[metmom]

1) No, it doesn't.

Yes it does.

2 Timothy 3:14-17 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

2) "Adequate" for *what*, exactly? Your statement is very vague.

No, it's not vague and Scripture itself answers that question.

That is, to make one wise for salvation, through faith in Christ, to teach, reprove, correct, and train in righteousness, and to equip the believer for EVERY good work.

3) So it's not adequate for an unbeliever (say, for bringing him to Christ)?

Absolutely it's adequate to bring the unbeliever to faith in Christ.

As a matter of fact, one only needs to read the gospel of John.

John 20:30-31 Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

How about you just knock off the insults to others, no matter what anyone else does, eh?

What insults? Links to posts please.

When last I checked, the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth was the CHURCH (see 1 Timothy 3:15).

And the Truth that the church is supporting is what exactly?

It isn't the church which is truth. It's only to support the truth. So tell me what the RCC says is the truth.

It *is* authoritative... and after your many discussions with me (and with other Catholics) and the many urgings to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church (so that you'd at least know what you're attacking), you should know that fact, full well. Scripture is unspeakably authoritative; it just isn't designed to work ALONE, nor does it claim to do so.

Where did I ever say it wasn't authoritative? You're correcting a strawman.

Show me where Scripture tells us that it needs help, that it can't work alone.

So, just to be clear about this, do you think that the Holy Spirit inspired, God breathed word isn't adequate/sufficient/whatever, to lead someone to Christ and provide them with everything they need to mature in Him, to thoroughly equip him for every good work?

Is that what you're saying?

Because that's what you are arguing.

[paladinan]

I responded to the 2 Timothy 3:16-17 argument, in the very message to which you're responding; it simply doesn't say what you're trying to make it say. Perhaps you might re-read it? Or are you going to change your mind, and abandon "sola Scriptura" in favor of "sola stabilitas"?

[paladinan]
3) So it's not adequate for an unbeliever (say, for bringing him to Christ)?

[metmom]
Absolutely it's adequate to bring the unbeliever to faith in Christ.

I'm just going on what you said: "...and enough for equipping every believer completely, making him equppied for EVERY good work...". Since 2 Timothy didn't say anything about unbelievers, I have to conclude that the bit about it being "adequate to being the unbveliever to Christ" is metmom's opinion, and not necessarily Divine revelation.

As a matter of fact, one only needs to read the gospel of John.

Where, exactly, does Scripture say THAT? You're using "sola Scriptura" when asserting spiritual truths, aren't you? Then you should be able to point to chapter and verse which says, clearly and unequivocally, that the Gospel of John is sufficient for bringing someone to Christ, yes? St. Ohilip and the Holy Spirit seem to disagree with you, in fact:

So Philip ran to [the eunuch], and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?" And he said, "How can I, unless some one guides me?" (Acts 8:30-31)

I've seen anti-Catholic-Church people (on this very thread) scoff at the idea that an interpreter of Scripture is needed; I wonder if they realize that they're scoffing at the Holy Spirit's very words...

What insults? Links to posts please.

You seem to have a very short memory, on that point:

"Did you pass high school English?" (Post #10)

[paladinan]
When last I checked, the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth was the CHURCH (see 1 Timothy 3:15).

[metmom]
And the Truth that the church is supporting is what exactly? It isn't the church which is truth. It's only to support the truth. So tell me what the RCC says is the truth.

Does this question mean that you're actually going to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and FIND OUT the answer to your question? Or is this simply an empty rhetorical question, in which you have no interest in doing anything but snipe at that which you won't research? Go read. Then come back, and we'll discuss it. It's not a short read, I'll admit... but if you seriously want to know the answer to your question (and if you weren't simply blowing smoke), then it'll be worthwhile to you.

[paladinan]
[Scripture] *is* authoritative... and after your many discussions with me (and with other Catholics) and the many urgings to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church (so that you'd at least know what you're attacking), you should know that fact, full well. Scripture is unspeakably authoritative; it just isn't designed to work ALONE, nor does it claim to do so.

[metmom]
Where did I ever say it wasn't authoritative? You're correcting a strawman.

I hate to sound impatient, here, but your memory isn't serving you very well, here. You asked, on the very same comment referenced above: "Tell me. Why is God breathed Holy Spirit inspired Scripture NOT authoritative [...]" (Post #45)" Do you not remember writing that?

If you're going to use the tools of logic (such as saying that others are guilty of this-or-that fallacy), friend, then you'll have to obey the rules of logic, yourself. No jumping to conclusions, no straw men, no red herrings, no false dilemmas, or any other logical no-nos.

For instance:

Show me where Scripture tells us that it needs help, that it can't work alone.

Fallacy: argument from silence

Illustration: "The letter to Philemon never says that it needs help, and that it--and it alone--isn't sufficient to bring anyone to Christ! Therefore it must be sufficient!"

Beyond this, see Acts 8:30-31, 2 Peter 3:16-17, etc.

So, just to be clear about this, do you think that the Holy Spirit inspired, God breathed word isn't adequate/sufficient/whatever, to lead someone to Christ and provide them with everything they need to mature in Him, to thoroughly equip him for every good work? Is that what you're saying? Because that's what you are arguing.

(?) How can I be arguing something, and not saying it? But that's a side-point...

As to your question: the Scriptures are NECESSARY for the salvation of souls, but they are not SUFFICIENT by THEMSELVES (i.e. alone). As I (and others) have said, time and time again (and been ignored, tome and time again): our problem is NOT with "Scripture"; our problem is with Luther's unbiblical and self-contradictory novelty of "Scripture ALONE". Is THAT clear, at least? I'd rather we not be talking past each other, on this point.