The Sufficiency of God's Word: Our Unwavering Foundation

Paragraph 6: “God’s complete plan for everything essential to His glory, our salvation, our faith, and our lives is either clearly stated or inherently present in the Holy Scripture. Nothing should ever be added to it, whether through new revelations from the Spirit or human traditions. However, we recognize that the Holy Spirit’s inner work is necessary for us to truly grasp and understand the truths revealed in the Bible. So, God’s people should earnestly pray for the Holy Spirit’s illuminating grace to grasp the meaning of His Word, and for His enabling grace to put it into practice in their daily lives. We also understand that certain practical matters concerning how we worship God and govern the church — things common to all human actions and societies — should be decided using common sense and Christian wisdom. So, we should never let matters of common sense cause arguments or divisions among members in the church. Decisions on these issues should sometimes rest with church leaders or be made with the agreement of the majority of church members. These decisions must always align with the Bible’s general principles, which we are always to follow.”

 

The first part of the paragraph declares that “God’s complete plan for everything essential to His glory, our salvation, our faith, and our lives is either clearly stated or inherently present in the Holy Scripture. Nothing should ever be added to it, whether through new revelations from the Spirit or human traditions.” This conviction is a cornerstone of the Reformed tradition, rooted in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which asserts that the Bible alone is the final and sufficient authority for faith and practice.

 

In 2 Timothy 3:15-17, Paul writes that the Scriptures are "breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." The Bible, therefore, is not a starting point to which we add new revelations; it's the complete and final word from God, making the man of God “complete.” To add to it, as Paul warns in Galatians 1:8-9, is to risk falling under a curse: "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed."

 

Reformed theologian Louis Berkhof affirmed this by stating, "The Bible is the complete revelation of the will of God for the salvation of man and for his guidance in all matters of faith and life." And we say, “Amen” to that. This view stands in stark contrast to traditions that appeal to new revelations or unwritten human traditions as equal in authority to the Bible. The Reformed emphasis on the sufficiency of Scripture is also evident in their writings. For example, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, a pastor in the Reformed Methodist tradition, often warned against seeking new experiences or voices from the Spirit that would supersede or add to the completed canon of Scripture. He insisted that the Holy Spirit's primary work is to illuminate the Word, not to add to it.

 

This brings us to the next point in the confession: “However, we recognize that the Holy Spirit’s inner work is necessary for us to truly grasp and understand the truths revealed in the Bible. So, God’s people should earnestly pray for the Holy Spirit’s illuminating grace to grasp the meaning of His Word, and for His enabling grace to put it into practice in their daily lives.” That’s what the second part of paragraph six points out. This is because, while the Bible is sufficient and clear, sin has clouded our minds, making it impossible to understand spiritual truths on our own. As Jesus teaches in John 6:45, "And they will all be taught by God." This "teaching" is the internal, illuminating work of the Holy Spirit.

 

Please turn with me to 1 Corinthians 2:9-12 where Paul further clarifies this point. He says, “But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”— these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.” So in this passage, Paul writes that the "spiritual things" of God are "spiritually discerned" and "revealed to us through the Spirit." It means that the unregenerate mind cannot comprehend these truths. As Pastor Albert N. Martin has powerfully preached, the Holy Spirit is the divine interpreter, enabling a believer's mind to see, savor, and submit to the truth of Scripture. In his book, Canon Revisited, Michael Kruger expands on this, arguing that the Holy Spirit's testimony is the ultimate ground of our assurance in the Bible's authority, working in tandem with the objective evidence for the canon. James White, in his defense of Sola Scriptura, also stresses that the illumination of the Spirit is essential for understanding what has already been revealed in the Bible, not for receiving new revelation.

 

Now, this position on the sufficiency of Scripture is not without its critics. We know of several Roman Catholic objections to the Reformed viewpoint on the Bible and authority. The primary objections revolve around Sola Scriptura, the role of tradition, and the necessity of the Magisterium. We typically address these objections by appealing to the biblical evidence for the sufficiency of Scripture and critiquing the Roman Catholic Church's historical and theological claims.

 

First, there is the strong Roman Catholic objection against Sola Scriptura: The Roman Catholic Church argues that Scripture and Tradition together form a single, inseparable deposit of faith. They cite passages like 2 Thessalonians 2:15, where Paul tells the Thessalonians to "hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." For Roman Catholics, this "unwritten tradition" (e.g., doctrines like the perpetual virginity of Mary or the Assumption) is essential for a complete understanding of Christian faith. They argue that Sola Scriptura is unbiblical because the Bible itself doesn't explicitly teach it.

