Christianity vs Biblicism

1,963 Views | 32 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by ramblin_ag02
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Christianity vs Biblicism

This seems to be a subject of much debate lately, and I saw this today and thought I'd share. I think it is a great piece detailing the problem. Jesus Christ is the Word of God.

Quote:

In the divorce settlement (to push the metaphor a bit further) Catholic Mom got a long history, a rich tradition, and a unified church, but all Protestant Dad got was the Bible. Without history, tradition, or a magisterium, the Bible had to be everything for Protestant Dad and Protestants have made the most of it. For five hundred years Protestant scholars and theologians have led the way in biblical translation, scholarship, and interpretation, giving the Christian world such notables as Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jacob Arminius, John Wesley, Karl Barth, C.S. Lewis, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, T.F. Torrance, Walter Brueggemann, Stanley Hauerwas, Fleming Rutledge, Richard Hayes, N.T. Wright, to name a few.
Quote:

But with Sola Scriptura as a defiant battle cry there always lurked the temptation to place more weight on the Bible than it could bear, or worse yet, a temptation to deify the Bible and make an idol out of it.
Quote:

This has led to the thoroughly modern and peculiarly Protestant problem of Biblicism. Biblicism is an interpretative method that reads the Bible as a "flat text" where every verse is itself "the word of God" and carries the same authority as any other verse.
Quote:

The risen Christ said to his disciples, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given unto me." With his wry British wit, N.T. Wright reminds us that Jesus did not say, "All authority in heaven and on earth is given unto a book you chaps are going to write." The irony of Biblicism is that for all its claims about giving final authority to the Bible, in reality Biblicism enables the individual reader to remain their own private authority. So if you don't like Jesus' explicit call to an ethic of nonviolence, you can always appeal to the wars of Joshua and David to countermand the Sermon on the Mount. This is how you use Joshua to trump Jesus. Perhaps the most clever way to ignore the commands of Christ is to cite an opposing chapter and verse. By reading the Bible as a flat text and selecting the corroborative proof-text, you can gain a biblical endorsement for nearly anything including wars of conquest, genocide, women held as property, and the institution of slavery. This abuse of the Bible has a long and well documented history.
Quote:

One of the chief problems of Biblicism is that it fails to make the vital distinction between the Bible and Christianity. Christian faith is a living tree rooted in the soil of Scripture. We cannot remove the tree from the soil in which it is rooted and exect it to survive; but neither are we to think that the tree and the soil are the same thing! They are not. Put simply, the Bible and Christianity are not synonymous. Yes, they are connected, but they remain distinct. Scripture is the soil; Christian faith is the living tree. They are connected, but they are not the same thing. So if the Bible assumes that slavery is both a tolerable and inevitable institution (see Ephesians 6:5), even explicitly stating that slaves are slaveowners' property (see Exodus 21:21), that doesn't mean this is the Christian ethical position on slavery. Christianity is not a slave to the Bible Christianity is a slave to Christ! Out of the soil of Scripture grows a mature Christian faith that is not only able, but required to oppose all forms of slavery in the name of Jesus. Rooted in the soil of Scripture, Christianity is capable of growing an ethical bough of justice called abolition.
Quote:

Nevertheless, to understand Christianity as a living tree rooted in the soil of Scripture enables the church to grow in new and redemptive ways within God's moral universe. To say that Christian faith is forever rooted in Scripture, yet distinct from Scripture, is both conservative and progressive. Conservative in that it recognizes the inviolability of Scripture. Progressive in that it makes a vital distinction between the living faith and the historic text.

