Back to Chapter 6 – What’s At Stake? The Character of God and the Truth of the Gospel
The use of the word “gospel” is, of course, commonplace in the evangelical church. It is bandied about in every Bible study, sermon, religious podcast, Christian book, and conversation. There’s much talk about “gospel renewal,” “unity in the gospel,” “gospel ministry,” “the proclamation of the gospel,” and there are groups called “The Gospel Coalition” and “Together for the Gospel,” etc. The preaching and teaching of “the gospel” is the stated goal of evangelical churches and Christian ministries. But for the most part, the meaning of the word is taken for granted and left undefined. It is one thing for various pastors, teachers, and theologians to use the word, but it is another for them to state what they mean by it.
Further inquiry reveals that there are two opposing ‘gospels’ within evangelical Christianity today in the Calvinist and non-Calvinist soteriologies. This is, of course, not new, but I am concerned about our present-day lack of awareness and indifference to this matter. This controversy has profound implications for defining and proclaiming the biblical gospel. So we need to acknowledge that Christians can mean very different things when they use the word “gospel.” And to the degree that we cannot reconcile these mutually exclusive meanings, the word “gospel” remains enigmatic in the church. This is a serious matter, and several observations can be made regarding this problem.
The first is that Calvinists often preach and teach a “gospel” message that is in outright contradiction with their underlying Calvinist soteriology. When talking about the gospel, they sound just like Arminians or other non-Calvinists. This problem of inconsistency and incoherence between word and theology is important because it diminishes the intellectual credibility of Christians and the discipline of Christian theology. Consistency between one’s preaching, teaching, and soteriology makes Christianity intellectually credible to thoughtful unbelievers and believers alike. People grasp that when Calvinists present the gospel, their words are in direct contradiction with what they believe theologically and soteriologically. They are compelled to this inconsistency; otherwise, they would not have “good news” to present to people. And to the degree that this inconsistency and incoherence is maintained on the basis that it is what the Bible is teaching, it has implications for inspiration, authority, and hermeneutics, that is, for discerning the validity of one’s interpretations.
Secondly, many pastors and teachers who are in leadership positions and Christians attending evangelical churches don’t have any conviction on the matter. They either have not had to give thought to this issue in their Christian intellectual journey, or worse, they dismiss the issue, claiming that we cannot know how Calvinist sovereignty (i.e., theistic determinism) and human freedom and responsibility can be reconciled, or they say it doesn’t matter and will never be figured out this side of eternity. This is a symptom of the intellectual and spiritual malaise that characterizes the contemporary evangelical church.
Apologist and theologian Dr. William Lane Craig addresses the indifference among Christians today to the issues raised in the Calvinist/non-Calvinist debate and what is at stake in these differences. A person from the Christian Apologetics Alliance posed the following question to Dr. Craig.
Questioner: “Most of the people in my congregation hold to the belief that one’s views on say Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism – all theological interpretations of God’s sovereignty in regards to freedom of the will – don’t matter at all in the grand scheme of things; that we don’t and can’t know at the end of the day. And that these issues aren’t even worth discussing or debating. I’d be interested in hearing Dr. Craig’s response to this emerging viewpoint.”
Dr. Craig: “Well there are several objections that are raised here. One is that these things don’t matter at all. Another is that you can’t know the answers. And the third one, finally, is that they are not even worth discussing or debating.
Now the easiest one of those to dismiss is the third one. That attitude represents a profound anti-intellectualism on the part of these people. These are certainly worth debating and discussing for no other reason that they’re mind expanding. They will stretch your mind and your appreciation of God and his truth beyond the normal bounds of the superficial Christian who never thinks about these things. And so the intellectual exercise of considering these things is worth it even if you cannot come to some final answers.
With respect to whether it matters at all, that seems to me to be, again, pretty false. I would think that it matters a lot if you have the free will to determine your eternal destiny or if God has predestined you unilaterally to be damned forever. That seems to me to be just a huge difference in the nature of God – the person you worship and serve. So I think that it matters a lot in the grand scheme of things theologically.
And as for whether we can know or not, well I guess you won’t be able to assert that until you’ve debated and discussed the issue. In other words, you can’t say you can’t know the answer to this until you’ve at least tried to find the answer.
