Desmond Ferguson, an anti-Mormon from Ireland who has backed out of debating me for over a decade now, wrote the following (pp. 4-5 of the .pdf document he sent an Anglican friend of mine):
One issue covered that evening concerning knowing the correctness or otherwise of a "professed" teacher. The standard Mormon response is to say "Ask the Holy Spirit and he will reveal such things to you." As I pointed out, this answer bring the element of feelings to the fore: if it feels good it must be true but if the feeling is not pleasant it must be wrong.
Appealing to the Holy Spirit to confirm to the believer the truth of Scripture is actually something historical Protestants and modern Protestants appeal to (I wonder, if pushed, how Ferguson will claim that he knows that the Bible is inspired scripture?) In the Westminster Confession of Faith, we read the following in chapter 1 "Of the Holy Scripture" (emphasis added):
We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.
Here in this well-known Reformed confession, the believer's ultimate knowledge is based on "the inward work of the Holy Spirit" that "[bears] witness" to the believer that the Scriptures (here, the Bible) is the authoritative Word of God. Sounds pretty familiar? Compare with two well-known texts:
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. ut God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, and deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God: that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Cor 2:9-14)
Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye should remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down unto the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts. And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. (Moroni 10:3-5 | Book of Mormon)
Norman Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie, in their 1995 book, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (Baker: 1995), wrote the following on p. 179 n. 6:
Reformed theologians also believe that the Spirit of God brings divine assurance that the Bible is the Word of God. This is known as the witness of the Spirit. Only the God of the word can bring full assurance that the Bible is the Word of God.. Further, Reformed theologians acknowledge that aid of the Holy Spirit in understanding and applying the Scriptures to our lives. But he does not do this contrary to the Bible or contrary to good rules of biblical interpretation.
Latter-day Saints often appeal to Jas 1:5 as biblical support for such a view:
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him.
Here are examples of scholarly commentaries mirroring the long-standing LDS view of this verse:
Ask of God: That wisdom finds its source in God is axiomatic for the Jewish tradition: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Prov 8:22-31). This cosmic wisdom “from above” found its expression also in “the law which Moses commanded us” (Sir 24:23), so that God can declare of his commandments and statues “keep them and do them, for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples” (Deut 4:6). It was natural, then, to “ask God” for wisdom, but no figure more exemplified this instinct than Solomon, whose “asking” (aitein) for a discerning heart was answered generously by the Lord (1 Kgs 3:5-15). In Wis 7:7, Solomon is made to say, “Therefore I prayed, and understanding was given to me; I called upon God and the spirit of wisdom came to me.” Bede gets the loci of James’ exhortation perfectly: “How am I to see trials in this light . . . it needs a higher wisdom.” (Luke Timothy Johnson, The Letter of James [AB 37A; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1995], 179)
Both Jas 1:5 and 4:2c-3 have a parallel in Matt 7:7, 11 = Luke 11:9, 13. The latter verses are the beginning and ending statements in pericopae (Matt 7:7-11 = Luke 11:9-13) which concern prayer. While some scholars argue for a complex tradition-history behind these synoptic texts, other holds, with better reason, that they defy a history of traditions analysis and conclude that they are unified sections.
Shared by Matthew and Luke and almost identical in wording, these elaborations are, according to most scholars, derived from the common source Q. On the other hand, the differences in the wording and other of Matt 7:9-10 (bread/stone and fish/snake) and Luke 11:11-12 (fish/snake and egg/scorpion), are significant and difficult to explain as either evangelist’s redaction . . . In Matt 7:7-11 = Luke 11:9-13 it is only in the final statements (Matt 7:11 = Luke 11:13) that “asking and receiving” (“seeking” and “knocking”) are clearly related to prayer. Nonetheless, even if the prayer-connection here is due to secondary interpretation, there is nothing in the history of tradition and violates the integrity of these synoptic sections. In other words, already in the sources used by the evangelists these pericopae were unified wholes. It is certainly conceivable that the original elaboration goes back to Jesus.
