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.

QUICK NOTES ON SOLA SCRIPTURA (Part 3)

“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) 

We continue our series on Sola Scriptura (“Bible Alone”) where we are dealing with certain attacks on the Protestant understanding of the above verses.

Today’s specific argument is:

ARGUMENT #3 – THE PASSAGE ABOVE ONLY SAYS THAT SCRIPTURE IS *PROFITABLE* (OR USEFUL), NOT THAT IT IS *SUFFICIENT*, AS A RULE OF FAITH.

This is one of the most commonly used arguments against Sola Scriptura, but once again, while the word “sufficient” is not specifically mentioned, the context strongly suggests that, as an infallible Rule of Faith, Scripture is more than sufficient.  See Part 1 of this series:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2013/03/quick-notes-on-sola-scriptura-part-1.html

Sometimes Catholics act as though the term “profitable” is the only description that the Bible ever has of itself.  In fact, many Catholics describe Scripture as “merely profitable.”  But the term "profitable" does not negate, or rule out, the possibility of sufficiency.  Never does the context here, or anywhere else in the Bible, LIMIT Scripture to the status of “merely profitable.”  It is always described in much grander terms.

And why is it that Catholics always focus on the word “profitable” in verse 16, but never seem to emphasize the word “inspired” (which means “God-breathed”) in the same verse?  When they read that Jesus breathed on the apostles in John 20:22, they make a really big deal over it.  Yet, why are His God-breathed Sacred Writings reduced to “merely profitable”?  According to those Catholics, the term “God-breathed” seems to be almost irrelevant here in 2 Timothy.  But it is the same Savior who "breathed" on both.

What’s the point of Paul’s emphasizing the Sacred Writings in 2 Timothy?   Is it because he feels that Scripture is “only profitable”?  Never mind the fact that the Bible is God-breathed / inspired (3:16).  Never mind that it is able to make one wise for salvation (3:15).  Or that it fully equips one for doctrine… reproof… correction… and training in righteousness (3:16).  Or that, as a Rule of Faith, it is the complete “toolbox” for the believer (3:17).  In 2 Timothy 3 Paul is telling us of the nature and purpose of God’s written Word, and it is presented in this context as the antidote to deception and false teaching (3:13).  Just “profitable”?  Merely “useful”?  Does anyone really think that this is what Paul is trying to tell us here?  No, Paul does not have such a low view of Scripture.

Calling Scripture “merely profitable” in 2 Timothy 3:16 would be like calling Jesus “merely good,” just because He is called the “Good” Shepherd in John 10:11.  Or, it would be like saying the Holy Spirit is “merely” a Helper in John 14:16.  Not only would these terms be insulting to God, but we might consider this near blasphemy.

Many Catholics (and others) claim to have the "utmost respect" for Scripture.  But it’s sure hard to believe this when they use these kinds of arguments.                 

QUICK NOTES ON SOLA SCRIPTURA (Part 2)

“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) 

This is the second article in a series on Sola Scriptura (“Bible Alone”), in which the above passage is most important.  We assert that this passage does indeed support the concept of Sola Scriptura, and we want to address some specific objections to it (mainly from Catholics).

Today’s specific objection is this:

Argument #2 – 2 TIMOTHY 3:16-17 CANNOT BE SPEAKING OF SOLA SCRIPTURA, BECAUSE JUST TWO VERSES BEFORE THIS (V. 14) WE SEE PAUL ALSO TELLING TIMOTHY TO “CONTINUE IN THE THINGS YOU HAVE LEARNED AND BECOME CONVINCED OF,” WHICH REFERS TO INFALLIBLE SACRED TRADITION.  SO SCRIPTURE IS NOT THE *ONLY* INFALLIBLE RULE OF FAITH HERE.

Ok, so this argument assumes that there are TWO different infallible sources, or “rules of faith” here, for the church today… namely Scripture AND Tradition.

But first of all, can somebody tell us exactly what it was that Timothy learned?  Anyone?  If this information is supposed to be available to the church today, then what is it exactly, and where can we find it?  Can we know precisely what Timothy was convinced of?  No, none of us were there and Paul never reveals this information.  This was personal, first-hand interaction between Paul and Timothy.  

Catholics may say, “Oh yeah, that was US back then!  Paul is talking about OUR Tradition in 2 Timothy 3:14.”  But that’s just reading a Catholic idea back into the text.  No group can just assume that Paul was speaking of their own brand of “tradition.”   

But perhaps “what Timothy learned” is simply what Paul alluded to in verses 10 and 11 (i.e., Paul’s teaching, conduct, purpose, faith, patience, love, perseverance, persecutions and sufferings).  But do Catholics have an infallible record of Paul’s teachings, conduct, persecutions, etc. (other than Scripture)?  No they don’t, so they need to quit putting words in Paul’s mouth and quit pretending that Paul is speaking of Catholic Tradition. 

For the record, Catholicism’s “Sacred Tradition” has an identity crisis all its own.  See here:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-about-tradition.html

    

Second, if the passage is speaking of TWO sources of infallible revelation, then why does Paul only describe Scripture as inspired / “God-breathed”?  And why does he mention only “the sacred writings” (v. 15), but NOT mention “Sacred Tradition” here?  In fact, even if it could be shown that v. 14 is really about some kind of “tradition,” notice that Paul doesn’t mention the idea of anything being INSPIRED until the subject of Scripture comes up.  Catholics are assuming (and insisting on) a second infallible rule of faith for the post-apostolic church, but without just cause in this context.  So this is wishful thinking on their part, and pure eisegesis (i.e., reading whatever you want into the text).

Third, Catholics are assuming that the things Timothy learned here are unwritten.  One may even be able to make a case in saying that “the things you have learned” (v. 14) might actually be referring to Scripture itself, instead of some unidentified “tradition.”   It would actually seem to flow right into verse 15.  So, it could be possible and acceptable to interpret verse 14 in this way.  We’re not saying that this has to be the case – just that it’s a possibility.  But, in spite of what Catholics say, what Paul was speaking of doesn’t HAVE TO BE “Catholic Tradition.”

Fourth, we know that “the things you have learned” in verse 14 would never contradict the Scriptures.  However, the “Tradition” that the Catholic Church embraces CANNOT be the same thing that Paul was speaking of, since the Catholic Church’s Tradition contains a number of teachings that either contradict, or are foreign to, Scripture.  

So, in conclusion, we can see the weakness of this Catholic argument.  The phrase “the things which you have learned” does NOT refer to some infallible Catholic Tradition.  Catholics are just trying to hi-jack this phrase for their own purposes by trying to read the Catholic Church’s own (supposed) “infallibility” into the text.

It is obvious that the FOCUS of this passage is on Scripture.  And Scripture, as a Rule of Faith, does not need some “equal” or “infallible” supplement.