Scripture is "inadequate", only when it is separated from the Church which guards its true meaning. It is subordinate to the Church which produced it. Hence, the early Church grew and prospered before the New Testament appeared. Paul did not need a New Testament to evangelize the Galatians. The Church did not "come along later and fill it in". First came the Church, then came Scripture.
If things were left out that we needed to know, then it would not be possible for Paul to say that it was profitable and could make the man of God COMPLETE.
It makes the man of God "complete", only when its authentic meaning is understood. When it is separated from the Church which produced it, things are "left out", since the authentic meaning is lost. False understandings of Scripture do not make a man "complete". Quite the contrary. Can you say "Prosperity Gospel"?
Furthermore, there is a critical difference between saying...the Encyclopedia Brittanica is profitable for learning and instruction and making your learning complete" and saying only the Encyclopedia Brittanica is profitable for learning and instruction and making your learning complete". For example, in Paul's letter to Timothy, before he talks of Scripture, Timothy is initially exhorted to hold to the oral teachings—the traditions—that he received from the apostle Paul. This echoes Paul’s reminder of the value of oral tradition in 1:13–14, "Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us" and ". . . what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also".
Here Paul refers exclusively to oral teaching and reminds Timothy to follow that as the "pattern" for his own teaching (1:13). Only after this is Scripture mentioned as "profitable" for Timothy’s ministry.
Please provide us with those words Paul told to Timothy.
You don't count the OT as Scripture?
No wonder the Catholic church is in such a mess.
The Word of God is not subordinate to ANY man or organization.
The Catholic church did NOT *produce* it.
And it stands alone just fine on its own apart from any man or men's interpretation by its very nature as the Holy Spirit inspired, God breathed Word.
Jesus said this about the word.
John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.
Matthew 4:4 But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
Hence, the early Church grew and prospered before the New Testament appeared. Paul did not need a New Testament to evangelize the Galatians. The Church did not "come along later and fill it in". First came the Church, then came Scripture.
The NT is not the whole so Scripture. They had the OT in those days so they DID have Scripture.
So your attempt to invalidate Scirpture as necessary for spiritual growth fails.
It makes the man of God "complete", only when its authentic meaning is understood. When it is separated from the Church which produced it, things are "left out", since the authentic meaning is lost. False understandings of Scripture do not make a man "complete". Quite the contrary. Can you say "Prosperity Gospel"?
False teaching does not invalidate the effectiveness of the word. You proved nothing.
Here Paul refers exclusively to oral teaching and reminds Timothy to follow that as the "pattern" for his own teaching (1:13).
Just what are those traditions Paul was referring to that he handed down that we are to keep that were not included in Scripture?
How do you know?
How do you know they’re from the apostles, Paul in particular?
How do you know they’ve been passed down faithfully?
Show us where Paul says that tradition trumps Scripture.
What “oral tradition” do you keep that is not found in scripture but that you can prove the apostles taught?
What is your source for verifying all of the above?
Please provide the sources for verification purposes.