The Doctrines of Grace: A Misnomer with Idolatrous and Gnostic Tendencies

The "doctrines of grace" has become a synonymous term with Calvinism, or what many call "Reformed Theology," as a rhetorical device. I hesitate to call Calvinism proper "Reformed Theology," since Luther himself was not a Calvinist (nor were Lutherans), in the strict sense, and yet such are Reformed. To be "Reformed" is not to be a Calvinist. The Reformation was not predicated upon unconditional election, limited atonement, or irresistible grace, as is the core of Calvinism, but upon the primacy of Scripture and the abolishing of ecclesiastical abuses.

The so-called "doctrines of grace" is a misnomer of a phrase, in my opinion, since the grace to which the phrase refers is an unconditional and restrictive, particular grace, which is not inherently specified. The phrase should be "the doctrines of particular grace," not merely "the doctrines of grace." But these "doctrines of particular grace" have, historically and in the present era, among its adherents produced both idolatrous and gnostic tendencies. 

In an article titled "Why Can't They See This?", Tom Nettles seeks to answer the question, "Why do my Christian friends have such an aversion to the Doctrines of Grace?" (link). I think the question, while sincere, is a bit naïve. Too often, some Calvinists perceive themselves as God's missionaries to the non-Calvinist. But God has not called you, my Calvinist brother or sister, to convert anyone to Calvinism. Your calling is to bring those who have yet to receive Christ by grace through faith to an understanding of the gospel.

But even with this admission we have a problem: for too many Calvinists, Calvinism is the gospel (link). But Calvinism is not the gospel; nor is Arminianism or any other non-Calvinistic theology the gospel. Christ is the gospel, and Christ is not synonymous with either Calvinism, Arminianism, or any other brand of theology. 

I like the way my Calvinist Church History professor, Dr. Nathan A. Finn, states this matter. Christ, through the gospel, is the gift of God. Calvinism, Arminianism and all other non-Calvinistic systems, are merely the packaging of the gift. When someone receives a gift, what he or she is anxious for is what is inside the box, not the packaging. Both Calvinists and non-Calvinists present Christ through the gospel to a world which needs saving.

The affection I have witnessed by far too many Calvinists for Calvinism as a system is nearly tantamount to idolatry. I find incredibly ironic, then, some Calvinists, like Augustus Toplady, charging non-Calvinists with idolatry: note Toplady's ridiculous and historically and theologically inaccurate article, "Arminianism: The Golden Idol of Free Will." From both a historical and a present-day perspective, Calvinists, of all brands of believers, should shy away from such an accusation.

Many Calvinists do not understand how non-Calvinists cannot see the "truth" of Calvinism. The confusion should be obvious: the Calvinist's God has not seen fit to sovereignly enlighten the minds of non-Calvinists to such "truths." What could be more obvious? How could some Calvinists be so equally blind in asking such questions? They believe that God meticulously governs and controls all events on earth and in the universe but then ask why non-Calvinists cannot see the "truth" of Calvinism. The inconsistency is glaring and bewildering.

Moreover, the question why non-Calvinists cannot see the "truth" of Calvinism is a modern slant on the second-century gnostic heresy -- a claim to special, spiritual, religious knowledge to which only some were privileged.

In a post by Calvinist Justin Taylor, we witness gnostic tendencies among adherents of the New Calvinism. Justin believes that he found in one passage of Scripture the concept of divine sovereignty and human responsibility (Luke 24:16, 25, 31 NRSV). From Justin's view, God blinded the eyes of the two on the road to Emmaus (known as a divine passive), He holds them responsible for their blindness, and opens blind eyes at His sovereign and unconditional whim.

Rather than address the verses Justin references, for the sake of brevity, I would rather turn our attention to a response by Calvinist scholar Ardel Caneday to "Arminian" (not me) who challenged Justin's interpretation (found in the same comment thread).

Because "Arminian" (and some others) interpreted the events of Luke 24 in a manner different from that of the Calvinistic position, Caneday responds, "May God, who opened the eyes of those two disciples of whom Luke tells us in Luke 24, open eyes to see and to understand what he did for those two disciples on that day. For to see is to believe" (link). Do not overlook Caneday's implication. Because "Arminian" and others do not agree with this nuanced Calvinistic interpretation of Luke 24, offering a challenge which Caneday obviously found problematic, he viewed God as having not yet opened their eyes to see such divine "truths."

When all else fails, some Calvinists resort to the bitter banter "God has not yet opened your eyes to His truth." While this view is more consistent with their overall, deterministic theology, it is tragic, since it suggests that God is intentionally keeping the greater part of Christians -- His own redeemed children -- blinded to the "truth" of Calvinism -- a "truth" that would, from all Calvinistic confessions, bring Him much glory.

When some Calvinists convince themselves that there is no possible way that they could be wrong about Calvinism, that is the point at which deception has thoroughly permeated their innermost heart. At that point, Calvinism turns from being one viable theological system among others to resembling the idol worship by which God is most offended.

Calvinists have the right to disagree with non-Calvinists over theological issues. But Calvinists do not reserve the right to suggest that anyone who contradicts their suppositions are blind to the "truth." Such a view is the absolute height of theological arrogance.

God has no more opened the eyes of Calvinists to the alleged truth of Calvinism than He has blinded the eyes of non-Calvinists to the "doctrines of particular grace." To read such implications from Justin Taylor, Ardel Caneday or any other Calvinist, is nothing short of tragic.

We pray for Calvinists who employ such gnostic-like language to repent for the sake of truth and unity in Christ's body. Calvinists should merely inform non-Calvinists as to why they think we are wrong theologically. There is no call for implicating God for our alleged blindness to the alleged truth of the "doctrines of particular grace."