Sola Scriptura - a Syllogism on 2nd Tim 3:16-17

[De_Maria]

The question is, what exactly are those traditions?

The Mass:

                                            [Acts 2:42](http://www.whereinthebible.org/index.php?bookId=51&chapterId=2&verseId=42&page=1#x)
                                             And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Note how the wording corresponds to the two parts of the Mass, the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

The Sacrifice of the Mass or Holy Communion:
1 Corinthians 11:26
For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.

The reading of Scripture in the Mass:
Colossians 4:16

                     And when this epistle shall have been read with you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans: and that you read that which is of the Laodiceans.

And many more.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

In mathematical terms…if you say that Scripture is a subset of prophecy and not the other way around…then you are saying that there is more prophecy than scripture in quantity. Is this true?

What does Scripture say?

John 21:25
But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

I

s “Prophecy of Scripture” equivalent to “Forcasting of Scripture”??? What does the original Greek say??

Prophecy does not always mean “to foretell the future”. In Scripture, a prophet is someone who speaks the word of God. Although prophets frequently tell the future they don’t always do so. They warn, they teach, they preach, etc. etc.

As for the Greek, you tell me. I’m not a Greek expert. The English has been sufficient for me all these years.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[NotWorthy]

Notworthy,

Is there anything that prohibits Paul from meaning more than the OT when he says “all scripture”?

Paul does say “All Scripture is breathed out by God…” This saying, “All Scripture is breathed out by God…” does apply to the NT does it not? Also, nowhere in the near vicinity of this verse do we find Paul describing the extent of the canon so why force Paul into describing the extent of the canon at this point?

Well, that depends. Is Scripture “All that is needed”? Then Paul can’t be talking about that. Because to Timothy, “All that is needed” is all that is available - The OT and only some of the NT. If this subset of the entire Scripture is all that is needed, then why would you need more Scripture.

But, if you mean it is profitable, but not “All that is needed”, then it would have the same meaning. All of the OT and some of the NT is profitable (but not all that is necessary), while the entire OT and NT is even more profitable.

 

[Benadam]

doesn’t that verse says that all scripture is inspired by God and is usefull for teaching…seems the rest is describing what teachers do.

 

[NotWorthy]

doesn’t that verse says that all scripture is inspired by God and is usefull for teaching…seems the rest is describing what teachers do.

Please don’t try and confuse the issue with the facts, Bena!

 

[epostle]

All scripture is inspired, but nowhere in the bible does it say that ONLY scripture is inspired. This kind of thinking pits the bible against the Church, because Jesus breathed on the Apostles. (John 20:22) “Bible only” thinking obscures the relationship between scriptural authority, and apostolic authority. The Church is the servant of the scriptures, and is its authorized teacher. Thus, the charge of “sola ecclesia” is both false and insulting.

Yes, we know that the Holy Spirit inspired the the writers while they were writing the scriptures, but what sola scripturists have a hard time accepting is that inspiration had to be PROVEN, not just ASSUMED.
Yes, we know that Paul’s, letters were authoritive and inspired, but they were written to communities and individuals, and NOT BINDING on the whole Church until they were canonized. (proven inspired and approved for public readings)
Without an authoritive interpreter, the Bible is reduced to a feel-good reading book. By separating Tradition from Scripture, the Bible can no longer be inspired. The painfully obvious divisions of Protestantism attests to this.

Two different modes of transmission of the same Word of God means complimentarity, not competition or contradictions. Sola scriptura is a license for anyone to invent them, and it demands the elimination of Tradition, contrary to the Bible itself.

The consequence of sola scriptura is to abolish the “man of God” as a clergymen and replace it with a man-made tradition. Any Bible search engine will reveal that the “man of God” must meet one of two criteria:

1. they must be called directly by God, followed by signs and wonders and/or
2. they must be ordained by a bishop of the Church

I challenge anyone to prove, by the Bible alone, that the “man of God” is anything less.

One main reason we have a Bible at all was because the Church had to know for sure what could legitimately be read during Mass, especially with 35 “gospels” and 15 “books of Acts” floating around.

If every Bible on the planet were to be destroyed, all Christian teaching would be preserved in Sacred Tradition which can never be destroyed. Before the canon of the Bible, (before the end of the 3rd century) the Christian Rule of Faith (TRADITION) included belief in the Apostolic succession through the Episcopate, the authority of Tradition itself, the authority of Scripture, the three fold ministry (bishop-priest-deacon), the Eucharist as Sacrifice, baptismal regeneration, prayers for the dead, veneration of the Saints, the Seven sacraments, the evangelical counsels, (poverty, chastity and obedience) and others.
The historical evidence is there for anyone who wishes to see it.
I repeat, the authority of Scripture is a Tradition of the Catholic Church. There is no false dichotomy as sola scriptura demands.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

All scripture is inspired, but nowhere in the bible does it say that ONLY scripture is inspired. This kind of thinking pits the bible against the Church, because Jesus breathed on the Apostles. (John 20:22) “Bible only” thinking obscures the relationship between scriptural authority, and apostolic authority. The Church is the servant of the scriptures, and is its authorized teacher. Thus, the charge of “sola ecclesia” is both false and insulting.

Yes, we know that the Holy Spirit inspired the the writers while they were writing the scriptures, but what sola scripturists have a hard time accepting is that inspiration had to be PROVEN, not just ASSUMED.
Yes, we know that Paul’s, letters were authoritive and inspired, but they were written to communities and individuals, and NOT BINDING on the whole Church until they were canonized. (proven inspired and approved for public readings)
Without an authoritive interpreter, the Bible is reduced to a feel-good reading book. By separating Tradition from Scripture, the Bible can no longer be inspired. The painfully obvious divisions of Protestantism attests to this.

Two different modes of transmission of the same Word of God means complimentarity, not competition or contradictions. Sola scriptura is a license for anyone to invent them, and it demands the elimination of Tradition, contrary to the Bible itself.

The consequence of sola scriptura is to abolish the “man of God” as a clergymen and replace it with a man-made tradition. Any Bible search engine will reveal that the “man of God” must meet one of two criteria:

1. they must be called directly by God, followed by signs and wonders and/or
2. they must be ordained by a bishop of the Church

I challenge anyone to prove, by the Bible alone, that the “man of God” is anything less.

One main reason we have a Bible at all was because the Church had to know for sure what could legitimately be read during Mass, especially with 35 “gospels” and 15 “books of Acts” floating around.

If every Bible on the planet were to be destroyed, all Christian teaching would be preserved in Sacred Tradition which can never be destroyed. Before the canon of the Bible, (before the end of the 3rd century) the Christian Rule of Faith (TRADITION) included belief in the Apostolic succession through the Episcopate, the authority of Tradition itself, the authority of Scripture, the three fold ministry (bishop-priest-deacon), the Eucharist as Sacrifice, baptismal regeneration, prayers for the dead, veneration of the Saints, the Seven sacraments, the evangelical counsels, (poverty, chastity and obedience) and others.
The historical evidence is there for anyone who wishes to see it.
I repeat, the authority of Scripture is a Tradition of the Catholic Church. There is no false dichotomy as sola scriptura demands.

Nicely said I would say. Thanks for the clarity.

 

[Benadam]

Please don’t try and confuse the issue with the facts, Bena!

oops:blush: Grabs a bucket and finds a corner to sit.

 

[Donald45]

The leap in logic is here:

Scripture is “useful” in making one complete.
Therefore, Scripture is “sufficient” to make one complete.

Yet, when placed in a different context, the error is clear:

Water is “useful” in sustaining one’s life.
Therefore, water is “sufficient” for sustaining life.

Or:

Education is “useful” in making one a well-rounded individual.
Therefore, education is “sufficient” to make one well-rounded.

Also, consider the term “inspired” (Gr., theopneustos), used only here in 2 Tim. 3:16. This term is not applied to any particular book or letter in the New Testament. In other words, nowhere does the biblical text ever say, “The Gospel of Luke is theopneustos.” No specific book of the NT is ever described as having been “inspired.” How, therefore----apart from extrabiblical Tradition----can the Protestant determine what “the New Testament” even is, let alone that it is “sufficient”?

Blessings,

Don
+T+

 

[Romulus]

The leap in logic is here:

Scripture is “useful” in making one complete.
Therefore, Scripture is “sufficient” to make one complete.

Yet, when placed in a different context, the error is clear:

Water is “useful” in sustaining one’s life.
Therefore, water is “sufficient” for sustaining life.

Or:

Education is “useful” in making one a well-rounded individual.
Therefore, education is “sufficient” to make one well-rounded.

Also, consider the term “inspired” (Gr., theopneustos), used only here in 2 Tim. 3:16. This term is not applied to any particular book or letter in the New Testament. In other words, nowhere does the biblical text ever say, “The Gospel of Luke is theopneustos.” No specific book of the NT is ever described as having been “inspired.” How, therefore----apart from extrabiblical Tradition----can the Protestant determine what “the New Testament” even is, let alone that it is “sufficient”?

Blessings,

Don
+T+

Interesting points…I agree, good to go back to the original greek to help interpret. Calvinator is still working on supporting “sufficiency”…Probably doing some research…which is good, we all need to study and make logical sense of things.

