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

[Romulus]

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.

Well let us say…just for the sake of the augument that (ONLY dogs have four legs). We know this is not true here in our world…but let us assume it is…then we are not allowed to say (All dogs have four legs)…since they are the ONLY ones who have four legs??

I tried using a valid syllogism to show this…but still working on it…try using one Dave to support why you think its “illogical”

thanks for the feedback

 

[DaveBj]

Romulus, here’s the link to the thread I was talking about.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=133006&highlight=all+dogs

See Post 2. The fallacy that makes it illogical is Affirming the Consequent, and the actual format of the fallacy goes like this:

If dog, then four legs.

Four legs.

Therefore, dog.

That is a formal fallacy in the study of logic and critical thinking, and arguments based on that format are illogical by definition, no matter how good they may look to the reader. Even if it were true that only dogs had four legs, the argument would still be illogical.

 

[Romulus]

Romulus, here’s the link to the thread I was talking about.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=133006&highlight=all+dogs

See Post 2. The fallacy that makes it illogical is Affirming the Consequent, and the actual format of the fallacy goes like this:

If dog, then four legs.

Four legs.

Therefore, dog.

That is a formal fallacy in the study of logic and critical thinking, and arguments based on that format are illogical by definition, no matter how good they may look to the reader. Even if it were true that only dogs had four legs, the argument would still be illogical.

Dave,

Are you saying that the conditional statement, a.k.a IF-THEN statement, “If scripture, then inspired” is not equivalent to “If inspired, then scripture”??

yes it is illogical if the converse is NOT TRUE…but it can be logical if the converse also is TRUE…it is referred to as “if and only if”…meaning we can swap the hypothesis and conclusion.

So, back to our dogs and legs example…

“dog IF AND ONLY IF it has four legs” is equivalent to

“IF dog, THEN it has four legs” IS TRUE

“IF it has four legs, THEN it is a dog” IS TRUE.

thanks for the feedback.

 

[DaveBj]

Dave,

Are you saying that the conditional statement, a.k.a IF-THEN statement, “If scripture, then inspired” is not equivalent to “If inspired, then scripture”??

The two statementa are equivalent statements, but if the second statement is based on the first statement, (“If scripture, then inspired; therefore, if inspired, then scripture”), then the fallacy explained above applies and the argument is illogical.

yes it is illogical if the converse is NOT TRUE…but it can be logical if the converse also is TRUE…it is referred to as “if and only if”…meaning we can swap the hypothesis and conclusion.

No, it is illogical whether or not the converse is true. The logic or illogic of the process of argumentation is a different subject that whether or not the statements in the arguments are actually true.

So, back to our dogs and legs example…

“dog IF AND ONLY IF it has four legs” is equivalent to

“IF dog, THEN it has four legs” IS TRUE

“IF it has four legs, THEN it is a dog” IS TRUE.

thanks for the feedback.

'Fraid not. See above.

I don’t know what your age or school status is, but until you’ve taken and passed a course in critical thinking or elementary logic, you’re out of your league in discussions like this. Logic and critical thinking are a science unto themselves, just like physics or algebra. I’ve had some coursework, but even so I barely know enough to scratch the surface.

Anyway, back to the original subject: Sola scripture believers, based on the scripture mentioned by the OP, believe this:

If Scripture, then inspired.

Inspired.

Therefore, Scripture.

This argument is illogical because it demonstrates the “Assuming the Consequent” fallacy. As Catholics, we also believe that the statements are false, because we believe that Sacred Tradition and the teaching of the Magisterium are also inspired. However, be that as it may–sola scriptura believers cannot prove their belief from Scripture itself without resorting to illogical arguments. No pointy ears for them.

 

[Romulus]

The two statementa are equivalent statements, but if the second statement is based on the first statement, (“If scripture, then inspired; therefore, if inspired, then scripture”), then the fallacy explained above applies and the argument is illogical.

No, it is illogical whether or not the converse is true. The logic or illogic of the process of argumentation is a different subject that whether or not the statements in the arguments are actually true.

'Fraid not. See above.

I don’t know what your age or school status is, but until you’ve taken and passed a course in critical thinking or elementary logic, you’re out of your league in discussions like this. Logic and critical thinking are a science unto themselves, just like physics or algebra. I’ve had some coursework, but even so I barely know enough to scratch the surface.

Anyway, back to the original subject: Sola scripture believers, based on the scripture mentioned by the OP, believe this:

If Scripture, then inspired.

Inspired.

Therefore, Scripture.

