The Sacred Letters of Timothy..OT Law or NT epistles?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
M

Mitspa

Guest
I can accept sacred writings as indeed more accurate but still no mention of letters.

I can see how you can draw that conclusion from Peter's statement. I have always read it differently; but that doesn't prove you wrong I concede you can legitimately regard Paul's writings as scripture that way. I'm still not persuaded but I will defend it as a possible reading.
Thank you Marc for your honesty and sincerity, I know Im way out on a limb in regards to what is traditionally taught on this passage and I have tried to leave room for others to question my position and not feel that I am at odds with them.
 
M

Mitspa

Guest
If you take the word "babe" to mean a literal babe, then it does not work with an understanding that the "sacred writings" were a reference to NT writings, but it works perfectly fine with an understanding that "sacred writings" refers to OT Scripture.

If you take the word "babe" to mean a spiritual babe, as you've posited here, then that appears to be the only way it works with an understanding that "sacred writings" refers to NT writings. This is the only case I have seen anyone else make when attempting to put forth the argument for NT writings.

This is the scenario, as you've posited, combined with most commonly accepted dates:

Timothy likely received the gospel message around the age of 18 when Paul first traveled to Lystra, or possibly at a younger age prior to Paul's travels. It can't be too much younger since the younger Timothy becomes, then the more "spiritual babe" begins to align with "physical babe," thus undermining your position. Paul picks up Timothy right around the age of 20 in still the early years of his missionary work and around the time he starts writing letters. Fast forward to the time when Paul is writing the 2 Tim. epistle. It's probably been about 15 years since Paul first picked up Timothy. Your case argues that Paul is referring to "sacred writings" as those which Timothy must have read and studied during his travels with Paul.

It's not unfeasible but also not for certain. The Greek here for "babe" is used for a literal babe in all other NT Scripture references. Even the 1 Peter 2:2 passage is likening the new believers to actual newborn babies, but I certainly understand the spiritual connection you are trying to make. According to BibleHub, the Greek for "sacred writings" is used by both Josephus and Philo in reference to the OT Scripture, so it's not unheard of that Paul's use of the phrase could refer to the OT Scripture.

The next challenge to your understanding of this passage is the very next verse, which is actually the original verse under examination in our other thread that led to this one being created. How do you argue that "All Scripture" in 2 Tim. 3:16 excludes the OT Scriptures? This Greek word for "Scripture" is the commonly used one throughout the NT, even Paul's other letters including the first letter to Timothy, to refer to the OT. I don't think there is a single use of it in the NT that doesn't explicitly refer to the OT Scriptures. If Paul means the NT writings in 3:15, as you posit, then why would he revert back to the most common word referring to the OT Scriptures in 3:16 if he did not intend to at least include the OT Scriptures in his message about reproof, correction, etc.? Why didn't he simply repeat the Greek for "sacred writings" if he was referring to NT writings only?
No the dates and time does not work except its a reference to Timothy spiritual growth, Timothy could not have been in the Faith of Jesus Christ from a infant ...that puts his birth before his mothers conversion and Pauls first ministry to Lystra ...unless one makes him "very" young when he began to minister with Paul. Paul has to be speaking in spiritual terms...as a "babe" in Christ, which makes perfect sense in context of what he is saying.

1Pe 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:

2Ti 3:14 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 babe thou hast known the sacred letters, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
 
S

sparty-g

Guest
No the dates and time does not work except its a reference to Timothy spiritual growth, Timothy could not have been in the Faith of Jesus Christ from a infant ...that puts his birth before his mothers conversion and Pauls first ministry to Lystra ...unless one makes him "very" young when he began to minister with Paul. Paul has to be speaking in spiritual terms...as a "babe" in Christ, which makes perfect sense in context of what he is saying.

1Pe 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:

2Ti 3:14 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 babe thou hast known the sacred letters, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
I agree that it's unlikely that the NT Scriptures are in view here if "babe" refers to a "physical babe," but that they could be in view if a "spiritual babe" is meant, which is a possible reading.

Now what about "All Scripture" referenced in 3:16?
 
M

Mitspa

Guest
I agree that it's unlikely that the NT Scriptures are in view here if "babe" refers to a "physical babe," but that they could be in view if a "spiritual babe" is meant, which is a possible reading.

