The Sufficiency of Scripture

Posted by Dan C. on

John Piper, in a short article here, while discussing doctrinal disputes of the 4th century church, had this to say about the sufficiency of scripture:

“That doctrine (the sufficiency of scripture) is based mainly on 2 Timothy 3:15-17 and Jude 1:3.

The sacred writings . . . are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. . . . Contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

In other words, the Scriptures are sufficient in the sense that they are the only (“once for all”) inspired and (therefore) inerrant words of God that we need, in order to know the way of salvation (“make you wise unto salvation”) and the way of obedience (“equipped for every good work”).”

The sufficiency of Scripture means that we don’t need any more special revelation. We don’t need any more inspired, inerrant words. In the Bible God has given us, we have the perfect standard for judging all other knowledge.” (Emphasis mine.)

This is not a discussion of those things for which scripture is profitable, however we do need to take a hard look at the statement:

“We have the perfect standard for judging all other knowledge.”

None of us Bible believing, small group (real or virtual) attending, evangelical Christians would dare disagree with the thought that scripture is the perfect standard for judging other knowledge. However, I think we have a problem with ALL other knowledge. My observation over recent years has been that while we will quickly quote some scripture or another as the authority for some point we make during our kitchen table/living room “what this verse means to ME Bible studies”, we have a serious issue with applying that principle to ourselves!

In some cases, we’ve been ‘raised’ with the aforementioned method of studying the bible, having been taught by our pastors, teachers, and leaders that this is the way we are supposed to approach scripture. On the other hand, some of us know better, having been taught at some point the great orthodox doctrines of our faith (that would be me). I am still prone to apply a verse or passage where, if taken in context, or interpreted rightly, might not really apply to the matter at hand.

Another way we violate the principle of judging what we ‘think’ we know by the standard of scripture, is accepting every thought that arrives between our ears, or every warm fuzzy feeling in our hearts as having come from God! We are really good at having ‘personal insights’ that are not necessarily found in the scripture we are studying, and even heading to other places in scripture, pulling other passages out of their context, in order to ‘prove’ our special ‘insight’! Then when share our special insights, we pat ourselves on the back and affirm each others imaginations!

Woe to the person who attempts to inject into our self-affirming love fests the possibility that we might be even a bit ‘off base’, or who asks the question “But is that what the scripture is really saying?” Critical thinking is not allowed! And don’t ever suggest that we might be completely wrong about our errant musings! Any input that is not intentionally affirming, uplifting, or encouraging is ‘bad, bad, fruit’ and the one who would dare bring it to the table is mean spirited, divisive, intolerant, judgmental, and since ‘bad trees’ bear ‘bad fruit’, such a one is at least a false prophet, and might not even saved!

My brothers and sisters, we have a serious decision to make. We need to return to the authority and sufficiency of scripture, interpret it rightly instead of out of our own hearts and imaginations, lest we become false prophets unto ourselves, if we aren’t already.

36 responses to “The Sufficiency of Scripture”

  1. Woe to the person who attempts to inject into our self-affirming love fests the possibility that we might be even a bit ‘off base’, or who asks the question “But is that what the scripture is really saying?” Critical thinking is not allowed! And don’t ever suggest that we might be completely wrong about our errant musings!

    But Dan,aside from your jibe about ‘love fests’ this is precisely how many conservative and traditional Christians are perceived.

    Like

    Reply

  2. Christian,

    I agree with you, and I know that this perception was/is a driving force behind the emergent ‘conversation’. The ‘corrective action’ however is not declaring ‘uncertainty’ as the only thing certain, as some leading ‘Emergents’ do. What I am saying about ‘us’, and I honestly include myself, is a return to the sufficiency, certainty, and authority of scriptural truth, holding what we think to the objective standard of that truth.

    By ‘critical thinking’ I am not referring to being critical of inspired scripture, but being honestly critical of the ‘thoughts and intentions’ of our own hearts.

    Like

    Reply

  3. C said,

    “this is precisely how many conservative and traditional Christians are perceived”

    Yes, by you. We have discussed and debated several dozen substantial issues, and your thoughts on the matters have proven ill-concieved and/or shallow, and yet you STILL rely upon caricatures and straw men because they are easier than engaging real debate and standing up for your ideas.

    You perpetrate this because you have nothing else to say.

    Like

    Reply

  6. “…return to the sufficiency, certainty, and authority of scriptural truth, holding what we think to the objective standard of that truth.”

    But, Dan, that’s where the problem lies; a disagreement over what that truth consists of, not necessarily a refutation of said truth because one finds it to be unpalatable. Which is the SOP for people on both sides of this debate; claiming that their opponents clearly see this truth but deny it for personal reasons. And both sides, yours and mine, including you and I, have played this card again and again.

    You are convinced that your interpretation is accurate. Others are just as certain that their interpretations, which may not be compatible with yours, is just as accurate. The ‘uncertainty’ of the emerging church church is part of an attempt to keep the conversation going between the disparate parties. The goal is not to convince one side that the other is ‘right’ but to keep the lines of communication open.

    Like

    Reply

  8. The sufficiency and authority of Scripture as the standard against which all other truth is measured is not, for me a negotiable. To attack that sufficiency and authority is Satan’s oldest gambit – he successfully used it in the Garden of Eden and has been using it throughout the ages “Did God really say….?”. Satan has done quite well with some of the leaders of Emergentville.

    So back to the focus of this post. A softer, subtler, and perhaps even more successful tactic of the enemy is to somehow convince us evangelicals to spend more time ‘seeking’ God for special/personal insights concerning what we read on the pages of scripture, than we do studying inductively to extract ALL that we are being taught on its pages.

    This is not to say that prayerfully reading Scripture is wrong, or receiving a principle for personal application through prayer is wrong – both are highly recommended and profitable for growth! What seems to be a tendency among us evangelicals and our ‘Bible study’ is the practice of placing too much trust in our personal thoughts, insights, and feelings, as if they ALL come from God, and not necessarily measuring them against the perfect standard. the other side of that coin is getting all excited about our personal insights and warm fuzzies and maybe missing altogether the ‘main points’ of what we read when we consider it in context.

    Nuff said for now…

    Like

    Reply

  9. “Satan has done quite well with some of the leaders of Emergentville.”

    Without a doubt. And he has done even better, for a much longer period of time, with many leaders of the traditional church.

    Unless one is a hyper-literalist -no, even if one is a hyper-literalist (like those who consder blood trnsfusions sinful or the handling of snakes essential) then we must personally interpret scripture, unless we allow others to interpret it for us. To due this without being influenced by the circumstances that shape our lives is close to impossible (at least at first). Understanding where others stand in this regard is helpful when discussing the differences in our understanding of scripture.

    For example, I may accept the idea that you are being faithful to your understanding of scripture, I may just think that your understanding is not always correct. Perhaps one of our minds will change over time, possibly as a result of our conversation. But what often happens is that the two sides end up battling over what a particular scriptural text means and present little empirical evidence to support their conclusions. Not that there can be any conclusive empiracle evidence to support a belief founded upon faith (the problem many atheists deal with) but there should be some visible ‘fruit’ associated with these beliefs.

    But then we would probably debate what this fruit would be.

    Like

    Reply

  11. That both sides have been in error is not in question. To evaluate who has been more in error is fruitless and totally irrelevant to the discussion.

    “Unless one is a hyper-literalist -no, even if one is a hyper-literalist (like those who consder blood transfusions sinful or the handling of snakes essential) then we must personally interpret scripture, unless we allow others to interpret it for us.”

    That seems a rather silly conclusion, unless you consider the ‘others’ to be the inspired authors of scripture. Then we can authoritatively say that Scripture means what it SAYS, which in many cases leaves no room for ‘creative’ personal interpretation.

    Like

    Reply

  13. What Christian is doing is what unbelievers do. They do not help to point toward God, they help to point to what you think about God. This is what militant unbelievers do, they relativise.

    As with this, “like those who consder blood transfusions sinful or the handling of snakes essential”. This is what unbelievers do. They cite things that are most challenging (snake handling not so much, but count on Chris to reach for whatever unbelieving tactics are handy) and then, incorrectly say, literalism means that if you have to accept all of this at face value, and if you don’t then the whole bible is up for grabs. This is not just Bad thinking, it is a deceitful error. Christian, as always, shows no interest in the context of the verses, nor does he demonstrate any potentially mitigating information from the rest of the bible. His prooftexting, as with Bad, is the most shallow and irresponsible sort.

