I'm not a Calvinist or Arminian but a biblicist!
- Thread starter JM
- Start date
- Status
JM
Puritan Board Doctor
I like that response but it's no better then laughing...which I've often done...it doesn't help.
And way cooler.
Oecolampadius
Puritan Board Sophomore
Joking:
If I had to type down my response, it would be: LOL!
Serious:
I would ask him what he meant by that. I have dealt with Biblicists in the past and usually when you ask them that question, they then reveal misconceptions or false assumptions that they have.
For example, with regards to Calvinists, some of them say that Calvinism is no different from Roman Catholicism since it relies on the expert authority of John Calvin. Then I go on to refute that false notion.
However, it is my experience that Biblicists are stubborn when faced with sound reasoning. And, I find it very troublesome to deal with them.
If I had to type down my response, it would be: LOL!
Serious:
I would ask him what he meant by that. I have dealt with Biblicists in the past and usually when you ask them that question, they then reveal misconceptions or false assumptions that they have.
For example, with regards to Calvinists, some of them say that Calvinism is no different from Roman Catholicism since it relies on the expert authority of John Calvin. Then I go on to refute that false notion.
However, it is my experience that Biblicists are stubborn when faced with sound reasoning. And, I find it very troublesome to deal with them.
CharlieJ
Puritan Board Junior
Well, it's not entirely bone-headed. They probably aren't Calvinists or Arminians, and although "Biblicist" is a prejudicial term, I suppose they have a right to call themselves that. It's our fault for calling everything that isn't Calvinism "Arminianism," even though Arminianism refers to a particular system of belief that usually doesn't apply.
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
You could point out that there is at least one more option out there: Pelagian.
Seriously, if they claim to be "biblicists," then they should have no problem walking through a chapter of Scripture like Romans 9 or John 6 with you and submit to its teachings.
Of course, "biblicist" is a nonsensical term and prejudiced term to begin with. Everyone in these discussions claims to use the Bible. They don't have a market on that. What they fail to realize is the framework through which they are interpreting the Scriptures.
Seriously, if they claim to be "biblicists," then they should have no problem walking through a chapter of Scripture like Romans 9 or John 6 with you and submit to its teachings.
Of course, "biblicist" is a nonsensical term and prejudiced term to begin with. Everyone in these discussions claims to use the Bible. They don't have a market on that. What they fail to realize is the framework through which they are interpreting the Scriptures.
saintandsinner77
Puritan Board Freshman
Reminds of the super-duper pious Christians in Corinthians who did not want to say "I am of Paul," or "I am of Apollos," or "I am of Peter," but "I am of Christ."
Of course we should identify primarily with Christ, but some of these brothers, while saying "I'm all about Christ and I don't take on labels like Arminian," are really more in line with modern American evangelicalism than with the Bible.
Of course we should identify primarily with Christ, but some of these brothers, while saying "I'm all about Christ and I don't take on labels like Arminian," are really more in line with modern American evangelicalism than with the Bible.
I had an Independent Baptist Fundemenatlist Bible Beliving Pastor tell me that one day. I use to work on office equipment and traveled to a lot of Churches. After he told me that I just opened his King James Version of the Bible and read to him...
He was stupefied.
He was stupefied.
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
If someone says they are a biblicist (or "I'm not C or A, I'm a Baptist") at the outset of a discussion I do think it's important to ask them what they mean by that and to probe deeper instead of just dismissing them. I know some men who are Calvinist with regard to soteriology but won't call themselves Calvinist or Reformed because they think it entails the whole Calvinist world and life view, infant baptism, etc. Of course, many Reformed people agree!
Notthemama1984
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
This reminds me of the discussion between Charles Simeon and John Wesley. I would be like Simeon and ask a series of questions and then prove that the were either an Arminian or a Calvinist.
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
Good idea. Sometimes a few well-aimed questions are the best argument, as Socrates proved.
CharlieJ
Puritan Board Junior
I think this is entirely the wrong approach. There are millions of Christians who are neither Calvinist nor Arminian. Arminianism is a modification of Reformed theology with multiple identifying traits. So, it makes no sense at all to call a Lutheran, a Catholic, or an Anabaptist an Arminian. All of those groups were around before Arminianism ever existed. If we demand that people accept Calvinism as a whole package, then it makes no sense for us to call people "Arminian" for holding a few tenets in common with Arminians.
