Colton Banks

Recently, I made my decision to become Catholic public with my community and, as expected, many of my friends and family have had questions. Since then, having left my Protestantism behind, I’ve begun a series on some of the reasons why I made that choice. I’ve chosen first to focus on the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, highlighting some of the major flaws therein.¹ In my most recent post, I addressed the problems with the Protestant notion of sufficiency and how SS is fundamentally self-refuting, given that the concept of SS isn’t found in the Scriptures. Which, to say the least, is a massive problem for a doctrine that proposes all essential doctrine is taught within Scripture, either explicitly or by deduction.

As one would expect, Protestants object to this. Their primary objection typically consists in denying the premise that the Scriptures don’t teach SS, and then proceed to point to passages of Scripture that they believe do teach it. That being said, in today’s post, we’ll be examining the flagship text that is undoubtedly the most oft-pointed-to passage amongst Protestants as evidence for SS: namely, 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

Looking At The Passage More Closely

Here’s what St. Paul writes in 2 Timothy 3;16-17:

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

Formerly, as a Protestant, I would have considered this knockout evidence for SS. The problem, however, was that I was suffering from a bad case of confirmation bias. When you examine it more carefully, the claim to SS here rests on poor exegesis and logical fallacies.² That being said, in this post, we’ll examine six reasons why this passage does not teach SS.

Reason #1

Paul says that the scripture is “profitable”, not sufficient (v. 16). The Greek word for “profitable” here is ophelimos, which can be best translated as “useful” or “helpful.” That being said, Catholics, just like Protestants, have no problem saying that the Scriptures are useful for all the applications Paul mentioned here in the text (reproof, correction, teaching, etc.). After all, we also consider the Scriptures inspired by God and without error, and we can certainly deduce from this passage that the Scriptures are undeniably necessary and useful for helping perfect the believer and equipping him for good works. However, there’s nothing here in the text that suggests that the necessity and usefulness of Scripture somehow makes it the only infallible rule for the Church in all essential matters related to faith and practice, or that it makes it sufficient on its own. That’s an unjustifiable leap.

Reason #2

Many Protestants will concede that this passage doesn’t explicitly teach SS, but they will argue that it is logically deduced. They say the logical inference lies in the Greek term Paul uses to describe Scripture: theopneustos. This term is often translated as “God-breathed.” Protestants take this to mean that the Scriptures are ontologically unique as the “divine speech” of God. Therefore, the Protestant argument for SS here from the text goes like this:

There’s a few problems with this argument, however.

For starters, the term theopneustos is used only once in the Bible and it’s actually not clear what the term fully means. In part, because we don’t have any other usage of the word in the Scriptures to refer to or compare it to for a clear and robust understanding. In fact, the term could just as equally be translated “God-breathing”. In this context of Paul’s letter to Timothy, it is actually much more likely that Paul is using this term to refer to Scripture being life-giving, in much the same way that God breathed life into Adam through His Spirit. In other words, in this context, theopneustos is likely more about Scripture’s divine effect than it is about its divine origin.

If one understands theopneustos in this sense, it means Paul is asserting that the Scriptures are useful and life-giving in the process of salvation and perfecting us as God’s children. This tracks quite well with Paul’s flow of thought, given that it is clear that Paul is not making an assertion about Scripture’s divine authority over other authorities (like Tradition), but rather highlighting Scripture’s usefulness in the fruits it helps produce in the life of the believer. Paul wants Timothy to have several tools at his disposal when it comes to his spiritual maturity, in order that Timothy would be complete and equipped for every good work, and Scripture is undoubtedly a special, indispensable tool that God graciously gave him (and us) that he should not neglect. Taken this way then, it’s clear that this text is not teaching either explicitly or implicitly that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith.

Moreover, when the term is found outside the Scriptures in the ancient period surrounding 2 Timothy, it often refers to something being life-giving. In fact, theopneustos is often used in regard to non-biblical writings and other things in the ancient era. We don’t have the time to dive into all of those examples, but you can hear more of Catholic apologist Trent Horn’s breakdown on the term here.

Reason #3

It does not track logically that Scripture having a unique ontology therefore means it is the only infallible rule for Christians. The conclusion simply doesn’t follow from the premises. This is a logical fallacy that Protestants often make.³ For example, the Church is also ontologically unique. In fact, Paul says that the Church is the “pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). Does its ontological uniqueness therefore logically serve to make it the only infallible rule? Of course not.

Reason #4

The word for “All” in v. 15 is the Gk. word pás, which can be best translated here as “each” or “every”, insinuating that “all” is referred to here in the sense of “each (every) part that applies.”⁴ Thus, v. 16 could also be translated as “Every Scripture is inspired”. Therefore, it is not referring to the whole of the Scriptures, but to each individual Scripture. When referring to the whole, the plural form “Scriptures” is used throughout the Bible.

That being said, if the Protestant argument is that Paul is intending to mean that Scripture is sufficient on its own to guide the church in matters of faith and practice, then you would have to concede that each or every book of the Bible is sufficient on its own. In other words, it would be like saying that if all a Christian had was Leviticus alone, or Song of Solomon alone, or 2 Timothy alone, then that book/letter itself would be completely sufficient on its own to guide the church into all essential matters of faith. But that obviously doesn’t work, and Protestants readily accept that.

