So, you don't like to be labeled?

[humblethinker]

I'm not trying to be thick, I'm just want to understand the logic in all of this.

If person "A" believes that man possesses a measure of faith, even though in a state of sin, and can use that faith to believe the gospel and trust in Christ, how do we describe that person's theological position regarding salvation?

If person "B" believes that man is not only in a state of sin, but unable to respond by faith, except that Holy Spirit first regenerates him, and then becomes able to believe the gospel and trust in Christ, how do we describe that person's theological position regarding salvation?

I suppose we could say about "A" that he "believes that man possesses a measure of faith, even though in a state of sin, and can use that faith to believe the gospel and trust in Christ" every time we discuss that particular view of salvation. The same for person "B." We could say (when discussing that view), "man is not only in a state of sin, but unable to respond by faith, except that the Holy Spirit first regenerates him, and then becomes able to believe the gospel and trust in Christ."

If we're not going to use some descriptive label to differentiate between beliefs then we're going to have the vowel and consonant police after us!

Yes, you see the problem accurately... The label would be much too long to still be considered a label. I think you'd just have to label the person's belief as "<TheirName>ism" and just make a note in your ledger as to what you think it describes and move on, no?

 

[Tom Bryant]

The problem with labels in terms of what the Bible says is that we are trying to systematize all of biblical truth, in this case, soteriorlogy, into a 1 word answer. The Bible is much more nuanced than that.

 

[humblethinker]

The problem with labels in terms of what the Bible says is that we are trying to systematize all of biblical truth, in this case, soteriorlogy, into a 1 word answer. The Bible is much more nuanced than that.

I agree. A label can be more than one word, of course, and a container can have multiple labels, but I'm sure that's not disagreeable to any reasonable person. What you and others describe would seem to be an abuse or misuse of the idea of labels. I would propose that labels don't provide a final solution but are tools to manage information. I agree that some people incorrectly use them as a final solution but that's no reason to reject labels to the extent as some are on this board. If the label was accurate is there no possible way that the label would be appropriate? I just don't understand the aversion to any possible labels to the extent as some are taking it.

I am American. Would that label be acceptable? I am a Christian. I am a male... so many more could apply... even labels about beliefs. Labels about beliefs are, IMO, generalizations and I believe without any qualification needed that the label may not apply as I understand it normally would. This is just rediculous... -labeled-.

 

[Tom Bryant]

Think for a moment about the label "Calvinist". I would imagine that most of those who call themselves Calvinists would disavow some of what he wrote. Do they believe what he said about ecclesiology? Do they believe what he believed about eschatology? The idea of a label simplifies beliefs to the point of misrepresentation.

You are an American, but it is not helpful at all as to what being an American can mean. We've all heard people called Anti-American, even when they are citizens.

What is a Christian? In some places, it means anyone who is not a Jew or a Muslim. In other areas, it might mean people who are members of the Church of Christ. To us it might mean something entirely different, in fact I hope it does.

What is a Baptist? Being a Baptist means alot different than what it did 100 years ago.

Go back in 1 Corinthians, Paul condemned them because they had some in the church who labeled themselves of Paulist or Peter-ist or Apollo-ists and the really super-spiritual group who called themselve Christ-ists.

I understand that labels can be helpful, but over time, and in this culture, over a short period of time, the meanings behind those labels change. That's why I have a difficult time with all the labels being thrown around.

 

[humblethinker]

Think for a moment about the label "Calvinist". I would imagine that most of those who call themselves Calvinists would disavow some of what he wrote. Do they believe what he said about ecclesiology? Do they believe what he believed about eschatology? The idea of a label simplifies beliefs to the point of misrepresentation.

You are an American, but it is not helpful at all as to what being an American can mean. We've all heard people called Anti-American, even when they are citizens.

What is a Christian? In some places, it means anyone who is not a Jew or a Muslim. In other areas, it might mean people who are members of the Church of Christ. To us it might mean something entirely different, in fact I hope it does.

What is a Baptist? Being a Baptist means alot different than what it did 100 years ago.

Go back in 1 Corinthians, Paul condemned them because they had some in the church who labeled themselves of Paulist or Peter-ist or Apollo-ists and the really super-spiritual group who called themselve Christ-ists.

I understand that labels can be helpful, but over time, and in this culture, over a short period of time, the meanings behind those labels change. That's why I have a difficult time with all the labels being thrown around.

I'm cool with that. I just think it can be silly for some to go to the extent that it seems some are going in rejecting labels. We should lighten up and not take ourselves so seriously. Can anyone on the BB produce evidence that a correctly given label resulted in the very thing they wanted to avoid, providing, of course, that it was reasonably avoidable? Such evidence would be that using the label resulted in a response that would not have been warranted or expected had the full explanation been given instead. Maybe specific actual examples could be given for me to better understand the objection to the correct use of labels.

 

[psalms109:31]

1 Peter 1:12
It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things.


Regeneration before faith is ridiculous it is the words of Jesus that is the words of life and faith comes from the word about Christ and from Christ. We are born again through the enduring word of God without it we are dead, by just walking away from life. Jesus is our life. We are to listen and learn freom Him to find rest for our soul and rest in Him.

