Russell Ashdown vs. Matt Slick of CARM

Matt Slick is a long-standing anti-Mormon activist; one can find articles discussing some of his bogus arguments against the LDS faith on this blog, such as this article refuting his eisegesis of 1 Cor 4:6.

Russell Ashdown, who used to have some presence on the Internet with his "Anti-Mormon Antibiotic" Website has a few papers that are accessible via archive.org that responds to Matt Slick (as well as James White; Bill McKeever/Eric Johnson and others [click here]). With respect to Slick, here are some papers that refute him rather soundly:

Response to Matt Slick's (CARM) "Hinckley says Mormons Believe in a Different Jesus"

My response to "A Response From (and to) S.H.I.E.L.D.S."

Response to "A Biblical Response to Mormons" By Matthew Slick (CARM)

A Day in the Life of Matt Slick

Matt Slick (CARM) is rather popular though VERY errant apologist (e.g., see James Stutz's article responding to Slick on 1 Tim 6:16) A lot of gullible Evangelicals tend to reference Slick and CARM uncritically, although Slick tends to embarrass himself against informed opponents (e.g., his radio debate against Robert Sungenis that addressed Mariology and Sola Scriptura)



The following from an Open Theist is a pretty good beat-down of a lot of Slick's methodologies as well as his ignorance about Greek and other issues:

A Day in the Life of Matt Slick

Jordan Cooper Refutes Matt Slick (CARM) on Baptismal Regeneration

In the following video, Jordan Cooper (Lutheran) defends the doctrine of baptismal regeneration against Matt Slick of CARM:

A Response to Matt Slick on Baptismal Regeneration

For more articles on baptismal regeneration, see:

Refuting Douglas Wilson on Water Baptism and Salvation

On the Perspicuity of the Bible, Baptismal Regeneration in 1 Peter 3:19-21, and a Discussion of Different "Causes"

Jerome D. Quinn on Titus 3:5 and Baptismal Regeneration

Chad Pierce on the Salvific Efficacy of Water Baptism

Acts 10:47, Cornelius, and Baptismal Regeneration (cf. Does Cornelius Help Refute Baptismal Regeneration? and. Was Cornelius Converted Before Acts 10?)

Baptismal Regeneration in Ephesians

Paul S. Williamson on Baptismal Regeneration in Ephesians

Andrew Lincoln on Paul's Theology of Water Baptism in Ephesians 5:26

J. Paul Sampley on Baptismal Regeneration and Ephesians 5:25-27 

John Greer vs. the biblical doctrine of baptismal regeneration

The Good Thief on the Cross (cf. Matthew W. Bates on the Thief on the Cross)

No, 1 Clement does not teach Sola Fide (Slick claims on his Website that 1 Clement does not teach baptismal regeneration--this charge and many others are refuted in this article)

It should also be noted that much of Slick's arguments against water baptism being salvific is the result of his Reformed theology. For articles refuting this blasphemous theology, see, for e.g.:

Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness --cf. λογιζομαι in texts contemporary with the New Testament:

Part 1 (LXX Apocrypha)

Part 2 (Greek Pseudepigrapha)

Part 3 (Apostolic Fathers)

Part 4 (Josephus)

Part 5 (Philo)

Part 6 (Modern Lexical Sources)

Part 7 (Summary)

Does LDS Theology Confuse the Relationship Between Justification and Sanctification?

Full Refutation of the Protestant Interpretation of John 19:30 (Slick made a huge fuss about the meaning of τετελεσται)

1 Corinthians 3:15: a very un-Protestant Biblical Verse

Does the Parable of the Pharisee and Tax Collector (Luke 18:9-14) Support Sola Fide?

Udo Schnelle on the Dynamic Relationship Between God's Drawing of Man to Himself and Genuine Human Freedom in the Gospel of John (refutes Slick's eisegesis of John 6:37, 44)

Does Galatians 2:20 and Colossians 2:14 support Forensic Justification?