    He will then ask me to prove him wrong in his assertion. But no such proof is necessary, because, as I said, his assertion that literalism necessitates taking these at face value is wrong. I have said this to him before. He still drags out this shell game. He cannot be trusted because he is always trying to trick, he is never clear or forthcoming, except when it is his own brand of literalism, his own brand of emergent legalism. Then he is a literalist, and he will fight you on it, quite in opposition to his “it’s out there somewhere” approach as above.

    This is rare unguarded moment for C,

    “a disagreement over what that truth consists of,”

    Anyone who thinks that this is troubling, you are right to feel this way. Christian is a relativist in matters of who God is, what Christ did, and nearly all subsequent matters. I say nearly, because the only thing that is not relativistic for Chris is matters of taking care of people.

    Now of course no one has an issue with taking care of people. But for the person who performs acts of mercy, and yet hates God, Christ is nothing. But Christian would assert that the person who performs acts of mercy is doing God’s work, so, as his former pastor, Brian McLaren would say, those who do good things by definition are God’s children. This is not only legalism, but says that the person who has what Christian would say is “fruit” and yet denies God, is actually in Christ. Christian’s other little secret that follows from this is that he is an inclusivist, that is, Christ’s work is unimportant in matters of salvation, only that person bear “fruit”, whatever that might mean. In fact, Christian affirms that a person can be an avowed atheist, who does good works, and still be in Christ. So you tell me that he is interested in the glory of Christ. You tell me if that is “fruit.”

    Is this even close to what the New Testament says about Jesus and his teaching on matters? Does this reflect a comprehensive look at the New Testament, the only way that we can know about Jesus? Not at all.

    So what does Christian do? He denies that much of the New Testament should either be in the bible or even be taken seriously. This is how he gets around the teaching of the New Testament, the Gospels on down. One of his favorite authors, Marcus Borg, asserts that very few of the words of Christ himself are actually his words. Borg selects the words that fit the picture that Borg has drawn for himself, which is a perfect parallel Christian’s method of reading the bible: ignore and deny what you don’t like, become a hyperliteralist with what you do.

    As with this, “The ‘uncertainty’ of the emerging church church is part of an attempt to keep the conversation going between the disparate parties,” which ignores what allows for such a conversation in the first place. The starting presupposition of this “conversation” is that absolutely nothing is true, only true for you. The fact that Christian and I may overlap on any given issue is

    As I cited at Deb’s, the shaman and former pastor of Chris, Brian McLaren, has engaged in the most clearly illogical and dishonest program, asserting that Barack Obama is pro-life. If words have any meaning at all, this is a lie that will help to propogate the murder of many millions of children, inverting and avoiding the humanness of a baby, using “pro-life” in a way which ignores how the phrase is universally used, plays dumb when people call him on this shell game, and then says “why can’t you just love more.”

    In matters of language, this is what Christian does. He frames his arguments in double speak, and proceed toward changing the subject. Look at what Christian writes. Is there any other way to read what he has said: you have your view, I have my view, who knows who’s right, let’s talk.

    But as is clear to anyone who has watched Christian address any matters of substance, he is universally unwilling to engage in an actual conversation about the matters of truthful interpretations. He will do everything he can to avoid having that “conversation”. He will not say what he means, and he will do everything he can to not let the conversation get there. He will, as with Bad, point to the fact that people disagree, and throw his hands up and say, ‘what’s the use?’

    Does this seem like a trustworthy person” As I said elsewhere, what does it say about a person who never says what he means?

    Like

    Reply

  14. Dan, I think you missed my point. I am not interested in who is more erroneous but pointing out that both sides believe that the other is in error, both sides believe themselves to be correct and both sides use the same scripture to support their belief. And I wasn’t endorsing the idea of having other’s interpret scripture for us (although teachers can and do help).

    And I am not saying that both sides are ‘correct’ – I am not proposing (nor ever have proposed) relativism. For example; I firmly believe (with all due respect)that reformed doctrine is in error. Just as I believe that socialism, pacifism and fascism are flawed ideologies. And yet there are many brilliant people, much more learned than I, who are socialists, pacifists, fascists and reformed.

