Stephen Craig Marcy is the founder and author of the website GoodNewsApologetics. Its purpose is to clarify, defend, and proclaim the gospel message that is coherent with its biblical definition as “good news.” This is done in relation to and in contrast with Calvinist theology and soteriology, which raise special interpretive concerns for the gospel as “good news.”
Steve’s present areas of interest and study are the mutual exclusivity of the Calvinists’ and non-Calvinists’ theological and soteriological positions, the intellectual and hermeneutical implications of that mutual exclusivity, and the effects this has upon the evangelical church and evangelism. His writings strive to be an honest and respectful examination of the incoherencies, inconsistencies, and contradictions inherent in Calvinism and to explain the theological and practical implications of these difficulties.
There is no doubt that Calvinist theology and soteriology generate substantial logical and moral difficulties. Calvinists themselves admit this. The Calvinists’ definitions of God’s eternal decree and sovereignty result in theistic determinism. This determinism holds absolute sway over their interpretations of certain key texts and other doctrines. Yet, this determinism creates logical and moral incoherence, inconsistency, and contradiction with other biblical texts and teachings that Calvinists also affirm. Calvinists ultimately dismiss these logical and moral difficulties as incomprehensible mysteries of the faith. Non-Calvinists, rather, view these logical and moral difficulties as indications of misinterpretation. Steve argues that Calvinists do not take coherence, consistency, and non-contradiction on board in their hermeneutic, whereas non-Calvinists do. This is what Steve labels the hermeneutical divide. This is the divide that needs to be addressed for the controversy to be resolved, or at least clarified. The Calvinist needs to show us why it is hermeneutically legitimate for them to maintain interpretations that generate incoherencies, inconsistencies, and contradictions.
Therefore, Steve is raising the issue of whether interpretive coherence is essential in a sound, evangelical hermeneutic. Are coherence, consistency, and non-contradiction principles of hermeneutics, and therefore necessary for deciding on the validity of a proposed interpretation of Scripture? That is, Steve is asking whether or not the Calvinist’s logical and moral difficulties are reliable indications of misinterpretations of the biblical text. He is inquiring whether the Calvinist’s logical and moral difficulties violate sound hermeneutical principles, and, therefore, are indicative of the invalidity of the Calvinist’s exegesis and interpretations of Scripture. Steve’s present conclusion is that they are. Interpretive incoherence and contradiction are indicative of misinterpretation. In contrast, he observes that non-Calvinists incorporate logical and moral coherence into their hermeneutics, but the Calvinist does not. This leads the Calvinist and non-Calvinist to adopt and retain mutually exclusive interpretations of the same texts.
You may be thinking that it should go without saying that coherence is necessary for affirming an interpretation as an accurate reflection of the authorial intent and the meaning of that text. But then you should also be astonished, not only that the Calvinist does not take their incoherence to be interpretively significant, but that the contemporary evangelical church embraces a theological and soteriological relativism in that it affirms these two mutually exclusive theologies and soteriologies as if they both are legitimate interpretations of Scripture. One of Steve’s goals is to raise awareness in the evangelical church that it is intellectually and interpretively irresponsible to be in denial of this problem in our midst. Two mutually exclusive positions cannot both be true. He would like to see evangelical Christians, leaders, pastors, and teachers, take this matter more seriously, not to argue for argument’s sake, but because the gospel is at stake in this controversy. Steve believes Calvinism’s theistic determinism has far-reaching negative implications for the evangelical church’s conception of God and that Calvinism’s soteriology (TULIP) is not a message of “good news.” He maintains that a message of truly “good news” is at the heart of the Christian faith, yet that is lacking in Calvinist soteriology. As admirable as it is to exalt God’s sovereignty and glory, these religious sentiments cannot be extrapolated to the degree of a universal divine causal determinism without destroying the gospel as “good news.” Therefore, to the degree that this theistic determinism is being preached and taught, is the degree to which the “good news” is being distorted and eroded in the evangelical church. Therefore, based on the emphatic stance the apostle Paul took towards any distortion of the gospel or “evangel” (Gal. 1:6-9. See also 2:5, 14, 3:5-9, 22), any church that calls itself “evangelical” must come to grips with this matter. It must develop a conviction regarding the gospel as “good news” and establish that conviction on Scripture via a hermeneutic of coherence. This requires justifying the hermeneutic with which one interprets that Scripture. Will it be a hermeneutic of coherence or a hermeneutic of incoherence?
Therefore, since the gospel is at stake, we cannot treat these soteriological differences as non-essentials or a secondary issue. Intellectual and interpretive integrity demand that:
a) The evangelical church comes to better understand the nature of these theological and soteriological differences.
b) The evangelical church ceases denying the mutual exclusivity of the differences.
c) The evangelical church ceases denying that this mutual exclusivity has no bearing on the truth of a position.
d) The evangelical church acknowledges that Scripture properly interpreted should not lead to inconsistent or contradictory interpretations.
e) The evangelical church comes to acknowledge that the gospel is at stake in this debate.
Steve believes that a resolution is possible to this disagreement that has plagued the church for centuries. The resolution lies in coming to grips with the hermeneutical issue at its foundation. Evangelicals need to decide which hermeneutic is proper for biblical interpretation: a hermeneutic of incoherence or a hermeneutic of coherence. That will help the evangelical church develop a gospel conviction and decide whether to accept Calvinism or not. As Steve sees it, Christian love and unity do not demand the suppression of our moral and reasoning faculties, which is required to legitimize and embrace a hermeneutic of incoherence (i.e., Calvinism). He trusts that through sustained, logically sound, honest dialogue and formal debate, the church can acknowledge and embrace a hermeneutic of coherence (i.e., non-Calvinism).
Therefore, Steve welcomes constructive questions and discussion on this site from Calvinists, non-Calvinists, believers, and unbelievers interested in these issues. And although this is a very sensitive topic, especially when examining the logical and moral incoherence in the spoken and written words of Calvinist scholars, pastors, and teachers, nevertheless, the truth must be sought and acknowledged for there to be any progress here. God is a God of truth, and the Spirit is the Spirit of truth. Therefore, speaking the truth in love, not ignoring the truth for love, is necessary (Ephesians 4:11-16). Speaking the truth requires honesty and openness. Speaking the truth in love means that everything that is said and done is marked by the Christian virtues of civility, dignity, and respect.
Steve’s vision and goal is that people would hear the true, biblical gospel and be saved! Listen to Billy Graham preach that gospel here.
The Truth of the Gospel 
Dear Mr Marcy,
I thank the Good Lord for you as you speak Truth in love. There is only one gospel, the Good News of Jesus Christ, the Gospel according to Holy Scripture. All others are heresy, there is no relativism that can exist. (Hence Calvinism) I love the Word and I know you do as well. Your discernment refreshes my spirit. I ran across this article by accident and after reading it I believe you’d like Dr Baruch Korman, PHD. He is a Messianic Believer and a brother in Christ. Keep speaking Truth!
Blessings,
Charlotte Gurney
LikeLike
Hi Charlotte,
Thank you so much for your encouraging words, and thanks for reading on my site (albeit by accident!) Hopefully you will return to the site if you need information about the nature of Calvinism and how it mitigates against the biblical gospel which is the “good news” of salvation for every individual and can be recieved by faith alone.
Also, thanks for the reference to Baruch Korman. I poked around a bit and found his website. Although I may not agree with him on certain things, perhaps, as a Messianic Jew, he can provide me with more insight into the doctrine of election on which I am presently writing. This involves God’s choice of Abraham, the importance of faith, the Abrahamic covenant, Isaac as the child of promise, Jacob and the establishment of a nation who are the elect people of God and how all this flows into the New Testament in references to “the elect” and especially the interpretation of passages like Ephesians 1 and Romans 9-11. I see he has lectures on these epistles. I will have to investigate further. Thanks for mentioning his ministry. Election is a central doctrine for Calvinists as they interpret it. Are they correct in their interpretation? I hope to show that they are not. Stay tuned!
