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

[kyredneck]

I have debated more than a handful of Biblicists and they have all shared one common trait: they interpret scripture independent of the church. The start with their understanding of the text.

Which is PRECISELY what Hodge and the original Reformers espoused, 'Reformed'. The most influential Bible teacher in my life was Arthur Crawford, who also was by far and away the most intellectual man I've ever met, whose monthly Bible classes in my hometown I faithfully attended for years some forty years ago, who gave the most important advise I've ever received concerning approaching the scriptures and which profoundly transformed my Biblical understanding. His instruction to his students was simply:

'Strip away everything that you think you know about the Bible and approach it as a child that knows nothing, praying as David, "Let me behold wondrous things out of thy law". Begin on page one and read through as quickly as possible in order to get the idea of it'.

Took me a little less than 3 months (I was steeped in my career at the time) but it provided a foundation which no commentary, theological text book, confession, religious dogma, etc. could ever provide.

 

[Reformed]

Okay. I will try one more time. And if you don't get it this time I will leave the two of you to your mutual admiration society.

If I redefine the word "reformed" to mean something different from the historic definition, and what you believe, that does not mean you believe it.

If the author of the article redefines "biblicist" to mean something different from the historic definition, and what we believe, that does not mean we believe it.

Got it now?

I am making this my last post simply because you deserve a response.

In post #11 I was gracious enough to suggest you did not necessarily agree with the negative caricature of being a Biblicist that R. Scott Clark painted in the article in the OP. My own dealings with self-proclaimed Biblicists are stated in this thread. I also stated there is no one definition of what a Biblicist is, just as there is no one definition what a Baptist is. I am not as much concerned with what you call yourself as I am about what you believe. That is why we discuss things. You refer to yourself as a Biblicist and that is fine. What type of Biblicist, since there are different factions that hold to that title? As you explain your beliefs I come to understand how you interpret that label and how your belief system fits into it.

It is the same thing with my embracing the term "Reformed". You called parts of the Reformed faith garbage in post #84. Guess what? I agree. While I may not use the charged word "garbage", I vehemently disagree with presumptive regeneration, anti-missions, and not continuing the work of the Great Commission. Yet, I claim to be Reformed friendly in my theological views. How can that be? The answer is found in my beliefs, not the label I use to define them. I had to explain to you twice what I believe in regards to the doctrinal issues you take exception with. The first time you claimed I did not get it. The second time you ignored it. This is my last post in this thread, so I am going for the Trifecta.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[rlvaughn]

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 seems to me that introducing this muddied the waters from near the very beginning of the piece. Better to just identify which American evangelicals he is talking about, imo.

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.

One problem is coming to terms with the term "biblicist". It's not terminology commonly used in the circles I've come up in, but on the other hand, not one used pejoratively when used. Dictionaries seem to go with a simple definition which must be tweaked out in theological discussions, such as "adherence to the literal sense of the Bible," "literal interpretation of the Bible," and the "historical-grammatical hermeneutic." David Bebbington, in the historical context of the characteristics of evangelicalism, describes biblicism as "a high regard for and obedience to the Bible as the ultimate authority." All that is pretty positive. But searching this morning, I found that "biblicism" is predominantly used derogatorily in most hits I got with DuckDuckGo.

In Defense of Something Close to Biblicism: Reflections on Sola Scriptura and History in Theological Method has John Frame writing, "The term “biblicism” is usually derogatory. It is commonly applied to (1) someone who has no appreciation for the importance of extrabiblical truth in theology, who denies the value of general or natural revelation, (2) those suspected of believing that Scripture is a “textbook” of science, or philosophy, politics, ethics, economics, aesthetics, church government, etc., (3) those who have no respect for confessions, creeds, and past theologians, who insist on ignoring these and going back to the Bible to build up their doctrinal formulations from scratch, (4) those who employ a “proof texting” method, rather than trying to see Scripture texts in their historical, cultural, logical, and literary contexts." He concludes, "Indeed, if we are not occasionally accused of biblicism, we should be concerned about the accuracy of our teaching in this area."

But for all this attention to contexts both scriptural and extrascriptural, sola Scriptura also demands that theological proposals be accountable to Scripture in a specific way. It is not enough for theologians to claim that an idea is biblical; they must be prepared to show in Scripture where that idea can be found. The idea may be based on a general principle rather than a specific text; but a principle is not general unless it is first particular, unless that principle can be shown to be exemplified in particular texts. So a theology worth its salt must always be prepared to show specifically where in Scripture its ideas come from. And showing that always boils down in the final analysis to citations of particular texts. This is why, for all that can be said about the abuses of proof-texting, proof texts have played a large role in the history of Protestant thought. And there is something very right about that.

 

[Reformed]

It seems to me that introducing this muddied the waters from near the very beginning of the piece. Better to just identify which American evangelicals he is talking about, imo.
One problem is coming to terms with the term "biblicist". It's not terminology commonly used in the circles I've come up in, but on the other hand, not one used pejoratively when used. Dictionaries seem to go with a simple definition which must be tweaked out in theological discussions, such as "adherence to the literal sense of the Bible," "literal interpretation of the Bible," and the "historical-grammatical hermeneutic." David Bebbington, in the historical context of the characteristics of evangelicalism, describes biblicism as "a high regard for and obedience to the Bible as the ultimate authority." All that is pretty positive. But searching this morning, I found that "biblicism" is predominantly used derogatorily in most hits I got with DuckDuckGo.

In Defense of Something Close to Biblicism: Reflections on Sola Scriptura and History in Theological Method has John Frame writing, "The term “biblicism” is usually derogatory. It is commonly applied to (1) someone who has no appreciation for the importance of extrabiblical truth in theology, who denies the value of general or natural revelation, (2) those suspected of believing that Scripture is a “textbook” of science, or philosophy, politics, ethics, economics, aesthetics, church government, etc., (3) those who have no respect for confessions, creeds, and past theologians, who insist on ignoring these and going back to the Bible to build up their doctrinal formulations from scratch, (4) those who employ a “proof texting” method, rather than trying to see Scripture texts in their historical, cultural, logical, and literary contexts." He concludes, "Indeed, if we are not occasionally accused of biblicism, we should be concerned about the accuracy of our teaching in this area."

I mostly agree with you. Labels and titles tend to be looked at differently depending on whether you are a proponent or opponent.

I think the OP was meant to stir the pot and that does not bother me too much. It engenders discussion which can be a good thing. Once I read R. Scott Clark's name I wanted to pass by, but I bit the bait.

And look at me. I said my previous post was my last but here I am.

Ok. Let us see if I can get off this barge.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[rlvaughn]

I mostly agree with you. Labels and titles tend to be looked at differently depending on whether you are a proponent or opponent.

I think the OP was meant to stir the pot and that does not bother me too much. It engenders discussion which can be a good thing. Once I read R. Scott Clark's name I wanted to pass by, but I bit the bait.

I thought Frame's article reached an excellence not approached by Clark's. But for some really bad writing against biblicism, there is Peter Enns and Christian Smith (which I found while searching this morning).

 

[Reformed]

I thought Frame's article reached an excellence not approached by Clark's. But for some really bad writing against biblicism, there is Peter Enns and Christian Smith (which I found while searching this morning).

Peter Enns played an intimate role in causing a good friend of mine to apostasize. Enns and his Genesis myth theory treads on dangerous ground. But I digress.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[One Baptism]

... 'Strip away everything that you think you know about the Bible and approach it as a child that knows nothing, praying as David, "Let me behold wondrous things out of thy law". Begin on page one and read through ...'

Yes indeed. Through the word, let us prayerfully and humbly seek after the God of wisdom and understanding, being teachable, not coming to God as if we already understood and were wisdom, looking to teach God a thing. God is the [school] Master, and we the students, He the Father, we the children. Let the word of the LORD speak, and let all the earth keep silence before him.

God is always right, and we are only right with Him when we say and mean, "Amen."

When God says, "Jump.", don't ask "How high?" ~ just jump.

2 Kings 13:15 KJB - And Elisha said unto him, Take bow and arrows. And he took unto him bow and arrows.

2 Kings 13:16 KJB - And he said to the king of Israel, Put thine hand upon the bow. And he put his hand upon it: and Elisha put his hands upon the king's hands.

2 Kings 13:17 KJB - And he said, Open the window eastward. And he opened it. Then Elisha said, Shoot. And he shot. And he said, The arrow of the LORD'S deliverance, and the arrow of deliverance from Syria: for thou shalt smite the Syrians in Aphek, till thou have consumed them.

2 Kings 13:18 KJB - And he said, Take the arrows. And he took them. And he said unto the king of Israel, Smite upon the ground. And he smote thrice, and stayed.

2 Kings 13:19 KJB - And the man of God was wroth with him, and said, Thou shouldest have smitten five or six times; then hadst thou smitten Syria till thou hadst consumed it: whereas now thou shalt smite Syria but thrice.​

Roots of Truth - The Eternal Word, brother Randy Skeete [if you watch him preach, he has the word of God in his heart, I believe all will be blessed if they consider what is shared]

 

[thatbrian]

I mostly agree with you. Labels and titles tend to be looked at differently depending on whether you are a proponent or opponent.

I think the OP was meant to stir the pot and that does not bother me too much. It engenders discussion which can be a good thing. Once I read R. Scott Clark's name I wanted to pass by, but I bit the bait.

And look at me. I said my previous post was my last but here I am.

Ok. Let us see if I can get off this barge.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

The reason I posted the piece was simply that I had just come across it that day, and I thought it did a good job of addressing what I consider to be a massive problem in much of Evangelicalism today.

I thought that it would make for interesting discussion and provide something different from the typical C vs A debates here, but I expected far too much from this crowd. That's my fault.

 

[thatbrian]

I thought Frame's article reached an excellence not approached by Clark's. But for some really bad writing against biblicism, there is Peter Enns and Christian Smith (which I found while searching this morning).

While Christian Smith might have something to offer in his criticism of American Evangelicalism, Enns just seems bent on the destruction of the Church, and he offers nothing that 19-20th century Protestant Liberalism hasn't already given us.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

Just loot at the differences between reformed Presbyterians and we reformed Baptists, its almost like we have a separate Covenant Theology going on between us in some ways!

 

[Yeshua1]

Peter Enns played an intimate role in causing a good friend of mine to apostasize. Enns and his Genesis myth theory treads on dangerous ground. But I digress.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Peter Enns is very dangerous, for he likes to cloak himself with respectability as one who gets to the true intended meaning of the scriptures, but he denies biblical Inerrancy/infallibility, basically, he puts scripture on same par as any other religious document/book.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes indeed. Through the word, let us prayerfully and humbly seek after the God of wisdom and understanding, being teachable, not coming to God as if we already understood and were wisdom, looking to teach God a thing. God is the [school] Master, and we the students, He the Father, we the children. Let the word of the LORD speak, and let all the earth keep silence before him.

God is always right, and we are only right with Him when we say and mean, "Amen."

When God says, "Jump.", don't ask "How high?" ~ just jump.

2 Kings 13:15 KJB - And Elisha said unto him, Take bow and arrows. And he took unto him bow and arrows.

2 Kings 13:16 KJB - And he said to the king of Israel, Put thine hand upon the bow. And he put his hand upon it: and Elisha put his hands upon the king's hands.

2 Kings 13:17 KJB - And he said, Open the window eastward. And he opened it. Then Elisha said, Shoot. And he shot. And he said, The arrow of the LORD'S deliverance, and the arrow of deliverance from Syria: for thou shalt smite the Syrians in Aphek, till thou have consumed them.

2 Kings 13:18 KJB - And he said, Take the arrows. And he took them. And he said unto the king of Israel, Smite upon the ground. And he smote thrice, and stayed.

