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

[thatbrian]

@thatbrian, you are not a fool. This thread is very useful and serves to expose the fundamental difference in the way certain Baptists approach scripture.

My previous comment was about engagement that goes nowhere. I like @HankD a lot. However, I know that we just are not going to agree and it will turn into a comedy routine of "you are wrong...No! You are wrong!" So, I know when it is time to cut bait. I had to do that with Hank in another recent thread because it just got to that point.

Certain BB members get annoyed with your threads and that is a good thing in my opinion, because it proves that you are stepping on the toes of theological sacred cows. Keep it up, mon ami.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Hank is a very likable guy, and he's sharp. That said, I can't think of a single engagement with him that ends up any differently than your experience. It would be more pleasurable to bang my head against a brick wall, than continue some "discussions" with him, so, point taken.

I do want to get into matters that are challenging and might cause a mutual stretching and expanding of ideas, all while staying well within Reformed, Conservative, Evangelical, and of course, biblical ideas.

Some topics, like this one are such sacred cows that most can't even discuss them without getting overly emotional and belligerent, and I certainly understand that as I can get that way when discussing politics; however, I am consciously trying to take a different approach in my online debating. I'll PM you later regarding that.

 

[thatbrian]

Exactly, individuals endued with gifts, infilled with the Spirit

Do Christians have different gifts? Is there a variety of gifts distributed by God in the Church?

 

[TCassidy]

Not locally but it does universally.

Sorry, but I see no scriptural evidence for the "catholic" or "universal" church.

 

[TCassidy]

Do Christians have different gifts?

No. If you are talking about the spiritual gifts of Romans and 1 Corinthians, they died out around 100 AD.

 

[thatbrian]

Traiditon only has value to the extent that it clearly affirms (perspicuity) scripture. Modern commentaries and lexicons serve a similar purpose.

Yes. This hits upon what the heart of my intention in bringing up the subject was. Th above thinking (which I know is not yours) is completely backwards. Our personal interpretation is subject to the teaching of the Church. We may only veer from the teaching of the Church when the Church departs from the clear teaching of scripture.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I'm going to jump in on this thread without much regard for previous posts. IOW, I don't intend to debate specific posts. I intend only to state my observation. So, get your feet tucked back under your pew so I won't step on them.

The literal-historical-grammatical school of interpretation places limits on a preacher. I would make bold as to state the limits are sufficient enough to minimize his ability to put forth an idiosyncratic interpretation.

 

[Yeshua1]

I'm going to jump in on this thread without much regard for previous posts. IOW, I don't intend to debate specific posts. I intend only to state my observation. So, get your feet tucked back under your pew so I won't step on them.

The literal-historical-grammatical school of interpretation places limits on a preacher. I would make bold as to state the limits are sufficient enough to minimize his ability to put forth an idiosyncratic interpretation.

So you are saying here that we could not read into the Bible wild allegorical/symbolic meanings, not unless the scriptures themselves allow for that interpretation?

 

[thatbrian]

I'm going to jump in on this thread without much regard for previous posts. IOW, I don't intend to debate specific posts. I intend only to state my observation. So, get your feet tucked back under your pew so I won't step on them.

The literal-historical-grammatical school of interpretation places limits on a preacher. I would make bold as to state the limits are sufficient enough to minimize his ability to put forth an idiosyncratic interpretation.

Thanks, but do you think it's realistic and fair to "jump in" yet not be willing to debate specific posts? Are you saying, I want to comment but not debate? If so, isn't that a lecture, not an exchange of ideas among brethren?

It seems to me that Biblicism, like Marxism, assumes the that only those in authority are capable of evil, while the Proletariat has pure motives, always.

Should not limits be placed on all men?

 

[Adonia]

Sorry, but I see no scriptural evidence for the "catholic" or "universal" church.

What, did you somehow miss the letters St. Paul wrote instructing other Christians how they should be practicing the faith? There was once indeed One Universal Christian Church (see the Early Church Fathers) that every believer belonged to and it had an ordained hierarchy of leaders from the Apostles on down who instructed the faithful in the truth.. It was never a "come up with your own" conclusions kind of thing.

 

[HankD]

Do Christians have different gifts? Is there a variety of gifts distributed by God in the Church?

Yes but some take issue with the gifts, which were pre-canon, which universal.

 

[thatbrian]

Yes but some take issue with the gifts, which were pre-canon, which universal.

I'm asking your opinion. Do you have one?

 

[Reformed]

Sorry, but I see no scriptural evidence for the "catholic" or "universal" church.

Of course, you do not. Let this be a lesson to all those who lump Calvinists together. While @TCassidy may have particular redemption in common, we differ on other things. We do not share the same ecclesiology when it comes to the universal church and the visible/invisible church distinction.

 

[Iconoclast]

So you are saying here that we could not read into the Bible wild allegorical/symbolic meanings, not unless the scriptures themselves allow for that interpretation?

Could you give two examples of what you mean to clarify your tweet?

 

[thatbrian]

Of course, you do not. Let this be a lesson to all those who lump Calvinists together. While @TCassidy may have particular redemption in common, we differ on other things. We do not share the same ecclesiology when it comes to the universal church and the visible/invisible church distinction.

Most non-Cals I talk with seem to exclusively refer to the Church universal, and ignore the reality that churches had names, and those names where after the cities and villages they were in.

I assume you hold to a both/and view on this subject. Am I right?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Yes, I do consider it fair. As I am jumping in at post #46, I think it would be too convoluted for me to try and deal with specific posts. It also means I'm dealing with ideas and not personalities.

Thanks, but do you think it's realistic and fair to "jump in" yet not be willing to debate specific posts? Are you saying, I want to comment but not debate? If so, isn't that a lecture, not an exchange of ideas among brethren?

 

[thatbrian]

Yes, I do consider it fair. As I am jumping in at post #46, I think it would be too convoluted for me to try and deal with specific posts. It also means I'm dealing with ideas and not personalities.

Care to address the second half of my statement?

 

[One Baptism]

Sorry, but I see no scriptural evidence for the "catholic" or "universal" church.

I do, and it is this one:

Revelation 13:8 KJB - And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.​

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Care to address the second half of my statement?

Do you mean this?

It seems to me that Biblicism, like Marxism, assumes the that only those in authority are capable of evil, while the Proletariat has pure motives, always.

It plays to the anti-intellectual bent of many of the brethren. Mind you, this philosophy has been present in the US since the early 1800s.

 

[thatbrian]

Do you mean this?
It plays to the anti-intellectual bent of many of the brethren. Mind you, this philosophy has been present in the US since the early 1800s.

My opinions on that subject are all over BB. Knowing that, would you say that I am an anti-intellectual?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

The it in my reply referred to what you are referring to as Biblicism. Why are you asking me to potentially step on your feet?

My opinions on that subject are all over BB. Knowing that, would you say that I am an anti-intellectual?