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.
Yes, but Vatican 1 was 1800 years after Paul wrote to Timothy. Vatican 1 was a recognition of what Paul wrote, but there was no New Testament when Paul wrote to Timothy, just a bunch of different collections of a few Christian letters floating around. Scripture, to Paul, referred to the OT - in Timothy's case, the Septuagint.
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.
The Church teaches that the Bible is inerrant. However, that does NOT mean that the Bible literally tells us historical information in every case. Parables and fictional tales MAY exist in the Bible - and it is STILL considered inerrant. We have discussed this once before. Something is inerrant based on the author's INTENT. Everything that GOD INTENDS is inerrant.
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.
So apparently, there are many truths now, some diametrically opposed... Where does the Spirit guarantee that every individual will be shown the full truth that God has revealed? God guarantees this truth to the Church as a Body, not as an individual.
OK, great. Then why in the world do you argue against perspicuity of scriptures?
Why in the world are there so many denominations of Protestantism, all claiming to be 'Spirit-led'? What gives?
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.
That is a matter of opinion. The Bible doesn't even make THAT statement - that it tells us EVERYTHING we need to know.
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.
Where does that say that the "saved" have no choice but to follow God? It only says that God works in us the will to act according to His purpose, not that our will is totally destroyed.
Regards