What Are The Contours of Calvinism?

Here’s a bit more from Boettner’s The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (to view this fine work at Amazon, see linked title in the post below).

In the earlier sections of the book, Boettner labors to demonstrate the necessary foundation required for the weight of the subsequent arguments he develops in defense of the doctrine of Predestination. This foundation is first the superlative vision of God, indicative of Calvin’s systematic exposition of the biblical religion; and secondly, the foundation is the structure—Predestination is merely one part of a system of utter coherence, a “unity of truth," as Van Til would say, which the Westminster Standards maturely summarize.

The question that arises from the conversation is this: Does subscription to the “Five Points” of the Canons of Dort warrant the name “Calvinist” or “Reformed”? Or, to put it otherwise, How many other “points” of the traditional Reformed system and symbols may one dismiss before they must also dismiss the titles “Calvinist” or “Reformed” as badges of honor?

Boettner quotes Kuyper, urging that, “It is a mistake to discover the specific character of Calvinism in the doctrine of Predestination, or in the authority of Scripture. For Calvinism all these are logical consequences, not the point of departure—foliage bearing witness to the luxuriousness of its growth, but not the root from which it sprouted” (p. 6).

Boettner then adds, “In the minds of most people the doctrine of Predestination and Calvinism are practically synonymous terms. This, however should not be the case, and the too close identification of the two has doubtless done much to prejudice many people against the Calvinistic system. The same is true in regard to a too close identification of Calninism and the “Five Points”...While Predestination and the Five Points are all essential elements of Calvinism, they by no means constitute its whole” (p. 7).

If you don’t have Boettner’s book (then I’d recommend getting it!), Kim Riddlebarger has posted Dr. Richard Muller’s article, “How Many Points?”, originally published the Calvin Theological Journal. Boettner only scratches the surface of this question. Muller’s article addresses it head-on. What Boettner can only allude to because of the constraints of his immediate purpose, Muller argues explicitly. Here is an excerpt.

“Calvinism or, better. Reformed teaching, as defined by the great Reformed confessions does include the so-called five points. Just as it is improper, however, to identify Calvin as the sole progenitor of Reformed theology, so also is it incorrect to identify the five points or the document from which they have been drawn, the Canons of Dort, as a full confession of the Reformed faith, whole and entire unto itself. In other words, it would be a major error — both historically and doctrinally — if the five points of Calvinism were understood either as the sole or even as the absolutely primary basis for identifying someone as holding the Calvinistic or Reformed faith. In fact, the Canons of Dort contain five points only because the Arminian articles, the Remonstrance of 1610, to which they responded, had five points. The number five, far from being sacrosanct, is the result of a particular historical circumstance and was determined negatively by the number of articles in the Arminian objection to confessional Calvinism.”

Why Nothing that Unbelievers Do Can Be Good

Loraine Boettner, in his classic, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (pp. 69—70), borrows a genius illustration from W. D. Smith’s What Is Calvinism?, explaining why we must say that unregenerate persons can do nothing good. Boettner writes:

“This distinction [between Christian virtues and man’s common “virtues”] is very plainly illustrated in an example given by W. D. Smith. Says he: ‘In a gang of pirates we may find many things that are good in themselves. Though that are in wicked rebellion against the laws of the government, they have their own laws and regulations, which they obey strictly. We find among them courage and fidelity, with many other things that will recommend them as pirates. That may so many things, too, which the laws of the government require, but they are not done because the government has so required, but in obedience to their own regulations. For instance, the government requires honesty and they may be strictly honest, one with another, in their transactions, and the division of all their spoil. Yet, as respects the government, and the general principle, their whole life is one of the most wicked dishonesty. Now, it is plain, that while they continue in their rebellion they can do nothing to recommend them to the government as citizens. The first step must be to give up their rebellion, acknowledge their allegiance to the government, and sue for mercy. So all men, in their natural state, are rebels against God; and though they may do many things which the law of God requires, and which will recommend them as men, yet nothing is done with reference to God and His law. Instead, the regulations of society, respect for public opinion, self-interest, their own character in the sight of the world, or some other worldly or wicked motive, reigns supremely; and God, to whom they owe their heart and lives, is forgotten; or, if thought of at all, His claims are wickedly rejected, His counsels spurned, and the heart, in obstinate rebellion, refuses obedience. Now it is plain that while the heart continues in this state the man is a rebel against God, and can do nothing to recommend him to His favor. The first step is to give up his rebellion, repent of his sins, turn to God, and sue for pardon and reconciliation through the Savior. This he is unwilling to do, until he is made willing. He loves his sins, and will continue to love them, until his heart is changed.’

The good actions of unregenerate men, Smith continues, ‘are not positively sinful in themselves, but sinful by defect. The lack the principle which alone can make them righteous in the sight of God. In the case of the pirates it is easy to see that all their actions are sin against the government. While they continue pirates, their sailing, mending, or rigging the vessel, and even their eating and drinking, are all sins in the eyes of the government, as they are only so many expedients to enable them to continue in their piratical career, and are parts of their life of rebellion. So with sinners. While the heart is wrong, it vitiates everything in the sight of God, even the most ordinary occupations; for the plain, unequivocal language of God is, ‘Even the lamp of the wicked, is sin,’ Prov. 21:4.’”