Maybe the problem is that Sandusky doesn’t really understand Calvinism.
Or maybe that you jump to conclusions. I was forewarning myself against possible criticisms that I made Calvinism sound too much like Catholicism by saying that I have met Calvinists who would agree with my summary even if Sandusky didn’t. I did not suggest that Sandusky didn’t really understand Calvinism, and in fact Sandusky did not criticize my statement, so it’s not even an issue.
At the risk of being “catty”, I would suggest not bandying about about a Phd. In most circles a Phd/Ph D…translates to “piled higher & deeper”.
You are welcome to have the opinion that spending years studying a subject and being tested by those already masters of it is irrelevant. I do not mention having a Ph.D. often. But in this case it is relevant, and I am not going to be bullied out of mentioning it. If people choose to embrace a particularly silly and unthinking form of American egalitarianism, that is their problem. I don’t expect people to listen to me implicitly because I have a Ph.D. As long as people argue based on evidence and logic, I don’t mention it. But when they simply reject what I say because it doesn’t fit their prejudices, I’m going to start mentioning credentials.
In short: yes, you were extremely catty, and you owe me an apology. I did not mention my credentials in an arrogant or inappropriate way. I spent many years of my life earning a Ph.D., and I’ll be darned if I let people disrespect it without telling them what for!
And then again, maybe his confusion about what he purportedly believes is due to all the rife and strife in calvinism itself, considering that you have Arminianism, Infralapsarians, Huguenots, Camisards, Albigensians, Presbyterians, Bohemians and Hungarians…maybe some others to boot, that all seem to have modified calvinism to suit their own particular whims…
That’s a hodge-podge of terms. Albigensians and Bohemians are not Calvinists (well, there were Bohemian Calvinists, but I think you’re talking about the Hussites). Hungarians are not a theological division within Calvinism, just one national group many of whom embraced Calvinism. Camisards were Huguenot guerillas. Huguenots were just French Calvinists. Presbyterianism is a form of polity, not a theological division, though it may be true that some theological opinions are more common among Presbyterians than among, say, German Reformed. Arminianism is an offshoot of Calvinism, but for that matter Protestantism is an offshoot of Catholicism. The infralapsarian/supralapsarian debate is a very abstruse one within Calvinism, just as Catholics have arguments between Thomists and Molinists, etc.
One could in fact say with justice that this list of yours was “piled higher and deeper.”
Calvinism is generally more theologically homogeneous than Catholicism. That’s one of my problems with it.
Edwin
