Vocabulary and calvinism

civic

civic

Well-known member
Is there a similarity in Calvinism with what Dr Martin describes below and what we see with such words/phrases as Predestination, Election, Foreknowledge, Sovereignty, Faith, Regeneration, Grace, Gospel, Doctrines of Grace( tulip ), Atonement ( PSA ), Draw, Chosen, Free Will, will ( hidden will , prescriptive will, decretive will- 2 wills of God ) Sheep, Dead, Love, Hate All, Everyone, All the world, the whole world etc... ?

Its only in a small segment of " Christianity " we see these words defined differently in Calvinism, that the rest of Christianity rejects.

We could ask "we believe in salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ"
How is one saved ?

Define evil, sin, author,cause ?

Define predestine, elect, ?

Define Faith, Salvation, the Gospel ?

Define Dead ?


VOCABULARY AND SEMANTICS OF CULTS by Dr Walter Martin

“We believe in salvation through Jesus Christ”
Who is Jesus Christ?

“We worship God, too!”
Who is God?

“We believe in salvation by grace through faith”
But what is their exact criteria for my salvation?

“We believe in the trinity…”
Define “Trinity”

Define “evil”, “sin”, “atonement”

“Well, that’s what we believe, too! We agree!” and they will use the Bible
Define your terms!


Examples: Gnostics, Mormons, JW’s, Christian Scientists, Scientologists


“Well, that’s YOUR interpretation!”
No, it is what the text says here, in its context!


BREAKING THE LANGUAGE BARRIER

The cults capitalize on the almost total inability of the average Christian to understand the subtle art of redefinition in the realm of biblical theology.

The average non-Christian cult owes its very existence to the fact that it has utilized the terminology of Christianity, has borrowed liberally from the Bible (almost always out of context), and sprinkled its format with evangelical clichés and terms wherever possible or advantageous. Up to now this has been a highly successful attempt to represent their respective systems of thought as "Christian."

On encountering a cultist, then, always remember that you are dealing with a person who is familiar with Christian terminology, and who has carefully redefined it to fit the system of thought he or she now embraces.


Whenever a Christian encounters a cultist, certain primary thoughts must be paramount in his mind:
(1) He must strive to direct the conversation to the problem of terminology and maneuver the cult adherent into a position where he must define his usage of terms and his authority, if any, for drastic, unbiblical redefinitions, which are certain to emerge;
(2) the Christian must then compare these "definitions" with the various contexts of the verses upon which the cultist draws support of his doctrinal interpretations;
(3) he must define the words "interpretation," "historic orthodoxy," and standard doctrinal phrases such as "the new birth," "the Atonement," "context," "exegesis," "eternal judgment," etc., so that no misunderstanding will exist when these things come under discussion, as they inevitably will;
(4) the Christian must attempt to lead the cultist to a review of the importance of properly defining terms for all important doctrines involved, particularly the doctrine of personal redemption from sin, which most cult systems define in a markedly unbiblical manner;
(5) it is the responsibility of the Christian to present a clear testimony of his own regenerative experience with Jesus Christ in terminology which has been carefully clarified regarding the necessity of such regeneration on the part of the cultist in the light of the certain reality of God's inevitable justice. It may be necessary also, in the course of discussing terminology and its dishonest recasting by cult systems, to resort to occasional polemic utterances. In such cases, the Christian should be certain that they are tempered with patience and love, so that the cultist appreciates that such tactics are motivated by one's personal concern for his eternal welfare and not simply to "win the argument."

Summary

Looking back over the picture of cult semantics, the following facts emerge.

1. The average cultist knows his own terminology very thoroughly. He also has a historic knowledge of Christian usage and is therefore prepared to discuss many areas of Christian theology intelligently.
2. The well-trained cultist will carefully avoid definition of terms concerning cardinal doctrines such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the Atonement, the bodily resurrection of our Lord, the process of salvation by grace and justification by faith. If pressed in these areas, he will redefine the terms to fit the semantic framework of orthodoxy unless he is forced to define his terms explicitly.
3. The informed Christian must seek for a point of departure, preferably the authority of the Scriptures, which can become a powerful and useful tool in the hands of the Christian, if properly exercised.
4. The concerned Christian worker must familiarize himself to some extent with the terminology of the major cult systems if he is to enjoy any measure of success in understanding the cultist's mind when bearing a witness for Christ.



Chapter 3 - The Psychological Structure of Cultism

First and foremost, the belief systems of the cults are characterized by closed-mindedness. They are not interested in a rational cognitive evaluation of the facts. The organizational structure interprets the facts to the cultist, generally invoking the Bible and/or its respective founder as the ultimate source of its pronouncements. Such belief systems are in isolation; they never shift to logical consistency. They exist in what we might describe as separate compartments in the cultist's mind and are almost incapable of penetration or disruption if the individual cultist is completely committed to the authority pattern of his organization.
(from Kingdom of the Cults, Copyright © 1997 The Estate of Walter Martin.)

Lets discuss...................... FYI- I'm not saying calvinism is a cult- I'm pointing out the similarities with the vocabulary.

hope this helps !!!
 
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO RIGHTLY REPRESENT A VIEW WITH WHICH YOU DISAGREE TO THE SATISFACTION OF EVERY OPPONENT.
This is not meant to suggest that we shouldn’t at least try to rightly represent those with whom we disagree. We should never intentionally misrepresent (or “strawman“) the views of our brethren. This is why I almost always play a clip of a notable Calvinist or read a direct quote when bringing a critique against the claims of Calvinists. In fact, I have begun all my teaching sessions on this subject by telling my students that it is only fair to learn Calvinism from a Calvinist.

On the other hand, I have yet to hear a notable Calvinistic scholar represent Provisionism in a way that I or my other Provisionist friends would appreciate.* After all, it is only fair to learn Provisionism from a Provisionist!

Why is this? Why is the most common rebuttal in this debate the “accusation of misrepresentation?” I’ve come up with 6 reasons why I believe the dreaded ACCUSATION OF MISREPRESENTATION will never cease as long as this discussion continues:

1) SOME ARE NOT EDUCATED ON THE ACTUAL CLAIMS OF THEIR OWN SCHOLARS

Many who bring the accusation of strawmanning either (1) do not rightly understand Calvinism and Calvinistic scholar’s ACTUAL CLAIMS or they (2) do not really affirm the ACTUAL CLAIMS of John Calvin and other notable Calvinistic scholars, but have adopted a much milder, more palatable, and arguably inconsistent form of the systematic. (If it is the second, however, I cannot help but wonder why would they not stand with me in opposition to the ACTUAL CLAIMS of Calvinism rather than accusing me of not understanding it rightly?)

For instance, let’s consider this quote from John Piper’s ministry website, Desiring God:

“God . . . brings about all things in accordance with his will. In other words, it isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those who love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects for his glory (see Ex. 9:13-16; John 9:3) and his people’s good (see Heb. 12:3-11; James 1:2-4). This includes—as incredible and as unacceptable as it may currently seem—God’s having even brought about the Nazis’ brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child…” (Link)

John Calvin himself taught:

“…how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be, not by His will but by His permission…It is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing, but the author of them…Who does not tremble at these judgments with which God works in the hearts of even the wicked whatever He will, rewarding them nonetheless according to desert? Again it is quite clear from the evidence of Scripture that God works in the hearts of men to incline their wills just as he will, whether to good for His mercy’s sake, or to evil according to their merits. ” (John Calvin, “The Eternal Predestination of God,” 10:11)

“We hold that God is the disposer and ruler of all things, –that from the remotest eternity, according to his own wisdom, He decreed what he was to do, and now by his power executes what he decreed. Hence we maintain, that by His providence, not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined.” (John Calvin,Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 8)

“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11) <more quotes below>**

Now, before moving on, I hope all those who proudly wear the label “Calvinist” can rightly understand what I am addressing here. I have not misrepresented or “strawmanned” Calvinism. John Piper is arguably the most influential modern day proponent of Calvinism and he is representing exactly what John Calvin himself taught on this subject in the quotes above (all of which are properly cited for contextual examination). Both of these Calvinistic scholars are abundantly clear about what they believe about God’s meticulous determination of every single thought, word or deed.

