The 1993 Sola Scriptura Debate Review Begins

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five. Three three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white.

Reviewing the 1993 Patrick Madrid Debate on Sola Scriptura

And good morning, welcome to the dividing line on a Tuesday morning beginning a series today where once again we are going to work through a past debate point by point and we've done that with one debate and One radio program we did that with the Bible answer man radio discussion with Jimmy Akin and then we did it with the debate with Patrick Madrid on the veneration of saints and angels and we've gotten a lot of very positive feedback from doing those programs in fact.

You know last time we were talking about how Roman Catholic apologists like to talk about Converts and they like to really emphasize the fact that well such and such a person listened to such and such a debate and they were Converted as a result and therefore I obviously want well last evening we had someone in our chat channel and I'm not going to name names.

I'm not going to drag people out and put them in front of people like this, but Individual traditional Catholic born and raised who over a period of time now and this wasn't just overnight and This individual and his family would testify that I did not.

When I talk with these folks I I do not try to get them to make snap decisions and things like that in any way shape or form but over a period of time answered questions provided you know some response and Trusted the Lord with the rest and this last Lord's Day They were received into an Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

And I rejoiced with them and one of the things that he mentioned was it was very very helpful to go through on the dividing line those two encounters and so We are going to do another debate this being the debate from 1993, San Diego, California.

It was a suburb Chula Vista, but you know it's like saying debate in Phoenix. It was actually in Glendale or something like that or Tempe or whatever on the subject of solo scriptura with then vice president of Catholic answers Patrick Madrid now I Played for you on the last dividing line some comments from Patrick Madrid about this particular debate.

I was going to play them again, but I think you skip those and instead. I'm going to go to Comments written by Patrick Madrid a few months after the debate and as I recall December of 1993 the debate took place the end of September 1993 so 15 years ago at the end of this month.

Is when this debate took place 15 years ago? That's amazing to for me to realize that it was that long ago because I remember it very clearly. But a few months later a Article came out and as I recall the December around early December of 1993 and As I was reading my response to it.

I realized that I had waited till the next year to respond to it. I had actually gone through and written the King James only controversy in the time period after that and Then eventually got around to responding to what Patrick Madrid said in his article called the white man's burden.

I Was I listened to this debate. I think it's first time I've listened to all of it all the way through since 1993 or at least past 10 years and I Listened the whole thing while doing a long ride on Saturday, and I was Taken aback.

I I guess I have this Propensity To try to think the best about most folks and to try to forget about bad things and try to remember good things and I Had forgotten just how nasty Patrick Madrid was in this debate how many cheap shots and and Just just circular argumentation and bad bad debating tactics and so on so I I had forgotten I really Time had sort of mellowed a lot of that stuff out in in my mind my focus was upon what I had presented and the issues regarding the concept of sufficiency and I emphasize that by the way because as I mentioned last time I Challenged Patrick Madrid to do this debate because they had done a debate he and Carl Keating against Ron Jackson Bill Jackson and Ron Nemec in In Denver during the papal visit during World Youth Day and They had scheduled that Specifically on the same night that I was debating Jerry Maddox actually I was debating Jerry Maddox two nights.

One of those two nights was when this debate took place and In that debate they were constantly demanding show us where the Bible teaches sufficiency that doesn't teach sufficiency. And so when you listen to my opening statement You'll see that I am directly responding to the challenges that they had made only a few months earlier in a debate in Denver, Colorado and Madrid's utter capitulation the biblical information utter capitulation I mean when you hear somebody saying well he brought his fancy Greek, and I brought the Bible.

Oh my goodness. I had totally forgotten such an utter collapse on. What's part. I I suppose I should listen to these things more often. I should be a little bit more like algo. Well not no. I don't want to be like algo.

Yeah, no no no no no I don't want to listen myself quite that much. But I should at least imitate him in some things and may review some of these things a little more often than I do because You know 15 years is a long time, and so I was really taken aback, so let me read.

They they put out this article. I didn't say anything about The debate after I got back as far as crowing about it. I felt it went really well. If you want my personal opinion Patrick did not look happy when he left.

The Catholics didn't look happy when they left. I didn't get any feeling that they were all excited about what had happened that evening or anything else. But it's amazing how time changes those things you know it's a little bit like the debate with Roberts and Genesis Scott Butler.

You know I'm walking down during the one of the breaks and walking down the hallway to the men's room and Here's a Roman Catholic priest father. It's Shelly. And he's talking to some Janice. He's not talking to Janice.

He's yelling at some Janice, and he's saying Scott can't handle this kind of information and then all of a sudden they Sent someone's walking by and they're looking at me. You know and so at the time.

Very obviously unhappiness on the part of the debate opponents but then we get around to. You know six months later a year later ten years later. And also Noah was a glorious victory from Mother Church and all the rest of stuff.

You know and that's just that's just how how it works evidently a time heals all wounds anyway, I Hadn't said anything about the debate. But here comes this this article and let me just read you the the the beginning of this article you tell me.

If these the words of someone who felt the debate went really really well for their side and that this was you know I mean Patrick's debated me twice and from his perspective. He's won both of them. He's undefeated.

So here's here's how it started. James White loves to argue. He's a Fundamentalist who runs an anti-catholic ministry, so you'd expect him to be no stranger to controversy. But White's appetite for in-your-face Confrontations goes beyond typical Anti-catholic zealotry, that's just the start folks.

That's just. That's just how you start. He now remember Patrick knows that we go up and and that we deal with all sorts of other issues. But you know fundamentalist anti-catholic anti-catholic is is repeated twice in only Three sentences that's you've got to start beating that drum early to make sure to poison the minds of your audience.

You've just it's just the Catholic answers way. They decide to do that a long time ago. It helps to keep critical thought down and things like that. So that's just start banging away on anti-catholic anti-catholic anti-catholic anti-catholic.

Throw in fundamentalist to just to the fun of it because that's another poison word. Alvin and Megan ministries the small organization white runs. Has carved a modest niche for itself in the fundamentalist countercult marketplace producing tracks and tapes attacking oneness Pentecostals Mormons Jehovah's Witnesses and of course Catholics in his followers pride themselves and their adversarial methods of witnessing to cultists.

At least once each year white and his helpers descend on Salt Lake City during the Mormon Church's biannual general conference. This is a at least once each year a biannual conference would be twice each year wouldn't.

Not so anyway biannual general conference armed with anti-mormon tracks. I Wonder if does does does Patrick pass out anti-mormon tracks to? Would attract that Catholic answers produced be an anti-mormon tract?

Hmm, that's be interesting question to ask. They stationed themselves at each entrance to Temple Square and hand out literature telling Mormons Why they're going to hell. But leafleting is one of the tamer methods white favors in preaching his gospel.

Barely out of his 20s. Yeah, it was a long time ago. White has already garnered a wide reputation as a debate junkie. I don't mean simply that he's been in lots of debates. That's fine. Of course. I've been in plenty myself.

In fact this point in time Patrick would have been in more debates than I had been at that point in time. But double standards are just simply the essence of Catholic answers, I mean he craves debates.

He chases after any Catholic apologist who will take notice of him. Issuing challenges to debate appearing almost frantic to goad someone anyone into a fight. You know, it's funny about this. You know who first arranged a debate with me Catholic answers of course did and you know who first challenged me to debate Catholic answers did of course, you know who moderated the first debate that I did in response to Catholic answers challenge was Patrick Madrid.

So so I respond to their challenges and now I am the one Craving debate and and all the rest of stuff and it's just it's it would be funny If it wasn't just so bad most telling is his penchant for crowing that so-and-so is afraid to debate him.

He does this in letters on computer bulletin boards and implies it in the pages of his sporadically published newsletter prasapala Guillaume he's even sent debate challenges via registered mail. So his prey cannot claim not to have received it.

I know I received such a letter. Now, you know, I'm sorry, but the hypocrisy is is just patent here. Especially because Patrick Madrid is writing this in the page of this rock Catholic answers for many years published tracks in which they themselves said look when you hear somebody preaching Against the church then challenge them to debate and will arrange a debate with them.

They're the ones who started this debate stuff basically and now they're not really fond of doing it anymore and maybe as we listen to this we will we will see why but I Mean when I the whole article was nothing but a hit piece it was Incredible and how bad it is and that's why if you want to see my response to it.

