2 Timothy 3 - (The one you’ve been waiting for.)thoroughly = “artios” and means “perfect or perfectly”; could be written like this "may be perfectly equipped for every good work which God has purposed in the life of the believer"
Tanner-
Despite your large, colorful fonts, you have failed to provide a verse that specifically states that the Bible Alone is the sole rule of faith for the believer.
I agree…the man who has the scriptures may be thoroughly equipped - as a final component or just one of many components, but the passage does not say that the man who has the scripures ALONE is thoroughly equipped.
The
artios argument was dealt with long ago…here is Patrick Madrid on the subject:
In one of my public debates on
sola scriptura,7 a Protestant apologist attempted to make his case for the formal sufficiency of Scripture by using an analogy of a bike shop. He argued that just as the bike shop contains all the necessary accouterments for bike riding and can fully equip a bike rider, so too Scripture is sufficient to “fully equip” the man of God. Unfortunately for his case, this analogy, although superficially plausible, is faulty. The bike shop may provide all the necessary equipment, but the customer must first know how to ride a bike to make use of that equipment. This is analogous to the Christian knowing how to correctly use Scripture. Bike shops can certainly equip their customer with all the necessary paraphernalia, but don’t teach him how to ride.
My debate opponent tried to get around this by countering that 2 Timothy 3:17 says that the “man of God” is made fully equipped by Scripture, so there is no question that he’ll know how to use Scripture correctly. But the problem with this argument is that it provides no sure way to determine who is a “man of God” and who isn’t. Protestantism is so divided over central doctrinal issues (e.g. infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, the nature of justification, salvation, divorce and remarriage, etc.), that this “man of God” argument only begs the question. Protestants believe that they’ve embraced the “correct” interpretation of Scripture, but doing so includes the implicit assertion that all the other denominations don’t have the correct interpretation on all things. If they did, why the need for denominations? The
answer to the Protestant claims of formal sufficiency in this passage is that Paul is not trying to establish Scripture as the
sole, sufficient thing that renders the man of God fit for these tasks. Rather, he is reminding Timothy of several things that,
combined with God’s grace and Timothy’s faithful diligence, will make him so equipped.
There’s also the lexical argument based on the Greek of 2 Timothy which argues that because Scripture will make the man of God “” (suitable) and “” (thoroughly furnished), it therefore is sufficient. But this argument fails for several reasons.
First, with regard to what Scripture says about itself, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 merely says that Scripture is , which means “useful” or “profitable.” Paul’s use of the Greek terms (“suitable” or “correct”) and (“having been furnished”) does not imply the sufficiency of Scripture, on purely lexical grounds. Although some Greek scholars note that and could mean sufficient, we must do our best to understand their actual meaning based on the context of the passage. A telling fact is that no major Bible translation, not even those produced by the most ardent supporters of
sola scriptura, renders either or “sufficient.” Furthermore, the “sufficiency” hermeneutic Protestants use in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 fails when applied to similar passages.
For example, in 2 Timothy 2:19-21, Paul exhorts Timothy to cleanse himself from all that is not holy and virtuous, saying that doing so will make him “ready for every good work” (v.21). The exact same Greek phrase is used here as in 2 Timothy 3:16: (“for every good work”). Under the “sufficiency” hermeneutic used by Protestants to defend
sola scriptura in 2 Timothy 3:16, Paul would here be made to say that one’s personal efforts to become purified from sin are “sufficient.” But this is an absurd conclusion.
We can see the same absurdity in the Protestant argument arise when it’s applied to James 1:4: “And let [your] perseverance be perfect (), so that you may be perfect () and complete (), lacking in nothing ().” This passage uses far stronger language than that found in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and goes far beyond the mere implication of sufficiency Protestants want to see in this verse, by the explicit statement that perseverance will make you “perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.” If any verse in the Bible could be used to argue for “sufficiency” James 1:4 would be it. Under the hermeneutic employed by the proponents of
sola scriptura, in this passage James would be saying that all one needs is perseverance (the context is perseverance in suffering and good works!). This would mean that mere perseverance is sufficient, and such things as faith, grace, prayer, repentance, even Scripture, are unnecessary. Again, an absurd proposition, but that’s what this form of Protestant argumentation leads to, not only here in James 1:4, but also in 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
from: ***
Sola Scriptura: A Blueprint for Anarchy*
by Patrick Madrid
ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/SOLASCRI.TXT
it is funny!!!
, Lutherans too (at least Luther and Lutheran Theology) maintan(ed) that 1 can forfeit their salvation but truly have been regenerate. As mentioned by Hank Hanegraaff on tye debate White vs. Akin, there are straw men on both sides. I’m not accusing the Catholics in this thread of doing that, but I believe that I have seen some “straw men” on this forum. I’ve seen some “straw men” torn down by Protestants too. One falsehood indeed would be that all Protestants believe in OSAS, or Perseverance of the Saints. As WASP said, there is a disagreement among Protestants, and there are some out there who vehemently oppose it rather than just “agree to disagree.”
