What Is A Biblicist?

Actually you have got things flipped around iveyleauger, Arminanism is a response to Calvin's theology.

 

To further your point, there are conditions one must meet to be saved. Repentance, belief, confession to name a few. To say that God's choice was unconditional is to say that God chose without the necessity of repentance, belief, or confession.

The question is not whether God knew who would be saved, the question is whether or not God makes people get saved or makes people not get saved. If you look at all of the passages in question that Calvin uses to defend his system and consider that they could refer to a class of people that meet God's conditions rather than individuals, then the mind boggling paradox of God's Sovereignty vs. man's free will disappears and God's word is left true. (as usual)

 

When it comes to election, you either believe it was unconditional or you believe it was conditional. What kind of third option is there? That is what I don't understand. You keep talking about some third option. What is it? (I have asked this already and you didn't offer anything.)

As I said, unless you quality further, you present a prevenient type of grace where the word enlightens all, and then man makes the ultimate choice, thereby denying unconditional election.

 

Classic flawed argumentation. Why doesn't unconditional election mean that one is chosen to those things? We are specifically told that man is chosen to believe and repent.

AGain, a classic flaw ... The issue is not about God making any one do anything. Man can do whatever he wants. In unconditional election, God chooses those who would not otherwise choose him and gives him a new nature by which they will freely choose to repent and believe.

But the "class" interpretation has never bene convincing because it doesn't answer the flaw of man's nature. It presumes that man is either not totally affected by sin (as Scripture says he is) or that every man has some form of prevenient grace (which Scripture never says). You have to insert one of these two arguments to arrive at the class interpretation. It is better to take it at face value and understand it as individuals.

 

No offense, but I think you are too enveloped by your theology to see what I'm saying. Here are my responses.

The question is not that at all. The question is who did God choose? Individuals or all those who met His condition? His unconditional choice was that Whosoever shall call upon the Lord shall be saved. This has nothing to do with unconditionally redeeming random people He chose. God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

And as I have said, that understanding of grace is not biblical. Its not some "grace" that enlightens people. Its the Holy Spirit through God's word. Why is it valid to say some "prevenient grace" that is nowhere mentioned in scripture can enlighten people, but the spirit through the word of God can't? What's the difference? Isn't it the same thing? Only what I am talking about is in the bible, and prevenient grace is a man-made theological term.

It doesn't have to do either of those things. Man is lost, without hope, he cannot save himself. However, when the word of God is preached to him, it is a lamp unto his feet and a light unto his path. It illuminates him through the spirit and allows him to respond.

I think what you are saying is the same thing, but you choose to call it prevenient grace and base it on arbitrary choice rather than the clear teaching of scripture. What's the point of that? I don't get it. This is so clear in scripture its almost embarassing. See below and note especially vs. 17.

Romans 10:13 for WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED."


14How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?


15How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!"


16However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, "LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT?"


17So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

Again, I'm not trying to offend. One of my favorite quotes is "the risk of insult is the price of clarity." I'm not trying to insult, but I am trying to be clear.

 

Sorry, I noticed something else I'll respond to:

That's interesting. How is this new nature different than what Adam had? So you are saying that although 100% of the human beings that lived in a perfect world in the beginning chose to sin against God, 100% of the new elect that have this new nature will choose to freely repent and believe because of this new nature?

Doesn't this go against the point that its not within human kind to seek God on his own?

 

I think you hijacked the term "unconditional"....if you are gonna discuss the issue, at least use the traditional definition of "unconditional" in unconditional election.

 

This seems to be now more of a C vs. A debate than a discussion of the question! I want to address something Dan said.

Dan, I don't think anyone is afraid of the label. You say it "communicates the priority in my theology", which is well meaning and there is nothing wrong with that. But the problem is that it only communicates that to you (and not to me, for example). Many of the other "labels" we use may not be precise, but they do have a history behind them that puts us in the ballpark when we hear them - Baptist, fundamentalist, Calvinist, Arminian, etc.. Maybe after 30 or 40 or 50 years, "biblicist" will have developed a sufficient background to help get us in the ballpark, but right now it does not have that. I don't think it ever will, because no one is going to let the "other side" appropriate such an "exclusive" label to themselves.

To give the C/A argument a rest for a while, what if we injected the label into millennialism. One might say, "I am a premillennialist" and I might reply, "I am a biblicist". What would that mean to that person? Nothing.

 

I had to laugh ... no offense, but I read your first line and laughed out loud. It is a great example of affirming the thing you think you are denying.

That is conditional election. YOu are claiming that he elects people who believe on him. The Bible never says that. Election to salvation is never used of a method (as you use it here); it is always used of people. And in Scripture, election is prior to belief. God never speaks of electing people who meet his condition ... but even if he did, that would be conditional election: Election conditioned on qualification.

Will you pardon me for not accepting your previous explanation? It just doesn't work. You don't get to redefine terms.

People who believe in prevenient grace (a theological term) use it in the sense of the universal enabling of the Spirit on all men. One major flaw in your argument here is that the "Spirit through the word" doesn't get to all men. Not all in history have had the word of God. Furthermore, the biblical evidence is that not all are enlightened to understand.

The point is that what you are saying and prevenient grace is essentially the same thing. I reject both as unbiblical.

What do you think I disagree with in that? That is a major flaw of universal prevenient grace, or your idea that hte Spirit working through the word enables all men. Not all have heard the word, or been exposed to it. You are right that it is so clear it is almost embarrassing. But I don't understand how you are missing it ... or at least what you think I am missing. Rom 10:13-17 really doesn't have anything to do with this issue.

 

Can I ask who you are referring to and what that means?

 

I suppose I can say again that I don't think that is what election is about. Election or choice was before the foundation of the world.

Agreed. Did I say otherwise?

And that is a problem why?

 

I appreciate that feedback RL. Thoughtfully said. I think, however, that what you call history may also be perceived as "baggage".

I think my point is that I'm less concerned with what a label means to the "christian community" (which doesn't really exist anyway-universally at least) than I am with someone I'm trying to witness to. Its much easier for me to explain what a biblicist is than for me to try and explain all of the mistakes of church history that I don't agree with to begin with.

Some labels are non-negotiable with me, like "Christian" and "fundamentalist" because I think despite hijack attempts, they are the best labels to accurately describe who I am, albeit they need some explaining.

Anyway, point taken and thanks for the comment.

 

Hey Larry,

At least we're both still laughing, right brother?

At the end of the day, we both will have retained our integrity despite our disagreement and there is something to be said for that.



Also, don't stop me guys. This is a great way for a newbie to get a ton of posts.

 

Can I ask who you are referring to and what that means? </font>[/QUOTE]You, as you talked about unconditional election

 

Iveyleager, I think that is where you and I disagree a little. I believe God does know exactly the past, present, future.

What I understand to be the issue regarding Sovereignty is that Calvinism (as espoused by Beza, Boettner, Van Til, et al.) teaches that God is so Sovereign that if anyone else makes a choice, He ceases to be Sovereign, so therefore God must make all choices.

What I think I hear Pastor Larry saying I've never heard before I don't think.

Larry, so I can understand your position, can you explain Grace for me as you see it?

Also, I'm interested in your explanation of the God giving people a new nature that leads them to choose Him freely.

Lastly, I don't understand what you mean about the whole world not hearing the gospel. If they don't, why is that unscriptural? Do you think the bible says every human will have an opportunity to hear and believe? I don't.