I’ve Decided to Read a Robert Boylan Book ***UPDATED CH.1 Review***
Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2025 8:10 pm
I was sent Not By Scripture Alone by a colleague. It looks to be printed by a publishing house that does self-published books by small authors.
Off the gate I think that Jerry Mataticks of Catholic Answers has a copyright case against Boylan based on the title alone.
I want to come in at it neutrally but knowing what I know about Boylan, I know it’s going to be painful.
I’m going to post my initial thoughts with quick chapter reviews if anyone’s interested on how a Christian particularly a conservative one would read this.
Chapter 1 Review
The problem right off the bat is that this reads like a series of blog posts. As I was pointed to earlier, that’s because it is.
The informal style doesn’t bother me but for a book that is attempting to be a high level apologetic work, it could do better.
Right out of the gate I have critiques of Boylan’s sources. They’re pop level YouTube personalities in some instances or pop level apologetic authors. Nothing academic that I can see except for when Boylan wants to use a rather liberal author or scholar to undercut his opponent or make the appearance of conflict. Which is ironic as the same authors likely would find Boylan’s counter proposal preposterous as well. Mormons use scholars when it suits them, then toss them away the moment they’re not useful anymore or undercut the exact point of the Mormon apologist. That’s called a double standard. I haven’t dug into the actual sources these quotes come from, but from certain citation’s formats they appear to be possibly quote mined.
Verdict on Source Usage:
Quotes YouTube personalities or pop level authors as if they’re representative of his opponent. That’s like quoting YouTube Mormons and saying they represent the LDS position.
A proper source for interaction and definition on Sola Scriptura would be someone like Calvin, Turretin, Voetius, Wollebius, Beza,Whitaker (if one wants to be serious about it), Goode, etc.
This lends serious questions to his usage of sources in general.
Critique of the Argument
Boylan’s essential argument is a rip off of Roman Catholic Counter Reformer Robert Bellarmine. Right down to the specific arguments themselves. I.e. How do you know the canon? How can Sola scriptura be practiced at the time of the Apostles? How can blah blah blah. All of these arguments would be addressed by cursory reading of the academic literature if one wanted to fairly address their opponent. Particularly by men like William Whitaker in his Disputations on Holy Scripture, Lutheran Johann Gerhard in THE FIRST DECADE OF THEOLOGICAL DISPUTATIONS in which BELLARMINE IS BROUGHT FORWARD AS A WITNESS OF ORTHODOX, Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, etc.
I can go on and on. Needless to say these lame arguments have been addressed since the time of the Reformation itself by Anglican, Lutheran, and Reformed authors of the time. With much better precision than Boylan himself shows.
Critique of the Argument:
Boylan’s argument for ecclesiastical authority melts down when one realizes he is a Mormon arguing in favor of continued revelation from alleged apostles and prophets and what is essentially an infinite canon. He’s taking Bellarmine’s argument and turning it on its head.
If the canon is infinite to allow for modern revelation, that means Boylan must argue against or accept every specific instance of pseudepigrapha if the Mormon Prophets have not specifically said they’re not canon. All the while starting off with a 66 book canon stolen from Protestants with reasoning he can’t justify. Gospel of Thomas? Valid. Gospel of Peter? Stick it in there. Protoevangeliun of James? Toss it at the end of D&C.
When systematized with the rest of Mormon doctrine this causes problems. The Gospel of Thomas says that women must become men to inherit the kingdom of Heaven. From Jesus’s own lips too. Guess the Celestial Kingdom is gonna be all dudes? But then how will they populate and create other “worlds and thrones” etc? There’s no official canon list in the Mormon church. Even if there was it’d be subject to revision per Boylan.
Let’s make this a syllogism to avoid belaboring the millions of points of incoherence in Boylan’s argument.
P1: A valid critique of another’s rule of faith must rest on a superior or at minimum coherent rule of faith must
P2: Boylan critiques Sola Scriptura using Roman Catholic categories
P3: LDS canon is open, undefined, and authority rests in changeable and fallible prophets and subjectivity
C: Boylan’s own critique collapses under its own weight. It lacks coherence and rest on assumptions.
A more devastating Syllogism:
P1: A rule of faith must be stable, universal, and coherent to be divine
P2: LDS rule of faith is constantly expanding, revised, or mutable
C: LDS rule of faith is not divine and cannot provide certainty of anything. Not even its alleged gospel.
