Slideshow: Does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura

A few weeks ago I decided to create some slides interacting with, and refuting, common arguments used to Sola Scriptura, based, in part, on my book, Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura (2017). I have put the slides online; one can download them here. I also created a video (15 seconds for each slide, though one can speed up or slow down the speed of the video on youtube) and put it on youtube if one wishes to go through them through that medium:

Sola Scriptura Presentation

Salza and Siscoe on the Council of Florence vs. Pius XII

Responding to Sedevacantist arguments against the so-called “Vatican II/Novus Ordo” Church altered the form of some of the sacraments, John Salza and Robert Siscoe wrote:

Not only did Christ grant the Church the authority to determine “the matter and form for the Sacraments of Confirmation and Holy Orders,” but the Church also possesses the authority to alter the matter and form that she has established for the validity of a sacrament. This explains the direct contradiction between the teaching of the Council of Florence (in the Decree for the Amenians) and that of Pius XII (in Sacramentum Ordinis), who overturned what the Council of Florence taught constitutes the matter for the valid conferral of the sacrament of Holy Orders.

The Council of Florence taught that the passing of the tradition instrumentorum (the chalice and patten) is part of the matter for Holy Orders:

“The sixth sacrament is that of Order; its matter is that by the giving of which the Order is conferred: thus the priesthood is conferred by the giving of a chalice with wine and of a patten with bread; the form of the priesthood is as follows: ‘Receive power to offer sacrifice in the Church for the living and the dead, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.’” (Council of Florence [Denz., 701])

In Apostolicae Curae, Pope Leo XIII noted that when the traditional instruments are omitted from the ordination rite, the established custom is for the person to be conditionally re-ordained (Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, No. 21, September 18, 1896) . . . Pope Pius XII teaches in Sacramentum Ordinis a very important principle: “Ecclesiam quod statuit etiam mutare et abrogare valere—that which the Church has established she can also change and abrogate.” Then using the full force of his authority, he decreed that the traditio instrumentorum which the Council of Florence taught to be the matter of the sacrament of Holy Orders, was no longer required as the matter for Holy Orders. Pope Pius XII decreed:

“Wherefore, after invoking the divine light, We of Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare, and as far as may be necessary decree and provide: that the matter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands; . . . It follows as a consequence that We should declare, and in order to remove all controversy and to preclude doubts of conscience. We do by Our Apostolic Authority declare, and if there was ever a lawful disposition to the contrary. We now decree that at least in the future the traditio instrumentorum is not necessary for the validity of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy (. . . ) in the Episcopal Ordination or Consecration, the matter is the imposition of hands which is done by the Bishop consecrator.” (Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, No. 4, November 30, 1947)

Here we have a Pope explicitly abrogating the teaching of an ecumenical Council of the Church about what constitutes the matter for a sacrament . . . Pope Pius XII explained his ability to change what the Council of Florence taught about the matter of Holy Orders by noting that the tradition of the instruments had not been instituted as the matter of the sacraments by Christ Himself, but by the Church. Unlike Baptism and the double consecration at Mass, the form and matter for Holy Orders were only instituted by Christ in genre, and not in specie. Pius XII explained that even if the tradition of the instruments were necessary for validity (not liceity) by the will and command of the Church in the past, the Church has the authority to change or abrogate what she herself instituted. He wrote:

“Even according to the mind of the Council of Florence itself, the traditio instrumentorum is not required for the substance and validity of this Sacrament by the will of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. If I was at one time necessary, even for validity by the will and command of the Church, everyone knows that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what she herself has established.” (Ibid.)

. . . [I]n reality, Pius XII did not violate the Church’s infallibility, nor was there even a contradiction between his teaching and that of the Council of Florence [as] the Church does indeed possess the authority to alter some determination of the matter and form for the sacraments when such was instituted by the will and command of the Church, and not by Christ himself. (John Salza and Robert Siscoe, True or False Pope? Refuting Sedevacantism and Other Modern Errors [Winona, Minn.: St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, 2015], 563-566, comments in square brackets added for clarification, emphasis in original)

The reason why I reproduce their response to Sedevacantists such as Patrick Henry Omlor (author of The Robber Church [if anyone has a copy of this book and wants to send me one, I won’t object!]) is that it puts the lie to a popular Roman Catholic claim that no doctrine has been altered by Catholicism in its history. The decrees of the Council of Florence, protected by the Holy Spirit in Catholic theology from producing error, being contradicted by the teachings of Pius XII vis-à-vis sacramental theology, and to downplay it by stating “the Church does indeed possess the authority to alter . . . the matter and form for the sacraments” is question-begging and special pleading to the max.

Philip Comfort on 1 John 2:20

1 John 2:20 in the KJV, following the Byzantine textual tradition, reads:

But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things (οἴδατε πάντα)

The NASB and many modern translations, following the Alexandrian text-type, reads:

But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know (οἴδατε πάντες)

The reading οἴδατε πάντες is followed by א B P Ψ cop^sa. The reading οἴδατε πάντα is found in A C (049) 33 1739 Maj it syr cop^bo.

Commenting on this variant, Philip Comfort noted:

The two readings could have easily been confounded for each other in the transmission process inasmuch as there is only a two-letter difference (παντες/παντα) between the two. Furthermore, both readings have decent documentary support and are exegetically defensible. According to the WH NU reading, John was affirming that all the members of the church community know who is a genuine believer and who is not (see 2:19): “you have an anointing from the Holy One and you all know.” The anointing that each and every one of the believers has received helps them to discern the false teachers from the true. Thus, the emphasis is on shared communal knowledge. According to the reading of the variant, the emphasis is on the anointing and how it enables believers to know everything: “you have an anointing from the Holy One and you know everything.” The term “anointing” describes the impartation of the Holy Spirit (see Isa 61:1). Christians, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, are joined to Christ, “the Anointed One,” and share in his anointing (2 Cor 1:21-22). Therefore, Christians can know all things with respect to truth and falsehood. (Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Commentary on the variant readings of the ancient New Testament manuscripts and how they relate to the major English translations [Carol Stream, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2008], 775)

Did Joseph Smith doubt the existence of God in 1823 according to Oliver Cowdery?

