# I don't like "Calvinism"!



## Nebrexan (Mar 1, 2009)

I agree 100% with what Burk Parsons wrote in the January 2009 Tabletalk:


> I have never been comfortable with the use of the term _Calvinism_. To begin with, I don't think Calvin would be all that pleased with our use of his name in our descriptions of those doctrines he believed to be the doctrines of sacred Scripture. What is more, I don't think the Lord is all that pleased with our assignment of His eternal doctrines to a mortal man. As we know, Calvin was one among many Reformers who remained faithful to Scripture, and under no circumstances would he have accepted any accolades for the divine grace he was supplied that enabled him to minister faithfully throughout his life. Calvin was a humble man who sought neither his own ends nor his own glory, but in all ways he sought first the glory of God, His righteousness, His kingdom. That said, we need to handle with great care our use of the word _Calvinism_ and make certain that when we use it we are doing so in light of these considerations.


If you've never seen Tabletalk, I highly recommend it. Each month's issue includes 8-10 articles on a common topic, and also includes daily topical or verse-by-verse readings. In January, the topic was Jonathan Edwards' resolutions, February's was the four Gospels, and this month's is authority. To me it's worth much more than it costs. My wife and I have our own subscriptions, as I tend to mark my copy up quite a bit.


----------



## Reformingstudent (Mar 1, 2009)

Was going to subscribe. Thanks for reminding me.


----------



## charliejunfan (Mar 1, 2009)

I think that's silly, If I asked you if you were a Christian and you said yes but then I said I thought it was funny how you believed in the pope, then you would go on to say that you were not catholic just Christian, then I would say, oh....so you believe that God did everything on the cross now we just gotta make a decision for Christ, then you would say, no I believe that God is 100% savior of man through Jesus Christ and His work applied by the Holy Spirit, then I would say, but I always heard you guys believed that God cannot surpass mans free will....Then you would say, no actually those are Arminians that believe that, then I would say, so they are not Christians? Then you would say some are, then I would say WHAT? So they are Arminians and Christians? well what do you believe then? Then you would say, I am just a Christian, then I would say WHAT? But those people who came from that church that you said was Arminian said THEY were just Christians, so what's the difference? Then you would say, well I follow the Bible, then I'd say, but those people said that too, then you'd say, but I believe that the Westminster Standards summarize the Bible's teaching best, then I'd say, WHAT!!! You said you were JUST Christian, now I'm Confused!!!!!!!!!!! What are you??????

I hoped this illustration helped show why I think Burk Parsons' quote is silly, we need some kind of explanation to separate us from other "Christians" just as one kind of CAR needs to distinguish itself from a different one. I am a Calvinist Christian or Reformed Christian unlike an Arminian Christian or a Mormon Christian. Why do we need to use those terms? Because of man's depraved mind and the corruption of doctrine following from those minds.

I of course think it's better to say Reformed than Calvinist, but then again I am actually reformed, what if a John Macarthur type had this situation? Would you appreciate him saying he is reformed even though that is not true? I guess it goes back to the defenition of reformed....

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Hippo (Mar 1, 2009)

I do not really like Tabletalk, it tends to be quite superficial, I do like Modern Reformation.


----------



## ww (Mar 1, 2009)

I disagree with Mr Parsons as well. At least we didn't name our denomination after him (Lutheranism comes to mind). I think we need to be careful not to downplay our Calvinism just so we can gain the acceptance of our Evangelical brethren.


----------



## Hippo (Mar 1, 2009)

It is also why I usually prefer to be called reformed rather than calvinistic.


----------



## Timothy William (Mar 1, 2009)

From what I can see in Mr Parsons' quote, a couple of the criticisms here miss the point somewhat. He is not saying that we should underplay Reformed or "Calvinistic" theology, or that we should not distinguish ourselves from other people or churches who hold to different systems of doctrine, only that we should be careful in using the name of a man to describe our system of beliefs. And I agree completely with Parsons. The dangers of naming ourselves after a man are many; 
-it is not something that a humble man like Calvin would have wanted, as already noted.
-it may cause us to focus overly on the work and thought of one man, rather than on the many Reformers and others in Church history.
-it means that an attack on the person of Calvin is considered an attack on all Reformed belief, thus giving rise to the silly error of critics who think that by insulting Calvin's intellect or character (with or without justification) they have disproved the theology that bears his name.
-it gives the impression that Calvinistic theology was invented by Calvin, either that he thought it up from scratch or that he had a new interpretation of Scripture. Whereas Calvin and other Reformers were at pains to demonstrate that their beliefs were not original but were a restating of the Gospel the Church had always held to.


----------



## charliejunfan (Mar 1, 2009)

I usually just say I am a Reformed Christian and then go on to explain that this term is derived from the Protestant Reformation and that John Calvin most clearly set forth systematized doctrines of the bible and that now we are known as Calvinist's by most. Reformed though has more to do with the Regulative Principle than the 5 points themselves.


----------



## ww (Mar 1, 2009)

Timothy William said:


> From what I can see in Mr Parsons' quote, a couple of the criticisms here miss the point somewhat. He is not saying that we should underplay Reformed or "Calvinistic" theology, or that we should not distinguish ourselves from other people or churches who hold to different systems of doctrine, only that we should be careful in using the name of a man to describe our system of beliefs. And I agree completely with Parsons. The dangers of naming ourselves after a man are many;
> -it is not something that a humble man like Calvin would have wanted, as already noted.
> -it may cause us to focus overly on the work and thought of one man, rather than on the many Reformers and others in Church history.
> -it means that an attack on the person of Calvin is considered an attack on all Reformed belief, thus giving rise to the silly error of critics who think that by insulting Calvin's intellect or character (with or without justification) they have disproved the theology that bears his name.
> -it gives the impression that Calvinistic theology was invented by Calvin, either that he thought it up from scratch or that he had a new interpretation of Scripture. Whereas Calvin and other Reformers were at pains to demonstrate that their beliefs were not original but were a restating of the Gospel the Church had always held to.



I really see all of these dangers as having little impact over the years on those of Calvinistic heritage. Sure they are dangers to be sure but really only a minute fraction of those who call themselves Calvinists have fallen prey to such dangers. I actually see this argumentation used quite often by those who want to remove the name as a stumblingblock and for me Calvinism in its full expression is "Reformed" Theology and in essence is the Gospel so I'm going to pass.

-----Added 3/1/2009 at 04:04:49 EST-----

I guess what I'm trying to say is I'm quite comfortable with the term "Calvinist" although I prefer "Reformed" but quite comfortable with either and I've never understood those like Mr Parsons who are "uncomfortable" with it.


----------



## Knoxienne (Mar 1, 2009)

Nebrexan said:


> I agree 100% with what Burk Parsons wrote in the January 2009 Tabletalk:
> 
> 
> > I have never been comfortable with the use of the term _Calvinism_. To begin with, I don't think Calvin would be all that pleased with our use of his name in our descriptions of those doctrines he believed to be the doctrines of sacred Scripture. What is more, I don't think the Lord is all that pleased with our assignment of His eternal doctrines to a mortal man. As we know, Calvin was one among many Reformers who remained faithful to Scripture, and under no circumstances would he have accepted any accolades for the divine grace he was supplied that enabled him to minister faithfully throughout his life. Calvin was a humble man who sought neither his own ends nor his own glory, but in all ways he sought first the glory of God, His righteousness, His kingdom. That said, we need to handle with great care our use of the word _Calvinism_ and make certain that when we use it we are doing so in light of these considerations.
> ...



I don't particularly like the term "Calvinism" either because it's not Calvin's doctrine. It's the Bible's. However, CharlieJun et al., are correct - "Christian" means anything and everything nowadays and unfortunately we need to use labels like "Calvinist" and "Reformed" in order to specify that we adhere to historic, orthodox, biblical Christianity.


----------



## Webservant (Mar 1, 2009)

Hmph, never mind the term "Calvinism" - I hate it when the guys from that big ol' Baptist Church go knocking on doors in my neighborhood, handing out tracts, and I tell them I am a Christian and they say, "Oh yeah, what church do you go to?". I cringe and say, "Why, I am Presbyterian..."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Timothy William (Mar 1, 2009)

whitway said:


> I really see all of these dangers as having little impact over the years on those of Calvinistic heritage. Sure they are dangers to be sure but really only a minute fraction of those who call themselves Calvinists have fallen prey to such dangers. I actually see this argumentation used quite often by those who want to remove the name as a stumblingblock and for me Calvinism in its full expression is "Reformed" Theology and in essence is the Gospel so I'm going to pass.



I agree, we have, for the most part, been kept from these errors. But we should not think ourselves totally immune, and they are errors which sometimes afflict other denominations, many of whom hold their founders (or other important figures in their history) to be above all possible criticism. I would not like to see us become like that about Calvin.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Hippo (Mar 1, 2009)

I fear it is time to roll out one of Spurgeons fine quotes:



> I have my own private opinion, that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is called Calvinism. I have my own ideas, and those I always state boldly. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism. Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith without works; not unless we preach the sovereignty of God in his dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor, I think, can we preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the peculiar redemption which Christ made for his elect and chosen people; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation, after having believed. Such a gospel I abhor. The gospel of the Bible is not such a gospel as that. We preach Christ and him crucified in a different fashion, and to all gainsayers we reply, “We have not so learned Christ.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lynnie (Mar 1, 2009)

I have relatives that are 5 point Calvinists and pretrib rapture dispensationalists, so I tend to not like the term myself. I don't think the 5 points are enough, you need to have a Covenantal theology.


