No, the Bible does not teach Scripture Alone

The following is a response to a video by the "Biblical Christianity" youtube account, "Does the Bible teach Scripture alone?":

The Fatal Flaw in using the Bible to “Prove” Sola Scriptura

Before I begin exegeting the relevant texts, one has to realise that the defender of sola scriptura is in an impossible bind, exegetically and logically speaking if/when they attempt to use biblical texts (e.g., 1 Cor 4:6) to “prove” the formal sufficiency of the Bible. Why? Simple because that, regardless of the text one cites, it was written at a time of special revelation, and during such times, even according to defenders of sola scriptura, sola scriptura was not the normative rule of faith for the people of God as there was no totality of scripture (tota scriptura has to be in place for there to be sola scriptura).

 The following comment shows the impossible situation defenders of sola scriptura are in:

Evangelical James White admits: “Protestants do not assert that Sola Scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation. How could it be, since the rule of faith to which it points was at the very time coming into being?” (“A Review and Rebuttal of Steve Ray's Article Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura,” 1997, on web site of Alpha and Omega Ministries). By this admission, White has unwittingly proven that Scripture does not teach Sola Scriptura, for if it cannot be a “valid concept during times of revelation,” how can Scripture teach such a doctrine since Scripture was written precisely when divine oral revelation was being produced? Scripture cannot contradict itself. Since both the 1st century Christian and the 21st century Christian cannot extract differing interpretations from the same verse, thus, whatever was true about Scripture then also be true today. If the first Christians did not, and could not extract sola scriptura from Scripture because oral revelation was still existent, then obviously those verses could not, in principle, be teaching Sola Scriptura, and thus we cannot interpret them as teaching it either. (“Does Scripture teach Sola Scriptura?” in Robert A. Sungenis, ed. Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura [2d ed: Catholic Apologetics International: 2009], pp. 101-53, here p. 118 n. 24]

The defender of sola scriptura, even if successful at showing the Bible represents the totality of written revelation still has to show that the Bible is formally sufficient and the sole, infallible rule of faith. Ultimately, until they can do such, their argument simply begs the question on this point, among others.

Jesus' appeal to the Old Testament in Matthew 4:1-11 (cf. Luke 4:1-13)

 It is true that Jesus appealed to the Old Testament in His confronation with Satan in Matt 4:1-11/Luke 4:1-13 (cf. Mark 1:12-13). However, it is question-begging and special pleading to the nth degree to read into this the formal sufficiency of Scripture, especially as none of the New Testament was inscripturated when this event happened in the life of Christ, so if one wishes to be consistent, they would have to argue for the formal sufficiency of the Old Testament to the exclusion of the New.

Granted, on many occasions, Jesus uses Scripture against the forces of evil, and rightly so, but not on every occasion. Many times he does appeal to his divinity, his miracles, and the Holy Spirit to fight the opposition against him (cf. John 5:32-47; 6:32-65; 7:16-19; 8:12-58; 10:1-34; 12:44-50; 14:9-31; 16:1-33). Hence, just because Jesus calls Scripture as a witness against the devil in Matthew 4:1-11 one cannot therefore conclude that Jesus believed in Sola Scriptura. Would we say that the devil believed in Sola Scriptura because he quoted verbatim to Jesus from Psalm 91:11? Of course not.

One reason Jesus may not be appealing to His divinity in His discourse with the devil is that it is precisely the identity of Jesus that the devil wishes to discover. Knowing this, it is Jesus' wish, at least in the early part of his ministry, to keep this information from the devil in order for God's plan to be accomplished (cf. 1 Corinthians 2:8; Ephesians 6:12; Matthew 8:4). Hence, in Jesus' three appeals to Scripture in Matthew 4:1-11 he does not affirm that he is the Son of God, but only that (1) man lives not by bread alone but by the word of God, (2) man should not test God, and (3) man should worship and serve God only. These three stipulations could apply to any man, not just Jesus, and from this the devil may have thought Jesus to be just a man at that time. Thus, Jesus thwarted the devil by withholding the very information the devil was trying to extract from him--his divinity.

We should also add that even in Jesus' specific appeal to Scripture, there is good evidence that he did not intend to teach or even suggest Sola Scriptura. For example, his first reference is to Deuteronomy 8:3: "Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God." Notice here the specific reference to "every word" that comes from God's mouth. Since God recorded his words not only in Scripture but also by speaking directly to the people, the term "every word" certainly cannot be limited to Scripture. Jesus is merely calling Scripture as a witness to the basic truth that all God's revelation is to be heeded, not saying that Scripture is the only source of God's word. The same applies in New Testament times: "every word" of God includes both his written and oral inspired truths (cf. Eph 1:13; Col 1:5-6; Acts 20:27; Gal 1:12; 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Thess 2:15). More importantly, if Jesus was not teaching Sola Scriptura at that time, then how can these verses be interpreted as teaching Sola Scriptura today? I am guessing that Ferguson, who holds to Fundamentalist views on the Bible, accepts that the meaning of the Bible is determinate, or "fixed" (related to "Intentionalism") so the meaning of the text does not change with the passing of time, so, consistency on his behalf, in light of exegesis of this text, will lead to a conclusion that one text of Scripture cannot be re-interpreted in light of something novel or cultural relativism, etc.

Lastly, we cannot leave this passage without pointing out its implicit warning against the misuse of Scripture. It is precisely the devil's misuse of Psalm 91:11 which shows us that interpretation, when the interpreter is not under proper authority, only leads to error and apostasy.

Did God ever bind oral tradition upon the People of God?

