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

[Holly3278]

No, it does not support sola scriptura. And one verse in the Bible completely refutes sola scriptura.

(NAB) 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

 

[guanophore]

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known **the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. **

2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Since this passage is about the OT, are you willing to give up your NT, and rely only on the OT? Perhaps you forget that Paul could say this because he was a Pharisee among Pharisees. He studied at the feet of Gamaliel, and was well versed in Oral Tradition. He understood that the two should never be separated from one another. If he were in a grave, he would be spinning in it. I am sure it makes him fervent in prayer!

 

[Janet_S]

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.

Sola Scriptura is not taught in the Bible.

Those trying to claim that it is taught in the Bible usually come up with 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as their best proof text.

But keep in mind, sola Scriptura is not one belief–it is a complex of beliefs.

On another thread, I had a discussion with a non-Catholic Christian about this issue. He gave this as a 4-part definition of sola Scriptura:

1. The NT is inspired-inerrant.

1. Nothing else (but the NT) is (inspired-inerrant).

1. It is the foundation for all doctrine and practices because it alone is inspired-inerrant.

1. From it we can have everything we need for salvation.

The problem using 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is that it claims only that Scripture is inspired and profitable. That’s it! That’s all it claims!

What does 2 Timothy 3:16-17 not claim? Nowhere does it claim that “nothing but the NT is inspired-inerrant” or that “it is the foundation for all doctrine and practices” or that “from it we can have everything we need for salvation.”

Therefore, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is compatible with the Catholic belief that Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Church Magisterium are all part of God’s Revelation:

1. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls. from Dei Verbum

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.

2 Timothy was just another book when it was written - it had no more authority as Scripture then, than anything by any “uninspired” writer. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is based on an optical illusion: as though the NT writings had, during the Apostolic period, the same status they were later recognised as having, & as though the writers were regarded as inspired authors of books of the Bible in their own life-times.​

If the works of (say) Billy Graham were to be canonised as Scripture in a couple of centuries’ time, he would be in the same position as the Scripture-writing Apostles were in theirs - the position an important Christian teacher who had left works which were regarded as valuable by some, & not necessarily so by others. St. Paul was at least as controversial in his own life-time as Billy Graham is in his. He is “the Apostle”, & a writer of inspired Scripture, only in retrospect - in no way is this to depreciate him; the point here is not his value, but the need of time the Churches had in order to appreciate his value: which is, that of an inspired author; not of one important but unispired teacher among others.

 

[Ginger2]

You are not an inspired apostle Neither am I.​

When did I claim inspiration for either of us?

St Jude was both inspired and an Apostle - and he vouched for the inspiration of the Prophet Enoch… it makes no sense not to regard the 108 chapters of 1 Enoch as equally inspired

I didn’t deny Enoch was a prophet. But you should remember that just because fragments or even whole manuscripts of a book claiming toi be written by a prophet is not enough to get it in the canon. There are many reasons such a book might be excluded. Maybe enough copies to make a complete and accurate translation could not be found accurate. Maybe errors were found in the text that suggest it is a forgery. I do not know the reason Jude was excluded, but St. Jude’s comment only acknowledges Enoch was a prophet of God, not that the specific transcript you refer to is valid.

BTW I’ve read it

 

[Ginger2]

…(RC) Church teaches … the lack of the Real Presence in any and all of the Protestant churches. …

Where did God say this? Specifically, where and when did God say no one but a Roman Catholic priest can change the bread and wine?

Where did God say He would deny someone seeking Him?

Romans 10:13 “Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

I have the authority of God’s revelation backing me up on this.

Show me the Scripture, please.

 

[Church_Militant]

There are many reasons such a book might be excluded. Maybe enough copies to make a complete and accurate translation could not be found accurate. Maybe errors were found in the text that suggest it is a forgery. I do not know the reason Jude

was excluded, but St. Jude’s comment only acknowledges Enoch was a prophet of God, not that the specific transcript you refer to is valid.

BTW I’ve read it(Don’t you mean Enoch there?)

I’m glad to find an n-C who actually has.

The fact that Jude quotes it as it does is defacto proof that he considered the text inspired. If an apostle quotes a prophecy from a traditional text then doesn’t that tell you that that apostle believed that tradition could offer inspired revelation?

 

[Ginger2]

Are you asking for essential doctrines that are not contained in Scripture?

No. I believe everything has to be confirmed thru Scripture.

With that said, the proper interpretation of scripture is often left out of scripture, which is why we need sacred tradition.

It is easy to find proper interpretation within the Scriptures themselves. I knew a woman who didn’t believe the Bible was literal. After praying for her for about three months she suddenly wanted to do a Bible study. I cross reference between books and used the Bible to explain itself.