Quote:

The ancient orthodox alternative to modern heterodox Biblicism is to say what the church has always said: Jesus Christ is the true Word of God. The Bible is the word of God, only in a penultimate sense. The Bible is the inspired, canonized witness to the Word of God who is Jesus Christ the Word made flesh. Only Jesus Christ is the inerrant and infallible, perfect and divine Word of God. We come to accept the Bible as authoritative in the ongoing conversation about Christ that is Christian theology through the witness of Christ and the church not the other way around. Without first appealing to Christ and then secondly to the church, we can't even account for how the Christian Bible came into being. The risen Christ commissioned the church to bear witness to the gospel throughout the world. In the course of obeying Christ's commission the church composed, collected, and canonized certain writings that became the New Testament. But we don't start with the Bible; we start with Jesus and the church. Why? Because Jesus is Lord, not the Bible. Christians worship Jesus, not the Bible. Jesus is the head of the church, not the Bible.
The last quote is spot on. Such a great description.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
For the life of me, I will never understand the desire to get back to a "because I said so" logic of why things are. (this is the essence of any appeal of authority)

what problem of modern Christianity are you anticipating that this "correction" will solve?
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
diehard03 said:

For the life of me, I will never understand the desire to get back to a "because I said so" logic of why things are. (this is the essence of any appeal of authority)

what problem of modern Christianity are you anticipating that this "correction" will solve?
What correction are you referring to?
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
moving away from protestantism into orthodoxy.
Texaggie7nine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RetiredAg said:

diehard03 said:

For the life of me, I will never understand the desire to get back to a "because I said so" logic of why things are. (this is the essence of any appeal of authority)

what problem of modern Christianity are you anticipating that this "correction" will solve?
What correction are you referring to?
Looking to a specific church for authority on what Jesus wants.
7nine
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
diehard03 said:

moving away from protestantism into orthodoxy.
Well, I don't think the article is making the argument to become Orthodox. The author isn't Orthodox, so that would be odd. Appeal to authority is something that's fundamental to our faith. We do it every time we affirm the foundational creeds of the church. We see that in the early church, as it was the Apostles who were in authority. Now, if you want to argue that the authority ceased when the Apostolic period ended vs Apostolic succession, that's another debate that I'm not qualified to really chime in on.

But perhaps there's a benefit to move towards Orthodoxy, especially with some of the issues we see within the Protestant circles today. Basically, getting back to the roots of it all. I know my faith has been stronger since I've begun reading up on Orthodoxy, but again, I don't really think that's what the purpose of the article is.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
its' to clearly point back to SOMETHING that tell us what the bible is supposed to mean. As part of your "spot on" last quote, it's basically parroted the old Catholic line that "we wrote the bible!". it even starts to insert something else inbetween Christ and the Bible: the church.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I took it as pointing to Christ as the Word of God and that the Scriptures are a witness to the Word. Christ "commissioned" the church to bear witness to Him, which led to the NT. Again, I'm not really seeing what your actual issue is. Is it that you feel the author is pointing away from Protestantism?
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
What do you think should be between Christ and the Bible?
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
diehard,
Is your issue the appeal to authority? If so, is there not some degree of "authority" at your church? From the Protestant perspective, what's the difference between appealing to your individual church body leadership vs appealing to a broader church leadership like we see in the Orthodox and Catholic church? I believe from an Orthodox/Catholic perspective, there's a world of difference, but from the Protestant perspective, what difference is there?
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

What do you think should be between Christ and the Bible?

I tend to look at more digitally as "Christ" and "not Christ". All non-Christ elements are on the same plane, if you will.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Again, I'm not really seeing what your actual issue is. Is it that you feel the author is pointing away from Protestantism?

There's a point to the post, no? he's obviously speaking out against (what I call) biblical idolatry.

Quote:

Is your issue the appeal to authority? If so, is there not some degree of "authority" at your church? From the Protestant perspective, what's the difference between appealing to your individual church body leadership vs appealing to a broader church leadership like we see in the Orthodox and Catholic church? I believe from an Orthodox/Catholic perspective, there's a world of difference, but from the Protestant perspective, what difference is there

I would say that I believe I should submit to my local pastor in action, but not in mind...if that makes sense. I also don't believe that a pastor should defend something by saying "because I'm the pastor". This is what I mean by appeal to authority. But, I test everything he says against what I have been taught in the totality of my life and what I believe the Spirit has directed me to. I also attend a church that believes in the core tenets that I believe...so anything I disagree with is extremely minor, imo.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Of course there's a point to it. I just don't understand what your objection is to it.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
diehard03 said:

Quote:

What do you think should be between Christ and the Bible?

