Does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura? Part 6: 2 Timothy 3:16

2 Tim 3:16 is the most commonly cited, and perhaps the strongest verse Protestant apologists cite to “prove” Sola Scriptura. Indeed, Protestant authors, from the Reformation onto modern times, cite this verse in favour of this doctrine as the key-text supporting this doctrine, which is the formal doctrine od the Reformation (e.g. Francis Turretin; Charles Hodge; William Whitaker; James White; Eric Svendsen; William Webster and David King).

Paul, writing to the bishop of Ephesus, Timothy, in 2 Tim 3:15-17 writes:

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Much has been written already by various authors, both historically and in modern times, refuting the points Protestant apologists cite in favour of this doctrine. In this post, I will focus on a few key issues that show that to derive Sola Scriptura from this pericope can only come about by eisegesis, not meaningful exegesis.

The Meaning of the term “Profitable”

The Greek term translated as “profitable” is ωφελιμος, which is actually a qualitatively weak word. It does not denote formal sufficiency, but something that is “useful” or “beneficial,” as major lexicons of Koine Greek state (e.g. BDAG; Moulton-Milligan; TDNT). There are a number of Greek word Paul could have, and should have used if he wished to portray “Scripture” as being formally sufficient, such as the terms ικανος and αυταρκεια. Indeed, such terms are used in the Pastoral Epistles themselves to denote the concept of formal sufficiency:

καὶ ἃ ἤκουσας παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ διὰ πολλῶν μαρτύρων, ταῦτα παράθου πιστοῖς ἀνθρώποις, οἵτινες ἱκανοὶ ἔσονται καὶ ἑτέρους διδάξαι.

And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. (2 Tim 2:2)

Ἔστιν δὲ πορισμὸς μέγας ἡ εὐσέβεια μετὰ αὐταρκείας

But godliness with contentment is great gain. (1 Tim 6:6)

The scope of the term, “Scripture”

Protestant apologists have to beg the question, namely that “Scripture” and the “[Protestant canon of] the Bible” are one-to-one equivalent. The problem is that this is an interpretive impossibility, as not all 66 book of the Protestant canon were inscripturated when the Pastoral Epistles were written by Paul. Indeed, as many Protestant apologists admit, Paul write this text during a time when Scripture was still being inscripturated, and that oral revelation was as authoritative as the written word during this period (cf. 2 Thess 2:2, 15 for e.g.) If that is the case, Sola Scriptura could not be taught by this text or other texts, as Sola Scriptura needs Tota Scriptura, that is, the entireity of “Scripture” to be inscripturated for it to be true.

See my post reproducing Robert Sungenis’ interaction with James White’s admission on this very issue.

The use of the ινα clause and the terms “perfect” and “thoroughly furnished”

The Greek structure of 2 Tim 3:17 is that of a ινα-clause. The particle ινα corresponds to “[so] that” in many constructions (i.e. a “purpose clause”) it is used in, including this particular text. The argument, forwarded by James R. White (The Roman Catholic Controversy [1996]) is that it is the Scriptures and the Scriptures only that equip the “man of God” to be equipped to teach doctrine. Additionally, White et al. argue that, when coupled with the terms αρτιος (“fit”) and εξαρτιζω (“equipped”) further support the Bible being formally sufficient.

As I explained to Desmond Ferguson, an anti-Mormon in Dublin, in my response to his comments about 2 Tim 3:

Unfortunately, the eisegesis of the Bible does not stop there. Ferguson, again in the Spring edition of ICM's The Banner, follows the typical line repeated by Protestant theologians that draw attention to Paul's use of the Greek noun, artios ("fit") and the participle exartismenos ("fully equipped") in verse 17 (Ferguson makes an appeal to the NIV translation, and not the Greek, but the argument is basically the same as those forwarded by proponents of Sola Scriptura and the alleged *formal* sufficiency of the 66 books of the Protestant canon). However, the definitions of "complete" and "perfect" and other like-terms speak more to the expected result. Suffice it to say that, coupled with the very infrequent usage of these words in Koine Greek, the variations in meaning suggests that the understanding and application of the words will depend heavily upon the context in which they are placed.