    How can two sitting judges come to two different conclusions reading the same Constitution and continue to work amicably together? How can two men like Bill Buckley and John Galbraith be completely odds politically yet be the best of friends? Because they understand and respect where the other is coming from and do not impugn the other’s motives because they happen to disagree.

    I don’t beleive that a professed atheist who performs good works is ‘in Christ’ but I would never suggest that a self-professed believer who treats his neighbor poorly is ‘in Christ’ either.

    Like

    Reply

  15. Bad,

    If you don’t know the difference between ‘understading context’ and ‘interpretation, I feel for you. Of course, you probably do, as most folks with half a brain would, and are probably trying to make me look silly by explaining the obvious to you.

    Christian,

    It sure sounded like you were saying that with your reference to Satan having has his way with non-emergents more than emergents – but that is immaterial to this discussion, as i said earlier.

    Sorry that you disagree with reformation theology, especially since there is far more explicit scriptural support than the other, more popular view of salvation that says that have to help God out.

    I find it amusing that you would lump political philosophies and Theology. Now that’s ‘apples and oranges’! And what does intellectual brilliance have to do with this discussion?

    Like

    Reply

  16. Not much. I was only pointing out that high intelligence and the ability to reason doesn’t necessarily guarantee that a person will be able to perceive what is true, or correct. In this regard I think it is apples and apples. Why would coming to a determination about theology be much different than doing the same with any philosophy?

    I only used reformation theology as an example that we both are aware of. It’s no surprise to you that I disagree with it (I also do not agree that scripture supports it). I understand that reformed doctrine is part of your belief system. My disagreeing with your philosophy should not make me automatically assume that your position is due to any lack of character, intellectual dishonesty or mental deficiency. And it doesn’t. Why would someone in your position feel otherwise?

    Satan has had his way more with the traditional church because he has had much more opportunity. Emergence is still relatively new. They are already starting to fall into the same traps. It may be immaterial, but you brought it up. 😉

    Like

    Reply

  17. I think I need to state, for the record, that this blog accepts as truth that “We have the perfect standard for judging all other knowledge.” To restate John Piper:

    “The sufficiency of Scripture means that we don’t need any more special revelation. We don’t need any more inspired, inerrant words. In the Bible God has given us, we have the perfect standard for judging all other knowledge.”

    The caution for ‘us’ evangelicals, and the main point of this author, is that we best be about measuring what we ‘think’ we know and feel against the perfect standard and discard that which is from our own imaginations by rightly interpreting scripture. For more detain about interpreting scripture go here:

    https://born4battle.wordpress.com/2008/10/29/rightly-interpreting-scripture/#comment-1013.

    Like

    Reply

  18. “For example; I firmly believe (with all due respect)that reformed doctrine is in error.”

    So let’s hear it. Firmly. Show us your outstanding reasoning in this matter. Please.

    “Why would coming to a determination about theology be much different than doing the same with any philosophy?”

    Does philosophy have a standardized text? This is really poorly considered.

    “My disagreeing with your philosophy should not make me automatically assume that your position is due to any lack of character, intellectual dishonesty or mental deficiency.”

    True. Displaying a lack of character, intellectual dishonesty or a mental deficiency would lead one to presume that your position is due to a lack of character, intellectual honesty, or a mental deficiency.

    So say something already. Let’s hear it.

    Like

    Reply

  20. C,

    “I am not proposing (nor ever have proposed) relativism”

    In ethics, true. In all matters of God you are a complete relativist.

    Like

    Reply

  21. aw, C, I just keep finding more inconsistencies. You are losing track of all your stories.

    “I don’t beleive that a professed atheist who performs good works is ‘in Christ”

    Not that long ago, you affirmed the teaching of Karl Rahner on the matter of salvation.

    Have you changed your mind, and are you willing to say so, or are you just playing games again?

    Like

    Reply

  30. Thanks for clarifying that for me. You have confirmed my earlier suspicion that you have fallen for Satan’s strongest gambit – casting doubt on what God has spoken – just like he did with Eve.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to Christian Beyer Cancel reply