I will be examining an attempt to refute sola Scriptura. The author, who is aiming to join the Oriental Orthodox Church, presents the following argument:
In logic, self-referential propositions require that the criteria established by the proposition must apply to the proposition itself. For example, if someone asserts, “all propositions must be verified by scientific experiments,” that proposition must also be verified through scientific experiments; otherwise, it becomes self-refuting because of its self-referential nature. This article argues that sola Scriptura falls into the same category of self-refutation, and that both the early church and scripture oppose the idea that scripture is the sole authoritative source for rules of faith.
The core of the argument is this: If a doctrine must be taught by scripture to be binding on Christians, then the doctrine of sola Scriptura must also be explicitly taught in scripture. However, according to the author, no such passage exists. Since scripture does not explicitly teach sola Scriptura, this nullifies the doctrine by its own standards, rendering it self-refuting. In other words, under the criteria of sola Scriptura—that a teaching must be grounded in scripture to be considered an authoritative rule of faith—the doctrine itself would not qualify as authoritative. Without a clear verse that teaches scripture as the sole source of infallible, authoritative rules of faith, sola Scriptura collapses on its own terms.
This approach is common in discussions between Protestants and those from traditions like the Oriental Orthodox Church, and it raises significant questions about the consistency of sola Scriptura as a doctrinal principle.
The ironic part of this complaint is that everyone participating in these debates, including Jonathyn, essentially adheres to a form of sola Scriptura. Jonathyn asserts that divine revelation is the sole authority for faith and life; he simply extends this by including apostolic succession and tradition as additional vehicles of divine revelation.
The idea of sola Scriptura is, I believe, Biblical, but it’s debatable whether a rule of faith necessarily needs to be self-referential. For example, Steve Hays challenged this notion by arguing that not all valid principles must explicitly justify themselves within their own framework. Just because sola Scriptura doesn’t directly state, “Scripture alone is the rule of faith,” doesn’t mean it cannot still be the normative principle based on the broader scriptural witness.
Despite its facile, sales-worthy appeal, it isn’t clear to me that this is logically sound. I think it’s true that a rule of faith is self-inclusive. But it isn’t obvious to me that a rule of faith must also be self-referential.
For that’s not the rule of faith in itself. That isn’t built into the very nature or intrinsic definition of the rule.
Rather, that’s a statement about the rule of faith. That’s a convenient way to identify the rule of faith.
But a statement about the rule of faith is not, itself, the rule of faith–although it’s possible for the rule of faith to make a statement about itself. A statement about the rule of faith can obviously come from the outside. It can also come from the within, but that isn’t inherent in what makes it a rule of faith, that I can see.
For example, consider the need to standardize weights and measures. The BIPM issues the International System of Units. Yet it would be fallacious to say the units are self-refuting unless they refer back to the BIPM.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/01/is-sola-scriptura-self-refuting.html
It’s difficult to imagine a meaningful distinction between divine revelation and our highest authority. Scripture consistently teaches that God’s revelation supersedes all other teachings or authorities. This is the normative function of divine revelation as seen in various passages:
- Romans 3:4 – “God is true, even if everyone else is a liar.”
- Mark 7:8-13 – Jesus criticizes the Pharisees for setting aside God’s commandments in favor of their traditions.
- Hebrews 6:13-15 – God swears by Himself, as there is no higher authority.
- Deuteronomy 13:1-5 – God commands that prophets who promote the worship of other gods, even if they perform wonders, must be rejected, highlighting that God’s revelation stands above all other claims to authority.
An objection might arise that none of these passages explicitly state, “Divine Revelation is the sole infallible authority.” However, this objection overlooks how doctrines are often derived from scripture. There’s a difference between what is explicitly taught and what is implicitly taught. The idea of sola Scriptura, like many other doctrines, is often derived implicitly through the consistent teaching of scripture as a whole.
This distinction between explicit and implicit teachings is well understood by many Christians. For example, Dr. Greg Welty and others have explained that doctrines need not always be explicitly spelled out in a single verse; instead, they can be built upon the cumulative witness of scripture’s teaching on a given issue. The passages cited above collectively demonstrate the authority of God’s word, pointing to the principle that divine revelation stands above all human traditions or teachings.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/05/greg-welty-on-sola-scriptura.html
2 Timothy 3:16-17
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Jonathyn anticipates the most common prooftext for sola scriptura and tries to show why it doesn’t teach it. He states the following:
First, we must recognize that, in order for verse 16 to be teaching Sola Scriptura, it would have to be written that only scripture is profitable for doctrine, and not merely that all scripture is profitable. As Oriental Orthodox Christians, we believe that the scriptures are profitable for these things, and that the Bible is “God-breathed” (θεόπνευστος) and therefore authoritative and binding on Christians. However, we do not accept that this is the only medium through which revelation has been given, and neither do we accept that all binding doctrines, teachings, and rules of faith come from the scriptures themselves, but rather that the oral tradition—passed down by the Apostles, through the Church—is on equal standing with the scriptures. They don’t contradict each other, but rather complement each other, and one cannot be properly understood and contextualized without the other.
