Thursday, July 16, 2020

Response to an attempted Rebuttal of "Not By Scripture Alone"

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,  it should be enough for now to quote the following that shows the impossible situation defenders of sola scriptura are in:


Evangelical James White admits: “Protestants do not assert that Sola Scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation. How could it be, since the rule of faith to which it points was at the very time coming into being?” (“A Review and Rebuttal of Steve Ray's Article Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura,” 1997, on web site of Alpha and Omega Ministries). By this admission, White has unwittingly proven that Scripture does not teach Sola Scriptura, for if it cannot be a “valid concept during times of revelation,” how can Scripture teach such a doctrine since Scripture was written precisely when divine oral revelation was being produced? Scripture cannot contradict itself. Since both the 1st century Christian and the 21st century Christian cannot extract differing interpretations from the same verse, thus, whatever was true about Scripture then also be true today. If the first Christians did not, and could not extract sola scriptura from Scripture because oral revelation was still existent, then obviously those verses could not, in principle, be teaching Sola Scriptura, and thus we cannot interpret them as teaching it either. (“Does Scripture teach Sola Scriptura?” in Robert A. Sungenis, ed. Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura [2d ed: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2009], pp. 101-53, here p. 118 n. 24)

 

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

• ὠφέλιμοςον (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).