Why so many labels.. Calvanist.. Non-Calvanist.. ext....

Why so many? There has to be. Sad but true.

I Cor. 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

Jesus said it too:

Matt. 18:7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

Matt. 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: 25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. 26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. 27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? 28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? 29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

 

TaliOrlando:
1 Corinthians 11:19 has "for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized" (ASV).

The word the KJV transliterates `heresies' simply refers to a clique, or "party" --Campbell, The Christian System, page 76-7.

The Corinthians wanted to create factions rallied around characters. The characters were perfectly legitimate too. One faction was rallied around the best Character -- and was chastised with all the others.

In modern times, we do not rally as much around people. Instead, we rally around favorite religious tenets.

Christians are not going to agree on everything. Romans 14:1-13a tells us that -- and also makes it clear that it is okay to disagree. However, like in the 1 Corinthians situation, it does not matter who is `right' -- we are not to be factionalizing.

 

No one claims that the TULIP schematic is found in the Bible. The argument is that the doctrines are in the Bible. I'm not a Calvinist, but I think that the labels can be useful as long as they aren't abused.

For example, I could tell you that I'm a person who believes in local church autonomy, congregational church polity, regenerate church membership, salvation by grace through faith alone, two ordinances, and non-regenerative baptism by immersion, or I could tell you that I'm a Baptist.

 

IMO a true TULIPer with the typical Reformed Theology baggage should just join a Presbyterian Church and put up with the difference in baptism. Less hassle that way. :laugh:

 

I agree --- feel free to join us. However, historically Baptists were Calvinists too. The London Confession is overwhelmingly Calvinistic, don't you think?

 

There were General baptists back then, too.

 

Good observation! :thumbs:

 

I actually thought about joining up with a PCA church due to the unavailability of a reformed baptist work in the area, but found out there's a lot more differences than just the baptism thing. There's also the church government thing. Also, traditionaly Baptists have stressed simplicity while the presby's stress beauty and majesty in worship. They welcomed me to join anyway but I wouldn't be allowed to teach so I'm still looking.

 

Yes, our Baptist heritage especially from the British side is very Calvinstic. The pioneer of our modern day missionary movement was William Carey. They tried to disuade him from going to India telling him that God could save the heathen in India without Carey, in God's time and in His own way. To them, God didn't need Carey to "save the Indians." Fortunately, Carey obeyed the call of God anyway.

 

Hey Tali,

I made a list of all the names and lables they provided to make it easier for you :tonofbricks: .



Carey
FriendofSpurgeon
PCA
Reformed Theology
Presbyterian Church (presby's )
General baptists
London Confession
Baptist
Campbell, The Christian System

 

You choose the ASV in I Cor. 11. Which one do you choose in Titus 3:10?

A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject(KJV)
A factious man after a first and second admonition refuse.(ASV)

I basically agree with what you are saying, but Tali is grieved over the situation in the "church" today and I don't like to see it be diminished. I think Paul saw it for what it was. Look at the following:

Gal. 5: 19 "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."

The ASV uses factions and divisions here. Clearly these are the works of the flesh. Saying it is OK to disagree is a little dangerous. Most people use this as license to hold on to their pet doctrines at the expense of seeing the sin involved.

Paul contiued to be grieved over this in Corinth as well.

II Cor. 12:20 "I fear, lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I would, and that I shall be found unto you such as ye would not: lest there be debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults"

 

Labels

Labels are usually used in a demeaning manner. It is an attempt to say I am superior to you because you are a XXXX.

Labels are always used in hate speeches. One of the indicators of how near a particular government or group is to genocide is to watch the labels they apply to those they do not like. When they reach the point of calling them 'insects' or other unsavory creatures it is a strong indication that genocide very much on the minds of those using the term.

Be careful how you use labels. Be careful the labels you use and the way your use them as it may say more about you than those you are using the label against. :tonofbricks:

 

First of all - that is a great idea - simply drop all man-made tradition that is opposed to scripture and believe the pure truth of God's Word "sola scriptura".

There is two problems --

1. There was a thread started a while back asking "when Christians are wrong about doctrine do they actually know it" and the general sense of the answers was "no". Clearly few people say "this is a doctrinally false view but I hold to it because I prefer man-made-tradition and lies to truth".

So number we would all have to pray for the "two edged sword" of Heb 4 - laying all prior bias aside and accept God's Word as it states - not as we "wish that it said" regarding all our pet theories on OSAS, immortal soul, purgatory, praying to the dead, calvinism etc.

2. No matter what position you take on a given subject it will only be "From the available options" - pre-mill or post-mill or a-mill. All 66 books as authorotative for the Christian or slice-and-dice as it pleases. immortal soul, or not. 5 point Calvinism, 4 point, 3 point, Arminian etc. Perseverance of the saints or "ignore obedience for the sake of assurance".

They all speak to "Choices" that one is confronted with -- the fact that the various choices "get names" does not change the fact that you have to make some kind of choice.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I don't know about the "they" . J.R. Ryland is usually charged with that "Sit down young man ..." remark . But I think it is largely apocryphal . His son John Ryland denied that his father ever said such a thing .

 

You can probably quote the statement more accurately than me. I was paraphrasing according to my memory. However the church was Calvinistic, and the majority had similar views that would back up Ryland's remark.

 

I do not think Paul thought so -- if I understand Romans 14:1-13a right.

I notice and understand your concern that people will just continue to accept erroneous religious tenets mainly because they like them. If they do so, God will know, and they will answer to God for it -- per that passage.

Insisting that there be no disagreement has resulted in factional rivalries, factional non-cooperation, persecutions and bloodshed. I think this is more dangerous.

 

The church was 'Calvinistic' and threrefore "the majority had similiar views that would back up Ryland's remark." ? Are you confusing Calvinists with hyper-calvinists ? Can you document that the others held to the views of the mythological remark ?

 

You misunderstand. I am not saying that they backed a specific remark, but the theology behind it. Most in the church would have believed as Ryland believed. Whether he made that exact quote or not, the fact remains that he was discouraged by his own church from going to India. That was a direct result of the Calvinism of his own church. That much can be documented.