Back to Chapter 5 – The Nature and Scope of the Calvinist Difficulties
So we have revealed the source of the exasperation experienced when non-Calvinists and Calvinists attempt to communicate. Each is operating on two very different hermeneutical criteria. Non-Calvinists believe that logical, moral, epistemological, and theological coherence, as well as non-contradiction, are essential elements in a sound hermeneutic and therefore necessary for doing good interpretation. Non-Calvinists find “positive moral significance”[44] as well as positive logical significance in the incoherence and contradictions raised by Calvinists, whereas the Calvinist does not view his incoherence as significant. For Calvinists, logical and moral significance are discounted because their interpretations of sovereignty as deterministic and election as unconditional are forever fixed and deemed a priori to be the proper interpretation of Scripture. No matter how great the Calvinists’ logical or moral incoherence, their deterministic definitions of sovereignty and unconditional election hold absolute sway. These differences constitute the hermeneutical divide.
Rather than view contradiction and incoherence as interpretive “red-flags” indicating that their interpretations may be incorrect and employ them to reconsider their interpretations, the Calvinist dismisses them through the various conceptual and rhetorical devices, such as God has two wills, God loves in two different ways, it’s a tension, it’s an antinomy, it’s incomprehensible to the sinful human mind, it’s an ‘apparent contradiction,’ and compatibilism. Rather than using logical, moral, epistemological, and theological coherence and consistency as interpretive tools that would either affirm one’s interpretive conclusions or cause one to re-evaluate them, the Calvinists’ difficulties are explained away with the reasonings cited.
Coming to the biblical teaching on these matters does not yield to simplistic “proof-texting,” intellectual sloth, or fragmented and limited theological thinking on either side. Yet, the logical, moral, epistemological, theological, and practical incoherencies inherent in Calvinism, when cumulatively considered, present formidable evidence that something is seriously wrong there. These constitute a strong cumulative case against Calvinism. Indeed, I believe they indicate that Calvinism is unbiblical as to its definition of divine sovereignty and its soteriology.
The Calvinist will insist, as does the non-Calvinist, that the ultimate issue is whether one has accurately interpreted Scripture. Both hold that the Bible is the ultimate authority. Both can produce texts to support their positions. But how can each one claim they have accurately understood their supporting texts when the interpretive results are mutually exclusive? The Bible is authoritative, but it is we human beings who must interpret it. The question we are always left with is how to know whether one has accurately interpreted the Bible. That is what we must grapple with. That is ultimately a hermeneutical issue. And we have a crucial hermeneutical issue here in this controversy. The people who interpret the Bible are rational and moral beings. Rationality and morality are gifts of God, given to us as part of his general revelation. Hence, it seems necessary that we employ sound logical and moral reasoning to arbitrate between disparate interpretations to discern which one reflects the most plausible meaning of the text.
One can easily base their Calvinist convictions on select verses and dismiss the problems listed above as not ultimately relevant if the Bible actually does teach both Calvinist deterministic sovereignty and genuine human freedom. But the “if” is what we are attempting to discern. The Calvinist has the problem here. Due to his determinism, which he will not forfeit, and his ultimate acknowledgement that he faces a contradiction with the inescapable witness of the scriptures to human freedom and responsibility, he merely flees to “divine mystery” or labels the acknowledged contradiction as only “apparent.” But this is question-begging while ignoring the hermeneutical implications of his contradiction. It assumes that the Bible actually teaches Calvinist determinism and genuine human freedom and halts all further inquiry into whether that is indeed the case and whether his contradiction indicates he has misinterpreted the biblical texts.
Hence, to accept Calvinism, one must also be willing to embrace the Calvinist hermeneutic that fails to find positive logical and moral significance in the substantial problems listed above. To me, that failure is baffling and both intellectually and morally irresponsible. It is also hermeneutically deficient. Therefore, I contend Calvinism is an unacceptable theology for the biblical Christian. As far as I can see, Calvinism and the “doctrines of grace” are not morally nor intellectually sustainable and therefore not reflective of a biblically adequate hermeneutic. Hence, embracing Calvinism requires too high a price to pay intellectually, morally, and theologically.
This is what makes discussion with Calvinists on these matters very difficult. It is that they remain unconvinced that logic and moral “givens” play a definitive role in discerning the validity of their interpretations and the theology derived from them. They generally acknowledge the importance of logical and moral concerns, but ultimately, these hold little to no weight in evaluating the validity of their theological claims. Non-Calvinists who have attempted to engage Calvinists about the problems within their theology have likely experienced this Calvinist indifference. At a predictable point, the discussion tails off into “mystery,” and the Calvinist asserts that these things cannot be understood by fallen, sinful human minds. Of course, the claim that we cannot understand the Calvinist interpretation of Scripture puts an end to any further discussion. How does one dialogue with someone who insists the topic cannot be understood? At that point, the Calvinist completely disengages into a “deafening” silence. They may even take this posture before any discussion. After all, no explanations are necessary because it is the sovereign will of God that he does not show the non-Calvinist the truth of Calvinism. But the Calvinists’ silence or flight to “mystery” in the face of his incoherence is not a satisfactory hermeneutic as far as the non-Calvinist is concerned. The non-Calvinist wants to reason about how to interpret Scripture, whereas for the Calvinist, their propositions that are deemed contradictory, inconsistent, or incoherent by the non-Calvinist are only “apparently” so. They are not really so. And if the Calvinists would ever admit they are really contradictory, they would just ignore that, too. So as long as the Calvinist insists that his Calvinism is a “biblical mystery” on these matters, nothing more can be said.
I submit that this is a controversy in which the truth is to be discerned in the manner by which we discern truth in all other matters of life, where there are conflicting perspectives, that is, based on the evidence and information available to us, we make an inference to the best explanation. This presupposes the veridicality of reason and moral intuition. And given the fact that a) there are non-Calvinist interpretations of the relevant texts that are exegetically sound and foster doctrinal coherence, and b) that by establishing the nature and character of God as morally recognizable those interpretations remain christologically centered and epistemologically transparent as to the salvific will of God for each of us, and c) they thereby affirm the gospel as “good news,” I see the weight of evidence favoring non-Calvinist theologies, and no substantive reasons to accept Calvinism.
These matters are especially pressing because they converge on the gospel itself with respect to its actual biblical content and its ethical proclamation in the power of the Holy Spirit. One would think that the central theme and message of the whole of Scripture – the gospel – would be clearly discernible by the evangelical church. Therefore, it is indeed a curious and troubling phenomenon that there are two contradictory soteriologies and gospels presently accepted in the “evangelical” church today. Indeed, I contend that the very content of the gospel as “good news” and the nature and effectiveness of a truly evangelical ministry are at stake here. With all the books recently written on “the gospel,” especially by Calvinists, there is one essential question that demands a definitive answer, and that is pressing itself upon the Evangelical Christian church in our day. That question is “What is the biblical gospel?” If the church is to be truly evangelical, that is, be the guardian and proclaimer of “good news,” then it must come to grips with the truth of the gospel. In order to do that, it must come to grips with the hermeneutical divide.
Back to Chapter 5 – The Nature and Scope of the Calvinist Difficulties
The Truth of the Gospel 