63 thoughts on “Sufficiency of Scripture For…Everything.”
I’ve met fundies who are proud that all they read is the Bible.
You can’t get much more anti-intellectual and narrow-minded than that.
There would really be nothing wrong with reading nothing but the Bible. It’s the pride, and willful arrogance/ignorance that is the problem.
@Dan Keller: nice work on the Veggie Tales reference. i sometimes think i enjoy Veggie Tales more than my kids do.
@Morgan & exIFB: it would be great if they actually did read the Bible. they might find out that fundyism isn’t in there.
@Reader Mo – I also think God is bigger than the boogie man.
“Want you take me to Fundy Town.”
Actually exIFB, there is something wrong with reading just the Bible. We were put here to occupy the earth, and that means building a culture and a civilization: reading and writing are gifts from God intended to be used as part of our occupation.
@ Dan Keller “I think Scripture contains all things necessary for our salvation, not all the secrets of life, nor does it contain all truth. I think God is way too big to be pinned down in one book. I also think God is bigger than the boogy man.”
It doesn’t make sense to my finite brain on why God would give us the entire Bible just to show us salvation. If that’s all He wanted to do, couldn’t He have done it in a much smaller edition?
Also, what would be the point of reading the Bible after one got saved, if it is only good for salvation?
It is generally accepted that God reveals Himself to us through nature and through His Word.
If this isn’t the case, and the Bible doesn’t contain all truth, where does truth come from?
How do we know what is objective truth and what is not?
Is all truth fluid?
I know that’s a lot of questions, and I too, am a Veggie Tale fan.
It doesn’t make sense to my finite brain on why God would give us the entire Bible just to show us salvation. If that’s all He wanted to do, couldn’t He have done it in a much smaller edition?
Also, what would be the point of reading the Bible after one got saved, if it is only good for salvation?
Oh wow. Salvation is not just saying a prayer and you’re done. It’s not just fire insurance.
It’s the whole thing. The whole story. Everything. It’s all redemption. Every bit of it.
@mfdc5:
Dan said that, though Scripture contains all things necessary for our salvation, it does not contain all truth. He did not say that Scripture contains ONLY what is necessary for our salvation and no truth beyond that. There’s a big difference.
“It doesn’t make sense to my finite brain on why God would give us the entire Bible just to show us salvation. If that’s all He wanted to do, couldn’t He have done it in a much smaller edition?”
Only if He were less glorious and we were less stupid.
“God reveals Himself to us through nature and through His Word.” Yes.
“If this isn’t the case and the Bible doesn’t contain all truth…” Didn’t you already say it’s generally accepted that He reveals Himself to us through nature?
“…where does truth come from?” Him. The one who designed all the amazing stuff we get to study.
“How do we know what is objective truth and what is not?” He gave us brains and senses. God’s word is inerrant and infallible, but I don’t need it to tell me I’m sitting at a table right now.
“Is all truth fluid?” No. The logic you’re following is a little wishy-washy though. 🙂 The existence of truth outside of Scripture doesn’t naturally lead straight to all truth being fluid.
“The logic you’re following is a little wishy-washy though”
Of course it’s wishy washy. I went to to a non-accredited fundy school and and am fluent in the art of shallow-ujah.
I’m just trying to work these things out.
“Dan said that, though Scripture contains all things necessary for our salvation, it does not contain all truth. He did not say that Scripture contains ONLY what is necessary for our salvation and no truth beyond that. There’s a big difference.”
There is a big difference, I guess I felt it was implied.
““If this isn’t the case and the Bible doesn’t contain all truth…†Didn’t you already say it’s generally accepted that He reveals Himself to us through nature?”
I did, but you can never tell who you’re dealing with, especially on a blog.
@mdfc5: “Of course it’s wishy washy. I went to to a non-accredited fundy school and and am fluent in the art of shallow-ujah.
I’m just trying to work these things out.”
That’s kinda what I figured. I was just hoping to offer reasonable answers to the questions you asked.
“That’s kinda what I figured. I was just hoping to offer reasonable answers to the questions you asked.”
And that I appreciate. I am genuinely seeking. I know that this blog is satirical, and not serious per say, but there are serious subjects approached, and many times the comments take on a serious nature.
If one can help with some reasonable answers, and not the generalizations we so often get, that would be great.
@mfdc5
The way I see it, and have for a very long time including a good portion of my time at BJU, is that the Bible contains everything we need to know for salvation. It is a great book for soteriology. But beyond that it really isn’t a “source book” for much of anything else. God doesn’t even give us the full picture of himself likely because it is beyond our minds to comprehend it. And truth can and is revealed through nature. Science is the act of finding God revealed in nature.
