During his debate on Sola Scriptura vs. Hayden Carroll (LDS), Daniel Ortner (ex-LDS; now an Evangelical Protestant) claimed that Col 1:25-26 is a proof-text for sola scriptura. Here is the relevant portion of his claim:
In Colossians 1 Paul talks about how he presented to the Colossians the
word of God in its fullness so there's no room for a hidden restoration that
later reveals new truth.
Before we discuss why Ortner is wrong, let us quote
Col 1:24-26:
Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh
what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his
body, which is the church. I have become its servant by the commission God gave
me to present to you the word of God in its fullness--the mystery that has been
kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the Lord's
people. (NIV)
I quote the NIV as it appears that Ortner was relying
upon that. However, as we will soon note, this is not the best translation of
the τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι εἰς ὑμᾶς πληρῶσαι τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ tēn dotheisan moi
eis hymas plērōsai ton logon tou theou (“to present to you the word of God
in its fullness”).
One will notice if they watch the entirety of the
debate with Hayden, Ortner often assumed that if “Mormonism” is false, ipso
facto, Sola Scriptura has been proven to be true, but that is utterly
fallacious, and for someone who is a lawyer, they should know better (the joke
among some LDS who are familiar with Ortner is that he makes Lionel Hutz seem
competent). It would be the equivalent of if I were to debate a Roman Catholic on
Vatican I and the primacy of the bishop of Rome, and if I were successful in
showing that Pasto Aeternus is wrong, that, ipso facto, Joseph
Smith was a true prophet of God. I hope everyone with a double-digit IQ can see
how nonsensical that is.
However, for the sake of argument, let us allow for
some presuppositions that Ortner reads into this text (eisegesis) to be true,
namely, that Paul did preach the entirety of the “Word of God” to the
Colossians and this precludes additional “new truth” as part of what he
calls “a hidden new restoration” (or, as D&C 128:18 would call it, “the
dispensation of the fullness of times”).
Firstly, if this text is teaching what Ortner believes
it to be teaching, the formal sufficiency of the Word of God Paul preached to
the Colossian congregation, this would disprove, not prove, the Protestant
doctrine of Sola Scriptura. How so? Paul orally preached this Word of
God to the Colossians; this would mean that the oral, not inscripturated, “Word
of God” is formally sufficient, and precludes Sola Scriptura which teaches that
the inscripturated Word of God is the ultimate authority, and all other sources
(including oral tradition, creeds, confessions) are subordinated thereto. This
is why the “Word of God = the Bible” (or even “Word of God” = “inscriptured
revelation) shoots the Protestant like Ortner in the foot. On this, let me
quote a Protestant apologist in a book defending sola scriptura who rubbishes
this naïve view:
[T]here is a difference between the Word of God, which is eternal (Psalm
119:89, 152, 160), and the Bible, which is not. The Bible is the Word of God
written. If one were to destroy one paper Bible, or all paper Bibles, he would
not have destroyed the eternal Word of God. One such example is given in
Jeremiah 36. The prophet was told by God to write His words in a book, and to
read it to the people. Wicked king Jehoiakim, not comfortable with what had
been written, had the written Word destroyed. God then told the prophet to
write the Word down again. The king had destroyed the written Word, but he had
not destroyed God's Word. God's Word is eternal propositions that find
expression in written statements. (W. Gary Crampton, By Scripture Alone: The
Sufficiency of Scripture [Unicoi, Tenn.: The Trinity Foundation, 2002],
156)
Secondly, when Paul preached orally to the Colossians,
and when he wrote the epistle to the Colossians, it was during a time of
public revelation. During this time, even according to Protestants, Sola
Scriptura could not be operative, as one first needs tota scriptura to
exist before Sola Scriptura can operate as the ultimate rule of faith.
Further, during Paul’s time, there was not just written revelation, but oral
revelation that had the same level of authority and inspiration as the written
word of God (e.g., 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6, from the same author of the
Epistle to the Colossians). As Robert Sungenis noted:
Evangelical James White admits: “Protestants do not assert that sola
scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation. How could it be, since
the rule of faith to which it points was at the very time coming into being”
(“A Review and Rebuttal of Steve Ray’s Article “Why The Bereans Rejected Sola
Scriptura,” 1997, on web site of Alpha and Omega Ministries). By this
admission, White has unwittingly proven that Scripture does not teach sola
scriptura, for if it cannot be a “valid concept during times of revelation,”
how can Scripture teach such a doctrine since Scripture was written precisely
when divine oral revelation was still being produced? Scripture cannot
contradict itself. Since both the 1st century Christian and the 21st century
Christian cannot extract differing interpretations from the same verse, thus,
whatever was true about Scripture then must also be true today. If the first
Christians did not, and could not, extract sola scriptura from Scripture
because oral revelation was still existent, then obviously those verses could
not, in principle, be teaching sola scriptura, and thus we cannot interpret
them as teaching it either. (Robert A. Sungenis, “Does Scripture teach Sola
Scriptura?” in Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant
Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, ed. Robert A. Sungenis [2d ed: Catholic
Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2013], 118 n. 24)
During the cross examination period of a debate
between Gerry Matatics and James White on the topic of sola scriptura, the
following exchange took place:
Gerry Matatics (M): Did the people in Jesus' day practice sola
scriptura? The hearers of our Lord?
James White (W): I have said over, and over, and over again that sola
scriptura is a doctrine that speaks to the normative condition of the Church,
not to times of inscripturation.
M: So your answer is "no"?
W: That is exactly what my answer is--it is "no"
M: Did the apostles practice sola scriptura, Mr. White? Yes or no
W: No
M: Thank you; did the successors to the apostles practice sola
scriptura; only believing that Timothy [in 2 Tim 3:16-17] only believed what
Paul had written him?
. . .
W: Again, as you should know as a graduate of Westminster theological
seminary, you are asking every question of a straw-man--it [sola scriptura]
speaks of times after the inscripturation of Scripture.
M: Thank you Mr. White
W: So I am glad to affirm everything you said.
M: So, Mr. White; you admit then that Jesus didn't practice sola
scriptura . . .
W: I asserted it
M: . . . His hearers do not; the apostles do not and their successors do
not; and yet you want to persuade this audience that they should depart from
this pattern for reasons you believe are sufficient and now adopt a different
methodology . . .(From “The Great Debate II:
Sola Scriptura” [1997])
So
according to White, a leading defender of sola scriptura, Jesus, the Apostles
(which would include Paul), and the members of the New Testament Church did not
practice or teach sola scriptura. It is Latter-day Saints, not Protestants like
White (and Daniel Ortner) who agree with Jesus and Paul. It also shows how
naïve thinking “Word of God” being a reference to inscriptured revelation merely
is fallacious to the nth degree and also appealing to New Testament
“proof-texts” to support Sola Scriptura, for they were all written during a
time of public revelation, meaning that, of all the interpretive possibilities
a text may have, a priori, the interpretation that reads out of it sola
scriptura is already precluded as it could not have been the intended
meaning the author had (and that would include 2 Tim 3:16-17). For more on
this, see the opening sections of my lengthy essay, Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint
Refutation of Sola Scriptura.
We even see this in Acts 19:8-13, where Paul preached for three months at
Ephesus, and yet left no written revelation of this preached Word of God. This
alone shows that Ortner is trying to make an eisegetical mountain out of a
molehill:
Paul entered the synagogue and spoke
boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God.
But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly
maligned the Way. So Paul left them. He took the disciples with him and had
discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. This went on for two years,
so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the
word of the Lord. God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, so that even
handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their
illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them. Some Jews who went around
driving out evil spirits tried to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those
who were demon-possessed. They would say, "In the name of the Jesus whom
Paul preaches, I command you to come out." (Acts 19:8-13 NIV)
Thirdly,
as noted above with respect to the NIV's translation of τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι εἰς ὑμᾶς
πληρῶσαι τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεου in Col 1:25 perhaps not being the best way to
render the Greek, let us examine how other translations render the verse:
Whereof I am made a minister,
according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil
the Word of God. (KJV)
I became its servant according to
God's commission that was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully
known. (NRSV)
Of this church I was made a
minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit,
that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God. (NASB)
Of which I became a minister,
according to God's stewardship which was given to me for you, to complete the
word of God. (LEB)
Calvin, a staunch defender of Sola
Scriptura, did not interpret this verse as teaching Sola Scriptura; instead,
Paul being a minister was his completing or fulfilling the Word of God (which
is different than Paul giving to the Colossians the Word of God in its
fullness, contra Ortner's eisegesis of the verse):
25. Of which
I am made a minister. Mark under what character he suffers for the
Church—as being a minister, not to give the price of redemption,
(as Augustine dexterously and piously expresses himself,) but to proclaim
it. He calls himself, however, in this instance, a minister of the Church on a
different ground from that on which he called himself elsewhere, (1Co 4:1), a minister of God, and a little ago, (Col 1:23), a minister of the gospel. For the
Apostles serve God and Christ for the advancement of the glory of both: they
serve the Church, and administer the gospel itself, with a view to promote
salvation. There is, therefore, a different reason for the ministry in these
expressions, but the one cannot subsist without the other. He says, however, towards
you, that they may know that his office has a connection also with them.
To fulfill
the word. He states the end of his ministry —that the word of God
may be effectual, as it is, when it is obediently received. For this is the
excellence of the gospel, that it is the
power of God
unto salvation to every one that believeth.
(Ro 1:16).
God, therefore, gives efficacy and influence
to his word through means of the Apostles. For although preaching itself,
whatever may be its issue, is the fulfilling of the word, yet it is the fruit
that shews at length that the seed has not been sown in vain.
This fits the meaning of πληροω. BDAG, when defining
this verb, offers the following definition with reference to Col 1:25:
3. to bring to completion that which
was already begun, complete, finish
(X., Hell. 4, 8, 16; Herodian 1, 5, 8;
Olympiodorus, Life of Plato p. 2 Westerm.: the hymn that was begun; Himerius,
Or. 6 [2], 14 πληρῶσαι τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν=fully gratify the desire, in that the
Persians wished to incorporate into their great empire a small piece of the
west, i.e. Greece; ApcSed 13:1 τὴν μετάνοιαν) τὸ εὐαγγέλιον
τοῦ
Χριστοῦ bring (the preaching of) the gospel to
completion by proclaiming it in the most remote areas Ro 15:19; sim. πλ. τ. λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ Col
1:25. πληρώσατέ μου τ. χαράν Phil 2:2. Cp. 2 Th 1:11.—Pass. 2 Cor
10:6; Col 4:12 v.l. (s. 1b above). ὁ πᾶς νόμος ἐν ἑνὶ λόγῳ πεπλήρωται
Gal 5:14 because of its past tense is prob. to be
translated the whole law has found its full expression in a single word or
is summed up under one entry (s. s.v. λόγος 2a; some would put this passage under 4b).
οὐχ
εὕρηκά σου ἔργα πεπληρωμένα Rv 3:2. Johannine usage speaks of joy that is
made complete (the act. in Phil 2:2, s. above) J 3:29; 15:11;
16:24; 17:13; 1J 1:4; 2J 12.
Note also BDAG:
5. “To complete”: a. πληρόω has a purely temporal sense in statements
which refer expressly to a span of time; in the following passages, according
to context, it means “to finish” (Lk. 7:1, with some solemnity in this
reference to the sermon on the plain); Ac. 13:25: of the Baptist (→ τρέχω) with
the implication of according to God’s will; 19:21: pass. in comprehensive
description of the varied events in Ephesus. b. “To execute” of a commanded
action; decisively it is almost always God’s commission which is to be
fulfilled, with particular reference to the ministry of the individual or total
community: the thought of a full measure is apparent in the admonition in Col.
4:17; “to execute fully” (perf.) in R. 15:19 with reference to Paul’s total
activity in the Eastern Mediterranean (→ II, 729, 27); of preaching again in
Col. 1:25; of a piece of missionary work in Ac. 14:26; of a mission of
assistance in 12:25; of the way of Jesus to the cross in Lk. 9:31 (chosen
intentionally here), c. “To bring to full or supreme measure, to completion,”
always with an impersonal object (on Col. 2:10 → 292, 19–22). Active: Paul
prays for the Thessalonians that God may mightily (→ II, 315) bring to
completion in them His gracious counsel (→ II, 746), which aims at their doing
of good and the work of πίστις (→ II, 649, 36–39), 2 Th. 1:11. Paul asks the
Philippians to make the joy which he already has in them (4:1) full by their
unanimity, Phil. 2:2. Pass.: Paul in 2 C. 10:6 counts on it that the obedience
of the Corinthians will “become complete” (its first beginnings are already
there); to whom it should be rendered is not stated: obedience to God will also
mean obedience to the apostle. (Gerhard Delling, “Πλήρης, Πληρόω, Πλήρωμα, Ἀναπληρόω,
Ἀνταναπληρόω, Ἐκπληρόω, Ἐκπλήρωσις, Συμπληρόω, Πληροφορέω, Πληροφορία,” Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley,
and Gerhard Friedrich, 10 vols. [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1964–], 6:297)
The NET Bible renders the verse as:
I became a servant of the church according to the stewardship from
God—given to me for you—in order to complete the word of God
The relevant note reads:
The idea here seems to be that the apostle wants to "complete the
word of God" in that he wants to preach it to every person in the known
world (cf. Rom 15:19).
19th-century Protestant commentator Marvin
Richardson Vincent agreed with this interpretation:
25. The dispensation (οἰκονομίαν). From οἶκος house and νέμω to dispense or manage.
Hence οἰκονόμος a house-steward. Here the meaning is stewardship—the office of a steward or
administrator in God’s house. See on 1 Cor. 9:17, and compare Luke 16:2–4; 1
Cor. 4:1; Tit. 1:7; 1 Pet. 4:10. In Eph. 3:2, the word is used of the divine arrangement or economy committed to Paul. In Eph. 1:10 of the divine government or regulation of the world.
For you (εἰς ὑμᾶς). Rev., more strictly, to
youward. Connect with was given.
The stewardship was assigned to me with you as its object. Compare Eph. 3; 2;
Rom. 15:16.
To fulfil (πληρῶσαι). Fully discharge
my office, so that the divine intent shall be fully carried out in the
preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles no less than to the Jews. Compare fully preached, Rom. 15:19. (Marvin
Richardson Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, 4 vols. [New
York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1887], 3:478)
Let me quote some modern Protestant commentators on
Col 1:25:
Verse 25
ἧς ἐγενόμην ἐγὼ διάκονος
1 sg. 2 aor.mid.indic. of dep.γίνομαι, become, be. The
rel.pron.ἧς (gen. sg. fem., antecedent ἐκκλησία) may have causal overtones (as also οἷς in v. 27;
cf.R 724–25): “for the sake of his Body, the Church, inasmuch as I have become
its servant.”
κατὰ τὴν οἰκονομίαν τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι
Κατὰ may indicate the
standard (“according to,” NASB²; BDAG 697d), the means (“by,” TNIV; “through,”
NAB¹; Zerwick, Analysis 449), or the
*cause (“as a result of,” “by virtue of,” REB) of Paul’s becoming a servant of
the Church. Οἰκονομία, - ας, ἡ, denotes
basically the office or function of a steward (O. Michel, TDNT 5:151–53;
O’Brien 81–82). Here EVV render it variously: “stewardship” (NASB²),
“commission” (NAB¹, NIV), “task” (REB), “office” (RSV), “administration”
(HCSB).
While some take τοῦ θεοῦ as qualitative gen. (“divine office,”
RSV; BDAG 697d; G. Friedrich, TDNT 3:717n17; O. Michel, TDNT 5:152) or poss.
(“God’s stewardship,” NAB²; “God’s commission” NRSV; Wilson 168), it seems
preferable in light of τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι, which immediately follows, to take it
as subj. (or gen. of author/origin), “the commission from God given to me”
(cf.NASB²) = “the commission God gave me” (NAB¹, TNIV). Δοθεῖσαν is acc.
sg. fem. (agreeing with τὴν οἰκονομίαν) of the aor.pass.ptc. of δίδωμι, give, followed by dat. (here the encl. moi). This art.ptc., which
here is restrictive (rather than explanatory) in function, identifying rather
than merely describing (cf.Burton §§295, 426), is equivalent to a rel. clause
(cf.BDF§412; R 764; T 152): “which was given to me.”
