Who are you?

I am Spinach. Not because I'm green and leafy, but because when I registered, I was on a spinach smoothie kick.

I am saved. I am loved by Almighty God. I am small, and yet, He knows me.
I am a wife and mother
I am a servant
I am too big an optimist for my own good
I am wordy
Oh, and I am Baptist (IFB)

Really, I am nothing and Jesus is everything!

 

My brother, you might want to rethink what you just said.

I don't believe that we are required to be educated to your excellent standards prior to registering on this forum. Should I now apologize for not being smart enough to understand your posts?

 

"Brother" is a label. There is no communication without labels.

Communication requires a modicum of knowledge and rationality, but it's mostly work. If one does not understand a term, it's up to him to educate himself.

I find that the objection to labels isn't about the labels, but the message. I gladly wear the labels of Calivinist and Baptist, though many these days are working to avoid both.

 

There's actually a label for someone you just described... :laugh:

I'll let others guess what it is...:laugh:

 

Exactly what he said. I quoted the whole thing because it merits repeating.

 

No Sir, you are wrong. It is not up to the listener to educate himself on definitions unless it is in a school environment. It is ALWAYS up to the speaker to be clear. THAT person has the obligation to use words that are understood.

You can tell me that you are a multifaceted person. I can go look up the definition of multifaceted, but I gaurantee I will not find what you meant. It is up to you - the person sharing the information - to be clear and precise.

Before you accuse someone of being "slothful," search your own heart.

Isn't sloth a sin? Why accuse me of sin when I don't understand the message you are giving me?

 

Christian in general

Baptist by conviction

Southern Baptist by choice

 

Where's that written?

It goes both ways. One way the listener can educate himself is to ask the speaker, "What do you mean by . . . ?"

But, the problem isn't the labels.

Yes.

I didn't accuse you of anything, but now you've accused yourself. If you want to be a lazy listener, spoonfed only things that tickle your ear and that are easily understood, that's your business. But don't blame the labels.

 

Are you and Carpro twins? :laugh:

 

Hello Aaron

Thank you for taking the time, to play this out as you have.

SRBooe said........

Then you responded.......

Now that is logic, that I can sink my teeth into.
Many times we us a “label”, in order to evoke the question....
"What do you mean by . . . ?"

This is one method of teaching.
If the person cares enough to want to know the truth, they will follow up with the question.

 

I see.

Is it safe to assume you have not attended any human communication classes? One of the major points of communication is to ensure that your audience understands the terms used. Frequently, any instructional class starts with definitions "as used in this discussion."

By using the word slothful, you did indeed make a backhanded accusation. By the way you reponded, I wonder if you work either as a politician or a lawyer.

It is apparent to me that you want to duck responsibility for clearly presenting your information, so instead - you shirk that part of the task and then blame the listener for not being as smart as you are.

Nice touch. Do you get away with it very often?

I have asked at this forum a few times now that people tell me what certain words mean. Very seldom do the people who use the labels disparagingly ever provide the definition. If anyone does, it is someone who did not originally use the term in the thread, and the definition given does not justify the insults thrown out. Instead, the original poster keep slamming certain groups indicated by the same labels.

I still don't know what a "fundie" is, yet I know what fundamental means. However, the "fundies" are still slandered, but I have yet to understand what exactly the cause is. People slam "fundmental churches," yet nobody really tells me what the problem is - just that they have hurt people.

When people use the word "Calvinist," there are apparently a few different types. One recent post used the term "reputable Calvinist," yet that implies "irreputable Calvinist." Can I look that term up in a dictionary?

Labels ARE a problem, and they have been for years.

Perhaps it is because the people who use them cannot explain what they mean. They just throw the lable out with a wink and wait for like-minded people to chime in and puff up the original speaker. I notice that one or two people are dong that for you in this thread. Fun, huh?

 

As I scroll through the responses, I see that some disavow labels, yet they have them -- and their "label" is the reason they disavow them. Seems sort of circular, but so be it. Our labels should not be the dividing point between us, for -- as has been said widely by virtually everyone -- we are FIRST, Christians, blood-bought believers in Jesus Christ.

That means that we will all stand one day, arm-in-arm before the great throne of our God and King, singing His praises without a care at all for all our divisions here on earth.

About labels... We all have a theology. Whether or not we would care to admit that -- and whether we think it more "spiritual" to simply say that we turn to God alone (even that is a theological position) we have a theology. Identifying that theology should not be an issue. If we hold it to be true, and can reconcile our position from Scripture, then so be it. But, theological positions also should be movable as we learn more, discover more in the Word, have the Holy Spirit convict us of truth, etc. Anyone who comes in as a new believer on day one and locks in a theological position (label) and is unwilling to change based on the work of "rightly dividing the word of truth..." has issues. Even Jesus' disciples learned as they went and most, if not all, had to change their "label" or theological position as they grew in their faith. No harm in that.

What am I?

I was saved apart from any church, so first, I am a Christian -- a follower of Jesus Christ.

I joined a Southern Baptist Church, so I became a Baptist.

