Being a Calvinist is Good?

[Christian]

I think I would rather just be known as a Christian because there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:12) :thumbs:

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Amen!That's Right.:thumbs:

 

[PeterM]

PeterM, are you saying that you never once benefitted from a teacher or preacher who instructed you in the Word? Are you that much of a spiritual island that no one has taught you? Then you must be God's Superman, because I know of no one who does not learn from godly teachers and preachers in their Christian walk.

Are you trying to play gotcha???

Of course I have, as have we all. I don’t think that is germane to the discussion that is occurring here. What I am not personally comfortable with is labeling myself with another man’s name based on particular doctrinal positions… even if I agree with some or all. If you believe that the Calvinist/Arminian labeling advances the Kingdom, then label, label, label. I know what I believe and am confident because it is biblical, not because it can be identified with a historical figure or popular “preeeeecher man.” I am a passionate follower of Jesus Christ and I am content to allow that to speak for itself.

Blessings

 

[2BHizown]

In todays culture the word 'christian' is pretty meaningless and is used instead of 'protestant' or even 'baptist'. But when I say 'calvinist' there is no doubt that I fully support plenary inerrancy and the doctrines of grace! There are many who call themselves 'christian' that give one pause when thinking of what Christ called them to!

 

[Andy T.]

Are you trying to play gotcha???

Of course I have, as have we all. I don’t think that is germane to the discussion that is occurring here. What I am not personally comfortable with is labeling myself with another man’s name based on particular doctrinal positions… even if I agree with some or all. If you believe that the Calvinist/Arminian labeling advances the Kingdom, then label, label, label. I know what I believe and am confident because it is biblical, not because it can be identified with a historical figure or popular “preeeeecher man.” I am a passionate follower of Jesus Christ and I am content to allow that to speak for itself.

Blessings

O.k., I take it that you don't like labels. So I would expect that you'll soon be shedding the term Baptist and would encourage your church to do the same.

I think you misunderstand the use of the label Calvinism. Most, including myself accept it reluctantly and not without qualifications. Again, it is just shorthand for a set of doctrines. It has no prestige in my mind that it is associated with John Calvin. I've never even read Calvin.

Just as labels "Baptist" or "Methodist" connotes a certain set of beliefs, so do the labels "Calvinism" and "Arminianism"; understanding that any label requires explanation or qualifications, since none of us are exactly the same in our beliefs.

 

[Christian]

Just as labels "Baptist" or "Methodist" connotes a certain set of beliefs, so do the labels "Calvinism" and "Arminianism"; understanding that any label requires explanation or qualifications, since none of us are exactly the same in our beliefs.

You are right and it is a shame isn't it knowing that Jesus, as He prayed to the Father said " And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. John 17:19-21. And in the early Christian church there was unity. Acts 2:46

 

[PeterM]

O.k., I take it that you don't like labels. So I would expect that you'll soon be shedding the term Baptist and would encourage your church to do the same.

I think you misunderstand the use of the label Calvinism. Most, including myself accept it reluctantly and not without qualifications. Again, it is just shorthand for a set of doctrines. It has no prestige in my mind that it is associated with John Calvin. I've never even read Calvin.

Just as labels "Baptist" or "Methodist" connotes a certain set of beliefs, so do the labels "Calvinism" and "Arminianism"; understanding that any label requires explanation or qualifications, since none of us are exactly the same in our beliefs.

I appreciate you pointing out what I seem to "misunderstand." I guess in the nearly 20 years as a believer and 10 years as a minister I have missed some great epiphany on this issue. :smilewinkgrin:

The truth is that this debate has gone on for about 4 centuries, and there is no resolution in sight. I have stated in other posts on other threads that I consider myself to be “Calvinistic” in my overall thinking and approach to the specific doctrines that surround soteriological issues. That said, as I work “on the street” doing practical ministry with the both the saved and the lost, it simply isn’t something I ponder or emphasize. I happen to believe that the Great Commission is my personal responsibility to fulfill so I proclaim God’s Word in the hope that people will be made glad in the Lord (ie saved). I also hold passionately to the fact that at the end of the day, everyone that is chosen by God will be regenerated and redeemed.

I also believe that while healthy discussion is good on these issues, we ought to be careful to not allow our differences to divide which is the reality now, at least in the SBC. Will I shed the Baptist moniker? No, denominationalism is a necessary evil. I wish there was no need for such divisions, but there are. I am SB not because I necessarily like it, but because I believe that SB best reflects my passion for global missions yet I can still have certain freedoms theologically. That fact may change in the future. Baptists in general have a rich history that dates back to the days of English Seperatism and to the Reformation itself. Certainly in the U.S. baptists have had considerable influence. I accept that label, albeit with certain reservations so that I to can excersise an influence I may have.

Our need to label and catagorize ourselves and others in many circumstances may make some feel more comfortable, but in the end we continue to seperate ourselves in hostility and damage our testimony with those we exist to see saved.

 

[Andy T.]

PeterM,

I agree. We are much alike. I do not define or emphasize my Christian walk in terms of Calvinism. And I am always hesitant to use the C-word around people who may know little about it or have misconceptions. But when discussing doctrine with people who have knowledge in the area, the C-word can be useful shorthand, that's all. Like I said earlier, I much prefer the phrase, "Doctrines of Grace".

 

[npetreley]

PeterM,

I agree. We are much alike. I do not define or emphasize my Christian walk in terms of Calvinism. And I am always hesitant to use the C-word around people who may know little about it or have misconceptions. But when discussing doctrine with people who have knowledge in the area, the C-word can be useful shorthand, that's all. Like I said earlier, I much prefer the phrase, "Doctrines of Grace".

I agree. In fact, I used to avoid the word "Calvinism" as much as possible, especially because I have read almost nothing at all by Calvin. I've gotten into the habit of using "Calvinism" here on BB simply because I assume everyone knows it refers to the doctrine of election. I know that isn't a valid assumption for everyone, but it's easier to type. Maybe I'll try to go back to my old habits.

I still refuse to use the term "Arminianism", however, because it doesn't even come close to describing what the free-willers on here say they believe. The free-willers espouse something much closer to semi-pelagianism than Arminianism. And there's a HUGE difference between the two.

I also wouldn't say "doctrines of grace" even though I know it's a great description. The problem is that free-willers believe in grace, too. They simply assign it a different role in soteriology. So it's too easily misunderstood. I think "doctrine of election" makes the difference more clear.

 

[Rippon]

This debate has gone on far longer than a mere 4 centuries . It has taken place since the time of the closing of the canon . You have heard of Augustine and Gottshalk and Bede and Bradwardine and Wycliffe and Luther and Bucer haven't you ? They were having debates about Calvinism before the term came into existence . I am also saying that it is shorthand for so many biblical doctrines . Even though arrows may fly hoping to hit their fictional Calvinistic target I'll accept the nickname -- brickbats and all .

 

[saturneptune]

This debate has gone on far longer than a mere 4 centuries . It has taken place since the time of the closing of the canon . You have heard of Augustine and Gottshalk and Bede and Bradwardine and Wycliffe and Luther and Bucer haven't you ? They were having debates about Calvinism before the term came into existence . I am also saying that it is shorthand for so many biblical doctrines . Even though arrows may fly hoping to hit their fictional Calvinistic target I'll accept the nickname -- brickbats and all .

We all have an opinion on this, and will find out for sure in eternity.