Scripturalism and 2 Peter 1:19

Late Friday, I responded to this post @ Reformed Philosophy.com. My initial response was admittedly flawed, as I was on the fly w/o the text of Scripture before me. This will detail my second response. Here is the initial post at RP:

Though I don’t imagine many people will read this, I must write something on my recent thoughts about 2 Peter 1:19. Upon reading this the other night in the ESV, I was overjoyed to see how the Scriptures continue to witness to their superiority over sense experience and their monopoly on knowledge and truth.

In the ESV, 2 Peter 1:19a reads “And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place. . .”

To better understand why I have come to my conclusion, let me provide the context:

For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.
(2 Pe 1.16-18)

Peter begins his letter with exhortations to live holy lives, and concludes with his revealing statement that Christ revealed to him that he will soon be put to death (”I know that the putting off my body will be soon” v.14). After this he comforts his audience by letting them know that he will provide a means for them to be able to recall “these things”, which are the ways of “making your calling and election sure” (v. 10) found in vs. 5-7. Following this is the passage I have previously quoted. The connection between the two seems to be that of Peter giving reasons, justification, for why his audience should believe the things he is teaching. So, Peter states that they were not deceived by some clever myth, but rather they were eyewitnesses. They were not just going off hearsay, but they were there. They were on the mount when Christ was transfigured before them and the Father spoke from Heaven; they saw and heard.

Now, it is at this point that non-Scripturalists will most likely ask how this fits into the Scripturalist system since we deny that anything can be known by sense experience and often speak of the unreliability of the senses. After all, is not Peter here implicitly giving credence to the senses? Is he not using his experiences as an argument for his trustworthiness? My reply: no. Peter seems to be using his experiences in an ad hominem fashion because he then moves on to say that the Scriptures are a “more sure” witness. (This, of course, has more force when viewed along with the other arguments found in Scripture for the Scripturalist position, but this post is not meant to be comprehensive.) The Scriptures are the “more sure. . . lamp shining in the darkness,” and our experiences, though not trustworthy enough to be considered knowledge, add insult to injury. One is entitled to believe, out of habit, his experiences to be trustworthy; he just cannot make a claim to knowledge based upon experience. This is an a fortiori argument, from the weaker to the stronger. To paraphrase Peter, “Believe what I teach, not only because I was there and saw it all happen, but even more so because the Scriptures teach thus.”

What is interesting, however, is how so many other versions render the first part of v. 19:

NASV “So we have ^{the prophetic word made more sure. . .”}

^{NKJV “And so we have the prophetic word confirmed . . . ” (with an alternate translation in a footnote similar to that of the ESV’s)}

^{NIV “And we have the word of the prophets made more certain. . .”}

^{KJV “We have also a more sure word of prophecy. . . “}

^{I find it interesting that there are two main translations. One being that of the prophetic word being “confirmed” or “made more sure/certain”; the other saying that the prophetic word is more certain. Unless I’m missing something, I see a significant difference between the two. Indeed, the way one translates this verse could very well have a significant impact upon the very issue at hand (which is obviously why I am dealing with it).}

^{Now, although I technically only took two semesters of Greek (101 and 202), I do believe that the proper translation is that of the ESV (”we have the more sure prophetic word”). Why is that? Well, the Greek reads (roughly transliterated for lack of Greek font) “kai echomen bebaioteron ton prophaetikon logon.” That reads, literally “and we have the more sure prophetic word.” There is no complex grammar to this phrase at all. In fact, it’s all stuff you would learn in a first semester Greek class. “Echomen” is the first person plural, active, indicative of the verb “to have”; “bebaioteron” is a comparative adjective coming from “bebaios” meaning “sure/steady/firm” (the superlative form would be “bebaiotatos”, if I’m not mistaken); and then we have “ton prophaetikon logon”, being “the prophetic word.” It is clear that “bebaioteron” is modifying “ton prophaetikon logon” being that it’s in the same number, case, and gender, not to mention the flow of the sentence and argument as a whole. So where do the translators get “make” from? I am led to believe that a latent empiricism has caused some translators to miss the mark here and import a word “make” and concept that is not there.}

^{“Let God be true, though everyone were a liar . . .” (Rom. 3.4)}

His response to my rejoiner is here.

