Back to Chapter 6 – What’s At Stake? The Character of God and the Truth of the Gospel
Here is a clickable Table of Contents for this last section of Chapter 6.
- A Principled Grammatical-Historical Method
- The Root Problem: Calvinists Dismiss Logical and Moral Reasoning
- Why We Might Miss the Matter of Coherence
- Dismissive Rationalizations, Eisegesis, and a Conflicting Framework
- Ignoring the Principle of Context
- A Hermeneutic of Coherence or Incoherence? The Calvinist Must Decide
- Calvinists Need to Justify Their Hermeneutic of Incoherence
- Indicting Scripture as Incoherent
- For Calvinists, Incoherence Has No Interpretive Significance
- Calvinists Unwittingly Contradict Themselves
- What is a Contradiction?
- More Questions Calvinists Must Answer
- What is God Really Like?
- Calvinism is Not a Biblically Viable Theology
- True Biblical Mystery or Faulty Interpretation
A Principled Grammatical-Historical Method
To claim certain textual interpretations to be true, there must be foundational reasoning that produces, supports, and justifies those interpretations as valid. One of those foundations is the grammatical-historical method of exegesis. This method is essential for understanding what the author intended to communicate. As necessary as this method is to proper interpretation, it is only reliable to the degree it also incorporates logical reflection and moral intuition. These, too, are necessary, and indeed must be included in the definition of the grammatical-historical method of exegesis. It is reasonable to believe that an author intends to be coherent, consistent, and non-contradictory in what he writes. Therefore, exegeses and interpretations that evidence logical and moral problems would be deemed misunderstandings of what the author intended to communicate. The grammatical-historical method provides certain safeguards in reading, studying, and interpreting the text so that it is not misinterpreted. But surely the grammatical-historical method rightly employed should not lead to understandings of the biblical texts that are inconsistent or in contradiction with each other. Grammatical-historical exegesis offers certain safeguards that, when rightly applied, lead us closer to what the author intended to communicate. But it is critical to see that the mere use of the grammatical-historical method does not guarantee that there will be a conscious effort put forth to check one’s interpretive conclusions for consistency and non-contradiction. Inconsistency and contradiction in one’s interpretations mean that the grammatical-historical method has not been rightly applied. Whatever it means to apply an interpretive method to a text and to think about what that text means, the process must adhere to sound principles of reasoning and moral virtues and standards. Therefore, when exegetes interpret various texts in ways that generate incoherencies, inconsistencies, or contradictions with their exegesis of other texts, a reassessment regarding what is happening at the more fundamental hermeneutical level is necessary. The hermeneutical level involves those principles by which we discern authorial intent. Among those principles are the use of our logical faculties (i.e., engagement in philosophical reflection, which is just clear thinking) and our moral intuitions. These are not only fundamental to proper interpretation, but to the very nature of thought itself. We cannot reason without them, and therefore we cannot interpret in disregard of them. I submit that any hermeneutic worthy of our attention must incorporate logical and moral coherence.
The Root Problem: Calvinists Dismiss Logical and Moral Reasoning
Therefore, I contend that the root problem in this controversy is that the Calvinist refuses to embrace a hermeneutic of coherence. Calvinists dichotomize exegesis from the deliberations and deliverances of logical or philosophical reflection and their moral intuitions. They therefore ignore the force of the critique that is leveled by these against their exegeses and interpretations. The Calvinist’s dismissal of the essential canons of reason and our moral sense as determiners of interpretive validity is the root cause of the Calvinist/non-Calvinist controversy. These are fundamental to proper interpretation and proper reasoning itself.
