The Bible informs us that God reigns over all his creation and therefore acts in history and in relation to people. From this testimony Christians talk about God as “sovereign” and “in control.” This raises at least three questions. First, what is the precise definition of “sovereign” and “in control?” Second, what is the scope of God’s “sovereignty” and “control?” Third, how does God do what he does as one who is “sovereign” and in “control?” These are fascinating questions that are difficult to answer. But we know that the answer must involve the full scope of Scripture as interpreted with coherence, consistency and noncontradiction as indispensable elements in our hermeneutic.
Vanhoozer has attempted an answer these questions for Calvinists whose soteriology presupposes a deterministic sovereignty which includes an unconditional election and effectual call. These are the most important questions in life as they bear upon the gospel message and our eternal destinies.
Our meaning and purpose in life as individuals is wrapped up in the question of what God thinks about us. How that question is answered will determine what we think about God, which A. W. Tozer has said is the most important thing about us. These issues relate to claims about what God is like, what he is doing in the world, why he is doing it, what he thinks of us, what he has done for our salvation, for whom he has done it, what is the precise content of the message of “good news” and whether or not we can participate in God’s good salvific plans and purposes. Indeed, these are the most important questions of our existence for they deal with the nature of our relationship with God and the issue of our eternal destiny. They touch upon the meaning and application of the gospel message. Yet those who preach and teach the Bible often simply ignore these important issues of sovereignty and free will and the related biblical truths of predestination and election.
A strange silence marks a wide field of biblical truth in the evangelical church today. Preachers and teachers who attempt to address these issues of sovereignty and human freedom usually do so in vague and ambiguous terms. If they attempt a more detailed treatment, they usually presuppose a deterministic definition of sovereignty and pick an explanatory option which upon closer examination only proves to be an inconsistent rationalization as to how deterministic sovereignty and human free will can be understood as compatible. Such explanations do a disservice to God, his gospel, and his church. People can see through unsatisfactory explanations and certainly disingenuous rationalizations. Indeed, claims that a sovereignty of absolute determinism exalts God’s glory, humbles man, produces faith, and is a “high mystery,” along with “encouragements” to put aside concerns about rational coherence to be able to embrace the “antinomy” inherent in a Scripture that with respect to these matters is incomprehensible to fallen human reason, have coalesced in the evangelical church to create a theological confusion that has been institutionalized in a mindset of sanctioned double-speak, outright intellectual dishonesty, or a cool indifference to the issue of God’s sovereignty and human freedom. Whole portions of Scripture are either completely ignored or glossed over. Attempts to expound God’s sovereignty and the doctrine of election find themselves at odds with the “good news” of the gospel of Christ. This unfortunate state of affairs is rooted in a faulty hermeneutic that deems rational and moral coherence as dispensable elements for determining valid interpretations. Reformed pastors, teachers, and theologians are reticent to acknowledge that logical, moral, epistemological and biblical coherence are reliable indicators of the biblical validity of an interpretation or theological construct. And here we have touched upon the essence of the division in the Calvinist/Arminian debate. This, I submit, is the ultimate hermeneutical divide. This is the reason for the circular and ad infinitum nature of the debates. It is the reason that no productive dialogue can occur or theological reconciliation be obtained. The theological scheme developed from textual interpretations that the Reformed Calvinist claims makes perfect sense to him is viewed by the non-Calvinist as sheer nonsense. Granted, the primary question will always be what does the text mean, that is, what does the author intend to tell us, but, if in the end, consideration of the rational and moral coherence of one’s interpretations across the full scope of Scripture is not considered an essential criteria for determining the validity of an interpretation then the text can mean whatever the interpreter would like it to mean, and one who values interpretive coherence will not be able to agree with one who does not, for this criteria of coherence is ultimately formative for one interpreter but not for the other. If we can properly identify incoherence, then to maintain incoherence is a tacit admission that the author intended to write incoherently. We should not accept this as a valid principle of hermeneutics. Vanhoozer is correct when he writes,
“Our hypotheses are put to the test precisely by being brought to the text. Those hypotheses that can account for more aspects or features of the communicative act have more explanatory power. Interpretation thus works through abduction, that is, by inference to the best explanation. An “explanation” is in fact a “thick description” of what an author has done. It “explains” insofar as it accounts for the relevance and coherence of the text as a completed communicative act.” (FT, 184)
These are important hermeneutical principles. It is just that I think his theology does not demonstrate that this advice has been sufficiently adhered to. Calvinists pay little heed to coherence. Their incoherence is usually justified on the basis of the incomprehensibility of human reason to understand the ways of an infinite God. As there is truth in that statement, it needs to be recognized that we are not dealing with discovering what is infinite or unknowable, but discerning the truth about the things that have been revealed. Certainly, we need to consider the limitation of human reason in light of divine revelation. Granted, the human mind is not capable as to the full disclosure and apprehension of God, in other words, God must reveal himself to us if we are to have true knowledge of him. But once we are given that revelation, reason is the only sufficient arbiter to discern the correct meaning and relationship of the many truths that are found within that revelation. This is not a question of reason’s inability to know only what God must reveal to us. It is a question of reason’s ability to discern what the truth is about what has already been revealed. This is a matter of arbitrating between conflicting interpretive propositions. Thus, reason must be fully engaged and not dismissed for the sake of preserving the traditional Calvinist theological doctrines. To refuse to recognize interpretive inconsistency and contradiction and banish from our hermeneutic the divine gifts of rational thought and moral intuition, is to allow for the propagation of untethered textual interpretations and theological conclusions. It is to finally give oneself license to circumvent the fundamental laws of human thought, including the law of non-contradiction. With the acceptance of such a hermeneutical posture we have sanctioned the genuinely irrational as a legitimate element in hermeneutics and the Christian faith. At that point we find ourselves at an interpretive and existential crossroad. Believers must either conclude that what is truly irrational cannot be a biblical proposition (non-Calvinists), or what is truly irrational can be a biblical proposition (Calvinists). I submit that our knowledge of what us true is metaphysically linked to fundamental laws of human thought and reasoning. We can only give intellectual assent to and trust in what we know to be rationally coherent. It is immoral to do otherwise.
