2 Timothy 3:16-17

[- DRA -]

Second Timothy 3:16-17 says (NKJV) ...
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 complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Note carefully the text. It doesn't end with "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable," does it?
Obviously not. It concludes with, "that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." Thus, doesn't the text tell us just how profitable Scripture is to us? I believe it does. It is the basis for teaching (i.e., doctrine, instruction), and convicts us of sin (i.e., reproof, correction). However, the text doesn't stop here, does it. Obviously, there is another thought. Just how well does Scripture profit the man/woman of God? Verse 17 says, "That the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Let's briefly see if this understanding harmonizes with other passages ...
James 1:
21 Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.
22 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.
23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror;
24 for he observes himself, goes away, and immediately forgets what kind of man he was.
25 But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does.

Okay, it seems the "implanted word" is synoymous with the "perfect [complete] law of liberty." Thus, the word is God's perfect or complete law. That certainly agrees with 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

Next, there's 1 Peter 4:11 ...
"If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles [words] of God ..." The idea is that we should speak as God's word speaks. Given that God's word thoroughly and completely equips us for every good work (2 Tim. 3:17), then the reason is obvious for us to say what God says on a particular matter. It shows our reverence and respect for God who gave us His word.

And, there's also 2 Peter 1:3 ...
"As His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness ..." "All things that pertain to life and godliness" is synonymous with that which makes us "complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work", which describes what Scripture does for us. Therefore, it also links to 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

Conclusion:
God's word is sufficient to guide us to serve God and please Him.

Questions:
1.) What is your understanding of 2 Timothy 3:16-17?
2.) Does your understanding harmonize with other Scriptures?

[Lukaris]

Would not one area where these ideas may harmonize be in 2 Corinthians 3:3-6? "clearly you are a epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart. And we have such trust through Christ toward God. Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." (NKJV).

[- DRA -]

Would not one area where these ideas may harmonize be in 2 Corinthians 3:3-6? "clearly you are a epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart. And we have such trust through Christ toward God. Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." (NKJV).

True. If we truly believe that "all Scripture" is indeed given by inspiration of God per 2 Timothy 3:16a, then harmony must exist with our understandings of various passages/texts of Scripture. I truly believe such harmony exists when the truth is obtained.

As for this text in 2 Corinthians 3, here's how I approach this text. Paul previously wrote a first epistle to the Corinthians (i.e., the book of 1 Corinthians). Note chapter 5 and the incident of fornication in the church at Corinth that Paul discusses. Then, note 2 Corinthians 2, starting at verse 3. The Corinthians had followed Paul's instructions in 1 Corinthians 5 and had discipled the unfaithful brother (note 2 Cor. 2:6). However, it seems he has repented, and forgiveness is now in order (2 Cor. 2:7-8). Note verse 9. The test was whether or not the Corinthians would obey what God commanded through the writings of the apostle. The Corinthians passed the test (so to speak) - they obeyed God.

In 2 Cor. 3, I understand the "we" refers to Paul and Timothy (see 1:1). They were familiar with both Paul and Timothy - Paul established the church in Corinth in Acts 18 - and Paul and Timothy knew the brethren in Corinth. Therefore, no letters of introduction either way were needed. In fact, the Corinthians' obedience to Paul's teaching was an epistle in a figurative sense (verses 2-3). How? By their acceptance and obedience to God's will. Note the contrast in verse 6 between the new covenant and the old (i.e., the letter - "written and engraved on stones" in verse 7): the old covenant "kills," but the new covenant (i.e., "the Spirit") gives "life." How? The old covenant identifed sin and condemned it, but couldn't completely take it away as the new covenant could (see Heb. 8:12).

How does this text harmonize with passages such as 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and James 1:21-25? Clearly, the Corinthians believed, accepted, and obeyed God's word. Going to 2 Timothy 3, it is clearly established that God's word is complete to direct man's spiritual life. Continue in chapter 4. Note Paul's command to Timothy to "preach the word" in verse 2. Why? Sound doctrine is based on God's word. Note verse 4. Those who don't want the truth turn to the teachings (i.e., wishful thinking of men - called "fables"). And, turning over to James 1:21, it is clear that the word ... when accepted (i.e., "engrafted") ... is able to save one's soul - if one does what it says (covered in the following verses).

Therefore, I don't have a problem harmonizing the passages at all. :)

Do you see things differently. If so, please explain.

[prodromos]

The scriptures Paul is referring to in his letter to Timothy as shown in verse 15, are the ones Timothy had known from his childhood. So it would seem that the Old Testament is all that is necessary in order "That the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.", for they are the only scriptures which Timothy could have known from his childhood.
At the time of this letter, none of the Gospels had been written and very few of the epistles.

John

[- DRA -]

The scriptures Paul is referring to in his letter to Timothy as shown in verse 15, are the ones Timothy had known from his childhood. So it would seem that the Old Testament is all that is necessary in order "That the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.", for they are the only scriptures which Timothy could have known from his childhood.
At the time of this letter, none of the Gospels had been written and very few of the epistles.

John

No doubt, 2 Timothy 3:15 is alluding to the Old Testament Scriptures. However, verse 16 says, "All Scripture." There's about a 30 year time period between Timothy's childhood and the writing of 2 Timothy. Note 1 Timothy 5:18 - "For the Scripture says, 'You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,' and, 'The laborer is worthy of his wages.' " Let's see. The first "Scripture" quoted is Deuteronomy 25:4. The second quoted "Scripture" is Luke 10:7. Conclusion? The Gospel of Luke was written prior to 1 Timothy. And, obviously, 1 Timothy was written prior to 2 Timothy. Simply stated, it means the Gospel of Luke was written prior to 2 Timothy. Actually, most of the N.T. books were written prior to 2 Timothy. Therefore, "all Scripture" in 2 Timothy 3:16a refers to both the Old and New Testament Scripture. Combined they completely furnish us with all we need to serve God and please Him. :amen:

[Lukaris]

The Gospel of John was not yet written though & according to Fr John Romanides may have been originally intended as mainly a liturgical Gospel to be communicated to Christians within the early church. Fr Romanides bases this on the fact that early Christians like St Justin the martyr only mention aspects of John when facing trial on accusations of cannibalism (for instance) when actually he would explain observance of the Eucharist in his apology but not in preaching. From this Fr Romanides asserts that while certain Gospels like Matthew (no less in depth of course) were meant for evengelization others for liturgics. From info like this, it would seem that 2 timothy 3:16-17 does hamonize with 2 Corinthians 3:3-6 & also 2 Thessalonians 3:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle." I am posting in the tone of discussion only & not in polemic. God bless.

[- DRA -]

The Gospel of John was not yet written though & according to Fr John Romanides may have been originally intended as mainly a liturgical Gospel to be communicated to Christians within the early church. Fr Romanides bases this on the fact that early Christians like St Justin the martyr only mention aspects of John when facing trial on accusations of cannibalism (for instance) when actually he would explain observance of the Eucharist in his apology but not in preaching. From this Fr Romanides asserts that while certain Gospels like Matthew (no less in depth of course) were meant for evengelization others for liturgics. From info like this, it would seem that 2 timothy 3:16-17 does hamonize with 2 Corinthians 3:3-6 & also 2 Thessalonians 3:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle." I am posting in the tone of discussion only & not in polemic. God bless.

No doubt, the four gospels were written from different perspectives - with each emphasizing certain aspects of our Lord. By combining the gospel accounts, we get the complete picture of Him that God intends for us to have.

Second Timothy 3:16-17 can only harmonize with 2 Thessalonians 3:15 if we understand "the traditions which you were taught" are based on Scripture. If not, they are simply the teachings of men who presume to speak on God's behalf - as opposed to those who "speak as the oracles of God" (1 Peter 4:11a).

Also, think back to James 1:21,25. The engrafted word in verse 21 is synonymous with the perfect (complete) law of liberty in verse 25. Therefore, there's no need for traditions that aren't authorized in God's word. Otherwise, God's word really wasn't perfect or complete at all. And, we find our reasoning contradicting God's word. :eek:

[Macarius]

And you don't think your attempts to interpret and teach from 2 Timothy constitute the teachings of a man who presumes to speak for God?

You believe Sola Scriptura to be a teaching of scripture, yet the first one ever to teach it was Martin Luther in the 16th century. Did the idea die as soon as Paul spoke it? Was he so bad a teacher that the whole church went to pot right after the apostles died? If not, then who taught sola scriptura?

If no one did, then I contend that sola scriptura is a tradition of men, invented by Luther and passed on to his spiritual descendents - the protestants. As a tradition of men I reject it.

I agree that II Timothy says all scripture is God breathed and can complete us in righteousness. It is a verbal icon of Christ, and as such (when understood correctly) it will turn us to Christ in anticipation of Christ's grace. With such faith, God may save us. I would also say that the liturgy can do such a thing, if we have the spiritual eye to see it. So could an icon, if interpreted correctly (they contain much theology in their symbolism).

The key, though, is having the right framework. That's tradition. Tradition is the framework and lense through which we see scripture, by which scripture is formed (for how was scripture selected except by its conformity to the tradition of the church and its use in worship?), and in which scripture sits as the capstone. To claim a contrast between scripture and tradition is a false dichotomy.

You, evidently, are coming from a protestant tradition. This began in the 16th century and is a tradition of men. There is also a Holy Tradition - the tradition Paul speaks of in II Thess, and the same one St. Jude speaks of when he exhorts us to "contend earnestly for the faith once delivered (traditioned) to all the saints." Tradition is foremost in St. Paul's mind when he commands Timothy to appoint men whom he may teach so that they may teach others also. It is in mind throughout Galatians, when the Galatians were warned to stick with what Paul taught them, since Paul learned it not from men but from God directly.

That's the difference - Holy Tradition isn't invented by men (like sola scriptura). It comes straight from God - Christ - through those He appointed to teach - the Apostles - through those they appointed to teach - the early church fathers - and on down through the centuries. It isn't something you can get at by trying to use your own finite brain power, nor by trying to reconstruct it from a text. Instead, you must be taught it by a living person - truth is never dis-incarnated, it is taught by people to people. Fortunately, Christ taught us that the Church would never die - the living teachings of the truth would never leave this earth and the Holy Tradition would survive to be handed on to the next generation of the faithful. Find that Church (which, historically speaking, cannot be protestantism, since protestantism began with Luther in the 16th century). Once you've found it, you'll be able to be taught the lense through which to encounter scripture, and THEN scripture will be able to do all it promises in 2 Timothy.

But in a spiritual vacume, outside of that tradition? It's words can be twisted to mean anything. Without tradition, it's just arbitrary scratches on a page which our finite brains transform into whatever pre-concieved theology we chose to invent. That's the bedrock of heresy, and it has been since the first centuries of the Church (note the gnostics).