In response to the criticism that “Joseph Smith was not sure if God existed in 1823,” Matthew Brown responded thusly:

Some critics have focused their attention on a Church history document that was produced by Oliver Cowdery in 1835, claiming that it says Joseph Smith did not know if God existed when the angel Moroni appeared to him in 1823. Moreover, critics point out that Oliver’s history was published in the Church’s official newspaper and that the Prophet had helped to create the text (though they fail to demonstrate or explain exactly how much involvement the Prophet had in the project). The passage in question reads as follows:

This would bring the date down to the year 1823 . . . [Joseph] continued to call upon the Lord in secret for a full manifestation of divine approbation, and for, to him, the all important information, if a Supreme Being did exist, to have an assurance that he was accepted of Him. (Messenger and Advocate, vol. 1, no. 5 [February 1835], 78)

There are at least four problems with the interpretation of this text as proposed by nonbelievers. Firstly, the most glaring difficulty with this point of view is that Oliver Cowdery had the Prophet’s unpublished 1832 history in his personal possession and was utilizing it to write his new historical narrative. In this document the Prophet not only plainly stated that he had seen the Lord before he was visited by the angel but also said that before he saw the Lord he believed that “it is a fool that [says] in his heart there is no God.” (Dean C. Jesse, ed., Personal Writings of Joseph Smith rev, ed. [Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and BYU Press, 2002], 11).

Secondly, it is important to remember that Oliver edited his text after he had told the preliminary portion of the First Vision story with the correct year appended to it. Brother Cowdery had received a letter from William W. Phelps after the first article of his historical series had been printed, and in that letter Brother Phelps mentioned that he wanted to learn certain information about the Book of Mormon. Oliver obliged by changing the date of focus to 1823, saying that he did not think it was necessary to talk about the revival associated with the First Vision any longer and then proceeding to tell the story of the angel Moroni and the golden plates. This is the content in which the above quotation was made—during a transition in storylines.

Thirdly, a non-LDS newspaper reported that around the first of November 1830 Oliver Cowdery was part of a small group of missionaries who were teaching that Joseph Smith had seen God “personally” (The Reflector, vol. 2, no. 13 [14 February 1831]). This printed statement by the missionaries predates Oliver’s above-mentioned historical narrative by approximately four years and nine months.

Fourthly, a close look at the paragraph where the phrase “if a Supreme Being did exist” occurs reveals that it context is “while this excitement [i.e., revival activity] continued” (MA, vol. 1, no. 5 [February 1835], 78. Richard L. Anderson has noted that since Oliver Cowdery is known to have had access to the 1832 First Vision account his application of the phrase “if a Supreme Being did exist” in an 1823 context “must be regarded as Cowdery’s rhetoric and of mere logical force in the sentence, not an intended historical reference” [BYU Studies, vol. 9, no. 3, Spring 1969, 396 nt. 71]). These two pieces of information do indeed belong to the First Vision storyline. But in this paragraph, and in the paragraphs surrounding it, Oliver was making a transition to a completely different storyline, and in the process he erroneously mixed the two of them together.

With all the preceding evidence at hand, it is not reasonable to believe that in 1823 Joseph Smith did not know whether God existed. Oliver Cowdery’s statement is simply being misinterpreted by the critics. (Matthew B. Brown, A Pillar of Light: The History and Message of the First Vision [American Fork, Utah: Covenant Communications, Inc., 2009], 140-142)

 For more on Oliver Cowdery's series in the Messenger and Advocate, see:

Roger Nicholson, The Cowdery Conundrum: Oliver’s Aborted Attempt to Describe Joseph Smith’s First Vision in 1834 and 1835

Does God dwell in one's heart?

Bill Reel has just recently, in a public post, plugged the following meme:

Sadly for Reel et al., such only shows the lack of interpretive/exegetical skills those who think this meme is good have.

If one reads the context, one will see that Alma is talking about the Spirit of the Lord (whether it is the Holy Spirit or the operational presence of the Father [the text is ambiguous on that point), and not the Lord Himself:

For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked. And this I know, because the Lord hath said he dwelleth not in unholy temples, but in the hearts of the righteous doth he dwell; yea, and he has also said that the righteous shall sit down in his kingdom, to go no more out; but their garments should be made white, through the blood of the lamb. (Alma 34:35-36; emphasis added)

D&C 130:3 does not deny that the Spirit of the Lord can dwell in a man's heart; in fact, such is affirmed for the Holy Spirit. 

For more, see:

Contradictions in Latter-day Saint Scripture? 

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

Matthew Bowen on Paanchi and Giddianhi

The Interpreter Foundation just posted another excellent article on Book of Mormon onomasticon from Matthew L. Bowen:

“Swearing by Their Everlasting Maker”: Some Notes on Paanchi and Giddianhi (PDF)

Here is the abstract:

This brief article explores Paanchi and Giddianhi as names evidencing the Egyptian onomastic element –anchi/anhi/ʿnḫ(i) and the potential literary significance of these two names in the context of Mormon’s narrative detailing the formation of the oath-bound secret combinations sworn with oath-formulae upon one’s “life” (cf. Egyptian ʿnḫ, “life”; “live”; “swear an oath [by one’s life]”). It also explores the implications for Mormon’s telling of Nephite history during his own time.