With respect to Matt 4:7, the video states that "Jesus once again quotes from the Old Testament Scriptures and not tradition. This Scripture was from (Deut 6:16)." True, but to claim that this means that, ipso facto, tradition and other sources are not en par with inscripturated revelation is refuted in both the Old and New Testaments.

With respect to the Old Testament, note the following example of the Bible holding the people of God accountable for (inspired/non-inscriptured) tradition, consider 2 Chron 29:25:

He stationed the Levites in the house of the Lord with cymbals, with harps, and with lyres, according to the command of David and Gad the king's seer, and of Nathan the prophet; for the command was from the Lord through the prophets. (NASB [1995])

In this passage, we learn the following:

(1) Firstly, David, Gad, and Nathan were dead for about 250 years at this point; however, (2) they passed on a "command . . . from the Lord" which was prescribed by God's prophets on how worship to be conducted in the temple (hardly a minor issue; the worship of God is a central issue in theology) and (3) such a prescription and commandment is nowhere found in the entirety of the Bible.

So what we have here is a clear OT refutation of the Sola Scriptura principle. Other OT texts refer to the non-canonical written and non-inscripturated oral tradition of prophets and seers that were held to be as authoritative as inscripturated revelation: e.g. 2 Chron 9:29; 12:15; 33:18-19; 35:4; 1 Sam 9:9; Isaiah 30:10; Jer 26:18; Zech 1:4-6; 7:7; 8:9.

With respect to the New Testament, Jesus Himself accepted authoritative tradition, and even commanded the apostles to do the same:

Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. (Matt 23:1-3)

Here, Jesus commands His followers to listen to, and accept, the authoritative (oral as well as written) teachings and interpretations of the scribes and Pharisees. As one commentary stated:

Moses’ seat . . . [is] a metaphor for teaching authority; cf. the professor’s “chair.” . . . ‘whatever they teach you’ refers to their reading of Scripture, ‘they do’ to Pharisaic doctrine and practice. (W.D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Matthew: A Shorter Commentary [London: T&T Clark, 2004], 387)

Notice the following from the Midrash Rabbah:

They made for him [Moses] a chair like that of the advocates, in which one sits and yet seems to be standing. (Exodus Rabbah 43:4)

Simply put, the "Chair of Moses" was the teaching authority of the synagogue. Note the following points:

a) On the local level, the "Chair of Moses" was held by the principal rabbi of a particular city's synagogue (e.g. Corinth or Rome).

b) On the regional level, the "Chair of Moses" was held by the principal rabbi of a particular region (e.g. Rabbi Akiba at Jamnia).

c) On the universal level, the "Chair of Moses" was actually held by the High Priest in Jerusalem. This is more than clear from John 11:49-52 and from Acts 23:2-5, where Paul backs down because the law defined the High Priest as "the ruler of thy people."
For the Jews of the Diaspora, one could not be said to be part of Israel if he rejected the rightful authority of Jerusalem. Such a position would make oneself a Samaritan. :-) Indeed, the Jewish historian Josephus says how the Hellenistic Jews before the fall of the theocracy in Palestine looked reverently toward Jerusalem and favored religious currents coming from it: "Doubts were referred there for solution" (Josephus, Contra Apion 1.30-36).


We also know that the Jews of the Dispersion turned to Jerusalem for their Scriptures (2 Maccabees 2.13-15) and for its translation [Est 11.1 [Vulgate]; 10.31 [LXX]). Such were appeals to the ultimate “Chair of Moses" (Matt 23:1-3)--the High Priest and the Sanhedrin itself.


Catholic apologist, Dave Armstrong, has a good paper on the “Chair of Moses” in response to James White, showing that Matt 23 is further proof that sola scriptura is anti-biblical.

Matt 15/Mark 7 and Tradition

Before we begin, let us answer the question: What is the Korban rule? As one scholar put it:

The word “Let it be Korban whereby I am profitable to thee” is a form of solemn prohibition found, word for word as in the Gospel, in the Talmud. The meaning is, not that such alienated goods or services were really dedicated as an “offering,” but that they were to be regarded as if they had been dedicated.

The passage has been illumined from the Jewish side by J. Levy, who cites the relevant parallels from the Babylonian Talmud, Nedar I.4, ii.2, and iii.2. In the last passage there is a close parallel to Mk. Vii.11:

If anyone sees several persons eating fits that belong to him and says, “They are Korban with regard to you” (i.e., they are forbidden you), but afterwards discovers that as well as strangers his father and brothers are among them, then, according to the School of Shammai, his relatives are not bound by the Korban, but may partake of the figs; the strangers are bound by it. According to the School of Hillel, on the other hand, the relatives also are bound, even though the Korban has been pronounced with regard to them in error. And if anyone expressly lays such a Korban on his relatives, then they are bound by it and cannot receive anything from him that is covered by the Korban. (Matthew Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts [2d ed.: Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1954], 101. Emphasis in original)

Does this event in the ministry of Christ prove the formal sufficiency of the Bible? The answer is a resounding “no.” As Sungenis (ibid., 152) notes that:

[T]he problem with the Pharisees was not traditions, per se, but their refusal to form a synthesis of Scripture and divine Tradition that preserved the teaching of Scripture but allowed tradition to serve its main purpose, that is, to expound and enhance Scripture. They made their tradition contradict Scripture instead of using tradition to support Scriptural teaching. This principle is seen more clearly in the passage Jesus quote from Isaiah. In Isaiah 29:11 the prophet speaks of the neglect of Scripture among the Jews:

For you this whole vision is nothing but words sealed in a scroll. and if you give the scroll to someone who can read, and say to him, "Read this, please," he will answer, "I can't, it is sealed." Or if you give the scroll to someone who cannot read, and say, "Read this, please," he will answer, "I don't know how to read."

