Introductory Remarks
In previous chapters, I demonstrated the incoherencies, inconsistencies, and contradictions of Calvinism and raised the issue of the validity of such interpretations. Here is a list of the areas of incoherence, along with links to each area of concern.
Logical Concerns
Theological Concerns
Ethical and Moral Concerns
Existential and Epistemological Concerns [1]
Ministry Concerns
Hermeneutical and Interpretive Concerns
Conclusions
The Calvinists’ problems stem from their belief in an eternal divine decree and divine sovereignty, which is defined as a universal, divine causal determinism. This theistic determinism dictates their soteriological doctrines, including predestination or election as unconditional. I submit to you that these deterministic doctrines negate the message of the gospel as “good news.” This is a serious matter. Therefore, exposing this problem and addressing it is my primary concern, as I believe it should be for every Christian who cherishes the preservation and proclamation of the true, biblical gospel. So, here again, I ask whether incoherent, inconsistent, and contradictory interpretations of the Bible can be valid? This is a hermeneutical question.
In this chapter, I provide an outline of the interpretive problems of Calvinism to make them understandable and stimulate thought and discussion on these problems, with special emphasis on the broader theological and hermeneutical concerns involved. That is how this chapter may be used.
Anyone who has given some thought to Calvinism has encountered the problems I list above and with the points I raise in the outlines. Hence, they are familiar to many. I would encourage you not to ignore these problems, but seriously consider that they are signs of the misinterpretation of Scripture.
Many laypeople and theologians are convinced that clear thinking born of philosophical reflection and our moral intuitions should be included in what constitutes a sound biblical hermeneutic. These are necessary considerations for properly interpreting Scripture. We believe these need to be incorporated into exegetical claims about the meaning of the disputed texts. Only then can we arrive at a more accurate understanding of the doctrines of sovereignty, election, predestination, faith, grace, the nature of salvation, and the biblical definition of the gospel.
I presuppose here a working knowledge of the Calvinist beliefs as to the eternal decree, divine sovereignty, and the TULIP soteriology that I provided in Chapter 3. Although I expand on some of the crucial points in the outlines, it is not my intent here to provide exhaustive explanations of these propositions. Nor do I attempt to include biblical references or exegetical expositions against Calvinism, or in defense of any non-Calvinist view. That I do throughout this website, and I would also refer you to the scholarly literature in the annotated bibliography. In this chapter, I only want to provide summary explanations of the quantity and comprehensive scope of the Calvinists’ difficulties.
Calvinists Ignore the Valid Critiques of Logical Reasoning and Moral Intuition
Although Calvinists affirm that non-Calvinists provide biblical exegetical reasons against Calvinism, Calvinists primarily assert that non-Calvinists object to Calvinism based on philosophical grounds. The Calvinist then seeks to bolster their theological position by claiming it is based on the exegesis of the text. But these Calvinist claims are short-sighted and false. They are short-sighted because exegesis, rightly performed, incorporates philosophical reflection. This holds the exegete accountable to clear thinking and reasoning about the text. The Calvinist divorces their exegesis from the probative force of philosophical assessments. They dismiss the valid critiques of both logical reasoning and moral intuition as applied to their exegesis and its theological conclusions. This places their theology beyond rational critique. So the Calvinist can comfortably hide behind his exegesis, which, because it avoids logical and moral critique, also avoids being subject to an assessment of its validity or invalidity.
