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

[PlatinumTrophies]

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, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Protestants cite this as their best example of Sola Scriptura being in the Bible. While it doesn't outright say Scripture Alone, they claim that it implies Scripture Alone since scripture is sufficient for completing us. The Greek word for 'perfect' in verse 17 also means complete. I prefer the King James for the New Testament, but I guess this is an instance I prefer the NKJV.
Is the notion of Scriptura being sufficient for completing us compatible with Orthodoxy?

Interestingly, Paul uses Oral Tradition in verse 8 of this same chapter. If Paul was telling us to not use Oral Tradition, he did a funny way of doing so. Protestants could say that this is 'oral tradition becoming scripture' but that would simultaneously knock down their assertion that Jesus not using oral tradition is evidence for Sola Scriptura.

 

[HTacianas]

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, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Protestants cite this as their best example of Sola Scriptura being in the Bible. While it doesn't outright say Scripture Alone, they claim that it implies Scripture Alone since scripture is sufficient for completing us. The Greek word for 'perfect' in verse 17 also means complete. I prefer the King James for the New Testament, but I guess this is an instance I prefer the NKJV.
Is the notion of Scriptura being sufficient for completing us compatible with Orthodoxy?

Interestingly, Paul uses Oral Tradition in verse 8 of this same chapter. If Paul was telling us to not use Oral Tradition, he did a funny way of doing so. Protestants could say that this is 'oral tradition becoming scripture' but that would simultaneously knock down their assertion that Jesus not using oral tradition is evidence for Sola Scriptura.

There is absolutely nothing there to support sola scriptura. I'm certain that all scripture...etc...etc...is true, but there is nothing in any of that saying that scripture alone is the sole foundation of faith. But of those making the claim of sola scriptura, you can't rub two of them together that agree on what scripture means, they only ask that you believe each of their conflicting interpretations of scripture.

Thankfully, the Orthodox Church does not have to interpret scripture because the Church already knows what it means and has known for two thousand years now.

 

[prodromos]

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, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Protestants cite this as their best example of Sola Scriptura being in the Bible. While it doesn't outright say Scripture Alone, they claim that it implies Scripture Alone since scripture is sufficient for completing us. The Greek word for 'perfect' in verse 17 also means complete. I prefer the King James for the New Testament, but I guess this is an instance I prefer the NKJV.
Is the notion of Scriptura being sufficient for completing us compatible with Orthodoxy?

Interestingly, Paul uses Oral Tradition in verse 8 of this same chapter. If Paul was telling us to not use Oral Tradition, he did a funny way of doing so. Protestants could say that this is 'oral tradition becoming scripture' but that would simultaneously knock down their assertion that Jesus not using oral tradition is evidence for Sola Scriptura.

At Paul's writing of this letter to Timothy, there was no New Testament yet written, and the only Scriptures Timothy could have been acquainted with from his childhood would have been the Septuagint Greek Old Testament (Timothy being Greek). Thus anyone using this passage in apologetics limits their Scriptures to the Old Testament

 

[ArmyMatt]

if this really is as strict as some would say, they should never say things like "Trinity" or "One God in Three Persons."

 

[straykat]

if this really is as strict as Protestants say, they should never say things like "Trinity" or "One God in Three Persons."

Or even go to church on Sunday as a replacement for Jewish Sabbath observance (which I recently pointed out somewhere else).

Or even HAVE a canon of scripture, for that matter.. because that was handed down by tradition too.

Preaching to the choir here though.

 

[PlatinumTrophies]

if this really is as strict as some would say, they should never say things like "Trinity" or "One God in Three Persons."

Furthermore, there is no way the Apostles went around only reciting what would eventually become Bible verses. Not everything Jesus said and did was written down, so if Sola Scriptura were true, it's essentially impossible for protestants to figure out what the original Christian faith was through exegesis alone.

I respect the protestants who admit that they have no way of proving which, if any, denomination has the correct theology. So much truth was lost if there is no Holy Tradition.

 

[PlatinumTrophies]

At Paul's writing of this letter to Timothy, there was no New Testament yet written, and the only Scriptures Timothy could have been acquainted with from his childhood would have been the Septuagint Greek Old Testament (Timothy being Greek). Thus anyone using this passage in apologetics limits their Scriptures to the Old Testament

I was told that most of the New Testament was written at the time of this letter's writing.

 

[PlatinumTrophies]

I don't have a dog to defend in this debate, but what you said sparked me to look at verse 8. I'm not sure how experiential evidence cited and compared to a present day example is equal to "tradition"? It seems that when Jesus spoke against tradition, he was speaking against customs that actually countered what God said to do in a particular area, not citing historical examples and linking them with a present example--which it seems that Jesus did and Scripture writers did routinely. (For one of many instances, Mark 7:8-13)

The Old Testament doesn't name the Egyptian magicians; it was oral tradition. There are plenty of passages condemning and praising tradition. It's which tradition that's important.

 

[PlatinumTrophies]

Or even go to church on Sunday as a replacement for Jewish Sabbath observance (which I recently pointed out somewhere else).

Or even HAVE a canon of scripture, for that matter.. because that was handed down by tradition too.

Preaching to the choir here though.

I remember reading an article defending Sola Scriptura. It said we know the Holy Canon based on what the Christian Church did at the time, referring to the Catholic Church pre-schism. Strange. Is that not believing in Holy Tradition if it's to be taken so authoritatively?

 

[PlatinumTrophies]

There is absolutely nothing there to support sola scriptura. I'm certain that all scripture...etc...etc...is true, but there is nothing in any of that saying that scripture alone is the sole foundation of faith. But of those making the claim of sola scriptura, you can't rub two of them together that agree on what scripture means, they only ask that you believe each of their conflicting interpretations of scripture.

Thankfully, the Orthodox Church does not have to interpret scripture because the Church already knows what it means and has known for two thousand years now.

If Scriptura can complete us, then scripture is all we need. That's what the protestants say.
Of course, Paul never says that Scripture is the only thing that can complete us. I don't see why Holy Tradition couldn't complete us if scripture can.

 

[HTacianas]

If Scriptura can complete us, then scripture is all we need. That's what the protestants say.
Of course, Paul never says that Scripture is the only thing that can complete us. I don't see why Holy Tradition couldn't complete us if scripture can.

Well, the yardstick used to determine what scripture is, was Church tradition. All those books reasonably believed to be apostolic in origin that did not contradict the teachings of the Church became the new testament.

 

[ArmyMatt]

There are no doctrines regarding salvation that the Eastern and Western Churches disagree on. The schisms are non-doctrinal.

that's not true.

 

[All4Christ]

One reminder - St. Basil the Great’s Edification Hall is a subforum for the purpose of edification. It has very specific rules about posting. No debate is allowed.

Threads for the faith, bible studies, discussions on Saints and Holy Tradition, inquiry into the faith, and questions asking for an Orthodox only point of view are allowed.

Debating is strictly forbidden. If you wish to debate a topic, take it to St. Justin Martyr’s Corner and start a new thread and link the old thread.

Unlike in TAW proper, do not post a link in threads in this subforum to the debate forum.

St. Basil's Statement of Purpose - Read Before Posting!

This isn’t intended to prevent fellowship or discussion. It just needs to be done in either The Ancient Way or St Justin’s (depending on whether it is general discussion or debate).

 

[Davidnic]

MOD HAT

Posts in violation of the rules were removed. As we're posts responding.

MOD HAT

 

[PlatinumTrophies]

I still have 2 questions.
1. How do we know none or most of the New Testament wasn't written at this time?
2. How does scripture complete us if it's not everything?

 

[straykat]

I still have 2 questions.
1. How do we know none or most of the New Testament wasn't written at this time?
2. How does scripture complete us if it's not everything?

I wouldn't go so far as to say "none". I think 2 Timothy and the more developed nature of church hierarchy and "government" has some implicit information that it was late in Paul's life at least (60s AD). It reflects a time when the church was fully coming into it's own, if that makes sense (and not just being an extension of Judaism, where the younger Paul often interacted with and preached to synagogue life at first).

So at least half of the Gospel and epistolary stuff would be written by this time too. I think Matthew and Mark might've have already circulated (Mark for generally being the most bare bones Gospel and Matthew for still being so concerned with the Jewish community.. which slowly fell apart after AD 70). Luke must have been fairly early, but maybe not written yet either (before the late 60s AD.. as it cuts short with Paul's missionary journeys and doesn't mention his death nor Peter's, who both were martyred around this time.. and whom the book of Acts were especially focused on).

John OTOH would be pretty late, since he seemed to be warning a lot of some kind of Docetist or proto-Gnostic sect (about people denying Jesus had "come in the flesh"). It's unlikely these controversial views on the human/flesh nature of Jesus showed up until later (and by John, I mean his Gospel and epistles. I'm not convinced he wrote the Apocalypse.. and I also think the Apocalypse might've been warning of Nero and Vespasian, which is 60s-70 AD).

edit: I'm not saying any of this is definitive. Just some pointers on the implicit information and trying to line it up with outside events. Maybe you could figure out better

 

[ArmyMatt]

I still have 2 questions.
1. How do we know none or most of the New Testament wasn't written at this time?
2. How does scripture complete us if it's not everything?

1. because we know that St John didn't write Revelation until he was on Patmos, which was at the end of his life in the 90's.
2. because, while Scripture is complete, interpretation can mess up how one reads it.

 

[straykat]

1. because we know that St John didn't write Revelation until he was on Patmos, which was at the end of his life in the 90's.
2. because, while Scripture is complete, interpretation can mess up how one reads it.

Gonna do a big TL;DR here, so feel free to ignore me

With all due respect, I think Revelation's author is one of the most puzzling issues of the NT. Like I said above, I don't think it's very clear who John from Revelation is. Either from tradition or scholarship (I'll give more credence to the former, of course). St. Justin and St. Irenaeus named him as John the disciple of Jesus (and the writer of the Gospel and Epistles clearly presented himself as a personal witness.. naming himself the beloved disciple as well as using statements like "What we have seen/our hands have handled/etc"), but others like St. Dionysius pointed out the literary differences with Revelation and the Gospel/Epistles. He's right. These writers don't sound the same. And if by chance it is the same writer, I still will bring up dating. It's more important.

The main reason why I would encourage anyone to consider seeing Revelation as an earlier work is because it avoids the "Left Behind"/chilastic angle completely, and puts it more in line with Jesus' prophecies about the tribulations he mentions in the Gospels (such as Matthew 24, which had a lot to do with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple). By saying all of this apocalyptic language was pertaining to a far off future event, it diminishes the importance of what changes Judea went through in the first century, how momentous the destruction of the temple was, and invites the craziest Hal Lindsey-tier interpretations where everything is viewed as part of our own 20th/21st century geo-political landscape (and this in itself is destructive and needlessly puts people in a state of anxiety.. or even worse, they become Zionists who purposely try to "fulfill" their view of Bible prophecy by egging on events they see as precedents to the End Times. Like the original evangelical teachings that convinced Harry Truman to displace people in Palestine - including Christians - and make Israel a solely Jewish state that has complicated international politics to this day).

The second important reason to entertain it is that Futurism also invites the worst kind of ridicule from atheists. It was Bertrand Russell who first mounted an assault against the Church in "Why I Am Not a Christian" because of this far off "future-tense" view of Revelation and Jesus' apocalyptic sayings. He said Jesus was a false prophet because he would say things like "This generation will not pass away" and "these things must soon take place". In Russell's mind, Jesus was clearly wrong, because the "world" didn't end (although the Greek is actually "aion" and can mean "age" or "world". I opt for age. End of the Age).

