So, you don't like to be labeled?

[Herald]

~A Parable~​

A feathered creature was walking along, trying to mind his own business, when he happened upon a group of birds having a discussion. Some of them claimed to be ducks. Others claimed to be swans.

They looked at him and asked,

"What are you?"

He looked at the ducks and knew the ducks had a bad reputation. He really did not want to be called a duck!

Then he looked at the swans, and he had been told that they were too cold and snooty. He really did not want to be called a swan!

So he drew himself up to his full height, stuck his beak in the air, and said,

"I am a Bird!"

And with a self satisfied air about him, he waddled down the road, quacking his pleasure at having escaped being classified as anything other than a bird!

 

[Tom Butler]

Somebody tried that on one of my former pastors several years ago.

"Well, I'm just a Christian."

Aah, thought the pastor, a teachable moment.

"So, what do you mean by Christian?"

"Uh, well, you know, I'm just a Christian."

"Well," said my pastor, "so you're saying you're saved. What are you basing that on? The Catholic way? The Mormon way? The Baptist Way? The Church of Christ way?

I won't go further with the conversation, because the point is made.

Claiming to be just a Christian actually blurs your testimony, since it has become so generic as to be meaningless.

And, I'll have to say, when I hear it done, it comes across to me as a bit smug.

 

[Herald]

Tom,

Some people don't like labels because it identifies what they truly believe. That's a no-no for some because there are always going to be people who disagree with you. Disagreement leads to confrontation, and confrontation contains the possibility of negative social fallout.

 

[mandym]

People do not like to be labeled because they are man made and fail to represent what they believe. Further thy are used to demonize people and cause division. Using labels against someones will is mean spirited and arrogant. These labels are a lot like cussing. One's inability to deal with people without them shows their low intelligence. When you cannot function in life without them them you need to learn to be kinder and more thoughtful of those you are dealing with. It is just iucalled for.

 

[mandym]

~A Parable~​

A feathered creature was walking along, trying to mind his own business, when he happened upon a group of birds having a discussion. Some of them claimed to be ducks. Others claimed to be swans.

They looked at him and asked,

"What are you?"

He looked at the ducks and knew the ducks had a bad reputation. He really did not want to be called a duck!

Then he looked at the swans, and he had been told that they were too cold and snooty. He really did not want to be called a swan!

So he drew himself up to his full height, stuck his beak in the air, and said,

"I am a Bird!"

And with a self satisfied air about him, he waddled down the road, quacking his pleasure at having escaped being classified as anything other than a bird!

By the way this thread is nothing more than a poke in the eye and an immature provocation. Grow up.

 

[Herald]

Labels are part and parcel of our everyday life. How many of you have a first and last name? Label. How many of you are democrats? Label. How many of you are republicans? Label. How many of you are independents? Label. How many of you are right handed? Label. How many of you are right handed? Label. How many of you believe in the Trinity? Label (trinitarian). How many of you are American? Label. Canadian? Label? British? Label.

Labels in the church help identify sets of belief. Are you a believer in the doctrines of grace? A church that calls itself "Reformed" may appeal to you. Do you hold to free will in salvation? A Free Will Baptist may be your ticket to happiness.

Throughout its history the church has addressed different teachings at councils and synods. It almost always labeled the different teachings it studied; Arianism, Pelagianism, Arminianism, Donatism, Gnosticism etc. These labels tell you something about a specific teaching. If a person holds to one of those forms of teaching it could be said that they assume that label.

 

[mandym]

Labeling people in a way they do not agree with and find offensive is the problem. Making fun of people who reject certain labels like the op has done is immature. Imposing a label on someone when it offends them is sinful and against scripture. Most importantly these man made labels are often wrong. Again most often labels are about demonization. Which is oftne true with cals.

 

[Tom Butler]

Labels are shorthand. They're a quick and easy way to identify ourselves.

If I understand correctly, we're not talking about offensively labeling somebody else. We're talking about labels for ourselves.

Of course, I don't want to be mis-labeled, either. And I don't like for the labels I've assigned myself to be distorted by someone else.

But a person who says he doesn't like labels is being unrealistic.

 

[Herald]

If I understand correctly, we're not talking about offensively labeling somebody else. We're talking about labels for ourselves.

That's correct.

 

[Iconoclast]

Labeling people in a way they do not agree with and find offensive is the problem. Making fun of people who reject certain labels like the op has done is immature. Imposing a label on someone when it offends them is sinful and against scripture. Most importantly these man made labels are often wrong. Again most often labels are about demonization. Which is oftne true with cals.

So you use a label to make your point:laugh::laugh: Nice.

Labeling people in a way they do not agree with and find offensive is the problem

Most in here do not like labels because they know the implication that once they take a stand in a debate forum.....the position is identified...and people respond to it.

By avoiding the "label' you think you are not going to be called out on your view , especially when it departs from truth.

For someone who resists labels ...you call everyone immature[ as if you and your snide posts are the paradigm for maturity] that you disagree with ,and no problem speaking about "cals".

Most use the labels to save time and get down to it. If someone is a trinitarian, and someone is not a trinitarian....the labels get to the point.

It is probably pride masquerading as humility to claim your "view" is so unique that no label fits. If you are so sensitive about it why enter a forum that is labeled debate forum?

 

[mandym]

S

Most in here do not like labels because they know the implication that once they take a stand in a debate forum.....the position is identified...and people respond to it.

I make my positions clear without labels. And you have quite the hutzpa to decide you know the motivation behind everyone who opposes labels.

 

[12strings]

So if I believe the bible teaches Total depravity, unconditional election, irresistable grace, and perserverance of the saints...I and I interiview for a Job at a church, and they ask me "Are you a calvinist?" Should I say yes or no? What if I don't want to be known as a calvinist? Is it honest for me to say no?

 

[Iconoclast]

I make my positions clear without labels. And you have quite the hutzpa to decide you know the motivation behind everyone who opposes labels.

I know what i see...when i see it. Your positions are not made so clear by the way.

 

[Iconoclast]

So if I believe the bible teaches Total depravity, unconditional election, irresistable grace, and perserverance of the saints...I and I interiview for a Job at a church, and they ask me "Are you a calvinist?" Should I say yes or no? What if I don't want to be known as a calvinist? Is it honest for me to say no?

just say No:laugh: without the fifth point you can say no...not yet anyway but i am working on it. lol

A few weeks ago there were postings about how calvinists sneak into non cal churches to infiltrate and sneak up on everybody.....
I guess the labels can be used to speak about them:laugh:

 

[convicted1]

Though I am not an Arminian, I am closer to that theology, so I accept that label. I reject that a christian can lose/forfeit their salvation, and I believe that faith is a gift of God(which Arminianism rejects, if I am thinking correctly).


I have no problem with labels, but I do have a problem with how others manipulate them.

 

[Winman]

Though I am not an Arminian, I am closer to that theology, so I accept that label. I reject that a christian can lose/forfeit their salvation, and I believe that faith is a gift of God(which Arminianism rejects, if I am thinking correctly).


I have no problem with labels, but I do have a problem with how others manipulate them.

I also am not Arminian, because I also do not believe you can lose your salvation. But unlike Willis, I do not believe faith is a gift. I believe all men are born with the ability to express faith.

That said, I do not believe any man could possibly believe on Jesus unless God had graciously revealed him to us. And I believe Paul himself expressed this in scripture.

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Notice Paul asked three questions here all involving ABILITY, he starts each question with the word HOW.

First, he asks how can anyone call on Jesus unless they have believed on him. No man will call on Jesus unless he believes he is the Lord. If a person simply thinks Jesus was an ordinary man, he is not going to pray to Jesus.

Second, Paul asks how anyone can believe on Jesus unless they have heard of him. No supernatural regeneration mentioned here whatsoever, just the logical question of how can a person believe on someone they have never heard of?

Third, Paul asks how shall they hear without a preacher. Again, no mention of a person needing to be regenerated to have the ability to hear, but the logical question of how shall they hear unless someone goes and preaches the gospel to them?

Now, if ever there was a time to tell folks that regeneration is necessary for a person to hear and believe the gospel, this passage is where Paul should have told us. But Paul does not mention one word about the necessity of being regenerated to have the ability to hear and believe here, or anywhere else in all of scripture. It is incredible to believe that Paul would forget to mention such an important doctrine if it were true, but that is exactly what happened, Paul did not mention the need for regeneration to hear or believe.

