How Many of Calvinism's 5 Points Do You Embrace?

no more grace than absolutely needed, no extravagance (sufficient only for the elect and no more)

I would say it a bit differently. There is no waste in God’s plan. Every bit of saving grace is extravagant, but none of it goes to waste.

⁷ In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, ⁸ which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight ⁹ making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ ¹⁰ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. (Eph 1:7–10)

no more grace than absolutely needed, no extravagance (sufficient only for the elect and no more).

What if God has decided to save one more or 1000 more? Would Christ have had to die again or die more? Of course not. That’s why a statement like this makes no sense.

Other 5 pointers seem to take a more thrift-oriented approach — no more grace than absolutely needed, no extravagance (sufficient only for the elect and no more).

Could you provide a quote that expresses this? Especially the "sufficient only for the elect" portion. I'm only aware of 5-pointers who say that His sacrifice was sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect.

I think Ed is speaking mainly of the spirit of it, and I think he’s right on that point, in many cases.

But statements that come close are not all that unusual. This is John Piper…

Those who support so-called unlimited atonement limit the effectiveness of the atonement. They deny that it effectively secures the salvation of any particular persons. Or, to say it another way, they deny that the blood of Jesus secured the promises of the new covenant; namely, that God would take out of his people the unbelieving heart of stone, put in a new, believing heart of flesh, and cause them to walk in God’s ways. Now, those who espouse definite atonement affirm all of that; namely, that the death of Christ did effectively secure the complete, eternal, full salvation of God’s elect, the bride of Christ, including the fulfillment of the promises of the new covenant to take out of each one of his chosen people the heart of stone, put in a new, believing heart, and cause us to walk in his statutes. The blood of Jesus, the atonement, secured that absolutely, effectively, perfectly for all of God’s elect.

https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/isnt-unlimited-atonement-more-gl…

So he doesn’t say “no more grace than absolutely needed,” but he is pretty clear that all the saving grace secured by the atonement was planned and will be effectual. So, in that sense, sure, “no more than absolutely needed” is accurate. It’s just not the best way to frame it, in my view.

There is undeniably an efficiency in the historic ‘Calvinist’ view on that. And efficiency is something we often associate with frugality. I think Piper is basically right, though, that God is not less gracious if He doesn’t waste anything… my words, not his, but I think I have the gist.

Here also is R.C. Sproul, which might be where I got the ‘not wasted’ verbiage…

The [non-Reformed] idea is that Jesus died potentially for everybody, but that it is theoretically possible that the whole thing was in vain because every last person in the world might reject the work of Jesus and choose to remain dead in their trespasses and sins. Thus, God’s plan could be frustrated because nobody might take advantage of it. This is the prevailing view in the church today—that Jesus died for everybody provisionally. In the final analysis, whether salvation happens depends on each individual person.

The Reformed view understands God’s plan differently. It says that God, from all eternity, devised a plan that was not provisional. It was a plan “A” with no plan “B” to follow if it didn’t work. Under this plan, God decreed that He would save a certain number of people out of fallen humanity, people whom the Bible calls the elect. In order for that plan of election to work out in history, He sent His Son into the world with the specific aim and design to accomplish redemption for the elect. This was accomplished perfectly, without a drop of the blood of Christ being wasted. Everyone whom the Father chose for salvation will be saved through the atonement.

https://learn.ligonier.org/articles/what-was-gods-purpose-cross

I'm only aware of 5-pointers who say that His sacrifice was sufficient for all, but efficientonly for the elect.

I have only ever seen this statement made by non-Calvinists arguing with Calvinists. I’ve made that point myself. I’ve never had a 5-pointer agree with it.

Canons of Dort:

Article 3: This death of God’s Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.

RC Sproul:

Sufficient for All, Efficient for Some
There is a lot of confusion about limited atonement. To try to straighten the confusion, let me say what limited atonement does not mean. Limited atonement does not mean that there is a limit placed upon the value or merit of the atonement of Jesus Christ. It’s traditional to say that the atoning work of Christ is sufficient for all. That is, the meritorious value of the atonement is sufficient to cover the sins of all people, and certainly, anyone who puts their trust in Jesus Christ will receive the full measure of the benefits of that atonement.

Piper:

Namely, he died for all in the sense that he made salvation available to all, it is sufficient for all, and it is offered freely and genuinely to all so that anyone who believes may receive the benefits of the death of Christ.

-------

I think all this is subject to the problem: "What do you mean by that?"

In my long career of online debates (I've given up arguing on this topic!!) I have had 5-pointers deny "sufficient for all" except in the most theoretical sense. They really don't like to admit this.

Mostly, the whole question is a case of humans trying to banish all the mystery from the situation or trying to emphasize a particular truth they see as of high level importance and threatened by the alternative views.

Which isn’t to say all the proposed solutions are equally good.

The traditional Reformed view on limited/definite atonement is driven—like the rest of the “five points” by a desire to clearly avoid laying any of credit for salvation at the feet of sinners + clearly avoid limiting God’s power and action in any way.

The modified soteriologies want to clearly avoid making God the author of evil in any way and also avoid humans seeming to be puppets with no real agency or responsibility for their choices.

Both of those sets of concerns make sense to me. They are good things to be concerned about and worth looking for solutions to.

But whichever set of concerns bugs you the most, that tends to shape which historic solution you prefer—and also leads to the set of weaknesses/tradeoffs/theological problems that go with it.

I don’t think that makes both options equally valid, but it does, in my view, make them both understandable, and I can usually see a lot to respect when proponents have put in the effort in good faith.

So I appreciate what they are trying to do.

There is a set of solutions I see as less problematic than the other, but neither are without some difficulties, and both are vulnerable to overstatement, over-extrapolation, over-emphasis. … all the “overs” we humans love so much.

I tend to think that those who argue the hardest understand it the least.

Mostly, the whole question is a case of humans trying to banish all the mystery from the situation or trying to emphasize a particular truth they see as of high level importance and threatened by the alternative views.

Hmmm, "trying to banish all the mystery." I think, to be fair, all sides fail to banish mystery. Saying it the way you did sounds a little critical. (Same with JD's comment.)

You have to embrace some mystery, somewhere. Piper's paper, "Two Wills In God," is a good example.

That’s fair.

I’m not for banishing all the mystery… and on my own journey, I am comfortable with fattening my “questions I am content to not have answers to” file, vs. when I was younger.

So we would probably agree that there is theological due diligence and then there is theological over-engineering, for lack of a better term. The latter happens when we end up “explaining away” Scriptures in order to try to make them fit what we have come up with.

I believe the “I thought I had it figured out, then discovered that this passage doesn’t fit” experience is a normal part of the due diligence, but at some point, we cross a line (usually without knowing it?) and start overcommitting to a system we’ve been building. Then passages that don’t fit, or don’t seem to fit, get mishandled… to mash their squareness into the round holes we’ve made.

This side of Heaven, we’re never going to agree on what a proper balance looks like, but I often see behavior that looks to me like trying too hard to banish all the mystery—overengineering. It’s OK to back off a bit sooner and say, “I really don’t know. It’s kind of amazing, isn’t it? We know what we really need to know though.”