Well, not much going on today so I thought I’d finally ask. Would the people here consider me a Calvinist. At the start, I’ll state what I’ve stated before. I do not consider myself a “Calvinist” as the DoG do not form the substance of my faith and is not central to my faith - it is through Christ rather than Divine Sovereignty that I view the Gospel. But I have conceded to summarizing my views (depending on the situation) on salvation as “Calvinistic.” I believe that men are totally depraved and unrighteous. Like Sprugeon, I believe the assertion that “they could if they would” is irrelevant because the ultimate state is that they will not. It is not a matter of whether or not one COULD do the will of God but rather a matter that men will not - not in the action but in the motivation behind the action. Mormons have a godly set of family values - but in living out these values they are living out their own righteousness rather than the will of God (the outward acts may be the same, but the fruit is of another spirit). I believe that God chose the elect out of His own will - not because of some righteousness or potential righteousness found within men (I do believe in individual election). I do not think that this is arbitrary, but instead is the act of the Creator creating as He wills for His glory. I believe that Christ died to save those who would believe. I do not think it appropriate to venture beyond Scripture in breaking down the Atonement and reasoning out God’s intent towards the elect - but instead accept that Christ is the only way for all men (elect and non-elect alike) and there is no other name by which men are saved. But only those whom God draws in effectual grace (the elect) will be saved. I actually do not see irresistible grace as a primary doctrine - only because it seems somewhat vague. I do not believe that God saves men while men are yet unwilling to be saved - and there is a time when we all resist the grace of God (we are born into this resistance). But God works in the will of men so that men are willingly saved (Spurgeon uses the illustration that God touches the mainspring of man’s heart so that it runs in an opposite direction). In a sense, it is irresistible as that initial resistance is conquered - but men are not saved while they are still in a state of rejection. I believe that once a child of God, always a child of God. Perseverance is attributed to God and not man (e.g., 2 Tim 4). Christians may fail but not fall - they will not forfeit their salvation - it is a rebirth. BUT…. I do not think that Divine Sovereignty is central to the Gospel - instead I view the center to be Christ. Here I may empathize with Calvin’s struggle in placing Divine Sovereignty more than Beza’s theology. Beza viewed the gospel through the lens of Divine Sovereignty where I do not think Calvin indicates such a predisposition (although this is my own interpretation of what I have read of Calvin). I do not believe that Christ died specifically as an atonement for the sins of the elect alone, but rather that Christ is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world (literally). He died to redeem only the elect, but His work on the cross has implications for all men. Rather than an emphasis on the Atonement, I believe that Scripture emphasizes the Resurrection as defining our faith. So here I believe that Calvinists have taken a detour - one that is understandable regarding the Synod of Dort (as a rebuttal to the Arminian articles), but one that is a detour nonetheless which has become a distraction in modern theology. I am dispensational and tend to reject covenant theology as a whole. I am pre-trib and pre-mil. I know many Calvinists are as well - just thought I’d throw that in there. I don’t consider (or call, anyway) myself a Calvinist simply because the DoG do not form the central core of my faith or my view of the Gospel. While I am by no means barthian in my theology, I do believe that the gospel is Christocentric and this is the only way for us to know God (I do not mean a kerygmatic view, as I do believe the gospel is more objective and absolute than perhaps this view would permit - but a view that centers on Christ). I am just curious, would the Calvinists here consider me a Calvinist? Would the non-Calvinists?