After watching the debate between Dr. Gavin Ortlund and Trent Horn, I found Horn’s argument regarding 2 Timothy 3:15-16 (θεόπνευστος, theopneustos, God-Breathed) particularly intriguing. Horn suggests that this passage doesn’t intend to teach the inerrancy of scriptures but rather conveys a sense of being “life-giving.” He draws on the interpretation of scholar Professor John C. Poirier, who argues in his work The Invention of the Inspired Text: Philological Windows on the Theopneustia of Scripture (2021) that 2 Timothy has been misinterpreted in this regard. Poirier seems to delve into later Christian writings, contending that these subsequent uses should inform our understanding of how Paul intended the term.
However, Horn doesn’t provide a detailed argument supporting Poirier’s interpretation during the debate. To present a counterpoint, I’ll reference another scholar who offers a different perspective:
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 his response to James Scott’s article about Peter Enns, Poirier attempts to challenge one of Scott’s arguments supporting inerrancy. Scott posits that because scripture functions to correct and reprove (which entails correcting beliefs and presenting true beliefs), this implies that theopneustos must have an alethic aim. Poirier’s counterpoint is as follows:
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 were correct, it would imply that the scriptures are intended to be ‘life-giving.’ However, this raises the question of how a collection of books could be considered ‘life-giving’ in the literal sense. Poirier might argue by appealing to atomic propositional bits, a tactic he doesn’t allow Scott to employ. This seems to create a false dichotomy that has implications in both directions.
Furthermore, there is no concrete evidence supporting the notion that this reference is limited solely to the Old Testament. Poirier’s assertion in this regard appears to be speculative rather than grounded in clear evidence.
Steve Hays also presents various lines of evidence suggesting that Paul believed his teachings were aimed at truth and were of divine origin:
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
However, Hays likely denies that Paul is the author of 2 Timothy. This raises a significant issue for those who also take this position:
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, suggesting that the phrase ‘word of God’ in these passages refers either to a word of prophecy or to Apostolic preaching. However, this interpretation is challenged by the specific context of these texts, which refer not to prophecy or Apostolic preaching but to an Old Testament command given by God to Moses at Sinai. Horn supports his argument by appealing to a textual variant found in Matthew, where the phrase is rendered as the “command of God.” However, the absence of this variant in Mark 7 suggests a broader range of meanings for the term ‘word of God,’ beyond the limitations proposed by Poirier.
Horn further argues:
“These arguments start to implode on themselves. To understand what science is, you need a reliable non-scientific rule of knowledge, such as philosophy. Similarly, to understand what scripture is, you need an infallible non-scriptural rule of faith like sacred tradition. More on that later.”
However, this line of reasoning is regressive. If an infallible non-scriptural rule of faith is necessary to understand scripture, then why isn’t a non-traditional source needed to verify tradition? Such verificationist principles often lead to their own epistemic challenges, including issues of infinite regress, as noted by Gavin (and also Kruger).
Trent Horn presents another argument, expressing doubts about Sola Scriptura due to the lack of Apostolic attestation. Dr. Ortlund, on the other hand, appeals to passages like Mark 7, Matthew 15, and 19 to demonstrate historical attestation. If one finds Horn’s rebuttal persuasive, they might also question Dr. Ortlund’s line of reasoning, which points to the lack of attestation or reliability in mystical apostolic tradition. This irony highlights a consistency issue; if Horn were consistent, he would also question the Roman Catholic Church for its lack of early attestation.
Trent Horn references James D.G. Dunn, who argues, in a style reminiscent of Shabir Ally’s argumentation, that John 10:35 doesn’t necessarily imply the truthfulness of scriptures, but rather that God won’t violate his promises. However, it’s important to note that there are scholars who disagree with Dunn on this point:
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’s representation of Dr. Ortlund’s argument seems to be a misrepresentation. Dr. Ortlund actually argued that divine revelation sets the highest standard because it originates from God. Since Catholics do not view tradition as divine speech, they cannot equate it with scripture. This distinction was evident in Dr. Ortlund’s explanation of the character of scripture and the Catholic assertion regarding 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.
The absence of awareness of sacred traditions doesn’t necessarily imply their nonexistence. Dr. Ortlund, in fact, raised a different concern regarding tradition, specifically addressing the prevalence of false traditions within the early Church (such as beliefs about a 50-year-old Jesus or debates about the canonicity of texts like 1 Clement).
Trent Horn references McLatchie’s article in response to Kruger’s model for the canon. I have previously provided a response to McLatchie’s arguments:
Canon, Internalism, and Sola Scriptura – The Council (spirited-tech.com)
Trent argues that Roman Catholics have a straightforward response to the issue of inerrancy because the Church asserts that scripture is inerrant, thereby avoiding debates with limited inerrantists or skeptics. However, this assertion carries irony because Roman Catholicism faces a significant challenge concerning inerrancy:
Even Dr. Robert Sungenis weighed in on the issue in response to Michael Lofton:
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.
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
The Council 