By way of reply:

First, it seems to me that if I were to mention, say, Gordon Clark’s commentary on 2 Peter, you would simply assert that it is not a “standard commentary,” so let’s not resort to such tactics.

I will take this as a “No.” The very commentary you did cite you noted did not agree with your assertion.

Do you deny that the hearing of a voice and the seeing of the transfiguration involve the senses?

No, but by the same token, we are not Apostles. We are not on the mount of Transfiguration. We have not met Peter, James, and John personally or heard them speak. We are not living at a time when the Protestant rule of faith did not apply, personal revelation from God was ongoing, and the church was not in its normative state. Are you arguing that the Apostles practiced Sola Scriptura? Do you deny that you know the Scriptures by your senses, or do you receive private revelation from God? Is Scripture itself an object of knowledge?

The text is clear that Peter stresses his experience from the Mount, but then compares that to the written word, as v. 19 declares.

No, it is not clear. The translation of the text here is disputed, and even if your rendering is correct, it does not lead to the conclusion you draw. See Kistemaker.

Literally, he recounts his experience and says “ and we have more firm the prophetic word...” That word does confirm his experience, but it is not a statement that it is a necessary validation of that experience at the time of its occurrence, based off the alleged fact that experience was a sensory experience and is unreliable on its own, due to the global unreliability of the senses. You’re the one conflating ideas here, namely what is applicable to Peter’s readers to whom he addresses his letter and what is applicable to Peter at the actual time he and his two friends saw the Transfiguration.

As for the rest:

My apologies for the Gk. grammar errors, I wrote that last night on the fly without that text in front of me. The prophetic word made sure refers to the Scriptures, but my point was, and remains, that you are positing this as a statement about sense experience to validate your theory of knowledge. However, that's a blatant misuse of this text if ever there was, and I stand by my contention that this is nothing more than eisegesis on your part.

First, related to vs. 19 The term “prophetic witness” is comprehensive enough to include, beside the predictions concerning Christ’s Second Coming, all the numerous prophecies fulfilled in connection with His earthly life. We find these, obviously, in Scripture.

However, where does Peter connect to this as a validation of his actual personal experience on the Mt. of Transfiguration as a necessary truth condition due to the unreliable nature of sense experience? That's not in this text. Rather, he connects this to a testimony that is supreme over the false teachings/teachers of the day as an enduring and infallible witness that will outlive him in view of his impending death.

"The morning star rising" likely refers to the Second Coming. So, Peter's focus here isn't on the authority of Scripture apart from its endurance as a witness, given that Christ's return may be close or far off, nobody knows for sure anything except He will return (chapter 3). The connection he makes to the confirming authority of Scripture is not to his experience on the Mt. of Transfiguration, but the situation of his audience in view of his impending death. It is about the absolute sufficiency and authority of Scripture because it outlives the personal, eyewitness, living, testimony of the Apostles, not the necessity of Scripture to adjudicate truth claims related to sensory experiences in a global manner.

He is not saying that he used Scripture to adjudicate what God the Father Himself said to him on the Mount of Transfiguration or what He saw or that Scripture validates his actual experience in a Scripturalist sense. He never once makes this connection. Yes, it does validate his experience, but you have extrapolated that into a statement about the theory of knowledge applicable to a time when the Protestant rule of faith was not in effect, namely the time when Peter witnessed this event, and then you are reading that back into the text..

This is the era of inscripturation. A literal voice from God was valid at this point in history, because God Himself was the one speaking. Please tell us what Scriptures Abraham consulted when God spoke to him in like manner in Gen. 12 or in his dream/vision in Gen. 15 or in theophany of Gen. 17. Did Gideon consult the Scriptures when he was commissioned? Did Isaiah record going to Scripture to validate his experience in Isa. 6? Peter was an Apostle. He ranks, by definition, with the prophets.

Now, if Peter needed a written witness to confirm what God told him, could he have found it? I'd argue that he could, for example, by comparing his experience to the theophanic passages of the OT or finding similar words to those he heard in Scripture, but in doing so, he would be assuming that what he heard was real, that he remembered them accurately, and that Scripture is an object of knowledge.

The questions you must answer here are: Where does Peter make this specific connection for this text? Where do we ever find a record of him looking to Scripture to validate that experience? Besides, the fact that he could have found validation in Scripture is not the question at hand; rather the question is whether he actually needed to do so, because his senses were unreliable by themselves at the time of the event and whether or not that is the nature of his appeal to the Scriptures here, not to mention whether or not that is the connection Peter is making here with reference to the situation of his readers.

Peter saw Jesus in His glory with Moses and Elijah chatting with him, along with two of his best friends, James and John, and all of them heard the voice of the Father speak to them. Are seriously going to argue that he needed to validate that experience with Scripture? Is the testimony of the Father heard by his own ears and those of James and John not valid apart from Scripture during the time of inscripturation itself, in the presence of Jesus in a glorified state? I would argue that this text actually disproves Scripturalism on this basis. If you are going to argue this, perhaps you can point us to the text Saul of Tarsus consulted to validate the Damascus Road experience. The text indicates he believed on the spot. Ananias did not run off to find a scroll validate the Holy Spirit’s instructions to find Saul and baptize him did he?

Now, I will grant this much: that Peter is a Jew, and his audience appears to be as well, since we have references to the OT in chapter 2. So, Peter could be invoking the idea that the testimony of one is not enough to establish the truth in a court of law. Very likely, in appealing to “we” in vs. 16, he is doing so, since James and John are the other witness to the event. However, in that event, then James and John are confirming witnesses of Peter’s testimony.

His audience already knew Peter, and they had the OT. Peter invokes the OT here as the second witness, and not only that, it is the enduring witness in view of his impending death. Together, these two, the apostolic testimony (which includes the Transfiguration) which Peter personally vouches for since he is there, and Scripture are the two witnesses that testify to the validity of the Apostolic message as a whole and which are inclusive of the promise of the Second Coming; and of these witnesses, Scripture will endure when the Apostle Peter himself has departed.

But what is Scripture here verifying? The Transfiguration event and Peter’s sense experience due to the unreliability of his senses? No, Peter links it to the apostolic testimony that contains the prophetic promise of Christ’s return (mentioned in vs. 16 and 19). That too, is a prophetic word found in the OT. Peter calls on this event which was witnessed by Peter, James, and John at the Transfiguration. James is dead, Peter is on his way, and John, according to tradition is somewhere in Asia Minor. What then is left for his readers? Scripture. Scripture, in the absence of the Apostles, is a sure, enduring, infallible testimony, and, as we know, it includes the testimony of the Transfiguration and the OT itself testifies to it; we need not even resort to the NT for this promise.

It does not, however, stand to reason that this is a proof text for Scripture’s use in validating sense experience in the way in which Scripturalism asserts. I know you are not claiming to be an Apostle who has seen the Transfiguration and that the Patriarchs, prophets, judges, etc. But do you affirm that they themselves needed to confirm their direct experiences of God with Scripture? If so, to which ones did they appeal?

Why does Peter invoke it for his readers? To find out, let's work through this text one more time.

2 Peter opens with commendations and exhortations concerning promises and virtues (1-11). Then @ v. 12, not vs. 16, he starts discussing divine revelation. This comes in 3 stages. The first relates to the memory of his readers. The second is his eyewitness account. This section we are discussing is the third part of that discussion.

