Post on 14-Apr-2018
7/27/2019 Arius and Sola Scriptura
1/28
2 Timothy 3:15-17:
Proof for Sola Scriptura?By Matt1618
Sola Scriptura is the formal principle of the "Reformation. Although there are a variety ofways in which this principle is enunciated, and some pour a meaning into Sola Scriptura
that is different from others, this principle teaches that Scriptures is the exclusively
infallible rule of faith. Although some Protestants will grant that the Church and Tradition
has some authority to guide believers, when push comes to shove and one disagrees withthe interpretation given by Church and Tradition, the ultimate guide of the individual is
ones own interpretation of Scripture. If one studies Scripture and comes to the conclusion
that is opposite of his Church, that person is free to disregard that interpretation. Scripture(or actually ones interpretation of Scripture) is the final authority and no other authority isat the same level of Scripture.
Now, when asked to prove Sola Scriptura from Scripture itself, 2 Tim. 3:15-17 is the
Scripture that is most often cited as the most powerful proof text for Sola Scriptura. In this
study we will examine this Scripture. Before we dig into this Scripture however, let usbriefly dig into what proponents say that Sola Scriptura teaches. Although some who
profess this teaching agree that the concept of Sola Scriptura is not explicitly taught in
Scripture, these same people will argue that the teaching is at least implicitly taught in
Scripture. Both Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes for example, both admit that the Bible
does not explicitly teach Sola Scriptura. However, they both argue that an explicitstatement in Scripture supporting that doctrine is not necessary to support their view. They
also both argue that just as the Trinity is not explicitly but implicitly taught in Scripture, sothe same goes for Sola Scriptura. 2nd Timothy 3:15-17, they say, at least implicitly teaches
this principle.[1]
Ironically, absolutely no Church Fathers used 2 Tim. 3:16 or verses 15-17 as a proof text
for Sola Scriptura, at least anywhere near the principle enunciated by Protestants. Those
who did hold a materially sufficient view, also held the Church and its tradition were equal
authorities to Scripture. One can say that those verses may say that Scripture is materiallysufficient (I dont believe 2 Tim 3 even teaches the material sufficiency of Scripture, which
I will show as the passage is examined), which Catholics can hold (as long as the Churchand Tradition are given equal authority). Catholics are allowed (but not forced) to believe
that Scripture has everything that we believe in, at least implicitly. One thing to note, asShawn McElhinney has noted, is that 2 Tim. 3:16 was used by Arians to actually teach that
the Bible was the only infallible rule of faith. They used Scripture alone to come to the
conclusion that there is indeed no Trinity at all.
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[1]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[1]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[1]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[1]7/27/2019 Arius and Sola Scriptura
2/28
Maximus who was an Arian actually had a version of Sola Scriptura that many Protestants
would agree with. Here is what he writes in the first paragraph his commentary on 2 Tim. 3
and the following paragraph is Shawns commentary on that statement:
"If you produce from the divine scriptures something that we all share, we shall have to
listen. But those words which are not found in the scriptures are under no circumstanceaccepted by us, especially since the Lord warns us, saying, In vain they worship me,
teaching human commandments and precepts'(Mt. 5:19)." [8]Maximinus, Debate with
Maximinus, 1 (A.D. 428), from the book Arianism and Other Heresies (AOH), 188
Now before any Protestant reads that passage and adds a hearty "Amen" to it, they had
better be clued in on who is being quoting here. The quote is from a late 4th early 5thcentury personality named Maximinus and he was an extremist Arian heretic who denied
the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Not only did he deny the Divinity of Our Lord (and
the Trinity) but he used the Scriptures to do it (Matt 4:5-6; Luke 4:9-11). He cited 2
Timothy 3:16 as a "proof-text" to support an early form of "Sola Scriptura" in Trinitariandisputes. To the knowledge of this author the heretic Maximinus is the ONLY early witness
to use this verse to support a form of Scripture sans Tradition.[2]
Thus, those who hold that the Trinity is a perfect example of Scripture implicitly teaching
something at the same level of the Sola Scriptura, use the same principle, Sola Scriptura,
that at least one Arian heretic held who used a Sola Scriptura principle to deny the Trinity.Those who are Oneness Pentecostals who hold to Sola Scriptura, for example, also use
Scripture as their authority to deny the Trinity. Thus, it is not as clear cut as MacKenzie and
Rhodes might like.
Now, before we look at 2nd Timothy 3:15-17, let us see look at what the Westminster
Confession of Faith says what Sola Scriptura is (This will be the Reformed version of
Sola Scriptura). We need to give this background in order to see if 2 Tim. 3:15-17accomplishes this goal:
VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, mans
salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good andnecessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time
is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless,we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving
understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some
circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to
human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christianprudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.
VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet
those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation,
are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not
only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain
unto a sufficient understanding of them...
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[2]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[2]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[2]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[2]7/27/2019 Arius and Sola Scriptura
3/28
IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and
therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is
not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more
clearly.[3]
So according to the Westminster Confession of Faith, everything that is necessary for us toknow, the whole counsel of God can be found explicitly in Scripture or at least deduced
from Scripture. That which is necessary for salvation is clear in Scripture. Even the
unlearned due to a use of ordinary means, (which is deliberately left vague as what ordinary
means is) can understand clearly what the teaching on salvation is, through the Bible.Everything that is necessary for us to know on not only salvation, but also faith and life is
taught in the Scripture. Another important principle is given is that Scripture interprets
Scripture.
Now, what do some current Protestant apologists say what Sola Scriptura does? The
following apologists help to clarify how the Protestant (at least Sola Scriptura from the so-called Reformed position) interprets the meaning of clarity of Scripture. After that,
other aspects of what Sola Scriptura is, will be given. John Armstrong, in the book, Sola
Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible, writes:
Basically, perspicuity (or clarity) means the Bible is self-interpreting as to its essentialtruths.This truth seems presupposed, as a matter of course, in Luke 16:29: They have
Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them. We read, in words that came from the lipsof our Lord: Search the Scriptures (John 5:39). This counsel would be meaningless
unless all readers can know the truth through the Scriptures. Further, the Bereans are
commended as the most noble of all early Christians because They searched the Scripturesdaily to see if the oral teachings of even an apostle were faithful to the text (cf. Acts
17:11). Again, the assumption is that in truly searching the Scriptures truth can be clearlydiscovered.[4]
Mr. Armstrong goes on to argue that the Bible is the sole testimony to God's words andredemptive actions:
The Bible is, simply put, oursole testimony to Gods words and great redemptiveactions.[5]Then Mr. Armstrong asserts with confidence that Scripture itself is able to judge all
matters of faith and practice.Is Scripture able to judge between truth and error in all matters of faith and practice? The
doctrine of the sole authority of Scripture answers with an unmistakable "yes." [6]This is no doubt a sweeping claim. Scripture is actually able to judge not only Scripture,
but also all matters of faith and doctrine.
John MacArthur, in the same book, Sola Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible,summarizes his version of Sola Scripture by the following:
It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, andeverything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture...So Sola Scriptura simply
means that Scripture is sufficient. The fact that Jesus did and taught many things not
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[3http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[3http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[3http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[4]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[4]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[4]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[5]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[5]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[5]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[6]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[6]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[6]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[5]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[4]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[37/27/2019 Arius and Sola Scriptura
4/28
recorded in Scripture (Jn 20:30; 21:25) is wholly irrelevant to the principle of Sola
Scriptura. The fact that most of the apostles actual sermons in the early churches were not
written down and preserved for us does not diminish the truth of biblical sufficiency one
bit. What is certain is that all that is necessary is in Scripture-and we are forbidden toexceed what is written (1 Cor. 4:6)...
It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and
everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture.[7]
James White gives us three short summaries of what Sola Scriptura is:
1. The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures alone are sufficientto function as the regula fidei, the infallible rule of faith for the Church....
2. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture, and in no other
source....
3. That which is not found in Scripture-either directly or by necessary implication-is notbinding upon the Christian....
White goes on to further clarify this position by writing:The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient infallible rule of faith for the ChristianChurch. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement; their authority comes from their
nature as God-breathed revelation; their authority is not dependent upon man, church or
council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. TheChristian Church looks to the Scriptures as the only infallible and sufficient rule of faith,
and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.[8]
So thus we see many a claim for Sola Scriptura by those advocating this position. It makes
Scripture itself the judge of all matters of faith and life. It is self-interpreting, with no otherguide of equal authority to it. We can ignore that which is outside Scripture (at least to the
point that whatever authority there is, does not equal the authority of Scripture). Scripture is
clear in its interpretation, especially on matters of salvation, although there is no denial thatthere may be less clarity on other issues. Through Scriptures we can clearly discover itstruth. Although they will admit that there are other authorities, such as Church, and even
tradition some may give some credence to, they are not of equal importance or authority as
the Bible.