This argument is illogical because it demonstrates the “Assuming the Consequent” fallacy. As Catholics, we also believe that the statements are false, because we believe that Sacred Tradition and the teaching of the Magisterium are also inspired. However, be that as it may–sola scriptura believers cannot prove their belief from Scripture itself without resorting to illogical arguments. No pointy ears for them.

Dave, explain the “if and only if”?? Do you agree that its a “two way highway”??

 

[Romulus]

I don’t know what your age or school status is, but until you’ve taken and passed a course in critical thinking or elementary logic, you’re out of your league in discussions like this…

I may be…but be patient with me Dave…I’m here to share and learn.

 

[epostle]

I’m a sola manualist.
If the computer in my car needs to be repaired, I can just refer to a manual to fix it. I don’t need a mechanic.
I can send my kids to libraries to learn, they don’t need teachers.
If I want to remove a tumor from someones brain, all I need is a book on neurosurgery.

 

[Romulus]

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.

yes,…it can be true…if it is an “if and only if” It will be logical if the “if and only if” statement is true. Dave, look into the “if and only if” statement…and let us know what ya find. Anyone else here have any feedback in regards to my syllogism I posted in regards to scripture sufficiency?

thanks

 

[epostle]

Do you believe that only doctrines explicitly grounded in the teaching of the bible are trustworthy?

If a person says, “There are no moral absolutes." That person is in logical trouble because that very statement is a moral absolute. He is saying it is a moral absolute that there are no moral absolutes. This system self-destructs. It cannot be true regardless how popular it is in America today. What he is really saying is…there are no moral absolutes, except this one.

“All generalizations are false”. This is a generalization in itself. It too self-destructs. What a person is really saying here is “all generalizations are false, except for this one.

"Only doctrines explicitly grounded in the teaching of the Bible are trustworthy.” This concept is self-destructive, and is not found in scripture. Unless one can find a scripture that explicitly says this, which one can’t, then it must be re-phrased to say: "Only doctrines explicitly grounded in the teaching of the Bible are trustworthy, except this one.”

That is a logically invalid position, and self-defeating.

 

[Romulus]

This concept is self-destructive, and is not found in scripture. Unless one can find a scripture that explicitly says this, which one can’t,

Hi epostle and everyone else here…just to for the record…I am not a Protestant.

And yes, i agree, it is not found “explicitly”…but the question is here…could it be found “implicitly” using scriptures and a valid syllogism?? I provided one in post #39…but I have doubts about the major and minor premises…A protestant will have to show us that the premises are TRUE and found in scripture. One protestant here was “working on it”…but he got banned for whatever reason…odd

 

[epostle]

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

where in the bible does it say explicitly or implicitly that, “All God breathed things are Scripture” and “A God breathed thing is sufficient”???

Obviously, it doesn’t, and “sufficient” is a sloppy English translation of “profitable”.
Scripture is “profitable” for every good work, but not exclusive. The word “profitable” is “ophelimos” in Greek. “Ophelimos” only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Protestants unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive in order to make the minor premise logical.

Titus 3:8 - good deeds are also “profitable” to men. Profitable cannot mean “exclusive” here.
2 Tim 2:21- purity is also profitable for “any good work” (“pan ergon agathon”). This wording is the same as 2 Tim. 3:17, which shows that the Scriptures are not exclusive, and that other things (good deeds and purity) are also profitable to men.

Protestants do not argue that scripture is the only source of truth, they argue that scripture alone is the sole rule of faith. The major premise is flawed because God breathed life into Adam, and on the Apostles. They are God breathed too. Even Jesus had trouble getting some people to see the difference beween scripture and a Person.

 

[tabcom]

Protestants do not argue that scripture is the only source of truth, they argue that scripture alone is the sole rule of faith.

Well stated. I have often been labeled a ‘Bible-Only’ Christian within this forum in the past. I hope you don’t mind if I use your statement to counter such claims in the future.

With respects to De Maria post earlier . . .

II Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Prophecy here is the word propheteia which means “inspired” words as spoken by an inspired preacher who is called of God. The word “private” in this text is the word “idiotes” from which we get our word idiot. This word idiotes means “unlearned”. The word “idea” comes from the word idiotes. When a person has his or her own “idea” or opinion of what they think scripture means by redefines it, especially a word with all the depth of love, such a person is an “idiot”. That is, they are unlearned.

One final note, I do believe this topic has reached its conclusion. That is, you have shown that the major premise of the syllogism is flawed. – Excellent work!

 

[Romulus]

One final note, I do believe this topic has reached its conclusion. That is, you have shown that the major premise of the syllogism is flawed. – Excellent work!

