According to this article<\/a>, we are supposedly going to learn \u201cwhy\u201d this \u201cspat\u201d is \u201cactually\u201d about the sufficiency of Scripture.\u00a0 We have an assertion in the title: This argument may be about a lot of things, but, \u201cactually,\u201d it\u2019s about the sufficiency of Scripture.<\/p>\n Okay.\u00a0 So, I read with interest\u2026and, was disappointed.\u00a0 Nowhere in the reporting could I see where such was what this \u201cspat\u201d was \u201creally\u201d about, unless of course, we agree with Tom Ascol and the \u201cFounders<\/a>\u201d people.\u00a0 Yes, they<\/em> are asserting such, but I thought this was a reporting, an account of this dispute.\u00a0 Why is the author (editors?) making Mr. Ascol\u2019s<\/em> case in his\/their title?<\/p>\n We are never told why<\/em> the, \u201csufficiency of Scripture\u201d is what this dust-up is about.\u00a0 We are only told one party to the spat thinks such is the case.\u00a0 I\u2019m not sure that is the best way to present an objective and fair view of the problem, but maybe that\u2019s just me\u2014and maybe that wasn\u2019t the goal.<\/p>\n Putting that aside, I\u2019m not interested in the, \u201cspat\u201d they speak of, which has to do with the \u201cdocumentary<\/a>\u201d put together by this group, the \u201cFounders.\u201d\u00a0 I want to address this idea of the sufficiency of Scripture.\u00a0 I seriously doubt such is the true concern here, and wonder if the true concern in one\u2019s interpretations of Scripture, pertinent to the issues brought up by Mr. Ascol, such as social justice, women in leadership, and race relations.<\/p>\n What is meant, in this context, of the sufficiency of Scripture?\u00a0 We read:<\/p>\n \u201cAscol told CT [Christianity Today] that everyone involved in the current SBC discussion is committed to Scripture, but there\u2019s a divide between those who see learning from secular ideologies as a threat to the sufficiency of the Word and those who \u2018think we can use the tools of these ideologies without getting burned by the ideologies themselves.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n First, what happened to the idea that all truth is God\u2019s truth?\u00a0 Ascol would probably agree that all truth is God\u2019s truth, so what is he really asserting here?\u00a0 The only way we might get \u201cburned,\u201d by these other tools, is if it turns out they are not true, right?\u00a0 Is that his true complaint?\u00a0 If it is, then why not make that case?<\/p>\n But let\u2019s look deeper:<\/p>\n \u201cFor example, he [Ascol] said, the Bible states qualifications for pastors in 1 Timothy 3:1\u20137, but some undermine Scripture\u2019s sufficiency by claiming a preacher isn\u2019t qualified to state the Bible\u2019s 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.\u00a0 \u2018It can be a very good thing\u2019 to seek understanding of other believers\u2019 experiences, Ascol said. \u2018But to suggest\u2019 that \u2018we somehow cannot know truth unless we do this\u2019 implies \u2018the Bible really is not sufficient.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n First, who said we cannot know \u201ctruth\u201d unless we do this?\u00a0 What these others are saying, or suggesting, I assume, is that all truth<\/em> is God\u2019s truth, therefore it arises from the same origin as Scripture, i.e., God.\u00a0 It\u2019s possible that Ascol\u2019s true concern here is the\u00a0interpretation<\/em> of Scripture, rather than its sufficiency<\/em>.\u00a0 It could be he\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n The Bible, whether New or Old Testament, has never been sufficient in all matters in and of themselves<\/em>.\u00a0 The written words we attribute to God\u2019s inspiration and ultimate origin, are only one aspect (no matter how important) of God\u2019s revealing or communicating.\u00a0 In addition to general and special revelation, we must also consider the Incarnation (in Jesus, in history, Christians believe God became human).\u00a0 And, we would have known about such (through an oral tradition), written words or not.<\/p>\n This idea of the \u201csufficiency of Scripture,\u201d which stems from one of the Reformed solas<\/em>, sola scripture<\/em> (and one fundamentalists and evangelicals have made even more extreme and radical), is very similar to the fundamentalist\/evangelical trope of, \u201cchapter and verse.\u201d\u00a0 I speak to that here<\/a>.\u00a0 What I speak of there, goes to the same issues addressed here.\u00a0 More importantly, even if accepted as Ascol and those he is critical of do, simply spouting the \u201csufficiency\u201d of Scripture means nothing at the end of the day until we talk about the interpretation<\/em> of those sufficient Scriptures as they pertain to the issues disputed (these supposed other \u201ctools\u201d).<\/p>\n Putting that aside, as to the Incarnation, let\u2019s consider Ascol\u2019s own words:<\/p>\n \u201cIt can be a very good thing\u201d to try and understand the experience of others.\u00a0 Really!\u00a0 That is exactly what happened in the Incarnation.\u00a0 God became human, God took on flesh, like, us<\/em>.\u00a0 God understood and experienced what we do as human beings.\u00a0 Ascol\u2019s assertion is, not only ironic given his complaint, but also certainly an understatement.<\/p>\n In my opinion, these issues and this row are not, contrary to the article\u2019s title, about the, \u201csufficiency\u201d of Scripture.\u00a0 They are about power and control.\u00a0 Too often those who proclaim the \u201csufficiency\u201d of Scripture are using the claim as an authoritarian positioning tactic.<\/p>\n 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\u2019t hold Scripture in high regard.\u00a0 While in fact, people are simply noting either that all truth is God\u2019s truth, or they disagree with Ascol\u2019s interpretation of Scripture.<\/p>\n A high view of Scripture and, in my view, interpreting it correctly, means believing all truth is God\u2019s truth, no matter where found.\u00a0 I\u2019m sure Ascol would champion any scientific or archaeological discovery that either conformed with, or substantiated, some truth or assertion of Scripture.\u00a0 If those truths were introduced along with Scripture to better help us understand our world, I doubt he would cry out, \u201cWe shouldn\u2019t be considering such, Scripture is sufficient!\u201d<\/p>\n What then is the true problem here?\u00a0 I doubt it has much to do with the \u201csufficiency\u201d of Scripture.<\/p>\n