Biblicism

[360watt]

Alot of the time, people separate all christendom into either Armenian or Calvinist.

I believe the Bible doesn't teach either.

Salvation as a free gift, not by works, by placing your faith in Jesus, that cannot be lost.

I don't think that is Calvinism, because you aren't regenerated before you believe and you can resist God's drawing you.

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

So I would stick with being a Biblicist.

 

[John of Japan]

Alot of the time, people separate all christendom into either Armenian or Calvinist.

I believe the Bible doesn't teach either.

Salvation as a free gift, not by works, by placing your faith in Jesus, that cannot be lost.

I don't think that is Calvinism, because you aren't regenerated before you believe and you can resist God's drawing you.

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

So I would stick with being a Biblicist.

"Arminianism." Not connected with the nation of Armenia. Just sayin'. Trying to be helpful.

Doctrinally I'm with you.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

Where so-called "Biblicists" get in to trouble is when they feel as if they can quote a few Bible verses and end a debate that has raged on for the last 2000 years or so. Both Calvinism and Arminianism are historical positions along with the various shades of Augustinianism of which they emerged. The scriptures speak both of election and free will; of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. We need to set our preconceived biases aside and understand "Thus saith the Lord!"

The one thing we learn from the Calvinists is that mankind is spiritually dead in his unregenerate state and it is only God who can raise the dead. No one decides to "become alive" on their own. The preaching of the cross is foolishness to them that perish but to those who are saved, it is the "POWER OF GOD!"

Arminians on the other hand remind us of man's responsibility, that God has chosen the foolishness of preaching to save those who beleive, and that God has commanded all men everywhere to repentance. We are to take the gospel to "Whosoever" without making any pretence as to whether they are elect or not.

 

[360watt]

"Arminianism." Not connected with the nation of Armenia. Just sayin'. Trying to be helpful.

Doctrinally I'm with you.

Yeah, thanks I was struggling to remember the spelling.

I find it annoying that someone would still put me in the calvinist camp and say I'm a 2 point calvinist or something like that. Or that I'm an Arminian who believes in OSAS.

All doctrine doesn't originate in the teachings of the reformers. You go to the Bible itself

 

[John of Japan]

Yeah, thanks I was struggling to remember the spelling.

I find it annoying that someone would still put me in the calvinist camp and say I'm a 2 point calvinist or something like that. Or that I'm an Arminian who believes in OSAS.

All doctrine doesn't originate in the teachings of the reformers. You go to the Bible itself

Amen to all of that.

 

[JonC]

Alot of the time, people separate all christendom into either Armenian or Calvinist.

I believe the Bible doesn't teach either.

Salvation as a free gift, not by works, by placing your faith in Jesus, that cannot be lost.

I don't think that is Calvinism, because you aren't regenerated before you believe and you can resist God's drawing you.

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

So I would stick with being a Biblicist.

I agree with you but need to point out that Arminianism is of a Calvinistic trajectory. Jacobus Arminius died an orthodox Calvinist (Arminianism had been evaluated and considered extreme but within Calvinism). It was after his death that it was excluded.

My point is Arminianism and Calvinism share a uniqueness when compared to other theological systems. They depart based on where the logic of Calvinism takes them.

I agree that neither are biblical.

 

[DaveXR650]

Alot of the time, people separate all christendom into either Armenian or Calvinist.

I believe the Bible doesn't teach either.

Salvation as a free gift, not by works, by placing your faith in Jesus, that cannot be lost.

I don't think that is Calvinism, because you aren't regenerated before you believe and you can resist God's drawing you.

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

So I would stick with being a Biblicist.

You sound like just a basic Baptist. You hear the gospel and decide whether or not to believe it. If you do then you will be born again and given the Holy Spirit. If you want to label yourself in those terms you should decide whether you believe that one can hear the gospel and decide to believe it with your own innate understanding or do you need a work of the Holy Spirit involved either in a creative or regenerative way or at least in an enlightening or convincing or convicting way. Then you can decide how offended you should be when someone calls you a Calvinist, Arminian, or a semi-Pelagian.