Against this background, let us look at Jas 1:5 and 4:2c-3. Both concern prayer and share the pertinent lexical terms: αιτειτω . . . και δοθησεται (Jas 1:5) and αιτειτε και . . . λαμβανετε (Jas 4:3; cf. Matt 7:8 = Luke 11:10). Additionally, in Jas 1:5 the reference to God as “the God who gives to all us liberally and does not upbraid,” though clearly different from Matthew’s (“our Father, the one in the heavens, [who] will give good things to those who ask him”) and Luke’s (“the Father, the one from heaven [who] will give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him”), is a linguistic performance that captures the essence of the emphasis on God’s generosity in the Jesus logion. Thus, it appears that in Jas 1:5 the author has recited in his own words the essence of both the fundamental exhortation (Matt 7:7 = Luke 11:9), and the fundamental conclusion (Matt 7:11 = Luke 11:13) of the saying of Jesus in Matt 7:7-11 = Luke 11:9-13. (Luke Timothy Johnson, Brother of Jesus Friend of God: Studies in the Letters of James [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2004], 144, 145-46)
Wisdom is necessary in dealing with trials and afflictions; it may be obtained through prayer to God, vs. 5a. With this divine wisdom the readers will be above to endure suffering with patience and to escape ultimate danger and temptation . . . It is likely that James had such sources of “wisdom” [i.e., books] in mind when he advises his readers to strive after the true wisdom that comes only through prayer. (Bo Reicke, The Epistles of Peter, James, and Jude [AB 37; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1964], 14; square brackets added for clarification)
Desmond then, without any attempt at exegesis, provides biblical texts he claims that are problematic to the Latter-day Saint view:
I put forward the scriptural approach:
Acts 17.11, Examine the Scriptures all the time to see what is taught is true.
For a full exegesis of this verse and a refutation of the claim that it teaches sola scriptura, see this article. However, it should be noted that the Bereans clearly did not accept the formal sufficiency of Scripture. How do we know this? They accepted and put en par with Scripture, a teaching that was not inscripturated at the time of their conversion in Acts 17. This is in violation of sola scriptura which states all other authorities are to be subordinated to scripture. The Bereans were not in favour of sola scriptura. Indeed, sola scriptura would be an impossibility to proof from Acts 17:11 or any other verse from the Bible as it would lead to anachronistic eisegesis of any/all the purported texts Protestants such as Ferguson cite in support of such a doctrine. Note the following:
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]
Steve Ray, a Catholic apologist, has an article from This Rock magazine, "Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura," that is available now online here. It is a very good refutation of how many Protestant apologists appeal to Acts 17:11 as "proof" that the Bereans and the New Testament Church taught sola scriptura. As Ray writes:
The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they "received the word with all eagerness." Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded—not that they searched the Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were "noble-minded" not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians—with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, "The Acts of the Apostles" in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280).
Ferguson then writes the following:
1 Thessalonians 5.19-22, Test everything.
I do find it funny that Ferguson likes to claim LDS are guilty of poor exegetical abilities as this is rather pitiful. Again, let us quote the pericope in question:
Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise the words of prophets, but test everything; hold fast to what is good; abstain from every form of evil.
This text is mirrored by 1 John 4:1
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
These verses are sometimes cited to “prove” that the Bible is the final source of authority and guidance for a Christian. The irony is that these verses cannot possibly mean such, even if Sola Scriptura is true. After all, contemporary with Paul, Timothy, and John, the books of the biblical canon were still being inscripturated. Furthermore, the apostle John twice acknowledges that his written record of Jesus does not deny other extra-biblical records or traditions (John 20:30; 21:35), so long as these traditions do not oppose his teaching and that of the other apostles (cf. 1 John 2:18-19; 4:1-3; 2 John 7-9). For John, the test for authentic Christian teaching is not “Is this written?” (or “Is it part of the Biblical canon?”) Paul echoes this in 1 Tim 4:1, yet it was the same Paul who told Timothy to “. . . stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or by our epistle” (2 Thess 2:15 [see my post on this verse and how the NIV distorts the underlying Greek]) and “hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim 1:13).
Furthermore, the warning in 1 John 4:1 is not against those claiming to have additional revelation from God, but those who deny the humanity of Jesus Christ. This is explained in 1 John 4:2-3:
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whetherof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already it is in the world.
