A third consideration which while hinted at above, requires
further elaboration, this is the relationship between Authoritative Sufficiency and Biblicism:
Worldviewism is a philosophical construct rooted in Sacralist
assumption and inference and as such posits the Sufficiency of Scripture in
terms of a holistic vision for the transformation and sanctification of culture.
This is in fact a de-covenantalised abuse of the doctrine of Sufficiency.
The Scriptures are covenantal, meant for those in covenant
with Christ. As such the doctrines and ethics are to be understood in a
covenantal framework. This is not relativism or a suggestion that the world is
'off the hook' for their sinful behaviour or that God has a different lower
standard for the lost. Rather it is to understand that the unbeliever's problem
is not so much that they are fornicators, feminists, avaricious, liars or
covetous. These are all patterns of sinful behaviour and thought and these sins
certainly send people to hell. But the real issue is not the symptoms of
unbelief but unbelief itself. They have rejected God as revealed in the Person
of Christ and as such He is not their Saviour but their Judge.
Compelling the world to behave in an ethical manner does not
glorify God as He rejects their worship (which is at the heart of ethical
motivation) and such a view is also detrimental to the larger concept of
ethics, tending to reduce it to questions of externals and outward conformity.
External conduct certainly matters (and all the more in terms of relationships
as it's all we have to gauge behaviour) but it becomes meaningless, trite and
even condemning if not accompanied by an expression of inward change and transformation.
The Scriptures are sufficient to guide the Church and shape
its doctrines and ethics. The Scriptures are sufficient for the Church to carry
out its martyr mission bearing witness to the world of Christ's love and God's
grace, calling them to repentance and warning them of the judgment to come. The
Scriptures are sufficient in giving us (the redeemed) the knowledge we need to
navigate this present evil age. Vast and frankly inexhaustible in what they do
reveal, a long-term study of the Scriptures leads to a better knowledge of God,
the glory of Christ and the wonders of eternity but if anything increases the
mystery and awe we are left with as we attempt to contemplate the marvels and
splendours of heaven and its relationship to and interaction with this fallen world
which even as it is doomed – yet reveals the Creator's majestic and august
hand.
Biblicism thus conceives Sufficiency in covenantal terms and
while some might view this as restricting, even a functional denial of
sufficiency, it actually frees the Church from a host of worldly concerns and
disentangles the Church and the Scriptures from the world, just as we are
exhorted to do in 2 Timothy chapter 2. And so while it grates on the tongue and
seems counterintuitive in the culture of today's Dominionist orthodoxy –
Biblicism also insists on the Insufficiency of Scripture when it comes to the
extra-covenantal realm. This does mean the Scriptures have nothing to say about
the world and our place in it. They certainly do, but the information revealed
therein (apart from the gospel call to repentance and faith in Christ) is not
universal but covenantal. We are not to throw pearls before swine to those of
carnal mind who are not subject to the law of God, indeed they cannot be and as
such cannot please God. Their obedience is pseudo-obedience at best and those
who give their lives to shaping a culture of pseudo-obedience and baptised
worldliness waste their lives and have lost their way.
Additionally, Biblicism insists that Sufficiency is applied
to Ecclesiology for it is in this realm of theology (assuming the systematic
categories for the sake of argument) that the churches, even those groups which
profess adherence to Sola Scriptura so often stray into extra-Biblical
categories and constructs. A strict adherence to what is revealed in the New
Testament, although it is often in bits and pieces will result (by the employ
of subordinate logic) in a minimalist and limited form of polity and while such
a construct does not lend itself to the creation of institutions which are
deemed necessary for those who wish to hold sway in the culture, the simple
post-Apostolic-normative congregationalism allows for a vibrant, dynamic and
liberated pilgrim-and-stranger form of ecclesiology able to function in any
context.
Sufficiency also affects ecclesiology in that it necessarily
excludes the attempts by some to improve on the Scriptures, to adapt the
simplicity of the message through forms other than Word and textual focused
study and preaching. Technology and cultural shifts do not change the God-ordained
simple and seemingly foolish nature and medium of communication. The
'foolishness' aspect is important in its counter to worldliness and worldly
wisdom. Sufficiency insists we do not capitulate to the world, borrow from its
methods and embrace its sensibilities and wisdom. The Church is the holy body
ordained and appointed to express the Kingdom on Earth and as such Biblicist
Sufficiency must cast a wary eye at the sundry para-church enterprises and the
many innovations in the realm of ecclesiology. The meeting of the Church is delineated
by the New Testament and while open to guests is for the people of the Kingdom.
Christ is Lord to be sure but he is the Head of the Church in a way He does not
relate to the wider world.
