Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: 2 Timothy

  • Point It at Yourself First

    One recommendation I make for Bible study is simple: Look for what speaks to, and yes convicts, you first. It’s very easy to read the Bible and find all the things that other people ought—or ought not—to do. This results in our practice of having lists of “clean” sins and “dirty” sins.

    Clean sins are the ones I’m personally tempted to. It’s just natural to fall for those temptations and I don’t really have to worry too much about them. For example, I’m overweight. I’m working on it, but I’m not a good example in that area. That’s my “clean” sin. Of course smoking, to which others are tempted but I’m not, is a “dirty” sin. It’s easy for me to condemn someone else for abusing their body by smoking when I have plenty of things to work on myself.

    Of course, what I mean here by “clean” and “dirty” is the way we treat those sins, as though my sins are OK, but those of other people are horrible, not the actual nature of the sins, none of which are “clean.”

    Today I read an excellent example of the right way to approach the application of a text of scripture Todd Wood is a creationist who teaches at Bryan College in Dayton, TN. I read his blog to get the perspective of an intelligent young age creationist who is also somewhat unusual in the exceptionally fair way he treats opponents.

    He was looking at II Timothy 3:16-17, and decided to look at the broader context. He noted the phrase “having itching ears” and “They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”

    Now I’ve heard this verse any number of times, and generally teachers are prepared to point out the myths that other people believe, and explain how they believe that because of their itching ears. I’ve been the target of this, and I must confess I’ve done it myself.

    Not a good plan! Not the right way to apply scripture!

    I should look at myself first.

    That’s what Todd did:

    Now your average creationist reads that as a condemnation of evolution, right? That’s the myth what “itching ears want to hear,” or so we’ve been told.

    But I’m not your average creationist, so I wondered what myth I’ve turned to instead of “sound doctrine.” I think the danger is ever present, or Paul wouldn’t have warned Timothy so sternly to avoid it. That means the warning is for everyone, especially for those who think they’ve got it all together doctrinally (like us creationists).

    Precisely!

    Now if you think my point is that finally a creationist looked at the possibility he might be getting his doctrinal positions out of order, you’re missing my point. Todd is providing us with an excellent example of how we should approach a scripture. I’m a theistic evolutionist. It’s easy for me to see the faults and failings of young age creationists.

    In other words, the question to ask is what sort of myths am I going after? What do my itching ears want to hear? When you read this, ask what your itching ears want to hear.

    I’m not arguing that we should be unwilling to consider that our doctrinal positions or our scriptural interpretations are right. In fact, after we’ve done our best to study out a position, we need to stand up for what we believe to be the truth. But we also need to constantly look at ourselves.

    In addition to asking whether we’re believing myths, I think we need to ask whether we have placed some doctrinal position of our own in a place it doesn’t deserve, i.e. whether we have made an idol of some particular position. Have I made my position on origins, baptism, ecclesiology, education, or anything else more important than the good news of Jesus?

    Amongst the things for which scripture is valuable presented in II Timothy 3:17, are reproof and correction. Let’s receive it for ourselves!

     

  • My Previous Looks at 2 Timothy 3:14-4:5

    Since the texts for Proper 24C / Ordinary 29C / Pentecost +21 (October 21, 2007) include 2 Timothy 3:14-4:5, which in turn includes 2 Timothy 3:16-17 on which I have written a considerable amount before I thought I’d simply provide links to some earlier material.

    First, there are two key articles on my Threads blog, T4G Article I: The Bible, which is a response to the Together for the Gospel statement articles on Biblical inspiration, and also The Impossibility of Verbal Plenary Translation which applies some ideas about Biblical inspiration to translation. Neither of these articles are direct exposition of 2 Timothy 3:16-17, but they respond to such exposition.

    Second, I have two articles here on this blog, Information or Conversation, which examines the major reason(s) we have to approach the Bible in the first place, and how that will impact what we get from our study, and Hebrews 4:12-13: God’s Word is Alive and Active which combines 2 Timothy with a look at Hebrews 4:12-13, another key passage.

    Briefly, I think there are two issues in reading this passage on the scripture. First, do we read 2 Timothy 3:16 alone, or in the context of the broader passage, especially verse 17? I would suggest that verse 17 is essential in understanding “God-breathed,” by pointing us to what the resulting text should accomplish for the believer. Second, just what does “God-breathed” mean? People quote this text to me all the time, and indeed I quote it quite frequently myself, but it’s easy to assume that “God-breathed” means whatever I want it to.

    If I believe in [tag]verbal plenary inspiration[/tag], I’m likely to believe that when God breathes scripture the result is a fully verbally inspired text. If I believe that inspiration occurs in the conversation between a person and God, then I will imagine that this constitutes “God-breathing.” If I believe that God’s breathing must produce [tag]inerrancy[/tag], then I am likely to assume that meaning in “God-breathed.”

    Yet the text actually says none of those things. In it, “God-breathed” points forward to the specific uses and usefulness of the text. Now I’m not saying that the text actually contradicts any of those views either.