Like “fundamentalist / fundamentalism,” the terms “biblicist / biblicism” are not too popular among the evangelical elite. Because a biblical fundamentalist can also be called a biblicist in the right context, the idea of biblicism for how I and others understand it should be explained. 

For some scholars, biblicism conjures up images of selective proof texting to justify one’s orthodoxy.[2] For others, it gives the impression of an “ahistorical mindset” that devalues all insights and formulations from Christian thinkers throughout history.[3] And still others view biblicism as an extreme form of literalistic interpretation, “with no respect for Scripture’s poetic devices or Aristotelian rationalism.”[4] One dictionary even conflates “biblicism” with “bibliolatry,” the latter being a pejorative term to castigate those who value Scripture to the extent of apparently idolatrizing the Bible.[5] If being a biblicist relates to any one of these views, it’s not surprising that astute Christian thinkers would want to stay as far from it as an identity as possible! 

Now, I must admit that there are people in this world who probably fit within one of those descriptions. That said, I believe it’s unfair to tag a group people with a label that is used entirely differently by those who intentionally self-identify as biblicists and contribute to the academic community. Unfortunately, scholars who push a version of the label onto others who define it differently tend to be the most published and influential within academic evangelicalism and therefore become the standard bearers of what they believe a word should mean despite what it did mean before them. These are often voices within the current Reformed evangelical trend of returning to a form of catholicity that can (not always) resemble the medieval scholasticism justifying the “dark ages” when the Roman Catholic Church kept the light of God’s word from their people.[5] I say it’s better to go directly to those who are informed from the inside and self-identify with a label, and consult their definition for how they use the term. Doing so reveals a more accurate portrayal of biblicism that looks much different than those given above.

For example, according to self-identifying biblicists John MacArthur, Richard Mayhue, and the faculty that produced a respected textbook on biblical doctrine, “biblicism” is defined simply as, “a very strong and even unquestioning commitment to the authority of the Bible.”[6] This simple definition is not reflected at all in the sample offered by those who deride the term above. In MacArthur and Mayhue’s view of biblicism, there is no worship of the Bible (bibliolatry) nor a disrespect for Scripture’s poetic devices as suggested in those derogatory statements.

They are not alone, as some writers choose to highlight the historical pedigree of the idea of biblicism. Previous scholars like Alfred Russell even document the term “evangelical biblicist” as in use centuries ago to differentiate the non-conformists or puritan separatists from the “sacramentarian ecclesiasts” who held onto vestiges of aberrant Roman Catholic dogma in the wake of the Reformation.[7] Adding the qualifier “biblicist” proved helpful to identify someone who held to the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith more than what “evangelical” could simply express. The latter term was eventually redefined by historical-critical scholars, and in the course of time became the catch all phrase that it is today. As Russell pointed out, the higher criticism made popular in German theological circles eventually spread to the UK and to the US, and as it did, “‘Evangelical’ gradually ceased to be the designation of true Biblicists and became merely a blanket phrase covering practically all Non-Romanists.”[8] Ironically, the term evangelical now not only blankets “non-Romanists” (i.e., non-Catholics) who desire the label, but even extends in some uses to cover non-Protestants (i.e., Catholics and others) as well. 

The reformational idea of sola Scriptura means that ultimate authority lies with the written revelation from God expressed through his chosen prophets and apostles—the Bible. The principle does not mean that other authorities don’t exist or should never be consulted (e.g., history, tradition, scholarship, etc). Contrary to some definitions of biblicism, a Christian biblicist does not supplant sola Scriptura with solo [or nuda] Scriptura as if believing God hasn’t gifted countless teachers throughout church history with spiritual and intellectual prowess that elevate their insights to levels higher than mere opinions. Rather, the biblicist (or biblical-fundamentalist) understands that Scripture is the inerrant, infallible, and authoritative Word of God that can be understood by the Holy Spirit indwelt believer in Jesus Christ who’s applying a consistent method of interpretation.  

During the Entrusted 2025 conference held at Indian Hills Community Church in Lincoln, Nebraska (https://entrustedconference.org), my fellow speakers and I offered the following definition for biblicism: “The commitment to the authority, perspicuity, and sufficiency of Scripture which is rooted in the presupposition that the Bible ought to be understood according to its own terms.” How I and others apply the term in no way identifies someone who disparages the study and insights of extra-biblical literature. We just recognize there is a pecking order where nothing on earth can usurp the Bible’s authority—and that recognition is reflected in our conversations and scholarship. “While not a perfect term,” admits MacArthur and Mayhue, “we have chosen [to identify as] biblicists, because at the core of our conviction lies an unshakable trust in God’s inerrant and infallible Bible, rightly interpreted.”[9] Clearly, to believe the Bible carries God’s authority is to read it in such a way that would result in that belief which shares with the Protestant principle of Scripture’s clarity. Thus, a chain becomes apparent: biblical inerrancy, biblical authority, and biblical clarity are all indelibly linked with a consistent interpretive approach that justifies the idea of biblicism. If such is what being a “biblicist” truly means, then frankly, no genuine evangelical should ever disparage the term even if disagreements over hermeneutics arise. Instead, they should adopt the term with resolute conviction.

-----

[1] This essay is adapted from my forthcoming book, Recovering a Vintage Faith: Five Fundamentals of Evangelical Identity (Christian Focus/Mentor, 2026).