Review and Refutation of Rowan Murphy on Sola Scriptura

Review of 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)

Today I read a short work defending the formal doctrine of Protestantism, Sola Scriptura, by Rowan Murphy, who appears to be a Reformed Baptist. The work is largely an attempted exegesis of 2 Tim 3:16-17. I say “attempted,” as, with all due respect to Murphy (whom I have never met), his short volume (47 pages) is one of the weakest attempts to defend the impossible, namely, the thesis that the Bible supports the formal sufficiency of the Bible and that “Scripture” in 2 Tim 3:16-17 is exhausted by “the Bible.”

For a thorough refutation of 2 Tim 3:16-17, as well as many of the standard proof-texts Protestants, Murphy include, trot out to defend this doctrine, see my book Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura (CreateSpace, 2017). An online version is available on my blog here. This will be a brief overview of just some of the exegetical blunders Murphy made. Such is spectacular considering how short the work it.

Did God cease inspiring Scripture with the completion of the Book of Revelation?

From the earliest stages of redemptive history until now, however, much revelation God had given to man at any given time was sufficient for His will to be done; see Deuteronomy 29:29. God never welcomed man’s additions to or subtractions from inspired revelation; see Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 3:5-7; 30:5-6; Revelation 22:18-19. The canon of Scripture has been closed since around 95 A.D. when the apostle John penned the Book of Revelation, and there has been no new revelation since that time nor is any required. Rather than giving new revelation, the Holy Spirit illuminates the Word which He inspired; see 2 Peter 1:29-21. (p. 10, emphasis added)

 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).

Murphy seems to be, at best, somewhat familiar with this differentiation. Commenting on 2 Tim 3;16-17, he writes against the belief that Scriptura (which he assumes, never proves, is exhausted by "the Bible") is not formally sufficient:

Absurd and unthinkably foolish as that notion is, such a belief is the necessary consequence of reckoning the Word of God to be useful and needful, yet not sufficient. (p. 30)

The problem for Murphy is that Paul teaches a weaker view of the "sufficiency" or "usefulness" of Scripture in this pericope. While the reader should pursue my full exegesis of this pericope in Not by Scripture Alone, one should note that in 2 Tim 3:16, 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 ςφελιμα 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.

Probably unaware of how weak this term is in comparison to the concept of formal sufficiency that is needed for Sola Scriptura to be true (without saying anything about the extent of "tota" Scriptura [more on this later]), Murphy (pp.19-20) glosses over this fact.

To be fair, it appears that Murphy does not know Greek or Hebrew, and is relying on second hand and/or very dated sources. For instance, he quotes from Thayer’s lexicon, although such is very dated (originally published in 1886), before the papyri discoveries that revolutionaries studies of Koine Greek. Furthermore, commenting on the term “God-breathed” or “inspired” (θεοπνευστος) in 2 Tim 3:16 and its alleged Old Testament parallels, we read:

[I]n Job 32:8 “inspiration” is translated from the Hebrew “nĕshamah” (נְשָׁמָה) which means the same thing. (p. 18)

No, it does not.  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. †

With respect to 2 Pet 1:19-21, Murphy is guilty of eisegesis. If 2 Pet 1:19-21 "proves" Sola Scriptura, it would prove that the Protestant understanding of Tota Scriptura is flawed and is not exhausted by the 66 books of the Protestant Bible but a lesser number of volumes, and, as Revelation, in Murphy's view, was inscripturated after 2 Peter, Revelation is to be rejected as apocryphal!

Reforms in the Old Testament: Proof of Sola Scriptura?

Murphy (pp. 13-16) appeals 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 Midrash 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.

