Biblicism

[Dave G]

I don't think that's Armenianism, because it is salvation that cannot be lost. Armenianism usually has loss of salvation possible.

I had a Baptist preacher tell me that some 20 years ago, when I asked him about loss of salvation... that it was "Arminianism" for that very reason. But to me it's a bit more complicated than that. You see, there are 4 other "points" in 5 point "Arminianism" besides loss of salvation, and it's been my experience that most who call themselves "Baptists" teach all 4 of these:

"Freed to Believe" ( Prevenient Grace )
"Atonement for all" ( Unlimited Atonement , Jesus died for all of humanity )
"Conditional Election" ( God chooses those who freely choose Him )
"Total Depravity" ( which they define as spiritually dead but enabled to believe by God when the Gospel is preached ).

In addition, all 5 point "Arminians" hold to this 5th one:
"Security in Christ" ( defined as secure as long as they are resting / actively abiding in Christ's commands and seeking to obey Him ). <---in other words, salvation can be lost.

Here's a link to what "Arminians" confess to:

The FACTS of Salvation: A Summary of Arminian Theology/the Biblical Doctrines of Grace - Society of Evangelical Arminians

The FACTS of Salvation: A Summary of Arminian Theology/the Biblical Doctrines of Grace By Brian Abasciano (For a pdf file of the present article, see here.) The distinctive tenets of Arminian theology may be presented using the acronym FACTS. The opposing theology of Calvinism is well known for...

evangelicalarminians.org

 

[Dave G]

Arminianism...you must keep up good works or you could lose salvation.

Yes, that is what they teach.
I have "Bible Missionaries" for neighbors, and they would confess this.

Calvinism... if you aren't 'enduring to the end' with good works, you 'weren't saved in the first place'.

I've found that "Calvinists" see this "enduring"as being evidential, not conditional.
If one isn't holding on to Christ ( and showing the work of God's grace within them over their lifetime ) and walks away from the Lord, then they were never His in the first place.

Where His elect are, His work on their minds and in their hearts is present, and they will be preserved by Him ( 1 Peter 1:5 )...
"If Saved, Always Saved".

In other words, the Lord has promised that Christ will lose none of the sheep ( the "wheat" that He will gather into His "warehouse" ) that His Father has given Him...
But that there are also "tares" in the visible body of Christ ( Matthew 13 ) that can and do walk away from a God who never did "call" them, who never did actually save them.

I agree with them on this, as that is what I see the Scriptures declaring.

 

[JonC]

I had a Baptist preacher tell me that some 20 years ago, when I asked him about loss of salvation... that it was "Arminianism" for that very reason. But to me it's a bit more complicated than that. You see, there are 4 other "points" in 5 point "Arminianism" besides loss of salvation, and it's been my experience that most who call themselves "Baptists" teach all 4 of them;

Here's a link to what "Arminians" confess to:

The FACTS of Salvation: A Summary of Arminian Theology/the Biblical Doctrines of Grace - Society of Evangelical Arminians

The FACTS of Salvation: A Summary of Arminian Theology/the Biblical Doctrines of Grace By Brian Abasciano (For a pdf file of the present article, see here.) The distinctive tenets of Arminian theology may be presented using the acronym FACTS. The opposing theology of Calvinism is well known for...

evangelicalarminians.org

Not only that, but the 5th Article does not conclude that salvation can be lost (it is a non-issue within Arminianism as people within that category differed on the topic).

 

[JonC]

Well, not sure what you are saying here, but when you let the Bible (66 books) interpret itself, comparing like with like)..you get the truth of God's Word. It's not that mysterious.

For eg.. there is the phrase 'God heareth not sinners'

Do we take that as it is?

No, because it was said by an unsaved man, talking to Pharisees and Scribes.

Context shows the real story.

I have been wondering, for some time, who so many cannot allow Scripture to interoret Scripture but instead use God's Word as a reference from which verses are extracted to support theories.

The verse-chapter divisions we have do help study, but at the same time they have contributed to sects ripping apart the Bible.

 

[360watt]

Yes, that is what they teach.
I have "Bible Missionaries" for neighbors, and they would confess this.

