IS CALVINISM THE GOSPEL?
Fora Calvinist, the doctrinal distinctives of Calvinism (sometimes called the “doctrines of grace”) are nothing more or less than the gospel of Jesus Christ found throughout the pages of the New Testament. Calvinists also equate these so-called doctrines of grace with the five points of Calvinism. The much-loved “Prince of Preachers,” Charles Spurgeon, boasts:
There is no such thing as preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what ... is called Calvinism ... It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else.38 The very enthusiastic Reformed Baptist, John Piper, claims: The doctrines of grace (Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, Perseverance of the saints) are the warp and the woof of the biblical gospel that so many saints have cherished for centuries.39 A little later, and on multiple occasions, we will consider this claim. Despite, however, their equating of Calvinism with the gospel, I have yet to meet a Calvinist who claims to have embraced the five points of Calvinism when he turned in faith to Jesus Christ. For some, the time span between conversion to Christ and conversion to Calvinism may be many years, even decades. Does this mean that they were not really saved before they came to understand and accept Reformed Theology as the gospel? If the five points of Calvinism can be equated with the gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes (Romans 1:16), why don’t we hear Calvinists talking to the unsaved about the five points? If the Calvinist version of the doctrines of grace is equivalent to the true gospel, and if believing the true gospel is necessary to salvation, why is it that most true Calvinists avoid any discussion of these so-called doctrines of grace when they are trying to win the lost to faith in Christ? These are very important questions that demand an honest and straightforward answer. To many Christians from a wide range of theological persuasions and traditions, nothing could be more important than fidelity to the gospel of Jesus Christ. In my many years as a Christian, I have known very few professing Christians who have abandoned the faith by overtly rejecting the gospel of God’s grace. Sadly, I have known many Christians who have fallen prey to those who would distort the truth of the glorious gospel of our Savior. To the Galatians, the apostle Paul says:
I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who would trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:6-8) To be sure, these are harsh words representing a serious and sobering problem. Even so, it is possible, according to the apostle Paul, to turn from the Lord after you have turned to the Lord. The question I would like to put to my Calvinist friends is this: Is the gospel of Calvinism, or the so called five points of Calvinism, the gospel that Paul preached and that the Galatians believed when they turned to the Lord? I ask this question because many Calvinists confuse the five points of Calvinism with the gospel of Jesus Christ. We know that the apostle Paul was:
... not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes. (Romans 1:16) When you first came in faith to Christ, or if you prefer, came to Christ in faith, did you believe in the five points of Calvinism? Or did you simply believe in and personally embrace the truths of Scripture in which we are told that Christ died for our sins and then rose victorious from the grave? The apostle Paul says:
I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures. (1 Corinthians 15:1-4)
If the gospel you believed in at your conversion was the true gospel of 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, what does that make the five points of Calvinism? You probably did not even know about the five points until some time later. Remember also that this so-called gospel of Calvinism totally altered your understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ when you converted to Calvinism. Is it possible that you were saved by believing in the true gospel and then got seriously sidetracked by later accepting the five points of Calvinism as the gospel? Or is it possible that you did not really hear and heed the gospel proclamation and invitation until after you were introduced to the five points of Calvinism? Some outside (or barely inside) Reformed circles have suggested that I am overstating the case in accusing the Calvinist of equating Calvinism with the gospel. A large body of Reformed literature and the testimony of leading Calvinists everywhere support this charge.
Reformed theologian Herman Hoeksema says that: for me the truth of the gospel and the Reformed faith are synonymous.40 According to Calvinist David Engelsma:
Calvinism is the Gospel. Its outstanding doctrines are simply the truths that make up the Gospel.41 Similarly, Calvinist Arthur Custance says:
Calvinism is the Gospel and to teach Calvinism is in fact to preach the Gospel. It is questionable whether a dogmatic theology which is not Calvinistic is truly Christian.42
If you are a Calvinist now, when did the truth of the gospel and the Reformed faith become synonymous to you? Odds are it was some time after you at least thought you had received Christ as Lord and Savior. The question is, could you really have been saved believing that which turned out not to be the true gospel after all? It is clear from his own testimony that Spurgeon did not even know about the five points or the so-called doctrines of grace until he was introduced to them some time after coming to faith in Christ. If we must believe the gospel to be saved, as Calvinists concede, are all Calvinists lost between the period when they thought they received Christ as Lord and Savior and when they became convinced of Calvinism?
According to Loraine Boettner:
... the Reformed faith ... is beyond all doubt the teaching of the Bible and of reason.43 Presumably speaking for most, if not all Calvinists, Boettner also says:
... we ... hold that a full and complete exposition of the Christian system can be given only on the basis of the truth as set forth in the Calvinistic system.44
Thus, according to Boettner, your Christian system is, at best, only partial and incomplete if it is not in accordance with Calvinism. Boettner does not beat around the theological bush when he says: The Bible unfolds a scheme of redemption which is Calvinistic from beginning to end, and these doctrines are taught with such inescapable clearness that the question is settled for all those who accept the Bible as the Word of God.45
That’s it. You either believe that the Bible teaches the Reformed doctrine of redemption, and by extension, the Reformed doctrine of reprobation, or you do not accept the Bible as the Word of God. If you think this sounds a bit extreme, brace yourself. The Calvinist claims for Reformed Theology go much further than even this. For example, a theological giant to many Calvinists, B. B. Warfield, says:
... Calvinism is just Christianity ... nothing more or less than the hope of the world.46 Calvinists Kenneth Talbot and Gary Crampton express what I mean when they say:
... any compromise of Calvinism is a step towards humanism.47 Boettner goes so far as to say that:
There is no consistent stopping place between Calvinism and atheism.48 To say that Calvinists take their Calvinism seriously would be a serious understatement. If Calvinism is what they believe it to be—the gospel. Christianity, the hope of the world, etc.—then they should take it very seriously.
Based on their conviction that Calvinism is the gospel, it might seem logical that Calvinists would deny that non-Calvinists could be true Christians, or that they would believe that only Calvinists could be saved. Logically that would be a safe assumption. Calvinists, however, are not usually bound by the logical implications of their theological system. Most Calvinists do not go so far as to deny that non-Calvinist Evangelicals are true Christians. Only the most extreme—those on the fringes of Calvinism—would go so far as to say that only Calvinists are or will be saved. Boettner even says that: As Calvinists we gladly recognize as our fellow Christians any who trust Christ for their salvation, regardless of how inconsistent their other beliefs may be. We do believe, however, that Calvinism is the only system which is wholly true.49
If, as Calvinists believe, Calvinism is equal to the gospel,
And:
If, as Calvinists agree, a lost person must believe the true gospel in order to become a saved person,
And:
If, as Calvinists contend, non-Calvinists do not believe in the true gospel,
Then:
How can Calvinists accept non-Calvinists as saved?
Logically they can’t. But, in fact, they do. As far as I can tell, mainstream Calvinists do not even try to explain how this can be. The way many leading advocates of Calvinism view non-Calvinists is probably best captured in the words credited to F. E. Hamilton by Boettner. According to Boettner, Hamilton says: A blind, deaf and dumb man can, it is true, know something of the world about him through the senses remaining, but his knowledge will be very imperfect and probably inaccurate. In a similar way, a Christian who never knows or never accepts the deeper teachings of the Bible which Calvinism embodies, may be a Christian, but he will be a very imperfect Christian, and it should be the duty of those who know the whole truth to attempt to lead him into the only storehouse which contains the full riches of true Christianity.50 That would mean that all non-Reformed Evangelicals, men like Billy Graham, C. S. Lewis, John Wesley, D. L. Moody, Charles Ryrie, Chuck Swindoll, Chuck Smith, Charles Stanley, as well as the untold millions of others that they represent, are spiritually blind, deaf, and dumb. It is amazing that given this deplorable spiritual condition of the non-Reformed, the Calvinist George Whitefield could have put up with John Wesley for so long.
