Sola Scriptura "proof" texts

[Nathan_Wagar]

This thread is to post some info to help people deal with these two passages that are often used to “prove” sola scriptura:

The first is in Acts 17:11. Let’s examine the context of this passage. Acts 17:2 records: “As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath says he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead.”

It was Paul’s “custom” to visit the synagogues in each city of his missionary journey (ex:Acts 13:14). As he would later do in Thessalonica and Bera in Acts 17, Paul made it a continual practice to read and teach from the Scriptures, in this case, the Old Testament. Hence we see that Paul’s teaching sessions in the synagogue were to a people who knew their Scripture, used it often, and were willing to exchange ideas about it. If Paul appealed to Scripture, then it was to Scripture the people would go to check “if what Paul said was true.”

In Thessalonica, Acts 17:2 records that Paul not only read from the Scriptures but that he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that Christ had to suffer. Apparently, Paul was deducing new understandings about what Scripture meant in light of the events that had transpired in Christ’s death. The Old Testament did not use the name “Jesus” as linked with the messiah, and so Paul is bring a new application of Scripture.

In Thessalonica, it was Paul’s statement that the “Christ” of the OT was the “Jesus” of the New which caused such contention and jealousy among the Jews. In Acts 17:5-9 Luke records their response:

“But the Jews were jealous; so they rounded up some bad characters from the marketplace, formed a mob and started a riot in the city. They rushed to Jason’s house in search of Paul and Silas in order to bring them out to the crowd. But when they did not find them, they dragged Jason and some other brothers before the city officials, shouting: ‘These men who have caused trouble all over the world have come now here, and Jason has welcomed them into his house. They are all defying Caesar’s decrees, saying that there is another king, one called Jesus.’”

Hence Paul and the Jews of Thessalonica were not contending about the veracity or usefulness of Scripture; rather, it was Paul’s interpretation of Scripture that they could not accept.

Now when Paul arrived in Berea, he acted just as he did in Thessalonica; he went to the synagogue to teach. We may assume he engaged in similar reasoning, “explaining” and “proving” from Scripture with the Bereans the same as he had done with the Thessalonians. We may also assume that Paul, as in Thessalonica, made it a point to teach the Bereans that the Christ of the OT was the Jesus of the new. The Bereans received Paul’s interpretation without hesitation. Luke records in Acts 17:11:

“Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.”

We can surmise from the previous encounter with the Thessalonians that the main message the Bereans were receiving with eagerness was Paul’s news that Jesus was the messiah. Because they believed his message and received it with eagerness, Luke concludes they were of more noble character than the Thessalonians.

Why did Luke consider the Jews of Berea more “noble” than the Jews of Thessalonica, since not all Jews in Thessalonica had rejected the teaching? Wouldn’t Luke consider them noble too? Yes, but the noble Jews were so badly outnumbered by the riotouss ones who rejected the message that Luke is forced to sum up the situation in Thessalonica as one of general unbelief.

In regards to the Thessalonians in Acts 17:4 he points out that only “some” were persuaded, whereas regarding the Bereans he writes “many of the Jews believed.”

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

In view of the above, is it truly reasonable to conclude that the Bereans, because they “examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true,” are models of the modern theory os Sola Scriptura? Is Luke trying to teach us that “nobility” consists in using Scripture as the final authority in determining the veracity of oral teaching? The answer is a fat no, if you look at the evidence fairly.

The text is simply a narrative of events that occurred in two respective cities, not a treatise on the nature and extent of Scripture and its authority. Second, we have seen from my comparison of the Jews in Berea with the Jews in Thessalonica that Luke considered the former noble not because they merely examined Scripture, but mainly because they believed Paul’s oral revelation that the Christ of the Old is the Jesus of the New. Luke attributed nobility to them because they “received the message with great eagerness.” Even the grammatical sentence stucture weakens the argument that what makes them noble is the fact that they examined Scripture.

The essence of the Berean encounter is that nobody could know the real meaning of Scripture, as obscure as it was at times, unless accompanied by an equally authoritative divine interpretation. The Bereans were noble because they accepted Paul’s apostolic authority on the identity of the messiah, not because they could extract for themselves from the OT that Jesus was the messiah. Thus their “examination” of Scripture was limited to re-evaluating those passages which spoke of the messiah as the one who had to suffer, die, and rise again; not to prove or disprove that Jesus was the messiah. The typical Jew, though he knew Scripture, invariably skipped over th passages in the OT that sugegsted the messiah had to suffer and die. Paul says in 2 Corinthians 3:14-16:

“But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.”

