I’ve been immersed in high Calvinist circles for years—probably some of the most Calvinist spaces you’ll find—and here’s the thing: we don’t go around branding everyone who disagrees with us on supralapsarian election as heretics. Sure, some views on the doctrine of God can veer into heretical territory if taken to their logical extremes. But disagreement on predestination itself does not automatically make someone a heretic, especially if their broader theology is sound.
Take Calvin himself or theologians like Turretin, Perkins, or even Bavinck. They understood that predestination, while central to Reformed theology, is not the dividing line of church unity. Francis Turretin, for instance, emphasized that charity and unity in essentials should govern how we engage with other Christians. Calvin, in his Institutes, always pointed back to the glory of God and the centrality of Christ, not endless polemics over election.
Now, what makes me pause is the way some folks caricature John Calvin, as though he’s some proto-Simon Magus. These critiques often come from people who do not actually engage with Reformed theology but only with its critics. There is a lot of straw-manning out there. If you want to critique Calvinism, read Calvin—or Owen, Edwards, or Hodge. Engage the best of the tradition.
And let’s be real—there are fringe types in every theological camp who throw around the word “heretic” too freely. You can find someone online from any non-universalist tradition ready to anathematize the world. But predestinarian election? It is not even a secondary issue when it comes to church unity. There are far graver errors that deserve the term “heresy,” but this is not one of them.
I have been called a hyper-Calvinist by Calvinists. Don't straw man our view.