The Importance of Distinctions

I met this individual below on Triablogue, under the post "Fragging James White" He seems to have this belief that just because one makes a distinction in his position on what the Scriptures teach, then this person is violating 1 Corinthians 12-17 . But the fact of the matter is, we do consider ourselves Christians. The emphasis that Calvinism makes and what this gentleman is missing is 1 Corinthians 1:10 which states:

" I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment."

Would this gentleman honestly be able to say that he has the same mind and the same judgement as a Mormon (who also label themselves to be Christian)? Or would he much more prefer to emphasize unity, and not throw out any labels because in his mind, any label given to someone other than just christian is wrong.

Lets be honest, we all have our traditions. My tradition comes from that of Biblical Christianity. I ascribe to the Westminster Confessions of Faith. This is what I believe and confess to be Biblical Christianity. One cannot just use the name Christian, or say "I believe the bible" because it does not encompass what you believe about the bible. I believe the "WCF" and the "5 Solas of The Reformation" are orthodox conclusions that can be drawn from the text of the Scripture. This is the tradition in which I ascribe to.

Yet this individual seems to be unaware of his own traditions and his own presuppositions that he takes into the text of scripture. He seems to believe that when he takes on the label of Christianity, that he doesn't have to make any distinctions about what he believes about the text of Scripture. He assumes that what he believes is what the bible teaches and there needs to be no exposition, exegetion, or explanation from the Text of Scripture about what he believes.

Socillions would consider themselves to believe what Christ taught, and label themselves to be Christians. Would Andrew agree that Christ taught Himself to be just a man, and not God? If he did not then he would have to make a distinction, but he would betray his own argument to label himself Trinitarian, because it doesn't take on the name Christ. Also if you look in the bible (as he makes this argument later on) you won't see this word in the bible. So would he deny himself to be a Trinitarian?










"Resequitur, don't insult my intelligence. Of course I know what Calvinism is and what it teaches (and the diversity that exists within the Calvinist community). I am also familiar with Arminianism and its disagreement with Calvinism. I wouldn't be critical if I didn't first make some effort to understand."

Sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder

"I know Dr. White and his books. I have even listened intently to his debates though there was frequently periods lacking Christian grace. That doesn't mean that I sympathize. Nor does it mean I sympathize with his opponents."

What do you mean by Christian grace? Do you mean by making distinctions to what is and what is not biblical Christianity? Or does he lack Christian Grace because you don't agree with him? Anyone can make statements like this but please present when you think Dr. White has lacked Christian grace. Also, please be aware that the man is human, and has sinful tendencies. Just because he calls someone like Dr. Caner to present adequate documentation to these so called debates as a call for presentation of the truth does not mean he lacks Christian grace, please make distinctions, sir.

" Respectfully – for you to imply that I'm coming from an uninformed position shows arrogance."

Your arguments betray you. You are arguing like an uninformed individual.

"Even so, thank you for directing my attention to the Bible and for setting out the standard for what it means to be a Calvinists. If one needs only believe that God intends to conform those he foreknew into the image of Christ, than I must also be a Calvinist!"

Again you argumentation betrays you, this is the reason you will have questions asked on whether you know what Calvinism is


"Since Calvinists are Bible believing, they must also believe that it was Israel God foreknew (Romans 11:2, Psalm 94:14) and who He predestined (Isaiah 42:6; 49:6). Calvinists much also believe that God elected Israel Ezekiel 20:5,Acts 13:17,Deuteronomy 4:37 and promised to never to cast them away Romans 11:2."

Sure Calvinists believe that God foreknew Israel but here there needs to be a distinction made that you aren't making

"But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel; This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring." (Romans 9:6,8)

Paul describes that the children of promise are those who have been foreknown, predestined to conform to Christ, called,justified, and glorified.

Do you agree? Those who disagree call this "Calvinism". It is a theological position that assumes this position in Scripture. You fail to hear the distinction being made. Yes we refer ourselves as Christians but guess what? So do mormons. Are they Christians Andrew? or does their need to be distinction made in order to avoid the muddling of unorthodox cultic teaching. Again a Mormon would call themselves Christian, do you welcome them to preach in your pulpit because they come into the church under this name?

We take on the name Calvinism to avoid having to pronounce each and every single position of Scripture.


"Then why would one call oneself a Calvinist, rather than a Christian, since Calvin's role is inferior to Christ's? "

Yep, Mormons call themselves Christians, so do Jehovah's witnesses. How do you avoid being lumped together with unchristian beliefs?

It isn't about roles. It is about accurately describing Orthodox Christianity with precision. The point you seem to be missing


"Given your excellent advice to consider who stands in scripture, I've checked, and been unable to find Calvin or Calvinism in scripture, but I was able to find Christ, and God's promises to his chosen (who appear to be Israelites rather than Calvinists)."

And again, with this type of argumentation you employ, it is very hard to take you seriously. There are no distinctions being made, you are just trying to sneak in your presuppositions into Paul's distinction in Romans (see above) to somehow strawman our position.

"Understandably, I've had a hard time pinning that Calvinist label on and having it stick, though according to your standard – I am one."



Not with the type of argumentation you employed above.