There are apologetic and evangelistic ramifications to the hermeneutical issue of rational coherence being raised here. James Sire writes,
“Honesty requires our case for the Christian faith to be free of fallacious reasoning. As George Mavrodes says, our deductive arguments must (1) be based on true premises and (2) obey the laws of logic and valid argumentation. Cheap, tawdry, slick arguments that persuade and convince but violate the principles of logic do not honor Christ.”[1]
“The question is: Which assumptions, which systems of belief, do the best job of explaining what we would like to have explained? Those that are essentially incoherent ought not to fare well.
If postmodern people detect incoherence in the basic assumptions of their own philosophy, it should cause them at least some discomfort. In other words, one apologetic technique is to show the inadequacy of alternatives to the Christian worldview. If one can show that a proposed alternative is self-stultifying, self-referentially incoherent, fails to take relevant data into account and misunderstands the data it does deal with, then the proponents of this alternative may be open to hearing how the Christian worldview does deal adequately with the facts, is self-consistent and coherent and sheds light on even the most puzzling human issues.” [2]
I contend that this approach to Christian apologetics is applicable to paradigms of Christian theology. I submit to you that Calvinism is not an honest theology because it attempts to rationalize away inconsistent and contradictory interpretations. Calvinists do not respect the laws of logic and valid argumentation. They promote the suppression of reason to get people to accept their deterministic doctrines of sovereignty and predestination. I have demonstrated throughout the chapters on this website that when we evaluate Calvinism with an eye towards its rational and moral incoherence, critically evaluating its theological doctrines, that we must deem it seriously flawed, especially given its insistence that their theistic determinism is compatible with free will and moral responsibility. They rationalize the problem away by saying “God’s ways are higher than our ways.” Calvinism is incoherent and therefore does a poor job of “explaining what we would like to have explained.” Therefore, it “ought not to fare well.” But it continues to persuade many through its poor interpretations of Scripture and “slick” spiritualized rationalizations. Again, for these reasons Calvinism should be in decline. But for this to happen it will require some consensus among evangelical laypersons and theologians alike that rational incoherence and contradiction are identifiable and are foundational considerations in determining interpretive validity.
Alas, a word about the church and the search for truth. It appears to me that at the level of hermeneutics churches are more interested in retaining their accepted doctrinal positions despite legitimate criticism of the biblical incoherence of their positions. There is strong resistance to critical biblical examination or discussion of accepted views and teachings. There is no place or forum for legitimate discussion that might lead to a more accurate understanding of God’s Word. For all practical purposes churches function as if they have all biblical truth perfectly understood. And if a church were to confess that they do not (as I believe they must), then why is there not an openness to investigation and a continuing dialogue about Scripture for the purpose of coming to know the truth we presently do not fully grasp? The church should also be a forum, not only for learning (Sunday School, electives, seminars, etc.), but for discovery. A place where questions can be asked, legitimate challenges raised, and serious answers sought. There is no constructive forum for questioning or dialogue for the express purpose of discerning the truth regarding those areas of doctrine or the text where persons disagree.
The only exception I have encountered to this was at a “Jacob’s Well” congregation in Edison, NJ. Their statement of “Doctrine and Theology” reads as follows: “In articulating our beliefs we want to both clarify where we stand on certain teaching issues, but also define areas we consider open for robust theological discussion.” It went on to say, “Additionally, we believe in discussion, wrestling and formation of our theology over time…We also desire to state openly a few issues which are open for intramural debate in our church. We encourage, engage in, and wrestle deeply with these issues to arrive at personal convictions on these matters.” It was this “robust theological discussion” and willingness to be “engaged” and “wrestle deeply” regarding theological issues that was a pleasant surprise to see as part of their congregational life and even to have it expressed in their church’s literature. I have never seen anything like this before. It was quite encouraging. I feel that this is such an important part of the ministry of the church and essential to developing a truly Christian mind and heart. It is especially critical with respect to defining and proclaiming the gospel message. Churches should be interested in retaining the ‘traditions handed down’ yet in a context of pursuing the truth of God’s Word for the purpose of refining and reforming those “traditions.” Truth should trump “tradition.” The truth certainly needs to be ferreted out on the subject matter at hand and especially regarding the gospel message. The intellectual, theological, and ministry stakes are too high to simply ignore or suppress the perspectives and questions involved. At times it seems that the pursuit of the truth of a matter holds as low a priority for the evangelical as it does for the culture. In this way we are certainly more cultural than Christian. Vanhoozer is right. “The church’s aim should be to render a faithful interpretation of Scripture.” (FT, 332) We have not been taught to attend to this matter. The Calvinist/non-Calvinist divide is proof of this. It is doubtful that the church still grasps the magnitude of the fact that we have the treasure of the authoritative Word of God written, providing us with all we need for faith and life.
Back to “The Vanhoozer Essays”
[1] James W. Sire, “On Being a Fool for Christ and an Idiot for Nobody: Logocentricty and Postmodernity” in Christian Apologetics in The Postmodern World, eds. Timothy R. Phillips and Dennis L. Okholm, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 111.
[2] Ibid. 114-115.
The Truth of the Gospel 