The false doctrine of Calvinism unmasked & exposed
Updated: Oct 4
Introduction
Before I was called to mission work to the former Soviet Union & the Eastern European countries behind the "Iron Curtain" I grew up in Holland or better said; the Netherlands.
Everybody immediately thinks of the stereotype "cute" & not so nice things about this country below sea-level. But what is lesser known that it also has a very strong history of extreme "ingrained" Calvinism, especially in the rural towns & among the farming & fishing communities. Amsterdam in that regards is not good representation of the country as a whole.
The "fruit" of Calvinism
The reason I am starting with this introduction is that I grew up with experiencing & observing the "fruit" of Calvinism. You not only need to look at the theological aspect which I will come to soon, but study the life & actions of John Calvin himself & observe the fruit of this teaching in the life of the church & believers. Well it's not pretty & I will spare you the details. When I as a young man found Christ & surrendered my life to Jesus Christ as my Lord & Saviour, it became even more clear to me it is a false teaching.
Example how Calvinism becomes a stronghold
I also remember one example, one out many. In our church meetings in Novosibirsk, it was during the time when the Soviet Union was starting to fall apart, that a young lady student, at the University Auditorium, were we had the church meetings, walked in, right after a night partying & was still under influence, but God.....was gloriously saved her in that meeting. We were able to disciple her for a while, till she received an invitation to attend a Calvinist Bible School in the U.S. Some years later we met her in Netherlands where we were pastoring our new church plant. We didn't recognize her, she was argumentative, didn't want any input from the ones who led her to Lord & was totally brainwashed with extreme hyper Calvinistic teachings regarding predestination, election & we humans not having any free will of choice. She clearly had lost all her joy from her initial glorious salvation & was drowned in theology that portrays God as a heavy taskmaster that decides in advance who goes to hell or heaven.
Resources online:
For more info see links below:
https://www.heraldofhope.org.au/reformed-theology-faulty-flower/ https://www.heraldofhope.org.au/who-are-the-elect/
This pastor exposes & shreds Calvinism with sound doctrine & counterarguments:
Next we are also looking into the person of John Calvin himself. Would want to follow a theology like this after you read this? Judge for yourself if the is in line with the fruit of the Holy Spirit & the teachings of the New Testament!
John Calvin’s interpretation of the Bible justified the murder of his theological opponents. He himself did not cut off any heads or light any fires that burned human heretics alive, but John Calvin’s preaching from the Old and New Testaments claimed those capital punishments aligned with God’s interests.
How so? Calvin did not believe all Old Covenant laws had been set aside by the New Covenant Jesus inaugurated. He didn't buy into the plain sense of Hebrews: “God has made the first covenant obsolete” (Hebrews 8:13). He maneuvered around Paul’s conclusion: “the Law became a tutor to lead us to Christ and now that faith has come we are no longer under a tutor” (Galatians 3:24-25; cf. Rom 10:4). Calvin dismissed this data from the New Testament and decided the moral laws in the Old Covenant laws of the Torah still applied. And killing people who perverted his pure doctrine was a moral necessity.
Calvin specifically justified capital punishment of heretics with Leviticus 24:16. “The one who blasphemes the name of the Lord should be put to death; all the congregation must stone him. Any foreigner or native who blasphemes the Name should be put to death.”
Jesus’ teaching to “love your enemies” didn’t stop Calvin from approving and promoting the death of his theological enemies. And Paul’s instructions for dealing with people who theologically disagree with you were equally ignored: “A servant of the Lord must not quarrel but must be kind to everyone, be able to teach, and be patient with difficult people. Gently instruct those who oppose the truth. Perhaps God will change those people’s hearts, and they will learn the truth”
(2 Timothy 2:24-25). Calvin did not patiently discuss his differences with people who promoted competing ideas. Calvin requested beheadings, made death threats, and praised God for orchestrating the torture of heretics.