I am not suggesting a “Calvinist” must agree with John Piper or even John Calvin on every theological point in order to be considered a “Calvinist.” But if you are going to proudly promote this label shouldn’t you at least affirm the basic theological claims over the issues that make Calvinism so controversial in the church? The major reason we even know of John Calvin and “Calvinism” is because of his controversial views over predestination, election, free will, sovereignty, etc. If you cannot affirm his statements on at least those issues, then may I suggest you stop promoting the label “Calvinist?” Or, if nothing else, at least stop accusing people like myself of not really understanding Calvinism? <READ THIS for more>

2) NOT EVERYONE IS CUT FROM THE SAME CLOTH:

misrepresentation

There are some Calvinists who simply disagree with Edwin Palmer’s quote above, as they should. There are moderate Calvinists, high Calvinists, ultra Calvinists and hyper Calvinists (the last of which most Calvinists would disavow completely). There are some who affirm God’s provisional atonement for all people and God’s sincere desire for every individual to repent and believe; but others who do not. There are some who affirm God’s genuine love for every individual, while others only describe his feelings toward the non-elect as wrath-filled hatred.

Those familiar with the lapsarian controversy, which has to do with the logical order of God’s eternal decrees of salvation, realize the complexities of rightly defining the various perspectives of Calvinism. This disagreement is ultimately centered around the “achilles heel” of the Calvinistic worldview: DIVINE CULPABILITY. How does God escape being held responsible for the origin and ultimate cause of all moral evil? Some Calvinists attempt to explain the logical order of the divine decree in such a way as to minimize His guilt for the fall and the origin of evil, while “higher” forms of Calvinism (typically called “Supralapsarianism”) simply embrace the troubling concept of double predestination and refer to “lesser” views of Calvinism as being “inconsistent.”

One scholar accurately observed:

Calvinists are seriously divided among themselves and always have been. There is Supralapsarianism vs. Sublapsarianism vs. Infralapsarianism. ‘The Supralapsarians hold that God decreed the fall of Adam; the Sublapsarians, that he permitted it’ (McClintock & Strong). The Calvinists at the Synod of Dort were divided on many issues, including lapsarianism. The Swiss Calvinists who wrote the Helvetic Consensus Formula in 1675 were in conflict with the French Calvinists of the School of Saumur. There are Strict Calvinists and Moderate Calvinists, Hyper and non-Hyper (differing especially on reprobation and the extent of the atonement and whether God loves all men), 5 pointers, 4 pointers, 3 pointers, 2 pointers. In America Calvinists were divided into Old School and the New School. As we have seen, the Calvinists of England were divided in the 19th century.

Whenever, therefore, one tries to state TULIP theology and then refute it, there are Calvinists who will argue with you that you are misrepresenting Calvinism. It is not so much that you are misrepresenting Calvinism, though. You might be quoting directly from various Calvinists or even from Calvin himself. The problem is that you are misrepresenting THEIR Calvinism! There are Calvin Calvinists and Thomas Fuller Calvinists and Arthur W. Pink Calvinists and Presbyterian Calvinists and Baptist Calvinists and many other sorts of Calvinists. Many Calvinists have never read Calvin’s Institutes of Christian Religion for themselves. They are merely following someone who follows someone who allegedly follows Calvin (who, by his own admission, followed Augustine). (LINK)

Again, to be fair, not all non-Calvinists agree on every point of doctrine either. One of my greatest frustrations in these discussions is overcoming the common belief that every non-Calvinist is a classical foresight faith Arminian, or that we just deny the doctrines of election and predestination all together, which of course we do not!

The point is that we are not all cut from the same cloth. Everyone does not have both feet firmly planted in one monolithic camp with a single statement of faith and spokesperson. If we desire to have profitable dialogue we must seek to understand the individual we are engaging rightly. We must avoid labeling them and dismissing them while assuming we fully understand their views simply because we have read a book or blog article from someone who appears to be from the same “camp.”