2 Kings 13:19 KJB - And the man of God was wroth with him, and said, Thou shouldest have smitten five or six times; then hadst thou smitten Syria till thou hadst consumed it: whereas now thou shalt smite Syria but thrice.​

Roots of Truth - The Eternal Word, brother Randy Skeete [if you watch him preach, he has the word of God in his heart, I believe all will be blessed if they consider what is shared]

Supreme Irony here, as you are right to c,claim that we must heed and obey ONLY the Bible, and yet you turn around and follow the misguided teachings aof a false prophetess!

 

[JonC]

Okay. I will try one more time. And if you don't get it this time I will leave the two of you to your mutual admiration society.

If I redefine the word "reformed" to mean something different from the historic definition, and what you believe, that does not mean you believe it.

If the author of the article redefines "biblicist" to mean something different from the historic definition, and what we believe, that does not mean we believe it.

Got it now?

So are you a biblicist with a big little "b", or a little big "B"?

Texas....must be a big big "B".

 

[BobRyan]

those who place the authority of the intellect above all other authorities and mystics, i.e., those who place the authority of religious experience above Scripture, who all the while insisted that they were following Scripture. A rationalist knows a priori what Scripture must say.

​

Indeed by knowing "what it must say" they need never quote it nor go beyond "surface reading'-- creative writing will "suffice" as long as they appeal to a kind of much-imagined populism, trite sayings and a bit of acrimony when that seems to be failing.

I agree ... this is a huge problem in Christianity today.

 

[BobRyan]

Supreme Irony here, as you are right to c,claim that we must heed and obey ONLY the Bible, and yet you turn around and follow the misguided teachings aof a false prophetess!

Your personal preference - not a standard of "truth" for others

 

[rlvaughn]

There seems to be no genuine, rigorous debate on BB.

The reason I posted the piece was simply that I had just come across it that day, and I thought it did a good job of addressing what I consider to be a massive problem in much of Evangelicalism today.
I thought that it would make for interesting discussion and provide something different from the typical C vs A debates here, but I expected far too much from this crowd. That's my fault.

Well, this is a discussion forum, not a formal debate with a proposition, rules, etc. When you post a topic people will respond with what they think and what interests them (IOW, whatever they want to). If they don't address what you want addressed, there is little you can do about it. On the other hand, engaging with an eye of moving toward what you want to discuss might work better than chiding folks about whether they read the OP and such like.

I intended not to post on this topic any further, but changed my mind. IMO, Clark's piece had some interesting parts, but I thought he poisoned the well, so to speak, with the radical Anabaptism reference and what I felt was a caricature of biblicism. For many people "Anabaptism" is a vast dumping ground for all sorts of things, and that is why I wondered about Clark's reference. According to Reformed, who says has some experience reading Clark, that (the dumping ground) sounds accurate in reference to Clark.

Defining "biblicism" seems to be problematic (and its use in most writings doesn't seem to fit the dictionary definition). In my own experience its use has often been an arrogantly presented alternative to Calvinism and Arminianism (IOW, trying to take the high ground). In searching yesterday, I couldn't tell that there is any agreed-upon definition. And on this point, it seemed that Clark was pushing it in the hole that he wanted to investigate (biblicists are "devoted to the supremacy of reason"). With Clark's article there doesn't seem to be the same kind of self-reflection as Frame, who points out, for example, that "...what was distinctive about the Reformation were its differences, rather than its continuities, with the past" and "if we are not occasionally accused of biblicism, we should be concerned about the accuracy of our teaching in this area [sola scriptura]."

I wouldn't disagree that American evangelism has been influenced by Anabaptism and Pietism, as well as Reformed Confessionalism -- even though I didn't agree that Clark made the case -- but I wouldn't be surprised if bringing into our Christianity the American experiment with liberty -- with a heavy bent toward the individual -- didn't affect us as much or more than any of these.

 

[thatbrian]

Well, this is a discussion forum, not a formal debate with a proposition, rules, etc.

I am aware of that, and I prefer that to formal debate.

