The Material Sufficiency of Scripture?

This blog is going to be a bit technical, but it has to be for the reader to really understand what is meant by the term ‘material sufficiency’ and whether it has any merit in a discussion of the sufficiency of Scripture. I maintain that Scripture is sufficient, and anyone that disagrees with that does not understand what Scripture clearly says, or what church history clearly recorded. But to make that bold statement, I have to prove my point, by demonstrating why other views are not true, and that is what my Sola Scriptura series is all about. So to address this topic properly, I have to look at the arguments for and against Sola Scriptura so that the case is understandable as well as complete. And that is the case for the concept of ‘material sufficiency,’ which is also why this blog entry is part 16 of my Sola Scriptura series. If you were looking for a ‘one line’ statement for Sola Scriptura, you will have to find that somewhere else.

It would be so nice if I could just use Scripture to prove my point and leave it at that, but the nature of the disagreement between Protestants and Catholics requires that I address the extrabiblical arguments against Sola Scriptura so as to make the case for why it is the correct view as clear as possible. That is my goal for this series – to leave no stone unturned.

Definition: Sufficiency

The proper starting point is then to define what is meant by the ‘sufficiency of Scripture.’ Now, this is a Protestant definition, so a Catholic, while maybe agreeing with parts of the technical definition Protestants use, is not going to agree that Scripture is the only true guide in matters of faith and practice.

Scripture is a sufficient authority for all things pertaining to faith and godliness, not needing to appeal to another authority. However, this does not mean that Scripture functions alone apart from any other source or authority; rather, all other authorities serve under Scripture, while Scripture rules over them as the final and inspired authority from God. [1]

As I laid out in the previous four blogs on Sola Scriptura, Scripture: The Only Infallible Standard, The Authority of Scripture, Scripture: Our Only Certain Standard, Pt 1, and Scripture: Our Only Certain Standard, Pt 2 (and truthfully, it is all 13 of the previous Sola Scriptura blogs, especially Fully Equipped: Answering an Objection - Sola Scriptura, Pt 9), Scripture is that faithful authority and standard for the Christian. It contains all that is needed to convert and guide believers in their journey of faith in Jesus Christ. We have seen how early Church fathers understood this truth (Self-Attesting Scripture: The Church Fathers Speak), as is represented by the quotes of Church fathers from different eras who understood the importance of Scripture for the believer.

So, let us return to Scripture for the clearest testimony about itself. This sufficiency can be clearly seen throughout the Old and New Testaments by how Scripture describes itself:

Scripture is incorruptible (1 Pet 1:23), faithful (Ps 119:86, 138), sure (Ps 111:7; 2 Pet 1:19), pure (Ps 12:6; 1 Pet 2:2), perfect (Ps 19:7), proven (2 Sam 22:31; Ps 18:30), profitable (2 Tim 3:16), truth (Ps 119:142, 160; John 17:17), stands fast (Ps 111:8), is forever settled in heaven (Ps 119:89), abides forever (Isa 40:6-8; 1 Pet 1:23-25), and is a standard by which to measure the words of men (Isa 8:20; Acts17:11). It regenerates (1 Pet 1:23), converts (Ps 19:7), makes wise unto salvation (2 Tim 3:15), is an able means of saving our souls (James 1:23), is the means of persuading sinners to repent (Luke 16:29, 31), makes wise the simple (Ps 19:7), imparts knowledge (Pr 22:20-21), cannot be broken (Jn 10:35), does not return void (Is 55:11), accomplishes God’s will (Is 55:11), sanctifies believers (Jn 17:17), gives light and understanding to the simple (Ps 119:130), is a lamp to our feet and a light to our path (Ps 119:105), is the final judge of all tradition (Mt 15:3-6), and is the objective voice of God (Gal 3:8; Gen 12:1-3; Rom 9:17; Ex 9:16). Significantly, we do not find similar descriptions applied to tradition. [2]

If Scripture is not sufficient, then I really do not understand how Scripture can make these claims about itself, and then somehow fall short of these claims. In his comments on Ps 119:105, Augustine (AD 354-430) made clear that God’s words to mankind can be found in Scripture,