I tend to look at more digitally as "Christ" and "not Christ". All non-Christ elements are on the same plane, if you will.
Where would you put the Church at under that view, especially given that the Church is considered the "body of Christ"?
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I really enjoyed the article. Thanks. But still not a pacifist.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I don't understand the objection to putting the Church between Christ and the Bible then, since the Bible is just "not Christ" but the Church is Christ, if we have to classify it into one of the two.


Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? 1 Corinthians 6:15

Because there is one loaf, we the many are one body; for we all partake of the one loaf. 1 Corinthians 10:17

The body is a unit, though it is comprised of many parts. And although its parts are many, they all form one body. So it is with Christ...Now you are the body of Christ, and members in particular. 1 Corinthians 12:12,27

So we, the many, are one body in Christ; and individually members one of another. Romans 12:5

[Of the Apostles] Holy Father, keep them in Your name, which You have given Me, that they may be one as we are...But I do not ask for these only, but also for those believing in Me through their word, that all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And I have given them the glory which You have given Me, so that they may be one, as We are one. John 17:11,20-22

If we are in unity with Christ, you can no more make a division between the Church and Christ than you can between the Father and the Son.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Of course there's a point to it. I just don't understand what your objection is to it.

I'm not sure how else to say it, so we don't have to keep bothering with it.

Another attempt: The main issue anyone seems to have with Sola Scriptura is that you no longer has a definitive authority on what Scripture means. ie, see his whole section on proof-texting your way believing whatever you want to believe.

I am not defending it, I just think the reason why people reject it end up being silly. (the reason why i reject it is that God gives many things beyond just the Bible. that's a reason to reject it...not because we lose the ability to know what Scripture means)
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dermdoc said:

I really enjoyed the article. Thanks. But still not a pacifist.
lol darn.

Honestly, I had completely forgot that it mentioned nonviolence.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Okay, now I think I'm tracking. Sorry for the confusion.


Quote:

the reason why i reject it is that God gives many things beyond just the Bible
That's fine, but isn't that an area where having some authority is helpful in discerning? Earlier you cited the appeal to authority fallacy, but I'm not sure why there's an issue with appealing to authority, especially given the importance that "authority" has played in our faith. We've had that "appeal" from the beginning.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

I don't understand the objection to putting the Church between Christ and the Bible then, since the Bible is just "not Christ" but the Church is Christ, if we have to classify it into one of the two.

Different contexts. Theologically i am with you, I am speaking about the practical side of our lives now.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
And until a Bible is nailed to a cross I refuse to worship it. Read it for guidance, sure.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

That's fine, but isn't that an area where having some authority is helpful in discerning? Earlier you cited the appeal to authority fallacy, but I'm not sure why there's an issue with appealing to authority, especially given the importance that "authority" has played in our faith. We've had that "appeal" from the beginning.

I mean, the only appeal to authority that's valid is Christ himself, no? I am talking about others.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
diehard03 said:

Quote:

That's fine, but isn't that an area where having some authority is helpful in discerning? Earlier you cited the appeal to authority fallacy, but I'm not sure why there's an issue with appealing to authority, especially given the importance that "authority" has played in our faith. We've had that "appeal" from the beginning.

I mean, the only appeal to authority that's valid is Christ himself, no? I am talking about others.

So appealling to the Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem wasn't valid?
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

So appealling to the Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem wasn't valid

Was it a "because we said so" case?
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
diehard03 said:

Quote:

So appealling to the Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem wasn't valid

Was it a "because we said so" case?

We often appeal to what they said at the Council. Why? Because we recognize their authority to make the decisions they did. Nowadays, we often say "because that's what they said".
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
diehard03 said:

moving away from protestantism into orthodoxy.

The article isn't advocating this. The writer looks to be from the "Word of Faith" group, not the Orthodox like K2 is.

I don't agree with everything he wrote in the article, but he's certainly right about his main premise.

Christianity starts with Jesus and Jesus alone. Without Jesus, there is no New Testament worth reading. So as he points out, we don't read Joshua on par with Jesus, we try to understand who Jesus is and then apply Him to everything else.
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Without the new testament there is no knowledge of Jesus.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Better tell that to the Apostles.
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
How do you know what Jesus did and said?
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You mean today? Yeah, sure, particularly if you say that secondary quotes (like in patristic writing or liturgy) still count as NT.

But in an absolute sense? Nah.
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
First off, this topic reminds me of the discussion of Christ being Lord of the Sabbath. Jesus wasted no time proclaiming superiority over that worship time. But I digress.

I doubt there are few Christians that question the authority of the Bible. The question is one of conflict.

When your understanding of the scripture is different than the teaching of a denomination, which do you defer to?

One school of thought is that the Catholic / Orthodox church was there at the beginning, so their interpretation trump's yours. Logical argument. The problem is that the teachings of the Catholic church have not always been great. Luther had some valid complaints.

But to say the authority is Christ over the Bible is unactionable to me, unless Christ provides me with some direct revelation. My understanding of who Christ is comes through study of the Bible. It is difficult for me to say, I understand Christs nature due to this part of the Bible, and that understanding leads me to believe that this other part of the Bible is incorrect or badly worded or whatever. In such a case, how do I not know that my understanding of who Christ is isn't based on badly worded description of his sermons or stories?

I do believe in a personal relationship with Christ, and in guidance of the Holy Spirit. I also agree that scripture can be idolized. When memorization becomes more important than Kingdom Work and priorities, what are you doing? But, this whole idea of scripture submitting to the authority of Christ is strange if what you mean is Christ as I understand him from the scripture. It just seems so circular.
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Frok said:

Without the new testament there is no knowledge of Jesus.


I agree that this is a bit of a stretch.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Good post. We are all ultimately in submission to some authority. Even if the scriptures only there's a tacit acceptance of the inheritance of the canon. It just becomes a matter of logic and conscience.

It does get difficult I think to be logically consistent and not have cognitive dissonance with -all- of the scriptures without the Church.

And the Orthodox claims are not really "we were here first". If that's the case the Jews would be where it's at.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The older I get and the more I read, the more I think New Testament based Protestantism is a dead end. For one thing, the New Testament consists only of 4 short narrative Gospels, one post resurrection narrative, a collection of correspondence, and a cryptic prophecy. It makes no claim at being comprehensive, only that what is written is true.

From an entirely minimalist perspective, it may be the bare minimum required to be considered Christian, but it just leaves so much unsaid. And everything left unsaid provides fertile ground for imagination, delusion or even outright fraud. So you may have doctrinal disputes over things like alcohol or dancing or continuous fragmentation of denominations and individual churches over minor disagreements. You get new "prophets" that teach continued revelation, and best case scenario you end up with a short lived harmless movement or a long term stable one such as LDS, Seventh Day, or Jehovah's Witnesses. Worst case scenario you end up with cults of personality or doomsday cults like David Koresh or the Munster rebellion. And that doesn't even get into the problem of megachurches and the prosperity gospel, or cases where denominations start following the prevailing cultural winds.

To me it seems that New Testament only faith is definitely missing something. Whether it's Authority (Catholics), Tradition (Orthodox), Torah (Messianic) or something else, it doesn't seem like you can have a healthy Church (capital C) based on the New Testament alone. To use a biblical analogy, the New Testament is a house. It needs a foundation. I have my own biases, but I don't pretend to know which foundation is the best. But the house still needs a foundation of some kind.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.