Is Calvinism a heresy?

[John Mullally]

I don't have a dog in this fight. I am non-denominational as far as I can determine.
I see many threads on Calvin Bad, ("Is Calvin a Heretic" just to mention one of many)
I read the Institutes and I read Summa Theologica. I also read Augustine but as a teenager. I didn't care for him, being focused on his adolescent trials so I may have missed the theology
As we have been perking along, bashing Calvin, I suddenly realized that much of what is attributed to Calvin is actually Augustine and Aquinas.
My perception is that Calvinist are much more bashed than bashing, at least from the number of "Calvin Bad" threads and the mob that turns out to "correct" anyone who is suspected of "Calvinist Heresy."

Open your eyes. Look on the internet and see who is trashing other ministries by name. It is almost all Calvinists. Again the points in "TULIP" are not directly supported by scripture, so what they are teaching is not Bible.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I don't have a dog in this fight. I am non-denominational as far as I can determine.
I see many threads on Calvin Bad, ("Is Calvin a Heretic" just to mention one of many)
I read the Institutes and I read Summa Theologica. I also read Augustine but as a teenager. I didn't care for him, being focused on his adolescent trials so I may have missed the theology
As we have been perking along, bashing Calvin, I suddenly realized that much of what is attributed to Calvin is actually Augustine and Aquinas.
My perception is that Calvinist are much more bashed than bashing, at least from the number of "Calvin Bad" threads and the mob that turns out to "correct" anyone who is suspected of "Calvinist Heresy."

I have had a very similar experience. It seems that most anti-Calvinists have conflated monergism with Calvinism when, in fact, Augustine and Aquinas were both proponents of it.

One thing I find to be extremely curious is that virtually nobody bashes Zwingli. In fact, virtually nobody even knows who he was. Perhaps after all of the centuries of persecuting Anabaptists and other Zwinglian-related groups, folks just decided to focus on Luther and Calvin, instead.

 

[QvQ]

Open your eyes. Look on the internet and see who is trashing other ministries by name. It is almost all Calvinists. Again the points in "TULIP" are not directly supported by scripture, so what they are teaching is not Bible.

Open your eyes.
Aquinas certainly thought that predestination, double pre-destination and limited atonement were supposted by the Scripture. And he cited Chapter and Verse.
As for "free will" that is so easily disproven in objective reality that anyone who asserts that "I can do what I want. I have Free Will" is full of himself,

 

[John Mullally]

The question then, is who blotted it out? Did God do it (and, if so, when) or did man do it (and, if so, when)?

All are under the condemnation of sin (Romans 6:23). Those who believe in Him do not have their names blotted out as they receive atonement for their sin.

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.” 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."​

​

Mark 16:15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."​

 

[John Mullally]

Open your eyes.
Aquinas certainly thought that predestination, double pre-destination and limited atonement were supposted by the Scripture. And he cited Chapter and Verse.

You said you do not have a dog in the fight. Obviously that is a lie as you are lecturing me on Aquinas support for Calvinist doctrine and that "free will" is disproven.

Aquinas missed the boat as Luther had to resuscitate Christianity by reintroducing the doctrine of "Justification by Faith".

As for "free will" that is so easily disproven in objective reality that anyone who asserts that "I can do what I want. I have Free Will" is full of himself,

God gives grace to the humble.

For Calvinists who wish to promote a doctrine of Total Inability, there is good and bad news. The good news is that it really is a doctrine found in the Bible. The bad news is that it reflects the doctrine of unrepentant Israel, which doctrine, God repudiated:

Jeremiah 18:11-13: “‘So now then, speak to the men of Judah and against the inhabitants of Jerusalem saying, “Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I am fashioning calamity against you and devising a plan against you. Oh turn back, each of you from his evil way, and reform your ways and your deeds.’” But they will say, “It’s hopeless! For we are going to follow our own plans, and each of us will act according to the stubbornness of his evil heart.” Therefore thus says the Lord, “Ask now among the nations, who ever heard the like of this? The virgin of Israel has done a most appalling thing.”’”​

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

That and similar are arrogant terms used by Calvinists to describe just about any Christian belief that does not conform to their TULIP.

