Rik Watts, Gerald Bray and the 'Sufficiency of Scripture'

[Luke Isham]

I recently attended a CBE (Christians for Biblical Equality) Conference where one of the key note speakers was Rik Watts.  At some other point I'd be interested in discussing the various aspects of the conference or issues raised by it but given the recent conjunction of Gerald's Brays visit to Ridley College and Rik Watt's Saturday-key-note Conference talk, I felt I should say something specifically about the 'Sufficiency of Scripture'.

Rik Watts gave an extended talk about three difficult passages. 1 Cor 11, 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2.  In each of these cases his approach was to show how various extra-biblical pieces of data supported his Egalitarian interpretation of the difficult text in question.  While this was not all of his approach, it dominated his hermaneutical method.  

Regardless of the ultimate outcome of the Egalitarian versus Complementarian debate, it must be conducted within the cannon of Scripture using Scripture, to interpret Scripture.  Gerald Bray drew attention to this in a paper he presented at a seminar at Ridley.  Bray showed how the human words of the Bible contain the words of God and like Jesus is the word of God, are both human and divine.  In his paper Bray explains that Scripture provides enough guidance to know about the Gospel (in its full not truncated sense) and live out our lives as Christians.

So we come to the fundamental issue.  'Sufficiency of Scripture' does not prove the Complimentarian case but it clears the air by showing that any argument about Scripture must be based on Scripture alone.  (Sola Scriptura!)  There may be valid Egalitarian arguments from Scripture, and I heard a few on the Conference, but Rik's basic interpretative principle was flawed and I was disappointed he did not defend or justify his approach, which was simply that you need to know extra non-biblical information to interpret Scripture correctly!

I'd be interested to know how other people reacted to Rik or Gerald's approach.

[angusj]

Luke Isham wrote:

 must be conducted within the cannon of Scripture using Scripture, to interpret Scripture.  
...
any argument about Scripture must be based on Scripture alone.  (Sola Scriptura!)
...
I was disappointed he did not defend or justify his approach, which was simply that you need to know extra non-biblical information to interpret Scripture correctly!

Hi Luke.
I think there's an assumption here that we can have a full understanding of Scripture without depending on non-scriptural sources. I don't believe that that assumption is reasonable. We do depend *a lot* on other information. For example other ancient non Scriptural texts and artefacts help us better understand the language and culture aiding more accurate translations (and exegesis). Our changing understanding of the cosmos (eg the shape and age of our planet) has also influenced how we interpret (reinterpret) Scripture and its numerous textural genres. Even the extent of Scripture itself is still open to very minor uncertainty (eg Mk 16:9-20).  I'm not suggesting that God's revelation in Scripture changes according to external information, but our *understanding* of Scripture changes (and hopefully improves) as we re-evaluate it in the light of additional information.
I will affirm that our doctrines must take account of the totality of Scripture, and must be based solely on Scripture as we understand it.

[Jereth]

angusj wrote:

I think there's an assumption here that we can have a full understanding of Scripture without depending on non-scriptural sources. I don't believe that that assumption is reasonable. We do depend *a lot* on other information. For example other ancient non Scriptural texts and artefacts help us better understand the language and culture aiding more accurate translations (and exegesis). Our changing understanding of the cosmos (eg the shape and age of our planet) has also influenced how we interpret (reinterpret) Scripture and its numerous textural genres.

I understand Luke to be saying that Scripture is sufficient to teach us the way to salvation, and to instruct us how to live fully obedient and mature lives as Christians. (cf. 2 Tim 3:16ff.) Yes, certain extra-biblical things can shed light on biblical interpretation but according to the doctrine of Sufficiency they are not necessary for a correct understanding of what Scripture teaches.

BTW, I think a lot of people would seriously question whether "our changing understanding of cosmos" should allow us to re-interpret Scripture. Science must be subordinated to the Bible like all other things. Let's remember that all this extra stuff we have access to -- science, archeology, etc. -- was not available  to the Church for most of its history, and still is not available to many Christians labouring away in developing nations away from the Western intelligensia. Do we wish to imply that these overwhelming majority of Christians are impaired in their ability to be mature because all they have is the Bible? (Not to mention the fact that man's opinions about science, archeology, history etc. are constantly changing whereas the truth of the Bible doesn't change.)

