Back to Chapter 6 – What’s At Stake? The Character of God and the Truth of the Gospel
The Calvinist pastor of College Church in Wheaton, IL, Josh Moody, expounds Galatians in his book titled No Other Gospel: 31 Reasons from Galatians Why Justification by Faith Alone Is the Only Gospel. In it, he tells us how Paul confronted theological and doctrinal errors and demonstrates his passion against the Judaizers with strong words (Gal. 5:12). Moody makes application of these to today’s church. First, he asks,
“When did we last contend earnestly for the faith (Jude 3)? Jude advises that in some situations we need to do that, but it almost never happens these days. It isn’t because there aren’t matters of faith for which to contend; perhaps it’s because we are too politically correct. No longer do we have problems: we have “issues.” We are taught to be tolerant and never say that anyone’s opinion is wrong. We are taught to have an open mind, but some people’s minds have been open so long that their brains have fallen out. We wouldn’t call anyone a heretic, and we wouldn’t describe anything as wrong, bad, or evil. We certainly wouldn’t tell a church that the false teaching within it is so bad that, if they believe it, they will go to hell and that those who preach it are going to hell; nor would we wish that those who preach it would dismember their most private part of their anatomy. For such things as this, you get kicked out of denominations not lauded as “valiant for truth” today.”[40]
I agree with Moody. But he is incoherent here. As a Calvinist who believes that God has ordained “whatsoever comes to pass,” I don’t see how it makes any sense for him to lament over the things he points out in the above statements. Especially when he says, “We certainly wouldn’t tell a church that the false teaching within it is so bad that, if they believe it, they will go to hell and that those who preach it are going to hell.” He speaks as though believing the false teaching in a church is a contingent matter, that it shouldn’t be the case, and that it could alter the people’s eternal destinies. Yet, he believes that God has unalterably predetermined each person’s eternal destiny before they even existed, let alone the false teachers and their teaching! According to Moody’s Calvinism perhaps the false teaching would be the “means” God has ordained to bring about his predetermined purposes, one of which is to send certain non-elect people to hell along with those non-elect persons who preach it. But then God would be employing and affirming a contingent reality to implement his deterministic reality. You can see that the contingent means are incompatible with the deterministic ends. The bottom line for Moody is that God has predetermined all things, so there is nothing that can be spoken about as contingent. Now, back to the false teachers. Given Moody’s Calvinist determinism, God has certainly ordained the false teachers and their teaching. Therefore, Moody lacks rational grounds to level any criticism against the church and believers as if things should not be what they are. He states, “We wouldn’t call anyone a heretic, and we wouldn’t describe anything as wrong, bad, or evil.” But why should we when God has predetermined, caused, and is therefore responsible for the heresy, the wrongs, the bad things, and the evil? Who are we, and who is Moody, to resist God’s will and complain against God glorifying himself in all things – good and evil – which is what Calvinists like Moody believe.
What is interesting is that if Moody has correctly interpreted and applied Jude 3 and rightly depicted the situation that confronted Paul in Galatians, then he has undercut his own position of biblical support. Given his Calvinism, Moody not only lacks rational support for his statements as they are inconsistent with his theology, but in light of his proposed interpretations and what he has gleaned from them about earnestly contending for the faith, he has also defeated his own Calvinism. On Calvinism, there is nothing to contend for in the sense of “contention” implying a real change from what otherwise could be, and should be, but is not. There is no “what otherwise would be,” or “could be,” or “should be” given Calvinist determinism. Everything is just as God has determined and caused it to be. Rightly interpreting Jude 3 and Paul’s attitude and actions in Galatians, these passages contradict Moody’s theistic determinism. He has no support from these passages for his Calvinist doctrine of an eternal decree that predetermines all things, which renders human freedom and contingency impossible and lays responsibility for the presence and actions of error, wrong, and evil upon God himself. Moody’s own interpretation of these passages, if correct, shows his Calvinist determinism to be a serious error.
It appears to me, therefore, that Calvinism is precisely one of those “matters of faith against which we need to contend.” We know that Calvinism is false precisely because it is incoherent and contradictory with both the scriptures and reality as we know and experience it. We know that Calvinists misinterpret Scripture because they have adopted a hermeneutic of incoherence, which allows them to ignore the fact that their interpretive results prove to be incoherent, inconsistent, and contradictory. In contrast, a responsible hermeneutic maintains that interpretations and propositions, even in theology, that violate the laws of logic are simply false. Following Moody’s own encouragements above, we need to put aside “evangelical political correctness” and state that, for the reasons given above and throughout this website, Moody’s Calvinism is just wrong. He himself is so “open-minded” and has had his mind “open” so long to Calvinism that he no longer sees his own Calvinist incoherencies, inconsistencies, and contradictions. Moody gives us permission to declare his Calvinism a “false teaching” because, as pointed out above, it is self-defeating. He may have his exegesis of Scripture to lean on, but an exegesis that leads us into incoherence, inconsistency, and contradiction is just wrong-headed. Perhaps, therefore, in the spirit of Moody’s own conviction that we need to be “valiant for truth” today, we can honestly conclude and declare Moody’s Calvinism to be heretical. I, for one, because of the insurmountable biblical, logical, and moral difficulties inherent in Calvinism, have no problem with this designation.
I conclude that Calvinism’s theistic determinism, which impugns the character of God, as well as being an unbiblical soteriology, is heretical given Moody’s statements about the importance of the gospel. Regarding the gospel, Moody states this is one way we must “stand up for truth and confront error.” He tells us that we ought “…to realize that being a little bit off on the gospel matters massively: “A little leaven leavens the whole lump…”[41] And therefore “…we must make a big deal of the central matters of the gospel…”[42] Obviously then, Calvinists too must acknowledge that we have a serious problem when there are two mutually exclusive gospels being taught in the evangelical church today. So, which is the true gospel and which is the heresy?
As a non-Calvinist, I believe the eternal destinies of many people are at stake in this controversy. When a sinner hears about Calvinism and equates it with biblical salvation, they will only be confused about the nature of God and placed in doubt as to the saving disposition of God towards them, that is, whether or not they are among the elect and predestined to salvation. They will not have heard the good news of God’s love for them, demonstrated in His gracious saving work on their behalf in Jesus’ death on the cross. They will not have heard that they surely can be saved from the punishment due to them for their sins by simply believing in Jesus. The Calvinist/non-Calvinist controversy is a controversy that has direct bearing on the gospel. It is a gospel controversy. It is a crucial matter for each individual and the evangelical church to come to grips with, assuming that the outcome for each individual and the church has not been predetermined by God! Question: Do you believe that you make up your own mind in light of the evidence presented to you “for” or “against” a position, or are you predetermined by God to think as you do on these and all other matters? See how important this issue is. I assume that if you believe that all things have been preordained and caused by God, then you need not be interested in this issue at all. You would just go about living inconsistently with your theology, presupposing you are among the elect and have nothing else to do with the matter. “Que sera, sera” (“Whatever will be, will be! “) is truly applicable to Calvinism. It would also seem to me that Calvinism naturally breeds indifference, especially to any and all things non-Calvinist. This would explain the silence that is a common reaction from Calvinists to critiques of their theology. It would be natural for them to think, “Why get excited over or address what others are saying or what they believe. God has sovereignly ordained all our beliefs, both true and false.”
In addition, it certainly seems that non-Calvinists have been “taught to be tolerant” of the logical, moral, and interpretive incoherence and contradictions that Calvinism generates, as identified above in Moody’s own protests. Since exegesis cannot be divorced from rational, clear thinking (i.e., doing good philosophy), I submit that on those grounds alone we have warrant for rejecting Calvinism. Claims of exegetical support for Calvinism that lead us into incoherencies, inconsistencies, and contradictions must be misinterpretations of the texts, especially when sound alternative exegetical interpretations that are not incoherent, inconsistent, or contradictory are being offered. And because Calvinists dichotomize the input of sound philosophical thinking from the exercise of exegesis, which is bad hermeneutics and ought not be done, and other interpretations do justice to both philosophical reflection and sound exegetical principles, we are left with no convincing exegetical reasons for believing Calvinism is biblical. Calvinism fails on the exegetical and philosophical fronts, which are essential to an intellectually and textually responsible hermeneutic. Perhaps this is the kind of critique for which “you get kicked out of denominations,” but I believe that in exposing the incoherence of Calvinism, we are being “valiant for truth” today.
A second way to “stand up for truth and confront error” is “to declare…the repercussions for deliberately misleading God’s people: “The one who is troubling you will bear the penalty, whoever he is…” Moody elaborates.
