Is Sola Scriptura Self-refuting?

[Gregory Thompson]

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!

Jeremiah 8:8 indicates that the bible is corrupted, thus any copies after that time would also be corrupted. So going by scripture alone, it would be reasonable to determine that scripture is unreliable.

Jesus even interpreted the scripture in a way that indicated only he knew what the original said .. so .. yeah sola or solo, it's not really a good way of looking at it if faith matters.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

No. The Bible is not corrupted. That idea that it is is from corruption.

The bible even has a curse in it for people who change the text. As Paul says in scripture, laws exist because there are transgressors.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Jesus and the Creator are Pleased to Reveal the Truth to little children, and Delighted to hide the truth (even of salvation) from educated ones.

Trust Jesus. Follow Jesus.
Don't trust mankind or religion.

Yeah, the Holy Spirit teaches us even today. It doesn't matter if there's a poor translation.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Most of the people of the world , on earth, are cursed and might know it, might not.
Two thirds continue serving demons and they refuse to turn to God, they refuse to repent.

I find those bible teaching demons the worst, they take themselves way too seriously. People get fooled into thinking that these are actually their thoughts all the time.

 

[jas3]

You mean beyond the definition I've already provided?

Yes, because you really don't seem to be interacting with the "sola" part at all, which is really the whole point of disagreement. Your examples say things like Scripture is infallible and sufficient, but not that it and nothing else is infallible, nor do they say that the Church is fallible.

No need to be a jerk about it.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but it seems like you haven't even read any of the works you've cited yourself, and it's very telling that when I provided you context that disproves your claim that St. Cyril of Jerusalem taught sola scriptura, you ignored it.

 

[Mike McK]

Yes, because you really don't seem to be interacting with the "sola" part at all

That's odd. The definition I've already provided addresses it in detail.

So either you didn't care enough about having a conversation, or you're just lying.

, which is really the whole point of disagreement. Your examples say things like Scripture is infallible and sufficient, but not that it and nothing else is infallible, nor do they say that the Church is fallible.

Perhaps if you had bothered to read my post where I defined and explained sola scriptura, you wouldn't have to ask.

I'm not trying to be a jerk

And yet you go on to be a jerk again in literally the next sentence.

, but it seems like you haven't even read any of the works you've cited yourself

Studied them in seminary and have taught on the ECFs many times.

It looks like you've got nothing but personal insults.

, and it's very telling that when I provided you context that disproves your claim that St. Cyril of Jerusalem taught sola scriptura, you ignored it.

Not responding is not the same as ignoring.

Why should I respond, when you've shown repeatedly that you're not sincere?

In fact, Proverbs 26:4 says I probably shouldn't waste my time responding to you at all.

 

[zippy2006]

Why should I respond, when you've shown repeatedly that you're not sincere?

If you had real arguments you wouldn't have to engage in these evasive tactics. If you had read the texts you would have a response.

The only one being a jerk here is you. jas3 handled your gish gallop and evasions very gently and charitably.

 

[The Liturgist]

I can personally vouch for the honesty of @jas3

Now it is regrettable that a quarrel exists on this point, because it looks to me like @Mike McK is teaching the Magisterial Protestant version of Sola Scriptura that is reflected, for example, in the Anglican tripod “Scripture, Tradition, Reason”, and which is not the Nuda Scriptura we find so frustrating. However it is the case that trying to prove Sola Scriptura from the writings of the Early Church Fathers is an unprofitable endeavor since they never used the term.

 

[Mike McK]

I can personally vouch for the honesty of @jas3

Now it is regrettable that a quarrel exists on this point, because it looks to me like @Mike McK is teaching the Magisterial Protestant version of Sola Scriptura that is reflected, for example, in the Anglican tripod “Scripture, Tradition, Reason”, and which is not the Nuda Scriptura we find so frustrating. However it is the case that trying to prove Sola Scriptura from the writings of the Early Church Fathers is an unprofitable endeavor since they never used the term.

It seems cowardly to continue to talk about someone you know is prohibited from defending themselves.

 

[jas3]

It seems cowardly to continue to talk about someone you know is prohibited from defending themselves.

You've been told multiple times in this thread that you can defend yourself.

That's odd. The definition I've already provided addresses it in detail.

Given that the question was whether your examples match your definition, the definition doesn't address anything.

Perhaps if you had bothered to read my post where I defined and explained sola scriptura, you wouldn't have to ask.