Here we see Isaiah complaining that the people have rejected the words of God written in scrolls by giving child-like excuses, i.e., "it is sealed" and "I don't know how to read." This language reveals that the people had reached such a point in their apostasy that they refused even to read God's words. We also find that their blindness to God's revelation is a product of God's wish to blind them to his truth because of their unrepentance. Isaiah 29:10 records:

The Lord has brought over you a deep sleep: He has sealed your eyes (the prophets); he has covered your heads (the seers).

Here we see that God is not neutral when men reject him. He will increase and prolong their blindness to his truth. The result of the blindness is that they make excuses that scrolls are sealed and they are unable to read. In effect, their inability to consult and discern God's word is from the condition of blindness that God has given them. Not being able to consult God's word, they resort to a man-made religion of trivial, useless, and often immoral traditions.

Finally, it should be noted that the historical understanding of sola scriptura is not a wholesale denunciation of traditions, but a subordination of tradition (alongside creeds and other authorities) to the inscripturated revelation. A wholesale rejection of traditions and other sources outside the Bible is Sol*o* scriptura (or, to use Keith Mathison's terminology from his 2001 book, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, tradition type 0 as opposed to tradition type 1 [which is the historical Protestant view]). Using this event in the way many Protestant apologists do undermines, not supports, their epistemology. If Jesus contrasts tradition to Scripture, then there is no room for tradition in Israel's day unless, of course, one concedes that Jesus accepted at least some of the tradition of Israel. if such is the case, then Jesus cannot be condemning tradition, per se, in Mark 7/Matt 15. In reality, he is only condemning one type of tradition--the tradition which distorts the commands of God, which the Korban rule clearly did.

Apart from being based on eisegesis, the common Protestant abuse of this event in the life of Christ would necessitate, if they were consistent, reject all traditions and hold to, not sola, but sol*o* scriptura.

Acts 17:11 and the Bereans

Acts 17:11 is another popular text that has been cited in favour of Sola Scriptura. According to many apologists for this doctrine, Luke applauds their searching of the Scriptures to ascertain the trustworthiness of Paul’s message to them. Therefore, they conclude, the Bereans accepted only the authority of the Bible, and no other method of ascertaining the truth of the Gospel is to be privileged (this has also been used to claim that praying to know if the Book of Mormon is the Word of God is false). However, if this proves something, it proves too much for the Protestant apologist. Why? Firstly, even allowing “Scripture” and “the Bible” to be one-to-one equivalent, not all 66 books of the canon were inscripturated at the time of Acts 17:11, so if one will absolutise this verse in the way many do, one will have to hold to, at most, the Old Testament canon, which the Bereans no doubt used. Furthermore, they are said to have received “the word.” What was this word, which they accepted en par with the Scriptures they received? It was, at the time, non-inscripturated revelation (viz. the identity of the long-promised Messiah). If anything, the Bereans were not “proto-Protestants,” in fact, quite the opposite, as Sola Scriptura does not allow one to privilege any other authority as being en par with Scripture, as all other sources of faith and authority are subordinate to “Scripture” (being defined as the Protestant canon).

With that as a preliminary comment, let us exegete the text:

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, where those things were so.

For those predisposed to believe in the concept of Sola Scriptura, Acts 17:11 is touted as a definitive proof text. It is reasoned that because of the Berean’s appeal to Scripture and the Thessalonians’ apparent lack thereof, Luke, the writer of Acts, judges that the former “were noble” in comparison than the latter and should serve as a model for each Christian to emulate. Obviously, the Bereans’ appeal to Scripture suggests a people very familiar with the word of God who did not bend with every new wind of doctrine that came breezing their way, even from an apostle like Paul. Their “daily” examination of Scripture evokes a picture of studious and intelligent people who did not give God lip-service on the Sabbath but from sun-up to sun-down had, as the Psalmist of old, the word of God on their heart. They did this daily because Paul, as Acts 17:17 specifies, reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews on a daily basis. Luke tells us that not only did the Bereans examine the Scriptures, but they did this purposely to see what Paul said was true or not. Hence, the actions of the Bereans, if we are to take them as our model, seem to set Scripture up on the sole judge of what a teacher is proclaiming. For Sola Scriptura advocates, Scripture is portrayed as the given, but Paul was the new-comer who had to be authenticated. The passage seems to assert, or at least strongly suggest, that in judging anything claiming to be from God, Scripture must be the sole and final authority.

But is Scripture as the final authority a la Protestantism, the message Luke is trying to impart here? Let us examine the context of this passage to find out. Acts 17:2 records:

And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures.

Here we see that it was not only the Bereans who were steeped in Scripture, but rather Paul himself, who in this regard had led the way in all the synagogues in which he taught. At this early time in Christian history, the synagogue was still the main meeting place, for Jews as well as Greeks. It was Paul’s “custom” or “manner” to visit the synagogues in each city of his missionary journey. For example, on his trip to Antioch recorded in Acts 13:14, Luke tells us that on the Sabbath Paul and his companions entered the synagogue and read from the Law and the Prophets. As he would later do in Thessalonica and Berea in Acts 17, Paul made it a continual practice to read and teach from the Scriptures--in this case, the Old Testament. Hence we see that Paul’s teaching sessions in the synagogue were to a people who knew their Scripture, used it often, and were willing to exchange ideas about it. If Paul appealed to Scripture, then it was to Scripture the people would go back to check if what Paul said “were so.”

But there was a special reason that Paul may have stimulated (or agitated) his hears. In Thessalonica, Acts 17:2 records that Paul not only read in the Scripture but that he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that Christ had to suffer. Apparently, Paul was deducing from already known Scripture new understandings about what the Scripture meant in light of the events that had just taken place a decade or so earlier.

