Over 3 years ago I published my book-length refutation of Sola
Scriptura:
Not
By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura
Since then, Protestant apologists have been rather silent,
notwithstanding being confronted with this work, not just by myself, but from
fellow Latter-day Saint apologists.
Notwithstanding, one Reformed Protestant has attempted to response:
Rebuttal
of Not Scripture Alone
Jeremiah Boddy, the author, it should be noted, is himself very ignorant of Sola
Scriptura, so an informed defender of
this doctrine will realise that his understanding of the doctrine is uninformed
and ignorant of the real issues. I mention this as I do not wish to be accused of attacking sub-par arguments in favour of Sola Scriptura. Notwithstanding, I have been asked to offer
some comments to this “response,” so here goes. Jeremiah’s comments will be in red, and mine will be in black.
First,
let’s define what Sola Scripture is and what it isn’t .
Sola
Scripture is NOT the studying of scipture apart from Godly wisdom or council.
We as Protestants don’t go reading our bible by the tree side trying to gain
knowledge on our own. We read other godly men’s insights on certain theological
points, and in fact we encourage our members to study commentaries and
respected theologians. Sola Scripture IS saying that when deciding the final
authority on matters from marriage to baptism, what God has said in His own
words, is the final stop. There is no debating his word, when God says life is
to be protected, He means it. When God tell us to honor our elders, he means
it. So now that we have that out of the way.
It should be noted that in my work on Sola Scriptura, I have never
presented the caricature of Sola Scriptura as "me and the Bible to the
exclusion of history and creeds." How Jeremiah missed this, I do not know,
but in the very opening of my work, I quote from the Westminster Confession of
Faith and Norman Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie defending what sola scriptura is,
and interact with the arguments of defenders of this doctrine such as Mathison,
White, Bowman, Webster, King, and others. The idea of the Bible to the
exclusion of external (albeit, subordinate) rules of faith and other (again,
subordinate) sources is Sol*O* Scriptura, not Sola*A*--I even mention this in
my book, too, even recommending Keith Mathison’s book, The Shape of Sola Scriptura (a book many Protestants believe to be
one of the best works defending this doctrine). However,
Robert
makes a rather large jump in his assumptions. Robert states that sola scripture
can’t be valid in times of revelation. Any honest Protestant will agree with
him, even I. The question is asking, if revelation does continue, does the new
revelation add or disrupt the continuity of scripture.
I will urge readers to pursue the section of my work entitled
"Falling at the First Hurdle: Why Sola Scriptura is an exegetical
impossibility" to see if I made "a rather large jump in [my]
assumptions" on this issue. To summarise my argument in this section,
defenders of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura admit that, for Sola Scriptura to
be operating as the sole infallible rule of faith, one must have tota
scriptura, that is, the totality of true Scripture must be inscripturated.
Ergo, for Sola Scriptura to be true, and for Sola Scriptura to be operative as
the sole infallible rule of faith, all Scripture must first be inscripturated,
ergo, Jesus, the Apostles, and the authors of the New Testament books, as they
were living in a rule of special revelation, could not be teaching, in light of
the historical-grammatical method of exegesis, Sola Scriptura. Therefore, no
biblical text can be used, exegetically, to support this doctrine. While I am
pleased that Jeremiah agrees with him as would any honest Protestant, he s the
one who makes a rather large jump. There is no need for revelation to continue
for sola scriptura to be false--even if special revelation ceased at the death
of the last apostle, as Protestants, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox believe,
no biblical text can be used to support this doctrine. Even if one could prove
special revelation ceased at such a point, while it would disprove
"Mormonism," it would, at best, only support the material sufficiency
of the Bible, not the formal sufficiency.
Jeremiah brings up Luke 4 (cf. Matt 4:1-11); Luke 22; John 5:39-40; Acts
17:11 and 2 Tim 3:16-17. He does not try to interact with my exegesis of all
these texts and how they do not support (and often refute) Sola Scriptura and
the formal sufficiency of the Bible. When discussing 2 Tim 3:17, Jeremiah proves
he cannot read even basic Greek:
All
scripture that is inspired by God, is good. Paul then goes on to say in v. 17,
that it is good for every work of ministry for the saints. What is the Greek
word for every? It translates to fully equipped in the KJV. Another way to say that
is sufficient.
The word
translated "every" is παν. It means "all." The word
translated "equipped" is ἐξηρτισμένος. Furthermore, I have a
discussion of ἐξηρτισμένος and ατριος which Jeremiah avoided discussing. Again,
interested readers can read my lengthy exegesis of 2 Tim 3:16-17 where I
discuss these issues and many others.
Jeremiah engages in what I call "the Word of God = the Bible" fallacy. For
instance:
Paul tells us in Col 3:16, to have
the Word of God dwell in us richly.