When you post a topic people will respond with what they think and what interests them (IOW, whatever they want to).

That's great, but do we not agree that Hank should resist the urge to discuss the peanut butter and jelly sandwich he had for lunch in this particular thread was regarding a matter other than that?

If they don't address what you want addressed, there is little you can do about it.

There are rules here, and being on topic is one of them. I can't do anything about off topic posts, you are correct; however, properly active mods could.

On the other hand, engaging with an eye of moving toward what you want to discuss might work better than chiding folks about whether they read the OP and such like.

I wasn't "chiding". I was making an observation based on your post.

I intended not to post on this topic any further, but changed my mind. IMO, Clark's piece had some interesting parts

Yes, and like most of life: Eat the meat and spit out the bones.

but I thought he poisoned the well, so to speak, with the radical Anabaptism reference

See above.

Defining "biblicism" seems to be problematic

It is, and if you think so, why get insulted over the article?

I wouldn't disagree that American evangelism has been influenced by Anabaptism and Pietism

Great.

even though I didn't agree that Clark made the case

That wasn't the point

I wouldn't be surprised if bringing into our Christianity the American experiment with liberty -- with a heavy bent toward the individual -- didn't affect us as much or more than any of these.

Good point. That would be helpful to the discussion.

 

[rlvaughn]

That's great, but do we not agree that Hank should resist the urge to discuss the peanut butter and jelly sandwich he had for lunch in this particular thread was regarding a matter other than that?

Guess I missed that.

There are rules here, and being on topic is one of them. I can't do anything about off topic posts, you are correct; however, properly active mods could.

A more effective way might be to PM a moderator, if it is really bad. A little personal banter is part of the nature of the beast.

I wasn't "chiding". I was making an observation based on your post.

If you weren't, you weren't. But I was thinking in that comment more the overall tone of how your comments come off to others. Take your reply to Squire Robertsson about not commenting on all the comments that preceded, for example, when in the end it seemed that you both were in agreement.

It is, and if you think so, why get insulted over the article?

Commenting on disagreement with someone's approach is not the same as being insulted. Not many things insult me, but there are lots of things with which I don't agree.

That wasn't the point.

Without going back and reading the posts, I think that was my point. After reading Clark's article, who do you think the radical Anabaptists were, and how did they bring their view to the 19th century evangelicals?

Good point. That would be helpful to the discussion.

At the moment I am sleepy and can't think who I've read on this, but seems this has been addressed in articles I have read before on the internet. A rugged individualism -- which was likely necessary to surviving on the frontier -- isn't usually the best approach to Christianity, Bible study, Church, etc. (I qualify with "usually," because it can be necessary to stand against an evil tide, and theoretically we should even if it we are the only one doing so.)

 

[thatbrian]

A more effective way might be to PM a moderator, if it is really bad.

I've tried in other threads. Nothing happened.

A little personal banter is part of the nature of the beast.

I have no problem with a little banter. I enjoy a little banter.

But I was thinking in that comment more the overall tone of how your comments come off to others. Take your reply to Squire Robertsson about not commenting on all the comments that preceded,

Sometimes my "tone" (which is a difficult thing to determine when only is only reading) is banter, and sometimes one can perceive something that is a cultural difference and make a judgement based upon that. For instance, people from the South, and those from the UK, as just two examples, are far less direct than Yankees such as myself. That directness is perceived differently depending on if one was raised in Luisiana ("just about a mile from Texarkana, in them cotton fields back home") or, in South Jersey (I'm thankfully not from SJ)

In the case above, regarding SR, my complaint is with the "hit and run" technique. Some posters jump in and make a comment preceded by, "I don't want to argue/debate, But. . .". I think it's unfair in this setting to make a comment and not expect it to be challenged. Jumping in is fine. Stating your opinion is fine. Making a declaration from on high that doesn't have to be defended isn't fine. If you put it out there, it can, and should, be challenged.

 

[Reformed]

(I'm thankfully not from SJ)

Careful. Dis my home state too much and I may have to make a call to my cousin Joey.