"The Word of God" equals "The Bible" Fallacy

As is common with Protestant apologists, Murphy commits this fallacy:

What did Jesus mean in saying, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” in Matthew 24:35? (P. 31, italics in original)

Firstly, when Jesus uttered those words, the New Testament had not yet been inscripturated so the "Bible" (at least with the NT) could not have been in view here. Secondly, Jesus' "words" are not limited to the written word, and neither are other texts (e.g., Isa 40:8) or other locuations such as "the Word of God." As another Reformed Protestant apologist writing in defense of Sola Scriptura admitted:

[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)

Does the Old and New Testaments Affirm Sola Fide?

In Romans 4 and Hebrews 11 however, we see that the Old Testament is repeatedly cited to prove salvation through faith alone for New Testament saints, grounding our faith upon which came before. (P. 17)

 This is simply false. With respect to Heb 11, the author, while recounting many great heroes of faith, the author of Hebrews hearkens back to the Book of Genesis and the lives of Abel, Enoch, and Noah:

By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh. By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him; for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. (Heb 11:4-7)

In the above pericope, Abel, Enoch, and Noah, by their faith, are said to have pleased God. There is no question that this is not a “so-called” or “false” faith, but what Protestants would label a “true” or “saving” faith that, in their theology, appropriates the alien righteousness of Christ (per the historical Reformed interpretation of James 2). The problem, however, are the verses that follow:

By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whether he went. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promise. (Heb 11:8-11)

The author of Hebrews, in the above pericope, ascribes “saving faith” to both Abram and Sarah. However, the incident in their life pertains to Abraham being called out of his home land to the Promised Land, as recounted in Gen 12:1ff. This proves that the biblical authors believed Abraham had “saving faith” prior to Gen 15:6, refuting further Reformed theology.

Further proof Paul affirmed Abraham's justification was progressive, not static can be seen elsewhere. In Gen 12:2, we read the following:

And I will make thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing.

A number of critics of Protestant theology have argued that the "blessing" of Abraham represents an initial justification given to Abraham, supporting the concept of progressive justification.

A related text is Gen 22:17:

I will indeed bless you, and I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of the heaven and as the sand that is in the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of their enemies. (NRSV)

That this text supports progressive justification can be seen in the fact that the Bible uses "bless" as a reference to one being justified, as clearly seen in Gal 3:8-9:

And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

In this passage, the "blessing" of the Gentiles is clearly that of justification, as they would be "blessed with faithful Abraham." Had Paul used "to then they which be of faith are justified with faithful Abraham," it would have had the same meaning.

In vv.6-7, Paul previously wrote the following:

Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted for him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

In these passages, both Gen 12:3--the passage that records Abraham's encounter with God many years before Gen 15:6, and the event that the author of Hebrews (11:8) claims Abraham had "saving faith," as well as 15:6 are quoted, demonstrating the progressive nature of justification by showing that these events were viewed by Paul as representing the same process as when God blessed Abraham in Gen 12:2, and then likewise to bless and justify the Gentiles as he had just blessed and justified Abraham.

Gal 3:14 reinforces this truth:

That the blessing of Abraham might come on to the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Here again, Paul couples the blessing given to Abraham with justification, albeit using a synonym for justification ("the promise of the Spirit"). Thus, Paul considers the blessing given to Abraham in Gen 12:2 is (salvific) justification.

In Rom 4, Paul uses two Old Testament figures as examples of an individual justified by God--Abraham (through his use of Gen 15:6) and Kind David (through his use of Psa 32). We have discussed Abraham's justification, and how such refutes, not supports, the Reformed view of justification (cf. this study on λογιζομαι).