In vs. 14, he speaks of casting aside an earthly garment. This is a reference to his death. This, he says, was made clear to him. How? Scripture? No, he simply says that Christ himself made it clear to him in some manner. Apparently, this was a private revelation for him. If your thesis is correct, then he required Scripture to validate this experience. So, where is Peter's appeal to Scripture for validation for this private experience? For that matter, to what Scripture could he appeal? Do you deny that Peter is calling on a personal experience here and expecting his audience to think that is a true statement?

Ah, but Peter is writing Scripture, so, ironically Scripture validates it. That’s true, but that, however, is a vicious circle for the Scripturalist, because Peter himself does not say that any Scripture at all validated this private revelation from Christ, nor does he appeal to his own inspiration here to validate it. Moreover, even if that is the case, we are not Apostles writing Scripture. Moreover, the references to Scriptures in validation of testimony in this text are applied by Peter in this text, not the revelation he was about to die, but, at most, to another experience earlier in his life according to your own yardstick, and these are together placed in contrast to the false teachings of the day and are the source from which his readers may derive certainty about Christ’s promises.

He knows he is soon to die. Jesus told him so. That said, what, in his absence, and that of all the Apostles, can his audience do to persevere in the exhortations and hold to the promises of 1:1 – 11 and the apostolic witness? How can they be confident in the apostolic witness about the Second Coming?

Vs. 16 - 21 is not an apologetic for the validity of Scripture over sense experience itself. Rather, it is Peter's justification/apologetic intended to address the confidence of his audience after Peter (and presumably the other Apostles) die. They (the Apostles) will no longer be physically present to write, visit, preach, etc.

Of all his recollections of Jesus’ ministry, why has Peter selected the transfiguration scene for his discourse in this epistle? The transfiguration of Jesus provides Peter with the knowledge that Jesus Christ will give every believer “a rich welcome into His eternal kingdom” (v. 11). Peter emphasizes the main points of the experience: the power and coming of Jesus Christ, the heavenly honor and glory given to Jesus, and his confirmation by God the Father’s own voice. As human witnesses, these 3 Apostles were permitted to see a glimpse of heaven in which Jesus rules with power, honor, and glory, where Christ is the Son of God, standing in the Father’s personal love and approval. Though it’s not mentioned, I think it’s valid to say that there is a third witness here, the Holy Spirit. More on that later.

Peter chooses to focus on the transfiguration to show that he can personally vouch for the veracity of Christ’s teachings. He asserts that a glorious entry into Christ’s kingdom awaits the believer, and that everyone must “be all the more eager to make calling and election sure” (v. 10).

At the time of the Transfiguration, they 3 heard the voice of the Father. So, the Apostolic testimony on the Second Coming was not derived from an apotheosis myth, but from the personal experience of directly hearing God's voice and seeing Christ in this manner. What’s more it was a shared experience with James and John. These two facts alone validate the message they preached and the validity of their experience. The problem for the readers, however, is that Peter is about to die. What Peter says is thus written in view of this fact.

You said:

I believe you are getting ahead of yourself and conflating two separate ideas. The myths or fables of 1:16 are not the same as the heresies of 2:1, or so I believe. For in 1:12-15 Peter speaks of attempting to remind his audience of the Gospel message he brought to them, and then moves in to his apologetic for it in verses 16-21, concluding with the primacy of the Scriptures as the witness to Christ’s majesty, for he advises them that they would “do well to heed [the Scriptures] as a light that shines in a dark place” (v. 19).

Then, in 2:1ff, he introduces false teachers/prophets, clearly in contrast to vs. 20-21. For in vs. 20-21, we have Peter asserting the divine origin of the Scriptures, stating that the Scriptures were born of God, not of men (true prophecy). Then in 2:1 he brings in the contrasting idea of false prophets/teachers (false prophecy), which leads him into discussing the problem at that time: those denying “the Lord who bought them” and mocking the idea of the Second Coming.

