What is meant by Biblicism? Like so many terms this can be
confusing because people mean different things by it and define it in different
ways. I am constantly arguing that Sola Scriptura is largely meaningless when
it's restricted to just questions of soteriology, or when it's divorced from
the doctrine of Sufficiency or even when it's separated from a concept such as
the Providential Preservation of the Holy Text.
Biblicism in most circles is an epithet, an insult meant to
denote an ideology that is stubborn, unsophisticated and childish in its
literalism and fails to account for the more sophisticated nuances of exegesis,
hermeneutics and theology. There's something to this charge when it come to
some forms of Biblicism.
And thus while I embrace the epithet as a contrast to the Confessionalist understanding of Sola Scriptura
(Scripture Alone) which I believe to be (in actuality) something less than
Scripture alone – at the same time I would divorce myself from certain aspects
of hyper-literalist Fundamentalism.
Thus I would define Biblicism as the full and deliberate embrace of Scriptural authority and this
assertion necessarily charges that most adherents of Sola Scriptura are in fact
inconsistent, dishonest or in some cases mean something else entirely, viewing
Scripture as the starting point for a system of thought or as the mere grounds
for a philosophical structure. Biblicism means that the Scriptures are in themselves sufficient. The statement
carries the danger of being misunderstood and dismissed as naive or
reductionist. These are real dangers and I won't pretend that it's easy or
simple to move from the text to doctrinal expression but I would argue that it
can be done and in a way much more consistent with the text (and true to it)
than the elaborate and yet often rigid constructions of theology in the
scholastic form.
Additionally I would argue specifically for New Testament Biblicism. This is not to treat the Old Testament as sub-canonical
but it's important to understand that the Old Testament has been fulfilled and
superseded by the New, the latter being the authoritative and final Word of God
for these Last Days. The New could not exist without the Old but after the
cross and the tearing of the veil in the Temple, the Old can never be read
apart from the New and must always be subject to the interpretation of the New.
The New Testament is a better, more authoritative and supreme form of
revelation. These concepts are developed within the New Testament itself and
are rooted in the authority granted to the apostles and thus to their canonical
writings. We must submit to their interpretations and methods of reading and
understanding the Old Testament, a point some schools of thought struggle with
as they insist on prioritising aspects of the Old or Jewish order (whether law
or prophecy) and insist they are still applicable, valid, binding and fulfilled
independently of Christ or what the apostles teach in the New Testament. This
fails to understand the proper place and context of the New Testament and
represents a kind of Judaized Biblicism
granting the Old Testament a type of 'veto' power over the apostles and the
doctrines revealed in the New Testament – sometimes the veto extends to the
teachings of Christ himself!
In some respects the approach I am taking is (in general
terms) similar to what was found in the Early Church, though they did not always
employ the same terms nor were they forced to address and wrestle with some of
the issues and historical baggage we face today. The rule of faith was tied to the teaching of the apostles which I
would argue is not part of an oral tradition but has been providentially
preserved in the text and doctrines of the New Testament – to which the Early
Church provides testimony. The Early Church was given to quoting Scripture and
taking it literally – and yet not in a literalistic or Baconian fashion as is
so often the case with Fundamentalism and at times Evangelicalism. The
Scriptures were treated as truth and yet not subjected to analytic strictures
or treated as scientific data to be mined, filtered or subjected to
falsification.
To clarify, I am not suggesting anything other than Six Day
Creation or trying to suggest some kind of back door for liberal doctrines. If
anything I am trying to argue for a more robust revelatory supernaturalism and
am willing to allow for no small degree of epistemological and even
experiential mystery, a point I will return to below.
This statement regarding Biblicism is but a summation,
highlighting various points with the briefest of explanations. All of these
ideas are being worked through in my other writings and yet there are still
some areas that I have not yet had time to properly elaborate or explore. As
this is a summary – I'm not going to spend a lot of time arguing these points
but rather stating them.
Biblicism, this view of the Bible I advocate, is the very font
from which all my other ideas spring and as such shapes my understanding of
doctrine and theology, historiography, the interpretation of current events and
my continued and persistent calls for comprehensive ecclesiastical reform. I
believe God has spoken and His word is sufficient for the Church and the
Christian in this present world. As such I am dubious about any attempt by
Church leaders and theologians to move beyond the text and develop it into a
wider system.
I will further elaborate this question in three parts. First
there are a series of issues with regard to Biblicism and Epistemology:
I would argue that all epistemologies that men are capable of
formulating and expressing are (like all philosophical systems) doomed to fail.
In this fallen present evil age we can apprehend a degree of knowledge but we
struggle 'to know' and certainly cannot know anything comprehensively and thus
are unable to properly relate and contextualise our knowledge. We have a
functional epistemology but as reality is rooted in the metaphysical and
spiritual realms we (due to the Fall) are to a certain degree cut off. We might
wish our knowledge could perfectly correspond with reality (with the way things
are) and yet we are trapped by forms of idealism that shape and even dominate
our thinking. The coherences we form in our minds may overlap with reality but
cannot equate it, nor can we grasp that which is eternal, and therefore that
which is real. We know only in part and are limited by the realities of an age
(or order) that is passing away. Our finite capabilities, our empirical bias,
our limited way of relating and attaching meaning are shaped by our character,
context, precommitments and prejudices. We cannot approach reality on a neutral
basis, nor do we have the capability to properly understand and relate the
empirical knowledge we acquire. Idealism is a sure road to subjectivism, a
dead-end and the creation of idol-constructs but Empiricism offers no
correction or solution, for in the hand and eye of fallen man it too falls prey
to idealism's dominance and is also subjugated to it. We are lost apart from the
revelation of Christ which in these Last Days is found and grounded in the New
Testament and with it the Old which it has fulfilled.*
The doctrine the apostles teach are revealed mysteries and as
such they cannot be critically probed, dissected, categorised and/or re-cast in
terms that are deemed coherent and acceptable to our limited mental
capabilities. We are ignorant and yet in the Spirit we can attain to a kind of
informed ignorance.
We apprehend but do not comprehend. Our knowledge is partial
and thus dependent – but sufficient. Logic, the laws of thinking and reasoning
are rooted in space and time and limited by our ability to conceive and relate.
Those that take them into the spiritual and revelatory realm are flying blind
and tinkering with things that are beyond them. When dealing with the creation
in and of itself, in our day-to-day lives, in the use of its resources and the
like, this sort of logic is often lacking and yet sufficient to interact with
the materials and issues that are the 'stuff' of temporal concern – but when it
comes to interacting with Divine Revelation our logic must be subjected. We
still use logic as we employ words and connect ideas (which is often
problematic enough especially in communications between persons) but as we're
dealing with spiritual truths we must submit to our incapability to grasp
things as they are – apart from trust in the revelation granted to us and
obedience to its imperatives. Our logic is necessarily subordinated and this
affects how we read and understand the Scriptures. Subordinated logic is of the
essence of faith, an evidence and assurance born of hope, in trust and
obedience – conviction and action rooted in a trust of things not seen, things
which defy our ability to empirically verify or even coherently explain, but
yet the soul knows to be true.
Those who have tied the Person and Character of God to logic
have erred, chaining God to the limitations of the finite and to that which man
is capable of conceiving. Logic and wisdom are not the same thing and it is a grave
mistake to cast the Scriptures in mere propositional terms or to reduce our
knowledge to these terms or to insist that God only communicates to us by these
means. The very notion is to challenge the ideas, forms and the revelatory
authority of the Scripture.
There is a system to the Scriptures but it is a meta-system
beyond our capability to express in concrete terms, beyond our ability to
formulate in what we must admit is a lower order of logic. As such, the
scholastic approach to systematic theology and dogma is in error as are the
attempts to infer and deduce truths that range beyond the Scriptures, a
practice some have erroneously labeled good
and necessary consequence – which in many cases is neither good nor
necessary.
As such creeds serve a purpose and have a value, especially
as we interact with Church History. Confessions used as creedal maps and guides
are of value but Confessionalism, a binding and limiting system of thought can
only (in the end) compete with and finally undermine the authority of Scripture
challenging its internal epistemological assumptions as well as its authority.
While sometimes oversimplistic, there are those who make a
distinction between doctrine and theology. This is subject to abuse and
misinterpretation but there's nevertheless an element of truth to it. We can
take the teachings of the apostles as they are given. These are doctrines and
if left alone or treated in situ they
will sometimes defy coherence or systematisation. Or we can re-arrange and
reorder them forcing them into sequential and chronologically coherent
formulae. It's one thing to state and declare doctrines and use them as context
or occasion allows but something else to build a system which necessarily (as
it is rooted in a reasoned consistency) is bound to prioritize certain doctrines
at the expense of others and as such downplay and/or amplify revealed truths as
needed. Edges will be softened and rounded in order to fit the shape of the
system and in other cases doctrines will be developed well beyond the confines
of the text in order to fill gaps and flesh out areas that philosophy, systemic
integrity or cultural concern might demand. The system may at points accurately
represent the Biblical teaching but in every case it is bound to take on a life
and an authority all its own.
Within this epistemological discussion there must be a focus
on the text itself and a faith commitment to its providential preservation. God
has not only given the text by God-breathed inspiration but also guided the
Church to recognize the canon and preserve the text so that we can (with
confidence) believe that we have the words of the apostles. Without confidence
in the Word, we are people lost in the mire of our own epistemological
darkness. The Covenant people are marked by the presence of the oracles of God,
the voice of the Spirit. Before the New Testament was complete this role was
filled by the apostles through whom the Spirit spoke. We have their inspired
words. If these are lost, thrown into doubt or uncertainty we have no authority
and no basic to claim to the oracular presence – that we are the bearers of the
Divine Message. Without the oracular presence we have no criterion by which to
judge the claims of others, by which to weigh in the balance the claims and
challenges of the world.
As such any valid expression of Biblicism cannot embrace the
Critical Text nor the presuppositions which undergird it. The Scriptures are
preserved in an infallible form which itself assumes the concept of inerrancy.
This is contrasted with the modern pseudo-conservative crypto-Critical understanding
of inerrancy which posits we have an errant Bible and must rely on textual
criticism to reconstruct the inerrant autographs. This position is a veritable
Trojan Horse that even now is bearing fruit and working to undermine Sola Scriptura
in the next generation. The Bible is the revelation of Christ, the supernatural
living oracle of the Church, the post-apostolic means by which the Holy Spirit
reveals mysteries and opens the gates of heaven. Would you know Christ? Then
turn and hear the oracular word.
Perish the thought that leaders of the Church in order to
gain standing in the eyes of the world would turn over the Holy Writings to the
text butchers of the secular academy, its Babylonian philosophies and sorcerous
methods and allow these children of wrath in bondage to the god of this world
to become the arbiters of our holy and oracular heritage. Perish the thought.
-----
*We of course know Christ through means such as prayer and
communion but even these elements are Word-based – and this is all the more
true in the post-apostolic age in which the New Testament becomes normative.