Is Biblicism a Boogeyman?

This discussion from the Urban Puritano podcast.

James White on Reformed Biblicism

While going over Calvin’s rebuttal of Sadoleto’s letter from 1539, I read a paragraph where Calvin held Sadoleto’s argument to a biblical standard. Calvin was a scholar of the early church. He cites from patristic sources regularly. He read widely in what was available to him in his day. And yet he gave us an example of what it means to know history, to know what those before us have said, and yet to hold their views up to Scripture as the final test of truth. I referred to his stand as “Reformed Biblicism,” and proclaimed myself a Reformed Biblicist, seeking to be faithful to that important concept.

I do not believe Calvin was the first, nor do I pretend that everyone in the past in whom I would see a commitment to a proper, Scripturally defined and historically knowledgable biblicism, has practiced their craft with complete consistency. But I believe a very strong and balanced case can be made for Calvin’s stand in 1539, and the one we must take today as well.

Please allow me to very briefly outline the position.

It starts with the highest view of Scripture. The Bible is theopneustos. Nothing else is. Therefore, it is utterly unique.

It is unique in its origin, in its nature, in its effects, in its purpose, and in its consistency.

It is intended to be a sufficient guide to Christ’s body, the Church.

It is intended to be seen as God’s very speech, and it has authority for all men, no matter their spiritual state.

The Bible then teaches us that Christ has established His Church, His body, and that the Word is intended to be central to the teaching and proclamation that defines that body.

Since we have Christ’s promise to build His church, we can expect the continued ministry of the Holy Spirit amongst His people, preserving and protecting them down through history.

We do not have to re-invent the wheel with each generation. We can learn much from those who came before us.

Click here to read the entire post 

A Couple of Discussions on Biblicism

Over at the Churchmen Podcast, there were a couple of discussions regarding Biblicism.

This first one is Brad Klassen with Jerry Wragg and Lance Quinn on various views of biblicism and coming up with a proper definition for the term:

This next one has Klassen, Wragg, and Quinn joined by Matt Waymeyer in continuing the discussion on biblicism: 

Related Resources:

A Discussion on Biblicism

Making Biblicism Great Again

Making Biblicism Great Again

I have never heard the term "biblicism" until recently. At first, I had no what it meant. There are a couple of definitions for it. The first is the Bible is the only source of truth for the Christian. The Christian is not allowed to have books, commentaries, or even further teaching. Some have described biblicism as going under the tree with your Bible and sitting there. Others have used this definition to describe Solo Scriptura rather than Sola Scriptura meaning the Bible is our only authority.

The other definition of biblicism is where the Bible is our final authority for faith and practice. It is not the only authority, but it is our final authority. For example, as we sit under a pastor preaching the Word on any giving Sunday, he is exercising spiritual authority over us yet, as the Bereans did with Paul in Acts 17, we check the scriptures to see whether or not he is preaching truth or stepping out of bounds with his authority. These Biblicists practice Sola Scriptura and use commentaries and books in their study of the Bible. 

Obviously, I fall under the second definition of biblicism because I do believe the Bible is our final authority for faith and practice. I also do believe the use of commentaries, books, and even sermons in studying the Bible are beneficial. As I mentioned, the Bible is not the final authority in our walk with Jesus. If I want to learn how to change the toilet fill value in the bathroom of my house, I am going to seek advice or consult the "all-knowing" YouTube (Please note I do not believe YouTube is all-knowing).

The reason why biblicism is getting a bad rap is because many think Biblicists are the only ones who can interpret the Bible or saying we should not be using terms not necessarily found in the Bible such as Trinity, which is a word not in the Bible, but it helps us describe the triunity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Others have said it will lead to heresy or will lead us to the Roman Catholic Church because there is only one opinion for Biblicist, their own, which for those in the first category that is true, however for those under the second category, that is not true.

True Biblicists seek to make the Bible the standard for which Christians live by. I am not advocating in not using commentaries, books, study Bibles, or even Bible software. I mean I have dozens of book quotes on social media and do book reviews so I cannot be under the first definition of Biblicism. Do I believe we should look at what others have said regarding the passage you are studying? Yes, but the Bible has the final say. What the theologian you are reading may not line up with the Bible so Scripture trumps what you are reading. The same can be said for the Bible you are listening to whether it is your local church pastor or one you are hearing online. By the way, it is okay to use creeds and confessions because they are expressions of our faith. If the creed does not align with Scripture, to paraphrase Charles Spurgeon, do away with it.

As I mentioned earlier, there are some who believe Biblicists will not use terms such as Trinity and omnipresent. These terms help us in our theology to understand what God has revealed about Himself in the Bible. I actually have known people that refuse to use the word "Trinity" because it is not in the Bible. Some understand the concept, but they won't use the word. What's ironic is some of these guys will say "Rapture" yet that word is not in the Bible. When studying the attributes of God, we use words that are not necessarily in the Bible, but we use them for our benefit. 

So now comes the questions, how do we make biblicism great again? Jeffrey Johnson, in his book, The Revealed God, answers that:

If biblicism is the refusal to use non-biblical words to define concepts, then we need to stay clear of biblicism. But, if biblicism is the refusal to incorporate extra-biblical and contra-biblical concepts and ideas into Christianity, then let’s make biblicism great again.

Let us also make biblicism great again by letting the Bible be our final authority. Johnson continues:

The world’s wisdom may seem scholarly and impressive, but in the end, it’s merely a complicated way to suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness. It leads its disciples into an endless maze of ever-changing beliefs from one fallible philosopher to the next. 

Those who become mesmerized by its lure are ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth. It is one thing for pagan philosophers to craft their conceptions of reality in their rejection of God. Still, it is another thing for the church to be deceived into thinking worldly philosophies are reliable handmaidens to theology. 

If rationalism, empiricism, and existentialism are of no value to unbelievers, why would they be of any value to believers? Oh, that the church would learn not to look to man but to God alone. May the church not seek to build its worldview on the faulty foundations of rationalism, empiricism, or existentialism, but upon foundational truths of divine revelation — alone!