Now what about "All Scripture" referenced in 3:16?
Well all scripture includes all of course... :)

Just noticed something in your prior post...the Word used by Peter to describe a spiritual "babe" is exactly the same word used by Paul...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
M

Mitspa

Guest
Well all scripture includes all of course... :)

Just noticed something in your prior post...the Word used by Peter to describe a spiritual "babe" is exactly the same word used by Paul...
I want to add that I have never taken the position to exclude the Old Testament only that the intention of Paul seems clear to point to his doctrine, which clearly includes much study of the law, its shadows and types, and its purpose to bring all to faith in Christ.
 
S

sparty-g

Guest
Well all scripture includes all of course... :)
Oh, hah! That was simple enough! But things are never so simple, right? :p

The case that is generally made by "law-keepers" (to use a shorthand, yet mislabeled term) is that "All Scripture" includes the OT Scriptures, which includes the commands found in the Torah/Pentateuch, which means these commands are useful for all the things Paul lists here.

But you probably knew that one was coming, right? ;)
 
S

sparty-g

Guest
I want to add that I have never taken the position to exclude the Old Testament only that the intention of Paul seems clear to point to his doctrine, which clearly includes much study of the law, its shadows and types, and its purpose to bring all to faith in Christ.
I'm sorry if I assumed that. Lots of different threads and people involved. It's getting difficult for me to keep everyone's position clearly in mind, and who said what.
 
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,401
113
If I remember right the word child was the Greek word for babe in arms which would make Timothy's instruction beginning at a very early age.....regardless as we know that Jesus said the O.T. pointed to HIM and we KNOW that Abraham in Luke 16 told the lost rich guy that the rich guy's brothers had Moses and the prophets which point to Christ and or the way of life.....the first promise of a redeemer is found in Genesis 3:15......

Obviously most know I believe grace dia faith salvation based upon belief/faith into Jesus and his completed work without the deeds of the law.....!
 
S

sparty-g

Guest
If I remember right the word child was the Greek word for babe in arms which would make Timothy's instruction beginning at a very early age.....regardless as we know that Jesus said the O.T. pointed to HIM and we KNOW that Abraham in Luke 16 told the lost rich guy that the rich guy's brothers had Moses and the prophets which point to Christ and or the way of life.....the first promise of a redeemer is found in Genesis 3:15......

Obviously most know I believe grace dia faith salvation based upon belief/faith into Jesus and his completed work without the deeds of the law.....!
Hi dcon, thanks for joining and adding to the discussion. We've discussed at some length the Greek term for "babe" used here. A literal reading has been posited (a physical baby) and a spiritual reading has been posited (a baby in the faith). We are now onto 3:16 and what "All Scripture" means and what that implies.
 
M

Mitspa

Guest
Oh, hah! That was simple enough! But things are never so simple, right? :p

The case that is generally made by "law-keepers" (to use a shorthand, yet mislabeled term) is that "All Scripture" includes the OT Scriptures, which includes the commands found in the Torah/Pentateuch, which means these commands are useful for all the things Paul lists here.

But you probably knew that one was coming, right? ;)
Have you considered that Timothy was clearly not keeping the law, in that the jews always demanded circumcision and it was always considered the first act of obedience to the law...That his mother as a woman and married to a Greek would have been very limited to the Old Testament writings? And thanks for the honest and polite discussion :)
 
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,401
113
I suppose all is conclusive of all and would be directed at every verse of scripture that God has given to humanity.....some exceptions would be the things spoken by man, Satan and every word that contradicts the scriptures......entirety of the bible though has been given by God as there are certain elements that would be beyond the scope of human reasoning, understanding and or knowable unless God had given it....such as the conversation between Eve and the Serpent in the Garden as an example......
 

gotime

Senior Member
Mar 3, 2011
3,537
88
48
I think we need to keep in mind that in their day Scripture only included the Old Testament. That was scripture to them, the letters written by Paul etc were just that letters explaining the scriptures.

Today all scripture for us is Old and New testament. but that can not be said for their day. So all scripture would have been a reference to the Old Testament.
 

gotime

Senior Member
Mar 3, 2011
3,537
88
48
Remember whenever they said it is written the quote was from the Old Testament not the new.
 
M

Mitspa

Guest
I think we need to keep in mind that in their day Scripture only included the Old Testament. That was scripture to them, the letters written by Paul etc were just that letters explaining the scriptures.

Today all scripture for us is Old and New testament. but that can not be said for their day. So all scripture would have been a reference to the Old Testament.
No before 2 Tim was written, Peter made clear that Pauls letters was already established as scripture....
 
