is calvinism error or heresy?

[Christopher Chapman]

under antother section about the most fundamental doctrines i tried to define what error and heresy are. let me state that briefly again, before i open up the issue at hand.

heresy is any doctrine that if followed to its logical conclusion would cause us to deny one of the two most fundamental beliefs in the chrisitian faith. (i.e. there is one god and jesus is savior)

- i noted that though someone holds to a "heresy" (i will use this term according to my definition) that doesnt mean they will not go to heaven. it just means that they will have to be inconsistent with their beleifs and not follow them to the logical conclusions. and as humans we are prone to do that,

error i said is a doctrine that does not naturally lead to denying the to fundamental beliefs (again i use my definition of what the two most fundamental beliefs are. that is not under debate here, but is in the section about basic christian doctrines) but is contrary to the teaching of scripture.

---so my question at this point is, " is five point calvinism a heresy or an error?"

i answer that it is a heresy!!! (note my definition above. i dont beleive most calvinists follow their beliefs to the ultimate conclusions and deny christ as savior. i believe any calvinist that repents and trusts in christ- and continues in that faith and repentence- will make heaven their home)

so at what point does the T.U.L.I.P turn heretical? i believe it falls with the "L", i.e. limited atonement".

the logic, IF I UNDERSTAND THE DOCTRINE CORRECTLY, says that Christ did not die for all men. it states that he died only for the "elect". many calvinists state that it would be blasphemy that any of his precious blood was "wasted". they hold that jesus died for jimmy, ted, bill and jack, but did not die for joe, sam, sally and lucy. by this they show they dont understand the doctrine of original sin.

let me illustrate it this way. if the law says that a murderer should be put to death, and ten people murdered someone and stood before the judge for their death sentence. could one man walk up and say, " i will take there penalty". no, in order for him to take their penalty he would have to die 10 times. one mans death can not equal the ten deaths that are called for by the law. but this is what the calvinist is saying happened when christ died for the "elect". he died for a certain number of individuals, and didnt die for the "un-elect" individuals. so they are proclaiming his death was for many individuals.

this is not biblical. in romans chapter 5 paul makes clear that jesus did not die for many individuals and their sin. of course in our common language we say he died for many people, and even paul uses that language, in a common way. peter said that jesus died for men, especially for those who believe. so it is true in the sense that many men will benefit from christs death, but not that he died for all their sins individually.

but pauls argument is that the consequenses of adams sin (i.e. death) passed onto the whole "race" of men through his one sin. since that is the case, christ does not have to die for every individual and pay a billion death penalties, he just has to recieve the consequences of that one mans sin (all men actually receive this consequence as did jesus). so jesus died (though he was new adam) and took the consequence of the sin of adam, though he didnt have to. then since he was righteous and without sin he was raised from the dead. then he offers any man (from adams line- the human race) who will believe to be joined to him (romans 7:1-6 and 1 cor 6:16-17 are good examples of this doctrine) and share in his victorious death. anyone in the race of adam that dies will stay dead. but the new adam had a victorious death, he rose from the dead in righteousness. so since the new adam took on the consequence of the old adams sin (i.e. death) he now has the right to invite any man from the old race of adam to join his new race, and become one new man "in him". he gives all those that believe the right to become children of god, born not of the will of man, but born of god!!!

i dont know if i have made this clear, you guys can fix or destroy my argument as you see fit. but the gist of it is that the doctrine of "limited atonement" is based on an unscriptural view of how the atonement works. if we followed that doctrine to its logical conclusion we would have to conclude that since jesus only died once, he could not be the savior, and his death would not be sufficient to save more than one "elect" individual.

i dont think i made that clear, but did my best.........

[Pastor Jerome H. Weymouth]

I have problems with the tulip boys. One of them being the teaching that Jesus died only for a certain class of people and not for the sins of the Whole, (Entire) World.

According to Palmer, and classicical Calvinism in general, Christ's atoning death was sufficent for the whole world, including every individual who has ever lived or will ever live, but intended by God only for the elect. "THE BIBLE TEACHES OVER AGAIN AND AGAIN THAT GOD does not love all the people with the same love, "and "the atonment of Christ is limited in it's scope, that Christ intented to and actually did removed the guilt of the sins of a limited number of people---namely, those whom God has loved with a special love from eternity. The atonement of unlimited value is limited to cerrtain people"**

Now i have my suspishions that there is a wee-bit satanic influenze in the teachings of Calvinism. That the redemption is limited to a certain class of people. I'd read on the net that Calvinists do not believe in evangelization of the lost. Their arguments were that "we'll live a Holy and committed life style and God will send them to me so I can get them into Church by my example of pious living." One old boy said "its like shooting rabbits, I'll just wait here and God will run them by me".
Or the age old arguement that God saved those out of every nation kindred or tongues- the same guy who told me this said that Jesus didn't die for the sins of the world, but only for those who were in the special class the elect. Here's where i feel tha there is a devil influence in the doctrines of Calvinism.

The Arminian answer to that is: The atonement is universal. This does not mean that all mankind will be unconditionally saved, but that the sacrifical offering of Christ so far satisfied the claims of the divine law as to make salvation a possibility for all. Rdemption is therefore universal or general in the provisional sense, but special or conditional in its application to the individaul.##

(conditional in that we must be drawn by the Holy Spirit and accept Christ as Savior with the Holy Spirit giving the New Birth!)

I will say that as pentecostals we are on a mission to convert the world.

Anthony D. Palma of the Assembly of God churches said this :

1. We have a command of the Lord to win the Lost at any cost!.

2. A lost world needs to here about Hell!

3.A lost world needs to know about the soon return of the Lord Jesus Christ!

Pastor Larry Neville said "that it is the driving force of Praise Chapel!"

Mike Neville said "Never quit hitting the Streets!"

Sincerely Pops


** Palmer the 5 points of Calvinism page 27
## H. Orton Wiley, Christian Theology,(an Arminian)

[Robert Jimenez]

Hey Chris,

I like your logic, but no sure that I am willing to call them heretics. I don't think that they deny any of the Christian faiths what so ever. They have a different perspective, which gives them a different understanding of the scriptures. I think they are wrong, and that the Cassical Arminian position is closer to the truth, but I don't see it as heresy.

I also think that you have somewhat redefined what heresy means to help make your point, but I think your point is well made and stands alone without having to make this charge. Heresy is a belief that contradicts orthodoxy significantly. Now Calvinist hold to the basic position that salvation is by grace through faith. I would say that a heresy would have to be a belief that clearly and quite radically opposes the heart of the Christian matter. Which I don't think that Calvinism does.

Anyhow, just my thoughts on this...

[Christopher Chapman]

hey bro,

i hope you think i was using the word "heresy" in a very emotional and volatile way. i was using it as i defined it and tried to make it clear that i consider calvinists as brothers. i was more trying to define whether their doctrine was a system that would protect the basic christian doctrines or would not ultimately harm them if lead to their conclusion.

i redefined heresy, not for my argument, but because everyone argues about orthodoxy. and some times they dont know why something is orthodox. i tried to base my "new" definition on a model that doesnt emphasize "in" or "out", too much "heresy" talk is concerned with "us" and "them", i have tried to make a definition where we can classify heresies and errors in doctrine without having to attack the individuals who hold them as "unsaved" or "not brothers". it might seem a bit "ambitious" ( in the negative sense ) to try and redifine why we call something heresy or error, but it was done for a practical reasons. where i minister i cant tell people what is "orthodox" or "not orthodox" without telling them why. so i made my definitions in order to teach my church. with the purpose of letting them know 2 things. 1. that people can have varying theological views and still be christians and brothers. 2. so that they could spot dangerous doctrines (even if they werent a normal list of "heresies") i wanted to them to know what makes a doctrine dangerous, not just give them a list.

for example, people would call td jakes a heretic because he beleives in oneness, not the trinity, but that doctrine (without the added things by the upc) leads to no deinial of any basic beliefs. but "limited atonement" (if i understand the doctrine correctly) is more dangerous and would lead to a denial of the doctrine of atonement, if followed all the way to its conclusion. of course no calvinists i know of deny the atonement, but that just shows they are inconsistent even though they hold to a "false doctrine" (a heresy by my definition- and my definition alone!!! haha!!!).