So far this is where I am. I have more thoughts but I haven’t formalized them yet. I’m open to questions.
Off the gate I think that Jerry Mataticks of Catholic Answers has a copyright case against Boylan based on the title alone.
I want to come in at it neutrally but knowing what I know about Boylan, I know it’s going to be painful.
I’m going to post my initial thoughts with quick chapter reviews if anyone’s interested on how a Christian particularly a conservative one would read this.
Chapter 1 Review
The problem right off the bat is that this reads like a series of blog posts. As I was pointed to earlier, that’s because it is.
The informal style doesn’t bother me but for a book that is attempting to be a high level apologetic work, it could do better.
Right out of the gate I have critiques of Boylan’s sources. They’re pop level YouTube personalities in some instances or pop level apologetic authors. Nothing academic that I can see except for when Boylan wants to use a rather liberal author or scholar to undercut his opponent or make the appearance of conflict. Which is ironic as the same authors likely would find Boylan’s counter proposal preposterous as well. Mormons use scholars when it suits them, then toss them away the moment they’re not useful anymore or undercut the exact point of the Mormon apologist. That’s called a double standard. I haven’t dug into the actual sources these quotes come from, but from certain citation’s formats they appear to be possibly quote mined.
Verdict on Source Usage:
Quotes YouTube personalities or pop level authors as if they’re representative of his opponent. That’s like quoting YouTube Mormons and saying they represent the LDS position.
A proper source for interaction and definition on Sola Scriptura would be someone like Calvin, Turretin, Voetius, Wollebius, Beza,Whitaker (if one wants to be serious about it), Goode, etc.
This lends serious questions to his usage of sources in general.
Critique of the Argument
Boylan’s essential argument is a rip off of Roman Catholic Counter Reformer Robert Bellarmine. Right down to the specific arguments themselves. I.e. How do you know the canon? How can Sola scriptura be practiced at the time of the Apostles? How can blah blah blah. All of these arguments would be addressed by cursory reading of the academic literature if one wanted to fairly address their opponent. Particularly by men like William Whitaker in his Disputations on Holy Scripture, Lutheran Johann Gerhard in THE FIRST DECADE OF THEOLOGICAL DISPUTATIONS in which BELLARMINE IS BROUGHT FORWARD AS A WITNESS OF ORTHODOX, Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, etc.
I can go on and on. Needless to say these lame arguments have been addressed since the time of the Reformation itself by Anglican, Lutheran, and Reformed authors of the time. With much better precision than Boylan himself shows.
Critique of the Argument:
Boylan’s argument for ecclesiastical authority melts down when one realizes he is a Mormon arguing in favor of continued revelation from alleged apostles and prophets and what is essentially an infinite canon. He’s taking Bellarmine’s argument and turning it on its head.
If the canon is infinite to allow for modern revelation, that means Boylan must argue against or accept every specific instance of pseudepigrapha if the Mormon Prophets have not specifically said they’re not canon. All the while starting off with a 66 book canon stolen from Protestants with reasoning he can’t justify. Gospel of Thomas? Valid. Gospel of Peter? Stick it in there. Protoevangeliun of James? Toss it at the end of D&C.
When systematized with the rest of Mormon doctrine this causes problems. The Gospel of Thomas says that women must become men to inherit the kingdom of Heaven. From Jesus’s own lips too. Guess the Celestial Kingdom is gonna be all dudes? But then how will they populate and create other “worlds and thrones” etc? There’s no official canon list in the Mormon church. Even if there was it’d be subject to revision per Boylan.
Let’s make this a syllogism to avoid belaboring the millions of points of incoherence in Boylan’s argument.
P1: A valid critique of another’s rule of faith must rest on a superior or at minimum coherent rule of faith must
P2: Boylan critiques Sola Scriptura using Roman Catholic categories
P3: LDS canon is open, undefined, and authority rests in changeable and fallible prophets and subjectivity
C: Boylan’s own critique collapses under its own weight. It lacks coherence and rest on assumptions.
A more devastating Syllogism:
P1: A rule of faith must be stable, universal, and coherent to be divine
P2: LDS rule of faith is constantly expanding, revised, or mutable
C: LDS rule of faith is not divine and cannot provide certainty of anything. Not even its alleged gospel.
So far this is where I am. I have more thoughts but I haven’t formalized them yet. I’m open to questions.