Can our works save us? Refuting sola fide

Dave Bartosiewicz vs. Transformative Justification (cf. Refutation of Dave Bartosiewicz on justification and the atonement being forensic and Response to Leon Morris on -οω verbs and the meaning of δικαιοω)

King David Refutes Reformed Soteriology (on Romans 4 and Paul's use of David)

 Jeff Durbin on Luke 7:35, James 2, and Justification

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology 

Matt Slick still repeating the false claim the Father cannot be seen by man

The following is a meme that Matt Slick of CARM has produced that is making some rounds online:

Of course, Slick has been thoroughly refuted on an exegetical and theological basis by Latter-day Saints, including James Stutz in the following article:

Can a Man See God? 1 Timothy 6:16 in Light of Ancient and Modern Revelation (pdf)

Slick did (lamely) attempt to refute James’ article; to see just some of the multitudinous failures of Slick’s “response,” see my blog post

Some comments on Matt Slick's Attempt to Refute James Stutz on 1 Timothy 6:16

Matt Slick is Wrong on Soteriology

Recently, Matt Slick appeared on Sam Shamoun's youtube page to defend Sola Fide (as understood within his Reformed understanding). Needless to say, he was very slick with his biblical interpretation:

Matt Slick on the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Fide

To see why Slick is simply wrong, see, for e.g.:

Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness --cf. λογιζομαι in texts contemporary with the New Testament:

Part 1 (LXX Apocrypha)

Part 2 (Greek Pseudepigrapha)

Part 3 (Apostolic Fathers)

Part 4 (Josephus)

Part 5 (Philo)

Part 6 (Modern Lexical Sources)

Part 7 (Summary)

Does LDS Theology Confuse the Relationship Between Justification and Sanctification?

Refuting Douglas Wilson on Water Baptism and Salvation

Full Refutation of the Protestant Interpretation of John 19:30 (Slick made a huge fuss about the meaning of τετελεσται)

1 Corinthians 3:15: a very un-Protestant Biblical Verse

Does the Parable of the Pharisee and Tax Collector (Luke 18:9-14) Support Sola Fide?

Udo Schnelle on the Dynamic Relationship Between God's Drawing of Man to Himself and Genuine Human Freedom in the Gospel of John (refutes Slick's eisegesis of John 6:37, 44)

Does Galatians 2:20 and Colossians 2:14 support Forensic Justification?

Can our works save us? Refuting sola fide

Dave Bartosiewicz vs. Transformative Justification (cf. Refutation of Dave Bartosiewicz on justification and the atonement being forensic and Response to Leon Morris on -οω verbs and the meaning of δικαιοω)

King David Refutes Reformed Soteriology (on Romans 4 and Paul's use of David)

 Jeff Durbin on Luke 7:35, James 2, and Justification

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology

Interestingly, Slick claims that those who hold to baptismal regeneration (which would include Luther and many Protestants, modern and historical) are going to hell, and even claimed that the author of 1 Clement taught against baptismal regeneration! For a refutation of this, see:

No, 1 Clement does not teach Sola Fide

To address just one verse Slick abuses, he claims that Gal 5:4 supports his Reformed theology and is only addressing those with a false faith, not a saving faith--in other words, it does not refute the P of TULIP ("perseverance of the saints"). In his translation of Gal 5:4, Craig Keener rendered the verse thusly:

You who seek to be righted by the law have been cut off from Christ; you’ve fallen away from God’s abundant generosity.

Keener notes, Paul is actually teaching true believers can lose their salvation:

Cut off (καταργεω, katargeō) is the language of annulling something (as in 3:17) or rendering it ineffective (as in 5:11). It follows naturally from the idea of Christ no longer being of benefit to them (5:2) . . . it would seem special pleading to take Paul’s warnings of apostasy as something less than a real possibility. Paul elsewhere warns gentile believers that if they fall from faith, they too will be cut off as were Jewish people who failed to believe (Rom. 11:22; c. 8:13). Paul disciplines himself in order to avoid being disqualified (αδοκιμος, adokimos, 1 Cor. 9:27), going on to warn the Corinthians that despite their spiritual resources, they could be struck down as were many Israelites in the wilderness (10:1-11); they must stand and avoid falling (10:12). They must examine themselves to make sure that they remain in the faith and are not disqualified (αδοκιμος, 2 Cor. 13:5-6). Had persecution moved the Thessalonians to abandon faith in Christ, Paul’s labor among them would have been in vain (1 Thess. 3:5). Colossian believers would be presented blameless before God, provided they continued in the faith (Col. 1:23). Paul’s concern was their ultimate salvation; he does not address the question of some individuals falling away, yet later returning, since the conditions that facilitated their falling to begin with usually precluded their interest in returning. Gentile sources do reveal that many who had become Christians reconverted back to paganism afterward.

