Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
Is This Really About the Sufficiency of Scripture?

Is This Really About the Sufficiency of Scripture?

Last updated on: September 24, 2019 at 11:37 am by Darrell Lackey

Is This Really About the Sufficiency of Scripture? 2019-09-24T11:37:26-07:00 Darrell Lackey

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

According to this article, we are supposedly going to learn “why” this “spat” is “actually” about the sufficiency of Scripture. We have an assertion in the title: This argument may be about a lot of things, but, “actually,” it’s about the sufficiency of Scripture.

Okay. So, I read with interest…and, was disappointed. Nowhere in the reporting could I see where such was what this “spat” was “really” about, unless of course, we agree with Tom Ascol and the “Founders” people. Yes, they are asserting such, but I thought this was a reporting, an account of this dispute. Why is the author (editors?) making Mr. Ascol’s case in his/their title?

We are never told why the, “sufficiency of Scripture” is what this dust-up is about. We are only told one party to the spat thinks such is the case. I’m not sure that is the best way to present an objective and fair view of the problem, but maybe that’s just me—and maybe that wasn’t the goal.

Putting that aside, I’m not interested in the, “spat” they speak of, which has to do with the “documentary” put together by this group, the “Founders.” I want to address this idea of the sufficiency of Scripture. I seriously doubt such is the true concern here, and wonder if the true concern in one’s interpretations of Scripture, pertinent to the issues brought up by Mr. Ascol, such as social justice, women in leadership, and race relations.

What is meant, in this context, of the sufficiency of Scripture? We read:

“Ascol told CT [Christianity Today] that everyone involved in the current SBC discussion is committed to Scripture, but there’s a divide between those who see learning from secular ideologies as a threat to the sufficiency of the Word and those who ‘think we can use the tools of these ideologies without getting burned by the ideologies themselves.’”

First, what happened to the idea that all truth is God’s truth? Ascol would probably agree that all truth is God’s truth, so what is he really asserting here? The only way we might get “burned,” by these other tools, is if it turns out they are not true, right? Is that his true complaint? If it is, then why not make that case?

But let’s look deeper:

“For example, he [Ascol] said, the Bible states qualifications for pastors in 1 Timothy 3:1–7, but some undermine Scripture’s sufficiency by claiming a preacher isn’t qualified to state the Bible’s teaching on race unless he also studies extensively the experience of ethnic minorities. Similarly, Scripture presents plain teaching about gender roles, but some claim that teaching cannot be understood without studying extensively the experience of being female. ‘It can be a very good thing’ to seek understanding of other believers’ experiences, Ascol said. ‘But to suggest’ that ‘we somehow cannot know truth unless we do this’ implies ‘the Bible really is not sufficient.’”

First, who said we cannot know “truth” unless we do this? What these others are saying, or suggesting, I assume, is that all truth is God’s truth, therefore it arises from the same origin as Scripture, i.e., God. It’s possible that Ascol’s true concern here is the interpretation of Scripture, rather than its sufficiency. It could be he’s more concerned the Bible might end up being interpreted differently than he would like in the areas of social justice, racism and woman in leadership.

The Bible, whether New or Old Testament, has never been sufficient in all matters in and of themselves. The written words we attribute to God’s inspiration and ultimate origin, are only one aspect (no matter how important) of God’s revealing or communicating. In addition to general and special revelation, we must also consider the Incarnation (in Jesus, in history, Christians believe God became human). And, we would have known about such (through an oral tradition), written words or not.

This idea of the “sufficiency of Scripture,” which stems from one of the Reformed solas, sola scripture (and one fundamentalists and evangelicals have made even more extreme and radical), is very similar to the fundamentalist/evangelical trope of, “chapter and verse.” I speak to that here. What I speak of there, goes to the same issues addressed here. More importantly, even if accepted as Ascol and those he is critical of do, simply spouting the “sufficiency” of Scripture means nothing at the end of the day until we talk about the interpretation of those sufficient Scriptures as they pertain to the issues disputed (these supposed other “tools”).

Putting that aside, as to the Incarnation, let’s consider Ascol’s own words:

“It can be a very good thing” to try and understand the experience of others. Really! That is exactly what happened in the Incarnation. God became human, God took on flesh, like, us. God understood and experienced what we do as human beings. Ascol’s assertion is, not only ironic given his complaint, but also certainly an understatement.

In my opinion, these issues and this row are not, contrary to the article’s title, about the, “sufficiency” of Scripture. They are about power and control. Too often those who proclaim the “sufficiency” of Scripture are using the claim as an authoritarian positioning tactic.

The purpose is to make those who disagree with them, think they are actually disagreeing with God (rather than just having different interpretations of Scripture), or don’t hold Scripture in high regard. While in fact, people are simply noting either that all truth is God’s truth, or they disagree with Ascol’s interpretation of Scripture.

A high view of Scripture and, in my view, interpreting it correctly, means believing all truth is God’s truth, no matter where found. I’m sure Ascol would champion any scientific or archaeological discovery that either conformed with, or substantiated, some truth or assertion of Scripture. If those truths were introduced along with Scripture to better help us understand our world, I doubt he would cry out, “We shouldn’t be considering such, Scripture is sufficient!”

What then is the true problem here? I doubt it has much to do with the “sufficiency” of Scripture.

I have a Patreon Page—please consider supporting my writing.

Previous Post

August 13, 2019

The Unbearable Lightness of Evangelical Triggers

Next Post

October 12, 2019 Dead Man Walking

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month April 2025 February 2025 December 2024 October 2024 September 2024 July 2024 May 2024 January 2024 November 2023 September 2023 July 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 December 2022 November 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Why was Moses placed in a basket in the Nile?

Select your answer to see how you score.

To save him from Pharaoh’s decree To send him to another land As part of a religious ritual To hide him from Egyptian soldiers