The Instigator
medic0506
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Does 2 Timothy 3: 16-17 show that Scripture alone will equip a man of God for all good works??

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
medic0506
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/28/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,609 times Debate No: 25881
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (23)
Votes (3)

 

medic0506

Pro

This challenge is to argue one particular passage of 2 Timothy 3, verses 16 and 17. This debate will focus on those verses alone, and no other material, from any source, may be considered except for definition purposes. Burden of proof is equally shared.


At issue: Does this passage say that Scripture "alone" is sufficient, or does it give permission for other documents to be added to Scripture??


2 Timothy 3: 16-17...

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 perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.


Scripture- the books of the Bible, a passage from the Bible, a body of writings considered sacred or authoritative. [1]

Thoroughly- to completion, exhaustive, painstaking, complete in all respects. [2]

Furnished- provided with what is needed, equipped with, supplied, given [3]


Round 1- Opening arguments only- No refutation.
Round 2- Refutation and further argumentation.
Round 3- Refutation and summation, no new arguments.


1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...

2. http://www.merriam-webster.com...

3. http://www.merriam-webster.com...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'd like to thank AMTY for the opportunity to continue our discussion, in a formal debate. We have been discussing this in forum for some time with no resolution to the disagreement. I wish Con luck, and hope for a spirited, yet congenial discussion of this passage.


Biblical Authority

This passage in Timothy is one of the chief passages which establishes the Bible as being the inspired word of God. The Bible is the only Christian document in existence that can make that claim, and support it, without resorting to outside sources. That's where the problem begins, since what is considered to be God's word must have Biblical authority (support), for that claim.

The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) claims to be the one true church of Christ, and it's Bible adds 7 additional books that are not recognized by most Christian denominations. In addition, the RCC authorizes the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), which gives the church authority to use "Tradition", and have it be equal to the Scriptures in authority. Protestants believe that this authority exists nowhere in the Bible, without the additions by the RCC, which amounts to the RCC giving "itself" authority which is not spelled out in Scripture. Thus the argument over this one particular passage.

Now it is understood by Christians that the Bible clearly states that nothing is to be added to, or taken away from Scripture. With that in mind, let's get into the argument.


Explanation

2 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, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

The Protestant position on this passage is relatively straight forward, and short. Frankly, the passage speaks for itself and requires no interpretation. I have bolded the most crucial parts of the passage.

Paraphrased, "Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and using it, the man of God is thoroughly furnished (fully equipped) for all good works".

"Thoroughly" is the key word here. Paul was writing to his son about false teachings, and it's effects. He tells us in this letter to Timothy that the Scriptures alone will "thoroughly" equip him for all good works. This means that no other documents are needed, no Didache, no CCC, just the Bible. Paul wouldn't have included the word "thoroughly", had he not had the intention of saying that the Scriptures were solely sufficient for the purposes he laid out in the passage, doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction.

It's important to remember that we're not arguing the entire issue of sola scriptura in this debate, we're merely deciding on this one particular passage.

We believe Paul's statements to be unambiguous, leaving no room for allowing other documents besides Scripture, according to this passage.

Again I wish Con good luck and look forward to his arguments.
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

I thank Medic for being so gracious and accommodating by offering me this debate, and I hope this will be a productive and vigorous discourse.

With expected yet still shockingly poor conduct, I will reject my opponent's rules because they are obviously intended to give him an unfair edge.

Medic wrote "This debate will focus on those verses alone, and no other material, from any source, may be considered except for definition purposes."

I said this in the comments section, and I'll say it again. You can take any old verse out of context and claim that it shows something, the example I used was 1 Timothy 3:15. Failure to allow examination of the rest of 2 Timothy 3 could only, in my view, be an attempt to keep an unsupported claim afloat.


Biblical Authority

I know this round is only supposed to be for presenting a case, but one of medic's statements is so logically untenable it bears immediate address.

Medic wrote "The Bible is the only Christian document in existence that can make that claim, and support it, without resorting to outside sources."

That is really, really, not a good thing at all. I could write "The Epistle of AlwaysMoreThanYou to the Medicians", which claims that it is self-sufficient, but that would be circular reasoning. Proving the Bible by the Bible isn't a valid proof, because you must presume what you're trying to prove to prove it. However it is a certain death blow to sola scripture if the Bible itself doesn't support that point.

Using the Bible to prove that it should have authority amounts to the exact same thing Medic is criticizing about the Catholic Church. Ultimately, all authority comes from God, not the Bible, so my opponent has started this debate off on a very wrong foot.


Sola Scriptura

As it says in 2 Peter 3:15-16

"(15) And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, (16) speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures."

In light of this wisdom, I consider it both irrational and just plain wrong to yank two verses out of their chapter and book, hold them up, and say "[all context having been ignored] these two verses prove something". This is my justification for using more than the 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Otherwise, I could say "Ezekiel 16:6-8 shows God to be an evil pedophile, prove me wrong without using anything except those verses."

Explanation

The contested scripture:

"(16) All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, (17) so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work." - 2 Timothy 3:16-17

Let's do this line by line. It isn't hard.

"(16) All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,"

All scripture is inspired. Fine. All scripture is useful. Fine. This pretty much says, "Scripture is useful", not "scripture is self-sufficient". Clear.

"(17) so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work."

Scripture is useful for equipping thoroughly. Not scripture is able to equip thoroughly. Here are some analogies I provided to medic in the forums, which he claimed were not relevant.

a) Eating healthy foods is useful so that the health-conscious person may be sound of body, thoroughly furnished for good health.

b) Exercise is useful so that the health-conscious person may be sound of body, thoroughly furnished for good health.

c) Not smoking is useful so that the health-conscious person may be sound of body, thoroughly furnished for good health.

Would you say any one of the above would thoroughly furnish you for good health? Of course not. Without the scriptures you cannot be thoroughly furnished for all good works, but having it alone does not furnish you completely. To further my point, let us look at what comes before 2 Timothy 3:16-17, that is 2 Timothy 3:14-15.

"(14) But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, (15) and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." - 2 Timothy 3:14-15

Literally verses before what medic would have you believe is Paul announcing the scriptures are all you will need, Paul tells Timothy to remain faithful to what he has learned and believed. Why would Paul do such a thing if the scriptures alone were all Timothy needed? Clearly, extra-scriptural learning was of use to Timothy, unless my opponent posits that Paul intended to contradict himself instantly.

Also note the scriptures being discussed. They are the sacred scriptures which Timothy had known since infancy, that is the Old Testament (Timothy's would have included the Deuterocanon, heh heh). If one does read this passage to mean "only scripture", it then follows that they should believe the OT to be wholly sufficient. Medic will likely say that is not the case, that Paul would have known of the New Testament even if it was not yet complete and that he was referring to that. However, if that is the case, then why did Paul specify that Timothy had known the scriptures from childhood? And if Paul was speaking of other scriptures, which ones? I could write my epistle to the Medicians, and is that scripture or not? By what standard do we judge if something is scripture or not? To read this as meaning that Paul was telling Timothy to follow the scriptures alone, without any instruction of what constitutes the scriptures, is a very lacking interpretation. In short, medic is claiming Paul gave Timothy a very ambiguous and generally useless instruction, which is odd considering that the scriptures supposedly contain everything you need. Wouldn't it make sense for Paul to be explicit regarding what the scriptures were in that case if they were all that was necessary? Only when referring to the OT is it clear and unambiguous to what scriptures Paul is referring, but as a consequence this passage would not longer jive with medic.


James 1:4

"And let perseverance be perfect, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing."

Heyo! We don't need the scriptures after all! We just need to persevere, and then we can become perfect and complete. Persevere in what? Who cares!

This is the result of taking random verses out of context and making extravagant claims about them. You can persevere without scriptures, and if you persevere you will be lacking in nothing, so obviously the scriptures have no value. Why doesn't medic draw this interpretation?

Because it doesn't make any sense in context, although it is almost the same as 2 Timothy 3:17. It even uses pretty much the same kind of purpose clause (let in order that you may be perfect). Yet, no one reads this verse as saying you need to do nothing but persevere in some unnamed task, just like no one should read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as saying all you need to do is follow some unnamed scriptures.


Conclusion

While readers may just look at this and say "Con wrote so much more, he was obviously trying to justify his stupid and wrong reading of the scripture", I would like to note that I wrote so much because we can dispute about the meaning of the verses in insolation for years without reaching a satisfying conclusion. Without context, we cannot divine what the scripture really means, and I think when context is considered my interpretation is more sensible. Thank you.

Debate Round No. 1
medic0506

Pro

Thanks to Con for his timely response. First off, I’d like to clarify a problem that Con and I had earlier. I ask the voters not to issue a conduct point for either party for anything relating to that particular misunderstanding, or Con’s use of James 1. Further, we have agreed to allow all of 2 Timothy 3, to be used to support arguments, rather than confine the reading to the 2 verses alone. However, the question and what is at issue remains the same. We apologize to the reader for any confusion caused by this issue.


Biblical Authority

Con seems to be contesting the authority of the Bible, but it is a fundamental understanding of a Christian that the Bible is the inspired word of God. The Bible doesn’t give the Bible authority, the authority comes from being the only document that is considered the word of God. It is understood that all Christian teachings must be supported by the Bible, if not then those teachings are things that are added to God’s word, and that is clearly forbidden by God’s word.

The need for recognizing the authority of the Bible is clear. If Christians don’t insist on Biblical support, then I could create anything I want, giving authority to myself, and add it to the Bible. I could write the Book of St. Medicus and proclaim myself to be the universal interpreter to all men, and say that God appointed me to interpret the Bible to all of mankind and that man is to recognize the teachings in my book.

It’s clear to all Christians that any teaching must be supported by, and in agreement with, what is said in the Bible. To challenge this principle, as Con is doing, is absurd and allows for any false teaching that one wants to provide. That is the complaint that many have about the Catholic Church. To compare the authority that God put in the Bible, to the authority the RCC gives itself is a fatal argument for any Christian to make because he is, in essence, challenging the authority of God.


Explanation

In Con’s opening argument, he changed the wording of the verse that he agreed to debate.

2 Timothy 3: 16-17...

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 perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Con’s version…

"(16) All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, (17) so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work." - 2 Timothy 3:16-17

That clearly changes the wording of the verse that Con agreed to debate. He did not contest the wording of the verse and accepted the challenge, therefore, he is required to argue the verse as it is presented in the opening argument.

Con apparently wants to use the Catholic Bible in this debate, however, since the authority of the Catholic documents that exceed the Bible is what is being challenged, it is only logical that the document itself not be used as an authority. If the Catholic documents were accepted as legitimate, then there would be no need for this debate. This would be like using a polls result to argue its legitimacy. To allow its use is illogical.


Con’s Arguments

“Would you say any one of the above would thoroughly furnish you for good health? Of course not.

Here Con proves my argument about Paul’s intent with his use of the word “thoroughly”. If Con did not mean to say that eating healthy foods would completely equip one for good health, then he wouldn’t have used the word “thoroughly”. These analogies are all illogical statements. Con appears to simply refuse to accept what the word “thoroughly” means, and that is a fallacious argument.

2 Timothy 3: 14-15

14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

“Why would Paul do such a thing if the scriptures alone were all Timothy needed? Clearly, extra-scriptural learning was of use to Timothy, unless my opponent posits that Paul intended to contradict himself instantly.”

In these verses, Paul is telling his son (Paul saw him as a son but wasn’t his real father) Timothy to continue on with what he has learned knowing from whom he learned them. Previous verses show clearly where Timothy learned them…

10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, 11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me.

Timothy learned from his mother, and his grandmother, who are referenced in the first chapter of Timothy but he also learned from the Apostle Paul himself. Paul is clearly saying that the Scripture is all one needs, therefore, it only stands to reason that even though he taught Timothy orally, he and Timothy’s other relatives would have only taught that which is consistent with Scripture.

Paul lived after Jesus’ Resurrection, and as an Apostle, Paul would have had access to the teachings of the other disciples who traveled with Jesus Himself, and those teachings would have been passed to Timothy throughout the course of his childhood.

Now Con seems to be arguing that oral teaching is the same as adding documents. This debate isn’t about oral teaching, there is no question that it happened, but that oral teaching had to be consistent with what they had as Scripture at that time. This debate is about adding other documents to the Scripture, and whether this chapter allows for that. With that in mind, I’ll continue addressing Con’s arguments.

(Timothy's would have included the Deuterocanon, heh heh).”

Not so fast. Con is forgetting something here. Timothy and his family were Hebrew, and logic dictates that he would have been taught from the Hebrew Scriptures, which never would have included the Deuterocanon. Sorry.

“Medic will likely say that is not the case, that Paul would have known of the New Testament even if it was not yet complete and that he was referring to that. However, if that is the case, then why did Paul specify that Timothy had known the scriptures from childhood?”

Con isn’t even considering when Timothy was born, which is 17 AD. This means that all that he learned throughout his childhood would have already included the knowledge that Paul and his family gave him about Jesus, the Resurrection, the teachings of the Disciples, in addition to the Hebrew OT. Their family believed that Jesus was indeed the Messiah prophesied in the OT.

“In short, medic is claiming Paul gave Timothy a very ambiguous and generally useless instruction, which is odd considering that the scriptures supposedly contain everything you need.”

No, Con is the one making that claim, not Medic. Both Paul and Timothy knew exactly what teachings Paul was referring to, and it is clear and unambiguous.

“Wouldn't it make sense for Paul to be explicit regarding what the scriptures were in that case if they were all that was necessary? Only when referring to the OT is it clear and unambiguous to what scriptures Paul is referring, but as a consequence this passage would not longer jive with medic.”

Again no, there would be no need to be specific because they would both have known what teachings and what Scripture, Paul was referring to. Paul taught Timothy through his childhood. In addition, Timothy frequently traveled with Paul during his travels and teachings. I have clearly shown that Paul’s teachings would have included the teachings that we now know as the NT. I have also shown how that is logical and consistent, timewise, with Timothy’s childhood.

And now back to Con. Hopefully he has "thoroughly" thought through his next round. :)




AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

I think, before all debate, my remarkably poor conduct deserves addressing, and for that reason I publicly apologize to my opponent.

Yeah.

Bad conduct.

By me.

Medic has been very generous with his handling of the situation, despite my abysmal conduct, and I think that alone shows whom the true Christian is.

That having been said, I will continue.

Biblical Authority

I'm not questioning that the Bible has authority (so to speak) but why the Bible has it. It is hard for me to make my point without sounding like I'm rejecting the Bible... so in the next paragraphs when it sounds like I'm rejecting the Bible, I'm just trying to prove a point.

For some reason, my opponent assumes God only has the power to put authority into written words. Although my opponent, for whatever reason, assumes that the Bible is the word of God, he gives no justification for it. As the Church predates the Bible by almost three hundred years, I do not see on what grounds my opponent rejects my assumption that the Church is guided by God to perfection, except by his attempt to elevate presumption of the Bible to an axiom of Christian belief.

For instance, in his last paragraph, he writes "To compare the authority that God put in the Bible, to the authority the RCC gives itself is a fatal argument for any Christian to make because he is, in essence, challenging the authority of God."

I could just say "To compare the authority that God put in the Church, to the authority the Bible gives itself is a fatal argument for any Christian to make because he is, in essence, challenging the authority of God."

If every Christian today held the rule "Church alone" except my opponent, he would be in a similar position to the one I am in now. He would have no real way to show that the scriptures are valid, except by trying to go through the Church, because no one would listen to him if he questioned it. That is why I will probably lose every single debate I accept; because I have to presume my opponent is right and that I am wrong before I can even try to make an argument.

This isn't a critical argument, I'd just like people to know where I stand.

Explanation

What can I say, I hate the KJV. Continuing...

Pro writes "Con apparently wants to use the Catholic Bible in this debate, however, since the authority of the Catholic documents that exceed the Bible is what is being challenged,"

For some reason, my opponent assumes that a different translation is somehow under a different authority. This makes no sense to me, and I would like him to clarify his position.

I could say that since this debate is about sola scriptura, the legitimacy of the Protestant translation he is using should be called into question, but I won't because I'm running out of characters.

Using your translation, I won't bother to argue about "thoroughly", because I'm too lazy.

2 Timothy 3:14-15

Yes, Timothy learned from Paul. I thought that was obvious.

Pro writes " Paul is clearly saying that the Scripture is all one needs, therefore, it only stands to reason that even though he taught Timothy orally, he and Timothy’s other relatives would have only taught that which is consistent with Scripture."

And what's the point of that oral teaching then? Timothy has his self-sufficient scriptures...

Pro writes "Paul lived after Jesus’ Resurrection, and as an Apostle, Paul would have had access to the teachings of the other disciples who traveled with Jesus Himself, and those teachings would have been passed to Timothy throughout the course of his childhood."