I agree…so far I haven’t seen any good posts from protestants showing the factual correctness of the premises…or challenging the validity of the syllogism…once someone can show both factual correct premises and a valid syllogism…then the argument is “sound.” But at this point, it is a logical fallcy, until proven otherwise…so we cannot conclude “Scripture is sufficient”. C’mon Protestants, we need your feedback.

Those of you haven’t studied aristotle’s logic in depth, I highly recommend you do some research and learn and apply it to biblical scriptures…it is a part of the reasoning in “faith and reason”. I’m still learning much and will continue to learn. What will this reasoning reveal when applying it to scripture?..we’ll see, and I’m open minded to accept what I find. I’m a truth seeker…and I have faith that we all are…but some don’t realize it…and some are at different levels.

“Thou hast made us for thyself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in thee…” - Augustine. One of my favorite quotes

 

[guanophore]

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

I think he used forbidden perjorative language, and it probably was a repeated infraction. You get a warning first. He will probably re-incarnate in another screen name. But in the meantime, he cannot post.

 

[Romulus]

bump…

Any protestants here have any comments on my syllogism in regards to “Scripture Suffeciency” in this thread.

DaveBJ, are you still subscribed to this thread?? if so, have you looked in the “if and only if” or “biconditional statement”?? Could you share with us what you learned how it can either help or refute in this syllogism?

Also, any protestants here know of a good “protestant forum” so I can get more protestant feedback? I’m willing to sign up and take this syllogism so I can share it…once there, I hope that it will be scrutinized and possibly inspire new thoughts.

Thanks for the feedback,

Oh by the way, here a interesting quote, “Logic is the anatomy of thought” - John Locke. And Locke was a protestant…

 

[TOME]

I am going to start by saying I think the major premise, as stated is inadaquate therefore is wrong but maybe insufficient might be a better word (I am open to correction on my term). I say this because I think this is an important element in Paul’s statement that is implied by Paul and thus not stated but is necessary for the Majory premise to be made “Whole”.

What I believe is the missing element is Paul’s understanding that all scripture is Christ-centered. But this doesn’t come from Paul but Christ Himself (LK 24: 25- 27). Maybe this truth that all scripture is Christ-Centered can be worked into this syllogism

 

[po18guy]

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.

Glad to have you here, DaveBj, and welcome home.

Let’s try replacing “Scripture” with “Tradition”:

"16 All tradition 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 "

Does the assertion still stand? Would it then imply that tradition only would be sufficient? If not, then the converse is also true. The original quotation does not promulgate scripture as complete, it just includes it within completeness.

Anyway, since great numbers of ancient Christians were illiterate, and even the literate had no practical assemblage of scripture until Gutenberg, just how was “sola scriptura” intended to be applied? No salvation without a bible? Were the first 1,500 years of the faithful condemned due to lack of the printed page?

Were Christians in the first three centuries who were instructed using scripture that was later excluded from the canon then doomed? Clearly, it was a church of Tradition, both written and oral. Nothing else stands logical scrutiny.

 

[Romulus]

Hello everyone,

Well I went to carm.org to post a similar thread as this one to get more Protestant feedback…and I got some interesting feedback…in particular, a Protestant agreed with the syllogism that I presented and that scripture is not sufficient and that SOLA SCRIPTURA cannot be defended using scripture and in particular 2nd Tim 3:16-17. I did get some arguments supporting “scripture sufficiency”, but I could not follow it logically and the poster has not presented it as a “sound argument” using a syllogism as I requested.

Here is my exchange with a Protestant who rejects SOLA SCRIPTURAchristiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?t=81922&highlight=syllogism

I guess they are Protestants out there who reject SOLA SCRIPTURA? Any other protestant here that reject SOLA SCRIPTURA? And those who do accept the doctrine, do you have any feedback in regards to the logical argument I have posted here that refutes SOLA SCRIPTURA can be defended using scripture?

Thanks for the feedback,

peace be with you.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Perhaps someone could tell us what we need besides written Scripture???

 

[po18guy]

Perhaps someone could tell us what we need besides written Scripture???

Since the bible was written, compiled and preserved by Apostles and church fathers who practiced the Christian Traditions, they never intended it to be used apart from the Traditions that were handed on to them. In the early church, they had no NT scripture - only the Traditions that Christ and the Apostles taught and which Paul admonished the churches to retain.

Using Scripture alone was not a major issue until the reformers promulgated the idea to distance themselves from the original Church. Tradition and Scripture are the left and right hands of faith.

Christ’s peace.