Kirkland: "Calvinism: None Dare Call It Heresy," Intro. Part 4

Kirkland: "Calvinism: None Dare Call It Heresy," Intro. Part 4
Monday, October 17, 2022 by Dr. James W. Walraven

Categories: Apologetics / Apostasy / Contemporary issues / God’s sovereignty / Scripture discussion / Spiritual deception / The church / Thought for Today

Kirkland lumps all Calvinists together, even admitting he likely misrepresents at least some of them. He states (page 89), “It would be difficult not to misrepresent somebody’s version of Calvinism.” He notes that there are Calvin Calvinists, Presbyterian Calvinists, and John MacArthur Calvinists among others. Kirkland doesn’t seem to think that misrepresentation is an issue. When one is accusing a theological system of being heretical, doesn’t what various groups believe and teach, within the movement matter?

The author also claims that there is no difference between a full “five-point” Calvinist and a “three-point” Calvinist. He states (page 90): “Some Calvinists call themselves three- or four-point Calvinists. That is about as erroneous as calling yourself a two-point Catholic because Catholics believe what the Bible says about the virgin birth and are against abortion.” If they use the Calvinist label in any sense, that person is heretical, regardless of how the Scriptures are interpreted. To lump everyone together in a “one-size-fits-all” manner grossly misrepresents the Reformed movement as a whole, though it likely wins points with those who are in full agreement with the author’s sentiments.

Although anecdotal, I do know hyper-Calvinists. In extreme cases—we’ll document it later in the series—a hyper-Calvinist will be absolutely certain that anyone who even mentions the possibility of “free will” is heretical, and will use every means necessary to defend their position against the erroneous belief in the heresy of free will. They are every bit as certain of their view as Kirkland is of his, they’re just on opposite sides.

I wonder: How does Jesus see it? He directly states that the world will know we are His disciples by our love for one another, in context, meaning other believers. Granted, each of the two extremes regard the opposite side as heretical, most likely they aren’t in the faith (or at best borderline), and therefore they justify their polemics. God has things to say in 1 John about claiming to love God whom one cannot see while hating a brother one can see, but that appears to be more of a “biblical inconvenience.” Personally, I cringe, as the world uses this sort of behavior between Christians as yet one more reason to reject the Gospel.

Taking a step back, the author’s tactics are unfortunate. As already stated, I am not a Calvinist, and there are things about Calvinism that should give any Christian pause, especially the believe in double-predestination, a doctrine Calvin taught, and hyper-Calvinists still often hold, although rejected by many Calvinists (hence one of the variations of a “less-than-five-point” sort of Calvinist).

What complicates matters, is that biblically and theologically, there are some aspects of the book that I do agree with. The issues of Calvinism do need to be discussed. Unfortunately, I find much (most?) of the author’s approach unhelpful.

Last, although secondary, one of the ways sloppiness within the book shows up is that even though it is now in its second edition, a number of typographical errors were missed. Any author, myself included, will tell you that catching every typographical error in a manuscript is quite difficult, but I find it interesting that once I started pulling quotes as part of my note taking, I found several. To me, it is yet another way that speaks of the author’s inattention to detail.

Having raised and covered overarching concerns with the book, we will turn next to the text itself.

Share This Blog: