The Sufficiency of Scripture
By Gary E. Gilley, Pastor Teacher
Southern View
Chapel
PART
I
Think On These
Things, Volume 1 Issue
10 August
1995
Inerrancy is the belief that the
Scriptures contain no errors in the original.
Infallibility guarantees the accuracy of the recorded
messages found in the Word. The Scriptures today are
under attack. Of course, this is nothing new; we can
trace such attacks to the Garden of Eden. What is new in
evangelical circles is the package. Let's back up for a
look at recent church history. In the 1920's and 30's
differences between conservative and liberal churches
came to a head in America. Out of that controversy came
new denominations, fellowships, schools, missions, etc.,
that separated from those who no longer believed in
Biblical Christianity. These organizations were founded
by believers who desired to hold fast and "Contend
earnestly for the faith" (Jude 3). One of the big
problems at that time (as it is today), is developing a
consenses concerning the essentials of the faith? That
is, what doctrinal truths are beyond compromise? What
must all Christians who claim to be orthodox believe,
and conversely what can be left to individual
convictions? In other words, what are the
non-negotiables of the faith? A series of volumes,
published originally in 1909, known as The Fundamentals
for Today were an attempt to answer these questions.
Written by some of the finest conservative scholars and
church leaders of the day, The Fundamentals addressed
the doctrines of Christology and soteriology, but almost
one third of the essays concerned the reliability of
Scripture. What emerged from this is what has become
known as the fundamentalist movement. A fundamentalist
was one who adhered to the fundamentals of the faith,
primarily as described in The Fundamentals. One of those
fundamentals was the belief in an infallible and
inerrant Bible. As time moved on those known as
evangelicals split off from fundamentalism. Evangelicals
still held to the fundamentals of the faith, but
believed there was more room to compromise and work with
those who deny some of the essentials. Of course, today
there are many subgroupings under these titles, but that
is not our subject. Our point is that by definition, all
fundamentalists and evangelicals supposedly adhere to
the belief that the Bible is the very words of God,
without error in the original, and is correct in all
that it affirms.
However,
while the fundamentalist camp has continued to firmly
hold this position, there has been some evidence of
weakening on the evangelical side. For example, in 1976
Harold Lindsell, former editor of Christianity Today and
typical evangelical, wrote a book called The Battle for
the Bible. In this book, he documented the compromise
taking place concerning Biblical infallibility and
inerrancy in such evangelical organizations as Fuller
Seminary, the Southern Baptist Convention, and the
Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod. The book was not well
received. So, he followed up with The Bible in the
Balance in an attempt to show the danger the evangelical
world was facing because of their eroding view of the
Scriptures. He wrote, "Today an increasing number of
evangelicals do not wish to make inerrancy a test for
fellowship" (p303). His lament throughout the book was
that evangelicalism was slowly losing its conviction of
an inerrant Bible. However, he also believed that the
fundamentalists were standing firm on the Scriptures.
Few heeded Lindsell's warning, and as a result it is
becoming increasingly difficult to define an
evangelical. Recently, in a futile effort to define the
term, one journal resigned that an evangelical today is
anyone who claims to be one. There are no longer any
definitions. Lindsell suggested in 1979 that all
Christians who wish to maintain an orthodox view of
Scripture may want to return to the term
"fundamentalist" even with all of its negative
connotations (Ibid p320). With this we happily agree, if
by the term we mean one who stands for the essentials of
the faith including an inerrant and infallible Bible.
However,
we who accept the fundamentalist label have our problems
in regard to the Scriptures as well. While we firmly
stand for infallibility and inerrancy we have sadly
compromised on sufficiency. By the sufficiency of
Scripture, we mean that the Bible is adequate to guide
us into all truth pertaining to life and godliness.
Based upon such passages as II Pet 1:3; II Tim 3:15-4:2
and Psalm 19 we believe that the Scriptures alone
(through the power of the Holy Spirit) are capable of
teaching us how to live life, how to mature in
godliness, how to handle problems and how to know truth.
The Bible needs no help from the wisdom and experiences
of men. Yet, the vast majority of both evangelicals and
fundamentalists believe the Scriptures are either
inadequate or incomplete incommunicating what the
Christian needs to know to deal with the issues of life.
Thus they believe that something is addition to
Scripture is necessary.
Again,
there is nothing new about God's people believing that
the Bible is insufficient to meet their needs. Col 2
describes a church during the NT era that felt it was
necessary to add several things to the Scriptures in
order to move on to maturity. The church at Colossae
apparently had come under the influence of the early
stages of Gnosticism. Gnosticism taught that certain
Christians were privy to a mystical source of knowledge
beyond the Scriptures. If one wanted to move on to
maturity, according to the Gnostics, they had to tap
into this extra Biblical knowledge through the methods
that they taught. The Colossians, under this influence,
were leaving behind their early instruction concerning
the Christian life (v1-7) and were being deluded into
adding at least five things to God's Word:
PHILOSOPHY:
Col
2:8-15 warns of the danger of being taken captive
through philosophy and empty deception. "Philosophy"
means the "love of wisdom" and the book of Proverbs
tells us that the love of wisdom is a worthy pursuit
(Prov 4:6). So, God is not against the love of wisdom;
He is against the wrong kind of wisdom. Paul warns of a
pseudo-wisdom that can be identified by three
characteristics: 1) It is according to the traditions of
men. That is, this is a wisdom that comes from the mind
of men not the mind of God. 2) It is according to the
elementary principles of the world. This is likely a
reference to the attempt to gain esoteric wisdom through
mystical means, something the Gnostics loved (see v18).
3) It is not according to Christ. True wisdom is found
in Christ, "In whom are hidden all the treasures of
wisdom and knowledge" (v3). The Colossians were
searching in the wrong place for wisdom. What they were
looking for was found in Christ, through the Word, not
in the philosophies of men. The 1990's church has again
gone to the well of human philosophy in order to
discover how to live life. This is most obvious in the
attempt to integrate humanistic psychology with the
Scriptures. So-called Christian psychology is a view
that the Bible is not adequate to meet people's deepest
personal and emotional needs. The Bible is sufficient
for spiritual concerns and minor difficulties, but
people who have real problems need the help of
psychology. We will deal in depth with this issue in the
future.
LEGALISM:
Everyone
thinks they know what legalism is, and no one, including
the Pharisees, ever thinks they are legalistic. Col
2:16-17 describes legalism as majoring on the minors. It
is living for the shadows instead of the substance. It
is the belief that the keeping of certain rules and
rituals win favor with God. These rules and rituals
almost always are things that do not emerge directly
from the Word. Therefore, the danger lies in the fact
that we have added our own ideas to God's in order to
mature in godliness. We, in essence, declare that God's
Word is insufficient to instruct us on how to live life;
we must therefore help Him
out.
ASCETICISM:
Asceticism is based on a
misunderstanding of our bodies. It is the idea that God
will be impressed and we will become more holy if we
deprive our bodies of even those things that are good.
The major flaw, as Paul says, is that it is a "self-made
religion, " and thus once again is an addition to God's
revelation (Col
2:20-23).
PRAGMATISM:
Pragmatism is not specifically
mentioned in Col 2, but nevertheless permeates the whole
passage. Pragmatism is the error of determining truth by
what appears to work. If some method, or concept seems
successful, if people feel better, if they respond to
the gospel or go to church more often, then it must be
of God. Instead of the Word of God determining how we
live and what we do, pragmatism steps in and rules.
Perhaps, this is most evident in the church growth
movement today. As John MacArthur says, "Church goers
are seen as consumers who have to be sold something they
like. Pastors must preach what people want to hear
rather than what God wants proclaimed" (Our Sufficiency
in Christ). Far too many churches and church leaders are
more concerned about what works than what is
Biblical.
