Featured Semi-Calvinism

I agree. It can get confusing for several reasons, one being that the term “Calvinism” was not coined to refer to soteriology any more than “Reformed” was coined to refer to soteriology.

If I remember correctly (and I’m sure I do because my mind’s like a steel trap….sometimes I can’t even get in ) the term “Calvinism” was coined by Lutherans over differences in communion, not soteriological views (unlike Arminianism and pelagianism).

 

Within a Baptist context, I suppose so.

But the term "Calvinist" may not really communicate our views. Instead, I am in favor of calling ourselves “Dortonians”. For one, it isn’t “Calvinism”. For two, I think it goes well with the T.A.R.D.I.S. sticker on the back of my truck.

 

I'd go with Dortonian or Dortionists as either could fit well into Dr. Who or Star Trek. We'd have to come up with our own language...but may would say we are half way there already.

One difference is that the Synod of Dort came about to deal with a position that has arisen within Calvinism (Jacob Arminus died a Calvinist). They did not meet to discuss a way to "evangelize" those five points. So I do think that they met to deal with only those few propositions (there were still some disagreements within Calvinism that were not addressed...some along the same lines, but not "crossing the line" so to speak).

I think of it like any other association or convention. Something arises that seems such a departure from the main stream that it must be discussed. What unites you is not discussed, only what may be a departure from "orthodoxy". For those guys, it was the controversy presented in the form of the Five Articles of the remonstrants and denounced in the Canons of Dort (addressing the five main points in dispute).

 

Yes, absolutely. The term "Calvinism" to represent either a soteriology either in agreement with the Five Points of Calvinism as expressed at Dort or a narrower definition that has become known under the acronym "TULIP" (depending on who's doing the defining) is not dependent on John Calvin (who lived in a time prior to the debates and doctrinal developments over the "scope of the Atonement" and what that has come to represent).

Over a decade after the controversy began (although not fully) James Arminius was still teaching theology (Arminius was a popular professor and taught at Leiden until his death). In 1608 the State concluded that “the points of difference between the two professors, mostly relating to the subtle details of doctrine of predestination, could co-exist”. In 1609 Arminius was ordered to a conference to debate his view, but due to failing health the conference was canceled and both men (Arminius and Gomarus) were asked for a written rebuttal of their opponent’s position. Arminius died on October 19, 1609. At his death, both positions existed within what was considered orthodox Calvinism – but the debate continued and continued to divide.

The Synod of Dort was held in 1618-19, almost a decade after Arminius had died. John Calvin died in 1564. John Calvin did not hold the five points as were articulated at the Synod of Dort (the Five Points of Calvinism) or those represented by TULIP (depending on who’s doing the explaining). He may have agreed, but at the same time he did not make many of the connections that some make today.

 

It depends on perspective. Arminius’ biggest “obstacle” seems to have been not with Calvin but with Beza. Where Calvin (in his Institutes) places predestination later on (following faith and justification) in the doctrine of salvation, Beza places predestination under the doctrine of God (e.g., see his Tractationes Theologicae and Summa totius Christianismi). Arminius’ objection was with this placement, as he viewed its only logical conclusion to be that God authored evil.

But today the argument has moved. “Arminianians” no longer oppose the Calvinistic placement of predestination on the basis of defending the nature of God, but on the basis of defending the will of man.

And that is the tenant that is the most, in my opinion, mutually exclusive between the two camps as they are expressed today. Who determines salvation? Is it God by predestination (under a variety of positions), or is it man by self-determination? All of the other “points” work off this one. We agree that God authors salvation, but we disagree who actually determined our salvation.