The original question to which this part is about is "Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures, and Protestants generally ignore this fact".
So what if an appeal was made to remember older parts of God's word? How exactly is this a weakening of the use of scripture only in matters pertaining to the direction of numbers of fellow believers.
It does indeed validate it. For, who would have made religious policies which were not based on the the law of Moses and the customs of the Israelites. The Jewish scribes, lawyers? Not hardly.
If you want to talk tradition, the tradition was against making up scriptural directives.
So, this should take care of the "apostolic tradition" objection to 2Timothy 3:16.
An additional note here: As regarding the use of the word "profitable". I don't think the writers of these letters parsed each word like a lawyer to put precisely the right technical term in the right place.
If you were able to ask Paul about it, he would "Yes, profitable. Ah, meanest thou exclusive? Of certain, else how cometh thou upon sound doctrine, each able to put and remove as they list?
Who said the New Teatament is not the word of God? The Catohlics do not teach that. The point you need to address is that the scripture in view in 2 Tim. 2:6 is the Old Testament alone. The New Testament had not been written, and Paul taught Timothy orally, yet Timothy turned out Christian.
Then, if Catholics teach the New testament is the word of God, how do they consider councils of men the word of God, equal with the scriptures, and must be presumed to write scripture? And what sins were upon these men, such that they leaveneth the whole lump?
Are you seriously saying that the Gospels of Jesus had not be written down at this time? And so what if the teaching was oral? How does oral teaching be presumed to depart from the Gospels as written now? Does that mean that anyone who has a "revelation" can proclaim it and make it the word of God?
I think I dealt with the Old Testament point above.
I don't know. The scripture does not say either way about Timothy's parents.
Neither does the Scripture say that one is to pray to dead people, saints according to that same council of men or not.
Repeating myself: No one claims this passage speaks directly for Church authority (Mt 18 does). The challenge to you is to show that Timothy 3 validates Sola Scriptura. Part of the superstition of Sola Scriptura is that it is sufficient for a Christian. But if 2 Tim. 3:16 teaches sufficiency of the scripture, and from verse 15 it is clear that the scripture verse 16 is talking about is the Old Testament, then 2. Tim 3:16 really teaches that the Old Testament is sufficient without the new
It is up to you to show that, scripturally, that the scripture can be supplemented by concepts that are found therein. For yours is the action, and it must be validated for those customs that relate to man's relationship with God, which prayer certainly is.
If the scriptures are silent, so should you be.
No it is the other way around. The Church determined what the inspired scriptures are, so historically at least the scripture had to wait for the Church to gain authority. It is not true that the scripture does not cite the Church's authority, Mt. 18 does that, along with some other verses.
And if the church is wrong on inspired scriptures, but retained questionable scripture for it's own purposes? There is no church, but many churches according to grouping in diverse places, travel being slow in those days.
I see nothing in Matthew that cites authority to a central church, of which the other churches are satellites.
The argument here is 2 Timothy and Sola Scriptura. But since you ask, and I repeat myself, St. Peter himself was not free from corruption, yet Christ founded His Church on him (Mt 16). Peter's successors were likewise not free from sin. Apparently that was God's will.
The argument here is the trustworthiness of mere men ,centuries after the teaching of Christ, to enact customs for the practice of the worldwide body of Christ that are not found well, or even at all, grounded int he scriptures.
I explained this misinterpretation of the "rock" imagination here
As was mentioned several time when talking about bad people in the good congregation, Paul said, "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump."
t means, like every inspired scripture, what is says: that the scripture is profitable. The word "profit" means adding on to something else. This verse does not say the scripture is sufficient, or exclusive of tradition, or exclusive of the teaching authority of the Church, just like Catholicism explains.
I keep dealing with this over and over. If you are going to make extra-scriptual practices, especially those that concern the relationship of the individual with God, you had better have scripture that clearly allow you that latitude.
You do not.
... Luther said. So? Is Luther's authority in the Bible? If 2 Tim 3:16 affirms Sola Scriptura, than it affirms that the Deuterocanon is part of the Sacred Writ, because 2 Tim. 3:16 sayd "all scripture", and the Deuterocanon as part of the Septuagint, was what Timothy knew "from his infancy".
