…that Albino Hayford is one of them (or more precisely three and two (or one?) halves).
If you have a real life, you are probably not aware that this blog has recently been through a bad case of the Calvinism/Arminianism wars. I have actually given up “winning” the debate about which is right; nowadays I would settle for Albino (and fellow Arminians) to stop kicking off the shoe that fits so well. To that end, I posted the most definitive-possible definition of the Arminian label (from the pens of the original Arminians themselves) and naively hoped that Albino would simply respond “Oh, so that‘s what it means to be an Arminian! Yup, that describes my theology perfectly.”
In any case, Albino finally responded. Amidst the boilerplate rejection of all labels, if you look very closely, you can find the response proper buried in the middle of the post, short enough for me to reproduce right here:
Calvin and Arminius: Both are right and both are wrong. Let’s see, for you more linear-minded saints, I guess I would agree with half of Calvin’s depravity doctrine and half of his perserverence doctrine, making me a 1-point Calvinist (1/2 plus 1/2). As to Arminius’ remonstrances, I guess I would fully concur with his description of unlimited atonement, as well as his view of resistable, prevenient grace and partially-conditional election. I would tend to leave more tension and nuance in the Bible when it comes to perserverance of the saints and total depravity. So I guess that makes me a “3 1/2 remonstrance Arminian”.
It seems like there’s an arithmetic error in there, counting half a point each for Calvin’s T and P, but only half a point total for Arminian Total Inability and Perseverance, but that discussion will not continue here. Continue on over to Albino’s place!