What Is A Biblicist?

[dianetavegia]

No, but they are very important 'beliefs' of each group and I disagree with both.

 

[4His_glory]

Most Calvinists do not believe in double predestination, it is NOT a important part of their beliefs. Losing ones salvation is not the most important part of an Arminan's belief either. The free will of man is the central point, and how depraved man is. The problem is that many people do not really understand eithers system of thought and fail to recognize that there are many differneces in amongst eachs respective constituants.

I believe in man's totall inabillity to save himself, I believe in unconditional election, I believe that God supernaturally must draw a man to salvation, I do not believe in limited Atonment, or a rather the defenition that some Calvinists would take of limited Atonment. Some would call me a four-point Calvinist. 5 point Calvinist would not. The fact is that we can not hide behind the name "biblicist" to shadow our beliefs from others. I believe though that is what Bauder was speaking of in his article.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I think 4hisglory is hitting on the point: In all of this discsussion, the issue is "free will." Taht is the central point. People who reject Calvinism do so, most often and predominantly becuase of the supposed compromise of man's free will.

But I am a 5 point Calvinist who would call 4hisglory a Calvinist. I think most actually would.

 

[russell55]

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

Generally speaking, I think the answer is yes, most Arminians would agree with PL on that.

Here's a comparison chart that most--either Calvinist or Arminian--don't quibble much with. You'll notice that as to falling from grace it says:

All Arminians have not been agreed on this point; some have held that believers are eternally secure in Christ - that once a sinner is regenerated, he can never be lost.

I think if you read down the chart, and you find your beliefs fitting into the Arminian side of the chart on the first four points, then it's not wrong to say you are Arminian, because, in the issue of this part of soteriology, that's the cubbyhole your belief system fits in.

Although if someone objects to being labeled, then I don't like to label them. But avoiding labeling them doesn't mean that the cubbyhole with that label on it isn't the one they're sitting in.

 

[russell55]

But I am a 5 point Calvinist who would call 4hisglory a Calvinist.

Me too...

 

[IveyLeaguer]

dianetavegia:

Pastor Larry, it is the Calvinists who demand labels.

They have to, Diane, otherwise their system falls apart.

dianetavegia:

I guess I'm a Calminian or an Armanist.

Attagirl, I love that.

 

[Pastor Larry]

They have to, Diane, otherwise their system falls apart.

Do you honestly think that Calvinism depends on whether or not someone accepts the label?

 

[4His_glory]

I love what C.H. Spurgeon said:

"There is no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrines of grace than I do, and if any man asks me whether I am ashamed to be called a Calvinist, I answer—I wish to be called nothing but a Christian; but if you ask me, do I hold the doctrinal views which were held by John Calvin, I reply, I do in the main hold them, and rejoice to avow it."

I will give an amen to that!

 

[dianetavegia]

Calvinism is no more that the interpretation of a mere man. I wouldn't call my self a Holcombeist because I agree with my pastor.

I am VERY insulted when people apply labels or force labels on others.

 

[IveyLeaguer]

Pastor Larry:

Do you honestly think that Calvinism depends on whether or not someone accepts the label?

No brother, sorry. I was referring to the "get off the fence, either C or A" thing.

 

[IveyLeaguer]

JGrubbs:

I don't think I "hide behind biblicist" ...

Nor do I, brother, but there must be those who do. And if they do then the others here are right to object to it.

JGrubbs:

I have learned to "take the meat" and "throw away the bones" from any teaching ....

Agree, there's no other way. I've learned more from R.C.Sproul than from any other teacher but I probably disagree with him somewhat more than MacArthur or Spurgeon, say, but still it's not that much. Others, like Tozer and Bounds, it's about the same. I've read little of Wesley and don't read Finney at all. One of those at the extreme would be Watchman Nee, who contributes some good things, but that is a very good example of what a friend of mine calls "cherry picking". You comb through carefully, with great discernment, and every so often pick out a sweet cherry. However, in Nee's case, meat might be the better description.

 

[av1611jim]

Originally posted by IveyLeaguer:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />dianetavegia:

Pastor Larry, it is the Calvinists who demand labels.

They have to, Diane, otherwise their system falls apart.

dianetavegia:

I guess I'm a Calminian or an Armanist.

Attagirl, I love that.

</font>[/QUOTE]__________________________________________________

I LIKE that answer too!
Calminian! LOL Armanist! LOL

MOST people I know who hear the terms Calvinism or Arminian react to one of two points. Either unconditional election to salvation or damnation OR falling from grace, i.e. losing one's salvation. I am not totally up on all the theological systems of either man. When I hear either term, that is what comes to my mind. I REJECT both concepts, based on Scripture.

