Is Sola Scriptura Self-refuting?

[DragonFox91]

Part of the problem w/ this discussion is that it’s been taking out 1 or 2 verse, or chunks o a verse or 2, when we need to see their context. For example, the focus on the Timothy verse is that Scripture has been God-breathed. What else does that section have to say?

"From childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus…………and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work"

 

[zippy2006]

Do not add to God's words.

Note that, as I pointed out in post #2, "Catholics do not hold that other sources achieve the same rank as Scripture."

...but it's not clear how a verse about "not adding" or Cooper's 2 Timothy 3:16 addresses the argument of the OP. I think the problem is that they really leave the argument unscathed.

 

[zippy2006]

Right, but they believe the Church is the continued reincarnation of Jesus so their Word is His. So when they see 'his word' in the Bible, they interpret that to mean 'the Church's (traditions) / word' as well b/c it's more or less the same thing, to them.

This is incorrect, and Akin speaks to it in this video (timestamp).

 

[zippy2006]

Part of the problem w/ this discussion is that it’s been taking out 1 or 2 verse, or chunks o a verse or 2, when we need to see their context. For example, the focus on the Timothy verse is that Scripture has been God-breathed. What else does that section have to say?

"From childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus…………and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work"

Let's suppose that "thoroughly equipped for every good work" signifies the sufficiency of Scripture. The problem I have with such a view is that when Paul is here talking about "the Holy Scriptures," he is referring to the Old Testament. If this verse refers to the Old Testament, and the Old Testament is therefore the object of sufficiency, then what are we do to with the New Testament addition? If this really does indicate the sufficiency of the Old Testament, then this means that the New Testament is unnecessary (for if X is sufficient then what is not-X is not necessary).

 

[DragonFox91]

This is incorrect, and Akin speaks to it in this video (timestamp).

He didn't address that at all.

 

[eleos1954]

I recently watched a debate on Sola Scriptura, which admittedly wasn't very good. That said, the argument Jimmy Akin gave is succinct and incisive:

P1. Sola Scriptura says that all doctrines must be derivable from Scripture.​

P2. Sola Scriptura is a doctrine.​

C1. Therefore, Sola Scriptura must be derivable from Scripture.​

P3. But Sola Scriptura is not derivable from Scripture.​

C2. Therefore, Sola Scriptura is self-refuting, and hence false.​

What do you think?

For those who defend Sola Scriptura, which of the three premises of the argument would you attack and why?

I would really like for this to be a thread about this particular argument, so I will redirect or ignore responses that do not address it. That said, inevitably users will post other arguments for or against Sola Scriptura and derail the thread until the cows come home. Oh well!

Sola scriptura is not self-refuting but many of the interpretations are.

 

[DragonFox91]

Let's suppose that "thoroughly equipped for every good work" signifies the sufficiency of Scripture. The problem I have with such a view is that when Paul is here talking about "the Holy Scriptures," he is referring to the Old Testament. If this verse refers to the Old Testament, and the Old Testament is therefore the object of sufficiency, then what are we do to with the New Testament addition? If this really does indicate the sufficiency of the Old Testament, then this means that the New Testament is unnecessary (for if X is sufficient then what is not-X is not necessary).

He is not referring to just the OT, no. At the time the letters + Gospels were being read in church & being treated as Scripture.

 

[Clare73]

I recently watched a debate on Sola Scriptura, which admittedly wasn't very good. That said, the argument Jimmy Akin gave is succinct and incisive:

P1. Sola Scriptura says that all doctrines must be derivable from Scripture.​

P2. Sola Scriptura is a doctrine.​

C1. Therefore, Sola Scriptura must be derivable from Scripture.​

P3. But Sola Scriptura is not derivable from Scripture.​

C2. Therefore, Sola Scriptura is self-refuting, and hence false.​

What do you think?

For those who defend Sola Scriptura, which of the three premises of the argument would you attack and why?

I would really like for this to be a thread about this particular argument, so I will redirect or ignore responses that do not address it. That said, inevitably users will post other arguments for or against Sola Scriptura and derail the thread until the cows come home. Oh well!

Sola Scriptura is not doctrine, just as hermeneutics is not doctrine.

It's about authority.

 

[zippy2006]

He is not referring to just the OT, no. At the time the letters + Gospels were being read in church & being treated as Scripture.

Are you claiming that the letter is claiming itself to be Scripture? Do you have some sort of source for such ideas?

 

[zippy2006]

He didn't address that at all.

