E-boxing

On 5/4/07, George Capps <gcapps@stanford.edu> wrote:

Hi, Mickey! Thanks for the reply. You have a lot of good thoughts, and I look forward to pondering them in greater depth.

I read your blog post, and I have an out-standing question concerning exactly how you interpret 2Tim 3:16-17. I'm not challenging you here--I'm just trying to wrap my brain around what exactly you believe. Maybe you were already planning on addressing my query in your future post on tradition--if so, you can ignore this.

Given your understanding of what "that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" means, would verses 16-17 have been a true statement if Paul had written them at the very beginning rather than at the very end of his ministry, when none of the Gospels and only a very few of his epistles had been written? In other words, to what extent does your interpretation rest on the fact that 2Tim was written late?

Hmmm, I'm not too sure this question is relevant to my current position. If Paul is stating that Scripture is sufficient, then I, having all Scripture, am now fully equipped. When was this applicable directly to that early Christian? I'm not entirely sure. I will readily concede that while the Apostles were alive Scripture was being written, so what was necessary was being written, so at precise points, Scripture was technically insufficient.

I say technically because people were saved in the OT, without an infallible authority, even through they did not have a full revelation of Jesus Christ as we now do today.

With regards to how much it rests upon 2Tim being written late, I'm not sure, I can't assign probabilities. I do believe Paul wrote it, and it means what I've emphasized it meant (full sufficiency). So if he wrote it early on (before the Gospels even), it simply means that it was sufficient then as well.

While I remain unconvinced that we can assume that Timothy was in possession of all Scripture written up to that point, I am going to assume for sake of argument that he was. Since we both agree that, at the very least, Paul's statement must have been true at the time he was writing it with respect to pre-2Tim (inclusive) scripture (otherwise his use of the present tense would not have been justified), it seems to me that your sufficiency interpretation leaves two options:

1) Paul's statement was true at the time he was writing it because one could and still can get by with only the books that were written at the time. While later-written books provide reinforcement perhaps, they are not strictly necessary (kind of like the way you say that the right ending of Mark is not strictly necessary for the Bible to be sufficient). If a modern-day Christian was for some reason missing some pages from his Bible such that he had never seen the books written after 2Tim and no one had ever told him about them, the rest of the Bible would be sufficient, even today, to make him complete, equipped for every good work; based on these pre-2Tim (inclusive) books alone, he would have no excuse for falling into error on the few doctrinal issues that you see as being key.

I think I would agree with that. I see Christian life as a massive oak tree, one can lop off many branches yet it still holds and stands and is an oak tree. Along with this, a lot of doctrines (if not all of them) are reinforced throughout Scripture, so there aren't essential doctrines that are found in one word or one verse, though it may be clearer in some passages than others.

2) In every age, Paul's statement is only applicable to the corpus of scripture in existence at that time. Thus, his statement applied to pre-2Tim (inclusive) books only until a new scriptural document was written and distributed, at which point it became false with respect to pre-2Tim books alone and was only true with respect to all scripture including the latest document. The truths solely contained in post-2Tim scripture (eg, Revelation, Gospel of John, etc.)--regardless of whether those truths were in written form or not--were NOT needed to make a man perfect at the time that Paul was writing 2Tim, but they became necessary once they were written down.

Now, if you subscribe to option #2, you must only be able to project it into the future (ie, to the books written after 2Tim), because, if you project it into the past, you run into trouble. I presume we both agree that, in 40 AD (once the Christian era had begun but before any or hardly any of the NT had been written), the existing corpus of scripture alone would have been insufficient. Therefore, in 40 AD, the OT supplemented by the (inspired, perhaps) oral teaching of the Apostles was required for sufficiency to be achieved. Since you see v. 16-17 as precluding supplementation by oral teaching ("If there were traditions that were needed to help Timothy . . . , Paul would have reminded Timothy of them . . . Instead of pointing to both Scripture and (extra-Scriptural) tradition, Paul points to Scripture as the sole source of all things needed to make Timothy perfect . . . ."), these verses would NOT have been true in 40 AD, and Paul's statement cannot be applied to just any historical corpus of scripture with respect to its own particular age. So . . . am I right in presuming that, as you understand it, v. 16-17 could not have been written in 40 AD?

I'm not necessarily committed to that position as essential to my view. It is certainly possible that Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (also as he had many visions over the course of his life), foresaw all of Scripture.

Additionally, Paul did at least write his letters after Luke, whom he quotes as Scripture in 1 timothy 5:18, so it does seem to lend evidence that Paul at least wrote after Luke did, which from what my little study bible, is supposed to be written in 60something. So, that certainly does lend evidence that Paul writes later than 40AD.

I will concede that there were times when Scripture was spoken.

I guess my question boils down to this: to which of these two options do you ascribe? Given that v. 16-17 was a true statement when 2Tim was being written and your argument that the verses preclude supplementation by tradition, you must be arguing that the truths contained in later written scripture were not necessary at that time. Are they still not necessary (option #1), or did they become necessary once they were written (option #2)? If so, why? Was there perhaps some key transition in Salvation History that coincided with these truths becoming necessary?

I would go with a modified #1 -All Scripture is sufficient, what is written after 2 Timothy supplements and reinforces the rest of it, and is useful, but I imagine the early Christians could be saved without reading it and understanding them.

These are the only two options I can imagine, but if you ascribe to something else, what is it?

Thanks! And I look forward to reading the future posts :-)

Hope that helps, all off the cuff through, so I do need to continue doing more research. Thank you both for challenging questions!

--George

--
-Mickey
630.857.8412
mcshoo.blogspot.com