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

[thatbrian]

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?

They were my words, so if they are anti-intellectual, I would like to know because I will step on my own toes if they are.

Also, the OP is an article from R. Scott Clark. He's not exactly a redneck — by anyone's definition, I would think.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Actually, I believe we are in agreement. Biblicism, as you used the term, is anti-intellectual. That's not to say you are anti-intellectual.

 

[HankD]

Wrong song.[emoji6]

OOPS

 

[Reformed]

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?

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.

 

[Reformed]

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?

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

 

[TCassidy]

Actually, I believe we are in agreement. Biblicism, as you used the term, is anti-intellectual. That's not to say you are anti-intellectual.

I agree. That was my point in responding to Reformed. The revisionists must redefine the meaning of the word to fit their unfathomable need to demean anyone who has even the slightest difference of opinion. In my experience that is one of the definitive marks of the cage stage calvinist.

 

[rlvaughn]

Clark...Under the influence of Anabaptist radicalism, which swept across and transformed American evangelicalism in the 19th century (the causes of which are the subject of another post) led it away from the Reformation understanding of sola Scriptura to a different doctrine: biblicism or the attempt to understand Scripture by one’s self and by itself...

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?

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

Although tradition does not rule our interpretation, it does guide it. If, upon reading a particular passage, you have come up with an interpretation that has escaped the notice of every other Christian for two thousand years, or has been championed by universally recognized heretics, chances are pretty good that you had better abandon your interpretation.

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).

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.

The confessional Protestants, by contrast, beginning with Luther, Tyndale, Calvin et al were committed to the sole, unique, final, and perspicuous authority of Scripture as the Word of God but none of them read Scripture as if they were the first to read it...When Luther stood on the sole, final and perspicuous authority of God’s Word...

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.

 

[thatbrian]

I agree. That was my point in responding to Reformed. The revisionists must redefine the meaning of the word to fit their unfathomable need to demean anyone who has even the slightest difference of opinion. In my experience that is one of the definitive marks of the cage stage calvinist.

Do you feel deemed, Tom? Can you point to the offending post, if so? I will try to set the offending party straight, if you let me know who it was.

 

[thatbrian]

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?

Have you read the article?

 

[Reformed]

I agree. That was my point in responding to Reformed. The revisionists must redefine the meaning of the word to fit their unfathomable need to demean anyone who has even the slightest difference of opinion. In my experience that is one of the definitive marks of the cage stage calvinist.

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.

 

[thatbrian]

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 a 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 populace position on this board.

That was well said, my friend. That was very well said.

 

[Reformed]

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

 

[thatbrian]

Brother, I wrote earlier that I am not a big fan of R. Scott Clark. Clark labels any Baptist as an Anabaptist.

I didn't know that, and I would disagree with him on that point. I may be wrong, but when I use the term, Anabaptist, I am referring to Brethren, Mennonites, and Amish (off the top of my head).

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.

Yup. It's not Rome. It's the Church, and the teaching of the Apostles. We should not ignore or downplay the importance and authority of what has been handed down to us.

 

[TCassidy]

I have formally debated Biblicists who define themselves the way I portrayed them earlier in this thread.

And I have debated "Reformed" persons who believe in double predestination, salvation without Christ, the elect being saved before they were born, deny missions of any sort, and don't believe that Gospel preaching is necessary nor is the Great Commission for us today.

As you are Reformed, does the above describe you? And is the above the historical definition of "Reformed?"

 

[rlvaughn]

Have you read the article?

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."

 

[TCassidy]

They were lost for roughly 1000 years during the dark ages and rediscovered during the Reformation.

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Jude 3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

The authority of hell cannot prevail against Christ's churches, nor did the bible teachings die out and had to be given a second time.

To say otherwise is not only unbiblical but anti-biblical.

 

[thatbrian]

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."

Of course I read it, and you seem to have missed the point of the piece. Check the title.

 

[Reformed]

And I have debated "Reformed" persons who believe in double predestination, salvation without Christ, the elect being saved before they were born, deny missions of any sort, and don't believe that Gospel preaching is necessary nor is the Great Commission for us today.

As you are Reformed, does the above describe you? And is the above the historical definition of "Reformed?"

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!

 

[TCassidy]

So, as you don't believe all that, you are not "Reformed?"

 

[rlvaughn]

Of course I read it, and you seem to have missed the point of the piece. Check the title.

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.