Never Thirst-Taking Jesus" Literally" can be Fatal

Thoughts of Francis Turretine ^ | July 17, 2014 | TurretinFan

[RnMomof7]

Never Thirst - Taking Jesus "Literally" can be Fatal

Roman Catholics like to try to claim that they are just taking Jesus "literally" when they interpret "this is my body" to mean that what was in Jesus' hands was not bread but his physical body [FN1]. Three passages in John help to illustrate the problem with that approach: John 4, John 6, and John 7.  In the first, Jesus refers metaphorically to living water, in the second Jesus refers to himself as food and drink, and in the third Jesus offers drink to those who thirst.

In John 4, Jesus interacts with the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well.  He asks her for water, she objects because he's Jewish, and he responds that she should be asking him for water, because the water he offers is better than the water from Jacob's well. She misunderstands him as speaking physically, even after some further explanation.  She wants to stop the labor of drawing water and misunderstands Jesus' comments about "never thirst."

John 4:6-15
Now Jacob's well was there. Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well: and it was about the sixth hour. There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink. (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy meat.) Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water? Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle? Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.

In John 6, Jesus interacts with a number of "disciples" who want Jesus to repeat the miracle of the loaves that's reported at the beginning of the chapter.  Jesus explains that the person who believes on him will never thirst and whoever comes to him will never hunger, calling himself the "bread of life" that "came down from heaven." Jesus insists that the bread he offers is better than the manna that the people ate in the wilderness.  Jesus talks about them eating his flesh and drinking his blood, but they take him physically and go away in disgust.  Jesus explains that the words he speaks are spirit and life.  Jesus asks the twelve if they will go away too, but Peter (speaking for the group) says that they will stay with him because they believe and know that his words are the words of eternal life.

John 6:26-71
Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work? Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve. 

In John 7, Jesus interacts with those at the temple for the feast.  Jesus offers the thirsty people water.  John explains to us that Jesus is speaking about the Spirit as the "rivers of flowing water."

John 7:37-39 
In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

These passages illustrate Jesus' fondness for using food as a metaphor for trust in him.  We approach the Lord's table by faith, coming to Him as represented by the bread and cup.  We gain a benefit from this if we do so by faith, but not if we do so any other way.  It is not the physical elements that provide the benefit we receive, it is the Spirit.

Remember what Jesus said about clean/unclean foods:

Matthew 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

Unfortunately, it seems our Roman Catholic friends and relatives fail to understand this.  Christ is our spiritual food and drink, not our physical nourishment.

Isaiah 44:3 For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring:
Psalm 105:41 He opened the rock, and the waters gushed out; they ran in the dry places like a river.
Isaiah 48:21 And they thirsted not when he led them through the deserts: he caused the waters to flow out of the rock for them: he clave the rock also, and the waters gushed out.
Psalm 78:20 Behold, he smote the rock, that the waters gushed out, and the streams overflowed; can he give bread also? can he provide flesh for his people?
1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

The blessings we receive in Christ are primarily spiritual blessings.  We drink the spiritual drink from the spiritual Rock, and that Rock is Christ.  He is our Rock, we trust in Him.

To the glory of his grace!

TurretinFan

Footnote 1: I should add that the Roman Catholic position is particularly absurd in that it takes "this is my body" as implying that the bread ceases to be bread and becomes the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus.  Likewise, it is claimed that "this is ... my blood" implies exactly the same thing about the contents of the cup.  That's quite far from taking the words literally, in which the bread would just be the body, and the contents of the cup would just be the blood.

[boatbums]

Now who is being a tattletale?

Wow...I'm amazed at how little you seem to know about the rules around here. I pinged the Moderator because I both referenced him/her and copied & pasted his/her profile that explains what you seemed to have wrongly concluded about my post to you. That's not being a tattletale. Please try to be a little more mature, won't you?

[boatbums]

Thank you for clarifying this point.

[verga]

Prots get so upset when their own rude comments are pegged right at them.

[boatbums]

Go back and read my original post. I posted 3 definitions of SS from various sources, including James White. I asked you to show me any of those definitions in the Bible and cite chapter and verse.

