Apologetics for the Masses - Issue #112

There are two main things to note about this passage: 1) It says scripture is "profitable", it does not say scripture is "all sufficient"; in other words, it does not say that the Bible is the sole rule of faith for Christians…the sole authority in matters of faith and morals for Christians; and, 2) Nowhere do we see the word "alone" in this passage, as in "scripture alone". 

 

What this passage is saying, and all this passage is saying, is that all of Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching and correction and so forth. As a Catholic, I agree…I agree with that 100%. With every passage of Scripture, I, as a Catholic, agree.

 

Scripture is indeed inspired and it is indeed profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. We need to read Scripture. We need to know it. We need to ponder it, soak in it, meditate on it, pray it, and be able to share it. But, this passage still doesn’t say Scripture is the sole rule of faith for Christians. People try to force this scripture verse to say something that it doesn’t actually say.

 

"But," someone might say, "this verse says that the scriptures are given so that the man of God may be complete, or, as it says in the King James Version (KJV), that the man of God may be perfect." And they argue that if the Scriptures make one perfect, then there is no need for anything else.

 

There are, however, a couple of problems with that interpretation. First of all, it doesn’t say Scripture "alone" makes the man of God complete or perfect. For example, a soldier needs a rifle to be complete, to be made perfect for battle. But, is a rifle the only thing he needs to be complete? No. He needs his helmet, his boots, his fatigues, his backpack, his ammunition, and so on. In other words, he needs his rifle to be complete, to be perfect for battle, but not his rifle alone. Just so the man of God in relation to Scripture. He needs the Scriptures to be complete, to be made perfect, but it does not say Scripture alone.

 

The other problem with this interpretation is presented by Scripture itself. In James 1:3-4, it says this: "…for you know that testing of your faith produces steadfastness [patience]. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing." James is telling us that steadfastness, or patience, makes the Christian, the man of God, "perfect and complete, lacking in nothing."

 

So, what are the implications here? Well, if we interpret this verse the same way Sola Scriptura adherents interpret 2 Tim 3:16-17, then we have a good case for arguing that patience "alone" is all that is needed for the man of God to be made perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. Apparently he doesn’t even need Scripture, as long as he has patience. The Bible says that with patience a Christian is "lacking in nothing." Again, using the method of interpretation used by Sola Scriptura adherents in 2 Tim 3:16-17, we have a pretty good argument that patience alone is all the man of God needs to be complete, perfect, lacking in nothing. It’s not Sola Scriptura, it’s Sola Patientia – patience alone.

 

Another big problem with 2 Tim 3:16-17, for those who try to use this passage as scriptural support for the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, is found in the context of the passage itself. These verses apparently prove too much when interpreted as teaching Sola Scriptura. If you go back just one verse and read 2 Tim 3:15, you’ll see what I mean. In verse 15, Paul says to Timothy, "…and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." The sacred writings that Timothy has known from childhood?! Now, even though Timothy was a relatively young man, few, if any, of the books of the New Testament had been written when Timothy was a child. In other words, the "scripture" being referred to here is the Old Testament.

 

Paul is clearly talking about the Old Testament here. So, if one wants to interpret this passage as "proving" Sola Scriptura, then what they are actually "proving" is that it is the Old Testament scripture "alone" that is able to make the man of God perfect. Sola Old Testament Scriptura. Again, Paul is talking about the O.T. here, not the N.T.! So, it would seem to be saying more than any proponent of Sola Scriptura would want to admit to – instead of Sola Scriptura…instead of the Bible alone – it seems to be saying the Old Testament alone is necessary "that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

 

Some have argued that even though when Paul wrote 2 Timothy he was indeed referring to the Old Testament, that his words came to include the New Testament scriptures as well, once the various New Testament books were written down. Well, I would agree with that. I agree that Paul’s words to Timothy are applicable to both Old and New Testament scriptures.

 

However, that does not solve the problem for those who try to find Sola Scriptura in these verses. Paul saying that all scripture is inspired of God and profitable for teaching and so forth is indeed true of all Scripture – Old and New Testament – even if Paul was referring specifically to the Old Testament scriptures at the time he wrote those words. However, if you interpret this verse as teaching Sola Scriptura, you still have an insurmountable problem. The problem is that a Sola Scriptura interpretation gives the verse one meaning when Paul wrote it, but a completely different and contradictory meaning now. It also makes the New Testament scriptures unnecessary for the early Christians.

 

According to a Sola Scriptura interpretation of these verses, Paul was telling Timothy that the Old Testament alone was the sole rule of faith – the sole authority in matters of faith and morals – for the Christian. That has to be the interpretation because Paul is clearly referring to the Old Testament in these verses. But in our day, the Sola Scriptura Christian rejects the notion that the Old Testament alone is the sole rule of faith for the Christian. Which means, a Sola Scriptura interpretation of 2 Tim 3:16-17 necessitates a change in doctrine. What was supposedly true for Timothy and other early Christians – Sola Old Testament Scriptura – is no longer true for Christians of our age.

 

So, for a sola scriptura interpretation of these verses to be true, doctrine needs to have changed. Truth, in essence, needs to have changed. But, does truth change? Ever? Do you know of any other place where Scripture gives us a doctrinal teaching that was supposedly true for the early Christians, but is now false for Christians of our time?

 

Also, when Paul wrote to Timothy, around 65 A.D. or so, several books of the New Testament had indeed been written. But, these were not books that Timothy would have known "since childhood." So, again, Paul’s words to Timothy were not referring to these books of the New Testament that had already been written. But, if you interpret these words as teaching Sola Scriptura, then you in essence have Paul saying that, even though many books of the New Testament were in existence at the time of his letter to Timothy, they were basically unnecessary for the man of God to be made complete, to be equipped for all good works or, as verse 15 says, "to instruct you for salvation."

 

In other words, to interpret these verses from 2 Timothy as teaching the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is to basically have Paul telling Timothy that the books of the New Testament, which were in existence at that time, were unnecessary for the man of God to be complete – unnecessary for the man of God to be equipped for every good work. Does that make any sense at all? All the Christian "man of God" of the time needed was the Old Testament?

 

For all of these reasons just mentioned, I think it is indeed a very reasonable position to reject the notion that 2 Tim 3:16-17 teaches the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

 

"But," someone might ask, "what about the Bereans?" Acts 17:11 says, "Now these Jews [the Bereans] were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the Word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so." The King James Version of the Bible says that they "searched" the Scriptures daily.

 

You know, I keep hearing about these Berean folks from Acts 17. And, every time I hear about them, someone is using them to "prove" Sola Scriptura, to prove that one should go by the Bible alone. They say that the example of the Bereans proves Sola Scriptura, because the Bereans were searching Scripture to see if what Paul was saying was true. But, again, the problem is that nowhere does this verse say the Bereans went by the Bible alone. In fact, it is well known that Jews, whether in Berea or elsewhere, did not go by the Bible alone – they did not practice Sola Scriptura – they believed in authoritative Scripture and authoritative tradition. Which means Jesus, being a good Jew, didn’t believe in Sola Scriptura. And, as I’ve already mentioned, neither did the early Christians.

 

What was going on here with the Bereans in Acts 17 was this: Paul was preaching to them about Jesus being the Messiah. And Paul, in his preaching, would quote Scripture verses – from the Old Testament – that he would say pointed to Jesus. Paul would say something along the lines of, "It has been testified somewhere…" and the Bereans would then simply open up their Scriptures to verify what Paul was saying. They were not searching the Scriptures to settle doctrinal disputes, they were searching the Scriptures to see if what Paul told them was actually in the Scriptures!

 

Plus, the fact that the Bereans: a) Didn’t already know the Scripture verses were there, and b) had to "search" the Scriptures to find the verses Paul was quoting, actually might indicate that they weren’t all that familiar with the Scriptures; which, if they were believers in Sola Scriptura, seems to be a pretty odd thing.

 

Plus, if this verse is a "proof" of Sola Scriptura then you again have the same problem that I mentioned earlier – the Bereans were Jews and the only scriptures they had were the Old Testament scriptures. So, if Acts 17:11 "proves" Sola Scriptura, then it would be proving Sola Old Testament Scriptura.

