# Calvinist, Arminiast, Baptist, Luthren, Christian...



## default (Jun 10, 2005)

OK, I've seen it used time and again even here on PB. Calvinism (calvinist_) and Arminian etc. REferring to 1 Cor 1 where Paul addresses the Corinthians on this exact issue I refer to myself as a Christian. Why is there a need to use any other ":label"? If one desires to know where another stands biblically, it doesn't really help to say "baptist." in that not all who attend baptist churches agree 100%with the baptist doctrine.

So, my question, isn't it direct disobediance to take on any other name than Christ?


----------



## BobVigneault (Jun 10, 2005)

No, don't confused labels with identity. Calvinist and Arminian are shorthand to save a whole lot of 'splainin' regarding our theology. It helps us to find others of like mind and spirit to fellowship with. Our identity is in and of Christ. That's the quick answer.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jun 10, 2005)

"christian" has been so broadly used and misused that we at times need to find a way to describe our theological beliefs (as stated above). Just saying "I believe in the Bible" doesn't help anyone to know where you are coming from anymore....so many say that and then twist or add their own meaning or point of view into the scriptures. Like stated above...saves alot of explaining.


----------



## openairboy (Jun 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Loriann_
> OK, I've seen it used time and again even here on PB. Calvinism (calvinist_) and Arminian etc. REferring to 1 Cor 1 where Paul addresses the Corinthians on this exact issue I refer to myself as a Christian. Why is there a need to use any other ":label"? If one desires to know where another stands biblically, it doesn't really help to say "baptist." in that not all who attend baptist churches agree 100%with the baptist doctrine.
> 
> So, my question, isn't it direct disobediance to take on any other name than Christ?



Loriann,

I go back and forth on the issue on pragmatic grounds. Labels have their place and are helpful, but they also carry a bunch of baggage. We found it helpful in high school to identify jocks, geeks, burnouts, preppies, and a host of other groups with a label, but I think it just allowed us to be safe in our clicks. Our theological labels enable us to do the same.

I started running with "Augustinian". It allows a lot more questions to be asked, leads to better conversations, and most people don't think of me as a grumpy know-it-all. I suddenly find myself conversing (real conversations not arguments) with geeks, jocks, preppies, and groups that used to have nothing to do with me.

So, no, I don't think you are directly disobeying Scripture, although the party spirit that usually follows these labels is in violation.

openairboy


----------



## default (Jun 10, 2005)

Thank you guys.

Keith, good point. But as you did point out, when we associate ourselves with one denomination or doctrine over another people tend to shut us off. For example (and confession) I had a family come to my door just Sunday from the local "New HOpe Fellowship" church. I immediately went into the same mode of thought, that they believe false doctrine and no sense to even try to talk with them. Besides, their purpose for coming was to try to get more "numbers" into their congregation. I simply said, thank you, now. He (The father) decided to then try to hand me a "salvations tract." I simply told him that I am a Christian and already in fellowship, thank you all the same. 

WE, 99.999 % of people automatically associate the person with that doctrine. If I say I am calvinst people shut down, even if I am not what is considered "Hyper Calvinism" But often, when given the chance at discussion (which is what I've learned to do)... people are open, and listen, and actually start thinking about doctrine if done in a conversational way.

Just my


----------



## sola_gratia (Aug 2, 2005)

So what do you think would be the best way to describe ourselves. In today's society christian seems very vague. Any ideas?


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Aug 2, 2005)

I was always told the earliest Christians did not call themselves 'Christian' till a later point in time (although still in the New Testament). Can someone confirm this? I seem to remember something about 'the Way' or 'People of the Way'.


----------



## sastark (Aug 2, 2005)

Christians were first called Christians in Antioch. See Acts 11:26.

Before that, it seems Christianity was referred to as "The Way". See Acts 9:2, Acts 19:9, Acts 19:23, Acts 22:4, Acts 24:14 and Acts 24:22.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 2, 2005)

I always call myself a "classical Christian."


----------



## Augusta (Aug 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I always call myself a "classical Christian."



That's a good one. I might use that.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



thank you, I have found that the terminology "classical" assumes a rightness about it and calms the fears of naysayers, all the while allowing you to maintain the rigthness of your cause. That, and it sounds cool.


----------



## brymaes (Aug 3, 2005)

> I always call myself a "classical Christian."



That's excellent.



> So, my question, isn't it direct disobediance to take on any other name than Christ?



The point of calling oneself a Calvinist, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc. is to clarify where one is doctrinally. It does not mean that we are placing anyone's opinion over the doctrine of Scripture, nor does it mean that we are exalting a man to the place of Christ. It's descriptive, in a similar fashion that "Christian" is descripive, only more specific.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 3, 2005)

R.L. Dabney:



> We Presbyterians care very little about the name Calvinism. We are not ashamed of it; but we are not bound to it. Some opponents seem to harbor the ridiculous notion that this set of doctrines was the new invention of the Frenchman John Calvin. They would represent us as in this thing followers of him instead of followers of the Bible. This is a stupid historical error. John Calvin no more invented these doctrines than he invented this world which God had created six thousand years before. We believe that he was a very gifted, learned, and, in the main, godly man, who still had his faults. He found substantially this system of doctrines just where we find them, in the faithful study of the Bible, Where we see them taught by all the prophets, apostles, and the Messiah himself, from Genesis to Revelation.



Loraine Boettner:



> We call this system of doctrine "Calvinism," and accept the term "Calvinist" as our badge of honor; yet names are mere conveniences. "We might," says Warburton, "quite as appropriately, and with equally as much reason, call gravitation 'Newtonism,' because the principles of gravitation were first clearly demonstrated by the great philosopher Newton. Men had been fully conversant with the facts of gravitation for long ages before Newton was born. These facts had indeed been visible from the first days of creation, inasmuch as gravitation was one of the laws which God ordained for the governing of the 'universe. But the principles of gravitation were not fully known, and the far-reaching effects of its power and influence were not understood until they were discovered by Sir Isaac Newton. So, too, was it with what men call Calvinism. The inherent Principles of it had been in existence for long ages before Calvin was born. They had indeed been visible as patent factors in the world's history from the time of man's creation. But inasmuch as it was Calvin who first formulated these principles into a more or less complete system, that system, or creed, if you will, and likewise those principles which are embodied in it, came to bear his name." - [Calvinism, p.23.] We may add further that the names Calvinist, Lutheran, Puritan, Pilgrim, Methodist, Baptist, and even the name Christian, were originally nicknames. But usage has established their validity and their meaning is well understood.


----------

