what do you want to be called?

[Tom Bryant]

I know this is like asking the tide not to come in, but I hope that one side of the issue would not answer for the other, but let me ask each side a question:
For those who are "calvinists": What name would you use to describe your position?

For those who are not Calvinists, is there a name you would use to describe what you believe?

I am asking this because it seems a first step in discussing these issues would be for each side to quit labeling the other.

 

[John Toppass]

I hope that people can see that I can be called a Christian.

 

[kyredneck]

I personally don't take offense at being called Calvinist as far as TULIP is concerned. I believe in God's Sovereign Grace, but 'Sovereign Gracer' doesn't sound just right.

Monergist would probably be as good as any handle out there.

 

[Aaron]

To be labeled a Calvinist is an honor to me.

 

[kyredneck]

To be labeled a Calvinist is an honor to me.

Aaron, you are right. It IS an honor to be labeled a Calvinist. Never mind the nuances.

 

[Aaron]

:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[preachinjesus]

I would conisder myself a historical general baptist in my theology.

While I more reformed than not I believe too much that the Bible teaches freedom of the will to get into the determinism part.

 

[Tom Butler]

As a Baptist Calvinist, I don't have a problem with that label, or with being labeled Reformed. I do have a problem with people mis-labeling what I believe.

Baptist Calvinists are not Presbyterian Calvinists. Nor are we Reformed Presbyterians or Lutherans.

That's why I don't label Baptist non-Calvinists as Arminians. Semi-pelagian, maybe, but not Arminian. Arminians believe one can lose his salvation. Most Baptists don't (except the Generals and the Free-Wills).

It is most helpful to the discussion when one has a correct understanding of what his opponent's label actually means. One should not reveal his ignorance by mis-characterizing an opposing view.

 

[Jim1999]

Generally labelled Jim, but known as a baptist of the calvinist persuasion. That will do.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Tom Bryant]

As a Baptist Calvinist, I don't have a problem with that label, or with being labeled Reformed. I do have a problem with people mis-labeling what I believe.

Baptist Calvinists are not Presbyterian Calvinists. Nor are we Reformed Presbyterians or Lutherans.

That's why I don't label Baptist non-Calvinists as Arminians. Semi-pelagian, maybe, but not Arminian. Arminians believe one can lose his salvation. Most Baptists don't (except the Generals and the Free-Wills).

It is most helpful to the discussion when one has a correct understanding of what his opponent's label actually means. One should not reveal his ignorance by mis-characterizing an opposing view.

I agree. That's why I wanted to ask.

Both sides take a phrase of the other and magnify it to the point of absurdity.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Generally labelled Jim, but known as a baptist of the calvinist persuasion. That will do.

Cheers,

Jim

I'll drink to that (sips diet Sprite).

 

[Jon-Marc]

I'm not Calvinist and am called a Christian. I have been called other names I won't repeat. :laugh::laugh:

 

[Tom Butler]

Could I add one more thing that bothers me?

Please do not insult me by calling yourself a "Biblicist." It smacks of smugness and arrogance because it suggests that you are and I'm not. We Baptists are all Biblicists.

And, we are all Christians. It adds nothing to the debate or discussion to say, "Well, I'm just a Christian."

 

[pinoybaptist]

......I am asking this because it seems a first step in discussing these issues would be for each side to quit labeling the other.

Actually it is not the labeling that fuels a lot of animosities and such, it is the insinuations, at this time by non-Calvinists, that Calvinists are either "loose in the head", downright heretics, blasphemers, or naive and stupid to believe in such doctrines.
Just take a look at the posts in the threads.
I for one would like to see a civil and objective discussion, but if someone starts swinging a "bat", hey, I'm all for it.

 

[kyredneck]

Could I add one more thing that bothers me?

Please do not insult me by calling yourself a "Biblicist." It smacks of smugness and arrogance because it suggests that you are and I'm not. We Baptists are all Biblicists.

And, we are all Christians. It adds nothing to the debate or discussion to say, "Well, I'm just a Christian."