εἰς ὑμᾶς
It is possible to construe this with what follows (“to present to you the word of God in its fullness,”
TNIV) where the phrase denotes the persons addressed and is equivalent to ὑμῖν (A. Oepke, TDNT 2:425), but the parallel in Eph 3:2, the
juxtaposition of the two pronouns (μοι εἰς ὑμᾶς), and the position of the phrase suggest it should be taken with what
precedes: “that God gave me with regard to you” (εἰς of ref.;
“with you in view,” Dunn 118) or “assigned to me by God for your benefit” (REB;
εἰς = dat. of advantage, cf.BDAG 290d).
πληρῶσαι τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ
Aor. act. inf. of πληρόω, bring to completion (BDAG 828d). This
inf. could be final (so Zerwick, Analysis
449; “so that I might fully carry out the preaching
of the word of God,” NASB²), but is more probably epex., defining the
content of τὴν οἰκονομίαν κτλ. (“the commission …, namely, to declare
fully …”; “That office is to make the word of God fully known,” Barclay). “The
word of God” is the message of the gospel (v. 5; cf.BDAG 599d), the message
about Christ, which comes from God (τοῦ θεοῦ, subj.gen.) and which Paul must “declare
… in all its fulness” (TCNT; sim.TNIV), or, possibly, God’s work of
evangelization (τοῦ θεοῦ, poss.gen.) that Paul must complete (ZG 605). (Murray J. Harris, Colossians
and Philemon [Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament; B&H
Academic, 2012], 60-62)
1:25 ἧς ἐγενόμην ἐγὼ διάκονος κατὰ τὴν οἰκονομίαν τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι εἰς ὑμᾶς πληρῶσαι τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ. The
astonishing claim just made is at once balanced and modified by repetition and
variation of the claim made already in 1:23, “the church, of which I became a
servant.” Despite the attractive simplicity of translating “the church of which
I became deacon (διάκονος),” we are clearly not yet at the stage
where the term has become a formal and uniform title for a recognized office in
the Pauline churches (as subsequently in 1 Tim. 3:8, 12; but evidently not yet
in Rom. 16:1 and Phil. 1:1). Paul, who was so insistent on his apostolic
status, would hardly wish to be thought to lay claim to what subsequently was
understood as a much lower function. The thought here in fact is both much
grander and more humble. For on the one hand, the church of which Paul has
claimed to be servant is the church, Christ’s body, microcosm of the cosmic
world body of Stoic speculation (1:18). But on the other, it is the church in
Colossae and other places, small groups of believers in the cities of the
eastern Mediterranean region, and it is the humble role of table servant to
which Paul has laid claim (see on 1:7). Here again we should take seriously
Paul’s concern to spend himself in the service and for the benefit of others;
the love in which he was held by so many testifies to the real benefit he
succeeded in bringing.
This
service was in accord with the οἰκονομία of God that had been given to Paul, that
is, by God, “with you in view” (maintaining the personal touch toward a
congregation he had not yet met). The verbal phrase echoes one of Paul’s
regular ways of speaking of his commission, “the grace of God given to me”
(Rom. 12:3; 15:15; 1 Cor. 3:10; Gal. 2:9). The noun would normally designate
the administration or stewardship carried out by the οἰκονόμος (“steward
or administrator” of an estate); it is consonant with the train of thought here
that in the Roman Empire as a whole at this time the οἰκονόμοι were
usually of servile origin (whether slave or freed; D. B. Martin, Slavery 15–17). But Paul applied the
language to his own work: he saw himself as commissioned by his master, like a
good steward having received his orders for the master’s absence; hence 1 Cor.
9:17, and cf. Eph. 3:2 with here (cf. Ignatius, Ephesians 6:1 and Diognetus
7:1). The thought is already developing into the fuller and still more
distinctive Christian idea of “God’s plan of salvation” (as in Eph. 1:10; 3:9),
as the transition to 1:26 here indicates, but “commission” is still adequate
here (so also NIV and NRSV, though NEB/REB’s “task assigned to me by God” and
NJB’s “responsibility” are too light for the context and RSV’s “divine office”
too heavy).
