What Is A Biblicist?

Well said Iveyleaguer. I can bow out too at this point.

Just for fun, let me share with you that I don't believe in the invisible church either, at least here on earth.

This so-called "invisible" church doesn't tithe, have deacons, pastor, etc. It doesn't practice church discipline either. Where exactly is this invisible church? Am I supposed to have unity with catholics, lutherans, jehovah's witnesses, etc? Unity personally? Maybe. Unity professionally? Maybe. Ecclesiastically? Never. Not me.

I believe that biblical unity is local independent churches as well as potential loose sister relationships with like minded churches. Each of those churches is accountable to their pastor, who is in turn accountable to God.

I'm not trying to be ridiculous, but maybe this might illustrate my point which is that we should look at some of the teachings of "protestantism" and make sure we believe what we think we believe. Way more than we may realize is influenced by Catholicism. "Catholic" means universal, and I don't believe in the "catholic" church. (I do believe in the Bride of Christ, though. Except only God knows who those people are. It doesn't include everyone in our churches, I'll tell you that!)

Again, I'm not talking about doctrines like the virgin birth, death on the cross, trinity, or any of those things. I'm talking about some of this other stuff that we take wholeheartedly because it was taught to us and seems to make sense, but doesn't jive with the rest of our theology or history. Just a thought.

 

I speak as one who has throught through it and rejected the alternative for biblicist reasons. It is not restricting in the least, or limiting. I am more free now than I was before I believed what I believe. It is tremendously liberating to preach now. Point being that I have considered more than one side. I rejected the other side as unable to deal with the biblical text without severe damage to its integrity.

There may be some who hold the five points equal to Scripture. I do not. I believe they are a concise systematic expression of what Scripture teaches.

The problem, as I see it, with your definition of biblicist as 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 is that is precisely describes my position. That is exactly what I would say about what I believe, and holding that belief, I am committed to what is known as Calvinism. Because of my high view of Scripture, I see no other alternative that does not damage Scripture.

I enjoy the debate and the manner in which it was carried on. I hold no ill will towards those who disagree. If they can believe something different in good conscience, then that is up to them. I cannot.

 

Biblicist,

I don't really like the term 'invisible church', either, I've just been reading it a lot lately. What I mean by it is the "true" church, the bride of Christ, regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Agree only God knows who they are. I believe in the "holy catholic" church but only to the extent it is this same exact "true church" or "bride".

Of course, most of the "true" church tithes, serves, deacons, etc. in their local churches. And they will stay loyal and obedient to the Lord through the difficult times to come.

If you bow out of the thread, please don't bow out of the board. It's just that there's one more thread I need to work on and in 10 days I have to move and haven't done a thing.

Thanks for your input, it was outstanding.

IL

 

Thanks Brother. Iron does sharpen Iron and I do appreciate everyone's comments as well.

I have to be honest though, I mentioned before that I was saved at 17 with no Christian witness from reading the bible. I met my first Christians 18 months later,went to church, etc. and when I did I was shocked by what they believed and how they acted. That was 15 years ago and I'm still not immersed in the "christian culture" despite going to bible college and seminary.

I just think believers spend way too much time managing each other or jockeying for position in the "christian community". I have also noticed how its not uncommon for both liberals AND "fundamentalists" to twist scripture around to suit their preferences. Both do it. I'm talking about all of the old issues like long hair, pants on women, etc. as well as in other areas. (Trail of Blood for example)

The last thing for me is that I'm so local church a board like this makes me a little uncomfortable. Not that I don't appreciate whoever put it together and the fact that they have allowed me to be a guest here. What makes me uncomfortable is that it seems like a perfect place for unhappy church members to get ammunition to fire at their pastor.

On the other hand, Paul debated the Jews in the synagogue so maybe this is ok. Debate is good I guess to a degree. I shudder to think, however, of the poor new believer that comes in here to find truth and finds himself outgunned in the middle of a heated theological argument.