The invocation of the Transfiguration also addresses the content of the false teachers' message. Peter directly alludes to this in vs. 16. It reads, "We did not follow cleverly devised fables when we made known the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." The Transfiguration prefigures the Second Coming. Peter does not divulge the content of all the myths and fables he has in mind, but he may have apotheosis myths in view or Gnostic myths that denied a real body (and thus a real return) of Christ. Regardless, he does place them in contrast to the apostolic testimony of the Second Coming, and then, later, he will proceed to discuss the content of the false teachers' teaching. The myths and fables in view, to be persuasive to an audience of the composition as this one, could well be Ebionite or early Elkeasite teachings.

Peter also chooses a particular event that parallels and refutes the false teachers’ denial of Christ's return, not a myth or fable or false tale, so, yes, the heresies of the subsequent chapters are somehow related to what Peter mentions. In chapter 2, he characterizes the teachers in terms of OT examples, and then in chapter 3, he discusses the content of their mockeries and teachings, connecting directly to vs. 16. The implication of 2:1 is that these myths in 1:16 were being circulated by the false teachers, the same false teachers who denied the Second Coming. So, yes, the tales in vs. 16 are highly relevant to what we find in chapter 2, since Peter contrasts those tales in v. 16 with his experience in vs. 17 – 18 and then Scripture, which in turn is directly related to the denial of the Second Coming on the part of the false teachers and their claim to the prophetic office.

Does Scripture validate the experience of Peter on the Mt. of Transfiguration? Yes, in that it serves as the infallible and enduring testimony of the Second Coming on which every believer can depend for the veracity of the promise. That included Peter, but what Peter saw was not the promise heard the way his audience had heard from Peter, but the promise made actual in his sight and validated by the Father’s own voice and witnessed by James and John as well. In fact, what Peter saw was also later validated by Christ’s words.

In the trajectory of the Gospel narratives, Jesus transfiguration occurs before he teaches about the Second Coming. In chapter 3, it looks as if Peter is appealing to the Olivet Discourse, at least in part. The Olivet Discourse also contains a word about the enduring nature of Jesus’ words. They would endure, even though heaven and earth pass away. I would suggest, that’s the gist of what Peter is trying to say here about the promises of the Second Coming.

Now, it’s true that that discourse is in Scripture, but tell us, when Peter himself heard Jesus preach the Olivet Discourse, was it a valid sensory experience for Peter or not? Was it true because Jesus said so when Peter heard Him, or because Scripture at that time confirmed what Jesus said? Nobody denies that Scripture did confirm it or that it is true for us because it is contained in Scripture, but the question is whether or not Peter himself could have relied on what he heard Jesus Himself say independently from Scripture. The point is whether or not Peter’s own experience of Jesus’ teaching was valid at that time he heard it. Yes, it’s true Jesus promised the Spirit to the Apostles to bring to mind His teachings, and the Apostolic message was empowered by this, particularly when they wrote the Scriptures, but you and I are not Apostles.

It is true that the origin of Scripture validates the meaning of Peter’s experience and the apostolic message. That message includes the Second Coming, over and against the falsehoods around them. However, Peter does not state that Scripture was a necessary truth condition to validate his experience on the Mt. of Transfiguration at the time he experienced it or his revelation of his impending death.. On the contrary, he relates Scripture’s authority not to adjudicate what happened to him and his friends on the mountain at the time it happened but for his readers to confirm the veracity of the apostolic testimony given that (a) Christ has not yet returned and (b) Peter is about to die. The text is not about Scripture’s adjudication of sense knowledge (Peter’s experience when it happened on the mountain); rather it is about Scripture’s supreme authority to adjudicate the truth of the apostolic testimony over and against the teachings of false teachers and as a means of confidence for his readers to be certain Christ’s promise to return is true, to persevere in the faith, especially in view of Peter’s impending death. Once again, you are conflating the question of Peter’s sensory experience at the time it actually occurred and the reason that he appeals to Scripture's authority for his readers, in view of his impending death.

We are, at this point, in stage 2 of Peter’s argument. Peter declares that the preaching of the Apostles is absolutely trustworthy because they speak as eyewitnesses of the person and words of Jesus Christ. They personally saw Jesus’ glory and honor. Peter’s version of events here is closest to Matthew’s account but differs from in minor details (in the Greek). Peter did not have a need to rely on written accounts, and we can likely assume that his memory served him well.

The wording of this statement by God has its source in Isaiah 42:1, “Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight.” So, did Scripture affirm this experience? Certainly, but his experience at the time this event happened is valid not because Scripture affirms it and the OT validated it at that time or upon Peter's retrospective analysis, but because God the Father Himself said it to Peter and He (God) authored them both, and, on top of this, we have no record of Peter consulting Scripture to validate his experience here. At most, we have his memory. But how could his memory be accurate if he didn’t consult the relevant scrolls? Isn’t your thinking in some manner perceived by you? Do you “hear” words when you speak?

Here’s my point: unless the Bible is an object of knowledge, the Spirit cannot witness to the Word of God. How can, if sense knowledge is denied, the Bible be an object of knowledge for Peter? Yes, he writes under the inspiration of the Spirit, but that's not what Scripturalism argues. Scripturalism argues that sensory experience is globally unreliable. Scripture itself never says that sensory perception is a systematically unreliable source of knowledge. You are imposing on Scripture an extra-Scriptural frame of reference, and you’re reading that back into this text. Yours is a classic exercise in anachronistic eisegesis in that it suffers from overspecification, for you place a more specific construction on a verse of Scripture than the Scripture will bear, especially within the trajectory of Peter’s discussion. The very fact that you said originally that this had to be propped up by other arguments should be enough to send up a red flag for you. Scripturalism is not an issue in Reformed Baptist circles. Moreover, I have no anti-Clarkian agenda here. My concern is that for you is that you are torturing the text of Scripture.

Hearing God the Father’s own voice while standing in Jesus’ own presence in His glorified state is most certainly on epistemic parity with Scripture itself during the era of inscripturation, my friend. Tell us, to what Scriptures would Peter appeal for his earlier revelation that he was to die? What Scriptures did Isaiah appeal to validate his vision in Isa. 6? What Scriptures did Noah consult? What about Abraham? What Scripture could or did Ananias consult when the Holy Spirit told him to find and baptize Saul of Tarsus?

Vs. 19. Carrying on to what I have already written on vs. 19, in the preceding section... Peter focused on the spoken word of God the Father in the previous section (Vs. 17 – 18) Now, we are at stage 3 of his argument.. In this verse, he concentrates on the written Word of prophecy, namely, the Old Testament Scriptures. The point at issue in this verse is whether the Old Testament Scripture is confirmed by the teaching of the Apostles or the Apostles’ message is confirmed by the Old Testament. I’ve already discussed this. It is the latter, not the former. “And we have the word of the prophets made more certain” is I think an accurate translation here in vs. 19.. If so, then what we have is a progression of thought asserting that the apostolic message is confirmed by the transfiguration and by the Old Testament Scripture.

Regardless of translational variances, the focus is not, however, on Peter’s own experience on the mountain (vs. 17 – 18), but on the apostolic testimony as a whole. Peter refers to it, not to make an affirmation about a theory of knowledge, but as an enduring and sure witness in the absence of the actual Apostles’ themselves. Now from this point forward, the story of the Transfiguration will join the collective witness of Scripture, which will endure after the Apostles’ death.

The Transfiguration experience was witnessed by Peter, but Peter was now about to die. What will endure after Peter has left? Answer: Scripture, and Scripture is the result of God the Spirit’s spiration of it, not private ruminations of its writers (Vs. 20 – 21). So, it will stand not to validate Peter's personal experience and eyewitness testimony at the mount of Transfiguration, though it certainly does, but to ground the confidence of Peter's audience in the apostolic testimony that they have received and to which he exhorts them to hold fast in his absence. Peter is not saying that Scripture is supreme over his experience on the Mountain as a necessary truth condition because of his unreliable sensory experience; rather he is saying that it is also a valid testimony, in fact, it is “more sure,” because though the Apostolic witness is dying out, God has not abandoned His people. On the contrary, He has given them the Scriptures, which alone are theopneustos (to borrow from Paul). His audience can depend on the Scriptures, because the Scriptures include the promise of the Second Coming, and thus what they have already heard and received and which he exhorts them to remember (v.15).

The text isn't about the supremacy of Scripture over sense experiences and a theory of knowledge, it is about being in possession of a sure, enduring, infallible, and divine witness to the apostolic message (indeed, as we know, the apostolic message is contained on its pages), in view of the death of Peter. James was already dead, and we're unsure when John died. His readers, after Peter has departed, can be secure in the Scriptures in view of the falsehoods and false teachers of the day and the uncertainty they may feel.

The problem you have here is that you are appealing to the Protestant rule of faith and applying it an event (the transfiguration) that occurred the time of inscripturation and private revelation itself. So, you’re grafting a rationalist epistemology onto the Protestant rule of faith, and then applying to a time in which the Protestant rule of faith itself did not apply. The Apostles did not practice Sola Scriptura, because Sola Scriptura is only applicable to the normative condition of the church, not to times of inscripturation.

There were still Apostles at this time. When the Transfiguration had occurred, they were in Jesus’ own presence. Revelation had not ceased. Peter, James, and John were in Jesus glorified presence, standing with Moses on one side, and Elijah on the other, with God the Father speaking to them. Yes, Peter’s immediate readers and, by extension, we need Scripture to adjudicate the truth of that account. However, you are misapplying vs. 19 to refer to that particular experience on the mountain itself at the time it actually happened to the 3 of them. This is nowhere in view, and though Scripture did and does confirm its historicity and its meaning, for Peter, James, and John, during the time of inscripturation, they did not need Scripture in order to validate such an experience.

So, in conclusion, Peter employs its supremacy not over sensory experience (Epistemological Scripturalism) but as an enduring, sure, infallible, divine, written witness that would stand in place of the Apostles themselves. You're stretching the text to speak to issues to which it does not speak. You're pulling vs. 19 out without a consideration of the overall trajectory of Peter's discourse here.

What we have here is a progression of thought: Christ's teachings, the gospel (etc). were witnessed personally and then preached by Peter and the Apostles. They, James in particular, are dead or dying at the time Peter is writing or shortly to die (Peter has his own death in view). He wishes his audience to persevere in those teachings, but they are surrounded by fables and tales, and false teachers are mocking the Second Coming. Peter knows this. He has just given them a laundry list of exhortations and told them to be certain about their calling an election, not to stumble, and look forward to their entrance into the kingdom of Christ.

So, he selects an event from that portion of the Apostolic witness about the Second Coming to which he was a personal witness as well and for which he can vouch (vs. 16). He saw Christ transfigured (a visual witness; let’s call this the “Voice/Vision” of the Son) The voice of the Father confirmed that witness to him (an audible witness, so we have the Voice of Father as witness). Not only this, Moses and Elijah are validating witnesses in that they are there, representing the Law on one side and the Prophets on the other. That is enough to validate his message and his certainty of veracity, just as the revelation of his death by Christ is enough to give him reason to write this letter, particularly since he was not alone, but had James and John with him.

