In 2022, Dr. Sam Renihan wrote “Crux, Mors, Inferi: A Primer and Reader on the Descent of Christ”. This is a helpful guide through the Biblical Data regarding Christ’s Descent as well as a look at the history of the doctrine as taught in the early church by the Apostle’s Creed (as well as the Athanasian Creed, although it was not mentioned in the work) and on through the period of the Reformed Confessions of the 17th Century. The intent of this blog article is not to interact with the doctrine itself, but with some assertions being made regarding methods of Confessional Subscription in the Reformed Baptist community at large.As a bit of background, I would like to offer a definition from Chapter 9 of the book “The Confessing Baptist”. This chapter is one of Dr. Bob Gonzales’s essays in the volume, and it is specifically on the topic of Confessional Subscription models. In this chapter he gives some terminology and then defines several subscription models. Regarding the “Historical Subscription” model, we see its distinctive focus on the necessity to assent to the original intent of the framers of the confession. Dr. Gonzales wrote that this model was introduced in 2014 by Dr. James Renihan in a paper titled “Confessional Subscription”. Dr. James Renihan provided an example where John Gerstner suggested that a Presuppositional apologist (such as Van Til) could not hold to the strict historical view because Puritans affirmed the classical view of apologetics. As Dr. Gonzales stated, this would require agreement “with all the metaphysical and epistemological viewpoints of the confession’s authors or signatories”, which is something that would cause a problem with a Presuppositionalist.One example of how the Historical Subscriptionist model is affecting us today is with the understanding of the Confessional statement that God is “without body, parts, or passions”. It is often argued that if one does not assent to “all the metaphysical and epistemological viewpoints of the confession’s authors or signatories”, then one cannot honestly claim that he is “Confessionally Reformed”. In a nutshell, the argument is that all of the authors and signatories, without exception, understood “without body, parts, or passions” using the metaphysical system of Thomas Aquinas. And anyone who may actually agree with the statement using another Biblical understanding is still someone who is dishonest in saying they subscribe to the Confession.(As an aside, there are several other models of Confessional Subscription. As a brief summary of Dr. Gonzales’s essay on this, they are as follows. Absolute subscription is taken in good faith without exceptions to wording, phrases, or doctrines. Full (or Strict) subscription has allowances for exceptions to some of the wording. System subscription provides for “non-essential doctrinal exceptions.” Finally, substance subscription is one in which there is an affirmation of all of the core doctrines and usually doesn’t require identifying exceptions. A more thorough treatment of this can be found here.)With this in mind, I would first like to offer two quotes where Dr. Renihan summarizes his beliefs (the remainder of this post will deal only with Sam Renihan’s book – mentions of Dr. Renihan will be to him rather than his father, James). As you can see, he believes that Jesus’s soul descended to hell with a purpose. (The page numbers referred to below correspond with the Kindle edition.)Why, then, do we say that Jesus Christ descended to Hades, to the compartment of the wicked, if not to suffer? As previously stated, Jesus descended to bind the strong man. Jesus Christ descended to the lair of the serpent to crush his skull in the sight of every wicked angel and unbelieving soul. Thus victorious, Jesus Christ is possessor of the keys that belonged to death and Hades.
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Page 70The realms of creation consist of heaven, earth, and Sheol beneath the earth. The souls of the dead descended to Sheol, separated into the righteous at rest in Abraham’s Bosom, and the wicked in torment in Hades. Jesus Christ was crucified and died. His body was buried, and his soul descended to Sheol, not to languish but to liberate his resting saints, not to suffer but to subdue Satan, not to preach but to proclaim just victory over the spirits in prison. In his resurrection and ascension Jesus Christ carried his bride home to heaven, presenting himself as a sacrifice in the holy of holies not made with hands. Henceforth, Hades is a ruin of darkness and misery; heaven is a city of light and beatitude.
