Refuting Sola Scriptura Bible Verses

Refuting Sola Scriptura Bible Verses

In my article, "Sola Scriptura - Fatal Flaw" I mentioned some people attempt to prove the doctrine of Sola Scriptura by citing Bible verses that appear to support it. In this article, I will be refuting the most popular ones, as few as they are.

Sola Scriptura in 2 Timothy

The verse reads,

2 Timothy 3:16-17

"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

This is one of the most common verses used by Protestants. Problem is, it doesn't at all mention the doctrine of Scripture alone. Rather, in verse 16 it states that Scripture is useful and in verse 17 it states that it is essential. When 2 Timothy says, "... profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." Catholics Agree! The Bible is "profitable" or "useful" for those things. This doesn't talk about Sola Scriptura, it talks about the goodness of Scripture. Now, in verse 17 it says, "that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." This is where the argument most likely comes from. Let's look at an analogy:

If you wanted a collection of 5 red cubes, but only had 4, I could give you one saying, "Take this cube so that you may be perfectly complete in your collection." That doesn't mean the person only needs my one cube, it just means they need it in order to be complete.

In the same way, Scripture is required for every man to be "complete". It's an essential component of every Christian's life, but is not meant to be alone.

Further, in 2 Timothy 2:21 it reads, "Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work."

The phrase, "ready for every good work" is translated the exact same as the one in 2 Timothy 3:16, but I doubt Protestants will believe that all a Christian needs is to avoid what is "dishonorable". And if it wasn't clear still, James 1:4 says that steadfastness makes us "complete" and "perfect", but clearly nobody will take the stance that all a Christian needs is to be steadfast.

Therefore, this verse talks about the necessity of Scripture, not Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura in 1 Corinthians

The verse reads,

1 Corinthians 4:6

"I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another."

When Paul says, "... do not go beyond what is written ..." he is most likely talking about the Book of Life in Exodus 32:30-33. For the sake of the argument, I will just assume Paul is talking about the Scriptures. First, Paul uses the Greek word γέγραπται (gegraptai) which is in the perfect past tense. So Paul is not talking about future writings, but rather what has already been written. Now if he is talking about the Scriptures, the New Testament didn't exist yet. Whenever the Bible mentions, "the Scriptures" it is in reference to the Old Testament.

So if the Protestant reads this the way they are interpreting it, it would read, "I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond the Old Testament, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another."

And I highly doubt anyone would hold to such a view.

Sola Scriptura in Acts

The verse reads,

Acts 17:11

"Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so."

Protestants will cite this saying that the noble Jews examined the Scriptures to see if Paul and Silas' preaching was correct. Thus Scripture is the sole and final authority. Well, no. This verse doesn't say that the Scriptures are the only things we need (another reminder this speaks only of the Old Testament), but rather that their preaching should not contradict the Scriptures. Catholics agree. No Catholic doctrine should contradict the Bible.

Sola Scriptura in Revelation

This verse reads,

Revelation 22:18-19

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."

Now, this is perhaps among the weakest of arguments, but I have seen it used often and thus must address it. The argument that Protestants will attempt to make is that because there is a warning to not add or take away to the book, we can't add any doctrines other than those found in Scripture.

First, the verse clearly says, "... who hears the words of the prophecy of this book..." referring to the book of Revelation, not the entire Bible. Second, even if it was referring to the entire Bible, it wouldn't be a contradiction since nobody can alter the Word of God. Nobody has the authority to change the words of Scripture. Revelation doesn't talk about Sola Scriptura.

Conclusion

While I only covered a few, that's about as many "good" verses there are. They are mostly used by street preachers, pastors, or Christians who aren't well studied. Many intelligent Protestant scholars, the likes of Gavin Ortlund, hold to the view that Sola Scriptura is true not because the Bible has verses that say it is, but because he doesn't find any other infallible source of doctrine to be valid. I find this to be a far more valid way of defending Sola Scriptura, even if I find it to be false.