Does the Bible teach Scripture alone?

Core position

Confessional Protestants teach that Scripture is the Church’s only infallible final rule and contains all things necessary for faith and life, explicitly or by good and necessary inference. Latter-day Saints affirm the Bible and believe God continues to guide His Church through living prophets and additional scripture. The debate is whether apostolic authority and revelation ended with the New Testament writings.

Their Key Proof-Texts: and Responses

Biblical passages relevant to continuing revelation

• Acts 13:1; 15:32; 21:10–11: Prophets served in early Christian communities.
• 1 Cor. 12:28–29: God placed apostles and prophets among Church ministries.
• Eph. 2:19–20: Apostles and prophets are described as foundational. The passage does not specify how long their offices continue.
• Eph. 4:11–13: Christ gave these ministries until the Church reaches unity and maturity. Christians differ on the passage’s duration.
• Acts 2:17: Peter quotes Joel’s prophecy that people will prophesy when the Spirit is poured out.
• Amos 3:7: God reveals purposes through prophets. This does not alone define a post-apostolic Church structure.
• 1 Thess. 5:20: “Despise not prophesyings”
• John 10:16 promises to gather other sheep. Third Nephi identifies the people at Bountiful among them.
• Ezek. 37:16-17: Stick of Judah + stick of Joseph joined = Bible + Book of Mormon

The canon question

Westminster 1.2 lists the books it receives as canonical. Sections 1.4–1.5 say the Church’s testimony can move people to esteem Scripture, while the Holy Spirit gives full assurance of its divine authority. Protestants do not generally claim that a council created the books’ authority. Latter-day Saints can ask how Christians identify a uniquely closed canon, while acknowledging that Protestant account.

Other writings mentioned in the Bible

The Bible refers to writings beyond the later Protestant canon:

• Book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13, 2 Sam. 1:18)
• Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14)
• Prophecy of Ahijah / Visions of Iddo (2 Chr. 9:29)
• Paul’s earlier letter to Corinth (1 Cor. 5:9)
• Epistle to the Laodiceans (Col. 4:16)
• Prophecy of Enoch referenced by Jude (Jude 1:14-15)

These references show that biblical authors knew other writings. They do not establish that every cited work was inspired, canonical, or intended for every generation.

Early Christian Evidence (Quick Hits)

• The New Testament records prophets active in some early Christian communities (Acts 13:1; 15:32; 21:10–11).
• Papias valued reports from “a living and surviving voice” (quoted in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.4). This shows interest in oral testimony, not by itself a doctrine of continuing authority.
• Ignatius urged Christians to follow their bishop (Smyrnaeans 8). This documents early post-apostolic leadership, not modern LDS prophetic authority.
• New Testament books circulated and were recognized over time. This history alone does not disprove the Protestant claim that God guided the Church’s recognition of the canon.

Quick-Fire Objection Responses

“The canon is closed. God is not giving new revelation.” The Bible records prophecy and apostolic teaching, but it does not give a verse that directly settles whether revelation continued after the apostles. Protestants infer a completed apostolic foundation and a final canon. Latter-day Saints believe Christ continues to call prophets.

“Sola Scriptura preserved truth: the Reformation proved it.” Protestants answer that doctrinal disagreements reflect fallible readers, not a defect in Scripture. Latter-day Saints can ask what authority resolves those disagreements for the Church as a whole.

“If you accept new revelation, how do you prevent false revelation?” The Bible tells believers to test claims and their fruits (Matt. 7:15–20; 1 John 4:1). Latter-day Saints also seek confirmation through the Holy Ghost. Warnings about false prophets make discernment necessary; they do not alone establish a modern prophet’s authority.

“2 Timothy 3:17 says ‘complete,’ so Scripture is sufficient.” The verse strongly supports Scripture’s power to equip believers. The LDS response is that it does not define the completed canon or say God cannot give further revelation. Westminster’s fuller case relies on its doctrine of Scripture and apostolic authority, not this verse alone.

“The early church had the Bible and did not need prophets.” The New Testament shows prophets active in early Christian communities. Protestants hold that the apostolic foundation was unique and that Scripture now preserves its binding teaching. Latter-day Saints believe Christ can continue to call prophets. The verses establish the first-century pattern; the dispute is whether it continued.