Why We Might Miss the Matter of Coherence
If the Calvinist’s exegetical interpretations produce identifiable and real incoherence, inconsistency, or contradiction (that is, they are not of the nature of true biblical mystery, and neither are they a paradox, apparent contradiction, antinomy, etc.), and if they conflict in so many ways with the clear meaning of other texts and established theological truths, how is it that those interpretations can be biblically accurate? I contend that we have no more fundamental way of processing a written text, even if divinely inspired, or discerning the validity of an exegesis, interpretation, or theological paradigm, or, for that matter, engaging in rational inquiry and discussion on these matters, than based on what is rationally coherent, consistent, and non-contradictory. Indeed, a sound biblical hermeneutic requires rational and moral coherence. When something can be shown to be contradictory, it has therefore also been shown to be false. The rules of logic and our best moral intuitions, when applied to an interpretation, determine the validity of that interpretation – even when it comes to “spiritual” matters. We need to adhere to logical reasoning and our moral intuitions to meaningfully discuss or determine the truth about anything. This is so obvious and evident that it seems strange we have to make a case for coherence in biblical interpretation. Perhaps because the matter is so obvious that it is taken for granted and not given much thought when it comes to biblical study and interpretation. If we rightly assume that our thinking, speaking, reading, and interpreting must ‘make sense,’ that is, adhere to logical and moral reasoning, then this can be overlooked as being the source of the problems within Calvinism. We just wouldn’t expect an interpretation to be incoherent, inconsistent, or contradictory. And when we just take it for granted that this wouldn’t be the case, it’s possible we don’t pay enough attention to see the problem unless it is pointed out to us. Somehow, it just gets ignored. But when it does surface, the Calvinist is ready to provide his rationalizations for the quandary his theology foists upon him and his listeners.
Dismissive Rationalizations, Eisegesis, and a Conflicting Framework
Furthermore, if logical and moral reasoning are integral to a sound hermeneutic, then resorting to “antinomy,” claiming that this is a “high mystery”[60] beyond the capacity of fallen human reason to comprehend, asserting “apparent contradiction,” and concluding that to question the Calvinist soteriology indicates sinful pride or a lack of faith and humility, all constitute dismissive rationalizations on the part of Calvinists. But these rationalizations are conceived to convince people that Calvinism is biblical. They deflect attention away from the obvious, common-sense problems people detect within Calvinism. They divert people from sustained thinking about Calvinism’s misinterpretations of the text. Moreover, regarding whether the Calvinist interpretations are actually what Scripture teaches, these “explanations” are question-begging and ad hoc. They offer no defense of the interpretations but merely presuppose the truth of those interpretations, while dismissing the logical and moral critiques that prove the Calvinist’s interpretations to be untenable. These Calvinist “explanations” beg the question, because the question before us is how we can discern and know a true or valid interpretation from a flawed or invalid one. When one’s interpretations produce identifiable rational and moral incoherence and the response to that incoherence amounts to a refusal to address whether such incoherence bears upon discerning the validity of the exegesis that produced it, then this refusal is evidence of, not exegesis, but stubborn eisegesis. That is, reading one’s theology into the text. It is evidence, not that the Calvinist position is derived from Scripture, but evidence of an a priori commitment to one’s theological tradition based on the presumption that Calvinism is the teaching of Scripture. It allows the Calvinist theological paradigm to take precedence over Scripture because it is sustained despite its violations of logical and moral coherence. At that point, it becomes necessary to read one’s theological doctrines into the text, rather than glean the author’s coherent meaning from the text. For the Calvinist, the incoherencies and contradictions of their theology hold no hermeneutical weight for determining the validity of their interpretations.
Professor of New Testament interpretation A. Berkeley Mickelsen writes,
“Because valid and invalid propositions often lie side by side in theological formulations, it is easy for us to allow our views in theology to control our interpretation and exegesis rather than to let our interpretation and exegesis control our theology. Theological principles which affect the interpreter must be examined as objectively as philosophical principles.
