Does Scripture Alone Really Suffice? Responding to Wes Huff’s Argument 

Wes Huff recently argued that Scripture is sufficient because it alone is the “speech of God.” In this episode, Karlo examines his argument step-by-step and explain why it ultimately fails.

TRANSCRIPT:  

Wes Huff recently released a video where he gave several reasons why he’s not Catholic. One of those reasons was the sufficiency of Scripture.  

What exactly did he mean by that? And more importantly, how did he defend it?  

Stick around—because that’s what we’re going to talk about today.  

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  

Alright! Let’s dive in.  

Here’s the relevant section of Wes’s video where he defines what he means by “the sufficiency of Scripture” and gives his argument in favor of it. Wes states:  

[VIDEO] 

And the first one right off the bat is the issue of sufficiency. So first, sufficient meaning that in what they are and in what they do, they meet the needs entirely of their proposed intent. So if we’re talking about the sufficiency of scripture, in other words, and I’ve said this elsewhere, scripture is ontologically unique. So though it contains both divine and human authorship, scripture remains the speech of God. (02:59) Nothing else we possess as a rule is akin to scripture. Likewise, scripture functions unrivaled in its authority. Nothing we possess as a rule does that, but both in what it does and in what it is, scripture is unique and that uniqueness provides the basis for its sufficiency. Scripture intends to communicate to the body of Christ both the primary and infallible means for faith and practice. So what scripture intends to communicate when properly understood contextually and exegetically it does.  

So, let’s begin with what Wes means by “the sufficiency of Scripture.” Again, he says, 

[VIDEO] 

“[S]ufficient meaning that in what they are and in what they do, they meet the needs entirely of their proposed intent.”  

So, for Wes, Scripture is sufficient insofar as it entirely meets the needs of its proposed intent.  

Okay. Fair enough. But then the next question is: what does Wes think Scripture’s proposed intent actually is? He answers that too. He says,  

[VIDEO] 

“Scripture intends to communicate to the body of Christ both the primary and infallible means for faith and practice.” 

So, putting those two statements together, we can summarize Wes’s view like this: Scripture entirely meets the needs for communicating the means of Christian faith and practice. Or, stated another way, nothing else is needed to communicate the means of Christian faith and practice because Scripture suffices for that task.  

Now, at this point, the key question becomes: why think that’s true? Why think Scripture entirely meets the needs for communicating the means of Christian faith and practice?  

Here’s Wes’s answer:  

[VIDEO] 

“[I]f we’re talking about the sufficiency of scripture, in other words, and I’ve said this elsewhere, scripture is ontologically unique. So though it contains both divine and human authorship, scripture remains the speech of God. (02:59) Nothing else we possess as a rule is akin to scripture. Likewise, scripture functions unrivaled in its authority. Nothing we possess as a rule does that, but both in what it does and in what it is, scripture is unique and that uniqueness provides the basis for its sufficiency.  

So, according to Wes, it’s Scripture’s unique nature as the “speech of God” that makes it sufficient—sufficient to entirely meet the needs for communicating the means of Christian faith and practice.  

Now, for the sake of clarity moving forward, I think we can summarize Wes’s argument this way:  

Premise one: Whatever is the speech of God entirely meets the needs for communicating the means for Christian faith and practice. 

Premise two: Scripture alone is the speech of God. 

Conclusion: Therefore, Scripture entirely meets the needs for communicating the means for Christian faith and practice.  

Now, the argument itself is logically valid. The conclusion follows from the premises. So if we’re going to challenge the argument, we have to show either that one of the premises is false or that one of the premises lacks justification.  

As Catholics, we really don’t have any issue with premise two, at least insofar as Scripture alone is verbally inspired. So the focus has to be premise one: whatever is the speech of God entirely meets the needs for communicating the means for Christian faith and practice.  

Here’s the first problem: Wes doesn’t actually argue for that premise. He simply states it. He never tells us why being the “speech of God” would entail that Scripture entirely meets the needs for communicating the means of Christian faith and practice.  

And that’s important. Because before we can affirm premise one as true, we need some reason to think there’s a connection between “being the speech of God” and “entirely meeting the needs for communicating the means of Christian faith and practice.” Without an argument for that connection, the argument stalls.   

Now, it seems to me there are at least two possible ways Wes could try to justify premise one.  

The first path would be logical entailment. In other words, maybe the very fact that something is the speech of God logically guarantees that it entirely meets the needs for communicating the means of Christian faith and practice.  

The second path would be evidence from the speech of God itself—that is, evidence from Scripture.  

