..he's talking about the same Francis who recently kissed the Qur'an, and claimed it to be the same message as the Holy Bible.
Paul here states that "Scripture"---for him, the Old Testament---is "profitable" (or "useful") in furnishing the man of God. Nothing whatsoever here about the Bible being numerically sufficient or "all we need." The fact is that you have followed the opinions of 16th-century Protestant men in assuming the doctrine of sola scriptura to be biblical and true. But it is neither.
You're missing my point. If you appeal to the name of your "church" ("Church of Christ") for your supposed legitimacy, then Mormonism must also be legitimate on the same basis. If not, then your appeal means nothing at all, and is simply irrelevant. (Incidentally, you rely on the opinions of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect every bit as much as Mormons rely on the Book of Mormon. Both of you, in this sense, follow the teachings of men.)
See just above.
Yes, and that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself has, since the end of the 1st century, been commonly known as "the Catholic Church." This is a straightforward historical fact.
Yes, "one high priest" who founded a single historic Church in 33 A.D. through which to guide and teach the faithful until his Second Coming (Mt. 28:18-20; Ac. 15:2; 16:4; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Jn. 4:6), and who equated his Church's teaching with his very own teachings---they are one and the same---in truth and authority (Lk. 10:16; 1 Tim. 3:15).
The Bible is entirely sufficient to function as God's written word. However, the written texts are not the entirety of God's word. The Church's Apostolic Tradition is also "the word of God." In short, Divine Revelation (God's word) consists of both Scripture (written) and Tradition (unwritten), just as even the New Testament itself affirms (2 Thess. 2:15).
Sorry, you're going to have to do a whole lot more than simply appealing to the name of your recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect* in order to legitimize your doctrinal claims.
I would say precisely the same thing to you.
QUESTION: Are your personal interpretations of the Bible in any way infallible and authoritative upon others? Or are the doctrinal opinions of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect somehow infallibly binding upon others?
Only Scripture can be called "inspired" (2 Tim. 3:16). However, a message need not be inspired in order to be considered infallibly true and authoritative. As has already been observed, Apostolic Oral Tradition is also the infallible word of God (1 Thess. 2:13).
The question is exactly how we can KNOW (not assume) that we're correctly understanding the Bible, and whether or not our personal interpretations of Scripture carry any inherent infallible authority whatsoever. Back to Post #197.