But this is a very touchy subject for me. Is the Bible the only source of truth? Do the scriptures contain everything we need to know about life? Can they train us for any situation and for any decision. You’ll hear the “All Sufficiency of Scripture” right along side with, “Taking a *high* view of scripture.” (emphasis added). Regardless of how it is statically defined in a book the practice is this. “Shouldn’t you take a high view of scripture, after all it is our only source of absolute truth, if you think less than perfection then you open the door to doubting its validity and since there is no other absolute truth we’d have no leg to stand on for our insane rules and regulations, if you doubt that it is all sufficient then you take a low view of scripture which is obviously bad.” Now to the person who takes that logic and does nothing but read the Bible and believes nothing but that which comes directly out of the Bible good for them. They hold true to the All Sufficiency of Scripture. To everyone else, most of Fundamentalism, they lie to themselves. Why else would you read a secular psychology book, or a science book, or a history book. Isn’t the Bible the ultimate history and science book? After all we base the entire age of the earth and the exact (down to the letter) creation account based upon this. So why ever reference a book or manuscript that isn’t scripture? The problem is that most of Fundamentalism cherry picks. Certain issues remain concrete and only the Bible can give us that information (All Sufficiency) and in other areas they take a low view, “I’d rather my heart doctor went to a real medical school and studied real science books.” BJU is one gigantic contradiction and I’m not sure how I missed in the beginning. How could someone in Bible class be telling me that all truth only comes from the Bible while someone in science class was having me read articles out of science journals.
Eventually I came to realize that the Bible is a good source (though not necessarily a source book) for Christianity, God, and Jesus and likely a source book on Salvation, but not much beyond that. At times it deals with history, but it is hardly a complete history book. At times it deals with science, but it is certainly not complete there, and as we’ve seen in history is often open to interpretation and typically when at odds with science the interpretation, not the Bible, is wrong. So that leads to me to conclude that truth can be learned or observed from other sources. The beautiful thing about science is that it is really just man learning God’s revealed truth through nature. It is like Jesus hid some easter eggs and we get to find them and work through the code. That is actually how scientists viewed their work for centuries. It is a relatively recent phenomenon for atheism within science. Some of the greatest scientists in history were devout Christians viewing their work as revealing God through nature.
So I believe that truth is revealed in the Bible, but that it is not the only source of truth. The Bible is not the only way that Jesus reveals himself to creation (Romans 1).
<>
Amen. There’s absolutely nothing I can do that can separate me from God! I can be deliberately disobedient – God may expell me from the garden, but I still get to enjoy Him. I may have to roam in the wilderness for 40 years, but I still get to the promised land. I may be thrown into a fiery furnace, but I know there will be angels around to see me through the passage. I may deny Him many more than 3 times, but God will forgive me as many times as needed. That’s the purpose. God makes a way when there is no other way. It’s not about the blood – it’s about the promise, the covenant. It’s not about escaping hell, rather enjoying God.
Comments are closed.
A silly blog dedicated to Independent Fundamental Baptists, their standards, their beliefs, and their craziness.
I’ve met fundies who are proud that all they read is the Bible.
You can’t get much more anti-intellectual and narrow-minded than that.
There would really be nothing wrong with reading nothing but the Bible. It’s the pride, and willful arrogance/ignorance that is the problem.
@Dan Keller: nice work on the Veggie Tales reference. i sometimes think i enjoy Veggie Tales more than my kids do.
@Morgan & exIFB: it would be great if they actually did read the Bible. they might find out that fundyism isn’t in there.
@Reader Mo – I also think God is bigger than the boogie man.
“Want you take me to Fundy Town.”
Actually exIFB, there is something wrong with reading just the Bible. We were put here to occupy the earth, and that means building a culture and a civilization: reading and writing are gifts from God intended to be used as part of our occupation.
@ Dan Keller “I think Scripture contains all things necessary for our salvation, not all the secrets of life, nor does it contain all truth. I think God is way too big to be pinned down in one book. I also think God is bigger than the boogy man.”
It doesn’t make sense to my finite brain on why God would give us the entire Bible just to show us salvation. If that’s all He wanted to do, couldn’t He have done it in a much smaller edition?
Also, what would be the point of reading the Bible after one got saved, if it is only good for salvation?
It is generally accepted that God reveals Himself to us through nature and through His Word.
If this isn’t the case, and the Bible doesn’t contain all truth, where does truth come from?
How do we know what is objective truth and what is not?
Is all truth fluid?
I know that’s a lot of questions, and I too, am a Veggie Tale fan.
Oh wow. Salvation is not just saying a prayer and you’re done. It’s not just fire insurance.
It’s the whole thing. The whole story. Everything. It’s all redemption. Every bit of it.
@mfdc5:
Dan said that, though Scripture contains all things necessary for our salvation, it does not contain all truth. He did not say that Scripture contains ONLY what is necessary for our salvation and no truth beyond that. There’s a big difference.
“It doesn’t make sense to my finite brain on why God would give us the entire Bible just to show us salvation. If that’s all He wanted to do, couldn’t He have done it in a much smaller edition?”
Only if He were less glorious and we were less stupid.
“God reveals Himself to us through nature and through His Word.” Yes.
“If this isn’t the case and the Bible doesn’t contain all truth…” Didn’t you already say it’s generally accepted that He reveals Himself to us through nature?
“…where does truth come from?” Him. The one who designed all the amazing stuff we get to study.
“How do we know what is objective truth and what is not?” He gave us brains and senses. God’s word is inerrant and infallible, but I don’t need it to tell me I’m sitting at a table right now.
“Is all truth fluid?” No. The logic you’re following is a little wishy-washy though. 🙂 The existence of truth outside of Scripture doesn’t naturally lead straight to all truth being fluid.
“The logic you’re following is a little wishy-washy though”
Of course it’s wishy washy. I went to to a non-accredited fundy school and and am fluent in the art of shallow-ujah.
I’m just trying to work these things out.
“Dan said that, though Scripture contains all things necessary for our salvation, it does not contain all truth. He did not say that Scripture contains ONLY what is necessary for our salvation and no truth beyond that. There’s a big difference.”
There is a big difference, I guess I felt it was implied.
““If this isn’t the case and the Bible doesn’t contain all truth…†Didn’t you already say it’s generally accepted that He reveals Himself to us through nature?”
I did, but you can never tell who you’re dealing with, especially on a blog.
@mdfc5: “Of course it’s wishy washy. I went to to a non-accredited fundy school and and am fluent in the art of shallow-ujah.
I’m just trying to work these things out.”
That’s kinda what I figured. I was just hoping to offer reasonable answers to the questions you asked.
“That’s kinda what I figured. I was just hoping to offer reasonable answers to the questions you asked.”
And that I appreciate. I am genuinely seeking. I know that this blog is satirical, and not serious per say, but there are serious subjects approached, and many times the comments take on a serious nature.
If one can help with some reasonable answers, and not the generalizations we so often get, that would be great.
@mfdc5
The way I see it, and have for a very long time including a good portion of my time at BJU, is that the Bible contains everything we need to know for salvation. It is a great book for soteriology. But beyond that it really isn’t a “source book” for much of anything else. God doesn’t even give us the full picture of himself likely because it is beyond our minds to comprehend it. And truth can and is revealed through nature. Science is the act of finding God revealed in nature.
But this is a very touchy subject for me. Is the Bible the only source of truth? Do the scriptures contain everything we need to know about life? Can they train us for any situation and for any decision. You’ll hear the “All Sufficiency of Scripture” right along side with, “Taking a *high* view of scripture.” (emphasis added). Regardless of how it is statically defined in a book the practice is this. “Shouldn’t you take a high view of scripture, after all it is our only source of absolute truth, if you think less than perfection then you open the door to doubting its validity and since there is no other absolute truth we’d have no leg to stand on for our insane rules and regulations, if you doubt that it is all sufficient then you take a low view of scripture which is obviously bad.” Now to the person who takes that logic and does nothing but read the Bible and believes nothing but that which comes directly out of the Bible good for them. They hold true to the All Sufficiency of Scripture. To everyone else, most of Fundamentalism, they lie to themselves. Why else would you read a secular psychology book, or a science book, or a history book. Isn’t the Bible the ultimate history and science book? After all we base the entire age of the earth and the exact (down to the letter) creation account based upon this. So why ever reference a book or manuscript that isn’t scripture? The problem is that most of Fundamentalism cherry picks. Certain issues remain concrete and only the Bible can give us that information (All Sufficiency) and in other areas they take a low view, “I’d rather my heart doctor went to a real medical school and studied real science books.” BJU is one gigantic contradiction and I’m not sure how I missed in the beginning. How could someone in Bible class be telling me that all truth only comes from the Bible while someone in science class was having me read articles out of science journals.
Eventually I came to realize that the Bible is a good source (though not necessarily a source book) for Christianity, God, and Jesus and likely a source book on Salvation, but not much beyond that. At times it deals with history, but it is hardly a complete history book. At times it deals with science, but it is certainly not complete there, and as we’ve seen in history is often open to interpretation and typically when at odds with science the interpretation, not the Bible, is wrong. So that leads to me to conclude that truth can be learned or observed from other sources. The beautiful thing about science is that it is really just man learning God’s revealed truth through nature. It is like Jesus hid some easter eggs and we get to find them and work through the code. That is actually how scientists viewed their work for centuries. It is a relatively recent phenomenon for atheism within science. Some of the greatest scientists in history were devout Christians viewing their work as revealing God through nature.
So I believe that truth is revealed in the Bible, but that it is not the only source of truth. The Bible is not the only way that Jesus reveals himself to creation (Romans 1).
<>
Amen. There’s absolutely nothing I can do that can separate me from God! I can be deliberately disobedient – God may expell me from the garden, but I still get to enjoy Him. I may have to roam in the wilderness for 40 years, but I still get to the promised land. I may be thrown into a fiery furnace, but I know there will be angels around to see me through the passage. I may deny Him many more than 3 times, but God will forgive me as many times as needed. That’s the purpose. God makes a way when there is no other way. It’s not about the blood – it’s about the promise, the covenant. It’s not about escaping hell, rather enjoying God.