Sunday, January 30, 2022

How Adherence to Sola Scriptura Results in Protestant Apologists Engaging in Deceptive Tactics to Avoid Difficult Texts

  

Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness . . . For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busy-bodies. Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.

2 Thessalonians 3:6a, 10-12

 

This charge was made openly to the men of Thessalonica and the apostle even went on to say, “if anyone does not what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed” (v. 14). (Jeremy Howard, You’re the Husband: A Blueprint For Leading in Marriage [Greenville, S.C.: Ambassador International, 2017], 46)

 

One will notice ellipsis (“…”) in the quote from 2 Thess 3. Here is the rest of the verse:

 

and not in accord with the tradition (παράδοσις) that you received from us.

 

So in reality, Paul was not teaching “if anyone does not what we say in this letter” merely but also his (inspired) oral teaching, too, which elsewhere he described as “the word of God” and on the same level of authority as inscripturated revelation:

 

And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers. (1 Thess 2:13 ESV)

 

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter. (2 Thess 2:15 ESV)

 

On the topic of inspired (oral) revelation, one I am fond of using is that of 2 Chron 29:25 and 35:4, which read thusly:

 

And he [King Hezekiah] set the Levites in the house of the Lord with cymbals, with psalteries, and with harps, according to the commandment of David, and of Gad the king's seer, and Nathan the prophet: for so was the commandment of the Lord by his prophets. (2 Chron 29:25)

 

And prepare yourselves by the houses of your fathers, after your courses, according to the writing of David king of Israel, and according to the writing of Solomon his son. (2 Chron 35:4)

 

With respect to the first text, we learn the following: (1) David, Gad, and Nathan were dead for about 250 years at this point; however, (2) they passed on a "command . . . from the Lord" which was prescribed by God's prophets on how worship to be conducted in the temple (hardly a minor issue; the worship of God is a central issue in theology) and (3) such a prescription and commandment is nowhere found in the entirety of the Bible and yet Hezekiah regarded them as authoritative and binding. And before anyone brings up Mark 7/Matt 15 and the Korban rule, note that a Protestant who uses this “argument” is shooting themselves in the foot. Consider:

 

If Jesus had taught that Scripture had a higher authority than tradition, this would mean Jesus’ own words, which existed as an oral tradition after his Ascension, would have had less authority than Scripture. Whenever the first Christians said that the Lord Jesus “declared all foods clean” (Mk 7:19), the Jews could have used Jesus’ own words against them by saying Jesus’ oral tradition was less authoritative than the Old Testament’s written kosher laws. The words Jesus spoke during his earthly ministry that we have received through Scripture, as well as the words he spoke to the apostles that they transmitted to the Church through Sacred Tradition, both represent and word of God and are equal in authority. (Trent Horn, The Case for Catholicism: Answers to Classic and Contemporary Protestant Objections [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2017], 43; for more on the Korban rule and Sola Scriptura itself, see Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura)

 

Protestantism forces her apologists and pastors to engage in blatant deception to support her pernicious doctrines. It is funny that they use the term “cult” and “cultists” against Latter-day Saints: functionally this butchering of Paul’s words is nothing short of cultic.