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

"The Reformation solas (by grace alone, through faith alone, according to Scripture alone)..."

You 'reformed types' amaze me. You doggedly parrot the solas mantra when in fact, when scrutinized, you don't really really believe in the last two quoted above.

Love the script, don't you?

 

I like this. I would compare it to reading the novel before you read what the critic says about the novel. What would be even worse would be to only read criticism and interpretation, or only read the Cliff Notes, but never read the novel for yourself. It doesn't mean there is not a time and a place for all of the criticism and interpretation and Cliff Notes. Not a perfect analogy, but hopefully some approximation of what you meant.

 

The biblical point, as the scriptures do not allow for any additional revelation, nor inspired apostles/prophets, after death of John!

 

Even if we have trouble agreeing with the definitions, most of us might be able to agree that there we know people like all four -- may even be one of them. While I don't agree with everything Frame says, he obviously sees the need to keep the line drawn taut on both ends, lest we run into the rock on one side or the other. I want to kind of juxtapose below what he says "on both ends," so to speak.

I particularly like this observation. I think we all have a tendency on a medium like this to jaw on about what we think of this or that, without ever making any reference to the scriptural thought behind it.

I also like the six points near his conclusion, which posit exercising caution: "The argument of this paper, however, should help us to guard against certain abuses of the confessionalist position, such as (1) emphasizing Confessions and traditions as if they were equal to Scripture in authority, (2) equating sola Scriptura with acceptance of confessional traditions, (3) automatic suspicion of any ideas which come from sources outside the tradition, (4) focusing on historical polemics rather than the dangers of the present day, (5) emphasizing differences with other confessional traditions to the virtual exclusion of recognizing commonalities, (6) failing to encourage self-criticism within our particular denominational, theological, and confessional communities."

 

I know some people I think qualify. One is a "tradition" (but possibly not in the way that Frame defines it) of the Two-Wine Theory. It is a tradition that can hardly be assailed with Scripture, because it is a theory that "sits above" Scripture and a grid that Scripture must be run through to get the right answer (I see the idea of Conditional Time Salvation much the same.)

I once knew a man who was so thoroughly committed to the 18th Article of the New Hampshire Confession that he couldn't or wouldn't fellowship with any premillennialists whatsoever. Now I think he actually rooted his own belief in Scripture, but very often he argued with other Baptists from the supremacy of the 18th Article (almost like it was something God handed down out of heaven).

Out of this six, this one speaks the least to my experience. I expect Frame thinks he has run across such folks, or he wouldn't have mentioned.

Here is another of those keeping-it-in-the-middle things, imo. Conservatism is always suspicious of something new, and rightly should be. But if we're never open to consider any "new ideas" we are solidly set in the fix of being the only ones who are right.

I agree, even though I am apparently a little tense toward one side and you toward another.

 

As I continued to consider this a bit more, I think one thing I differ most with Clark and Frame is in the terminology. I don't see Sola Scriptura and biblicism as two mutually exclusive ideas. So I don't see those who hold Sola Scriptura as doing it right, and biblicists as getting it wrong. I'd tend, instead, to see biblicists as folks who hold Sola Sciptura. I wouldn't define biblicism by those aberrations, but I do see people with some of the hermeneutical problems articulated by them.