Why do you call yourself a "Calvinist"?

[GodsElect]

I was wondering why some people call themselves "Calvinists" or even put it as a class of its own or type of religion? First of all, I am NOT blasting Calvinists because I fully agree with the Calvinist views and the Doctrines of Grace or "Five Points" I fully understand the doctrine and all the points and truly accept all views of John Calvin in the Doctrines of Grace, because they are all simply biblical christianity, PERIOD! Furthermore, the name or classification "Calvinist" was not invented nor adopted by John Calvin himself but rather was the name given by...( I cannot recall exactly who, some council of some European country) to distinguish the differences between the Arministic and Calvinist views of biblical theology. I know I could get the exact name of that council if I did more surfing. Anyhow, If you have labeled youself a "Calvinst" I don't think that even John Calvin would like you to call yourself a Calvinist but rather a true and faithfull Christian! I think you should call yourselves TRUE Christians before Calvinists. Or that you adhere to the Doctrines of Grace because if one understands those doctirnes, the bible just starts to make sense! Does it not? And for the people who think Calvinsim is a cult are dead wrong because of the use of the title "Calvinist" for those that do not know what it is they automatically assume that it is some kind of cult or some belief that is unbiblical. And how sad that is to have people who don't know what Calvinism is, to discount your witness because they think you are some kind of cult. It is alot better to be a True Biblical Christian than called a "Calvinist", becuase Calvinsim IS True Biblical Christianity! God Bless all who have been given, by the grace of God, these biblical correct Doctrines of Grace!

 

[kimlva]

You are so right in that people will think you are of a cult, because I have had that happen to me recently. However, it was by someone with whom I had never used the label "Calvinist." I simply explained election and predestination to them, using the Bible, and they decided that I was part of some kind of cult to believe in "such a God as that."

So it really doesn't matter to those who are against it, whether you use the label or not. To me, it is just a shortcut to letting others know what I believe. I try not to use it with those who do not understand what it actually means though.

The problem with simply calling ourselves "Biblical Christians," which is very true, is that ALL who call themselves Christian claim to be Biblical Christians. There is no distinction. It does not really tell what you actually believe because they all use that label. Truthfully, we should not even have to put the word "Biblical" before it, because all Christians should be Biblical. However, in reality, all those who claim to be Christians are not.

Hope that wasn't confusing.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

I prefer the term 'Reformed'....'Calvinist' is a fighting word in some parts!! When I say I'm 'Reformed', it usually buys me some time to explain what I mean. There are so many absolutely wrong opinions out there about what a Calvinist really is that I won't get heard once I say 'Calvinist' because the other person already 'knows' what a Calvinist is, even though they are usually wrong.

Anyway....the only problem with simply calling ourselves 'TRUE Christians' or 'Bible-believing Christians' is that everybody does it...even the flakiest cults! If I call myself a 'true Christian' then lotsa times a person will assume that I happen to agree with their interpretatin of what a true Christian is. Again, by calling myself 'Reformed', I buy myself some time to explain just what I mean.

 

[GodsElect]

Yes you make very good points and I really can relate to how just calling yourselves biblical christians how everyone thinks that they are true biblical christians when they go to some flaky other man centered/free willy church. When I present gospel to others I usually ask, "Are you familiar with the doctrines of grace?"

Yes, biblical christians should always be biblical and know exactly what is being being taught in the scriptures and study for themselves. But its a sad thing to have people who falsly profess Christ in their man centered views and not know what the scriptures REALLY and truly teach. As Paul says, "You are preaching another gospel" when they are not being preached in a Calivinistic view, or should I say, God's word view. All five points just Highlight what scripture is really teaching and makes God's written word just make sense because it IS what is being taught.