 

Furthermore, the fact that the Bereans obviously did not understand the true meaning of the Scriptures until Paul explained it to them, actually works against the Sola Scriptura position. One of the necessary corollaries to a belief in Sola Scriptura is the belief in individual private interpretation of Scripture. That each individual, guided by the Holy Spirit, has the ability to read the Bible for themselves – without answering to any outside authority – in order to come to a correct understanding of the truths necessary for salvation.

 

Yet, the example of the Bereans shows us that this obviously isn’t the case. The Bereans needed Paul to explain the Scriptures to them. The Bereans, left alone with the Scriptures, obviously had not come to a correct understanding of the truths necessary for salvation. They needed a guide, Paul, to correctly interpret Scripture for them. Which means the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, with its corollary of individual private interpretation of Scripture, obviously isn’t supported by this passage from Acts 17 about the Bereans.

 

Which means, when all is said and done, two of the predominant Scripture passages used by folks to "prove" Sola Scriptura, upon close and thoughtful examination, actually inflict serious, if not fatal, blows upon that doctrine. These passages clearly do not mean what the Sola Scriptura advocates try to make them mean. Furthermore, there are numerous passages that point to the fact that individual interpretation of Scripture…each person reading and interpreting the Bible on their own to determine for themselves what is and is not correct Christian doctrine and practice…is quite contrary to the Word of God.

 

The Bible states that fairly directly. If we look at 2 Ptr 1:20, we find the following: "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." No prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation. I don’t know if it can be said any more plainly or directly that the principal of private interpretation, one of the foundations the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is built upon, is contrary to the Bible.

 

Look at Acts chapter 8. Acts 8:27-31, "And he [Philip] rose and went. And behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a minister of Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of all her treasure, had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah…So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ And [the Ethiopian] said, ‘How can I, unless some one guides me?’"

 

"How can I, unless some one guides me?" This was obviously an Ethiopian Jew. He was a very educated man, we know that from that fact that he was one of the Queen’s ministers, and not just any minister, but he was, in essence, the Secretary of the Treasury for the entire kingdom of Ethiopia. He was a man of worship, having come all the way from Ethiopia to worship in Jerusalem – no easy task in those days. Yet, what does the Bible say, "Do you understand what you are reading?" And the response, from this educated man who had come from so far away to worship in Jerusalem? "How can I unless someone guides me?"

 

And what did Philip say in response? Did he say, "Just pray to the Holy Spirit and He will guide you?" No! Philip got up in the chariot with this man and explained the meaning of Scripture to him. Philip was this man’s guide in reading, interpreting, and understanding Scripture.

 

Scripture is very clear, as we see in Peter’s letter, and the Book of Acts – both with the Ethiopian eunuch and the Bereans – and other places as well, that we must have a guide, an authority, other than the Bible, in order to properly understand the Bible. Having a guide to help us properly interpret Scripture is scriptural. Individual interpretation of Scripture, everybody reading the Bible on their own to decide what is and is not correct doctrine…what is and is not sound moral teaching…is not scriptural. In other words, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, is not scriptural.

 

And, please don’t take me to say that you cannot, as an individual reading Scripture, come to some knowledge of the truth. You can. As I said earlier, we must read the Bible, study the Bible, meditate on it, soak in it, pray it, live it, and breathe it. As St. Jerome once said, "Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ." But, there are very many things in the Bible that are difficult to understand. The Bible itself tells us this. 2 Peter 3:16: "There are some things in them [Paul’s letters] hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures."

 

Scripture tells us that there are some things, in Scripture, that are difficult to understand, and that these things that are hard to understand are important to our salvation. They are not non-essential matters because, as it says, it is possible to twist these things to our own destruction.

 

What Peter was saying here in 2 Peter 3:16, is that there were a number of folks out there reading the Scriptures on their own, not paying attention to what Peter or Paul or the other Church leaders were telling them, and these people were misinterpreting things in Paul’s letters, and other parts of the Scriptures as well, in such a way that it was leading to their damnation. Peter was, in essence, issuing a warning to those who were relying on their own private fallible interpretations of Scripture. That should be a very scary and sobering passage for anyone who believes they can simply pick up the Bible and read it on their own to make a decision in any and all matters pertaining to the Christian faith.

