In looking over the wiki information, and the website in general, I found this as a cardinal rule for their work:
The initial into to the subject read as this:
The key here is the Calvinism is being desribed as a system, not a way. The system is name after John Calvin. Why?
To further seal the fate of your proposition using the source you provided:
And again,
I thought of editing some portion of this article in Wiki to add to it an understanding of the use of the terminology but apparantly they have done a fine job. :thumbsup:
So, obviously, your bow and arrow of slander here has been reduced to a nerf gun.
It doesn't matter in what context you make an attempt to use the phrase Calvinist, Calvinism or other wise. It is all based on the name of a man. And to use such a description is against scripture and incorrect. Now there is something you can add to the wiki article.
It was to indicate what you were denying that the word calvinism is used to communicate a theology. Prior to that I cited 1 cor which says not to identify yoursled by the teaching of a man. We are all in Christ.
Well, then there has apparantly been a miscommunication. The term calvinism is terminolgy used to describe the body of truth that teaches salvation is by grace alone. It is a nickname attached to it. Spurgeon once remarked on this,
"..it is not hence to be imagined that we attach any authority to the opinion of John Calvin, other than which is due to every holy man who is ordained of God to proclaim His truth. We use the word simply for shortness of expression, and because the enemies of free grace will then be quite sure of what we mean. It is our firm belief, that what is commonly called Calvinism, is neither more nor less than the good old gospel of the Puritans, the Martyrs, the Apostles, and of our Lord Jesus Christ."
This is the sentiment I have been trying to communicate, but apparantly failed to do so. Hopefully this is cleared up now. Therefore, the application of 1 Corinthians to me or other Calvnists is inappropriate.
Well, this has certainly come to an end. When you will not allow us to define what we mean, and it is done in such clear and uncertain terms, yet you persist in the accusation, communication has ended. But I trust it is plain to all what we mean, except to those who refuse to allow us to define what we mean.
And what you do not get is it does not matter what you mean by it. Refering to men by the name of another man because of doctrine that he taught is against ! cor 1 regardless of the meaning you give to it.