Author Topic: 2 Timothy 3:16-17  (Read 940 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Laird

  • I'm back!
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 301
  • Lord have mercy
2 Timothy 3:16-17
« on: February 24, 2014, 11:26:00 PM »
I was wondering what is the Orthodox view on this verse and why it doesn't support Sola Scriptura. And what do the Greek words 'theopneustos' (God-breathed), 'ophelimos' (profitable), 'artios' (complete/perfect), and 'exartizo' (complete/equip) mean, for those who know Greek. Why doesn't it imply Sola Scriptura? It seems that most of these Greek words are only used in this verse, which Protestants say is because only Scripture is God-breathed, makes one perfect, and it alone equips one for every good work. Any thoughts? And is Tradition God-breathed in the same way as Scripture?
"Do not deceive yourself with idle hopes that in the world to come you will find life if you have not tried to find it in this present world." - Theophanis the Monk

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,247
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: 2 Timothy 3:16-17
« Reply #1 on: February 24, 2014, 11:35:52 PM »
At the time St Paul wrote his letters, the only established and accepted scripture was what we now call the OT. The Christian interpretation of the OT can only be properly done in the light of the NT, and in what was handed down to the apostles by Christ Himself and the Holy Spirit.
No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to email me at the address in my profile.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,409
  • Not quite as cute as a kitten :(
  • Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: 2 Timothy 3:16-17
« Reply #2 on: February 25, 2014, 12:04:57 AM »
It doesn't support Sola Scriptura because if it did, then the Jews would correct and Christians wouldn't be.
"If only a man desired it for a single day from morning till night, he would be able to come to the measure of God." (Abba Alonius)

Online Maximum Bob

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,949
  • Personal Text? We can have personal text?
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: 2 Timothy 3:16-17
« Reply #3 on: February 25, 2014, 12:27:24 AM »
I was wondering what is the Orthodox view on this verse and why it doesn't support Sola Scriptura. 

Put as simply as possible because it says "all" Scripture not "only" Scripture.
Psalm 37:23 The Lord guides a man safely in the way he should go.

Prov. 3: 5-6 Trust in the Lord with all your heart, lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will direct your paths.

Offline Laird

  • I'm back!
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 301
  • Lord have mercy
Re: 2 Timothy 3:16-17
« Reply #4 on: February 25, 2014, 12:49:34 AM »
It doesn't support Sola Scriptura because if it did, then the Jews would correct and Christians wouldn't be.

I've never found this argument convincing. Although when St. Paul wrote this letter only the OT had been written, I don't see why it can't be taken to mean Scripture in the general sense, which would include the NT after it had been written.

Just to be clear, I'm asking these questions simply to better understand the Orthodox view on this verse. I do not believe in Sola Scriptura.
"Do not deceive yourself with idle hopes that in the world to come you will find life if you have not tried to find it in this present world." - Theophanis the Monk

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,746
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: 2 Timothy 3:16-17
« Reply #5 on: February 25, 2014, 01:12:07 AM »
It doesn't support Sola Scriptura because if it did, then the Jews would correct and Christians wouldn't be.
That's actually a very weak argument. Why would the Jews be correct if 2 Timothy 3:16-17 supports sola scriptura?
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,247
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: 2 Timothy 3:16-17
« Reply #6 on: February 25, 2014, 01:21:40 AM »
It doesn't support Sola Scriptura because if it did, then the Jews would correct and Christians wouldn't be.
That's actually a very weak argument. Why would the Jews be correct if 2 Timothy 3:16-17 supports sola scriptura?

See reply #1.
No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to email me at the address in my profile.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,746
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: 2 Timothy 3:16-17
« Reply #7 on: February 25, 2014, 01:24:17 AM »
It doesn't support Sola Scriptura because if it did, then the Jews would correct and Christians wouldn't be.
That's actually a very weak argument. Why would the Jews be correct if 2 Timothy 3:16-17 supports sola scriptura?

See reply #1.
Is that what xOrthodox4Christx meant to communicate in his reply?
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,247
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: 2 Timothy 3:16-17
« Reply #8 on: February 25, 2014, 01:32:11 AM »
It doesn't support Sola Scriptura because if it did, then the Jews would correct and Christians wouldn't be.
That's actually a very weak argument. Why would the Jews be correct if 2 Timothy 3:16-17 supports sola scriptura?

See reply #1.
Is that what xOrthodox4Christx meant to communicate in his reply?

It certainly concurs with what I wrote.
No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to email me at the address in my profile.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,746
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: 2 Timothy 3:16-17
« Reply #9 on: February 25, 2014, 01:33:33 AM »
It doesn't support Sola Scriptura because if it did, then the Jews would correct and Christians wouldn't be.
That's actually a very weak argument. Why would the Jews be correct if 2 Timothy 3:16-17 supports sola scriptura?

See reply #1.
Is that what xOrthodox4Christx meant to communicate in his reply?

It certainly concurs with what I wrote.
I'm not sure it does, so I await xOrthodox4Christx's reply to my question, for it is really his answer I want.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2014, 01:34:24 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Laird

  • I'm back!
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 301
  • Lord have mercy
Re: 2 Timothy 3:16-17
« Reply #10 on: March 06, 2014, 10:30:23 AM »
It doesn't support Sola Scriptura because if it did, then the Jews would correct and Christians wouldn't be.
That's actually a very weak argument. Why would the Jews be correct if 2 Timothy 3:16-17 supports sola scriptura?

See reply #1.
Is that what xOrthodox4Christx meant to communicate in his reply?

It certainly concurs with what I wrote.
I'm not sure it does, so I await xOrthodox4Christx's reply to my question, for it is really his answer I want.

See reply #1 and #4. Since the NT wasn't written at the time, the only Scripture was the OT, which St. Paul calls inspired. But since he only mentions the OT being inspired, then all this verse proves is Sola OT Scriptura. And this is why the Jews would be correct and not the Christians, because the NT is never said to be inspired. But I find this argument very unconvincing and weak.
"Do not deceive yourself with idle hopes that in the world to come you will find life if you have not tried to find it in this present world." - Theophanis the Monk

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,409
  • Not quite as cute as a kitten :(
  • Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: 2 Timothy 3:16-17
« Reply #11 on: March 06, 2014, 10:37:45 AM »
It doesn't support Sola Scriptura because if it did, then the Jews would correct and Christians wouldn't be.
That's actually a very weak argument. Why would the Jews be correct if 2 Timothy 3:16-17 supports sola scriptura?

See reply #1.
Is that what xOrthodox4Christx meant to communicate in his reply?

It certainly concurs with what I wrote.
I'm not sure it does, so I await xOrthodox4Christx's reply to my question, for it is really his answer I want.

The Jews wrote the Scriptura. If it was all they needed, they'd have been right, and Christ would've been wrong. If you examine the arguments that both Jews and Christians make in relation to the nature of the Messiah, they don't differ all that much, they use the same verses to argue their points.

"But I find this argument very unconvincing and weak."

True, but at the time it was what came to mind. I can respond another way now though.

This: there was no Scriptura in the first 400 years of the Christian era. Graphe in Greek simply means "writing" as does the Scriptura in Latin. There was no official listing of Sacred Writings held among the Jews or the Christians, of either the New or the Old Testaments until 400 years after Christ lived.

  • Essenes: Believed that any number of Books were inspired, had copies of Judith, Tobit etc.
  • Pharisees: Believed in the Palestinian Canon used today
  • Sadducees: Believed only the Torah was inspired
  • Samaritans: Only their version of the Torah was inspired
  • Alexandrian Jews: Greek and Aramaic Deuterocanon were included
  • Ethiopian Jews: Jewish Apocrypha like the Assumption of Isaiah etc. included

There simply was no consensus on what Scripture was in Judaism. Neither was there in Christianity, for 400 years. There were debates about the NT canon made by Eusebius, Origen, Athanasius et al. And there were debates about the OT canon between Augustine and Jerome, to name a few.

The debate didn't even end there, because Martin Luther started it up again with his speculations on the NT books of James, Hebrews, Peter and Revelation and their inauthenticity in his mind, as well as that of the Septuagint Deuterocanon. (Antilegomena)

The only Sola Scriptura that would've existed, given that Scriptura wasn't even defined yet, would've been the Torah.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 10:50:59 AM by xOrthodox4Christx »
"If only a man desired it for a single day from morning till night, he would be able to come to the measure of God." (Abba Alonius)

Offline primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,759
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • Holy Trinity Orthodox Church
Re: 2 Timothy 3:16-17
« Reply #12 on: March 06, 2014, 11:17:46 AM »
Quote
I've never found this argument convincing. Although when St. Paul wrote this letter only the OT had been written, I don't see why it can't be taken to mean Scripture in the general sense, which would include the NT after it had been written
Because the question, "What is scripture" wasn't answered for 300 years after St. Paul died.

