Well brother ppasa316 while Paul’s letter to Timothy was speaking about Old Testament Scripture (since no NT or bible will be in existence for another 350 years) and explaining that it was profitable he did not mean that even the OT scripture stands alone to interpret itself. In fact JUST BEFORE this verse Paul tells us that we should follow traditions. And the traditions at the time were Judaic Oral traditions to interpret scripture called the Mishnah. The other new traditions were the Catholic tradition of orally professing the gospel and in the absence of an apostle having a disciple of an apostle TEACH what was being said. No one read this stuff in the early church since nothing in the NT was written down right away.
By the way 2 Tim 3:15 since it is talking about the OT proves that one can come to faith in Jesus WITHOUT the New Testament. Isn’t the power of The Risen Lord wonderful?
Also note in 2 Tim. 3:16 - this verse says that Scripture is “profitable” for every good work, but it DOES NOT SAY it is exclusive. The word “profitable” (“ophelimos” in the Greek) means useful.
This just underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. So your proof text proves you wrong. So far your batting average is not boding well for a claim on infallability…
Further, in 22 Tim. 3:16, the verse “all Scripture” uses the words “pasa graphe” which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of “pasa graphe” would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. .
This would mean Christians could not only use “sola Matthew,” or “sola Mark,” but could rely on any one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God’s word. This, of course, is not true and even most rational Protestants would agree. Also, “pasa graphe” cannot mean “all of Scripture” because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless Protestants argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul. You can’t have it both ways - either the NT existed or it did not. Either “all of scripture” refers to the Christian bible or it does not. Thus its is clear that this is OT since the NT does NOT exist - there is no Christian bible yet. And Paul is NOT prophesizing to Timothy that there is going to be a NT written and a new Christian bible.
Now look at 2 Tim. 3:17. Paul’s use of the word “complete” for every good work is “artios” which simply means the clergy is “suitable” or “fit.”
Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.
James 1:4 - steadfastness also makes a man “perfect (teleioi) and complete (holoklepoi), lacking nothing.” This verse is important because "teleioi"and “holoklepoi” are much stronger words than “artios,” but Protestants do not argue that steadfastness is all one needs to be a Christian.
Titus 3:8 - good deeds are also “profitable” to men. For Protestants especially, profitable cannot mean “exclusive” here.
2 Tim 2:21- purity is also profitable for “any good work” (“pan ergon agathon”). This wording is the same as 2 Tim. 3:17, which shows that the Scriptures are not exclusive, and that other things (good deeds and purity) are also profitable to men.
Col. 4:12 - prayer also makes men “fully assured.” No where does Scripture say the Christian faith is based solely on a book.
Back to - 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Finally,
if these verses really mean that Paul was teaching sola Scriptura to the early Church, then why in 1 Thess. 2:13 does Paul teach that he is giving Revelation from God orally? Either Paul is contradicting his own teaching on sola Scriptura, or Paul was not teaching sola Scriptura in 2 Tim. 3:16-17. This is a critical point which Protestants cannot reconcile with their sola Scriptura position.
Obviously Paul is NOT teaching sola scriptura but is TEACHING that the clergy must teach through ORAL TRADITION. Ergo - Sola Scruptura is a false doctrine no matter how much you want to believe it. Ergo - Protestantism is a religion built on sand and is a complete lie.
Isn’t it amazing how your proof text ironically does prove something - it proves outright that Protestantism is based on a lie - a myth - mere teaching error of man.
Contact your local Catholic Church for how to get received into the Catholic Church and start learning the truth.
James
and :clapping: on your last two posts. Thank you…and guanophore, and others besides me, that have kept their cool in dialogue with Seeking. Very well articulated debate on your end.
