Replies

Here is the full Greek of the passage in Timothy:

14 Σὺ δὲ μένε ἐν οἷς ἔμαθες καὶ ἐπιστώθης, εἰδὼς παρὰ τίνος ἔμαθες,
15 καὶ ὅτι ἀπὸ βρέφους τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα οἶδας, τὰ δυνάμενά σε σοφίσαι εἰς σωτηρίαν διὰ πίστεως τῆς ἐν χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.
16 Πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν, πρὸς ἔλεγχον, πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν, πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ•
17 ἵνα ἄρτιος ᾖ ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ ἄνθρωπος, πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἐξηρτισμένος.

And just for tracking purposes, here’s the English:

(14) But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
(15) And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
(16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
(17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Your comments (not necessarily in the order you gave them):

So, St. Paul is saying here, remember what I HAVE TAUGHT you and trust also in Scripture. IOW, trust both oral teaching and the written word.

And indeed there’s nothing wrong with Timothy remembering what Paul taught him. He was a living apostle, after all, and you don’t see those every day.

But what this passage does NOT demonstrate is that what Paul taught him was any different in substance from what was in the OT Scriptures, or in the apostolic writings we now have. Again, the fact that Timothy was in the unique position to have assurance of the truth directly from Paul orally is not a valid justification for claiming the general principle of an oral tradition with parallel authority to Scripture. That’s a non sequitur. The conclusion does not follow from the premise.

That would be like arguing that the Pharisees’ rabbinic additions to the law were justified because Moses had to speak about the revelation of the law before he got it all written down. Certainly what Moses spoke of to his elders before he wrote it all down was true. But once it was written, that locked it in. Nothing from the rabbinic traditions, written or oral, could trump it, or contradict it. In any debate over the specific subject matter it dealt with, it was the ultimate authority in determining divine truth.

That, BTW, was one of Jesus’ biggest beefs with the Pharisees. Despite having a written word from God, they couldn’t leave well enough alone, and would justified their “creative” new traditions even when they conflicted (directly or indirectly) with obvious truths in the written law, because after all, they were the magisterium, entrusted by God to be the teaching class, and so they thought they had the delegated authority to do that sort of thing. Jesus told them no, they didn’t, and they hated Him for it. It’s why they worked so hard to get Him crucified.

This is why Elsie keeps bringing up all those “it is written” passages. There was a pattern of conflict between what the Jewish magisterium was cranking out versus what God had originally said. Jesus has by example shown us that the way to deal with these bad evolutions of human tradition, especially those claiming to be from God, is to evaluate them against the written word. Sola Scriptura advocates are only attempting to imitate Christ in this.

Moving on then …

In the Greek, the word used to describe Scripture is not sufficient, but profitable which are two different things.

It’s not that simple. I assume you refer to the word “ophelimos” (bolded in verse 16 of the Greek), which generally means useful, profitable, etc. I never made the argument that word means “sufficient,” and I don’t know any Protestant who makes that argument (though for our discussion I ran across a usage of the word in Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War 3.68 which is more like “purpose” then “usage,” which in some sense makes the passage more readable but it would require more study to see if it would be a proper fit).

Remember I already said these debates get derailed because people get confused about what sufficiency we really are talking about. The word that comes much closer to speaking of sufficiency is “artios,” found in verse 17, and it’s derived form, “exartismenos,” (both bolded above in verse 17) both of which are used to convey the idea of the total sufficiency of the man of God for any aspect of Christian life:

Strong’s Greek #739 739 ἄρτιος [artios /ar•tee•os/] adj. From 737; TDNT 1:475; TDNTA 80; GK 787; AV translates as “perfect” once. 1 fitted. 2 complete, perfect. 2A having reference apparently to “special aptitude for given uses”.
Strong’s Greek #1822 1822 ἐξαρτίζω [exartizo /ex•ar•tid•zo/] v. From 1537 and a derivative of 739; TDNT 1:475; TDNTA 80; GK 1992; Two occurrences; AV translates as “accomplish + 1096” once, and “thoroughly furnish” once. 1 to complete, finish. 1A to furnish perfectly. 1B to finish, accomplish, (as it were, to render the days complete).

This sufficiency is always to a purpose, the making of a man of God, and as such must of course begin with the wisdom of salvation by faith in Christ, but it must run on to the other areas mentioned, doctrine, proving error, correcting fault, and cultivating righteousness.

In fact, if you notice, the two words amplify each other. Paul appears to be intentionally using this word play to amplify the sense of total completeness he is trying to convey. And while he certainly wants Timothy to remember the truths he taught him, this completeness of preparation has as its proper grammatical referent the God-breathed Scriptures and nothing else.

Think of it this way. An old prospector who has actually been to King Solomon’s mines tells a young man, look, the mines are real, I’ve seen them myself. It’s all true. But here’s a diary, written in King Solomon own words, and in it everything you need to know to find the mines and make good use of them. And sonny I mean everything, every map, every trap, every hidden passage, every vein of ore, every piece of equipment and how to use it, it’s all there. I’m old, and when I’m gone, it’ll be up to you. But you can do this, because you have the diary.

That’s the sufficiency we’re talking about. Your caricature is not “Sola Scriptura,” it is “SoLO Scriptura,” the false idea that we would never consider extra-biblical information useful or beneficial. It grossly misrepresents us to frame it that way, which you did again here:

it does not say that one can know all things

Again, to reiterate, we do not say that Scriptures enables one to “know all things.” That man is made of nothing but high grade straw. We DO say the Scriptures contain enough information to make a complete job of producing sufficient wisdom about faith in Christ to be saved:

Consider what Paul says of Scripture’s relevance to salvation:

τὰ δυνάμενά σε σοφίσαι εἰς σωτηρίαν διὰ πίστεως τῆς ἐν χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.

