Not By Scripture Alone

[kaycee]

You have a real problem here. Here’s why:

1. Genesis 15:1 Now when these things were done, the word of the Lord came to Abram by a vision, saying: Fear not, Abram, I am thy protector, and thy reward exceeding great.
2. Genesis 15:4 And immediately the word of the Lord came to him, saying: He shall not be thy heir: but he that shall come out of thy bowels, him shalt thou have for thy heir.
3. 1st Samuel 15:10 And the word of the Lord came to Samuel, saying:
4. 2nd Samuel 7:4 But it came to pass that night, that the word of the Lord came to Nathan, saying:

A whole list of times “the word of the Lord came to” is used in the Old Testament, yet not all of those statements are considered inspired with respect to all of us since they were spoken to individuals long ago.

According to the logic that you espouse they should have applications to each of as well, yet that is clearly not what God intended with those passages.
For the life of me I cannot see your point, as i have never stated the argument you are trying to refute here. I certainly assumed that all were aware that Old testament scripture is historical, factual, prophetic and many commands from God were meant for only jews but also many clear applications to both Jews and Christians.

the literalist interpetation of scripture as opposed to a literal interpretation that Catholics use

.No argument about God-breathed (inspired), however, the very verse you have cited says what? “Useful”, which Catholics have absolutely no problem with, but the verse nowhere states that scripture is all sufficient.

“Thoroughly equipped” is also no problem either, but again, nowhere does it even imply that it is all sufficient, since one may be “thoroughly equipped” and still have need of something more to accomplish what one wants to do.

This verse is not neraly the proof text that n-Cs wish it was.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

If I am THOUROUGHLY equipped for EVERY good work? What work am I not thouroughly equipped for??? If I have what I need for every good work, what else do i need?

 

[mozart-250]

You have argued against yourself.

You have accepted the authority of the Catholic Magisterium when you accepted your bible. It was the Catholic Church that determined the table of contents of the New Testament. If your bible were to contain the Gospel of Peter, or the Gospel of Mary, or The Shepherd of Hermas, or the Gospel of Thomas you could stand alone, but it doesn’t, so you can’t.

Backtrack here…

I think I have said this before but will repeat it again. Words and meanings of words are important.

There is a difference between “capable of being correct” and “incapable of being wrong”. If I get 100% on a math test, it shows I am capable of being correct. It does not mean that I am incapable of failing the next test.

I accept that the magisterium of the universal church (prior to the point where the church divided upon itself) was capable of being correct. For that matter the magisterium of the Roman Catholic denomination today is capable of being correct (Jack Chick notwithstanding). I do not accept that either is incapable of being wrong.

The Church made the bible, not the other way around. So when you state, “I am still searching for the Scriptures in the Bible where the Bible explicitly identifies another faith source as its equal.” It’s very existence identifies that it has a faith source of its equal. You have given the Catholic Church, through its infallible magistrium, the authority to compile your bible. So you yourself have identified and accepted the “faith source” of its equal.

Umm…by saying “The Church made the bible” I hope you are not saying the source of the Bible is the church. II Timothy 3:16 indicates the source of Scripture is God, unless you don’t believe the Bible is the Word of God.

God did give the Universal Church of that time the assignment of determining which books belonged in the Bible; and He gave the Universal Church of that time period the grace to be correct in its assessment. But again, all this really clearly illustrates that the magisterium of the Universal Church was capable of being correct. I do not disagree with that.

Finally, it’s not up to us, as Roman Catholics, to prove that Sola Scriptura is a fallacy, even though several people in this forum have done just that. The bible is our book, you showed up to the party 1500 years too late. So it’s up to you to prove Sola Scriptura is proper Christian theology: which you can’t.

Actually I agree with you here (although the statement you showed up to the party 1500 years too late is a tad polemic and really not necessary). The burden of proof always rests upon the one making the assertion. If I make a claim of “Sola Scriptura” to you, first I have to define the term, then I have to prove it to you.

At the same time, if you assert to me that your interpretation of tradtion and your magisterium is equal to the Bible in authority, the burden of proof is upon you.

My only point in this, is that if all claims of equivalency to the Bible (whether they be your claims, the book of Mormon, etc.) are not proved, you end up with Sola Scriptura by default.

