Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura

The following is a full review and critique of the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura from a Latter-day Saint ("Mormon") perspective. The main focus will be engaging with the various biblical texts often used to support Sola Scriptura, the formal doctrine of Protestantism. However, there is an appendix dealing with a number of patristic-era authors whose writings clearly show that, apart from being anti-biblical, Sola Scriptura is also ahistorical. For those wishing to delve further into Sola Scriptura, one should pursue the various texts listed under "Recommended books on the Sola Scriptura debate."

What is Sola Scriptura?

For a short but succinct definition of Sola Scriptura and the (formal) sufficiency of the Bible, the following comes from the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646):

The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture [here, the category of “Scripture” is exhausted, in the theology of the confession, by the “Bible”], or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or tradition of men. (Article 1 section 6)

For a lengthier, more sustained definition and defence of this doctrine, let us quote from Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie, two leading Protestant apologists, from their article "What is Sola Scriptura?":

Sola Scriptura—A Definition
By sola Scriptura Protestants mean that Scripture alone is the primary and absolute source for all doctrine and practice (faith and morals). Sola Scriptura implies several things. First, the Bible is a direct revelation from God. As such, it has divine authority. For what the Bible says, God says.

Sola Scriptura—The Sufficiency of Scripture
Second, the Bible is sufficient: it is all that is necessary for faith and practice. For Protestants “the Bible alone” means “the Bible only” is the final authority for our faith.

Sola Scriptura—The Authority of Scripture
Third, the Scriptures not only have sufficiency but they also possess final authority. They are the final court of appeal on all doctrinal and moral matters. However good they may be in giving guidance, all the fathers, Popes, and Councils are fallible. Only the Bible is infallible.

Sola Scriptura—The Clarity of Scripture
Fourth, the Bible is perspicuous (clear). The perspicuity of Scripture does not mean that everything in the Bible is perfectly clear, but rather the essential teachings are. Popularly put, in the Bible the main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things. This does not mean — as Catholics often assume — that Protestants obtain no help from the fathers and early Councils. Indeed, Protestants accept the great theological and Christological pronouncements of the first four ecumenical Councils. What is more, most Protestants have high regard for the teachings of the early fathers, though obviously they do not believe they are infallible. So this is not to say there is no usefulness to Christian tradition, but only that it is of secondary importance.

Solo Scriptura—The Interpretiveness of Scripture
Fifth, Scripture interprets Scripture. This is known as the analogy of faith principle. When we have difficulty in understanding an unclear text of Scripture, we turn to other biblical texts. For the Bible is the best interpreter of the Bible. In the Scriptures, clear texts should be used to interpret the unclear ones.

Now let us critique Sola Scriptura in detail.

Falling at the First Hurdle: Why Sola Scriptura is an exegetical impossibility

Before I begin exegeting the relevant texts, one has to realise that the defender of sola scriptura is in an impossible bind, exegetically and logically speaking if/when they attempt to use biblical texts (e.g., 1 Cor 4:6) to “prove” the formal sufficiency of the Bible. Why? Simply because that, regardless of the text one cites, it was written at a time of special revelation, and during such times, even according to defenders of sola scriptura, sola scriptura was not the normative rule of faith for the people of God as there was no totality of scripture (tota scriptura has to be in place for there to be sola scriptura).

 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 Publishing, Inc., 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.

During the cross examination period of a debate between Roman Catholic (now Sedevacantist) apologist Gerry Matatics and James White on the topic of sola scriptura, the following exchange took place:

Gerry Matatics (M): Did the people in Jesus' day practice sola scriptura? The hearers of our Lord?

James White (W): I have said over, and over, and over again that sola scriptura is a doctrine that speaks to the normative condition of the Church, not to times of inscripturation.

M: So your answer is "no"?

W: That is exactly what my answer is--it is "no"

M: Did the apostles practice sola scriptura, Mr. White? Yes or no

W: No

M: Thank you; did the successors to the apostles practice sola scriptura; only believing that Timothy [in 2 Tim 3:16-17] only believed what Paul had written him?

W: Eh, what do you mean? The first generations who were alive during the time of inscripturation?

M: Titus . . .

W: Again, as you should know as a graduate of Westminster theological seminary, you are asking every question of a straw-man--it [sola scriptura] speaks of times after the inscripturation of Scripture.

M: Thank you Mr. White

W: So I am glad to affirm everything you said.

M: So, Mr. White; you admit then that Jesus didn't practice sola scriptura . . .

W: I asserted it

M: . . . His hearers do not; the apostles do not and their successors do not; and yet you want to persuade this audience that they should depart from this pattern for reasons you believe are sufficient and now adopt a different methodology . . .

This is yet another nail in the coffin of sola scriptura, as it shows that the doctrine could not have been practised during the time of the New Testament Church and, as a result, cannot be proven from the Bible itself.

In the January 4, 2020 episode of his "The Dividing Line" podcast, in response to Eastern Orthodox apologist Jay Dyer, White again admitted that 2 Tim 3:16-17 and like-texts cannot support sola Scriptura as they were all written before tota scriptura was in effect:

So when you hear that, what is the assumption that you need to identify? Well, first of all, it is not Paul's intention to be addressing the canon of scripture in writing to Timothy. He's writing to Timothy during a period of inscripturation. Was Titus written after this? Did Paul even recognise which of his books, because we know he wrote other letters, did he himself know which would be in the canon of scripture if he even was thinking of a canon of scripture? There's no way he could even be communicating with Peter or with Jude or with John or with Matthew or Mark, or Luke (well, with Luke he could). So he doesn't know what the apostles, he didn't go say [on phone] John, where are you, just working on Colossians here, alright, thanks [off phone]. That wasn't a possibility. Couldn't be done. So he's not talking about the canon of scripture. So, if you use 2 Timothy 3 to establish canon of scripture, you would be in error. And what they're doing is they're making you defend that by the way they make the statement. Now, that is what Karl Keating did, and I just saw so many Christians getting pushed into defending something, that's something what happened when Gerry [Matatics] and I debated the Papacy in Denver and Keating and Madrid debated two Fundamentalist Baptists the same night. (beginning at the 1:31:43 mark)

Commenting on White’s admission that Sola Scriptura was not operative during the apostolic era, Joe Heschmeyer in "Was Sola Scriptura True During the Apostolic Age?” wrote the following with respect to how this actually undermines Sola Scriptura (emphasis in original):

James White quite reasonably notes that sola Scriptura cannot be true while new revelation is still being transmitted.  After all, even if every prophet shared their revelations via text, they didn’t receive them from God that way.  He’s absolutely right on this.  But it leaves him in an awkward position.

White’s really conceding something rather jaw-dropping: sola Scriptura wasn’t true when the Bible was being written. So the Bible obviously doesn’t teach sola Scriptura (since it wasn’t true then).  This means three things:

1. All of the Protestant proof-texts that supposedly “prove” sola Scriptura from the Bible are false.  If sola Scriptura wasn’t true when Paul wrote his second letter to Timothy, then clearly, 2 Timothy 3:15-17 doesn’t teach sola Scriptura.

2. It shows sola Scriptura to be un-Scriptural and self-refuting. White’s admitting that sola Scriptura (which holds that all doctrines must come from Scripture) is a doctrine that doesn’t come from Scripture.

3. It shows sola Scriptura to be contrary to Scripture.  In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, St. Paul writes to the Thessalonians, saying, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the Traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”  This pretty clearly shows that there were Apostolic Traditions passed on by letter (what we would today call the New Testament), and other Apostolic Traditions passed on only by word of mouth.  At the time Paul was writing, there were teachings which were only contained in the oral teachings of the Apostles, and were not at that time written down (otherwise, Paul’s instructions are redundant).  White’s admission solidifies this: the Bible at that time did not contain the full revelation.

So this leaves Protestants in a truly bizarre position.  In order to affirm the un-Scriptural doctrine that all doctrines have to come from Scripture, Protestants have to nullify the word of God found in 2 Thessalonians 2:15.   So I wholeheartedly agree with James White that sola Scriptura wasn’t true during the Apostolic age.  But given that, it can’t suddenly become true on its own later.  In defending the truth of the Gospel, White is showing the hollowness of the doctrine of sola Scriptura.

Anytime one is in a discussion with a Protestant and they make an assertion about where truth is to be found, one should ask (as I do), "Where does the Bible teach that a doctrine must come from the Bible?" If they point to a certain verse or pericope, they have trapped themselves two-fold: (1) for Protestants, everything, and I mean EVERYTHING they claim as truth on faith and morals must come from the Bible and (2) any verse of the Bible that they claim teaches that the Bible is the only source of doctrine means that the verse was teaching Sola Scriptura to the first century Christians who were alive at a time of inscripturation, forcing them to either [a] reject it as an uninspired text or [b] abandon it as a valid passage in support of sola scriptura and reject sola scriptura! They are in an unenviable position to be in.

One Protestant (Church of Ireland) historian, R.P.C. Hanson, wrote the following about the reception of oral tradition in early Christianity and the utter uncertainty he, as an informed Protestant theologian and historian, has that the oral traditions spoken positively about in the New Testament were all inscripturated (a view he seriously doubts):

[I]t is possible that, though oral tradition must have been to a large extent written down during the first Christian century, inasmuch as all the written tradition which we now possess must at one time have been oral, yet some of this oral tradition may have survived. It may have been handed on from generation to generation in their Church, without being written down, and may either have been written down centuries after the Church’s official writing down of tradition which we call the New Testament, or may never have been written down at all, and may still be preserved and available in the Church, oral but intact. Possible instances of such a tradition as this are the number, names, and authorship of the books of the New Testament, the practice of baptizing infants, and some primitive traditions forming the basis of dogmas later officially adopted in the Christian Church, or in parts of it, such as the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the doctrine of the Prerogatives of Peter, and the doctrine of Purgatory. (R.P.C. Hanson, Origen’s Doctrine of Tradition [London: SPCK, 1954], 32)

Robert M. Bowman jr., in an attempted critique of Jaxon Washburn's article, My Answers to "A Defense of Sola Scriptura", wrote, in part, the following to Jaxon which was shared with me, which mirrors the admission of White:

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.

Interestingly, this same apologist is forced to deny total scriptura in order to defend sola Scriptura. In an article attempting to defend Sola Scriptura (Understanding Sola Scriptura: The Evangelical View of the Authority of the Bible; cf. Mormonism and Alleged “Lost Books” of the Bible also by the same author—a wonderful case of question-begging and special pleading), Bowman tries to defend the doctrine in such a manner:

Objection: God may have inspired writings in the past to which we no longer have access. For example, we don’t have all of Paul’s letters to the Corinthians.
Answer: Sola scriptura does not claim that all inspired writings of the past must exist and be accessible to us today. Might any of Paul’s missing letters to the Corinthian congregation have been inspired? Sure, but since we don’t have them, the point is moot. Scripture is by definition whatever extant writings there are qualifying as the word of God.

The definition of sola scriptura is a novelty (that the Bible possibly lacks inspired books and that “scripture” is not one-to-one equivalent to the Bible). Such flies in the face of the Westminster Confession of Faith, for example. In chapter 1 paragraph 2, where “the name of holy Scripture, or the Word of God written are now contained all the Books of the Old and New Testament” (the WCF then lists all 66 books of the Protestant canon) and that, speaking of these 66 books:

The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men . . . (WCF 1:6)

Bowman, in an attempt to defend the anti-biblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura must present a novel (I am sure those at Westminster would say “perverted”) understanding of the various elements making up the doctrine. His approach, not only leads to a rejection of tota scriptura but ultimately will also lead one to a rejection of the formal sufficiency of the Bible.

Many Protestants are coming to realise the precarious nature of Sola Scriptura. Richard Swinburne, at the time of writing, a Protestant (he would later convert to Eastern Orthodoxy in 1996), wrote the following caution about those wishing to accept rather uncritically this doctrine:

The slogan of Protestant confessions, “the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself” (e.g. Article 1 of the Westminster Confession) is quite hopeless. The Bible does not belong to an obvious genre which provides rules for how overall meaning is a function of meaning of individual books. We must have a preface. And if not a preface in the same volume, a short guide by the same author issued in the same way as the Bible, providing disambiguation and publicly seen by the intended audience to do so. Such a guide would be an extension of the original work. And that said, there is of course such a guide. It is the Church’s creeds and other tradition of public teaching of  items treated as central to the Gospel message . . . the Bible. . . . must therefore be interpreted in the light of the Church’s teaching as a Christian document. (Richard Swinburne, Revelation: From Metaphor to Analogy [Oxford: Clarendon, 1992], 177).

A Self-Attesting, Self-Authenticating, Formally Sufficient Scripture?

Often, in a desperate attempt to support the doctrine of sola scriptura some Protestant apologists will argue that all a Christian needs is the Holy Spirit, not an authoritative Church and/or additional Scripture such as those that Latter-day Saints accept (i.e., Book of Mormon; Doctrine and Covenants; Pearl of Great Price). Of course, this would mean that the Holy Spirit is schizophrenic, guiding Protestants who embrace sola scriptura to radically divergent views on central, not merely “minor” issues, such as baptismal regeneration which affects salvation itself(!)

John Whiteford, a former Protestant who is now Eastern Orthodox, wrote the following in response to some of the fallacious arguments forwarded by defenders of sola scriptura:

APPROACH #2: The Holy Spirit provides the correct understanding.

Presented with the numerous groups that arose under the banner of the Reformation that could not agree on the interpretation of Scriptures, Protestant scholars next proposed as a solution the assertion that the Holy Spirit would guide the pious Protestants to interpret the Scriptures rightly. But everyone who disagreed doctrinally could not possibly be guided by the same Spirit. The result was that each group tended to de-Christianize all those who differed from it.

If this approach were a valid one, we would be left with one group of Protestants which had rightly interpreted the Scriptures. But which one of the thousands of denominations could it be? The answer depends on which Protestant you are speaking to. One thing you can be sure of—those who use this argument invariably are convinced their group is it.

As denominations stacked upon denominations, it became a correspondingly greater stretch for any of them to say with a straight face that only they had it right. So it has become increasingly common to minimize the differences between denominations and simply conclude those differences do not much matter. “Perhaps each group has a piece of the Truth, but none of us has the whole Truth.”

APPROACH #3: Let the clear passages interpret the unclear

This must have seemed the perfect solution to the problem of how to interpret the Bible by itself—let the easily understood passages interpret those which are not clear. The logic of this approach is simple. Though one passage may state a truth obscurely, surely the same truth would be clearly stated elsewhere in Scripture. So simply use these clear passages as the key, and you will have unlocked the meaning of the obscure passage . . . As promising as this method seems, it soon proved an insufficient solution to the problem of Protestant chaos and division. The point at which this approach disintegrates is in determining which passages are clear and which are obscure.

Those Protestants who believe it is impossible for a Christian to lose his salvation see a number of passages which they maintain quite clearly teach their doctrine of eternal security. For example, “For the gifts and callings of God are without repentance” (Romans 11:29), and “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand” (John 10:27, 28).

But when such Protestants come across verses which seem to teach salvation can be lost, such as “The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression” (Ezekiel 33:12), and “He that endureth unto the end shall be saved” (Matthew 10:22; cf. 24:13; Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12; cf. 21:7), they use their passages that are “clear” to explain away these passages that are “unclear.”

Arminians, who believe a man may lose salvation if he turns his back on God, find no obscurity in such warnings. On the contrary , to them they are quite clear! (John Whiteford, Sola Scriptura: An Orthodox Analysis of the Cornerstone of Reformation Theology [Ben Lomond, Calif.: Conciliar Press, 1996], 25-27)

In reality, when one examines both the Reformed confessions on this issue as well as modern defences thereof, one is left with only subjectivism and nothing substantial. Consider the following:

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. (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1: "Of the Holy Scripture" [emphasis added])

In the Second Helvetic Confession, from 1566, under chapter 1, “Of the Holy Scripture Being the True Word of God,” we read the following in section 5:

Neither do we think that therefore the outward reaching is to be thought as fruitless because the instruction in true religion depends on the inward illumination of the Spirit, or because it is written ‘No man shall teach his neighbor; for all men shall know me’ (Jer. xxxi. 34), and ‘he that watereth, or he that planteth, is nothing, but God that giveth the increase’ (1 Cor. iii. 7). For albeit ‘no man can come to Christ, unless he be drawn by the Heavenly Father’ (John vi. 44), and be inwardly lightened by the Holy Spirit, yet we know undoubtedly that it is the will of God that his word should be preached even outwardly. God could indeed, by his Holy Spirit, or by the ministry of an angel, without the ministry of St. Peter, have taught Cornelius in the Acts; but, nevertheless, he refers him to Peter, of whom the angel speaking says, ‘He shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do’ (Acts x. 6) (Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, vol. III: The Evangelical Protestant Creeds [revised by David S. Schaff; New York: Harper and Row, 1931; repr., Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2007], 832; emphasis added)

Norman Geisler, a leading Protestant apologist and philosopher, and his co-author Ralph MacKenzie, wrote the following on how they, as Protestants, "know" the Bible to be true:

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. (Norman Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1995], 179 n. 6)

Similarly, in a recent book-length defense of Sola Scriptura, God's Word Alone: The Authority of Scripture (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2016), Matthew Barrett wrote the following:

Calvin was clear that the Scripture’s credibility does not depend on man’s reason but on the testimony of the Holy Spirit. Calvin explains that we will never be persuaded of the trustworthiness and authority of Scripture’s doctrine until we are “persuaded beyond doubt that God is its Author.” Therefore, the “highest proof of Scripture derives in general from the fact that God in person speaks to it.” In that light, we must look to a “higher place than human reasons, judgments, or conjectures” and turn instead to the “secret testimony of the Spirit.” The “Word will not find acceptance in men’s hearts before it is sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit.” The same Spirit who spoke through the prophets will penetrate “into our hearts to persuade us that they faithfully proclaimed what had been divinely commanded” (Institutes of the Christian Religion 1.7.4). (p. 67)

Many of the “contradictions” that scholars found problematic a century ago have now been resolved with time and study. Nor can we neglect the role of the Spirit. What at first appears to be an unsurmountable hurdle later becomes a small speed bump when the Spirit illuminates the Word so that we can better understand its meaning. (p. 266)

[I]nternal clarity is quite different [to external clarify]. Because the unbeliever is spiritually blind, he cannot see the truth of Scripture in a saving way unless his eyes are opened by the Holy Spirit (Luther, Bondage of the Will, in LW 33.28 [cf. 98-99]). So while a person may read and memorize the Scriptures backward and forward, exegete its words, diagram its sentences in the original languages, and masterfully describe the historical and cultural background of an individual text, this is not to say that the person has truly understood Scripture’s message. There is knowing Scripture, and then there is knowing Scripture. The latter is work of the Holy Spirit. (p. 320)

Sufficiency does not preclude the inward illumination of the Holy Spirit. While we should not be seeking revelation from the Spirit in addition to Scripture, we must not go to the other extreme (as some evangelical rationalists have done) and eliminate the Spirit entirely. Rather, Word and Spirit go together. God gives us his sufficient Word, but he intends the Spirit to come alongside us to help us understand his Word. Therefore, must like Calvin (see chapter 1), the Westminster Confession advocates the illuminating work of the Spirit: “The Spirit . . . [is] necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word (John 6:45; 1 Cor. 2:9-12).” (p. 337)

Scripture reassures us that should we come to God’s Word with the Spirit as our counselor, the Lord will reward our hungry soul with sweet and satisfying food (1 John 2:20, 26-27). (p. 344)

I cannot prove the Bible is true. Only the Spirit can do that. And until he does, you will never see Scripture as God’s Word . . . The Bible testifies to its own identity. But this isn’t enough. We must then pray that the Spirit would irresistibly persuade sinners that the Bible is what it says it is. (p. 374)

It is interesting to note all the above, especially when Evangelicals critique Latter-day Saints for holding to a view that one is to gain a witness of the Holy Spirit, something in line with the following 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)

1 Cor 4:6: An Example of the Eisegesis Inherent within Sola Scriptura Apologetics

To give an example of the eisegesis inherent within the popular “proof-texts” Protestants tend to employ, let us consider the injunction to not go beyond what is written in 1 Cor 4:6. The verse in the KJV reads:

And these things brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

The NRSV renders the text as:

I have applied all this to Apollos and myself for your benefit, brothers and sisters, so that you may learn through us the meaning of the saying, "Nothing beyond what is written," so that none of you will be puffed up in favor of one against another.

Reformed (Presbyterian) apologist, Matt Slick, president of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry (CARM) writes the following which is representative of comments made by Protestant apologists who latch on this passage in defence of sola scriptura:

The Bible clearly tells us that it is the standard of truth.  We are not to exceed what the Scriptures say.  "Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written, in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one against the other." (1 Cor. 4:6). (Matt Slick, “Is the Bible Alone Sufficient for Spiritual Truth?” URL: http://carm.org/bible-alone-sufficient-spiritual-truth)

While much has been written on the phrase (τὸ μὴ ὑπὲρ ἃ γέγραπται), the best suggestion is that the phrase refers to the Old Testament texts Paul had previously quoted:

1 Cor 1:19 (Isa 29:14)

1 Cor 1:31 (Jer 9:23)

1 Cor 2:9 (Isa 64:3)

1 Cor 2:16 (Isa 40:13)

1 Cor 3:19 (Job 5:13)

1 Cor 3:20 (Psa 94:11)

1 Cor 4:5 (while not an OT reference, alludes to a saying of Jesus which Paul may have access to in oral form [cf. Luke 12:1-3])

There is nothing in 1 Cor 4:6 that, exegetically, hints at sola scriptura. Indeed, many Protestant scholars do not regard 1 Cor 4:6 as teaching sola scriptura. Notice the following from Reformed Protestant, Kevin J. Vanhoozer in a recent essay:

Commentators disagree as to the meaning of “not [to go] beyond what is written.” Some translations take the neuter article to as a convention for introducing quoted material: “that you may learn . . . the meaning of the saying, ‘Do not go beyond what is written’” (1 Cor. 4:6, NIV). What, however, does this maxim mean and, in particular, what does “what is written” refer to? Exegetes express considerable Angst over the interpretation of this passage; hence the following suggestion must remain somewhat tentative.

It is likely that some at Corinth were trying to supplement the theology of the cross with a higher, second-state “spiritual wisdom,” a superior form of knowledge that led to boasting. Paul’s command not to go beyond what is written is best taken as referring to (1) the Old Testament in general; (2) what Paul has explicitly cited from the OT in 1:19, 31; 2:9, 16; 3:19, 20, about the importance of not boasting in worldly wisdom but rather in what the Lord has done; and (3) the “foolish” gospel message of the cross “in accordance with the Scriptures” (cf. 15:3-4). In context, then, to go beyond Scripture means “to boast in human wisdom supposing that we are, as it were, smarter than God.”

According to this “Corinthian principle,” then, there is a sense in which Christians must never go beyond the “foolishness” of Christ crucified and the biblical texts that reveal it as God’s wisdom and power of salvation. The definitive message of the cross implies a certain sufficiency of the gospel. Christians must not think that they have a superior knowledge of God or way of salvation if this conflicts with the God of the gospel or with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. To take leave of the gospel—call it the “bad beyond” (i.e., a move against the grain of the text)—is not an option. The question, however, is whether there is a “good beyond” (i.e., a move along the grain of the text)—a right and proper way of building on and respecting the prophets and apostles that yields a longer obedience, and a longer understanding. (Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “May We Go Beyond What is Written After All? The Pattern of Theological Authority and the Problem of Doctrinal Development” in D.A. Carson ed. The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2016], 747-92, here, pp. 749-50)

Furthermore, even John Calvin, in his commentary on First Corinthians, did not regard this verse as teaching sola scriptura; instead, he took a cautiously neutral position:

The clause above what is written may be explained in two ways—either as referring to Paul’s writings, or to the proofs from Scripture which he has brought forward. As this, however, is a matter of small moment, my readers may be left at liberty to take whichever they may prefer.

For more similar comments from historical and modern Protestant commentators, see Douglas Beaumont, "Does 1 Corinthians 4:6 teach Sola Scriptura?"

Finally, it should be noted that this verse has a number of textual difficulties. In his translation of the Bible, James Moffatt rendered the verse thusly:

Now I have applied what has been said and above to myself and Apollos, to teach you . . .

In the corresponding footnote, we read:

The text and the meaning of the phrase between μαθητε and ινα μη are beyond recovery.

Commenting on this verse, Catholic scholar Louis Alonso Schökel wrote:

In St. Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians, Chapter IV, Verse 6, we come upon a confusing sentence: “I have applied these things to myself . . . by way of illustration . . .that . . .you may learn not to be puffed up . . . transgressing what is written.” The biblical commentators cannot agree in explaining this sentence and many conjecture that the text was poorly transmitted. In detective-story fashion, they suspect a slight “crime” against the text, a crime of which only vague clues remain . . .The present text reads:

ινα εν υηιμ μαθητε “that in our case you may learn”

το μη υπερ του ενος φυσιουσθε “that no one may be puffed up at another’s expense.”

The scribe neglected to copy the negative, so in his revised text he wrote the negative between lines:

Ινα μαθητε φρονειν “that you may learn to be prudent”

Μη “not”

Ινα εις φυσιουσθε “that one may be puffed up . . .”

The next scribe copied this down correctly, but because he wanted to be perfectly accurate, he noted in the margin that the “not” had been written between the lines over the letter “a” in the word “that”;

Ινα μαθητε φρονειν “that you may learn to be prudent”

Ινα μη εις . . .φυσιουσθε “that no one may be puffed up”

(το μη υπερ α γεγραπται)

(the “no” is written above the “a”)

The next copyist took the marginal note as a genuine addition and incorporated it into the text. In Greek, however, the letter “a” can be the neutral relative pronoun, meaning “that which.” Thus by incorporating the marginal note into the text he effected a change in its meaning:

Ινα μαθητε “that you may learn”

Το μη υπερ α γεγραπται φρονειν “not to know more than what is written”

Ινα μη εις υπερ του ενος φυσιουσθε “that no one may be puffed up at another’s expense.” (Louis Alonso Schökel, Understanding Biblical Research [London: Burns & Oates Limited, 1968], 66-68)

In light of the textual issues about this verse, it is a very slender thread to hang a doctrine such as sola scriptura on. Protestant apologists who attempt to support sola scriptura should be cautious in appealing to this verse, not just in light of the exegetical difficulties, but textual also.

The Authority of the Church

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (1 Tim 3:15)

Many Protestants have a very low ecclesiology (theology of the Church), so such a text is often unusual; typically, if one asks a Protestant what "the pillar and ground of the truth" is, more often than not, they will say "the Bible." However, there are many Protestants, especially within the Reformed camp, who would agree with 1 Tim 3:15 in that the Church has been given authority to uphold the truth of God (often, the "church" is limited to the local Church in this verse than the "universal Church"). However, even then, the higher view of ecclesiology held by such Protestants is still, from a biblical perspective, deficient.

For instance, within the Acts of the Apostles, we see that the Apostles did not operate with the belief that Scripture was formally sufficient. Instead, we see that it is the authorised leadership of the Church that makes a doctrinal decision, even if scant or even no meaningful biblical evidence is available to them (from the perspective of the historical-grammatical method of exegesis). For instance, in Acts 1:20, we read:

For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein; and his bishoprick (επισκοπη [office]) let another take.

If one examines this verse, Peter is using two texts from the Psalter—Psa 69:25 and 109:8. However, nothing in these two verses says anything about Judas, apostolic succession, or the continuation of the need to have twelve apostles. If one reads these texts in their context, David is talking about people and events in his own day. Psa 69, David is addressing the sinful people of his time who had betrayed him and how he pleads for God to bring about judgement (v.25). Psa 109 is about the court of David where David says that, once an officer in his court has been removed, another will take his place.

Therefore, a text or series of texts that may be seen as “weak” at best, in light of further explicit revelation, be used by the Church to support a doctrine. Another potent example would be the case of the use of Amos 9:11 (LXX) in Acts 15 by James. 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 chose 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. 

Other texts that show that New Testament ecclesiology is higher than the various Reformed perspectives can be seen elsewhere.

In Matt 16:19, we read the following:

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

In Matt 18:18, a parallel text in many respects, we read the following:

Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Let us now examine the meaning of “binding” and “loosing.”

Often, Protestants argue that the "keys" as well as the promise to be able to "bind" and "loose" in Matt 16 and 18 have nothing to do with authority, but merely a symbolic way of speaking of how the Gospel would be opened up to the Gentiles, not just the Jews. However, this ignores the meaning of “binding” and “loosing” when this took place and when Matthew wrote his gospel. In a scholarly commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, we read the following from two Protestants:

19. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Cf. Isa 22.22; 1.18 and 3.7 (Jesus has the keys of Death and Hades as well as the key of David); 3 Bar. 11.2 (the angel Michael is the ‘holder of the keys of the kingdom of Heaven’); 3 En. 18.18 (‘Anapi’el YHH the prince keeps the keys of the palaces of the heaven of Arabot); 48 C 3 (Metatron has the keys to the treasure chamber of heaven). Heaven was conceived of as having gates or doors . . . . and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. C. 18.18 and Jn 20.23. Peter is the authoritative teacher without peer. He has the power to declare what is permitted and what is not permitted. Cf. 23.13: ‘But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut people out of the kingdom. For you do not go in nor allow those who want to go in to do so’. Here, as the context proves, the scribes shut the door to the kingdom by issuing false doctrine. The image is closely related to 16.19, and the inference lies near to hand that just as the kingdom itself is taken from the Jewish leaders and given to the church (21.43), so are the keys of the kingdom taken from the scribes and Pharisees and given to Peter. Supportive of this is the broader context of Peter’s confession. In the immediately preceding 16.5-12 Jesus warns: ‘Beware of the leaven of the scribes and Pharisees.’ Matthew takes this to be about the teaching of the scribes and Pharisees. It would make good sense for the evangelist, in the very next paragraph, to tell a story in which Jesus replaces the Jewish academy with his own ‘chief rabbi’. (W.D. Davis and Dale C. Allison, Matthew: A Shorter Commentary [London: T&T Clark International, 2004], 270-71)

Oscar Cullmann, another Protestant, wrote the following about “binding” and “loosing”:

What do the expressions “bind” and “loose” signify? According to Rabbinical usage two explanations are equally possible: “prohibit” and “permit,” that is, “establish rules” or “put under the ban” and “acquit.” (Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr [Westminster, 1953], 204-5)

Jesus is establishing a teaching authority that would authoritatively comment on doctrines in this passage. Such is consistent with LDS theology but not the ecclesiology within Protestantism, including the Reformed tradition.

Craig S. Keener, another Protestant, wrote:

That authority is exercised in binding and losing, which were technical terms for the pronouncement of rabbis on what was and was not permitted (to bind was to forbid, to loose to permit). This verse therefore probably refers primarily to a legislative authority in the church. (IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament [Downers’ Grove, Illin.: Intervarsity Press, 1993], 90)

To quote another non-LDS scholar in a scholarly bible dictionary:

BINDING AND LOOSING The Hebrew phrase for “restricting” and “permitting,” with respect to interpretation of the Torah.

Historical Usage

By Jesus’ time, the language of binding and loosing was commonly used to signify restricting or permitting a given action according to the Torah. Ancient rabbinic texts speak of binding (forbidding) certain wedding practices or Greek lessons for a child (m. Sotah 9:14) and of loosing (allowing) someone to drink broth even if the person had made a vow to abstain from meat (m. Nedarim 6:5–7).

In explaining the close ties between Queen Alexandra and the Pharisees during the first century bc, Josephus writes that the Pharisees “bound and loosed [men] at their pleasure” with their virtual royal authority (Jewish War 1.5.2). While Josephus may mean that the Pharisees “bound and loosed [men]” from prison rather than from Torah observance, the Pharisees also manipulated the populace by binding and loosing commands (Bivin, New Light, 98–99).

Biblical Relevance

Jesus mentions binding and loosing twice in the book of Matthew—each time giving his disciples the authority to do these things.

In the first instance (Matt 16:13–19), Jesus asks His disciples about His identity. Simon Peter replies with his famous confession of faith, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus responds by blessing Peter and saying that whatever Peter binds or looses on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven.

The second case occurs during a larger discourse on the kingdom of heaven, as Jesus gives the disciples instructions for confronting someone who has sinned against them. Jesus again indicates that whatever they bind or loose on earth will be treated likewise in heaven (Matt 18:15–19).

In both instances, Jesus gives His disciples authority to govern the church by restricting or permitting certain behaviors with divine support. In the first passage, Jesus seems to give Peter authority to set the church’s teaching and practice—which the disciples did in Acts 15:1–20 in establishing requirements for Gentile believers (see Acts 15:10). In the second passage, Jesus’ words appear to grant believers authority in matters of church discipline. These texts align with the known understanding of the terms binding and loosing, as the disciples had to work out which elements of the Torah were applicable (or not) in the newly revealed kingdom of God (Powell, “Binding,” 438–45).

Interpretive Issues

Bivin notes that the verbs describing what is done “in heaven” are in the perfect tense, indicating that they could be rendered “whatever you bind/loose on earth will have been bound/loosed in heaven.” This would suggest that the disciples should confidently make decisions, knowing that God would guide them (Bivin, New Light, 100). The implication—that some of Jesus’ contemporaries were not binding and loosing properly or with the authority of God—seemingly provides the rationale for Jesus to give special sanction to His disciples. In Jesus’ famous “seven woes” passage against the Pharisees, Jesus condemns His audience for binding heavy loads on the shoulders of others while not stopping to help carry the burden (Bivin, New Light, 99–100).

Granting authority to bind and loose is not the same as giving the disciples license to decree as they saw fit. Rather, Jesus trusted His disciples to accurately continue His teaching. As both passages in Matthew refer to the context of “the church,” the disciples have authority to bind and loose not as individuals, but as leaders of the church (Powell, “Binding,” 438, 445).

Hiers identifies several other senses in which Jesus could have used the phrases “binding” and “loosing.” One possibility is that is He is referring to casting someone out of the community. Although this idea is related to the concept of church discipline, it does not capture the full sense of Jesus’ use of these terms. Hiers dismisses the options of empowering His disciples to forgive (or not) or to bind in judgment for the future (Hiers, “Binding and Loosing,” 233–35). Instead, Hiers affirms “binding” and “loosing” as terms related to Torah interpretation, while also suggesting that they might indicate power over demonic forces (Hiers, “Binding and Loosing,” 235–39, 250) (Ridley, B. (2016). Binding and Loosing. In J. D. Barry, D. Bomar, D. R. Brown, R. Klippenstein, D. Mangum, C. Sinclair Wolcott, … W. Widder (Eds.), The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.)

Such fits well the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 where the Church leadership made the final, authoritative decision vis-à-vis circumcision and Gentile membership into the New Covenant. It also fits Matt 18:18 were the language of binding and loosing is used for the rest of the apostles and their disciplinary authority to condemn and absolve sins:

Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. (note: the "you" here is plural [ὑμῖν], unlike the "you" [σοι] of Matt 16:18-19)

The "binding" and "loosing" in Matt 16 and 18 cannot be reduced to Peter et al. preaching the gospel to open the gates of heaven to the Gentiles.

One final text we will examine will be John 20:23:

Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

A similar concept is found in uniquely Latter-day Saint Scripture; mirroring Matt 16:19 and John 20:23, we read the following in D&C 132:46:

And verily, verily, I say unto you, that whatsoever you seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever you bind on earth, in my name and by my word, saith the Lord, it shall be eternally bound in the heavens; and whosoever sins you remit on earth shall be remitted eternally in the heavens; and whosoever sins you retain on earth shall be retained in heaven.

Some may object to any appeal to John 20:23 as evidence of commissioned apostles of Christ having a role to play in granting forgiveness of sins. Some critics have argued that, as the Greek of John 20:23 uses the perfect tense, some have argued that the apostles were not being commissioned by Christ to be agents in forgiving sins, but merely declaring that their sins have been forgiven.

There are a number of problems with this type of reasoning.

Firstly, it makes the action of Christ nonsensical. If the person being told their sins were forgiven by the apostles already had their sins forgiven, such a declaration would not be required, as sins can only be forgiven once, and no man can usurp or trump God, making the declaration a moot point.

Secondly, one should note that the perfect tense in Koine Greek is used for a variety of purposes and cannot be translated adequately in all instances, nor can English properly express the idea of existing result which the Greek perfect conveys.

Thirdly, with respect to ἀφέωνται ("have been forgiven"), let us examine all other instances of this form (indicative perfect passive of αφιημι) in the Greek New Testament:

And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven (ἀφέωνται) thee. (Luke 5:20)

Whether it is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven (ἀφέωνται) thee; or to say, Rise up and walk? (Luke 5:23)

Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven (ἀφέωνται), for she loved much; but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little. And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. (ἀφέωνται) (Luke 7:47-48)

I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his name's sake. (1 John 2:12)

In Luke 5:20 and 23, ἀφέωνται is used as a present tense, since the man’s sins were not forgiven prior to meeting with Jesus. The same applies for the adulterous woman in Luke 7:47-48--her sins, also, were not forgiven by Christ prior to her encounter with Jesus. This is confirmed by the fact that the present tense "is forgiven" (ἀφίεται) is used in v. 47 alongside ἀφέωνται with respect to people's recongition of a then-present forgiveness of sins.

In light of this, John 20:23 supports the apostles being commissioned agents of Jesus to act in his stead (just as Christ acts, as supreme agent, in the stead of the Father) with respect to forgiving sins, as it would be contradictory for the apostles to be told to forgive sins if the sins have already been forgiven by God. The use of the perfect tense, far from diminishing the apostles' abilities to forgive sins, only heighten the reality thereof.

A parallel in modern English would be how a person, if in receipt of a command to do an action, would state something akin to "consider it done" before it has been done; the use of the perfect tense would be to show that one is determined to do the task, not necessarily that the task has already been completed.

As with the language Christ used in the Last Supper accounts, this is another piece of exegetical evidence for an ordained New Covenant Priesthood, as well as providing important insights into the concept of the agentival relationship between the Father and the Son, as well as that of the Son and his apostles. For more, see The LDS Priesthoods: Resource Page

Now, a Protestant might appeal to their understanding of the nature of "the Priesthood of All Believers" in an attempt to answer any objections to their ecclesiology as well as authority. Such a doctrine comes from the following texts:

Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine. (Exo 19:5)

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. (1 Pet 2:9)

The Evangelical Protestant interpretation of this concept can be refuted in two ways.