The phrase “is able” is based on the word meaning “power,” (here dunamena) and describes Scripture as having the power to make Timothy wise (sophisai) unto (up to the level of) (eis), salvation (soterian) which is by faith in Jesus Christ.

So again, not ALL knowledge, but enough to produce salvation in Timothy. Which accords with Paul’s other comment on the Gospel message:

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Note the nearly identical pattern of words here, which holds up in the Greek as well. Combining the two passages, we see that Paul understands the Scriptures as having the same power on their own as Paul does in his own preaching, the power to produce salvation. We also see that Paul in neither case is justifying a secondary stream of data different from or additional to Scripture, but instead is showing the essential harmony between the living example of his preaching with the truths already contained in Scripture.

Which gets us to another key misrepresentation of Sola Scripture. Like Paul, we do NOT see Scripture as simply words on a page. The communication of God’s message to the world isn’t some dead intellectual process. It is a living word, because it is energized by God Himself in hearts and minds of those who hear it:

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick [old English “alive”], and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

So God’s word is alive. As such, it always accomplishes exactly what God send it out to do. Always:

Isa 55:10-11 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: (11) So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

And this is true. God’s word in any form will accomplish the task to which He sends it. Not everyone receives the Holy Spirit. These are the carnal hearers, as Paul says, who cannot understand spiritual things, who can know intellectually that Messiah must be born in Bethlehem, but cannot accept Jesus of Bethlehem, even though he raises the dead, because they are trapped in their carnality.

But for the man of God, one who has a heart open to the Holy Spirit of God, those Scriptures were indeed sufficient for guidance in all important matters of faith and life, as with Simeon, who anticipated the coming Christ, and no doubt was well familiar with the OT Scriptures concerning the Consolation of Israel, as was Timothy, but not as a strictly intellectual matter, but bound up with his personal faith and the work of the Holy Spirit in his life:

Luk 2:25 And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. (26) And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ.

Which gets us back to the typical error in understanding how we employ this passage to support the sufficiency of Scripture. We do not see 2Tim3:16 as describing only OT Scripture, because Paul, after making his point to Timothy about indeed being able to discover salvation in the then extant Scriptures, goes on to generalize the principle. He explain the “Why.” Scripture has this power, Paul is effectively saying, because it is God-breathed. He then llists the characteristics of such God-breathed writings. They have, taken as a whole (which is what Paul does), the power to lead one not only to a saving understanding of Christ, but also to successfully live the life of a Christian fully equipped for all righteousness.

BTW, your sidebar on how righteousness relates to calling, especially in Timothy’s case, is interesting, but I don’t see how it limits the scope of preparation for righteousness that is provided by Scripture. As I said before, Paul, especially in the Greek, is emphatic that said scope is absolutely comprehensive. The preparation provided by Scripture, taken as a whole, is compete. There is no equivocation here. Besides, all of our righteousness as believers is by way of calling:

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

And these are the same set of good works for which, Paul says, we are completely prepared by way of Scripture. No Christian can get by without these essentials, whether minister or ministered to, and they are all covered in Scripture.

Thus Scripture forms the pattern of belief. Everything taught by a minister of the Gospel must be consistent with it, or else must be rejected. This demonstrates what Protestants sometimes call the Regulative Principle, which is the idea that once God sets the pattern in divine revelation, we are not free to amend it, even with good intentions.

Consider for example the common claim that Jesus never specifically said homosexuality was wrong. Superficially, this argument may appear true. But how did Jesus approach the problem? He set the pattern for what was right, one man, married to one woman, for life. That’s the divinely established pattern. We are not allowed to alter that. Therefore, no matter how far into the future or how wild the excesses of a given age, we will always know the true pattern for human sexuality and marriage. We cannot amend it just because some specific variation was “never mentioned.” We are then defended should someone come along and purport to reveal a long held “secret” oral tradition that it’s really OK to be gay.

God is very jealous of establishing His revealed word as the pattern for our lives, especially our relationship with Him. Consider the poor sons of Aaron:

Lev 10:1-2 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not. (2) And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.

Possibly they had “good intentions.” After all, the offering wasn’t to some false pagan deity, but to the true God. But it was not according to the word given. Therefore it was rebellion, and brought terrible consequences.

Then there’s Uzzah. I feel some sympathy for him. It was all reflex, again no doubt driven by what he thought was the excellent intention to protect the ark of God’s covenant with Israel:

2Sa 6:5-7 And David and all the house of Israel played before the LORD on all manner of instruments made of fir wood, even on harps, and on psalteries, and on timbrels, and on cornets, and on cymbals. (6) And when they came to Nachon's threshingfloor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. (7) And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God.

This gives new insight to why the Scriptures contain various warnings against adding to or subtracting from the word of God. It is perilous activity, to say the very least, even when the motive is “helping” God. God does not require our help. He insists instead on our obedience to the pattern he has given us in the apostolic pattern of Christian faith and life:

Jud 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

We would do well to remain faithful to what has been clearly delivered to us, leaving the risk of speculative gyrations to others. It’s not as if that will leave us empty handed. There’s enough to engage us for a lifetime in Scripture. As CS Lewis once said, it isn’t what I don’t understand in Scripture that bothers me. It’s what I DO understand that bothers me.

Peace,