2 Tim 3:16-17 Sola Scriptura

[Catholic_Dude]

Most people know that 2 Tim 3:16 is the most important passage Protestants turn to as a proof for Sola Scriptura. 16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

I believe the best way of approaching 2 Tim 3:16-17 is to break it into two ‘thoughts’ and then it will be easy to see that St Paul is not teaching Sola Scriptura here:
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness
As Catholics, we believe all Scripture is inspired by God, and as such it is ‘profitable’ for teaching and training. The term “profitable” does indicate it is very helpful for teaching and training, but that in no way indicates exclusivity in teaching and training.for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
Most Protestants read 2 Tim 3:16-17 and think it is saying Scripture makes the “man of God” fully equipped. But that is not what is being said here. Instead, it is saying teaching, reproof, correction and training are what equips the “man of God” for every good work. Big difference.

Protestants need the passage to say:
1)Scripture is ‘sufficient’, but in fact it says ‘profitable’.
2)Scripture itself is what equips the man of God, but in fact it says it is* those good qualities* that make the man of God equipped.

What 2 Tim 3:16-17 says is that since Scripture is inspired, it provides important contribution to those qualities, and those qualities equip the Christian, most especially the Bishop (eg St Timothy).

That is not the same as saying Scripture is (1) all that (or only) is inspired and (2) all that those qualities are derived from Scripture alone.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Much like a thread I started! We use much of the same language.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Much like a thread I started! We use much of the same language.

You’ve obviously had a big thread going on this subject.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I came up with a diagram on the subject:

1)Inspired Scripture --(fully equips)–> Christian
2)Inspired Scripture --(contributes towards*)–> good qualities --(fully equips)–> Christian.

Number 1 is what Protestants WANT to see, but number 2 is what the text actually is saying. When presented this way, the Protestant argument is totally deflated without going through a bunch of flowery language.

*“profitable” towards, to be exact

 

[MarcoPolo]

I came up with a diagram on the subject:

1)Inspired Scripture --(fully equips)–> Christian
2)Inspired Scripture --(contributes towards*)–> good qualities --(fully equips)–> Christian.

Number 1 is what Protestants WANT to see, but number 2 is what the text actually is saying. When presented this way, the Protestant argument is totally deflated without going through a bunch of flowery language.

*“profitable” towards, to be exact

Good. That and the word “sola” is not in the text. As I said in the other thread, this 2 Timothy passage is an affirmative statement.

It says A is B. Sola Scripturists argue from this statement that only A is B, which does not follow from the text.

 

[cazayoux]

I came up with a diagram on the subject:

1)Inspired Scripture --(fully equips)–> Christian
2)Inspired Scripture --(contributes towards*)–> good qualities --(fully equips)–> Christian.

Number 1 is what Protestants WANT to see, but number 2 is what the text actually is saying. When presented this way, the Protestant argument is totally deflated without going through a bunch of flowery language.

*“profitable” towards, to be exact

I’ve heard our non-Catholic brothers point to verse 17 for this as well.

2 Tim 3:17
that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

They see ‘scripture makes you complete’ as ‘scripture alone makes you complete’.
John Martignoni points to Ephesians to what makes the soldier of Christ complete… and scripture is only a part of it.

Eph 6:11-17
[11] **Put on the *whole ***armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
[12] For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.
[13] Therefore **take the *whole ***armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
[14] Stand therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness,
[15] and having shod your feet with the equipment of the gospel of peace;
[16] besides all these, taking the shield of faith, with which you can quench all the flaming darts of the evil one.
[17] And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

Without scripture you are not complete, but it is a very different to say that scripture alone makes you complete.
You need to have ALL of these to be equipped:
girded loins (truth)
breastplate (righteousness)
shodded feet (gospel of peace)
shield (faith)
helmet (salvation)
sword (word of God)

Together this makes the ‘whole armor of God’.

michel

 

[promethius]

Catholic_Dude:
Well stated. I liken protestant usage of 2 Tim 3:16-17 to this:

1. Eating apples is good for you
2. therefore you should ONLY eat apples.

We as catholics are the nutritionists who are there to inform the protestants that if you only eat apples you will become malnourished at best and dead as the more likely result.

 

[Canardmom85]

Answering 2 Tim 3:16-
There are many verses I could pick out and say that is the “Only” thing I need. For example: James 1:4 illustrates the problem:
“And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.”
If we apply the same principle of exegesis to this text that the Protestant does to 2 Timothy 3:16, then we would have to say that all we need is patience (steadfastness) to be perfected. We don’t need faith, hope, charity, the Church, baptism, or anything else. Using that logic James tells me to NOT use a Bible. Scary thought!

 

[DaveBj]

Protestants (like I used to be) make a jump from “all Scripture is profitable” to “only Scripture is profitable.” By a similar leap of reasoning, I could go from “all dogs have four legs” to “only dogs have four legs.” But that won’t work with quadrupeds, and it won’t work with Scripture either.

DaveBj

 

[kbachler]

Most people know that 2 Tim 3:16 is the most important passage Protestants turn to as a proof for Sola Scriptura. 16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

I believe the best way of approaching 2 Tim 3:16-17 is to break it into two ‘thoughts’ and then it will be easy to see that St Paul is not teaching Sola Scriptura here:
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness
As Catholics, we believe all Scripture is inspired by God, and as such it is ‘profitable’ for teaching and training. The term “profitable” does indicate it is very helpful for teaching and training, but that in no way indicates exclusivity in teaching and training.for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
Most Protestants read 2 Tim 3:16-17 and think it is saying Scripture makes the “man of God” fully equipped. But that is not what is being said here. Instead, it is saying teaching, reproof, correction and training are what equips the “man of God” for every good work. Big difference.

Protestants need the passage to say:
1)Scripture is ‘sufficient’, but in fact it says ‘profitable’.
2)Scripture itself is what equips the man of God, but in fact it says it is* those good qualities* that make the man of God equipped.

What 2 Tim 3:16-17 says is that since Scripture is inspired, it provides important contribution to those qualities, and those qualities equip the Christian, most especially the Bishop (eg St Timothy).

That is not the same as saying Scripture is (1) all that (or only) is inspired and (2) all that those qualities are derived from Scripture alone.

Not sure I’d say that this is that important to “most Protestants”. As a former Protestant, for example, this was the first time I heard this particular argument.

 

[CSJ]

Another key point to mention is that when Paul wrote this letter, the New Testament did not exist and the Scriptures that he was referring to could only have been the Old Testament.

God Bless,
CSJ