Is strict Biblicalism biblical?

[guacamole]

It appears to me that a lot of people like to rely on "strict Biblicalism" to defend their pet doctrines. I'm curious at all if one can use the "strict Biblicalism" approach to defend "strict Biblicalism" or if it's just one of those church traditions ya gotta accept on faith...

[Pilgrim]

What do you mean by "bibicalism" I've been in the church my whole life and have never heard that term. Do you mean, "Sola Scriptura?"

[dizzle]

I would like to know what you mean too. I think you are referring to a pecularly modern distortion of Sola Scriptura as Solo Scriptura which I have been becoming thoroughly disgusted with.

[guacamole]

Sure thing. Biblicalism consists, in varying degrees, of any theory which proposes that final spiritual authority comes from scripture and scripture alone. Sola Scriptura is a form of Biblicalism, I would argue, tinted by the events and experiences of the inidividuals involved with the protestant reformation. Sola Scriptura definitly proposes that final spiritual authority rests in scripture. However, Sola Scriptura is an example of a less strict form of Biblicalism, because extra-biblical material (be it tradition, non-canonical writings, logic, etc.) can still be used in the interpretive process to determine exactly what scripture says.

More strict forms of Biblicalism won't allow this. The most strict forms of Biblicalism assert that the church was corrupted shortly after the end of the apostolic age and that anything produced by such corruption cannot be useful for doctrinal formation. For example, in the discussion on Polygyny, Prakk wrote, in response to Jawa Man's assertion that we ought to look to what the ancient patristic writers had to say:


I don't. I think "the church" early on became infected with cultural values of the society around them."

Logically, if "the church" was infected then anything they say is suspect and we cannot use them to discern the finer points of doctrine.

I think this is also the way that some fundamentalistic groups that stray into heresy get lost on traditional doctrines of the church, i.e., the Jehovah's witnesses.

Fundamentally, strict Biblicalism suffers a logical error in which the role of of those people who "early on became infected" in forming the cannon is denied. That is, they support the cannon as defined by those who were in error, even though they know they were in error:



Where do you think you get your bible?


From God.


Fwiw
guac.

[Lion]

I never heard the term strict biblicalism, either. I have heard that the scripture explains itself and I have used that method many times.

Is. 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
Is. 28:13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little.

The principle is that we must be guided by the word of God. Look up texts in a concordance or other reference materials on the subject and compare scripture with other verses. A computer word search is a good start. I have Bible sofware on my computer that has a number of different versions on it. I have found slightly different meanings in different versions. Also it helps to go back to the Hebrew or Greek word and use Strong's definitions. Often Strong's exhaustive dictionary gives a clearer meaning. The problem with translations is that the Hebrew and Greek had no vowel letters and, particularly in Hebrew, the same sequence of letters is a different word, depending on context. Also, there was no punctuation. It hadn't been invented yet.

An example is the thief on the cross.
Luke 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

The placement of a comma changes the meaning.
Luke 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee to day, shalt thou be with me in paradise.

The thief didn't die that day, so he couldn't be with Jesus that day.

[Pilgrim]

Sure thing. Biblicalism consists, in varying degrees, of any theory which proposes that final spiritual authority comes from scripture and scripture alone. Sola Scriptura is a form of Biblicalism, I would argue, tinted by the events and experiences of the inidividuals involved with the protestant reformation. Sola Scriptura definitly proposes that final spiritual authority rests in scripture. However, Sola Scriptura is an example of a less strict form of Biblicalism, because extra-biblical material (be it tradition, non-canonical writings, logic, etc.) can still be used in the interpretive process to determine exactly what scripture says.

More strict forms of Biblicalism won't allow this. The most strict forms of Biblicalism assert that the church was corrupted shortly after the end of the apostolic age and that anything produced by such corruption cannot be useful for doctrinal formation. For example, in the discussion on Polygyny, Prakk wrote, in response to Jawa Man's assertion that we ought to look to what the ancient patristic writers had to say:



Logically, if "the church" was infected then anything they say is suspect and we cannot use them to discern the finer points of doctrine.