The Bereans did not first believe that Jesus was the messiah and then examine Scripture to see if what Paul said was true. No, they examined the Scriptures that spoke of the suffering servant and then accepted by faith that the “Jesus” Paul spoke about was indeed the messiah. Their faith was based accepting Paul’s authority to interpret Scripture, whil Scripture stood mainly as a witness to what Paul preached.

The Bereans, as their OT prescribed, needed at least two or three witnesses to prove the veracity of a person or event (Deut. 19:15; 2 Cor. 13:1). Paul was one witness and Scripture was the other, and both were necessary for the truth to be understood. Hence, this passage in Acts does not support Sola Scriptura, in effect it says the exact opposite. This present day, Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church fulfill the Biblical concept of three witnesses to the truth. Protestants remove 2 legs from the stool, then when it falls, try to add their own leg.

In fact, if anybody practice sola scriptura, it was the Thessalonians, who examined the Scriptures with Paul in the synagogue yet rejected his teaching. They did not accept it, deciding after 3 weeks of deliberation that Paul’s words contradicted Torah. They reasoned from “scripture alone” and concluded that Paul’s new teaching was “unbiblical.”

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

2 Timothy 3:17-17: “All Scripture is inspired and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, in order that the man of God may be fit, fully equipped for every good work.”

So the question really is, if the man of God is perfectly equipped, does that not mean that Scripture is the perfect equipper?

First off is the slightly worn argument, that yes, the word used for Scripture is ophelimos, meaning profitable. If Scripture is merely “profitable” in order to make the man of God perfect or complete, this implies that there are other things that have brought him to a near perfect or complete state while or before Scripture is being administered to him. Other sources have also prodded him along the way and now that he is about to face a more difficult task (as implied in Paul’s closing words to Timothy in 2 Timothy 4:1-5).

To use a simple analogy, in Ephesians 6:11-18 Paul includes many aspects of the Christian walk in making one prepared to fight evil: belt of truth, breastplate of righteousness, helmet of salvation, sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God, etc. We notice that Paul considers the Word of God but one of many components of the “full armor of God.” The “full armor” of Ephesians 6:11 is analogous to being “fully equipped” in 2 Timothy 3:17. We need many things to help us, even prayer is added to the list in Eph. 6:19; Paul does not tout Scripture as the only source to help in the process.

In 2 Timothy 2:21 we see that there are means other than the inspired written word to accomplish the goal of making a “fit and fully equipped man of God.” Paul says “…If a man cleanses himself from the latter, he will be an instrument for noble purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do every good work.” This passage “every good work” is that exact same Greek phrase with no variants found in 2 Timothy 3:17. Hence we notice that the end result in 2 Timothy 2:21 is the same as in 2 Timothy 3:17, that is, to make a fit or useful man so that he is prepared to do every good work. Both verses are looking to the same goal yet have different sources from which to draw. If we were to use the concept of “sufficiency” that Protestants force into 2 Timothy 3:17, we could claim, in light of the similar language in 2:21, that refraining from bad influences and behavior is ALL that is needed to make a man useful for every good work.

Paul uses the phrase “every good work” six other times in his epistles. The phrase itself is ambiguous as to what it specifically refers, but it would appear from the general context that it includes both practice and doctrine (2 Tim 2:22f; 4:2-5; 1 Tim 4:16).

For example, in 2 Corinthians 9:8 Paul says, “God is able to make all grace abound toward you in order that alwayshaving all sufficiency in everything, you may abound in every good work.” However here it is the grace of God, not Scripture, that makes the person all sufficient in everything. However, God’s grace is manifold, Scripture being but one of the many graces. As 2 Corinthians shows, Scripture informs us that God makes us sufficient through His graces, but Scripture itself is not the sufficient source for every Good work.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

As Paul moves on in his letter to Timothy, we notice that his chief concern is that Timothy not be weakened in his faith through the influence of corrupt men who pass themselves off as spiritual. These men “have a form of Godliness but deny the power thereof” (2 Timothy 3:5). Paul also refers to what Timothy has “become convinced of,” which shows that Timothy has been thinking and meditating on the teachings. Paul assures him of the teachings by saying, “because you know those from whom you learned it…” Paul makes the effectiveness and the veracity of the instruction Timothy received dependent on the fact that Timothy “knows” (personally trusts) his teachers. Finally, Paul continues into another source of truth Timothy has it his disposal: “…and how from childhood you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation…” In addition to cleansing himself from bad influences, his modeling of Paul, his other teachers and his own reasoning ability, Timothy has the Scriptures he can study.

