An Examination of Two Biblical Cases for One Approach to the Sufficiency of Scripture

The Sufficiency of Scripture

The doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture is associated with the reformation principle of Sola Scriptura (Vanhoozer, 2016; Ward, 2002, 2005). Two aspects of the sufficiency of Scripture have been typically embraced on this view: a material and formal sense (or what Frame, 2010, calls the particular and the general sufficiency of Scripture). About the material sense, Ward (2002) states,

The Reformed confessions of the first half of the sixteenth century all agree with the constant tradition observed so far, that Scripture contains everything a person needs to know to be saved. They assumed, as had most earlier writers, that “salvation” covered both a life pleasing to God as well as a moment of “conversion.” (n.p.)

In terms of the formal principle, he notes,

The distinguishing mark of the Reformation doctrine of Scripture is that it “declares the sufficiency and independence of Holy Scripture in respect of its hermeneutic function”—that is, Scripture is self-interpreting. The innovative element in “sola Scriptura” therefore lies in the formal aspect of the sufficiency of Scripture, and especially in what that principle was taken to imply hermeneutically. (n.p.)

Both Lambert (2016) and Mack (2016) have argued that the sufficiency of Scripture extends to the full range of issues and needs addressed by the mental health professions. They further claim that Scripture is not only sufficient, but also that the secular approaches are insufficient for meeting the needs they are addressing. Thus, these authors appear to see the material sufficiency of Scripture as including the remedy of issues now broadly referred to as mental illness.

The Biblical Counseling Movement has often been dismissed by those who see psychological science as a valid discipline because of the movement’s perceived dismissive rejection of the contemporary psychology related disciplines as offering any pertinent new information about human functioning of value to counseling. While sometimes engaging in dialogue in an effort to find common ground or to foster rapprochement, it is more likely that Christian mental health professionals dismiss Biblical counseling out of hand because of its perceived anti-psychology claims. Because Christian mental health professionals find their helping approaches evidence-based and soon come to have spent years witnessing beneficial outcomes from contemporary clinical mental health practice, they are disinclined to take seriously any view that is itself dismissive of the mental health fields.

Biblical counselors have offered rationales for their assessments of the mental health fields. For instance, some have given broad critiques of the epistemological foundations of psychological science (Bookman, 2016). They sometimes admit the validity of discoveries from contemporary psychology noted by Christian integrative psychologists. For example, integrationist Stan Jones (2010) observed there are many aspects of psychological knowledge that are simply not present in Scripture, such as the existence of neurons or types of memory. Biblical counselors are increasingly ready to concede such claims but argue that the knowledge discovered by psychology does not add valuable truths to what we know is important from Scripture for counseling. For instance, Lambert (2016) states,

In arguing about the insufficiency of Scripture for the discipline of counseling, Jones lists all sorts of topics that Scripture does not cover . . . . but, in building the list, he avoids including topics that actually are discussed in counseling. The issues Jones lists as not being covered in Scripture are also subjects that are not addressed in counseling. (p. 128)

Similarly, Mack (2016) bemoans those who affirm the inerrancy and authority of Scripture

. . .but do not affirm the sufficiency of Scripture for understanding and resolving the spiritual (non-physical) problems of man. They believe that we need the insights of psychology to understand and help people. In essence, they believe that when it comes to those matters, the Bible is fundamentally deficient. They believe that God did not design the Bible for this purpose, and consequently we must rely on extrabiblical psychological theories and insights. (p. 11)

Citing 2 Peter 1:3, Lambert (2016) further claims “. . . that God reveals in Scripture what we need to know for addressing problems we face as we live life and pursue godliness. These are the topics addressed in counseling” (p. 129). Does 2 Peter teach that Scripture is sufficient for all that we need in “counseling”? The answer to this question is impacted to a large extent by what we mean by counseling, but let us first focus on the epistle itself.