Let’s take the first option: logical entailment.  

I don’t think that path works.  

And here’s why.  

Just because something is the speech of God doesn’t mean God could not also choose to communicate the means of Christian faith and practice in other ways as well. If God willed to communicate through additional means, then those additional means would also be needed for communicating Christian faith and practice. And if that’s true, then Scripture alone would not entirely meet the needs for communicating the means of Christian faith and practice.  

Take, for example, content inspiration.  

God could reveal divine truths to a preacher without verbally inspiring every single word used to communicate those truths. In that case, the content being communicated would still be divinely revealed and would still be needed for communicating Christian faith and practice, even though the verbal form itself wouldn’t be inspired.  

And, in fact, that’s exactly what we see with the apostles.  

The Holy Spirit inspired them with divinely revealed truths such that what they preached was genuinely the “word of God,” as Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 2:13, even though the verbal form of their preaching wasn’t necessarily inspired in the same way Scripture is.  

So the New Testament itself shows that God can communicate divine revelation in ways other than verbally inspired writings.  

And there’s more.  

God could also choose to communicate the means for Christian faith and practice by appointing a living teaching authority—an infallible magisterium—to preserve and authentically interpret divine revelation. 

And if God did establish such an authority, then that authority would also be needed for communicating the means of Christian faith and practice. In this order of providence, Scripture, even as the speech of God, would not by itself entirely meet the needs for communicating those means.

So the mere fact that Scripture is the speech of God doesn’t logically entail that it entirely meets the needs for communicating the means for Christian faith and practice. In other words, the logical entailment route for justifying premise one is blocked. 

Alright. So let’s move now to the second possible path: evidence from Scripture itself. 

And Wes must take this route. Because if Scripture itself doesn’t teach premise one, then premise one actually becomes self-defeating.  

Let me explain. 

Ask yourself this question: is premise one itself part of Christian faith and practice? 

Remember, premise one says: “The speech of God entirely meets the needs for communicating the means for Christian faith and practice.” 

Now, I don’t see how Wes could answer “no” to that question because he presents this proposition as essential to the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture—a doctrine he clearly believes Christians are supposed to hold. 

So it seems he has to say yes, premise one does belong to Christian faith and practice. 

But if that’s true, then Scripture must communicate that proposition, since, according to premise one, Scripture must entirely meet the needs for communicating the means for Christian faith.  

Here’s the logic:  

Premise one: The speech of God entirely meets the needs for communicating the means for Christian faith and practice. 

Premise two: That very proposition is itself part of Christian faith and practice. 

Conclusion: Therefore, the speech of God must communicate that proposition.  

And that leads us to the crucial question: does Scripture actually teach this? Does the Bible teach that Scripture entirely meets the needs for communicating the means for Christian faith and practice?  

I argue no. 

There’s no passage that states it explicitly. Nor is there data within Scripture from which we can derive it by good and necessary consequence.  

Remember, the apostles operated with a two-fold infallible rule of faith paradigm: their writings and apostolic preaching. Even Protestant apologists acknowledge this. So, whatever NT text that Protestant might appeal to for the sufficiency of scripture, the NT author would have to be speaking about the future Church. But no passage that a Protestant might appeal to for the sufficiency of scripture, like 2 Timothy 3:16-17, speaks of the future Church. Thus, there’s no passage in the speech of God that can justify premise one.   

Now, if premise one is not found within the boundaries of the speech of God—that is, Scripture—then Scripture does not entirely meet the needs for communicating the means for Christian faith and practice, which means premise one refutes itself.  

And that’s a problem: if premise one fails, then the whole argument fails.  

So, at least as it’s presented in this video, Wes’s argument from Scripture being uniquely the “speech of God” doesn’t successfully establish the sufficiency of Scripture. 

Now, maybe Wes has another argument that he would develop in a longer treatment devoted specifically to this topic. That’s certainly possible. But as the argument stands in this particular video, I don’t think it works.  

Now, after making his argument, Wes anticipates an objection—namely, the objection from disagreements and misinterpretations of Scripture.  

Here’s what he says:  

[VIDEO] 

And this doesn’t preclude misunderstanding or misinterpretation. Even when God spoke directly via the prophets to people in Israel or the surrounding nations around Israel, it didn’t mean that they wouldn’t misunderstand, twist, or misapply those prophetic words despite them being near divine dictation. God is speaking directly to the prophet and there’s a divine communication there that it is infallible, right? God he’s communicating those words and that doesn’t mean that everyone who’s hearing them is going to apply them perfectly. (04:19):“Scripture being sufficient and is sufficient due to its divine origin.” And that doesn’t mean then that you won’t have individuals who disagree with what it means or how it should be understood. That is why the discipline of interpretation and the study of the original languages has been a core emphasis by so many throughout Christian history. Our goal is, as Alan Selm of Canterbury said, is faith seeking understanding because we are fallible and God is not. And it is not God’s fault that we fallibly understand or misunderstand his infallible words and likewise does not negate that due to the origin being divine, scripture is therefore insufficient to communicate properly without an infallible interpreter.  

Now, Wes’s basic point here is that disagreements and misinterpretations don’t prove Scripture is insufficient. 

One problem is that Wes seems to shift his meaning of sufficiency. Earlier, Wes defined sufficiency as Scripture entirely meeting the needs for communicating the means for Christian faith and practice.  

But here, he seems to be talking about sufficiency in a different sense—namely, that Scripture itself as a means of communication is not wanting and properly communicates what God intends to communicate.

Notice the line:  

[VIDEO] 

and likewise does not negate that due to the origin being divine, scripture is therefore insufficient to communicate properly without an infallible interpreter. 

To properly communicate the means for Christian faith and practice is conceptually different than entirely meeting the needs to communicate the means for Christian faith and practice. To say a person is doing his part well in communicating through some means is one thing. To say that means is sufficient to communicate everything that person wants to communicate is another.   

So, at this point, Wes seems to be defending the perfection of God’s act of communication. In other words, if we misunderstand Scripture, that’s our fault—not God’s. The defect lies in us, not in God’s communication. Wes makes this very point:   

[VIDEO] 

And it is not God’s fault that we fallibly understand or misunderstand his infallible words.  

On that point, Wes is correct. Our misunderstandings don’t prove God failed to communicate properly. Human fallibility doesn’t imply divine failure. 

But here’s the issue: the Catholic objection isn’t fundamentally about whether God communicates perfectly.  

The issue is whether God intended an order of providence in which Christians are left without a definitive means for resolving doctrinal disputes that arise over the interpretation of Scripture.  

That’s the real question. Did God intend for Christians to have no infallible mechanism for settling interpretive disagreements?  

And Wes’s response doesn’t really address that concern.  

Now, maybe Wes wants to return to his earlier definition of sufficiency and argue that disagreements still don’t undermine Scripture’s sufficiency in that original sense.  

But I think there’s still a problem.  

Think about it this way.  

Surely, a correct understanding of divine revelation is needed for effectively communicating the means of Christian faith and practice.  

But if God left Christians without a definitive means of resolving disputes over difficult passages—say, through an infallible magisterium—then Christians would be left without any guaranteed way to arrive at the correct understanding of those disputed teachings. 

And if that need remains unmet, then Scripture would not entirely meet the needs for communicating the means for Christian faith and practice, which means, by Wes’s own original definition, Scripture would not be sufficient.  

So I don’t think Wes’s response to the objection from disagreements ultimately succeeds in defending his view.  

Alright, let’s bring this to a close.  

Wes argues that Scripture is sufficient because it alone is the speech of God. But as we’ve seen, being the speech of God does not logically entail that Scripture entirely meets the needs for communicating the means for Christian faith and practice. God could communicate through other means as well—such as apostolic preaching or an infallible magisterium—and if he did, those means would also be necessary.  

Second, the proposition that “Scripture entirely meets the needs for communicating the means for Christian faith and practice” would itself have to be communicated by Scripture if it truly belongs to Christian faith. But Scripture nowhere teaches that proposition. And that makes the proposition self-defeating. 

And finally, the issue with disagreements over Scripture is not whether God fails to communicate properly. The issue is whether God intended Christians to be left without a definitive means for resolving interpretive disputes about Scripture’s meaning. 

So while I genuinely appreciate the charity and thoughtfulness with which Wes presented his reasons for not being Catholic, I don’t think his argument for the sufficiency of Scripture succeeds. 

Well, my friends, that’s it for today. 

If you found this episode helpful, be sure to like it, hype it, comment below, and share it with someone who might benefit from hearing it. 

And if you haven’t subscribed to the channel yet, make sure to do that as well. 

For more resources, check out Catholic Answers at catholic.com and my personal website at karlobroussard.com. 

And if you’d like me to come speak at your event, visit catholicanswersspeakers.com. 

Lastly, I’d love for you to consider supporting me on Patreon. I really can’t continue producing this content without your financial support. You can find me at doctorkarlo.com—with “doctor” spelled out. 

Thanks for hanging out with me today, and I’ll see you next time.