 

How do we respond? We respond to the charge of ignoring tradition by distinguishing between "big-T" Tradition (infallible, divine tradition) and "small-t" traditions (helpful human customs). Here is our contention: We believe that the "traditions" mentioned by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 were the same apostolic teachings he had already delivered orally and in writing, which later became what we know as the New Testament. If we will listen to Jesus Christ Himself, he straightforwardly condemned human traditions that nullified the Word of God (Mark 7:8-9 – You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.” And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition).  That’s why we maintain that while tradition can be helpful for understanding the Bible, it is not an infallible source of revelation and must always be tested against the clear teaching of Scripture.

 

As a leading contemporary Reformed apologist, James White directly addresses the Roman Catholic use of 2 Thessalonians 2:15, if you are following his lectures and debate on YouTube. He places the verse in its proper historical and theological context, distinguishing between the nature of “tradition” in the apostolic era and the “Tradition” claimed by the Roman Catholic Church today. He acknowledges that this verse is one of the key "proof texts" used by Roman Catholics to argue for the authority of both oral and written tradition.

 

The verse reads: "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by letter."

 

First, there is the Distinction Between Apostolic Tradition and the Roman Catholic Church Tradition

 

James White argues that the "traditions" (paradosis in Greek) Paul is referring to are the specific, divinely-revealed teachings of the apostles themselves. These are not unwritten, extra-biblical traditions that would be passed down through the centuries, but rather the very Gospel message and its implications for the life of the church.

 

When Paul wrote this letter, the New Testament canon was not yet complete. The apostles were the living, authoritative mouthpiece of God. Their "spoken word" was just as much divinely inspired revelation as their "letter." Therefore, the command to "hold to the traditions" meant to hold to the apostolic teaching, whether it was delivered orally or in writing.

 

Second, we believe in the Cessation of Apostolic Revelation

 

James White's key point is that this apostolic period of revelation has ceased. There are no longer any living apostles to give new, divinely-inspired, oral traditions. The revelation from God through the apostles has been completed and preserved in the New Testament. As such, all that a Christian needs to "stand firm" in the face of false teaching (the very context of the letter) is now contained in the Bible.

 

We believe that the Roman Catholic Church's claim to possess an ongoing, infallible oral Tradition is anachronistic or out of place—it tries to apply a command given in the unique apostolic age to the post-apostolic era. The "Tradition" of the Roman Catholic Church is just a human tradition that has developed over time and, in some cases, even contradicts the written Word of God.

 

Third, there is a need to emphasize the Self-Contradiction of the Roman Catholic Position

 

James White also points out what he sees as a logical inconsistency in the Roman Catholic position. If the Bible is not sufficient on its own, and requires the Magisterium to interpret it, then how can anyone know that 2 Thessalonians 2:15 means what Roman Catholics say it means in the first place? To argue for an extra-biblical tradition, one must first rely on the Bible itself, thus undermining the very argument they are trying to make.

 

In short, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is not an argument for Tradition as a co-equal source of divine revelation to Scripture. Instead, it is a testament to the supreme authority of the apostles' teaching, which, since the close of the apostolic age, is now fully and sufficiently contained in the pages of the Bible.

 

Another Roman Catholic objection to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is what they perceive as the Problem of the Canon: Roman Catholics ask how a person adhering to Sola Scriptura can know for certain which books belong in the Bible without the authoritative, infallible decision of the Church. They contend that the early Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, authoritatively determined the canon of Scripture at councils like the Council of Rome (382 AD) and the Council of Trent (1546 AD). Thus, the authority of the Church must precede and establish the authority of the Bible.

 

Now, we believe we dealt with this extensively in our previous articles. We address the canon question by arguing that the authority of Scripture is not derived from the Church, but is self-authenticating. We believe the Holy Spirit provides an internal testimony to believers, confirming the divine origin of the biblical books. The early church didn't create the canon; it recognized the books that God had already inspired. Think of it like this: a person recognizes their parent based on a natural, intuitive relationship; they don't need a formal council to declare who their parent is. In the same way, the church simply recognized the books that God had "begotten" and that bore the marks of divine inspiration. Martyn Lloyd-Jones and other Reformed authors argue that the Holy Spirit's illumination is the ultimate basis for our certainty.

 

Another major Roman Catholic contention is their belief in the Need for a Magisterium or the teaching body of the Church: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is not always clear and that its meaning is often disputed. Therefore, an infallible teaching authority, the Magisterium (the Pope and the bishops in communion with him), is necessary to provide the correct interpretation of Scripture and Tradition, thereby preventing theological chaos and division. They point to the thousands of different Protestant denominations as a result of Sola Scriptura.