2 Peter and the Sufficiency of Scripture

Evangelical commentators typically view the second epistle of Peter (Elwell & Yarhbrough, 2013) as written by the apostle Simon Peter. The book explicitly claims Petrine authorship (1:1) and the life experiences of Peter (i.e., witnesses the transfiguration, having a close familiarity with Paul). ¹ On the traditional account, 2 Peter was written early before Peter’s death in Nero’s persecution (i.e., before AD 68). The epistle appears to be combating false teaching and a waning confidence in the return of Christ, leading some to abandon holiness for licentiousness (Davids, 2005). It is written for believers, encouraging them to live godly lives and wait patiently for the Lord’s return (3:8).

In this context, close to the beginning of the letter, we find a key verse that some have suggested conveys the sufficiency of Scripture for counseling: “His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness” (2 Peter 1:3). Lambert (2016) asserts that “Peter’s argument is that God reveals in Scripture what we need to know for addressing problems we face as we live life and pursue godliness. These are the topics addressed in counseling” (p. 129).

Let us look further at the passage surrounding this versus. 2 Peter 1:1–11 (NIV) reads,

1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

2 Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.

3 His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. 4 Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

5 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7 and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual affection, love. 8 For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 But whoever does not have them is nearsighted and blind, forgetting that they have been cleansed from their past sins.

10 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, make every effort to confirm your calling and election. For if you do these things, you will never stumble,¹¹ and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

The first two verses contain the common elements of an epistolary greeting. It establishes Peter as the author, his authority to address them, and indicates that it is a Christian audience to whom he is writing. Moo (2006) concludes that the description of the addressees as “have received a faith as precious as ours” (v. 2) means that the author is addressing Gentile converts. Some debate has occurred over how to translate the phrase “τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ Σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ” from verse 2. The NIV translation presented above sees both God and Savior as applying to Jesus Christ, thus conveying a high Christology. The American Standard Version translates it as “our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ,” adding the article “the” to convey a distinction between the identification of Jesus as savior and the reference to God. However, this is an interpretative addition. Elsewhere in the Epistle, the same phrase structure is used to identify Jesus as both “Lord and Savior” (1:11; 2:20; 3:18), so the plain sense of the grammatical pattern would seem to be convey that Jesus Christ is both God and savior (Apologists Bible Commentary, 2018). Sproul (2011) claims that “here the structure is abundantly clear. . . Peter is referring to Jesus not only as our Messiah, the savior, but as God Himself” (p. 206).

Sproul (2011) saw verses 2–4 as conveying the “central thesis of the epistle,” the knowledge of God produced by the “multiplication of grace and peace” (p. 211). Moo (1996) sees three main points conveyed in the passage from verses 3–11:

1. God has given Christians all that they need to become spiritually mature (vv. 3–4)

2. Christians must actively pursue spiritual maturity (vv. 5–9)

3. Christians must pursue spiritual maturity if they expect to be welcomed into God’s eternal kingdom (vv. 10–11). (pp. 40–41)

This outline construes the divinely given ressourcement as all that is needed for spiritual maturity. The text itself indicates that He has given us all things pertaining to life and godliness (ζωὴν καὶ εὐσέβειαν) through our knowledge of Him. The NIV translates the ζωὴν καὶ εὐσέβειαν wording as “a godly life.” In his commentary on verse 3, Moo (1996) focused on the Greek word for godliness here as key to understanding this aspect of the verse. Eusebeia, he notes, means “good worship” (p. 41). This infrequently used New Testament word

. . .is Hellenistic in flavor and is often translated “piety.” It is a general word, and the biblical authors use it to summarize the behavior expected of Christians who have come to know the God of Scripture. Thus Peter reminds us, God has made available to us all that we require to lead lives pleasing to Him. (p. 41)

