I just recently came across this video by Robert Morey of “Faith Defenders”; Morey was, at one time, a very popular Reformed apologist, but in recent years, his credibility has taken a huge hit. I have read three of his books: The Trinity: Evidence and Issues; How to Answer a Mormon and Death and the Afterlife. Even on issues I would agree with him on (e.g., that conditional mortality is not biblical), his eisegesis, abuse of scholarly sources, ignorance of non-Reformed traditions, and just overall lack of intellectual integrity forces me not to take him seriously on any issue he discusses. For a penetrating review of his book on conditionalism, see Edwin Fudge’s review of Morey’s volume here.
Indeed, many of Morey’s fellow Calvinists have called him up on his utter nonsense; James White (of all people!) has openly criticised Morey’s claim we should bomb the Kaaba in Mecca as “stupid” (see the video here).
In this video, Morey attempts to present the biblical evidence for the formal doctrine of the Protestant Reformation, Sola Scriptura. In it, he discusses the difference between Solo and Sola Scriptura, with him summarising the latter view, which he holds to, as being "The final say on whether a doctrine is true, 'is it clearly taught in Scripture?' If it isn't, it isn't mandatory to believe it". However, he then attempts to provide biblical support for this doctrine, which is an ultimate failure, exegetically-speaking.
He quotes an obscure translation of the Bible, The God’s Word Translation (1995), of 1 Cor 4:6, which reads, in part, “not to go beyond what is written in Scripture.” The underlying Greek of this phrase, however, does not support this translation. The Greek reads μὴ ὑπὲρ ἃ γέγραπται, which means “not to go beyond what is written”; there is no mention in any Greek manuscript of this verse which adds “in Scripture”—such is an addition to the text by the translators. Evangelical Protestant translations such as the NIV; 1995 NASB; ESV and other, older Reformed translation, such as the Geneva Bible, render this phrase accurately, without the (eisegetical) addition, “in Scripture.” Morey, in his books, often uses Greek and Hebrew, so he should know better.
In reality, 1 Cor 4:6 does not support Morey’s contention that this verse teaches that “The Bible alone is the final court of appeal; the final authority . . . and that is what the text is saying." I have discussed this passage previously on my blog; do compare Morey’s eisegetical abuse of this verse with the following posts to see if his claims hold up under exegetical scrutiny:
"Does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura? part 9: 1 Corinthians 4:6" (a response to Matt Slick of CARM)
It should also be noted that John Calvin himself did not find this verse to be definitive evidence for Sola Scriptura; in his comments on 1 Cor 4:6, Calvin wrote:
The clause above what is written may be explained in two ways—either as referring to Paul’s writings, or to the proofs from Scripture which he has brought forward. As this, however, is a matter of small moment, my readers may be left at liberty to take whichever they may prefer.