The Sufficiency of Scripture

The “sola” in this idea refers to 1. source and 2. norm. Contrary to Rome’s argument, sola Scriptura has never meant “nuda (or solo) Scriptura.” In other words, the doctrine does not reject other authorities and aids in interpretation. It is not “Just me (solo) and my Bible!” This sufficiency does not minimize tradition, or reason, or experience, or the leading of the Spirit, or present church community, etc. Rather, it insists that Scripture is the only infallible authority and therefore the only final authority in all matters of faith and practice. The statement by the Westminster Confession is a helpful guide:

“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, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word; and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.”1

In our outline, we will move from (1) proper definition to (2) a cumulative case to (3) answering objections. 

Proper Definition

When we speak of the sufficiency of Scripture, we might want to ask “Sufficient for what?” Note the words of WCF I.6—‘all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life.’ That is the scope of sufficiency. It also should be plain by now that the referent of sufficiency is of written special revelation. It neither excludes other forms of revelation before the writing of the inspired books—as when God spoke to Moses or when Jesus spoke to the disciples—nor is its sufficiency excluding the necessity of other conditions for special revelation to take place or be believed. If someone was to object to the doctrine on the grounds that the Holy Spirit is necessary both for inspiration and for illumination, of course this is true; but it would be a confusion of categories to suppose that this conflicts with the Reformed doctrine. This sufficiency is one of the form of the final special revelation from God. It is sufficient as that final form. So the Confession adds its own true exclusion: ‘unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.’

The context of the use of the terms “the teaching” or “doctrine” is specific when used either in Scripture or by orthodox theologians about what Scripture teaches. For example, Calvin wrote, “God deprives man of the power of producing any new doctrine, in order that he alone may be our master in spiritual teaching.”2 Here the expression “spiritual teaching” is not intended to encompass any true statement about any subject matter whatsoever, but it is intended to draw a very thick line encircling that which one must know for salvation.  

2 Timothy 3:15-17 teaches that the Scriptures are sufficient in two ways: first, they “are able to make you wise for salvation,” and second, “that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” So it is for salvation in the first place, but then being transformed in the course of one’s life.

Bullinger wrote,

“[No] man can deny that to be a most absolute doctrine, by which a man is so fully made perfect, that in this world he may be taken for a just man, and in the world to come be called forever to the company of God. But he that believeth the word of God … is called a just man, and heir of life everlasting, that doctrine is an absolute doctrine … perfect in all points.”3

In other words, Bullinger was arguing, that which communicates what is sufficient to save a man and to make him holy is sufficient in the relevant sense.   

It is no deficiency in Scripture that it does not directly teach us the ABCs, the laws of logic, or mind’s capacity to understand concepts about the First Cause by means of effects (Ps. 19:1; Rom. 1:20), and yet our intelligible reading of Scripture rests upon either our prior knowledge of these, or at least their reality and truth (whether or not we have contemplated them as such). This is why natural theology and natural law in no way undermine the sola Scriptura principle. They do not hold themselves out as either supreme authority or as special revelation. These belong to general revelation and, like the ABCs and laws of logic, they can be logically antecedent to the truths of special revelation without being an authority over them.  

Likewise with tradition, the doctrine of sola Scriptura does not exclude the usefulness of creeds, confessions, theological reflection of the past, nor sermons and learning in the church in the present. The Lutheran historical theologian, Heiko Oberman, coined a few terms that have become the standard grammar of this debate among theologians.4

He called Tradition II (or T2) the idea of two ultimate sources, which is the position that we tend to associate with Rome—although there we must recognize some diversity, especially before Trent and then again with the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. He called Tradition I (or T1) the idea of one ultimate source. This view does not mean that there is no tradition, or that one tradition is as equal to another. The point here is that the Scriptures are alone the source of special revelation in the church age. Then there is what some have called Tradition 0 (or T0), which is the view that a growing number of Evangelicals subscribed to especially after the Second Great Awakening. 