The Catholic church councils said. So? All men. I'd say the less scripture, limited to what was sure and true and clearly agrees with the Gospels as taught, is the way. All other ways are suspect. Paul said this a number of times in different ways.
The Septuagint dealt with the Old Testament. Find me an Israelite that would condone extra-scriptual demands on the Israelite people. We deal with the writing after the teaching of Christ and His walk on the Earth.
What you tell us is "Man of God" hurts your feelings. How about addressing the argument? Timothy was consecrated as bishop and the letter contains instructions on what kind of priests, and deacons Timothy is to ordain. The letter is addressed personally to Timothy. The reference to the profitability of the scripture is qualified by this "man of God". Deal with it. That's scripture.
I don't understand you. Hurts my feelings? Here is what I said.
"Individuals are sons of God, individuals with a mustard seed of faith can move mountains to the sea, individuals pray, only two are needed to call Christ's presence, God spoke to individuals, individuals choose to follow God's law or stray, individuals go to Heaven or Hell."
"In the Bible as a whole we focus on individuals, and only on groups as they are composed of individuals."
"No corporations or artificial persons, like any, but especially, the Catholic church."
"What is a "layman" in terms related to the faith and belief in Jesus Christ and the Gospels? They are there to learn by anyone who can read. Are "priests" the only one who professional God-things? I don't think so."
"How arrogant such a notion that an individual is a "layman" with respect to Christ."
"The man of God is any individual that has brought Christ into his heart and proceeds on faith and belief. An individual , not an artificial entity. "
That Timothy was made a bishop of a church. So what? This has nothing to do with the authority of the Catholic church to make practices, like prayers to dead people, that are found nowhere in the scriptures.
Your task is to show how Sola Scriptura is supported by the Scripture. If the Sola Scriptura suprstition were true, then James 1:4 would be sufficient for us to prove that patience is all that one needs to be a Christian; or conversely, that Tim 3:17 does not teach that the knowledge of the scripture is all that one needs to be a Christian. Your pick. You cannot follow Sola Scriptura when you feel like it and not follow it when you don't feel like it.
I said faith and belief are all that one needs to be a Christian. Faith and belief in the Christ come from the Gospels, which are clearly written. It is up to you to show how departure from the scriptures is permitted, when there are numerous admonitions against such departures.
If you are going to say that the scriptures can departed from, then you must condone any departure by anyone. This is dangerous, and arrogant.
Correct, good works are not exclusively profitable for Christian perfection. Titus 3:8 says that good works are profitable and Timothy 3:16 says the knowledge of the scripture is profitable. From these two verses together we learn that both good works and the knowledge of scripture are profitable, and the knowledge os scripture is not exclusive to Christian formation. (The irony here is that Protestants are more accustomed to the erroneous thinking that faith -- not works -- is exclusively necessary for salvation).
I said, which you edited,"Good works not exclusive? So it can include bad works? What is the ratio of bad works to good works necessary?"
James said that faith without works are dead. There's that word "profitable" again. I discussed lawyerlike parsing the scriptures above.
I'm sure Tabitha would disagree with you.
This scripture makes a reference to prayer -- not scirpture -- having to do with man's perfection, while 2 Tim 3:17 speaks of the scripture in the same way. This shows, scripturally, that while the scripture contributes to the perfection of man (man of God, anyway), so does prayer of others.
The point of this part was that prayer, and the rest of the teachings, are for individuals and each one's salvation. There is nothing to do with a all powerful Catholic church, which has the power the edit scripture and command the faith of millions of those individuals.
Therefore, all we have for trustworthy truth is the written scriptures. The rest come from men, and men are full of error by nature.
Where does the scripture say so? The challenge to you is to prove Sola Scriptura from scripture, because Sola Scripture says that everything we need to know for the formatin of the faith is written down in the scripture (less Luter's redactions). You are failing the challenge.
This, in answer to, "Holy scripture is the only thing that can assure us we are not straying."
Where does the scripture say that it prevents us from straying? 2000 years after the fact, it is commonsense.
Actually, the challenge to you is to point out, where does the scripture explicitly, or implicitly, give a corporation permission to make it up? The reverse is understood. All excerpt Catholics, of course, who will follow a leader to perdition without question.