What Is A Biblicist?

Hi all,

My first.....maybe my last? Post. I agree 100% with Plain Old Bob on his definition.

I was saved at 17 with no christian witness, just from reading the bible. At the time I didn't even know there was an old and new testament. I had no Christian witness after I was saved for about 18 months afterwards. Finally, I met a godly Christian family that steered me to a Christian college.

When I got to that college, one professor immediately told me I had to be a Calvinist or Arminian. At the time, and even now, I was very disappointed that someone would say that to a new believer even if he believed it.

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.

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.

Anyway, my two cents.

Dan
Jn 16:33

 

The problem with the term as many have been saying is that it is two vague. You have Calvinists who call themselves biblicists, you have Arminans who call themselves biblicists, and you have "what-ever-you-want-to-call-them-in-betweens" calling themselves biblicists. Will the real biblicist please stand up? There needs to be more clarity.

To be a true biblicist you would have to be 100% sure that you have "arrived" at the complete understanding of God's Word. The fact is none of us have, nor will we till eternity. We all must be consistant students of the Word and realized that we do not understand all there is to understand about God. To think otherwise is the acme of arrogance.

 

4His_glory,
You could apply your argument to any label...Christian, Calvinist, Arminian, American, Baptist, etc. So what's the point of using any?

I will stop using Biblicist when humanity stops using all labels. The clarity comes from explaining what you mean by the term, which I have done, as well as using it in conjunction with other terms.

Sorry, I just don't agree with your perspective.

 

I believe David Wells is Calvinistic. So if you really agree with him ...

As it has been presented here, it will fit either side. It is in what is not said that is the key.

 

You either believe that God chose people unconditionally, or you believe that he didn't. One is Calvnisitic, the other is arminian. Where is the middle ground?

Not at all. The "system of Calvinism" (if that is what you want to call it) depends only on Scripture. It has nothing to do with who accepts the various terms involved in it.

That doesn't seem to follow from anything you have said, but that is fine.

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

 

The thing that irks me is that there is a strong anti-calvinist element in IFB circles that calls all Calvinists heretics, and calls themselves biblicists.

First of all the history of Baptists and fundamentalists is full of strong Calvinists and deny this is to ignore the truth. Secondly they all asume that if one is Calvinistic that he is an enemy of evangelism and missions when nothing could be further from the truth. The early church planters in the USA were primarily Calvinists. It also lumps all Calvinists together and assumes they are all extreme or as some say "hyper" Calvinists. This also is not true. But they call themselves biblicists! I don't see how such an aggressive, antagonistic spirit is biblical.

 

I guess a broader question would be are Baptists Protestants. I'm a Baptist, but I'm not a Protestant. Neither were the Anabaptists.

Anyway, we all have to contend with the ineffectiveness of labels. Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. all call themselves Christians, but I would differentiate myself from them.

I do find it interesting that the broad question of "What is a Biblicist?" has come down to a debate of Calvinism vs. Arminianism which leads me to believe the term is understood more broadly than we may care to admit.

Here's a question for you. Does anyone know who coined the term Biblicist or when? I'm interested to hear your answers to that question.

 

How about 'I'm an Evangelical Southern Baptist'?

 

Not to speak for IveyLeager, but believing that God did not unconditionally choose people for salvation is not necessarily Arminian. It may sound similar to something Arminius taught, but could be entirely different depending on the basis of why you believe God does not unconditionally choose.

Locking yourself into only one option for all anti-determinist positions may be what he meant when he said Calvinists are prisoners in their own system.

 

Biblicist, The essential debate is over that issue. The "why" of God is not really addressed. No one can answer that question from a electionist standpoint. It is not "locking oneself in" as much as it is simply recognizing the landscape that's out there. The crux of Arminianism is a denial of the complete affects of sin and the denial of unconditional election. YOu don't have to buy into the rest of it, but they all have that in common, and the latter more than the former. Many arminians (including arminius himself) believe in total depravity, but inserted prevenient grace to deal with it. Some deny total depravity and are more properly called Pelagians, but still fit under the broad umbrella of arminianism.

 

Biblicist, The essential debate is over that issue. The "why" of God is not really addressed. No one can answer that question from a electionist standpoint. It is not "locking oneself in" as much as it is simply recognizing the landscape that's out there. The crux of Arminianism is a denial of the complete affects of sin and the denial of unconditional election. YOu don't have to buy into the rest of it, but they all have that in common, and the latter more than the former. Many arminians (including arminius himself) believe in total depravity, but inserted prevenient grace to deal with it. Some deny total depravity and are more properly called Pelagians, but still fit under the broad umbrella of arminianism.