Just because someone says they are a label does not mean i am going to believe them just because they say they are one of us.

 

[MorseOp]

Regeneration before faith is ridiculous it is the words of Jesus that is the words of life and faith comes from the word about Christ and from Christ. We are born again through the enduring word of God without it we are dead, by just walking away from life. Jesus is our life. We are to listen and learn freom Him to find rest for our soul and rest in Him.

Well, since everyone is now avoiding labels all I will say is that those who believe that regeneration precedes faith also believe that Bible contains the words that lead to life. I don't think either side disputes that fact.

 

[Herald]

Well, since everyone is now avoiding labels all I will say is that those who believe that regeneration precedes faith also believe that Bible contains the words that lead to life. I don't think either side disputes that fact.

Somehow I think the areas in which both sides agree are easily ignored by most of us.

 

[mandym]

I'm cool with that. I just think it can be silly for some to go to the extent that it seems some are going in rejecting labels.

I just think that it can be silly for some to go to the extent that it seems some are going to label others who reject them.

 

[convicted1]

I just find it odd that most BB non-cals do NOT want to be called Arminians (because they disagree with one point and don't believe you can lose your salvation...which not all arminians believe anyway)...BUT, if someone were to come on the BOARD and promote Total depravity, God's choice of who will be saved, irresistable calling, and perserverance of the saints, and maybe even limited atonement as well...but that person insisted they were not a calvinist...WOULD THEY BUY IT? OR WOULD THEY CONTINUE TO CONSIDER HIM A CALVINIST?

I don't mind being called an Arminian at all. But if someone asked me what camp I would fall in, and I told them Arm, then they might say, "so you believe in a fall from grace?" If I told them "no", then they might say I am not in that camp then. It's like the four pointers; they will not be considered Cals unless they hold to all five points.

 

[psalms109:31]

Well, since everyone is now avoiding labels all I will say is that those who believe that regeneration precedes faith also believe that Bible contains the words that lead to life. I don't think either side disputes that fact.

Only those who drink of His blood and eat of His flesh which His word and the life He lead has life in them before that we all are all dead sinners. Jesus word is Spirit and life without it you are dead so eat and drink to have life eternal. Regeneration before faith is simply ridiculous.

 

[convicted1]

Only those who drink of His blood and eat of His flesh which His word and the life He lead has life in them before that we all are all dead sinners. Jesus word is Spirit and life without it you are dead so eat and drink to have life eternal. Regeneration before faith is simply ridiculous.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[MorseOp]

Only those who drink of His blood and eat of His flesh which His word and the life He lead has life in them before that we all are all dead sinners. Jesus word is Spirit and life without it you are dead so eat and drink to have life eternal. Regeneration before faith is simply ridiculous.

If you left off the "regeneration before faith is simply ridiculous" part I think those who believe that regeneration precedes faith would agree that there is no other way to eternal life than through the shed blood of Jesus Christ.

 

[psalms109:31]

If you left off the "regeneration before faith is simply ridiculous" part I think those who believe that regeneration precedes faith would agree that there is no other way to eternal life than through the shed blood of Jesus Christ.

Life before the medicine the words of life is ridiculous. Do a search with Spurgeon on this.

I have to get back to work God bless you in your study. I will be on later.

 

[MB]

This is meaningless to a Calvinist MB, and that is where you err: You are of the opinion that the beliefs and statements by Jacobus Arminius himself are actually germaine to what "Arminianism" and the label itself means...in this you err greatly....To Calvinists....only what Calvinists CLAIM he stated and believed are at issue. And when they relate it falsely, you are not, under any conditions, allowed to offer these types of corrections. You are to be "labelled" only upon the definitions of the words as they set forth and you are not, in any way, permitted to quote the man himself.

Silly MD, don't you know that Trix are for kids, and the beliefs of all others are to be understood only as explained by Calvinists themselves???


No, Calvinists have taken it upon themselves the right to define the meaning of all terms.....Arminius is not EVER allowed to speak for himself...only a Calvinist is allowed to speak for him...Where have you been?

When failure arises sarcasm takes over.
MB

 

[Yeshua1]

Think for a moment about the label "Calvinist". I would imagine that most of those who call themselves Calvinists would disavow some of what he wrote. Do they believe what he said about ecclesiology? Do they believe what he believed about eschatology? The idea of a label simplifies beliefs to the point of misrepresentation.

You are an American, but it is not helpful at all as to what being an American can mean. We've all heard people called Anti-American, even when they are citizens.

What is a Christian? In some places, it means anyone who is not a Jew or a Muslim. In other areas, it might mean people who are members of the Church of Christ. To us it might mean something entirely different, in fact I hope it does.

What is a Baptist? Being a Baptist means alot different than what it did 100 years ago.

Go back in 1 Corinthians, Paul condemned them because they had some in the church who labeled themselves of Paulist or Peter-ist or Apollo-ists and the really super-spiritual group who called themselve Christ-ists.

I understand that labels can be helpful, but over time, and in this culture, over a short period of time, the meanings behind those labels change. That's why I have a difficult time with all the labels being thrown around.

That is why i tend to see MOST of what the Board sees as Calvinism in JUST matter regarding Sotierology itself, NOT the whole system of it, as held by the reformed!