So there is either an intellectual laziness being expressed here or a kind of anti-intellectualism that wants to cut off the debate even before its begun. And I think that you can at least know that certain of these options are coherent, that they’re possibilities, and indeed that they’re not implausible. And that can help to answer important objections to Christianity as well as to illuminate other Christian doctrines, such as I’ve tried to do in my application of Molinism to questions of divine inspiration, perseverance of the saints and so on.”[52]
In confirmation of my main thesis, note that for Dr. Craig, coherence is essential for even considering whether a theological position is a possible option. He states, “And I think that you can at least know that certain of these options are coherent, that they’re possibilities, and indeed that they’re not implausible.” Notice that coherence is necessary for an interpretation to even be possibly true. For an interpretation to be considered plausible or valid, coherence is absolutely necessary.
Thirdly, others condone using Calvinist deterministic sovereignty or human freedom and responsibility as suits the present situation. As mutually exclusive concepts and soteriologies, this is disingenuous and confirms the confusion that exists in the contemporary evangelical church. It is a kind of ‘situational theology.’ For instance, Os Guinness writes,
“Few controversies among Christians are so fruitless as the perennial debate over God’s sovereignty and human significance, and it even pokes its nose into the issues we are discussing here too. For when we are thinking of cultural change, is the real work God’s or ours, or both? Overall, it is quite clear that the general discussion of the issue has commonly been unproductive. Far too many hours have been wasted, far too much ink spilt, and because of the disagreements far too many have dismissed others as not being Christians and have been dismissed by other Christians in their turn.
Some simple truths are worth recalling in order to apply the point to this discussion. First, the Scriptures show plainly that reality contains both truths, and not just one or the other. God is sovereign, humans are significant, and it was God who made us so. Second, history shows equally plainly that human reason cannot explain both truths. Those who try to do so almost always end up emphasizing one truth to the exclusion of the other, one side majoring on divine sovereignty and the other on human significance. Third, the lesson of the Scriptures and Christian history is that we should rely firmly on both truths, and apply the one we most need when we most need it.”[53]
Here we have astonishing statements that are intellectually irresponsible. Note first that the Calvinist definition of “divine sovereignty” as a theistic determinism is presupposed here. And this is typical. The Calvinist interpretation of the pertinent texts holds absolute sway in too many evangelical churches despite the inconsistencies and contradictions in the theology and with the overwhelming testimony of Scripture to human freedom and responsibility. Note how this determinism requires the suppression of reason when Guinness says “that human reason cannot explain both truths.” The problem with this statement is that even though his deterministic definition of divine sovereignty creates a contradiction with what he says about ‘human significance’ and human freedom, he completely dismisses this contradiction, giving no consideration to whether it is interpretively significant. Guinness presupposes and concedes the deterministic definition of divine sovereignty while ignoring the fact of the mutual exclusivity between that deterministic definition of sovereignty and the “human significance” or human freedom that he also affirms. Guinness ignores the logical and moral contradictions that his deterministic definition of sovereignty generates. By doing this, he reveals his fundamental hermeneutic. He endorses a hermeneutic of incoherence. Guinness is clear on this. He states, “…the Scriptures show plainly that reality contains both truths, and not just one or the other.” But to say this about what are clearly mutually exclusive propositions is not only indicative of the suppression of one’s logical and moral faculties that Calvinism fosters, but is also interpretively problematic. This is not a matter of one’s capacity to embrace biblical mystery. It is a matter of affirming or rejecting that the Bible contradicts itself. If we know a contradiction when we see one, and we certainly have one here, then Guinness is affirming that the Bible contradicts itself, and he has also abandoned the use of reason in the interpretive task. Guinness’s position also feeds into the false dichotomy of “one side majoring on divine sovereignty and the other on human significance.” But this false dichotomy is unnecessary when divine sovereignty is rightly understood as a non-deterministic characteristic of God. His sovereignty is his Lordship over all. It is his capability to rule and reign over and within this world, as he has made it, which includes human beings with substantial freedom of the will.
What is most disturbing is that Guinness encourages us to apply either of these two mutually exclusive doctrines as needed. He states that “we should rely firmly on both truths, and apply the one we most need when we most need it.” This is nothing less than theological and ministerial relativism. In a kind of “situational theological relativism,” Guinness is affirming that incompatible propositions are both “true” and one or the other can be applied as the circumstances demand. But this, to me, is to forfeit intellectual responsibility and interpretive integrity in the search for the truth in this matter of God’s sovereignty and human freedom. When Guiness affirms that the Bible teaches two mutually exclusive or contradictory ideas, it is to tell people that the Bible is confused and that the canons of reason and logic don’t matter in theology or biblical interpretation. This “just ignore the apparent contradiction, the Bible teaches both” response is the standard Calvinist approach to the incoherencies, inconsistencies, and contradictions their universal divine causal determinism produces. It is an insult to our intelligence, which is God-given and functioning according to its purpose despite the fall. Guinness is encouraging bad interpretation and demonstrates a wanton disregard for sound hermeneutical principles.
Fourthly, there is a growing clandestine Calvinism. What I mean by this is the reticence of Calvinist teachers and preachers to make known to those they teach that they are Calvinists. There is a growing number of Calvinists unwilling to clearly tell others of their Calvinist beliefs. Nor do they preach consistently with their Calvinist theology and soteriology. This is a concern because it is disingenuous, and disengenuousness fosters disrespect. When these pastors and teachers are asked what they believe about the meaning of a passage relevant to this controversy (e.g., Eph. 1, Rom. 9) or for their soteriological convictions, for them to give a vague, evasive answer when they otherwise hold to a definite position is disingenuous. If they do not hold a definite position, or just don’t know what these passages mean, they should say so. It is hypocritical to pretend that you believe something you do not believe, or not to present your beliefs clearly, or to withhold what you do believe when it is appropriate and necessary to disclose those beliefs. If a pastor or teacher believes contradictory propositions, then that is a serious problem. It needs to be addressed, not hidden.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to be engaged in our evangelical churches at the hermeneutical level to come to the truth of this matter. It is one thing to state a position and another to justify it. A proposed doctrinal position needs to be exegetically (i.e., biblically) justified with an exegesis that incorporates the canons of reason and our moral intuitions. Our God-given logical and moral faculties need to be engaged when reading and interpreting Scripture. Superficial proof-texting will not do. The discipline of philosophy, which simply put is the study and practice of what constitutes clear thinking, tells us that two mutually exclusive soteriologies cannot both be true. Both may be false, but both cannot be true. Therefore, Calvinism is an untenable position. This also eliminates the “Calviminian” option that so many preachers and teachers would like us to accept. This is the assertion that “the Bible teaches both,” that is, the Calvinist and Arminian views. This highlights the lack of clear thinking in our contemporary evangelical churches, even among our leadership. But despite Calvinist admissions that their interpretations are biblically inconsistent and contradictory, they will inevitably backtrack to a “Bible teaches both” position, which is to affirm the Bible contains incoherence and contradiction in its teachings. They do this because they have a higher priority than “rightly dividing the word of truth,” that is, to protect God’s sovereignty as they define it from being eroded by human freedom. That protection from the intrusion of free creatures requires a deterministic definition of God’s sovereignty. That definition is non-negotiable. But this is a puerile fear that if somehow men are free, then God has lost control of his world. So Calvinist determinism inevitably sets up incoherence and contradiction in their theology and soteriology.[54]
Another tactic Calvinists use to deflect us from the conclusion that they are violating the canons of reason is to flee to “mystery.” They claim their difficulties are a biblical mystery. But this is a mere assertion. It does nothing to address the incoherence and contradictions in their soteriology and theology. In fact, it affirms their incoherence. For if their position was not incoherent, they would be able to demonstrate that and would not have to resort to mystery. What is not illogical can always be explained. What is illogical can never be explained unless what is causing the violation of logic is removed. In this case, the Calvinist refuses to return to the text to consider alternative interpretations that do not cause incoherence and contradiction. Non-Calvinists have such interpretations. They need only to be considered by Calvinists with an open mind. Therefore, when a position is illogical, accompanied by a refusal to acknowledge or adopt valid logical alternatives, the flight to “mystery” is predictable and inevitable. In the light of a discernible incoherence or contradiction, to assert “mystery” does nothing to prove it is so. If the position were truly a biblical mystery, there would be no obvious problem in logical or moral reasoning. The position would not contain obvious contradictions. It would present itself as something beyond our knowledge, but not against our God-given reason. An example of something beyond our knowledge is how God created all space, time, matter, and energy (i.e., the universe) out of nothing, no preexisting space, time, matter, or energy. But there is no contradiction here, just the inability to comprehend the matter. Another is the resurrection of Jesus. Nothing problematic there except that it is an act of God we cannot fully fathom.