----------



## steven-nemes (Mar 1, 2009)

I don't understand why my friends don't like the term. Something about "labels" and not wanting to be "labeled", but I don't understand any of that either...

I like the term Calvinist. "Christian" is not specific, "Reformed" is not as commonly known...


----------



## Knoxienne (Mar 1, 2009)

steven-nemes said:


> I don't understand why my friends don't like the term. Something about "labels" and not wanting to be "labeled", but I don't understand any of that either...
> 
> I like the term Calvinist. "Christian" is not specific, "Reformed" is not as commonly known...



True - another problem with "reformed" is when we say it, some people confuse it with "_Reform_ Judaism".


----------



## Hippo (Mar 1, 2009)

Knoxienne said:


> steven-nemes said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand why my friends don't like the term. Something about "labels" and not wanting to be "labeled", but I don't understand any of that either...
> ...



What, how dare they confuse us, stone them !

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SemperEruditio (Mar 1, 2009)

Timothy William said:


> -it may cause us to focus overly on the work and thought of one man, rather than on the many Reformers and others in Church history.
> -it means that an attack on the person of Calvin is considered an attack on all Reformed belief, thus giving rise to the silly error of critics who think that by insulting Calvin's intellect or character (with or without justification) they have disproved the theology that bears his name.
> -it gives the impression that Calvinistic theology was invented by Calvin, either that he thought it up from scratch or that he had a new interpretation of Scripture. Whereas Calvin and other Reformers were at pains to demonstrate that their beliefs were not original but were a restating of the Gospel the Church had always held to.



In my discussions with Arminians/Semi-Pelags that has been the problem. They use ad hominem arguments and to them the argument is settled. They see Calvinism not as the Bible but as something some guy made up. Yet will claim they are not Arminian nor Semi-Pelagian yet espouse those doctrines to the letter. What has been working as of late is to tell them I believe in the theology of grace. They ask me what that is and I simply respond that God's grace is sufficient. They agree. I tell them that man does absolutely nothing for their salvation and there they kinda squirm a bit. This is where the fun begins.


----------



## MMasztal (Mar 1, 2009)

Hippo said:


> I do not really like Tabletalk, it tends to be quite superficial, I do like Modern Reformation.



Ditto. The White Horse Inn radio show CDs are invaluable too.


----------



## DonP (Mar 1, 2009)

I am not fond of using a man's name either. Didn't God tell us not to say I am of Apollos and I am of Paul? So how do we get to say I am of Calvin? 

I prefer I hold to the doctrines of Grace, they usually ask what are they and I get to explain. Too many think if you use a man's name you are not following the Bible. 

So I say Christian, Reformed Presbyterian, Doctrines of Grace, God's sovereignty, And maybe, agree with the Westminster Confession's summary and interpretation of the essentials of the scripture. 

I avoid using the term Calvinism except when speaking of the 5 point theology which wasn't Calvin's. He was a 4 pointer. His followers split his theology into 5 points to match Arminius for a point by point debate. 
In His Service,


----------



## Skyler (Mar 6, 2009)

I would tend to agree with Parsons. My dad flat out rejects the term "Calvinist" because, as he says, "I don't follow Calvin." I follow the Bible. It just so happens that Calvin agrees with my interpretation of the Bible; whoop-de-do. So does my friend Matt. Should I call myself a "Matt-inist"?


----------



## Marno (Mar 7, 2009)

Nebrexan said:


> I agree 100% with what Burk Parsons wrote in the January 2009 Tabletalk:
> 
> 
> > I have never been comfortable with the use of the term _Calvinism_. To begin with, I don't think Calvin would be all that pleased with our use of his name in our descriptions of those doctrines he believed to be the doctrines of sacred Scripture. What is more, I don't think the Lord is all that pleased with our assignment of His eternal doctrines to a mortal man. As we know, Calvin was one among many Reformers who remained faithful to Scripture, and under no circumstances would he have accepted any accolades for the divine grace he was supplied that enabled him to minister faithfully throughout his life. Calvin was a humble man who sought neither his own ends nor his own glory, but in all ways he sought first the glory of God, His righteousness, His kingdom. That said, we need to handle with great care our use of the word _Calvinism_ and make certain that when we use it we are doing so in light of these considerations.
> ...



