I watched the Dr. Gavin Ortlund vs Trent Horn debate:
Horn argues that 2 Timothy 3:15-16 (θεόπνευστος, theopneustos, God-Breathed) isn’t meant to teach that the scriptures are inerrant but rather that it means “life-giving”. Horn passes on an interpretation from a scholar arguing that 2 Timothy has been misinterpreted, Professor John C. Poirier (The Invention of the Inspired Text: Philological Windows on the Theopneustia of Scripture (The Library of New Testament Studies, 640) 2021. It seems that this scholar goes into later Christian works and then argues that these later usages must dictate the way in which Paul used them. That is my guess given what I’ve seen (this may very well not be the case because I have not yet read his book). But no argument from Horn is provided for John Poirier’s interpretation. Thus, I’ll cite another scholar that disagrees:
Greek conceptions of inspiration often entailed inerrancy, but did not always do so. Jewish conceptions of inspiration in a generic sense could vary, but entailed inerrancy with regard to Jewish appropriation of the OT Scriptures, which were fully inspired. Since it is the Scriptures of which 2 Timothy clearly speaks in 3:14–17, and these were learned in a Jewish context of which Paul approves (2 Tim 1:5), we may be confident that θεόπνευστος in 2 Tim 3:16 presumes the full inspiration and consequent full truthfulness of Scripture. While such an observation does not by itself settle all debates about the nature of inspiration or the precise ways we should articulate inerrancy, it does invite the recognition that 2 Tim 3:16 regards the OT as God’s wholly true Word. It therefore invites those of us who affirm Scripture’s inspiration to follow suit.
Greek Versus Jewish Conceptions Of Inspiration And 2 Timothy 3:16. 2020
In response to James Scott’s article on Peter Enns, Poirier tries to rebut one of his arguments for inerrancy. Scott argues that since some of the functions of scripture is to correct and reprove (this requires correcting beliefs and providing true beliefs) that implies theopneustos must be alethically aimed. Poirier states:
This is curious reasoning, to say the least. Scott seems to assume that “ all scripture” refers to Scripture in all its atomic propositional bits, rather than in its extent as a corpus. Given that the author of 2 Timothy is probably responding to opponents who dispensed with parts of the Old Testament, it is more likely that he is defending the extent of the scriptural corpus.
If Poirier’s interpretation was correct, then this would refer to scriptures being “life-giving”, but if that is true, then how could a canon of books be “life-giving”? Poirier probably will appeal to the atomic propositional bits that he doesn’t allow Scott to do. This appears to be some false dichotomy that cuts both ways.
There’s also no evidence that this refers simply to the OT. That is simply speculation on the part of Poirer.
http://spirited-tech.com/2020/01/21/is-sola-scriptura-self-refuting/
https://spirited-tech.com/2020/08/13/2-timothy-316-17-and-sola-scriptura/
Steve Hays also cites different lines of evidence in regards to thinking Paul did think his teaching were alethically aimed and divine in origen:
Paul regards his own teaching as divinely inspired and divinely authoritative (e.g. 1 Cor 2:13; 14:37; 1 Thes 4:2). Therefore, there’s no reason to think Paul is restricting Scripture in v16 to OT Scripture. …
iii) The fact that in the Pastorals, Paul appeals to historical precedents like the Exodus, the life of Abraham, and Korah’s rebellion, explodes Kirk’s false dichotomy between historical knowledge and soteriological knowledge.
The term “myth” has a long history of use prior to the NT, through which it comes to mean a fable or far-fetched story, often about the gods; most importantly, it can stand as a category meaning essentially falsehood (109).
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/05/all-scripture-is-god-breathed.html
Of course, he may (probably does) deny that Paul is the author of 2 Timothy. Hays has an issue for those that also make that move:
Of course, liberals generally deny the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals (Luke Timothy Johnson is a notable exception). But that creates a dilemma for the liberal. If the Pastorals weren’t written by Paul, but by a later author, then wouldn’t that be even more reason to think v16 might include NT writings as Scripture? After all, the liberal argument is that the Pastorals, being so much later, reflect a more advanced ecclesiastical and/or theological outlook. So that would fit with a retrospective canonical consciousness.
If, on the one hand, Paul wrote the Pastorals, then we know Paul regarded his own Gospel as direct divine revelation (e.g. Gal 1). But if (ex hypothesi), on the other hand, Paul didn’t write the Pastorals, then these would reflect further theological development–in which case there would be nothing anachronistic about the author treating NT writings as Scripture.
Trent Horn comments on Mark 7 and Matthew 15 that the phrase ‘word of God’ here refers to either a word of prophecy or as referring to Apostolic preaching. This is just a claim being called into question in these two texts right here. These aren’t referring to a prophecy or the Apostolic preaching, but an OT command handed from God to Moses at Sinai. Trent appeals to a textual variant found in Matthew for it being rendered the “command of God” but that seems to at least show a third category in which (because Mark 7 doesn’t have that variant) the word of God can refer to something other than Poirier’s limitations.