Here, Pro makes a grave historical error. Pro later on goes to say that Timothy was born in 17 AD. That means by the time Jesus was crucified, which is estimated to be about 33 AD, Timothy would have been 16. Hardly a child at that point. Paul was first converted probably a year or less after that, sources estimate between 30-36 AD, and assuming the crucifixtion was 33 AD I would guess 34 AD. Regardless, the Jewish coming-of-age ceremony happens at the age of 13, so Timothy was by no means a child when Paul had begun his ministry, therefore it is highly unlikely that Paul would consider anything he taught Timothy at that age to be during Timothy's "childhood".

Pro writes "but that oral teaching had to be consistent with what they had as Scripture at that time."

How do you know?

Pro writes "Not so fast. Con is forgetting something here. Timothy and his family were Hebrew, and logic dictates that he would have been taught from the Hebrew Scriptures, which never would have included the Deuterocanon. Sorry."

Pro is forgetting that Timothy was Greek, and therefore would have had the Septuagint, which includes the Deuterocanon and had not yet been rejected during Timothy's childhood. Wikipedia concurs with me (outside source, I know, but I think this was enough of an assertion that I need a bit of evidence).

Pro writes "Con isn’t even considering when Timothy was born, which is 17 AD. This means that all that he learned throughout his childhood would have already included the knowledge that Paul and his family gave him about Jesus, the Resurrection, the teachings of the Disciples, in addition to the Hebrew OT. Their family believed that Jesus was indeed the Messiah prophesied in the OT."

If my family taught me about Jesus, that's not a scripture, is it? Anyway, I showed above that throughout his childhood he would have been more likely to have learned from the Septuagint, considering that the only scriptures in existence at that time was the Old Testament (Deuterocanon included!). Sure, some teachings of Jesus may have popped up, but I don't think it is historically probably that they were either scriptures or during his childhood, considering that Timothy would have come of age before Christ was crucified.

Pro writes "No, Con is the one making that claim, not Medic. Both Paul and Timothy knew exactly what teachings Paul was referring to, and it is clear and unambiguous."

So he's referring to the Old Testament, right? That's about as clear and unambiguous as can be.

Pro writes "Again no, there would be no need to be specific because they would both have known what teachings and what Scripture, Paul was referring to. Paul taught Timothy through his childhood. In addition, Timothy frequently traveled with Paul during his travels and teachings. I have clearly shown that Paul’s teachings would have included the teachings that we now know as the NT. I have also shown how that is logical and consistent, timewise, with Timothy’s childhood."

Not necessarily. Paul taught Timothy, but he did so when Timothy was an adult, not a child, so Pro is claiming that Paul specifically referred Timothy to the scriptures he had known from childhood, but actually meant stuff Timothy would have learned as an adult.

It also bears remembering that Paul himself was converted after the resurrextion of Jesus, so Paul wouldn't exactly have been teaching up a Christian storm to Timothy when Timothy was young, as Paul didn't even know Timothy until Timothy was an adult.

To my opponent.
Debate Round No. 2
medic0506

Pro

Thanks to Con for a gracious apology, though none is needed, and in response to the "true Christian" comment I say, nonsense. We're both Christians, we just have some differing beliefs about the details. His arguments in defense of his beliefs make him sound bad, but honestly I don't think he questions the authority of the Bible as much as he argues here. If I thought he actually believed what he is arguing, I'd refer to him as the heretic, rather than Con.

Biblical Authority

"For some reason, my opponent assumes God only has the power to put authority into written words."

Not at all. If God couldn't give authority to man, then the writings that led to an authoritative Bible wouldn't have been written. However, there has to be a standard for testing a teaching, and that is why God authorized the writings that we now know as the Bible. God is not inconsistent, therefore we can test all teachings against the Bible. If it is consistent, then it's sound, if inconsistent with the Bible then it's a false teaching.

An argument is not proven false by virtue of it being circular. So Christians accept the circularity of "The Bible is the word of God because it says so". It's a part of the faith that we have, and without the Bible, Christianity falls apart as an organized worldview. God, His word, then the church, has to be the order of priority, otherwise there is no law upon which to judge what we're being taught, which the Bible clearly tells us to do.

"I could just say "To compare the authority that God put in the Church, to the authority the Bible gives itself is a fatal argument for any Christian to make because he is, in essence, challenging the authority of God."

Con could say that if he wants, but in doing so he is challenging the concept that he is using to uplift the RCC. God gave inspiration to men to write the Bible, and without God's authority we wouldn't have the Bible. Without the Bible then the church would have no authority as anyone could claim to be inspired and start a church. There would be nothing to rely on that we could use to test the teachings of his church.

"That is why I will probably lose every single debate I accept"

If Con argues "church alone", then he likely will lose most debates because no where is that supported by anything outside of RCC teachings, it's not Biblical.

Explanation

"For some reason, my opponent assumes that a different translation is somehow under a different authority. This makes no sense to me, and I would like him to clarify his position."

It is not the Bible itself that is questioned by Christians, it's the fact that the RCC adds to the Bible, and gives itself authority that is challenged. The fact that your Catholic Bible changes that very key word to make it's position more palatable is one of the reasons that it is challenged. The Catholic Bible seems to be under the authority of God most of the time, and the RCC whenever necessary.

"Here, Pro makes a grave historical error."

Indeed I did make an error. I haven't used AD in so long that I forgot it doesn't mean "after death", so Con's point is true but that isn't fatal to my argument.

Timothy would have learned about the Hebrew OT during his younger years, but Paul's letter to him told him to continue on in what he learned. Paul wrote this letter when he was incarcerated the second time, and from which he would never be released. Paul was killed around 67 AD, so all of the events that I argued in the last round would have still happened, and still been a part of Timothy's education, as a Christian, throughout his lifetime. Con's argument rests solely on all knowledge being transferred to Timothy at one time during his childhood, rather than him learning all throughout his life, and that is an unreasonable argument.

"Pro writes "but that oral teaching had to be consistent with what they had as Scripture at that time. How do you know?"

It's clear from Paul telling him that Scripture will thoroughly equip him. Paul makes it obvious that he holds the Scripture to be Holy, and the word of God. Why presume that Paul would not be consistent with his oral teaching. That's an illogical assumption.

"Pro is forgetting that Timothy was Greek, and therefore would have had the Septuagint, which includes the Deuterocanon and had not yet been rejected during Timothy's childhood. Wikipedia concurs with me (outside source, I know, but I think this was enough of an assertion that I need a bit of evidence)."

First of all, Timothy was not Greek, and Con even admitted as much in his earlier argument where he said..."Regardless, the Jewish coming-of-age ceremony happens at the age of 13, so Timothy was by no means a child..."

Second, the same Wikipedia page shows specifically that the term "Deuterocanon" was coined in reference to books that were "not" included in the Hebrew Scriptures but were part of Catholic teaching, so this point is misleading.

"Not necessarily. Paul taught Timothy, but he did so when Timothy was an adult, not a child, so Pro is claiming that Paul specifically referred Timothy to the scriptures he had known from childhood, but actually meant stuff Timothy would have learned as an adult."

Paul wrote this letter to Timothy when he was jailed, between 64-67 AD. Simply referencing what Timothy was taught when he was a child, while telling him to continue on in what he had learned, is really a non-issue here. Here's an example of what Paul was doing...

AMTY you were taught from your childhood that Jesus loves you and the Bible tells you so, so continue on learning and teaching the Bible, and it will thoroughly equip you for all good works.

I don't know how much simpler this can be. The fact that Con said he was too lazy to argue the word "thoroughly" should be more than enough to see a concession here. With that word in the passage, there is no doubt that Paul was saying that Scripture alone, not additional documents, is enough to furnish a man of God for all good works.

I'd like to thank AMTY for the debate, and apologize to the readers for the problems.

I believe that I have affirmed the resolution, and thus ask a vote for Pro.

Thank You.

















AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

I am the heretic.

Pro writes "However, there has to be a standard for testing a teaching, and that is why God authorized the writings that we now know as the Bible."

Again, that's you presuming the Bible.

Pro writes "So Christians accept the circularity of "The Bible is the word of God because it says so"."

Again, you just claim that that's suddenly an axiom of Christianity. If I say "The Church is divinely guided to all truth by God because it says so", you say "AHH! Church be givin itself authority!", but when the Bible does the same you say "Well, it's part of being Christian so you must accept it."