I've found that "Calvinists" see this "enduring"as being evidential, not conditional.
If one isn't holding on to Christ ( and showing the work of God's grace within them over their lifetime ) and walks away from the Lord, then they were never His in the first place.

Where His elect are, His work on their minds and in their hearts is present, and they will be preserved by Him ( 1 Peter 1:5 )...
"If Saved, Always Saved".

In other words, the Lord has promised that Christ will lose none of the sheep ( the "wheat" that He will gather into His "warehouse" ) that His Father has given Him...
But that there are also "tares" in the visible body of Christ ( Matthew 13 ) that can and do walk away from a God who never did "call" them, who never did actually save them.

I agree with them on this, as that is what I see the Scriptures declaring.

Well,of course there are false converts, but if some one has believed on Jesus, they are saved at that point. If later they deny Jesus, that doesn't mean their belief was false.

A father's son could say to the dad they are no longer their dad, but that doesn't undo their birth into that family.

But yeah.. probably saying the same thing, I agree .. if saved always saved.

It's whether you back load or front load works into salvation to begin with that would make it questionable.

 

[DaveXR650]

Well,of course there are false converts, but if some one has believed on Jesus, they are saved at that point. If later they deny Jesus, that doesn't mean their belief was false.

It gets confusing because the early Baptists (Hewlys and Grantham) seemed to believe that someone who turned away from the faith and no longer believed would be lost - and could not come back. They did not believe that someone who lacked good works at a certain level or even serious back sliders would be lost. (As long as they still believed).

Arminians did seem to vary with some writings suggesting salvation is maintained by a level of good works and holy living while other writings seem to suggest something more similar to those Baptists above. And depending upon whose reference you have and how much the writer disliked the doctrine he was writing about, you get very different opinions.

Some Baptists believe that once saved, you are saved even if you try to turn away and claim to no longer believe, though you might pay with an early physical death.

I always thought it was almost funny that some Baptists are more Calvinist than most Calvinists on keeping your salvation - but only after you, yourself, decide you want to get on board.

 

[360watt]

It gets confusing because the early Baptists (Hewlys and Grantham) seemed to believe that someone who turned away from the faith and no longer believed would be lost - and could not come back. They did not believe that someone who lacked good works at a certain level or even serious back sliders would be lost. (As long as they still believed).

Arminians did seem to vary with some writings suggesting salvation is maintained by a level of good works and holy living while other writings seem to suggest something more similar to those Baptists above. And depending upon whose reference you have and how much the writer disliked the doctrine he was writing about, you get very different opinions.

Some Baptists believe that once saved, you are saved even if you try to turn away and claim to no longer believe, though you might pay with an early physical death.

I always thought it was almost funny that some Baptists are more Calvinist than most Calvinists on keeping your salvation - but only after you, yourself, decide you want to get on board.

Well, if someone at salvation is 'Committing their life to Christ' or 'Turning from sin'

You gotta check what they mean. Because if there is a continuous behavioral requirement implied in that, then the person fails at some point and they have no assurance they are saved.

If they mean, turning from sin as in..know you are a sinner and believe on the Lord Jesus..then that's plain eternal salvation. But if they are trying to clean themselves up as part of salvation, then that's mixing works in.

Same with committing your life to Christ..do they mean ..putting your faith in Christ..which is plain salvation..or are they making a contract of continuous faithfulness with God, that they can't uphold?

 

[DaveXR650]

You gotta check what they mean. Because if there is a continuous behavioral requirement implied in that, then the person fails at some point and they have no assurance they are saved.

If they mean, turning from sin as in..know you are a sinner and believe on the Lord Jesus..then that's plain eternal salvation. But if they are trying to clean themselves up as part of salvation, then that's mixing works in.

I think that the early Baptists, at the same point in history as Arminius, were saying that you repent and come to Christ, and that you are indeed kept by grace, and only in a case that you were you to totally leave the faith and stop being a believer, would you be lost. It wasn't that there was a certain level of holiness or good works that you must maintain to keep or to prove your salvation - it's just that you weren't saved in spite of apostacy.

The idea that you don't want to think you can clean yourself up as part of salvation I would agree with. I would be concerned that you have "know you are a sinner and believe on the Lord Jesus" as not involving repentance at all. The reason I say that is that I know some who are more scared than anything of trying to purpose to live a holy life or do good works - as if in order to be saved you must diligently avoid such extremism. And here you get into how grace works with our wills as was discussed in the other thread. What I mean is that Calvinists, and Baptists too, who believe that your coming to Christ is a work of grace, should not have any problem with that work of the Spirit meaning in part that the person coming by faith is enlightened enough to realize the seriousness of their sin problem and want (by the Spirit's help), to be right with God. Should that not be the case, it would indicate the Spirit has not enlightened them to their need of the gospel and to pronounce such a one saved, with no evidence of repentance, upon praying a prayer, would be a mistake I think.

So if that is what they mean then they are correct. And in fact, if you really "know you are a sinner" in a personal way, not just as a general fact then that indicates a true work of the Spirit too and definitely would be a good thing. The work of the Spirit in a believer's life is a mysterious thing. A sinning or erring believer under conviction may indeed feel in danger of a loss of salvation - but upon repentance there are ample scriptures giving encouragement to such. To front load assurance to the point of giving people no reason to think about avoiding sin or becoming worldly minded is a big mistake. And one way to do that is to discourage self examination as if that is legalism. While it is true that a believer can have assurance of salvation I know of no encouragement in scripture for a loose living, or world loving, professor to have any encouragement - except of course encouragement to repent.

 

[360watt]

I think that the early Baptists, at the same point in history as Arminius, were saying that you repent and come to Christ, and that you are indeed kept by grace, and only in a case that you were you to totally leave the faith and stop being a believer, would you be lost. It wasn't that there was a certain level of holiness or good works that you must maintain to keep or to prove your salvation - it's just that you weren't saved in spite of apostacy.

The idea that you don't want to think you can clean yourself up as part of salvation I would agree with. I would be concerned that you have "know you are a sinner and believe on the Lord Jesus" as not involving repentance at all. The reason I say that is that I know some who are more scared than anything of trying to purpose to live a holy life or do good works - as if in order to be saved you must diligently avoid such extremism. And here you get into how grace works with our wills as was discussed in the other thread. What I mean is that Calvinists, and Baptists too, who believe that your coming to Christ is a work of grace, should not have any problem with that work of the Spirit meaning in part that the person coming by faith is enlightened enough to realize the seriousness of their sin problem and want (by the Spirit's help), to be right with God. Should that not be the case, it would indicate the Spirit has not enlightened them to their need of the gospel and to pronounce such a one saved, with no evidence of repentance, upon praying a prayer, would be a mistake I think.

So if that is what they mean then they are correct. And in fact, if you really "know you are a sinner" in a personal way, not just as a general fact then that indicates a true work of the Spirit too and definitely would be a good thing. The work of the Spirit in a believer's life is a mysterious thing. A sinning or erring believer under conviction may indeed feel in danger of a loss of salvation - but upon repentance there are ample scriptures giving encouragement to such. To front load assurance to the point of giving people no reason to think about avoiding sin or becoming worldly minded is a big mistake. And one way to do that is to discourage self examination as if that is legalism. While it is true that a believer can have assurance of salvation I know of no encouragement in scripture for a loose living, or world loving, professor to have any encouragement - except of course encouragement to repent.

Repent is a 'change of mind, heart'..not a set of good behaviours.

 

[DaveXR650]

Repent is a 'change of mind, heart'..not a set of good behaviours.

That's not the question. Can a real change of mind and heart not lead to a change in behavior? And more importantly, if Christian teaching becomes so concerned about not being reduced to a set of moral improvements that it begins to reject moral improvements as undesirable to even think about, much less seek - are we not on a wrong pathway.

This is where the idea of "Biblicism" is good. Repent is indeed a change of mind. But a biblicist would look at Zacchaeus, or Saul (Paul), or the examples Jesus used also, and not camp totally on a Greek word for "change of mind". And, biblicism would also allow one to "examine themselves to see whether they are of the faith".

