Yeah, me too.

I don't particularly care for the label "Calvinist" either. I only use it because most folks know what it means. If I were to be specific, I'd say "I subscribe to the five points of Reformed soteriology."
But that typically takes more time to explain than "I'm a Calvinist."

My only problem with "Sovereigntist" is that free-willer folks -- Arminians, if I may label ;-) -- claim belief in God's total sovereignty too.
Baggage or no, I think the two labels are still good shorthand, even if most free-willers don't know who Arminius was and wouldn't agree with him totally if they did and if most Calvinists have never read a word of Calvin's writings.

I shall gladly, and humbly, take the now vacant seat of "Fence-Sitter." I have heard many arguments on both sides by folks a lot smarter than I, and it all seems to come down to in what light we choose to view certain scriptures; the same scriptures used on both sides of the fence to make equally valid arguments.

But if the proverbial gun were held to my head, I would have to go with Arminian...even though I only found out that the term is based upon an actual man's name (Arminius) when I read Jared's comment! And "no", I've never read any of his actual writings.

If ever I vacate the "Fence-Sitter's" seat, I shall let you all know.

De, I'm sure it's time to rethink. But I'm not sold on it being time to re-label.
We'd have to unpack/explain no matter what we called ourselves. What I say "people know what it means," I mean that when I say "Calvinist," most folks know it has to do with predestination and think it means I don't believe in free will. (Which is basically true.)

I'd rather use shorthand that communicates and then have to clarify than use terms I have to define and then unpack and clarify only to get the point where someone goes, "Oh, so you're a Calvinist." ;-)

Well, I know [referring to Jared's comment about the problems of unpacking, not nhe's take that I'm smart :-) ] . And I don't expect too many people to see my point or join me in my label.

But it still seems bizarre. Was Paul a Calvinist** ? If Calvinism is such a biblical doctrine, how come it took 1,500 years for it to get a name? Ditto for arminianism. And why did they name these Biblical doctrines after people?

I think that those steeped in theology lose sight of how this all sounds to regular people trying to make sense of it all. "Calvinism" sounds like a cult of John Calvin. I know that's not fair.

I've wondered, when people ask whether one is a C or an A, why not just say "I believe God predestines and elects people for salvation". Not too many more syllables than "I'm a Calvinist", maybe more to the point, and if "unpacking" has to happen in any case . . .

I probably need to quit tilting at this windmill :-)



** I almost made a post on that one but decided that it would be wiser to put it in a comment, in order to avoid another "Calvinism vs Arminianism" debate post.

All such labels require explanation and unpacking. I've met people who think they are Christians simply because they were born in America. If you tell someone you are a Christian their mind may well leap to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Blech.

Anything that we come up with to explain ourselves will be in adequate to the cause. Both Calvinists and Arminianists put God in a box. The Calvinists say God has to do things this way because that is how we read scripture. The Arminianists say God can't save me, I have free will.

God can well do anything he pleases and he can work through both relms of thought and belief. There is much mystery surrounding God and at times there are apparent contradictions. The depth God has is shown by our continually gaining insight when we read the Bible at 5 or 95.

I think it could well be argued that both schools of thought might well be sin as it removes the focus from God and places it on how WE read scripture.

Mmmmmmm...moon pies!

But it still seems bizarre. Was Paul a Calvinist?

Was he a Baptist?

I get the reluctance to take on labels. But I think they can be helpful in communicating. I'd say "I'm a tulipologist" if I thought people had the vaguest idea what I meant.

And "sovereigntist" is fine too if it has a specific referent to it. Since you seem to be saying it doesn't really mean "Calvinist" or "Arminian" but imply you lean, if only slightly, Calvinist, is that what the label will now mean? Sovereigntist means someone in the middle ground who leans Calvinistic? If so, your middle ground gets narrower. If not, then it becomes practically useless as a label since you could have someone who agrees with the 5 Points but hates the Calvinist label claim Sovereigntism while having someone who agrees with free-will theism but hates the Arminian label claim Sovereigntism too.

Relatively speaking, the popular labels may be "new." But they have persisted.

As Brian pointed out, the word "Christian" is very vague in meaning today too. But I recall you not being in favor of tossing it.
---

BiF:
I obviously disagree with your contention that Calvinism puts God in a box, especially since one thing I like about the theology is that it ascribes to God perfect and unlimited freedom to do as He wishes. It is no more a box than any interpretation of Scripture would be. (Is saying God condemns people who don't have Jesus as Savior putting God in a box too?)
But I won't quibble since I can see problems with your understanding of Arminianism too.

As long as you're mis-understanding/representing both sides, I'm cool with it. ;-)
But I don't think either belief is sin, especially since most folks on both sides come to their beliefs through honest search of the Scriptures.
It's true sinners occupies both sides; but then there is sin wherever a person stands simply because there is a person there, even if it's in the "unbiased" neutral zone.

Jared,

You may well be right that I'm misunderstanding/misrepresenting both sides. I will be the first to admit that my understanding is limited. I'm merely seeking to point out possibilities and I may well have over-simplified to the point of error.

If, indeed, Calvinism does ascribe to God perfect and unlimited freedom to do as He wishes I've not heard it directly stated as such and to my way of thinking is absent from any TULIP with any number of petals.

Please, and I really mean it, if you have the time, point out my errors as you see them. If you want to do so in a private email that would be fine. In the open forum would be great as well.

To my way of thinking the Bible clearly says, essentially, that God condemns people who don’t have Jesus as Savior, so I don't see that as interpretation.
But could it not be that either side rather than interpreting scripture is actually putting a spin on it?

I didn't say that either position is sin but that they might be considered sin as they both argue from how they, as opposed to others, interpret or spin scripture. If, indeed, as you say, and I'm not denying the possibility, both sides come from an honest searching of the scriptures couldn't both positions be correct. If both positions can be correct. It would seem to me that both sides in denying the "correctness" of the other do in fact put God in a box.

“Baptist” is a denomination. “Calvinist” is a doctrinal and theological stance. Apples/oranges ...

They are both labels based on the traditions founded by men. You seemed to be saying you didn't like Calvinist as a label because it is named after a man.
I just don't see that as a real problem, since any label that wasn't used in the Bible has the same problem. (And no I don't think denominational Baptists are justified by John "the Baptist." ;-)

When people ask me “what I am” I don’t generally say “Baptist”.

That's fine. I wasn't rying to score an "oh yeah?!" point against you personally. I was trying to employ the same logic, assuming you don't have a problem with other labels that are extra/post-biblical.

Who says I lean “only slightly” Calvinist?

I assumed that based on your "forced at gunpoint" scenario. You didn't say "I'm a Calvinist but I don't like the label." You said "If someone put a gun to my head, I'd say Calvinist . . .", which indicates to me leaning that way rather than just acknowledging you subscribe to Calvinism (but just don't like the label).

Who says I’m sitting on the fence?

Um, you? As you mentioned parenthetically, I assumed you were on the fence because you have said before you were on the fence. I guess I assumed wrong, but I was only trying to go by what you said. (And in comment #5 you seemed to say "leaning Arminian" Danny could join you (presumably on the fence).
I'm not trying to pigeonhole you. I was honestly trying to let you be where I thought you had expressed yourself to be.

Dang it. I’m not going to do that. I am just not. I’ve never read Calvin’s works, I don’t know anything about the man, and I’ve seen too much misunderstanding of the term.

Bill, that's fine. I'm not trying to irritate you.
I assumed you were serious in proposing a new label for Calvinism, and I was only trying to posit the problematic nature of your proposal. You don't have to call yourself a Calvinist if you don't want to.
But I guess I don't understand the reticence of your saying -- on this site, in this context -- that you're a Calvinist who just doesn't prefer the label.

I've never read the unabridged institutes. There's a lot of Calvin I don't agree with (particularly as I'm not Reformed in any real ecclesiological sense). I subscribe to the 5 points, which pre-date Calvin anyway. It's Augustinian soteriology. Luther said more about predestination and the will than Calvin.
There's a million reasons to quibble with Calvin getting the credit for the -ism, but because that's the label that has stuck, I don't have a problem personally using it.

Apples/Mangos. Christian is a) a Biblical label, and b) a label named after One who I have read, and who I worship, and want to be like. :-) - Completely different.

Bill, I was going off on you saying "Calvinist" is problematic because it is misunderstood and has lost meaning, etc. I was only pointing out that you could make the same case for "Christian."
I know that the labels originate in different places. But using the logic of your point in that instance, I think the analogy is sound.

If I’m irritating you in any way, let me know

Well, I'm not irritated so much as confused. I mean, I knew I was disagreeing with some of what you said, but I certainly didn't think I was misunderstanding your position. I really was assuming I was reading you right based on your actual words. I was actually trying to be careful NOT to assume you believed something you wouldn't want attributed to. I was trying to be respectful in NOT pigeonholing you and it seems that despite using your own words to express your position, I've misrepresented it.
It's a weird situation to find oneself in, and I do apologize for misconstruing your position.

De, I now get where you're coming from on this.

To be fair, up until your last comment, I think it was somewhat ambiguous whether your dispute was purely with the label or whether you also had some substantive disagreement with the reformational treatment of election.

Jared's point in asking about Paul being a Baptist was, I take it, more to observe that we all think that Paul, for example, had a well-developed understanding of God's truth as it relates to the practice and theory of theology. The upshot is that we could probably fairly say that he was either a baptist or a paedobaptist (or at least that he would have known the truth as he and the other apostles practiced it, even if it's not one of the current popular options). I don't think that would be an anachronism, whereas it would be an anachronism to place him in a particular denomination. Similarly, Paul had to have some view as to what he meant by, for example, Romans 8-9 and Ephesians 2, and if we were to sit down with him and explain what Arminius taught versus what Calvin taught about how to interpret those scriptures, he'd certainly have something to say, even if it's a tertrium quid. Those have to be (you'd think) questions he was asked somewhere along the way. In that sense it's not an anachronism to ask the question, whereas it's more of an anachronism to ponder what he would have thought about controversies that relate to facts and history that were not present in his day.

Although, query whether even that is accurate. While we believe that what Paul wrote was the inspired and inerrant truth of God, is it plausible that some of the doctrine he believed, but didn't write down, was inaccurate? What reason do we have to believe that there is this large chunk of truth that was given to the apostles, and either preserved unwritten (per Rome) or lost (per Protestantism) that contains the answer to all our theological questions? Maybe it's more plausible, given, for example, the issue with Peter in Acts and the council at Jerusalem, that they were given only pretty much what they wrote down, and the rest is trying to figure out how to live using only that and the OT.

My approach is a little different. If someone were to come put a gun to my head and asked if I were Calvinist or Arminian, I'd probably pull out my knife and filet him. But assuming I held back, instead of spending time agonizing about what to label to use, I generally use the label, and use the time to explain what that label means.

I don't use the label except in the context of a discussion with other committed Christians. I don't call myself a Presbyterian (as though what defines my belief is a steadfast commitment to rule by elders!) unless there is a particular question about denomination.

And it is sad that we have to use labels of mens' names. It cannot help but call to mind Paul's snide remarks about how some call themselves followers of Paul, of Apollos, etc.

And it is doubly unfortunate that the name "Calvinist" has stuck, when many times it would be just as accurate, or more so, to say Augustinian, Tyndalian, Edwardsian, etc.

It sounds like Mandi is a "classic sovereigntist".

Jared, I'm not sure I follow - I somewhat said that tongue-in-cheek, though Mandi's post infers that God is in control, period.

I see that as more generally a definition of sovereignty - certainly Calvinism embraces this - but (for example) atonement may not necessarily need to be limited in order to hold the sovereigntist position........is this what you mean?

If there are moon pies and root beer involved then I too will take a place on this fence you speak of.

My take on the whole C vs. A debate is that neither one of them are precisely right. They are both theologies based on the beliefs of men and are therefore not inspired and are therefore fallible. I fall more in the C camp but that has not always been the case. I find big questions and few answers to those questions in the Westminster Confession. I like the sound of Sovreigntist as I to believe in God's sovreignty, but as someone said even the A's believe in that to a point.

The thing I hate about labels is that they try to condense the uncondensable into one or two words. I answer the "What are you?" question with "Christian." unless I understand the question to be about my denominaion (to which the answer would be Presbyterian, PCA specifically {until a few years ago I didn't know the diff or that there was one}) and though it doesn't require the proverbial gun I use the label Calvinist were appropos.

Alan - just saw your response. Very well put.

Well BiF there are certainly things that God can't do and while he may not always do the same thing in the same way, if there's a perfect way to do somehting then that's the only way he can do it, right?

*ahem* I see I have some admonishing to do...

De---go be on vacation, quit blogging. "tweasure yor wuv!"

Brian in Fresno---aren't you supposed to be on vacation too? ;-)

Now, I can cease the admonishment. :-)

*Brian looks sheepish agian* This is vacation, just not the traveling part. We leave in about two hours.

