Doctrinal Persuasions

I'm sure that implementing such a feature would be possible, but I'm not sure it would be practical for the Logos staff (but maybe I'm wrong). They would have to know and add the data to each resource. (I didn't mean to italicize anything after "practical" and it isn't showing as italicized in the editor, but when I post it it gets italicized...)

It should be fairly easy to find the information yourself if you look at what the commentaries say about some common "proof texts," so to speak: Jn. 6:44; 3:16; Exodus 10:1 and the proceeding narrative; Rom. 9; and esp. Acts 13:48. Looking at how the commentator deals with those verses I think should give you a very good idea of where they are coming from in the Calv./Armin. side of things. For Disp/Cov. you can read their intro. to Revelation; Rom. 9-11; 1 Pet. 2:9-10; etc.

Things get a little more complicated when you're looking at some one who is a progressive dispensationalist, but there are not a ton of them with literature on Logos right now so you can simply do a search for "progressive dispenstionalist" and find a list of persons to know who they are (e.g. Darrel Bock).

You can then tag each resources with this information: Calvinist/Arminian, Dispensational/Covenantal.

As for books/monographs, this would not be as straightforward, but look to see if it has a Scripture index and if so how the author uses those common texts. Look at the authors denomination (Southern Baptist or OPC) or university (does he teach at Dallas or Westminster?). And you could always resort to a google search or even a search at monergism.com to see if they put him in the Covenantal/Calv camp or Disp. camp.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/47433#Comment_47433

If there's not already, it would be nice to be able to search for books, specifically theology books and commentaries via the author's main doctrinal persuasions. Such as if I wanted to see a list of all the commentaries that were Calvinist or Arminian in nature, then it would list only those commentaries/books. Or if a theology book's author was covenant theology or dispensational in nature, have a list/tag that shows such. Perhaps this is already capable and I don't know of it. Some commentaries are easy to know their doctrinal persuasion, but others are difficult to tell. I understand it's best to not put yourself in a "strict camp," but to study the Bible with little bias and allow the Holy Spirit to teach you, but such a feature would be nice so you could see how opposite camps would interpret a passage.

I think this would need to be set up by the user. Logos is probably not going to wade into these waters. You would need to go through your collection author by author and tag them according to the theological title you would want to give them. Or you would need to create a collection called "Calvinism" and include the author's with those leanings to that collection.

Floyd Johnson

I think this would need to be set up by the user. Logos is probably not going to wade into these waters.

I would agree - in fact it might be insulting. Though some authors are clearly of one strip or another, some are "Calminians" and would prefer not to be classified by common terms. This says nothing about the "Protribulationsist" (i.e. what ever God wants, I am for it) and other theological questions (e.g. baptism, inerrancy vs infallibility, conservative vs liberal, etc.). The use of Tags in L4 allows individual users to classify writers as they see fit.

Ultimately, the tags one uses might be as much a reflection of the biases of the one doing the tagging as of the author being tagged. For example, most would classify me as an Arminian. But some Arminians very easily could classify me as a "closet Calvinist".

Blessings,

Floyd

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/47452#Comment_47452

some are "Calminians" and would prefer not to be classified by common terms....For example, most would classify me as an Arminian. But some Arminians very easily could classify me as a "closet Calvinist".

Ah, you see, Calvinists have an easy way to get around such problems. Calminians and "closet Calvinists" are simply Arminians. Problem solved.

Floyd Johnson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/47455#Comment_47455

Ultimately, the tags one uses might be as much a reflection of the biases of the one doing the tagging as of the author being tagged.

some are "Calminians" and would prefer not to be classified by common terms....For example, most would classify me as an Arminian. But some Arminians very easily could classify me as a "closet Calvinist".

Ah, you see, Calvinists have an easy way to get around such problems. Calminians and "closet Calvinists" are simply Arminians. Problem solved.

Point made. [:)]

Yours because His,

Floyd

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/47455#Comment_47455

some are "Calminians" and would prefer not to be classified by common terms....For example, most would classify me as an Arminian. But some Arminians very easily could classify me as a "closet Calvinist".

Ah, you see, Calvinists have an easy way to get around such problems. Calminians and "closet Calvinists" are simply Arminians. Problem solved.

There are truly NO Arminians. There are only those who claim to be such. No Christian ever says "I did it myself." I recall hearing an anecdote regarding one of Mr. Wesley's hymns though I forget which one or who made the comment, but upon hearing the hymn this person said, "Where is your Arminianism now, Mr. Wesley?"

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/47499#Comment_47499

There are truly NO Arminians. There are only those who claim to be such. No Christian ever says "I did it myself." I recall hearing an anecdote regarding one of Mr. Wesley's hymns though I forget which one or who made the comment, but upon hearing the hymn this person said, "Where is your Arminianism now, Mr. Wesley?"

errr...noooo...I won't get pulled in.....stink...I'm in....I would argue that their are no "true" Calvinists then either. There are inconsistencies in all of us. That is hopefully why we study scripture with great programs like Logos (there, I got it in), to draw ourselves closer to the truth rather then draw the truth closer to ourselves. PLEASE understand I am making no statement about the truthfulness of either Arminians, calvinist, or calmians. We have to start from somewhere, but hopefully we never become complacent with where we are.

Ryan Schatz

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/47499#Comment_47499

There are truly NO Arminians. There are only those who claim to be such. No Christian ever says "I did it myself." ...

You are correct if you mean that there is no Arminian who claims to say "I did it myself." If you would take the time to characterize the opposing view in a charitable, fair manner, all the Arminian claims (as far as Jacobus Arminius taught) is that through the conviction and convincing of the Holy Spirit, he has made a free will decision to trust in the completed work of the Saviour. That is not "doing it himself" nor it is adding to the completed work, but merely applying the completed work to one's life through faith making it efficient for himself.

Its much like the passover sacrifice. Sacrificing the lamb was completely sufficient but it was not efficient until it was applied to the door posts and those putting their confidence in the promise God had made willfully put themselves in the house. To run away thinking you could escape would have been a failure of faith. To slaughter the lamb and not apply it to the doorposts would also be a failure of faith.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/47541#Comment_47541

all the Arminian claims (as far as Jacobus Arminius taught) is that through the conviction and convincing of the Holy Spirit, he has made a free will decision to trust in the completed work of the Saviour.

The very willing is the gift of God. St Augustine pondered this very question in his Confessions

1. Great art Thou, O Lord, and greatly to be praised; great is Thy power, and of Thy wisdom there is no end. And man, being a part of Thy creation, desires to praise Thee, man, who bears about with him his mortality, the witness of his sin, even the witness that Thou “resistest the proud,” —yet man, this part of Thy creation, desires to praise Thee. Thou movest us to delight in praising Thee; for Thou hast formed us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless till they find rest in Thee Lord, teach me to know and understand which of these should be first, to call on Thee, or to praise Thee; and likewise to know Thee, or to call upon Thee. But who is there that calls upon Thee without knowing Thee? For he that knows Thee not may call upon Thee as other than Thou art. Or perhaps we call on Thee that we may know Thee. “But how shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? or how shall they believe without a preacher?” And those who seek the Lord shall praise Him. For those who seek shall find Him, and those who find Him shall praise Him. Let me seek Thee, Lord, in calling on Thee, and call on Thee in believing in Thee; for Thou hast been preached unto us. O Lord, my faith calls on Thee,—that faith which Thou hast imparted to me, which Thou hast breathed into me through the incarnation of Thy Son, through the ministry of Thy preacher.

Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Vol. I. The confessions and letters of St. Augustin with a sketch of his life and work. (33). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.

Lord’s Day 1

Question 1

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/47432#Comment_47432

I fear I understand some of these distinctions so poorly I could never classify them. However, in college I had a chemistry professor who showed me a work-around. His 4 drawer file cabinet bore the labels: stuff, junk, things and miscellaneous. Coffee cups for chemistry majors were filed under stuff. So I have 4 collections - stuff I really use, stuff I think I should use, other stuff, something-a-rather stuff.[;)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/47689#Comment_47689

Well, I don't know about all that. I was really just making a tongue in cheek joke. Calvinists usually refer to all non-Calvinists as Arminian although most non-Calvinists don't consider themselves Arminian (or even know that it's not a people group called Armenian).

I have a friend for example who hates Calvinism but also hates to be called an Arminian. Personally, I'm the kind who argues that those (Cal/Arm) are the only two consistent labels, partly depending on what you see as the essential elements of the positions. If you think regeneration comes prior to faith, then for all practical (and logically consistent purposes) you will (whether you know it or not) fit under the Cal. label. If you think it comes after faith, then for all practical...

But I digress.

P.S. And if you don't know or don't take a position then you're not a Calminian, you're an agnostic. We don't call people who don't take a position on whether or not God exists "Christathiests," we call them agnostics (all questions as to whether there is such a thing as an agnostic aside).

Todd Phillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/47689#Comment_47689

So I have 4 collections - stuff I really use, stuff I think I should use, other stuff, something-a-rather stuff.

We need these collections to be predefined. Then we would all work better.

Actually mine are: Stuff I use, Stuff I think I should use, Stuff that might be useful, Stuff that I won't use.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/47689#Comment_47689

have 4 collections - stuff I really use, stuff I think I should use, other stuff, something-a-rather stuff.

Joking aside, this sounds like a really good use of the star rating system.

(‾◡◝)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/47559#Comment_47559

The very willing is the gift of God.

