So Paul is writing a letter to Timothy and telling him that Scripture is profitable for teaching. Sounds good.
Questions:
1) At the time Paul wrote to Timothy, his letter was not Scripture. It was simply a letter from one evangelist to another. Since the letter was not Scripture, should Timothy have paid heed to it? If I understand your argument, only Scripture and no other form of Christian counsel, is worthy of credence.
2) If I say that the Encyclopedia Brittanica is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training, does it logically follow from this that no other source of information should ever be considered or consulted? Does this mean that the Encyclopedia Brittanica is the exclusive source of all knowledge?
Interesting that you would chose a translation that diminished the word of God...
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Not only are the scriptures inspired by God,
The scriptures are good for doctrine...So good in fact that if you teach any other doctrine not found in the scriptures, you are anathema...
The scriptures are able to give one the means to rebuke those who teach otherwise...
At the same time, the scriptures will be used to correct wrong doctrine and traditions...
And of course instruction in how to be righteous...
These scriptures alone, as the verses indicate when studied and understood can make the man of God NOT just adequate, but complete, perfect in being thoroughly furnished in the knowledge of God...
1) At the time Paul wrote to Timothy, his letter was not Scripture. It was simply a letter from one evangelist to another. Since the letter was not Scripture, should Timothy have paid heed to it? If I understand your argument, only Scripture and no other form of Christian counsel, is worthy of credence.
Paul received his biblical revelations directly from Jesus...The minute he received those, they became scripture...Even before they were written down...And they became the traditions which paul taught until he had gotten the opportunity to put them to parchment...To think it didn't become scripture until your religion sanctioned it is ludicrous...
2) If I say that the Encyclopedia Brittanica is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training, does it logically follow from this that no other source of information should ever be considered or consulted? Does this mean that the Encyclopedia Brittanica is the exclusive source of all knowledge?
When you find a God inspired Encyclopedia Brittanica it will be the only encyclopedia we adhere to...