In a video
entitled Living Prophets? Priesthood? Temples? Here are some Biblical answers, “It’s
Me Jessie” and her father John, discuss various topics. In the opening few
minutes, they try to defend the formal sufficiency
of the Bible, per the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (it should be noted that I
have challenged Jessie to debate this issue; if she wants to have her father
join her for a debate against me, I do not mind). In order to support this, the
formal doctrine of Protestantism, John appeals to two texts: Rev 22:18-19 and
Jude 1:3.
Rev 22:18-19
For I testify unto every man that heareth the
words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God
shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man
shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take
away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the
things which are written in this book.
According to
John, this text is support for the Protestant claim “that we have a complete,
perfect, full revelation. This only shows that he is guilty of eisegesis he and
his daughter claims LDS are guilty of (classic case of projection).
There are a number of points that refutes this rather naive reading of the text.
Firstly, it should be noted that
“the book” in Greek is του βιβλιου, which is a genitive neuter singular, that is, one book is in view here, not 66. Had the author wished to discuss more than one, he would have written των βιβλιων. John is only talking about Revelation, not the “Bible” (as anachronistic as that is).
Secondly, what John is doing is employing a curse against individuals who wished to corrupt the text of Revelation. In the ancient world, with there being no such thing as copyright, one would often call upon a divine curse on individuals who would consider corrupting their texts. Indeed, there are Old Testament parallels to such that shed light on Rev 22:18-19:
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you, (Deut 4:2)
What thing soever I command you to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. (Deut 12:32)
In his commentary on Revelation, Wilfrid H. Harrington wrote the following about this text and its relationship to ancient practices of an author calling down from heaven a divine curse on those who would tamper with their text:
“I warn everyone …”: it was fairly common practice for writers to append a warning of this kind to their books. John can be so firm because he does not regard himself as author of the book; the real author is, ultimately, God (1:1). For the third time in this passage (vv. 7, 12, 20) Christ, who gives his own solemn testimony to the contents of the book, assures his Church that he is coming soon. It is a response to the earnest prayer of the Church: “Come!” (v. 17), and a link with the promise at the start of the book: “Behold, he comes with the clouds” (1:7). But this time the promise stands in the liturgical context of the Eucharist. (Wilfrid H. Harrington, Revelation [Sacra Pagina, vol. 16; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2008], 226)
On Rev 22:18, he wrote:
18. I warn everyone: See Deut 4:2; 12:32. For a similar warning, see Letter of Aristeas, 311; 1 Enoch 104:10–11; 2 Enoch 48:74–75. (Ibid., 223)
1 Enoch 104:10-11, one of the extra-biblical texts referenced by Harrington, reads as follows:
[The words] of the truth they alter, and the sinners also write against and alter many (words). And they lie and form great inventions and compose scriptures in their names. And would that they would write all my words truthfully in their names; neither should they subtract nor alter these words, but should write all things truthfully, which I testify to them.
Letter of Aristeas 310-311 also reads thusly:
After the books had been read, the priests and the elders of the translators and the Jewish community and the leaders of the people stood up and said, that since so excellent and sacred and accurate a translation had been made, it was only right that it should remain as it was and no alteration should be made in it. And when the whole company expressed their approval, they bade them pronounce a curse in accordance with their custom upon any one who should make any alteration either by adding anything or changing in any way whatever any of the words which had been written or making any omission. This was a very wise precaution to ensure that the book might be preserved for all the future time unchanged.
If one wishes to absolutise Rev 22:18-19 in the way that some Evangelicals do to preclude extra-biblical revelations or other authorities external to the Bible, then they must hold to a much smaller canon, one that ends at Deuteronomy. Of course, both approaches would be based on equally shoddy interpretation (eisegesis).
Thirdly, it should be noted that, even allowing for special revelation to cease at the inscripturation of the final book of the New Testament (which many who hold to the traditional [90s AD] dating of the book of Revelation argue it to be) does
not “prove” sola scriptura. While it would disprove Latter-day Saint claims to authority (e.g., Joseph Smith being a prophet of God; the Book of Mormon, etc), it goes nowhere to show the
formal sufficiency of the Protestant canon of the Bible. Indeed, many groups who agree with Protestants that special revelation ceased at the death of the final apostle (e.g., Roman Catholicism; Eastern Orthodoxy) accept, at best, the
material sufficiency of the Bible (ignoring the Old Testament canon debate at the moment). To understand the difference between material and formal sufficiency here is one helpful analogy:
Formal Sufficiency: One has a completed house
Material Sufficiency: One has all the material to build a house
Protestant apologists, as usual, are forced to engage in question-begging and special pleading to support their flimsy case. For more on this issue, see Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and Theological Essay (London: Burns & Oates, 1966).
Jude 1:3
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
Protestants often appeal to this verse as (1) evidence of Sola Scriptura and (2) biblical evidence against the LDS view of the Great Apostasy. Representative of such an interpretation can be seen in the following comment from a Reformed Protestant:
[B]y adding to the Holy Scriptures their additional sacred books, the Mormons have undermined and overthrown "the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3) (Anthony A. Hoekema, The Four Major Cults [Exeter, UK: Paternoster Press, 1963], 33)
The term translated as "once" is απαξ. It simply means "once" and does not, in and of itself,
denote finality. Had Jude wished to convey such, he would have used εφαπαξ, which is used in the Greek NT for the once-for-all sacrifice and death of Christ (Rom 6:10; 1 Cor 15:6; Heb 7:27; 9:12; 10:10).
Notice how απαξ is used in the NT:
Thrice was I beaten with rods, once (απαξ) was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck a night and day I have been in the deep. (2 Cor 11:25)
For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again (απαξ) unto my necessity. (Phil 4:16)
Wherefore we would have come unto you, even I Paul, once and again (απαξ); but Satan hindered us. (1 Thess 2:18)
Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more (απαξ) I shake not the earth only, but also the heaven. (Heb 12:26)
Two verses later in this text, Jude again used απαξ:
I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once (απαξ) knew this, how that the Lord having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
LDS scholar, John Tvedtnes, commented on this verse thusly:
If the gospel (more correctly, faith) was to be delivered but once to men on the earth, then Paul would be wrong in writing that the gospel had been revealed earlier to Abraham (Galatians 3:8f). And if the gospel was revealed in the days of Jesus, never to disappear from the earth, there would be no necessity for the angel John saw coming in later times to reveal the gospel to the inhabitants of the earth (Revelation 14:6-7). We can either conclude that Jude 1:3 does not give the whole story, or we must conclude that the Bible contradicts itself. That is, the same argument used against Joseph Smith can be used against the writers of the biblical books, if one misinterprets this passage. (source: http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Restoration.shtml#jude)
The burden of evidence is on the person arguing their point that απαξ denotes once-for-all/sense of finality. Jude 1:3 is not evidence, however, for the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and/or evidence against the LDS understanding of the Great Apostasy.
What about the use of the aorist (translated "delivered") that John focuses on? According to John, this is support for the "Bible" being formally sufficient, notwithstanding that being an impossibility, as not all books of the New Testament were inscripturated when Jude wrote his epistle (e.g., most scholars believe 2 Peter was dependent upon Jude, so if John were consistent, 2 Peter and other letters after Jude are not inspired!), and, as sola scriptura requires tota scriptura to exist for Scripture to act as the final rule of faith by which all other standards are subordinated to, Jude could not be teaching that in the first place! "Cultic anachronistic eisegesis" best sums it up. As Trent Horn, who himself believes special revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle (being a Roman Catholic) wrote:
Even if Jude were the last book of the Bible
to be written, that wouldn’t prove public revelation ceased with the death of
the last apostle. Protestant apologist John MacArthur says that the Greek word
translated “delivered” in this verse refers to an act completed in the past
with no continuing element”. He also says that the phrase “once for all”
(Greek, hapax) means “nothing needs to be added to the faith that has been
delivered ‘once for all’.” This would mean that the “faith” had been delivered
before Jude was written, which means Jude and its teaching about the cessation
of public revelation would not have been a part of the original Deposit of
Faith. MacArthur even says this verse, “penned by Jude before the NT was
complete, nevertheless looked forward to the completion of the entire canon.”
This shows that using Jude 3 to prove public
revelation has ceased doesn’t work because it confuses “giving the faith” to
the saints with public revelation. Jesus gave “the faith” once and for all to
the apostles, but the public revelation of the faith continued for decades
after his interactions with them during the writing of the New Testament. There
isn’t any explicit biblical evidence that this revelation ceased after the
death of the last apostle (or that it didn’t continue for centuries rather than
decades). There is also no evidence that there were no more living apostles who
would give such revelations. (Trent Horn, The
Case for Catholicism: Answers to Classic and Contemporary Protestant Objections
[San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2017], 51-52)
Why Sola Scriptura is an Exegetical Impossibility
As I noted above, for Sola Scriptura to be in effect, there must first be
Tota Scriptura. This alone disproves any claim the Bible supports such a doctrine. How so? Note t
he following comment shows the impossible situation defenders of sola scriptura are in:
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 Publishing, Inc., 2009], pp. 101-53, here p. 118 n. 24)
The defender of sola scriptura, even if successful at showing the Bible represents the totality of written revelation still has to show that the Bible is formally sufficient and the sole, infallible rule of faith. Ultimately, until they can do such, their argument simply begs the question on this point, among others, as John and Jessie do in the opening section of their video (lamely) attempting to support Sola Scriptura.
For a book-length refutation of Sola Scriptura, as well as an exegesis of all the relevant texts (e.g., 2 Tim 3:16-17), see:
Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura
To read my challenge (from 10 August 2019) to Jessie to debate Sola Scriptura (a challenge I have emailed her twice about as of writing this post (24 August 2019), and some of my friends have informed her about this challenge on your youtube page and facebook page), see:
Open Challenge to "It's Me Jessie" to Debate Sola Scriptura
