I wrote the following as a note on facebook in March 2012; I am reproducing it here on this blog in case others will find it of benefit, especially as sola scriptura is one of the main issues that has been discussed and refuted on the blog.
Response to Ron Hanko's "Mormonism and the Bible" on the issue of Sola Scriptura
Just recently, I came across a tract by the Presbyterian Reformed Church in America, “Mormonism and the Bible” by Ron Hanko. The tract can be found athttp://www.prca.org/pamphlets/Pamphlet_108.pdf
The opening pages deal with the issue of Sola Scriptura, or “The Bible Alone,” in an attempt to preclude the acceptance of uniquely Latter-day Saint Scriptures (the Book of Mormon; the Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price). The tract lists a series of passages from the New Testament in attempt to “prove” the formal doctrine of the Reformation. However, are they used properly? This short article will be provide an analysis of the texts.
However, before I exegete the texts, there is one fatal flaw with using verses in the Bible to prove Sola Scriptura—the particular verse(s) one will cite cannot, in its original context, support Sola Scriptura as not all Scripture (defining “Scripture” as the 66 books of the Protestant canon) was inscripturated when it was written. For instance, with respect to the favourite proof-text for this doctrine, 2 Tim 3:16-17, not all Scripture had been inscripturated with Paul wrote to Timothy, bishop of Ephesus. If 2 Tim 3:16-17 did not support Sola Scriptura when Paul wrote to Timothy (presuming in this piece Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles [there is a debate in NT scholarship on this, but it is not relevant to this article to address that issue]), it cannot possibly, in any honest, exegetical manner, be used to support Sola Scriptura today.
As one Catholic apologist wrote:
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 extractsola 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.
Source: "Does Scripture Teach Sola Scriptura?" by Robert Sungenis, in Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura (San Goleta, Calif.: Queenship Publishing, 1997), ed. Robert A. Sungenis, pp. 109-67, here, p.128 n. 24.
Now, onto the texts in question.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16).
All Scripture is indeed, “given by inspiration of God” (Greek: God-breathed). However, that begs thequestion—what is the limits of “Scripture”? To assert it is the 66 books of the Protestant canon, one must rely upon a meta-biblical narrative to “prove” the entire canon consists of the 66 books of the Protestant bible, ultimately refuting Sola Scriptura. Furthermore, notice that Paul did not state that Scripture (even if one wants to limit it to the Protestant canon) is formally sufficient, only “profitable.” The Greek word used is ὠφέλιμοςOphilemos. This is a qualitatively weak word, and does not denote formal sufficiency, which would be needed for Sola Scriptura to be true. In addition, there were other words that do denote formal sufficiency in Koine Greek that Paul would have used. Paul could have used ικανος hikanos and αὐτάρκεια autarkeia. Paul knew about these words, and used them, even in the Pastoral Epistles. Note the following:
Ἔστιν δὲ πορισμὸς μέγας ἡ εὐσέβεια μετὰ αὐταρκείας· (1Tim 6:6 [emphasis added])KJV: But godliness with contentment is great gainκαὶ ἃ ἤκουσας παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ διὰ πολλῶν μαρτύρων, ταῦτα παράθου πιστοῖς ἀνθρώποις, οἵτινες ἱκανοὶ ἔσονται καὶ ἑτέρους διδάξαι. (2Tim 2:2 [emphasis added])KJV: And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
One final consideration would be that, if the language used in 2 Tim 3:16-17 reflects Sola Scriptura, what are we to make of a passage such as Ephesiasn 4:11-14 where equally strong language is used of apostles, prophets, and other offices within the New Testament church, without a word being said of Scripture?
And he 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: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.
If one wishes to absolutise 2 Tim 3:16-17 in the long-standing eisegetical manner advocates of Sola Scriptura have done for centuries now, then why can't one absolutise Ephesians 4:11-14 to hold to a belief that apostles, prophets, and other offices within the Church are, to the exclusion of Scripture itself, formally sufficient? Of course, such an approach to Ephesians 4:11-14 is scripture-wrenching of the worst kind, as is an appeal to 2 Tim 3:16-17 to support the formal doctrine of the Reformation (the material doctrine being Sola Fides).
We then move onto the next text used by the author of the tract:
And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:30, 31).