Furthermore, the Calvinists’ assertion that non-Calvinists object to Calvinism based primarily on philosophical grounds is false. Non-Calvinists also have exegetical treatments of the passages that pertain to this controversy (Eph. 1; Rom. 9; Jn. 6; et al.). The difference is that the non-Calvinist does not interpret them in contradiction with the overwhelming witness of Scripture to contingency, freedom of the will, and human responsibility. In contrast, Calvinists permit themselves to ignore these non-Calvinist interpretations in favor of their deterministic rendering of these texts, which produce results that are incoherent and contradictory. This ultimately reveals that Calvinists do not believe interpretive coherence is an essential hermeneutical principle. The Calvinist does not feel the need to interpret the controversial passages as coherent with the overwhelming witness of the Scripture to contingency, freedom of the will, and human responsibility. The Calvinist affirms that the scriptures teach these truths, yet fails to take the incoherence and contradiction that their deterministic doctrines generate with these truths as indicative of misinterpretation on their part. They admit to their own logical and moral difficulties, but these have no interpretive or hermeneutical significance for the Calvinist.
Calvinism Remains Insulated from Robust Reasoning, Moral Intuition, and Sound Exegesis
Therefore, as long as coherence, consistency, and non-contradiction do not play a significant role in the Calvinists’ hermeneutic, this controversy will continue. In conflict with what they also know Scripture clearly teaches, they will not reconsider or abandon their theistic determinism. Calvinism remains insulated, not only from the probative force of rational and moral critique, but also from the sound, exegetical conclusions presented by non-Calvinist scholars. These are interpretive conclusions that are not incoherent or contradictory with the other clear teachings of Scripture. Hence, Calvinists remain very intransigent in their thinking and teaching. Therefore, the question to be posed to Calvinists is whether they believe that logical reflection and moral intuitions play an essential role in interpretation, or whether one’s interpretations can exhibit incoherence, inconsistency, and contradiction and still be valid interpretations of Scripture.
It is only by addressing this hermeneutical issue that a consensus can be reached regarding what the Bible actually teaches about God, salvation, and the gospel. Calvinists will have to either continue to rationalize and cavalierly dismiss the many problems their interpretations raise or concede that coherence, consistency, and non-contradiction are essential to a sound hermeneutic and serve to determine true from false interpretations.
I submit that the non-Calvinist view incorporates a more adequate hermeneutic, that is, one that takes on board logical, moral, and theological coherence as essential to determining whether a proposed interpretation of the biblical text is valid or not. This is what Henry Thiessen is referring to by the phrase, “fewer objections,” when he comments on the doctrine of election. He states that the non-Calvinist position,
“…has fewer objections than any other, and best commends itself in the light of what we know of the righteousness and holiness of God on the one hand, and of human responsibility on the other.”[2]
In short, for Thiessen and non-Calvinists in general, coherence is hermeneutically significant.
The Gospel and Character of God Are At Stake
We should not be under any illusions that this is a “secondary” or “non-essential” issue. That is a ploy propagated by those who accept theological and soteriological relativism to preserve a superficial ecclesial unity. They refuse to acknowledge that the very gospel as a message of “good news” is at stake in this controversy. In doing so, they promote an anti-intellectualism in the evangelical church, diminish theology as a credible discipline, show a disregard for the authority of Scripture, and, most importantly, they confuse and suppress the truth of the gospel. The sincere and honest proclamation of that gospel, along with a true, meaningful knowledge of the character of God and the love he has for each one of us, is at stake. What is at issue is whether we can obtain true and reliable knowledge of the nature and character of God and what his actual disposition and salvific will is towards each of us (i.e., the epistemological concern). That is, I contend that the character of God, along with the biblical gospel message and its effective proclamation, is at issue here. There are two diametrically opposed “gospels” being taught in the “evangelical” church today. They both cannot be true.