 

[Dave...]

-snip-

This is precisely why I compare religion to math. One God, One Jesus, One Holy Ghost, One Holy Bible, are the constants. The rest are variables.

The whole Bible is a constant, our opinion as to what it says is the variable. Bad translations don't help.

 

[Dave...]

I had a Baptist preacher tell me that some 20 years ago, when I asked him about loss of salvation... that it was "Arminianism" for that very reason. But to me it's a bit more complicated than that. You see, there are 4 other "points" in 5 point "Arminianism" besides loss of salvation, and it's been my experience that most who call themselves "Baptists" teach all 4 of these:

"Freed to Believe" ( Prevenient Grace )
"Atonement for all" ( Unlimited Atonement , Jesus died for all of humanity )
"Conditional Election" ( God chooses those who freely choose Him )
"Total Depravity" ( which they define as spiritually dead but enabled to believe by God when the Gospel is preached ).

In addition, all 5 point "Arminians" hold to this 5th one:
"Security in Christ" ( defined as secure as long as they are resting / actively abiding in Christ's commands and seeking to obey Him ). <---in other words, salvation can be lost.

Here's a link to what "Arminians" confess to:

The FACTS of Salvation: A Summary of Arminian Theology/the Biblical Doctrines of Grace - Society of Evangelical Arminians

The FACTS of Salvation: A Summary of Arminian Theology/the Biblical Doctrines of Grace By Brian Abasciano (For a pdf file of the present article, see here.) The distinctive tenets of Arminian theology may be presented using the acronym FACTS. The opposing theology of Calvinism is well known for...

evangelicalarminians.org

I like to think of what is called 'losing salvation' as an evidence. True faith preservers. So if you walk away, what are you evidencing that you're walking away from? Too many promises by God would need to be broken for one to lose a genuine faith. Jesus is the Author and finisher of our life, and He always finishes a work in someone that He starts. I just don't include the initial faith. That's what gives us the life. I would be in the prevenient grace, or common grace camp. "God choses who freely chooses Him, conditional election," seems like an oxymoron. TD, is in the ability, not the desire. Security in Christ, i would put that in the evidence department. God knows, we don't necessarily. So we look to the evidences to know.

 

[360watt]

That's not the question. Can a real change of mind and heart not lead to a change in behavior? And more importantly, if Christian teaching becomes so concerned about not being reduced to a set of moral improvements that it begins to reject moral improvements as undesirable to even think about, much less seek - are we not on a wrong pathway.

This is where the idea of "Biblicism" is good. Repent is indeed a change of mind. But a biblicist would look at Zacchaeus, or Saul (Paul), or the examples Jesus used also, and not camp totally on a Greek word for "change of mind". And, biblicism would also allow one to "examine themselves to see whether they are of the faith".

There is the point of separating eternal salvation from sanctification.

Getting eternally saved vs daily service

 

[kyredneck]

There is the point of separating eternal salvation from sanctification.

Getting eternally saved vs daily service

Two aspects of our salvation, the eternal in which we are passive, and the temporal in which we take part..

 

[DaveXR650]

There is the point of separating eternal salvation from sanctification.

Getting eternally saved vs daily service

This is where you as a Biblicist should be able to answer. Are you saying that eternal salvation and sanctification are separate as far as theological definitions or are you saying they can be separate such as one can be saved and then maybe decide later to try to avoid sin and serve God? It's the same with the older argument of faith and works. You are saved by faith alone. But is it right to say that you are saved by faith alone, but a faith that is never alone? Is it possible for a truly saved person to not go on to sanctification?

 

[360watt]

This is where you as a Biblicist should be able to answer. Are you saying that eternal salvation and sanctification are separate as far as theological definitions or are you saying they can be separate such as one can be saved and then maybe decide later to try to avoid sin and serve God? It's the same with the older argument of faith and works. You are saved by faith alone. But is it right to say that you are saved by faith alone, but a faith that is never alone? Is it possible for a truly saved person to not go on to sanctification?

I'm saying that as a sinner, there is no promise of service someone can make at being eternally saved. As a sinner, before salvation.. they have to be completely saved by His grace at salvation .

The chances are they won't live like the devil afterwards, because they will have God disciplining them..but it's no a guarantee a saved person won't go wayward.

 

[DaveXR650]

I'm saying that as a sinner, there is no promise of service someone can make at being eternally saved. As a sinner, before salvation.. they have to be completely saved by His grace at salvation .

I agree with you here 100%. However; since you are a Biblicist and started the thread as if Calvinism and Arminianism are both deficient, I should point out that Owen, the Calvinist, who believed in Lordship salvation, also said that when you first come to Christ you are looking to Him primarily as Savior, rather than Lord. So, is he still wrong because he is a Calvinist, even though it is in agreement with what you say?

The chances are they won't live like the devil afterwards, because they will have God disciplining them..but it's no a guarantee a saved person won't go wayward.

It's here where I have a problem. "Chances are"? Where in scripture is it suggested that a person can come to Christ and continue to live like the devil afterward. (Notice that is not the same as a saved person going wayward - which is thoroughly discussed in the Calvinistic literature, with a general consensus being that there is an almost unlimited amount of backsliding possible with Christ wanting you back - the only possible difference being that the conclusion in Calvinism is indeed that a truly saved person will eventually come back and be restored.) And to be fair to the (Arminian) free will Baptists - there are verses in scripture that clearly say that you are saved - if you continue in the things you have learned. As a strict Biblicist, who cannot take into account "theology" I would say the argument is over and they win.

I suggest that while it is good to be a Biblicist in that any theology can and should be questioned if it seems to void passages of scripture - it is also true that these major groups like Calvinist, or Arminian (and all the sub-groups) are Biblicists too and have done nothing more than form statements based upon what they see scripture as teaching.

 

[360watt]

I agree with you here 100%. However; since you are a Biblicist and started the thread as if Calvinism and Arminianism are both deficient, I should point out that Owen, the Calvinist, who believed in Lordship salvation, also said that when you first come to Christ you are looking to Him primarily as Savior, rather than Lord. So, is he still wrong because he is a Calvinist, even though it is in agreement with what you say?

It's here where I have a problem. "Chances are"? Where in scripture is it suggested that a person can come to Christ and continue to live like the devil afterward. (Notice that is not the same as a saved person going wayward - which is thoroughly discussed in the Calvinistic literature, with a general consensus being that there is an almost unlimited amount of backsliding possible with Christ wanting you back - the only possible difference being that the conclusion in Calvinism is indeed that a truly saved person will eventually come back and be restored.) And to be fair to the (Arminian) free will Baptists - there are verses in scripture that clearly say that you are saved - if you continue in the things you have learned. As a strict Biblicist, who cannot take into account "theology" I would say the argument is over and they win.

I suggest that while it is good to be a Biblicist in that any theology can and should be questioned if it seems to void passages of scripture - it is also true that these major groups like Calvinist, or Arminian (and all the sub-groups) are Biblicists too and have done nothing more than form statements based upon what they see scripture as teaching.

Well, there is more and less extreme versions of Calvinism and Arminianism.

I'd agree with receiving Jesus as Saviour. He doesn't become Lord of every part of your life straight away

 

[Armchair Apologist]

Well, there is more and less extreme versions of Calvinism and Arminianism.

I'd agree with receiving Jesus as Saviour. He doesn't become Lord of every part of your life straight away

Let's take Calvinism and Arminianism out of the equation shall we?

How could one ever confess Christ as Savior without also acknowledging him as being Lord?" Think about this for a minute or two...

Just the basics here: That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus... (Rom 10:9); ...believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved (Acts 16:31).

 

[360watt]

Let's take Calvinism and Arminianism out of the equation shall we?

How could one ever confess Christ as Savior without also acknowledging him as being Lord?" Think about this for a minute or two...

Just the basics here: That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus... (Rom 10:9); ...believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved (Acts 16:31).

Yeah no problem with that obviously..that's someone saying He is Lord God..rather than trying to MAKE Him Lord over every area of their life.

They are receiving salvation rather than making some kind of commitment to life long service that they will inevitably fail in.