A bad argument for Sola Scriptura

01/28/2025 • View profile

Recently, some stuff was going around the interwebs about Wes Huff, and, oh my goodness, does he get some basic facts wrong. Jimmy Akin deals with it, here; Wes Huff--Adding or Deleting Books from the Bible? | The Jimmy Akin Podcast
Some of the things I KNEW were wrong (like how some Jews did accept Sirach, but Esther was very much debated, and I know this because of this channel, Apocrypha Apocalypse) Anyway, I don't think Wes would appeal to these verses to appeal to his argument (at least I hope he wouldn't, because I think that would amount to question begging, I'd give you the definition, but everything I can find strawmans both conservatives and Christians, another logical fallacy)!

Before we get started, be sure to check out my previous article, Icons, not idols, and check out my latest video on Locals; Is my pastor a sedevacantist?
Anyway, I HAVE seen people appeal to these verses, and, just to shake it up a bit, I'm translating from French, so (probably bad) translations are my own.
“All Scripture is inspired of (or from, it can be translated either way), and used to teach truth, refuting error, correcting mistakes, and shaping a just manner of life, so that the man of God be prepared and equipped for every good act”.
Of course, you have the obvious problem of a non fluent French speaker, translating a Greek book from French into English. Not the version I used (and I have no idea if accents marks will show up on this), but, if you want to have a go at it; Deuxième lettre de saint Paul Apôtre à Timothée,
And, if you're curious, this is the version I used;La Bible en français courant avec notes avec les deutérocanoniques (although, mine is a bit more faded, but, it's the WHOLE Bible, with deuterocanonical books, and fits in my pocket)!
Anyway, this doesn't really apply to Mr. Huff, so much as it does to the fact there are a multitude of people who use this really bad argument.
“Scripture is sufficient, therefore, that's the only infallible source of authority we have”. But, you'll note one thing, even in my (bad) translation from French, it doesn't say ONLY scripture is sufficient. (not to mention, that's not the word I used) And, by the way, since I am a material sufficiency guy, I wouldn't even argue against scripture being sufficient,The Complex Relationship between Scripture and Tradition
I WOULD argue, however, against the idea that scripture is self-interpreting and ideas like formal sufficiency. Because, that's not what it says, even in English. Even if we grant the scripture is sufficient, there are still other questions we need to ask.
I bet you expected an article about Wes Huff. Well, no, I just wanted to point out that other people have answered him.
Maybe you have a good argument for formal sufficiency. I'm open to listening to it. However, I remain unconvinced. By the way, make sure you read the entire chapter on your own. You'll note something, if you read only the two verses I shared, you might not realize this, but the previous verses mention the scriptures that Timothy knew from childhood.
Now, I do not accept late dates for the gospels (I think this is largely 19th century German liberal Protestantism at work, and the fact it remains largely unchallenged in academia is disappointing), but, I think it would be fair to say, that the scriptures that Timothy knew in childhood would be the Old Testament. So, by that logic, if we take this in context, and we want to retroactively apply formal sufficiency to it.
Again, this doesn't mean that scripture isn't in some sense sufficient. I've already stated my own view.
And with all of that said;