hi Kyle,

My apology for taking so long ... I started readin the article by Webster ... the first one recommended ...

it reads

Quote
To argue, as the Roman Catholic Church does, that 2 Timothy 3:15-17 says that Scripture is profitable but not sufficient as a rule of faith is to twist its meaning in order to defend a man-made tradition. This is not a new phenomenon. The Pharisees, according to Jesus, misinterpreted Scripture in order to adhere to their tradition and he condemned them for it (Matt. 15:1-9). But in both cases the Bible’s clear statement remains—Scripture is sufficient ‘for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work’.

Why is Webster changing the word used there from "useful" to "sufficient"? And why does Webster ignore the context which shows how we need both the Scriptures and the Church's authority?(Cf. 2 Tim 1:6,13, 2:2, 3:10, 14-17) ... Cf. Luke 10:16, Mt 28:18-20.

But in any case, I do agree that the Scriptures are materially sufficient to understand everything about God ... and that there must be somebody qualified to interpret them and share them with others through the Spirit...because

faith comes from what is heard Roman 10:17

... which is why Paul says that "teaching, correction, rebuke, and training in righteousness" render a man "complete".etc

He is also suggesting the Truth that the Scriptures are both profitable and absolutely indispensable to the Body of Christ ... because this Book is God-breathed (as Paul here says) ... which is why we call It by the name of the Son of God ...

What do you think? I hope I'm not coming off rudely ... I am by nature over-excitable and prone to such things ... In Christ, Pat

Last edited by patricius79; Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:06 PM.