That is either a very correct statement or we will all need to delete huge portions of Scripture.

The key distinction is "ability". Can the dead hear or even respond, in and of themselves? They need to be made alive / quickened / regenerated / born again / born from above and only then will they have ears that hear and eyes that see.

"... a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand [is not able to understand] them, because they are spiritually appraised." I Co 2.14 "No one can come [is able to come] to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him" Jn 6.44 [emphasis mine]

I would be amazed if Logos ever swatted the hornet's nest by trying to identify the theological perspectives of authors and books in the library. As someone else correctly noted, one's own tagging/metadata system should be used.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/47710#Comment_47710

have 4 collections - stuff I really use, stuff I think I should use, other stuff, something-a-rather stuff.

Joking aside, this sounds like a really good use of the star rating system.

And don't forget...you can always "Hide Resources"! C'ya Bye, Lectionaries!! You won't be missed, I promise. Same with you Devotionals...so looooong!!!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/47433#Comment_47433

If there's not already, it would be nice to be able to search for books, specifically theology books and commentaries via the author's main doctrinal persuasions.

I think this would need to be set up by the user. Logos is probably not going to wade into these waters. You would need to go through your collection author by author and tag them according to the theological title you would want to give them. Or you would need to create a collection called "Calvinism" and include the author's with those leanings to that collection.

I thought a couple of weeks ago that this might be a useful thing for www.bestcommentaries.com to show, but immediately abandoned the idea of suggesting it. I agree that it isn't something Logos would want to involve themselves with either, nor should they, in my opinion. It involves a level of judgment in some cases which they, valuing their theological neutrality as I'm sure they do, should not take on.

Some doctrinal labels are placed on people by others. Some are self-adhered. Often when they are placed by others, they are not owned by the individuals themselves. Some are assigned by association and are not necessarily valid (just because someone teaches at a particular institution doesn't mean they fall in line with the theological position of said institution lock-stock-and-barrel; e.g., Peter Enns published stuff contrary to Westminster's theological position before he got kicked out). Some such labels are virtually meaningless because they're relative (e.g., "liberal" could mean Vancouver School of Theology if you're from Regent College, but people at Dallas Seminary probably think Regent is liberal, and people at Bob Jones probably think Dallas is liberal). Some theological labels change over a person's lifetime (e.g., Bruce Waltke was a dispensationalist in his Dallas years but grew progressively more towards covenant theology and completely rejects dispensationalism now). Some labels are not very accurate descriptions anyway. Some put people in too small of a box when they really range over a spectrum of viewpoints. Some writers simply defy categorization. Also, theological categories are fluid over time and geographically and depending on whom you talk to. It might be useful to know which commentaries come from an evangelical perspective, but does "evangelical" mean the same now in North America to everyone who uses that term to describe themselves as it does to others describing them, or as it does to Christians in Britain, or as it did prior to postmodernism, or as it did prior to the fundamentalist controversy in the early 20th century?

Anyway, assigning theological labels is a hot potato, and I think Logos would be wise to avoid touching it.

As for individual users doing their own tagging, it would be a difficult task. As Jason pointed out, it's not always easy to determine where an author is coming from. You might have to skim through a good chunk of the book to figure it out. That means that for some books, you'd have to own them first before being able to tag them appropriately. Some people might wanting the theological persuasion labeling in order to help them determine whether to buy the books or not in the first place.

I also agree with Jason that it's good to read books that come from other theological positons than your own, to see how they might interpret something just for comparison, but also to develop your own theological position which might have been shaped primarily by lack of access to any viable alternative at the time, or by shallow shootings-down of other positions outside the camp you grew up in. When we limit ourselves to what we already agree with, we never grow.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/49258#Comment_49258

, but also to develop your own theological position which might have been shaped primarily by lack of access to any viable alternative at the time, or by shallow shootings-down of other positions outside the camp you grew up in. When we limit ourselves to what we already agree with, we never grow.

Excellent pt. [Y]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/49258#Comment_49258

Well I would like to say something in behalf of labels.

I know that a lot of people today think labels are a bad thing. In fact, in some circles they have an inherent negative connotation. But a label is simply an identifying mark and I think, regardless of how much one may wish to defy categorization/identification, they will have some identity to label and, regardless of how unique they wish they were, they will fall into some historical (or semi-historical) theological camp.

The fact that my Arminian friend does not like the label or "own it" does nothing to change the fact that he holds to 95% of the same theological positions that are distinctive of Arminianism. I may not call him an Arminian simply to respect this psychological phenomenon (rather than factual), but a rose is a rose no matter what you call it.

True, some may be an amalgam of say say Calvinism and Dispensationalism with a liberal political ethic, but that's fine because Calvinism, for the most part, simply refers to one's soteriological view and doesn't necessarily impede upon the other labels; even though we may usually expect a Calvinist to be Covenantal and conservative. Such a person doesn't really defy labels, they simply have a blend of labels we don't find as often as others. [I should also point out here that it is impossible to defy some labels or to be an amalgam of some labels. This is most obvious when it comes to whether you are for Christ or against Christ, but it is also present in many other areas (the priority of regeneration, etc.).]

I don't see the fact that a person's labels may change over time as any mark (reason) against the use of labels. For example, one significant change of label that all Christians have gone through is estranged from Christ (athiest, anti-Christ, or whatever) to Christian. I certainly don't think the fact that I've changed labels in that respect that I should be persuaded to drop the Christian label. At best, it is a caution that if my knowledge of someone as a dispensationalist is from something 40 years ago, I may want to make sure he/she still fits there. But I wouldn't just assume the label is no longer valid.

Nor does the fact that a label may mean different things to different people stand as a mark against labels, at least not prima facie (to most of the world the label "Christian" simply means white-anglo-saxon). More needs to be said on that issue to make a decision and in some cases we would probably want to say that the person needs to have a better understanding of the "label" (or actually its referent) rather than that the label (or its referent) should be accommodated to the whims of the person.

Labels are not a box, they are a symbol of identification, as is all of language. The fact that they may be poorly applied is no more an argument that we should stop using them than it is that we should stop using language. It is, however, an argument that we need to be very careful in using them.

(I realize, Rosie, that none of this may not touch the point you were getting at above. I didn't mean for it to be an argument against you're position, since I couldn't really discern whether you were being anti-label or simply pointing out some legitimate cautions. That's why I didn't quote you. I did, however, refer to some of the terms and ideas you used because those in the anti-label camp often use them for their own purposes.)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/49332#Comment_49332

Well I would like to say something in behalf of labels.

I know that a lot of people today think labels are a bad thing. In fact, in some circles they have an inherent negative connotation. But a label is simply an identifying mark and I think, regardless of how much one may wish to defy categorization/identification, they will have some identity to label and, regardless of how unique they wish they were, they will fall into some historical (or semi-historical) theological camp.

The fact that my Arminian friend does not like the label or "own it" does nothing to change the fact that he holds to 95% of the same theological positions that are distinctive of Arminianism. I may not call him an Arminian simply to respect this psychological phenomenon (rather than factual), but a rose is a rose no matter what you call it.

I tend to agree with you here. It seems to me that the reluctance to place a label on any position is rather akin to "political correctness." Someone may hold a particular position, but it isn't considered "polite" to note the fact -- by all means, don't call a terrorist a "terrorist." I've always thought that one ought to call a spade a spade and not a club. Such reluctance leads to rather fuzzy thinking.

Chris Ease

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/49349#Comment_49349

Classifications could be beneficial. Some people may be a 3pt calvinist baptist and others may be a true 5pt calvinist reformed presbyterian while at the same time they have different end-time views, etc.... You get the point!

Friedrich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/49349#Comment_49349

Well I would like to say something in behalf of labels.

I know that a lot of people today think labels are a bad thing. In fact, in some circles they have an inherent negative connotation. But a label is simply an identifying mark and I think, regardless of how much one may wish to defy categorization/identification, they will have some identity to label and, regardless of how unique they wish they were, they will fall into some historical (or semi-historical) theological camp.

The fact that my Arminian friend does not like the label or "own it" does nothing to change the fact that he holds to 95% of the same theological positions that are distinctive of Arminianism. I may not call him an Arminian simply to respect this psychological phenomenon (rather than factual), but a rose is a rose no matter what you call it.

I tend to agree with you here. It seems to me that the reluctance to place a label on any position is rather akin to "political correctness." Someone may hold a particular position, but it isn't considered "polite" to note the fact -- by all means, don't call a terrorist a "terrorist." I've always thought that one ought to call a spade a spade and not a club. Such reluctance leads to rather fuzzy thinking.

I hence forth declare you two to be "labelists." May you enjoy your new identity. [:)]

I confess I have found myself wishing I could determine what millennial perspective a commentary had (before I bought it or had a chance to review it), etc, but ultimately I have to agree that labels can be misleading. It is not about being PC for me. (or Mac, lol).

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/49349#Comment_49349

I tend to agree with you here. It seems to me that the reluctance to place a label on any position is rather akin to "political correctness." Someone may hold a particular position, but it isn't considered "polite" to note the fact -- by all means, don't call a terrorist a "terrorist." I've always thought that one ought to call a spade a spade and not a club. Such reluctance leads to rather fuzzy thinking.

Labels are useful and beneficial for an overview and starting point in understanding someones position, but they should not be confined by that label. For instance, many would appropriately label me an idiot, but I should not be confined to that title. I have every right to prove a fine toning of that label so that I am an idiot with moronic tendencies.

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/47559#Comment_47559

all the Arminian claims (as far as Jacobus Arminius taught) is that through the conviction and convincing of the Holy Spirit, he has made a free will decision to trust in the completed work of the Saviour.

The very willing is the gift of God. St Augustine pondered this very question in his Confessions

1. Great art Thou, O Lord, and greatly to be praised; great is Thy power, and of Thy wisdom there is no end. And man, being a part of Thy creation, desires to praise Thee, man, who bears about with him his mortality, the witness of his sin, even the witness that Thou “resistest the proud,” —yet man, this part of Thy creation, desires to praise Thee. Thou movest us to delight in praising Thee; for Thou hast formed us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless till they find rest in Thee Lord, teach me to know and understand which of these should be first, to call on Thee, or to praise Thee; and likewise to know Thee, or to call upon Thee. But who is there that calls upon Thee without knowing Thee? For he that knows Thee not may call upon Thee as other than Thou art. Or perhaps we call on Thee that we may know Thee. “But how shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? or how shall they believe without a preacher?” And those who seek the Lord shall praise Him. For those who seek shall find Him, and those who find Him shall praise Him. Let me seek Thee, Lord, in calling on Thee, and call on Thee in believing in Thee; for Thou hast been preached unto us. O Lord, my faith calls on Thee,—that faith which Thou hast imparted to me, which Thou hast breathed into me through the incarnation of Thy Son, through the ministry of Thy preacher.

Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Vol. I. The confessions and letters of St. Augustin with a sketch of his life and work. (33). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.

Lord’s Day 1
Question 1
What is thy only comfort in life and death?
That I with body and soul, both in life and death,^a am not my own,^b but belong unto my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ;^c who, with his precious blood, has fully satisfied for all my sins,^d and delivered me from all the power of the devil;^e and so preserves me^f that without the will of my heavenly Father, not a hair can fall from my head;^g yea, that all things must be subservient to my salvation,^h and therefore, by his Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life,ⁱand makes me sincerely willing and ready, henceforth, to live unto him.^j
All pride at one's accomplishements is thereby excluded for they are God's accomplishments.

Well-Posted, George! *smile*

Thank you muchly!

Peace and Joy to you always!

Yours in Christ, ........... Mel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/49373#Comment_49373

, many would appropriately label me an idiot, but I should not be confined to that title [:|]

LOL! Thanks for the laugh.

I agree to a point that labels have their purposes.

Unfortunately what I have found (from past personal experience) is the one giving out labels often does so in order to group a certain type of people into a box (label) for the purpose of feeling self justified in "tearing into" those "types" of people simply because the labeler thinks those with the X,Y,Z label are deserving of less grace than the rest.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/49386#Comment_49386

Unfortunately what I have found (from past personal experience) is the one giving out labels often does so in order to group a certain type of people into a box (label) for the purpose of feeling self justified in "tearing into" those "types" of people simply because the labeler thinks those with the X,Y,Z label are deserving of less grace than the rest.

Agreed. This happens way too often.

Prov. 30:2/NKJV

Jacob Hantla

If there's not already, it would be nice to be able to search for books, specifically theology books and commentaries via the author's main doctrinal persuasions. Such as if I wanted to see a list of all the commentaries that were Calvinist or Arminian in nature, then it would list only those commentaries/books. Or if a theology book's author was covenant theology or dispensational in nature, have a list/tag that shows such. Perhaps this is already capable and I don't know of it. Some commentaries are easy to know their doctrinal persuasion, but others are difficult to tell. I understand it's best to not put yourself in a "strict camp," but to study the Bible with little bias and allow the Holy Spirit to teach you, but such a feature would be nice so you could see how opposite camps would interpret a passage.

Probably best to let us assign our own labels.

Let's have them get resource type data and other metadata perfected first.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/49349#Comment_49349

Well I would like to say something in behalf of labels.

I know that a lot of people today think labels are a bad thing. In fact, in some circles they have an inherent negative connotation. But a label is simply an identifying mark and I think, regardless of how much one may wish to defy categorization/identification, they will have some identity to label and, regardless of how unique they wish they were, they will fall into some historical (or semi-historical) theological camp.

I tend to agree with you here. It seems to me that the reluctance to place a label on any position is rather akin to "political correctness." Someone may hold a particular position, but it isn't considered "polite" to note the fact -- by all means, don't call a terrorist a "terrorist." I've always thought that one ought to call a spade a spade and not a club. Such reluctance leads to rather fuzzy thinking.

Goodness, I didn't realize I was being so controversial. I should clarify. I am not "anti-label" (though if you want to label me that, I suppose I have no choice), nor did I say the things I did for political correctness or to avoid offending someone who doesn't want a particular label. I can and do easily and frequently describe people as premillennialist or Calvinist or whatever, and I know what those labels mean, and I appreciate knowing what camp people are in ahead of time (though I can usually tell after reading a bit of it, even without the label to help me). As I pointed out I did think it would be useful to see such descriptive categories in the http://bestcommentaries.com site, though I realize it's impractical and could have some negative consequences.

