But yet my friend, nowhere in the Bible does it say anything about Scripture being complete, fully equipped, and sufficient as a sole rule of faith, including the passage you posted (2 Tim. 3:16).
What I always find interesting when adherents of sola scriptura quote this passage, is they always leave the previous two verses out.
“14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it
15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
16 Every scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”
As one can see, St.Paul is telling Timothy to remain in what he has firmly believed and then cites two bases for that belief:
1.He knows from whom he has learned it.
2.This was the oral teachings of the apostle Paul himself, so right here we have Timothy’s beliefs being based on apostolic Tradition.
And
3.From childhood Timothy has been acquainted with the holy Scriptures. So this is the second basis for Timothy’s beliefs.
So Nicolous M, and with all due respect, when adherents of the Bible Alone (I used to be one by the way) quote verses 16 and 17, they are only quoting the back half of a double appeal to Tradition and Scripture, clearly something that does not prove sola scriptura. (The Bible Alone)
Your point is moot because Paul calls himself a preacher and apostle, and a teacher to the Gentiles (2 Timothy 1:10); Paul obviously taught Timothy (2 Timothy 1:13), but that relationship is no different than a preacher teaching his congregation. I and my friend sit down quite often and edify one another according to the scriptures, teaching and admonishing one another in God's word. That's been done since Christ himself walked the earth, and is completely taught and shown forth in scripture.
Now, in regards to the idea of tradition: the Bible makes a distinction regarding it. There is biblical tradition after Christ and the apostles following him, and there is tradition after men which can and will transgress the commands of God (Colossians 2:8, Matthew 15:3-6), because indeed, Paul exhorts us to follow after the tradition set forth for us by Christ (Ephesians 2:20, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6).
2 Thessalonians 2:15 says "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or
our epistle." The apostles aren't alive anymore, and since we cannot physically hear them for ourselves, we have nothing to go on but their epistles. Now, they wouldn't say anything by word that they had not taught in their epistles, I wouldn't think, would they?
What it comes down to is this: you have to prove from the Bible that apostolic succession is viable, that Jesus Christ himself personally and visibly chose each successor throughout the millennia since the church was established to be an authority here on earth while he was gone. But how can you, except you claim tradition? Because you cannot prove apostolic succession from the Bible. The Bible says to follow tradition, but the tradition which was delivered us by the apostles (2 Thessalonians 3:6), either through word (which can happen no longer) or by epistle (which is with us to this day). So, would I trust the authority of men's traditions which have changed much over 2,000 years? Or trust the scripture and it's traditions that has never changed and remained constant forever? I'll take the latter, thank you.
Okay, but would you also agree that this does not change the fact that the Scriptures are not always simple to interpret. For example, what would be your view on St. Paul’s letter to the Colossians 1:24 in which he writes:
What do you make of this? Are we to believe St.Paul is telling us something is lacking in Christ’s suffering? By reading this, St.Paul seems to be saying that Christ's death on the cross was not enough. Right? However, elsewhere throughout Scripture we are told with full assurance that we have been saved once and for all through Christ (Heb. 7:27). Either the Bible is contradicting itself or a very subtle interpretation must be applied to the given text in order to square it with the rest. I obviously opt for the second option.
Obviously the Bible isn't contradicting itself here, and it cannot even be close to saying Christ's suffering was insufficient. Look at the next verse, sir. Colossians 1:25 "Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you,
to fulfill the word of God;" Paul is not saying that the affliction of Christ was insufficient or lacking (as your translation ineptly puts it), but rather that suffering for Christ's sake and also the church's sake is his reason for rejoicing, because God gave him purpose to fulfill the word of God (by preaching the gospel to the gentiles), and as a result of fulfilling the word of God, he is suffering for it. He is merely making the point that his ministry is bearing fruit, but because of it he is experiencing tribulation on the behalf of the church and the Lord, that by suffering, he's saying he is to "fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:" or in other words, to preach the word of God and suffer for it, as was prophesied in Matthew 10:16-28 and elsewhere in the Bible. When considering the context, it makes perfect sense.
We should also remember what St. Peter warns us in 2 Pet.3:16 that there are things in the Sciptures that are hard to understand “which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction”. And where he also warns us in 2 Pet.1:19 that “no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation”. I would hope we could both agre that the bottom line is that interpretation of the Bible is serious business. Correct?
Are you then saying that Early Church writings are not useful and should be disreguarded?
Could you give a couple examples of these extra-biblical teachings of the Catholic Church?
Have a Blessed Day
2 Peter 1:20-21 "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man:
but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." In context, this is actually saying that prophecy did not come of their own interpretation in terms of the fact that they did not prophecy according to their understanding, but men in times past prophesied according to the inspiration of the holy Ghost, merely reinforcing the fact that scripture and prophecy in scripture is inspired of God like in 2 Timothy 3:16.
Otherwise, if we had to have men to help us understand or "interpret" scripture, that would contradict this passage: 1 John 2:26-27 "These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide him."
After all, it is the Spirit of God that teaches and guides into all truth (John 16:13), not man. And while one could argue that the Spirit of God is in every believer according to Ephesians 1:13, not every believer walks in the spirit according to Romans 8:1. If one were to argue the apostles were the only men to which John 16:13 applied, then that's fair, because Jesus spoke directly to them in that passage, but that still does not support your position in the least.
Here's a list of extra-biblical catholic teachings:
1. Merited Grace
2. Penance for salvation
3. Purgatory
4. Indulgences
5. Intercession of Mary
6. Prayer to the saints.