Already in Scripture, if the righteous turn to the way of sin, their righteousness will be forgotten (Ezek. 18:24, 27; 33:12-13, 18), but I the wicked turn to righteousness, they will live (33:14-16, 19). Jewish people lamented apostasy (1 Macc. 1:41-51), with some Jewish sects believing that even members of other Jewish sects had abandoned righteousness (e.g., 1QpHab 8.9). Some expected apostasy as one of the tragic signs of the end time (e.g., 1 En. 9:17; T. Iss. 6:1; T. Naph. 4:1; 3 En. 48A:5-6; m. Soṭah 9:15; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:9; Pesiq. Rab. 15:14/15; cf. 4 Ezra 5:1-2; 14:16-18) as under previous persecutions. Early Judaism divided regarding whether apostates would be forgiven if they repented. Paul probably also envisioned the prophesied end-time apostasy (Mark 13:12-13; Matt. 24:12) as already occurring in his day (cf. 2 Thess. 2:3). Subsequent centuries of Christian thought also required perseverance in the faith.

Corinthians’ sexual sin contradicted Christian faith (1 Cor. 6:9-20), but Galatians were in danger of abandoning faith in Christ no less by adding to (and thus subtracting from) the faith. Like baptism, circumcision functioned as a demarcation, a rite of passage into a given community (in this case, of ethnicity; in the case of Christian baptism, of faith). By going under the law as if their baptism was inadequate, they would essentially deny the efficacy of their baptism. Paul certainly did not teach the popular doctrine today of “once saved, always saved”; a convert does not regularly move in and out of the saved community, but a convert who deconverts is again a nonbeliever. (Craig S. Kenner, Galatians: A Commentary [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2019], 453, 454-56)

Commenting on this text, Don Garlington, a New Testament scholar and leading advocate for the New Perspective on Paul, wrote the following which supports this thesis that this passage refutes eternal security:

Paul is worried not about circumcision as an isolated act or as a thing in itself, but rather what it will lead to: the endeavor to be justified “in the law.” The most emphatic element of the verse is placed forward into the clause: “You have been severed from Christ” (NASB). The verb translated “severed” (katargeō) frequently means to make ineffective or nullify (BDAG, 525). In the present cast, it signifies the dissolution of a relationship, namely the Galatians’ former (covenant) relationship to Christ. But commentators point out that the verb can mean “cut off.” If this usage was in Paul’s mind at all, then there would be a deliberate play on circumcision: those who “cut” the flesh are “cut off” from Christ. A formal commitment to the Torah through circumcision is equivalent to ending the relationship with the Christ of Paul’s gospel . . . If those who want to be justified in the law have severed their relationship with Christ, they have, but the nature of the case, “fallen away from grace.” The verb “fall away” (ekpiptō) is used of a withering flower falling from its stem to the ground (Jas 1:11; 1 Pet 1:24) or of a ship failing to hold its course (Acts 27:26, 29). “God’s grace in Christ . . . is like the stem which supports the flower and through which the life-sustaining sustenance flows. Or like the channel which leads to safety between the rocks of disaster, a course from which they were in danger of being driven, by dangerous currents and cross winds” (Dunn, Galatians, 268-69). (Don Garlington, An Exposition of Galatians: A Reading from the New Perspective [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 2007], 299-300)

Obviously the apostle Paul did not share Slick's (heretical) understanding of the security of the believer.

Slick vs. Bonocore on the Canon

In a radio debate on Mary’s role in salvation, Matt Slick was questioned by Catholic apologist, Mark Bonocore, on how Slick knows the Gospel of Matthew is divinely-inspired Scripture:

Bonocore: Why do you believe that Matthew is the inspired word of God?

Slick: Because Matthew is inspired and because the church . . . recognises the voice of God because Jesus says in John 10:27-28, "My sheep hear my voice and they follow me." So the inspired word of God came down through Matthew and we know it is the inspired word of God.

Firstly, one cannot help but be amazed at the circular reasoning from Slick—Matthew is scripture because Matthew is scripture. Slick would (correctly) not accept a Muslim saying “The Qur’an is the Word of God as the Qur’an is the Word of God, ergo, the Qur’an is the Word of God,” but Slick, as a presuppostionalist, accepts circular reasoning as valid when it comes to his flavour of Reformed theology.

