The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Sola Scriptura

Webster doesn't change the meaning of the word ophelimos from "profitable" to "sufficient", but rather he is interpreting the passage to mean that the Scriptures are 'sufficient'. There is a world of difference between changing a word's obvious and accepted definition and understanding what a passage means in which the word appears.

Now, the text in question certainly does teach the "sufficiency" of the WRITTEN Word of God, for 1) the word translated as "Scripture" in our English Bibles is graphe "writings"; that which was set down in writing. 2) those writings which came through holy men of God (2 Peter 1:21) were the result of God the Spirit "moving" them along to put in writing what God desired to reveal. Paul uses the word, theopneustos; God breathed. Please take special note of the fact that this is to be understood correctly as a passive verbal adjective and not active (cf. Matt 1:22; 2Pet 1:21; et al). Put in layman's language, "God is the speaker and men are but the instruments or mediums through Whom God speaks." The Scriptures are therefore ultimately authoritative and thus sufficient in and of themselves. There is no need of one to "interpret" them in order to make them authoritative or sufficient or even profitable. The Scriptures are self-sufficient, self-interpretative, self-explanatory for they originate with God.

Notice carefully also that it is the WRITINGS, and them only, which came first orally but were put into written words that are God-inspired. No oral tradition! No interpretation! No second-hand teaching! is inspired and thus all else compared to the Scriptures is errant, fallible and thus has no inherent authority or ability to convert the soul or sanctify it (Jh 17:17). This text teaches the "verbal inspiration" of the WRITTEN Word of God; the Bible, the Scriptures.

Thanks for participating and I am sure Kyle will be along to add his most welcomed thoughts.