Part 2 of 4 in the “Counseling Crossroads” Series
What Do We Mean by “Sufficiency” and Why Do the Redefinitions Matter?
One key claim biblical counselors have always taken seriously is that God’s Word is sufficient.
We don’t mean that Scripture is a science textbook or a replacement for a mechanical manual. But when it comes to matters of the soul, to interpreting suffering, offering hope, addressing sin, walking through grief, restoring brokenness, and pursuing wholeness, Scripture lacks nothing essential.
To put it plainly: sufficiency means that God’s Word is complete, clear, and authoritative for all matters pertaining to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3), including the care of souls. It does not need supplementation from psychological theory to be relevant. Rather, it needs skillful application, spiritual discernment, and pastoral wisdom. While Scripture may not speak exhaustively to every subject, it speaks definitively and sufficiently to every human condition.
Yet in recent years, “sufficiency” has been subtly redefined. It is increasingly framed not as a complete foundation for soul care, but as a theological starting point that requires supplementation by other systems, especially clinical psychology and trauma science.
Southeastern’s Clinically Informed Biblical Counseling (CIBC) model and its related Redemptive Counseling (RC) approach assert that Scripture is central, but not comprehensive. They propose that Scripture gives us theological categories, while the actual methodology of care must be drawn from the field of mental health.
This is not a new discussion. But the stakes are different now. The conversation is no longer about whether psychological insights can occasionally illustrate biblical principles. The question now being posed is whether Scripture is enough to understand and care for people at the deepest level.
Let’s look at a few common redefinitions and why they matter.
A Word About the Language of Pushback
As this conversation has been unfolding publicly, we can continue to anticipate responses that will insist, “We affirm sufficiency,” or, “We are not integrationist.” It is important to recognize that part of what makes these newer models so difficult to evaluate is their use of shared language with redefined meaning.
CIBC and RC proponents often retain familiar theological terms, like sufficiency, wisdom, discernment, and care, but apply them within a reshaped framework that blends biblical concepts with therapeutic methodologies. This rhetorical strategy creates the impression of continuity while introducing subtle redefinitions.
As one example, the phrase “clinically informed” may be presented as simply being aware of broader insights. But in practice, it signals an intentional decision to place clinical frameworks alongside (and sometimes above) Scripture in forming counseling methodology.
We also anticipate arguments along the lines of, “We don’t replace Scripture, we supplement it.” But when a supplement becomes your interpretive lens, it is no longer a supplement; it is now a source of authority. And once you wear a new lens long enough, it starts to shape what you see, and what you no longer see.
For those reading this series, we encourage charitable clarity: listen not only to the language being used, but the definitions underneath.
Redefining Sufficiency as Spiritual Authority Only
One of the most popular rhetorical strategies is to affirm the “sufficiency of Scripture” for spiritual matters, while quietly redefining everything else—grief, trauma, anxiety, abuse, addiction, identity struggles—as clinical categories. This move essentially partitions the human soul. The Word is sufficient for preaching and piety, but not for psychology.
This dualism fractures human personhood and undermines biblical anthropology. Scripture does not merely speak to the spiritual compartment of a person; it speaks to the whole person, because God created us as embodied souls.
To say that the Bible is not sufficient to deal with trauma or anxiety is to assume those struggles can be accurately interpreted without reference to God, sin, redemption, or the nature of man. That is not neutrality. It is a different worldview entirely.
Redefining Sufficiency as Needing “Common Grace Science”
Another strategy is to assert that Scripture is our “primary lens” but that the so-called “science of counseling” fills in what the Bible lacks. This is usually paired with a reframing of common grace, not as God’s benevolent restraint of sin and provision of natural blessings (sunshine, rain, conscience, etc.), but as a theological warrant for importing therapeutic constructs wholesale.
In the CIBC/RC framework, psychological theories, diagnostic categories (like those in the DSM), and clinical formulations are described as common grace discoveries. Scripture becomes a partner in dialogue, not the final word. But this approach confuses the benefit of God’s general revelation (e.g., through observable patterns or physical healing) with the epistemological authority (the authority that determines how we understand people and their problems) required to interpret the human soul.
To use an illustration: medical science can help us reset a broken bone. But it cannot interpret guilt, shame, bitterness, or fear. Those categories require a theologically accurate anthropology (our view of human nature), not just observation and pattern recognition.
This matters profoundly when counseling those impacted by suffering that results in trauma. Clinical models may offer insight into patterns of avoidance, “triggers,” or emotional dysregulation (what Scripture might describe as an overwhelmed heart, a lack of self-control, or disordered affections). But only God’s Word can tell the true story of who we are, what has happened to us, and what redemption looks like.
Sufficiency and the Shaping of Authority
What lies underneath the sufficiency debate is ultimately a matter of authority. If Scripture is not sufficient, something else must take its place. In these newer models, clinical psychology and secular trauma frameworks are not merely supporting actors: they become interpretive authorities. We don’t just borrow their language. We borrow their lenses and listen through their filters.
And once you put on a new set of lenses and hear through different filters, you begin to read the Bible differently.
You begin with psychological assumptions and retrofit the Bible into them. You read “healing” as emotional regulation, “deliverance” as trauma processing, and “identity in Christ” as a metaphor for self-concept repair.
This is not biblical counseling. It is psychological counseling with a biblical garnish.
The Fruit We’re After
At Truth in Love, we want to be clear: we are not anti-science, anti-medicine, or anti-research. What we cannot accept is any model of care that displaces Scripture as the governing authority for soul work. The Word of God is not silent about suffering and trauma. It is not vague about sorrow, anxiety, despair, or shame. And it is not insufficient to interpret the deepest pain or provide a path to lasting hope.
We are not simply clinging to the past or resisting innovation. We are stewarding the clarity of the gospel for the sake of those we serve.
If we confuse therapeutic fluency with theological faithfulness, we may appear culturally relevant while becoming spiritually unmoored.
-> See Our “Statement on the Sufficiency of Scripture“
Coming in Part 3: Who Gets to Define “Care”?
Next, we want to take a deeper look at how redefinitions of counseling and care reflect competing views of authority and how even seemingly neutral terms like “mental health” or “trauma” carry assumptions that shape how churches minister to real people.
SDG
Words Matter: Refining the Conversation 