The "five points" were originally brought forth as the five points of the Remonstrants/Arminians, not the five points of Calvinism. Calvin (1509-64) wasn't around for the Arminian controversy, and Arminius himself (1560-1609) was not around for the Synod of Dordt (1618-19).
The Synod of Dordt took what has come to be called the "Calvinist" view. The "Canons of Dordt" (link) never make reference to Calvin, but always to Scripture.
The five main points, or "headings" of the Council of Dordt were:
1) Divine Election and Reprobation
2) Christ's Death and Human Redemption Through It
3 and 4) Human Corruption, Conversion to God, and the Way It Occurs
5) The Perseverance of the Saints
These five points or headings are popularly identified using the acronym TULIP, both because it is a beautiful flower and because it is something of a national symbol for Holland, the place where the controversy took place.
T = Total Depravity
U = Unconditional Election
L = Limited Atonement
I = Irresistible Grace
P = Perseverance of the Saints
Hopefully it is apparent that TULIP does not follow the order of the 5 headings of the Canons of Dordt. The alignment of point to point is as follows:
1 => U
2 => L
3 & 4 => T & I
5 => P
There is an historical sense in which the canons of Dordt may be said to help define what is and what is not Calvinism. This would seem to be the best for understanding the "Continental" brand of Calvinism. In Great Britain and Ireland the definition of what the Reformed view is would come to be known by means of three standards:
I) The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) (link)
II) The Savoy Declaration (1658) (link)
III) The London Baptist Confession (1689) (link)
These three documents, which largely track one another (with issues relating to Baptism and Church Government being notable points of difference), were not addressed primarily to the Arminian controversy. Nevertheless, these documents were presented with the Arminian controversy already having occurred. Each of these documents rejects the Arminian error in favor of the Calvinistic view. None of these documents, however, specifically designates the "five points."
Nevertheless, the doctrines of total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints are clearly presented in the following sections:
T => WCF Chapter 6, Paragraphs 2-4
U => WCF 3:5
L => WCF 8:8
I => WCF 9:4
P => WCF 17:1
The corresponding sections of the Savoy Declaration and the London Baptist Confession have the same chapter and paragraph number, and generally present the same material, albeit sometimes in a slightly modified/expanded form.
It should be pointed out that while the "five points" are old, the acronym "TULIP" is a more modern development. The earliest reference I've seen to it is a reference in 1913 to a certain Dr. McAfee (apparently a professor of theology) using the acronym. The acronym was intended as a memory aid to recall the five points. It works.
With or without the acronym, the five points have served as a dividing line between Calvinistic monergism and Arminian Synergism. An example from 1700 can be seen in this work by Christopher Ness (link).
Not everyone is happy with this line.
A number of folks reject the doctrine of Limited Atonement, arguing that Christ died not only for the elect, but for each and every person. These folks are generally lumped into the category "Amyraldian" despite various objections as to differences among those who reject Limited Atonement. This group is the one that most dislikes the use of the five points to define Calvinism as distinct from Arminianism.
Some folks in this category have engaged in a campaign to redefine Calvinism away from the five points. Their apparent reason for doing so, is in order to be included under the Calvinistic umbrella. Whatever the reason, their approach has been to try to divide up Calvinism into various camps, from "Low" to "Moderate" and even "High" Calvinism. Worse still, they create a camp of Calvinism that they confusingly label "Hyper-Calvinism."
These divisions are rather artificial, to say the least. There is no major controversy to help make the lines bright, but, instead, the divisions tend to be drawn either along the use of certain buzz-words or minor controversies.
Worse yet, the filling of the ranks of the various divisions is done by the use of quote-mining: taking quotations from various authors and removing them from their historical context. Leading the way, of course, is the quote-mining Calvin himself. Essentially, the program is "Calvin vs. the Calvinists." Despite the fact that Arminius was mere toddler (4 years old) when Calvin died, quotations from Calvin are taken as though spoken in the context of the Arminian controversy.
I've dealt with this anachronistic nonsense in other posts already, and I don't plan to rehash all of that here. The main point to be recognized is that the Calvinism/Arminianism divide is an important one, whereas the "Hyper"/"High"/"Moderate"/"Low" classifications are neither important nor accurate. They are misleading and tend to obscure the important points.
This matter comes to a head under the use of "hyper-Calvinism."
A useful division between Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism exists when Hyper-Calvinism is differentiated from Calvinism on a substantive line, such as:
2) refusal to evangelize;
3) denial of human responsibility; or
4) denial that men have wills or make choices.
These bright line errors are rejections of the Synod of Dordt in the opposite direction of Arminians. These errors are serious, and should be avoided.
Other definitions of "hyper-Calvinism" tend to center around buzz-words. These definitions tend to focus on things like whether or not someone is willing to say that God "loves" the reprobate in some sense or whether God gives "common grace" to the reprobate.
I do think that refusing to use the term "common grace" may be the result of a scruple rather than a legitimate objection. To call them "hyper-Calvinists" is, in my view, an unnecessary offense to the brethren. It is simply a pejorative label. The issue of "common grace" does not relate to the gospel - it does not change the way that the men preach the gospel. Furthermore, it muddies the waters.
Here's a handy way to divide up the three camps:
Calvinism, as illustrated, is the balanced view between Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism. It affirms both the real sovereignty of God and the real responsibility of man.
This same chart can be provided another way:
|Man's Will Compatible with Divine Foreordination||Denies||Affirms||Denies|
In a nutshell, what this chart aims to show is the philosophical dividing line of compatibilism. Compatibilism is the view that both man making choices and God foreordaining what those choices will be are compatible concepts. In essence, both the Arminian and the Hyper-Calvinist agree that they are not compatible concepts. One picks man's will, the other picks divine foreordination.
The recent controversy centered around whether to label the Calvinist, Dr. White, as an "hyper-Calvinist" tends to major on the details, obscuring the larger picture. The larger picture is that Dr. White is a consistent Calvinist who affirms monergism and compatibilism. Dr. White is a Calvinist as it would be defined by the relevant sections of the London Baptist Confession of 1689, identified above.
For all but the most contentious or mischievous people, that should be enough. I can understand Amyraldians feeling excluded from such charts. With respect to the Arminian/Calvinist/Hyper-Calvinist division, Amyraldians would normally fall in the Calvinist camp. The problem with Amyraldianism is that it is internally inconsistent. Whether they feel excluded or not, however, creating confusing and unnecessary divisions of "Calvinism" using buzzwords is not productive and not conducive to edification. I would gently but firmly encourage those who have been doing so, to consider desisting.