“…When you stand behind the pulpit, or a lectern, or with the Bible open on your knee in a Bible study group, when you talk with authority over coffee afterwards about some theological matter…when you write books that are creative and innovative – realize that there is a judgment for what we teach. That is why my main advice to teachers of God’s Word is to be just that. Do not be a teacher of your own agenda, but be an expositor, and explainer of God’s Word. Hide behind it and declare it, and let God do with it as he wills.”[43]
I take it that Calvinists sincerely believe the Bible teaches their Calvinist theology and soteriology. But what of the logical contradictions and moral incoherence their interpretations generate, not to mention the inconsistencies in their preaching and the disingenuousness of their evangelism with their foundational deterministic theological beliefs? Moody says, “Do not be a teacher of your own agenda, but be an expositor, and explainer of God’s Word.” But we should ask whether one’s exposition or explanation of a text is truly “God’s Word” when it results in incoherencies, inconsistencies, and contradictions among the various portions of that very same “Word.” Does the Bible contradict itself? Do such acute difficulties indicate that someone is teaching their “own agenda?” If Scripture cannot be inconsistent or contradict itself, I think we can conclude that Calvinists are deliberately misleading people when they are well aware that their interpretations have Scripture contradicting itself, and yet they simply ignore this. Can we conclude that the Calvinist is deliberately misleading people when they have Scripture contradicting itself and teach others that it is okay? Isn’t Moody teaching his own Calvinist agenda when he refuses to acknowledge that his theology has God’s Word contradicting itself? Doesn’t his Calvinism take precedence over Scripture? Is he teaching God’s Word when he speaks like a non-Calvinist when presenting the gospel? I am curious how Moody would respond to these questions and problems in his interpretations and hermeneutic.
The non-Calvinist contributors in Grace Unlimited agree with Moody that we should be teachers of God’s Word and not our own agendas. They rest their theological conviction in the fact that God is unqualifiedly good and that, according to the words of Jesus and Paul, he desires the salvation of all sinners. They would agree with Moody that the exposition of the Word of God is primary, but they also insist that it teaches that God is good and that God is love. In Grace Unlimited, we read,
“The most important theological presupposition of all of us writing in this volume is our conviction that God is good in an unqualified manner, and that he desires the salvation of all sinners. To each human being God offers forgiveness in Jesus Christ and the gift of sonship. We delight in our Lord’s word: “It is not the will of the Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish” (Matt. 18:14). We reject all forms of theology which deny this truth and posit some secret abyss in God’s mind where he is not gracious. We consent to Paul’s judgment that God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” and to Peter’s conviction that God is “not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (1 Tim. 2:4, 2 Pet. 3:9). If it seems controversial to assert this conviction boldly and unashamedly, then it ought at least to be admitted that here is a truth far more deserving of controversy than many which are debated. On it hangs, we believe, the validity of the universal offer of the gospel, and the possibility of Christian assurance. If we do not know that God loves all sinners, we do not know that he loves us, and we do not know that he loves those to whom we take the gospel.”[44]
Moody says, “…we must make a big deal of the central matters of the gospel…”[45] I agree. But this would seem to require that we also make a ‘big deal’ of resolving the soteriological differences that exist among Christians today. It would require that we come to a conclusion as to which “gospel” is the better interpretation of salvation from the Scripture. Indeed, “…here is a truth far more deserving of controversy than many which are debated.” Yet the resolution of the debate is not going to be found in Calvinists or non-Calvinists quoting their “proof-texts.” Neither is it found in their exegesis of these texts, for both sides are convinced that their exegeses are correct. Rather, the crux of the matter is whether coherence, consistency, and non-contradiction are essential considerations in interpretation and whether they are determinative for discerning the validity of one’s exegeses and interpretive claims. There must be consensus on this hermeneutical question. But as long as the Calvinists can dismiss the logical and moral contradictions that their exegeses and interpretations produce, there will be no resolution to this debate. This is something exegesis will not solve as long as Calvinists continue to maintain a hermeneutic in which logical and moral coherence ultimately hold no weight in determining which exegesis better represents what a biblical author meant to communicate. The Calvinist will just ignore the sound exegetical alternatives provided by non-Calvinists. Exegesis cannot resolve this controversy as long as Calvinists refuse to submit their exegeses and the theology built upon them to the canons of reason or the laws of logic (e.g., the law of non-contradiction). Exegesis cannot solve a problem that is rooted in explaining away the logical and moral incoherence of one’s interpretations. Once that stance is taken, the Calvinist has effectively adopted a hermeneutic of incoherence in which the fundamental laws of reason have no place. They have been jettisoned from the interpretive process; therefore, there is nothing left to adjudicate on the validity of one’s exegetical and interpretive claims. The Calvinist interpretations and theology will rely on mere assertions of what the text means as read from within the Calvinist’s theological tradition. Their exegesis is presupposed to be correct. Non-Calvinist George Bryson, author of The Dark Side of Calvinism, rightly states,
“If the distinctives of Calvinism are as unscriptural as I believe (and will prove them to be), then Calvinism undermines the scriptural doctrine of salvation (John 5:16-18, 1 Tim. 2:4, 2 Pet. 3:8, etc.). That being the case, I just cannot leave the matter alone. By extension, Reformed Theology must also represent a serious threat to at least some of the people for whom that salvation was provided by Christ’s death on the cross (I John 2:2, 1 Tim. 2:5-6, Heb. 2:9, etc.). The salvation that is provided is also the salvation that is offered to them in a truly scriptural proclamation of the gospel of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ (I Cor. 15:1-3).”
