How Does a Catholic Read: 2 Timothy 3:16-17

Recently I had the idea to canvas some of my non-Catholic Christian friends and ask, "What verses of the New Testament do you think Catholics simply don't get?  You look at it and think, 'Are Catholics unaware of this verse?  What do they do with this?'"

The first passage which was suggested to me was 2 Timothy 3:16-17 – a text which is often used to support the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura".  So today we're going to examine the passage, apply it to the Sola Scriptura controversy... and answer the question:

"What the heck does a Catholic do with 2 Timothy 3:16-17?"

A Brief on the Controversy:

As I have said in previous posts, there are perhaps two issues which uniformly divide Christians into Catholic and “Protestant” camps.  This is why I don’t find the word “Protestant” particularly useful.  (But on these couple issues I will use it)

A few months ago I looked at one of them:  Ecclesiology.  The second one is regarding Christian “epistemology”.  That is a fancy word for “how we are know the content of the Christian faith”.  

“Sola Scriptura” is an attempt to answer this question.  Now, the problem with describing Sola Scriptura is that it means different things to different people.  Nonetheless, I will give my best summary.  Sola Scriptura means:

The Bible is the only infallible and authoritative source of Christian doctrine.  It is sufficient on its own to authoritatively deliver all the truths of the Christian religion.  

Conversely, there can be no binding Christian doctrine which is not taught by Scripture.  Religious practices or doctrines not witnessed to in the text should be viewed with suspicion or rejected outright.  

Further, there is no person or group of people who can deliver an infallible interpretation of the Bible which would bind other Christians in obedience.  

A Catholic would disagree with that.  Instead, he would say:

It is true that the Bible is the inspired word of God and critical in sound instruction in the faith.  However, the Christian faith contains things which are not explicitly taught in the text of the Bible.  Likewise, it is necessary to have an official interpreter and teacher of the faith which is authorized by God pass on and preserve the Christian religion.  

Those are the two camps.  And, as I said, 2Timothy 3:16-17 is used to support the former position.

The Passage:  

Let's start with the passage itself.  I’m going to start the quote all the way back in verse 10 for context.  I've tried to combine multiple translations in the specific part in question.

“10 You, however, have followed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, 11 my persecutions and sufferings that happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra—which persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me. 12 Indeed, all who want to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. 13 But wicked people and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving others and being deceived.   

14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, 15 and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 (Every / All) scripture is (inspired by God/God-breathed) and is (useful/profitable) for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be (complete/perfect), and equipped for every good work.” – 2 Timothy 3:10-17

A Catholic Reading Thereof:

I think the best way to do this is break it down by verses.


Verses 10-13:

“You, however, have followed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, my persecutions and sufferings that happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra—which persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me.”

Paul’s second letter to Timothy could be described as a farewell letter to his beloved understudy. It has a tone of finality to it.  Here Paul is remembering how he instructed Timothy both by word and example.  Timothy followed Paul through many journeys and saw the Apostle suffer for the sake of the Gospel.


Verse 14:

“But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it…”

The obvious meaning in this passage is Paul encouraging Timothy to continue as a faithful minister of the Gospel.  But there is something else I want to point out.

Imagine I said to my students:

 “Here is the truth.  And remember, you heard this from me.”  

How would you understand that?

Well, I would be saying there is something significant about learning from me, specifically.  That there is something more credible, genuine, and trustworthy about hearing it from me as opposed to any ol’ bloke.

Well, it appears there is something of that nature going here.

Paul often reminded his readers that he was indeed an Apostle, chosen by Jesus and in fellowship with the other Apostles.  He does this in his first letter to Timothy (2:7) and at the beginning of his letter to the Galatians.  So in this verse Paul is encouraging Timothy to remember:

“The Apostle Paul taught me this.  I can put my trust in it.”

Verse 15:

“…and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.”

Here Paul says the sacred writings – the Scriptures – are able to instruct us toward salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.  One question … what Scriptures are being referring to here?

Well, in the book of Acts we are told Timothy was a resident of ancient Lystra (modern Gökyurt, Turkey) and the son of a Greek man and Jewish woman (Acts 16:1).  The Scriptures he would have been taught in his childhood would have been the Greek translation of the Old Testament Scriptures known as the Septuagint.



Verse 16 – Part 1:

“(Every / All) scripture is (inspired by God/God-breathed)…”

Paul starts off verse sixteen by saying the Scriptures are inspired.  This means they have God as their primary author.  The Catholic Church teaches the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture.  The Catechism states:

“The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God.  God is the author of Sacred Scripture because he inspired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error his saving truth." - CCC 135-136

Now there is a bit of ambiguity here.  Paul says “all” or “every” Scripture is inspired.  Again, we can ask which writings specifically are on his mind when he writes this.

It is tempting to assume Paul is still only talking about the Old Testament writings because of the previous verse.  But maybe not.  In 1Timothy 5:18 Paul seems to reference Luke’s Gospel as Scripture.  This means Paul was aware that the Holy Spirit was inspiring new Scripture.  Thus, it stands to reason that Paul may be thinking about the Old Testament as well as any new Scripture being written.