Even what appear on the surface to be conciliatory statements made by Calvinists about other Evangelicals often turn out to be backhanded compliments. I emphasize the word backhanded. For example, Boettner approvingly quotes an early editor of Christianity Today, S. G. Craig, as saying: The Calvinist . does not differ from other Christians in kind, but only in degree, as more or less good specimens of a thing differ from more or less bad specimens of a thing.51
If that is supposed to make us feel better, I cannot imagine what a statement meant to offend would sound like. Likewise, Boettner says:
We are not all Calvinists as we travel the road to heaven, but we shall all be Calvinists when we get there.52 In like manner, Charles Spurgeon says:
I do not ask whether you believe Calvinism. It is possible you may not. But I believe you will before you enter heaven.53 Does this mean that Spurgeon believed that all non-Calvinists would, during their earthly sojourn, eventually be persuaded that Calvinism is true? If not, how is it that a Christian who is never convinced of or converted to Calvinism in this life will become a Calvinist before he enters the next life? Because, according to Spurgeon:
God ... will wash your brains before you enter heaven.54
Thus, unless you are a Calvinist, you are more or less a bad specimen of a Christian in need of a theological brainwashing. With these convictions, the Calvinist can rationalize the proselytizing of other Christians, including the splitting of non-Calvinist churches, as nothing more than assisting God in the brainwashing process. Admittedly, sometimes what Calvinists say about other Christians is not meant to make us feel bad or to put us down. Rather, it is meant to make them feel good about themselves and their Reformed faith. The fact that they do so at our expense is, for many Calvinists, as unfortunate as it is unavoidable. A true Calvinist believes not only that the five points of Calvinism represent the true gospel and the doctrines of grace taught in Scripture, but also that these doctrinal distinctives of Calvinism embody what they call the deeper truths of Scripture. These are not the common doctrines that Calvinism shares with Christianity in general, but the distinctives that separate them from the greater Christian world. Supposedly, the doctrinal distinctives of Calvinism are taught with such “inescapable clearness” in the pages of Scripture that virtually anyone should be able to see them by reading Scripture alone. Spurgeon tells us: A learned lord, an infidel, once said to Whitfield, “Sir I am an infidel, I do not believe the Bible, but if the Bible be true, you are right, and your Arminian opponents are wrong. If the Bible be the Word of God, the doctrines of grace are true”; adding that if any man would grant him the Bible to be the truth, he would challenge him to disprove Calvinism.55 Spurgeon goes on to say: The doctrines of original sin, election, effectual calling, final perseverance, and all those great truths which are called Calvinism— though Calvin was not the author of them, but simply an able writer and preacher upon the subject—are, I believe, the essential doctrines of the Gospel that is in Jesus Christ.56
He also claims:
It is no novelty . I am preaching; no new doctrine. I love to proclaim these strong old doctrines, which are called by nickname Calvinism, but which are surely and verily the revealed truth of God as it is in Christ Jesus.57
Understandably, given the mutually exclusive explanations as to why the Calvinist and non-Calvinist Evangelicals believe some go to heaven and others to hell, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for Reformed theologians to make a case for Calvinism without making a case against all other forms of Evangelicalism. I do not fault them for doing so. I readily acknowledge that an explanation and defense of the views of a Biblicist is to some degree an attack on Calvinism as a system. This can be true even when Calvinism is not the primary subject at hand. As noted earlier, while some Calvinists only grudgingly admit that a non-Calvinist can be a true Christian, others gladly accept us as fellow believers and joint heirs with Christ. Even among those who are apparently happy to count us as family, however, many suggest that we may not really love the Lord or His Word with the same fervency or depth as they do. For example, D. James Kennedy, a man not usually considered hostile to nonCalvinists, says:
I am a Calvinist precisely because I love the Bible and the God of the Bible. The doctrines of the Calvinist theological system are the doctrines of the Bible. When you get to know what we actually believe you may find you too are a Calvinist, especially if you love the Lord Jesus Christ and desire with all your heart to serve Him.58
I hate to impugn motives, but in reading this, it seems reasonable to conclude that Kennedy is using a bit of spiritual psychology. After all, what Christian does not want to love the Lord Jesus and desire with all his heart to serve Him? I know I do. If Kennedy was right, I should want to become a Calvinist immediately. Or perhaps I should have been a Calvinist all along. I do not pretend to know Kennedy’s heart or motive for saying what he says here. His words, however, come across as so very condescending to me. Can you imagine the protests if a non-Calvinist were to reverse all of this? Suppose I were to say:
As Biblicists, we gladly recognize as our fellow Christians any who trust Christ for their salvation, regardless of how inconsistent their other beliefs may be. We do believe, however, that Calvinism as a system is very defective.