 

Now, how do we respond to this? We respond by asserting our belief on the Clarity of Scripture (Perspicuity): We counter the Magisterium's claims by asserting the clarity of Scripture on all matters essential for salvation. While we acknowledge some parts of the Bible are difficult to understand, we maintain that the core doctrines of Christianity are plain enough for a person, guided by the Holy Spirit, to grasp without an infallible interpreter. We contend that the Magisterium, by claiming an exclusive right to interpretation, places itself above the Word of God and makes people dependent on human authority rather than on God's revealed truth. James White, a prominent Reformed Baptist apologist, has extensively argued that the Catholic position on tradition and the Magisterium ultimately undermines the supreme authority of Christ and His Word.

 

Now, here is an eye-opener question from any sensible person dealing with Roman Catholics. Has there been a complete verse-by-verse and chapter-by-chapter commentary on the whole Bible produced by any pope of the Roman Catholic Church similar to the comprehensive commentaries of Matthew Henry or John Gill?

 

The short answer is: No, there has never been a complete verse-by-verse, chapter-by-chapter commentary on the entire Bible produced by any Roman Catholic pope.

 

Now, to our Roman Catholic readers, you judge for yourselves. But the absence of a comprehensive biblical commentary from a pope is a significant and telling point in the debate over papal infallibility. If the Pope truly possesses the gift of infallibility in matters of faith and dogma, and if that infallibility could be applied to providing a definitive and error-free interpretation of the entire Bible, why has no pope ever undertaken such a monumental task?  The production of an infallible commentary would seemingly be the greatest possible blessing to the Church, eliminating centuries of interpretive disputes and providing a single, clear, and authoritative guide for all believers.

 

Now, the Roman Catholic Church's own teaching on the role of the Magisterium suggests that such a commentary is not only unnecessary but might even be contrary to the nature of papal authority. However, from a logical and practical perspective, the absence of such a commentary is unacceptable. If Christ gave his church an infallible interpreter, wouldn't we expect that interpreter to provide an infallible interpretation of the very Word of God?

 

The fact that the Roman Catholic Church, and even individual popes, have instead produced encyclicals, catechisms, and specific theological works—all of which draw upon the Bible but do not provide a verse-by-verse interpretation—reinforces our Reformed belief that the Church's authority is not a substitute for the sufficiency and clarity of Scripture.

 

Now, pay attention to this very common Roman Catholic objection to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura: “If that's how it works, why did you guys end up with 47 000+ different churches with no less than 50 different belief systems, when Christ started 1 church with one belief system?”

 

How do we respond to this? First, the problem is sin, not Sola Scriptura. The existence of numerous denominations is a result of human sin and a failure to adhere to the very principles of Sola Scriptura—not a logical consequence of it. The sin of pride, stubbornness, and personal preference has led people to form divisions rather than submit to the clear teaching of Scripture. But you know what? The Roman Catholic Church has not been immune to division. Don’t forget the historical schisms like the Great Schism of 1054 and the Protestant Reformation itself. We have to understand that the existence of many denominations is a symptom of human fallibility, not a refutation of the Bible's authority.

 

Second, we have to understand the true nature of biblical unity. The true unity of the Church is not in a single, visible institution with a single head on earth (the Pope). Instead, the true Church is a spiritual reality, a unified body of believers who are united by faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This unity is invisible, known only to God, and is expressed in the unity of doctrine on all matters essential for salvation. While there are many denominations, the vast majority of them hold to the core, essential truths of the Gospel, such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, His death and resurrection, and salvation by grace through faith.

 

But here is what’s striking: Even within the Roman Catholic Church, there are significant theological differences and factions, such as those who reject the reforms of Vatican II or those who oppose certain papal teachings. The truth is, the public-facing unity of the Catholic Church is just maintained through the force of a centralized hierarchy, not a genuine, heartfelt unity of belief among all members. But this centralized authority can actually obscure the Gospel, as it elevates the pronouncements of men to the same level as the Word of God. In reality, the freedom to interpret Scripture, a key aspect of Sola Scriptura, allows for a more vibrant, if at times messy, pursuit of truth. 

 

Now, while acknowledging the existence of theological disagreements, we maintain that the Bible is clear on all matters essential for salvation. The differences among Protestant denominations are typically over secondary issues, such as church governance, the mode of baptism, or eschatology. But on the core doctrines of the faith, there is a broad, fundamental unity. We assert that the Bible, when read with the illumination of the Holy Spirit, provides a clear path to salvation, and that a Magisterium is not needed for this purpose.

 

Moving on, our confession reminds us that certain practical matters concerning how we worship God and govern the church — things common to all human actions and societies — should be decided using common sense and Christian wisdom. This is where the principle of common sense, or Christian prudence, comes into play. Not every detail of a church service is explicitly prescribed in Scripture. For instance, 1 Corinthians 11:13-14 appeals to a sense of propriety and what is "fitting" in worship. Paul asks, "Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?" Here, the Bible points to a general principle of distinction and order, leaving specific application to the judgment of the church.