He literally ascribed creation (design) to something other than God: “Look outside your window. It’s not a nice world, as Free Will designed it that way, reader” (source). It was for rhetorical flourish, I’m quite sure, but such is the tragically inordinate emphasis on man so typical in much of Christianity, that statements like that could be made without batting an eye. And I’m pretty sure that doesn’t conform to Christian orthodoxy, never mind Calvinist theology.

Yet none of the points in that acronym is directly supported by scripture.

That is not only false but also a good candidate for Brandolini's law (i.e., the amount of written material needed to identify and correct errors is an order of magnitude greater than what was needed to produce it).

At some point you should fear God for misrepresenting him.

Are you accusing me of knowingly misrepresenting God? I am pretty sure that’s a violation of the site rules (harassment).

What I am saying is evidenced by the fact that almost all the internet explanatory resources (like Got Questions) and "Discernment ministries" that trash other Christian ministries by name are Calvinist, even though Calvinism represents less than 10% of those who claim to be Christian. Put the gun down.

What gun? Sorry, are you accusing me of trashing some person or ministry?

EDIT: Reviewing what Mullally had said to me here, something about projection suddenly occurred to me.

 

[John Mullally]

He literally ascribed creation (design) to something other than God: “Look outside your window. It’s not a nice world, as Free Will designed it that way, reader” (source). It was for rhetorical flourish, I’m quite sure, but such is the tragically inordinate emphasis on man so typical in much of Christianity, that statements like that could be made without batting an eye. And I’m pretty sure that doesn’t conform to Christian orthodoxy, never mind Calvinist theology.

He said "free will designed it that way". Certainly God and man have a role in our world. So the mention of "free will" is enough to trigger you into saying someone who purports to being a Christian is committing the act of heresy by following a "foreign god". It is common over-reaction among cage-stage Calvinists who represent less than 10% of Christendom. Google "heresy" and observe the responses and determine the theology of those it comes from.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

He said "free will designed it that way". So the mention of "free will" is enough to trigger you into saying someone who purports to being a Christian is committing the act of heresy by following a "foreign god".

That is not even remotely a cogent interpretation of what I said (or how he used the term), especially in light of all my engagements with people who mention "free will." Try that again?

 

[John Mullally]

That is not even remotely a cogent interpretation of what I said (or how he used the term), especially in light of all my engagements with people who mention "free will." Try that again?

Your five word responses to a non-question was not cogent - so spare me the lecture. How about this: So the other guy was saying man made a mess of this world through "free will" and you are saying that mess was from the foreign God who is Satan - but even the other guy did not understand that comment. If that is the case I apologize.

 

[bbbbbbb]

All are under the condemnation of sin (Romans 6:23). Those who believe in Him do not have their names blotted out as they receive atonement for their sin.

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.” 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."​

​

Mark 16:15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."​

The problem then becomes one of a variety of scenarios, as follows:

1. Everyone's name has been written in the book of life until they get blotted out. This presents these possibilities:
a. God blots out the names of the vast majority of humanity and did so prior to the foundation of the earth.
b. God blots out the names of the vast majority of humanity, but only when they are conceived in iniquity.
c. God blots out the names of those individuals who knowingly do not put their faith in Jesus Christ.
d. Individual people (wittingly or unwittingly) get their names blotted out by sinning against God and are thus the initiators of the blotting.
e. Individual people, by the inherited sin of Adam, have Adam to hold responsible for having their names blotted out.
2. Nobody's name has been written in the book of life until God writes them in. Subsequently, their names can be blotted out by one of the means listed above.
3. Nobody's name has been written in the book of life until they ask God to write them in (by accepting Jesus Christ into their hearts). Subsequently, they might, or might not, be able to have their names blotted out by one of the means listed above.
4. The concept of being blotted out of the book of life is metaphorical in nature only.

Which do you prefer?

 

[QvQ]

You said you do not have a dog in the fight. Obviously that is a lie as you are lecturing me on Aquinas support for Calvinist doctrine

I have not made up my mind about predestination. And don't call people liars when you are too obtuse to discern the truth.
However, if the actual discussion is about predestination, then Aquinas should be a very large part of the discussion. To say Calvin but not a word about Aquinas. Even if you don't agree with Aquinas you would not treat Aquinas in the same way.
As for free will, even atheist will defend their idea of free will aggressively. But then there is the "quit the drugs" or "honey, I want a divorce" and watch the will.

