As I interact with Scripture’s relationship to how we should think and live, both within church walls and outside them, I frequently go back to two quotes that have helped me frame some principles for the discussion.
Cornelius Van Til:
If we are to defend Christian theism as a unit it must be shown that its parts are really related to one another… The whole curriculum of an orthodox seminary is built upon the conception of Christian theism as a unit. The Bible is at the center not only of every course, but at the center of the curriculum as a whole. The Bible is thought of as authoritative on everything of which it speaks. Moreover, it speaks of everything. We do not mean that it speaks of football games, of atoms, etc., directly, but we do mean that it speaks of everything either directly or by implication. It tells us not only of the Christ and his work, but it also tells us who God is and where the universe about us has come from. It tells us about theism as well as about Christianity. It gives us a philosophy of history as well as history. Moreover, the information on these subjects is woven into an inextricable whole. It is only if you reject the Bible as the word of God that you can separate the so-called religious and moral instruction of the Bible from what it says, e.g., about the physical universe. This view of Scripture, therefore, involves the idea that there is nothing in this universe on which human beings can have full and true information unless they take the Bible into account. We do not mean, of course, that one must go to the Bible rather than to the laboratory if one wishes to study the anatomy of the snake. But if one goes only to the laboratory and not also to the Bible one will not have a full or even true interpretation of the snake. Apologetics must therefore take a definitely assigned place in the curriculum of an orthodox seminary. (Christian Apologetics, p. 19-20, my emphasis)
Richard Muller:
It is, thus, entirely anachronistic to view the sola Scriptura of Luther and his contemporaries as a declaration that all of theology ought to be constructed anew, without reference to the church’s tradition and interpretation, by the lonely exegete confronting the naked text. It is equally anachronistic to assume that Scripture functioned for the Reformers like a set of numbered facts or propositions suitable for use as ready-made solutions to any and all questions capable of arising in the course of human history. (Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics Vol. 2, p. 63)
I’m frequently baffled by the charge of “biblicism” that gets thrown about by evangelical and sometimes even Reformed thinkers. Anecdotally, that charge is typically thrown when a historical quote from within the Reformed tradition has been called upon to settle a dispute, the assumption behind it being that if one disagrees with the quote in question, one finds oneself outside the Reformed tradition on the matter. “Biblicism”, from the perspective of the accuser, is understood to contrast historically-informed thinking, but it is sometimes used when there is simply an appeal to Scripture within a theological discussion.
If Scripture is the norming norm and it does speak to everything either directly or by implication, it seems that this truth should shape how we discuss theology in practice. And if “me and my Bible” errs by ignoring our rich, deep tradition, is there a balance we can strike between historical quote-piling and proof-texting tunnel vision?
Two implications seem to arise from the beginning quotations:
1) Cultural engagement may not be quite as simple as lumping the entirety of secular topics like politics, history, philosophy, science, etc. into one kingdom to the exclusion of the other. If Van Til’s statement is as sweeping as it appears, and if “there is nothing in this universe on which human beings can have full and true information unless they take the Bible into account”, it appears as if segregating entire swaths of creation into the “secular” pile might be a bit simplistic. And in Van Til’s very next sentence, the implication he affirms is emphatically not an endorsement of “Biblicism” or excluding, for example, “the laboratory.” That would clearly set up a false dichotomy. But we also cannot err on the other side by banning Scripture from the laboratory based on an arbitrary hermetic seal between two “kingdoms.”
2) In understanding the truth of Scripture in practice and within theological discussion, it may be that a verse or passage settles a matter, but most theological discussions are quite complex, which is partially why there is discussion in the first place. The organic complexity of Scripture takes intense study (and I’m sure I’m not telling you anything you’re not keenly, perhaps painfully, aware of). But in practice, theological discussion may often be helped by Van Til and Muller’s recognition of the complexity of theology and its proper basis in the inerrant, organic, infinitely complex Word of God. To take an example, a theological truth such as “union with Christ” has dozens and dozens of passages that include the phrase “in Christ” in back of it. So where is the go-to Scriptural passage on union with Christ? The question is rigged with a false assumption and a broken exegetical methodology. Where is the summation verse on apologetics? Where is the verse on culture? Where is the verse on the Trinity? For many important topics, Scripture is not meant to be used as “a set of numbered facts or propositions suitable for use as ready-made solutions to any and all questions capable of arising in the course of human history.”
WCF I.6,10 is helpful here:
I.6 The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.
I.10 The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.
The confession indicates that in back of the light of nature lies the general rules of the Word, and that they are not to be separated but can be distinguished. When are the general rules of the Word to be observed? Always. We don’t get a time-out on observing them, regardless of our profession or course of study.
And what has the final say in theological discourse and controversies? The Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture. If the church isn’t putting those principles into specific practice in its theological discourse, it probably isn’t keeping with its own ultimate authority, nor its own confession and tradition.