Trent goes on to state:
that these arguments start to implode on themselves in order to know what science is you need a reliable non-scientific rule of knowledge like philosophy and in order to know what scripture is you need an infallible non-scriptural rule of Faith Like sacred tradition more on that later
This type of reasoning is regressive. If you need an infallible non-scriptural rule of faith to know what scripture is, then why don’t you need a non-tradition source to verify tradition? These verificationist principles often fall into their own epistemic issues. An infinite regress issue was also noted by Gavin (also Kruger):
Trent runs through another argument that the lack of Apostolic attestation makes him doubt Sola Scriptura. Dr. Ortlund’s entire reason for appealing to Mark 7, Matt 15,19, etc is to show that it is historically attested to. Insofar as you accept Trent’s rebuttal to those you find that line of attack persuasive, but the irony is that Dr. Ortlund is using the same reasoning. He notes the lack of attestation or reliability for the mystical apostolic tradition. If Horn was consistent, then he also should reject the RCC for its lack of early attestation.
Trent Horn cites James D.G. Dunn, in strangely a Shabir Ally style of argumentation, stating John 10:35 doesn’t mean the scriptures are truthful, merely God won’t violate his promises. One can easily cite a scholar that disagrees with Dunn:
He argues that the clause and the Scripture cannot be broken does not mean that Scriptures always tell the truth (though that is presupposed), but that this prophetic Scripture must be fulfilled. The only part of Psalm 82 that could be understood as prophecy is v. 8: ‘Rise up, O God, judge the earth, for all the nations are your inheritance.’ Jesus’ citation of Psalm 82 is now interpreted to mean that he excoriates the judges of Israel for their utter failure, while he himself fulfills Psalm 82:8, claiming to be God in human form and therefore his people’s perfect judge and deliverer. But as attractive as this is, it rests too much weight on the assumption that ‘cannot be broken’ (Gk. verb lyō) means ‘is fulfilled’. Although the verb lyō can be set over against the verb ‘to fulfil’ in Matthew 5:17ff., that is not the case in John: cf. its use in 7:23, where to break the law of Moses means to transgress one of the law’s requirements. …
It appears best, then, to adopt the unadorned third interpretation. Three observations help to clarify the line of thought. First, the words the Scripture cannot be broken mean that the Scripture cannot be annulled or set aside or proved false (cf. Mk. 7:13). Conceptually, it complements your Law: it is reprehensible to set aside the authority of Scripture, the Scripture whose authority you yourselves accept, just because the text I have cited seems inconvenient to you at the moment
D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 397–399.
Horn misrepresents Dr. Ortlund’s argument. Ortlund argued that divine revelation is the highest standard because God is the origin of such. As far as Catholics don’t identify tradition as divine speech they cannot identify it as equal to scripture. This was clearly his intention when he explained what he believed to be the character of scripture and the Catholic claim of tradition:
Vatican II taught that public divine revelation ceased with the deaths of the Apostles and the catechism distinguishes the church’s charism of infallibility from the deposit of divine revelation you can see paragraph 2035 furthermore Catholics typically will speak of sacred tradition as not the inspired word of God not God-breathed and spirit carried and so forth so we can agree today that scripture is ontologically unique in its nature no other rule of faith that we possess is the god-breathed spirit carried unbreakable Oracles of God …
The Catechism citation:
The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed.
It is not that since we are unaware of any sacred traditions there must not be any. In fact, Ortlund had a different argument regarding tradition. Namely, the issue of false traditions that permeated the early church (50-year-old Jesus, the canonicity of 1 Clement, etc.).
Trent appeals to McLatchie’s article in response to Kruger’s model for the canon. I responded to McLatchie already:
Canon, Internalism, and Sola Scriptura – The Council (spirited-tech.com)
Trent states the Roman Catholics have an easy answer to the issue of inerrancy. The Church has stated that scripture is inerrant and thus he doesn’t need to debate the limited inerrantists or skeptics. This is ironic because Roman Catholicism has a major issue with inerrancy:
https://spirited-tech.com/2020/12/29/does-roman-catholicism-teach-inerrancy/
Even Dr. Robert Sungenis responded to Michael Lofton over the issue:
Catholic Answers’ Heterodox Position on Biblical Inerrancy (robertsungenis.org)
Horn appeals to the Eternal generation of the Son as an analogy for how scripture and tradition can be co-divine as tradition/scripture are co-equal. That appeal works for those that hold to EG but it doesn’t convince those that reject EG. Furthermore, Catholics seem to want to grant the traditions with the property of intelligibility but not the scriptures. The “prior, but not higher” standards really don’t make a difference given that the Church provides the context for how one must understand the scriptures. It really ends up with the magisterium being the one and tradition and scripture just emanate from such because they are utterly dependent given Horn’s model.
Dr. Ortlund even had Trent Horn throw most Catholic apologists under the bus. Most Catholics still rely on the Canon argument, but Ortlund had Trent admit that their is no infallible lists of dogmas, infallible statements or interpretations from the Pope, or exegetical rules to determine when such have taken place. This put Horn back into his dilemma. Where was his non-ecclesiastical, non scriptural, non-traditional source of justification for believing those are veridical?
Here are some of the reviews out there:
Pro-Catholic:
[Reviewed] Gavin Ortlund Vs.Trent Horn: Is Sola Scriptura True – YouTube
Sola Scriptura Debate De-brief (with Suan Sonna) – YouTube
Catholic Vs Protestant DEBATE REVIEW on Sola Scriptura: Trent Horn V. Gavin Ortlund – YouTube
Pro-Protestant:
Sola Scriptura Debate Review (with Josh Schooping and Sean Luke) – YouTube
Some Thoughts on the Ortlund Vs. Horn Sola Scriptura debate //Chill steam w the boys – YouTube
What is Sola Scriptura? Response to the Catechumen – YouTube
The Council 