Is Calvinism a heresy?

[The Liturgist]

Orthodoxy doesn't count Calvin/Calvinism among the heretics either. Then again, Orthodoxy doesn't make that claim of anyone outside of the Church. For us, it's heterodox.
That said, if we are addressing 5 point "TULIP" Calvinism, all five points are contrary to Orthodoxy, some points more egregious than others.

Actually the Synod of Dositheus in 1672, which is not an ecumenical council but a local council convened by the Patriarch of Jerusalem and attended by bishops of some of the other autocephalous Eastern Orthodox churches did, and also labelled John Calvin an heresiarch, because of the letters espousing Calvinist theology and claiming to be the work of Ecumemical Patriarch Cyril Lukaris of Constantinople, who was killed by the Sultan, leaving the question as to whether they were authentic or forgeries unanswerable. However, the issue had been introduced into the Eastern Orthodox Church because a Patriarch of Constantinople had apparently embraced Reformed theology.

My own view is that Calvinism is not a heresy, particularly if one sets aside TULIP, which John Calvin did not teach, but it is contrary to Orthodox theology, specifically, the doctrines of the Fifth Ecumenical Council which rejected Monergism, and additionally, many Calvinists including John Calvin himself subscribed to Iconoclasm, which is a much more serious error, and still others embraced Nestorianism by virtue of rejecting the phrase Theotokos, and indeed Lutherans accused Calvinists of Nestorianism, and Calvinists in turn accused Lutherans of Monophysitism.

Of course as we now know, the Oriental Orthodox were not Monophysites; St. John of Damascus in his Fount of Knowledge made an error by associating the Tritheist Eutychian John Philoponus, who was of the Monophysite church, with the Coptic Church and St. Severus of Antioch, who were of the Miaphysite Oriental Orthodox church which had been falsely associated with the Monophysites and Eutyches by the crypto-Nestorian Ibas, a sinister figure who caused division in the Fourth Century church by provoking tension and confrontation over existing concerns in and around the Council of Chalcedon, basically causing the schism, which would be revenge for Nestorians, to see Pope Dioscorus, the protege and successor of St. Cyril the Great, who had led the charge at Ephesus to depose Nestorius, himself deposed for heresy.

 

[FenderTL5]

Actually the Synod of Dositheus in 1672, which is not an ecumenical council but a local council convened by the Patriarch of Jerusalem and attended by bishops of some of the other autocephalous Eastern Orthodox churches did, and also labelled John Calvin an heresiarch, because of the letters espousing Calvinist theology and claiming to be the work of Ecumemical Patriarch Cyril Lukaris of Constantinople, who was killed by the Sultan, leaving the question as to whether they were authentic or forgeries unanswerable. However, the issue had been introduced into the Eastern Orthodox Church because a Patriarch of Constantinople had apparently embraced Reformed theology.

My own view is that Calvinism is not a heresy, particularly if one sets aside TULIP, which John Calvin did not teach, but it is contrary to Orthodox theology, specifically, the doctrines of the Fifth Ecumenical Council which rejected Monergism, and additionally, many Calvinists including John Calvin himself subscribed to Iconoclasm, which is a much more serious error, and still others embraced Nestorianism by virtue of rejecting the phrase Theotokos, and indeed Lutherans accused Calvinists of Nestorianism, and Calvinists in turn accused Lutherans of Monophysitism.

Of course as we now know, the Oriental Orthodox were not Monophysites; St. John of Damascus in his Fount of Knowledge made an error by associating the Tritheist Eutychian John Philoponus, who was of the Monophysite church, with the Coptic Church and St. Severus of Antioch, who were of the Miaphysite Oriental Orthodox church which had been falsely associated with the Monophysites and Eutyches by the crypto-Nestorian Ibas, a sinister figure who caused division in the Fourth Century church by provoking tension and confrontation over existing concerns in and around the Council of Chalcedon, basically causing the schism, which would be revenge for Nestorians, to see Pope Dioscorus, the protege and successor of St. Cyril the Great, who had led the charge at Ephesus to depose Nestorius, himself deposed for heresy.

Thank you for your detailed post.

There are areas where I readily admit that i can be incorrect. This very well could be the case.
As way of explanation of my earlier comment: It's my understanding that Orthodoxy would hold a heretic to be someone who believes contrary to the fundamental tenets of the Orthodox faith to which they claim and show themselves unwilling to accept correction. If that is true Calvin could not be a heretic per say, since he lays no claim to Orthodoxy nor received correction from within.
I could be wrong.
That would still allow his teaching to be considered heresy and Calvin a heresiarch.
That could be mere semantics and again, I readily admit I could be in error.

That said, yes The Confession of Dositheus went point by point refuting Lucaris and the teaching of Calvin.

Thanks again - I always appreciate your insight.

