From The FWIW Department: Scripture vs. the Shroud of Turin

Over at Triablogue regarding Is It Sinful To Produce Or Want Evidence Like The Shroud Of Turin? the same thing  John Bugay  was complaining about regarding the CtC site happened – at  TB.
As below, we couldn’t even get a “Your comment is awaiting moderation”.
Guess we don’t rate like John.
Oh well.
The discussion was going along swimmingly and then blip.
Out like a light.
Whatever.
There are any number of problems with the post, but the chief one is the one that closes the "awaiting moderation" comment  below. 

(T)he argument from John 20:29 is:

Blessed are all those who have believed the evidence written in Scripture and believed in Christ.
But the Shroud of Turin is not one of the evidences written in Scripture.
∴ Those who believe in it are not blessed.

Another passage of Scripture and a new argument is needed to prove that the Shroud of Turin is a good thing.

 The full comment replying to the italicized reads:


 
steve2/07/2013 1:38 AM

"Don’t know CM’s work or beliefs. Warfield didn’t think there were any if I understand the gist of him on Perfectionism. In light of the purpose of miracles in Act 2:22, Heb. 2:4 I am inclined to say no."

So, for instance, you don't think God ever heals anyone in answer to prayer.

Distinguish. Can God work through, beside or without means such as prayer and medicine? Yes, but in that Scripture is sufficient for our faith his economy is not miraculous like it was in the past I believe is the standard reformed answer.

"See above. What kind of evidence. Fallible or infallible?"

So you're admitting that your appeal to Lk 16:31 is qualified. Some people believe when they witnessed the Resurrection.

Distinguish. Are we in the same position as the apostles where we could witness the evidence for, much more Christ risen in the flesh?

"Paul’s conversion as an apostle was miraculous. Can/will it happen again. (Mohammed?Joesph Smith?)"

Do you agree with the Westminster Confession that the Pope is the Antichrist (a la Mt 23, 2 Thes 2, Rev 13)?

Yes, but one the beast in Revelation performs false miracles. Two, do you want to argue that the two witnesses are to be interpreted literally as what along with their miracles? Further is not the resurrection of sinners dead in their tresspasses a miracle?

Because we are not archaelogists, but Christians. We require infallible proof...IOW by this time more and more TB looks to be promoting lutheranism and evidentialism."

Perhaps you can identify the author of the following statement:

"We determine what books have a place in this canon or divine rule by an examination of the evidences which show that each of them, severally, was written by the inspired prophet or apostle whose name it bears; or, as in the case of the Gospels of Mark and Luke, written under the superintendence and published by the authority of an apostle. This evidence in the case of the Sacred Scriptures is of the same kind of historical and critical proof as is relied upon by all literary men to establish the genuineness and authenticity of any other ancient writings, such as the Odes of Horace or the works of Herodotus. In general this evidence is (a) Internal, such as language, style, and the character of the matter they contain; (b) External, such as the testimony of contemporaneous writers, the universal consent of contemporary readers, and corroborating history drawn from independent credible sources."

Wrong question. What does the WCF1:4,5 ultimately say about why men believe Scripture?
Notwithstanding the previous arguments and evidences, “our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.”
Can we say that about the Shroud of Turin?

Jason Engwer2/07/2013 5:34 AM

"Paul’s conversion as an apostle was miraculous…. Could they be mistaken?... Acts while canonical describes what was going on before the canon was closed. And dreams as one of the 'diverse manners' God has previously chosen to reveal himself have ceased (WCF1:1)."

You give us no reason to apply Luke 16 beyond the people Jesus is addressing in that passage. Instead, you assume without argument that Jesus is addressing all unbelievers.

Then, when Paul's conversion contradicts your reading of Luke 16, you dismiss his conversion as "miraculous". How does the miraculous nature of his conversion resolve the problem it poses for your reading of Luke 16? All conversions are miraculous. And some of those miraculous conversions are brought about by means of encountering the risen Jesus or evidence for his resurrection.

Distinguish. God makes the rules and he can set them aside.What infallible evidence do we have today for his resurrection found or recorded  outside of Scripture?

You then dismiss all post-Biblical converts who cite evidence for Jesus' resurrection as a factor in their conversion. You ask, "Could they be mistaken?" Asking that question doesn't give us reason to think it's probable that they're all mistaken. And we don't assume that people are mistaken about their conversions as our default position. If you want us to think they were mistaken, you need to provide some reason for reaching that conclusion. People aren't normally dishonest or experiencing a memory lapse, for example, so we don't begin with an assumption that people are probably wrong about what they're saying regarding a subject they're in a good position to judge. So far, in order to preserve your speculative reading of Luke 16, you not only have to dismiss Paul's conversion, but also the claims of many post-Biblical converts.

Is your or my testimony on anything, never mind our conversion equal with Scripture? To ask is to answer the objection.

Then you dismiss Cornelius' conversion by citing the Westminster Confession and making a comment about the canon and dreams. Why is it that we should avoid spending time and other resources on an extra-Biblical source like the Shroud, because it's extra-Biblical, yet it's acceptable for you to study and cite extra-Biblical sources like the Westminster Confession? And how does citing the Westminster Confession reconcile Cornelius' conversion with your reading of Luke 16?

WCF1:6 Not only Scripture,  but the good and necessary consequences of Scripture are Scripture.
Thus Jesus with the Sadducees regarding  the woman with 7 husbands. He appeals not to his own authority, which they don’t accept, but to Scripture which they do, much more an implication of Scripture and chides for their unbelief.

Cornelius lived before the close of canon when extrabiblical signs and wonders were part of the economy. With the death of the apostles and the close of canon, as per WCF1:1  Scripture replaced the former unwritten evidences/revelations.

"What are those contexts?"

I've already explained, many times. Similarly, a hymn, a book, or an archeological artifact wouldn't have to convert people in order to be useful in some manner.

True, but the argument from John 20:29 is:

Blessed are all those who have believed the evidence written in Scripture and believed in Christ.
But the Shroud of Turin  is not one of the evidences written in Scripture.
∴ Those who believe in it are not blessed.

Another passage of Scripture and a new argument is needed to prove your point.

thank you,