Refutation of Julie Staples's "Is Sola Scriptura Biblical?"
Julie's words will be in blue, and my words will be in black
2 Timothy 3:16-17 - "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."
� Scripture is profitable.
� What is it profitable for? "teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness" These are the functions that a rule of faith must be able to perform if it is to be a sufficient rule of faith. It must teach, it must reprove, it must correct, it must train in righteousness. And these all, again, stemming from the fact that Scripture is inspired.
� Because it is profitable for all of these things, the man of God is adequate. Now this word is "artios" in the Greek, which the BDAG (Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich) Greek Lexicon defines as "to being well fitted for some function, complete, capable, proficient". So, in adequacy, the meaning is not something which can barely skate us by, but something which is able to make us proficient or complete. Adequate.
� Because it is profitable for those previously mentioned functions, and because it can make the man of God "adequate" or "complete", the man of God is equipped for every good work.
� Hence, Scripture is able to fully furnish the man of God. Scripture is fully sufficient.
Ok. Let's try to follow the logic here. First, Scripture is profitable. Hold on right there. Scripture is profitable, not sufficient. If something is only profitable, then it's not all we need. For example: a hammer is profitable for a carpenter, but it's not all he needs. Merely being profitable implies not being sufficient. If Paul wanted to say that Scripture was sufficient, he would've used a term other than "profitable." Next, since it is profitable, the man of God is completed by it; hold on right here. Where does it say that Scripture completes the man of God? It doesn't. The teaching, reproof, etc. that Scripture is used for makes the man of God complete; however, Scripture is only PROFITABLE for this teaching. By saying that Scripture is profitable for something that makes us complete, Paul is implying that Scripture is insufficient. Now, let's apply Julie's logic to some other passages.
"and let endurance have its full effect, so that you may be mature and complete, lacking in nothing." - James 1:4
Now, if we apply the logic of "if X makes us complete, then X is all we need," we would come to the conclusion that all we need is endurance; that's ridiculous! Now, some will say that James says that endurance is all we need in suffering, but that's wrong. The endurance PRODUCES the suffering; the endurance comes AFTER the suffering. So, this endurance just makes us complete, not complete for any specific task. Is endurance sufficient to make us complete? No, that's absurd! Now, some object by saying that the Greek words for "mature" and "complete" are not the same ones used in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, so I will quote from Jamkes Akin's essay on 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/2tim316.htm):
One might object that James 1:4 the Greek words are not artios or exartizo. This is certainly true; the words in that passage are teleios and holokleros, which are even stronger Greek terms. The objection would also commit a basic translation fallacy by assuming that a difference of term always means a difference of concept -- it doesn't -- and, in any event, nobody is going to be able to build much of a case for the meaning of either artios or exartizo based on New Testament study since the first term occurs only once in Scripture and the second only twice [the other occurrence being in Acts 21:5], making meaningful Scriptural comparative studies of the usage impossible.
"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." - 2 Timothy 2:21
Now, if we use the "if X makes us ready for every good work, then all we need is X" logic here, we will come to the conclusion that all we need to do is cleanse ourselves of unholy things. Again, this is ridiculous; we must also stay with things that are holy. Some may say that those who stay away from unholy things WILL stay with holy things, but Paul isn't even referring to ALL unholy things. He's only referring to those mentioned in 2 Timothy 2:14-16.
The use of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as proof for sola scriptura is built on faulty logic, and this is supported by the outrageous conclusions we come to when interpreting other passages the same way.
Some very important things to note is that Paul does not point Timothy to another rule of faith for which he is to go to be adequate and equipped for every good work. Paul does not point to another rule of faith which is God-breathed. Paul does not tell Timothy that this Scripture is only sufficient in the hands of an "infallible Magisterium". Paul makes no mention of any other body of knowledge to perform those works which are profitable. Paul, rather, starts in v. 15 by directing Timothy to Scripture and giving Timothy confidence in its ability to "give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus" and then moves on to demonstrate the sufficiency of Scripture as a basis for which we can form this confidence.