I wasn't at the CBE conference personally, but I had a couple of complementarian spies there and according to them there was indeed an inappropriate reliance on extra-biblical information for understanding the "difficult" texts. [i find it interesting that egalitarians experience "difficult" texts in the Bible -- on our side of the fence there are no "difficult" texts...] The bizarre thing is that WITHOUT the extra-biblical data all of the texts teach something very clear and unambiguous about gender roles; but WITH the extra-biblical data the Bible is somehow construed as teaching the exact opposite. Is there any example from another area of doctrine or theology where extra-biblical data can totally reverse the Bible's teaching like this??

Jereth

[Andrew Bowles]

Luke, are you sure that you aren't really talking about the clarity of Scripture rather than the sufficiency of Scripture? Sufficiency says that everything's in there. Clarity says that it's easy to get out. From the experience of the church over the centuries, I'd say the first sentence is a bit more substantiated than the second.

I would suggest that we don't comment on Rik Watts' theological beliefs unless we can document our claims properly. This is a public forum.

[angusj]

Jereth wrote:

But like I said, I wasn't there and I'm just going on spy reports and they could be inaccurate

Hi Jereth. Surely you can see that this kind of 'ad hominem' is unhelpful, even with your qualification. If someone can reliably quote specific points that were contentious then we could have a healthy discussion, otherwise we're simply guessing and doing Rik Watts a gross injustice.

I think a lot of people would seriously question whether "our changing understanding of cosmos" should allow us to re-interpret Scripture.

My point was it did change how the church understood some parts of Scripture. Copernicus' and Galileo's heliocentric cosmology was a major stumbling block for the church in the 16th and 17th centuries (as the 'old earth' cosmology is a stumbling block for some Christians today).

[Jereth]

angusj wrote:

Hi Jereth. Surely you can see that this kind of 'ad hominem' is unhelpful, even with your qualification. If someone can reliably quote specific points that were contentious then we could have a healthy discussion, otherwise we're simply guessing and doing Rik Watts a gross injustice.

Fair enough Angus, I have withdrawn my comments about Rik's theology. Perhaps eventually an official recording of his speeches will emerge so that we can examine them properly. I do, however have access to some very detailed notes, including word for word quotations, written by a quite meticulous person who was there!

My point was it did change how the church understood some parts of Scripture. Copernicus' and Galileo's heliocentric cosmology was a major stumbling block for the church in the 16th and 17th centuries (as the 'old earth' cosmology is a stumbling block for some Christians today).

There may have been a shift in the way certain texts were read, but I maintain that nothing essential changed in the church's theology or practice -- either then or now. We all still believe that the Earth, and humanity, is at the heart of God's concern and purposes within time and space (regardless of precise geometry), and we all still believe that God is the creator of heavens and earth and is directly responsible for each creative event including the origin of life, species and humanity (regardless of our personal beliefs about the earth's age).

This is very much unlike the shift that has occurred in 20th century Protestantism with respect to gender roles, where extra-biblical data has been permitted to totally reverse the Bible's teaching and consequently the church's practice. Another difference is that the Copernican revolution involved the empiric discovery of an objective reality that forced Christians to rethink their interpretation of certain texts; on the other hand, Christian feminism reached their theological conclusions first (in my opinion, under cultural pressure) and then went looking for extra-biblical data to back them up... and this extra-biblical data is not testable, falsifiable scientific fact but rather a whole lot of historical conjecture. So while I appreciate the point you are making, Angus, and certainly agree that extra-biblical information has its place in guiding interpretation, I do not believe there is a legitimate analogy between the Copernican revolution and the issue of gender in the church today.

Jereth

[Luke Isham]

Hi angusj,

I agree that God's revelation in Scripture does not change according to external information and I also agree when you say our doctrines must take account of the totality of Scripture and be based solely on Scripture.  

However, you claim

 I think there's an assumption here that we can have a full understanding of Scripture without depending on non-scriptural sources. I don't believe that assumption is reasonable. We do depend * a lot* on other information.

The 'Sufficiency of Scripture 'is not an assumption but part of the doctrine of Scripture. (39 Articles, Westminster Confession, Grudem & Berkhof etc)  Not only is it a doctrine but it is a reasonable one as well.  If words are an effective means of communication, why couldn't God use them to communicate clearly to us without any recourse to external information?

Furthermore, since all of our understanding of Scripture is done by humans, we must rely on the church's 'rule of faith' to be our normative interpretative principle.  Church tradition for nearly the last 2,000 years has relied on Scripture to interpret Scripture without any recourse to external information.

You then argue,

 ancient non Scriptural texts and artefacts help us better understand the language and culture aiding more accurate translations

'Sufficiency of Scripture' is not about translation but is about the question of what does “Scripture teach us about faith and godly living?”  The purpose of Scripture is so that we may know God and all that that involves.  It is entirely sufficient for that purpose.  Furthermore the universal applicability of faith and godly living demonstrates the principles of Scripture transcend their original historical and cultural context.