LDS Position Summary

• Bible is the word of God (A of F 1:8)
• We accept the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price as scripture. Article of Faith 1:8 explicitly affirms the Bible and Book of Mormon.
• God speaks through living prophets: the biblical pattern (A of F 1:5, 1:9)
• Additional scripture doesn’t replace the Bible: it’s a second witness of Christ
• Continuing revelation should be consistent with prior scripture

Key Resources

• FAIR: Bible Sole Authority
• FAIR: Revelation 22:18
• Church: Scriptures
• Church: Prophets
• Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1
• 2 Timothy 3:14–17, King James Version
• 2 Thessalonians 2:15, King James Version
• Acts 16:1, King James Version
• 2 Timothy 1:5 and 1:13, King James Version
• 2 Timothy 2:2, King James Version
• Revelation 22:18–19, King James Version
• Tad R. Callister, The Inevitable Apostasy and the Promised Restoration

Introduction

Sola Scriptura is often summarized as the Bible being the sole authority. Confessional Protestants usually mean something more precise. Scripture is the church’s only infallible, final written rule, and it contains all things necessary for faith and life, either explicitly or by sound inference. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), chapter 1, sections 6 and 10, is a useful primary example.

That formulation deserves a direct response. Latter-day Saints affirm the Bible as scripture and as a decisive witness of Jesus Christ. We differ over whether God’s authority is confined to the biblical canon and whether a continuing prophetic office can speak for the Church. The Bible supports the reality of apostolic oral teaching during the apostles’ lives. Whether that teaching continues as a binding post-apostolic rule is the point in dispute.

The Criticism (Steelmanned)

The Westminster Confession states that Scripture contains all things necessary for God’s glory and human salvation, faith, and life, either expressly stated or deduced by “good and necessary consequence.” It says nothing is to be added by new revelations or human traditions. It also says the Church’s testimony can move people to esteem Scripture, while assurance of Scripture’s authority comes from the Holy Spirit bearing witness through the Word. On this account, Scripture is not the only source of historical information, teaching, or church practice. It is the only infallible rule that finally tests them.

The LDS response should ask whether the Bible itself establishes that apostolic authority and revelation ended with the New Testament writings, and whether God may authorize a continuing prophet to deliver binding revelation. Proof-texts about prophecy do not automatically settle that question. Nor does the fact that the New Testament canon took shape over time, by itself, disprove Protestant claims about providence and recognition.

This is a principled argument. It deserves a careful, thorough response.

Biblical Response

2 Timothy 3:14–17 and the sufficiency question

Paul reminds Timothy that he has known the sacred writings “from a child” and that these writings make him wise for salvation through faith in Christ. Timothy’s mother was Jewish and his father Greek (Acts 16:1); 2 Timothy 1:5 names his mother Eunice and grandmother Lois as believers. The childhood reference most naturally points to the Jewish Scriptures Timothy learned at home, not to a completed New Testament canon. The passage praises Scripture’s divine origin, uses, and power to equip the servant of God.

That context limits what the passage proves about a completed canon. It does not make Paul’s claim weak, and it does not by itself refute the Westminster Confession. A Protestant can say Scripture is fully sufficient for its intended work without claiming that Timothy possessed a bound New Testament. The stronger LDS point is narrower: 2 Timothy 3:14–17 does not state that apostolic authority has ceased, define the future canon, or forbid God from giving further revelation.

The word “profitable” cannot carry the whole argument. The context says Scripture equips the servant of God for every good work, which Protestants reasonably read as a strong sufficiency claim. The dispute is whether this sufficiency excludes further, God-authorized revelation. The passage does not answer that question by itself.

Paul also tells Timothy to hold to the teaching he heard from him (2 Timothy 1:13) and to pass on what he heard before many witnesses to faithful teachers (2 Timothy 2:2). In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Paul tells that congregation to hold to what the apostles taught “by word” or “by our letter.” These passages establish oral apostolic teaching as authoritative while the apostles taught. They do not, on their own, establish a permanent post-apostolic oral authority.

Confessional Protestants answer that apostolic teaching was binding because it came from the apostles, and that the apostolic writings now preserve the enduring rule. Latter-day Saints agree that apostolic authority matters, but ask why Christ could not continue calling apostles and prophets. The Bible records both written and oral teaching; the disagreement concerns whether the oral apostolic commission ended.

Read the full comparison on 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

1 Corinthians 4:6 and “what is written”

Paul appeals to what is written to correct people boasting about their teachers. That gives Scripture real authority in the dispute. Whether the completed canon became the Church’s sole final rule after the apostles is a further question. Read Paul’s argument in context

Acts 17:11 and the Bereans

The Bereans listened to Paul’s message about Jesus and examined Israel’s Scriptures to test it. Their example asks us to take both the message and the evidence seriously. Compare Acts 17 with the Protestant argument and the Latter-day Saint invitation to study and pray

Mark 7 and the traditions of men

Jesus rebukes a practice that lets people evade their duty to honor their parents. Compare that rebuke with Paul’s instruction to preserve apostolic teaching delivered by word or letter. Read the Corban example in context

Revelation 22:18–19 and the scope of “this book”

“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.”

