Is Calvinism a Heresy?

[Jac3510]

1. No
2. Yes

I'll assume that you don't consider faith to be a good deed.

[August]

1. No
2. Yes

I'll assume that you don't consider faith to be a good deed.

To expand on the first point a bit, what is it that gives that eternal assurance? And secondly, to tie in with the second question, how do you have the assurance that you are saved? Does faith lead to regeneration, in your opinion? Do you believe in the Ordo Salutis, and if so, what is your version of it, since you deny both Arminiasm and Calvinism?

As for faith being a deed, it depends once again how you define faith. We had disagreements about that earlier in another thread, if memory serves me correctly. Faith can be both a state and a deed, in my opinion. If the act of coming to believe is faith, then it is a deed, when you have faith, it is a state.

[Jac3510]

To expand on the first point a bit, what is it that gives that eternal assurance? And secondly, to tie in with the second question, how do you have the assurance that you are saved? Does faith lead to regeneration, in your opinion? Do you believe in the Ordo Salutis, and if so, what is your version of it, since you deny both Arminiasm and Calvinism?

1. Assurance is grounded in the objective promise of Christ. Jesus said if I trust Him for eternal life, then I have it. Because I have trusted in Him, I have assurance of my salvation. That status can never change. I'm not sure how the second question differs from the first . . . could you please clarify?
2. Yes, faith precedes and leads directly to regeneration.
3. I had to look up Ordo Salutis . Defined as "the order of salvation," yes, I believe there is an order. I have an entire flowchart with a little better than 20 elements on it that I'm still tweaking to demonstrate my understanding of the concept. But, broadly . . .

1. Election of those in Christ (atemporal)
2. Predestination of those in Christ (atemporal)
3. Universal Propitiation (temporal, as are all the following)
4. Belief (of individual), leading to:

• "Past Salvation"
  a. Positional Sanctification
  b. Justification
  c. Regeneration
  d. Sealing
  e. Indwelling

Past salvation necessarily results in:

• "Future Salvation"
  a. Final Sanctification
  b. Resurrection
  c. Glorification
  d. Adoption
  e. Redemption

Between these two, we have "Present Salvation", which is contingent on the discipleship of a believer, and is broadly associated with progessive sanctification. This deals with the forgivenss of sins and the storing of treasures in Heaven.

The above is a very broad sweep, and some of the ideas may need to be reordered within their various catagories. There are other ideas that have to be added, as well as some on my currect chart that I did not list here for simplicity's sake.

As for faith being a deed, it's not that big of a deal. I certainly don't believe that believing Jesus was telling the truth about giving me eternal life is a work.

[August]

1. Assurance is grounded in the objective promise of Christ. Jesus said if I trust Him for eternal life, then I have it. Because I have trusted in Him, I have assurance of my salvation. That status can never change. I'm not sure how the second question differs from the first . . . could you please clarify?

Sorry if it was unclear....when I asked what is it that gives eternal assurance, I meant what mechanisms are at work in you and to you to give you that eternal assurance? Your second answer is that you trust, that is your mechanism, so would it be correct to say that for you faith=trust? How do you know that your trust is real, and do you believe that your trust needs to be sustained trust or lasting trust?

2. Yes, faith precedes and leads directly to regeneration.

I want to be careful here, because of our different understandings of faith. When you say that faith precedes regeneration, you are saying that you can trust and believe Jesus without being reborn?

3. I had to look up Ordo Salutis Smile. Defined as "the order of salvation," yes, I believe there is an order. I have an entire flowchart with a little better than 20 elements on it that I'm still tweaking to demonstrate my understanding of the concept.

Sorry, I thought that since you were in seminary you would be familiar with the term.

Did you build the flowchart yourself? It would be helpful if you could also quote the relevant Scriptures next to each of the elements you mention below. And I know it is time consuming, but can you broadly describe what you mean by each of the elements that you show? I don't want to misunderstand you...