I'm then compelled to comment on this sentence of yours;

Even the extent of Scripture itself is still open to very minor uncertainty

While I don't want to discuss the cannon of Scripture in this thread, I don't believe currently unresolved textual controversies damage the doctrine of Scripture or it's subcategory of sufficiency.

I want to challenge you on your claim that extra information external to Scripture is required to understand or interpret the Bible.  Where does Scripture itself show us or model to us that we need extra information to interpret it?  In other words does Paul say somewhere in his epistles that we need archeological information to understand him correctly? Does Jesus state in the gospels that to fully understand the Old Testament we must understand it's sociological background?

I look forward to your response, although since I composed this at home and arrived at College there have been other posts, so when you get a moment.

[Luke Isham]

Hi Andrew,

I think the perspicacity and the sufficiency of Scripture are equally important parts of the doctrine of Scripture.  Not only is Scripture ultimately clear in it's communication (perspicacity) but it is also sufficient for all matters pertaining to faith and godly living (sufficiency).  However, human interpretation is often clouded by sin and human finitude, hence the need for the church's 'rule of faith' and ultimately the Holy Spirit's illuminatory guidance.

The assumption sitting behind most of Rik's explanations for the difficult passages was the idea that interpretation required extra-biblical information.  Admittedly he didn't clarify if this was because he believed Scripture wasn't sufficient or lacked clarity.

[Edited 21/8/08 1:55pm: After a chat with Andrew in the real world.]

[angusj]

Luke Isham wrote:

However, you claim

 I think there's an assumption here that we can have a full understanding of Scripture without depending on non-scriptural sources. I don't believe that assumption is reasonable. We do depend * a lot* on other information.

The 'Sufficiency of Scripture 'is not an assumption but part of the doctrine of Scripture. (39 Articles, Westminster Confession, Grudem & Berkhof etc)  Not only is it a doctrine but it is a reasonable one as well.  If words are an effective means of communication, why couldn't God use them to communicate clearly to us without any recourse to external information?

Hi again Luke. In my initial response to your post I wasn't directly addressing the 'Sufficiency of Scripture' but the value of extra-biblical material, and I believe these are two separate things. Yes, the first is a doctrine which I think is generally helpful if it's understood in context (primarily as a polemic response to the Roman Catholic Church's claims that the Catholic Magisterium and Tradition stands on an equal footing with Scripture in God's revelation). However, it's wrong to suggest we can't get value from extra-biblical material or that we don't need others to help us understand the Bible. For a start the Bible wasn't written in English so we depend on others to translate the source texts, and to know which source texts are the most reliable. These translators also need a good understanding of the cultures in which the Scriptures were written (often gleaned from extra-biblical sources) to better understand and accurately translate these texts into modern idioms. Even then we rely on commentaries and pastors to help us make sense of the translated texts. So I would express the Doctrine of Sufficiency such that Scripture, as properly understood by the full body of Christ, is perfectly sufficient for salvation (ie without need for further revelation).

must be conducted within the cannon of Scripture using Scripture, to interpret Scripture.

This is what you said that I was mainly responding to which I find hard to agree with as you might understand from my comments above.

'Sufficiency of Scripture' is not about translation

Yes, at least we agree here .

Where does Scripture itself show us or model to us that we need extra information to interpret it?  In other words does Paul say somewhere in his epistles that we need archeological information to understand him correctly? Does Jesus state in the gospels that to fully understand the Old Testament we must understand it's sociological background?

Are you really suggesting that Scripture has to give us permission to use archaeological information to better understand the contextual cultures? Anyhow, even the Scriptures use non-canonical texts at times to clarify Scripture (see Jude 1:14-15 & "Book of Enoch").

[Andrew Bowles]

Luke, the question for you ,I think, is whether you think that the historical information that Rik referred to is accurate or not. If it is, then it would be strange for you to suggest that the most natural reading of Paul's letter is the exact opposite to what it would have meant in context to the people who received it. That's what I mean by saying that I think this is about clarity, not sufficiency.

[Andrew Bowles]

p.s. Article 6 doesn't actually refer to 'godly living', just salvation. That might help to clarify the discussion.

[Jereth]

Andrew Bowles wrote:

Luke, the question for you ,I think, is whether you think that the historical information that Rik referred to is accurate or not. If it is, then it would be strange for you to suggest that the most natural reading of Paul's letter is the exact opposite to what it would have meant in context to the people who received it. That's what I mean by saying that I think this is about clarity, not sufficiency.