 

There is another passage I want to mention on this particular topic of needing a guide to properly interpret Scripture. Listen to what St. John says in one of his letters, 1 John 4:6: "We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error." This is a verse that wreaks absolute havoc with the notion of Sola Scriptura.

 

If you asked someone who believes in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura this question: "How do we know the Spirit of truth from the spirit of error?" What do you think they would say? Would they not say something along the lines of, "You get yourself a good Bible and by reading Scripture, and praying to the Holy Spirit for guidance, you can discern the Spirit of truth from the spirit of error." The problem is, though, that is not a biblical answer.

 

The Bible says that we discern the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error by listening to someone…to "us"…to John and apparently to his fellow leaders in the Church. It further says that if you know God you will indeed listen to these Church leaders. And, if you are not of God, you won’t listen to them. Does that sound like the early Christians believed in Sola Scriptura?.

 

Another passage which tells us the early Christians did not believe in Sola Scriptura is from Acts 15. At the Council of Jerusalem, which is described in verses 6-29, what do we see? We see that a doctrinal dispute arose in the early Church over whether or not the Gentile converts should be circumcised. Well, what did they do? How did they decide the matter? Did they consult Scripture as they should do if they believed in Sola Scriptura? No. They called a council. The leaders of the Church, in a council, decided the first doctrinal dispute in the early Church. The teaching of Sola Scriptura obviously did not exist in the early Church because if it had, and they had indeed gone solely by Scripture to decide this dispute, what would have happened? Well, they would have seen in Genesis how God required circumcision and they would have come to a completely different conclusion than the one they came to.

 

We have seen, from Scripture, that the early Christians did not believe in Sola Scriptura. We have seen, from Scripture, that relying upon individual interpretation of Scripture to decide on all matters of the Christian faith, is not scriptural. We have seen, from Scripture, that there are some important things in Scripture that are difficult to understand and that can be twisted to one’s own destruction through private interpretation. We have seen, from Scripture, that having a guide to help us properly interpret Scripture is indeed scriptural. And, we have seen that the passages often relied upon to prove the case for Sola Scriptura, when read in context, actually make the case against Sola Scriptura.

 

Now, one more thing that I wish to discuss, which further damages the Sola Scriptura argument – the matter of tradition. As I stated earlier, the Jews believed in authoritative Scripture and authoritative tradition. For many non-Catholic Christians, though, the word "tradition" is almost like a curse word. They cringe when they hear that word because they have been mistakenly taught that Catholics believe in the "traditions of men." And, as they rightly say, Jesus condemns the traditions of men in the Gospels.

 

Jesus does not, however, condemn all tradition. Nowhere does Scripture say such a thing. Jesus condemns the traditions of men, but not even all traditions of men. Specifically, Jesus condemns those traditions of men which negate the Word of God. Traditions, in and of themselves, are not bad things. It’s when they negate the Word of God that Jesus has a problem with them.

 

Again, tradition, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. If it were, then how could the Word of God tell us this: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." That’s from 2 Thessalonians 2:15. Traditions! Traditions taught by word of mouth, in other words, oral tradition, and traditions taught by letter – written tradition, also known as "Scripture." Traditions which they are being told to "stand firm and hold to". In other words, authoritative traditions.

 

What else does the Bible say about holding on to traditions? 2 Tim 2:2, "…and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." Did Paul say, "What you have read in my writing pass on to others so that they may read it, too?" No! Did he say, "What you have heard from me, entrust to faithful men who will write it down for everyone to read for themselves?" No! He said to entrust it to faithful men who will "teach" others. What we have here is an instance, in Scripture, of Paul commanding the passing on of authoritative oral tradition.

 

1 Cor 11:2, "I [Paul] commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you." The Corinthians are being commended by Paul because they maintain the traditions that he passed on to them. Authoritative Scripture and authoritative tradition. Or, as we Catholics say, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

 

Back to Thessalonians: 1 Thes 2:13, "And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the Word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the Word of God, which is at work in you believers." So, they received as the Word of God that which they heard, not simply that which they read in Scripture. In Acts 2:42 we read that the first Christians were "continuing steadfastly in the Apostles’ doctrine," or the "Apostles’ teaching".

