That vexing 2 Tim 3:16

[Matt16_18]

’“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.

The Ethiopian had the scriptures alone, but he didn’t understand what he was reading until, Philip, a bishop of the Catholic Church, hepled him understand the Prophet Isaiah.

The more things change, the more things stay the same …

 

[ahimsaman72]

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…

There is a dialogue at James White’s website where he and Patrick Madrid discuss this very verse. You might find it helpful in understanding the protestant position and in the usage of the Greek words employed.

 

[ahimsaman72]

RBushlow:

It doesn’t say complete anywhere in the verse.

KJV -

“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.”
Perfect can also be translated as complete.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Matt16_18:

The Ethiopian had the scriptures alone, but he didn’t understand what he was reading until, Philip, a bishop of the Catholic Church, hepled him understand the Prophet Isaiah.

The more things change, the more things stay the same …

What was Philip before he was a Bishop? He was an eyewitness and disciple of Christ. Do I have to have a bishop explain to me? Why can’t a teacher (which is one of the NT church’s offices) guide me? The big difference with the Ethiopian lies in the fact that the Ethiopian didn’t know about Jesus Christ. We have Scripture that tells us of Jesus Christ. We have the writings of apostles that share the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Your point here is invalid.

 

[kepha1]

2 Tim 3:17. That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

What is missing when Protestants quote this is exactly who the “man of God” is. The only way to be the “man of God” as it is used throughout the bible is

1.  to be called directly by God then qualified by signs and wonders or

2.  to be ordained by a higher authority.

“Man of God” as used in the Bible:

Moses (Deut. 33:1) (Josh. 14:6),

The Angel of the Lord (Jud. 13:6, 8)

Samuel (1 Sam. 9:8)

Elijah (1 Kings 17:18)

Elisha (2 Kings 4:21, 32)

David (2 Chr. 8:14)

St. Timothy (1 Tim. 6:11)

Contrary to the opinion that the “man of God” can be any Christian without distinction, Scripture itself will not allow such an interpretation, insisting that the “man of God” is a figure of authority, either commissioned by God directly through Divine Intervention (such as Moses or the Angel), or appointed by another holder of authority (such as Samuel, David, Elisha, and St. Timothy).

From this very brief survey of the phrase** “man of God”** we see that what holds true for “pastors” holds true for the “man of God”: it is a title of authority that can in no way be taken upon oneself, but rather, it is bestowed upon a man by a higher authority. A man must be called by God to hold this title of "man of God."

http://www.saintmichaelcenter.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=97

Challenge Protestants to name one deacon, priest, or bishop (man of God in accordance with the bible) over a 2000 year period who has been ordained by a lesser authority (other than those called directly by Christ.) There aren’t any. The bible shows 4 generations of succession. See the link above.

St. Francis of Assisi qualifies as a man of God, as he was called directly by God, and was followed by signs and wonders.

kepha1

 

[montanaman]

1. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2. That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

Perfect can also be translated as complete.

Here we go…

Yes, it can, though there are stronger words for “complete.”

But anyway, it still says scripture is useful/helpful/profitable, NOT “sufficient.”

 

[metal1633]

montanaman:

Right. That was a pre-coffee comment. I meant to say perseverance ALONE will make us complete…

Protestantism is such a lonly religion. Everything is ALONE. Bible Alone, Grace Alone, Faith Alone. Well that three ALONES. I guess they are not so ALONE after all.

 

[Matt16_18]

ahimsaman72:

What was Philip before he was a Bishop? He was an eyewitness and disciple of Christ. Do I have to have a bishop explain to me? Why can’t a teacher (which is one of the NT church’s offices) guide me? The big difference with the Ethiopian lies in the fact that the Ethiopian didn’t know about Jesus Christ. We have Scripture that tells us of Jesus Christ. We have the writings of apostles that share the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Your point here is invalid.

30,000 Protestant denominations with 30,000 different interpretations of scriptures proves the validity of my point.

 

[PhilVaz]

Matt16 << 30,000 Protestant denominations with 30,000 different interpretations of scriptures >>

Used to be 20,000, then 30,000, now it’s gotta be 275,000 by now. 2 Tim 3:16-17 is quoted by Vatican II so we are stuck if it means “Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith” or “Scripture is the sole source of doctrine” etc…

“Since, therefore, all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers, affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures. Thus ‘all Scripture is inspired by God, and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work’ [2 Tim 3:16-17]…” (Dei Verbum 11)

Phil P

 

[metal1633]

PhilVaz:

Matt16 << 30,000 Protestant denominations with 30,000 different interpretations of scriptures >>

Used to be 20,000, then 30,000, now it’s gotta be 275,000 by now. 2 Tim 3:16-17 is quoted by Vatican II so we are stuck if it means “Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith” or “Scripture is the sole source of doctrine” etc…

“Since, therefore, all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers, affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures. Thus ‘all Scripture is inspired by God, and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work’ [2 Tim 3:16-17]…” (Dei Verbum 11)

Phil P

That is true. Good thing it doesnt say anything heretical like “ONLY Scripture”

And its up to 34,280 non-catholic denominations. Give or take a few hundred

 

[Greg_McPherran]

montanaman:

What am I missing? I guess I’m still expecting to see an on-the-spot change of mind, which almost never happens…

Here’s the answer. Tell them if they really want to ***profit ***from Scripture then they need to understand this:

2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

The above passage is ***profitable ***indeed!

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Another very interesting thing is that when Paul wrote 2 Timothy, the New Testament wasn’t even formalized. Was Paul even referring to the New Testament?! Was he referring to Jewish Scripture!? Did this include the deuterocanonicals that the Protestants reject!?