You said that for Catholics tradition and scripture are "more or less the same thing."

I gave you a timestamped link where Akin addresses this exact topic. He begins, "Can Catholics acknowledge that Scripture has a unique role or authority compared to tradition and the Magisterium? And I wanted to address that, and the answer is 'yes'..." Akin goes on to explain why they are not "more or less the same thing."

Please cease with your dishonest posts.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I recently watched a debate on Sola Scriptura, which admittedly wasn't very good. That said, the argument Jimmy Akin gave is succinct and incisive:

P1. Sola Scriptura says that all doctrines must be derivable from Scripture.​

P2. Sola Scriptura is a doctrine.​

C1. Therefore, Sola Scriptura must be derivable from Scripture.​

P3. But Sola Scriptura is not derivable from Scripture.​

C2. Therefore, Sola Scriptura is self-refuting, and hence false.​

What do you think?

For those who defend Sola Scriptura, which of the three premises of the argument would you attack and why?

I would really like for this to be a thread about this particular argument, so I will redirect or ignore responses that do not address it. That said, inevitably users will post other arguments for or against Sola Scriptura and derail the thread until the cows come home. Oh well!

The Foundation of the Gospel can only be found in scripture. The Foundation consists of the Prophets and the Apostles with Jesus Christ of Nazareth as the Chief Corner Stone. This "self-refuting" stuff is void of common sense.
Blessings

 

[zippy2006]

The Foundation of the Gospel can only be found in scripture. The Foundation consists of the Prophets and the Apostles with Jesus Christ of Nazareth as the Chief Corner Stone. This "self-refuting" stuff is void of common sense.
Blessings

Your post fails to interact with the OP in any way, shape or form. Common sense tells us that Sola Scriptura must be derived from Scripture.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Your post fails to interact with the OP in any way, shape or form. Common sense tells us that Sola Scriptura must be derived from Scripture.

You mean not conforming to Jimmy Akin's opinion is not interacting? Ok, but it simply means that we derive all that we know about the Gospel through scripture. No mystery.
Blessings.

 

[zippy2006]

You mean not conforming to Jimmy Akin's opinion is not interacting?

No, I mean failing to interact with a single word of the OP means not interacting.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Is Sola Scriptura actually a doctrine?

I would argue that Sola Scriptura is a method for testing whether a doctrine is legitimate or not and not a doctrine in and of itself.

Thanks for sharing. I don't think Sola Scriptura is a doctrine either it simply means the Gospel is found in its pages and nothing else is needed for its completeness.
Blessings.

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day,

I would say the OP has a misunderstanding of the what SS means and how it functions in the church.


Sola Scriptura correctly understood:

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas' eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth." The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God's Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. Sola Scriptura doesn't deny the presence of other authorities subordinate to the Scriptures. The "Sola" refers to its status as the only infallible authority, not the only authority.


In Him,

Bill

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Where does Scripture tell us that all things must be tested by Scripture?

2 Timothy 3:14-16
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

 

[BobRyan]

I recently watched a debate on Sola Scriptura, which admittedly wasn't very good. That said, the argument Jimmy Akin gave is succinct and incisive:

P1. Sola Scriptura says that all doctrines must be derivable from Scripture.​

P2. Sola Scriptura is a doctrine.​

C1. Therefore, Sola Scriptura must be derivable from Scripture.​

P3. But Sola Scriptura is not derivable from Scripture.​

C2. Therefore, Sola Scriptura is self-refuting, and hence false.​

What do you think?

It is a bit light and relies on the reader not having read much of the Bible.

Rom 3:23 "All have sinned" -- and yet Jesus did not sin... so is that teaching in vs 23 "Self refuting"?

More than that - we see the sola scriptura test being witnessed in scripture in Mark 7:6-13 and Acts 17:11 and Is 8:20.
So it is scripture itself proclaiming the sola scriptura teaching...

For those who defend Sola Scriptura, which of the three premises of the argument would you attack and why?

I gave to examples of flaws in the argument.

 

[BBAS 64]

Your post fails to interact with the OP in any way, shape or form. Common sense tells us that Sola Scriptura must be derived from Scripture.

Good day,

It may be common to you... once one agrees with the presumptions (name it claim it) proclamations of your denomination.

But those out side of the dogmatic self claim authority of your denomination it is not so common, rather a misguided strawman.

In Him,

Bill

 

[zippy2006]

At this point in the thread the many users who are failing to interact with the OP will be ignored.