Why I'm Not a Calvinist . . . or an Arminian, Part 2

The purpose of the Day of Atonement was to propitiate God for the nation, to “open a way” for their prayers to be heard and their sacrifices to be received. It opened the way for everyone, cleansed the land (and especially the temple) of the pollution accumulated by their sins through the previous year. It made God propitious, disposed to hear them. This is part of what the sacrifice of Christ on the cross did in the Atonement.

What you have expressed in the bolded sentence is actually a limited atonement. The propitiation is “for the nation” not for all mankind, so “their prayers” are heard and “their sacrifices” are received, not the prayers and sacrifices of all mankind.

John, are you saying that every person affected by the Day of Atonement is in heaven? Like, say, Dathan and Abiram, et al, who rose up against Moses and Aaron in Num 16?

I never said that the Day of Atonement atoned for the sins of the whole world, but for the whole nation. I know of no one who advocates that all Israel in the OT was thereby saved. If they were, Caiaphas and Annas would also be saved, as pre-NT Jews, no? Presumably they conducted the rituals. They would have been atoned for. What does that mean?

[JohnBrian]

Don Johnson wrote:

You need to do some study on this. For Leviticus, I recommend Gordon Wenham among others. The concluding verses of Lev 16 sum up the effect of the Atonement:

Leviticus 16:32 “So the priest who is anointed and ordained to serve as priest in his father’s place shall make atonement: he shall thus put on the linen garments, the holy garments, 33 and make atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tent of meeting and for the altar. He shall also make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly. 34 “Now you shall have this as a permanent statute, to make atonement for the sons of Israel for all their sins once every year.” And just as the LORD had commanded Moses, so he did.

The purpose of the Day of Atonement was to propitiate God for the nation, to “open a way” for their prayers to be heard and their sacrifices to be received. It opened the way for everyone, cleansed the land (and especially the temple) of the pollution accumulated by their sins through the previous year. It made God propitious, disposed to hear them. This is part of what the sacrifice of Christ on the cross did in the Atonement.

What you have expressed in the bolded sentence is actually a limited atonement. The propitiation is “for the nation” not for all mankind, so “their prayers” are heard and “their sacrifices” are received, not the prayers and sacrifices of all mankind.

But “salvation was of the Jews” in the OT (John 4:22). There WAS no redemption outside of that covenant in the OT. Jesus came to change all that, and said so himself. Hebrews spends a significant amount of time arguing for the superiority of Jesus’ priesthood to that of the OT law.

Jay:

RE yours of 9-10-1:34 PM Would I care to get involved? My forte is not historical theology although I have wished at times to have majored in it. My insights on this general thread of Cone’s are to be found in A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, mainly Vol 2. For further exegesis of my thoughts therein, consult Mike Harding.

[Jay] JohnBrian, are you seriously arguing for limited atonement on the basis of publisher supplied chapter headings? :)

I’m shocked, shocked, I tell you, to learn that you don’t believe in the inspiration of “publisher supplied chapter headings”!

But seriously, Jesus specifically says that he is not praying for the world. In other words, His prayer is limited.

John, are you saying that every person affected by the Day of Atonement is in heaven? Like, say, Dathan and Abiram, et al, who rose up against Moses and Aaron in Num 16?

No, because not all Israel is Israel.

I never said that the Day of Atonement atoned for the sins of the whole world, but for the whole nation. I know of no one who advocates that all Israel in the OT was thereby saved. If they were, Caiaphas and Annas would also be saved, as pre-NT Jews, no? Presumably they conducted the rituals. They would have been atoned for. What does that mean?

So you affirm that this atonement was limited (to a single nation), but you reject that the real atonement (which the OT typified) cannot and must not be limited.

[Jay] But “salvation was of the Jews” in the OT (John 4:22). There WAS no redemption outside of that covenant in the OT. Jesus came to change all that, and said so himself. Hebrews spends a significant amount of time arguing for the superiority of Jesus’ priesthood to that of the OT law.

So for the OT you affirm a non-universal atonement that was limited to a single nation, but for the NT you insist on a universal unlimited atonement. In the OT God provided no redemption for those outside of Noah’s family when the flood came, then later he provided no redemption for those outside of the nation of Israel. In the NT he specifically refuses to pray for those whom the Father has not given to Him, and thus will not believe.

