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

[thatbrian]

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

See, @rlvaughn this is banter.

 

[thatbrian]

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

Oddly enough, R. Scott Clark just wrote a piece that addressed something that came up in this thread. It's too late in the game to discuss it here, but you may be interested. It hits on a comment that you make and Tom took issue with.

There are far too few thinkers in the Church. Clark is a thinker, so in spite of his flaws:

Where Were The Church And The Truth Between The Fathers And The Reformation?

 

[thatbrian]

Other's may define biblicism differently, but I like Frame's definitions. All of them can be seen in the church today, but #3 and #4 are what I think Clark is addressing in his piece.

(1) someone who has no appreciation for the importance of extra-biblical 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.

In Defense of Something Close to Biblicism: Reflections on Sola Scriptura and History in Theological Method​

 

[TCassidy]

Oddly enough, R. Scott Clark just wrote a piece that addressed something that came up in this thread. It's too late in the game to discuss it here, but you may be interested. It hits on a comment that you make and Tom took issue with.

There are far too few thinkers in the Church. Clark is a thinker, so in spite of his flaws:

Where Were The Church And The Truth Between The Fathers And The Reformation?

To deny the existence of dissenters prior to Luther is simply ignorance of ecclesiastical history. And his initial thesis is pejorative as nobody familiar with ecclesiastical history believes "the Church" was in the Alps sealed in a jar.

But can we really expect balance from someone from the "United Reformed Churches in North America?"

 

[kyredneck]

the importance of extra-biblical truth in theology

"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 Love An Atheist]

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.

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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

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

 

[rlvaughn]

Other's may define biblicism differently, but I like Frame's definitions.

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.

(1) someone who has no appreciation for the importance of extra-biblical truth in theology, who denies the value of general or natural revelation,

I also want to indicate how difficult it is to draw the line between these biblicisms and an authentic Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura..." because "Scripture, and only Scripture, has the final word on everything, all our doctrine, and all our life. Thus it has the final word even on our interpretation of Scripture, even in our theological method.

(2) those suspected of believing that Scripture is a “textbook” of science, or philosophy, politics, ethics, economics, aesthetics, church government, etc.,

In apologetics and Christian philosophy it has continued Van Til’s emphasis that Scripture has the right to rule every area of human thought and life.

(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,

...the Reformers...were not biblicists in sense (3). But they came close to it.

(4) those who employ a “proof texting” method, rather than trying to see Scripture texts in their historical, cultural, logical, and literary contexts.

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.

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."

 

[thatbrian]

But can we really expect balance from someone from the "United Reformed Churches in North America?"

Having been to a couple of URCNA churches, I would say, no. They can be very wooden (IMO). Having said that, proper self-awareness tells us that we all think we are middle-of-the-road.

I don't consider Michael Horton imbalanced and he is a URCNA minister.

 

[thatbrian]

(1) emphasizing Confessions and traditions as if they were equal to Scripture in authority,

I can only speak from my experience, but I don't think this is an actual problem.

(2) equating sola Scriptura with acceptance of confessional traditions,

Again, who does this?

(3) automatic suspicion of any ideas which come from sources outside the tradition,

I disagree with Frame here (but read more before getting too upset). New ideas, and/or ideas outside of out tradition should be treated suspiciously. That does not mean they are to be automatically rejected, but it means that they should be treated with caution.

(4) focusing on historical polemics rather than the dangers of the present day,

This is a problem.

(5) emphasizing differences with other confessional traditions to the virtual exclusion of recognizing commonalities,

This is also a problem, and the "Truly Reformed" can be guilty of this.

(6) failing to encourage self-criticism within our particular denominational, theological, and confessional communities."

I don't know if I would encourage it, but we do need to be open to it. People who are confident in their positions can do this, while people who aren't cannot.

The truth lies in a tension of two apparent contradictory ideas.

 

[rlvaughn]

"(1) emphasizing Confessions and traditions as if they were equal to Scripture in authority," I can only speak from my experience, but I don't think this is an actual problem.

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).

"(2) equating sola Scriptura with acceptance of confessional traditions," Again, who does this?

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.

I disagree with Frame here (but read more before getting too upset). New ideas, and/or ideas outside of out tradition should be treated suspiciously. That does not mean they are to be automatically rejected, but it means that they should be treated with caution.

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.

The truth lies in a tension of two apparent contradictory ideas.

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

 

[thatbrian]

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).

No that you put skin on it, I can see that there are people out there guilty of this. Fortunately for me, I just don't personally know any.

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

Who has perfect knowledge? Where I have found any bit of balance it has been when I have spent much time with those of different opinion.

 

[rlvaughn]

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.