Pro writes "God, His word, then the church, has to be the order of priority, otherwise there is no law upon which to judge what we're being taught,"

So you assert. What if I said it was God, his Church, and then the word? You have no objection but to claim that we just must treat the Bible higher, for pretty much no reason.

Pretty much, you insist there must be a law, but as far as laws go the Bible alone has not been very successful. Up until around 1000, there was only one Church. Up until 1600, there were only a couple churches that pretty much shared the same core beliefs.

Protestant reformation, Bible becomes the ultimate authority for most, and look at how many denominations we have. Everything was much, much clearer when the majority accepted the Church as the ultimate authority.

Pro writes "Without the Bible then the church would have no authority as anyone could claim to be inspired and start a church."

Not really. You start with one Church, you finish with one Church. It's that simple. It's the Bible that lets any old person screech "Y'all been interpretin dis wrong! I gonna start a new CHURCH OF CHRIST!".

Without the Church, the Bible would have no authority, as anyone could claim their teachings were based on it, even though they differ radically from those of all the other people who claim to use the Bible alone as well.

There's nothing we can use to test the teachings of the Bible.

My opponent will probably refuse to see this because he's so used to presuming the Bible, but there's no reason to credit the Bible over the Church, especially as the Church came first, before the Bible (so its authority was not originally derived from it, as the Church predates it).

Pro writes "If Con argues "church alone", then he likely will lose most debates because no where is that supported by anything outside of RCC teachings, it's not Biblical."

This really sums up your incoherency in a nutshell. You said earlier that an argument is not proven false by virtue of being circular, so there's nothing wrong with me using the Catholic Church to prove the Catholic Church, except that you personally don't like it. For some reason though, this does not extend to you using the Bible to prove the Bible, so pretty much you have an unjustified double standard.

Pro writes "Timothy would have learned about the Hebrew OT during his younger years, but Paul's letter to him told him to continue on in what he learned. Paul wrote this letter when he was incarcerated the second time, and from which he would never be released. Paul was killed around 67 AD, so all of the events that I argued in the last round would have still happened, and still been a part of Timothy's education, as a Christian, throughout his lifetime. Con's argument rests solely on all knowledge being transferred to Timothy at one time during his childhood, rather than him learning all throughout his life, and that is an unreasonable argument. "

Like I said, the scripture being referred to is specifically mentioned as the scripture that Timothy has known since childhood. My argument is quite simply that the best you can do with this verse is prove sola Old Testament, which although it fulfills the words of the resolution sure doesn't fulfill the spirit of it.

Sure Timothy learned throughout his life, and lots of this education came from extra-scriptural sources. However, the scriptures that I'll concede Paul is claiming to be self-sufficient are actually just the Old Testament (not the New Testament, and therefore not the Bible), so Pro's argument fails.

Pro writes "It's clear from Paul telling him that Scripture will thoroughly equip him."

Assuming you're right, Paul still wasn't talking about the Bible but about the Old Testament.

Pro writes "First of all, Timothy was not Greek, and Con even admitted as much in his earlier argument where he said..."

So it is impossible for Timothy to have been Greek, and yet subscribed to Judaism? Timothy's father was Greek, so then what does that make Timothy? He was Greek too...

Pro writes "Second, the same Wikipedia page shows specifically that the term "Deuterocanon" was coined in reference to books that were "not" included in the Hebrew Scriptures but were part of Catholic teaching, so this point is misleading."

Different Wikipedia page, friend. The one to which I was referring was the one on St. Timothy, where it says someting about how he was praised for his knowledge of the Septuagint (which includes the Deuterocanon). I apologize for not actually providing a source, which would have made everything clear.

I do hope my opponent knows that the Jewish council that closed the Jewish canon took place after Timothy's death (and certainly after his childhood) so there is no reason to assume he wasn't using the Septuagint except that it contradicts your preconceptions of what scriptures are inspired.

Pro writes "Paul wrote this letter to Timothy when he was jailed, between 64-67 AD. Simply referencing what Timothy was taught when he was a child, while telling him to continue on in what he had learned, is really a non-issue here."

What I'm saying is that the scripture Paul supposedly told Timothy was self-sufficient is the Old Testament, because Paul explicitly states that Timothy knew the scriptures in question from childhood, and there is only one set of scriptures for which that is true.

Pro writes "AMTY you were taught from your childhood that Jesus loves you and the Bible tells you so, so continue on learning and teaching the Bible, and it will thoroughly equip you for all good works."

YES! EXACTLY! But Paul didn't say the Bible, he pretty much explicitly declared the Old Testament.

"Medic, continue in what you learned because of who you learned it from, since you were a child you knew the Bible which can make you wise to salvation, and the scriptures will thoroughly equip you for all good works."

What scriptures do you think I'm talking about here? The Bible, obviously, because I just said it.

Paul does the exact same thing, except with the scriptures Timothy has known since childhood instead of the Bible. The only scriptures Timothy knew since childhood was the Old Testament, as I have said time and time again without ever having the statement rebutted. This statement cannot be rebutted because it is 100% historically documented FACT, as our friend Dogknox would say.

Pro writes "I don't know how much simpler this can be. The fact that Con said he was too lazy to argue the word "thoroughly" should be more than enough to see a concession here."

My conduct was bad enough at that point, I didn't want to push it into an argument over translations as well.

What scriptures has Timothy known from childhood? I have given ample evidence to only suspect the Septuagint (at the very least, the Old Testament). Paul tells him (according to my opponent) that those scriptures will thoroughly equip you for all good works. Therefore, Paul is claiming that the Old Testament scriptures are self-sufficient.

That is my final argument stated as concisely as possible. If you search through my opponent's arguments, you will see that this is never adequately addressed.

Either my opponent believes the Old Testament is all we need, or he believes we need more than the scriptures he believes Paul told Timothy were completely self-sufficient.

Again, I would like to apologize for my horrid conduct, and thank medic for this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by medic0506 4 years ago
medic0506
And so it is done...Now we wait.
Posted by medic0506 4 years ago
medic0506
Stand by for a pm.
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Of what problems do you speak?
Posted by medic0506 4 years ago
medic0506
After reading through your argument, there are some other problems that I noticed. I think maybe we should scrap this one, and work those issues out before restarting. We can continue if you want, but I think this will end up being pretty ugly, and I don't think it's going to work out in your favor.
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
That sounds acceptable.
Posted by medic0506 4 years ago
medic0506
And I will specify that all of Chapter 3 may be used as reference.
Posted by medic0506 4 years ago
medic0506
My apologies to you as well for the misunderstanding. How about we continue, and I will ask voters not to issue a conduct point to either party for anything related to that misunderstanding, since it was mutual. Is that agreeable to you??
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Nah, it's fine, unless you want to.

Sorry for being so rude, btw. When I was writing that argument, I was under the impression that you were trying to rig the debate in your favor.
Posted by medic0506 4 years ago
medic0506
AMTY, before going any further, do you want to call this one a tie and start over with the agreed changes made??
Posted by Jacob_Apologist 4 years ago
Jacob_Apologist
Medi, dont kill the readers by that small font.
keep it normal standard
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by annanicole 4 years ago
annanicole
medic0506AlwaysMoreThanYouTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: While I do not believe that II Tim 3: 16-17 teaches sola scriptura, I believe that Pro utilized better arguments to advance his position. By the way, I do believe in sola scriptura: I simply do not believe this is one of the passages that teaches it. It comes close, but not quite.
Vote Placed by Jacob_Apologist 4 years ago
Jacob_Apologist
medic0506AlwaysMoreThanYouTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Reliable source: Bible convincing arguments from bible Easy interpretation. Con needs to see that circular logic for Sola Scripture can be used safely by a Christian. But if a Muslim(or Catholicism or Mormonism) use circular logic to prove Islam yet claiming that Islam is from Bible; he can use that but it will be unreasonable?Because True Church is tested and judged by what corresponds to the true and authentic evidence preserved by God from the very time of Moses- that?s scripture.
Vote Placed by ScottyDouglas 4 years ago
ScottyDouglas
medic0506AlwaysMoreThanYouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: First, I was going to knock conduct points for Con until he apologized in front for His conduct. This was admirable. Pro has sucessfully shown that the scriptures are the authority given by God. Con also ignored some of Pro's case because in his words, "he was lazy". Pro also gives good reason on how to test the scriptures as consistent and how to test them as non-consistent. Pro has shown a good understandable interpretation of timothy and Con leaves one to wonder.