Fortunately, protestant tradition isn't that far removed from Holy Tradition - you recieved your faith from the Catholics (who have an ever greater degree of Holy Tradition). But look at the fringes of protestantism - the heresies of Jehovas Witnesses and Mormons, the liberal episcopaleans, the incredible number of schisms within the mainline denominations, the wildly different understandings of scripture present in the pentecostal and conservative branches. Judge a tree by its fruit, you might say. Sola Scriptura has behaved exactly as a tradition of men ought to behave - a cause of disunity and strife. Obedience to Holy Tradition is the only road to unity and theological sanity. In so much as protestants have maintained it, they have prospered.

In Christ,
Macarius

[prodromos]

The second quoted "Scripture" is Luke 10:7. Conclusion? The Gospel of Luke was written prior to 1 Timothy.
Since the Jewish culture had a largely "oral tradition", very few people actually being literate, I feel it is a very large assumption of yours that Luke had actually been "written" at this time.

John

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

No doubt, 2 Timothy 3:15 is alluding to the Old Testament Scriptures. However, verse 16 says, "All Scripture." There's about a 30 year time period between Timothy's childhood and the writing of 2 Timothy. Note 1 Timothy 5:18 - "For the Scripture says, 'You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,' and, 'The laborer is worthy of his wages.' " Let's see. The first "Scripture" quoted is Deuteronomy 25:4. The second quoted "Scripture" is Luke 10:7. Conclusion? The Gospel of Luke was written prior to 1 Timothy. And, obviously, 1 Timothy was written prior to 2 Timothy. Simply stated, it means the Gospel of Luke was written prior to 2 Timothy. Actually, most of the N.T. books were written prior to 2 Timothy. Therefore, "all Scripture" in 2 Timothy 3:16a refers to both the Old and New Testament Scripture. Combined they completely furnish us with all we need to serve God and please Him.

Since the Jewish culture had a largely "oral tradition", very few people actually being literate, I feel it is a very large assumption of yours that Luke had actually been "written" at this time.

John

Sorry, but I have to disagree. In 1 Timothy 5:18 two passages are referred to as "Scripture" - Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7. Both were written and inspired - therefore, they were regarded as Scripture. See also 2 Peter 3:15-16. Peter declares Paul's writings to be "Scripture."

The problem with the Jews and oral tradition was that they elevated it above God's written word (e.g., Matthew 15:1-20). I think the lesson should also be applied today.

[Lukaris]

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

No doubt, 2 Timothy 3:15 is alluding to the Old Testament Scriptures. However, verse 16 says, "All Scripture." There's about a 30 year time period between Timothy's childhood and the writing of 2 Timothy. Note 1 Timothy 5:18 - "For the Scripture says, 'You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,' and, 'The laborer is worthy of his wages.' " Let's see. The first "Scripture" quoted is Deuteronomy 25:4. The second quoted "Scripture" is Luke 10:7. Conclusion? The Gospel of Luke was written prior to 1 Timothy. And, obviously, 1 Timothy was written prior to 2 Timothy. Simply stated, it means the Gospel of Luke was written prior to 2 Timothy. Actually, most of the N.T. books were written prior to 2 Timothy. Therefore, "all Scripture" in 2 Timothy 3:16a refers to both the Old and New Testament Scripture. Combined they completely furnish us with all we need to serve God and please Him.

Our Study Bible shows that Luke was written maybe 3 years after the Timothy epistles. Since Matthew definitely preceded Luke, it is possible that Matthew 10:10 is being referred to here. It is not much of an issue but it does seem to recognize oral & written transmission of the Gospel being simultaneous. Again, as I mentioned earlier, the Gospel of John was not written yet but the apostleship of St John was being orally transmitted & he concludes that not all deeds of Jesus Christ were written down (John 21:25) & not all scripture at this point either.

Sorry, but I have to disagree. In 1 Timothy 5:18 two passages are referred to as "Scripture" - Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7. Both were written and inspired - therefore, they were regarded as Scripture. See also 2 Peter 3:15-16. Peter declares Paul's writings to be "Scripture." I do not understand what is in contention here.

The problem with the Jews and oral tradition was that they elevated it above God's written word (e.g., Matthew 15:1-20). I think the lesson should also be applied today.Christ was not condemning tradition itself but the transgression of God's commandment detached from the heart. Was not most of the old Hebrew tradition called targum which was orally memorized scripture? So they had scripture as much of their tradition, acknowledged it but failed in its spiritual basis. It seems in our Orthodox faith the spirit of 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Thessalonians 3:15, & 2 Corinthians 3:3-6 are properly harmonized. Thank you and God bless. PS lacking proper edit skills, part of my reply is wrapped in the quote as a 2nd paragraph.

[Xpycoctomos]

Second Timothy 3:16-17 says (NKJV) ...
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 complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Note carefully the text. It doesn't end with "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable," does it?
Obviously not. It concludes with, "that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." Thus, doesn't the text tell us just how profitable Scripture is to us? I believe it does. It is the basis for teaching (i.e., doctrine, instruction), and convicts us of sin (i.e., reproof, correction). However, the text doesn't stop here, does it. Obviously, there is another thought. Just how well does Scripture profit the man/woman of God? Verse 17 says, "That the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Let's briefly see if this understanding harmonizes with other passages ...
James 1:
21 Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.
22 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.
23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror;
24 for he observes himself, goes away, and immediately forgets what kind of man he was.
25 But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does.

Okay, it seems the "implanted word" is synoymous with the "perfect [complete] law of liberty." Thus, the word is God's perfect or complete law. That certainly agrees with 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

Next, there's 1 Peter 4:11 ...
"If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles [words] of God ..." The idea is that we should speak as God's word speaks. Given that God's word thoroughly and completely equips us for every good work (2 Tim. 3:17), then the reason is obvious for us to say what God says on a particular matter. It shows our reverence and respect for God who gave us His word.

And, there's also 2 Peter 1:3 ...
"As His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness ..." "All things that pertain to life and godliness" is synonymous with that which makes us "complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work", which describes what Scripture does for us. Therefore, it also links to 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

Conclusion:
God's word is sufficient to guide us to serve God and please Him.

Questions:
1.) What is your understanding of 2 Timothy 3:16-17?
2.) Does your understanding harmonize with other Scriptures?
"You should eat veges, that you may be healthy."

or in regular English:

"Eat veges so you can be completely healthy."

That doesn't mean that meat doesn't matter.

That verse doesn't mean that all you need is Scripture. You're reading into it the Reformers concepts... not the authors (or the Early Church's) concepts.

You DO need scripture to "be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work". No one in the Orthodox is denying that. Learning from the Scriptures is not just a "good thing", it's necessary.

Xpy

[Protoevangel]

The scriptures Paul is referring to in his letter to Timothy as shown in verse 15, are the ones Timothy had known from his childhood. So it would seem that the Old Testament is all that is necessary in order "That the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.", for they are the only scriptures which Timothy could have known from his childhood.
At the time of this letter, none of the Gospels had been written and very few of the epistles.

John
This is false reasoning. The Holy Scriptures are those Scriptures God gave to the Church through inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It does not matter if the Gospel of John was written after 2 Timothy or not, it is still Scripture, "given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." The Holy Spirit inspired the Scriptures, and the Holy Spirit inspired the Church to include those books which were "given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness..."


DRA,

You are correct. God's Word is sufficient. But I am sure you understand that His Word must be properly understood. Otherwise, you have JWs, SDAs and Onness Pentecostals, etc., all claiming their own inspired interpretations (you know, like we have today).

That is where Tradition comes in. Tradition is not "above Scripture", but is the lens the Apostles handed down so that we could see the Scriptures in the same light that they saw them. So that we may not be swayed by the spirit of the age, and our own fallible, individualistic interpretations.

Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.
- 2 Thessalonians 2:15

[Xpycoctomos]

For Orthdoox here:

Does the Church believe that "God's Word" always necessarily refers to the Sciptures. I'm seriously asking the question.

Thanks.

Xpy

[Protoevangel]

For Orthdoox here:

Does the Church believe that "God's Word" always necessarily refers to the Sciptures. I'm seriously asking the question.

Thanks.

Xpy
"always necessarily". No. But the Holy Scriptures can clearly and properly be called such. Christ Himself calls them such.

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

No doubt, 2 Timothy 3:15 is alluding to the Old Testament Scriptures. However, verse 16 says, "All Scripture." There's about a 30 year time period between Timothy's childhood and the writing of 2 Timothy. Note 1 Timothy 5:18 - "For the Scripture says, 'You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,' and, 'The laborer is worthy of his wages.' " Let's see. The first "Scripture" quoted is Deuteronomy 25:4. The second quoted "Scripture" is Luke 10:7. Conclusion? The Gospel of Luke was written prior to 1 Timothy. And, obviously, 1 Timothy was written prior to 2 Timothy. Simply stated, it means the Gospel of Luke was written prior to 2 Timothy. Actually, most of the N.T. books were written prior to 2 Timothy. Therefore, "all Scripture" in 2 Timothy 3:16a refers to both the Old and New Testament Scripture. Combined they completely furnish us with all we need to serve God and please Him.

Sorry, but I have to disagree. In 1 Timothy 5:18 two passages are referred to as "Scripture" - Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7. Both were written and inspired - therefore, they were regarded as Scripture. See also 2 Peter 3:15-16. Peter declares Paul's writings to be "Scripture." I do not understand what is in contention here.

The problem with the Jews and oral tradition was that they elevated it above God's written word (e.g., Matthew 15:1-20). I think the lesson should also be applied today.

Christ was not condemning tradition itself but the transgression of God's commandment detached from the heart. Was not most of the old Hebrew tradition called targum which was orally memorized scripture? So they had scripture as much of their tradition, acknowledged it but failed in its spiritual basis. It seems in our Orthodox faith the spirit of 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Thessalonians 3:15, & 2 Corinthians 3:3-6 are properly harmonized. Thank you and God bless.

PS lacking proper edit skills, part of my reply is wrapped in the quote as a 2nd paragraph ... [Here are your comments ... Our Study Bible shows that Luke was written maybe 3 years after the Timothy epistles. Since Matthew definitely preceded Luke, it is possible that Matthew 10:10 is being referred to here. It is not much of an issue but it does seem to recognize oral & written transmission of the Gospel being simultaneous. Again, as I mentioned earlier, the Gospel of John was not written yet but the apostleship of St John was being orally transmitted & he concludes that not all deeds of Jesus Christ were written down (John 21:25) & not all scripture at this point either.]

Actually, several things were wrong in Matthew 15:1-20. 1st ... There was no command(s) from God that said a Jew had to wash his/her hands before eating bread. However, that surely didn't stop the Jews from allowing one to evolve from their "traditons." 2nd ... God had given a command about honoring one's parents. But, the Jews' teaching - which, over a period of time had become their tradition - provided a loophole to avoid doing what God said. Thus, their traditional negated God's command. 3rd ... By focusing on their "traditions" versus God's word, the Jews failed to understand how one really defiled themselves - it wasn't by eating with soiled hands - but by impure thoughts ... which lead to impure actions (i.e., sin).

