How many of the 5 points of Calvinism do you affirm?


The Five Points of Calvinism were never listed by John Calvin, but by his followers.  Still, they have come to define the Calvinistic viewpoint regarding salvation.

Many of us (myself included) would say that we do not follow any particular post-apostolic church leader, but we will admit to being influenced or at least impressed with the Biblical accuracy of some on some points. What impresses us is their ability to accurately summarize or organize Biblical teaching.

It is, therefore, understood that no SI participants blindly follow one person (at least this is hopefully true) beyond, of course, our Lord and His holy Word.  It is also understood that sometimes we might modify a point of the five. For example, eternal security is not the exact equivalent of perseverance of the saints, but has the same end result. Good enough for this survey.

So how many of these points do you recognize as being an accurate summary of the Bible's teaching?

We are asking you to choose how many out of five.  You can comment about which, if any, you reject, if you wish.

a. Total depravity, the idea that we are spiritually bankrupt, we have no merit to offer God. We find the true God unappealing and, while we might seek some god, we will not be drawn to the true God without His intervention. It is therefore unnatural to come to saving faith in Jesus.

b. Unconditional election -- God chooses us by His grace, not because He foresees that we would believe.  No one would believe were it not for election.  Anyone who wants to come to Jesus can do so, but no one will want to come (in a genuinely saving way) unless they are elect (chosen beforehand/presdestined).

c. Limited atonement, the idea that God had in mind only the redemption of the elect when He sent His Son to die (how people claim to know what was in God's mind perplexes me, personally!).

d. Irresistible grace, the idea that an elect person will come to saving faith, no ifs, ands, or buts.

e. Perseverance of the saints -- the idea that true believers will continue to believe until the end.  It is this perseverance that distinguishes the true elect from pretenders.

Anyhow, you can vote for how many of the 5 you agree with (if any).  If you are 4 nd 1/2, it will be an exercise in decisiveness for you to choose either 4 or 5.  So consider rounding off!  If you can't, I have added an "other" category.

Feel free to comment on this important topic.

Also, please make the distinction, when you comment, between human logic (which can be fallible) and the Word (whicih is infallible but may be interpreted in a fallible fashion!).

Total votes: 27

Forum Tags 

Bert, I assume you're talking about the 5-Pointers.....

Bert Perry wrote:

Obviously....a bunch of convergents!


......since the FBFI's Statement of Faith is 4-Point, at most:

"We believe the Lord Jesus Christ died as a substitutionary sacrifice for the sins of all men according to the Scriptures, and all who receive Him are justified on the grounds of His shed blood (2 Cor. 15:3; 2 Cor. 5:21; Rom. 3:21-26; Heb. 2:9; 1 Jn. 2:2)." - 


More or less, just being a smart aleck, brother.  :^)  


But I rounded up to three.

I’m blogging at Every Day of Education, helping homeschool families on a budget use real books and real life experiences to prepare their children for the real world.

I agree with the FBFI...

Larry Nelson wrote:
.....since the FBFI's Statement of Faith is 4-Point, at most:

"We believe the Lord Jesus Christ died as a substitutionary sacrifice for the sins of all men according to the Scriptures, and all who receive Him are justified on the grounds of His shed blood (2 Cor. 15:3; 2 Cor. 5:21; Rom. 3:21-26; Heb. 2:9; 1 Jn. 2:2)." - 

...since they use 1 Jn 2:2 as a reference for their "sins of all men" 

I would disagree if they insist that "all men" is equivalent to "every individual that has ever lived" and that those ALL have had their sins propitiated by Christ. In Genesis 6, God's covenant with Noah was for only 8 people (plus animals) to enter the ark. There was no provision made for the rest of mankind. Similarly the provision of Christ was only for those who believe.

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

Moderate 5-Point or perhaps 4.5?

I chose the 5-point option, although many calvinists would disagree with me. When understood and described properly, I agree with all the points except the stricter (common) view of Limited Atonement (Particular Redemption). 

I affirm that the salvation of the elect was a particular intention of the atonement, and that Christ fully accomplished all that He intended to do in going to the cross. In particular, He accomplished (made it a certain reality) the actual salvation of all those whom the Father gave Him. I deny the concept that Jesus has done "all He could" and now the "choice is ours". However, I do think that, as a part of the atonement it is most naturally understood from Scripture that Jesus suffered for the sins of all men, and that this also was a particular intent of the atonement. Most 5-point calvinists would label this "Amyraldianism", but from what I understand of it, I reject that label.

I'm largely in agreement with the position laid out in this work:


Pretty hard to count

... 2 of the five are articulated in such a wide variety of ways, it's hard to say...  Probably most modern (vs. classical) Arminians would say I'm a five, but most Presbyterians would say I'm a 3 or 4 at best.

I wouldn't say the whole debate over Lim. Atonmt. is "just semantics" but the vast majority of debates I've followed consisted nearly 33% each of (a) genuine semi-pelagians, (b) people with various non-cohering/self-contradictory soteriologies, and (c) people saying the essentially same thing as eachother but reacting vehemently to each other's terminology.

Everyone in group C agrees that Christ's atonement is not actually applied to everyone; nearly all of them also agree that God knew from before the foundation of the world, everyone it would be applied to. So that means most of the conflict is over the seeming conflict between something logically obvious (He didn't plan the cross with the actual believing group as a kind of peripheral coincidence) vs. Scripture passages that seem to say Jesus died for everyone. The two have to be harmonized in some way, and among those who make a serious effort to do so... they end up saying pretty similar things using different language and different emphasis.

Some genuinely have material differences on the point, but so many are just tripping over each other's way of putting it.

Similar confusion on "irresistible grace"... and to a lesser degree, "total depravity."

There's just so much baggage at this point, listening is almost impossible. Few are actually looking for ways to agree... which, even just as experiment, they really ought to try. Among those seriously trying to get it right, and properly valuing the sacred Text, that shared commitment means--like it or not--they are really on the same team.


Chosen to be a non-calvinist

I put zero.  I know I am in the minority here but still enjoy the brotherly fellowship around the Word.  


Isaiah 64:8  But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.

▴ Top of page