My Explanation of “The Five Points of Calvinism”

For a while now, I’ve wanted to do a series on the five points of Calvinism, or at least, in my own words, answer the question: “What is Calvinism?” The wait is over, and my brief (for me) explanation of Calvinism is ready. You can check it out at my Calvinism page, but I want to share it here for your benefit as well.

———————–

This is my own work on the five points here. I recommend John Piper’s clear and concise booklet as the best explanation of Calvinism to those who are ignorant of what Calvinism is and what it teaches. His treatment is respectful and very Biblical, it is available online here.

When it comes to Calvinism I think of it as a description of what happens “behind the scenes” with respect to our salvation. We are confronted with the gospel and asked to believe, we feel conviction and then relief when we trust Christ. Biblically, however, what happened in our heart was more than us independently deciding what we would do with the gospel. I have found that the more we know of what Scripture teaches about the inner workings of salvation, the greater will be our respect and regard for the One who saved us. All of this should tend toward a greater degree of personal worship, a sincere humility, and more glory to God, not a higher degree of pride or party spirit.

T – stands for Total Depravity. This means that every aspect of man is tainted by sin. No one is as evil as they can be, but evil affects every part of our being – mind, will, heart, etc. We do not seek after God, naturally. And apart from God’s initiative, we cannot please God. In fact, we are enslaved by the devil and are lost, blinded to the truth of the gospel and in need of God to mercifully reach down and intervene. (Rom. 3:10-18, 8:7-8; 1 Cor. 2:14; 2 Cor. 4:3-6; 2 Tim. 2:24-26)

U – stands for Unconditional Election. Since we are helpless and totally depraved, we need God to intervene. God doesn’t sit on the sidelines and see who is worthy of being chosen, God chooses. And because of His choice, the “elect” live lives worthy of their calling. Scripture is quite emphatic that neither our belief nor our works fit us for being elected but rather, flow from our election. (Acts 13:48; John 6:44, 6:64-65; 10:26; Eph. 1:3-6; 1 Thess. 1:4-5; 2 Thess. 2:13)

L – stands for Limited Atonement. The choice of “limited atonement” to fit with the TULIP acronym is unfortunate. Actually TULIP doesn’t date back before 1900, and “limited atonement” wasn’t widely used much before then. “Particular redemption” or “definite atonement” give the sense better. Jesus’ death is of infinite value and is sufficient for all but efficient for the elect only. Jesus didn’t just make salvation possible (if “activated” by one’s own contribution of faith). He actually redeemed and saved a people through His death. These are the sheep for whom He died and the church whom He purchased with His blood and the bride whom He died for. He died in some different sense for these than He did for those He knew would reject His atoning sacrifice. He actually bore their real punishment and substituted on their behalf in a real way — He made true propitiation for these. (John 10:11 compared to 10:26; Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25-27; Titus 2:14; 2 Tim. 1:9; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Jn. 4:9-11)

*It should also be noted that there have historically been varying positions regarding this point among Calvinists. All Calvinists hold that Christ died for everyone in a general sense and for the elect in a specific sense (1 Tim. 4:10). Some take this to mean the typical understanding of “L” must be flawed and so they call themselves 4 point Calvinists, others take this as a “multiple intentions” view that in the atonement, God had more than one purpose. The majority today hold that God’s purpose in the atonement was the saving of the elect, other benefits such as common grace extend to all as an extension of what Jesus did on the cross, but the cross-work was not performed on the behalf of all, but only for the elect. (This does not mean we should not preach to all, since we have no way of knowing who the elect are. Hyper-Calvinists are the ones who do not preach the gospel indiscriminately to all, and they do not speak for Calvinists in this extreme and errant practice.)

