4 Point Calvinism

[Truth Seeker]

I'm currently studying on Calvinism.I understand that Dallas Theological Seminary is a 4 point Calvinist school. Here are 10 differences I see between a 4 point Calvinist and a 5 point Calvinist. I also have Norm Geisler's book "Chosen But Free". Would you say that "Chosen But Free" represents DTS's view on 4 point Calvinism? Are 4 point Calvinists true Calvinists?

1. 4 point - Faith is not a gift from God. 5 point - Faith is a gift from God

2. 4 point - Faith precedes regeneration. 5 point - Regeneration precedes Faith

3. 4 point - Man has a free will 5 point - Man is a slave to sin has no free will

4. 4 point - A Christian can be carnal (backslide) 5 point - No such thing as a Carnal Christian (no backsliding)

5. 4 point - Non Lordship salvation 5 point - Lordship salvation

6. 4 point - Repentance from sin not necessary for salvation 5 point - Repentance from sin necessary for salvation

7. 4 point - Unlimited Atonement 5 point - Limited Atonement

8. 4 point - A Christian can break fellowship with God 5 point - A christian can not break fellowship with God

9. 4 point - Is possible for a Christian not to be a disciple 5 point - All Christians are disciples

10. 4 point - Synergism 5 point - Monergism

 

[TCassidy]

1. 4 point - Faith is not a gift from God. 5 point - Faith is a gift from God

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

2. 4 point - Faith precedes regeneration. 5 point - Regeneration precedes Faith

1 John 5:1 Everyone who believes (present tense) that Jesus is the Christ has been (perfect tense - happened in the past and is responsible for the present faith - believes) born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him.

3. 4 point - Man has a free will 5 point - Man is a slave to sin has no free will

John 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant (δουλος - slave) of sin.

4. 4 point - A Christian can be carnal (backslide) 5 point - No such thing as a Carnal Christian (no backsliding).

That is not one of the 5 points of Dordt. 1 Corinthians 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.

5. 4 point - Non Lordship salvation 5 point - Lordship salvation

Not one of the 5 Heads of Doctrine of Dordt.

6. 4 point - Repentance from sin not necessary for salvation 5 point - Repentance from sin necessary for salvation

Repentance is a result of regeneration, not the cause of it.

7. 4 point - Unlimited Atonement 5 point - Limited Atonement

Nobody, except a few very foolish universalists, believes in "unlimited atonement." Everybody limits the atonement in one way or another. Is Satan going to be saved? If not you limit the atonement. Will the demons be saved? If not you limit the atonement. Will all people be saved or just those who believe? If you think it is only believers you limit the atonement. There is no rational argument for unlimited atonement.

8. 4 point - A Christian can break fellowship with God 5 point - A christian can not break fellowship with God

1 John 1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

9. 4 point - Is possible for a Christian not to be a disciple 5 point - All Christians are disciples

All Christians are learning, which is what "disciple" means. But all are not learning the truth.

10. 4 point - Synergism 5 point - Monergism

Non sequitur. Can you demonstrate that no 4 point Calvinist is a monergist?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A 4 POINT CALVINIST!!!

 

[robustheologian]

I'm currently studying on Calvinism.I understand that Dallas Theological Seminary is a 4 point Calvinist school. Here are 10 differences I see between a 4 point Calvinist and a 5 point Calvinist. I also have Norm Geisler's book "Chosen But Free". Would you say that "Chosen But Free" represents DTS's view on 4 point Calvinism? Are 4 point Calvinists true Calvinists?

I know self-proclaimed 4-point Calvinists and they wouldn't agree with this list.

1. 4 point - Faith is not a gift from God. 5 point - Faith is a gift from God

2. 4 point - Faith precedes regeneration. 5 point - Regeneration precedes Faith

There are a few 5-point Calvinists (particularly dispensational Calvinists) who don'

3. 4 point - Man has a free will 5 point - Man is a slave to sin has no free will

I would be considered at 5-pointer and I believe man has a free will (just not free in the libertarian sense).

