Matt Slick has recently posted another article attempting to “prove” sola scriptura by using 1 Tim 3:15:
This is not the first time that Matt has, in an attempt to support Sola Scriptura, has shown that he lacks any exegetical abilities. See, for instance:
1 Tim 3:15 reads as follows:
But in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of truth. (1995 NASB)
Commenting on this passage, Slick writes that:
[Paul] is writing to them (Scripture), so that they would know how to behave in the household of God. In other words, his writing (which is Scripture) is the thing that is preeminent and to which the church is to subject itself. He says, " . . . I write so that you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God . . . " . . . But, we see from Paul's statement in the verse that his letter is there to tell the church how to behave. In other words, the church is to submit to Scripture--not Scripture to the church. It is not the tradition that informs the word of God but the word of God that informs tradition in the church.
There are many problems with Slick’s eisegesis of this passage to support sola scriptura.
Firstly, Paul was writing to Timothy, bishop of Ephesus, at a time of special revelation. Even according to Protestant apologists, sola scriptura would not be something Paul et al. taught as, to teach and practice sola scriptura, there must first be tota scriptura. As Robert Sungenis noted:
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])
So, even if sola scriptura is a true doctrine, 1 Tim 3:15 could not be teaching such. This is supported further by the fact that, during ministry of Paul, non-inscripturated revelation was privileged en par with inscripturated revelation; this is inconsistent with sola scriptura, as only written revelation is the ultimate authority and all other sources of truth are to be subordinated to such:
Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances [Gk.: παραδοσις "tradition"], as I delivered them to you. (1 Cor 11:2)
For I received from the Lord that which also I delivered unto you . . . (1 Cor 11:23)
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. (1 Thess 2:13)
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. (2 Thess 2:15)
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. (2 Thess 3:6)
While other refutations to Slick can be provided, let us focus on one more--the New Testament Church's own understanding of the nature of the Church's authority. We see this explicitly in the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 where it is, ultimately, the authority of the Church, not the Scriptures, that results in the dogmatic decision vis-á-vis Gentile converts and circumcision.
True, there is an appeal to an Old Testament text, viz. Amos 9:11 (LXX) by James (seemingly, who is the bishop of Jerusalem, per tradition). The text is used as Old Testament support for the belief that Gentiles do not have to be circumcised before entering the New Covenant. However, when one reads this text in its context, nothing is said about the cessation of the requirement of circumcision; furthermore, James is reliant upon the LXX notwithstanding its obvious translation mistakes. In Acts 15:13–17, James appeals to Amos 9:11–12 in an effort to support through scripture the taking of the gospel directly to the Gentiles and the cessation of circumcision. It even seems James’ quotation helps settle the debate. The critical portion of Amos 9 reads
In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this. (Amos 9:11)
This reading comes from LXX Amos, although there is a bit of movement. For instance, “the Lord” is an addition. The LXX actually omits the object, reading, “so that the remnant of the people might seek, and all the nations . . .” There is also a clause missing from Acts’ quotation (“and set it up as the days of old”). The important observation, however, is the Greek translation’s relationship to the Hebrew. The crucial section reads in the Greek, “so that the remnant of the people might seek,” but in the Hebrew, “that they may possess the remnant of Edom.” The confusion with Edom arises likely because of the lack of the mater lectionis which we find in MT in the word אדום. Without it, the word looks an awful lot like אדם , “man,” or “humanity.” The verb “to possess” (יירשׁו), was also misunderstood as “to seek” (ידרשׁו). It is unlikely that MT is secondary. First, there’s no object for the transitive verb εκζητησωσιν, “that they might seek.” Second, the reading in MT makes more sense within the context. David’s fallen house would be restored so that it might reassert its authority, specifically in overtaking the remnant of Edom (see Amos 1:11–12) and “all the nations,” for which Edom functions as a synecdoche (Edom commonly acts as a symbol for all of Israel’s enemies [Ps 137:7; Isa 34:5–15; 63:1–6; Lam 4:21]). The notion that the restoration of the Davidic kingdom would cause the remnant of the people and all the nations to seek the Lord is also a bit of a disconnection within Amos. This quotation shows not only that the early church relied on the Septuagint, but that it rested significant doctrinal decisions on the Greek translation, even when it represented a misreading of the underlying Hebrew. Christians today reject the inspiration of the LXX, but the New Testament firmly accepted it, and if the New Testament is inspired in its reading of LXX Amos 9:11-12, which is itself a misreading of the original reading, then the current Hebrew Old Testament is in error. (See Gary D. Martin, Multiple Originals: New Approaches to Hebrew Bible Textual Criticism [Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010], pp. 255-61 for more information on this issue).
Furthermore, Amos 9:11-12 is silent about the cessation of circumcision, speaking only of the rebuilding of the tabernacle of David which was interpreted to mean that the influx of Gentile converts into the Church fulfilled the text (see Acts 15:16-18). The "hermeneutical lens," if you will, that helped this was not Scripture, but Peter's experiences as recorded in vv.1-11.
Acts 15 opens with the account of various men from Judea who were teaching the brethren that unless a man is circumcised according to the custom of Moses, he cannot be saved, resulting in the council being called Verse 7 tells us that there was much debate among them. Apparently, they could arrive at no firm resolution on the issue of whether a new Gentile convert had to be circumcised.
This was a difficult problem. There was no Scripture they could point to that predicted or allowed a rescinding of circumcision. In fact, since circumcision was first performed with Abraham 700 years before the Mosaic law was instituted, one might think that it had a special place in God's economy outside the Mosaic law. And to the Jews, the Torah was unchangeable. Further, there was no tradition for the apostles and elders to fall back on. The Talmud, the Mishnah, and all oral teaching never even suggested that the act of circumcision could be rescinded.
Notwithstanding, Acts 15:7 records Peter standing up and addressing the apostles and elders. Three times in this speech he invokes the name of God to back up his single authority to speak on this issue and make a decision for the whole Church. In verse 7 he says that God choose him, singularly, to give the gospel to the Gentiles. In Acts 15:10 he ridicules those who are pressing for circumcision by accusing them of affronting God and placing an undue yoke upon new believers. Peter concludes in verse 11 by declaring the doctrine of salvation - that men are saved by grace, not works of law, and only after that, does James stand up, as bishop of Jerusalem, and cite Amos 9:11-12. There is nothing in Acts 15 to support the formal sufficiency of Scripture; instead, it proves the authoritative teaching authority of the Church.
Unlike Matt slick the Bible itself affirms a much higher view of the "Church" than he will allow. Latter-day Saints are reflective of "Biblical Christianity" on this point; Slick's ecclesiology and epistemology are not just sub-biblical; they are anti-biblical.
As we see, another "proof-text" used by Protestant apologists to support sola scriptura is revealed to be based on pure eisegesis.