In Rom 4:5-8, we read the following:

But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness. So also David speaks of the blessedness of those to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works: "Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the one against whom the Lord will not reckon sin." (NRSV)

In the above pericope, Paul quotes from Psa 32:1 (cf. Psa 52:1); the entire psalm reads as follows:

Happy are those whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Happy are those to whom the Lord imputes no iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit. While I kept silence, my body wasted away through my groaning all day long. For day and night your hand was heavy upon me; my strength was dried up as by the heat of summer. Selah. Then I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not hide my iniquity; I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the Lord," and you forgave the guilt of my sin. Selah. Therefore let all who are faithful offer prayer to you at a time of distress, the rush of mighty waters shall not reach them. You are a hiding place for me; you preserve me from trouble; you surround me with glad cries of deliverance. Selah. I will instruct you and teach you the way you should go; I will counsel you with my eye upon you. Do not be like a horse or mule without understanding, whose temper must be curbed with bit and bridle, else it will not stay near you. Many are the torments of the wicked but steadfast love surrounds those who trust in the Lord. Be glad in the Lord and rejoice, O righteous, and shout for joy, all you upright in heart. (NRSV)

In this psalm, David is proclaiming God's forgiveness of his sins of adultery with Bathsheba and murder of her husband, Uriah the Hittite (2 Sam 11-12). God sent Nathan the prophet to convict David of his heinous sins, with Nathan's parable of the little ewe lamb resulting in David being brought to his knees in repentance.

Paul in Rom 4, alongside the example of Abraham, uses this as an example of an individual who was justified by God, linking the justification of Abraham previously discussed with that of David's through the use of the conjunction καθάπερ ("even/just as") in v. 6.

The crucial question is "Was Psa 32 the first time David was forgiven of his sins and justified?" The biblical answer, which refutes Reformed soteriology, is "no."

The Bible clearly shows us that David, prior to committing those heinous sins, was a justified person. In his youth, David called on the Lord to defeat Goliath (1 Sam 17). David was so close to God that in 1 Sam 13:14 (cf. Acts 13:22) is described as a man after God's own heart, hardly something said of an unsaved person! Indeed, David was truly a justified child of God many years prior to the Bathsheba incident. If David was not justified, he was not a man of God, but a pagan idolater feigning belief in God in how he had lived his life prior to Psa 32 and had written earlier psalms before his encounter with Bathsheba in such a spiritually dead state with no true relationship with God.

As one writer put it:

We cannot escape the fact that Paul, in using the example of David in the context of justification, is saying not merely that David's sins were forgiven, but also that David was actually justified at this point. Paul, in Rm 4:5, underscores this fact both by speaking of "crediting righteousness" to David when he confessed his sin in Psalm 32, and by calling him a "wicked" person whom God must justify in order to return him to righteousness. We must understand, then, that a "crediting of righteousness" occurs at each point that one confesses his sins. Since this was not the first time David confessed sin before the Lord (which other Psalms verify, cf. Ps 25:7, 18; 51:5), he must have been "credited with righteousness" on each occasion of repentance. Since he was credited with righteousness upon repentance in Psalm 32, and since it is an established fact that he was not a man of God prior to his sin with Bathsheba, we must therefore consider all previous acts of repentance a "crediting of righteousness." (Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification [2d ed.; Catholic Apologetics International, 2009], 253)

Unless one wishes to accuse the apostle Paul of the grossest form of eisegesis (wrenching select passages of the psalter out of context), it is hard to escape that, based on sound exegesis, David lost his justification due to murder and adultery, and Psa 32 represents another justification (“re-justification” if you will) of David, per Paul’s soteriology. This disproves the Reformed view that justification is once-for-all, and can never be lost.

With respect to the transformative nature of justification in Rom 4:5,  note the following from biblical scholar, Celsius Spicq, on Rom 4:5 and the meaning of δικαιοω further refutes the “legal fiction” Reformed apologists teach based on their (eisegesis-driven) reading of the passage:

Cf. Rom 4:5—“The one who has no works but who believes in the One who justifies (δικαιουντα) the ungodly, will have his faith counted as righteousness.” M.J. Legrange (on this verse) comments: “δικαιοω in the active cannot mean ‘forgive’: it has to be ‘declare just’ or ‘make just.’ That God should declare the ungodly righteous is a blasphemous proposition. But in addition, when would this declaration be made?” H.W. Heidland (TDNT, vol. 4, pp. 288-292) explains λογιζεσθαι: “Justification is not a fiction alongside the reality. If God counts faith as righteousness, man is wholly righteous in God’s eyes . . . He becomes a new creature through God’s λογιζεσθαι.” (Celsius Spicq, Theological Lexicon of the New Testament [trans. James D. Ernest; 3 vols.: Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1994], 1:342 n. 88)