Sincerely,
Steve
LikeLike
Dear Mr Marcy,
I’m so excited for you as you study some of Baruch’s teachings, especially in that pertaining to “The Sovereignty of God and The Doctrine of Predestination.” In the last couple of years, I have studied over half the Bible exegesis under his teachings, and I believe that from any standpoint , hence an apologetic standpoint Biblical doctrines can not be compromised. Like your research on election, the theologian’s definition is the problem. With prayer and guidance from the Holy Spirit I am confident that you will be able to prove Calvinist are once again missing the mark. I’ll definitely be revisiting your sight as I’m just a grandmother from NH who teaches other women and I want to disciple them in the Word and for them to be on guard as apostasy continues to rise.
You can also download MBS Bible Study app for free and it has most of Baruch’s lectures and teachings in one place
Blessings Charlotte
ps His teachings on the patriarchs- exceptional. I ate up every word in the first 50 chapters of this blessed Book!
LikeLike
Hi Charlotte,
Thanks for your follow-up email and for the further referrals to Baruch’s teachings. I’ll be sure to investigate his material. I’m sure I will glean insights pertent to my study on the doctrine of election.
Glad to hear you are teaching and discipling other women. I sense your concern to faithfully and accurately interpret the Word of God and teach it to others. May God bless you and your ministry.
Sincererly,
Steve
LikeLike
I’m glad you are doing this. In my study, I found that God chooses nations, cities, and people, many times for specific task or tasks, however not for salvation. From what I can tell, Jesus is ‘the’ elect, ‘the’ chosen, and when we put our faith in Him, we are put ‘in’ Christ and immediately become one of the elect. I.e., we have a calling. I’m very curious to see how this work goes!
LikeLike
Hi sensationallyluminous (Thomas?),
I don’t think I replied to your Aug. 8th comment. Sorry about that! I didn’t seem to get a WordPress notification that I had a comment.
Anyway, what you said about “the elect” is correct. That is the biblical perspective on election. I’m still working on that chapter for my website, so thanks for your patience.
I’ve taken some time to critique as sermon I recently heard. Almost finished with that paper. I will publish it when it’s complete.
Thanks again for your patience and reading and commenting on my site.
Sincerely,
Steve
LikeLike
Very much looking forward to that. Thank you for response.
LikeLike
Stephen, I am so glad that you have undertaken such a work here! Guess what book I was reading when I found your blog? Yep! Geisler’s! So I started (seriously) studying Calvinism probably about 10 years ago. I am 70 years old, have a major in Bible, minor in Greek from a Bible college. I take the text seriously as you obviously do. The text is our highest authority, since it is God’s Word. So… I am working my way through your masterpiece here and am assuming that you don’t deal with the question I am going to ask you now in light of these two opposites (determinism and free will). So I have had recent discussions with my wife and grown kids in regards to ‘when’ evil or sin began (not ‘entered the world’). It appears to me that it began when “Satan said in his heart” – whenever that was (could have been in Heaven pre-creation?), that that was when it entered. And, if that is the case, then either God originated that thought OR Satan had a free will – is that not correct? Either God is the author of sin or He isn’t. Is it that simple sir? It appears to me that Satan can and does insert 1st person thoughts into our minds and at that point, we either take ownership of the evil thought or we ‘resist the devil in the name of Jesus and He flees.’. At the point where we take ownership of that sinful thought, as James says, our own lusts have won and successfully enticed us. Am I correct? Based on that assertion, in the case of Satan and when “he said in his heart” – I am assuming that that was an original thought of his own making and a free choice that he made at that exact moment. It argues then that the angels at that point in time and perhaps since, had free wills or how could Satan and 1/3 of the angelic host have rebelled en masse? This seems to go back to the basics when it comes to free will, or am I missing something here sir? I am very much looking forward to your response! God bless.
LikeLike
Hi Thomas,
Thanks so much for your thoughtful comments and questions. Regarding your first submission on the fall of Satan, I believe you are correct. God is not the author of sin, evil thoughts, or temptations to sin. It is Satan that fell of his own free will. I think you are also correct about the other fallen angels (i.e., demons). They also fell of their own free will. Regarding the scriptural evidences for this, I refer you to the eminent philsopher and theologian William Lane Craig’s Defenders Class lectures on this topic. He states, “So, all in all, I think there are scriptural hints or indications that the traditional understanding of Satan and the demons is very plausible, namely that originally God created a realm of angelic beings who were created good (they’re not created evil) but who, through an exercise of free will, rebelled against God and so fell away and are condemned.” Here is the link to this lecture:
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-3/s3-doctrine-of-creation/doctrine-of-creation-part-22
Dr. Craig also states, “I take it that angels were originally created good but that there was a fall away because they used their creaturely free will in an inappropriate way and so fell away from God.” Here is the link to this quote. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-1/s1-the-doctrine-of-creation/the-doctrine-of-creation-part-24
Perhaps you would like to listen to all of Dr. Craig’s lectures on Satan and demons. Go to this link: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-3
You’ll find them in Section 8 – Doctrine of Creation, Parts 19-21. You may also like to listen to his lectures on Calvinism, Molinism, and Arminianism. You’ll find those in Section 11 – Doctrine of Salvation, Parts 1-5.
Yes, this all goes back to the basic question of free will. The Bible everywhere presupposes the free will of his creatures, both angelic and human, as your references to James 1:13-14 and 4:7-10 confirm.
Your points in your addendum are well taken. I like that quote from your favorite Bible teacher! Yes, I believe it applies to the Calvinist’s treatment of Scripture. What the Calvinist does is ignore context to make a text mean what is required by their traditional Calvinist beliefs. They create incoherencies, inconsistencies, and contradictions within Scripture. But this does not matter to their hermeneutic (i.e., their priniciples of interpretation). Therefore, I call this a heremeneutic of incoherence, which is a very bad heremeneutic. I examine this problem in many places on my site. It is the fundamental problem in this controversy.
Anyway, I hope this helps.
Thanks again for reading on my site and for your comments.
Sincerely,
~ Steve
LikeLike
I am honored by your reply sir! I just haven’t heard that preached or taught and wanted someone else who was well-versed in Scripture/the whole counsel of God to comment on it. Wow! Thx for those links! I will read them all, yes! Just looked William Lane Craig up and he was born 40 miles from my home town (Peoria, IL, and My home town is Galesburg, IL). I am only 1/5 of the way through your Geisler (chosen but free) work, but am going through the entire piece since you seem to be fair in your treatment and you focus on the assertions and logic (our God is logical not capricious) not character assassination, which should be attractive to others – or at least anyone who cares about the truth more than their systematic theology! God bless.
LikeLike
Thomas,
You’re very welcome!
Perhaps you’ll find other of Dr. Craig’s Defenders class lectures of interest. I highly recommend them. Excellent in-depth biblical instruction!
Thanks again for reading on my site.
~ Steve
LikeLike
Addendum to my above post: 1. I am not and have never been a Calvinist although my pastor is and I have good friends that are. 2. I know of families that Calvinism has ‘blown up’ because of its exclusivity. 3. I didn’t tie in all of my comments above thoroughly – hope they made sense. 4. When I said that God’s Word/the Bible is our final authority – I meant to pint out that it ‘isn’t’ history or councils (the holy grail of Calvinists)! 5. Calvinism – I call it a ‘derived’ theology – since it is not directly taught – with proper exegesis – in Scripture. 6. One bible teacher I love and under whose teaching I have grown immensely over the last 30 years said this (a quote): “If you torture the text long enough, it will confess to anything.” Isn’t that what Calvinist theologians do sir? Thx!
LikeLike
So glad I found this site. My daughter is about to marry into a Calvanist family and as parents who are not calvanist we are struggling. Im sad about it while at the same time glad he is a man of faith I guess. I have seen many in our former church family leave a church join another with out knowing of tulip doctrine and now one of my old Sunday school teachers is pastoring a Calvanist church. Its growing in our area and hard to find a good non tulip church. Why isn’t there more pastors teaching on this and fighting for correct doctrine and interpretation! I don’t understand the silence and let it go attitude re a false gospel.