i made that definition primarily for myself as a way to classify the importance and non-importance of different doctrines. it has worked well for me, so i presented it to the group for discussion. i thought it would be good to use that in this group becasue i heard people bing quick to use "in" and "out" terminology. i noticed things on the group in the discussion about "open theism" (if i remember right) where people called them "heretics" (or something like that) that was the kind of exageration i made my definitions for. your reaction to my terms makes me think i need to rework my terminology.


anyway, that is for another discussion. i only mean to say here, that the doctrine of limited atonement (i am not sure i understand it because i dont know how john calvin- a good theologian and a father of the reformation- could hold to it in light of the headship of adam and christ) is a teaching that would overthrow the atoning power of Christ. for me that is a serious charge, that is why it is hard for me to beleive i understand their doctrine corrrectly.

anyway, maybe i should have just said it was a wrong doctrine and why, instead of using my terminology. oops! thats not the first or probably the last time i will make that mistake.
thats just how my mind works. i will try to use more universally accepted language in the future or at least make my language more clear.

anyway.... thanks for your comments.
gbu
chris

[Robert Jimenez]

Chris,

I didn't take it in a wrong way or anything like that what so ever. I like your thinking, and really enjoy your long ;-) posts. It was just a thought, didn't mean to make you spend much time defending your reasoning. Just felt that you had made a valid point, and it stood on it's own merits.

[Christopher Chapman]

i am glad i thought you were challenging me. it helped me clarify my thinking. thats is what i am in this group for!!!

[Robert Jimenez]

And if I was - hahaha.

Hey again this group is here to learn. It is something you have made me think about some more, especially after reading James follow up on this.

[Pastor Jerome H. Weymouth]

In our quest for "truth, justice and the American way" i went to Wikipedia and found this little articile on Calvinism tittled "Calvin Refuted". I put it here for you to read and chew upon and to comment upon.

Five Point Calvinism by William S. Dillon.

Introduction:
Most of the defenders of this doctrine appeal to the Westminster Confession and creeds of various denominations to 'prove' their points rather than go directly to the Word of God. Many scriptures used are taken out of context. Scriptures to be interpreted to the Kingdom of Heaven or Israel are wrongly interpreted to the Church. Distinctions must be make. The Kingdom of Heaven is the earthly Kingdom which will have saved and unsaved (Matt. 13:41) whereas the Church has only saved! Israel is racial, political and religious while none of these are characteristics of the Church. Many of the writers holding this doctrine quote the works of men who interpret some scriptures on the basis of tradition, not on the basis of God's wonderful Word rightly divided (2Tim2:15). In many instances, we list only Bible references, so it will be necessary to read each particular scripture from the Bible.

These are the Five Points which we examine here: 1) Total Depravity 2) Irresistible Grace 3) Unconditional Election 4) Limited Atonement 5) Perseverance of the Saints

TOTAL DEPRAVITY,
meaning the complete corruptness of the sinful nature of all human beings, saved and unsaved. This is scriptural. (Rom. 3:9-20; Rom 7:18; Psa 58:3; Jer 17:9), but the will of man is not totally corrupt. The will has to do with the human spirit, mind or intellect (1Cor 2:11-15) by which decisions are made. A totally corrupt will would never respond to an invitation to trust Christ Jesus as Saviour (John 1:12; 3:18; 16:8,9). Such a will would never obey the command of Ephesians 5:18. It could never respond to Romans 6:13 & 12:1. See also 2Cor 8:12. The corruption (1Cor15:42) and the corruptible (1Cor15:53,54) have to do with the dead physical body, not the sinful nature, nor the will of man.

When a person is born from above, his spirit, soul and body becomes God's property (1Cor 6:19,20), but these do not change at that time, nor does the sinful nature of man change (Gal 5:16,17). The difference between the saved and the unsaved is the new nature. When Adam and Eve sinned, the innocent nature became the sinful nature. When Adam and Eve sinned they lost their identity with God and became identified with Satan to whose temptation they yielded. This is the basis on which unsaved people are referred to as having Satan as their father (Jn8:44; 1Jn3:10; 5:19).

