Are the scriptures (The Bible)
all we need to live obediently?
Let’s talk about the origins of this idea. First from the scriptures themselves:
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
Also
“Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.” Jude 3 There are other passages which are used to defend the idea that the bible is “all we need,” but those suffice for now.
From my reformed friends, by way of the Westminster Confession of Faith (1:6) we read:
“The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added.”
Notice the universals in these two statements: “all,” “complete,” “thoroughly,” “every,” “whole,” “all,” “nothing,” “at any time.” I’ve always found the idea of the sufficiency of scripture just a bit pragmatically contradictory amongst those who lean on it. What do I mean? Well, it seems that those who are staunch proponents of it are also those who rely heavily on creeds, confessions, and catechisms. The response is often, “well, those things are ‘based’ on scripture, so it’s okay.” Fine, I get it. Then the burden of proof is to show that they ARE “based” on scripture and are valid logically and biblically. This is where I often hear the silly and absurd comment, “but they back up what they’re saying with scripture.”
Having been steeped in the reformed tradition, and having listened to countless sermons, I’ve seen the use of drama, music, stories, sermon illustrations, and a host of other analogous means by which the truths of God are communicated. And yet, for the most part, they hold to the doctrine of the “sufficiency of scripture.” So, am I missing something here?
Certainly I can’t find how to navigate the latest MAC OS in the Bible. Or, for that matter, fly a plane, cook a stellar meatloaf, or even dress like a hip pastor. When people say, “the bible is all we need,” then, they must mean something else. The bible tells us to “study the ant’s ways” Proverbs 6:6, to learn from them. There are conclusions that can be drawn and applied by studying ants. Will our conclusions ever supersede scripture? I doubt it. Can we benefit spiritually from studying the ant or a dragonfly or perhaps even our pets? I think most would say we can.
What about our stories and our testimonies? Are the members of the body of Christ “living letters?” “The only letter of recommendation we need is you yourselves. Your lives are a letter written in our hearts; everyone can read it and recognize our good work among you.” 2 Corinthians 3:2
My intention here is not to lay out a complete doctrine of “The sufficiency of scripture,” but to start a conversation about what it means for the church today. I suspect that this will be the first of a few posts on this issue, but for now, a few questions:
What should “the bible is all we need” mean?
What should’t “the bible is all we need” mean?
Is there ever a time when our subjective thoughts or conclusions should override the objective scriptures?
~
For related posts, see:
Your faith, is it based solely on the objective revelation of God’s Word?
New Testament ~ Words of Paul in Red Edition
The problem with listening to and being led by the Spirit is…
Missionary in the Andes Mountains Cloud Forest Region of Ecuador. My last name, "Labrador," is the word that's used for "Vine Worker" in the Spanish Bible, and it's OK with me. 
Eli on Leading Edge Missiology and Ecclesiology?
Carlos on Leading Edge Missiology and Ecclesiology?
God speaks to us in many valid ways – through nature (Romans 1), to us subjectively, through prophetic messages, through others and wise counsel, and the like. Those who limit God’s ability to speak through only the Bible must deny all the passages in the Bible about the many ways God in fact can – and does – speak.
The issue, however, is whether scripture is the standard by which we judge the validity of what we think we hear God elsewhere saying. This concept, that scripture is the final standard, is known as the plenary authority of scripture. This, I think, is as an essential of the faith.
Yes, God speaks many ways, but He has chosen the written Word of God as the standard for insuring that what we think we hear subjectively or from other sources in fact is from Him. It is the standard for faith, doctrine, maturity, and all of life, as 2 Tim. 3:16 says.
I can’t say that I particularly agree with your last point there, Jim. God is the final standard, not the scriptures. If the scriptures, then one could ask which chapter and verse, and then simply give another chapter and verse which seems to contradict it (which happens often). This whole line of thinking is the one that leads to denominational differences, and disunity in the body of Christ.
I believe that the Spirit of God interprets the scriptures. 1 Cor 2:6-16 (particularly vs’s 13-14) seem to indicate this. Other verses as well seem to indicate that the Holy Spirit, and not JUST the scriptures are to lead us through life. I listed some in my comment below.
That said, this spiritual interpretation of scripture is NOT meant for teaching or forming institutional doctrine. Teaching others, and forming institutional doctrine using this method bypasses the spirit of God teaching the pupil, and is therefore in and of itself contrary to the message it’s meant to teach. The message that we should be teaching is to get in touch WITH the Spirit of God so that He can lead you (the pupil) through life. In other words, we need to be introducing people to God instead of JUST teaching them about His precepts.