Ok. Julie claims that in 2 Timothy, Paul does not point to another rule of faith, but I disagree. Twice in 2 Timothy does Paul exhort Timothy to stand firm in the teachings that he heard from Paul, not merely learned or read.
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 the faithful people�"
One thing to notice in 2 Timothy 1:13 is that Paul is definitely NOT talking about minor customs and traditions; he is talking about Apostolic Tradition. "The standard of sound teaching" is a strong phrase to use if only referring to minor customs. Actually, it sounds very much like Tradition, which, rather than being information separate from Scripture, is more the correct way to interpret it.
Now, Julie says that Paul starts at 2 Timothy 3:15 in instructing Timothy about Scripture, but she leaves out verse 14. Let's see what verses 14-15 say:
"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 Christ Jesus."
Notice, Paul appeals to both Scripture AND Tradition.
1) "knowing from whom you have learned it"
- Here, Paul is appealing to his apostolic authority, which includes Tradition
2) "and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings"
- Here, Paul appeals to Scripture
To further support that Paul's spoken word was considered to be God's word, I will quote from 1 Thessalonians 2:13:
"We also constantly give thanks to God for this, that when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word but as what it really is, God's word..."
So, not only do 2 Timothy 1:13 and 2:2 refer to God's word, but we know that Timothy had reason to believe in Paul's preaching BECAUSE he preached the word of God, both written AND oral (2 Thessalonians 2:15).
Now, why does Paul not say that Tradition is also inspired? Because it isn't. Just because something is revelation does not automatically mean that it must be inspired, and the Catholic Church teaches that Scripture is the only inspired form of revelation.
John 20:31 - "but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name."
� John was noting in v. 30 that there were many other miracles and things said (Jn. 21:25) which he does not record in his Gospel. Right here, the Roman Catholic apologist often tries to pick apart the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, stating that Scripture is insufficient because it is not exhaustive. Here is where the point that I demonstrated comes into play. The sufficiency of Scripture is not that it is an exhaustive textbook of all matters of religious and secular knowledge. But rather its sufficiency is in its inspiration, and its inspiration as God's special revelation to His people makes it profitable to function in all of the methods that a rule of faith must function in (as I described above in 2 Tim. 3:16-17). And here in v. 31, John describes perfectly what I mean when I say that rather than being the exhaustive textbook on all things, Scripture contains all the things which God has deemed be binding on the conscience of the believer... It contains all that needs to be known for salvation.
Ok. Actually, I don't use this verse because it's only talking about John's Gospel; I prefer to use John 21:25. Now, this verse by itself does not disprove sola scriptura for the reasons that Julie stated. However, when you use it with Matthew 28:20 where Jesus said to preach EVERYTHING that He had taught, it becomes a more powerful verse. Now, if Jesus did many things that were not written down, it makes sense that there would have been teachings of Jesus that were never written down either. So, if there are teachings of Jesus that were never written down, we would still have to know about them because Jesus commanded His apostles to preach ALL that He had taught. While John 21:25 doesn't disprove sola scriptura by itself, it does open up the POSSIBILITY (and a very good one, too) of there being extra-biblical Tradition. Protestants must then prove that all of Jesus' teachings were eventually written down.
� Furthermore, while the Roman Catholic apologist states that Scripture is unclear, and in need of an infallible human interpreting body to be understood (the Magisterium), here John says these things have been written so that "you" may believe... And have life in His name. The problem is not that Scripture is hard to understand. It is that men's hearts are depraved apart from the regenerating grace of God. They suppress the truth, shun and hide from the light (Rom. 1:18-21; John 1:4-5; John 3:19-21). Peter says that they are "untaught and unstable" and distort those things hard to understand, and to their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:16)
John says that his Gospel was written so that we may understand; it says nothing about any other books of Scripture. Just for the sake of argument, I will admit that John's Gospel is sufficiently perspicuous; however, this says nothing about the rest of the bible. Now, John's Gospel was written so that we may believe. How are we to believe? Does John EXLUDE the possibility of an infallible magisterium? No; he makes no indication about HOW we are to use his Gospel. Plus, all it says is that John's Gospel is "clear enough" for us to believe that Jesus is the Son of God; that's just one doctrine! How do you get the perspicuity of Scripture from this verse? Julie is stretching it here.
And after conversion, we still struggle with the remnants of that sin nature. But God has promised us that the Spirit will guide God's redeemed into all truth (John 16:13). The Roman Catholic apologist would argue, yes, that's why we have a Magisterium! But nowhere does this verse or any other verse discussing the Lord's guidance speak of an infallible human interpreter. But time and time again we see the promise of the leading of the Spirit to God's chosen ones, His redeemed. He promises us human teachers to teach and guide us, but ultimately the believer has the Spirit, the same Spirit at work inside of them sanctifying them, and the promise that God causes "all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose" (Rom.8:28). The believer has the inspired Word of God which is said to be a "lamp to my feet And a light to my path" (Ps. 119:105).
Ok. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would guide God's people into ALL truth. Now, do Protestants who go by sola scriptura agree on everything? No. They are divided into various denominations such as Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, etc. Now, Protestants will argue that they agree on the essentials, but nowhere does the bible say that certain doctrines are essential while others are not. Furthermore, Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would guide His people into ALL truth, not just truth about the "essentials." Besides, Protestants DON'T all agree on the essentials. Just to give an example, they disagree on baptismal regeneration.
Does the bible speak of an infallible human interpreter? Yes! The Church is the "pillar and bulwark of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15). Now, how can the Church be divided into different denominations yet still support the truth? Pillars and bulwarks don't support just the "essentials" of the truth; they support all of it! Only a Church that is doctrinally united can support the truth. Are Protestants all doctrinally united? No. Plus, the bible even shows us how we are to be guided into all truth. In Acts 15, the Council of Jerusalem decides whether or not the Gentile Christians had to follow the law of Moses, and its decree was distributed to all the churches "for observance to the decisions that had been reached by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem" (Acts 16:4).
This point is couple of verses. This set highlights a couple of times when Jesus holds men accountable for knowing the Scriptures.
� Mat 21:42 Jesus *said to them, "Did you never read in the Scriptures, 'THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone; THIS CAME ABOUT FROM THE LORD, AND IT IS MARVELOUS IN OUR EYES'?
� Mat 22:29 But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God.
In both of these verses, our Lord holds the men he speaks to responsible for knowing the Scriptures, and rebukes them for their ignorance or lack of discernment. If the Scriptures are so hard to understand, why were those who had no Magisterium held accountable to what the Scriptures had said?
Ok. In Matthew 21:42, Jesus is not holding anybody accountable for knowing Scripture; He is using the prophecy to explain His parable of the wicked tenants. He is explaining its meaning rather than holding the Jews accountable for knowing it by themselves.
In Matthew 22:29, Jesus criticizes the Sadducees when they question Him about the resurrection. Who says that the Scriptures are "so hard to understand"? It's just that the Scriptures can be misinterpreted if we don't interpret them according to Tradition. Plus, not every doctrine can be deduced from Scripture alone. The case of the Sadducees is actually a good example of this. Their mistake was that they only accepted the Torah, which doesn't explicitly teach the resurrection of the dead. So, since they didn't have all of God's word (Protestants who only have Scripture don't have all of God's word), they couldn't deduce the resurrection of the dead from what they accepted. However, if Exodus 3:15 ("The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob...") is interpreted according to the rest of the Old Testament (which is the part of God's word they didn't have), then we can see how this verse supports the resurrection of the dead. The parallel between Sadducees/Torah and Protestants/Scripture is clear.
So we see that Jesus was using the rest of the Old Testament to deduce from the Torah a doctrine that's not explicit. However, the major mistake of the Sadducees was accepting only the Torah.