The immediate wording concerns “the words of the prophecy of this book.” Revelation opens by calling itself a prophecy (1:3) and closes by referring to the words of this prophecy (22:7, 10, 18–19). The warning directly forbids altering Revelation’s message. It should not be presented as a self-evident statement about the whole later Christian Bible.

That observation does not settle the Protestant canon argument. Protestants generally do not rely on Revelation 22:18–19 alone to establish the canon’s closure. They argue that the apostolic era was unique and that the canon preserves its authoritative witness. Likewise, Deuteronomy 4:2 warns Israel not to alter the commandments Moses gave; its existence did not prevent later biblical books. The LDS point is that neither warning, by itself, establishes that God will never authorize additional scripture.

Biblical evidence for continuing prophetic authority

The New Testament describes prophets and apostles serving the Church. Latter-day Saints read these passages as consistent with continuing prophetic authority. Protestants may agree that prophecy existed in the apostolic Church while arguing that its foundational role ended with the apostles. These passages should be read in context rather than treated as an automatic proof of either conclusion.

• Acts 13:1; 15:32; 21:10–11 records prophets active in early Christian communities.
• 1 Corinthians 12:28–29 includes apostles and prophets among gifts God placed in the Church.
• Ephesians 2:19–20 describes apostles and prophets as foundational, with Christ as cornerstone. The passage does not specify the duration of those offices.
• Ephesians 4:11–13 says Christ gave these ministries until the Church reaches unity and maturity. Christians differ over whether this describes ongoing ministry or the Church’s foundational formation.
• Acts 2:17 quotes Joel’s prophecy that the Spirit would be poured out and people would prophesy. Latter-day Saints see this as compatible with continuing prophecy.
• Amos 3:7 describes God revealing his purposes through prophets. It does not state that every church must have a continuing prophet or settle how the office functions after the apostolic age.

References to other writings

The Bible refers to writings outside its current collection, including the Book of Jasher and apparently an earlier letter from Paul. Colossians 4:16 refers to a letter from Laodicea and leaves its author open. A reference tells us a work was known. Whether it was received as scripture requires further evidence. Compare the missing letters and early canon lists

These references show that biblical authors knew of writings beyond the books later included in Protestant Bibles. They do not disprove sola Scriptura, which concerns the final rule for doctrine, rather than claiming that every inspired statement was preserved in the canon.

Early Christian Evidence

Apostolic teaching and the post-apostolic Church

The New Testament’s first readers received apostolic teaching in person and by letter. The canon was not yet a closed, collected New Testament during the apostles’ ministries. This historical fact is not a direct refutation of sola Scriptura. Westminster describes the Church as receiving and recognizing Scripture, while treating Scripture as the final infallible rule.

The question is what happened after the apostles. Latter-day Saints see continuing prophets and apostles as a biblical possibility and part of Christ’s restored Church. Confessional Protestants generally hold that the apostolic office was unique and that no later teaching can add a binding rule of faith. Early Christian writers can illuminate how later Christians understood authority, but their statements do not alone prove either modern Protestant or LDS claims. For example, Papias valued reports from “a living and surviving voice” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.4), and Ignatius urged Christians to follow their bishop (Smyrnaeans 8). These sources show that oral testimony and church leadership mattered; they do not by themselves establish a continuing office of modern apostles.

How Protestants understand the canon

The New Testament books circulated and were recognized over time. Westminster Confession 1.2 lists the books it receives as canonical. Sections 1.4–1.5 say the Church’s testimony can move people to reverence Scripture, while the Holy Spirit gives full assurance of its divine authority. This is not the claim that a council created Scripture’s authority. Latter-day Saints can still ask how this recognition identifies a uniquely closed canon, but should state the Protestant answer fairly.

LDS Doctrinal Position

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches:

1. The Bible is the word of God: we accept it as scripture, study it, and preach from it (Articles of Faith 1:8).
2. God has spoken and continues to speak through living prophets and additional scripture, consistent with the biblical pattern (Articles of Faith 1:9).
3. The Book of Mormon is “another testament of Jesus Christ”: a second witness that supports and clarifies biblical truths, not a replacement for the Bible.
4. Living apostles and prophets lead the church today, as they did in the New Testament church (Articles of Faith 1:5, 1:6).
5. We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly (Articles of Faith 1:8): a recognition that the Bible’s transmission history includes copying errors, translation choices, and the loss of plain and precious truths (1 Nephi 13:26-29).
6. Continuing revelation does not contradict prior scripture: it clarifies, expands, and applies it. Just as the New Testament did not cancel the Old Testament but fulfilled and expanded it, additional scripture builds on the biblical foundation.

Key Scriptures

Responses to Common Objections

Objection: “Revelation 22:18 says not to add to scripture: the Book of Mormon is an addition.”

Response: The immediate warning concerns “the prophecy of this book,” meaning Revelation. It should not be stretched into a standalone statement about the whole later Bible. Protestants generally base their closed-canon belief on the uniqueness of the apostolic era and their doctrine of Scripture, rather than this verse alone. Latter-day Saints believe the Book of Mormon is another witness of Jesus Christ, given by the same God who gave the Bible.

Objection: “The canon is closed: God is no longer giving new revelation.”

Response: The Bible records continuing prophecy and apostolic teaching, but it does not give a verse that directly settles whether new revelation would continue after the apostles. Westminster Protestants infer that the apostolic foundation is complete and that Scripture is now the final rule. Latter-day Saints read the biblical pattern as compatible with Christ continuing to call prophets. The disagreement concerns the interpretation of that pattern and the authority of later revelation.

Objection: “Sola Scriptura has preserved the truth: look at how the Reformation corrected Rome’s errors.”

Response: Christians who affirm the Bible as their final authority still disagree on baptism, salvation, the Eucharist, church government, and eschatology. That disagreement does not make the Bible deficient. It does raise the question of what authority can interpret and apply it for the whole Church. Latter-day Saints answer with the biblical pattern of apostles, prophets, councils, and revelation.

Objection: “The early Christians had the Bible and didn’t need prophets.”

Response: The New Testament describes prophets in early Christian communities. The Protestant reply is that apostles and prophets formed the Church’s foundation and that their authoritative teaching is preserved in Scripture. Latter-day Saints believe Christ can continue calling prophets. The biblical references establish the first-century offices; we differ over whether those offices continued.

Objection: “If you accept new revelation, how do you know it’s not false revelation?”

Response: The same way biblical believers always discerned true from false revelation: by its consistency with prior scripture, by its fruits (Matt. 7:15-20), and by the witness of the Holy Spirit (Moroni 10:3-5, John 16:13). The existence of counterfeits does not mean all new revelation is false: it means discernment is needed. Jesus warned of false prophets (Matt. 24:11), which presupposes that true prophets would also exist. You don’t warn about counterfeit currency in a world where no real currency exists.

Objection: “2 Timothy 3:16-17 says scripture makes us ‘complete’: that means sufficient.”

Response: Paul says Scripture equips the servant of God for every good work. Protestants reasonably see this as supporting Scripture’s sufficiency. The LDS response is that the passage does not say Scripture is the only way God may guide the Church or that revelation ceased. The broader case for sola Scriptura depends on the rest of the Protestant account of apostolic authority and the canon.

Conclusion

The Bible does not state in one verse that its canon is closed or that apostolic authority has ended. It teaches that Scripture equips believers, that apostolic teaching was delivered orally and in writing, and that prophets served in the early Church. Confessional Protestants connect these teachings to the unique authority of the apostles and the sufficiency of the canon they left. Latter-day Saints believe Christ continues to guide His Church through living prophets and additional scripture. The Bible provides grounds for that belief, while the claim that modern leaders are authorized to speak for God also depends on the Restoration’s historical and spiritual claims.

Sources and Further Reading

• Does Jude 3 close the canon?
• Do Jude 3 and Galatians 1:8 rule out the Restoration?
• Does denominational disagreement disprove sola scriptura?
• FAIR: Bible: Sole Authority
• FAIR: Book of Mormon: Revelation 22:18
• Church of Jesus Christ: Scriptures
• Church of Jesus Christ: Prophets
• Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1
• 2 Timothy 3:14–17, King James Version
• 2 Thessalonians 2:15, King James Version
• Acts 16:1, King James Version
• 2 Timothy 1:5 and 1:13, King James Version
• 2 Timothy 2:2, King James Version
• Revelation 22:18–19, King James Version
• Bruce R. McConkie, A New Witness for the Articles of Faith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1985)
• Tad R. Callister, The Inevitable Apostasy and the Promised Restoration (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2006)
• Robert L. Millet, Getting at the Truth: Responding to Difficult Questions about LDS Beliefs (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2004)