But seen in the light of AD 70, it makes a lot more sense. And that generation indeed "did not pass away" and things indeed did "soon take place", just as Jesus said they would.

Anyways, I humbly submit that to you. And your point #2 above can just as well apply to me here. Perhaps all I've written here is a faulty interpretation as well. But I'm not alone either: I can't believe I'm going to recommend a Protestant book to a priest, but check out RC Sproul's "Last Days According to Jesus". And as much as I love St. Justin and Irenaeus, I think it's possible they steered us in the wrong direction with that late dating.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Gonna do a big TL;DR here, so feel free to ignore me

With all due respect, I think Revelation's author is one of the most puzzling issues of the NT. Like I said above, I don't think it's very clear who John from Revelation is. Either from tradition or scholarship (I'll give more credence to the former, of course). St. Justin and St. Irenaeus named him as John the disciple of Jesus (and the writer of the Gospel and Epistles clearly presented himself as a personal witness.. naming himself the beloved disciple as well as using statements like "What we have seen/our hands have handled/etc"), but others like St. Dionysius pointed out the literary differences with Revelation and the Gospel/Epistles. He's right. These writers don't sound the same. And if by chance it is the same writer, I still will bring up dating. It's more important.

The main reason why I would encourage anyone to consider seeing Revelation as an earlier work is because it avoids the "Left Behind"/chilastic angle completely, and puts it more in line with Jesus' prophecies about the tribulations he mentions in the Gospels (such as Matthew 24, which had a lot to do with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple). By saying all of this apocalyptic language was pertaining to a far off future event, it diminishes the importance of what changes Judea went through in the first century, how momentous the destruction of the temple was, and invites the craziest Hal Lindsey-tier interpretations where everything is viewed as part of our own 20th/21st century geo-political landscape (and this in itself is destructive and needlessly puts people in a state of anxiety.. or even worse, they become Zionists who purposely try to "fulfill" their view of Bible prophecy by egging on events they see as precedents to the End Times. Like the original evangelical teachings that convinced Harry Truman to displace people in Palestine - including Christians - and make Israel a solely Jewish state that has complicated international politics to this day).

The second important reason to entertain it is that Futurism also invites the worst kind of ridicule from atheists. It was Bertrand Russell who first mounted an assault against the Church in "Why I Am Not a Christian" because of this far off "future-tense" view of Revelation and Jesus' apocalyptic sayings. He said Jesus was a false prophet because he would say things like "This generation will not pass away" and "these things must soon take place". In Russell's mind, Jesus was clearly wrong, because the "world" didn't end (although the Greek is actually "aion" and can mean "age" or "world". I opt for age. End of the Age).

But seen in the light of AD 70, it makes a lot more sense. And that generation indeed "did not pass away" and things indeed did "soon take place", just as Jesus said they would.

Anyways, I humbly submit that to you. And your point #2 above can just as well apply to me here. Perhaps all I've written here is a faulty interpretation as well. But I'm not alone either: I can't believe I'm going to recommend a Protestant book to a priest, but check out RC Sproul's "Last Days According to Jesus". And as much as I love St. Justin and Irenaeus, I think it's possible they steered us in the wrong direction with that late dating.

you're right that it wasn't actually penned by St John. it was probably dictated to his disciple, St Proclus. this is why some of St Paul's epistles also don't sound like they were written by the same man (because they weren't).

but the ancients did that all the time. the letters of St Anthony, were penned by St Athanasius. but they are attributed to St Anthony because they came from him.

and, the ancient way of authorship was to give credit to the originator of the work, even if that person didn't actually write it.

so, you're actually both right, you and those saints.

 

[PlatinumTrophies]

1. because we know that St John didn't write Revelation until he was on Patmos, which was at the end of his life in the 90's.
2. because, while Scripture is complete, interpretation can mess up how one reads it.

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.