I avoided any explanations on my own, but instead read Scriptures about the same event from other books in the OT & NT. She understood. God spoke to her thru the Scriptures.

The key is whether or not a person is truly seeking God with there whole heart and soul. When you read, are you seeking to find what you want God to be, or are you seeking to know God. That is what makes the difference. God gave us free will and we get what we are truly seeking.

The improper interpretation of scripture could lead to seperation from the Lord.

Freewill. God can speak to us thru the Scriptures.
We can choose to interpret Scripture to please and justify ourselves. Or we can listen to God and trust Him and He will justify us.

John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, I know them, and they follow me:

 

[Ginger2]

"Ginger2:

Matthew 4:4 Jesus said in reply, “It is written: ‘One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of God.’”

7 Jesus answered him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.’”

10 At this, Jesus said to him, “Get away, Satan! It is written: ‘The Lord, your God, shall you worship and him alone shall you serve.’” 11 Then the devil left him and, behold, angels came and ministered to him.

Whenever Jesus says “It is written”, … This is for emphasis among His listeners

The listener in this case was satan!

 

[Ginger2]

“They”? You forget that less than half of the Apostles wrote anything,

We have four Gospel accounts to testify of Jesus. How many more do you think are necessary to understand who Jesus is? 12, 50, 100?

Would adding more accounts make the truth any truer?

Unless there is something of importance missing then the Bible is complete apart from Tradition.

No Apostle I know of ever considered his own writing as Scripture; where did you get this?

Peter refers to Paul’s letters as Scripture. "… even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. " (2 Peter 3:15,16)

If Peter considered Paul’s writings to be Scripture, certainly he must have considered his own as such.

It is not Catholic definition that is the problem; it is exactly that Protestants define sola scriptura that way, not the Catholic Church.

I do not know any protestant who defines Sola Scripture as the Catholics do. Since Protestants are the ones who believe in Sola Scripture, Protestants would be the ones to know what we believe? Therefore the Catholic definition is wrong.

If the Bible is one way for God to speak to us, then surely there must be other ways that God speaks to us. But if that is so, then that is no longer sola scriptura, and that in itself would go against that notion.

This idea stems from your misunderstanding of Sola Scripture.

 

[Joab_Anias]

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.

Doesn’t 3:15 say the assembly of God (church) is the pillar and foundation of all truth?

That would answer it for me. Scripture is the tradtion of that assembly. Without the assembly and tradition you would have no new covenant scripture so they must go hand in hand. None sola.

Peace.

 

[Ginger2]

Can you imagine us, today, understanding the Gospel message based only on the OT!?

That Sacred Oral Tradition is critical, and I am sure Paul is the cream of the crop in relating the OT scriptures to the teaching of Christ. But he did it all by preaching, and teaching.

We didn’t need NT writings while the Apostles were alive on Earth. Now that they are not with us they testify thru their written testimonies.

Name one thing of importance that is missing from Scripture that will make any difference to mankind.

Abraham told the rich man that if his brothers didn’t listen toi the prophets nothing would make them listen - not even someone returning from the dead.

The testimonies of the prophets are written in Scriptures. So what more can RC doctrines do for the unbeliever if he chooses to reject God.

Since this passage is about the OT, are you willing to give up your NT, and rely only on the OT?.

The OT testifies to the truth of the NT.

 

[Ginger2]

(Don’t you mean Enoch there?)



It does not mean he considered the text inspired. Jude considered Enoch a prophet, but I don’t know whether the text that has been found has been deemed authentic. Do you know?

 

[Joab_Anias]

Jesus has given us a Church, and the Church is the guardian and interpreter of the Scriptures and Tradition.

“… it has now been revealed by the Spirit, to His holy apostles and prophets” (Ephesians 3:5)

“having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone” (Ephesians 2:20)

“And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever - the Spirit of truth” (John 14:16-17)

“However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13)

“… the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15)

The truth has been revealed by the Spirit principally to the leaders in the Church. They, with Christ, are the foundation of the Church. The Church is guided in the truth by the Holy Spirit - the Spirit of Truth. The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. The leaders of the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, guide us in the truth. Scripture and Tradition need each other, and both need the Church to protect, preserve and interpret them. Consequently, Scripture alone is not enough. Scripture can be misinterpreted. The Bible itself does NOT say that it is the ONLY source of revelation. It says that BOTH Scripture and Tradition are the sources of revelation. Scripture says that Jesus Christ founded a Church. He promised to be with His Church until the end of the world. He promised that the Holy Spirit - Spirit of Truth - would be with His Church.

The idea of Scripture alone was introduced in the 1500’s. The idea had never surfaced during the previous 1500 years.