Perhaps you can shed light on why some are so hesitant to accept these designations.

 

Yes and why do they call those who believe in total depravity and unconditional election "heretics"?

 

4His_glory,

You would have to ask them whey they call those people heretics.

Pastor Larry,

In my view there are many issues with Calvinism but one seems to be a misunderstanding of the term "grace" as a somewhat gnostic force.

God's "grace" is merely his unmerited favor. It is not some salvific enlightenment power that brings someone closer to salvation or regenerates them enough to believe. Prevenient grace therefore is a mischaracterization of what grace is. Grace is not a power, its God's attitude towards us.

I believe that the protestant undestanding of grace is very tainted by the Roman Catholic system that the reformers were a part of, namely the incremental salvific "grace", or force, spiritual healing energy, or whatever you want to call it that was conveyed via sacraments, indulgences, etc. This type of grace is not found in scripture and shows a faulty theology.

Biblically speaking, in my view, the word of God enlightens the totally lost sinner so that they can respond in faith to the message preached. Conviction comes from the Spirit only through the Word of God. People can resist the Spirit as the scripture clearly states. However, when the lost sinner responds to the Spirit and calls out for salvation, he/she is plunged into the family of God, the "Baptism of the Spirit" if you will. They receive all of the Holy Spirit they are ever going to get at that point.

So, I don't know if I've anwered your question but to me Calvinism/Arminianism is a moot point. Unnecessary. Based on a faulty understanding of grace and other doctrines of the reformation era as they emerged from Catholicism.

Sorry if there are folks here that have identified themselves closely with these doctrines, I'm not trying to attack you personally or offend you.

 

Maybe we should ask ourselves what is it we actually do believe?
I believe in God's complete knowledge of all things and that includes foreknowledge.I do not believe in predestination. Let me explain it this way I know my children and I can with vertual certainty predict what they are going to do based on my knowledge of them, that does not mean they don't have a choice of thier own to do something else.
I believe in full complete saving grace and that the Holy spirit convicts us of sin and that we have a choice to accept or reject that grace. I was convicted of sin many times before I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior.If grace were irresistable I would have been saved the first time I was convicted of sin.Even though God kmows what choice we make He does not force us to make that choice. If predestination and irresistable grace were so the would be no choice or freewill and it would defeat God's purpose that we would freely choose to love and serve Him.
I also believe in once saved always saved and that if we are truly saved there will be the fruits of our salvation and that we will persevere.
I also believe that deacons are the servants in the church and not the rulers.
I also believe we are saved to serve and that means we are to be witnesses and disciplers.
I belive the Bible is God's wrtten Word to man and that it is one hundered percent true in all that it says and is without error.
I also believe that we will be known because we have love one toward another.
So what does that make me?

 

While I'm at it, I may as well point out another related to Calvnism-Total Depravity.

The key to understanding total depravity in my view is having a proper understanding of biblical "death".

Death in the bible is not non-existance. Its separation. God said to Adam and Eve that the day they sinned they would die, yet they did not cease to exist spiritually that day. They were separated from God and had to leave the garden.

We are born spiritually dead, separated from God, but not spiritually non-existant.

Lost sinners that die do not cease to exist, they burn in hell forever, separated from God.

If spiritual death means separation from God, what does that do to the Calvinist doctrines of total depravity, prevenient grace, etc. Men are separate, but when the word of God comes to them and they are convicted by the Holy Spirit, they can respond and be reconciled.

I remember the old argument, "dead men can't do anything". The problem is the question begs the answer. Its a fallacious analogy. The right answer is that dead men can weep and gnash their teeth in judgment, separate from God. I'm not trying to be harsh, just to point out we need to relook at these things and not take them lock, stock, and barrel.

 

Your position as stated above is arminianism, unless you want to qualify it. That is exactly what arminianism, broadly speaking, is.

Your understanding of grace is certainly to limited as well. God acts towards us in grace to be sure, but it is not just an attitude.

I am not offended or attacked in the least. I think you like to put yourself outside these categories, but in so doing, you have placed yourself squarely in one of them. REdefining grace or salvation doesn't really help.

 

No offense, but that is exactly what I would expect someone who is locked into a two option view to say. 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, where broad generalizations are made based on seeming similarities you can label anyone virtually anything. (By the way I'm using simplistic in the sense of the view being basic and general, I'm not isinuating that you are simplistic or anything like that. Just want to be clear on that.)

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