Christian?

[Iconoclast]

Why is it liberals can never make legitimate comparisons.

Oh no......you used a descriptive label......liberal......how arrogant:wavey:

I did not see any liberals posting on this thread.....so it is subjective on your part to make such a rash statement

 

[Iconoclast]

Probably one of the most ignorant and obnoxious posts ever made on the BB.

well at least you didn't have any trouble putting two labels on the post lol Isee that as progress!

 

[Revmitchell]

Why is it liberals can never make legitimate comparisons.

Oh no......you used a descriptive label......liberal......how arrogant:wavey:

I did not see any liberals posting on this thread.....so it is subjective on your part to make such a rash statement

First I have never said that all labels are bad. My statement was not rash. Liberalism is a world view that drives other views such as any or all of Genesis is not literal, evolution has validity etc. They also have trouble making legitimate and equal comparisons and they often hold up readability equal too or a higher standard than than just translating words in Bible versions. They see man made science as a standard for interpreting scripture. I could go on.

There is a distince difference between using labels that glorify men such a Calvinism etc. and dispensationalism,Baptist, or even Reformed.

But then you already actually knew that.

 

[Iconoclast]

First I have never said that all labels are bad. My statement was not rash. Liberalism is a world view that drives other views such as any or all of Genesis is not literal, evolution has validity etc. They also have trouble making legitimate and equal comparisons and they often hold up readability equal too or a higher standard than than just translating words in Bible versions. They see man made science as a standard for interpreting scripture. I could go on.

There is a distince difference between using labels that glorify men such a Calvinism etc. and dispensationalism,Baptist, or even Reformed.

But then you already actually knew that.

ok thanks for the clarification I don't think the purpose of the labels is the glorify men I think it's too point to the origin of the base of the teaching that the person is holding two

 

[Rippon]

Liberalism is a world view that drives other views such as any or all of Genesis is not literal, evolution has validity etc. They also have trouble making legitimate and equal comparisons and they often hold up readability equal too or a higher standard than than just translating words in Bible versions. They see man made [sic]science as a standard for interpreting scripture. I could go on.

Apparently so. But whoa there partner. You are mixing a lot of things together -- or as you have just said: You "have trouble making legitimate comparisons."

Why in the world would you insert your personal translation preference to that of the only legitimate way of translation practice? It's not a liberal or conservative matter.

You might as well lob out your habitual accusation that those who think David Barton is a hack are liberals.

There is a distince [sic]difference between using labels that glorify men such a [sic]Calvinism etc. and dispensationalism,Baptist, or even Reformed.

Readability man, readability.

So those terms all glorify people?!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Probably one of the most ignorant and obnoxious posts ever made on the BB.

Marc......relax, its only the guys opinion. No big deal.:thumbs:

 

[DHK]

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop!
don't do it!"

"Why shouldn't I?" he said.

I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"

He said, "Like what?"

I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?"

He said, "Religious."

I said, "Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?"

He said,"Christian."

I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?"

He said, "Protestant."

I said, "Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?"

He said, "Baptist!"

I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?"

He said, "Baptist church of god!"

I said, "Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?"

He said,"Reformed Baptist church of god!"

I said, "Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?"

He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!"

I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1824932&postcount=1

 

[Iconoclast]

Probably one of the most ignorant and obnoxious posts ever made on the BB.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
Another helpful post. Those who argue most against labels for the most part are not confident at all in their beliefs. In fact they are afraid if someone actually questions them they cannot respond biblically...so they hide by complaining about the label so as to cover their defective ideas.

Some very smugly reply....I am a Christian......well so does a Mormon.

Probably one of the most ignorant and obnoxious posts ever made on the BB.

I do not see what is so "ignorant" about this post. In fact it seems to me that you meant to say.....insightful posts. If you doubt it, look at those who hate labels....then read their posts. let me know what you come up with.

If someone uses a label....lets say....they say- Icon...your posts sound like a person who is a Christian reconstructionist.
I then have all the time in the world to respond and explain my point of view, but because they throw a label at me...it gives me an idea that They are concerned I am drifting over the line in reference to the Law of God.

I can then deny the label, as I give my understanding of the Law.

No need to get all defensive. The need is for clarification and advancing the biblical discussion. What I see on BB is when someone zeros in on a poster who is in error...the poster either retreats like a turtle, and hopes the thread gets closed.....or they sneak into another thread and amend their answer trying to make like they did not post the error in the first place,:laugh::laugh:

So.... I comment on it...and I am arrogant?

 

[Reformed]

I rarely refer to myself as a Christian, whether with or without qualifications. The reason is because of what you wrote, with which I agree - it can mean anything to anybody.