In Luke’s wording we notice a slight difference between what Scripture said and what Paul taught. In the beginning of verse 3 he says that Paul was “alleging that Christ must needs have suffered and risen again from the dead” but in the latter part he records Paul saying, “This Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.” The difference between the two is that Paul is interpreting “The Christ” of the Old Testament to be the “Jesus” of the New Testament. Since the Old Testament did not use the name of “Jesus” to identity the Messiah (Christ), Paul’s message was a new application of Scripture. Further, the Jews did not believe that their coming Messiah had to “suffer,” let alone “rise from the dead.” Most of the Jews expected their Messiah to be a powerful king who would relieve them of Gentile rule. In their view, he would not have to rise from the dead because he would establish himself as an eternal king who would rule forever over the Jews’ enemies. They simply did not understand, in the same manner as New Testament authors, Old Testament “proof-texts” used to support the Messiah as a suffering servant who had to die--a suffering underwent precisely for their sin of disbelief in him.

In Thessalonica, it was Paul’s statement that “the Christ” of the Old Testament was the “Jesus” of the New which caused such contention and jealously among the Jews. In Acts 17:5-9 Luke records their response:

But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people. And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also; Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Casear, saying that there is another king, one Jesus. And they troubled the people and the rulers of the city, when they heard these things, And when they had taken security of Jason, and of the other, they let them go.

It is apparent by their last words, “one [called] Jesus,” that the Jews simply not ready to accept the Christ of the Old Testament as the Jesus of the New Testament. Hence, Paul and the Jews of Thessalonica were not contending about the veracity or usefulness of Scripture; rather, it was Paul’s interpretation of Scripture that they could not accept. Everyone believed Scripture’s prophecy about the coming Messiah. But the information that the Christ was “Jesus” who had recently suffered and died at the hands of the Jews was something Paul was getting from another source outside of Scripture. This new information, would, of course, correlate with Scripture but it would nonetheless be in addition to Scripture. Such was the case, in fact, in Paul’s own conversion. He had to be convinced through additional divine revelation that the people who followed “Jesus,” and whom he was persecuting were in actuality the followers of “the Christ.” In Acts 9:5, after being knocked off his horse by a flash of light, the Lord said to Paul, “I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.” At that instant, Paul recognised that his long-awaited Messiah was the “Jesus” who had suffered and died a decade or so ago. It was not Scripture that brought him to this point but a revelation from Jesus himself showing Paul how the Old Testament Scriptures were to be interpreted.

When Paul arrived in Berea, he acted just as he did in Thessalonica--he went to the synagogue to teach. We may assume that he engaged in similar “reasoning,” “explaining and proving” from Scripture with the Bereans that he had done with the Thessalonians. We may also assume that Paul, as in Thessalonica, made it a point to teach the Bereans that Christ of the Old Testament was the Jesus of the New Testament. The Bereans received Paul’s interpretation of scripture without hesitation. Luke records in Acts 17:11:

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Here we see that these Berean Jews “received the word with all readiness.” We can surmise from his previous encounter with the Thessalonians that the main message the Berans were receiving with eagerness was Paul’s news that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ. Because they believed Paul’s message about the identity of the Messiah, Luke concludes that they were “more noble than those in Thessalonica.” Moreover, their being more noble was also demonstrated when they “searched the scriptures daily” to see if Paul’s message was true. It showed that they cared greatly for God’s revelation, in whatever form it came. We can imagine that their counterparts in Thessalonica perhaps did not investigate the testimony of Scripture after Paul told them that Jesus was the Messiah. They had a blinded or one-sided view of Scripture and did not care for Paul’s interpretation. They were not willing to “reason” from Scripture’s circumstantial evidence that the Messiah was indeed Jesus, thus, they were not noble, open-minded people.

But why, we ask, did Luke consider the Jews of Berea more “noble” than the Jews in Thessalonica, when, according to Luke’s description of the Thessalonians in Acts 17:4, some of the Jews from Thessalonica joined Paul and Silas, as did God-fearing Greeks. It is obvious that not all the Jews in Thessalonica had rejected Paul’s interpretation of Scripture. Wouldn’t Luke consider these Jews “noble” for accepting Paul’s message? The answer is yes, but these noble Jews were so badly outnumbered by the jealous and riotous Jews who rejected Paul’s message that Luke was forced to sum up the situation in Thessalonica as one of general unbelief. We also see this in the way he describes how many people were positively influenced by Paul’s message. Regarding the Thessalonians in Acts 17:4, he points out that only some of the Jews were persuaded while in regard to the Bereans in Acts 17:12 many of them were persuaded. Apparently, the number of believing Jews in Berea were of a sufficient quantity that Luke could designate them, at large, as “noble” in contrast to the overall negative disposition of the people in Thessalonica. Moreover, the unbelieving Jews of Thessalonica further justified Luke’s negative assessment since they caused riots among the people both in Thessalonica and later in Berea (cf. Acts 17:5-9; 17:13-15).

