Sola Scriptura (Bible alone) is not a coherent doctrine

When I am talking about Sola Scriptura I am talking about the belief that the Bible alone contains all of the truths of Christianity and there is nothing additional to it that we need to know in terms of faith or salvation. God's revelation is entirely in the Bible. Basically, the concept of Sola Scriptura, as defended historically and in the present day by a majority of Protestants. I am arguing that this is belief is seriously flawed (and on a side note although not especially important to my argument I'd add that S.S. is very harmful to Christians). For the sake of this debate it doesn't really matter if Christianity is true, my point is that regardless of whether or not Christianity is true, S.S. doesn't make sense as a doctrine. One could completely discount the Bible as wrong and still admit that S.S. is a coherent, defendable thesis albeit wrong. I am arguing however that even if the Bible is true, S.S. would still be false. And if the Bible is false, S.S. remains a poor doctrine and an indefensible one. You say that there are no other texts that would be necessary for salvation. Well this depends on your belief system. It is entirely plausible that a Christian believes that the books of the Bible and an additional book are necessary, say for instance, the book of Mormon...even if Christian groups do not claim this, it is also plausible that a new Christian group forms and believes in another extra-Biblical text which is necessary for salvation. The point is that simply claiming the Bible is all we need is not enough. Some Christians would argue that other texts are necessary. Others would argue Tradition is necessary as well. I am NOT going to argue for one specific view, also I am not arguing that in addition to the Bible SOMETHING must be necessary for salvation. Actually, all I am saying is that the belief that all that is necessary is the Bible is not incorrect from a Christian perspective but also incorrect simply because it is logically flawed. For all anyone knows, I do not believe in salvation, or God, or the Bible...or I might. Now there are other extra-Biblical texts that confirm the Bible. But still, this doesn't matter because who is to say that these don't belong in the Bible? Don't the Biblical texts confirm each other? There are also extra-Biblical texts that expand on the Bible, say the works of theology being written today. But who is to say these don't add something necessary for salvation? Now on to my main arguments against S.S. These are brief sketches, more to come in round 3 if you want clarification. These are not arguments against S.S. from a Christian perspective, they are arguments from the perspective of anybody. These are meant to show that S.S. is false before we even determine if Christianity is true. In other words, my argument is that S.S. is false and indefensible even if it turns out Christianity is true similarly, it remains indefensible if Christianity is false. Here they are: 1) Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible. The Bible itself does not teach S.S. Therefore, in order to know the Doctrine of S.S. we have to have some Extra-Biblical source inform us of this foundational doctrine. If it is an Extra-Biblical source that is necessary, it refutes S.S. 2) The Bible does not determine which books should be in the Bible. Assume the following: a. The books in the Bible contain all that is necessary for salvation b. the books of the Bible do not contain which books should be in the Bible. Therefore it follows that which books are in the Bible is not important for salvation. but if this is the case, "a" cannot be true because if which books doesn't matter, neither can their content. Hence S.S. cannot be true 3) The Bible cannot be shown to be inspired by God from within. Even if the Bible claims "this is inspired by God" there is no way to know if it truly is God's word unless we look outside of the Bible for the answer. Eventually we have to get to an authority on the Bible that says it is God's word and this authority must be trustworthy in itself on some grounds. 4) This is not a deductive certain argument although it is still powerful. The Bible was written over the period of thousands of years, in many languages, by many people, in many cultures. They had different purposes, styles, stories, and messages. These books were then delivered to a world which was mostly illiterate (for about 1400 years after the N.T.). To defend S.S. one would have to argue that despite the great variation in the Bible it has clear and defendable messages without the need for interpretation of any other text, tradition, or organization. Yet the diversity in protestant denominations seems to attest to the fact that this is false. Further, to maintain that S.S. is true, you would have to admit that God revealed himself in a manner that was basically cryptic to all of humanity for a long time. From these points, I conclude, that S.S. is not defensible or plausible, and in fact is necessarily false. My point remains the same whether or not I am a Christian. It remains whether or not Christianity is true. My claim does not refute Christianity, and yours does not prove it. You do not have to show that S.S. is true because this would entail proving Christianity is true. All you have to do is show that it is in fact possible or defendable. it is something that a reasonable Christian may hold. My arguments above attempt to show that this is not the case, it is necessarily false, and if Christians want to be honest, they should stop preaching this doctrine and refine the system in some way or join a group that does not teach S.S.