Bryson continues,
“…I would, therefore, be spiritually derelict not to impress upon the reader the seriousness of this misguided, no matter how well intended, theological system called Calvinism. As most if not all Calvinists will agree, a great deal is at stake in the debate over the issues involved in this controversy. How we understand the doctrines of salvation and damnation in general, and the gospel of Jesus Christ in particular, is of great biblical, spiritual, and practical importance. In fact, this is the very argument often used by Calvinists to persuade other Christians to reconsider their non-Reformed views in favor of Reformed Theology. So Calvinists should not cry foul when their views are subjected to the same scrutiny for reasons they feel justified in challenging alternative and competing views. Besides, those who advocate Reformed Theology are typically not the “can’t we all just get along?” or “you believe what you believe and I will believe what I believe” kind of Christians.”[46]
Therefore, we must conclude that the very gospel is at stake here and that in one or the other of these soteriologies and “gospels” we have a false gospel within the evangelical church today. If that is the case, we cannot be indifferent to this problem. Bryson adds,
“It should, therefore, be emphasized that the doctrinal differences that divide equally sincere and devout believers on both sides of the Calvinist controversy are substantial and serious. To suggest, as some have, that the differences between Calvinists and other Evangelicals are merely semantic and superficial reveals a serious misunderstanding of the core issues involved in this long-standing controversy…If you grant these two points (i.e., these issues are central and our differences are substantial) and couple them with the also indisputable fact that many Calvinists feel a need to reach out to and into the non-Calvinist world of Evangelical believers, you should understand that there is simply no reasonable way to avoid this controversy.”[47]
Moreover, according to some Calvinists, Calvinism is the gospel, and it is mutually exclusive of the non-Calvinist content and definition of the “gospel.” Therefore, the precise content of the central message of the Bible – the “good news” of the gospel – is at stake. For instance, Dr. Philip Ryken, former senior pastor of Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia and now president of Wheaton College, believes that Calvinism is the biblical gospel and longs for it to be the pervasive soteriology in the evangelical church. Ryken writes,
“The old Princeton theologian B. B. Warfield claimed, “Evangelicalism stands or falls with Calvinism” (that is, the gospel of grace stands or falls with the doctrines of grace).”[48]
He also states,
“We long for the evangelical church to rediscover a theology of grace. Reformed theology is the system of doctrine that seeks to give God all the glory for his grace in the gospel. Thus its recovery furthers the greatest goals and the highest of all purposes: the glory of God.”[49]
Moreover, he says,
“It is impossible to be jealous for God’s glory without having an equal passion for correct doctrine, because doctrine is what preserves the graciousness of the gospel. It was said of George Whitefield: “He knew errors in the great truths of the Gospel are not indifferent, but dreadful and fatal; he knew it was not candour and charity to say that errors in judgment are not hurtful, but the greatest unmercifulness and cruelty; therefore he often reproved such sharply. Whitefield knew all this because he knew the New Testament, in which there is a constant concern for sound doctrine. From the time of the apostles, the church has been in constant danger of succumbing to the counterfeit grace of a false gospel. Thus it has always been necessary to teach sovereign grace, as well as to refute all those who oppose it. As Whitefield rightly understood, defending the doctrines of grace is not simply a matter of duty but also a matter of charity. The New Testament that preaches the good news about Jesus Christ is the same New Testament that teaches how to defend this gospel against error. And it does both of these things – preaching the gospel of grace and teaching the doctrines of grace – out of a love for the lost souls of humanity.”[50]
Note that Dr. Ryken insists, as do non-Calvinists, that correct doctrine is essential, but he also states that Calvinism reflects “the system of doctrine that seeks to give God all the glory for his grace in the gospel.” He also perceives anything but “sovereign grace” (a euphemism for Calvinism) as “the counterfeit grace of a false gospel.” Ryken says the New Testament does both of these things – “preaching the gospel of grace and teaching the doctrines of grace.” Unless Ryken is equivocating on the word “grace,” having it mean in the former phrase ‘God’s saving work in Christ intended for all who are undeserving of this love and mercy,’ and in the latter phrase ‘God’s predestination of certain sinners to salvation from among all sinners deserving of his wrath,’ then he must be equating his “doctrines of grace” with “the gospel of grace.” In other words, according to Ryken, the Calvinist “doctrines of grace” are the biblical gospel and all other soteriologies are false gospels. Therefore, Calvinists are intent upon both disseminating Calvinism and refuting non-Calvinists.