The phrase, “is come in the flesh” is ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα and literally means “has come in the flesh.” John’s comments are aimed against those that would argue in favour of a Docetic Christology, that is, one that denied that Christ was truly human (he only appeared human, to have suffered, to have died, and so forth, but in reality, he did not). LDS Christology, and the Christology of the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price are antithetical to such a Christology. Note, for instance, Christ’s own words, revealed through the Prophet Joseph Smith, in D&C 19:18-19 which stresses the true humanity of Jesus:
Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup and shrink—Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparation unto the children of men.
"Mormonism" does not fall under any condemnation in these texts; funnily enough, Ferguson, due to his acceptance of the man-made doctrine of sola scriptura, falls under the condemnations within 1 Thess 5:19-20!
The final biblical text Ferguson cites is the following (emphasis added):
Galatians 1.6-9, If anyone, no matter how exalted, is preaching a different message from what is in Scripture let him be condemned.
Paul is condemning the Judaizers in Galatia who perverted the gospel; as noted above, sola scriptura would have been an impossibility as there was no “tota scritpura” due to Paul et al. living in a time of special revelation when sola scriptura would not be a valid practice, so Ferguson’s attempt to claim that the “Bible” (1) exhausts “scripture” and (2) that the apostle Paul and his opponents in Galatia were bound by the scriptures available to them only flies in the face of texts such as 1 Thess 2;13; 2 Thess 2;15; 3:6, etc that show that, during the time of the New Testament, the Gospel was not contained in “the Bible” (which would be anachronistic eisegesis anyway!)
Paul is doing something that LDS agree with—if someone preaches a false gospel, they are under a divine curse/anathema. Sadly for Desmond Ferguson, his theology falls under such a divine condemnation; see, for instance, my responses to Ferguson as well as my article responding to another Evangelical, Why Latter-day Saints cannot believe Evangelical Protestantism is True: A Response to Dave Bartosiewicz
Ferguson, to his credit, is consistent--consistent in being deceptive in abusing uniquely LDS Scripture as he abuses the Bible. He writes the following:
I pressed the point by quoting from the Book of Mormon:
Alma 17.2, "They were men of a sound understanding and they had searched the scriptures diligently, that they might know the word of God." (see also Jacob 7.23, "They searched the scriptures, and hearkened no more to the words of this wicked man.")
Firstly, nothing in those Book of Mormon texts teaches the formal sufficiency of “scripture” (which would not equal the Bible anyway!) Furthermore, Ferguson is guilty of the same fallacies when approaching these Book of Mormon passages as he and other Protestants are guilty of when they approach the Bible when quote mining it to support sola scriptura, viz. assuming “word of God” is exhausted by “scripture” and confusing quality with formal sufficiency. Let us examine these two issues in more detail:
The “Word of God” is exhausted by “Scripture”/”the Bible” fallacy
Luke 3:2-3: “Annas and Caiphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness. And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.”
Luke 4:44; 5:1: “And he preached in the synagogues of Galilee. And it came to pass that, as the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, he stood by the lake of Genesaret.”
Luke 8:11-15: “Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil and taketh away the word out of their hears, lest they should believe and be saved. They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation, fall away. And they which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection. But that on the good ground are they, which are in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.”
John 1:1, 14: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”
Acts 4:31: “And when they had parted, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.”
1 Thess 2:13: “For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.”
Heb 11:3: “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do not appear.”
Let us carefully examine one key text that forever refutes this fallacy:
For when David was up in the morning, the word of the Lord came unto the prophet Gad, David's seer . . . (2 Sam 24:11)
I highlight this verse as it refers to Gad as a (true) prophet of God (Heb: נָבִיא) as well as a seer( חֹזֶה ) Why is this important? There is a book in the Bible ascribed to this prophet:
Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of God the seer. (1 Chron 29:29)
Now, Protestant apologists will just tell us that, simply because a work is referenced in the Bible is not proof that such is inspired, and such is unobjectionable, in and of itself. However, this book is not a secular source, but a work of a divinely inspired prophet of God, so the apologist is engaging in special pleading and question-begging. In reality, when it comes to the “missing books in the Bible” issue, our Evangelical friends are incapable of giving a logically consistent answer, something I discussed a few times on this blog, including:
Furthermore, more careful Protestant apologists are more wary of such "arguments." For instance, one defender of sola scriptura wrote the following:
[T]here is a difference between the Word of God, which is eternal (Psalm 119:89, 152, 160), and the Bible, which is not. The Bible is the Word of God written. If one were to destroy one paper Bible, or all paper Bibles, he would not have destroyed the eternal Word of God. One such example is given in Jeremiah 36. The prophet was told by God to write His words in a book, and to read it to the people. Wicked king Jehoiakim, not comfortable with what had been written, had the written Word destroyed. God then told the prophet to write the Word down again. The king had destroyed the written Word, but he had not destroyed God's Word. God's Word is eternal propositions that find expression in written statements. (W. Gary Crampton, By Scripture Alone: The Sufficiency of Scripture [Unicoi, Tenn.: The Trinity Foundation, 2002], 156)
Confusing "quality" with "formal sufficiency"
Forever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven. (Psa 119:89)
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. (Prov 30:5)
Sometimes, one will encounter these and similar verses to support the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. However, Protestant apologists who appeal to these passages confuse the categories of quality and sufficiency. Scripture has the quality of being inspired, and that is what Psa 119:89 and Prov 30:5 teaches; however, neither do these passages teach formal sufficiency, something which would be an impossibility anyway, as the entirety of the Bible was not written when those these texts were written (sola scriptura can only be operative when the totality of scripture is available [tota scriptura] according to Protestant theologians and apologists). Only by engaging in a common logical fallacy can one appeal to passages that speak highly of the quality of Scripture can one read formal sufficiency into such passages.
Furthermore, scholarly commentators on the Bible does not support such an eisegetical reading of such texts. For instance, R.B.Y. Scott in his Anchor Bible commentary rendered the verse as “Everything God says has stood the test! He is their shields who trust in them.” Commenting on this passage, he wrote:
The reply of the orthodox believer to the challenge of the skeptic: God’s self-revelation in his word is confirmed in the experience of the religious man. The language is pedestrian and sounds like a composite quotation from written scripture; cf. Prov xvii 30 EV; Deut iv 2; Job xiii 10, xxiv 25. (R.B.Y. Scott, Proverbs & Ecclesiastes [Anchor Bible; Garden City: Doubleday, 1965], 176-77)
Finally, further proof of Ferguson’s deceptiveness and lack of honesty can be
seen when one quotes Alma 17:3, the very next verse(!)
But this is not all; they had given themselves to much
prayer, and fasting; therefore they had
the spirit of prophecy, and the spirit of revelation, and when they taught,
they taught with power and authority of God.
Such is hardly support of the
Book of Mormon teaching what Ferguson claims (deceptively) it to be teaching—in
fact, it refutes it, as their oral teaching, when inspired by God, was “inspired” and en par with inscripturated revelation!
Conclusion
To summarise Ferguson's arguments and abuse of both the Bible and the Book of Mormon as vacuous and deceptive would be pretty accurate; it is, however, compounded by the fact that he portrays himself falsely as an "expert" on "Mormonism" and a host of other issues that he clearly knows next to nothing about.
As noted previously, I first challenged Ferguson to debate back in 2006. He has consistently refused to debate me or any other informed Latter-day Saint; instead, he deliberately targets LDS missionaries who tend to be 18-20 year olds who don't know much, if anything at all, about "controversial" issues or issues about how to answer sola scriptura. This should show the lack of intellectual honesty and integrity (as well as testicular fortitude) on this behalf.
If anyone wants to see a debate (whether written or public) between me and Desmond on sola scriptura (the main topic I have openly challenged him on), one can try to contact him. I am game. Perhaps, this time, he will not cower out of a debate with an informed opponent for once.
Additional Reading
Latter-day Saints and the Bible - a discussion of the Latter-day Saint view of the Bible
Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura - ful-length refutation of Sola Scriptura.
Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura - ful-length refutation of Sola Scriptura.
Latter-day Saints have chosen the true, biblical Jesus - presentation of some of the (overwhelming) biblical evidence for LDS Christology