If the interpreter is convinced that his influencing framework is the right one and should influence him in his interpretation, then he must be prepared to establish the correctness of his controlling framework. He must not only know its basic premises, but he must be able to show that none of these premises is in the least bit contrary to the major emphases and assertions of Scripture. This will make the interpreter aware of the factors influencing his thinking.”[61]
Mickelsen states important and relevant instructions here regarding what constitutes good interpretation. But it is ignored by Calvinists. To the degree that Calvinists cannot relieve the contradictions within their theological position is the degree to which they are being pressed and influenced by their theological formulations and framework. The Calvinists’ theology of universal divine causal determinism controls their interpretation and exegesis rather than allowing interpretation and exegesis to control their theology. How do we know this? Because the Calvinist must be “prepared to establish the correctness of his controlling framework,” but this he cannot do because he jettisons the laws of logic and moral intuition necessary for establishing correctness when his interpretations prove to be “contrary to the major emphases and assertions of Scripture.” They are contradictory because of his theistic determinism. The Calvinist cannot show that his “controlling framework” is not “in the least bit contrary to the major emphases and assertions of Scripture.” In fact, the Calvinists’ “controlling framework” produces contradictions with the “major emphases and assertions of Scripture.” That is, his deterministic theology is the cause of contradictions with “the major emphases and assertions of Scripture.” And the Calvinists’ “basic premises” allow for these contradictions. They are acceptable within their hermeneutic. The Calvinist’s “influencing framework,” which is theistic determinism, is the wrong framework because it is precisely what creates incoherence, inconsistency, and contradiction in and among the “major emphases and assertions of Scripture.”
New Testament professor Glenn Shellrude writes,
“…theological determinism conflicts with the natural, intuitive reading of so many Scriptural texts. A good hypothesis is one that accounts for the largest amount of data with the fewest number of residual challenges. It is not the case that reading the New Testament within the framework of theological determinism creates the occasional tension that may require a somewhat counterintuitive interpretation of scattered texts. The challenges are monumental in that a Calvinist reading requires counterintuitive and ahistorical interpretations of thousands of texts and many different kinds of material.
A Calvinist reading of the various kinds of New Testament material discussed in this paper is in the end an exercise in eisegesis on a grand scale which in turn generates an enormous amount of textual destruction. One must impose a deterministic theological framework on texts through the use of consistently counterintuitive and ahistorical interpretive strategies.”[62]
This is precisely the situation Calvinism finds itself in. It is steeped in incoherence, inconsistency, and contradictions. So if the Calvinist refuses to address his logical and moral difficulties by adopting a sound hermeneutic, the Christian student should be aware that the Calvinist is reading his universal divine causal determinism, which he presupposes to be true, into the text. That is eisegesis, not exegesis. Given substantial logical and moral indications that his universal divine causal determinism is not biblical due to the incoherence it creates, the Calvinist still maintains his belief in this theological framework. But sound hermeneutical principles require that the Calvinist return to the text to seek interpretations that are coherent within their context and with the broader scope of the biblical witness.
Ignoring the Principle of Context
It is important to note what the Calvinist is doing here. He is ignoring the principle of context. At its fundamental level, context is just attention to coherence. Coherence is essential to the hermeneutical principle of context. Context operates on the principle that what the author has written is coherent from passage to passage. This is what reading a passage in context means. Would reading or interpreting in context lead to incoherence or contradiction among the author’s statements? Not in Scripture. Scripture does not contradict itself. It is not inconsistent or incoherent. The hermeneutical principle of context ensures that the interpreter does justice to the author’s meaning from passage to passage. It presumes the biblical author writes coherently and without contradiction.
