-3

Here is a quote from an article about the verse I read in this link :

Verse 16 is a crucial text in our discussion. All Scripture (Greek: graphe which is refering to the sacred writings). Here is an obvious reference to the Old Testament, though it did not exclude the writings presently being written in Timothy's own day, the New Testament.

I talk with a Calvinist friend (who gave me the link above) as he said that Paul teach Sola Scriptura to Timothy. After I read the link, so I propose an analogy that "Scripture" is like "chilly".

He agree to the analogy, as he said "all chilly is sufficient to make someone (who ate it) feel hot. With just only chilly, it can make someone feel hot. So is Scripture. With just only Scripture, the man of God might be complete, fully equipped for every good work ".

Next I propose him an illustration :
There is already chilly in your house.
You like a hot/spicy food.
So then logically your wife can cook food for you with only that chilly in your house, as with just only chilly it will be sufficient to make you feel hot.

But then, I see your wife go to the supermarket and buy another chilly. Comeback to the house, she starts cooking with the chilly in your house and with the one she just bought.

The question "why did your wife buy another chilly while only with the chilly at your home is sufficient to make you feel hot ?" is analog with the title of my question ---> "why make another Scripture, while only with the existing Scripture the man of God might be complete, fully equipped for every good work ?"

Then my friend show me some sentences from the link above:

If I am a store owner who can fully equip a hiker to hike the Grand Canyon and if I have the resources and abilities to provide everything he needs in the way of supplies, hiking gear, shoes, maps, food, etc., does it not follow that I am a sufficient source of supply for the hiker?

I say :
Exactly. It does follow that the chilly in your house a sufficient source of supply to make you hot.

Then I go on showing the article from the same link:

If he has to go next door to another shop for a few more things, and then to a third shop for some things that neither mine nor the other shop had, then none of us are sufficient to equip the hiker

Me:
The analogy above doesn't apply to what I am asking. Your wife go to supermarket is not to buy a powder pepper or other things, but chilly.

My friend doesn't have an answer.
So I ask the question here.


Addition from the same article's link :

For Luther, the entire Bible is inspired. However, he was asking a question concerning which are the right BOOKS to be included in the Bible

The sentence above show a condition that The Scripture already exist. Yet, later on some people want to ADD that existing Scripture.

IF those some people ---who want to add the existing Scripture--- already had in mind that the existing Scripture alone is sufficient, then why did they want to add more it ?

The word canon comes from the Greek word kanon and means "a measuring rod, ruler, norm, or standard by which other things are measured or judged."

Measured or judged by what ? By the Scripture ?

  • 2
    2 Tim 3:16 doesn't say that the scriptures are sufficient or complete. A fact you might have realised had you actually quoted the verse in this question. – curiousdannii Aug 16 at 11:19
  • I am sorry as I should've put 2 Tim 3:16-17. You wrote 2 Tim 3:16 doesn't say that the scriptures are sufficient or complete. I thought the same. But from the link, to me the article say : Paul teach Timothy Sola Scriptura, the scriptures are sufficient and complete. The article say : The word "complete" means "fitted, able to meet all demands, qualified." Now here's the point - if another source of authority (such as Tradition) was necessary, surely Paul would have directed us to it in order that we might be complete, but he does not! (continue) – karma Aug 19 at 18:17
  • So what the article said, it's the same with what Paul teach Timothy : Timothy, *my* word "complete" means "fitted, able to meet all demands, qualified." Now here's the point - if another source of authority (such as Tradition) was necessary, surely *I* would have directed you to it in order that we might be complete, but *I* do not! – karma Aug 19 at 18:17
  • What the article teach that : No one serving God has to search about for other sources. The inspired Scriptures are the sufficient source for a person's needs in ministry ... then it's the same on what Paul teach Timothy : Timothy, no one serving God has to search about for other sources. The inspired Scriptures are the sufficient source for your need in ministry. – karma Aug 19 at 18:41
  • 2
    If the article says "Paul teachesTimothy the scriptures are sufficient and complete", and the verse doesn't teach that, then you can draw an obvious conclusion about the article. – DJClayworth Aug 19 at 20:29
1

The earliest Christians revere what we now call the Old Testament as their inspired scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17). The apostles preached from it.

The context of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 shows us that the sacred scripture is salvific as it points us to have faith in Jesus Christ. Thus, referring to the gospel, the salvific message of Christianity that leads one to have faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 1:16-17).

2 Timothy 3:15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

The apostles preached from the Old Testament Scripture and they told the churches to preach only the gospel which they have preached.

Galatians 1:8-9 (NASB) [8]But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! [9]As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

Jesus commanded the apostles to "make disciples and preach the gospel to every nation" (Matthew 28:19, Mark 13:10) and this should happen consumating to the end of the age (Matthew 24:14).

To continue preaching the gospel that was preached in the 1st century CE , it has to be preserved so as to be shared to the next generation. Apparently, history tells us that the preaching of the Apostles are not just orally preached but also recorded in written form known as the gospels and the epistles (letters).

These records did not become officially a "Scripture" until the churches agreed to form a canon of it in year 170.

In my analysis, these records are equivalent to the Jewish "Talmuds" that began in 5th century BC (interpretation of the sacred scripture) which is treated as a partner of the inspired Scripture according to the Jews.

Nehemiah 8:8 (NIV) They read from the Book of the Law of God, making it clear and giving the meaning so that the people understood what was being read.

However, the authority of these records and the acceptance of the churches of these records as "the word of God" naturally elevate them into the status of being "Scripture".

2 Thessalonians 2:14-15 [14]It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. [15]So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 (NASB) [13]For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.

Conclusion

The same Christians who affirm the Old Testament as inspired are the same ones who affirm the writings of the Apostles as inspired. The God-breathed scripture (2 Timothy 3:16) and the Spirit-breathed Apostles (John 20:22) both have authority from the Lord. Both are divinely inspired to teach, edify, correct, rebuke, etc. for every good work. The early church witnessed this by experience and spoke of the apostles writings as the word of God.

References

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.gotquestions.org/amp/canon-Bible.html

https://www.encyclopedia.com/philosophy-and-religion/judaism/judaism/talmud

  • Thank you for the answer, but I'm sorry it doesn't answer the question, Radz. You wrote : To continue preaching the gospel that was preached in the 1st century CE , it has to be preserved so as to be shared to the next generation. I understand that. My my question still remain : IF Paul teach Timothy that the Scripture alone is sufficient that Timothy may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work, then why did Paul write more Scripture ? – karma Aug 19 at 18:34
0

@Karma Sorry to nitpick but for clarity I think you mean to say “chili”, not “chilly”. Since you are talking about spice and heat, the misspelling makes the analogy very confusing (“chili” is the food, “chilly” is cold.) Have a nice day!

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.