Calvinism vs. DoG??

Tom, Im glad you brought that up.....even happier your here...your spot on with that. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

And...you are probably correct. I'm not so much interested in the labels; my intent was to point out that there are several non-reformed types who would likely bristle at your use of "self-salvation." And, because of that bristling, more heat than light generally follows. That's all.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

I appreciate your thoughts- I really do. I think you have a good point that the Doctrines of Grace did not begin in the 16th century but rather in eternity past.

But I think it is unfortunate that some feel the need to kowtow to Arminians and use terms they find more palatable.

Calvin was a great man and his name ought not be tossed out like a piece of trash just because some people are determined to stigmatize it.

He systematized our theology. No man contributed more to those doctrines and the spread of them than Calvin. He was brilliant. He was perhaps the most important of the Reformers; and to espouse the doctrines he systematized and refuse to be identified with him does not seem right to me.

I do not think he should be so lightly tossed aside. It would be like a black American refusing to be identified with Martin Luther King or any American refusing to be identified with George Washington.

I don't think it is honorable.

BTW, I like your bike. Is that a Valkerie?

 

Yea, I think that it is ironic that he avoids identifying himself as a Calvinist which is clearly what he is due to the fact that he thinks the term genders more heat than light and in the same post he calls those who would not find the term Calvinist palatable- "Sefl-salvationists"

I would certainly think that calling someone such a thing generates far more heat than light and a great deal more so than identifying oneself as a Calvinist (which is what he is).

I don't get it.

 

Gothcha. :thumbs:

 

Thanks I do appreciate that

 

Luke, we are just trying to tone down the animosity.

 

Amen. I think that we can disagree with each other without being disagreeable. Know what I mean?

 

Thanks but I should have spelled "Tone" correctly...LOL

 

Without getting into any of the debate I would say that I describe myself as a believer in the Doctrines of Grace. I now very rarely if ever refer to myself as Calvinist, but not only for the reasons I find mentioned here. I don't think it right - this is just me speaking for myself - to describe my Christianity under the label of a human.

Also, Calvin believes many things I do not believe in: His views on sacraments, the Lord's Day (and here, interestingly, his views seemed to have changed), his eschatology, his view on covenants, etc. To call myself "Calvinist" is to imply that i believe all these.

 

Hear, Hear :applause:

 

TCassidy, let me be clear, is the only way that we can have "reasoned" discussions is that I simply agree with you and all of your positions and the merrily go on my way? Denial of what? My only denial is that I do not see scripture and doctrines in the same way as do you. PERIOD!!!!!

 

Isnt capitalized words considered like shouting? I hope Dave, that isnt what you meant to do Brother.

 

No, my intention was not shouting, but yes it was intended to be emphasized brother.

 

You sure have that backwards. Calvinism is not offensive and describes the belief; the term the doctrines of grace is offensive to many Non-Calvinists.

Using the term the doctrines of grace to describe Calvinism compared to Non-Calvinists, implies that Non-Calvinists do not believe in God's grace. All Christians believe in God's grace. Christians do not appreciate having their belief misrepresented, which results in much resentment and rejection.

Instead of the term the doctrines of grace, why not be more descriptive by using unconditional election and irresistible grace?