Secondly, Slick has to appeal to the authority of the Church  (whether it be the early Church or the Protestant churches Slick recognises as "true" churches) and its recognition of Matthew as inspired scripture as one basis of his acceptance of the Gospel of Matthew. However, such is antithetical to sola scriptura as Slick has to privilege this recognition as being authoritative en par with Scripture itself, a violation of sola scriptura which teaches all other authorities are subordinated to the Bible.

Thirdly, John 10 is not about the scope and limits of the biblical canon, so Slick is engaging in gross eisegesis. However, such is the solution forced upon Slick and other Protestants--they have to argue that the Bible determines itself (again, circular reasoning). The context is not speaking about esoteric subjects such as how one determines the extent of the biblical canon. Instead, it is speaking about simple obedience to Jesus' commands. Further, since Jesus never says what constitutes the canon in this passage (an impossibility, anyway, as Jesus and the New Testament church lived during a time of inscripturation!), how can one expect His listeners to "hear his voice" on that specific issue? Again, as with his botched interpretation of 1 Cor 4:6 to support sola scriptura, Slick is again guilty of further misinterpretation ("cultic eisegesis" if you will, as he is fond of the "cult" term).

Lastly, in this debate, Slick tells Bonocore that, if God wanted to, He would have impregnated Mary without her permission. As I said before—the “god” of Calvinism is a divine rapist and author of sin. As Clark Pinnock once said, "[Calvinism makes] God some kind of a terrorist who goes around handing out torture or disaster and even is willing people to do things the Bible says God hates"

Some comments on Matt Slick's Attempt to Refute James Stutz on 1 Timothy 6:16

Matt Slick has recently written an article attempting to respond to James Stutz, Can a Man See God? 1 Timothy 6:16 in Light of Ancient and Modern Revelation. I will interact with some of Matt's comments showing that, in spite of his popularity, his inabilities at exegesis is mediocre at best; non-existent at worst.

One of the arguments presented in support of this is that God the Father cannot be seen by mortal men as the Scriptures teach in John 6:46 and 1 Timothy 6:16

Just on John 6:46, let me just state that, according to Craig Keener, a competent biblical scholar, noted that in some Jewish and Christian traditions a mortal could see God if his vision was supernaturally enhanced or is his life was spared through God’s mercy (The Gospel of John [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2003], 1:143 n. 570). Such is consistent with D&C 67:11 and James’ arguments.

In other words, he assumes the validity of Mormonism and begins with the assumption that Joseph Smith actually saw God the Father. This is a logical fallacy called begging the question where a person assumes the validity of the thing he is trying to prove.  Mr. Stutz does this by assuming that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God and then argues from Smith's statements as revealed in D&C, which you'll see later.

Slick is also begging the question here; apart from his lack of exegetical abilities resulting in a lot of poor arguments, much of Slick’s arguments are based on his a priori assumption of sola scriptura. I have discussed this false doctrine a number of times on this blog, and to see how Slick cannot defend this doctrine, see my article responding to his comments on 1 Cor 4:6 and his radio debate with Robert Sungenis.

Here is a question for Slick: Where in the Bible does not it tell us that special revelation ceased with the inscripturation of the final book of the New Testament? He will not be able to make an exegetically-sound argument.

My Trinitarian position is that the passage correctly describes the Father as the only one having immortality. Of course, the context is key

This would mean that there is an ontological difference between the Father and the two other persons of the Trinity, so Slick is shooting himself in the foot by using this “argument.”

Perhaps Mr. Stutz does not realize that the apostle knew Jesus was resurrected and was in an immortal, glorified state.

This is a dodge. Resurrected persons are made immortal in Slick's theology, so discussing the resurrected person (not only his mere human nature) of Jesus being immortal is Slick dodging the real issue which James raises.

Jesus is referring to all of the Old Testament appearances of God and says no one has ever seen the Father - except himself. We know this is the case because Jesus was sent from the Father (John 4:34; 5:24; 6:38).  In addition, the perfect tense "has seen" deals with the past, not the present, and not the future.therefore, all of the appearances of God in the Old Testament were not God the Father. However, we know that God Almighty was seen (Exodus 6:2-3) but it was not the Father (John 6:46).  Logically we would say that the appearances of God in the Old Testament are the pre-incarnate Christ.

Again, Slick dodges the real issue that James raises in the article vis-a-vis Trinitarian Christology. In this theology, the Father and the Son (as well as the Spirit) are the same substance of one another, so he is again dodging the issue with respect to man seeing "God"; if the Father cannot be seen due to the glory/immortality he intrinsically has, the same must apply to the pre-incarnate second person of the Trinity. Sick's arguments refute his Trinitarian Christology.

One text that refutes Slick’s absolutised reading of 1 Tim 6:16 is that of Acts 7:55-56 where Stephen sees both the Father and the Son, something similar to Joseph Smith’s experience in 1820.

But he [Stephen], being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God. And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. (Acts 7:55-56 [KJV])

Some may claim that Stephen only saw the “glory” of God (v.55), but only if one isolates this verse from the proceeding verse that speaks of Jesus being at the “right hand” of God (the Father). 

A typical response to LDS usage of this verse as evidence for our theology is that the term, “right hand” can be used in a metaphorical sense. Therefore, they argue, it is being used in a metaphorical sense in this passage. There are a couple of things wrong with this approach, most notably it is the fallacy of undistributed middle—

First premise: Some instances of “right hand” are metaphorical.

Second premise: “Right hand” is used in Acts 7:55-56

Conclusion: Therefore, the use of the term, “right hand” is metaphorical in Acts 7:55-56.

The predicates in both the major and minor premises does not exhaust all the occurrences of this term and would therefore not necessitate such an interpretation in Acts 7:55-56. A more non-dogmatic and accurate conclusion would be that Acts 7:55-56 could have a metaphorical meaning, but such should be said with much caution as the argument for such a meaning is not nearly as simplistic as critics would like it to be.

It is true that the term can be used in a sense of authority (e.g. Biden is Obama’s “right hand man”). However, to claim that this is how it is to be interpreted in Acts 7:55-56 is eisegesis. This passage is describing what Stephen saw in vision; it is not a metaphorical for the relationship Jesus has with Father vis-à-vis authority. Indeed, what is being described is the spatial-relationship between the Father and the Son. Those who critique the LDS understanding have to ignore the literary genre of this pericope. Furthermore, the author of Acts 7:55-56 is alluding to a Messianic text from the Old Testament, Psa 110:1 (109:1, LXX). The LXX of this verse reads:

τῷ Δαυιδ ψαλμός εἶπεν ὁ κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου ἕως ἂν θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου

Psalm of David: The Lord said to my lord, sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool (my translation)

Here, the first Lord (in the Hebrew, Yahweh) says to a second lord (adoni in Hebrew, meaning “my lord”) to sit at his right hand. The only meaningful, and exegetically sound interpretation of this verse is that the second lord is sitting at the right-hand of God, and not that he is the “right-hand man” of God (though he does indeed serve as God’s vizier, to be sure).

In Trinitarian theology, there is an allowance (albeit, an ambiguous one) for a distinction between the persons of the Father, Son and Spirit (e.g. the Father is not the Son). However, there is no allowance for a distinction between “God” and any of the persons. However, the Christology of the New Testament tends to distinguish “God” (θεος) from the Son, not simply the “Father” from the Son, as it does here, differentiating between ο θεος (literally, the God) from Jesus. Indeed, the other instances of the New Testament’s use of Psa 110:1 differentiates, not just the persons of the Father and the Son, but θεος and the Son. For instance, consider 1 Cor 15:22-28 and Heb 10:12-13:

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order. Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. Then cometh the end when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is expected, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God (θεος) may be all in all. (1 Cor 15:22-28)

But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God (θεος); From henceforth expecting till his enemies would be made a footstool for his feet. (Heb 10:12-13)

In both these pericopes, Psa 110:1 is used, and clearly, a distinction is made between, not just the persons of the Father and the Son (which is accepted, equivocatingly, by Trinitarian theology), but God (θεος) and Jesus, a distinction not tolerated by Trinitarianism, and something one also finds in Acts 7:55-56.

LDS apologist, Jeff Lindsay, provides a good LDS interaction with this pericope and common objections to its use here.

If Matt Slick will reject the Prophet Joseph Smith's claim to have seen the Father in the First Vision, consistently, he will have to reject the account in Acts 7:55-56.

James Stutz vs. Matt Slick on Spiritual Experiences

In a post earlier from today, I discussed how Reformed apologists such as Scott Oliphant and Norman Geisler ground their belief in the truth of the Bible on spiritual experiences, similar to the "Mormon testimony" (cf. Moroni 10:3-5) (click here). James Stutz, a fellow LDS apologist, has an article refuting Matt Slick and his hypocrisy on the issue of praying about the Book of Mormon in an article, "Having his cake and eating it too: Matt Slick," James discusses Slick's own testimony and how incredibly subjective it is. Not surprising, considering Slick's pathetic exegetical abilities.

Matt Slick on the meaning of τετελεσται ("it is finished") in John 19:30

Recently, Matt Slick had a discussion of John 19:30 and the meaning of τετελεσται ("it is finished"). Here is the link to the particular section:

Matt Slick Live, 10/18/19 (cf. Tony Mianao's article, “It is Finished!” Jesus does not need your help on Slick's CARM Website)

I will let the readers of this blog post to listen to his discussion and compare and contrast such with the following:

Full Refutation of the Protestant Interpretation of John 19:30

Be sure to also see:

Does Galatians 2:20 and Colossians 2:14 support Forensic Justification?

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology

Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness

(Note: The question was the result of someone reading some books by Scott Hahn on the Eucharist. This should not be seen as a defence of Hahn's theology of [1] the "fourth cup" interpretation of τετελεσται and [2] the dogmas about the Mass--see Responses to Robert Sungenis, Not by Bread Alone (2000/2009) for a listing of articles addressing such issues)

Sam Shamoun vs. Matt Slick on Limited Atonement

 Last Night Sam Shamoun debated Matt Slick on the "L" of TULIP:

Sam Shamoun Vs Matt Slick: Is Limited Atonement Biblical?

While I strongly disagree with Shamoun on many topics, he did not just win this debate--he destroyed Slick's arguments and (blasphemous) Calvinistic theology.

For more problems with Reformed theology, see:

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology

Calvinism Debate - Matt Slick vs Steve Gregg

The following is a good debate between Matt Slick (Reformed) and Steve Gregg (Arminian). I think that, while Slick did a good job at presenting the Reformed perspective on the relevant texts and issues, Gregg did a better job of showing how unbiblical Calvinism is.


Calvinism Debate - Matt Slick vs Steve Gregg

Answering Matt Slick on 1 Timothy 3:15 and Sola Scriptura

Matt Slick has recently posted another article attempting to “prove” sola scriptura by using 1 Tim 3:15:

Does 1 Timothy 3:15 refute Sola Scriptura, Scripture Alone?

This is not the first time that Matt has, in an attempt to support Sola Scriptura, has shown that he lacks any exegetical abilities. See, for instance:

Does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura? Part 9: 1 Corinthians 4:6

Refuting Matt Slick on Hebrews 7:4-10 and Sola Scriptura

1 Tim 3:15 reads as follows:

But in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of truth. (1995 NASB)

Commenting on this passage, Slick writes that:

[Paul] is writing to them (Scripture), so that they would know how to behave in the household of God.  In other words, his writing (which is Scripture) is the thing that is preeminent and to which the church is to subject itself.  He says, " . . . I write so that you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God . . . " . . . But, we see from Paul's statement in the verse that his letter is there to tell the church how to behave.  In other words, the church is to submit to Scripture--not Scripture to the church.  It is not the tradition that informs the word of God but the word of God that informs tradition in the church.

There are many problems with Slick’s eisegesis of this passage to support sola scriptura.

Firstly, Paul was writing to Timothy, bishop of Ephesus, at a time of special revelation. Even according to Protestant apologists, sola scriptura would not be something Paul et al. taught as, to teach and practice sola scriptura, there must first be tota scriptura. As Robert Sungenis noted:

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: 2009], pp. 101-53, here p. 118 n. 24])

So, even if sola scriptura is a true doctrine, 1 Tim 3:15 could not be teaching such. This is supported further by the fact that, during ministry of Paul, non-inscripturated revelation was privileged en par with inscripturated revelation; this is inconsistent with sola scriptura, as only written revelation is the ultimate authority and all other sources of truth are to be subordinated to such:

Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances [Gk.: παραδοσις "tradition"], as I delivered them to you. (1 Cor 11:2)

For I received from the Lord that which also I delivered unto you . . . (1 Cor 11:23)

For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. (1 Thess 2:13)

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. (2 Thess 2:15)

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. (2 Thess 3:6)

 While other refutations to Slick can be provided, let us focus on one more--the New Testament Church's own understanding of the nature of the Church's authority. We see this explicitly in the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 where it is, ultimately, the authority of the Church, not the Scriptures, that results in the dogmatic decision vis-á-vis Gentile converts and circumcision.