I think this is also the way that some fundamentalistic groups that stray into heresy get lost on traditional doctrines of the church, i.e., the Jehovah's witnesses.

Fundamentally, strict Biblicalism suffers a logical error in which the role of of those people who "early on became infected" in forming the cannon is denied. That is, they support the cannon as defined by those who were in error, even though they know they were in error:



Fwiw
guac.

In that case then I have to state that "biblicalism" as you have defined it is heresy as the final authority on matters spirtual is God and in particular as revealed to us in Jesus Christ the Living Word rather than the Bible or written word.

I'd also point out that Sola Scriptura fails by its own standard.

[Swordman]

It appears to me that a lot of people like to rely on "strict Biblicalism" to defend their pet doctrines. I'm curious at all if one can use the "strict Biblicalism" approach to defend "strict Biblicalism" or if it's just one of those church traditions ya gotta accept on faith...
Well, what do you suggest, that we accept social whim as being on equal footing with biblical truth? You have asked the question, but offered nothing in the place of the one accepted standard that spans time and cultural boundaries.

Don Dean

[Pilgrim]

Well, what do you suggest, that we accept social whim as being on equal footing with biblical truth? You have asked the question, but offered nothing in the place of the one accepted standard that spans time and cultural boundaries.

Don Dean
Talk about an excluded middle! The options are not merely "social whim" vs. "Strickt Biblicalism."

We have many things which inform our faith and actions. God in the incarnation for one, the leading of the Holy Spirit for another, the wisdom of the faithful who have gone before as well as the wisdom of the community of faith now as well as the written word which needs to be interpreted in the light of all of those things.

[guacamole]

Talk about an excluded middle! The options are not merely "social whim" vs. "Strickt Biblicalism."

We have many things which inform our faith and actions. God in the incarnation for one, the leading of the Holy Spirit for another, the wisdom of the faithful who have gone before as well as the wisdom of the community of faith now as well as the written word which needs to be interpreted in the light of all of those things.

What he said.

[Swordman]

It appears to me that a lot of people like to rely on "strict Biblicalism" to defend their pet doctrines.
What alternative(s) do you suggest? What other authority(s) would you posit as being on equal footing with the Bible, or higher authority(s).

I'm curious at all if one can use the "strict Biblicalism" approach to defend "strict Biblicalism" or if it's just one of those church traditions ya gotta accept on faith...
That all would depend upon what other alternative(s) you have in mind?

Don Dean

[Swordman]

Talk about an excluded middle! The options are not merely "social whim" vs. "Strickt Biblicalism."
Ok, I missed this post before I posted the above. Sorry about that.

We have many things which inform our faith and actions. God in the incarnation for one, the leading of the Holy Spirit for another,
I assumed these to be givens, therefore my excluding them was on the basis of that understanding. Perhaps I was in error to assume that we could count these as givens. However, I agree.

the wisdom of the faithful who have gone before as well as the wisdom of the community of faith now as well as the written word which needs to be interpreted in the light of all of those things.
This suggests that the interpretation of scripture include elements of subjectivism, which must be rejected. The "wisdom" of those who have gone before us and "community of faith" are still subjective sources. The Lord never grows weary of revealing Himself to those who seek His Truth. In other words, I agree that the Holy Spirit is the ultimate Teacher (1 John 2:27). The written authority of the scriptures is also a consideration because I have yet to hear or read of anyone who has found the Holy Spirit to testify against the written record.

This is all so basic, so why ask the question at all? What is behind your asking this?

Don Dean

[Pilgrim]

Ok, I missed this post before I posted the above. Sorry about that.


I assumed these to be givens, therefore my excluding them was on the basis of that understanding. Perhaps I was in error to assume that we could count these as givens. However, I agree.


This suggests that the interpretation of scripture include elements of subjectivism, which must be rejected. The "wisdom" of those who have gone before us and "community of faith" are still subjective sources. The Lord never grows weary of revealing Himself to those who seek His Truth. In other words, I agree that the Holy Spirit is the ultimate Teacher (1 John 2:27). The written authority of the scriptures is also a consideration because I have yet to hear or read of anyone who has found the Holy Spirit to testify against the written record.

