Response to Russell's - QUICK NOTES ON SOLA SCRIPTURA (Part 2)

QUICK NOTES ON SOLA SCRIPTURA (Part 2)

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17 – NASV)  

This is the second article in a series on Sola Scriptura (“Bible Alone”), in which the above passage is most important.  We assert that this passage does indeed support the concept of Sola Scriptura, and we want to address some specific objections to it (mainly from Catholics).

Please see my response to Russel's first article, here. 

Today’s specific objection is this:

Argument #2 – 2 TIMOTHY 3:16-17 CANNOT BE SPEAKING OF SOLA SCRIPTURA, BECAUSE JUST TWO VERSES BEFORE THIS (V. 14) WE SEE PAUL ALSO TELLING TIMOTHY TO “CONTINUE IN THE THINGS YOU HAVE LEARNED AND BECOME CONVINCED OF,” WHICH REFERS TO INFALLIBLE SACRED TRADITION.  SO SCRIPTURE IS NOT THE *ONLY* INFALLIBLE RULE OF FAITH HERE. 

Ok, so this argument assumes that there are TWO different infallible sources, or “rules of faith” here, for the church today… namely Scripture AND Tradition. 

But first of all, can somebody tell us exactly what it was that Timothy learned?  Anyone? 

I'm just taking a shot in the dark here and saying that it is the Gospel of Jesus Christ to which St. Paul is referring.

 If this information is supposed to be available to the church today, then what is it exactly, and where can we find it?  

In the Teaching of the Church.  The Teaching of the Church includes the Scriptures.

Can we know precisely what Timothy was convinced of?

The love of God.

 No, none of us were there and Paul never reveals this information.  This was personal, first-hand interaction between Paul and Timothy.  

I'm a bit confused by your statement here.  Are you insinuating that St. Paul was not teaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Catholics may say, “Oh yeah, that was US back then!  Paul is talking about OUR Tradition in 2 Timothy 3:14.”  But that’s just reading a Catholic idea back into the text.  No group can just assume that Paul was speaking of their own brand of “tradition.”   

On the contrary, Russell.  The Catholic Church has been around ever since Jesus Christ established the Church.  The Catholic Church makes a very logical assumption which can be backed up by 2000 years of history.  The following are facts.

a.  Jesus Christ did not write Scripture.
b.  Jesus Christ established a Church.
c.  Jesus Christ commanded that Church to teach His Doctrines.
d.  The Church first taught His Doctrines by word.
e.  Later, the Church wrote down the New Testament based upon the oral Teaching of the Church.

But perhaps “what Timothy learned” is simply what Paul alluded to in verses 10 and 11 (i.e., Paul’s teaching, conduct, purpose, faith, patience, love, perseverance, persecutions and sufferings).  But do Catholics have an infallible record of Paul’s teachings, conduct, persecutions, etc. (other than Scripture)?  No they don’t, so they need to quit putting words in Paul’s mouth and quit pretending that Paul is speaking of Catholic Tradition. 

The Protestant assumption here is that St. Paul was teaching something other than what Jesus taught.  But he didn't.  He taught the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Church was teaching that Gospel before she wrote down the message in the Scriptures.  The Catholic Church continued to teach that same message to this day.  

For the record, Catholicism’s “Sacred Tradition” has an identity crisis all its own.  See here:
http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-about-tradition.html

I'll look into that later.  For the meantime, you have to prove that St. Paul or anyone else were not teaching the Gospel before he wrote the second letter to Timothy.
 

Second, if the passage is speaking of TWO sources of infallible revelation, then why does Paul only describe Scripture as inspired / “God-breathed”?  

He doesn't.  Apparently, you don't understand what it means to that Scripture is God-breathed.  Let's use a more common word, "inspired".  It means the same thing.  Scripture was" inspired by God." Scripture is "God-breathed".