Just as Bart Ehrman writes in all his agnostic teachings. There were "many christianities" in the early days, just as there are many christianities today.

So what do I call myself? A believer in Christ.

Believers understand that it means so much more than "Christian"

And as I just did in my previous statement, when I know I'm in the company of fellow believers in Christ, I usually contract it to "believer"

James,

I have had Mormons tells me that they are "believers in Christ".

 

[Reformed]

If one wants to know what I believe on anything at all, all one has to do is ask me. I can giver very detailed descriptions and defenses of what I believe without lables that glorify men.

Rev, I have no reason to doubt that you are able to articulate your beliefs. I am of a different opinion than you on labels glorifying men. The purpose of a label should not be to make a person look good, but to identify what a person believes. I have no skin in the game regarding John Calvin. I accept being called a Calvinist because of my soteriological stand. But do I consider it glorifying John Calvin? No. For me it is nothing more than a term that describes what I believe.

 

[JamesL]

James,

I have had Mormons tells me that they are "believers in Christ".

I've never heard a Mormon say that, but I've rarely heard anyone use that phrase. I suppose it goes to show that with those quick identifiers, we really can't know where someone stands. But they can help to start

On a different debate site I was on, someone used the identifier "Follower of the Way"

I really thought it was cool. However, it didn't take long there to find that she had a total works type view of salvation, and rejected all the writings of Luke and Paul

She would rail against Paul as Satan's plant in the church, and Luke as his cohort.

Then one day it dawned on me, and I pressed her......you know, Paul and Luke are the only ones who identify us as followers of the Way. Now if they're the corrupters you claim.......why is it that out of all the monikers to choose from, the only ones to use yours are the two men you reject?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

OK......I'm a radical Christian.:thumbs:

 

[MB]

In my opinion the problem is only when some one is miss-labeled. Like being an Arminian when you do not hold completely to that doctrine. One point Calvinist aren't really Calvinist at all and should not be referred to as such. A four pointer is not truly Calvinist. Yet there are plenty here.
Why is it Calvinist don't know what they are. They call them selves Calvinist but the truth is they are not really Calvinist but reformed Catholics.

John Calvin was an Augustinian, he didn't change his beliefs like the Catholic church did so he was no longer catholic but, instead reformed Catholic. Sort of like reformed Mormons huh!
MB

 

[Rippon]

In my opinion the problem is only when some one is mislabeled. Like being an Arminian when you do not hold completely to those doctrines.

[I corrected your grammar and spelling a bit.]
I think it would be okay to label one an Arminian even if a person doesn't hold to everything the Remonstrants believed --just most of their conclusions.

One point Calvinists aren't really Calvinists at all and should not be referred to as such.

Agreed.

A four pointer is not truly Calvinistic. Yet there are plenty here.

True.

Why is it Calvinists don't know what they are?

Why do you make that claim?

They call themselves Calvinists but the truth is they are not really Calvinists but Reformed Catholics.

Huh? Where are you getting all your misinformation from?

John Calvin was an Augustinian,

He could be called that. But don't confuse him with Martin Luther. Calvin wasn't in an Augustinian order before his conversion.

he didn't change his beliefs like the Catholic church did so he was no longer Roman Catholic but, instead a Reformed Catholic.

Your sentence is terribly confusing. Calvin did indeed change his beliefs! Most certainly he did upon conversion. He was never a "Feformed Catholic" --whatever that means.

Sort of like Reformed Mormons huh!
MB

?????

 

[quantumfaith]

The opposite is also true. Some hide behind their labels.

Don, often such inflated bravado provides over confidence in order to much too easily refer to others as "deficient" in some way.

 

[Reformed]

Don, often such inflated bravado provides over confidence in order to much too easily refer to others as "deficient" in some way.

And sometimes it is just a way of defining what someone believes. Nothing more than that. A person can have inflated bravado with out with a label or title.

 

[quantumfaith]

And sometimes it is just a way of defining what someone believes. Nothing more than that. A person can have inflated bravado with out with a label or title.

So, am I deficient simply because I do not acknowledge the same labels and theological proclivities as you?

 

[Rippon]

So, am I deficient simply because I do not acknowledge the same labels and theological proclivities as you?

Boy are you ever hard to please. He had said it is sometimes "it's just a way of defining what someone believes. Nothing more than that."

You're the one who spoke of the inflated ego thing remember?

 

[Iconoclast]

So, am I deficient simply because I do not acknowledge the same labels and theological proclivities as you?

No......there are other reasons. Do you take a stand on anything?
Every questionable belief......you embrace......you are so tolerant...that even error is okay....

 

[Reformed]

So, am I deficient simply because I do not acknowledge the same labels and theological proclivities as you?

Wow. You read all of that in my post? You have a vivid imagination.