Should Christians call themselves Calvinists?

In all of my life I have never heard anyone, Calvinist or not, tell someone else they may not be one of the elect.

In all of my life, I have never heard any ask a believer about being one of the elect.

But for the sake of argument, lets say that in each of the instances I cited, the subject of being elect comes up. What should we tell the lost person?

Here's my suggestion:

"I don't know if you're one of God's elect. But I do know this. If I were you, and really worried about it, I would hit my knees and beg God for mercy. I would repent of my sins and ask God to save me.

You might ask, what if I'm not one of the elect. Well, Whether you are elect or not, you don't deserve to be. And if you are, it's not because you deserve it. And know this: God has never turned away anyone who will trust Jesus as Savior and Lord. Will you do it?"

 

The thing I see troubling is churches becoming thematic, stuck on one doctrine and it finds its way into everything. For instance, everything turning to election in every sermon. That to me is troubling. Christ should be central. We should glory in Him, not in our theological stance. What if Romans were all chapter 9 only?

Also, we are to tell them the Gospel, not Calvinism. However, if someone asked, there is ample Scripture, OT and NT supporting this truth that they could be shown. Why worry about what they would think? It's not a negative to show it to them. Truth is truth and election is a biblical doctrine. Spurgeon won an atheist to Christ, by knowing that the word "girl" only appeared once in the KJV, in Joel, after being challenged by an atheist if he knew where it was. People can be brought to Christ in strange ways beyond our thinking, this doctrine could be used to win them to Christ too.

I see this as no different. Why should we shy away from this doctrine? Why is everyone so scared of it? God's Word is alive, and active, even if the doctrine we don't like is being expounded. I would have no trouble telling anyone who asked about election what it means. Maybe God planned it that way, for them to ask thus, and use those Scriptures to prepare them for the Gospel.

Lastly, no one knows who is elect, and who is not. It's not our place to know the answer to who is and isn't elect.

 

I have not yet come across this situation, but since I am the kind of person that I am; I gaurantee you that I will not lie to a person when discussing salvation. They will hear what I believe.

Since that is such a sticking point for you, I felt compelled to answer. I somehow doubt during the sharing of the Gospel that the topic of the elect would come up, but it would not bother me if it did.

I'm off to church now, may God bless you and yours.

 

Then equally true when it comes to the doctrine of salvation as it has been framed in church history?

 

I suppose it all depends on what you mean by "call themselves Calvinists or Arminians". If you mean, "Should a Christian say, "I'm a Calvinist" or "I'm an Arminian" instead of saying, "I'm a Christian," my answer would be no. But if you are asking if it is ever right for Christians to use words like "Calvinist", "Arminian," "Amillenial", "Dispensational" and the like to indicate their theological stance, then I would say yes, use them, but with care.

 

IF he asks...yes.
it's basically the same thing as some here say....why hide the fact of what soteriology you adhere to ?
If he/she walks away, then so be it.
Otherwise, the Holy Spirit may already be working in him/her, which prompted the person to ask.
I know when first exposed to the doctrine I ABHORRED church, and BAPTISTS, in particular, for being so divided.
But the Holy Spirit kept on working, and in the end, He brought me round.
And then I HATED all Baptists for teaching me for so many years, that grace is free.....and then subtly telling me that I must have faith and without it, the sacrifice of Christ means nothing.
But further down I realized election does not depend on one's denomination or theology or soteriology or creed.
Scripture identifies the only predicates as mercy and grace.
This is Scripture.
Christ spoke of the elect, Paul taught election, Peter taught election and by all appearances ELECTION is a matter of fact to the early Christians.

 

I don't deny election. It's biblical. I deny the Calvinist interpretation of it.


I just imagine (when I was unsaved) what I would have thought if someone had told me that God may not have chosen me for salvation and if He didn't, then there was no hope for me. I would have said well then I guess God will save me or He won't so ppphhhhttt....I'll just go do what I want and forget about it. That's some bad witnessing if you ask me.

 

To answer the OP...only if they hold to all 5 points.

 

Yep, what's the use? Just live any ol' way you want. Afterall, there is nothing you can do about it, if God regenerates you, you will be saved, and if God doesn't regenerate you, you will be lost.

I don't know about other folks, but I could never respect or love a God like this. I mean, if I wanted to be a depraved sinner because I enjoyed sin, I would not like God regenerating me against my own will. And if I was a person who wanted to be saved, but thought I might not be elect, boy, I would really hate that God excluded me, especially when you are taught it is without reason. God is not damning you because you are any worse than any other sinner, and he is not electing the saved because they are any better, but simply saving some and damning the rest for his pleasure. That does not sound like a good or just God to me whatsoever.

Thank God I heard the true gospel that says "whosoever will may take the water of life freely" and that God "is not willing that any should perish"!!

 

:smilewinkgrin::smilewinkgrin::smilewinkgrin:

 

So there is a synergistic component to salvation? My will must agree to be regenerated. :thumbsup:

 

Annsni:

Heres "my take":

In all honesty, to us mere mortals, sin can be "fun" for a season. We, being "selfish" seek "fun" in whatever form it may come. To the person who listens and hears the spirit, learns innately that sin is rebellion against the commands of our Moral Maker. Unfortunately, so many of us "fail and refuse" to hear that voice of our maker and thus go about life on our own terms. Those of us who do "hear and respond" to the grace and mercy of our God, then understand the gravity and pain of sin, and thus seek to be Holy and live Holy lives. That is the journey of we the believers, to grow in our relationship and understanding of our maker, seeking to offer our lives a "living sacrifice" to the maker of our soul.

 

Oh, I'm pretty sure if I was living a life of debauchery and loving every second of it, if I hated God and wanted nothing to do with him, and then a second later I wanted to go to church, I would notice.

Before I got saved I did not hate God or Jesus. I believed God was good, I believed Jesus was good. But I had been taught I had to be a good person to go to heaven, and I tried to be a good person. I hated the Devil and everything about him.

But I did not understand the gospel. Oh, I knew I had sinned, I knew I had lied and done other wrong things, and I was ashamed of it. But I simply did not know I could trust Christ and be forgiven of my sins.

This is what kills me about Calvinism, they will say things like "Total Depravity does not mean we are as bad as we could be". Well, why not? What is keeping us from being as evil and bad as we can be if we absolutely have no ability to do anything good? It doesn't make a bit of sense. If we have no ability whatsoever to do good, then simple logic dictates we should be as evil as we possibly can be.

Why do we have a conscience? The conscience by definition means we know right from wrong and have an inclination or tugging to do that which is right. All men have a conscience.

No, the scriptures do not teach that unsaved man can do no good. Jesus himself said we who are evil can give good gifts to our children. He said sinners can love and do good, and he said their love and good is "the same" as ours.

Luke 6:32 For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.
33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.

 

Did Calvin precede Acts 11:26? Also why do Baptists wish they were Prysbterians?