Milton Stanley at Transforming Sermons warns us of the dangers of taking sides in the Calvinist/Arminian controversy by quoting a couple of other bloggers. Jeff at Ant-Itch Meditation (great name for a blog by the way - can' t wait till a wise guy or gal names their blog "Anti-Fungal") says:

Without getting into the debate--I believe both sides are equally true as both have biblical support and both sides are equally false when they ignore handy parts of scripture. . . . The issue centers more on people than it does on Scripture, hence the names Arminianism and Calvinism--named after two guys. When you argue the issue you are threatening heroes of the faith.

And Mick Porter says:

Personally, I find it hard that we could read 1 Cor 1:12-13 and then continue to so boldly label ourselves "Calvinists" or "Arminians" or anything else:

Ah well, cantankerously curmudgeonous Calvinist that I am, I just have to respond to that.
In reading Jeff's post I think he is as concerned with the heated arguments that seem to follow discussions of predestination as anything else. I agree with this - these "discussions" often become flame wars, whether in person, in print or over a modem. But the issue of how Christians interact with one another is a separate one from the issue of labeling.

However, the two could go hand in hand. If labeling necessarily caused heated discussion and discord in the body of Christ then I would have to say that labeling is sinful in and of itself. Of course, labeling may be sinful for other reasons, but I am just trying to separate the issues.

I Corinthians 1:12-13 is a warning against a party spirit. In that passage we see that there were four parties in the Corinthian church - the Paul party, the Apollos party, the Cephas party and the super spiritual Christ party - the party that ostensibly transcended the other parties.

In that case, labeling was an evidence of the party spirit. Actually, I should change my terms here and say that the party spirit was evidence of a divisive spirit. But that does not mean that labeling is always, at all times and in all cases, evidence of a divisive spirit. It may be evidence of a divisive spirit, but it is not necessarily evidence of a divisive spirit.

However, many who use the terms "Calvinist" and "Arminian" use the terms in a different sense. Though the terms are associated with men from the past, they are really technical terms which function as a kind of theological shorthand.

By theological shorthand I mean that they are one word terms which summarize a veritable encyclopedia of biblical and theological data. Because the terms have become common in the church over the years, their general meaning is known. When someone asks you what you believe about predestination you could go into a long winded explanation describing all of the appropriate nuances, or you can say "I'm a Calvinist" or "I'm an Arminian," and lots of people will know what you mean by that and will thank you for saving your breath and their time.

Of course, as a preacher I am genetically long-winded and there are ways of explaining yourself without being long winded. I could shorten things up a bit and say that I believe in predestination, that from eternity past, God ordained everything that will come to pass, including our salvation, and that he did this based on nothing forseen in us. Someone else might say they believe that God looked down through the corridors of history, foreseeing who would come to Him by faith upon the offer of the gospel, and at that time He predestined them.

If I and my friend who sees differently did that we would have avoided the labels and therefore could, technically, avoid the condemnation of I Corinthians 1:12-13. But here's the rub - we are still divided. He sees the Scripture one way and I see it another. Let's suppose I can't convince him and he can't convince me, our consciences are bound by the Word of God and we are both persuaded that we are right and the other is wrong. We are still divided. Now, suppose we both start teaching bible studies.

Because my conscience is bound by the Word of God I must teach my position on this and because my friend's conscience is bound by the Word of God he must teach his. Or, we could both agree not to teach on this matter that has divided us. But this means that when we come to passages like Ephesians 1, Romans 8, 9-11, II Peter 3:9 and others we are going to have to do one of a number of things. We could simply skip the passages because we disagree. Or, we could teach both views and leave it to our students to make up their own minds. But if we did that we would need to tell them to not make up their own minds because if student A made up his mind differently than student B then they would be back in the same divisive predicament as their teachers.
My point in this silly little exercise is simply that if two or more people develop two or more differing convictions on one or more passages or doctrines there is already some sort of division in the body of Christ. The fact that we didn't put labels on those differing convictions doesn't change the fact that there is division.
At this point things get a little more fuzzy. In I Corinthians 1, were the Corinthians following these men based on personality or conviction? I can't imagine that there was any substantive difference in the things they taught and lean toward the idea that the church members were creating little personality cults.
That is a very different thing than having differing schools of thought on particular theological matters. There is some parallel here with Romans 14:5 tells us that there are some matters which arise in which we are obligated to be convinced in our own mind:

One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

In these cases we aren't to judge our brother, to condemn him or hold him in contempt. But neither are we obligated to acquiesce to his position. We are to be fully convinced in our own mind, binding our consciences to the Word of God. At the same time we are to welcome the brother who disagrees with us even though our dispute cannot be resolved.

My contention then, is that it is not sinful in and of itself to hold differing theological positions. Further it is possible, in the body of Christ to hold differing theological positions and still maintain fellowship.
But getting back to our main point, though it may be permissible to hold differing theological convictions in the body of Christ is it then permissible to label those differing theological convictions? I can't see that I Corinthians 1:12-13 forbids us to label our theological convictions. Certainly, this labeling can lead to or evidence a party spirit or a divisive spirit, but not necessarily so.

The above mentioned bloggers objected to using the names of individuals to label ourselves. In the Calvinist/Arminian debate I have difficulty believing that anyone has a real heart love for men who have been dead for several hundred years and I think those who use these labels are merely using the technical, theological shorthand to do so.

I will confess though, that even though I have no real intellectual objection to using terms like Calvinist or Arminian, that I have much the same visceral reaction as my brothers that I am disagreeing with here. I don't like calling myself a "Calvinist," so when it comes time for me to identify my theological convictions I much prefer to say "reformed," simply because it doesn't sound as much like I am being a man follower.
But the point remains. If I have a sinful, divisive, party spirit, I have not ceased to sin by changing my label from "Calvinist" to "reformed."

And, as a side note on this, even if those of us who have strong "Calvinistic" or "Arminian" convictions were to eschew those labels, I really don't believe we could get away from them in our present situation. What I mean is that if I were to tell someone that I believe that God has, from eternity past, foreordained whatsoever comes to pass including the salvation of the elect, for many people, the first thing out of their mouths would be "you sound like a Calvinist." I could say I'm not, but, well, you know the old saying - if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck. I may eschew the "Calvinist" label but I waddle and quack like a lot of folks who have worn that label throughout history and I'll have a hard time denying it.
I do agree with at least one aspect of what my brothers are saying. They are evidently concerned about the harsh rhetoric that flies so freely in Christendom. I agree with that to a point, although not as an absolute principle. Paul himself had no problem using very harsh rhetoric with his opponents. And oh by the way, he had no problem with labelling his opponents. In Galatians 2:11-13 he opposes his Christian brother and fellow apostle Peter to his face and calls him a hypocrite. In Galatians 3:1 he calls his flock at Galatia a bunch of fools. And, as for those who advocated circumcision in Galatia in Galatians 5:12 Paul encouraged them to, um . . ., well, . . . we won't talk about that here, but it's not pretty. Needless to say, there were times when harsh rhetoric and heated argument were a necessary part of Paul's ministry.

So, though our general principle is always to use the utmost consideration and gentleness, there are times when we can and should turn up the heat, especially when dealing with matters that directly affect the gospel itself. This doesn't mean we condemn those we disagree with - Paul didn't say that he no longer regarded Peter as a brother. But neither did Peter's brotherly status save him from the harsh words of Paul which he so richly deserved.

And in conclusion, let's not assume that using labels necessarily implies we have a divisive, party spirit. We might have such a spirit, but not necessarily so. We may just be using labels as a theological shorthand to enable further engagement of the issues.

posted by rob wilkerson  # 3:42 PM