Featured Christian?

well at least you didn't have any trouble putting two labels on the post lol Isee that as progress!

 

First I have never said that all labels are bad. My statement was not rash. Liberalism is a world view that drives other views such as any or all of Genesis is not literal, evolution has validity etc. They also have trouble making legitimate and equal comparisons and they often hold up readability equal too or a higher standard than than just translating words in Bible versions. They see man made science as a standard for interpreting scripture. I could go on.

There is a distince difference between using labels that glorify men such a Calvinism etc. and dispensationalism,Baptist, or even Reformed.

But then you already actually knew that.

 

ok thanks for the clarification I don't think the purpose of the labels is the glorify men I think it's too point to the origin of the base of the teaching that the person is holding two

 

Apparently so. But whoa there partner. You are mixing a lot of things together -- or as you have just said: You "have trouble making legitimate comparisons."

Why in the world would you insert your personal translation preference to that of the only legitimate way of translation practice? It's not a liberal or conservative matter.

You might as well lob out your habitual accusation that those who think David Barton is a hack are liberals.

Readability man, readability.

So those terms all glorify people?!

 

Marc......relax, its only the guys opinion. No big deal.:thumbs:

 

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop!
don't do it!"

"Why shouldn't I?" he said.

I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"

He said, "Like what?"

I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?"

He said, "Religious."

I said, "Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?"

He said,"Christian."

I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?"

He said, "Protestant."

I said, "Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?"

He said, "Baptist!"

I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?"

He said, "Baptist church of god!"

I said, "Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?"

He said,"Reformed Baptist church of god!"

I said, "Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?"

He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!"

I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1824932&postcount=1

 

I do not see what is so "ignorant" about this post. In fact it seems to me that you meant to say.....insightful posts. If you doubt it, look at those who hate labels....then read their posts. let me know what you come up with.

If someone uses a label....lets say....they say- Icon...your posts sound like a person who is a Christian reconstructionist.
I then have all the time in the world to respond and explain my point of view, but because they throw a label at me...it gives me an idea that They are concerned I am drifting over the line in reference to the Law of God.

I can then deny the label, as I give my understanding of the Law.

No need to get all defensive. The need is for clarification and advancing the biblical discussion. What I see on BB is when someone zeros in on a poster who is in error...the poster either retreats like a turtle, and hopes the thread gets closed.....or they sneak into another thread and amend their answer trying to make like they did not post the error in the first place,:laugh::laugh:

So.... I comment on it...and I am arrogant?

 

I've never heard a Mormon say that, but I've rarely heard anyone use that phrase. I suppose it goes to show that with those quick identifiers, we really can't know where someone stands. But they can help to start

On a different debate site I was on, someone used the identifier "Follower of the Way"

I really thought it was cool. However, it didn't take long there to find that she had a total works type view of salvation, and rejected all the writings of Luke and Paul

She would rail against Paul as Satan's plant in the church, and Luke as his cohort.

Then one day it dawned on me, and I pressed her......you know, Paul and Luke are the only ones who identify us as followers of the Way. Now if they're the corrupters you claim.......why is it that out of all the monikers to choose from, the only ones to use yours are the two men you reject?

 

OK......I'm a radical Christian.:thumbs:

 

In my opinion the problem is only when some one is miss-labeled. Like being an Arminian when you do not hold completely to that doctrine. One point Calvinist aren't really Calvinist at all and should not be referred to as such. A four pointer is not truly Calvinist. Yet there are plenty here.
Why is it Calvinist don't know what they are. They call them selves Calvinist but the truth is they are not really Calvinist but reformed Catholics.

John Calvin was an Augustinian, he didn't change his beliefs like the Catholic church did so he was no longer catholic but, instead reformed Catholic. Sort of like reformed Mormons huh!
MB

 

[I corrected your grammar and spelling a bit.]
I think it would be okay to label one an Arminian even if a person doesn't hold to everything the Remonstrants believed --just most of their conclusions.

Agreed.

True.

Why do you make that claim?

Huh? Where are you getting all your misinformation from?

He could be called that. But don't confuse him with Martin Luther. Calvin wasn't in an Augustinian order before his conversion.

Your sentence is terribly confusing. Calvin did indeed change his beliefs! Most certainly he did upon conversion. He was never a "Feformed Catholic" --whatever that means.

?????

 

Don, often such inflated bravado provides over confidence in order to much too easily refer to others as "deficient" in some way.

 

So, am I deficient simply because I do not acknowledge the same labels and theological proclivities as you?

 

Boy are you ever hard to please. He had said it is sometimes "it's just a way of defining what someone believes. Nothing more than that."

You're the one who spoke of the inflated ego thing remember?

 

No......there are other reasons. Do you take a stand on anything?
Every questionable belief......you embrace......you are so tolerant...that even error is okay....