According to
Protestant apologists, for sola scriptura to be operative, there must first be tota scriptura—that is, all
inscripturated revelation must first be available for sola scriptura to act as
the standard rule of faith for Christians. Such could not be true during times
of special revelation when scripture was being received and inscripturated.
Furthermore, the 66 books of the Protestant canon are the only works God has
inspired.
Notwithstanding,
in a desperate attempt to prop up sola scriptura, many Protestant apologists
deny this, implicitly claiming that it is possible that there are inspired books not part of the present
Protestant canon of the Bible.
In an
article attempting to defend the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Understanding
Sola Scriptura: The Evangelical View of the Authority of the Bible; cf. Mormonism
and Alleged “Lost Books” of the Bible also by the same author—a wonderful
case of question-begging and special pleading), a Protestant apologist tries to
defend the doctrine in such a manner:
Objection: God may have
inspired writings in the past to which we no longer have access. For example,
we don’t have all of Paul’s letters to the Corinthians.
Answer: Sola scriptura does not claim that all inspired writings of the past must exist and be accessible to us today. Might any of Paul’s missing letters to the Corinthian congregation have been inspired? Sure, but since we don’t have them, the point is moot. Scripture is by definition whatever extant writings there are qualifying as the word of God.
Answer: Sola scriptura does not claim that all inspired writings of the past must exist and be accessible to us today. Might any of Paul’s missing letters to the Corinthian congregation have been inspired? Sure, but since we don’t have them, the point is moot. Scripture is by definition whatever extant writings there are qualifying as the word of God.
The
definition of sola scriptura is a novelty (that the Bible possibly lacks
inspired books and that “scripture” is not one-to-one equivalent to the Bible).
Such flies in the face of the Westminster Confession of Faith, for example. In
chapter 1 paragraph 2, where “the name of holy Scripture, or the Word of God
written are now contained all the Books of the Old and New Testament” (the WCF
then lists all 66 books of the Protestant canon) and that, speaking of these 66
books:
The whole counsel of God, concerning all
things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either
expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be
deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether
by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men . . . (WCF 1:6)
Bowman, in
an attempt to defend the anti-biblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura must present
a novel (I am sure those at Westminster would say “perverted”) understanding of
the various elements making up the doctrine. His approach, not only leads to a
rejection of tota scriptura but ultimately
will also lead one to a rejection of the formal
sufficiency of the Bible.
For a
lengthy and sustained critique of Sola Scripture, be sure to read: