Thought for Today

Starting with today’s entry, we begin our examination of Kirkland’s text.

He states his intentions, “Calvinism, as I will show in this book, does present “another gospel” (page 9). He adds, “The purpose of this book is to show that the teachings of John Calvin (i.e., Calvinism) is indeed heresy by the Bible’s definition of the term” (page 10). He adds that “In the case of Calvinism, it is built on the foundation of erroneous deductions on meanings of words” (page 10). While he doesn’t insist all Calvinists are going to Hell, he does say that “the Calvinist path to salvation becomes more difficult, if not impossible” (page 10).

Who influenced Calvin? What are his teachings based on? Since the author deems his teachings heretical, he had to have been influenced by someone, from something other than Scripture. The author presents his views on Calvin’s source—claiming there was only one—in his first chapter: Where Calvin Got His Theology.

The author starts by quoting Calvin, where Calvin admits being heavily indebted to Augustine. Who was Augustine? According to Kirkland, “Augustine (354–430) has sometimes been referred to as ‘the father of the Inquisition’” (page 14). He adds, “Augustine also held to many beliefs that line up more with Catholicism than with Biblical Christianity” (page 14). “He believed the only true church was the Roman Catholic Church. He stated, ‘The Catholic Church alone is the body of Christ. . . . Outside this body, the Holy Spirit giveth life to no one’” (page 15).

Kirkland’s portrayal of Augustine is problematic. First, Kirkland does the same thing he accuses Calvin of doing: confusing and misinterpreting the meaning of terms. “Catholic” does not equate with “Roman Catholic.” Until the Great Western Schism in 1054, when the Roman West and Eastern Orthodox centered in Constantinople divided, there was only one “catholic” church, meaning universal church.

The author is therefore in error—and to me disingenuous—where he equates Roman Catholic with “Catholic.”

The author oversimplifies church history. In the early church there were five main centers: Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople, and Rome. While it can be argued that “Rome was first among equals,” Rome didn’t have the level of authority subsequent Roman Catholic historians claimed. Yes, they list Popes going back to the start of the church. History doesn’t support those claims. With the rise of Islam, and subsequent Moslem expansion, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were lost. In 1453 Constantinople fell, and since then, Rome alone has remained as a “Christian center.”

Augustine has become the villain-of-choice for those who wish to discredit various key long-held church doctrines, from his views on original sin, to eternal hell, among others. It is also easy for twenty-first century revisionists to look at Augustine through those twenty-first century eyes and dismiss him for living in and thinking like a fifth century individual. Scripture alone is God-breathed and timeless. Writers, whether Augustine, Calvin, Kirkland, or myself, are tied to the times they lived or live in, both in terms of secular life and church practice.

Augustine was one of the most important theologians who ever lived, some might argue the most important. Given, as with all of us, that he was fallible it is easy to cherry-pick something of his one may strongly disagree with. Again, he was writing in a fourth and fifth century church and secular context. Leaders of the Reformation have admitted their debt to him. The author has to present Augustine in the worst light possible in order to uphold his thesis about Calvin, and all forms of Calvinism.

When an author misrepresents history in order to maintain his thesis, that should put us on notice. It doesn’t mean that the author is necessarily wrong, but doing so raises questions.