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

[Romulus]

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”.

 

[NotWorthy]

As you noted, 2nd Timothy is talking of the Old Testament. So St. Paul is telling us that the Old Testament ALONE is sufficient. Now, of course, since your minor premise is true, and now we have MORE Scripture, then it would make sense that the OT and the NT are MORE sufficient.

But something can’t be complete, and then become MORE complete. Hence, sufficient would imply that there is MORE needed for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

 

[epostle]

The Protestant error of “sola scriptura” is self refuting. The term “sola scriptura” can be defined as follows: “The Bible and only the Bible is the infallible rule of faith.” But the words “only the Bible” can be translated into Latin as “sola scriptura”.

Substituting this into the above definition we have: “The Bible and ‘sola scriptura’ is the rule of faith.”

This shows that “sola scriptura” logically refutes itself because this principle must be assumed to be true IN ADDITION TO the Bible. As such, “sola scriptura” refutes what it purports to claim.

This is an application of Kurt Godel’s Second Incompleteness Theorem from metamathematical analysis. Self-referential statements (such as the Liar Paradox of Epimenides or using the Bible to prove the Bible to be the sole rule of faith independant of any external referent) are notorious for making statements which are logically unprovable within the formal system that makes the claim. It is only by assuming a transcendental position outside the system under scrutiny that such contentions can be proven true or false.

In the case of “sola scriptura,” the necessity of assuming the transcendental position in and of itself refutes the principle under question.

Art Sippo

catholic-legate.com/articles/selfrefute.html

 

[Calvinator]

As you noted, 2nd Timothy is talking of the Old Testament. So St. Paul is telling us that the Old Testament ALONE is sufficient. Now, of course, since your minor premise is true, and now we have MORE Scripture, then it would make sense that the OT and the NT are MORE sufficient.

But something can’t be complete, and then become MORE complete. Hence, sufficient would imply that there is MORE needed for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

I completely disagree that the verse in discussion is limiting scripture to the OT. Nowhere in or even near the passage does the context have anything to do with the extent of scripture and is only dealing with the nature of scripture.

Also, we already see in the NT that the apostles have some since of at least some of their writings being scripture. For example, Peter refers to Paul’s writing(s) as scripture and also Paul quotes from one of the gospels as scripture.

But even if what I wrote about the NT wasn’t correct, the passage in Timothy is not dealing with the extent of scripture, only the nature.

 

[NotWorthy]

I completely disagree that the verse in discussion is limiting scripture to the OT. Nowhere in or even near the passage does the context have anything to do with the extent of scripture and is only dealing with the nature of scripture.

Also, we already see in the NT that the apostles have some since of at least some of their writings being scripture. For example, Peter refers to Paul’s writing(s) as scripture and also Paul quotes from one of the gospels as scripture.

But even if what I wrote about the NT wasn’t correct, the passage in Timothy is not dealing with the extent of scripture, only the nature.

But Paul is telling Timothy that the Scripture he learned from infancy (which would be sufficient) is the Old Testament.

from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

And Paul doesn’t say, “Scripture, which WILL be sufficient once it’s complete”.

 

[Romulus]

For example, Peter refers to Paul’s writing(s) as scripture and also Paul quotes from one of the gospels as scripture.

Hi Calvinator…where in the bible are these examples?

But even if what I wrote about the NT wasn’t correct, the passage in Timothy is not dealing with the extent of scripture, only the nature.

How do you get sufficiency from the Timothy passage?

Also, what do you think of my syllogism on my first post?

Thanks for the feedback.

 

[Romulus]

So St. Paul is telling us that the Old Testament ALONE is sufficient.

Hi NotWorthy,

Is sufficient…how do you get sufficient? If its implied…can you show us using logic/syllogism.

thanks

 

[De_Maria]

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”.

"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 study this verse a bit. What is this verse really concerned about? What is the context of this verse?

All scripture is inspired by God
Now, the terminology, “All Scripture is inspired by God” is an incomplete thought. The complete thought is found here:

2 Peter 1:21
For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

So, technically, Scripture is not “inspired of God”. Men are. To say that Scripture is inspired is a shorthand way of saying that men were inspired by the Holy Spirit to speak the Word of God and to write the Scriptures.

and is useful

And is useful? You mean it isn’t necessary? But if Scripture alone is sufficient, wouldn’t that make it necessary?

But Scripture is simply “useful”. I guess the question is, useful for what?

**and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, **

For teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training? What does this assume?

This assumes an entity which teaches the Scriptures with authority. The Magisterium.

If you read the rest of 2 Tim, you will find that the entire letter is about St. Paul INSTRUCTING St. Timothy to teach, reprove, correct and train holy men to carry on the Traditions which he has received of God.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The passage in no way limits scripture as “sufficient” alone. Paul is not certainly referring to his own letters as scripture. Peter does include “something” Paul wrote as scripture. These passages simply don’t state what the OP says. end of issue.