 

[John Mullally]

I have not made up my mind about predestination. And don't call people liars when you are too obtuse to discern the truth.

I am not too obtuse to notice that 100% of your posts addressing Calvinism come out in support of it and that you defend it. Yet you keep repeating that line that you "don't have a dog in the fight" even in much older posts as if you were neutral. I have not heard you express what your doubts are concerning predestination.

As for free will, even atheist will defend their idea of free will aggressively. But then there is the "quit the drugs" or "honey, I want a divorce" and watch the will.

Support of free-will: Given that mankind is held responsible for how they respond to Christ and His words (John 12:48), there is no biblical or theological reason to suggest that mankind is born unable to respond to His powerful, life-giving words (Heb. 4:12; 2 Tim. 3:15-16; Rm. 10:17; John 6:63; 20:31). It makes no practical sense to hold mankind responsible (response-able) to Christ’s words if indeed they are unable-to-respond to those words, nor is it ever explicitly taught in Scripture.

 

[John Mullally]

The problem then becomes one of a variety of scenarios, as follows:

1. Everyone's name has been written in the book of life until they get blotted out. This presents these possibilities:
a. God blots out the names of the vast majority of humanity and did so prior to the foundation of the earth.
b. God blots out the names of the vast majority of humanity, but only when they are conceived in iniquity.
c. God blots out the names of those individuals who knowingly do not put their faith in Jesus Christ.
d. Individual people (wittingly or unwittingly) get their names blotted out by sinning against God and are thus the initiators of the blotting.
e. Individual people, by the inherited sin of Adam, have Adam to hold responsible for having their names blotted out.
2. Nobody's name has been written in the book of life until God writes them in. Subsequently, their names can be blotted out by one of the means listed above.
3. Nobody's name has been written in the book of life until they ask God to write them in (by accepting Jesus Christ into their hearts). Subsequently, they might, or might not, be able to have their names blotted out by one of the means listed above.
4. The concept of being blotted out of the book of life is metaphorical in nature only.

Which do you prefer?

I don't want to get into mechanics or defining the age of accountability. This is what we need to know.

Mark 16:15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.​

 

[hedrick]

To answer several postings. I just reviewed that section of the Institutes. Calvin does not treat election and reprobation the same. God actively works to save the elect. The reprobate are left to the consequences of their choices. But he uses the example of Esau who God hated. While God doesn’t actively hinder the reprobate, he does will their rejection as much as he wills the salvation of the elect. After all, everything that happens is his will, and is meant for good for his people.

Free will isn’t the key issue for him that it was for Luther, but he believes that we can make responsible choices. However because of the Fall, those who are not elected and given his grace will always make the wrong choice. They are free in the sense that no one is coercing them, and their decision really reflects their character and goals. That’s normally what we mean by being free. But their will is part of a nature corrupted by the Fall, so there’s no way that without his grace they will respond to God’s call.

I don’t see how this can be considered heretical, though I do believe it is wrong.

 

[Chaleb]

he does will their rejection as much as he wills the salvation of the elect. After all, everything that happens is

You are posting Calvin's heresy, that some people are born to go to hell and have no chance, choice, or freewill, to go to the Cross and be forgiven.
That's a Cross denying hellish Lie that Calvin teaches.
Its demonic.
Its Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
Its a devilish insult against the Grace of God.
It literally spits on the Blood of Jesus.
Its the worst Heresy ever created, as it Rips Christ off the Nails, and replaces God's Grace with CALVINISM.