Adam and Eve died spiritually, i.e. were separated from God (Gen 2:17), but body, soul and spirit did not change. Physical death came later (Gen5:5, cp. Rom5:12). Cain and Abel born with a sinful nature made different decisions (Gen 4:2-8, cp. Heb 11:4; 1Jn3:12). If the human will were totally corrupt, John 5:40 and John 7:17 would have no meaning! The door to the truth is the will, not the intellect. See again John 7:17 and also Matt 13:14-16.

People who hold to the doctrine of the total depravity of the human say that a dead man can make no decisions. This is true as to a physically dead person, but not true as to spiritually dead people. Physical death is not cessation of existence, but the person (soul & spirit) being separated from the body. Spiritual death is not a cessation of existence, but separation of the person (soul & spirit) from God.

Every unsaved person now physically alive is spiritually dead (separated from God) and can and does make decisions by acts of the will. Such people can become spiritually alive via the new birth (1Peter1:23; John 5:24; Rom 10:17; 1Jn5:10-12). The physically alive, but spiritually dead people can try to do works for salvation; but all to no avail (Rom 4:5; Eph 2:8,9; cp. Isa 64:6).

Of course, people who have died physically without faith in Christ are eternally spiritually dead, i.e. separated from God forever. Such people have forever passed the opportunities of making any decisions. These people will experience the second death (Rev. 20:15) which death is not a cessation of existence (Rev 20:10).

IRRESISTIBLE GRACE
is another Five-point doctrine which their teachers claim to mean that the Holy Spirit expresses the Grace of God in such a way that no human being can resist accepting salvation. What shall we do with John 5:40?? "And ye will come to me, that ye might have life."

The first account in the Bible of resisting the Holy Spirit and God's message of Grace is Genesis 6:3: "And the Lord said, My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years." In this instance all but eight people (Heb11:7) resisted for 120 years!! Notice also in Acts 7:51, 57 where it is written how Israel resisted God's message, spending 40 years in the wilderness (Num. 14:32-34), except for Caleb (Num 14:24), and Joshua (Deut. 1:2).

A scripture used out of context by 5-pointers is Matthew 20:16 which has to do with service in the kingdom of heaven, not salvation in this church age. Notice in Matthew 13:15,16 where choices were made. "For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I would heal them. But blessed is your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear."

Another of the 5-point doctrines is UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION. There definition is that no individual can make a choice in either accepting or rejecting salvation. They claim God has already made the choice for everyone. If this be true, Christ died only for a select group of people, but see 1Jn2:2, "And He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our's only, but also for the sins of the whole world." Here it is stated Christ was the propitiation (a sacrifice satisfactory to the Holy God) for the sins of the whole world. What about John 1:29 and Colossians 1:6? What about "faith cometh by hearing [listening]" (Romans 10:17; Jn 5:24)?? Is not man's will involved?

Of course, God knows all things, but keep in mind that the foreknowledge of God is an attribute, not an act! If it were merely an act, it would indicate God's interference with man's decision as to salvation.

Notice 2Thess.2:13 "...chosen you [an individual] to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth," (by an act of the will). See also 1Peter 1:2: "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience [by an act of the will] and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." The above scriptures refer to God's choice of people, not the method of choosing. God's choice or election does not save anyone. A choice by an individual must also be made.

In both of the above scriptures, man's will is involved in making decisions. God's choice is not merely because people believe, but that they believe (Matt.23:37; John 3:17). God gives freedom of choice, but not freedom from choice.

As to the word 'elect' the meaning is to be determined by context. Note the word and its varied meanings in the following:

1) The 'elect' referring to Israel is found in Isaiah 45:4; 65:9; Matt 24:22,24,31; Mark 13:20,22,27; Luke 18:7

2) The 'elect' in Romans 11:5,7,28 refers to a percentage of Israel to be saved in this church age, other Israelites are blinded (Rom 11:25; cp. Matt13:15,16)

3) The 'elect' referring only to members of the church is mentioned in Romans 8:33; Col.3:12; 1Thess.1:4; 2Tim2:10; Titus 1:1, etc.