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Page 207This belief is bolstered, not only by Dr. Renihan’s exegesis of the scriptural texts, but from the examples of the Early Church Fathers’ discussions on this matter. Chapters 7 and 8 were a lengthy reproduction of the views of Thomas Bilson (an Anglican Bishop who died in 1616) on the Descent (chapter 7) and his discussion of the “modern sources” (chapter 8). Dr. Renihan introduces chapter 7 by stating this on page 131:The previous chapter discussed the redefinition of the descent in Reformed theology, and its subsequent decline and neglect. Despite the prominence and influence of Calvin and Beza, Ursinus and Olevianus, and Perkins and Ussher, and despite the permanence of their views in confessional documents, the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were not without proponents of the ancient doctrine of the local descent of Christ. This chapter is dedicated to Bishop Thomas Bilson’s defense of the descent. The length of the source produced below necessitated its own chapter. Notwithstanding, Bilson’s work is very useful for at least four reasons.And in Chapter 7, Bilson was cited as stating the following.Howbeit of the time When he triumphed, we shall afterward speak; we now observe What he did in his triumph over Hell and Satan; and by the Scriptures we find that Christ Entered Satan’s house, Tied him, and Spoiled his goods; or as the Apostle expresses it, he spoiled powers and principalities, made an open show of them, and triumphed over them in his own person. (He would then go on to state that this was the belief of Origen, Epiphanius, Chrystostom, Theodoret, Tertullian, Augustine, Hilary, Fulgentius, Hieronymus, Ambrose, Ruffinus, “and so throughout the Latin Church without any dissenting.”)
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Thomas Bilson on the Descent, Pages 136-137Relevant Historical Background on The DescentWithout letting the main body of this post get too lengthy, I will offer some brief quotes in the following section. Following the conclusion, I will include the context of the quotes. The Apostles’ Creed is one of the oldest statements of collective Christian beliefs, which many churches continue to confess today. The phrase “He descended to hell” or “He descended to the dead” has made some reluctant to embrace this creed. Others, as will be presented in the second part of this book, redefine this article into something entirely contrary to its intended meaning. This book has attempted to teach the Bible’s doctrine of the descent, so that we can unite our voices with Christians of all ages in the Apostles’ Creed and confess confidently that “He descended to the dead.”
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Page 95On Page 105, Dr. Renihan introduces Chapter 6 as focusing “on the reception of the article of Christ’s descent in various branches of the Reformed churches during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The truth is that the major authors and influences of the Reformed wing of Protestantism redefined this article of the Creed into something quite different from the way the church had understood it in prior generations.” He then mentions, on page 106, that beyond the exegetical and systematic challenges there was “the Creed itself” and “the consent of the fathers” “in affirming a local descent of Christ’s soul to the realm of the dead.” And on page 107, he stated that “It is understandable that the Reformed retained the descent clause, despite redefining it. An outright rejection of an article of the Apostles’ Creed would have been considered a bold embrace of heresy.” Further, “It was primarily a rejection of a local descent of Christ’s soul, that is, the descent of Christ’s soul to a lower place, the place of the dead. So, the Reformed churches of that time, as today, continued to confess the Apostles’ Creed with this clause intact. Confusion has attended the clause in Reformed churches ever since because Reformed theologians ‘crossed the current of antiquity’ by redefining and thus rejecting the clause, though retaining its words. The primary source of this redefinition, rejection, and retention was John Calvin.” Continuing to page 109, he cited Calvin and Beza’s influence on the Westminster Divines “in the Westminster Assembly’s Annotations on the whole Bible.” He then mentions the influence of William Perkins and two specific Westminster Divines, James Ussher and Daniel Featley, on pages 112-115. We read that “Perkins proposed a fourth view, his own. He stated that Christ ‘was held captive in the grave, and lay in bondage under death for the space of three days.’ For Perkins, then, Christ’s permanence in death for three days was the final part of his humiliation.” Ussher stated “he went to the dead, and continued in the state of death until the time of his resurrection.” And, finally, Featley wrote that “no man need to make scruple of subscribing to the Article, as it stands in the creed, seeing it is capable of so many orthodoxical explications”And to sum it all up, on Page 115 we read the following.The Assembly published a brief report of their “clearing” and “vindicating” of the first fifteen articles, in which they made the following comment about Article 3, of Christ’s descent, As Christ died for us, and was buried; so it is to be believed, that he continued in the state of the dead, and under the power and dominion of death, from the time of his death and burial, until his resurrection: which hath been otherwise expressed thus, He went down into Hell. 
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Page 115This Reformed view of The Descent was dogmatically inserted in the 17th Century Confessions. For example, the Westminster Confession in 8.4 asserts that Christ “was crucified, and died; was buried, and remained under the power of death”. And the Second London Baptist Confession, The 1689, stated similarly that Christ “was crucified, and died, and remained in the state of the dead”. On Page 129, Dr. Renihan stated that “The complicating factor, however, is that the clause itself has continued in Reformed churches despite being substantially redefined from its understanding in the church until the Reformation. No wonder Bilson remarked, Retaining the words, many doubt or deny the sense thereof.”In his “Conclusion of Part 2”, Dr. Renihan stated the following:While a local descent of Christ’s soul was held as a longstanding truth, confessed in the Apostles’ Creed, certain wings of the Protestant Reformation redefined and thus rejected the Creed’s theology while retaining its words. For Christians in those traditions who desire to rethink this point, part two of this book has provided resources for considering how our doctrine of the descent, or lack thereof, relates to the church’s theology reaching back before our documents were drafted and adopted.
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Page 205ConclusionWithout belaboring the point, something becomes quite clear when one poses the question “Do you believe in the Descent of Christ into Hell?” within the framework of a Strict Historical Subscription model. As Dr. Renihan has clearly demonstrated, the Early Church believed that “Christ descended into hell” meant a descent of Christ’s soul to the realm of the dead.To subscribe to the Apostles’ and Athanasian Creeds using the strict historical model would mean that you are bound to accept the Early Church’s understanding of that doctrine. (That is, unless one would try to argue that the authors of those Creeds understood the doctrine in a vacuum and differently than the rest of those who were writing in the early church).However, to subscribe to either the Westminster or 1689 Confessions using the strict historical model would mean that you are bound to accept the Confessional Divines’ understanding of the doctrine of Christ’s Descent to Hell. Their understanding is an explicit rejection of the belief that the early church would have had when the Creeds were written. To be clear, it is impossible to subscribe to the historical intent of the authors of both the Creeds and Reformed Confessions on the doctrine of Christ’s Descent to Hell.And let’s not forget the assertion by Dr. Renihan on page 107 (and repeated on page 205) that “Reformed theologians ‘crossed the current of antiquity’ by redefining and thus rejecting the clause.” As it seems we are to understand him, he is stating that the redefinition of the descent clause in the Reformed Confessions is tantamount to their actual rejection of the descent clause.Of course, this leaves one in a conundrum. Surely those today who are advocating for Strict Historical Subscription to the Reformed Confessions must themselves also advocate for the same level of Subscription to the earlier and more widely accepted Creeds of the Early Church. But it has been clearly demonstrated that our Reformed forebears believed they could honestly and sincerely confess the terminology of the Creeds while coming to an understanding which did not require them to affirm every notion of those in the early church who may have been responsible for writing “descended into hell” with the meaning of a local descent of Christ’s soul.The following citations from Crux, Mors, Inferi were mentioned in the above article. Here they are in their direct context.This chapter will focus on the reception of the article of Christ’s descent in various branches of the Reformed churches during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The truth is that the major authors and influences of the Reformed wing of Protestantism redefined this article of the Creed into something quite different from the way the church had understood it in prior generations. Because many Reformed churches have continued to recite and teach the Apostles’ Creed, two things are true simultaneously in Reformed churches—the descent clause has continued into modernity, but the doctrine of the descent has not. In particular, I refer to churches whose heritage is found in the Three Forms of Unity (the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dordt) and the Westminster Standards (The Westminster Confession and its catechisms).
