Thread: Can a person be considered "Reformed" if they don't affirm the five points?

If a person doesn't hold to all five points of Calvinism, can that person still be considered Reformed?
I have a neighbor who believes in the doctrines of grace but when it comes to that one point, and you probably know which one that is, he can't accept it for some reason. The point being limited atonement. He can accept the doctrine of election with no problem but why he can't see particular redemption is beyond me. Why is that so difficult for so many to accept?

In answer to your first question on whether someone can deny the five points of Calvinism and still be reformed, I answer no. It is not possible for that person to be called reformed. This can be shown in the 3 forms of unity held by the Reformed Churche's, and also over the controversy between the Dutch Calvinists and the Arminians.

Also, it is not possible to be wholly reformed and still be baptist, as the 3 forms of unity show. http://urclearning.org/wp-content/uploads/3_forms.pdf

Just a read through will show that it was the general belief amongst the Reformed that the Bible taught infant baptism, and not only adult baptism as the Anabaptists taught, a sect that was condemned as heretics by the Reformed people.

Another good article on what it means to be reformed can be found here,

What does it mean to be Reformed Really?

The reason why I think it is very difficult for people to accept limited atonement, is because it touches the Gospel in the closest way more than any of the other 5 points. It is the heart of the Gospel, and hence it will cause the most offense. That is what I think.

Hope I was of some help.

It sounds okay to most people to think that God elected them to salvation, but limited atonement forces us to recognize that not everyone will be saved, and it challenges what people have heard from the pulpit all their lives.

Originally Posted by Benjamin

Just a read through will show that it was the general belief amongst the Reformed that the Bible taught infant baptism, and not only adult baptism as the Anabaptists taught, a sect that was condemned as heretics by the Reformed people.

You should recognize, though, that the Anabaptists who were condemned as heretics must not be confused with later baptists who compiled the London Confessions. In many cases about the only thing they shared in common with the London baptists is their credobaptismal practice. In order to promote the doctrine of paedobaptism it is really quite bad form to call out credobaptists because of the heresies of the Anabaptists. This would be like saying that since Muslims are monotheists, and Muslims follow a false religion, that monotheism is false.

Originally Posted by turmeric

It sounds okay to most people to think that God elected them to salvation, but limited atonement forces us to recognize that not everyone will be saved, and it challenges what people have heard from the pulpit all their lives.

It also forces them to believe there is ONE sacrifice for sin by Christ and to accept the Gospel that Christ's sacrifice was all sufficient. I don't know how you can believe the Gospel and deny that Christ's atoning sacrifice and intercession actually accomplish what He intends it to accomplish.

Originally Posted by Reformingstudent

If a person doesn't hold to all five points of Calvinism, can that person still be considered Reformed?
I have a neighbor who believes in the doctrines of grace but when it comes to that one point, and you probably know which one that is, he can't accept it for some reason. The point being limited atonement. He can accept the doctrine of election with no problem but why he can't see particular redemption is beyond me. Why is that so difficult for so many to accept?

Dallas Theological Seminary held to a "four point Calvinism" for decades - they may still, but I don't keep up with them, so I cannot comment definitively on their current belief. I never have understood why they find limited (or efficacious atonement, if you will) so difficult to grasp.

I have not read all of John Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, but the excerpts I have read, and J.I. Packer's Introduction to The Death of Death, are very convincing, and for me shattered the myth of the "four point Calvinist."

Of course, DTS students (I have had two - one a well known DTS grad - personally tell me this) have had the opinion that Calvin himself would not have called himself a "five pointer." But Paul Helm's book Calvin and the Calvinists also shattered that myth.

It is simply amazing the urban legends that Christians (especially seminary grads) hold to that have little or no basis in fact.

I don't think it's a lack of understanding, it's a lack of obedience.

Originally Posted by turmeric

It sounds okay to most people to think that God elected them to salvation, but limited atonement forces us to recognize that not everyone will be saved, and it challenges what people have heard from the pulpit all their lives.