Cumulative Case

Mathison argues from the necessity of Scripture to its sufficiency, as follows:

“This sufficiency is a logical corollary of the necessity of Scripture. Scripture was given by God for a purpose—the complete revelation of His will. And unless we are willing to ascribe incompetence to God, it is unreasonable to suppose that Scripture is insufficient to accomplish that for which God intended it.”5

Along those same lines, the sufficiency of Scripture has often been called its “perfection,” and this follows from the perfection of all of God’s works—“his work is perfect” (Deut. 32:4). The moment one concedes to divine authorship, the conclusion of its sufficiency is inevitable. 

There is the argument from the closing of the canon of Scripture. This has to do with how the fullness of revelation was seen to be in Christ (e.g., Heb. 1:1-3, Luke 24:44, Rom. 10:4, Jn. 5:39). Jesus promised the Apostles the Spirit to build this foundation upon him alone, and a foundation is only laid once. That is the theology of that sufficiency and finality of revelation.

The passages which forbid adding or taking away what is written obviously refer to tampering with what is already revealed. For instance, “You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you” (Deut. 4:2; cf. 12:32); and, “Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar” (Prov. 30:6).

 But does this also draw the line at the end of the whole canon? For instance, 

“I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book” (Rev. 22:18-19).

The principle here is actually broader than a simple physical boundary around a final book of the canon. As Paul said about attempting to read the hearts and destinies of those with whom we disagree in this life: “that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:5). Since the Scriptures are called a “rule,”6 it follows that a contrary rule set up is nothing less than a usurpation of Christ’s throne. Mathison seems to argue the same way in saying that,

“Ongoing revelation, therefore, cannot be the main danger against which either John or Moses is warning. It is much more likely that God is warning in both instances against the kind of thing Jesus speaks of in Mark 7:8-9, ‘laying aside’ and ‘rejecting’ the commandments of God for the sake of the ‘tradition of men.’”7

There is a very odd misunderstanding about the relationship between biblical sufficiency and a completed canon. In fact the two become confused. Such a person will reason that the referent of Paul’s words “all Scripture” (2 Tim. 3:16) and “the canon,” namely, all sixty-six books are two circles that make up a logically coextensive set. Of course that is true once there is such a completed set. However, this does not require that Paul had that list in mind. In other words, it is not necessary that the canon had to be completed in the early 60s (the date of when Paul wrote that second epistle to Timothy) in order for its truth to apply to subsequent inspired books, such as the epistles of Jude and Peter, Hebrews, and John’s Gospel, epistles, and Revelation.

The referent “All Scripture” and the quality which Paul ascribes—“God-breathed” or “inspired by God”—to that writing is a qualitative statement about kinds of writing. It does not depend on the point of time. Consider, for example, what Paul is saying about Genesis or the Psalms or Isaiah, written centuries before any of the New Testament books. If any of these books are inspired by God, then they cannot become inspired only once the whole list is tallied. They are either inspired from the divine act or else not at all. In short, inspiration does not depend on the completion of the canon; and therefore the Scripture’s sufficiency does not either. This is to think about the whole issue backwards.

Answering Objections

The Confession again divides up for us the main issues: ‘unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.’ Taken at face value, it seemed as if the Westminster divines saw (1) the elevation of tradition and (2) the claim to private, inward revelations as the two main threats against biblical sufficiency. Let us take each of these in terms of objections that arise from those in these two camps.

It is objected by Rome that the Reformed elevate preaching to the level that Rome elevates the mystery in the Tradition II view. But this is not the case. When the Helvetic Confession said, “The preaching of the word of God is the word of God,” this is more like the two senses within the Tradition I view, that between the systematic (the rule of faith) and the exegetical (Scripture). The only difference here would be that preaching is “more than” teaching—not in terms of revelatory source, but in terms of declarative form.

It may be objected that if the Spirit was with the church to receive the right canon (as the Reformed maintain), why could not the same Spirit operate in an unwritten tradition from the Apostles to the Church? However, this is a false analogy, as there is a difference between the Spirit superintending as opposed to inspiring.

It will also be objected that the Bible itself shows an oral tradition adding to revelation. Paul says, 

“So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).

