Jeff Durbin, in an attempt at damage control over the recent debate between two of his congregants and Jacob Hansen/Hayden Carrol, preached a sermon yesterday:
As usual, Durbin is great at rhetoric and lousy at exegesis.
For a full discussion of Sola Scriptura, see:
Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura
With respect to 2 Pet 1:26-21, a pericope Durbin uses to support Sola
Scriptura, the NASB (1995) reads as follows:
For we did not follow cleverly
devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus
Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For when He received honor and
glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the
Majestic Glory, "This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased
"--and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were
with Him on the holy mountain. So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to
which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until
the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 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.
Does this pericope support Sola Scriptura? No. Note the following
from Richard Bauckham (himself a Protestant):
The phrase τον προφητικὸν λογον (“the prophetic word”), has been held to refer to (1) OT
messianic prophecy (2) the whole OT understood as messianic (3) one
specific OT prophecy (4) OT and NT prophecies (5) 2 Pet 1:20-2:19 (6) the
Transfiguration itself as a prophecy of the Parousia . . . All
other known occurrences of the phrase refer to the OT Scripture, except 2
Clem. 11:2, which refers to an apocryphon which the writer presumably
regarded as part of OT Scripture (cf. 1 Clem. 23:3). Although Fornberg [who argues for no. 3] argues
that it is always used of specific scriptural passages, this judgment is not
accurate. It seems in fact to be interchangeable with the term “Scripture”
and, like that term, can refer to specific passages (Philo, Leg. All.
3.43; Sob. 68; Acts Paul 10 [PH, p. 8]; Justin, Dial.
56.6; 77.2; 110.3; also the plural προφητικοι λογοι in Justin, Dial. 39.4; 1 Apol. 54), or
to several specific passages specified (Justin, Dial. 128.4).
Justin, Dial. 199.1 makes it especially clear that the term is virtually
synonymous with “Scripture.” This equivalence came about because the current
Jewish understanding all inscriptured Scripture was prophecy.
Thus the use
of the term favors view (2 [the whole OT understood as messianic]),
though of course the author is thinking of the OT prophecies which early
Christian exegesis normally applied to the Parousia. He may have one or more
specific passages in mind (e.g., Ps 2:9; Dan 7:13-14; Num 24:17), but since he
does not make this clear it is more likely that he is speaking generally . . . In view of 2 Pet 3:16, where Paul’s writings are
called γραφαι (“Scriptures”), it is perhaps not impossible that
NT writings are included but against this we should consider: (1) Even Justin
does not use the term προφητικος λογος (“prophetic
word”) of NT Scripture. (2) Our writer is not likely to be representing Peter
as saying that he and his fellow-apostles based their preaching of the Parousia
on apostolic writings. The best sense of the whole passage 1:16-19 is that the
apostles based their eschatological message on (a) their own eyewitness
testimony (vv 16-18), and (b) OT prophecies (v 19). (3) 2:1a, referring to
false prophets in the OT period, presupposes that the preceding verses are
about the OT Scriptures. (Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter [Word
Biblical Commentary 50; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1992], 224)
That Peter is only speaking of the OT (via a “Messianic lens”) and
not the OT and NT is further supported by vv. 20-21: “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.” (NASB)
Jack Kettler, a former Latter-day Saint who is now a Reformed Presbyterian,
noted in his book-length defense of Sola Scriptura, that Peter is speaking only
about the Old Testament, not the Old and New Teastament:
In this passage, Peter sets the Old Testament
apart from human writings. (Jack Kettler, The Five Points of Scriptural
Authority: A Defense of Sola Scriptura [2021], 8)
The Old Testament is completed by the
Revelation of Christ in the New Testament. In support of this, the Apostle
Peter says: “We have also a surer word of prophecy . . .” (2 Peter
1:19). (Ibid., 18)
Interestingly, with respect to 2 Pet 1:19 and “until” (εως ου [cf. Matt
1:25]), there will be a cessation of the importance/binding authority of
“the prophetic word”:
Peter
entreats us to pay attention to the word of the prophets “as to a light shining
in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises” (2 Pet
1:19)—doubtless a reference to the parousia, after which it will no
longer be necessary to turn to the word of the prophets as a guide which
navigates us through a dark place; Christ himself will supersede any such need.
(Eric D. Svendsen, Who Is My Mother? The Role and Status of the Mother of
Jesus in the New Testament [Amityville, N.Y.: Calvary Press, 2001], 52)
As with Dunlap and Constantino as well as his mentor James White,
Durbin fails at defending the impossible (Sola Scriptura).
Further Reading