When one says that "Scripture is inspired."  Does that mean that Scripture came out of God's mouth?  No.  It means that God "inspired men" to write the Scripture.  

Did God inspire men ONLY to write?  No.  Since you will not accept the Teaching of the Church, Scripture comes to the rescue here.  

2 Peter 1:19-21
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

19 [a]So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

"But men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."

Before God inspired men to write down the Scriptures, God inspired men to PREACH.  God inspired men to TEACH.  Afterwards, these men wrote down what they had been teaching.

And why does he mention only “the sacred writings” (v. 15), but NOT mention “Sacred Tradition” here?  

Because Sacred Tradition is not yet called Sacred Tradition.  He refers to it when he says, "that which you learned and from whom you learned it".  This is the Teaching of Jesus Christ to which he refers here.  It is the unwritten Gospel to which he refers.  The Gospel which is being passed down by word of mouth, by Teaching, in other words, by Sacred Tradition.

In fact, even if it could be shown that v. 14 is really about some kind of “tradition,” notice that Paul doesn’t mention the idea of anything being INSPIRED until the subject of Scripture comes up.  Catholics are assuming (and insisting on) a second infallible rule of faith for the post-apostolic church, but without just cause in this context.  So this is wishful thinking on their part, and pure eisegesis (i.e., reading whatever you want into the text).

No, it is just your lack of understanding.  You seem to believe that the Scriptures dropped out of heaven into some unnamed person's hands.  But the fact is that Jesus Christ appointed the Church to Teach His Doctrines.  And the Holy Spirit inspired the Church to Teach the Doctrines of Jesus Christ by word and by Scripture.  
 

Third, Catholics are assuming that the things Timothy learned here are unwritten.  One may even be able to make a case in saying that “the things you have learned” (v. 14) might actually be referring to Scripture itself, instead of some unidentified “tradition.”   It would actually seem to flow right into verse 15.  So, it could be possible and acceptable to interpret verse 14 in this way.  We’re not saying that this has to be the case – just that it’s a possibility.

That is a problem with Protestantism.  And it is because they have abandoned and rejected the Doctrines (i.e. Traditions) of Jesus Christ that are the basis of the Scripture.  Therefore, they can and do come up with all kinds of cases to support their innovations.  

 But, in spite of what Catholics say, what Paul was speaking of doesn’t HAVE TO BE “Catholic Tradition.”

 Yes, it does.  It has to be Catholic Tradition because the New Testament is based upon Catholic Tradition.  No other Tradition predates the New Testament.  Catholic Tradition is the Teaching of Jesus Christ and is the foundation of the New Testament.

Fourth, we know that “the things you have learned” in verse 14 would never contradict the Scriptures.  However, the “Tradition” that the Catholic Church embraces CANNOT be the same thing that Paul was speaking of, since the Catholic Church’s Tradition contains a number of teachings that either contradict, or are foreign to, Scripture.

Not true Russell.  And you are proving in this series that Sola Scriptura, the very basis of Protestantism, contradicts the Scriptures.  
 

So, in conclusion, we can see the weakness of this Catholic argument.  The phrase “the things which you have learned” does NOT refer to some infallible Catholic Tradition.  Catholics are just trying to hi-jack this phrase for their own purposes by trying to read the Catholic Church’s own (supposed) “infallibility” into the text.

I think I have shown that your arguments have failed.  They are neither logical nor historically viable. 

It is obvious that the FOCUS of this passage is on Scripture.  And Scripture, as a Rule of Faith, does not need some “equal” or “infallible” supplement. 

On the contrary, we can see that the entire Second letter to St. Timothy is dedicated to reminding St. Timothy to pass the faith of Jesus Christ down by Teaching and Preaching.  And we can see that the verse which you provided is reminding St. Timothy to remember that which he learned from the Teaching of his parents.  And also, to remember to use the Old Testament to supplement his Teaching when preparing men of God to do works of righteousness.

Sincerely,

De Maria