First, note that it is an established fact from Hebrews that Christ is the High Priest of the New Covenant, just as there was a High Priest (Aaron) in the Old Covenant (e.g., Heb 4:14). This shows us that not all priests are of the same rank, something inconsistent with the Evangelical claim. Secondly, we know that there was a Levitical priesthood that was of a lower rank than the High Priest but still superior in rank to the "priesthood of all believers" and thus one would be justified in expecting this second rank (members of an ordained, ministerial priesthood) of priests to be paralleled in the New Covenant along with the clear presence of the first (the great High Priest, Jesus) and third rank ("Royal Priesthood").

This is further substantiated by the fact that even after Moses calls the people a royal priesthood, he goes on to put them into different categories (those of priests and laity):

And the Lord said unto Moses, Go down and charge the people, lest they break through unto the Lord to gaze, and many of them perish. And let the priests also, which come near to the Lord, sanctify themselves, lest the Lord break forth upon them. And Moses said unto the Lord, The people cannot come up to mount Sinai: for thou chargedst us, saying, Set bounds about the mount and sanctify it. And the Lord said unto him, Away, get thee down, and thou shalt come up, thou, and Aaron with thee: but let not the priests and the people break through to come up unto the Lord, lest he break forth upon them. (Exo 19:21-24)

Clearly, there is a second class of priests, and these are members of a ministerial priesthood.

That the New Testament authors understood this correspondence between the Old and New Covenant priesthoods can be seen in Jude 11:

Woe to them! For they go the way of Cain, and abandon themselves to Balaam's error for the sake of gain, and perish in Korah's rebellion. (NRSV)

In this verse, Jude warns the Christian community to respect the priest-laity division, noting that there will be disobedient members of the community who will be modeled after Cain, Balaam, and Korah who engaged in such a rebellion. All these situations were sins involving the priesthood. Korah's rebellion, for instance, is the most noteworthy of the three; in Num 16 Korah, serving as an equivalent of a deacon, gets upset and gathers a group of friends and engages in a rebellion:

And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the Lord? (Num 16:3)

Moses then rebukes Korah and says to him that he would be thankful that he is a deacon, but that he should not seek to raise himself to the level of a priest:

And he hath brought thee near to him, and all thy brethren the sons of Levi with thee: and seek ye the priesthood also? (Num 16:10)

Funnily enough, Evangelicals would side with Korah on this! They would say to Latter-day Saints and others who hold to a ministerial priesthood in the New Covenant, "you raise yourself above everyone else; everyone is equal!"

The only way Jude's warning of a modern Korah-like rebellion makes any sense is if there will be Christians who will try to usurp authority and "move up" in the New Covenant priesthood--it makes no sense if the Evangelical understanding of the "priesthood of all believers" is correct.

Second, many Protestant commentators will admit that this is a grossly eisegetical interpretation of the relevant passages. Commenting on 1 Pet 2:4-10, Lutheran New Testament scholar, John H. Elliot wrote:

(1)  As is evident from its structure and content and from the accentuation of the election of both Jesus Christ and the believing community, 1 Pet 2:4-10 is designed as an affirmation of the elect and holy character of the believing community, which, through faith, is one with the elect and holy Christ. Election rather than priesthood is its central focus. The theme of election that extends from the letter’s beginning to its end (1:1; 5:13) receives here its most profound articulation. The passage, in fact, constitutes one of the most elaborate statements on Christian election in the entire NT.

(2)  The covenant formula of LXX Exod 19:6, which included the terms basileion and hierateuma, in accord with prior Israelite interpretation of this text was one of several OT texts employed by the Petrine author to explicate the elect and holy character of the covenantal people of God as once affirmed at Sinai and now affirmed of God’s people at the end time.

(3)  The term hierateuma, like the other honorific epithets for Israel with which it is joined here (“elect stock,” “holy people,” “people of God”), is a collective noun designating the believing community as community, as is true of other collective terms as well. The substantive basileion, “royal residence” (v 9b), likewise is applied to the believing community in its entirety and it interpreted as the “house(hold) of the Spirit” (v 5d)

(4)  In both 1 Peter and its source, Exod 19:6, “priestly community” expresses the holiness of the covenant community and the immediacy of its relation to God, both of which are distinctive qualities of the believing community that the author stresses throughout the first major section of the letter with other language as well (1:2, 3-5, 14,16, 17-21, 22; 2:5 [“holy priestly community”], 9-10; c. also 3:5, 18c; 5:7a, 10). The action of the believers as priestly community is to offer “spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God” (2:5f), a cultic image that occurs only here in 1 Peter and that is not elaborated on anywhere else in the letter. Similarly, neither hierateuma plays no independent role in the ecclesial thought of the letter. The appearance of hierateuma in 2:5 and 9 is due solely to its place in the covenant formula of Exod 19:6, which is used by the Petrine author to affirm the election and holiness of the household of faith.

(5)  No mention is made in 2:4-10 of baptism or any baptismal “ordination” or “consecration” to priesthood on the part of the believers.

(6)  Nowhere in 1 Peter is there any reference to the priesthood of Christ or any suggestion that believers share in the priesthood of Christ by virtue of their constituting a “priestly community.” In the book of Hebrews, on the other hand, Jesus Christ is identified metaphorically as a priest (Heb 7:15, 21,; 8:4; 10:21) or high priest (Heb 2:17; 3:1; 4:14-15; 5:5, 10; 6:20; 7:26; 8:1; 9:11). In Revelation, Christians are denoted metaphorically as priests as well (Rev 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). In other NT writings, cultic metaphors occasionally are used to describe the proclamation of the gospel (Rom 15:16), the gift of material support (Phil 4:18), or aspects of salvation (Heb 4:16; 8:1; 9:11-14, 23-28; 10:10, 19-22; 13:10-16). No single NT author, however, makes any attempt to integrate these random images into a unified teaching on Christian priesthood, and this certainly includes the author of 1 Peter. To attribute these various motifs to 1 Peter is to impute alien notions to this text and to distort its focus. In 1 Pet 2:4-10, the association of believers with Christ is that of “living stones,” who through faith are one with Christ, the “living stone,” and who are “elect” as he was “elect” in God’s sight. (John H. Elliot, 1 Peter [Anchor Bible 37b; Garden City: Doubleday, 2000], 451-53).

Refuting an old canard: Rev 22:18-19

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Firstly, it should be noted that “the book” in Greek is του βιβλιου, which is a genitive neuter singular, that is, one book is in view here, not 66. Had the author wished to discuss more than one, he would have written των βιβλιων. John is only talking about Revelation, not the “Bible” (as anachronistic as that is).

Secondly, what John is doing is employing a curse against individuals who wished to corrupt the text of Revelation. In the ancient world, with there being no such thing as copyright, one would often call upon a divine curse on individuals who would consider corrupting their texts. Indeed, there are Old Testament parallels to such that shed light on Rev 22:18-19:

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you, (Deut 4:2)

What thing soever I command you to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. (Deut 12:32)

In his commentary on Revelation, Wilfrid H. Harrington wrote the following about this text and its relationship to ancient practices of an author calling down from heaven a divine curse on those who would tamper with their text:

“I warn everyone …”: it was fairly common practice for writers to append a warning of this kind to their books. John can be so firm because he does not regard himself as author of the book; the real author is, ultimately, God (1:1). For the third time in this passage (vv. 7, 12, 20) Christ, who gives his own solemn testimony to the contents of the book, assures his Church that he is coming soon. It is a response to the earnest prayer of the Church: “Come!” (v. 17), and a link with the promise at the start of the book: “Behold, he comes with the clouds” (1:7). But this time the promise stands in the liturgical context of the Eucharist. (Wilfrid H. Harrington, Revelation [Sacra Pagina, vol. 16; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2008], 226)

On Rev 22:18, he wrote:

18. I warn everyone: See Deut 4:2; 12:32. For a similar warning, see Letter of Aristeas, 311; 1 Enoch 104:10–11; 2 Enoch 48:74–75. (Ibid., 223)

1 Enoch 104:10-11, one of the extra-biblical texts referenced by Harrington, reads as follows:

[The words] of the truth they alter, and the sinners also write against and alter many (words). And they lie and form great inventions and compose scriptures in their names. And would that they would write all my words truthfully in their names; neither should they subtract nor alter these words, but should write all things truthfully, which I testify to them.

Letter of Aristeas 310-311 also reads thusly:

After the books had been read, the priests and the elders of the translators and the Jewish community and the leaders of the people stood up and said, that since so excellent and sacred and accurate a translation had been made, it was only right that it should remain as it was and no alteration should be made in it. And when the whole company expressed their approval, they bade them pronounce a curse in accordance with their custom upon any one who should make any alteration either by adding anything or changing in any way whatever any of the words which had been written or making any omission. This was a very wise precaution to ensure that the book might be preserved for all the future time unchanged. 

If one wishes to absolutise Rev 22:18-19 in the way that some Evangelicals do to preclude extra-biblical revelations or other authorities external to the Bible, then they must hold to a much smaller canon, one that ends at Deuteronomy. Of course, both approaches would be based on equally shoddy interpretation (eisegesis).

Thirdly, it should be noted that, even allowing for special revelation to cease at the inscripturation of the final book of the New Testament (which many who hold to the traditional [90s AD] dating of the book of Revelation argue it to be) 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

Protestant apologists, as usual, are forced to engage in question-begging and special pleading to support their flimsy case. For more on this issue, see Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and Theological Essay (London: Burns & Oates, 1966).

For a discussion of this pericope by a Latter-day Saint leader, see Howard W. Hunter (at the time, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, later a Church president from 1994-1995), No Man Shall Add to or Take Away (Ensign, May 1981, originally delivered at the April 1981 General Conference).

The Reformations in the Old Testament: Evidence of Sola Scriptura?

Some Protestant apologists appeal to the reforms recorded in the Old Testament in an attempt to show the formal sufficiency of Scripture á la Sola Scriptura. Notwithstanding, such shows a rather poor grasp of the relevant texts as well as exegesis. Of course, if the reforms of Josiah (cf. 2 Kgs 22-24) support sola scriptura, it would prove too much, as that would mean that any text that claimed to be inspired after such a reform to be false and to be rejected! For sola scriptura to be true, there must first be tota scriptura, such being defined by Protestantism as all 66 books of the Protestant canon (i.e., the 39 Old Testament and 27 New Testament books).

Furthermore, in reality, both kings Josiah and Hezekiah, Old Testament kings who spear-headed religious reforms in their time, relied on non-inscripturated revelation as a key source for many of their teachings. Consider the following texts:

And he [King Hezekiah] set the Levites in the house of the Lord with cymbals, with psalteries, and with harps, according to the commandment of David, and of Gad the king's seer, and Nathan the prophet: for so was the commandment of the Lord by his prophets. (2 Chron 29:25)

And prepare yourselves by the houses of your fathers, after your courses, according to the writing of David king of Israel, and according to the writing of Solomon his son. (2 Chron 35:4)

With respect to the first text, we learn the following: (1) firstly, David, Gad, and Nathan were dead for about 250 years at this point; however, (2) they passed on a "command . . . from the Lord" which was prescribed by God's prophets on how worship to be conducted in the temple (hardly a minor issue; the worship of God is a central issue in theology) and (3) such a prescription and commandment is nowhere found in the entirety of the Bible.

So instead of viewing scripture as being formally sufficient, Hezekiah and Josiah relied upon other sources than only inscripturated revelation in their reforms. Indeed, in no case did the believing community rebuke Hezekiah or Josiah for violating sola scriptura. On the contrary, they accepted the fact that divine instruction, through the mouths of God's prophets, had been preserved for the community's use for hundreds of years apart from inscripturated revelation. Indeed, Josiah relied upon the words of the prophetess Huldah, not just the Scriptures, including the text of Deuteronomy that was rediscovered (cf. 2 Kgs 22-24). As we read in 2 Chron 34:22-28:

And Hilkiah, and they that the king had appointed, went to Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvath, the son of Hasrah, keeper of the wardrobe; (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the college:) and they spake to her to that effect. And she answered them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Tell ye the man that sent you to me, Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the curses that are written in the book which they have read before the king of Judah: Because they have forsaken me, and have burned incense unto other gods, that they might provoke me to anger with all the works of their hands; therefore my wrath shall be poured out upon this place, and shall not be quenched. And as for the king of Judah, who sent you to enquire of the Lord, so shall ye say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel concerning the words which thou hast heard; Because thine heart was tender, and thou didst humble thyself before God, when thou heardest his words against this place, and against the inhabitants thereof, and humbledst thyself before me, and didst rend thy clothes, and weep before me; I have even heard thee also, saith the Lord. Behold, I will gather thee to thy fathers, and thou shalt be gathered to thy grave in peace, neither shall thine eyes see all the evil that I will bring upon this place, and upon the inhabitants of the same. So they brought the king word again.

It is rather obvious that the reforms one reads about in the Old Testament were not based on any concept of Sola Scriptura, the claims of some Protestant apologists notwithstanding.

A related text is Num 15:32-36 where we read a story of a man caught picking up sticks on the Sabbath:

And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. And they put him in a ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.

Although the people were aware of the commandment to keep the Sabbath day holy (Exo 20:8-10; 31:14-15, etc.), they did not know whether this general law applied to this specific situation. What did they do? Did they dispute over the written records they had in their possession and from different denominations, with each one emphasising certain texts over other texts, as one finds in much of Protestantism (compare the debates between Reformed and free-will Baptists, for instance)? No, instead, God, through his divinely appointed spokesman, Moses, gave an explicit revelation on this issue, that that "fine-tuned," if you will, the pre-existing revelation on this matter, namely that it was illegal to pick up sticks on the Sabbath, resulting in this man being stoned.

This is what an authoritative source outside of Scripture does--it "fine tunes" the information contained in Scripture, as well as give authoritative guidance on issues Scripture is silent on (modern examples within the realm of moral theology would include homosexual adoption; transsexual issues; abortion; pornography; test-tube fertilisation; euthanasia).

Such privileging of non-inscripturated revelation is not isolated to the Old Testament era. Indeed, even Jesus bound his followers to a non-inscripturated teaching which He privileged as being on par with written revelation. In Matt 23:1-3, we read the following:

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.

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 Mirash 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.

Even in passing, the New Testament authors accepted traditions outside the Old Testament as being authoritative. Here are just two examples.

Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. (2 Tim 3:8)

The NET (a conservative Evangelical production) has the following note to this verse:

Jannes and Jambres were the traditional names of two of Pharaoh's magicians who opposed Moses at the time of the Exodus.

To quote Walter Lock, a Protestant exegete:

8. Ἰαννῆς καὶ Ἰαμβρῆς] (or possibly Μαμβρῆς, which is found in the Western texts and in the Talmud). An ad hominem illustration. They are fond of their Jewish myths and genealogies: well, the nearest analogy to themselves to be found there is that of magicians whose folly was exposed. ὃν πρόπον may perhaps imply similarity of method, that these teachers used magic arts like the Egyptian magicians; cf. γόητες 13 and Acts 19:19. The reference is to Ex 7:11, 9:11. The names are not found in O.T., Philo, or Josephus, but in slightly different forms in late Jewish Targums, one perhaps as early as the first Christian century (Schechter, Documents of Jewish Sectaries, i. p. 5); in heathen writers (Pliny, Hist. Nat. xxx. 1. 11; Apuleius, Apol. c. xc.), and in several Christian Apocryphal writings, e.g. Evang. Nicodemi, c. 5). Origen twice (ad Matth. 27:9 23:37) refers to an Apocryphal book with the title “Jannes et Mambres.” The names are apparently Semitic, perhaps meaning “the rebel” and “the opponent” (so Thackeray, The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought, pp. 216–21). For fuller details, cf. Schürer, H.J.P. (Eng. tr.) ii. 3. 149, Wetstein, Holtzmann, Dibelius, and W.-H. Notes on Select Readings, ad loc. (Walter Lock, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (I & II Timothy and Titus) [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1924], 107)

Such was not the only instance of Paul's acceptance and use of rabbinic traditions in 1 Cor 10:4 about the rock following the Israelites during the Exodus ("And did drink of the same spiritual drink, for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ"), as seen in Targum Onqelos (Aramaic translation of Num 21:17); midrash Sipre on Num 11:21. For a detailed discussion, see Raphael Patai, The Children of Noah: Jewish Seafaring in Ancient Times (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998), 128-29.

In Jude 9, we read the following: 

Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

The overwhelming majority of scholarship on Jude agree that Jude is quoting an apocryphal work, “The Assumption of Moses,” where the archangel Michael is in a dispute with “the devil” about the body of Moses. Here are vv. 2, 8-10 of this work (notice the similarity between v. 8 and Jude 9):

In the book of the assumption of Moses, Michael the archangel, while talking with the devil, says, "For from his Holy Spirit we all were created." And again he says, "From the face of God his Spirit came forth, and the world became." This is the equivalent of "all things through him became" . . ."But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he dared not pronounce a reviling judgement upon him, but said, 'May the Lord rebuke you.'" "When on the mountain Moses died, Michael was sent that he might transport the body. Then while the devil was speaking against the body of Moses, charging (him) with murder, on account of striking Egypt, the angel did not hold the blasphemy against him. 'May God rebuke you,' he said to the devil." it says; "Michael the archangel had rendered service to the tomb of Moses. For the devil did not take this back, but bore a complaint, on account of the slaughter of Egypt, as Moses himself, and for this reason did not assent to meet him in honor of the tomb." (From The Greek Pseudepigrapha (English), trans. Craig E. Evans [2008])

For a recent scholarly work detailing other examples of the New Testament authors being dependent upon, and agreeing with traditions from extra-canonical works, see Michael S. Heiser, "Appendix IV: New Testament Allusions to the Books of the Pseudepigrapha,” in Reversing Hermon: Enoch, The Watchers & The Forgotten Mission of Jesus Christ (Defender Publishing, 2017), pp. 203-56.

Some may point to Isa 8:20 as evidence that Scripture was the sole ultimate authority for the people of God as some Protestant apologists claim:

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Only by reading this verse in isolation to the context can one possibly claim that it can be used to teach sola scriptura. In vv.16-19, we see that "Law and Testimony" refer to any divine mandate given by God to His people:

Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples. And I will wait upon the Lord, that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him. Behold, I and the children whom the Lord hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the Lord of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion. And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? Fr the living to the dead?

In context, Isaiah is not speaking of the formal sufficiency of Scripture, but God's revelations versus that of the occult.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the word "testimony" (Hebrew:  תְּעוּדָה) and its cognate terms does not always refer to inscripturated revelation. תְּעוּדָה only appears three times in the OT. In Ruth 4:7, we read:

Now this was the manner in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning changing for to confirm all things; a man plucked off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour: this was a testimony in Israel.

According to Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (5 vols; Brill, 1994-2000), perhaps the leading lexicon of Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic, we have the following definition of תּוֹרָה as it appears in Isa 8:20:

—2. instruction, decision from different sources, or rather from different authorities: a) from Zion Is 2₃ Mi 4₂.

—b) from the prophets Is 1₁₀ (on which see Wildberger BK 10: 36, cf. also under 4b), 5₂₄ 8₁₆.₂₀ parallel with ) תְּעוּדָהon vs.₁₆ cf. TOB note(, 30₉ Zech 7₁₂.

—c) from the servant of God Is 42₄, cf. 42₂₁ (gloss), 51₄, see Westermann Jes. (ATD 19) 190ff.

—d) from a judicial or priestly official Dt 17₁₁, see THAT 2: 1035f.

In addition, it would be appropriate to examine all the other instances of תּוֹרָה as found in the book of Isaiah (the following verses are from the 1985 JPS Tanakh):

Hear the word of the Lord, You chieftains of Sodom; Give ear to our God's instruction (תּוֹרָה), You folk of Gomorrah! (Isa 1:10)

And the many peoples shall go and say: "Come, Let us go up to the Mount of the Lord, To the House of the God of Jacob, That He may instruct us in His ways and that we may walk in His paths." For instruction (תּוֹרָה) shall come forth from Zion, The Word of the Lord from Jerusalem. (Isa 2:3)

Assuredly, as straw is consumed by a tongue of fire and hay shrivels as it burns, their stock shall become like rot, and their buds shall blow away like dust. For they have rejected the instruction (תּוֹרָה) of the Lord of Hosts, spurned the word of the Holy One of Israel. (Isa 5:24)

Bind up the message, seal the instruction (תּוֹרָה) with My disciples. (Isa 8:16)

For the earth was defiled under its inhabitants; because they transgressed teachings (תּוֹרָה), violated laws, broke the ancient covenant. (Isa 24:5)

For it is a rebellious people, faithless children, children who refused to heed the instruction (תּוֹרָה) of the Lord. (Isa 30:9)

He shall not grow dim or be bruised till he has established the true way on earth; and the coastlands shall await his teaching (תּוֹרָה). (Isa 42:4)

The Lord desires His servant's vindication, that he may magnify and glorify His teaching (תּוֹרָה). (Isa 42:21)

Who was it gave Jacob over to despoilment and Israel to plunderers? Surely, the Lord against whom they sinned in whose ways they would not walk and whose teaching (תּוֹרָה) they would not obey. (Isa 42:24)

Hearken to me, my people, and give ear to me, o my nation, for teaching (תּוֹרָה) shall go forth from me, my way for the light of peoples. In a moment I will bring it. (Isa 51:4)

Listen to me, you who care for the right, O people who lay my instruction (תּוֹרָה) to heart! Fear not the insults of men, and be not dismayed at their jeers. (Isa 51:7)

It is clear that Isa 8:20 is not exegetically-sound evidence for the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scripura as Isaiah is clearly not teaching the formal sufficiency of inscripturated revelation, something that would actually disprove the concept of tota scriptura, an essential “building block” of the doctrine as sola scriptura requires the inscripturation of “all” (defined as being both the Old and New Testament books) divine revelation as discussed previously!

Lost books and the Implications for Canonical Certainty

To see how Protestantism and  Sola Scriptura results in a lack of certainty about the extent or the tota of the Scriptura, let us consider two important passages. Firstly, we read the following in the New Testament:

I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. (1 Cor 5:9-10)

This verse has often been cited by Latter-day Saints as evidence that Paul wrote letters that, while referenced in his epistles, are no longer extant. Some Protestant apologists (e.g, Norman Geisler) has tried to counter this claim by arguing that this is a device called the “epistolary aorist,” and Paul was referencing the letter he was writing at the time (i.e., First Corinthians itself), notwithstanding the vast majority of modern biblical scholarship rejecting this claim (see the discussion by D. Charles Pyle in this paper here). Anthony C. Thiselton, in his magisterial commentary on First Corinthians, wrote the following which shows that Paul is referencing a now-lost epistle he previously wrote to the Corinthians:

Several of the Church Fathers (followed by Erasmus) interpret εγραψα in v. 9 as an epistolary aorist denoting the present act of writing (as in Gal 1:11; Philem 19, 21; and Col 4:8). But this is excluded by ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ, in my [the] letter. The view that this verse makes it certain that Paul wrote "a previous letter" goes back to the early Latin commentator Ambrosiaster, and is endorsed by Calvin, Beza, Estius, Grotius, Bengel, and virtually all modern commentators. (Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians [The New International Greek Testament Commentary: Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000], 408-9; emphasis in original.)

As Thiselton noted, Calvin also held to the view that this letter is no longer extant; in his commentary 1 Cor 5:9, Calvin writes (emphasis added):

The epistle of which he speaks is not at this day extant. Nor is there any doubt that many others are lost. It is enough, however, that those have been preserved to us which the Lord foresaw would suffice. But this passage, in consequence of its obscurity, has been twisted to a variety of interpretations, which I do not think it necessary for me to take up time in setting aside, but will simply bring forward what appears to me to be its true meaning. He reminds the Corinthians of what he had already enjoined upon them—that they should refrain from intercourse with the wicked. For the word rendered to keep company with, means to be on terms of familiarity with any one, and to be in habits of close intimacy with him. Now, his reminding them of this tends to expose their remissness, inasmuch as they had been admonished, and yet had remained inactive.

He adds an exception, that they may the better understand that this refers particularly to those that belong to the Church, as they did not require to be admonished to avoid the society of the world. In short, then, he prohibits the Corinthians from holding intercourse with those who, while professing to be believers, do, nevertheless, live wickedly and to the dishonor of God. "Let all that wish to be reckoned brethren, either live holily and becomingly, or be excommunicated from the society of the pious, and let all the good refrain from intercourse and familiarity with them. It were superfluous to speak as to the openly wicked, for you ought of your own accord to shun them, without any admonition from me." This exception, however, increases the criminality of remissness, inasmuch as they cherished in the bosom of the Church an openly wicked person; for it is more disgraceful to neglect those of your own household than to neglect strangers.

While acknowledging (correctly) Paul is referencing a letter no longer extant in this text, Calvin engages in special pleading by arguing that God did not allow its preservation in his sovereignty as the extant Pauline letters (and rest of the canon) would “suffice” (be formally sufficient). However, outside his ipse dixit, and fallacious reasoning, he and any other Protestants who holds to, not just sola, but tota scriptura, cannot ever be sure of this.

That Paul is referencing a letter pre-dating First Corinthians in 1 Cor 5:9-13 is now almost universally accepted by mainstream scholarship can be seen in the matter-of-fact comment in a recent overview of the New Testament by Patrick Gray, Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Rhodes College in Tennessee:

The canonical text known as 1 Corinthians mentions an even earlier letter from Paul (5:9-13); one of many that have not survived. (Patrick Gray, The Routledge Guidebook to the New Testament [New York: Routledge, 2017], 152)

While it is true that just because a volume is referenced in the Bible does not mean that the biblical authors imputed to it the status of God-breathed scripture, can a Protestant claim with 100% confidence this lost epistle was not inspired by God? If they will argue that if it were, God would have preserved it, then what about the book of Deuteronomy that was lost for years until it was rediscovered in 2 Kgs 22? Furthermore, what about "missing books" which are not secular texts (e.g., annals), but said to have been written by prophets? For instance, in 2 Chron 9:29, we read:

Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, from first to last, are they not written in the history of the prophet Nathan, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of the seer Iddo concerning Jeroboam son of Nebat?

All the descriptions of these prophets and their writings reflect the language of divine inspiration, not merely historical works the biblical authors refer the reader to for further secular information, such as "prophet" (נָבִיא); "prophecy" (נְבוּאָה); "visions" (חֲזוֹת) and "seer" (חֹזֶה). Again, only by engaging in special pleading can a Protestant apologist brush off the "missing books in the Bible" argument for these and similar prophetical/apostolic writings.

A related passage is 2 Sam 24:11:

For when David was up in the morning, the word of the Lord came unto the prophet Gad, David's seer . . . 

This is another verse that refutes a common “argument” made by some (not all—the more sophisticated apologists don’t use it) in favour of sola scriptura, namely that “Word of God/Lord” is one-to-one equivalent to the Bible (discussed in more detail below).

Furthermore, 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 Gad 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. In reality, Protestants cannot have certainity about the extent of Scripture (the tota of scriptura, an essential element for there to be sola scriptura as the rule of faith for true believers, as discussed earlier in this review), further showing us that Sola Scriptura is nothing more than a paper tiger.

Indeed, this is being recognised by Protestant theologians. John C. Peckham, in a recent work on the Protestant view of the Bible, wrote the following, showing that sola scriptura is, ultimately an empty promise and a form of epistemology that cannot provide solid, definitive answers, something critics thereof have been saying for centuries:

So, which church or tradition? Acceptance of a particular tradition or church merely because that tradition or church claims to be the true one amounts to the circularity that appeal to tradition or ecclesial authority is purported to avoid. Some appeal instead to the widest consensus, but this raises questions regarding which consensus within which self-identifying Christian community and about whether a majority community perspective is legitimate simply in virtue of being predominant (and, if so, what of community rejection of Jesus himself?) If, on the other hand, a tradition or church is authoritative insofar as it is on consonance with Scripture, such an approach first requires the primacy and interpretation of Scripture (requiring that the community is not itself authoritative in biblical interpretation). (John C. Peckham, Canonical Theology: The Biblical Canon, Sola Scriptura, and Theological Method [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2016], 153-54)

The footnote (p. 154 n. 45) for this passage reads as follows, in reference to Keith A. Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 2001):

Mathison partially recognizes the problem with his view: In “Tradition 1, the true interpretation of Scripture is found only in the Church. Yet the true Church is identified largely by its adherence to the true interpretation of Scripture. How then do we identify the Church when there are numerous communions claiming to be the Church” without “falling into radical subjectivism or logical circularity? (Shape, 319). He claims that we might “identity the Christian churches” by “their adherence to the apostolic regula fidei,” thus “identifying the fragments of the true visible Church by their acceptance of the common testimony of the Holy Spirit in the rule of faith, especially as expressed in written form in the ecumenical creeds of Nicea and Chalcedon” (Shape, 321). Yet why that “rule of faith” and whose interpretation of it? He suggest it is because the “Holy Spirit has borne a miraculously unanimous witness to a common fundamental creed throughout this same Christendom” (Shape, 321). Yet some who self-identity as Christians have rejected these creeds so this once again assumes that one already knows who the true Christians are, which is the very point at issue. How, then, does this get beyond the vicious circularity or radical subjectivity that Mathison wants to avoid? Cf. the similar problems faced by Oden’s consensual orthodoxy and Lindbeck’s appeal to the consensus fidelium. Further, even if one were to accept the content of ecumenical creeds as the rule, how would that help to resolve the denominational fragmentation over the host of issues that are not addressed in such creeds? See the following chapter.

We also find the following in the same chapter of Peckham’s book:

Patrick Madrid seeks to defeat sola Scriptura via a pragmatic test, asking for even one example “of sola scriptura actually working, functioning in such a way that it brings about doctrinal certitude and unity of doctrine among Christians.” However, the premise of Madrid’s argument is invalid, at least with reference to this canonical approach, since sola Scriptura does not entail any claim to provide “doctrinal certitude” or “unity of doctrine” and thus is not defeated by the lack thereof. (p. 162)

And then later on (p. 164) we read this:

The canonical sola scriptura approach, then, advocates far-reaching epistemic humility, recognizing that both are the interpretations of individuals (including ourselves) and communities are fallible. As such, the individual and collective task of Christians is to seek to bring our interpretation into ever-greater conformity to the canon. This task might be advanced via a rigorous process of theological interpretation that applies a canonical approach wherein a hermeneutical spiral is continuously employed to bring interpretations closer and closer in line with, and in full submission to, all of Scripture.

After 500 years, one would have expected Protestantism to have resolved such issues if Sola Scriptura were a workable and true doctrine and practice that could bring about clarity as its opponents claim it can, once properly understood and practiced. Again, it just shows that Sola Scriptura, as well as the entirety of Protestantism itself, is a shell-game: something promised, but when you examine them, there is nothing there. As Peter Enns correctly notes about the overwhelming problems posed by holding to Sola Scriptura:

The long Protestant quest to get the Bible right has not led to greater and greater certainty about what the Bible means. Quite the contrary. It has led to a staggering number of different denominations and subdenominations that disagree sharply about how significant portions of the Bible should be understood. I mean, if the Bible is our source of sure knowledge about God, how do we explain all this diversity? Isn't the Bible supposed to unify us rather than divide us?

In a sense , the fact that churches continue being preoccupied with correct thinking is perfectly understandable: holding to what you know is part of the Protestant DNA, passed down to contemporary evangelicalism and fundamentalism via the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy. But the preoccupation is also inexcusable, because we only need to google "churches in my area" to see that this road of getting the Bible right has led, if not to a complete dead end, then at least to an endless traffic circle.

The struggle between fundamentalists and modernists over the Bible has also revealed an odd fact lying just below the surface. Even though these two groups see the Bible in polar opposite ways, they share the same starting point: ay book worthy of being called God's word would need to talk about the past accurately. The modernists, looking at things like the problems with Genesis, concluded that the Bible wasn't, after all, a supernatural book that told us reliable facts about the past. (Peter Enns, The Sin of Certainty: Why God Desires our Trust More than Our “Correct” Beliefs [Broadway: Harper One, 2016], 52)

Protestant Doctrinal Uncertainty: John 3:3-5 and Baptismal Regeneration

As evidence of the hermeneutical and theological anarchy that results from holding to sola scriptura, let us consider the following text:

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:3-5)

In the 500 years of Protestantism, there have been many interpretations of this pericope. Some argue that the water Jesus speaks about is water baptism, and thus, Jesus is teaching baptismal regeneration. Others argue that "and " in the phrase, "water and the spirit" is epexegetical, thus "spirit" and "water" are one and the same; others argue that the "water" is the Word of God. These and the other interpretations, other than the water baptism interpretation, are held by groups, including Reformed Baptists, who reject baptismal regeneration. So already, we see that Protestants are indeed divided on central issues relating to salvation, not minor issues like the proper form of worship music to use in services.

Latter-day Saints, armed with the Bible and other authoritative teachings, have a definitive answer on this--the water is water baptism, and baptismal regeneration is a biblical teaching. To see (1) the utter failure of various Protestant interpretations and (2) the exegetical strength of the LDS reading on this pericope, as well as the sound basis for this doctrine of great salvific importance, let us interact with another Protestant apologist.

If an LDS person answers the question [“Have you been born again?] by saying, “I was born again when I was baptized into the LDS Church,” use the following discussion ideas to show them water baptism is now what Jesus meant when he said, “You must be born again”—read the story,

John 3:1-7 “There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into this mother’s womb, and be born? Jesus answered, eerily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.”

The phrase, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit,” is interpreted by the LDS Church to mean you must be water baptized to be born again. But is this what Jesus meant?

In this passage, Jesus was talking about being born “again,” or being born twice. All men experience the first birth—physical birth, but if you hope to see the kingdom of God, you must also experience a second birth—spiritual birth. You must be “born again.”

In verse 5, the first birth is described as being born of water and the second birth being born of the Spirit. Jesus interpreted these two births of us in vs. 6, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” The first birth (of the flesh) takes place when a mother’s water membrane ruptures and the child is born. This is the physical/water birth.

The second birth (of the Spirit) takes place when a person is born of the Spirit into God’s family. This is what it means to be “born again.”

Jesus Christ’s explanation of the two births makes it clear that water baptism and being born again are not synonymous terms. A person is born again when he believes Jesus (John 3:14-18. 36). (Daniel G. Thompson, Witness to Mormons in Love: The Mormon Scrapbook [rev. ed.: Createspace, 2014], 61-62; emphasis in original; comment in square brackets added for clarification).

There are a number of problems with Thompson’s rather eisegetial, superficial treatment of John 3:

1.     Baptism was known among the Jews at the time of Jesus, and ritual immersions were done, often for Gentile converts to various Judaisms. For a book-length treatment, see Jonathan Lawrence, Washing in Water: Trajectories of Ritual Bathing in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature (Society of Biblical Literature, 2006). The concept of immersion is part-and-parcel of the Hebrew Bible; for example, the Hebrew verb meaning “to wash” רחץ appears 74 times in 73 verses in the OT; often having the meaning of a full immersion of either a person or an object (e.g., Exo 2:5; 1 Kgs 22:38).

Another Hebrew verb,טבל appears 16 times in the OT, having the meaning of "to dip" or "to immerse," all part-and-parcel of "baptism" (e.g., Gen 37:31; Num 19:18; 2 Kgs 5:14; Job 9:31).

With respect to 2 Kgs 5:14, the LXX translatesטבל using the Greek verb meaning “to baptise” βαπτιζω that appears three other times in the LXX (Isa 21:4 in the proto-canonical texts; Judith 12:7; Sirach 34:35 in the Apocrypha)

Such would have been part-and-parcel of the language and world view of Nicodemus and contemporary Jews of Second Temple Judaism.

2.     When Jesus discusses “water and of the spirit,” he is not, in this locution, encompassing the combined elements of the first (natural) and second (spiritual) birth, a rather novel interpretation Thompson’s Sola Fide theology forces him to do (eisegesis, in other words). In reality, Jesus’ locution “water and of the spirit,” as evidenced from verse 3, is within the context of being born “again” or “from above” (the Greek ἄνωθεν means both “again” and “from above,” showing a world-play by John in the original Greek of the text). "Water and of the spirit" are the elements of the new birth only.

3.     Some Evangelicals try to argue that “water and of the spirit” is to be understood epexegetically, that is, the conjunction “and” actually means “even” (i.e. “one must be born again by water, that is, the spirit”). The problems is that the conjunction και in the phrase ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος is a coordinating conjunction, discussing two elements, not one element—the KJV and modern translations are universal in translating it “water and [of the] spirit.” Take some translations from the Evangelical Protestant camp, for instance:

Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit" (NIV)

Jesus answered, "I assure you: Unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

 Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (ESV)

 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (NASB [1995 update])

 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (NKJV)

While και can sometimes be used epexegetically, it is very rare in the New Testament and LXX; the predominant function is coordinating, so unless one has good reason, "and" means, well, "and," which is the natural reading of the verse, unless one wishes to defend a dogma (in this case, a purely symbolic view of baptism), which, of course, is a classic example of eisegesis.

Furthermore, there were epexegetical conjunctions John could have used if he wanted to convey this meaning, such as  ινα and οτι (e.g., Luke 7:6; Matt 8:27). For more, see Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996), pp. 666-78 on conjunctions in Koine Greek.

4.     Many commentaries that, while they have a pro-Evangelical bias, do not separate the "water" from the new birth as Thompson does; one example would include the note to John 3:5 in the NET Bible: “Jesus' somewhat enigmatic statement points to the necessity of being born "from above," because water and wind/spirit/Spirit come from above. Isa 44:3-5 and Eze 37:9-10 are pertinent examples of water and wind as life-giving symbols of the Spirit of God in his work among people. Both occur in contexts that deal with the future restoration of Israel as a nation prior to the establishment of the messianic kingdom. It is therefore particularly appropriate that Jesus should introduce them in a conversation about entering the kingdom of God. Note that the Greek word πνεύματος is anarthrous (has no article) in v. Joh 3:5. This does not mean that spirit in the verse should be read as a direct reference to the Holy Spirit, but that both water and wind are figures (based on passages in the OT, which Nicodemus, the teacher of Israel should have known) that represent the regenerating work of the Spirit in the lives of men and women.”

