What Qualifies as Calvinism?

[Reformed]

I have avoided posting in the recent flurry of atonement threads simply because they do not interest me. However, I think it is helpful to define what Calvinism is. One would think the Reformed view of soteriology is understood by all, but apparently (based on what I have read on this board) that is not the case.

If you ask a Reformed paedobaptist what qualifies as Calvinism, it will be difficult for them to separate Calvinism from the whole of their theology. In other words, they consider their view on baptism to be intrinsically linked to soteriology. While Reformed or Particular Baptists do believe all aspects of theology are part of a larger whole, not every doctrine has to fall just right in order for Calvinistic soteriology to be true. For example, some esteemed brothers on this board do not believe in penal substitution. However, some of these brothers affirm all five Solas. Speaking as a Reformed Baptist, such brothers would be considered Calvinists because in the Reformed Baptist schema Calvinism is defined solely by its belief in Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, and Soli Deo Gloria. This is a narrow view of Calvinism, limiting it to these five specific things. Some Christians have a larger view of Calvinism and, therefore, they reject it. The cannot separate the Five Solas from penal substitution or infant baptism. They see all those things as being part and parcel, so they reject the whole thing.

When Charles Spurgeon wrote his "A Defense of Calvinism", his focus was not on the Reformed paedobaptist view of John Calvin and John Knox. His focus was on the Five Solas and the debate on free will. He added nothing more to his view of Calvinism. Now, it would be fair to say that the Particular Baptists of the 17th-century, as well as Charles Spurgeon, co-opted the term "Calvinist" for themselves. They discarded the parts of Calvin's theology that were not compatible with Baptist theology while retaining Calvin's excellent conclusions on predestination and election. Among Baptists, if Calvinism is nothing more than belief in the Five Solas of the Reformation, then anyone who affirms them is a Calvinist. To be sure, Calvinists who reject penal substitution are a minority, but their atonement view does not negate their belief in the Five Solas. I will add that Amyraldianism is a rejection of definite atonement and falls outside of Calvinism. Ergo, in spite of their passionate insistence, Amyraldians are not Calvinists.

 

[JonC]

I have avoided posting in the recent flurry of atonement threads simply because they do not interest me. However, I think it is helpful to define what Calvinism is. One would think the Reformed view of soteriology is understood by all, but apparently (based on what I have read on this board) that is not the case.

If you ask a Reformed paedobaptist what qualifies as Calvinism, it will be difficult for them to separate Calvinism from the whole of their theology. In other words, they consider their view on baptism to be intrinsically linked to soteriology. While Reformed or Particular Baptists do believe all aspects of theology are part of a larger whole, not every doctrine has to fall just right in order for Calvinistic soteriology to be true. For example, some esteemed brothers on this board do not believe in penal substitution. However, some of these brothers affirm all five Solas. Speaking as a Reformed Baptist, such brothers would be considered Calvinists because in the Reformed Baptist schema Calvinism is defined solely by its belief in Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, and Soli Deo Gloria. This is a narrow view of Calvinism, limiting it to these five specific things. Some Christians have a larger view of Calvinism and, therefore, they reject it. The cannot separate the Five Solas from penal substitution or infant baptism. They see all those things as being part and parcel, so they reject the whole thing.

When Charles Spurgeon wrote his "A Defense of Calvinism", his focus was not on the Reformed paedobaptist view of John Calvin and John Knox. His focus was on the Five Solas and the debate on free will. He added nothing more to his view of Calvinism. Now, it would be fair to say that the Particular Baptists of the 17th-century, as well as Charles Spurgeon, co-opted the term "Calvinist" for themselves. They discarded the parts of Calvin's theology that were not compatible with Baptist theology while retaining Calvin's excellent conclusions on predestination and election. Among Baptists, if Calvinism is nothing more than belief in the Five Solas of the Reformation, then anyone who affirms them is a Calvinist. To be sure, Calvinists who reject penal substitution are a minority, but their atonement view does not negate their belief in the Five Solas. I will add that Amyraldianism is a rejection of definite atonement and falls outside of Calvinism. Ergo, in spite of their passionate insistence, Amyraldians are not Calvinists.

I think it depends on the conversation.

If we consider the Canons of Dort then we include both a "hard" and "moderate" view (both being 5 pt Calvinists, one offering a "hypothetical universalism" while still affirming "limited atonement"). That, however, is a historic take and theologies change (as evidenced by the fact James Arminus died a Calvinist). Some may object to the election of infants and still conder themselves Calvinists, I think.

Most often between Baptists I think the term refers to TULIP.

 

[Reformed]

Most often between Baptists I think the term refers to TULIP.

I should have included that and I do not know why I did not. I plum forgot. So, yes. TULIP is an essential part of what qualifies as Calvinism among Baptists. It still does not define how the atonement is accomplished, just its scope and intent.

 

[Reformed]

I guess my point is that there is room for some dissent on certain doctrinal points while still being under the umbrella of Calvinism. I think a rejection of penal substitution erects some hurdles that need clearing, but it does not take away from believing TULIP of the Solas.

 

[JonC]

I guess my point is that there is room for some dissent on certain doctrinal points while still being under the umbrella of Calvinism. I think a rejection of penal substitution erects some hurdles that need clearing, but it does not take away from believing TULIP of the Solas.

I agree in a way. I do not affirm PSA but I do TULIP (some would see it as a "hyper" affirmation as I also hold to "double predestination").

The reason I reject the label is because of PSA. I see it as essential to a Calvinistic soteriology (granted, not TULIP). That said, people disagree on distinctions (I believe a 4 point Calvinist is not a Calvinist because how the system is built).

 

[Reformed]

The reason I reject the label is because of PSA. I see it as essential to a Calvinistic soteriology (granted, not TULIP).

Yeah. I figured as much. I suppose it depends on how wide or narrow you define the term. Critics of TULIP are not going to care where you or I stand on the atonement. If we believe in TULIP they're going to call us Calvinists. For a while, I started referring to myself as a Monergist, which is an accurate term. Actually, I still self-identify using that term, but I no longer shy away from "Calvinist". The term is ubiquitous with the doctrines of grace, so that is good enough for me.

 

[JonC]

Yeah. I figured as much. I suppose it depends on how wide or narrow you define the term. Critics of TULIP are not going to care where you or I stand on the atonement. If we believe in TULIP they're going to call us Calvinists. For a while, I started referring to myself as a Monergist, which is an accurate term. Actually, I still self-identify using that term, but I no longer shy away from "Calvinist". The term is ubiquitous with the doctrines of grace, so that is good enough for me.

Labels are difficult because they often speak just as much to another's predjudiced views as they do about a held position.

I don't know if you have ran into issues, but I have seen people's attitudes change as soon as I identified with Calvinism. I try to keep in mind that those who make predjudiced judgements about other people based on one's soteriology, atonement theory, eschatology, etc. usually do so out of ignorance (sometimes accompanied by experiences with negative elements within those views). I think sometimes people also react defensively because thay are not equipped to discuss opposing views.

The question becomes how accurate these labels are in conveying another's belief. Depending on the contest I sometimes describe my belief as "Calvinistic" and offer clarification when needed.