How does 2 Timothy 3:16 support Sola Scriptura?

[Mystophilus]

Well, since heresy is defined as a departure from Catholic teaching, that is quite amusing. Psychological projection. There is, and can be no such thing as heresy in the non-Catholic/Orthodox world, as one simply forms their own denomination.

Heresy is defined as disagreement with the standard of orthodoxy, and that standard varies between faith groups, which is why militant Protestants describe Catholicism as heretical. I should also point out that, while Protestantism has a great capacity for redivision, that does not always occur, and charges of heresy do sometimes cause dissenters to return to the fold of the main group.

 

[po18guy]

Heresy is defined as disagreement with the standard of orthodoxy, and that standard varies between faith groups, which is why militant Protestants describe Catholicism as heretical. I should also point out that, while Protestantism has a great capacity for redivision, that does not always occur, and charges of heresy do sometimes cause dissenters to return to the fold of the main group.

As I see it, it remains a case of projection. Heresy that occurred 1,500 years before the standard? Since it’s their world, I allow them to make it as big as they wish.

 

[tvknight415]

And it’s not the King James Version. Someone actually said, “The King James Version was good enough for the apostles, so it’s good enough for me!”

Oh that’s right… I forgot the apostles spoke Shakespearean English as a native tongue. So, if they did, why in Sheol did they write in Greek??? I mean, hey, I know it’s Greek to me, but…

[/SARCASTIC HUMOR OFF]

 

[PJM]

=elementary;12160667]I have a Fundamentalist friend who asserts that 2 Timothy 3:16 supports Sola Scriptura!

He also asserts that the word “useful” is not correct and that the proper translation is “profitable”. I don’t see how either word or 2 Timothy 3:16 in any way supports Sola Scriptura.

What am I missing?

Thank you for your help!

Share this FACT with them:

There is an Infallible rule for RIGHT understanding of the bible

CAPS FOR EMPHASIS; I’M NOT SHOUTING

NEVER-EVER CAN, MAY OR DOES
ONE BIBLE VERSE, PASSAGE OR TEACHING
HAVE THE POWER OR AUTHORITY
TO OVERRIDE, MAKE VOID OR INVALIDATE
ANOTHER
VERSE, PASSAGE OR TEACHING

SUCH AS EVEN A POSSIBILITY WOULD MAKE VOID THE ENTIRE BIBLE AS BEING WORTHY OD USE TO TEACH CHRIST ONE TRUE FAITH.

IF YOUR FRIEND REALLY BELIEVES THIS THEY OUGHT TO BE CATHOLICS
Mt 10:1-8
Mt. 16:15-19
Mt. 18;18
John 17:13-26
Mk 16:15-16
Mt. 28:16-20
Eph 4:1-7

John 20: 30-31 REFUTE HIS POSITION as does History itself
"Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name.

John 21::24-25 ALSO REFUTES His position
“This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things, and hath written these things; and we know that his testimony is true.” But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.n"

The Bible [a Catholic BOOK BTW] was not fully authored until the END of the first Century; so the Early Church grew without the Bible for many years.

God Bless you,
Patrick
"

 

[DelsonJacobs]

I have a Fundamentalist friend who asserts that 2 Timothy 3:16 supports Sola Scriptura!

He also asserts that the word “useful” is not correct and that the proper translation is “profitable”. I don’t see how either word or 2 Timothy 3:16 in any way supports Sola Scriptura.

What am I missing?

Thank you for your help!

St. Paul is writing to Timothy, commending his mother for bringing Timothy up as a good Jewish man even though Timothy’s father was a Greek. (Acts 16:1-3) While Paul preached a freedom from the Mosaic Law for Gentiles, he did not totally abandon his Jewish culture nor did he teach Christians of Jewish heritage to abandon Torah.–See Acts 21:20-26.

Paul’s statement to Timothy at 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is complementing Timothy on being a Torah-observant Jewish Christian. Paul begins his letter to Timothy by stating:

I recall your sincere faith that first lived in your grandmother Lois and in your mother Eunice and that I am confident lives also in you.–2 Timothy 1:5.

Lois and Eunice were faithful Jewish women that obviously did their best to raise Timothy to be Torah-observant, so much so that when Paul met Timothy, “Paul had him circumcised” despite the fact that Timothy was already a Christian. (Acts 16:1, 3) This is a key to understanding what Paul is writing to Timothy, for Paul is NOT dealing with a Gentile Christian believer to whom Paul proclaimed freedom from the Law. Instead Paul is writing to a fellow Jew who believed in Jesus as the Messiah and thus lived out Torah in the light of Christ’s teachings.–Compare Matthew 5:17-19 and 1 Corinthians 9:19-23.

