cessationist confusion

Matt Waymeyer posted an interesting piece on the sufficiency of Scripture in Pulpit Magazine. The article is basically concerned with the integrationist denial of Scripture's sufficiency for counseling based on the idea that Scripture does not contain all truth, e.g., 2+2=4, E=MC2, how to build a car, etc.. Weymeyer quotes Jay Adams in response to this.

True, the Scriptures do not contain everything. They are not a textbook for electrical engineering, shipbuilding (unless you are building an ark), aeronautics, or a hundred and one other disciplines. But they are entirely adequate as the textbook for living, and for changing our living to conform to God’s requirements.

Then comes the John MacArthur summary.

Certainly, Scripture does not claim to be a thorough textbook on medicine, or physics, or any of the sciences. But psychology differs from these in two important regards. First, psychology is not a true science…. Second, and most significant, psychology, unlike medicine and physics, deals with matters that are fundamentally spiritual. In fact, the word psychology literally means, “study of the soul.” What are the deep psychological needs if they are not the spiritual issues the gospel is concerned with? And Scripture certainly does claim absolute sufficiency in addressing those needs: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, emphasis added). “The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul” (Ps. 19:7). Scripture itself promises believers the most comprehensive spiritual resources: “everything pertaining to life and godliness” (2 Pet. 1:3).

Followed by Waymeyer's conclusion.

[T]he Bible was never intended to be a textbook for disciplines such as math or physics, it does claim to be an all-sufficient guide for godly living. Therefore, if the goal of Christian counseling is godliness in the life of the counselee, the counselor need not look beyond the wisdom found in the pages of Scripture to be equipped for his task. For if the counselee’s problem is spiritual in nature, Scripture is sufficient to meet the demand. On the other hand, if the problem is the inability to bake tasty muffins, a cookbook might be a better place to look.

Here's the tension I have with their position. I believe Scripture is sufficient but it is the meaning of the word sufficient that is at odds here. In this specific article, these guys have limited sufficiency to matters pertaining to the soul. What are the boundaries for matters pertaining to the soul? Can God speak to me in a counseling situation to let me know if the person I am dealing with has an organic or a spiritual defect? I think yes. Isn't this a matter of the soul? Isn't the revelation beyond some specific instruction I might find in Scripture? What of the example of simply choosing the appropriate Scripture to use when addressing the counselee? Does this person need encouragement or confrontation? Based on Scripture, I see that God speaks today even on the proper use of Scripture. Waymeyer's and MacArthur's seem to preclude that.

As I've written before, we must be careful to never over-ride Scripture, it is the plumb-line but to carry that to some un-Biblical position such that God is silent is wrong.