Intro to the Five Points of Calvinism, Part 3
As to what the five points of Calvinism are, we need to begin by saying that, in their present formulation, they are not a positive statement of what we believe, rather they are negative statements of what we do not believe. When I say “present formulation” I mean to say that the “five points of Calvinism” didn’t come to us initially as “five points of Calvinism.” They were present in the writings of Calvin and others in their tradition but no one had put them into a neat and tidy package of five points until the Synod of Dordt in 1610. At the Synod of Dordt, some followers of Jacob Arminius brought forth the “Five Points of Remonstrance.” As the protestant movement grew and began to mature in its early years these “Arminians” began to take issue with some of the things they found in the writings of protestant leaders like Calvin. There were five specific areas of concern they had in the writings of Calvin and others and they formulated them into articles that were debated at the Synod of Dordt. At this Synod all five points of remonstrance were denied. Even though John Calvin and Jacob Arminius were not present at this Synod, their names became affixed to the two positions. Thus, the five points of the remonstrance came to be known as the five points of Arminianism and the five points of response from the Synod became known as the five points of Calvinism. It is an interesting footnote in this matter that the “five points of Arminianism” existed before the “five points of Calvinism.”
I point that out in order to point out that the five points of Calvinism are not a comprehensive statement of faith. They are specific answers to specific questions and they were written to negate what the participants in the Synod of Dordt considered to be errors. Of course there is a positive aspect of the five points, but it is helpful to realize that they came out as a reaction.
This is important for Calvinists and their opponents to realize. Opponents of Calvinism need to understand that this is not the sum total of what we believe. And, proponents of Calvinism need to realize that this is not the sum total of what we believe. This is crucial for Calvinists because so many wear their five points like a pair of glasses and they interpret everything through the lens of the five points. This is not what Calvin did and is not what most of the better Calvinists throughout history have done. Many of our opponents think that this is all we believe, or the most important thing we believe. This is because we want to argue these points at all times and on all occasions. The five points become a grid through which all of Scripture and all of life is filtered. And this is what earns us much well deserved criticism.
Further we need to realize that, even in the matters that the five points address, they don’t address those matters exhaustively. Each point answers a particular question about a particular matter. The questions at Dordt were not exhaustive and neither are the answers.
For example, the first of the five points is total depravity. This doctrine of total depravity specifically addresses the nature of man, or “anthropology” if you want a fancier term. It speaks of the extent and effects of his sinfulness. But this is not everything there is to know about the nature of man. The doctrine of total depravity does not address what it means for man to be created in the image of God. A comprehensive biblical anthropology must take into consideration man’s creation in the image of God, the effects of sin on man, and the effects of God’s common grace.
Similarly, the second point, unconditional election, addresses particular questions. In my opinion, this point addresses the questions “what did God know and when did He know it?” and “what did God do and when did He do it?” It addresses issues of causality, first cause or ultimate causality. But it doesn’t address the issues of secondary causes, which are vital to an understanding of how God works out His electing decrees.
The third and probably most controversial point, limited atonement, answers a very specific question about who it is that Christ died for. But it doesn’t answer all of the questions about the death of Christ. The word “limited” is an unfortunate term and for that reason, many are abandoning the term in order to save the concept. Furthermore, though Calvinists believe that there is a sense in which the atonement was limited, there are other senses in which death of Christ provided unlimited benefits to all mankind. No less a Calvinist than Charles Hodge begins his discussion of the extent of the atonement by pointing out many of the unlimited benefits of the death of Christ.
I could go on to the next two points, but I’ll stop for now and just say that they address similar questions of a particular nature and are not comprehensive.
So, in saying all of this I am trying to locate the five points of Calvinism within the rest of the biblical and theological corpus. If we are going to be “mere Christians” and I think we should, then Calvinists need to hold the five points as a component of their faith and not the sum total of their faith. Calvinists and their opponents do the Scriptures and the faith a disservice if and when they act like the five points are the sum total of what they believe. One of the things that happened to me and happens to many who first read a reformed systematic theology like that of Hodge or Berkhof is that we see that the five points are simply parts of a much broader and more comprehensive system of theology.
This is not to say that we should compartmentalize the five points away as a dispensable part of our faith. I suppose my latent postmodernism creeps in here because I see our theological beliefs as a web of beliefs, rather than a group of beliefs that are separated from one another. What I mean is that everything we believe pulls on everything else we believe the way each individual string of a spider web pulls on all the other strings. Thus, my view of God’s sovereignty influences what I believe about salvation and eschatology and prayer. My view of the nature of man influences my beliefs about who God is and eschatology and many other things. So, though the five points of Calvinism don’t summarize the faith, they influence all of our other doctrinal beliefs and all of our other doctrinal beliefs influence what we believe about them.
Stay tuned tomorrow for part 4 of this into.
The rest of the series:
Intro to the Five Points of Calvinism
The Five Points of Calvinism
Part 1 - T - Total Depravity
Part 1a - Total Depravity and Free Will
Part 2 - U - Unconditional Election
Part 3 - L - Limited Atonement
Part 4 - I - Irresistible Grace
Part 5 - P - Perseverance of the Saints
Recent Comments