On a related note, Christ Jesus is found often appealing to the Scriptures or making an example from the Scriptures... Explaining a piece of the Law, or teaching and expounding upon concepts found in the Old Testament. But what of tradition? Is something which is supposed to be such an intricate part of the Word of God addressed by the Lord? Never once do we see the Lord making an appeal from an "inspired body of Tradition". And while the Lord does indeed recognize some traditions which were in place at the time, never does He hold men accountable to an unwritten tradition as binding upon the conscience of anyone He is addressing. Actually, quite the converse is true. The Lord is found rebuking those who have made their traditions binding upon the conscience of their people, who have elevated their unwritten traditions to a level that belonged only to Scripture.
� Mat 15:3 And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?
� Mar 7:8 "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men." 9 He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
Tradition is not only never appealed to by our Lord as a form of doctrinal authority, but its elevation to a status of doctrinal authority was rebuked by Jesus.
Jesus did not criticize tradition per se; rather, He condemned holding HUMAN traditions equal with God's word. Catholic Tradition, however, is not human tradition.
This point is another set of verses, this time calling out some of the verses where Jesus or one of the writers of Scripture appeals to Scripture to make a case.
� Mat 21:13 And He *said to them, "It is written, 'MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER'; but you are making it a ROBBERS' DEN."
� Mar 1:2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: "BEHOLD, I SEND MY MESSENGER AHEAD OF YOU, WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY; 3 THE VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS, 'MAKE READY THE WAY OF THE LORD, MAKE HIS PATHS STRAIGHT.'"
This list is not an exhaustive list either of the number of times Scripture is appealed to by the Lord or one of the Gospel writers. 'So what?' the RC apologist may quip, 'We believe the Bible is an authority and appeal to it as well.' The significance of this set of verses and the other verses where "it is written" or "the Scriptures say", etc. is that it demonstrates the high esteem which the written word was held, and the need the Gospel writers and the Lord felt they had to demonstrate from Scripture how these things which came to pass were in fulfillment of the Scriptures. Constantly do we see Scripture appealed to to make the case for Christ as Messiah, Redeemer, and Lord. But not once is tradition held to this esteem. Not once does the Lord or the Scripture writers feel the need to prove their case from an unwritten form of "Tradition". And likewise, the writers of the epistles, Paul, James, and Peter, cite many times from Scriptures also to prove their case, offer backing for an assertion, and expand upon a concept found in the Old Testament. Some of the verses where the Scriptures are cited in this manner are in the following list: Acts 1:20, 7:42, 13:33, 15:15-18, 23:5; Rom. 1:17, 2:24, 3:4, 3:10-18, 4:9, 4:17-18, 8:36, 9:12-13, 9:15, 9:33, 10:13, 10:15-16, 11:8, 11:26, 12:19, 14:11, 15:3, 15:9, 15:21; 1Cor 1:19, 1:31, 2:9, 3:19, 9:9, 10:7, 14:21, 15:45; 2 Cor 8:15, 9:9; Gal 3:10, 3:13, 4:22, 4:27; James 2:8, 2:11, 2:23; 1 Pet 1:16, 1:24-25, 2:6-10, 2:22, 3:10-12. This is not even an exhaustive list.
Ok. I agree that everything we believe should be proven from Scripture, but this does not disprove Tradition. While the bible is materially sufficient, it is not formally sufficient. You still need a rule of how to interpret the bible. Jesus and His apostles constantly appealing to Scripture does not undermine the authority of Tradition. And besides, the apostles appealed to Tradition as well as Scripture. In Jude 9, Jude tells of what happened when Michael the archangel contended with Satan about the body of Moses. Where is this in the Old Testament? It's not, yet it's used as an authoritative argument against those who rebel against Church authority. In Jude 14-15, Jude quotes a prophecy from the book of Enoch and says that Enoch was prophesying about those who rebel against Church authority. Again, we see a New Testament author appealing to Tradition to back up his claims. In Matthew 2:23, Matthew quotes this prophecy to support Jesus as the Messiah: "He will be called a Nazorean." Where is this in the bible? Again, it's not; it's in Tradition.
