When I attended Pillsbury (2000-2004) there was a brewhaha in the Calvinism-Arminianism debate. The “middle ground” which, as I see today as political at best and fallacious at worst, was called Biblicism. The saying went “I’m neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian; I’m a Biblicist!” Now, on its face that seems like a wise saying. The person saying it would be claiming that they don’t want to get into the fray of debate between the two, they just want to appeal to scripture to find answers to questions. That’s all well and good but it implies that the Calvinist and the Arminian do not appeal to the scriptures in their argumentation, which is simply not the case. In fact, one Calvinist I read implies that Calvinism is a Biblicist position?
. . . Calvinism is a whole worldview, stemming from a clear vision of God as the whole world’s Maker and King. Calvinism is the consistent endeavor to acknowledge the Creator as the Lord, working all things after the counsel of his will. Calvinism is a theocentric [God-centered] way of thinking about all life under the direction and control of God’s own Word. Calvinism, in other words, is the theology of the Bible viewed from the perspective of the Bible—the God-centered outlook that sees the Creator as the source and means and end of everything that is, both in nature and in grace. . . . The five points assert no more than that God is sovereign in saving the individual, but Calvinism, as such, is concerned with the much broader assertion that he is sovereign everywhere. ~ Packer’s introduction to Death of Death in the Death of Christ, emphasis mine.