Today I read
the following book by a Reformed Protestant apologist and “counter-cult”
activist:
Eryl Davies,
Truth Under Attack: Cults and
Contemporary Religions (Durham: Evangelical Press, 1990)
As with so
many works by Protestants, the attempt to defend Sola Scriptura, the formal doctrine
of the Reformation, was weak and void of any meaningful attempt at exegesis. Do
not take my word for it. Here are his attempts to (lamely) defend this doctrine.
In the
chapter responding to Roman Catholicism, we read:
What the Bible teaches
1. The sixty-six canonical books of the Bible
are a sufficient revelation of God to man and sufficient for all matters of
faith and conduct (cf. 2 Timothy 3:15-16; Luke 16:29; Acts 17:11).
2. Whenever the Lord Jesus spoke of
tradition, he condemned it and warned his people against it (see Matthew 15:3,
6, 9; Mark 7:8-9, 13; cf. Deuteronomy 4:2; Colossians 2:8; Revelation
22:18-19).
3. The church both in the Old and New
Testaments submitted itself to the Word of God proclaimed by the prophets and
apostles. (p. 33)
Responding
to Unitarian churches, the following “proof-texts” are used to support Sola
Scriptura:
‘To the law and to the testimony: if they speak
not according to his word, it is because there is no light in them’ (Isaiah
8:20, AV).
‘Thy word is truth’ (John 17:17)
‘Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe?
Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the
world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come
to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message
preached to save those who believe’ (1 Corinthians 1:20-21).
‘Bu a natural man does not accept the things
of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand
them, because they are spiritually appraised’ (1 Corinthians 2:14). (p. 76)
In his chapter
on the Latter-day Saints, these “proof-texts” are offered:
‘All Scripture is inspired by God and
profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
that the man of God may be adequate for every good work’ (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
‘But know this first of all, that no prophecy
of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever
made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God’
(2 Peter 1:20-21; cf. Revelation 22:18-19). (p. 104)
In a chapter
attempting to defend the Reformed Protestant understanding of the authority of
the Bible, the author commits the common “the ‘Word of God’ is one-to-one equivalent
to ‘the Bible’” fallacy:
The Bible is no ordinary book; in fact, it is
described as ‘the Word of God’ (1 Thessalonians 2:13) or ‘thy Word’ (John
17:17). This is the only book which we can safely trust and use .. . Our Lord
Jesus is an example to us in this respect to the authority of God’s Word by
telling his enemy three times, ‘It is written’ (Matthew 4:4, 7, 10). Altogether,
the Lord used the phrase, ‘It is written’ on another fifteen occasions, particularly
when answering people’s questions. For the Lord Jesus Christ, the words and
teachings of Scripture settled all these questions. Similarly, God’s Word alone
should determine what we believe and how we live . . . the Bible is ‘the living
and abiding Word of God’ (1 Peter 1:23). Quoting Isaiah 40:7-8, Peter tells us,
‘All flesh is like grass, and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass
withers, and the flowers fall off, but
the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ The Bible never changes and will
always remain the only true and relevant Word of God. (pp. 259-60, 261; notice
how “Scripture,” for Davies, is exhausted by “the Bible”; on prophets changing
their written words and the words of prior prophets, see Biblical
Prophets Changing their Words and the Words of Previous Prophets; I will
note that, in the above, 1 Thess 2:13, in context, refers to the oral tradition as being as inspired as
the written word, contradicting his naïve
“all tradition is false” argument!)
All these
arguments and proof-texts have been answered in great detail in my book-length
study and refutation of this doctrine:
I will let people read Davies' attempt to defend this doctrine and my response to Sola Scriptura and see who engages in exegesis and who relies upon bald assertion and eisegesis.
If
Protestant apologists wish to be taken seriously, and genuinely want
non-Protestants to consider their theology, they should try to engage in
meaningful exegesis of the relevant texts, not make fallacious arguments
(thinking “Word of God” is synonymous with “the Bible”) and that texts such as
2 Tim 3:16-17 and Rev 22:18-19 are meaningful texts in support of the formal
sufficiency of the Bible. It also explains, in part, why so many anti-Mormons who are also Protestants are unwilling to have a moderated public debate where they defend Sola Scriptura--they know they would lose badly against an informed opponent.