# Can someone explain the dangers of Biblicism



## moral necessity (Apr 24, 2009)

What all does this approach to scripture entail, and what are the main dangers that it leads to? I've heard of churches that pride themselves on being Solo Scriptura rather than Sola Scriptura. Their constant quote is , "Well, what does Scripture say?", which seems to be a commendable approach.

Thanks for your input.


----------



## Casey (Apr 24, 2009)

Reducing the Bible to "what it means to me" is just as bad as reducing the Bible to how it is interpreted by the pope. In the Reformation, "Scripture alone" was always taken to mean "in the context of the believing community" instead of what it means to a single individual. If a single individual cannot understand the depths of scriptural teaching, then it doesn't make sense for the church to limit its interpretation of Scripture to what a single individual can comprehend. "Biblicism," if I understand it right, generally implies that the only valid truth derived from the Bible is the sort that I personally can deduce on my own without the aid of the believing community (past & present).


----------



## ww (Apr 24, 2009)

Not sure how to answer that question other than to say that in some instances it can carry an "anti-intellectualism" and "anti-clericalism" which is foreign to the Reformed faith depending on how one defines it.


----------



## TaylorOtwell (Apr 24, 2009)

If I am correct in my understanding of what people mean by "biblicism", I believe it is basically a narcissistic reading of the Scriptures, whereas the Reformed idea of _Sola Scriptura_ reads Scripture _with _the historical church. This does not mean that we are slaves to our predecessors, but we respect them and take note of their labors. 

One possible danger is bad theology. It is quite egotistical to ignore all of the other Christians who have read the Scriptures before us. We should enjoy the fruits of their labors, while remanining diligent in our own. However, I think you will often find many "biblicist" quite inconsistent with their principles. While being very cold torwards councils, creeds, confessions, and other documents that were penned by dozens of godly men in agreement with each other, they will often praise certain modern revivalistic authors and turn their works into something close to canon.

Another danger is the creation of a large "head knowledge"/"heart knowledge" dichotomy. This includes a fear of systematic theology, doctrinal precision, etc. In modern "biblicism", I think there is often a cry for "let's all just love Jesus", yet Jesus is not understood in any kind of Biblical context, and concepts such as atonement, propitiation, covenant, etc. are neglected in favor of navel-gazing in the "quiet place". As many theologians have noted, we have to receive God as he reveals Himself to us, which leads me to my next point...

It also usually involves a neglect of the means of grace. By means of grace I mean the Scripture preached, the Lord's Supper, Baptism, and Prayer. I find it often talks more about the "quiet time" rather than receiving bread and wine, and the "still small voice" rather than the preaching of the Word from the elders.


----------



## Rangerus (Apr 24, 2009)

The Southern Baptists had an issue with this in 1999 when the Baptist Faith and Message was being re-written. Why Fundamentalists Object to the Baptist Faith & Message. They categorized it as "Bible Idolatry"



> Fundamentalists were never satisfied with the BFM that Hershel Hobbs and his committee produced in 1963. Like the 1925 committee, Hobbs’ committee avoided using theologically loaded words like “inerrant” and “infallible” in the article on the scriptures. Particularly unsettling to Fundamentalists were statements that Hobbs and his committee added to the 1925 article.
> 
> The 1963 BFM committee added a clause that said the Bible “is the record of God’s revelation of Himself to man.” and a sentence saying, “*The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.”*
> 
> ...


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 25, 2009)

One of my largest concerns has to do with an historical amnesia and a blindness to the ways in which the world around us tends to shove us into its mold. A faith that says "just the Bible" please, ignores the historic witness of the church and the protective fences wisely erected in past ages of the church. Without the historical dimension, the tendency is to see the Bible through contemporary lenses without recognizing the distortions that contemporaneity brings to the viewing of Scripture.

A few years ago I had a conversation with the president of a Cambellite (Restorationist Movement) college. Despite the high numbers of units in Bible and cognate studies, there was no attention given to theology. He informed me that it was deliberate. Theology, he opined, diverts us from the simple teaching of the Bible in favor of human traditions. 

Yikes!!! How does one avoid the seductions of the present moment when he only reads the Bible and watches television?


----------



## Leslie (Apr 25, 2009)

What is the difference between Bible interpretation in the context of the historical church and scripture plus tradition rather than scripture alone as the only rule of faith and practice? Should not our confessions be held to but held more loosely than scripture? The Roman Catholic church started out this way. It was a major issue in the reformation in England whether or not the interpretation of scripture was the exclusive right of the church and clergy or not. 