I – stands for Irresistible Grace. This point does not mean no one can resist God’s grace. People do resist. But for all who have been elected, God will overcome their resistance and graciously save them. This captures the idea of regeneration preceding faith. Calvinists believe faith flows from a heart that has been regenerated. A dead heart can’t believe. Faith is the sign of what happened behind the scenes in the internal workings of the heart. So while it may look like faith causes the new birth from our perspective, it actually is the new birth which evidences itself in faith. (John 1:13, 3:3-8; 1 Cor. 2:14; 1 John 4:7, 5:1 [note Greek tense on both of these = “has been born of God”]; Deut. 30:6; Ez. 36:25-27; Heb. 10:15-16; James 1:18; Phil. 2:13)

P – stands for Perseverance of the Saints. This means more than the common understanding of the eternal security of the believer. God preserves all the elect so that not one of them is finally lost, but He also so works in them that they persevere in their faith. When they fall, they aren’t utterly destroyed, they get back up. They bear fruit and have good works which testify to the genuineness of their professed faith. For those who fail to persevere, we are not the ultimate judge God is. But we should exhort one another daily to “fight the good fight of faith”. When understood properly, this point allows believers to take seriously the many warning passages and “if” statements in Scripture. It also gives us confidence to trust that “He who began a good work in [us], will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ”. (Phil. 1:6; 1 Cor. 15:2; John 10:28; 1 Pet. 1:3-5; Heb. 3:12-14, 6:11-12, 10:23-25, 12:14; Col. 1:21-23; Matt. 3:8-10, 7:15-23;)

——————-

I’m open to critique and feedback on this; so please use the comments to let me know what you think. We can have a charitable debate on the topic too, if you’d like.

News Flash: Tune in to an Interview of Bob Hayton on the Iron Sharpens Iron Radio Broadcast with Chris Arnzen

Interview Details: Live
call-in radio broadcast
Date: Monday 3/8/10
Time: 6-7pm EST / 5-6pm CST
Host: Chris Arnzen
Interviewee: Bob Hayton
Subject: Reforming
Fundamentalism through
Reformed Theology
Station: WNYG-1440 AM
On-Line: www.rcnam.com
& click “Long Island 1440 AM”

 

I’ll be LIVE on the air with Chris Arnzen, host of Iron Sharpens Iron radio, on Monday 3/8 at 6pm EST / 5pm CST. Here is the teaser that Chris is sending out about the interview. Please tune in and feel free to call in with your questions or comments.

Bob Hayton, founder of Fundamentally Reformed (see www.FundamentallyReformed.com), will address the theme: “Reforming Fundamentalism Through Reformed Theology”.

Bob is a former Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB), who now embraces Reformed Theology. He blogs to: 1) spread a passion for Jesus Christ, 2) help people harmed by extreme fundamentalism, 3) encite wider reform in fundamentalism & beyond, and 4) defend his theological positions. Bob also operates the “King James Only?” blog spot, the King James Only Research Center web site and other helpful blog spots and web sites.

According to our guest, Bob Hayton, “Often in fundamentalism, doctrine and Biblical exegesis are downplayed, ignored, or avoided. Topical or shallow messages prevail. Church members learn their do’s & don’ts but not what the Bible actually says (the arguments Biblical authors use, the context of favorite proof texts, or Bible doctrines in general). While fundamentalists claim to be standing on the Bible alone, rare is the church that actually opens itself up to Biblical scrutiny. For instance, it is an assumed thing that the Bible will not actually be shown to teach Calvinism, post-tribulational rapture, or covenant theology. So anyone who would espouse one of these positions or another similar position is immediately identified as a heretic and the church never actually carefully reviews what the Bible says on the matter…

Fundamentalists assume that their practices, standards, and positions are Biblical to the point of reading into the Bible what is not there to support their traditions and viewpoints… while fundamentalists claim to be the stalwart defenders of true doctrine, they are in fact the defenders of old-fashioned (actually late 1800’s early 1900’s) tradition…

Tune or log into this live, controversial, call-in broadcast and learn how Bob Hayton discovered and made the journey to embrace Reformed Theology, the *truly* old “Old Time Religion”.

To call in with questions, dial 631-482-8300. You can listen live to the broadcast at www.rcnam.com [you will have to click “Long Island 1440 AM”]. And the audio file will be freely available soon at sharpens.org.