This is all so basic, so why ask the question at all? What is behind your asking this?

Don Dean
So all interpretation we hear from others is subjective? Except for yours of course right? Your interpretation is the right one right? What we hear from you may be assumed to be the ultimate revealed truth?

I'm simply following your own logic when I say that if you really believe what you are saying and you expect us to take it seriously then you should not presume to say anything about faith at all, rather you should be silent and simply pass out Bibles and let people draw their own conclusions. And I hope that you are not a member of any church or denomination that teaches you what the Bible means because by your own admission such things are only subjective.

[Lion]

Ezek. 13:2 “Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel who prophesy, and say to those who prophesy from their own inspiration, ‘Listen to the word of the LORD!
Ezek. 13:17 ¶ “Now you, son of man, set your face against the daughters of your people who are prophesying from their own inspiration. Prophesy against them.
2Tim. 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

Somehow we have neglected the vital factor, inspiration. I don't profess to know how the writings were accepted as inspired, but they were. Inspiration was commonly accepted as being from the apostles who were with Jesus, except Paul, who claimed inspiration by revelation.

[anami]

Just a note:
The bible was written down on papyrus 300-400 years after AD, anyone who has ever played telephone for twenty minuites or heard another person tell a story where you were present you must know people alter things when information is passed orally. Now we know that king James changed the bible and we know the catholic church tore it all to pieces to gain politacal control over people. We also know that hebrew not only doesn't translate perfectly to english and huge suggestion was implied. For instance to translate from Hebrew you do not have Good and Evil you have Ripe and Unripe, very big differences!
So basically we are dealing with THE most corrupted piece of literature to ever exist.
But that does not mean that jesus did in fact exist as a mortal prophet(says earlier scribed scrolls from that time only 100 years or so AD) but it is highly doubtful he was the dietized messiah of the manipulative church. The words of Jesus that ARE in even the current bible will prove that.
And that's what I love the most about the bible, Using the words of Jesus from the most corrupt piece of literature to argue that piece of literature and the modern church that wrote it for illicit unchristian means.

Being pantheological I adore the story of Jesus
I also find it interesting that there are nearly twenty Storied of Gods and Prophets that were born to a virgin around the solctice of the year who were visited by wise men who lost their lives early because people didnot like what they were saying which was all basically the same thing! YOucould say they were all representaions of Jesus except they all lived at different times in different areas of the world.
Jesus, Krishna, Odin and many more
Facinating, to prove the existance and message of each other.

oops, sorry long note.

[Magdalenbrother]

A book cannot speak for itself and is always in need of human interpretation as Plato jokingly pointed out in the Timaeus. This is especially true of the Bible, which is often written in obscure metaphorical language. In the end, "Sola Scriptura" is pretty much the same as the Catholic and Orthodox "scriptura et traditio ecclesiae". In my view, "Sola Scriptura" is just a weapon that Protestants used in their adolescent fight against the old Catholic Church. On the whole, there is more hypocrisy on the part of the Reformation theologians than on the part of their Roman adversaries.

I will believe in "sola scriptura" when God not only writes the Bible, but also provides a 100-hundred volume detailed commentary on it, written in all the languages of the world. I suggest that some of you go to the Mount of Olives with trucks to await the descent of this portentous heavenly collection.

The alternative to "sola scriptura" is discernment. As Paul (or one of his disciples writing in his name) said in an often neglected verse: "PUT EVERYTHING TO THE TEST"(Greek: panta dokimazete). The parable of the tare applies to scripture too. In Luke, Jesus asks his auduence: Why don't you judge by yourself of what is right? It is careful thinking and patient meditation, aided by the tools of philological, historical and archaelogical science, that can make it possible for us to really understand the Bible and discern in it what is culture and time-bound from what is eternally true.