A blind, deaf, and dumb man can, it is true, know something of the world about him through the senses remaining, but his knowledge will be very imperfect and probably inaccurate. In a similar way, a Calvinist, who never knows or accepts the deeper teachings of the Bible which Calvinism does not include, may be a Christian, but he will be a very imperfect Christian, and it should be the duty of all Biblicists, because we know the truth, to attempt to lead the misguided Calvinist into the only storehouse which contains the full riches of true Christianity.
The Biblicist does not differ from Calvinist Christians in kind, but only in degree, as more or less good specimens of a thing differ from more or less bad specimens of a thing.
We are not all Biblicists as we travel the road to heaven, but I believe before we enter heaven, we shall all become Biblicists and therefore cease to be Calvinists.
I am a Biblicist and not a Calvinist precisely because I love the Bible and the God of the Bible. The doctrines of the Biblicist theological system are the doctrines of the Bible. When you get to know what we actually believe you may find you too are a Biblicist, especially if you love the Lord Jesus Christ and desire with all your heart to serve Him.
Before you get into heaven, if you are a Calvinist, God will wash your brains of Reformed dogma and you will become a Biblicist.
While Calvinists equate and therefore confuse Calvinism with the gospel of Jesus Christ, Calvinism is most definitely not the gospel of our Lord and His grace. If you think it is, my challenge to you is to keep reading for scriptural evidence to the contrary. THE AUGUSTINIANISM OF CALVINISM
Although the five points of Calvinism are most closely associated with the sixteenth century Protestant Reformer John Calvin (and for good reason), they did not originate with him. Calvinists would, first and foremost, contend that the five points faithfully represent the teaching of the New Testament in general, and of the apostle Paul in particular. Obviously, I do not agree with this contention. I do, however, agree with Calvinists when they point out that Calvin was not the first notable figure in church history to champion the views that led to what is today the Calvinist or Reformed system of theology. Just as the Synod of Dort, which first formally presented these points as the five points of Calvinism, was a Calvinist synod, so John Calvin was an Augustinian. This is especially true with regard to the later Augustinian view of predestination and its bearing upon the salvation of the elect and the damnation of the reprobate. Norman Geisler makes the point that Augustine held two contradictory views, reflecting a change of thought over time. According to Geisler, it is the views of Augustine in the latter part of his Christian life that had such an influence on Calvin and many other Calvinists down through the centuries. This is especially so with regard to the Reformed view of salvation and damnation.59 Lawrence Vance makes the case that Augustine was at once both the father of Roman Catholicism and of Reformed Theology.60
Because of Augustine’s association with the Roman Catholic Church, there are some uninformed Calvinists who believe that Calvin was not influenced by Augustine and that to make this connection is nothing more than a smear tactic on the part of anti-Calvinists. Calvin’s repeated references to Augustine, however, reveal that he gave a lot of weight to what Augustine taught and was in fact echoing Augustine on the most central tenets of Reformed doctrine. Because some Calvinists object to the assertion that Calvin relied upon Augustine to develop and defend his doctrinal distinc tives, I will quote from a wide variety of leading Calvinists to establish this statement. Herman Hanko, as non-Roman Catholic as one can be, says: In fact, our fathers at Dordrecht knew well that these truths set forth in the Canons could not only be traced back to the Calvin Reformation; they could be traced back to the theology of Saint Augustine who lived almost a millennium before Calvin did his work in Geneva. For it was Augustine who had originally defined these truths. Calvin himself, again and again, pays tribute to the work of Augustine and points out that what he is saying has been said before him by the Bishop of Hippo. The Synod of Dordrecht was conscious of this.61 In agreement, Loraine Boettner says:
It was Calvin who wrought out this system of theological thought with such logical clearness and emphasis that it has ever since borne his name. He did not, of course, originate the system but only set forth what appeared to him to shine forth so clearly from the pages of Holy Scripture. Augustine had taught the essentials of the system a thousand years before Calvin was born, and the whole body of the leaders of the Reformation movement taught the same. But it was given to Calvin with his deep knowledge of Scripture, his keen intellect and systematizing genius, to set forth and defend these truths more clearly and ably than had ever been done before.62 Calvinist theologian, R. Laird Harris, also agrees when he points out that:
