Featured Biblicists and Pharisees

"Biblicism" is "adherence to the letter of the Bible" (Webster's). The first known use of the word is 1805. A Biblicist is one who holds to what is called a "literal" interpretation of Scripture. This incorporates forms of speech and genre, of course. I believe, for example, that the Earth was created in six days. I believe death entered the world through Adam (prior to his sin there was no death).

Pharisees maintained a strict observance to traditions surrounding the Law. They added to the Law a tradition to help them keep what was commanded in Scripture. They believed the observance of the Law belonged to the people rather than the Temple.

A Pharisee is the exact opposite of a Biblicist. Where a Pharisee would add to Scripture a Biblicist would turn directly to Scripture.

Excess can be problematic, of course, because we are all human.

 

Yep. You get a verse. Ask what it means and you get "it means what it says".

Most are in between, though. We call those at the very end of each spectrum (the "hypers") "nuts".

 

I think that there are extremes. A Pharisee may take a wooden approach but what distinguish them was less their approach to Scripture and more their application and extra-biblical doctrines.

Paul, for example, was not ignorant when it came to the use of language. It would be impossible to be a Pharisee who never ran into the occasional metaphor.

But where they were to remember the Sabbath they added laws to make sure the people observed the Sabbath. Their theology replaced Scripture. Their commentary on Scripture became their religion.

 

I thank God that each of us has our understanding of Scripture. He reaches down to us and loves us.

All "Biblicist" means is that we "do not go beyond what is written" (1 Corinthians 4:6). I wish you and others shared this position. It would make coming to a mutual understanding much easier.

But I also know that people, being people, often have to trust in extra-biblical means. I believe God uses these traditions to communicate the gospel.

So I try hard not to judge other servants of Christ (Romans 14:4). That is not my place. My place is to be faithful to what I have been given.

I do believe in the sufficiency of Scripture. That you are thankful to reject that view is not my business. God is a God of means. I have witnessed God use extra-biblical means and traditions to communicate to men biblical truths to include the gospel.

So if for you not "going beyond what is written" would be a stumbling block then I am also thankful God has used extra-biblical tradition to communicate to you in a meaningful way.

At the same time I am thankful for those of us who can observe that passage and trust in God's Word as sufficient, being careful not to add to or go beyond what is written.

I am also thankful that we are not one another's judge. We can discuss differences and debate understandings. But in the end we are accountable to God and not one another.

Blessings

 

Post #10 could tell a different story

(sorry... The "I thank God I am not a Biblicist" was too ironic to pass up.....)

The Pharisee took his stand and was praying like this: ‘God, I thank You that I’m not like other people.. Luke 18:11

 

All it means is someone who interprets the Bible literally. This includes recognizing figures of speach, linguistic tools, and genre.

Doctrine is the application of Scripture, and is more involved.

 

I am not confessional.

And you are wrong. Perhaps you would reconsider. This is what I posted (bold added to help you) :

"Biblicism" is "adherence to the letter of the Bible" (Webster's). The first known use of the word is 1805. A Biblicist is one who holds to what is called a "literal" interpretation of Scripture."

That does not mean a" wooden" interpretation. It means we are to understand spiritual things by the Spirit BUT these spiritual understandings are NOT DIVORCED from the text of Scripture.

Your tradition is important to you, and I respect that. But tradition is not a second special revelation added to the Bible.

I do not require you or any other person to hold my same view of Scripture. I do believe Scripture is" God breathed" in that the actual words (in the original language) are divinely inspired. I believe Scripture complete and sufficient. Where we seem to disagree is you do not like it that I believe we are not to go beyond Scripture in doctrine pertaining to the faith.

And that is fine. I reject liberal methods of interpretation BUT I do not believe those who do not are less Christian.

We are not accountable to one another, Martin. You are free to use whatever method you use to develop doctrine. I personally stick with Scripture. I believe we have to have that degree of objectivity. You disagree. That is OK as we are not united by our understanding of how Scripture should be interpreted but by Christ.