Question re: sufficiency in the Reformed(?) tradition

I have long been aware that on the question of sola scriptura, "sufficiency" is read with a sense of only or exclusively e.g. 2 Tm 3:16-17. In another thread (saints praying for us) a similar argument was made with regards to intercession - one sufficient intercessor eliminates possibility of other intercessors. I would paraphrase this as a frugal God to use non-theological language. What theological or biblical interpretation resources directly address this sufficient=only line of interpretation. I've not been able to find a starting point of a thread to research, perhaps because I have no clue as to the appropriate language used by these traditions.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Jerome Smith

I have placed a note about the sufficiency of Scripture in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge at 2 Timothy 3:17. The note is expanded in the Ultimate Cross Reference Treasury as a result of discussions with Dave Armstrong, whose many excellent books I have in Logos Bible software. Based in part on my study of Volume 1 of Hodge's systematic theology, I developed an outline on the perspicuity of Scripture in my Topic Number Index (Topic Number 1110-1122).

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1257262#Comment_1257262

Thank you ... that is a brief description of what I want to know. On a quick read I'm not convinced the logic is solid but I'll definitely give it some thought. It does give me a lead towards the underlying issue being related to "add to scripture."

DMB

I'm not a 'sufficiency' person. But I suspect you're framing your thinking as a binary (exclusive vs not). But several of the NT writers (eg John 5:39 and later 2 Peter 3:16) position the 'grapha' (Jewish writings) as only relative to the end-point (messiah=Jesus). I'm not sure how relevant; sola scriptura adds on the NT on its own, from the same period (late 2nd century) that scripture and traditions (combined) appeared.

My perspective is always different!

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1257276#Comment_1257276

But I suspect you're framing your thinking as a binary (exclusive vs not)

I don't frame my own thoughts in that manner, but it appears to be the frame of those I am trying to understand. I had thought I had a good handle on it in one context only to have a second context show me there was still an essential element I was missing.