With this context in mind you can see that Paul is making a connection between being Torah-observant (which included a familiarity with the psalms and prophets) when he writes to Timothy:

You, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it a reference to Timothy’s grandmother Lois and his mother Eunice], and that from infancy you have known the sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.–2 Timothy 3:14-17.

Paul’s statement is not about sola scriptura at all because Jews do not read Scripture in a vacuum. For Jews the Scriptures are a product of their religion, not the basis for it. Scripture reflects on the traditions the Jews already believed and the liturgy they practiced down through the centuries. There is no “sola scriptura” for Jews, and Paul was writing to Timothy on how being raised as a Torah-observant Jew prepared him for the grace that comes through faith in Jesus Christ. He definitely was not writing about the Bible as Christians know it, with the additional 27 books of the New Testament because Timothy could not have known these “from infancy.”

 

[kipperjl]

You can get a book a really great book called 100 Biblical arguments against Sola Scriptura. By Dave Armstrong. There a lot of good reviews on this book.

Dave Armstrong is a Catholic apologist and author (convert from evangelical Protestantism in 1991). His conversion story is in “Surprised by Truth” (1994). He’s been published in “The Catholic Answer,” “This Rock,” “Envoy,” and other periodicals. Dave’s many radio appearances include “Catholic Answers Live” and “Faith & Family Live.”

His website / blog, “Biblical Evidence for Catholicism” has been online since February 1997, and contains more than 2500 papers (including 50+ separate web pages and 625+ dialogues). Sophia Institute Press has published five of his 30 books: “A Biblical Defense of Catholicism” (2003), “The Catholic Verses” (2004), “The One-Minute Apologist” (2007), “Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths” (2009), and “The Quotable Newman” (editor: 2012).

Dave was the co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of “The New Catholic Answer Bible” (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for “The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton” (Saint Benedict Press / TAN Books: 2009) and author of “100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura” (Catholic Answers, 2012).

He has been happily married to Judy since October 1984; they have three sons and a daughter and reside in metro Detroit.

 

[Rich]

Here is why it does not support Sola Scripture, to my understanding: Paul’s letter to Timothy was not Scripture when he wrote it, so Paul was referring to the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint, which includes books that Protestants refuse to call Scripture, so they are not obeying Paul), since Timothy did not read Hebrew. So Paul was saying, "All the Septuagint is inspired by God and profitable for … "

But the next, even bigger, point is that Paul was acting out Tradition when he wrote this to Timothy - he was not an original Apostle but was added to the Church by Ananias of Damascus, and finally confirmed by the Apostles in Jerusalem, granting him authority and apostleship. And Paul, using his apostolic authority made Timothy a bishop also. If Paul’s writing carries any weight or validity, it is because he is the Authority of Tradition in Action and in Person. This makes Paul’s statement to Timothy really say this: “Timothy, I, Paul, by my Authority to define what teaching you follow say to you that you must also give authority over yourself to all the Septuagint like you have me as an authority over you in Christ, since it is profitable for …”

Every bishop, acting in accord with this Tradition carries the same authority today as Paul did. We trust the Bible BECAUSE WE ARE OBEDIENT TO OUR BISHOPS, OBEDIENT TO THE MAGISTERIUM, OBEDIENT TO OUR HOLY FATHER, AND THESE LIVING PEOPLE TELL US WHAT SCRIPTURE WE CAN TEACH FROM, CORRECT WITH, AND TRAIN IN RIGHTEOUSNESS WITH. We trust the Bible because the leadership we trust gives it to us, not because of some stand-alone idea about a book that came from the sky.

John Martin

Where does it say that Paul was quoting the Septuagint. The only Scriptures read by the Jews were the original Hebrew scriptures. Today they still only read the Scrolls in Hebrew which is not the Septuagint.

 

[DaveBj]

Where does it say that Paul was quoting the Septuagint. The only Scriptures read by the Jews were the original Hebrew scriptures. Today they still only read the Scrolls in Hebrew which is not the Septuagint.

Sorry, but your information is incorrect. In Jesus’ day, most Jews were Greek-speaking, not Hebrew-speaking, and the Scriptures had been translated into Greek (the Septuagint) a couple centuries before Christ was born. For most Jews of Jesus’ day, the Septuagint was the only version of the Old Testament that was accessible to them. For most OT citations in the NT, the wording agrees with the Septuagint, and in some cases the Hebrew wording is markedly different.

 

[michaelhager]

You can’t even appeal to 2 Timothy 3:16 without already knowing it is scripture.

You might want to ask your friend to quote book, chapter, and verse that says 2 Timothy is scripture. If he can’t (and he can’t), then he is appealing to an authority outside the Bible, which, of course, destroys his notion of sola scriptura.