It's still it vintage dot a omen org slash C a th a n cath and html. Is the response that I wrote to the white man's burden, which was put up on the web in? 1994 and so. That's a little bit of the background of the debate that took place once again took place at a Presbyterian Church Orthodox Presbyterian Church in San Diego.

It was a very hot night as you'll hear from my opening comments. There was no air conditioning in the building and the Santa Ana winds were blowing. So it was it was a very warm evening but it was well attended and The subject was does the Bible teach solo scripture remember?

Patrick Madrid and Carl Keating had hammered away on Bill Jackson Ron Nemec, where does the Bible teach its own sufficiency? Now they won that debate. There's no question about the fact they won that debate.

It wasn't even close. It was a wipeout On on any level it was a wipeout the people are debating. We're not prepared to engage them but in this debate I Answered their challenge and I simply ask you to note and note one other thing.

I have said many many times before we start playing us I had said I've said many many times. I Don't know when it happened. I But I am I am 99 certain that one day Carl Keating and Patrick Madrid and Maybe Maddox had come along.

Maybe it was before Maddox came along. I don't know but one day. And the Catholic answers offices they sat around and they said, all right, here's how we're going to approach Solo scripture. Here's the arguments we're going to use.

I've addressed all of the arguments that they use in books and things in the past. But here's the arguments were going to use and Here's our backup plan in The debates we do. We will wait until our opponent until the non-catholic Basically has no more presentation time.

Presentations are over. We will wait till the rebuttal periods or the question answer period. Where you don't have almost any time at all. And this is actually breaking debate rules because you're not supposed to bring new things up at this point.

You're supposed to be only addressing what's already been presented, but rarely are those particular rules observed. And at that point we'll throw out the cannon. Now we know our people don't think about the cannon and we know and I I have to I have to believe these men know The circularity of their own position at this point, but we'll throw out the cannon issue.

When the other person does not have any opportunity whatsoever to actually respond to it in a meaningful fashion. And then we'll bang away on he's not responded. He's not responding. He can't respond.

He's not responded and hope that that's what will stick in people's mind. That's exactly what Madrid does in this debate. He will wait until the second rebuttal period. Before he ever raises. I don't even have an opportunity this point to respond to rebuttal because I'm going first.

Listen to how he does that it's not a part of his core presentation. No, no. No. He waits till later on to throw that thing out and start making challenges about how do you know Matthew wrote Matthew?

No. Well the fun things gonna be and this is. There's gonna be a number of times where I'm gonna interrupt myself and say, you know today I'd probably say it this way because this was 15 years ago, and if I haven't learned more About sola scriptura in 15 years.

I've written books on the subject now. I've done more debates on the subject. My my good brothers David King and William Webster have produced their three-volume Holy Scripture series. I have the third volume here in my hand.

You will hear. He'll hear Patrick Madrid blustering in his opening statement. I have 52 pages of the early church. I I will resist the temptation to bury James in the early church fathers. I used to have the third volume here.

It's over 300 pages long. You know it is it is Humorous sometimes to listen to the bluster that these these gentlemen can produce in defense of the one true church which is what they're very busy doing but It truly.

There are times where I go. For example when he he does the Matthew thing. I think my response was appropriate. But the first response I'd give today is I would quote his own leaders to him. His own leading theologians who say we don't know who wrote Matthew.

And when the leading theologians of the various papal commissions say we we don't know who wrote Matthew. To hear Madrid pounding away on you need to know who wrote Matthew. We know who wrote Matthew because we're the Catholic Church.

We can tell you that and then to hear the Catholic Church saying well. Not really, you know again shows the chasm that exists between the scholarship of Roman Catholicism, and it's apologists because there is a huge chasm between the two and.

So we will we will be looking at that as we go into it as well. So we start off how we only had 20 minute opening statements. We start off with my 20 minute opening statement not sure how much interruption.

I'll be doing During this particular portion, maybe once twice, but here is my opening statement from San Diego in 1993. Good evening. It's good to be with you. I Am very thankful to the church for allowing us to be here.

I need to thank all of you San Diegans. I understand there's a big push on to make this a very friendly city. And I think it's very friendly of you to bring in Phoenix weather just for me while I'm here.

Very kind of you except in Phoenix. All of our buildings have air conditioners and you need to sort of put those two things together and that'll make things a whole lot easier. There have always been those who have refused to give the scriptures their proper place.

There have always been those who wished to add to scripture their own authority and the unique teachings that set them apart. Indeed basil sessaria ran into some of the same problems long ago and replying to his opponents who appealed to their customs and traditions as relevant and authoritative.

He said if custom is to be taken and proof of what is right. Then is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here if they reject this. We are clearly not bound to follow them.

Therefore let God inspired scripture decide between us and on whichever side be found Doctrines in harmony with the Word of God in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth and. So we gather this evening to debate the same question is the Bible the soul and infallible rule of faith the church.

Or must we have other revelation from God? Do we need the Book of Mormon or the writings of the Watchtower or Mary Baker Eddy or the so-called? apostolic unwritten traditions of Rome. Does the Bible teach its own sufficiency to function as the soul will of faith the church.

Well, we must begin by defining the doctrine under discussion this evening. And let me begin by defining what the doctrine of soul scriptura does not say. First of all it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge.

The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21 25 speaks the fact there may things that Jesus said and did that are not Recorded in John or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world cannot contain it.

But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the soul will of faith the church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas's eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal the apostolic band.

For the foot of these scriptures to function as the soul will of faith the church. Secondly it is not a denial of the church's authority to teach God's truth. First Timothy 315 describes the church as the pillar and foundation of the truth.

The truth is in Jesus Christ and in his word the church Teaches truth and calls men to Christ and in so doing function as the pillar and foundation thereof. The church does not add revelation or rule over scripture the church being the bride of Christ Listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God breathed scripture.

Thirdly it is not a denial that God's Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet the Apostles proved their message from scripture as we see in Acts chapter 17 verse 2 and 18 verse 28.

And John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claim to be Apostles Revelation 2 2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And finally Sola Scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the church. What then is Sola Scriptura? The doctrine of Sola Scriptura simply stated is that the scriptures and the scriptures alone are Sufficient to function as the regula fide the rule of faith for the church.

All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific I provide the following definition.

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith of the Christian Church. Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man church or counsel.

The scriptures are self consistent self interpreting and self Authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the church is always subject to the word and It's constantly reformed thereby now given that let me just Pause there just for a moment and make a comment on the concept of self Authenticating.

Obviously I was quoting there from London spat London Baptist Confession in 1689 and It doesn't seem that mr. Madrid understands. That means he will later falsely attribute to me the idea that we determine canon based upon how I feel About scripture that that I read a verse of scripture and it authenticates itself to me.

That's not what the confession is talking about at all. This goes back to some subjects that we've addressed in the past concerning the nature of what is they honest offs? What is God breathed? And it's an it's a it is not about canon.

The the term of self authentication is not an issue that is saying that individuals read a portion of scripture and Just feel that it's inspired because of that. Now Madrid's gonna falsely accuse me of that.

But that's not in fact what that phrase means at all. I would like to explain how I plan on winning my debate this evening with mr. Madrid. Sola scriptura is both a positive and a negative statement. Positively the doctrine teaches that the Bible is sufficient to function as the sole infallible rule of faith for the church.

Negatively it denies the existence of any other rule of faith as being necessary for the man of God. Hence logically I must do the following things. First I must demonstrate that the Bible teaches that it is a rule of faith for the church.

Secondly I must demonstrate the Bible is sufficient to function as the sole rule of faith of the church. That is I must demonstrate its sufficiency or in the language used in the New Testament self that the Bible is artiox and.

Thirdly, I must demonstrate that the Bible as a sufficient rule of faith does not refer us to any other rule of faith. Absent the demonstration on mr. Madrid's part of some other rule of faith. The proceeding is sufficient to establish the fact that the Bible teaches the doctrine of sola scriptura.

Now some opponents of sola scriptura have engaged in what can only be called cheap debating tricks. And attempting to force the defender of scriptural sufficiency to prove a universal negative. That is the less honest debater might attempt to force me to prove the non existence of another rule of faith.

Since I am saying that scripture is unique in its function as the rule of faith of the church. Some might challenge me to demonstrate that no other rule of faith could possibly exist. Illustrate this.

I call your attention to my pen. Yes to my pen if our debate this evening. Was that I was going to stand here and say this is the only pen of its kind in all the universe. How would I go about proving it?

Well, the only way I could prove the statement there is no other pen like this in all the universe is if I looked in all of your purses and all of your shirt pockets and in all the stores in the world they carry pens and and look through all the houses and all over the planet Earth and the moon and the Planets and the solar system in the entire universe looking for another pen like this and of course, I could not do that.

But it'd be very easy for mr Madrid to win that debate. All I need to do is go out and get a cross medalist pen walk up to up here. Hold it right next to mine and say see another pen just like yours and he's won the debate.

In light of this I would assert that mr Madrid must either recognize this reality and not attempt to win this debate by doing nothing more than depending upon in a logical demand. Or he must demonstrate the existence of the other pen.

That is he must prove to us what the Council of Trent said was true. I quote it also clearly perceives that these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten Traditions which received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself or from the Apostles themselves the Holy Ghost Dictating have come down to us transmitted as it were from hand to hand.

Now I just stopped for just a moment to once again. And I know that many of our listeners are already aware of this. We have lots of new listeners and some people who are not familiar with the arguments with Rome.

One of the problems that all of us have documented many times in Attempting to deal with the claims of Roman Catholicism is the fact that the individuals representing Rome often adopt a mutually Contradictory position sometimes in the same presentation part of this is due to the fact that their own history Demonstrates there has not been a single Roman Catholic position on certain issues of authority that in fact it has been a matter of development over time.

And that there have been disagreements the Council of Trent's words. I just quoted Were understood by the majority at the council in what is called the partum partum that is partly in the written traditions partly in the oral traditions and There are going to be sometimes Madrid's gonna say the position of the church and material sufficiency.

He's just being naive at that point. This was something they were just then developing. It wasn't new and as far as Roman Catholic theology is concerned, but they were just getting into it. It wasn't something I mean go through Catholicism and fundamentalism the original edition prior to this debate.

That's not something that was you know laid out there and say oh see here's the the the position is material sufficiency. That is that everything is found at least implicitly in The scriptures in the written traditions of course I would argue that there's all sorts of stuff the Rome teaches.

It isn't even found implicitly anywhere in Scripture. But so they they want to try to say that as long as you can find you know Kakar to many and Luke 128 is implicit enough for the entire Realm of the Marian dogmas and Matthew 16 is enough for the entire realm of infallibility the Pope and all the rest that stuff.

That's that's how you can put anything into the written, but the fact the matter is it's obviously clear. That what they're really arguing is we don't have enough in the scriptures. We need to have something else.

So what do we need. Well the teaching magisterium the church, okay? But is the teaching magisterium the church just interpreting Scripture for us no they have access to what's called oral tradition you see.

Well that oral tradition must contain something other than what's in the written for the written to be insufficient. Well, we don't want to say that Madrid's gonna. Try not to say that well, then don't ever quote to me second Thessalonians 2 15 and point out the one body of traditions delivered in a written form and an oral form is if that's relevant to your position if you Quote it then you're not using a material sufficiency position what Madrid's gonna.

Do is he's gonna use both he's gonna claim material sufficiency and fault me whenever I reviewed that but then he's gonna quote second Thessalonians 2 15 and insist that we need these oral traditions, so he's actually contradicting himself and Then using that when I refute part of his claims as if why I just don't know enough about what in the world I'm talking about and we believe material sufficiency blah blah blah blah blah.

This is you've got to keep your eye on the bouncing ball. And when you do so you find all of these Catholic apologists Will at one point take one position and then instead of defending that they'll back up to the other one and say oh no I'm saying this and then they'll go right back out there and make that claim again when you refute that claim.

Oh, you just don't understand. This is the methodology that they use it's frequently very confusing to people. Who haven't you know listen to it enough times heard enough people doing it to really be able to follow it and quote.

Hence I shall demonstrate that the Bible teaches its Sufficiency to function as the sole rule of faith in the church and as mr. Madrid wishes to attempt to show us some other rule of faith. I will gladly respond to such an attempt now the doctrine of sola scriptura is based upon the inspiration of Scripture our primary passage this evening.

I hope you had your Bibles with you will be found in Paul's second letter to Timothy. The gentleman from Catholic answers have made it a practice for years to assert that Protestants cannot provide a single verse That teaches sola scriptura yet.

They are quite mistaken in this though. They've been corrected a number of times in the past and let us examine the passage to see if this is the case. 2nd Timothy chapter 3 verses 16 through 17 All scripture is God-breathed and is profitable for doctrine for reproof for instruction for training and righteousness.

In order that the man of God might be complete fully equipped for every good work. We begin by knowing that scripture is they honor stops God Breathe the term is very strong. I refer anyone who wishes a full discussion of this term to be be Warfield's excellent treatment of it.

That which is they honor sauce has ultimate authority for there can be no higher authority than God's very speaking. All scripture is God-breathed. It is common for Roman Catholic apologists who follow an error made by John Henry Cardinal Newman with reference to this passage.

Indeed Carl Keating Patrick's associate to Catholic answers makes the same mistake in his book Catholicism and fundamentalism. And he repeated again only recently during the bay on the subject in Denver during the papal visit.

Newman said that if this verse proves the sufficiency of scripture It proves too much for Paul is talking here only about the Old Testament. Which would leave the New Testament as an unnecessary addition, but such is not Paul's point at all Scripture.

Paul's point is if it is scripture at all is God breathe. Paul is not speaking about the extent of the canon. But the nature of scripture itself as originating in God all scripture then including the New Testament is God breathe.

Because scripture is God breathe and hence represents God's very voice speaking. It is profitable for the work of the ministry in the Church of Jesus Christ. We are told that the work of teaching and rebuking and correcting and training and righteousness can be undertaken due to the nature of scripture as God breathe.

Now, let me just stop for just a moment and emphasize once again. The context of this passage is about the man of God teaching in the church teaching rebuking reproving training in righteousness. This is the foundation the lifeblood of the exhortation of the man of God in the church.

This is where his authority flows from now. One of things one of the major blunders and I do identify it as a blunder in the debate. That Madrid makes is he tries to get around this text by again ignoring the original languages and going to other places where Completion or Maturity is mentioned in the New Testament, but none of them have any relationship to this text in regards to The fact that this is where the man of God derives his authority for teaching in the church.

It Madrid just grossly mishandles the text as we saw in the debate on the veneration of saints and angels. Every time these men get into the text they grossly mishandle it. That is why I think they're trying to avoid as much as they possibly can now.

Because that's just a fact when they get into the text of Scripture. They cannot handle it because it does not teach consistently what Roman Catholicism claims it teaches. What is Paul's point the church is not left without the voice of God.

For when the church listens to Scripture? She is hearing her Lord speaking to her. The authority of the church then in teaching and rebuking and instructing is derived despite Roman Catholic claims the contrary from Scripture itself.

Now mr. Madrid will certainly disagree for addressing this very passage less than 50 days ago in a debate on this topic. He said speaking specifically of verse 16 quote. I defy you to show me where it says sufficient in your remarks.

You said when you cited 2nd Timothy 316 you said sufficient, but that is not what the Bible teaches. End quote. Of course no one assert the term profitable in verse 16 equates to sufficiency when his opponents referred him to verse 17.

Mr. Madrid said quote. Well 17 doesn't say sufficient either. 17 says that so the one that belongs to God may be competent and equipped for every good work that does not teach Sufficiency. Where does the Bible teach that it is sufficient.

End quote. Is mr. Madrid correct here. Well, let's see verse 17 continues the thought of verse 16. The fact that the church has God's voice always present with her in God reads Scripture means the man of God.

Specifically here of course Timothy. But I doubt anyone would disagree. But these comments refer to all those who belong to Christ and who are a part of his body the church might be complete fully equipped for every good work.

The first term to examine is the adjective translated complete the Greek term artia. We know that it is related in its root the second term. We will examine the verb which is translated fully equipped that being the verb ex artidso Paul is here providing us with a play on words the verb compounding and emphasizing the meaning present in the adjective.

Now the term artia vine tells us means fitted complete. Bauer art gingrich and donker tell us the term means complete Capable Proficient that is as they say able to meet all demands. Giving the specific citation of 2nd Timothy 317 is the reference.

One of the newest lexical resources low and need is Greek. English lexicon based on semantic domain uses the term qualified as well. The great Greek scholar Richard Trench and his synonyms in the New Testament Said with reference to this term quote.