Featured How do you identify yourself?

Yes sir I understand. Perhaps if you look at this post you will understand what I believe.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=83145

 

This would be great if we were all spices. Sorry but I just don't buy your reasoning of the label.. Who says we need to know what the beliefs of someone are in order to have a discussion. Especially when no single label correctly defines what a person believes. There are people here who believe many parts of many different categories you would use. Therefore when you do label them you are wrong in your thinking of them. Why not just admit that you use labels to frustrate the conversation. To try and place your self above them.
MB

 

So quick, are you a Christian? Yes or no? Or would you not want to be identified as such since some people have differing ideas of what a Christian is?

Not all labels used by all people are meant to frustrate a conversation or place one person above another...If I call someone a "scholar" or "Gentleman",I am actually doing the opposite.

 

Some want to be vague in order to get more members. A prime example is seen in many arguments to drop "Baptist" from their church name.

 

Why Change the Name of Our Church?

 

Well at least it would be the truth to me instead of an insult.

True you would be but, being called something you aren't, or for that matter anything you do not desire to be related to isn't the same thing is it? There is nothing complementary about being called the follower of someone you never even heard of until you first came here. Labels rarely communicate anything complementary unless it is that persons desire to be related to that particular name. Calling someone an unfamiliar name doesn’t do the victim any good does it.?
I love being called Christian because it is what I am. I do not like being called Arminian because I do share in the beliefs of Armininus and most assuredly I am not his follower. Actually Arminianism is closely related to Calvinism. In fact it came from Calvinism.
Those who label others are trying to place them in categories I know that but until you know all of that persons beliefs the name you call them doesn't actualy place them in any category except in your own mind. Again it builds the labeler up and puts down the victim of what ever name you have called them.
I'm told we should be building each other up instead of putting each other down. When I'm called something I'm not I'm being put down. If I'm called by a name that actually relates to me, it builds me up. It complements me.
MB

 

Just who are "THEY"?

Also my original comment still stands: "I see no evidence in the above post that you are a biblicist!"

 

He's intentionally being obtuse. It's best to ignore him and let him think he's being clever by changing DoG to dog and making passive aggressive insults.

 

The next one who labels me is going to be labeled themselves. I've thought of calling them skipper, because they skip over half of scripture to get to there conclusions. After all it defines what they do with scripture.
MB

 

OK.....how bout Radical Christian?

 

Who is "Them" & "They" ?

 

Too broad and undefined for me. Tells me nothing, because it leaves me wondering how you define Radical. Are you some kind of right-wng nut-case, or a flaming liberal? I may draw from the label that you are pretty intense about living out your beliefs. But it tells me nothing about what they are.

 

I do not care for the use of radical because I see it as a negative. A so called radical Christian means an over the top and rebellious person. And while there may be a sense in which that is true, I do not believe that is the attitude in which we should conduct ourselves from. It is a standard of the world and not of God. It does not represent the sound and mature mind of a Christian that we are called to be grounded in.

I have also seen the use of this poor term "radical" with regards to Jesus. While all that I have said to this point is also true of its use with regards to Christ it also sets up the world's standard as the standard which is primary and needs to be changed. This is wrong and denies the authority of God.

God's standard is the primary standard in all of creation. The radicals are those in this world who fight against God. Satan is a radical not Jesus. I am offended at its use by Christians and it should be repudiated, scorned, rejected, and soundly reproved.

God is the standard and not the world. That is the bottom line.

 

So what label did Christ use for Himself?

 

Son, comforter, physician, Son of man, brother, Jesus of Nazareth, the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star, Good Shepherd, the Light of the world, bread of life (Peter labeled Jesus as Christ, but He said tell no man, He also said some will come n my name saying "I am Christ")...

Got something else in mind?

 

All of these different labels described Christ and who He is. How ever Arminian or Pelagan or Universalist do not describe me.
Pelagius did not believe man needed any divine intervention. I’m saved and I know better. With out the Holy Spirits intervention convicting me and convincing me of the gospel I never would have submitted to Christ.
Arminius has his own 5 point doctrine I do not believe as He did. I do not believe man can loose his Salvation or, that man is so totally depraved that he can’t come to Christ with out regeneration
Universalism is another I do not believe in. I do not believe all men and women will be saved eventually.
Calvinist on this board use these labels to insult those they disagree with.

Even when Calvinist call people freewillers while the term may be right they then redefine it to mean that those with free will are degrading God’s Sovereignty. When Sovereignty does not mean that we can’t have a choice with out God loosing His Sovereignty. A sovereign God can and does allow men certain freedoms. We do not live under a God who is totalitarian in His nature.
MB

 

When I was with the Bible Baptists I didn't like the way they said they were Bible Baptists.
They said it in scorn of other Baptists.
Also, that order of Bible Baptists I belonged to were Baptist Briders, not only Baptist Briders, but Bible Baptist briders.
I left them, and called myself independent.
When I pastored, I shunned associations and fellowship because these had a funny way of morphing into lords over the Lord's sheep, dictating what member churches were to hold to as doctrine, what practices to keep, which to shun, who to fellowship with, who to part with.
Now I'm Primitive Baptist.
I'm happy to identify myself as Primitive Baptist.
I belong to a group who does not condemn anybody to hell on account of their religion, ideology, theology, soteriology, creed, race, or whatever divides God's people from His other people in this fallen world.
I belong to a group who believes that God is sovereign and accountable to no one. PERIOD.
He says he will be merciful ON WHOM he wants to bestow mercy, and compassion likewise. PERIOD.
He said he saved His people not by works of righteousness which they do, but according to His mercy. PERIOD.
He made NO DEMAND from the sinner PRIOR to the sinner's regeneration. PERIOD.
We worship Him in accordance with how we believe the original New Testament church, now gone to heaven, worshipped Him.
Singing. Prayer. Preaching.
PERIOD.
The only thing I add, when I say I'm Primitive Baptist, to anyone who asks, is: NOT THE FRED PHELPS TYPE.
PERIOD.