All this is
confirmed by the description of the commission as “to fulfill (literally) the
word of God,” the latter a regular phrase to denote the gospel, delivered as it
was by word of mouth (see BAGD s.v. λόγος 1bβ). The verb is
unusual in this context, but must mean “complete” (the preaching of) the gospel
(BAGD s.v. πληρόω 3). As in the only close parallel use,
in Rom. 15:19, there is an eschatological overtone: Paul’s commission as
apostle (to the Gentiles) was intended as a decisive factor in completing the
inbringing of the Gentiles and so facilitating the final climax of God’s
purpose (Rom. 11:13–15, 25–32; cf. 2 Tim. 4:17). Certainly it is such an
awesome sweep and scope of divine purpose which is in view in the continuation
of the sentence in the next two verses (see also on 1:24 end). (James D. G. Dunn,
The Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon: A Commentary on the Greek Text
[New International Greek Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans,
1996], 117-19)
25 For he knew very well that he had
been called to be a servant of the church for the discharge of a unique
stewardship. This stewardship, entrusted to him by Christ, was (as he puts it)
the “fulfilment” of the word or message of God. The word of God is fulfilled in
this sense when it is proclaimed in the world and accepted by men in faith;
thus it achieves its purpose.167 It was Paul’s responsibility to discharge this
stewardship by the exercise of his special apostleship to the Gentiles, among
whom the Colossians were included. “Unto me,” as he says in the parallel
passage in Ephesians, “… was this grace given, to preach unto the Gentiles the
unsearchable riches of Christ” (Eph. 3:8); and the Colossians were among the
beneficiaries of this apostolic commission of his, even if he had never visited
them in person. (E. K. Simpson and F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the
Ephesians and the Colossians [The New International Commentary on the Old
and New Testament; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1957], 217)
25. Paul has indicated
that his sufferings are for the benefit of the church. He continues, of which I became a minister, according to
the stewardship of God given to me for your benefit. Harassed by men who
tried to lead them astray, the Colossians must bear in mind that Paul, who is
now addressing them and to whom indirectly they owe their knowledge of
salvation, was their divinely appointed steward.
The office of “administrator of spiritual treasures” had been entrusted to him
and to his helpers (1 Cor. 4:1, 2; 9:17; 1 Tim. 1:4; Titus 1:7). And this, says
Paul, is for your benefit. In their
case that was true in a special sense, for they had been won over from the
Gentiles (Col. 1:27; 3:5–11), and it was especially
(not exclusively) to the Gentiles that Paul had been sent (Acts 13:47; 22:21;
Rom. 11:13; 15:16; Gal. 2:8, 9; Eph. 3:1, 2, 8; 1 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim. 4:17). The
stewardship of God had been given to him, moreover, to give full scope to the word of God, that is, to proclaim the
Christ in all his glorious fulness to everyone, regardless of race,
nationality, or social position. (William Hendricksen, Exposition of
Colossians and Philemon [New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Baker Book House, 1964], 6:88—in other words, for Hendricksen, Paul did not
preach every single doctrine to the Colossians; instead, the preaching has more
of a Christological focus—proclaiming Christ in “all his glorious fulness”)
The verb plēroō that Paul uses
means "fill." God's word is not "filled" when it is
preached only, but when its preaching accomplishes the purpose God has for it:
when it is heard and produces growth and fruit in the lives of those who
respond (see vv. 5-6). Paul uses the same verb with reference to the gospel in
a similar way in Romans 15:19. (Douglas J. Moo, The Letters to the
Colossians and to Philemon [Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008], 154-55)
In other words, Paul’s being a minister and
preaching/teaching the Colossians is his “fulfilling” or “completing” the Word
of God; Col 1:25 is not teaching Paul imparted to the Colossians every nook and
cranny of God’s revelation, leaving there no room for further revelation or
explication and development of the Word of God, etc.
In conclusion, Col 1:25-26 is not a valid
proof-text for Sola Scriptura, contrary to the eisegesis of Daniel Ortner. It
is sad that Ortner should trade the glorious inheritance he once had as a Latter-day
Saint for the false gospel of Evangelical Protestantism he has now embraced
with his wife and kids. One should pray for them, especially the poor kids who
are victims of spiritual child abuse, that they will be delivered therefrom.