 

[Romulus]

** For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God** spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

So, technically, Scripture is not “inspired of God”. Men are.

Are we sure “prophecy” = “scripture”?? Isn’t “prophecy” a subset of “scripture”??..the peter verse just says “prophecy” came from holy men inspired by the Spirit.

 

[NotWorthy]

Hi NotWorthy,

Is sufficient…how do you get sufficient? If its implied…can you show us using logic/syllogism.

thanks

I’m continuing along the line of thinking that “Scripture is Sufficient” to prove that it alone is NOT sufficient.

Sorry if I’m being a little abstract.

 

[De_Maria]

Are we sure “prophecy” = “scripture”?? Isn’t “prophecy” a subset of “scripture”??..the peter verse just says “prophecy” came from holy men inspired by the Spirit.

Hint: Always read the context.

Scripture is a subset of prophecy:

                                            [2 Peter 1:20](http://www.whereinthebible.org/index.php?bookId=68&chapterId=1&verseId=20&page=1#x)
                                             Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

21 For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

Note how Peter distinguishes between prophecy of scripture and general prophecy.

Note also that Scripture is also a subset of speech. Holy men of God were inspired to speak by word and by writing. What does that remind you of?

2 Thessalonians 2:14
Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Calvinator]

**
If you read the rest of 2 Tim, you will find that the entire letter is about St. Paul INSTRUCTING St. Timothy to teach, reprove, correct and train holy men to carry on the Traditions which he has received of God.

Sincerely,

De Maria**

The question is, what exactly are those traditions?

 

[Romulus]

The question is, what exactly are those traditions?

Let’s tackle one question at a time Calvinator … I’ll like to first read your responses to my questions on post #6.

Thanks for the feedback

 

[Romulus]

Hint: Always read the context.

Scripture is a subset of prophecy:

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?

                                       [2 Peter 1:20](http://www.whereinthebible.org/index.php?bookId=68&chapterId=1&verseId=20&page=1#x)
                                             Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

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

 

[Calvinator]

But Paul is telling Timothy that the Scripture he learned from infancy (which would be sufficient) is the Old Testament. And Paul doesn’t say, “Scripture, which WILL be sufficient once it’s complete”.

2 Timothy 3:15-17:

15 …and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 **All Scripture is breathed out by God **and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God(1 )may be competent, equipped for every good work.

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?

Paul simply makes a statement about how from childhood Timothy had been acquainted with the scriptures and then goes on to describe the nature of the scriptures.

I don’t see any reason to believe that Paul was only talking about the OT when he penned these verses.

In fact, during the time when the NT books were being written we know that they were circulated among the various churches. We also know that the NT reveals that there was a recognition that at least some of the apostles letters were in fact scripture. For example:
2 Peter 3:14-16:

14 Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. 15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do **the other Scriptures. **

See how Peter includes Paul’s letters with scripture? For Peter at least, we see that Paul’s writings are scripture.

If “all scripture is God breathed” and Peter’s writings are scripture and they describe Paul’s writings as scripture, doesn’t that mean that “all scripture” includes Paul’s writings since they are scripture? If they are part of “all scripture” we see that they are not excluded by 2Timothy 3:16-17, nor is the rest of the NT.

It may be that Paul was only describing only the NT but it is certainly not required, or in my opinion even likely that he did so.

How certain are you that Paul is only discussing the OT in verses 16 and 17?

 

[Calvinator]

Hi Calvinator…where in the bible are these examples?

See my above post.

How do you get sufficiency from the Timothy passage?

I haven’t commented on that yet.

Also, what do you think of my syllogism on my first post?

I need to re-read it and will try to comment later tonight.

 

[Calvinator]

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.

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.

 

[Romulus]

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.

That is a shame Calvinator…I believe we should all study and be proficient in logic/reasoning in addition to knowing the scriptures. As the fellow protestant philosopher John Locke says, “Logic is the anatomy of thought.” Know Logic…and you know the structure or internal workings of “thinking”.

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.

I look forward to reading on how scripture proves that it is formally and materially sufficient. Also, try using some logical reasoning…to support.

By the way everyone, in my thread starter…the Major Premise is what is in question here, hence the conclusion is in question…It appears most of us here agree with the Minor Premise.

Thanks for the feedback

 

[Romulus]

The passage in no way limits scripture as “sufficient” alone.

I agree…so far it don’t see it explicitly or implicitly using logical reasoning. Calvinator is working on it though…we await his logical evidence using scripture.

Peter does include “something” Paul wrote as scripture. These passages simply don’t state what the OP says. end of issue.

Yes, the “something” is not identified to be any particular books/epistle. We can only speculate…Could he have referred to Paul’s letters that we don’t have in 1 Cor. 5:9 or the letter from Laodicea, (Colossians 4:16)?

But even if the minor premise of our syllogism is TRUE…the major premise is still in question…sufficiency.