Actually, I posted those definitions (see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3273577/posts?page=241#241). You skipped right on past the straw man definition polemical sites like Catholic Answers put out - not surprising. Like I explained to you, there are truths revealed in Scripture that may or may not meet someone's demand for exact wording yet the principle still remains. I already said:

There IS no authority greater than God's authority. His word is pure, sure, infallible, abiding forever, is not chained, has never failed, is alive, convicts the soul, encourages, edifies, divides soul from spirit, discerns the thoughts and intents of the heart, gives hope, is the truth, is righteous, imparts peace and endures forever. Because of this, there is NOTHING of man that compares or is equal to the authority of God's word - not traditions, not humanly devised wisdom, not the unanimous consent of a group of guys and certainly not the musings of men who declare THEY alone are qualified to tell God which of His revealed truths they will or will not recognize and accept. God laughs at such delusion.

The principle of Sacred Scriptures being the SOLE Divinely-inspired resource we have been given from the hand of God proves that they are our primary authority for the rule of the Christian faith - the simple meaning of sola Scriptura. Whatever doctrines or dogmas church councils devise and make binding upon believers MUST be found in Scripture and proved by them. This has been the understanding of most of the earliest church fathers such as:

"For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?" - Ambrose (On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102)

"For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures." - Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, 4:17)

I think that "Your brain on Drugs" was someone projecting.

You can certainly think whatever you want. I can't remember you admitting to being wrong about anything especially where it concerns non-Catholic Freepers. You can even imply I was lying and DID mean you personally - like you did here - even though I have denied it several times. My conscience is clear before God and my fellow Freepers. Have a happy Easter.

[verga]

You skipped right on past the straw man definition polemical sites like Catholic Answers put out - not surprising.

Because I didn't want you or anyone else to say I was using a false definition. If any prot was going to have even the remotest chance of showing a definition then they would have to use a prot definition.

And yet given that you could use any definition you fail to provide a SINGLE scriptural reference showing ANY of those definitions.

Your very words prove you wrong: Whatever doctrines or dogmas church councils devise and make binding upon believers MUST be found in Scripture and proved by them.

You make the claim thatThe principle of Sacred Scriptures being the SOLE Divinely-inspired resource we have been given from the hand of God proves that they are our primary authority for the rule of the Christian faith

Yet the DEFINITION of SS is not found in scripture.

Go ahead lets see your best shot.

Remember you need to provide the DEFINITION of SS using Chapter and verse.

[boatbums]

Because I didn't want you or anyone else to say I was using a false definition. If any prot was going to have even the remotest chance of showing a definition then they would have to use a prot definition.

So, does this mean you reject Catholic Answer's definition of sola Scriptura and accept the actual one that is meant by the term? That's a great start!

And yet given that you could use any definition you fail to provide a SINGLE scriptural reference showing ANY of those definitions.

Once again I ask you to SPELL OUT what verbiage you will accept as a correct answer. You already should know that NOBODY has ever claimed the term "sola Scriptura" is in Scripture, right? Like many of the major and "always believed everywhere by all" tenets of the Christian faith such as the Divinity of Jesus, the Trinity and others that ARE spelled out in the creeds, if they can be proved BY Scripture, then they are to be believed by the faithful. At least this was how it began in Christianity.

From before Christ was incarnated, the authority of God's divinely-revealed word has been accepted and obeyed. There are certainly more than an adequate number of passages IN Scripture that spell that out and what man's responsibility is supposed to be WRT the Scriptures. You keep insisting on me providing "chapter and verse" that proves the concept behind the term sola Scriptura, and I think I have more than done that, as have many others in the past every time this subject comes up. You have been provided links to many articles and essays that back up the claim that this is true and WHY it is true. I can give them to you again if you need them or really are interested in learning. I certainly won't retype them for you or post long passages of them - you've stated before your dislike of reading long comments and copy&pastes.

I've even showed you the many early church fathers' comments that affirm the concept of the sufficiency of the Scriptures and how NOTHING should be made doctrine unless it has its basis and proof from God's word. It was because of this that the Reformers had a solid footing for disputing the novel doctrines instituted by the Roman Catholic church - the Eastern Orthodox reasoned the same five hundred years before the Reformation.

You can continue to claim I failed to prove my point or give you what you demanded, but you really don't have any basis for that. I think I have been more than generous with my time spent dialoguing with you on this. I honestly don't expect to have changed your mind since I know the conundrum you'd find yourself in should you agree with the doctrine of sola Scriptura. It's really too bad, though, because once someone finds they can trust the sacred word of God, that it will never fail, is true, is from the mind of God, it leads us to godliness, peace, in paths of righteousness and security in the faith we have, they will never doubt again.

