The backdrop of opinions on the Bible vary from contempt to celebration. Some are bothered by passages they don’t understand; others are troubled by the ones they do. Scripture is seen by some as a stumbling block in the path of progress, while others see its meaning widen and deepen over the years.
Either the Bible is right or it is wrong; it is either an ordinary book or a divinely-inspired text.
This is why many today will say, “What is right for you is right for you. But what is right for me is right for me.” According to this worldview, all universal moral absolutes lose all meaning. Everything becomes relative and is up to the whims and fancies of the individual.
Tragically, this worldview has also penetrated the local church. No longer is God’s Word—the Bible—considered the sufficient standard for all matters of faith and practice. Rather, our own existence and experience now sets bar. In many study groups, it seems that the most common question is, “What do you think about this verse?” The better biblical question, though, is: “What is the true meaning of this verse?”
Is the Bible our sufficient authority? Or, is our authority some arbitrary combination of what we think, feel, and the Bible?
What is the sufficiency of Scripture?
Believing in the sufficiency of Scripture means that what it says and what it doesn’t say both matter. Both its commands and its silence speak. This is why 2 Timothy 3:16 says:
“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness…”
Scripture, and Scripture alone, is the only authority by which one can come to saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and continue in a life of obedience to the Lord’s will. A commitment to the sufficiency of Scripture is evident in what you find to be insignificant just as clearly as what you find important.
Stop and think about this for a moment: there are many spiritual writings in this world, but only one reveals Jesus Christ. The point of the Bible is salvation—not where the world came from or how to live an ethical life. Those matters, while important, are tangential compared to matters of salvation and the God of it, which is the central storyline of the Bible.
The Bible isn’t the product of human imagination. Timothy knew that Scripture alone is useful for the ministry to which he has been called. Scripture contains all that Timothy needed to preserve the church from false teaching. The Scriptures are all-sufficient and they won’t disappoint.
This doesn’t mean that the Scriptures alone contain all knowledge that exists. The Scriptures aren’t some secret agent decoder book where, if you have the right cipher, you can unlock all of the knowledge in the universe. Rather, the Scriptures alone are sufficient for salvation and knowing God personally (Rom. 10:13-17). Wherever the Bible does speak, whether it is in areas of history or science, for example, it speaks with infallible authority. It is sufficient.
Why is this the most practical teaching for the Christian and church today?
The sufficiency of Scripture is a most practical doctrine because it informs not only the ends, but also the means of all ends. It helps us answer the following questions:
1. What should we do?
The answer is in the Bible. God made us; look to his Word if you want to know how to live. God’s Word has to do with life. God’s Word tells us everything we need to know about every aspect of life and how to live as a Christian, either implicitly or explicitly.
2. What should we believe?
The answer is in the Bible. God has revealed the truth about Himself to us and Churches seek to do what God has told us. Our actions are based on our beliefs. Our doctrine comes from God’s Word. This is why we’re to add nothing to Scripture, for there is no new revelation. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-8, Paul gives a summary on what early Christians believe for this very reason.
3. How should we worship?
The answer is in the Bible. God tells us how we are to approach Him. We read the Bible, sing the Bible, preach the Bible, and pray the Bible.
Why? Because it is sufficient!
We come together regularly to worship God (Heb. 10:24-25). Local church worship isn’t about creativity and sensitivity. Human inventions are idolatrous (Ex. 32). We don’t care if something is traditional; we care if it’s biblical. Look at God’s Word. Sin makes us all unreliable guides.
Our services begin with a scriptural call to worship. The first words we hear are from God’s Word. We sing hymns because we are commanded to (Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16). We are found praying in praise reading God’s Word to each other, confessing our sins (1 John 1:9), giving financially. and preaching (2 Timothy 4:2).
4. How should we live together?
How shall we organize ourselves as a church? The answer is in the Bible.
Some today may not accept today that the Bible tells us how to live as a church. Why? Many say there’s no consistent pattern in the Bible. Scripture teaches us many things implicitly. It is sufficient for knowing what God would have us to do.
Scripture also frees us from the tyranny of human opinion. God gives us a picture of the church in the Bible and we should value it. Our concern should be that the church display the glory of God. We are to show what God is about.
The function of the sufficient Scripture is to teach us our inadequacies, to strip us of our confidence and false assumption. We are condemned—a fact we hide ourselves from. When Scripture reveals these things, it transcends all the instincts of our nature and the prerogatives of our culture—an almost impossible task.
Has it performed this function in your life? Do you trust in Christ alone? Scripture should probe our consciences and lift false security not found outside of the Bible’s sufficiency.
Editor’s Note: Darin Smith is the senior pastor of Tower View Baptist Church in Kansas City, Missouri. This post originally appeared at the For The Church blog and is shared with permission.
Good word, Brother. I am afraid many in churches no longer believe this. Too often we function on expediency rather than revelation. Where the Bible speaks, we must be emphatic. Where the Bible is silent, we must be cautious. “Some are bothered by passages they don’t understand; others are troubled by the ones they do.” Great point. I have heard someone say something similar before. In that case it was a conservative thinker indicating that the truth of the Bible was troublesome to his human reasoning. It applies across the board though, as I have seen liberals very troubled by… Read more »
All four of these points are answered in the Bible, but since Christians can’t agree on all of the answers it means outside of the essentials we must always speak to each other in love and charity.
Those that put their tradition over the words from God [lets call them traditionalists] will struggle to find the truths in the Word.
Oh no you didn’t just do that, Mike LOL
Jim, Actually, we all have traditions we hold on to, and don’t always check to see if they are *really* scripturally based. And of course, it is much easier to see the error in our brother’s eye. That is why we should discuss at great lengths [in the right spirit]the differences we have between each other, in the hope that the Spirit Himself will guide and direct us toward truth. Sometimes even a side that we think gets it really wrong [but not heretically wrong] is still a corrective to the >opposing< [our] side's understanding, even if in some small… Read more »
I mean, I agree with you, but as far as so-called “Traditionalists” stand opposed to “Calvinists” on this blog, I reiterate: you did NOT just do that 🙂
This is not a calvinist blog.
Interesting that has to keep being denied.
David R. Brumbelow
The answer to your snarky observation, David, is that the people who make that observation have no interest in the truth. I’ve worked hard to make sure this is NOT a Calvinist site. It’s not. Liars can say it is, but that does not make it so. It is not a site that hounds, harasses, or seeks to excise Calvinists, but it is not a Calvinist site. The reason that the denial has to be repeated is because those making it do not speak truth. FYI – I don’t think Jim was calling this a Calvinist site – I think… Read more »
is there an inference in that statement, David?
David, that’s a ridiculous statement. We welcome posts from people of all viewpoints. Several of our regular contributors are not Calvinists. And we have had only one post about Calvinism in recent months.
For some people, if you’re not anti-Calvinist, you might as well be one.
It’s the binary world syndrome. we were told that politics were binary – there were only two choices – Donald and Hillary. Reality is that there were many choices, several I preferred to the two majors. To the anti-Calvinism warriors, they want a binary Baptist World. Traditionalist and Calvinists. If you aren’t one you must be the other. They will attempt to claim all non-Calvinists as their own and classify all who stray from their positions in the Calvinist camp, even if we do not self-describe. For them, I suppose, it is a simpler world if all is black and… Read more »
David,
I said that to the way Jim Perry stated his point:
“but as far as so-called “Traditionalists” stand opposed to “Calvinists” on this blog”
As in:”on this blog”.
For it seems to me that Traditionalists stand opposed to Calvinists everywhere they possibly can, not just on this blog.
And David, My hope is that a true dialogue can take place between the T’s and C’s as to our doctrinal differences. I think one of the biggest problems we have here in the SBC, at this time, is due to an estrangement over doctrine. Don’t you agree? But let me blunt, if I may —is it not many of the T persuasion who feel negatively about the state of affairs? But in my experience, it those same people who are less prone to actually get into deep discussions about the doctrinal differences. Are you one of those? If not,… Read more »
I’m assuming “David” here is not me.
But I don’t encourage Calvinism discussions here because they never end well, and they encourage the Calvinism and anti-Calvinism obsessed – people I wish to give NO encouragement to.
Dave,
I know, that is why I asked david B. if he would like to discuss it on his blog.
I do not want to start a war here, but as a historian, I’m sort of puzzled here — Both the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1644 and 1689 are pointedly Calvinist, prior to that the Low Church movement as a whole in England was Calvinist; so when did ‘traditionalist’ come to mean Arminian? I’m actually looking for the history on this, I’m not looking to fight about the doctrine per se, rather I want to understand the history of the controversy.
Doc, This my take, and certainly not an official definition, meaning I could be wrong. First, Traditionalists [hereafter known as T’s] don’t like to be called Arminian, since they believe in eternal security, and possibly other differences. Second, they were tired of being refereed to as ‘Anti-Calvinists’, and sought a name that might be more positive. Third, they believe they represent the majority of the SBC. Fourth, they consider themselves as not New Calvinists but traditional SBC members. Fifth, no other name, to them, seemed better. But then i am a Calvinist. But I tried to be fair. Maybe someone… Read more »
Thanks Mike, I thought it might be (and I’m not being critical here) sort of an adopted name as opposed to one originating organically. I just find it ironic. If anyone else has anything else to illuminate this for me, I’d appreciate it. If folks have not read Dr. Mark Noll’s “America’s God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln.”; it is a remarkable interpretation of the transitions in American religion from the mid-1700s to the mid-1800s. One of the remarkable little gems in the work was Noll’s assertion, and I think it holds up to scrutiny, that Evangelical Christianity abandoned… Read more »