That vexing 2 Tim 3:16

  • Thread starter Thread starter montanaman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

montanaman

Guest
16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17 so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
Click to expand...
I’ve always thought of this as a slam-dunk, but lately Protestant obstinance makes me wonder if I’m missing something. Either I’ve been oversimplifying the verse, or Protestant psychology is so desperate to revise reality that they make words mean other words.

Catholics interpret this as “Scripture is USEFUL for making the man of God complete.”

Protestants interpret this as “Scripture is useful for making the man of God COMPLETE.”

They see the word complete and conclude that the whole verse backs up this interpretation. It comes down to me and my latest “opponent” merely repeating our interpretation to each other over and over. I know the Greek words here, and I tried to show how James 1:4 (or James 4:1?) uses even stronger words for “complete,” and how in an earlier 2 Tim passage, (I forget which, but it’s on the same page of my Bible), the Protestant use of the word “complete” produces an absurd conclusion–i.e. that persevering makes a man complete…

What am I missing? I guess I’m still expecting to see an on-the-spot change of mind, which almost never happens…
 
Ask the person with whom you’re conversing if they understand the difference between usefulness and sufficiency. Breathing is indeed useful, even necessary to sustain human life. It is not, however, sufficient to sustain human life. Other things, such as nutrition, blood circulation, et al are ALSO necessary.
40.png
montanaman:
I’ve always thought of this as a slam-dunk, but lately Protestant obstinance makes me wonder if I’m missing something. Either I’ve been oversimplifying the verse, or Protestant psychology is so desperate to revise reality that they make words mean other words.

Catholics interpret this as “Scripture is USEFUL for making the man of God complete.”

Protestants interpret this as “Scripture is useful for making the man of God COMPLETE.”

They see the word complete and conclude that the whole verse backs up this interpretation. It comes down to me and my latest “opponent” merely repeating our interpretation to each other over and over. I know the Greek words here, and I tried to show how James 1:4 (or James 4:1?) uses even stronger words for “complete,” and how in an earlier 2 Tim passage, (I forget which, but it’s on the same page of my Bible), the Protestant use of the word “complete” produces an absurd conclusion–i.e. that persevering makes a man complete…

What am I missing? I guess I’m still expecting to see an on-the-spot change of mind, which almost never happens…
Click to expand...
 
Well, that’s a good new approach. But I’m not optimistic. After all, he points to the word “profitable” in his translation and literally says, “It means sufficient.”

He’s no idiot, but I think years of being supreme pontiff of his large family has set a myopic view so strong not even light can escape…
 
Ask him, then, what is meant by “all scripture.” Does he mean the Pentateuch? All of the Old Testament? The New Testament didn’t exist when St. Paul wrote those words. The argument isn’t a set up to deny the inspiration of Scripture, but the custodianship of Scripture by the Church.
 
Catholics can agree to the “Scripture is useful for making the man of God COMPLETE” emphasis.

Jimmy Akin puts it this way,
"f a man is going on a hiking trip and he has all the equipment he needs except a canteen. He then goes into a sporting goods store and buys one. When he does, he says, ‘There. Now I am complete, equipped for all of my hiking adventures.’ This does not at all imply that the canteen alone was all the equipment he needed to be completely furnished. It was only the last piece of equipment. The statement that it made him complete presupposed that he had all the other equipment he needed. In the same way, the statement that Scripture works to complete the man of God can presuppose that the man of God already has certain other articles in his possession that pertain to doctrine (such as the oral teachings of the apostles)."
Click to expand...
 
I did. This should be “Practical Apologetics 101:” The most cogent argument, the most well-researched proposition can be swept aside by the weakest assumption.

“All Scripture” is obvious to the fundamentalist–it’s the Bible, silly. Press them, and they say either “I don’t believe it could possibly refer to anything else,” or “It’s OBVIOUS he’s talking about the word of God.” No non sequiter is too ridiculous.

I’m not despairing, though. In cases like this, you just keep repeating, repeating, repeating, and eventually it sinks in. The power of presumption is very strong…
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
Ask him, then, what is meant by “all scripture.” Does he mean the Pentateuch? All of the Old Testament? The New Testament didn’t exist when St. Paul wrote those words. The argument isn’t a set up to deny the inspiration of Scripture, but the custodianship of Scripture by the Church.
Click to expand...
This is true, and considering Timothy was not a Hebrew (as evidenced by the fact that Paul had him circumcised so that the Jews would accept his ministry {Acts 16:1,3}), then the Scripture that Timothy used would have been the Septuagint, thus debunking the Protestants claim to the Hebrew canon established at Jamnia.
 
Simple grammatical analogy shows the error of inserting sufficiency into this sentence.

Milk is useful so that a boy may be made complete/ mature, but a diet of milk only would not be healthy. Disciple is useful for the same boy, but he still needs to be fed and housed.

In the context of spiritual maturity. Discipline is useful to making a man complete (mature/perfect).

Obedience to God is useful.

Having Godly parents and sound teaching as a child is useful.

All of these things help make the man of God complete without implying sufficency.
 
40.png
montanaman:
I’ve always thought of this as a slam-dunk, but lately Protestant obstinance makes me wonder if I’m missing something. Either I’ve been oversimplifying the verse, or Protestant psychology is so desperate to revise reality that they make words mean other words.

Catholics interpret this as “Scripture is USEFUL for making the man of God complete.”

Protestants interpret this as “Scripture is useful for making the man of God COMPLETE.”

They see the word complete and conclude that the whole verse backs up this interpretation. It comes down to me and my latest “opponent” merely repeating our interpretation to each other over and over. I know the Greek words here, and I tried to show how James 1:4 (or James 4:1?) uses even stronger words for “complete,” and how in an earlier 2 Tim passage, (I forget which, but it’s on the same page of my Bible), the Protestant use of the word “complete” produces an absurd conclusion–i.e. that persevering makes a man complete…

What am I missing? I guess I’m still expecting to see an on-the-spot change of mind, which almost never happens…
Click to expand...
Dave Armstrong, In his book “A Biblical Defence of Catholicism”, had this to say about that passage…
In 2 Timothy alone (context), St. Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (1:13-14, 2:2, 3:14). In the latter instance, St. Paul says of the tradition, knowing from whom you learned it. The personal reference proves he is not talking about Scripture, but himself as the Tradition-bearer, so to speak. Elsewhere (exegesis), St. Paul frequently espouses oral Tradition (Romans 6:17, 1 Corinthians 11:2,23, 15:1-3, Galatians 1:9,12, Colossians 2:8, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6). The “exclusivist” or “dichotomous” form of reasoning employed by Protestant apologists here is
fundamentally flawed. For example, to reason by analogy, let’s examine a very similar passage, Ephesians 4:11-15 And his gifts were that some should be apostle, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, for the equipment of the saints, for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are able to grow up in every way into him who
is the head, into Christ,

If the Greek artios (RSV, complete / KJV, perfect) proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture in 2 Timothy, then teleios (RSV, mature manhood / KJV, perfect) in Ephesians would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors, teachers and so forth for the attainment of Christian perfection. Note that in Ephesians 4:11-15 the Christian believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, knowledge of Jesus, the fulness of Christ, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the perfecting of the saints than 2 Timothy 3:16-17,
yet it doesn’t even mention Scripture. Therefore, the Protestant interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 proves too much, since if all non-scriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to synthesize the two passages in an inclusive, complementary fashion, by recognizing that the mere absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. Thus, the Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching. This is precisely the Catholic view. Neither passage is intended in an exclusive sense.
Click to expand...
 
The problem you are encountering is that Catholics are very much literalists of the Bible. And while others claim to follow the Bible literally, they don’t. Catholic Christians are more literal than the fundamentalists who claim to follow the Bible alone!
 
40.png
montanaman:
… the Protestant use of the word “complete” produces an absurd conclusion–i.e. that persevering makes a man complete…
Click to expand...
Persevering does make a man complete. That is why we need the grace of final perseverance. 🙂

**Catechism of the Catholic Church

2016** The children of our holy mother the Church rightly hope for the grace of final perseverance and the recompense of God their Father for the good works accomplished with his grace in communion with Jesus.

2863 When we say “lead us not into temptation” we are asking God not to allow us to take the path that leads to sin. This petition implores the Spirit of discernment and strength; it requests the grace of vigilance and final perseverance.
What am I missing?
Click to expand...
Point out to the Protestant that “all scriptures” is a reference to the Septuagint, and that his Protestant Bible does not include “all scriptures”.
 
Persevering does make a man complete. That is why we need the grace of final perseverance.
Click to expand...
Right. That was a pre-coffee comment. I meant to say perseverance ALONE will make us complete… :o
 
40.png
montanaman:
Catholics interpret this as “Scripture is USEFUL for making the man of God complete.”

Protestants interpret this as “Scripture is useful for making the man of God COMPLETE.”

They see the word complete and conclude that the whole verse backs up this interpretation.
Click to expand...
It is the study of Septuagint and the application of that prayerful study that is useful for making a man of God complete. Does any “Bible Christian” think that Paul is teaching that the study of the Septuagint alone is what makes a Christian complete? 😛
 
The Ethiopian eunuch did not find that studying the Septuagint alone was sufficient for making him a complete man of God. The Septuagint teaches that something more than a study of the Septuagint is necessary for salvation… an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a minister of the Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of all her treasure, had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah. And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.” So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?”
And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?”

Acts 8:27-31
 
I’ve dealt with this type of person before. It’s very difficult. The root cause of your disagreements does not lie in the hermeneutics of the passage. The problem is you both have different presuppositions.

Every Bible passage can be interpreted in AT LEAST two different ways, even while *trying *to keep it all in context. Your friend presuppposes the right of private judgement. As a result, he cannot be moved.

As a Protestant I submitted to the Bible on my terms - the way I saw things. As a Catholic I submit to the Bible on the Church’s terms. I presuppose the authority of the Church to define dogma.

There are hundreds of issues Catholics and Protestants can haggle over. But the hinge on which all of our Biblical views swing is this issue of authority. On whose terms do we submit to the Bible? Our terms or the Church’s?

Your friend cannot yield on this issue because the stakes are too high. Reading it a different way is not an option - so he MUST cling his interpretation. It’s a vital passage in keeping his moat intact.

God Bless,
Greg
 
“I’ve always thought of this as a slam-dunk, but lately Protestant obstinance makes me wonder if I’m missing something. Either I’ve been oversimplifying the verse, or Protestant psychology is so desperate to revise reality that they make words mean other words.”

Have you considered 1 Timothy 3:15 where Paul tell him that “the pillar and ground of the truth” is the church? Nowhere in all the Bible does it purport to be the total of the deposit of Faith. It just doesn’t…simple as that. The passage you are dealing with is often misinterpreted by our separated friends. Worse still are the verses in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 & 3:6 where Paul specifically tells them to hold to Tradition. (Sacred Tradition we call it). Also… in a practical sense, if this were true why is it that one can line up one of every one of the 33,830 PLUS non-Catholic church members & get a different take on the same passage of scripture. If it was self interpretting they should all have the same opinion shouldn’t they? Yet that is patently not the case at all. If they peruse the CCC & look at the historical writings of the early church fathers like Ignatius of Antioch, they will pretty quickly be confronted with the fact that he & all the rest defended catholic doctrines. Ignatius even recorded the first actually use of the name catholic in one of his letters. To me it sort of just glows in the dark, & I’m a hard sell. I WAS Protestant for over 30 years before comin’ home to the one true church. I love the Faith…it gives my poor humanity great hope. DEO GRATIAS!
 
I thought the 1 Tim 3:15 passage was another slam dunk, but take your pick for the most absurd response:

“I don’t think it means that.”

“It was referring to the invisible Church.”

Me: “Oh really? Which one? They all contradict.”

“So did the early Church.”

And other variations…
 
40.png
montanaman:
I’ve always thought of this as a slam-dunk, but lately Protestant obstinance makes me wonder if I’m missing something. Either I’ve been oversimplifying the verse, or Protestant psychology is so desperate to revise reality that they make words mean other words.

Catholics interpret this as “Scripture is USEFUL for making the man of God complete.”

Protestants interpret this as “Scripture is useful for making the man of God COMPLETE.”
Click to expand...
It doesn’t say complete anywhere in the verse.
 
Actually, the Greek words have been translated as “complete,” but they refer to the man of God, not Scripture itself. That’s what’s confusing for those who must squeeze whatever late-millenial interpretation they can into it.
 
'“Do you understand what you are reading?”
And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” ’

wow! i’ve never thought of that verse like that before. good one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top