# How Many Points



## Curt (May 8, 2011)

While discussing a few things with my host pastor, this morning, in a church in Bucharest, the subject of Calvinism arose (as it usually does). This Calvary Chapel pastor asked, "How many points? Three? Five?" when answered "Ten or twelve," he just nodded and discontinued that line of discussion.

He was extremely hospitable, however, and allowed me the privilege of preaching in his pulpit.

Praise God.


----------



## Reformed Thomist (May 8, 2011)

The late Dr. Edwin H. Palmer's two cents:

"… Calvinism is not restricted to five points: it has thousands of points. The first word that Calvinism suggests to most people is _predestination_; and if they have a modicum of theological knowledge, the other four points follow. But this is wrong. Calvinism is much broader than five points. It is not even primarily concerned with the five points. In the first catechism which Calvin drew up (1537), predestination is only briefly mentioned. In the Confession of Faith, drawn up in the same year, there is no mention of it at all. In another catechism and four confessions attributed to Calvin, the doctrine is mentioned only in passing. And in the first edition of his monumental work, _The Institutes_, it is given no important place even when he treats the matter of salvation. It was only in later editions, after attacks had been made on the grace of God, that he enlarged upon predestination.

"Calvinism has an unlimited number of points: it is as broad as the Bible. Does the Bible teach about the Trinity? Then, Calvinism does. Does the Bible deal with the deity of Christ, the covenant of grace, justification by faith, sanctification, the second coming of Christ, the inerrancy of Scripture and the world-and-life view? Then, Calvinism does, too. For John Calvin’s goal in his preaching, teaching, and writing was to expound all the Word of God — and the Word of God alone. _Scriptura tota_: _Scriptura sola_. Calvinism is an attempt to express all the Bible and only the Bible."

*(Edwin H. Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism, Baker Book House Co., 1972, pp. 5-6.)*


----------



## steadfast7 (May 8, 2011)

Interesting quote above, RT. I wonder what modern Calvinism would be without it's emphasis on predestination?


----------



## lynnie (May 8, 2011)

Piper writes about being a 7 pointer, #6 being the doctrine of reprobation and #7 being that what God has ordained is the best of all possible scenarios and not a lesser plan B. Just curious, what does 10 or 12 refer to? 

I thought "points" are by definition doctrines opposite to Arminianism, and not things we do agree with Arminians on like trinity, deity, inerrancy, etc. Points are uniquely Calvinist are they not?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 8, 2011)

Well I'd remind Dr. Piper of the #8 point...Infant Baptism.


----------



## Marrow Man (May 8, 2011)

I'm reminded of this anecdote by Richard Mueller which might have some bearing on the issue (found here):



> I once met a minister who introduced himself to me as a “five-point Calvinist.” I later learned that, in addition to being a self-confessed five-point Calvinist, he was also an anti-paedobaptist who assumed that the church was a voluntary association of adult believers, that the sacraments were not means of grace but were merely “ordinances” of the church, that there was more than one covenant offering salvation in the time between the Fall and the eschaton, and that the church could expect a thousand-year reign on earth after Christ’s Second Coming but before the ultimate end of the world. He recognized no creeds or confessions of the church as binding in any way. I also found out that he regularly preached the “five points” in such a way as to indicate the difficulty of finding assurance of salvation: He often taught his congregation that they had to examine their repentance continually in order to determine whether they had exerted themselves enough in renouncing the world and in “accepting” Christ. This view of Christian life was totally in accord with his conception of the church as a visible, voluntary association of “born again” adults who had “a personal relationship with Jesus.” In retrospect, I recognize that I should not have been terribly surprised at the doctrinal context or at the practical application of the famous five points by this minister — although at the time I was astonished. After all, here was a person, proud to be a five-point Calvinist, whose doctrines would have been repudiated by Calvin. In fact, his doctrines would have gotten him tossed out of Geneva had he arrived there with his brand of “Calvinism” at any time during the late sixteenth or the seventeenth century. Perhaps more to the point, his beliefs stood outside of the theological limits presented by the great confessions of the Reformed churches—whether the Second Helvetic Confession of the Swiss Reformed church or the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism of the Dutch Reformed churches or the Westminster standards of the Presbyterian churches. He was, in short, an American evangelical.


----------



## torstar (May 8, 2011)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Well I'd remind Dr. Piper of the #8 point...Infant Baptism.


 

I seem recall that John a few years back asked the board to allow membership for those baptized as infants, which was rejected.


----------



## pepper (May 9, 2011)

Well, I believe there is such a thing as reformed baptist and that was est. in 1689. A reformed baptist is theologically reformed, but not reformed in practice (baptism and Lord's Supper). Call it what you may, I still call myself reformed. I hold to emersion and to the Lord's supper as a memorial. I use the term "Calvinist" to refer to the five points, because that is its common understanding. CH Spurgeon called himself a Calvinist and yet he was not presbyterian.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (May 9, 2011)

pepper said:


> Well, I believe there is such a thing as reformed baptist and that was est. in 1689. A reformed baptist is theologically reformed, but not reformed in practice (baptism and Lord's Supper). Call it what you may, I still call myself reformed. I hold to emersion and to the Lord's supper as a memorial. I use the term "Calvinist" to refer to the five points, because that is its common understanding. CH Spurgeon called himself a Calvinist and yet he was not presbyterian.


 
I share your position. When I tell people I am a calvinist I am telling them I hold to the 5 points.


----------



## AltogetherLovely (May 9, 2011)

> The late Dr. Edwin H. Palmer's two cents:
> 
> "… Calvinism is not restricted to five points: it has thousands of points. The first word that Calvinism suggests to most people is predestination; and if they have a modicum of theological knowledge, the other four points follow. But this is wrong. Calvinism is much broader than five points. It is not even primarily concerned with the five points. In the first catechism which Calvin drew up (1537), predestination is only briefly mentioned. In the Confession of Faith, drawn up in the same year, there is no mention of it at all. In another catechism and four confessions attributed to Calvin, the doctrine is mentioned only in passing. And in the first edition of his monumental work, The Institutes, it is given no important place even when he treats the matter of salvation. It was only in later editions, after attacks had been made on the grace of God, that he enlarged upon predestination.
> 
> ...



This is the first time I've seen my grandfather quoted on the PB! 

Woo! (And I agree with him)


----------



## pepper (May 10, 2011)

I do not fully agree with Palmer. The term "Calvinism" was first used in reference to the 5 points. The 5 points were not John Calvin's creation. It was later after his death that the 5 points were est. They were drawn out of Calvin's works but they were not his system. Therefore, Calvinism was org. the name of the 5 points alone. Presbyterians try to make the term Calvinism = to Presbyterianism. It is not.

---------- Post added at 12:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 PM ----------

In fact during Calvin's day the reformers were all called Lutherans


----------



## CharlieJ (May 10, 2011)

Pepper, I'd like to explore this more. I was under the impression that "Calvinist" was first used by Lutherans to identify those that followed Calvin's view of sacramental presence in the Eucharist. Perhaps someone else can provide evidence to clarify this.


----------