Firstly,
appealing to Paul's letters (including 1 Tim 3:15) to support sola scriptura is
fallacious, as (1) inspired oral teachings of Paul and the apostles were, at
this time, equally as binding on the believer as written instructions, whether
they be about the ordination of elders and other topics (e.g., 1 Thess 2:13; 2
Thess 2:15; 3:6; cf. 1 Cor 11:23-25, where Paul received the institutional
narratives from an oral tradition that was passed onto him)
Further, as
a defender of Sola Scriptura wrote against this fallacious line of reasoning
from his co-religionists which should settle the issue:
[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)
. . . to assume that Paul didn’t think what he was
writing was as sufficient to Moses is just wrong. All scripture that is
inspired by God, is good.
I never claimed
Paul did not think what he was writing was inspired. Furthermore, for the
Protestant, "sufficient" means formally sufficient. Does Jeremiah honestly believe that 2 Timothy (or being generous, the entire Pauline corpus)
is formally sufficient? Then we have no need for any of the other books of the
Bible. If it is "as sufficient to [the Torah]" does that mean that
the books following the Torah is unnecessary? Take the book of Obadiah: would
Jeremiah argue that, as it is inspired of God, does that mean that Obadiah is
just as sufficient as the Torah and the Pauline corpus? To say that this line
of reasoning is nonsense is being too generous. Furthermore, no one doubts that
inspired-scripture is "good." Paul in fact uses a word that means
more than "good" but a far cry from "sufficient." As I
wrote:
The 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 ωφελιμα 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.
Robert then tries to say that
calling scripture God breathed is question begging. Again, I respect Robert but
his conclusions and claims are just baseless and weak to be honest and fair.
Scripture has prescribed both by
Christ in Luke 4:4 and Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16, is God breathed. It comes from
God, there is no debate on this matter. To state otherwise undermines the
nature and authority of scripture. I need not say more.
I will note
that if Jeremiah did respect me, he would deal with my arguments and represent
them fairly and honestly as I have done with leading defenders, historical and
modern, on Sola Scriptura.
Further, it
is question-begging. It would have been a sign of respect and intellectual
integrity of Jeremiah told his readers why
I believe it to be such. I will quote from my essay on this topic:
(7) Only the Bible is said to be “Inspired” by God-argument
Some argue that, as the term translated “God-breathed”
(Greek: θεοπνευστος) is predicated upon “Scripture,” therefore, only inscripturated revelation (read: The Bible) is the
only inspired authority from God. There are many problems with this. Firstly,
it is question-begging. Furthermore, if an authority can only be inspired from God
when such a term is predicated upon it, what about the time before the
inscripturation of 2 Tim 3:16? Was there a question about Scripture being God-breathed revelation? If the argument “proves”
something, it proves too much.
Furthermore,
many authorities are said to be inspired by God (e.g. oral revelation in 1
Thess 2:13; 2 Thess 2:15), and such authorities are said to be Paul to be en par with the written word with respect to
their authority.
Answering the objection that "Word-of-mouth tradition
is never said to be theopneustos, God breathed, or
infallible," one critic of sola scriptura responded,
in part, that:
Scripture uses various terms to describe divinely originated
revelation, e.g., “the word of God,” (1 Thess. 2:13) “the Spirit of your Father
speaking through you” (Matt. 10:20); “in spirit” (Matt 22:43); “filled with the
Holy Spirit” (Acts 4:8), and many others. None of these descriptions is of less
divine origin and authority than theopneustos. (Robert A. Sungenis,
"Point/Counterpoint: Protestant Objections and Catholic Answers," in
Sungenis, ed. Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the
Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura [2d ed; Catholic Apologetics
International, 2009], pp. 193-294, here, p. 227)
In a footnote (p. 227 n. 52) to the above, we find the following
admission from Protestants, similar to that of James White and
others, that the authors of the New Testament accepted, en par
with inscripturated revelation (not mere subordinate authorities)
other sources of revelation and authority:
Note the following statements by prominent Protestant
apologists: Greg Bahnsen: “Therefore, according to the
Scripture’s own witness, the verbal form and content of the apostolic
publication of the gospel message should be deemed wholly true and without error.” Inerrancy
of the Autographs. Carl F.H. Henry: “Inerrancy pertains
only to the oral or written proclamation of the original inspired prophets and
apostles” (quoted in Inerrancy of the Autographs). J.I.
