Leaving tradition out of the discussion, how do non-Catholics make sense of this apparent inconsistency?

[MDK]

No, its not my document. One might expect that you would be inclined to accept it, however.

I do accept it. However, unlike Protestants, I accept what it means as a whole, and don’t take one small part out of context to suit my own agenda or preconceived notions. I explained to you what it means, so I hope you understand more about the mind of God’s Church.

You see, this is what I mean about dialogue. If it is your intent to shut off a discussion with me, just come out and say so.

Jon

No, I don’t see what you claim to see. It is my intent to get you to think about the truth, and whether you really want to keep Lutheran heresies or go with God’s truth. It’s a very valid question and important for everyone to decide how they will approach God… with ears listening to God, or instead deciding for themselves what God said. That’s really the intent. So, that you can’t see that just shows you have some way to go to realize the truth.

 

[MDK]

Somehow, I’ve never equated Nicea325 with meekness.

I dont’ either. Why do you assume I was talking about Nicea?

There is virtue in dialogue between Christians who present their viewpoints with charity, and prayerfully seek ways to unity. Somehow, ISTM, dialogue doesn’t start off very well when each side says, “you teach falsehoods”. One can only wonder how Pope Benedict’s visit to a Lutheran Church in Rome would have gone had either he or the Lutheran pastor had starting in that way.

Jon

There is charity in truth. There is great violence in heresies and falsehoods about Christ. I hope you can come to understand that and learn true Charity.

If you really can’t tell the difference between a one on one challenge to come to the truth, and the visible leader of God’s one Church, then perhaps you could benefit from adding a little education on perspective to your mindset.

True to Protestantism, you mischaracterize. I believe the dialogue started with questions about, not simply accusations. Remember “So, where in the Bible do you find that the “Bible alone” is the rule of faith?”

You’ve never really answered that question. Don’t feel like the “lone ranger” though. No one can find “sola scriptura” in the Bible.

 

[StTommyMore]

2 Timothy 3:14-16
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

Really, if I know the scripture can make me wise into salvation, why would I ask for something else.

I love how catholics jump down to verse 16 and don’t read verse 15 about scripture and salvation.

I guess I can ask:
Where in scripture does is say the church is the “only” pilar in truth?
Where does the word church (body of believers) = (magesterium)?

These hypothetical questions are really suppose to make me think?

"Oh maybe if the word only is not in there, there must be another, and I guess it is the church. And Rome must be that church cause peter went to Rome, etc… "

Hoo boy. Verse 15 does not help support the Sola Scriptura heresy. Why? Because not all of what we recognize as Scriptures were written yet. None of the Gospels were. Revelation wasn’t (even if you accept the early date, as I do). There wouldn’t even be a discussion of New Testament Canon, and what was, and Was not, scripture for another century.

 

[MDK]

No, its not my document. One might expect that you would be inclined to accept it, however.

…Jon

God intended it to be your document. You’ve just said no to Him.

 

[JonNC]

No, I don’t see what you claim to see. It is my intent to get you to think about the truth, and whether you really want to keep Lutheran heresies or go with God’s truth. It’s a very valid question and important for everyone to decide how they will approach God… with ears listening to God, or instead deciding for themselves what God said. That’s really the intent. So, that you can’t see that just shows you have some way to go to realize the truth.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Peace,
Jon

 

[MDK]

I don’t deny that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Christ also did not teach that the The Church is found in one institutional, organization communion alone. The narrow triumphalism you espouse is also not taught as you claim it is.

A truthful statement from you would have been something to the effect that you don’t believe Christ taught one organizational communion. And you don’t believe the narrow triumphalism (although this also is a mischaracterization) that I espouse is is taught as I claim. At least it would have been truthful. But, sadly it’s just not.

Jesus did indeed teach one Church. For instance, in Matthew 16, how many “churches” did Jesus say He would build? One Shepherd, one flock. Be one as Jesus and the Father are one… which the insightful person knows there is no difference between Jesus and the Father on any doctrinal issue…. Not on infant baptism, not on the Eucharist, not on Confession, not on the Papacy.

See, the Catholic model works to what Jesus taught. Why? Because Jesus established it.

See also that Protestantism cannot live up to what Jesus taught, as Protestantism is the pillar and foundation of “doing it your own way” or basically a mild form of anarchy.

Jesus clearly taught one Body, one Church and nothing at all to the contrary. This is truth.

I’m not sure God ever mentions the word Magisterium, either. So, what teachings contrary to scripture are accepted by the Catholic Church, in communion with the Bishop of Rome?

God never mentioned the word “trinity” either, so I guess you disavow the Trinity as well.

Yours is an uneducated and poor question. For one, I’ve already answered this.

The Catholic Church authored the New Testament. There is exactly zero teachings contrary to Scripture in God’s Catholic Church. The Catholic doctrines and Scripture have the same source.

I do not share the same feeling in reverse.

It’s your choice to ignore the truth.

I don’t believe I do, at least not knowingly or intentionally, and I don’t believe Catholics knowingly or intentionally do, either.

I believe you don’t think you do. That’s why I’ve shown you the truth, and asked you to think a little. If you would think and investigate as has been asked, you may see the truth.

It really doesn’t matter whether you think you do or you think you don’t. The truth is the truth, and you either speak it or you don’t. In several areas as I’ve shown, you simply don’t. I wish you would.

There is charity in sharing the truth, which I have shared with you. There is great violence to the Body of Christ in the heresies of Protestantism.

 

[MDK]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Peace,
Jon

I feel like I’m in good company. You do this with Christ as well… unwittingly communicating to Him “thanks, but I’ll believe what I want.”

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by rbarcia

2 Timothy 3:14-16
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, **15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.**16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

Sorry,but the above verses in no shape or form were written in defense or support of Sola Scriptura. Pure conjecture! Second, the above is not including the NT because the NT was not even complete. Furthermore, exactly which books (Holy Scripture) is St.Paul referring to since the OT canon was NOT fixed at the time? Care to answer this Chinese riddle?

Really, if I know the scripture can make me wise into salvation, why would I ask for something else.

WRONG! No where does Scripture teach that it alone is sufficient for salvation.

I love how catholics jump down to verse 16 and don’t read verse 15 about scripture and salvation.

I do not think so! And I love how Bible-Only folks take the verse 15 and 16 OUT-OF-CONTEXT to prove a bogus doctrine. You are merely slicing and dicing a few verses to prove an agenda,sorry,but that is not how one uses the Scriptures.

I guess I can ask:
Where in scripture does is say the church is the “only” pilar in truth?

Aaahhhhh…The Church is “the fullness of him [Christ] who fills all in all” (Eph. 1:23). Now that Jesus has accomplished objective redemption, the “plan of mystery hidden for ages in God” is “that through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places” (Eph. 3:9–10).

Care to rebuke the Word of God and The Church: Jesus Body?

Where does the word church (body of believers) = (magesterium)?

And who told you the RCC teaches that the Body of believers is ONLY the magesterium? Documents please…

These hypothetical questions are really suppose to make me think?

Hypothetical is not the issue,but the Truth.

"Oh maybe if the word only is not in there, there must be another, and I guess it is the church. And Rome must be that church cause peter went to Rome, etc… "

Chapter and verses where Jesus left a Bible-only faith?

 

[MDK]

Luther’s translation had 74 books. Can you specifically state which doctrine in each of the 7 books of the D-C’s that he didn’t agree with? Would you then say Cardinal Cajetan, who also stated they were not canon, referencing St. Jerome, threw them out for the same reason? You see, it isn’t as simplistic as you state.

You bring up Luther’s arrogance taking himself as the authority, instead of what God had established. Another dodge of the issue at hand too… So, did Luther reject 7 OT books or not? The truthful answer is yes, of course. you are living with his prideful assertion. Now, why do you assume it was one to one correlation with doctrines and books? He threw them out to deny some of Catholic doctrine, like praying to the saints, etc. He did it also to reject the Church as the authority, trying to use it to claim the Church was wrong, and therefore not to be listened to.

In truth, I never said it was a simple process, did I? There are many discussions that happened, arguments, doubts, opinions and back and forth. The results are just as I stated, though. The first canon of Scripture in salvation history was 382 AD, and it is still the same canon today (the Jews never formed an OT canon while they had the authority from God). It is the same 73 book canon that St Jerome translated into Latin. St Jerome in the end believed all 73 were indeed the canon, and submitted to the authority of God’s Church (the Pope), did he not? The truth plainly refutes your insinuations.

Cardinals can have their own opinions and do err. His opinion on this was not magisterial, and so not protected from error… just the way you Protestants like it!

Thanks for your opinion.

My “opinion” is completely based on the truth. It’s absolutely true to say Protestants threw out 7 books of the authentic Bible. Neither you nor anyone can prove otherwise.

You haven’t asked what my reasons are, so how could you know if they are valid?

