What Is A Biblicist?

But, Bill, a "full-blown" Calvinist or Arminian does not take a position that says "I place the theology of my denomination above scripture". They, too consider their views to be biblical.

 

While I was a student at Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary (Lansdale, PA), the founder, chancellor, and president emeritus of the seminary, Dr. E. Robert Jordan, had defined the term 'Biblicist' to mean one who denied Arminianism and Calvinism. Just FYI. An earlier post mentioned Dr. Clearwaters using the same term to apply the same way, and perhaps Dr. Jordan was explicitly referring to this. It seems like there is a lot of 'jockeying' for the right to use and define this term!

 

The problem is that the whole term is bogus, if used to differentiate yourself from others who respect the scriptures but come to a different conclusion.

It's no more meaningful than if you were asked what your position is and your reply was "the right one. Of course you think it's the right one, and of course you think it is biblical, or you wouldn't hold it. But the other guy is in the same boat, assuming he bases his argument on sola scriptura.

So, in reality, you are no more of a biblicist than is he, even if you're the only one arrogant enough to claim the title.

(...as much as it pains me to disagree with The Chief )

 

Case in point...



:::running and ducking for cover::::

 

Ahhhh, Jim, I see that you know of 'Chief'! I used to listen to him rant in our 'one hour' classes for which we would just show up and get an "A". So much for higher education!

Well, I don't identify myself as being 'Biblicist' as Dr. Jordan does. I am a Sovereign Grace Independent Baptist! Perhaps that's one reason why I left CBTS.

 

Case in point...



:::running and ducking for cover:::: </font>[/QUOTE]LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

What you have said is arminian, in the broad sense. You believe that man's salvation is based first on his response. God's only knows ahead of time; He did nothing to cause that response. That is exactly what I mean. You can say you are not arminian (and that is really fine) ... but a rose by any other name smells just the same.

To me, I don't understand why people just don't say what they are? It makes no sense to me. These are the way the terms are used in popular theology. Part of the problem is, (and CvA is just an example) is people don't understand popular usage. We are not talking about technical usage and parsing the terms. I have never heard a Calvinist call himself a biblicist because they aren't trying to hide anything. In my experience, most people who use the term biblicist are trying to duck the issues.

Diane, I am not trying to force you into a category. The truth is that you are already in one by virtue of what you believe. Whether you accept the name or not is one thing. The fact that your beliefs put you in one category is a different thing. YOu either belief God chose people to salvation unilaterally, or you believe God responds to the "free will choices" that man makes (using "free will" there in the typical arminian sense). From what I have seen from you, you are the latter. That is not bad, if your conscience allows you that. But I wouldn't conscript the name biblicist and pretend like I am not one. I am a biblicist, wholly and absolutely committed to the inerrant truth of God's word.

For Ivey Leaguer, I disagree with your notion that we are trying to quantify the knowledge of God as if he can't know something. I would argue that th eknowledge of God is a key point and that knowledge is infinite (contra open theists) and causative (contra arminians). For God to know the full range of possibilities is certainly true, but he knows them only as possibilities.

But having said that, I don't care about the label someone puts on me. I use them all myself: Calvinist, dispensationalist, fundamentalist, Baptist ... perhaps some more. But those labels tell you pretty much what I believe ... and biblicist would not.

 

I think Jim's statement here is right on target.

 

What you have said is arminian, in the broad sense. You believe that man's salvation is based first on his response. God's only knows ahead of time; He did nothing to cause that response. That is exactly what I mean. You can say you are not arminian (and that is really fine) ... but a rose by any other name smells just the same.</font>[/QUOTE]I believe that no one will choose to repent of their sins and put their faith in Christ unless they are first convicted by the Holy Spirit, or called by God. But, I also believe that they can excersise their free will and reject this conviction and call if they choose. I also believe that once someone becomes a Christian that there is nothing that they or anyone else can do to pluck them out of God's hands, so I believe OSAS.

I would guess that most Arminian's would disagree that I am an Arminian as I believe they have some bad doctrine, as I also believe Calvinist have some bad doctrine.

 

My only point is that what you have said is what is broadly called arminianism. I wouldn't shrink from the label, if that is what you really believe. And I certainly wouldn't hide behind biblicist. I don't think that most arminians would say you are not arminian.

 

I don't think I "hide behind biblicist", the only time I ever use the term is if someone tries to say that one must be either a Calvinist or an Arminian. They seem to only like labels if it's the ones they choose.

I would rather say that I am a Christian and that there is no one man's teachings or denomination that is 100% right in the doctrine that they believe or teach.

I have learned to "take the meat" and "throw away the bones" from any teaching wether it be Calvinism, Arminianism, Baptist, Luthern, etc..

 

First of all, note that calling oneself a CAlvinist or Arminian says nothing about the men themselves. A Calvinist is not a follower of Calvin, and an Arminian is not a follower of Arminius. Those names are descriptions of beliefs about what Scripture teaches.

But the term "Christian" is a great example of something that is almost meaningless in today's society. Consider how many people call themselves Christians. I had a guy tell me recently he was a Christian because his mother was Eastern Orthodox. He was assuming Eastern Orthodox people are Christians (a rather bold assumption) and assuming that his mother beliefs made him a Christian (a rather bad assumption). Catholics calls themselves Christians, but they believe something very different about Christianity than we do. The point is that labels have to mean something in order to be useful, and that is why "biblicist" is not useful. It doesn't really mean anything.

 

Calvinists would say we are not Calvinists since I do not believe God preordained some to salvation and some to damnation but sent His Son to die for ALL so that ALL might be saved. Arminians do not believe in 'once saved, always saved'. Both have points that do not fit with my beliefs.

Pastor Larry, it is the Calvinists who demand labels. As I've said before, I had never even heard these terms until I began reading here and I had no idea there were so many different beliefs among Baptists!

I guess I'm a Calminian or an Armanist.

 

This you and I agree with!!

I beieve the greatest "mission field" is inside the church buildings all across America every Sunday. I honestly believe the majority in the churches today are not true Christians, but those who have made false professions and will be misled by false prophets and antichrists in the end times. So many call themselves Christians simply because they repeated a sinners prayer.

 

Larry, I'm in general agreement with you, and your statement that Jim is right on target. I like this part to - "It's no more meaningful than if you were asked what your position is and your reply was 'the right one.'." But as far as popular usage is concerned, I would reiterate that popular usage (I think at least in the South) is that an Arminian believes in falling from grace. Perhaps that is due to the strong influence of the "modified 2-pt Calvinism" of the dominant Baptist body - the SBC. I would guess 90-95% of the Baptists around here would think/mean Arminian=falling from grace. I think this accounts for the strong rejection of the label Arminian by many you and I might consider Arminians.

 

I would think just the opposite ... I would think that few associate losing salvation with arminianism. In every conversation I have ever had (to my knowledge), the issue has always been about election. If you believe in unconditional election, you are a Calvinist (though you might reject a point or two); if you don't believe in unconditional election, you are arminian, though you might believe in eternal security (the inherent inconsistency notwithstanding).

Diane, when you said you had never heard these labels until you started here, I think that proves my poitn. It is the belief that is at issue. The label is a just a shorthand for that belief. I don't think it is a "demand" for labels per se; they are just helpful.

 

Larry, perhaps you may not have had to experience the dominance the SBC has in some areas of the South. I could be off away from my area, but I do know whereof I speak for my area. But consider, almost all the people defining Arminian this way (=falling from grace) accept only 2 of the 5 points - that's what almost every Baptist here believes (SBC, ABA, BBF, BMA, Independent, WBF, perhaps everyone except Primitives and Free Wills, which are few and far between).

P. S. As far as Primitives and Free Wills being few and far between, I am only referring to the East Texas area.

[ February 16, 2005, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

When I hear Arminian, I ONLY think of losing one's salvation. When I hear Calvinist, I only think of pre election of some to salvation and some to damnation. Both of those are outside my beliefs.

Pastor Larry said:

That's from a Calvinist. Would Arminians say the same, the inherent inconsistency notwithstanding?

 

This not all there is to believe about either system.