In a recent discussion on facebook, Robert Bowman used the following quotation from Irenaeus of Lyons (130-202) to support the doctrine of Sola Scriptura:
When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. (Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 3.2.1 in Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:415)
As Errol Amey, a non-Mormon who is well informed about the patristic literature, called Bowman up on his abuse of Irenaeus as in the very next section of Against Heresies(!) we read the following:
But, again, when we refer them [the Gnostics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition. (Against Heresies 3.2.2 [square brackets added])
To further drive the point home, Errol quoted the header from the translation that Bowman had quoted from, which was penned by a Protestant patristic scholar, no less: "The heretics follow neither Scripture nor tradition."
Another text from Irenaeus in the very same book of Against Heresies further refutes Bowman and other Protestant apologists who abuse Irenaeus of Lyons as being a proponent of sola scriptura:
On thisaccount we are bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold ofthe tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise adispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse tothe most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,]to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches? (3.4.1)
So it is obvious that, when read in context, Irenaeus of Lyons did not hold to Sola Scriptura. Unfortunately, such abuse of the patristic literature is part-and-parcel of Protestant apologetics when it comes to Sola Scriptura and other doctrines, such as C. Michael Patton, Keith Mathison, William Webster, et al., see, for example:
Sometimes one will hear the claim that the reforms of Kings Hezekiah and Josiah support the formal sufficiency of Scripture (á la the doctrine of Sola Scriptura). However, in reality, both these kings relied on non-inscripturated revelation as a key source for many of their teachings. Consider the following texts:
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 29:25)
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 the first text, we learn the following: (1) firstly, 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 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.
So instead of viewing scripture as being formally sufficient, Hezekiah and Josiah relied upon other sources than only inscripturated revelation in their reforms. Indeed, in no case did the believing community rebuke Hezekiah or Josiah for violating sola scriptura. On the contrary, they accepted the fact that divine instruction, through the mouths of God's prophets, had been preserved for the community's use for hundreds of years apart from inscripturated revelation. Indeed, Josiah relied upon the words of the prophetess Huldah, not just the Scriptures, including the text of Deuteronomy that was rediscovered (cf. 2 Kgs 22-24). As we read in 2 Chron 34:22-28:
And Hilkiah, and they that the king had appointed, went to Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvath, the son of Hasrah, keeper of the wardrobe; (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the college:) and they spake to her to that effect. And she answered them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Tell ye the man that sent you to me, Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the curses that are written in the book which they have read before the king of Judah: Because they have forsaken me, and have burned incense unto other gods, that they might provoke me to anger with all the works of their hands; therefore my wrath shall be poured out upon this place, and shall not be quenched. And as for the king of Judah, who sent you to enquire of the Lord, so shall ye say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel concerning the words which thou hast heard; Because thine heart was tender, and thou didst humble thyself before God, when thou heardest his words against this place, and against the inhabitants thereof, and humbledst thyself before me, and didst rend thy clothes, and weep before me; I have even heard thee also, saith the Lord. Behold, I will gather thee to thy fathers, and thou shalt be gathered to thy grave in peace, neither shall thine eyes see all the evil that I will bring upon this place, and upon the inhabitants of the same. So they brought the king word again.
It is rather obvious that the reforms one reads about in the Old Testament were not based on any concept of Sola Scriptura, the claims of some Protestant apologists notwithstanding.
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:
As tomorrow is the 187th anniversary of the publication of the Book of Mormon, I am posting two great documentaries on the Book of Mormon produced by the Neal A. Maxwell Institute a couple of years ago on the Old and New World backgrounds to the Book of Mormon which feature many of the "heavy hitters" of Book of Mormon scholarship (e.g., Brant Gardner; Bill Hamblin;Mark Wright; Daniel Peterson; John Sorenson):
Tit 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1 in the KJV read as follows:
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ. (Tit 2:13)
Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. (2 Pet 1:1)
In these two texts, the KJV translators understood the underlying Greek to refer to two persons (God [the Father] and Jesus); however, after the KJV was translated, a grammatical rule was rediscovered by Granville Sharp which demonstrates that the KJV reading is in error, and based on the grammar (definite article + noun + the coordinating conjunction και + anarthrous noun) refers to the same person, not two. To put it a bit differently:
When the copulative και connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill], if the article ὁ, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e. it denotes a farther description of the first-named person. (Granville Sharp, Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article, p.3 as cited by Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996], 271)
For instance, the Greek phrase from Tit 2:13 τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ("our mighty God and our Saviour"), per this rule, predicates both θεος and σωτηρ of one person (Jesus), not two (this rule also applies to 2 Pet 1:1). Compare the KJV with the rendition of Tit 2:13 in the NRSV, for instance (emphasis added):
While we wait for the blessed hope and manifestation of the glory of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ.
