The Bible is a living Book; and if you will come to the Bible merely to argue with it, it will not talk to you. You will find the Bible will be like the Incarnate Word. They asked Jesus certain questions, and He answered them not a word, because He knew the motive that lay behind the questions. And the Bible will not speak to the man who comes merely to prove his own case: it will not yield its secrets to him.

I think he might have defined a few of the words from the original language. At one point, he began mis-pronouncing one of the Greek words underlying the point he was making. He kind of lost me there, and I imagine he lost his congregation too. Most of them probably don’t know Greek.

Other than defining a few of the words, there was no interaction with the text. There was no explanation of the thoughts of the text, how they related to one another, what the apostle was teaching through the argumentation of the text, and what that argumentation meant for our situation here and now.

There was a bit of historical context offered. It was… ah… how shall we say it? Not germane to the text. It actually fit more with another text in another epistle. In short, it didn’t expose anything about the text so the hearer could read, hear, and see, “Ahah! that’s it, that’s right, that’s what the text means, and this is what God is saying to me here and now through this ancient text.”

In short, if this was exposition, there wasn’t a whole lot of exposing going on.

Oh, brothers! Please! Be an expositor! Let the text speak! Get yourself and your opinions out of the way! Speak as of the oracles of God!

The scenario is that of a missionary from a fundamentalist mission board who is required by his board to use the KJV when preaching in English in the USA. He wants to present his mission at a local church that has made the NASB the only version that can be used in its pulpit.

Obviously, if there is no give on either side, the missionary would have to forego that meeting. (From a missionary’s perspective, given the odds of getting support from any given church, missing one isn’t that big a problem.)

And from a local church perspective, I think establishing such a policy is certainly within the rights of a local church. We can quibble as to the wisdom of the policy, but it is within the purview of any local church to make a decision about a standard version for their church.

However, the scenario raises a few questions that I wonder how my readers might answer.

1. While I can understand standardizing on a version for your local ministry, wouldn’t it be better to allow visiting speakers some flexibility in use of translations?
2. Wouldn’t a rigid inflexibility here tend to communicate the same error that rigid King James Onlyism makes? (i.e., Only the KJV is the Word of God … or, in this scenario, Only the NASB is the Word of God.)
3. How would you feel if you did allow guest speakers limited flexibility and they used…
1. … the KJV in your services?
2. … the NASB?
3. … the ESV?
4. … the NKJV?
5. … the Holman?
6. … _______? (you fill in the blank)

Just a little thought experiment. I am not pontificating, just wondering.

I am also, of course, assuming that versions other than the KJV are permissible. So, my KJO friends, this is not a thread to raise the KJV debate. I won’t post any comments that get into that fight. I am just interested in discussing this scenario and these questions. If you would only ever use the KJV, then this thread is probably not for you.

quoted by Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 100, 399 (Dallas, TX: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1943), 389.

“Justification by faith, I have said, is a fundamental doctrine of the gospel. It is vital. It is ‘the faith once delivered to the saints.’ No system from which it is excluded, can ever be justly regarded as embodying the religion of Christ. It was taught by the apostles, and early ministers, constantly, forcibly, emphatically. It was cherished by the primitive churches as a priceless truth. How can we account for its abandonment by the professed followers of Jesus Christ? There is, I answer, an inherent tendency in human nature, renewed though it may be, to pass from the substance to the forms of religion. The transition is so easy that it can only be prevented by perpetual vigilance. The influence of this propensity the early churches did not very long escape. Among the first of the corruptions they admitted and embraced, was the undue importance which became attached to religious ceremonials. They gradually exalted the rites above the doctrines of Christianity, while both were perverted and misapplied. Baptism, especially, was imagined to possess great and peculiar virtues. Thus justification through grace by faith, was ultimately displaced by justification through grace by baptism. Popery was the result, the doctrine of which, on this subject, is thus expressed by the Council of Trent: — ‘Justification is by means of the sacraments, either originally infused into us, or subsequently increased, or when lost, again restored.’ Thus the Christian world was plunged into darkness, which remained unbroken for a thousand years.”

R. B. C. Howell, Evils of Infant Baptism (Roger Williams Heritage Archives, 1851), 102-103.

A few points to highlight:

• The inherent tendency to pass from the substance to the forms of religion. A very pernicious trait.
• The first of the corruptions was the undue emphasis attached to religious ceremonials. Desiring the subjective experience more than exercising faith? The charismatic impulse?
• From forms to popery. A slippery slide? The fact that the slippery slide slips slowly doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

It is a reminder to us that for a price (the price of our pet sins) we may do something that will bring shame to us. For Christians, such deeds will also bring shame on the name of Jesus Christ, so we should be doubly cautioned.

In thinking about this, I was reminded of the line in Isa 59.7… “Their feet run to evil…” But read the whole chapter. It is mostly an indictment of the depravity of men. That is us, my friend.

But the chapter is also a message of God’s grace:

Isaiah 59:1 Behold, the LORD’S hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear:

and

Isaiah 59:15 Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the LORD saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment. 16 And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him. 17 For he put on righteousness as a breastplate, and an helmet of salvation upon his head; and he put on the garments of vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloke. 18 According to their deeds, accordingly he will repay, fury to his adversaries, recompence to his enemies; to the islands he will repay recompence. 19 So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him. 20 And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD. 21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

I realize that some of this is probably eschatological, but the promise for men is that there is righteousness outside ourselves that can be imputed to us and we can be saved. Praise the Lord for his works, and his mighty deeds among the children of men!

And note the next words in Isa 60…

Isaiah 60:1 Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee. 2 For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.

Mike rightly pointed out that my focus on the term would distract from the subject matter of his post. But I thought I would do some thinking about the term here on oxgoad and invite the response of readers. (By the way, Mike’s post and the discussion that follows are quite interesting. You should also read Mark Snoberger’s follow-up and Mike’s response. And also, congratulations to Mike and his wife on the arrival of their first-born daughter!)

So… Biblicist… what does the term mean and is it presumptuous or a circumlocution?

The first thing that should be said is that biblicist is an unfortunate term at best. As a defining term, it isn’t very definitive. Perhaps this is why Mike Harding prefers the term Calvinistic over the term Amyraldian, which, as I understand it, is the correct term for his position. While Amyraldian might be more correct, almost nobody knows what it means. Calvinistic might be a more definitive term.

Mike Riley doesn’t seem too willing to concede mediating positions between Calvinism and Arminianism, but the reality of Amyraldians, at least, seems to prove that such mediating positions exist. Another such term that I recently learned is Molinism, which has been described to me as ‘three-point Calvinism’. (It is named after a Jesuit monk, alas, so besides being barely known it has an added repugnance for me.)

In any case, as men have wrestled with the theological problems expressed by Arminianism and Calvinism, there have been many who hold to positions that are not identical to either extreme. It seems obvious to me that there are more than two positions on these issues, regardless what the advocates of pure Calvinism might think. I have never talked to a pure Arminian on these subjects, though I was raised in an Arminian church.

The term biblicist is related, I think, to another unfortunate term, biblical theology. Biblical Theology is a branch of theological study distinct from systematic theology whose distinctive feature is to examine the progression of doctrine as it is revealed in the Bible without making systematic conclusions that go beyond direct Biblical statements. (A bit simplistic… read the wikipedia article for more.)

The position of those who use the term biblicist can be summed up this way:

Based on past experiences and other things, I do not consider myself an Arminian, nor am I a Calvinist. I cannot accept as Scriptural views that are crucial to either position. I cannot be considered Arminian, for I consider a sinner’s response to the Gospel is a simple faith reception, not an accomplishment, and I believe in eternal security. Since I accept only the Bible and not the decisions of synods or councils, I cannot be recognized as a Calvinist.¹

In my personal experience, most of my theology is the result of personal Bible study. I am not one for reading a lot of theology. I had to read various systematic theologies as a student, notably Henry Thiessen’s Lectures in Theology and Charles Hodge’s Systematic Theology. I have also worked through a good deal of Charles Ryrie’s Basic Theology (though some would disdain this work!).

However, my theology is influenced primarily by comparing Scripture with Scripture. We must take a holistic approach to theology and attempt to encompass everything God says on a given subject, reading each passage in its proper context and relying on clear biblical statements rather than the logic of human systems. As such, I much prefer the Biblical Theological method rather than the Systematic Theological method (although the Systematic approach is not without value).

To me, then, biblicist is what you are when you simply let the Scriptures speak and discount the human logic that pervades Systematic theologies, like Arminianism or like Calvinism.

Mike Riley thinks biblicist is presumptuous and that it generates more heat than light. Presumptuous means “overstepping due bounds (as of propriety or courtesy): taking liberties”² I take it that he means biblicist is unpropitious or impolite, that it borders on arrogance. In other words, I am thinking that Mike might have in mind the attitude of the Corinthians who in their divisiveness were superior to those who were ‘of Paul’ or ‘of Peter’ or ‘of Apollos’. These well-favoured Corinthians were ‘of Christ’. The term biblicist could be displaying that kind of arrogance: ‘I am not of the order of you low-life squabblers, you Arminians, you Calvinists, I am a Biblicist.’

As I have described the term above, I don’t think that such a connotation is intended by those who use the term. I can see how those who are passionate for their systems might find it rankling, but I think the term is meant to be descriptive of method (i.e., biblical theology as opposed to systematic). I don’t think those who use the term intend for it to imply some kind of spiritual superiority. (I will grant that in these debates, no matter one’s position, there is plenty of arrogance and condescension to go around.)

There you have it… my ruminations on the term biblicist. I don’t find it that bad a term, but I recognize it has some inadequacies. I am not sure what would be a better term to describe the position. I am sure that I don’t fit either the label of Calvinist or Arminian.

1. Warren Vanhetloo, Cogitations 752, March 12, 2008.
2. ‘presumptuous’ Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary., Eleventh ed. (Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2003).

The point that is emerging is that the new kind of fundamentalism is oriented around Calvinism to the exclusion of those who would consider themselves fundamentalists but non-Calvinists. It also may explain the overtures being made by fundamentalists towards certain conservative evangelicals.

Similar charges have been made before, only to be dismissed by the change agents. I admit some of those previous charges have been made quite clumsily (at best). Nevertheless, new evidence is appearing that suggests there might be something to the charges.

Consider the following:

In a recent interview published on Sharper Iron, Aaron Blumer asked Mike Harding this question about the upcoming Preserving the Truth Conference:

I expect to hear this criticism eventually: would it be accurate to say this is a conference by and for Calvinists? What would you say to those who cite that as a problem with the event?

I am not sure why Aaron would think this an obvious question to ask, but here is Mike’s reply to the question:

The theological framework for the conference is baptistic, dispensational, and Calvinistic. At the same time all of our speakers are strongly opposed to any form of hyper-Calvinism.

There was no follow-up to this question, so that is all we have to go on. But if this is an accurate distinction of a conference on ‘preserving the truth, a symposium on biblical separation’, I find this to be a troubling change.

Now, I have no problem with Calvinists being Calvinists. They have every right to proclaim their views and even to have conferences excluding other views.

But I wonder what these statements have to do with the meaning of fundamentalism and separatism? When has the various permutations in the spectrum between Calvinism and Arminianism been a defining issue for separatism or fundamentalism? When did any soteriology beyond simple belief in salvation by faith alone become a distinguishing mark of fundamentalism and/or separatism?

The IFBX crowd and the Fundamentalism-Plus crowd (as they are described by outsiders) have been criticized for separating too much.

Are we now to expect separatism to include views on soteriology such as Calvinism? Isn’t that exactly the same kind of approach to separation as the IFBX or Fundamentalism-Plus groups? (Or “Everythingism”, as Bauder calls it?)

If so, this is yet another disturbing trend. Do we need more division among Fundamentalists? How does this emphasis really further the cause of Christ or display biblical Christian unity?

The question reveals, I think a faulty view of salvation and assurance of salvation. In light of our recent discussion of revivalism here, I thought the article asked an interesting question.