The spiritual interpretation of scripture is therefore for personal use only as it applies to each individuals life, and is to be led by the Lord only, and not other men or institutional doctrine.
For example: Baptist doctrine says “once saved, always saved” where AG doctrine allows for the loss of salvation. I say they are both wrong by virtue that they are institutionally interpreting scripture through doctrine. The question, since it wasn’t directly addressed in scripture, should be left open so that the Spirit of God can show the prideful, “greasy gracey” man scriptures like Rev.3:5 or the 38th chapter of Job in order to curb his pride, and show the anxious works-minded lady verses pertaining to the eternal security of salvation so that BOTH may be brought back into line with the will of God.
On the other hand, Mr. greasy-grace can live comfortably his whole life under Baptist doctrine, while Mrs. anxious works her way through life under AG doctrine–neither one coming to the fullness of the Spirit intended by God in the first place. And why? Because they learned their interpretation of scripture from an extra-Biblical doctrine formed by an institution instead of by the Spirit of God Himself. This is the danger of allowing the scripture to be the final authority instead of the Spirit of God. In this example, both institutions claim the scripture as their authority, and can give verse-by verse references to back up their opposite doctrines, but they are BOTH wrong, and BOTH a hindrance, not a help to spiritual growth in the lives of those under their leadership.
Jim,
I’d like to go deeper into subjectivity and objectivity when it comes to God’s revelation. Written or otherwise.
Alan Knox has stated, as a reply to a comment I left on one of his blog posts, “I would suggest that God always reveals himself objectively. And, in return, in our fallen state, we interpret that revelation subjectively. This would include Scripture.”
I’m not sure I agree with that, but it does cause me to think at times.
Take a look at a PowerPoint I put together years ago for a class on subjectivity/relativism verses objectivity/absolutes.
http://crossroadjunction.com/2010/11/12/the-great-divide/
I agree that God is ALWAYS objective, and is the ONLY source of objectivity. We will always be inherently subjectively limited – and thus limited in our ability to generally hear God objectively. God can break through our subjective limitations with total objective clarity in special circumstances – like Peter’s vision – but that is not the normal Christian life. Maturity is learning to reliably hear His voice even as subjective, limited, creative beings – and scripture is a big part of that, both because it is His voice in written form, and also because it is a check on what we think we hear from Him otherwise.
Thus, the need for the external, shared standard of Scripture – even given the fallible filters of our own subjectivity that we bring to it. Although I don’t go into this in the PowerPoint presentation, that’s also why scripture – I believe- can never be a matter of purely private interpretation, but is intended to be approached in community.
The problem of our inherent subjectivity in all we perceive arises by varying degrees depending on how God speaks. Only scripture, however, provides a shared external standard that we can rely upon as between each other, and thus is the least susceptible when it comes to our inherent subjective limitations. That’s whey Paul writes that it is for use as the standard of correction in matters of faith, doctrine and life itself.
Exactly. None of this (other than absolutes) goes against anything I’ve said, but rather, along with it. Like I said, we are not complete without the scriptures, but we are also not complete with the scriptures alone.
As far as absolutes, I absolutely don’t agree with the whole Christian “absolutes teaching” that has been going around. God’s Word for ones life, at any given moment is absolute, but that’s about it. I certainly don’t believe absolutes are transferable person to person in most circumstances.
Case-in-point–in 1 Tim 5:23 Paul tells Timothy to drink not only water, but a little wine for his infirmities. Is wine okay to drink, or is it not? It depends on who you are, and what God tells you at that particular moment. Is the alcoholic to be told it’s okay to drink, or is the infirm to be told it’s not because of some absolute rule? Certainly not. What if, (and I do realize this is a big what if) a former wino needed wine at some point for a particular infirmity that only red wine would cure? Is he to disobey God and not drink, just that once, because his institutionalized church told him he was never to have another drop? I should think not.
I’ve seen absolutes come and go throughout my life, and not many will hold water when looked at with any objectivity at all. Other than God’s Word, it will not fail. God’s Word is absolute of course, but He is sovereign enough to change it at will (as He did in Peter’s vision) and we are helpless to do anything but change with it. No matter what absolute rule anyone wants to quote.