The word used for him is “infant.” This is another reason why the Scriptures referenced in 2 Timothy 3:14-16 are referring to the Old Testament (although yes, your point is correct that they became Scripture the moment Paul wrote them down, and further Paul seems to distinguish between “holy scriptures” in v. 15 and "all Scripture in v. 16, imply Old and some New as well). Timothy, being an infant when first exposed to the Scriptures, certainly could not grasp their deep truths for himself, especially since they were the OT Scriptures and only contained veiled refernces to the messiah now known to be Christ.

Another aspect of the relationship between Scripture and the other elements which make Timothy a “fit” man of God is Paul’s wording in 2 Timothy 3:15: “you know the holy Scriptures which are able to make you wise to salvation.” The word “know” denotes a present intellectual apprehension of Scripture, and as such, it itself is not saving wisdom but only a means to saving wisdom. Timothy must turn his intellectual knowledge of salvation into a spiritual embracing os salvation.The process of attaining salvation is implied in Paul’s use of the prsenet tense verbs “know” and “are able.”

As useful as the Scriptures are, Paul insists to Timothy in 2 Timothy 1:13: “What you have heard from me keep as the pattern of sound teaching…guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you.” It is what Timothy “heard” from Paul that is called the “good deposit.” Similarly, in 2 Timothy 2:2, Paul says, “And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men…” Again, even though the Scriptures are at his disposal, Timothy is to rely just as much or more on what he “heard” from Paul.

1 Corinthians 11:34 Paul is teaching how to observe the Lord’s Supper but terminates his remarks by saying, “And when I come I will give further instructions.” We assume that because Paul would eventually speak to them face to face that the additional instructions were given orally and were just as authoritative as his previous written instruction in the remainder of 1 Corinthians 11.

Attempts to use 2 Timothy 3:16-17 to support Sola Scriptura lead to an untenable anachronism. If Protestants believe 2 Timothy 3:16-17 teaches Sola Scriptura, then they must also believe that Timothy was meant to understand 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as teaching Sola Scriptura. Obviously, Scripture cannot be interpreted one way for us and another for Timothy. But if Timothy is to see Sola Scriptura in this passage, then what was he to do with Paul’s orally inspired teaching given at the same time as the writing of 2 Timothy which Paul told him to “keep” and “guard?” It will do no good for Protestants to argue that oral revelation was eventually confined to Scripture, for even if this were true, that are still left with the fact that in Timothy’s day, oral revelation was an abiding concern.

How can Scripture teach such a doctrine in this passage when Scripture was being written precisely when oral revelation was still being produced? I hope I have made my point, for this particular passage anyway.

 

[Marc_Da_Fermo]

What am I missing? It appears this is a non issue in light of 2Thessalonians 2:13-15, Obey the traditions we have taught you either by word of mouth or epistle. To me that puts apostolic oral tradition on equal footing with scripture.I am quessing that the question is whether a believer may have a revelation of Christ independent from Church, Liturgy, or the Sacraments and from merely scripture itself? Even if that were possible they are still called to live their faith in communion with Mother Church? How would that state differ than an ex communicant? Except that it be voluntary.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

It isn’t a qquestion, more of an answer. I see a lot of Catholics asking how to deal with these particular two passages, and they’re not sure how to handle it in an indepth manner.

 

[imkingdad]

TY for your insights, they serve to help & reinforce myself & I’m sure others in how to be better apologists.

 

[VociMike]

I’ve always found it wryly amusing that sola-scripturists hold up the Bereans as a model. The Bereans heard the gospel from Jesus’ very own apostles, and then many of them rejected the gospel based on their personal interpretation of scripture. In fact, it is not clear from the passage that the Bereans, using their knowledge and understanding of scripture, were any more receptive to the gospel preached by the apostles than were the Greeks, who obviously were not steeped in Jewish scripture, but many of whom also accepted the gospel regardless.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

I find it wryly amusing that the more indepth my posts are, the less responses I actually get. I hate random verses used as proof texts being thrown at me, but it seems that’s all I get.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I find it wryly amusing that the more indepth my posts are, the less responses I actually get. I hate random verses used as proof texts being thrown at me, but it seems that’s all I get.

I know how you feel. I posted what I thought was a brilliant proof of Apostolic Succession in two different forums and got two responses?

Huh?!?

Proving Apostolic Succession is a linch-pin in Catholic ecclesiology, and nobody responded?

Don’t let it bother you…you keep thinking, writing and posting.

When you need the data in a live-fire debate, you’ll be ready.

 

[Randy_Carson]

How can Scripture teach such a doctrine in this passage when Scripture was being written precisely when oral revelation was still being produced? I hope I have made my point, for this particular passage anyway.

Here is my response to this passage:

2 Timothy 3:14-17 – Tradition + Scripture + Magisterium

When non-Catholics are asked to provide biblical support or their belief that the Bible Alone is the sole rule of faith for the believer, they usually cite 2 Timothy 3:16-17 which states that “all scripture is God-breathed and is useful”. However, they somehow miss the fact that the two verses immediately prior stress the importance of oral teaching and the teaching authority of the Church. Here is the entire passage with context added:

2 Timothy 3:14-17
14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of (Timothy had learned the Gospel and become convinced that it was true by Paul’s ORAL preaching and teaching. This oral preaching and teaching is known to Catholics as Sacred Tradition.), because you know those from whom you learned it (Timothy had learned the gospel from Paul, an Apostle (and Bishop) of the Church, and possibly from other Church leaders whom Timothy had heard preaching and teaching. The teaching authority of the Church is known to Catholics as the Magisterium.) , 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures (Timothy would have known only the Old Testament scriptures from his infancy since the New Testament had not been written or completed at the time Paul’s letter to Timothy was composed. However, the New Testament is recognized as part of the Bible, the written Word of God. This is known to Catholics as Sacred Scripture.), which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (Only after commending the Tradition “handed on” from the Magisterium does Paul go on to discuss the nature of Sacred Scripture in the following verses.)16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Viewed this way, we can see that 2 Timothy 3:14-17 does not support the doctrine of sola scriptura at all. In fact, the opposite is true.

Another point to consider is that Paul’s disciple, Timothy, was a Greek, and the Old Testament that Timothy would have been most familiar with from the time of his youth was the Greek Septuagint. Because of his travels outside of Israel, Paul, too, would have been familiar with and would have used the Greek version of the Old Testament writings. Therefore, in this passage of scripture, Paul encouraged Timothy to continue in what he had learned from the Septuagint.

This has important implications for a controversy concerning seven books of the Old Testament now known collectively to Catholics as the “Deuterocanonicals” and to Protestants as the “Apocrypha”. Catholics consider the Deuterocanonicals to be inspired scripture while Protestants reject them. The Greek Septuagint contains these seven books while the Hebrew version of the Old Testament does not.

There is no doubt that the Septuagint was known to and used by Jesus, Paul and Timothy and yet, in the 16th century, Martin Luther removed these seven books from the Bible because they contain passages that support distinctly Catholic doctrines like praying for the dead and purgatory—doctrines which he rejected. Luther justified his action in part upon the fact that the Jews themselves rejected the Deuterocanonicals as part of their canon.

This development in the history of the Jewish canon is interesting in itself. Beginning as early as 90 A.D. at the so-called “Council of Jamnia”, Jewish leaders began to re-think which books of the Bible should and should not be considered scripture. In the second century, the Jews finally removed the Deuterocanonical books from their canon of scripture, and this was due in large part to the fact that the early Christian Church was using the Deuterocanonicals to support the Christian belief in the resurrection from the dead. The Jewish scriptures were being used to win converts to the Christian faith! Consequently, the Jews ultimately rejected the Deuterocanonical books some two centuries after Christ’s death and resurrection. Martin Luther used their decision to justify his own.

This leads to a couple of obvious questions: “Why would the Holy Spirit guide a group of rabbis on matters related to the Old Testament canon when there was already a Christian Church in existence that was under His infallible guidance as Jesus had promised? And why should Luther accept the revised Hebrew canon instead of the canon of the Septuagint that had been in continuous use in the Church for over fifteen centuries?

Luther picked that truncated canon for the same reason the rabbis did: in order to undermine the teachings of the Catholic Church which did not fit his new theology.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Yeah I loved how he originally appealed to the deuteros for his arguments, till he had them turned right back around on him in order to prove purgatory.

 

[Jim_Baur]

This looks great.

I have to say I only read a small amount, but it sounded great.

I always ask: What came first, the Church or the written Word of God?

 

[foolishmortal]

I just learned he didn’t remove the septuagint, but decided them not to be inspired. I’m pretty sure he added “alone” though, to “faith”.

 

[bookgirl32]

I find it wryly amusing that the more indepth my posts are, the less responses I actually get. I hate random verses used as proof texts being thrown at me, but it seems that’s all I get.

Unfortunately, I think people can also come here (including myself, I will admit it, even though my initial motivation to come here is good) to “win” and not learn. Including the Catholics who already “know” most of this. You’re asking people to learn . I get much more good out of in depth posts such as yours and also having to do research and take the time to post in depth posts of my own. I get much more false emotional satisfaction out of throwing a verse out to “win”. When my pride really gets going I find I want every post to be a “nail in the coffin” so to speak and often don’t want to take the time to make sure it actually is.

 

[foolishmortal]

I just learned he didn’t remove the septuagint, but decided them not to be inspired. I’m pretty sure he added “alone” though, to “faith”.