In his post above Steven used the phrase “the world without distinction rather than the world without exception.” In these 3 events we have clear proof that there is no provision for all men without exception.

So for the OT you affirm a non-universal atonement that was limited to a single nation, but for the NT you insist on a universal unlimited atonement. In the OT God provided no redemption for those outside of Noah’s family when the flood came, then later he provided no redemption for those outside of the nation of Israel.

Yes, that’s right. I’m a dispensationalist, and it’s clear that the coming of Jesus into the world marked a turning point in the dispensations. Are you a covenant theologian?

In the NT he specifically refuses to pray for those whom the Father has not given to Him, and thus will not believe.

Can you provide Scripture for that last bolded part, or is that something that you’re adding into the text to make your point? I think you are referencing John 17, but am not sure.

In his post above Steven used the phrase “the world without distinction rather than the world without exception.” In these 3 events we have clear proof that there is no provision for all men without exception.

Except for all those pesky passages that I and others have already cited from John, Peter’s epistles, John’s epistles, and other places in the NT? The ones that talk about Jesus dying for the “sins of the world” (to use one Johaninne phrase)?

You contrasted John 3 with Revelation 5 earlier, but those passages do not have much to do with each other. In John, Jesus is teaching the woman about salvation and her mistaken doctrine/belief. In Revelation 5, those who are already in heaven are praising Him because He is glorious and worthy for his redemptive work, and yes, they do mention that Jesus has saved some from every nation. The two passages are as similar as baseballs and boomerangs.

I’m not arguing that the atonement is limited in effect. Not everyone will be saved - we know that. But I can’t take the passages that Greg Long, I, Don, and others have used and therefore decree that Jesus died only for some (and it’s kissing cousin, reprobation). Don’s illustrations of both Passover and the sacrificial system point to a salvific work that is limited by application.

In short, I think that Mike Harding nailed it when he said:

Sufficient for all; efficient for those who believe. Does that accurately blend the two ideas without formally holding to a LA position?

[Mike Harding]

Sufficient for all; efficient for those who believe. Does that accurately blend the two ideas without formally holding to a LA position? If we don’t limit the atonement’s application to non-believers, universalism may not be too far off!

Pastor Harding - you’ve summed up the Cannons of Dort in that statement. It explicitly states that Christ’s death is “sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world”.

[Don Johnson]

As far as the atonement is concerned, have any of the Limited Atonement advocates considered that the Day of Atonement (Lev 16) covered believing and unbelieving Israel? Atonement makes God propitious (willing and just to save), but doesn’t by itself save.

Israel was a type of the people of God. An atonement was provided for Israel, God’s elect people. Was this atonement available for the Philistines? No! No atonement was provided for the enemies of God. Your example actually works against you!

[AndrewSuttles]

Don Johnson wrote:

As far as the atonement is concerned, have any of the Limited Atonement advocates considered that the Day of Atonement (Lev 16) covered believing and unbelieving Israel? Atonement makes God propitious (willing and just to save), but doesn’t by itself save.

Israel was a type of the people of God. An atonement was provided for Israel, God’s elect people. Was this atonement available for the Philistines? No! No atonement was provided for the enemies of God. Your example actually works against you!

You do know that anyone could become a Jew and receive the blessing of fellowship with God, right?

Anyway, you continue to miss the point. The Atonement on the Day of Atonement provided opportunity for people who were lost to have access to God. It wasn’t merely for “the elect”, unless you want to claim every Israelite was saved.

Interestingly, this syllogism is not found explicitly in Calvin’s writings, the Canons of Dort, or the Westminster Confession.

Oh no? Then why quote it?

Has anyone ever heard the above quoted syllogism before? I have not. Why not interact with the more robust statements of the doctrine from Westminster or Dort?

I’m also baffled by the quote from the Belgic Confession 22!? Can anyone provide a rational justification for dissent from this statement on faith?