I said there are no valid reasons, which includes any you have regardless of what they are. It’s up to you to think a little… that’s the idea.

I’m sorry you feel the need to judge the sincerity of my statement.

I didn’t say you weren’t sincere. I said you were sincerely wrong.

Perhaps not, but then, there is division - standing twice as long as that within the western Church - which has nothing to do with sola scriptura.

At least the easterners are in God’s Church. That split was due to men’s pride and arrogance as well. But, I specifically said “use the same foundations as Lutheranism”, which means eastern Orthodox are not included.

Now, I asked a valid question, which you have once again dodged. Please look around at the other ecclesial communities who use the same foundations as Lutheranism, and ask yourself why they teach conflicting doctrines. The obvious observation here is that Sola Scriptura doesn’t work in determining the truth of God. But, your response is typical of Protestants not daring to look at this truth.

My salvation is wholly dependent on the suffering, death, and ressurection of Christ the Savior. So is yours.

Both of us depend on the death of Jesus on the cross. But, yours has the additional problem of your ignorance of God’s Church being required for Salvation. All salvation is related to Baptism and the Eucharist, and you currently don’t have a valid Eucharist. If you know this to be true, and don’t join, I can’t imagine God will be pleased by that kind of arrogance. You’re currently not getting the Eucharist. Many people will say “Lord, Lord,” and He will say He doesn’t know them. Hope that’s not you.

And this thinking has worked so well the last 500 years.

You remind us all about Protestantism not existing for the first 1500 years of Christianity… while Jesus’s one Church was born at the cross, and has existed from that time forward.

Yes, many men have been stubborn in rejecting God’s teachings through Protestantism for the last 500 years. And, rejecting the falsehoods of Protestantism is the right thing to respond to Jesus faithfully. Jesus asked for the kind of unity that He and the Father share, and that unity is not obtainable from people adhering to Protestantism, which often tells God what He said with varying and conflicting opinions, rather than listening to those He sent as He asked.

And if that is the case, I will happily claim the title.

It’s no secret I hope you become Catholic, as I do for all people whom God died for. I hope also that you have the grace to see the faith God gave us prior to physical death.

 

[MDK]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Peace,
Jon

There is no real peace in the violent tearing at the unity of the Body of Christ by those advocating and advancing Protestantism. Protestantism is one of the problems in the world today.

There is unity possible in Catholicism as Jesus established. Catholicism is the solution for the problems in the world.

 

[Jaguar]

I wanted to comment on something that came up early in this thread, in regards to the 7 books “the Catholic Church added!”

Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the Old Testament close to 300 times. Of those, approximately 200 of those quotes were directly from The ‘Septuagint’ (Greek) Old Testament … the same one that the Catholic Church uses, that contain the 7 books that, Protestants reject and refuse, including Maccabees and that dreaded, praying for the dead thing.

Jesus and the Apostles, obviously knew of those 7 books and yet did not complain that they were in the Bible. Obviously, Jesus would have rejected the Septuagint version, as Protestants do, and only supported the shorter Hebrew canon that Protestants use. Instead, He & His Apostles quoted from it (the Septuagint) approx. 67% of the time.

If the Septuagint, or Greek text was good enough for Jesus and His Apostles, it should be good enough for Protestants! Why isn’t it???

Jon, you are here and that is a great thing. Please stay here and learn as I have.

Often, the hardest thing in life is to admit we were wrong and especially for so long, and about something that is most important.

You will not win any debates here against the One Church. No one can, no one ever will! Because this One Church, is divine in nature. It has to be, because it is straight from our God, Himself. Please don’t resort, as many of us do, in fooling yourself. Pray for God’s honest Truth and that it may find you.

I’ll be praying for you. God Bless you and also MDK, Nicea and the rest here, that are trying to make you see that ‘One Truth’ with God’s help and blessings.

 

[MDK]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Peace,
Jon

Hi Jon,

I would really appreciate your thoughts on the following:

If any of us distort the meaning(s) of Scripture (even well intended, yet ignorant) and believe those (self made) distorted meanings in our hearts and minds, and lives them in our life, are we then living our own word or God’s true word?

 

[LaSalle]

equip.org/articles/a-defense-of-sola-scriptura

The first line sets the tone, doesn’t it?

Then the first illogical statement -

First, as Catholic scholars themselves recognize, it is not necessary that the Bible explicitly and formally teach sola Scriptura in order for this doctrine to be true

Hey! The writer is correct! You know why?