A Hermeneutic of Coherence or Incoherence? The Calvinist Must Decide
Therefore, Calvinists must decide which hermeneutic they will employ. Will it be a herementic of coherence or incoherence? They must answer the question whether interpretations and theological constructs that manifest verifiable incoherence and contradiction are valid interpretations of the biblical text. If they want to defend the position that an incoherent or contradictory interpretation or theology can be a true and accurate interpretation of the biblical text, then they must explain on what basis that can be so. If they wish to defend the position that their theology is not incoherent or contradictory, then they would have to provide arguments and evidence as to why that is the case. Ad hoc or question-begging “explanations” will not do. They would have to give sound reasons as to why the contention that Calvinism contains incoherencies and contradictions is misconceived. The Calvinists’ attempt at a philosophical explanation via their compatibilism only eventually raises the same problems their theistic determinism creates with human freedom and responsibility. Compatibilism only kicks the can of incoherence down the road a bit. In addition, the Calvinists’ flight to mystery is an implicit admission that their theology is incoherent. The flight to mystery is unsubstantial and therefore of no help in convincing us of the biblical truth of the Calvinist theological and soteriological doctrines.
If logical and moral coherence can be put out of court in determining the validity of an interpretation, then what makes that interpretation and the theology built upon it more than a mere assertion about the meaning of the text? The interpreter is required to convincingly demonstrate that their interpretive conclusions are a result of a responsible exegesis of the text. A responsible exegesis does not land the interpreter in a quagmire of inconsistency and contradiction. But what do we do when there are differing exegeses with logically incompatible conclusions? Isn’t the exegesis that passes the test of logical and moral coherence, consistency, and non-contradiction the better exegesis? Why not? Doesn’t this exegesis display a better handling of the principle of context as spoken of above? In contrast, is an exegesis that lands the exegete in logical and moral difficulties a legitimate exegesis? How so? The point is that whoever is exegeting the text and deriving from their exegesis what they claim is the definitive meaning of the text must also do so without incoherence, inconsistency, or contradiction. To do otherwise is just to demonstrate that the text has been misinterpreted within its context.
Calvinists Need to Justify Their Hermeneutic of Incoherence
Are the Calvinists’ inconsistent or contradictory interpretations really Christian “mystery” or a display of “faith” and “humility” in light of the “incomprehensibility of God and his ways?” Can Calvinists so easily dismiss their theological difficulties? Do coherence, consistency, and non-contradiction play no role in determining the validity of one’s interpretive claims? The Calvinist would have to tell us why they don’t. Can it substantially be argued that what shows itself to us as a real contradiction is actually only an “apparent” contradiction? What is an “apparent contradiction?” The Calvinist would have to explain this. For the Calvinist to merely assert “that is what Scripture teaches” is to beg the question and indict Scripture in their inconsistencies and contradictions. Is a valid biblical hermeneutic one that is at liberty to dismiss the very foundations of the universally accepted cannons of reason and moral intuitions in the name of the “spiritual” or “inspired” nature of the text we are interpreting? The Calvinist would have to justify such a hermeneutic.
Indicting Scripture as Incoherent
The Calvinists’ problems are exacerbated by their own admission of substantial logical and moral difficulties in their theology while maintaining that their doctrines are the correct understanding of the Bible. This is stating that the contradictions arise from the Bible itself. This is also to say the Bible contains an incoherent message. It is to indict the Scripture as incoherent, inconsistent, and contradictory.
Many evangelical Christians retain the influence of Reformed Calvinist interpretation. They believe it to be the inescapable meaning of certain biblical texts (e.g., Rom. 9-11, Eph. 1, Jn. 6, 2 Thess. 2:13, etc.) even though such interpretations generate serious problems of rational and moral incoherence with other clearer biblical teachings. But labeling the incoherence a “tension” between sovereignty and human freedom only presupposes and affirms the Calvinist’s deterministic definition of divine sovereignty. But this raises a crucial prior question that needs to be addressed. That is, are the Calvinist interpretive claims about the nature of divine sovereignty being a universal divine causal determinism correct? Is this the biblical definition and teaching on God’s sovereignty? We need not presuppose that the Calvinist definition of sovereignty is the biblical definition.
For Calvinists, Incoherence Has No Interpretive Significance
Most Calvinists adhere to their deterministic definition of sovereignty while also affirming human freedom and responsibility because they believe the Bible teaches both. They state the Bible teaches that God’s comprehensive, deterministic sovereignty and man’s genuine free will and responsibility are both genuine realities. Some Calvinists claim these are ultimately logically and morally compatible if we could only understand things as God does. Other Calvinists “bite the bullet”, admit to the contradiction, and deny human freedom. Still others try to resolve the matter with the “bait and switch” tactic of compatibilism. Elsewhere on this site, I examined how compatibilism supposedly alleviates this “tension” for Calvinists. I simply note here that even though the doctrines are expounded in contradiction with each other, the Calvinist maintains that such an exposition is divine revelation on the matter. Now, if this is at all troubling for the Calvinist, I want to point out that it does not cause them to question their exegesis. Their theological incoherence and contradictions do not have interpretive or hermeneutical significance.
Calvinists Unwittingly Contradict Themselves
Calvinists obviously feel the force of the logical and moral difficulties of their interpretative conclusions. This is evidenced not only by their admitting to these difficulties, but also in their attempt to avoid what follows from their logical and moral difficulties, that is, the conclusion that Scripture is self-contradictory. I know of no Calvinist who would confess that Scripture contradicts itself. But when the Calvinist states that the Scripture cannot contain a contradiction, they are implicitly affirming the abiding truth, inviolability, and utility of the canons of reason – the same canons of reason they do not find to be interpretively significant. Since the Scripture cannot be contradictory, and the Calvinists’ interpretations present themselves as contradictory, they attempt to divert us from that conclusion by asserting that what we perceive as a contradiction here is only “apparent” and not real. But this is another, more explicit admission that the canons of rationality cannot be circumvented. The Calvinist must also be perceiving the real contradiction here if he feels the need to label the problem as only “apparent.” At this point, we would think that the Calvinist himself might affirm that coherence, consistency, and non-contradiction are essential to good interpretation. Again, lest they indict the Scripture in a contradiction, the Calvinist labels their difficulty as “an apparent contradiction,” but to do so is an explicit admission that they know a contradiction when they see one. Now, if this is a real contradiction, we must conclude that their interpretation of divine sovereignty as a theistic determinism is not what the Bible teaches. But what kind of hermeneutic allows for an interpreter to confess that the Bible cannot contradict itself but then produce interpretations that by his own admission contradict each other, and then label those contradictions only “apparent?”
What is a Contradiction?
This certainly seems to amount to a subterfuge from the inescapable demands and validity of reason in the interpretive process. For the Calvinist to say that his interpretations produce what only appears to be a contradiction is merely a bald assertion. Can it be that we don’t know a true contradiction when we see one? Why not? We surely do in other areas of thought and life. There is something about the relation between the two theological propositions that strikes us as contradictory. Why is that? What is a contradiction? How do our minds work in this regard? Are we incapable of sufficiently discerning a real contradiction and the full implications of what is being said in the Calvinists’ position? It seems to me that we can fully recognize and understand the contradictory nature of the Calvinists’ exegetical conclusions. Calvinists need to provide credible answers to these questions.
More Questions Calvinists Must Answer
When we give careful thought to Calvinist soteriology, we begin to realize that the problematic implications of its TULIP doctrines are too overwhelming to be ignored and too unbiblical to be believed. How does a sinner know they can be saved, given God’s premundane decision to choose some and not others for salvation – a decision none are privy to? Do they know this by their present personal experience? Is present personal experience reliable in these matters? Is it lasting, or might it be temporary? How do the Calvinist doctrines affect the definition, content, and proclamation of the gospel message as “good news?” Does Calvinism raise more questions than it could ever possibly answer? It seems so. Why does God choose one person for salvation and not another? Can this be “for reasons known only to himself,” given what we surely know about the nature and character of God through his own revelation of himself in Scripture? Who has he chosen? Are those the ones he loves? Doesn’t God love all persons? If not, why not? In what sense can it be said that God “loves” the non-elect? What is God’s salvific disposition and will for me? Where can I go to find that? Am I included in God’s plan of salvation? If not, why not? If so, why me and not my neighbor? Does God make a sincere and genuine offer of salvation to all? What are the existential implications for my life if I cannot be absolutely sure that God loves me and desires good for me, a good that can be obtained and realized? How am I to respond to God in love and trust without a sure knowledge of his kind and loving disposition towards me? How would the thought that God has predestined some people to eternal damnation affect my perception of others and my actions towards them? Does God ask us to do as he says, not as he does? Does my life have value to God? How can I know? What is the purpose of my life? In what is my purpose grounded? How does God perceive human persons if He has created many for the express purpose of consigning them to eternal torment, forever separated from him in hell? What does this tell us about God’s nature and character? Is Calvinism consistent with what the Bible tells us about God? What is the definition of “the gospel” in Calvinism? Does the Calvinist soteriology contain “good news?” If so, how so? On Calvinism, not only do questions abound, but incoherencies, inconsistencies, and contradictions also abound. And that is what tells us Calvinism is an unbiblical “theology.”
Here’s the Calvinist’s challenge. He has to answer the above questions without cavalierly fleeing to mystery or presenting ad hoc answers that only produce more incoherence. Indeed, if mystery or explanations that also ultimately prove themselves to be incoherent are the only options for the Calvinist, is this not a sure sign that Calvinism is a fundamentally flawed interpretation of Scripture? The important point to grasp is that interpretations that raise the amount and type of negative logical, moral, and existential issues that Calvinism does cannot be valid. Equally important is whether the Calvinist’s answers to these questions are going to evidence further incoherence and question-begging, or whether they can produce answers that are intellectually and morally tenable and convincing.
What is God Really Like?
The Calvinist dismisses most of these questions regarding their problematic theology under the catch-all of “high mystery.” It is suggested that the whole sovereignty/free will complex is beyond human reason in that it cannot be fathomed by the sinful human mind. But does Scripture bear this out? Is it possible that God is the way Calvinism depicts him? If God’s moral nature is not consistent with what we know to be moral, just, and good, then God is beyond knowing. The status of our relationship with God is beyond knowing. And God’s character is not immutable but arbitrary and capricious. The immutability of God has to do with his nature as unchanging. He cannot be moral and immoral, just and unjust, rational and irrational, loving and unloving. But that is precisely what Calvinism teaches with respect to God’s treatment of persons without insight into his reasons. He not only treats the elect and non-elect differently, but he does so in a way that presents God as having an inconsistent, indeed, contrary nature. That is, in such a way that he can be loving to one and not another because of what he is like, not because of the way a person responds to God. This is why Calvinists concoct divine dualisms, that God has two wills, two types of love, etc. There is a God who treats some people one way and all others in the opposite way, and the Calvinist must have an explanation for this. But this unconditional election and reprobation disregards God’s immutability. I submit that the foundation for intellectual, emotional, and psychological peace and stability can only be grounded and found in the assurance that God is always loving, just, and good to all he has made – including each and every one of us. He has one will by which He has told us that he desires the salvation of each and every sinner (1 Tim. 2:4, 6). God’s love is universal. He loves all of us equally “in Christ.” (Jn. 3:16) He demonstrated that love to everyone in Jesus’ death on the cross (Rom. 5:8). He also invites every individual to come to Jesus, believe, and be saved (Rom. 10:8-13). But this peace, stability, and assurance of salvation are undermined by Calvinism. On Calvinism, because God treats people differently, especially in respect to their eternal destinies, the true nature of God himself would be beyond our knowing. If the very revelation of God is logically and morally inconsistent with how we think and what we know of love, goodness, and justice, then we cannot know God’s disposition towards us, whether it is kind or evil. What is contrary to our logical and moral reason places beyond us any valid and reliable knowledge about what God is really like.