3) DEFINING THE TERMS:

This issue is closely related to the first. Many people even in the same camp use different terms that often carry various connotations and implications. For instance, when I say “responsible” I actually think it means that someone is “able to respond” (silly me). Yet, when some use the word “responsible” they simply hear “justly punishable even if one is unable to respond.”

This issue especially comes to light when the discussion of God’s eternal decree surfaces. Does God author sin? Did He create the desire to do evil? Does He ordain it or decree it, or both? Does He permissively decree it or actively decree it? Does God passively allow moral evil by “bare permission” and “simple foreknowledge” or does He actively plan it by “meticulous determinism?” Which verb is appropriate when talking about our perfectly Holy and Righteous Creator and the origin of moral evil? <listen to this discussion for more on this topic>

It is easy to see how such conversations can become confounding very quickly. One brother says, “God has decreed sin,” while meaning “God permissively allows contra-causally free moral creatures to choose to sin autonomously from God’s divine Holy will.” All the while, another brother, using the exact phrase, may mean, “God intended the morally evil choices by planning and meticulously determining the very desires and circumstances of mankind so that they would certainly choose as He ordained for His Holy purposes.” Neither brother desires to impugn God’s Holiness or His Sovereignty yet no doubt neither will escape the accusation of failing in their attempt.

This is one reason we need to be patient with each other and seek to understand the meaning of our opponent’s terms in a discussion. Also, we have to realize that our terms may carry an unintended connotation in the mind of our audience. We need to define our terms clearly and openly ask questions in order to really understand each other before engaging further in dialogue.

4) CORRECT BUT NOT PALATABLE:

Imagine the reaction if a sitting President made one of the two following comments:

“Authorities subdued the suspect, and through interrogation, thwarted the plot of the terrorist organization.”
Versus:

“Jack ran down the black 18 year old teenager as he left the high school parking lot, slammed him to the ground, broke his knee caps with a bat, put a gun in his mouth and threatened to pull the trigger until he gave up information leading to a line of three other suspects who had similar painful experiences. Finally, Jack extracted the plot of the terrorists, which could have been found out a number of other ways.”
Both statements may be explaining the exact same situation and both may be completely true, but the latter contains the kind of details that many of us rather not hear about. Now consider these two theological statements:

“To display His abundant providential power, God has sovereignly brought all things to pass in accordance with His Holy plan.”
Versus:

“To show off how powerful He is, God meticulously determined all the heinous desires and subsequent evil actions of every creature who has ever lived in such a way that they could not have done otherwise, including the rapes of children, the holocaust, slavery, torture, and every single evil thought, deed or inclination because that was what He planned and ultimately desired to come to pass for His own glorification.”
One of the statements may be much more palatable and easier to affirm, but both are stating the same basic meaning. Applied theology means just that. It is when our theological rhetoric is taken out of the classroom and applied in the real world. Some people cannot stomach it, while others revel in its disdain as a badge of honor, almost as if the more offensive their views are to others the more likely they are to be correct.

5) RATIONALIZATIONS AND LOGICAL IMPLICATIONS:

“The doctrine of Total Depravity – when the consequence is drawn that, since we are totally depraved, our idea of good is worth simply nothing – may thus turn Christianity into a form of devil-worship.” –CS Lewis, The Problem of Pain, pg. 29

Was CS Lewis attempting to directly accuse all Calvinists of worshipping the devil? I seriously doubt it. It is more likely that he was attempting to draw out the logical implications of the Calvinistic claims regarding their teachings on total inability. John Wesley makes a similar claim in a sermon about double predestination in which he teaches Calvinism makes God out to be worse than the devil, because the devil would not deceptively pretend to want all to be saved (link). Yet, we know that Wesley was close friends with Calvinistic brothers (like Whitfield) and won the respect of many great Calvinistic believers (see note at the end of this article). How can Calvinists get along with someone who implies their doctrine leads to devil worship? I think those who have studied these issues at length better understand how this is possible.

