Help with 1st and 2nd Timothy

[reteeks21]

I need a little help here. I have been readind 1st and 2nd Timothy with the hope of trying to reconcile 1st Tim 3:15 and 2nd Tim 3:16-17. I am wrestling with trying to wrap my mind around 3:15, but then I read 3:16-17 which says Scripture is what builds a man to be complete, equipped for every good work. How are these two reconciled? It would seem to me that one tends to contradict the other, but I know that God wouldn’t do that to us. These are two of THE verses that bring up arguements between Prot and Cath., and I would like to find a way to deal with them.

Now, I am not saying one group and one group is wrong. I am not trying to create a polemic or arguement here; I just want some help understanding these verses. Thanks in advance.

 

[MarcoPolo]

How about this for understanding 2 Tim 3:16-17 I went through in detail a while back to explain that it doesn’t support sola scriptura. It certainly would not trump the previous verse.

Carried over from another thread where it was getting off-topic:​

For those who want to know the weakness of James White’s (and essentially John MacArthur’s) 2 Tim 3:16-17 “exegesis,” here is how it fails:

2 Tim 3:16-17 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete (artios), equipped (exartizo) for every good work.

(White’s unedited analysis in his opening remarks) First, the more irrelevant error. Patrick Madrid points out regarding White’s appeal that the Greek words labelled refer to a total completeness and sufficiency: “White was able to find a single Greek lexicon that listed " sufficient " as a possible translation of artios and another lexicon that listed “sufficient” as a possible translation of exartizo. But, as I pointed out, the lexicons he cited listed “sufficient” as a third or fourth translation of artios and exartizo. None listed “sufficient” as the primary or even secondary meaning.” In fact, with regard to exartizo, all the published Protestant Bible versions (KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, etc.) agree that “sufficient” is not the correct translation of these terms in this instance.

Secondly, and far more fatal to White’s exegesis is the obvious, which I mentioned in post 10 (of other thread). Let’s say White was 100% correct and the words “complete” and “equipped” refer to a totality of completeness and adequacy. He spends almost no time analyzing the word “profitable” that introduces these words.

So according to him, the passage basically says, “All Scripture is profitable for making us totally complete and making us completely sufficient for every good work.”

#1: His exegesis of this verse puts it in conflict with other verses of Scripture.
#2: Where in the verse do we see “only” Scripture is profitable for making us complete? Nowhere. White and MacArthur add this word in their explanation of the verse.
#3: The Greek word for “profitable,” ophelimos, means profitable and helpful or serviceable, i.e. advantageous. As Jimmy Akin says, a hammer is useful for driving nails, but not “only” a hammer can drive in nails, i.e. nail gun, blunt object, etc…

And as I said: So Scripture is helpful to make us complete? AMEN! Paul is on the money.

White’s exegesis is D.O.A. and really is nothing more than wishful thinking because he is left with no part of Scripture that teaches Sola Scriptura… ​

 

[elvisman]

I need a little help here. I have been readind 1st and 2nd Timothy with the hope of trying to reconcile 1st Tim 3:15 and 2nd Tim 3:16-17. I am wrestling with trying to wrap my mind around 3:15, but then I read 3:16-17 which says Scripture is what builds a man to be complete, equipped for every good work. How are these two reconciled? It would seem to me that one tends to contradict the other, but I know that God wouldn’t do that to us. These are two of THE verses that bring up arguements between Prot and Cath., and I would like to find a way to deal with them.

Now, I am not saying one group and one group is wrong. I am not trying to create a polemic or arguement here; I just want some help understanding these verses. Thanks in advance.

1 Tim. 3:15
**“But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” **
This is about as plain and in your face as it gets. The Church that Jesus built is the pillar and foundation of Truth. That’s why he tells Saul in Acts 9:4-5 because Saul was persecuting the Church:

****"**Saul, Saul, Why do you persecute me?" then, he tells him, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting."
**
2 Tim. 3:16-17
**All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work. **

The word used is “useful” of “profitable”. Nowhere in the text does it say or even imply that Scripture sufficient or that it is the ONLY thing necessary for teaching.

 

[reteeks21]

1 Tim. 3:15
"But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth."
This is about as plain and in your face as it gets. The Church that Jesus built is the pillar and foundation of Truth. That’s why he tells Saul in Acts 9:4-5 because Saul was persecuting the Church:

****"****Saul, Saul, Why do you persecute me?" then, he tells him, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting."

2 Tim. 3:16-17
All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

The word used is "useful" of “profitable”. Nowhere in the text does it say or even imply that Scripture sufficient or that it is the ONLY thing necessary for teaching.

Please don’t misunderstand. I wassn’t suggesting that it is the ONLY thing necessary for teaching, but Paul says that study of Scripture is what makes a man “perfect”, that it equips him. I am not saying that the church doesn’t play a role in this, but if he says Scripture is what does the trick (at least that is what it looks like) then how does the church fit into that. Does that make sense. I am only asking so I can genuinely have a better understanding.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Please don’t misunderstand. I wassn’t suggesting that it is the ONLY thing necessary for teaching, but Paul says that study of Scripture is what makes a man “perfect”, that it equips him. I am not saying that the church doesn’t play a role in this, but if he says Scripture is what does the trick (at least that is what it looks like) then how does the church fit into that. Does that make sense. I am only asking so I can genuinely have a better understanding.

2 Tim 3:

(v. 15-17-RSV)[15] and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
[16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
[17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

(v 15-17-KJV)[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.

1st thing: Paul is writing to Timothy of how he(Timothy) has known the scriptures “from childhood”(v.15).

The New Testament was still being written during the time of Timothy and Paul so Paul can’t be referring to the NT can he?

By my understanding Paul is referring to the Old Testament scriptures which was the only complete scriptures of which the early church had to go by.

So to argue “scripture alone” by using 2 Tim 3:16-17 it would seem that Protestants are arguing for the Old Testament alone; which I hardly doubt.

2nd thing: Verse 17, both in the RSV and the KJV, include the term “may”-“that the man of God may be perfect” or “that the man of God may be complete”.

To me this is an important distinction. Paul does not say that scripture will make you complete or perfect but that it may make you complete or perfect.

 

[elvisman]

Please don’t misunderstand. I wassn’t suggesting that it is the ONLY thing necessary for teaching, but Paul says that study of Scripture is what makes a man “perfect”, that it equips him. I am not saying that the church doesn’t play a role in this, but if he says Scripture is what does the trick (at least that is what it looks like) then how does the church fit into that. Does that make sense. I am only asking so I can genuinely have a better understanding.

I understand. But, the problem with taking one verse here or there and basing the entire salvific plan on it just doesn’t work.
**You must take all of scripture in context. **

Consider John 6:53-55:
*"Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. *
*Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. *For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink." Wouldn’t it then stand to reason that those who heed this command will not be saved? It takes more than faith and scripture to be saved. We must live in obedience to that faith and submission to the Lord (Romans 1:5, 16:26).

 

[MarcoPolo]

Scripture is what does the trick (at least that is what it looks like)

I think my post answered this. Paul does not say Scripture “does the trick”. It is profitable towards the end of perfecting man, of course, but nowhere is it suggested the Church plays no role.

 

[reteeks21]

I think my post answered this. Paul does not say Scripture “does the trick”. It is profitable towards the end of perfecting man, of course, but nowhere is it suggested the Church plays no role.

I never said that it didn’t. Paul says Scripture is used to help the man work towards completeness. He doesn’t say that about the church. He says it is the pillar, but he writes to the pillar so that they would know how to act. Hence my suggestion that scripture is being emphasized here. Just an observation.

 

[Ruthie]

In different parts of the Bible, different things are emphasized. We must read it as a whole.

Jesus Himself spoke of one thing one day, and another thing another day. Faith, hope, love, the Church, heaven, hell, marriage, and baptism, among others. We have to put these things together, rather than living by the parts we like and ignoring the rest.

Thus, we have to put the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth *together *with the usefulness of Scripture. We have to start with the idea that these two sayings do *not *contradict each other, and that they fit together with other parts, such as 2 Th 2:8 and 3:6.

The foundation is what the rest of the building needs in order to stay up; pillars keep the roof from falling in. Scripture and oral tradition are guarded by this foundation and pillar, which is the Church.

Ruthie