In a recent blog post, Mike Thomas addressed Latter-day Saints and modern translations of the Bible. This is not his first attempt at this; see Latter-day Saints and the Bible. Near the end of his article, Thomas wrote that:
The words of Martin Luther in
1521 at the Diet of Worms reflect the authority every Christian should
recognise in the Bible. The Reformers’ emphasis on the authority of the Bible,
often sealed with their martyrdom, is fundamental to our faith. The challenge
of the cults should drive us back to the Word, remind us of it’s full and final
authority. Mormons reading their Bibles in modern translations, their own
language, give us great opportunities to open the word of God to them.
Couple of things:
1. Mike has been challenged time and time again to debate me
on whether the Bible teaches Sola
Scriptura. He has refused to do such. Ditto for Tony Brown.
2. Mike has been refuted time and time again on his attacks
against the Church, such as his comments (which appear in this post) on Latter-day
Saint soteriology, not just his pathetic attempts to defend Sola Scriptura. For
more, see here.
3. Luther’s comments do not speak of the Protestant belief
in the “full and final authority” of the Bible. Instead, it shows that the
ultimate “rule of faith” for the Protestant is their right to private interpretation. On this, as I wrote previously:
Functionally, the Conscience (still affected by the noetic effects of the Fall), not the Bible, is Central to Protestantism
Consider the following representative quotations:
Martin Luther, Diet of Worms (1521): “Your Imperial Majesty and Your Lordships demand a simple answer. Here it is, plain and unvarnished. Unless I am convicted [convinced] of error by the testimony of Scripture or (since I put no trust in the unsupported authority of Pope or councils, since it is plain that they have often erred and often contradicted themselves) by manifest reasoning, I stand convicted [convinced] by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God’s word, I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us.”
Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:184: What Protestants deny on this subject is, that Christ has appointed any officer, or class of officers, in his Church to whose interpretation of the Scriptures the people are bound to submit as of final authority. What they affirm is that He has made it obligatory upon every man to search the Scriptures for himself, and determine on his own discretion what they require him to believe and to do.
Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1:161: Although in the external court of the church every private person is bound to submit to the synodical decisions (unless he wants to be excommunicated), and such judgment ought to flourish for the preservation of order, peace and orthodoxy, and the suppression of heretical attempts; it does not follow that the judgment is supreme and infallible. For an appeal may always be made from it to the internal forum of conscience, nor does it bind anyone in this court further than he is persuaded of its agreement with the Scriptures.
In this light, the Protestant is only ultimately obligated to assent to any given doctrine if and only if he judges it to be “biblical.” In other words, his conscience plays the ultimate normative role. To say that some faculty functions in an ultimate sense is to say that one is bound or obligated to assent to the judgments of that faculty (here, one’s conscience) without any exceptions.
The Authority of the Church in the New Testament: Acts 15 and the Council of Jerusalem
The Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15) shows that the New Testament Church did not view Scripture as the sole infallible rule of faith; instead, the authority of the Church was, alongside then-oral revelation and written revelation, equal authorities. The doctrinal decision in this Council privileged the authority of the Church. Furthermore, it is important to focus on this event as it demonstrates the distinction of different types of preaching (insider vs. outsider) as discussed above. Finally, it shows the fallaciousness of the naïve Protestant understanding and use of the so-called “Berean test.”
Acts 15 opens with the account of various men from Judea who were teaching the brethren that unless a man is circumcised according to the custom of Moses, he cannot be saved, resulting in the council being called. Verse 7 tells us that there was much debate among them. Apparently, they could arrive at no firm resolution on the issue of whether a new Gentile convert had to be circumcised.
This was a difficult problem. There was no Scripture they could point to that predicted or allowed a rescinding of circumcision. In fact, since circumcision was first performed with Abraham 700 years before the Mosaic law was instituted, one might think that it had a special place in God's economy outside the Mosaic law. And to the Jews, the Torah was unchangeable. Further, there was no tradition for the apostles and elders to fall back on. The Talmud, the Mishnah, and all oral teaching never even suggested that the act of circumcision could be rescinded.
In Acts 15:13–17, James appeals to Amos 9:11–12 (LXX) in an effort to support through scripture the taking of the gospel directly to the Gentiles and the cessation of circumcision during the Council of Jerusalem. However, when one reads this text in its context, nothing is said about the cessation of the requirement of circumcision; furthermore, James is reliant upon the LXX notwithstanding its obvious translation mistakes:
On that day I will raise up the tent of David that has fallen, and I will rebuild its things that have fallen, and I will raise up its things that have been destroyed, and I will rebuild it just as the days of the age, so that the remnant of the people, and all the nations upon whom my name was invoked upon them, will search for me,” says the Lord who is making these things. (Amos 9:11-12 | Lexham English Septuagint)
Amos 9:11-12 is silent about the cessation of circumcision, speaking only of the rebuilding of the tabernacle of David which was interpreted to mean that the influx of Gentile converts into the Church fulfilled the text (see Acts 15:16-18). The "hermeneutical lens," if you will, that helped this was not Scripture, but Peter's experiences as recorded in vv.1-11.
Furthermore, the text of Amos 9:11-12 is problematic. For instance, “the Lord” is an addition. The LXX actually omits the object, reading, “so that the remnant of the people might seek, and all the nations . . .” There is also a clause missing from Acts’ quotation (“and set it up as the days of old”). The important observation, however, is the Greek translation’s relationship to the Hebrew. The crucial section reads in the Greek, “so that the remnant of the people might seek,” but in the Hebrew, “that they may possess the remnant of Edom.” The confusion with Edom arises likely because of the lack of the mater lectionis which we find in MT in the word אדום Without it, the word looks an awful lot like אדם “man,” or “humanity.” The verb “to possess” יירשׁו was also misunderstood as “to seek ידרשׁו It is unlikely that MT is secondary. First, there’s no object for the transitive verb εκζητησωσιν, “that they might seek.” Second, the reading in MT makes more sense within the context. David’s fallen house would be restored so that it might reassert its authority, specifically in overtaking the remnant of Edom (see Amos 1:11–12) and “all the nations,” for which Edom functions as a synecdoche (Edom commonly acts as a symbol for all of Israel’s enemies [Ps 137:7; Isa 34:5–15; 63:1–6; Lam 4:21]). The notion that the restoration of the Davidic kingdom would cause the remnant of the people and all the nations to seek the Lord is also a bit of a disconnection within Amos. This quotation shows not only that the early church relied on the Septuagint, but that it rested significant doctrinal decisions on the Greek translation, even when it represented a misreading of the underlying Hebrew. Christians today reject the inspiration of the LXX, but the New Testament firmly accepted it, and if the New Testament is inspired in its reading of LXX Amos 9:11-12, which is itself a misreading of the original reading, then the current Hebrew Old Testament is in error. (See Gary D. Martin, Multiple Originals: New Approaches to Hebrew Bible Textual Criticism [Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010], pp. 255-61 for more information on this issue).
An honest Protestant should ask themselves the following questions:
· Could a member of the believing community object to James’ interpretation of Amos 9:11-12 using the “Berean test” and object to the Council’s decisions?
· Could one appeal, as Luther et al., taught believers had a right to, to the internal forum of conscience, and disagree with the Council’s decree?
· If “no,” why not?
· Protestants functionally know the difference between outsider and insider tests of faith. Once people accepted the Gospel, they were bound to the normative authority of the apostles and the Church.
The Biblical authors were not "proto-Protestants" on the issue of the privileged position of the conscience (a la Luther et al); they also accepted other proximate rules of faith, not just "Scripture."
Furthermore, Mike lies through his teeth, in an attempt to piety-signal, when he wrote the following:
Luther stood firm before princes,
popes, and emperors. For most of us it is not a stretch to know the Scripture
and stand firm on its authority. By precept and example, we have opportunities
to show how much a Mormon can trust the Book of books. It’s what made me a
Christian.
In an interview with the late Doug Harris in 2008, Mike Thomas said the following about his wife's "conversion experience" to Evangelical Protestantism, which led to his embrace of such a theology:
She came along that evening [to a friend's Protestant church], and the love that was shared there, the gospel was preached and Ann lasted about twenty minutes into the service when she fled the building. And I thought, "what have I done? I've done something dreadful here; something is wrong and I've not picked up on this." So I rushed out to her; two of the ladies in the church came out as well--very concerned. And Ann was sobbing in the carpark. And we said, "what's wrong?" And she said, "there's nothing wrong; it's just so wonderful!" And the Spirit of God was so powerful and she just couldn't take the weight of it. It was an incredible experience." (8:23 mark)
In reality, Ann suffers from emotional (and probably psychological) issues, had an emotional breakdown, and violá, embraces satanic nonsense (i.e., Protestantism). I hope Mike keeps sharp objects away from her. But once they embraced Protestantism, they also embraced the clout that comes with the "counter-cult" movement. I mean, it sure beats a regular 9-to-5. It also shows that the Protestant "testimony," as seen in various creeds and other works, is "feelings, not more than feelings." But sure, let's rewrite history and engage in piety signalling.
For previous refutations of Mike Thomas and Tony Brown, see:
Listing of articles refuting Mike Thomas and Tony Brown of Reachout Trust
