I am James Hong and welcome to the Surpassing Value Podcast. The fuel and desire for this podcast was born out of a compulsion to flesh out what's been going on in the midst of an ocean of megaphones that may not actually withstand the test of scrutiny. As a signpost theologian, I will do my best to filter out the impurities and point people in the right direction.

For this episode, I want to address the sufficiency and clarity of scripture along with how it relates to historical theology. The sufficiency and clarity of scripture and historical theology may carry a level of pretentiousness with it that may come off intimidating. Let me tell you from the beginning that you have nothing to be intimidated over.

Of course, I'm not covering these topics exhaustively, but I'll be giving you what I think are some of the relevant cookies. The sufficiency of scripture could be defined as the following, and I'll be quoting Professor Matthew Barrett on this, "Scripture is sufficient in that it is the only inspired, inerrant, and therefore final authority for Christians for faith and godliness, with all other authorities being subservient to scripture." When you hear that definition on paper, for many of us listening, it might seem like a no-duh.

But it's one thing to understand it on paper, quite another to make sure that we've all applied it. To illustrate the difference by giving an example of how we've moved on from this definition, I've invited Professor Vodie Baucom to give us an illustration. Okay, just kidding, he's not coming on my podcast, but you are going to hear about a six-minute snippet from a lecture he gave about racial reconciliation.

And if you haven't listened to it already, I highly encourage you to go listen to the entire lecture. Take a listen as to why we need to recapture the doctrine of the sufficiency of scripture. All right, Ephesians chapter two, as I was saying, we're going to look at the red-headed stepchild of Ephesians, and that's Ephesians chapter two, verses 11 and following.

Most people, we all love Ephesians, amen, and we all love Ephesians chapter two up to verse 10, right? You say Ephesians chapter two, everybody starts quoting, if we just started quoting and just reciting it from memory, we'd be good, all the way up to about verse 10. And then people are like, "Wait, there's more?" And the answer is absolutely, there's more in Ephesians chapter two.

It's all good, amen? Ephesians chapter two is just good, but I mean, in verse 11, it just gets gooder. And that's not even a word, you know? And so we are going to look at that part of the chapter. But as we do, here's what I want us to understand.

That in the midst of all of this, in the midst of these discussions about social justice and race and sex and all these other things, at the end of the day, the question is, what does God say about us? What does God say about us? And is what God says about us sufficient?

And when we start talking about who we are in Christ, when we start talking about our unity in Christ, our brotherhood and our relationships, do we believe that the Bible is sufficient in that regard? And one of the scariest things about all of this talk is that we're beginning to see a new hermeneutic develop.

Where now sin is institutional as opposed to being in the heart of man. We're reading things differently here. And not only that, but we're starting to develop a new canon. To where if you're not seeing things rightly on these issues, people are not saying, you need to go to this text.

They're saying, you need to read Divided by Faith. You need to read Ta-Nehisi Coates. You need to read, right? If you're not getting this, then here's a list of books that you need to read in order to then be able to read the scriptures rightly as it relates to our unity with one another in Christ.

That is a problem. Because I believe that the Bible is absolutely sufficient, not just inerrant, but absolutely sufficient for all matters of faith and practice. And how we deal with one another across ethnicities is a matter of faith and practice. The Bible is sufficient for that. Again, I am not arguing that we shouldn't read other things.

I quoted other things over the course of this weekend, but the Bible is sufficient. Let me put an even finer point on it. I worry when we begin to hear people say things that would suggest that I've had the Bible all this time. And I've had relationships with brethren of different ethnicities all this time.

But it wasn't until I read this book that I finally understood God's heart on this issue of justice as it relates to race and ethnicity. That no, no, and it's not even it's when I finally read this book and this book was an exposition of the, no, when I read this sociology book.

And so now we've got sociology overriding and governing our theology. That's not okay. That is hugely problematic. Isn't what you heard from Professor Votie Bauckham emblematic of what's going on today? The heavy push to read certain books. And if you don't, you're a racist was very real, wasn't it?

And if you yourself personally haven't fallen deep into that hole, let me ask you during this confusion, was your first instinct to go to blogs, podcasts, people, or the actual word of God? Did you have faith that the word spoke to what's been going on? Or did you think to yourself, maybe we need to look elsewhere for guidance on what's going on, even if it was ever so subtle.

Let me read to you just a handful of verses about the doctrine of the sufficiency of scripture. Second Peter one three says this, his divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence.

It doesn't say his divine power gave us some things, and we have to look elsewhere for other things. It says that his divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence.

Second Peter one 21 says this, for no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. Hebrews 4 12 says this, for the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Second Timothy three 16 and 17 says this, all scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. To further expand upon this, let me quote from Mayhew and MacArthur from Biblical Doctrine.

This is going to be a little bit of a longer quote, but I want to fully flesh out at least just a little more what sufficiency actually means. With respect to sufficiency, Mayhew and MacArthur state, "The Bible also attests to its sufficiency (Psalm 19 7-11). It is a light to one's path (Psalm 119 105).

It is more reliable than even the most amazing spiritual experiences (2 Peter 1 19-20). It is able to lead a person to saving faith (2 Timothy 3 15). It instructs the religious elite as well as the common believer (Deuteronomy 6.4; Mark 12.37; Philippians 1.1). It was given by God to parents to instruct their children (Deuteronomy 6.6-7).

And it is able to even bring a child to saving faith (2 Timothy 3 14-15). Paul wrote that all scripture is given by inspiration and that it is useful for teaching, proof, correction, and training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3 16-17). A closer look at each of these four features reveals the full sufficiency of scripture to equip a believer in living out the Christian life.

The first term, teaching, means that the Bible instructs the believer in how to live, in what to believe, and in what God expects of him or her. It is related to content and doctrine. This concept fits with Jesus' injunction in the Great Commission that new disciples be taught to observe all he commanded (Matthew 28 18-20).

The scriptures instruct God's people in how to live in obedience to him. The second term, reproof, shows the scripture's purpose of admonishment. It has to do with pointing out where a person has erred or departed from what God requires. Scripture is able to judge the heart when a believer has deviated in doctrine or practice from the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Hebrews 4.12).

The next term, correction, is the companion to reproof. The Bible not only shows a person where he is wrong, it also identifies the corrected attitude, belief, or behavior that he should put on its place (Ephesians 4 20-24). Finally, training in righteousness indicates that the Bible shows how to put its teachings into practice on a daily basis with illustrations and examples (Ephesians 4 25-32).

Between the scriptures and the indwelling Holy Spirit, the believer needs no additional revelation to be informed on how to live the Christian life. Pastors and teachers (Ephesians 4 11-12) are supplied to assist in the process of spiritual growth unto maturity, but even their ministries are founded on and informed by the all-sufficient Word of God (2 Peter 1 2-3; 1 Peter 5 2-3).

Let me also quote from the great Dutch theologian, Herman Bovink, and you're going to be hearing a lot of quotes this episode, so get ready, but I'm going to be quoting the great Dutch theologian Herman Bovink at length. Herman Bovink stated it like this with respect to sufficiency, "This attribute of Holy Scripture also must be correctly understood.

It does not mean that all that has been said or written by the prophets, by Christ, and by the apostles is included in the Scripture. Many prophetic and apostolic writings have been lost (Numbers 21-14; Joshua 10-13; 1 Kings 4-33; 1 Chronicles 29-29; 2 Chronicles 9-29; 12-15; 1 Corinthians 5-9; Colossians 4-16; Philippians 3-1).

And Jesus, as well as the apostles, have spoken many more words and performed many more signs than are recorded (John 20-30; 1 Corinthians 11-2; 2 Thessalonians 2-5; 2 John 12; 3 John 14). Nor does this attribute imply that Scripture contains all the practices, ceremonies, rules, and regulations that the Church needs for its organization, but only that it completely contains the Articles of Faith (Articulae Fide), the matters necessary to salvation.