 

So, we should never let matters of common sense cause arguments or divisions among members in the church. Paul’s instruction in 1 Corinthians 14:26, 40 that all things should be done "for building up" and "decently and in order" provides a guiding principle for such decisions. Decisions on these issues should sometimes rest with church leaders or be made with the agreement of the majority of church members. These decisions must always align with the Bible’s general principles, which we are always to follow. The goal is to avoid schism and maintain unity, ensuring that even practical decisions serve the ultimate purpose of glorifying God and edifying the body of Christ.

 

This is a great question, as it gets to the heart of how we, Reformed believers, apply our theological principles to the practical realities of church life. Unnecessary squabbles over non-essential matters are a painful but common reality, and a proper biblical framework is crucial for addressing them.

 

Now, historical and contemporary anecdotes abound of churches getting entangled in bitter disputes over matters of preference rather than biblical principle. These are often rooted in a failure to distinguish between essentials and non-essentials (or adiaphora).

 

For example, the "Hymns vs. Contemporary Worship" Battle: This is arguably the most common and persistent conflict in modern church life. One faction argues for the traditional use of hymns, seeing them as theologically rich and historically sound. The other pushes for contemporary worship songs, believing them to be more culturally relevant and effective for reaching a new generation. This can escalate to the point of a church split, with both sides accusing the other of being "unspiritual" or "ungodly."

 

Another example is the "Pulpit vs. Platform" Fight: We’ve heard of congregations arguing over the physical layout of the front of the sanctuary. Is the preacher's podium a "pulpit" that should be central, elevated, and dignified? Or is it a "platform" for a more relational, informal style of teaching? This seemingly trivial matter can become a symbolic battleground over the very nature of preaching and authority.

 

And then there is the "Potluck vs. Pot-Blessing" Dispute: A humorous but true example is the story of a church that split over whether to use the term "potluck" or "pot-blessing." One side saw "luck" as a secular, anti-sovereignty concept, while the other side saw it as a common, harmless term. The deep-seated theological differences were not about the Gospel itself, but about the application of principles to a non-essential custom.

 

Now, how do we address these unnecessary squabbles? We address these issues by appealing to a set of theological principles that guide the church on matters of prudence and practice.

 

First, the Sufficiency of Scripture and the "Regulative Principle": The first principle is that the Bible alone is the infallible guide. As stated in the initial paragraphs, anything essential for faith and life is clearly stated or present in Scripture. Therefore, matters not explicitly addressed in the Bible, such as the type of music or the style of dress, are left to Christian wisdom and common sense. The Regulative Principle of Worship is a key tenet here: all elements of worship must be explicitly commanded in Scripture. However, Reformed believers generally apply this principle to the elements of worship (e.g., preaching, prayer, singing) and not the circumstances (e.g., time, place, style). This allows for flexibility on secondary matters while maintaining a biblical foundation.

 

Second, the Principle of Christian Liberty and Love: In the book of Romans, Paul addresses a similar conflict in the early church over matters like eating meat offered to idols. His instruction in Romans 14 is to not despise or pass judgment on one another over these "disputable matters." The guiding principle is love and edification. The stronger brother, who understands his liberty, should not cause the weaker brother, whose conscience is sensitive, to stumble. This is the core of the Summarium’s response: if a practice is not explicitly forbidden in Scripture, it is a matter of Christian liberty, and the decision should be made with love and unity in mind.

 

Third, the Role of Church Leadership and Majority Rule: In matters of prudence, Reformed churches often follow a congregational form of government. The church leaders (elders/pastors) are responsible for guiding the congregation and teaching these principles. The congregation as a whole, empowered by the Holy Spirit, then makes a decision on practical matters, often by majority vote. As mentioned in the initial paragraphs, decisions on these issues "should sometimes rest with church leaders or be made with the agreement of the majority of church members." This ensures that the decision is made by the whole body, not a single person or a small clique, and that it is always in alignment with the general principles of Scripture.

 

Fourth, there is a Focus on the Centrality of the Gospel: Ultimately, these squabbles are a sign of spiritual immaturity and a misplaced focus. Churches divert attention from the central mission of the church: proclaiming the Gospel, making disciples, and glorifying God. Preaching is the primary means by which a church is edified and matures beyond these trivial arguments. When the Gospel is preached and celebrated with clarity and power, the congregation's focus shifts from self-preference to the glory of Christ, making these quarrels less likely to occur or cause division.

 

By consistently appealing to the sufficiency of Scripture, the principles of Christian liberty and love, and the corporate responsibility of the congregation, we seek to avoid the unnecessary squabbles that have historically plagued churches.