But you don't have to define yourself necessarily and there is nothing wrong with being a basic Baptist.

 

[360watt]

I agree with you but need to point out that Arminianism is of a Calvinistic trajectory. Jacobus Arminius died an orthodox Calvinist (Arminianism had been evaluated and considered extreme but within Calvinism). It was after his death that it was excluded.

My point is Arminianism and Calvinism share a uniqueness when compared to other theological systems. They depart based on where the logic of Calvinism takes them.

I agree that neither are biblical.

Yes, I've learned over the past year that Arminianism shares predestination doctrine with Calvinism

 

[Deacon]

In a book titled, "The Bible Made Impossible," the author Christian Smith declares, "The 'biblicism' that pervades much of American evangelicalism is untenable and needs to be abandoned in favor of a better approach to Christian truth and authority."

He does not identify a particular brand of Christianity (i.e. Calvinism), however reading between the lines, he infers it is inherently present within within such a system.

He defines the problem and attacks some key beliefs or doctrines.

Biblicism believes:

1. Divine Writing: The Bible, down to the details of its words consists of and is identical with God's very own words written inerrantly in human language.

2. Total Representation: The Bible represents the totality of God’s communication to and will for humanity, both in containing all that God has to say to humans and in being the exclusive mode of God’s true communication.

3. Complete Coverage: The divine will about all of the issues relevant to Christian belief and life are contained in the Bible.

4. Democratic Perspicuity: Any reasonably intelligent person can read the Bible in his or her own language and correctly understand the plain meaning of the text.

5. Commonsense Hermeneutics: The best way to understand biblical texts is by reading them in their explicit, plain, most obvious, literal sense, as the author intended them at face value, which may or may not involve taking into account their literary, cultural, and historical contexts.

6. Solo Scriptura: The significance of any given biblical text can be understood without reliance on creeds, confessions, historical church traditions, or other forms of larger theological hermeneutical frameworks, such that theological formulations can be built up directly out of the Bible from scratch.

7. Internal Harmony: All related passages of the Bible on any given subject fit together almost like puzzle pieces into single, unified, internally consistent bodies of instruction about right and wrong beliefs and behaviors.

8. Universal Applicability: What the biblical authors taught God’s people at any point in history remains universally valid for all Christians at every other time, unless explicitly revoked by subsequent scriptural teaching.

9. Inductive Method: All matters of Christian belief and practice can be learned by sitting down with the Bible and piecing together through careful study the clear “biblical” truths that it teaches.

10. Handbook Model: The Bible teaches doctrine and moral with every affirmation that it makes, so that together those affirmaitons comprise something like a handbook or textbook for Christian belief.

Rob

 

[JonC]

Yes, I've learned over the past year that Arminianism shares predestination doctrine with Calvinism

Calvinism makes the mistake of playing everything under the category of predestination based on a general idea of sovereignty (basically, God is only sovereign over what He has predestined, therefore...).

To be fair, it was Beza and not Calvin who placed salvation under that category. So rather than believing that the gospel being obscured to those who are perishing being due to them being blinded by the god of this world (Satan) they contend God blinded them as they are reprobate (typically referencing God heartening Pharoah's heart).

They also view Christ as rescuing us from God's wrath rather than from evil (from this evil age, from the god of this world) and this being how we escape the wrath to come.

But Arminianism operates within this same framework (it is a form of Calvinism).

 

[Dave...]

The one thing we learn from the Calvinists is that mankind is spiritually dead in his unregenerate state and it is only God who can raise the dead. No one decides to "become alive" on their own. The preaching of the cross is foolishness to them that perish but to those who are saved, it is the "POWER OF GOD!"

Believe (decides), and then become alive (everlasting life). Is John 3:16 taken out of context? That's the core of the Gospel, right?

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

The Spirit is the life (Romans 8:9-11). We receive that life when we believe (Ephesians 1:13-14).