Legitimate Reactions and Questions that Need Answering
Most people, when they are exposed to Calvinism, go away scratching their heads, saying, “That just doesn’t make sense,” or “God can’t be like that,” or “How can I know for sure that I can be saved?” and “How can I know if I’m one of the elect?” These are legitimate reactions and questions that should not be suppressed. What causes them should be brought to light and carefully examined. But Calvinists suppress these thoughts and questions, as I will demonstrate in Chapter 10. In short, I submit that Calvinism requires us to accept interpretive conclusions that are ultimately exegetically and hermeneutically unsustainable precisely because they are unreasonable, that is, incoherent, inconsistent, and contradictory. They result in nonsense and run contrary to our moral standards and intuitions. As such, they do not warrant our belief. My thesis is that interpretations that generate significant contradictions and incoherencies, like those listed in these outlines, are not accurate. In contrast, interpretations that exhibit logical and moral consistency are closer to the author’s intent in the text. As non-Calvinists, Jerry Walls and Joseph Dongell point out,
“While logical consistency may not be a sufficient condition to show that a theology is true, it is a necessary condition.”[3]
The Hermeneutical Divide
This issue of the necessity for logical consistency is what divides the Calvinists’ hermeneutic from the non-Calvinists’ hermeneutic. Logical and moral consistency are essential for the non-Calvinist. But not for the Calvinist. This is what I have designated the hermeneutical divide. It is at the heart of this controversy.
My purpose in this chapter is to categorize and summarize the many difficulties generated by Calvinism’s theistic determinism. I will provide an overview of the nature and scope of the problems inherent in Calvinism. I point out the substantial contradictions and incoherencies that Calvinism generates, which force many to conclude that Calvinism is in error. The thesis presented here is that when we include philosophical reflection, clarity of thought, the reliability of the laws of logic and logical inference, along with moral intuitions as essential to a proper hermeneutic, we are provided with good reasons to conclude what the texts cannot mean. We come to see that the biblical text cannot be teaching what the Calvinist claims with respect to divine sovereignty as theistic determinism and election, as unconditional, due to the logical, moral, theological, and practical incoherencies and contradictions these doctrinal conceptions generate. Granted, coherence is not the only factor to be considered in determining the correct meaning of a text, but it is a necessary factor. Incoherence is a reliable indicator that tells us what the text cannot mean.
Therefore, if exegetically sound alternative interpretations of the relevant texts exist that are not incoherent, inconsistent, or contradictory, it is likely that they better reflect the true meaning and authorial intent of those texts. Such interpretations do exist. Again, I refer you to the annotated bibliography.
Given that a proper biblical hermeneutic maintains that the Bible does not contradict itself, nor is it incoherent in its teachings, when a theology does generate such contradictions and incoherencies, these are clear indications that something is amiss. Therefore, I concur with I. Howard Marshall’s modest statement regarding passages Calvinists use to teach an unconditional election. He writes,
“I am going to suggest that the election statements may be in danger of some misinterpretation.”[4]
Also, Jerry Walls and Joseph Dongell observe that,
“Calvinists who believe election is unconditional in this sense do not serve anyone well by obscuring this claim with confusion, ambiguity or inconsistency. Nor does it serve the cause of clear thinking and truth to confuse contradiction with mystery or to suggest that it is a mark of superior piety to be unworried about logical consistency. While the truth about God is beyond our full comprehension it doesn’t contain contradiction. Calvinists can’t eliminate the contradictions in their theology by fleeing into mystery or appealing to notions like antinomy. To the contrary, the contradictions we have identified are a telltale sign that something is profoundly awry at the heart of Reformed theology.”[5]
The number of different types of problems generated by Calvinism’s determinism, along with the severity of their incoherence, when viewed cumulatively, makes a strong case against it. When Calvinists read Scripture as teaching a universal divine causal determinism and must admit to its overwhelming testimony to contingency, human freedom, and personal responsibility, they contradict themselves and then attempt to pass this contradiction off as an incomprehensible mystery rather than a real contradiction. But the advice of I. A. Richards is in order here when he states,
“We cannot have it both ways, and no sneers at the limitations of logic…amend the dilemma.”[6]
If the canons of reason are indispensable for determining interpretive validity, then to the degree that the Calvinist interpretations are marked by incoherence, inconsistency, and contradiction, is the degree to which we must, if we want to preserve an intellectually responsible hermeneutic that is faithful to Scripture, declare them false.[7]
Go to the first section: Logical Concerns
The Truth of the Gospel 