unfortunately William Webster's website is down. But I can access some of the material using Archive.org's WayBackMachine feature. I can't access the full articles I'd like to link to, but I can access the mp3 file of one of his lectures on the Canon using Archive.org.
Here's a link to Webster's mp3 lecture on the Canon:
https://web.archive.org/web/20161227153102/http://christiantruth.com/audio/3.mp3
Sola Scriptura: What Does Scripture Say?
https://web.archive.org/web/20160219132122/http://christiantruth.com/audio/2.mp3
Sola Scriptura: The [Church] Fathers Say Yes:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160326213724/http://christiantruth.com/audio/4.mp3
Here's a link to the series they're from "Roman Catholic Tradition: It's Roots and Evolution" - By: William Webster
https://web.archive.org/web/20170307095717/http://www.christiantruth.com:80/audiolectures.php
//Paul wasn't an authority but taught doctrines and traditions anyway, some of those not Jewish in character.//
I don't know what you mean by this. The apostle Paul has been accepted as genuine apostle by all major historic branches of Christianity (whether Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, Nestorian etc.). The earliest of the church fathers accepted his apostolicity. For example, Clement of Rome places Paul on par with his mentor Peter (who was an apostle to Jews). Clement called him "the blessed Paul." John's disciple Polycarp says Paul "accurately and reliably taught the message of truth." Polycarp quotes Paul's letters can referred to them as part of the Sacred Scriptures.
See for example: The Historical Case for Paul’s Apostleship by Keith Thompson
http://answering-islam.org/authors/thompson/paul-historical.html
http://misclane.blogspot.com/2013/09/100-similarities-between-lord-jesus.html
//Several of the NT authors make claims mentioned in the OT which aren't actually found in the OT and a few of those are found in the oral Mishnah. //
Not all OT allusions are quotations. Some are allusions, some paraphrases. Some are examples of the Jewish hermeneutical/interpretive method of Pardes/PaRDeS, as Messianic Jew Arnold Fruchtenbaum points out.
*P*ardes
Literal Prophecy Plus Literal Fulfillment: Pshat
The first category is known as “literal prophecy plus literal fulfillment,” reflecting the rabbinic pshat, which refers to the simple meaning of the text. The example of this first category is found in Matthew 2:5 6.
pa*R*des
Literal Plus Typical: Remez
The second category of quotations can be labeled “literal plus typical.” In rabbinic theology it was known are remez or “hint.” An example of this category is found in Matthew 2:15.
par*D*es
Literal Plus Application: Drash
The third category is “literal plus application,” correlating with the rabbinic drash. The example of this category is Matthew 2:17 18.
parde*S*
Summation: Sod
The fourth category is “summation” or “summary.” The meaning of sod is “secret” or “mystery” or “something unknown.” The example of the fourth category is found in Matthew 2:23.
//and a few of those are found in the oral Mishnah.//
The New Testament is free to quote or allude to extra-Scriptural (i.e. outside of Scripture) sources just as we could cite newpapers in sermons without implying they are on par with Scripture. Paul didn't endorse the prophethood of the Pagan poets/philosophers he quoted. Whether Aratus, Menander, Epimenides etc.
//Jesus, Paul and Pharisees in general also accepted non-biblical traditions, both written and oral.//
Again, alluding to extra-Scriptural sources is not necessarily an endorsement of them. Where do any of them say phrases like "It is Written" or "Scripture Says" or equivalent phrases for those citations? They conspicuously don't. As if by conscious intention. Whenever such phrases are used, they always apply to the standard Jerusalem Canon and not a wider Canon. Webster's article on the OT Canon is EXCELLENT. Unfortunately, I can't link to it in full right now. :(
//At which point does the bible specifically state that church authority and instruction ends?//
The New specifically states that the church is founded on Christ, the OT prophets and NT apostles.
"built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,"- Eph. 2:20
The term apostle is used in the NT in at least two senses. One way is n the sense of missionary. The second way was Apostle (with a capital "A" so to speak) whereby a person was personally chosen by the risen Christ (i.e. the original 12 apostles, with Judas replaced by Matthias, and Paul being picked by revelation on the road to Damascus).
Th authority of the church remains, but INFALLIBLE authority rested only on the original Apostles. But even then, in my opinion, they weren't completely exempt from hypothetical apostasy. That's why Paul said that his present message was to be tested by his past message and the consensus message of the rest of the Apostles (Gal. 1:8). At the present time, minsters of the Gospel have authority only in so far as they are in line with the teaching of Scripture.
Notice what the church father Cyril wrote in his Catechetical Lecture which would have been a summary of universal Christian teaching at that time:
For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 4, 17)
I'm simplifying a lot of this of course. Books have been written that discuss these topics.
Buzz: I can appreciate the effort in your responses but when I read Madrids closing statement against White, Madrid appears to have addressed many of the claims you've made above. Consider reading the transcript of the White vs Madrid debate, specifically the closing statement from Madrid. I'm afraid his arguments are more convincing. Thank you for your time and effort.
Annoyed Pinoy: I've read that debate multiple times in the late 1990s.
CB: Patrick Madrid swept the floor with James White btw. Sola Scriptura has been proven wrong over and over.
Annoyed Pinoy: As a Protestant, I completely disagree. The case for Sola Scriptura is strong historically, theologically, logically and patristically.
CB: I would be happy to go over it with you and study this issue together
Annoyed Pinoy: I have more important things to do. Presumably we're both already familiar with the arguments for and against Sola Scriptura. For myself, I sometimes prefer the term Summa Scriptura or Prima Scriptura for apologetical purposes (and because I'm a continuationists regarding the charismatic gifts, rather than a cessationist).
Annoyed Pinoy: As a continuationists I believe private revelation is still being given by God, but not public revelation that's fully inspired on par with Scripture. Otherwise, such fully inspired revelation would be universally binding on the consciences of Christians. It would also imply that the Canon isn't closed (which I think is closed).