I also find it interesting that you continue you refer to Roman Catholicism as a denomination, which historically speaking it is not. This is not a point of theological debate—it’s historical fact, and one that you refuse to accept. If you are going to continue to not allow the facts to interfere with your opinion, I don’t see why you continue to debate on this forum.

…and I am very deliberate in doing so…as well as using the term “universal church” for the time period in which the church was not divided upon itself.

again the dictionnary please…

4 : a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices

The fact is that today Christians are distributed amongst many religious organizations whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices…the RC religious organization being one of them.

Your assertion only works if the true relationship here is “One True Church”–> “Heretic Church”. But if that is your assertion, the burden of proof rests upon you to demonstrate this, and I am very skeptical that you can (or I have not read anything yet that proves this relationship is true).

(And even if that were the relationship, theoretically you would still have the RC denomination and the Orthodox denomination, but at that point it is not my dog)

 

[hoosierdaddy]

We are now making some real good progress and many of us probably agree with you my brother as you wrote “Something doesn’t have to be explicitly spelled out in Scripture…The implicit concept can be there”. There is hope for a semblance of unity at least, Praise God! Where we disagree is who deals best with those things found implicit in SS, (Sacred Scripture). The Church established on the Rock, Peter, to whom Jesus gave the “Keys of the Kingdom” along with the authority to “Bind and Loose” takes a broader view and trusts the whole Body, while the protestants, thinking the Holy Spirit will lead each and every single individual believer onto the correct path with out any other help, take the narrower view and leaves it up to the individual. If that were really true, tell me why there are now about 40K Christian denominations, not including the non-denomination denominations, all using the same Bible as their sole guide/map?) But further discussion of that is also best discussed in a different thread. That comes from your taking the position of Sola Scriptura. Insistance that all there is to know is found written in scripture causes that. As long as you hold fast to that notion you will be challenged to back it up with an explicit not implicit quote therefrom. But our reading of the last verse of the Gospel of John tells us there is more of what Jesus taught than what is formally written in the NT.

I appologize to you for their unchristian behavior but remember all churches are composed of sinners, and every one has it’s 10% club of knuckleheads. I hope all of us in this thread believe that many Catholics don’t know and value SS highly enough, while many protestants believe we don’t know or value it at all. My motto in life is somewhere in the middle, (never the center) lies the truth, (which comes from 33 years of law enforcement).

Hey Mike, I hear what you’re saying. You make a strong case with the thousands of Protestant denominations. I like the fact that the Catholic church is one church. But the fact that they have some teachings I just cannot accept makes me a “militant Protestant” I guess. Even if I converted, I would not fit in. God has cursed me with the ability to see things from both sides. lol I don’t even quite fit in at my baptist church.

Hey that’s cool that you are in law enforcement. Some days I want to be a police officer. Some nights (like last) I think, what am I thinking? haha God bless you and your family.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

The authority lies in the Scripture, not the interpreter or interpretation, it is about Truth.

Insignificant:

So *your *interpretation of Scripture is NOT interpretation? Do these words enforce orthodoxy??? What about the contradictions???

The long and short endings to one of the Gospels???

The word and phrase and section variance among the different manuscripts of the various NT books???

Whose Scripture??? Mormons?? JWs??? 7th Day Adventists?? Martin Luther’s???

Do you see a trend here? Everyone AFTER the so-called Reformation knows what Scripture is really saying! See the irony in this?? The hypocrisy??

 

[Randy_Carson]

If I am THOUROUGHLY equipped for EVERY good work? What work am I not thouroughly equipped for??? If I have what I need for every good work, what else do i need?

Training.

Kaycee, if you were to go into the army and were given all the equipment you need in order to fight a war - machine gun, hand grenades, radio, maps, compass, rocket launchers, whatever - would you know how to use all that equipment?

And suppose you spent some time off by yourself figuring out how to use all that equipment without the instruction from a drill sargeant or weapons instructor - are you THEN equipped to fight?

Wouldn’t it be wise to learn a little bit about military strategy and tactics before heading into battle? Would it be a good idea to learn something about your enemy’s strategies and tactics before facing live fire? Perhaps studying the military campaigns of Napolean or Ghengis Khan or Robert E. Lee would be helpful, yes?

