Why are the scriptures NOT sufficient "for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness?" - 2 Timothy 3:16-17

[Dorothy Mae]

Paul said exactly what Jesus said.
This ìs what I meant about the culture.
Hermeneutics takes culture into account.
In the west we bow only to royalty.
In the east we bow to anyone.
If I tell YOU that you don't understand something, you listen better.
If I tell an Italian he doesn't understand something, he gets insulted because I just called him stupid.

God said He hated Esau. Is this what He meant?
Does this conflict with LOVE YOUR NEIGHBORS? (I think so).

Maybe we make it too easy...maybe that's the problem.

This is off topic and it will be deleted but maybe you read this before hand. God loved the man Esau and gave him land. He hated the evil descendants.

 

[GodsGrace]

donadams has made it very clear for me. That's why I wrote what I did.

He may be saying something we agree with but in a different way.
We also believe that we
WERE SAVED Ephesians 2:8
ARE BEING SAVED 1 Corinthians 1:18
WILL BE SAVED 1 Peter 1:5

He probably was referring to 1 Peter 1:5

Catholicism believes that we can know we are saved now if we are kneeling at the foot of the cross.
IOW, if we are depending on Jesus and being a disciple of His.
I really dislike when Protestantism is incorrectly represented and when Catholicism is incorrectly misrepresented.

Did you clarify this with him?
Tag me in next time....

 

[GodsGrace]

The Bible is translated from Greek or Hebrew for the most part to English. Those manuscripts are available. I am bilingual and while translations have challenges, it’s not impossible.

Agreed, but hermeneutics have a lot to do with translations too.
When you check out the interlinear, I wonder how anything could be correctly translated!

 

[GodsGrace]

This is off topic and it will be deleted but maybe you read this before hand. God loved the man Esau and gave him land. He hated the evil descendants.

Why would it be deleted?
We're discussing why other sources may be necessary besides the bible.
One of the reasons being that it's so difficult to translate what the manuscripts stated.

You're proving my point.
Romans 9:13 states that God hated Esau---we know this cannot be true.

In fact, YOU state above that God hated he's evil descendants.
How can we know this just from reading Romans 9:13?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Why would it be deleted?

It’s off topic.

We're discussing why other sources may be necessary besides the bible.
One of the reasons being that it's so difficult to translate what the manuscripts stated.

Not sure of that.

You're proving my point.
Romans 9:13 states that God hated Esau---we know this cannot be true.

Well it also says God gave Esau land. Same translation.

In fact, YOU state above that God hated he's evil descendants.
How can we know this just from reading Romans 9:13?

Excellent point. One has to read the history of Esau in the OT. That’s where I discovered it. No one taught me that.

 

[jasonc]

Paul said exactly what Jesus said.
This ìs what I meant about the culture.
Hermeneutics takes culture into account.
In the west we bow only to royalty.
In the east we bow to anyone.
If I tell YOU that you don't understand something, you listen better.
If I tell an Italian he doesn't understand something, he gets insulted because I just called him stupid.

God said He hated Esau. Is this what He meant?
Does this conflict with LOVE YOUR NEIGHBORS? (I think so).

Maybe we make it too easy...maybe that's the problem.

Ov vey.

You bow to nobility in western medieval and before and current monarchs.

In the east you certainly better respect the royalty of those nations .ie the emperor of Japan .they bow to each other as a greeting .the Italians do the same as the French but both kiss the cheeks as a greet .in Japan men will bow and kneel and keep bowing and keep at it until one bows below the other and it's an act of humility.i won't go into the Korean version and also the martial way of the jap arts which is very much the way the japs bow but they won't do it with the hands like they do in the dojo .that said .

In all asian cultures there is ancestor worship.in American dojos few get why we face and bow to the shizen (flag) that is Japanese and will have the jap flag and American and can include the shrine of the arts founder usually aikido and judoka and jujitsu guys do this .thou my Japanese art being aikido ,iado ,and karatedo had a large shrine .

It's very much close to what idolatry is .there is a grey area in that you bow to remember the guy or group who died and thank them for their wisdom they passed. In the hombu dojo of aikido ,since this is Shintoism the food is offered to osensei and other rituals .

