Friday, June 17, 2016

Desmond Ferguson does not know what Sola Scriptura is!

 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.