[Jac3510]

Sorry if it was unclear....when I asked what is it that gives eternal assurance, I meant what mechanisms are at work in you and to you to give you that eternal assurance? Your second answer is that you trust, that is your mechanism, so would it be correct to say that for you faith=trust? How do you know that your trust is real, and do you believe that your trust needs to be sustained trust or lasting trust?

NP. I assume in the back of your mind are the three witnesses in the Westminster Catechism that cites personal testimony, the witness of the HS bearing witness to ones own soul, and works?

1. As for me, the mechanism is absolutely nothing more or less than the object fact that Christ said those who have trusted in Him have everlasting life. The moment you trust Him for it, you have it. Calvin correctly noted that Assurance is, in fact, the very essence of saving faith, because to doubt assurance is to doubt the very promise of Christ, thus making Him a liar.

2. So, yes, for me faith=trust, although it would be more accurate to say that faith=belief. I believe Christ when He says He gives me eternal life if I believe on Him for it.

3. I know my faith is real because I don't believe there are decrees of faith in the salvic sense. You either believe something is true or you don't. Christ says, "He who believes in Me has everlasting life." Do I believe that promise? I can't both believe it and doubt it at the same time. I may believe it, and subsequently doubt it, but the moment I doubt it, I no longer believe it. So, for me, there is no such thing as "false trust."

4. Faith does not need to be maintained for salvation. I believe Christ's Word, I have eternal life, even if at a later date I stop believing it.

I want to be careful here, because of our different understandings of faith. When you say that faith precedes regeneration, you are saying that you can trust and believe Jesus without being reborn?

An unregenerate person is capable of believing that Jesus was telling the truth in His promise to give eternal life if that person believes solely on Him. This belief results in regeneration.

Sorry, I thought that since you were in seminary you would be familiar with the term.

Nah, 'tis OK. I'm nowhere near finished, and it's great to come across terms I don't know. I've actually added it ot my chart :) Thanks

Did you build the flowchart yourself? It would be helpful if you could also quote the relevant Scriptures next to each of the elements you mention below. And I know it is time consuming, but can you broadly describe what you mean by each of the elements that you show? I don't want to misunderstand you...

I did, and am. It's unfinished, because when it's done, I'm going to use it to teach a course on this. I have the framework basically done . . . I'll see if I can't get a working copy with Scripture up here in the next few days to get your input. It's not linear, but more like a concept map, with each doctrine brought into appropriate categories, and those categories are set beside one another to show the appropriate relationships between them.

As for my understanding of each of the elements listed, I can go ahead and do that. I do agree that precision if of the utmost importance here. I'll list them in alphabetical order so as not to imply an improper relationship between these:

1. Adoption: The act of God whereby He ordains His children as full and legal heirs to His kingdom (Rom. 8:23; Eph. 1:5)
2. Belief: The conviction of Man of the truthfulness of the claim of God (John 3:16; 6:37)
3. Election: The act of God whereby He, in His foreknowledge, chose before the foundation of the world all of those in Christ for salvation (Eph. 1:4; 1 Pet. 1:2)
4. Glorification: The act of God whereby He fully rewards the believer in his or her new body (Rom 8:29-30)
5. Indwelling: The act of God whereby the Holy Spirit lives and resides within the believer in Christ (John 17:17)
6. Justification: The act of God whereby He declares of sinner to be righteous (Rom 4:1-4; 5:16-18)
8. Predestination: The act of God whereby He determined before the foundation of the world the destiny of the elect as it relates to their inheritance, adoption, and glorification (Rom. 8:29; Eph. 1:5, 11)
9. Propitiation: The act of God at the Cross whereby He appeased His wrath against sin by dying in the place of Man (Heb, 2:17; 1 Jo. 2:2)
10. Redemption: The act of God whereby He buys back and re-establishes His formerly lost/marred creation. (Eph. 4:30; Heb. 9:12)
11. Regeneration: The act of God whereby a sinner is reborn in Christ as a new creation (John 3:3; Titus 3:5)
12. Resurrection: The act of God whereby He literally raises men from the dead (Matt. 22:23-32; Acts 24:15)
13. Salvation: The act of God whereby He delivers Man from judgement, either temporal or eternal (Jon. 2:9; Acts 4:12; Rom. 10:9-10)
14. Sanctification: The act of God whereby believers are set apart from the world (1 Cor. 6:11; 1 Thess. 4:3)
15. Sealing: The act of God whereby a believer is marked or guaranteed by the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 1:22; Eph 4:30)

Obviously, there are more items that could be added to this list, and, again, far more Scripture could be provided on each of these. But, this is a pretty good broad overview, I think. Also, please note I've restricted the definitions, for the most part, to their soteriological contexts. I haven't decided if I will follow that pattern on the flowchart yet or not. That could get tricky!