Since therefore the only-begotten Word, coequal with the Father, is styled a light; and man when enlightened by the Word is also called a light, who is styled also a lantern, as John, as the Apostles; and since no man of these is the Word, and that Word by whom they were enlightened is not a lantern; what is this word, which is thus called a light and a lantern at the same time, save we understand the word which was sent unto the Prophets, or which was preached through the Apostles; not Christ the Word, but the word of Christ, of which it is written, “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God”? [Rom 10:17] For the Apostle Peter also, comparing the prophetical word to a lantern, saith, “whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a lantern, that shineth in a dark place.” [2 Pet 1:19] What, therefore, he here saith, “Thy word” is the word which is contained in all the holy Scriptures. [3] [emphasis added]

Now, someone might want to say that Augustine was wrong, but this is yet another example of a Church father that believed that ‘God’s word’ for believers was Scripture. Note that he did not point to tradition as part of God’s word.

The Nature of Tradition

The Shift

The twentieth century has brought the beginnings of a shift in the Roman Catholic position on the sufficiency of Scripture, which has been attributed, at least in part, to John Henry Newman (1801-1890), an Anglican convert to Catholicism. Before his influence, Rome held strongly to the belief that the Scriptures do not contain all of the truths required for salvation. What Rome has taught since the Reformation about Scripture and tradition is that they form a two-source theory established at the Council of Trent, which taught that Scripture by itself is insufficient without tradition. Both Scripture and Tradition are required to understand God’s complete revelation to mankind (i.e., faith and practice). Recently, some Roman apologists are now speaking about this sufficiency as consisting of two concepts, “material” and “formal” sufficiency. Their position now seems to allow for the “material” sufficiency, but not the “formal” sufficiency. So, now we need to define exactly what these terms mean so we can discuss whether they have any merit. This, unfortunately, is easier said than done since the Roman Catholic Church has never provided a definition for these terms.

That said, one can define material and formal sufficiency as,

Materially sufficient means that everything the Christian needs to believe is found in Scripture. Formally sufficient means that in order to understand the Bible, the Roman Catholic Church has to interpret it. [4]

Yes, I realize I used a Protestant apologetics site for the Catholic definitions of these two terms, but the overly wordy Catholic sites said basically the same thing as above, they just used a lot of words to do so. To state that Scripture is ‘materially’ sufficient, that Scripture contains everything that the believer needs to know, is quite a shift, at least in appearance. That would include, presumably, salvation, something for which Protestants have stood firmly against Catholicism for over 500 years. On its face, it looks like quite the concession, but the catch is the ‘formal’ definition, which states that the Church is required to interpret Scripture for that understanding.

I personally think the material sufficiency definition is specifically chosen to make it acceptable to Protestants, as if Catholicism has ‘met the Protestants halfway,’ without giving an inch on their view that Scripture is not a sufficient revelation. For instance, let’s take the phrase, ‘everything the Christian needs to believe’ — to believe what? Do the Scriptures provide enough for salvation? To grow in Christ? On how we should live? Does that mean Scripture is understandable by the masses for any of these aspects? Does the meaning of “formal” exclude all of these since the Church needs to interpret Scripture for it to be understandable by the masses? Does this not mean that the Catholic viewpoint really hasn’t changed at all? But maybe I’m getting ahead of myself.

The Debate

Even though some Catholic theologians hold to the material and formal distinction for sufficiency, others do not, as they see it as contradictory to the decrees of the Council of Trent. American scholar and teacher Gabriel Moran (1935-2021) documented the contradiction,

Some Catholic theologians had come to hold that all revelation is contained in holy Scripture at least implicitly. Instead of adding other truths, tradition would occupy a more formal or interpretive role. Other theologians claimed that this opinion was directly opposed to the Church’s teaching, especially as formulated by the Council of Trent. [5]

That seems to read that ‘tradition’ is above Scripture, since ‘tradition’ is required to even understand what Scripture says. Yet, Catholic theologians like Yves Congar and Josef Geiselmann (1890-1970), did not believe that Trent decreed anything definitive. Geiselmann wrote,

What exactly, then, was actually decided by the Council of Trent about doctrine concerning the relation of Scripture and Tradition? We may now answer: neither the sufficiency of content of Holy Scripture was proclaimed, nor was the relation of Scripture and Tradition decided in the sense of ‘partly-partly.’ One cannot emphasize enough that nothing, absolutely nothing was decided at the Council of Trent concerning the relation of Scripture and Tradition. [6] [emphasis added]