Oral tradition is referenced by Paul in 1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thes 2:15, 2 Thes 3:6, and 2 Tim 2:2, but here the Roman Catholic apologist fails to establish a claim to his position Scripturally. He can provide no evidence that the oral message or "tradition" varied from the written message or even that the oral message exists today. Whereas we have Scripture set out for us today, Tradition and all it contains has never formally been outlined by Roman Catholicism.
Ok. I'm going to specifically zero in on 2 Thessalonians 2:15. First, I am going to say that whether or not Catholics have the right Tradition is irrelevant for this discussion. The point here is that this extra-biblical Tradition DOES exist, and only after we establish that point do we go on studying specific doctrines that come from Tradition. Okay, here is the text of 2 Thessalonians 2:15:
"So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter." - 2 Thessalonians 2:15
Now, Julie says that there's no evidence that this oral Tradition was different from the written Tradition, but this is a big mistake. Paul says that this Tradition comes in two forms: word of mouth or letters. Now, the first thing we notice is that he excludes Gospels. Why? Because the Gospels weren't written yet! The whole message of Jesus is not written down in letters (specifically 1 and 2 Thessalonians). This oral Tradition HAD to have included more than what was written down. Next, Julie says that there is no evidence that this oral message still exists today; however, she is placing the burden of proof on the wrong side. The command in Scripture is to believe in both written AND oral traditions, and the only reason why we would be able to nullify this command is if it was all eventually written down in Scripture. So, the burden of proof is on the Protestant.
Also, Julie is just assuming that the oral and written traditions were the same, but there's no indication of this in the text. Her accusation can be turned around at her; plus, as I have shown, the evidence seems to point to the Catholic position.
The Catholic Church has never formally outlined what exactly is in Tradition. So what? The Church doesn't HAVE TO define exactly what Tradition is. She theoretically could, but she hasn't. The Curch delves into Scriptire and Tradition when she NEEDS to, but she doesn't NEED to formally outline the contents of Tradition. Plus, doctrines that have been believed by all Christians were not defined from the very beginning. For an example, the Council of Nicaea in 325 defined the doctrine of Christ's divinity.
Acts 17:10-12 - "The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men."
� The perspicuity of the written word. This text then implies that they could understand what the Scriptures were saying in the first place. Scripture was not so vague that the Bereans could not discern the message of the Gospel in the writings of the Old Testament. They did not need an infallible human interpreter. Indeed this idea can even be expanded to the fact that Scripture is so often cited by the apostles and writers of Scripture. The apostle and writer reasons with their audience using Scripture, indicating that the message of Scripture can be understood by their audience.
The Bereans were able to understand the Old Testament not because it is perspicuous, but because they had received the New Testament (albeit in oral form) and were instructed in the meaning of the Old Testament. To show that the Old Testament is not perspicuous and that we need the New Testament to understand it, let's turn to Acts 9:30-35. Here, Philip meets a eunuch who is reading a prophecy from Isaiah but can't understand it. He is able to understand the prophecy only after Philip taught him about Jesus and how He fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies.
Plus, the Bereans probably learned from Paul and Silas how Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies, and THEN checked for themselves. They did not come to the conclusions on their own, but did so after being instructed by Paul and Silas. While the apostles did reason from Scripture, they did so because they EXPLAINED the Scriptures.
Also, if the Old Testament is sufficiently perspicuous (as Julie seems to be implying), then why do we even have the New Testament? Plus, if the Bereans found Jesus so easily in the Old Testament, why didn't the Jews in Thessalonica?
� The sufficiency of the written word to present the way of salvation. Not only could the message of Scripture be understood by the Bereans, but the Holy Spirit, working through the God-breathed Scriptures, brought them and some Greeks to salvation.
How does this prove the sufficiency of Scripture? As I have shown, all the Bereans prove is the relationship between the Old and New Testaments.