As for which was written first, Matthew versus Luke, it is irrelevant for our purposes. Whether Matthew or Luke, 1 Timothy 5:18 - obviously written before 2 Timothy - does indeed show that the N.T. writings were also Scripture. That was my point. Whether Matthew or Luke, the point is valid. Therefore, 2 Tim. 3:16a means both the Old and New Testament writings.

Sorry, but if you truly accept what 2 Timothy 3:16-17 so clearly teaches, it excludes those later traditions that arose after God's word was complete. Consider 2 Timothy 4:2-4. Preaching the word is the basis for "sound doctrine" in verse 3 and "the truth" in verse 4. Going back to the example of Jesus teachings in Matthew 15, the lesson should be clear of what happens when folks allow themselves the liberty of adding to (or perverting) God's word. Plus, there's also 1 Timothy 4:1-3. Folks that depart from the faith start setting up their own rules. There's no need to do that. God's word is sufficient without our think-so's, or that-is-the-way-I-would-like-for-things-to-be mindset.

In His service ... :bow:

[- DRA -]

"You should eat veges, that you may be healthy."

or in regular English:

"Eat veges so you can be completely healthy."

That doesn't mean that meat doesn't matter.

That verse doesn't mean that all you need is Scripture. You're reading into it the Reformers concepts... not the authors (or the Early Church's) concepts.

You DO need scripture to " be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work". No one in the Orthodox is denying that. Learning from the Scriptures is not just a "good thing", it's necessary.

Xpy

Not sure exactly what your point is about veggies. Daniel 1? Romans 14? How is it relevant to this discussion?

Sorry, but the reformers didn't teach me that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God ... that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." I got that straight from the Bible.

And, sorry once again, but the Bible + the tradition(s) of men = departure from the truth. Don't take my word for it. Check out Matthew 15:1-20 and 1 Timothy 4:1-3 for yourself.

In His service ... :bow:

[Macarius]

You're dramatically over simplifying things.

First, you ignore the direct command of the scriptures that we are to KEEP the traditions. 1 Corinthians, 2 Thessalonians, and Jude have ALL been brought forward to show you that, but you have YET to harmonize that into your view. We do, yet you accuse us of failing to harmonize our view with scripture.

Second, you ASSUME that sola scriptura doesn't qualify as a tradition. It is a view, theological in nature, that is passed on from one generation of protestants to another. It was initiated in the 16th century. It would then, by your own logic, qualify as a tradition of men and be something to be rejected. The mere fact that you can show a proof-text from scripture that 'supports' it does not in any way negate the fact that it originated, historically in the 16th century - long after the completing of the scriptures (by church council, I might add). Why does proof-texting from scripture not matter? Because countless heresies have proof-texted from scripture. We ourselves - with whom you clearly disagree - have offered you numerous proof-texts from scripture to establish our point.

You're also assuming a false dichotomy between tradition and scripture. Scripture IS A FORM of tradition. The books were written by the Apostles under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit from that which had been handed to them by Christ. The books were selected by a church council (carthage) and ratified by another (Constantinople I, the second ecumenical council - in 385 AD). Prior to this time there was no universally recognized New Testament. Each church had its own set, and some of the books they used didn't make the final cut. If you want to claim the NT as scripture, and I agree that we should, then you have to accept that the Holy Spirit established the tradition of calling these books 'scripture' - that is to say, that council wasn't a human invention. It was inspired by God to proclaim the truth.

At the point that there is clear and necessary evidence of extra-biblical inspiration we accept tradition. Sola scriptura falls.

You also assume that there is only one type of tradition - the bad kind. Notice in the passages in Matthew and Mark that Christ explicitly condemns the traditions of men. This is consistent with Galatians, where Paul cautions against the same thing. However, Paul goes on to talk about that which He recieved from God - as He mentions in 1 Corinthians in the context of the Eucharist. There are two traditions - the one spoken of positively by Jude, Paul, and others, called Holy Tradition, which forms the core lense by which we understand God, life, and the Scriptures (and which was formative to the writing of the scriptures and formed the sole criterion for determing what even qualifies as scripture). The second type is the tradition of men - stuff we make up. Sola scriptura is an example of a tradition of men. Anything we argue from proof-texts, unless we are starting from the perspective of Holy Tradition, is likely to be a tradition of men.

You're also assuming that you can somehow objectively interpret the scriptures - that is to say, you assume sola scriptura is even possible. I wrote another reply on the first page of this thread concerning this. I would deeply appreciate a reply to it.

In Christ,
Macarius

[- DRA -]

DRA,

You are correct. God's Word is sufficient. But I am sure you understand that His Word must be properly understood. Otherwise, you have JWs, SDAs and Onness Pentecostals, etc., all claiming their own inspired interpretations (you know, like we have today).

That is where Tradition comes in. Tradition is not "above Scripture", but is the lens the Apostles handed down so that we could see the Scriptures in the same light that they saw them. So that we may not be swayed by the spirit of the age, and our own fallible, individualistic interpretations.

Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.
- 2 Thessalonians 2:15

Agreed. God's word must be properly understood. Matt. 4:5-7 is an excellent example. The devil quoted Psalm 91:11-12. However, the understanding he derived contradicted the principle taught in Deuteronomy 6:16. Therefore, I conclude that an understanding derived from one passage of Scripture must harmonize with others. See also Matthew 22:23-33 and 41-46. Clearly, the truth will harmonize when one has the correct understanding.

As for 2 Thess. 2:15, it's no problem as long as we are talking about the traditions which harmonize with the written word. Otherwise, you have blend of the word and the teachings of men. Consider 1 Timothy 4:1-3. Let's assume that those who departed from the faith persisted with their teachings and practices until it became a tradition to those who followed them. Should we follow their tradition? Or, should we return to what the Bible says and not make up rules and regulations on God's behalf?

I believe there is an element of truth to the "lens" you mention. Matthew 13:15-16 and 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 are both texts that I think all of us should heed - myself included. It's sobering to think that if we approach the Lord or His word wanting something other than the truth - we will get just what we are seeking. The problem is that I-want-it-my-way attitude does NOT lead to heaven. Rather, it leads to destruction.

[Macarius]

Agreed. God's word must be properly understood. Matt. 4:5-7 is an excellent example. The devil quoted Psalm 91:11-12. However, the understanding he derived contradicted the principle taught in Deuteronomy 6:16. Therefore, I conclude that an understanding derived from one passage of Scripture must harmonize with others. See also Matthew 22:23-33 and 41-46. Clearly, the truth will harmonize when one has the correct understanding.

That does not, then, conclusively prove that all that one will need to aquire this truth is present in scripture. But, on face, I agree. There certainly won't be anything discordant between scripture and the truth, if scripture is properly understood (that is, if one is coming from the correct tradition, scripture will harmonize with what one is taught in that tradition).

As for 2 Thess. 2:15, it's no problem as long as we are talking about the traditions which harmonize with the written word.

Sure. See above.

Let's assume that those who departed from the faith persisted with their teachings and practices until it became a tradition to those who followed them. Should we follow their tradition?

This is why we reject sola scriptura.

Or, should we return to what the Bible says and not make up rules and regulations on God's behalf?

We would say, "Or should we return to the apostolic faith as preserved in God's Church, which God promised to preserve (Matt 16) until the end of time." If the problem was that people's man-made traditions caused them to leave the apostolic faith, then yes, they ought to return.

In Christ,
Macarius

[- DRA -]

You're dramatically over simplifying things.

First, you ignore the direct command of the scriptures that we are to KEEP the traditions. 1 Corinthians, 2 Thessalonians, and Jude have ALL been brought forward to show you that, but you have YET to harmonize that into your view. We do, yet you accuse us of failing to harmonize our view with scripture.

Second, you ASSUME that sola scriptura doesn't qualify as a tradition. It is a view, theological in nature, that is passed on from one generation of protestants to another. It was initiated in the 16th century. It would then, by your own logic, qualify as a tradition of men and be something to be rejected. The mere fact that you can show a proof-text from scripture that 'supports' it does not in any way negate the fact that it originated, historically in the 16th century - long after the completing of the scriptures (by church council, I might add). Why does proof-texting from scripture not matter? Because countless heresies have proof-texted from scripture. We ourselves - with whom you clearly disagree - have offered you numerous proof-texts from scripture to establish our point.

You're also assuming a false dichotomy between tradition and scripture. Scripture IS A FORM of tradition. The books were written by the Apostles under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit from that which had been handed to them by Christ. The books were selected by a church council (carthage) and ratified by another (Constantinople I, the second ecumenical council - in 385 AD). Prior to this time there was no universally recognized New Testament. Each church had its own set, and some of the books they used didn't make the final cut. If you want to claim the NT as scripture, and I agree that we should, then you have to accept that the Holy Spirit established the tradition of calling these books 'scripture' - that is to say, that council wasn't a human invention. It was inspired by God to proclaim the truth.

At the point that there is clear and necessary evidence of extra-biblical inspiration we accept tradition. Sola scriptura falls.

You also assume that there is only one type of tradition - the bad kind. Notice in the passages in Matthew and Mark that Christ explicitly condemns the traditions of men. This is consistent with Galatians, where Paul cautions against the same thing. However, Paul goes on to talk about that which He recieved from God - as He mentions in 1 Corinthians in the context of the Eucharist. There are two traditions - the one spoken of positively by Jude, Paul, and others, called Holy Tradition, which forms the core lense by which we understand God, life, and the Scriptures (and which was formative to the writing of the scriptures and formed the sole criterion for determing what even qualifies as scripture). The second type is the tradition of men - stuff we make up. Sola scriptura is an example of a tradition of men. Anything we argue from proof-texts, unless we are starting from the perspective of Holy Tradition, is likely to be a tradition of men.

You're also assuming that you can somehow objectively interpret the scriptures - that is to say, you assume sola scriptura is even possible. I wrote another reply on the first page of this thread concerning this. I would deeply appreciate a reply to it.

In Christ,
Macarius

I have read both your replies and will respond when I have time, Lord willing.

Right now, the next few days are pretty well booked up. However, there's is one passage that I offer for consideration: Acts 17:11. Like the Bereans, I think it is noble to objectively interpret the Scriptures to understand what they mean. Maybe I'm missing something, and you can help enlighten me. :help:

[Protoevangel]

I have read both your replies and will respond when I have time, Lord willing.

Right now, the next few days are pretty well booked up. However, there's is one passage that I offer for consideration: Acts 17:11. Like the Bereans, I think it is noble to objectively interpret the Scriptures to understand what they mean. Maybe I'm missing something, and you can help enlighten me. :help:
Hi DRA,

At first, I looked at this post and scratched my head. :scratch: Enlighten you about what? That is is good and noble to search the Scriptures? Of course it is!

Then I saw the subtle departure from scripture in your post. You seem to assume that you are able to "objectively" interpret the Scriptures. I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to subscribe to the doctrine of sola-DRA or sola-Protoevangel.

It was in the context of the community of God where these Scriptures were understood and interpreted. It is this very context of the community of God, which is called Holy Tradition, that sola-scriptura rejects, assuming "self" to be the objective interpreter over the Holy Scripture.

[Macarius]

I have read both your replies and will respond when I have time, Lord willing.

