Tuesday, March 31, 2020

Protestant Apologist Eryl Davies' Attempt to Prove Sola Scriptura


Today I read the following book by a Reformed Protestant apologist and “counter-cult” activist:

Eryl Davies, Truth Under Attack: Cults and Contemporary Religions (Durham: Evangelical Press, 1990)

As with so many works by Protestants, the attempt to defend Sola Scriptura, the formal doctrine of the Reformation, was weak and void of any meaningful attempt at exegesis. Do not take my word for it. Here are his attempts to (lamely) defend this doctrine.

In the chapter responding to Roman Catholicism, we read:

What the Bible teaches

1. The sixty-six canonical books of the Bible are a sufficient revelation of God to man and sufficient for all matters of faith and conduct (cf. 2 Timothy 3:15-16; Luke 16:29; Acts 17:11).
2. Whenever the Lord Jesus spoke of tradition, he condemned it and warned his people against it (see Matthew 15:3, 6, 9; Mark 7:8-9, 13; cf. Deuteronomy 4:2; Colossians 2:8; Revelation 22:18-19).
3. The church both in the Old and New Testaments submitted itself to the Word of God proclaimed by the prophets and apostles. (p. 33)

Responding to Unitarian churches, the following “proof-texts” are used to support Sola Scriptura:

‘To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to his word, it is because there is no light in them’ (Isaiah 8:20, AV).
‘Thy word is truth’ (John 17:17)
‘Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe’ (1 Corinthians 1:20-21).
‘Bu a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised’ (1 Corinthians 2:14). (p. 76)

In his chapter on the Latter-day Saints, these “proof-texts” are offered:

‘All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate for every good work’ (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
‘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’ (2 Peter 1:20-21; cf. Revelation 22:18-19). (p. 104)

In a chapter attempting to defend the Reformed Protestant understanding of the authority of the Bible, the author commits the common “the ‘Word of God’ is one-to-one equivalent to ‘the Bible’” fallacy:

The Bible is no ordinary book; in fact, it is described as ‘the Word of God’ (1 Thessalonians 2:13) or ‘thy Word’ (John 17:17). This is the only book which we can safely trust and use .. . Our Lord Jesus is an example to us in this respect to the authority of God’s Word by telling his enemy three times, ‘It is written’ (Matthew 4:4, 7, 10). Altogether, the Lord used the phrase, ‘It is written’ on another fifteen occasions, particularly when answering people’s questions. For the Lord Jesus Christ, the words and teachings of Scripture settled all these questions. Similarly, God’s Word alone should determine what we believe and how we live . . . the Bible is ‘the living and abiding Word of God’ (1 Peter 1:23). Quoting Isaiah 40:7-8, Peter tells us, ‘All flesh is like grass, and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flowers fall off, but the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ The Bible never changes and will always remain the only true and relevant Word of God. (pp. 259-60, 261; notice how “Scripture,” for Davies, is exhausted by “the Bible”; on prophets changing their written words and the words of prior prophets, see Biblical Prophets Changing their Words and the Words of Previous Prophets; I will note that, in the above, 1 Thess 2:13, in context, refers to the oral tradition as being as inspired as the written word, contradicting his naïve “all tradition is false” argument!)

All these arguments and proof-texts have been answered in great detail in my book-length study and refutation of this doctrine:


I will let people read Davies' attempt to defend this doctrine and my response to Sola Scriptura and see who engages in exegesis and who relies upon bald assertion and eisegesis.

If Protestant apologists wish to be taken seriously, and genuinely want non-Protestants to consider their theology, they should try to engage in meaningful exegesis of the relevant texts, not make fallacious arguments (thinking “Word of God” is synonymous with “the Bible”) and that texts such as 2 Tim 3:16-17 and Rev 22:18-19 are meaningful texts in support of the formal sufficiency of the Bible. It also explains, in part, why so many anti-Mormons who are also Protestants are unwilling to have a moderated public debate where they defend Sola Scriptura--they know they would lose badly against an informed opponent.