So, I think you can be “thoroughly equipped” with your boots and your helmet and your rifle and your radio, etc. and still be clueless as to how to actually win the battle.

It is Spiritual Warfare, isn’t it?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hey Mike, I hear what you’re saying. You make a strong case with the thousands of Protestant denominations. I like the fact that the Catholic church is one church. But the fact that they have some teachings I just cannot accept makes me a “militant Protestant” I guess.

Hoosier-

This sounds great. Perhaps taking a closer look at the teaching which trouble you would help.

If you would suggest a subject and the issues about it that you have the hardest time with, we could start a new thread on that one topic and work through it together.

What bugs you the most?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Actually you raise an interesting point on “burden of proof”.

In debate, the one making the claim has the “burden of proof”.

John Wesley was a non Catholic. To us non Catholics, the RC denomination at first glance appears to be just that, another Christian denomination with its distinct ecclesiastical organization and its distinct doctrine.

Therefore, if you want to make the claim to us that you are the “one true church” and that we are following heresy, you have the burden of proof in that case. Otherwise, we will just stay where we are thank you.

Similarly, if we want to claim to you that you are wrong and we are correct, the burden of proof rests upon us to prove our claims.

Therefore the burden of proof was not upon John Wesley, unless he was making specific charges against the RC denomination. And if you examine his life (see letter to a Catholic) you will actually find he was quite an ecumenical guy, so it was doubtful he was.

As far as the topic of this thread, if I want to claim to you that the Bible teaches it is the sole authority, the burden of proof rests upon me. Now here we immediately have a problem, because the best I can make is an implicit argument. An implicit argument is one that can not be proved, only believed.

Besides, you have three other problems that if you are not really careful you can trip over (1) first of all “sola scriptura” is just a title. Definition please. (2) if the Bible teaches this, how did it apply in the time period after the death of Christ to the point in time the canon was recognized. Remember, Biblical principles are universal and independent of time (3) Unless you want to make the argument the rules suddenly changed the day the canon was recognized.

However, if you (or anyone) wants to claim to me their faith source du jour is equivalent to the Bible (given the assumption I recognize it to be the inerrant word of God), the burden of proof is upon you (or whomever) to prove the case. If nobody proves their case, what you end up with is a type of sola scriptura by default anyway.

That’s just how burden of proof operates.

Mozart-

The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles he selected before His death, resurrection and ascension. Jesus did not leave us a book; he left us living men who were witnesses to all He said and did. The Catholic Church is one and the same with that of Peter, Paul, John and James, and she has not moved from Her position one fraction of an inch in 2,000 years.

Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Hus and others came along 1500 years later and suggested that the Catholic Church had it all wrong. I suggest that the burden of proof is upon their followers to prove why this is the case.

Protestants claim that the Bible Alone is the “sole infallible rule of faith”. This is a theological novelty that conflicts with what the orginal Church of Jesus Christ has always taught. I opened this thread by stating that the Bible does not teach this doctrine and consequently it is self-refuting. I’m not interested in winning debates, I’m out to win souls. Once I have shown that one of the pillars of the so-called “Reformation” is false, then we can begin to move back to true Christianity.

I opened the thread with a simple statement of fact: the bible itself does not teach sola scriptura; therefore, it is a self-refuting doctrine. If you cannot find this doctrine within the pages of scripture, then you have accepted it from somewhere else. FROM MEN.

Unless you can prove otherwise, you are saddled with clinging to a "tradition of men’ that Jesus condemned so strongly. We could argue forever as to who must prove what. We don’t have that much time. Life is short and eternity beckons.

You have accepted the doctrine of sola scriptura not because the Bible itself tells you to do so, but because men who separated themselves from the Church of Christ long ago have told you that you must do so. This is flimsy at best.

If my assertion is correct, then these false teachers are wrong. It would be wise to consider where else they have misled you.

Sola Scriptura and sola fide are not the sure guides that Protestants make them out to be; they are guides, to be sure, but they lead people astray. Once they have been rejected, then holding out against the Catholic Church becomes pointless; the real reasons for the “Reformation” have long since faded into history.

It’s time to come home.

