Kathy Petersen, a rather ignorant on-line critic of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, attempted a critique of my essay Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura on a friend’s facebook page. To say it is bad is an understatement. Here is a brief response:
The article mentioned "traditions" and teaching received "whether by word or by letter". What evidence is there that these were two completely different things? Rather, a review of the NT itself and of early Christian writings demonstrates that what was taught to one church was taught to all, so that while we may have some doctrine discussed in Romans in some detail that is barely touched on in Colossians, we should not believe that the Colossians were entirely ignorant of what Paul taught in the letter to the Romans. There are also passages which demonstrate that the epistles Paul wrote to certain churches were a recap of what he had taught them orally when he was among them.
Here we see how ignorant and/or deceptive Kathy Petersen is. Firstly, critics of Sola Scriptura do not argue that the oral traditions and then-inscripturated revealtions Paul and others discussed were “different” in the sense of being in conflict; just that in one (sometimes the written; sometimes the oral) a certain teaching or practice is explicated.
Strike one against her intellectual integrity.
Further, Irenaeus mentioned "tradition(s)" with some frequency in his work "Against Heresies" (written only about a hundred years after the death of Christ), and it was always implied if not explicitly stated, that the traditions of which he spoke were either the direct teachings of the Bible itself (creation, the fall, the virgin birth, etc.), or were the interpretations of various passages of Scripture (passages that the heretics he was opposing were trying to reinterpret and make to support their beliefs, which he was refuting).
The reader should pursue the section on Irenaeus of Lyons. Irenaeus, notwithstanding Kathy’s attempts to claim otherwise, did not hold to Sola Scriptura, as even Robert Bowman admits; at best, he held to Prima Scriptura. Furthermore, he privileged the interpretation of the Scriptures he received as being authoritative, not a secondary source of teaching, contra the formal sufficiency view of Scripture historical Protestantism holds to.
Strike two against her intellectual integrity.
Catholics use the same arguments (hence Boylan's ability to cite Sungenis and others) as the basis for their belief in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, that Mary was an ever-virgin, the Bodily Assumption of Mary, and the Papacy itself. However, there is not a shred of evidence that the traditions of the early church had anything to do with these things. The onus is on the person making the assertion that their belief was indeed an early oral tradition by providing proof of it in an early work where it is said to be an oral tradition passed on by the apostles but not written down.
One can’t help but see the fallacy of guilt by association. Furthermore, the arguments of Sungenis et al against Sola Scriptura are sound. Just because they hold to false doctrines and dogmas does not invalidate them. Furthermore, had Kathy bothered to read my articles addressing Roman Catholicism, she would know that I have discussed the Mass, Mariology, and the Papacy, both from a biblical and historical perspective. One is reminded of Fred Anson’s nonsense about citing Joseph Fitzmyer which Christopher Davis thoroughly refuted.
Strike three against her intellectual integrity.
Second point -- Boylan misunderstands, I think, the arguments advanced for sola scriptura. In short, Scripture and only Scripture is said to be inspired; when we have an inspired (God-breathed) standard, why should we muddle it with something that is not inspired?
For Kathy, the “Bible” exhausts the category of “inspired Scripture.” She is simply begging the question, another logical fallacy. Furthermore, as I noted in the opening section of my essay, Sola Scriptura is an exegetical impossibility. Further, do note that she never provides any meaningful defence of Sola Scriptura from the Bible. That speaks volumes, too.
Strike four against her intellectual integrity.
Look at the problem the modern LDS Church has with the JOD and other early written works. Non-Mormons can find a lot of teaching which the modern LDS Church sets aside as "just his opinion" and "not inspired/revelation". Many LDSs today, when faced with embarrassing quotes from the Mormons of the 1800s (or even through the 1900s, such as the statements from the First Presidency affirming that the ban on blacks holding the priesthood was revelation and a law of God, or Bruce R McConkie's work "Mormon Doctrine"), are quick to say "that's not and never has been Official Doctrine" and to tell people who post such quotes that we need to "stick to the Standard Works, to know what is and is not Official Doctrine".
The LDS Church has never held such sources to be God-breathed (to borrow from 2 Tim 3:16) en par with our Scriptures and statements ratified by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve (the latter clearly refutes the claim that LDS themselves engage in a form of Sola Scriptura). McConkie, for instance, noted his own fallibility. With respect other chapter headings and the like in the modern printing of the LDS Scriptures, of which he played a key role, he stated:
[As for the] Joseph Smith Translation items, the chapter headings, Topical Guide, Bible Dictionary, footnotes, the Gazeteer, and the maps. None of these are perfect; they do not of themselves determine doctrine; there have been and undoubtedly now are mistakes in them. Cross-references, for instance, do not establish and never were intended to prove that parallel passages so much as pertain to the same subject. They are aids and helps only. (Mark McConkie, ed. Doctrines of the Restoration: Sermons and Writings of Bruce R. McConkie [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1989], 289-90 emphasis added)
On what constitutes LDS teaching, Kathy’s misinformed comments notwithstanding, see:
Strike five against her intellectual integrity.
This sounds awfully like Sola Scriptura to me, so I don't know why Boylan and other Mormons lambaste the idea of Sola Scriptura for Christians.
It isn’t, and only by misrepresenting “Mormonism” in the way she does can she claim that LDS practice a form of Sola Scriptura; at best, it is Prima Scriptura. Further, even allowing for Kathy’s inane claim about LDS and Sola Scriptura, she is still comparing apples and oranges—for LDS, tota scriptura, an essential building block of sola scriptura, would encompass more than the Bible! Kathy needs to read a book on basic theological terms as well as one on logical fallacies.
Strike six against her intellectual integrity.
Again, to see the arguments (none of which she touched upon in any meaningful way), see:
For the LDS view of the Bible, be sure to read: