Heresy: Why Calvinism is Not Heresy

Heresy has been an often confused and contested category among Christians. Protestantism was thought to be heresy by Catholics in the sixteenth century and a crime which could and often did cost people their lives. Arminianism was considered heresy by seventeenth-century Calvinists.

Defining heresy requires a particular discipline. One is not permitted to name a teaching heretical merely because such is explicitly opposed to one's presuppositions. Alister McGrath, in his book Heresy: A History of Defending the Truth, remarks that Calvinism cannot be considered heresy since heresy is "ultimately a teaching judged unacceptable by the entire church."¹ 

Malcolm L. Lavender, author of Greek Grammar and Syntax Versus Calvinism, self-published by Crisis Publications, in his Introduction regarding Calvinism, states:

I have long been aware of the evils of this system. . . . Calvinism is . . . the most evil doctrine in Protestantism. TULIP may well be summed up as the acronym of hell. It is the most incongruous, man belittling, God dishonoring system in Christendom. The god of Five Point Calvinism is the Devil.²

Dr. Lavender would have us believe that Calvinism is a damnable heresy within Christianity, the adherents of which worship a false god. He is not suggesting that Calvinism merely contains errors in its theology. He is insisting that Calvinism's teachings lead people to hell, and hence, Calvinists are inadvertently worshipers of Satan.

Someone such as Dr. Lavender would be denied membership in the Society of Evangelical Arminians, which openly confesses that Calvinists are brothers and sisters to Arminians in the Christian faith, for God has chosen to save those who believe (1 Cor. 1:21), not merely those with a certain theological bent (whether Calvinist or Arminian or otherwise).

Dr. Lavender, in his introductory remarks, continues, "This demonic force has theologically destroyed the message of John 3:14-17, made its way into conservative Christianity and is accepted as evangelical. Arminianism and Wesleyanism essentially stand by in silence as this giant of apostasy works against New Testament Christianity."³ His outlandish remarks against Calvinism remind me of the asinine charges against the so-called "heresy" of Arminianism by Calvinists like C. Matthew McMahon at A Puritan's Mind.

Zealous Calvinists like McMahon are merely taking their cue from historic, absurd Calvinists like John Owen and Augustus Toplady. Honestly, I find highly regarding men like Malcolm Lavender (among other anti-Calvinists) and Matthew McMahon (among other Calvinists) impossible. Their careless and drastic charges are entirely unwarranted.

Both Calvinism and Arminianism are merely, in the words of one of my (Calvinist) Church History professors, the packaging of the gospel. Both are biblical, in a broad sense, and both speak to the core truths of the gospel in a very narrow sense.

THE CALVINISTIC HERMENEUTIC

The more we all confess honestly and openly that we operate and interpret Scripture from different presuppositions the better we can communicate with and genuinely appreciate one another. Hermeneutics is the discipline that "studies the theory, principles, and methods used to interpret texts. . . . Traditional hermeneutics focuses primarily on the discovery of the historical meaning as intended by the author and understood by the original audience."⁴

When we admit that Calvinists and Arminians (and others) have a hermeneutical grid by which Scripture is interpreted, we mean that we all possess "a particular system of interpretation organized around an established frame of reference having an acknowledged set of presuppositions, values, or beliefs, which guides or controls the interpretation of texts."⁵ I have come to learn that the debate between Calvinists and Arminians is one solely of hermeneutics, and little else.

The guiding hermeneutic by which Calvinists, including John Calvin himself, interpret all of Scripture is, according to Calvinist Moisés Silva, "its stress on divine sovereignty, particularly as expressed in the concept of [unconditional] election."⁶ Not only is God sovereign, as defined by Calvinists (i.e., He has decreed and brings to pass whatever happens⁷), but humanity is fallen, so much so that they cannot do, nor do they desire to do, anything regarding their sinful and fallen condition. God's creatures have rebelled against Him, and they have no interest, having become His enemy, in repairing the relationship.

THE CALVINISTIC CONCLUSION

Because humanity is fallen and does not desire salvation, God has unconditionally decided to save some of them -- though they do not desire saving -- in order to demonstrate "the riches of His glory" (Rom. 9:23) and grace; as well as leaving others to what they desire -- independence from God -- because He is "willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known" in them (Rom. 9:22). Since God is not obligated to save anyone, and His justice demands that those who rebel against His authority, holiness and law receive the penalty due, then God is blameless in saving whomsoever He chooses to save (or not save). 

Let us briefly examine TULIP theology. Because humanity is Totally depraved and inherently unable to seek God and His salvation, nor does anyone even desire such because of the fallen nature, thus remaining an enemy of God, out His immense grace, God as Unconditionally elected to save some, leaving the rest to their own depraved desires.

He thus sent His Son Christ Jesus to, in a Limited sense, atone for their sins alone. He will draw His unconditionally elected ones alone to Christ through an Irresistible grace, thus guaranteeing or securing their salvation through regeneration. Granted His eternal purpose for those whom He unconditionally elected, He will Preserve them to the end by His Holy Spirit, whom He caused to dwell within His unconditionally elect.

This system is anything but incongruous (lacking in harmony), as is alleged by Dr. Lavender. Given its hermeneutical grid, TULIP theology, i.e., Calvinism, makes logical, philosophical, and biblical sense.

THE CALVINISTIC GOSPEL

At face value, Dr. Lavender's remarks regarding Calvinism would lead one to think that its gospel is completely contrary to what is found in Scripture. Calvinist John Piper states that the gospel is "the news that Jesus Christ, the Righteous One, died for our sins and rose again, eternally triumphant over all his enemies, so that there is now no condemnation for those who believe, but only everlasting joy." Comparing Piper's confession with Scripture, we discover that his confession is derived directly from the scriptures themselves:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life" (John 3:16); "For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3-4); "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8:1)

One may (and should, in my opinion) oppose Calvinism, but not for the reasons given by Dr. Malcolm L. Lavender.

Calvinism is a Christian theology, adhered to by some of the most godly men and women I have ever had the privilege of calling brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus. The rhetoric and polemics of some anti-Calvinists are not just excessive but are contemptible.

In order for Calvinism to be considered a false gospel, or damnable heresy, it would have to deny a core tenet of the Christian faith and, therefore, be condemned as such by the entire Church. But Calvinism affirms every core tenet of the Faith and has never been universally condemned. Hence it is not heresy. The same can also be said of Arminianism; it affirms every core tenet of the Christian faith and has never been condemned as such by the entire Church. Hence it is not heresy.

Calvinists and Arminians may (and should, in my opinion) debate theology because theology matters. But our disagreements need not lead us to adopt a God complex, whereby we, as Supreme Judge, assign our opponents to hell merely because they disagree with some of our particular theological points. I think that dishonors God more than does what we perceive to be our opponent's errors.

__________

¹ Alister McGrath, Heresy: A History of Defending the Truth (New York: HarperOne, 2009), 215.

² Malcolm L. Lavender, Greek Grammar and Syntax Versus Calvinism (Port Huron: Crisis Publications, 2007), xi.  Some Calvinists will, no doubt, remind me that Arminian scholar Roger Olson has noted that at times it is difficult to distinguish between the Calvinist's God and Satan, due to some varieties of Calvinistic thought. In context, Dr. Olson is trying to communicate that the errors of exhaustive divine determinism tend to imply that God is the Author of sin and evil. Hence, if God decrees evil, and Satan also seeks to manifest evil, then we are bewildered as to how to distinguish between the two. In fairness to Dr. Olson, Dr. Wayne Grudem, himself a five-point Calvinist, agrees that exhaustive determinism is a theological error. See Wayne A. Grudem, Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith, ed. Jeff Purswell (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 145-49.

³ Ibid.

⁴ James D. Hernando, Dictionary of Hermeneutics: A Concise Guide to Terms, Names, Methods, and Expressions (Springfield: Gospel Publishing House, 2005), 23.

⁵ Ibid.

⁶ Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. and Moises Silva, Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning, revised and expanded edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 307.

⁷ Westminster Confession of Faith: Chapter III Of God’s Eternal Decree:

1. God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

2. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, yet hath He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.

The Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible, ed. Richard L. Pratt (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 2176.