Featured Basic question: Are Baptists Protestant?

That's likely because you think that what is commonly referred to as Calvinism is all there is to Reformed theology, which goes so far beyond what is discussed on here as to render the opinions expressed as the equivalent of being uninformed and infantile, as though the posters know nothing but these ...

... which, as you well know, is shorthand terminology not meant to label the five points as Calvin's, but to refer to the teaching that is commonly called "Calvinism." And it has been I, not you, who has consistently pointed out that Reformed theology is far more extensive, and John Calvin wrote far more broadly on numerous other topics, than what is boiled down in the five points. To look at your posts and those of others, one would think that Reformed theology or Calvin's writings are nothing more than the five points.

 

Yes, unfortunately for those who revere him, he did.

John Calvin: Argument for Infant Baptism

 

This proves you choose to read and repeat, rather than actually investigate the two for yourself. By affirming Reformed theology, a person is implicitly denying certain other theologies, such as Catholic theology (which Reformed theology rose in opposition to) and Arminian theology (which later rose in opposition to Reformed theology). While Calvinism predates Arminianism, it was only codified in the five points after the rise of Arminianism. There is a sense in which Calvinism is both a cause of and the reaction to Arminianism. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Arminianism is a response to Reformed theology, and the codification of Calvinism is a response to Arminianism. The common usage of "Reformed theology" and "Calvinism" as interchangeable -- primarily by Calvinists -- is misleading, and wrong. There are differences, and the boiling down of Calvinism to the five points is just as misleading and wrong, given Calvin's writings were so much more greatly encompassing than the focus of his so-called adherents today.

For the reason I explained.

The only one this thread that describes if the writer of the phrase.

 

You can't seem to understand that I can admire Calvin and disagree with his conclusions about what was later called the five points. Muller, if you will recall, was making the point that Calvin wasn't truly a Calvinist, by the standards of what you and your friends -- who seem to extol Reformed theology above Christ Himself -- call "Calvinism" and/or Reformed theology.

Yes, there is a reason I was trumpeting Muller's work: He knows Calvin is much bigger than Calvinism, but he also knows that he was wrong about several things, especially paedobaptism and transubstantiation, the latter of which Alister McGrath avers Calvin fell at a midpoint between Luther and Zwingli. Like Muller, I have to wonder how one can hold Calvin so high in regard almost to the exclusion of Christ and the Bible when he held to such wrong-headed doctrine. But also like Muller, I nonetheless embrace a lot of what Calvin taught and of that which he wrote.

I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to figure it out.

 

Last I knew, blasphemy is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God. So perhaps you'd like to explain that comment.

Nice of you to notice.

But relevant because of the propensity for you and others to limit Calvin to the discussion of the five points.

Hardly. You are confused -- as was Calvin -- regarding transubstantiation and consubstantiation, which is nothing more than transubstantiation renamed.

Irrelevant. I offer you this: Calvin: Short Treatise on the Lord's Supper

The interesting thing is that Calvin here discusses the presence of Christ in terms of “substance.” Not only that, Calvin speaks of the “internal substance” being “conjoined with the visible signs.” This comes close to what Luther taught, but it is also virtually the same thing the Catholic Church taught, and still teaches. In the same treatise, Calvin later refers to transubstantiation as “the devil’s doctrine”. In this context, it seems that Calvin assumes that the Catholic Church teaches that the substances of bread and wine are “annihilated.” However, this is not what Catholics teach. They like to say "Grace perfects nature – it doesn’t destroy it." Saint Thomas Aquinas explained that the substance of bread and wine are not annihilated but transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ. Consubstantiation says Jesus is "with, in and under" the bread and wine. In other words, there is little to no difference between transformation and "becoming the substance of" the bread and wine. And go ahead, defend Calvin's view if you wish. He is still undeniably wrong.

Your words don't make it so, and I am sure I am infinitely more familiar with what Muller actually thinks, believes, and teaches than your are. I at least knew where to post a reference to him, which is more than I can say about you in any of your posts that express an opinion. It is always unsupported, either biblically or via scholarship.

Then you simply haven't been paying attention. Or, as I said, you believe Reformed theology and Calvinism both boil down to the five points. Either way, you haven't a clue.