Scripture is Formally Sufficient
Scripture contains the building materials and the blueprint
One argument made against Sola Scriptura is that the Scriptures are materially sufficient, but not formally sufficient. In this post I hope to briefly lay out the issue and provide a response to this accusation.
Laying Out the Argument
First, what is material verses formal sufficiency? Material sufficiency says that Scripture contains all the necessary pieces to define Christian doctrine and practice, in particular, what is required for salvation. This would be analogous to a pile of building materials at a construction site. The pieces are there, but not yet assembled. Formal sufficiency says that Scripture also contains all that is necessary to use the pieces to build the structure which is the complete testimony and harmony of Christian doctrine. In other words, the Scripture is clear enough that there is no need for an external authority to interpret it. Going back to the analogy, this would be the blueprints for what’s being built.
Protestants claim that Scripture is both materially and formally sufficient. It contains both the parts of doctrine and the means by which those parts become the whole. The Scripture both contains the means of salvation, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and is clear enough on its own to understand and believe that Gospel message and what is necessary to believe as a Christian. In contrast, the Roman Catholic claim is that Scripture is materially sufficient, but is not formally sufficient. There then needs to be an extrabiblical authority, the Magistrium, and additional extrabiblical revelation, oral tradition, to properly interpret and use Scripture.1
There are two major arguments put forward against formal sufficiency. The first is that the existence of so many Protestant groups shows that Scripture is not actually clear. The second is that Sola Scriptura fails because the Scriptures do not define in themselves what is part of the Holy Bible, there is no inspired table of contents. This is the issue of the canon, how do we know what books/letters are actually God-inspired revelation to man. I’ll deal with the first argument in this article and deal with the second in another as it deserves a fuller discussion.
Thousands of Protestant Sects
One argument put forth is that the history of Protestantism itself shows the failure of Sola Scriptura. The argument goes, if the Scripture is formally sufficient and clear enough to not need an external authority, why then are there thousands of different Protestant sects?
I’ll be one of the first to lament the division we see in the Church. In His high priestly prayer in John 17, Jesus prayed to the Father that we would “completely one” for it would be a witness to the world that the Father had sent Jesus. Sadly, we have fallen terribly short of this command. Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not exempt from this tragedy. However, the division itself does not mean that Scripture is insufficient, but rather that we refuse to submit to Scripture.2
First we must define the group in question. When Roman Catholic apologists talk about the “thousands of Protestant denominations” or sects, they lump together a lot of groups that aren’t even part of the discussion. If we’re going to be discussing Sola Scriptura, we need to be referring to groups that actually believe and practice this doctrine. This excludes many groups:
Liberal “Christians” - This group abandoned all scriptural authority a long time ago. They despise the Scriptures, do not believe them to be inerrant, and use them as a doormat for their own twisted ideologies. Recent years have exposed that not even Roman Catholicism with its “unity” is exempt from the infection of liberalism.
Many Pentecostal and Charismatic groups - Many, but not all, Charismatic groups readily acknowledge and anticipate continuing revelation from the Spirit. Of particular revulsion are those in the New Apostolic Reformation who claim that the office of Apostle is still alive and well. Again, this group categorically denies Sola Scriptura and does not attempt to practice it.
Heretics (Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc) - Most apologists would not lump this group in with Protestants, but some might and I only list them here for completeness. These groups, just like the Gnostics and Manichees in early Church history, distort the scriptures and claim new revelation from God.
If we remove all these groups that actually don’t practice Sola Scriptura or even attempt to practice it, we are actually left with great unity amongst Protestant groups. The primary groups here are: Lutheran, Presbyterian, Reformed, Methodist, Baptist, and a few others. By and large, all these groups agree on the fundamental tenants of the Christian faith and even agree with Rome on many things: the Trinity, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper as sacraments, the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, the Bible as God’s revealed written word to man, etc. The differences we see between Protestant groups are largely secondary and tertiary issues: the nature of Communion and Baptism, ecclesial structure, eschatology, the nature of the covenants, etc. There is far more unity than there is disunity.