In view of the above facts, is it reasonable to conclude that the Bereans, because they examined, on a daily basis, the Scriptures to ascertain the answer to the question of the truthfulness or lack thereof, of Paul’s message, are models of the modern theory of Sola Scriptura? Is Luke trying here to teach us that being “more noble” or “nobility” consists in using Scripture as the final authority in determining the veracity of oral teaching? When we look at the evidence fairly and accurately, the answer is a resounding “no.” Any attempt to extract from this short pericope a teaching of Sola Scriptura is simply reading into the texts one’s doctrinal bias (eisegesis, in other words). First, the text is simply a narrative of events that occurred in two respective cities, not a treatise on the nature and extent of Scripture and its authority. Granted, the passage suggests how Paul and his hearers used and understood Scripture but neither Paul or his commentator Luke say anything definitive about the doctrine of Scripture. Second, we have seen from our comparison of the Jews in Berea with the Jews in Thessalonica that Luke considered the former more noble not because they merely examined Scripture, but mainly because they believed Paul’s oral revelation that the Christ of the Old Testament was the Jesus of the New Testament. Luke attributes nobility to them because they received his oral message with eagerness. The Bereans believed that the apostle’s oral message had just as much divine authority as the Scripture. In Acts 17:13, Luke specifies that Paul’s oral message to be the very word of God. Paul was not merely speaking about the word of God, he was speaking the actual word of God. Elsewhere, Paul’s own assessment of his oral teaching to the Thessalonians confirms its superlative distinction, for in 1 Thess 2:13, he states:

For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

This is a pivotal passage because it shows that Paul considered his oral message to the Thessalonians in Acts 17:1-4 (which revealed that Jesus was the Christ), and by necessary extension his oral message to the Bereans in Acts 17:11-13, as divine revelations on par with Scripture. In fact, no one could know the real meaning of Scripture, as obscure as it was at times, unless accompanied by an equally authoritative divine interpretation. This is the essential teaching of the Berean encounter.

Since the Old Testament did not explicitly identify “the Christ” as “Jesus,” it was impossible for the Jews of Berea, using the Old Testament alone, to have proven from Scripture that Jesus was the Messiah. One could certainly “reason,” “explain” and “prove” that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead, but there was no explicit evidence, other than Paul’s authoritative testimony, that the one who was prophesied in the Old Testament to suffer and rise was the Jesus who walked the earth only a decade or so earlier. The Bereans were noble because they accepted Paul’s apostolic authority on the identity of the Messiah, not because they could extract such for themselves from the Old Testament that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. Thus, their “examination” of Scriptures was limited to re-evaluating those passages which spoke of the Messiah as the one who had to suffer, die, and rise again; not to prove or disprove that Jesus was the Messiah. Before Paul’s teachings to the Bereans, like most Jews, thought that the Messiah would be recognised by a majestic appearance and a subsequent conquering of the Gentiles. It was not until Paul pointed out that the Old Testament passages which spoke of God’s servant as one who had to suffer must be interpreted to apply to the Messiah, and, more importantly, that his name was Jesus. The typical Jew, although he knew his Scripture, invariably skipped over the numerous passages in the Old Testament that suggested his Messiah had to first come as one to suffer and die. As Paul says in 2 Cor3:14-16:

But their minds were blinded; for until this day remained the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.

After Paul was done teaching, the now enlightened Jew could read a passage like Isaiah 53 and see it in a whole different light (cf. Luke 24:26; Acts 8:26-35). It was in connecting Paul’s divine revelation of the person of Jesus with the suffering passages of the Old Testament that the Bereans examined scripture to see if Paul’s message was true. The Berean did not first believe that Jesus was the Messiah and then examine Scripture to see if Paul’s identifying of Jesus was the Messiah was true. No, he examined the Scriptures that spoke of the suffering servant and then accepted by faith that the “Jesus” about whom Paul spoke was indeed the Messiah. His faith was based on accepting Paul’s authority to interpret Scripture, while Scripture served mainly as a witness to what Paul preached. Scripture could not serve as the sole determinant of what Paul taught for the simple reading that Scripture never identified “the Christ” specifically as “Jesus.” Using the New Testament approach to Scripture, He was designated with names like “the prophet” (Deut 18:15) or “Immanuel” in Isaiah, but never “Jesus” (Matt 1:21). The Bereans, as their Old Testament prescribed, needed at least two or three witnesses to prove the veracity of a certain person or event (cf. Deut 19:15; 2 Cor13:1). Paul was one witness and Scripture another, and both were necessary for truth to be know and understood. Hence, Acts 17:11 cannot support the concept of Sola Scriptura. If anything, it implicitly denies such a teaching.

Steve Ray, a Catholic apologist, has an article from This Rock magazine, "Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura," that is available now online here. It is a very good refutation of how many Protestant apologists appeal to Acts 17:11 as "proof" that the Bereans and the New Testament Church taught sola scriptura. As Ray writes:

The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they "received the word with all eagerness." Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded—not that they searched the Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were "noble-minded" not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians—with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, "The Acts of the Apostles" in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280). 

1 Corinthians 4:6 and "not to think beyond what is written"

 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other. (1 Cor 4:6 NJV)

Commenting on this verse, the apologist writes:

The Apostle Paul mentions that the Corinthians are not too [sic] think beyond what is written, written meaning Scripture.

While much has been written on the phrase (τὸ μὴ ὑπὲρ ἃ γέγραπται), the best suggestion is that the phrase refers to the Old Testament texts Paul had previously quoted:

1 Cor 1:19 (Isa 29:14)

1 Cor 1:31 (Jer 9:23)

1 Cor 2:9 (Isa 64:3)

1 Cor 2:16 (Isa 40:13)

1 Cor 3:19 (Job 5:13)

1 Cor 3:20 (Psa 94:11)

1 Cor 4:5 (while not an OT reference, alludes to a saying of Jesus which Paul may have access to in oral form [cf. Luke 12:1-3])

There is nothing in 1 Cor 4:6 that, exegetically, hints at sola scriptura. Indeed, many Protestant scholars do not regard 1 Cor 4:6 as teaching sola scriptura. Notice the following from Reformed Protestant, Kevin J. Vanhoozer in a recent essay:

Commentators disagree as to the meaning of “not [to go] beyond what is written.” Some translations take the neuter article to as a convention for introducing quoted material: “that you may learn . . . the meaning of the saying, ‘Do not go beyond what is written’” (1 Cor. 4:6, NIV). What, however, does this maxim mean and, in particular, what does “what is written” refer to? Exegetes express considerable Angst over the interpretation of this passage; hence the following suggestion must remain somewhat tentative.

