What Is A Biblicist?

True, but in your description about, election is the choice of a group of people who meet a condition: belief. REgardless of whether or not corporate vs. individual election is true, your whole position still leads to a conditional election.

Agreed. Did I say otherwise? </font>[/QUOTE]You made the individual's participation in election after belief, not before.

And that is a problem why? </font>[/QUOTE]Because you are back to the problem of not all men having a chance, which is a major reasoning underlying teh rejection or opposition to Calvinism. It allegedly makes God unfair because there are people hwo never had a chance. In this scenario (Spirit through the word brings conviction necessary for salvation), those without the word never have a chance.

 

The premise is not flawed. YOur analogy of skin color doesn't work because there are more than white and black skin colors. In spiritual life, there are only saved and unsaved. There is no middle ground into which we place someone. SEcondly, the Bible demands that all saved are related somehow to election, whether conditional or unconditional. So it is truly a binary situation.

 

Because it involves what you called a flawed premise, only this time it truly is flawed. Man has no independent free will in the way in which you use it. His free will is limited always by his nature. Your question would be similar to asking Why can't God know that 2+2=house? It simply doesn't make sense.

I believe the five points are, generally speaking, the teaching of Scripture. In that regard, they are similar to a theology book on the attributes of God. Scripture never sets out to tell us the list of God's attributes, just as it never sets out to tell us this list of five things. But by careful study of the Scripture, we can arrive at a proper understanding of God's attributes and we can arrive at a proper understanding of salvation, which will include the basis of these five points.

 

Grace is God's undeserved, unearned, unwanted favor towards condemned sinner.

Free will means you can choose according to your nature. Man's sin nature means he is free to choose whatever he wants to do. It will always be to reject God becuase of his nature. In regeneration, God gives man a new nature so that he can now freely choose to repent and believe in Christ.

I don't either, but a major objection against Calvinism is that God is unfair by "randomly selecting" certain individuals and not giving all men a chance. That objection has been voiced here. I reject that explanation and think that the arminians have the same problem, only worse ... because there is no purpose behind it.

But in any case, I apologize that this thread is off topic. Bring it down to CvA forum is you wish to follow up. Let's get back to biblicist ... I am unconvinced it is useful since it is so plastic. It means too many different things.

 

I too, remain unconvinced of the validity of both Calvinism and Arminianism and because of that will remain an avowed biblicist. Meaning exactly what Plain Old Bob said but also understood to mean as and as opposed to both Calvinism and Arminianism. (As evidenced by this thread).

I will also reiterate my conviction that christian people spend too much time worrying about each other and not enough soul winning. I don't really care what other christians think of the term biblicist. What I care about is that my local church understands that both Calvinism and Arminianism, in my view are unscriptural.

Lastly, I affirm the validity of the label because it does clearly communicate that the person with the label biblicist stands against both Calvinism and Arminianism. It also does not carry the baggage of other labels to the people I am trying to witness to.

If I use the term "fundamentalist" exclusively, it conjures up everything from Bob Jones to Jerry Falwell, to Jim Jones, to Islamic Fundamentalists. You tell me which label is plastic, misunderstood and ineffective.

 

As I understand it:

Calvinist Unconditional Election=Individuals chosen to salvation in eternity past based solely on God's right as ruler and will. They cannot not be saved because its God's will. (although the bible clearly states that God is not wiling that any should perish)

Biblical Unconditional Election=A choice in eternity past that salvation would come to only those that believe based on God's nature of Holiness and Love. God knows exactly who will be saved and in that sense they are elect before the foundation of the world. Their individual election is therefore not conditional on the moment of belief because they were elected based on foreknowledge which I Peter clearly states.

I Peter 1:2 "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ"

This text also points out the conditions that were met for salvation upon which you could say their individual election was based in eternity past.

 

No, the label biblicist means you believe the Bible, and therefore are a Calvinist. ... I am a true biblicist.

Now, can't you see the problem with the term? I claim it, you claim, arminians claim it. Who is right? It is insufficient to describe anything.

Your definitions of unconditional election are misguided. You don't get to redefine terms to justify your own belief. And foreknowledge is not simply knowing something ahead of time (cf Rom 11:2). Your own post in the last sentence acknowledges that it is not unconditional.

 

It seems like a contradiction. You say that conditional/unconditional involves everybody and then claim that the two camps that represent the conditional/unconditional don't. That doesn't make sense at all. Calvinism and arminianism is not all the soteriology there is. It is, however, all the Christian soteriology there is. YOu keep wanting another group but you won't tell me what it is. Why?

 

No, I didn't.</font>[/QUOTE]Here is a direct quote from you: Understand that I'm not arguing that saved-unsaved doesn't include everybody. And I'm not saying conditional-unconditional doesn't include everybody. Each of them obviously do. But because of your Calvinist premise, you also say Calvin-Arminian includes everybody. That is what is flawed. You can keep insisting that Calvinism and Arminianism is all the soteriology there is and ever will be but you'll never be able to prove it, because it just isn't true. Which is exactly what I said. Why did you say you didn't say it? Arminians deny unconditional election; Calvinists affirm it. You said "I'm not saying conditional-unconditional doesn't include everybody. Each of them obviously do." It makes no sense for you to say that you didn't say it.

How about the Biblicists? </font>[/QUOTE]Biblicists are calvinists ... I already included them. ... (See yet again how absolutely useless that term is?)

 

If Calvinism is synonymous with correct biblical belief, you wouldn't need another term. Were I a Calvinist, I would be happy with that descriptor, I wouldn't try and take over the term biblicist, which is clearly understood to refer to those that disagree with Calvinism and is taken by them intentionally as a means of differentiating themselves from both Calvinists and Arminians.

Why do you need two terms? Aren't you happy with Calvinist?

My question remains, how is that different than the term "Fundamentalist"? How about the term "Conservative"? Should I not use that either?

This is kind of fun, round and round we go skating past each others questions.

Ok, well...I can't make my doctrinal statement any more clear, but you sure can. Give us your position. I don't believe its been articulated yet.

Also, I'm not redefining Calvinistic unconditional election. I reject Calvinistic unconditional election. Calvin redefined biblical election and that is my point. You disagree which is fine for you, but I'm not the one redefining terms.

 

Also, I'm glad you have given me a biblical text to work with.

Romans 11:2-God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?

The message of this particular text is not that God elected all of Israel to salvation. The message is that God still has a plan for Israel.

The clarification that must be made is not all of "Israel" are of "Israel" but only those of faith. In the case of Paul's example, its the 7,000 that have not bowed the knee to Ba'al. In the context of the passage, its Paul and the other Jewish believers that had now trusted Christ.

So in this case, who are the elect? All of Israel or the ones that believed? Is this case its the ones who believed, the 7,000. Likewise Paul's point is that the remnant of Israel are those who have believed, including himself. How does this text prove your point?

The point is that God has not rejected His people at all, but Elijah misunderstood who those people God was referring to. If you read on in the text, it talks about how some of the Jews, which had access to the covenant relationship with God rejected Him! Other of the Jews, of course, did not reject Him and those are His people.

Salvation is not by birthright, it is by faith, which is what I've been saying all along.

 

I would prefer not to have another term. But historically, that has not been the case.

I am fine with it.

No one it trying to "take it over." The point is that it is meaningless and is an attempt to prejudice the conversation by the insinuation that others don't believe the Bible.

I don't, and I am. I am pointing out that Calvinists are biblicists. And when you use the term to refer to something else, it is an attempt to prejudice the conversation. It simply is improper.

Those have fairly agreed upon meanings. Fundamentalists are the true biblicists, as liberal Kirsopp Lake noted. But again, that is meaningless since liberals also claim to be biblicists. Terms exist for a reason.

My position on what? I think my position on this board is very well known, probably too well known.

Calvin may have redefined biblical election (I don't think he did). But that is to miss the point. You talked about Calvin's unconditional election and then biblical unconditional election. In so doing, your biblical unconditional election was conditonal election. You simply tried to redefine the term.

The Bible teaches us that election is individual (you) to salvation from before the foundation of the world. Such election precedes belief (or supposed seeing man's belief later in history).

 

1 and 2 are true. 3 is equal to 2 (contrary to your assertion). 4 is not a subset of conditional. It is, by definition, conditional. Biblicists either believe in conditional election (arminian) or unconditional election (calvinist). Why is that confusing? Why are you trying to redefine the ideas to hang on to a meaningless term?

 

The point of citing that has nothign to do with salvation or elect, per se. My point was to show that "foreknowledge" doesn't mean simply looking down the proverbial corridors of time to see what man will choose (as was earlier suggested). Foreknowledge is choice, as Rom 11;2 proves. God did not foreknow Israel in teh sense of looking down through history and seeing that they would choose him; It was in fact precisely not the case. Foreknowledge was God's choosing them, just as foreknowledge in 1 PEter 1:2 is God's choosing individuals to salvation.