Dutch Reformed apologist, Anthony Hoekema, wrote the following in defence of the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura:
At this point the reader is referred to Jesus' Parable of the Rich man and Lazarus, found in Luke 16:19-31. It will be recalled that the rich man, after he lifted up his eyes and found himself in Hades, asked that his brothers be given an additional revelation besides what was in the Bible: namely, that Lazarus be sent to them from the realm of the dead. Abraham, however, replied: "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, if one rise from the dead" (v. 31). Here Christ clearly disavowed the need for a source of revelation additional to the Bible . . . Apparently the Mormons wish to be wiser than Christ Himself. (Anthony A. Hoekema, The Four Major Cults [Exeter, UK: Paternoster Press, 1963], 23).
There is nothing in this pericope that lends itself to the thesis that the rich man’s desire for Lazarus to appear (“angelically” if you will) to his brothers would have been understood as “general revelation.” Hoekema would have to acknowledge, there are different types of revelation, such as personal revelation (cf. the concept of the inward witness of the Holy Spirit to a believer vis-à-vis the self-authentication of the Bible); the rich man’s request was not for a “canonical” revelation, if you will, to be given to his brothers. This notwithstanding, there are many flaws with the apologist’s appeal to Luke 16:19-31 as evidence for sola scriptura.
Firstly, “Moses and the prophets” refers to two of the three divisions of the Old Testament—the Torah (Law) and the Nebi’im (Prophets). At best, the Old Testament only is in view here—absolutizing this verse in the way this apologist for sola scriptura wants to do, to be consistent, he would have to reject the New Testament. Furthermore, notice the third division of the Old Testament is missing, the writings (Kethubim). Following his rather flawed hermeneutic, one could easily isogete “Moses and the prophets” to argue for the formal sufficiency of some, but not all, of the Old Testament, precluding works such as the Psalter, Proverbs, and Esther as being inspired, canonical texts.
Secondly, as noted above, Hoekema would have to reject the inspiration and authority of the New Testament. After all, the New Testament was not inscripturated when Jesus gave the parable in Luke 16. Again, if this “proves” anything, it proves too much for the Protestant apologist wishing to use this verse (to be fair, modern defenders of the doctrine [William Webster; David King; Keith Mathison; James White] and even the older apologists [William Whittaker]) never appealed to this pericope, probably as it is rank eisegesis to conclude the Protestant doctrine of the formal sufficiency of the Protestant canon from this verse). Hoekema seems to realise this later in his volume, and defends the authority of the New Testament documents thusly:
The question might be asked: If Jesus Christ was the culmination of God's revelation to man, why was it necessary for the apostles who write the Bible books which has become incorporated into our present New Testament? The answer is that the apostles had to present to the world their witness to Jesus Christ, so that we might believe on Him on the basis of their testimony." (p. 31)
Notice that this contradicts his eisegetical conclusions from Luke 16:19-31. If Luke 16:19-31 “proves” formal sufficiency of text, it would, at best for his position, be the Old Testament as that was the only scripture available at the time; if the New Testament is to be accepted, one cannot, consistently, claim Luke 16:19-31 is evidence for sola scriptura.
In an effort to preclude (1) additional books of the LDS canon and (2) the LDS understanding of the nature of the apostasy, Hoekema concludes by stating that:
[B]y adding to the Holy Scriptures their additional sacred books, the Mormons have undermined and overthrown "the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3) (p. 33)
This is a rather popular “proof-text” against the LDS concept of the Great Apostasy. The term translated, “once” is the Greek term ἅπαξ, in and of itself, does not denote the concept of finality. This can be seen in how the term is used elsewhere:
For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again (ἅπαξ) unto my necessity. (Phil 4:16)
Wherefore, we would have come unto you, even I Paul, once and again (ἅπαξ), but Satan hindered us. (1 Thess 2:18)
For then would they not have ceased to be offered? Because that the worshippers once (ἅπαξ) purged should have no more conscience of sins. (Heb 10:2 [such worshippers would have to be purged again])
Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more (ἅπαξ) I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. (Heb 12:26)
I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once (ἅπαξ ) knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. (Jude 1:5)
To be sure, there are instances where ἅπαξ denotes the concept of finality (1 Pet 3:18), but one has to provide evidence supporting the claim that ἅπαξ in Jude 1:3 denotes finality, which Hoekema never does, beyond his ipse dixit.
