When we say "sufficiency of Scripture", what do we mean?

Wayne Grudem defines it as "...[containing] all the words of God we need for salvation, for trusting him perfectly, and for obeying him perfectly" (2 Timothy 3:15-17; Psalm 119:1).Systematic Theology: An introduction to biblical doctrine, Wayne Grudem, 1994, IVP, 127.

It thoroughly equips us for every good work, 2 Timothy 3:17 reads.

So if we mean that Scripture is all that we need for life, what about needing the "apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints" to become "a mature person" (Ephesians 4:11-13)? What about that equipping?

And don't we need each other—the Body (1 Corinthians 12)? We don't all have the same gifts, so to function properly, don't we need each other?

Thankfully, doing life on our own, just with Scripture, and without the church, is not what we mean. Grudem adds that the church helps us understand what's in the Bible, without adding to it.Wayne Grudem, 129. That's helpful.

But crucially, all this passage is saying is that it's a sufficient foundation. It does not follow that it shows us how to live every aspect of our Christian life. You can pour the foundational concrete of your house, but that's still not useful unless you actually build the house on top of it. That is, you can be equipped for every good work by reading Scripture and studying it, but you've still got to actually put it into practice for it to truly be effective in your life. And for that, we need the Body, not to add to the foundation, but to help us understand it, see it, and live it.

The authority of Scripture

Another angle is the Word's sufficiency amongst all other books. Do we essentially mean by saying "the sufficiency of Scripture" just that no other book is inspired? This is similar to the phrase "Sola Scripturae" which is Latin for 'Scripture alone', and is intended to mean that "the Scriptures alone are the final and the highest authority. Everything that the Scriptures address are to be used as the final word on that topic. All things that we learn from other sources must be compared to Scripture, and if they do not match Scripture or if they contradict Scripture, then we are not to affirm them."What are the Five Solas?, Matt Slick | Mar 7, 2015, Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM), https://carm.org/about-doctrine/what-are-the-five-solas/ That's a good definition.

Once again, this speaks of a foundational element—but not the sole element of our lives.

In other words, a better phrase may be "the authority of Scripture", or to give it that air of authority: 'Auctoritas Scripturae'.

The insufficiency of helping people?

But on the ground, pastors—and Christians—are treating the "sufficiency of Scripture" as a way to bypass the need for dealing with people's issues. Dr. Larry Crabb describes the sentiment: "if we can just get the Word of God into people's heads, then the Spirit of God will apply it to their hearts. That assumption is awful, not because the Spirit never does what the assumption supposes, but because it has excused pastors and leaders from the responsibiity to tangle with people's lives. Many remain safely hidden behind pulpits, hopelessly out of touch with the struggles of their congregations, proclaiming Scriptures with a pompous accuracy that touches no one. Pulpits should provide bridges, not barriers, to life-changing relationships." Pastor Sam Storms recognises that he had been hiding behind this concept "to justify my personal detachment from people's lives...my insistence on the 'sufficiency' of Scripture was a convenient and seemingly biblical way of keeping people and their problems at arm's length".To Love Mercy: becoming a person of compassion, acceptance, & forgiveness, C. Samuel Storms, 1991, 15-16

From my experience, I know that most conservative sermons, even with active listening, notetaking, and PowerPoint, still don't actually deal with my day to day life, my habits, rituals, difficult issues, or build positive works such as community. I may know how to interpret a particular passage, but really, I just needed specific help with my marriage, or knowing my place in the world, or how to conduct myself at work, or what could a Christian response to the COVID-19 situation be. At the end of this all-too-common "sufficiency", I have not learned to apply the Scripture to my life, nor has anyone come alongside me to help me to do that. Most of the application is how to study the Bible better, or encouragement to just pray and hope the Holy Spirit can fix everything. The Spirit can of course do that, but we are not taught how to listen to the Spirit, or what it looks like when the Spirit works in us.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, the average Pentecostal also tends towards this phenomenon of remaining safely behind their pulpit and prayers. But instead of expounding the Word of God, and trusting the Spirit to work through that Word, what they will do is fan the Spirit into flame, and trust the Spirit to work directly on people's hearts, teaching, guiding, convicting and reproving for them. They leave the teaching of the Word to the Spirit.

This is seriously deficient too, because God in fact gives this task to the pastor (2 Timothy 3:16), even though the Spirit can do it too. It's like saying that the Holy Spirit can convict and draw people to himself, so therefore we don't need to evangelise. Just because God can do all things, doesn't mean he wants to do it that way.

So although Pentecostals do not usually speak about such doctrines as the sufficiency of the Word, functionally they operate under 'the sufficiency of the Spirit'. And that is insufficient!

The sufficiency of the Word without the Spirit?

Conservatives sometimes use the phrase to give another blow to the use of charismatic gifts: well we don't need the Spirit to reveal anything to us because we have the final authoritative Word. The Westminster Confession—which underpins many Calvinist churches—Article VI, could be worded better:

"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 [Gal 1:8-9; 2 Thes 2:2; 2 Tim 3:15-17]. 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 [John 6:45; 1 Cor 2:9-12]; 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 Cor 11:13-14; 14:26, 40]."

Pentecostals would agree that we should not add to the Bible, but vehemently disagree with the sentiment that the Spirit cannot reveal anything at all. Typically, Conservatives understand the "inward illumination of the Spirit" as an external force on your internal conscience, and a guidance towards making a saving profession of faith. For Conservatives, it's not talking about hearing from the Spirit living in you. It is similar to the role of the church that Grudem talked about—the Spirit helps people understand what's in the Word, without adding to it: but this is done at an unconscious level, in the background, unlike how Pentecostals talk about hearing from God.

Clearly even the Reformers who penned this (in 1646) are confused, at first stating confidently that "the whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life" is found in or from Scripture alone, but then downgrading that to qualify that actually, we need the Spirit in some circumstances, and "the light of nature" and "Christian prudence" in others. Confusing, hey?

Questions

So what are our starting points that form the Christian foundation? Just the Bible? Do we need the Spirit's illumination in everything, or just some things? Where do other people's interpretations come in play—they're not infallible, but we need teaching nevertheless? Can we do church isolated from the Body? And what is "sufficient"—getting the right theology? Or applying theology to our lives, through the hard work of dealing with people, not just Scripture?