Insufficient

The concept of scriptural sufficiency as taught by modern-day Calvinists is untenable and dangerous.

In sum, the Bible is not “sufficient” for all truth as too many neo-Calvinists contend. The Bible is, in fact, insufficient in many ways. And that’s no criticism of the Bible.

For too long, Bible-thumping authoritarians have been claiming scriptural sufficiency as cover for all the hard things they don’t want to face. Daily Wire columnist Megan Basham is chief among such offenders in her denial of clergy sexual abuse, sexuality, gender, church leadership and a host of other topics. But she is far from alone.

The notion of scriptural sufficiency has been so misapplied so frequently that Martin Luther himself would not recognize his mantra of sola Scriptura. One extreme example from a few years ago: A colleague had a child attending a well-known Baptist university where the young adult was studying counseling and psychology. The student landed in a counseling class where the only textbook allowed was the Bible. That student wisely transferred to another school.

Too often, the doctrine of scriptural sufficiency is used today to deny science, medicine and common sense, not to mention the lived experience of real people. This happens not only because there are many important issues the Bible is silent on but also because modern interpreters cherry-pick scriptures to make their point.

“The notion of scriptural sufficiency has been so misapplied so frequently that Martin Luther himself would not recognize his mantra of sola Scriptura.”

For example, Southern Baptist leaders claim the sufficiency of Scripture to support their view that women may not serve as pastors. They do so citing a few select verses while ignoring other biblical narratives and the very witness of Jesus.

More blatantly, the sufficiency of Scripture has been used to promote young earth creationism, opposition to the LGBTQ community and campaigns against Critical Race Theory.

Sola Scriptura

The origin of the modern emphasis on sufficiency of Scripture comes from the Protestant Reformation, where Luther and other Reformers made sola Scriptura one of their battle cries. The Latin phrase means “Scripture alone.”

This is one of the five “solas” of the Reformation, which also include faith alone, grace alone, Christ alone, and glory to God alone.

All this was in reaction to the teachings and practices of the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century. The Reformers protested papal authority to declare new revelations from God that were not revealed in Scripture. They also protested salvation by works — feeding the faith alone, grace alone and Christ alone ideas.

Ironically, those today who most vehemently appeal to sola Scriptura are the ones who most closely mirror the corruptness of the popes and bishops of Luther’s day. These modern authoritarians assume they alone have the proper interpretation of Scripture and seek to punish anyone who dissents.

The Gospel Coalition — a conservative Calvinistic group — concedes this without applying the truth: “Rome challenged Scripture’s sufficiency in claiming that an infallible tradition and papal magisterium was necessary to provide the correct interpretation of Scripture.”

“Those today who most vehemently appeal to sola Scriptura are the ones who most closely mirror the corruptness of the popes and bishops of Luther’s day.”

2 Timothy

Most commonly, those who asserts scriptural sufficiency appeal to 2 Timothy 3:16-17, which states: “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 complete, equipped for every good work.”

Here’s a big problem: When the Apostle Paul wrote these words to Timothy roughly 30 years after the resurrection and ascension of Christ, the New Testament as we know it did not exist. The Gospels were just being written, and the very words of Paul about Scripture were not yet considered holy Scripture.

Thus, one of two things must be true: Either Paul was referring to the Hebrew scriptures that had been codified by Jews as Scripture, or he was somehow assigning value to the yet-unwritten New Testament. Either option is problematic.

In the evangelical Southern Baptist churches of my youth, we memorized 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as though it had been spoken by God as a direct endorsement of the New Testament.

Defining ‘sufficiency’

While multitudes of their followers overstate the case for Scripture’s sufficiency, even three of the most popular Calvinist groups acknowledge the Bible isn’t sufficient for providing advice in all circumstances.

Just to make sure I wasn’t making a mountain out of a molehill, I went to the websites of 9Marks, The Gospel Coalition, and Desiring God. Here’s how each of them defines the doctrine:

9Marks cites Question 3 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism: What do the Scriptures principally teach? And its answer: “The Scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man.”