In this controversy, Calvinist theologians are too cavalier in their approach to discerning what makes for an accurate interpretation of the biblical text. Serious considerations of the laws of logic, philosophical reasoning, apologetic insights, and the implications of Calvinism on apologetic arguments are rarely fully incorporated into their hermeneutics. That is, Calvinists ignore the fact that rational and moral coherence is critical to determining the validity of their interpretations. They engage in exegesis, but without due consideration as to whether that exegesis creates logical and moral incoherence with their other exegetical and theological conclusions. Exegetical justifications given for a certain interpretation of the biblical text must include coherent philosophical and moral justifications as integral to a sound hermeneutic. These various elements of grammatical-historical exegesis, logical reflection, and moral intuition are all essential to a sound biblical hermeneutic and a thorough exegetical methodology. They are all indispensable elements in a proper hermeneutic. So Calvinists have adopted a bad hermeneutic. Therefore, until they come to grips with this and correct the problem, there will be no resolution to this controversy.
I submit that the inclusion of these elements of a sound hermeneutic can advance the discussion and lead us closer to the biblical truth precisely because this is where the problem lies. If Calvinists create real contradictions by their interpretations, then logical reasoning demands that we deem them false. For too long, the evangelical church has tolerated an intellectual relativism that translates into a soteriological relativism. This stems from the church’s indifference to the life of the mind. We are just not interested in putting forth the effort to think clearly. My experience is that in adult Bible studies and pastoral sermons, the common approach is to evade the controversial passages and suppress questions regarding divine sovereignty, election, predestination, and human freedom. The evangelical church is in denial on this matter. I support this contention in my other writings on this site. Also see my other papers here. But we should ask why the evangelical church is so indifferent to this controversy, especially as it involves the heart of the biblical revelation – the gospel message. Here are some reasons and observations that I believe contribute to this problem.
- A de-emphasis on the life of the mind in evangelicalism. Christians are being dumbed down in many churches today. This phenomenon is characterized by an anti-intellectual, non-reasoned faith, favoring personal, subjective, relativistic experience over the pursuit of objective, substantive truth.
- This dumbing down results in a lack of theological instruction and reflection in the contemporary church and the Christian life. Ironically, the life of the mind and theological instruction are evident and still cherished in the Reformed Calvinist tradition, despite the adoption of a hermeneutic of incoherence and its erroneous conclusions regarding sovereignty and the gospel.
- The problematic nature of Calvinism is handled through the suppression of reason and moral intuitions. To avoid the logical and moral incoherence of their theology and soteriology, a certain type of intellectual reorientation must occur to embrace Calvinism. It requires ignoring what your reason and moral intuitions tell you about the incoherence and contradictions generated by the determinism inherent in the Calvinist doctrines. To accept Calvinism, you are required to redefine and embrace the contradictions and incoherencies inherent in Calvinism as only “apparent” and affirm them as a “high mystery.”
- Hermeneutics, exegesis, and interpretive skills are not taught in the evangelical church today. The search for truth, especially biblical truth about the message of the gospel, is not a high priority. Asking what the text “means to me” is the “hermeneutic” of the contemporary evangelical church.
- We have not learned how to present a biblically based, substantive, reasoned argument for a position. Apologetics is not taught in our churches. This inability to present a reasoned argument based on evidence has led to the prevailing attitude of interpretive and theological relativism. “Your theology is good for you, and mine is good for me.” “Your interpretation is fine for you, it’s just not how I see the text.” “Live and let live” prevails. “Don’t rock the boat” is the common mindset. “Peace” and “unity” at any cost, along with the fear of controversy and division, have overtaken a search for the truth. We have not learned the value of controversy or to argue our case based on substantive reasons; therefore, we unnecessarily quarrel. It’s sad to say that if you inquire of your pastors and teachers on these matters, I can almost guarantee the response will either be “the Bible teaches both and this is just a mystery,” or you will just be ignored.
Therefore, I want to suggest ways of thinking about this controversy that I hope will open new avenues in the debate and bring us closer to its resolution. A resolution can be had precisely because the competing views are inconsistent with each other. A resolution can be reached because good philosophical and apologetic thinking teaches us that two contrary interpretations cannot both be true. I suggest that these disciplines of philosophy and apologetics have not been fully applied to this matter, and would go a long way to settling the issue without sacrificing biblical exegetical fidelity. In fact, biblical exegetical fidelity demands them. To think otherwise would be to propose that good exegesis leads us to conclude that God desires us to believe contradictory things about the central message of the Bible about his great work of our salvation in Christ.