In stark contrast to this claim, the non-Calvinist scholars and contributors to the book Grace Unlimited contend that,
“…we are opposing a powerful effort in Protestant orthodoxy to limit the gospel and to cast a dark shadow over its universal availability and intention, manifesting itself most overtly in classical Calvinism. This theology which, in its dreadful doctrine of double predestination, calls into question God’s desire to save all sinners and which as a logical consequence denies Christ died to save the world at large, is simply unacceptable exegetically, theologically, and morally, and to it we must say an emphatic “No!”[51]
Calvinists, of course, say an emphatic “Yes!” to their “doctrines of grace.” But these non-Calvinist scholars are revealing the “unacceptable” nature of Calvinism exegetically, theologically, and morally. They see problems in all these areas. The question is whether Calvinists will take the exegetical, theological, and moral incoherencies and contradictions these scholars point out on board in their hermeneutic. Do the incoherencies and contradictions within Calvinism invalidate it as a correct interpretation of Scripture? The overwhelming evidence cries out, “Yes, Calvinism is a misunderstanding of the scriptures that distorts the gospel and therefore it is not a valid Christian theology.” That the Calvinist does not incorporate logical and moral coherence into their hermeneutic and exegesis, but rather explains these away in a question-begging move, is precisely the dividing issue between non-Calvinists and Calvinists. The question of whether logical and moral coherence are essential for discerning the validity of an interpretation of the biblical text needs to be decided once and for all. Should evangelical Christians hold to a hermeneutic of coherence or be swayed by a hermeneutic of incoherence? What do you think?
Read the next section – The Evangelical Church in Intellectual, Soteriological, and Gospel Denial
Back to Chapter 6 – What’s At Stake? The Character of God and the Truth of the Gospel
Footnotes
[40] Josh Moody, No Other Gospel: 31 Reasons from Galatians Why Justification by Faith Alone Is the Only Gospel (Wheaton: Crossway, 2011), 218-219.
[41] Ibid. 220.
[42] Ibid. 221.
[43] Ibid. 222. And the incoherence here is that Moody is teaching that the nature of the reality that God uses to accomplish a universal divine causal determinism is contingent, that is, the means by which divine determinism is brought about are characterized by real contingency. As such, the means are incoherent with the ends. If, in the end, all is explained by universal divine causal determinism, there is no such thing as contingency. There can be no contingent “means” that bring about the events of an exhaustive deterministic decree. On Calvinism, it is impossible to understand the statement that “there is a judgment for what we teach” when “what we teach” has been determined by God. The statement is incoherent on Calvinism. Moody’s statements only make sense from within a non-Calvinist theological framework. Calvinism is untenable and unlivable, and these are sure signs that it is false.
[44] Clark H. Pinnock, “Introduction,” in Grace Unlimited, ed. Clark H. Pinnock (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1975), 11.
[45] Ibid. 221.
[46] George Bryson, The Dark Side of Calvinism: The Calvinist Caste System (Costa Mesa: Calvary Chapel Publishing, 2004), 23-24.
[47] Ibid. 24.
[48] Phillip Graham Ryken, What is a True Calvinist? Basics of the Reformed Faith Series, (Phillipsburg: Puritan and Reformed Publishing, 2003), 7.
[49] Ibid. 29.
[50] Ibid. 29.
[51] Clark H. Pinnock, “Introduction,” in Grace Unlimited, ed. Clark H. Pinnock (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1975), 12.
The Truth of the Gospel 