oooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnneeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggiiiiiissssmmmmmmmmmm
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
oooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnneeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggiiiiiissssmmmmmmmmmm
And therein lies the contention behind this particular label. It is a misrepresentation (at least, the way that the OP stated it) of what people believe.But that is my point. People on this form call me a Calvinist all the time. I don't bother to correct them. The term, even though it is wrong, is a common short hand term for the 5 Heads of Doctrine of the Canons of the Synod of Dordt. It would be silly (not to mention a bit childish) of me to object to the term when it is being used in a way that is compatible with what I believe.
I am not against labels at all. I am advocating for the disuse of "rejected labels". My very screen name is a label. If someone wanted to label me as a Sapper, I'd be all for that. But if they labeled me as a Ranger, I'd reject that. And if they insisted on that label, then I'd know that they didn't want any serious discussion of my occupation in the military.But that is the point. It is not the label. It is the doctrinal understanding behind the label.
But without labels, how could you discuss the issues?
Above I said I was a "5 pointer." That is a label that effectively identifies the starting point for our discussion. Without that label how could we even start the discussion?
I will not attempt to answer for Rev, as I don't know his mind. But for me, the rejection of the label stems from the post where Reformed said that Synergists believe that God CANNOT save man without man's cooperation. I do not personally know of anyone who believes that.This is the objection Reformed made to Revmitchels rejection of the word "Synergist." But while rejecting the word, he refuses to define what exactly he believes.
While I eschew the word Calvinist I am more than willing to state what I believe, without equivocation. And that is the problem. By complaining about the label, without explaining WHY he refuses the label, there is no place to start the discussion.
Dunno, guess it's it's a quirk of mine.Why don't you like them?
Agreed.
I don't like them either but I use them.
I don't like going to the dentist, but I go
HankD
Yep. Imagine if we had to take 15 words to describe the word "dentist" every time we discuss one.
[/QUOTE]I don't want your labels. if you are going to describe what I believe then you need to do it the way I do or your description is in error.
You are now being silly and over exaggerating.
Again I do not want your labels that are descriptions based on your presuppositions.
I am not fearful of that either. I never said I was fearful so your accusation is just false.Again another label (fearful) I never claimed to have. Neither is it the only option. It does help with your demonization.
If the people that you assign them to do not agree then no they are not accurate. Further it is disrespectful and only create animosity. it hurts reasonable discussion not furthers it. If you and anyone else is going to have a continued discussion you do not get to set the boundaries for that discussion all by yourself. You must both agree to terms. Cals want to set the boundaries (i.e. what the characterizations and labels are to be) and then demonize anyone who will not accept them. And around here cals dog pile on anyone who will not agree to cal boundaries.
In the end you guys do not want reasonable discussion you want to be right and defeat others with whom you disagree. These discussions are all about win and lose and you guys are willing to do anything to win.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Your definitions are spot on theological sense of these two terms.You don’t want labels? Fine. I can describe you as someone who believes that God cannot save a sinner unless the sinner exercises his free will. It’s just a pain in the neck to constantly type the whole thing out. That’s why theologians use shorthand, in the form of labels, to describe established theological positions. You use labels. Do you refer to yourself as a Christian? Pastor? American? Male? Do you ever use the word Trinity? No? Then how do you describe these things? You refer to me and others who believe as I do as Calvinists, so labels are good for us but not you? It’s no big deal because most of us don’t object. We’re not fearful of publicly stating what we believe. If you use labels (which you do) then your objection to other labels is much ado about nothing. I’m going to continue to use them because they are accurate contrary to what you state.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
We have to define the theological wording used, or else we end up as the Cultists do, in totally redefining Christianity!But that is my point. People on this form call me a Calvinist all the time. I don't bother to correct them. The term, even though it is wrong, is a common short hand term for the 5 Heads of Doctrine of the Canons of the Synod of Dordt. It would be silly (not to mention a bit childish) of me to object to the term when it is being used in a way that is compatible with what I believe.
But that is the point. It is not the label. It is the doctrinal understanding behind the label.
But without labels, how could you discuss the issues?
Above I said I was a "5 pointer." That is a label that effectively identifies the starting point for our discussion. Without that label how could we even start the discussion?