Calvin spelled out his theologically reinforced vengeance in a personal letter:
“I am persuaded that it is not without the special will of God that, apart from any verdict of the judges, the criminals have endured protracted torment at the hands of the executioner.” - Calvin's letter to Farel on 24 July (for more words directly from Calvin’s pen, read Selected Works of John Calvin)
Calvin believed God made sure criminals didn’t die quickly when tortured. This vengeful attitude and his support for outdated Old Covenant laws that legislated capital punishment for competing theologians that challenged his preferred doctrines look more like ISIS than Jesus.
John Calvin’s Fight Against Heretics
Personal correspondence and city council records betray John Calvin’s extraordinary influence in Geneva. Although he was asked to leave in 1538 when he enforced his strict moral standards and pushed for the church’s independent power to excommunicate people, Genevan officials invited him to return in 1541 to resolve church divisions. Upon his return, the city council approved his Ecclesiastical Ordinances that included the establishment of the Consistory. The Consistory, a church court that oversaw the discipline of the citizens of Geneva, met every Thursday to review cases (This book is a chronicle of the Consistory’s records from 1542-1544.) John Calvin led the court. Although the Consistory did not have the power to imprison, exile, or kill those who were guilty, Calvin could still convince the city magistrates to wield such power when his theological opponents contradicted him.
When Jacques Gruet, a theologian with differing views, placed a letter in Calvin’s pulpit calling him a hypocrite, he was arrested, tortured for a month and beheaded on July 26, 1547. Gruet's own theological book was later found and burned along with his house while his wife was thrown out into the street to watch.
Michael Servetus, a Spaniard, physician, scientist and Bible scholar, suffered a worse fate. He was Calvin's long time acquaintance who resisted the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. However, he angered Calvin by returning a copy of Calvin's Institutes with critical comments in the margins. So what did Calvin do? You can read his resolution from a personal letter he wrote to a friend: “Servetus offers to come hither, if it be agreeable to me. But I am unwilling to pledge my word for his safety, for if he shall come, I shall never permit him to depart alive, provided my authority be of any avail.” - Letter to Farel, 13 February 1546
The next time Servetus attended Calvin's Sunday preaching service on a visit, Calvin had him arrested and charged with heresy. The 38 official charges included rejection of the Trinity and infant baptism. The city magistrates condemned him to death. Calvin pleaded for Servetus to be beheaded instead of the more brutal method of burning at the stake, but to no avail. Some people see Calvin’s compassion in pursuing a more humane method of death, but ultimately he supported killing Servetus and all such heretics.
On October 27, 1553, green wood was used for the fire so Servetus would be slowly baked alive from the feet upward. For 30 minutes he screamed for mercy and prayed to Jesus as the fire worked its way up his body to burn the theology book strapped to his chest as a symbol of his heresy. Calvin summarized the execution this way:
“Servetus . . . suffered the penalty due to his heresies, but was it by my will? Certainly his arrogance destroyed him not less than his impiety. And what crime was it of mine if our Council, at my exhortation, indeed, but in conformity with the opinion of several Churches, took vengeance on his execrable blasphemies?” - Calvin
How could such torture be condoned? In November 1552 the Geneva Council declared Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion to be a "holy doctrine which no man might speak against." Disagreeing with Calvin’s view of God was a violation warranting the death penalty according to the way John Calvin interpreted Leviticus 24:16. The Geneva city council records describe one verdict where a man who publicly protested against John Calvin’s doctrine of predestination was flogged at all the city’s main intersections and then expelled (“The Minutes Book of the Geneva City Council, 1541-59,” translated by Stefan Zweig, Erasmus: The Right to Heresy). You did not get to disagree with Calvin in this town.
Bad Bible Interpretation Can Kill People
John Calvin argued:
“Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death, knowingly and willingly incur their guilt. It is not human authority that speaks, it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for His Church.”
Most bad Bible interpretation causes disappointment in an unbiblical god, anxiety about what he demands, or a false sense of security rooted in biased beliefs. But it can kill. John Calvin justified murder with his bad Bible interpretation. It isn't representative of his entire life or his contribution to the Protestant church, but we are wise to learn from a mistake he made.
John Calvin followed Augustine’s biblical justification for burning heretics. Augustine excused extreme measures through his interpretation of Jesus’ Great Banquet parable in Luke 14:16-24. When the master could not fill up his banquet in the parable, he commanded his servants in Luke 14:23 “to compel people to come so that my house will be filled.” Augustine and Calvin believed burning heretics would “compel” more people to enter their house of God. Interpreting “compulsion” as a license to kill without consideration for Jesus’ other teaching to “love your enemies” is a major hermeneutical error. Any part of Jesus’ teaching should be interpreted in light of the whole.
A closer look at the actual theology & doctrine behind it
Besides observing the "fruit" I also did my "homework" and the more I delved into this matter the more disgusted I became with this abhorrent "doctrine" Even though it has some Biblical truths I concluded that it is a false doctrine. Calvinism" & the so called "TULIP" has some Biblical truths, but like most false doctrines & religions they are "sandwiched" with some truth. But don't forget that most poisons consists largely of water. The reason I am writing this blog is, that there seems to be a resurgence of Calvinism & unfortunately still influences many pulpits today across many denominations. You don't have to take my word for it, but if you want to find out more, please study, read & listen to links below:
Some more theological discussion for those wanting more clarity:
Calvinism is a theological system built around the absolute sovereignty of God in salvation. It is commonly summarized by the acronym TULIP: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints.
Many godly men hold this position. But after careful study of Scripture in context, we do not.
Let’s walk through why.
First, Total Depravity.
We agree that humanity is fallen. Romans 3 makes that clear. Ephesians 2 says we are dead in trespasses and sins. Sin affects every part of man.
But Scripture never says man is unable to respond to God when confronted with truth. In Acts 17:30 God commands all men everywhere to repent. A just God does not command what is metaphysically impossible.
Dead in Scripture often means separated, not incapable. The prodigal son in Luke 15 was called dead, yet he still returned.
Second, Unconditional Election.
Calvinism teaches that God chooses specific individuals for salvation without regard to foreseen faith.
We believe Scripture teaches election, but election is consistently described as “in Christ.” Ephesians 1:4 says we are chosen in Him. The sphere of election is Christ, not an arbitrary pre-temporal selection of individuals apart from response.
Romans 8:29 says those whom He foreknew, He predestined. The Greek word proginosko carries the idea of relational foreknowledge. God knows beforehand who will believe. That does not diminish His sovereignty. It reflects His omniscience.
Third, Limited Atonement.
Calvinism teaches Christ died only for the elect.
Scripture repeatedly states Christ died for the world. John 3:16 says God so loved the world. First John 2:2 says He is the propitiation not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world. First Timothy 2:4 says God desires all men to be saved.
If Christ’s sacrifice is sufficient only for a predetermined few, those verses must be redefined. We do not redefine them.
The atonement is sufficient for all, efficient for those who believe.
Fourth, Irresistible Grace.
Calvinism teaches that when God internally calls someone, they cannot ultimately resist.
Yet Acts 7:51 says, “You always resist the Holy Spirit.” Jesus wept over Jerusalem in Matthew 23:37 and said, “I would have gathered you, but you were not willing.”
Grace can be resisted. Love that cannot be refused is not love in any meaningful relational sense.
Fifth, Perseverance of the Saints.
We believe in eternal security for those truly saved. John 10:28 is clear. But perseverance is the result of abiding in Christ, not evidence of preselection. Salvation is secure because of Christ’s finished work, not because someone was unconditionally elected before birth.
Now here is the deeper issue.
Conclusion:
Calvinism, when pressed logically, makes God the ultimate determiner of who will be saved and who will be condemned before they ever exist. Yet Scripture consistently presents God as just, not arbitrary.
Second Peter 3:9 says the Lord is not willing that any should perish. That is not theatrical language. That is God’s revealed heart.
We affirm God’s sovereignty. We affirm human responsibility.
Comments