Quote
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness
Nowhere does it say that scripture has the exclusive use for teaching, rebuking, etc. Especially in light of St. Paul's other letters. In fact, scripture states the exact opposite in 2 Thessalonians.

PP
"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,409
  • Not quite as cute as a kitten :(
  • Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: 2 Timothy 3:16-17
« Reply #13 on: April 20, 2014, 10:46:36 PM »
It doesn't support Sola Scriptura because if it did, then the Jews would correct and Christians wouldn't be.
That's actually a very weak argument. Why would the Jews be correct if 2 Timothy 3:16-17 supports sola scriptura?

Quote from: St. Ignatius of Antioch
I heard some [Jews] saying, 'If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures, I will not believe the Gospel;' on my saying to them, 'It is written,' they answered me, 'That remains to be proved.' But to me Jesus Christ is in the place of all that is ancient: His cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which is by Him, are undefiled monuments of antiquity. - Epistle to the Philadelphians, 8
"If only a man desired it for a single day from morning till night, he would be able to come to the measure of God." (Abba Alonius)

Offline Nicene

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 615
Re: 2 Timothy 3:16-17
« Reply #14 on: April 21, 2014, 03:51:20 AM »
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

I think its interesting that Paul is firmly convinced that the Old testament makes one wise to salvation and that the New testament at this point does not exist (At least all of it). The protestant has to argue that this is universal and would obviously apply to the New testament as it was written overtime, but do we think the apostles went around and gave out books and said "This is your infallible guide to the faith?" I think that's a bit anachronistic.

The church recognized the inspired nature of the apostolic writings after the death of the apostles and regarded them as authoritative because it came from those in the earliest time, those who were given authority to proclaim Christ. Their words could not be less authoritative than the old. I think this is the correct view of things and we should obviously judge by the New testament, but with that in mind do we make that the final and ultimate arbiter? The New testament can be confusing and many have been mislead by reading it (need I give examples?), so you need a tradition and a teaching alongside the New testament.

We did not receive the books of the bible by themselves but had the apostles preaching and commanding the churches, and the new testament represents but a fraction of the thoughts of the apostles, of Paul and etc. I do not think we can insert the New testament into Paul's words here, but we cannot ignore that obviously Paul expected Timothy to obey his words and those who had taught him from infancy. Timothy was not just called to obey his epistle but Paul himself in person. If it was the case that Timothy was to obey the words of Paul that came from his mouth, then we have no reason to be opposed to tradition or to consider it less authoritative.

If for instance we found or have in our tradition aspects of Jesus' complete exposition of the Old testament regarding himself, which he gave to the apostles after his resurrection, can that be considered less authoritative because it is not found in the universal canon? The mere possibility of that answers that question with no, it would be more authoritative than all of the New testament combined because it would be the perfect exposition.

I would clarify this is not an official orthodox position but something I have come to the conclusion of in my reading.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2014, 03:56:25 AM by Nicene »
Thank you.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,746
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: 2 Timothy 3:16-17
« Reply #15 on: April 23, 2014, 01:56:40 AM »
It doesn't support Sola Scriptura because if it did, then the Jews would correct and Christians wouldn't be.
That's actually a very weak argument. Why would the Jews be correct if 2 Timothy 3:16-17 supports sola scriptura?

Quote from: St. Ignatius of Antioch
I heard some [Jews] saying, 'If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures, I will not believe the Gospel;' on my saying to them, 'It is written,' they answered me, 'That remains to be proved.' But to me Jesus Christ is in the place of all that is ancient: His cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which is by Him, are undefiled monuments of antiquity. - Epistle to the Philadelphians, 8
I don't see how that proves your point. Would you care to rephrase that in your own words?
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • Erst Amish Appalachian
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,153
  • Faith should; hope could; love would
    • Facebook page
  • Faith: GOAA
  • Jurisdiction: Catechumen
Re: 2 Timothy 3:16-17
« Reply #16 on: May 08, 2014, 10:23:08 PM »
'Scripture' means "what is written," by the way. Greek usage by no means would have been limited to canons, or Hebrew law, or anything like that. I'm only pointing this out so that we realize we'll have to understand St. Paul from his context, from the ways he uses terms throughout his letters, and so on -- and that Protestants cannot legitimately indulge in the circular idea that he was using specialist Protestant verbiage.
In love did God create the world; in love does he guide it ...; in love is he going wondrously to transform it. --Abba Isaac

Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity. --Climacus

Offline Porter ODoran

  • Erst Amish Appalachian
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,153
  • Faith should; hope could; love would
    • Facebook page
  • Faith: GOAA
  • Jurisdiction: Catechumen
Re: 2 Timothy 3:16-17
« Reply #17 on: May 08, 2014, 10:37:02 PM »
(By the way, an interesting citation to counter to this one in 2 Tim would be 2 Pet 1:20: Scripture, what is written, "is not for the interpretation of amateurs.")
In love did God create the world; in love does he guide it ...; in love is he going wondrously to transform it. --Abba Isaac

Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity. --Climacus

Online TheTrisagion

  • The Purple Demon is gonna get you if you don't watch out!
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,132
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: 2 Timothy 3:16-17
« Reply #18 on: May 09, 2014, 10:18:10 AM »
I was wondering what is the Orthodox view on this verse and why it doesn't support Sola Scriptura. 

Put as simply as possible because it says "all" Scripture not "only" Scripture.
This.
Quote from: Mor Ephrem
Why can't you just take your spiritual edification like a man? 

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,399
Re: 2 Timothy 3:16-17
« Reply #19 on: May 09, 2014, 10:37:52 AM »
I was wondering what is the Orthodox view on this verse and why it doesn't support Sola Scriptura. And what do the Greek words 'theopneustos' (God-breathed), 'ophelimos' (profitable), 'artios' (complete/perfect), and 'exartizo' (complete/equip) mean, for those who know Greek. Why doesn't it imply Sola Scriptura? It seems that most of these Greek words are only used in this verse, which Protestants say is because only Scripture is God-breathed, makes one perfect, and it alone equips one for every good work. Any thoughts? And is Tradition God-breathed in the same way as Scripture?
For one thing, because the God-breathed perfect Scripture gives us the profitable command to equip ourselves by "stand[ing] firm and hold[ing] fast to the Traditions we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." II Thessalonians 2:15

As the Apostle warned: "In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who...does not live according to the Tradition you received from us."  II Thessalonians 3:6

Btw, I note that Protestants translate παράδοσις as "Tradition" when it is negative (like Christ preaching against following the "traditions of men") and supports their viewpoint, but as "teaching" when it is positive, like when the Apostles tell us to hold it fast.  It is, however, the same word in both cases: what does Sola Scritpura say about mistranslation and misrepresentation of what Scripture says?
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,759
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • Holy Trinity Orthodox Church
Re: 2 Timothy 3:16-17
« Reply #20 on: May 09, 2014, 11:04:43 AM »
I was wondering what is the Orthodox view on this verse and why it doesn't support Sola Scriptura. And what do the Greek words 'theopneustos' (God-breathed), 'ophelimos' (profitable), 'artios' (complete/perfect), and 'exartizo' (complete/equip) mean, for those who know Greek. Why doesn't it imply Sola Scriptura? It seems that most of these Greek words are only used in this verse, which Protestants say is because only Scripture is God-breathed, makes one perfect, and it alone equips one for every good work. Any thoughts? And is Tradition God-breathed in the same way as Scripture?
For one thing, because the God-breathed perfect Scripture gives us the profitable command to equip ourselves by "stand[ing] firm and hold[ing] fast to the Traditions we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." II Thessalonians 2:15

As the Apostle warned: "In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who...does not live according to the Tradition you received from us."  II Thessalonians 3:6

Btw, I note that Protestants translate παράδοσις as "Tradition" when it is negative (like Christ preaching against following the "traditions of men") and supports their viewpoint, but as "teaching" when it is positive, like when the Apostles tell us to hold it fast.  It is, however, the same word in both cases: what does Sola Scritpura say about mistranslation and misrepresentation of what Scripture says?
sola scriptura nisi incommoditas.

PP
« Last Edit: May 09, 2014, 11:08:07 AM by primuspilus »
"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker