[Blogger]

Everybody thinks they beleive some form of sola Scriptura. I happen to think that everything that defines Real Calvinism® is based on the Bible alone. You suggested it was dung. The only difference I can see is that your interpretation of some things vis-a-vis the Bible doesn't mesh with Calvin's interpretation of those same things. Which one is actually dung is left to the reader.
Don't lie about what I said. I did not call Calvinism dung, and I have been quite explicit about saying that. I am a Calvinist. Still, I am a Calvinist not because John Calvin taught it or some church declared it good - but because the doctrines of grace taught by John Calvin, neatly summarized in the construct "TULIP" are found in Scripture. It's like the Bereans. Paul was teaching all sorts of things to the church they hadn't heard or recognized before. They compared his teaching with Scripture.

Where Calvin was in alignment with Scripture, I'm cool with Calvin. Where he wasn't, I depart without apology.

[topcat54]

Well, I'm confused.

The only “ism” I care about is biblicism. Beyond that, any of man’s constructs is dung.

First you only want to be called a "biblicist", now you insist that you care about Calvinism, even thought Calvinism was systematized by men and man's constructs are dung.

And insofar what John Calvin said was consistent with Scripture, I agree with him. Where he strayed from Scripture, I disagree.

I agree, Calvinism, carefully and explicitly defined, is found in Scripture. Not everything John Calvin taught is.

But what John Calvin taught is Calvinism. What some folks call Calvinism are 5 points. Hardly the sum and substance of all Calvin's teachings, nor of the Churches that bear his name and legacy.

I think you were better off with the biblicist tag. Less of John Calvin you need to disavow.