[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.

[OneWingedShark]

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.

I guess you've never read John's Gospel:

(John 20:30,31)
Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.

So it seems that scripture alone is sufficient to bring someone salvation.

[CynicalBear]

Your verbosity is lacking in complete facts leaving out those facts that prove your verbosity in error.

[metmom]

In post 78 you stated that Scripture wasn’t adequate for the believer for growth and maturity in Christ and I provided you a verse out of Scripture to show that Scripture states that very thing, that it IS adequate.

You have no basis for criticizing anyone’s personal interpretation of Scripture since your church has neglected to provide an infallible interpretation of the entire Bible.

Therefore, since they’ve left everyone high and dry to fend for themselves, the RCC has no basis for complaint.

Additionally, the Holy Spirit guides believers into spiritual truth and understanding just as Jesus opened the minds of the disciples to understand Scripture.

[metmom]

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.

Paul wrote 2 Timothy TO a believer about and for BELIEVERS.

Besides, that's not the main issue. The main issue is the adequacy of Scripture.

[boatbums]

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.

If you claim your problem is with Luther's "novelty" of Scripture ALONE (sola Scriptura), why don't you enunciate what you think his doctrine actually was first?

I think you will find that you and most Roman Catholic apologists who condemn the man for supposedly inventing something God never intended - and which is claimed to be the downfall with "Protestantism" - is not at all what he meant. The term simply means:

Sola scriptura means that the Bible is the ultimate and only infallible sufficient source of authority for a Christian.

When we understand and accept that the Holy Scriptures are from God and are THE authority for Christians because of that, we will come to see that sola Scriptura, NOT solo Scriptura, is a truth that was always held by genuine believers because it IS true. There certainly is a place for Holy Spirit led church councils, gifted church leaders and teachers, but, since the Scriptures alone are God-breathed truth, anything that men declare is doctrine to be received by all MUST be measured against Scripture to determine its veracity and agreement with God's divine word. John Calvin said the following:

"The Scriptures obtain full authority among believers only when men regard them as having sprung from heaven, as if there the living words of God were heard."- John Calvin

"But a most pernicious error widely prevails that Scripture has only so much weight as is conceded to it by the consent of the church. As if the eternal and inviolable truth of God depended upon the decision of men!"- John Calvin

We can read what Paul, for example, tells us about Scripture:

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 Timothy 3:14-17)

Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith; to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen. (Romans 16:25-27)

We can know not only from the writings of the Apostles and disciples but from the earliest Christian leaders that God's word has ALWAYS been held as the authority for what we believe and why we believe it. The Reformers did not invent some new or novel doctrine.

In his book, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume I: A Biblical Defense of the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura, David King has commented,

Sola Scriptura functions as the authoritative norm for the people of God, and therefore stands as the only existing source of the deposit of faith that special revelation has disclosed. This is one reason why Paul wrote as he did in his closing remarks in Romans. He spoke of 'the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began but now has been made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures has been made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith' (Rom 16:25-26). According to the testimony of the Apostle Paul, Scripture has manifested this mystery, and this mystery is authoritatively interpreted by the epistles of the New Testament.

Scripture is therefore authoritatively specified (via apostolic sanction) as the God-ordained means for the manifestation of this mystery, the purpose being 'for obedience to the faith.' If unwritten tradition was to be regarded as a reliable means and/or source for the preservation of binding revelation beyond the time of the apostles, and intended to function perpetually as an authoritative norm alongside Scripture, why did Paul fail to mention such a concept when speaking of 'the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began?' (p.44)

If Roman Catholics want to criticize and attack sola Scriptura, they should at least agree on what they think the term means, don't you think?