4. 4 point - A Christian can be carnal (backslide) 5 point - No such thing as a Carnal Christian (no backsliding)

Even Armininians (especially Baptists and fundamentalists) don't believe in being "carnal Christians".

5. 4 point - Non Lordship salvation 5 point - Lordship salvation

Lordship salvation isn't an exclusively 5-point or even Calvinist idea. There are non-Calvinists who subscribe to Lordship salvation and there are 5-point Calvinists who doesn't necessarily embrace LS.

6. 4 point - Repentance from sin not necessary for salvation 5 point - Repentance from sin necessary for salvation

Every orthodox Christian believes repentance is necessary for salvation.

7. 4 point - Unlimited Atonement 5 point - Limited Atonement

This is the primary difference between a 4-point Calvinist and a 5-point Calvinist.

8. 4 point - A Christian can break fellowship with God 5 point - A christian can not break fellowship with God

This isn't a matter of 4-point Calvinism versus 5-point Calvinism but an issue of Free Grace theology versus Lordship Salvation theology.

9. 4 point - Is possible for a Christian not to be a disciple 5 point - All Christians are disciples

Similar to response to #8.

10. 4 point - Synergism 5 point - Monergism

You are not a 5-point, 4-point, 3-point, 2-point, or 1-point Calvinist if you believe in synergism.

 

[Internet Theologian]

I'm currently studying on Calvinism.I understand that Dallas Theological Seminary is a 4 point Calvinist school. Here are 10 differences I see between a 4 point Calvinist and a 5 point Calvinist. I also have Norm Geisler's book "Chosen But Free". Would you say that "Chosen But Free" represents DTS's view on 4 point Calvinism? Are 4 point Calvinists true Calvinists?

1. 4 point - Faith is not a gift from God. 5 point - Faith is a gift from God

2. 4 point - Faith precedes regeneration. 5 point - Regeneration precedes Faith

3. 4 point - Man has a free will 5 point - Man is a slave to sin has no free will

4. 4 point - A Christian can be carnal (backslide) 5 point - No such thing as a Carnal Christian (no backsliding)

5. 4 point - Non Lordship salvation 5 point - Lordship salvation

6. 4 point - Repentance from sin not necessary for salvation 5 point - Repentance from sin necessary for salvation

7. 4 point - Unlimited Atonement 5 point - Limited Atonement

8. 4 point - A Christian can break fellowship with God 5 point - A christian can not break fellowship with God

9. 4 point - Is possible for a Christian not to be a disciple 5 point - All Christians are disciples

10. 4 point - Synergism 5 point - Monergism

It all sounds like Calvinist wannabe's in my opinion.

The list you provide is interesting but is an aberration. You may enjoy reading a book by R. C. Sproul 'What is Reformed Theology?' It is an excellent read and will clarify the Calvinist position for you fairly concisely.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Try "Doctrines of Grace" by James Montgomery Boice

 

[tyndale1946]

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A 4 POINT CALVINIST!!!

I've never heard of a 4 point Calvinist?... Which bears this question if one is a 4 point Calvinist doesn't the one point you do drop in doing so also negate the other points you didn't?... I don't see how it couldn't!... Take away one point the whole foundation is destroyed... Try it!... Brother Glen

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I've never heard of a 4 point Calvinist?... Which bears this question if one is a 4 point Calvinist doesn't the one point you do drop in doing so also negate the other points you didn't?... I don't see how it couldn't!... Take away one point the whole foundation is destroyed... Try it!... Brother Glen

Absolutely

 

[steaver]

Try "Doctrines of Grace" by James Montgomery Boice

I personally like the doctrines of grace by Peter, Paul, Matthew, mark, Luke, John, james and Jude.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I personally like the doctrines of grace by Peter, Paul, Matthew, mark, Luke, John, james and Jude.

I personally like the ones by Christ & His Father & the Holy Spirit? Those are the ones that James Montgomery Boise wrote the book about.....I highly recommend it.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B002A4MIF4/?tag=baptis04-20

Dr. Boise chose to write the book to explain how DOG was taken right from the bible. That was a very formidable task for the man because he had just been diagnosed with stage 4 cancer at the time. He would explain the writing of that book absolutely necessary to complete in order to understand the theological reasoning. To my way of thinking, he was a really great man for even attempting the initiative.