Something about a shrine in a local church reminds me of that .it faces north east ,and it's a route name . people often go there three times a day for prayer or mass. Some saint name sake ..

 

[theSeriousOne]

Why do some people think the scriptures are NOT sufficient "for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness?" - 2 Timothy 3:16 BSB

What completeness will you lack if you rely solely on the authority of scripture to be fully equipped for every good work?

17so that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work. - 2 Timothy 3:17 BSB

Well that is held by most 'Christians' to be true.
It's only what their churches teach that matter!

 

[jasonc]

Also most civilians don't understand that a salute used by the military is actually a type of Bowing.you pay respects to the higher rank ,not so much the person wearing it .their is an exemption.ie normal ssg Cranman would render a salute first ,unless I posses a medal of honor which only the potus is equal to and this why all must salute the bearer first as the potus personally signs that award and also places it on the bearer.it Is his respresention.the other is reporting to a nco for an inspection,for pay and or reporting to be talked to.usually a crime has been committed or punishment outside of the need for a court martial but warrants an talking to .I have been to that twice .once for Mullins death ,my mistake realesing a soldier ,to report a questionable activity and pay

 

[Hopeful]

Why do some people think the scriptures are NOT sufficient "for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness?" - 2 Timothy 3:16 BSB

What completeness will you lack if you rely solely on the authority of scripture to be fully equipped for every good work?

17so that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work. - 2 Timothy 3:17 BSB

Your yucky version of the bible showed its "colors" by changing the word "perfect" to "complete".
Perhaps it is the "changed" versions of scripture that cause people to think them insufficient.

 

[Hopeful]

Let's make a fresh start knowing that Paul is referring to the scriptures making the 'man of God' complete and fully equipped for every good work:


What completeness will you (man of God) lack if you rely solely on the authority of scripture to be fully equipped for every good work?

None, as he will be perfectly aligned with God.

 

[Hopeful]

The Sufficiency of Scripture tells us we should be encouraged that everything God wants to tell us about a doctrine or situation is in Scripture (Deuteronomy 29:29).

The Sufficiency of Scripture tells us we are to add nothing to Scripture and consider no other writings of equal value to Scripture.

The Sufficiency of Scripture tells us that God does not require us to believe anything about himself or his redemptive work that is not found in Scripture for God has caused to be recorded in Scripture everything that we need to know about Jesus’ words and deeds in order to trust and obey him perfectly.

The Sufficiency of Scripture tells us that no modern revelations from God are to be placed on a level equal to Scripture in authority.

The Sufficiency of Scripture tells us that nothing is sin that is not forbidden by Scripture either explicitly or by implication. (Example: Roman Catholic’s opposition to birth control)

The Sufficiency of Scripture tells us that nothing is required of us by God that is not commanded in Scripture either explicitly or by implication.

The Sufficiency of Scripture tells us that in our doctrinal and ethical teaching we should emphasize what Scripture emphasizes and be content with what God has told us in Scripture. It is characteristic of many cults that they emphasize obscure portions or teaching of Scripture. Example: baptism of the dead (1 Corinthians 15:29)

Author Unknown

Any modern revelation will never contradict a prior writing.

 

[theSeriousOne]

What yucky Bible?

 

[Tenchi]

I'd like to push back a bit on the notion that the Bible is largely impossible to truly understand and that this is made obvious in the myriad of denominations that exist. In the city where I live, there are three main Baptist conferences: Baptist General Conference, North American Baptist Conference, and the Fellowship Baptist Conference. Aha! See? Even within their own denomination, Baptists can find a consensus of belief! Not so. In fact, the denominations are distinct from each other mainly as a consequence of cultural heritage and geography, not doctrine. I've been in all three types of Baptist churches and hear exactly the same doctrine preached in all of them. The Baptist General Conference of Canada got its start among immigrant Swedish folk; the North American Baptists, in my city anyway, were primarily German immigrants; and the Fellowship Baptists, as far as I understand, have their origins in the States. Over the fifty years I've been a Christian, I've been in Missionary Alliance, Evangelical Free, Mennonite, Nazarene and a multitude of non-denominational churches and hear preaching in all of them almost exactly like the preaching in my own Baptist church. Many of the differences among Protestant churches have to do with peripheral doctrines and political structure, not with radical departures of fundamental doctrinal perspective among them.

