As I’ve noted, this past weekend was the second annual meeting of the Fellowship of Reformation Churches. Our theme was “Humble Orthodoxy: Speaking the Truth in Love.” By necessity with a topic like that, one of the things we discussed throughout the day was orthodoxy and the ideas of “essential” doctrines and “non-essential” doctrines.

In other words, there are some doctrines which are simply not up for debate such as Jesus’ divinity or bodily resurrection, while there are other doctrines about which there may be disagreement yet each party may still be within the bounds of orthodoxy. An example of the latter might be baptism. Godly men on both sides of the issue have been Credo- (believers’) or Paedo- (infant) baptists and both are considered orthodox, while teaching baptismal regeneration is not orthodox.

As you might expect in a gathering of like-minded Calvinist-believers, the question emerged whether or not adherence to the “Doctrines of Grace,” which is another term for what have become known as the “Five Points of Calvinism,” is an “essential” doctrine. It’s interesting because Scot McKnight has been asking the question “Do Calvinists Understand Arminianism” as well.

I must say at this point that I am thoroughly reformed. I have no problem referring to myself as a “Five Point Calvinist,” I believe all five “points” to be biblical and I do believe that reformed doctrine presents the most God-centered, Scripture-honoring system of beliefs. I have been convinced of these doctrines for nearly as long as I have been a believer and they are an integral piece of my faith. Yet I do not believe them to be “essential doctrines.”

Throughout the years I have known many reformed brothers and sisters who have sincerely taught that if you denied, for example, unconditional election, then you did not truly understand salvation and therefore you were not truly saved. I’m simply not comfortable saying that someone must be a Calvinist to be saved, which is implied when we talk about “essential” doctrines.

It’s helpful to remember a bit of history in the process. The so-called “Five Points of Calvinism” were not drafted by John Calvin, but rather by the Synod of Dordt in 1619, 55 years after Calvin’s death. The followers of Jacob Arminius had rallied around a 5-point document drawn up by Johannes Uytenbogaert known as the Remonstrance (thus, they became known as the Remonstrants). These “Five Points” became known as the “Five Points of Arminianism.” Though the Remonstrants had gone further than had Arminus, it seems likely that, had he been alive, the document might have received his blessing.

In response to these “Five Points,” the Estates-General called for a Synod to meet at Dordt. The Synod met from November 13, 1618 to May 9, 1619 and included 84 delegates over 154 sessions. The official response was known as “The Canons of the Synod of Dordt,” or simply “The Canons of Dordt,” and these fall under five headings, which were in response to the “Five Points of Arminianism” and became known as the “Five Points of Calvinism.”

I give this background to say that the “Five Points of Calvinism” were drafted in response to a controversy and were given to correct theological error. Similarly, that which we have come to know as the “Fundamentalist/Modernist” controversy published a list of “essential” doctrines which could not be compromised. This list did not include the Doctrines of Grace.

I think that Calvinists need to be fair and admit that we often knock down straw men rather than deal with many of the true issues. Many of those we label “Arminians” truly do not teach or believe a works-based salvation. Most of those that Calvinists would label “Arminians” truly do hold to salvation by grace alone. Granted, there are just as many Arminians knocking down straw-man Calvinists, but that’s for another day.

I do not believe that Calvinism is an “essential” theological system because that question is essentially asking what must be believed to be saved. I do believe that it is a fuller explanation of the Scriptures, I do believe them to be “deeper truths,” and I do believe the system to be true, which means that I do believe we ought to teach them and seek them, but I also believe that there are many brothers and sisters whom I will see in the Kingdom who do not hold to these specific doctrines.

The question essentially becomes what is the Gospel itself. While I do believe that Calvinism offers the fullest explanation of that question, I do think that’s it’s possible for saving knowledge to occur without the “Five Points.” At that point, I personally must say that it is a “non-essential” doctrine over which there might be debate.

It’s interesting that the longer I’m a Christian, the more points of unity I find myself seeking and the fewer debates I pursue. I love studying doctrine as much, if not more than the next guy, but the more I study doctrine, the I’m convinced that it’s end result must be both humility and love.

• Read The Five Points of Calvinism by Edwin Palmer
• Read The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination by Loraine Boettner
• Read The Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed