It is not uncommon, particularly during recent Twitter
debates, to hear terms such as “Biblicism” and “confessionalism” thrown around
by those on various sides of the aisle. By “Biblicism” most seem to mean the
“just me and my Bible” or “no creed but the Bible” approaches to Christianity
that often lead to aberrant thought, either ancient heresy or theology no older
than the milk in my fridge. By “confessionalism” most seem to mean theology
that in some way depends on or at least aligns with a historic confession of
faith and/or the Ecumenical Creeds (Nicene, Chalcedon, etc.). Many times when the
words “biblicism” and “confessionalism” are used it seems to be with the intent
of disparaging “Biblicism” and showing how it is not the same thing as the
Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura.
While I wholeheartedly agree “biblicism” as I defined above is flawed and
should be rejected, I feel many times “biblicism” is raised as more of a
specter—an ethereal concept not held by many in the scholarly world. It can be
found amongst many in the pews to be sure, but most of those who are equipped
to engage in dialogue at a scholarly level do not hold to such a radical view.
Furthermore, I feel in believing scholarship many confessionalists are not as
distant from most biblicists as they might believe. Finally, I think the
accusations from confessionalists against biblicists often boils down to a way
to label them wrong without substantive scriptural engagement.
(Note: when I use the terms “Biblicist” and
“confessionalist” in what follows it is not mean to imply a radical
distinction. It simply refers to where scholars would be placed on a spectrum
from total dependence on the church a la Roman Catholicism to totally isolated
exegesis. Further, I recognize that deriving doctrine from Scripture has to go
beyond a mere proof-texting approach but must pay attention to things such as
the overall thrust of the Bible and the paradigms found within. But these
matters are hermeneutical and beyond the scope of this post).
First, most scholars I know who would probably be labeled as
biblicists by those on the more confessional side would never recommend
jettisoning the use of creeds and confessions to delineate what is acceptable
in theology. For example, I am a PhD student and teaching fellow at
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Our institution is confessional.
Before I was able to teach a class I had to sign the Baptist Faith and Message
as well as the Abstract of Principles. Further,
most scholars I know hold historical theology in esteem. I heard it many times
in both my undergrad work at Missouri Baptist University and at SEBTS that if
you arrive at a conclusion no one has seen in 2,000 years of church history,
you’re probably wrong. I believed this was sound advice then and I believe it
now, to the point that I communicated the same concept to the class I taught
recently. The idea that the thinkers I interact with—who happen to often be
more on the Biblicist side—want to engage in isolated exegesis with little
regard for the broader church just does not bear the weight of evidence. It is
oftentimes a mere specter. The biblicists I know simply want to see doctrine
established in Scripture rather than established solely (key word!) by creeds or confessions.
Second, I’ve seen committed confessionalists claim they hold
the confession they do because it best expresses the teaching of Scripture. Who
determines this? For a person to subscribe to a confession because it best
represents Scripture implies they have made their own judgments about what
Scripture teaches. Of course, they might have been enlightened by studying the
confessions. But ultimately they made their determination to subscribe based on
the confession aligning with what they saw Scripture teaching. Otherwise,
welcome to Roman Catholicism. Based on the words I’ve heard from
confessionalists I know many claim they would reject the confession if they
found it contradicted the Bible. Ultimately, Scripture is uniquely
authoritative in both the more Biblicist approaches and the more confessional
ones. Both sides ultimately want their doctrine to be biblical. Thus, they are
not often as far apart as is sometimes suggested.
Third, I have often been disheartened to see
confessionalists argue by simply appealing to the confessions. It is far better
in my view to find out why the
confessions taught certain points, namely, where they derived their conclusions
from Scripture and then go back to the biblical text and proceed from there.
Done in this way, exegesis is not severed from the church at large or its
historical moorings, but we are getting back to the only truly inerrant and
inspired book, the Bible. By all means, exegete with an eye to the confessions
and the works of others throughout the 2,000 years of church history. But
exegete the Word of God, not the confessions. And argue against positions by
going to this one uniquely authoritative source; don’t just say something is
wrong because the WCF, LBCF 1689, or BF&M 2000 said it was. Wrestle with
the Scripture and ultimately ground your doctrine there. Otherwise, the road to
Rome is paved. Finally, it is often argued that confessions are the only way to
avoid a plurality of contradicting interpretations. Confessions certainly do
serve this function but this critique forgets that one must decide which of the
multiple and contradictory confessions they are going to follow.
One final note: some will no doubt see this blog as arising
from the Trinity debate over Twitter this summer so let me say a few things.
First, the Trinity debate was the catalyst for my thinking through some of
these things. Second, I am firmly on the side of those arguing against ERAS. I
do not agree at all with Grudem and Ware despite my respect for these men. I do
not want to jettison 1,700 years of Christian consensus, for one thing (and I’m
saying that as a Biblicist!). However, I hope my reasons for disagreeing with
them ultimately come back to Scripture rather than simply relying on what
others have said. Let us study and learn from each other and from the entire
Christian tradition. But let us be bound only by the Word of God.
