Necessary, but not sufficient?

Last Sunday, our Pastor Ron said the phrase "necessary, but not sufficient". My ears perked up because it recalled recent conversations in the classroom about ultimate causes.

Of course, looking back at his sermon, he really didn't say the phrase that caught my attention. What he said instead was:

"... The Westminster Confession of Faith on which the Presbyterian Church is based says, "All things in Scripture are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, (They) are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture that not only the learned, but the unlearned may attain a sufficient understanding of them..."

So, while he touched on the concept, "necessary"- he shied away from the term "sufficient" when speaking of Scripture (his use of the term "sufficient" was in reference to us understanding the Scripture).

But what is sufficient? Is the Bible sufficient? Or is it "only" necessary? Necessary to understand God, but not sufficient to understand Him? Following Ron's central idea of his sermon that day- that we should approach the Bible as a group in order to gain a deeper understanding- follows in the tradition of current social science theorists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse).

The idea is that one is bounded by one's own experiences and knowledge when approaching a new topic (or even an old one) and thus one is limited in one's potential for understanding. Discourse- talking with others (although that is a shallow definition) can help spur deeper understanding.

Pastor Ron seems to advocate the same for understanding the Bible (and thus, one would presume, God). So, it is necessary to read the Bible- but not sufficient. One needs "discourse" also. Is there anything that is sufficient?

Theoretically one could arrive at ludicrous trains of thought following this exercise. Is God really necessary? Or, is our belief in Him all that is necessary? In other words, is it more important that we believe, or that He exists? If our beliefs affect our actions, belief may be more important in the conceptual sense (at least on Earth). If He exists, but no-one believes that, then as far as Earthly existence His reality would not seem to be that sufficient.

And that is probably the limit of my understanding: it all boils down to context. Universally it is sufficient that God exists. But our understanding of God is bound by our Earthly knowledge. We can't even begin to explain 1/1000th of God's makeup. If that is so, then maybe it is not important that His existence be sufficient. For us, all that is sufficient now (due to our ignorance) is that we believe. Maybe that is all we can shoot for in this life.