Episode 152: 29th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year C
In today’s episode, we focus solely on the second reading, taken from 2 Timothy 3:14-4:2. For many Protestants, verses 16-17 of this passage is their go-to passage for biblically justifying their principle of Sola Scriptura. Given that it is such a central passage, we will devote the entire episode to this text.
Hey everyone,
Welcome to The Sunday Catholic Word, a podcast where we reflect on the upcoming Sunday Mass readings and pick out the details that are relevant for explaining and defending our Catholic faith.
I’m Dr. Karlo Broussard, staff apologist and speaker for Catholic Answers, and the host for this podcast. s
In today’s episode, we’re going to focus solely on the second reading, taken from 2 Timothy 3:14-4:2. For many Protestants, verses 16-17 of this passage is their go-to passage for biblically justifying their principle of Sola Scriptura. Given that it is such a central passage, we will devote the entire episode to this text.
However, before we get to 2 Timothy 3, I do want to note briefly the significance of the theme of intercessory prayer that we find in both the first reading, taken from Exodus 17:8-13, and the Gospel reading, taken from Luke 18:1-8. The only significance for our purposes would be that it could prompt us to talk about the intercession of the saints. However, it would do so only indirectly, since I don’t think there’s anything within these passages that directly justifies such a doctrine.
Okay, let’s read what Paul has to say in 2 Timothy 3:14-4:2. He writes,
Remain faithful to what you have learned and believed,
because you know from whom you learned it,
and that from infancy you have known the sacred Scriptures,
which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation
through faith in Christ Jesus.
All Scripture is inspired by God
and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction,
and for training in righteousness,
so that one who belongs to God may be competent,
equipped for every good work.
I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus,
who will judge the living and the dead,
and by his appearing and his kingly power:
proclaim the word;
be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient;
convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching.
Now, as many of you listening already know, the key verses are 16-17, where Paul writes, “All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”
Many Protestants argue that because Scripture is inspired (Greek, theopneustos), along with being profitable for teaching and making a man of God complete, it is sufficient as a rule for faith and morals. As Protestant apologist James White puts it in his book Answers to Catholic Claims, this “passage literally [sic] screams sufficiency.”
On this account there is no need for Sacred Tradition or the Magisterium to know the truth of God’s revelation, whether that revelation concerns what we must believe (faith) or do (morals). All we need is the Bible.
So, how do we respond?
The first two responses highlight the absurd conclusions that would follow from giving this text a sola scriptura reading. Each takes the follow form:
If Paul were teaching sola scriptura, then X
But no Christian can believe X
Therefore, Paul is not teaching sola scriptura.
Here’s the first: To read this passage as teaching sola scriptura would imply that just the Old Testament is sufficient.
Recall that Paul is giving Timothy counsel that Scripture is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” But note that the New Testament did not yet exist. Some of its letters and books hadn’t even been written yet .
And in case that’s not enough, the immediate context (vv.14-15) reveals that Paul is talking explicitly about the Old Testament. He tells Timothy to “continue in what you have learned” and “know from whom you learned it…how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings” (2 Tim. 3:15). So, at least in Paul’s mind, the “profitable” scriptures to which he is referring don’t include the non-existent New Testament; they can’t even be said to refer in a vague way to all possible scriptures, past and future (Paul could have said that if he meant that). The “sacred writings” that Timothy was “acquainted with” in childhood can only refer to the Old Testament.
If we granted the interpretation that Paul is teaching sola scriptura in this passage, then we’d have to conclude that the Old Testament alone is a sufficient rule of faith. But no Protestant would say this.
Since we know Paul can’t be encouraging Timothy to embrace the doctrine of sola Old Testament, we know that he’s not teaching the doctrine of sola scriptura, either.
Our second response is given by Jimmy Akin in his book A Daily Defense, 176: To read this passage as teaching sola scriptura makes each individual book of scripture a sufficient rule of faith.
The Greek pasa graphē, which the RSV translates “all scripture” in 2 Timothy 3:16, is more commonly translated “every Scripture.” As Protestant scholar J.N.D. Kelly points out, in his book Pastoral Epistles (New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2001, pg. 202), whenever pasa is used with a singular noun without the article, like graphē, it usually means “every.” Given that “every scripture” is likely the more appropriate translation, it’s reasonable to conclude that Paul may very well be referring to how each individual book of Scripture is inspired.
Of course, Christians do believe that every book of Scripture is inspired by God. But this causes a problem for a Protestant who uses this passage to support sola scriptura, since he would have to say likewise that each individual book is also sufficient as a rule of faith. In the words of Jimmy Akin, he would have to “do theology by ‘Genesis alone,’ ‘Isaiah alone,’ and so forth.”
Now, a Protestant may counter, “These first two responses don’t succeed as a rebuttal because Paul’s teaching applies to whatever is believed to be ‘scripture,’ which would, as all Christians agree, include the later inspired writings within the New Testament. Thus, Paul’s teaching that ‘Scripture’ is sufficient as our infallible rule of faith stands.”
James White made this counter in his famous 1993 debate with Patrick Madrid. He also makes it in his book Scripture Alone.
I don’t think this counter saves the sola scriptura interpretation. The reason is that at the time when Paul writes this about the Old Testament scriptures, he would have viewed his own inspired preaching to be an infallible rule of faith, along with the Old Testament scriptures. But if he viewed his own apostolic preaching to be an infallible rule of faith along with the OT scriptures, then he couldn’t possibly have been intending to establish the sola scriptura principle since sola scriptura says the scriptures alone are our infallible rule of faith. A two-fold infallible rule of faith—apostolic preaching and Scripture, doesn’t match with a single infallible rule of faith—Scripture.
Now, a Protestant might try and save his position by saying that Paul’s instructions are meant to govern Christian belief and practice after the apostles (along with inspired and infallible apostolic preaching) die off.
This attempt to save the sola scriptura interpretation gets to the heart of the issue. The reason is because part and parcel of the sola scriptura model is that scripture becomes the sole infallible rule of faith only after the apostles die, since most Protestants, as I already stated, recognize the Apostles’s apostolic teaching had binding authority while they were alive.
So, here’s what we can count as our third response to the sola scriptura interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16-17: if what Paul teaches here in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is sola scriptura, then it would be something that’s not meant to govern Christian life and practice at that time, but only for the future.
But there’s no indication that Paul’s teaching is intended to be applied after the apostles die. Everything that Paul says indicates that what he teaches in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is meant to govern Christian life and practice at that time (in particular, Timothy’s ministry), not for Christian life and practice in the future.
Therefore, what Paul is teaching here in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is not sola scriptura.
There are two more responses that we can offer in response, and each deal with the reasons why Protestants think this passage teaches sola scriptura.
First, some Protestants think Paul is teaching sola scriptura because Paul says all scripture is “inspired,” or God-breathed. Ron Rhodes makes this argument in his book Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics on page 61. The other reason is that Paul says the scriptures equip man for every good work and make him complete or perfect.
Let’s deal with the first reason that focuses on the nature of Scripture as “inspired.” The problem here is easy to identify: the mere affirmation that one thing is inspired doesn’t mean other things aren’t inspired. And this is evident in that at the time Paul wrote this his apostolic preaching would have been inspired, at least in content if not in words. And Protestants agree with this, acknowledging that the content of the apostolic preaching was part and parcel of divine revelation. Therefore, Paul’s affirmation that Scripture is inspired doesn’t mean it’s the only inspired thing.
Now, the other reason that Protestants think Paul is teaching sola scriptura is because Paul says that scripture will equip every man for good work and make him complete or perfect. This is the more common line of argumentation.
The problem here is that Paul doesn’t say Scripture is sufficient to achieve this end/goal of making the “man of God” complete or perfect. Rather, he says Scripture is “profitable.” The Greek that “profitable” translates is ophelimos, which means “pertaining to a benefit to be derived from some object, event, or state—advantage, benefit, beneficial. That doesn’t equal sufficient. For example, studying a handbook on how to be a police officer is profitable in becoming a complete, thoroughly equipped police officer. But there’s a whole lot of other stuff we’d also need to undergo: physical training, firearm instruction, real-world experience, etc. Similarly, just because Paul says that Scripture is profitable for the “man of God” to achieve the goal of being made complete/perfect, it doesn’t follow that it’s sufficient all by itself. Therefore, this passage does not prove sola scriptura.
Conclusion
Well, my friends, that’s all I have for this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word. Even though we only looked at the second reading for this upcoming 29th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year C, it definitely hits on an important apologetical topic that is at the forefront of Catholic-Protestant discussions—namely, the doctrine of sola scriptura.
As always, I want to thank you for subscribing to the podcast. And please be sure to tell your friends about it and invite them to subscribe as well through any podcast platform that they use. You can also access the archived episodes of the Sunday Catholic Word at sundaycatholicword.com.
You might also want to check out the other great podcasts in our Catholic Answers podcast network: Trent Horn’s The Counsel of Trent, Joe Heschmeyer’s Shameless Popery, and Jimmy Akin’s The Jimmy Akin podcast,” all of which can be found at catholic.com. And if you want to follow more of my own work, check out my website at karlobroussard.com
One last thing: if you’re interested in getting some cool mugs and stickers with my logo, “Mr. Sunday podcast,” go to shop.catholic.com.
I hope you have a blessed 29th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year C. Until next time, God Bless.