 

[tassitus]

I accept that the magisterium of the universal church (prior to the point where the church divided upon itself) was capable of being correct. For that matter the magisterium of the Roman Catholic denomination today is capable of being correct (Jack Chick notwithstanding). I do not accept that either is incapable of being wrong.
…
But again, all this really clearly illustrates that the magisterium of the Universal Church was capable of being correct.

Ah. But how can you **KNOW **the magisterium of the Universal [sic] Church got it right? If the Church of the fourth century was not, in fact, protected from error on this matter… how can we be assured that when we open our bibles that we are reading the true word of God? And if the fourth century Church was protected from error in this particular matter, what follows?

“Capable of being correct” leaves an awful lot of wiggle room, if you ask me. My 3-year-old can spell a certain word correctly every time, and is therefore “capable of being correct” but only a fool would think she knows what she’s doing (and you wouldn’t believe the word she can spell - yikes!).

Sorry, but that expression - “Universal Church” - is it really necessary? Seems a bit too close to the *Universal Life Church *or something similar, and it’s starting to wear on me… Don’t you think if we’re talking about the Church “prior to the point where the church divided upon itself” we can go ahead and acknowledge we’re talking about the “catholic church”?

Peace all.

 

[mozart-250]

Mozart-

The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles he selected before His death, resurrection and ascension. Jesus did not leave us a book; he left us living men who were witnesses to all He said and did. The Catholic Church is one and the same with that of Peter, Paul, John and James, and she has not moved from Her position one fraction of an inch in 2,000 years.

The final sentence is debatable. Some RC dogma (see assumption of Mary) leaves me scratching my head as to how that is either Biblical or apostolic. But that is another thread.

Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Hus and others came along 1500 years later and suggested that the Catholic Church had it all wrong. I suggest that the burden of proof is upon their followers to prove why this is the case.

Again, I am not a follower of the names above. I am a follower of Jesus Christ.

The influences on my life are not men 500 years ago. They are the leaders and elders of the church I attend. You might be surprised to learn that when they refer to the Catholic church at all the references are positive. In general we don’t fret about other denominations. We have a community, county, and world to win for Jesus Christ.

Protestants claim that the Bible Alone is the “sole infallible rule of faith”. This is a theological novelty that conflicts with what the orginal Church of Jesus Christ has always taught. I opened this thread by stating that the Bible does not teach this doctrine and consequently it is self-refuting. I’m not interested in winning debates, I’m out to win souls. Once I have shown that one of the pillars of the so-called “Reformation” is false, then we can begin to move back to true Christianity.

I thank you for the concern for my soul, but it is quite saved through the cross of Jesus Christ thank you.

I must be a poor communicator or something, but I believe I have never in this thread argued “Bible Alone” on theological grounds. That is quite deliberate, because it is one of the many theologies out there in both CatholicLand and ProtestantLand that is difficult if not impossible to either prove or to falsify.

At the same time, your assertions that your magisterium and interpretation of Scripture are equivalent to the Bible are also unproven either way.

Sola Scriptura and sola fide are not the sure guides that Protestants make them out to be; they are guides, to be sure, but they lead people astray. Once they have been rejected, then holding out against the Catholic Church becomes pointless; the real reasons for the “Reformation” have long since faded into history.

It’s time to come home.

I am not where I am because I am in some great rebellion against the RC denomination. I am where I am because I was not born Catholic and the group responsible for my conversion was not Catholic.

I am not one of these Christians that changes denominations/churches at a whim of a hat, however.

I do have issues when some of you approach me with the implication that the relationship here is “One True Church”—>“Heretic”. When that is the sales pitch I tend to resist, ask stupid questions, look for logical holes, and demand proof. I have observed you exhibit the same behaviour when non-Catholics (see CARM) treat you as non-Christians.

On that score, you have been long on polemics and short on proof.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Again, I am not a follower of the names above. I am a follower of Jesus Christ.

Is one truely a follower of Jesus Christ?

Patrick Madrid once said this in his Sola Scriptura debate against James White: (paraphrased, but the context is still the same )

“On any given question of Doctrine or belief a Catholic, if he knows better will look to Jesus first to see what He said on the subject, whereas a Protestant will look to Paul first to see what he said on the subject and then try to shoe horn what Jesus said to fit what Paul said”

After a year of debating Protestants, I can honestly say that this is 99% of the time very true.