Thus, 2nd Tim. 3:15-17 has a tall order to fill. Let us see what Protestant apologists makeof this text. Below is the text, and following that we will see what Protestant apologists willclaim that it teaches. We must keep in mind what Sola Scriptura teaches, as we have seen,
and let us see if it matches what they say Sola Scriptura teaches. Let us look at the Scripture
and look at the claims made by the apologists for that Scripture and how well that Scripture
fits Sola Scriptura:
2 Tim. 3:15-17
15 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. 16 All scripture is inspiredby God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in
righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[7]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[7]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[7]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[8]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[8]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[8]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[8]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[7]7/27/2019 Arius and Sola Scriptura
5/28
John MacArthur writes:
A brief summary of that passage is perhaps appropriate here as well. In short, verse 15
affirms that Scripture is sufficient for salvation: "The sacred writings. . . are able to giveyou the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." Verse 16
affirms the absolute authority of Scripture, which is "God-breathed" (Gk. theopneustos) and
profitable for our instruction. And verse 17 states that Scripture is able to equip the man ofGod "for every good work." So the assertion that the Bible itself does not teach Sola
Scriptura is simply wrong.[9]
Armstrong argues that 2 Tim. 3:15 shows that Scripture is perspicuous:
Paul very specifically says to young Timothy that "from infancy you have known the Holy
Scriptures" (2 Tim. 3:15) and the Psalmist says that the Word and statues of God are"Making wise the simple" (Psalm 19:7). To attack the perspicuity of Scripture is a not-so-
subtle attack upon the very authority of Scripture. itself.[10]
Robert Godfrey noted that Catholic apologists (including me and you will see me do it lateron in response) note that there are other passages which say that there are other things that
make one complete just as Scripture does in 2 Tim. 3:17. To counter the argument Godfrey
writes:The usual response of Catholic apologists is to repeatedly assert that 2 Timothy 3 does not
teach sufficiency. Sometimes they will refer to James 1:4, Mt. 19:21, or Colossians 1:28
and 4:12 as parallel texts, claiming that the word "complete" in 2 Tim. 3:17 does not mean
sufficient. But such passages are not parallel; a completely different Greek word is used.Where 2 Tim. 3:17 uses exartizo, which has to do with being fitted for a task, these other
passages use the Greek word teleios, which has reference to maturity or having reached a
desired end.[11]
Therefore, Godfrey argues that the fact that the other verses use a different Greek word,militates against the Catholics using those verses and elements used in those verses as a text
against the Protestant use of 2 Tim. 3:17 to prove sufficiency.
Finally, James White uses the same passage in attempting to prove more things as well as
address a couple of Catholic arguments (that I in fact will use when I respond later on). Healso focuses especially on v. 17. Here are a few of his comments as we see what he
attempts to prove for Sola Scriptura. He starts off in paragraph one below by commenting
on v. 15 which shows him admitting that Paul is referring Timothy to the Old Testament.
The second paragraph below has him referring to the inspiration of Scripture (v. 16) andhow that shows that Scripture is superior in authority to the Church. In the final paragraphs
he focuses on the words "Fully equipped for every good work" as showing ScripturalSufficiency.
Paul's words refer primarily to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, for it is obvious that
Timothy would have had none of the New Testament writings at that time. Some have
argued that this fact makes this passage irrelevant to any discussion of sola scriptura, sinceit speaks only to the Old Testament, and no one would wish to say that the Old Testament
is wholly adequate and the New Testament in superfluous or unnecessary. However, such
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[9]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[9]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[9]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[10]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[10]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[10]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[11]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[11]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[11]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[11]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[10]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[9]7/27/2019 Arius and Sola Scriptura
6/28
an objection misses the point, as the thrust of the passage is the origin and resultant nature
of Scripture and its abilities, not the extent of Scriptures (i.e., to the canon.) That which is
God-breathed is able by its very nature, to give us the wisdom that leads to salvation
through faith in Christ Jesus ("all things necessary for man's salvation") and to fully equipthe "man of God" for the work of the ministry ("all things necessary for . . .faith and life")...
Paul's point should not be missed. Because of the origin of Scripture in God himself, the
authority of Scripture is God's authority. You don't have different authorities in the Church:
Scriptural authority over here, and Gods authority over there. The authority of Church is
one: God's authority . And when God speaks in Scripture His words carry His authority...The divine authority of the Church, then, in teaching and rebuking and instruction, is
derived from Scripture itself, despite Roman Catholic claims to the contrary...
The first term to examine is the adjective translated "complete". The term, according to
Vine, means "fitted, complete." Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker tell us the term means
"complete, capable, proficient." That is, as they say, "able to meet all demands," giving thespecific citation of 2 Timothy 3:17 as the reference. Louw and Nida's Greek-English
Lexicon Based on Semantic Domains uses the term "qualified" as well. I pause only long
enough to note that Paul asserts that the man of God can be complete, capable, proficient
and qualified, because God's inspired Scriptures are always available to him. If anothersource of authority was necessary surely Paul would have directed us to it in order that we
might be complete, but he does not!...
The Scriptures are able to fully equip the man of God so that he is able to do every good
work. No one serving God has to search about for other sources. The inspired Scriptures are
the sufficient source for a person's needs in ministry. Is there a doctrine we need to impressupon our congregation? We will find the Scriptures sufficient to provide the basis of this
exhortation....[12]
Thus, we see this passage supposedly fulfilling all or at least most of the main points that
the Sola Scriptura doctrines teaches as that would be consistent with the Westminster
Confession of Faith. I note down below a short summary with the apologists who cite 2Tim. 3 in support of that position. I am sure the other apologists would agree with the other
apologists, but here I am only noting those apologists who in the material that I have, have
commented on 2 Tim. 3:15-17:
1. The fact that Timothy is referred to the Old Testament is of little relevance. Theteaching applies to Scripture as a whole. (White)
2. The passage teaches the perspicuity of the Bible's teaching on salvation (v. 15). It also
means that the Bible is self-interpreting as to its essential truths. (Armstrong, MacArthur) 3. Scripture equips the man of God for every good work, and is thus sufficient. The factthat it equips man for every good work means that although there may be other authorities,none of those authorities are of equal authority as Scripture. (Godfrey, White, Geisler,
Rhodes)
4. The fact that parallel texts exist which speak of equipping for good works, does notdenigrate the sole authority of Scripture.(Godfrey, White)
5. The Church gets its authority from Scripture.(White)
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[12]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[12]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[12]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[12]7/27/2019 Arius and Sola Scriptura
7/28
6. By this passage not mentioning other authorities, this shows that all necessary doctrine
is found in Scripture.(White, Rhodes)
A Catholic Response
Below is the passage again, and we will address each of the six points made by the varying
Protestant apologists.
2 Tim. 3:15-17
15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which areable to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired
by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in
righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
1. The fact that Paul is referring Timothy to the Old Testament is of little relevance.The teaching applies to Scripture as a whole.(White)
There are several problems with this attempt by White to render this point invalid. Yes,
ultimately the teaching on this passage does apply to Scripture as a whole. However, wemust understand the passage in the way that the passage was meant to be understood at the
time it was written to give a proper context. This brings Protestants problems on the canon
that this passage does not address which we will shortly look at. Now, if Scripture was the
sole infallible authority on the teaching on salvation, and in Timothy's possession was onlythe Old Testament, the teaching on salvation as it was on that occasion must be sufficient.
In fact it is very relevant that at the time Paul is only speaking of the Old Testament, as heis speaking in v. 15 of the Scriptures that Timothy has known since infancy. Thus, for thosewho say that justification is a once and for all occasion where Christ's righteousness must
be imputed and applied to one's account, there must be at least some basis for that in the
Old Testament as well, if it is sufficient on salvation, as spoken of by MacArthur. That is
because Sola Scriptura proponents say that the Scripture that Paul speaks of, makesTimothy wise unto salvation. Of course, nowhere is that view of salvation even hinted at in
Old Testament (as we will see as we address point #2).
Timothy was half Greek, half Jew (Acts 16:1-4). As he was Greek, what was the Old
Testament that he was brought up in from infancy? Those such as Timothy would have
been brought up reading the Septuagint. The canon that Timothy was brought up on wouldhave reflected that canon that contain the Deuterocanonicals that Protestantism rejects asnot on an equal par with the rest of the Old Testament. Thus, the Scriptures that Timothy
was brought up on would have reflected such things as Prayers for the dead (2nd Macc.
12:44-46). We know that Paul knows of the contents and unmistakably refers to thesecontents elsewhere in his writing (Heb. 11:35; 2nd Macc 7). Catholicism accepts the
contents of the Scriptures that Timothy was brought up in while Protestantism rejects their
canonicity.
7/27/2019 Arius and Sola Scriptura
8/28
Another even more important problem with this interpretation is that it not only ignores the
problem with the Old Testament canon, but it does not deal with the canonicity of this very
epistle. Yes, Paul tells Timothy that Scripture is profitable, but absolutely nowhere in this
epistle does Paul tell Timothy that what he is writing is Scripture. So on what basis is 2ndTimothy Scripture, and on what basis do you use it to teach Scriptural sufficiency when
Paul nowhere makes the claim that what he is writing is Scripture? How do we know thatwhat Timothy is writing is Scripture? Paul certainly nowhere in this epistle writes that it is.Obviously, it is the Church that declares this as Scripture, and it is only the Tradition of the
Church that declares 2nd Timothy Scripture. When Peter mentions Paul's writings as
Scripture (2 Peter 3:16), he does not mention any specific letter that Paul had written. Howdo we not know that when Peter refers to the Scriptures that Paul had written, that they
were not the letter from Laodicea (Col. 4:16), nor do we see the letter that he had written to
the Corinthians that was before 1st Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9)? Neither of those letters are
part of the canon, but on what basis do we know are Pauls canonical letters from the non-
canonical ones? The church is the one that infallibly decided what the contents of Scriptureare. There is no contents of the New Testament in the New Testament itself. Surely it is not
given in 2 Tim. 3. Thus, the only way that we know 2nd Timothy (and the rest of the
Pauline letters) is inspired is because of the authority of the Church and her tradition. Thus,the quotation of 2nd Timothy only proves the absolute reliability of the Church and her
tradition. To quote this Scripture in an attempt to undermine the authority of the Church or
her Tradition actually undermines the authority that one can have in calling this Scripture.
2. The passage teaches the perspicuity of the Bible's teaching on salvation (v. 15). Italso means that Bible is self-interpreting as to its essential truths. (Armstrong,
MacArthur)
Yes, I realize that the Westminster confession of Faith argues that the Bible is perspicuouson salvation and those who hold to Sola Scriptura must hold to the perspicuity of Scripture
on the doctrine of salvation. Armstrong and MacArthur matter of factly argue that v. 15
shows that Scripture teaches the perspicuity of salvation. However, the context of this
passage again would undermine the understanding of salvation that these same Protestantapologists hold to. We have seen these apologist cite v. 15, where it says the Scriptures that
Timothy has known since infancy would make him wise unto salvation. Of course,
theoretically, what is taught here does apply to the New Testament as a whole. Nonetheless,in order to properly interpret this text we must interpret the way that this was meant to have
been interpreted for the reader at that time. It is in fact after the fact extrapolation if one
tries to apply from this passage an idea that the Scriptures that Paul is speaking about to
include the New Testament. So, if one tries to interpret the passage the way that Paul wroteit, as it included only the Old Testament, for the Protestant faith alone idea to hold, we must
be able to read in the Old Testament, that the view of salvation presented there,
perspicuously teaches faith alone through the means of an alien righteousness applied toone's account. Of course, that is nowhere found in the Old Testament, nor even implied.
Now it is true that the Old Testament does teach on salvation, but it definitely does notteach that one is justified by faith alone. For example, if we look at the way that one is
justified before God in the Old Testament, we see justification is not a one time imputation
of righteousness based on faith alone, but by those within God's grace who perform
7/27/2019 Arius and Sola Scriptura
9/28
righteous actions being declared righteous based on those actions. For example, let us look
at Psalm 106:29-31.
Psalm 106:29-31
29 they provoked the LORD to anger with their doings, and a plague broke out amongthem. 30 Then Phinehas stood up and interposed, and the plague was stayed. 31 And that
has been reckoned to him as righteousness from generation to generation for ever.
The writer of Psalms refers us to Numbers 25, where Phinehas had done a righteous act of
killing idolaters who were committing sexual sins. Note the language used. Reckoned to
him as righteousness, (also used of Abraham in Genesis 15:6), the exact language that Paulwould use in Romans 4:3, that Protestants will try to use to justify the faith alone theory.
Psalm 106:31 so much destroys the Protestant position on Rom. 4 that Protestant JohnMurray writes:
If Paul had appealed to Psalm 106:31 in the matter of justification, the justification of
the ungodly, then the case of Phinehas would have provided an inherent contradictionand would have demonstrated justification by a righteous and zealous act...Genesis
15:6 is dealing with justification, as Paul shows . Psalm 106:31 is dealing with the goodworks which were the fruit of faith.[13]
Psalm 106:30-31 refers to the incident recorded in Numbers 25 in which the men of Israel
had sex with Moabite women. The Lord ordered Moses to kill them. Phinehas grabbed a
spear and killed a man and woman who were engaging in this sexual sin. God tells Moses
that Phinehas was zealous for God's honor, and that as a result of his act Phinehas turnedGod's wrath away. This is the act that Phinehas is accounted for righteousness. Nothing
about an alien righteousness. Phinehas is not merely considered righteous, but thisrighteousness is inherent. His work is meritorious, and is what justifies him. This is not theProtestant, Faith alone position, but the Catholic position that works are indeed a cause of
salvation, not merely a fruit of it. Murray is forced to call this passage in inherent
contradiction to his view of salvation, but in fact labels Psalm 106:31 in contradiction to hisfaith alone theory. For Murray to call this passage only a fruit of salvation is a repudiation
of the Psalmist's words. The Psalmist calls this action by Phinehas a reckoning ofrighteousness. This is the same words as used of Abraham in Genesis 15, and no Protestantcalls that action only a fruit of good works. Other passages that show the view of salvation
that is not faith alone include Prov. 24:12, Prov. 17:15, Psalm 62:12, and Psalm 7:8.
One may ask, why are you digressing to examining the view of justification, when this is adiscussion of authority? I am checking to see, that since the Protestant view of Sola
Scriptura includes a 'perspicuous' view of salvation, and since the passage in 2 Tim. 3:15
has been cited to show that the Scripture that Timothy has known since infancy teaches aperspicuous view of salvation, whether that matches the faith alone view of salvation. This
would be where the righteousness of another is imputed to ones' account by the instrument
of faith alone, and whether this matches what Timothy has been brought up in. Althoughobviously one would not expect the full explication of this Sola Fide doctrine, if Timothy
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[13]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[13]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[13]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[13]7/27/2019 Arius and Sola Scriptura
10/28
was perspicuously taught this, there must at a minimum some foundation for that belief in
the Old Testament, if as MacArthur and Armstrong teach, v. 15 teaches that Scripture is
perspicuous on salvation. In fact, the sacred writings do not teach that at all in the Old
Testament (I would argue that neither does the New Testament, but that is another issue).
The other thing that shows that Scripture is not the sole authority just based on this verse isthat for Timothy, it has been since his infancy and as a child that he has become acquainted
with in its teachings. How does any child or young adult become acquainted with
Scripture? Fathers, Mothers, and teachers instruct the child on the meaning of the
Scriptures. No one would argue that as a child, one could grasp the Old Testament teachingon salvation. It is obvious that when Paul is speaking on how the Old Testament teaches on
salvation, he takes for granted that as a child he was instructed by others on exactly the
meaning of salvation as understood in the Old Covenant. Now as an aside, if we go to the
New Testament writings, especially that of Paul, the teaching on salvation is notperspicuous (cf., Rom. 3:28; Rom. 2:6-13, etc.) Of course when the New Testament gives
us its teachings on salvation, Peter tells us that Paul's writings on salvation are not easy to
understand and are easy to distort (2 Pet. 3:15-16). Thus, the attempt to say that thispassage teaches us the perspicuity of the Scripture on salvation, is a point that is belied by
the context.