This is the objection Reformed made to Revmitchels rejection of the word "Synergist." But while rejecting the word, he refuses to define what exactly he believes.
While I eschew the word Calvinist I am more than willing to state what I believe, without equivocation. And that is the problem. By complaining about the label, without explaining WHY he refuses the label, there is no place to start the discussion.
Dentist : A medical professional who has a medical degree and practitioners license who can legally be addressed as "doctor" however is not licensed to practice medicine as a "general practitioner".Yep. Imagine if we had to take 15 words to describe the word "dentist" every time we discuss one.
I disagree. It is a well established theological term with a very specific meaning.It is a misrepresentation (at least, the way that the OP stated it) of what people believe.
I disagree that is what he meant. I answered it privately, but will repost it here.But for me, the rejection of the label stems from the post where Reformed said that Synergists believe that God CANNOT save man without man's cooperation. I do not personally know of anyone who believes that.
When Reformed says that God CANNOT save a man without his cooperation, I don't think he is saying that God lacks the power, or authority, or the ability to do so, but that, as you say, He has chosen to allow man's cooperation. And as "He changest not, neither is there shadow of turning" once He makes that decision it is not subject to change. So in that sense, because of His decree to allow man's cooperation He can no longer, to be consistent, disallow it.
The Monergist does not say the Synergisty limits God. The Monergist says that God is able to save whomever He pleases. The Synergist says that God is able to save all but has chosen to only save those who cooperate with Him.
The problem the Monergist has with that is that the bible seems to clearly say that the lost man does not seek God, he doesn't accept the spiritual things of God, he thinks the whole thing is foolish, he can't understand them because such understanding requires spiritual discernment that only comes through the indwelling and illuminating ministry of the Holy Spirit in the life of that person. He is, in fact, the enemy of God.
Another logical fallacy of the undistributed middle. It is not "either juvenile sarcasm" or "not understand the issue."I can't tell if this is just juvenile sarcasm or if you really do not understand this issue.
ROFLDentist : A medical professional who has a medical degree and practitioners license who can legally be addressed as "doctor" however is not licensed to practice medicine as a "general practitioner".
Oops - that was more than 15 words
HankD
Reformed said that Synergists believe that God CANNOT save man without man's cooperation. I do not personally know of anyone who believes that.
Reformed said:I can't even respond to you point-by-point anymore because I no longer take you seriously.
This is not about winning. You refused ad infinitum, ad nauseaum to own your own position. You obfuscate, misdirect, play the martyr, and ask for threads to be closed when you can't get your way. You look like a tool when you play this game, that's why I can't take you seriously. I'm more than happy to engage with people who disagree with me; even if they do so vigorously, so long as they're honest about what they believe.Revmitchess said:I guess you win then don't you.
This is not about winning. You refused ad infinitum, ad nauseaum to own your own position. You obfuscate, misdirect,
play the martyr,
and ask for threads to be closed when you can't get your way.
You look a tool when you play this game,
that's why I can't take you seriously.
I'm more than happy to engage with people who disagree with me; even if they do so vigorously, so long as they're honest about what they believe.
How many free will devotees do you know who believe that God will sovereignly regenerate an unbelieving sinner against their will?
So, according to the free will position, God will not violate individual free will.
Man MUST believe BEFORE he is regenerated.
Any free willer who believes God can regenerate a person, and then that person can still accept or reject the gospel is confused.
His real objection to a label is when his error is exposed he can claim the label does not really reflect his view, but he never clarifies it because he knows his error will be manifest.You don’t want labels? Fine. I can describe you as someone who believes that God cannot save a sinner unless the sinner exercises his free will. It’s just a pain in the neck to constantly type the whole thing out. That’s why theologians use shorthand, in the form of labels, to describe established theological positions. You use labels. Do you refer to yourself as a Christian? Pastor? American? Male? Do you ever use the word Trinity? No? Then how do you describe these things? You refer to me and others who believe as I do as Calvinists, so labels are good for us but not you? It’s no big deal because most of us don’t object. We’re not fearful of publicly stating what we believe. If you use labels (which you do) then your objection to other labels is much ado about nothing. I’m going to continue to use them because they are accurate contrary to what you state.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro