I have addressed how unbiblical the Protestant doctrine of "sola scriptura" is many times on this blog; furthermore, passages such as 2 Chron 29:25 show that sources external to inscripturated revelation were privileged with the same authority as Scripture, something Protestantism rejects.
I just came across this image of, and quote from, the Puritan theologian John Owen:
Interestingly, as with so many proponents of cessationism, his arguments for this ultimately traps him vis-a-vis any meaningful defense of Sola Scriptura. How so? Consider the authority of the New Testament texts--Owen would argue that they are consistent with the Old Testament texts, so if, in his view, any true post-New Testament revelation is not needed as it would be consistent with the biblical revelation, why the need for the New Testament texts? Why not just interpret the Old Testament in light of the tradition received from the New Testament-era Church and its experiences? Of course, Owen would reply, if he were alive, that the New Testament is God-breathed revelation, but that is only special-pleading--so would any other inspired revelation. Perhaps Owen would reply (general) revelation ceased with the death of the apostles, but there is nothing in the Bible that supports such a concept; furthermore, it is putting the theological cart before the horse as one will have to assume sola scriptura/tota scriptura (as understood by Protestantism), which is question-begging to the max.
Furthermore, without any explicit injunction from the New Testament supporting his view that spiritual gifts ceased with the apostles (something that is actually refuted by the New Testament), Owen is, at best, offering a guess to support a dogmatic perspective he is holding to.
Owen and other cessationists, both historical and modern, trap themselves as they cannot be consistent in (1) defending sola scriptura and (2) arguing in favour of the cessation of the spiritual gifts in the post-apostolic period.
I just came across this image of, and quote from, the Puritan theologian John Owen:
Interestingly, as with so many proponents of cessationism, his arguments for this ultimately traps him vis-a-vis any meaningful defense of Sola Scriptura. How so? Consider the authority of the New Testament texts--Owen would argue that they are consistent with the Old Testament texts, so if, in his view, any true post-New Testament revelation is not needed as it would be consistent with the biblical revelation, why the need for the New Testament texts? Why not just interpret the Old Testament in light of the tradition received from the New Testament-era Church and its experiences? Of course, Owen would reply, if he were alive, that the New Testament is God-breathed revelation, but that is only special-pleading--so would any other inspired revelation. Perhaps Owen would reply (general) revelation ceased with the death of the apostles, but there is nothing in the Bible that supports such a concept; furthermore, it is putting the theological cart before the horse as one will have to assume sola scriptura/tota scriptura (as understood by Protestantism), which is question-begging to the max.
Furthermore, without any explicit injunction from the New Testament supporting his view that spiritual gifts ceased with the apostles (something that is actually refuted by the New Testament), Owen is, at best, offering a guess to support a dogmatic perspective he is holding to.
Owen and other cessationists, both historical and modern, trap themselves as they cannot be consistent in (1) defending sola scriptura and (2) arguing in favour of the cessation of the spiritual gifts in the post-apostolic period.