Does 2 Tim 3:16-17 support Sola Scriptura?

[RussAuburn]

Paul wrote to Timothy: “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim 3:16-17)

I’m a recent convert to Catholicism. For many, many reasons … Scripture, Tradition, the witness of history and the Saints … I have no doubts whatsoever that the Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Our Lord on St. Peter.

I’d like to better understand how 2 Timothy 3:16-17 does not support the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, in case this verse is brought up to me by any of my reformed brethren. Thanks in advance for your help.

 

[Pons]

In brief, Paul says “All scripture”, not “Only scripture”.

catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp

 

[savedsinner]

First of all, I would read the whole letter, keeping in mind that this is one of the last letters that Paul is writing before he is to be martyred. He is telling Timothy things he will need to do and know once Paul is gone.

Paul tells Timothy to pass on the oral traditions for one thing, and then he Tells Timothy as a man of God, or a Bishop who will be teaching, that scipture is profitable in his teachings.

He isn’t telling Timothy that scripture is all he needs, but one of the things, the other being the traditions which he passed onto Timothy.

2 Timothy 2:2
“and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.”

2 Timothy 3:16-17
All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

I don’t think that one can argue that what Paul is telling Timothy to pass on is exactly what is in scipture, because just 8 verses earlier Pauls writes about something that was not found in scripture which he is passing onto Timothy.

2 Timothy 3:8
As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith;

Jannes and Jambres were not mentioned in the Old Testament, it was an oral tradition that was passed on.

Again, like Pons wrote, it says “all” scripture, not “only” scripture.
The passage says that scripture is profitable to make the man of God complete, just like drinking milk is profitable to make an athlete complete.
Milk is not the only thing the athlete needs, but it is “profitable” for the athlete.

 

[Stillkickin]

Also it says “profitable” which means advantageous not only source. Is it advantageous for me to use a banking softeare on my computer to keep track of my checkbook? Sure it is, but can I use my calculator, or even my head to figure out my balances - of course!
There are many passages in the bible that refute this. One of the best examples to me is in Acts 8:30-3.1 “So Philip ran up to it and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah. He asked, Do you understand what you are reading? He replied, How can I, unless some one guides me?” Phillip was one of the deacons who expalined the scripture. The Etheopian was an official, he was reading from a scroll, so he was literate and most likely well educated, but he still needed someone to interpret the scroll for him - scripture alone did not do it. Just as today, that is why there is the Magisterium, the teaching authority, of the Catholic Church.
There are many scripture passages that support this and also the teachings of the early Church Fathers.
St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies (C. 180 A.D.):
“If there should be a dispute over some kind of question, ought we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches in which the Apostles were familiar, and draw from them what is clear and certain in regard to that question? What if the Apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the Churches?”
Tertullian, Demurrer Against the Heretics (200 A.D.):“Wherever it shall be clear that the truth of the Christian discipline and faith are present, there also will be found the truth of the Scriptures and of their explanation, and of all the Christian traditions.”
Origen, Fundamental Doctrines (C. 220 A.D.):
“Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the Apostles, and remains in the Churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition.”

Stillkickin

 

[VociMike]

If anything, the Protestant misreading of 2 Tim 3:16-17 supports salvation by works. It all leads up to being equipped for every good work.

 

[ryanoneil]

I’d like to add to the good comments given above.

2 Tim. 3:15 - Paul appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul’s teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.

2 Tim. 3:16 - also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.

2 Tim. 3:17 - Paul’s reference to the “man of God” who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although Protestants use it to prove their case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.

2 Tim. 3:17 - further, Paul’s use of the word “complete” for every good work is “artios” which simply means the clergy is “suitable” or “fit.” Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.

**Titus 3:8 - good deeds are also “profitable” to men. For Protestants especially, profitable cannot mean “exclusive” here.

2 Tim 2:21- purity is also profitable for “any good work” (“pan ergon agathon”). This wording is the same as 2 Tim. 3:17, which shows that the Scriptures are not exclusive, and that other things (good deeds and purity) are also profitable to men. **

2 Tim. 3:16-17 - Finally, if these verses really mean that Paul was teaching sola Scriptura to the early Church, then why in 1 Thess. 2:13 does Paul teach that he is giving Revelation from God orally? Either Paul is contradicting his own teaching on sola Scriptura, or Paul was not teaching sola Scriptura in 2 Tim. 3:16-17. This is a critical point which Protestants cannot reconcile with their sola Scriptura position.

Peace,

Ryan

 

[HailMary]

Paul wrote to Timothy: “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim 3:16-17)

I’m a recent convert to Catholicism. For many, many reasons … Scripture, Tradition, the witness of history and the Saints … I have no doubts whatsoever that the Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Our Lord on St. Peter.

I’d like to better understand how 2 Timothy 3:16-17 does not support the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, in case this verse is brought up to me by any of my reformed brethren. Thanks in advance for your help.

geocities.com/militantis/solascriptura.html

 

[RussAuburn]

Thank you SO MUCH, everyone, for your responses. All of your words are helpful, and open my eyes anew to the wisdom and practical teaching found in the Catholic Church. God bless you.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

If anything, the Protestant misreading of 2 Tim 3:16-17 supports salvation by works. It all leads up to being equipped for every good work.

That’s what I noticed too. I’ve even pointed this out in other threads as well. Unfortunately, even though it appears to be a nearly inescapable conclusion, no one who defends this passage to mean a support of Sola Scriptura seems to have engaged the conversation further.

 

[VociMike]

That’s what I noticed too. I’ve even pointed this out in other threads as well. Unfortunately, even though it appears to be a nearly inescapable conclusion, no one who defends this passage to mean a support of Sola Scriptura seems to have engaged the conversation further.

No, as soon as those ominous words “salvation by works” are mentioned they’ll make a quick denial and then drop the subject like a hot potato. But they’ll sure be more cautious the next time they bring it up.

 

[MarySon]

Keep in mind that what Paul refers as ‘Scriptures’ is the Old Testament as we know it today. He did not have any concept of what New Testament was. The Canon of the New Testament was closed in the 4th century - 300 years after Paul’s letter

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

No, as soon as those ominous words “salvation by works” are mentioned they’ll make a quick denial and then drop the subject like a hot potato. But they’ll sure be more cautious the next time they bring it up.

Amen brother.

Unfortuntely, they don’t seem to come back. Some don’t even bother responding at all.

 

[Ruthie]

One of the delightful things about becoming Catholic is the change in the way I read the Bible. Instead of picking and choosing certain verses to support my beliefs, I now read the Word of the Lord as a unified whole.

The real problem our Protestant friends have with 2 Tim 3:16-17 is that they treat it as prophecy. They may not do it consciously, but that is the only way to reconcile Paul writing about “all scripture” before all the scriptures were written.

That is how to address this. Look at scriptures that we know to be prophecy, and compare them to this letter. The prophets in the OT do not write letters to individuals, and do not confine their prophecies to a verse or two. And when Jesus prophesies in the NT, He speaks in the same style as the NT prophets. Mt 23 and 24 are examples.

Hope that helps.

Ruthie

 

[Ginger2]

2 Timothy 3:8
As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith;

Jannes and Jambres were not mentioned in the Old Testament, it was an oral tradition that was passed on…

This was an oral Jewish tradition - it did not start with the Apostles.

Does it really matter that Exodus does not use their proper names? They are the pharaoh’s magicians, so they are in fact mentioned in the Bible.

In other words, Paul could have said, “As the pharaoh’s magicians opposed Moses, …”

 

[DarkMark]

One question.

Where in 2 Tim 3:16-17 is the word “Only”? Scriptures are most certainty good at affirming doctrines, but Paul does not state it is the only rule of faith. Sola-Scriptural is simply a invention of 1500s. Paul affirms Sacred Traditions (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15), so why would he teach the Bible alone theory in 2 Tim 3:16-17? Makes no sense to me . . . .

 

[Ginger2]

Paul … did not have any concept of what New Testament was.

Peter referred to Paul’s letters as Scripture.

 

[Ginger2]

One question.