@360watt

In my opinion, most of what is called Arminianism is humanism driven, even if they may have theologically Forest Gumped their way to getting a few things right. On the other hand, Calvinism, even though they would deny it, was and is heavily influenced by the barriers created by the Catholic church throughout history. Many of these reformers were once Catholics. They, like Matin Luther, and later John Calvin himself, were both part of the protestant reformation, did the best that they could with what they had. John Calvin still believed in infant baptism and wrote much about it while defending it. Even though they thought that they had discarded Catholic theology as a whole when they left the Catholic church, the well (their theology) was much more poisoned than they realized. The KJV is full of this error. Even the modern translations carry over much of this error without realizing it, and that same error is what Calvinism clings to when they created their system TULIP. Catholicism, while on the surface is supposed to be the theological oil to the Protestant reformations water, but they have more in common than either would be comfortable with admitting.

In my opinion, Calvinism is still heavily influenced by Catholic theology, they just don't know it. Traditionally, the reformation was supposed to be against Catholicism, but some of that influence crept into mainstream thinking, and is still influencing false interpretations, and translations of the Bible, even today. Be very leery of KJV onlyists as these are usually those who unknowingly champion themselves as defenders of that error. --2 cents.

Dave

 

[360watt]

Believe (decides), and then become alive (everlasting life). Is John 3:16 taken out of context? That's the core of the Gospel, right?

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

The Spirit is the life (Romans 8:9-11). We receive that life when we believe (Ephesians 1:13-14).

@360watt

In my opinion, most of what is called Arminianism is humanism driven, even if they may have theologically Forest Gumped their way to getting a few things right. On the other hand, Calvinism, even though they would deny it, was and is heavily influenced by the barriers created by the Catholic church throughout history. Many of these reformers were once Catholics. They, like Matin Luther, and later John Calvin himself, were both part of the protestant reformation, did the best that they could with what they had. John Calvin still believed in infant baptism and wrote much about it while defending it. Even though they thought that they had discarded Catholic theology as a whole when they left the Catholic church, the well (their theology) was much more poisoned than they realized. The KJV is full of this error. Even the modern translations carry over much of this error without realizing it, and that same error is what Calvinism clings to when they created their system TULIP. Catholicism, while on the surface is supposed to be the theological oil to the Protestant reformations water, but they have more in common than either would be comfortable with admitting.

In my opinion, Calvinism is still heavily influenced by Catholic theology, they just don't know it. Traditionally, the reformation was supposed to be against Catholicism, but some of that influence crept into mainstream thinking, and is still influencing false interpretations, and translations of the Bible, even today. Be very leery of KJV onlyists as these are usually those who unknowingly champion themselves as defenders of that error. --2 cents.

Dave

Yes, both Arminianism and Calvinism are works based even though they would deny it.

From what I've heard:

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

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

And that works emphasis comes from Roman Catholicism.

Regarding kjvo..my church is kjvo...even though I'm not. It has been a bit of a sticking point because my pastor can be very forceful about it. But I use the KJV all the time and prefer it to most others. If I was doing a study though I'd compare translations.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

Believe (decides), and then become alive (everlasting life). Is John 3:16 taken out of context? That's the core of the Gospel, right?

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

The Spirit is the life (Romans 8:9-11). We receive that life when we believe (Ephesians 1:13-14).

@360watt

In my opinion, most of what is called Arminianism is humanism driven, even if they may have theologically Forest Gumped their way to getting a few things right. On the other hand, Calvinism, even though they would deny it, was and is heavily influenced by the barriers created by the Catholic church throughout history. Many of these reformers were once Catholics. They, like Matin Luther, and later John Calvin himself, were both part of the protestant reformation, did the best that they could with what they had. John Calvin still believed in infant baptism and wrote much about it while defending it. Even though they thought that they had discarded Catholic theology as a whole when they left the Catholic church, the well (their theology) was much more poisoned than they realized. The KJV is full of this error. Even the modern translations carry over much of this error without realizing it, and that same error is what Calvinism clings to when they created their system TULIP. Catholicism, while on the surface is supposed to be the theological oil to the Protestant reformations water, but they have more in common than either would be comfortable with admitting.

In my opinion, Calvinism is still heavily influenced by Catholic theology, they just don't know it. Traditionally, the reformation was supposed to be against Catholicism, but some of that influence crept into mainstream thinking, and is still influencing false interpretations, and translations of the Bible, even today. Be very leery of KJV onlyists as these are usually those who unknowingly champion themselves as defenders of that error. --2 cents.

Dave

If I only had a nickel for every time I ran across someone who thought that Johm 3:16 was some sort of "Magic Bullet" that refuted Calvinism! If only John Calvin would've read John 3:16, perhaps he wouldn't have become a Calvinist?

Who is "Whosoever" and how does "Whosoever" come to the point that they are concerned about their eternal standing before a holy God?

The Gospel message is far more than just John 3:16! Perhaps you should compare John 3:16 with what Jesus said in Jn 6:44? Better yet, how about comparing John 3:16 with the rest of the Gospel of John and while you are at it, look at Ephesians 2 and Romans 1-16 (yes, the entire epistle)! I am not even trying to push the doctrine of Calvinism - just one single point of which anyone within the realm of Christian Orthodoxy should agree! Perhaps you are simply objecting because I invoked the dreaded "C" word? Can any of our non-Calvinist (who are not rabidly anti-
Calvinist) friends help our friend out here?

Remember also that the Reformers were not looking to break away from the Roman Catholic Church and just "Do their own thing," they were seeking to REFORM the Church hence the term "Reformed." They went their separate ways only when the Roman Catholic Magisterium (those who were in power) anathematized, declared them as being "heretics," and excommunicated them! The Council of Trent was pretty much the final "Line in the Sand." The Church at the time had become quite semi-Pelagian in its soteriology and the Reformers were doubtless trying to return the church back to its Augustinian roots so you are very much wrong about Calvinism being "Catholic" and such a statement really shows someone's ignorance regarding the history of the Reformation.

Secondly, you seem to disparage not only the King James Version but many of the modern translations as well so do tell us, by what authority are you standing? Are you really some hotshot pertaining to the original languages who is adequately equipped and qualified to show us how all of the translators got things wrong? Care to give any specifics?

I used to be KJV-Only and I still use and prefer my KJV but most (pretty much all) of the KJV-Only types I have ever known have been rabidly anti-Calvinist so do tell us, where are your sources?

Fact of the matter is, there is no great "mystery," no hidden truth that is accessible only to a select few.

 

[kyredneck]

Excellent post, @Deacon!

 

[Centrist]

Certainly gets me to wonder...what exactly does the bible say? WHICH bible? Is this after a batch of books from the bible? Some say 14 books, some say 17 books, and some say 75 books. Well, truly, IF it is the Word of Our Lord, shouldn't it include ALL books? And then, would it be Calvinism vs. Arminian, or would there be a third or fourth or (add number) theory? Yes I said theory, because we only know what is written before us, and until Jesus returns we may never know what IS the truth.

Does that make sense? If not, that's fine. Just sharing some of my thoughts.

 

[Dave...]

If I only had a nickel for every time I ran across someone who thought that Johm 3:16 was some sort of "Magic Bullet" that refuted Calvinism! If only John Calvin would've read John 3:16, perhaps he wouldn't have become a Calvinist?

That's only one of many magic bullets contained in the Bible that refute you my friend. The rest were assumed. When you refute that one, we can get into the others if you like. Your magic bullets are John 3:5, John 1:12-13, and 1 John 5:1, and you'll rewrite the entire Bible based on those poor translations. If memory serves me correctly, I've refuted all three in this forum.

Who is "Whosoever" and how does "Whosoever" come to the point that they are concerned about their eternal standing before a holy God?

The Gospel message is far more than just John 3:16! Perhaps you should compare John 3:16 with what Jesus said in Jn 6:44?

And John 12:32 says that after Jesus ascends, He will draw all people to Himself. I know you're not a universalist. I'll bet you're going to say 'all' doesn't mean 'all' in that passage? (I'm gifted in that way). But in that instance, all does mean all, not just a nation. The Gentiles and the Jews.

Better yet, compare John 6:44 with John 6:37,39. All those who the Father gave to the Son (in that context) are OT believers already declared righteous, just like Abraham. You know, the Sheep, the ones known by God (1 Corinthians 8:3) because they already love Him. They're predestined to be conformed to Christlikeness (Romans 8:28-30). That's what Acts records. Even Abraham, died having not received the Promise (Hebrews 11:39-40), aaaaaand (Back to John 3), in John 3:14-15 we see that none had yet ascended. It's like they were waiting for something (Romans 3:25-26). But wait, that's what (back to John 3 again) John 3:14-15 said, that Jesus must first be lifted up. It's like, it 's all connected some how. Sorry for the sarcasm, I couldn't help myself.

Better yet, how about comparing John 3:16 with the rest of the Gospel of John

Like John 5:24, John 6:47? Check out the immediate context of John 3:16. John 3:1-16. It says the opposite of Calvinism.

and while you are at it, look at Ephesians 2 and Romans 1-16 (yes, the entire epistle)! I am not even trying to push the doctrine of Calvinism - just one single point of which anyone within the realm of Christian Orthodoxy should agree! Perhaps you are simply objecting because I invoked the dreaded "C" word? Can any of our non-Calvinist (who are not rabidly anti-
Calvinist) friends help our friend out here?

Especially Romans 10:9-10. Or Ephesians 1:13-14.

Secondly, you seem to disparage not only the King James Version but many of the modern translations as well so do tell us, by what authority are you standing? Are you really some hotshot pertaining to the original languages who is adequately equipped and qualified to show us how all of the translators got things wrong? Care to give any specifics?

I used to be KJV-Only and I still use and prefer my KJV but most (pretty much all) of the KJV-Only types I have ever known have been rabidly anti-Calvinist so do tell us, where are your sources?

Many of the modern translation are bad also, I agree, but KJV does not save the day. It's loaded with error. But that error spreads further than we know. Easily fixed, but most translators are afraid to fix it, they just keep translating the same error. They probably don't know enough to comfortably make those changes. I respect that, but the error remains. It's about time to get rid of it. I stand on the Truth.

Like Acts, recording that we should be water baptized along with believing to be saved. While other passages in Acts use the exact opposite order. Should we just pick one (Dave, speaking in a valley girl voice, bouncing his head back and forth, almost spraining both his ears and shoulders at the same time) You know that there are people who will rewrite the whole Bible for those few passages that can equally, linguistically, be translated in a different or reverse order, one that makes water baptism the result, not the cause, making it align with the rest of the Bible. And like John 1:12-13. Clinging to the reverse order of the old English. Like 1 John 5:1, which doesn't say what people read into it because of the way it's stated.

The life, as you call it, is the result of faith. And the life, is also called faith (a metaphor of life) .If you have the Spirit indwelling, you have the life, if you don't have the Spirit indwelling, you don't have the life. That book, the one you mentioned, Romans 8:9-11 says so. Then we can ask, when did these receive the life, before of after they believed? Galatians 3:2-3, and Ephesians 1:13-14.

Calvinism is missing huge chunks in its' theology, for reasons mentioned in my last post, and other reasons. Like the significance of the baptism with the Holy Spirit and the transition recorded in Acts. It's almost as if they feared for their lives to disagree with the Catholic church. These sacraments are the bread and butter of Catholicism devouring widows houses. They won't give up the false doctrine of water baptism for salvation easily. Calvinism is built on half truths by people for what ever reason avoided huge chunks their Bibles.


Dave

 

[Centrist]

That's only one of many magic bullets contained in the Bible that refute you my friend. The rest were assumed....

-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.

 

[360watt]

Certainly gets me to wonder...what exactly does the bible say? WHICH bible? Is this after a batch of books from the bible? Some say 14 books, some say 17 books, and some say 75 books. Well, truly, IF it is the Word of Our Lord, shouldn't it include ALL books? And then, would it be Calvinism vs. Arminian, or would there be a third or fourth or (add number) theory? Yes I said theory, because we only know what is written before us, and until Jesus returns we may never know what IS the truth.

Does that make sense? If not, that's fine. Just sharing some of my thoughts.

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.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

That's only one of many magic bullets contained in the Bible that refute you my friend. The rest were assumed. When you refute that one, we can get into the others if you like. Your magic bullets are John 3:5, John 1:12-13, and 1 John 5:1, and you'll rewrite the entire Bible based on those poor translations. If memory serves me correctly, I've refuted all three in this forum.



And John 12:32 says that after Jesus ascends, He will draw all people to Himself. I know you're not a universalist. I'll bet you're going to say 'all' doesn't mean 'all' in that passage? (I'm gifted in that way). But in that instance, all does mean all, not just a nation. The Gentiles and the Jews.

Better yet, compare John 6:44 with John 6:37,39. All those who the Father gave to the Son (in that context) are OT believers already declared righteous, just like Abraham. You know, the Sheep, the ones known by God (1 Corinthians 8:3) because they already love Him. They're predestined to be conformed to Christlikeness (Romans 8:28-30). That's what Acts records. Even Abraham, died having not received the Promise (Hebrews 11:39-40), aaaaaand (Back to John 3), in John 3:14-15 we see that none had yet ascended. It's like they were waiting for something (Romans 3:25-26). But wait, that's what (back to John 3 again) John 3:14-15 said, that Jesus must first be lifted up. It's like, it 's all connected some how. Sorry for the sarcasm, I couldn't help myself.



Like John 5:24, John 6:47? Check out the immediate context of John 3:16. John 3:1-16. It says the opposite of Calvinism.



Especially Romans 10:9-10. Or Ephesians 1:13-14.



Many of the modern translation are bad also, I agree, but KJV does not save the day. It's loaded with error. But that error spreads further than we know. Easily fixed, but most translators are afraid to fix it, they just keep translating the same error. They probably don't know enough to comfortably make those changes. I respect that, but the error remains. It's about time to get rid of it. I stand on the Truth.

Like Acts, recording that we should be water baptized along with believing to be saved. While other passages in Acts use the exact opposite order. Should we just pick one (Dave, speaking in a valley girl voice, bouncing his head back and forth, almost spraining both his ears and shoulders at the same time) You know that there are people who will rewrite the whole Bible for those few passages that can equally, linguistically, be translated in a different or reverse order, one that makes water baptism the result, not the cause, making it align with the rest of the Bible. And like John 1:12-13. Clinging to the reverse order of the old English. Like 1 John 5:1, which doesn't say what people read into it because of the way it's stated.

The life, as you call it, is the result of faith. And the life, is also called faith (a metaphor of life) .If you have the Spirit indwelling, you have the life, if you don't have the Spirit indwelling, you don't have the life. That book, the one you mentioned, Romans 8:9-11 says so. Then we can ask, when did these receive the life, before of after they believed? Galatians 3:2-3, and Ephesians 1:13-14.

Calvinism is missing huge chunks in its' theology, for reasons mentioned in my last post, and other reasons. Like the significance of the baptism with the Holy Spirit and the transition recorded in Acts. It's almost as if they feared for their lives to disagree with the Catholic church. These sacraments are the bread and butter of Catholicism devouring widows houses. They won't give up the false doctrine of water baptism for salvation easily. Calvinism is built on half truths by people for what ever reason avoided huge chunks their Bibles.


Dave

I'm not sure how to answer this nor do I think I am even going to try. I don't think I have ever seen someone with a more worse case of CDS (Calvinism Derangement Syndrome) as this! Best of luck to you.