We believe that, to attain the true knowledge of this great mystery, the Holy Ghost kindleth in our hearts an upright faith, which embraces Jesus Christ, with all his merits, appropriates him, and seeks nothing more besides him. For it must needs follow, either that all things, which are requisite to our salvation, are not in Jesus Christ, or if all things are in him, that then those who possess Jesus Christ through faith, have complete salvation in him. Therefore, for any to assert, that Christ is not sufficient, but that something more is required besides him, would be too gross a blasphemy: for hence it would follow, that Christ was but half a Savior. Therefore we justly say with Paul, that we are justified by faith alone, or by faith without works. However, to speak more clearly, we do not mean, that faith itself justifies us, for it is only an instrument with which we embrace Christ our Righteousness. But Jesus Christ, imputing to us all his merits and so many holy works which he has done for us, and in our stead, is our Righteousness. And faith is an instrument that keeps us in communion with him in all his benefits, which, when become ours, are more than sufficient to acquit us of our sins.

[JohnBrian]

Jay wrote:

JohnBrian, are you seriously arguing for limited atonement on the basis of publisher supplied chapter headings?

I’m shocked, shocked, I tell you, to learn that you don’t believe in the inspiration of “publisher supplied chapter headings”!

But seriously, Jesus specifically says that he is not praying for the world. In other words, His prayer is limited.

[Don Johnson]

You do know that anyone could become a Jew and receive the blessing of fellowship with God, right?

Anyway, you continue to miss the point. The Atonement on the Day of Atonement provided opportunity for people who were lost to have access to God. It wasn’t merely for “the elect”, unless you want to claim every Israelite was saved.

In what sense was the atonement made for non-Israelites? If a non-Israelite became an Israelite, he was no longer a non-Israelite.

Also, do you believe they had to get ‘re-saved’ every year? I believe the Old Covenant had respect to Israel continued blessing “in the land” and continued fellowship with God. Salvation always is and has been through the merits of Christ.

Well, Andrew, I’m not going to engage the debate. There are clear links between the OT system and what Christ did. You can ignore them if you wish. The Scripture stands.

[gpinto]

“that Jesus did die to pay the penalty for all” (1John 2:2) sounds like the theme song of universalism. Christ’s propitiation was of sufficient value to include both Jew and Gentile and all categories of men, and it is in that sense that He makes atonement for the whole world. The use of the term “world” in the NT often refers to neither the entire world nor all persons living (Lk2:1)

I certainly am not qualified to argue deeply on Calvinism either way (though I would agree with Dr. Cone that limiting the views to two is oversimplifying), but I would dare to point out that any discussion probably has to compare apples with apples. The term used in 1 John 2:2 is kosmos (modified by holos - entire or whole), whereas the Luke 2:1 reference uses the word oikoumene (which has a more restricted sense as determined by the context of the decree of Caesar Augustus. I only suggest that arguing for or against the meaning of the word “world” is further complicated by not using passages that are using the same term. Though they may overlap in meaning, kosmos is not oikoumene, and the meaning and extent of words is determined by their immediate context first. “Whole world” in 1 John 2:2 is hard to argue (in my opinion) anything other than what it appears to be.

[JohnBrian]

This is from gotquestions.org

Unlimited atonement says that, while Christ does a great deal to bring salvation to His people, His death on the cross did not actually secure that salvation for anyone. Christ’s death is not sufficient in and of itself to save lost people, and, in order for His atoning work to be effective, there is a requirement that sinners themselves must meet. That requirement is faith. For man to be saved, he must add his faith to Christ’s atoning work on the cross. Therefore, the effectiveness of the atonement is limited by man’s faith or lack thereof. On the other hand, limited atonement believes that Christ’s death and resurrection actually secures the salvation of His people. While God does require faith of His people, Christ’s death even paid for the sin of our unbelief, and, therefore, His death meets all requirements for our salvation and provides everything necessary to secure the salvation of God’s people including the faith to believe. That is true unconditional love, a salvation that is by grace alone in Christ alone. Christ plus nothing equals salvation—an atonement so sufficient that it secures everything necessary for salvation, including the faith that God gives us to believe (Ephesians 2:8)

I think this quote is an “over argument,” (if there is such a thing) or over-analysis. It is requiring something of the cross that clearly is not taught. Christ’s payment is sufficient and has satisfied God’s wrath - it has been propitiated. One still has to receive it (John 1:12a) by believing on Jesus name (John 1:12b). Romans 4:5 (as an example) does not see faith / belief as a work, but clearly distinguishes it from work, but which is required to be saved. I am simple-minded, but John 3:18 sure seems to lay down the criteria of faith / belief clearly and precisely. The Bible clearly teaches that faith / belief is essential from each individual for having the propitiation count for him/her.

I posted the following in the Part 1 thread, so am re-posting it here where it actually belongs!

[Jay] Are you a covenant theologian?

and thus will not believe.

[Jay] Can you provide Scripture for that last bolded part, or is that something that you’re adding into the text to make your point? I think you are referencing John 17, but am not sure.

John 17:9-12
9 “I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. 10 And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them. 11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. 12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

Only those whom God has given to Christ (v.9) are kept through God’s name and none of them are lost (v.12)

v.8 tells us that those whom God has given to Christ believed that God sent Christ, and in v.20 Jesus adds to His prayer those who will believe because of the testimony of those spoken of in vs 6-19

John 10:26-30
26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. 30 I and My Father are one.

Here we learn that those who do not believe, do so because they have not been given by God to Christ.

[Jay] Except for all those pesky passages that I and others have already cited from John, Peter’s epistles, John’s epistles, and other places in the NT? The ones that talk about Jesus dying for the “sins of the world” (to use one Johaninne phrase)?

World can mean all without distinction rather than all without exception. The Rev. 5 passage shows that Christ did die for the “sins of the world” in that all nations are represented in the redeemed.

You contrasted John 3 with Revelation 5 earlier, but those passages do not have much to do with each other. In John, Jesus is teaching the woman about salvation and her mistaken doctrine/belief. In Revelation 5, those who are already in heaven are praising Him because He is glorious and worthy for his redemptive work, and yes, they do mention that Jesus has saved some from every nation. The two passages are as similar as baseballs and boomerangs.

I think you are confusing John 3 with John 4. My point is that John 3:16 speaks of God’s love for the world, and Rev 5:9 speaks of a representation of all nations of the world, showing that God does in fact love the whole world.

I’m not arguing that the atonement is limited in effect. Not everyone will be saved - we know that. But I can’t take the passages that Greg Long, I, Don, and others have used and therefore decree that Jesus died only for some (and it’s kissing cousin, reprobation).

Yet you affirm that for the OT there are some that God has no intention of saving; in the case of Noah it was all men (and women) everywhere that were not his family, and later on in the OT it was all men everywhere who were not descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob, with a very few exceptions. These examples show that there are people God has no intent to save. Yet when you come to the NT, you insist that God desires to save all without exception based on your understanding of the word world.

Here’s where the divide comes. Calvinists affirm that world does not necessarily refer to all without exception but can mean all without distinction. The non-Calvinist affirms that it does mean all without exception. I am quite sure this divide will not be resolved until Jesus comes.

In short, I think that Mike Harding nailed it when he said:

Sufficient for all; efficient for those who believe. Does that accurately blend the two ideas without formally holding to a LA position?

This sufficient/efficient idea comes from Dordt:

The Canons of Dordt - Second Main Point, Article 3

Article 3: The Infinite Value of Christ’s Death

This death of God’s Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.

In a post on Mark McCulley’s blog titled Sufficient for All, Efficient for Believers? McCulley references Nettles quotation from Abraham Booth’s 1803 book titled Divine justice essential to the divine character (confused yet!) The quotation shows that the sufficient/efficient question has been around for a long time.

While cheerfully admitting the sufficiency of Immanuel’s death to have redeemed all mankind, had all the sins of the whole human species been equally imputed to Him, we cannot perceive any solid reason to conclude that his propitiatory sufferings are sufficient for the expiation of sins which he did not bear, or for the redemption of sinners whom he did not represent. For the substitution of Christ, and the imputation of sin to him, are essential to the scriptural doctrine of redemption by our adorable Jesus…

Take a look at this article from DBTS’ blog today on why you can’t deny Arminianism or Calvinism, claiming to be a “biblicist:”:

“And so my thesis in this post is simply this: the principal question in the Calvinism/Arminianism debate is a fundamentally binary one: you have to choose one or the other … The question is this: Do believers play any independent role in their own regeneration? This is the watershed issue and it is absolutely binary.”

