Thursday, April 3, 2008

Lest We Forget - Mike Burgess on 2 Timothy 3:16

These were some excellent comments by Mr. Burgess at Beggars All. They were entirely ignored there, but I think that they are worthy of better than that. First:
Because the passage says that Scriptures are sufficient to equip the man of God for every good work. Sort of anti-sola fide, if you know what I mean. And what is that middle bit, "man of God," supposed to mean exactly? Using Scripture to interpret Scripture, of course. Where else does that phrase show up antecedently which could give us a clue to its meaning?

By the way, what do the myriad other Greek-English lexicons list as the meaning of the word in question? Why did White feel it was necessary to rely on those three witnesses? Are there more/better ones?
Is being equipped to every good work equivalent to constituting the sole infallible rule of faith? If so, then do works contribute to your salvation? And if so, then are the works of faith different from the works of the Law? And if so then shouldn't you all be sort of quiet now?

Or, conversely, is being equipped for every good work not, in fact, about establishing the sole, infallible rule of faith? If not, then what does this passage have to do with proving sola scriptura?

Also, are you asserting that "man of God" in every scriptural antecedent, does not refer to named or unnamed prophets? Are all believers now to be understood to be prophets contra explicits divisions in Paul? Or are you insisting, contra every other Protestant apologist, that only Scripture can interpret Scripture and we can assume that Paul is using the term "man of God" in a totally new and universal way? Verification, please.
Apart from what you've written on the passage in question before, could you engage my questions above to explain your position that the sufficiency of Scripture to equip the man of God, by way of profitability for training in righteousness, rebuke, reproof, etc., unto completeness for every good work is an affirmation of the proposition that the Scriptures are thus exclusively the rule of faith (which ostensibly presumes your other solas)?
And what answers did he receive?
Why, now that you mention it, I'm pretty sure those are crickets.
I wait for answers to the questions I posed.
Mike, I'm afraid you're going to be waiting for a long, long time. And that, of course, is to your credit.

1 comment:

Mike Burgess said...

I'm truly humbled, RdP. Thanks for the exhortation and mention.

Let us pray for one another.