QUICK NOTES ON SOLA SCRIPTURA (Part 5)

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17 – NASV) 

The following specific objection against Sola Scriptura (“Bible Alone”) is also fairly common among Catholic apologists:

ARGUMENT #5 – THE PHRASE “EVERY GOOD WORK” IN 2 TIMOTHY 3:17 DOESN’T PROVE SUFFICIENCY.  THERE ARE OTHER THINGS PROFITABLE FOR “EVERY GOOD WORK,” NOT JUST SCRIPTURE.  FOR EXAMPLE, JAMES 1:4 SAYS THAT PATIENCE / PERSEVERANCE WILL EQUIP A PERSON FOR EVERY GOOD WORK, MAKING US “PERFECT AND ENTIRE, LACKING NOTHING.”  SO, ACCORDING TO PROTESTANT LOGIC, WOULDN’T THAT MEAN THAT PERSEVERANCE WOULD ALSO BE SUFFICIENT, AS A RULE OF FAITH?

This is just a variation of the “proves too much” argument (as in Part 4).  But this argument fails also, as we will soon see.

Those who are against Sola Scriptura (Catholics and others) will also point to verses like:

“If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.” (2 Timothy 2:21)

They’ll say, “You see!  Here Paul is saying that avoiding certain things will make you prepared for every good work!  So it’s not just Scripture that is sufficient.”

But there is a major difference between verses like these and 2 Timothy 3:16-17.  And that difference is CONTEXT.  The context of 2 Timothy 3 is about a God-breathed Rule of Faith that we can turn to in times of trouble and spiritual deception.  Paul, knowing that he would soon be killed for his faith (4:6), is giving Timothy critical information before his departure, and he wanted to leave no doubt as to where to turn in the troubling days that surely lay ahead.  The Holy Spirit is pointing to a time of great apostasy (i.e., falling away from the faith), emphasizing the approaching deception in the church (3:13), growing worse and worse.  So, Paul is describing to Timothy the purpose and nature of the one Source he could count on after he’s gone… that which is inspired by God… Sacred Scripture.  While this passage is establishing an infallible Rule of Faith, verses like James 1:4 and 2 Timothy 2:21 are not.  

Catholics are confusing Paul’s pointing to the infallible guide itself (in 2 Timothy 3) with the application of principles within the guide in these other passages.  In other words, 2 Timothy 3 is saying, “This is the Ultimate Standard, the Rule of Faith,” and the other passages are saying, “Here’s how to apply it.”  Two different contexts.

But what if someone wants to argue that these other verses are also in the context of a rule of faith?  What then?  Remember, the Catholic claims that his rule of faith is a “three-legged stool,” that is, Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium.  But does any Catholic want to add “perseverance” (James 1:4) or “purging oneself” (2 Timothy 2:21) as a fourth leg to his three-legged stool?   If those contexts really are about a rule of faith, as some may claim, then Catholics would necessarily have to add these things to their own rule of faith.  And this addition would have to mean that the Catholic’s own rule of faith (the “three-legged stool”) is not sufficient.

Either way, this argument doesn’t hold water.

QUICK NOTES ON SOLA SCRIPTURA (Part 4)

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17 – NASV) 

Today, we will address another common objection to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (“Bible Alone”):

ARGUMENT #4 – IF 2 TIMOTHY 3:16-17 PROVES THE SUFFICIENCY OF SCRIPTURE, IT WOULD PROVE TOO MUCH, BECAUSE WHEN PAUL MENTIONS SCRIPTURE, HE WAS SPEAKING OF THE ONLY SCRIPTURE THAT WAS AVAILABLE AT THAT TIME:  THE OLD TESTAMENT.  SO, IF SOLA SCRIPTURA APPLIES HERE, WOULDN’T WE HAVE TO SAY THAT THE *OLD TESTAMENT* IS ALL WE NEED AS A RULE OF FAITH?  AND WOULDN’T THAT MEAN THAT THE NEW TESTAMENT IS *UNNECESSARY*?

The premise in this argument is that Paul could only have been talking about the Old Testament.  While it is true that only part of the New Testament was available when Paul wrote 2 Timothy, this argument is using very poor logic.  In the context of this passage, Paul is describing the nature and purpose of “ALL Scripture,” not “all-Scripture-given-to-us-up-until-this-point-in-time.”

This is like someone saying, “All birds have wings.”  But this would not mean that only birds existing UP TO THIS POINT have wings, and it is not saying that birds that hatch in the future will not have wings.  It’s simply saying that it is characteristic of ALL birds to have wings.

For an example that’s closer to home, it is like a Catholic saying, “All infallible / ‘ex-cathedra’ statements of the Catholic Church are true.”  Would any Catholic think that this means that ONLY the ones proclaimed UP TO THIS POINT are true, and that future ones may be FALSE?  No, he would argue that “all” means all.

So when the Apostle Paul said “All Scripture…”, he meant All Scripture, past, present and future (from his perspective).  Is not the New Testament also considered Scripture?  Isn’t it part of the whole?  Absolutely.  No true Christian would deny the inspiration of the New Testament. 

There is nothing in the context to indicate that Paul had only the Old Testament in mind, since he was also addressing the needs of the church of the future, as well (3:1, 13).  When Paul said, “All Scripture,” there is no reason to think he meant otherwise, or to limit his description of the sacred writings to only what was available at that time.

Since the Bible equips us for EVERY GOOD WORK, the problem is not “…IF it would be sufficient, it would prove too much…”  No, the point is that the whole of Scripture IS INDEED SUFFICIENT as the only infallible Rule of Faith for the church today, but Catholic teaching doesn’t line up with this … that’s the problem.  They are using a faulty premise in verse 16 which distorts the conclusion and true meaning of verse 17.

So, this is an illogical and absurd objection that falls flat, since it is just another in a long line of weak attempts to deny the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.