Does this Argument Defeat Sola Scriptura? (w/ Jimmy Akin)

In this clip from our conversation on Sola Scriptura (see below for link) @catholiccom Senior Apologist Jimmy Akin explains the most popular formulation of the Protestant doctrine "Sola Scriptura" and why, even under the latest version, it fails its own test.

Our complete interview on Sola Scriptura is here:

For more from Jimmy Akin visit his channel @JimmyAkin.

And, check out Jimmy Akin's book The Bible is a Catholic Book at:

To watch this and other episodes please visit (and subscribe to!) our YouTube channel.

Please consider financially supporting this show!

Thank you to those already supporting the show!

[ModernEphemera]

I think it does. I also like pointing out that the canon of scripture was determined by the church and isn’t found in scripture.

[bazzy]

sola scriptura with all of it's novel recreations is the biggest accretion out there. Take that Gavin!

[cantrait]

Great interview
Love Aikens so knowledgeable
His you tube on Mathew 16 is epic where he decides to become Catholic

[Narikku]

The claim that 'Sola Scriptura' means that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith isn't just to make it a 'smaller target'.

It presents a criticism to the view that other things (such as the church or the Pope) are infallible.

If you don't want to call it 'Sola Scriptura', that's fine. I don't think Protestants care that much (though, they probably would argue on the historicity of that definition)!

It does not say there aren't other authorities that should be listened to. It says they are not infallible.

So, to properly rebut this claim, one needs to demonstrate why there are other infallible authorities, and if we are to listen to them, what they are.

I feel like every time I hear a Catholic answer to this question, there's a shift on the answer. It seeks to shift the criticism to something other than what the claim is actually saying.

I really just want to hear a good answer to the question: How do we know that the church and the Pope are infallible?

[barelyprotestant]

It's not the new claim. It's the historic claim. The only thing we know is infallible is Scripture. We are asking for evidence that there is another infallible authority given by God.

[j.g.]

From a Lutheran perspective, this sounds a little odd.
The phrase 'sola scriptura' does not appear in the Book of Concord, even "norma normans' does not appear (but only just). It's odd to say it's a new understanding when Mr Akin recognises that it's present in the 'original' documents of the different traditions, and that it's a shorthand for all that is taught regarding the authority of Scripture (particularly an admission that councils and bishops had erred in the past).

That being said, I'm not sure why the English have 'prima scriptura' when it often describes the same approach as Lutherans.
Anyway the terms only became relevant because a Lutheran Pastor 100 years ago collated his three solae.

[abjoseck]

September 6, 2024

SB@:55 &ff, Jimmy Akin>"The Protestant claim, "Sola Scriptura" does not meet its own test, that u have to prove every doctrine from Scripture alone, it's just not there..." Strangely though, by the same fashion, there is nothing from the Scripture w/c says, "You don't have to prove every doctrine from Scripture alone", it's not there!

[bradleytarr]

What John Calvin, Martin Luther, Cromwell, John Knox, or Ulrich Zwingli, meant by Sola Scriptura, is NOT what 99.99% of Americans mean by Sola Scriptura.