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Page 105In addition to exegetical and systematic challenges, writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries faced two historical hurdles. The first was the Creed itself, which affirmed the descent of Christ after his death and burial. The second was the “consent of the fathers” in affirming a local descent of Christ’s soul to the realm of the dead.
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Page 106It is understandable that the Reformed retained the descent clause, despite redefining it. An outright rejection of an article of the Apostles’ Creed would have been considered a bold embrace of heresy. Protestants claimed to be the continuation of the true church, forced out of Rome, so their attempts to retain the article, while truly rejecting it, make sense. They wanted to remain connected to the ancient church. And if it was possible to affirm that article of the Creed in a way that fit their theological system, they were going to do it. Their own writings say this. Furthermore, the Reformed did embrace much of what was commonly affirmed in expositions of the descent (atonement, victory over death and Satan, etc.). So, their rejection of the descent was not a complete rejection of everything related to the doctrine. It was primarily a rejection of a local descent of Christ’s soul, that is, the descent of Christ’s soul to a lower place, the place of the dead. So, the Reformed churches of that time, as today, continued to confess the Apostles’ Creed with this clause intact. Confusion has attended the clause in Reformed churches ever since because Reformed theologians “crossed the current of antiquity” by redefining and thus rejecting the clause, though retaining its words. The primary source of this redefinition, rejection, and retention was John Calvin (1509-1564).
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Page 107Calvin and Beza’s influence can be seen in the Westminster Assembly’s Annotations on the whole Bible. On Psalm 16:10, the annotation reads, “my soul in hell” Or, me in the grave. Psalm 3:2 and 11:1 as Leviticus 22:4 or rather my body in the grave. So it suits best with that which follows, and with Peter’s proof of Christ’s resurrection, Acts 2:27, 31. Soul, for dead body, Leviticus 21:1, Numbers 6:6, the other word is put for the grave, Genesis 37:35.10
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Page 109But the redefinition and rejection of the descent was advanced by English theologians themselves. Two of the most significant figures were William Perkins (1558-1602) and James Ussher (1581-1656).Perkins taught through the articles of the Apostles’ Creed, in which he enumerated four views on the descent of Christ. The first was a local descent to hell, which he rejected. The second was that the descent was “into the grave,” meaning burial. Perkins rejected this also because it did not fit the progression of the articles of the Creed, which mention burial immediately before the descent. The third view was that the descent of Christ referred to his suffering the pains of hell on the cross. Perkins opined that “This exposition is good and true, and whosoever will may receive it. Yet nevertheless it seems not so fitly to agree with the order of the former articles.” So, Perkins agreed with Calvin’s doctrine, but insisted that it did not match the meaning of the Creed. Perkins proposed a fourth view, his own. He stated that Christ “was held captive in the grave, and lay in bondage under death for the space of three days.” For Perkins, then, Christ’s permanence in death for three days was the final part of his humiliation. And this, he averred, was “most agreeable to the order and words of the Creed.”
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Page 112James Ussher dedicated a lengthy chapter to the descent in a book entitled, An Answer to a Challenge Made by a Jesuite in Ireland. Ussher quotes extensively from Patristic sources and Greek and Latin poets to make his arguments, which sum up to this, The words of the article of Christ’s going to Hades or Hell, may well bear such a general meaning as this: that he went to the dead, and continued in the state of death until the time of his resurrection.
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Page 113Daniel Featley offers a more expanded view into the debates, in a speech he gave to the Assembly. Concerning [the] descent into Hell, all the Christians in the world acknowledge, that Christ some way descended into hell, either locally, as many of the ancient fathers, Latimer, the Martyr, Bilson and Andrews, and Noel in his catechism (commanded to be taught in all schools, soon after the publishing the 39 Articles to expound it) or virtually as Durand, or metaphorically as Calvin, or metonymically as Tilenus, Perkins, and this Assembly; and therefore no man need to make scruple of subscribing to the Article, as it stands in the creed, seeing it is capable of so many orthodoxical explications, and therein I desire that this Assembly in their aspersions would (after the example of the harmony of confessions27) content themselves with branding only the Popish exposition of this Article, which takes hell for limbus patrum, or purgatory (Netherland regions, extra anni solisque vias [beyond the paths of the year and the sun]) for any of the other four interpretations, they are so far from being heretical, that it has not been proved that any of them is erroneous.
