Introduction: Sufficiency of Scripture

The current issue of the Journal of Psychology and Theology focuses on claims common among Christians who adopt an understanding of the sufficiency of Scripture that has been described as biblicism (Smith, 2012). ¹ In particular, such Christians often understand the sufficiency of Scripture to mean that all that is needed for counseling people through the range of non-physical human problems that people may face can be found in or from Scripture. This view is further amplified by a critique of the contemporary mental health professions as being too compromised due to factors such as their non-Christian worldview foundations to provide any trustworthy counseling approaches or resources for Christians to use in counseling others. While such views are common among those who identify with the biblical counseling movement, there are many exceptions among this community.

The contributors to this issue approach their articles from a variety of perspectives. Hathaway (2021a, 2021b) is a self-identified integrationist. Vanhoozer (2021) is a theologian who has written extensively on scriptural sufficiency and the sola Scriptura doctrinal tradition, Johnson (2021) is a psychologist who has advocated for an approach known as Christian psychology rather than integration, and Lelek (2021) is a self-identified biblical counselor and licensed professional counselor. Despite the very different assessment of the Bible’s sufficiency for counseling in the contemporary mental health fields, integrationists with a high view of biblical authority share with biblical counselors a desire to mine the depths of God’s Word for all the resources He has given us to help those in need.

Hathaway (2021a) examines two passages used by some in the biblical counseling movement to discount the need for, or propriety of, utilizing counseling approaches from the contemporary mental health fields: 2 Peter 1:1-11 and 2 Timothy 3:1-17. He (2021b) also considers hermeneutical differences between those in the biblical counseling movement that are more rejecting of the mental health professions and the approach of integrationists. Vanhoozer (2021) provides a theological review of the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture and the classic formulation of sola Scriptura. His analysis results in an account that comports well with an approach to the mental health fields that is faithfully biblical, but which also benefits from extrabiblical sources. Johnson (2021) argues for a robustly Christian version of psychological science that draws on both biblical and empirical knowledge for the glory of God. Lelek (2021) offers a framework for the holistic care of souls that draws on empirical enquiry conditioned on biblically based interpretation.

The contributions to this issue share a common recognition that the Bible does not forbid Christians from drawing upon other legitimate sources of knowledge for counseling others. While that may be in conflict with the claims of some biblical counselors, all the contributors are in agreement with the belief of biblical counselors that the Bible is a divinely inspired reservoir for counseling that is vital to counseling approaches seeking God’s understanding of psychology, made available through his revealed Word and indirectly through common grace.