No, Paul said they simply need a preacher to come and preach Jesus Christ to them, and then they can believe.

But back to the OP, I do not agree with Arminianism, and so I do not like to be labelled as such. I agree with Willis, in my view it is closer to the truth, but not completely accurate in my view. And I do not agree with Willis perfectly, I do not think faith is a gift.

Now, I would say faith is a gift in the respect that we could not believe unless God had revealed Jesus to us through the scriptures. The Word of God is absolutely a gift from God. But I do not believe a person must be regenerated to believe the Word of God. I do not believe any person can be regenerated until AFTER they believe, because until you believe you are DEAD IN SIN. No person can be spiritually alive while they are still in their sins, and no man can be forgiven their sins until they believe on Jesus.

 

[12strings]

Though I am not an Arminian, I am closer to that theology, so I accept that label. I reject that a christian can lose/forfeit their salvation, and I believe that faith is a gift of God(which Arminianism rejects, if I am thinking correctly).

I have no problem with labels, but I do have a problem with how others manipulate them.

So to take the opposite idea...if Convicted 1 or winman were interviewing at a church, and they asked him if they were an arminian (and hinted that they did not agree with arminian theology), would it be honest for him to say no? [keep in mind that not all arminians believe you can lose their salvation, so that fact alone does not disqualify you from being an arminian].

 

[Scarlett O.]

I don't care for the hoopla of denominational labels. I think that they are divisive. I don't bear the Southern Baptist label. I don't think of myself as a Southern Baptist. I think of myself as a Christian who attends a Southern Baptist Church. I'm not so arrogant as to think that my membership in a Southern Baptist Church is going to mean anything for eternity. It isn't. It doesn't mean a whole lot to me right now.

And I'm not so arrogant as to think that my Southern Baptist membership makes me have a monopoly on the Truth.

 

[Winman]

So to take the opposite idea...if Convicted 1 or winman were interviewing at a church, and they asked him if they were an arminian (and hinted that they did not agree with arminian theology), would it be honest for him to say no? [keep in mind that not all arminians believe you can lose their salvation, so that fact alone does not disqualify you from being an arminian].

First, I am not a pastor, so I would not be interviewing. But if someone asked me if I were an Arminian or a Calvinist, I would answer "neither". I beleve both contain error, though I believe Arminianism is much closer to what the scriptures teach than Calvinism. I believe all men retained free will after the fall and can choose to believe or not. But I do not believe we are saved by persevering. To me that is a form of works salvation. I believe we are a new creation when we have believed, we are born again and indwelt by the Holy Spirit who will never leave us. I believe in what is called Preservation of the Saints.

I am also not a Pelagian. I do not believe any man could possibly be saved without the grace of God. Man left to himself will never seek the true God. Actually, what I believe is that man left to himself cannot CONCEIVE of the true God. I believe the Word of God itself is this grace that convicts and teaches a man so that he can believe in Jesus and be saved.

I think of myself as a Bible believer, however I know this offends people, as it seems to imply they do not believe the scriptures. I do not believe that, but I do believe many misinterpret the scriptures. They believe the Bible, they just err interpreting it.

That said, I do not think I am infallible whatsoever. But concerning free will, I think the Bible is very clear men have free will. I also believe the Bible clearly teaches that faith precedes regeneration.

 

[Herald]

So if I believe the bible teaches Total depravity, unconditional election, irresistable grace, and perserverance of the saints...I and I interiview for a Job at a church, and they ask me "Are you a calvinist?" Should I say yes or no? What if I don't want to be known as a calvinist? Is it honest for me to say no?

Since you left off "definite atonement" that puts you in the Amyraldian camp. If you're interviewing for a pastoral position you may have a problem with both groups - those who hold to the doctrines of grace and those who don't.

See, this is why labels are beneficial. I'm not debating whether Amyraldianism is right or wrong at this point. Save that for another thread. But what if you interviewed with a free will church and you said, "No way! I'm not a Calvinist. I don't hold to the five points." Technically you'd be right. But you also wouldn't be completely honest because your affirm the other four points which are just as onerous as definite atonement to a free will church. The same would go for the church that believes in the doctrines of grace. Your position on definite atonement would separate you from what they believe.