Observing Paul's play on words further helps us to understand the use of artios and exartismenos in 2 Timothy 3:17. The adjective artios and the perfect passive particple exartismenos derive from the same verb artidzo. The prefix ex puts a perfective force on exartismenos, which denote the meaning of "altogether" or "fully." In a somewhat repetitive way, Paul describes the kind of man he envisions (a fit or capable man), and then explains the result of that capability (he is now fully equipped for every good work).

One of the most important points about 2 Timothy 3:16-17 for the present discussion on Sola Scriptura is that neither the adjective artios nor the participle exartismenos is describing "Scripture"; rather, they are both describing the "man of God." However, some proponents of Sola Scriptura, realising such, insist that only the "man of God" is perfectly equipped if Scripture is the perfect equipper. Notwithstanding, such is based, yet again, on eisegesis.

Firstly, no one can prove that the only or even primary meaning of artios or artidzo is "perfect" or "sufficient." There are many other words Paul could have used to denote the concept of perfection or absolute sufficiency which he obviously did not use in the context of 2 Timothy 3. Moreover, the specific meanings of these words are conditioned, or are relative to, the context in which they are contained. Secondly, while in verse 17 Paul uses the adjective artios and the participleexartismenos to describe the "man of God," he uses a much weaker word, ophelimos ("profitable"), in verse 16 to describe scripture. Ophelimos means "helpful, beneficial, useful, advantageous." It is not a word that connotes solitary sufficiency and certainly nothing close to the absolute or formal sufficiency that Protestants must assign to Scripture to support the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. In fact, there is an implied insufficiency or limitation in ophelimos.

To show the intent of Paul's description of Scripture as profitable, a simply analogy from Scripture will help illustrate the point. In Ephesians 6:10, Paul instructs Christians to "Put on the full armour of God so that you can stand against the devil's schemes." Included in the full armour is "the belt of truth," the "breastplate of righteousness," the "feet fitted with readiness," the "shield of faith," the "helmet of salvation," and the "sword of the Spirit which is the word of God" (Ephesians 6:11-18). We notice here that Paul includes many aspects of the Christian walk in making one prepared to fight evil (the same evil Paul instructs Timothy to fight in 2 Timothy 2-4), such as truth, righteousness, readiness, faith, salvation, and the word of God. We also notice that Paul considers the "word of God" but one of many components of the "full armour" of God. The "full armour" of Ephesians 6:11 is analogous to being "fully equipped" in 2 Timothy 3:17. Finally, Paul adds prayer to the list of items to ward off the devil as he says, "Pay also for me, that whenever I open my mouth, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel" (Ephesians 6:19). We see from this analogy that Paul intends his message to reveal all the things necessary to teach and defend the gospel and lead a good and wholesome Christian life, not to give a lesson on "sufficiency" for the sake of argument, one cannot presume that a sufficiently equipped man has been made that way only by Scripture. Certainly Scripture (being defined here as the 66 books of the Protestant canon) plays a large part in the equipping, but Paul does not tout it as the only source to help in this process, nor a source that will automatically do so.

Also, one should note the immediate context of this passage. In 2 Timothy 2:21 we see that there are means other than the 66 books of the biblical canon to accomplish the goal of making a fit and fully equipped man of God. Paul uses the phrase, "every good work" six other times in his epistles. As in the context of 2 Timothy 2-3, these verses shed much light on how we are to understand Paul's meaning in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (e.g., in 2 Corinthians 9:8, Paul says that God is able to make all grace abound toward the Corinthian saints in order that they may always abound in every good work).