I’ve always viewed the line, “I’m not either one - I’m a Biblicist” as a cop-out. You lean one way or the other. Don’t be afraid to say which - just let it go and say it.

Can you define “independent role” for me?

Also then please describe how if we have no “independent role” in our regeneration (again, define regeneration please) that it follows by necessity that all the “points” of Calvinism follow. I am speaking more rhetorically than actually expecting you to write a dissertation. I am simply making that point that one man’s binary is another man’s hexadecimal!

Joke: There are 10 kinds of people in the world…those who know binary and those who don’t.

Whenever I’ve met someone in the “I’m neither” group, I like ask what they actually believe about regeneration and salvation.

Do you believe that man needs Divine help? (I’ve been told no a couple of times.)

Do you believe in election?

Do you believe God saves people apart from any thing they are, acn do, or might do?

Which is stronger, man’s will or God’s grace?

Are there people in hell for whom Christ died?

I think it’s because I’ve always been more interested in what people believe than what label they wear.

And again, I find it interesting that the “I’m neither” group won’t allow people to take that neutral position on dispensationalism, eschatology, polity, baptism, or music.

[Mark_Smith] one man’s binary is another man’s hexadecimal!

First use of hexadecimal on S/I. Hex … something I work with regularly in IT!

[Ron Bean]

And again, I find it interesting that the “I’m neither” group won’t allow people to take that neutral position on dispensationalism, eschatology, polity, baptism, or music.

That’s certainly not true in all cases. I’m a “neither” in the calvinism/arminianism debate (though I wouldn’t be so arrogant as to say my position is the “biblicist” one), I’m generally dispensational, in eschatology I’d say I’m pre-millenial, but not particularly decided on pre-trib/mid-trib/whatever (i.e., I know Jesus is coming again and will judge and rule, but I’m not dogmatic on the timing), I’m congregational in polity, though opposed to the “dictatorial pastor” model, I’m believer’s baptism, but agnostic on mode, and on music, I generally want to avoid what’s popular for associational reasons, and I don’t believe music is “neutral,” but I’m not convinced that notes can have morality.

I’m not sure what that makes me, but I doubt I’m unique — each of us has a combination of beliefs that are not something that can just be easily pigeonholed. And Tyler, that’s not dishonest — I just can can’t completely reconcile the passages that talk about God’s election with those that indicate man making a conscious choice (and yes, I’ve read many arguments on both sides). Which direction I might lean is different when I read different passages. Ultimately, I think the important thing is to be a witness and let God sort out whether any who accept him were due to election or a choice on their part.

Every single person I’ve spoken to on this issue knows which way they lean, but wants to avoid labels to avoid the controversy, bad associations, etc. attached to the labels. They don’t want to be pigeonholed. I get that, but I’m just not sure how helpful it really is in defining anything.

[TylerR]

Every single person I’ve spoken to on this issue knows which way they lean, but wants to avoid labels to avoid the controversy, bad associations, etc. attached to the labels. They don’t want to be pigeonholed. I get that, but I’m just not sure how helpful it really is in defining anything.

Tyler, as I just said, at any one time I might lean one way (slightly) or the other. When I hear a good sermon by a Calvinist, I start thinking in that direction, but the opposite is true as well. I’m not saying I’m perfectly balanced, but I will say that so far, I haven’t stayed convinced on one side or the other.

As far as being defined by others, I generally don’t care about that anyway. I’ll stand up for the designation “Christian,” but generally I’m not willing to die on the hill of being cavinist, arminian, dispensational, etc. Politically, I’m the same — I’m registered as “Unaffiliated” in my state. That might frustrate the armies of poll workers who are trying to decide which way I lean for their statistics, but that’s not my problem. When election time comes, I’ll vote my conscience, and that usually results in some candidates from at least 3 parties. If that makes it hard for others to define me, I can live with that.

If I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard a Baptist say he has “No creed but the Bible”, I could retire today!

Whenever I hear seminary-trained men claim they are Biblicists on this issue- either they didn’t learn much in seminary or they are cowards!

