[I do not claim either Reformed theology or Calvinism as my own] for several reasons. ...
1. My beliefs developed independently of both Calvinism and Reformed theology.
I know you're not allergic to "-isms" for the sake of avoiding labels, so if these categories reflect well-defined doctrinal positions that correspond to what you believe, wouldn't it make sense to identify with these categories—even if you arrived at those beliefs independently? For example, if Platonism refers to the ideas taught by Plato, then someone can affirm Platonism even without having read Plato—as is the case with many Christians who unknowingly borrow from him.
There is always room for nuance, of course, like if your beliefs differ in some significant way from those typically associated with such categories. It would make perfectly good sense for someone to say something like, "I affirm a Reformed theology, but I don't subscribe to any of the historic Reformed confessions." Claiming those labels is at least a good starting point for a discussion, is it not?
I am in a similar boat. I call myself a Calvinist insofar as my soteriology reflects the teachings of Calvin, even though (a) I had never read anything by him until just two weeks ago, and (b) I hold several beliefs that are definitely not typical of Calvinists (e.g., conditional immortality).
2. I don't want my beliefs to be regarded as derived from either one of them.
It sounds like you're distinguishing derivation from correspondence, saying there's substantial overlap between your theology and Reformed theology but it results from independent study rather than influence or allegiance.
At the same time, though, it can unintentionally come across as emphasizing theological independence, as if saying, "These are my conclusions, not something I picked up from Calvin or Sproul." I doubt that's your intent, so I mention it only because it could give the impression that secondhand inheritance is something to be avoided or looked down upon.
Alternatively, maybe it's less about independence and more about wanting to avoid the social, ecclesiastical, or theological baggage that sometimes comes with theological labels. I can understand that. Words like "Reformed" can denote confessional standards, historical alliances, and subcultural tendencies that you don't want to deal with.
3. I want freedom to distance myself from ideas that don't make sense to me.
Are you willing to give me an example of something that doesn't add up? Don't worry about whether it is Calvinist or Reformed exactly or not.
4. I have beliefs or categories that aren't typical of Calvinism or Reformed theology.
Same here. And yet I don't share your aversion to these labels, hence my struggle to perceive the connection. Like I said, there is always room for clarification or nuance. "Reformed theology" is a good
starting point for discussion, but sometimes we have to supply clarifications at the point where our view departs from the crowd, like my supralapsarian Christology (which departs from the infralapsarian norm in Reformed theology).
Haha! I'm not sure if you intend that to mean "someone can be more Calvinistic than Calvinists are," or "someone can be rather Calvinistic, in their view (approach, doctrine, whatever), than actually Calvinists are."
I was responding to what you said: "I'm Calvinistic—in some ways more than Calvinists are." So, what did YOU mean? What is the distinction you're making here between Calvinist and Calvinistic?
"Calvinists and the Reformed are known for their emphasis on the sovereignty of God," you said, "[which for me is about] not only his ability but the logical necessity of his absolute causation of all fact, down to the most miniscule."
But this actually aligns with Reformed theology, not departs from it—at least as far as R. C. Sproul taught it. "If there is one maverick molecule in the universe," he said concerning the sovereignty of God, "one molecule running loose outside the scope of God's sovereign ordination, then there is not the slightest confidence you can have that any promise God has ever made about the future will come to pass." Not a single maverick molecule is, by definition, down to the most miniscule.
[I was also talking about
Hazelelponi, who] depends on God's decree, even takes it for granted, from what I can see. She doesn't think like an Arminian, nevermind a Pelagian. So she, to me, is Calvinistic, even if not exactly a Calvinist.
Like I asked earlier (and this would apply to her, too), wouldn't it make sense to identify your beliefs with specific categories that reflect well-defined doctrinal positions if they largely correspond to what you believe?
"Calvinistic" is an adjective. I'm guessing our language difference is at play here.
Maybe a little? But I understand that word to be an adjective, too, so I'm not sure. The way I see it, something is Calvinistic when it smells like Calvinism—whether it derives from Calvin or just corresponds to Calvinism in some way.