Parker: “The concept of biblical inspiration is essentially identical
with that of prophetic inspiration…It makes no difference whether its product
is oral or written. When in the past evangelical theologians defined God’s
words of inspiration as the producing of God-breathed scriptures, they were not
denying that God inspired words uttered orally as well. Indeed, in the case of
prophets and apostles, the biblical way to put the point is to urge that the
words in which these men wrote or dictated are no less God-given than
the words they shared orally with the individuals and congregations, for the
spoken word came first…and the Spirit speaking in them directed both what was
said and how it was said (Matthew 10:19-20)” (The Adequacy of Human Language). Norman
Geisler: “Whereas it is true that the oral pronouncements of the
living apostles were as authoritative as their written ones (1 Thess. 2:13)…”
Also, in the section, “Direct Claims For The Inspiration Of The New Testament,”
Geisler states: “Earlier he had reminded them, ‘It was the word of God which you
heard from us’ (1 Thess. 2:13)” (From God To Us, Geisler and Nix, pp.
43, 45). Bruce Milne: “This high view of their teaching and
preaching applied as fully to their written as to their spoken statements” (Knowing
the Truth, p. 32).
Furthermore, Sungenis notes
the following which refutes the possible counter that the binding teaching of
the apostles would eventually be inscripturated into the Bible:
[W]e must challenge the statement that there is no
"suggestion that in training these men Timothy would be passing on to them
infallible tradition with authority equal to the Word of God." Since in 1
Thess. 2:13 Paul considers his oral teaching an authority equal to Scripture,
and then in 2 Thess. 2:15 commands the Thessalonians to preserve this oral
teaching, it is certainly reasonable to conclude that the oral teachings given to Timothy, and later entrusted to
other reliable men, possessed an authority equal to that of Scripture. To deny
such a conclusion there must be substantial proof that [such an] interpretation
has no possibility of being correct. Moreover, nothing suggests that the oral
teaching to the Thessalonians possessed more authority than the oral teaching
to Timothy and his men . . . probably the most devastating [argument against
the Protestant approach to] 2 Thess. 2:15 and similar verses is that neither
Paul nor any other writers, gives any statement which commands that the Church
retire oral revelation, either during the writing of Scripture or once
Scripture was completed. Since the Protestant is required to form his doctrine
only from mandates found in Scripture, the burden of proof rests on his
shoulders to show that Scripture teaches that the propagation of apostolic oral
revelation must cease with the completion of Scripture . . . in reality, the
debate should stop here until the Protestant can furnish the Scriptural proof
for his position. If he believes in sola
scriptura, then he is required to give answers from sola scriptura, not answers
based on what he thinks is correct and logical. (Ibid., pp. 225-26,
236-37).
As for Jesus’ appeal to Scripture in his temptation in the wilderness
(Matt 4:1-11/Mark 1:12-13/Luke 4:1-13), it should be enough to note that the “Scripture” available at the time
was the Old Testament, not the 66 books of the Protestant canon, so it it
proves the formal sufficiency of “Scripture,” it would limit the “tota” of
scripture to the Old Testament merely.
Further, here is what I wrote on these texts:
A
related event in the Gospels is that of Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness
(Matt 4:1-11//Mark 1:12-13//Luke 4:1-13) where Jesus cited Scripture in his
contest with Satan. As Desmond
Ferguson, a former employee of Irish Church Missions once
wrote:
Matthew
4:1-11 where Satan tempts Jesus three times and each
temptation is rebuked with a scriptural response. So here we have
Jesus going directly to Scripture . . . “Surely these texts”, I said, “show clearly that the bible is
sufficient unto itself and therefore logically we need no other authority or
guide in the way of salvation”? (source)
I am sure that Ferguson, as with many other Protestant apologists, are
of the opinion that, as Jesus did not refer to His own divinity or the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit, or anything else, but only to Scripture, that
such "proves" Sola Scriptura. The problem with such a formulation if
that Matthew is not attempting to specify the only source from which we are to
make our appeal. Granted, on many occasions, Jesus uses Scripture against the
forces of evil, and rightly so, but not on every occasion. Many times he does
appeal to his divinity, his miracles, and the Holy Spirit to fight the
opposition against him (cf. John 5:32-47; 6:32-65; 7:16-19; 8:12-58; 10:1-34;
12:44-50; 14:9-31; 16:1-33). Hence, just because Jesus calls Scripture as a
witness against the devil in Matt 4:1-11 one cannot therefore conclude that
Jesus believed in Sola Scriptura. Would we say that the devil believed in Sola
Scriptura because he quoted verbatim to Jesus from Psa 91:11? Of course not.
One reason Jesus may not be
appealing to His divinity in His discourse with the devil is that it is
precisely the identity of Jesus that the devil wishes to discover. Knowing
this, it is Jesus' wish, at least in the early part of his ministry, to keep
this information from the devil in order for God's plan to be accomplished (cf.