Now, note the position of Moses and Elijah in the vision itself. This text does not cite it, but I mention it, because Scripture contains what? The Law and the Prophets, which these men represent. So, what these 3 men are seeing and hearing on the mountain is not only the Voice of the Father and the Vision of the Son, but a representation of the witness of Scripture, the very prophets that the Holy Spirit carried along to write the Scriptures that Peter has in mind as he writes 2 Peter So, yes, Scripture did confirm the experience these 3 men had on the mountain, in that Scripture is the Voice of the Holy Spirit speaking to and through the Law and the Prophets, but it comes to Peter on the mountain in visual and auditory, historically real experience, in which he hears and sees Moses and Elijah chatting with the glorified Christ. These 3 men do not consult written Scripture to validate this vision; rather the Godhead is reveals this directly to these three men, and the actual confirmatory word itself is spoken directly to them by the Father, not written to them by the Holy Spirit, and thus heard, not read. So, yes, there is a witness from God, but Scripturalism is arguing not for the reliability of the hearing of this event, but for the epistemic necessity of Scripture to validate the event because the senses are systematically unreliable.

Peter, James, and John (the “we” of vs. 16) had all of that direct revelation, and that was enough. However, in view of his death, on what can Peter’s readers rely over and against false teaching so that they can persevere in the faith and have confidence that Christ will return? They don't have this visual and auditory privilege, and they are shortly no longer to receive any more material from Peter. His answer: the Scriptures, which are the result of the work of the Holy Spirit will serve in their (the Apostles’) place.

So, we have a Trinitarian witness, and Peter had invoked the Trinity in his salutation. He does not appeal to the Scriptures to validate his experience of seeing the transfigured Christ and hearing the Father’s voice from heaven due to the unreliability of sensory expereince, but to validate the apostolic testimony to which he is exorting his audience to persevere, not over and against sense experience itself, but because it is just as reliable as the Voice of the Father and the Vision of Christ were for Peter, James, and John, and it will endure to the end, whereas Peter was about to die. Like Christ, it is of divine origin. Like the Voice of The Father, it is of divine origin. Like the Apostolic message; it is of divine origin. Why? Because it is the “voice” not of men, but of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, it is more extensive, for it contains more than the promises of the Second Coming. Thus is more sure. Christ is in heaven with the Father, innscripturation (from our perspective) was ending. Peter is on his way to glory himself. What then is left? The Scriptures, the Voice of the Spirit, written down and enduring to the end.. His audience in the Scriptures finds a witness that is of the same authority for them (especially in view of the false teachers and their “claim” to the prophetic office) as the Vision of Christ and the Voice of the Father and the representation of the Spirit through the presence of Moses and Elijah were for Peter, James, and John when they saw and heard it. Of course, it had been of that authority all along, and, yes it validated the Apostolic testimony too, but not in the Scripturalist sense. That is not in view here. Of course, the supreme irony here is that Peter himself writes all this under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so it comes to them as Scripture.

Now, in the long run, Scripture does outweigh personal experience in matters of faith and practice. Nobody in the Reformed tradition disagrees, for it supplies an objective, written, God-breathed witness that is inerrant and infallible. That about which they disagree is the reliability of the senses in a global manner and its relation to Scripture. However, the Transfiguration was not a normative sensory event; moreover, even if you classify it in that manner, it did not happen during the normative state of the church. It was a revelatory event during the time of inscripturation. Yes, it involved the senses, but it wasn’t on a par with general revelation or our situation today. This text does not support the notion that Peter is affirming that Scripture’s witness is a necessary truth condition to validate his own globally unreliable sensory experience of the Transfiguration at the time it occurred or even in retrospect. Yes, it does those things, but the event itself at that time was enough to validate it. Why? Because God the Father spoke, in the Presence of the glorified Son, with Moses and Elijah, representing the Voice of the Spirit standing by, and witnessed also by James and John. It was Trinitarian revelation of Christ's glory, a visual experience, and an audible experience, a shared experience. It is thus, as valid as Scripture itself for Peter, James, and John on that mountain. If anything, it affirms the reliability of those senses at the time the event in question occurred.