2 Timothy 3.16: Understanding of 'all scripture inspired by God'

[Isaac M. Bailey]

2Tim 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 3:17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Glory to Jesus Christ. I was just chatting with a long-time friend of mine about the errors of Sola Scriptura, and the above came up. I had mentioned how in Acts 8, how Philip stated he had no understanding of the prophet Isaiah, and how could he, unless someone could teach him? I also brought up 2 Peter 3:16, on how unlearned people twist the scriptures to their own destruction... but his rebuttal was with 2 Timothy 3:16. He emphasized the words "complete," and "thoroughly equipped."

I understand that it means exactly what it says... the Bible is profitable for all those things, but I don't have the proper eloquence to put explain to him that what the Bible says here does not mean the Bible alone possesses all you need. He is from the understanding that as long as you are a liver and studier of the Bible, you are a part of Christ's church... considering you are also baptized, but that's another topic.

How would you break it down and explain that the verse quoted is not stating the Bible alone is all that's needful? Is there an ECF or Orthodox commentary on this?

Thank you.

- Isaac

[Matthew Namee]

This doesn't directly answer your question, but when St. Paul wrote those words, a good piece of the New Testament didn't exist. I don't know the chronology of his letters, but I guarantee that 2 Timothy didn't exist yet, and the Gospels and Revelation and 2 Peter at the very least had not yet been written. By "Scripture," St. Paul is doubtless referring to the Old Testament. The very fact that your friend cited his words sort of rebuts his interpretation, doesn't it? For St. Paul, "Scripture" was the Jewish Law and the Prophets. Is that all we need? Obviously not, or we would not use the New Testament.

[Paul Cowan]

I had mentioned how in Acts 8, how Philip stated he had no understanding of the prophet Isaiah, and how could he, unless someone could teach him?


Not to put too fine a point on it, but it was the Eunich that said this to Phillip, not the other way around. Phillip was the one that did the interpreting.

I agree with Matthew. The PC put all their apples in one cart not realizing the scriptures had not been fully or even minimally compiled yet.

[Kosta]

We Orthodox, have no problem with what 2 TIM 3.16 says. In fact we are the only ones that truly follow what is being said.

As usual the sola scripture crowd picks and chooses without looking at the entire passage in context, this is the passages that preced 2Tim3.16:

"But continue in the things which thou has learned AND HAVE BEEN ASSURED OF KNOWING FROM WHOM YOU HAVE LEARNED IT. And that from a child thou has known the holy scripture which are able to make thee wise unto salvation thru faith which is in Jesus Christ." (2TIM3.14-15)

Timothy learned them thru oral tradition from Paul (2tim 2.2). And the scripture was made known to him from his youth thru tradition -which is the passing down from one generation to the next. First Tim's grandmother Lois imparted scriptural knowledge to his mother Eunice and Eunice down to her son Timothy (2 TIM 1.5). Paul then instructed Timothy, interpreting the OT scripture in light of the gospel. This is apostolic tradition , this is what the Church teaches, the faith handed down once for all.(2 tim 2.2.)

We know of what we believe having been assured of it from the apostles thru the saints down to our days, we do not know where the protestants originate there beliefs from.

[Ken McRae]

but his rebuttal was with 2 Timothy 3:16. He emphasized the words "complete," and "thoroughly equipped."

Hi there Isaac,

Well, there are a number of ways you can approach this problem. Kosta has raised some good points, admittedly; and I do not wish to appear as though I know better. Far from it, obviously; but this is a subject that has perplexed me as well, for not a few years; and how to best approach it.

First, though, you must try to discern the work Holy Spirit in your friend; and ascertain just how open or receptive he is to the Truth. That should go without saying. He may be willing to chat, purely out of common courtesy, or maybe even out of a misguided hope that he will prove you wrong. If that is the case, the best you can hope for is to plant the seed, and regularly water it with your prayers and tears, before the Throne of Grace, on his behalf.

Now, if he is trully open and willing to putting his own theology on trial, then your effort to help him might just produce some fruit, if only the Lord will bless it. By the sound of it, it seems as though he is persuaded that Holy Scripture cannot contradict itself. Thus, you can work at it from that angle, to demonstrate the utter inconsistency of Sola Scriptura with the "full" deposit of Sacred Scripture.

