In context, 2 Timothy is refering to the writings that Timothy read as a youth. That would be the Old Testament, wouldn't you agree?
Here is what Barnes writes about this verse:
"All Scripture. This properly refers to the Old Testament, and should not be applied to any part of the New Testament, unless it can be shown that that part was then written, and was included under the general name of the Scriptures. Comp. 2Pet 3:15,16. But it includes the whole of the Old Testament, and is the solemn testimony of Paul that it was all inspired. If now it can be proved that Paul himself was an inspired man, this settles the question as to the inspiration of the Old Testament."
The Lexicons that I have read on the word "Scripture" also doesn't necessarily mean as you imply. Thayer's Lexicon lists the following meanings of the Greek word:
1) a writing, thing written
2) the Scripture, used to denote either the book itself, or its contents
3) a certain portion or section of the Holy Scripture
Thus, it isn't necessary to say that Peter thought that Paul's writings were on par with the Old Testament. That, to me, is anachronistic thinking.
The meaning of my writing is that the Church recognizes God's inspired Word because the written word is in compliance with the oral word already taught. The community recognizes the inspiration and calls it "Holy" and so forth.
I believe the Holy Spirit leads all believers, including the first Christians after the Apostles. However, it is clear that not everyone gets everything at the exact same time, and in the same amounts. Sanctification is tailored by the Spirit to the individual. The Spirit leads no one "astray", but we humans still make mistakes.
We aren't speaking of sanctification. I would agree with your points if we were. We are speaking of how we can know the truth. God has given us a pillar and foundation for knowing the truth, and it is not our own minds "interpreting" what the "spirit" tells us. Such an idea disagrees with Protestant anthropology of the totally corrupt man who cannot think of anything good.
the NT scripture was still obviously being taught orally. That does not offend Sola Scriptura at all.
Sorry, Sola Scriptura is offensive and is not found anywhere in the Bible. I have asked this question to many Protestants, including you, and have not received a satisfactory answer from even ONE verse.
As to the NT being taught to the first Christians, you got it backwards, FK. The Apostles didn't start out thinking they were going to teach a written letter first through oral teachings. They taught orally - and much later, they wrote letters based on their oral teachings already given. They didn't teach anything by letter that the reader wouldn't understand. We have no indications that Jesus passed out NT Scriptures or outlines or anything written to the Apostles.
Nothing new was added to the Scriptures. The writings only address what was already taught. For example, from the NIV:
For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand. 2 Cor 1:13
The writings were based on what Paul had ALREADY taught, but NOWHERE do we get the indication that EVERYTHING was written down in what we now call Scriptures. For example, the daily liturgical practice. Where do we see that in the Scriptures? HOW did they "break the bread"? What prayers did they say? What was their posture? WHO led the prayers? And baptism? The same questions... If the Bible was written more like a Catechism, more all-encompassing, I might be inclined to agree with you. However, the Bible is ambiguous and unclear on MANY issues, even the important ones, IF we are expected to read it without help from the community. Thus, the Ethiopian needed help in Acts 8 from the Church.
They argued from pure truth, and it was God who convicted His elect, NOT the Apostles then, and not us now. The scriptures BECAME authority for God's chosen.
Whether you like it or not, God has chosen us clay vessels to spread His Word. He doesn't need us to do that, but out of love, He has chosen to share this ministry with us men. God allows men to use human arguments and human writings to appeal to man's reason. God provides the faith in the man's heart to accept the reasonable arguments provided.
Yes, the Scripture became authority for God's chosen. Which tells us that the Scripture is not self-authenticating. If they were, then men would have no choice but to follow them. We believe they are God's Word bsaed on faith and the belief in the witnesses of Christ.
Regards
In context, 2 Timothy is referring to the writings that Timothy read as a youth. That would be the Old Testament, wouldn't you agree? Here is what Barnes writes about this verse: ...
HA! Trying to use my own commentary against me, eh? That's no fair! :) Well, in this case I happen to disagree with Barnes, that is, if his overall belief was that scripture itself does not support that all was God-breathed (I don't know). No, in this case I will agree with such unimpeachable sources as:
The Council of the Vatican (1869-1870): They determined: "The books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the decree of the same Council [Trent] and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as sacred and canonical. And the Church holds them as sacred and canonical not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without errors, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their Author."
Pope Leo XIII (1893): excerpt from encyclical letter "Providentissimus Deus" : "For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church..."
It was interesting in looking this up because I found that some Catholics believe exactly as I do, that every word of the scripture is inerrant and exactly as God wished. But there are other Catholics who believe that the Bible is only inerrant concerning the "big stuff" (limited inerrancy), and is otherwise filled with errors. I didn't know that.
So, it appears that we may both agree on inerrancy, but we would disagree as to why it is true. I believe that inerrancy is self-evident not only because of some verses, but that it can also be inferred from the scriptures for reasons such as Jesus' recognition of them as inerrant. He quotes from them, and wouldn't change a word, etc. Also, there is fulfilled prophecy.
God has given us a pillar and foundation for knowing the truth, and it is not our own minds "interpreting" what the "spirit" tells us. Such an idea disagrees with Protestant anthropology of the totally corrupt man who cannot think of anything good.
But you are talking about a lost person. In that case, you would be right, the Truth is nonsense to a lost person. However, once the Spirit indwells, then growth is possible. God promises that it will happen, so that's how we can know the Truth.
Sorry, Sola Scriptura is offensive and is not found anywhere in the Bible. I have asked this question to many Protestants, including you, and have not received a satisfactory answer from even ONE verse.
I wouldn't expect you to take scripture verses as a satisfactory answer. Your Church has substituted scripture verses with the will of men. In many cases they conflict. I would have to convince you that what the men of your Church want the scriptures to mean (for whatever reasons) is wrong, and I know that's not happening. :)
Nothing new was added to the Scriptures. The writings only address what was already taught. For example, from the NIV: For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand. 2 Cor 1:13
OK, great. Then why in the world do you argue against perspicuity of scriptures?
The writings were based on what Paul had ALREADY taught, but NOWHERE do we get the indication that EVERYTHING was written down in what we now call Scriptures.
That's right, and John says as much. Sola Scriptura is also fine with this since it says that the Bible only gives us everything we NEED to know, not everything there IS to know.
Yes, the Scripture became authority for God's chosen. Which tells us that the Scripture is not self-authenticating. If they were, then men would have no choice but to follow them.
God's chosen DO have no choice but to follow them:
Phil 2:13 : ... for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.