Defining the 5 Points of Calvinism

[His clay]

I've often run into those who are utterly opposed to their idea of Calvinism; but when I examine what they say Calvinism is, it is often run through with a whole host of straw men. The ideas of forcing, divine arbitrariness in election, td=complete and utter depravity, etc are just a few of the straw men. False conclusions on the basis or poor premises are often the culprit. Calvinists often get how the anti-C sees Calvinism on the basis of anti-C premises, but that is an extremely far cry from what Calvinism actually is.

I'm simply presenting a link to a good article that I came across 10-20 years ago that was a good resource for me early on. It is titled "What We Believe about the Five Points of Calvinism". I hope that those who are wondering, examining, struggling through the issues may find the article helpful.

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-we-believe-about-the-five-points-of-calvinism

 

[David1701]

I've often run into those who are utterly opposed to their idea of Calvinism; but when I examine what they say Calvinism is, it is often run through with a whole host of straw men. The ideas of forcing, divine arbitrariness in election, td=complete and utter depravity, etc are just a few of the straw men. False conclusions on the basis or poor premises are often the culprit. Calvinists often get how the anti-C sees Calvinism on the basis of anti-C premises, but that is an extremely far cry from what Calvinism actually is.

I'm simply presenting a link to a good article that I came across 10-20 years ago that was a good resource for me early on. It is titled "What We Believe about the Five Points of Calvinism". I hope that those who are wondering, examining, struggling through the issues may find the article helpful.

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-we-believe-about-the-five-points-of-calvinism

Of course, the ones posting the straw man arguments could, and should, have taken the trouble to check their facts, before dogmatically attacking that of which they are ignorant. That is what honourable people do.

 

[ReverendRV]

I've often run into those who are utterly opposed to their idea of Calvinism; but when I examine what they say Calvinism is, it is often run through with a whole host of straw men. The ideas of forcing, divine arbitrariness in election, td=complete and utter depravity, etc are just a few of the straw men. False conclusions on the basis or poor premises are often the culprit. Calvinists often get how the anti-C sees Calvinism on the basis of anti-C premises, but that is an extremely far cry from what Calvinism actually is.

I'm simply presenting a link to a good article that I came across 10-20 years ago that was a good resource for me early on. It is titled "What We Believe about the Five Points of Calvinism". I hope that those who are wondering, examining, struggling through the issues may find the article helpful.

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-we-believe-about-the-five-points-of-calvinism

I'll read it later Brother; coming from you, I'm sure it's great. A thing that doesn't help, is when Calvinists get Calvinism wrong too; and fight for their Strawman. IE Hypers; or Calvinists that lean that way without knowing it...

 

[His clay]

I'll read it later Brother; coming from you, I'm sure it's great. A thing that doesn't help, is when Calvinists get Calvinism wrong too; and fight for their Strawman. IE Hypers; or Calvinists that lean that way without knowing it...

This is certainly true as well, and it certainly doesn't help the matter. I've seen this as well. This is why people need to actually study primary sources. This is a rather basic concept for those that have had a little education (college and/or seminary). One of my history teachers in seminary made us read the Councils of Dort and 500-1000 pages in the Institutes; this is called primary source reading. Getting back to the primary source is rather important. Also important is primary source reading that isn't quote mined from another author. It is important that one gets the actual context in which the quote is found, to avoid quote mining. Of course, all this assumes that the student isn't lazy or possessing poor comprehension. All of this to say, study is important. The mind cannot be neglected, especially if one wants to go online and try to influence others. Basic honesty demands this, as well as one's accountability to God.

I feel like I've stated the extremely obvious, but this is apparently not obvious from what I've read from the highly zealous strawman propagators on line.

 

[David1701]

This is certainly true as well, and it certainly doesn't help the matter. I've seen this as well. This is why people need to actually study primary sources. This is a rather basic concept for those that have had a little education (college and/or seminary). One of my history teachers in seminary made us read the Councils of Dort and 500-1000 pages in the Institutes; this is called primary source reading. Getting back to the primary source is rather important. Also important is primary source reading that isn't quote mined from another author. It is important that one gets the actual context in which the quote is found, to avoid quote mining. Of course, all this assumes that the student isn't lazy or possessing poor comprehension. All of this to say, study is important. The mind cannot be neglected, especially if one wants to go online and try to influence others. Basic honesty demands this, as well as one's accountability to God.

I feel like I've stated the extremely obvious, but this is apparently not obvious from what I've read from the highly zealous strawman propagators on line.

It's also interesting that the 5 points of Calvinism (a misnomer, since Calvin had nothing to do with them) were responses to the 5 objections of the Remonstrants; yet, you hardly ever hear about the 5 points of Arminianism. It's a bit like the BBC reporting on a story, in which some Palestinian terrorists attack Israeli civilians, and the BBC leads with the Israeli response, as if they were the instigators (this type of false reporting happens often).

What's also interesting is that Reformers of that time regarded the Remonstrants as heretics, and yet, the modern Arminians tend to be noticeably further from the truth than the Remonstrants were, and the Arminians nowadays are usually treated as orthodox (if somewhat mistaken) by those of a Reformed persuasion. Have we become somewhat compromised?

