The heresy of Calvinism is that God would reduce salvation to a robotic function rather than to continue it in the spirit of the creation from the beginning of time. When God created Adam and Eve, He gave to them the ability to choose obedience or sin, knowing full well (because, as God exists outside of time, He is fully aware of everything that occurs within time) that they would choose sin over obedience. Regardless of their intent or reasons, the ultimate result was that they chose sin.
At this point, God had the choice to either let this sin-filled creation continue or to destroy it and begin again with two new creatures. The probable reason for God allowing creation to continue is probably agreed upon by Calvinists and non-Calvinists and that is�God had such love for the remainder of His creations that He would prefer for them to have the experience of life (both corporeal and eternal) rather than to destroy this creation and begin again. Of course, what is nonsensical about this reasoning is that God could have, at this point, destroyed Satan and then recreated Adam and Eve in a sinless state again. God chose not to do this, so His reasons for continuing may be different. I believe that His reason for continuing creation was to create a Bride for His Son whose love would equal, as closely as is possible for created beings, the Son�s love for the Bride.
Now we know that it is totally impossible for any created being to come anywhere close to have the kind of love that God has for us. But as is possible within our created state, I believe that God chose to continue creation, to demonstrate sacrificial and suffering love and then to allow the church to participate in that suffering in order to establish within the church the kind of love for God�in part�that God has for us. And in order to have that kind of love, choice was not only a component but absolute necessary.
Let�s look at the example of our Savior in Gethsemene. Here is God incarnate, the God Who from before time, had established the method by which mankind would be reconciled to Himself. And this God is crying out, �If there is some other way, please choose that way.� Thus, there was some component of God�s plan, of God�s desire, that so required our Savior�s suffering, so required that this creation continue that Jesus was willing to submit to the Father�s plan.
What was this component? I believe it was the suffering love of the Bride for the Savior. It was love born not of hormones, not of fleshly desires, but of a love that would prevail through the worst of all circumstances, the worst of all situations. It was a love that would bear all things, believe all things, hope all things and endure all things.
This kind of love is not borne from some kind of god-implanted robotic implant. It is a love that is developed from the choice to love or to reject. It is the same love that the Lord Jesus demonstrated at Gethsemene��Please, let�s find another way. BUT IF THERE ISN�T ONE, then Thy will be done.� It is a love that is inspired and cultivated by the Holy Spirit but which must, by definition, exist within the framework of free will or it doesn�t exist at all. It is this love that God wanted to implant within His creation and for which He has labored to establish with the Body of Christ. Without the option at all times to choose for or against God, this love couldn�t exist.
This is why the heresies of irresistible grace, unconditional election, limited atonement and eternal security (perseverance of the saints) are so damnable in the Church today. They lessen and limit the work of God within the Body of Christ. They make of naught the suffering of Christ in Gethsemene and see it as light when, in fact, it may be the pivot upon which the work and love of God in this creation is wrought. Without free will, mankind and the Church become mere puppets at the beck and call of an arbitrary God. With the exercise of free will interactively between God and man, the establishing of love toward God becomes possible and completes the work which God started in the Garden of Eden, continued in the Garden of Gethsemene, and finished in the Garden tomb.
How did this heresy begin? I believe that the foundation is a misunderstanding of the definition of �works� in the Pauline writings. In A.D.70, the Jewish community and the new Christian church had a complete falling out. The Jews asked for the Church�s help in defending Jerusalem and the Temple against the assault of the Romans. For whatever reasons, the Church refused and Jerusalem fell (as was prophesied by our Lord Jesus). At this point, the uneasy relationship between the two groups was terminated. As a result, the Church began to distance itself from Judaism and one way to distance itself was to reject all ties with Judaic culture and thought. The center of the Church was moved from Jerusalem to Byzantine and eventually to Rome and the cultural basis of Christianity became Western thought rather than Judaic thought. It was during these times that the established church began to �westernize� Jesus and all others associated with Christianity. This is evident in both the Church�s art and literature.