 

[Jerome]

From Southern Baptist Founder (the first Secretary of the Foreign Mission Board of the SBC) Rev. James B. Taylor's book Virginia Baptist Ministers, published in the 1850s:

"the view now generally adopted by the Baptists [is] that the atonement is general in its nature"


His Northern Baptist contemporary, Edward Hiscox, also identified mid-nineteenth century American Baptists as holding to:

"what in England is called "moderate Calvinism." Though diversities of personal opinion in many cases may incline to either extreme, the "general atonement" view is for the most part adopted, while the "particular atonement" doctrine is held by not a few."


Another SBC Founder, Jeremiah Bell Jeter:

"Baptists generally hold to what may be termed, for the sake of distinction, "moderate Calvinism"."

 

[robustheologian]

4 point Calvinists are historically considered to be Amyraldians. Their objection to all 5 points is almost always the issue of definite atonement. They have a hard time with the "who did Jesus die for?" question. Did Jesus die only for His elect, or did He die for each and every person that has ever (or will ever) live? So, yes, there is no such thing as a 4 point Calvinist. One is either a Calvinist or they are not

Exactamundo. Amyraldism stems from a difference between the two Calvinist LOGICAL order of decrees. Calvinists are mostly infralapsarian (the fall decreed, election decreed, then the atonement decreed) or supralapsarian (election decreed, the fall decreed, then the atonement decreed). Amyraldians (4-point Calvinists) hold to the order of God's decree being the fall, atonement, and then election. So 4-point Calvinists would still be considered Calvinists and every Reformed doctrine; they just differ on the logical order of decrees which causes them to (as Reformed mentioned already) to struggle with particular atonement.

 

[Yeshua1]

Norman Geilsler's work is a book written to express his view of arminian theology as regarding salvation, so that work is not what DTS expouses!

4 point calvinism would agree with the traditional calvinistic view regarding election/predestination/eternal security etc, but would also say that while Jesus died for all sinners, that God also knew that none of them can freely respond, so that he provided saving grace only to his elect to have them freely respond...

its the direct opposite of a westlyn view that states that God provided a common grace towards all sinners, and up to them to freely respond to get saved....

 

[JonC]

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
1 John 5:1 Everyone who believes (present tense) that Jesus is the Christ has been (perfect tense - happened in the past and is responsible for the present faith - believes) born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. John 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant (δουλος - slave) of sin.That is not one of the 5 points of Dordt. 1 Corinthians 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
Not one of the 5 Heads of Doctrine of Dordt.
Repentance is a result of regeneration, not the cause of it.Nobody, except a few very foolish universalists, believes in "unlimited atonement." Everybody limits the atonement in one way or another. Is Satan going to be saved? If not you limit the atonement. Will the demons be saved? If not you limit the atonement. Will all people be saved or just those who believe? If you think it is only believers you limit the atonement. There is no rational argument for unlimited atonement.
.....[snipped to save space]

Just a little comment from one without a DoG in the hunt.

Ephesians 2:8 is referring to salvation as a gift from God, not faith. (I happen to agree that faith is a gift from God, but I disagree that Ephesians 2:8 is adequate evidence).

Also, the Five Points as written at Dort do not necessarily exclude “four point Calvinists” (at least as a minority view, from orthodox belief…see for example, John Cameron, John Davenant..sp?...). TULIP emerged from the “Five Points” and eventually replaced the broader conclusions of Dort. My only point really is that too many exclude from Calvinism what is genuinely accepted therein as orthodox simply because they don’t agree with that view.

Lastly, you may need to clarify the statement that “Nobody, except a few very foolish universalists, believes in ‘unlimited atonement.”” What I understand you to mean that there is no rational argument for unlimited atonement within the context of a broader Calvinistic system (to include Arminianism). But I am not sure what you mean by atonement. If you mean “Christ’s death” or “for whom Christ died,” then you needn’t look further than Aquinas to find one who holds to universal atonement but not universal redemption. While I disagree with his conclusions, it cannot be said that they are not logical.