Becca’s Story

I continue to hear from readers about how the story of my journey out of extreme fundamentalism has been a blessing to them.   From time to time, my readers share some of their own stories.   Recently, a young woman named Becca shared her story with me, and I received permission from her to share it with you all.   May it be a blessing and encouragement to you all.

2/12/2010

Bob,

I am twenty-three years old. I was born into a IFB family with all the fixins’. My parents were strongly KJV only; no secular music whatsoever was allowed in our household. We attended church every Sunday morning, Sunday night, and Wednesday. I was in Patch the Pirate Club. I can remember my dad railing over and over again about “secular” music, the “world’s” music, and he had books about the beat of the music causing one’s heart to beat irregularly. I am surprised I got away with wearing pants. That was a non-issue, usually, with my parents, although my mom did tell me once that she wished she’d raised me to wear skirts only. My previous pastor was once noted for having said that parents would rue the day they allowed their daughters to wear pants. I have never worn pants to a church service at that church before.

I was “saved” at the age of four. I remembered bits and pieces, but did not remember what I prayed or really remembering I was a sinner. Thus, for years upon years, even when I was in college, I doubted my salvation. What if I wasn’t really saved because I didn’t mean what I’d said at the age of four? I went off to the WILDS (summer camp) of Brevard, NC, where my counselor told me that if I couldn’t remember my salvation experience and was having doubts, then I probably wasn’t saved. I was incapacitated by fears of eternal damnation.

All of my childhood and teenage years were spent observing rules and regulation imposed by my IFB church. I knew nothing of God, but everything about what I “should” be doing. I was strongly KJV only, but I couldn’t defend my reasons behind it. I was strongly against secular music, but probably couldn’t have given reasons why. By the age of nineteen, I realized I had built concrete walls on a foundation of sand. I had no logical reason for any of the convictions I held.

When did the turnaround occur? When I went to college. My parents were hoping I’d choose PCC, but I couldn’t wear skirts all the time and it wasn’t accredited. I chose to attend Clearwater Christian, the small, accredited university on the Gulf Coast. Dad wasn’t thrilled “they allow handholding!” and a visiting evangelist had told Dad that he would never advise anyone to attend CCC. Nevertheless, I had liked what I’d seen when I visited there and it was only by the grace of God that he led me there. The school changed my life.

CCC is conservative, yes. It is fundamental. But it is not “fundamentalist,” in the derogatory sense of the word. It is Scriptural, but it couldn’t be compared to a terrorist regime in the standards it holds. At first, when I discovered that the girls I lived with had versions of the Bible that weren’t KJV, I wrote them off. Little by little, when I saw my godly Bible professors using other versions, I gave them a chance. Finally, I broke down and bought an ESV. It was also at CCC that I was truly introduced to Reformed Theology. RT had always been referred to in my circle as being not biblical or even heretical. My mom said, “I can’t accept that God would die for me and not my daughter” (my sister). I was, surprise, surprise, strongly opposed to Reformed Theology, although, once again, I could not back up my beliefs against my more knowledgeable friends. My parents and my church had raised a child with a delicate egg shell of beliefs; on the outside, the shell looked nice, but if it developed the slightest crack, the whole thing would crumble because there was no support on the interior of that shell. My ESV Bible made the clarity and the flow of the words so much clearer and cleaner; for the first time, the Bible was real to me. The more I read, the more I stumbled upon words like “chosen,” “drawn,” “gift,” “grace,” “mercy,” “God wills,” “hardens,” and the whole shebang of those words that make up the “Calvinist’s Dictionary.” I couldn’t ignore these words, however. They were there after all. I read them and reread them in context and they presented truths which I could not deny: the sovereignty of God, his mercy, his love, his ultimate glory. I walked away from reading, came back later. The truths were still there and again, they were undeniable. My professors and our chapel speakers backed up these truths and little by little, I was drawn into the beauty of Reformed Theology. When I finally accepted it fully, I was awestruck. My doubts were taken away for no longer did I need to place what little hope I had in that wimpy prayer I prayed as a four year old. My full trust was put in Christ alone. I was awakened to what “grace” really meant. I saw Christ as he really was. No longer, no longer was I entrenched in doubt, guilt out of not meeting the standard, fear of hell’s fires…. For the first time, I began learning about Christ, not about what I should be/shouldn’t be doing.