I learned of the Baptist history and heritage and confirmed that I would remain a Baptist all the days of my life because of their stance on the Scriptures, their willingness to stand on correct doctrine, and their missionary zeal, missing in so many other denominations.

I became an SBC pastor and deacon, so I am those.

I became a North American Mission Board missionary, so I am that.

I became a church planter, so I am that.

I identified my core theology as Infralapsarian, so that is my theological "label."

I am conservative (theologically, politically, and culturally) but not locked. I prefer to operate on principles rather than bumper-sticker phrases, which means that I grow in my conservative values instead of fighting new concepts.
I am a "learner" which may be the best label to apply to me, for other than Christ, my learning is my chief function in life that drives all else that I do.

I am a son, a husband of 33 years, a father of three (two living), and a grandfather of two.

 

My salvation statement on my profile:

" I love the Lord, I love His people, I love His word".

...which I believe would be descriptive of most on this board, or at least I hope so. But also on my profile you'll see that I'm a Primitive (Particular) Baptist, and if you know anything about that label it should tell you that I believe that the Spirit has put the love for the above within me, that I had nothing to do with it. Some other's salvation statements of the Sovereign Grace, Reformed, Calvinist, Monergistic, DoG, Particular Atonement persuasion:

“I don't think I am. I know through the Son of God, and He saving me from my sin.”

“Jesus Christ is the Author and Finisher of my faith. Baruch haba b\'shem!”

“Saved by grace, Reformed”

“Let every spirit praise Him, Ps. 150:6”

“Because of the atoning work of Jesus Christ on the cross”

“Only by the covering of the blood of Jesus.”

“Solely on the merits of the righteousness of Jesus Christ applied by the Holy Spirit according to unconditional election”

“B/c of God's plan of salvation included me in the electing process! Thank you Jesus for your Sacrifice!”

“My God is all in all and I Worship Him. Gods Only Son, Saved me from sin.”

So, from these other's salvation statements that believe in Sovereign Grace, or Reformed, or Calvinist, or Monergist, or DoG, or Particular Atonement, it can be seen that they believe that they had nothing to do with it. The big “I” is generally absent in their statements.

On the other hand if you browse around looking at other's salvation statements of the Free Will, Arminian, NonCal, Synergistic, General Atonement persuasion, it's quite common to read statements that begin with or along the lines of, “I have placed my faith in...”, or, “Because I trusted....”, or, “I've accepted...”, or, “Because I believe...” or “Personal faith in...”, or, “I can do...” etc., it's plain to see that the Free Will, Arminian, NonCal, Synergistic, General Atonement folks do believe that they had something to do with it. The big “I” is ever present in their statements.

So, in an effort to reduce the distastefulness of the stress and confusion caused from these two groups of labels: Sovereign Grace, Reformed, Calvinist, Monergistic, DoG, Particular Atonement, Free Will, Arminian, NonCal, Synergistic, General Atonement; I propose that we henceforth forevermore use only one of two labels to communicate whether one believes that they had something to do with their salvation or not:

Synergism: the doctrine that the human will cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the work of regeneration.

Monergism: the doctrine that the Holy Ghost acts independently of the human will in the work of regeneration.

:smilewinkgrin:

 

For the purposes of this board, these labels all fit:

forgiven
Non Cal or freewiller (your choice )
mother
homeschooler
pet collector (we only have 10 right now)


However, if you saw me in real life the labels that would used to describe me might be different:

Christian

Determined (nice way of saying hard headed)

HOMESCHOOLER (yep, all caps. I'm considered a radical at our churchfull of public school employees)

Choir member (this means I'm in the know, ya know? )

Cassie/Chris/Cade/Jenna's mother (said with fear and respect, cause CCC&J's mother is ALWAYS paying attention)

Or, if there is a loose dog in the neighborhood "Go ask Cindi, it's probably one of hers!" :laugh: I only have 4!

Labels can help to define who we are and what we represent to other people. Or they can be used denigrate what we do and believe. As followers of Christ, we should be careful of what labels apply to us in truth and we should be thickskinned enough to ignore those that don't.

 

Just can't help yourself, can you?

Not liking a confusing label does not mean that the label fits.

I don't like the lable heretic, yet I am not one. I don't like the label agnostic, yet I am not one.

Perhaps we should wonder why people need to use character shorthand when they won't first explain their particular definition for the code word.

I'll gaurantee you that, if a test were given to folks here what most of those thrown-around labels mean, the disagreement would be quite noticable.

If you want to accuse someone of being wrong, just state why. Don't attach a label to the person and then tell him or her how they need more education.

 

I did not attack any particular label...

In fact, what you wrote essentially makes my point.

 

I guess my reading comprehension skills are weak, then.

I evidently recieved a message that you did not send?

Sorry.

 

Which "label" did I specifically attack?

I am not "aiming" at any particular label at all, both sides (or every side) has the same issue.

Your getting all fired up about this observation means that you are reading that I am talking about YOUR label, thus making my point that some people get upset because they have a label...

 

AMEN!!!

I "choose" the latter...lol

:thumbs: