If the Shoe fits...

I believe it is fair. If a duck refuses to be called a duck do we bend to its will and call it just another bird? No, that would be dishonest and unhelpful.

 

I believe we have to be careful not to commit the all too common debate fallacy of 'tradition labeling.'

This is where one labels someone by some known traditional view (i.e. "Pelagianism" or "Hyperism") and then dismisses their arguments all together as being 'heretical' and not worthy of consideration. This is a disingenuous and lazy from of debate.

 

Those are men's labels which are contrary to God and scripture and create unnecessary divisions.

1Co 1:11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers.
1Co 1:12 What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ."
1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

 

I don't think we can say 1 Cor 1 (or 3) applies in every,or even most cases. Especially in relation to the OP. When someone says I believe A, B, and C and those doctrines have come to be understood as "suchanism" then it is fair to call it that for the purpose of discussion. We are not dealing with a situation like Paul is addressing where people are proudly claiming to be a disciple of Mr. Such to the denial (or simple ignoring of) Christ.

When handled rightly these labels can be beneficial, especially in the case of an open and honest discussion. One example, I am a pastor. Currently I am in an associate pastor position. When seeking a pastorate it is good to know where I stand and where a prospective church stands. If they ask something like, "Are you a Calvinist?" Then I know which key doctrines are important for that aspect of the conversation and I can reply in an appropriate, even edifying, why. Typically, in that situation, I would say, "If you are defining that by the 5 key doctrines represented by TULIP, then yes it is fair to say that I am a Calvinist." If it seems appropriate I may even take the time to talk about the labels themselves. A typical follow up question may be, "What are your thoughts on the Sola's?" If I were unaware of such labels I would be seen as unprepared and not willing to try to understand some of these issues (and their labels). It would make it seem like I don't care about being thorough or doing my best for the Lord.

 

This junk is the down side of systematic theology. People have difficulty relating to people outside of these unnecessary labels. Some people may find it helpful to them, but others find them unnecessary and burdensome. I find the labels to be a tool of the lazy. I can explain what I believe without the shorthand of any labels that I will actually fall short of.

 

ok, thanks for helping me understand your view on the issue.

 

Sure.

No to all three questions. You can label them in your mind and file it away as a handy way to remember their belief system AS YOU UNDERSTAND it, but if someone says they do not want to be called a Calvinist, Arminian, African-American, Norweigan, or Democrat you ought to respect that and not call them with those labels.

 

problem here on BB is that some refuse to be labeled by their theological syatem, sounding pious, but sometimes its because they actually cannot say what theirs is per the Bible!

 

"Systems" are usually general. most understand when we say someone is a Calvinist, we know that there will be variaties.

As was said, if they don't want to be referred to something we shouldn't refer them as it. And typically, baptizing babies isn't a point in Calvinism. Usually Calvinism only refers to soteriology.

Heard one say they were a OSAS Arminian. But, same point as above.

The church isn't baptist. There probably are people in that church that are baptist. My sister and her husband both go to a Bible church, but I would consider both baptist as they are individually baptist in doctrine.