MYSTICISM:
The
final addition to God's Word is one which we would like
to spend some time discussing. Paul describes
mysticism/experience in Col 2:18,19. The Gnostics taught
that a few elite had received the gift of direct
inspiration through the Holy Spirit. These moments of
inspiration took place through visions, dreams, and
encounters with angels (see The Gnostic Gospels pp49,
139-142, 163-166). This divided the church into two
classes, the haves and the have nots (the truly
spiritual and the unspiritual). The parallels with our
modern day Charismatic movement are hard to miss. Since
the 1960's, the church has been divided into two camps:
those who possess supernatural gifts and receive special
revelation from God and those who do not.While there are
numerous errors in the Charismatic movement, the heart
of their problems are found right in these verses: they
are basing their theology on experiences rather than on
the foundation of Jesus Christ as found in His Word. The
end result is that such people are "defrauded." They are
missing out on true Biblical living because of their
beliefs. Unfortunately, the influence of the Charismatic
movement has infiltrated many who would deny any
involvement in that system. In our next letter, we want
to document how the Charismatic movement's view of
Scripture has subtly changed the way many evangelicals
and fundamentalists view God's
revelation.
PART
II
Think On These
Things, Volume 1 Issue
11 September
1995
In our
last paper, we attemped to demonstrate that through the
influence of neo-Gnosticism, in the form of the
Charismatic Movement, even many in the
conservative/fundamental ranks are subtly adjusting
their view of the Scriptures. These individuals would
defend to the death their belief in the inerrancy and
infallibility of the Word, but have softened, as we will
see, in the area of sufficiency. When we speak of the
sufficiency of the Bible, we mean that it alone is
adequate to train us in godliness. Only the Word reveals
God's truth for living. On the negative side, this
naturally implies that nothing needs to be added to the
Scriptures for us to know truth. Therefore, when
anything, whether it is man's wisdom, personal
experience, pragmatism, tradition, or direct revelation
is tauted as a means of knowing God's truth, then
Biblical sufficiency has been denied. By this definition
we find the conservative Christian landscape literally
swamped with those who claim to believe in the authority
of Scripture, yet in practice deny it by their
extrabiblical sources of obtaining truth and guidance.
Before going any further, maybe we should ask the
question, "Is Biblical sufficiency Biblical? Does the
Word claim to be sufficient?" In reply, we are reminded
of II Pet 1:3, "Seeing that His divine power has granted
to us everything pertaining to life and godliness,
through the true knowledge of Him ..." How is life and
godliness obtained? It is accomplished through the true
knowledge of Christ, which is found only in the Word. II
Tim 3:16,17 reminds us that the Scriptures are inspired
by God and are profitable for teaching, reproof,
correction, and training in righteousness. Why? In order
that we might be adequate, equipped for every good work.
We have to wonder, if the Scriptures are adequate to
equip us for EVERY good work, and if they are able to
lead us to EVERYTHING pertaining to life and godliness,
what else is needed? Why search beyond the Scriptures
for the things that God says the Scriptures alone
supply? In our support of the doctrine of Biblical
sufficiency we can do more than proof-text. The whole
thrust of Scripture implies that the Word alone is
sufficient to teach us how to live life and find
guidance. As a matter of fact, the burden of proof that
that something beyond the Scriptures (visions, man's
wisdom, tradition, etc.) is needed, lies with those who
doubt sufficiency. Note the view of God's Word as found
in Psalm 19. We are told that it is perfect and will
restore the soul. It is sure, making wise the simple. It
is right, rejoicing the heart. It is pure, enlightening
the eyes. It is clean, enduring forever. It is true and
righteous altogether. It is more desirable than gold, it
is sweeter than honey. There is no hint here that the
Word is inadequate to equip us for whatever life throws
our way. As the Psalmist praises the Scriptures he
implies that there is no need of help from any outside
source. This is the picture that we get throughout the
entire Bible. Human wisdom, observations and experience
add nothing to the
Scriptures.
The Sufficiency of Scripture and
Mysticism
Mysticism is one of the most
subtle forces that undermines sufficiency in the
evangelical church today. John MacArthur's definition is
helpful, "Mysticism looks to truth internally, weighing
feeling, intuition, and other internal sensations more
heavily than objective, observable, external data.
...Its source of truth is spontaneous feeling rather
than objective fact, ...or sound Biblical
interpretation" (Our Sufficiency in Christ
p32).
Mysticism
found in places such as the Vineyard Movement (which we
will examine next time) is very obvious, since they
claim direct revelation from God. For example, in Power
Evangelism John Wimber , the leader of the VM says that
the very basis for power evangelism (a main thrust of
the VM) is the belief that God directly reveals to us
certain information. For example, on an airplane Wimber
saw written clearly across a man's face, "in distinct
letters," the words, "adultery." As he witnessed to the
man, the Spirit spoke directly to Wimber and said, "Tell
him if he doesn't turn from his adultery, I'm going to
take Him" (pp75-82). Others in the VM are equally clear:
John White assures us that "God desires to speak to us
individually" (Some Said It Thundered pXIX). Paul Cain
said that the Lord appeared beside him in the front seat
of his car and said, "If you really want the kind of
intimate walk with me you profess to want, you must
remember that I walk alone" (Ibid p39). This is why Cain
never married. Bob Jones (the VM prophet) was taken to
heaven where he was brought before the very throne of
God in a vision (Ibid
p70).
Most
of us dismiss such accounts because of the source. We
realize that the Charismatics and Vineyard people have a
faulty view of revelation and that is their primary
problem. But how do we handle the very same type of
mysticism from some in our camp? This is where some will
get upset, but we encourage you to read what the
following men are saying and ask yourself if their view
of Scripture is fundamentally different from the
Charismatic's. We can only take the time to examine
three individuals, yet they are three of the biggest
names in Christianity. More importantly, they are men
who represent mainline evangelicalism. To me, their view
of revelation, as leading evangelicals whose ministries
are followed by millions, is absolutely frightening.
BILL
HYBELS
Hybels
is Pastor of Willow Creek Community Church near Chicago,
probably the largest church in America. He is also the
mastermind behind the "seeker-sensitive" church growth
movement that has redefined how the church goes about
its work. His influence is massive. In Hybels' book,
Honest to God, he tells that "journaling" is how he
keeps "connected" to God. There is certainly nothing
wrong with writing down your thoughts of God, or
insights from Scripture. But it is when Hybel decides to
listen to God that he runs into trouble. After he prays,
Hybels asks God to speak to Him. He says, "Lord, you
talked to your children all through history, and you
said you're an unchangeable God. Talk to me now. I'm
listening. I'm open." He then asks God four questions
and often, "Gets impressions that are so strong and real
I write them down." His first question is, "What is the
next step in my relationship with You?" If he senses
nothing he interprets that to mean that everything is
okay. At other times God specifically tells him of some
move to take and he takes it. To his other questions
concerning character development, family life and
ministry, God always gives specific suggestions. God
even will often tell him to write or call someone, or to
give away a possession, or start a new ministry. Hybels
assures us that these promptings don't have to be
understood, but they must be obeyed. He promises that
these "moments of inspiration will become precious
memories" (see pp
20-26).
It
should be noted that Hybels' methodology is used by
various cults (e.g. the Oxford Movement) and even
spiritism. This is not to say that Hybels is a cultist
or spiritist but that he uses their methods. The idea in
these false religions is to open the mind for direct
communication from God (or gods). What has always made
Christianity unique is that we have God's communication
already, we don't need more. Instead, we are to study
and obey what God has already
revealed.
JAMES
DOBSON
I
realize that in many circles Dobson is virtually an
untouchable. He has done much good for families, and he
certainly stands for strong morals and high virtues. We
would be in agreement with him on many issues, but not
with his view of the
Bible.
Dobson
is careful to avoid theological issues whenever
possible. He believes that his organization, Focus on
the Family, is a ministry to families and as such, has
little need for doctrine. Of course, this is a mistake.
How can a Christian organization hope to instruct
believers on family issues without drawing their
principles from the Bible. Ah, but that is the point.
While Dobson certainly makes limited use of the
Scriptures, his primary sources are psychology (his key
teaching concerns the need for good self-esteem, an
unbiblical and anti-biblical concept, straight out of
humanistic psychology), experience, common sense, and
especially pertinent for our discussion today, direct
revelation from God.
This
is most obvious in his book, Straight Talk to Men and
Their Wives. In the second chapter of that book, Dobson
discusses the source of much of his ministry. It does
not come from the Scriptures, but from the Lord's direct
revelations to Dobson.
The Sufficiency of Scripture and
Mysticism
The Lord
first spoke to Dobson's father informing him of a joint
project between he and his son that would be of utmost
importance. What that project would be was not revealed,
however.Then years later, as Dobson was rushing to his
dying father's hospital bed, the Lord spoke to him.
Although the voice was not audible, somehow the Lord
said, "You are going to write a book for husbands and
fathers, based on the life of your dad. The inspiration
will be derived from his values, his dedications, his
walk with Me. This is the joint venture of which I spoke
two years ago." Later Dobson asked the Lord for more
specifics. He said to the Lord, "Why should I depend on
my own puny insight and wisdom, when I can tap the
resources of the Creator of families. Give me the
concepts that you want me to communicate." It is obvious
at that point that Dr. Dobson did not believe that the
Scriptures were sufficient to communicate God's will
concerning families. Something more was needed, and that
something was a direct word from the Lord to Dobson.
Dobson writes again, "I experienced one of those quiet
moments of awareness when I knew the Lord had spoken."
Here were God's instructions: "If America is going to
survive the incredible stresses and dangers it now
faces, it will be because husbands and fathers again
place their families at the highest level of their
system of priorities, reserving a portion of their time
and energy for leadership within their home!" The
emphasis of Dobson's ministry since that time has been
based upon this extrabiblical revelation, not upon the
Word of God.
Again
we can sympathize with Dobson's basic ministry. We stand
with him in the battle for the family. But are we to
ignore his view of the Scriptures? His concepts do not
emerge from the Bible, but from his mystical
experiences, clinical training and so forth. Are we to
place Dobson's revelation in the canon? Of course not.
Even Dobson would agree here. But, did he hear from God
or not? If he did, then that revelation should carry
divine authority. If he did not, then he has added to
the Scriptures, something John warns us not to do (Rev
22:18,19). What concerns us even more, is that there is
little outcry from God's people concerning such things.
Why is Dobson not held to account for such views? Is it
possible that the evangelical community has so fallen
asleep that we no longer are alarmed when our leaders
are claiming direct revelation?
CHARLES
STANLEY
Stanley's
ministry and influence is immense. He has a large
television and radio ministry, he is the author of
numerous books, and is pastor of one of the largest
Southern Baptist churches in the world. He is well
respected in evangelical circles and has had a positive
impact on thousands of lives. However, I believe that
Stanley is on the cutting edge of noncharismatic
mysticism. He is easily the most consistently mystical
of the three leaders we are
discussing.
In
His book, How to Listen to God, Stanley, using the same
rational as Hybels, states that he believes that since
God never changes, and since He spoke in the past, then
He has promised to speak to us today (p133). A clear
statement of how God does this is found on p 128: "Many
people do not fully believe that God speaks today. If we
think we get direction only through Scripture, then we
miss out on much of what God has to share, because He
will speak so often through His Spirit,
circumstances,and other people. We must make absolutely
certain that we are fully convinced and persuaded that
God does speak to us
personally..."