It seems to be human nature to add commentary to scripture. Then commentary attains the authoritative stature of scripture, then there are commentaries on commentaries. One ends up with what the Jews had (and have). People ask what the fathers (or confessions) say about this or that rather than what the scriptures say.

I wonder if the Reformed community is going that way also. Just yesterday I was told that someone actually wrote a commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism. Is that true? Doesn't that presuppose an authority for the HC that it does not claim for itself?


----------



## chbrooking (Apr 25, 2009)

Leslie,
Any time a document is written down, particularly is this so for a document designed to be concise, it becomes the subject of interpretation. As such, a commentary is not necessarily out of order. A commentary does not necessarily invest its subject with authority. There are commentaries on Shakespeare, Plato's _Apology_, etc. The reason some of our standards warrant a commentary is not that they are being raised on a par with Scripture. Rather, their age means that some people struggle with the language; their terse style requires a little "filling out"; recent theological debates may be spoken to indirectly; etc.

For the Jews, the commentary is official in the sense that it is authoritative. The Reformed confessions on the other hand, provide a summary of the Bible's teaching -- a summary that has been arrived at through a great deal of study, prayer and discussion. The Bible remains the authority, an the confession is only appealed to by way of shorthand. All matters of dispute must be brought before the bar of the Scriptures themselves. 

But that does not mean that the confessions are not worthwhile. How many times have you run into a scripture passage that, taken in isolation, would undermine something you know to be true? The confessions are not only summaries of biblical teaching, they are manageable summaries. And so they help you recognize that you shouldn't just leap to a radical adjustment of your theology on the basis of a text you run across. If your reading of that text does not square with the confession, anything but hubris would say, "perhaps I've misunderstood this." 

Of course, if, after significant comparative study, reflection, prayer, and conversation with your spiritual authorities, you still disagree with the confession, you must abandon it -- at least at that point. But understand that confessional communities are based on the confession for many reasons. One is that we share certain assumptions. A church that subscribes to LBC is going to differ in their estimation of children than one subscribing to WCF. It makes sense to raise your children among those who share what you believe to be a biblical view. I hope, then, that you can see that it is the scriptures that are governing. The confessions merely summarize. And to the extent that their summaries are accurate, they are authoritative -- and only to that extent.

But the notion that I am better off reading the text all by myself without the wisdom of the great minds that God raise up before me is the height of arrogance. Sure, the Reformation put the Bible in the hands of every man. But it didn't take him out of community, and it didn't make each man his own Pope.


----------



## Turtle (Apr 25, 2009)

chbrooking said:


> Leslie,
> Any time a document is written down, particularly is this so for a document designed to be concise, it becomes the subject of interpretation. As such, a commentary is not necessarily out of order. A commentary does not necessarily invest its subject with authority. There are commentaries on Shakespeare, Plato's _Apology_, etc. The reason some of our standards warrant a commentary is not that they are being raised on a par with Scripture. Rather, their age means that some people struggle with the language; their terse style requires a little "filling out"; recent theological debates may be spoken to indirectly; etc.
> 
> For the Jews, the commentary is official in the sense that it is authoritative. The Reformed confessions on the other hand, provide a summary of the Bible's teaching -- a summary that has been arrived at through a great deal of study, prayer and discussion. The Bible remains the authority, an the confession is only appealed to by way of shorthand. All matters of dispute must be brought before the bar of the Scriptures themselves.
> ...




Pastor B,

Well stated. Unfortunately I think we all have the capacity to go off the rails and come up with novel yet inaccurate meanings. We have also that worldly ability to follow a multitude or to be easily persuaded by the "really smart guys that studied it." Is it not disheartening that at times we can quote and defend what commentators and confessions have to say more quickly than the Word? I am surprised at how we often point to commentators or schools of thought. 

I am comfortable with the Scripture being the only rule of faith and practice. If someone proposes an understanding that is contrary to accepted commentaries, or even a confession, then answering according to commentaries and the confession won't "convince the gainsayers" (Titus 1:9). Only the word can do that (but only if we sincerely subordinate our commentators and confessions). Who can deny that denominalizationism has many adherents and texts, none of which can prove a matter? 

While confessions and commentators have their use, I agree with you that "All matters of dispute must be brought before the bar of the Scriptures themselves." Easier said than done!


----------



## chbrooking (Apr 25, 2009)

Turtle said:


> Unfortunately I think we all have the capacity to go off the rails and come up with novel yet inaccurate meanings.



Ditto on the well said. We are in agreement. However, I would point out that confessions actually help prevent the situation you consider here.

It is sad that so many know the confession better than the Scriptures. That is not the case with me. I came to the confessions late. Christ drew me to Him through the Scriptures. But over the years, I have come to see that the framers of the major confessions tended to be VERY careful, and erred on the side of caution. I actually wish I knew them a little better. But I'm not willing to make the exchange, confession for Scripture. Fortunately, I don't think we need to. Your caution is well stated. I just don't think we need an either-or approach here. Study and memorize scripture, since that is where the power is. But study and memorize the confession, since it is a blessing to have the shoulders of such giants to stand upon. Failure to recognize that blessing is an implicit denial of the church universal. We are united with other believers not only pan-geographically, but pan-temporally. But I think we are in agreement, so I'll stop talking now. Thanks for your post.


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 25, 2009)

Leslie said:


> Just yesterday I was told that someone actually wrote a commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism. Is that true? Doesn't that presuppose an authority for the HC that it does not claim for itself?


 
Keep in mind that Ursinus (one of the writers of the confession) probably has the most famous commentaries on the HC. Would you fault him for writing a commentary on the catechism he penned?


----------



## Turtle (Apr 25, 2009)

chbrooking said:


> Turtle said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately I think we all have the capacity to go off the rails and come up with novel yet inaccurate meanings.
> ...




We agree. The theory of "Scripture over confession and commentators" is agreed but we can point to cases where the application of it is not readily followed. Maybe it shouldn't be too easily followed, but disagreements have to be dealt with at the scriptural level. 

Case in point, the thread about Mtt 16:28. Most everyone pointed to schools of thought and commentators, which of course didn't resolve any of the assumptions regarding the verse.


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 25, 2009)

Leslie said:


> What is the difference between Bible interpretation in the context of the historical church and scripture plus tradition rather than scripture alone as the only rule of faith and practice? Should not our confessions be held to but held more loosely than scripture? The Roman Catholic church started out this way. It was a major issue in the reformation in England whether or not the interpretation of scripture was the exclusive right of the church and clergy or not.
> 
> It seems to be human nature to add commentary to scripture. Then commentary attains the authoritative stature of scripture, then there are commentaries on commentaries. One ends up with what the Jews had (and have). People ask what the fathers (or confessions) say about this or that rather than what the scriptures say.
> 
> I wonder if the Reformed community is going that way also. Just yesterday I was told that someone actually wrote a commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism. Is that true? Doesn't that presuppose an authority for the HC that it does not claim for itself?



The problem is that when taken in isolation, reading the Bible with a "fresh set of eyes" cut off from the history of the church, we often default to reading it with ONLY the lenses of our own cultural biases and limitations. Every generation is culturally blind to some truths of scripture. Without an historical grounding (including the confessions), we will end up recasting the Bible in odd and truncated ways. For example, Joel Osteen is a splendid example of what happens when an American tries to read the Bible in this generation. The shallowness, solipsisms, eccentricities, and down-right heretical tendencies are only evident when considered against the backdrop of the whole. If you simply toss a Bible to an American without the confessional, theological, and historical context of the Christian church, you will get a VERY shallow American set of sins and biases with a thin veneer of God-talk. God wants me happy, God wants me rich, God wants me guilt-free, don't you know that Jesus came so that I might have life and have it ABUNDANTLY!!! See, it's all about meeeeeeeeeeeeeee!


----------



## Turtle (Apr 25, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> Leslie said:
> 
> 
> > What is the difference between Bible interpretation in the context of the historical church and scripture plus tradition rather than scripture alone as the only rule of faith and practice? Should not our confessions be held to but held more loosely than scripture? The Roman Catholic church started out this way. It was a major issue in the reformation in England whether or not the interpretation of scripture was the exclusive right of the church and clergy or not.
> ...



Each of those fallacies can be stopped from the scripture alone. If someone raises a legitimate question about a "churchism", answering with more "churchisms" (or Osteenisms) won't settle the issue. As Pastor B. said, "All matters of dispute must be brought before the bar of the Scriptures themselves." I find it exciting when people adopt the Missouri slogan, "The show me state."


----------



## DTK (Apr 25, 2009)

> While confessions and commentators have their use, I agree with you that "All matters of dispute must be brought before the bar of the Scriptures themselves." Easier said than done!



Agreed, easier said than done is the reality with which we live today, especially in a postmodern age. But one of the things that never ceases to amaze me is that no matter how perspicuous the Scriptures are in many places, some folks will never abandon the argument of "that's just your interpretation," in order to maintain their error. 

Moreover, is it not interesting, as well, that when our Lord (in Matthew 4 and Luke 4) answered the devil some three times from the Scriptures ("it stands written") that even the devil himself was not as fastidious as people of our own day?, (particularly non-Protestants) who insist, "that's just your interpretation!" Nonetheless, I think these passages in Matthew 4 and Luke 4 are θεόπνευστος to remind us of the efficacious power of God's inscripturated word to turn aside error, even when folk appear to be rejecting the clear teaching of such passages.

Whenever such a discussion comes up, such as this thread, I am always reminded of the words of William Whitaker...


> *William Whitaker (1547-1595):* For there is nothing in Scripture so plain that some men have not doubted it; as, that God is Almighty, that he created heaven and earth, that Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, conceived of the Holy Ghost, and so forth: these are indeed plainly and openly set down in Scripture, and yet there are controversies about them. Things therefore are not presently obscure, concerning which there are many controversies; because these so manifold disputes arise rather from the perversity and curiosity of the human mind, than from any real obscurity. The apostle says that the minds of infidels are blinded by the devil, lest they should see that brilliant light and acquiesce in it: which is most true of our adversaries. William Whitaker, _A Disputation on Holy Scripture Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton_, trans. and ed. William Fitzgerald (Cambridge: University Press, reprinted 1849), pp. 388-389.



DTK


----------



## Turtle (Apr 25, 2009)

DTK said:


> > While confessions and commentators have their use, I agree with you that "All matters of dispute must be brought before the bar of the Scriptures themselves." Easier said than done!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Good words. You said,"some folks will never abandon the argument of "that's just your interpretation," in order to maintain their error." 


If that is the case then folks shouldn't hold on to their error, but many times denominations answer questions or challenges to accepted doctrine by repeating denominational distinctives and commentaries instead of pulling out the actual scripture. Too often I hear folks repeat the positions of famous commentators or denominational positions and then expect that the issue is settled. Perhaps in their own mind it is settled because they have worked through the scripture proofs that bring them in agreement with those conclusions, but to the one who questions a commentator or denominational position, they take exception to (or are unaware of) the "proof". To the one who questions, the conclusion is not settled, and they deserve to have their answers addressed by the scripture. If we actually disagree about the Scripture that is one thing, but if we disagree about "what Paul, Apollos, and Cephas say", thats another.


----------



## moral necessity (Apr 25, 2009)

Thanks for all of your responses so far! Please keep them coming as you see fit!

The Biblicists I've encountered tend to think that most, if not all, of Scripture can be correctly discerned if the sentences are simply diagramed. I remember raising a red flag in my mind when I heard a pastor's exegesis of Rom. 3:28, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the Law." He said, "notice, it says 'works of the Law', not just 'works'." And so, he promoted the idea that works are going to justify us, just not works of the Law, but rather works of faith in sanctification. He seemed to abandon the imputation of the works of Christ for an apparent Romanism based upon his take on this verse.

I find too the comments about it being the height of arrogance to do so, to be very interesting. What else would prompt someone to not venture to consider the work of the Spirit of God in believers from the past? Who am I to presume that I have the corner on truth, and see no value in the somewhat Spirit enlightened understanding of the saints who have gone before me? I remember one time where I was quoting Owen to a Biblicist, and, eventually he said to me in frustration, "I don't give a s*** about what Owen thought. I only care about what the Bible says." How would you respond to that?

Blessings!


----------



## DTK (Apr 25, 2009)

moral necessity said:


> I find too the comments about it being the height of arrogance to do so, to be very interesting. What else would prompt someone to not venture to consider the work of the Spirit of God in believers from the past? Who am I to presume that I have the corner on truth, and see no value in the somewhat Spirit enlightened understanding of the saints who have gone before me?...



At the same time, we need realize, as well, that the same Spirit of God Who was at work in believers from the past, is likewise the same Spirit of God Who is at work in believers in the present. In other words, there is balance to be sought, i.e. while we value the voices of the past, we do not enslave ourselves blindly to their tradition. To be sure, we must not strike out on novel ground, but we must maintain that our confessional standards are themselves subordinate standards to Holy Scripture. Our confessional standards are _norma normata_ (a normed norm) in nature, while Scripture alone occupies the place of _norma normans non normata_, i.e., the norm that norms, [but is] not normed by any other standard. To be sure, the Westminster divines were very careful to maintain this distinction in WCF 1:10.

I think we need also to remind ourselves of Calvin's insistence on the spiritual nature of Scripture itself, _viz.,_, lest we forget our Reformed heritage which insists that _ecclesia nata est ex Dei Verbo_ ("the church is born of the Word of God"), as we're reminded in Muller's _Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms_, p. 324. We must always be reminded of the truth upon which Calvin insisted concerning the inseparability of Word and Spirit...


> For by a kind of mutual bond the Lord has joined together the certainty of his Word and of his Spirit so that the perfect religion of his Word may abide in our minds when the Spirit, who causes us to contemplate God’s face, shines; and that we in turn may embrace the Spirit with no fear of being deceived when we recognize him in his own image, namely, in the Word. So indeed it is. God did not bring forth his Word among men for the sake of a momentary display, intending at the coming of his Spirit to abolish it. Rather, he sent down the same Spirit by whose power he had dispensed the Word, to complete his work by the efficacious confirmation of the Word. _Institutes of the Christian Religion_, Vol. 1, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, reprinted 1977), Book I.9.3, p. 95.


The Word of God when wielded in the power of the Spirit can efficaciously penetrate the souls of men, and make way for its own reception. Indeed, our own confessional standards remind us of this (e.g., WCF 1:5). Tradition itself testifies to this in the language of Hilary of Poitiers (c 315-67)...


> For he is the best student who does not read his thoughts into the book, but lets it reveal its own; who draws from it its sense, and does not import his own into it, nor force upon its words a meaning which he had determined was the right one before he opened its pages. Since then we are to discourse of the things of God, let us assume that God has full knowledge of Himself, and bow with humble reverence to His words. For He Whom we can only know through His own utterances is the fitting witness concerning Himself. _NPNF2: Vol. IX, On the Trinity_, Book 1, §18.



as Salvian the Presbyter (5th century) did...


> I need not prove by arguments what God Himself proves by His own words. When we read that God says He perpetually sees the entire earth, we prove thereby that He does see it because He Himself says He sees it. When we read that He rules all things He has created, we prove thereby that He rules, since He testifies that He rules. When we read that He ordains all things by His immediate judgment, it becomes evident by this very fact, since He confirms that He passes judgment. All other statements, said by men, require proofs and witnesses. God’s word is His own witness, because whatever uncorrupted Truth says must be the undefiled testimony to truth. FC, Vol. 3, _The Writings of Salvian, The Presbyter, The Governance of God_, Book 3.1 (New York: CIMA Publishing Co., Inc., 1947), pp. 68-69.



As Muller explains...



> *Scripturam ex Scriptura explicandam esse:* _Scripture is to be explained from Scripture_; one of several forms of a maxim employed by both Lutheran and Reformed orthodox to indicate the normative authority and self-authenticating character of Scripture over against the Roman Catholic contention that the church has absolute authority to explain the text. The orthodox grant that Scripture cannot be interpreted outside of the church, but they insist that the authority of the church derives from Scripture and not the authority of Scripture from the church’s testimony. Since Word, as such, is authoritative and effective, it must be its own standard of interpretation. Other versions of the maxim include: _Scriptura seipsam interpretatur; Scriptura Scripturam Interpretatur; Scriptura sui interpres_. Richard A. Muller, _Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology_ (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), p. 277.



In short, let us honor tradition, make use of it, respect it; while never for a moment losing confidence in the power of the Word of God itself, in the hands of the Holy Spirit, to make it efficacious to the souls of men. Indeed, to the extent we are faithful to the word of God, the Second Helvetic Confession is on target, _Praedicatio verbi Dei est verbum Dei_ (“the preaching of the word of God is the word of God”).

It is this balance, I think, that needs to be maintained, lest 1) we misuse our confessional standards, on the one hand, by relying on them as though they were n_orma normans non normata_, which is reserved for Scripture alone, while never admitting to ourselves a loss of confidence in the word of God itself and the Spirit who gave it; or 2) we abandon the rich heritage of those who have gone before us, and who were themselves God's gift to His Church.

DTK


----------