5.     As for John 3:6 and the differentiation between σαρξ (flesh) and πνευμα (spirit) is between human mortality and sometimes human inabilities, and God's regenerating abilities; it is not a statement that relegates the "water" in v. 5 to be the water of the first/natural birth. Apart from evidencing a rather Gnostic theology (a disdain of God's use of material [here, water in baptism] to bring about His purposes), it, again, represents eisegesis. Note how σαρξ is used in the Gospel and epistles of John to denote either mortality in general or man’s need of God:

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh (σαρξ), nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh (σαρξ), and dwelt among us, (and we behold his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:13-14)

  It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh (σαρξ) profieth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:63)

 Ye judge after the flesh (σαρξ); I judge no one. (John 8:15)

 As thou hast given him power over all flesh (σαρξ), that he should give eternal life as to many as thou hast given him. (John 17:2)

 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh (σαρξ), and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. (1 John 2:16)

 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (σαρξ) is of God. (1 John 4:2)

 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (σαρξ). This is a deceiver and an antichrist. (2 John 1:7)

Again, to quote the NET Bible: “What is born of the flesh is flesh, i.e., what is born of physical heritage is physical. (It is interesting to compare this terminology with that of the dialogue in Joh 4, especially Joh 4:23, Joh 4:24.) For John the "flesh" (σάρξ, sarx) emphasizes merely the weakness and mortality of the creature - a neutral term, not necessarily sinful as in Paul. This is confirmed by the reference in Joh 1:14 to the Logos becoming "flesh." The author avoids associating sinfulness with the incarnate Christ.”

6. The overwhelming evidence from the New Testament supports the salvific nature of baptism. See, for instance, my paper Christ's Baptism is NOT Imputed to the Believer only by engaging in eisegesis of texts (e.g., Luke 23:43) can one avoid concluding the truth of this doctrine on biblical grounds. Furthermore, most contemporary New Testament scholars admit that this is the case. For a book-length treatment of the topic of baptism from the New Testament and early Christian history, proving baptism was originally done to (1) confessing believers (2) by immersion and (3) such baptisms  were salvific. On these issues, and many others, see Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgies in the First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009), all fitting LDS theology and practice. Indeed, Ferguson, and other scholars, agrees that the texts those who hold to the salvific nature of baptism do indeed, exegetically, support the doctrine. As one example, note the following from a scholarly commentary on the Pastoral Epistles:

The ritual bath mentioned in the hymn is one of rebirth and renewal. The term palingenesia, “rebirth,” from palin “again,” and ginomai, “to come into being” (genesis, “birth,” being one of its cognates), occurs elsewhere in the New Testament only in Matt 19:28. The term was commonly used in the Hellenistic world of a wide range of human or met human experiences, including the restoration of health, return from exile, the beginning of a new life, the restoration of souls, new life for a people, and the anticipated restoration of the world.

 The Corpus Hermeticum, an Alexandrian text written sometime before the end of the third century C.E. and attributed to the “Thrice-Greatest Hermes” (Hermes Trismegistos), says that “no one can be saved before rebirth (Corp. Herm. 13.3). The thirteenth tract of the Corpus features a dialogue between Hermes and his son Tat on the subject of being born again. Speaking to his father in a manner that recalls Nicodemus’s question to Jesus (John 3:4), Tat inquires about rebirth. He understands rebirth to be accomplished in some physical manner and asks his father about the womb and seed. Hermes responds that these are respectively the wisdom of understanding in silence and the true good, sown in a person by the will of God. The child that results is a different king of child, “a god and a child of God” (Corp. Herm. 13.2). Rebirth enables a person to progress in the moral life, turning from twelve vices--ignorance, grief, incontinence, lust, injustice, greed, deceit, envy, treachery, anger, recklessness, and malice--to the opposite virtues (Corp. Herm. 13.7).

 Many twentieth-century scholars, particularly those belonging to the history of religions school of New Testament research, attempted to clarify 3:5 in the light of this Hermetic tract. The tract is, however, much later than the Epistle to Titus and lacks any reference to a ritual washing. On the other hand, the late first-century canonical Fourth Gospel features a discourse between Jesus and Nicodemus, a leader of the Pharisees (John 3:3-8), about being “born again” (gennéthe anóthen). The Johannine account does not employ the noun “rebirth” (palingenesia), as does the Corpus, but it does speak about a birth that takes place in water and the Spirit (gennéthé ex hydatos kai pneumatos). The substantive similarities between the Johannine text and 3:5d-e--the references to washing, new birth, and the Spirit--suggest that both of these late first-century texts describe the ritual of Christian baptism as bringing about a new life through the power of the Holy Spirit. (Raymond F. Collins, I&II Timothy and Titus [Louiseville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2002], 364-65)

7.     The unanimous consent of the early Christian fathers was that baptism was necessary for salvation, and not a symbol. Outside Gnostic circles which disdain the material world, such was the position of Christianity until the time of John Calvin (1509-1564). Furthermore, no early Christian commentator ever disagreed with the association of baptism with the “water” in John 3:3-5. As representative examples:

For then finally can they be fully sanctified, and be the sons of God, if they be born of each sacrament;5 since it is written, “Except a man be born again of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (Cyprian, Epistle LXXI)

And therefore it behoves those to be baptized who come from heresy to the Church, that so they who are prepared, in the lawful, and true, and only baptism of the holy Church, by divine regeneration, for the kingdom of God, may be born of both sacraments, because it is written, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (Cyprian, Epistle LXXII, section 21)

[T]his salvation proves effectual by means of the cleansing in the water; and he that has been so cleansed will participate in Purity; and true Purity is Deity. You see, then, how small a thing it is in its beginning, and how easily effected; I mean, faith and water; the first residing within the will, the latter being the nursery companion of the life of man. But as to the blessing which springs from these two things, oh! how great and how wonderful it is, that it should imply relationship with Deity itself! (Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, ch. XXXVI). 

. . . Water is the matter of His first miracle and it is from a well that the Samaritan woman is bidden to slake her thirst. To Nicodemus He secretly says:—“Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.” As His earthly course began with water, so it ended with it. His side is pierced by the spear, and blood and water flow forth, twin emblems of baptism and of martyrdom. After His resurrection also, when sending His apostles to the Gentiles, He commands them to baptize these in the mystery of the Trinity. The Jewish people repenting of their misdoing are sent forthwith by Peter to be baptized. Before Sion travails she brings forth children, and a nation is born at once. Paul the persecutor of the church, that ravening wolf out of Benjamin, bows his head before Ananias one of Christ’s sheep, and only recovers his sight when he applies the remedy of baptism. By the reading of the prophet the eunuch of Candace the queen of Ethiopia is made ready for the baptism of Christ. Though it is against nature the Ethiopian does change his skin and the leopard his spots. Those who have received only John’s baptism and have no knowledge of the Holy Spirit are baptized again, lest any should suppose that water unsanctified thereby could suffice for the salvation of either Jew or Gentile. “The voice of the Lord is upon the waters…The Lord is upon many waters…the Lord maketh the flood to inhabit it.” His “teeth are like a flock of sheep that are even shorn which came up from the washing; whereof everyone bear twins, and none is barren among them.” If none is barren among them, all of them must have udders filled with milk and be able to say with the apostle: “Ye are my little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you;” and “I have fed you with milk and not with meat.” And it is to the grace of baptism that the prophecy of Micah refers: “He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us: he will subdue our iniquities, and will cast all our sins into the depths of the sea.” (Jerome, Letter LXIX to Oceanus, section 6)

I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, "Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers' wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: "Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if ye refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it." 

And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed. (Justin Martyr, The First Apology, Chapter LXI, "On Christian Baptism")

8.     The patristic evidence from the second century onwards for the doctrine of baptismal regeneration force even critics of the doctrine to admit that the patristics were "unanimous" in teaching its salvific efficacy. For instance, William Webster, a Reformed Baptist, admitted that, "The doctrine of baptism is one of the few teachings within Roman Catholicism for which it can be said that there is a universal consent of the Fathers . . . From the early days of the Church, baptism was universally perceived as the means of receiving four basic gifts: the remission of sins, deliverance from death, regeneration, and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit." (William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History [Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995], 95-96).

Another example would be Philip Schaff, author of works such as The Creeds of Christendom (3 vols.) In his monumental 8-volume work, History of the Christian Church, Schaff, a Reformed Presbyterian, is forced to concede that this doctrine was universally taught since the early days of the Christian faith, in spite of his own theological objections to such a theology of baptism:

"Justin [Martyr] calls baptism 'the water-bath for the forgiveness of sins and regeneration,' and 'the bath of conversion and the knowledge of God.' "It is often called also illumination, spiritual circumcision, anointing, sealing, gift of grace, symbol of redemption, death of sins, etc. Tertullian describes its effect thus: 'When the soul comes to faith, and becomes transformed through regeneration by water and power from above, it discovers, after the veil of the old corruption is taken away, its whole light. It is received into the fellowship of the Holy Spirit; and the soul, which unites itself to the Holy Spirit, is followed by the body.' ...."From John 3:5 and Mark 16:16, Tertullian and other fathers argued the necessity of baptism to salvation....The effect of baptism...was thought to extend only to sins committed before receiving it. Hence the frequent postponement of the sacrament [Procrastinatio baptismi], which Tertullian very earnestly recommends...." (History of the Christian Church, 2:253ff) 

"The views of the ante-Nicene fathers concerning baptism and baptismal regeneration were in this period more copiously embellished in rhetorical style by Basil the Great and the two Gregories, who wrote special treatises on this sacrament, and were more clearly and logically developed by Augustine. The patristic and Roman Catholic view on regeneration, however, differs considerably from the one which now prevails among most Protestant denominations, especially those of the more Puritanic type, in that it signifies not so such a subjective change of heart, which is more properly called conversion, but a change in the objective condition and relation of the sinner, namely, his translation from the kingdom of Satan into the kingdom of Christ....Some modern divines make a distinction between baptismal regeneration and moral regeneration, in order to reconcile the doctrine of the fathers with the fact that the evidences of a new life are wholly wanting in so many who are baptized. But we cannot enter here into a discussion of the difficulties of this doctrine, and must confine ourselves to a historical statement." [patristic quotes follow] "In the doctrine of baptism also we have a much better right to speak of a -consensus patrum-, than in the doctrine of the Holy Supper." (Ibid., 3:481ff, 492)

Roman Catholic apologist, Phil Porvaznik, has a helpful page on his Website, "Born Again: Baptism in the Early Fathers" which presents many such concessions by leading Christian historians, such as JND Kelly. Another helpful resource is David Waltz’s blog posts on baptismal regeneration in early Christianity.

The theology of baptism Thompson and many other Evangelicals hold to is without any historical support in the opening centuries of Christian history. They hold to an unenviable position of having to defend a view of baptism that is not only contradicted by meaningful biblical exegesis but also the unanimous consent of the theology of the opening millennium-and-a-half of Christian history.

9.  As for John 3:14-18, 36, (i) it is question begging to claim that statements where one is said to believe (or, to be more faithful to the Greek of v.16 which uses a participle, believing in God) precludes the necessity of water baptism. Notice how nothing is said about repentance or confessing the name of Jesus, but such is a requirement in Rom 10:9, 13; (ii) furthermore, in John's own gospel, one's eternal destiny, not merely rewards in the hereafter, are determined by one's works (John 5:25-29; see the seminal study from Chris Vanlandingham's volume on this issue, Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul [Hendrickson, 2006] on this issue). (iii) It also requires that one reject the clear, exegetically sound texts that tie water baptism into salvation, as discussed above, and (iv) texts that show the dynamic relationship between faith, repentance, and baptism, such as Acts 2:38. Finally, (v) if recent studies showing the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 are sound, v.16 proves that belief and baptism are requirements for salvation (some may retort that damnation is linked to those who do not believe without anything said about baptism, but no non-believing person will be baptised, so such a "counter" is vacuous).

Much more could be said, but it is evident that those who oppose the salvific nature of baptism have no true biblical and historical basis for their theology of baptism. The doctrine of baptism is one area where Latter-day Saint theology fits that of (true) "Biblical Christianity," while most flavours of Evangelical Protestantism teaches a theological novelty without any meaningful biblical and historical basis.

Did Paul teach Sola Scriptura in Rom 15:4?

For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

In their appeal to Rom 15:4 to support Sola Scriptura, Protestant apologists reveal their lack of exegetical skills. Notice, for instance, that not all the books of the New Testament were written when Paul penned these words--for sola scriptura to be true, there must be a "tota scriptura," that is, sola scriptura cannot be operative during a time of inscripturation. If Rom 15:4 is evidence for sola scriptura, we just jettison any text post-dating Rom 15:4!

Douglas Moo, a leading Reformed New Testament scholar, argued that Paul was speaking of the Old Testament only in Rom 15:4. If such were the case, if anyone wishes to point to this verse as support of sola scriptura, one would have to throw out the New Testament texts, Romans included! As Moo wrote:

In a brief detour from his main argument, Paul reminds his readers that the use he has just made of the OT is entirely appropriate: “for whatever was written beforehand was written for our instruction.” Paul here crisply enunciates a conviction basic to his ministry and to the early church generally. The OT, though no longer a source of direct moral imperative (6:14, 15; 7:4), continues to play a central role in helping Christians to understand the climax of salvation history and their responsibilities as the New Covenant people of God. (Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans [The New International Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996], 869)

When one reads v.5 of Rom 15, we see that Paul did not hold to a sola scriptura mentality:

Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus.

Paul's prescription of patience and consolation (alt. "perseverance and encouragement") is not limited to "scripture" (the limits of which are not discussed in this verse!), but instead two sources: (1) enduring through trials and (2) by reading Scripture for one's encouragement.

That Paul did not hold to sola scriptura can also be seen in texts such as 1 Cor 11:23; 15:1ff; 1 Thess 2:13, 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6 where non-inscripturated revelation was privileged as being as authoritative as inscripturated revelation. This is antithetical to sola scriptura which states that the written word alone is the final authority, and all other sources are to be subordinated to it. note the following examples:

Now 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 ye received of us. (2 Thess 3:6).

The term translated as "tradition" (or, in the case of 1 Cor 11:2, "ordinances") is παραδοσις, which refers to something that is passed onto another. Such teachings include, for example, Paul's teachings on the Eucharist which was part of oral tradition, as we learn in 1 Cor 11:23f and the identity of the Messiah from the Old Testament (Acts 17).

To understand the importance of this, consider the following:

It is an accepted fact, among both Catholics and Protestants, that the apostles and prophets gave oral instruction to the first century Christians, in addition to written instruction contained in the Bible. This was no ordinary oral instruction. In 1 Thessalonians 2:13, Paul says that this oral revelation to the people was to be considered the very words of God himself. This is also why in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Paul told these same Thessalonians to preserve the oral instruction, along with the written.

Now here is the unanswerable problem, if you haven't discovered it already. How can the Bible be teaching the first century Christians that only the Bible is their inerrant source of authority, if at the same time, oral revelation was still being given to them?? You can't claim that there is only one source of authority (the Bible) while allowing two sources of authority (the Bible and oral revelation). Logically, the Bible cannot teach Sola Scriptura to the first century Christians. If it did, it would be contradicting itself, as well as the oral revelation that was still being given. This is the trap of Sola Scriptura, and it is an inescapable trap. (Robert Sungenis, Response to James R. White on the Bodily Assumption of Mary [2001])

Indeed, the New Testament is explicit that it does not contain, in written format, all God-inspired revelations. In Acts 11:28, we read the following:

And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.

Commenting on this verse and its implications for the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura, one long-standing critic of this man-made doctrine wrote the following:

Acts 11:28 briefly describes one prophecy of Agabus but this is only in passing, and Scripture records none of the revelations of the other prophets that were with him. Surely they would not be called prophets if they had not received divine revelation. If one objects that these prophets were not apostles, we can point to the tongues and prophecies given to the church of Corinth in 1 Cor. 12-14 (cf., 1 Thess. 5:20; Eph. 2:20; 3:5; 4:11), of which Paul himself says that he speaks more than all the rest (1 Cor. 14:18). Where does Scripture record these tongues, along with their interpretations, and these prophecies? And even if they were recorded, where does Scripture distinguish between an inspired writing and an oral revelation that became inscripturated? To claim a distinction between the two without evidence that Scripture itself makes such a distinction is pure speculation. (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, 217-18).

Often, in a rather pathetic attempt to downplay such issues, Protestant apologists engage in hyperbole in an attempt to sidestep the real issues. James R. White, a leading modern defender of Sola Scriptura, stated the following in his opening statement against Patrick Madrid on this issue in 1993:

[T]he Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.  We do not need to know the color of Thomas' eyes.  We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Obviously, in making reference to the eye colour of Thomas or the contents of each apostolic meal, White is using hyperbole to make his point about the nature of the Bible's "sufficiency" for the Protestant. Notwithstanding, he has not escape the problem implicit both in the concept of sola scriptura and in his proposed definition thereof. True, no source of information has to be exhaustive in such a manner to be sufficient, that is, as long as everyone agrees as to what the source is sufficient for. White has proposed that the answer to the nature of the Bible's sufficiency is all what God intends for Christians to have. That answer, however, is no vague that it really says nothing at all--just what are the extent and limitations as to what God intends for believers to have? To answer "all God intends us to have is contained in the Bible" simply is question-begging. Nowhere does Scripture claim that it is exhausted by the category of "the Bible." True, the Bible contains information that can lead one to accept Jesus as the promised Christ (cf. John 20:31), but such can also be accomplished by a sermon or a tract--does that mean that gospel tracts and sermons are formally sufficient? Of course not, and to claim such is absurd.

Furthermore, what if the Christian wants to know about a topic of moral or theological significance that is not dealt with exhaustively in the Bible? Take the issue of abortion in the case of rape or incest--is such permissible? The Bible does not tell one the answer to this particular issue, but one cannot conclude from this that God does not want him to know the answer; after all, a human life is literally at stake.

Even Scripture itself teaches us that such difficult issues will invariably arise. In Rom 14:15-20, we read the following:

But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. Let not then your good be evil spoken of: For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.

In this pericope, the apostle Paul is addressing a problem that arose in the Church at Rome concerning eating meat offered to idols (cf. 1 Cor 8), an issue that could eventually leading to many stumbling and being destroyed. Indeed, v. 15 uses the verb ἀπόλλυμι which is often used in the context of eschatological judgement and damnation. In BDAG (W.F. Bauer, W. Danker, W.F. Arndt, and F.W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature [3d ed.; University of Chicago Press, 2000]), the leading Koine Greek lexicon, we read the following definition of the verb which references Rom 14:15:

a. act. ruin, destroy

α. of pers. (Sir 10:3) Mk 1:24; Lk 4:34. W. ref. to eternal destruction μὴ ἐκεῖνον ἀπόλλυε do not bring about his ruin Ro 14:15. Esp. kill, put to death (Gen 20:4; Esth 9:6 v.l.; 1 Macc 2:37; Jos., C. Ap. 1, 122; Mel., P. 84, 635 [Ch.] τὸν ἐχθρόν σου) Hs 9, 26, 7. παιδίον Mt 2:13; Jesus 12:14; 27:20; Mk 3:6; 11:18; Lk 19:47; B 12:5; the wicked tenants κακοὺς κακῶς ἀ. (s. κακός 1a) he will put the evildoers to a miserable death Mt 21:41. τοὺς γεωργούς Mk 12:9; Lk 20:16; τ. φονεῖς Mt 22:7; τ. μὴ πιστεύσαντας those who did not believe Jd 5; πάντας Lk 17:27, 29. W. σῶσαι (like Chariton 2, 8, 1) Js 4:12; Hs 9, 23, 4. Of eternal death (Herm. Wr. 4, 7; Tat. 11:2 ἀπώλεσεν ἡμᾶς τὸ αὐτέξουσιον) ψυχὴν κ. σῶμα ἀ. ἐν γεέννῃ Mt 10:28; ψυχήν B 20:1; τ. ψυχάς Hs 9, 26, 3 (cp. Sir 20:22).

Commenting on this term in Rom 14:15, one leading Protestant New Testament exegete wrote:

A common Pauline term that can suggest eternal destruction (2:12; 1 Cor 1:18–19; 2 Cor 2:15; 4:3); the closest parallel here, suggesting that Paul preached such material more than once, is 1 Cor 8:11. This fits the sense of “stumble” in 14:13; cf. John Chrysostom Hom. Rom. 26. (Craig S. Keener, Romans [Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade Books, 2009], p. 166 n. 33)

So, this is not a minor issue, but one that could lead to eternal consequences. Further, this is not an area of simply "believing in Jesus," per se, but an area of one's maintenance of belief in Jesus, resulting in the principle the apostle gave the Romans (as well as other Christians) to live by in vv. 19-20, "Le us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. For meat destroy not the work of God. All things are pure, but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence."

Let us now attempt to apply this principle to the issue of abortion in cases of rape and incest. How are Christians going to know what the correct answer is unless someone steps in and tells them, as Paul did with the Romans? Granted, we can conclude from reading Rom 14 that the Scripture has been sufficient to give us the account of Paul's deliberations and reasoning with the Romans and sets up an example for us to follow, but it is not sufficient to answer the specific question of whether abortion is ever permissible or not in extreme circumstances (click here for a brief discussion of the Latter-day Saint view on this issue from the Church's official Website).

So obviously the apologetic of White et al. is a dismal failure.

Acts 17:11 and the Bereans

Acts 17:11 is another popular text that has been cited in favour of Sola Scriptura. According to many apologists for this doctrine, Luke applauds their searching of the Scriptures to ascertain the trustworthiness of Paul’s message to them. Therefore, they conclude, the Bereans accepted only the authority of the Bible, and no other method of ascertaining the truth of the Gospel is to be privileged (this has also been used to claim that praying to know if the Book of Mormon is the Word of God is false). However, if this proves something, it proves too much for the Protestant apologist. Why? Firstly, even allowing “Scripture” and “the Bible” to be one-to-one equivalent, not all 66 books of the canon were inscripturated at the time of Acts 17:11, so if one will absolutise this verse in the way many do, one will have to hold to, at most, the Old Testament canon, which the Bereans no doubt used. Furthermore, they are said to have received “the word.” What was this word, which they accepted en par with the Scriptures they received? It was, at the time, non-inscripturated revelation (viz. the identity of the long-promised Messiah). If anything, the Bereans were not “proto-Protestants,” in fact, quite the opposite, as Sola Scriptura does not allow one to privilege any other authority as being en par with Scripture, as all other sources of faith and authority are subordinate to “Scripture” (being defined as the Protestant canon).

With that as a preliminary comment, let us exegete the text:

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, wehther those things were so.

For those predisposed to believe in the concept of Sola Scriptura, Acts 17:11 is touted as a definitive proof text. It is reasoned that because of the Berean’s appeal to Scripture and the Thessalonians’ apparent lack thereof, Luke, the writer of Acts, judges that the former “were noble” in comparison than the latter and should serve as a model for each Christian to emulate. Obviously, the Bereans’ appeal to Scripture suggests a people very familiar with the word of God who did not bend with every new wind of doctrine that came breezing their way, even from an apostle like Paul. Their “daily” examination of Scripture evokes a picture of studious and intelligent people who did not give God lip-service on the Sabbath but from sun-up to sun-down had, as the Psalmist of old, the word of God on their heart. They did this daily because Paul, as Acts 17:17 specifies, reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews on a daily basis. Luke tells us that not only did the Bereans examine the Scriptures, but they did this purposely to see what Paul said was true or not. Hence, the actions of the Bereans, if we are to take them as our model, seem to set Scripture up on the sole judge of what a teacher is proclaiming. For Sola Scriptura advocates, Scripture is portrayed as the given, but Paul was the new-comer who had to be authenticated. The passage seems to assert, or at least strongly suggest, that in judging anything claiming to be from God, Scripture must be the sole and final authority.

But is Scripture as the final authority a la Protestantism, the message Luke is trying to impart here? Let us examine the context of this passage to find out. Acts 17:2 records:

And Paul, as his manner was, went into them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures.

Here we see that it was not only the Bereans who were steeped in Scripture, but rather Paul himself, who in this regard had led the way in all the synagogues in which he taught. At this early time in Christian history, the synagogue was still the main meeting place, for Jews as well as Greeks. It was Paul’s “custom” or “manner” to visit the synagogues in each city of his missionary journey. For example, on his trip to Antioch recorded in Acts 13:14, Luke tells us that on the Sabbath Paul and his companions entered the synagogue and read from the Law and the Prophets. As he would later do in Thessalonica and Berea in Acts 17, Paul made it a continual practice to read and teach from the Scriptures--in this case, the Old Testament. Hence we see that Paul’s teaching sessions in the synagogue were to a people who knew their Scripture, used it often, and were willing to exchange ideas about it. If Paul appealed to Scripture, then it was to Scripture the people would go back to check if what Paul said “were so.”

But there was a special reason that Paul may have stimulated (or agitated) his hears. In Thessalonica, Acts 17:2 records that Paul not only read in the Scripture but that he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that Christ had to suffer. Apparently, Paul was deducing from already known Scripture new understandings about what the Scripture meant in light of the events that had just taken place a decade or so earlier.

In Luke’s wording we notice a slight difference between what Scripture said and what Paul taught. In the beginning of verse 3 he says that Paul was “alleging that Christ must needs have suffered and risen again from the dead” but in the latter part he records Paul saying, “This Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.” The difference between the two is that Paul is interpreting “The Christ” of the Old Testament to be the “Jesus” of the New Testament. Since the Old Testament did not use the name of “Jesus” to identity the Messiah (Christ), Paul’s message was a new application of Scripture. Further, the Jews did not believe that their coming Messiah had to “suffer,” let alone “rise from the dead.” Most of the Jews expected their Messiah to be a powerful king who would relieve them of Gentile rule. In their view, he would not have to rise from the dead because he would establish himself as an eternal king who would rule forever over the Jews’ enemies. They simply did not understand, in the same manner as New Testament authors, Old Testament “proof-texts” used to support the Messiah as a suffering servant who had to die--a suffering underwent precisely for their sin of disbelief in him.

In Thessalonica, it was Paul’s statement that “the Christ” of the Old Testament was the “Jesus” of the New which caused such contention and jealously among the Jews. In Acts 17:5-9 Luke records their response:

But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people. And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also; Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Casear, saying that there is another king, one Jesus. And they troubled the people and the rulers of the city, when they heard these things, And when they had taken security of Jason, and of the other, they let them go.

It is apparent by their last words, “one [called] Jesus,” that the Jews simply not ready to accept the Christ of the Old Testament as the Jesus of the New Testament. Hence, Paul and the Jews of Thessalonica were not contending about the veracity or usefulness of Scripture; rather, it was Paul’s interpretation of Scripture that they could not accept. Everyone believed Scripture’s prophecy about the coming Messiah. But the information that the Christ was “Jesus” who had recently suffered and died at the hands of the Jews was something Paul was getting from another source outside of Scripture. This new information, would, of course, correlate with Scripture but it would nonetheless be in addition to Scripture. Such was the case, in fact, in Paul’s own conversion. He had to be convinced through additional divine revelation that the people who followed “Jesus,” and whom he was persecuting were in actuality the followers of “the Christ.” In Acts 9:5, after being knocked off his horse by a flash of light, the Lord said to Paul, “I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.” At that instant, Paul recognised that his long-awaited Messiah was the “Jesus” who had suffered and died a decade or so ago. It was not Scripture that brought him to this point but a revelation from Jesus himself showing Paul how the Old Testament Scriptures were to be interpreted.

When Paul arrived in Berea, he acted just as he did in Thessalonica--he went to the synagogue to teach. We may assume that he engaged in similar “reasoning,” “explaining and proving” from Scripture with the Bereans that he had done with the Thessalonians. We may also assume that Paul, as in Thessalonica, made it a point to teach the Bereans that Christ of the Old Testament was the Jesus of the New Testament. The Bereans received Paul’s interpretation of scripture without hesitation.

When Luke wrote his account of the actions of the Bereans in Acts 17:11, we see that these Berean Jews “received the word with all readiness.” We can surmise from his previous encounter with the Thessalonians that the main message the Bereans were receiving with eagerness was Paul’s news that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ. Because they believed Paul’s message about the identity of the Messiah, Luke concludes that they were “more noble than those in Thessalonica.” Moreover, their being more noble was also demonstrated when they “searched the scriptures daily” to see if Paul’s message was true. It showed that they cared greatly for God’s revelation, in whatever form it came. We can imagine that their counterparts in Thessalonica perhaps did not investigate the testimony of Scripture after Paul told them that Jesus was the Messiah. They had a blinded or one-sided view of Scripture and did not care for Paul’s interpretation. They were not willing to “reason” from Scripture’s circumstantial evidence that the Messiah was indeed Jesus, thus, they were not noble, open-minded people.

But why, we ask, did Luke consider the Jews of Berea more “noble” than the Jews in Thessalonica, when, according to Luke’s description of the Thessalonians in Acts 17:4, some of the Jews from Thessalonica joined Paul and Silas, as did God-fearing Greeks. It is obvious that not all the Jews in Thessalonica had rejected Paul’s interpretation of Scripture. Wouldn’t Luke consider these Jews “noble” for accepting Paul’s message? The answer is yes, but these noble Jews were so badly outnumbered by the jealous and riotous Jews who rejected Paul’s message that Luke was forced to sum up the situation in Thessalonica as one of general unbelief. We also see this in the way he describes how many people were positively influenced by Paul’s message. Regarding the Thessalonians in Acts 17:4, he points out that only some of the Jews were persuaded while in regard to the Bereans in Acts 17:12 many of them were persuaded. Apparently, the number of believing Jews in Berea were of a sufficient quantity that Luke could designate them, at large, as “noble” in contrast to the overall negative disposition of the people in Thessalonica. Moreover, the unbelieving Jews of Thessalonica further justified Luke’s negative assessment since they caused riots among the people both in Thessalonica and later in Berea (cf. Acts 17:5-9; 17:13-15).

In view of the above facts, is it reasonable to conclude that the Bereans, because they examined, on a daily basis, the Scriptures to ascertain the answer to the question of the truthfulness or lack thereof, of Paul’s message, are models of the modern theory of Sola Scriptura? Is Luke trying here to teach us that being “more noble” or “nobility” consists in using Scripture as the final authority in determining the veracity of oral teaching? When we look at the evidence fairly and accurately, the answer is a resounding “no.” Any attempt to extract from this short pericope a teaching of Sola Scriptura is simply reading into the texts one’s doctrinal bias (eisegesis, in other words). First, the text is simply a narrative of events that occurred in two respective cities, not a treatise on the nature and extent of Scripture and its authority. Granted, the passage suggests how Paul and his hearers used and understood Scripture but neither Paul or his commentator Luke say anything definitive about the doctrine of Scripture. Second, we have seen from our comparison of the Jews in Berea with the Jews in Thessalonica that Luke considered the former more noble not because they merely examined Scripture, but mainly because they believed Paul’s oral revelation that the Christ of the Old Testament was the Jesus of the New Testament. Luke attributes nobility to them because they received his oral message with eagerness. The Bereans believed that the apostle’s oral message had just as much divine authority as the Scripture. In Acts 17:13, Luke specifies that Paul’s oral message to be the very word of God. Paul was not merely speaking about the word of God, he was speaking the actual word of God. Elsewhere, Paul’s own assessment of his oral teaching to the Thessalonians confirms its superlative distinction, for in 1 Thess 2:13, he states:

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.

This is a pivotal passage because it shows that Paul considered his oral message to the Thessalonians in Acts 17:1-4 (which revealed that Jesus was the Christ), and by necessary extension his oral message to the Bereans in Acts 17:11-13, as divine revelations on par with Scripture. In fact, no one could know the real meaning of Scripture, as obscure as it was at times, unless accompanied by an equally authoritative divine interpretation. This is the essential teaching of the Berean encounter.

Since the Old Testament did not explicitly identify “the Christ” as “Jesus,” it was impossible for the Jews of Berea, using the Old Testament alone, to have proven from Scripture that Jesus was the Messiah. One could certainly “reason,” “explain” and “prove” that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead, but there was no explicit evidence, other than Paul’s authoritative testimony, that the one who was prophesied in the Old Testament to suffer and rise was the Jesus who walked the earth only a decade or so earlier. The Bereans were noble because they accepted Paul’s apostolic authority on the identity of the Messiah, not because they could extract such for themselves from the Old Testament that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. Thus, their “examination” of Scriptures was limited to re-evaluating those passages which spoke of the Messiah as the one who had to suffer, die, and rise again; not to prove or disprove that Jesus was the Messiah. Before Paul’s teachings to the Bereans, like most Jews, thought that the Messiah would be recognised by a majestic appearance and a subsequent conquering of the Gentiles. It was not until Paul pointed out that the Old Testament passages which spoke of God’s servant as one who had to suffer must be interpreted to apply to the Messiah, and, more importantly, that his name was Jesus. The typical Jew, although he knew his Scripture, invariably skipped over the numerous passages in the Old Testament that suggested his Messiah had to first come as one to suffer and die. As Paul says in 2 Cor3:14-16:

But their minds were blinded; for until this day remained the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.

After Paul was done teaching, the now enlightened Jew could read a passage like Isaiah 53 and see it in a whole different light (cf. Luke 24:26; Acts 8:26-35). It was in connecting Paul’s divine revelation of the person of Jesus with the suffering passages of the Old Testament that the Bereans examined scripture to see if Paul’s message was true. The Berean did not first believe that Jesus was the Messiah and then examine Scripture to see if Paul’s identifying of Jesus was the Messiah was true. No, he examined the Scriptures that spoke of the suffering servant and then accepted by faith that the “Jesus” about whom Paul spoke was indeed the Messiah. His faith was based on accepting Paul’s authority to interpret Scripture, while Scripture served mainly as a witness to what Paul preached. Scripture could not serve as the sole determinant of what Paul taught for the simple reading that Scripture never identified “the Christ” specifically as “Jesus.” Using the New Testament approach to Scripture, He was designated with names like “the prophet” (Deut 18:15) or “Immanuel” in Isaiah, but never “Jesus” (Matt 1:21). The Bereans, as their Old Testament prescribed, needed at least two or three witnesses to prove the veracity of a certain person or event (cf. Deut 19:15; 2 Cor13:1). Paul was one witness and Scripture another, and both were necessary for truth to be know and understood. Hence, Acts 17:11 cannot support the concept of Sola Scriptura. If anything, it implicitly denies such a teaching.

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). 

George Haydock, commenting on this passage, cogently noted the following:

The Berœans did not read the Old Testament (and the New was not then published) to dispute with the apostles, or to sanction his doctrines: but it was a great comfort and confirmation to the Jews that had the Scriptures, to find, even as S. Paul said, that Christ was God, crucified, risen, and ascended to heaven; which by his expounding they understood, and never before, though they read them, and heard them read every sabbath. So it is a great comfort to a Catholic to see in the Scriptures the clear passages that prove the truth of his tenets, and shew the grounds for his hopes. But this by no means authorizes him to be judge of the true pastors of the Church, whom he is commanded by Jesus Christ to hear and obey, and from whom they are to learn the genuine sense of the Scriptures. (George Leo Haydock, Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary [New York: Edward Dunigan and Brother, 1859], Acts 17:11)

No, 2 Tim 3:16-17 does not teach Sola Scriptura

2 Tim 3:16-17 is perhaps the most commonly cited passage to support Sola Scriptura, so let us carefully examine the passage in some detail:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

The Greek reads as follows:

πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν, πρὸς ἐλεγμόν, πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν, πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ, ἵνα ἄρτιος ᾖ ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ ἄνθρωπος, πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἐξηρτισμένος

There are a number of problems with the common Protestant appeal to this pericope as biblical support for sola scriptura:

(1) It is not talking about the extent of scripture, only the quality thereof.

In an old exchange with Robert Sungenis on his Alpha and Omega Website, James White wrote the following on 2 Tim 3:16-17 and how it relates to the formal doctrine of the Reformation, sola scriptura:

It is a common error to drag the *extent* of the graphe into this passage: that is obviously not Paul's intention.

Here, White concedes that 2 Tim 3:16-17 is not about the extent (the "tota" of scriptura), but just the nature of scripture. Why is this significant? It again shows that Protestants, to support the idea that special revelation ended with the inscripturation of the final book of the New Testament, will have to go outside of the Bible and privilege such a teaching/tradition en par with the written word to support such a dogmatic view, which is contrary to sola scriptura, as all other sources of truth are to be subordinated to the Bible! Again, this proves sola scriptura to be theological "quicksand" which inevitably traps its defenders as it is actually anti-biblical.

(2) The problem of absolutizing vv.16-17

For instance, in 2 Tim 3:15, we read:

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

In this verse, Paul writes that Timothy knew the holy scriptures ([τα] ιερα γραμματα) since infancy, writings which were able (δυναμαι) to make him wise and lead to salvation. However, the Scriptures discussed in this verse are not Scripture in general (as in v.16), but the Old Testament texts. Absolutising vv.16-17 as many Protestants are wont to do, verse 15 “proves” the formal sufficiency of the Old Testament and precludes any need for the New Testament. Of course, such would be equally as silly as claiming vv.16-17 is evidence for sola scriptura.

(3) Paul did not say Scripture was “sufficient” only “profitable”

The Greek term translated as “profitable” is ωφελιμος, which is actually a qualitatively weak word. It does not denote formal sufficiency, but something that is “useful” or “beneficial,” as major lexicons of Koine Greek state (e.g. BDAG; Moulton-Milligan; TDNT). There are a number of Greek words Paul could have, and should have used if he wished to portray “Scripture” as being formally sufficient, such as the terms ικανος and αυταρκεια. Indeed, such terms are used in the Pastoral Epistles themselves to denote the concept of formal sufficiency:

And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able (ικανος) to teach others also. (2 Tim 2:2)

But godliness with contentment is great gain (αυταρκεια). (1 Tim 6:6)

In the 3-volume Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, eds. Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1993), the following definition of the term (ωφελιμος) is offered, which highlights how weak the term is in comparison to the force many Protestant apologists read into it (taken from 3:511-12)

ωφελιμος ophelimos useful, advantageous.

