Against Misrepresentation: A Biblical, Theological, Historical, and Logical Critique of Malcolm Lavender’s “The Gnosticism of Calvinism”

Against Misrepresentation: A Biblical, Theological, Historical, and Logical Critique of Malcolm Lavender’s “The Gnosticism of Calvinism”

J. Neil Daniels

Malcolm Lavender’s article, “The Gnosticism of Calvinism,” purports to unmask the Reformed tradition as a “sinister system” derived from paganism, Gnosticism, and Roman Catholicism. His chief accusation is that Calvinism, with its doctrines of unconditional election, perseverance of the saints, and forensic justification, is neither biblical nor Christian. Instead, he argues, it is a theological mutation that stands in continuity with ancient heresies, especially Gnosticism. This critique aims to examine Lavender’s claims through four lenses: biblical exegesis, systematic theology, historical theology, and logical coherence. While his concerns may stem from a desire to uphold moral earnestness and authentic Christian holiness, his argument fails on every substantive level and is marked more by rhetorical heat than exegetical or theological light.

I. Biblical Examination: A Failure to Rightly Divide the Word

At the heart of Lavender’s critique is his interpretation of 1 John 3:5–10, which he claims proves that all true Christians must be sinless in this life. He states, “Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not,” and charges that Calvinists, like the Gnostics, excuse sin in the body while maintaining spiritual purity. However, his exegesis is not sustained by a responsible reading of the broader Johannine context.

1 John 1:8–10 plainly states, “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” The apostle John thus affirms both the possibility of real transformation (3:6–9) and the ongoing struggle with sin (1:8). The tension here is not unique to Calvinist theology; it is an apostolic reality in the Christian life. John is describing a pattern of life, not a sinless state of perfection. Lavender’s citation of Epictetus and Plato to illustrate Calvinism’s alleged hopelessness ignores that Calvinists do not view sin as externally imposed fate but as the outworking of man’s fallen nature (cf. Rom. 5:12–21; Eph. 2:1–3).

Moreover, Lavender mischaracterizes the doctrine of justification by faith as a license to sin. Yet Paul himself anticipates this charge in Romans 6:1–2: “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid!” Reformed theology, following the apostle, affirms that saving grace not only justifies the sinner but also sanctifies him (cf. Titus 2:11–14).

II. Theological Analysis: Equivocations and Category Confusion

Lavender’s fundamental theological error is conflating justification and sanctification. He ridicules Calvinist teaching on imputed righteousness, asserting that it allows for sin without consequence. But this fails to understand the distinction between the believer’s standing before God (justification) and his moral state (sanctification). Calvinists affirm that while the justified are declared righteous on account of Christ, they must also pursue holiness, without which no one will see the Lord (Heb. 12:14).

Moreover, the charge that Calvinism shares the Gnostic belief that “sin does not matter” is a profound misunderstanding. Gnosticism viewed the material world as evil and irrelevant to spiritual purity. Calvinism, by contrast, affirms the goodness of creation and the moral accountability of both body and soul. The Reformed doctrine of union with Christ grounds both justification and sanctification in the redemptive work of Christ (cf. Rom. 6:1–14; Gal. 2:20). The believer is not a divided being, justified in spirit and damned in body, but a whole person redeemed in Christ.

Lavender’s repeated claim that Calvinism teaches “sinning Christians” will be saved regardless of conduct is contradicted by historic Reformed confessions. The Westminster Confession of Faith (XIII.1) clearly teaches that believers grow in grace and strive after holiness. While the justified are secure, they are not excused from sanctification; indeed, perseverance includes moral transformation.

III. Historical Considerations: Misreadings and Misrepresentations

Historically, Lavender asserts that Calvinism evolved from a syncretistic fusion of pagan fatalism, Gnostic dualism, and Roman Catholic sacramentalism. This narrative, however, is not grounded in any credible historical theology. Calvin’s dependence on Augustine is undeniable, yet to equate Augustinian predestination with Gnostic determinism is historically naïve and theologically misleading. Augustine fiercely opposed Gnosticism and Manichaeism, defending the goodness of creation and the freedom of the will under divine grace.

Likewise, Lavender’s attack on Anselm’s doctrine of penal substitution, as perpetuating “Roman Catholicism,” ignores that the Reformers explicitly distinguished their soteriology from Roman sacerdotalism. Calvin himself rejected the Mass, papal mediation, and meritorious works, placing salvation entirely in the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement and the sovereign mercy of God.

His citation of Jovinian as a proto-Reformer is problematic. While Jovinian opposed ascetic legalism and taught the equality of all believers, his views were idiosyncratic and not reflective of either magisterial Protestantism or ancient catholicity. To place Calvinism in the lineage of heretical distortions while elevating marginal figures as bearers of original Christianity is to engage in historiographical selectivism.

IV. Logical Evaluation: Fallacies and Rhetorical Excesses

Lavender’s argumentation is fraught with logical fallacies. Chief among them is the genetic fallacy—the attempt to discredit a doctrine based on its alleged origin rather than its intrinsic truth. Even if Calvinism shared some linguistic similarities with Gnosticism (e.g., talk of the “elect”), it does not follow that the systems are doctrinally equivalent.

He also commits the straw man fallacy, attacking caricatures rather than accurate representations of Calvinist belief. Statements from Calvin, Lewis Sperry Chafer, and others are quoted in isolation, without contextual nuance. For example, Chafer’s reference to Christ’s advocacy for sinning believers is not a denial of sin’s seriousness, but a reflection of 1 John 2:1–2.

Moreover, Lavender’s use of emotionally charged language—“mutant religion,” “barbaric thoughts,” “harlot system”—substitutes rhetoric for reasoned critique. This kind of invective hinders meaningful dialogue and fails the standard of theological charity (cf. 2 Tim. 2:24–25).

V. Conclusion: An Exercise in Polemical Overreach

Malcolm Lavender’s “The Gnosticism of Calvinism” is not a measured theological critique but an exercise in polemical overreach. It misrepresents Calvinist doctrine, misinterprets Scripture, distorts historical sources, and fails to engage with the Reformed tradition on its own terms. Ironically, in attempting to unmask a supposed heresy, Lavender himself perpetuates theological error by denying the biblical doctrines of justification by grace through faith, the imputed righteousness of Christ, and the perseverance of the saints.

A genuine defense of Christian holiness must proceed with exegetical accuracy, theological precision, and historical awareness. Unfortunately, this article lacks all three. Those seeking to challenge Calvinism must do better—not only for the sake of theological truth, but for the unity and charity that ought to characterize all Christian discourse.

Postscript: After penning this blog, I was alerted to another rebuttal to Lavender: "Arminian Suicidal Tendencies: How to Answer the Arminian Charge that Calvinism is Fatalistic," by John Hendryx. Hendryx offers a strong rebuttal to Malcolm Lavender's accusations that Calvinism is “fatalistic,” “morally repugnant,” and theologically heretical. Hendryx charges that Lavender, in attacking Calvinism, unwittingly undermines his own Arminian position. He argues that Arminian theology collapses under its own assumptions, leading either to an impersonal determinism or to doctrinal incoherence.

Recommended Reading for Balanced Engagement:

Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin

The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, Loraine Boettner

Calvinism: A History, D. G. Hart

The Grace of God, the Bondage of the Will, eds. Thomas Schreiner & Bruce Ware

Against Heresies, Irenaeus (for actual Gnostic teachings)

Gnosticism and Early Christianity, Hans Jonas