“And the words of the prophet must be tested against Scripture...”
“13 Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem. 14 They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. 15 As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them...25 He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.”
Jesus, immediately after His resurrection, used Scripture for authority. I suppose he could have said, “Dimwits! I just rose from the dead!”
But instead, He used scripture. He showed that what He experienced was true by scripture.
If Jesus used Scripture to prove His words, then we obviously should use scriptures to prove - test - the words of men. And the Popes fall terribly short.
Mr. Rogers use of and specific choice of Scripture is ideal. Clearly we'd agree that Jesus is not speaking about the Scriptures we have today. They did not exist. Jewish illiteracy at the time was high and the oral tradition was the rule, outside the Tanakh. Jesus therefore is using the Scriptures meaning the oral tradition and starts with Moses - thus the Septuagint is referred to as well.
Implicit in Christ's own words are Prophets = Scriptures. Without Prophets we cannot have Scriptures orally or in written form. Scriptural reference is Prophetic reference.
Additionally, we don't have all the Scriptures referenced in the Bible. The modern Protestant (which do you prefer - Protestant or Reformer. I've seen both and mean no insult in using either. It is your preference) Bible ignores the Apocrypha. Luther hated and wished to purge the Book of James. Men obviously have influenced what we call Scripture. The Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) was written in reaction to the Christian Bible (Old and New Testaments).
Clearly, the Scriptures Jesus is referring to were open to interpretation and study, hence the existence of and acceptance of rabbis and rabbinical work at the time of Jesus. (if you are a Biblical literalist then we should quit now)
Furthermore, Jesus is the authority. The Scriptures are stories that illustrate the ongoing battle between false Gods and true. Without Jesus, the Great I AM, what need do Christians have for Scripture at all?
The statement, “Jesus, immediately after His resurrection, used Scripture for authority.” isn't exactly accurate. Jesus really is saying, “Look, here are the words of God as you understand them and accept them as authority. Given that, let me show you how they point to me and how I fulfill them.” Jesus isn't using them authoritatively in the same sense that we are in this thread. Jesus is reasoning with them.
PSS’s contention that any milkmaid can receive revelation is on its face true and Biblical, except that revelation is individual and specific. The Bible doesn't have women receiving revelation for the entire Church. Prophetesses are mentioned, although it is not clear as to whether the term “prophetess” is an honorific, referring to the wife of a prophet, or to one who receives God's word applicable to all people.
So women as Prophets of God - no. But, there is no special authority needed to received Divine answers is implicit in the meaning of the word “pray” - to ask. That is we can each individually receive answers from God.
The only certain conclusion we can draw from our Bibles is that men have been ordained by God from time to time to speak globally in His name to all people and especially His Church.
Therefore we need Scriptures and Prophets to have God's Church on earth. There is no statement by Jesus that the Scriptures are closed, that He will not speak again, that Prophets are no longer needed/necessary or that we are all prophets.