True, there is an appeal to an Old Testament text, viz. Amos 9:11 (LXX) by James (seemingly, who is the bishop of Jerusalem, per tradition). The text is used as Old Testament support for the belief that Gentiles do not have to be circumcised before entering the New Covenant. 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. In Acts 15:13–17, James appeals to Amos 9:11–12 in an effort to support through scripture the taking of the gospel directly to the Gentiles and the cessation of circumcision. It even seems James’ quotation helps settle the debate. The critical portion of Amos 9 reads

In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this. (Amos 9:11)

This reading comes from LXX Amos, although there is a bit of movement. 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).

Furthermore, 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.

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.

Notwithstanding, Acts 15:7 records Peter standing up and addressing the apostles and elders. Three times in this speech he invokes the name of God to back up his single authority to speak on this issue and make a decision for the whole Church. In verse 7 he says that God choose him, singularly, to give the gospel to the Gentiles. In Acts 15:10 he ridicules those who are pressing for circumcision by accusing them of affronting God and placing an undue yoke upon new believers. Peter concludes in verse 11 by declaring the doctrine of salvation - that men are saved by grace, not works of law, and only after that, does James stand up, as bishop of Jerusalem, and cite Amos 9:11-12. There is nothing in Acts 15 to support the formal sufficiency of Scripture; instead, it proves the authoritative teaching authority of the Church.

Unlike Matt slick the Bible itself affirms a much higher view of the "Church" than he will allow. Latter-day Saints are reflective of "Biblical Christianity" on this point; Slick's ecclesiology and epistemology are not just sub-biblical; they are anti-biblical.

 As we see, another "proof-text" used by Protestant apologists to support sola scriptura is revealed to be based on pure eisegesis.

Robert Sungenis vs. Matt Slick on Sola Scriptura

Here is an mp3 of a debate between Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis and Matt Slick, a Reformed Presbyterian and president of CARM. The topic was supposed to be the Bodily Assumption of Mary, but it quickly moved onto the issue of sola scriptura. While I disagree with Sungenis on the topic of Mariology, especially when they briefly discussed/debated the meaning of κεχαριτωμένη in Luke 1:28 (though Slick did a poor job on this verse, too) and on other issues, Slick lost--badly--on the overall discussion of sola scriptura (he even appealed to 1 Cor 4:6[!] to support this doctrine). Admittedly, it is fun to hear Slick get “owned” as young people like to say, showing his lack of exegetical abilities and consistency.

Sungenis contributed to, and edited, one of the best volumes critiquing this false doctrine, Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Queenship, 1997) which I highly recommend to Latter-day Saints who interact with Evangelicals on a regular basis. Remember, if sola scriptura is false the entirety of Protestantism collapses into the man-made heap that it truly is.

Matt Slick Gives the Game Away and Reveals the Truly Satanical Nature of Calvinism

 When asked why the Bible is not explicit about the Trinity (e.g., there being no verse that reads like "this is life eternal, to know thee, the only true God: Father, Son, and Spirit"), Matt Slick was honest (and by being honest, reveals the truly Satanical nature of Calvinism, a theological system other anti-Mormons like Bowman, White, and Durbin affirm):

Why would God not be so explicit like that? I believe it's because there are people who are not predestined to be saved and He hides the truth from those who are going to hell. ("After show of debate, Trinity vs Unity with Slick vs Xavier" [31:25 mark])

Slick then appeals to Mark 4:10-12 to support this thesis. I think Leighton Flowers did a good job answering the Calvinistic abuse of Jesus and why He taught in parables:

The Real Reason Jesus Spoke In Parables

Calvinism is a Satanical system, and it is not a fluke that really pitiful individuals (Bowman; Eklund; Anson; Durbin; Slick; Shafovaloff) hold to it—a false religious system that does not bring about regeneration.

For more, see:

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology

Gerry Matatics vs. Matt Slick on Sola Scriptura, the Canon, Justification, and other topics

Gerry Matatics, a former Presbyterian who is now a Sedevacantist (the "Home Aloner" type) debated with Matt Slick of CARM. The first discussion was on Roman Catholicism broadly (e.g., justification; sola scriptura; status of the Apocrypha/Deutero-canon, etc):

Roman Catholicism Open discussion, 4/3/2018

The second debate (available on Gerry Matatics' facebook page [not on youtube at the time of writing]) was on justification.