This only reinforces my point in the article above. He may not oppose sola Scriptura, but he extends it beyond the sources we recognize as having divine authority. The burden is on him to demonstrate that these “traditions” have Apostolic, and thus divine, origins. The silence of Paul regarding any other sources of God-breathed revelation is striking. If there were indeed additional sources of God-breathed revelation, why does Paul not mention them to Timothy, especially when warning him about the future rise of false teachings?
This is just one of the many challenges the Eastern Church faces when claiming its authority. He must also show where the Church has been for the past 6,000 years. Why does the Oriental Church seem uninformed about the Old Testament? The Old Testament never hints at the concepts upheld by the Orthodox Church. It portrays God as the judge, emphasizing a forensic framework. Where is this forensic aspect in Orthodoxy? We see penal substitutionary atonement clearly outlined in the Mosaic sacrificial system, yet the Orthodox reject the forensic nature of atonement. Where was the essence/energy distinction in the Old Testament? If we can only know God’s energies and this is such a crucial truth that I’m deemed a heretic for not believing it, where was this distinction from the time of Moses to the Prophets? If an infallible body of individuals (the Church) was necessary, where were they during the intertestamental period? How could Jesus hold the Jews accountable to a book they supposedly couldn’t read or didn’t have the authority to interpret? Were the Pharisees the infallible interpreters? It seems the Old Testament had no real meaning until Clement of Rome came along and explained the Phoenix to us.
Furthermore, how do we address the reality that the Orthodox faith seems so far removed from Apostolic teaching? Where do we see priests in the New Testament? Why don’t the Apostles write anything reflecting Orthodox distinctives? Additionally, the dogmas of the Orthodox Church appear to suffer from logical inconsistencies, such as the metaphysical difficulties posed by the essence/energy distinction. As Jonathyn continues…
More-learned protestants will rely on verse 17, which again reads, “that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Since Sola Scriptura is not taught explicitly in verse 16, the protestant will make the argument that—based on the following verse—the scripture is sufficient for the man of God to be complete and equipped for every good work, and that therefore the Bible is completely sufficient for all binding doctrines (even though it says good works, not doctrines), thus proving Sola Scriptura. Notice how the verse doesn’t state that the scripture is complete or sufficient, but that it is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction and instruction in righteousness so that the man of God may be complete and equipped for every good work. The completeness or sufficiency is applied to the man of God; it doesn’t say he that he will be, but that he may be thoroughly-equipped and complete. This verse is teaching that the scriptures are helpful in training the man of God, leading him to be equipped for every good work; is does not teach that only scripture is sufficient for authoritative rules of faith and doctrine.
It teaches that Scripture has a unique function because it originates from God. This is a focused understanding of sola Scriptura. Even Martin Luther acknowledged that other sources are beneficial for doctrine and the growth of the “man of God.” For example, at his trial, he stated that both Scripture and plain reason would be needed to convince him. I agree that reason is a valuable tool for Christian development, but the issue is that mastery in logic has never guaranteed a godly life. Only what is God-breathed can truly bring about such transformation.
The reason Scripture is profitable is precisely because it is “God-breathed.” This means it is divine speech, originating from the Spirit of God. The compound word emphasizes that God is the ultimate authority on these matters. However, Jonathyn seems to operate under the assumption that divine origin extends to many other sources beyond Scripture.
Hopefully, Jonathyn doesn’t think there is a serious distinction between “works” and “doctrine” in this passage. Paul encourages Timothy to hold fast to the teachings of his youth, especially in light of the false teachers who would arise. To suppose that doctrine is not included in Paul’s message is to misunderstand both this and previous chapters. While “works” certainly carry a connotation of moral deeds, the words of God teach us how we ought to live. The idea is that the “man of God” is “thoroughly equipped” for these deeds, including “reproof.” What might Paul have in mind when he mentions this? I wonder if the Apostle had a particular controversy in mind, one that had occupied much of his attention.