4) The 'elect' angels are mentioned in 1Tim5:21

5) The 'elect' of 1Peter 2:6, 7 is none other that Jesus who gave Himself for all sinners as is indicated in 1Tim2:6, because He wills (desires) that all men be saved, 1Tim2:4. When the salvation of souls is concerned we have God's approach to sinful man, but man is responsible for making a personal decision. No human being is elected to be lost or predestinated to the lake of fire (Jn.3:17; 8:24; 12:47; 1Jn2:2; 4:14). There is no scripture mentioning the book of death.

Compare the following:

God's approach to sinful man

** John 1:12b, He gave the right to become the children of God.

** John 3:16a, God so loved, He gave.

** John 3:18b Is not condemned.

** John 6:37c, I will in no wise (for no reason) cast out.

** Romans 1:16, gives salvation

**Romans 5:1, peace with God

Man's responsibility to respond

** John 1:12a, As many as received Him (Jesus).

** John 3:16b, Whosoever believeth in Him (1Cor 1:21b)

** John 3:18a, He that believeth on me (Jesus).

** John 6:37b, Him that cometh unto me (Jesus).

** Romans 1:16 Every one who believes.

** Romans 5:1, Faith brings justification.

As to Judas; he was chosen for service by Jesus (Mark 3:19; John 6:70, 71; Acts 1:17) who knew Judas would not stay with Him (Acts 1:20; Psa 69:25), that Judas would be replaced (Psa 109:8; Acts 1:25) and that Judas would betray Him (Matt. 26:24,25; Jn 13:10,11). Although Jesus knew all about Judas even before he was born, the acts and decisions of Judas were his own (Matt 26:14-16) having willingly sinned (Acts 1:25b), not having been influenced by the foreknowledge of Jesus.

God's election for service or national position is based on His sovereignty or right to choose any creature or nation for His purposes, the people having no choice in the matter (Eph 2:10; Rom 9:11-17; Num 11:16-29). God's election for salvation is based on His foreknowledge of decisions people are going to make without interfering with their power of choice (2Thess.2:13b; 1Peter1:2). We repeat that election refers to choosing individuals, not the method of electing. To be saved, all unbelieving individuals must by an act of the will receive (John 1:12), believe (John 3:16; Acts 16:31), come (John 6:37) faith (Gal 3:2; Eph2:8), receiving the Word (1Thess 1:6).

Romans 9:14-21. Read this passage carefully. The subject or context has nothing to do with salvation and deals only with service. The mercy, grace, and compassion (vv.14,15,18) have to do with privileges of service. The illustration of the potter and the clay (vv.21-23) has to do with the sovereignty of God in assigning and using for service - not salvation. The "raising up" of Pharaoh (Rom 9:17) was placing on his throne (cp.Rom13:1). Where salvation of both Jew and Gentile is mentioned in the 9th chapter of Romans, it is on the basis of personal faith, i.e. making a decision, not by service or keeping the law (Rom 9:30-33).

LIMITED ATONEMENT,
meaning Christ died only for the elect or a limited number of people is one of the 5 points taught. The word atonement is not a New Testament word and should be translated (Rom5:11 KJV) as reconciliation, seeing that it is simply the noun form (katallaga) of the verb "reconcile" in verse 10. cp. 2Cor 5:18,19. The word atonement is found 19 times in the Old Testament, the meaning of the word to be interpreted in context. The Bible does not teach a limited atonement, i.e. that only an elect group of people may be cleansed by the Blood of Christ. What about John 1:29; 3:16,17; 4:42; 6:33; 12:47 ???? Notice in Romans 1:23,32; 2Thess2:10,12 where unsaved people make a personal choice and let us again refer to 1Tim2:4: "Who (Christ) will have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of truth." See also Acts 26:18. Human beings limit the sacrifice of Christ for themselves by rejecting the Saviour. Notice in the above scriptures what the will of some people is, and what the will of God is, the latter not overruling the former.