Hi Andrew,

- Personally I do not think this is just a question of accuracy. It's a question of whether it is appropriate to use historical conjecture in our interpretation of Scripture. How much do we really know about ancient Artemis cults, gnostic Eve worshippers, New Rome women and the like? I'd suggest very little. And even if we know that such things existed, how can we really know that they affected the Ephesian/Corinthian churches in any way? much less produced the kind of situation that egalitarian authors hypothesise about (women attempting to dominate etc.). It is all fanciful guesswork... Nothing in the Bible tells us convincingly that this is what was happening, or that this is what Paul was responding to in 1 Tim / 1 Cor.

- The plain sense of the texts have been absolutely clear to Christians throughout most of history and to most Christians in the world today. They are clear. A church operating in deepest darkest Africa or China, with no access to Western "scholarship", will be able to read Scripture and confidently discern God's will for their gender relationships. Yet here we are told that some highly speculative extra-biblical data changes the meaning of the texts, so that God's will for our gender relationships is the total opposite. God can't possibly have 2 conflicting wills -- one for them and one for us. The truth of the matter is that someone is perceiving God's will falsely. And if Scripture is sufficient for teaching us God's will for our lives, then we ought to reject the latter approach which depends on extra-biblical speculation, and take the former approach which uses Scripture alone.

Again I ask: is there any other area of theology where extra-biblical data is permitted to produce a reading of the biblical text which is the total reverse of what we get when the texts are read alone? There are instances where extra-biblical data can shed light on an obscure area, or help us choose between multiple alternative readings, or confirm a likely reading -- but only with the gender issue does extra-biblical data completely overturn a clear reading.

Jereth

[Jereth]

Andrew Bowles wrote:

p.s. Article 6 doesn't actually refer to 'godly living', just salvation. That might help to clarify the discussion.

Mate, are you suggesting here that God tells us how to be saved and then leaves us fumbling around blindly to know out how to live lives that are pleasing to him?

Or, worse still, does he give us misleading and deceptive texts such as Eph 5 and 1 Tim 2 which have led the church to act contrary to His will for 19 centuries?

I hope not

[Andrew Bowles]

An extra thought, my last for this thread as I'm going away this weekend.

You know, I don't think that it's 'extrabiblical material' at all, really. The problem is just that the texts of Paul's letters have been preserved for 2000 years. When he wrote them, the sociocultural issues at Corinth were just assumed background knowledge for the recipients. But while the church preserved the texts, for various reasons no-one preserved the contextual information. So what appears to us to be 'extra-biblical' information, because it's new to us, is actually quite at home with the text. And perhaps, in the providence of the Spirit, he has allowed us to relearn old things just at the time when they are needed by the church in its controversy? That is a legitimate spin on the issue, I think, because otherwise I'm baffled as to how the Corinthians would have had to sit down and say, 'let's pretend we know nothing about the situation in our city and church, and try to read this letter as though we lived in the 21st century and have no information apart from what Paul has written'.

[Andrew Bowles]

No, Jereth, I was just stating the content of Article 6.

[Andrew Stagg]

Andrew Bowles wrote:

You know, I don't think that it's 'extrabiblical material' at all, really. The problem is just that the texts of Paul's letters have been preserved for 2000 years. When he wrote them, the sociocultural issues at Corinth were just assumed background knowledge for the recipients. But while the church preserved the texts, for various reasons no-one preserved the contextual information. So what appears to us to be 'extra-biblical' information, because it's new to us, is actually quite at home with the text. And perhaps, in the providence of the Spirit, he has allowed us to relearn old things just at the time when they are needed by the church in its controversy? That is a legitimate spin on the issue, I think, because otherwise I'm baffled as to how the Corinthians would have had to sit down and say, 'let's pretend we know nothing about the situation in our city and church, and try to read this letter as though we lived in the 21st century and have no information apart from what Paul has written'.

Mate , um, sorry but no.

Egalitarians have never produced any form of solid evidence to back up the claim - the claim we are all talking about here - the claim that there was a problem with certain women in Timothy's city - and thus this is the reason that Paul wrote that within church services (1Tim2)I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man - she must remain silent". Rikk Watts claimed as much when he reportedly stated that 2/3rds of 1 Timothy was addressing a unique problem with women in this church.

Aside from refuting this mischief - in point of fact 2/3rds of 1 Timothy addresses orderly church conduct and how to choose Godly leaders (I figured that one out by actually reading the text) - I find it truly astonishing - staggering in point of fact - that this theory about an isolated 'women problem' in 1 Timothy is taught as a fact when it has never been proven and it does not even fit the text particularly well. Why would Paul command all women to be silent in the church - were they all deceived in that town, every last one of them??

So now a few 'experts' (ie Rikk Watts who doesn't even know what 2/3rds of 1 Timothy is about so why should we listen to him) have decided - 1950 years after the event - that they have a discovered new and previously hidden knowledge - that somehow allows us to read certain verses out of both their traditional and their 'plain meaning' context and turn some of these verses on their heads. Thus armed with this new information we can confidently say that historical church teaching was completely wrong and we now have a newer and better way. Or do we - doesn't this whole approach sound just a little fishy???

I was reading Mathew 5 in my small group last night and the following verse really stuck in my mind.
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

And just in case what Paul had to say doesn't really count anymore, 2 Peter should be noted. All of us need to be really careful when we weigh up scripture in this way, because what it says needs to be taken really seriously. It's a stern warning for us when we run ahead of ourselves.
5Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

[Andrew Stagg]

Jereth wrote:

Again I ask: is there any other area of theology where extra-biblical data is permitted to produce a reading of the biblical text which is the total reverse of what we get when the texts are read alone? There are instances where extra-biblical data can shed light on an obscure area, or help us choose between multiple alternative readings, or confirm a likely reading -- but only with the gender issue does extra-biblical data completely overturn a clear reading.

Jereth - spot on mate. Sadly this appears to be exactly what's happened.

[Luke Isham]

Hi Angus,

The doctrine of the Sufficiency of Scripture is explicitly about what we can understand from Scripture.  The doctrine has always assumed (I recommend The Shape of Sola Scriptura on this topic.) that interpretation is governed by the church's 'rule of faith'.  Yes, it does oppose the Magisterium but it does not oppose tradition, broadly understood, it is important to clearly recognise this.

I'm not saying we can't get value from extra-biblical information, sometimes it helps us strip away our own preconceptions but it should never be relied on to shape our interpretation of Scripture!

Angus, I think you've overlooked my point about translation when you wrote this:

For a start the Bible wasn't written in English so we depend on others to translate the source texts, and to know which source texts are the most reliable. These translators also need a good understanding of the cultures in which the Scriptures were written (often gleaned from extra-biblical sources) to better understand and accurately translate these texts into modern idioms.

I said this in my earlier response to you about translation:

"'Sufficiency of Scripture' is not about translation but is about the question of what does "Scripture teach us about faith and godly living?"  The purpose of Scripture is so that we may know God and all that that involves.  It is entirely sufficient for that purpose.  Furthermore the universal applicability of faith and godly living demonstrates the principles of Scripture transcend their original historical and cultural context."

Are you really suggesting that Scripture has to give us permission to use archaeological information to better understand the contextual cultures?

Absolutely!
Why would we use any other method to understand Scripture? Scripture is self asserting, everything we know and believe about Scripture is from Scripture itself, we have no other epistemological basis. (This is essentially Peter Adam's main argument in his latest book.) So in a sense you haven't fully responded to my earlier challenge.

Anyhow, even the Scriptures use non-canonical texts at times to clarify Scripture (see Jude 1:14-15 & "Book of Enoch").

Great point to which I would add that Paul uses references to paganism, Proverbs includes Egyptian wisdom and various other examples.  However it is important to note that each of these are integrated into the cannon by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  If fact you could argue everything in Scripture is human, or non-canonical until God brings into His revelation.  A better way of viewing things would be to ask how does Deuteronomy interpret Exodus, how do the prophets interpret the Law, how does Jesus interpret the OT, how does Paul interpret Jesus and the OT?  What is the overall pattern being display here and how should our interpretation mirror that pattern?

[angusj]

Hi again Luke. I'm not persuaded by your arguments but I also doubt we'll get closer to agreement by continuing so I'm afraid I'm going to leave the discussion here. I think at least we both agree on what's most important regarding Scripture, that is its authority as God's revelation to us through the Spirit inspired writings of the authors.

[Luke Isham]

Angus,

I respect you don't want to stay in the debate and I don't want you to feel hounded.  

It's also good we both agree Scripture is inspired and therefore has authority, although I believe Scripture goes further in it's self assertion (inerrancy, sufficiency and perspicuity) and has greater implications then we often assume.  This is why I was concerned when Rik didn't seem to acknowledge the doctrine of Scripture in his interpretation.

Luke