JUST FOR my fellow CATHOLICS - 2 Timothy 3:16 and Sola Scriptura

Just for Catholics is a website where Dr. Mizzi seeks to convince Catholics to leave the Catholic Church.  I am reviewing his teachings and comparing them to the Word of God in Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium.  We are currently on this article.  His words in blue.

2 Timothy 3:16 and Sola Scriptura

Question: Where in the Bible is Sola Scriptura taught? 2 Timothy 3:15-17 is a reference to the Old Testament and does not deal with which books are inspired and how we know which books are inspired. As a former Protestant myself I wrestled with this question and frankly no one ever gave me a satisfactory answer.

The first problem I see with this question, is that Dr. Mizzi is mixing issues.  He begins by asking, "where is Sola Scriptura taught in the Bible?"



A very good question. But then he mixes in the question of the Canon.  In other words, "which is the true Canon of Scripture?"  He leaves that question implied, but his rebuttal/answer which follows, seems to address that issue more than the question "where is Sola Scriptura taught in the Bible?"


Answer: The doctrine of Sola Scriptura, like the doctrine of the Trinity, is not based on one particular proof text. 


For some strange reason though, he doesn't offer any others.


The passage you mentioned is one of the many scriptures that support the sufficiency of the Bible as the only infallible rule of the Christian faith. 


One problem though.  Neither this verse, nor any other, says anything about the Bible being the ONLY infallible and sufficient source of doctrine.


The apostle Paul writes to Timothy:

“And that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for 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 complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:15-17).

That's true. That is what it says.  But lets break it down beginning one verse earlier:
¹⁴But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;


This, in my opinion, is a reference to St. Paul:


2 Timothy 2
 ¹Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.
 ²And 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.


In other words, St. Paul is saying that St. Timothy learned about the Jesus Christ  from him.  Not by Scripture alone.


Then he (St. Paul) says:
And that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures,


St. Timothy, a faithful Jew raised by faithful Jews, would have been taught the Scriptures at home.  By Lois and Eunice:

2 Timothy 1:5

King James Version (KJV)

 ⁵When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also.

Again, not by Scripture alone.


which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.


No one denies that this is true.  I'd like to make two points however:


1.  The Bible says that parts of Scripture are hard to understand and recommends a guide.

The Catholic Church takes into account what Scripture says on the matter of reading Scripture.  First, lets visit with Philip:

Acts 8

King James Version (KJV)

²⁹Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
 ³⁰And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
 ³¹And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
 ³²The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
 ³³In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
 ³⁴And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
 ³⁵Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.


Now, this eunuch was not a stupid man.  He was "²⁷an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship".


Yet Scripture portrays him as needing help to understand the Scriptures.  


Lets bump over and see what St. Peter says on the matter:

2 Peter 3:16

King James Version (KJV)

 ¹⁶As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

It seems Scripture does not advise the reading and learning from Scripture alone.  But recommends a teacher.


2.  The second point is this, St. Paul has several times, in 2 Timothy, noted that he is a source of doctrine.  Just one example:

2 Timothy 1:13

King James Version (KJV)

 ¹³Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

And so, again, Scripture does not say that Scripture alone is the INFALLIBLE SOURCE OF DOCTRINE.


Unless one believes that St. Paul was not inspired by the Holy Spirit.  In which case.

From this passage we can deduce:

Firstly, the Scriptures give us the knowledge necessary to experience salvation – 


True.  But not Scripture ALONE as St. Paul represents himself as a teacher and since Scripture shows that he is guided by the Holy Spirit.  Therefore, St. Paul, here representing the Church shows that there are more than one infallible sources of doctrine.


they are “able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” 


Absolutely.  If understood correctly.  And as shown above, the Bible warns against the possibility of misunderstanding Scripture.


Secondly, the Bible is also useful for doctrine and guidance in the Christian life.


