God’s Word Is Necessary - by KEVIN DEYOUNG

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---------------------

The author is not writing to defend the necessity of Scripture, he's writing to negate charismatics. And in attempting to do so he makes several obvious missteps.

Further, the author barely quotes the Bible. But he is able to provide substantial quotes from a Statement of Faith and also a theologian.

We must label this "Bad Bible Teaching."

-------------------------------

This article is part of Crossway's effort to support their One Million Bibles Initiative, which is focused on providing Bibles to parents, children, and others in need throughout the Global South.

What We Want Most

(...) 

The doctrine of the necessity of Scripture reminds us of our predicament: the One we need to know most cannot be discovered on our own. (Undocumented assertion. It seems to us that God can be discovered:

Ro. 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.)

And it assures us of a solution: this same ineffable ("Incapable of being expressed; indescribable or unutterable.")

One has made himself known through his word. As the Westminster Confession of Faith explains, “Although the light of nature and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation.” (This is a from a statement of faith. How about a Scripture?

Remember the author's claim, that God cannot be discovered on our own? This excerpt from a statement of faith makes a different claim, that salvation isn't possible from the evidence of creation.)

Holy Scripture, the Confession goes on to say, is therefore “most necessary” (WCF 1.1). The Scriptures are our spectacles (to use Calvin’s phrase), the lenses through which we see God, the world, and ourselves rightly. We cannot truly know God, his will, or the way of salvation apart from the Bible. (And we cannot truly know God if all there is is the Bible. 

Jn. 5:39-40 You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

Ep. 1:18-19 I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe.)

We need Scripture to live the truly good life. (It's certainly one of the things we need, but not everything.

Ga. 5:25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.)

We need Scripture to live forever. “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life” (John 6:68). (Um, no. The disciples were not talking about Scripture, they were referring to what He was speaking. "Words" is rhéma, that which is or has been uttered by the living voice, thing spoken, word...)

There is no other book like the Bible. It reveals a different kind of wisdom, comes from a different source, and tells of a different love.

A Different Source

So where do we go to learn the things God has revealed? Do we look to the trees? What about the inner light? How about community standards? Maybe human reason and experience? The clear testimony of 1 Corinthians is that only God can tell us about God. Just as the spirit of a person discloses the thoughts and feelings and intentions of that person, so also no one can make known the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:11). (Let's quote it:

1Co. 2:11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no-one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.)

The only Being knowledgeable enough, wise enough, and skillful enough to reveal God to you is God himself.

Which raises an interesting question: isn’t Paul really talking about the inner working of the Spirit and not the necessity of the Scriptures? You might be thinking to yourself, “I agree completely. We need God to tell us about God.

I can’t know the truth unless God reveals it to me. And God speaks to me through the still small voice in my heart. When I look deep inside myself, that’s where I hear from God. We receive the Spirit of God, who speaks to our spirit, telling us the things we can learn only from God.”.

Sounds plausible, but is that Paul’s point? The “we” in 1 Corinthians 2:12 (“we have received . . . the Spirit [of] God”) does not refer to all the Corinthians or to all of us, but to Paul and his companions. (Did the author just tell us we do not have the Spirit of God???

Now certainly the pronouns Paul used are important. And we do see that Paul was referring to himself and his company. But notice that Paul applied these to the church in Corinth. He did this by expanding his narrative: 

1Co. 2:14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

He's no longer referring to the exclusive "we." 

Paul then pivots to addressing the Corinthians directly:  

1Co. 3:1 Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly — mere infants in Christ.

Paul was setting up his audience to understand that they were just like those who do not have the Spirit.) 

The contrast starts in verses 1–5 with Paul’s “I” and then transitions to the “we” who imparted to the Corinthians “a secret and hidden wisdom of God” (v. 7). Paul is clearly thinking of “you Corinthians” and “we who have ministered the gospel to you” (see 3:9). So while it’s true that every believer receives the Spirit and each of us needs the Spirit of God to illuminate the word of God, (But the author just denied that Paul was referring to the Corinthians regarding the Spirit!)

Paul is speaking here of the unique apostolic deposit of truth he has received and has passed on to the Corinthians. This is precisely what Jesus promised would happen (John 16:12–15), and it is how the apostles understood their teaching: not as the word of man but as the word of God (1 Thess. 2:13; cf. Rev. 1:1–2). Nothing in 1 Corinthians 2 suggests that the real way to hear from God is to seek out the bewildering ruminations of the self. (??? Who has suggested such a thing?)

Already in Corinth—Paul’s most “charismatic” congregation (This is an assessment based on what the Bible does not say. We don't know how "charismatic" other churches were in the first century, only that the Corinthian church needed correction in this regard. That says nothing at all about other churches.)

—we see there is an objective standard of truth which supersedes private impressions or experience (1 Cor. 14:37–38; 15:1–4). (No Christian denies that the Bible supersedes any and all other things. But let's quote the verses:

1Co. 14:37-38 If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38 If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored. 

1Co. 15:1 Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 15:4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures...

Does the reader anywhere see in these quotes the primacy of the Bible over private impressions or experience?)

True, for a time the early church existed without the completed New Testament. But even then, their life and doctrine were in submission to the Scriptures they already had. And the new revelation being placed alongside the Old Testament had been carefully scrutinized as coming from the apostolic band (Eph. 2:20) (Let's quote it: 

Ep. 2:20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

There is nothing here about revelation. Further, non-apostles wrote Scripture, Like Luke, Mark, and Hebrews.)

and adhering to the apostolic gospel (Gal. 1:8). “Naturally, as long as the apostles were alive and visited the churches,” Bavinck writes, “no distinction was made between their spoken and their written word. Tradition and Scripture were still unified. But when the first period was past and time-distance from the apostles grew greater, their writings became more important, and the necessity of the writings gradually intensified. The necessity of Holy Scripture, in fact, is not a stable but an ever-increasing attribute.”1 (Certainly true, but irrelevant. No Christian doubts the importance of Scripture.)

Paul knew the Corinthians needed the wisdom of God that could come only from the Spirit of God, and he wrote to them this word with the understanding that he had uniquely received the Spirit whereby he could proclaim to them the truth of the gospel. (Paul never uttered a word about uniquely receiving the Spirt. That is nonsense. No Bible verse says such a thing. 

He certainly had a unique calling:

1Co. 15:8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

But early on the apostles recognized that others received the Holy Spirit exactly as they had: 

Ac. 10:47 “Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.”

It is quite clear from Scripture that the writers of the NT were moved by the Holy Spirit to write what would become Scripture. But there is no sense of specialness conveyed by the Bible regarding this work.

We do have Paul threatening to knock heads: 

1Co. 4:21 What do you prefer? Shall I come to you with a whip, or in love and with a gentle spirit?

The issue was with Paul's authority as an apostle, not regarding whether or not he wrote Scripture. The Bible never says that writing Scripture was a unique dispensation of the Scripture or that doing so made one special.)

People talk about “spirituality” as if it were generated by concentrated attention to the inner workings of the human soul. (What? Sez who? We know of no Christian who claims such a thing.)

But true spirituality is not something found within us. (What about

Ro. 8:5 Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires.

Ro. 8:14 ...those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

Ga. 5:16 So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature.

Ga. 5:25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.)

It is something outside of us, created by the agency of God’s transcendent Holy Spirit. (The Holy Spirit who now lives inside of us.)

We need the Spirit who is from God if we are to understand the things of God (1 Cor. 2:12). (First he says no, then yes, then no, then yes. Make up your mind, sir.)

And where do we go to hear from God’s Spirit? (Um, God's Spirit?)

To those who were entrusted to be the very mouthpiece of the Spirit (1 Cor. 2:9–13), to those who wrote the very oracles of God (Rom. 3:2), to those who have written down what God himself has breathed out (2 Tim. 3:16). (Oh. Of course, the Bible. But what about the Spirit?)

So this is the necessity of Scripture in a nutshell: We need the revelation of God to know God, and the only sure, saving, final, perfect revelation of God is found in Scripture. (It seems the author believes that the Bible saves people.) 

(...)

Notes:
Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 1: Prolegomena, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 470.