There are many things said about the use of these terms that are mostly inaccurate, but people are slow to believe. For instance, at least one poster here repeatedly says that Calvinists are followers of John Calvin, and no matter how many times he is told they are not, he still persists. Other posters often say that they are neither Calvinist nor Arminian; they are biblicists (in spite of the fact that they can't define this third position between "God unconditionally elects individuals to salvation" and "God does not unconditionally elect individuals to salvation"). George Marsden, in his biography of Jonathan Edwards, answers both of these in terms of historical usage: What do we learn? 1. Arminianism is a catch-all term for most challenges to strict Calvinism. It is not generally used only for those who adhere to the teachings of Arminius. 2. Calvinists historically have not greatly concerned themselves with the precise teachings of John Calvin. 3. Calvinists have always had a wide variety on some things, but held to a core set of doctrines in contrast to the "Arminian" view. Of coures I labor under no illusion that this will settle the matter. But I thought it was interesting that no less than one of the preeminent church historians of this ear George Marsden agrees with what I have been saying for several years here. It shows that the historical usage of these terms is generally the way that I have used them here.