And what of the monolithic character of the Roman Catholic Church? So often I hear RC folk deride Protestants for their many denominations but within Roman Catholicism sects abound. The Roman Catholic Church is far from a unified religious monolith, uniform all the way down, free of variation in belief and practice. There are divergences in rites (Latin, Alexandrian, Antiochian, Armenian, etc.), in hierarchical oversight (Independent Catholic churches - Free Catholic Church, Celtic Catholic Church, Polish National Catholic Church, etc.) in monastic orders, and so on. Consider the most recent Pope whose...unusual teachings and decrees have incensed so much of the Roman Catholic laity. And when I talk to individual Roman Catholics, I hear among them a wide spectrum of belief and practice that quite surprises me sometimes. It is something of an illusion, then, that the RC church promotes that all within its borders of religious authority are perfectly homogeneous in practice and belief.

Is God's Truth ultimately unknowable? Not at all. But it certainly may seem so to people who have been subtly but profoundly dumbed-down, as is largely the case in western nations, unmoored from a thorough understanding of reason and logic, accustomed to sound-byte thinking rather than quiet, careful, complex argumentation, and tremendously juvenile in their understanding of their own faith. The truth is that most - not all - of the Bible is remarkably straightforward, its meaning readily extracted, especially under the constraints and guidelines of Reason and sound principles of interpretation (hermeneutics), as well as within a real and deep walk with God.

Modern, western Christians have fallen prey to deferring to the expert, as though deep fellowship with God is the domain of only a select few who've earned a degree (preferably a Phd.) at a seminary or, at least, written a book about Christian living (and maybe have a YouTube channel, too). Such deference usually occurs, though, in tandem with an unwillingness to do the necessary work to be a well-studied believer in one's own right, and daily experiencing God in a joyful, life-transforming way. And so, as the modern, western Christian Teaching Industry and the internet proliferate the voices of spiritual "experts" declaring to believers (who are mostly, concerning their faith, the proverbial puddle that is a mile-wide but an inch deep) all sorts of contradictory things, their inability to make sound, critical assessments of these "experts" leaves them thinking that God's truth is utterly obscure.

Often, too, modern believers simply don't want to accept what the Bible teaches. They want to pick and choose, as they commonly do in the consumerist, post-modern West. God restrains too much in His word, and with point-blank unequivocality. He doesn't budge in what He says and this makes modern Christians steeped in the relativistic thinking of western societies squirm and look for a way to blunt or deny God's truth. Thinking that what God really means in His word is ultimately impossible to get at is one way some believer's give themselves all the "wiggle room" they want in shaping their faith to their own personal preferences (I'm not saying this is necessarily true of contributors to this thread).

Anyway, I could ramble on, but suffice it to say that God's word is not an inscrutable collection of unfathomable mysteries. If we want to know His truth, He'll show it to us. But we'll have to work at carefully studying His word, persistently and consistently, and stretch our Netflix-paralyzed brains uncomfortably, and submit ourselves constantly to the Spirit's illuminating control.

Psalms 1
Psalms 119:105, 130
Matthew 4:4
2 Timothy 3:16-17

 

[GodsGrace]

I'd like to push back a bit on the notion that the Bible is largely impossible to truly understand and that this is made obvious in the myriad of denominations that exist. In the city where I live, there are three main Baptist conferences: Baptist General Conference, North American Baptist Conference, and the Fellowship Baptist Conference. Aha! See? Even within their own denomination, Baptists can find a consensus of belief! Not so. In fact, the denominations are distinct from each other mainly as a consequence of cultural heritage and geography, not doctrine. I've been in all three types of Baptist churches and hear exactly the same doctrine preached in all of them. The Baptist General Conference of Canada got its start among immigrant Swedish folk; the North American Baptists, in my city anyway, were primarily German immigrants; and the Fellowship Baptists, as far as I understand, have their origins in the States. Over the fifty years I've been a Christian, I've been in Missionary Alliance, Evangelical Free, Mennonite, Nazarene and a multitude of non-denominational churches and hear preaching in all of them almost exactly like the preaching in my own Baptist church. Many of the differences among Protestant churches have to do with peripheral doctrines and political structure, not with radical departures of fundamental doctrinal perspective among them.