Another alternative or complementary approach is prophecy. Paul also stated that the "apostles and the prophets" are the two pillars of the Church (notice he did not mention scripture as one of the pillars, let alone the only pillar). And prophets are discerned by their fruits.

[Pilgrim]

Just a note:
The bible was written down on papyrus 300-400 years after AD, anyone who has ever played telephone for twenty minuites or heard another person tell a story where you were present you must know people alter things when information is passed orally. Now we know that king James changed the bible and we know the catholic church tore it all to pieces to gain politacal control over people. We also know that hebrew not only doesn't translate perfectly to english and huge suggestion was implied. For instance to translate from Hebrew you do not have Good and Evil you have Ripe and Unripe, very big differences!
So basically we are dealing with THE most corrupted piece of literature to ever exist.
But that does not mean that jesus did in fact exist as a mortal prophet(says earlier scribed scrolls from that time only 100 years or so AD) but it is highly doubtful he was the dietized messiah of the manipulative church. The words of Jesus that ARE in even the current bible will prove that.
And that's what I love the most about the bible, Using the words of Jesus from the most corrupt piece of literature to argue that piece of literature and the modern church that wrote it for illicit unchristian means.

Being pantheological I adore the story of Jesus
I also find it interesting that there are nearly twenty Storied of Gods and Prophets that were born to a virgin around the solctice of the year who were visited by wise men who lost their lives early because people didnot like what they were saying which was all basically the same thing! YOucould say they were all representaions of Jesus except they all lived at different times in different areas of the world.
Jesus, Krishna, Odin and many more
Facinating, to prove the existance and message of each other.

oops, sorry long note.
There is so much wrong in there I don't even know where to start. First, let's just note that your assertion that the Bible was written down on "papyrus 300 years after AD" is not a universally accepted standard in academia. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find many respected scholars who would make such a definitive claim. I direct you to Wehnam's "Redating Matthew Mark and Luke" for a just a quick summary of the issue.

Just for the sake of a few examples: Most argue that the date for Luke is before 100 AD most arguing that the latest possible date for it's writing was 90 AD and many arguing that it was as early as 60 AD. (See Liefeld in EBC VIII or Culpepper in NIB IX)

Or how about Romans which many consider, based on internal evidence, to have been written in the mid to late 50's AD as Paul wrote it after his 3rd missionary journey. (NT Wright NIB X & Matthew Black in Peake's Commentary on the Bible.)

The fact is, that from the earliest extant copies of the text to now, (not the translations but the text itself) the Bible has an over 90% historicity in transcription (Portions of the Hebrew text being more reliable than the Greek). Which is better than even the works of Shakespear. To be sure, as Friedman so abely argues, there are scribal issues that must be considered if one is to be honest. But the UBS and the Biblia Hebraica Stutgardenssa contain a very complete textual apparatus with which to make discerning choices.

To make the claim that it is the most corrupted text in the world is to say something that is un true. Unless you were engaging in hyperbole that is. Were you using hyperbole?

[Da Blonde]

I wonder if the thread-starter's concept of 'biblicalism' is the same as John Killinger's of 'biblicism' which he defines as an idolatry of the Bible and common among present-day fundamentalists.

[Lion]

Whoever said that the Bible is the most corrupted text in the world hasn't got a clue of how the text was preserved. The copies were made, and if an error was found the page was destroyed. A count was made of the charcters on each line. A testimony to the accuracy is from the dead sea scrolls. A complete scroll of ISAIAH was found, dating from 2 or 3 centuries BC, and it was word for word accurate.

The Catholic church, for all the false doctrines they may have promulgated, has preserved the oldest Bible texts anywhere.

The 1611 King James Bible is accurate in major details, being translated from several old manuscripts. Several minor details have been discovered but nothing that affects major doctrines. Something about the Bble has made men afraid to tamper with it. Men's soul salvation is at stake.

[Cyrus of Persia]

I wonder if the thread-starter's concept of 'biblicalism' is the same as John Killinger's of 'biblicism' which he defines as an idolatry of the Bible and common among present-day fundamentalists.

I think that it is a sort of biblicism, yes.