Every knee shall bow and tongue confess

Very few here, including myself, want to be labeled as Arminian, since we are not. The label is "non-Cal." There is no need to try to put a person in a box that follows some man's theology.
You say you are a Calvinist. In reality most of the Calvinists on this board disagree with you, so what kind of Calvinist are you? Your beliefs, some of them, differ from Calvin himself. So you have a nameless theology as well, since you differ from Calvin. Please explain, by name what you are, since you are not a true Calvinist. You don't believe John 3:16 according to the beliefs of Calvin, and I am sure that there is a whole lot more that you and Calvin disagree on. Therefore since you are not a "true Calvinist" what kind of "nameless theology" do you hold to? Remember most Calvinists here disagree with you.

 

BTW, may I mention this as an aside? (I almost typed "asnide" - not my intention!)

I agree with your last sentence, about affixing human names with people's theology. But that works for those who are called Calvinist also (which is what I would be called). I believe that both "Arminian" and "Calvinist" are improper names to use.
1. For the reason you mentioned about putting people in a man-made box, with all its implications.
2. The other reason is that I don't believe Christians should put any person's name to a belief that, rightly or wrongly, they believe is scriptural.
3. These names are, with very rare exceptions, too simplistic to be functional. In my case, there are plenty of things that I disagree with Calvin about.

Just something to think about. I realize that I myself have used the term "Arminian", but I am now going to do my best to avoid it for the above reasons.

 

Sine I'm neither a cal or arm, call me a Kimbleist. DR. kimble was accused of killing his wife but claimed the "one arm man" (non arm) did it. Diet theology (no calories) works too.

 

I assume we are not talking of Diet of Worms, are we? :tongue3:

I had a friend who insisted with a straight face that he was a Calvin-Hobbesian.

 

Thank you. That attitude would be much appreciated.

 

That's my kind of religion! :laugh:

Seriously, I think most of us would be more Calvinistic and some would be less Calvinistic. That is what Paige Patterson thinks, anyway. Therefore, it must be true :laugh:

Edited to add:
Two ancedotes: in one class I lectured, a young lady referred to the Diet of Worms (pronouncing it with a W instead of the "V") and was clearly grossing people out in the class. I just couldn't stop myself....I let her go on and on. Oh, I felt bad about it later.......years later

I was at SBTS in 1995 when Calvin and Hobbes stopped running in dailies. Dr. Mohler wrote an editorial in the campus newsletter entitled "Calvin and Hobbes." The less-Calvinistic among us foamed and fumed at the title, assuming he was taking another theological podium when he really was talking about the end of Calvin and Hobbes and so forth. It was amusing.

I guess you just had to be there...for both.

 

Likewise.

See God's devil for further exposition on this matter.

I do not disagree with Calvin about this subject as I have stated the very day you wrote this.

I do agree that God has a general love for mankind.

I simply disagree that "kosmos" in John 3:16 is speaking of every single person on earth- because it almost NEVER means that in any context.

I am probably ever so slightly harder than Calvin on some of these issues. But not as hard as you are trying to make it. I probably agree with Beza more than Calvin.

But I am not, as you seem to be trying to paint me, a fringe Calvinist by any means.

My beliefs are very consistent with historic mainstream Calvinism.

Skandelon, these people do not WANT your Arminianism. That is what I cannot seem to get you to understand.

They do NOT HAVE A NAME FOR WHAT THEY BELEIVE- PERIOD.

If you call them Arminians- which is what you and I both know that they are most like- they will lash out at you.

They proudly admit, as Allan did a few days ago, that they have no name for what they believe. It is not systematized. It is an ecclectic hodge podge of doctrines.

It is not what you believe. Don't you call yourself a Classical Arminian?

I say GOOD FOR YOU! But they do not call themselves this. They reject the title vehemently.

I WISH they would own it. Until they systematize what they believe and call it something debating them is like nailing jello to a wall.

And until they do I will call them "these people" or "these nameless theology folks" because that is what best describes them, it is, in fact, the ONLY way you can sensibly describe them, at this time.

"Non-cal" doesn't cut it. Muslims are non-cal. Mormons are non-cal. Atheists are "non-cal".

You can court these people all you want for whatever motive you have(I assume since you are the ONLY Arminian on baptistboard you are trying to build a constituency), but facts are facts.

And that passage has NOTHING to do with what we are talking about.

Do you mean in the same letter when he called them carnal about a half dozen times and threatened to come to them with a rod?

Are you reading the same Bible I am????

 

Dude... AGAIN... Calvinism is NOT following Calvin.

Calvinism is the name of a particular theological position that includes the categories of Supralapsarian and Infralapsarian soteriology. The TULIP of Calvinism came long after Calvin was safely in eternity with the Lord, and it was a response to the anthropologically-centered theology of Jacob Arminius via the Remonstrance.

You are an important figure on this board as a moderator/administrator. At least you should have your facts right as you go about your business policing posts on this board. No excuse for ignorance in this case, as it has been played out ad nausem.

 

Of course they will mean it! They will be FACE-TO-FACE with Almighty God. They will, rightly and clearly, understand what we can only know by faith right now. But secondarily to their "meaning it..." is the issue of timing. There is but one death, then the judgment. (Heb 9:27). They are "post-death" whether by actual physical death or by the Day of the Lord.

Unless, of course, you hold a position that allows for post-mortem evangelism...

We all confess by faith right now -- those that confess truly, by the power of the Holy Spirit anyway -- contra those who confess in a religious sense from pure human capacity.

They did... Which brings up an interesting question. When DID the Apostles become actually "born-again-from-above?"

Actual sight CAN lead to a confession, but faith is also involved. Hence Thomas, Abraham, Moses, Paul, etc., all of whom had some theophany or sight-type experience with God that went beyond the norm. Regeneration still occurred in each case, otherwise they would not be counted among the righteous.

We look forward to the day when our "faith becomes sight..." and we see clearly. That will be both an awesome and a terrifying day as we come to realize just who Almighty God is -- and with that, our true sinful state. I suspect that those who make it into God's presence in a salvific manner that formerly held anthropocentric doctrines will understand very clearly at that point just how sovereign God really is.

I also suspect that our lack of understanding the concept of "king" in any personal context (in this case, I'm speaking of a sovereign human ruler who can at will do whatever pleases him, including uttering the words, "off with his head," with no repercussions save from the true King, God). We've "evolved" in our theology with the demise of kingdoms into a rebellious people that think that we have a say in how life happens. I suspect that earlier eras of people had no such illusion concerning the right and ability of a sovereign king do do with them as he pleased.

 

hyper-cal's are non-cal's :laugh:

 

I do have my facts straight. And I am tired of fighting this fight. Now I have to fight your fight too? Get with it! Your going to tell me that only the "Frederick-brand-Calvinism" is the true brand of Calvinism because only you agree with the true form of Calvinism; the real DOG, as found in the Bible, and all that disagree with you are not "true Calvinists." I am tired of fighting these petty fights. Why are you bringing this up? I am ready to start giving infractions to those who continue this petty quarreling.

You are like little children:
I am the true Calvinist.
No, I am the true Calvinist.
You are not a Calvinist at all.

 

No sir... I don't give a whit about my own theology, form of Calvinism, etc., for the sake of this issue. You are making a FACTUAL error in how you describe Calvinism at its core level. It is NOT based totally in following John Calvin any more than Arminianism is totally based in following Jacob Arminius, any more than Lutheranism is totally based on following Martin Luther, any more than Catholicism is totally based in following any given pope in history.

I am merely asking you to get your facts straight about what Calvinism IS and from where it stems, not the doctrines it holds, which as you allude are often interpretations as is your own theology.

From a source that I generally don't use, except in this case it is so succinct:

Another source that sums up Calvinism well:

 

Look, I can debate the issue also that Baptists are the only true Christians that date all the way back to the Apostles. But I am sure you don't want that debate. This is not the place for it.
There are as many forms of Calvinism as there are pigs in a market. Choose your favorite breed, and be satisfied with it. There is no need to try to put every one in a man-made box and put a so-called affixed label on them. I also can say that my theology is straight from the Bible, therefore Biblical theology, and apart from any man-made theology like Calvin. I don't want this argument. As I warned before, keep it up and I will start giving infractions for it. You are derailing this thread by doing so. Go and study the OP.

 

That is exactly right. I disagree with Calvin on a ton of stuff, most notably on baptism and ecclesiology, but nontheless, I am a calvinist because I hold to the Five Points, which were actually formulated 50 or so years after Calvin's death. And Bucer and Bullinger were Calvinists while Calvin was still studying to be a R.C. priest.

 

So only those who hold to all 5 points are 'real" calvinists than?
What about '4 pointers?"

 

This thread will be closed.
It has strayed far from the OP.