2 Timothy 3:16-17

"All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work."

Ok. Let's take a look at this passage. First, we must notice that what is sufficient is NOT Scripture, but the teaching, reproof, correction, etc. that it is useful for; we all agree, right? So, is Scripture sufficient for this? No! It is just USEFUL. Saying that Scripture is USEFUL implies insufficiency. If Paul had wanted to say that Scripture is sufficient, he definitely would've said so rather than say it is useful. So, right off the bat we see that Paul isn't saying that Scripture is sufficient, but let's look into more reasons why this passage doesn't prove sola scriptura.

If the Protestant interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is correct in that if X is useful, then X is sufficient, it proves the sufficiency of too much when applied to other passages. In James 1:4, James says, "let endurance have its full effect, so that you may be mature and complete, lacking in nothing." The Greek words for "mature" and "complete," "teleios" and "holokleros," are stronger Greek terms than "artios" (translated as proficient), which is used in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Some may argue that James 1:4 is talking about all we need when facing suffering, but I disagree. James says that testing our faith produces endurance, and that this endurance makes us "mature and complete." This endurance comes FROM the suffering; the endurance comes AFTER the suffering. So, James is saying that endurance makes us mature and complete, regardless of whether we are suffering at the moment or not. Is endurance all we need? No. If we interpret James 1:4 the way Protestants interpret 2 Timothy 3:16-17, the result is absurd.

Colossians 4:12 reads, "He [referring to a man named Epaphras] is always wrestling in his prayers on your behalf, so that you may stand mature and fully assured in everything that God wills." So, were Epaphras's prayers sufficient for the salvation of the Colossians? Of course not!

Again, in 2 Timothy 2:21, Paul says, "All who cleanse themselves of the things I have mentioned [referring to unholy things] will become special utensils, dedicated and useful to the owner of the house, ready for every good work." The Greek phrase "pan ergon agathon," used for "for every good work," is the same used in 2 Timothy 3:17. Again, if 2 Timothy 3:16-17 proves the sufficiency of Scripture, then 2 Timothy 2:21 proves the sufficiency of keeping away from unholy things. This, of course, is untrue, because we need not only to keep away from all that is unholy, but we also need to stay with things that are holy.

If 2 Timothy 3:16-17 proves the sufficiency of Scripture, it proves too much in another way also. The Greek phrase "pasa graph," used for "All Scripture," actually means "every Scripture." If Paul had wanted to say all of Scripture as a whole, he would've used a phrase such as "hai pasai graphai ("the whole of the Scriptures." This is something that even ardent professional anti-Catholic James White admits. So, if 2 Timothy 3:16-17 proves the sufficiency of Scripture, it proves not only the sufficiency of all Scripture, but it proves the sufficiency of every single passage or book of Scripture!

If we read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 in context, starting with verse 14, we see that Paul is appealing to two authorities, Scripture and Tradition. Here is the passage starting from verse 14:

"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you have learned it, and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work."

As we can see, Paul appeals to two authorities:

1) Tradition - "knowing from whom you have learned it"
2) Scripture - "and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings"

This is backed up by two passages where Paul tells Timothy to hold to the teachings that he has heard, not just learned or read. These 2 passages are 2 Timothy 1:13, 2:2. Here is the text of the passages:

2 Timothy 1:13

"Hold to the standard of sound teaching that you have heard from me�"

2 Timothy 2:2

"�and what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well."

Now, Protestants will argue that Paul called Scripture inspired (literally "God-breathed"), but he didn't say that about Tradition, so therefore all we need is Scripture. We must remember that Timothy HAD to rely on oral tradition, because the New Testament had not been completed yet. Most of the teaching of the apostles was still oral, so to say that the oral traditions, the center of Christianity (like Jesus' teachings, death, and resurrection), were inspired would've been a bit redundant and excessive.

Lastly, we must remember that not all the books of the bible were written when 2 Timothy was written, so Paul COULDN'T have been telling Timothy that all he needed was Scripture. For the sake of argument, however, I will admit that 2 Timothy was the last book of the bible written. Now, even if 2 Timothy was the last book of the bible written, Paul STILL couldn't have been talking about all of Scripture because the Christians at that time did not know exactly what Scripture was! Just to take one example, from the years 30-160 AD, the Church Fathers did not consider the book of Revelation to be canonical.

1 Corinthians 4:6

"Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other." (KJV)

The part of this verse that Protestants use to "prove" sola scriptura is "not to think beyond what is written." They interpret that to mean that we shouldn't go beyond the bible. While this may seem convincing at first, the argument falls under close scrutiny.

What we must not "think beyond what is written" about is "all these things." What are "all these things"? He is talking about not dividing into factions over human leaders (like Paul, Peter, or Apollos); this is evident from the context (1 Corinthians 3:21-23, 4:1-5). So, Paul was saying that we must not go beyond what is written ABOUT HUMAN LEADERS. The first and most obvious problem with this passage as a "proof" for sola scriptura is that it isn't even in the context of the sufficiency of Scripture for all doctrine! Paul is not talking about everything concerning our faith; he is just talking about one issue. So, what DID Paul mean when he said, "that you may learn not to think beyond what is written"?

While his meaning is not clear, there are a few plausible interpretations. First, he could've been referring to the Old Testament. There is enough written in the Old Testament about man's sinfulness and imperfection that the Corinthians should've known not to divide into factions over human leaders. Secondly, he could've been talking about what was immediately preceding it, 1 Corinthians 3:21-23, 4:1-5, where he said not to divide into factions over human leaders. Either way, Paul was NOT talking about sola scriptura.

In fact, Paul COULDN'T have been teaching sola scriptura in 1 Corinthians, because in 1 Corinthians 11:2, he commends the Corinthians because they have kept the TRADITIONS which they have received. Now, these Traditions, as Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, are both written AND oral. We must remember that not all of the books of the bible had been written yet, so 1 Corinthians 4:6 COULDN'T have been telling the Corinthians to only go by Scripture.

Back