I have read it. There's a significant difference between "the Church can teach truth, with the caveat that that truth must be consistent with Scripture, and therefore if the Church, despite the guidance of the Holy Spirit, teaches something inconsistent with Scripture you're free to go into schism" and "the Church receives the deposit of faith from the Apostles, of which Scripture is a part, and because that deposit of faith is internally consistent and the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit 'into all truth,' the teaching of the Church will never contradict Scripture."

Studied them in seminary and have taught on the ECFs many times.

This doesn't answer whether you've specifically read the writings you cited. But let's say you've read them all and you personally noted each instance you cited here, rather than copying them from In Defense of Sola Scriptura - Part 10 - A Historical Defense - Credo House Ministries. You should be able to interact with these writings beyond the snippets you've quoted.

Why should I respond, when you've shown repeatedly that you're not sincere?

I ask myself the same question, but I respond in the hope that we're just having a miscommunication on the role of an extrabiblical rule of faith in the definitions you've provided. I also hope that your previous lack of a response on St. Cyril's more detailed treatment of Scripture was due to a misunderstanding about you being allowed to defend yourself rather than an unwillingness to engage with it in general.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Except the word of God states that all Scritpure is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16), it's not "hear-say."

Start with 2 Tim 3:16 to understand what you are dealing with.

Except that Jesus said
...Go preach
...The gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church of His steward, Peter
...His Church is God breathed
...The men of His Church were asked to put everything in writing
...Teaching came first. It's like the chicken or egg controversy.
...He established Judaism/Isrealites before the writings

He establishes what He wants and then it is written.

The ONLY writing prior to Moses who wrote most of the OT - including Genesis - was the Lord Himself on the stone tablets YET He ESTABLISHED FOLLOWING was first.
Always following first.

The writings are a back up of the ESTABLISHED following for all times if we need a source to return to.

What is interesting is how many sects create their own followings yet Judaism was left intact.
And they have tradition written in their Talmud.

Because they understand OCCURENCE/time/following/followers/Tradition yields the writing.

 

[Clare73]

Except that Jesus said
...Go preach
...The gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church of His steward, Peter
...His Church is God breathed
...The men of His Church were asked to put everything in writing
...Teaching came first. It's like the chicken or egg controversy.
...He established Judaism/Isrealites before the writings

He establishes what He wants and then it is written.

The ONLY writing prior to Moses who wrote most of the OT - including Genesis - was the Lord Himself on the stone tablets YET He ESTABLISHED FOLLOWING was first.
Always following first.

The writings are a back up of the ESTABLISHED following for all times if we need a source to return to.

What is interesting is how many sects create their own followings yet Judaism was left intact.
And they have tradition written in their Talmud.

Because they understand OCCURENCE/time/following/followers/Tradition yields the writing.

None of which alters "All Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Tim 3:16).

 

[boughtwithaprice]

webfind

"The Bible emphasizes the importance of testing all things, including teachings, claims, and interpretations, against Scripture. Here are some key verses that illustrate this principle:

• 1 Thessalonians 5:21: “But test everything; hold fast what is good.” This verse explicitly commands believers to test all things, including teachings and claims, against the standard of Scripture.
• Isaiah 8:20: “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.” This verse emphasizes the importance of aligning one’s words and actions with the law (Scripture) and its testimony.
• Psalm 26:2: “Prove me, O Lord, and try me; test my heart and my mind.” While this verse is a personal prayer, it illustrates the importance of submitting oneself to God’s testing and evaluation, which is ultimately based on Scripture.
• 1 John 1:9: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” This verse highlights the importance of testing one’s own heart and actions against Scripture, seeking forgiveness and cleansing through confession.

These verses collectively demonstrate the biblical principle of testing all things, including teachings, claims, and interpretations, against the standard of Scripture. This principle is essential for maintaining spiritual purity, avoiding error, and ensuring that one’s beliefs and practices align with God’s Word."

With all due respect, the verse you quote indeed tell us to test and to do certain things, but they do not tell us to use scripture alone. That is your interpretation that you inserted along with the verses.

The point is that scripture has multiple interpretations. Whose interpretation do you listen to and why?

We could substitute the words Apostolic teaching for YOUR use of the word scripture, keep the verses exactly the same and wind up with different meanings

How do you know which interpretation is correct?

 

[WarriorAngel]

None of which alters "All Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Tim 3:16).

The Church said so.
I believe

Timothy was a Bishop of the Church and the long line of teachings

Notice Moses on the mountain 40 days being taught by the Lord

Jesus taught for forty days before ascending

Yet no apostle wrote specifically about that time.

