Evangelical apologist Matthew Paulson attempted to defend the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura in chapter 7, “The Authority of the Bible” in his book, Breaking the Mormon Code: A Critique of Mormon Scholarship Regarding Classical Christian Theology and the Book of Mormon (Livermore, Calif.: WingSpan Press, 2006, 2009), pp. 129-34. Here are some representative examples of him confusing “authoritative” with “formally sufficient” (Latter-day Saints affirm the former, but not the later, about the Bible):
Many LDS scholars have questioned the authority of the Bible (p. 129)
[T]he Protestant view that the Church must rely only on the authority of the Bible” (p. 129)
Jesus referred confidently to the law and the prophets as authority, and did not question the Old Testament books, which were not canonized until 60 years after his death and resurrection. Likewise, we can place our trust in the sixty-six books of the Bible . . . Christians can have the utmost confidence that the Bible comes to use as the complete revealed Word of God. (pp. 132-33)
How can Mormons seriously believe that the Bible is authoritative when they are told that plain and precious parts have been removed? (p. 134)
To see the overwhelming problems with Paulson’s comments and faulty presuppositions, as well as others relating to Sola Scriptura, one should read my lengthy paper:
Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura (also available on Amazon)
Paulson does end up contradicting himself. On p. 130, he tries to argue that the canonization process was not complicated:
Several LDS writers have made their points on the difficulties of the early canonization. However, I object to several assertions of their attack on the authority of the Bible . . . Peterson and Ricks make an essentially false claim that, historically, the books of the New Testament remain uncertain.
Notwithstanding, we find these comments elsewhere in the very same chapter:
The process of selecting the Bible canon was long and complicated. (pp. 131-32)
[T]he tough issues of canonization. (p. 132)
Admittedly, after a difficult canonization process (p. 134)
On the book of Revelation, Paulson admits that, it:
[G]ained interest through time and became canonical. (p. 134)
In a recent scholarly volume on the canon, we read the following:
[T]he book of Revelation was not fully accepted into the Greek Orthodox biblical canon until the seventeenth century, and it has never formed a part of the Orthodox liturgy. On the other hand, the Western church has usually received Revelation as being fully canonical. The earliest references to the book, in both East and West, confirm its apostolic authorship and authority. The book’s reception became problematic in the third century as some church leaders endeavoured to diminish the appeal of millenarian speculation based on the book by questioning its authorship. These questions led to concerns about the authority of the book, as reflected both in the canon lists collected in this volume and in the book’s transmission history. Eusebius strangely places the book both among the accepted books (reflecting its early and widespread attestation) and among the spurious books (reflecting the more recent concerns). Amphilochius of Iconium notes that the majority do not accept the book, and several lists omit any reference to it. Western lists routinely include it. The Apocalypse frequently circulated by itself in the Greek world, as many manuscripts containing it feature no other portion of the New Testament. (Edmon L. Gallagher and John D. Meade, The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity [New York: Oxford University Press, 2017], 279)