On the idea given by Armstrong that "the Bible is self-interpreting as to its essential truths",
where is that written anywhere in Scripture? The Scriptures he cites has absolutely nothing
to do with that idea. The word 'essential' is nowhere noted. Where is the idea anywhere inScripture that there are some things called "Essential Truths" and other things called "truths
where it is Ok to disagree on."? Nowhere at all. Jesus said he would send the Spirit to guide
his Church into all truth (Jn 16:13). He did not put into categories of "This is essential
truth that Scripture will guide you in" and "These other categories are 'non-essential' so it isOk to disagree on. Jesus did seem to say that all truth is essential. Paul likewise writes thathe wants the Church to be united in one mind and judgment (1 Cor. 1:10).
BTW, what is essential truth that Scripture would guide us to? The identity of Jesus as the
Eternal Son of God as fully God would seen to be an essential. Remember, we saw earlier
that the Arian Sola Scripturist of his time, Maximus argue from Scripture that Jesus was notfully God. As evidence, one of the contributors to the Sola Scriptura book, John
MacArthur, wrote that Jesus is and was God, but before the incarnation was not the Son of
God. Only after the incarnation, supposedly, did Jesus become the Son of God. If one of themain contributors of a book that proves Sola Scriptura, and one of the top Evangelical
Ministers in the United States today, misses on who Jesus was before his incarnation is not
essential, what, pray tell, is essential? Fortunately, recently, MacArthur has changed his
mind and agrees that Christ's sonship is eternal, but he had advocated this heretical positionall the while going by "The Bible Alone".
One of the main arguments that Protestants use to explain away the differing positions ondoctrine due to the use of Sola Scriptura is the fact that supposedly, well, we may have
many differences on minor issues, but we agree on the essential doctrines. Well, besides
sounding nice, and having no Biblical basis for that rationale, the issue at hand is, Whatare the essential things? As Phillip Blosser notes:
7/27/2019 Arius and Sola Scriptura
11/28
Nor will it do to fall back on the assertion that Protestant conservatives, at least, are united
on essentials; for the question as to what is essential and what is not, is itself part of
what is at issue. Lutherans consider baptism essential, while Quakers do not. Baptists
consider an adult profession of faith to be an essential prerequisite for baptism, whilePresbyterians do not. Presbyterians consider the predestination of the elect to be an
essential doctrine but Free Methodists do not. Nazarenes consider personal holiness anessential prerequisite for salvation, while Lutherans do not. Calvinists consider theirresistability of grace an essential belief, while Lutherans do not. Episcopalians consider
sacraments essential, but the Salvation Army does not. Presbyterians regard the belief in the
total depravity of man essential, but Methodists do not. The Dutch Reformed considercreeds and confessions essential, but Baptists do not. Baptists consider altar callsessential but Presbyterians do not.[14]
Thus, the idea that we saw earlier that was given by Sola Scriptura proponents that
Scripture decides what is true doctrine has proved to be a colossal failure as there is no
agreement among the sects on what the true doctrines are. The Catholic position on suchdoctrines are united. A look at the Catholic Catechism, based on the three pillars of Church,
Tradition and Scripture, has helped to give a solid guidance on what is true doctrine andwhat is not true doctrine. The same can not be said of Sola Scriptura.
3. Scripture equips the man of God for every good work, and is thus sufficient. Theword exartizomeans that Scripture equips fully. The fact that it equips man for every
good work means that although there may be other authorities, none of those
authorities are of equal authority as Scripture. (Godfrey, White, Geisler, Rhodes)
There are two points in analysis of this Scripture passage that prevents Sola Scripture from
being implied from this passage. Each of these points, in and of themselves destroy theinterpretation given by Sola Scriptura advocates.
1) The reading of the Protestant apologists (such as Robert Godfrey, James White, RonRhodes) who emphasize that this text speaks of Scripture fully equipping for every good
work means that there are no other authorities that serve the same end is I say a horrible
misreading of the text. A plain reading of the text shows that Scripture here is not evenclose to achieving what Sola Scriptura proponents say it does. I will give the texts, vv. 16-
17 again:
16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction,
and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for
every good work.
Many proponents, will argue that Scripture is inspired, God-breathed, and since it is so
important that no such other authorities exist. That is an argument from silence, sinceScripture does not say so, here or anywhere else. The Catholic Church agrees that Scripture
is inspired, and we must obey Scripture. But this passage does not exclude other authorities
and in fact as we examine the context a little further down, we will see other authorities andthings that also guide Timothy that are of equal value.
I say this argument done by Sola Scripturists in analyzing these verses is a perfect
fulfillment of the following verse:
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[14]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[14]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[14]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[14]7/27/2019 Arius and Sola Scriptura
12/28
2nd Peter 3:16
speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to
understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do
the other scriptures.
Why do I say that? Why do I consider the misusing of this passage to prove Sola Scriptura
a knowing twisting of Scriptures? Well, we see all the emphasis on the Scripture that is
noted in verse 16, as being directly linked to the fully equipping of man for every goodwork in v. 17. What is the twisting of that? Well, this is a horrible twisting because fully
equipping for every good work, is not described as speaking of Scripture as being sufficient
to do so. Note again that this fully equipping for every good work , is speaking of verse 17.Now, what does it specifically say of Scripture to serve that end, which is in that prior
verse? What fully equips? Doctrine, Reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness
are the four items that fully equip. Where is Scripture in the mix? V. 16 speaks of Scripture
only being, not sufficient but profitable to those four ends. The wordprofitable is nowherenear the meaning of the word sufficient. Thus, Scripture is only profitable in training us in
righteousness, reproof, doctrine, for correction. Then those four ends are those that equip.
Those four ends are the things that fully equip, and Scripture is only profitable in getting
people ready to do that. Therefore, all the emphasis on fully equipping for every goodwork, and the word exartizo meaning that Scripture fully equips us, is absolutely a fraud. It
fully ignores the description of Scripture itself. The reason is, that when Scripture is
directly spoken of, it is only termed 'profitable' in doing so. Thus, Scripture is termedprofitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. If I drink water, it
is profitable but not sufficient to keep me alive. Water is indeed profitable to my body.
However, I also need food which is profitable to my body. If I do not have food, eventually
I will still die. Likewise, if I have all the food in the world but I dont have water I can dieof dehydration. Neither one of them are sufficient to fully nourish, but they are bothprofitable. The church likewise asserts that scripture is profitable for these four ends. Then
it is those four ends (not Scripture) that fully equips. However Sola Scriptura teaches that itis sufficient for those four ends. Later when it talks about being fully equipped for every
good work we must remember that scripture is only termed profitable for those ends. The
going on to emphasize how the Greek word means that it fully equips us is totally irrelevant
to whether the Bible is sufficient. It is termed in the immediate context of only beingprofitable. In fact, as this I say near fraudulent use of the word for fully equipping since
there is a vast difference between sufficient to fully equip and only being profitable for the
four ends that do equip. The authors who emphasize it, including White, Geisler &
MacKenzie, Godfrey, MacArthur, and Rhodes, all knowingly ignore the fact that Scriptureis never termed as sufficient to fully equip, but are only profitable to the four ends
(doctrine, correction, reproof, training in righteousness) which are the grounds for
fully equipping. By it only being termed profitable, de facto, this passage does notdemonstrate the Sufficiency of Scripture in any way shape or form, no matter the meaning
ofexartizo. This passage in and of itself does not even teach the material sufficiency of
Scripture. It is a twisting of Scripture and Gods word when the emphasis on the wordexartizo and equipping ignores the fact that Scripture is only termed profitable for the four
ends so noted.
7/27/2019 Arius and Sola Scriptura
13/28
I let some people on the Catholic Converts Message Board know that I was going to do thisarticle and a person going by the name of "Let's Obey Christ" asked me to engage him on
the following points:
While your researching 2 Tim. 3:15-17 don't forget to treat my exegesis of this passage:
2 Tim 3:16 Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.
17 That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.-asv
In context Paul is giving Timothy reasons why Scripture is able to make thee wise unto
salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.-2 Tim 3:15 kjv
His premise is indicated by hina in Vs. 17 which begins with the word that In Greek
hina (Strongs # 2443) literally means in order that. This premises his conclusion that"all Scripture is inspired of God," or literally "every Scripture (holy writing) is inspired of
God."In other words, Pauls argument is "Scripture is able to make thee wise unto salvationbecause all scripture is inspired by God in order that the man of God be thoroughly
equipped for every good work."
In abstract we could rearrange this portion to read thusly:
2 Tim 3:17 [In order] That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all
good works.2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for
reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:-kjv
Paul is obviously saying Gods purpose when inspiring Scripture was to render all men ofGod perfect and thoroughly equipped.[15]
How do we respond to this approach to this supposed 'proving' Sola Scriptura? The
principles that I have already established would easily respond to these points, which is a
slightly different approach than the Protestant apologists already noted. First, in the contextof salvation that he brought up we have already been over that so there is no need to retread
my earlier comments on that.
Next, with the translation of "every Scripture is inspired, etc." LOC (short for the monikerLets Obey Christ)proves that Paul can't even remotely be speaking of Sola Scriptura.
Sola Scriptura says that the contents of all of Scripture sufficiently complete a person to be
fully equipped for every good work. If a subject that is necessary for us to know is not inone book of the Bible, we have the rest of Scripture to look at (We saw this in the
Westminster Confession of Faith Section on Scripture, Section VI & VII). Thus, all of
Scripture must be our guide. However, with the correct translation of Paul actually
meaning, "every Scripture" it means that if we pour the Sola Scriptura interpretation intothe text and look at the meaning of the word, each verse becomes our full guide! Each
individual Scriptural verse becomes a sufficient guide for us? Thus, not even the most avid
Sola Scriptura advocate would say that one verse of Scripture is a sufficient guide for us.
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[15]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[15]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[15]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[15]7/27/2019 Arius and Sola Scriptura
14/28
However, with the correct translation of every, or each Scripture (Not All Scriptures), this
is what the verse would have to say!! The Westminster Confession of Faith does not say
that, nor does any Sola Scriptura advocate. In actuality, no matter how great one Scriptural
verse is, it can never be a full guide for the life and faith of believers. Thus, with thiscorrect translation, 2 Tim. 3:16 is a proof text against Sola Scriptura. We know that if
Paul wanted to speak of the full Scriptures he would have mentioned the term Scriptures inplural. Whenever the Bible refers us to the whole corpus of Scripture, it always uses theterm "Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3, Romans 1:2, Mt. 22:29, Lk 24:27). Paul does not use that
term here. Thus, on that basis alone, we see that 2 Tim. 3 can not in any way be used to
support Sola Scriptura.
Next, LOCs premise is that v. 16 is written so that v. 17 is fulfilled. He makes an
important link of 16 to 17 by stressing that, hina, (or in order that) makes the meaning of v.
16 important so v.17 is fulfilled. V. 17 says that a man is complete and equips the man ofGod mentioned in v.16. I have no problem with that at all. However, in his bit by bit
analysis of v. 16 he actually ignores the content of v. 16 and thus links the two verses
incorrectly. Yes, the beginning of v. 16 does say that Scripture is given by the inspiration ofGod. And yes, each verse of Scripture is inspired, as Paul writes. However, LOC writes that
his conclusion is that Scripture is inspired and he links that to v. 17 to imply that Scripture
is sufficient, where again, the word sufficient is not used or by any stretch or imagination,even implied. When Paul writes about each Scripture being inspired, that is not the
conclusion of v. 16 that links to v. 17, but is only the beginning of the verse. It is not ready
to get linked yet. The first thing that it says about Scripture is that it is profitable. Again, I
have emphasized this before but that in itself renders Scripture as insufficient, as being'profitable' is not sufficient. It is useful to an end, not sufficient. Then, it says that the study
of each verse (remember, every Scripture), is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and
instruction in righteousness. This is what the aim of each Scripture verse is for.(Remember, Paul is not writing of Scripture in its totality). Now, those four ends, for which
each Scripture is profitable, is that which is qualified by hina. And again, it is those four
things, not Scripture that so equip the man of God. The hina link is thus, to those four
things which fully equip, and each Scripture is only termed 'profitable' for those ends.Profitable is a weak term even describing those four ends. Those are the ends that do the
equipping, and each Scripture is profitable for that. So LOCs conclusion, where he says "in
other words" are in fact putting into Pauls mouth LOCs words Scripture is able to makethee wise unto salvation because all scripture is inspired by God in order that the man of
God be thoroughly equipped for every good work" which practically ignores all of v. 16 to
serve a doctrine that is not even hinted at in this passage. Then in his conclusion he again
links the verses but his conclusion ignores the bulk of v. 16 which is that which is linked tov.17.
2) The other point that destroys the idea that this passage speaks of Scripture to theexclusion of other authorities as spoken of by the Sola Scriptura apologists I quoted is the
fact that Paul has referred Timothy up to this point in his letter (2 Tim. 3:15-17) to other
authorities, and other means of being equipped for Christian service. In fact, up to this pointin time, Paul only quoted Scripture one time, and that was only used to refer to encourage
those to stand firm in the faith (2 Tim. 2:19).
7/27/2019 Arius and Sola Scriptura
15/28
First, we need to look at the immediate background of Chapter 3, and then look at the larger
context of the epistle, where there are definitely other authorities of importance. In the
immediate context he writes in v. 10 "But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner
of life, purpose, faith long-suffering, love, perseverance,...". Thus, this doctrine that hemust carefully follow is not Scripture in this instance. Does he say in v. 10 that the only
source of doctrine is scripture? No! It is obvious that the way that Timothy primarilyreceived Paul's doctrine was orally, also by his way of life and oral teaching. Next, in. v. 14Paul writes: 14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed,
knowing from whom you learned it. Paul tells Timothy to continue in the things that Paul
has assured him. Everything that he has told Timothy of, is something that Timothy hasexperienced with Paul as a witness most of which obviously is not reduced to writing. So
when we get to vv. 15-17, the conclusion that talks about being fully equipped for every
good work in v. 17 includes this oral tradition explicated in v. 10 and v. 14. This is the
immediate background to vv. 15-17. Even the immediate background of those verses thus
shows Paul referring Timothy to oral tradition as an authority.
In the context of the whole epistle we see several things that equip, including especiallyoral tradition. In fact, we see Paul in the beginning of chapter three where he speaks of
Scripture as inspirational, actually drawing from oral tradition in 2 Tim. 3:8 when he
writes:
2 Tim. 3:8
As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corruptmind and counterfeit faith.
If one looks in the Old Testament, one will find that there is absolutely no mention of
Jannes and Jambres as the names of the magicians who opposed Moses. Where did Moses
draw this information from on who Moses opponents were? A proponent of Sola Scripturaeven admits that Paul drew this information from tradition , but disregards that point in the
following way:
Evangelical Christians agree that the reference to Jannes and Jambres in 2 Tim. 3:8apparently draws not on the Old Testament but on a fairly widespread Jewish legend about
two of Pharaohs magicians who competed against Moses and lost (Exodus 7:11; 9:11).
This legend appears in Pseudo-Philo, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Talmud, Targums, andvarious rabbinical writings... Evangelicals deny that the mere drawing of this fact from
tradition necessarily means that tradition is inspired or authoritative. If Paul was referring to
tradition in this verse, he did so only because the tradition in this case contained a true
statement that bore mentioning. He was not thereby saying that tradition in itself isauthoritative or on an equal par with written revelation..
Let us be clear: The inclusion in a biblical book of a true fact from a tradition does not thusmean that the tradition itself is inspired. It simply means that the tradition includes a true
fact.[16]
First, to term what Paul refers to as a legend puts a bad face on what Paul refers to.
Legend has a connotation of it not being true, as a fable. Thus, Rhodes tries to color his
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/7/27/2019 Arius and Sola Scriptura
16/28
attack on tradition by calling it a legend, when in fact, he later admits that Paul is drawing
upon not a legend, but a tradition that is true. Paul in fact assumes that what he is speaking
of is true, not merely a legend. Rhodes attempt to downgrade this fact is in the midst of
Paul referring to the New Covenant traditions as being of equal authority (2 Tim. 3:10, 14;2 Tim. 1:13-14; 2 Tim. 2:2) that people must heed (we have already looked at vv. 10-14,
and the latter two texts we will examine next). In fact, if Paul wanted to say that tradition isof lesser authority than Scripture, why, since he admittedly draws upon tradition in thisvery chapter, not say: Even though I am drawing upon tradition, it is of less authority then
Scripture. In fact, if we look at 2nd Tim. 3:15-17, we see no mention of Scripture as being
of a superior authority than tradition. In fact, in 2 Tim. 3:15-17, we see absolutely nocomparison that Rhodes points to. If he wanted to prove Sola Scriptura, this would have
been the perfect opportunity to say that oral tradition is inferior. He does no such thing. We
have already seen Pauls oral tradition as a source for Timothy to draw from. In fact, in the
midst of Pauls affirming tradition, if he thinks that tradition is not authoritative, it is a
strange way to prove that oral tradition is not of equal authority as Scripture, when hequotes from another tradition that is not Scripture. If he thinks that oral tradition is less
reliable than written tradition of Scripture, why is there no hint of this in Pauls writing in
his letter to Timothy?
Next, in the larger context of the epistle we see in the prior chapters, Paul write to Timothy,that oral tradition is binding and must be passed down. Let us look at a couple of passages
that show this:
2 Tim. 1:13-14
13 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faithand love which are in Christ Jesus; 14 guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the
Holy Spirit who dwells within us.
2 Tim 2:1-2
1 You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, 2 The things which you
have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men,
who will be able to teach others also.
The context of these statements affirms that it is oral tradition that is passed on. First, a look
at 2nd Tim. 1:13-14. Paul tells Timothy to hold fast the pattern of sound words which you
have heard from me,. That which Timothy is to hold are the words that Paul has spoken toTimothy. This is an authority that Timothy is bound to hold to. He doesnt say, After I die,
then it is no longer binding. That is the unfounded supposition that Sola Scriptura
advocates hold to. A good commentary on this verse (2 Tim 1:13) is by St. John
Chrysostom, in his commentary on Timothy:
Not by letters alone did Paul instruct his disciple in his duty, but before by words also;
which he shows, both in many other passages as where he says, "whether by word or
epistle" (2 Thess. 2:15), and especially here. Let us not therefore suppose that
anything relating to doctrine was spoken imperfectly. For many things he delivered to
7/27/2019 Arius and Sola Scriptura
17/28
him without writing. Of these therefore he reminds him, when he says, "Hold fast the
form of sound words, which thou has heard of me." (2 Tim 1:13).[17]
The words Paul tells Timothy to hold to, just as St. John Chrysostom notes, are spoken of,
and do not relate doctrines imperfectly. Paul shows no fear of this at all. The wholeProtestant charge on the unreliability of tradition is not true, as noted by Paul and St. John
Chrysostom. This authority that Timothy holds is told to hold fast to, is an authoritativeguide. (BTW, some Protestant Sola Scriptura proponents, will outrageously take one or two
quotes from St. John Chrysostom where he asserts the absolute authority of Scripture(which no Catholic would disagree with) but ignores the fact that on passages such as 2
Tim. 1:13, 1 Cor. 11:2 and 2 Thes. 2:15 he unambiguously affirms the equal authority of
oral tradition. He also agrees with the Catholic Church on the succession of bishops,baptismal regeneration, both the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the fact that
the Eucharist is a sacrifice, the sacrament of penance, praying for the dead based on
tradition, etc. We must remember that Sola Scriptura not only states that Scripture is the
only authority that is infallibly authoritative, but that the teaching of Scripture on salvationis perspicuous. It must clearly teach the concept of Faith Alone. If St. John Chrysostom
believed in Sola Scriptura in the sense that Scriptures teaches clearly on salvation as SolaScriptura advocates say that he should, he would have rejected all of the above teachings,since they all have to deal with salvation in some sense, and those Sola Scriptura advocates
reject his view of salvation. Thus, if St. John Chrysostoms view of salvation is so far from
the teaching on salvation of Sola Scriptura advocates, this shows at a minimum that
Scripture is not clear on salvation. In fact no Father taught Sola Fide anywhere nearapproaching the Protestant view, (although some Fathers may have used the words Faith
Alone the fact that they held to such teachings as purgatory, prayers for the dead,
Eucharistic sacrifice, etc. shows that they did not have faith alone as merely an instrumentto get an alien righteousness imputed to ones account, as Sola Fide advocates hold)
2 Tim. 1:14 shows us that Paul expects the bishop Timothy (1 Tim 4:14, 2 Tim 1:6) to holdfast to this tradition by the Holy Spirit. This is in perfect keeping with the church teaching
on the authoritativeness of and surety of this teaching. And this is how Paul lays down the
foundation for 2 Tim 2:2.
There are various Protestant objections to the use of 2 Tim. 2:2 to establish authoritative
oral teaching. For instance John MacArthur attempts to make 3 points when he speaks ofthis passage. I will examine each of his points:
1)Here the apostle Paul instructs Timothy, a young pastor, to train other faithful men for thetask of leadership in the church. There is no hint of apostolic succession in this verse, nor is
there any suggestion that in training these men Timothy would be passing on to them aninfallible tradition with authority equal to the Word of God...
2) Paul commanded Timothy to preach, and it is the same message that is preserved inScripture and sufficient to equip every man of God (2 Tim. 3:16-4:2).. .[18]
3) Word of mouth tradition is never said to be theopneustos, God breathed, or
infallible.[19]
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[17]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[17]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[17]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[18]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[18]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[18]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[19]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[19]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[19]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[19]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[18]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[17]7/27/2019 Arius and Sola Scriptura
18/28
1) MacArthur attempts to limit the extent of the authority given here in this passage as only
discipleship. In fact the oral teaching that was passed on from Paul to Timothy serves at the
basis of this training of leaders, but it is not merely speaking of that. What he has heard
from Paul is his oral teaching, which would obviously consist of doctrine. This oralteaching which is Pauline tradition is exactly what Timothy is explaining in 2 Tim 2:2.
When we get to the passage (just after telling Timothy to hold to Paul's words) we noticethat three generations of Christians are told to pass on truth orally. In 2 Tim 2:1 Paul callsTimothy his son. Paul is the first generation apostle who is to pass on his authoritative
teaching orally to Timothy, the second generation. Then he tells the second generation
leader Timothy to entrust this same oral teaching to the third generation (Timothy's spiritualsons) which is to pass this authority to the fourth generation. To say that this has nothing to
do with apostolic succession ignores the very words of Paul. Paul has already shown us in 2
Tim 1:13-14 that oral tradition is in the background of this very verse. 2 Tim 2:2 speaks of
passing on what is entrusted to Timothy of what he has heard from Paul. Individually (2
Tim. 1:13-14 and 2 Tim. 2:1-2) these verses assert oral tradition in the Catholic way.However when these verses are combined, any honest reader will see that Sola Scriptura is
the farthest thing from Paul's mind. This is not mere discipleship, it is teaching. When the
background to this verse is shown to be (2 Tim 1:13-14) Timothy holding on to Paul's oralteaching it is clear that this oral tradition is binding on not only Timothy, but his
successors. Also, what is Timothy being entrusted with? Nothing but the deposit of faith.
There is absolutely no hint in this passage that authority is downgraded. The Protestantasserts that after the first generation of apostles passed, the absolute binding apostolic
authority was lost, except that which was written in Scripture. The other authorities are
subservient to that of Scripture and no authority equals that. However, in Pauls writing in 2Tim. 2, there is absolutely no hint of a loss of such authority to the succeeding generations.
Paul assumes that those who follow him, will have the same binding authority.
MacArthur attempts to quote 2 Tim. 3:15-17 as a proof text against 2 Tim. 2:2. This
passage indeed shows that there is another authority besides Scripture. The attempt to corral
2 Tim. 3:15-17 as a refutation of 2 Tim. 2:2 would make Paul and Timothy forget what
Paul had written in the first two chapters of this very letter. There is no mention in 2 Tim.1&2 of Scripture being a superior authority, and in fact, Scripture is not even mentioned in
the first two chapters. What is relevant is that right in the middle of passing on authoritative
teaching there is no mention of Scripture at all. MacArthur's conclusion on 2 Tim 2 thatTimothy is told that the only reliable method of passing on teaching is scripture is
absolutely nowhere in the text or context. In fact 2 Tim 3:15-17 said nothing about passing
his letter on to future generations whereas in 2 Tim 2:2 oral teaching is specifically said to
be entrusted to Timothy to pass on that which would include doctrines. In fact, Paulspecifically says that this is to be passed on when he never mentions to pass on this very
letter! Nowhere does either 2 Tim. 3:15-17, or 2 Tim. 1:13-14, or 2 Tim. 2:1-2 say, "well,
after Paul passes on, the only thing binding on future generations is Scripture."