Therefore, since the prophets and apostles’ oral tradition was of equal authority to existing Scripture, the same is just as authoritative, in addition to Scripture, today. Yet this begs the question. The trouble is, as Mathison says, “the failure to distinguish between an era in which God’s revelation was still being communicated to His people and an era in which it has been completed.”8 Beyond that, the word used here for tradition (paradoseis) does not need to mean something from a different source. In fact, just the opposite was the case. Leon Morris explains in his commentary,

“‘Traditions’ is a word which points us to the fact that the Christian message is essentially derivative. It does not originate in men’s fertile imaginations. It rests on the facts of the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ. Paul disclaims originating these things, and expressly says that the things he passed on he had himself first received (1 Cor. 15:3).”9

It is also crucial to note that there are several other passages that distinguish between an oral teaching from the apostles versus the letters; and the emphasis is always that they are the same in substance, the difference being that the inspired writings were a final codification of that same teaching that initially grounded these churches. A few examples will cement this point:

“To write the same things to you is no trouble to me and is safe for you” (Phi. 3:1). 

“it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:3-4).

“In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach” (Acts 1:1).

“that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you … And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete” (1 John 1:3, 4).

Indeed, once we read those passages, we may even circle back to the 2 Thessalonians 2:15 passage to read it in a new light. Note there that Paul actually does not say that “the traditions” are in one category of teaching-content and that “the letters” were in another. Just the opposite is true. The traditions are what he calls the content, and then follows to divide that content into two formats: either by our spoken word or by our letter.” 

Then there is the misgiving that comes from the Pentecostal and Charismatic tradition, which upholds not tradition but the claimed experiences of the power of the Holy Spirit. Please note that the burden of proof is not on the Reformed to discredit those experiences—although many authors have spoken to that as well—as all that the Reformed doctrine requires is to point to the matter of rule. The question is ruling on what God has said. Why is this the question? It is simply because the way that the Charismatic gifts are functioning in such claims is precisely as special revelation. When someone approaches you under the pretext of “God told me” or “I have a word for you,” what exactly is one supposed to do with that but either submit to what is communicated, hold Scripture over it, or else remain awkwardly silent—which is really just a polite impasse between those other two options. 

Note also that the choice is never between the Spirit and the Word, as the written word of God is the voice of God (2 Tim. 3:16). He is called “the Spirit of truth” (Jn. 16:13), and just so Jesus prays, “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth” (Jn. 17:17). 

An objection can be fielded from the other direction, not against sola Scriptura per se, but the manner in which the Reformed classically held to it. This is the objection from biblicism. It wants to exclude any source of truth “outside of Scripture,” which, taken in its wooden literal way, comes to exclude any word formulation that is not an explicit replication of Bible words. If such a mindset is consistent, it cannot agree with WCF I.6 concerning those “good and necessary consequences.” Frame’s extended summarization of this is helpful:

“To be sure, logical deduction is a human activity, and it is fallible, as are all other human activities. So when someone tries to deduce something from Scripture, he may err. But the WCF speaks not just of any attempt to deduce conclusions from Scripture, but of ‘good and necessary consequence.’ That phrase refers to logic done right, ideal logic. When deductive logic is done right, the conclusion of a syllogism does not add to its premises. It rather brings out content already there. In the classic syllogism ‘All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore Socrates is mortal,’ the conclusion doesn’t tell you anything you couldn’t find out from the premises themselves. What the syllogism does is to make the implicit content explicit. Logic is a hermeneutical tool, a device for bringing out meaning that is already there in the text. So (a) the ‘content of Scripture’ includes all the logical implications of Scripture, (b) the logical implications of Scripture have the same authority as Scripture, and (c) logical deductions from Scripture do not add anything to Scripture.”10

___________________

1. Westminster Confession of Faith, I.6

2. Calvin, Institutes, IV.8.9.

3. Bullinger, Decades, I.2 [61].

4. Heiko Oberman, Dawn of the Reformation (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986), 269-296.

5. Keith Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2001), 139.

6. Psalm 19:9; 81:4; 89:30; Galatians 6:16; 1 Timothy 5:21

7. Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, 172-73.

8. Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, 161.

9. Leon Morris, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 240.

10. John Frame, The Doctrine of the Word of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 2010), 222.