Sunday School Notes: The Six Points of Calvinism Part 1

As I noted last week, we’re taking a break from our Romans study for three weeks to look at “The Six Points of Calvinism.” Ours is a Presbyterian church (though I’m a Reformed Baptist), and as such, we hold to the central tenets of Reformed belief, including what is traditionally known as “The Five Points of Calvinism.” We’re spending some time on this topic not to try to stir up controversy, but primarily to help people understand what we believe with regard to these issues. Questions and comments are welcome, but I know that this is an issue that can sometimes stir up strong emotions. I would ask that commenters keep any questions or comments civil and polite. Thanks!

Also, bear in mind these are notes. If I were to go into a full discussion of these things here, this blog would be very long–and it’s probably already longer than it should be! Please feel free to use the comments to ask questions about things I didn’t cover, or to make points that I failed to make. In particular, if you were at the study yesterday morning and remember something useful that was said that I didn’t include here, please comment!

Historical Background
Many important doctrinal statements have a historical background. It helps us to understand why those doctrinal statements were written if we at least note the context from which they came. With regard to this topic, see the following time-chart:

In case you aren’t familiar with a couple of the names on this table: Jacob Arminius was a Dutch Calvinist who sought to reform Calvinistic teaching by modifying some of its beliefs (for example, the belief that Christ only died for the elect). His revisions were not well-received by the Reformed church. A form of his system of belief (known as “Arminianism”) is the view of the Methodist church, and many Baptist and non-denominational churches today. The Synod of Dort was a council convened to settle a dispute between the Dutch Reformed Calvinists, and the growing number of those subscribing to Arminianism. The Arminians presented five points of contention with Reformed teaching. These points were eventually rejected, and the Synod produced a document listing five counter-points. These counter-points became known as “The Five Points of Calvinism.”

I think this chart is useful because it helps us see a couple of things. First, John Calvin and Jacob Arminius were not contemporaries. The dispute between their systems of theology was conducted by those that came later. They never met, and Calvin would never have read anything by Arminius. Also, note that the dispute that caused Calvin to write his work was very different from the dispute from which the Five Points came. Calvin was arguing against Roman Catholicism, whereas the Calvinists and Arminians were debating Reformed theology within the context of the Reformed church. This is why you won’t find a list of The Five Points in Calvin’s work. I believe, having read Calvin’s Institutes, that he would have agreed with The Five Points–and indeed, I think you can find arguments for them in Calvin’s work. But that wasn’t Calvin’s debate.

The Six Points of Calvinism
Here are the Five Points of Calvinism, along with the one we are adding:

Why “Six Points” and not five? Just as in Calvin’s time certain theological issues were not disputed because either most people believed them, or because there were more important issues to dispute, so today, issues arise that would never have been considered back in the sixteenth and seventeenth century. I believe in our day, the view of God’s sovereignty held by many Christians is not exhaustive enough. God is viewed as sovereign to an extent–but not totally. The motive is often good: we don’t want to make God responsible for our mistakes, or we don’t want to make God the author of sin. But I think these concerns are unnecessary, and, more importantly this view of God’s sovereignty doesn’t match up with what the Bible teaches.

S: Sovereignty of God
I’m adding “S” to the beginning, not the end (though “TULIPS” sounds better than “STULIP”) because it really is the foundation of Reformed/Calvinistic theology. Scripture testifies to the fact that God has total sovereign control over all aspects of creation, and of life. Isaiah 45:5-7 speaks of God’s uniqueness, and the fact that he creates both darkness and light, well-being and calamity. Daniel 4:35 says that God accomplishes His will in the earth, and no-one can question Him. Similarly, Isaiah 55:9-11 proclaims God’s control over nature, and the fact that His word always achieves its purpose. Psalm 135:5-6 tells us that God does whatever He pleases. In Isaiah 10, God foretells the Assyrian attack on Israel due to their sin, even though the Assyrians weren’t planning to attack. In fact, it is God who puts it onto the hearts of the Assyrians to do this. Likewise, in Acts 2:22-23, Peter proclaims that Jesus’ crucifixion was according to God’s plan, even though it was accomplished by means of “godless” men. Unless God was in control of these “godless” men, there is no way He could be certain they would have done this.

All these verses seem to indicate that God’s plans extend from creation down to the actions of men. We don’t get the impression that God’s purposes are in any way influenced by the will of men. Indeed, Romans 8:28 says that God orders all things–and that means all things, good and bad–for the good of His people. And all of this is ultimately to His glory.

Theologian R. C. Sproul makes an important observation with regard to God’s total, or exhaustive, sovereignty:

If there is one single molecule in this universe running around loose, totally free of God’s sovereignty, then we have no guarantee that a single promise of God will ever be fulfilled. Perhaps that one maverick molecule will lay waste all the grand and glorious plans that God has made and promised to us. If a grain of sand in the kidney of Oliver Cromwell changed the course of English history, so our maverick molecule could change the course of all redemption history. Maybe that one maverick molecule will be the thing that prevents Christ from returning. [R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God, pp. 26-27]

When we think of God being so intimately in control of every detail of our lives, the concern that is often voiced is we are reduced to being robots, or puppets, with no will of our own. Here are a couple of thoughts about that:

• This is not mere fatalism. With fatalism, all things happen by means of an impersonal force, “fate,” or something like that. What we’re talking about here are the plans and purposes of a loving, personal God, whose intentions are always pure and holy, and for the benefit of those He loves.
• Some might argue that God is only in control of the most important things in our lives, like meeting our future spouse. But think about all the things that could happen to prevent that meeting: one person gets a cold and can’t go out that night; some delay makes one person late and the other leaves, thinking they’ve been stood up; an accident happens that injures, or even takes the life of one of the parties. In each of these scenarios, not only the will of the two people, but the wills of many people are involved, along with the course of diseases, vehicles, weather, and many other factors. If God was not sovereign over all things, as Sproul suggests, one tiny deviation could ruin everything.
• As Luther taught in his book The Bondage of the Will, our natural inclination is to sin. Our “free will” is not completely free: it only does the desire of its nature. Romans 8:6-8 tells us that the natural man has no desire to please God. Apart from Christ, our nature is in bondage to sin, and it takes the grace of God through Christ’s work on the cross to break that bondage and enable us to please God. This leads us into a discussion of “T.”

T: Total Depravity
“Total Depravity” does not mean that man is incapable of doing things. People do nice things for people all the time. They even do works of charity that shame people in the church. Rather, “Total Depravity” means that man is so infected with sin, that every aspect of his life is affected. This means that even the very best works of men are tainted by sin. Ultimately it means that no-one is able to do anything that pleases God. As we have seen in our Romans study (particularly chapters 1 and 3), by nature men suppress the knowledge of God and are at enmity with Him. No-one seeks after God.

Again, as we saw in Romans 1, all people are capable of knowing good and evil. They are created in God’s image and, therefore, have an innate sense of what they should and shouldn’t do. Apart from Christ they cannot explain this knowledge, and they are unable to act on it in a way that gives glory to God.

Some other Scriptures that speak to this:

And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. [Ephesians 2:1-3 NASB]

They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. [Ephesians 4:18 ESV]

If man is incapable of doing anything that pleases God, since having faith in Christ is pleasing to God, he is incapable of even this faith. This leads us into the next couple of points–Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement–which we shall study next week.