Neither does this attribute of Scripture mean that these Articles of Faith are literally, and in so many words, contained in it. Rather, it only claims that either explicitly or implicitly, they are so included that they can be derived from it solely by comparative study and reflection without the help of another source.

A contemporary example of what Bovink is stating in this latter portion would be church membership. Nor in the Bible does it say that a church must practice membership. However, when you look at the reasons undergirding the practice of church membership in a post-modern "truth is relative, non-lordship of Christ" type of landscape, when you take the formula of adequately discerning biblical truth coupled with correctly interpreting the times, which is what Jesus rebuked many over, one could see why a church would deem the practice of church membership necessary.

Let me quote that last part again just so we're clear. Bovink says, "Nor does this attribute imply that Scripture contains all the practices, ceremonies, rules, and regulations that the church needs for its organization, but only that it completely contains the Articles of Faith (Articulae Fide), the matters necessary to salvation.

Neither does this attribute of Scripture mean that these Articles of Faith are literally, and in so many words, contained in it. Rather, it only claims that, either explicitly or implicitly, they are so included that they can be derived from it solely by comparative study and reflection, without the help of another source." Bovink goes on to state a little bit after this, "In other words, the question is whether the written Word of God explicitly or implicitly contains everything we need to know for our salvation and therefore is the total and sufficient rule of faith and morals, or whether, in addition, we must assume the existence of still another principle of knowledge" (Principiam Cognoscenti).

Bovink answers this question by stating the following a little afterwards, "At no time is the Church in the Old Testament and the New Testament ever directed to anything other than the always-available Word of God, either written or unwritten. By it alone, human beings can have a spiritual life. The Church finds all it needs in the Scripture available to it at a given time.

Subsequent Scriptures presuppose, link up with, and build upon preceding Scripture. The prophets and psalmists assume the Torah. Isaiah 820 calls everyone to the law and to the testimony. The New Testament considers itself the fulfillment of the Old Testament and refers back to nothing other than the existing Scripture. Even more telling is the fact that all that lies outside of Scripture is as firmly as possible ruled out.

Christians are rejected as the institutions of human beings" (Isaiah 29.13; 1 Corinthians 4.6). The tradition that developed in the days of the Old Testament prompted the Jews to reject the Christ. Over against it, Jesus posited His "But I say to you" (Matthew 5.27; 5.32; 5.34; 5.38; 5.44). And against Pharisees and scribes, He again aligned Himself with the law and the prophets.

The apostles appeal only to the Old Testament Scriptures and never refer the churches to anything other than the Word of God proclaimed by them. Inasmuch as in the early period, tradition sought to be nothing other than the preservation of the things personally taught and instituted by the apostles, it was not yet "dangerous." If you pull all of this together, it's exactly as Professor Matthew Barrett stated in the beginning.

Scripture is sufficient in that it is the only inspired, inerrant, and therefore final authority for Christians for faith and godliness with all other authorities being subservient to Scriptures. So if the Scriptures are sufficient for all things pertaining to life, and to interpret and defend against every new intellectual fad that sweeps even nations, the next thing we need to be convicted about is that you yourself could dig into it and understand it.

You yourself have the tools and the capacity to understand what is truth, beauty, goodness, right and wrong, reality and illusion, justice and injustice. This doctrine doesn't mean that some portions of Scripture are not more difficult to understand than others, or that it's not going to take any work to understand the Scriptures, or that it doesn't take any prayer to understand the Scriptures, or that at times other human beings could aid you in understanding the Scriptures because they're difficult.

After all, Apostle Peter states in 2 Peter 3.16, in reference to the Scriptures, he says this, "As also in all his letters," referring to Paul's letters, "As also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which there are some things that are hard to understand," referring to the Scriptures, "which they untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures to their own destruction." So, concerning the clarity of Scripture, concerning the clarity of Scripture, let me quote Professor Mark Thompson here because he provides helpful insight here to further flesh out the doctrine of the clarity of Scripture.

