Jaxon Washburn just posted on his blog a response to his earlier "My Answer to a Defense of Sola Scriptura" by Protestant apologist Jordan McDaniel:
As with most defences of sola scriptura, McDaniel's "response" is full of eisegesis and fallacies such as question-begging. As I noted on facebook page where Jaxon linked to McDaniel's article:
Wow, that is a lousy paper.
Jesus having a high view of the OT =/= formal sufficiency of the "Bible"
Also, when Jesus said His word would not pass away and other like-passages, again such words =/= inscripturated revelation, let alone the Bible. As one Protestant defender of sola scriptura wrote:
[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)
With respect to 1 Cor 15, he wrote:
==We cannot testify of Christ’s life, death, or resurrection without testifying of the absolute sufficiency scripture.==
And yet, 1 Cor 15 was written during a time of special revelation and there was no formally sufficient Scripture when Paul wrote to those at Corinth (after all, 2 Corinthians was not written, among other NT texts). For sola scriptura to be true, there must be *tota* Scriptura
For those wishing to see the overwhelming biblical/exegetical case against sola scriptura, please read my lengthy paper:
One hopes that Jordan McDaniel and other Protestant apologists will wake up to how anti-biblical the formal doctrine of Protestantism truly is, and from any meaningful and sound method of exegesis, they are simply defending the impossible.