Right now, the next few days are pretty well booked up. However, there's is one passage that I offer for consideration: Acts 17:11. Like the Bereans, I think it is noble to objectively interpret the Scriptures to understand what they mean. Maybe I'm missing something, and you can help enlighten me. :help:
I suppose my point is that I don't think it is possible to objectively interpret anything, because that's just what it is: an interpretation. Human words are exceedingly vague and can mean multiple things. This gets multiplied across language as we have to translate words into single-equivalents or short paraphrases when the original word can have many layers of meaning.

The Bereans were praised for agreeing to the truth. The truth certainly can be found in scripture, if it is understood correctly. The Bereans, thanks to the new lense they recieved from Paul, were able to finally see the Scriptures (Old Testament, at this point) in the correct light and saw the truthfulness of what Paul was preaching.

As a counter example, I offer you Acts 8:26 - 38. Here, an Ethiopian is examining the scriptures, but recognizes that he needs a teacher. On his own he cannot arrive at the truth (just like the Bereans, on their own, did not arrive at the truth - Paul had to teach them first). He even says, in response to Phillip's question "Do you understand what you are reading," "How can I unless someone guides me?"

Such is what I am trying to say - unless one has been formed in the Holy Tradition of the Apostles all things that one teaches are traditions of men, since that one would be a man having made these interpretations up.

II Peter 3:15 - 16 warns directly against people interpreting scripture if one is "untaught" (presumably, given the scripture's attitude towards academia, this does not mean un-educated in earthly wisdom, but refers to one who has not been taught by the Apostles or those whom they appoint).

Seek the apostolic tradition, which God promises will not die (as the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth and the gates of hades will not overcome it). Contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to all the saints. We must disciple ourselves!

I greatly anticipate your replies - this is a good discussion of an important issue.

In Christ,
Macarius

[Xpycoctomos]

Not sure exactly what your point is about veggies. Daniel 1? Romans 14? How is it relevant to this discussion?

Sorry, but the reformers didn't teach me that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God ... that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." I got that straight from the Bible.

And, sorry once again, but the Bible + the tradition(s) of men = departure from the truth. Don't take my word for it. Check out Matthew 15:1-20 and 1 Timothy 4:1-3 for yourself.

In His service ... :bow:
The point wasn't about veges.. it was analogy to comment on the structure.

No, the Reformers certainly did not create the bible, nor did I suggest such. But your interpretation you ahve inherited completely from some of the reformers (whether you are aware of it or not). One can look at the early Church and see plainly that it was not "if it's not in the Bible it's not important or necessary."

Here's my point with the veges. You're reading this as saying that the Bible alone will make you "complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."
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 complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

But I don't see how the verse (which I've requoted above) suggests the "alone" part.

It's LIKE if I said "All veges are important to eat that you may be completely healthy." That doesn't imply that veges ALONE will do this. Only that veges are a necessary and important part of a healthy diet. That you cannot be completely healthy wtihout veges.

Scripture is not all you need. Before you misunderstand my words I want to repeat that they are necessary, but not the only necessary thing. I could go on with many more things, but it doesn't matter becuase you aren't Orthodox or even Catholic.

But it is definitly Orthodox to believe that the Sciptures are a powerful and necessary tool that must be used in the struggle to be Christlike and unOrthodox to believe otherwise.

We can look at the Way of the Pilgrim, writings of the Church Fathers as well as the many who have stuggled as prisioners (ie during the Communist Regime in the East) where the one of the main things that got them through their inprisonment and torture were the prayers and Scriptures they had memorized. You read Fr Roman Braga's story, he talks of how he, some other monks and a baptist minister used to get together and talk about scriptures and pray.

DRA, while you see us as downplaying the importance of Scriptures, the reality is that we are only giving them proper context within the life of the Church.

If someone said, on the other hand, all that is necessary is the Eucharist, or all you need to do is pray, or all yo need to do is go to the Diving Liturgy on Sundays or all you need to do is fast and give alms, as Orthodox we would be obliged to say that while all of those things are necessary to lead a Christian life, none of them can be experienced in a vacuum.

The Scriptures cannot be understood in a vacuum. They need to have a greater context. They are nothing but words on a page until they are lived within the life of the Church... the Church that the Holy Spirit inspired to write the Scriptures and rightly judge them as inspired or not.

The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.. and THAT is why we know that the Bible 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 complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

The fact is that you can't say that the Scriptures do not hold a prominent place in our Church's life. Based on how you comment on our Church with such confidence I am sure you have attended the Divine Liturgy a few times. Maybe even vespers. It is impossible to go to any of those and not hear the Scriptures being read, in fact they permeate our services.

And then you look at our tradition of Church Fathers and who comment on the Scriptures. You look at the practices of monks that demands they read and know the scriptures daily. I mean, look at any aspect of our lives... the scriptures are not secondary (as in, below).

Xpy

[Xpycoctomos]

Hi DRA,

At first, I looked at this post and scratched my head. :scratch: Enlighten you about what? That is is good and noble to search the Scriptures? Of course it is!

Then I saw the subtle departure from scripture in your post. You seem to assume that you are able to "objectively" interpret the Scriptures. I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to subscribe to the doctrine of sola-DRA or sola-Protoevangel.

It was in the context of the community of God where these Scriptures were understood and interpreted. It is this very context of the community of God, which is called Holy Tradition, that sola-scriptura rejects, assuming "self" to be the objective interpreter over the Holy Scripture.
That was excellent.

[prodromos]

Sorry, but I have to disagree. In 1 Timothy 5:18 two passages are referred to as "Scripture" - Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7. Both were written and inspired - therefore, they were regarded as Scripture. See also 2 Peter 3:15-16. Peter declares Paul's writings to be "Scripture."I apologise, you are correct. I missed the reference to Luke
The problem with the Jews and oral tradition was that they elevated it above God's written word (e.g., Matthew 15:1-20). I think the lesson should also be applied today.The NT includes Jewish oral tradition which was not part of the OT.

John

[Lukaris]

Blessed St Irenaeus puts faith & tradition in its proper context, especially for those illiterate: " To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If anyone were to preach to these men the inventions of heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address. Thus, by means of the ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive of the (doctrines suggested by the) portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established." From, Against Heresies, book 3 chptr 4 (ca. 180 AD). This post is not to tell sola scripturists that they are wrong to read the Holy Bible but to read it better to avoid confusion in the proper context of Holy Tradition (& nor to rebuke DRA or other solas from posting).

[- DRA -]

And you don't think your attempts to interpret and teach from 2 Timothy constitute the teachings of a man who presumes to speak for God?

Sorry for the delay in responding. Last week was very busy.

Not without some stronger evidence than your opinion. I don’t think any presumptions have to made about 2 Timothy 3:16-17. The text is very clear. God gives all we need to serve and please Him through the Scriptures He inspired. And, I do believe we are very capable of “interpreting” (deriving the correct meaning of) truth, whether given orally or written down. As an example, the Jews in Acts 2 seemed to “interpret” the teaching they heard just fine … at least, 3,000 of them did. And, the Corinthians seemed to understand what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians, cause they obeyed and did what Paul wrote and told them to do.

You believe Sola Scriptura to be a teaching of scripture, yet the first one ever to teach it was Martin Luther in the 16th century. Did the idea die as soon as Paul spoke it? Was he so bad a teacher that the whole church went to pot right after the apostles died? If not, then who taught sola scriptura?

Sorry, but unless Martin Luther wrote 2 Timothy 3:16-17, then he wasn’t the first one to teach “Sola Scriptura.” I believe God inspired Paul to write 2 Timothy.

I don’t believe the idea died (see Hebrews 4:12).

I don’t believe the whole church went “to pot.” Check out 1 Timothy 4:1 – “Some will depart from the faith.”

If no one did, then I contend that sola scriptura is a tradition of men, invented by Luther and passed on to his spiritual descendents - the protestants. As a tradition of men I reject it.

According to 2 Timothy 1:3, Paul wrote the epistle. And, according to 2 Timothy 3:16a, God inspired the writing. That means that God taught that Scripture makes us “complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:17).

Before contending with God, you might want to consider Gamaliel’s advice in Acts 5:39.

I agree that II Timothy says all scripture is God breathed and can complete us in righteousness. It is a verbal icon of Christ, and as such (when understood correctly) it will turn us to Christ in anticipation of Christ's grace. With such faith, God may save us. I would also say that the liturgy can do such a thing, if we have the spiritual eye to see it. So could an icon, if interpreted correctly (they contain much theology in their symbolism).

I sense something is wrong. On one hand you acknowledge that Scripture makes one complete, but on the other hand suggest that other things could take its place (i.e., liturgy, an icon). That would mean Scripture doesn’t really make up complete. You are describing it as an option. Is that what 2 Timothy 3:16-17 truly teaches? How about James 1:21-25 (note the “perfect” or complete law of liberty in verse 25 – which is synonymous with the word in verse 21)?

The key, though, is having the right framework. That's tradition. Tradition is the framework and lense through which we see scripture, by which scripture is formed (for how was scripture selected except by its conformity to the tradition of the church and its use in worship?), and in which scripture sits as the capstone. To claim a contrast between scripture and tradition is a false dichotomy.

I believe Scripture was selected through divine approval. For example, Galatians 1:11-12 is God’s stamp of approval upon Paul’s teachings and writings. And, 1 Timothy 5:18 puts God’s approval on the gospel of Luke (by referring to the quoted passage as Scripture. Likewise, 2 Peter 3:15-16 does the same with Paul’s writings and reinforces Paul’s claim in Galatians 1:11-12.

As for “Tradition” being the “lens” we should use to accurately understand Scripture, I suggest that Matthew 15:1-20 shows the opposite is true. The tradition of men hinders understanding the truth of God’s word.

You, evidently, are coming from a protestant tradition. This began in the 16th century and is a tradition of men. There is also a Holy Tradition - the tradition Paul speaks of in II Thess, and the same one St. Jude speaks of when he exhorts us to "contend earnestly for the faith once delivered (traditioned) to all the saints." Tradition is foremost in St. Paul's mind when he commands Timothy to appoint men whom he may teach so that they may teach others also. It is in mind throughout Galatians, when the Galatians were warned to stick with what Paul taught them, since Paul learned it not from men but from God directly.

Nope, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 isn’t a tradition of men. It’s a part of the word of God.

I don’t have a problem with the tradition Paul alludes to in 2 Thessalonians or with Jude 3. It’s the tradition of men apart from the Scriptures that I see becoming an obscuring lens as far as 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is concerned.

That's the difference - Holy Tradition isn't invented by men (like sola scriptura). It comes straight from God - Christ - through those He appointed to teach - the Apostles - through those they appointed to teach - the early church fathers - and on down through the centuries. It isn't something you can get at by trying to use your own finite brain power, nor by trying to reconstruct it from a text. Instead, you must be taught it by a living person - truth is never dis-incarnated, it is taught by people to people. Fortunately, Christ taught us that the Church would never die - the living teachings of the truth would never leave this earth and the Holy Tradition would survive to be handed on to the next generation of the faithful. Find that Church (which, historically speaking, cannot be protestantism, since protestantism began with Luther in the 16th century). Once you've found it, you'll be able to be taught the lense through which to encounter scripture, and THEN scripture will be able to do all it promises in 2 Timothy.