1 Cor 2:8; Eph 6:12; Matt 8:4). Hence, in Jesus' three appeals to Scripture in
Matthew 4:1-11 he does not affirm that he is the Son of God, but only that (1)
man lives not by bread alone but by the word of God, (2) man should not test
God, and (3) man should worship and serve God only. These three stipulations
could apply to any man, not just Jesus, and from this the devil may have
thought Jesus to be just a man at that time. Thus, Jesus thwarted the devil by
withholding the very information the devil was trying to extract from him--his
divinity.
We should also add that even
in Jesus' specific appeal to Scripture, there is good evidence that he did not
intend to teach or even suggest Sola Scriptura. For example, his first reference
is to Deut 8:3: "Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that
comes from the mouth of God." Notice here the specific reference to
"every word" that comes from God's mouth. Since God recorded his
words not only in Scripture but also by speaking directly to the people, the
term "every word" certainly cannot be limited to Scripture. Jesus is
merely calling Scripture as a witness to the basic truth that all God's
revelation is to be heeded, not saying that Scripture is the only source of God's
word. The same applies in New Testament times: "every word" of God
includes both his written and oral inspired truths (cf. Eph 1:13; Col 1:5-6;
Acts 20:27; Gal 1:12; 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Thess 2:15). More importantly, if Jesus
was not teaching Sola Scriptura at that time, then how can these verses be
interpreted as teaching Sola Scriptura today? I am guessing that Ferguson, who
holds to Fundamentalist views on the Bible, accepts that the meaning of the
Bible is determinate, or "fixed" (related to "Intentionalism")
so the meaning of the text does not change with the passing of time, so,
consistency on his behalf, in light of exegesis of this text, will lead to a
conclusion that one text of Scripture cannot be re-interpreted in light of
something novel or cultural relativism, etc.
Lastly, we cannot leave this
passage without pointing out its implicit warning against the misuse of
Scripture. It is precisely the devil's misuse of Ps 91:11 which shows us that
interpretation, when the interpreter is not under proper authority, only leads
to error and apostasy. Additionally, as discussed earlier with respect to Matt
23:1-3 and the Chair of Moses, Jesus bound His believers to follow
non-inscripturated sources of authority, further refuting the eisegesis on
often finds hoisted on Jesus' encounter with Satan during His time in the
wilderness after his baptism.
Jeremiah then claims that:
Some [LDS
leaders] have taught many things that don’t line up with scripture, once again
we have an issue within the church
I will note that, even if “Mormonism” is false, that does not prove Sola
Scriptura. Furthermore, as I have demonstrated on my blog, even using the Protestant
framework of sola and tota scriptura, Reformed theology is anti-biblical but
Latter-day Saint theology is entirely biblical. For representative examples:
God the Father being embodied: Lynn Wilder vs. Latter-day Saint (and Biblical) Theology on Divine Embodiment
Christology: Latter-day Saints have Chosen the True, Biblical Jesus
The "number" of God: Refuting Jeff Durbin on "Mormonism" (exegetes Isa 43:10; 44:6, 8 and other relevant texts; cf. C.J. Labuschagne on the language of "incomparability" in the Old Testament and Literature of Surrounding Cultures)
Biblical critique of Reformed theology: An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology
Biblical refutation of Imputed Righteousness/Forensic Justification: Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness
Exegesis of John 19:30 and related texts (e.g., Heb 2:17; 10:10-14) vs. the Reformed doctrine of the atonement: Full Refutation of the Protestant Interpretation of John 19:30
Biblical exegesis of Acts 2:38 and related texts supporting baptismal regeneration: Refuting Douglas Wilson on Water Baptism and Salvation and Baptism, Salvation, and the New Testament: John 3:1-7
As for the topic of Reformed vs. LDS ecclesiologies, interested readers should pursue the section in Not By Scripture Alone, "The Authority of the Church" and read the discussion of Acts 15 and the Council of Jerusalem. Reformed ecclesiology (which tend to be "higher" than most others within the broad Protestant tradition) and the ecclesiology one finds in Acts 15 are as similar to one another as darkness is to light.
Jeremiah brings up the issue of Roman Catholicism. When asked how we would test other faiths who reject sola Scriptura, my answer is pretty simple: hoist them up with their own petard. On my work on the Roman Catholic dogmas relating to the Mass and Mariology in light of the Bible, patristic literature, and other sources (which also show one need not hold to Sola Scriptura to refute faiths which reject the doctrine), see:
Responses to Robert Sungenis, Not by Bread Alone (2000/2009) and my book on Mary:
Behold the Mother of My Lord: Towards a Mormon Mariology
In conclusion, this was a weak attempt at responding to a meaningful critique of Sola Scriptura. Keep in mind, this doctrine is the formal doctrine of Protestantism: if it falls (and it does, as I proved in Not By Scripture Alone), the entire system falls (it would be the equivalent of proving to a Catholic that papal infallibility is false).
