Frankly, the “U”, “L”, “I” seems like a lot of semantic quibbling to me. The end result seems to be the same — some are damned, some are not. I am still studying, though. There are two things which I have conclusively decided, though:

1) Anyone who says that God is the author of sin, is an idiot. I understand that some famous Calvinists in the past have asserted this, but apparently most Calvinists would strongly deny such a characterization. So it’s not a knock against Calvinism; just something that has to be said.

2) Anyone who says that God’s love means that He will wait for you (and everyone else) to come to Him on your own terms, is a fool. Again, many self-proclaimed Arminians argue this, but apparently it is not really Arminianism.

Yes. Though U, L, and I are quite closely related to each other.

Further, Arminians vary in P. Some hold to P some don’t. But to not hold to T would put one outside the Arminian camp (though still within the non-Calvinist camp).

Also the disagreements over sovereignty and the character of God are quite different types of disagreements. One is over the logical implications of a position. One is on what the meaning of the concept is. Arminians agree that God is sovereign, they disagree with Calvinists about what sovereignty is. That is Calvinists will say that

Arminians deny the absolute sovereignty of God.

Arminians agree with that statement if one accepts what the Calvinists mean by “sovereignty.” The Arminian dispute is that this is not what “sovereignty” means in the normal sense of the word, nor what it means in Scripture.

This is especially ironic, since the fundies see themselves as having fought off the semi-Pelagian leanings of the evangelicals, and having been as close to Calvinism as one could get without becoming smug and stale Reformed. Now that there are large and visible Calvinistic evangelical churches, and now that Reformed churches are becoming less smug and stale, the fundies are feeling under intense pressure and (from what I understand) experiencing dwindling enrollment at the main seminaries. This has led at least one fundamentalist seminary president recently to ask if there is a “fundamentalism worth saving”.

I heard internet monk talking with Paul Edwards, a radio host in Detroit (AM 1500 WLQV) about Calvinism and the SBC.

It seems more popular with the young people, because it is based on intellectual rigor. Younger people seem confused about the gospel message, which the 18th century theologians considered in great detail. I’d give more weight to what John Edwards says about salvation than I would give to somebody preaching self confidence and Prosperity now. There is substance in Calvinism, while the emerging church seems to be shedding substance. So, I think rigor and intellectualism is where the polar divide and attraction takes place.

Like any good religious decision, you don’t have to understand the substance of Calvinism, just the trademark. We can project what we want on the trademark and wear it as a badge. Anyway, I’m trying to learn about Calvinism but I haven’t jumped on board. I have definite Armenian leanings, but I’m also not as learned as Edwards…

Regarding the SBC, I understand that Calvinism is more popular among young fundamentalists, and it appears that there is still apparently (including in the blog post at internetmonk) some tension between old and young. The more I read the posts, though, the more I think that those people don’t really understand the distinctions between Calvinism and Amrinianism, and are speaking in vague generalizations. For example, the comment on that post about “Lots of Calvinists who are not 5-points Calvinists” — since Arminianism agrees on 2 of the 5 points, there are only 3 remaining relevant points. And as far as I can tell, someone who disagrees on any *one* of those 3 essential distinctive points cannot really be called a Calvinist.

Johnathan Edwards reasoned against Arminianism and provided the modern intellectual arguments in support of Calvinists well into the 19th century.

I fully intend to read “Freedom of the Will”, “Original Sin” and “The Nature of Virtue” which every Calvinist preacher had to understand back in the 1870′s.

Incidentally, did you know Edwards was the second president of Princeton, and also the second temporary leader of Yale?

Finally, I recently discovered that 1/2 of the Southern Baptist Convention is Calvinist, but not likely to seriously disagree over the issue one way or the other. http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/my-thoughts-on-todays-southern-baptist-convention-meeting-62309 I never thought of SBC as a Calvinist denomination, but there it is.