 

[zoidar]

With all due respect, it doesn't really matter what you think you believe, what really matters is whether what you believe is the truth.

Of course.

God commands perfection (Matt 5:48). Is it possible for a person to perfectly repent by himself?

Perfectly repent? Either you repent or you don't. I don't see the Bible describe perfect repentance.

If salvation is God's work as you agreed, then doesn't man thinking he contributed something to his salvation deny grace and give him something in which to boast contrary to Scripture (1 Cor 1:27-29)?

If I find out I can do nothing to deserve or earn salvation, and I go humbled to Christ, asking him to forgive me. Exactly what would there be for me to boast about?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Some people aren't willing to live. They commit suicide.

I'm not asking about 'some people'. Do you consider it forcing that God made you and had you born the first time? Do you find reason to claim injustice there?

 

[Mark Quayle]

You should know as Calvinists are kings of lousy logic as they often repeat the mantra that if God hadn’t chosen them (which they are assuming), then they never would have chosen Christ, which sounds like self-righteousness through self-deprecating.

R.C. Sproul: “In the Reformed view of predestination, God’s choice precedes man’s choice. We choose Him only because He has first chosen us. Without divine predestination and without the divine inward call, the Reformed view holds that nobody would ever choose Christ.”

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

What difference is it what it 'sounds like' to you? What matters is the truth. Do you have some reason to believe that if God had not chosen you, you would have chosen him anyway?

In other words, according to Calvinism, without Irresistible Grace (having assumed they are chosen by God), they would have never chosen Christ.
1. First of all, how do Calvinists know that? Being absent of a "irresistible Grace" being stated in scripture they resort to their invented acronym TULIP which requires "Irresistible Grace". Therefore, Calvinists are simply speaking out of theological necessity per the "I" in TULIP. In other words, Calvinists have to say that, or else they have to admit that scripture does not support their doctrine.

I see you don't treat with it, but simply scorn it.

2. Second of all, how would Calvinists explain those who receive the Word with joy and believe for a while but later deconvert due to the competing love of the things of this world? (Luke 8:13) At some point they chose God, but did not persevere - this disproves their "P" in TULIP as per Jesus some who receive the Gospel message with joy do not persevere.
It’s not that Christ is somehow undesirable. In fact, the Gospels are loaded with examples where people gladly received Christ, though each time, Calvinists are forced by Calvinism to chalk it up to Irresistible Grace (which again represents the "I" in TULIP.

That's not hard at all. You may have heard me say before, that according to Total Depravity, those who are not regenerated, when they suppose to choose Christ, may do so at whatever level of "joy" they do so, without truly doing so. Unless regenerated, every choice a person makes, even the wonderful "altruistic decision" is made at enmity with God.

Luke 18:23-37: “‘For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.’ They who heard it said, ‘Then who can be saved?’ But He said, ‘The things that are impossible with people are possible with God.’”In other words, those who are rich in the things of this world are more likely to be ensnared by the things of this world, whereas those who possess less, are less possessed by the world. But if Calvinism was true, then it shouldn’t make a difference either way, since per their doctrine the rich and the poor are equally “dead rebel sinners” and “total haters of God.” Yet, that’s not what Jesus is saying.

Do you honestly believe that God is not able, and fails, to bring about absolutely everything he set out to do?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Of course.

Perfectly repent? Either you repent or you don't. I don't see the Bible describe perfect repentance.

If I find out I can do nothing to deserve or earn salvation, and I go humbled to Christ, asking him to forgive me. Exactly what would there be for me to boast about?

Your humility, for ironic starters.

 

[zoidar]

Your humility, for ironic starters.

That's illogical! It's like boasting for being such a good person realizing not being a good person. What you realize when you are humble is you have nothing to boast about.

I have seen people taking pride in confessing being unworthy of salvation. That's no better than taking pride in having chosen Christ because of being a good person.

 

[JLB777]

Obedience is the fruit of regeneration that springs forth from loving gratitude and not merit.

Joh_14:15 "If you love Me, keep My commandments.
Joh_14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.
Joh_14:24 He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.
Joh_15:10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love.
1Jn_5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments.

The only people who are saved or justified are those who obey God.

It’s called the obedience of faith.


But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: Romans 16:26


This is the principle or law of faith.



James says it this way —


Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? James 2:21


The “work” that Abraham did was to obey God by offering his son Isaac on the altar.


Not the works of the law.
Not good works.
Not works that earn.


The “work” of obedience; the obedience of faith.





JLB

 

[Derf]

I'm not asking about 'some people'. Do you consider it forcing that God made you and had you born the first time? Do you find reason to claim injustice there?

No, why would I? And didn't my parents have something to do with it? I don't find them unjust for conceiving and birthing and raising me.

 

[John Mullally]

What difference is it what it 'sounds like' to you? What matters is the truth. Do you have some reason to believe that if God had not chosen you, you would have chosen him anyway?

It is always jarring to hear the Calvinist humble brag about being chosen for salvation, when scripture says that God desires everyone to be saved.

The truth is that God does not exclude any from eternal life. All people are created with equal value as image bearers of God. Because God desires mercy over justice and self-sacrificially loves everyone, He has graciously provided the means of salvation to every man, woman, boy and girl. No person is created for damnation, or predetermined by God to that end. Those who perish only do so because they refused to accept the truth so as to be saved.”

God provides. He does not force His love upon anyone. In other words, the question is this: Does God impose His love on humanity—whether they want it or not—as per Calvinism, or does God simply provide grace to humanity, and let people decide for themselves whether they wish to receive it or not?

1 Timothy 2:1 I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.​

1 Timothy 4:10 That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.​

​

Romans 5:18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.​

​

Ezekiel 18:11 Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?’​

​

Christ's atonement is available to all, though is only applied whenever people place their faith in Him, just like His illustration at John 3:14-15 of Numbers 21:6-9 shows. Before a person looked upon the serpent on a standard, was anyone healed? Before a person believes in Jesus, is anyone saved? God himself established the condition, but Calvinists seek to revise God’s condition to imply that the atonement itself completes a transaction, in which the atonement itself does something to the individual which produces faith - just more lousy logic.

John 3:14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”​

​

Numbers 21:6 Then the Lord sent venomous snakes among them; they bit the people and many Israelites died. 7 The people came to Moses and said, “We sinned when we spoke against the Lord and against you. Pray that the Lord will take the snakes away from us.” So Moses prayed for the people. 8 The Lord said to Moses, “Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.” 9 So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, they lived.​

That's not hard at all. You may have heard me say before, that according to Total Depravity, those who are not regenerated, when they suppose to choose Christ, may do so at whatever level of "joy" they do so, without truly doing so. Unless regenerated, every choice a person makes, even the wonderful "altruistic decision" is made at enmity with God.

The Calvinist doctrine of "Total Depravity" is one of their many theories that almost all non-Calvinist believers reject because is is not found in scripture. Yes men are depraved, but I don't find anything in scripture that says that men cannot believe unless God first regenerates them. Who needs scripture when you can squeak by with lousy logic? At least that is much of what I see from Calvinists.

Do you honestly believe that God is not able, and fails, to bring about absolutely everything he set out to do?

In Calvinism, if God really wants something, then proof of what He wants is found in what He gets. If God really wants a certain thing, then He gets a certain thing. However, as a non-Calvinist, I believe that Jesus sincerely desires everyone to come to know Him (1 Timothy 2:4), but just because I don’t believe that He forces His love on to everyone, doesn’t mean that I question His sincerity. I believe that God wants everyone to be saved freely. Nevertheless, Calvinists assume their own premise, as a fact, in order to reach a Calvinistic conclusion. In order to avoid Circular Logic, Calvinists should first attempt to prove that God always gets what He wants, rather than just assuming it. Non-Calvinists argue from Ezekiel 18:23 and Matthew 6:10 that God Himself testifies that His will is not presently being done on earth, as it is in Heaven, though one day it will.

 

[Derf]

Do you honestly believe that God is not able, and fails, to bring about absolutely everything he set out to do?

He might not be able, in some instances. I.e., He might go with a plan B, if plan A fails.

 

[Mark Quayle]

That's illogical! It's like boasting for being such a good person realizing not being a good person. What you realize when you are humble is you have nothing to boast about.

I have seen people taking pride in confessing being unworthy of salvation. That's no better than taking pride in having chosen Christ because of being a good person.

If your humility is of such worth as to bring about your salvation, yeah... no.

 

[BobRyan]

I would recommend that you go back to page 32 and start reading all of my contributions on this matter and replying to them rather than making me have to repeat myself continually.

Well I think we both know that I have my POV even if you also have your POV.

If you are 5 point Calvinist then you probably think that God predestined me to have this POV and that there is nothing I can do about it. Are you saying if I go back to page 32 I can change God's will for me?

It seems that you are stuck thinking that the word "world" means every person

I think context is everything.

2 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

There we see BOTH groups. BOTH the saved "our sins" and the unsaved "the whole world".

1 John 2 sets the context where there are only two groups and BOTH groups are included as being those for whom Christ' is the "atoning sacrifice" for sins.

This is irrefutable.

Please look at the two verses below which speak of Christ's propitiatory sacrifice

Mat_20:28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

That is a different context. He is the ransome for all mankind but as we see not ALL will accept it.

The 1 john 2 statement is not in reference to "but who will accept it". Rather it is without condition -

The first action is God making that atoning sacrifice "for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."

The second action is how mankind responds to it.

"He is the light of the world" - BUT the "World loved darkness rather than light".

In the first case He is the light of all -- but not ALL accept it.

1Ti_2:6 who gave Himself a ransom for all,

yep

The God given laws of logic demand "all" can not mean everyone

Depends on context.

Rev_7:9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands,

"OF ALL" does not mean ALL people in ALL nations.

It means there was a multitude from ALL nations.

IN Matt 7 the MANY go to hell and the FEW to heaven. But that does not mean that Jesus did not dies as the atoning sacrifice for BOTH groups just as 1 John 2 states.

Calvinism tries to work too hard at getting certain Gospel concepts to reduce down to "exaggeration and false-marketing" when in fact they are fully true as stated.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No, why would I? And didn't my parents have something to do with it? I don't find them unjust for conceiving and birthing and raising me.

Then, what's your problem with regeneration being done by God on his own without consulting the person being regenerated or asking for their permission? THAT is what the term, "Irresistible Grace" is referring to. (Nobody is saying the Spirit of God can't be resisted).

 

[Mark Quayle]

He might not be able, in some instances. I.e., He might go with a plan B, if plan A fails.

So, you are saying, in other words, that he, like us, is subject to the vagaries of chance fortune. Something is greater than god, and he is not first cause. Not omnipotent. Just very potent.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It is always jarring to hear the Calvinist humble brag about being chosen for salvation, when scripture says that God desires everyone to be saved.

I keep hearing this from you, after many contributors here, and I, have repeatedly said that we are no better than anyone else, and that we can easily be fooling ourselves. My security is not from knowing I am saved, but from knowing that God will accomplish precisely what he set out to do, and that he is altogether just and faithful. Whether I am or am not to be a member of the body of Christ in the end, HE is still to be praised, as worthy of all praise, and worshiped as the only God that he is.

My eternity hinges on God's mercy, not on my integrity.

"Humble brag" is a strawman, apparently thrown up in front of you, by you, for something to object to that feels truly despicable. It's a shame it doesn't describe Calvinism.

 

[John Mullally]

I keep hearing this from you, after many contributors here, and I, have repeatedly said that we are no better than anyone else, and that we can easily be fooling ourselves.

No I do not harp on humility. As far as I can recall that is the first time I mentioned "humble" or "humility" on this forum. Speaking of the lack of humility is the Calvinist playground as they frequently chide others for lack of humility based upon what they believe - as you just did in Post 866. And in Post 870, I only stated "humble brag" concerning R. C. Sproul's quote because of your probing (box below) and what you said to Zoidar in Post 866.

This (box below) is yet another example where you don't practice what you preach - as you well know I do not believe God predestines particular individuals for salvation but desires all be saved (1 Timothy 2:4) - and yet your argument presumes I believe God selects exacctly who will be saved. I do make a conscious effort not to do that to you.

What difference is it what it 'sounds like' to you? What matters is the truth. Do you have some reason to believe that if God had not chosen you, you would have chosen him anyway?

My security is not from knowing I am saved, but from knowing that God will accomplish precisely what he set out to do, and that he is altogether just and faithful. Whether I am or am not to be a member of the body of Christ in the end, HE is still to be praised, as worthy of all praise, and worshiped as the only God that he is.

Post 876 is a lot of feigned upset and sanctimony while ignoring the opponent's arguments. You ignore what I questioned in the last paragraph of Post 870 while repeating that God always accomplishes what He wants. If that was true, why did Jesus lament over Jerusalem in Matthew 23:37-39? Sometimes His people breaks his heart.

 

[Derf]

So, you are saying, in other words, that he, like us, is subject to the vagaries of chance fortune. Something is greater than god, and he is not first cause. Not omnipotent. Just very potent.

No.
Are you saying you are more interested in your systematic than what God tells us about Himself?

If God tells us He goes with plan B, are you going to call Him less than omnipotent, that He is not the almighty God?

Here's an example of where God did that:
1 Samuel 13:13-14 KJV — And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the LORD thy God, which he commanded thee: for now would the LORD have established thy kingdom upon Israel for ever. But now thy kingdom shall not continue: the LORD hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the LORD hath commanded him to be captain over his people, because thou hast not kept that which the LORD commanded thee.

The Lord would have established Saul (thats what God wanted to do...plan A), but now Saul's kingdom will not continue (God's contingency plan B).

 

[QvQ]

That's illogical! It's like boasting for being such a good person realizing not being a good person. What you realize when you are humble is you have nothing to boast about.

I have seen people taking pride in confessing being unworthy of salvation. That's no better than taking pride in having chosen Christ because of being a good person.

If I had any humility, I would be proud of it.
Pride is the devil's own briar patch and I am always stuck in it somewhere.

 

[zoidar]

If I had any humility, I would be proud of it.
Pride is the devil's own briar patch and I am always stuck in it somewhere.

It's true, pride is easy to fall into. Keep your guard up, brother!