Again, I am not a follower of the names above. I am a follower of Jesus Christ.

Do you follow the teachings of Jesus Christ or do you follow the teachings of Paul?

 

[mozart-250]

Ah. But how can you **KNOW **the magisterium of the Universal [sic] Church got it right? If the Church of the fourth century was not, in fact, protected from error on this matter… how can we be assured that when we open our bibles that we are reading the true word of God? And if the fourth century Church was protected from error in this particular matter, what follows?

There are some issues of faith that are less a function of knowledge and more a function of belief. This is one of them.

If I demanded everything be logically proved before I believe, I would still be agnostic.

Besides, this issue is of importance enough that it seems reasonable to believe that God would make sure that in this case they get it right.

“Capable of being correct” leaves an awful lot of wiggle room, if you ask me. My 3-year-old can spell a certain word correctly every time, and is therefore “capable of being correct” but only a fool would think she knows what she’s doing (and you wouldn’t believe the word she can spell - yikes!).

Understood. But also subject matter experts are also only “capable of being correct” in relationship to their field. That does not mean that it is not wise to trust the experts, particularly when they are in universal agreement.

Sorry, but that expression - “Universal Church” - is it really necessary? Seems a bit too close to the *Universal Life Church *or something similar, and it’s starting to wear on me… Don’t you think if we’re talking about the Church “prior to the point where the church divided upon itself” we can go ahead and acknowledge we’re talking about the “catholic church”?

Peace all.

Understood. I could use the term Catholic Church if it is well understood and agreed upon that just because ECF X refers to his church as “Catholic” does not mean that ECF X would necessarily favour the RC denomination today above all other denominations were he magically beamed back to earth from heaven.

Sheesh…I doubt John Wesley would automatically favour the Methodist denomination of today were he magically beamed back.

 

[Krebsbach]

Hi rRandy,

A lot of water over the dam but I’ll jump in anyway…

One of the foundational beliefs of Protestantism is the doctrine of “sola scriptura” or “scripture alone” - which alleges that the Bible - as interpreted by the individual believer - is the only source of religious authority and is the Christian’s sole rule of faith or criterion regarding what is to be believed.

Some Protestant folks define SS this way, but intelligent ones retain the classical understanding of Scripture as the sole infallible authority. This allows one to consult other authorities (tradition, reason, etc.) and follow them insofar as they are consistent with what is plainly taught in scripture.

The challenge for Protestants who cling to this false teaching is to answer the question: Where does the Bible teach sola scriptura?

‘snot necessary that there be an explicit teaching of it, and we know that there are plenty of verses that suggest or hint at it. And if anyone wants an exhaustive treatment of the scriptural arguments pro and con, see Bob Sungenis’ book Not by Scripture Alone.

But here’s the point: A protestant will cling to his faith in Scripture as the sole infallible authority not only because he perceives a scriptural basis for it (however weak it may be), but also (and primarily) because it is obvious to him that the Church hath erred and proved herself fallible. There being no other real candidates for infallible authority, the Bible is it.

kordially,

Karl

 

[JoeyWarren]

But here’s the point: A protestant will cling to his faith in Scripture as the sole infallible authority not only because he perceives a scriptural basis for it (however weak it may be), but also (and primarily) because it is obvious to him that the Church hath erred and proved herself fallible. There being no other real candidates for infallible authority, the Bible is it.

In a nutshell!

 

[kaycee]

Training.

Kaycee, if you were to go into the army and were given all the equipment you need in order to fight a war - machine gun, hand grenades, radio, maps, compass, rocket launchers, whatever - would you know how to use all that equipment?

And suppose you spent some time off by yourself figuring out how to use all that equipment without the instruction from a drill sargeant or weapons instructor - are you THEN equipped to fight?

Wouldn’t it be wise to learn a little bit about military strategy and tactics before heading into battle? Would it be a good idea to learn something about your enemy’s strategies and tactics before facing live fire? Perhaps studying the military campaigns of Napolean or Ghengis Khan or Robert E. Lee would be helpful, yes?

So, I think you can be “thoroughly equipped” with your boots and your helmet and your rifle and your radio, etc. and still be clueless as to how to actually win the battle.

It is Spiritual Warfare, isn’t it?

As My Lord would say, “It Is Written”

2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for **teaching, rebuking, correcting and training **in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work

 

[kaycee]

Training.

Kaycee, if you were to go into the army and were given all the equipment you need in order to fight a war - machine gun, hand grenades, radio, maps, compass, rocket launchers, whatever - would you know how to use all that equipment?

And suppose you spent some time off by yourself figuring out how to use all that equipment without the instruction from a drill sargeant or weapons instructor - are you THEN equipped to fight?

Wouldn’t it be wise to learn a little bit about military strategy and tactics before heading into battle? Would it be a good idea to learn something about your enemy’s strategies and tactics before facing live fire? Perhaps studying the military campaigns of Napolean or Ghengis Khan or Robert E. Lee would be helpful, yes?

So, I think you can be “thoroughly equipped” with your boots and your helmet and your rifle and your radio, etc. and still be clueless as to how to actually win the battle.

It is Spiritual Warfare, isn’t it?

As My Lord would say, “It Is Written”

2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for **teaching, rebuking, correcting and training **in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Is one truely a follower of Jesus Christ?

Yes.

Patrick Madrid once said this in his Sola Scriptura debate against James White: (paraphrased, but the context is still the same )

After a year of debating Protestants, I can honestly say that this is 99% of the time very true.

**And Protestants could say that 99% of the time Catholics follow the teachings of various popes instead of following the teachings of Jesus Christ. With all due respect, I believe many of those teachings differ from Christ’s teachings. **

Do you follow the teachings of Jesus Christ or do you follow the teachings of Paul?

Both are one and the same. The teachings of Paul were given to him by Jesus Christ Himself. He then gave them to us. When Jesus was on the earth He was speaking to and teaching the Jewish nation based on the Old Testament. At the proper time, Jesus called Paul and told him what to teach to the Gentiles. Paul even said “Follow me as I follow Christ”. As we follow the teachings of Paul we are following Christ. I hope this helped some.

 

[Philthy]

The Gospel was first Oral then written down by the 4 Gospel writers. The message was the same. your point?

One point would be that not only is this not stated in the Gospels, but the actual Gospels differ in content - therefore the message was not exactly “the same” as you claim.

Originally Posted by JoeyWarren forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Luke 1:1-4 - Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they “realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.” Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received.
kaycees response:

YES! The implication being without the written word there is less certainty!

Unfortunately, kaycee, if you stop and actually think about it, we have no reason to accept the writings of Luke as authoritatively inspired by God simply because he “wrote them down”. Lots of people have written lots of things down as inspired by God. Does it even make sense that God used a non-apostle to write his inspired Scripture when he had the others still around does it? How would anyone recognize it as unquestionably inspired and inerrant?
Notice how such questioning inevitably leads you back to the necessity of an visible, recognizable authority to validate Sacred Scripture.

kaycee:

There is no difference in the message oral or written!

How can you possibly make this claim without FIRST knowing what the oral message was??? How will you infallibly determine this? Let me guess: you will recognize the need for this to be true, but absent any actual oral message you will rely on your current understanding of the message of Scipture and substitute that as the oral message. Correct?

 

[mozart-250]

Do you follow the teachings of Jesus Christ or do you follow the teachings of Paul?

You mean Jesus and Paul are contradictory? The structure of this sentence with the word “or” strongly implies that.

 

[JoeyWarren]

As My Lord would say, “It Is Written”

2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for **teaching, rebuking, correcting and training **in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work

It is written indeed.

2 Tim 3:16 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.

The key word is “MAY BE” not a guarantee.

Profitable/Useful

Peter issues a warning

2 Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

In the hands of the ignorant and unstable…

Is it a coincidence that both scriptures are the second book, the third chapter, and sixteenth verse?

 

[Insignificant]

My interpretation is very much so interpretation, hence why i don’t speak with authority and immediately condemn those who disagree with me. My point that it was about truth is that our doctrine is about truth, or the fact that truth can only be found in the Bible. You see the main dispute here i know isn’t whether scripture is authoritative or not, but whether the church is or not. I find not reason to believe the apostolic line remains, and until i am convinced of it or God re-establishes it, I will give authority to no one except God.