To me, this sounds a bit redundant, since one attains salvation by living according to the Christian doctrine.  But ok.  Still, Scripture says that men are a source of doctrine:

1 Timothy 4:16

King James Version (KJV)

 ¹⁶Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

 Whoever is led by the Scriptures is described as “complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” The Bible is therefore enough to show God's children how to be saved and to live for His glory.

Well, true.  But that is not what this verse is saying.  This verse says that Scripture is useful for TEACHING the man of God and equipping him for every good work.  But it doesn't say that Scripture is necessary for that task.


I agree that the primary reference to "scriptures" in this context is the Old Testament because the writing of the New Testament was not yet complete, the canon of the NT was not yet fully known, and the Scripture that Timothy was taught in his infancy was the Old Testament.

Great.  But thats a question of canon.  It doesn't address the issue of finding the doctrine of Scripture alone in the Bible.


But is it possible that Timothy was aware that other inspired books were being added? And that "from infancy" to the time he received Paul’s letter, Timothy came to know of other inspired writings in addition to the Old Testament books? For instance, 2 Peter 3:16 classifies Paul’s epistles with "other scriptures" – implying that the Pauline letters were already being considered in the apostolic churches as divinely inspired and on the same level as the books of the Old Testament.

In his first letter to Timothy, Paul quotes from the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 25:4) and from a New Testament book (Luke 10:7). ‘For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain," and, "The laborer is worthy of his wages"’ (1 Timothy 5:18). It is highly significant that Paul refers to the Gospel of Luke as Scripture on par with the Old Testament. Thus Timothy was fully conscious that the Holy Spirit was adding inspired books to the Holy Scriptures. It is therefore preposterous to limit Paul’s statement in Second Timothy on the value of the Scripture to the Old Testament.

Paul’s statement about the perfections of the Old Testament Scriptures (holy, inspired) is applicable to all Holy Scriptures in general. It's like saying, “All dogs bark.” Barking is not only the characteristic of the dogs that are now living, is it? The dogs that would be born in the future will do the same…because they are dogs. Similarly, what Paul said about the Old Testament books would certainly apply to the New, because like them, they have the same Divine author.

Still, you may say, Paul was referring to the Old Testament and not the completed Bible. This is what I call a felicitous problem! For if the Old Testament books were enough to make us wise unto salvation and equip us for every good work, how much more the whole Bible? If the Old were enough, the whole is overflowing with plenty! Yes, the Bible is able to make you wise for salvation, which is by faith in Christ Jesus. 


In that paragraph, no attempt is made by Dr. Mizzi to show a verse supporting Sola Scriptura in the Bible.  He merely reiterates that the Old Testament and the New Testament are valid Scriptures.  Which is Catholic Church teaching.  The Catholic Church wrote the New Testament and canonized the entire Bible.


Don’t let anyone take away this blessed truth by claiming that you need some additional source to give you some vital information that is absent from Scripture.


This is a Protestant straw man.  The Catholic Church does not teach that anything is missing from Scripture.  Here, I'll try to illustrate the problem.


1.  Take the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.  Protestants accept this doctrine.  But you don't find it explicitly stated in Scripture.  The Catholic Church derived the doctrine from Scripture.  Search as you may, you won't find the doctrine stated as "One God in three Divine Persons."


2.  Protestants accept this doctrine but refuse to recognize that it was infallibly defined by the Catholic Church in the third century.  


3.  It is definitions of this sort which you won't find in Scripture.  Purgatory, a doctrine which most Protestants reject, is the same way.  It is defined by the Church from verses which indirectly mention the process.

Further, you correctly observe that this passage “does not deal with which books are inspired and how we know which books are inspired.” It’s true, it does not. However I want you to notice an interesting fact. Timothy, his mother, and his grandmother somehow knew which books were inspired, even though there was no infallible magisterium to tell them. Paul did not need to spell out the table of contents because evidently Timothy knew what these books were.

1.  Well, he's sort of shot himself in the foot with this one.  It is true that the Scriptures don't contain a Table of Contents.
2.  The Table of Contents was and is a part of Sacred Tradition.
3.  In other words, we rely upon Sacred Tradition to tell us which are the true Scriptures.


