There is much discussion, not to mention much confusion, regarding Reformed Theology, also known as “Calvinism.” It is not a system of theology which originated with the Frenchman in Geneva. It is not a system of belief consisting of a mere five points (or even six or seven). It is not, historically speaking, a theology which leads to the abandonment of evangelism and missions. So, what in the world is “Calvinism”? World-renowned theologian, the Rev. Dr. J. I. Packer, makes five explanatory points regarding “Calvinism.” Here is his introduction to these five points:
First, it should be observed that the “five points of Calvinism,” so-called, are simply the Calvinistic answer to a five-point manifesto (the Remonstrance) put out by certain “Belgic semi-Pelagians” in the early seventeenth century. The theology which it contained (known to history as Arminianism) stemmed from two philosophical principles: first, that divine sovereignty is not compatible with human freedom, nor therefore with human responsibility; second, that ability limits obligation. (The charge of semi-Pelagianism was thus fully justified.) From these principles, the Arminians drew two deductions: first that since the Bible regards faith as a free and responsible human act, it cannot be caused by God, but is exercised independently of Him; second, that since the Bible regards faith as obligatory on the part of all who hear the gospel, ability to believe must be universal. Hence, they maintained, Scripture must be interpreted as teaching the following positions: (1.) Man is never so completely corrupted by sin that he cannot savingly believe the gospel when it is put before him, nor (2.) is he ever so completely controlled by God that he cannot reject it. (3.) God’s election of those who shall be saved is prompted by His foreseeing that they will of their own accord believe. (4.) Christ’s death did not ensure the salvation of anyone, for it did not secure the gift of faith to anyone (there is no such gift); what it did was rather to create a possibility of salvation for everyone if they believe. (5.) It rests with believers to keep themselves in a state of grace by keeping up their faith; those who fail here fall away and are lost. Thus, Arminianism made man’s salvation depend ultimately on man himself, saving faith being viewed throughout as man’s own work and, because his own, not God’s in him.The Synod of Dort was convened in 1618 to pronounce on this theology, and the “five points of Calvinism” represent its counter-affirmations. They stem from a very different principle—the biblical principle that “salvation is of the Lord”; and they may be summarized thus: (1.) Fallen man in his natural state lacks all power to believe the gospel, just as he lacks all power to believe the law, despite all external inducements that may be extended to him. (2.) God’s election is a free, sovereign, unconditional choice of sinners, as sinners, to be redeemed by Christ, given faith and brought to glory. (3.) The redeeming work of Christ had as its end and goal the salvation of the elect. (4.) The work of the Holy Spirit in bringing men to faith never fails to achieve its object. (5.) Believers are kept in faith and grace by the unconquerable power of God till they come to glory. These five points are conveniently denoted by the mnemonic TULIP: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, Preservation of the saints.
Now, here are two coherent interpretations of the biblical gospel, which stand in evident opposition to each other. The difference between them is not primarily one of emphasis, but of content. One proclaims a God who saves; the other speaks of a God Who enables man to save himself. One view presents the three great acts of the Holy Trinity for the recovering of lost mankind—election by the Father, redemption by the Son, calling by the Spirit—as directed towards the same persons, and as securing their salvation infallibly. The other view gives each act a different reference (the objects of redemption being all mankind, of calling, those who hear the gospel, and of election, those hearers who respond), and denies that any man’s salvation is secured by any of them. The two theologies thus conceive the plan of salvation in quite different terms. One makes salvation depend on the work of God, the other on a work of man; one regards faith as part of God’s gift of salvation, the other as man’s own contribution to salvation; one gives all the glory of saving believers to God, the other divides the praise between God, Who, so to speak, built the machinery of salvation, and man, who by believing operated it. Plainly, these differences are important, and the permanent value of the “five points,” as a summary of Calvinism, is that they make clear the points at which, and the extent to which, these two conceptions are at variance.
However. it would not be correct simply to equate Calvinism with the “five points.” Five points of our own will make this clear.
13 Comments
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Leave a comment
You picking fight?
Thanks for this. You know, if we could get back to Dort, maybe some headway could be made. It is rarely discussed that the malcontents were the Reymoanstraunz, or however the Franks say it. We should really be talking about Dortian Arminianism. If we could discuss the original complaints it would be a whole different game.
I like J.I., he makes no bones about the fact that they are different theologies, different gospels. It was this that made David Allen furious. Curiously, they (the Arminian/semi-Pelagian faction) can get quite nasty when they are labeled with the same label they label others. It is interesting too, that it was this way at Dort. It was the malcontents that raised the gauntlet and threw in down with claims of heresy. They really didn’t like it when the word was used in reference to them.