I once talked to a man who was a preacher of another (non-denominational) church, to which I stated, "How can fallen man, who is at emnity with God and has no spiritual merit in and of himself, turn to or choose God?" and he replied, "Well thats why he gives us "Free will" and we can choose or not choose to turn to him." (doesn't the word "free will" just make you cringe)
and I said, "I am sorry but I just don't see how a spritually discerned man can MAKE HIMSELF spiritual and come to Christ out of his own wicked heart unless the Father FIRST gives him a new heart." and he said, " Well my friend, thats Calvinism and I preach strongly against that view." and not thinking at the time I should have replied, Well my, friend isn't the free will of man to choose Christ you preach called "Arminianism"? Well the point is that I really don't like the fact that some would lable Calvinism as a cult or a "different" gospel when in fact it is the very heart of the understanding of what the scriptures teach and any other view of scripture is "another gospel" And the most disturbing thing is when we finished the conversation he said that he was in a hurry to teach his lesson at his church and (since he thought I was a mislead soul) didn't extend any offer to come and learn with him and hear what they belived in ,as we are commanded to do as professing Christians, to spread the word to the lost. But I guess I had the free will to not choose to come and hear the preached gospel.

So another thing to ask would be, "Does a person who is deaf, blind, has no arms and no legs and is mentally handicapped make the free will choice or have the physical ablility to come to Christ? By no means they could even make such a choice!. So then I guess they cannot make the choice or do anything in and of themselves to CHOOSE, then what you are saying is that ALL who are in those situations WILL GO TO HELL! Because they did not make that choice?"
It is a fallen world indeed!!! Blessings,
Zach

 

[RepentantSinner]

I usually say I'm reformed as well. First.

 

[RepentantSinner]

2nd post

 

[RepentantSinner]

3rd Post

 

[RepentantSinner]

4th Post

 

[RepentantSinner]

5th Post

 

[edie19]

I rarely refer to myself as a Calvinist - rather as a reformed Christian. The name of our Lord and Savior is sufficient for me - I don't need to take the name of an imperfect human.

 

[JimfromOhio]

I am a CHRISTIAN who follows Calvinism doctrine and Reformed Theology.

 

[JimfromOhio]

I rarely refer to myself as a Calvinist - rather as a reformed Christian. The name of our Lord and Savior is sufficient for me - I don't need to take the name of an imperfect human.

No wonder you and I think alike here.

 

[ThinkofHim]

Calvinism is an applied methodology-not a religion. The trinity will always come first with me.

 

[heymikey80]

I call myself a Calvinist because many people who call themselves "true Biblical Christians" aren't. So I distinguish my belief by describing just what I think the Scriptures are saying.

In some respects it's nice to have such a largely vilified label for good theology. That marginalization keeps the term from being grabbed and undermined by people wanting to share in its popularity. Unpopular? Good, then the term must mean something significant! =chuckle!=

 

[epistemaniac]

I was wondering why some people call themselves "Calvinists" or even put it as a class of its own or type of religion? First of all, I am NOT blasting Calvinists because I fully agree with the Calvinist views and the Doctrines of Grace or "Five Points" I fully understand the doctrine and all the points and truly accept all views of John Calvin in the Doctrines of Grace, because they are all simply biblical christianity, PERIOD! Furthermore, the name or classification "Calvinist" was not invented nor adopted by John Calvin himself but rather was the name given by...( I cannot recall exactly who, some council of some European country) to distinguish the differences between the Arministic and Calvinist views of biblical theology. I know I could get the exact name of that council if I did more surfing. Anyhow, If you have labeled youself a "Calvinst" I don't think that even John Calvin would like you to call yourself a Calvinist but rather a true and faithfull Christian! I think you should call yourselves TRUE Christians before Calvinists. Or that you adhere to the Doctrines of Grace because if one understands those doctirnes, the bible just starts to make sense! Does it not? And for the people who think Calvinsim is a cult are dead wrong because of the use of the title "Calvinist" for those that do not know what it is they automatically assume that it is some kind of cult or some belief that is unbiblical. And how sad that is to have people who don't know what Calvinism is, to discount your witness because they think you are some kind of cult. It is alot better to be a True Biblical Christian than called a "Calvinist", becuase Calvinsim IS True Biblical Christianity! God Bless all who have been given, by the grace of God, these biblical correct Doctrines of Grace!