Both systems miss the mark in my opinion. I believe there is ground between the two extremes which has been taught for centuries which both systems have ignored. ACCOUNTABILITY and REWARDS.

It just may be that "biblicist" is a weak identifier as it has been accurately stated that both systems would identify themselves a such.

I don't think the choice is either Calvin OR Arminius. There is a third choice not fully taught in today's christendom which is just recently coming to the fore. It is not new although it may SOUND new to they who have not encountered it. I think that is because of all the focus on either Calvin OR Arminius.
Anyhow, that is where I stand. Somewhere in the middle that is most likely the correct place to be.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

[Pastor Larry]

Calvinism is no more that the interpretation of a mere man.

Unlike your position??? Hardly ... That is why a statement like this serves no real value. It simply makes no meaningful contribution to the topic. Very often, when we disagree with someone, we resort to "that's just your interpretation." It is probably the only response that virtually all theological camps have in common. But it serves nothing and increases the understanding not one bit.

This is where the term biblicist is most often used ... to describe "my interpretation" as opposed to "your interpretation." Your interpretation is no more than that of a mere man (or woman as the case may be).

 

[dianetavegia]

So then we can all be Pastor Larryists or Dianeists?

 

[PastorGreg]

Originally posted by dianetavegia:
So then we can all be Pastor Larryists or Dianeists?

So those of neither persuasion could identify themselves as Larrianeists?

 

[IveyLeaguer]

Pastor Larry:

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.

I don't believe that.

Pastor Larry:

I disagree with your notion that we are trying to quantify the knowledge of God as if he can't know something .... For God to know the full range of possibilities is certainly true, but he knows them only as possibilities.

Of course, you don't see any contradiction here, right?

Pastor Larry:
For God to know the full range of possibilities is certainly true, but he knows them only as possibilities.

WHY CAN'T HE KNOW?

Pastor Larry:

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).

Baloney. A conclusion that results from being a prisoner of a system.

Pastor Larry:

I don't care about the label someone puts on me.

Agree, brother. Me, either.

Pastor Larry:

... the term "Christian" is a great example of something that is almost meaningless in today's society.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[4His_glory]

Originally posted by dianetavegia:
Calvinism is no more that the interpretation of a mere man. I wouldn't call my self a Holcombeist because I agree with my pastor.

I am VERY insulted when people apply labels or force labels on others.

Lables help us to identify with different ideas. They distiguish us from others. Such as Baptist from Methodist, or Calvinist from Arminian.

 

[IveyLeaguer]

russell55:

Here's a comparison chart that most--either Calvinist or Arminian--don't quibble much with.

OK, just the 1st point on the COMPARISON CHART which is the main, PRIMARY point, everyone agrees:

Arminianism: Free-Will/Human Ability or Calvinism Total Inability/Total Depravity:

I flatly, categorically, reject both of those positions in the chart. I don't see either one of them in the Bible.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by IveyLeaguer:
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.

I don't believe that.[/quote]I don't think I was speaking to you. That was a comment to Scott, I think, but I am not sure. I don't recall you stating what you believe.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I disagree with your notion that we are trying to quantify the knowledge of God as if he can't know something .... For God to know the full range of possibilities is certainly true, but he knows them only as possibilities.

Of course, you don't see any contradiction here, right?</font>[/QUOTE]No, there is no contradiction.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />For God to know the full range of possibilities is certainly true, but he knows them only as possibilities.

WHY CAN'T HE KNOW?</font>[/QUOTE]Why can't he know what?

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).

Baloney. A conclusion that results from being a prisoner of a system.[/quote][Again, I have to question "What?" What is baloney? Those are the simple facts broadly speaking. I am not sure what there is there to disagree with. The debate is about "free will" and whose in charge. An arminian rejects the idea that God unconditionally elects people to salvation; a Calvinist accepts it. That is at the heart of the discussion.

 

[JGrubbs]

I agree with David Wells that until a person has experienced the Spirit relayed consciousness that he is a totally depraved sinner, he can never exercise a saving faith in Christ. It is absolute folly to tell an unconvicted sinner to merely believe in Jesus and expect him to be saved. Before a person can be saved, he has to realize that he is lost. This conviction comes from the Holy Spirit. To sweeten the gospel for the sake of numbers by de-emphasizing the sinfulness of man is unscriptural and ungodly! For man to realize that he is exceedingly sinful, he must first be shown the exceeding sinfulness of sin. That conviction does not come, however, through a planned program of quick responses by way of rehearsed questions. Conviction of sin comes when God’s people preach and teach the power of repentance through the Holy Spirit. As the Holy Spirit convicts of sin, people are saved.

Would you consider this be a Calvinist veiwpoint or and Arminian viewpoint?

Source: Soulwinning or Salesmanship?