Dortian, not Calvinist

Why have a label of any man? Characterizing what you hold to as a reformed belief is quite sufficient is it not?

 

It doesn't matter what label we have. The free willies will always get upset. By the way.... its ok to use the label "free willies".... one of our moderators uses the label "calvies."

 

How about "reformed dispensationalist'?

 

Nacho cheesier!

 

Correct you are, here, on this last point. Those who usually follow the mis-named "Calvinism", would better be called as "Dordtist" or a "Counter-Remonstrant".

Calvin was not a Calvinist, did not hold to any "5 Points" as we know them today, and had passed from this earth over 50 years before the Synod of Dordt, at the fairly young age of 55.
Likewise, Arminius was not an Arminian, either, and he too, had departed this life at the fairly young age of 59, and had been gone 9 years "before Dordt".
This is as good a place as any to throw in that Pelagius was not a Pelagian, either, but let's keep that discussion for another day.
And the often overlooked and underappreciated Theodore de Beze`, who did amaze, or Beza - who would amaze ya', had likewise passed from this realm, at the ripe old age of 86, and that 13 years before Dordt. This hand-picked student of and successor to Calvin, at Geneva, equalled, or more accurately, surpassed his mentor, theologically speaking.

("Biblically speaking", there was no contest. In fact, IMO, among those among the "Reformers and Friends", only Erasmus, Luther, Tyndale, were playing in the same league as Beza, when it came to knowledge of and the handling of Bible texts, in the 16th Century. Beza is most likely the author/editor of the Greek NT text the KJV translators mostly used (regardless of how many times Stephanus' name is invoked, by KJVO advocates), had unlimited access to Codex Bezae & Codex Claramontanus, and published at least nine editions of the Greek NT.)

So yes, let's call this what it actually is, the "Remonstrant/Dordtist" debate. Somehow, I think that that alone would cool down some of the rhetoric I often hear, in this.

Now as to point two I am making, "Shame on you!", here, on this one. The attempt to "theologically kidnap" a 'praising' phrase is deplorable, IMO. I am referring to this one, and I quote you again.

This implies that (a.) those of your belief system are the only ones who believe in grace., and (b.) that your belief systems has gotten it all rightly, for this system is the only one that properly understands grace.

What hogwash! Not to mention what arrogance!!!

Whether or not this is intentional, it is still an arrogant usage, IMO.

The so-called "Calvinist", "Dordtist", "Counter-remonstrant", what have you as to "label" has no monoply on "the Doctines of Grace" (unless this happens to be a book title) by any stretch. (Nor is the term "Reformed" much better, FTR, although I will let that one slide, for now.)

I subscribe to none of "the Five Points of Dordt" in their entirety; I also subscribe to none of the Five Points of Remonstrance, as written and worded, in their entirety. Yet I am also sure that I believe in "the doctrines of grace" as taught in Scripture, as well as you.

And in fact, my greatest disagreement with both groups above is that they both actually deny grace, as they 'demand' perseverance to 'prove' the salvation of the one claiming to be a believer.

Another way of stating this same thing is the doctrine of so-called "Lordship Salvation". If the two groups are diametrically opposed, as is the claim made, why do they wind up at the same point?? :BangHead: Think about it!

Ed

("This phrase of 'the doctrines of grace' is properly not capitalized, here." Signed, Language Cop)

 

To say that Calvin did not hold to any of the so-called five points is silly Ed. Those specific propositions were not formulated in his time , but he held tenaciously to each one . Sometimes his views on Particular Redemption are brought into question by non-Cals but scholars such as Rainbow and Helm ( among others ) have countered that quite well . He believed and wrote extensively on each of those doctrinal planks . To deny that is avoiding reality Ed.
Do want to do some revisionist history ? Do you think the Canons of Dort completely overturned Calvin's theology , or misinterpreted it ?!

 

Correction : Jacob Harmenszoon was 49 at death.

 

Certainly the labels can be distracting. I prefer to call "Calvinism," "Dortism," "Doctrines of Grace," or "Reformed Theology" what it actually is-- Biblical Theology.

