Barcellos is wrong on biblicism

 

From this page, which I assume is providing an accurate quote on the subject of "Why I am not a biblicist" and  describing the horror of biblicism:

D.B. Riker provides a helpful definition: “biblicism is the rejection of everything not explicitly stated in the Bible, and the dismissal of all non-biblical witnesses (Fathers, Creeds, Medieval Doctors, councils, etc.)” 

…But here is the problem: This whole method is based upon a form of personal independence, or even self-confidence. Doesn’t it ever cross anyone’s mind that they aren’t necessarily the wisest theologian, the best exegete and most insightful commentator? Don’t they stop to think about God and His purposes? Has the Lord chosen me to know truth that has been hidden from others? Such self-confidence is really arrogance-unbridled and oftentimes evil. It misleads self and others. Is the Christian faith reduced to my conclusions? What right do I have, alone and unaided to think that my reading and study perfectly meshes with the mind of God? Jesus and me with a Bible under a tree-perhaps a romantic notion, but a dangerous and potentially damning notion. 

    Richard Barcellos (ed.), The Southern California Reformed Baptist Pastors’ Conference Papers (Palmdale, CA: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2013), 114,119.

This is a very bad, straw-man and false-dilemma argument against biblicism, unworthy of a scholar, regardless of whether or not biblicism deserves to be criticized (and some forms of it, such as hyper-literalism, do deserve criticism).  It paints a picture that to be a biblicist implies that one is a rogue free agent, making uninformed willy-nilly private interpretations in the context of potentially “evil” self-confidence and arrogance, and disregarding all other voices. 

Utter nonsense. One can be a biblicist and yet rely heavily on a wealth of expert exegesis and commentary about scripture. I can claim to adhere to a strong form of sola scriptura (a form of biblicism) and yet readily admit that I need help understanding the majority of the biblical text. 

The strongest (and strangely the most anti-intellectual) criticisms of biblicism come from those on the opposite end of the spectrum, those who are in their own manner supremely self-confident that applying Greek philosophy under the infinitely broad and malleable permission of “good and faithful consequences” (and in the process rendering "“good and faithful consequences” meaningless ) derive tomes of doctrine that the Holy Spirit somehow did not find the occasion or wherewithal to inspire, and then dub these derived doctrines as “Great Christian Truths.” 

To read those who think they have derived “the true doctrine of God” describe anyone as overly self-confident and arrogant is a severe case of pot-kettle-black.

The middle has been excluded, with malice aforethought. One can be a sola scriptura biblicist and still allow, in exceptional rather than common cases, new doctrine to be derived from "good and faithful consequences."