Now, as a twenty-three-year old, one year out of college, teaching, I am a full-blown Calvinist. . . .or, “Biblicist.” I attend a Reformed Presbyterian church. I wear pants to services. I have high-lighted and annotated my ESV until the pages are soft. I keep finding new references to being “drawn” to Christ. I am finding music that backs up my theology. I am reading Piper. And I have never been more in love with Christ, more on fire for Him, more wanting to scream my new-found freedom from the rooftops. When I was entrenched in the IFB circle, I was shallow, foundationless, searching, confused, disoriented. I was fully confident in nothing at all. However, by God’s grace, I have now been led into the light of His glorious Gospel, and I thank God for opening up my eyes to the truth. I wish everyone could know what I know and I am so happy to have found your site because you do know what I know; you have found what I found. Aren’t you grateful? I am.

Those Five New Points of Calvinism

Almost everyone reading my blog is familiar with the acrostic TULIP as standing for the five points of Calvinism. Probably most of you know what each point stands for: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the Saints. Then the number goes down as to who knows what each point means. I would venture to guess that there would be disagreement over what people think “L” should mean, or what “T”, “I” or “P” actually imply.

If you’ve read any Calvinist literature, you have seen a recasting of the points. Some turn it from TULIP into ROSES (Timothy George), others like my former pastor John Piper, choose to consider the points in a thematic order rather than their order in the word TULIP. Piper’s pamphlet on the points spells the Calvinist flower: TILUP. I’ve seen books and essays advocate “efficacious grace” or “particular redemption” as opposed the the TULIP title of the point in question.

What very few of you who read this blog know, and what I just learned, is that the acronym TULIP is a very recent development. It apparently hails from the early 20th Century, first appearing in Lorraine Boettner’s 1932 book, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. I just finished reading an article by Ken Stewart [pdf] which traces the development of TULIP [HT: Dave Doran]. Stewart rummages through the literary remains of the 18th and 19th Centuries in a vain attempt to find any use of our flowery acronym. He finds many treatments of Calvinism in the first half of the 20th Century totally bereft of any mention of TULIP as well. Stewart cites Roger Nicole as one who also noted the newness of the TULIP scheme. From his preface of the 40th anniversary edition of Steele and Thomas’ Five Points of Calvinism, Nicole states: “Ever since the appearance of Loraine Boettner’s magisterial The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination it has been customary to refer to the five points according to the acrostic TULIP.”

A couple months back, Justin Taylor entertained this same theme on his blog, and in the comments proof of the use of TULIP was given in a 1913 article of the New Outlook, which cites a Dr. Cleland McAffee as using the term as a mnemonic device in his lectures back in 1905. So that is apparently the earliest documented use of the TULIP acronym found to date.

Stewart’s piece is well worth the read, as he concludes with a call for Calvinism to be more irenic and pleasing in its tone, especially when interacting with the wider Christian church. So I guess true Calvinism, isn’t all about fives. I for one, would be glad to let the TULIP wither. I love the heart of Calvinism, but a strict adherence to five points that aren’t adequately explained is not helpful. This might be a good time for all of us to go read the original Five Points in their entirety– I‘m referring to the Canons of Dort, of course.

UPDATE: I forgot to include the link to Stewart’s article initially. Here is the link (it’s a pdf file).

Quotes to Note 9: Luther on Sanctification

Today I have a simple quote for you. This comes from Joel Beeke’s Living for God’s Glory: An Introduction to Calvinism. This single quote is worth meditating on today. May God bless us in our walk with Christ.

Martin Luther states, “We in Christ equals justification; Christ in us equals sanctification”. (Beeke, Living for God’s Glory, 202)