not to be too picky about this, because, in one sense you are right, but, on the other hand, if you object to the term, why do you identify yourself as a Presbyrerian, in particular, Covenant Reformed Orthodox Presbyterian....instead of simply calling yourself a "Christian"? I personally do not think these labels are all wrong... I mean, of course we all want to avoid saying "I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas, etrc etc" .... we are Christians, of Christ.... so within Christian circles it kinda goes without saying that one considers themself a "Christian", but just like "Protestant" or even "Evangelicals;" or "Christian" have come to mean almost anything, and therefore, for all practical purposes, almost nothing, thus these descriptors (Calvinist, Reformed, OPC, Missouri Synod, etc etc) are helpful shorthand ways of describing just what kind of Christian one claims to be......

blessings,
Ken

 

[Imblessed]

I call myself a calvinist here on this board merely for distinction. It lets people (people who know what calvinism is) know where I stand when it comes to the Doctrines of Grace.

However, I've never referred to myself as a calvinist out in the 'real world". I say that I'm a reformed baptist, and that gets people asking, what's the difference between a reformed baptist and a regular baptist? to which I can say, 'mainly, the Doctrines of Grace'. Those who are knowledgable will then know I'm a calvinist, or would have figured it out when I said 'reformed baptist'. Those who aren't knowledgeable, will then ask questions about the Doctrines of Grace and we go from there. I don't see any need to bring 'Calvinism' into it, unless I'm talking with someone who knows the difference.

I have no issues with 'labels' per se, because I don't think that's what was meant by the "I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas, etrc etc" verse. We do need to refrain from being exclusive by not accepting other denominations as christian---that is what is referred to in that verse I believe. The belief of people who were taught by Apollos, that only they are right, and the ones that were taught by Cephas, that only they are right. You find that still today---but NOT because of the distinctive labels--but because of the attitudes of the people who claim the labels. Doing away with labels is not going to ever 'fix' that problem. It's obviously been going on for over 2000 years now!

 

[5SolasinKY]

I believe the term is used mostly as shorthand for the distinctives of reformed theology especially concerning predestination and election. The term rarely comes up for me except where someone is objecting to these distinctives. I never rebuke a reformed believer for using the term, but it is not generally beneficial for me to use it.

 

[Nadiine]

I was wondering why some people call themselves "Calvinists" or even put it as a class of its own or type of religion?

Well, the same reason I call myself a "Trinitarian".

We all use terms to define our type of belief system - arminians have one, calvanists have one... same with issues of eschatology - there are preterists & pretribbers...post tribbers, no tribbers.. etc. etc.

It's just a way to define the belief that differs from another's view.
I call myself a Christian, but I'll very quickly seek terms to point out what type of Christian I AM NOT!

 

[Nadiine]

I was wondering why some people call themselves "Calvinists" or even put it as a class of its own or type of religion?

Well, the same reason I call myself a "Trinitarian".

We all use terms to define our type of belief system - arminians have one, calvanists have one... same with issues of eschatology - there are preterists & pretribbers...post tribbers, no tribbers.. etc. etc.

It's just a way to define the belief that differs from another's view.
I call myself a Christian, but I'll very quickly seek terms to point out what type of Christian I AM NOT!

 

[edie19]

Well, the same reason I call myself a "Trinitarian".

We all use terms to define our type of belief system - arminians have one, calvanists have one... same with issues of eschatology - there are preterists & pretribbers...post tribbers, no tribbers.. etc. etc.

It's just a way to define the belief that differs from another's view.
I call myself a Christian, but I'll very quickly seek terms to point out what type of Christian I AM NOT!

never thought of it quite like that - but you make an excellent point. We do often use the labels as much to say what we aren't as what we are.