This noun occurs 4 times in the NT, all in parenetic contexts in the Pastorals. According to 1 Tim 4:8 (bis) “bodily training is useful only for some things, while godliness is of value in every way” (πρὸς ὀλίγον ἐστὶν ὠφέλιμος . . .προς παντα ωφελιμος) . . .The context suggests that the idea of “training, physical fitness” is to be appropriated for the realm of piety, alluding to the ascetic goals of the adversaries in vv. 1ff . . . 2 Tim 3:16: πασα γραφη . . . και ωφελιμος προς διδασκαλιαν . . .”useful/profitable for teaching . . .” Titus 3:8: “good deeds” (καλα εργα) are expected of Church members, since they are καλα και ωφελιμα τοις ανθρωποις, “good and profitable for people.”

BDAG:

8089  ὠφέλιμος

• ὠφέλιμος, ον (ὠφελέω; Thu.+) useful, beneficial, advantageous τινί for someone or for someth. (Polyaenus 8 prooem.) Tit 3:8; Hv 3, 6, 7. Also πρός τι (Pla., Rep. 10, 607d) 1 Ti 4:8ab; 2 Tim 3:16. Heightened ὑπεράγαν ὠφέλιμος 1 Cl 56:2.—The superl. (Artem. 5 p. 252, 13; Ps.-Lucian, Hipp. 6; Vi. Aesopi II p. 306, 12 Ebh.; Jos., Ant. 19, 206; PMich 149 XVIII, 20 [II AD]) subst. τὰ ὠφελιμώτατα what is particulary helpful 62:1 (Appian, Bell. Civ. 5, 44 §186 τὰ μάλιστα ὠφελιμώτατα).—DELG s.v. 2 ὀφέλλω. M-M.

(4) Church offices and officers being the final authority? Eph 4:11-14 as a meaningful parallel

For many commentators, the “high” language Paul uses of Scripture is seen by them as strong evidence, if not “proof,” that the “Scripture” (which they read as one-to-one equivalent with the “Bible”) is formally sufficient. However, this argument, and other arguments, some of which were dealt with above, is scripture-wrenching of the worse degree.

If one wishes to absolutise 2 Tim 3:16 in the way that Evangelicals and others wish to, as evidence of Sola Scriptura, then being consistent, the words of Paul in Eph 4:11-14 vis-à-vis the offices and officers in the Church “prove” that they are formally sufficient and there is no need for other authorities, or at least, these authorities are the final authority and all other authorities are subordinated thereto.

The pericope reads as follows:

And he gave some apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.

If one wishes to absolutise this pericope to “prove” that the offices and officers within the Church are sole (formally sufficient) authority, one would point out the use of προς, the preposition “toward” and the term καταρτισμος (KJV: perfecting) which means “to equip,” and how the offices within the Church are the instrumental means by which believers (or “the man of God” to borrow the language of 2 Tim 3) come to the unity of faith, and how it is part of a purpose or ινα- clause in the Greek, “that (ινα) [believers] be no more children” who are taken in by new, erroneous doctrines, but are stable in their faith.

Now, if such terms were predicated upon “Scripture,” I can see a defender of Sola Scriptura pointing to this pericope as definitive “proof” of the Bible teaching its own formal sufficiency. However, unfortunately for the defender of this doctrine, nothing of the kind is predicated upon Scripture in this pericope; instead, such terms are predicated upon the ecclesiastical offices and officers. Is such biblical proof of their being formally sufficient and the sole final authority? No, but it does highlight the special pleading and eisegesis proponents of Sola Scriptura are forced to engage in due to their man-made doctrine vis-à-vis 2 Tim 3:16 and other “proof-texts” used by Protestant apologists to defend this practice.

(5) The use of the ινα clause and the terms “perfect” and “thoroughly furnished”

The Greek structure of 2 Tim 3:17 is that of a ινα-clause. The particle ινα corresponds to “[so] that” in many constructions (i.e. a “purpose clause”) it is used in, including this particular text. The argument, forwarded by some apologists is that it is the Scriptures and the Scriptures only that equip the “man of God” to be equipped to teach doctrine. Additionally, they also argue that when coupled with the terms αρτιος (“fit”) and εξαρτιζω (“equipped”) further support the Bible being formally sufficient.

The definitions of "complete" and "perfect" and other like-terms speak more to the expected result. Suffice it to say that, coupled with the very infrequent usage of these words in Koine Greek, the variations in meaning suggests that the understanding and application of the words will depend heavily upon the context in which they are placed.

BDAG defines the terms thusly:

1143  ἄρτιος

• ἄρτιος, ία, ον (Hom.+; Epict. 1, 28, 3; IG XIV, 889, 7 ἄ. εἴς τι; TestAbr A 8 p. 85, 12 [Stone p. 18]; Ath., R. 77, 4 ἀρτίως; Philo) pert. to being well fitted for some function, complete, capable, proficient=able to meet all demands 2 Ti 3:17.—DELG s.v. ἄρτι. M-M. TW.

2753  ἐξαρτίζω

• ἐξαρτίζω (s. ἄρτιος) 1 aor. ἐξήρτισα; pf. pass. ptc. ἐξηρτισμένος (late; Ex 28:7 v.l.).

1. to bring someth. to an end, finish, complete (IG XII/2, 538; POxy 296, 7 [I AD] of documents; Jos., Ant. 3, 139) ἐ. ἡμᾶς τ. ἡμέρας our time was up Ac 21:5 (cp. Hippocr., Epid. 2, 180 ἀπαρτίζειν τὴν ὀκτάμηνον).

2. to make ready for service, equip, furnish (Diod. S. 14, 19, 5 Vogel v.l.; Lucian; Arrian; Jos., Ant. 3, 43 v.l.; CIG II, 420, 13; Mitt-Wilck. I/2, 176, 10 [I AD]; pap, e.g. PAmh 93, 8; PTebt 342, 17) πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἐξηρτισμένος for every good deed 2 Ti 3:17 (with ἐξηρτισμένος πρός τι cp. Diod. S. 19, 77, 3 ναῦς ἐξηρτισμένας πρὸς τὸν πόλεμον πρὸς τὴν τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἐλευθέρωσιν).—DELG s.v. ἀραρίσκω, s. also ἄρτι. M-M. TW. Spicq.

Observing Paul's play on words further helps us to understand the use of ἄρτιος and ἐξηρτισμένος in 2 Timothy 3:17. The adjective ἄρτιος and the perfect passive participle ἐξηρτισμένος derive from the same verb αρτιζω. The prefix ἐξ puts a perfective force on ἐξηρτισμένος, which denote the meaning of "altogether" or "fully." In a somewhat repetitive way, Paul describes the kind of man he envisions (a fit or capable man) and then explains the result of that capability (he is now fully equipped for every good work).

One of the most important points about 2 Timothy 3:16-17 for the present discussion on Sola Scriptura is that neither the adjective ἄρτιος nor the participle ἐξηρτισμένος is describing "Scripture"; rather, they are both describing the "man of God." However, some proponents of Sola Scriptura, realising such, insist that only the "man of God" is perfectly equipped if Scripture is the perfect equipper. Notwithstanding, such is based, yet again, on eisegesis.

Firstly, no one can prove that the only or even primary meaning of ἄρτιος or αρτιζω is "perfect" or "sufficient." There are many other words Paul could have used to denote the concept of perfection or absolute sufficiency which he obviously did not use in the context of 2 Timothy 3. Moreover, the specific meanings of these words are conditioned, or are relative to, the context in which they are contained. Secondly, while in verse 17 Paul uses the adjective ἄρτιος and the participle ἐξηρτισμένος  to describe the "man of God," he uses a much weaker word, ὠφέλιμος ("profitable"), in verse 16 to describe scripture. ὠφέλιμος means "helpful, beneficial, useful, advantageous." It is not a word that connotes solitary sufficiency and certainly nothing close to the absolute or formal sufficiency that Protestants must assign to Scripture to support the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. In fact, there is an implied insufficiency or limitation in ὠφέλιμος.

To show the intent of Paul's description of Scripture as profitable, a simply analogy from Scripture will help illustrate the point. In Ephesians 6:10, Paul instructs Christians to "Put on the full armour of God so that you can stand against the devil's schemes." Included in the full armour is "the belt of truth," the "breastplate of righteousness," the "feet fitted with readiness," the "shield of faith," the "helmet of salvation," and the "sword of the Spirit which is the word of God" (Ephesians 6:11-18). We notice here that Paul includes many aspects of the Christian walk in making one prepared to fight evil (the same evil Paul instructs Timothy to fight in 2 Timothy 2-4), such as truth, righteousness, readiness, faith, salvation, and the word of God. We also notice that Paul considers the "word of God" but one of many components of the "full armour" of God. The "full armour" of Ephesians 6:11 is analogous to being "fully equipped" in 2 Timothy 3:17. Finally, Paul adds prayer to the list of items to ward off the devil as he says, "Pay also for me, that whenever I open my mouth, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel" (Ephesians 6:19). We see from this analogy that Paul intends his message to reveal all the things necessary to teach and defend the gospel and lead a good and wholesome Christian life, not to give a lesson on "sufficiency" for the sake of argument, one cannot presume that a sufficiently equipped man has been made that way only by Scripture. Certainly, Scripture (being defined here as the 66 books of the Protestant canon) plays a large part in the equipping, but Paul does not tout it as the only source to help in this process, nor a source that will automatically do so.

 (6) Who or what is a “man of God”?

Often, Protestants simply assume that “the man of God” is any Christian. However, the term “man of God” is much more specific, meaning an individual specifically set apart by God (be it a prophet, apostle, or an appointed ecclesiastical leader). If we go even deeper into the passage and reflect on the terms used, the case is strengthened all the more. For example, "profitable for teaching" (2 Tim 3:16). Does this make more sense as describing the Bible, or rather, a teacher (the "man of God") who is teaching from the Bible with authority? If we search "teach" or "taught" or "instructed" or any similar terms in the Bible, we are hard pressed to find them ever applied to a mere book. In every instance I have found so far, it is always applied as a description of a man of God teaching (at times using the Bible as an aid). Examples:

The Eleven Disciples:

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matt 28:20)

Paul and Barnabas:

Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others, also. (Acts 15:35)

Paul:

And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house. (Acts 20:20)

Timothy:

Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. (1 Tim 4:13; cf. 4:11, 16)

Elders

Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. (1 Tim 5:17)

(7) Only the Bible is said to be “Inspired” by God-argument

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 in 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Thess 2:15), and such authorities are said to be Paul to be en par with the written word with respect to their authority.

Answering the objection that "Word-of-mouth tradition is never said to be theopneustos, God breathed, or infallible," one critic of sola scriptura responded, in part, that:

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).

Furthermore, Sungenis notes the following which refutes the possible counter that the binding teaching of the apostles would eventually be inscripturated into the Bible:

[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. (Ibid., pp. 225-26, 236-37).

In an attempt to bolster appeals to 2 Tim 3:16 and θεοπνευστος to support Sola Scriptura, one Reformed apologist wrote the following while appealing to Job 32:8:

[I]n Job 32:8 “inspiration” is translated from the Hebrew “nĕshamah” (נְשָׁמָה) which means the same thing. (Rowan Murphy, The Sufficiency and Superiority of Scripture: An exposition of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 proving the sufficiency and superiority of Scripture for every aspect of the Christian Life [2016], 18)

This is simply false and shows us that many defenders of Sola Scriptura rely on eisegesis and have a poor grasp of even the basics of language and interpretation.  נְשָׁמָה does not mean “inspiration.” It simply means “breath”; it is being used metaphorically in Job 32:8, but the primary meaning of a word cannot be derived from its use in metaphor (using that logic, an “apple” is a part of the human eye based on one member of a couple saying to the other that they are “the apple” of his/her eye!). Here is how HALOT defines the term:

6385  נְשָׁמָה

נְשָׁמָה, SamP. naÒãsëeÒmaâ: נשם, Bauer-L. Heb. 463t; MHeb., Palm. )Jean-H. Dictionnaire 187(, BArm. Sam. CPArm. ) נשמאSchulthess Lex. 129a(, JArm. נִשְׁמְתָא, Syr. nsëamtaÒ, Mnd. )Drower-M. Dictionary 300a(; Arb. nasamat breath; Mitchell VT 11 )1961(:177ff; Johnson Vitality 27ff; Scharbert SBS 19 )1967²(:22ff; ï נֶפֶשׁ: נִשְׁמַת, נִשְׁמָתוֹ, נְשָׁמוֹת:

—1. movement of air: נִשְׁמַת רוּחַ 2S 22₁₆/Ps 18₁₆;

—2. a) breath 1K 17₁₇ Is 2₂₂ (Wildberger BK 10:114), 42₅ Jb 27₃ (Dahood Biblica 50 (1969):339f: his breath !), 34₁₄ Pr 20₂₇ Da 10₁₇ Sir 9₁₃; נִשְׁמַת מִי whose breathing? Jb 26₄; bנִשְׁמַת חַיִּים ( breathing of life Gn 2₇, ) נִשְׁמַת רוּחַ חַיִּים נִ׳ and ר׳ var. ?( Gn 7₂₂ )cf. EA sëaÒr balaÒtÌi AHw. 1193a(; cנִשְׁמַת אֵל ( breathing of God Ringgren Religion 108f, ï רוּחַ( Jb 37₁₀, נִשְׁמַת שַׁדַּי 32₈ 33₄, אֱלוֹהַּ נִ׳ 4₉, יהוה Åנִ Is 30₃₃;

—3. a( living being כָּל־נְשָׁמָה everything that has breath Dt 20₁₆ 1K 15₂₉ Jos 11₁₁.₁₄, = כָּל־הַנְּשָׁמָה Jos 10₄₀ Ps 150₆ Sir^Adl. 33₂₁; bנְשָׁמוֹת ( breath )Westermann ATD 19:260( or an animate being Is 57₁₆ Sir 9₁₃. †

It should be noted that early Chrisitans also believed that their writings were "inspired" too:

  

The author of 2 Clement believed that 1 Clement was an inspired document and cites 1 Clement 23.3-4 with the words “for the prophetic word also says” (λεγει γαρ και ο προφητικος λογος) (2 Clem. 11.2). These are the usual words that designate writings as inspired. Clement of Rome (ca. 90-95) told his readers that Paul’s letter, 1 Corinthians, was written “with true inspiration” (επ’ αληθειας πνευματικως) (1 Clem. 47.3), but later claimed inspiration for himself, saying that his own letter was “written through the Holy Spirit” (γεγραμμενοις δια του αγιου πνευματος) (1 Clem. 63.2). Ignatius also emphasized his own inspiration: “I spoke with a great voice—with God’s own voice . . . But some suspected me of saying this because I had previous knowledge of the division among you. But the one in whom I am bound is my witness that I had no knowledge of this from any human being, but the Spirit was preaching and saying this [το δε πνευμα εκηρυσσεν, λεγον ταδε]” (Ign. Phld. 7.1b-2, LCL, emphasis added). (Lee Martin McDonald, “Recognizing Christian Religious Texts as Scriptures,” in Ancient Jewish and Christian Scriptures: New Developments in Canon Controversy, ed. John J. Collins, Craig A. Evans, and Lee Martin McDonald [Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2020], 108; McDonald places 2 Clement from 140-160 [“Forming Christian Scriptures as a Biblical Canon,” ibid., 123)

 

Commenting on Ignatius’ words in his epistle to the Philadelphians, Schodel noted that:

  

Ignatius traces his outbursts to God's Spirit. He shared with many others in the Graeco-Roman world the belief that a sudden loud utterance marked the inrush of the divine. The bishop clothes this perception in traditional Christian language when he denies that "human flesh" made the situation known to him (cf. Matt 16: 17; Gal 1: 16; 1 Cor 2: 13) and in specifically Johannine terms when he describes the Spirit as knowing whence it comes and whither it goes (cf. John 3:8). Here we have the strongest possibility in Ignatius of a dependence directly on the Fourth Gospel. Yet in the absence of other positive evidence of such dependence the question must be left open. Moreover, the Johannine writings speak of knowing the whence and whither of figures other than the Spirit, and this suggests that we are dealing with a formula that could have been known to Ignatius apart from the gospel.  In any event, Ignatius appears before us here as one moved by the Spirit (cf. Rom. 7 .2), yet as one who also takes it for granted that the Spirit speaks through and on behalf of established authority (cf. Phd. inscr). (William R. Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch: A Commentary on the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch [Hermeneia-A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985], 205-6)

 

As Lee Martin McDonald (Baptist) noted:

 

There are in fact many examples of noncanonical authors who claimed, or were acknowledged by others, to have been filled or inspired by the Spirit in their speaking or writing. The point is that the Scriptures were not the only ancient writings that were believed to be inspired by God. Generally speaking, in the early church the common word for “inspiration” (theopneustos; see 2 Tim 3:16) was used not only in reference to the Scriptures (OT or NT), but also of individuals who spoke or wrote the truth of God. For example, Gregory of Nyssa (ca. 330–95) describes Basil’s 330–79) commentary on the creation story and claims that the work was inspired and that his words even surpassed those of Moses in terms of beauty, complexity, and form: it was an “exposition given by inspiration of God . . . [admired] no less than the words composed by Moses himself.” Kalin notes that the famous epitaph of Abercius from about the fourth century was called an “inspired inscription [theopneuston epigramma]” and that a synodical letter of the Council of Ephesus (ca. 433) describing the council’s condemnation of Nestorius was termed “their inspired judgment [or decision] [tēs auton theopneustou kriseōs].”

 

From these and many other examples, we see that the ancient church did not limit inspiration to the Scriptures or even to literature alone. In his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin Martyr argues that “the prophetical gifts remain with us even to the present time. And hence you ought to understand that [the gifts] formerly among your nation [Israel] have been transferred to us” (Dial. 82, ANF; see also Dial. 87–88). Even in writings that dealt with the Montanist controversy (see Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.14–19) in the latter third of the second century, Kalin finds no evidence that the early church confined inspiration to an already past apostolic age or even to a collection of sacred writings. The traditional assumption that the early Christians believed that only the canonical writings were inspired is highly questionable. (Lee Martin McDonald, The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2007], 273, emphasis in original)

 

Finally, it should be noted that recent scholarship has argued that θεοπνευστος does not mean “inspired” but “life-giving.” For a book-length study see:

 

 John C. Poirier, The Invention of the Inspired Text: Philological Windows on the Theopneustia of Scripture (Library of New Testament Studies 640; London: T&T Clark, 2021)

 

Here are some notes based on the book:

Thesis: θεόπνευστος in 2 Tim 3:16 should be understood, not in the inspirationist sense (“inspired”) but instead vivifacationist (“life-giving”).

 

Clearly, a better approach would be one that associates God’s breathing with the same range of creative activity with which we find it associated in Scripture—that of giving life.

 

In other words, whereas Warfield continually spoke of the “breath of God” as “creative,” he should have spoken of it as “life-giving.” (p. 15)

 

The evidence that θεόπνευστος means “divinely inspired”:

 

simply is not there: the use of θεόπνευστος in a passage of Plutarch (De placit. Phil. 5.2 [Mor. 904.2]), for example, almost certainly comes from the hand of a copyist, covering over an earlier appearance of θεοεπμπτους. (p. 20)

 

 

And Cyme, the foolish, with her streams inspired (θεοπνευστος) of God. (Sibylline Oracle 5:308)

 

The background of Aeolian Cyme might illuminate two aspects of the sibyl’s choice of words. First, addressing Cyme as “the fool” recalls the fact that the city was regularly the butt of jokes: Strabo invokes the Cymeans’ legendary stupidity, manifest in their long-standing failure to impose harbor dues (Geography 13.3.6; cf. Herodotus, Hist. 8.130), while the Philogelos preserves more than twenty jokes aimed at the Cymeans’ dim-wittedness. Second, it is possible that the sibyl’s reference to Cyme’s failure to be a “life-giving” (θεόπνευστος) city is intended to recall Herodotus’ well-known account of the Cymeans’ failure to provide refuge for Paktyes against his Persian assailants (Hist. 1.154-57), in clear violation of accepted principles regarding the treatment of refugees. The judgment of death which the sibyl serves against Cyme fits with the hardships the Cymeans purportedly endured for failing to fulfil their obligation to a refugee. This, of course, comports with my suggested rendering of θεόπνευστος as “life-giving: as Cyme withheld its life-giving protection from Paktyes, so also death is dealt in its own ναματα. (p. 30 [ναματα = stream/running water])

 

But God, the great Father of all within whom is the breath of God (θεοπνευστος) (Sibylline Oracle 5:406)

 

Sib. Or. 5.397-407

The desired temple has been long extinguished by you,

when I saw the second temple thrown down,

soaked in fire by an unclean hand,

the ever-budding house, the watchful temple of God

made by holy ones and hoped

by their soul and body to be ever imperishable.

For no one unburied praises a god of obscure clay,

nor did a clever sculptor make one from stone,

nor worship an accoutrement of gold, a deception of souls.

But they honored the great God, begetter of all that is theopneustic,

with majestic sacrifices and holy hectatombs. (Author’s translation)

 

Warfield’s attempt to flatten θεόπνευστος into a designation of divine origination simpliciter fails to grasp the true sense in which the word is used. His emphasis on creatureliness speaks to his desire to tie the word’s normal meaning to the idea of origination. (This was in keeping with the general approach to θεόπνευστος, beginning about 1900, or slightly earlier.) Bate and Collins, on the other hand, correctly understood the use of θεόπνευστος in the passage: the oracle basically calls God the “God of the living” (cf. Mt. 22:32//Mk 12:27//Lk. 20:38) in a way that highlights the fact that he is the source of life. (p. 37)

 

 

And they tended the body of the just Abraham with divine (θεοπνευστος) ointments and perfumes until the third day after his death, and buried him in the land of promise, the oak of Mamre. (Testament of Abraham A 20:11)

 

20.10 And immediately Michael the archangel stood beside him with multitudes of angels, and they bore his honorable soul in their hands in divinely woven line,

20.11 And they tended the body of the righteous one with theopneustic ointments and perfumes until the third day after his death. (Author's translation)

 

Nearly everyone who has looked into the matter notes that translation θεόπνευστος as “inspired” does not fit the context and we are met with an array of guesses as to how the author used the term. (p. 40)

 

Theopneustic Ointments

 

In spite of the primary witnesses he gives for illustrating the suggested “hagiographical motif,” there are problems with Allison’s claim for “something close” to the “usual sense” of θεόπνευστος as “divinely inspired.” Among other things, this reference leaves an important contextual clue out of its account: the reference in the text to “three days,” and the connection between that three-day period and the “theopneustic ointments and perfumes.” While the pairing of θεόπνευστος with θεοφαντος is indeed notable, the function of the former term in this context more likely has to do with the well-known motif of a three-day waiting period after the soul’s release from the body. If the soul is allotted three days in which it might return, then Abraham’s body obviously must be preserved for three days against the effects of death. What better preservative than heavenly “life-giving” ointments? The key detail is not that the ointments are administered by angels, but rather that they are administered for three days, and three days only. The ointments evidently are not regular burial ointments, nor are they unguentaria. They are something no longer required after “the third day,” when there is no more need to preserve the body from decay.

 

A well-known example of the body being preserved from decay so that its spirit might return to it appears at the beginning of Plato’s presentation of the myth of Er in book 10 of the Republic (613-621d). Plato relates that Er’s corpse was preserved for twelve days, while his spirit was visiting the heavenly realm. Although the other slain bodies from the battlefield were all in a state of decay then days after the battle, Er’s body showed no signs of decay, and indeed his spirit return to his body as it lay on his funeral pyre:

 

Er, the son of Armenius, by race a Pamphylian . . . once upon a time was slain in battle, and when the corpses were taken up on the tenth day already decayed, was found intact (αναιρεθεντων δεκαταιων των νεκρων ηδη διεφαρμενων, υγιης μεν ανηρεθη, and having been brought home, at the moment of his funeral, on the twelfth day as he lay upon the pyre, revived, and after coming to life related what, he said, he had seen in the world beyond. (Plato, Republic 614b [trans. Paul Shorey, LCL 272, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980:491-3])

 

 

The idea that the spirit cannot return to its body unless that body had been preserved from corruption also parallels what we find in Jewish sources: the body's lack of decay is what makes it possible for the spirit to return. The advantage of this point of comparison, of course, lies in three three-day period of nondecay . . .That the body must remain in reanimable condition for a three-day period is implied in a number of Jewish and Christian sources . . .(1) in the Testament of Job, Job’s body remains unburied for three days (52.1-2; 53.7), (2) in the Apoc. Zeph. 4.7, it takes the angels three days to escort the ungodly to their final abode, (3) in Dormition of the Blessed Mary 48, the angels sing for three days after the death of Mary, 94) in David, Symeon, and George of Lesbos 9, the titular David says he will depart “after the third day,” (5) Demachot 8.1 recommends a three-day period of examining a grave to insure that the interred body was really dead, (6) according to Gen. Rab. 100.7, the soul tries, for three days, to reenter the body (cf. y. Mo’ed Qatan 3.5; Lev. Rab. 18.1), and (7) in 4 Bar. 9.12-14 a (heavenly) voice of warning held off burial, predicting the soul’s reanimation of the body, which happened as promised “after three days” . . . Thus the “theopneustic” ointments that the angels administer “until the third day” appear to function as “life-giving” preservatives to keep Abraham’s body in good repair, in case his soul should return to it. Θεοπνευστος therefore bears a vivificationist sense . . . The Testament of Abraham clearly does not use θεοπνευστος to denote the idea of verbal or epistemic inspiration. A meaning having to do with the special life-giving properties of the ointments and herbs—properties like those associated with ambrosia—make far better sense. (pp. 41-42, 43, 44)

 

But the speech of the divinely inspired (θεοπνευστος) wisdom is best. (Pseudo-Phocylides 1:129)

 

Considered in isolation from the verse’s context, both the inspirationist and vivifacationist renderings are plausible, as it is easy to envision wisdom as something imparted by divine inspiration, and is equally easy to view it as life-giving in its effects. Contextual considerations, however, weight in favor of the latter rendering. Several passages make it clear that wisdom, for Pseudo-Phocylides, is a matter of rational reflection on the created order. It is not acquired by means of inspiration—esoteric or otherwise—a notion that might have been at home in a more mystical writing. The notion what wisdom is life-giving, moreover, is very much a traditional Jewish thought, recalling Prov. 3:18’s reference to wisdom as a “tree of life” (cf. Prov. 8:35; 9:6; 13:14; Eccl. 7:12; 4Q185 2.11-13). IT can be found throughout Jewish and Christian wisdom writings and fits particularly well with the understanding of wisdom promoted by Pseudo-Phoclyides. A close parallel with the imagery of Sentences 129, in fact, can be found in the Latin version of Sir. 4:12 (=Greek Sir. 4:11 numerically), rendered in the Douay-Rheims version as “Wisdom inspireth life unto her children, and protecteth them that seek after her, and will go before them in the way of justice” (sapiential filiis suis vitam inspiravit et suscipit exquirentes se et praeibit in viam iustitiae). It is not unlikely, in fact, that Pseudo-Phocylides knew this verse in the form of its presumed Greek Vorlage (GrII). Nor is it unlikely that Sentences 129 is directly dependent on the expression preserved in Lat Sir. 4:12. (pp. 58-59)

 

Salvation as Vivification in 2 Tim. 3:14-17

 

v. 15b: “. . . sacred writings that are able to instruct you unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.”

v. 16a: “All scripture is life-giving [= salvific] and is useful for instruction.” (p. 102)

 

Verse 16a effectively repeats the thought of v. 15b, but in an abbreviated way, as the point of v. 16 is to expound on the several ways in which this salvific is “useful” (ωφελιμος)—that is, “for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” The idea of scripture being theopneustic is not the intruding thought that the traditional rendering takes it to be but rather a restatement of the previous verse’s point. As such, a vivificationist understanding of θεοπνευστος fits more snugly within the passage than the traditional rendering does.

 

By viewing salvation in terms of life, the understanding argued here invokes a soteriological conceptuality more characteristic of the Pastoral Epistles than of any other portion of the New Testament, except perhaps the Fourth Gospel Scholars often refer to salvation as a key theme in the Pastorals, and they typically characterize that salvation as the giving of life . . . This vivificationist soteriology comes to clearest expression in 2 Tim. 1:10, where grace is said to have been “revealed through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel” . . . 1 Tim. 1:16 speaks of those who will gain “eternal life” (ζωην αιωνιον), and 4:10 similarly speaks of the “promise of life” (επαγγελια ζωης). Tit. 3:7 speaks of the Spirit’s power to make us heirs of “eternal life” (ζωης αιωνιου). (p. 103)

 

Finally, it should be noted that early Christians did not believe that θεοπνευστος was limited to the "Bible," nor that they themselves were not producing inspired literature, too. Consider the following from Baptist scholar Lee Martin McDonald:

. . . there are examples of noncanonical authors who claimed, or were acknowledged by others, to have been filled or inspired by the Spirit when they spoke or wrote. The point is that the church’s Scriptures were not only the ancient messages or words believed to be inspired by God. Generally speaking in the early churches the common word for “inspiration” (θεοπνευστος; or “God-breathed”; see 2 Tim 3:16) was used not only in reference to the Scriptures (OT or NT), but also of individuals who spoke or wrote the truth of God. For example, Gregory of Nyssa (ca. 330-95) describes Basil’s (330-79) commentary on the creation story and claims that Basil’s work was inspired and that his words even surpassed those of Moses in terms of beauty, complexity, and form: it was an “exposition given by inspiration of God . . . [admired] no less than the word composed by Moses himself.” (Gregory of Nyssa, Apologia hexameron) This is quite remarkable since the text in question is compared to the church’s OT Scriptures (words of Moses) and believed to be superior to them. This reference does not suggest that there was a qualitative difference in the notion of inspiration in either the biblical or ecclesiastical texts. Similarly, the famous epitaph of Abercius (ca. fourth century) was called an “inspired inscription [θεοπνευστον επιγραμμα]” and a synodical letter of the Council of Ephesus (ca. 433) describing the council’s condemnation of Nestorius was termed “his [or its] inspired judgment [or decision] [της αυτον θεοπνεθστου κρισεως].” (Vita Abercii 76. Abercius Marcellus himself, who was bishop of Hieropolis of Phrygia of Asia Minor in the late second century, apparently penned the writing. He died ca. 200 CE)

 

From these and many other examples, we see that the ancient church did not limit inspiration to the Scriptures or even to literature alone. In his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin Martyr suggests that: “the prophetical gifts remain with us even to the present time. And hence you ought to understand that [the gifts] formerly among your nation [Israel] have been transferred to us” (Dial. 82, ANF; see also Dial. 87-88). He was speaking of the present and not of the past writing of NT Scriptures. Kalin finds no evidence that the early church confined inspiration to an already past apostolic age or to a collection of sacred writings, even in writings that dealt with the Montanist controversy (see Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.14-19) in the latter third of the third century. The traditional assumption that the early Christians believed that only the canonical writings were inspired is not demonstrable from the available evidence.

 

The rabbinic notion that “when the latter prophets died, that is, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, then the Holy Spirit came to an end in Israel” (t. Sotah 13:2) was simply not shared by the church. From his investigation of the church fathers up to 400, Kalin failed to turn up one example where an orthodox, but noncanonical, writing was ever called “uninspired”; such a designation appears to have been reserved for heretical authors. He concludes: “If the Scriptures were the only writings the church fathers considered inspired, one would expect them to say so, at least once in a while.” (Kalin, “Inspired Community,” 544-45) He adds that in the church inspiration applied not only to all Scripture, but also to the Christan community as a whole, as it bore “living witness of Jesus Christ.” Only heresy was considered to be uninspired, because it was contrary to this witness. (Ibid., 547) Von Campenhausen agrees but adds that the presence of prophetic literature among the Montanists—literature believed by the Montanists to be born of or prompted by the Holy Spirit but by others to be misguided—shows that at the end of the second century belief in inspiration was beginning to be confined to first-century literature. (Formation of the Christian Bible, 234-35) But if this were the case, we would see more examples of it in the second and later centuries. It would be more accurate to say that inspiration was not limited to the first century, but by the end of the second century the church was beginning to assume that inspired Scripture ceased after the apostolic era. (Lee Martin McDonald, The Formation of the Biblical Canon, 2 vols. [London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017], 2:343-45)

 

  

The author of 2 Clement believed that 1 Clement was an inspired document and cites 1 Clement 23.3-4 with the words “for the prophetic word also says” (λεγει γαρ και ο προφητικος λογος) (2 Clem. 11.2). These are the usual words that designate writings as inspired. Clement of Rome (ca. 90-95) told his readers that Paul’s letter, 1 Corinthians, was written “with true inspiration” (επ’ αληθειας πνευματικως) (1 Clem. 47.3), but later claimed inspiration for himself, saying that his own letter was “written through the Holy Spirit” (γεγραμμενοις δια του αγιου πνευματος) (1 Clem. 63.2). Ignatius also emphasized his own inspiration: “I spoke with a great voice—with God’s own voice . . . But some suspected me of saying this because I had previous knowledge of the division among you. But the one in whom I am bound is my witness that I had no knowledge of this from any human being, but the Spirit was preaching and saying this [το δε πνευμα εκηρυσσεν, λεγον ταδε]” (Ign. Phld. 7.1b-2, LCL, emphasis added). (Lee Martin McDonald, “Recognizing Christian Religious Texts as Scriptures,” in Ancient Jewish and Christian Scriptures: New Developments in Canon Controversy, ed. John J. Collins, Craig A. Evans, and Lee Martin McDonald [Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2020], 108; McDonald places 2 Clement from 140-160 [“Forming Christian Scriptures as a Biblical Canon,” ibid., 123)

 

Commenting on Ignatius’ words in his epistle to the Philadelphians, Schodel noted that:

  

Ignatius traces his outbursts to God's Spirit. He shared with many others in the Graeco-Roman world the belief that a sudden loud utterance marked the inrush of the divine. The bishop clothes this perception in traditional Christian language when he denies that "human flesh" made the situation known to him (cf. Matt 16: 17; Gal 1: 16; 1 Cor 2: 13) and in specifically Johannine terms when he describes the Spirit as knowing whence it comes and whither it goes (cf. John 3:8). Here we have the strongest possibility in Ignatius of a dependence directly on the Fourth Gospel. Yet in the absence of other positive evidence of such dependence the question must be left open. Moreover, the Johannine writings speak of knowing the whence and whither of figures other than the Spirit, and this suggests that we are dealing with a formula that could have been known to Ignatius apart from the gospel.  In any event, Ignatius appears before us here as one moved by the Spirit (cf. Rom. 7 .2), yet as one who also takes it for granted that the Spirit speaks through and on behalf of established authority (cf. Phd. inscr). (William R. Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch: A Commentary on the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch [Hermeneia-A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985], 205-6)

 

(8) The meaning of γραφη in the context of 2 Timothy

In a very good study of the term γραφη, Protestant scholar, L. Timothy Swinson wrote the following conclusion in his chapter on the use of the term in 2 Tim 3:16 which refutes the claim Paul was teaching Timothy that "Scripture" is formally sufficient:

2 Timothy and γραφη

Over the course of three consecutive literary units (3:10-13, 3;14-17, and 4:1-4), as with the rest of the letter leading into these units, the main topic of Paul’s reflection and instruction is the apostolic gospel proclamation that Timothy has been commanded to guard, proclaim, and hand down to other trustworthy men, and for which he is to suffer persecution. Even with Paul’s brief reference to το ιερα γραμματα, he remains undeterred in his promotion of the primary subject of concern. Indeed, his remark concerning το ιερα γραμματα itself serves as one of the bases supporting the excellence of οις εμαθες και επιστωθης (3:14), or the apostolic gospel message. In view of the various criteria examined here, it seems highly unlikely that Paul would privilege το ιερα γραμματα alone as adequate to prepare Timothy for the duties that fall to him as the pastor in Ephesus and as worthy of his confidence. Therefore, on the basis of the close exegetical analysis of 3:14-17 in isolation, and as it fits within the more extended discourse of 3:10-4:4, πασα γραφη in its immediate literary context should be construed as a reference to the combined witness of the apostolic gospel message alongside all of the recognized OT writings.[37]

One final point must be acknowledged here. While the case has been made that πασα γραφη serves as a reference to the integration of the apostolic gospel teaching with the OT writings, unlike η γραφη in 1 Tim 5:18, it has not yet been shown that πασα γραφη in 2 Tim 3:16 must refer to a written form of that apostolic message. Certainly, a written form of the gospel message would suit the thesis of this study, as well as the exegetical criteria adduced in 2 Timothy. Indeed, the current prevailing position concerning πασα γραφη inherently presumes a written referent. However, based strictly upon the literary context of 2 Timothy alone, one need not conclude that γραφη or any of the other terms. Paul uses to refer to his apostolic teaching refers to a written gospel.

Note for the Above

[37] In truth, while the argument presented here is distinct, the position of the present study concerning this particular point does not differ markedly from that of Knight, who writes, “In this letter Paul has praised Timothy for following his teaching (v. 10), has urged Timothy to continue in what he has learned from Paul (v. 14) has commanded Timothy to retain ‘the standard of sound word’ that he has heard from Paul (1;13), has commended him to entrust what he has heard from Paul to faithful men so that they could teach others (2:2), and has insisted that Timothy handle accurately ‘the word of truth’ (2:15). After his remarks on πασα γραφη he will urge Timothy to ‘preach the word’ (4:2), i.e., to proclaim the apostolic message, about which Paul has said so much in this letter. It seems possible therefore, that Paul by his use of πασα γραφη is expanding the earlier reference to the OT to include those accounts of the gospel may have been extant and perhaps also his own and other apostolic writings that have been ‘taught by the Spirit’ (1 Cor 2:13; cf. for this view, e.g., Stott). This understanding also fits well in this context. It provides a reason for Paul’s use of πασα and for his change from ιερα γραμματα, an OT designation, to πασα γραφη, a possibly more inclusive term. It would gather together Paul’s concern for the preservation and communication of the gospel and the apostolic understanding and application of that gospel and place it on a par with the OT, as 2 Pet 3:16-17 clearly does. And it would provide a clearer background for and transition to his demand that Timothy ‘preach the word’ (4:2)” (Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 448 as cited by Timothy Swinson, What is Scripture? Paul’s Use of Graphe in the Letters to Timothy [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 2014], 158-59)

One could continue, but it is clear that 2 Tim 3:16-17 does not support sola scriptura.

(9) James 1:4 as a meaningful parallel to 2 Tim 3:16-17

A common text used to neutralise 2 Tim 3:16-17 is that of Jas 1:4:

And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. (NASB)

The Greek terms "perfect" and "complete" are τελειος and ολοκληρος. These are very strong adjectives to be used to describe something. The problem here is that they are used to describe, not Scripture, but endurance. Absolutising Jas 1:4 in the way that Protestants absolutise 2 Tim 3:16-17, endurance/patience is all that is needed to live a Christian life to the exclusion of Scripture, which, of course, is absurd, but is a strong warning against the eisegesis apologists like Webster, King, White, and others engage in, as I document in my essay.

On this topic, Catholic apologist Trent Horn wrote the following in his The Case for Catholicism:

In 2 Timothy 2:21 Paul says that if Timothy keeps himself from bad influences, “he will be a vessel for noble use, consecrated and useful to the master of the house, ready for any good work.” The Greek phrase “every good work” (pan ergon agathon) is identical to what is used in 2 Timothy 3:17, but not Protestant would claim that a Christian only needs to stay away from bad influences in order to live the Christian life. James 1:4 uses stronger language to describe how endurance makes one “perfect” (teleioi) and “complete” (holokeroi) rather than “equips” believers but of course our faith does not rest on the virtue of patience alone. (Trent Horn, The Case for Catholicism: Answers to Classic and Contemporary Protestant Objections [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2017], 27)

In a footnote (Ibid., 27 n. 42), Horn refutes an attempted “counter” to an appeal to Jas 1:4 by Eric Svendsen (a 4 1/2-point Calvinist) in his hit-and-miss book Evangelical Answers:

Svendsen objects, saying, “The Greek word used here is different than that found in [2] Tim 3:17 ([teleos] is used, not [artios]” (Ibid., 138), but this is actually worse for the Protestant apologist because teleos communicates a stronger sense of completeness than artios (which the New American Standard Bible renders in 2 Timothy 3:17 as “adequate”). Svendsen then comments that James 1:4 only says that patience perfects a man of God in relation to “the ‘testing of your faith’ whereas Scripture makes the man of God ‘fully equipped’ to ‘teach, rebuke, correct, and train’” (Ibid. 139). But a person’s faith can certainly be tested by someone who challenges it and requires correction or proper teaching in response Therefore, this does not change the fact that Protestant arguments for sola scriptura based on 2 Timothy 3:16-17 can also be applied, in the style of argumentum ad absurdum, to James 1:4 and show that if patience is not a rule of faith despite its ability to perfect us in the ace of trials, then Scripture is not a sole rule of faith despite its ability to equip us to teach and correct others.

Refutation of other biblical texts often used to support Sola Scriptura

Matt 15:1-9 (cf. Mark 7:5-13)

Matt 15:1-9 reads as follows:

Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Before we begin, let us answer the question: What is the Korban rule? As one scholar put it:

The word “Let it be Korban whereby I am profitable to thee” is a form of solemn prohibition found, word for word as in the Gospel, in the Talmud. The meaning is, not that such alienated goods or services were really dedicated as an “offering,” but that they were to be regarded as if they had been dedicated.

The passage has been illumined from the Jewish side by J. Levy, who cites the relevant parallels from the Babylonian Talmud, Nedar I.4, ii.2, and iii.2. In the last passage there is a close parallel to Mk. Vii.11:

If anyone sees several persons eating figs that belong to him and says, “They are Korban with regard to you” (i.e., they are forbidden you), but afterwards discovers that as well as strangers his father and brothers are among them, then, according to the School of Shammai, his relatives are not bound by the Korban, but may partake of the figs; the strangers are bound by it. According to the School of Hillel, on the other hand, the relatives also are bound, even though the Korban has been pronounced with regard to them in error. And if anyone expressly lays such a Korban on his relatives, then they are bound by it and cannot receive anything from him that is covered by the Korban. (Matthew Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts [2d ed.: Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1954], 101. Emphasis in original)

The Jewish historian Josephus, in his The Antiquities of the Jews 13:297, refers to the Korban tradition as a "tradition of our forefathers":

What I would now explain is this, that the Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the laws of Moses; and for that reason it is that the Sadducees reject them, and say that we are to esteem those observances to be obligatory which are in the written word, but are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers.

The act of washing the hands was meant to remove ceremonial defilement caused by contact with unclean things. Ablutions were part of the faith and early religion of Israel (cf. Exo 30:8ff; Deut 21:6) and were common among the Qumran sectaries IQS v. 13-14 in the Manual of Discipleship:

No one is permitted to go into the water to obtain the purity of holy men, for men cannot be purified except they repent of their evil. God regards as impure all that transgress His word. No one is to have any association with such a man either in work or in goods, lest he incur the penalty of prosecution. Rather is he to keep away from such a man in every respect, for Scripture says: "Keep away from every false thing" [Exo 23:7].

Berakoth 8:1-4 introduces a discussion on how "the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel differ in what concerns a meal." The School of Shammai says: 'They wash the hands and then mix the cup.' And the School of Hillel says: 'they mix the cup and then wash the hands.' "The school of Shammai says: 'A man wipes his hands with a napkin and lays it on a table,' And the school of Hillel says: '[He lays it] on the cushion.' "The school of Shammai says: 'They sweep up the room and then wash the hands.' And the School Hillel says: 'They wash the hands and then sweep up the room.'

Aboth 3:14 Rabbi Akiba (30-135 AD) said: "Jesting and levity accustom a man to lewdness. The tradition is a fence around the Law; Tithes are a fence around riches; vows are a fence around abstinence; a fence around wisdom is silence."

Yasdaim 1:1 reads, "[To render the hands clean] a quarter-log or more [of water] must be poured over the hands [to suffice] for one person or even for two; a half-log or more [suffices] for three persons or for four; one log or more suffices for five or for ten or for a hundred. R. Jose says: Provided that for the last among them there remains not less than a quarter-log. More water may be added to the second [water that is poured over the hands], but more may not be added to the first." A quarter-log equals the bulk of an egg and a half.

Regarding Matt 15:5 ("But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me"), Nedarim 1:2 in the Mishnah mentions declaring something Korban that is an offering which is forbidden for common use because it must be used as a Temple offering:

If a man said to his fellow, Konam or Konah or Konas, these are substitutes for Korban, an Offering. [If he said,] Herek or Herekh or Heref, these are substitutes for Herem, a devoted thing. [If he said,] Nazih or Naziah or Paziah, these are substitutes for the Nazirite-vow. [If he said,] Shebutah or Shekukah, or if he vowed with the word Mota, these are substitutes for Shebuah, an oath. (The Mishnah: Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes [trans. Herbert Danby; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933; repr., Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2011], 264)

In his Appendix I, Danby defines Korban and Konam, its substitute word, as "(lit. 'an offering,' i.e., sacred as an offering dedicated to the Temple), the usual term introducing a vow to abstain from anything, or to deny another person the use of anything" (ibid., p. 794)

Nedarim 1:3-4, 2:2; 3:1-4, 10-11; 4:1-7; 5:6; 9:1, 4 also expounds on the Korban rules and exceptions.

With this as the background to the Korban Rule and Jesus' comments against the Pharisees as recorded in Matt 15//Mark 7, let us answer the question, "Does this event in the ministry of Christ prove the formal sufficiency of the Bible?" The answer is a resounding “no.” As one leading critic of sola scriptura wrote about Jesus' denunciation of the Korban rule:

[T]he problem with the Pharisees was not traditions, per se, but their refusal to form a synthesis of Scripture and divine Tradition that preserved the teaching of Scripture but allowed tradition to serve its main purpose, that is, to expound and enhance Scripture. They made their tradition contradict Scripture instead of using tradition to support Scriptural teaching. This principle is seen more clearly in the passage Jesus quote from Isaiah. In Isaiah 29:11 the prophet speaks of the neglect of Scripture among the Jews:

For you this whole vision is nothing but words sealed in a scroll. and if you give the scroll to someone who can read, and say to him, "Read this, please," he will answer, "I can't, it is sealed." Or if you give the scroll to someone who cannot read, and say, "Read this, please," he will answer, "I don't know how to read."

Here we see Isaiah complaining that the people have rejected the words of God written in scrolls by giving child-like excuses, i.e., "it is sealed" and "I don't know how to read." This language reveals that the people had reached such a point in their apostasy that they refused even to read God's words. We also find that their blindness to God's revelation is a product of God's wish to blind them to his truth because of their unrepentance. Isaiah 29:10 records:

The Lord has brought over you a deep sleep: He has sealed your eyes (the prophets); he has covered your heads (the seers).

Here we see that God is not neutral when men reject him. He will increase and prolong their blindness to his truth. The result of the blindness is that they make excuses that scrolls are sealed and they are unable to read. In effect, their inability to consult and discern God's word is from the condition of blindness that God has given them. Not being able to consult God's word, they resort to a man-made religion of trivial, useless, and often immoral traditions. (“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. 152])

What is important to note is that there is a textual variant in both Matt 15:6 and Mark 7:13.

 

Matt 15:6 reads:

 

And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. (KJV)

 

Compare NASB:

 

He is not to honor his father of his mother.' And thus you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

 

Note the following from CNTTS NT Apparatus (2004), showing that some manuscripts read "word of God," but others read either "law" or "commandment" of God:

 

Mark 7:13 reads

 

Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

 

Again, from the CNTTS shows that, albeit only a few, texts read “commandment” of God, not Word of God:

 

Even if one wants to believe that “Word of God” is original to both the Matthean and Marcan passages, this does not mean “the Bible.” As R. T. France noted (cf. our “Word of God = the Bible” fallacy discussion above):

 

The phrase ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ is not, as modern usage might suggest, an accepted synonym for ‘the Bible’. This and its parallel in Matthew 15:6 are the only occurrences of the phrase in those two gospels. In the rest of the NT its main use, especially in Luke-Acts, is to denote the Christian message and its proclamation, though there are a few instances where it is used of a specific divine utterance in the past (known to us from the OT, of course) rather than of Scripture as such (Jn. 10:35; Rom. 9:6; 2 Pet. 3:5). The only NT passage which may anticipate the later Christian habit of referring to Scripture as ‘the Word of God’ is Heb. 4:12, though there it is debatable whether the reference is to Scripture as a whole or only to the divine pronouncement of judgment in Ps. 95 which is there being discussed. Here, therefore, it is unlikely that the scribes’ fault is to be understood specifically as contravening Scripture, but rather as undermining a specific divine pronouncement (the fifth commandment) in favour of their own human tradition. ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ is thus functionally equivalent to ἡ ἐντολὴ τοῦ θεοῦ in vv. 8 and 9. (R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text [New International Greek Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002], 288)

 

 Finally, it should be noted that the historical understanding of sola scriptura is not a wholesale denunciation of traditions, but a subordination of tradition (alongside creeds and other authorities) to the inscripturated revelation. A wholesale rejection of traditions and other sources outside the Bible is Sol*o* scriptura (or, to use Keith Mathison's terminology from his 2001 book, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, tradition type 0 as opposed to tradition type 1 [which is the historical Protestant view]). Using this event in the way many Protestant apologists do undermines, not supports, their epistemology. If Jesus contrasts tradition to Scripture, then there is no room for tradition in Israel's day unless, of course, one concedes that Jesus accepted at least some of the tradition of Israel. if such is the case, then Jesus cannot be condemning tradition, per se, in Mark 7//Matt 15. In reality, he is only condemning one type of tradition--the tradition which distorts the commands of God, which the Korban rule clearly did. Additionally, as noted above, both the believing communities in the Old and New Testaments held to non-inscripurated teachings and revelations that were privileged as being en par with the authority of inscriputrated revelation, something that is grossly inconsistent with the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Prov 30:5-6 (cf. Psa 119:89)

Prov 30:5-6 reads as follows:

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Typically apologists for sola scriptura will also throw in a reference to a similar passage, Psa 119:89, which reads:

Forever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven. (Psa 119:89)

With respect to the warning in Prov 30:6 not to add to God's words, such is not a bone of contention; one should read the exegesis of Rev 22:18-19 earlier. Man does not have authority to add/subtract from God's revelations, but that does not mean He cannot authorise people to produce new revelation and Scripture; after all, not all the Old Testament, let alone the New Testament, was written when Prov 30:5-6 was penned, so again, if this "proves" anything, it proves too much for a Protestant apologist who appeals to this passage!

Furthermore, 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 (see the discussion about material and formal sufficiency above), 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)

Additionally, Protestant apologists are guilty of a common fallacy within Protestant apologetics: assuming that "the Word of God" and other like-locutions are exhausted by "the Bible." However, as another proponent of Sola Scriptura wrote on this issue:

[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)

Other passages that refute such a naive reading of such texts include the following:

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 Gennesaret.”

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.” 

Luke 24:27, 44-45

And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself . . . And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures.

To use these verses from Luke to support the formal sufficiency of Scripture is fallacious. All it does is speak of the importance and authority of Scripture, but notice what Protestant defenders of Sola Scriptura wishes to read into the Lukan text: (1) “The Bible” exhausting Scripture, notwithstanding that being an anachronism as Protestants will admit that even after this event, the New Testament Church was still receiving special revelations, so Sola Scriptura could not be the normative practice of the Church (see above) and (2) formal sufficiency to Scripture.

Furthermore, Luke, who wrote both the Gospel bearing his name and the Acts of the Apostles, shows us that Jesus' words were not confined to inscripturated revelation:

And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. But their eyes were holden that they should not know him. Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:15-16, 25-27)

Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: (Acts 1:2-3)

Furthermore, Luke 24:27 stresses the importance of knowledgeable teachers, something that is paralleled in texts such as :

Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. (Col. 1:26-27)

And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. (Acts 8:30-35)

 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into. (1 Pet 1:10-12)

Using the "logic" of many Evangelicals, such would be proof of the formal sufficiency of teachers. Of course, such is an absurdity, but such are the irrational conclusions one would have to hold to if one were to be *consistent* with the faulty hermeneutic Protestants are forced into using in a futile attempt to find any shred of evidence for Sola Scriptura.

Now, perhaps a Protestant will argue that, as Jesus appealed to Scripture alone in vv.44-45 such is evidence of Jesus holding to the formal sufficiency of Scripture. A related event in the Gospels is that of Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness (Matt 4:1-11//Mark 1:12-13//Luke 4:1-13) where Jesus cited Scripture in his contest with Satan. As Desmond Ferguson, a former employee of Irish Church Missions once wrote:

Matthew 4:1-11 where Satan tempts Jesus three times and each temptation is rebuked with a scriptural response. So here we have Jesus going directly to Scripture . . . “Surely these texts”, I said, “show clearly that the bible is sufficient unto itself and therefore logically we need no other authority or guide in the way of salvation”? (source)

I am sure that Ferguson, as with many other Protestant apologists, are of the opinion that, as Jesus did not refer to His own divinity or the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, or anything else, but only to Scripture, that such "proves" Sola Scriptura. The problem with such a formulation if that Matthew is not attempting to specify the only source from which we are to make our appeal. Granted, on many occasions, Jesus uses Scripture against the forces of evil, and rightly so, but not on every occasion. Many times he does appeal to his divinity, his miracles, and the Holy Spirit to fight the opposition against him (cf. John 5:32-47; 6:32-65; 7:16-19; 8:12-58; 10:1-34; 12:44-50; 14:9-31; 16:1-33). Hence, just because Jesus calls Scripture as a witness against the devil in Matt 4:1-11 one cannot therefore conclude that Jesus believed in Sola Scriptura. Would we say that the devil believed in Sola Scriptura because he quoted verbatim to Jesus from Psa 91:11? Of course not.

One reason Jesus may not be appealing to His divinity in His discourse with the devil is that it is precisely the identity of Jesus that the devil wishes to discover. Knowing this, it is Jesus' wish, at least in the early part of his ministry, to keep this information from the devil in order for God's plan to be accomplished (cf. 1 Cor 2:8; Eph 6:12; Matt 8:4). Hence, in Jesus' three appeals to Scripture in Matthew 4:1-11 he does not affirm that he is the Son of God, but only that (1) man lives not by bread alone but by the word of God, (2) man should not test God, and (3) man should worship and serve God only. These three stipulations could apply to any man, not just Jesus, and from this the devil may have thought Jesus to be just a man at that time. Thus, Jesus thwarted the devil by withholding the very information the devil was trying to extract from him--his divinity.

We should also add that even in Jesus' specific appeal to Scripture, there is good evidence that he did not intend to teach or even suggest Sola Scriptura. For example, his first reference is to Deut 8:3: "Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God." Notice here the specific reference to "every word" that comes from God's mouth. Since God recorded his words not only in Scripture but also by speaking directly to the people, the term "every word" certainly cannot be limited to Scripture. Jesus is merely calling Scripture as a witness to the basic truth that all God's revelation is to be heeded, not saying that Scripture is the only source of God's word. The same applies in New Testament times: "every word" of God includes both his written and oral inspired truths (cf. Eph 1:13; Col 1:5-6; Acts 20:27; Gal 1:12; 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Thess 2:15). More importantly, if Jesus was not teaching Sola Scriptura at that time, then how can these verses be interpreted as teaching Sola Scriptura today? I am guessing that Ferguson, who holds to Fundamentalist views on the Bible, accepts that the meaning of the Bible is determinate, or "fixed" (related to "Intentionalism") so the meaning of the text does not change with the passing of time, so, consistency on his behalf, in light of exegesis of this text, will lead to a conclusion that one text of Scripture cannot be re-interpreted in light of something novel or cultural relativism, etc.

Lastly, we cannot leave this passage without pointing out its implicit warning against the misuse of Scripture. It is precisely the devil's misuse of Ps 91:11 which shows us that interpretation, when the interpreter is not under proper authority, only leads to error and apostasy. Additionally, as discussed earlier with respect to Matt 23:1-3 and the Chair of Moses, Jesus bound His believers to follow non-inscripturated sources of authority, further refuting the eisegesis on often finds hoisted on Jesus' encounter with Satan during His time in the wilderness after his baptism.

Finally, some Protestant apologists often use Luke 24:44 with Matt 23:35 (“From the blood of the righteous Abel . . . to the blood of Zechariah”) as evidence that the Old Testament was closed at the time of Jesus. Proponents claim that this verse defined the limits of the entire Old Testament, understood by Jews to end at 2 Chronicles where the murder of one Zarcharias was recounted; some (e.g., Norman Geisler) have used this “fact” against Latter-day Saint claims (see his essay, “Scripture” in The Counterfeit Gospel of Mormonism [Eugene, Oreg.: Harvest House Publishers, 1998], p. 17). This, however, simply muddies the water on the concept of both inerrancy and Sola Scriptura because Jesus referred to Zachariahs, the son of Barachias. The Zacharias referred to in 2 Chron 24:20 was the son of Jehoiada. But remember that such is used to support a closed canon--which would also place the New Testament outside the limits of scripture. It is likely that Jesus’ quotation referred not to the Zacharias of 2 Chronicles but to another Zacharias who lived much later and had been killed by the Jews in Jesus’ time. The Lord accused the Jews in his audience of being the murderers of Zacharias by stating, “whom ye slew between the temple and the altar” (Matt 23:35). If those Jews were the murderers, the Lord’s comments cannot apply like some (e.g., F.F. Bruce, Canon of Scripture) have contended.

Another problem, among many others, to such a line of argument is the a priori assumption that there was a fixed and clearly identifiable order of the Hebrew Bible by the time of Jesus and that the reference in Luke 24:44 to “the Law of Moses, prophets, and the psalms” does not interfere with that order. If the order of the Writings (Hebrew--Ketubim) was already set by the time of Luke’s writings (after 70 C.E.), it is strange that Josephus (around 95-100 C.E.) does not have such an ordering in his writings (Against Apion 1.37-41). Also, it is strange that none of the early Christians picked up on this three-part biblical canon, and it is not found in any of the church fathers. The best explanation of this, of course, is that the three-part biblical canon of the Jews was developed in the second century C.E., long after the Jews ceased having an influence on the scope of the Christian Scriptures.

Rather than Chronicles being the last book in the Hebrew biblical canon, however, Noel A. Freedman argues convincingly that Chronicles stands in first place in the Writings, and he supports this by reference to the major medieval manuscripts, including the standard Masoretic Aleppo Codex and Leningrad Codex (Noel A. Freedman, “The Symmetry of the Hebrew Bible,” Studia Theologica 46 (1992): 83-108, here, pp. 95-96). Rather than concluding with 1-2 Chronicles, the Writings end with Ezra-Nehemiah (treated as one book in the Hebrew canon). A further argument against the position of F.F. Bruce is Freedman’s assertion (ibid., 96) that because 2 Chron 36:22-23 and Ezra 1:1-4 are identical, the books were separated spatially since, had they been consecutive, there would have been no need for the repetition. By contrast, the primary historical books that are consecutive (i.e., 1-2 Samuel and 1-2 Kings), have no repetitive texts connecting them.

Old Testament scholar, Gary Knoppers, in his commentary on 1 Chron 1-9 in the Anchor Bible Commentary series, wrote the following which calls into question the medieval Jewish practice of having Chronicles as the final book of the Old Testament; instead, he argues, as does David Noel Freedman and others, Ezra-Nehemiah (which was treated as one scroll/book) takes that honour:

Linked to but separate from Ezra-Nehemiah, the book of Chronicles could precede Ezra-Nehemiah, follow Ezra-Nehemiah, or take on a life of its own.

In the LXX, Chronicles usually precedes Ezra and Nehemiah and follows other historical books (Joshua through 2 Kings). Its title, Paraleipomena (“the things left out”), provides a vital clue about its interpretation. Chronicles complements and supplements the primary history, that is, Genesis through 2 Kings (Freedman 1992:95-97, 105-6). Both works are profoundly concerned with the land—how Israel emerges in, consolidates its control over, and is finally expelled from the territory Yhwh gave it. The primary history ends with Judah’s exile from the land, but the Chronistic History supplements this earlier work by announcing the people’s return.

Whereas in the LXX Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah normally find their place among the Historical books, in the Hebrew Bible, Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah find their place among the Writings (Kethuvim), the third and final section of Tanakh. But the placement of Chronicles within the Writings is not consistent. Within important medieval codices (the Aleppo Codex and the Leningrad Codex 19^A), Chronicles occurs first among the Writings. Ezra-Nehemiah appear last. In another Hebrew tradition, represented by the Babylonian Talmud (b. B. Bat. 14b), Ezra-Nehemiah precedes Chronicles. Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles are the last two books of the Kethuvim. The assertion of the Masoretic authors of Adat Devarim (1207 C.E.) that these differences in sequence reflect the Palestinian and Babylonian traditions, respectively, is disputed (Curtis and Madsen 1910:2; cf. Japhet 1993a:2). Scholars debate which order is original, but each sequence evinces its own logic.

The placement of Chronicles at the beginning of the Writings calls attention to the links between the Chronicler’s exemplary David and the David of the Writings. Even before one reads about David’s associations with Temple music and the Jerusalem cult in the Psalm superscriptions, one reads detailed descriptions of these activities in Chronicles (s. Driver 1914:369-70; Childs 1979:514-15; Freedman 1993:78-85). The very positive depiction of Solomon in the Writings also coheres with the presentation of Chronicles. To be sure, the Chronicler’s description of Solomonic wisdom is directly inherited from the presentation in Kings. But the Chronicler’s Solomon also differs from the Deuteronomist’s Solomon. In describing the United Monarchy, Kings does not refrain from pointing out major failings of David and Solomon (e.g., 1 Samuel 11-12; 1 Kings 11:1-40). Such sins do not occur in Chronicles. The appearance of Chronicles before Proverbs, Qohelth (Ecclesiastes), and Song of Songs elucidates the celebrated position Solomon enjoys in those works.

The location of Chronicles at the beginning of Ezra-Nehemiah at the end of the Writings is meaningful for another reason. Chronicles begins with the first human, depicts the totality of Israel in genealogical form, presents the story of Israelite occupation of the land during the monarchy, and concludes with the decree of Cyrus ending the Babylonian Exile. In this manner, Chronicles contains and reverses the tremendous tragedy of the Babylonian destructions and deportations soberly depicted in 2 Kgs 24-25 (Meade 1987:44-71). Since Ezra-Nehemiah begins with the decree of Cyrus and continues with the resettlement of Yehud, Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah form an inclusio around the Writings (Freedman 1993:27). As a frame to the Writings, Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah cover practically the entire historical span of the Hebrew Scriptures. (Gary N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 1-9 [AB 12; New York: Doubleday, 2003], 135-37, emphasis in bold added)

Continuing, Knoppers offers this suggestion as to why 1-2 Chronicles would be placed at the end of the Hebrew Bible in the so-called “Babylonian” canon:

The decree of Cyrus is also a unifying feature of the book order of Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles in the Tanakh. That Ezra-Nehemiah begins with the decree of Cyrus and Chronicles ends with the same underscores the importance of the return (Freedman 1993:76). When seen in historical perspective, the placement of Chronicles at the end of the “Babylonian” canon is quite interesting. The first and last books of Tanakh begin with the creation. Because the history depicted by Chronicles covers the same period as that of Genesis through Kings, Chronicles beings a sense of closure to the canon (Japhet 1993a:2; Steins 1995:507-17; Koorevaar 1997). But one can argue that the agenda of Chronicles, and therefore that of the Hebrew Bible, is incomplete in 2 Chron 26:22-23. The decree of Cyrus authorizing the rebuilding of the Temple and allowing the exiles to return home, ends with a summons, “Whoever among you from his [Yhwh’s] people, may Yhwh be with him and let him go up (wěyā^cal).” At first, the notion that the Hebrew Scriptures should end in midsentence is puzzling. But when one considers the events in the first centuries C.E., the rationale underlying this order becomes clear. The First Jewish Revolt (66-73 C.E.) witnessed the devastation of Jerusalem and the burning of the Second Temple. The destruction of the Temple, never supposed to happen again (Ezekiel) did. This catastrophe constituted a profound crisis in the history of Judaism, but the rabbis, drawing upon the traditions of Pharisaic Judaism, responded to the challenge. Indeed, the Judaism that emerges from the two Jewish wars is formative, hence classical, for medieval and modern Judaism (S. Cohen 1987; Neusner 1988). The ending of Tanakh becomes understandable in the context of the emergence of rabbinic Judaism. Even though Jerusalem is deprived of its Temple (66-73 C.E.) and its people (132-35 C.E.), the ending of Chronicles bears witness to hope for restoration. Transformations occur, but the ties binding God, people, land, and city together endure. The final verses of one of the “sources of Judaism” announces the reconstruction of the Jerusalem Temple and beckons the people to return home. (Ibid., 137)

Therefore, the tradition of placing Chronicles as the final book of the Hebrew Bible is a practice that post-dates Jesus. To read that back into Luke 11:50-51//Matt 23:35 is eisegesis. Indeed, on these texts, Knoppers writes (p. 136 n. 190):

The claim that Matt 23:35 and Luke 11:51 assumes that Chronicles is the final book in the canon cannot be proved (pace de Wette 1850:17; Japhet 1993a:2). Matt 23:35 clearly draws upon both Zech 1:1 and 2 Chr 24:20-22 (Gundry 1982:470-72). But whether Jesus’ saying “from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berachiah” alludes to the OT canon or to the OT period is uncertain (Eissfeldt 1965:567-68; Harris 1990:77-80).

For more on Matt 23:35 (cf. Luke 11:48-51), see Lee Martin McDonald, The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2007), 96-100.

No matter how one cuts it, appealing to Luke 24:27, 44-45 to support Sola Scriptura, is an exegetical failure.

1 Thess 5:21 and 1 John 4:1

Prove all things; hold fast to which is good. (1 Thess 5:21)

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1)

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.

John 5:39

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Most modern translations read a bit differently; instead of the imperative “search,” one finds “You search.” The reason for this is not due to a textual variant in the manuscripts, but an ambiguity in the Greek term used, εραυνατε. This can be plausibly understood as either the imperative form of the verb, εραυνανω, as well as the second-person indicative active thereof as they are spelled the same.

Most modern translations (e.g. the NRSV) are correct in taking it as the indicative, since the phrase is immediately followed by a relative clause which gives the very reason the Jews search Scripture (i.e. because in them they think they have found eternal life); furthermore, since Jesus' next state is an affirmation that they testify of him, showing that his opponents failed to extract the essential truth and reasoning that Jesus is the promised Messiah and Son of God, their searching of the Old Testament notwithstanding. Such a clause (the Greek οτι clause) makes more sense if the term is indicative than imperative.

Supporting this interpretation, Protestant New Testament scholar, D.A. Carson agrees that “the context demands the indicative” and:

The Jewish leaders of Jesus’ day were undoubtedly diligent students of the Scriptures; they needed no exhortation along these lines. The verb rendered ‘diligently study’ corresponds to the Hebrew verb dāraš, a technical term used to refer to their study and exposition of the Bible and of ‘oral Torah’, the body of oral traditions that had also come down to them. But Jesus points out that their primary motivation in such diligent study was the hope of final acceptance by God: you think that by them you possess eternal life. Certainly there is ample external evidence that supports this reading of Jewish motivation: e.g. Hillel affirms that the more study of the law, the more life, and that if a man gains for himself words of the law he has gained for himself life in the world to come (Pirke Aboth 2:7).

By contrast, Jesus insists that there is nothing intrinsically life-giving about studying the Scriptures, if one fails to discern their true content and purpose. These are the Scriptures, Jesus says, that testify about me. This is one of six passages in the Fourth Gospel where Scripture or some writer of Old Testament Scripture is said to speak or write of Christ, even though no specific passage is adduced (cf. 1:45; 2:22; 3:10; 5:45-46; 20:9). What is at stake is a comprehensive hermeneutical key. By predictive prophecy, by type, by revelatory event and by anticipatory statute, what we call the Old Testament is understood to point to Christ, his ministry, his teaching, his death and resurrection. (D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John [The Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1991], 263)

Craig Evans provides further support for ἐραυνᾶτε as being indicative, not imperative:

Pharisaic or early rabbinic exegesis is known in the Fourth Evangelist as well. Twice there is reference made to ‘search’ the Scripture. The first occurrence is found on the lips of Jesus: ‘You search (εραυνατε) the Scriptures, because you suppose that in them you have life; these are what testify concerning me’ (5.39). This comment refers to rabbinic interpretation known as ‘midrash’. The principal purpose of searching the Scriptures was to find life. This idea is rooted in Scripture itself, for keeping the commandments of Torah meant life: ‘You shall therefore keep my statutes and my ordinances, by doing which a man shall live’ (Lev. 18.5; cf. Bar. 4.1-2). Hence the principal aim of ‘building a fence’ around Torah (Ab. 1.1) was to gain life. According to Hillel, ‘If a man . . . has gained for himself the words of the Law he has gained for himself life in the world to come’ (Ab. 2.7) (In one midrash, Moses refers to ‘the Torah, the while of which is life’ (Deut. R. 9.9 [on Deut 31.14])). The Johannine saying undoubtedly reflects this perspective, which evidently reached back well into the early first century, if not earlier, and apparently was not only held by Hillel, but by Jesus also. After the Law is summed up by the Two Great Commandments, Jesus tells the legist: ‘Do this and you will live’ (cf. Lk. 10.28). Because Jesus’ answer to a question tat asked how to obtain eternal life (Lk. 10.25), it is probable that the eschatological interpretation is found in the targum preserves an ancient interpretation of Lev. 18.5: ‘If one practices them, he will live by them in the future world’ (cf. Targ. Onq. Lev. 18.5; also in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, but adding ‘with the righteous ones’). This targumic paraphrase coheres with the midrash found in the Tannaic commentary on Leviticus, where it is reasoned that since people die in this life, ‘live by them’ must refer to life in the world to come (Sifra Lev. §193 [on 18.5]). Both the synoptic and Johannine traditions seem to reflect this understanding of the passage (cf. Jn 12.50). Thus, the Johannine statement, ‘You search the Scriptures’, is not merely a formal parallel with rabbinic exegetical method, but a reflection of a significant struggle between the Johannine community and the synagogue over soteriology. Is eternal life found in Torah or is it found in Christ? (Craig A. Evans, Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Background of John’s Prologue [Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 59; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993], 151-53, emphasis added)

  

Notwithstanding, even allowing it to be imperative as some Protestant apologists wish for it to be (in an attempt to defend sola scriptura), the same accusation would hold against the Jews (viz. their failure to reason from Scripture the true identity of the Messiah). Thus, regardless of whether it is imperative or indicative, the message is the same--Christ's opponents, thinking they have received eternal life due to their study of Scripture do not, in reality, have eternal life because they have failed to extract from Scripture that Jesus is the long-awaited Messiah who grants or denies eternal life to people. However, there is nothing in this text that even hints at the concept of sola scriptura.

1 Cor 13:8-10

Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

In response to this passage being cited, LDS apologist Jeff Lindsay soundly refuted an appeal to this pericope:

I think the best way that this passage can be consistent with common sense and the rest of the Bible (see the next question below for details) is to understand that prophecy, tongues (the gift to speak and understand foreign languages), and human knowledge are things of value to us in this imperfect mortal world, before the coming of the perfect day, but that charity is an eternal attribute that is essential for the next life and our eternal destiny. The day of perfection has not come - and it looks like it's a long ways off, from my imperfect perspective - so obviously, gifts of the spirit are still needed. If Paul means that prophecy would stop after the New Testament, does he also mean that knowledge would stop after the coming forth of the Bible? It has for some people, but don't blame Paul or God for that! This verse says nothing about prophecy not being needed just because the Bible is available.

The church that placed the above-mentioned ad claims to be a church that just relies on the Bible alone, taking their message straight from the pages of the Bible. Sadly, they must be missing quite a few pages. The book of Joel is one of those missing sections. If they had read it, perhaps they would know that prophecy and spiritual gifts are to be found in the last days, before the coming of the Lord. Look at Joel 2:28-31:

28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:
29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.
30 And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke.
31 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come.

Yes, spiritual gifts, including prophecy, is to be poured out before the great Second Coming of the Lord. They are an important sign of the last days, in fact. One dramatic event shortly before the return of the Lord is described in Revelation 11, where two "witnesses" (v. 3 - perhaps apostles, special witnesses of Christ), also described as "prophets" (v. 10) will prophecy in Jerusalem for 1,260 days and be killed, then brought back to life by the power of God. Surely there will be more prophecy to come - at least 1,260 days' worth.

In Ephesians 4:11-14, Paul explains that prophets and apostles were put in the Church of Jesus Christ to help bring us to a unity of faith, among other reasons. Unity in the faith has clearly not been achieved (though you can make an important step in the direction by converting to the Restored Gospel today!), so prophets are still needed. Paul speaks of prophets and prophecy as something that is needed until there is religious unity (Eph. 4:11-14). In 1 Cor. 14:5 (see also v. 29), Paul wishes that all would have the gift of prophecy that the church might be edified. Is there no longer a need for edification?

Paul knew that the world, with its emphasis and reliance on human wisdom, would work to quench spiritual gifts and despise prophecy. But he said, "Quench not the Spirit" and "Despise not prophesyings" in 1 Thess. 5:19,20.

In light of the New Testament record, if there is any church on earth that can legitimately be called the Church of Jesus Christ, it must have apostles and prophets. And those who deny prophecy do not understand the scriptures.

(Jeff Lindsay, How can a church with prophets be true, when 1 Corinthians 13 teaches that further prophecy would cease once the Bible was written?)

It should also be noted that Paul did not believe that he was living in a time of this "completeness," for later in his letter, he speaks of his desire that people would, not just speak in tongues, but also prophecy, and that he himself speaks in tongues (1 Cor 14:5, 6; 18, 22-23, 39).

Furthermore, notice that Scripture is never mentioned in this pericope. What Paul is discussing is the superiority of love. Absolutising this verse in the same eisegetical manner some wish to do, one would have to argue that this pericope precludes, not proves, not just sola scriptura, but the important of any Scripture whatsoever!

Is the "Perfect Law" in James 1:25 the New Testament Texts?

In an attempt to support the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, Weldon Lanfield (ex-RLDS who converted to the Church of Christ [“Cambellites”]) wrote:

 

James expressed the finality and completeness of the New Testament in this manner: “But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed” (James 1:25). By referring to the New Testament as “perfect,” the passage tells us first that it has no room for improvement. Secondly, it is complete, since perfection implies completeness. The original term for “perfect” in this passage is teleion, which means “having reached its end, finished, complete, perfect.” Unquestionably, the wording of James rules out further periods of revelation. (Weldon Langfield, The Truth About Mormonism: A Former Adherent Analyzes the LDS Faith [Bakersfield, Calif.: Weldon Langfield Publications, 1991], 65-66)

 

There are a number of problems with Langfield’s comments on Jas 1:25. Firstly, James cannot be speaking of the New Testament as not all of the 27 books of the New Testament were inscripturated when James wrote his epistle. If Langfield’s comments are correct, this would mean that Jas 1:25 precludes any further books being divinely revealed, resulting in Langfield having to accept a truncated New Testament canon!

 

Furthermore, as discussed in the section "Falling at the First Hurdle: Why Sola Scriptura is an exegetical impossibility" above, for Sola Scriptura to be operative as the (final/ultimate) rule of faith, there must first be tota scriptura (i.e., all of the books of scripture must first be inscripturated). As James was writing at a time of special revelation, of all the potential exegetical possibilities of this verse, the “pro-Sola Scriptura” interpretation is not an exegetical possibility.

 

According to non-LDS scholars, while there is some debate as to the meaning of the term “the perfect law,” all are agreed that it is not the New Testament texts. Consider the following:

 

The “perfect law” (νόμον τέλειον) could have several referents. James could be discussing the Torah, the Torah plus Christ, the basic gospel message, or any combination of the three. He adds a further modifier, though, which aids in the identification—the descriptive genitive “of liberty” (τῆς ἐλευθερίας)—demonstrating that this law does not trap, bind, or weigh one down but is characterized by freedom. We would argue that this most likely refers to the gospel message, particularly in its role as fulfilling the OT prophecies about a new or renewed covenant (see esp. Jer 31:31–34). All of the qualifications given in this verse make it unlikely that just the Mosaic law is in view, but rather something that contrasts with or at least adds to it. It is true that similar qualifiers can be found in Jewish literature describing Torah pure and simple (see esp. Aboth 6:2; b. B. Metz. 85b), but when Jas 2:12 refers again to the law of liberty, it is in clear contrast to Old Testament laws (2:11). Even here, v. 25 functions as the concluding positive model to vv. 22–25, just as v. 21b did for vv. 20–21, so it seems likely that the law of liberty must correspond to the implanted word. Additionally, the transition from “word” to “law” occurs within this small pericope that is clearly one section, thus strengthening the correspondence.

 

At the same time, James would not likely have retained the term “law” if the Hebrew Scriptures did not also feature in his thinking. Thus Davids defines the law of liberty as “the OT ethic as explained and altered by Jesus.” Moo concurs, explaining that “the addition of the word ‘perfect’ connotes the law in its eschatological, ‘perfected’ form, while the qualification ‘that gives freedom’ refers to the new covenant promise of the law written on the heart” and “accompanied by a work of the Spirit enabling obedience to that law for the first time.” The earlier this letter is and the more Jewish James’s communities are, the more likely the Hebrew Scriptures form an integral part of “the perfect law of liberty,” even if they must be interpreted in light of the coming of the Messiah and his revelation. (Craig L. Blomberg and Mariam J. Kamell, James [Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament 16; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2008], 91-92)

 

into the perfect law of freedom: The law (nomos) has now replaced the mirror as that into which the person gazes. This is the first mention of nomos in James. In 2:9, 10, 11, and 4:11, it appears absolutely. In 2:8, it is called “the royal law” and in 2:12, the “law of freedom.” Here, James combines two terms: teleios (“perfect”) must obviously be associated with the use of the same word in 1:4 and 1:17. God is the source of “every perfect gift,” and the law, for James, is certainly among them. The praise of God’s law is frequent both in Torah itself and in later Jewish literature. LXX Ps 18:8 calls the law amōmos, i.e., without fault/perfect. LXX Ps 118 elaborates the ways the law mediates the qualities of God: it is a source of mercy (118:29), a light (118:105; see Prov 6:23), and truth (118:43). The Ep. Arist. 31 declares the law “full of wisdom and free from all blemish.” That the observance of the law is, in turn, to be associated with freedom (eleutheria) is emphasized by Philo, That Every Good Man is Free 45, 4 Macc 5:22–26; 14:2; PA 3:5; 6:2. It will be remembered that Paul also can characterize nomos as “spiritual” (Rom 7:14) and “good” (Rom 7:16; see 1 Tim 1:8) and the entolē (“commandment”) as “holy and righteous and good” (Rom 7:12). The position that obedience to the law renders a person free reminds some commentators (e.g., Dibelius, 116–18; Mayor, 73–74) of the Stoic principle that only obeying the law of nature makes a person truly free and that, therefore, only the sage is truly free (see Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers [Zeno] VII,121; Epictetus, Discourses IV, 1, 1; Seneca, On the Blessed Life 15:7; Plutarch, To an Uneducated Ruler 3 [Mor. 780C]), but the idea is widespread enough—as the examples from Jewish literature attest—to make any direct dependence on Stoic ideas unnecessary. Of more pertinence is the question of what James includes within the concept of nomos. At the very least, the use of the figure of the mirror suggests that he saw it as containing exempla of moral behavior (see 2:20–26; 5:10–11; 5:16–18), as was seen by Oecumenius. Bede takes the “law of liberty” to mean the grace of the Gospel, and Theophylact identifies it with the “Law of Christ.” (Luke Timothy Johnson, The Letter of James: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AYB 37A; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 209)

 

The blessed person looks into “the perfect law of liberty”; this expression is a major interpretive problem for James. On the one hand, it is well known that the Stoics saw life according to the rule of reason, i.e. the law of nature, as a life of freedom (so Epict. 4.1.158; Seneca Vit. 15.7; Cicero Parad. 34; cf. H. Schlier, TDNT II, 493–496; J. Blunck, DNTT I, 715–716). Thus it is quite reasonable to see James’s phrase as linguistically possible in the Stoic world, although this expression has not yet been found (cf. Dibelius, 116–117). It is also true that Philo took the Stoic concept and identified it more or less with the law of Moses (Op. Mund. 3; Vit. Mos. 2.48) and correlated the keeping of that law with freedom (Omn. Prob. Lib. 45; cf. 4 Macc. 14:2), so that even within some Jewish circles such Stoic influence was possible. On the other hand, there is absolutely no question that Jews saw their law as perfect (Pss. 19:7; 119; Aristeas 31; Rom. 7:12), that they found joy in its observance (Pss. 1:2; 19:7–11; 40:6–8; Pss 119; Sir. 6:23–31; 51:13–22), and even that they saw the law giving freedom (m. Ab. 3:5; 6:2; B. K. 8:6; b. B. M. 85b). E. Stauffer, “Gesetz,” claims to find the very expression “law of freedom” in 1QS 10:6, 8, 11, and this has been supported by S. Légasse, 338–339. But while Légasse’s general point of the freedom which the sectaries found in their law is true enough, Nauck, “Lex,” and Nötscher have convincingly proved that this exact citation must be translated “inscribed law” as in Ex. 32:16 before rabbinic exegesis, which Nötscher believes to be a reaction to Christian claims. Still, even without the exact phrase, these Jewish parallels mean that although the author freely uses words and phrases from the general Hellenistic pool to which the Stoics added their share, unless one finds specific Stoic concepts (such as natural law or passionless life) it is more likely that he is still within a Jewish Christian world (cf. Bonhöffer, 193: “With the exception of individual expressions and the relatively good Greek in which it is written, one will hardly discover a trace of Hellenistic influence in James”).

 

It is within this Jewish world that one can understand the phrase. For the Jewish Christian the law is still the will of God, but Messiah has come and perfected it and given his new law (cf. Davies, Torah). Thus one finds the Sermon on the Mount (especially Mt. 5:17) and other similar passages in the early Christian tradition that present Christ as the giver of a new or renewed law. James’s contact with the tradition behind the Sermon on the Mount is certain (see Introduction, 47–48), and one must agree with Davies that James sees Jesus’ reinterpretation of the law as a new law (cf. 2:8, royal law; Davies, Setting, 402–405; Schnackenburg, 349–352). Similar conceptions of Jesus’ teaching appear in Barn. 2:6; Hermas Vis. 1.3; Iren. Haer. 4.34.4; but they also are not lacking in Paul. Certainly Paul was against legalism, the use of the law as a way of salvation—that could only lead to death—but when it came to the ethical life of the Christian, it was another matter. On that topic Paul draws on the earlier Christian tradition in terms similar to James (Gal. 5:13, which combines freedom and law; Gal. 6:2; 1 Cor. 9:21; and 1 Cor. 7:10, 25, where a dominical saying ends the discussion; cf. Dibelius, 119). Although in James one is in a different area of Christianity than in Paul, he nonetheless finds similar ideas, especially when looking at what Paul says about James’s sphere of concern (cf. Eckart, 521–526).

 

The one who looks and remains in the law of freedom, i.e. the OT ethic as explained and altered by Jesus, is clearly defined: he is one who does not simply hear and forget, but practices what he hears. Both expressions are unusual Greek: ἀκροατὴς ἐπιλησμονῆς (the latter word found in biblical literature only in Sir. 11:27) is a Semitism, “hearer of forgetfulness,” and ποιητὴς ἔργου is apparently built so as to make an obvious parallel (the problem is that there is a change from a genitive of quality to an objective genitive; cf. Mayor, 74; but while the Greek is unusual the meaning is clear enough; cf. m. Ab. 3:8 and the citations in Str-B III, 754).

 

Such an obedient Christian is pronounced μακάριος (another term with a Semitic background as in 1:12; Matthew 5; Psalm 1; Is. 56:2, etc.) in his deeds (οὗτος is for emphasis: this person, the doer, in contrast to the hearer only). Does this eschatological type of pronouncement refer to blessing as one acts or a future joy at the parousia (Schrage, 23)? The future ἔσται, the use of μακάριος in 1:12, and the normal eschatology of James make one agree with Mussner, 110, that this saying is future-oriented: there is an eschatological blessing in store for the one whose deeds (ποιήσις, hapax legomenon in the NT) are the doing of the law of freedom, the teaching of Jesus. (Peter H. Davids, The Epistle of James: A Commentary on the Greek Text [New International Greek Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1982], 99-100)

 

With respect to the use of τελιος, while Langfield believes this supports his thesis, it actually serves to refute him even further--on this, see the comments about Jas 1:4 and its use of τελειος for patience/endurance.

John 10:35-36

If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

I will let two Protestant scholars and exegetes answer the claim that Jesus is hinting at formal sufficiency of the Bible in this passage:

[T]hese verses are representative of a number in which Jesus appeals to the authority of the Scriptures. Many claim that in these types of passages Jesus is clearly arguing for the inspiration of the whole Bible. This, in reference to this passage, Warfield states that the point to recognise if Jesus’ defense in the form of an appeal to Scripture, and how Jesus makes this appeal: Jesus appeals to “the Law” and then quotes from the Psalms (Ps 82:6). Warfield believes that this is tantamount to calling Scripture and Law synonyms. Then, by stating that Scripture cannot be broken, Jesus drives home the point of ultimate authority of the Scriptures. There is no doubt that Jesus here is arguing with the Jews from a common view of the authority of Scripture. The question that begs an answer, however, is, What dos the text say about inspiration? The concern of the text is not to state a position on inspiration. Rather, Jesus is drawing from a mutual respect for the authority of the Hebrew Scriptures. Why that authority exists is not discussed. But the issue of the state of the canon in Jesus’ time notwithstanding, another general comment should be made. Nowhere in this passage (or any of the others that this text represents) is there an appeal to the inspiration of the Bible. But since some make the link between inspiration and authority when Jesus appeals to the authority of Scripture, the connection to inspiration becomes second nature, and any argument for authority becomes an argument for inspiration. I think this link is contextually incorrect. (Craig D. Allert, A High View of Scripture? The Authority of the Bible and the Formation of the New Testament Canon [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2007], 158-59)

But the point is not whether the psalmist was in error when he called judges 'gods'. It is rather that the psalmist's words cannot be without significance: that is, cannot be emptied of the significance they obviously contain, and which significance Jesus proceeds to draw out in the typical Jewish a fortiori or a minori ad mauius argument. So the first half of Morris's last sentence catches the sense well ('scripture cannot be emptied of its force'), whereas the latter half ('by being shown to be erroneous') is his own corollary rather than that of Jesus or John. (James D.G. Dunn, The Living Word [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1987], 95).

 Dunn also offers this caution against "bibliolatry," an attitude many LDS apologists have encountered all too often:

[The insistence on inerrancy gives rise to] the fear that the heirs of Princeton theology are in grave danger of bibliolatry. By asserting of the Bible an indefectible authority, they are attributing to it in an authority proper only to God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. if we say the biblical authors wrote without error, we attribute to their writing what we otherwise recognize to be true only of Christ. We do for the Bible what Roman Catholic dogma has done for Mary the mother of Jesus; and if the charge of Mariolatry is appropriate against Catholic dogma, then the charge of bibliolatry is no less appropriate against the inerrancy dogma. We cannot argue for a precise analogy between the divine and human in Christ (effecting sinlessness) and the divine and human in scripture (effecting inerrancy) without making the Bible worthy of the same honour as Christ--and that is bibliolatry. (Ibid., 106).

On whether John 10:35 teaches the inerrancy of the original autographs, John C. Poirier noted the following:

  

Evangelicals often equate the Scripture “cannot be set aside” (NEB for ου δυναται λυθηναι) with the claim that its meaning cannot possibly be wrong. Such a view, it is widely supposed, implies Scripture is inspired and inerrant.

 

Those who oppose reading inspirationist implications into Jesus’s retort often claim that Jesus is arguing on the Pharisees’ terms and that we cannot assume he affirms those terms. By claiming that “scripture cannot be set aside,” Jesus is trapping the Pharisees on the terms of their own unbending hermeneutic, so as to cut off the branch on which they are sitting (e.g., see Loader, Jesus’ Attitude towards the Law: A Study of the Gospels, WUNY 2/97, Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1997:472). It is they (the Pharisees) who claim, as warrant for their elevation on the Sabbath laws above all exceptions, that “scripture cannot be set aside.” Honesty should keep us, however, from going down this route. While there certainly is an element here of Jesus beating the Pharisees at their own game (cf. Jn 3:6-12; 5:31-46), it appears more likely that he agrees with them at the level of presupposition.

 

There is still, however, an obvious problem with the typical Evangelical reading of Jn 10:35, in that it fails to recognize that Jesus is speaking about Scripture’s legal inviolability, rather than about its factual integrity. The inviolability of the scriptural commandments is connected with their foundation role for halakhic matters, rather than with the text’s supposed divinity or inspired status. A legal body obviously can treat certain laws as inviolable, without in any way suggesting that the text in which those laws are imbedded is divinely inspired (cf. Jn 5:18 [λυειν το Σαββατον [!]]; 7:23.) Douglas Farrow (The Word of Truth and Disputes about Words. Winona Lake, IN, 1987:105) writes,

 

λυθηναι as it occurs in this verse is often translated ‘to be broken’, but this has frequently proved misleading. Arndt and Gingrich classify this occurrence under a heading based on these meanings: destroy, bring to an end, abolish, do away with; and with respect to commandments, laws, and statements—repeal, annul, abolish. While many want to see in John 10:35 an affirmation that “every statement of Scripture stands immutably, indestructible in its verity, unaffected by denial, human ignorance or criticism, charges of errancy or other subjective attack,” that is not quite the point of saying that Scripture is ου δυναται λυθηναι. Christ was not concerned here with the factual verity or accuracy of Scripture, but with the authority of its voice and the binding nature of its testimony.

 

To point to the inviolability of the Jewish Law, therefore, is to make a legal remark, rather than a bibliological remark. That this is so is shown by the fact that Jesus uses the expression “your law” to refer to a passage from Psa 82. If his point had been bibliological, we might have expected a reference to “David” rather than to “your law,” as the latter is usually used only for the Pentateuch. (John C. Poirier, The Invention of the Inspired Text: Philological Windows on the Theopneustia of Scripture [Library of New Testament Studies 640; London: T&T Clark, 2021], 112-13, emphasis in original)

 

Jude 1:3

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

Protestants often appeal to this verse as (1) evidence of Sola Scriptura and (2) biblical evidence against the LDS view of the Great Apostasy.  Representative of such an interpretation can be seen in the following comment from a Reformed Protestant:

[B]y adding to the Holy Scriptures their additional sacred books, the Mormons have undermined and overthrown "the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3) (Anthony A. Hoekema, The Four Major Cults [Exeter, UK: Paternoster Press, 1963], 33)

The term translated as "once" is απαξ. It simply means "once" and does not, in and of itself, 
denote finality. Had Jude wished to convey such, he would have used εφαπαξ, which is used in the Greek NT for the once-for-all sacrifice and death of Christ (Rom 6:10; 1 Cor 15:6; Heb 7:27; 9:12; 10:10).

Notice how απαξ is used in the NT:

Thrice was I beaten with rods, once (απαξ) was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck a night and day I have been in the deep. (2 Cor 11:25)

For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again (απαξ) unto my necessity. (Phil 4:16)

Wherefore we would have come unto you, even I Paul, once and again (απαξ); but Satan hindered us. (1 Thess 2:18)

Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more (απαξ) I shake not the earth only, but also the heaven. (Heb 12:26)

Two verses later in this text, Jude again used απαξ:

I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once (απαξ) knew this, how that the Lord having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

Other instances of απαξ not having the sense of "once-for-all" include:

 

It is said that he had more than a thousand talents when he came to Greece, and that he lent this money on bottomry. He used to eat little loaves and honey and to drink a little wine of good bouquet. He rarely employed men-servants; once or twice (απαξ και δις) indeed he might have a young girl to wait on him in order not to seem a misogynist. He shared the same house with Persaeus, and when the latter brought in a little flute-player he lost no time in leading her straight to Persaeus. They tell us he readily adapted himself to circum- stances, so much so that King Antigonus often broke in on him with a noisy party, and once took him along with other revellers to Aristocles the musician; Zeno, however, in a little while gave them the slip. (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, 7.13)

 

Yet once more I would like to speak (απαξ ετ' ειπειν), but not a dirge. (Aeschylus, Agamemnon, 1322)

 

And the Lord spoke to me, "I have spoken to you once and twice (απαξ και δις) saying, 'See this people and look, they are in a stiff-necked people. (Deut 9:13 | Lexham English Septuagint)

 

LDS scholar, John Tvedtnes, commented on this verse thusly:

If the gospel (more correctly, faith) was to be delivered but once to men on the earth, then Paul would be wrong in writing that the gospel had been revealed earlier to Abraham (Galatians 3:8f). And if the gospel was revealed in the days of Jesus, never to disappear from the earth, there would be no necessity for the angel John saw coming in later times to reveal the gospel to the inhabitants of the earth (Revelation 14:6-7). We can either conclude that Jude 1:3 does not give the whole story, or we must conclude that the Bible contradicts itself. That is, the same argument used against Joseph Smith can be used against the writers of the biblical books, if one misinterprets this passage. (source: http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Restoration.shtml#jude)

The burden of evidence is on the person arguing their point that απαξ denotes once-for-all/sense of finality. Jude 1:3 is not evidence, however, for the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and/or evidence against the LDS understanding of the Great Apostasy.

Interestingly, this verse refutes, not supports, the primacy of inscripturated revelation and instead, the primacy of inspired oral revelation. Note the following from two Protestant sources:

  

The Faith That Was Once for All Entrusted (Jude 3b)

 

Jude 3b is sometimes considered to indicate a middle or higher date for the letter.

 

I find it necessary to write and appeal to you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. (Jude 3)

 

This passage could suggest a middle [100-130] or higher [130] date if we suppose that “the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” is a fixed deposit of inalterable doctrine and that such a fixed deposit was impossible before 70 but later became possible. Richard Bauckham sums up the difficulties with this line of argumentation succinctly, rightly observing that “the contrast set up between Jude and the Christianity of the first generation generally results from 91) underestimating the role of tradition in Christianity from the first, and (2) exaggerating the extent to which Jude’s language implies a fixed body of formal doctrine” (Bauckham, Jude and 2 Peter, 32). Already we have Paul in the 50s speaking about doctrines that were passed on to him (1 Cor. 15:2-3). Jude seems to suppose nothing more fixed or formal than does Paul. (Jonathan Bernier, Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament: The Evidence for Early Composition [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2022], 231-32, comments in square brackets added for clarification; Bernier places Jude “prior to 96” [p. 278])

Though often identified as later Catholic traditionalism, Jude’s ἅπαξ παραδοθείσῃ τοῖς ἁγίοις πίστει (“faith once for all delivered to the saints,” v. 3) and his appeal to the words of the apostles (v. 17) mirror emphases on “delivered” (παραδιδοσθαι) tradition (2 Thess 2:15; 3:6; 1 Cor 15:3), η πιστις (“the faith”) as a body of teaching (Gal 1:23), and appeals to apostolic authority (1 Cor 9:1; 2 Cor 11:13) found in the early Pauline material (ca. A.D. 50-56). (William Renay Wilson II, Jude’s Apocalyptic Eschatology as Theological Exclusivism [Studies in Jewish and Christian Literature; Dallas: Fontes Press, 2021], 20-21, emphasis added)

 

The Pauline corpus and Jude may in fact be products of a cooperative missionary effort, written within the timeframe of Paul’s journeys, between A.D. 56 and 60. (Ibid., 21)

 

Finally, some Protestants also appeal to Jude 3 to support the doctrine (necessary for their understanding of tota scriptura) that public revelation ceased at the end of the New Testament era. However, if Jude 3 proves something, it proves too much for this belief! As Catholic apologist Trent Horn noted:

 

Catholics also believe [public revelation ceased at the death of the last apostle], but not on the basis of what Scripture alone says. For Protestants who derive their doctrines from Scripture alone, the closure of public revelation becomes a difficult doctrine to prove. Some have argued that this truth is described in Jude 3, which speaks of “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints”, but this verse on its own cannot support the claim that public revelation has ceased. Many scholars think Jude was a source for Second Peter, which means Second Peter would not be a part of divine revelation, since it was written after the faith was “once for all delivered to the saints.”

 

Even if Jude were the last book of the Bible to be written, that wouldn’t prove public revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle. Protestant apologist John MacArthur says that the Greek word translated “delivered” in this verse refers to an act completed in the past with no continuing element”. He also says that the phrase “once for all” (Greek, hapax) means “nothing needs to be added to the faith that has been delivered ‘once for all’.” This would mean that the “faith” had been delivered before Jude was written, which means Jude and its teaching about the cessation of public revelation would not have been a part of the original Deposit of Faith. MacArthur even says this verse, “penned by Jude before the NT was complete, nevertheless looked forward to the completion of the entire canon.”

 

This shows that using Jude 3 to prove public revelation has ceased doesn’t work because it confuses “giving the faith” to the saints with public revelation. Jesus gave “the faith” once and for all to the apostles, but the public revelation of the faith continued for decades after his interactions with them during the writing of the New Testament. There isn’t any explicit biblical evidence that this revelation ceased after the death of the last apostle (or that it didn’t continue for centuries rather than decades). There is also no evidence that there were no more living apostles who would give such revelations. (Trent Horn, The Case for Catholicism: Answers to Classic and Contemporary Protestant Objections [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2017], 51-52, comment in square bracket added for clarification).

 

John 17:17

Sanctify them through thy faith: thy word is truth.

All this verse states is that the Father's "word" (λογος) is true; there is nothing said about this "word" being limited to the Bible (a thesis that was thoroughly refuted earlier in this review) let alone the limits thereof (the canon issue). Again, another classic example of eisegesis. Furthermore, if John 17:17 is "proof" of Sola Scriptura, it proves too much, as we would have to jettison anything that was written after John 17:17, including the book of Revelation and other New Testament passages (e.g., 2 Tim 3:16-17) Protestants appeal to in order to provide biblical evidence for Sola Scriptura!

Luke 16:16

The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

Jeff Lindsay, in answering the question, "Didn't Christ say that there would be no prophets after John?" quotes an answer given by Raymond Woodworth, which I will quote in part:

THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS

"The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it." (Luke 16:16)

In their attempt to undermine the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, some individuals quote Luke 16:16 to show that prophets ended with John and are no longer needed, claiming that the belief in living prophets is unbiblical. However, the "John" mentioned in Luke 16:16 is John the Baptist (see Matthew 11:12-13). If it were true that living prophets ended with him, then there certainly would not have been prophets of God long after John's death (e.g., Acts 11:27; 21:10-11). So, what does Luke 16:16 really mean; and more specifically, what are "the law and the prophets"?

Simply stated, the law and the prophets are books of Old Testament scriptures:

1. The law is a book.

". . . cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." (Gal 3:10)

2. The prophets is a book.

". . . as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness?" (Acts 7:42)

3. The law and the prophets are read in a synagogue.

"And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on." (Acts 13:15)

4. Things are written in the law and in the prophets.

". . . so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets." (Acts 24:14 )

5. The law and the prophets are scriptures.

"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself." (Luke 24:27)

The law and the prophets are two of the three main groups of Jewish scriptures; which over time Christians called the "Old Testament," and Jews called the "Tanakh" (a.k.a. the Hebrew Bible). The Hebrew Bible is divided into three groups of books: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. During the time of Christ, the third group or division was called "the psalms":

"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses and in the prophets and in the psalms concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures." (Luke 24:44-45)

Realizing that the law and the prophets are books of Old Testament scriptures helps us to better understand other New Testament verses. For instance, during the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus explained:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." (Matthew 5:17)

In other words, Christ came not to destroy the scriptures, but to fulfill them (for more examples, see Matthew 22:36-40, Luke 16:19-31, and Acts 28:23).

As Christians in general and Latter-day Saints in particular, it is important not to confuse or equivocate between "the law and the prophets" and "apostles and prophets." The former are books of scriptures, while the latter are members of the true church of Jesus Christ (1 Cor 12:28, Eph 4:11). Nevertheless, the question still remains: why were the law and the prophets until John?

They were until him in the same sense that they prophesied until John:

"And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John." (Matthew 11:12-13)

The law and the prophets prophesied until John because they were prophesying of Christ. When Jesus came after John, He fulfilled those scriptures concerning Christ, as they are written in the law and in the prophets (Matthew 5:17, Luke 24:27, 44-45).

The apostle Paul testified:

"Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: that Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles." (Acts 26:22-23)

Therefore, Luke 16:16 refers to the fulfillment of the scriptures, "the law and the prophets," concerning Christ. But this verse says nothing about "apostles and prophets" as living servants of God, who received new revelation, prophesied, and served in the church long after John's death. "The law and the prophets" were until John, not "apostles and prophets."

Prophets after Christ

Another scripture some wrest along with Luke 16:16 is Hebrews 1:1-2:

"GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, . . ."

Some argue that God spoke unto the fathers by the prophets "in time past" during the Old Testament. But now that we have Jesus, we no longer need prophets. Therefore, they say that there will be no true prophets after Christ.

Deceitfully, they neglect to mention that, when God spoke unto us by His Son, one of the things He said He would do is send us prophets (Matthew 23:34, Luke 11:49). God also said by His Son that, if we receive those He sends, we receive Him (John 13:20). Since we will be judged in the last day by what Christ has spoken, shouldn't we heed His words and accept those He sends (John 12:48-49)? So, how can it be true that we no longer need prophets or that there will be no true prophets after Christ?

The fact of the matter is they, who cite Hebrews 1:1-2 to support their argument against true prophets after Christ, are reading into these verses their own ideas (i.e. eisegesis). Hebrews 1:1-2 states that (a) "GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets," and (b) "Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, . . ." But nowhere does it say that (1) we no longer need prophets nor that (2) there will be no true prophets after Christ. These last two statements are their private interpretations. And according the Bible, these interpretations are false.

Interpretation (1): We no longer need prophets. The apostle Paul refuted this interpretation in one of his epistles written years after Christ's Ascension. Paul compared the church to the body of Christ, where every member of the church is an essential member of Christ's body. Note that Paul specifically identified "prophets" as current members of the New Testament church:

"But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you: . . . Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way." (1 Corinthians 12:18-22, 27-31)

Hence, as "the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee," neither can one member of the church say unto a prophet, "I have no need of thee"; for all the members of the body of Christ need to be "fitly joined together," so that, by working together as a whole, they "maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love" (Ephesians 4:16, cp. 2:21).

To be sure, Paul gave additional reasons why and how long we need prophets in the church:

"And [Christ] gave some apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive." (Ephesians 4:11-14)

Thus, the reasons why we need prophets along with the other members of the church are: "For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: . . . That we hence forth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine."

How long we need these members in the church is: "Till we all come in the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God." Have we achieved these ends? No! Then, we still need prophets along with the other members of the church.

Interpretation (2): There will be no true prophets after Christ. The Bible contradicts this interpretation, bearing record that there were true prophets in the church after Christ's Ascension (Acts 13:1, 15:32, 1 Corinthians 12:28). These prophets in the New Testament not only taught and preached, but they also received new revelation and prophesied (Ephesians 3:1-6, Acts 11:27-30, 21:10-11). In fact, apostles and prophets formed the very foundation of the church, of which Jesus Christ Himself is the chief cornerstone (Ephesians 2:19-21). And since these apostles and prophets had a testimony of Jesus, the "spirit of prophecy" was present in the very leadership of the church (Revelation 19:10). This also means that the apostles themselves were prophets as well, who received and brought forth further revelation and prophecy after Christ (e.g. the Book of Revelation).

Even in the latter days, the Bible foretells that God will pour out His spirit, and our sons and daughters will prophesy (Joel 2:28). In addition, the Bible reveals that in the last days there will be two witnesses who will prophesy 1,260 days. These prophets will also have power to devour their enemies with fire, to shut heaven that it does not rain, to turn water to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues as often as they will. After they prophesy, they will be killed and lie in a street in Jerusalem for three and a half days. Then God will raise them from the dead, and they will ascend up to heaven in a cloud (Revelation 11:1-12). As the Lord lives, there will be true prophets in the latter days like those in the Old Testament. Therefore, those individuals who claim there will be no Old Testament-style or -type prophets in the latter days, "do err, not knowing the scriptures."

"The Law and the Prophets" is not about the office of prophets, but two of the divisions of the Law of Moses. Taking the absolutist hermeneutic some wish to take with Luke 16:16 and John the Baptist, this would force him into becoming a modern disciple of Marcion, rejecting at least two of the three divisions of the Old Testament!

That Luke 16:16 is about the divisions of the Old Testament (the Torah [Law] and the Nevim [prophets]) can be seen in any scholarly commentary on the Bible. Take, for instance, the following from a conservative Evangelical Protestant on Luke 16:16-17:

In each of its nine uses in Luke-Acts, “Law and Prophets” designates not a historical epoch but a body of sacred Jewish literature, “the Old Testament” (16:16, 9, 31, 24:27, 44; Acts 13:15; 24:14; 26:22; 28:23) . . . John and the Pharisees therefore adhered to the theological framework of the “Law and the Prophets.” This proclamation of “the kingdom of God” does not arise with John, but with Jesus, for whom the “kingdom of God” (see at 4:43) is the dominant theme of his proclamation and ministry, as well as of his disciples (9:2; 10:11). “The good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and all are being pressed [Gk. biazetai] into it” (v. 16; my translation) . . . What remains of “the Law and the Prophets” with the advent of the gospel era? Are they superseded and supplanted by the fulfillment of the gospel? The concept of salvation unfolding in successive historical stages or dispensations, discussed above, might suggest so. V. 17, however, maintains the validity of “law” in the era of “gospel,” the “promise” in the era of “fulfilment”: “it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than to drop a serif from the law” (my translation; cf. Matt 5:18). Solomon’s dedicatory prayer at the completion of the temple in Jerusalem declared that not “one word” of God had failed (1Kgs 8:56); Jesus declares that not “one keraia” will fail. Keraia means a “little horn,” i.e., not one pen-stroke of the law will fail. Marcion, the second-century heresiarch who sought to purge the gospel of Jewish elements and influences, substituted “my words” for “the law,” thus retaining Jesus and dispensing with Israel. This is a violent misunderstanding of Luke’s theology. Especially in the infancy narrative, but also in the Elijah-Elisha typology of chaps. 7-9 and the recurrent emphasis on Jerusalem throughout the Gospel. Luke reminds readers that “the Law and the Prophets” provide the indispensable pretext and context for the gospel. Israel is the nourishing “root,” to use Paul’s metaphor (Rom 11:18), from which the olive tree grows, and which supports the tree. The extravagant contrast between “heaven and earth” and a minute pen-stroke, a “little horn” (Gk. keraia) of a Hebrew letter in “the Law and the Prophets,” expresses the issue in Hebrew hyperbole The rise of the gospel does not signal the “fall” (Gk. piptein) of the law. “Law and Prophets” are more durable than the physical universe. They are the presupposition and promise of the gospel, which is their fulfillment. (James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Luke [Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2015], 463, 464)

Luke 16:19-31

Dutch Reformed apologist, Anthony Hoekema, wrote the following in defence of the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura:

At this point the reader is referred to Jesus' Parable of the Rich man and Lazarus, found in Luke 16:19-31. It will be recalled that the rich man, after he lifted up his eyes and found himself in Hades, asked that his brothers be given an additional revelation besides what was in the Bible: namely, that Lazarus be sent to them from the realm of the dead. Abraham, however, replied: "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, if one rise from the dead" (v. 31). Here Christ clearly disavowed the need for a source of revelation additional to the Bible . . . Apparently the Mormons wish to be wiser than Christ Himself. (Hoekema, The Four Major Cults, 23).

There is nothing in this pericope that lends itself to the thesis that the rich man’s desire for Lazarus to appear (“angelically” if you will) to his brothers would have been understood as “general revelation.” Hoekema would have to acknowledge, there are different types of revelation, such as personal revelation (cf. the concept of the inward witness of the Holy Spirit to a believer vis-à-vis the self-authentication of the Bible); the rich man’s request was not for a “canonical” revelation, if you will, to be given to his brothers. This notwithstanding, there are many flaws with the apologist’s appeal to Luke 16:19-31 as evidence for sola scriputra.

Firstly, “Moses and the prophets” refers to two of the three divisions of the Old Testament—the Torah (Law) and the Nebi’im (Prophets). At best, the Old Testament only is in view here—absolutizing this verse in the way this apologist for sola scriptura wants to do, to be consistent, he would have to reject the New Testament. Furthermore, notice the third division of the Old Testament is missing, the writings (Kethubim). Following his rather flawed hermeneutic, one could easily isogete “Moses and the prophets” to argue for the formal sufficiency of some, but not all, of the Old Testament, precluding works such as the Psalter, Proverbs, and Esther as being inspired, canonical texts.

Secondly, as noted above, Hoekema would have to reject the inspiration and authority of the New Testament. After all, the New Testament was not inscripturated when Jesus gave the parable in Luke 16. Again, if this “proves” anything, it proves too much for the Protestant apologist wishing to use this verse (to be fair, modern defenders of the doctrine [William Webster; David King; Keith Mathison; James White] and even the older apologists [William Whitaker]) never appealed to this pericope, probably as it is rank eisegesis to conclude the Protestant doctrine of the formal sufficiency of the Protestant canon from this verse). Hoekema seems to realise this later in his volume, and defends the authority of the New Testament documents thusly:

The question might be asked: If Jesus Christ was the culmination of God's revelation to man, why was it necessary for the apostles who write the Bible books which has become incorporated into our present New Testament? The answer is that the apostles had to present to the world their witness to Jesus Christ, so that we might believe on Him on the basis of their testimony." (p. 31)

Notice that this contradicts his eisegetical conclusions from Luke 16:19-31. If Luke 16:19-31 “proves” formal sufficiency of text, it would, at best for his position, be the Old Testament as that was the only scripture available at the time; if the New Testament is to be accepted, one cannot, consistently, claim Luke 16:19-31 is evidence for sola scriptura.

John 20:30-31

And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

If one is going to use this to support Sola Scriptura, it proves too much; one must limit “Scriptura” to only the Gospel of John, or, to be extremely generous, all inscripturated revelation up to and including the Gospel of John, but nothing afterward. Furthermore, one could also use John's words in the next chapter (John 21:25) to refute Sola Scriptura, as it shows that there are other authoritative teachings of Jesus that John did not write down. Furthermore, note that John states that he wrote what he did so that one “might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,” and that one can have “[eternal] life through His name.” However, that cannot be said only of the Bible—Evangelicals would agree that one can come to “saving faith” through a gospel tract or a gospel sermon and other means. Will one conclude that such instruments are formally sufficient? To use this passage is to, ultimately, beg too many questions and engage in too much special pleading to be a valid “proof-text.” The only thing John meant here is that, if one listed everything done by Christ, one would have a limitless amount of works. He says absolutely nothing about Sola Scriptura.

On the topic of authoritative teachings from the apostle John that were never inscripturated in his writings, further refuting the appeal to John 20:30-31 as being somehow supportive of Sola Scriptura, consider 2 John 12 (cf. 3 John 13-14):

Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full. (2 John 12)

This is a very “un-Protestant” verse as the author clearly privileges oral instruction as opposed to the written word (even when he is writing what we now know to be inspired revelation!) Note the following from commentators:

His purpose achieved, the elder brings his letter to a close in a conventional way: there are other things that would be better said, or perhaps can wait to be said, in person. It was a truism in ancient letter writing that a letter was a poor but sometimes necessary substitute for a face-to-face conversation. This need not mean that his hope of a visit is a polite but unrealistic courtesy. Second John, and, even more, 3 John convey a picture of a man connected to these communities by other travellers, so why should not he himself also make the journey? The hope perhaps does ameliorate the authoritative note he has just adopted by anticipating a more open and equal encounter, but it also reinforces his status as one who would not be accorded the treatment he has just enjoined. This is further strengthened by the same phrase with which the author of 1 John closed the opening prologue, “that our joy may be made complete” (1 John 1:4): as elsewhere the change to the first person plural, “our,” serves to unite author and audience, but might also extend to locate them in a wider circle. More particularly, as another Johannine catchphrase (John 3:29; 16:24; 17:13), its use here, and not at the equivalent place in 3 John, is appropriate in a letter that has achieved much of its effects by echoes of language familiar to the readers. (Judith M. Lieu, I, II, & III John: A Commentary [Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008], 263)

12. ὑμῖν] The position of the pronoun is perhaps emphatic. The writer of these Epistles is clearly well acquainted with the circumstances of those whom he addresses.

οὐκ ἐβουλήθην] One of the more certain instances in the N.T. of the epistolary aorist.

χάρτου καὶ μέλανος] Cf. the similar phrase in 3 Jn. 13, μέλανος καὶ καλάμου, and 2 Co. 3:3, οὐ μέλανι ἀλλὰ πνεύματι. The material denoted is, of course, papyrus, the usual material for correspondence and for the cheaper kinds of books. Contrast 2 Ti. 4:13, μάλιστα τὰς μεμβράνας.Cf. Jer 43. (36.) 23, ἐξέλιπεν πᾶς ὁ χάρτης εἰς τὸ πῦρ.γενέσθαι] If there is any difference of meaning between this word and the more usual ἐλθεῖν into which it has been altered in the Textus Receptus, γενέσθαι seems rather to mean to “pay a visit” (cf. 1 Co. 2:3, 16:10, ἵνα ἀφόβως γένηται πρὸς ὑμᾶς). The intercourse which the coming makes possible is emphasized rather than the actual fact of coming. But cf. Tebtunis Pap. ii. 298 (p. 421), ἅμα τῷ λαβεῖν σε ταῦτά μου τὰ γράμματα γενοῖ πρὸς μέ, and also Jn. 6:21 (ἐγένετο ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς), 25. πότε ὧδε γέγονας;

στόμα πρὸς στόμα] Cf. 3 Jn. 14, and 1 Cor. 13:12, πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον: Nu. 12:8, στόμα κατὰ στόμα (פה אל פה).

ἵνα ἡ χαρὰ κ.τ.λ.] Cf. 1 Jn. 1:4; 3 Jn. 4. The object of the proposed visit is the same as that which the writer had in view in writing the First Epistle. It is generally to be noticed that the closest parallels in the Johannine writings are given some slightly different turn in different circumstances, which suggests that in both cases the writer is using his own favourite expressions rather than copying those of another.