Miguel, a follow up thought. Isaiah writes that God’s Word (I believe regardless of form) will not return void, but accomplish that which God intended.
The problem with the folks who want to put scripture at par with their own subjective sense of what they think God told them, is that God Himself tells us that scripture is the measure for correcting and rebuking us regarding all the things that God may speak – and we may mishear – in ways outside of scripture.
Yes, He speaks and His Word takes many forms. But only scripture as His written Word is given the role correcting and reproof regarding all other revelation in matters of faith, doctrine, life, etc.
Thus, I KEEP coming back to 2 Tim. 3:16 and other passages that make it clear that one of the ways God insures that His Word (regardless of form) is effective is by ordaining that all other ways that we think we hear from Him always be subject to scripture. Scripture is authoritative over all other forms of revelation, where in fact God has spoken in scripture.
If that’s a problem, then those who disagree need to take it with God. I don’t make the rules, I just trust and obey.
Without the Holy Spirit a person can’t even understand “the things freely given us by God,” including the Word and the Word made flesh-Jesus Christ. II Cor. 2:6-16
1 Corinthians 2:12
Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.
We also need the Holy Spirit to give us the ability to obey God! Rom 7:14-25
Romans 7:18
For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out.
Rather than focus on what other written or spoken words may or may not be needed for a person to obey, I think the focus should be on the One Jesus sent to teach us, His Spirit.
John 14:26
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.
If only the Word alone was required for a person to be obedient to God, what does that mean for those who cannot read or don’t have the Bible in their language? I’m not suggesting that the Holy Spirit apart from the Word is all-sufficient; I don’t think it’s an “either-or” situation. From what I understand, we need both the Word and the work of the Holy Spirit to understand and submit to God’s Word and obey Him.
My husband and I truly appreciate this blog. We are constantly challenged by your questions and led to search the Word for answers. Thank you for this ministry!
~Michelle
Good comment Michelle. I couldn’t agree more.
Michelle,
Thanks for being a first time commenter and for such a thoughtful post. John 14:26 is always brought up in these types of conversations and I am going to write a post specifically addressing the application of it in this context. Look for it later in the week. Thanks for your encouragement as yours and your husband’s action are the main reason for writing it.
Well Peter certainly didn’t think so when the sheet fell from the sky containing unclean animals that God was telling him to eat in Acts 10:11-15. Which was right? The God speaking to him, or the scriptures in his hand? He seemed to think that God superseded the scriptures.
God spoke to people all throughout the Bible from Gen to Rev. When did He stop? Is the notion that He ever did or would stop Biblical? I don’t see it in there. What I see in there (again, looking at the Bible as a whole) is God speaking to people (at God’s whim, not ours) and them hearing Him, knowing it was Him, and either deciding to obey or disobey. Jesus said in John 10:4-5 (among other verses) that we will know his voice.
The scripture about the scriptures completing us never says that it is the only thing we need to complete us, just that we’re not complete without it, and it’s uses are defined in that verse. Among those are doctrine. I believe the Bible is to BE our doctrine, not just a reference tool FOR our favorite extra-Biblical doctrine.
The Bible MUST be taken as a whole, not just verse-by-verse. The same Bible that told Peter not to eat unclean animals tells us to eat them. And the same Bible that contains verses used for the purpose presented here in this post also contains these:
John 16:13
1 John 2:27
1 Cor 2:10-13
1 Thes 1:5
John 14:26
Psalm 37:23
The Spirit of God interprets the scriptures. Not the other way around.
Dave, if you showed up at our fellowship and said you had a vision, and the vision said that scripture no longer was the standard for correction on matters of doctrine, maturity, and life in general (2 Tim. 3:16), we rightly would reject your view and your ministry.
You ain’t Peter – one commissioned by Jesus as His eyewitness Apostle to authoritatively speak, bind and represent Christ Himself, to proclaim His Word, and who then gave rise to the cannon we now call the New Testament based on that personal, specialized, delegated authority.
All of the New Testament comes from the Word of God proclaimed and then embodied from those specially delegated Apostles (which included Paul) – either directly or as expressed by others based on that Apostolic teaching. They authoritatively proclaimed the Word of God, either verbally or in writing, and that became the sole basis for the New Testament.
Again, you ain’t Peter – nor am I. I hear from God, but what I hear from Him is not authoritative over you. Peter, Paul and the other Apostles (capital A), however, were commissioned with that authority.