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Pages 114-115The Assembly published a brief report of their “clearing” and “vindicating” of the first fifteen articles, in which they made the following comment about Article 3, of Christ’s descent, As Christ died for us, and was buried; so it is to be believed, that he continued in the state of the dead, and under the power and dominion of death, from the time of his death and burial, until his resurrection: which hath been otherwise expressed thus, He went down into Hell. 
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Page 115This chapter has surveyed influential theologians of the Reformed tradition to examine the doctrine of the descent in their theology and in the literature they left behind. When popular theologians, Bible translations, annotators, Confessions, and catechisms of the Reformed tradition redefine or reject the descent its decline is no surprise. The complicating factor, however, is that the clause itself has continued in Reformed churches despite being substantially redefined from its understanding in the church until the Reformation. No wonder Bilson remarked, Retaining the words, many doubt or deny the sense thereof.
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Pages 128-129

As there continues to be pushback against those of us who would refer to ourselves as “Biblicists” (or, better yet, as “Reformed Biblicists“), I have been looking at the history of the usage of the term. This is not very hard to do, yet some professors and pastors seem to have difficulty with it. In my previous article, which detailed the first usage that Matthew Barrett lists in his forthcoming Systematic Theology, I looked at its usage in 1827 by a Roman Catholic Priest. Dr. Barrett stated that “The earliest usage of the word ‘biblicism’ in English occurred in 1827 in a work by Sophei Finngan in criticism of ‘biblicism’.” I took his word that this was indeed the “earliest usage”. In that article, I also demonstrated that Finngan used the term to describe what we know as the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura. Of course, for Finngan, the positive doctrine of sola scriptura would be something of which he would provide criticism.More recently, I have seen a blog post by Josh Sommer titled “Sola Scriptura & Biblicism: What’s the Difference” in which he critiques a modern-day iteration of “Biblicism”. I posted some initial responses to that post on Twitter / X here. Regarding the origins of the term, Josh wrote the following:The term “biblicist” or “biblicism” evidently first appeared in the 19th century, notably used by Jon Jacob van Oosterzees and Thomas Carlyle. Both men apparently use the term derogatorily. Oosterzees defines it as “idolatry of the letter,” in his Dogmatics.[4] Carlyle uses the term in passing, either to characterize those opposed to England’s Lord Protector in the 1650s or the opposition to the crown during the 1640s.We note that Matthew Barrett and Josh Sommer both mentioned Oosterzees. His usage is a mention, in passing, from his “Dogmatics” of 1874 (about 50 years after Finngan). There is no definition of the term offered. Josh also mentioned Carlyle. The usage was from Carlyle’s “The Life of Friedrich Schiller and the Life of John Sterling” from 1905. As a bit of a correction, Carlyle was actually quoting a letter written to him by John Sterling so it was Sterling who was using the term in passing.After some further research, I would like to offer a few more examples of earlier and later 19th Century uses of the term “Biblicism”. Some of these have context which further demonstrates that Protestants used the term with good intentions and/or as shorthand for sola scriptura.In 1821, a few years prior to the usage I have detailed from Finngan, Daniel Wilson used the term in a funeral sermon upon the passing of Rev. Thomas Scott. Wilson mentioned the “scriptural and moderate Articles of Religion” used by Protestant churches to “guard against the intrusion of heresy”. But he saw confessions and “articles of faith” as “only an outline”. He stated “that a scriptural divinity – BIBLICISM, if I may be allowed the term – is of the greatest importance, and will be most apparent. And I consider it as the harbinger of a better day for the universal church…that the Bible is the true point of union…” Further, it was Scripture itself and “not certain propositions deduced from it” which should be “the source and model of a scriptural theology”.We never can expect a general and extended revival of pure primitive religion, till God in his holy book is more honoured, and man in his fallible systems less. I say not this to reflect on the scriptural and moderate Articles of Religion by which our own, or any other Protestant Church, endeavours to guard