Therefore, the question before us is “What is the biblical gospel?” The answer will involve both sides acknowledging that two mutually exclusive interpretations cannot both be true. There is a starting point to answering this question if both sides can agree that the canons of reason must apply and continually play their role as arbiter between conflicting propositions and doctrines supposedly derived from an exegesis of the text. But it is an established fact that the Calvinist feels free to jettison logical and moral reasoning when these present formidable challenges to the validity of their interpretations. And given their methods of rationalizing away their difficulties, I submit to you that Calvinists are the impediment to progress in this regard. Here, I refer you to Chapter 9 – Reason as Problematic for Calvinist Interpretation. Also, on the topic “What is the biblical gospel?,” see my papers, “Agreement on the Gospel?: An Assessment of the Claim of the ‘ForCLT’ Unified Sermon Series” and “Two Incompatible Gospels: A Serious Matter for the ‘Evangelical’ Church”.
The interpretive incoherence of Calvinism is a serious matter of intellectual and spiritual integrity. The nature and weight of the problems Calvinism generates are not non-essential differences between Christians. They are not a “secondary matter” or merely an “in-house debate.” These issues bear directly upon the gospel. The gospel message is at stake here. As such, there is no more serious matter for a church that calls itself “evangelical.” These issues have a direct bearing on whether Calvinism is a biblically flawed soteriology and therefore promotes an anti-gospel message, that is, a message in which there is no good news. I submit that, along with the interpreter’s degree of competence in historical-grammatical exegesis, the degree to which an interpreter allows logical, moral, and theological consistency to check his interpretations is the degree to which those interpretations will be biblically accurate. And the degree to which interpreters are indifferent to these is the degree to which their interpretations and the theologies constructed upon them will lack intellectual and biblical credibility. In Calvinism, exegesis appears to be held hostage to a presupposed traditional theological position centered on an unalterably deterministic definition of God’s sovereignty. It is not an exegesis that can stand the test of textual and theological coherence, integrity, integration, and harmony. As such, it contains a deep hermeneutical flaw – that of dichotomizing exegesis from logical and moral reasoning. On this hermeneutic of incoherence, there is no way to be assured that any particular text is being correctly understood.
Coherence is the quality of being logical and consistent. It implies the rational comparison of two or more concepts in the construction of an integrated and unified whole. The dividing line for the Calvinist/non-Calvinist controversy is that coherence is valued differently for inclusion into one’s hermeneutic. The hermeneutical principle of coherence is either applied to the interrelation of interpretive conclusions or, if left unapplied, a variety of assertions are made to provide some resolution, e.g., mystery, paradox, antinomy, human incomprehensibility, the Bible teaches both, etc. These are attempts at “explaining” the incoherence to preserve the Calvinist’s interpretive conclusions and theological constructs built upon them. But they turn out to be mere rationalizations that ultimately ignore other interpretations of the controversial texts. Whether or not interpretive conclusions cohere, find resolution, or are simply left in logical and moral abeyance is the major difference between the Calvinist and non-Calvinist hermeneutics.
Read the next section – The Full Revelation of God’s Thoughts and Saving Will for Us “In Christ”
Back to Chapter 6 – What’s At Stake? The Character of God and the Truth of the Gospel
Footnotes
[52] William Lane Craig Podcast, “Questions from Facebook, Part 1,” Time: 3:20 – 6:31. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/questions-from-facebook-part-one/. Last accessed Dec. 7, 2025.
[53] Os Guinness, Renaissance: The Power of the Gospel However Dark the Times (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2014), 90-91. (Italics mine.)
[54] To hear an example of the intellectual and emotional disequilibration inherent in Calvinism, listen to Leighton Flowers’ critique of John Piper’s teaching on irresistible grace. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roafWT-N3yw Last accessed on Dec. 7, 2025. Leighton Flowers’ website provides excellent, studied, fair-minded, and substantive critiques of Calvinism. The strength of many of his critiques lies in hearing Calvinists explain their views in their own words, while Leighton provides detailed comments and teaching on an alternative non-Calvinist position that he calls “Traditionalism,” and more recently “Provisionism.”
The Truth of the Gospel 