# Labels - Good, Bad or Deadly



## BobVigneault (Mar 29, 2005)

Josh recently suggested reading Will Metzger's book on evangelism - Tell The Truth. I am indebted to you Josh. What a refreshing treatment of the gospel and how we present it.

On page 108 he speaks of the use of labels, eg. arminian, calvinist, reformed and how labeling is a detriment to evangelism.

"Labels are deadly in Christian circles. For example, when it comes to the topic of the will, immediately certain views are categorized as Reformed or Arminian. The discussion then ends because it is thought (wrrongly) that as soon as you have given a name to something, you understand it. Instead, there should be continued dialogue in the Scriptures by all of us. Let's fight this labeling fallacy."

I believe there is a usefulness in our labeling here in our puritan community but I'm interested in what guidelines we might suggest for responsibly using labels - when it's good to use labels, when it's bad and if and when it's deadly.


----------



## kceaster (Mar 29, 2005)

*Bob...*

While I think that one needs to be careful when throwing out terms and labels to new Christians, we should not necessarily promote the converse of such. There is a balance. And if done in love and nurture and a willingness to go the distance, i.e., not the scorched earth mentality of Finney's New Measures, then I think in time all things will be equal.

Perhaps those who shout the loudest about this are the very ones who would also say, "no book but the Bible, no creed but Christ," along with, "doctrine divides."

In any case, being careful with the audience and respecting their knowledge level goes further than using or not using labels. My mom asked me not too long ago what a Calvinist is. I was very happy to explain it to her.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 29, 2005)

I'd agree with KC. It's not the labels necessarily that are bad, It's the refusal to really understand ones position. Most people today have no clue what the labels mean anymore anyway. Many Arminians don't fully understand what they believe. And sadly, many who call themselves Reformed today, have no clue what it means to be Reformed, or even worse, there's some who do know, but wish to change the meaning to their own devious schemes. In our age of confusion, you just need to go the extra mile to see where the other person really is theologically.


----------



## BobVigneault (Mar 29, 2005)

1. In our age of confusion, you just need to go the extra mile to see where the other person really is theologically.

2. Being careful with the audience and respecting their knowledge level goes further than using or not using labels.

Good, good.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 29, 2005)

As a side comment I just finished the same book and thought it was outstanding


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 29, 2005)

It's interesting to note that many labels start out as derogatory terms and then turn into badges of honor. "Puritan" and "Protestant" are classic examples. So is "fundamentalist." 

Almost all of the labels we use have historical roots and context that are meaningful to those who understand the etymology (witness "Huguenot," "Covenanter," "Reformed," etc.). 

We had a discussion on this board previously about the term "evangelical." Because the meaning has changed over time it's one that some on the PB today would reject. 

The same can be said of political terms. "Conservative" and "liberal" are really useless terms today, in my opinion, but they get tossed around a lot. 

There is power in the words that we choose to use. The goal should always be to shed light not heat. I am not ashamed to be called a historicist postmillennial Kuyperian National Confessionalist-Establishmentarian Westminsterian Reformed Presbyterian Calvinist Protestant Christian. But when it comes down to it, I am not of Paul or Appollos or Calvin or Kuyper, I am a follower of Jesus Christ.


----------



## BobVigneault (Mar 29, 2005)

Right Josh, labels are a great shorthand when you are discussing matters with persons who share a similar definition but in a general debate they can be very misleading.

Example, I refer to myself as 'reformed' but others would disqualify me for not being 'paedo' where as the 'arminian' would have no idea what 'reformed' means.

If we rely too much on labels then we run the risk of ending a profitable discussion too soon because we use may use a label to pigeon hole someone.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...


----------



## BobVigneault (Mar 29, 2005)

HA! I knew it! Andrew I had you pegged as a K.N.C-E.W.R.P.C.P.C the first time I laid eyes on you. I can no longer fellowship here, so long.


----------



## BobVigneault (Mar 29, 2005)

Sorry Andrew, I forgot the H.P. at the beginning. That makes all the difference in the world. Welcome brother.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 29, 2005)

heh heh  

Let's retire to the Puritan Pub where they don't serve alphabet soup and where we can celebrate the ties that bind with a pint!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 29, 2005)

"theologious" heh heh


----------



## heartoflesh (Mar 29, 2005)

In terms of evangelism, I think we should definately steer away from mentioning the C or A words. I know from first hand experience this can lead you down a rabbit trail.

When presenting the doctrines of grace with other believers I intentionally withhold these terms as well. What possible use could such terms serve? Scripture is Scripture and it speaks for itself. If and when someone accuses me of being a Calvinist, I will not deny it, but then it's them "throwing out the labels" and not me. I will then attempt to explain that I accept such a label only for the sake of historical distinction, not from some sort of "partisan pride".


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> heh heh
> 
> Let's retire to the Puritan Pub where they don't serve alphabet soup and where we can celebrate the ties that bind with a pint!



This would solve our many theological disputes would it not??  (where's that beer guzzling smilie...  )

[Edited on 3-29-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## BobVigneault (Mar 29, 2005)

We've discussed these before but for those who haven't seen it here is a list of suggestions that Piper gives for teaching 'Calvinistic' theology.

http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/doctrines_grace/calvinism.html


----------