Reformed theology is numerically insignificant in North America right now. One reason, I believe, is the unwillingness of Reformed Christians to engage non-Reformed people in conversation without forcing inappropriate labels on them, demanding that they read whole tomes of theology before they discuss things with us, or insulting their piety and intelligence. It takes patience, love, and maturity to deal with people who disagree with us.
Fly Caster
Puritan Board Sophomore
I think FlyCaster's changing the term to monergist and synergist would solve the problem, bearing in mind that Lutherans are also monergists.
It's worth pointing out that most Christians in the country are either Arminian Baptists (meaning 4-point Arminian plus eternal security) or charismatic (meaning the same) or "non-denominational" Baptist, which usually means the same. Those groups are by far the most common, especially down here under the Bible Belt. So to a large degree virtually everybody fits into the Arminian (minus the fifth point) or Calvinist grouping, except those rare Lutherans who have studied the Lutheran confessions and can articulate Lutheran beliefs (I have friends who fit this, but they are rare gems indeed).
Now, my own personal answer to the OP is that I would explain to the person that I used to say exactly the same thing, but then I realized that I actually believed what one of the labels was describing, although not yet fully fleshed-out. I would explain that a label is just a label and there is no need to reject the idea just because it has a name. We should examine whether the idea is biblical. Then I would proceed with a brief biblical basis for what has come to be known as "Calvinism," whether the person wants to call it that or not.
he beholds
Puritan Board Doctor
I think I'd say something like, "Well, I also get my views from the Bible, but our beliefs usually match up with others. So when I call myself a Calvinist, I'm not saying I follow him, but that I believe that the way he viewed the Bible is true. It's more of a word used to summarize my beliefs. It is never used to say I'd prefer something Calvin said over what the Bible said. It simply means that I find what Calvin says to be what the Bible says. The way he explains different passages of scripture seem right to me. What about you? Do you think his views re: [insert relevant views here] are correct or incorrect?"
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
In my opinion, Tim nailed it. It reminds me of something that Ligon Duncan said about confessions. Everyone has a systematic framework, whether they acknowledge it or not. The difference between us and "biblicists" is that we have our framework out in the open, and it is one upon which we have agreed. They have an unwritten, arbitrary, changing standard of doctrine. You will find out what it is soon enough by trying to teach something biblical that does not agree with their invisible systematic theology. Of course, it is not wise to phrase it this way to people. It might be more profitable to try to ascertain what their framework is as they interpret their Bible, and then show them that their framework exists, however much they try to make it invisible.
No doctrine exists by itself: it is always a "body" of divinity. Of course, some bodies are more like the Venus de Milo, and some are more like Dr. Frankenstein's monster - badly stitched together out of discordant parts, hideous and horrifying.
Incidentally, sometimes people who profess one system or body have a part of or two from other systems transplanted in. But pointing out who their organ donor is, so to speak, is not the same as saying that they hold to the whole body their one view came from.
Incidentally, sometimes people who profess one system or body have a part of or two from other systems transplanted in. But pointing out who their organ donor is, so to speak, is not the same as saying that they hold to the whole body their one view came from.
moral necessity
Puritan Board Junior
I agree with Tim, Lane and Ruben. Everyone has a framework at some level of development. I knew of several biblicists who wound up all over the map because of this. One book would lead them to certain convictions one year, and then, when they were studying a different book later on, a different twist in their convictions arose. After a dozen years of this, no firm theology was established, and each year, a new twist ensued. The most basic principle of "justification by faith alone" was lost, as it began to be twisted to mean something more. Yet, an undercurrent of a framework still existed. There were principles from which they would not budge, namely that (1) commands imply ability and (2) sin has no power over the believer.
There have to be axioms from which scripture is sifted through, and these make up the framework of one's theology. I would try to point out that even a biblicist has such axioms in their thinking, and so everyone has some skeleton of a systematic theology which they follow.
There have to be axioms from which scripture is sifted through, and these make up the framework of one's theology. I would try to point out that even a biblicist has such axioms in their thinking, and so everyone has some skeleton of a systematic theology which they follow.
Skyler
Puritan Board Graduate
It is a direct quote from George Bryson of Calvary Chapel.
I'm not sure if that was the OP's intention or not, but it is. =)
- Status
Similar threads