Ok...I realize I just threw the proverbial gas on the fire. That's too bad. Calvinism is biblical theology.

Many Blessings to all (even my beloved, non-calvinist brothers and sisters!)

The Archangel

 

WOW ! For someone who wants a "cooling down [of] some of the rhetoric" you sure heat things up Ed. You should "let it slide" just like the term "Reformed" .Before you have more of a fit , The Doctrines Of Grace" ( Regardless of Language Cop's sensitivities being aroused )is one of several designations for those holding to "Calvinism".
We don't mean to suggest that we alone have an exclusive entitlement to the terminology . You have the perfect right to employ it as well . But in doing so you may be mistaken for a Calvinist in the process .:laugh:

 

Sorry, hit the wrong key. 49 is the correct number. I did not proof-read this, well enough, when posting, obviously.

Again, I apologize.


Ed.

 

I don't recall asking for a "cooling down" of any rhetoric, on this thread. In fact, I don't recall asking for this anywhere. I have suggested that I particularly like some threads that are not as "rhetoric filled", as some others. And I have surmised that the reason the Moderators may have closed some threads, was to let some of the rhetoric cool off, as well.

However, my blood pressure is not in the least, raised by the rhetoric I see (or even use). Mine normally runs about 108- 112 over 60-65. And I still weigh about 220-225, not exactly rail-thin for one who stands just under 5'10" tall.

Now to the 'theology speak'.

Is the so-called (classical, or Dordtian) "Calvinism" any more 'Reformed' than is the so-called (classical, as opposed to Wesley's flavor of) "Arminianism"?

If so, how?? Both are products of the same time of the Reformation.

And is it not more accurate to say that those who do not believe in "Lordship Salvation" believe more in "the Doctrines of Grace" than those who do preach and teach LS?

FTR, I occasionally call myself a "'0 point' Calvinist".

Ed

 

For Ed S. who couldn't recall .

 

The above examples show my concern for your blood pressure EDS. It looks as though you're yelling at the top of your voice with veins bulging on your forehead .And what was all that for ? Nothing . J.D. was using an historically accepted designation . He did not invent it -- it's been around a lot longer than even you . So lighten-up guy .

 

Again Ed, unless you're planning on doing some revisionist history -- Calvinism is called 'Reformed Theology' . 'Classical Arminianism' as you called it is not "Reformed'.Arminianism sprang up from within the ranks of Calvinism proper . Then Dort expelled it from those ranks -- because it was rank:laugh: .

 

L.S. Salvation requires that one be at least a moderately leaning Calvinist. IF not, you turn it into a Galatians "Work righteous" heresy.

God saves us, God Keeps us,
He chose us before we were made,
Why do you take Glory, for the choice that was His,
Tell me, are you seeking a Grade?


You make Faith a work,
By the things you believe,
You did not choose Him,
You are most surely deceived,

And how can YOU lose,
what was not yours to take,
He GAVE it to you,
Before Eve and the Snake,

You are a clay pot!
you surely chose nothing,
Next you'll be saying you hung
on that cross, or something....

Give GOD the Glory,
For choosing you when,
You were Wretched, and
never would have chose Him,

You hated him, true
Now don't you deny it,
I'll lay on you scripture,
If you even try it!

Shout, scream, yell, HOORAY!
He loved me so TRUE,
When I was lost and enslaved,
with naught I could do,

He touched my heart,
And changed it complete,
And I will now spend eternity,
At my Savior's feet.

Damon Rambo

That's How I feel about it.

 

Observing that this would serve to 'cool down' the rhetoric, does not necessarily equal 'calling for' the rhetoric 'to be cooled down'.

And this was a bit of a whimsical observation, as well.

Somehow, "Dordtistism vs. Remonstrantism" and even more so, that of "Counter-Remonstrantism vs. Remonstrantism" just doesn't seem to flow off the tongue quite as easily as the more familiar words. :smilewinkgrin:

Ed