Let me know if I've been unclear with anything. I may have, as I did this rather quickly.

[August]

Thanks Jac, I will need some time to digest this. I look forward to seeing your flowchart.

[Jac3510]

August:

Here's a rough draft of the chart. As you can see, it still needs a good bit of work. There are still a few terms I need to add, and I need to use a different program to remake it so that I can use a few better methods of differentiation, but this is a good start, I think.

I believe what I'm going to end up doing is, rather than posting references for each term, I think I'm going to attach a glossary that defines each term and post Scripture references there.

Anyway, as you can see, this puts me at odds with the Calvinist on almost every conceivable line of thought . . .

Your thoughts?

[August]

Thanks Jac, I have to look at this in more detail, but the one thing that immediately comes to mind is that you show belief as preceding regeneration, and do not draw any direct relation between belief and election. I guess I find it hard to interpret the chronology. Are you saying that believers were elected first and then believe, or is it the other way around?

I am also curious why you find it necessary to come up with the chart. Maybe it is based on a gross misunderstanding of your position, but if you say that belief is all that you need for salvation, then why do you find it necessary to include sanctification, for example, as part of the order of salvation?

Also, maybe it is implied somewhere, but where does grace fit in? Is that what you mean by "In Christ"?

[Jac3510]

Thanks Jac, I have to look at this in more detail, but the one thing that immediately comes to mind is that you show belief as preceding regeneration, and do not draw any direct relation between belief and election. I guess I find it hard to interpret the chronology. Are you saying that believers were elected first and then believe, or is it the other way around?

Yes, I do believe that belief precedes regeneration. Secondly, there is no direct connection between belief and election. Now, you ask if a believer is elected and then believes, or if he believes and is then elected. I can understand the question, but that's one of the beauties, I think, of laying it out the way I have. The question really doesn't have all that much meaning. If you notice, election is a pretemporal event, whereas belief is a temporal event. The way I have things God elects in accordance with His foreknowledge. Election is based on those who are in Christ. This is important, because God, in this paradigm, does not elect someone to be in Christ, but rather He elects those in Christ.

It is immediately argued that this makes election based on one's personal belief, but that can't be logically so, because election is pretemporal! On the reverse side, belief is not based on election, because, as noted, there is no direct connection. The tension is resolved in understanding that God elected those people He knew were in Christ. What did He elect them for? Several things . . . salvation, being one, but works and service would be others. In this sense, we may actually agree with the Calvinist that none of the elect will fail to believe, but it is not because God has chosen for them to believe. It is also important to recognize that, in this view, God is not "foreseeing faith," but He is actually electing PEOPLE.

It is here that I think that Barth wasn't necessarily 100% wrong, even as I reject his notion of corporate election. Christ was elected first, and all who were "in Him" would be elect. This is something any covenant theologian should be able to agree on if they think about it, because it goes back to the Covenant of Grace. The actual election process, then, is completed with the election of those in Christ, according to the foreknowledge of God.

I am also curious why you find it necessary to come up with the chart. Maybe it is based on a gross misunderstanding of your position, but if you say that belief is all that you need for salvation, then why do you find it necessary to include sanctification, for example, as part of the order of salvation?

Free Grace is often misunderstood in a variety of ways. It helps to be able to see it visually. For example, here, I can clearly show how election fits with belief (which you did pick up on), and likewise, I can visually demonstrate the necessity of discipleship and works without tying them either to actual salvation or even as a necessary result. This chart clearly (I hope) demonstrates that this controversial area is resolved in the realm of rewards.

This goes hand in hand with your next question. It will also help when I write up the glossary, but salvation itself is a complete process. I can literally say "I was saved, I am being saved, and I will be saved." Each aspect of this salvation delivers us from something slightly different, and thus, the different realms of sanctification. In the OSAS saved referenced, I made a big deal out of refering to it as OJAJ (Once Justified Always Justified). For me, Justification is the central Christian doctrine, because it encompasses concepts like propitation, imputation, righteousness, and atonement. It is, as I see it, the very basis of salvation. Justification comes by faith alone in Christ alone.

So, the short answer is that, while Justification is the basis of salvation and necessarily results in final salvation, it is not the whole picture any more than reconciliation, sanctification, redemption, adoption, glorification, or anything else is the whole picture. The chart, then, shows the relationship between each of these important works of God.

Also, maybe it is implied somewhere, but where does grace fit in? Is that what you mean by "In Christ"?

I view each of these acts as acts of grace. Salvation is an act of grace. Thus, justification, redemption, adoption, etc. are all acts of grace. Even the "earned" aspects of rewards is a type of grace, because there is nothing that required God to make such an offer! I suppose I could work to figure out a way to make the general relationship between grace and works a bit clearer, though . . .

And as for "in Christ", my understanding of that almost requires another chart. I follow a theology of federal headship. We are born "in Adam." He is our head. When we are born again, we are born "in Christ." He, now, is our head. That is why the New Birth is necessary for salvation, because it is the only means of being found in Christ.

This, of course, is for the most part contrary to the Calvinist view of things. They hold election "in Christ" to simply mean that He is the ground or basis of that decision. I understand that, as I used to hold to it, but I don't think that model fully takes the whole of Scripture into account. Obviously, for me, the position I'm advocating does that.

[Locker]

Jac3510, what is your take on TULIP doctrine?

The main thing I se wrong with Calvinism is a view on God's sovereignty that does not fit into the attributes of God as revealed in the bible based and discovered when exploring the names of God. It seems to take an unbalance view of God and overrates some attributes at the expense of others - I would not call Calvinism Heresy but rather a doctrine missing and lacking certain bible truths and over emphasizing others. It seems we all do that but again maybe I am to easy on Calvinist, afterall, God made me be this way!

[Jac3510]

I reject all five points of TULIP. Broadly, I see the correct understand in relation to each point as follows:

Total Depravity - While we affirm that man is both dead in his sins and naturally hostile to God, we reject the notion that man is incapable of a positive response to the drawing of the Holy Spirit prior to regeneration. Man, left to his own, does not seek God. But, when he is convicted by the Spirit, he is capable to believe and accept the truth of the Gospel.

Unconditional Election - We affirm that man is elected for good works unto salvation, that this election occurred before the foundation of the world, that this election is solely at the discretion of God, and therefore, that it is completely unmeritorious. However, we reject the Calvinist notion that God elects any to be in Christ. Rather, He, in accordance and harmony with foreknowledge, elected those in Christ.

Limited Atonement - We reject the notion that Christ died only for the elect and instead recognize the clear Scriptural teaching that the death of Christ was on behalf of all men. This substitutionary sacrifice resulted in the propitiation of God's wrath against sin and the reconciliation of the world to God, thus rendering man savable through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Irresistible Grace - While we affirm that none of the elect will fail to believe, we do not adhere to the claim that the call of God unto salvation cannot be rejected. Instead, we believe the clear Scriptural teaching that faith in Jesus Christ is volitional.

Final Perseverance of the Saints - While we affirm the doctrine of eternal security, also known as the preservation of the saints, we reject the claim that all true Christians will persevere until the end. Salvation is not dependant on, nor evidenced by, a continual profession of faith in Jesus Christ. It is dependant on a once for all trust in Jesus for eternal life. This faith may later be lost, but this loss of faith in no way results in condemnation either by proving such a faith was never real or by the rejection of salvation.

So . . . yeah . . . I still consider it a heresy . Calvinism both teaches a false gospel and is an affront to the character of God. My view, anyway . . . hehe.