Dr. Roger Olson is someone I’ve very much grown to admire over the years. He has adopted the best approach I have heard in dealing with the tension of this particular issue. In a recorded discussion with his Calvinistic friend, Dr. Michael Horton, over these difficult issues (HERE), he carefully explains how he realizes Calvinists do not view God as “monstrous,” but that he would have to if he were to adopt the claims of Calvinism. In other words, Olson acknowledges that Calvinists do not believe God is morally evil or “devil-like” in any way shape or form, but explains why he would have to draw that awful conclusion if he were to adopt Calvinism and remain consistent with its claims.

6) NEFARIOUS MOTIVATIONS:

When you disagree with someone about something so intimate and personal as the biblical teaching of grace and salvation it is easy to allow yourself to start believing there must be something seriously wrong with them.

How can they not understand this teaching!?

What is wrong with them?

Don’t they believe what the Bible says?!

Are they just stupid or do they like ignoring the scripture!?

They must be evil!

Is it possible that two well meaning, God fearing, bible believing, followers of Christ honestly disagree about the meaning of a passage? I’d challenge anyone to find two scholars who agree on every single text or point of doctrine in the scriptures. I seriously doubt it can be done, yet can the two not find enough common ground on which to unite?

We are different. We each have unique perspectives, emotions, personalities and experiences that affect how we understand a passage. Does that mean we should adopt full blown ecumenicalism and just pretend everyone is right who is sincere? I do not believe that is a good balance either. Iron is made to sharpen iron and that happens through clashing of ideas, thoughts and opinions in healthy, edifying ways. We do not have to assume our opponent is a devil in order to confront their perspective effectively. In fact, it is typically much more effective when you engage one as a friend, not a foe, in matters such as biblical doctrine. <watch this presentation if you’re angry at a Calvinist>

Let us learn a lesson from the Prince of Preachers, Charles Spurgeon, as we close this article:soteriology 101

You know, brethren, that there is no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrines of grace than I do, and if any man asks me whether I am ashamed to be called a Calvinist, I answer, I wish to be called nothing but a Christian; but if you ask me, do I hold the doctrinal views which were held by John Calvin, I reply, I do in the main hold them, and rejoice to avow it. But, my dear friends, far be it from me even to imagine that Zion contains none within her walls but Calvinistic Christians, or that there are none saved who do not hold our views. Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him, that while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself, I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitfield and John Wesley. The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one of whom the world was not worthy. I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see these truths, or, at least, cannot see them in the way in which we put them, who nevertheless have received Christ into their hearts, and are as dear to the heart of the God of grace as the soundest Calvinist out of heaven. – C. H. Spurgeon, The Man With the Measuring Line



*If you find a notable Calvinistic scholar who does do a fair job representing our views, please send it my way. I would welcome it! I have heard Dr. Sean Cole and a few other Calvinistic pastors do a fair job, but no notable mainstream scholars to my knowledge have even made an attempt at this.

** “Creatures are so governed by the secret counsel of God, that nothing happens but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 3)

“thieves and murderers, and other evildoers, are instruments of divine providence, being employed by the Lord himself to execute judgments which he has resolved to inflict.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 5)

“…it is very wicked merely to investigate the causes of God’s will. For his will is, and rightly ought to be, the cause of all things that are.”…”For God’s will is so much the highest rule of righteousness that whatever he wills, by the very fact that he wills it, must be considered righteous. When, therefore, one asks why God has so done, we must reply: because he has willed it. But if you proceed further to ask why he so willed, you are seeking something greater and higher than God’s will, which cannot be found.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)

“Many professing a desire to defend the Deity from an individual charge admit the doctrine of election, but deny that any one is reprobated. This they do ignorantly and childishly, since there could be no election without its opposite, reprobation.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)

“…it is utterly inconsistent to transfer the preparation for destruction to anything but God’s secret plan… God’s secret plan is the cause of hardening.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 2, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)

