A facebook friend tried to engage a young, incredibly ignorant Calvinist who is a huge fan of CARM/Matt Slick on the topic of Sola Scriptura, particularly my lengthy essay on the topic:
Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura
Here is the rather pathetic (non-)response to my article and equally pathetically poor attempt to defend sola scriptura:
Carl's arguments makes Kathy Petersen's attempted "response" to my article seem good. As an aside, here is what I wrote on Jesus' use of Scripture in Matt 4:1-11//Luke 4:1-13//Mark 1:12-13:
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)
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.
Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura
Here is the rather pathetic (non-)response to my article and equally pathetically poor attempt to defend sola scriptura:
Carl's arguments makes Kathy Petersen's attempted "response" to my article seem good. As an aside, here is what I wrote on Jesus' use of Scripture in Matt 4:1-11//Luke 4:1-13//Mark 1:12-13:
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.