The argument that the existence of various Protestant sects disproves Sola Scriptura is simply not true. If Sola Scriptura were false, we’d see far more division than we really do. And even in the division we do see, the problem is not with Scripture, but with us. This side of heaven we fight against our sinful natures which distort reality and the Scriptures. As Christians we are to lean on the Spirit to understand all of God’s revelation to us.
The Scriptures Are Formally Sufficient
Ultimately this comes down to the question, is the Scripture clear enough in itself for a person to know how to be saved and how to walk in a way that honors both God and fellow man? My answer to this question is yes. For the believing Spirit-filled Christian, Scripture is sufficiently clear to teach and instruct on how to live a life that honors God and deals fairly and justly with those around us. And for the non-believer who does not possess the Holy Spirit, Scripture is sufficiently clear to point to our need for a savior and to point to Jesus as that savior. John himself stated that he wrote his gospel for the explicit purpose that the one who read it could know that Jesus is the Messiah (John 20:31). John, and the Spirit through him, fully expected his writing to be clear enough to bring people to salvation. If John believed that, so do I.
Does this mean that all Scripture is equally clear and that all people will understand all parts equally? Absolutely not. There are many parts of Scripture that are extremely difficult or vague. Peter himself acknowledges this when he wrote, “[Paul] speaks about these things in all his letters. There are some things hard to understand in them. The untaught and unstable will twist them to their own destruction, as they also do with the rest of the Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:16). Peter acknowledges that the problem is never with Scripture, but with us. The Scripture is the living, breathing, active sword of the Spirit. At the same time it is also constant and never changing. The Scripture is the Scripture and we are actually warned multiple times about adding to or removing from it. The Scripture of the post-Apostolic age is the same Scripture of the Reformation which is the same Scripture of today.
Also, what is clear to the Spirit-filled Christian will likely be unclear, vague, or even unbelievable to non-believers. We see this clearly in modern secular scholarship that has no choice but to rip apart Scriptures in an attempt to have them make sense. The Scripture and the truths it contains are only fully known and loved by those who accompany it with the Spirit of the living God. For “the natural man cannot receive the things of God because it is foolishness to him. He is not able to understand them since they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14).
Conclusion
Is Scripture both materially and formally sufficient? Yes.
Paul wrote that the Scriptures are enough to make the man of God complete and equipped for every good work. To deny formal sufficiency, in my view, one must change the apostles words to “mostly complete” or “for most good work”.
Peter acknowledged that not all Scripture was equally clear, but that it was a problem with the reader, not with Scripture.
Jesus constantly pointed to the Scriptures in His rebuttals and held the people to them alone. Jesus sure seemed to believe the Scriptures contained both the building blocks for belief and the structure in which they are to build.
John wrote his gospel for the express purpose that people would read it, understand it, and believe that Jesus was the Messiah. Again, evidence of both material and formal sufficiency.
The existence of multiple Protestant denominations is not sufficient evidence against Sola Scriptura. The fact that we have far more unity than disunity is proof the Sola Scriptura works. Roman Catholicism has its own divisions and sects as well so the claim of complete unity is an issue on both sides.
The Bible is God’s special revelation to man. It is meant to be read and understood by all. It leads to eternal life in Jesus Christ and is capable in and of itself to inform the faithful Christian how to walk uprightly and how the catholic (universal) Church is to operate in the world.
Many of the arguments in this series apply to Orthodox objections to Sola Scripture as well, but for the sake of this series I’m focusing on the Roman Catholic arguments. Though they argue in similar ways, the way Roman Catholicism handles Tradition is different than the Orthodox thus introducing nuance in the rebuttals..
For the rest of the post, sufficiency and insufficiency refer exclusively to formal sufficiency. Both Protestant and Roman Catholics agree that Scripture is materially sufficient.