Anyway, thanks a lot. Maybe I'll see you all around! (If I'm not kicked to the curb)

 

Every pastor knows what you do. Some of the problems include pastors wanting a denominational position too.

What you said is the very erason why we must be open to criticism and our theology open to examination.

 

[/QUOTE]Every pastor knows what you do. Some of the problems include pastors wanting a denominational position too.

What you said is the very erason why we must be open to criticism and our theology open to examination. [/QB][/QUOTE]

I don't know what you mean when you say every pastor knows what I do, but I don't disagree that we should be open to criticism and our theology open to examination.

I'm not sure that this is the place though, because communicating this way is kinda clunky.

 

Every pastor who wants to serve Christ knows there are those who want a denominational position rather than serving Him. That person is a pastor with ulterior motives. Then there are those who want a social club without any responsibility other than having a good time all in the name of Jesus. When it comes right down to doing something that is where you get your rebellion and those who are uncomfortable who find ways to give you trouble.

 

Judging by this discussion it seems that "biblicist" is a term that some people apply to themselves to put down others and try and make themselves look superior in their theology, despite the blaring inconsistencies and slight incoherence of their positions.

 

It is not always a term used to put down others and try to them oneself look superior. Somtimes it is a term used to "hide" what one really believes.

 

I think I've been insulted.....haha

Actually, it doesn't sound like I've made myself sound superior at all. It sounds like the blaring inconsistencies and incoherences of my theology have been exposed.

I will admit in every way that I am far below the intellectual equal of everyone here.

However, I'm not hiding what I believe at all, it just happens to disagree with your theology and I guess you don't like that very much.

Just so you know, I'm not the only one that holds these views, there are lots of biblicists out there. All incoherent, inconsistent, ignorant men just like me that think Calvinism and Arminianism are both wrong and who are not protestants, but are baptists.

 

Exactly right. Count me in!

Jason :D

 

There are a lot of us ... They usually call us Calvinists but that's okay ... :D

Seriously, I don't think this would be a fair assessment. There is a lack of consistency on your part in the biblical text, I believe, but I wouldn't say incoherent or ignorant. Those kinds of terms are usually reserved for people like us ...

I wouldn't get bent out of shape about it. Just realize that biblicist doesn't really mean that much because we all claim to be biblicists.

 

Yeah, who in their right mind is going to call themselves a "nonbiblicist"?

 

I think when one uses the term Biblicist they are speaking of more than calvinism vs arminianism.
I think they are addressing issues like KJVO,legalism,dress codes in church,divorce & remarriage,the deacons role in the church,tongues and other gifts,baptism,evangelism, and a few other items I can't think of right off the top of my head.
But I think most of all a Biblicist tries not ot be extra-biblical.

 

Well, you're at it again, Bill. I couldn't agree more. It is MORE. It is MUCH MORE than C or A, or any other doctrine. Any number of doctrines within orthodox Christianity claim the infallible Bible, sola scriptura, and who could deny their claim?

Unless, of course, you are a Calvinist and believe Calvinism IS the Bible. Or Arminian, or some other man-made doctrine, and claim it to be the express image of scripture. Otherwise, why the sensitivity?

 

Dear Iveyleaguer,
I guess I am.this discussion just got to boxed up into a one or the other. Then of course one of our dear brothers had to insists on fitting everything into his own box. If that is what he thinks or how he feels that is fine with me I have no problems with that.
I can only say what I believe to be true. That is what I can stand behind andd that is what I can live with. I am sure that when I get to heaven my theology will be just right.

 

I also hope to get a computer that edits my entries.

 

I absolutely agree ... and think that it is pretty meaningless no matter who uses it. But it is used perhaps most often in teh CvA context.

 

I agree with Plain Old Bill. The Bible is my highest authority in this life. I take ITS authority over that of any man's in matters of religion. As for man's law of the land...I obey it UNLESS IT WERE TO CLASH WITH THE BIBLE. Thus, I work ceaselessly against the ACLU and others who misuse our man-made laws.