I
have written about Desmond Ferguson, an Irish-based anti-Mormon who, over the
past decade, I have been trying to get to debate me and he has refused
(although he flaunts himself as an “expert” and would often speak at Anglican
Church groups on the LDS Church). For previous posts on Ferguson and his
misrepresentations of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, see:
Attempted
Email exchange between Ferguson and I on some of his claims against LDS
theology/in favour of Sola Scriputra (summer 2008--one of many times he has
ran away from debating me and defending his false claims)
Recently,
while browsing the archives of Irish Church Missions (the group Ferguson used
to be associated with until his retirement), I encountered the Spring
2006 issue of "ICM News: The Banner of Truth in Ireland." On page
6 of this, there is an article by Desmond ("Dezi") entitled, "Challenging
a Hindu's View." Apart from his poor grasp of Greek exegesis (he did a
lousy job on John 1:1c [click here]),
what really struck me was the following when answering a question about the
differences between Evangelical Protestantism and Roman Catholicism (emphasis
added):
I said the fundamental difference was that an Evangelical would use the Bible as the
only source for spiritual truth, whereas the Roman Catholic would always
look to the Vatican as the only true interpreter of God's word.
Why
is this amazing? Ferguson has prided himself on being a self-proclaimed expert
on religion and, according to his claims, has been studying these issues since
the 1950s. However, he doesn’t even understand the very basics of his own
faith. The above is not historical
Protestantism and its understanding of the nature of the Bible. Sola Scriptura does not state that the Bible is “the only source for spiritual truth”
(that is solo scriptura); instead, it states that the Bible is the final authority for faith and morals,
and all other sources of truth are to be subordinated to such! In recent years,
more careful Protestant apologists have written books that, in part, are to
refute this false understanding of sola scriptura, such as Keith Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Canon
Press, 2001). See Mathison's article, "Solo
Scriptura: The Difference a Vowel Makes" from the Reformed journal Modern Reformation, which critiques
Ferguson's understanding of the Bible. I can see why Ferguson will not debate
informed opponents on sola scriptura and other topics!
We
even see this in section VIII ("Of the Creeds") of the 39 Articles
of Religion which Irish Church Missions holds to:
The Nicene Creed, and that which is commonly
called the Apostles' Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for
they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.
Notwithstanding,
regardless of the variation of the understanding of “Scripture Alone” (whether
sola or solo scriptura), such is
without exegetical support.
In
this article, Ferguson claims that a Roman Catholic looks to the Vatican for
the final interpretation of the Bible, something that was discussed by Pius XII
in section 12 of Munificentissimus
Deus (1 November, 1950):
For, as the Vatican Council asserts,
"all those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which
are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are
proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and
universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be
believed."
However,
Ferguson is begging an important question--the issue of how he, as a
Protestant, can arrive to a correct interpretation of the Bible.
In
response to the thesis of Mathison, Bryan Cross and Neal Judisch concluded
that:
Only where
ecclesial authority has its basis in Christ’s authorization and commission is
the individual’s interpretation ultimately subject to that of the Church.
Mathison’s positive intention to read and understand Scripture in the Church
has genuine implications only if ‘Church’ is not defined as those who interpret
Scripture like he does regarding the marks of the Church. But authorization and appointment by
the incarnate Christ can be found only in those having the succession of
authorizations extending back through the Apostles to Christ Himself. Without
apostolic succession, the individual has no less interpretive authority than
does the Church. For this reason, only by recovering apostolic succession can
Protestants overcome solo scriptura and all its destructive effects. May Christ the Good Shepherd bring us all into the one flock with
one shepherd. (John 10:16).
In
my paper, "Latter-day
Saints and the Bible," I show how passages such as Acts 15 refutes
Protestant (and Ferguson's) epistemology.
What
is clear is that Desmond Ferguson not only is ignorant of, and deceptive in his
presentation of “Mormonism,” the Bible, science, etc., but he is even grossly
ignorant of his own flavour of Protestantism by not understanding what sola
scriptura is! I can see why he has refused to debate these issues against me
over the years, though it is sad that he proclaims himself to others as an
expert on the issues.
