# I'm not a Calvinist or Arminian but a biblicist!



## JM

How do you respond to bone headed statements like, "I'm not a Calvinist or Arminian but a biblicists!" 

[Normally I just smile or chuckle.]

Thanks,

jm


----------



## JML

I respond that what is referred to as "Calvinism" is biblical teaching.


----------



## JM

Joshua said:


> JM said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you respond to bone headed statements like, "I'm not a Calvinist or Arminian but a biblicists!"
> 
> 
> 
> "Whatever weirdo loser!"
Click to expand...

 
I like that response but it's no better then laughing...which I've often done...it doesn't help.


----------



## JML

Joshua said:


> My response is definitely more valuable and effective than John's . . . objectively.



And way cooler.


----------



## Curt

is all this stuff "mocking"?


----------



## JM

More like joking.


----------



## Oecolampadius

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.


----------



## CharlieJ

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.


----------



## Scot

> is all this stuff "mocking"?



Ask "anonymous".



> How do you respond to bone headed statements like, "I'm not a Calvinist or Arminian but a biblicists!"



The same way as when someone says they're a 3 or 4 point Calvinist. I tell them that they're a confused Arminian. (I stole that from R.C. Sproul).


----------



## Ne Oublie

By Biblicist do you mean "me and my bible" ist? 

How do you interpret the Bible, Mr. Biblicist?


----------



## Marrow Man

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.


----------



## saintandsinner77

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.


----------



## Skyler

"I'm not a Calvinist or an Arminian, I'm a Biblicist!"

"I'm confused. Does that mean you believe you're saved by the Bible alone?"


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

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...



> (1Co 2:9) But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
> 
> (1Co 2:10) But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
> 
> (1Co 2:11) For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
> 
> (1Co 2:12) Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
> 
> (1Co 2:13) Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
> 
> (1Co 2:14) *But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.*



He was stupefied.


----------



## Pilgrim

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

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.


----------



## WAWICRUZ

JM said:


> How do you respond to bone headed statements like, "I'm not a Calvinist or Arminian but a biblicists!"


 
Aside from the theological confusion, the guy may not be very keen on subject-verb agreement or is suffering from multiple personality disorder.


----------



## Marrow Man

Chaplainintraining said:


> 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.



This is how that discussion went:



> Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions. Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?
> 
> Yes, I do indeed.
> 
> And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?
> 
> Yes, solely through Christ.
> 
> But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?
> 
> No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last.
> 
> Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?
> 
> No.
> 
> What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother's arms?
> 
> Yes, altogether.
> 
> And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?
> 
> Yes, I have no hope but in Him.
> 
> Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things where in we agree.


----------



## MW

> for this is all my Calvinism


 
Anyone who is acquainted with Wesley's theology knows very well that he had his own qualifications in mind in every affirmation that he made -- such qualifications as made it plain that he had no sympathy with Calvinism.


----------



## au5t1n

Chaplainintraining said:


> 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.


 
Good idea. Sometimes a few well-aimed questions are the best argument, as Socrates proved.


----------



## CharlieJ

Chaplainintraining said:


> 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.


 
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.


----------



## Ivan

What Charlie said, in buckets. BTW, I don't consider myself any of the above appellations.


----------



## Fly Caster

JM said:


> How do you respond to bone headed statements like, "I'm not a Calvinist or Arminian but a biblicists!"
> 
> [Normally I just smile or chuckle.]
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> jm



I change the terms and press the issue. They are either a Monergist or Synergist-- either believe that salvation is of God alone or that man_ adds something_ or _does something._ There can be no third option here.


----------



## au5t1n

CharlieJ said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is entirely the wrong approach. There are millions of Christians who are neither Calvinist nor Arminian.
Click to expand...

 
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.


----------



## E Nomine

This sounds like the position of people who follow Hank Hanegraaff.


----------



## he beholds

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

Marrow Man said:


> 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.


 
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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## py3ak

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.


----------



## moral necessity

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.


----------



## Skyler

E Nomine said:


> This sounds like the position of people who follow Hank Hanegraaff.


 
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. =)


----------



## Semper Fidelis

JM said:


> How do you respond to bone headed statements like, "I'm not a Calvinist or Arminian but a biblicists!"
> 
> [Normally I just smile or chuckle.]
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> jm


 
I normally respond (in my head) that the person is naive.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

JM said:


> How do you respond to bone headed statements like, "I'm not a Calvinist or Arminian but a biblicists!"



Oh, so your a Calvinist! Great!


----------



## cih1355

One could be a Lutheran.


----------



## Ivan

cih1355 said:


> One could be a Lutheran.



Probably more than one.


----------



## earl40

armourbearer said:


> Anyone who is acquainted with Wesley's theology knows very well that he had his own qualifications in mind in every affirmation that he made -- such qualifications as made it plain that he had no sympathy with Calvinism.


 
Without "qualifications" that would be an interesting thread.


----------



## John Knox

I heard Calvin didn't like the idea of 'Calvinism' and preferred to call himself a Biblicist.

Then again, I think I heard that on wikipedia.


----------



## Notthemama1984

That could be true. Calvin made sure he was buried in an unmarked grave to prevent people from worshipping him.


----------



## Jared

I agree with Pilgrim. I think that many, though not all, of those who call themselves biblicists are soteriologically Reformed. They either don't agree with all of the Reformed system or they don't want to claim the Reformed title because they don't want to push people away.

There are a few titles that are used for the people of God in the New Testament, but most of the ones we use aren't taken directly from the NT. They may have a basis in the NT, but the title itself isn't found there. The problem as we all know is that one of the oft-used titles from the NT, "Christian" really doesn't clarify anyone's doctrinal distinctives, so as John Wesley pointed out, we are left using theological short-hand like "Calvinist" and "Arminian". But "Biblicist" like "non-denominational" doesn't say anything about your distinctives without adjectives added in. If you said that you were a monergistic Biblicist or a sovereign grace Christian, that would clear up some of the confusion.


----------



## Hawk

A friend of mine once said, "I was like you so I kept reading my Bible. Once I started understanding the Bible it was then that I became a Calvinist." 

I used to use the same phrase myself! I inherited that from my Fundy Independent Baptist background. The other point that I think people who paint themselves with such a broad stroke miss is Church history. Everybody that I knew had no concept of the past, but they knew what would happen in the future for SURE.


----------

