In a previous post, I addressed the following “argument” from a Reformed apologist:
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).
However, for this post, I will address how this “argument” (variations of which are often used in defense of sola scriptura) begs the question.
Allowing for special revelation to cease at the inscripturation of the final book of the New Testament does not “prove” sola scriptura. While it would disprove Latter-day Saint claims to authority (e.g., Joseph Smith being a prophet of God; the Book of Mormon, etc), it goes nowhere to show the formal sufficiency of the Protestant canon of the Bible. Indeed, many groups who agree with Protestants that special revelation ceased at the death of the final apostle (e.g., Roman Catholicism; Eastern Orthodoxy) accept, at best, the material sufficiency of the Bible (ignoring the Old Testament canon debate at the moment). To understand the difference between material and formal sufficiency here is one helpful analogy:
Formal Sufficiency: One has a completed house
Material Sufficiency: One has all the material to build a house
Even granting that the apologist has “proven” (exegetically, he has not, but let us grant that for the sake of the argument) that special revelation ceased near the end of the first century CE, he is simply begging the question vis-à-vis the nature of the sufficiency of the Bible.
Furthermore, the earliest Christians after the time of the New Testament was finalised did not hold to sola scriptura. A colleague of the apologist, C. Michael Patton, tried (using the arguments of Keith Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura [2001]), but such resulted in an utter eisegetical abuse of the patristic sources. See the following posts:
On the concept of material vs. formal sufficiency, a great book to pursue would be Yves Congar, La Tradition Et Les Traditions (English: Tradition and Traditions) and Mark Shea, By What Authority? They are both from a Roman Catholic perspective, but they are very informative works (although the English translation of the Congar work is out of print, one can try to find it second hand—it is a worthwhile read [one can still purchase the 2-volume French text]).
The "argument," not only on an exegetical level is an utter failure, but on a logical basis, too, is nonsense; it is en par with how Catholic apologists, when they refute sola scriptura, assume the papacy and the Catholic understanding of the content/nature of "tradition" to be, ipso facto, true.
Support Scriptural Mormonism
The "argument," not only on an exegetical level is an utter failure, but on a logical basis, too, is nonsense; it is en par with how Catholic apologists, when they refute sola scriptura, assume the papacy and the Catholic understanding of the content/nature of "tradition" to be, ipso facto, true.