Reason #5

Many Protestants will point to the last half of verse 17 as evidence of the SS notion of sufficiency: ”that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (italics added for emphasis). The Protestant argument is as follows: if Scripture helps perfect the believer and equip the believer for every good work, then it follows that Scripture is completely sufficient on its own. But once again, this is making Paul say something he is not saying. He did not say that Scripture is the only thing needed to equip the believer for every good work. He just said that it’s useful in equipping and perfecting the believer, that he may be prepared. It’s an indispensable tool in a Christian’s toolbelt, but not the only tool.

I like to illustrate the point using this metaphor for the passage: “That hammer was given to you by God and is useful for loosening, for fastening, for tearing down, and for reconstructing, that as a builder, you may be complete, ready for every project.” In other words, if a builder wants to be a complete one, he’s going to need a hammer. It’s a necessary and useful tool if he wishes to be a complete & well-rounded builder. However, that doesn’t mean it’s the only tool he needs, even if it’s a perfect one without fault or blemish. It’s clear God gave him other tools as well.

That being said, Protestants tend to overextend when it comes to the phrase “every good work”. Just consider James 1:4. James instructs Christians to “let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing” (italics added for emphasis). If you apply the same line of reasoning here that Protestants apply to 2 Tim. 3:17 in defense of SS, then it would mean that James is suggesting the only thing a believer needs to be perfected, complete, and lacking in nothing, is steadfastness (endurance). That’s obviously not the case, however, and Protestants would agree.

Likewise, earlier in Paul’s letter to Timothy, he says, “Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work” (italics added for emphasis, 2 Tim. 2:21). This phrase “every good work” is the same phrase in Greek that Paul uses in 3:17. Once again, if you apply the same line of reasoning that Protestants use for 3:17, then it would mean that, if a Christian simply refrains from bad influences or dishonorable practices, then that would be sufficient on its own to equip a person for “every good work”. But can a person be equipped for every good work without things such as charity, prayer, Scripture, etc? Of course not.

Reason #6

Lastly, Paul’s reference to “All Scripture” is a reference primarily to the books of the Old Testament. After all, at the time he’s writing this to Timothy, the New Testament writings are still underway (many books having not yet been written) and there’s no New Testament canon of Scripture. That being said, there’s no Protestant I know that would say that Paul is asserting that the Old Testament on its own is sufficient enough to guide the church into all essential matters of faith and practice.

If this passage is teaching SS, then that means Paul intended Timothy to operate according to this doctrine before the NT was even finished or before all the apostles had died. But Protestants don’t accept that. Senior apologist at Catholic Answers, Jimmy Akin, describes this adequately:

…sola scriptura would only have been applicable after the apostles’ deaths, [but] Paul is not telling Timothy something new and meant to apply only after his death. He is saying something that was true then and had been true all along. He articulates this principle immediately after reminding Timothy that he had known the sacred scriptures (plural) from his youth (v. 15). This referred to the Old Testament, and Paul’s principle was true when only the Old Testament existed, before any New Testament books were written… Christians living before any New Testament book was penned were still obliged to accept the elements of the Christian faith not found in the Old Testament. They didn’t only become obligatory upon being written (2 Tim. 2:15)… It is likely 2 Timothy was not the last New Testament book written, yet Paul expected Timothy to apply the principle immediately—not wait until after Paul and all the other apostles were dead.⁵

Thus, consider what this would mean if Paul were intending for this passage to infer SS. It would mean all the Christians after Christ’s ascension and before the apostles’ deaths were expected to operate according to a doctrine that couldn’t have been practiced. It simply doesn’t work for this passage.

Conclusion

There are more reasons than this that one should reject the Protestant notion that this passage teaches/infers SS, and the reasons in this article aforementioned are hardly laid out in exhaustive detail, but these 6 reasons alone can suffice as a clear demonstration of the problems in the Protestant argument. Of course, in an ecumenical spirit, we can gladly unite around the idea that the Sacred Scriptures are necessary, useful, and inspired by God. I find it a pure and wonderful thing that we can have a great deal of camaraderie and fellowship around a shared love for the Scriptures.

But, at the end of the day, we must go separate ways when we discover that not only does Scripture not teach SS, but that God gave us more than just the Sacred Scriptures alone to serve as an infallible rule for the Church. Namely, that He also gave us Sacred Tradition and the teaching office of the Church (the Magisterium), and this He did to give us life and to safeguard us from being “tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes” (Eph. 4:14).

Ultimately, that’s what I came to discover. I pray this is a helpful step in you discovering it also.

---

Footnotes

1. Moving forward, throughout this article I will abbreviate Sola Scriptura to SS, for the sake of brevity. ↩︎
2. Kenneth Howell has a brief, yet good article on this also. Read here: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/is-scripture-alone-sufficient ↩︎
3. Popular Protestant apologist, Wes Huff, made the same mistake in a recent video on why he’s not Roman Catholic: https://youtu.be/DpNgxsiNoOA?si=9l6qFzQCFWLYjO-J&t=200 ↩︎
4. https://biblehub.com/greek/3956.htm ↩︎
5. https://www.catholic.com/audio/ddp/sola-scriptura-and-2-timothy-316-17 ↩︎