LikeLike
Hi Pamela,
Thanks for checking out my site and sharing with me your personal family situation. Congratulations to you and your daughter on her up-coming marriage! I’m sure it will be a happy occasion, but I can understand your concerns about the groom’s Calvinist beliefs.
It is interesting that people are not aware that their church leadership and/or many of the congregation may hold to Calvinist beliefs. But those beliefs are usually not freely spoken about because they are not only logically and morally offensive and contrary to Scripture, but they are also destructive of the “good news” (i.e., the gospel) of salvation for all sinners. Calvinist pastors shy away from incorporating their deterministic theological and soteriological doctrines in their ministry mainly because the Bible overwhelmingly testifies to human freedom and responsibility. So most of their sermons are inconsistent with what they believe doctrinally. The only time they have occasion to expound on their Calvinist doctrines explicitly is when they are preaching on passages like Romans 9, Ephesians 1, John 6, etc., which properly interpreted do not support Calvinism. But they get around the contradictions that their deterministic interpretations produce with human freedom and responsibility by fleeing to “mystery,” “incomprehensibility,” “the Bible teaches both,” “antinomy,” “the need for humility before God,” or labeling their real contradictions only “apparent contradictions.” Other pastors, who may or may not be Calvinists, hardly even mention these issues because they don’t want to divide their church over this matter. They are silent on the matter because they have convinced themselves it is a “secondary” issue or an “in-house debate” that is of no real importance to gospel ministry. If they do teach on the controverted passages they usually do so without going into any depth or avoid specific verses altogether. But this reveals that they don’t understand Calvinism’s negative implications for the character of God and the gospel message. It also means that they are not preaching the whole council of God. If you spend some time on my site you will read about these Calvinist dynamics and the arguments against Calvinism.
I know it is hard to find a church where the pastor and leadership have biblically informed convictions regarding the truth of the gospel as “good news” and therefore reject Calvinism. Pastors are not fighting for correct doctrine and interpretation because they do not want to offend anyone and because our churches are more interested in fellowship and feelings, than engaging the intellect. The evangelical church today is plagued by anti-intellectualism, and this produces an atmosphere where the careful systematic study of biblical theology and doctrine, along with hermeneutics, that is, the principles of good interpretation, are not welcome and cannot flourish. But this is an environment in which Calvinism can take root due to the rationalizations I listed above which have more to do with the supression of reason and moral intuition than raising and answering legitimate questions about the text.
Now, to “bring the gospel” or “proclaim the gospel” is said to describe the purpose of church ministries, bible studies, mission statements, etc., but we must ask what is meant by “the gospel.” The point is that there are two mutually exclusive soteriologies in our churches today which express two mutually exclusive “gospels.” But this cannot be, logically or biblically. So either one, (or both?) soteriology is false, and the other true. And one “gospel” is false and the other true. Therefore, I submit to you that the Calvinist’s TULIP doctrines are not what the Bible teaches because they are in contradiction with the overwhelming witness of Scripture to human freedom and responsibility, and God’s character and his just judgments. Therefore, a non-Calvinist soteriology that does not create these logical, moral, and theological problems is the better interpretation of the controvertial texts and reflects the true gospel or “good news” of salvation for any and all who believe in Jesus.
I hope this helps provide some insights and answers your questions.
Thanks again for visiting my site.
Sincerely,
Steve
LikeLike
Wow Stephen! So well said! Thank you for putting into words what many of us fail to have the skill to do! I have a question for you in this regard. Do you think that Calvinism could possibly equal the doctrine of the Nicolaitans in Scripture? From what I can tell, that doctrine has to do with ‘lording over’ others. Have you ever looked into this sir?
LikeLike
Hi sensationallyluminous (Thomas?),
Thanks for your encouraging remarks on my response to Pamela. I’m glad they were helpful.
Regarding your question, I do not know much about the Nicolaitans from Scripture. I did read the short entry in my New Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed. on the Nicolaitans. It did not seem that there is any similarity between them and the nature of Calvinism or its teachings. But you may want to do more research on this question.
Thanks for reading on my site and again for your kind, encouraging words.
Sincerely,
Steve
LikeLike