Catholic Scholars, and Catholics in general, KNOW that the bible doesn’t have to explicitly and formally teach a doctrine for that doctrine to be true BECAUSE we do not adhere to SS. This line of reasoning would not work if you did believe in SS. How did he not see that one? Hmmmm … first argument too … that did not give me high hopes for the rest of the article.

Second, the Bible does teach implicitly and logically, if not formally and explicitly, that the Bible alone is the only infallible basis for faith and practice. This it does in a number of ways. One, the fact that Scripture, without tradition, is said to be “God-breathed” (theopnuestos) and thus by it believers are “competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, emphasis added) supports the doctrine of sola Scriptura.

How did they draw this conclusion?? Water is what you need to stay alive, it will keep you healthy and sustain you throughout your life. Without water you will die!! Does this line say that water is ALL you need to live??

It says that it’s ‘profitable’ … doesn’t say that it is all that is required, does it?

And contrary to some Catholic apologists, limiting this to only the Old Testament will not help the Catholic cause for two reasons: first, the New Testament is also called “Scripture” (2 Pet. 3:15-16; 1 Tim. 5:18; cf. Luke 10:7); second, it is inconsistent to argue that God-breathed writings in the Old Testament are sufficient, but the inspired writings of the New Testament are not.

When 2 Tim 3:16 was written, 2 Tim 3:16 was not yet scripture. This means that Tim was referring to the known canon of scriptures at that time. Right? So at that time, did he mean that ONLY the OT was enough or was he indicating that whatever writings that would come would be enough? Well, he doesn’t sound like he was including what would come, in fact, he sounds like he was referring to what was already recognized as scripture. Oh sure, we would all agree that the NT is scripture, now; but it doesn’t sound like he was making a reference to what was to come. So if he wasn’t making a reference of what was to come, he obviously could not have meant that scripture was ALL that was needed. (side note - I bet when he was writing the letter he didn’t know that one day it would become scripture! Imagine that!)

Further, Jesus and the apostles constantly appealed to the Bible as the final court of appeal. This they often did by the introductory phrase, “It is written,” which is repeated some 90 times in the New Testament. Jesus used this phrase three times when appealing to Scripture as the final authority in His dispute with Satan (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10).

No, actually, Jesus and the Apostles appealed to how they INTERPRETED the bible as final (sound familiar?) I mean Satan used the bible too, but it was not the correct way.

In any case, just because they may have used the bible to support a position does not mean that ONLY the bible must be used to support a position. I mean I use it when discussing with protestants, it doesn’t mean that I believe that that is all that is required. I just use what the person will accept - same for Jesus, Satan was quoting scripture (everyone seems to be able to), so He used scripture back.

The NT is filled totally with new inventions that is nowhere to be found in the OT - the Apostles obviusly did not restrict themselves to ‘only the scriptures’. Whatever they did became as binding as scriptures … hmmmm … sounds familiar? It should … this church continues to do this right to this day!

The rest of the article just goes on and on with the same illogical reasoning. Bottom line - let’s just say for argument’s sake that SS is what Jesus intended -

1. If the bible was to be so important, why didn’t Jesus leave us with the bible? Why did He leave us with His Church?
2. How are we supposed to get any objectivity with a book without an authority to state what this book means??

So while Protestants may want to believe that all we have is the bible, the practical aspects of it is just unworkable and the result … well, we can see what happens when you only have a bible with everyone claiming to state what they think it states.

 

[MDK]

The first line sets the tone, doesn’t it?

Then the first illogical statement -

Hey! The writer is correct! You know why?

Catholic Scholars, and Catholics in general, KNOW that the bible doesn’t have to explicitly and formally teach a doctrine for that doctrine to be true BECAUSE we do not adhere to SS. This line of reasoning would not work if you did believe in SS. How did he not see that one? Hmmmm … first argument too … that did not give me high hopes for the rest of the article.

How did they draw this conclusion?? Water is what you need to stay alive, it will keep you healthy and sustain you throughout your life. Without water you will die!! Does this line say that water is ALL you need to live??

It says that it’s ‘profitable’ … doesn’t say that it is all that is required, does it?

When 2 Tim 3:16 was written, 2 Tim 3:16 was not yet scripture. This means that Tim was referring to the known canon of scriptures at that time. Right? So at that time, did he mean that ONLY the OT was enough or was he indicating that whatever writings that would come would be enough? Well, he doesn’t sound like he was including what would come, in fact, he sounds like he was referring to what was already recognized as scripture. Oh sure, we would all agree that the NT is scripture, now; but it doesn’t sound like he was making a reference to what was to come. So if he wasn’t making a reference of what was to come, he obviously could not have meant that scripture was ALL that was needed. (side note - I bet when he was writing the letter he didn’t know that one day it would become scripture! Imagine that!)

No, actually, Jesus and the Apostles appealed to how they INTERPRETED the bible as final (sound familiar?) I mean Satan used the bible too, but it was not the correct way.

In any case, just because they may have used the bible to support a position does not mean that ONLY the bible must be used to support a position. I mean I use it when discussing with protestants, it doesn’t mean that I believe that that is all that is required. I just use what the person will accept - same for Jesus, Satan was quoting scripture (everyone seems to be able to), so He used scripture back.

The NT is filled totally with new inventions that is nowhere to be found in the OT - the Apostles obviusly did not restrict themselves to ‘only the scriptures’. Whatever they did became as binding as scriptures … hmmmm … sounds familiar? It should … this church continues to do this right to this day!

The rest of the article just goes on and on with the same illogical reasoning. Bottom line - let’s just say for argument’s sake that SS is what Jesus intended -

1. If the bible was to be so important, why didn’t Jesus leave us with the bible? Why did He leave us with His Church?
2. How are we supposed to get any objectivity with a book without an authority to state what this book means??

So while Protestants may want to believe that all we have is the bible, the practical aspects of it is just unworkable and the result … well, we can see what happens when you only have a bible with everyone claiming to state what they think it states.

The sad thing about Protestantism is that authentic logic, reason, proper context, and God’s truth take a back seat to what they want to believe.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Sola scriptura I’m told, is a practice, rule or teaching claiming that the God breathed inspired word, as per 2 Timothy 3, contains the only knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness, and yet sola scriptura is not expressly set down anywhere in sacred scripture, which, logically speaking, suggests that sola scriptura itself is not necessary for salvation and holiness. Where in the God breathed inspired word is sola scriptura expressly set down, and if it isn’t then how are we to make sense of this apparent inconsistency?

2Tim3: 15And 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.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Jn.17:17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

It says in 2Tim3 that the inspired wod of God is able to make us wise unto salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. and in Jn. 17:17 that we are sanctified (made holy) by the word of God.

If there is something else that is necessary, what do you think it is and where do we find it?

 

[MDK]

2Tim3: 15And 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.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Jn.17:17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

It says in 2Tim3 that the inspired wod of God is able to make us wise unto salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. and in Jn. 17:17 that we are sanctified (made holy) by the word of God.

If there is something else that is necessary, what do you think it is and where do we find it?

There are passages also about no Scripture is for private interpretation, Scritpure is twisted by the ignorant to their own destruction, and hold fast to the Godly wriiten and oral Traditions. Why do you skip over those? Aren’t these too the word of God, and to be included in our understanding?

See, when you misinterpret Scripture meanings, you do not have God’s word in your heart and mind. It’s not simply remembering which word was used, but deriving the correct meaning, the meaning the author intended. Protestantism is founded on false interpretation of God’s word, and promulgates errors with great abandon, leaving its adherents confused without knowing God’s truth as He taught. This violence against God’s word harms souls and fractures the unity in the Body of Christ that Jesus intended.

First, do you know the difference between “profitable” and “sufficient”? Catholics believe Scripture is indeed very profitable, just as the Catholic authors wrote in the New Testament. Protestants believe Scriptures are sufficient, which is nowhere to be found in the Scripures, never taught by Jesus nor the Holy Spirit.

Next, Scritpure was taught by teachers. It doesn’t mean they memorized the verses and were supposed to derive any meaning they wanted from it, as Protestantism allows and is set up to do. Every time Jesus spoke in reference to Scriptures, He showed that Scriptures need an interpreter, and showed people the proper interpretations and correct false interpretations. Jesus said His Church would be led to all truth, and the Holy Spirit said Jesus’ one Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Nowhere do we see that the Scriptures are the pillar and foundation of the truth, much less “Scripture alone” and even much less your faulty interpretations of Scriptures.

Since Jesus’ Catholic Church authored the New Testament, and the authority to teach His truth was taken away from the Jews and given to His Catholic Church (certainly the transition had completed by the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD), then Jesus’ one Church is the infallible teacher of Scriptures.

There is not one Protestant on this planet who has authority from God given by wauy of Jesus’ Apostles to teach. When anyone misinterprets the Scriptures, as Protestantism is based on and Protestant very often do, then you don’t the word of God in your heart and mind, but your own misinterpretation with the belief that this wrong teaching you’ve concocted is from God.