Thank you. What's the problem with stating or deciding what side of the fence you're on? It's either man cooperates with God in the new birth or God doesn't require man's cooperation in the new birth. Are you 'Free Willer' or 'Sovereign Gracer'? Arminian or Calvinist? Synergist or Monergist? What do you want to be called? It is a pertinent question.

 

[MrJim]

While I go to an American Baptist church we've been visiting the Southern Baptist church in town. They've finally nailed down a new pastor. One of the requirements was that he was NOT Calvinist...and as a former Calvinist that has my

Christian, believer, disciple~~any of these is enough for me..otherwise we fall into "I am of Paul/Apollos/Luther/Calvin" [edit]..but enjoy your CalvinISM, it was fun for me while it lasted though I wish I had those 10 years back.

 

[zrs6v4]

Unless I am mistaken the point of this thread isnt to baptized into any other name than Christ, which should be obvious. But I think he is bringing out the obvious that everyone's theology can have some sort of basic set of beliefs that have been "named/labelled" in the past. In other words, everyone's views arent new and can be labeled. The point of saying "I am a Calvinist" or "I am an Arminian" is to save hours of pointless debate that could be summed up by saying my views are similar or the same as ...... If you have a set of views and do not realize that they are historically summed up by a particular label, I think it is wise to be open to looking into the label you have been given rather than to take offense.

With that said, I would consider myself a Calvinist because my views are very similar to those who are "Calvinists".

 

[Tom Butler]

Unless I am mistaken the point of this thread isnt to baptized into any other name than Christ, which should be obvious. But I think he is bringing out the obvious that everyone's theology can have some sort of basic set of beliefs that have been "named/labelled" in the past. In other words, everyone's views arent new and can be labeled. The point of saying "I am a Calvinist" or "I am an Arminian" is to save hours of pointless debate that could be summed up by saying my views are similar or the same as ...... If you have a set of views and do not realize that they are historically summed up by a particular label, I think it is wise to be open to looking into the label you have been given rather than to take offense.

With that said, I would consider myself a Calvinist because my views are very similar to those who are "Calvinists".

Yep, I think we're all looking for some sort of one-word shorthand to describe ourselves. Even though each word may have some subtle variations in definition, we get the general idea.

We have 40-leven kinds of Baptists these days, but if I say I'm Baptist, most people will know something of what I believe.

Some of our descriptions are and have been used as epithets. Remember, we did not adopt the name Baptist. It was given to us by those who wanted us dead. They intensely disliked those...those...those...Baptists!

Sorta like the opponents of Calvinism and Landmarkism today.

Although, I will say I've never had anybody refer to me as "you...you..you..Monergist!"

 

[Allan]

..snip.. Some of our descriptions are and have been used as epithets. Remember, we did not adopt the name Baptist. It was given to us by those who wanted us dead. They intensely disliked those...those...those...Baptists!
..snip..
Although, I will say I've never had anybody refer to me as "you...you..you..Monergist!"

Now dat's funny right d'air :laugh:

 

[ReformedBaptist]

While I go to an American Baptist church we've been visiting the Southern Baptist church in town. They've finally nailed down a new pastor. One of the requirements was that he was NOT Calvinist...and as a former Calvinist that has my

Christian, believer, disciple~~any of these is enough for me..otherwise we fall into "I am of Paul/Apollos/Luther/Calvin" [edit]..but enjoy your CalvinISM, it was fun for me while it lasted though I wish I had those 10 years back.

For those new to the debate, the above response is an example of the stupidity often displayed in the debate/discussion.

I am fine with any label, as long as the meaning is understood. When discussion Calvinism with folks in the past both on boards like these and in person, to say I was a Calvinist meant to that person what most of us understand to be hyper-calvinism. If memory serves me correctly, John R. Rice was pretty bad at distinguishing between Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism.

I have been called certain labels meant to be negative which are:

1. Baptist
2. Bible-believer

When it comes to the Calvinism/Arminian debate I have no problem with being called a Calvinist or Historic Calvinist as long as the meaning of the terms are defined and agreed upon.

I won't debate with someone who insists that accepting such a lable means I am a follower of John Calvin instead of Christ. It is such and ignorant and stupid position that I won't even bother with it anymore.