 

[His clay]

It's also interesting that the 5 points of Calvinism (a misnomer, since Calvin had nothing to do with them) were responses to the 5 objections of the Remonstrants; yet, you hardly ever hear about the 5 points of Arminianism. It's a bit like the BBC reporting on a story, in which some Palestinian terrorists attack Israeli civilians, and the BBC leads with the Israeli response, as if they were the instigators (this type of false reporting happens often).

What's also interesting is that Reformers of that time regarded the Remonstrants as heretics, and yet, the modern Arminians tend to be noticeably further from the truth than the Remonstrants were, and the Arminians nowadays are usually treated as orthodox (if somewhat mistaken) by those of a Reformed persuasion. Have we become somewhat compromised?

Yep, Dort was responding to the Remonstrants.

Regarding your last paragraph, I hold that when a theology seeks to make peace with the idea of autonomy from God, then it has proposed a syncretism with fallen thought. The melding of Christianity with pagan autonomy creates great havoc within the Christian faith, and I think it best to attack it for what it is. However, Arminians may be believers in spite of this syncretism. I appreciate the more historic Arminians than the modern day version. The historic version actually has much closer ties to the truth with regards to the depravity of man. Hence, their understanding of faith was empty-handed and owing all to Christ. However, the modern day proponents of libertarian freedom, who jettison the helplessness of man for the ability of libertarian freedom, create a faith that is focused upon (i.e. the two objects of faith), at best, divided between (1) Christ's saving accomplishment and (2) man's ability to choose. They try to gloss this over by irrationally appealing to Paul's definition of faith, while all the while denying the very foundation (man's helplessness in sin, under sin, universally guilty before God) of Paul's definition of faith. So yes, faith is inherently non-meritorious precisely because libertarian freedom is negated by human sinfulness and helplessness (hence the dependent nature of saving faith). But when libertarian freedom proclaims man's ability, then Paul's definition of faith is forfeit. Again, people may not have thought through their positions, and so a person may be saved in spite of the syncretism; but that syncretism is eternally dangerous. I don't think that we do people any favors or show them love by glossing over these issues for the sake of a facade of unity and love.

 

[His clay]

In light of my comments in post 6, here is a simple account of various testimonies I have listened to over the years.

In group one we have the testimony that sounds much like this. Why are they saved? They will respond that they heard the call of God. Perhaps they will mention their conscience being pricked. Perhaps they will mention that they realized that they were a sinner deserving of the punnishment of hell. And they responded to the call. They walked an isle. They prayed to God. They believed. They let Jesus come into their heart. In sum, their response to their plight was to do what needed to be done. Their salvation is couched in terms to what they did to be saved.

In group two we have the testimony that sounds much like this. What are they saved? They will respond that they lived a life of sin. They point out the depths of their sin and the horrible lostness of their state. They point to how deserving they are of hell for their sin. But then the testimony focuses upon God. God acted to saved. Jesus died to redeem horrible sinners. Jesus saved me. He rescued me from myself and the lies and deception of sin. Apart from the grace of God, that person would be eternally lost.

The difference here is huge. The actions may be the exact same between the two groups, but the focus is radically different. In the first, the focus is my accomplishments to acquire salvation from God. In the second, the focus is upon God and His work of saving a helpless sinner. Again, both people may have walked an isle, prayed a prayer, etc. But the focus/object of faith is different in each. In the first, faith's object is divided (at best) between the focus of personal religious activity and Jesus' work on the cross. In the second, personal activity is seen through, as if transparent, to the ultimate ground of salvation, namely God. In the second, the object of faith is completely God.

This is where the rubber hits the road for me. All of the high and lofty disputes and language boil down to one's object of faith. And the danger of having the wrong object is eternally significant.

 

[David1701]

Yep, Dort was responding to the Remonstrants.

Regarding your last paragraph, I hold that when a theology seeks to make peace with the idea of autonomy from God, then it has proposed a syncretism with fallen thought. The melding of Christianity with pagan autonomy creates great havoc within the Christian faith, and I think it best to attack it for what it is. However, Arminians may be believers in spite of this syncretism. I appreciate the more historic Arminians than the modern day version. The historic version actually has much closer ties to the truth with regards to the depravity of man. Hence, their understanding of faith was empty-handed and owing all to Christ. However, the modern day proponents of libertarian freedom, who jettison the helplessness of man for the ability of libertarian freedom, create a faith that is focused upon (i.e. the two objects of faith), at best, divided between (1) Christ's saving accomplishment and (2) man's ability to choose. They try to gloss this over by irrationally appealing to Paul's definition of faith, while all the while denying the very foundation (man's helplessness in sin, under sin, universally guilty before God) of Paul's definition of faith. So yes, faith is inherently non-meritorious precisely because libertarian freedom is negated by human sinfulness and helplessness (hence the dependent nature of saving faith). But when libertarian freedom proclaims man's ability, then Paul's definition of faith is forfeit. Again, people may not have thought through their positions, and so a person may be saved in spite of the syncretism; but that syncretism is eternally dangerous. I don't think that we do people any favors or show them love by glossing over these issues for the sake of a facade of unity and love.

My thoughts exactly.