In a (lame) attempted critique of Jaxon Washburn's article, My Answers to "A Defense of Sola Scriptura", one Evangelical apologist wrote, in part, the following:
Second, the doctrine of sola scriptura maintains that the *whole* Bible as a body of scriptural texts functions for the Christian church as a complete written standard for Christian doctrine and practice. This does not mean we think (for example) that Abraham or Moses had that same complete collection of Scripture; Abraham probably had no scripture at all. Thus, it is not a sound objection to sola scriptura to point out that the NT added to the OT.
Perhaps unknowingly, this Evangelical Protestant, in an attempt to defend sola scriptura, caught himself like a fly in a Venus flytrap.
Firstly, as I noted to Jaxon:
He does realise this means he cannot point to any biblical text to support the doctrine? 2 Tim 3 was not written before the completion of the *whole* Bible and the same applies for all other "proof-texts"; again, to quote Robert Sungenis:
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])
Secondly, this is not the first time that this apologist has shot himself in the foot. As I noted in a post entitled Were Apostolic Oral Traditions Retired after the New Testament era? where, in a debate (youtube link) with an Eastern Orthodox priest and apologist, this same apologist tried 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, and in his rebuttal said that "[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 Catholic apologist 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 the Catholic 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).
That the post-New Testament Church did not hold to sola scriptura, see the following responses to C. Michael Patton's eisegesis of the early Christian authors:
I have discussed sola scriptura many times on this blog; click here for pages exegeting various biblical and early Christian texts allegedly supporting this doctrine.