What we can know for sure is that Paul is NOT thinking of the entire 27-book New Testament Canon.  Why?  Because some of it hasn’t been written yet.  So at most he is thinking of the Old Testament and a subset of the New Testament.  This will be important later on.



Verse 16 – Part 2:

“ … and is (useful/profitable) for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness…”

Now Paul says these Scriptures are useful for teaching, correction, and training in righteousness.  In other words, Scripture is useful in every area of forming a disciple.  The Catholic Church likewise acknowledges this as well.  The Catechism states:

“The study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place - is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture. The Church forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.” - CCC 132-133

Verse 17:

“… so that the man of God may be (complete/perfect), and equipped for every good work.”

And this is regarding the finished product; Christians disciples who are holy, completely instructed, and ready to do good work for the Lord.




Regarding the Controversy:

Now let’s turn our attention back to the Sola Scriptura controversy.  Does this passage teach Sola Scriptura?

The answer is … no.  There are three reasons for this:


Reason 1: It Doesn’t Get You Far Enough

Let’s grant for a moment that in verses 16 and 17 Paul intended to apply to Scripture all the relevant descriptions found in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.  Namely, that it is the sole authoritative source of Christian doctrine, that it is sufficient to deliver the entire Christian faith, and thus everything not found in Scripture is to be held suspect.

This does not get you all the way to Sola Scriptura.

Remember that Sola Scriptura also entails a rejection of any interpretive authority which can bind the consciences of other believers.  Even if one applies all the above descriptions to Scripture based on verses 16 and 17, Paul never condemns the idea of an authoritative interpreter of Scripture.   In fact, as we saw in verse 14, he proposes himself as an official interpreter of divine revelation.

So even if one proposes the Bible as the sole source of Christian revelation, one can still have an official public interpreter.

Reason 2:  Which Scriptures, Again?

Again, let’s grant that verses 16 and 17 provide all the relevant descriptions found in Sola Scriptura.  Next we have to ask, “Which Scriptures did Paul have in mind when applied those descriptions?”

Recall how we said Paul was (at most) thinking of the Old Testament plus some New Testament texts.  He could not have been thinking of the entire New Testament as we regard it today because there were still New Testament books which had not been written yet.  This means whatever descriptions he applied to those Scriptures would not apply to the Bible, but a subset of the Bible.

With this in mind, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 doesn’t give you “Bible Alone”.  It would actually give you “Greek Old Testament + Some of the New Testament Books… Alone.”

So if it is true that the “Scriptures” to which Paul was referring are the sole source of Christian revelation, and they contain the entirety of the Christian religion… this means any book written after 2Timothy could not add anything to Christian doctrine.  You could subtract all the writings of Saint John and lose nothing of significance.

Well… that’s clearly not something a believer in Sola Scriptura wants to say.

Reason 3: Not What He Said

But here is the biggest reason why these passages do not support Sola Scriptura.  Paul simply does not attribute to Scripture those things contained in the doctrine of Sola Scripture.  He does not say the Scriptures are the sole source of Christian faith, he doesn’t say they are sufficient on their own to deliver the entirety of God’s revelation, and he doesn’t tell you to be suspicious of any doctrine not found explicitly in the inspired text.

One good way of illustrating this is to take the same functional description which Paul applied to Scripture in 2Tim 3:16-17 and apply it to something different.  Take this example:

“Wood-glue firmly attaches boards to one another and is useful in every carpentry project, so that your projects will get completely done and be ready for use.”

Does this mean wood glue is the only thing you need?  Does this mean anything other than wood glue should be held in suspicion?  Well… no.  It just means wood glue is awesome and useful for completing every project.

Similarly, Paul simply said Scripture is super awesome, useful in every area of training disciples, and helps create completely mature disciples who are ready for anything.  And that… is precisely what the Catholic Church says about Scripture.

A Self-Refuting Principle:

The question of how we are supposed to learn the Christian faith is an important one.  The implications of one’s answer reach into every other area of Christian belief and practice.  This is why Sola Scriptura continues to be a major point of contention between Catholics and Protestant Christians.

(Note: As I said above, I tend to avoid the word “Protestant”, but I think it is appropriate here.) 

Here is the great irony.  Sola Scriptura is proposed by Protestant Christians an essential doctrine of the Christian faith.  Now, if Sola Scriptura is true, then every Christian doctrine must be taught in the Bible.  This leads to the question:

“Where is Sola Scriptura taught in the Bible?”

The most commonly cited passage is 2Timothy 3:16-17.  But as we’ve seen today, it teaches nothing of the sort.  And the same can be said for every other passage used to support Sola Scriptura.

Thus, we are brought to the absurd conclusion; A rigorous adherence to Sola Scriptura would actually lead someone to reject Sola Scriptura…  

…and hopefully go in search of a more defensible Christian epistemology.