(Author’s note. This is Part 3 of 3 on a thought on Sola Scriptura)
Part 1 can be found here.
Part 2 can be found here.
Are YOU Sola Scriptura?
Let’s follow all this up with a discussion of Malachi 4:5,6. We’re looking for a prophet to come, as John the Baptist only fulfilled half of Malachi 4:6. (Luke 1:17) Biblically, Sola Scriptura, we’re looking for a prophet to come.
We also see in Revelations 2 and 3 there are seven Church Ages; it’s obvious to see by the condition of the church and by belief that we’re in the last days that we are in the seventh Church Age. That seventh Church Age had an angel/messenger that was spoken to. We’re also looking to a fulfillment of Revelation 10:7. This is Sola Scriptura – just looking at prophecies in the Bible that are yet to be fulfilled.
If that Seventh Church Age messenger wasn’t Bro William Branham then tell me who was? There HAS to be a seventh church age messenger. So who is it? There has to be a fulfillment of the last half of Malachi 4:5,6. There has to be a seventh angel to come so that “the mystery of God should be finished”. If you are Sola Scriptura, you believe ALL that the scripture, ALL that the prophets have spoken. IF you are Sola Scriptura you are LOOKING for that fulfillment.
If you aren’t looking for that to be fulfilled, or know how it was fulfilled, how can you claim to be Sola Scriptura?
Those who follow Bro Branham’s teaching as the fulfillment of Malachi 4:5,6 and Revelation 10:7 are waiting for the coming of Christ just like self proclaimed Sola Scriptura protestants. Unlike most Protestants we believe there is a prophet is supposed to come first, because the BIBLE declares it.
Sola Scriptura indeed.
2 responses to “Was Bro Branham "Sola Scriptura" (Part 3)”
It’s very timely that you would post on this subject now. I’ve been in a long and ongoing discussion with a Catholic friend who is very learned. One of his grievances against Protestantism is our doctrine of Sola Scriptura. But as I began to think, I wondered if that was the truly Christian position, given that we place a certain amount of confidence in what Bro. Branham said. We regard him as an authority.
The key is in the technical theological definition of Sola Scriptura, which says that Scripiture is the “only infallible rule of faith and practice.” Notwithstanding the respect we have for Bro. Branham, we don’t regard his words to be infallible. This would lead me to believe that we are Sola Scriptura Protestants.
At the same time, however, Bro. Branham prefaced many things with “Thus Saith the Lord.” (Incidently, I think it would be interesting to assemble a compendium of those things.) We regard many of the things he said and wrote to be as true as Scripture because we believe they were revealed to him by God. The more I thought about this, though, the more I am not sure it it is still in accord with Sola Scriptura. We regard the things Bro. Branham revealed as true only insomuch as they are consistent with the already revealed Word of God. In our working schema of spiritual authority, then, the Bible remains the only infallible rule of faith and practice.
Daniel,
I agree in part I think.
Look back to my point on Isaiah, how could we say HE wasn’t Sola Scriptura? (as we know he wrote a 66 chapter book in Scripture) Yet when he said “a virgin shall conceive” did he have a scripture technically to base this on?
Perhaps I’m morphing the definition a bit, but to me, if a prophet is vindicated BY Scripture then we can trust what he has to say.
If Malachi 4:5,6 (Scripture!) tell us a prophet will come to restore the faith, and God manifests that scripture, we better heed what that prophet says!
In reality, no true prophet of God will go against Scripture. Then you start bringing in so much of revelations and how that prophet called out of the denominations and such and it’s even MORE Scripturally vindicated.