II Timothy 3:16-17

[Barnpreacher]

In light of the recent theonomic threads (hey, at least they're giving the baptism threads a little rest) how is one to properly exegete this passage of Scripture.

II Timothy 3:16-17

"All scripture is 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 perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

What does Paul mean by all scripture? Does that mean all scripture, excluding the Old Testament ordinances? Or is there instruction in righteousness found in the Old Testament ordinances that are able to teach us how to be perect, throughly furnished unto all good works?

Let Matthew Poole explain to us what these things mean:

For reproof; elegcon, to convince us either of any truth, that we may believe it without any hesitation, or of any sin, that we may be humbled for it, without any extenuation.

For correction; for reproof, or correction, or reformation, to reprove us in what we are to be reproved, to correct us in any error, to show us the way to bring us to rights and to reform us.

For instruction in righteousness; to instruct us in the true righteousness, in which we must appear before God; for in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, Ro 1:17.

Throughly furnished unto all good works; and be prepared to every work which is good, acceptable and well-pleasing unto God, whether it be a work of piety, or justice and charity. The Scripture, as to all, is so full a direction, that Christians need not go down to the Philistines to whet their tools, nor be beholden to unwritten traditions, or to the writings of pagan philosophers, for directions what to do, how to worship God, or manage any part of their conversation, either as to their general calling, or as to their particular relations.

Are the Old Testament ordinances part of the "all scripture" that the Spirit uses to accomplish these means, or are they not?

Thoughts?

 

[Jim Johnston]

I think this is too simplistic, perhaps.

I think the non-theonomist will argue that *scripture* teaches him that the OT laws are not for today - as theonomy understands that phrase. Thus the non-theonomist will argue that if you consistently held to II Tim 3:16, you should abandone theonomy.

Now, let's see an application of my above form of reasoning. Do you still offer sacrifices year after year? Do you wear clothing with mixed fabric? "Of course not," you say, "those have been done away with. They are not mandatory for all peoples today."

One could not argue for the continued practice of wearing uni-fabric clothes *simply* by citing II Tim. 3:16-18.

 

[Barnpreacher]

I think this is too simplistic, perhaps.

I think the non-theonomist will argue that *scripture* teaches him that the OT laws are not for today - as theonomy understands that phrase. Thus the non-theonomist will argue that if you consistently held to II Tim 3:16, you should abandone theonomy.

Now, let's see an application of my above form of reasoning. Do you still offer sacrifices year after year? Do you wear clothing with mixed fabric? "Of course not," you say, "those have been done away with. They are not mandatory for all peoples today."

One could not argue for the continued practice of wearing uni-fabric clothes *simply* by citing II Tim. 3:16-18.

But do theonomists really believe the OT laws are "for today" in the way they are accused of? Do they not simply believe that the principle of the case laws carry over into today's society? We don't necessarily have to put a roof around our house today because our homes aren't built like they were in Israel's society. But can we not apply the principle (not the specific application) of that case law to receive instruction in righteousness (make proper ethical decisions) from the Holy Spirit?

 

[Jim Johnston]

Well, that's simplistic too. Many who would call themselves non-theonomists can agree that "principles" carry over. That's too vague to make anything of it.

Anyway, that doesn't matter much since some non-theonomists will argue that *whatever way* the theonomist wants to take his thesis, the *Scriptures* militate against it.

So, my only point was that *theonomy* doesn't obviously follow from II Tim. 3:16. As I said, the same argument can be made for wearing mono-fabric clothing.

Your argument at this stage appears to be this:

1) All Scripture is profitable for the man of God today.

2) The OT case laws are Scripture.

3) Therefore the OT case laws are profitable for the man of God today.

The problem is at this simplistic leval, we can substitute *all sorts* of things for (2) that we would not want to say "is for today."

Sure, they are 'profitable," but does that mean that *theonomy* follows? No, just like mono-fabric clothing for today doesn't follow.

All I'm saying is that you're not going to be able to so easily squeeze theonomic juice of of the fruit of this passage.

 

[Barnpreacher]

Well, that's simplistic too. Many who would call themselves non-theonomists can agree that "principles" carry over. That's too vague to make anything of it.

Anyway, that doesn't matter much since some non-theonomists will argue that *whatever way* the theonomist wants to take his thesis, the *Scriptures* militate against it.

So, my only point was that *theonomy* doesn't obviously follow from II Tim. 3:16. As I said, the same argument can be made for wearing mono-fabric clothing.

Your argument at this stage appears to be this:

1) All Scripture is profitable for the man of God today.

2) The OT case laws are Scripture.

3) Therefore the OT case laws are profitable for the man of God today.

The problem is at this simplistic leval, we can substitute *all sorts* of things for (2) that we would not want to say "is for today."

Sure, they are 'profitable," but does that mean that *theonomy* follows? No, just like mono-fabric clothing for today doesn't follow.

All I'm saying is that you're not going to be able to so easily squeeze theonomic juice of of the fruit of this passage.

Thanks. One thing - I don't claim to be a theonomist. However, having taken an ethics course by Bahnsen I am trying to sort all of this out being unable to personally ask him these questions.

 

[Calvibaptist]

In light of the recent theonomic threads (hey, at least they're giving the baptism threads a little rest) how is one to properly exegete this passage of Scripture.

II Timothy 3:16-17

"All scripture is 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 perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

What does Paul mean by all scripture?

Clearly he means that baptism is for believers only. Isn't that what all of Scripture means?

 

[Jim Johnston]

In light of the recent theonomic threads (hey, at least they're giving the baptism threads a little rest) how is one to properly exegete this passage of Scripture.

II Timothy 3:16-17

"All scripture is 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 perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

What does Paul mean by all scripture?

Clearly he means that baptism is for believers only. Isn't that what all of Scripture means?

I'll see ya and raise you:

Deuteronomy 29:29
The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.

1) All revealed things are for us and our children.

2) baptism is a revealed thing.

3) Therefore, baptism is for us and our children.

 

[Barnpreacher]

In light of the recent theonomic threads (hey, at least they're giving the baptism threads a little rest) how is one to properly exegete this passage of Scripture.

II Timothy 3:16-17



What does Paul mean by all scripture?

Clearly he means that baptism is for believers only. Isn't that what all of Scripture means?

I'll see ya and raise you:

Deuteronomy 29:29
The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.

1) All revealed things are for us and our children.

2) baptism is a revealed thing.

3) Therefore, baptism is for us and our children.

- Ding, ding, ding......we have a winner. Hard to top that!