"JonC δοῦλος
I have met some primitive Baptists who get offended if you call them Calvinists (and I know a couple of Calvinists who get offended if you call a Baptist a Calvinist). As I recall, a Lutheran (Joachim Westphal) introduced the label "Calvinism" as descriptive of differing sacramental views. Labels can get confusing. Frown
Primitive baptists are a separate issue.
Some of the issue is in the development of theology
This can be said of any topic. keep in mind, not everyone views it through your lens either. You speak as if it {your view} is universally agreed upon. {maybe all of us do at times} to some extent. I will show you what i mean-
. We do not know, for example, the extent to which John Calvin would have affirmed Limited Atonement (depending on one’s definition of the doctrine) as he did not develop a doctrine detailing the scope of the Atonement
.
1]The doctrine is God given, not Calvin given.
2] Calvin saw what he saw and wrote it for us to study...he was one man as any teacher is just that, one man.
3] we are not bound or limited by Calvin
r
4] many "Calvinists" have not read any Calvin firsthand.
5] Critics of the teaching which is biblical truth seek to undermine it by putting calvins writings under a microscope and reading it with modern day understanding. leave it as written, use it as abase and go forward from there.
6]your -for example- is subjective and drifts away from the biblical text,
7]your throwing in ...depending on ones definition of the doctrine is a bogus red herring. I have been in cal churches for over 35 years and apart from a novice no one blinks an eye or questions what is meant when the doctrine is mentioned....nobody. the only people who would do so are those who are unsettled emotionally on an issue.
8] to be unsettled on an issue or a point of doctrine, or a nuance that you think you see is fine. The truth delights to be investigated. It is not a crime, or it does not mean someone is on the edge of apostasy. However, such a person should not project that confused idea on everyone else. They should take all the time they need to wrestle through these things with a view to serving God more effectively. They should not inflict their doubts or questions on others.
Many assume that he would have been a five point Calvinist (by their definition of the phrase),
This is bogus. This is like when Arminians try and suggest CHS was Arminian in theology when he used and affirmed Keachs catechism and preached the five points over and over.
You repeat this idea -[by their definition of the phrase}.....Cals mostly are in confessional churches that freely and openly confess the doctrine , what it is and what they believe....it is not up for grabs...I have gone into churches all over the country that affirm the teaching and everyone is on the same page.
Your statement while you are free of course to offer it as your view is defective as far as I can tell. i canGo into any of these churches and teach and be received by most everyone without question by anyone there.
I in over37 tears in these churches have never had anyone suggest what you are doing on some of these posts.
but many argue that his teachings fall into the category of moderate Calvinism (again, depending on definitions).
Moderate Calvinism is garbage. the teaching stands together. Godly men who struggle with a point, usually the L..... are called Calvinistic Brethren. In other words, they lean heavily that way but are confused on one issue. They are godly men. they affirm clearly the other points, but not all. Calvinism does not get defined by those who cannot see it all.
Your fragmenting of the teaching by suggesting it is all the same is not correct.
There are many who were considered fully Calvinists in the 17th century who would be considered moderate Calvinists today.
My point in all of this is that if someone says that they are a Calvinist…well, that actually says very little about what they believe.
This is your subjective contention. It someone tells me they are a Calvinist it says much about what they believe and any subsequent conversation and interaction is guided by it. I am not sure what "calvinists" you are around, but when you post these things it is completely foreign to what i have come to know. You want to know why i sometimes agree or disagree with your posts...well here it is.
Most do not mean just the five points (which were a response to the five articles….nothing to build an entire theology upon).
On the contrary...most mean exactly the 5 pts.
TULIP is a bit more specific, but not very helpful anymore.
Many not to you, but to most everyone else, they know exactly what it means and what it does not. When Skandelon tried to pretend that he was "once a Calvinist" every Cal on here and Dr, White saw right through it, by his posting.
He might have been among cals, he might have heard some of it, but never did he articulate accurately the position.
If you were to ask, you would find that Sproul (obviously) is a Calvinist. But so is J.I. Packer and John Piper (and a 7 pointer to boot
). And….if you were to ask….Norman Geisler lays claim to that label (how I don’t know, but he does).
I can claim to be a major league all star hitter and batting champion, but if my knees buckled at the first curve ball that came my way I would be a suspect.
Looking at the development of theologies, and particularly the development of more contemporary theologies (like that of the Reformation), I cannot help but find it a bit presumptuous to assume that understandings are completely uninfluenced by our environment.
subjective and possibly unbiblical.
Paul, for example, did not lean on theology to provide answers for 16th and 17th century questions. His understanding was not influenced by the emerging intellectual movement or a movement away from the dominance of the Catholic Church
Paul was not a regular believer.
. Just as the Reformers did not completely agree on doctrine, and just as Calvinism encompasses a wide array of views,
This is counter productive completely......what do I mean? When you look at the color green, does it look exactly the same to you as it does to me? How can you know?
yet both of us could identify it on a spectrum.....Calvinism does not encompass a wide range of views. You have the 1644 and the 1677/89.....identical on the 5 pts as well as most reputable other ones.
I believe that there is at least a reasonable chance that John Calvin did not completely corner the market on divine truth
No Cal says this....
.
While we need systems of theologies to make sense of our beliefs, we also need to be aware of the difference between Scripture and theology (we need to take care that we do not lean too hard on that understanding we hold).
another elusive and subjective statement
And as timely (and ironic) proof of the conclusions I've made on this post, there are two Calvinists validating what I am saying by disagreeing with and disliking this post.
no actually it should show that your take on it might be off a bit...shocking as that may be....take a poll on the Cals on here.
