2 Tim 3

Today's first reading is a favorite one to use as an alleged biblical proof of Sola Scriptura. 2 Tim 3:

10You, however, know all about my teaching, my way of life, my purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, 11persecutions, sufferings—what kinds of things happened to me in Antioch, Iconium and Lystra, the persecutions I endured. Yet the Lord rescued me from all of them. 12In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13while evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

In verse 14 Paul talks about "what you have learned and from whom you have learned it." The preceding verses remind Timothy of some of the things Paul and Timothy went through. Notice Paul does not appeal to an objective impartial reading of scripture. Before he mentions scripture he mentions reasons to trust him as a man of God. Remember Jesus didn't say, "Here is the truth." He said, "I am the way, the truth and the life." Paul is following that. He is not focusing on a plan but a person, himself. He contrasts himself with those "having the form of godliness but denying it's power(vs 5)". Essentially Paul is saying Timothy should listen to him because he is a saint.

Then he talks about scripture. What does scripture means here? Probably the Septuagint. Timothy knew them as an infant. Paul does not hint at any books being added. So neither Paul nor Timothy have the New Testament in view here. Did the Holy Spirit have it in view? You can make that assumption but it is an assumption. It is not clear in the text. Catholics do apply what these verses say to the New Testament as well but that does not flow trivially from this verse. We base it on other statements the church has made about the bible that clearly apply to the New Testament.

Then we get down to the verses protestants actually quote, verses 16 and 17. What do they say? First of all, scripture is God-breathed or inspired by God. This is amazingly important. It is stronger than saying it is inerrant. It means God chose these words to make Himself known. It means we need to read them. We need to memorize them. We need to reflect on them. When Catholics deny Sola Scriptura they do not deny the importance of the bible. Quite the opposite. What Catholics say is it is so important it must be read in the right light so it does not get distorted. It is so good that if we twist it to our own desires we can do great evil.

So it says it is inspired and then it says it is useful. Useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. Does that imply that nothing else is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness? No. This was obviously written before Paul was killed around 66 AD. So there would still be people who had heard Jesus preach. Certainly there were many who had heard Paul preach. Would those words be useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness? Of course. Paul is not denying the usefulness of everything else God has done. So the Sola part of Sola Scriptura just isn't here. There is no hint of it. To say it is is to twist the word of God.

Then we have the phrase "man of God". This could mean an ordained person. It certainly does not mean a novice Christian. It means somebody who has been formed in the faith to some degree. But then such a person needs to be taught, rebuked, corrected and trained in righteousness. By whom? By the scriptures? Hardly. Somebody has to use the scriptures to do that. That is how people get equipped for every good work. Timothy was to use the scriptures to form other men of God? Does that exclude the passing on of tradition? On the contrary, it is assumed that Timothy's way of interpreting scripture would be passed on.

Why Ephesians 4

Ephesians 4:11-16:

11It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.


14Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. 15Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. 16From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.

 Ephesians 4 has been an interesting chapter for me. When I was contemplating the claims of the church I was struck by verse 14. I was struck by it because I could see I had been blown around by winds of teaching. I could see many others were worse than me. Chasing around the latest hot fad in Christianity. Verse 14 calls that a mark of immaturity. But what will be the answer? The word "then" indicates the preceding verses tell us how to avoid this trap. It talks about unity. It talks about serving the body of Christ. Doing the job Jesus wants us to do. Not the job we want but what builds up the body. That is how we become mature. That is how we get the fullness of Christ.

What do we do instead of being tossed back and forth by the waves? We speak the truth in love. How are those opposites? We don't fly around thinking maybe this guy has the truth or maybe that guy has the truth. We can speak the truth. We must speak it in love. That is how we grow into Christ. The head of that body.

Pauls uses the phrase "in Christ" a lot. What does that look like? It involves being joined with other Christians who all play a role. Some are ligaments. So close unity is important here. Paul has just talked about one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Every time I thought about the rock from Matthew 16 I was struck by how it seemed the exact opposite of "being tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching". That if we wanted to really grow up we needed a solid foundation. Not chasing something better but standing firm and letting Jesus build His church.

Psalm 19

I was listening to the Grace To You radio show last night. John MacArthur was talking about the Sufficiency of Scripture. He picked Psalm 19 as the most clear and concise statement in the bible about this. He focused on verses 7-9:

7 The law of the LORD is perfect,

reviving the soul.

The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy,

making wise the simple.

8 The precepts of the LORD are right,

giving joy to the heart.

The commands of the LORD are radiant,

giving light to the eyes.

9 The fear of the LORD is pure,

enduring forever.

The ordinances of the LORD are sure

and altogether righteous.

The amazing thing here is there is no reference to scripture in these verses. We have the law of the Lord, the precepts of the Lord, the statutes of the Lord, the commands of the Lord, etc. So he starts with the assumption that these phrases are talking only about scripture. He even does this when his stated goal is to prove the sufficiency of scripture.

This is how deeply embedded assumptions about Sola Scriptura are. A bright guy like MacArthur cannot even address them when he tries. He sets himself the task of proving scripture is sufficient and proves only the Word of God is sufficient. He can't even address the possibility that the Word of God might be bigger than just scripture. So much so that he declares a text that does not mention scripture at all to be the clearest, most concise statement of a principle about scripture.

The amazing part is that I know nobody is going to see the hole on his logic. I do because I have been thinking about such questions for a long time now. But 10 years ago I would have found his argument very convincing. I would never have noticed his huge question beg. That is because I shared the same reformed tradition. I had the same embedded assumptions. So I would have listened and has my ideas reinforced just like most of his listeners did. I would have said that my intelligence and John MacArthur's intelligence would allow me to be sure no error was made.