Is Calvinism "mainly" a Sotierology System Of Theology?

This has come up several times in the last few weeks. I have advocated against a minimalist view of Calvinism to the 5 points as well as just to soteriology. There are many renowned scholars who agree with me including R.C. Sproul, Mark Dever, Joel Beeke, etc... Until the 20th Century, Calvinism was seen as much more than 5 points. Only recently have people tried to boil the system to 5 points.

 

Agreed. The DoG cannot function as an all inclusive theological system independent of other doctrines. Election has as much to do with God's omniscience as it does with His love and holiness. This is abundantly clear in Reformed Theology. God's covenants and His election of individuals are interwoven. They cannot be separated.

 

Huh?

I thought:

 

Calvin seemed to offer a pretty complete theology in his Institutes which are the basis for the Calvinist system.

 

Are you then saying you believe in the original 7 pedals of the tulip such as inherited election and infant baptism?.
MB

 

Your point?

 

What I am saying is that reformed theology is much more than five points.

 

Yes. One's view of Calvinism is closely tied to his view of God's omniscience and His immutability.

For instance, it is highly unlikely that an Open Theist will be a Calvinist.

 

I think most Reformed theologians would say Calvinism covers all aspects of Christianity or what we may call systematic theology. I would also agree. Have you ever read his works;"Institutes".

 

To be consistent? Absolutely.

(I've told this story before) I was at a haughty-taughty academic conference (hilarious affairs if you're in the right frame of mind) and was sitting with several American and European colleagues discussing the rising Neo-Calvinism (and resulting angst) among younger evangelicals on both sides of the pond. At one point a young PhD candidate in our midst quipped, in a rambling answer, that he was rather happy with his dispensational Calvinism.

All the European theologians stopped dead in their conversations and began probing this statement. About a minute later one of the senior members of our informal group chuckle and announced, a bit louder than he should, "Oh that's right, you're an American! That means you can parcel out your theology however you desire."

A funny, and true, moment...guess you had to be there. Anyone who tries to suggest you can be a thoroughgoing Calvinist and not be covenantal isn't actually a thoroughgoing Calvinist...maybe some odd theological mutt instead.

 

Point is—do y'all need to get your story straight? LOL:

 

To quote Ricky Ricardo: "Lucy, you gots a lot of splaining to do"

 

Calvinism is the teaching of Calvin, as that contained in the Institutes. I see there to be no distinction between Calvinism and Reformed Theology.

Next, show me one major scholar in history who was a Calvinist who believed the teachings are relegated to only 5 points. If you read the Canons of Dordt, you will find that they state that they only outlined five points of disagreement with those in the Netherlands. They say, in this exact place, that to understand our full belief that you should understand our historic confessions.

Thus, you may want to revise what the Canons actually say to minimize what we believe to 5 points, but the actual document you get the 5 points even disputes your belief.

Again, show me one historic figure who minimizes this issue? Rather, the minimizing of reformed theology began in the 20th Century but is not found in our documents.

 

Jerome,

I have my statement correct. I have stated that you cannot believe in classical dispensationalism. This has been my standard thought and point of contention. Classical Dispensationalism is an anathema to reformed theology. However, I do recognize other theological systems that do hold to reformed theology. New Covenant Theology, like that held by D.A. Carson, can be reformed as can a "leaky dispy" like MacArthur (which classical dispensationalists often question MacArthur as being a true dispensationalist, I contend he is neither dispensational nor covenental in the classical sense). Thus, my point has always been an attack on the classical system.

 

It's just not possible theologically or historically to be a thoroughgoing Calvinist and hold to Dispensationalism. It's just not possible.

Unfortunately one of the side affects of this rampant American individualism is that too many people believe they can just appropriate whatever aspects of several divergent systems appeal to them. In this instance it is just wrongheaded.

Calvin, the progenitor of Calvinism, sets the boundaries here. Heck, Augustine sets the boundaries and you simply cannot argue that either was anything remotely close to Dispensational.

The reality is that you just can't adopt dispensationalism for one aspect, usually eschatological, but deny the other theological impact of the system by saying one is Calvinist. There are just too many problems with coherency.

Also, trying to get out of it by saying, "oh well I mean Reformed" doesn't solve the issues either.

If you're gonna claim Calvinism claim it all, don't Americanize it. There is a richness there that is important.