This rule is much more nuanced than what I have presented (e.g., it does not apply when [1] both nouns are impersonal; [2] neither is plural; [3] neither is a proper name) so for a fuller discussion, see:
Daniel B. Wallace, Granville Sharp's Canon and Its Kin: Semantics and Significance (Peter Lang, 2008).
In his book on the Christology of the Pastoral Epistles, Andrew Y. Lau offers the following reasons why θεος in Tit 2:13 is used, not of the Father, but Jesus:
(1) The expression “θεος και σωτηρ” was a stereotyped formula common in first-century religious terminology and was used by both Diaspora and Palestinian Jews in reference to Yahweh, thus denoting one deity. (2) The most satisfactory explanation of the anathrous σωτηρος is that two coordinate nouns referring to the same person are customarily linked by a single article; σωτηρ ημων is generally articular in the PE (7x), anathrous only in 1T1.1 (where one person is clearly in view) and here in Tit. 2.13. The complex grammatical point suggests that “if Paul wished to speak unambiguously of two persons, he could have written either του μεγαλου θεου και Ιησου Χριστου σωτηρος ημων, or του μεγαλου θεου ημων και του σωτηρος Ιησου Χριστου . . . it must remain improbable that Paul would have acquiesced in a form of words that would naturally be depicting Jesus as ο μεγας θεος και σωτηρ ημων if in fact he believed that Jesus was in no sense θεος.” (3) The exceptional use of μεγας with θεος is better explained if θεος refers to Christ than if it signifies the Father. (4) The significant parallelism of 2.13 underlines that “the great God” is “the Saviour,” for the “blessed hope” is the “appearance of the glory”:
τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης
τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
(Andrew Y. Lau, Manifest in the Flesh: The Epiphany Christology of the Pastoral Epistles [Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1996], 244)
The following is the debate between Bart D. Ehrman and Robert M. Price n the question of the historicity of Jesus. Ehrman affirms that Jesus was a historical person while Price, who, with Richard Carrier, is perhaps the best defender of the Christ Myth theory, holds to the view that Jesus was a mythological figure and never existed at all:
Personally, I think Ehrman creamed Price. Price, while he is a very intelligent, well-read individual, attempted to defend a nonsensical, impossible position.
Introductory-level reading on the Historicity of Jesus debate:
Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth
Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence
Robert M. Price, The Christ-Myth Theory and its Problems
In their recent video, If We Only Knew, We Would Have Never Joined Mormonism Episode 4: Living Prophets?, Dave and Janet Bartosiewicz attempt to critique the LDS concept of modern prophets and apostles:
There is one topic I wish to discuss is a comment made at the very beginning of this video which demonstrates the lack of intellectual integrity one has come to expect from Dave and Janet. Janet shows she is just as deceptive as her husband by stating that Latter-day Saints believe that "when the prophet says it, that settles it!" (0:47 mark). The truth of the matter, however, is completely different. As I wrote in response to a similar argument in Latter-day Saints and the Bible in response to another Evangelical, Mike Thomas:
In an attempt to support the straw-man that “when LDS Church leaders speak, the thinking has been done for Latter-day Saints,” Mike Thomas writes:
For Mormons it is a great deal more difficult yet straight forward in a strange sort of way. The first question a Mormon asks is not, ‘Which Bible translations are reliable?’ but,’What does the church have to say?’ And this is not a simple seeking after counsel, ‘Pastor, which translation would you recommend?’ We all do that from time to time. What is important to a Mormon is, ‘what is the ‘official’ stance of the church?’ It is this that is ‘right’ in the eyes of your typical LDS believer.
This speaks volumes about the degree of trust Mormons put in their leaders. Its fallen out of fashion now, as has so much old fashioned Mormonism, but it used to be proudly said:
“When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan — it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the Kingdom of God.”(Improvement Era, June 1945)
The (unofficial) Mormon apologetics site FAIR has attempted to refute the idea that this is ‘official’ Mormon thinking, even dragging out from Mormon archives a letter from the Mormon leader George Albert Smith appearing to say as much.You can read it here.But it doesn’t wash because anyone who has dealt with Mormonism, more, anyone who has been a Mormon will tell you this is the attitude of the average True Believing Latter-day Saint to this day.
As one who “has been a Mormon” and is a “true believing Latter-day Saint,” let me say that the above is simply false.