The fifth point of the 5-Point doctrine is THE PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS. We do not understand why this term is used, for the 5-point people believe that God's people are forever secure as to the believer's position in Christ (Rom.8:1,38,39; Eph1:13; 4:30). Once a person is born from above, he can do nothing to maintain his position - not even persevere. See Philippians 1:6 "Being confident of this very thing, that He who hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ." See also 1Thess.5:23,24.

Question: How does the 5-point teaching affect the cause of world missions?

Why should we go to the uttermost part (singular) of the world (Acts 1:8), if it has been determined that a percentage of the heathen are already lost forever?? Without a vision people perish (Prov.29:18).

5-point doctrine limits and/or destroys any vision of world missions. Note the following positive statements as to word evangelization: Acts 1:8,9; 9:15; 26:19; Romans 15:19,20; 1Cor15:34; 2Cor10:15,16; 1Tim2:3-6. How do these scriptures fit the negative statements of the 5-pointers??

What about Acts 15:14 and Romans 11:25,26 and the yet to come heavenly scene of Revelation 5:9, with human beings from every people (ethnic group), nation (political group), kindred (tribal group), and tongue (language group)???

What about the earthly scene of Rev 7:9; where people from the above mentioned four segments of the earth's population will be saved for the kingdom (Matt.24:14) through the blood of the Lamb (Rev.7:14)?

Jesus died, shedding His blood for all people of all dispensations; Israel (Isa53:1-12; Matt 1:21), the Church (1Peter 1:18-21; 1John2:2) and for Tribulation saints (Rev 7:14).

Send mail to [e-mail] with questions or comments to this web site

[Pastor James and Lucia Purser]

Chris , I agree with you in that some of the doctrinal traits that calvinsim holds does lead to heresy. For instance , calvinism challenges the very heart of God especially when in comes to particular election. AW Pink ( classic calvinist ) interprets John 3:16 to say "For God so loved the "elect" not the world. This is very dangerous. Here is something to look at. Calvin and even Luther held a strong anti-semitic position with regards to the Jew. Please note so did the catholic church at that time. As Calvin was forming his theological position he kept something he dragged in from the Catholic Church; a strong ant-semitic position. That is actually where replacement theology ( the church replacing Israel) began. The Reformers replaced Israel with the Church therefore making the Jew no longer holding a place within human history. It is my position that the church and the Jew both have there place with in human history and neither one replaces the other. Eaxmple -Romans 9 is a classic example of good bible interpretation in how we understand the place the Jew has within the scope of redemption. The calvinist will say that Romans 9 has nothing to do with the Jew . As a matter of fact where the BIble states "Jacob I loved , but Essau I hated" is a support to the view that God only loves the elect not the world. Obviouslty this is not true. I do believe heresy is found with calvinism. here is a good question .....Can you preach or believe a heretical doctrine and not be a heretic? I hope this is clear. I was in a hurry as I typed this out.

God bless

James Purser

All of the points of the TULIP are linked together in some way .

[Christopher Chapman]

pastor james,

you make the point very clear. "some of the doctrinal traits that calvinsim holds does lead to heresy". you said in one phrase what i took several paragraphs to point out. good show, man!!!

your question about being a heretic or not if one believes a heresy is a good question. i would answer yes, according to my definition. but my definition doesnt conclude that a person believing a heresy is necessarily not going to make heaven their home. but if they are consitent in their belief and follow it to its conclusion, i beleive they will deny the one god or jesus as savior. that would naturally, if they are consistent, lead them not to repent of their sins and submit to god, or not place their trust in christ as their savior.

on the other hand a teacher will be judged more strictly, so as paul talks in 1 corinthians 3:15 they might be saved, "but only as through fire"

[Christopher Chapman]

your question (because it links heretic with heresy, which is a strong word) and roberts comments above made me realize some of the ambiguity in my definition of heresy and error that i referred to on this page and gave in detail under the heading of "the most basic christian doctrines"

the problem was that i left heresy too broad. i think that is why robert had a problem with it above. (thanks for the challenge rob!!!)

i would try to rework it something like this just off hand.

level one heresy- to teach people that they dont have to "repent and place their trust in christ". i realize many in our day teach this "savior, not lord" teaching in our day. i think this is the epitome of heresy. i believe that people are able to hold this and yet they do repent and trust in christ, but it is the worst of doctrines on the market and blocks people from taking the narrow road that leads to life.

level two heresy- to deny jesus as savior or that there is one god. this doctrine would make it almost impossible to obey the commands to "repent and have faith in christ". possible but very unlikely.

level three heresy- to deny the "supporting doctrines". things like the trinity, original sin, dual nature of christ, etc. (these are usually the list of "orthodox" doctrines). i beleive that some hold to "level three" heresies and yet never come to the conclusion that christ is not savior and that there is not one god. but it is only when they are completely inconsistent in their logic. (for an example: jed smock denies the doctrine of original sin, but still holds to the headship of Christ in our salvation- inconsistent to the core, but still coming to the right conclusion. and of course we know he preaches christ as savior) so he believes a level three heresy, but doesnt follow it to level two or one.

level four heresy- to hold to any doctrine that when followed to its natural conclusion would bring us to level one. this is how i have classified limited atonement (still not sure i understand the doctrine properly). i have tried to show that it would lead us to deny the headship of adam and christ. this would lead us to realize that christ is not able to "save to the uttermost" all that come to him. and if we deny that he can save of course we would not reasonable place our trust in him. so in that sense i am calling calvinism a heresy (specifically on the point of limited atonement- as i understand it)

why so complicated? i am convinced that people need to know why a doctrine is dangerous and how dangerous it is in order to 1. protect people and 2. protect unity in diversity. so levels seem to be necessary to classify how dangerous, and therefore how important a false teaching. that gives me a guide as to how to choose my battles.

hey guys, i am not saying my definitions should be accepted categorically, i am just sharing my developing ideas. your feedback is greatly apprectiated. it sharpens me! thanks for your graciousness.

[Robert Jimenez]

Chris,

this is a very good summary, I appreciate the extra effort in adding clarity to what you are saying.

I have been reading a lot more on limited atonement to get a better understanding. One thing that I have found as I have researched it more, that many Calvinist are abandoning this teaching, however it is still a strong position among hyper-(high) Calvinist. I'll post some more later tonight if I get a chance, and quote from a couple of books that I read, one is from a Calvinist theologian, and the other is an Arminian (of course none other than my favorite teacher Roger Olson) .

In regards to Jed Smock, I love the guy but I don't agree with most of his theological positions. He has been highly influenced by what I think is moral government theology which was developed by Hugo Grotius who by the way was neither a minster nor a theologian. Also he holds to a perfections doctrine. Pretty much he is a mislead Arminian, and really holds to a distorted version of Arminianism, which is what is typically quoted by Calvinists.

[Robert Jimenez]

Oh by the way I am highly tempted to just say yes it is heresy.

But I am trying to stick to my fairness doctrine. When I go and read how Calvinist, after Calvinist theologians misrepresent the Arminian positions it really is sad. These men claim that they are scholars and yet don't take the proper time to study what Jacob Arminius actually wrote.

Just as an example. John MacArthur was asked if he thinks that Arminian Theology is biblical. He goes on and on saying how he hates labels, and that he has been accused of being a such and such Calvinist. Then he makes a blanket statement "John Calvin rightly interpreted the Bible to teach that man is totally depraved". He does not like labels but he sure thinks that Calvin is right.

I agree with him man is totally depraved. But here is where he is completely wrong. And I quote: "Arminius would say--Arminian theology, Palagian theology, as it’s also called--would say “man is capable.” What? Pelagian theology? This is one of the most outrageous and incorrect statements made by Calvinist theologians. Don't mean to pick on John MacAruthur as I can site reference after reference, after reference of incorrect descriptions by Calvinist writers/teachers.

Anyhow, please do not respond to the statement regarding totally depravity, or Pelagian Theology, just used those as examples of how Arminianism is highly misunderstood by them. I don't want to derail this topic, as I think it has been highly educational.

I want to be fair and accurate when discussing other points of view, at least that is something that is highly lacking in Calvinist circles. So that is my only reason in making sure when we say it is a heresy we are being fair and accurate in our discussions.