[Carico]

Not only have I heard of Calvinism (and 4 point Calvinists, the supposed influence of Calvinism on early American colonialism, including but not limited to the idea of capitalism itself, Spurgeon's Calvinism, the hyper-Calvinism of the Particular Baptists, all the way down to Geisler's 0-point Calvinism), but I've studied it very deeply. I do find it amusing that you use the term "Calvinism" when a cursory reading of Calvin's Institutes would show that Calvin himself would have rejected Limited Atonement and the extra-calvinist doctrine of assurance by works. Poor Calvin . . . horrible person though he was, not even a murderer like him deserves to have the system that you hold to named after him. He's got to be roling in his grave.

I refer to myself, like Geisler, as a 0-point Calvinist, in that I reject all five points of traditional Calvinism, but I still hold to eternal security. I reject all five points of Armeneanism as well, but being the OSASer that I am, I can't exactly be a 0-point Armenian!

For the record, I'm actually working on a book entitled The Calvinist Heresy. Far from being the Gospel itself, it is a theology that, if perfectly follows, results in damnation. Of course, the good news to all of this is that the vast majority of people come to know Christ and then decide they believe in the five tenants . . .

See, God still has his way.

The system known as Calvinism is a curse upon man. It is a blight to theology, and a stain on the name of Christianity worse than anything the Roman Catholic Church conceived of in the Middle Ages. Calvin himself was a murderer--an evil man who, if not for the system of thought he introduced, should never have been remembered by history. His teachings are warmed over Augustinian ideas. Credit should be given where credit is due. Calvin himself offers us very little.

If I sound bitter and angry at the system, I am. It is absolutely disgusting, and read no sarcasm in that remark. The indignation Jesus felt toward the Pharisees, so much so that He referred to them as white-washed tombstones, represents the same conviction I have as it relates to this heresy. Better to be an modalist than a Calvinist, for the five-pointer (and many four-pointers as well) turn God into a monster that is far from the God depicted in Scriptures. Calvinism is an assault on the Person and Character of our Holy God. The only one who makes such attacks is Satan himself. If we hate the antichrist for maligning the name of Christ, how much more do we reject the teachings of genuine Christians as they smear the very name and character of God Himself?

What do you think about this, puritan lad?

Calvin, Luther, etc. should be absolutely irrelevant to us Christians. Paul tells us not to follow people, i.e. "Appollos", or "Paul'. Jesus says we have one teacher and that is the Christ. I'm sure Calvin & I agree on some things and not others, so what does it matter? All that matters to me is that my interpretations don't contradict any scripture.

[Carico]

I reject all five points of TULIP. Broadly, I see the correct understand in relation to each point as follows:

Total Depravity - While we affirm that man is both dead in his sins and naturally hostile to God, we reject the notion that man is incapable of a positive response to the drawing of the Holy Spirit prior to regeneration. Man, left to his own, does not seek God. But, when he is convicted by the Spirit, he is capable to believe and accept the truth of the Gospel.

Unconditional Election - We affirm that man is elected for good works unto salvation, that this election occurred before the foundation of the world, that this election is solely at the discretion of God, and therefore, that it is completely unmeritorious. However, we reject the Calvinist notion that God elects any to be in Christ. Rather, He, in accordance and harmony with foreknowledge, elected those in Christ.

Limited Atonement - We reject the notion that Christ died only for the elect and instead recognize the clear Scriptural teaching that the death of Christ was on behalf of all men. This substitutionary sacrifice resulted in the propitiation of God's wrath against sin and the reconciliation of the world to God, thus rendering man savable through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Irresistible Grace - While we affirm that none of the elect will fail to believe, we do not adhere to the claim that the call of God unto salvation cannot be rejected. Instead, we believe the clear Scriptural teaching that faith in Jesus Christ is volitional.