As De stated, I am indeed sovereigntist. I started out that way as a child, wandered away from it, and now I'm back there.

God is supreme. His truth is universal and unchanging/unchangeable. He is not bound by the constraints of space, time, or any of the physical laws we experience here. He knows the end from the beginning. He does not know doubt or fear or uncertainty. I do not believe he angsts or goes through anxiety attacks. He doesn't watch me on the edge of His seat, hoping I don't mess up because then His plan will all be ruined. ("he ruined the play! He ruined the whole play!" :-). He depends on nobody else. He is self-sustaining. He created the fundamental laws of physics that define our lives and everything in the universe. There is no superlative in the human lexicon that is truly great enough to adequately describe His supremacy.

Now as for me... I am wrong frequently. I have discovered things I've thought for a long time were just flat wrong. I've forgotten way more than I currently know. In fact, my logic sometimes does not add up. Who should I trust? Me or God? My proven fallability or God's proven infallability?

I hate to use scripture to help explain what I'm trying to say which I'm not fully convinced relates, but for now, I will use it anyway while being open to correction. 1 Cor 13:8-12. Considering that the apostle who was writing this was a major hoss in his knowledge of scripture, I am humbled. Being a Sovereigntist, I recognize my fraility and propensity for being wrong. As such, I give much greater weight to God's sovereignty than I do to man's interpretation of various aspects of His truth--not that others more spiritual and intelligent than I can't/don't understand more. I cling to the clear essentials. And one of those is God's love for people. Love and service to others rises really high in many of the great commands found in scripture. Ironically, the rest of 1 Cor 13 kinda supports this assertion. btw, I'm also considering Phil 3 as to how much it does or doesn't have to say on this topic. To sum up: I have but 16KB of RAM. Just the stuff on Love would pretty much fills that up to overflowing. I have to leave the deep ponderings to those with the GBs of RAM.

God also clearly wants His followers to study and pray to know Him better. He wants to walk in the garden with us, and commune with us.

Now, I can't always remember the 5 points of Calvinism, and I know even less about Arminius. I probably have only a vague idea of what soteriology means, and while I have no problem with anybody else devoting energy into theological studies (I think that's great!), but for me, I really couldn't care less. For me and my limited faculties of reason and understanding, those things are just over my head and honestly don't help me come to know God or His will any better. Did I mention that the scope of this little statement involves a little circle at which I am the center? :-)

To close, I truly hope that the study in these areas of theology help bring folks who spend that time closer to the God they love. I'm confident that for many it really does. For those, I want to encourage and exhort you to press on! Whether I understand you or not, I can/should always support your efforts to know the one true God more deeply. I do not in anyway intend for this to be a persuasive screed--just descriptive of one little bitty person in a big world. I just wanted to explain, in a typically inadequate way, why I'm with De on this one. That and I love root beer... :-)

Grace and peace to all!

just a thought since I saw some convo back and forth on the subject of unwieldyness of categorical names:

In scientific discussions, for example, it is imperative that the participants verse themselves on the basics. don't go arguing relativity if you do not know and understand the basic laws of thermodynamics. I think we could extend that in this case to theological discourse. If the audience is educated in theology (e.g. most of the folks who attend this blog), and expected to know what being a Calvinist means, then I see no problem with that shorthand. Each participant bears the onus of educating himself on the basics.

If it is a discussion that involves or is directed to the general public, then really either the Calvinist or Sovereigntist (I hate spelling that word!!!) labels are probably inappropriate and problematic, unless it is being used within the context of describing what either represents.

This is just a hypothesis of mine. Open to some tweaking and such. But I'm wondering if it could be a point of agreement and clarification within the context of this topic?

I wish there was a condition I could put on this comment like:
if isLame(Illustration)
then mv Illustration /dev/null
fi

Of course, if that were on all my comments, they'd all just go away. :-)

My friend, Rod, got annoyed when I went "whole hog" and turned into a Presbyterian.

It was Booth and Wilson who pushed me over the edge, BTW.

De,

You know I love ya bro, but I've got to point out an inconsistency. You mentioned in the post that you don't particularly care for labels, especially those that came about a millennium and a half after Scripture was written. But, in your Thinkling bio you call yourself a "Historical premillennialist but somewhat sympathetic to the preterist position (especially partial preterism)". That looks like a label to me (and a big one at that). But, nobody seems to care about those -isms. What's the difference? Why has the world placed such a stigma on Calvin?