Unless you want to argue that the Cannon remains open to new revelation which contradicts the New Testament, and the context it provides for the Old Testament, I think your point is simply rhetorical.
And certainly the Holy Spirit brings the written Word alive – who ever said otherwise? But NEVER in a way that contradicts that written Word. Where a contradiction arises, we submit to scripture, because that is the final test on whether we truly heard what the Holy Spirit was saying. Period.
Healthy fellowship requires the external standards of scripture. Otherwise, you are a law unto yourself, with your private revelation having no shared criteria for external evaluation (and I am not saying that to the exclusion of the leading and witness of the Holy Spirit – but simply saying even that witness, if legitimate, will never contradict scripture).
As well you should, Jim. As I stated in my comment to your first post, the spiritual interpretation of scripture is for personal use only, and not for forming extra-Biblical doctrine or writing of new scriptures, or even for teaching others (except maybe under strict direction of the Holy Spirit).
Furthermore, Peter ain’t God, and I’m just as human, and just as likely to be spoken to by God as Peter, or Paul, or Mary, or anyone else. My point, by bringing up the story of Peter was not that we have authority to change scripture, but that the scripture, and the Apostles and disciples are our example, and listening to the voice of the Lord with Bible in hand (and heart) is the example they set that we are to follow.
I think scripture (and the principles taught therein) are all we need to guide us through life, but that doesnt necessarily mean God does not speak to us today.
To all past commenters and future ones: With regard to interpretation, I’ve often said, “If your interpretation of any given scripture verse causes it to contradict any other verse in scripture, then your interpretation is wrong.”
I’ll have more to say on this later. I think our ideas of translation and interpretation should stand apart.
That’s another good way of saying it, Miguel. I just apply it to institutional doctrine as well as personal feelings. Don’t know if that makes a difference or not.
I think some people get it backwards and think that God has told us that the Bible is sufficient and is the final authority. I see the reverse. I see Scripture teaching that God is sufficient and that God is the final authority.
God speaks to us through Scripture, through nature, through our brothers and sisters on this journey, and to us personally.
I have no desire to follow a religion based solely on a collection of books. I want a relationship with a God who speaks to us now.
Great post and questions, thanks.
Great way of putting it Jon, couldn’t agree more.
Jon,
As always, I so much appreciate your comments. Here’s my problem with thinking along those lines. You wouldn’t know that you could have a relationship with God were it not for those collection of books. Of course this reasoning could be applied to various applications of how we know what we know about God, but that’s the purpose of this discussion.
The idea sounds good but like all principles it is not the same as real contextualized life in the spirit “If your interpretation of any given scripture verse causes it to contradict any other verse in scripture, then your interpretation is wrong.”
If my interpretation contradicts a verse then I need to question my interpretation, study and listen more. I worry about someone who has never changed any belief they initially held… that would be someone who naively accepts what is first spoon fed to them and never goes on to learn and internalize for themselves. A huge part of the journey of humility is a multitude of experiences where we realize what we strongly held to was actually wrong, either an interpretation of an event, relationship, scripture etc. We come face to face with our limitations and predisposition to confirm what we already believe.
I could use the follwing scriptures to counter the scriptures you used in the article though I prefer a more holistic view:
Luke 12:12
John 14:26
1 John 2:27
Scripture is enough to reveal the historical narrative of those times along with who jesus is and his meaning to our lives. The stories show us what is possible if we believe but without the spirit its just stories or some sort of overbearing list of laws and obligations.
Scripture is enough in its own 2 dymensional way, but it does not contain life which is lived out in more dymensions.
That is why jesus and the apostles were careful not to elevate scripture like many now incorrectly do. if they were going to lean one way it was on the side of reliance on the spirit. Love being the goal of living, not adherance to laws or principles or traditions.
This is a very intense discussion. I plan on a follow-up post to it as well. I am wholly convinced that we need to rely on the Spirit for a proper understanding of the scriptures, but here’s the rub:
Everything we think the Spirit is saying to us must be verified through the written scriptures. The Spirit of God will never contradict the written word. Again, we are driven to the scriptures. They are not superior to Him, but it is the means by which we can know the truth. It is the resource He has breathed out for us.
I completely agree with that comment, Miguel. Please don’t think I don’t, or that I downgrade the scriptures by any degree, or in any way.