Where in 2 Tim 3:16-17 is the word “Only”? Scriptures are most certainty good at affirming doctrines, but Paul does not state it is the only rule of faith. Sola-Scriptural is simply a invention of 1500s. Paul affirms Sacred Traditions (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15), so why would he teach the Bible alone theory in 2 Tim 3:16-17? Makes no sense to me . . . .

First, the idea of Sola Scripture did not just pop up 500 years ago.

Origen of Alexandria (ca. A.D. 185-ca. A.D. 253/254) ’In proof of all words which we advance in matters of doctrine, we ought to set forth the sense of Scripture as confirming the meaning which we are proposing…Therefore we should not take our own ideas for the confirmation of doctrine, unless someone shows that they are holy because they are contained in the divine Scriptures as in the temples of God’ (Comm on Matthew 25).

Cyril of Jerusalem (ca. A.D. 315-ca. A.D. 386) ’For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on the demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.’ (Catechetical Lectures 4:17).

Hippolytus of Rome (died A.D. 235) ’There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures and no other source.’ (Against Noetus 9).

Second, Sola Scripture is not a claim that all knowledge is contained in the Bible. It simply means that if what you say is in conflict with the Bible, I should believe the Bible - not you.

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, [it is] because [there is] no light in them.

 

[DarkMark]

First, the idea of Sola Scripture did not just pop up 500 years ago.

Origen of Alexandria (ca. A.D. 185-ca. A.D. 253/254) ’In proof of all words which we advance in matters of doctrine, we ought to set forth the sense of Scripture as confirming the meaning which we are proposing…Therefore we should not take our own ideas for the confirmation of doctrine, unless someone shows that they are holy because they are contained in the divine Scriptures as in the temples of God’ (Comm on Matthew 25).

Cyril of Jerusalem (ca. A.D. 315-ca. A.D. 386) ’For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on the demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.’ (Catechetical Lectures 4:17).

Hippolytus of Rome (died A.D. 235) ’There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures and no other source.’ (Against Noetus 9).

Second, Sola Scripture is not a claim that all knowledge is contained in the Bible. It simply means that if what you say is in conflict with the Bible, I should believe the Bible - not you.

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, [it is] because [there is] no light in them.

First, "the Fathers affirmed that the most perfect expression of the Apostolic faith is to be found in Sacred Scripture. The Fathers affirmed the material sufficiency of Scripture. According to the Fathers, all doctrines of the Catholic faith are to be found within its covers. Secondly, the Fathers affirmed in the same breath and with equal conviction that the Apostolic faith also has been transmitted to the Church through Tradition. According to the Fathers, the Scriptures can only be interpreted within the Catholic Church in light of her Sacred Tradition. . . .In sum, when the Fathers affirmed the sufficiency and authority of Scripture, they did so not in a vacuum, but within the framework of an authoritative Church and Tradition. " (Joseph Gallegos)

St. Cyril points to the Church not to Scripture for the definition of the canon: “Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testaments, and what those of the New” (Catechetical Lectures ,4:33).

The Fathers of the Church affirms Sacred Scriptures+Sacred Traditions.

Second, unless I am wrong, Sola Scriptural teaches that all doctrines must be based on the Bible alone. That is why Protestants do accept Catholic Traditions; they call them “unbibical”.

Finally, Is 8:20 is not talking about the whole Bible, since the whole Bible did not exist.

Do you know that the same Fathers you quoted also believe many of our Catholic doctrines that you Protestants reject? Interesting. . . .

 

[Ginger2]

Hippolytus of Rome (died A.D. 235) ’There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures and no other source.’ (Against Noetus 9).

 

[Ginger2]

According to the Fathers, the Scriptures can only be interpreted within the Catholic Church in light of her Sacred Tradition. . . .

Origen of Alexandria (ca. A.D. 185-ca. A.D. 253/254) ’In proof of all words which we advance in matters of doctrine, we ought to set forth the sense of Scripture as confirming the meaning which we are proposing…Therefore we should not take our own ideas for the confirmation of doctrine, unless someone shows that they are holy because they are contained in the divine Scriptures as in the temples of God’ (Comm on Matthew 25).

The Bible should interpret or define Tradition - not the other way around.