Still, the point by J.I. is made. Let us go back, and see what was really at stake. Then move forward. I don’t think that will happen at 3:16.
Me, pick a fight? With whom? No. I’m trying to clarify some issues.
Yes, the Remonstrants were the malcontents “back in the day.” I agree with you, Thomas, that there is a difference between the Remonstrants/ ‘Dortian Arminianism’ than what is often labeled as ‘Arminianism’ on the contemporary scene.
I concur entirely with Packer when he states that “Calvinism” and “Arminianism” are “two coherent interpretations of the biblical gospel, which stand in evident opposition to each other. The difference between them is not primarily one of emphasis, but of content….The two theologies thus conceive the plan of salvation in quite different terms.” I don’t believe, however, that this means the end to all agreement and cooperation. At this point, I recommend Iain Murray’s excellent work, Wesley and the Men Who Followed.
This is great to read again. J.I. Packer is such a blessing to the church. Thanks.
Dear Thomas,
This was an interesting comment:
“It was the malcontents that raised the gauntlet and threw in down with claims of heresy.”
I hadn’t heard that. My understanding was that Arminius requested changes to certain confessions to permit Arminianism, not to rule out Calvinism, let alone call it heresy. I am fairly sure he never called Calvinists heretics. Who made the charge of heresy?
God be with you,
Dan
Of the 5 points that Packer attributes to Arminians, only the second actually represents their views. Perhaps his mistaken notions of Arminianism lead him to label them semi-Pelagian?
God be with you,
Dan
Dan:
How do you think Packer misrepresents “Arminianism”?
Dr. Galyon,
This first point is a good example.
“Man is never so completely corrupted by sin that he cannot savingly believe the gospel when it is put before him”
Arminius said people are so completely corrupted by sin that they can’t believe w/o grace. Those that were either A) being hardened or B) committed the unpardonable sin no longer have sufficient grace to believe. Further, he saw prevenient grace as progressive. People move from being w/o the law, to being under the law to a peri-regenerational state. Only in this peri-regenerational state can man believe, albeit the whole process is intended to bring men to God.
On the other hand, Packer’s comment makes it seem as if man by nature is still able to believe. Hope that helps.
God be with you,
Dan
Dan:
You are correct in that Arminius himself stated grace is needed to believe. Wesleyans also speak of the necessity of prevenient grace. No argument there. The point of difference, I believe (as Packer is pointing out), is that the “Arminian” position teaches ultimately that the deciding factor in conversion is human will. It is not so corrupt it cannot believe savingly, though grace is needed.
I would argue (and perhaps you would agree), historical Arminianism and Calvinism are very close cousins.
Looking at it, perhaps on this point Packer could have clarified a bit more. I wonder, though, how you think he goes astray on the other points (3-5)?
Dear Dr. Galyon,
Packer made three mistakes on #1:
1) Inserting the word “never” – which is inaccurate
2) Omitting references to grace – which is misleading
3) Implying that the issue is the extent of corruption – which is also misleading
You said: “It is not so corrupt it cannot believe savingly, though grace is needed.”
Seems like you fixed the first 2 problems, but not the third. As a matter of full disclosure, I suppose it’s fair to say man is not so corrupt to be beyond the reach of God’s grace, but that’s the only “extent of corruption” issue I see here.
I will have to get back to you on point 3. The answer isn’t simple and I have to run to work…
As for point 4, the issue is that Arminius taught that faith was a gift. Probably Packer means a gift that one cannot refuse or return, and Arminius thought that the gift of faith could be refused and returned. But I would say that to that extent, Packer’s view of faith is unlike a gift and Arminius’ is like a gift, the way we conventionally use the term “gift”. Also on 4, although Christ’s death, by itself doesn’t save, when His blood is applied to the believer, through Christ’s intercession, it does save.
On point 5, Arminius only said the issue needs to be researched.
God be with you,
Dan
Dan:
On the third issue, the extent of corruption, I believe both sides affirm humanity is 100% corrupt. Agreed? As to extent, do you believe the Arminian side of the aisle holds that people are essentially “weak-willed” in regard to salvation and need grace to strengthen them for a decision, or do you believe the position held is that people are essentially anarchists who rebel against God’s authority unless God intervenes?
I look forward to your reply on point 3. BTW, I’m really enjoying our “conversation,” my friend!