Reformed Calvinism requires us to think about God in this negative way. Hence, we are left with what C. S. Lewis called an “omnipotent Fiend.” [63] This perplexing, conflicted, existentially insufficient portrait of God that Calvinism promotes seeks grounding in the assertion that God is “good,” but this “goodness” is in conflict with what we know as good and what the Bible tells us about God’s goodness. Therefore, it is an unbiblical portrayal of God. It is also in conflict with our own existential knowledge and practice of goodness and justice, which we are to extend to all others of our human race as reflective of both the nature and scope of the goodness and justice of God himself. Hence, in practice, Calvinists must assume for themselves a God of a different type than their theology teaches. He is a lopsided, “asymmetrical” God – revealing his positive, “revealed will” to us, while he himself is performing the opposite by his “secret, decretive will.” Therefore, Calvinists suppress the negative implications of their theology and embrace a God who is at least kindly disposed towards them, loves them in Christ Jesus, and has elected them to salvation, which, on Calvinism, are all mere presumptions. Based on their theology, they can have no sure knowledge of God’s love for them or their unconditional election to salvation. That is what unconditional entials. These remain soteriological unknowns.
Calvinism is Not a Biblically Viable Theology
If we conclude that God, due to his nature as a rational and moral being, did not, and could not, incorporate into the fabric of His world, and His Word, real contradictions, then this eliminates Calvinism as a biblically viable theology. The distorting effects of theistic determinism and unconditional election on theology and soteriology are devastating and insurmountable. As such, these cannot be valid interpretations of the relevant biblical texts. In direct contradiction to Calvinist determinism, God made man in his image as a free and responsible moral agent. In that none of the logical or moral distortions of the Calvinists’ interpretations exist in the nature or character of God, there is therefore no such distortion in his inspired Word. Indeed, God is the source of logical reasoning and moral standards, not incoherence, inconsistency, and contradiction. Therefore, logical and moral consistency reflect the will and ways of God. In other words, God is consistently loving, just, merciful, compassionate, wise, faithful, and true. Therefore, God’s world and his revelation will be inherently coherent, consistent, and non-contradictory because of the very nature of God himself.
True Biblical Mystery or Faulty Interpretation
Here we must distinguish between true biblical mystery and faulty interpretive propositions disguised as “mystery.” For instance, there was a genuine soteriological “mystery,” which has now been disclosed, in that the Gentiles “who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ” (Eph. 2:13) and “are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (Eph. 3:6).
There are other biblical “mysteries,” such as how God created everything from nothing, how God became a man, how all our sin was placed on Jesus on the cross, the resurrection of Jesus, etc. These are presented to us only by divine revelation, but they do not constitute contradictory theological propositions supposedly gleaned from that same revelation. They are things beyond our reason but against our reason. That is the nature of true biblical mystery. On the other hand, Calvinist “mysteries” are not true biblical mysteries because they render the already revealed truths and teachings of Scripture as incoherent, inconsistent, and contradictory. They are not things beyond reason but against reason. And because these supposedly “apparent” incoherencies and contradictions can be demonstrated to be very real incoherencies and contradictions, that means that Calvinists have misinterpreted the scriptures and that Calvinism is not a tenable theology. Therefore, it is intellectually and spiritually unsatisfactory to claim that “God’s ways are higher than our ways” to justify interpretations and a theology that produces logical contradictions and moral inconsistencies among biblical themes and doctrines.
Back to Chapter 6 – What’s At Stake? The Character of God and the Truth of the Gospel
Footnotes
[60] G. I. Williamson, The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes, ch. III, sect. 8, (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1978), 37.
[61] A. Berkeley Mickelsen, Interpreting the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), 18-19.
[62] Glen Shellrude, “Calvinism and Problematic Readings of New Testament Texts Or, Why I am Not a Calvinist” in Grace for All: The Arminian Dynamics of Salvation, Clark H. Pinnock and John D. Wagner, eds., (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2015), 44.
[63] C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, (New York: Macmillan, 1962), pp. 37.
The Truth of the Gospel 