Agreed re the differences having to do with peripheral doctrine, as you called it.
Regarding the 3 branches of Baptist churches having split (?) due to cultural difference,
is this difference noted in the liturgy?

And what of the monolithic character of the Roman Catholic Church? So often I hear RC folk deride Protestants for their many denominations but within Roman Catholicism sects abound. The Roman Catholic Church is far from a unified religious monolith, uniform all the way down, free of variation in belief and practice. There are divergences in rites (Latin, Alexandrian, Antiochian, Armenian, etc.), in hierarchical oversight (Independent Catholic churches - Free Catholic Church, Celtic Catholic Church, Polish National Catholic Church, etc.) in monastic orders, and so on. Consider the most recent Pope whose...unusual teachings and decrees have incensed so much of the Roman Catholic laity. And when I talk to individual Roman Catholics, I hear among them a wide spectrum of belief and practice that quite surprises me sometimes. It is something of an illusion, then, that the RC church promotes that all within its borders of religious authority are perfectly homogeneous in practice and belief.

Agreed, but the difference is that there are not all these splits due to the peripheral doctrine you stated above.
The difference are usually cultural and sometimes the different cultures bring their own ideas into the liturgy.
This Pope made another announcement just today. Clouded in myster, of course, as usual. Who can know what he really means? My feeling is that he does thin purposefully so that a bishop can translate the Pope's message the way he likes best.

Is God's Truth ultimately unknowable? Not at all. But it certainly may seem so to people who have been subtly but profoundly dumbed-down, as is largely the case in western nations, unmoored from a thorough understanding of reason and logic, accustomed to sound-byte thinking rather than quiet, careful, complex argumentation, and tremendously juvenile in their understanding of their own faith. The truth is that most - not all - of the Bible is remarkably straightforward, its meaning readily extracted, especially under the constraints and guidelines of Reason and sound principles of interpretation (hermeneutics), as well as within a real and deep walk with God.

Modern, western Christians have fallen prey to deferring to the expert, as though deep fellowship with God is the domain of only a select few who've earned a degree (preferably a Phd.) at a seminary or, at least, written a book about Christian living (and maybe have a YouTube channel, too). Such deference usually occurs, though, in tandem with an unwillingness to do the necessary work to be a well-studied believer in one's own right, and daily experiencing God in a joyful, life-transforming way. And so, as the modern, western Christian Teaching Industry and the internet proliferate the voices of spiritual "experts" declaring to believers (who are mostly, concerning their faith, the proverbial puddle that is a mile-wide but an inch deep) all sorts of contradictory things, their inability to make sound, critical assessments of these "experts" leaves them thinking that God's truth is utterly obscure.

Often, too, modern believers simply don't want to accept what the Bible teaches. They want to pick and choose, as they commonly do in the consumerist, post-modern West.

God restrains too much in His word, and with point-blank unequivocality. He doesn't budge in what He says and this makes modern Christians steeped in the relativistic thinking of western societies squirm and look for a way to blunt or deny God's truth. Thinking that what God really means in His word is ultimately impossible to get at is one way some believer's give themselves all the "wiggle room" they want in shaping their faith to their own personal preferences (I'm not saying this is necessarily true of contributors to this thread).

Anyway, I could ramble on, but suffice it to say that God's word is not an inscrutable collection of unfathomable mysteries. If we want to know His truth, He'll show it to us. But we'll have to work at carefully studying His word, persistently and consistently, and stretch our Netflix-paralyzed brains uncomfortably, and submit ourselves constantly to the Spirit's illuminating control.

Psalms 1
Psalms 119:105, 130
Matthew 4:4
2 Timothy 3:16-17

Agreed on all.
I'm not saying the bible is difficult to understand if taken simply.
But take Paul, for instance.
Some think Paul is teaching grace and James is teaching works.
All the writers are teaching the same doctrine that Jesus left us with...
it's the way they write/think that is different from how we write or think today and this might cause some problems.

Also, yes, some of us seem to be following some man or other, instead of reading on our own and letting God speak to us. In this case, that man - whoever he might be - gets to teach us instead of God's inspired word.

 

[Hopeful]

What yucky Bible?

Any variety that changes 2 Tim 3:17's "perfect" into "complete".

 

[Hopeful]

I'd like to push back a bit on the notion that the Bible is largely impossible to truly understand and that this is made obvious in the myriad of denominations that exist. In the city where I live, there are three main Baptist conferences: Baptist General Conference, North American Baptist Conference, and the Fellowship Baptist Conference. Aha! See? Even within their own denomination, Baptists can find a consensus of belief! Not so. In fact, the denominations are distinct from each other mainly as a consequence of cultural heritage and geography, not doctrine. I've been in all three types of Baptist churches and hear exactly the same doctrine preached in all of them. The Baptist General Conference of Canada got its start among immigrant Swedish folk; the North American Baptists, in my city anyway, were primarily German immigrants; and the Fellowship Baptists, as far as I understand, have their origins in the States. Over the fifty years I've been a Christian, I've been in Missionary Alliance, Evangelical Free, Mennonite, Nazarene and a multitude of non-denominational churches and hear preaching in all of them almost exactly like the preaching in my own Baptist church. Many of the differences among Protestant churches have to do with peripheral doctrines and political structure, not with radical departures of fundamental doctrinal perspective among them.

And what of the monolithic character of the Roman Catholic Church? So often I hear RC folk deride Protestants for their many denominations but within Roman Catholicism sects abound. The Roman Catholic Church is far from a unified religious monolith, uniform all the way down, free of variation in belief and practice. There are divergences in rites (Latin, Alexandrian, Antiochian, Armenian, etc.), in hierarchical oversight (Independent Catholic churches - Free Catholic Church, Celtic Catholic Church, Polish National Catholic Church, etc.) in monastic orders, and so on. Consider the most recent Pope whose...unusual teachings and decrees have incensed so much of the Roman Catholic laity. And when I talk to individual Roman Catholics, I hear among them a wide spectrum of belief and practice that quite surprises me sometimes. It is something of an illusion, then, that the RC church promotes that all within its borders of religious authority are perfectly homogeneous in practice and belief.

Is God's Truth ultimately unknowable? Not at all. But it certainly may seem so to people who have been subtly but profoundly dumbed-down, as is largely the case in western nations, unmoored from a thorough understanding of reason and logic, accustomed to sound-byte thinking rather than quiet, careful, complex argumentation, and tremendously juvenile in their understanding of their own faith. The truth is that most - not all - of the Bible is remarkably straightforward, its meaning readily extracted, especially under the constraints and guidelines of Reason and sound principles of interpretation (hermeneutics), as well as within a real and deep walk with God.

Modern, western Christians have fallen prey to deferring to the expert, as though deep fellowship with God is the domain of only a select few who've earned a degree (preferably a Phd.) at a seminary or, at least, written a book about Christian living (and maybe have a YouTube channel, too). Such deference usually occurs, though, in tandem with an unwillingness to do the necessary work to be a well-studied believer in one's own right, and daily experiencing God in a joyful, life-transforming way. And so, as the modern, western Christian Teaching Industry and the internet proliferate the voices of spiritual "experts" declaring to believers (who are mostly, concerning their faith, the proverbial puddle that is a mile-wide but an inch deep) all sorts of contradictory things, their inability to make sound, critical assessments of these "experts" leaves them thinking that God's truth is utterly obscure.

Often, too, modern believers simply don't want to accept what the Bible teaches. They want to pick and choose, as they commonly do in the consumerist, post-modern West. God restrains too much in His word, and with point-blank unequivocality. He doesn't budge in what He says and this makes modern Christians steeped in the relativistic thinking of western societies squirm and look for a way to blunt or deny God's truth. Thinking that what God really means in His word is ultimately impossible to get at is one way some believer's give themselves all the "wiggle room" they want in shaping their faith to their own personal preferences (I'm not saying this is necessarily true of contributors to this thread).

Anyway, I could ramble on, but suffice it to say that God's word is not an inscrutable collection of unfathomable mysteries. If we want to know His truth, He'll show it to us. But we'll have to work at carefully studying His word, persistently and consistently, and stretch our Netflix-paralyzed brains uncomfortably, and submit ourselves constantly to the Spirit's illuminating control.

Psalms 1
Psalms 119:105, 130
Matthew 4:4
2 Timothy 3:16-17

I couldn't agree more.
One thing I find that all the sects do have in common...they all still commit sin.
Making none of them "in Christ".

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Well that is held by most 'Christians' to be true.
It's only what their churches teach that matter!

Is that what your church taught you?

 

[eddif]

It is sufficient for those purposes, I think where people get off track is applying scripture to literally every facet of life. The Bible doesn't say to brush my teeth twice daily, but it's still considered good practice.
The Bible does say to take care of my body, however. That would include my teeth. Still, we end up using science, experience, whatever else, etc in addition to scripture for these daily practices.

Another thing is while scripture is sufficient, we need other tools at times to help us interpret scripture. Sometimes scripture reading is tied to an understanding of history, or sometimes we need to understand something about the original language to actually understand the text.

Pretty good

Creation speaks of God
Science is sometimes misguided. Science using scriptures may be on track.

Spiritual gifts described and directed by scripture and the Holy Spirit are difficult to discuss.

Mississippi redneck
eddif

 

[Tenchi]

Agreed on all.
I'm not saying the bible is difficult to understand if taken simply.
But take Paul, for instance.
Some think Paul is teaching grace and James is teaching works.
All the writers are teaching the same doctrine that Jesus left us with...
it's the way they write/think that is different from how we write or think today and this might cause some problems.

Also, yes, some of us seem to be following some man or other, instead of reading on our own and letting God speak to us. In this case, that man - whoever he might be - gets to teach us instead of God's inspired word.

Too often, Christians don't want to work to synthesize or harmonize Scripture, but are content to leave it in tension with itself, choosing instead to preserve their favorite notions about God's Truth even if doing so requires constant eisegesis or an outright denial of certain parts of the Bible.

It's actually not that difficult to reconcile the statements of Paul and James - so long as one has a good grasp of both the immediate and larger, whole-Bible contexts of their writings. What I so often encounter, though, is one believer who has invested significantly in what is essentially a works-based conception of salvation, and another who is committed to salvation by grace through faith, who simply lob apparently contrary verses at each other, neither believer developing a good synthesis of Paul's and James' words that comports well with the whole of God's word.

It's not that the truth is not there, plain and straightforward in its presentation (for the most part), but that the readers of God's truth have their own agenda, their own personal preferences, and are very often ill-equipped to properly suss out what God's word is actually saying, putting it all together into a cohesive whole.

When I was a child, it was common for seminary-level, systematic theology to be taught in the Adults' Sunday School class. In these classes, believers were taught not only what the doctrines of the Bible were, but how to study God's word and properly interpret its contents. It's been over three decades since I've seen anything like this in any church I've attended. The absence of such teaching has really begun to show: profound, widespread spiritual juvenility overtaking the Church and prompting (among other things) the view that Scripture is an impenetrable collection of contradictory, archaic and thus largely useless religious ideas.

 

[eddif]

Too often, Christians don't want to work to synthesize or harmonize Scripture, but are content to leave it in tension with itself, choosing instead to preserve their favorite notions about God's Truth even if doing so requires constant eisegesis or an outright denial of certain parts of the Bible.

It's actually not that difficult to reconcile the statements of Paul and James - so long as one has a good grasp of both the immediate and larger, whole-Bible contexts of their writings. What I so often encounter, though, is one believer who has invested significantly in what is essentially a works-based conception of salvation, and another who is committed to salvation by grace through faith, who simply lob apparently contrary verses at each other, neither believer developing a good synthesis of Paul's and James' words that comports well with the whole of God's word.

It's not that the truth is not there, plain and straightforward in its presentation (for the most part), but that the readers of God's truth have their own agenda, their own personal preferences, and are very often ill-equipped to properly suss out what God's word is actually saying, putting it all together into a cohesive whole.

When I was a child, it was common for seminary-level, systematic theology to be taught in the Adults' Sunday School class. In these classes, believers were taught not only what the doctrines of the Bible were, but how to study God's word and properly interpret its contents. It's been over three decades since I've seen anything like this in any church I've attended. The absence of such teaching has really begun to show: profound, widespread spiritual juvenility overtaking the Church and prompting (among other things) the view that Scripture is an impenetrable collection of contradictory, archaic and thus largely useless religious ideas.

Romans 3:30 kjv
30. Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

One new man

Mississippi redneck
eddif