Most objections come from, “Solo Scriptura,” meaning, “The Bible Alone;” or “By Scripture Alone.” What this does however, is undermine basic Biblical principles that teach us overlapping principles.  Let me explain.

 

Can I find in Scripture, “Bible Alone,” since It is our only instructor, within Its writings, where a prophet gives information that he/she, while under the prophetic requirements to receive their vision of instructions, gives directions not addressed in Scripture?  In other words, their instructions given may not be found in the Bible.

 

If we go to Second Chronicles, Chapter 18, we find the prophet Micaiah, who gives a prophecy separate from king Ahab’s advisors and false prophets.  In his vision Micaiah saw a scene where there is a discussion between God and His servants.

 

Now let us understand that Micaiah has no Scriptures written by him.  He is, as a description of him might imply, a non-Canonical prophet.  And if we take our critics view of “Solo Scriptura,” they would say, “We don’t find this conference elsewhere in Scripture; therefore, we reject this vision.”

 

By contrast, when a legitimate prophet comes down through history, and they show things not expressly stated in Scripture, these critics will reject that vision of the true prophet.  Let’s look at another situation.

 

In the Book of Acts, Chapter Eleven, Agabus (see Acts 21:10) prophecies of “a great famine throughout all the world,” verse 28.  And according to verse 29, “the disciples” acted upon this prophecy, “determining to send relief to the brethren.”  Again, Agabus is a non-Canonicle prophet and he has a vision unsupported by any other Canonicle prophet, i.e., “Solo Scriptura.”  To ignore this prophecy, as our critics would do, would be to their detriment and rejection of our Gods directions and warnings.

 

That the gift of prophecy would still be in effect throughout history, see Joel 2:28; Acts 2:17-18; Romans 12:6; First Corinthians 12:10 & 28; 14:1 & 5 & 39; Ephesians 4:11; First Thessalonians 5:20.  See my Bible Study: “PROPHET, TESTS OF A TRUE.”

 

Other examples are the Biblical prophet Jude, who comments upon the ministry of Enoch, but adds information that was not given to us by Moses.  Why does he do that?  Because that is what prophets do.  As long as it does not contradict “Solo Scriptura;” and they meet the criteria of being a true prophet, we need to accept that information.

 

Nathan, a prophet who instructed king David that David was the man in the story of Second Samuel, Chapter twelve, would be rejected of David if he listened to today’s critics who do not accept that there can be prophets in the last days.

 

In Second Samuel, Chapter Twelve, we have the prophet Gad coming to king David to tell him to make a choice between “seven years of famine,” or “flee three months,” or “three days’ pestilence,” verse 13.  Yet nowhere else in Scripture, “Solo Scriptura,” is this found.  Did king David ignore this non-Canonicle prophet because Gad had no Books of prophecy to his name?

 

In Second Chronicles, Chapter Thirty-Four, we have the account of king Josiah asking for a non-Canonicle prophet (2Ch. 34:22) by the name of Huldah to interpret the Scriptures which were found.  According to our critics, non-Canonicle prophets cannot interpret the Scriptures (“Solo Scriptura”) properly.  What should king Josiah should have done?

 

Notice what two things the non-Canonicle prophetess Huldah does.  According to verses 23 & 24 & 26, Huldah is interpreting the Scriptures; something our critics say a non-Canonicle prophet/prophetess is not allowed to do.  The two things she does do (besides interpreting the Scriptures), is tell them what will happen and why it will happen (verse 25).  She is then giving a message to the king directly from God in verses 27-28.  Where else is this message in “Solo Scriptura?” Since it is not found should king Josiah ignore her?

 

Beware lest you ignore a modern-day prophet/prophetess that may come upon the last day scenes and discount them because you cannot find their council in the “Solo Scriptura’s.” Based upon your faulty premise that all things must be in the Scriptures Themselves, you have the defective concept that no new prophet can come along and help us better understand the Scriptures properly.

 

Finally.  Should not a prophet correct inaccurate interpretations of the Bible?  Should not a prophet correct inaccurate interpretations of the Bible derived from tradition?  Should not a prophet correct inaccurate interpretations based upon human reasoning, personal experience, and modern culture?  Did the Apostle Paul correct a misunderstanding of the Scriptures and interpret Them for the many Churches he wrote to?