These are the things you are to teach and insist on. If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, they are conceited and understand nothing. They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between people of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.

But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

But you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness. Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made your good confession in the presence of many witnesses. In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which God will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen. (I Timothy 6:3-16)

[verga]

Yes or no can YOU DEFINE SS using the Bible alone, if you can then please do so, if not then please admit it. All I am asking you to do is to show the definition of the term in the Bible.

[WVKayaker]

All I am asking you to do is to show the definition of the term in the Bible.

[verga]

I guess that you can’t either.

[WVKayaker]

I guess that you can’t either.

You have been given the answer, but have chosen to continue with your charade. You feel that the interpretation from the guys in funny hats is good enough for you and all else is "whatever"!

Keep thinking that if that allows you to sleep at night!

I take my rest in the hands of God...

[verga]

You have been given the answer, but have chosen to continue with your charade. You feel that the interpretation from the guys in funny hats is good enough for you and all else is "whatever"!

Where, where exactly did boatbums, you or anyone else define the principle of SS using the Bible alone? Tell me the post number or re-post it here.

I intentionally did not use a definition by Catholics so that none of you could say I set an unreasonable bar.

I even said you could come up with your own definition as long as you could show that definition in the Bible citing chapter and verse.

[BlatherNaut]

They have complete relevance, as they pertain to your assertion the existence of 30,000 squabbling sects puts the lie to the claim that that those who hold most strongly to even the authority of Scripture as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God are the most unified in core beliefs

They are certainly unified in the core belief that rejects the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church founded by Our Lord. All other "core beliefs" are open to interpretation.

Certain Rome exists as one church, but one in which one can believe all sorts of diverse things, and have a SSPV contending against a Ted Kennedy RC, and both being treated as members.

False claim. Catholics cannot "believe all sorts of diverse things" and remain Catholics in truth. The basis of Catholic unity is adherence to the Deposit of Faith, entrusted to His Church by our Divine Savior. "By divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed." - Denzinger, "The Sources of Catholic Dogma", #1792.

3) Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality [i.e. oecumenicity], antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.

http://www.ancient-future.net/vcanon.html

Typical RC specious extrapolation, as the context does not change at all the fact that Peter was not addressing interpretation of Scripture, but that of how prophecy was written, "that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:21)

So he used the term "prophecy of scripture" yet he was only referring to prophecy? That interpretation epitomizes "specious extrapolation".

[daniel1212]

They are certainly unified in the core belief that rejects the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church founded by Our Lord. All other "core beliefs" are open to interpretation.

Wrong, as it easily evidenced that Evangelicals have been foremost defenders of the Scriptural core Truths we both concur on, against cults that deny them. One example is the best seller "The Kingdom of the Cults" by Walter Martin, which was not written by a Catholic.

But your recourse is like so many other RCs who simply deny what is evidenced as they blindly defend Rome.

False claim. Catholics cannot "believe all sorts of diverse things" and remain Catholics in truth.

Wrong again, unless you excommunicate the liberal majority of RCs whom Rome counts as members.

The basis of Catholic unity is adherence to the Deposit of Faith, entrusted to His Church by our Divine Savior.

Yet both the premise that this unity requires adherence to the Deposit of Faith as well as what that all entails is manifestly subject to interpretation, which Rome provides by what she does in affirming her liberal multitudes as members. And as i showed you, it is what one does and effects that constitutes the evidence of what one believes. (Ja. 2:18; Mt. 7:20)

Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all.

Which is a lie, as at not time was all that Rome holds as the DoF believed everywhere, always and by all. Even the “stipulated “unanimous consent” of the fathers is not literally “unanimous."

So he used the term "prophecy of scripture" yet he was only referring to prophecy? That interpretation epitomizes "specious extrapolation".

Rather, is it your vain charge that is specious, as the context was prophets (see "false prophets" in 2Pt. 1:1, and "the holy prophets" in 3:2), and works such as Ecclesiastes or Romans do not fit the description Peter elsewhere gave , "Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow." (1 Peter 1:10-11)

As your NAB commentary says on 2Pt. 1:21, "The prophetic word in scripture comes admittedly through human beings..." (http://usccb.org/bible/2peter/1#69001020-1)

Yet even if Peter most directly is referring to the prophecy, by extension it applies to all of Scripture, and refers to how Scripture was written, that being under full Divine inspiration, and is not speaking of understanding and teaching it. Which as said, if it was then to be consistent it would require Divine inspiration to understand and express it, which Divine inspiration even Rome's "infallible" teachings cannot claim.

Thus it still refutes the RC "specious extrapolation" of this text, and testifies against her being the assuredly trust worthy interpreter, if she has indeed indisputably defined this text. If not, that is simply a fallible interpretation for RCs, and which they defend to their own detriment.

[boatbums]

Yes or no can YOU DEFINE SS using the Bible alone, if you can then please do so, if not then please admit it. All I am asking you to do is to show the definition of the term in the Bible.

Yes! Done and done. Just what do you think I've been doing? I can't help it if you refuse to read or accept the proof provided to you countless times. The ball's in your court. I'm not playing your game.

[boatbums]

Frustrating isn't it? Some people REFUSE to accede to what they would have to accept - if they are being honest. I think there are cases where, after numerous tries, we dust off our feet and move on. The Apostles sure did.

[verga]

I have read it and you have failed miserably. Not one of he verse you cited defined Sola Scriptura by any metric. I even suggested that you come up with your own definition, you did even offer that.

I am not playing a game either. Prots are constantly telling Catholics that any of our doctrines must be explicitly spelled out to be valid, we ll I don't see the "doctrine of SS spelled out / defined in any verse you cited

[boatbums]

One final try...If you genuinely want to know, here's a good place to read: An Articulation of Sola Scriptura

I won't copy&paste the entire essay, but it spells out what you keep denying has OR can be done. Here's an excerpt (you will see much that has already been given to you):

What Sola Scriptura Does Teach

It teaches that:

1. The Holy Scriptures are the sole, infallible rule of faith by virtue of it being breathed out or inspired by God. As such it is completely sufficient in and of itself to thoroughly equip Christians in all things necessary for salvation and sanctification.

2. The Bible is the only certain norm, since it is the only revelation that can be demonstrated to have come from inspired men of God. This cannot be said of oral traditions.

3. Finally, the central focus of the Scriptures is to reveal and make known the risen Lord and immortal Savior Jesus Christ, God’s eternally beloved Son, who alone grants eternal life to all who believe.

The following citations demonstrate that the foregoing points are thoroughly scriptural in nature.

“You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.” John 5:39-40

“Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” John 20:30-31

John states that not everything Christ did was recorded, and yet what has been recorded is sufficient to obtain eternal life. If Scriptures are sufficient to lead a person to eternal life, then nothing else is needed.

“And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” 2 Peter 1:19-21

Peter claims that the Holy Scriptures were produced as a result of God’s Holy Spirit moving men of God to write. Hence, the Scriptures are both divine and human in origin. In other words, the Bible is God’s Word which is communicated through human vessels, using human language.

“But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are ABLE (ta dunamena) to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God (theopneustos) and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent (artios), equipped (exertismenos) for EVERY GOOD WORK.” 2 Timothy 3:14-17 ESV

Paul teaches that:

A. The Scriptures make one wise for salvation through faith in the Lord Jesus.

The word translated here as “able” conveys the idea that Scriptures have an inherent ability, an inherent sufficiency to accomplish its purpose. Again, if the Scriptures are capable of leading one to salvation, what need is there for anything else?

B. The Scriptures are God-breathed or breathed out by God. In other words, the Scriptures originate from God and not from man, although God used men to write it.

C. The Scriptures thoroughly, completely furnish or equip the man of God not just for some or many good works, but also for EVERY good work that is necessary for the Christian life.

Exertismenos is the participial form of exartizo. Thayer’s Lexicon defines it as “to complete, finish, to furnish perfectly.” Louw & Nida, in their Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, Volume 1, p. 680, write:

“… to make someone completely adequate or sufficient for something- ‘to make adequate to furnish completely, to cause to be fully qualified, adequacy.”

Thayer defines artios as “complete, perfect.”

Bauer&Gingrich&Danker’s A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christianity Literature, second edition, defines it as “complete, capable, proficient=able to meet all demands.”