Final Perseverance of the Saints - While we affirm the doctrine of eternal security, also known as the preservation of the saints, we reject the claim that all true Christians will persevere until the end. Salvation is not dependant on, nor evidenced by, a continual profession of faith in Jesus Christ. It is dependant on a once for all trust in Jesus for eternal life. This faith may later be lost, but this loss of faith in no way results in condemnation either by proving such a faith was never real or by the rejection of salvation.

So . . . yeah . . . I still consider it a heresy . Calvinism both teaches a false gospel and is an affront to the character of God. My view, anyway . . . hehe.

So if someone heals you of blindness, to whom do you give credit for your ability to see?

And once you were in darkness and then in the light, how many people do you think would go back to darkness, particularly when it is God who gives us the desire for him?

Paul says that "God's call is irrevocable." And I believe him. I do not think I am astronger than the Holy Spirit.

[Jac3510]

Don't misunderstand me. Salvation is a work of God. Look at the flowchart I posted. With exception to belief and repentance, both of which operate in entirely different spheres, everything on that list is a work of God. We are justified, regenerated, elected, sanctified, adopted, glorified, etc. all by him. I'm no synergist.

What are you are getting at is ultimately irresistable grace, which itself is founded in a fauty view of both election and depravity. Man has the capacity for belief. Christ promised to give you eternal life if you trust Him for it. When you believe that, you HAVE eternal life. However, when you insist that repentance, commitment of life, perseverance, baptism, or anything else are necessary at any point, you are rejecting the plain promise of Christ. As Calvinism rejects this teaching, as it must due to its misunderstanding of grace, it falls into the catagory of heresy.

God's call is irrevocable. Once you are saved, that's that. I thoroughly hold to eternal security, as noted above. We should all praise God and give Him all the credit for every good thing in our lives, not the least of which is salvation! HE is the one who made us. He is the one who decided to save us. HE is the one who called us. HE is the one who justified us. HE is the one who paid the price for our sins. It's all His work. All we have to do is believe on His promise to give it to us for FREE, and that's that.

[Carico]

Don't misunderstand me. Salvation is a work of God. Look at the flowchart I posted. With exception to belief and repentance, both of which operate in entirely different spheres, everything on that list is a work of God. We are justified, regenerated, elected, sanctified, adopted, glorified, etc. all by him. I'm no synergist.

What are you are getting at is ultimately irresistable grace, which itself is founded in a fauty view of both election and depravity. Man has the capacity for belief. Christ promised to give you eternal life if you trust Him for it. When you believe that, you HAVE eternal life. However, when you insist that repentance, commitment of life, perseverance, baptism, or anything else are necessary at any point, you are rejecting the plain promise of Christ. As Calvinism rejects this teaching, as it must due to its misunderstanding of grace, it falls into the catagory of heresy.

God's call is irrevocable. Once you are saved, that's that. I thoroughly hold to eternal security, as noted above. We should all praise God and give Him all the credit for every good thing in our lives, not the least of which is salvation! HE is the one who made us. He is the one who decided to save us. HE is the one who called us. HE is the one who justified us. HE is the one who paid the price for our sins. It's all His work. All we have to do is believe on His promise to give it to us for FREE, and that's that.

1 Corinthians 2: 14, "The man without the spirit does not accept the things that come from God for they are foolishness and he cannot understand them because thye are spiritually discerned." Paul makes is quite clear that without the Holy Spirit, man does not have the capacity to believe God. Only when we receive the Holy Spirit can we believe in God.

But God also draws those whom he has elected. He gives us the heart and desire for Him. He also doesn't allow worldly circumstances to work in our lives so that we will turn to him. Therefore, I give complete and total credit for my belief in God to God, not myself.

Ephesians, 2:8-9, "It is by grace we are saved through faith, and this not from ourselves, it is a gift from God so that no one can boast."

Free will is a paradox because God's ways are opposite of our ways. It can be best explained through by the analogy of parents and children. Parents create an environment in which children feel "free' to make their own choices when in reality it is the parent who is creating the environment for him to do so. But it is paramount that the child feels that it is his own choice and that also makes him accountable. So the key issue in the free will debate is that since none of us knows who is called, then salvation is open to all and we are completely responsible for our actions, attitidues, and beliefs.