Point 4 – Arminius taught faith is a gift (something the general evangelical populace denies), but did he view this as something God gives freely to be received or rejected or as a gift of the Spirit (i.e., Gal. 5 – Fruit of the Spirit)? I contend there is a difference between the two. I believe this is what Packer contends as well. You stated, “…although Christ’s death, by itself doesn’t save, when His blood is applied to the believer, through Christ’s intercession, it does save.” Again, some common ground, but the question is this – for whom does Christ make intercession? and when is the blood applied to the believer? At Calvary or at the moment of decision?
Yes, Arminius / the Remonstrants weren’t exactly clear on the fifth point in 1618, eh? But, coming at it from the historical angle and viewing what has since been taught in historically “Arminian” groups (e.g., Wesleyans), the teaching of “falling from grace” exists.
James
Dear James,
Sorry if I’ve been defensive. The whole “semi-Pelagian heresy” thing sets me on edge.
On the third issue, the extent of corruption, I believe both sides affirm humanity is 100% corrupt. Agreed?
Agreed.
As to extent, do you believe the Arminian side of the aisle holds that people are essentially “weak-willed” in regard to salvation and need grace to strengthen them for a decision, or do you believe the position held is that people are essentially anarchists who rebel against God’s authority unless God intervenes?
w/o grace we are all God haters.
Point 4 – Arminius taught faith is a gift (something the general evangelical populace denies), but did he view this as something God gives freely to be received or rejected or as a gift of the Spirit (i.e., Gal. 5 – Fruit of the Spirit)?
God gives it to be freely received or rejected. I am not sure I catch the difference you’re intending here.
for whom does Christ make intercession? and when is the blood applied to the believer? At Calvary or at the moment of decision?
Christ died for all, but He intercedes for believers alone. His death was of course at Calvary, but His intercession is when one believes – it’s part of being justified by faith. His death is the provision, justification is the application.
Yes, Arminius / the Remonstrants weren’t exactly clear on the fifth point in 1618, eh? But, coming at it from the historical angle and viewing what has since been taught in historically “Arminian” groups (e.g., Wesleyans), the teaching of “falling from grace” exists.
Yes, but falling from grace isn’t an Arminian distinctive. For example, in Baptist circles you will find many who disagree with falling from grace who aren’t so Calvinistic.
OK. Back to #3. Packer said:
God’s election of those who shall be saved is prompted by His foreseeing that they will of their own accord believe.
The simplest disagreement to see is in the phrase “they will of their own accord believe”. The omission to references to grace or that faith is a gift is misleading…bla, bla, bla… you knew that.
The interesting part is in the word “prompted”. The thing is God freely chooses to save those who believe. It’s a gracious choice on His part, and one He could omit. If not for His gracious choice, even the believer would be condemned eternally.
But on the other hand, it seems as if God has “precommitted” Himself to saving anyone who believes — such that He cannot go back on His promise to do so. So it does look like man’s faith is the missing element, which “prompts” God’s choice.
But what does God promise to do? Be gracious and merciful. So even though He’s committed Himself to the act, the act itself is still gracious and merciful. If not, if God’s commitment somehow makes His choice to save believers not gracious, then that choice isn’t in accordance with His promise. So God commits Himself to be merciful, and when the time comes (or rather when He foresees), that’s what He does. He mercifully chooses to save the believer.
The idea of prompting seems more like us cause God to act or reminding Him to do so. Neither of these really fit the Arminian view.
I really appreciate your kind tone, and of course I hold Calvinists as dear brothers in the Lord.
God be with you,
Dan
Dan:
Thanks for letting us know the “semi-Pelagian heresy” deal makes you a little edgy! Coming at it from the other side of the aisle, I hate being called a “Hyper-Calvinist.”
We agree on a whole lot, though we obviously differ on whether the ultimate deciding point is “free will” or “free grace.”
The difference between faith being a gift to be received or rejected or it being a fruit of the Spirit is that the fruit of the Spirit is produced only in a regenerate heart.
I believe, as did those at Dort, that the Lord’s death is sufficient for the whole world but efficient only for believers (the elect). Like you, I agree He intercedes only for believers. I would argue, however, that this intercession comes prior to belief (e.g., John 17).
I think we disagree on the foreknowledge bit, obviously, but you and I have a great deal of agreement and proximity on these issues. I’m putting you on my blogroll, brother!
I enjoyed chatting with you James. Thanks for the link, I will add yours to my blog as well.
God be with you,
Dan