What Is A Biblicist?

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Biblicist:
Election or choice was before the foundation of the world.

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.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />And in Scripture, election is prior to belief.

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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? </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.

 

[Pastor Larry]

It's not a matter of a third option. Your premise is flawed.

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.

 

[Pastor Larry]

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?

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.

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

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.

 

[Pastor Larry]

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

 

[Biblicist]

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.

 

[IveyLeaguer]

Biblicist:

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

Naaaah, that was Larry's statement, not mine.

 

[IveyLeaguer]

Pastor Larry:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />IveyLeaguer:
It's not a matter of a third option. Your premise is flawed.

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.</font>[/QUOTE]Your premise IS flawed. The whole point of our discussion is how Calvinism/Arminianism relates to the Biblicist. The analogy is NOT addressing saved-unsaved or conditional-unconditional. It is addressing your illogical progression from conditional-unconditional to Arminian-Calvin and your premise-forced defining of Arminian as the whole of soteriology outside of unconditional election. Your premise is flawed. Arminianism is not the whole of soteriology outside of unconditional election as the flaw in your premise dictates.

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.

 

[Biblicist]

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.

 

[Pastor Larry]

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.

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.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by IveyLeaguer:
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.

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?

 

[IveyLeaguer]

Larry:

You say that conditional/unconditional involves everybody and then claim that the two camps that represent the conditional/unconditional don't.

No, I didn't.

Larry:

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.

How about the Biblicists?

 

[Pastor Larry]

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

You say that conditional/unconditional involves everybody and then claim that the two camps that represent the conditional/unconditional don't.

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.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.

How about the Biblicists?

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

 

[Biblicist]

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[IveyLeaguer]

IveyLeaguer:

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.

Larry, that statement seems OK to me. Not sure what you are saying. But what that statement means is:

1. Saved-unsaved includes everybody.
2. Conditional-unconditional includes everybody, by definition (who are or might be saved).
3. Calvin-Arminian isn't the same group as #2, as you insist. It doesn't include all the saved.
4. Arminian is just a subset of Conditional in #2.
5. There is, at a minimum, one 'saved' group not included in #3. I belong to that group - some call it "the Biblicists".

 

[Biblicist]

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.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Biblicist:
If Calvinism is synonymous with correct biblical belief, you wouldn't need another term.

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

Were I a Calvinist, I would be happy with that descriptor,

I am fine with it.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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).

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by IveyLeaguer:
1. Saved-unsaved includes everybody.
2. Conditional-unconditional includes everybody, by definition (who are or might be saved).
3. Calvin-Arminian isn't the same group as #2, as you insist. It doesn't include all the saved.
4. Arminian is just a subset of Conditional in #2.
5. There is, at a minimum, one 'saved' group not included in #3. I belong to that group - some call it "the Biblicists".

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?

 

[IveyLeaguer]

Pastor Larry:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />IveyLeaguer:
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?

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.</font>[/QUOTE]No offense, brother, but I think that's somewhat of a copout. I just don't understand how one can be intellectually honest unless he is willing to consider more than one side of a matter. The question is not that complex. But, generally speaking, that's one of the problems with Calvinism, IMHO. It really does restrict, limit, and imprison. The thought of having to consider the attributes, glory and majesty of Almighty God only through Calvinist glasses is giving me cold chills as I type this.

Regarding the question of whether you 'equate' scripture and the 5 points of Calvinism, I understand your answer. It's what I expected, and it's not without merit. Please understand I am not speaking of you or trying to put words in your mouth when I say the following: I suspect a large number of Calvinists hold the 5 points and/or other man-made doctrines to be equal or near-equal with scripture. I have observed it in a significant percentage of my Calvinist brothers, but it's a very subtle thing. I realize there are a few man-made statements, like the Apostle's creed, that I would argue are 100% biblical. But that's another topic. Let me just say that I believe the 5 points of Calvinism do not remotely approach the high level of Holy Scripture and are in no way inerrant or infallible. On a 1-10 scale, if 10 is God's Word and 1 is false doctrine, I would rate the five points of Calvinism a 5 1/2. The five points of Arminianism, in my view, rank slightly lower than that.

 

[IveyLeaguer]

Pastor Larry and Everyone,

I think it is clear that a Biblicist is someone who regards Scripture as unique, high above and distinct from any doctrine, creed, confession or tradition. And that all doctrines, creeds, confessions, traditions, indeed the whole of creation, are subject to scrutiny and examination by the Sword of the LORD. I don't see 'Biblicist' meaning someone who believes the Bible. Those who define 'Biblicist' as neither Calvinist nor Arminian, or by some other definition, have their right to do so. That's just not what it means to me. And because of this thread, I now have the comfort of knowing I'm not alone.

Calvinists believe the Bible is God's Word. I had never even heard anything to the contrary before this thread. If there are those who accuse them of anything less than a high view of scripture, count me among their defenders. If my Calvinist brothers and sisters want to call themselves 'Biblicist' in order to protect themselves from any perception of a less than high view of Bible, that's OK with me. Nevertheless, I've decided to use the term because it is the most accurate term I know of to describe what I believe. But I maintain my low view of labels, including 'Biblicist'.

As I said several days ago, I have no interest in debating Calvinism, though there is nothing wrong with it. I actually know too little about it to debate it. I hope you can understand, Larry, that I don't hold my Calvinist brethren in a low view. In fact, I shudder to think where the church would be today without the reformed influence of the past 100 years, particularly in the seminaries. I came out of the Methodist church, so it's easy for me to make that observation.

It is my view that the invisible church is under a sustained and vicious attack that is escalating and will not let up at any time soon, and may indeed last until the return of Christ. This attack is coming with a force and subtlety unlike anything seen before and it is going to take all of our wits, talent, strength, and God's help, to withstand. We need to be 'united' but only in the way the Lord intended as we keep and cling to His Word, for 'Christian unity' will be one of the things we are fighting. Some of us are already fighting it. My hope is that the invisible church can be strengthened together in defense of Her and perhaps even go on the offensive with the plain, outdated, "offensive" gospel.

Thanks for the dialogue, Larry. I hope you, Biblicist, and the others will keep the C & A debate going. I'd like very much to follow it, but must pull out for now.

God Bless.

(BTW, feel free to take the last shot in the debate exchange, it is rightfully yours.)

 

[Pastor Larry]

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 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.