Just
how far does Stanley push this idea that God speaks to
us today? As an example, on one occasion he was involved
in a financial deal. When he was asked how much he would
pay for the property, "The Spirit of God immediately
spoke to him and said, 'Don't answer that.'" Stanley
said that "God's Spirit spoke to me very clearly and
distinctly, giving me the proper direction I needed.
...When I say the Holy Spirit 'speaks,' I do not mean
audibly. Rather, He impresses His will in my spirit or
mind, and I hear Him in my inner being. Though not
audible, the communication is precise nevertheless"
(pp16,17). On another occasion a friend, "Informed me
that God had spoken to him that morning in prayer and
had given him a particular message for me. I was to
spend the next day fasting and praying before I made my
decision" (p34).
Not
only do Stanley and his friends receive "precise"
communication from God in their minds, at least on one
from God in their minds, at least on one occasion God
was even more direct. "I had been rather restless in my
spirit and knew God was up to something, but didn't know
exactly what. Then one night, out of desperation I cried
out to God, asking Him to reveal His purpose. God
replied quickly and bluntly, 'I am going to move you.' I
said, 'When?' In a split second the word September
flashed across my mind, and immediately my burden was
lifted." That September he moved to Atlanta. He says,
"God revealed Himself, not because I was seeking a
vision or a dream, but because I was seeking His mind.
It was a vision, nevertheless..."
(p11).
If
there exists a difference between what Stanley says and
what Wimber says, we are at a loss to know what it is.
They both have the same exact view of revelation beyond
the Scriptures. They both receive visions and direct
instruction from the Lord? As a matter of fact, Wayne
Grudem, a VM theologian, wrote a whole book, The Gift of
Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, promoting the
exact same view of revelation as Stanley's, in almost
the exact words.
How
can the individuals that we have been discussing be
certain that they are not being deceived by what they
think is God's guidance? After all, the Bible offers no
techniques for determining the voice of God. They would
say that the experience itself is self-authenticating.
If one believes he has heard from God, and especially if
things work out (pragmatism), then apparently God has
spoken. Right? Who are we to question such experiences?
And if this is how our leaders receive guidance from
God, then why not us? More importantly, where will such
views of revelation take the evangelical church in the
years to come?
Ironically,
Stanley gives a warning that we all should heed. "Satan
doesn't knock on the front door and say, 'Hi, I'm
Satan.' He comes in the back door using the most
cunning, convincing, persuasive language possible. The
best way in the world to deceive believers is to cloak a
message in religious language and declare that it
conveys some new insight from God" (p56). We could only
pray that men like Stanley would realize that they have
been deceived, and are deceiving millions concerning the
revelation of God.
Noncharistmatic
evangelical Christianity has definitely taken on a
mystical bent in recent days. While never denying the
authority of Scripture as such, many of our biggest
names regularly point to mystical experiences as the
basis for much of what they do and believe. While we
will document our concerns directly from the writings of
these leaders, we encourage you to examine them for
yourself. Please keep in mind that we are not
necessarily against the individuals that we will
mention. Many are fine Christians who have been greatly
used of the Lord in many ways. But we are concerned that
their weak view of the Scriptures will ultimately cause
great harm in the body of Christ. We agree with David
Well's assessment, "Granting the status of revelation to
anything other than the Word of God inevitably has the
effect of removing that status from the Word of God.
What may start out as an additional authority alongside
the Word of God will eventually supplant its authority
altogether" (God in the Wasteland p109). We are also
reminded of Martin Luther's pledge, "If I declare with
loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of
God's truth except for the one bit which the world and
the devil are at the moment attacking, I am not
confessing Christ no matter how boldly I may be
professing Christ" (Protestants and Catholics, Do They
Now Agree? p165).