M

Mitspa

Guest
Remember whenever they said it is written the quote was from the Old Testament not the new.
No Paul and the others make many references to what they or others wrote, but you are write that generally more clear terms are generally used when speaking about what is written in the law...which is part of the reason Im so sure that Paul is speaking of his own doctrine, if referring to sacred letters or writings...."you have known my doctrine"
 
J

JesusistheChrist

Guest
JesusistheChrist said:
Was Abel saved?

How?

Was Enoch saved?

How?

Was Abraham saved?

How?

Etc., etc., etc.

They all had faith in Christ and that was long before the New Testament was written.
That is an assumption that you cannot prove. Better to build doctrine on what the bible says, rather than what it doesn't say.
Hi, Phil.

I saw your comment a few days ago, but I didn't bother responding to it then because I've seriously been considering deleting my account here because of the unprofitableness of posting here in that most people here don't seem to be the least bit interested in what the scriptures actually teach. In fact, I just logged on with the intent of deleting my account and then I saw your "Word of God" thread and after reading what you posted therein I thought that I'd make one more attempt to reason with somebody here according to the scriptures to see if anything good potentially comes of the same. Anyhow, I've "assumed" nothing and what I've stated is actually taught in scripture.

Galatians chapter 3

[6] Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
[7] Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
[8] And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
[9] So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
[10] For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
[11] But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
[12] And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
[13] Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
[14] That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
[15] Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
[16] Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
[17] And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
[18] For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
[19] Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
[20] Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
[21] Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
[22] But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
[23] But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
[24] Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
[25] But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
[26] For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
[27] For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
[28] There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
[29] And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.


The Apostle Paul whom you spoke so highly of in your "Word of God" thread said that "Abraham believed God and it was accounted unto him for righteousness" (vs. 6) and here is what Paul was referring to:

Genesis chapter 15

[1] After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.
[2] And Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?
[3] And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.
[4] And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.
[5] And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
[6] And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.


How, exactly, did Abraham "believe in the LORD" here? Well, he "believed in the LORD" in that he believed in what was spoken in relation to his "seed", SINGULAR, and that "seed" IS CHRIST, even as we just read:

Galatians chapter 3

[16] Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
[17] And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
[18] For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
[19] Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

Yes, JESUS CHRIST is the SINGULAR "seed" of Abraham (vs. 16) that the LORD promised him way back in Genesis chapter 15 and when God promised the same He actually "confirmed the covenant IN CHRIST" (vs. 17) in that JESUS CHRIST is "the seed Who should come to Whom the promise was made" (vs. 19). Furthermore, Paul said that God "preached before THE GOSPEL unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed" (Galatians 3:8). What "gospel" did God preach to Abraham if the not "the gospel" according to faith in JESUS CHRIST? For crying out loud, Phil, Abraham was called by Paul "the father of all them that believe" (Romans 4:11) and "the father of us all" (Romans 4:16) and Paul explained exactly what he meant by that when he said:

Galatians chapter 3

[26] For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
[27] For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
[28] There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
[29] And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Are we to believe, Phil, that we're "children of God BY FAITH IN CHRIST JESUS" and therefore a part of "Abraham's seed", but that Abraham himself wasn't "saved by faith in Christ" as I originally said and as you consequently labeled it "an assumption" which the Bible doesn't actually say/teach? Who do you think that Abraham ate with here, Phil:

Genesis chapter 18

[1] And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
[2] And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
[3] And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
[4] Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree:
[5] And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said.
[6] And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes upon the hearth.
[7] And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetch a calf tender and good, and gave it unto a young man; and he hasted to dress it.
[8] And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.


???

The LORD/Lord Whom Abraham bowed himself before and ate with was THE LORD JESUS CHRIST. Jesus said:

John chapter 8

[56] Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
[57] Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
[58] Jesus said unto them, Verily,verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.


Yes, Jesus said that "Abraham rejoiced to see His day and he saw it and was glad", but you call what I wrote in relation to the same "an assumption".

Anyhow, I've barely scratched the surface with what I could say in relation to Abraham's saving faith in Christ and I could equally present support for my comments in regard to Abel and Enoch as well, but let's first see how this is received...if it's received at all. Again, I'm tired of taking the time to repeatedly present thorough scriptural backing for my comments only to see the same ignored or cast away as garbage time and time again by different forum members here. If people aren't interested in what the scriptures actually teach on this forum, then I'll simply spend my time and efforts elsewhere.

Anyhow, Abraham had saving faith in Christ...just as I said that he did...and so did Abel and Enoch, too.