Although Calvin gave the Reformed doctrine its most thorough formulation, the theology had long been held. Calvin would have been the first to deny its novelty. ... Indeed Calvinism is often called Augustinianism.63 Boettner went so far as to say: The Reformation was essentially a revival of Augustinianism .64 J. I. Packer echoes this sentiment saying: The Reformation was an Augustinian Revival.65 Edwin Palmer explains: The name Calvinism has often been used, not because Calvin was the first or sole teacher, but because after the long silence of the Middle Ages, he was the most eloquent and systematic expositor of these truths.66 For these reasons and some others, Calvin gets the lion’s share of credit for what he did with the teachings of Augustine. According to Boettner:
Inasmuch as it was Calvin who first formulated these principles into a more or less complete system, that system, or creed, if you will, and likewise those principles which are embodied in it, came to bear his name.67 Boettner explains the Reformed view of Calvin’s role in Calvinism as follows:
Calvin’s active and powerful intellect led him to sound the depths of every subject which he touched. In his investigations about God and the plan of redemption he went very far, penetrating into mysteries concerning which the average man seldom if ever dreams. He brought to light a side of Scripture which has as yet been very much in the shade and stressed those deep truths which in the ages preceding the Reformation had comparatively escaped notice in the Church. He brought to light forgotten doctrines of the apostle Paul, and fastened them in their full and complete sense upon one great branch of the Christian Church.68 Spurgeon probably speaks for all authentic Calvinists when he says: That doctrine which is called “Calvinism” did not spring from Calvin; we believe that it sprang from the great founder of all truth. Perhaps Calvin himself derived it mainly from the writings of Augustine. Augustine obtained his views, without doubt, through the Spirit of God, from the diligent study of the writings of Paul, and Paul received them of the Holy Ghost, from Jesus Christ the great founder of the Christian dispensation. We use the term then, not because we impute any extraordinary importance to Calvin having taught these doctrines. We would be just as willing to call them by any other name, if we could find one which would be better understood, and which on the whole would be as consistent with fact.69 William S. Reid, in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, says:
John Calvin, often regarded as “the systematizer of the Reformation,” was a second generation Protestant Reformer of the sixteenth century who brought together biblical doctrine systematically, in a way that no other Reformer before him had done ... all Reformed and Presbyterian churches look back to him as the founder of their biblical-theological doctrinal position. . Although Calvin was the systematizer of the Reformation theology, since his day those who have accepted his structure of theology have continued to develop many of his ideas. During his own lifetime he himself developed his thought in the successive editions of his Institutes of the Christian Religion. With the writing of various Calvinistic confessions as the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), and the Canons of Dort (1618), and the Westminster Confession and Catechisms (1647-48) additions to and further developments in theological thought have appeared.70
While Reformed Theology—the theology of Calvin and Calvinism itself—is often thought of as the theology of the Reformation, this is imprecise at best. In fact, church historian Bruce Shelly says:
Calvin’s leadership ... shaped a third reformation tradition. Today we call it Reformed or Calvinistic Christianity. It includes all Presbyterians, Dutch and German Reformed Churches, and many Baptists and Congregationalists.71 In fairness, I should point out that when Reformed denominations become liberal they lose their Calvinism along with their part in biblical Christianity. Thus, one could qualify the Calvinists among these groups as Evangelical or even Conservative Presbyterians, Congregationalists, etc. I should also point out that while there have always been Calvinist Baptists, variously called Reformed, Particular, or even Sovereign Baptists, etc., Baptists as a whole tend not to buy in to Reformed Theology. Still, in all of the mainstream Baptist denominations, there are those who are mounting a major effort to turn all Baptists (or as many as possible) into Reformed or Calvinist Baptists. Some even believe that a non-Reformed Baptist is not a true Baptist. One only needs to read The Other Side of Calvinism or the materials available through the Baptist Fire web page72 to see how wrong it is to equate Reformed Theology with the theology of mainstream Baptists. THE FIVE POINTS OF CALVINISM So what is meant by Reformed Theology? What does the Calvinist theologian have in mind when he refers to the Reformed gospel or the gospel of Calvinism? What is it that the Calvinist apologist/proselytizer so desperately seems to want all non-Calvinist Evangelicals to believe and embrace? According to Boettner: The Calvinistic system especially emphasizes five distinct doctrines. These are technically known as “The Five Points of Calvinism,” and they are the main pillars upon which the superstructure rests.73
Due to the logical interdependence between the five points, most Calvinists argue, and I believe rightly so, that you cannot reasonably embrace one point without also embracing the other four. That is, most leading proponents of Calvinism say that to be consistent, we must embrace all of the points if we embrace any of them.
HAPPY INCONSISTENCY In Chosen by God, R. C. Sproul is right when he says: To be a four-point Calvinist one must misunderstand at least one of the five points ...74
While not everyone who calls himself a Calvinist is a Calvinist, there are some among those who call themselves four-point Calvinists who are nevertheless true, albeit inconsistent Calvinists. One of the more notable four-point Calvinists is A. H. Strong, creator of the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. As Sproul says:
There always is the possibility ... of the happy inconsistency by which people hold incompatible views at the same time.75 Nevertheless, Boettner explains that:
These are not isolated and independent doctrines but are so interrelated that they form a simple, harmonious, self-consistent system; and the way in which they fit together as component parts of a well-ordered whole has won the admiration of thinking men of all creeds. Prove any one of them true and all the others will follow as logical and necessary parts of the system. Prove any one of them false and the whole system must be abandoned. They are found to dovetail perfectly one into the other.76
While I take issue with the view that Calvinism as a complete system (even relative to the doctrines of salvation and damnation) is self-consistent, I cannot see how or why one could believe in one or more of the five points without also (logically speaking) believing in all of the five points of Calvinism. In fewer words, Joseph Wilson says essentially the same thing as Boettner. That is: The five doctrines form a harmonious whole. Not one of them can be changed without giving disharmony to the whole and causing confusion as to how men are really saved.77 The issue is more than consistency. These points not only agree with one another, they imply and require one another, as they are understood in Calvinism. Charles W. Bronson says that: In order for one to be consistent he must hold all five points of Calvinism.78 Grover Gunn says: The five points are logically related such that any one of them implies the other.79 Gise J. Van Baren reasons: The five points of Calvinism are closely related. One point presupposes the others.80 Arthur Custance reasons as follows:
Granted any one of these five points, the rest must follow inevitably; deny any one of them and the whole structure is endangered.
One cannot satisfactorily defend some points but not the others.81 Edwin Palmer says: The Five Points of Calvinism all tie together. He who accepts one of the points will accept the others.82 As to the importance of the five points to the Calvinist or Reformed community, Herman Hoeksema says:
All five points of Calvinism ... are important. Indeed if any one of the five points of Calvinism is denied, the Reformed heritage is completely lost.83 REALLY ONLY ONE POINT J. I. Packer cautions: The very act of setting out Calvinistic soteriology in the form of five distinct points (a number due merely to the fact that there were five Arminian points for the Synod of Dort to answer) tends to obscure the organic character of Calvinistic thought on this subject. For the five points, though separately stated, are really inseparable.
They hang together; you cannot reject one without rejecting them all, at least in the sense in which the Synod meant them. For to Calvinism there is really only one point to be made in the field of soteriology.84
Soteriology is the technical term used by theologians to refer to the doctrine of salvation. Insofar as an affirmation of any one of the five points is concerned, it does not matter where you begin, according to Calvinism. Logically:
If these points are indeed “inseparable”;
If one point “presupposes the others”;
If there is really “only one point to be made” in the Calvinist doctrine of salvation;
And:
If you accept any point of Calvinism,
Then:
You will eventually, if you are consistent, become a five-point Calvinist.
The views stated above represent the entire Calvinist community of believers. Those who understand and follow through with the implications of any one of the points, no matter what they call themselves at the outset, must logically, and will eventually, embrace the entire doctrinal system of salvation and damnation in Calvinism. Although all of the points are logically inter-related, if any one point stands out above the others, it is the second point—unconditional election. Even so, most Calvinists emphasize the importance of embracing all five points. Fred Phelps says:
If you do not know the Five Points of Calvinism, you do not know the Gospel, but some perversion of it.85 Phelps also charges:
If you do not have a thorough knowledge and understanding of the Five Points of Calvinism you are truly in darkness and ignorance of all divine truth. And if you do not have an intelligent belief in and love for the Five Points of Calvinism, you have no rational religion, but are bound up in superstition and religious lies.86
While many mainstream Calvinists would not like the way Phelps states the Calvinist position, what he says is the position of Calvinism. It may make some Calvinists uncomfortable to hear this, but Phelps is just laying it all out on the table.