If the Bible is the sole authority, do we still need the church's interpretation of the Bible? The Reformers said no to Papal infallability. We don't require official interpretation. "Sola Scripturae". But are we just replacing it with our own interpretations? Everyone has their interpretation. We can't escape that, because we all see through a particular lens, a worldview, to make sense of the world. However, as Protestants we don't treat our interpretation as infallible. We (hopefully) have humility and offer our interpretations to others for review. In fact, it's the person who will not allow others to review their work that is both proud and highly likely to be wrong. So while Scripture may have sole place as the authority, we find that we need the church—the people—to help us understand it.

I've just said that on my own authority and without Scripture. Let's ground it in first principles (the root authority, not other books or people).

I originally thought that if we're talking about being "complete, equipped for every good work" (ESV), then all we need is Scripture. We can be like the Reformers and do away with people's interpretations. But apart from the blinding obvious that we ourselves have our filter, our biases, and our interpretation (which person has done away with them?), who is doing the teaching if not others with their interpretation? Who is doing the reproving, rebuking and correcting? Paul teaches Timothy here to "preach"—in the context of a local church gathering. So we need the church: others who are gifted in teaching and preaching to help us understand the Word.

My interpretation of those times when it is inconvenient ("out of season", 4:2) are those outside of the formal "convenient" gatherings. So it might be in the middle of the night at home, or travelling through town on your way to something. So this is not confined to church services, either. It's as we do life, whether formal or informal.

Thus it's safe to argue that the shorthand phrase "sufficiency of Scripture" is, ironically, insufficient for understanding the intent and content of concept. If Scripture points to the need for the church, then reducing the concept to a phrase that focuses on Scripture is inadequate.

Now Paul talks elsewhere about another equipping to maturity, so this is not the full picture yet.

Here is another teaching that confirms that the church is necessary for our equipping. We need apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers to teach, shepherd, witness, understand and grow. It's very dangerous to your maturity then, to simply rest on a teacher, as many Conservatives do. Interestingly, even though many Conservatives understand there to be no more apostles or prophets, they still believe that there are pastors with a teaching gift; pastors who are much better pastorally; pastors who are gifted evangelists; pastors who understand the times and know what to do; and pastors who are church planters and high level leaders. This corresponds remarkably to these five gifts. Make sure these five people are in your life (whether the currently are known as 'pastor', 'elder' or otherwise) and they know you, and they are equipping you.

I think in emphasising the sole authority of Scripture, as a counter to placing the interpretation of the church on that same level, we can lower the importance of the church so much that we actually stay immature. We block legitimate criticism. So there's an equal but opposite error which denies that the church has any authority.

So in terms of authority, there is no other authority higher than the Word of God, who is Jesus, and Jesus has written about himself in what we call the Word, the Bible.

Ultimately, the Bible is not what we worship, but what the Bible and our lives point to: Jesus Christ. Full maturity is attaining to the "whole measure of the fullness of Christ" (Ephesians 4:13). So it's becoming like Jesus. We worship and become like Jesus.

Yet, people have different interpretations of the Bible, and therefore we need the Body—the Church—as well as the Spirit to help us understand the Word. Grudem affirms this approach when he differentiates the Roman Catholic approach from the Protestant:

Roman Catholic theologians...would say that we have not found all that God says to us about any particular subject until we have also listened to the official teaching of the church throughout its history. We would respond that although the history of the church may help us to understand what God says to us in the Bible, never in church history has God added to the teachings or commands of Scripture...Scripture is sufficient to equip us for "every good work".Systematic Theology: An introduction to biblical doctrine, Wayne Grudem, 1994, IVP, 129.

At this stage, we've established the following (incomplete) maxim:

We hold to: The authority of Scripture alone, administered through the Body of Christ, and interpreted with the Body of Christ's help.

So in this maxim, the authority of Scripture is not in question, but the interpretation of the church is not lost. But there is more. The Body is needed, but the Body is many parts, not just the five mentioned. And where does the Spirit fit? Paul is not writing a systematic theology, so is not complete here, but we know the Spirit reveals things to us (e.g. 1 Corinthians 2:10).