εχων א^c A² B K L P al. pler. cat. vg. etc.] εχω א*A* 27. 29. 61. 64. 180 o^scr: ειχον K⁵¹ (17) arm. | υμιν] post γραφειν99 al.^3 scr | γραφειν] γραψαι Α 17. 73 g^scr | ουκ] pr. sed arm. | μελανος και χαρτου sah. | αλλα ελπιζω א B K L P al. longe. plur. sah. syr^{bodl et p} Thphyl. Oec.] ελπιζω γαρ A 5. 13 27. 29. 66**. 73 d^scr al.¹⁰ cat. vg. cop. arm. aeth.: ελπιζων68 | γενεσθαι א A B 5. 6. 7. 13 27. 33. 65. 66**. 68. 137. 180 d^scr vg. syr^p Thphyl. Oec^com (παραγενεσθαι)] ελθειν K L P al. longe. plur. cat. tol. sah. syr^bodl arm. aeth. Oec^txt: uidere boh-ed. | λαλησαι] λαλησομενI^b 396 (-) | ημων א K L P al. pler. cat. syr^{bodl et p} arm. Thphyl. Oec.] υμων A B 5. 13 27. 29. 65. 66**. 68. 69. 73. 101. 104 c^scr al. 8 vg. cop. aeth.: meum sah.: om. 21. 37. 56. Nestle retains ημων in his Greek text, but it is probably a correction into conformity with the common reading in the First Epistle | πεπληρωμενη η א (ην א*) Bvg. (et. fu. demid. harl. tol.) Thphyl.] η πεπληρωμενη A K L P al. omn^uid cat. am. Oec. (Brooke, A. E. (1912). A critical and exegetical commentary on the Johannine epistles (pp. 179–180). New York: C. Scribner’s Sons.)

Rom 3:2

Much every way; chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. (Rom 3:2)

While this is a proof-text some Protestant critics of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox acceptance of the Apocrypha, some may be tempted to use it against Latter-day Saints who believe that, contemporary with the Old Testament, the Lord was inspiring prophets elsewhere (i.e., Mesoamerica, where the Book of Mormon peoples were). However, as Catholic apologist Gary Michuta noted, this is an abuse of the passage: 

Let’s look at the last line: “the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God.” Which Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God? The “Jewish province” argument assumes that first-century Judaism was more or less a monolithic religious body. It wasn’t. First-century Judaism comprised several groups, sects, and schools, each claiming to be the true expression of Judaism. Although there was substantial agreement on many issues, all of these groups and sects held differing opinions, even on which books were to be considered Sacred Scripture. For example, the Samaritans (if they can be included in this list) believed that only the Pentateuch was Scripture, and it’s quite possible that the Sadducees did as well [20]. The Essenes may not have accepted Esther, but possibly accepted Tobit, Sirach, Enoch, and perhaps other books [21]. Even the Pharisees were not unified on this point. The Pharisaic schools of Shammai and Hillel were divided on Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Esther, and possibly other books as well [22]. . . . the wording of Romans 3:2 shows that St. Paul is not speaking about an exclusive Jewish jurisdiction over the Old Testament that lasts into perpetuity, but rather about something that existed in the past . . . A more accurate translation is that the Jews “were entrusted with the oracles of God.” The Greek word translated “were entrusted” is a third-person, aorist, passive, indicative verb meaning that the “entrustment” was something that happened in the past; the Jews were at one time entrusted with the oracles of God. Paul surely believed that Christians are now entrusted with God’s oracles.

When we examine the context of Romans 3:2, we find that Paul is not talking about the canon or the scriptures as a collection of books. Paul is naming the advantages that the Jews had over the Gentiles (Rom 3:1). The Gentiles knew God’s will through the dictates written in their hearts (Rom. 2:14-15); the Jews, however, enjoyed the great advantage over the Gentiles in that they received “oracles” from God. The word translated “oracles” or “utterances” (Greek, logia) most certainly includes Sacred Scripture, but it is not restricted to Scripture. It can also include God’s unwritten directions as well (Num. 24:3, 16; Ps. 105:19; Isa. 30:10-11; 1 Pet. 4:11). These unwritten instructions, like the written ones, were also a great advantage that the Jews enjoyed and the Gentiles lacked . . . Romans 3:2 is not giving carte blanche authority to the Jews in perpetuity to determine what is and is not canonical for the Old Testament. Whatever advantages the Jews possessed, Christian possess it as well, and the Old Testament Scripture is not exclusively their Scripture but our Scripture as well. Jesus said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Matt. 28:18); that authority includes province over the Old Testament canon.

Notes for the Above

[20] Josephus (Antiquities, 18, 16), Hippolytus (Refutation 9, 29), Origen (Against Celsus 1, 49; Commentary on Matthew 17, 35), and Jerome (Commentary on Matthew 22:31-32). Some scholars dispute this claiming that the early Fathers were dependent upon the misunderstanding of Josephus. However, two key Fathers (Origen and Jerome) show no indication of dependence upon Jewish communities, and both indicated the belief that the Sadducees only accepted the Torah. For an excellent discussion on this see, Lee McDonald’s The Formation of the Biblical Canon: Volume 1: The Old Testament: Its Authority and Canonicity (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017), 256.

[21] The Qumran community didn’t publish a canon, and there is no discussion about which books were Sacred Scripture and which were not. The “canon” of Quman is little more than educated guesses. However, it is generally understood that the Qumran community accepted a larger group of sacred texts. See Scribes and Schools: The Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures, ed. Philip Davies (Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press), 164-165.

[22] Mishnah, Yadayim 3:5, et al. See William Osterley’s The Books of the Apocrypha: Their Origin, Teaching, and Contents (New York: Fleming Revell Company, 1914), 170-171.

Source for the above: Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger (rev ed.; El Cajon: Catholic Answers Press, 2017), pp. 31-33

In other words, while the Jews were indeed entrusted with the oracles of God, it does not mean that others were not recipients of divine revelation; if such was the case, then no Gentile would have been able to receive a revelation (as the author of Luke/Acts did which led to the inscripturation of those books, for e.g.) nor people outside that geographical area, such as the Book of Mormon peoples. Furthermore, it is not a valid "proof text" to be used against our Catholic friends vis-á-vis the Apocrypha.

Heb 1:1-2

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.

Firstly, with respect to Heb 1:1, this does not state that there would be no prophets or apostles after Jesus. Let us actually exegete the text:

In response, it could be enough to point out the obvious fact that Hebrews, probably written in the mid AD 60s, was not the last book of the New Testament to have been written and the implications of this fact are usually glossed over.

The problem is that, by taking the absolutist view that many critics (e.g., Kurt Van Gorden in his booklet, Mormonism) is that it would preclude the letters of Paul, the Catholic epistles, the Revelation of St. John, etc., being divinely inspired Scripture, because for it to be "God-breathed" revelation, God would have to inspire the authors of such texts. Indeed, it would mean that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews was not inspired when he wrote it, as it would preclude post-ascension revelation!

In reality, all that these verses state is that God spoke in the past through the prophets and during the time of Christ, through His Son, Jesus Christ. It does not touch upon the question of post-ascension revelation, apostles, and prophets, so in reality, critics who bring up this passage against LDS teachings are, essentially, begging the question.

Interestingly enough, appealing to such an absolutised reading of Heb 1:1-2 results in one rejecting the personal pre-existence of Jesus; to quote Dave Burke, a Christadelphian apologist:

I find it interesting that you cite Hebrews 1:1-13 as your text and then completely ignore verse 1. Perhaps it’s because you’re not sure how to deal with this verse, which clearly states that God formerly spoke to people through His prophets, but has spoken through His Son ‘in these last days.’ Such a statement has obvious implications for the concept of Jesus’ pre-existence and undermines the popular claim that OT angelic theophanies were actually appearances of the pre-incarnate Christ.

In response to this, the Evangelical apologist in the debate answered Burke rather cogently. In spite of my disagreement with this critic about the essentials of the gospel, I think he is spot-on in (1) answering the common Socinian abuse of this pericope (Anthony Buzzard often appeals to this text, for instance) and (2) that it does not preclude post-ascension prophets and apostles (this point will be fleshed out more later in this section):

You seem to reach for arguments from silence a lot, Dave. I said nothing specifically about verse 1 because I had a lot of ground to cover and little room to cover it. Verse 1 poses absolutely no problem for my Christology. God spoke in the past in the prophets; in these last days he has spoken to us in the Son. This statement has no implications, obvious or otherwise, as to when the Son began to exist. Nor does this statement mean that the Son could not have spoken as the preincarnate angel of the LORD. By your reasoning, the order is rigidly (1) prophets and no Son, (2) Son and no prophets. But we know, as it turns out, that there were prophets after the Son came (Acts 11:27; 13:1; 15:32; 21:10; 1 Cor. 12:28-29; 14:29, 32, 37; Eph. 2:20; 3:5; 4:11). The author’s point is simply that the revelation that came through the Son “in these last days” represents the climax, the high point, of the history of revelation. (source)

Furthermore, note that the New Testament affirms true prophets after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus:

And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch. And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar. (Acts 11:27-28)

Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul (Acts 13:1)

And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them. (Acts 15:32)

And God hath sent some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. (1 Cor 12:28)

Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge . . . And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. (1 Cor 14:29, 32)

Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his apostles and prophets by the Spirit. (Eph 3:5)

Even in the teachings of Jesus, there is an expectation of true prophets that would come after Him:

Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city . . . (Matt 23:34; cf. Luke 11:49)

Additionally, Christ not only would send/commission prophets, but His followers were to accept them as true prophets of God:

He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward. (Matt 10:40-41; cf. John 13:20; 15:20)

While it is true that Christ warned against false prophets (Matt 7:15), this only makes sense is there would be true prophets that would have to be distinguished from false prophets (cf. Matt 7:15-20).

Furthermore, in Rev 11:3-12, there is a promise of two eschatological prophets who would serve as two (true) witnesses of God against a fallen world and who would be killed.

All these considerations refute Protestant apologists who believe that this passage is strong evidence of the cessation of modern revelation and/or an affirmation of the formal sufficiency of "Scripture" (which is exhausted by "the Bible" in their theology).

Eph 2:20

And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.

Commenting on this passage, Anthony Hoekema wrote the following:

The Bible further indicates that the entire church is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets" (Eph 2:20). In this passage the word prophets stands for the chief Old Testament agents of revelation, and the word apostles, for the chief New Testament agents of revelation. Since these two groups constitute the foundation of the church, the need for the work of another prophets arising eighteen centuries later is definitely excluded (Hoekema, The Four Major Cults, 32 [emphasis in original])

Firstly, that the New Testament church held to apostolic succession is not difficult to find. In the opening of the Acts of the Apostles, Judas had just committed suicide (Acts 1:18-19), and a successor had to be chosen. In vv. 20-21, we read the words of Peter:

For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitiation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein; and his bishoprick [office] let another take. Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us. Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Peter, appropriating Old Testament texts in a way common to the New Testament authors and their contemporaries (cf. the use of Hos 11:1 in Matt 2:15), uses Psa 109:8 to support apostolic succession; what is also interesting is that the text from the psalter deals with a member of David’s royal court, an office that was replaced, not simply a position that, upon the death (or in the case of Psa 109, his ejection therefrom) ceased.

As LDS scholars John A. Tvedtnes and Matthew Roper cogently noted in their response to Luke Wilson, "A Bible! A Bible! The Canon and Ongoing Revelation":

Not only was Matthias selected, by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, to replace the fallen Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:13-26), both Paul and Barnabas are subsequently termed “apostles” (Acts 14:14; Romans 1:1, 5, 13; 1 Corinthians 1:1; 4:9; 9:1-2, 5-6; 15:9; 2 Corinthians 1:1, 5; 12:11-12; Galatians 1:1, 17; 2:8; Ephesians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; 1 Thessalonians 2:6; 1 Timothy 1:1; 2:7; 2 Timothy 1:1, 11; Titus 1:1).  Paul also indicated that James, the brother of Jesus, was an apostle (Galatians 1:19).  When Paul wrote that “James, Cephas [Peter], and John . . . seemed to be pillars” in the Church (Galatians 2:9), he could not have had reference to James the brother of John, for the death of this apostle, recorded in Acts 12:2, took place before the event to which Paul refers took place in Acts 15.

Wilson cites Ephesians 2:20 as evidence that the “writings [of the original apostles] are the church’s foundation and final authority” (p. 33).  But the passage in question says nothing about the “writings” of these men.  It says that the saints “are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.”  If writings were meant, then we should expect that the Bible would contain some of Jesus’ writings, which it does not.  The real foundation of the Church is Christ, with his chosen apostles and prophets.  Paul explained in the same epistle that the Lord “gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:11-13).  This does not sound like a one-time apostolic office, any more than teachers and pastors are a one-time office.  Rather, Paul makes it clear that these offices were intended to remain in the Church “till we all come in the unity of the faith.”

Anti-Mormon and Reformed Baptist, James White, in his interaction with the LDS tract, “17 points of the True Church,” argues against the LDS use of Eph 2:20 in the following way:

#3. The true church must have a foundation of Apostles and Prophets. Ephesians 2:19-20. This, again, is true, as far as it goes. Unfortunately, the LDS Church takes it too far. The Mormons take this to mean that the true church must have official positions entitled "Apostle" and "Prophet," which, of course, they have. This is not what Ephesians 2:19-20 teaches. First, the context includes verses 21 and 22, and these must be read also. The text actually says that the church is built on a foundation. Stop there. The word "built" as translated in the King James Version translates the Greek participle epoikodomethentes, which, properly syntaxed is translated "having been built." It is an aorist passive participle. It refers to a past action, one that (in this case) has been completed. To say that today we must continue to build the foundation of apostles and prophets is to misunderstand the text. Next, we would like to point out that the Bible identifies Jesus Christ as the foundation (1 Corinthians 3:10-11). The Church is built upon this foundation, and is continually growing unto an "holy temple in the Lord." The question must be asked, how many times does one lay a foundation? If one is continually laying a foundation, how will the house be built? The answer is obvious. The Mormon Church is still trying to lay a foundation that was laid two thousand years ago. Since this is so, it is obvious to see that in this passage Paul is referring to something other than a continuing office of apostle and Prophet.

Compare White’s comments about the aorist participle with a leading Greek grammar:

The assumption that the Aorist Participle properly denotes past time, from the point of view either of the speaker or of the principal verb, leads to a constant misinterpretation of the form. The action denoted by the Aorist Participle may be past, present, or future with reference to the speaker, and antecedent to, coincident with, or subsequent to, the action of the principle verb. The Aorist Participle, like the participles of the other tenses, may be most simply thought of as a noun or adjective, the designation of one who  performs the action denoted by the verb, and like any other noun or adjective timeless” (Ernest D. Burton, Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek, Kregel Pub., 1978, pp. 59-60)

Much of White's interpretation of Eph 2:20 mirrors that of Ron Rhodes and Marian Bodine's, in their book, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Mormons (Eugene, Oreg.: Harvest House, 1995). On p. 72, we find the following questions posted to Latter-day Saints:

What do you think Ephesians 2:20 means when it says that God's household is built on the foundation of the prophets and apostles?

Once a foundation is built, does it have to be built again, and again, and again?

Perhaps it should be enough to note that, just as a building's foundations are not removed when construction of a building is completed, Christ's apostles and prophets were not meant  to be removed when the Church was established, but were meant to remain, as were the other offices mentioned in Eph 4:11. There are at least 15 and possibly as many as 22 apostles named in the New Testament, and no fewer than three prophets mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. Unless one labours under the (false) a priori assumption of the formal sufficiency of the Protestant canon, nothing, exegetically, allows one to claim that these apostles and prophets were not "forth-telling" prophets and apostles as were Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, et al.

For the references to these apostles and prophets, see the following:

Apostles

Matthias (Acts 1:26)

Paul (Acts 13:2; 14:14; Rom 1:1)

Barnabas (Acts 13:2; 14:14)

Andronicus (Rom 16:7)

Junia (Rom 16:7)

Apollos (1 Cor 4:6-9)

James, the brother of Jesus (Gal 1:19)

Silvanus (1 Thess 1:1; 2:4-6)

Timoteus (1 Thess 1:1; 2:4-6)

Jesus is also referred to as being an "apostle" (Heb 3:1)

Prophets

Agabus (Acts 11:27-28; 21:10)

Judas (Acts 15:22, 32)

Silas (Acts 15:22, 32)

Others (Acts 11:27; 13:1; 21:9; Rev 11:3-10)

Finally, note the following exegesis of Eph 2:20 from Harold Hoehner, a conservative Evangelical Protestant:

ἐποικοδομηθέντες ἐπὶ τῷ θεμελίῳ, “having been built on the foundation.” Paul makes a transition in his metaphor from those who belong to a household (οικειος) in verse 19 to that of a building in which the Spirit of God dwells (εποικοδομηθεντες . . . οικοδομη . . . συνοικοδομεισθε . . .  κατοικητηριον) in verses 20-22. The aorist passive participle εποικοδομηθεντες may signify a temporal idea, indicating that the readers of this letter have already built on the foundation at the time of their conversion, or, more likely, it may denote cause, namely, the reason we are fellow citizens with the saints and members of God’s household is because we have been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. The passive emphasises that foundation of the apostles and prophets. The passive emphasises that we who are in one body are recipients of the action. God is the subject of the building. The following preposition επι with the accusative would imply motion (1 Cor 3:12; Rom 15:20) but with the genitive or dative, as here, it denotes place—“on” or “upon” which the structure is built. The word θεμελιος means “foundation,” which speaks of the beginnings of something that is coming into being, a term that is synonymous to καταβολη in 1:4. (Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2002], 397)

In terms of argumentation against the LDS position and/or in favour of Sola Scriputra, an appeal to Eph 2:20 rests on nothing but eisegesis and clearly does not hold up to careful e

Heb 7:4-10

Reformed Presbyterian, Matt Slick, in an attempt to offer biblical support for sola scriptura, wrote the following:

It is true that Heb. 7:7 is about people and not about scripture.  But there is more in the text than just people.  Heb. 7:4-10,

"Now observe how great this man was to whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth of the choicest spoils. ⁵ And those indeed of the sons of Levi who receive the priests office have commandment in the Law to collect a tenth from the people, that is, from their brethren, although these are descended from Abraham. ⁶ But the one whose genealogy is not traced from them collected a tenth from Abraham, and blessed the one who had the promises. ⁷But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater. ⁸ And in this case mortal men receive tithes, but in that case one receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives on. ⁹ And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, ¹⁰ for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him."

The writer of Hebrews is mentioning different concepts as well as historical facts.  He mentions tithing, descendants of Abraham, the lesser is blessed by the greater, authority, and Federal Headship.  It is the concept of the greater in authority blessing the lesser in authority that is being examined here in this article. ("Is the Bible Alone Sufficient for Spiritual Truth?”)

Slick is way out in left field in arguing that Heb 7:4-10 is biblical evidence for Sola Scriptura. Consider the following points:

Firstly, as Slick himself admits, Heb 7:4-10 is not speaking about “scripture”; he is also guilty of further question-begging by assuming “scripture” (even if implied implicitly in this pericope) is exhausted by the 66 books of the Protestant canon; considering that Hebrews was probably written in the A.D. 60s before many New Testament texts, this would prove too much, for there must be tota scriptura for sola scriptura to be operational in the Church according to Protestantism.

Secondly, Protestant commentators on Hebrews disagree with Slick that this passage has sola scriptura in view. For instance, one Protestant commentator, writing on Heb 7:4-10, offers this overview of the pericope:

7:4-10: Melchizedek explained

From the citation of Gn. 14:17-20, and the possible use of a hymn in praise of Melchizedek, the author moves on in vv.4-10 to his own midrash. Its point, briefly stated in v. 4 and developed in the rest of the paragraph, is that Abraham, and in him his Levitical descendants, acknowledged that Melchizedek was greater than himself by paying him a tithe . . . The further conclusion, that the levitical priesthood is thus inferior to Christ’s, is not drawn until vv.11-18, and only then with great care, Jesus not being named until v. 22. In the present paragraph, the receipt of the tithe is emphasized as the most important mark of Melchizedek’s superiority (vv.4-6a, 9f.). The author also introduces, almost in passing, two other marks of Melchizedek’s greatness which in the wider context, as applied to Christ, will prove more important than the tithe, which has no christological counterpart. First, Melchizedek as the greater blesses Abraham, the less (vv.6b-7). On ευλογεω →6:14; the specific language of blessing is not prominent in Hebrews, but it is related to the whole complex of promise, inheritance, and covenant. Second, v. 8 contrasts Melchizedek’s eternal life and priesthood with the mortal nature of the Levitical priests; this theme, implicit in the phrase ιερευς εις τον αιωνα, is developed in vv. 23-25. (Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text [New International Greek Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1993], 309-10)

Commenting on Heb 7:7, Ellingworth notes:

7:7. The superior always blesses the inferior

The significance of v. 6b is brought out by appeal to a general principle (gnomic present ευλογισθαι), as in 6:16: blessing is something done by a superior to an inferior, or example, by a father to a son, as in 11:20, 21 (→6:14; Louw-Nida, 33.470). No stress is laid on the cultic nature of the principle, as in 2:11; 9:22. Both in the Greek Bible and in pagan literature, ευλογεω is also used of an action by an inferior, especially of a human being blessing or praising God (e.g., Ps. 66[LXX 65]:8, ευλογειτε εθην τον θεον ημων; Lk. 1:64; 2:28; 24:53 [v.l. αινουντες]; Jas. 3:9); not in Hebrews (Louw-Nida 33.356). The author assumes that the context will make it clear to his readers that he is using ευλογεω of one human being blessing another.

In meaning, though not in grammar, vv. 6b-7 form a deviation from the main theme of the tithe; there is no need with Moffatt to bracket v. 7 alone, since v. 8 does not pick up on the argument from v. 6b, but from v. 6a. Δε indicates a new point (Moffatt “And”), not a contrast. The statement is emphatic. Hebrews’ typical χωρις (→ 4:15), “apart from,” is stronger than ανευ αντιλογιας, common in the papyri (M and Bauer s.v.), indicating no more than absence or non-use. Here, as in 6:16, πας denotes individual members of a group, giving the meaning “beyond any contradiction.” ‘Αντιλογια here, as in 6:16, has its primary meaning of (verbal) contradiction, not physical hostility or rebellion, as in 12:3; Jude 11.

Το ελαττον υπο χρειττονος (→ 1:4): . . . What is in focus here is a contrast of status, not of size, moral worth, age, or priestly versus lay condition. Κρειτιων is used quite generally here, but elsewhere (→ 8:6) of the superiority of the new covenant (Ibid., 366-67)

As usual, Matt Slick is way out in left field when it comes to providing meaningful exegesis of the Bible. To be fair, this is a pericope that is rarely ever cited in support of Sola Scriptura beyond Matt Slick and other followers of his ministry, CARM (Christian Apologetics Research Ministry).

Rev 21:14

And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

It is common to see Evangelical Protestants cite this particular verse against Latter-day Saint ecclesiology which teaches that the office of "Apostle" and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles were not limited to the New Testament era but are on-going offices in the Church; furthermore, it is often used to also support, at least implicitly, Sola Scriptura.

In their book, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Mormons (Eugene, Oreg.: Harvest House Publishers, 1995), Ron Rhodes and Marian Bodine attempt to refute LDS claims to authority by an appeal to this verse. Here are a series of questions they suggest their Evangelical reader to ask a Latter-day Saint:

Did you know that the biblical apostles’ names (twelve in all) will be engraved in the New Jerusalem, God’s eternal city (Revelation 21:14)?

Why aren’t the Mormon apostles’ names engraved - or anywhere to be found in the New Jerusalem?

In view of the Bible’s clear teaching on apostles, is it right to claim that the Mormon Church has living apostles who are on a par with the biblical apostles? (Rhodes and Bodine, p. 75)

There are a number of problems with the above reasoning, not the least under their reasoning, not only would Paul, Barnabas and Matthias not be apostles, Judas Iscariot would be a foundation to the celestial city, which I don't think anyone holds to!

Furthermore, many Bible scholars worth their weight in salt recognise that Revelation 21:14 is not about the total number of apostles to ever grace the earth, but instead is tied into the symbolism of the Book of Revelation, as can be seen in the following quote from three of the best New Testament scholars in the modern age:

The twelve apostles of the Lamb. This remarks looks back on the time of the apostles and would not have been written by one of the disciples of Jesus. The mention of the twelve tribes and the twelve apostles suggests that the city symbolizes a people; but there is no simple equation of the New Jerusalem and the people of God. Rather, the city represents a transcendent and future reality: God dwelling with a people, face to face. (The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed. Raymond E. Brown Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy [2d ed.; London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1990], 1015)

In the literature of the Second Temple period, there are many parallels between this verse in the book of Revelation; notice the following from texts discovered at Qumran which further substantiates the "symbolic" reading of this verse:

11Q19 (11QTemple) 39:11-16; 40:11-13
And the names of the gates of this [cou]rtyard are according to the name[s]  of the children of Is[ra]el: Simeon, Levi and Judah to the East; [Reu]ben, Joseph and Benjamin to the South; Issachar, Zebulun and Gad to the West; Dan, Naphtali and Asher to the North. And between one gate and other the measurement is: from the North-east corner up to the gate of Simeon ninety-nine cubits, and the gate, twenty-eight cubits, and from this gate up to the gate of [. . . ] Levi, ninety-nine 16 cubits; and the gate, twenty-eight cubits; and from the gate of Levi up to the gate of Judah . . . In [it] there will be three gates, and three to the South, and three to the West, and three to the North. And the width of the gates will be fifty cubits and their height seventy cubits.

 5Q15 (5QNew Jerusalem), fragment 1, column 1, lines 2-5: Also [he showed me the mea]surements of [all the] blo[cks. Between one block and other there is the street,] six rods wide, forty-two cubits. [And] the main [street]s [which] from the East [to West; the] forty-two cubits. [And] the main [street]s [which] from East [to West; the] wid[th of the street, of two] of them is ten rods, sev[enty cubits;] and the third, [the main which passes to the lef]t of [the] tem[ple he mea]sured; eighte[en] rods wide, one hund[red and twen]ty-six cubits.

 4Q554 (4QNew Jerusalem), fragment 1, column 1, lines 9-22: In the S[ou]th [. . .] . . . and they are all different from [another . . .from the] East [corner] which is to the North [. . .] thirty-five stadia. And [this door is called the door of Simeon]; and from this door up [to] the central door [he measured thirty-five stadia; and] this door is which is called the door of [Levi. And he measures from this door up to the S]outh [door:] thirty-five stadia; [and this door is called the door of Judah. And from] this door he measured up to the [southeastern] corner [thirty-five stadia. And] from Blank this corner to the West [he measured to the door 25 stadia; and this door] is called the door of Joseph [. . . And from this door he measured to the central door:] 25 [stadi]a; and [this door is called the door of Benjamin. And from] this [do]or he measured up to the door [25 stadia: and this door is called] the door of Reuben and [from] this [do]or [he measured up to the West corner: 25 stadia. And] from this corner he measured up.

Texts that do not refute Sola Scriptura

In the interest of intellectual honesty, let me discuss two passages that, while commonly cited against Sola Scriptura are not valid "proof-texts" against this doctrine and should be retired.

2 Pet 1:19-21

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

I acknowledge that this pericope is often cited by critics of sola scriptura, and while I am strongly critical of this doctrine, I don’t believe it is exegetically tenable to use this particular pericope against this practice. Indeed, while some believe that this passage is against such an epistemology as well as being against one engaging in exegesis on their own, this is not the meaning of the text; instead, it is about the origins of divine revelation—that is, Scripture does not originate from the oracle, but from God (i.e., Scripture is inspired by God and has God as its source, not the imaginations of man).

As one recent scholarly commentary put it:

The pronouncements about the character of prophecy seem, at first glance at least, to have two edges. Many readers understand the reference to the interpretation of prophecy not being of “one’s own interpretation” (1:20) as referring to interpretation done by later readers and hearers of the prophecy. However, the very next verse (1:21) argues that prophets do not speak out of their own will but from God through the Holy Spirit. The awkwardness of such a shift in topic leads other readers to conclude that 1:20 is speaking about the interpretive role of prophets in their own prophecies . . .[20-21] It is possible to render the Greek as “no prophecy of scripture belongs to one’s own interpretation.” The lack of clear antecedent to “one’s own” permits reading the text as referring to how people interpret ancient OT prophecies. Consequently, this verse is often read as an attempt to limit heterodox reading of Scripture. However, this reading separates the verse from the verses surrounding it and introduces a sudden and unnecessary change in topic.

The Greek also translates as “no prophecy of scripture happens from one’s own interpretation,” with the antecedent of “one’s own” being the prophet. This makes perfect sense in context. The credibility of the prophecy, as reinforced in the account of the transfiguration and in the affirmation in 1:19, receives further support. In the Mediterranean world, prophets were regularly understood as having to interpret the revelation that came to them. This verse denies that the prophecies contained in Scripture are the result of the interpretive process of the prophets.

The opening denial in 1:21 clarifies the meaning of 1:20. Prophecy is not “carried by the will of a person.” This is not a denial that humans are involved; it is, instead, a clarification of their role. Humans do not “carry” the prophecy. Instead, prophecy occurs when “people” are “carried by the Holy Spirit.” In repetition of the term “carry,” this account parallels the account of the transfiguration in 1:17-18 where a voice is both “carried” to Jesus “by the majestic glory” and “carried from heaven” so that the eyewitnesses could hear it. Putting all this together, a rather full account of the prophetic event can be constructed. A heavenly voice is carried from heaven to Jesus, to eyewitnesses, and perhaps to all prophets by means of the heavenly glory. These people are themselves carried by the Holy Spirit. When all the carrying is thus ordered, people speak “from God.”

The ancient world was filled with debates about prophecies. There was certainly no agreed-upon account. Prophets were accused of all kinds of deceit. Prophecies were often ridiculed. Nonetheless, prophecy had a powerful role throughout the Greco-Roman world. The OT itself is frequented by accounts of false prophets. In agreement with 2 Peter, the common image of false prophets is as people who speak “the deceit of their own minds” (Jer 14:14; see also Jer 23:16; Ezek 13:3). Second Peter itself will move from this defense of prophecy to a prediction of false prophets (2:1) and an attack on them. In any case, the general cast of this defense would probably have given it credence among both Jews and Greeks. (Lewis R. Donelson, I & II Peter and Jude [New Testament Library; Louisville, Ky: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2010], 229, 234-35)

On whether this pericope teaches the inerrancy of the autographia, note the following:

  

The problem with taking 2 Pet. 1:21 as a support for the inspiration of Scripture should be obvious for anyone who reads it slowly and deliberately: It does not refer to the inspiration of Scripture per se but rather to the inspiration of prophecies within Scripture (v. 20). Nothing in the verse implies that epistolary and narrative writings found within Scripture are also inspired. The discussion leading up to 2 Pet. 1:21 has to do with the assuredness of the Lord’s word, as delivered in a prophetic mode. Nothing in this verse can reasonably be construed as a statement about the nature of Scripture itself. (John C. Poirier, The Invention of the Inspired Text: Philological Windows on the Theopneustia of Scripture [Library of New Testament Studies 640; London: T&T Clark, 2021], 110, emphasis in original)

 

John 21:25

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

John is simply stating that, if one were to record all the teachings and actions of Jesus, such would be too voluminous for any singular volume. However, this is not necessarily problematic to most variations of sola scriptura which only states that all that is necessary for salvation and Christian living is explicated in the Bible and not that the doctrine holds that the Bible is exhaustive of every single truth (e.g., trigonometry; economics). As James White once put it in his debate with Patrick Madrid in 1993 (square brackets added for clarification):

First of all, [Sola Scriptura] is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge.  The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it.  But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

As the formal sufficiency or lack thereof of "the Bible" is not in view (such would be anachronistic anyway), John 21:25 cannot be used for or against Sola Scriptura (cf. the exegesis of John 20:30-31 provided earlier in this paper).

Two other arguments not to use against Sola Scriptura

Just as 2 Pet 1:19-21 and John 21:25 are weak texts against sola scriptura, here are two arguments that Latter-day Saints and other critics of Sola Scriputra should avoid making:

Refuting the "Jesus never commanded His followers to write anything" argument

The more errant critics of sola scriptura often argue thusly:

Christ Himself never wrote a line, nor ever commanded His apostles to write.

The problem is that this is simply false.

Firstly, in Rev 1:1-3, we read the following:

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place; he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to al that he saw. Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear and who keep what is written in it; for the time is near.

In this text, the resurrected Jesus, through an angel from heaven, commands John to write the revelation he received.

In Matt 26:13, speaking of the woman who anointed Him, Jesus Himself said:

Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.

It seems strange that Jesus would expect the apostles to preach this anointing as part of their oral proclamation of the Gospel; it would seem to be more realistic to interpret this verse as teaching that Jesus understood that the record of this anointing would be made available as part of a larger written volume discussing various incidents in His life.

These two passages in the New Testament, one explicitly, the other implicitly, refutes this rather weak argument against sola scriptura.

30,000+ Protestant Denominations?

Many critics of sola scriptura often claim that there are 30,000 denominations, or some related figure.
This line of argument should be abandoned by critics of this false and rather pernicious doctrine, as it is just wrong.

Protestant apologist, Eric D. Svendsen, wrote a book entitled, Upon this Slippery Rock: Countering Roman Catholic Claims to Authority (Amityville, N.Y.: Calvary Press, 2002), and one of the chapters contained therein examines this claim, as presented by Tim Staples (Catholic) and others who employ this lousy apologetic--the chapter can be found online via archive.org here.

I hope that Latter-day Saints, wishing to uphold intellectual integrity, will retire this argument, or, at the very least, modify the argument and use the proper figure of Protestant denominations, too--in reality, the issue of denominationalism is due to poor ecclesiology, not epistemology per se, within the broad spectrum of Protestantism.

Notwithstanding, there is a valid way to argue against Protestantism on the topic of the various denominations therein. Firstly, while Svendsen and other Evangelicals are correct that many critics of Protestantism exaggerate the number of Protestant denominations, all the talk of there being "only" 9,000 or a related figure is, ultimately, a smokescreen. The truth is, if there is more than one denomination, there are too many--if one departs from the one true Church (and there can only be one true Church), one is not in full communion with God and the true Gospel.

Secondly, notwithstanding the repeated claim that the differences between the various denominations within Evangelical Protestantism pertain to minor issues and are not important doctrinal differences, such begs an important question—how are we to adequately answer how we know what is and what is not an important doctrinal disagreement? Furthermore, we know for a fact that this is false; there are many doctrinal disagreements among various Protestant groups that are salvific in nature, not secondary or even tertiary, such as church leadership or exclusive psalmody. Such differences include baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, the nature of the Eucharist (the magisterial Reformers debated one another on this, viewing it as a salvific issue), the nature of justification, the nature of sanctification, the nature of righteousness in justification, eternal security, the nature of the atonement, the intention of the atonement and Christ’s highly priestly intercession, the nature of original sin, whether man has a free-will to accept the gospel, etc. –None—of these, and many other doctrines, are “minor” disagreements; they represent fundamental, salvific differences among Protestants, both historically and in modern times. For instance, if Lutherans are incorrect in teaching baptismal regeneration, are they not guilty, like the Judaizers, guilty of perverting the gospel (cf. Gal 1:6-9)?

Some may charge that LDS have their differences too; yes, that is true, but these differences are not salvific (e.g., whether the translation of the Book of Mormon was “tight” or “loose”); furthermore, at least we have a mechanism to intervene on any theological debate and give authoritative answers—the formal doctrine of Protestantism, sola scriptura, does not help in such issues as the biblical texts are passive and have to be interpreted, and such has, in part, led to the inability of Protestants for almost 500 years, to definitively answer these issues.

Here is a partial listing of the differences between Protestant denominations, many of which affect salvation itself:

·       Baptismal regeneration
·       Mode of baptism
·       Infant Baptism
·       Eternal Security
·       Nature of the Eucharist (e.g., consubstantiation vs. spiritual presence view vs. purely symbolic view)
·       The nature of sola fide
·       The nature of “saving faith”
·       The intent of the atonement (limited vs. universal vs. hypothetical universal views)
·       Nature of predestination
·       Whether God is active or passive in reprobation (supralapsarian vs. infra/sublapsarian perspectives)
·       If God’s saving grace can be resisted
·       Whether repentance is necessary for salvation
·       Nature of justification
·       Nature of sanctification
·       Nature of “righteousness” in justification
·       Whether Christ has one will or two wills
·       The nature and limits of sola scriptura itself

Conclusion

On his online Five Solas Web article, Rowan Murphy, a Reformed Baptist, writes that rejection of Sola Scriptura (as well as the other Solas of the Reformation) is tantamount to preaching a false gospel, which captures the seriousness of the topic being discussed:

[I]s “another gospel” (see Galatians 1:6-10), and will lead people into error and eternal ruin. Any professing believer who stands against any of the five solas is one who holds to a false gospel, and so must be regarded by every saint as accursed from Christ, so long as such a heretic continues to stand against the truth; and we are to have nothing to do with them, (see Romans 16:17). This is not to be done for the sake of contention, but for the protection of the flock of the Lord Jesus Christ; for the purity of His beloved Church; and for the furtherance of the glorification of God in and through His chosen people.

Murphy is correct to note that to be wrong on any of these issues is to preach a false gospel, one that would fall under the anathema of Gal 1:6-9:

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel. Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. And we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Sadly, Protestantism, including its Reformed/Calvinistic expression that Rowan Murphy holds to, is a false gospel. With respect to Sola Scriptura, the formal doctrine of Protestantism, we have seen that there is absolutely no exegetically sound biblical evidence for this doctrine. Furthermore, even its more intellectual honest defenders admit that it was not something taught or practiced by the Lord Jesus Christ, the apostles, or even the earliest Christians, including Timothy, bishop of Ephesus, whom Paul addressed in 2 Tim 3:16-17!

It is my hope and prayer than any Protestant who, after reading this paper, will reexamine their commitment to Sola Scriptura specifically as well as Protestantism generally, as one will be held accountable before the Lord Jesus Christ for holding to a man-made tradition that has, sadly, perverted, not clarified, the Gospel. Furthermore, it is also my prayer that this review will equip Latter-day Saints to be able to answer their Protestant friends on the topic of Sola Scriptura and why Latter-day Saints reject it as a false doctrine and practice.