Because neither Lois and Eunice, St. Tim's mom and grandma, nor you or I or our fathers and mothers, need to go searching book by holy book, to decide for ourselves what is Scripture.  The decision was made centuries ago, by the Catholic Church.


Yeah, even Dr. Mizzi and the Reformers are beneficiaries of that decision.  They took out seven books but kept the other 66 which the Catholic Church canonized.


The Holy Scriptures are the property and the inheritance of the people of God and they pass them on from one generation to another. 


Passed from one generation to another, that is the definition of Sacred Tradition.


How did you first learn that the book called the “Holy Bible” is the Word of God? Was it not from your parents or from your Sunday School teacher or your pastor or some other Christian? Even though they are not infallible, the Lord used them to place in your hands His book and the doctrines therein.

Thank you Dr. Mizzi.  We learned from many sources, two of which are infallible, the Church and Sacred Tradition.


Most of us, who are cradle Christians, learned it from our families, our Church and by the Sacred Tradition which they follow to this day.


If you insist on the need of an infallible authority to assure you which books are inspired, well, in that case you should not stop there either. You should then ask, “How do I know for sure that the church magisterium is infallible?” 


The Bible tells me so:

1 Timothy 3:15

King James Version (KJV)

 ¹⁵But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

You can’t say, “Because the Bible says so” (since as a Catholic, you cannot be sure that the Bible is inspired apart from the teaching of the infallible church); and you can’t say either, “Because the church says so” (because that is begging the question).

Huh?  That is really funny.  Do you realize what he just did?  "Begging the question" is a form of "circular reasoning".  Circular reasoning means that you only have one source of information and you keep returning to it.  Let me illustrate.


1.  Joe is smart.
2.  How do you know Joe is smart?
3.  Because Joe says he is smart.


Please note that circular reasoning is not necessarily wrong.  For all we know, Joe may be as smart as a whip.  So a better reason would have been,
because everyone says so or because he's a medical doctor or some other reason other than Joe's testimony alone.


Ok, so let's go back to Dr. Mizzi's charge that Catholics are begging the question when they say, "Because the Church says so".  How would that paradigm look?

1.  How do you know the Church is infallible?

2.  Sacred Tradition and the Bible say so.

3.  How do you know the Bible is true?

4.  The Church and Sacred Tradition say so.

You see, we have a three legged stool.  We believe Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Catholic Church are infallible sources of doctrine.  So, we don't have circular reasoning.

Protestants do.  But they have a worse problem.  Lack of proof.

Remember above when I said that circular reasoning isn't necessarily wrong?  Well, Protestant reasoning can be proven wrong.  First, lets go back to the Catholic paradigm and add a number 5.

5.  Where do Sacred Tradition, the Bible and the Church say that the Church is infallible?

In answer to that question, I can provide answers from the the Early Church Fathers, the Bible and the Catechism.

Now lets go to the Protestant paradigm:

1.  How do you know that the Bible alone is the sole infallible source of doctrine?
2.  The Bible says so.
3.  Where?
4.  2 Tim 3:16


Catholic rebuttal:
No.  That illustrates the "all Scripture", not "only" Scripture and that depicts the Church teaching the man of God.  So, that contradicts Sola Scriptura.  Try again.


And they can go on and on producing verses which say the Bible is infallible, the Bible is inviolable, the Bible is authoritative.  But none which say that the Bible ALONE is so.  And that is the problem for Protestants.  Because the Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is infallible, inviolable and authoritative.  But so is the Church and Sacred Tradition.


You may wonder how people like Timothy, you and I, could know which books are inspired apart from an infallible church. Could we not trust in God who inspired the Bible in the first place? He gave the Scriptures to His people, and He could use them (weak and fallible as they are) to recognize His Word, and pass it on to future generations. I am convinced that this is exactly what God did.

That might possibly be true.  But we'll never know.  Because God chose to use His instrument, the Catholic Church, to determine which Holy Books were to be included in the Bible.

Sincerely,

De Maria