I just present the other side, because it is so often ignored, and the “authority of scripture” side of the argument is so well presented to us elsewhere in this thread, and in our churches, and in every other aspect of Christian life, I don’t feel the need to repeat it. But rather, to present the spiritual side of things so “that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” with both sides of the double edged sword in his sheath. I hope I quoted enough scripture, and presented enough Biblically sound evidence to have all the people here on this thread understand that.
Jim, thanks for guiding us to this blog. Great discussion. Great blog.
Re the issue at hand: I haven’t seen any reference to the towering presence of Jesus’ statement “You diligently study the Scriptures, thinking that by them you have life, but you refuse to come to me have life.” Of course no one here (or elsewhere, that I’m aware of) believes that the Scriptures were intended to provide life, and so the verse may seem irrelevant to the present discussion. Yet I have a sneaky suspicion that the Pharisees did not believe this either, and that they would have been quick to confess God as their source of life (Similar to the discussion where they called Abraham their father and Jesus corrected them by calling the devil their father). And so Christ is really telling them that their perceived orthodoxy is mere lip service, that is, that even though they were confessing God as their source of life, they were behaving as though the Scriptures were their source of life (similar to his statement “had you believed Moses…”, that is, your actions deny your confession). Their interaction with the Word was idolatrous, misplaced and at the expense of their relationship with God as He had intended it and expressed it in Mat 23′s final, tragic words (Jerusalem, Jerusalem…).
My view of the matter under discussion corresponds with Jim’s, so I will not repeat what he has said. But I do think there is a warning embedded for us in the verse above, especially if we are of the party who embrace and affirm the authority of Scripture. The error of the Pharisees had not only to do with their conviction (unwittingly or otherwise) that one can have life through the Scriptures, but with their refusal to come to Christ to have life. We do not know which came first, but like the chicken and egg they represent two parts of the same spiral and a perfect convergence of the sins of omission and commission. The point is that God has spoken in these last days through “the Son”, and that he is the climax and culmination of a revelation that had been progressively getting brighter since Gen 3:15′s promise. To miss this is to miss life, and it cannot be captured in any other way, no matter how religious the method may be.
The question, in my mind, is not whether the Scriptures are “sufficient”, but rather to what degree we find Christ revealed through the Scriptures, for Christ is and remains the revelation of the Father. God is still speaking “through his Son” (Heb 1:3). The Son is still the image of God (Col 1 & 2 Cor 4:4), the exact representation of God’s glory and imprint of his nature (Heb 1:3) and so on. We can still not see God, except as he has been made known by Christ (John 1:18). The Word is still God in the flesh (John 1:14) and is dwelling among us. All the Philips amongus can still only see the Father by looking to the Son (John 14) etc. etc.
How did Christ remain incarnated after his ascension? Indeed in the Word. The revelation of the Word of Life led to a hearing, touching and seeing of it (1 John 1), but is now preserved through the testimony of those who did the hearing, touching and seeing, so, so that we too can have fellowship with the Father. Even the Old Testament reveals Christ clearly now that the veil is removed. Christ is not authoritative because the Bible makes him so. The Bible is authoritative because Christ makes it so.
But he also remained incarnate in another way. “I will send you the comforter…” What is the purpose of the Comforter? To remind us of Christ’s words. And so the Spirit and the Scriptures can never disagree because they both serve the same purpose. Both are needed, revealing the Father through the Son in a way that is immensely existential and personable, yet at the same time objective and absolute.
And then there is a third way. Christ remains incarnated in a body, just as he was in the first century. John’s interaction with the Word (1 John 1) is not just preserved in his and the other’s testimonies of Christ, but also at a level where seeing, hearing and touching Christ is still possible. The Word in the flesh is still dwelling amongst us. We are that body, as the New Testament repeatedly states. And yes, we still reveal Christ to the world. Our unity and love is essential, for without it the world cannot see all of the undivided Christ. And so we do not ever preach ourselves but Christ as Lord (2 Cor 4:5), Christ as crucified (1 Cor 2) and so on. We partake in the ministry of the written Word and the Word as spoken by the Spirit. We are indeed the living letters referred to above.
I frankly don’t know if I am missing something, but seen from this angle I see no tension or reason for confusion. I see no problem integrating these three modes of God’s one revelation to us. They confirm one another constantly, immunizing us against the deadly onslaught of the enemy who wishes, as always, to introduce us to another word in the flesh of another Jesus.
Blessings to all, and please forgive the long comment.