Appendix: Did the Early Christians Believe in Sola Scriptura?

Many Protestant apologists today (e.g., Keith Mathison; William Webster; David T. King; James R. White; C. Michael Patton) argue that the earliest patristic-era authors held to their formulation of Sola Scriptura. Let us examine just a sampling of the patristic authors and how they did not hold to Sola Scriptura, proving that, not only is Sola Scriputra anti-biblical as seen in the main body of this article, but also that it is not historical, too.

First Epistle of Clement (mid-90s)

The very high ecclesiology of 1 Clement and the Church of Rome at the end of the first century, one that is at odds with Reformed ecclesiology, is evidenced by a careful reading of this epistle. Chapters 40-44 draws many parallels between the Levitical Priesthood and the offices of bishops and deacons in the New Covenant. In 44:4, we read:

For it will be no light sin for us, if we thrust out those who have offered the gift of the bishop's office unblamably and holily. (J.P. Lightfoot translation)

The portion highlighted in bold translates the Greek προσενεγκόντας τὰ δῶρα. προσφερω is the verb meaning "to offer," and it often used in sacrificial contexts, as it the term δωρον, which means a gift, often in a form of a sacrifice. Instances where προσφερω is used alongside δωρον in sacrificial contexts in the LXX and Greek NT include Lev 1:2-3, 14; 2:1, 4, 12, 13; 3:6; 4:23, 32; 6:13; 7:13, 29, 38; 9:15; 17:4; 21:6, 8, 17, 21; 22:18, 25; 23:14; 27:9, 11; Num 5;15; 7:10, 11, 12, 13, 19; 9:7, 13; 15:4; 28:2; 31:50; Matt 5:23-24; 8:4; Heb 5:1; 8:3-4; 9:9; 11:4.

Similar to the priestly sacrificial language used in the Last Supper accounts in the New Testament, this is strong implicit evidence of an ordained, ministerial priesthood in the New Covenant; for more detail, see my paper here.

Commenting on the early Christian use of sacrificial language, Adolf von Harnack wrote:

The idea of the whole transaction of the Supper as a sacrifice, is plainly found in the Didache, (c. 14), in Ignatius, and above all, in Justin (I. 65f.) But even Clement of Rome presupposes it, when (in cc. 40-44) he draws a parallel between bishops and deacons and the Priests and Levites of the Old Testament, describing as the chief function of the former (44.4) προσφερειν τα δωρα. This is not the place to enquire whether the first celebration had, in the mind of its founder, the character of a sacrificial meal; but, certainly, the idea, as it was already developed at the time of Justin, had been created by the churches. Various reasons tended towards seeing in the Supper a sacrifice. In the first place, Malachi i. 11, demanded a solemn Christian sacrifice: see my notes on Didache, 14.3. In the second place, all prayers were regarded as a sacrifice, and therefore the solemn prayers at the Supper must be specially considered as such. In the third place, the words of institution τουτο ποιειτε, contained a command with regard to a definite religious action. Such an action, however, could only be represented as a sacrifice, and this the more, that the Gentile Christians might suppose that they had to understand ποιειν in the sense of θυειν. In the fourth place, payments in kind were necessary for the "agapae" connected with the Supper, out of which were taken the bread and wine for the Holy celebration; in what other aspect could these offerings in the worship be regarded than as προσφοραι for the purpose of a sacrifice? Yet the spiritual idea so prevailed that only the prayers were regarded as the θυσια a proper, even in the case of Justin (Dial. 117). The elements are only δωρα προσφοραι, which obtain their value from the prayers, in which thanks are given for the gifts of creation and redemption, as well as for the holy meal, and entreaty is made for the introduction of the community into the Kingdom of God (see Didache, 9. 10). Therefore, even the sacred meal itself is called ευχαριστια (Justin, Apol. I. 66: η τροφη αυτη χαλειται παρ’ ‘ημιν ευχαριστια). Didache, 9. 1: Ignat., because it is τροφη ευχαριστηθεσια. It is a mistake to suppose that Justin already understood the body of Christ to be the object of ποιειν, and therefore thought of a sacrifice of this body (I. 66). The real sacrificial act in the Supper consists rather, according to Justin, only in the ευχαριστιαν ποιειν, whereby κοινος αρτιος becomes the αρτος της ευχαριστιας The sacrifice of the Supper in its essence, apart from the offering of alms, which in the practice of the Church was closely united with it, is nothing but a sacrifice of prayer: the sacrificial act of the Christian here also is nothing else than an act of prayer (See Apol. I. 14, 65-67; Dial. 28, 29, 41, 70, 116-118). (Adolph Harnack, History of Dogma, Volume 1, pp. 267-8, n. 288)

Elsewhere in 1 Clement, we see that the author was not a proto-Protestant vis-á-vis the formal sufficiency of the Bible. Consider the following:

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]).

Ignatius of Antioch (approx. 35-108)

In his epistle to the Trallians, Ignatius of Antioch wrote the following:

Am I not able to write to you of heavenly things? But I fear to do so, lest I should inflict injury on you who are but babes in Christ. Pardon me in this respect, lest, as not being able to receive such doctrines, ye shall be strangled by them. For even, I though I am bound for Christ, yet am not on that account able to understand heavenly things, and the places of the angels and their gatherings under their respective princes, things visible and invisible. Without reference to such abstruse subjects, I am still but a learner in other respects, for many things are wanting to us, that we come not short of God. (5:1-2)

In this text, Ignatius speaks of "heavenly things" (ἐπουράνιος "heavenly" with the subtext being "from God"), and that such teachings are esoteric, secret teachings amongst the earliest Christians, so obviously, for Ignatius, authoritative teachings for the Christian were not limited to written revelation. Often, Latter-day Saints are criticised for such (e.g., some particulars of the temple endowment), but it appears that the earliest patristic writers affirmed that they too, had deeper doctrines that only more spiritually more mature individuals would receive, with the danger being that the immature would be “strangled by them.”

Irenaeus of Lyons (130-202)

In his article Did the Early Church Fathers Believe in Sola Scriptura? Evangelical C. Michael Patton used the following from the voluminous works of Irenaeus of Lyons to support his case that Sola Scriptura can be found among the patristic literature:

“They [heretics] gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

For they [the Apostles] were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon to the Church, but if they should fall away, the direst calamity. Proofs of the things which are contained in the Scriptures cannot be shown except from the Scriptures themselves.”  (Against Heresies, 1:8:1, 3:1:1, 3:3:1, 3:12:9)

Firstly, one should notice what Patton conveniently leaves out. As one commentator ("Basilio") notes, when one examines the entirety of the texts referenced by Patton, it refutes, not supports, his egregious assertion Irenaeus held to sola scriptura; I will reproduce Bailio's comments in full:

Went through Irenaeus as quoted by the blog. I found that the blogger concatenated four verses (Against Heresies, 1:8:1, 3:1:1, 3:3:1, 3:12:9) into 2 continuous paragraphs – without showing in-between chapters and verses. In effect he made it look like Irenaeus was teaching sola scriptura when in actuality he wasn’t.

1:8:1 for example was not about using scriptures alone – it was about ‘How the Valentinians Pervert the Scriptures to Support Their Own Pious Opinions’.

3:1:1 wa not about using scriptures alone – it was about how ‘The Apostles Did Not Commence to Preach the Gospel, or to Place Anything on Record, Until They Were Endowed with the Gifts and Power of the Holy Spirit. They Preached One God Alone, Maker of Heaven and Earth’.

In fact the next chapter was about how ‘The Heretics Follow Neither Scripture Nor Tradition’.

3:3:1 actually spoke about tradition: “It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times”

3:12:9 Actually did not start with

“Proofs of the things which are contained in the Scriptures…”

but rather

“But while I bring out by these proofs the truths of Scripture, and set forth briefly and compendiously things which are stated in various ways, do thou also attend to them with patience, and not deem them prolix; taking this into account, that proofs [of the things which are] contained in the Scriptures cannot be shown except from the Scriptures themselves.”

It pertains to those contained only in scripture – it did not pertain to everything (inculding traditions that Irenaeus spoke of repreatedly).

I encourage everyone to scrutinize what is written in the blog by going through the actual writings of the early Christians. You will find that the blog is actually contrary to what the early Christians wrote.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/irenaeus.html

In addition to this rather devastating revelation of Patton's abuse of Irenaeus (again, one has to wonder if he has actually read the writings of the early Church Fathers as opposed to relying on cutting-and-pasting from Mathison [and perhaps William Webster/David King]?), when one actually reads Irenaeus, we find that he privileged oral tradition and held to an authoritative teaching of the Church which would be beyond what Patton, a Protestant, would hold to:

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say], by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two more glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. (Against Heresies, 3.2.2)

Notice that Irenaeus mentions that ". . . it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of al the Churches . . ." What he means by the phrase, "succession of all the Churches" is explained later in the paragraph by the words "that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organised at Rome by the two more glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops . . ." In other words, the "tradition" is identified by that which is presently held by the "successions of bishops." Thus, the "successions of all the Churches" and the "successions of bishops" are the same. It is within this "succession" that Irenaeus says it would be "very tedious" to "reckon up" (or catalogue) what was contained in that "succession."

Evidently, Irenaeus understood that there was a body of tradition contained in the "succession" which was voluminous. It was so voluminous that it would have been "very tedious" to uncover it all. This volume of knowledge cannot refer merely to Scripture, for that was never considered "very tedious" in discovering or collating. It could only refer to unwritten teachings outside of the Bible.

Contra Mathison and other Protestants who claim the early Christian use of "tradition" simply referred to the correct interpretation of Scripture, Irenaeus never understood such tradition as merely the interpreter of Scripture; instead, such tradition has an authority all its own. We can verify his understanding of tradition by noting the issue which is at stake in the above paragraph. The issue concerns those who "assemble in unauthorised meetings." Apparently, there were those in Irenaeus' day who thought that they could abstain from the established places of meeting set up by the Church. It is equally apparent that these men were also making decisions for the Church that were not sanctioned by either Irenaeus or the other Fathers

In speaking against their unauthorised meetings, Irenaeus appeals to ". . . the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organised at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul" as that which is the established authority and place of meeting.

It is obvious by a perusal of the Bible that Irenaeus cannot be referring to Scripture, since nowhere does the Old or New Testaments mention the Church at Rome as being the one and only established authority or place of meeting. Irenaeus is acquiring this "tradition . . . very great . . . and very ancient" from sources external to the Bible, as it has been passed down by Peter and Paul and to the "successions of bishops." moreover, this "tradition" which Irenaeus appeals to is not a mere matter of the correct interpretation of the Bible, since the Bible offers no instance where Rome and its authority is a matter of interpretation.

Another passage from Against Heresies further refutes the utterly fallacious claim Irenaeus held to sola scriptura:

On this account we are bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches? (3.4.1)

One scholar of early Christianity wrote the following about Irenaeus' attitude towards the binding nature of non-inscripturated traditions he spoke positively about in his writings:

"For Irenaeus of Lyons the canon of the writings of the NT, which had recently been formed in response to Marcion, became the chief weapon in his battle against gnosticism. But he was aware that this weapon, by itself, was not enough. He had to provide proof, moreover, that this canon of the church contained the complete and authentic apostolic tradition and also that this tradition was correctly interpreted in the church. The first proof was supplied, in Irenaeus's eyes, by the uninterrupted succession of the bishops in the apostolic churches (see 'Adv. haer.' III, praef.; 1,1; 2,1-4,1); the second proof is given by the fact that there is a perfect concordance between the 'rule of faith' of the apostolic churches and their interpretation of Scripture."

(W. Rordorf, 'Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity' 3:821-822)

Another Protestant apologist, Robert Bowman, a friend of Michael Patton, after failing to support the claim Irenaeus of Lyons held to Sola Scriptura after interacting with myself and a friend, Errol Amey (a non-Mormon), admitted that Irenaeus did not hold to this doctrine (emphasis added):

Indeed, Boylan again misrepresent me as claiming that Irenaeus held to sola scriptura . . . since I acknowledged some half a dozen times that Irenaeus did not hold to sola scriptura, an article arguing that “Irenaeus did not hold to Sola Scriptura” obviously is not really an answer to my arguments . . . The rest of Boylan’s post continues to criticize me as if I had argued that Irenaeus held to sola scriptura, which I have already shown is an outright misrepresentation. (source)

Bowman's attempt to spin wheels about his initial claims about Irenaeus notwithstanding, it is refreshing to see such a frank admission that Irenaeus, a leading second century theologian, did not accept the formal sufficiency of the Bible.

Tertullian (160-220)

 In a work entitled, "The Prescription Against the Heretics" (hereafter TPAH), one of his works against Marcion and his followers, shows that Tertullian did contemplate whether the Bible should be the final authority for the believer, and he explicitly rejected such a claim repeatedly!

As for us, although we must still seek, and that always, yet where ought our search to be made? Amongst the heretics, where all things are foreign and opposed to our own verity, and to whom we are forbidden to draw near? . . . No man gets instruction from that which tends to destruction. No man receives illumination from a quarter where all is darkness. Let our ‘seeking,’ therefore be in that which is our own, and from those who are our own: and concerning that which is our own—that, and only that, which can become an object of inquiry without impairing the rule of faith. (TPAH, 12)

‘Thy faith, He says, ‘hath saved thee’ not observe your skill in the Scriptures. Now, faith has been deposited in the rule; it has a law, and (in the observance thereof) salvation. Skill, however, consists in curious art, having for its glory simply the readiness that comes from knack. Let such curious art give place to faith; let such glory yield to salvation. At any rate, let them either relinquish their nosiness, or else be quiet. To know nothing in opposition to the rule (of faith), is to know all things. (TPAH, 14)

We are therefore come to (the gift of) our position; for at this point we were aiming, and for this we were preparing in the preamble of our address (which we have just completed)—so that we may now join issue on the contention to which our adversaries challenge us. They put forward the Scriptures, and by this insolence of theirs they at once influence some. In the encounter itself, however, they weary the strong, they catch the weak, and dismiss waverers with a doubt. Accordingly, we oppose to them this step above all others, of not admitting them to any discussion of the Scriptures.. If in these lie their resources, before they can use them, it ought to be clearly seen to whom belongs the possession of the Scriptures, that none may be admitted to the use thereof who has no title at all to the privilege. (TPAH, 15)

Now this heresy of yours does not receive certain Scriptures; and whichever of them it does receive, it perverts by means of additions and diminutions, for the accomplishment of it own purpose; and such as it does receive, it receives not in their entirety; but even when it does receive any up to a certain point as entire, it nevertheless perverts even these by the contrivance of diverse interpretations. Truth is just as much opposed by an adulteration of its meaning as it is by a corruption of its text. Their vain presumptions must needs refuse to acknowledge the (writings) whereby they are refuted. They rely on those which they have falsely put together, and which they have selected, because of their ambiguity. Though most skilled in the Scriptures, you will make no progress, when everything which you maintain is denied on the other side, and whatever you deny is (by them) maintained. As for yourself, indeed, you will lose nothing but your breath, and gain nothing but vexation from their blasphemy. (TPAH, 17)

Immediately, therefore, so did the apostles, whom this designation indicates as ‘the sent.’ Having, on the authority of a prophecy, which occurs in a psalm of David, chosen Matthias by lot as the twelfth, into the place of Judas, they obtained the promised power of the Holy Ghost for the gift of miracles and of utterance; and after first bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judaea, and founding churches (there), they next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations. They turn in like manner rounded churches in every city, from which all other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great comprise but the one primitive church, (rounded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring). In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, whilst they are all proved to be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion, and title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality—privileges which no other rule directs them than the one tradition of the selfsame mystery. (TPAH, 20)

Not so, for in all cases truth precedes its copy, the likeness succeeds the reality. Absurd enough, however, it is, that heresy should be deemed to have preceded its own prior doctrine, even on this account, because it is that (doctrine) itself which foretold that there should be heresies against which men would have to guard! To a church which possessed this doctrine, it was written—yea, the doctrine itself writes to its own church—‘Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel than that which any other gospel than that which we have preached, let him be accursed.’ (TPAH, 29)

Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us, “as many as walk according to the rule,” which the church has handed down from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our position is clear, when it determines that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without the Scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures. For as they are heretics, they cannot be true Christians, because it is not from Christ that they get that which they pursue of their own mere choice, and from the pursuit incur and admit the name of heretics. Thus, not being Christians, they have acquired no right to the Christian Scriptures; and it may be very fairly said to them, “Who are you? When and whence did you come? As you are none of mine, what have you to do with that which is mine? Indeed, Marcion, by what right do you hew my wood?  By whose permission, Valentinus, are you diverting the streams of my fountain? By what power, Apelles, are you removing my landmarks? This is my property. Why are you, the rest, sowing and feeding here at your own pleasure?  This (I say) is my property. I have long possessed it; I possessed it before you. I hold sure title-deeds from the original owners themselves, to whom the estate belonged.  I am the heir of the apostles.  Just as they carefully prepared their will and testament, and committed it to a trust, and adjured (the trustees to be faithful to their charge), even so do I hold it. As for you, they have, it is certain, always held you as disinherited, and rejected you as strangers—as enemies. But on what ground are heretics strangers and enemies to the apostles, if it be not from the difference of their teaching, which each individual of his own mere will has either advanced or received in opposition to the apostles?” (TPAH, 37)

But what shall I say concerning the ministry of the word, since they make it their business not to convert the heathen, but to subvert our people?  This is rather the glory which they catch at, to compass the fall of those who stand, not the raising of those who are down. Accordingly, since the very work which they purpose to themselves comes not from the building up of their own society, but from the demolition of the truth, they undermine our edifices, that they may erect their own. Only deprive them of the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the divinity of the Creator, and they have not another objection to talk about. The consequence is, that they more easily accomplish the ruin of standing houses than the erection of fallen ruins. It is only when they have such objects in view that they show themselves humble and bland and respectful. Otherwise they know no respect even for their own leaders.  Hence it is [supposed] that schisms seldom happen among heretics, because, even when they exist, they are not obvious.1 Their very unity, however, is schism. I am greatly in error if they do not amongst themselves swerve even from their own regulations, forasmuch as every man, just as it suits his own temper, modifies the traditions he has received after the same fashion as the man who handed them down did, when he moulded them according to his own will.  The progress of the matter is an acknowledgment at once of its character and of the manner of its birth. That was allowable to the Valentinians which had been allowed to Valentinus; that was also fair for the Marcionites which had been done by Marcion—even to innovate on the faith, as was agreeable to their own pleasure. In short, all heresies, when thoroughly looked into, are detected harbouring dissent in many particulars even from their own founders. The majority of them have not even churches. Motherless, houseless, creedless, outcasts, they wander about in their own essential worthlessness. (TPAH, 42)

Hippolytus of Rome (170-235)

C. Michael Patton, as well as appealing to Iraenaeus (see above) also attempted to use Hippolytus as a patristic witness to sola scriptura in his article, Did the Early Church Fathers Believe in Sola Scriptura? by quoting the following from his writings:

“There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us took; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them.” (Against the Heresy of One Noetus, 1-4, 7-9)

For Patton, the statement, "There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source" means that Hippolytus would relegate any other authority as being subordinate to Scripture. However, this is false. Hippolytus does not mention things such as the authority of the Church or non-inscripturated apostolic teaching ("oral tradition") in this passage, let alone setting them in opposition to the Bible. Notice, however, what Hippolytus does set in opposition to Scripture--he refers to "the dogmas of philosophers" as being in opposition to the "oracles of God," but not the Church, tradition, etc. He refers to those who should not make conclusions "according to our own will, nor according to our own mind" but not a word about an authoritative Church, apostolic traditions outside the Bible, and so forth.

In Catholic apologetics, there is a common fallacy called "The Peter Syndrome," where any positive reference to Peter and/or the Bishop of Rome is taken as ipso facto of the dogmatic teachings the Roman Church has on (1) Peter and (2) the papacy; Protestants like Patton, Mathison, William Webster, et al are guilty of a similar fallacy--"The Sola Scriptura Syndrome" wherein any positive reference to Scripture, whether by biblical authors or early Christian writers, is taken as ipso facto proof of the formal sufficiency of the Bible.

When one actually reads the works of Hippolytus and not the cut-and-paste methodology of Patton, we get the following which shows Hippolytus privileged both the authoritative teachings of the Church and oral tradition:

And certain other (heretics) contentious by nature, (and) wholly uniformed as regards knowledge, as well as in their manner more (than usually) quarrelsome, combine (in maintaining) that Easter should be kept on the fourteenth day of the first month, according to the commandment of the law, on whatever day (of the week) it should occur. (But in this) they only regard what has been written in the law, that he will be accursed who does not keep (the commandment) as it is enjoined. They do not, however, attend to this (fact), that the legal enactment as made for Jews, who in times to come should kill the real Passover. And this (paschal sacrifice in its efficacy,) has spread unto the Gentiles, and is discerned by faith, and not now observed in letter (merely). They attend to this one commandment, and do not look unto what has been spoken by the apostle: "For I testify to ever man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to keep the whole law." In other respects, however, these consent to all the traditions delivered to the Church by the Apostles. (Refutation of All Heresies, ch XI, The Quartodecimens).

Having come to our most important topic, we turn to the subject of the Tradition which is proper for the Churches, in order that those who have been rightly instructed may hold fast to that tradition which has continued until now, and fully understanding it from our exposition may stand the more firmly therein. (The Apostolic Tradition 1)

Origen of Alexandria (185-254)

Origen was one of the most prolific writers of the third century. Like the patristic authors before him, he testifies to the necessity of holding fast to the faith that was transmitted through orderly succession from the apostles, not Scripture alone.

Since many, however, of those who profess to believe in Christ differ from each other, not only in small and trifling matters, but also on subjects of the highest importance, as, e.g., regarding God, or the Lord Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit; and not only regarding these, but also regarding others which are created existences, viz., the powers and the holy virtues; it seems on that account necessary first of all to fix a definite limit and to lay down an unmistakable rule regarding each one of these, and then to pass to the investigation of other points.  For as we ceased to seek for truth (notwithstanding the professions of many among Greeks and Barbarians to make it known) among all who claimed it for erroneous opinions, after we had come to believe that Christ was the Son of God, and were persuaded that we must learn it from Himself; so, seeing there are many who think they hold the opinions of Christ, and yet some of these think differently from their predecessors, yet as the teaching of the Church, transmitted in orderly succession from the apostles, and remaining in the Churches to the present day, is still preserved, that alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolical tradition. (On First Principles, 1, Preface: 2 ANF IV:239)

In a later chapter of On First Principles, Origen is explicit that one must interpret Scripture according to the ecclesiastical standard established in authoritative, non-inscripturated Tradition, one which is authenticated by the order of succession from the apostles:

Now the reason of the erroneous apprehension of all these points on the part of those whom we have mentioned above, is no other than this, that holy Scripture is not understood by them according to its spiritual, but according to its literal meaning.  And therefore we shall endeavour, so far as our moderate capacity will permit, to point out to those who believe the holy Scriptures to be no human compositions, but to be written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and to be transmitted and entrusted to us by the will of God the Father, through His only-begot­ten Son Jesus Christ, what appears to us, who ob­serve things by a right way of understanding, to be the standard and discipline delivered to the apostles by Jesus Christ, and which they handed down in succession to their posterity, the teachers of the holy Church.  Now, that there are certain mystical economies indicated in holy Scripture, is admitted by all, I think, even the simplest of believers.  But what these are, or of what kind they are, he who is rightly minded, and not overcome with the vice of boasting, will scrupulously acknowledge himself to be ignorant.  For if anyone, e.g., were to adduce the case of the daughters of Lot, who seem, contrary to the law of God, to have had intercourse with their father, or that of the two wives of Abraham, or of the two sisters who were married to Jacob, or of the two hand­maids who increased the number of his sons, what other answer could be returned than that these were certain mysteries, and forms of spiritual things, but that we are ignorant of what nature they are?  Nay, even when we read of the construction of the taber­nacle, we deem it certain that the written descriptions are the figures of certain hidden things; but to adapt these to their appropriate standards, and to open up and discuss every individual point, I consider to be exceedingly difficult, not to say impossible.  That that description, however, is, as I have said, full of mysteries, does not escape even the common understanding.  But all the narrative portion, relating either to the marriages, or to the begetting of the children, or to battles of different kinds, or to any other histories whatever, what else can they be supposed to be, save the forms and figures of hidden and sacred things?  As men, however, make little effort to exercise their intellect, or imagine that they possess knowledge before they really learn, the con­sequence is that they never begin to have knowledge or if there be no want of a desire, at least, nor of an instructor, and if divine knowledge be sought after, as it ought to be, in a religious and holy spirit, and in the hope that many points will be opened up by the revelation of God—since to human sense they are exceedingly difficult and obscure—then, perhaps, he who seeks in such a manner will find what it is lawful to discover. (On First Principles 4.1.9 in ANF IV:357)

The true disciple of Jesus is he who enters the house, that is to say, the Church. He enters by thinking as the Church does, and living as she does; this is how he understands the Word. The key of the Scriptures must be received from the tradition of the Church, as from the Lord Himself. (Origen, as cited in Yves Congar, The Meaning of Tradition [New York: Hawthorne, 1964], 83)

For a detailed discussion of Origen's view of tradition, see R.P.C Hanson (Church of Ireland bishop and historian), Origen's Doctrine of Tradition (London:SPCK, 1954).

Athanasius of Alexandria (296-373)

Writing on whether it is proper for him to use extra-biblical terms such as “same substance” (homoousios), Athanasius wrote the following against his Arian opponents:

“But,” they [the Arians] say, “all this is not written: and we reject these words as unscriptural.” But this again, is an unblushing excuse in their mouths. For if they think everything must be rejected which is not written, wherefore, when the Arian party invent such a heap of phrases, not from Scripture, “out of nothing,” and “the Son was not before His generation,” and “Once He was not,” and “He is unalterable,” and “The Father is ineffable and invisible to the Son,” and “the Son knows not even His own essence,” and all that Arius has vomited in his light and irreligious Thalia, why do not they speak against these, but rather take their part, and on that account content with their own fathers? And, in what Scripture did they on their part find “Unoriginate,” and “the term essence,” and “there are three subsistences,” and “Christ is not very God,” and “He is one of the hundred sheep,” and “God’s Wisdom is ingenerate and without beginning, but the created powers are many, of which Christ is one?” or how, when in the so-called Dedication, Acacius and Eusebius and their fellows used expressions not in Scripture, and said that “the First-born of the creation” was “the exact Image of the essence and power and will and glory,” do they complain of the Fathers, for making mention of unscriptural expressions, and especially of essence? For they out either to complain of themselves, or to find no fault with the Fathers. (Athanasius, Councils of Ariminum and Selucia, 36, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers series II, vol. 4 p. 470)

Commenting on James R. White's appeal to Athanasius as holding to the formal sufficiency of Scripture, one Protestant commentator wrote the following, showing the all too frequent abuse of the patristic literature White and other Protestants are guilty of:

The essay entitled “Sola Scriptura and the Early Church” exhibits an extremely limited familiarly with patristic doctrinal history such that it claims Athanasius stood against Liberius, bishop of Rome (p. 42), whereas in fact, Athanasius sought the protection of Liberius’ successor Julius during his western exile, and he, of all the Greek fathers, remained the most intimate with Rome after Julius’s death in 352. There is hardly a case here for a proto-opposition between Protestants and Roman Catholics. Moreover, it is quite striking that the writer of this essay argues how Athanasius makes no appeal to unwritten tradition, and yet in the very circulation offered as proof of this point (Oratio Arianos III.29), we are introduced to Athanasius’s mention of Mary as Theotokos, bearer of God, an Alexandrian tradition which few Protestants would espouse! (D.H. Williams, Retrieving the Tradition & Renewing Evangelicalism: A Primer for Suspicious Protestants [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999], 230 n. 4)

Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386)

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. (The Catechetical Lectures, Lecture IV section 17)

Many Protestant apologists (e.g., James R. White; Keith Mathison) have often quoted this portion of the works of Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386) to show that he was a proponent of sola scriptura. That this represents abuse and eisegesis, not careful exegesis, of Cyril's writings can be seen by the following:

Firstly, in the source (the Catechetical Lectures), Cyril endorses doctrines that White et al. would view to be heresy, such as baptismal regeneration and an ordained, ministerial priesthood, doctrines which most Protestants would claim are not supported by the Bible. Consequently, any Protestant apologist endorsing the snippet from his lectures quoted above who wish to present him to be a defender of sola scriptura must present Cyril as a very errant proponent thereof, extrapolating doctrines from the Bible which are actually, in their view, anti-biblical(!)

For instance, in Lecture I:4 in the same work, Cyril wrote the following which refutes the concept of eternal security and its variants (e.g., the Reformed doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints):

Thou art made partaker of the Holy Vine. Well then, if thou abide in the Vine, thou growest as a fruitful branch; but if thou abide not, thou wilt be consumed by the fire. Let us therefore bear fruit worthily. God forbid that in us should be done what befell that barren fig-tree, that Jesus come not even now and curse us for our barrenness.

This, of course, ties in with another problem with Protestants appealing to Patristic-era authors to support sola scriptura--absolutely --NONE-- of the individuals they wrench out of context held to their theology on core, essential doctrines (e.g., none rejected baptismal regeneration; in fact, all those who commented on water baptism explicated baptismal regeneration). There are no true proto-Protestants among the Patristic authors.

Secondly, the context of the comment by Cyril is not one where he is pitting authoritative tradition and authoritative, binding teachings of the Church vs. Scripture but idle theological speculations vs. Scripture. In IV:16, we learn that he is speaking of the nature of the Holy Spirit and attempting to refute errant views of the Holy Spirit contemporary with his day:

Believe thou also in the Holy Ghost, and hold the same opinion concerning Him, which thou hast received to hold concerning the Father and the Son, and follow not those who teach blasphemous things of Him. But learn thou that this Holy Spirit is One, indivisible, of manifold power; having many operations, yet not Himself divided; Who knoweth the mysteries, Who searcheth all things, even the deep things of God: Who descended upon the Lord Jesus Christ in form of a dove; Who wrought in the Law and in the Prophets; Who now also at the season of Baptism sealeth thy soul; of Whose holiness also every intellectual nature hath need: against Whom if any dare to blaspheme, he hath no forgiveness, neither in this world, nor in that which is to come: "Who with the Father and the Son together" is honoured with the glory of the Godhead: of Whom also thrones, and dominions, principalities, and powers have need. For there is One God, the Father of Christ; and One Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of the Only God; and One Holy Ghost, the sanctifier and deifier of all, Who spake in the Law and in the Prophets, in the Old and in the New Testament.

The synthesis between oral tradition, the teaching authority of the Church, and Scripture in the epistemology of Cyril can be seen V:17:

But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures. For since all cannot read the Scriptures, some being hindered as to the knowledge of them by want of learning, and others by a want of leisure, in order that the soul may not perish from ignorance, we comprise the whole doctrine of the Faith in a few lines. This summary I wish you both to commit to memory when I recite it, and to rehearse it with all diligence among yourselves, not writing it out on paper, but engraving it by the memory upon your heart, taking care while you rehearse it that no Catechumen chance to overhear the things which have been delivered to you. I wish you also to keep this as a provision through the whole course of your life, and beside this to receive no other, neither if we ourselves should change and contradict our present teaching, nor if an adverse angel, transformed into an angel of light should wish to lead you astray. For though we or an angel from heaven preach to you any other gospel than that ye have received, let him be to you anathema. So for the present listen while I simply say the Creed, and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation out of Holy Scripture of each part of the contents. For the articles of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all the Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith. And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches, so also this Faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of godliness in the Old and New Testaments. Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them and the table of your heart.

At the end of this passage, Cyril is paraphrasing 2 Thess 2:15, which reads:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold to the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Thirdly, note the following from, again from the very same work, which further refute the claim that he held to the formal sufficiency of the Bible:

Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wise and more pious than thyself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statues. (IV:2)

These mysteries which the Church now explains to thee who art passing out of the class of the Catechumens, it is not the custom to explain to heathen. (VI:29)

Now thee things we teach, not of out invention, but having learned them out of the divine Scriptures used in the Church . . . And that this kingdom is that of the Romans, has been a tradition of the Church's interpreters. (XV:13)

[Y]et the arrangement of the articles of Faith, if religiously understand, disproves the error of Sabellius also. (XVII:34)

Having been sufficiently instructed in these things, keep them, I beseech you, in your remembrance; that I also, unworthy though I be, may say of you, Now I love you, because ye always remember me, and hold fast the traditions, which I delivered unto you. And God, who has presented you as it were alive from the dead, is able to grant unto you to walk in newness of life: because His is the glory and the power, now and for ever, Amen. (Catechetical Lectures, Mystagogical Catechesis, 2:8)

Hold fast these traditions undefiled and, keep yourselves free from offence. Sever not yourselves from the Communion; deprive not yourselves, through the pollution of sins, of these Holy and Spiritual Mysteries. (Catechetical Lectures, Mystagogical Catechesis, 5:23)

Protestant apologists are guilty of gross eisegesis of Cyril of Jerusalem when they attempt to use him as support for sola scriptura.

Basil of Caesarea (329-379)

Protestant apologist, James R. White in an attempt to bolster the weak case for sola scriptura, often appeal to the following passage of the writings of Basil of Caesarea as patristic evidence for the antiquity of the doctrine:

Therefore, let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth (Epistle ad Eustathius)

Firstly, it should be noted that the common attribution of this writing to Basil the Great is probably wrong; most Patristic authors (e.g., Johannes Quasten) believe that Gregory of Nyssa, not Basil, wrote this epistle.

Secondly, and more importantly, when one examines the entirety of Basil's writings, one will find that he clearly did not hold to Sola Scriptura as he clearly rejected the formal sufficiency thereof. Basil himself wrote the following:

Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or enjoined which are preserved in the Church, some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have delivered to us in a mystery by the apostles by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force (On the Holy Spirit, 27; cf.71).

Here, Basil clearly accepted and privileged en par with inscripturated revelation, tradition and other authorities external to Scripture. Hardly consistent with sola scriptura.

John Chrysostom (349-407)

John Chrysostom was the Archbishop of Constantinople. He was famed for his preaching skills; indeed, "Chrysostom" comes from ὁ Χρυσόστομος which means "golden-mouthed" in Greek. He produced many commentaries on the New Testament, and provided exegesis of various texts in the Pauline corpus that speaks positively of παραδοσις (tradition). Let us examine some of the more explicit passages in his writings here he clearly shows us that Sola Scriptura and the belief the Bible is formally sufficient was utterly unknown in his era.

Commenting on 1 Cor 11:2, we read the following exposition from John Chrysostom (emphasis added):

Since then he had already admonished them concerning these things when present, and some perhaps listened to him and others disobeyed; therefore in his letter also again he foments the place, like a physician, by his mode of addressing them, and so corrects the offence. For that he had heretofore admonished them in person is evident from what he begins with. Why else, having said nothing of his matter any where in the Epistle before, but passing on from other accusations, doth he straightway say, “Now I praise you that re remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you?” . . .”That ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions even as I delivered the to you.” It appears then he used at that time to deliver many things also not in writing, which he shows too in many other places. But at that time he only delivered them, whereas now he adds an explanation of their reason: thus both rendering the one sort, the obedient, more steadfast, and pulling down the others’ pride, who oppose themselves. (Homily XXVI on 1 Corinthians)

Discussing 2 Thess 2:15, we read (emphasis added):

“So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.” Hence it is manifest that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther. Here he shows that there were many who were shaken. (On Second Thessalonians, Homily IV)

Commenting on the authors of Scripture, with a special emphasis on Paul, he stated (emphasis added):

. . . it was no object with them to be writers of books: in fact, there are many things which they have delivered by unwritten tradition. (On Acts of the Apostles, Homily 1)

For many things he delivered to him without writing. Of these therefore he reminds him, when he says, “Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me.” (Homily III on 2 Timothy—on 2 Tim 1:13-18)

Recommended books on the Sola Scriptura debate

For those wishing to delve further into this important topic, the following are amongst the best books from both the pro- and con-side of the Sola Scriptura debate. If one can only get one from each side of the coin, one should pursue the Mathison and Sungenis volumes.

In favour of sola scriptura:

Keith Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura

William Whitaker, Disputations on Holy Scripture: Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton

William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith (3 vols)

William Webster and David T. King, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of our Faith (3 vols)

W. Gary Crampton, By Scripture Alone: The Sufficiency of Scripture

Matthew Barrett, God's World Alone--The Authority of Scripture: What the Reformers Taught . . . and Why it Still Matters

James R. White, Scripture Alone: Exploring the Bible's Accuracy, Authority and Authenticity

Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible, ed. Don Kistler

Against Sola Scriptura:

Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, ed. Robert A. Sungenis

Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions

Idem, The Meaning of Tradition

Dave Armstrong, Pillars of Sola Scriptura: Replies to Whitaker, Goode, and Biblical "proofs" for"Bible Alone"

Idem, 501 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura: Is the Bible the Only Infallible Authority?

Idem, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

Gerard Loughlin, Telling God's Story: Bible, Church, and Narrative Theology

Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture

John Whiteford, Sola Scriptura: An Orthodox Analysis of the Cornerstone of Reformation Theology

Mark Aziz, Sola Scriptura or Sola Traditione?: The Orthodox Theology of Tradition as a Solution to the Reformation Debate about Theological Authority

Patrick Madrid, Scripture and Tradition

John Breck, Scripture in Tradition: The Bible and Its Interpretation in the Orthodox Church

Geoge H. Tavard, Holy Writ or Holy Church. The crisis of the Protestant Reformation

Joel Peters, Scripture Alone? 21 Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura

Mark P. Shea, By What Authority?

George Agius, Tradition and the Church

John Salza, The Biblical Basis for Tradition

Devin Rose, The Protestant's Dilemma

Other works:

Edith M. Humphrey, Scripture and Tradition: What the Bible really Says

D.H. Williams, Retrieving the Tradition & Renewing Evangelicalism: A Primer for Suspicious Protestants

Louis Bouyer, The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism

R.P.C. Hanson, Tradition in the Early Church

Idem, Origen's Doctrine of Tradition

J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (rev ed.)

Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600)

The Canon Debate, eds. Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders

Lee Martin McDonald, The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority






Support this blog:

Paypal

Gofundme