Take, for example, the following words of St. Paul: "Brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." (2 Thes. 2:15) The very force of the truth expressed in this text demands them to read and understand 2 Tim. 3:16 in a different light or manner, than they are accustomed to; if, of course, they wish to be consistent and avoid making the Scripture, or St. Paul to appear self-contradictory.

You must expose it to the "orthodox" light of Scripture. This is what they are looking for and what will easily hook them; and draw them in further, to the Orthodox faith. For the most part, they care not so much about what the Holy Fathers say on matters; and that tells us they are the true sons of the Fathers. And proving the authority of sacred tradition, by the holy Scripture, is pretty much the easiest of tasks; certainly a whole lot easier than trying to prove the doctrine of the Holy Trinity by Scripture.

It is my feeling that of all the holy dogmas treasured up in the Church's bossom, that of the Holy Trinity most clearly evinces the authority and formative force of Holy Tradition, upon the mind and conscience of the Church. It is not likely that too many persons, with Scripture alone as their sole teacher and guide, will piece together the dogma of the Holy Trinity on their own, without any other outside influences or forces, bearing down upon them, and their instruction in the faith. All hold to a view of the Trinity which they have received from someone else; whether that be the Church, or not.

If they have received there view of the Trinity from no-one else but themselves, that is pretty much a sure sign of delusion and error. I think even a Protestant can be pressed far enough to admit this, in the final analysis. But returning to the main issue, at hand, surely 2 Thes. 2:15 supports the existence of an "oral" tradition," invested with a divine and apostolic authority. And we need not search any further, for the confirmation of this, than the words of St. John the Theologian: "Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book." ( Jn's Gospel 20:30 )

Now, without belabouring the point, unnecessarily, the term "signs" has important theological significance for the Church. Christ spoke in "signs," for a reason; certainly not for the fun of it, to be forgotten with the passing of time. Clearly not. They are part of the Church's sacred deposit. Clearly a "sign" is communicating some mysterious aspect of the faith; and thus has an enduring relevance and place in the life of the Church. But how shall Christians today know of these "unwritten" signs, without a "sacred deposit" of the faith, preserved in the liturgical life of the Church, outside of Holy Scripture, as St. John intimates in 20:30? St. Paul exhorts us all, "therefore," "to stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." (2 Thes. 2:15)

So, the original intent of St. John 20:30 was to reveal to us, and support the existence of "signs" performed by Christ, in the liturgical and mystical life of the Church, which have been handed down, outside the Bible, as St. John states it: "Not written in this book." (vs. 30) The dogma of the Holy Trinity is a clear evidence of this; as herocially defended by St. Athanasius, against the Ariomaniacs. But as if this were not enough, there are many other very clear testimonies from the Scriptures to advance your cause against Sola Scriptura. I shall only mention a few more, as I'm fairly sure I have already wearied the aptience of most by now. Take these words of St. Paul, for starters:

01) Gal. 1:13-14 "Ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews'
religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted
it: And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own
nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers."

02) Phil. 4:9 "Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and
heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you."

03) 2 Tim. 2:2 "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many
witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach
others also."

04) 1 Cor. 4:15-17 "For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ,
yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you
through the gospel. Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me. For this
cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in
the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in
Christ, as I teach every where in every church."

Some will, doubtless think it presumptuous of me to venture a comment on the above, but I do so in the fear of God. Now, the very first quote, of the four above, has St. Paul boasting of his strict adherence to "the traditions of" his "fathers," in obedience to them and the Old testament teachings. Such a statement can hardly be reconciled with the narrow, minimalistic Protestant interpretation of 2 Tim. 3:16-17. In the second quote, Phil. 4:9, St. Paul does not limit them to the written word for the sacred deposit of the faith, but instead tells them to call to memory everything, including what they have heard and seen him do, with their own eyes and ears!

Why? If all they needed was the "written" word to get it right, in the first place? Why did'nt St. Paul just clearly instruct them to stick to the "written" word; despite what they might have heard or seen in him? And the third quote, 2 Tim. 2:2, refers to the sacred deposit in terms of what was received, not through writing, but through direct hearing, among many witnesses; and not privately. Not only that, but it teaches an apostolic succession, through the "commission" of apostolic tradition to faithful men who will keep it; that is preserve it in its purity.

This act of apostolic succession is demonstrated for us in the person of St. Timothy, according to 1 Cor. 4:15-17; which says that he was sent to the Corinthians to remind them of St. Paul's traditions; not as Timothy read of them in the Scriptures, but as he witnessed with his own eyes and ears. That is what a bishop is commissioned to do; whether or not he chooses. He preserves, and hands down, unaltered,
the sacred deposit of the faith, in its fullness.

Now, in 2 Tim. 3:15-17, it is my feeling that the Canon of Scripture St. Paul refers to there, which St. Timothy new from childhood, was most likely the Old Testament. I mean, come one, now: it is only too obvious that St. Paul cannot be refering to the New Testament; as it was far from being completed during St. Timothy's childhood. And yet,
St. Paul clearly says that whatever Book of Scripture St. Timothy's parents were teaching him from, thoroughly equipped him for all good works; and I'm sure that a Protestant can be pressed to admit as much.

But is St. Paul then saying the New Testament was unncessary, since St. Timothy was already fully equipped, from the time of his childhood; for the work of his salvation? Do you see what I'm driving at here? It seems to me that the entire Protestant interpretation of 2 Tim. 3:15-17 hangs on their interpreting the term 'Scripture' in that context to include the New Testament, but as we can see, there is an obvious historical inconsistency with that viewpoint.

Now, pretty much all Protestants admit that the Jews did not adhere to Scripture Alone. Am I right about that? But if that is the case, then the Jews must've believed the Law and the Prophets commanded them to adhere strictly to the traditions of their fathers. If they did not believe that, then I want to hear about the particular Jewish sect that opposed adherence to such traditions; but so far, I have heard nothing about that.

So, then, where in Old Testament Scripture did they take their stand on this question? Surely there must be some places in the Old Testament upon which the Jewish fathers stood their ground! Or is that stating the case too strongly, in your opinion?

Well, though I cannot produce the evidence at present, I tend to feel that any defense they'd make of it would be based squarely upon the 5th commandment to "Honor your father and mother." And so we have, in the Book of Proverbs, the following testimonies: 01) Prov. 1:8-9 "My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother: For they shall be an ornament of grace unto thy head, and chains about thy neck." 02) Prov. 22:6 "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it." 03) Prov. 22:28 "Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set." All these are grounds for a strict aherence to the spiritual teachings of the Holy Fathers and our Mother Church. But if that does not satisfy them, let them here the words of "a father" to his son, as recroded in the Old Testament:

Proverbs 4:1-13
1 Hear, my children, the instruction of a father,
And give attention to know understanding;
2 For I give you good doctrine:
Do not forsake my law.
3 When I was my father’s son,
Tender and the only one in the sight of my mother,
4 He also taught me, and said to me:
“ Let your heart retain my words;
Keep my commands, and live.
5 Get wisdom! Get understanding!
Do not forget, nor turn away from the words of my mouth.
6 Do not forsake her, and she will preserve you;
Love her, and she will keep you.
7 Wisdom is the principal thing;
Therefore get wisdom.
And in all your getting, get understanding.
8 Exalt her, and she will promote you;
She will bring you honor, when you embrace her.
9 She will place on your head an ornament of grace;
A crown of glory she will deliver to you.”
10 Hear, my son, and receive my sayings,
And the years of your life will be many.
11 I have taught you in the way of wisdom;
I have led you in right paths.
12 When you walk, your steps will not be hindered,
And when you run, you will not stumble.
13 Take firm hold of instruction, do not let go;
Keep her, for she is your life.

"Hear, my son," this father says, in verse 10, "and receive my sayings, And the years of your life will be many." Thus, the true sons of the holy fathers receive their sayings, and honor their righteous memories, as a sacred endowment of "the faith," a treasure to be preserved for all time. Those who do not treasure up the wise sayings of the Fathers are guilty of being wise in their own eyes, according to Proverbs 3:7a - "Do not be wise in your own eyes." Those who think and act as if they are wiser than the fathers, and therefore fit enough to "remove not the ancient landmark (Prov. 22:28)," are sadly misguided and blind to the plain truth that stares them in the face, every time they open the Book itself!

[Ken McRae]

You must expose it to the "orthodox" light of Scripture. This is what
they are looking for and what will easily hook them; and draw them
in further, to the Orthodox faith. For the most part, they care not so
much about what the Holy Fathers say on matters; and that tells us
they are the true sons of the Fathers.




Those who think and act as if they are wiser than the fathers, and
therefore fit enough to "remove not the ancient landmark (Prov.
22:28)," are sadly misguided and blind to the plain truth that stares
them in the face, every time they open the Book itself!

After posting the above, I was without computer access for a couple
days, and so was unable to edit (correct) the obvious errors which I
only noticed this morning. It is more than likely that everyone who
bothered to read it, recognized those errors, but I feel I should point
out at least a couple of the more regrettable ones:

01) The first quote above is missing a very, very important word:
that is to say, the word "not;" and should have said this: "For the
most part, they," i.e. Protestants, "care not so much about what
the Holy Fathers say on matters; and that tells us they are not
the true sons of the Fathers."

02) And the second quote, similarly, possesses a word that should
not have been included, namely, the word "not," as well, and should
have read like this: "Those who think and act as if they are wiser
than the fathers, and therefore fit enough to remove 'the ancient
landmark (Prov. 22:28),' " etc.

I should also point out that when I said the Protestants don't much
care for Patristic teaching, that I was speaking in general, and with
regard to this specific theological question. What I said is true of the
vast majority of Christians who worship according to the Protestant
pattern or model. There is a very obvious and strong Patristic tone
in classical 16th and 17th century Protestant theology; but this, in
itself, is a very highly selective concentration; and revisionist, to a
large degree.

[Rick James York]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rick James York' is identical to members 'Rostislav' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.


Glory to Jesus Christ.How would you break it down and explain that the verse quoted is not stating the Bible alone is all that's needful? Is there an ECF or Orthodox commentary on this?- Isaac

Dear Christ lover, Isaac

You are trully serving God well when you help His sheep return to His flock.

My advice, for what it's worth is simple.

1) You can say, "Look, if a loved one tells you on an overcast day, "It would be profitable to take your umbrella with you when you leave the home." They do not mean to take nothing else. They do not want you to walk outdoors on a cold and rainy day completely naked except for your umbrella.

2) You can show them the Orthodox Catechism where it tells us that God's Will is revealed to us mainly by two means:

i) By Holy Scripture, (the written Word of God in the Bible).

ii) By Holy Tradidition, (passed down to us by word of mouth from Christ to the Apostles to the First Bishops and in succession from then till now).

I hope this helps, James

[Michael Stickles]

I was just chatting with a long-time friend of mine about the errors of Sola Scriptura ... but his rebuttal was with 2 Timothy 3:16. He emphasized the words "complete," and "thoroughly equipped."

There have been many good comments so far. I would just add this one small point.


2Tim 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 3:17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Who is it that is "complete" and "thoroughly equipped" by the Scriptures? The "man of God". But what does it mean to be a "man of God"?

Those who are not "men of God" are not made perfect or equipped for good works by the Scriptures. The ignorant and unstable are led to destruction through their twisting of the Scriptures (2Peter 3:16). Those who "reinterpret" (i.e., twist and thus break) the commands of God to agree with their traditions worship God in vain (as Christ said of the Pharisees - Matt. 15:1-9).

It is not enough to diligently study the Scriptures if one is not a man of God. As Jesus said to the Jews who persecuted Him, "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life." (John 5:39-40)

What is the problem in all of these cases? I would suggest that all of those mentioned in these passages come to the Scriptures with preconceptions and prejudices which are opposed to the truth in some degree; hence, they are unable to accept, or even unable to see, the Truth the Scriptures witness to. But those whose worldview and understanding have already been informed by a right belief can make profitable use of the Scriptures.

Paul is speaking of the Scriptures as tools in the hands of the man of God. Think of the verse as if it said this:


All master carpentry tools are given by the master carpenter, and are profitable for cutting, sanding, shaping, and finishing, that the apprentice carpenter may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work of carpentry.

Would it thus be true that all you need is the master carpentry tools to do every good work of carpentry? Hardly. Give me that same set of tools, and you'll get lots of sawdust and some crudely shaped constructions, but not much in the way of "good works." It is only true if you are already an apprentice; that is, only if you have already been trained in their use and remain under the master's instruction. An apprentice with inferior tools (or no tools) is handicapped; someone with the tools but who is untrained is not fully competent; and an apprentice with good tools who stops following his master's guidance will find the growth of his skills stunted (and may even see them decline).

I would argue that it is the same way with the Scriptures; only one properly trained and in submission to proper authority in the Church can truly be made complete and thoroughly equipped by them. This, I would suggest, is the "man of God" of whom Paul speaks.

In Christ,
Mike

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear friends,

I've read the recent contributions in this thread with interest. In particular, Mike's recent post, just above, strikes me as excellent. If only this paradigm could be more widely appreciated!

It is worth keeping in mind that 2 Timothy's 'all scripture...' refers, without any question, to the Old Testament.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Ken McRae]

"Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book." ( Jn's Gospel 20:30 )

Being a "skilled tradesman" myself, I can fully appreciate Mike's observations. Still, I will be so bold as to venture but a few more observations within this train of thought; which I should've raised previously, but missed for whatever reason(s).

First, I call upon another critical text, from the Holy Treasury of St. John, which warrants consideration in the clear light of John 20:30, but which time only permits us to glance upon, for now. According to the Theologian, Jesus said that "the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (Jn 14:26) In this text, we have recorded for us the essence of the Church's living tradition.

Here, then, is the critical point that all Protestants must struggle with: Jesus promised the Comforter would remind the Church of "all things" "whatever" he spoke to the Apostles; while at the same time St. John tells us that "many other signs truly did Jesus" "which are not written in this book." Now, these are the three questions which all "sincere" Protestants ought to grapple long with:

1) Why would the Apostles choose to leave "unwritten" any sign at all spoken by Jesus, for surely St. John is remembering things in verse 20:30 "which are not written in this book?"

2) Why would the Holy Spirit remind them of those theological "signs" "which are not written" if He merely desired those to be forgotten, with the departure of the Apostles unto the Lord?

3) How shall the Holy Spirit remind us of all those "signs" "which are not written," apart from the Living Tradition of the Church, preserved in and through an unbroken apostolic succession?

As previously noted, St. Paul exhorts Timothy, his spiritual son in Christ, that "the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." (2 Tim. 2:2) And so we have here a clear reference to the preservation of an "oral" tradition through a lineage, or a line of "apostolic successors;" which brings us to one other critical text, in the Treasury of St. Paul:

"Know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Tim. 3:15)

Can you see it, Mr. and Mrs. Protestant? According to St. Paul, the Church is "the pillar and ground of the truth." Nowhere is it written that the Scriptures are "the pillar and ground of the truth," but that is clearly and explicitly stated of the Church! All sacred truth has its proper ground in the Church; and we are to look to the Church, and those appointed within her, to remind us of those signs "which are not written in this book." (Jn 20:30) According to 1 Tim. 3:15, the Church is our final reference point; and not the Scripture Alone!!

Now, for the sake of illustration, I would like to introduce one of these Apostolic Traditions "not written in this book" of Holy Scripture, for your consideration. According to the Holy Fathers, it is the Apostolic Tradition to mix both wine and water in the Cup of Blessing (1 Cor. 10:16). I will not take the time to quote them at this point, but I will do so if specifically requested. Please rest assured, though, Mr. Protestant, that the Apostolic Tradition is to mix wine and water in the Eucharistic Chalice.

The Holy Fathers also say that eucharist is utterly invalid, and a deception, which is offered up with either wine alone or water alone in the Holy Cup; not to mention other types of liquids, such as sodas and juices, for example. It is a crying shame to even have speak of it, but there are those who call themselves Christians which vainly imagine any kind of liquid in the Cup is acceptable to God. Such are in a truly hopeless state, I fear.

Thus, in the light of this harsh reality, the Protestant Eucharist is no true Eucharist at all, for there can never be two opposing eucharists; but One Alone, in accord with the Unity of Christ. In all my life, I have never heard of any Protestant priest mixing water and wine in their Chalice, in accord with the Apostolic Tradition. Thus, the Protestant eucharist is a true deception, and a eucharist inspird by demons.

According to St. Paul's eucharistic theology, those who participate in a false eucharist are not true members of the Church. Please, Mr. Protestant, just try to follow this for a few seconds, before you get all riled up about it. To this matter, St. Paul has the following to say:

"I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." (1 Cor. 10:15-17)

"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." (Eph. 4:1-6)

From these two Scripture texts, we may derive the following two doctrines: First, that there is but only "One Body," or one Church; and second, that there is but "One Bread," or one eucharist. And if there is but only "one eucharist," as St. Paul clearly says, in no uncertain terms, then the Protestant eucharist is invalidated; as it is a clear and obvious deviation from the received Apostolic Tradition; and if their eucharist is a deception, then their church, too, is false, according to this very same Apostolic Tradtion.

Can you not see it there, Mr. Protestant? The direct linkage, according to St. Paul, between the "one bread" and "one body?" "For we being many are one bread," he says, "and one body!" There cannot be two breads and two bodies of Christ. The second bread is an obvious counterfeit; according to these apostolic words, and all those who set up communions in opposition to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic communion in Christ, are enemies of the One Church. In winding this down, though, I wish to draw your attention one final time to the blessed words of St. Paul, as recorded for us in 1 Cor. 4:14-17:

"I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me. For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church." (vs 14-17)

Now, these are the points of doctrine which I see naturally arising from this particular passage of Scripture: 1: The Holy Fathers of the Church "have begotten" and raised up the Church through the gospel. 2: There are ten thousand instructors in the School of Christ, but not many Holy Fathers, by comparison. 3: It is the Gospel duty of all true and faithful sons of the Church, as typified in St. Timothy, to remind us to follow of the "ways" of the Fathers. 4: The "ways" of the Holy Fathers are to be followed by all, first and foremost, before those of the ten thousand other instructors in Christ's School.

I would expound further upon these few doctrinal points, but lest I weary your patience any further, I shall conclude it here and now, by saying that what every professing Christian needs to ask themselves is this: Where is the Church? What are her true and distinguishing characteristics? And according to these words of St. Paul, she is the Church "begotten" and raised up by the Holy Fathers, through the gospel. Any communion which dismisses the Holy Fathers as of secondary importance, is to be numbered among the ten thousand false communions which have spread across the face of the earth, like a cancer.

[James Blackstock]

Glory to Jesus Christ. I was just chatting with a long-time friend of mine about the errors of Sola Scriptura, and the above came up. I had mentioned how in Acts 8, how Philip stated he had no understanding of the prophet Isaiah, and how could he, unless someone could teach him? I also brought up 2 Peter 3:16, on how unlearned people twist the scriptures to their own destruction... but his rebuttal was with 2 Timothy 3:16. He emphasized the words "complete," and "thoroughly equipped."

I understand that it means exactly what it says... the Bible is profitable for all those things, but I don't have the proper eloquence to put explain to him that what the Bible says here does not mean the Bible alone possesses all you need. He is from the understanding that as long as you are a liver and studier of the Bible, you are a part of Christ's church... considering you are also baptized, but that's another topic.

How would you break it down and explain that the verse quoted is not stating the Bible alone is all that's needful? Is there an ECF or Orthodox commentary on this?

Thank you.

- Isaac

I deal with this kind of issue every time I visit the men in prison. There, they have little to do but read the Bible, and many know it exceedingly well. I always try to explain that it is the Tradition of the Church that brought forth the Scriptures and that Tradition (Holy Spirit)(Patristic Mind) is the key to interpreting scripture. Of course this key was thrown out in the Reformation and mostly all that is left is human reason (mind) I try to remind them that The Lord tells us that His thoughts are "not" our thoughts, but "higher" than our thoughts. I also explain to those who are so very literal with each and every word in the Bible that; 2 Cor 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. Hope this helps

Seraphim

[Andreas Moran]

Something, including a passage from St Paul, can be 100% true but not 100% of the truth.

[Michael Stickles]

Something, including a passage from St Paul, can be 100% true but not 100% of the truth.

Definitely. A corollary to that truth is that a statement can be 100% true as said, and mostly or completely false as heard, if the assumptions of speaker and listener are different.

Sometimes it can get almost as ridiculous as Milo, Tock, and the Humbug talking with the Everpresent Wordsnatcher (in Norton Juster's wonderful book The Phantom Tollbooth):



"We're looking for a place to spend the night."

"It's not yours to spend."

"That doesn't make any sense, you see—"

"Dollars or cents, it's still not yours to spend."

"But I didn't mean—"

"Of course you're mean. Anyone who'd spend a night that doesn't belong to him is very mean."

"Well, I thought that by—"

"That's a different story. If you want to buy, I'm sure I can arrange to sell, but with what you're doing you'll probably end up in a cell anyway."

"That doesn't seem right."

"Agreed, but neither is it left, although if I were you I would have left a long time ago."

"Let me try once more. In other words—"

"You mean you have other words? Well, by all means, use them. You're certainly not doing very well with the ones you have now."

"Must you always interrupt like that?"

"Naturally; it's my job. I take the words right out of your mouth. Haven't we met before? I'm the Everpresent Wordsnatcher, and I'm sure I know your friend the bug."

"Is everyone who lives in Ignorance like you?"

"Much worse. But I don't live here. I'm from a place very far away called Context."

"Don't you think you should be getting back?"

"What a horrible thought. It's such an unpleasant place that I spend almost all my time out of it."


In Christ,
Mike

[Ken McRae]

According to St. Paul, the Church is "the pillar and ground of the truth." Nowhere is it written that the Scriptures are "the pillar and ground of the truth," but that is clearly and explicitly stated of the Church! All sacred truth has its proper ground in the Church; and we are to look to the Church, and those appointed within her, to remind us of those signs "which are not written in this book." (Jn 20:30) According to 1 Tim. 3:15, the Church is our final reference point; and not the Scripture Alone!!

St. Paul writes to the Corinthians that:
"Ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart; And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward: Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. - 2 Cor. 3:3-6

Now, concerning the alleged "sufficiency of Scripture", St. Paul clearly says that "the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." What is this to say but that the epistles written "in ink" can never be seperated from the living tradition of the Church, or be made to contradict it; for here it is said that the Church herself is the "epistle of Christ, "written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God!" In this text, we have a small window by which we may catch a small glimpse of the doctrinal oneness and unity of the Church; which is here styled by the Apostle as "the epistle of Christ" written "by the Spirit." Moreover, without the "epistle of Christ," as written by "the Spirit" himself, those epistles written "in ink" are somehow necessarily incomplete, lacking the very "ground and pillar of the Truth" itself (1 Tim. 3:15). The doctrines, thus, naturally arising from these two texts, namely 2 Cor. 3:3 and 1 Tim. 3:15, when taken together, are these:

DOCTRINE 1: The Church of the living God is "the epistle of Christ" "not written in ink, but with the Spirit." DOCTRINE 2: The epistle of Christ, "written not with ink," is "the pillar and ground of the Truth." DOCTRINE 3: Since Holy Scripture can never contradict itself, then neither can "the epistle of Christ," obviously, which is the Living Tradition of the Spirit. DOCTRINE 4: As the epistles "in ink" can never contradict themselves, nor "the epistle of Christ" in "the Spirit" contradict itself, so neither can these two ever be made to contradict each other, for the Truth is One in Christ! DOCTRINE 5: Without the living "epistle of Christ," which is the very "pillar and ground" of the Truth itself, the body of epistles "in ink" are necessarily incomplete, and therefore "insufficient" in some very terminal sense, lacking their proper "ground" and spring.