 

[robustheologian]

Ephesians 2:8 is referring to salvation as a gift from God, not faith. (I happen to agree that faith is a gift from God, but I disagree that Ephesians 2:8 is adequate evidence).

That is also a popular view. It has long been disputed what “this” in the text refers to. It would be easier to figure out if the Greek pronoun for "this" was feminine like the Greek word for faith is. The difficulty arises from the fact that the pronoun “this” is in the neuter. I would say that it refers generally to faith though. Augustine, Charles Hodge, and E.K. Simpson believe it is faith that is being referred to by “this”. On the other hand, Calvin holds to the belief that “this” in Ephesians 2:8 does refer to salvation itself (like you mentioned).

Personally, I believe that “this” refers to faith since the other views would be redundant statements. For instance, here is Ephesians 2:8 with “this” referencing salvation itself: "You have been saved through faith as a gift from God. And this is not your own doing; this salvation is the gift of God.” It has already been stated that this salvation is a gift from God. Viewing “this” in the text as referring to salvation is a redundant restatement of the first clause in the verse.

Also, the Five Points as written at Dort do not necessarily exclude “four point Calvinists” (at least as a minority view, from orthodox belief…see for example, John Cameron, John Davenant..sp?...).

Actually, the entire second head of the Canons along with the rejection of errors, does contradict an unlimited atonement view.

TULIP emerged from the “Five Points” and eventually replaced the broader conclusions of Dort.

It seems to me that TULIP is a restatement of the five heads of doctrine in the Canons of Dort. However, I will say that there are semi-doctrinated Calvinists who are totally unaware of that TULIP is based on the Canons of Dort.

Lastly, you may need to clarify the statement that “Nobody, except a few very foolish universalists, believes in ‘unlimited atonement.”” What I understand you to mean that there is no rational argument for unlimited atonement within the context of a broader Calvinistic system (to include Arminianism). But I am not sure what you mean by atonement. If you mean “Christ’s death” or “for whom Christ died,” then you needn’t look further than Aquinas to find one who holds to universal atonement but not universal redemption. While I disagree with his conclusions, it cannot be said that they are not logical.

I would agree.

Of course a person can be a 4-point Calvinist, all I'm saying is that such a position possesses inconsistencies—the biggest being a Trinitarian disagreement (God chooses a few, the Holy Spirit saves a few, but Christ dies for all?!?!?).

 

[TCassidy]

Ephesians 2:8 is referring to salvation as a gift from God, not faith. (I happen to agree that faith is a gift from God, but I disagree that Ephesians 2:8 is adequate evidence).

The problem with that is that "saved" (Greek: σεσωσμενοι) is a verb, a perfect, passive, participle, in the nominative case, plural, masculine, while "gift" (Greek: δωρον) is a
nominative, singular, neuter, noun.

 

[TCassidy]

It has long been disputed what “this” in the text refers to.

I don't think it is all that much of a mystery. πιστεως (faith) is a noun in the genitive singular feminine while τουτο (this) is a demonstrative pronoun in the nominative singular neuter.

 

[TCassidy]

It has already been stated that this salvation is a gift from God.

What I find even more interesting is that "saved" (σεσῳσμένοι) is a perfect passive participle and is the controlling verb form for "faith" (πίστεως) indicating "salvation" (regeneration) precedes and is responsible for "faith."

 

[TCassidy]

“Nobody, except a few very foolish universalists, believes in ‘unlimited atonement.””

Nothing to clarify. I think I made it quite clear.

Everybody limits the atonement in one way or another. Is Satan going to be saved? If not you limit the atonement. Will the demons be saved? If not you limit the atonement. Will all people be saved or just those who believe? If you think it is only believers you limit the atonement.

 

[robustheologian]

I don't think it is all that much of a mystery. πιστεως (faith) is a noun in the genitive singular feminine while τουτο (this) is a demonstrative pronoun in the nominative singular neuter.

I believe it is an adverbial accusative.