I recently came upon a concept I had not heard of regarding Sola Scriptura. I really don’t know how widely accepted this view is, but I read an article where at least James White advocates it.
Here is a old quote from the aomin webpage:
The main element of Mr. Ray’s [Catholic] misrepresentation of sola scriptura can be seen in just this: the doctrine speaks of a rule of faith that exists. What do I mean by this? One will search high and low for any reference in any standard Protestant confession of faith that says, “There has never been a time when God’s Word was proclaimed and transmitted orally.” You will never find anyone saying, “During times of enscripturation—that is, when new revelation was being given—sola scriptura was operational.” *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 that very time coming into being? One must have an existing rule of faith to say it is “sufficient.” It is a canard to point to times of revelation and say, “See, sola scriptura doesn’t work there!” Of course it doesn’t. Who said it did?
This has apparently been taught for at least 10 years, yet for some reason Catholics around here have not mentioned it much. Based on this paragraph, I make the following two points:
1)There is nothing in Scripture (esp the NT) that says there are times when Sola Scriptura is “operational” and not operational. And there is definitely no date given when enscripturation ended.
2)Passages like 2 Timothy 3:16f CANNOT be teaching Sola Scriptura at all, for when Paul penned those words it was a during a “time of enscripturation.”
This claim is so devastating to Sola Scriptura that I cannot believe that it was even advocated in the first place.