The Difference Between Sola Scriptura And Biblicism (R. Scott Clark)

Agreed. The Bible has been used to support slavery and condemn slavery. It has been used to oppress women and liberate women. Even the Nazis used the bible to justify the holocaust. This, of course, was due to poor hermeneutics that did not take into account the proper historical and literary contexts of scripture. Instead, it is when people approach scripture with their agenda driven presuppositions that they tend to "read into scripture" or make scripture "fit" what they believe or want to believe.

 

"Charles Hodge

The Bible is a plain book. It is intelligible by the people. And they have the right, and are bound to read and interpret it for themselves; so that their faith may rest on the testimony of the Scriptures, and not on that of the Church. Such is the doctrine of Protestants on this subject. It is not denied that the Scriptures contain many things hard to be understood; that they require diligent study; that all men need the guidance of the Holy Spirit in order to right knowledge and true faith. But it is maintained that in all things necessary to salvation they are sufficiently plain to be understood even by the unlearned.

It is not denied that the people, learned and unlearned, in order to the proper understanding of the Scriptures, should not only compare Scripture with Scripture, and avail themselves of all the means in their power to aid them in their search after the truth, but they should also pay the greatest deference to the faith of the Church. If the Scriptures be a plain book, and the Spirit performs the functions of a teacher to all the children of God, it follows inevitably that they must agree in all essential matters in their interpretation of the Bible. And from that fact it follows that for an individual Christian to dissent from the faith of the universal Church (i. e., the body of true believers), is tantamount to dissenting from the Scriptures themselves.

What Protestants deny on this subject is, that Christ has appointed any officer, or class of officers, in his Church to whose interpretation of the Scriptures the people are bound to submit as of final authority. What they affirm is that He has made it obligatory upon every man to search the Scriptures for himself, and determine on his own discretion what they require him to believe and to do....."
Perspicuity of the Scriptures. The Right of Private Judgment - Christforums

27 And as for you, the anointing which ye received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any one teach you; but as his anointing teacheth you; concerning all things, and is true, and is no lie, and even as it taught you, ye abide in him. 1 Jn 2

8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your teacher, and all ye are brethren. Mt 23

5 But if any of you lacketh wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all liberally and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. Jas 1

18 Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold Wondrous things out of thy law. Ps 118

 

Quite the contrary, it underscores it!

...besides having poor reading comprehension you make no bones about pitting scripture against scripture do you?

 

Ah, yes, The bible in one hand and a Systematic Theology in the other (or on the desk if its 2 or more volumes and/or you are a senior citizen).

 

I read enough to know its the samo samo I have been reading for 60 years or so.

It has that same sleepy quality of verbiage that young whiper-snapers think when they believe they have made a world shattering truth apart from scripture (although you did indeed quote scripture in your first sentence rebuttal rebuttal, Hmmmm?) Which i suppose might be, could be, on a chance be but I'm still waiting.

 

Full disclosure. For personal reasons, I am not a big R. Scott Clark fan. That said, I have to give credit when it is due. In the article, Clark makes this statement:

This is the difference between Biblicism and Sola Scriptura. I understand what @TCassidy said about historical-grammatical hermeneutics, but this is not what big "B" Biblicism is. I have debated more than a handful of Biblicists and they have all shared one common trait: they interpret scripture independent of the church. The start with their understanding of the text. So, at its lowest common denominator, the individual reigns supreme when it comes to interpretation. This is a serious problem. @TCassidy, to be fair, you may not be referring to this type of interpretive system. Unfortunately, many self-proclaimed Biblicists do. They say things like, "I do not want to be pinned down by the works of others. I appeal directly the scriptures." What they are really saying is that they are smarter and more reasoned than all those who preceded them. That is arrogance.

 

Thank you for writing this. Do individual Christians possess the Holy Spirit? Yes. Is it the Holy Spirit that leads individual Christians into all truth (JN 16:13)? Yes. The key thing to remember is that God never intended for individual Christians to exist outside of the church. I am not referring to a specific denomination or even the Roman Catholic Church. I am referring to the universal church. All Christians are part of the body of Christ. The body functions at the local church level but it is still part of a greater whole. As Paul wrote:

God has gifted the church with pastors and teachers, "for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ" (Ephesians 4:12). Pastors and teachers gain their knowledge from the foundation that was laid by the apostles and prophets, and they, in turn, gained their knowledge from God. We must take great care that we do not depart from the design of the Chief Architect:

1 Corinthians 3:10-11 10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it. 11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

In his book, "The Agony of Deceit", R.C. Sproul wrote:

Some Baptists I know have had conniption fits over the above quote from Sproul. They believe it is de facto Romanism. R.C. Sproul was not equating biblical tradition with Roman Catholic tradition; he had in mind the sound teaching of the church handed down through the centuries, having been built on the foundation laid by Christ (c.f. 1 Cor. 3:11).

 

You ever experienced this heartburn?:

2 And they said one to another, Was not our heart burning within us, while he spake to us in the way, while he opened to us the scriptures? Lu 24

....this joy?:

162 I rejoice at thy word, As one that findeth great spoil. Ps 119

...or does following the Reformed script do it for you?

 

...unable to make the connection, eh?:

8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your teacher, and all ye are brethren. Mt 23

27 And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. Lu 24

...I guess your Reformed script doesn't cover it...

 

So I know.