Timothy has known them “from infancy” (ἀπὸ βρέφους, a stock phrase; cf. 1: 5; Acts 16: 1), and they’re able to give him wisdom (σοφίζω; cf. 2 Pet 1: 16; Pss 19: 7; 105: 22; 119: 98) for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus (1 Tim 3: 13; Gal 2: 16; Col 1: 4; cf. Rom 3: 22; Gal 2: 16; 3: 22). 641 Most likely, “salvation” isn’t here referring to entrance into salvation (conversion) 642 but to future salvation as a goal. Thus the function of Scripture is here not conceived as leading to conversion as aiding Timothy— and by implication, all believers— in attaining salvation as a future goal. 643 This coheres with the use of σωτηρία in 2: 10, where Paul’s endurance of all things contributes toward the elect obtaining the salvation that is in Christ, while here the sacred writings of Scripture are able to instruct Timothy toward the same goal. 644 With regard to the false teachers, Paul’s point here seems to be that the Scriptures (in which Timothy was reared from an early age and which he therefore knows well) are indeed of great value (see further below), but only if understood as pointing toward faith in Christ. Rather than using the Scriptures with an emphasis on law and the observance of its particular stipulations, a proper appreciation of the value of the Scriptures entails recognition of its true God-intended salvation-historical purpose. This coheres perfectly with the battles Paul fought earlier with the Judaizers and others who insisted on continued observance of the law by (Gentile) Christians. 645 Without any conjunction (such as “for”), Paul elaborates on the supreme value of Scripture, 646 focusing primarily on two aspects (with the emphasis being on the second element).
Köstenberger, Andreas J. . Commentary on 1-2 Timothy and Titus (Kindle Locations 5264-5283). Holman Reference. Kindle Edition.
There is also a common argument frequently used to undermine the Protestant understanding by referencing James 1:4. This is a common tactic in Catholic apologetics:
I have listened to several recorded debates on this topic. Protestant apologists often have cited 2 Timothy 3 against Roman Catholic opponents. The usual response of Roman Catholic apologists is to assert repeatedly that 2 Timothy 3 does not teach sufficiency. Sometimes they refer to James 1:4, Matthew 19:21, or Colossians 1:28 and 4:12 as parallel texts, claiming that the word complete in 2 Timothy 3:17 does not mean “sufficient.” But such passages are not parallel; a completely different Greek word is used. Where 2 Timothy 3:17 uses exartizo, which has to do with being fitted for a task, these other passages use the Greek word teleios, which has reference to maturity or having reached a desired end. Repeated assertions do not prove a point; that is only a propaganda technique. Our opponents need to answer in a responsible, thorough way.
John MacArthur; R. C. Sproul; Joel R. Beeke; Sinclair B. Ferguson; W. Robert Godfrey; Ray Lanning; Derek W. H. Thomas; James White; Don Kistler. Sola Scriptura (Kindle Locations 311-317). Reformation Trust Publishing. Kindle Edition.
This observation was also made by James White in his debate:
In fact, it is interesting: you utilized one of the four passages that Mr. Keating utilized in Denver, using the term “complete.” Matthew 19:21, Colossians 1:28, Colossians 4:12, and James 1:4, all use the term “complete.” And Catholic Answers likes to say, “Well, see, if 2 Timothy 3 says this, then all these other things make you complete, too!” And Mr. Madrid called it “faulty and shabby work” that I had done on the passage, and said that 2 Timothy 3 no more proves sola scriptura than James 1:4. There’s a little problem: none of those passages use the terms used in 2 Timothy if you looked at it in the Greek. It is a common error for a beginning Bible student to assume that an English translation is going to utilize different words for different Greek terms. The terms used in Matthew 19:21 are tevleios” (teleios), Colossians 1:21 (sic) tevleios“, Colossians 4:12 teleios” and James 1:4 tevleios” and oJloklhroi (holokleroi). None of them use a[rtioss” (artios). Mr. Madrid did not even begin to address the information that I presented. He said, “It doesn’t teach sufficiency!” And yet I quoted you major lexical sources that said what? Sufficient. Now, Mr. Madrid you don’t have the authority to overthrow the meaning of those terms, no matter how much you may wish to do so. No other passage in the Bible can be used to deflect what we have said about 2 Timothy chapter 3.
