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

OOPS

 

Correct. The churches did have names. Of course, those churches are now gone, so the Universal church is our present reality. I am in agreement with chapter 26.1 of the 1689 LBC:

The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

 

Brother, your earlier post was not clear to me either. Thank you for clarifying.

 

This could use some context. Who are these radical Anabaptists to whom he refers, and how did they enter American evangelicalism in the 19th century?

Not sure why the above quote would give anyone fits -- except for possibly worrying about who gets to define the heretics. Anybody ought to be worried about coming up with an interpretation that no one has thought of in 2000 years.

Perhaps I am missing something, but the "confessional Protestants" seem to be coming up with plenty of varying interpretations, evidenced by their many denominations and splits within denominations.

 

Tom,

I am not being defensive here but I have formally debated Biblicists who define themselves the way I portrayed them earlier in this thread. They treat the scriptures, and their interpretation of them, as something new. They repeat the same errors of the German higher critics. Their form of interpretation is a proven recipe for every false teaching the church has faced in the last 2000 years. It is kind of the like the word "Baptist". Anyone can throw a sign up in front of a building and call themselves a Baptist church. There is no official definition of what a Baptist is. The same with a Biblicist. Where is the official Biblicist clearinghouse that holds the authority to proclaim who is and who is not a Biblicist?

I am not saying that a Biblicist is bound to doctrine from the Patristic age or from the ecumenical councils. I am not saying a Biblicist is bound to the theology that was produced by the Reformers or Puritans. I am saying that to disregard out of hand the trove of orthodox scholarly work done by these men is careless at best. Paul told Timothy, "these things teach to faithful men" (2 Timothy 2:2). What things? Paul's apostolic teaching. The church is built upon the teaching of the apostles (Ephesians 2:20). These things were handed down to Timothy and Timothy handed them down to others. They were lost for roughly 1000 years during the dark ages and rediscovered during the Reformation. The works of doctrine and theology that we have available to us are not scripture, but they are a record of the orthodox Christian faith. As we dive into the Word and study it for ourselves, should we not feel at least a twinge of concern if we come up with conclusions that are radically different than what the church has considered being orthodox? If nothing else such conclusions should cause us to rethink our research and send us back to the Bible.

It is OK if we do not agree on these things. There is a reason why I chose "Reformed" as my screen name. I am not exactly espousing a populist position on this board.

 

Brother, I wrote earlier that I am not a big fan of R. Scott Clark. Clark labels any Baptist as an Anabaptist. I went toe-to-toe with him on another board about that years ago and it was like arguing with a brick wall.

It gave them fits because they thought Sproul's quote was an attempt to backdoor papist tradition into evangelicalism.

You are quite right. No one denomination has a lock on the truth. The best we can do is try to be as biblical as possible. The one thing confessional Presbyterians and Baptists have in their favor is an appeal to a strong history of scholarship. Of course, scholarship itself is not authoritative but it represents a body of work in the area of theology and doctrine. It is a good ledge to stand on instead of navigating deep waters by oneself.

 

Have you?

Clark mentions (vaguely) some early 16th century anti-Trinitarians, and the later anti-Trinitarians called Socinians. With a very broad brush we might paint them Anabaptists, but these are not what I generally think of when I think of Anabaptists (Simons, Marpeck, Hubmaier, e.g). And while there are Unitarians in the American religion, I don't think any Socinians "swept across and transformed American evangelicalism in the 19th century."

 

Big "R" Reformed is typically reserved for Presbyterians. My Presbyterian friends bristle at the notion of a Baptist claiming any affinity to the Reformed faith apart from infant baptism.

I believe only the Elect will be saved. The Elect is made up of individuals called from eternity. Ergo, if a person has not been called they will not be saved. The lapsarian debates try to take the sting out of that truth by saying the God simply passes over those who are not predestined for salvation. I find myself chuckling at that. God passes over? I just do not see that in scripture, although even the Reformers debated that point.

No one is saved until they are regenerated in-time.

Deny missions? Calvinists have a long rich history of missions which I embrace.

The Gospel is the means of salvation and will continue to be preached until the end of the age.

The Great Commission? Praise God that it is in full force and going strong!

 

As say you I have missed the point of the piece, I think you have missed the point of my point. Clark's reference to the radical Anabaptists is mere ad hominem when he doesn't tie the two together together.