One anti-Mormon recently wrote the following in favour of sola scriptura:
Scripture is the infallible written word of God (Matt. 5:17-18; 22:29; John 10:35; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:20-21; etc.). Nothing else qualifies as the infallible written word of God.
Notice how disingenuous the critic is—he is trying to dodge the real issues about the problems with sola scriptura and get readers to think “Scripture” is exhausted by the 66 books of the Protestant canon.
Furthermore, the claim that only Scripture is inspired according to the Bible is a non sequitur. Some argue that, as the term translated “God-breathed” (Greek: θεοπνευστος) is predicated upon “Scripture,” therefore, only inscripturated revelation (read: The Bible) is the only inspired authority from God. There are many problems with this. Firstly, it is question-begging. Furthermore, if an authority can only be inspired from God when such a term is predicated upon it, what about the time before the inscripturation of 2 Tim 3:16? Was there a question about Scripture being God-breathed revelation? If the argument “proves” something, it proves too much.
Furthermore, many authorities are said to be inspired by God (e.g. oral revelation), and such authorities are said to be Paul to be en par with the written word with respect to their authority, such as the following:
Not I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. (1 Cor 11:2)
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. (2 Thess 2:15; cf. 1 Thess 2:13)
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition he received of us. (2 Thess 3:6).
Some Protestants try to relegate the on-going importance of texts that speak highly of “[oral] traditions” in the New Testament during the time the NT was being revealed/inscripturated, arguing that such was not passed down in post-apostolic times, to quote one apologist: "[there is no] basis for thinking that something other than Scripture provides to us today an infallible rule of faith and practice . . . . [no evidence] that such a thing exists outside of Scripture."
Answering this “objection,” one author wrote:
[W]e must challenge the statement that there is no "suggestion that in training these men Timothy would be passing on to them infallible tradition with authority equal to the Word of God." Since in 1 Thess. 2:13 Paul considers his oral teaching an authority equal to Scripture, and then in 2 Thess. 2:15 commands the Thessalonians to preserve this oral teaching, it is certainly reasonable to conclude that the oral teachings given to Timothy, and later entrusted to other reliable men, possessed an authority equal to that of Scripture. To deny such a conclusion there must be substantial proof that [such an] interpretation has no possibility of being correct. Moreover, nothing suggests that the oral teaching to the Thessalonians possessed more authority than the oral teaching to Timothy and his men . . . probably the most devastating [argument against the Protestant approach to] 2 Thess. 2:15 and similar verses is that neither Paul nor any other writers, gives any statement which commands that the Church retire oral revelation, either during the writing of Scripture or once Scripture was completed. Since the Protestant is required to form his doctrine only from mandates found in Scripture, the burden of proof rests on his shoulders to show that Scripture teaches that the propagation of apostolic oral revelation must cease with the completion of Scripture . . . in reality, the debate should stop here until the Protestant can furnish the Scriptural proof for his position. If he believes in sola scriptura, then he is required to give answers from sola scriptura, not answers based on what he thinks is correct and logical. (Robert A. Sungenis, “Point/Counterpoint: Protestant Objections and Catholic Answers," in Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, ed. Robert A. Sungenis [2d ed.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, 2013], 193-294, here, pp. 225-26, 236-37).
This Evangelical continued:
The NT writings produced at the end of the NT period direct Christians to test teachings by remembering the words of the prophets (OT) and apostles (NT), not by accessing the words of living prophets, apostles, or other supposedly inspired teachers (Heb. 2:2-4; 2 Pet. 2:1; 3:2; Jude 3-4, 17).
And yet, in the early portions of the New Testament, believers had recourse to the words of the Prophets (OT) and apostles, such as Timothy (e.g., 2 Tim 2-3) and Bereans (Acts 17:11). Furthermore, what about the final books post-dating Jude 3 and other texts, such as the book of Revelation?
Furthermore, even allowing special revelation to come to a cessation after the inscripturation of the final book of the New Testament, such does not result in sola scriptura--Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox, for instance, would agree with this Evangelical that special revelation ceased with the final book of the New Testament, but there is an authoritative body of non-inscripturated revelation.
Some may retort by responding that such was all eventually written in the Bible, but that is not biblical.
Scripture uses various terms to describe divinely originated revelation, e.g., “the word of God,” (1 Thess. 2:13) “the Spirit of your Father speaking through you” (Matt. 10:20); “in spirit” (Matt 22:43); “filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 4:8), and many others. None of these descriptions is of less divine origin and authority than theopneustos. (Robert A. Sungenis, "Point/Counterpoint: Protestant Objections and Catholic Answers," in Sungenis, ed. Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura [2d ed; Catholic Apologetics International, 2009], pp. 193-294, here, p. 227)
In a footnote (p. 227 n. 52) to the above, we find the following admission from Protestants, similar to that of James White and others, that the authors of the New Testament accepted, en par with inscripturated revelation (not mere subordinate authorities) other sources of revelation and authority:
Note the following statements by prominent Protestant apologists: Greg Bahnsen: “Therefore, according to the Scripture’s own witness, the verbal form and content of the apostolic publication of the gospel message should be deemed wholly true and without error.” Inerrancy of the Autographs. Carl F.H. Henry: “Inerrancy pertains only to the oral or written proclamation of the original inspired prophets and apostles” (quoted in Inerrancy of the Autographs). J.I. Parker: “The concept of biblical inspiration is essentially identical with that of prophetic inspiration…It makes no difference whether its product is oral or written. When in the past evangelical theologians defined God’s words of inspiration as the producing of God-breathed scriptures, they were not denying that God inspired words uttered orally as well. Indeed, in the case of prophets and apostles, the biblical way to put the point is to urge that the words in which these men wrote or dictated are no less God-given than the words they shared orally with the individuals and congregations, for the spoken word came first…and the Spirit speaking in them directed both what was said and how it was said (Matthew 10:19-20)” (The Adequacy of Human Language). Norman Geisler: “Whereas it is true that the oral pronouncements of the living apostles were as authoritative as their written ones (1 Thess. 2:13)…” Also, in the section, “Direct Claims For The Inspiration Of The New Testament,” Geisler states: “Earlier he had reminded them, ‘It was the word of God which you heard from us’ (1 Thess. 2:13)” (From God To Us, Geisler and Nix, pp. 43, 45). Bruce Milne: “This high view of their teaching and preaching applied as fully to their written as to their spoken statements” (Knowing the Truth, p. 32).