Another aspect of the relationship between Scripture and the elements which make Timothy a "fit" man of God is Paul's wording in 2 Timothy 3:15 that he "knows" the holy Scriptures which are able to make Timothy wise to salvation. The word "know" denotes a present intellectual apprehension of Scripture, and as such, it, itself, is not saving wisdom but only a means to saving wisdom. Timothy must turn to his intellectual knowledge of salvation into a spiritual embracing of salvation. The process of attaining salvation is implied in Paul's use of the present tense verbs "know" and "are able." From passages such as 1 Timothy 4:15-16 and 6:11-12,  Timothy must combine his faith and obedience to what he knows of Scripture in order to secure his salvation. We see that Timothy's salvation is not an absolute certainty. Scripture is trustworthy (i.e., inspired revelation) and thus, it is "profitable" for what leads to salvation, but it itself does not produce of guarantee salvation.

Church offices and officers being the final authority? Eph 4:11-14 as a meaningful parallel

For many commentators, the “high” language Paul uses of Scripture is seen by them as strong evidence, if not “proof,” that the “Scripture” (which they read as one-to-one equivalent with the “Bible”) is formally sufficient. However, this argument, and other arguments, some of which were dealt with above, is scripture-wrenching of the worse degree.

If one wishes to absolutise 2 Tim 3:16 in the way that Evangelicals and others wish to, as evidence of Sola Scriptura, then being consistent, the words of Paul in Eph 4:11-14 vis-à-vis the offices and officers in the Church “prove” that they are formally sufficient and there is no need for other authorities, or at least, these authorities are the final authority and all other authorities are subordinated thereto.

The pericope reads as follows:

And he gave some apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.

If one wishes to absolutise this pericope to “prove” that the offices and officers within the Church are sole (formally sufficient) authority, one would point out the use of προς, the preposition “toward” and the term καταρτισμος (KJV: perfecting) which means “to equip,” and how the offices within the Church are the instrumental means by which believers (or “the man of God” to borrow the language of 2 Tim 3) come to the unity of faith, and how it is part of a purpose or ινα- clause in the Greek, “that (ινα) [believers] be no more children” who are taken in my new, erroneous doctrines, but are stable in their faith.

Now, if such terms were predicated upon “Scripture,” I can see a defender of Sola Scriptura point to this pericope as definitive “proof” of the Bible teaching its own formal sufficiency. However, unfortunately for the defender of this doctrine, nothing of the kind is predicated upon Scripture in this pericope; instead, such terms are predicated upon the ecclesiastical offices and officers. Is such biblical proof of their being formally sufficient and the sole final authority? No, but it does highlight the special pleading and eisegesis proponents of Sola Scriptura are forced to engage in due to their man-made doctrine vis-à-vis 2 Tim 3:16 and other “proof-texts” used by Protestant apologists to defend this practice.

Only the Bible is said to be “Inspired” by God-argument

Some argue that, as the term translated “God-breathed” (Greek: θεοπνευστος) is predicated upon “Scripture,” therefore, only inscripturated revelation (read: The Bible) is the only inspired authority from God. There are many problems with this. Firstly, it is question-begging. Furthermore, if an authority can only be inspired from God when such a term is predicated upon it, what about the time before the inscripturation of 2 Tim 3:16? Was there a question about Scripture being God-breathed revelation? If the argument “proves” something, it proves too much.

Furthermore, many authorities are said to be inspired by God (e.g. oral revelation in 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Thess 2:15), and such authorities are said to be Paul to be en par with the written word with respect to their authority.

Much more could be said, but it should be enough from the above that Sola Scriptura cannot be exegetically derived from 2 Tim 3:16. What should cause the thinking Evangelical some discomfort is that this is the “best” text used to support this anti-biblical, man-made doctrine. I hope Evangelicals, and those thinking of embracing Evangelicalism, will rethink their commitment to this doctrine (which is the formal doctrine of the Reformation), as it clearly falls under the anathema of Gal 1:6-9.