What Is A Biblicist?

[IveyLeaguer]

Biblicist:

In my view Calvin and Arminius were just two guys in one point in history that had notable debates during a point where the world was dominated by Catholicism and both were influenced by those theologies. Neither one would most of us probably enjoy the company of if they were around today. Not exactly nice guys. Regardless, to claim that their views are all encompassing of soteriological Christian theology baffles me.

Baffles me, too, but I suspect it's because of the domino effect of unconditional election - once the door slams on that they are locked in logically and intellectually to everything else. From that point on, they are bound within the system. Because of the Bible, there are few people more black/white that I am, but the either/or thing on unconditional election is just not the truth - that premise is flawed.

I'm no expert on Calvinism, I think its boring, but it's interesting to me that Calvinism was a response to Arminius. And the irony is they were both wrong, and they were both right - they were both partially right on Pt.1 and they were both partially wrong on Pt.1, according to the Word. IMHO, Calvin was MORE right on Pt.1 and on the theological whole, but neither is the whole truth. Apparently, God was pleased to reserve that uniqueness for Himself and His Word.

 

[4His_glory]

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

 

[IveyLeaguer]

Originally posted by 4His_glory:
Actually you have got things flipped around iveyleauger, Arminanism is a response to Calvin's theology.

Thanks, brother.

 

[Biblicist]

Baffles me, too, but I suspect it's because of the domino effect of unconditional election - once the door slams on that they are locked in logically and intellectually to everything else. From that point on, they are bound within the system. Because of the Bible, there are few people more black/white that I am, but the either/or thing on unconditional election is just not the truth - that premise is flawed.

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)

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Biblicist:
In your world there is no option for a third view, so I must fall into one of two camps. With that type of simplistic view of theology,

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.)

Anyway, what part of my view would you consider Arminian and why?

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.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by IveyLeaguer:

Biblicist:

In my view Calvin and Arminius were just two guys in one point in history that had notable debates during a point where the world was dominated by Catholicism and both were influenced by those theologies. Neither one would most of us probably enjoy the company of if they were around today. Not exactly nice guys. Regardless, to claim that their views are all encompassing of soteriological Christian theology baffles me.[/QUOTE

This statement is misguiding, or misguided. These two did not have debates. Calvin died in 1564; Arminius was born in 1558. Hard to have any debates, given the dates in view. But more importantly, no one is claiming that these men's views are all encompassing of Christian theology. Their views are really irrelevant. Both have experienced much development and thinking. They represent two camps divided on the crucial point election.

[qb]Baffles me, too, but I suspect it's because of the domino effect of unconditional election - once the door slams on that they are locked in logically and intellectually to everything else.

I have seen this claim, but have never seen any actual basis for it. I don't think the points are inseparable. They naturally flow, and with good reason ... Scripture makes sense ... but they are not necessary to one another.

... but the either/or thing on unconditional election is just not the truth - that premise is flawed.

And what is this mysterious third option?

I'm no expert on Calvinism, I think its boring, but it's interesting to me that Calvinism was a response to Arminius.

Incorrect. Arminius was born 5 years after Calvin died, which means that Arminius responded to Calvinism, not the other way around.

 

[Pastor Larry]

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.

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.

the question is whether or not God makes people get saved or makes people not get saved.

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.

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,

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.

 

[Biblicist]

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

When it comes to election, you either believe it was unconditional or you believe it was conditional.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Biblicist]

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

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.

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?

 

[JGrayhound]

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.

 

[rlvaughn]

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.

Originally posted by Biblicist:
As for the term biblicist, no one should be afraid of that label. One label just doesn't cut it anymore or else we would all call ourselves "God Fearers" or "Believers" or "Christians". The term biblicist isn't an attempt to one-up other Christians and say that the biblicist is biblical and they are not. Its to communicate exactly what Plain old Bob said. It communicates the priority in my theology. Its used in conjunction with other labels. I consider myself a Fundamental Biblicist Independant Baptist and even that doesn't completely communicate my theology.

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.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Biblicist:
No offense, but I think you are too enveloped by your theology to see what I'm saying.

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.

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.

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.

And as I have said, that understanding of grace is not biblical.

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

 

[Biblicist]

Originally posted by JGrayhound:
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.

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

 

[Biblicist]

YOu are claiming that he elects people who believe on him

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.

And in Scripture, election is prior to belief.

Agreed. Did I say otherwise?

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.

And that is a problem why?

 

[Biblicist]

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.

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.

 

[Biblicist]

I had to laugh ... no offense, but I read your first line and laughed out loud.

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.

 

[IveyLeaguer]

Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />IveyLeaguer:

... but the either/or thing on unconditional election is just not the truth - that premise is flawed.

And what is this mysterious third option?</font>[/QUOTE]It's not a matter of a third option. Your premise is flawed. You can't divide the whole of soteriological belief into a Calvinist camp and a Arminian camp using unconditional/condition election as a premise just because you choose to set it up that way. Very convenient, I might add, since conditional/unconditional is by definition, all inclusive of the whole. The premise has the potential to produce a desired result for the Calvinist camp only because the Calvinist camp created the premise. It then, by force of definition, places anything not Calvinist into the Arminian camp.

Every color in the spectrum is either black, white, or something in between. I can create the following premise: All humans on earth have either black or white skin. All humans must be divided into 2 camps, black and white, accordingly. I am black. Since I make the rules, I rule that only humans who are black, like me, can reside in the black camp. Since there are only 2 camps, all humans who aren't black must necessarily reside in the white camp. Now, I have 100% faith and confidence in my premise. Do the 2 camps include 100% of the people? Yes. Are all the people in the black camp, black? Yes. Are all the people in the white camp, white? According to the premise, they ARE.

The black camp squares with reality, because it consists of black humans. The white does not square with reality because it consists of white and non-black humans. So, in reality, our model can't exist. Why? Because the premise it is based on is flawed. The result of the premise is not 100% false because the black camp is as it should be. But the premise itself is 100%, conceptually flawed, and will never produce a true, or real, result.

 

[JGrayhound]

Originally posted by Biblicist:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JGrayhound:
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.

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

 

[IveyLeaguer]

Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />IveyLeaguer:
WHY CAN'T HE KNOW the outcome of the possibilities?

He can. That is what I said. But he knows them only as possibilities. He does not know them as anything else.</font>[/QUOTE]Alright, I'll rephrase the question.

WHY CAN'T HE KNOW from eternity past exactly who, exercising their independent free-will, will accept His offer of salvation and who will reject it?

Pastor Larry:
I don't think the (5 points of Calvinism) are inseparable. They naturally flow, and with good reason ... Scripture makes sense ... but they are not necessary to one another.

Are you equating the 5 points with scripture in any way?

 

[Biblicist]

He can. That is what I said. But he knows them only as possibilities. He does not know them as anything else.

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.