Those who read the email exchanges (linked above) Thomas had with Mike Parker et al., will see that intellectual integrity and honesty are things he clearly lacks and this is more proof thereof. The statement from the Improvement Era was refuted by none other than George Albert Smith, as noted by Mike, and he even links to an article hosted by FairMormon (PKA "FAIR") that reproduces the letter from George Albert Smith refuting such. However, this alone refutes his straw-man presentation—George Albert Smith was president (not just a leader) of the Church when he wrote this letter in response to this errant article (his presidency running from May 1945 to April 1951). If Mike Thomas is correct, and LDS jettison Pres. George Albert Smith’s comments, then this ipso factorefutes his claim that LDS blindly follow their leaders as it would represent just the opposite! In reality, however, it has always been the case that LDS leaders have urged Church members not to accept their words at face-value and/or have openly admitted to their own fallibility. Consider the following representative examples:
Were the former and Latter-day Saints, with their Apostles, Prophets Seers, and Revelators collected together to discuss this matter [the nature of Deity], I am led to think there would be found a great variety in their views and feelings upon this subject, without direct revelation from the Lord. It is as much my right to differ from other men, as it is theirs to differ from me, in points of doctrine and principle, when our minds cannot at once arrive at the same conclusion. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 2:123)
I do not believe that there is a single revelation, among the many God has given to the Church; that is perfect in its fulness. The revelations of God contain correct doctrine and principle, as far as they go, but it is impossible for the poor, weak, low, grovelling, sinful inhabitants of the earth to receive a revelation from the Almighty in all its perfections. He has to speak to us in a manner to meet the extent of our capacities. (Brigham Young; Journal of Discourses, 2:314).
I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied . . . Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders fo the people, saying, 'if the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,' that is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord. (Brigham Young; JOD 3:45)
As you have been told hundreds of times, how easy it would be for your leaders to lead you to destruction unless you actually know the mind and will of the Spirit yourselves. (Brigham Young; JOD 4:368)
February 8, 1843, Joseph Smith wrote, "[I] visited with a brother and sister from Michigan who thought that 'a prophet is always a prophet;' but I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such" (History of the Church 5.265).
Joseph Smith occasionally used wording such as "this is my counsel" (History of the Church 1.455) or "I therefore warn" (Nauvoo Neighbor, June 19, 1844) “We have heard men that hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything that they were told to do by those who preside over them (even) if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself should not claim a rank among intelligent human beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God would despise the idea. Others in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without any questions. When the Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience, as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong.themselves.”
—[unsigned editorial [perhaps Samuel W. Richards]., Millennial Star, Vol. 14, Num.38, pp.594 Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a Bishop, an apostle or a president; if you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support will be gone; but if we lean on God, He will NEVER fail us. When men and women depend upon GOD ALONE and trust in HIM ALONE, their faith will not be shaken if the highest in the Church should step aside." (George Q. Canon, Deseret Weekly News 43:322 [March 7, 1891])
President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, "It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works." (Doctrines of Salvation 3:203)
President Harold B. Lee declared, "If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth" (The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24-26, 1973, with Reports and Discourses, 69).
The Latter-day Saints do not do things because they happen to be printed in a book. They do not do things because God told the Jews to do them; nor do they do or leave undone anything because of the instructions that Christ gave to the Nephites. Whatever is done by this Church is because God, speaking from heaven in our day, has commanded this Church to do it. No book presides over this Church, and no book lies at its foundation. You cannot pile up books enough to take the place of God's priesthood, inspired by the power of the Holy Ghost. That is the constitution of the Church of Christ. … Divine revelation adapts itself to the circumstances and conditions of men, and change upon change ensues as God's progressive work goes on to its destiny. There is no book big enough or good enough to preside over this Church. (Elder Orson F. Whitney, Conference Report, October 1916, p. 55. Quoted by Loren C. Dunn, in General Conference, Ensign May 1976, p.65-66)
"We who have been called to lead the Church are ordinary men and women with ordinary capacities.” (Boyd K. Packer, "Revelation in a Changing World," Ensign [November 1989]: 16.
"We make no claim of infallibility or perfection in the prophets, seers, and revelators." (James E. Faust, "Continuous Revelation," Ensign [November 1989]: 11)
"I am not a perfect man, and infallibility does not come with the call [of Apostlehood]." (Robert D Hales, Ensign, May [1994]:78)
"the President is not infallible. He makes no claims to infallibility. But when in his official capacity he teaches and advises the members of the Church relative to their duties, let no man who wants to please the Lord say aught against the counsels of the President." (Alma P. Burton, Ensign, Ensign, [October 1972]:6)
Though general authorities are authorities in the sense of having power to administer Church affairs, they may or may not be authorities in the sense of doctrinal knowledge, the intricacies of church procedures, or the receipt of the promptings of the Spirit. A call to an administrative position itself adds little knowledge or power of discernment to an individual. (Elder McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, s.v. "General Authority")
With all their inspiration and greatness, prophets are yet mortal men with imperfections common to mankind in general. They have their opinions and prejudices and are left to work out their problems without inspiration in many instances. (Elder McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, s.v. "Prophets")
In addition, I would urge one to read the article on George Smith's response (which includes the reproduction of his letter) in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 19:1 (Spring 1986), pp. 35-39 (.pdf of entire issue).