I think a hard thing for people to accept is immediate loved ones not being saved.

I came out of a Catholic background when i was saved. I was really the only one. Its a tough reality that God might not elect someone that i grew up with (ie. parents)

I think that might be one of the toughest spots for people.

One of the many helfpul things I have learned from the PB is the definition of Reformed. Just because someone holds to the 5 points of Calvinism certainly doesn't make him reformed. He may be reformed in his soteriology, but there are many other factors involved in calling oneself Reformed. So, if one is a "4 point" Calvinist then I don't think they should call themselves Reformed at all, not even in their soteriology. He may be on his way to being reformed soteriology wise, but he probably has a long way to go to grasp a full understanding of what it means to be truly Reformed.

Originally Posted by Quickened

Originally Posted by turmeric

It sounds okay to most people to think that God elected them to salvation, but limited atonement forces us to recognize that not everyone will be saved, and it challenges what people have heard from the pulpit all their lives.

I think a hard thing for people to accept is immediate loved ones not being saved.

I came out of a Catholic background when i was saved. I was really the only one. Its a tough reality that God might not elect someone that i grew up with (ie. parents)

I think that might be one of the toughest spots for people.

This is a good point.Years ago we had a bible study at work,and many roman catholic men attended for several months and seemed to be eagegly digesting the teaching of grace. Then one man broke away from the study. when i questioned him why he left, he said that if this doctrine was true he figured most of his relatives had died without Christ, so he thought that he would sadly like to keep his traditions rather than look for doctrinally clarity in scripture.
We should make it a point to be mindful of some of the emotional struggles that truth might call to the floor as we have contact with others outside of the faith[ even some who are within,but young in the Lord]

I remember when I used to call myself a 4-Point Calvinist. I thought, how could the God I worship, from the beginning of time condemn people to hell?

My problems stemmed from me belonging to a non-denominational church that, sadly, wasn't strong in teaching correct doctrines of grace. Therefore, I had a skewed view of the Gospel.
Sorta reminds me of the Tozer quote, "Low views of God destroy the Gospel for all who hold them."
A friend suggested I read RC Sprouls great work "Chosen By God". After reading this, it seemed that where I was once blind to the greatness of God in relation to the Gospel, I could now see. And it was marvelous and wonderful to me. 5-point Calvinism was the Gospel more fully explained.
So, I don't believe that there is such a person that is a 4-point Calvinist. All the truths/points belong together, and if you fail in one the rest fall apart too. I think your friend just needs to spend more time getting to know God and how awesome, powerful, soveriegn, holy, etc., He really is. Once that is accomplished, to a greater degree, he will have no problem with Limited Atonement.

Something I had to realize is that people aren't merely condemned to hell after they die (and having rejected Christ), but the moment they were conceived they were condemned. I think a fuller knowledge of Original Sin might be helpful too. A verse that was helpful to me was John 3:18, "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." And the fact that God even chooses to save anyone is a mercy and not a requirement...

But I totally can relate to your friend.

Also, I agree with the above poster who said that there are other factors involved with being Reformed. It's not only being a Calvinist.

A wonderful topic. Thanks.

- Alex

I like the joke I heard that R.C Sproul told one time: "What do you call a four point Calvinist? An Arminian"

Originally Posted by Pilgrim72

I remember when I used to call myself a 4-Point Calvinist. I thought, how could the God I worship, from the beginning of time condemn people to hell?

My problems stemmed from me belonging to a non-denominational church that, sadly, wasn't strong in teaching correct doctrines of grace. Therefore, I had a skewed view of the Gospel.
Sorta reminds me of the Tozer quote, "Low views of God destroy the Gospel for all who hold them."
A friend suggested I read RC Sprouls great work "Chosen By God". After reading this, it seemed that where I was once blind to the greatness of God in relation to the Gospel, I could now see. And it was marvelous and wonderful to me. 5-point Calvinism was the Gospel more fully explained.
So, I don't believe that there is such a person that is a 4-point Calvinist. All the truths/points belong together, and if you fail in one the rest fall apart too. I think your friend just needs to spend more time getting to know God and how awesome, powerful, soveriegn, holy, etc., He really is. Once that is accomplished, to a greater degree, he will have no problem with Limited Atonement.

Something I had to realize is that people aren't merely condemned to hell after they die (and having rejected Christ), but the moment they were conceived they were condemned. I think a fuller knowledge of Original Sin might be helpful too. A verse that was helpful to me was John 3:18, "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." And the fact that God even chooses to save anyone is a mercy and not a requirement...

But I totally can relate to your friend.

Also, I agree with the above poster who said that there are other factors involved with being Reformed. It's not only being a Calvinist.

A wonderful topic. Thanks.

- Alex

I can sort of relate to that. When I first came to understand the idea of what limited atonement meant all I could think of was that God was in control of who gets saved and who doesn't. My idea of so called Free Will went out the window. At first I hated the idea that God wasn't going to save everyone I wanted Him to save. The choice was and is His. Took a little while but by the Lords grace I came to accept it as biblical. How can one deny truth once it is shown to you?

Originally Posted by turmeric

It sounds okay to most people to think that God elected them to salvation, but limited atonement forces us to recognize that not everyone will be saved, and it challenges what people have heard from the pulpit all their lives.

Like the idea that God is a good God and wants all people saved unlike the idea of limited atonement where God only saves whom He desires to save so therefore God must not be so good. (their thinking not mine )

nope. If one point fallls, they all fall.

because unless im mistaken, each point is very tightly linked to the next one.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

They were wrong to believe that mere rebaptism was heresy. It may have been an error - and I believe it was - but it is not heresy.

Your opinion is noted, but it is not historically inappropriate to identify rebaptism as heresy (in this case, error of a fundamental sort with strikes at the very nature of the covenant).

If someone believes that their baptism was not legitimate, then I do not see why they should be labeled a "heretic" for being re-baptized.

Doesn't it really depend on how we define heresy? It is not improper to call someone who rejects the Reformed faith at this point or that a heretic. I believe Pastor Keister has had to defend this position quite a bit on his blog. Now, is it wise to define heresy in such a narrow way? Generally, no. However, when one is defining what the Reformed faith is and is not, I think the narrow definition is entirely justified.

Originally Posted by joshua

The concise and right answer: No.

Short and simple. I like that.

Originally Posted by Quickened

Originally Posted by turmeric

It sounds okay to most people to think that God elected them to salvation, but limited atonement forces us to recognize that not everyone will be saved, and it challenges what people have heard from the pulpit all their lives.

I think a hard thing for people to accept is immediate loved ones not being saved.

I came out of a Catholic background when i was saved. I was really the only one. Its a tough reality that God might not elect someone that i grew up with (ie. parents)

I think that might be one of the toughest spots for people.

I think you're on to something...

[Moderator]Gentlemen, I split the more technical posts and those that refer to them over to a new thread. Let's try to keep the wading pool threads from the more convoluted historical debates.[/Moderator]

Originally Posted by py3ak

[Moderator]Gentlemen, I split the more technical posts and those that refer to them over to a new thread. Let's try to keep the wading pool threads from the more convoluted historical debates.[/Moderator]

Thought about doing the same yesterday. Thanks for taking care of this.

No, one cannot be considered "Reformed" if one does not hold to all "five points." Maybe one is leaning that way, but not there.

It's like asking if you have arrived when you have a plane ticket to New York and are in flight overhead of Newark- you may be close but Newark is very different, it is not New York.

The short answer why this is true is because they are all inter-related to one another!

Often, one thinks himself "four points" only because he does not completely understand the first point - total depravity. Total depravity makes the limited atonement necessary. All five points are necessarily and logically related to one another.