BTW, I also checked out the etymology of "premillennialist" and come to find out it dates all the way back to...the 19th Century. That's even more contemporary than the big C.

So, what am I saying? I think you, like alot of other people, are too concerned about labels. I don't particularly care for the big C label myself. But, when I break down TULIP and bang it against Scripture, I have a hard time arguing against it. So, I would ask you: What specific part of the actual theology of Calvin do you disagree with? (Of course, we're talking soteriology here. I'm not sure that I agree with his positions on infant baptism and eschatology.) And, if you don't disagree, then I'm sorry dude, but you're a Calvinist.

Are we on for Droubi this week?

I gotta jump in and defend Jewel here....

I think the outline of that profile came even before the blog, when we thinklings were an email discussion group. One of us made up that survey for everyone else to fill out, and it was in fun really, but the nature of it was to ask what label you are so we could argue...in a friendly way of course.

So Jewel only has a label there because we forced him to fill out the survey at gunpoint.

Plus at least "premillinialism" means something, rather than it being some dead theologians name. He didn't say he was a "Darby-ite" :) I think there's a difference between the eschatological labels we use and the term "calvinist" because at least the eschatological labels are descriptive.

Or if you want to use older labels (pre-19th century) he could have said that he believes in the "chiliasm". ;-)

Shrode - thanks for defending a bro! :-)

I was going to point out to Fred though that my problem isn't with labels, but with this particular label.

And most likely it's because I'm woefully ignorant.

Roy - well said

Also - all (and especially Jared!) - I re-read my last comment and have to say that it isn't written the way I'd like it to be. The whole "cult" thing is supposed to be in jest, at least when speaking of the Calvinists on this blog, and I know what Jared meant when he said he "converted" (in fact, I was "there" and saw the whole thing unfold via email).

If I've offended anyone I apologize. I think I'm getting a bit frustrated and that's showing through.

*sigh*

I miss Jewel . . .

Fred:
I don't think De was saying he disagreed with a point of Calvin's theology so much as he was saying he didn't really know all that much about Calvin's theology. Which is true of most of us.
So I don't think he's saying his problem with the label is disagreeing with Calvin, so much as it is not liking using a man's name to label a concept that is so huge and so sacred and so much earlier than the 1600s. I get that.

I still think it's kinda weird to not just use the label that has persisted and communicates better than anything else. But that's just me. ;-)
---

Bill, sorry if I gave you a headache on this one. I really though I understood you and was having a conversation. I certainly didn't mean to misunderstand you; still less did I want you to feel "beat up."

And so what if "sovereigntist" is taken by some Canadians. Dude. They're Canadians. ;-)

But I tell you what -- I've got an alternative for you. How about calling yourself a "sovereigntator"?
Nothing wrong with that one, eh?

"I certainly didn’t mean to misunderstand you; still less did I want you to feel 'beat up'."

I don't - hence the smiley next to the "beaten into submission" line in the post above.

All's well.

Fred has done a good job at illuminating what prompted this post. His "dude, you're a Calvinist" line . . . I have an aversion (it's in the gut, it's visceral, not logical) to self-identifying as a Calvinist. And yet I don't think I'll be allowed to not self-identify that way, because, as you've stated, the label has stuck and most people (who are into theology - which is a small percentage of people) know what "Calvinist" means.

So I don't know what I'm going to do. Probably nothing - what does it matter what I believe about this anyway?

I just know that I'm not going to say I'm a Calvinist. Can't do it. :-)

I'm just a big fan of God's sovereignty.

[De drops his lance, pats Rocinante on the neck and gives him a lump of sugar, looks back wistfully at this thread, and climbs back up on the fence.

Offers a root beer to Danny Kaye.

Tosses a moon-pie over to Jen]

De,

But there’s plenty of room. And I’ve got lots of root beer. And some moon pies. Join me, my friend :-)

I'll join for the moon pies. Mmmm Mooooon Pies. :-}

You know, I have to tell ya that there's almost nothing better than a moon pie, nicely warmed, with bluebell vanilla icecream on it. Nothing!

You know, this party up on the fence is way better than either Calvinland or Arminia!

Home made root beer is the best. Mmmmm Moon pies and Blue Bell, I can drive to the plant in no time at all.