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, revised and augmented throughout by Sir Henry Stuart Jones with the assistance of Roderick McKenzie, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1940, states:

artios , a, on (os, on Aristid.Quint.1.25): ( [arti] ):--complete, perfect of its kind, suitable, exactly fitted, a. allêloisi sponduloi Hp.Art.45 ; artia bazein speak to the purpose, Il.14.92, Od.8.240; hoti hoi phresin artia êidê thought things in accordance with him, was of the same mind with him, Il.5.326, Od.19.248; artia mêdesthai Pi.O.6.94 ; meet, right, proper, Sol.4.40, Thgn.946; a. eis ti well-suited for . . , IG14.889.7 (Sinuessa); artiôtatên echein taxin most perfect, Philostr.VS1.21.3. (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2315683)

This last point is extremely important and crucial in demonstrating the sole sufficiency of the Scriptures. If the Scriptures are able to make the man of God complete or perfect, as well as thoroughly adequate or sufficient for EVERY GOOD WORK, then what else does he need apart from the God-breathed revelation?

In fact, can those who deny Sola Scriptura produce a good work that is necessary for either salvation or sanctification that are not found in the Scriptures? Obviously not, since if they could they would be falsifying Paul’s claim here and attributing error to the inspired Scriptures.

4. The Holy Bible teaches that what God says the Bible says and what it says God says. In other words God’s words and the words of Scripture are one and the same.

A. What God says the Bible says

Example 1

“Now the LORD said to Abram, ‘Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who curses you I will curse; and by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves.’” Genesis 12:1-3 RSV

“And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, ‘In you shall all the nations be blessed.’” Galatians 3:8 RSV

Example 2

“Then the LORD said to Moses, ‘Rise up early in the morning and stand before Pharaoh, and say to him, “Thus says the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, ‘Let my people go, that they may serve me… but for this purpose have I let you live, to show you my power, so that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.’”’” Exodus 9:13, 16 RSV

“For the scripture says to Pharaoh, ‘I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.’” Romans 9:17 RSV

B. What the Bible says God says

Example 1

“Then the man said, ‘This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.’ Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.” Genesis 2:23-24 RSV

“He answered, ‘Have you not read that HE who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”?’” Matthew 19:4-5 RSV

Example 2

“Why do the nations conspire, and the peoples plot in vain?” Psalm 2:1 RSV

“And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, ‘Sovereign Lord, who didst make the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, who by the mouth of our father David, thy servant, didst say by the Holy Spirit, “Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples imagine vain things?”’” Acts 4:24-25 RSV

Example 3

“For thou dost not give me up to Sheol, or let thy godly one see the Pit.” Psalm 16:10 RSV

“And as for the fact that HE raised him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, HE spoke in this way, ‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.’ Therefore he says also in another psalm, ‘Thou wilt not let thy Holy One see corruption.’” Acts 13:34-35 RSV

[verga]

Here is the question again: Where is Sola Scriptura defined in Scripture?

I am not asking what it teaches I am asking WHERE is it DEFINED

Do you understand what it means to define? Seriously Do you understand that word.

verb (used with object), defined, defining.

1. to state or set forth the meaning of (a word, phrase, etc.): They disagreed on how to define “liberal.”.

2. to explain or identify the nature or essential qualities of; describe: to define judicial functions.

3. to fix or lay down clearly and definitely; specify distinctly: to define one's responsibilities.

Synonyms: state, name, describe, detail, enumerate.

4. to determine or fix the boundaries or extent of: to define property with stakes.

5. to make clear the outline or form of: The roof was boldly defined against the sky.

verb (used without object), defined, defining.

6. to set forth the meaning of a word, phrase, etc.; construct a definition.

How is anything you have posted a definition?

[WVKayaker]

Trolling for attention ... all it's capable of presenting is discord and antagonism!

It has never presented a cogent refutation to anything, yet continues to drone on and on about NOTHING!

Too dusty here...

[verga]

HE It has never presented a cogent refutation to anything, yet continues to drone on and on about NOTHING!

Fixed it for you. Verga is 100% UDSA approved male

Second BB has not presented an definition. I asked you where the definition had had been presented and you never replied.

Here is your (second) chance tell me where she defined SS using the Bible, you can either tell me the post or reprint it here, which is exactly what I asked you before.