In what appears to be a shift to support the new concept of ‘material’ / ‘formal’ sufficiency, some Catholic theologians seem to be opening the door to this ew concept by making the case that Trent changed nothing. And Karl Rahner agreed, and said much the same in Theological Investigations (pp. 106-107), as did Gabriel Moran, who said the following,

Whatever Trent intended to define on the Scripture-tradition relationship, there is very little controversy about the interpretation of the post -Tridentine [post-Trent] theologians. Sixteenth-century theologians like Cano, Bellarmine, and Canisius, in stressing the equality of tradition and Scripture as opposed to the doctrine of the Reformers, originated the modern two-source theory. The classification of theological sources by Melchior Cano placed emphasis on tradition as an extrabiblical source of revelation and tended to put the Church, Scripture, and tradition into separate categories. [7] [emphasis added]

Moran points to post-Trent theologians as the originators of this shift to ‘material’ / ‘formal’ sufficiency. The point here is that this is still debated within the Roman Catholic Church. A proponent of the two-source theory, Monsignor G. Van Noort wrote,

Tradition may be defined as follows: the collection of revealed truths which the Church has received through the apostles in addition to inspired Scripture and which it preserves by the uninterrupted continuity of the apostolic teaching office. [8]

If you read this carefully, you will see that this denies the material sufficiency of Scripture that many Catholic apologists appear to want to move towards. (It also promotes the unknowable ‘traditions’ supposedly passed down by the apostles, but that’s a subject for another day) Catholic theologians that support ‘material’ sufficiency do so without the support of the Catholic Church since she has never defined Scripture as ‘materially’ sufficient. So, “the relationship of the Church, Scripture, and tradition was obscure before Trent and it remains obscure today; and it is this very ambiguity that is exploited by Roman apologists.” [9]

The Real Issue

The problem, according to some Roman Catholics, is the unresolved meaning of the term ‘tradition.’ But until the Roman Catholic Church is willing to define its terms, the confusion within Catholicism will remain. This is a weakness in her theology, which Protestants can easily point out, and exploit, if you will. And Joseph Ratzinger, better known as Pope Benedict XVI, only muddied the waters with this statement, “... no one is seriously able to maintain that there is a proof in Scripture for every catholic doctrine.” [10] Why not?! Why shouldn’t Christians expect that? Is this not a wide open door to introduce anything one might want to ‘add’ to God's word? Again, I draw the parallel between Gnosticism and Catholicism, and its ‘secret knowledge’ that regular people can never know? How is this different from the Jehovah’s Witnesses and their blatant changes to God’s written word in their corrupted New World Translation? Or the Mormon’s adding an entire testament and their perversion of God’s revelation with things like polytheism, sacred underwear or magic gold plates that disappeared before anyone other than Joseph Smith could see them? How will this be different from the Catholic Church’s likely addition (in the near future) of Mary as co-redemptrix?

Returning to the possibility of the existence of a ‘material’ / ‘formal’ sufficiency concept, any true meaning of ‘material’ sufficiency is impossible when there is an insistence that Scripture requires a ‘formal interpretation’ from the Church, since it requires extrabiblical information to provide such ‘interpretation.’ As David King puts it,

If Scripture requires an outside material content to define or supplement its meaning, then the reality is that it fails even the claim of material sufficiency that some Roman Catholics assign to it. Both the formal definitions of papal infallibility and the Marian dogmas stand in contrast to the claim of material sufficiency. [11] [emphasis in original]

In other words, these dogmas condemn both Scripture and any concept of early tradition to material insufficiency. Whatever these Catholic apologists were attempting to prove with this concept, is undermined and self-defeated, since the concept is trying to prove the unprovable. One cannot make the case that tradition and Scripture have the same content, nor complementary content, nor can it be demonstrated that the two dogmas of the assumption of Mary and papal infallibility (and more than two exist) can be traced back to the Apostles, thus showing that tradition is found wanting. Why do I say that? Because these are Catholic dogmas with no Scriptural or Catholic ascribed ‘tradition’ to support them. There is nothing in Scripture about the assumption of Mary and there is nothing in the writings of the early church fathers about this either (something that would at least give the remote possibility of a support for their concept of tradition). It is a recent dogma with absolutely no evidence to back up any claim as ‘tradition,’ especially as Catholicism would define ‘tradition.’ And to claim that the Church can proclaim (invent?) ‘truths’ with no Scriptural, historical or ‘traditional’ support is to put the Church teachings into the same category as Gnosticism.