 

[Romulus]

Also, consider the term “inspired” (Gr., theopneustos), used only here in 2 Tim. 3:16. This term is not applied to any particular book or letter in the New Testament. In other words, nowhere does the biblical text ever say, “The Gospel of Luke is theopneustos.” No specific book of the NT is ever described as having been “inspired.”

Well it appears that the term is being applied to the OT. Then it looks like Protestants say it is “implied” that the other scriptures are inspired too from this verse. I’ll like to see a syllogism/logic to back this “implication”.

Regardless…the question here I think is “suffuciency”

 

[DaveBj]

"16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work "

Lets break this down into separate statements:

1. All scripture is inspired by God.
2. All scripture is useful (or whatever synonym you choose) for teaching.
3. All scripture is useful for reproof.
4. All scripture is useful for correction.
5. All scripture is useful for training in righteousness.

Now let’s add a 6th statement:

1. All dogs (talking about normal dogs here, not dogs that are freaks of nature or have been in an accident with a lawn mower) have four legs.

Working backwards, is it logical to say that if all dogs have four legs, then only dogs have four legs? The error there is obvious. the same applies to the rest of the statements. “All” cannot be replaced by “only” in any of them. All A = B does not mean that only A = B.

This has been discussed before, and someone came up with the name of the logical fallacy that believers in sola scriptura fall prey to in this case, but I have forgotten what it was.

 

[Romulus]

Lets break this down into separate statements:

1. All scripture is inspired by God.
2. All scripture is useful (or whatever synonym you choose) for teaching.
3. All scripture is useful for reproof.
4. All scripture is useful for correction.
5. All scripture is useful for training in righteousness.

Now let’s add a 6th statement:

1. All dogs (talking about normal dogs here, not dogs that are freaks of nature or have been in an accident with a lawn mower) have four legs.

Working backwards, is it logical to say that if all dogs have four legs, then only dogs have four legs? The error there is obvious. the same applies to the rest of the statements. “All” cannot be replaced by “only” in any of them. All A = B does not mean that only A = B.

This has been discussed before, and someone came up with the name of the logical fallacy that believers in sola scriptura fall prey to in this case, but I have forgotten what it was.

Haha…interesting example

 

[Nino]

Greetings fellow Christians…Catholic and Protestant…

Well, I browsed all the Sola Scriptura threads here…and nobody mentioned any syllogism/logic to support or refute Lurther’s 16th century doctrine.

So, we are all familiar with 2nd Tim 3:16-17…most especially our protestant bros and sis…who use this particular scripture to support/defend “Sola Scriptura”.

"16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work "

So I applied a syllogism…in order to see if “scripture is sufficient” hence we can abandon tradition…Sola Scriptura is valid…correct me if I’m wrong with this statement my protestant bros/sis.

By the way, for those of you who are not familiar with a Syllogism, click here to read up on the basics of it.

Using the classic example and in particular the valid form figure 1 also known as Barbara:

Major premise: All men are mortal.
Minor premise: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

So using the same form:

Major premise: All scripture is sufficient.
Minor premise: Old Testament & New Testament are scripture.
Conclusion: Old Testament & New Testament are sufficient.

Now in order for the conclusion to be TRUE…the major and minor premises must be TRUE…

Now most of us here share the “faith” that what is in scripture (OT/NT) is TRUE and God-breathed…but, where in scripture does it say that scripture is sufficient? Is it “implicit” and/or “hidden” in 2nd Tim 3:17?..if so, can someone show us the syllogism using the bible verses.

Where in scripture does it say that the NT is scripture?? 2nd Timothy supports that OT is scripture…but not explicitly the NT. Again, if so, can someone show us the syllogism using bible verses.

I’m personally still studying logic and I will very much like to learn more…and I highly recommend everyone to study logic also…to help make logical sense of things…especially the word of God…For God is not illogical right?

So, all feedback is greatly appreciated. Thanks!

ps. I’m also working on another syllogism with the verse, "All scripture is inspired by God " since we have a universal quantifier “All”, a subject “scripture” and predicate “inspired by God”.

 

[Nino]

If Jesus had wanted to leave His teachings in written form He simply would have invented the printing press…instead He left a chair …in Rome…and who occupies that chair,in HIs name,speaks for him…interpreting those scriptures thru all the centuries…words change…square used to mean…fair and honest…then the powers that be,in order to downgrade TR…changed its meaning to : square…outdated and naive!..“long hair” in the 50s meant a person who loved classical music and creative writing…thus a 'boring’person…in the late 60s the long haired person became a hippie…aware and contemporary…now with the bible…we need an expert to clarify words and meanings for each generation…also…the mere fact that there are some…what 40,000 various sects in that belief…proves that one can see what one wants to ‘see’ in scripture to suit ones prejudice and pre-conceived notions…NIno

 

[Donald45]

Well it appears that the term is being applied to the OT. Then it looks like Protestants say it is “implied” that the other scriptures are inspired too from this verse. I’ll like to see a syllogism/logic to back this “implication”.

Yes, the term theopneustos is used to describe Scripture as a whole (whatever “Scripture” happens to be). However, given that no particular New Testament document is described as theopneustos, the Protestant simply has no objective way of determining that any of the 27 NT documents are actually “inspired,” and therefore that they qualify as “Scripture.” This is the problem of the Canon, and it’s simply insurmountable for those committed to sola scriptura. For Catholics, however, it’s no problem at all.

Blessings,

Don
+T+

 

[Romulus]

Lets break this down into separate statements:

1. All scripture is inspired by God.
2. All scripture is useful (or whatever synonym you choose) for teaching.
3. All scripture is useful for reproof.
4. All scripture is useful for correction.
5. All scripture is useful for training in righteousness.

Now let’s add a 6th statement:

1. All dogs (talking about normal dogs here, not dogs that are freaks of nature or have been in an accident with a lawn mower) have four legs.

Working backwards, is it logical to say that if all dogs have four legs, then only dogs have four legs? The error there is obvious. the same applies to the rest of the statements. “All” cannot be replaced by “only” in any of them. All A = B does not mean that only A = B.

This has been discussed before, and someone came up with the name of the logical fallacy that believers in sola scriptura fall prey to in this case, but I have forgotten what it was.

hmm…thought about this for a bit…gotta be careful here…the whole comparing apples with oranges thang. We know that it is false that only dogs have four legs…because we know cats also have four legs…and so do many other animals.

But in regards to scripture…from where do we know that they are “other things inspired by God”?? Using logic/syllogism can we imply that the other things also inspired by God, for example 'sacred tradition"??

 

[Romulus]

First, you are too nice. You can’t do that here, we don’t like it .

As I showed above there is evidence that at least some of the NT canon was recognized as scripture. I can’t provide a table of contents for you if that is what you are asking. Nor am I able to come up with a good sillogism…I can probably come up w/ some really bad ones but that wouldn’t be helpful.

A faithful Catholic could accept your premise, could he not? I do believe that it is allowable for you guys to accept material sufficiency of the scriptures, isn’t it? Of course I believe the scriptures to be formally sufficient and not just materially sufficient so I guess that’s where the discussion will go.

I will comment on the formal sufficiency of the scriptures later. Sorry I couldn’t be more help.

Calvinator is shown as “banned”…what happened? Does it mean he/she is no longer allowed to post?

 

[Romulus]

Hello everyone, here is a syllogism I ran across…and it appears to be a valid one. But I suspect that it may be failing one of the rules of a syllogism.

Here is a good link to look up the details and rules about a syllogism
friesian.com/aristotl.htm

This syllogism follows the pattern of Figure 3 which is as follows:

Major Premise: M - P
Minor Premise: M - S
Conclusion: S - P

By definition, S is the subject of the conclusion, P is the predicate of the conclusion, M is the middle term, the major premise links M with P and the minor premise links M with S.

In particular, here is the Disamis

Major Premise: A God breathed thing is sufficient
Minor Premise: All God breathed things are Scripture
Conclusion: Scripture is sufficient

So the conclusion is not an “add on”…it is already within the premises…we have “implicitly” shown a hidden conclusion…but the conclusion is only TRUE is the Premises are TRUE…so I’ll like to ask everyone, in particular Sola Scripturist, where in the bible does it say explicitly or implicitly that, “All God breathed things are Scripture” and “A God breathed thing is sufficient”??? If it does, please show us using a syllogism to “implicitly” show the conclusion logically.

Any feedback to improve and/or challenge this syllogism is greatly appreciated. I’m personally not sure whether or not the syllogism I posted breaks any syllogism rules.

Peace be with you

 

[DaveBj]

hmm…thought about this for a bit…gotta be careful here…the whole comparing apples with oranges thang. We know that it is false that only dogs have four legs…because we know cats also have four legs…and so do many other animals.

But in regards to scripture…from where do we know that they are “other things inspired by God”?? Using logic/syllogism can we imply that the other things also inspired by God, for example 'sacred tradition"??

We can’t know that there are other things inspired by God, and that was not my point. My point is that if we know that “All A is B (all Scripture is inspired, all dogs have four legs),” we cannot conclude from that that “Only A is B (only Scripture is inspired, only dogs have four legs.” It is illogical. Such a conclusion might actually be true (I’m trying to think of a case where it would be true), but it would still be illogical.