[John_burchett]

Couldn't have said it any better myself. Thanks for the Greek lesson; God hasn't given me the gift of language studies . You mentioned you wouldn't call yourself a "Calvinist" per se-- do you have disagreement with others of the 5 points, or is it over something less important? I, for example, hold completely to the TULIP, but don't agree at all with Calvin's theocratic designs for his Geneva, I believe there was only one theocracy, and that was set up, and set down by God directly.

[Dr Warmoose]

You mentioned you wouldn't call yourself a "Calvinist" per se-- do you have disagreement with others of the 5 points, or is it over something less important?

I am loathe to say "I am of Paul", or "I am of Apollos" or "I am of Calvin". The term "Calvinist" among friends is a shortcut to say "I believe in the Doctrines of Grace". Just like those who are of the FWT crowd are often called "Arminian", though most rarely hold but to just a few of the tenets of the Remonstrants, the term "Arminian" is an intramural term for distinguishing "Calvinist" from non-Calvinist. My favorite label for one who belives in "Religia Americana" (the predominate view within evangelical circles such as the Southern Baptists and Bible Churches) is "semi-Pelagian".

But to answer your question, I have been accused of being a Do-It-Yourself Christian.(not that I saved myself, but that I don't automatically embrace 1689 Baptist Confession, the Belgic or the Westminster, rather I consider them as guardrails.) For instance, I prefer to consider John's Baptism as a sign and something that is optional rather than view it as a sacrament as everyone else does. (So this kicks me out of the Baptist camp) I have reason to believe that John's Baptism wasn't full immersion, but rather "dry-cleaning" (sprinkled). Yet I don't subscribe at all to the Roman Catholoc or Covenant Theology's sacramental view of baptism. (More of a believer's baptist rather than one who baptises the unregenerate.)

Calvin believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. I am not a Mary Idolator, and feel that Mary would have been living in sin if she ignored the Genesis 1-2 commands that a man and woman marry and have children.

In terms of lapsarianism, I am certainly not a "common grace" infra, and I feel that supralapsarianism isn't quite there either, so I am a Hyper-Ultra-Mega-Arch-Supralapsarian

I am aligned with Mark & Luke regarding divorce, not Matthew

The list of stuff goes on concerning how I differ from Calvin and many of the Reformers. So if someone wants to argue soteriology, I will be a Calvinst just to keep the lines simple. But if one wants to get into other doctrines then lets shy away from the label Calvinist until proven otherwise.