I present here a brief sketch as to why 2 Timothy 3:16-17 does not teach the all-sufficiency of Scripture.
Every Scripture is God-inspired and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness, in order that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
Sola scriptura advocates frequently utilize these verses to both prove the divine origin and authority of the Scriptures as well as that all that Christians need are the Scriptures, and either we need not feel bound to follow traditions not explicitly enjoined in or necessarily inferred from the Scriptures or, more strongly, we must not do anything that is not explicitly enjoined in or necessarily inferred from the Scriptures. Christians need nothing more than the Scriptures.
By “Scriptures” of course, sola scriptura adherents mean the (relatively late) Protestant canon of sixty-six books (minus the so-called “Apocrypha”), and, more pointedly, they mean the New Testament Scriptures. Thus, the sixty-six books of the Protestant canon are “all-sufficient” and we either do not need tradition, or even must reject all extrascriptural tradition.
But is St. Paul making a claim for the all-sufficiency of Scripture? The answer is no, and here's why.
1. The “Scriptures” to which St. Paul refers here in 2 Timothy 3:16 has already been identified previously as what we would call the Old Testament just one verse prior in 2 Timothy 3:15. That St. Paul cannot mean the New Testament Scriptures is clear in that the Scriptures St. Timothy was taught in his youth could only have been the Old Testament since no New Testament book would have been written in St. Timothy's youth. St. Paul first encountered St. Timothy on his second missionary journey (c. AD 50-53), and at this time it is possible for only one to three New Testament books to have been written, depending on how one dates them (perhaps Galatians and 1-2 Thessalonians), and St. Timothy could not have studied these in his youth.
2. St. Paul does not claim that the Old Testament Scriptures are all-sufficient, and, indeed, if they were, then the New Testament would have been superfluous. What he says is that the Old Testament Scriptures are “profitable” (ophelimos) for four purposes (teaching, reproof, correction, and instruction which is in righteousness), which purposes result in an “adult” (“perfect” here is artios which indicates complete, full-grown, prepared) Christian, who has been equipped for every good work. But that they are not all-sufficient is clear: the Old Testament does not tell us about baptism for the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit; nor does it tell us about the Lord's Supper; nor about the necessity for all Christians everywhere to gather on Sunday to worship and celebrate the Lord's Supper (nor does the New Testament explicitly teach this last practice for that matter)--three of the most important practices of the Church and without which the Church and the faith would not be what they are.
3. Given 1 and 2, it cannot be the case that St. Paul, though he does not explicitly state the all-sufficiency of Scripture, he at least implies it.
As an aside, also in this same chapter, St. Paul refers to the names of two men who opposed Moses. Jewish tradition identifies these two as the Egyptian magicians who opposed Moses (though the text here in St. Paul does not clearly state this). This is one example of what many take to be a clear use of tradition in Scripture (the other is in Jude 9, where the archangel Michael argued with the devil over the body of Moses). Sola scriptura advocates explain that it is not necessary to appeal to tradition for these facts, that the Holy Spirit could quite well have revealed these facts to St. Paul and St. Jude directly. This is certainly true that this could be the case. But it does involve some circularity of reasoning that makes such an explanation suspect.
In any case, appealing to tradition to explain 2 Timothy 3:8 is not necessary to my main argument above.
So, since St. Paul does not make any claims about the New Testament in these verses, and since manifestly the Old Testament is not in itself all-sufficient, St. Paul cannot mean that Scripture is all-sufficient for Christian faith and practice.
Especially given the fact that St. Paul enjoins upon the Thessalonian Church to adhere to the entirety of the apostolic tradition, both oral and written, as it comes from St. Paul's ministry (2 Thessalonians 2:15), then to claim that St. Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is teaching the all-sufficiency of Scripture is a false teaching and must be rejected.
Posted by Clifton at August 9, 2005 10:59 AM | TrackBackClifton,
FWIW, this is what I wrote to our former preacher at our congregation when he tried to use 2 Tim. 3:16-17 for sola Scriptura:
I would say that there is some Biblical support for the idea of apostolic teaching being handed down (and not all in writing). We know that the apostles taught by word of mouth and writing (2 Thess. 2:15). The apostle Paul tells Timothy, "and the things you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Timothy 2:2). This teaching was not in writing but was what Timothy "heard" from the apostle. At the very least one must admit that the apostle intended for his teaching to be passed on by those he taught.
If, indeed, that is the case then I would be hard pressed to believe that Paul would later write in the same epistle that the only source of doctrine is the Holy Scriptures (as is alleged for 2 Timothy 3:16). In fact, for those "faithful men" in 2 Timothy 2:2 a source of doctrine is the apostolic teaching passed from the apostle Paul and entrusted to Timothy. I believe when put within the context of the entire epistle 2 Timothy 3:16 ceases to be a prooftext for the Scriptures being the sole source of doctrine.
At the risk of insulting your intelligence with incessant verse flinging, the apostle Paul writes to Timothy, "do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner", "Hold fast to the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me", "but you have carefully followed my doctrine", and "continue in the things you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them". It appears to me that a major point Paul is trying to make to Timothy is to hold onto the teachings he received from the apostle and use them in defending the truth. Paul ties the value of the Scriptures to his teachings in 2 Tim. 3:14-15. Its only by having the teachings of the apostles and Holy Scriptures that make the "man of God" complete for every good work.
Ken, that's excellent. You hit on some points I didn't, and make the case against sola scriptura even tighter. This is a keeper!
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at August 9, 2005 10:14 PMClifton,
I all boils down to the following sentance:
"At the very least one must admit that the apostle intended for his teaching to be passed on by those he taught."
If a person cannot admit that then further discussion with that person ends up being futile.
Posted by: Ken at August 10, 2005 08:21 AM