On the phrase, "and it was credited to him as righteousness" and the justification of Abraham, see Does Genesis 15:6 prove Reformed soteriology? Do note, however, that Reformed theology, one is declared (not “made”) righteous based on the alien imputed righteousness of Jesus. However, the verse immediately after one of their favourite “proof-texts” (Rom 4:1-8) disproves this theory. In Rom 4:9 we read (emphasis added):

Ο μακαρισμὸς οὖν οὗτος ἐπὶ τὴν περιτομὴν ἢ καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν ἀκροβυστίαν; λέγομεν γάρ· ἐλογίσθη τῷ Ἀβραὰμ ἡ πίστις εἰς δικαιοσύνην

Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.

The “blessedness” of Abraham (his “justification”) is not based on imputed righteousness, but Abraham’s faith. Indeed, based on the strict grammar of the Greek of this verse and Rom 4:5, 22 refute Reformed soteriology and its understanding of the “ground” of justification.

I will only make one final observation on the topic of soteriology, as the focus of the book in review is Sola Scriptura, and that is the problem of Old Testament figures offering sacrfices and its implications for Sola Fide. As one long-standing critic of Protestant theology noted:

Protestants believe that justification is made possible by Christ’s atoning sacrifice and is imputed by grace through an individual’s faith. Because they believe salvation comes exclusively through faith, Protestants contend that personal sacrifices are not to be offered to God in an effort to seek forgiveness of sin nor to propitiate His wrath. They contend that Christ’s one sacrifice was all that was necessary for atonement . . . Protestant theology is left with the larger task of explaining why men who were justified by grace through faith in the Old Testament offered blood sacrifices to God. From a Protestant understanding of atonement, the sacrifices offered by men such as Abel, Noah, Job and Abraham would be superfluous, for each of them were already justified by grace through faith and thus their blood sacrifices would be [superfluous]. Pressing the logic further, the Protestant must conclude that, in being justified by grace, the blood sacrifices offered by the patriarchs were an insult to God’s sovereign prerogative to provide forgiveness and favor by “faith alone.” (Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for the Eucharistic Sacrifice [2d ed.; Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2009], 50, comment in square bracket added for clarification)

The Impossibility of Proving Sola Scriptura from the Bible

Whenever a Latter-day Saint debates Sola Scriptura and its biblical foundation, or lack thereof, with a Protestant, 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). Murphy admits in his book that, for Sola Scriptura to be true, there must needs be tota Scripura:

Tota Scriptura, or All of Scripture, is the necessary complement to Sola Scriptura. (p. 16)

Sola and Tota Scriptura together form the basis of correct doctrine. (P. 21)

 The following comment shows the impossible situation defenders of sola scriptura are in, Murphy included:

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.

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.

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).

No matter the proof-text (again, see Not by Scripture Alone for a thorough exegesis of 2 Tim 3:16-17, the "go-to" passage to support this doctrine), appealing to the Bible to support Sola Scriptura is nothing short of "theological quicksand" for the Protestant apologist, as each text was revealed during a time of special revelation, a time when, even according to Protestants, the rule of faith could not have been exhausted by Scripture alone!

Conclusion

As mentioned above, of the many volumes I have read dedicated to defending Sola Scriptura, this has to be one of, if not the, weakest attempt to defend this doctrine. I do hope, however, at (1) the Latter-day Saint reading this review will have a better appreciation of what our Protestant friends believe about this doctrine and how to respond appropriately and (2) that the Protestant reader will rethink their adherence to a doctrine that absolutely no one in biblical times and even the earliest centuries of Christianity subscribed to.

Robert Boylan

12 January 2018