Featured So, you don't like to be labeled?

First, especially around here, I do not believe that this is the common motivation. Most often it is done with disdain and mockery.

Second, Paul addressed this very clearly, in I Cor.

Thirdly, if you are knowingly labeling someone in a way that is offensive to them then you are in sin. There is no good reason to offend someone just for your personal convenience.

 

Quote then, a confessionally ARMINIAN website in lieu of Wiki for crying out loud!!! http://evangelicalarminians.org/

It never ceases to amaze me, when Calvinists literally define an alternative view from (I am not kidding) "monergism.com" And then they cry when those who disagree reject the labels.....Note....Your "Monergistic" brethren are lying to you about what the opposition believes. The opposing views are tired of being "labeled" by definitions that Calvinists and Calvinists alone are creating, and then insisting everyone accept, and then being attacked on those grounds...even if they inaccurately represent the beliefs of others. Whatever the strengths of Cal arguments are...it is believed or accepted by many only upon the basis of a Polemic of lies.

 

Precisely :thumbsup::wavey:

 

Seems to me that BOTH camps here like to distort at times others sides views, but that the arms seem to get moredefensive if asked to expalin just why they hold those positions?

 

Who are these people who get more defensive and exactly what do they get defensive about and more importantly what does that have to do with this subject?

 

Just saying that the ones that object sometimes to labels is because they don't know why they believ that way, just that its not the other sides!

 

Really? And how do you know this? Prove this is the reason they object to labels. You cannot. What I see based on the judgmentalism coming from labelers is that you are more dedicated to your system than you are the word of God. You are more worried about your system and labels that you are at offending your brother and sisters.

I do not really believe that but I can make and jump to negative conclusions to people who have differing views as well. But regardless of what your suspicion is of why someone does not want to be labeled, if it offends them you are in the wrong.

 

No, most "Arms" or "non-Cals" do not believe this...most of them work (IMO) very hard to accurately express what is confessionally believed by Calvinists. On the other hand, most non-Cals believe that most Calvinists (as a rule) falsely represent their beliefs...This is either through pure ignorance, as they might get their information from say....R.C. Sproul (who no more understands Arminianism than the man in the moon) or they literally will quote "monergism.com" as their definition of non-Cal thought. It becomes a serious problem...That is usually why the "label" is rejected. It is because historically, non-Calvinists are truly of the opinion that Calvinists have falsely represented what they confessionally believe.

The tactic has worked magic in terms of creating Calvinists, the down-side is that it has been detrimental to honest debate. Moreover, since Calvinists have fallaciously definied terms to suit their own purposes....now the erstwhile "victims" are refusing to accept those labels, and then these poor put-upon Calvinists are now crying that no one is accepting them again....The new job they now have is to create a meaning for "non-Cal" and create a fallacious rendering of it's meaning. That's all.

 

Hmmm.....maybe some of your fellow cals should heed this themselves.

This is just false I read his post and there was no maligning Sproul.

If that is in fact the case then they should begin representing it correctly.

Yep

 

You are absolutely sure of this I suppose. Then why did Arminius write;

Depravity is total: Arminius states "In this [fallen] state, the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace."

I see no difference between this and what Calvinist believe. Maybe I should start calling Calvinist, Arminians. Isn't it by grace that you believe?

Chapter 12 :3 of Romans Paul states that a measure of faith is given to everyman. So what would you say Paul is saying here? Is he lying to us or what?
I mean really if you want to understand Romans try looking at it as a whole instead of a few select verses at a time.
MB

 

Hello Herald, nice to meet you. Just a few thoughts on this, starting with, I like to be labeled...a Christian.

I have gotten in the habit of witnessing to Atheists, and I thought for a change of scenery I might turn the thread to another perspective of "labeling."

You need but go to an atheist forum to see that the label "Christian" is branded upon just about anyone that can be imagined. Where they make their mistake is that they have no basis for actually making a judgment as to what a Christian is, or what is t is that makes a Christian...a Christian.

Yet, say "I believe in Jesus Christ" and boom!...you too can be labeled a Christian! Yet most of us here know that this is not an evidence of Christianity, merely a profession of faith.

Statements such as, "I was a Christian, but after my son died I realized it was all a scam," or, "I was a Christian when I was young but when I got older and started thinking for myself, I saw all the contradictions in scripture and turned away from believing in fairy tales" is pretty much the testimony of many atheists.

And when we ask them if they are sure they were saved, they appeal to the "No True Scotsman" argument, seeing our examination of their statement of belief as an escape clause. It goes roughly like this, if one is not familiar with it: A Scotsman reads a newspaper article and see that a murder of a particularly heinous nature was committed, and the police suspect a Scotsman did it. He says, "A Scotsman would do no such thing!" Much like we would (some of us) say "No Christian would do such and such." The next morning, the Scotsman reads in the paper that a Scotsman was indeed the culprit, and he says, "Well, no true Scotsman would do such a thing," much like we might say something like "No true American would support Communism." Again, this is an escape clause for the believer, they feel.

Some atheists believe that Hitler was a Christian, for example. How many of us would lay money on seeing Hitler in Heaven?

But if you pursue the atheist and try to force him to give his basis for believing that he was saved, you will find out that his understanding will usually read like a third grade sunday school student. Some of the commentary on scripture is ridiculaous to the point that it astounds how someone could centextually wrest scripture as they do to prove the "contradictions" they have found in scripture.

But listen to this: call the beliefs of the group in which they were affiliated with into question and they may get upset. Call their own understanding into question and they might...will...get upset.

So how do we address the problem of atheists labeling vereyone that professes belief in Christ...Christians?

It is very simple: you force them to examine the basis of their belief. And what you will find is that for most of them, the basis for their belief (which is...there is no God) is at the heart...anger. Perhaps anger at parents that taught them what scripture taught...and were themselves hypocrites. Perhaps anger at some Christian that failed to show the love of Christ toward them.

But it is usually anger, bred into a hatred that rules their thoughts, words, and actions. Lack of self control is evident. Playing by their own rules is evident.

So I guess on the topic of labeling, when it comes to the label of Christian, keep in mind that there are those that will label people Christians and they do not mean it in a complimentary fashion. And when we label someone with a tag that we openly show derision for, is it much different than what they do?

I would just also add that as we discuss the very doctrine that is bringing changes in all of our lives, if we would first ouselves examine the basis for our belief, and then make a concerted effort to, before labeling anyone, be interested in finding out the basis for belief that others hold, we would probably find out enough to keep us from getting to a point where we ourselves lose self-control and give ourselves over to emotional response.

And just so it is not thought I am just talking about how we discuss beliefs with Christians, consider that we may speak to an atheist that has gone through tragedy, such as losing a child, and his anger toward God is the foundation for his profession of unbelief. How often do we consider that there may be one that professes atheism that is just as insincere as those that profess Christ?

Could that be a possibility?

I think so.

Anyway, just a few thoughts concerning labels. I have been called Calvinist, a Catholic, and just recently, similar to JWs...lol. I do not view myself as any of those, just a Christian with a desire to understand God and His word better. And, to try to understand those I talk to better, before I can label them, and then really let 'em have it.

Just kidding about this last part.

God bless.

 

The problem with the "No true Scotsman"....was that he didn't eat or like hagis, not that he would or wouldn't commit murder. Then again....as an erstwhile and wannabe Englishman, I think hagis ROCKS!!!

 

What's confusing to me is that the people who criticize using labels use them all the time. When I read "those Arminians" or "those Calvinists", aren't they labels?

 

While I'm thinking about it are the labels "Arminian" and "Calvinist" the right terms to use when debating the two most popular views of salvation? The free will view of salvation does share some similarities to Arminianism in that man must exercise faith without the compulsion of God. But within that camp there are a variety of other beliefs. Some believe a person can fall from grace. Others deny original sin. Some believe in total depravity and others don't. Even Arminius was a bit confused on that one; he believed in total depravity, but not really because he also believed man has a sort of latent faith that makes it possible for him to believe. Some Arminians embrace the term while others view it as a pejorative.

Calvinists are all over the map as well. You have some Calvinists who claim to be 4 pointers. They don't agree with definite atonement. Most 5 point Calvinists claim the 4 pointers aren't Calvinists at all. Some extreme "hyper" Calvinists teach that the gospel should only be preached to the elect. Others don't like the term "Calvinist" because they don't practice infant baptism or run their churches like Presbyterians. Instead they use terms like "doctrines of grace" to emphasize that salvation is by grace alone.

I guess my point is that both of these popular labels aren't completely accurate when applied to Baptists.

 

Yes, being kind and thoughtful is admirable but that is in no way necessarily incongruent with being labeled... besides, you can label yourself and most people will accept that. If your beliefs are communicable then there's a label for it and if not a new label can be created. If you don't communicate your beliefs then you have no defense against the claim that you don't have them. To me labels are just a condensed expression of what's inside. Of course labels can be abused but that seems like a poor arguement for refusing to wear one...

 

First I do not need an argument for not wearing one. And If someone does not want to be labeled an arm or an cal and you or anyone insists on doing it Anyway then yes that is "incongruent" and ungodly.

 

I'm not trying to be thick, I'm just want to understand the logic in all of this.

If person "A" believes that man possesses a measure of faith, even though in a state of sin, and can use that faith to believe the gospel and trust in Christ, how do we describe that person's theological position regarding salvation?

If person "B" believes that man is not only in a state of sin, but unable to respond by faith, except that Holy Spirit first regenerates him, and then becomes able to believe the gospel and trust in Christ, how do we describe that person's theological position regarding salvation?

I suppose we could say about "A" that he "believes that man possesses a measure of faith, even though in a state of sin, and can use that faith to believe the gospel and trust in Christ" every time we discuss that particular view of salvation. The same for person "B." We could say (when discussing that view), "man is not only in a state of sin, but unable to respond by faith, except that the Holy Spirit first regenerates him, and then becomes able to believe the gospel and trust in Christ."

If we're not going to use some descriptive label to differentiate between beliefs then we're going to have the vowel and consonant police after us!