You say: "Outside of Christ, all nations are evil..."

and again: "God deals with people on a individual basis and not on a national basis. Salvation is personal, not national."

I agree. While I do not think every nation is the same as any other (and of course the Bible portrays some nations as by and large more wicked than others), and while having lived overseas I REALLY appreciate a lot of things about America, nonehtless Christians have got to realize the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of man are entirely different kingdoms, with entirely different systems and entirely different rulers. Never shall the twain meet. If we're 'not of this world,' our citizenship is in another Kingdom. Too many folks get wrapped up in trying to get such-and-such candidate in office, trying to "take back the culture" and so forth, not realizing that if the world is fallen, POLITICS as a system is fallen too--all of it. The world belongs to the Prince of the kingdom of the air until Jesus returns.

My main point is essentially that (1) Dort defined doctrine OVER AGAINST error to a degree which is never a good idea, because it hems you in, and

(2) Many people run with this and, without reading the man, think it sums him up.

Dusty Bin--

(Cont'd.). The problem with Dort is not that it perverted Calvinism (although it did rigidify it--that's a commonplace to note--nothing original). The problem is that by stating certain of Calvin's doctrines AS AN ANSWER TO THE REMONSTRANTS, Arminius's thought, in effect, set the terms of the debate.

The result is that in the common understanding of a lot of people, Dort became a black-and-white statement of what Calvinism IS--worse yet, what Calvinism is OVER AGAINST ARMINIANISM. People thus look at Dort as the definition of these two schools and everything becomes black-and-white.

I NEVER said Calvinist scholars/theologians teach Calvinism as TULIP or TD in the way I criticized--I said a good number of people who CALL themselves Calvinists think this. For example, why did JD say to me he had never heard any Calvinist on this site define TD the way I did, unless it is TRUE that common Calvinists DO NOT put forth the correct definition of TD? Now, you agree with the definition I gave as the true account of TD, and your criticism is that I put the false definition of TD in the mouths of Calvinist theologians. I NEVER did that. You are rabid for conflict and didn't care what I said. I said that Calvinist theologians AGREE with the correct definition. You have things completely backwards.

1) I don't believe for a second you've read all Calvin's commentaries, sermons, Institutes, tracts, etc., much less Beveridge and Battles on top of this. That's multiple tens of thousands of pages.

2) As for Henry Beveridge, he's way too early to have had an appreciation of whether/to what extent Calvinism evolved. Beyond that, you asserted that Beveridge and Battles disagree with me--prove it.

3) Again, you have nothing to say about the doctrines of the man Calvin--just more names, just like I said your type does.

4) You're so rabidly on the attack you haven't realized we're in agreement for the most part. You say:

"Speak to any calvinist worth his salt and they will tell you that calvinism is a misnomer. The doctrines of grace as formulated at Dortrecht may be viewed as a convenient summary of the Augustine/Calvin system, but they were never meant to embody the full orbed teachings of these men, which as you say would be very difficult to distill into 5 points."

Here's a quote about what a noted scholar of Persian history named Vladimir Minorsky says (i.e. someone who studies it for a living, not just writing short entries):

"THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE TERM 'MAR' (MEDIANS) REFERS TO THE KURDS. Furthermore he writes that in the curious Armenian manuscript containing samples of alphabets and languages, written some time before A.D. 1446, a prayer in KURDISH FIGURES AS A SPECIMEN OF THE LANGUEGE OF THE MEDIANS."

No I'm not on an ego trip at all. You are. You're the one so offended and calling me a liar and a lunatic.

It's a commonplace to note that Calvinism was rigidified at Dort due a (perhaps necessary) response to Arminius' points. If you think that's odd you're the one telling lies (or you're simply not reading any history). The problem is, Dort let Arminius decide the terms of debate--they forced themselves into answering his points. Calvin never would have let that happen. Calvinism is above all a method--an Augustinian method beginning with God and theological anthropology, insisting that theology cannot begin from the Aristotelian teleological standpoint of the later scholastics. I just think it's shameful that Calvin's brilliance is bequeathed to us as TULIP.

No I didn't write a master's thesis on this. I'm just somebody who has studied Calvin a lot and really like him. I have a number of theologian friends who are scholars on the Reformed tradition.

Yes I've read Calvin. The entirety of the Institutes and a couple commentaries. What of Calvin have you read? I did that as part of an M.A. in Historical Theology. What do you have, other than a really big mouth and (obviously) an inferiority complex?

To those reading this post: I want you to see what I'm talking about. Notice how Dusty Bin throws around a whole lot of names concerning Calvin other than Calvin's name? That's exactly what I'm talking about.

As for my thinking concerning the corruption (or rigidification might be a better word) of Calvinism, no, I don't claim to be unique or original at all. This is only what every single Calvinist theologian I've ever met thinks. That's because they read Calvin rather than ignorant books about him like you probably do.

And since you bring up the likes of Battles and Beveridge as if they disagree with me, do you have some reference to show they disagree with me? To show that I'm so unorthodox in my views of Calvin?

Your post of 6/29/07 3:31 PM

Don't presume you know anything of what I think. I haven't been duped by any 'futurist propaganda.' Unlike many on this site (yourself included, apparently) I didn't rush to categorize myself as a this or a that. I see eschatological prophecy as very complicated and, according to Jesus' teaching, not subject to specific knowledge. I have no settled timeline yet--I'm still thinking these things out and maybe always will be. If discerning these things is so simple, why did the world need to wait for you to discern them?

If anything, I am both a preterist and a futurist. I see in the Revelation descriptions of the (then-)present which I believe are at once signifiers of similar events which will be recapitulated. Preterist and Futurist are not mutually exclusive positions, despite your simplistic categorizations.

But I asked you how you know what 'temple' means and how you know what 'restraining' means (i.e. restrained animation of a man by a spirit, restraining of his birth, etc.)

The implications of what you are saying is that the second advent already occurred. Do you seriously believe that? Or have I simply misunderstood you? If so, this is a heretical position outside the entire tradition of interpretation, Catholic and Protestant, early and modern. It rejects the Nicene Creed, for instance.

You're not answering the argumnts--just restating the same points in circular fashion. You say Paul is not talking about the end but consummation. The reason for this is simply your statement that he's not talking about the end. It's circular reasoning--your assumption is your argument.

But the orthodox triune God of Nicean and Chalcedonian Christian confession, no I don't argue that was any abiding concern of theirs. God for them is more crucial as a philosophical basis of society than a religious orthodoxy.

Nonetheless though, there is a tremendous sense of insecurity and reliance on God during the period of the founding and the early republic. Like Jefferson famously said, for example, concerning slavery, he shudders to think that God will judge America for its sins. Whether Deist or no, nbearly all (save Franklin perhaps) understood God to be the orchestrater of the world, the author of liberty, and the preserver of America. They meant this more in the philosophical sense than the religious, but nonetheless it's fundamental to their thought process.

Beyond that, in my estimation, the man of perdition strikes me as a false Messiah who lines up quite well with John's Antichrist or the Dragon of revelation--the exalting of himself as God, the worship he desires, the false miracles, the rebellion, etc.

As for his being restrained, how do you know Paul's not talking about a SPIRIT (not a man) being restrained until it one day animates a man? Or, again, how do you the restrainer is not restraining the birth of the man in question? I don't think it's nearly so clear as you say.

Apparently his doctrine and claims about himself have evolved (and radically so) several times. I think he was orginally calling himself a prophet, then an apostle (I kind of think Paul, but I can't remember which), then Jesus. Apparently his followers simply aren't bothered by the fact that he keeps changing his identity, claims, doctrines, and demands.

This guy needs to lose his tax-exempt staus because he's a con-artist, and he needs to be investigated. He is so going to rot in hell it isn't even funny. He's going to be in Dante's ninth hell being masticated by Satan for all eternity along with Judas and whoever else Dante had there.

An antinomian historically has always been understood to be someone who sees Christ's liberation from sin as not being just a liberation from sin's HOLD, but a liberation from the very notion or category of sin (e.g. some of the Corinthians who were promiscuous and violated law just to flaunt their 'freedom').

The point was to apply what England is legally doing to justice in the abstract, and argue that what they are doing is unjust according to a court of justice higher than the enactments of parliament.

And for Paul, the whole of Rom.1 is a discussion about the order of being--in terms of his discussion of unnatrual relations, forsaking creator for creature (against the natural order), etc., and in his speaking of these things contrary to nature, he is explicitly using the language (very popular in his time) of Stoics like Philo or Seneca--Paul in Rom. 1 is still only talking about the natural, showing our condition, but shows that EVEN WITHOUT GOD, we should AT LEAST have been able to see somethings are against nature (e.g. sodomy). Paul was conversant with Stoic philosophy and makes use of the better parts of it a lot (e.g. in discussions of adiaphora--indifferents--as well).

What I mean by natural law is the ancient notion of dividing law in jus naturae (or jus gentium) vs. jus civile. The Stoics in particular (e.g. Zeno, Epictetus, Seneca, and to some extent Cicero) predicated their philosophy on "following nature" in terms of what we are created for. Beyond the usefulness of the laws man makes, there is a natural, immutable law concerning right and wrong (jus naturae) which is the true source of the validity of law.