The Five Points of Calvinism: Two Resources to Consider

For the last several Wednesdays, I've been a guest teacher at a large church in the Atlanta metropolitan area. Our subject has focused on the history of redemption, particularly the doctrine of redemption since the Reformation. For two sessions, we've briefly surveyed the Synod of Dort. Needless to say, we've had some good discussions -- fruitful discussions, I might add -- concerning the five points of Calvinism.

One practice I enjoy is recommending resources to people. Two particular resources I recommended to the group for consideration follow below.  The contrast could not be clearer between the two.  While both are written by Calvinists, both are written by pastors, both are succinct, and both are accessible to those who do not necessarily have a well-read theological background, nonetheless, one comes with a healthy “thumbs up” and the other with a strong cautionary “be-careful-how-you-take-this-guy” disclaimer. Here are the two sources:

       What is a True Calvinist?  by Philip Graham Ryken--This short little primer is a jewel.  I found Ryken an extremely warm but passionate writer.  His focus on God-centeredness in doctrine and duty is admirable.  He writes the essence of Calvinism is a passion for God’s glory (p.8).For the most part, there is little with which to quibble.  Indeed, why the booklet is not titled “What is a True Christian?” remains an enigma for me. 

Understand:  it is not that there is nothing in this booklet with which I personally would have stated differently.  Nor is it that perhaps Ryken defines and/or describes certain theological elements in a way I may not.  Rather, it is, in the end, Ryken comes across as a kindred spirit with true believers whether or not they embrace the label of Calvinism.

        TULIP: The Five Points of Calvinism in the Light of Scripture by Duane Edward Spencer—This small book may be the most polemical volume for which one could ask.  From the Preface to the final chapter, we find Spencer swinging his fists in a fury.   The doctrine of most Non-Calvinist churches today—Spencer calls them “evangelical” with a focus on the quotation marks, implying a questionable evangelicalism at best--is “the humanist theology of Erasmus of Rome.” 

Spencer makes things worst by speaking historical nonsense.  For example, while Spencer rightly notes Arminius was reared in the Reformed tradition, he wrongly suggests Arminius “leaned toward the humanist doctrines of Erasmus, for he had serious doubts about sovereign grace as it was preached by the Reformers.”  This is grossly incorrect. 

Arminius began to raise questions as he preached expositionally on Romans at the church where he served as pastor.  Furthermore,  it was not “sovereign grace as it was preached by the Reformers” concerning which Arminius rebelled.  Instead it was Beza’s scholastic Calvinism which posed the greatest threat in Arminius’ mind.

Also indicative of Spencer’s historical blundering is his apparent misunderstanding of Arminius’ most basic theology.  I’d be the first to admit:  from my standpoint, some of Arminius’ theological treatises are, to say the least, difficult reading. But Spencer botches key issues concerning which any one can understand and ought to understand if they’re writing a book critiquing the five points of Arminianism. 

For example, Spencer writes, “Arminius believed that the fall of man was not total, holding that there was enough good left in man for him to will to accept Christ unto salvation.”  This is just flat wrong. Arminius held total depravity in the strongest sense of the term, believing, as do all strong Calvinists, that natural man, apart from God, is totally, unequivocally dead in sin and, therefore, cannot hear God, see God, know God, or seek God.  Period.

In addition, Spencer wrongly assumes both Arminius and his followers denied the perseverance of the saints.  Arminius never taught one could lose one’s salvation.  Instead what he did do was confess that some biblical passages seemed to contradict perseverance and that he was continuing to struggle with them.  And, he said he’d never taught anything other than perseverance and challenged his critics to produce goods to the contrary.

Besides the above, throughout the book Spencer annoyingly referred to everyone not holding to Calvinism’s rigid five point frame-work as followers of Arminius (those condemned as heretics by Dort) who embrace “man’s work of faith” rather than God’s work of redemption.  This really starts to wear one down after a while.

Why would I recommend a work like this?  I wouldn’t…unless, of course, it was offset by a more sober volume like the one before it.  From my perspective, Spencer’s book represents well the ugly side of Calvinism.  On the other hand, Ryken represents commendable.

With that, I am…

Peter             

Comments

[Kevin Jackson]

I don't suppose there is audio of your presentations? They sound interesting.

[peter lumpkins]

Kevin,

Thanks. Unfortunately, no; no recordings available. I actually did not think to request it. Sorry.

I trust your Lord's Day weekend well.

With that, I am...
Peter

[From the Middle East]

Brother Peter,

I wanted to post this under the United States of Allah, but the comments were closed. At any rate:

Missiologists respond:

http://www.strategicnetwork.org/2009/05/mission-researchers-respond-to-the-muslim-demographic-video/

Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East

PS - Feel free to delete or move this as it has nothing to do with the current post. Of course, it is your blog... so feel free to do whatever you want without my permission ;^)

[Donald H.]

Peter,

Very gracious to put up two resources. And there are calvinist out there that I like as well.

And others that bring shame to not only an in-house debate, but the body of Christ as well, like Spencer.

But the heart of this mindset:

(everyone not holding to Calvinism’s rigid five point frame-work as followers of Arminius)

is an affair caricature of non-calvinist or non-arminian, which I would just call them evangelicals.

For example;one wouldn't classify someone that is Lutheran in their theology as an Arminian nor Calvinist.