It is likely that some at Corinth were trying to supplement the theology of the cross with a higher, second-state “spiritual wisdom,” a superior form of knowledge that led to boasting. Paul’s command not to go beyond what is written is best taken as referring to (1) the Old Testament in general; (2) what Paul has explicitly cited from the OT in 1:19, 31; 2:9, 16; 3:19, 20, about the importance of not boasting in worldly wisdom but rather in what the Lord has done; and (3) the “foolish” gospel message of the cross “in accordance with the Scriptures” (cf. 15:3-4). In context, then, to go beyond Scripture means “to boast in human wisdom supposing that we are, as it were, smarter than God.”

According to this “Corinthian principle,” then, there is a sense in which Christians must never go beyond the “foolishness” of Christ crucified and the biblical texts that reveal it as God’s wisdom and power of salvation. The definitive message of the cross implies a certain sufficiency of the gospel. Christians must not think that they have a superior knowledge of God or way of salvation if this conflicts with the God of the gospel or with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. To take leave of the gospel—call it the “bad beyond” (i.e., a move against the grain of the text)—is not an option. The question, however, is whether there is a “good beyond” (i.e., a move along the grain of the text)—a right and proper way of building on and respecting the prophets and apostles that yields a longer obedience, and a longer understanding. (Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “May We Go Beyond What is Written After All? The Pattern of Theological Authority and the Problem of Doctrinal Development” in D.A. Carson ed. The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2016], 747-92, here, pp. 749-50)

Furthermore, even John Calvin, in his commentary on First Corinthians, did not regard this verse as teaching sola scriptura; instead, he took a cautiously neutral position:

The clause above what is written may be explained in two ways—either as referring to Paul’s writings, or to the proofs from Scripture which he has brought forward. As this, however, is a matter of small moment, my readers may be left at liberty to take whichever they may prefer.

For more similar comments from historical and modern Protestant commentators, see Douglas Beaumont, "Does 1 Corinthians 4:6 teach Sola Scriptura?"

2 Tim 3:16-17

This passage is the main text used to support sola scriptura. Let us quote 2 Tim 3:15-17 from the 1995 NASB:

And that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

There are a number of problems with the common Protestant appeal to this pericope as biblical support for sola scriptura:

(1) It is not talking about the extent of scripture, only the quality thereof.

In an old exchange with Robert Sungenis on his Alpha and Omega Website,, James White wrote the following on 2 Tim 3:16-17 and how it relates to the formal doctrine of the Reformation, sola scriptura:

It is a common error to drag the *extent* of the graphe into this passage: that is obviously not Paul's intention.

Here, White concedes that 2 Tim 3:16-17 is not about the extent (the "tota" of scriptura), but just the nature of scripture. Why is this significant? It again shows that Protestants, to support the idea that special revelation ended with the inscripturation of the final book of the New Testament, will have to go outside of the Bible and privilege such a teaching/tradition en par with the written word to support such a dogmatic view, which is contrary to sola scriptura, as all other sources of truth are to be subordinated to the Bible! Again, this proves sola scriptura to be theological "quicksand" which inevitably traps its defenders as it is actually anti-biblical.

(2) The problem of absolutizing vv.16-17

For instance, in 2 Tim 3:15, we read:

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.

In this verse, Paul writes that Timothy knew the holy scriptures ([τα] ιερα γραμματα) since infancy, writings which were able (δυναμαι) to make him wise and lead to salvation. However, the Scriptures discussed in this verse are not Scripture in general (as in v.16), but the Old Testament texts. Absolutising vv.16-17 as many Protestants are wont to do, verse 15 “proves” the formal sufficiency of the Old Testament and precludes any need for the New Testament. Of course, such would be equally as silly as claiming vv.16-17 is evidence for sola scriptura.

(3) Paul did not say Scripture was “sufficient” only “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 words 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:

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

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

In the 3-volume Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, eds. Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1993), the following definition of the term (ωφελιμος) is offered, which highlights how weak the term is in comparison to the force many Protestant apologists read into it (taken from 3:511-12)

ωφελιμος ophelimos useful, advantageous.

This noun occurs 4 times in the NT, all in parenetic contexts in the Pastorals. According to 1 Tim 4:8 (bis) “bodily training is useful only for some things, while godliness is of value in every way” (πρὸς ὀλίγον ἐστὶν ὠφέλιμος . . .προς παντα ωφελιμος) . . .The context suggests that the idea of “training, physical fitness” is to be appropriated for the realm of piety, alluding to the ascetic goals of the adversaries in vv. 1ff . . . 2 Tim 3:16: πασα γραφη . . . και ωφελιμος προς διδασκαλιαν . . .”useful/profitable for teaching . . .” Titus 3:8: “good deeds” (καλα εργα) are expected of Church members, since they are καλα και ςφελιμα τοις ανθρωποις, “good and profitable for people.”

BDAG:

8089  ὠφέλιμος

• ὠφέλιμος, ον (ὠφελέω; Thu.+) useful, beneficial, advantageous τινί for someone or for someth. (Polyaenus 8 prooem.) Tit 3:8; Hv 3, 6, 7. Also πρός τι (Pla., Rep. 10, 607d) 1 Ti 4:8ab; 2 Tim 3:16. Heightened ὑπεράγαν ὠφέλιμος 1 Cl 56:2.—The superl. (Artem. 5 p. 252, 13; Ps.-Lucian, Hipp. 6; Vi. Aesopi II p. 306, 12 Ebh.; Jos., Ant. 19, 206; PMich 149 XVIII, 20 [II AD]) subst. τὰ ὠφελιμώτατα what is particulary helpful 62:1 (Appian, Bell. Civ. 5, 44 §186 τὰ μάλιστα ὠφελιμώτατα).—DELG s.v. 2 ὀφέλλω. M-M.

(4) 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 by 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 pointing 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.

(5) 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 some apologists is that it is the Scriptures and the Scriptures only that equip the “man of God” to be equipped to teach doctrine. Additionally, they also argue that, when coupled with the terms αρτιος (“fit”) and εξαρτιζω (“equipped”) further support the Bible being formally sufficient.

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.

BDAG defines the terms thusly:

1143  ἄρτιος

• ἄρτιος, ία, ον (Hom.+; Epict. 1, 28, 3; IG XIV, 889, 7 ἄ. εἴς τι; TestAbr A 8 p. 85, 12 [Stone p. 18]; Ath., R. 77, 4 ἀρτίως; Philo) pert. to being well fitted for some function, complete, capable, proficient=able to meet all demands 2 Ti 3:17.—DELG s.v. ἄρτι. M-M. TW.

2753  ἐξαρτίζω

• ἐξαρτίζω (s. ἄρτιος) 1 aor. ἐξήρτισα; pf. pass. ptc. ἐξηρτισμένος (late; Ex 28:7 v.l.).

1. to bring someth. to an end, finish, complete (IG XII/2, 538; POxy 296, 7 [I AD] of documents; Jos., Ant. 3, 139) ἐ. ἡμᾶς τ. ἡμέρας our time was up Ac 21:5 (cp. Hippocr., Epid. 2, 180 ἀπαρτίζειν τὴν ὀκτάμηνον).

2. to make ready for service, equip, furnish (Diod. S. 14, 19, 5 Vogel v.l.; Lucian; Arrian; Jos., Ant. 3, 43 v.l.; CIG II, 420, 13; Mitt-Wilck. I/2, 176, 10 [I AD]; pap, e.g. PAmh 93, 8; PTebt 342, 17) πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἐξηρτισμένος for every good deed 2 Ti 3:17 (with ἐξηρτισμένος πρός τι cp. Diod. S. 19, 77, 3 ναῦς ἐξηρτισμένας πρὸς τὸν πόλεμον πρὸς τὴν τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἐλευθέρωσιν).—DELG s.v. ἀραρίσκω, s. also ἄρτι. M-M. TW. Spicq.

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 participle 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 participle exartismenos 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.

 (6) Who or what is a “man of God”?

Often, Protestants simply assume that “the man of God” is any Christian. However, the term “man of God” is much more specific, meaning an individual specifically set apart by God (be it a prophet, apostle, or an appointed ecclesiastical leader). If we go even deeper into the passage and reflect on the terms used, the case is strengthened all the more. For example, "profitable for teaching" (2 Tim 3:16). Does this make more sense as describing the Bible, or rather, a teacher (the "man of God") who is teaching from the Bible with authority? If we search "teach" or "taught" or "instructed" or any similar terms in the Bible, we are hard pressed to find them ever applied to a mere book. In every instance I have found so far, it is always applied as a description of a man or God teaching (at times using the Bible as an aid). Examples:

Eleven Disciples

Matthew 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you . . .

Paul and Barnabas

Acts 15:35 But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.

Paul

Acts 20:20 how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from house to house,

Timothy

1 Timothy 4:13 Till I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching.(cf. 4:11, 16)

Elders

1 Timothy 5:17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching;

(7) 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.

(8) The meaning of γραφη in the context of 2 Timothy

In a very good study of the term γραφη, Protestant scholar, L. Timothy Swinson wrote the following conclusion in his chapter the use of the term in 2 Tim 3:16 which refutes the claim Paul was teaching Timothy that "Scripture" is formally sufficient:

2 Timothy and γραφη

Over the course of three consecutive literary units (3:10-13, 3;14-17, and 4:1-4), as with the rest of the letter leading into these units, the main topic of Paul’s reflection and instruction is the apostolic gospel proclamation that Timothy has been commanded to guard, proclaim, and hand down to other trustworthy men, and for which he is to suffer persecution. Even with Paul’s brief reference to το ιερα γραμματα, he remains undeterred in his promotion of the primary subject of concern. Indeed, his remark concerning το ιερα γραμματα itself serves as one of the bases supporting the excellence of οις εμαθες και επιστωθης (3:14), or the apostolic gospel message. In view of the various criteria examined here, it seems highly unlikely that Paul would privilege το ιερα γραμματα alone as adequate to prepare Timothy for the duties that fall to him as the pastor in Ephesus and as worthy of his confidence. Therefore, on the basis of the close exegetical analysis of 3:14-17 in isolation, and as it fits within the more extended discourse of 3:10-4:4, πασα γραφη in its immediate literary context should be construed as a reference to the combined witness of the apostolic gospel message alongside all of the recognized OT writings.[37]

One final point must be acknowledged here. While the case has been made that πασα γραφη serves as a reference to the integration of the apostolic gospel teaching with the OT writings, unlike η γραφη in 1 Tim 5:18, it has not yet been shown that πασα γραφη in 2 Tim 3:16 must refer to a written form of that apostolic message. Certainly, a written form of the gospel message would suit the thesis of this study, as well as the exegetical criteria adduced in 2 Timothy. Indeed, the current prevailing position concerning πασα γραφη inherently presumes a written referent. However, based strictly upon the literary context of 2 Timothy alone, one need not conclude that γραφη or any of the other terms. Paul uses to refer to his apostolic teaching refers to a written gospel.

Note for the Above

[37] In truth, while the argument presented here is distinct, the position of the present study concerning this particular point does not differ markedly from that of Knight, who writes, “In this letter Paul has praised Timothy for following his teaching (v. 10), has urged Timothy to continue in what he has learned from Paul (v. 14) has commanded Timothy to retain ‘the standard of sound word’ that he has heard from Paul (1;13), has commended him to entrust what he has heard from Paul to faithful men so that they could teach others (2:2), and has insisted that Timothy handle accurately ‘the word of truth’ (2:15). After his remarks on πασα γραφη he will urge Timothy to ‘preach the word’ (4:2), i.e., to proclaim the apostolic message, about which Paul has said so much in this letter. It seems possible therefore, that Paul by his use of πασα γραφη is expanding the earlier reference to the OT to include those accounts of the gospel may have been extant and perhaps also his own and other apostolic writings that have been ‘taught by the Spirit’ (1 Cor 2:13; cf. for this view, e.g., Stott). This understanding also fits well in this context. It provides a reason for Paul’s use of πασα and for his change from ιερα γραμματα, an OT designation, to πασα γραφη, a possibly more inclusive term. It would gather together Paul’s concern for the preservation and communication of the gospel and the apostolic understanding and application of that gospel and place it on a par with the OT, as 2 Pet 3:16-17 clearly does. And it would provide a clearer background for and transition to his demand that Timothy ‘preach the word’ (4:2)” (Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 448)

Timothy Swinson, What is Scripture? Paul’s Use of Graphe in the Letters to Timothy (Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 2014), 158-59

One could continue, but it is clear that 2 Tim 3:16-17 does not support sola scriptura.

The “Word of God” is exhausted by “Scripture”/”the Bible” fallacy

Concluding his video, the apologist wrote the following:

So we have seen that Scripture clearly teaches that Scripture itself iis alone the foundation of truth. Scripture states that it is inspired Word of God, tradition never is mentioned to be inspired by God. Jesus said in John 17:17 that God's Word is truth, since God's Word is truth then what else do we need? Nothing

As with others, this Protestant apologist forwards the claim that every time the “Word of God” appears in the Bible, or some other similar locution, it is one-to-one equivalent with the Bible itself, which, of course is anachronistic with reference to the biblical texts (no matter which passage one appeals to, the “Bible,”consisting of all 66 books of the Protestant canon, were not inscripturated in toto when passage “x” is cited)! Furthermore, “the Word of God” does not refer to “The Bible,” but to Christ, the Law (Torah), God’s creative utterances, and apostolic and prophetic preaching in the Bible. Consider the following--

Luke 3:2-3: “Annas and Caiphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness. And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.”

Luke 4:44; 5:1: “And he preached in the synagogues of Galilee. And it came to pass that, as the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, he stood by the lake of Genesaret.”

Luke 8:11-15: “Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil and taketh away the word out of their hears, lest they should believe and be saved. They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation, fall away. And they which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection. But that on the good ground are they, which are in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.”

John 1:1, 14: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

Acts 4:31: “And when they had parted, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.”

1 Thess 2:13: “For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.”

Heb 11:3: “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do not appear.” 

Let us carefully examine one key text that forever refutes this fallacy:

For when David was up in the morning, the word of the Lord came unto the prophet Gad, David's seer . . . (2 Sam 24:11)

I highlight this verse as it refers to Gad as a (true) prophet of God (Heb: נָבִיא) as well as a seer( חֹזֶה ) Why is this important? There is a book in the Bible ascribed to this prophet:

Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of God the seer. (1 Chron 29:29)

Now, Protestant apologists will just tell us that, simply because a work is referenced in the Bible is not proof that such is inspired, and such is unobjectionable, in and of itself. However, this book is not a secular source, but a work of a divinely inspired prophet of God, so the apologist is engaging in special pleading and question-begging. In reality, when it comes to the “missing books in the Bible” issue, our Evangelical friends are incapable of giving a logically consistent answer, something I discussed a few times on this blog, including:

1 Cor 5:9-10 and the "missing books of the Bible" argument

The failure of Protestantism to Define the Canon Authoritatively

Furthermore, more careful Protestant apologists are more wary of such "arguments." For instance, one defender of sola scriptura wrote the following:

[T]here is a difference between the Word of God, which is eternal (Psalm 119:89, 152, 160), and the Bible, which is not. The Bible is the Word of God written. If one were to destroy one paper Bible, or all paper Bibles, he would not have destroyed the eternal Word of God. One such example is given in Jeremiah 36. The prophet was told by God to write His words in a book, and to read it to the people. Wicked king Jehoiakim, not comfortable with what had been written, had the written Word destroyed. God then told the prophet to write the Word down again. The king had destroyed the written Word, but he had not destroyed God's Word. God's Word is eternal propositions that find expression in written statements. (W. Gary Crampton, By Scripture Alone: The Sufficiency of Scripture [Unicoi, Tenn.: The Trinity Foundation, 2002], 156)

Conclusion

Not only does this video present no new argument, it shows the great level of eisegesis Protestant apologists for sola scriptura are forced to engage in when defending their man-made doctrine from the Bible. Sadly, it is not just the Bible that is abused, but also the patristic sources (see my responses to C. Michael Patton's abuse of early Christian authors on this point here and here, for instance).

Keep in mind that this not a minor, non-essential issue; sola scriptura is the formal doctrine of the Reformation. If it falls, Protestantism falls (it would be the equivalent of Joseph Smith's claims to being a Prophet of God being disproven or the Papacy being shown to be a man-made institution).

 Support Scriptural Mormonism