As with all other attempted at defences of sola scriptura, this one is an utter failure. The following comment shows the impossible situation defenders of sola scriptura are in:
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]
The defender of sola scriptura, even if successful at showing the Bible represents the totality of written revelation still has to show that the Bible is formally sufficient and the sole, infallible rule of faith. Ultimately, until they can do such, their argument simply begs the question on this point, among others.
In closing, I will quote some of my review of W. Gary Crampton's book, Scritpure Alone (2002), showing that some of the biblical and historical evidence that the biblial authors, and those who proceeded them did not hold to sola scriptura:
In closing, I will quote some of my review of W. Gary Crampton's book, Scritpure Alone (2002), showing that some of the biblical and historical evidence that the biblial authors, and those who proceeded them did not hold to sola scriptura:
Throughout his ministry, Christ never appealed to tradition as authoritative; he never appealed to the church as authoritative; and every time he mentioned tradition, it was only to denounce it. (p. 83)
This flies in the face of many texts, including:
Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. (Matt 23:1-3)
Here, Jesus commands His followers to listen to, and accept, the authoritative (oral as well as written) teachings and interpretations of the scribes and Pharisees. As one commentary stated:
Moses’ seat . . . [is] a metaphor for teaching authority; cf. the professor’s “chair.” . . . ‘whatever they teach you’ refers to their reading of Scripture, ‘they do’ to Pharisaic doctrine and practice. (W.D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Matthew: A Shorter Commentary [London: T&T Clark, 2004], 387)
Notice the following from the Midrash Rabbah:
They made for him [Moses] a chair like that of the advocates, in which one sits and yet seems to be standing. (Exodus Rabbah 43:4)Simply put, the "Chair of Moses" was the teaching authority of the synagogue. Note the following points:
a) On the local level, the "Chair of Moses" was held by the principal rabbi of a particular city's synagogue (e.g. Corinth or Rome).
b) On the regional level, the "Chair of Moses" was held by the principal rabbi of a particular region (e.g. Rabbi Akiba at Jamnia).
c) On the universal level, the "Chair of Moses" was actually held by the High Priest in Jerusalem. This is more than clear from John 11:49-52 and from Acts 23:2-5, where Paul backs down because the law defined the High Priest as "the ruler of thy people."
For the Jews of the Diaspora, one could not be said to be part of Israel if he rejected the rightful authority of Jerusalem. Such a position would make oneself a Samaritan. :-) Indeed, the Jewish historian Josephus says how the Hellenistic Jews before the fall of the theocracy in Palestine looked reverently toward Jerusalem and favored religious currents coming from it: "Doubts were referred there for solution" (Josephus, Contra Apion 1.30-36).
We also know that the Jews of the Dispersion turned to Jerusalem for their Scriptures (2 Maccabees 2.13-15) and for its translation [Est 11.1 [Vulgate]; 10.31 [LXX]). Such were appeals to the ultimate “Chair of Moses" (Matt 23:1-3)--the High Priest and the Sanhedrin itself.
Catholic apologist, Dave Armstrong, has a good paper on the “Chair of Moses” in response to James White, showing that Matt 23 is further proof that sola scriptura is anti-biblical.
Did Early Christians Accept Sola Scriptura?
On pp. 138-39, Crampton tries to argue that Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, Athanasius, and later, on p. 159 Jerome, held to sola scriptura! To see how way out in left field he is in terms of patristic scholarship, let us consider Clement of Rome.
Apostolic Succession
The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ has done so from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits of their labors, having first proved them by the Spirit to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. (1 Clement 42:1-4)
Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect foreknowledge of ths, they appointed those ministers already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed the in their ministry. We are of onion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from their ministry. (1 Clement 44:1-3)
Appeal to authoritative tradition outside of Scripture to settle ecclesiastical disputes:
We are not only writing these things to you, beloved, for your admonition, but also to remind ourselves; for we are in the same arena, and the same struggle is before us. Wherefore let us put aside empty and vain cares, and let us come to the glorious and venerable rule of our tradition (παραδοσις) (1 Clement 7:1-2 [Kirsopp Lake's translation]).
Such sentiments are hardly in line with the claim Clement of Rome held to sola scriptura! Furthermore, Clement of Rome held to baptismal regeneration and rejected sola fide, so he is hardly a theological friend to Crampton!