He attempts to use this passage against Protestants by arguing that it supports the idea of oral traditions:
Another important thing to note is that this passage has been grossly taken out of its context, by proponents of Sola Scriptura, because if we read just two verses before, a new picture forms. If we read from verse 14 of 2 Timothy, it goes “But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 3:14-15 NKJV). Notice how St. Paul commands Timothy to follow the things which have been passed down to him by those before him and the Holy Scriptures which he was acquainted with (which didn’t include all of the New Testament). So Timothy is commanded to follow the traditions of those who taught him (the apostles) as well as the scriptures, so when 2 Timothy is read in its context, the position of scripture alone is refuted, word-for-word. Timothy was commanded to follow the tradition and the scriptures, with verses 16 and 17 emphasizing that scripture is especially profitable for doctrines, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness, not that it’s the only source of these things.
The problem with this argument is that Timothy was taught the scriptures from his youth. Timothy had some teachers, including his mother, Eunice, and his grandmother, Lois(1 Tim. 1:4-7). So, does any proponent of Oriental Orthodox have any of these things taught to Timothy in his youth? Do they have any proof that it wasn’t the OT and possibly some of the NT(depending on Timothy’s age and the date of the NT writings)? Even if they were, why suppose that we have access to these teachings now? There is a difference in how we are to operate with and without the apostles. That isn’t an idea in the mystic forms of Christianity. The only problem is their position is only convincing if you take their claims to apostolic tradition to be true.
Jonathyn stated:
God may be complete and equipped for every good work. The completeness or sufficiency is applied to the man of God; it doesn’t say he that he will be, but that he may be thoroughly-equipped and complete.
The problem with this explanation is the purpose (hina) clause which isn’t meant to imply the notion that it possibly will fail to come about. It is meant to show what it is intended for. This means scripture is God-breathed and profitable for instruction, teaching, etc so that the man of God would be complete.
Jonathyn states this would only apply to the sufficiency of the OT and therefore would exclude the NT. I think this is a bad argument for several reasons. Paul refers to the category of scripture and not so much merely select books (Torah, Prophets, etc). Furthermore, it isn’t actually clear that this doesn’t refer to some NT books.
Apropos (i), Paul evidently uses “Scripture” in 1 Tim 5:18 to designate a saying from the Gospel of Luke. Moreover, 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.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/05/all-scripture-is-god-breathed.html
The Church model Timothy has is starkly different from the one Jonathyn operates with. There was never one institutional church with all the powers that he believes the Oriental Orthodox Church has. There were local and regional churches. They were usually entangled in turf wars or dealing with internal struggles. If anyone is interested in what I have to say about 2 Thess. 2:15 I will point you to another post:
http://spirited-tech.com/COG/2018/07/20/hold-to-the-traditions/
When addressing the claim that sola Scriptura is self-refuting, it’s important to emphasize that the authority of scripture is grounded in its divine origin. Scripture, as the Word of God, carries an inherent authority that doesn’t require external validation. This idea of self-attestation means that scripture bears witness to itself as the ultimate standard for truth, much like other foundational principles in various worldviews that are taken as self-evident.
A helpful analogy is the role of logic in reasoning. Just as the laws of logic are foundational to all reasoning, and cannot be justified without using them, scripture functions as the ultimate authority that validates itself. Scripture doesn’t rely on an external authority to affirm its status as God’s revelation because it stands as the direct communication of God Himself. The self-attesting nature of scripture can be seen in passages like Isaiah 55:11:
“So is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.”
This verse shows that God’s word carries inherent power and authority because it originates from Him. Similarly, Hebrews 4:12 states:
“For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.”
This passage highlights how scripture functions not just as a text but as the living, authoritative Word of God that actively judges and discerns truth.
The argument that sola Scriptura is self-refuting assumes that scripture must explicitly teach sola Scriptura to be valid. However, the principle is more implicit, grounded in the cumulative testimony of scripture’s divine authority and sufficiency. For example, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 declares that all scripture is “God-breathed” and is sufficient to make the “man of God… thoroughly equipped for every good work.” The implication is clear: scripture alone, because it is God-breathed, is sufficient to guide Christians in faith and practice.
Thus, sola Scriptura isn’t self-refuting because it doesn’t require an external validation for its authority. Its authority is inherent and self-attesting, grounded in the very nature of scripture as divine revelation.
Further Suggestions:
TheCouncil:
The Issue of Canon and Sola Scriptura
Triablogue:
The question “where is Sola Scriptura in the Bible?” is fundamentally dishonest
How To Argue For Sola Scriptura
The Historical Roots Of The Reformation And Evangelicalism
The Council 