from http://www.wikipedia.com:

The five points of Calvinism

Calvinist theology is often identified in the popular mind as the so-called “five points of Calvinism,” which are a summation of the judgments (or canons) rendered by the Synod of Dort and which were published as a point-by-point response to the five points of the Arminian Remonstrance (see History of Calvinist-Arminian debate). Calvin himself never used such a model, and never combated Arminianism directly. They therefore function as a summary of the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism but not as a complete summation of Calvin’s writings or of the theology of the Reformed churches in general. The central assertion of these canons is that God is able to save every person upon whom he has mercy and that his efforts are not frustrated by the unrighteousness or the inability of men.

The five points of Calvinism, which can be remembered by the English acronym TULIP are:

1.  Total depravity (or total inability): As a consequence of the Fall of man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin. According to the view, people are not by nature inclined to love God with their whole heart, mind, or strength, but rather all are inclined to serve their own interests over those of their neighbor and to reject the rule of God. Thus, all people by their own faculties are morally unable to choose to follow God and be saved because they are unwilling to do so out of the necessity of their own natures.

2.  Unconditional election: God’s choice from eternity of those whom he will bring to himself is not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people. Rather, it is unconditionally grounded in God’s mercy.

3.  Limited atonement (or particular redemption or definite atonement): The death of Christ actually takes away the penalty of sins of those on whom God has chosen to have mercy. It is “limited” to taking away the sins of the elect, not of all humanity, and it is “definite” and “particular” because atonement is certain for those particular persons.

4.  Irresistible grace (or efficacious grace): The saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom he has determined to save (the elect) and, in God’s timing, overcomes their resistance to obeying the call of the gospel, bringing them to a saving faith in Christ.

5.  Perseverance of the saints (or preservation of the saints): Any person who has once been truly saved from damnation must necessarily persevere and cannot later be condemned. The word saints is used in the sense in which it is used in the Bible to refer to all who are set apart by God, not in the technical sense of one who is exceptionally holy, canonized, or in heaven (see Saint).

Calvinism is often further reduced in the popular mind to one or another of the five points of TULIP. The doctrine of unconditional election is sometimes made to stand for all Reformed doctrine, sometimes even by its adherents, as the chief article of Reformed Christianity. However, according to the doctrinal statements of these churches, it is not a balanced view to single out this doctrine to stand on its own as representative of all that is taught. The doctrine of unconditional election, and its corollary in the doctrine of predestination are never properly taught, according to Calvinists, except as an assurance to those who seek forgiveness and salvation through Christ, that their faith is not in vain, because God is able to bring to completion all whom He intends to save. Nevertheless, non-Calvinists object that these doctrines discourage the world from seeking salvation.

An additional point of disagreement with Arminianism implicit in the five points is the Calvinist understanding of the doctrine of Jesus’ substitutionary atonement as a punishment for the sins of the elect, which was developed by St. Augustine and especially St. Anselm. Calvinists argue that if Christ takes the punishment in the place of a particular sinner, that person must be saved since it would be unjust for him then to be condemned for the same sins. The definitive and binding nature of this “satisfaction model” has led Arminians to subscribe instead to the governmental theory of the atonement in which no particular sins or sinners are in view.

Peter said: “There is a healthy tension in scripture between those two things, and to eliminate that tension is to put some scripture above others.”

well put - to try to completely resolve that tension in our finite mind is not possible.

I and many other evangelical pastors in the Bible churches, Grace Brethren, (and even Baptist denominations like GARBC) are 4 point Calvinists, aceepted election but rejecting limited atonement.

How one reconciles man’s responisibility with God’s Sovereignty is an area of controversy.  However, hyper-calvinists (who do not believe in witnessing) are relatively rare and the matter has little to do with whether one is a four or five pointer.  A five pointer is not necessarily less evangelisitic than a four pointer.  So a five-pointer should not be equated with a hyper-calvinist. 

Put another way, most hyper-calvinists are four or five pointers, but most four or five pointers are not hyper-Calvinsits.

A better (and more Biblcial) term for those who believe in unconditional election is that we believe in “Sovereign Grace.” This leaves names out of it and brings matters back to the Bible.  So I rarely describe myself as a four-point Calvinist because I do not follow Calvin.  I describe myself as one who believes the Bible teaches Sovereing Grace.

Another Jeff,

You are a riot!

Simple, just keep saying “substitutionary atonement”, but wait until the sugar rush from the cookies goes away.

“Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so,” sometimes seems to me to be one of the most profound theological statements I’ve ever heard…

Having pastored among SB people and currently a recovering five point calvinist I would doubt that 10% are actually card carrying 5 pointers. 4 pointers, yes.  5 pointers who have a long convoluted explanation of their view of the atonement, yes. But true, dyed in the wool, double predestinarian, limited atonement, Calvinists??? Much less than 10% Look at the number of pastors the Founders Group draws and that will give you a good measure of what the real number of Calvinists are.

No intent to debate here but what finally led me away from 5 point Calvinism after 15 years was the inability to square free will with God’s Sovereignty (yes I know ALL the arguments) Someone is responsible for what I do.......it is either God or me. I decided I was responsible.

Bruce

I have contended for a long time that systematic theologies are a big part of the problem. A Biblical Theology should be taught first. BIblical Theology promotes a holistic view of doctrine and theology. With systematic theology the scripture is forced through the sieve of the particular system. Thus, Arminians have trouble seeing certain verses as contradicting their system and Calvinists do the same.

Of course someone is going to bring up the law of non-contradiction...............don’t bother. You don’t know as much as you think you do and I know I certainly don’t. The scripture is filled with mystery, seeming contradiction, and things none of us will understand.

Systematics tend to make us “authorities” because we seemingly have all our ducks in a row. Then, someone comes along and blows all your ducks out of the water.

I know far less now than I did when I started preaching. I have gone from a 21 know it all to a Dumb ______ I don’t say this with false humility. I just know the world is complex and filled with shades of gray. I find far more things perplexing and I find my beliefs challenged far more often.

Yet I find myself, like Karl Barth (I believe) when challenged over his supposed liberalism, saying
Jesus Loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so.

I was pre-disposed to not like Calvinism because I heard of his “5 points” in a negative way.  Now, I think these “5 points” are a caricature.  Caricatures are not fair.  Simple thinkers like caricatures.

I suggest this to everyone.  Go to a church library or Seminary and read Calvins “Institutes of the Christian Religion.” (It basically explains the basics of the faith.) When I read this, I was super impressed.  That guy was a genius!!!  How I wish we had preachers like that today.  He’s a role model for me in many ways.  He is very deep and complex.  He really cross references many scriptures.  He knew the Bible inside and out, it appears to me.  I believe he also had a grasp on many of the biblical languages.

I do not associate (or dis-associate) myself with Calvin… I just have VERY high respect for him after reading his work.  (As a formwer Catholic, it’s also very interesting to read his remarks about Catholicism!  Be careful of modern editions that try to edit some of that stuff out-- it’s priceless...).

If you ever have a question on a theological issue, it might be very interesting for you to look it up in the Table of Contents and see what he had to say of it.

I can’t think of any modern preacher today that is on his level.  Then again, it is a book, and not a weekly sermon.  It’s easier to make a one-time monumental masterpiece than it is to deliver an awesome sermon every week, week in and week out.

...Bernie

There are two groups of people that I find particularly abrasive on this question.  The first are the militant Calvinists, who seem more interested in winning somebody to Calvin than in winning somebody to Christ.  The second, and more abrasive of the two, in my opinion, are the militant anti-Calvinists, who seem determined to work their opposition to any hint of Calvinism into every conversation.  I’m not opposed to people having theological convictions in this area.  I have some myself.  But I think we need to realize that committed Bible believing Christians have been wrestling with this issue for a long time.  There are some relational issues that seem to be being ignored in many of these discussions.  I really appreciated the dialogue between Al Mohler and Paige Patterson at last summer’s SBC Pastor’s Conference.

Even though I don’t take the label “Calvinist,” I would consider myself among many who would say they are “4 pointers.” I, as many, struggle to see how the article on Limited Atonement can be reconciled to scripture. And I agree, many do seem equate Calvinism with scripture, and that is wrong.

When I was introduced to Calvin’s points in Systematic Theology, I was immediately taken back by the Total Depravity part. I could not figure out how God could elect us to salvation, yet we had free will to choose or reject Him. Our professor spent a couple class sessions on this subject and ended the lesson with the very common thought - “The Bible shows us that God chooses and we choose, we can’t explain it, so we just need to accept this apparent contradiction by faith.” I did that for many years.

However, a few years ago, while studying this subject in order to teach it to my congregation, something “clicked”. Now, please don’t misunderstand me - I’m not saying I have all the answers - but I do want to know what others think about what finally hit me.

I had verses to support God’s “election” written down and studied and broken down, and then I went after the verses that support and teach our “Free Will” part in the salvation process. As I studied this aspect, Romans 3:10-18 hit me. It’s part of a quote from Ps 53:2-3. As I read these verses over and over, studied them and meditated on them, I saw an aspect of our free will that my Theology professor never explained to us - THESE verses are key in understanding our free will.

Please allow me to explain, and I would be interested to see what others think - not to debate - but think… I began to see that I had been misunderstanding what our free will is all about. I have always been taught that our Free Will allows us to either choose God or reject Him - which is true - we see that played out in Genesis 3. However, I’ve also been taught all my life that when we accept Christ, WE choose to accept Him - WE choose to follow Him - WE choose salvation of our own free will.

However, after studying and meditating on these verses, I began to see that I was misunderstanding the application of our Free Will. These verses tell me that man is depraved. When we are given the choice, we will reject God EVERY time. Ps 53 says, when it comes to seeking God, “EVERY one has turned aside...” Romans 3:11 says “There is NONE who seeks for God.” After reading this, it hit me - In our free will, God gives us a choice - we can accept Him or reject Him. And in our Free Will, according to these verses, we *reject* Him EVERY time - no exceptions. According to these verses, we *cannot* choose God . On our own, we are *completely unable* to choose Him. Therefore, God *must* choose us - elect us - to salvation, otherwise none of us would be saved.

God knew in eternity past that I would do this - so God has to change my will, and call me to Himself (Ro 8:29-30). God foreknew me - He knew me in eternity past, and He knew that in my Free Will, I would reject Him. So, God chose to save me - “elected” me as Calvinism presents it - and changed my will so that I could accept Him. As I came to understand this, I no longer had to accept that apparent contradiction that in Theology class I was taught to just accept by faith. It now makes sense how both are true.

Please understand again, that I am not supposing to have all the answers. It’s just that this is what I have discovered after many hours of deep study and meditation on these verses and this subject. I wrote this for two reasons: First, maybe it can help someone else understand this doctrine more - and second, I’m sticking my neck out asking for evaluations of my conclusions. I’m not looking for debate - just scriptural evaluations.

I guess what I’m getting at here is that for me - the struggle was with a misunderstanding of our Free Will. Once I understood our Free Will in the context of these verses, the Biblical nature of this doctrine sprang out at me.

So, to get back to the original discussion - I was ordained SBC, and still minister in that context, and if we’re using the term “Calvinist,” becasue of my above digression, I would consider myself a “4 pointer.”

Blessings,

Dave S.

Pastor Dave,

I think your last four words said it all…

I admit I’m a Calvinist. I think those Calvin and Hobbes cartoons are just the greatest… Any Hobbes-ists out there?

(Just trying to keep it light. This conversation is TOO heavy...)

:-D

Why does Calvinism matter?

One word - burden.

If those who will be, will be…
then I’m not worried, my ministry will not increase or decrease the number in heaven.

If the choice is actually a choice - then my ministry affects the destiny of someone - now that gives me a burden - one I prefer not to have, but a burden nonetheless.

I matters…

Jeff...I want to be gentle about this, but it’s difficult.  If you’re an adult male, you need to move onto maturity--God’s words, not mine.  Milk is good for my kid, but not for me (as my only substinance). 

Man...I wish I could talk to you one on one, because I don’t want the weight of my words to to take away from my legit concern for you.  I love the child-like as much as the next guy, but we’re told to move onto maturity in our doctrine.

The entire book of Romans is written as a self-contained work of doctrine that is chewy and tough to swallow if you’re a babe in Christ.  Even Peter admits that Paul’s writings are sometimes difficult to understand...but that doesn’t mean that we don’t need to struggle with them. 

Dude..."Jesus loves me” may sound like a simple statement...but if you shrug off the deeper truths behind theology, you’re in a world of hurt.  For instance, who is Jesus?  The mormon Jesus?  The “historical Jesus”?  What about love?  Love like they describe it on Friends...or some other TV show? 

Theology seeks to explain who Jesus is, scripturally...what love is, scripturally.  “Jesus loves me” can mean a hundred things to a hundred people when divorced from the rest of scripture. 

I don’t want an adult male teaching my kids that “Jesus Loves Me” when the adult male doesn’t know the theology behind that statement.  Let me be clear...I’m not saying that you need to teach the kids stuff that’s beyond their comprehension...but I want to know that YOU know the theology behind the simple statments of the faith.  Heck..my kids understand more theology than you’re advocating and my oldest is only 5.

Children and new Christians have an excuse to drink milk...mature believers do not...regardles of where you stand on Calvinism, I pray that you consider these words to be a gentle rebuke and to learn your doctrine with joy.  The doctrines of grace are there to increase our joy and result in deeper gratitude and worship...not to give you headaches.