Professor Mark Thompson says this, "The doctrine of the clarity of Scripture is not simply a deduction from the character of God and His purpose. It is the teaching of Scripture itself. In fact, it is a basic presupposition of Jesus' ministry. His appeal, 'It is written,' would make little sense if what is written was inaccessible.

Jesus' appeal assumes that what is written can be understood. So to his regular question, 'Have you not read?'" which is in Matthew 12, Matthew 12.5, Matthew 19.4, Matthew 22.3, "It was not because the words were obscure that the Pharisees failed to obey, and the Sadducees were without hope. Jesus' assumption is that they ought to have read, ought to have understood, and ought therefore to have acted differently.

The use that a written word is to be put assumes its meaning is accessible. How else could it be a source of encouragement and hope," Romans 15.4, "How else could the sacred writings make one wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ? Or Scripture be profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness?

In an important parable told to teach, among other things, the necessity of responding to the word that has already been given, Jesus concluded, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead'" Luke 16.31. Paul would later encourage the Corinthians to learn not to go beyond what is written, 1 Corinthians 4.6.

From Joshua, Joshua 1.8 to Timothy, 1 Timothy 4.13, encouragement is given to read and study the Scriptures both in private and public. The Apostle Paul reasoned from the Scriptures as a critical, central part of his ministry, Acts 17.2-3. The Beroean Christians would examine the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so, Acts 17.11.

Jesus' ministry, his death, resurrection, and ascension were to be understood in light of the words of the Law and Prophets, and this great intervention by God provided the goal to which the testimony of the Old Testament had been pointing all along. John 5.39-24.44 The pattern of Jesus' ministry, the mission of the Apostles, and the life of the early church was a confident approach to the Scriptures expecting that they can and should be understood by those who read them.

It has long been a feature of Christian discipleship that regular, deep engagement with the written word of God nourishes faith and shapes lives. The Anglican Reformer Thomas Cranmer put it, "This word, whosoever is diligent to read and in his heart to print that which he readeth, the great affection to the transitory things of this world shall be minished in him, and the great desire of heavenly things that be there and promised of God shall increase in him." From a fruitful exhortation to the reading and knowledge of Holy Scripture.

That great work of transformed desire could hardly be done without understanding what is written. The Apostle Paul could ask on more than one occasion, "What does the Scripture say?" Romans 4.3, Galatians 4.30. So if the Scriptures are sufficient, which they are, and if the Scriptures are clear to the believer, which they are, how does this relate to historical theology?

Keep in mind that as I'm answering this question, do not forget that history, theology, and therefore historical theology are fallible. We are fallible. The Scriptures are not. However, one of the many benefits we receive from studying historical theology is that we witness the absolute timelessness of the Word of God.

We see the sufficiency and the clarity through this community of consciousness that we are linked through with the past saints who have also relied on the Word to get them through the storms of their own era. Because every era has their own storm. If history is indeed cyclical, which it is, then what we'll see is how past generations understood the Word.

How did they understand the doctrine of the sufficiency and clarity of Scripture and how did they apply it? Using the Scriptures themselves, we could build upon the wisdom that was given to past generations, gain their insight, which is a healthy tradition when done in light of the Scriptures. Let me be clear.

Past generations are fallible. Past generations are fallible. I could show you example after example of how even the greatest theologians were clearly wrong and even some early church fathers were wrong, Eusebius in particular, who prescribed this unhealthy delineation between the sacred and the secular. So Scripture alone is the authority.

It does not mean historical theology is useless. I'm going to quote Hermann Bavink again because I think he is very helpful here. Speaking on the distinction of tradition between Rome and the Reformation, he stated it like this, "To the mind of the Reformation, Scripture was an organic principle from which the entire tradition, living on in preaching, confession, liturgy, worship, theology, devotional literature, etc., arises and is nurtured.

It is a pure spring of living water from which all the currents and channels of the religious life are fed and maintained. Such a tradition is grounded in Scripture itself. After Jesus completed His work, He sent forth the Holy Spirit who, while adding nothing new to the Revelation, still guides the church into the truth (John 16, 12-15) until it passes through all its diversity and arrives at the unity of faith and the knowledge of the Son of God (Ephesians 3.18; 3.19; 4.13).

