What is the Orthodox Interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:15-17?

PlatinumTrophies said:

But scripture doesn't include oral tradition. It just seems odd of it to say it can spiritually complete us if it doesn't include tradition.

Click to expand...

You keep saying spiritually complete. Are you getting that from the verse you posted earlier? It was penned before the New Testament was canonized or even completely written. Also, scripture teaches to hold what was taught both in scripture and tradition.

PlatinumTrophies said:

But scripture doesn't include oral tradition. It just seems odd of it to say it can spiritually complete us if it doesn't include tradition.

Click to expand...

Scripture DOES include oral tradition, and commands us to keep it.

In the Catholic (Western) Church, Holy Tradition is considered to be an equal but separate form of authoritative truth. That isn’t the same concept we hold. In the Orthodox Church, we have Holy Tradition. Scripture is a part of Holy Tradition. Holy Tradition is the deposit of faith given to us by the apostles. This includes oral tradition, which as Fr Matt mentioned, is directed for us to follow in Scripture. That said, among the things in Holy Tradition, Scripture is the gem and is first and foremost. Scripture is interpreted through the lens of Holy Tradition. It is all integrated together as the deposit of faith from the apostles.

Scripture also has oral tradition recorded within it.

ArmyMatt said:

Scripture also has oral tradition recorded within it.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I’m just pointing out that it isn’t a separate source of doctrine. We received the entire deposit of faith from the apostles. I’m not trying to express disagreement with this.

All4Christ said:

Agreed. I’m just pointing out that it isn’t a separate source of doctrine. We received the entire deposit of faith from the apostles. I’m not trying to express disagreement with this.

Click to expand...

knowing you well enough, I know you aren't. that was more of a follow up to my previous post.

I think this outlook might've led also to the later difference of the East still urging the translation of scriptures into vernacular (such as Sts. Cyril and Methodius). I can't find an era when it wasn't important.

And this idea that no one could read in the past is silly. I don't know where this meme comes from (Luther? Or was it the RCC? Maybe both?).

St. John Chrysostom circa 300s AD:

"Listen, I entreat you, all that are careful for this life, and procure books that will be medicines for the soul…get at least the New Testament, the Apostolic Epistles, the Acts, the Gospels, for your constant teachers. If grief befalls you, dive into them as into a chest of medicines; take from there comfort for your trouble, be it loss, or death, or bereavement of relations; or rather do not merely dive into them but take them wholly to yourself, keeping them in your mind."

“Let us not simply imprint this on our minds, but also discuss it constantly with one another in our get-togethers; let us constantly revive the memory of this story both with our wives and with the children. In fact, if you want to talk about a king, see, there is a king here; if about soldiers, about a household, about political affairs, you will find a great abundance of these things in the Scriptures. These narratives bring the greatest benefit: it is impossible – impossible, I say—for a soul nourished on these stories ever to manage to fall victim to passion.”

PlatinumTrophies said:

So Paul was telling Timothy that the Old Testament spiritually completed him. Seems odd since a lot had changed since Malachi.

Click to expand...

no one has said that aside from you, I think.

PlatinumTrophies said:

Ugh. What does it say? What is 'the scriptures' Paul is referring to and how did it complete Timothy without implying sola scriptura?

Click to expand...

What follows is just as important.

"that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (KJV)

Or your preference, "that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

It would seem to me that that Scriptures as he knew them were enough to complete a man for "every good work". Notions of justice and morality abound in the OT alone. The Apostle would never say otherwise. He would just say that it wouldn't save us: Christ saves us. So this passage is only meant for those already IN the church (and besides, St. Timothy was a bishop, no less... not some guy on the street). Not to outsiders, where he's saying morality is going to save them. As Paul has also said to Timothy, you have to "rightly divide" the scriptures and not take it out of context. Paul continuously has said we live in a "body of death" and do "what we don't even want". Only Christ changes this.

PlatinumTrophies said:

Ugh. What does it say? What is 'the scriptures' Paul is referring to and how did it complete Timothy without implying sola scriptura?

Click to expand...

at the time, it's only referring to the OT. the NT was not yet compiled as a single volume, and some works were not even written.

so if you want to say it implies sola Scriptura, you cannot assume anything aside from the OT given the historical context.

PlatinumTrophies said:

So how could the OT complete Timothy?

Click to expand...

Pentecost.

PlatinumTrophies said:

I am awfully curious as to how John F MacArthur and RC Sproul try to justify Sola Scripture in the book they authored together. Would it be wrong to read it?

Click to expand...

ask your priest, but I would say no. usually by reading their stuff, it's easier to see any errors.

Sola Scriptura implicitly poses problems. They have no answer for where they get the idea of "scripture" from without referring to the Tradition that handed down the canon to begin with, or by falling back on the idea that the Holy Spirit didn't guide the church, as Jesus promised. It's ingratitude, wrapped up in piety.

That said, RC Sproul was a bright man on some subjects.