Sorry, but I seem to be missing something. I understand that Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to the apostles to guide them to all truth (i.e., John 16:7-14). However, I’m missing the gap between the apostles and the early church fathers. In light of 1 Timothy 4:1-3, I believe one should be careful when looking at uninspired writings. Yes, they may tell us what the early fathers did, but I believe it is being assumed that their actions pleased God. Obviously, from the first few verses in 1 Timothy 4, it is clear that “some” departed from the faith. I sure wouldn’t want to follow their “traditions.” Rather, I suggest following the traditions of those who remained faithful – those who accepted God’s word and applied it to their lives. And, there is also Acts 20:30. Even elders would fall away and lead others astray. Personally, I don’t see any value in following any traditions based upon the teachings/practices of men who were unfaithful.

Sorry, but I do believe that one can read God’s word, understand it, and then obey it. Not to discount the role of the preacher of God’s word per Romans 10:13-17, but I think we should be careful to not overlook that God’s word was indeed taught by written letter. Otherwise, the epistles were simply a waste of time. In essence, this reasoning would mean they were worthless until a “living” (?) person came along who could teach them.

I agree that Jesus promised to build His church in Matthew 16:18 and that the gates of Hades would not prevail against it. Would you agree that some departed from the faith per 1 Timothy 4:1-3? Assuming that you acknowledge what that text says, then I suggest noting the characteristics of those who fell away. I believe it is foretelling of the rise of Catholicism – from which Orthodoxism originated. For those who want to be faithful to God, I suggest doing as the faithful did in the New Testament writings.

For sure, any church that originated after the first-century cannot be the church that our Lord established in Acts 2. It rules out the Catholic Church, as well as the Orthodox and Protestant Churches which arose from differences with Catholicism.

But in a spiritual vacume, outside of that tradition? It's words can be twisted to mean anything. Without tradition, it's just arbitrary scratches on a page which our finite brains transform into whatever pre-concieved theology we chose to invent. That's the bedrock of heresy, and it has been since the first centuries of the Church (note the gnostics).

Clearly, the warning has been sounded about those who would twist or pervert the truth (e.g., 2 Peter 3:16-17. To avoid falling into such a snare, God’s people are admonished to study or give diligence to God’s word per 2 Timothy 2:15, and to speak as God’s word speaks (1 Peter 4:11a).

Fortunately, protestant tradition isn't that far removed from Holy Tradition - you recieved your faith from the Catholics (who have an ever greater degree of Holy Tradition). But look at the fringes of protestantism - the heresies of Jehovas Witnesses and Mormons, the liberal episcopaleans, the incredible number of schisms within the mainline denominations, the wildly different understandings of scripture present in the pentecostal and conservative branches. Judge a tree by its fruit, you might say. Sola Scriptura has behaved exactly as a tradition of men ought to behave - a cause of disunity and strife. Obedience to Holy Tradition is the only road to unity and theological sanity. In so much as protestants have maintained it, they have prospered.

In Christ,
Macarius

Hmmm. If “obedience to Holy Tradition is the only road to unity and theological sanity, then why did a departure from Catholicism occur in about A.D. 1050 that result in the Orthodox Church? Why didn’t those that departed stay true to the “Holy Tradition?”

Going back to the Bible, it is evident that the Lord expected unity in His church (i.e., Ephesians 4:1-6). It’s not His fault, nor the fault of God’s word when men choose to do things their own way. Rather, it is what happens when folks don’t have a love for the truth and have a greater desire to do things their own way (see 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12). When that occurs, God intervenes and sends delusion among such folks.

[- DRA -]

You're dramatically over simplifying things.

First, you ignore the direct command of the scriptures that we are to KEEP the traditions. 1 Corinthians, 2 Thessalonians, and Jude have ALL been brought forward to show you that, but you have YET to harmonize that into your view. We do, yet you accuse us of failing to harmonize our view with scripture.

Not true at all. The traditions resulting from God’s people doing as God instructed aren’t an issue with me. It’s the traditions of men that arose later that are of concern.

Frankly, I do see a failure of being able to harmonize Scripture. Clearly, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says Scripture completely and thoroughly equips us to serve and please God. Your version of that is Scripture cannot be understood without looking through the “lens” of Holy Tradition which came about years after the New Testament writings were complete. That latter reasoning makes the Scriptures incomplete – which contradicts what 2 Timothy 3:17 says.

Second, you ASSUME that sola scriptura doesn't qualify as a tradition. It is a view, theological in nature, that is passed on from one generation of protestants to another. It was initiated in the 16th century. It would then, by your own logic, qualify as a tradition of men and be something to be rejected. The mere fact that you can show a proof-text from scripture that 'supports' it does not in any way negate the fact that it originated, historically in the 16th century - long after the completing of the scriptures (by church council, I might add). Why does proof-texting from scripture not matter? Because countless heresies have proof-texted from scripture. We ourselves - with whom you clearly disagree - have offered you numerous proof-texts from scripture to establish our point.

Actually, I believe that the truth can be understood (John 8:32), and that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is a part of the truth. I suspect the real problem arises when one tries to understand it from a 20th-century perspective looking through that “lens of Holy Tradition” that some are dependant upon.

Sorry, but you haven’t offered credible, scriptural support for your understanding of 2 Timothy 3:16-17. The idea that man is completely or thoroughly equipped with God’s word + later traditions of men contradicts the teaching of this text. That isn’t harmony. It’s simply an attempt to undermine or pervert what the text clearly says.

No doubt, heresies have arisen. Personally, I believe those later traditions of men are a big contributor. However, there are many ways heresy can arise. I don’t believe satan is limited to one method or technique (2 Corinthians 2:11). Plus, there’s also the issue of a lack of a love for the truth as described in 2 Thess. 2:10-12. It is another major factor.

You're also assuming a false dichotomy between tradition and scripture. Scripture IS A FORM of tradition. The books were written by the Apostles under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit from that which had been handed to them by Christ. The books were selected by a church council (carthage) and ratified by another (Constantinople I, the second ecumenical council - in 385 AD). Prior to this time there was no universally recognized New Testament. Each church had its own set, and some of the books they used didn't make the final cut. If you want to claim the NT as scripture, and I agree that we should, then you have to accept that the Holy Spirit established the tradition of calling these books 'scripture' - that is to say, that council wasn't a human invention. It was inspired by God to proclaim the truth.

At the point that there is clear and necessary evidence of extra-biblical inspiration we accept tradition. Sola scriptura falls.

Sorry, but I believe a different assumption is being made. See …
http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-church-did-not-give-world-bible.htm

You also assume that there is only one type of tradition - the bad kind. Notice in the passages in Matthew and Mark that Christ explicitly condemns the traditions of men. This is consistent with Galatians, where Paul cautions against the same thing. However, Paul goes on to talk about that which He recieved from God - as He mentions in 1 Corinthians in the context of the Eucharist. There are two traditions - the one spoken of positively by Jude, Paul, and others, called Holy Tradition, which forms the core lense by which we understand God, life, and the Scriptures (and which was formative to the writing of the scriptures and formed the sole criterion for determing what even qualifies as scripture). The second type is the tradition of men - stuff we make up. Sola scriptura is an example of a tradition of men. Anything we argue from proof-texts, unless we are starting from the perspective of Holy Tradition, is likely to be a tradition of men.

Not true. No arguments against folks who have followed the truth for years. However, the traditions of men are a totally different matter. For sure, the traditions that arose apart from Scripture are merely the traditions of men – which makes them without divine authority. That’s the difference. It’s simply a matter of authority.

As previously discussed, the idea that Scripture makes one “complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” is straight from the Bible – 2 Timothy 3:16-17 NKJV.

Consider this scenario: Some have departed from the faith per 1 Timothy 4:1-3. They continue in their false teachings and false practices. From their version of “Holy Tradition,” they refuse to simply go back to God’s word (i.e., Scripture) and listen to what God said about the matter(s). What do you propose they do?

By “proof-texts,” it sounds like you are suggesting that we can’t really study the Bible ourselves and understand what is written. I reject that idea. I suspect what you mean is that without “Holy Tradition” (which, I understand to be that which originated after Scripture was completed) we won’t be able to see things from the Orthodox perspective. With that thought in mind, I find myself agreeing with this conclusion. However, the issue is whether or not this premise is in harmony with what the Bible says about itself. Please allow me to elaborate. The Mormons say they accept the Bible. The Book of Mormon, they say, is a companion to the Bible. However, if 2 Timothy 3:16-17 truly means what it says (and I don’t have any reason to believe that it doesn’t), then it leaves no room for a companion book. The same principle applies to the idea of “Holy Tradition” apart from Scripture.

You're also assuming that you can somehow objectively interpret the scriptures - that is to say, you assume sola scriptura is even possible. I wrote another reply on the first page of this thread concerning this. I would deeply appreciate a reply to it.

In Christ,
Macarius

Not assuming anything. I believe the truth can be understood by passages such as John 8:32, Ephesians 3:3-4, and 1 Peter 1:22a. On the other hand, perhaps you can explain how the truth can be determined by looking somewhere other than God’s word. Isn’t that an “interpretation?” Does it have a scriptural basis? If so, please provide the reference(s).

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Agreed. God's word must be properly understood. Matt. 4:5-7 is an excellent example. The devil quoted Psalm 91:11-12. However, the understanding he derived contradicted the principle taught in Deuteronomy 6:16. Therefore, I conclude that an understanding derived from one passage of Scripture must harmonize with others. See also Matthew 22:23-33 and 41-46. Clearly, the truth will harmonize when one has the correct understanding.

That does not, then, conclusively prove that all that one will need to aquire this truth is present in scripture. But, on face, I agree. There certainly won't be anything discordant between scripture and the truth, if scripture is properly understood (that is, if one is coming from the correct tradition, scripture will harmonize with what one is taught in that tradition).

Matthew 4:5-7 was presented because it covers a basic element of Bible interpretation. Anyone can go to a particular passage or text of Scripture and offer an understanding. However, according to Jesus, the correct understanding of Scripture should harmonize with other passages. Take Psalm 91:11-12. The issue at hand was whether or not those passages authorized Jesus to deliberately jump from the top of the temple. Jesus said deliberately jumping could NOT be the correct understanding because it violated the principle taught in Deuteronomy 6:16. In essence, the truth among passages harmonizes. Now, let’s apply what Jesus taught to 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Either Scripture does for us what the text says, or it doesn’t. I believe it does (Romans 10:17). So, let’s check this answer. First check, James 1:21-25. Let’s see … Implanted word … able to save souls … if we do what the perfect (complete) law of liberty says.” I certainly see harmony with this text and 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Second check, 1 Peter 4:11a. Let’s see … we need to speak as God’s word directs. Once again, I certainly see harmony with this text – and with 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and James 1:25. Beginning to see how the process works? Third check, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 & 3:6. Let’s see … Traditions were to be followed. Traditions are defined as those things the Thessalonians had previously been taught (i.e. Acts 17:1-4 and 1 Thessalonians) and included the epistle of 2 Thessalonians. I certainly don’t see any contradiction with these texts in 2 Thessalonians and 2 Timothy 3:16-17. The teachings of the apostles and other writings that God inspired make-up the Scriptures. And, we should follow the tradition of brethren who served God faithfully by doing as He instructed. It’s the latter traditions – that we don’t read about in God’s word – that are of concern.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Let's assume that those who departed from the faith persisted with their teachings and practices until it became a tradition to those who followed them. Should we follow their tradition?

This is why we reject sola scriptura.

Sorry, but it doesn’t explain why the tradition you are following rejects 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Care to explain?

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Or, should we return to what the Bible says and not make up rules and regulations on God's behalf?

We would say, "Or should we return to the apostolic faith as preserved in God's Church, which God promised to preserve (Matt 16) until the end of time." If the problem was that people's man-made traditions caused them to leave the apostolic faith, then yes, they ought to return.

In Christ,
Macarius

No problem with Matthew 16. Jesus promised the gates of Hades (the realm of the dead) would not prevail against His church (His called out). See 1 Corinthians 15.

1 Timothy 4:1-3 foretells of the departure from the faith which led to Catholicism. I believe those who follow traditions on the wrong side of truth should return to God by following

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

I have read both your replies and will respond when I have time, Lord willing.

Right now, the next few days are pretty well booked up. However, there's is one passage that I offer for consideration: Acts 17:11. Like the Bereans, I think it is noble to objectively interpret the Scriptures to understand what they mean. Maybe I'm missing something, and you can help enlighten me. :help:

Hi DRA,

At first, I looked at this post and scratched my head. :scratch: Enlighten you about what? That is is good and noble to search the Scriptures? Of course it is!

Then I saw the subtle departure from scripture in your post. You seem to assume that you are able to "objectively" interpret the Scriptures. I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to subscribe to the doctrine of sola-DRA or sola-Protoevangel.

It was in the context of the community of God where these Scriptures were understood and interpreted. It is this very context of the community of God, which is called Holy Tradition, that sola-scriptura rejects, assuming "self" to be the objective interpreter over the Holy Scripture.

Okay, now I'm scratching my head :scratch: . Why am I not able to objectively interpret Scriptures? Case in point. Acts 2. The Jews in Jerusalem that heard the sermon preached by Jesus were presented with scriptural evidence of God sending the Holy Spirit (Joel 2), and scriptural evidence that Jesus is both Lord and Christ (i.e., Psalm 16, 2 Samuel 7, Psalm 110). Can you please explain who "interpreted" these Scriptures for them according to the text in Acts 2? I believe they understood the message that was preached, accepting it, and obeyed it (i.e., the 3,000 of verse 41). Simple as that. No so-called interpretation necessary.

If you'll note carefully throughout my posts, I provide a scriptural basis for what I believe, teach, and practice. If you think I misunderstand a specific passage or text, then let's discuss.

Questions:
1.) Is there a book or something that you have that gives the "interpretation" of Scripture?
2.) Does "Holy Tradition" refer to just the traditions that faithful disciples followed as they followed the teachings of the apostles from Acts 2:42 onward that we find recorded in God's word, or is "Holy Tradition" also extended to include later traditions - which are not authorized in Scripture? If they extend to the later traditions, what assurance (i.e., proof, evidence) is there these came from God and are truly "Holy?"

[Lukaris]

What is amazing about this sola scriptura concept is that if one takes a sola scriptura approach to it when having worshipped in the apostlic church is that he vantage point changes. Sola speaking 2 Timothy 3:16-17 cannot be the ultimate rule of faith but must be harmonized with 2 Corinthians 3:6-9 alongside 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and can be conveyed a way to livethe faith (my quote from St Irenaeus shows how an early father properly insructed the faithful within this context). Again as the preaching of the apostle St John was still being orally transmitted at the time 2 Timothy 3:16-17 was written to assume its meaning within sola scriptura fails & incorrect context can render the New testament understanding to be undercut "for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." (2 Cor 3:6). For example, liturgical worship being established in the Gospel of John. St Paul preaches & attests the Eucharist in his epistle to the Corinthians but the details of its establishment in John 6 were still in oral transmission. St Irenaeus received his teaching from St Polycarp who had received it from the apostle St John. The Old Covenant priesthood had all the tools of scripture (targum or written) & tradition but our Saviour rebuked them by quoting Isaiah "their heart is far from me" (Matthew 15:8) that is what was lacking in the old tradition among the old priesthood (& can lack among any professing Christian today too). Did not our Saviour illustrate this also in the parable of Lazarus & the rich man in Luke 16:20-25 when St Abraham told the condemned rich man that his earthly brothers had the old covenant but did not head it? Did not the prophet Micah also exhort the old clergy to "do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God"? (Micah 6:8). Is not this what St Paul means throughout his preaching of the inadequacy of the Law (for men)? Is this also not what Stephen preached the Sanhedrin "You always resist the Holy Spirit" (Acts 7:51) observed by Saul before he was blinded by our Saviour afterwards? We are commanded to move beyond the letter since "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." (John 4:24).

[Lukaris]

accidental double post

[Macarius]

Okay, now I'm scratching my head :scratch: . Why am I not able to objectively interpret Scriptures?

This is a great place to start - our debate has gotten a bit unwieldy (and I do thank you for your replies - I'll focus on one key issue at a time, and picked "objectivity" as a viable starting point).

You cannot be objective when interpreting the scriptures because no one can be objective when interpreting the scriptures. It isn't possible. I can't. You can't. The pope can't. Why? Because all finite beings are, by definition, subjective in nature. I have limited knowledge, limited reasoning capacity, limited experiences and limited theological assumptions and value assumptions and philosophical assumptions all informed and shaped by my society. To claim to be objective is to presume that I can somehow "wipe the slate clean" in my mind. That's impossible.

Furthermore, outside of yourself, it is impossible to be objective with regards to the scriptures (or any text written in a dead language) because of the inherent ambiguity in the words you are reading. There are few 1 to 1 equivalents from English to Greek - even those that exist can't carry the full set of conotations because every word contains nuances and rhetorical qualities unknown by current readers.

You'll object: but good scholars can translate Greek! Yes - they translate the scriptures, and thereby interpret them. Any translation is, by definition, interpretation, because I have to take one set of symbolic scratches on a page and determine what I think they mean and then write that meaning down in a different language. That "what I think they mean" introduces an inherently subjective element, because, once again, just like any individual is subjective, bible translators are subjective as well.

It gets better though! Not only are the translators subjective, but so is the process by which the critical texts are assembled. You'll notice some Bibles don't contain the end of Mark 16, considering it to be spurious and a later addition. Certain verses of 1 John suffer the same fate. If you have a Greek New Testament, check out the footnotes listing all the minor differences in how different textual traditions have preserved the scriptures. What set of texts or what text becomes the foundation for the translation has to be decided by human beings, and human beings are finite and subjective - that decision has to be made without a clean slate based on philosophical and linguistic theories that are, often, very controversial.

It gets even better! The critical texts themselves don't have any lowercase or any spaces or any punctuation. That means that before we can even compare the texts, someone has to decipher what Greek words are even there!! ITWOULDBEASIFIWROTEENTIRELYLIKETHISFOREACHOFMYSENTENCESANDEXPECTEDYOUTOBEABLETOREADITCORRECTLY

But keep in mind - this is a language we don't speak anymore!! That does leave room for error, and, sure enough, certain heretical groups base their errors on different interpretations of how words should be separated and punctuated. They dispute the (subjective) decisions that scholars and bishops have made on what the actual words contained in scriptures are.

Before THAT can happen, though, we have to decide what books are IN our Bible, and THAT isn't objective or readily apparent either. The Orthodox Church uses the deuterocanon (Tobit, the Maccabees books, etc), roughly the same one as the Catholic Church. Most protestants do NOT.

No where in scripture is it written what books should be in the Bible. Some books that are quoted as if having spiritual authority (ie Enoch, as quoted by Jude) aren't in anyone's Bible. Some books are unquoted in the NT and are still in the Bible (for both Protestants and Orthodox-Catholics). This process was decided by... human beings! Yes. It was bishops in council who put together the original canon in the 4th century, and it was protestants in unison who rejected the deuterocanon in the 16th century. Yet before the 4th century there was hardly agreement on what books to include... some lists (Eusebius) agree partly with the protestants on the OT, but reject books like II Peter and Hebrews as spurious. Some lists have an expanded NT, including texts from the Apostolic Fathers like Clement of Rome or Ignatius of Antioch or the Didache (which still has deuterocanonical authority in the Ethiopian Church).

All of this is decided and debated and drawn out because of human subjectivity. Our finitude makes it impossible to be objective. That means that a certain passage of scripture can "clearly and 'objectively" mean something to one person and "clearly" mean something else to another. The explanation for this is human subjectivity.

That's not to deny the existence of objective truth! Far from it. We just don't think it can be systematized, but must be learned and internalized by individuals taught by other individuals. We say that the Truth of Christ is taught by the Church because it is the Church (the subjective people) who teach us the faith, hand us the scriptures, determine what the scriptures are, parse the words out, learn the dead languages, translate them, and interpret them. I am a cog in this process, this Church, this tradition. My duty, as an Orthodox Christian, is to pass the tradition on as unchanged as humanly possible (since it is impossible that my subjectivity will not effect it in some way or another). We, as a body, have faith that God will grant His Holy Spirit to this process and preserve the Church to the end. He promised as much in Matt 16.

Case in point. Acts 2. The Jews in Jerusalem that heard the sermon preached by Jesus were presented with scriptural evidence of God sending the Holy Spirit (Joel 2), and scriptural evidence that Jesus is both Lord and Christ (i.e., Psalm 16, 2 Samuel 7, Psalm 110). Can you please explain who "interpreted" these Scriptures for them according to the text in Acts 2?

Um... Peter did. He was giving the sermon. Peter interpreted the verses for them. Peter knew the Truth because he was a disciple of Christ. Christ is God, reveals the Truth to the disciples (ie road to Emaeus). They then interpret the scriptures correctly, teaching others. Those who have ears to hear join the Church, and are discipled to it.

The Bible even tells us (or at least, it seems, according to my subjective perspective informed by the tradition of the Orthodox Church that the Bible tells us) that people who are not within the true tradition have a veil over their eyes and cannot see the scriptures clearly enough to interpret them:

"Therefore, since we have such hope, we use great boldness of speech - unlike Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing away. But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ. But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart. Nevertheless, when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty, But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord." (2 Cor 3:12-18)

It was not until the apostolic revelation, which one can only recieve if one has turned to the Lord, that the veil over the Old Testament is lifted. Now, that is the veil which the Jews bore. We also can bear veils, in so much as we have strayed from the apostolic revelation, for only that revelation has the true tradition in which to decide the scriptures and in which to interpret them.

I believe they understood the message that was preached, accepting it, and obeyed it (i.e., the 3,000 of verse 41). Simple as that. No so-called interpretation necessary.

Yes. It was preached to them, by a human being. The scriptures did not leap from the page and interpet themselves. It required the subjective interpretation of Peter. Peter's just happens to be the CORRECT subjective interpretation, whereas it is also possible to have an incorrect interpretation.

If you'll note carefully throughout my posts, I provide a scriptural basis for what I believe, teach, and practice. If you think I misunderstand a specific passage or text, then let's discuss.

Well, I think you misunderstand II Timothy! I suppose we are discussing that.

I don't doubt that you fulfill your own criterion. You say "one must harmonize their views with the scriptures" and you offer an interpretation of the scriptures that is harmonious with your views. However, I don't think that's sufficient. Many, both right-believing and heretical, have been able to use scripture to "support" their views. It is precisely because of this that there are so many differing traditions of protestantism. When you put a text into the hands of individuals and ask them to contstruct a theology based on it, they will inevitably invent differing theologies because they are subjective beings.


Questions:
1.) Is there a book or something that you have that gives the "interpretation" of Scripture?


There is no single book I could point you to. Again, even if there were, neither of us could read it objectively (though it might help us understand one another's traditions). One must be taught the faith. It cannot be reconstructed from a text without a tremendous amount of luck (or divine providence).

A good start, though, would be Kalistos Ware's "The Orthodox Church." The second section contains a basic introduction to Orthodox doctrine. For the Gospels, many Orthodox like to use Blessed Theophylacts commentaries, as he synthesized a lot of the Patristic commentaries.

In general, we read the fathers and mothers of the church, and we seek to apply their wisdom to our life. We use the scriptures a great deal. A lot, actually. The vast majority of our service is direct quotations from scripture.

Within the Church, the Bishop has the specific job of interpreting the faith for that generation. We all have the responsibility to pass it on, though, and any bishop who departs from the faith is subject to excommunication by the council of other bishops.

If you want a marvelous early record of our traditional understandings of scripture, I recommend reading Penguin's "Early Christian Writings" and finding St. Vladimir Seminary Press's edition of St. Irenaeus of Lyons' text "The Apostolic Tradition." The Early Christian writings date from the late 1st and early 2nd century, and provide a marvelous catechism of Orthodox theology. Irenaeus writes from the 2nd century, and likewise, is marvelous in his ability to interpret the scriptures. St. Athanasius writes a bit later (300's), but his 'On the Incarnation' is one of the best treatises on Christ's salvific work ever written. The best early treatise on the sacraments that presents a comprehensive sacramental theology is from Cyril of Jerusalem in the mid 4th century, though you'll hear strong thematic similarities with the sacramentalism of the Early Christian Writers and the 2nd and 3rd century fathers (Cyril isn't writing anything new, he just writes it in summation and quite beautifully).

2.) Does "Holy Tradition" refer to just the traditions that faithful disciples followed as they followed the teachings of the apostles from Acts 2:42 onward that we find recorded in God's word, or is "Holy Tradition" also extended to include later traditions - which are not authorized in Scripture? If they extend to the later traditions, what assurance (i.e., proof, evidence) is there these came from God and are truly "Holy?"

This is a long answer, and as this is a long post, i'll have to save it for later. Please ask this question again, though, as its a good one.

The short answer: yes, there are some traditions not contained in scripture, many of which (we believe) WERE started by the Apostolic Church - for example the belief in the virginity of Mary and the pious commemoration of the holy departed (praying for the departed and asking for their intercessions). There is great evidence among other early christian doctrines that these practices and beliefs were present (by the 2nd century at the latest). That is not so late as to make their claim to apostolicity unviable (though certainly not conclusive).

The assurance comes from the source: the Church. God promised it would not die. It won't. Since there were (LONG) swaths of time - from the 2nd century until at least the 16th - where the ENTIRE church profesed the virginity of Mary and prayed to the saints, we may conclude that if these things were in violation of the faith then the Church would have apostosized and, thereby, have died. Since the Church cannot die, it cannot (in its entirety) apostosize, and as such, I have assurance that these doctrines and practices are part of Holy Tradition. We know that Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would guide His disciples. St. Paul, in Titus, calls the CHURCH (not the scriptures) the pillar and ground of the truth.

These are our assurances. They are matters of faith, though - I can't argue you into them.

Hope that helps!!

In Christ,
Macarius

[Protoevangel]

Thanks Macarius, I started a reply yesterday afternoon, but couldn't fit it all together in a way that I though would be useful.

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Not sure exactly what your point is about veggies. Daniel 1? Romans 14? How is it relevant to this discussion?

Sorry, but the reformers didn't teach me that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God ... that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." I got that straight from the Bible.

And, sorry once again, but the Bible + the tradition(s) of men = departure from the truth. Don't take my word for it. Check out Matthew 15:1-20 and 1 Timothy 4:1-3 for yourself.

In His service ...

The point wasn't about veges.. it was analogy to comment on the structure.

No, the Reformers certainly did not create the bible, nor did I suggest such. But your interpretation you ahve inherited completely from some of the reformers (whether you are aware of it or not). One can look at the early Church and see plainly that it was not "if it's not in the Bible it's not important or necessary."

Here's my point with the veges. You're reading this as saying that the Bible alone will make you "complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Sorry, but I don’t agree. Clearly, it is obvious that 2 Timothy 3:16 says, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable … that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” I didn’t inherit anything from the reformers about this passage. In fact, I use in frequently when studying with those of the Protestant Movement (i.e., reformers). To illustrate, they get tunnel vision with a passage like John 3:16 and don’t seem to realize or acknowledge there are other passages which also talk about salvation under the gospel of Christ. I believe John 3:16 is true, but since “all Scripture” is given by inspiration of God per 1 Tim. 3:16a, then passages such as Acts 2:38, Romans 10:9-10, and Romans 6:3-11 are also true. See the difference. We can’t put blinders on when studying Scriptures. The truth will harmonize when we have the correct understanding of the Scriptures.

As for the first-century church and the Scriptures, the church obviously recognized that the New Testament books were also to be regarded as Scripture (i.e.,1 Timothy 5:18, 2 Peter 3:15-16).

What I read in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 in essence is: “All Scripture will make you "complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Can you explain how you “interpret” that Scripture doesn’t make us complete, and that we need Scripture plus something else? And, please explain how you derived the understanding that “complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” doesn’t really mean complete, or to be thoroughly equipped? Help me out here? Please explain the logic?

Originally Posted by - DRA -

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 complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

But I don't see how the verse (which I've requoted above) suggests the "alone" part.

See that part about making one “complete, thoroughly equipped?” That’s the part you need to address and give some diligent thought to. Either all Scripture makes one complete, or it doesn’t. The text says it does. I believe it. And, the text also says Scripture makes one “thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Either it does or it doesn’t. I believe it does just as the text so plainly says. Could it be that looking at the text through the “lens” of “Holy Tradition” have obscured what the passages so clearly say?

It's LIKE if I said "All veges are important to eat that you may be completely healthy." That doesn't imply that veges ALONE will do this. Only that veges are a necessary and important part of a healthy diet. That you cannot be completely healthy wtihout veges.

Guess I missed something … 2 Timothy 16a says, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable.” In what ways is it profitable? 2 Timothy 3:16b says that Scripture is profitable “for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” To what extent is Scripture profitable? 2 Timothy 3:17 says, “That the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

Now let’s look at the context of the passages. Beginning in 3:7, there are those that are ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. They resist the truth. However, Timothy is different. He has been careful to follow Paul’s teachings and manner of living (vs. 10). Timothy is admonished to continue in the things he had learned (vs.14). It began with his early teaching from the O.T. Scriptures (vs. 15), and then extended to “all Scripture” (both the Old and New Testament writings) in vs. 16. In fact, Paul declares “all Scripture … is profitable … that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work (vs. 16-17).
So, what understanding should we derive from this declaration? Let’s continue with the text to see what it reveals. 2 Timothy 4 begins with Paul’s charge in Timothy to “preach the word.” I understand “in season and out of season” to mean to preach when folks want to hear and don’t want to hear it, and to preach when there is an opportunity and to look for one when it doesn’t appear one is there. Preaching the word means to “convince, rebuke, exhort.” Note the sermon in Acts 2. The Jews are charged with Jesus’ death (verse 23). Then they are presented with scriptural evidence that Jesus is both Lord and Christ (verses 24-36). Finally, the Jews are exhorted to accept Jesus, obey Him, and receive the blessings He offers (verses 37-38). This gives us an example of what it means to “convince, rebuke, exhort.” Continuing with the text in 2 Timothy 4 at verse 3, the time will come when people don’t want “sound doctrine” (i.e., the preaching of the word). Rather, they turn to their own desires. Such people have itching ears … and seek teachers to soothe the itch. By doing such, they turn away from the truth, and are turned aside to fables.

In review of these passages in 2 Timothy chapters 3 & 4, Timothy’s spiritual training began with his childhood instruction from the Old Testament writings. Later, when he heard the gospel of Christ, Timothy also followed Christ per guidance (both oral and written) from the apostle Paul. The writings of the apostle Paul - and others that God inspired - were also regarded as Scripture (e.g., 1 Tim. 5:18, 2 Pet. 3:15-16). Combining these writings with O.T. Scripture explains the “all Scripture” of 2 Tim. 3:16a. Like the gospel account of our Lord as explained in John 20:30-31, everything Jesus did or said wasn’t written down. However, what we have is sufficient to produce faith. Likewise, all the teachings of the apostle were not written down. However, what is written is “profitable … that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” If, as you suggest, Scripture is only a part of what it takes for man to be complete, then please explain Paul’s command to Timothy in 2 Tim. 4:2 to “preach the word.” If the word and “Holy Tradition” are necessary to obtain truth, then why wasn’t Timothy charged to include this “Holy Tradition” in his preaching? Could it be because the so-called “Holy Tradition” (i.e., later traditions that arose which are not based on God’s word) arose from those who turned away from the truth to “fables” (i.e. 2 Tim. 4:4; see also 1 Tim. 4:1-3)?

Okay, your turn. Where is the scriptural basis for Scripture plus something else “that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

Scripture is not all you need. Before you misunderstand my words I want to repeat that they are necessary, but not the only necessary thing. I could go on with many more things, but it doesn't matter becuase you aren't Orthodox or even Catholic.

You are correct. I am neither Orthodox or Catholic. So, why should I be? Is there anything wrong with being a plain ole Christian (i.e., Acts 11:26, 1 Peter 4:16)?

And, why would I have to be Orthodox or Catholic to understand that Scripture is not all I need, if it in accordance to the truth of God’s word? To me, it sounds as if this is an admission of sorts that a lot of the things believed by Orthodoxism and Catholicism simply aren’t found in God’s word.

But it is definitly Orthodox to believe that the Sciptures are a powerful and necessary tool that must be used in the struggle to be Christlike and unOrthodox to believe otherwise.