Any claim of the Church having the authority to ‘develop’ a dogma with no historical or Scripture basis, only proves the claims that the two-source theory is as bankrupt as the ‘material’ / ‘formal’ sufficiency concept is.

Papal infallibility was not defined until 1870. Up till then Catholics were deeply divided on the subject. It is no secret that many informed Catholics today wish that the dogma had never been defined. They are embarrassed by the fact that there are no grounds for it in Scripture and early church tradition. And the facts, both that Catholic theologians are uncertain which papal pronouncements are infallible, and that there has never been an official, infallible list of infallible pronouncements, are some indications of the vacuity [lack of thought or intelligence] of the dogma. [12]

Just walking through the history of the papal office should give you enough information to completely reject that dogma. That is truly embarrassing. 

Sola Ecclesia?

And now we come full circle and return to Newman, whom we started with. He popularized the concept of doctrinal development, which formulated into the ‘material’ / ‘formal’ sufficiency concept. But this would seem to undercut the facts of history since it does not provide any explanation for what seems to be lacking in any concept of tradition. And worse, it seems to abandon tradition altogether in favor of a contemporary ability of the Church to define whatever she deems as ‘proper doctrine,’ completely devoid of biblical and historical support. This is why I, and others, have said that Catholicism seems to have some disturbing commonalities with Gnosticism. It then becomes a ‘logical conclusion’ that for present-day Catholicism, both Scripture and tradition are materially insufficient for the Christian’s faith and practice. The Roman Catholic Church seems to be exalting itself over both Scripture and tradition, and it seems to believe what is called, Sola Ecclesia.

If Sola Scriptura is ‘Scripture alone’, then Sola Ecclesia would be ‘the Church alone’, and the reality is that the Catholic Church teaches that it has the final authority in all matters. The Church believes she:

1. defines the canon of Scripture,
2. interprets what Scripture means,
3. defines authoritative, apostolic tradition,
4. interprets authoritative, apostolic tradition.

That is the essence of Sola Ecclesia. Now, Roman Catholicism would strongly deny this, but would not deny the 4 points listed.

And Karl Keating is a great example of this very denial of the terminology, yet mental ascent to the points listed. In reference to the Assumption of Mary, he wrote,

The big problem, no doubt, is determining what constitutes authentic Tradition. How do we know that what had been handed down by the Catholic Church is correct doctrine and practice? We know it is correct because Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Mt 16:18). The Church would be indefectible; its official teaching would be infallible. To it, through Peter, Christ gave his own teaching authority (Mt 16:19; 28:18-20)... The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as something definitely true is a guarantee that it is true. [13]

So, according to Keating, and the Catholic Church, she is the living voice (‘viva voce’) of truth. Whatever she says is what everyone should believe as the norm, the standard of what should be believed. But just because the Church ‘says so,’ does not really make it so, when it violates everything the Church has been saying for the previous 500 or 1000 years. That is not a guarantee, that is a presupposition, something assumed to be true before any line of argumentation is presented. Even presuppositions need to be based upon truths or supported to be considered true. And Keating is saying this is true because the church says it's true, and his statement simply cannot be proven by either Scripture, church history or ‘tradition.’

And this is exactly what Irenaeus said was a heretical Gnostic belief. Let me remind you of what he said. This is a longer quote of what I have previously quoted in an earlier blog.

Such, then, is their system, which neither the prophets announced, nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles delivered, but of which they boast that beyond all others they have a perfect knowledge. They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures; and, to use a common proverb, they strive to weave ropes of sand, while they endeavour to adapt with an air of probability to their own peculiar assertions the parables of the Lord, the sayings of the prophets, and the words of the apostles, in order that their scheme may not seem altogether without support. In doing so, however, they disregard the order and the connection of the Scriptures … [14] [emphasis added]

And again,

When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viva voce [by living voice, or word of mouth]. [15] [emphasis added]

So, material sufficiency is completely devoid of meaning, and is nothing more than someone’s private opinion, since the Church has never made an official pronouncement on it. Trent and both Vatican I and II point us to the two-source theory (as a reminder, that both Scripture and Tradition are coequal and required to provide the complete revelation of God), which leaves no place for a material sufficiency at all.

But that does not stop Catholic apologists from using ‘material’ sufficiency when it suits one argument and denying it when it suits a different argument. It then seems that the only real goal of this whole subject is to cast doubt on the sufficiency of Scripture. When you reserve the right to define and interpret Scripture and tradition, and those definitions and interpretations do not have to conform to any objective standards, then tradition is whatever you want it to be, and Scripture says whatever you want it to say. The Jehovah’s Witnesses have learned that trick too.

Conclusion

I know it may seem like this blog meandered a little, but it was important to deal with the concept of material sufficiency, since Catholic apologists could use the concept to confuse the issue of the sufficiency of Scripture. For the Protestant, at least the reformed minded ones, would say that Scripture is sufficient, and I, personally, have yet to come across a reason to question this. So, even though some Roman apologists want ‘material’ and ‘formal’ definitions for sufficiency, they are meaningless definitions for a concept the Catholic Church does not even endorse or support. It would seem that the Catholic Church will stick to its two-source theory concept, which is questionable since she seems to practice Sola Ecclesia. Protestants on the other hand will continue to categorically state that Scripture is sufficient and superior to anything that might be defined as ‘tradition.’ And since there have never been any definitive ‘traditions’ produced by the Catholic Church, Protestants would say, “Why should I believe in what you cannot produce?” I mentioned two possible traditions above, the assumption of Mary and papal infallibility, but are they really traditions as defined by the two-source theory? If they are, Protestants are still waiting for Roman Catholicism to provide proof that they were handed down from the Apostles.

But this all inspired Scripture also teaches more plainly and with more authority, so that we in our turn write boldly to you as we do, and you, if you refer to them, will be able to verify what we say. For an argument when confirmed by a higher authority is irresistibly proved.

Athanasius (AD 297-373)

Footnotes

[1] Matthew Barrett, The Sufficiency of Scripture, The Gospel Coalition, © 2023.
[2] David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), pp. 181-182.
[3] Philip Schaaf, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series I, Vol 8, St. Augustine on the Psalms, Psalm 119:105. Christian Classics Ethereal Library, https://www.ccel.org.
[4] Matt Slick, Are the Scriptures Sufficient?, CARM.org, © 2008. One can see the same thing here, The “Material Sufficiency” of Scripture, ScriptureCatholic.com.
[5] Gabriel Moran, F.S.C., Theology of Revelation (London: Burns & Oates, 1966), p. 32, as quoted in David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 183.
[6] As quoted in David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 184.
[7] Gabriel Moran, Scripture and Tradition: A Survey of the Controversy (New York: Herder and Herder, 1963), p. 38, as quoted in David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 184.
[8] G. Van Noort, S.T.D., Dogmatic Theology (Westminister: Newman, 1961), Vol III, The Source of Revelation, p. 139, as quoted in David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 186.
[9] David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 186.
[10] Joseph Ratzinger, ‘The Transmission of Divine Revelation’, commenting on article 9 of Dei verbum, Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969), p. 195, David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 187.
[11] David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 187.
[12] Colin Brown, Philosophy and the Christian Faith (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, reprinted 1979), p. 163, David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 188.
[13] Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on ‘Romanism’ by ‘Biblical Christians’, (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), pp. 139-140, 275, as quoted by David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 189.
[14] Philip Schaff, Anti-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.8.1, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, https://www.ccel.org/
[15] Ibid, Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.2.1.

All Scriptures quotes are from the New American Standard Bible, 1995 Revision, unless otherwise noted. Verse links from Blue Letter Bible, https://www.blueletterbible.org/

For the best treatment of Sola Scriptura in book form, please consider investing in the 3 volume set of: David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3 (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001). It's the guide I'm using to integrate some of my own study on this important subject. This book set is inexpensive and worth every penny.