/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

MFW they always intentionally leave out verse 17 and only quote 2 Timothy 3:16, to the point of even recording fake debates where they have the other side act like they've been debunked and yet didn't even mentioned 2 Timothy 3:17.

>>545905

1 Timothy 5:17-18

>Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

That's quoting Deuteronomy, not Luke, what are you talking about?

>>545982

>The labourer is worthy of his reward.

That's only found in Luke 10:7

>>545983

Fair enough.

Followed up on it. First, considering probably timing of the various Gospels being written, it is far more likely:

(1) Paul and Luke are both quoting Jesus; or

(2) Paul is quoting a non-canonical, possibly lost book and Luke is quoting Jesus quoting said book; or

(3) Luke is quoting Paul quoting either

Scripture wasn't limited to the canon it is today, and its more likely Paul was thinking of a book we no longer have that Christ knew also than making new books "scripture" so quickly.

Anything else to back up Paul read/thought of any of the gospels as scripture other than that very questionable instance?

(Don't get me wrong, I think Paul's epistles were divinely inspired, and the same about the gospels, I just derive that knowledge from the Holy Spirit within me and don't see Paul writing that way.)

>>546009

>First, considering probably timing of the various Gospels being written, it is far more likely

So Paul can't possibly be saying what he is here because that would contradict the (((theories))) of modern anti-Christian pseudo-intellectuals?

>(1) Paul and Luke are both quoting Jesus; or

>(2) Paul is quoting a non-canonical, possibly lost book and Luke is quoting Jesus quoting said book; or

>(3) Luke is quoting Paul quoting either

None of these are possible because Paul uses the term 'scripture'.

>Scripture wasn't limited to the canon it is today, and its more likely Paul was thinking of a book we no longer have that Christ knew also than making new books "scripture" so quickly

Paul defines scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16-17

>Anything else to back up Paul read/thought of any of the gospels as scripture other than that very questionable instance?

This isn't questionable at all, it's explicit

>I think Paul's epistles were divinely inspired

Then you don't believe they contain a massive glaring error.

>>546009

>its more likely Paul was thinking of a book we no longer have that Christ knew also than making new books "scripture" so quickly.

Then why does Peter also call in scripture in 2 Peter 3:16?

>(1) Paul and Luke are both quoting Jesus;

This. Luke quotes Jesus directly, and Paul quotes Luke's account of Jesus as scripture.

And when we turn to the Greek of 2 Timothy 3:16, we find that there is, indeed, a mistranslation. The phrase rendered “All Scripture” is pasa graphe, which means “Every Scripture” — they key word being “every,” not “all.” This is an important distinction, and it makes grammatical sense of the phrase, given our knowledge of what the singular term “scripture” means (for “every individual book of Scripture” and “every individual passage of Scripture” certainly make grammatical sense).

Had Paul wanted to refer to the entire corpus of Scripture, he would have used a different Greek phrase — something like hai pasai graphai (“the whole of the scriptures”), not pasa graphe, which means simply “every scripture” (a fact which even some of the biggest advocates of using 2 Timothy 3:16-17Open in Logos Bible Software (if available), such as anti-Catholic James White, have admitted).

This is important because it makes it totally impossible to use the passage to prove sola scriptura, because if one tries to use it in that way it will prove way too much.

Since the passage says “Every Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, etc.,” if this proved the sufficiency of Scripture, it would actually prove the sufficiency of each passage of Scripture for theology or at least the sufficiency of each book of Scripture for theology. This would mean that not only would the Bible as a whole be enough to prove every point of theology, but each individual passage or book would be sufficient. So you could do theology not only by Scripture alone but by Matthew alone or by Mark alone or Luke alone or what have you. You could do theology sola Matthew, sola Mark, sola Luke, or, to go to the shortest books of the Bible, even sola Jude or sola 3 John if you wanted.

Jimmy Akin

>>546019

The sad thing is that there are probably people who would actualy find this compelling

>>546040

that's not an argument

>>546019

Read

>>545907

>>546019

I find it interesting you feel that this is your best response. Since by your own logic, if it said every "singular term scripture" is profitable, that would mean every single passage or phrase or even a single word, (and in fact each single word) taken alone, is profitable for all these things, even if the entire rest of the scripture were to be removed from all consideration. Fortunately, our scripture is never so easily broken down into constituent parts in such a way as you suggest, that the rest may be treated as not existing, but with the full benefit of all scripture still being derived. One reason why all scripture is profitable (no matter where you're looking) is indeed because of the context provided by all of the other scripture which you are not looking at in that moment. So by applying "profitable" to each and every so-called "singular scripture," as you sought to define it, you have also proven too much. The word "in" by itself is not profitable, but when considered in its proper place in Genesis 1:1, it is. We could no more be sola "in" than could "in," all by itself, be profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness.

Further, if you retreat from this to saying "it means each full book then," I would argue that you've proven too little, in other words you will have rendered the statement null and meaningless, as the Pharisees do in Mark 7, going against the meaning of the profitability of scripture. You don't need to hear the entire book before it can profit you, so to require that nullifies any meaning to the statement.

>>546080

I'm still having a hard time wrapping my head around what you're saying, but I'd like to hear what you have to say about the full article, if you can find the time.

I think I do get what you're saying about rendering it null, but I still don't agree. Saint Paul is saying that the scriptures are full of the Wisdom and Truth of God, and are thus incredibly important to study and comprehend But again, not what many Protestants seem to believe this verse proves.

>>546091

Basically just trying to say that to change 2 Timothy 3:16 into a statement about "each scripture" as you've defined (meaning each and every scripture) not only renders the concept of the sufficiency of "each scripture" absurd on its face, but likewise the concept of the profitability of "each scripture." Therefore when 2 Timothy 3 says "all scripture" it can't be meaning that.

Since this would be including, among other combinations, the first word of the Bible all by itself, as being both all encompassing of all doctrine (as he points out) but it would be also saying that this one isolated word is somehow profitable for for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness. Which is also absurd, so to say it means "each scripture" in the sense that he gives is not only taking liberties with the translation, but it's also absurd.

As for the article, he himself admits the material sufficiency of Scripture being proven in his point #7, but merely lack of mode of interpretation of the Scripture. This mode of interpretation is the Holy Spirit, and He is indwelling every believer, see John 14:16-17 Luke 11:9-13, and He interprets Scripture and guides into all truth, see John 16:13 and 1 Corinthians 2:12-13. Therefore combined with his point #7 the sufficiency of Scripture (for the man of God, as 2 Timothy 3:17 says) is already proven.

Furthermore, he has no good reason to say

>There was no way it was conceived of as a unified literary work, as it is today.

Because in 1 Peter 1:25 and Galatians 1:9, it clearly is seen that way.

Finally, in mentioning apostolic tradition in the closing mention of 2 Timothy 3:14-15, he fails to note that nowhere in Scripture is apostolic successionism established. The only way to do so would be to suggest that, like Judas Iscariot in Acts 1, the other Apostles were also removed from their positions. So taking Paul's word over anyone alive today claiming to be his successor is the true way to believe the Apostles.

>>546096

Not sure why you would take this to mean that every single word in scripture is profitable. Again, it's every passage and/or book, but not a single word like "in"

>>546357

How many words until it's a passage then?

>>546595

Any full thought perhaps. We could also use examples from the Bible as to what constitutes a passage.

>>546623

Is "the beginning" a full thought or a partial thought?

>>546632

I'm not too sure. I guess I might call it a full thought because it is letting us know there was indeed a beginning, that the universe hasn't existed eternally but that there was and is a Creator.

>>546634

Yeah, that's right, but that's in context with the rest of Genesis 1 and the Bible. I just mean the two words "the beginning" without any context.

If this proved the profitability of Scripture, it would actually prove the profitability of each full thought of Scripture for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness. Including the phrase "the beginning."

>>546638

The last paragraph is a quote from your article by the way but with a couple words changed to repurpose it for my argument.

>>546638

Sorry, I'm willing to admit it's me being dense; I just don't get it.

But if I'm understanding correctly then I agree with that statement. What you and I disagree on, seemingly, is that 2 Tm 3:16-17 proves that the Bible is sufficient; formally.

>>546737

Well the word of God is above God's own name because of psalms 138:2

>>546737

>But if I'm understanding correctly then I agree with that statement.

You agree I could walk up to someone out of nowhere and say the words "the beginning" without any explanation and that person has gained something doctrinally? Well, to each their own.