For a while now, Michael Thomas has been running from debating me on the topic of Sola Scriptura. I can see why. On June 15, 2025, he posted an article attempting to defend this doctrine and principle (indeed, it is the formal doctrine [not principle merely] of the Reformation):
Sola
Scriptura; is it Biblical?
This is just a re-hash of a lot of the points Thomas and
other low-tier Protestants have made in the past; for a thorough refutation,
see, for e.g.:
Not
By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura
See also my previous response to Thomas on the Latter-day
Saint view of the Bible:
Latter-day
Saints and the Bible (cf. Listing
of articles refuting Mike Thomas and Tony Brown of Reachout Trust)
For example, after quoting Deut 18:20-22 and other texts
(e.g., 1 Tim 3:12), Thomas concludes:
You will not find sola
scriptura taught in the Bible as a principle, but you will find it
exampled all over the text of Scripture. Passages of Scripture like those
above, and many more, only make sense if you have an established canon, an
authoritative standard, against which to test yourself, your understanding,
your life and faith, and the claims to prophesy. It only works in light of the
teaching of sola scriptura.
The problem is that this is an impossibility during the
times Moses, Paul, et al., wrote these and other passages Thomas quotes from as
they were living during times of public revelation and inscripturation of new scriptures.
Sola Scriptura is an exegetical impossibility during such periods of
time, even according to Protestant theologians. For example, in his article, “A
Review and Rebuttal of Steve Ray’s Article, Why the Bereans Rejected Sola
Scriptura,” James Whtie wrote that
[there is an] errant belief that sola
scriptura is somehow contradicted by the [Bereans’] acceptance of “new
revelation,” as if sola scriptura is meant to be applied during times of
revelation rather than being a normative rule for the Church.
As David T. King wrote:
Contrary to persistent charges by Roman
apologists, Protestant Evangelicals do affirm the binding authority of
apostolic tradition as delivered by the apostles. What they preached and taught
in the first century Church was authoritatively binding on the consciences of
all Christians. . . . To be sure, all special revelation given by God is
authoritative and binding. There can be no doubt that the oral teaching of the
apostles and their approved representatives was both (1 Thess 2:13). (David T.
King, Holy Scripture: The Ground And Pillar of our Faith, 3 vols.
[Battle Creek, Mich.: Chrisitan Resources, 2001), 1:55, 145)
In other words, other sources than inscripturated
revelation, were authoritative and binding during New Testament times, for
example, including when Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles.
This also allows us to show how bad an exegete (“piss poor,”
to be blunt) Thomas is. In a previous article, in an attempt to downplay the texts
speaking positively about “tradition” Thomas wrote that:
The word [in 1 Cor 11:2] is paradosis
and simply means surrendering, giving up, the passing on of something.
In this case, what is passed on is instruction, precepts, teaching. Tradition
doesn’t mean the content of what is passed on, but simply the act of passing it
on, the definition we agreed on above. (“What is a Magisterium,” Bride of
Reason blog, Decemer 1, 2020)
However, in reality, this oral tradition is the content
of instruction and teaching, not the mere act of passing on something. Consider
these sources:
Louw-Nida
33.239 παράδοσις, εως f: (derivative of παραδίδωμιc ‘to
instruct,’ 33.237) the content of traditional instruction—‘teaching,
tradition.’ διὰ τί οἱ μαθηταί σου παραβαίνουσιν τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων;
‘why is it that your disciples disobey the tradition of our ancestors?’ Mt
15:2.
BDAG
. . .
2. the content of instruction that has been handed down, tradition,
of teachings, commandments, narratives et al . . . Pl. of individual
teachings 1 Cor 11:2 (w. παραδιδόναι); 2
Th 2:15 . . .
TDNT
παράδοσις.
In the NT this means
“tradition” (→ παραδίδωμι,
6.) only in the sense of what is transmitted, not of transmission. In this
sense, it does not occur in the LXX, but is found in Philo and Joseph. and in
Greek generally, though it less common than in the other sense.
1. In the disputation in
Mk. 7 (Mt. 15), Jesus calls Jewish tradition outside the Law the παράδοσις τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, Mk. 7:3, 5 (Mt. 15:2).
He also speaks of the παράδοσις τῶν ἀνθρώπων in
Mk. 7:8 or ὑμῶν in v. 9, Mt.
15:3, 6. In Joseph. we find such expressions as τὰ ἐκ παραδόσεως τῶν πατέρων
(Ant., 13, 297); τὴν πατρῴαν παράδοσιν
(Ant., 13, 409); τῇ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων παραδόσει
(Ant., 10, 51). In Philo Spec. Leg., IV, 150 we have αὐτῶν (γονέων) ἡ παράδοσις.
The Heb. equivalent is מסרה sometimes with the addition הַזְּקֵנִים
or in the plural. The Pharisees regarded unwritten tradition as no less binding
than the Law. . . .
2. For Paul Christian teaching is
tradition (1 C. 11:2; 2 Th. 2:15; 3:6; cf. 1 C. 11:23; 15:1–11), and he demands
that the churches should keep to it, since salvation depends on it
(1 C. 15:2). .
. .(TDNT 2:172)
To quote one Lutheran scholar (and proponent of sola
scriptura):
A “tradition” is any deliverance,
any bit of instruction, any principle, and any rule of conduct which Paul
handed over to the Corinthians when he was in their midst. (R. C. H. Lenski, The
Interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second Epistle to the Corinthians [Minneapolis,
Minn.: Augsburg Publishing House, 1963], 431-32)
Let us also examine the Old Testament era:
An Example of A Binding,
Authoritative Oral Tradition that is part of the “Word of God” but was never
part of the Bible
Consider the liturgical reforms of Kings Hezekiah and
Josiah:
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
29:35)
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 these texts, 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 is 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 yet King Hezekiah (and
later, Josiah with the non-extant writings of David and Solomon) clearly
understood them to be as authoritative
and binding as inscripturated revelation.
As Gregory Krehbiel (former Protestant) noted:
The fact that these words from
God were never included in the [Old Testament] canon had absolutely nothing to
do with the matter. These words from God, not preserved in Scriptures were
consulted and applied authoritatively by the reformers [spoken of in 2
Chronicles]. The passages in 2 Chronicles are very clear and straightforward
refutations of sola scriptura . . . (Gregory
Krehbiel, "A Critical Look at Sola Scriptura" (1993), as quoted in
Patrick Madrid, "Sola Scriptura: A Blueprint for Anarchy," in Not
By Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola
Scriptura, ed. Robert A. Sungenis [2d ed.; State Line, Pa.: Catholic
Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2013], 14)
Again, we see that Mike Thomas of Reachout Trust is clueless
and is a false teacher. He must engage in eisegesis and blatant deception to support the man-made tradition of Sola Scriptura.