against the intrusion of heresy, and to perpetuate a succession of pure evangelical Ministers. Something of this kind seems a necessary part of discipline in every church. It is in the filling up of the picture, of which articles of faith are only an outline, that a scriptural divinity—BIBLICISM, if I may be allowed the term—is of the greatest importance, and will be most apparent. And I consider it as the harbinger of a better day for the universal church, that it seems to be the conviction of the most eminent persons, in common with our departed and esteemed friend, that the Bible is the true point of union, and that this book itself, and not certain propositions deduced from it, is to be the source and model of a scriptural theology.Jean Henri Merle d’Aubigné wrote a book in 1851 titled “Rationalism and Popery Refuted: Three Discourses on the Authority of Scripture”. In this book, he mentioned “biblicism” several times. According to the Banner of Truth biography page, “Jean Henri Merle d’Aubigné (1794–1872), the most popular church historian of the nineteenth century, was born on 16 August 1794 into a well-known Huguenot family in Geneva.” In a passage on pages 25-26, d’Aubigné would write what we see below. He would repeatedly pronounce that “This is biblicism!” when he refers to Paul and Apollos reasoning directly from the Scriptures.in his first epistle, he gives directions regarding the manner of acting in the church as stewards of the grace of God? If any man speak,” says he, “let him speak as the oracles of God.” This is thorough biblicism!And Paul of Tarsus; how does he act? When he was at Rome, did he speak against biblicism, like Pius VII., Gregory XVI., Pius IX., and others? Oh, no! He appeals to the Bible. Amid the Israelites assembled in his house, he teaches them the things which refer to Jesus, according to the law of Moses and the prophets.” This is biblicism! When he writes to Corinth, how does he express himself? I delivered unto you, first of all, that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.” This is biblicism!But, it is chiefly in teaching Christian doctrines, it is when they labour to prove that Jesus is the Christ, that the apostles recur to the Scriptures. Paul is at Thessalonica! How does he act there? Paul, according to his custom,” says Luke, his companion, “went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures; opening and alleging that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.” This is biblicism!But this is not the only case. Let us proceed to Corinth, and behold a man of great eloquence, who speaks in the assemblies. He is called Apollos. How does he act? He mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly.” says Luke, “showing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ.” This is biblicism!And on pages 58-59, d’Aubigné mentioned Catholics stating things to the effect that “Biblicism is the scourge of the church!” He would ask if a proper “deference to the authority of the Bible, that biblicism” is indeed a scourge of the Church.Thus, while treating of the authority of Scripture, Roman Catholics and Rationalist Protestants toss the ball between them—neither party will retain it. That authority, according to each of the two parties, is an invention of the other. In our day, and among ourselves, the ideas Of Lessing and of Staphylus have been renewed regarding the recent invention of the authority of Scripture. Let us try to ascertain the mind Of the first ages; and, upon this subject, let us see if they believed — yea or nay — that deference to the authority of the Bible, that biblicism, in short, is the scourge Of the Church.He would also pick the discussion of biblicism back up on page 73 where he mentioned Wycliff’s translation – which was a “biblicism” which the Roman Church did not like. And, finally, he would state the following on page 95. He believed that “biblicism is the salvation of the Church.”If there be a salvation for the church, it is needful that the church recognise that salvation ; and in order to such a recognition, she must have a revelation from God to announce it. If there be no Word of God in the world, there is no salvation. It is necessary that a message come from heaven to earth, or never will my soul be raised from earth to heaven. Christian instruction should be founded on the Bible. Its substance should be biblical. Without that holy, without that living biblicism, we cannot have a saving communication Of eternal truth.Yes, my brethren—that is what I ask of you—biblicism is the salvation of the church. Servants of the Word of God, and private believers, we have all been remiss in this respect. It is requisite that every one begin anew the study Of the Bible, as if he had never studied it before. We must not adhere simply to the grammatical or edifying interpretation of the isolated meaning of a single passage, as the Christians of our day too exclusively do; we must examine the order, the connection of the passage—the relation of each passage of the Bible to the entire system of the Bible.Dr. William Garden Blaikie wrote in “The Catholic Presbyterian” in 1880 that he wanted to focus on some “chief characteristics of the Reformation three centuries ago.” He proceeded with a discussion of six characteristics which he stated were: 1. Nationalism, 2. Biblicism, 3. Confessionism, 4. Intellectualism, 5. Fraternalism, and 6. Liberalism. According to the Banner of Truth biography page, “Dr William Garden Blaikie (1820-99) was Professor of Apologetics and Pastoral Theology at New College, Edinburgh, from 1868 to 1897….He was Moderator of the General Assembly in 1892.” He wrote the following on page 244:2. Biblicism — The Reformation was eminently a Biblical movement. It sought an authority external to that Church which had overlaid and stifled the Gospel by ifs traditions, and it found that authority in the Bible. Therefore, to translate the Bible, to circulate it, to interpret it grammatically and honestly, to read it in churches in the vulgar tongue, were objects of the greatest the strongest weapons to be found against the Church of Rome. Luther, Calvin, and Tyndale took the right way to counteract all the decretals and menaces that Rome could issue. They caused men to know the Holy Scriptures, and to bow down before the supreme authority of the Word of God. By this Word, Popes and Councils, decrees, traditions, usages, ceremonies, dogmas — all were to be tried and judged.Is this characteristic fading from our modern Protestantism? Does not the Bible retain its place of authority on our reading-desks and pulpits? Is it not road in our families and schools as the incomparable and inspired Book? Yes.And then, on page 246, we read the following:The interpretation of the Bible is not with us fixed and perfected. There is a science of Hermeneutics—a living: progressive science. We encourage our scholars to devote themselves to this science, and hold that each generation should make an advance in exegetical accuracy. We also most anxiously desire that our divines should so handle the Bible as to exhibit its organic unity under diversity; state correctly, and neither overstate nor understate, what is meant by its being Theopnoustic – man-written but God-breathed; and apply a true historical perspective to what is really a series of compositions stretching over a very long period in the authorship, and avowedly referring to a succession of religious dispensations. The Biblicism of the future may not quote texts exactly in the same way as that of the Reformers or of the Puritans; but Biblicism there must be, or Protestantism dies, and infidelity and superstition divide the world between them.Still earlier, we find in “The British Review, and London Critical Journal, Volume 16” of 1820 a review and discussion of “Horae Homileticae; or Discourses (in the Form of Skeletons) upon the whole Scriptures” by Rev. C. Simeon, M.A. Fellow of King’s College, Cambridge. The identification of the author of “The British Review” appears to be lost to us, but his description of “biblicism” is interesting, nonetheless. Some of his statements from pages 137-138 are quoted below. It seems that one of his concerns is that Simeon “still uses without hesitation or constraint all the hortatory, and alarming language which the Scriptures furnish.” in order to arrive at his conclusions. Yes, this author was alarmed that Simeon used the language of Scripture! And later on page 141 he mentions that an excess of Simeon is his “over-statement” and that “the danger which would otherwise arise from this excess, is, moreover, very much neutralized by the leading characteristic of the work, to which we have before adverted – it’s biblicism.”It is of course impossible for us to present our readers with any thing like a detail of such a copious store of theological topics. We will advert to a few leading points.On the main characteristic endeavour of the whole work, BIBLICISM, if such a word may be forgiven, we find perpetual examples of the most free and unfettered discussions of man’s fall and impotency, and of his duty and obligation to repent; of the universal redemption by Christ, and its efficacy to the believer only; of the importance of the sacraments, and yet their inutility if improperly relied on; of justification by faith alone, and the necessity of abounding in every good work ; of the Divine purposes, and man’s free agency; ot the promises of God to the humble Christian that he shall continue unto the end, and the cautions, warnings, and alarms, which are addressed to him. On this latter topic we