By the time of the Reformation, the schism between the Jews and the Church was complete. During the Crusades, the foremost purpose was to wrestle Jerusalem from the control of the Jews rather than the Moors. The wars with the Moors were simply a consequence of their being in the same location. Antisemitism existed strongly within the church leadership, both the Church in Rome and the newly established Protestant churches. Because of this antisemitism, church theologians would not have even considered the possibility of interpreting New Testament doctrine through Judaic thought (through an understanding of rabbinical teachings). Thus, the scriptures, which had originally been Jewish thought written in Greek (which already presents a problem in understanding intent) were now Greek translated into Latin translated into German and interpreted through European ideology.
To add to this convoluted process was the process of reaction. Both Luther and Calvin developed their doctrines in reaction to the practices and doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. In an effort to distance themselves from what they perceived as the heresies of the RCC, they interpreted the scriptures as differently as possible. Consequently, the misinterpretation of the definition of �works� occurred.
Paul really establishes the theme of Romans in chapter 2 beginning with verse 9: �There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace to every man who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God. 12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law; and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13 for not the hearers of the Law are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.� Here we see Paul establishes a kind of comparison between the Jews and the Gentiles, those who have had advantage of the Law and those who have not had the Law. We also see that Paul begins a discussion of �the Law� in order to establish to his �audience� (which must have included Romans Jews from the context of his writing) that even obedience to the Law doesn�t save because absolute obedience to the Law is impossible. Thus when we arrive at Romans 3:24: �being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;� this is not a doctrine against man�s free will or his decision to accept the salvation offered through grace by our Lord, but it is a doctrine against salvation through obedience to the Law. This, then, is Paul�s definition of works (as agreed by Stern)�adherence to the legalistic requirements of the Torah. And this is an inclusive definition.
Why would this definition be rejected by Luther and Calvin? The reality is, they most likely didn�t even consider it because of the antisemitism of the time. In their eyes, Paul was not a Jew, but a Christian. And in their understanding (even subconsciously), the definition of a Christian included being a European. By this point in the develop of church thought, the fact that Paul had been and still was a Pharisee and rabbi would have not even been given consideration. Paul (as well as our Lord Jesus and others) had so been sanitized of his �Jewishness� that all consideration of how the Torah would influence his writings had been lost. Luther and Calvin were left with a filtered version of Paul�s writings (Jewish thought --> Greek words --> Latin words --> German words) that they would not have even entertained the notion that an understanding of the Torah might be necessarily to understanding Paul. To add to this dilemma was the very real fact that the Roman Catholic Church had reduced Christianity to a religion of �doing� rather than a religion of trusting. RCC leadership was corrupt (similar to the Pharisees and Sadducees of Jesus� time) and religious zeal was measured by one�s ability and willingness to be politically correct within the RCC framework, rather than an adherence to scripture. Consequently, Luther and Calvin had no alternative but to develop doctrines that were reactionary in nature to these circumstances. They had to remove any vestiges of �doing� from the doctrine of salvation in order to turn man back to a more pure interpretation of scripture.
But like most reactionary deeds, they failed to see the problems with their own doctrine and went too far in the opposite direction and excluded a true understanding of what Paul really meant. Arminius� doctrine were also reactionary, but because his was developed in reaction to Calvinism, the pendulum swung back closer to center (which is why Arminianism is probably closer to the truth, though it stills fails to consider some important aspects of Judaic thought).
By failing to understand what Paul meant by �works� and by elevating God�s omnipotence above all His other attributes, Calvinism established a heresy which has created an arbitrary and unmerciful God, a mankind which are mere puppets subject to His will, and the same kind of us-and-them doctrine that Paul was addressing to the Jews in Romans. In essence, Calvinism developed into the very heresy that Paul was writing against (the chosen versus the unchosen).