If one is going to use this to support Sola Scriptura, it proves too much; one must limit “Scriptura” to only the Gospel of John, or, to be extremely generous, all inscripturated revealtion up to and including the Gospel of John, but nothing afterward. Furthermore, one could also use John's words in the next chapter (John 21:25) to refute Sola Scriptura, as it shows that there are other authoritative teachings of Jesus that John did not inscripturate. Furthermore, note that John states that he wrote what he did so that one “might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,” and that one can have “[eternal] life through His name.” However, that cannot be said only of the Bible—Evangelicals would agree that one can come to “saving faith” through a gospel tract or a gospel sermon and other means. Will one conclude that such instruments are formally sufficient? To use this passage is to, ultimately, beg too many questions and engage in too much special pleading to be a valid “proof-text.” The only thing John meant here is that, if one listed everything done by Christ, one would have a limitless amount of works. He says absolutely nothing about Sola Scriptura.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed (Galatians 1:8).
This verse has nothing to do with the issue of what “Scripture” is comprised of, nor issues relating to the sufficiency of Scripture. It context, Paul is condemning the Judaizers in Galatia who added circumcision as a requirement for entering the New Covenant. This is condemned as anathema by the apostle Paul. It is eisegesis to rely on this passage.
I am guessing this verse may be used, in an anti-LDS context, as Latter-day Saints believe that an angel was used by God as an instrument in the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. However, Paul is not condemning all angelic visitions, but those that preach “another gospel.” To claim that the Book of Mormon falls under the condemnation of Galatians 1:6-9 is to beg the question.
The next section is similar, “No additions to the Bible permitted.” The first text used is Rev 22:18:
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.
First, notice how the author continually begs the question—he assumes that the Bible encompasses all divinely revealed revelation and reads that into the Bible; however, notice how he never proves it. Furthermore, even allowing for Revealtion to be the final book written (I don't believe it is, but let's us just agree that Robinson in his “Redating the New Testament” is correct on this assessment), Rev 22:18 does not support Sola Scriptura. The Greek word for “book” in this passage is τοῦ βιβλίου tou bibliou, the genetive singular of τα βιβλια ta biblia meaning a scroll or a book. The author of Revelation has one single text in mind, not a collection of books, i.e., the Book of Revelation itself, and not the “Bible” (to use a then-anachronistic term); if John had a collection of works (a codex, for instance) in mind, he would have used the plural, τα βιβλια ta biblia. Again, nothing about Sola Scriptura and the formal sufficiency of the Protestant canon, but pure eisegesis of the Book of Revelation.
Finally, notice the parallel to Deut 4:2 and 12:32:
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (Deut 4:2 [KJV])What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. (Deut 12:32 [KJV])
If one wishes to use Rev 22:18 to "prove" that the Old and New Testaments are the only authority within the framework of Sola Scriptura, then one can, with equal justification, use the two aforementioned texts from Deuteronomy to "prove" that no valid Scripture would be inscripturated after the composition of Deut 4 and 12. Of course, such an hermeneutic is to treat the Bible as silly putty, and not to engage in the historical-grammatical method of exegesis.
And Abraham said unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them (Luke 16:29).
These words were written at a time when the New Testament was not inscripturated en toto, so again, it proves too much. Furthermore, if one wishes to take from Abraham's words in Luke 16:29 a statement about the limit of the canon, it must, at the very most, be limited to the Torah (Moses) and “the prophets” (Nevi'im), two of the three divisions of the Old Testament. If the author wishes to use this verse, he will have to reject the Kethubim (the writings) of the Old Testament, as well as the entire New Testament.
Next, Jude 1:3 is quoted:
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
Jude 1:3 says nothing about the limits of Scripture, let alone if the “Bible” as defined by Protestantism. Again, more question-begging and eisegesis.
The final passage to be used is John 10:35:
And the scripture cannot be broken.
Again, nothing about the limits of the canon, the formal sufficiency of Scripture, and other issues. Again, to use such a passage is to engage in eisegesis. Furthermore, this "scripture" in question refers, not to the entirety of revelation, but Psalm 82:6, previously quoted by Jesus in John 10:34. Absolutising John 10:35, one will have to regard Psalm 82:6 as the entirety of divine revelation. Of course, no one trained in the historical-grammatical mode of exegesis would make such a claim, nor would they use John 10:35 in the way Hanko does.
As seen in this brief analysis, the tract's attempt to “prove” Sola Scriptura is based on eisegesis of Scripture itself.