Scriptural Mormonism: Responding to a Recent Defense of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide

In a recent presentation, Reformed apologist Tony Costa, author of Worship and the Risen Jesus in the Pauline Letters (Studies in Biblical Literature vol. 157; New York: Peter Lang, 2013), gave a presentation on the Solas of the Reformation and focused mainly on Sola Scriptura. In this presentation, , made the claim that Jesus himself taught Sola Scriptura, and that passages such as John 20:21 and 2 Tim 3:16 explicate such a doctrine.

A Defense of the Five Solas: A Conversation with Dr. Tony Costa

To see why his argument are an exegetical failure, be sure to see:

Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura

As for Sola Fide, Costa’s analogy of announcing a couple to be husband and wife refutes his position—marriage is only incidentally legal and largely personal, and, furthermore, even the legal declaration of the couple being married is a declaration based on a reality. The same applies for the theology of texts such as Deut 25:1 and Lev 17:3-4 as well as Gen15:6, a text Costa quoted (without exegeting) as well as even Rom 4 and the meaning of the verb λογιζομαι.

As Robert Sungenis wrote in response to another Reformed apologist, Michael Horton on the analogy Costa used:

Take the word "marriage," for example. Is that a legal term or a personal term? It can be either, depending on the context in which it is placed. When applying for a marriage license, or when in divorce court, the word "marriage" becomes very legal, does it not? But when a husband loves his wife (as opposed to merely giving her food, clothing and shelter) is "marriage" merely a legal term? No, certainly not. It takes on a whole new meaning that law knows nothing about, for law can't love. Only people who make a personal commitment of trust and care can love each other.

Elsewhere, in his book, Not by Bread Alone, under the heading of "Understanding the Covenant By the Analogy of Marriage," Sungenis wrote:

The closest example in everyday life to a biblical covenant is the human marriage relationship. Indeed, God Himself uses the marriage relationship as a model of His covenants. In marriage, a man and a woman are bound together in a legal ceremony. The legal tie requires each to abide by certain rules designed for marriage. For example, they must maintain conjugal fidelity; not abuse each other; nurture children properly; and provide income for the family. If one of the spouses has an extramarital relationship, abuses the other spouse, mistreats the children, and does not provide a visible means of support, then the injured spouse can bring the offending spouse to a court of law

Although it has legal facets, the marriage bond is a covenant rather than a contract, since it contains personal dimensions that do not exist in contracts. In marriage, the personal relationship between the husband and wife works with yet supersedes their legal ties as both seek to make their relationship grow based on the love and care they have for each other, rather than on a law which requires them to fulfill their responsibilities

Although husband and wife work with and promote their legal relationship as they interact with themselves and the rest of society, spouses enjoy and are emulated more for the intimate personal bond between them. As they grow in their marriage, husband and wife will increase the personal aspects of their relationship, whereas the legal aspects do not change or increase. Now, if the personal relationship within the marriage breaks down, then only a legal relationship exists, which is not much enjoyment for either party and the marriage may soon dissolve. The more the personal dimension is weakened, the more the legal dimension will rule the relationship. If the personal relationship breaks down to such a degree that one of the spouses seriously, continuously, and deliberately harms the other, then the legal dimension of their relationship is enforced and penal sanctions are levied in order to restrain the perpetrator and rectify the situation.

Again, marriage covenants are like biblical covenants since both contain legal and personal dimensions. As opposed to a mere contract, a covenant is a much stronger and deeper bond, for it depends on both the fulfillment of legal obligations and the development of a personal relationship between the parties in order to hold the relationship together.

As a covenant relationship progresses, it grows stronger due to the personal love and concern the spouses exchange with each other, rather than on legal requirements that force them to cooperate. This combination of the legal and personal dimensions gives the most enjoyment and the best chance for the marriage relationship to last indefinitely. Ultimately, love is a much stronger bond than law. Even when one party fails to live up to all the legal requirements of the covenant, the other can forgive and overlook those failures, for love covers a multitude of sins. (Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for the Eucharistic Sacrifice [2d ed.; Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, 2009], 9-10)

In a footnote (p. 9 n. 7), we read:

E.g., Is 62:5; Hs 2:16; Gl 4:21-31; Ep 5:29-32. Indeed, the setting aside of the Old Covenant is compared to God’s “divorce” of Israel (e.g., Hs 2:2; Jr 3:8). Analogously, God “marries” the Church, composed of Jew and Gentile in the New Covenant (e.g., Hs 1:10; 2:14-23; Rm 9:24-29; 1Pt 2:9-10; Ep 2:15-18; Ap 12:1-6). In the interim, God tolerates the spiritually adulterous wife of the Old Covenant until the new marriage in the New Covenant occurs (cf. Jr 3:20; Hs 3:1-5; Ez 34:1-31; 37:1-28), after which Israel will suffer the punishment of adulterers (Ez 16:1-63; 23:1-49; Mt 24:1ff). Moreover, the allowance of divorce in the Old Covenant (Dt 24:1-4) coincides with God’s “divorce” of Israel (Is 50:1), whereas the indissolubility of marriage in the New Covenant coincides with God’s permanent covenant with the Church (cf. Mt 19:4-6; Rm 7:1-3; Ap 19:7-9; Hb 8:13; 9:12; Mt 16:18-19; 28:20; Jn 14:16); in spite of some within the Church who become spiritual adulterers like Old Covenant Israel, and who will be judged accordingly at the end (Ap 2-3; 11:8; 20:7-9;1Pt 4:17-18; Jr 25:29; 2Th 2:9-12); thus purging the Church so that she is the pure bride for her Husband (Ap 21:1-2; 1Co 3:13-17). One of the more intimate applications of the marriage imagery is Ep 5:29-32. St. Paul states that the joining of husband and wife as one flesh is analogous to Christ becoming one with His Church. As regards the Eucharist, the reception of Christ’s Body into the body of the communicant is analogous to the wife receiving the husband in intimate relations. Both receptions are momentary yet result in abundant physical and spiritual fruit. The repetition of the Mass on a daily or weekly cycle is analogous to the repeated acts of intimacy between husband and wife. As husband and wife renew and confirm their marriage vows at each moment of intimacy, so God renews and confirms the covenant with His people at the reception of the Eucharist. The sincere, ceremonious repetition of the act does not detract from or supersede the original vows and consummation, which were performed once-for-all; rather, it draws from, enhances, and perfects them.

Elsewhere, Sungenis raised a rather cogent argument against the Reformed view of justification with respect to the need of "faith":

If justification were a mere legal transaction between God and man (e.g., like a modern will), we would not need continual intercession by Christ to complete our salvation . . . [Protestants] when pressed to follow their forensic model to its logical conclusion, cannot adequately explain why personal faith is required for justification, given that faith is a non-legal and timeless virtue. Moreover, most have no explanation why the New Testament, especially the book of Hebrews, repeatedly warns Christian not to fall away from the Faith, other than claiming that such a person was never legally justified. (Ibid., 62).

Costa is correct in rejecting Catholicism; he is dead-wrong in embracing Reformed Protestantism, however. For more, see, for e.g.:

Christ's Baptism is NOT Imputed to the Believer

Refuting Jeff Durbin on Mormonism and the Atonement

Can our works save us? Refuting sola fide

Dave Bartosiewicz vs. Transformative Justification and Refutation of Dave Bartosiewicz on justification and the atonement being forensic

King David Refutes Reformed Soteriology

Does the Parable of the Pharisee and Tax Collector (Luke 18:9-14) Support Sola Fide?

Jeff Durbin on Luke 7:35, James 2, and Justification