Many labels are theologically neutral. They make no judgment about whether someone is right or wrong, they are just objectively descriptive and thus helpful. However, labels that are derived from historical controversies where one camp was viewed as heretical by another camp are a bit more dicey, especially when it could be argued that both had some aspects of the truth and neither one was 100% right or wrong. Is someone a Calvinist? Are they 100% Calvinist or only 80%? Do they get to wear the label only if they are 100%? Some would say so. Calvinist and Arminian tend to be labels that people use to classify someone else as wrong and oneself as right. Many people who identify as one or the other are quite convinced that their way is the only right way. Logos (thank God) publishes works from both perspectives and doesn't take sides. I like the image (can't remember where it's from; Pilgrim's Progress?) where a person on life's journey looks up and sees a gate which says something along the lines of "enter ye all who would choose the Lord" and he decides to enter; but once he gets inside he looks back to see the other side of the sign and it says "chosen from beginning of time." It seems that it's best to be an Arminian before you're saved and a Calvinist after! [:)] Anyway, I'm not interested in getting into the fine points of that particular theological debate, please. Not here, at least.

Labels might be helpful for published books, but in conversations with people they tend to close doors to communication rather than opening them. For example, some of us, if we knew another person was a dispensationalist, say, would not want to engage them in conversation because we'd figure they had their mind made up already and were going to judge us for not being dispensationalist. But that isn't fair. Not all people who are squarely placed in one camp or another would refuse to dialogue with someone from another camp; nor would view their own position as 100% unassailable. We learn from each other by open non-judgmental conversation. If we pigeon-hole someone by labels, we tend to shut down and close ourself off from possible growth. Labels are fine as long as they are merely descriptive and not defense mechanisms.

As another example, I am a member of a Mennonite Church, but I'm not 100% Mennonite by any means. I came from a Reformed/Presbyterian background and that is still very much a part of my theology, but I really have appreciated and grown from being part of a Mennonite congregation for the past 13 years. When asked what my denomination is, I say Presbyterian-Mennonite, because neither one of them fully describes me. (I've also got some Episcopalian, Quaker, Congregationalist, non-denominational, Jewish, Catholic, Orthodox, and Emergent/post-evangelical thrown into the mix in what has shaped me. So I'm really a mutt, a PresbyMennoCongreQuakopalian or something like that. Transdenominational is probably the best label for people like me. But some might prefer to make up their own labels for people like me: "weirdo" or "confused" or "keep away from me you syncretist!")

I'm also reminded of the well-known joke that makes fun of the extreme of very precise labeling. Here's a variant of it:

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump.
I said, "Don't do it!"
He said, "Nobody loves me."
I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"
He said, "Yes."I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?"
He said, "A Christian.
"I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?"
He said, "Protestant."
I said, "Me, too! What franchise?"
He said, "Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region."
I said, "Me, too!" Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."
I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

I also love the poem by the great Christian poet, Edwin Markham:

I drew a circle and shut him out;
Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.
But Love and I had the wit to win:
We drew a circle that took him in.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/49442#Comment_49442

I'm also reminded of the well-known joke that makes fun of the extreme of very precise labeling. Here's a variant of it:

Now that's funny... :-)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/49446#Comment_49446

All the negatives that I've seen people list of labeling in the above posts have not been directly tied to labels as such, but to how people can and do abuse them.

But I don't find this to be a convincing argument that we should shy away from them. Sometimes if you step on someone's toes you should watch where you're standing. Sometimes if you step on someone's toes the other guy should watch where he is standing.

If any of you are pro-gun, then you will get this analogy. "Attacking" (or shying away from to put it more mildly) the use of labels because people misuse them is like trying to get rid of guns to cut down on crime. It simply isn't addressing the actual issue.

I'm sure if no one else knew what anyone else believed we could all hold hands and sing Kumbaya, but that would be the bliss of ignorance, not true harmony.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/49442#Comment_49442

If I might share a few more thoughts.

“However, labels that are derived from historical controversies
where one camp was viewed as heretical by another camp are a bit more dicey,
especially when it could be argued that both had some aspects of the truth and
neither one was 100% right or wrong.”

I’m not sure I understand what you have in mind. The brush seems
too broad for me. For example, the historical controversies where charges of
heresy were made that immediately come to my mind are Arianism, Pelagianism,
Modalism, etc. Can you legitimately say that Arianism had some truth in it? Not
in any relevant sense! Can you legitimately say that Modalism has some truth in
it? Again, not in any relevant sense.

Now, we may want to fudge and say Arius was at least right about
Christ being human… but I say this is fudging because the position he was
arguing against was not denying the humanity of Christ. In other words, that
fact wasn’t even part of the controversy and the fact that was the focus of the
controversy was 100% wrong. Same for the others.

So I’m not sure which you have in mind that are not
100% wrong. In fact, I think that’s going about it in a way that I find
entirely misleading. There are not degrees of right and wrongness in regards to
any particular fact and we can look at a worldview and judge it in the same
manner. Naturalistic atheism, for instance, isn’t 60% wrong, it’s 100% wrong.
But does this mean that everything a naturalistic atheist says is wrong? No, of
course not. To think so seems more like a category mistake.

“Is someone a Calvinist?
Are they 100% Calvinist or only 80%? Do they get to wear the label only if they
are 100%? Some would say so.”

As I imply above, I’m not sure it makes much sense to speak of
systems in general or these particular systems in this way. Everything can be
divvied up, but I’m not sure there is any relevant sense in which someone is
80% Calvinist. We might as well speak of being 80% Christian. We don’t usually
speak of a Christian who has a non-Christian belief (e.g. “stealing is cool”)
as being 75.4% Christian and I’m not sure why we would it other areas..

“Calvinist and Arminian tend to be labels that people use to
classify someone else as wrong and oneself as right.”

I can honestly say that I’ve never once seen anyone use these
labels in this manner and I’ve stood on both sides of fence, very ardently. Of
course a Calvinist thinks an Arminian is wrong and vice versa… but that’s
simply because they are being logical (law of excluded middle).

“Many people who identify as one or the other are quite
convinced that their way is the only right way.”

I would say that of necessity everyone believes their beliefs are true, otherwise why would they
hold the belief?! I’m not even sure it’s possible to hold a belief that you
think is false. Try believing that I’m typing in blue text, for instance. But
maybe you have something else in mind by “right way.”

“I like the image (can't remember where it's from;Pilgrim's Progress?)
where a person on life's journey looks up and sees a gate which says something
along the lines of "enter ye all who would choose the Lord" and he
decides to enter; but once he gets inside he looks back to see the other side
of the sign and it says "chosen from beginning of time.’”

I don’t think those are mutually exclusive since I don’t think
the former implies who is capable. In other words, the former
simply misses the point of dispute in the Calv/Armin. issue. However, if the
former were taken to imply something relevant to the Calv/Armin issue then it
would simply be misleading or giving false information.

I think I understand where the other side of the
labeling issue is coming from, but I can’t really see how referring to it as
pigeon-holing or “boxing” is legitimate. Richard Dawkins once said that the
entire free will issue “turn[ s ] out to be a misnamed and misbegotten amalgam of
overhasty problem posing and self-induced panic, the false pretext for much
otherwise unmotivated system building and metaphysical tinkering” (Elbow Room 6).
It seems to me that the issues within
Christendom of Denomination vs. Non-Denominationalism and labeling vs. non-labeling
are the same exact thing. We’ve been convinced that there’s a bugbear in there
somewhere… But I’ve yet to find it.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/49473#Comment_49473

eeek...

As I did state... Labeling has its uses... (think that must have been overlooked)

AND... it certainly DOES get abused. (I know from experience on both sides)

That was the ONLY point I was trying to make.

I'm a Conservative(label) Independent(label) Baptist(label) (so I have TONS of labeling experience),...among other things that I would label myself and I'm sure others would label me.

Labels are a fact of life, they are used throughout Scripture, both in a positive productive way and in the abused self-righteous way.

We are all susceptible in misusing them. (and I'd be quite certain it happens to ALL of us at diff. times). Lets just be aware of it and realize we probably need to check our "grace thermometers" before addressing those of "different labels". Esp. since it is words seasoned with grace that really make any difference in helping others see the Truth.

A "discussion" (better known as an argument) where people use "shot-guns filled with words" is just a "I'm right your wrong" contest that does not edify anyone and certainly does not bring ANY Glory to the Lord.

There are often things that SHOULD be said... but be said in a graceful way. It is usually easy for me to feel justified in saying certain things to certain people a certain way (hurtful) because I believe them to be wrong or offensive in something they have done or spoken. While I may be led (even of the Spirit) to say something, I am still to say it with Love and Grace. (My problem is I like to usually "let em have it" when I'm right and they are wrong)

NOTICE: I am speaking from experience... (experience in wielding my own "word shot-gun") I am not trying to be preachy (although I think I've already gone overboard)...

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/49505#Comment_49505

eeek...

As I did state... Labeling has its uses... (think that must have been overlooked)

I'm not sure if this is in reference to my posts or not. But I don't think I overlooked anything. I took it into account that the people here do not completely eschew labels, but I was only addressing that which was said against labels.

A "discussion" (better known as an argument) where people use "shot-guns filled with words" is just a "I'm right your wrong" contest that does not edify anyone and certainly does not bring ANY Glory to the Lord.

You seem to be using "argument" with a negative connotation. I should point out that when I use the term (and I have a few times in this thread), I'm using it in the purely technical sense: premises (reasons) supporting a conclusion (and in that sense an argument is just a type of discussion). I rarely use it with negative connotation, so I hope no one read anything into my use of the term that I didn't intend.

Don't read too much into the fact that I pick things apart. It's nothing personal, it doesn't mean I'm riled up, it doesn't mean I think it's a big deal, or much of anything else. That's just how I approach things, but I realize that it can easily be misinterpreted and that's why I usually just keep my mouth shut (but not enough perhaps).

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/49518#Comment_49518

A "discussion" (better known as an argument) where people use "shot-guns filled with words" is just a "I'm right your wrong" contest that does not edify anyone and certainly does not bring ANY Glory to the Lord.

I appologize, it was not my intention for that to be taken personally. It was more of me musing my own experiences from both sides of the table.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/49373#Comment_49373

Labels are useful and beneficial for an overview and starting point in understanding someones position, but they should not be confined by that label. For instance, many would appropriately label me an idiot, but I should not be confined to that title. I have every right to prove a fine toning of that label so that I am an idiot with moronic tendencies.

We hadn't intended to say anything about that, but since you brought it up ... [;)]

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/49442#Comment_49442

I am not "anti-label" (though if you want to label me that, I suppose I have no choice)

In that case, would they have labeled you as "anti-label"? [8-|]

Jack Caviness

I believe this entire discussion proves one point. Logos would be well-advised to refrain from applying doctrinal labels to the resources they sell. [8-|] Labels do have their value, but choosing which one to apply in any particular case is very subjective indeed.

Ted Hans

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/49332#Comment_49332

Thanks John Bowling for your well thought through post in this thread. Much appreciated, boy you do write well![Y]

Ted

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/49640#Comment_49640

Thanks, Ted. But as Van Til said, I'm just standing on the shoulders of everyone who's been an influence in my life. All faults my own.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/49577#Comment_49577

I am not "anti-label" (though if you want to label me that, I suppose I have no choice)

In that case, would they have labeled you as "anti-label"?

No, I'm Auntie Rosie...to my nephew at least. [:)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/49810#Comment_49810

No, I'm Auntie Rosie...to my nephew at least.

Not Rosie O'Grady, Rosie the Riveter or Gypsy Rose Lee? [:D]

Jon

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/49442#Comment_49442

As I pointed out I did think it would be useful to see such descriptive categories in the http://bestcommentaries.com site

What a great site! I have not come across this before....

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/49820#Comment_49820

No, I'm Auntie Rosie...to my nephew at least.

Not Rosie O'Grady, Rosie the Riveter or Gypsy Rose Lee?

I've been called those first two, and Rosey Grier, Rosie O'Donnell, etc.

Dan Sheppard

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/49349#Comment_49349

I did not see anyone mention it, but strictly regarding how to perform a search on denominational materials.....

For Missouri Synod Lutherans, it becomes a bit easier. Concordia Publishing House generates most of the materials I would be looking for. However, sometimes the more liberal publisher Augsburg/Fortress may have some things. Many of their older stuff was more conservative, too.

So the points I would offer you are: does your particular denomination have publishers which are unique to your persuasion? Is there somebody who generates Arminian resources? I know that if I see Baker Books, that it is Calvinist, for example.

Second point, is that sometimes a given publisher can be perceived in one way or another, but one has to pay attention to the time, in which a work was published. I may have great comfort with a work published from 1929, but the same work in 1984 would be very questionable.

DominicM

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/47452#Comment_47452

This says nothing about the "Protribulationsist" (i.e. what ever God wants, I am for it)

I think you made this one up my friend, this is the only hit in google for that word ( and thats a rarity)..

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/49842#Comment_49842

does your particular denomination have publishers which are unique to your persuasion?

The axiom I learned at GTU in Berkeley:

for litrugy look to the Anglican presses
for scripture study look to the Lutheran presses
for theology look to the Catholic presses

Yes, both the students and the instructors represented a mix of the above. It did, however, miss one important element:

for patristics look to the Orthodox presses

My leaf-and-spine books reflect this wisdom. Unfortunately, I've not had the opportunity to make it true of my Logos library. Buy I will admit that I am only slowly recognizing that I've stereotyped some presses unfairly.

Damian McGrath

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/49854#Comment_49854

GTU in Berkeley

Off Topic: when were you at the GTU, Martha?

I was doing a doctorate at the JSTB for two years (2006-2007) - hit a wall, came home....

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/49856#Comment_49856

Off Topic: when were you at the GTU, Martha?

mid 80's DSPT