During the cross examination period of a debate between Roman Catholic (now Sedevacantist) apologist Gerry Matatics and James White on the topic of sola scriptura, the following exchange took place:
Gerry Matatics (M): Did the people in Jesus' day practice sola scriptura? The hearers of our Lord?
James White (W): I have said over, and over, and over again that sola scriptura is a doctrine that speaks to the normative condition of the Church, not to times of inscripturation.
M: So your answer is "no"?
W: That is exactly what my answer is--it is "no"
M: Did the apostles practice sola scriptura, Mr. White? Yes or no
W: No
M: Thank you; did the successors to the apostles practice sola scriptura; only believing that Timothy [in 2 Tim 3:16-17] only believed what Paul had written him?
W: Eh, what do you mean? The first generations who were alive during the time of inscripturation?
M: Titus . . .
W: Again, as you should know as a graduate of Westminster theological seminary, you are asking every question of a straw-man--it [sola scriptura] speaks of times after the inscripturation of Scripture.
M: Thank you Mr. White
W: So I am glad to affirm everything you said.
M: So, Mr. White; you admit then that Jesus didn't practice sola scriptura . . .
W: I asserted it
M: . . . His hearers do not; the apostles do not and their successors do not; and yet you want to persuade this audience that they should depart from this pattern for reasons you believe are sufficient and now adopt a different methodology . . .
This is yet another nail in the coffin of sola scriptura, as it shows that the doctrine could not have been practiced during the time of the New Testament Church and, as a result, cannot be proven from the Bible itself.
Anytime one is in a discussion with a Protestant and they make an assertion about where truth is to be found, one should ask (as I do), "Where does the Bible teach that a doctrine must come from the Bible?" If they point to a certain verse or pericope, they have trapped themselves two-fold: (1) for Protestants, everything, and I mean EVERYTHING they claim as truth on faith and morals must come from the Bible and (2) any verse of the Bible that they claim teaches that the Bible is the only source of doctrine means that the verse was teaching Sola Scriptura to the first century Christians who were alive at a time of inscripturation, forcing them to either [a] reject it as an uninspired text or [b] abandon it as a valid passage in support of sola scriptura and reject sola scriptura! They are in an unenviable position to be in. To quote one expert in refuting Sola Scriptura:
It is an accepted fact, among both Catholics and Protestants, that the apostles and prophets gave oral instruction to the first century Christians, in addition to written instruction contained in the Bible. This was no ordinary oral instruction. In 1 Thessalonians 2:13, Paul says that this oral revelation to the people was to be considered the very words of God himself. This is also why in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Paul told these same Thessalonians to preserve the oral instruction, along with the written.
Now here is the unanswerable problem, if you haven't discovered it already. How can the Bible be teaching the first century Christians that only the Bible is their inerrant source of authority, if at the same time, oral revelation was still being given to them?? You can't claim that there is only one source of authority (the Bible) while allowing two sources of authority (the Bible and oral revelation). Logically, the Bible cannot teach Sola Scriptura to the first century Christians. If it did, it would be contradicting itself, as well as the oral revelation that was still being given. This is the trap of Sola Scriptura, and it is an inescapable trap. (Robert Sungenis, Answers to James White on the Bodily Assumption of Mary)
This same author noted the following which is spot-on:
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 [2d ed: Catholic Apologetics International: 2009], pp. 101-53, here p. 118 n. 24]
In spite of all the rhetoric Evangelical Protestants spew about believing what the apostles and Christ believed, they hold as a central practice and doctrine a teaching antithetical to the apostles and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Unlike our Evangelical friends, Latter-day Saints reject a doctrine that the Lord Jesus and the New Testament Church rejected—the formal sufficiency of Scripture. Anyone who teaches otherwise is preaching a false gospel (cf. Gal 1:6-9).
For more information, see my previous discussions of sola scriptura and other articles, such as Latter-day Saints and the Bible, for further refutations of this man-made tradition (cf. Col 2:8).