They taught…
The teachings had questions and epistles we’re responses
…
The bishops asked for the written gospels to keep the knowledge…

You simply can’t have the Bible without the church.

 

[Clare73]

The Church said so.
I believe
Timothy was a Bishop of the Church and the long line of teachings
Notice Moses on the mountain 40 days being taught by the Lord
Jesus taught for forty days before ascending
Yet no apostle wrote specifically about that time.

They taught…
The teachings had questions and epistles we’re responses
…The bishops asked for the written gospels to keep the knowledge…
You simply can’t have the Bible without the church.

Nor can you have prophecy without prophets.
But neither the prophets nor the church are the authors of the revelation.
The Holy Spirit is their author (2 Tim 3:16).
The prophets and the church were simply the spokesmen and the penman, respectively.

 

[The Liturgist]

But neither the prophets nor the church are the authors of the revelation.

The Holy Spirit inspired the authors of the books of Scripture, who then wrote them based on the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and then these books were recognized as canonical by the Church, which is the mystical Body of Christ and the Bride of Christ. You’re kind of downplaying the tremendous amount of effort that went into finding and preserving the genuine Apostolic writings in the second, third and fourth century and distinguishing between them, and well-intentioned psuedepigrapha like 1 Barnabas or the Apocalypse of Peter, and Patristic writings like 1 Clement or the Shepherd of Hermas, which while important and edifying, it was decided by the bishops of the early church would not be included in the canon of the New Testament directly, and finally, you had heterodox and heretical writings of a psuedepigraphical character and also intentionally corrupted writings.


Just as an example, Marcion took the Gospel of Luke and a selection of Pauline epistles, and edited them to delete anything that might imply Jesus Christ was the son of God as depicted in the Old Testament, because Marcion believed that Jesus Christ was the son of a different God and that the Old Testament depicted an evil demiurge, which was also a view common among other sects like the Valentinians, Tatianists, Ophites and so on.

By the way, Marcion’s canon of adulterated scripture was actually the first attempt at canonizing the New Testament we have any record of. It would appear from an historical perspective that that event, combined with the proliferation of Gnostic psuedepigrapha like the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Truth, the Pistis Sophia, the Tripartite Tractate, et cetera, drove the effort at compiling a definitive New Testament canon.

And if we accept that all the books in the New Testament are inspired, then we have to recognize that the process by which the early church refined this, for example, St. Irenaeus of Lyons stressing the four canonical Gospels, and efforts to replace Gospel harmonies like Tatian’s Diatessaron (another example of corruption of New Testament scripture) which was the first “translation” of the Gospel available in Syriac Aramaic with a translation of the four actual Gospels, the Vetus Syra, and then in the fourth century the progression we see in Eusebius and St. Cyril of Jerusalem towards a more refined canon which culminated in the 39th Paschal Encyclical of St. Athanasius which has the 27 books that all Christians agree are the New Testament, that this process itself of the development of the New Testament canon was a holy miracle put into effect by God the Holy Spirit our Comforter and Paraclete.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Nor can you have prophecy without prophets.
But neither the prophets nor the church are the authors of the revelation.
The Holy Spirit is their author (2 Tim 3:16).
The prophets and the church were simply the spokesmen and the penman, respectively.

Pentecost the Holy Spirit was sent unto them and they went out proclaiming.
3000 were baptized.

They went out teaching.

The written came much later.

 

[Clare73]

Pentecost the Holy Spirit was sent unto them and they went out proclaiming.
3000 were baptized.

They went out teaching.

The written came much later.

Keeping in mind the written is likewise God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16).

 

[The Liturgist]

Keeping in mind the written is likewise God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16).

No one is denying that. That’s literally what Divinely inspired means. However, it was the Church that determined which works were actually inspired Scriptures written by the Apostles, and which works were Patristic but not Apostolic, and which books were psuedepigrapha or heretical or both.

 

[Clare73]

No one is denying that. That’s literally what Divinely inspired means. However, it was the Church that determined which works were actually inspired Scriptures written by the Apostles, and which works were Patristic but not Apostolic, and which books were psuedepigrapha or heretical or both.

Of course. . .who else but the early Christians could make such a call?

However, some of those books are not recognized as God-breathed by a large number of Christians,
and I can see why, for all but one of the books of the Apocrypha is inferior to the majesty and quality of the rest of the God-breathed Scriptures (2 Tim 3:16).