What are we to make of the provision God has given us for ζωὴν (life)? Bultmann (1964) TDNT 2:832 notes that while ζάω may simply refer to the animated or natural life of humans, it often is used in the New Testament to contrast natural, transient life that is perishable from real or true life which is ultimately the life to come and also the life provided in Christ. The broader context here suggests it is this contrasted sense that Peter has in mind. It is not just mere existence that is in view but a life that reflects the knowledge of God. Such a life is not connected backward to “evil desires” whose end is “corruption” (v. 4) but rather to the life to come. In contrast to this godly manner of life, Peter will warn in the letter’s final chapter about those who scoff at the Lord’s return “following their own evil desires” (3:3). Yet since the Day of the Lord will come “like a thief” (3:10), believers are reminded that they “. . . ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming” (3:11–12).

The provision is intended to be used to a particular end. As verses 5–9 convey, the believer is to “make every effort” to live the godly life made possible through it. “Peter’s point is clear: Spiritual growth is not a matter that Christians can treat lightly; it is a goal to which we need to give ourselves body and soul, every day of our lives” (Moo, 1996, p. 44). The virtues called out here for Christians to live are faith, goodness, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, mutual affection, and love. By living such a life, we avoid being “unproductive and ineffective in our knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ” (v. 8) and “confirm our election and calling” (v. 10). Moo (1996) concludes that “while God gives us the ability to become Godly, it is our responsibility to use the power He has made available to us and actually work at becoming people who please God in every phase of life” (p. 46).

Thus, the passage makes it clear that we are given by God what is needed for to live a Godly life. Mack (2016) claims that “. . .because the Bible asserts its own sufficiency for counseling-related issues, secular psychology has nothing to offer for understanding or providing solutions to the non-physical problems of people” (p. 32). But this position makes an inferential leap from the text. Such an exegesis of the passage assumes the following:

While the Biblical counselors have made arguments for these theological interpretations, my point here is only that they are not inductively derived conclusions from this passage but rather theological and perhaps eisegetical readings of the text. Apart from demonstrating that these corollary assumptions are implied by the plain reading of this passage, it is unclear how 2 Peter 1:1–11 justifies an expansion of the material principle of the sufficiency of Scripture from more standard formulation such as that Scripture provides what we need for salvation to the claim that Scripture provides all that we need to address the problems demarcated by the clinical domain of the contemporary mental health professions.

2 Timothy and the Profitability of Scripture

A second passage used to support the notion of the sufficiency of Scripture for counseling is 2 Timothy 3:1–17. Mack (2016) states,

. . . Many people who require counseling do so because they are struggling with difficulties that stem from one or more of the sinful attitudes, desires, and actions that Paul mentions in this rich passage . . . . In clear and unmistakable words, Paul tells us that the resources we need for ministering to people who live in a 2 Timothy 3:1-13 society are found in Scripture. (pp. 30–31)

Mack here takes this key passage from Paul’s second epistle to Timothy as teaching the exhaustive counseling sufficiency of Scripture. Is there evidence that this is a plain sense reading of this passage?

Second, Timothy is one of Paul’s three pastoral epistles. Elwell and Yarhbrough (2013) note that it was likely written during Paul’s second imprisonment shortly before his martyrdom by Nero. ³ At the outset of the epistle, Paul asks Timothy to remain in Ephesus to combat false teachers who are threatening the spiritual well-being of the Christian community there (2 Timothy 1:3–7). Paul encourages Timothy to remain faithful and to bear up under hardship in the face of suffering (2 Timothy 2:1–13). He exhorts Timothy to resist false teachers in a manner that might lead some of them to repentance (2 Timothy 2:14–26). The passage appealed to by Mack is found at the start of the next chapter of 2 Timothy. There is a description of the ungodly lives that characterize those in the “last days” (2 Timothy 3:1–9). This is to be contrasted with examples from Paul’s life that Timothy knew about and the knowledge of Scriptural teaching Timothy had from “infancy” (2 Timothy 3:10–17). Chapter 4 concludes the epistle with final exhortations to preach the Word faithfully, an indication that Paul suspects his life is coming to an end, some concluding instructions, and other remarks:

But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, ³without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, ⁴treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God—⁵having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.

⁶They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, ⁷always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. ⁸Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these teachers oppose the truth. They are men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. ⁹But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone.

¹⁰You, however, know all about my teaching, my way of life, my purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, ¹¹persecutions, sufferings—what kinds of things happened to me in Antioch, Iconium and Lystra, the persecutions I endured. Yet the Lord rescued me from all of them. ¹²In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, ¹³while evildoers and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. ¹⁴But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, ¹⁵and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. ¹⁶All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, ¹⁷so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:1–17 NIV)

Chapter 3 opens with a description of the “terrible times” marking the “last days” in which people characterized by list of vices would be “having a form of godliness but denying its power”(v 5). Because these persons have a “form of godliness,” Liefeld (1999) asserts that they are false teachers who penetrate the Christian community. Despite the eschatological focus at the chapter’s outset, Paul does not appear to have in mind a merely future situation because Timothy is enjoined to “have nothing to do with such people” (v. 5).

Kostenberger (2017) describes the structure of the “latter-day apostacy” passage (3:1–9) as follows:

Paul lists no fewer than nineteen negative characteristics in the form of a chiasm with διάβολοι (“slanderous”) at the center. The warning at the end of v. 5 to avoid these people is then followed up by a description of the false teachers in vv. 6–9, who are ironically cast as “always learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth” (v. 7) . . . People (ἄνθρωποι, used inclusively) will be:

• lovers of self (φίλαυτοι; only here in the NT);

• lovers of money (φιλάργυροι; only here in the NT; cf. Luke 16:14);

• boastful (ἀλαζόνες; cf. Rom 1:30; see also 1 John 2:16; Jas 4:16);

• proud (ὑπερήφανοι; cf. Luke 1:51; Rom 1:30; Jas 4:6; 1 Pet 5:5);

• demeaning (βλάσφημοι; cf. Acts 6:11; 1 Tim 1:13; 2 Peter 2:11);

• disobedient to parents (γονεῦσιν ἀπειθεῖς; cf. Rom 1:30; Titus 1:16; 3:3);

• ungrateful (ἀχάριστοι; cf. Luke 6:35);

• unholy (ἀνόσιοι; cf. 1 Tim 1:9);

• unloving (ἄστοργοι; cf. Rom 1:31; see also Rom 12:10);

• irreconcilable or unforgiving (ἄσπονδοι; only here in the NT);

• slanderous (διάβολοι; cf. 1 Tim 3:11; Titus 2:3);

• without self-control (ἀκρατεῖς; only here in the NT; cf. Prov 27:20 LXX);

• brutal (ἀνήμεροι; only here in the NT);

• without love for what is good (ἀφιλάγαθοι; only here in the NT);

• traitors (προδόται; cf. Luke 6:16: Judas; Acts 7:52);

• reckless (προπετεῖς; cf. Acts 19:36; see also Prov 10:14 LXX; 13:3);

• conceited (τετυφωμένοι; cf. 1 Tim 3:6; 6:4);

• lovers of pleasure (φιλήδονοι) rather than lovers of God (φιλόθεοι; both only here in the NT); and, in summary;

• holding to the form of godliness (μόρφωσιν εὐσεβείας; cf. Rom 2:20; 1 Tim 6:3) but denying its power (δύναμις; cf. 1:7, 8; regarding the whole phrase, see Titus 1:16). (n.p.)