Greg

 

[WBB]

ahimsaman72:

What was Philip before he was a Bishop? He was an eyewitness and disciple of Christ. Do I have to have a bishop explain to me? Why can’t a teacher (which is one of the NT church’s offices) guide me? The big difference with the Ethiopian lies in the fact that the Ethiopian didn’t know about Jesus Christ. We have Scripture that tells us of Jesus Christ. We have the writings of apostles that share the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Your point here is invalid.

And we have the Church that tells us of Jesus Christ, too. And were it not for the Church no one would know of Jesus Christ because prior to the writing of the New Testament, the Church was all that we had. Christ taught his disciples not merely with written words (the law and prophets), but spoken ones. The disciples taught the early Christians (some of whom were ordained bishops) and those bishops taught others and so on. You don’t have to be a bishop to explain the scriptures, but ultimately the true understanding of those scriptures is focused back to the bishops. His point is absolutely valid.

 

[WBB]

ahimsaman72:

What was Philip before he was a Bishop? He was an eyewitness and disciple of Christ. Do I have to have a bishop explain to me? Why can’t a teacher (which is one of the NT church’s offices) guide me? The big difference with the Ethiopian lies in the fact that the Ethiopian didn’t know about Jesus Christ. We have Scripture that tells us of Jesus Christ. We have the writings of apostles that share the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Your point here is invalid.

Who says his point is not valid? You? Are you the ultimate authority?

 

[Aris]

WBB:

Who says his point is not valid? You? Are you the ultimate authority?

Yes. He is. He’s based it on scripture.

Seriously, since he holds onto no authority but his own interpretation of Scripture then he is the ultimate authority.

I wanted to say 30,001 denomination and counting but I think there are more than that.

 

[Apologia100]

metal1633:

That is true. Good thing it doesnt say anything heretical like “ONLY Scripture”

And its up to 34,280 non-catholic denominations. Give or take a few hundred

In my opinion there are only 2 denominations for all of mankind. Catholic or non-Catholic. As far as other other petty distinctions go in the non-Catholic category, they are essentially irrelevant.

 

[Matt16_18]

PhilVaz:

Used to be 20,000, then 30,000, now it’s gotta be 275,000 by now.

If the Protestant non-denominational church craze keeps going full blast, it won’t be long before that is true. Each non-denominational Protestant church is yet one more Protestant denomination with its own unique spin on how to interpret scriptures.

 

[Malachi4U]

“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.”

First, this verse in ‘CONTEXT’ is refering to the OT not the Bible or NT.

Second, the Bible is just a tool of the Church even if it is an inspired tool.

Third, the Bible helps us teach others about God and Faith but it is up to people, His Church, to do the real teaching.

Fourth, God is in His Church, not a book. (Church means us too as its members.)

Fifth, how can the Bible prove itself any more inspired than the Book of Mormon or the Koran, etc.? This is the job of the Church which Christ Himself founded.

Sixth, who actually wrote the Bible? Did they swear an oath that it was inspired? Evidence? Etc…

Seventh, if God wrote the Bible and it was perfect then why can 2 people read it and get 2 opposite opinions and neither be in line with Church teachings?

Eigth, we don’t need a Bible to be ‘saved’ or to have Faith. Early Christians never had a Bible, not even the KJV. To know Christ and have Faith we only need to believe in God (the Trinity) and follow His Church. To be in His Church is to have Jesus Christ as your personnal Lord and saviour. To become one with Christ is to have communion. To be one with the Holy Spirit is to be Baptized and have hands laid upon you (Confirmation can be combined with Baptism - don’t forget ‘desire’ here too).

Ninth, etc. etc. etc.

God established a Church and commanded us to be of one body and one mind - not schismatics. If you obey Him then you remain loyal to His Body, His Church and our Faith. If you follow a tool then how can you know what is right or what His Faith is? I ask a mechanic to fix my car, I don’t worship his screwdriver. Yes the tool helps, but the mechanic works the tool correctly. A non-mechanic can often use a screwdriver as an ice pick or pry bar and break the tool or strip the screw. A Bible used incorrectly can also lesson its value.

I study the Bible often so I do not mean for those whom are used to self-missinterpretation to think I belittle the Sacred Scripture, I don’t. I just put Scripture in its place and the Church in its proper place. I just tried to use easy examples to help do that with my limited English grammer and writting skills. Scripture IS inspired and usefull for teaching of Faith, but only usefull for this, other things can teach us Faith too. The Bible is not exclusive as a teaching tool.

A prisoner of Christ,

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

ahimsaman72:

What was Philip before he was a Bishop? He was an eyewitness and disciple of Christ. Do I have to have a bishop explain to me? Why can’t a teacher (which is one of the NT church’s offices) guide me? The big difference with the Ethiopian lies in the fact that the Ethiopian didn’t know about Jesus Christ. We have Scripture that tells us of Jesus Christ. We have the writings of apostles that share the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Your point here is invalid.

I guess that’s why it was so clear to all the early Christians whether or not the Gentiles should have to observe the law. What with the witness of the Apostles to transform the OT into a crystal-clear Christian handbook, there was no need for any teaching authority to make a decision. Every Christian, guided by the Holy Spirit, personally interpreted Scripture in exactly the same way. What I can’t get is why they needed that silly Council of Jerusalem when sola scriptura was already functioning so well.

 

[ahimsaman72]

30,000 Protestant denominations with 30,000 different interpretations of scriptures proves the validity of my point.

And this has to do with my quote how? You have no qualifying data that shows exactly what you show above. 30,000 denominations (completely untrue) does not equal 30,000 different interpretations. It doesn’t prove anything.