Featured Dont box me in as a C or an A

Because they want to identify with what they see the Bible itself teaching, and not something named after men.

Peter said that some things that Paul taught were hard to understand and that they that are unlearned and unstable wrest ( twist ):

" Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
15 And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 as also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." ( 2 Peter 3:14-16 ).

Does that mean that as believers in Jesus Christ, we are to shy away from what Paul taught, or to consider it to be a "waste of time"?
No, and I see no reason to believe that if someone preaches or teaches exactly what Paul did in all of his epistles, that we are to not only embrace it and agree with it, but refrain from casting it aside as being "of men"...

Which Paul said that the things given to him were not, but were of God ( Galatians 1:11-12 ).
Therefore, everything contained in his epistles ( as well as Peter's, John's, etc ) is all the word of God and "Gospel truth".


We should neither shy away from it, nor call it by any other name than what it is....
because it is written on the pages and was given to God's apostles by Him.

 

IMO, because many people often end up following men and their teachings exclusively.

They associate themselves with men like Jakob Hermannszoon ( Jacobus Arminius ), Jean Cauvin ( John Calvin ), John Wesley, Martin Luther and others because they not only agree with them, but in effect they take their understandings of the Scriptures ( mainly ) from them and their writings...

Whether it's from their pastors having read them and taught what they taught,
or other well-regarded teachers with whom they agree.


Because of that,
I see that those who don't wish to be categorized as "C" or "A" are stating that they do not take their understandings of the Scripture from men, but from God.

As an example of that,
Many who name the name of Christ down through the years have explicitly taken that position, and refuse to be associated as "Calvinists" even though they view salvation similarly to what Calvin himself taught in his "Institutes".

Others who claim to not be "Arminians" or "Welseyans" ( though teaching very similar to what he did or what John Welsey did ) have taken the position that they are not "Arminians", while some who claim to be neither ( but believe and teach elements of both ), take the position that they are neither.

 

I would say, "I am a Bunyan" as I like and prefer the teachings of John Bunyan... But... That does not have a good sound to it!

 

"Baptist" as far as persuasion is not in scripture. Why do you call yourself one?

 

Why do I not like the label Calvinism or Arminianism

I come from a baptist background on both sides of my family. Some of them were preachers some of them were scoundrels. I was baptized over sixty years ago and up til about ten years ago I had no knowledge of either C or A.

I do not like systematic theologies as they usually lead to an abuse of scripture. If either C or A strays form the bible then they are wrong.

I'm a Baptist. I trust what the bible says in clear simple language. I do not have to read into the text a special meaning. I trust in the Holy Spirit to guide me into a correct understanding of the scriptures so do not depend upon a man made system. I was a Christian long before I ever came across Calvinism or Arminianism.

I think this will give you an idea of where I am coming from:


Is Jesus Lord without being our savior? Yes


Is Jesus our Savior without being our Lord? No


Does Jesus expect those who know him to live a certain way? Yes


Do those "certain ways" in any way determine if one is saved or not? No


Can someone know Jesus as Lord and Savior, and thus be saved, but not fully understand what all of that means? Yes

Labels, as I see it, are a major problem in the body of Christ. Some will spend more time and effort defending the label than they will defending the bible.

 

Labels are typically attached by others who assume agreement in part is agreement in whole. They can become both a distraction and hinderance to the focus upon the truth.

I typically don’t like labels accept when a more specific topic is discussed, such as election, perseverance, security, justification, …

There are those of us who react too quickly to labels.

For example, if one is labeled as autistic, folks immediately typically place that person into some extreme personality of which may be totally inaccurate.

The same applies to the C and A viewpoints.

Some automatically assume Calvinists teach double predestination. (Imo) Some may, but most do not.

One other reason is that there is a certain caustic element associated with both labels which is the catalyst for alarm and division of unity. There seems no end of misrepresentation concerning one labeled.

Perhaps Paul had the best answer when people were puffing up one person over another.

5What then is Apollos? And what is Paul?
They are servants through whom you believed, as the Lord has assigned to each his role.

6I planted the seed and Apollos watered it, but God made it grow.

7So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow.

8He who plants and he who waters are one in purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. 9For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.​

 

Some avoid all labels because if they take a stand and cannot defend their position, they get embarrassed, rather than welcoming correction and learning from it.
Some will say well I am a baptist.
This many times means, I believe baptism is taught in the bible, and I think I believe in Jesus, but I am shamefully ignorant of God, His Holy attributes, in fact I do not even know anything about anything, but I can read baptist on the church sign, so I can just go blend in with others who know very little.

 

I do not think so, because:
Matthew 1:21, ". . . thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. . . ."
Luke 2:11, ". . . For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. . . ."
Isaiah 43:11, ". . . I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. . . ."

 

Understand the context.
Christ Jesus is the savior of the world. agreed
Is Jesus our Savior without being our Lord? No

Notice what it says, if we have trusted in Christ Jesus then He is our Lord. We cannot say we are saved and claim the Christ Jesus is not our Lord.

Hope that clears up any confusion that you may have.

 

I am not sure I follow your thinking here. Jesus in His humanity is Lord of all, both of the lost and the saved. As God He is the sole Savior.

 

Silverhair sez: "I'm a Baptist. I trust what the bible says in clear simple language. I do not have to read into the text a special meaning. I trust in the Holy Spirit to guide me into a correct understanding of the scriptures so do not depend upon a man made system. I was a Christian long before I ever came across Calvinism or Arminianism"

Absolutely!! Either position can be "PROVED" by isolating certain scriptures, so to categorically proclaim that either "IS GOSPEL/TRUTH/FIXED", is to, IMHO, "add to" scripture. Which ain't real smart!!
Again, just MHO!!

 

I suppose you are unaware of the use of Lord. There is in one sense what you are saying is correct. There is another common use and found in scripture such as Romans 10:9 where He is submitted to and proclaimed He is Lord. Two very different and common used of that word and one doesnt negate the other.

 

There was and I guess still is a belief that you can "accept Christ as Savior" and then later, and it's an option, accept him as Lord. Campus Crusade used to call it the carnal Christian doctrine. John MacArthur had a couple of books on Lordship salvation that refuted that. I don't know if that is what Silverhair meant but that's what I thought of. (And if you're a super accurate Calvinist don't correct me for saying "accept Christ". I'm only quoting what I've heard folks say.)

 

Do you feel the same way when a cultist claim their position can be supported by scripture?

 

Old enough to have seen & heard all sorts of “stuff” provable by isolating verses!!!!!!
CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT!

 

I would have to surmise that you do not think the Holy Spirit will guide those that actually seek His guidance. Do you think the Holy Spirit only reveals things to people that think like you?

I will ask you the same question, Do you, Iconoclast, feel the same way when a cultist claim their position can be supported by scripture? If not then why would you think someone else would?

 

So...can we know truth?
Can we know what is The Faith once delivered to the saints?
How do you determine what church to attend?

 

You like several others violently abuse verses that taught the Apostles would be guided into ALL TRUTH.
You are not.
Any truth a person welcomes comes by the indwelling Spirit of God.
You and all others who have a mistaken notion that everything they believe is from God are boderline deluded. Do not even begin to blame the Spirit for your denial of several scriptural truths.
No...when I see a cultist I listen to see where they deny scripture.
I do the same with those who deny the doctrines of grace.
When you are familiar with the truth, it is easy to spot the false.
God has given many gifted teachers to the churches over time.
I make full use of them and constantly check my understanding with what more gifted persons have seen in their bibles, and written good solid study material.
Obviously, healthy Christians are going to read their bibles primarily,but it is ludicrous to suppose God given teachers are to be totally avoided.