I wish we had a “LIKE” button here…

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Here’s an article that addresses 2 Timothy 3:16 from a perspective that most people miss. The main thing to note is that when Paul says “all scripture…” the words here are not ‘all the bible’ but rather ‘ever individual portion’. So if the Protestant wants to say this verse teaches sola scriptura, they are forced to say it means "every individual book of the bible’ is sufficient, which is kind of absurd considering 3rd John is shorter than 1 page long.

catholicnick.blogspot.com/2010/04/sola-scriptura-is-unscriptural.html

 

[spina1953]

^^^This.

This verse says that ALL Scripture is useful. It does not say that ONLY Scripture is useful.

Hi Dave B: I think the key word is useful and only is not used as it has a totally different meaning, so it is not in the text, Must be that someone decided that useful meant only but they are mistaken on that score as useful does not mean only. I agree with you as you made a great point.

 

[po18guy]

Let us remember that Timothy was quite young, and had to continue learning while Paul was absent and could not teach him. Thus, Timothy had recourse to the scriptures to assist in his formation.

 

[spina1953]

Hello Pablope.

No kidding - I once asked that question to a SS adherent and he looked at me and blinked and said “Why Martin Luther gave us the Bible!” as if it were a given and there was something seriously wrong with me if I didn’t* know *that. He went on to explain that Catholics chained Bibles, if they actually had one in a Church, to posts so no one could read them and it was Martin Luther and his friends who copied them and gave them to everyone and that is what started everyone getting them. He actually believes that if it weren’t for Martin Luther, no one would have a Bible. I had nothing else to say to that poor man and walked away praying the Divine Mercy Chaplet for him that his eyes might be opened to the bunk he’s been falling for.

Glenda

Hi Glenda: The person you spoke to was as you know incorrect about where the Bible came from. His also does not understand why the Catholic Church chained Bibles in Churches. This was because book were very expensive and Bibles more so since they were hand made meaning that each and every bible was written by hand; copied by hand since there was no printing press at that time. Luther only translated the Bible into German but the Bible had been translated into German long before Luther did so. The problem is that a great many Protestants especially SS adherents do not understand Church history and only believe what they are taught in their churches.

 

[Zenas]

I have a Fundamentalist friend who asserts that 2 Timothy 3:16 supports Sola Scriptura!

He also asserts that the word “useful” is not correct and that the proper translation is “profitable”. I don’t see how either word or 2 Timothy 3:16 in any way supports Sola Scriptura.

What am I missing?

Thank you for your help!

I don’t know why this verse is used to support Sola Scriptura. However, 2 Timothy 3:17 makes a pretty good case. “o that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” NASB

“[T]hat the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” ESV

“o that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” NAB

So, scripture makes the man of God adequate, complete or competent, depending on the translation. Therefore, one might draw the inference that if one is adequate, competent or complete by studying scripture, is there really any need for anything else?

 

[po18guy]

I don’t know why this verse is used to support Sola Scriptura. However, 2 Timothy 3:17 makes a pretty good case. “o that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” NASB

“[T]hat the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” ESV

“o that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” NAB

So, scripture makes the man of God adequate, complete or competent, depending on the translation. Therefore, one might draw the inference that if one is adequate, competent or complete by studying scripture, is there really any need for anything else?

Remember that Paul was writing to Timothy in his absence. Timothy had no Apostles to teach him. Also remember that there was very little New Testament scripture at that time - Timothy might have had none of it.

What 2T3:16 supports is “scriptura”, but it in no way, shape of form defines or delineates what scripture is. The Church must do that. Remember the intro to Luke: “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative…” All of those competing versions appeared to the casual reader to be scripture. But, as the Church decided, each failed for various reasons.

 

[Erich]

I don’t know why this verse is used to support Sola Scriptura. However, 2 Timothy 3:17 makes a pretty good case. “o that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” NASB

“[T]hat the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” ESV

“o that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” NAB

So, scripture makes the man of God adequate, complete or competent, depending on the translation. Therefore, one might draw the inference that if one is adequate, competent or complete by studying scripture, is there really any need for anything else?

But, who is the “man of God”? Read this link to find out (hint: it’s not necessarily who you think).

 

[glendab]

But hello folks. The Scriptures that are being discussed in the passage are the OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES, so how does it prove the BIBLE, which is the OLD plus the NEW Testament, is all that is needed, meaning no Church or Mary or Priests or Pope, etc. or anything resembling all that Catholic stuff to get to Heaven or be “saved?”

It is a hard question to answer and if the person takes the Bible seriously, how do they reply to that without admitting it doesn’t prove a thing other than what St. Paul meant when he wrote it that both oral traditions of the Church and her teaching AND the Hebrew Testaments were worthwhile and trustworthy and both were needed for godliness and instruction. Really.

Glenda

 

[spina1953]

I think the question one should ask is which Scripture is Paul talking about? During the time of St. Paul there was two types of Scripture 1) was the Alexandrian also known as the Septuagint or LXX and the Palestinian Scripture. These were not codified works in some volume but scrolls. Since Paul preached among the Gentiles and Greek speaking Jews most likely used the LXX. There was no official canon of Scripture at that time nor during the very years of the Christian Church Gradually certain works became scared Scripture among the various Churches, which included some Gnostic works etc. it was about 382 AD that a canon became the official list of inspired works that became the Bible and in 397AD the canon was officially defined at the council of Trent.

So we do not know which Scripture Paul was using nor which books of Scripture he was referring to. Paul did not say that Scripture was the only source or the only source of God’s Word, since there was no NT at that time and Paul’s letters were not in any way considered Scripture or inspired. So on that note 2 Timothy 3:16 does not in any shape or form support SS. There is also Tradition which was the teaching of Jesus passed on to the Apostles who were preaching the Good News.

 

[kipperjl]

The apostles decided in 50 AD to put the writings of the apostles together in the NT. From 50 to around 325 at the council of Nicea the NT was finalized and all of the books of the NT were put together. From 325-1500 every book that was produced was hand written by the monks in the monasteries. The the Gutenberg press started printing the Bible. Martin Luther, Henry the VIII took the bible and took out what books they wanted to leave in so that there would be no argument about what they were teaching. Luther took James out. Can’t remember what Henry did except make the King James.

Here are two books printed by Catholic Answers that will answer any question on this subject.

100 BIBLICAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SOLA SCRIPTURA BY

Dave Armstrong is a Catholic apologist and author (convert from evangelical Protestantism in 1991). His conversion story is in “Surprised by Truth” (1994). He’s been published in “The Catholic Answer,” “This Rock,” “Envoy,” and other periodicals. Dave’s many radio appearances include “Catholic Answers Live” and “Faith & Family Live.”

His website / blog, “Biblical Evidence for Catholicism” has been online since February 1997, and contains more than 2500 papers (including 50+ separate web pages and 625+ dialogues). Sophia Institute Press has published five of his 30 books: “A Biblical Defense of Catholicism” (2003), “The Catholic Verses” (2004), “The One-Minute Apologist” (2007), “Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths” (2009), and “The Quotable Newman” (editor: 2012).

PROTESTANT DILEMMA BY Devine Rose former Evangelical pastor now Catholic

You can get these books online from Catholic Answers at

shop.catholic.com/100-biblical-arguments-against-sola-scriptura.html

shop.catholic.com/the-protestant-s-dilemma-1.html

THESE ARE IN EXPENSIVE BOOKS AND ARE VERY THROUGH.

 

[spina1953]

The apostles decided in 50 AD to put the writings of the apostles together in the NT. From 50 to around 325 at the council of Nicea the NT was finalized and all of the books of the NT were put together. From 325-1500 every book that was produced was hand written by the monks in the monasteries. The the Gutenberg press started printing the Bible. Martin Luther, Henry the VIII took the bible and took out what books they wanted to leave in so that there would be no argument about what they were teaching. Luther took James out. Can’t remember what Henry did except make the King James.

Here are two books printed by Catholic Answers that will answer any question on this subject.

100 BIBLICAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SOLA SCRIPTURA BY

Dave Armstrong is a Catholic apologist and author (convert from evangelical Protestantism in 1991). His conversion story is in “Surprised by Truth” (1994). He’s been published in “The Catholic Answer,” “This Rock,” “Envoy,” and other periodicals. Dave’s many radio appearances include “Catholic Answers Live” and “Faith & Family Live.”

His website / blog, “Biblical Evidence for Catholicism” has been online since February 1997, and contains more than 2500 papers (including 50+ separate web pages and 625+ dialogues). Sophia Institute Press has published five of his 30 books: “A Biblical Defense of Catholicism” (2003), “The Catholic Verses” (2004), “The One-Minute Apologist” (2007), “Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths” (2009), and “The Quotable Newman” (editor: 2012).

PROTESTANT DILEMMA BY Devine Rose former Evangelical pastor now Catholic

You can get these books online from Catholic Answers at

shop.catholic.com/100-biblical-arguments-against-sola-scriptura.html

shop.catholic.com/the-protestant-s-dilemma-1.html

THESE ARE IN EXPENSIVE BOOKS AND ARE VERY THROUGH.

Hi kipper: Sorry but you are incorrect concerning that it was the Apostles who put the writings of the NT in 50 AD. Remember that St. John’s Gospel was not even written till about 90-100 AD and the other three Gospels were not written till around the 70-80’s AD. If what you were saying about the writings being put into the NT in the year 50 AD then what happened to the other Apostles and why did they not write? if it were the Apostles who did that as you so claim?