Semi-Calvinism

[Yeshua1]

I have actually read the Institutes. Several times. And there is still much I disagree with.

No, the authors were, for the most part, Dutch Reformed. What is your point? They were writing on Soteriology. Had they been writing on baptism or church polity I would have had massive disagreements with them.

So you would agree with them on salvtion, diagree on those other points then?

 

[JonC]

That is one of the reasons I try not to use the word "Calvinist." Simply because it engenders so much strife. Not to mention false definitions of Particular Redemption.

Also I disagree with a lot of what is found in "The Institutes." His polity, His baptism. His involvement in civil matters.

So rather than emphasizing Calvin, which includes so much I disagree with, I emphasize the historic Baptist doctrine of Particular Redemption, and the Soteriology of the canons of the synod of Dort.

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).

 

[Yeshua1]

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).

Could have been originally meat that, but the modern term usually refers t those holdingto the 5 Points of Grace, whil Reformed refers to those accepting in full Covenant Theology!

 

[JonC]

Could have been originally meat that, but the modern term usually refers t those holdingto the 5 Points of Grace, whil Reformed refers to those accepting in full Covenant Theology!

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.

 

[Rippon]

No means, uh, well, "no."

You should said "Yes, I agree with you."

 

[Rippon]

Can agree with Reform Sotierology, yet also diagree with Covent theology regrding Israel/Church, infant baptism!

Your Particular Baptist forbears were solidly into Covenant Theology.

 

[Rippon]

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.

You object to the term Calvinism in favor of Dortonian. (How about Dortionists? )

But simply agreeing with the Canons of Dort doesn't tell the whole story of a Calvinists beliefs. It's much
wider than that narrow compass. They only dealt with a few propositions. (Granted, they spent a lot of time on the contents).

 

[JonC]

You object to the term Calvinism in favor of Dortonian. (How about Dortionists? )

But simply agreeing with the Canons of Dort doesn't tell the whole story of a Calvinists beliefs. It's much
wider than that narrow compass. They only dealt with a few propositions. (Granted, they spent a lot of time on the contents).

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).

 

[Jerome]

I'd go with Dortonian or Dortionists

The precise and appropriate appellation is Gomarists:

https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/kevindeyoung/2012/09/14/how-did-we-get-the-canons-of-dort/

In 1610, the Arminian party issued a document called the Remonstrance, setting forth the “Five Articles of the Arminians.” Gomarus and others formed a Contra-Remonstrance party (Gomarists) to oppose the Arminians.

The Contra-Remonstrance from Gomarists was submitted to the States of Holland in 1611. Oldenbarneveldt and the States of Holland decided on toleration. But the Gomarists wanted an official theological pronouncement to settle the issue once and for all.

 

[Yeshua1]

Your Particular Baptist forbears were solidly into Covenant Theology.

True, but ome othem were also into historical pre mil views, and also disagreed on views of what ordiances represent and chuch government!

 

[Yeshua1]

Or c

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.

ould just say "beam me up scotty/ the Force be with you!"

 

[Yeshua1]

Or c


ould just say "beam me up scotty/ the Force be with you!"

IF anyone hereis a Dr Who fan, Christmas show hshim meeting their version of Superman!

 

[Agent47]

Can one differ with Calvin on some points of his soteriology and remain a Calvinist or Dortonian?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Can one differ with Calvin on some points of his soteriology and remain a Calvinist or Dortonian?

no

 

[Agent47]

I thought so, the 5 theories seem so interrelated and interdependent that it is next to IMPOSSIBLE to marry some while discarding or even reformulating the rest.

And I think this is what OP had in mind, not whether modern calvinist subscribes to every mundane thing Calvin stood for

no

 

[JonC]

Can one differ with Calvin on some points of his soteriology and remain a Calvinist or Dortonian?

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.

 

[Agent47]

Thank you for this eloquent clarification. I think it was @Revmitchell who I read posted that it is important to engage with what the other person believes in.instead of what yo think they believe in.

Another question if you don't mind.

What,if at all, are non-negotiable aspects of Calvin's soteriology?

I mean what tenets are mutually exclusive with what Arminius stood for on soteriology?

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.

 

[JonC]

Thank you for this eloquent clarification. I think it was @Revmitchell who I read posted that it is important to engage with what the other person believes in.instead of what yo think they believe in.

Another question if you don't mind.

What,if at all, are non-negotiable aspects of Calvin's soteriology?

I mean what tenets are mutually exclusive with what Arminius stood for on soteriology?

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

That is why many narrow this issue down to either God is the One saving sinners alone, or else he has sinner co operate with him in the process, such as Sacramental grace of Rome!

 

[Yeshua1]

Thank you for this eloquent clarification. I think it was @Revmitchell who I read posted that it is important to engage with what the other person believes in.instead of what yo think they believe in.

Another question if you don't mind.

What,if at all, are non-negotiable aspects of Calvin's soteriology?

I mean what tenets are mutually exclusive with what Arminius stood for on soteriology?

They both seem to agree that sinners are not capable of responding to God salvation in and nu themselves, but that would be about it agreed upon!