We must remember:

Paul never uses the phrase “Scripture alone”
Paul does not tell Timothy to write anything down.
Paul does not say that he himself wrote everything down.
Jesus said, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4)

The Christians, for the first approximately 400 years had NO New Testament to study. These people learned from oral instructions. Besides, very few could read.

Jesus said, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, … teaching them…” (Matthew 28:19)
He did not say, “Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations… write a book that will contain everything that they need to know in order to be saved.” The basic essentials are contained in Scripture. But, God in His loving generosity gives us so much more through Tradition.

theworkofgod.org/Library/Links/Apologtc/Aplg_frm.htm

 

[Joab_Anias]

-Writings Which the Catholic Church decided to be the “Canon” of Scripture of the New Testament:

**Bolded ** Writings which the Catholic Church decided to be the “Canon” of Scripture of the New Testament

+ Writings (existing today) which the Church decided would NOT be included in the “Canon”

***** Writings (no longer in existence) which the Church decided would NOT be included in the “Canon”

GOSPELS

*Andrew
*Apelles
*Twelve Apostles
*Barnabas
*Bartholomew
*Basilides
+Birth of Mary
*Cerinthus
*Eyptians
*Ebionites
*Encratites
*Eve
*Hebrews
*Hesychius
+Infancy of Jesus Christ
+Infancy (by Thomas)
John
*Jude
*Judas Iscariot
+Lost Gospel of Peter
Luke
*Marcion
Mark
Matthew
*Matthias
*Mernthus
*Nazarenes
+Nicodemus
*Perfection
*Peter
+Philip
+The Protevangelion
*Sythianus
*Titan
*Thaddaeus
+Thomas
+Truth

• Valentinus

REVELATION

*Cerinthus
John
*Paul
*Peter
*Philip
*Stephen
*Thomas

EPISTLES

+Barnabas
*Christ (to Peter & Paul)
*Christ (produced by the Manichees)
+Clement to the Corinthians (1)
+Clement to the Corinthians (2)
Hebrews
+Herod and Pilate
+Igantius to the Ephesians
+Igantius to the Magnesians
+Igantius to the Trallians
+Igantius to the Romans
+Igantius to the Philadelphians
+Igantius to the Smyrnaeans
+Igantius to the Polycarp
James
+Jesus and Abgarus
**John (1) **
**John (2) **
**John (3) **
Jude
+Paul to the Laodicians
+Paul and the Seneca
Paul to Romans
**Paul to the Corinthians (1) **
**Paul to the Corinthians (2) **
Paul to the Galatians
Paul to the Ephesians
Paul to the Philippians
Paul to the Colossians
**Paul to the Thessalonians (1) **
**Paul to the Thessalonians (2) **
**Paul to Timothy (1) **
**Paul to Timothy (2) **
Paul to Titus
Paul to Philemon
**Peter (1) **
**Peter (2) **
+Polycarp to the Philippians
*Themison (the Montanist)

ACTS

*Andrew
*Apostles (by Leucius)
*Apostles (by Lentitus)
*Apostles (by Leontius)
*Apostles (by Leuthon)
**Apostles (by Luke) **
*Apostles (used by the Ebonites)
*Apostles (used by Manichees)
*Apostles (used by Seleucus)
*John
*Paul
*Paul and Thecla
*Peter
*Philip
*Pilate
*Thomas

BOOKS BY

*Andrew
*Christ
*The Helkesaites
+Hermas (His Visions 1)
+Hermas (His Commands 2)
+Hermas (His Similitudes 3)
*James
*John
*Lentitius
*Matthew
*Matthias
*Paul
*Thomas

OTHER

+Apostles’ Creed
+The Didache
*The Doctrine of Peter
*The Judgement of Peter
*The Preaching of Paul (and Peter)
*The Preaching of Peter
*The Traditions of Matthias

From David McDonalds site;

The Catholic Church protected the Bible across the ages until the Gutenberg press was invented. Century after century, Monks in Monasteries faithfully copied Scripture. They were incredibly accurate. We have a modern discovery that is a testimony to how accurate the Monks were when they copied the Bible. The “Dead Sea Scrolls” were discovered in 1947 and they date back to 200 BC. They contain Old Testament books such as Isaiah. They predate some of the Monk’s copies by 1500 years. Yet the hand copied Bibles created by monks are almost identical to the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is remarkable given that the Monks were working from copies of copies. It would take each monk a lifetime to copy one Bible and thousands of faithful Catholics dedicated their lives to this work. Catholics protected the Bible over the centuries of wars, famines, plaques, the fall of Rome, fires, and threats from all sides. This was long before any other denomination existed.

The Bible didn’t just drop out of the sky, spiral bound, with an NIV sticker on it. The Catholic Church chose which books to include in the Bible in the Synod’s of Hippo (393 AD) and confirmed it at Carthage (397 AD). Here are the words of Professor Peter Flint, the non-Catholic scholar who translated the only English version of the Dead Sea Scrolls which won first prize from the Washington Biblical Archeology association:

“Without the Catholic Church you have no Bible, just a bunch of books and letters. With the Church you have the Bible!”

 

[guanophore]

No. I only quote Church Fathers because Catholics hold them in such high regard. It is obvious that they didn’t always agree with each other - nor always interpret a specific verse in the exact same way. But they loved each other despite minor differences of opinion.

Perhaps you don’t understand the difference between the Patristic writings, and the official doctrines of the Church?

Too bad Catholics and Protestants can’t do the same.

It would be unloving to teach wrong doctrine, and to abandon the faith that was passed on to us from Jesus through His Apostles.

If we both believe the same basic and essential Christian doctrines, what difference does it make if, for example, I don’t believe in praying to the saints in heaven, but prefer to speak with God directly?

Who decides what is “essential”? There in lies the problem. Catholics accept what the Apostles taught as “essential”, and Protestants abandon most of this. It makes a difference because we are directed to hold fast to the Traditions that have been passed down to us. The Apostles taught the communion of saints, that is why it is in the early creeds.

 

[guanophore]

I am making conversation.

Is this why you are on CAF?!

As for Sola Scripture…

If it’s good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me.

This is good to hear. Perhaps, when you come to understand that Jesus was not Sola Scriptura, and that he lived and taught Sacred Tradition, then you will be in a position to accept this also.

 

[guanophore]

It proves the Bible is sufficient.-

Jesus taught that the scriptures are sufficient to lead people to HIM! He is present in His Church. He did not write books, but established a Church.

Paul and the other Apostles taught orally while they were alive. But they also wrote down their testimonies so that future generations would have them.

Yes, and one of the things they wrote and taught was to hold fast to the Sacred Traditions.

While the Apostles were alive they considered their own writings a Scripture.

Where does it say THAT in your Bible!!!

Peter calls Paul’s letters Scripture. Surely Peter’s were considered Scripture, also.

Really? Which letters was he talking about? Peter’s letters were considered scripture by whom? Where does it say THAT in your bible?!

We don’t need the extra Biblical teachings. They are interesting, but not necessary.

Are you really only here to make “conversation”? It sounds more like you are trying to pursuade Catholics to abandon their faith.

The problem is that Catholics insist on defining Sola Scripture in a way that makes it an unstable practice to follow.

Well, it is an unstable practice to follow no matter who is defining it. I realize that your personal definition of it here is different than some of our other brethren, but none of the definitions will lead to stable practice. That is why the Apostles taught the disciples a way of living, and passed on the Gospel personally.

Again, Sola Scripture does not mean all knowledge of God is contained in the Bible. If that were what it meant, I would agree with Catholics.

You just said in your post above that the bible was sufficient. Aren’t you contradicting yourself? Or maybe you mean that, if it isn’t in your Bible you don’t need to know it? Not important?

The Bible is one way for God to speak to us and tells us what He wants us to know about Him and His plan for mankind. He left nothing out that we needed to know.

Ok, I think what you are saying is that there are many things that can be known about God that are not in the Bible, but we don’t need to know them. Given that, I am curious why you think that Jesus established a Church, since we don’t really need it?

Also, since the different Catholic churches do not agree on certain doctrines, which one do you think holds all the truth?

I think this is a topic for another thread, but I am curious what you are talking about. Also, there is only one Catholic Church. Those who disagree with her teachings are not Catholic. Do you think the Catholic Church teaches Sola Scriptura?

 

[Ginger2]

Jesus …lived and taught Sacred Tradition, then you will be in a position to accept this also.

Jesus taught about himself and fulfilled the prophesy. Jesus quoted from Scriptures and condemned practices of Tradition. The NT is not a new revelation - it is the fulfillment of the OT.

Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men. 8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, [as] the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

The Catholic Church teaches that it is the one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation.

But the church is the body of believers - wherever they are. Luke 9:50

My salvation is not dependent on the RC, but on Jesus Christ.

There is more than one Catholic Church. They do not agree on all doctrines. Which one’s Traditions are true?

 

[Ginger2]

I think this is a topic for another thread, but I am curious what you are talking about. Also, there is only one Catholic Church. Those who disagree with her teachings are not Catholic. Do you think the Catholic Church teaches Sola Scriptura?

Orthodox do not agree with all the RC doctrines. When Orthodox and RC split. How do you determine which one held fast and which one made up new doctrines?

Are you saying the Orthodox are not Catholic? Do you think they are a false religion?

Sola Scripture - the Bible is our guide to truth - We test the doctrines against Scripture.

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.