 

[QvQ]

They are free in the sense that no one is coercing them, and their decision really reflects their character and goals. That’s normally what we mean by being free. But their will is part of a nature corrupted by the Fall, so there’s no way that without his grace they will respond to God’s call

I tend to agree with this.
And Nicodemus John 3: 1 -21
Personal experience, being raised by atheists was because of a non-response to God, not an active, thoughtful rejection.
Dead to the Spirit , some of the relatives, friends would actually bestir themselves to do some religion, maybe go to Easter Mass if some of the Christian friends invited them but it was meaningless. Empty vessels that leaked any message rather than active rejection or being full of some other religion or philosophy.
If pressed, some would say well sure, I believe in god but then it was a multiple choice question or believing in the same manner as believing in fairies, "wink wink"

 

[hedrick]

If you assume both that God is omnipotent and that he can foresee the consequences of his actions, I think it’s hard to avoid something at least close to Calvinism. He set up the world and is active in it. He knows who will be saved. He knows how he could could do things differently and end up with different people saved. It’s hard to avoid saying that the identity of the saved is part of his plan.

I don’t see how to avoid this other than to say that he can’t see or determine all of the details of the future. The least disruptive version would be that the future is in principle not knowable, even to God. He might know how he wants things to come out, and know they will because he has the power to do it, but still not know some details. But if you don’t compromise either omnipotence or foreknowledge to some extent, attempts to avoid Calvinism are just playing word games.

I’m not a fan of the version of original sin that lies behind Calvin’s own analysis, but I’m still not clear how to avoid the broader argument.

 

[Dan1988]

You are posting Calvin's heresy, that some people are born to go to hell and have no chance, choice, or freewill, to go to the Cross and be forgiven.
That's a Cross denying hellish Lie that Calvin teaches.
Its demonic.
Its Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
Its a devilish insult against the Grace of God.
It literally spits on the Blood of Jesus.
Its the worst Heresy ever created, as it Rips Christ off the Nails, and replaces God's Grace with CALVINISM.

There's nothing in the Bible to suggest that God creates some to go to heaven and some to be cast into hell. But God said that He has chosen His elect before He created the earth, so how do you make that fit your Arminian view.

How do you explain God's haltered towards Esau and many others, and how do you explain God's love, mercy and forgiveness towards some murderers, adulterers, liars etc. and others are not forgiven and cast into the lake of fire for the same sins.

You Arminian people need to ignore a whole bunch of clear scriptures to maintain your free choice religion. You remove God from His throne and elect yourselves for salvation. The Bible clearly teaches that God chooses to save some and leave others in their sin.

The same God who wiped out billions of men women and babies, is still the same. He still casts the majority into hell to this day, He said the path that leads to hell is broad and many travel on it, but the path that leads to heaven is narrow and few find it.
God doesn't create people for the lake of fire, that was created for the Devil and His Demons but God must cast many people into it after they have lived a life of sin and rebellion against Him.

I find you Arminian people always start with the end result of a sinners life and say Calvin's God is unfair, but you conveniently leave out the fact that the person being cast into hell lived their life in sin and rebellion against God so they leave God with no choice but to cast them into hell.

 

[FireDragon76]

Nope, they didn't agree. They never met, of course, because Aquinas was dead before Calvin was born. Aquinas was Catholic right the way through while John Calvin was Lawyer through and through. Their beliefs differed on all sorts of things. Not least being the meaning of Baptism and the Holy Eucharist. Predestination in Calvin's theology has all sorts of implications that a Lawyer would worry about and want to define, Aquinas took a more philosophical perspective and was content to leave undefined the things that were fundamentally mysteries.

Calvin doesn't elaborate on predestination in as much detail as later theologians, such as Theodore Beza. His main interest in predestination, similar to Luther, is pastoral.

Paul VanderKlay is a Dutch Reformed pastor and he says Calvin's ideas about the Eucharist aren't that different from contemporary 20th century Roman Catholic Eucharistic theology (he has read several 20th Catholic theologians).

 

[atpollard]

Calvin doesn't elaborate on predestination in as much detail as later theologians, such as Theodore Beza. His main interest in predestination, similar to Luther, is pastoral.

Paul VanderKlay is a Dutch Reformed pastor and he says Calvin's ideas about the Eucharist aren't that different from contemporary 20th century Roman Catholic Eucharistic theology (he has read several 20th Catholic theologians).

Is the RCC planning to reverse the “anathema” from its councils?
Then we can all sing “kumbaya” together.

Until then, being eternally damned is sort of a deal breaker.