While I disagree with Matatics on many issues, one has to declare him the winner (by a mile) over Slick--Slick engaged in special pleading, double standards, and other fallacies as well as eisegesis, similar to his debate with Robert Sungenis where Slick got destroyed.

Matt Slick vs. Jesse Morrell on Free Will

The following is the video of a recent debate between Jesse Morrell and Matt Slick on Free Will vs. the Reformed view of Election:

IMO, Slick embarrasses himself in this debate, including dancing around the theological problem Cornelius poses to Calvinism.

The book that is cited in this debate is The Natural Ability of Man: A Study on Free Will and Human Nature which provides some good arguments against Total Depravity.

What comes out in this debate is that Slick is autistic (he mentions this during the Q&A). This explains a number of things about Slick, including his inability to engage in two-way conversations (exemplified in his radio debates with Robert Sungenis) and ability to follow linguistically-led logic (something Trinitarians suffer from--Trinitarian apologists tend to suffer from a "spiritual autism")

Slick vs. Morrell Debate on the Atonement

The following video is that of a debate between Matt Slick (Reformed Presbyterian) and Jesse Morrell (Arminian/Open Theist) on the nature and extent of the atonement:

While it is annoying to watch at times, especially as Matt Slick was his disingenuous self at times, it does show the many logical and biblical problems with Limited Atonement and Penal Substitution.

Furthermore, Slick is dead-wrong in his eisegesis of Col 2:14. See, for instance, my article Does Galatians 2:20 and Colossians 2:14 support Forensic Justification? As I argued in this paper, Col 2:14 is about the "ordinances" of the Law of Moses. The Greek term τοις δογμασιν means "the ordinances" and is coupled with χειρογραφων, referring to a written record of one's debts/sins under this division of the Law of Moses.

In the parallel text in Ephesians, we read the following which supports this interpretation (emphasis added):

For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us.He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace, (Eph 2:14-15, NRSV)

Furthermore, on the meaning of the term χειρόγραφον Protestants E.K. Simpson and F.F. Bruce wrote the following in their Commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1957):

Gk. χειρόγραφον, a term (found also in Plutarch and Artemidorus) very common in the papyri, among which many original χειρόγραφα have been preserved (cf. G. A. Deissmann, Bible Studies [Edinburgh, 1909], p. 247). Cf. also Moulton-Milligan, VGT, p. 687. J. A. T. Robinson (op. cit., p. 43 n.) describes this χειρόγραφον as “our written agreement to keep the law, our certificate of debt to it” (he compares the undertakings of Ex. 24:3; Deut. 27:14–26). But our failure to keep the law has turned this certificate into a bond held against us to prove our guilt. It is this bond, representing the power which the law has over us, rather than the law itself, which Paul views as cancelled by Christ. This is decidedly preferable to E. Lohmeyer’s view that the χειρόγραφον represents an I.O.U. (a Schuldschein) which Adam gave to the devil in Paradise at the time of the fall of man (MK, pp. 116 f.).

Elsewhere, they write the following which shows the problematic nature of Slick and other Reformed readings of this verse:

He removed it (Gk. ἦρκεν ἐκ τοῦ μέσου); this removal is elaborated in two figures: He blotted it out (Gk. ἐξαλείψας), He nailed it to His cross (Gk. προσηλώσας αὐτὸ τῷ σταυρῷ). According to Deissmann, papyrus debt-records illustrate the popular appeal of this double metaphor; the bond is first blotted out and then cancelled (Paul [Eng. tr., London, 1926], p. 172). We may compare two successive petitions in the Jewish prayer Abinu Malkenu: “Our Father, our King! blot out our transgressions, and make them pass away from before thine eyes. Our Father, our King! erase in thine abundant mercies all the records of our debts” (cf. S. Singer, The Authorised Daily Prayer Book [London, 1939], p. 56). As for the bold conception of the cancelled bond being nailed to the cross of Christ, Deissmann thinks of the cancellation of a bond or similar document by crossing it out with the Greek cross-letter X (chi) (Light from the Ancient East [London, 1927], p. 333). But would σταυρός suggest the X shape? (The Greek word for such “crossing out” is χιάζω.) On the “supposed ‘ancient custom’ of cancelling a bond by driving a nail through it” see F. Field, op. cit., pp. 195 f.; he can find no real authority for it, and thinks rather of the custom of hanging up spoils of war in temples (but it is unlikely that any such analogy was in Paul’s mind).