It is no more "uncomfortable" for me to use the term _Calvinism_ than it is to use the term _confessional_, and particularly (pun intended ) _Westminster_ confessional. The "label" is not to exalt the man or the assembly, but the biblical system of doctrine espoused thereby.


----------



## reformed trucker (Mar 7, 2009)

Hippo said:


> I do like Modern Reformation.





-----Added 3/7/2009 at 12:42:54 EST-----



SemperEruditio said:


> I tell them that man does absolutely nothing for their salvation and there they kinda squirm a bit.  This is where the fun begins.



You are a stinker, aren'tcha!


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Mar 7, 2009)

I never shy away from labeling myself a Calvinist, especially in theology discussion groups. It cuts through much confusion and establishes my presuppositions early in the discussion. As another post intimated, toadying to the hoi polloi by avoiding cogent labels is a transparent attempt at political correctness.


----------



## christiana (Mar 7, 2009)

Its specific and declares what one believes much clearer than 'reformed'.
I love the Spurgeon quote and am so thankful to be a five point flaming calvinist! Each point is mutually supportive of the others and when one states they believe in the five points of calvinism it is then quite clear they are a biblical christian!!


----------



## py3ak (Mar 7, 2009)

I like the addition of _flaming_. I think that is how we should label ourselves: it is distinctive, so it promotes questions. It's also very stylish. 
Flaming Calvinists of the world, unite!


----------



## Ivan (Mar 7, 2009)

Of course, "flaming" can have a different meaning today.


----------



## ReformedChapin (Mar 7, 2009)

py3ak said:


> I like the addition of _flaming_. I think that is how we should label ourselves: it is distinctive, so it promotes questions. It's also very stylish.
> Flaming Calvinists of the world, unite!



I'm very uncomfortable with this label. I know his tends to be a label for homosexual in several areas.


----------



## OPC'n (Mar 7, 2009)

Nebrexan said:


> I agree 100% with what Burk Parsons wrote in the January 2009 Tabletalk:
> 
> 
> > I have never been comfortable with the use of the term _Calvinism_. To begin with, I don't think Calvin would be all that pleased with our use of his name in our descriptions of those doctrines he believed to be the doctrines of sacred Scripture. What is more, I don't think the Lord is all that pleased with our assignment of His eternal doctrines to a mortal man. As we know, Calvin was one among many Reformers who remained faithful to Scripture, and under no circumstances would he have accepted any accolades for the divine grace he was supplied that enabled him to minister faithfully throughout his life. Calvin was a humble man who sought neither his own ends nor his own glory, but in all ways he sought first the glory of God, His righteousness, His kingdom. That said, we need to handle with great care our use of the word _Calvinism_ and make certain that when we use it we are doing so in light of these considerations.
> ...



I agree that people can get uppity with this doctrine, but I see no reason why we cannot call it Calvinism. It gives our doctrine a definition. If we called it doctrines of grace well then the Arminians could say, "Yeah, we believe that too" when they don't. I don't think God or Calvin are displeased at all. People need titles to define what they are speaking about.


----------



## py3ak (Mar 7, 2009)

That's where you can be grateful for "the insulating power of the context". Besides, the way to keep a good word is to use it.


----------



## Johan (Mar 14, 2009)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I never shy away from labeling myself a Calvinist, especially in theology discussion groups. It cuts through much confusion and establishes my presuppositions early in the discussion. As another post intimated, toadying to the hoi polloi by avoiding cogent labels is a transparent attempt at political correctness.



Agree!!! 

Also read "A Defense of Calvinism as the Gospel" by David Engelsma


----------



## ReformedWretch (Mar 14, 2009)

I'm a 5 point Spurgeonist


----------



## BG (Mar 14, 2009)

I


----------



## JM (Mar 14, 2009)

Particular (or Peculiar, depends on who you ask and when) Baptist suits me fine.


----------



## davidsuggs (Mar 14, 2009)

My church subscribes to it and has its current issues in the lobby but I only read it periodically. Every time I do I am glad though. I will be sure to pick it up again tomorrow thanks!


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Mar 15, 2009)

It is quite unfortunate that we have to use the word "Calvinist" in order to seperate ourselves from others that are "so-called" christians. I actually had this discussion with my girlfriend. I told her that there are no grey areas within scripture. There is truth or falsity. You either hold to the scriptures as they present themselves or you hold to the scriptures with a presuppositional position before hand. The term calvinist is specific in regard to what your convictions are. Without this seperation, you could end up confusing the individual into thinking you are no different then a mormon, for they call themselves "christians" as well.


----------