The whole idea of a “decision for Christ” is largely a revivalistic phenomenon. As the article says:

Much of American Protestantism has been influenced by revivalism, which places great emphasis on "making a decision for Christ" in a public, definitive way. These "moments of decision" often become the crucial evidence that one is saved. Other Protestant traditions, less influenced by revivalism (including some Reformed and Lutheran churches), may be content to leave the conversion experience unclearly identified, putting the focus on identification with the church. Both of these traditions have benefits, as well as potential problems.

In a recent comment, our e-friend Tracy makes a good point, I believe:

If I’m preaching to lost folks, I preach Christ crucified and call for them to close with Christ immediately and publicly. Before I close, I tell them if they have any questions, either they can come to the front at the invitation time or they can see me after the service. I always stress that Christ desires their immediate salvation. So I declare the gospel, spell out its terms, and call them to close with it.

I agree with that. We need to call folks to decisions.

But what about some who can’t remember the specifics of their decision? (Perhaps it was a long time ago, perhaps it was when they were very young, perhaps they remember bits, or perhaps they remember nothing at all.)

Sometimes we have the phenomenon of people (often young children) doubting their salvation ‘decision’. Did I really trust Christ then? Am I really saved? This can lead to multiple decisions – where someone suggests that there is nothing wrong with making sure of one’s salvation right now, so a new prayer is prayed and a new hope of assurance is formed based on a new decision. Or it can lead to someone assuring the concerned based on a past decision: Don’t you remember that prayer you prayed? Did you mean it then? Did God hear your prayer?

Both of these approaches, though well meaning, may lead to other problems. Some believers become very confused over multiple decisions and fail to progress because of a very unsettled mental state about their salvation. Others rely on their prayer as if it is almost a magic formula. As long as they ‘said the right words to God’, they are good to go.

The CT article concludes this way:

For those who question their salvation, the best evidence is not the memory of having raised a hand or prayed a prayer. Nor is it having been baptized or christened. The true test of the authentic work of God in one’s life is growth in Christ-like character, increased love for God and other people, and the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-25; James 2:18). A memorable conversion experience may serve as an important referent to God’s saving work in one’s life. But the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit in making a person more like Jesus is the clearest indicator that one has been made a new creation in Christ.

This is reasonably good advice, but I think more should be said. One searching question to ask is this: What are you relying on in order to have salvation? To put it another way, “If you were to stand before God right now and he were to ask you, ‘why should I let you into my heaven’, what would you say?” (To coin a phrase!!)

Why is this question relevant?

It is relevant because if one’s assurance is based on his works – his character, his visible love for God, his love for the brethren – is he relying on Christ or on his own works?

Or if one’s assurance is based on the prayer he prayed (the decision, or the memory of a decision), is he relying on the fact of having said the right words to God (a work) or is he relying on Christ?

For myself, I remember praying for salvation from sin on a certain occasion. My father told me that it came after weeks of spiritual turmoil and an inability on my part to understand that I was a sinner and needed to be saved, just like anybody else. (I wasn’t old enough to be that bad, or so I must have thought.) But at some point, I came to understand that I, even I, was a sinner and had no right to stand before God. I understood that I needed the work of Christ alone to save me from my sin, so I prayed to receive it.

Following that decision, I at times doubted my salvation. This usually came at points where I found myself under conviction for the presence of ongoing sin or under the periodic depressions associated with growing up.

Personally, I found assurance of salvation in two sources. First, in the promises of God in the Bible. The Bible says, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Did I call? Yes. Then God’s promise is salvation. I depend on God’s word, not my own experience. Second, in answer to the question posed above, I would say I am trusting in the finished work of Christ alone, nothing else for my salvation. My answer to God’s hypothetical entrance examination is, “Jesus died for me.” I have no assurance based on my own experience. I have seen too many failures in my life and others to have much confidence in that route.

To answer the question of the CT article, “How can I know I’m a Christian if I can’t remember when I first responded to the gospel?” my answer is: Jesus Christ and the promises of God. Are you trusting in Jesus Christ alone to save you from sins? Then rest assured. The promises of God say you have eternal life.