“I admit that in this miserable condition wherein men are now bound, all of Adam’s children have fallen by God’s will.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 4)

“With Augustine I say: the Lord has created those whom he unquestionably foreknew would go to destruction. This has happened because he has willed.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 5)

“…individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction.” (John Calvin,Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)

“…it is vain to debate about prescience, which it is clear that all events take place by his sovereign appointment.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)

“But since he foresees future events only by reason of the fact that he decreed that they take place, they vainly raise a quarrel over foreknowledge, when it is clear that all things take place rather by his determination and bidding.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)

“Again I ask: whence does it happen that Adam’s fall irremediably involved so many peoples, together with their infant offspring, in eternal death unless because it so pleased God? The decree is dreadful indeed, I confess. Yet no one can deny that God foreknew what end man was to have before he created him, and consequently foreknew because he so ordained by his decree. And it ought not to seem absurd for me to say that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his descendants, but also meted it out in accordance with his own decision.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 7)

“The first man fell because the Lord deemed it meet that he should.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 8)

“Even though by God’s eternal providence man has been created to undergo that calamity to which he is subject, it still takes its occasion from man himself, not from God, since the only reason for his ruin is that he has degenerated from God’s pure creation into vicious and impure perversity.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 9)

hope this helps !!!
 
In some forums, someone will start a thread on whether you are Calvinist or Arminian.

Every time I post in there ..its that I am neither.
I don't agree with Calvinism on being saved before you believe, what they call predestination and perseverance of the saints. (It should read preservation of the saved..if it means OSAS)

Most of the time arminianism has loss of salvation, and has similarities with Calvinism in viewing the believer as someone who WILL do good works. If they don't do good works they have lost salvation or never had it.

Calvinism has that they will good works. They will persevere. They will say never saved in the first place, but not you have lost your salvation.

Biblically..it's that salvation follows belief in Jesus (still led by Him)...but that it can't be undone.

I suppose I'd get called a Calvinist or Armenian on just 2 points.. but a biblicist is what I'd rather be called.
 
360watt said:
In some forums, someone will start a thread on whether you are Calvinist or Arminian.

Every time I post in there ..its that I am neither.
I don't agree with Calvinism on being saved before you believe, what they call predestination and perseverance of the saints. (It should read preservation of the saved..if it means OSAS)

Most of the time arminianism has loss of salvation, and has similarities with Calvinism in viewing the believer as someone who WILL do good works. If they don't do good works they have lost salvation or never had it.

Calvinism has that they will good works. They will persevere. They will say never saved in the first place, but not you have lost your salvation.

Biblically..it's that salvation follows belief in Jesus (still led by Him)...but that it can't be undone.

I suppose I'd get called a Calvinist or Armenian on just 2 points.. but a biblicist is what I'd rather be called.
Click to expand...
Yes when I left Calvinism after 40 years I’m just a Christian :)

No labels
 
Presby02 said:
How you come up with that based upon what I said is mind boggling.
Click to expand...
Why you are even talking about Christian being just a label is mind boggling. It is not just a label. It is a description. It describes one who is a follower of Jesus Christ, whether you agree with the way they do that or not.
 
Jim said:
Why you are even talking about Christian being just a label is mind boggling. It is not just a label. It is a description. It describes one who is a follower of Jesus Christ, whether you agree with the way they do that or not.
Click to expand...
No kidding. It's a description, hence the label. 🙄
 
Most labels don't really describe anything. The label on my T-shirt doesn't even describe it being a T-shirt.
 

Similar threads

brightfame52
Calvinism is Gospel !
4 5 6
Replies
118
Views
1K
synergy
S
Damien
Unitarianism
Replies
1
Views
49
JoshebB
JoshebB
civic
What Calvinists and Arminians have in common
Replies
3
Views
128
Rockerduck
R
Theophilus
Christian Cults
Replies
7
Views
266
Bubba
Bubba
Behold
Infant Baptism and "Relics"
Replies
1
Views
78
Bob Carabbio
Bob Carabbio
Back
Top Bottom