what do you want to be called?

[Johnv]

Since my church is Reformed Baptist, I by obligation am an adherent of Reformed Theology, which includes facets of Calvinism. I have no particular problem with being referred to as a Calvinist, but I don't think that this sums up by beliefs in entirety.

 

[Rippon]

I have no particular problem with being referred to as a Calvinist, but I don't think that this sums up by beliefs in entirety.

I don't mind being called a Baptist, but that certainly doesn't convey what my entire beliefs are.

 

[Johnv]

Likewise a good comment, Rippon.

 

[kyredneck]

I don't mind being called a Baptist, but that certainly doesn't convey what my entire beliefs are.

Right on. :thumbs:

 

[David Michael Harris]

Christian for me will do.

Someone called me a trophy of grace when I first got saved, then I fell flat on my face, so sinner saved ( and I guess being saved ) by grace will do to.

 

[MrJim]

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.

Yeah, biggest reason I left the Reformed Baptists is they were the most arrogant [offensive language deleted] around~you make my case nicely.

 

[rbell]

um, is profanity really necessary?

 

[David Michael Harris]

Yeah, biggest reason I left the Reformed Baptists is they were the most arrogant around~you make my case nicely.

Yeah, that was a bit undisciplined, even if we ALL know what you mean, in a lot milder sense.

Offensive language removed from quote

**Moderator note: Offensive language will NOT be tolerated on this board**

 

[Tom Butler]

I think we all agree that one-word descriptions are not comprehensive, since we all have some variations that can't be neatly summarized.

It reminds me of a brother who was teaching us how to present the gospel to the lost. He counseled us not to ask someone if they were a Christian, because Christian means different things to different people. If they said yes, then where do you go from there?

So we had to devise other ways to determine someone's spiritual condition.

But, that said, the one-word descriptions to provide some information to the questioner.

 

[Johnv]

I think we all agree that one-word descriptions are not comprehensive, since we all have some variations that can't be neatly summarized.

Very true.

 

[MrJim]

Yeah, that was a bit undisciplined, even if we ALL know what you mean, in a lot milder sense.

:laugh: I run with a rather suspicious, cynical & sarcastic crowd; it spills over now 'n then:tonofbricks:

 

[David Michael Harris]

:laugh: I run with a rather suspicious, cynical & sarcastic crowd; it spills over now 'n then:tonofbricks:

I know, it can rub off on you.

Bad company corrupts character, something I seem to be still leaning.

 

[John Toppass]

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."

It kinda bothers me that it bothers you that I claim to be and do not mind being known as a Christian and do not want to be known as a follower of anyone but Jesus Christ.

But that is OK, I still enjoy and get blessings from believing the whole Bible and not just certain parts.

 

[Tom Butler]

It kinda bothers me that it bothers you that I claim to be and do not mind being known as a Christian and do not want to be known as a follower of anyone but Jesus Christ.

But that is OK, I still enjoy and get blessings from believing the whole Bible and not just certain parts.

John, I have no objections at all to your calling yourself a Christian, and wanting to be known as a follower of Christ.

The context of my post was the heat of debate or discussion. Imagine a discussion over Calvinism, and one of them says, "well, I'm a Biblicist." There is no other way to take that remark than that my brother is saying that he believes the Bible and I don't. It is a clear putdown.

Once a group of us was discussing Calvinism, and one of our group had no clue what we were talking about. He said, "I don't know anything about that. I'm just a Christian." I took no offense at that remark because he meant none.

It bothers me that during a discussion that such a remark as "Well, I'm just a Christian" is aimed at jabbing me or putting me down.

See the difference?

 

[John Toppass]

John, I have no objections at all to your calling yourself a Christian, and wanting to be known as a follower of Christ.

The context of my post was the heat of debate or discussion. Imagine a discussion over Calvinism, and one of them says, "well, I'm a Biblicist." There is no other way to take that remark than that my brother is saying that he believes the Bible and I don't. It is a clear putdown.

Once a group of us was discussing Calvinism, and one of our group had no clue what we were talking about. He said, "I don't know anything about that. I'm just a Christian." I took no offense at that remark because he meant none.

It bothers me that during a discussion that such a remark as "Well, I'm just a Christian" is aimed at jabbing me or putting me down.

See the difference?

Tom, I do see the difference. What bothers me is the folks that think if I am not Arminiest then I must be Calvinist when in fact I am niether. What I do understand is that the truth that is in both beliefs were true looooonnnnng before these mere men came along.

 

[Dr. Bob]

The context of my post was the heat of debate or discussion. Imagine a discussion over Calvinism, and one of them says, "well, I'm a Biblicist." There is no other way to take that remark than that my brother is saying that he believes the Bible and I don't. It is a clear putdown.

I always answer "I'm a five-point biblicist". Fun to watch the expressions

 

[Tom Butler]

I always answer "I'm a five-point biblicist". Fun to watch the expressions

Then try to imaginine the reaction when i describe myself as a "right-wing, redneck, deep-water Baptist."

 

[asterisktom]

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.

Grace Christian. That would be the best definition IMO. While not shying from the term "Calvinist" I feel uncomfortable having a person's name attached to what i believed. Moreover there are things Calvin believed that I don't, being Baptist.

I understand that many might think "Grace Christian" is too general - don't all Christians believe in grace? - yet, rightly understood, that is the man difference. Having thought a lot on this one question I decided that grace - sovereign grace, not the denatured alternative - was the one deciding, essential difference.

 

[AnotherBaptist]

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.

Calvminian. :laugh:

 

[Victorious]

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.

I call myself a "Spurgeonist" because I hold more to his views that are Calvinistic. A label only identifies you as someone who interprets scripture a certain way.

As far as I'm concerned you can call me anything, but first call me "Christian."