Help With 2Timothy 3:16&17

[Jaguar]

[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, throughly furnished unto all good works.

It’s the word “perfect” in the KJV, that makes it sound like Sola Scriptura is all ya need.

Please help me with this!

 

[COPLAND_3]

This was a Mass Reading last month, here is the link to it and commmentary from the Church Fathers. litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/AP1

 

[myredeemerlives]

Because it IS all you need. You can trust every word of God as absolute truth.

 

[ziapueblo]

[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, throughly furnished unto all good works.

It’s the word “perfect” in the KJV, that makes it sound like Sola Scriptura is all ya need.

Please help me with this!

Look at James 1:4 And patience hath a perfect work; that you may be perfect and entire, failing in nothing.

If 2 Timothy 3:17 prove that the Scriptures are sufficient then James 1:4 proves that steadfastness is sufficient and that grace, faith, repentance and even the Scriptures are not necessary!

Scripture is profitable, useful, and helpful not exclusive. Read 2 Timothy 3:14-15. St. Paul makes a case for Apostolic Tradition then tells Timothy that Scripture is useful.

Plus, St. Paul is referring to the Scriptures of Timothy’s childhood. What would that be? The Old Testament of course since all the books of the New Testament had not even been written yet. So I guess if it proves Solo Scriptura it proves Old Testament Scriptura!

 

[Nan_S]

Plus, St. Paul is referring to the Scriptures of Timothy’s childhood. What would that be? The Old Testament of course since all the books of the New Testament had not even been written yet. So I guess if it proves Solo Scriptura it proves Old Testament Scriptura!

Couldn’t have said it better myself .

 

[peary]

[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, throughly furnished unto all good works.

It’s the word “perfect” in the KJV, that makes it sound like Sola Scriptura is all ya need.

Please help me with this!

**“All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”

Useful for teaching . . . every good work: because as God’s word the scriptures share his divine authority. It is exercised through those who are ministers of the word.

All scripture is inspired by God: this could possibly also be translated, “All scripture inspired by God is useful for. . . .” In this classic reference to inspiration, God is its principal author, with the writer as the human collaborator. Thus the scriptures are the word of God in human language. See also 2 Peter 1:20-21.**

 

[VociMike]

[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, throughly furnished unto all good works.

It’s the word “perfect” in the KJV, that makes it sound like Sola Scriptura is all ya need.

Please help me with this!

This is SO easy!

Does the existence of the bible, or even reading the bible, make a person without sin and without inclination to sin? Does sola Scriptura make us without sin or inclination to sin? That is a perfect man of God, nothing less.

Does the bible alone give one the charity to do these good works? Does the bible alone give one the courage to be a Christian witness? Etc, etc. Of course not! The perfect man of God is the ideal we aim at, but we do not reach it in this world. It is the ideal of “be holy as your Father is holy”.

Luckily the scriptures you cite don’t make that claim (never mind what bible-only Christians may claim). All the scripture says is that scripture is profitable for such things, which of course it certainly is. “Profitable”, not “sufficient”. Not the same thing!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**“All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” **

Useful for teaching . . . every good work: because as God’s word the scriptures share his divine authority. It is exercised through those who are ministers of the word.

All scripture is inspired by God: this could possibly also be translated, “All scripture inspired by God is useful for. . . .” In this classic reference to inspiration, God is its principal author, with the writer as the human collaborator. Thus the scriptures are the word of God in human language. See also 2 Peter 1:20-21.

Two more translations are possible:

• All writing is inspired by God and useful…
• Every God-inspired writing is useful…
  The first of those could easily be read as giving divine authority to writings not in the Bible. The mistake people make is to credit the first Christian generations with a doctrine of inspiration that makes sense only if the 27 NT books have been recognised as such - & when this letter was written, that had (very obviously) not taken place.

Jude 14 & 15 quotes the First Book of Enoch as though it were fully inspired - & the Coptic Church includes 1 Enoch in the Canon. It’s the only book the Apostle quotes in his letter, even though he also refers to incidents in Genesis 19 and in Numbers, as well as to an incident in the Assumption of Moses. For Jude, Enoch is as much a prophet as (say) Isaiah, & it is completely artificial to suggest that the Apostle was distinguishing between 1 Enoch & the books of the OT prophets - all the indications are that for St. Jude, Enoch is one of them.

By normal fundamentalist logic, St. Jude’s words ought to be an inspired & inerrant guarantee that Enoch, whom he correctly calls “the seventh from Adam”, prophesied of the false teachers of Jude’s time several centuries before the Flood, since “God took” Enoch 604 years before the Flood. The same logic would normally explain that it is only a fantasy of those wicked “liberals” that 1 Enoch was written in the first century BC, & that we should be supernatural-minded instead, & believe the testimony of the book itself.

But what we find, is that Fundamentalists ignore Jude’s words, & treat 1 Enoch as a purely human work. God himself has set His seal upon this sacred volume through the witness of His Apostle St. Jude, but that is not enough to prove the infallible inerrancy & plenary inspiration of St. Enoch’s book. And if they are justified in ignoring the inerrant Apostle’s words, then they cannot reasonably complain when those they bombard as “liberals” do not consider that the words of St. Paul in Romans 5 guarantee the existence of Adam; for the “liberals” are doing no more than what Fundamentalists do when the latter reject 1 Enoch. For the logic that validates Adam’s existence, or David’s authorship of Psalm 110, is identical with the logic that uses St. Jude’s words as proof of the inspiration of 1 Enoch.