In contrast to the example of the apostates and the destructive influence of the false teachers that fosters the apostacy, Timothy is to remain faithful to the true Scriptural teachings he was steeped in and to emulate examples of faithfulness. In order to stand true, Timothy is to rely on the Scriptures that are able to make him “wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ” (3:15). Paul then appears to generate a new term, but one drawing on Old Testament themes, to describe all Scripture as “God-breathed” (θεόπνευστος). Kostenberger (2017) notes that

The . . .passage is one of the major biblical texts on the divine inspiration of Scripture, focusing on Scripture’s origin in God himself. . .because Scripture has God as its source, it is “profitable” (ὠφέλιμος; cf. 1 Tim 4:8; Titus 3:8) in a variety of ways . . . Paul observes that Scripture is profitable for (A) teaching (διδασκαλία. . .); (B) rebuking (ἐλεγμόν, only here in the NT; cf. 1 Tim 5:20; 2 Tim 4:2; Titus 1:9, 13; 2:15); (B1) correcting (ἐπανόρθωσιν, only here in the NT); and (A1) training (παιδεία; Eph 6:4; Heb 12:5–11; cf. Prov 16:17) in righteousness . . . . The end result of such thorough training in the Scripture is that “the man of God” . . .will be complete (ἄρτιος, only here in the NT), equipped (ἐξηρτισμένος . . . the NIV collapses the two expressions into “thoroughly equipped”) for every good work. (n.p.)

It appears that the vices characterizing the apostate followers of the false teachers in 2 Timothy 3:1–9 reflect a disempowered sham godliness (v. 5). In contrast is a Scripturally trained life, if profitable, to equip one for good works (2 Timothy 3:16–17). But this not yet a clear instantiation of the mental health counseling motif used by Mack (2016) to extend the “profitability” (ὠφέλιμος) of Scripture to include providing all forms of mental health treatment necessary to treat mental illness. Now to be fair, Mack’s contention was stated rather more modestly that “Paul tells us that the resources we need for ministering to people who live in a 2 Timothy 3:1–13 society are found in Scripture” (p. 30). This portion of the claim about Scriptural sufficiency is for a rather more delimited domain of “ministering to people.” However, even with this more limited claim, it is not clear that this passage speaks to Scripture providing all the resources we need to so minister. The passage is specifically talking about the usefulness of Scripture to becoming equipped for every good work. It does not by itself indicate whether other forms of ministry may be needed besides Scriptural training. Nor is there any statement that Timothy would be dyadically counseling from Scripture each person who was being drawn into the apostacy.

The Challenge of Equivocation

In our brief review of both 2 Peter 1 and 2 Timothy 3, I have suggested that the claims made by some Biblical counselors about the sufficiency of Scripture for counseling go beyond what is the plain reading of these two passages. I can imagine that my assessment would be unconvincing to the entrenched nouthetic counselor. I would suspect this because of the distance I perceive between what these passages are describing in terms of goals and foci of the Scriptural teaching and what I see as the goal or activities of professional mental health practice. However, if we define “counseling” in a manner that is co-extent, without remainder, and with spiritual formation and development, then the distance becomes less pronounced. But that is not a self-understanding that is congruent with standard forms of the mental health professions.

Biblical counselors sometimes suggest that the mental health professions have usurped a Biblical domain. If by this they mean that many persons now seek secular mental health care for problems for which they may have previously sought pastoral care, that seems uncontroversial. I am also prepared to grant that mental health treatment may engage spiritual issues better addressed by a Biblically explicit pastoral counseling approach for some non-trivial portion of cases. Yet it does not follow from this that there is no distinct domain of functional problems summarized validly by contemporary psychopathology nosologies that warrant separate approaches or disciplines. The nouthetic position makes sense only if one knows that such a disciplinary distinction between Biblical counseling and mental health fields is improper. One cannot start by assuming the impropriety of the distinction and then reading it into the Biblical passages as evidence for the conclusion one has already drawn.

By reading in passages such as 2 Timothy 3 or 2 Peter 1 a textual assertion that Scripture is sufficient materially to meet all “non-physical problems” that are co-extent with those marked out as contemporary psychopathology taxonomies, an alteration of the sola scriptura doctrine may well be occurring, turning it into solo scriptura. If this is the case, then warnings by Mathison (2001) and Vanhoozer (2016) about such a situation reducing merely to a contest of interpretations seem apt.