Calvin, Armenian, or Bible?

[Blazin Bones]

I just curious on seeing where the rest of you stand. I myself am a One point Biblicist.

That one point is simple: All that is in the Bible is all that I believe.

Where are you? Be honest. I say I'm a Biblicist because there is just too much eveidence from each perspective to rule to one side. However, you may be a Calvinist because the evidence has compelled you enough to support that system of theology. Please don't debat in this thread, just share your own view on the matter.

 

[PHIL121]

Why should ANYONE who believes in the first two, be excluded from the third?

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

I don’t quite get the pole or the question. It seem to me the poll is based on a misapplication of the very word Biblicist anyway. I believe in the Bible, however; I just happen to lean very much toward Calvinism. Calvinism as you know deals with the nature of salvation and God’s sovereignty. I don’t see how an Arminian or Calvinist could not both be considered as you put it “Biblicist.†After all Webster’s New World College Dictionary defines the word Biblicist as follows:
1. A person who takes the words of the Bible literally.
2. An expert on the Bible; specialist in biblical literature.

So explain to me how an Arminian or Calvinist could not be considered a “Biblicist.â€Â

In any event, I think it is important to look at both theological points of view (Arminianism and Calvinism), however; no matter which way you lean the relationship with Jesus Christ should always remain your focal point. Far to often, particularly on the campus of Brewton-Parker College, far to many so-called Calvinist focus far to much on the theology of Calvinism and lose their focus on God and one’s relationship with them.

One’s relationship with God is the most important aspect of Christianity.

So in the end I see myself as a Biblicist (because I take the words of the Bible literally, all the part that are to be taken literally that is) and I lean very much toward Calvinismâ€â€so I am both. The most important thing to me, however; is not the doctrine of Calvinism but my relationship with Jesus Christ, building in my relationship with him, and witnessing to others.

On more thing I am absolutely sure that both Calvinist and Arminians will be saved.

 

[Gendou Ikari]

I'm a Universalist and hardly take anything in the Bible literally.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Why should ANYONE who believes in the first two, be excluded from the third?

Here's why I separated the third. catagory. In order for one to fully take all five points of the first two systems, they have to ignore the verses used to support the other side.

Example: For me to take Ephesians 1:5 and use it to establish a doctrine of Predestination, I must ignore what Christ said in John 3:16 when he told us whoever will believe.

They may be very well supported ideas from both sides, but they also require other passages go unreconciled. To put it planly, If either side was 100% correct, they would have shown such by now.

 

[Gendou Ikari]

Example: For me to take Ephesians 1:5 and use it to establish a doctrine of Predestination, I must ignore what Christ said in John 3:16 when he told us whoever will believe.

I don't think that we should ignore any scripture. I do believe in Predestination but I don't believe in many of their points. Just because it says that as many as believe will be saved does not hurt Predestination one bit.

 

[Blazin Bones]

I don’t quite get the pole or the question. It seem to me the poll is based on a misapplication of the very word Biblicist anyway. I believe in the Bible, however; I just happen to lean very much toward Calvinism. Calvinism as you know deals with the nature of salvation and God’s sovereignty. I don’t see how an Arminian or Calvinist could not both be considered as you put it “Biblicist.†After all Webster’s New World College Dictionary defines the word Biblicist as follows:
1. A person who takes the words of the Bible literally.
2. An expert on the Bible; specialist in biblical literature.

So explain to me how an Arminian or Calvinist could not be considered a “Biblicist.â€Â

In any event, I think it is important to look at both theological points of view (Arminianism and Calvinism), however; no matter which way you lean the relationship with Jesus Christ should always remain your focal point. Far to often, particularly on the campus of Brewton-Parker College, far to many so-called Calvinist focus far to much on the theology of Calvinism and lose their focus on God and one’s relationship with them.

One’s relationship with God is the most important aspect of Christianity.

So in the end I see myself as a Biblicist (because I take the words of the Bible literally, all the part that are to be taken literally that is) and I lean very much toward Calvinismâ€â€so I am both. The most important thing to me, however; is not the doctrine of Calvinism but my relationship with Jesus Christ, building in my relationship with him, and witnessing to others.

On more thing I am absolutely sure that both Calvinist and Arminians will be saved.

You're right Noc, the term Biblicist is being misapplied, but not by me. At least not according to this discussion. The first definition you provided states that to "qualify" as a Biblicist one must take the Bible literally. When you establish the ideas of Calvin or Arminian you only take parts of the Bible literally as I provided for Phil.

Anyone who logically looks at each system's point can see that Calvin's point are better supported, but nonetheless neither hold up when one takes the Bible at it's entirety. That is why I said in the beginning of this thread that if you feel the evidence of one side compels you to accept that point of view, then okay.

However, if we are to intellectually honest, to completely accept one system over another does not take the Bible in it's entirety literally, and therefore doesn't hold up to the term Biblicist in it's entirety either.

 

[Blazin Bones]

I don't think that we should ignore any scripture. I do believe in Predestination but I don't believe in many of their points. Just because it says that as many as believe will be saved does not hurt Predestination one bit.

That follows right in line with what I'm saying. Some use the passage to establish the predestination. When I say predestination, I'm refering to the entire idea of Unconditional election.

Jeremiah 1:5 clearly teaches that God has plans for us while we are yet in our mothers womb, which again speaks to one fact of the idea of Predestination, but Ephesians 2:8 teaches that it's by Grace through Faith we are saved. However, when Christ taught of Salvation to the Samarian woman he told her that whoever drinks will drink from the fount of eternal life. Drinking is a voluntary action. Why would Christ teach such a manner if it weren't a true application?

This is why one must take the Bible as it is.

 

[Solo]

Example: For me to take Ephesians 1:5 and use it to establish a doctrine of Predestination, I must ignore what Christ said in John 3:16 when he told us whoever will believe.

I don't think that we should ignore any scripture. I do believe in Predestination but I don't believe in many of their points. Just because it says that as many as believe will be saved does not hurt Predestination one bit.

Is your stated position based on a literal rendering of the Bible, or abstract thought based on allegories, or are you metaphorically speaking?
I am just curious whether we should take you literally or not.
Thanks for your answer.

 

[Merry Menagerie]

I actually know of a calvinist that believed in what the bible said and didn't know that his belief happen to be inline with the calvin doctrine - he knew nothing about calvin doctrine. I wonder how he would vote if he were here?

 

[Khristeeanos]

I am not a Calvinist - strongly disagree with the doctrines they teach.
I am not an Armenian - they are closer to the truth however than Calvinists IMO.

I am a Christian first and Christian only.
I have no creed but Christ.
I have no book but the Bible.
I seek to be united with Christ as one and wish that all who profess His name would do the same.

Read my signature verses.

 

[Novice]

Like everyone else on this site, I call myself a Biblicist, and then pick and choose the verses that suit me. People that say they don't either:

a) Haven't been Christians for long enough to recognize the controversial issues and the Scriptural support on either side. (15%)

b) Have a sneaking suspicion that their assumptions are a little too convenient and airtight, but are afraid to be honest with themselves (15%)

c) Haven't read the Bible in its entirety. (20%)

d) Are willfully deluding themselves by reading the Bible whilst so completely marinated in their preconcieved view that they haven't recognized the "problem verses" to their view (whatever it is) (35%)

e) Actually believe the pretzel-roll contortions required to disregard the many, many verses that will contradict any one simplistic view of any issue addressed by Scripture. (15%)



You said be honest.

 

[Novice]

Three "accepted" tenets of Christianity, below, separately would be affirmed by most laypersons, but when taken together create an obvious contradiction/paradox. There is abundant (apparent) scriptural support for each thesis:

A) GOD is "All-Loving", truly desiring that all of His creatures be reconciled to His Love.

B) GOD is "All-Powerful", able to sovereignly accomplish his true desires unimpeded by man or any other force.

C) GOD is not successful in reconciling all of His creatures to His Love, and many, if not most of them will be tortured endlessly in Hell.

Any two of these can be true, but obviously all three cannot be. Each Christian who does not want to live in confusion must consciously or unconsciously jettison one of these theses as false.

Calvinists jettison A), saying that God's love is restricted to his "elect". The lost were never "sovereignly willed" for salvation, and are not loved by God in the same salvific way as the elect. There are many verses that, on their face, contradict this conclusion, and Calvinists spend a lot of time and energy telling themselves and others why these verses don't mean what they appear to mean.

Arminians jettison B), saying God's sovereignty is constrained (voluntarily by God) by the will of each individual man, and God is unable or unwilling to overcome the evil desires within each man that separate him/her from God. There are many verses that, on their face, contradict this conclusion, and Arminians spend a lot of time and energy telling themselves and others why these verses don't mean what they appear to mean.

Universalists jettison C) saying God ultimately destroys hell, and either IS the Lake of Fire or ultimately reforms/remediates the lost at some point or age to come. There are many verses that, on their face, contradict this conclusion, and Universalists spend a lot of time and energy telling themselves and others why these verses don't mean what they appear to mean. (To help the moderators, I should note here that they're banned from doing so on this site.)

As instructed, I'm not going to debate these positions, except to say there is no "free 'Biblicist' lunch", no safe-harbor where someone can smugly say they don't take a position, they 'just believe the Bible'. You can ignore the issue, but once you honestly engage it, one of these tenets must be discarded as inaccurate, though each have strong (apparent) scriptural support, and strong (apparent) scriptural counterarguments.