are disposed to think the merits of our author to be more considerable than on some others; and we mention it, because, after all, it is perhaps the most important point in the practice and application of religion, and that on which, theoretically, divines have been found the most widely to differ. Our author, holding, as he does, the doctrine of the perseverance of the sincere Christian in faith and holiness, and conceiving this to be secured by the promises of God and the intercession of the Mediator, still uses without hesitation or constraint all the hortatory, and alarming language which the Scriptures furnish.Finally, in “The New Annual Register” of 1804, there is a passing mention of “biblicism” on page 365 in a discussion of “Foreign Literature, Biblical and Theological”. This may be the first mention of the term, at least in the 19th Century. This first chapter is brief and does not lend us much in the way of a definition of “biblicism as a science”.On page 364 there is a discussion of “the different ramifications of the Kantian school” as there has been some attempt at an “amalgamation”. It was stated that “the gospel can gain nothing from transcendental philosophy.” He then goes on to mention the expansion of the Gospel in Germany and England. There is mention of missionary work to the Cape of Good Hope “and it is to this church also that the missionary society of the established church of England has applied for adventurous legates. While neither Spain, Portugal, nor Italy has offered us any thing worthy of individual enumeration, biblicism as a science has occupied but little attention in France. The religion which has once more come an engine of this last State, has merely presented to the hands of its votaries new editions of books that were formerly in esteem, and of which many ought never to have sunk in the public estimation.”In summary, we have seen Matthew Barrett mention the earliest uses of Biblicism being by Finngan (1827) and Oosterzees (1874) and Josh Sommer mentioned Carlyle’s use quoting Sterling (1905). All of these “earliest” and “first” uses of the term are related to us in a way which is meant to scare us. Finngan was “in criticism”, Oosterzees said it was “idolatry of the letter” and Sterling’s use may have been in opposition to the English civil leadership. But these examples arrive quite short in giving an objective picture of the earliest usage of the term.To conclude, allow me to summarize some of the data we have found in the following timeline from the 19th Century. There are seven uses of the term from the 19th Century which we have detailed (I also noted some other 19th Century Catholics using it derisively, but which do not have any bearing except in seeing that the Catholics continued, after Finngan, to use the term as synonymous with sola scriptura). Five of them are positive uses and two of them are negative. It should be noted that only the two negative uses were mentioned by Matthew Barrett. This would have the effect of leaving his readers with a skewed understanding of the earliest uses of the term in English.1804 – “The New Annual Register” in passing referred to it as “Biblicism as a science”1820 – “The British Review” referred to it as using “without hesitation or constraint all the hortatory, and alarming language which the Scriptures furnish” and saw Biblicism as a safeguard for the potential danger of Simeon’s overstatements1821 – Daniel Wilson, in a funeral sermon for Rev. Thomas Scott stated that “Biblicism, if I may be allowed the term – is of the greatest importance, and will be most apparent. And I consider it as the harbinger of a better day for the universal church…that the Bible is the true point of union…”1827 – Sophei Finngan, Catholic Priest, was indeed critical of Biblicism – because he saw it as being equivalent to Protestantism’s sola scriptura1851 – Jean Henri Merle d’Aubigné referred to Paul’s (and others in the NT) quotation and “appeals to the Bible” under a constant refrain of “This is biblicism!” He would also note the Catholics’ derisive usage of the term.1874 – Oosterzees labeled biblicism as “idolatry of the letter”. However, he saw that it was far better that the simple man read Scripture than the Roman Catholic Church’s prohibition against allowing the church to be read in the vulgar.1880 – Dr. William Garden Blaikie referred to Biblicism as a “chief characteristics of the Reformation” and a way to prevent Protestantism from dying!

   After listening to Tony Campolo talking about John Calvin, and then watching Troy Brooks ramble on about how Sproul, Piper, Calvin, Luther, and I are all headed to hell, I decided it was time to break out the Radio Free Geneva theme. I played some parts of Troy Brooks’ rambling diatribes, then gave a summary of the content of the