Had Jude wished to denote finality, he should have used ἐφάπαξ, which means "once-for-all" and denotes the sense of finality:
For in that he died, he died unto sin once (ἐφάπαξ), but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. (Rom 6:10)
Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once (ἐφάπαξ), when he offered up himself. (Heb 7:27)
Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered once (ἐφάπαξ ) into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. (Heb 9:12)
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all (ἐφάπαξ). (Heb 10:10)
As LDS scholar John Tvedtnes, commenting on Jude 1:3, notes:
If the gospel (more correctly, faith) was to be delivered but once to men on the earth, then Paul would be wrong in writing that the gospel had been revealed earlier to Abraham (Galatians 3:8f). And if the gospel was revealed in the days of Jesus, never to disappear from the earth, there would be no necessity for the angel John saw coming in later times to reveal the gospel to the inhabitants of the earth (Revelation 14:6-7). We can either conclude that Jude 1:3 does not give the whole story, or we must conclude that the Bible contradicts itself.
Additionally, Hoekma offers the following against LDS claims of authority:
The Bible further indicates that the entire church is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets" (Eph 2:20). In this passage the word prophets stands for the chief Old Testament agents of revelation, and the word apostles, for the chief New Testament agents of revelation. Since these two groups constitute the foundation of the church, the need for the work of another prophets arising eighteen centuries later is definitely excluded (P. 32 [emphasis in original])
Firstly, that the New Testament church held to apostolic succession is not difficult to find. In the opening of the Acts of the Apostles, Judas had just committed suicide (Acts 1:18-19), and a successor had to be chosen. In vv. 20-21, we read the words of Peter:
For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitiation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein; and his bishoprick [office] let another take. Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us. Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
Peter, appropriating Old Testament texts in a way common to the New Testament authors and their contemporaries (cf. the use of Hos 11:1 in Matt 2:15), uses Psa 109:8 to support apostolic succession; what is also interesting is that the text from the psalter deals with a member of David’s royal court, an office that was replaced, not simply a position that, upon the death (or in the case of Psa 109, his ejection therefrom) ceased.
Again, as Tvedtnes cogently notes:
Not only was Matthias selected, by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, to replace the fallen Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:13-26), both Paul and Barnabas are subsequently termed “apostles” (Acts 14:14; Romans 1:1, 5, 13; 1 Corinthians 1:1; 4:9; 9:1-2, 5-6; 15:9; 2 Corinthians 1:1, 5; 12:11-12; Galatians 1:1, 17; 2:8; Ephesians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; 1 Thessalonians 2:6; 1 Timothy 1:1; 2:7; 2 Timothy 1:1, 11; Titus 1:1). Paul also indicated that James, the brother of Jesus, was an apostle (Galatians 1:19). When Paul wrote that “James, Cephas [Peter], and John . . . seemed to be pillars” in the Church (Galatians 2:9), he could not have had reference to James the brother of John, for the death of this apostle, recorded in Acts 12:2, took place before the event to which Paul refers took place in Acts 15.
Wilson cites Ephesians 2:20 as evidence that the “writings [of the original apostles] are the church’s foundation and final authority” (p. 33). But the passage in question says nothing about the “writings” of these men. It says that the saints “are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.” If writings were meant, then we should expect that the Bible would contain some of Jesus’ writings, which it does not. The real foundation of the Church is Christ, with his chosen apostles and prophets. Paul explained in the same epistle that the Lord “gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:11-13). This does not sound like a one-time apostolic office, any more than teachers and pastors are a one-time office. Rather, Paul makes it clear that these offices were intended to remain in the Church “till we all come in the unity of the faith.”
Anti-Mormon and Reformed Baptist, James White, in his interaction with the tract, “17 points of the True Church,” argues against the LDS use of Eph 2:20 in the following way:
#3. The true church must have a foundation of Apostles and Prophets. Ephesians 2:19-20. This, again, is true, as far as it goes. Unfortunately, the LDS Church takes it too far. The Mormons take this to mean that the true church must have official positions entitled "Apostle" and "Prophet," which, of course, they have. This is not what Ephesians 2:19-20 teaches. First, the context includes verses 21 and 22, and these must be read also. The text actually says that the church is built on a foundation. Stop there. The word "built" as translated in the King James Version translates the Greek participle epoikodomethentes, which, properly syntaxed is translated "having been built." It is an aorist passive participle. It refers to a past action, one that (in this case) has been completed. To say that today we must continue to build the foundation of apostles and prophets is to misunderstand the text. Next, we would like to point out that the Bible identifies Jesus Christ as the foundation (1 Corinthians 3:10-11). The Church is built upon this foundation, and is continually growing unto an "holy temple in the Lord." The question must be asked, how many times does one lay a foundation? If one is continually laying a foundation, how will the house be built? The answer is obvious. The Mormon Church is still trying to lay a foundation that was laid two thousand years ago. Since this is so, it is obvious to see that in this passage Paul is referring to something other than a continuing office of apostle and Prophet.
Compare White’s comments about the aorist participle with a leading Greek grammar:
The assumption that the Aorist Participle properly denotes past time, from the point of view either of the speaker or of the principal verb, leads to a constant misinterpretation of the form. The action denoted by the Aorist Participle may be past, present, or future with reference to the speaker, and antecedent to, coincident with, or subsequent to, the action of the principle verb. The Aorist Participle, like the participles of the other tenses, may be most simply thought of as a noun or adjective, the designation of one who performs the action denoted by the verb, and like any other noun or adjective timeless” (Ernest D. Burton, Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek, Kregel Pub., 1978, pp. 59-60)
Much of White's (and Hoekema's) interpretation of Eph 2:20 mirrors that of Ron Rhodes and Marian Bodine's, in their book, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Mormons (Eugene, Oreg.: Harvest House, 1995). On p. 72, we find the following questions posted to Latter-day Saints:
What do you think Ephesians 2:20 means when it says that God's household is built on the foundation of the prophets and apostles?
Once a foundation is built, does it have to be built again, and again, and again?
Perhaps it should be enough to note that, just as a building's foundations are not removed when construction of a building is completed, Christ's apostles and prophets were not meant to be removed when the Church was established, but were meant to remain, as were the other offices mentioned in Eph 4:11. There are at least 15 and possibly as many as 22 apostles named in the New Testament, and no fewer than three prophets mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. Unless one labours under the (false) a priori assumption of the formal sufficiency of the Protestant canon, nothing, exegetically, allows one to claim that these apostles and prophets were not "forth-telling" prophets and apostles as were Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, et al.
For the references to these apostles and prophets, see the following:
Apostles
Matthias (Acts 1:26)
Paul (Acts 13:2; 14:14; Rom 1:1)
Barnabas (Acts 13:2; 14:14)
Andronicus (Rom 16:7)
Junia (Rom 16:7)
Apollos (1 Cor 4:6-9)
James, the brother of Jesus (Gal 1:19)
Silvanus (1 Thess 1:1; 2:4-6)
Timoteus (1 Thess 1:1; 2:4-6)
Jesus is also referred to as being an "apostle" (Heb 3:1)
Prophets
Agabus (Acts 11:27-28; 21:10)
Judas (Acts 15:22, 32)
Silas (Acts 15:22, 32)
Others (Acts 11:27; 13:1; 21:9; Rev 11:3-10)
Finally, note the following exegesis of Eph 2:20 from Harold Hoehner, a conservative Evangelical Protestant:
ἐποικοδομηθέντες ἐπὶ τῷ θεμελίῳ, “having been built on the foundation.” Paul makes a transition in his metaphor from those who belong to a household (οικειος) in verse 19 to that of a building in which the Spirit of God dwells (εποικοδομηθεντες . . . οικοδομη . . . συνοικοδομεισθε . . . κατοικητηριον) in verses 20-22. The aorist passive participle εποικοδομηθεντες may signify a temporal idea, indicating that the readers of this letter have already built on the foundation at the time of their conversion, or, more likely, it may denote cause, namely, the reason we are fellow citizens with the saints and members of God’s household is because we have been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. The passive emphasises that foundation of the apostles and prophets. The passive emphasises that we who are in one body are recipients of the action. God is the subject of the building. The following preposition επι with the accusative would imply motion (1 Cor 3:12; Rom 15:20) but with the genitive or dative, as here, it denotes place—“on” or “upon” which the structure is built. The word θεμελιος means “foundation,” which speaks of the beginnings of something that is coming into being, a term that is synonymous to καταβολη in 1:4. (Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2002], 397)
One could continue, but one gets the point—Hoekema’s efforts to defend the doctrine of sola scriptura, exegetically, failed miserably. Again, one should remember the following from Catholic apologist, Robert Sungenis, on the exegetical impossibility of trying to “prove” this doctrine from the Bible:
Evangelical James White admits: “Protestants do not assert that Sola Scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation. How could it be, since the rule of faith to which it points was at the very time coming into being?” (“A Review and Rebuttal of Steve Ray's Article Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura,” 1997, on web site of Alpha and Omega Ministries). By this admission, White has unwittingly proven that Scripture does not teach Sola Scriptura, for if it cannot be a “valid concept during times of revelation,” how can Scripture teach such a doctrine since Scripture was written precisely when divine oral revelation was being produced? Scripture cannot contradict itself. Since both the 1st century Christian and the 21st century Christian cannot extract differing interpretations from the same verse, thus, whatever was true about Scripture then also be true today. If the first Christians did not, and could not extract sola scriptura from Scripture because oral revelation was still existent, then obviously those verses could not, in principle, be teaching Sola Scriptura, and thus we cannot interpret them as teaching it either. (“Does Scripture teach Sola Scriptura?” in Robert A. Sungenis, ed. Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura [San Goleta, Calif.: Queenship Publishing, 1997], pp. 106-67, here, p. 128 n. 24).