In this sense, there is a good, true, and glorious tradition. It is the method by which the Holy Spirit causes the truth of Scripture to pass into the consciousness and life of the church." R. Scott Clark The fundamental job of the historical theologian is to help the church and other interested parties to remember the theology, piety, and practice of the past, and thus to provide a context for contemporary theological reflections, doxology, and praxis.

In our late modern period, we are particularly tempted to amnesia and in greater need of older readings of Scripture, theological reflection, and pastoral wisdom than ever before. Thus, we need historical theology more than ever before. Though historical theology is vitally interested in the history and development of doctrine, in the history of Christian experience, and practice of the faith, it is not the historian's job to "prescribe" what should be believed theologically or done practically today.

If it is to be of use, historical theology must be "descriptive" rather than "prescriptive." As new waves of doctrine come in, as the ones who probably should lead are discouraged and scared and just plain wrong, sometimes we need to look to the generations of the past to see how they dealt with similar issues.

Because you see, when these new waves of doctrine hit us, one of the most discouraging places to be is to feel as if this new wind of doctrine is completely novel. As if it's never been dealt with in the history of the world, in the history of mankind. As if the scriptures are incapable of dealing with it.

But when you look back upon history and understand the scope of history and how the Word has responded in generations past, not man's writings or man's wisdom, but the Word of God has responded in generations past. As you begin to see and become convinced yourself, individually, of its timelessness, there's a sense of conviction that begins to grow about the Word of God itself.

You begin to feel a kinship with the Christians of the past. The world and Satan tend to hit in areas that their particular generation is weak in. And we heard and saw it loud and clear with the current crop of controversial issues. It was as if nobody could define justice.

Nobody understood social justice. Nobody had a biblical and truthful understanding of race, compassion, and work. And moreover, we continue to hold on to this foolish belief that there is a real dichotomy of the sacred and the secular for the Christian. But we are put at ease when we realize that the scriptures absolutely have spoken.

We are even more comforted when we see that these issues, at least in the scope of history, are not novel. They are actually just old tricks repackaged with a different costume. Let me say that again. These new wind of doctrines, when you study historical theology, you see they are actually just old tricks repackaged with a different costume.

When we realize this, and we become armed, conviction is much more easily born. I can't go into it in this episode. I'll try to devote a future episode on this topic. Believe me when I tell you there's a whole lot we could learn from the likes of John Calvin, Abraham Kuyper, Herman Boving.

To be more specific, feel free to investigate what happened to the surrounding communities of those I just mentioned to you who advocated a right view of scriptural holistic thinking and living. Check out John Calvin's Geneva, Kuyper and Boving's Netherlands, and then compare that with the late apologist, Francis Schaeffer, the late American apologist, Francis Schaeffer, who tried to warn us of the coming threat to his last dying breath.

Francis Schaeffer wrote a book called How Should We Now Live? If you do a quick search engine, put his name in, and then if you type in a Christian manifesto, he has some remarkable insight. That is a lecture he gave in 1982. One word of caution with respect to historical theology.

One word of caution here. Before you engage and do a deep dive into historical theology, let me make something clear. Please, please know the entire scope of the scriptures first. If you don't, all you'll be doing is merely adopting the viewpoints of the first person you read. Please do not throw man's words above the actual words of God.

I'm not saying that you have to do this incredibly detailed verse-by-verse study of the entire Bible before you crack open any theological book. That's not what I'm saying, but try to know the entire scope of the scriptures first. Or else, would you not just ingest the previous generation's errors along with the truth?

That is something that I think we should all watch out for. Because even in our pursuit to seek after God's word, we can sometimes let man's opinion and their reflections about God's word be above God's word itself. And that would totally be a tragedy. Thanks for making it to the end.

I'll continue to try to make the journey worth it. To Him be honor, glory, and eternal dominion. Amen. Amen. (upbeat music)