The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Biblicism, Theonomy, and Presuppositionalism

Lately I have been studying a bit about Biblicism.

When I Google the subject, it appears that even in Calvinist circles it is either a good thing, or a bad thing. On those who believe it is a good thing, they say that in Calvinists circles the accusations that say Biblicists do not follow Creeds, Confessions, or even “Sola-Scriptura”, are not true. In fact the truth is those who are Biblicists agree with Sola-Scriptura and are being consistent with the doctrine.

One of the things that I noticed concerning Biblicists, at least in Calvinist circles, is there seems to be ties to Presuppositionalism and Theonomy (Reconstructionalism), especially where VanTil is concerned.

In fact, it would seem that they (including Greg Bahnsen) believe the logical conclusion of Presuppositionalism is Theonomy.

When it comes to apologetics, I am convinced of Presuppositionalism. However, I fail to understand what they consider the logical conclusion leading to Theonomy.
From previous discussions, it appears that the majority on the Highway agree with Presuppositional Apologetics. Yet just like myself disagree with Theonomy (Reconstructionism).
Can someone help me connect the dots between ‘Biblicism’, ‘Theonomy’ and ‘Presuppositionalism’?

It seems like I must be missing something.

Tom

You are missing the 'connecting dots' mainly because there are none.

"Biblicist" is often used in a pejorative way against those who believe the Bible is the sole and final authority in all matters of faith (doctrine) and practice (praxis: living out what Scripture teaches). For most today who are somehow under the impression that they are 'spiritual, Christian, religious,' etc. The Bible is nothing more than one of a multitude of sources for ideas which are only taken serious when it allegedly agrees with an opinion or act held.

Presuppositionalism is, I believe, the method of contending for the faith once given to the saints which the Bible itself teaches. Evidentialism, on the contrary, looks to 'things' in the natural creation to prove that the Bible is true. The Classical approach likewise leans upon the rationality of men to 'prove' truth, e.g., Ontological, Cosmological, Philosophical, etc. arguments.

Theonomy (Reconstuctionism) is a worldview which is derived from a fractured hermeneutic of several key biblical passages, e.g., Matt 5:17. Further, it is an extreme application of Postmillennialism's "Golden Age" fantasy where the entire world, with a few exceptions, is going to be "Christianized" before the coming of Christ and the Judgement of all mankind.

So, one who professes to be a 'Biblicist'; one who believes the Bible is a supernatural book given by God which is truth in all it contains and absolutely authoritative in all things, can also embrace Classical or Evidential apologetics vs. Presuppositionalism. And/or that same Biblicist can hold to Premillennialism, Postmillennialism, Amillennialism or some bizarre eschatological scheme. And, likewise, A Biblicist can embrace Theonomic Reconstructionism due to a erroneous interpretation of the Bible. And likewise, If one is a Theonomic Reconstructionist, 99% of the time, that person will embrace Postmillennialism. However, many have embraced Postmillennialism but reject Theonomic Reconstructionism. Yet, a true Christian will be in one sense a 'theonomist', i.e., he will agree that the moral law of God is perpetually binding upon all mankind.

So, I see no direct definitive correlation between the three items you mentioned.

Thank you Pilgrim
That was very helpful. Given what you said, I agree with you.

It would seem that the definition of what ‘biblicism‘ is according to what I have been reading is not agreed on.

A few examples both pro and con from articles I am talking about are:
https://reformedreader.wordpress.com/2017/06/22/the-danger-of-biblicism/ This particular article although does not mention “Theonomy”. It does mention something that is common in those circles. I am talking about an over emphasis of “special revelation” at the expense of “general revelation”
.
https://www.gotquestions.org/Biblicist-Biblicism.html

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/those-tricksy-biblicists/ (Please note, I am not a fan of the Gospel Coalition).

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2020/08/what-is-biblicism/ Says Biblicism is not a Protestant view, because it denies ‘Sola-Scriptura’.

I read a few others that could be included here. A few of them seemed to connect ‘Biblicism, Presuppositionalism and Reconstructionism. Saying that Reconstructionism tends to happen because of their Biblicism. Yet, when I consider people like VanTil and Bahnsen, who Reformed Christians that adhere to both the historic Christian Creeds, as well as the Reformed Confessions.
So in that aspect, it appears they are speaking past each other. I would say that people like Bahnsen go too far in their in their application of law, but that really does not involve Biblicism, as least how they use it.

I would like to see one or more examples of "an over emphasis of 'special revelation' at the expense of 'general revelation'."