What Is A Biblicist?

[rlvaughn]

I think Diane's next-to-last post (There's more than 2 sets of beliefs) exhibits the frustration that a lot of people have. The "systematic" theologies of many children of God do not nicely fit into either of the two categories, and they don't want to be forced somewhere that doesn't fit.

Nevertheless, while calling oneself a "Biblicist" may get one out of the two categories, it does not speak anything specific to anyone about what the person actually believes the Bible teaches.

 

[dianetavegia]

Exactly, rlvaughn! I really dislike someone trying to tell me 'what' I am or 'what' I believe! I've had a Calvinist tell me either I wasn't saved or was a Calvinist and just didn't know it yet.

 

[Pastor Larry]

The issues are really pretty easy: If you believe that God elected individuals without any reason other this his own purposes, you are a Calvinist. You might parse a point or two differently, but you are a Calvinist. If you don't believe that, then you are an arminian. You can't really say you aren't one or the other, broadly speaking. Remember, these terms are about the basic point of who is ultimately in control of who gets saved, and you are either on one side or the other. Don't get lost in the number of points that may agree or disagree with, and don't fall for the old line that you are just following a man if you claim such a label.

There is, as Jonathan said, a certain amount of inscrutability in God. But we need not guess at what he has revealed.

But most of all, don't hide behind biblicist, as if everybody else is something else. I am quite clearly a biblicist, and that means I am a Calvinist.

 

[rlvaughn]

Larry, that is probably true if one looks at general use of the terminology, without regarding exactly what Calvin & Arminius taught. But there is also a lot of general usage of the term Arminian that means someone who believes in falling from grace - which most "modified 2 point" SBC and many other U.S. Baptists do not believe (though they be quite Arminian in practice). There's no perfect answer to the confusion, but I think folks have a right to not be called a name to which they object.

 

[dianetavegia]

I disagree with just about everything you said Pastor Larry. You cannot and should not force a label on me!

 

[JGrubbs]

I believe that because of God's foreknowledge that he predistined Jesus Christ to die on the cross for the sins of the entire world, and that whoever repents and turns from their sin putting their faith in Jesus Christ to make Him the Lord of their life becomes one of the elect. Those who excersise their free will to reject the conviction of the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Saviour do not become one of the elect. God again in his amazing foreknowledge knows who will and will not accept His free gift of salvation.

God knew that I was going repent of my sin and put my faith in Jesus Christ and make him the Lord of my life when I was 17 years old, but because I have a free will and could have choosen to reject the conviction of the Holy Spirit, God also knows what would have happend to me had I not made the choice I made.

I am neither a Calvinist or an Arminian, I am a Christian, I no longer live, but Christ lives through me!

 

[Circuitrider]

Dr. Richard V. Clearwaters, one of Dr. Bauder's predecessors as President of Central Seminary often used this word to describe himself, saying above all, he was a biblicist. While I had great respect for RVC I often felt this world could indeed become a copout if we were not careful.

If by biblicist we mean we are students and followers of the Word of God, then we must all be such, we are all biblicists.

On the otherhand if this title is used to mediate a position between two extreme positions, it may well become equivocal.

It seems to me that these terms we use to identify position of doctrine and practice are terms that developed over a period of time and are based upon certain foundational facts or happenings. "Fundamentalist" speaks of a 100 year old controversy that has historical meaning. "Baptist" is a title that describes a historical and biblical people who were committed to certain biblical positions. "Covenants" and "dispensations" are words which are rich, with historic and biblical roots. The term biblicist seems a little to ambiguous at this point to be a specific identification of true biblical orthodoxy. Maybe in time it will develop rich historical and biblical roots and really mean something, but that will probably be for a future generation and not ours.

 

[PastorGreg]

Obviously, a Biblicist is anyone who agrees with me on a particular issue!

 

[dianetavegia]

BUT, Circuitrider, those like Pastor Larry insist we are one or the other which is not true and no one should have a man's name forced upon them or some label if that label would be against their beliefs. I cannot be either since their main points, such as losing one's salvation, are not what I believe the Bible says.

I don't think I've ever read a thread where an Arminian said either you agree with them or you're a Calvinist but I've seen many where the Calvinists insist just the opposite.

 

[IveyLeaguer]

Pastor Larry:

Get off the fence ... Either you beleive God elected individuals without respect for anything except his own purposes (Calvinist) or you don't (Arminian).

Brother Larry,

First, when I think of Truth, I don't think of C & A. Second, you make a category mistake if you think one has no choice but to fall into either C or A. Third, the above premise is shallow and self-defeating. Get off the fence? What you call a fence, I call a road. And there are ditches on both sides.

The main problem I see with you Calvinist boys is a strong tendency to quantify the omniscience of God, to somehow put a finite limit on His foreknowledge, as if HE COULD NOT POSSIBLY KNOW from eternity past what His creatures would do with the free will He gave them. But I have no interest in debating C & A. There's a lot more to the depths of Christianity than that. If you object to the term Biblicist, it means nothing to me, since I am in no way emotionally attached or loyal to it or any other label, as I hope I've made clear.

God Bless.

 

[rsr]

I have to agree that "Biblicist" is, at least for the time being, a label that tells me nothing about one's views.

In fact, it carries labeling (which I really don't like at all) to a new level by implicitly declaring that those who don't use the label have beliefs contrary to Scripture.

 

[dianetavegia]

Exactly rsr... but Calvinists will force a label on you unless you 'join' their ranks!

I, for one, don't like being told what I believe! We've got a lot of mind readers in the ranks, I guess.

 

[IveyLeaguer]

Plain Old Bill:

Biblicist. My definition would go something like this: Biblicist - one who takes the Bible as God's word over any denominational or theological view. If there is a difference between church doctrine or theology and the Bible, it is the church (or theology) that must make the adjustment, not God's written Word. Let God be true and all men liars.

Wow, POB. I think that's a great definition. That's exactly what it means to me.

At the same time I appreciate what the others have said about it. I didn't know those things. Before today, the only other people I knew who called themselves Biblicists were A.W.Tozer and my pastor - pretty good company, I thought.

 

[dianetavegia]

Add MY preacher and our previous interim to that list. They, in fact, are the fellas who gave me the term to use.

Southern men are smart.

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by rsr:
In fact, it carries labeling (which I really don't like at all) to a new level by implicitly declaring that those who don't use the label have beliefs contrary to Scripture.

Stephen, I think you're exactly right. And this is one reason that it will never catch on. No one is going to let the "other side" appropriate such an "exclusive" label to themselves.

 

[IveyLeaguer]

rlvaughn:

Stephen, I think you're exactly right. And this is one reason that it will never catch on. No one is going to let the "other side" appropriate such an "exclusive" label to themselves.

Other side of what?

 

[rlvaughn]

Anyone who is on the "other side" doctrinally from someone who chooses to call himself a "biblicist". For example, it seems that most appropriating the term on this thread say they are not Calvinists. But PastorLarry, a Calvinist, says he is a Biblicist. So would I. Take Plain Old Bill's definition for example. What Bible-believing Christian wouldn't profess to believe that, whether a Calvinist or an Arminian or all points in between?

 

[rsr]

Amen, Robert. Being a "biblicist" means that one is a "Bible believer," and I don't see too many of us that would willingly be labeled as "anti-biblicist." Though the charge does occur here from time to time.

 

[russell55]

I read someone last week who pointed out that in 1 Corinthians when Paul reprimands them for being contentious, he included "I am of Christ" along with the other labels. I'd think saying "I'm a Biblicist" is in pretty much the same category of contentiousness. It's often an arrogant putdown of anyone who doesn't agree with you.

 

[dianetavegia]

Originally posted by russell55:
I'd think saying "I'm a Biblicist" is in pretty much the same category of contentiousness. It's often an arrogant putdown of anyone who doesn't agree with you.

Gracious! I just don't want the Calvinists to say I'm unsaved or label me an Armenian! They're the ones insisting on a label!