The simple answer is to follow what Jesus did, not what you prefer. Jesus established His Catholic Church to teach His truth. HIs Catholic Church as the pillar and foundation of the truth wrote the New Testament and assembled the entire Bible as a Catholic Church document. All believers are called to God’s Catholic Church.

Jesus provided for you. Why do you say “NO” to Him?

 

[MDK]

2Tim3: 15And 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.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Jn.17:17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

It says in 2Tim3 that the inspired wod of God is able to make us wise unto salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. and in Jn. 17:17 that we are sanctified (made holy) by the word of God.

If there is something else that is necessary, what do you think it is and where do we find it?

You ask what else is necessary…

The big one is Jesus said if we don’t eat His Body and drink His Blood, we have no life in us. All salvation is related to the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the source and summit of Christian life. Protestants can’t do this, since their man made ecclesial communities (Bible study groups separated by what each wants to believe) have no valid holy orders and therefore do not have Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity present in their heretical and unauthoritative services.

How do you do what Jesus asked in John 6? As a Protestant, you can’t. You just reinterpret (misinterpret) what Jesus said so that it fits your mode of thinkind and move on, completely missing His teaching and His real, true and substantial Presence here with us. His real, true and substantial Presence is available in the tue authoritative Church that He built, of which same came to be called the Catholic Church.

 

[MDK]

…

Jn.17:17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

It says in 2Tim3 that the inspired wod of God is able to make us wise unto salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. and in Jn. 17:17 that we are sanctified (made holy) by the word of God…

Did you miss the part in Scriptures where John tells us that not everything Jesus said would be written down, as there would not be enough libraries in the world (at the state of technology at that time) to handle it? In saying this, John indicates that most of what Jesus said would not be written down. This makes perfect sense.

In an appeal to reason, do you really think that everything the infinite God has to say to us is written down in 73 books?

 

[MDK]

2Tim3: 15And 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.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works…

If you want to be literal, 2 Tim 3:15 is discussing Timothy’s learning the Old Testament from childhood which foretold of coming of the Messiah which is fulfilled in Jesus’ Incarnation, and Paul is exhorting how it is right to have faith in Jesus. Paul is actually making a plug for the OT Scriptures still being useful. The Scriptures that would make up the New Testament books weren’t even completed at that time, and it would be until 382 that the NT canon of Scriptures was authorized by the Holy Spirit.

Nevertheless, we must read the passage and see the word “profitable.” I hope you didn’t miss that word, did you? PROFITABLE… If I gave you 1,000 USD for your retirement, it would be profitable toward, but not sufficient for all things you wanted to do in retirement.

Notes from Douay Rheims on 2 Tim 3:15… ““All scripture,”… Every part of divine scripture is certainly profitable for all these ends. But, if we would have the whole rule of Christian faith and practice, we must not be content with those Scriptures, which Timothy knew from his infancy, that is, with the Old Testament alone: nor yet with the New Testament, without taking along with it the traditions of the apostles, and the interpretation of the church, to which the apostles delivered both the book, and the true meaning of it.”

 

[Richard_Kastner]

If you want to be literal, 2 Tim 3:15 is discussing Timothy’s learning the Old Testament from childhood which foretold of coming of the Messiah which is fulfilled in Jesus’ Incarnation, and Paul is exhorting how it is right to have faith in Jesus. Paul is actually making a plug for the OT Scriptures still being useful. The Scriptures that would make up the New Testament books weren’t even completed at that time, and it would be until 382 that the NT canon of Scriptures was authorized by the Holy Spirit.

Do you consider the new testament scrripture MDK? Do you not think that the new testament is able to make us wise unto salvation?

Nevertheless, we must read the passage and see the word “profitable.” I hope you didn’t miss that word, did you? PROFITABLE… If I gave you 1,000 USD for your retirement, it would be profitable toward, but not sufficient for all things you wanted to do in retirement.

So, being wise unto salvation is not sufficient?

Notes from Douay Rheims on 2 Tim 3:15… ““All scripture,”… Every part of divine scripture is certainly profitable for all these ends. But, if we would have the whole rule of Christian faith and practice, we must not be content with those Scriptures, which Timothy knew from his infancy, that is, with the Old Testament alone: nor yet with the New Testament, without taking along with it the traditions of the apostles, and the interpretation of the church, to which the apostles delivered both the book, and the true meaning of it.”

Again, Do you not consider the new testament scripture or God breathed?