Powerful I can agree with. However, the idea of necessary but not complete I’m not willing to buy (i.e., Proverbs 23:23).
I believe (Romans 10:17) those desiring to be Christlike should be content to be Christians.

We can look at the Way of the Pilgrim, writings of the Church Fathers as well as the many who have stuggled as prisioners (ie during the Communist Regime in the East) where the one of the main things that got them through their inprisonment and torture were the prayers and Scriptures they had memorized. You read Fr Roman Braga's story, he talks of how he, some other monks and a baptist minister used to get together and talk about scriptures and pray.

Hebrews 4:12a; James 1:21-25.

DRA, while you see us as downplaying the importance of Scriptures, the reality is that we are only giving them proper context within the life of the Church.

True, I do see the Orthodox approach as undermining God’s word. Sorry, but I don’t agree with the “proper context” approach to Scripture from the perspective of … if you don’t view things from our traditions or don’t view them from the way our church says it is, then you won’t see it. I take a more direct approach -- listen to what God says through His word, and then do what He says.

The Scriptures cannot be understood in a vacuum. They need to have a greater context. They are nothing but words on a page until they are lived within the life of the Church... the Church that the Holy Spirit inspired to write the Scriptures and rightly judge them as inspired or not.

I agree that Scriptures do have a context and need to be understood according to their usage in their respective contexts.

On the other hand, I disagree that Scriptures are nothing more than words on a page. True, some people view them as such, but that doesn’t mean their perspective is true. Take, for instance, two viewpoints of the gospel as discussed in 1 Cor. 1:18-24. See also Hebrews 4:12. Isaiah 55:11.

Sorry, but I don’t find any scriptural support for the idea that God inspired the church to write the Scriptures, or to judge whether or not they were inspired. What I find is Jesus’ promise to the apostles in John 16:7-14 – that the Holy Spirit would guide them to all truth (verse 13), and that the apostle Paul taught and wrote what the Lord told him (Gal. 1:11-12). Also, I conclude from 2 Timothy 3:16a other N.T. writers also wrote by the inspiration of God (e.g., Jude, James, Luke).

As for the Catholic or Orthodox church’s role in the canonization of the Bible, I suggest giving some thought to:
http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-church-did-not-give-world-bible.htm

The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.. and THAT is why we know that the Bible 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 complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

1 Timothy 3:14-15 says (NKJV), “14 These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly; 15 but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”
The thought of this text is the church (those called out by God) is the pillar (i.e., support, such as a column) and ground (firm, steadfast, or immovable support) of the truth. The thought in this passage is the church is to uphold or support the truth. Let’s think how this was accomplished. In 2 Timothy 4:2, Paul commanded Timothy to “preach the word.” In Jude 3, let’s note a similar command: “Contend earnestly for the faith.” Now, let’s note how that verse ends: “Contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” See the point? The faith was delivered once – not an on-going basis as the Catholic and Orthodox systems are built upon (i.e., Holy Traditions).

The fact is that you can't say that the Scriptures do not hold a prominent place in our Church's life. Based on how you comment on our Church with such confidence I am sure you have attended the Divine Liturgy a few times. Maybe even vespers. It is impossible to go to any of those and not hear the Scriptures being read, in fact they permeate our services.

James 1:21-25 discusses the difference between hearing and doing what God’s word says. There is a difference. Going back to Acts 2, a lot of Jews knew about the Holy Spirit’s arrival to the apostles and heard the sermon Peter preached, but only 3,000 obeyed the gospel (verse 41). In essence, we can look at the “fruits” of a person’s life and see whether or not they are doing God’s will (i.e., Matt. 7:15-20).

Not sure what you mean by “Divine Liturgy.” Please explain from a scriptural perspective what it is, and why I should attend the services of the Orthodox Church – which I can’t even find in the Scriptures.

Let’s see. Baptists read Scriptures. And, Methodists. And, Presbyterians. And, Pentecostals. And, Jehovah Witnesses. And, Catholics. So?


And then you look at our tradition of Church Fathers and who comment on the Scriptures. You look at the practices of monks that demands they read and know the scriptures daily. I mean, look at any aspect of our lives... the scriptures are not secondary (as in, below).

Xpy

Does your viewpoint of church fathers take into consideration 1 Timothy 4:1-3? In essence, does it consider whether or not the commentary is in accordance to truth? Does it accept everything the church fathers say, or is it selective?

Where would I read about “monks” in the New Testament? By the way, are there rules in place concerning monks and others in the Orthodox hierarchy that prohibit them from marrying. If so, is this in accordance with God’s word, or is this practice a characteristic of those who depart from the faith per 1 Timothy 4:1-3?

[Xpycoctomos]

What I read in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 in essence is: “All Scripture will make you "complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Can you explain how you “interpret” that Scripture doesn’t make us complete, and that we need Scripture plus something else? And, please explain how you derived the understanding that “complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” doesn’t really mean complete, or to be thoroughly equipped?

It does mean complete AND to be thoroughly equipped. I never said that the words don't mean what they mean. I think my words were actually pretty clear, as clear as I can make them. If you don't get it, that's totally fine. Life goes on. You'll make your own way to Orthodoxy in your own time and it probably won't be because of anything I say.

[Xpycoctomos]

Guess I missed something …
Do you really think you missed something or is that just clever rhetoric because it's seems pretty obvious that you feel quite confident you haven't missed anything. And that's fine. I just cannot stand the condescending transitions that are soooo common in debate. I hate it when I do it and I hate it when others do. Protestants, Orthdoox Catholics. No one's immune.

Look, for now, at least with me, just be straight. In general you are good at it. Just say "I don't agree with you" or "I think your missing something here". Not "Are we reading the same bible?" or "My bible must have a misprint in it because mine says...". I just cannot stand that stuff. It's probably just me, but, just letting you know and I think you can handle it without getting all offended. Thanks.

[Xpycoctomos]

You are correct. I am neither Orthodox or Catholic. So, why should I be? Is there anything wrong with being a plain ole Christian (i.e., Acts 11:26, 1 Peter 4:16)?


How can I answer that question. Of course not. But understand that when you say "plain old Christian" I picture an Orthodox. I'm just trying to explain to you that we don't see our selves as Christians plus something. We're Christians, period.

But if your asking if there is anything wrong with not being Catholic or Orthodox I would say that while it is less than ideal, I am elated that you hold Christ as your God and Savior and that you believe in the Holy Trinity and that you strive to follow God and use His Word to guide you in life. Nothing wrong with that. But I will let God deal with the whole judgement on the non-Orthdoox thing. Frankly, I need to be working out my own salvation in fear and trembling, not judging yours.

My point, however, in saying "
Scripture is not all you need. Before you misunderstand my words I want to repeat that they are necessary, but not the only necessary thing. I could go on with many more things, but it doesn't matter becuase you aren't Orthodox or even Catholic."

was to say that I wasn't going to go on and tell you that the Eucharist is a necessary tool, confession and absolution are absolutely necessary, and other sacraments. I didn't want to make that a point of debate becuase it already goes without saying that you and I won't agree on this since you aren't Catholic or Orthodox. It wasn't meant to sound like "Why should I bother even talking with you since you aren't Catholic or Orthodox" I can see how perhaps it came across that way (I'm not sure if that's how you interpreted it) and I apologize if that's how you took it. My fault.

And, why would I have to be Orthodox or Catholic to understand that Scripture is not all I need, if it in accordance to the truth of God’s word? To me, it sounds as if this is an admission of sorts that a lot of the things believed by Orthodoxism* [*Orthodoxy] and Catholicism simply aren’t found in God’s word.

Very interesting take. Insightful. Without shame I tell you that there are things that are not found explicitly in the Scriptures. But, you are starting from a completely different premise that if it's not in Scripture, it doesn't belong in the Faith. We say, Scriptures belong to the Faith and because of that nothing we do will ever contradict the Scriptures. If we go back far enough though, to when the Scriptures were approved as God-breathed by the Church, they were judged as such because they didn't contradict the Tradition of the Church handed down by the Apostles.

The problem is that you udnerstand Tradition in a completely different way that we do. So when you hear Tradition you automatically think "rituals that man created" whereas we think something more like "all practices and tools that God has given the Church through man"... like the Bible. St Paul wrote a lot of it. It's from God, but it wasn't given to us like the Koran was supposedly given to Mohammed.

Xpy

[Xpycoctomos]

Powerful I can agree with. However, the idea of necessary but not complete I’m not willing to buy (i.e., Proverbs 23:23).
I believe (Romans 10:17) those desiring to be Christlike should be content to be Christians.

I agree with both of those scriptures. You seem to imply that the the Tim verse says that Scriptures are complete. But Complete refers to the believer not the Scriptures.

We are content with being Christians. What do you think we are? That came across as quite insulting.

[Xpycoctomos]

True, I do see the Orthodox approach as undermining God’s word. Sorry, but I don’t agree with the “proper context” approach to Scripture from the perspective of … if you don’t view things from our traditions or don’t view them from the way our church says it is, then you won’t see it. I take a more direct approach -- listen to what God says through His word, and then do what He says.


You're direct approach has lead to thousands of different denoms, hundreds of which disagree on very serious issues. my point is that all of these people fervently trusted in God to lead them to the true understanding of the scriptures but apparently He lead them to different "truths". I refer you back to Protoevagel's post to you objective interpretation. You already responded to it so no need to respond again, but what he said can't be said better.

[Xpycoctomos]

I disagree that Scriptures are nothing more than words on a page.


Well taken out of context that sounds like a terrible thing to say and I would disagree with you just as much. But what I said was
They are nothing but words on a page until they are lived within the life of the Church

I think that's wrong that you took my words out of context like that. I mean, I didn't say at all that that's all the Sciptures are, period. There was a very important addition to the end of that phrase that completely changes how one understands what my point is.

Honestly, I am very unimpressed by you, not by your intelligence (becuase you do seem very intelligent) but by your facade of "seeking the truth" when your tactics make it quickly obvious that you are not here to seek, but to prove your agenda which is Sola Scriptura, be it true or not.

You are not trying to understand us. There is a lot in your post that I did npt respond to because we're going in circles now. Either I or someone else here has already responded to your "questions" (or rather statements in the guise of questions) in umpteen different ways and yet you still act as if you have no clue where we're coming from. You keep pushing forth the old, tired clichés that have been disproved in here two-fold. And seeing it TRULY from our point of view does NOT imply agreeing with us. But such a distinction takes an intellectual honesty that, although fully capable of it, you are not willing to do.

I am tired of your games. And it's sad that you play them because it is obvious that God has gifted you with a very wonderful mind.

Xpy

[Xpycoctomos]

Not sure what you mean by “Divine Liturgy.” Please explain from a scriptural perspective what it is, and why I should attend the services of the Orthodox Church – which I can’t even find in the Scriptures.


I don't know why I am replying but on the off chance that this has never been said to you I will say it now.

To understand Orthodox and what we believe, one has to get their nose out of books and stupid forums and go see the worship. It's a bit like und