See: On Having No Creed but the Bible

Though I cannot accept the “no creed but the Bible” statement (which clarifies little or nothing), I don’t think calling oneself a Biblicist is wholly cowardly. I think that doing so might indicate that you hold to the Bible, rather than complying with a denominational or theological view. I hold to more of a quasi-Baptist view of things not because the teachings are Baptistic but because I think they are Biblical. I do think some approach beliefs in just the opposite manner, because they first affirm some creed or denominational doctrinal statement and build upon that. I do not consider myself a Calvinist or Armenian, because I do not thing that the Bible limits a person to one or the other view, or that it teaches that there are just two views. I am not strong on congregational rule (a strong Baptistic teaching) because I do not believe that it is what the Bible clearly teaches. To some, I am then not a Baptist. I think I learned quite a bit from my professors, and I don’t think most would consider me a coward who is unwilling to decide or stand for or verbalize his views. What do I call myself? I can see where we need to build our acceptance of the Bible over and above creeds, denominational statements and expectations, etc. Using Biblicist is not a bad way to say that.

I never attended seminary so that is likely my problem on this issue…

I can honestly say I am neither Arminian nor Calvinist. It it interesting that I personally know no one who says they are Arminian, but I know many Calvinists. Do I think that man can choose salvation by himself? No. Do I think God does it all and I have nothing to say in it? No.

I sometimes call myself, when asked by my many Calvinist friends, as a zero-point Calvinist. Now, before I loose you, I don’t mean that in any snarky way. What I mean is do I believe men are totally sinful? Yes. Do I believe they are depraved in the way that Calvinist books mean it? Not exactly because I do not think that man is so sinful that he does not respond to the Spirit and Word of God, especially after the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. So I can’t check that box.

Do I believe election? Of course. But what is unconditional election? Do I have NOTHING to say about it? I can’t check that box either. This goes on for me through the list.

This is not proof-texting but considering a passage coupled with the context of the whole of revelation.

Lanchano (2Pet.1.1) it seems is active but should be rendered passive (see notes on the NET bible). If this verse speaks about receiving “a lot” then faith has been given to us and not something that we generate on our own.

Some questions that need to be considered: how was Abram chosen? It is described as “out of love” (therefore: unmerited). When was Jeremiah loved (known)? Before he was born! This is totally unmerited.

A note about “chosen according to foreknowledge”. Per McCune: this is a Hebraism which refers to being chosen out of love, know=love in this sense. It has the idea of intimacy as in the OT sense of: “and he knew her” (of course without any sexual connotation). “Foreknowledge” has too often been seen from a Greek philosophical model instead of an OT cultural-historical context. When the bible speaks about “foreknowledge”, it speaks about ‘foreloving’.

It is specious to argue that the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism can be reduced to one question. Both views are quite complex, there are aspects of both views that I appreciate and aspects that I disagree with. There are some fancy terms to describe varying degrees of positions between C. and A., but even these seem inadequate to me.

I use the term biblicist myself, not to suggest that I think either Cs or As don’t believe the Bible but to suggest that I believe the method known as Biblical Theology is superior to Systematic Theology, and it is the method by which I come to my theological positions. The term Biblical Theology is unfortunate but it is well established so what are we going to do? We are sort of stuck with it.

a Monergistic or a Synergistic Biblicist​

Both the Calvinist and Arminian lay claim to the idea of Biblicism. Both systems of theology believe they are expressing the literal, historical, grammatical meaning of scripture within each system so it is a pejorative when you claim the Calvinist or Arminian is not a Biblicist

You may also read my article and see whether you are closer to Calvinism or to Arminianism.

Exactly, that is the crux of the issue. Dodging, or more politely, avoiding the label, does nothing to answer the question. Is salvation a matter of cooperation between God and man? Or, in the end, is it all due to the grace of God?

In my own use of the term Biblicist (which I affirm more than I use) I simply mean that I will do my best to develop my understanding of any topic based upon Scripture, not upon someone’s system. It does not mean that I don’t come to similar conclusions. It does mean that my conclusions are based upon the Bible, not based upon conformity to a creed or doctrinal statement. Though I find both creeds and statements helpful, I do so as a result of study, not to curtail it.

Why do people assume that, because you accept a label, you’re obligated to tow the line on every issue?

For example, I’m a dispensationalist. Yet, I don’t believe Scripture teaches that Israel sinned by going down to Egypt prior to the Exodus. I don’t believe the so-called “Dispensation of the Patriarchs” ended in failure. How ridiculous! Yet, Scofield had the nerve to suggest this:

The Fourth Dispensation: Promise. For Abraham, and his descendants it is evident that the Abrahamic Covenant Cmt. on Ge 15:18 made a great change. They became distinctively the heirs of promise. That covenant is wholly gracious and unconditional. The descendants of Abraham had but to abide in their own land to inherit every blessing. In Egypt they lost their blessings, but not their covenant. The Dispensation of Promise ended when Israel rashly accepted the law Ex 19:8. Grace had prepared a deliverer (Moses), provided a sacrifice for the guilty, and by divine power brought them out of bondage Ex 19:4 but at Sinai they exchanged grace for law,” (Note on Gen 12:1).

This is indefensible from Scripture. I was taught a watered-down version of that in Seminary, and read even in Dr. McCune’s work that Israel “failed” by going down into Egypt (Systematic, 1:127). McCune follows Scofield (Systematic, 1:127, fn 58) by saying it was God’s permissive will to go down to Egypt, not His decretive will. Scofield writes, “Jacob’s family, broken, and in part already in Egypt, the tenderness of Jehovah would not forbid the aged patriarch to follow​. God will take up His people and, so far as possible, bless them, even when they are out of His best,” (Note on Gen 46:3). I disagree. I think Oswald T. Allis was right to mock that idea back in the day (Prophesy and the Church, 34-35). I’m still a dispensationalist.

So, I wonder - where does this “label-eschewing” philosophy end? Do you have a denominational name on your church sign? Should you remove it? Does your doctrinal statement advocate for a particular polity, flavor of soteriology, eschatology, anthropology, etc? See my point? People are so willing to own labels for most any other branch of theology, but when it comes to soteriology … the “biblicist” phrase is employed. That communicates nothing!

I for one will say that I simply do not know enough to be able to agree with “this is a binary” statement. My reading and studying of the Word indicates that God’s grace is the basis and foundation for anyone’s salvation. No one can be saved apart from God’s provision of a Savior, and through the preaching of the Savior’s finished work. I also see that man must believe the promise(s) of God to be saved which we are mandated to proclaim and apart from which no one can be saved. (I do not see belief as a work but simply as an acknowledgement of God’s work.)
I personally do not believe that God gives us all the necessary information for us to be so “iron clad solid” in every detail of our conclusions. God reveals some information (“dots”), but I believe we can neither understand or fathom all the workings of God (or that He requires me to do so), nor that He has attempted to reveal all His knowledge to us (or for me to fill in any missing gaps in order to connect the existing dots). To take the “dots’ that do exist and connect them with implied information to create a binary “you are or you aren’t” to me just seems to raise our knowledge above what God has revealed and to degrade God for what He has not. I accept what I read, and I find that neither the Calvinistic views nor the Arminian views fully encapsulate what I see in the Word. If that is cowardly, as some would say, or ignorant, as others would say, or evasive, as others would say, so be it. To say that I cannot describe myself in a binary either-or status is being honest in my own understanding to the Word.

I cannot intelligently argue all of the views. I do not have the training to all the views to do so. I just have not been able to, in good conscience, embrace either camp, regardless of the pejoratives people may assign to me or those like me.

Tyler, you voice my point exactly. Assigning a label doesn’t really assign the label anyway. At most, any label is an over-generalization. We have a Baptist label on our church, but there are over 4,000 types of Baptists, many of which deny all Biblical moorings. You cannot make any decisions about the label without more information. To say that anything is “binary” is, to me, oversimplification. How does a label of Calvinist or Armenian do anything to assist, without detailed discussion?

Regardless of you position, there will always be questions that need to be answered.

Did Christ die to make salvation possible for all IF they will……….?”

Ron, this is part of the core issue that many fail (or refuse) to see. The reason the “side” you end up on is important is because it impacts how you go about your business for God. I have a number of friends I would call historic Arminians in their soteriology (and I’m not talking about the semi-Pelagianism that is more concerned with being anti-Calvinistic than actually Arminian in so many IFB circles today). We can have wonderful fellowship together, but we would struggle to “do church” (please forgive the short hand) together because of the differences in our soteriology.