 

That’s what Sacred Tradition is – the Apostles’ doctrine, or the Apostles’ teaching, as given to them by our Lord Jesus Christ. As we clearly just saw in several places in the New Testament, traditions that come from the Apostles – because the Apostles were taught by Jesus and guided by the Holy Spirit – are not condemned in Scripture. These traditions, these teachings, are considered, as we saw in 1 Thes 2:13, not the word of men – not the traditions of men – but the Word of God.

 

One last word about tradition. Every church has one or more "traditions" that are not found in the Bible, whether they want to admit it or not. Which books should be in the Bible? Not in the Bible – Tradition. Sunday as the Sabbath. Not in the Bible – Tradition. Wednesday night church meeting. Not in the Bible – tradition. Altar calls. Not in the Bible – tradition. Sola Scriptura. Not in the Bible – tradition. And this last one is a tradition of men that is contrary to the Word of God.

 

To close, I believe I have made a very strong and rational argument – from logic, from history, and from Scripture – for why Catholics believe as we do in regards to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Nowhere in Scripture do we see Sola Scriptura used as an operational principle. Nowhere is anyone instructed to consult the Scriptures to solve a doctrinal dispute between Christians. The one place I’ve mentioned where it is said someone went to the Scriptures, the case of the Bereans, was a case of verification – they were simply verifying that the verses Paul quoted were indeed in the Scriptures – it was not a case of using the Scriptures, and individual interpretation of the Scriptures, in order to solve a doctrinal dispute.

 

Nowhere does the Bible say that, as individuals, reading the Bible on our own, the Holy Spirit will guide us to an infallible interpretation of any and every passage of Scripture. That verse simply does not exist. In fact, as I’ve shown, a number of verses do exist that directly contradict that belief.

 

Ultimately, under a Sola Scriptura system, any dispute between Christians – on matters of doctrine, on matters of morals, on matters of worship, on matters of anything Christian – comes down to this: My fallible, non-authoritative, non-binding, private interpretation of a particular verse or verses of Scripture vs. your fallible, non-authoritative, non-binding, private interpretation of a particular verse or verses of Scripture.

 

Actually, the problem is even worse than that, because under a Sola Scriptura system, as I mentioned earlier, we can’t even be sure of what the Scriptures are in the first place. So, it essentially comes down to my fallible, non-authoritative, non-binding, private interpretation of a particular verse or verses of something that I think is Scripture, but cannot be infallibly sure about; vs. your fallible, non-authoritative, non-binding, private interpretation of a particular verse or verses of something that you think Scripture is, but cannot be infallibly sure about.

Questions to Ask:

1) Did the leaders of the early Christian Church believe in Sola Scriptura? If, yes, then why did they call a Council (Acts 15) to decide a doctrinal dispute, why didn’t they just consult the Bible to settle the matter?

2) When Paul wrote 2 Tim 3:16-17, was the Old Testament alone sufficient for the man of God to be made complete, or perfect? Yes or no? If, yes, then of what need does the Christian have for the New Testament? If, no, then what books of the New Testament, in addition to the books of the Old Testament, did Timothy know since childhood? And, is it then only these books of the New Testament along with the Old Testament that the Christian of the time needed to be made complete, or perfect?

3) Where in Scripture does it say that each person should read Scripture for themselves, to determine by themselves – without reference to any outside authority – what is and is not correct Christian doctrine and practice?

4) At what point did authority for deciding doctrinal matters pass from the leaders of the early Church (as we see, for example, in Acts 15 and 1 John 4:6) to each individual reading the Bible on their own?

5) Is it scriptural to have an authoritative guide for the proper interpretation of Scripture (see Acts 8, for example)?

6) Did Paul commend the Corinthians and the Thessalonians for keeping the traditions he had passed on to them? Yes or no? If, yes, where does the Bible record that every one of these traditions was subsequently recorded in Scripture?

7) If all of the oral traditions Paul passed on to the Corinthians and the Thessalonians, and which he commanded Timothy to pass on, were not recorded in Scripture, then where is the Scripture verse that says those traditions should no longer be maintained?