Then author Carl Trueman explains: “In other words, the Scriptures are sufficient for a specific task: They reveal who God is, who man is in relation to him, and how that relationship is to be articulated in terms of worship. Even with this definition, however, we need to be precise concerning the nature of this sufficiency. In some areas, the Scriptures are sufficient for teaching principles but not for providing specific details. For example, while they clearly teach that the church should gather for worship on the Lord’s Day, they do not specify precise times and locations. Neither my local congregation nor the time of our services are mentioned anywhere in the New Testament. Scriptural sufficiency is not jeopardized by this lack; Scripture was never intended to speak with precision to such local details.”

The Gospel Coalition says: “Scripture is sufficient in that it is the only inspired, inerrant and therefore final authority for Christians for faith and godliness, with all other authorities being subservient to Scripture. … The Reformers asserted that Scripture is a sufficient authority for all things pertaining to faith and godliness, not needing to appeal to another authority. However, this does not mean that Scripture functions alone apart from any other source or authority; rather, all other authorities serve under Scripture, while Scripture rules over them as the final and inspired authority from God.”

Desiring God quotes John Piper: “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 does not mean that the Scripture is all we need to live obediently. To be obedient in the sciences we need to read science and study nature. To be obedient in economics we need to read economics and observe the world of business. To be obedient in sports we need to know the rules of the game. To be obedient in marriage we need to know the personality of our spouse. To be obedient as a pilot we need to know how to fly a plane. In other words, the Bible does not tell us all we need to know in order to be obedient stewards of this world.

“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. All other knowledge stands under the judgment of the Bible even when it serves the Bible.”

“It turns out that scriptural sufficiency requires about as many qualifications as biblical inerrancy.”

It turns out that scriptural sufficiency — although a handy marketing tool for the Reformation — requires about as many qualifications as biblical inerrancy. Even among conservative theologians, it’s not as cut-and-dried as it sounds.

Biblical inerrancy

These days, scriptural sufficiency and biblical inerrancy most often ride on the same rails. They are entangled like a twisted rope. Yet they do not come from the same place.

The Reformers did not claim to believe in biblical inerrancy. The very concept did not appear in theological circles until the 19th century. It was developed as a response to perceived liberalism that arose from Enlightenment thinking.

Yet today, conservative evangelicals and neo-Calvinists bundle these two ideas as though they are the fruit of the same tree: Scripture is sufficient because it is inerrant.

Spoiler alert: Scripture is not inerrant but is instead a faithful witness to God’s work in creation and redemption. This was the presenting issue in the so-called “conservative resurgence” in the Southern Baptist Convention. And it is the talking point people like Al Mohler appeal to still today as they make their speeches against female leadership in the church and the very existence of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Christians.

What’s the beef?

My case for the insufficiency of Scripture is not meant to say Scripture is unreliable or harmful. My point, instead, is that those who worship the Bible — bibliolaters — claim things of Scripture it does not claim for itself.

For example, in John 16:12-13 Jesus says, “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth.”

It appears there were things Jesus wanted to teach that people alive during his walk on earth weren’t ready to hear. And the way they would be guided to those truths wouldn’t be from the Bible, but from the Holy Spirit.

Then in Acts 15:28, when the church was making decisions, they also didn’t quote the Bible. But they said, “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.”

Scripture tells us — in literal and metaphorical terms — that God is the Creator who has been at work from the beginning of time to redeem creation. It tells us of the seeking love of God and the grace of forgiveness.

Scripture is not sufficient to teach a counseling class at an accredited university. It is not sufficient to address all modern medical issues such as IVF or dementia care or end-of-life care. It is not sufficient to inform us about artificial intelligence or extraterrestrial life.

Most importantly, God still speaks today. The life of Jesus still inspires and guides us today. The Holy Spirit still leads us into all truth. No part of the Trinity is bound by the words of Moses or Paul.

Thus, to say Scripture is insufficient is not a condemnation but an acknowledgement that neither popes nor potentates, neither priests nor pastors, neither seminary presidents nor podcasters have the final word.

Authority belongs to God and God alone. And God still speaks.

 

Mark Wingfield serves as executive director and publisher of Baptist News Global and is author of Honestly: Telling the Truth About the Bible and Ourselves.