Another passage in 2 Tim. 2 shows even further the reliability of this oral word of God.
Many try to use this passage to say that this is in agreement with Sola Scriptura. But let ustake a quick look at it:
2 Tim. 2:15
7/27/2019 Arius and Sola Scriptura
19/28
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to beashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
Who is Paul writing to except Timothy, one who was a bishop with authority who was
ordained by Paul (1 Tim. 4:14, 2 Tim. 1:6)? He is speaking to Timothy who as Bishop has
authority over others. Now, many try to use this passage, where it says word of truth torefer us to Scripture. However, what is the word that Paul is speaking of? Up to this point
he has not even quoted or alluded to Scripture. Twice as we have seen he has referred
Timothy to his own oral words (2 Tim. 1:13-14, 2:2). Pauls oral word is the word of God.
Paul has written elsewhere that the words that he speaks, not merely writes, are Godsword:
1 Thess. 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, theword of God, which is at work in you believers.
Thus, we know that Paul sees his spoken word to other people as the word of God. This is
the word that Paul refers us to in the first two chapters of 2nd Timothy (1:13-14; 2:1-2).With this background, and with absolutely no even allusion to Scripture at this point, it is
obvious that the word that Paul is speaking of here is the Oral Word of God, not Scripture.
Scripture has not even been mentioned. Timothy who now has authority over other people,can rightly divide the word of truth, which is the authority of oral tradition. Thus, here is
another point where this word of truth is oral tradition, not Scripture.
2) MacArthur's argument that when Paul is speaking in 2 Tim. 2, it is the same messagethat is preserved in Scripture and sufficient to equip every man of God(2 Tim. 3:16-4:2)
again only builds on the distortion of using 2 Tim. 3:16 to say that Scripture is sufficient to
equip the man of God for every good work. Remember, Scripture is termed by Paul asuseful or profitable in correcting, doctrine, reproofing and training in righteousness, and in
any case it is those four things that equip the man of God, not Scripture which is only
profitable for those ends.
His error in misusing again of 2 Tim. 3:16-17 is compounded by the assumption that he
makes that oral tradition spoken of in 2 Tim. 2:2 as the exact same thing as what Paul hadwritten. In neither 2 Tim. 2:1-2, or 2 Tim. 1:13-14 did Paul write, "Well, for future
generations the only thing binding on the believers as infallible are those written things that
will become Scripture." That is a fallacious assumption nowhere hinted at in the text. Now
of course the oral tradition is consistent with the written tradition, but it very well couldgive more elaboration on things that he wrote, or could teach about things not even written
in Scripture. In any case, Paul nowhere limits his oral teaching to being less authoritative to
only Scripture, and his oral teaching as not being infallibly binding upon future generations.
3) The idea that because the word inspired, ortheopneustos is never used of tradition, per
se, and therefore only Scripture is authoritative is making a mountain out of a molehill.Robert Sungenis gives a response to these specific MacArthur comments and I will let his
response to that argument serve as my response to that self-same argument:
7/27/2019 Arius and Sola Scriptura
20/28
First, 1 Thessalonians 2:13 (My insertion of the text: 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.) assures us that Paul's oral teaching is God's word as much as Scripture isGod's word; hence, both must be infallible. Second, theopneustos is a term used to describe
Scripture not as a technical term which seeks to distinguish the infallible nature of Scripturefrom the purported fallible nature of Tradition. Theopneustos means that Scripture, thoughwritten by men, is in actuality a unique combination of the words of God and the words of
men - Scripture is "God -breathed" in the analogous sense that God breathed life into man
at the creation. To claim, however, that "word-of-mouth" tradition is not equal to Scripturesimply because the word theopneustos is not used to describe inspired oral teaching and its
subsequent tradition is short-sighted, unprovable, and begging the question. Scripture uses
various term to describe divinely originated revelation, e.g, "the word of God," (1 Thess.
2:13) "the Spirit of your Father speaking through you" (Matt. 10:20); "in spirit" (Mt.
22:43); "filled with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 4:8), and many others. None of these descriptionsis of less divine origin and authority than theopneustos.[20]
4. The fact that parallel texts exist which speak of equipping for good works, doesnot denigrate the sole authority of Scripture.(Godfrey, White)
This argument is not necessarily an argument that has to be dealt with because what we
have shown in our prior section. The fact that 2 Tim. 3:16-17 only shows that Scripture is
profitable for the four ingredients (doctrine, reproof, correction, and training in
righteousness) which are the items that actually fully equip, blows away all the emphasis on
Scripture being sufficient to fully equip the man of God for every good work. Scripture is
onlyprofitable for those ends, and is not termed as sufficient for this. Thus, the efforts toemphasis the word exartizo as fully perfecting through the study of Scripture assufficientis
totally irrelevant to the issue as Scripture is only termed profitable to those four ends
which are the items that equip. In my opinion, the fact that Catholic apologists respond tothese charges in both oral debates that I have heard, and even in books gives credence to the
Protestant idea that, Well, If the Protestant proves the point on exartizomeans to fully
equip, that means the Protestant proves Sola Scriptura. In fact, even if the Sola Scriptura
advocate is correct on the point that exartizo means to fully equip and the Catholiccomparing of passages make no point at all, the Protestant side has not proved anything.
That is because, yet again, and the point can not be emphasized too much, and that is why I
am pounding this point in until the reader gets it, is that the modifier of Scripture in thispassage, is only termedprofitable for the four ends which actually are the means to fully
equip the man of God for every good work
With that said, let us go on to compare some Scriptures that show the use of words verysimilar to the word exartizo, or fully equipping in v. 17, which are used in speaking of other
things that equip the man of God as well. For example, here are some other passages and
sources of things that also equip the man of God:
James 1:4And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking
in nothing.
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[20]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[20]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[20]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[20]7/27/2019 Arius and Sola Scriptura
21/28
Colossians 1:28Him we proclaim, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may
present every man mature in Christ.
2 Cor. 9:8
And God is able to provide you with every blessing in abundance, so that you may always
have enough of everything and may provide in abundance for every good work.
2 Thess. 15-1715 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us,
either by word of mouth or by letter. 16 Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself, andGod our Father, who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace, 17
comfort your hearts and establish them in every good work and word.
2 Tim. 2:21
If any one purifies himself from what is ignoble, then he will be a vessel for noble use,consecrated and useful to the master of the house, ready for any good work.
One thing to note, that in agreement with the Protestant authors the use of the word
exartizo, to fully equip, is not used in these other passages. Nonetheless, the words that doprepare to equip the person, are comparable. Also, in each of those passages the phrase
every good work, or complete are directly paralleled to the 2nd Tim. 3:17 passage. So
these are equal and real parallels.
In the first passage James tells us that perseverance makes us complete, even lackingnothing. I would assume that if James had written this of Scripture, this would have been
the passage that Sola Scriptura advocates would have used to prove that doctrine. However,perseverance is put here instead. In fact, perseverance is not qualified by only being termed
profitable, as Scripture is so qualified in 2nd Timothy 3:16. Can one say Sola
Perseverance? That only perseverance is necessary? That Scripture is not necessary? If SolaScriptura advocates are consistent, they would have to say that. Of course they do not do
so.
Listening to the preaching, in Colossians 1, matures the man. Do we say that listening to
preaching is all that is necessary? Getting the manifold blessing of God prepares us for
every good work, per 2 Cor. 9:8. Is getting the blessing of God mean that other things arenot necessary?
2nd Thessalonians 2:15-17, Paul tells the readers that one is told to hold to traditions, bothoral and written (a key passage that proves the necessity of oral as well as written tradition,
but that is not the purpose of this essay. The purpose of this essay is to establish that 2 Tim.
3:15-17 does not teach what Sola Scriptura advocates say it teaches). However, look at
what it does. In the context of one getting steeped in tradition, and established in grace,based on holding fast to the traditions, one is established for every good work. This is a
fairly close parallel to 2 Tim. 3:15-17. However, what is modified in this instance is not
only the grace that comforts us, but also holding fast to the oral and written traditions
7/27/2019 Arius and Sola Scriptura
22/28
from which that grace works. Thus, this is another source, and authority for perfecting the
man of God to equip for every good work. And this passage is not qualified by merely
profitable as the 2 Tim. 3 passage is so qualified.
Finally, in the immediate context of 2nd Timothy 2:21, we see that purification,
sanctification makes us ready for every good work. Therefore we see that in the very epistlewhere Paul writes of Scripture being profitable for the four ends that do equip the man of
God for every good work, Paul writes in the preceding chapter of sanctification doing the
same very thing as Scripture.
James White is aware of the fact that 2 Tim. 2:21 uses the very phrase, (even though
exartizo is not used) and tries to get around that fact by writing:
Paul is talking about a man purifying himself, denying godlessness and walking in a godly
fashion. This is just what hetoimazo refers to. But in chapter 3 he speaks of sufficiency and
capability because he is not talking about something the man himself does, but of theperfection of the source from which the man of God draws: the God-breathed Scriptures.
[21]
Again, even in attempting to rationalize his attack on the real parallel of 2 Tim. 2:21, he
misstates his comparison to chapter 3 as Scripture as being sufficient, because the word thatis used to describe Scripture by Paul is not sufficient, which is nowhere used in chapter 3,
but profitable. So the premise he uses is wrong to begin with. Again, I restate that this is a
fraudulent misuse of Scripture as nowhere is Scripture termed as sufficient. In Chapter 2,the purification of oneself to make the man able for every good work is not qualified by
profitable, but is spoken of as the means of preparing for every good work without any
lessening of its extent, as Scripture is qualified by the use of "profitable." In any case,
Sungenis makes a further response to the comparison of White of sanctification to prepare
for any good work of 2 Tim. 2:21 and the profitableness of Scripture for the four endswhich equips the man of God for every good work.
White attempts to dismiss using 2 Tim. 2:21 because it is not speaking about the "source ofthe man of God ability to engage in the work" but "of sanctification in the person's life." By
forcing this dichotomy into the discussion, White makes it appear as if "sanctification"
cannot be considered a "source" from which the man of God can drawn in order to do"every good work." White conveniently confines "source" to revelatory dimensions and
thereby misses the whole point of Paul's contextual argument-an argument designed not to
single out or make exclusive revelatory sources but to direct Timothy to whatever will help
him become the man of God he desires to be and to teach others to do the same.[22]
Thus, we see in very similar language many things that help to perfect the man of God.
These passages are not meant to exclude these other things that prepare a man of God forevery good work. Perseverance is one thing (James 1:4). God's blessing and grace is one
thing (2 Cor. 9:8). Scripture is one thing (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Listening to wisdom is one thing(Col. 1:28). Holding fast to oral and oral traditions and resting in God's grace is one thing
(2 Thes. 2:15-17). Sanctification is one thing (2 Tim. 2:21). They all help to perfect.
However, these are complementary things that are not meant to exclude these other things
as perfecting the man of God. Therefore any attempt to use 2 Tim. 3:16-17 as excludingother authorities or things that perfect the man of God, must ignore the way that Paul and
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[21]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[21]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[22]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[22]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[22]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[22]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html#[21]7/27/2019 Arius and Sola Scriptura
23/28
other apostles (including James) speak of these other things that also perfect the man of
God. One of those other things include oral tradition, as spelled out in this very letter, as we
saw earlier.
5. The Church gets its authority from Scripture.(White)
It is hard to respond to this one, because where in the world White or any Protestantapologist can extract this idea from 2 Tim. 3:16-17 is beyond my comprehension. Nowherein the text does it say anything of the sort. There is nothing in context which limits Church
authority to that which is derived from Scripture. Of course, Scripture does show that the
Church is the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim. 3:15), that one must hold fast to thetraditions both oral and limited (2 Thes. 2:15), that Jesus gave his commission to the
Church and he would be with his Church unto the end of the world (Mt. 28:19-20), and hecommissioned his apostles to forgive sins (Jn 20;23), etc. Nevertheless, the authority that
the Church has came from Jesus himself. Yes, the witness to this authority is given inScripture, but the Bible is not the sole basis for that authority. For example, the very first
writings of New Testament Scripture was some 20 years or so after Jesus' death and
resurrection. The Church already had its authority from Jesus and did not wait for theScripture to be written to say "Oh, wow, now we have authority." The Church had authoritythat preceded Scripture. The Church, as shown in Scripture, through Peter's leadership had
the authority to decide on whether people had to be circumcised, and later on through
James and the elders of the Church on the secondary issue of what to eat, gave rules on thepractices that were to be followed (Acts 15:1-29) with only one passing mention of a
Scripture, which said absolutely nothing about the issue of circumcision which was the core
of the issue. This Church acted on its authority that was given to it by Jesus, long beforeNew Testament Scripture was thought of, let alone written and canonized. This was real
authority well before the witness of that authority was given in Scripture. The Church was
aware of its authority and exercised it well before the canon was finished, and also well
before there was any fixed canon, which did not exist for centuries. Thus, to say that theChurchs authority came from Scripture is ludicrous.
The idea that Tradition and the Church is totally dependent upon Scripture is false. Veryfew of the apostles actually wrote a thing. There is no record ofone apostle saying, Well,
after I die, forget all that I taught you, as that is not binding, but instead go to the apostle
Pauls and the other epistles and the gospels, and read them as your only infallible guide,although Church and Tradition will help. To White's denial that the Church and Tradition
was in any way independent of Scripture, is the establishment of many apostolic Churches
which were not in any way dependent on the New Testament writings. Since most of the
apostles wrote nary a sentence of Scripture, it is absolutely amazing that one who knowshistory, as does White, say that the Church is dependent upon Scripture, when there was not
a New Testament canon for about 3 1/2 centuries. There was no certainty for centuries on
the canonical status of 2nd Peter, James, Jude, Hebrews, Revelation, and some writingssuch as Clement's letter to the Corinthians, Didache, etc. were in some quarters held as
canonical Scripture. The tradition that established those Churches was dependent upon the
successors of the Apostles having binding authority on the followers in Christ. It was notmerely based on Scripture.
7/27/2019 Arius and Sola Scriptura
24/28
How was the apostolic community founded by Thomas the apostle in India dependent upon
Scripture, when as far as I know they did not have NT Scriptures? However, when
discovered in the 1500s or so, these Indian believers had all the beliefs that Catholics had.
They somehow believed in baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, the true presence andsacrifice of the Mass, seven sacraments, the ministerial priesthood, etc. all of which
Protestant apologists deny (although Lutherans and Anglicans would accept Baptismalregeneration). Their tradition, even though cut off from the other Churches, even submittedto Rome, because even this tradition passed on its authority. Now yes, Scripture derived its
authority from God, and not from the Church, per se, but the only way that we can know
which writings are Scripture, is if we accept the authority and reliability of the Church. Inany case, this responds to the point attempted to be made by White, but in all honesty, I had
to leave 2 Tim. 3:15-17 to deal with this assertion, because even though White used this
passage as a springboard for this novel theory, it is nowhere derived from the text at all.
Even when making this assertion, White did not refer to any specific thing in the passage
itself which brought him to this conclusion.
6. By this passage not mentioning other authorities, this shows that all necessarydoctrine is found in Scripture.(White, Rhodes)
This is an argument from silence. Nowhere in 2 Tim. 3:15-17 does Paul write, after hewrites of Scripture being only profitable, of it excluding other authorities. Nowhere in the
text is there a comparison between Scriptural authority as opposed to Church authority, or
oral tradition. As noted earlier, if Paul wanted to write that Scripture's authority outweighsthat of the Church or that of oral tradition, here would be the perfect place to put it. Of
course, he does not. Indeed, as we saw earlier, Paul's very life and conduct (v. 10, 14), and
teaching to Timothy, in this very chapter also serves as a basis for doctrine that Timothy
must abide by. As we noted earlier, he had also just cited in 2 Tim. 3:8 an oral tradition thatwas authoritative and reliable.
Paul had written in this very letter that Timothy must hold to the words that Paul hadspoken (2 Tim. 1:13-14) which was Oral tradition. This was authoritative enough for
Timothy to hold to those words. Then, he wrote to Timothy his son (2 Tim. 2:1-2) that he
had entrusted to him all of the truth and authority and was to be passed on to Timothyssuccessors. This is based on what Timothy heard. Oral tradition again. This word of truth
that he passed on to Timothy we know elsewhere is termed the Word of God (1 Thes.
2:13). The word of God, thus, is not reduced to writing. In fact, in this letter Scripture is notmentioned until the Third chapter. Then Paul tells Timothy, the bishop with au