In keeping with themes replete throughout the Scriptures, God
is approached on His terms. Innovation is forbidden, dooming liturgical novelty
and demanding a re-examination and reconsideration of liturgical
traditionalism. The meeting or worship-communion gathering of the Church is a
supernatural event in which we gather in the Divine Presence and with the
heavenly host. It is an expression of the Word and doctrine and if constructed on
the grounds of insufficiency, and requiring innovation in order to accommodate
cultural context – it necessarily implies the Scriptures are insufficient in
all aspects and the door is wide open to innovation. It is in effect a denial
of Sola Scriptura and this is in actuality the commonplace view even among
those who profess belief in both Scripture alone and in its sufficiency. To
reiterate, in most places where the Scriptures are claimed to be sufficient,
the common practice is to functionally deny this sufficiency. And then in
ironic fashion, here they are 'insufficient' (as it were), they are granted
sufficiency – which translates into using them as a springboard for a wide
range of inferences and deductions which are driven by sacral commitments.
Some like the Lutherans have tried to restrict Sola Scriptura
to questions of soteriology and have attempted with some success to restrain
doctrinal migration by means of traditionalism but an examination of these
issues reveals a system that is neither Biblical nor very historical despite
its claims.
Additionally, Sufficiency implies there are no problems, struggles
or dilemmas the Christian might face that are not answered in the doctrines
found within the text. Biblicism must therefore decry the professionalisation
and certification of so-called counselors and those who would integrate
Biblical doctrine with the epistemology and methods of the unregenerate
scientific, medical and academic communities.
In conclusion Biblicism implies a vigorous recasting of Sola
Scriptura in accord with Early Church attitudes and supernaturalist revelatory
literalism as opposed to the Baconian literalism found in some circles that
profess the doctrine. It's also an attempt to strip away the baggage of
scholasticism, tradition and philosophy which have through the centuries worked
to undermine the Scripture's authority. The Biblicism being suggested here is
also an acknowledgment and indictment of the Magisterial Reformation's
shortcomings and the subsequent degeneration of doctrine in the form of
Protestant Scholasticism which led to both the unbiblical framework of
Confessionalism and the embrace of Enlightenment epistemology and eventually
Higher Criticism.
Some familiar with the work of David Bercot will find some
resonance with what I'm arguing for and indeed there is much in his work to
appreciate. I was happy to discover him a few years ago. That said, I cannot
agree with his Anabaptist gloss on the Early Church which is actually in
contradiction to much that he insists the Early Church fathers held to. The
Early Church certainly to held to something like the Real Presence, Baptismal
Regeneration, the possibility of Apostasy, a primitive construct of the Trinity
which while not Arian was by later (and certainly later Latin) standards
subordinationist. The Biblicism I advocate also embraces these concepts and yet
Bercot assiduously avoids the Early Church testimony with regard to paedobaptism,
paedocommunion and insists on an eschatological schema and intermediate state
theology which can be challenged by both the terms of Scripture and the
testimony of the Early Church.
In applying Biblicist principles to the question of
eschatology I have argued for an Apocalyptic scheme that while explicitly rejecting
a Dominionist-based eschatology and ethic, is able to focus on the salient
questions and themes and as such is able to ameliorate some of the divisive
millennial debates and is also in keeping with the less-than-consensual but
limited spectrum of eschatological (and intermediate state) views within the
Early Church. I believe this framing is faithful to the New Testament and is
(both happily and conveniently) a more accurate reflection of Early Church
teaching on these points.
Like John Yoder and others Bercot lays a little too much
blame on Augustine and he does not sufficiently reckon with the aforementioned spectrum
of thought within the Early Church, the already creeping problem of philosophy
as is evident in the apologists and while Scholastic or Orthodox Calvinism is
problematic in light of both the Early Church and a strict Biblicism, there is
at times almost a flirtation with Pelagian tendencies.
This is to argue that the Biblicism I advocate actually
contains nothing new and yet seeks to repackage and reframe issues and ideas
that are woven into the texture of Church history and a study of historical
theology. I would also argue the Biblicism I advocate existed (in a generalised
sense) among some of the dissenting groups prior to the Magisterial Reformation
and in the centuries after the Reformation some have tried to recapture it but
have struggled to do so or have been waylaid by other factors or commitments.
The Stone-Campbellite Churches of Christ for example have made a commendable
effort to apply Biblicism but have nevertheless done so within the framework of
Common Sense Realism and as such fall into error at certain points, forcing
texts and concepts into a grid very much wedded to the context of 18th
and 19th century epistemology. Additionally they too developed a
tradition which oddly applied some Biblicist principles to questions such as
Baptism (in part) even while succumbing to a rationalised naive realism on the
question of Communion. The Plymouth Brethren (especially some of their early
adherents) are also to be commended for their attempts to pursue Biblicism but
have also succumbed to Enlightenment categories at times and have almost
universally embraced the un-Biblical and certainly a-historical system of
Dispensationalism.
Biblicism argues for the self-contained authority and
sufficiency of the providentially preserved text all centered on the revelation
of Christ, the epistemic foundation to our thought and ethics. It's
self-interpreting and contains an internal transcendent logic which enables the
Spirit-led reader to reason, think and live in Kingdom terms.
See also: