Two incompatible soteriologies can be found in the evangelical church today. They are the non-Calvinist (e.g., Arminian, Provisionist) and Calvinist soteriologies. But two mutually exclusive soteriologies cannot both be true. Moreover, one’s soteriology explains how a person becomes saved. As such, soteriology is directly linked to the gospel message. Soteriology gives expression to the gospel. In other words, one’s soteriology just is the gospel message. Therefore, being that these two soteriologies are incompatible, one or the other (or neither) cannot be an expression of the true biblical gospel. We must endeavor to engage in the search for what is true regarding the biblical “gospel of God.” Lest we embrace a theological relativism, the true message of the gospel must be coherent and biblical. That means we must include in our search for a sound biblical definition of the gospel the rules logic and good interpretation. Given the Calvinist / non-Calvinist divide, it is obvious that these have been ignored regarding the truth of the gospel. It is obvious that all those who call themselves “evangelicals” have not yet come to unity in the truth of the gospel.
I realize that each side in this controversy will say they have interpreted Scripture properly and they know what constitutes the gospel message. They will say that it is the other side that simply refuses to acknowledge that truth. That being the case, we must bring forth evidence that either confirms a position as the truth or casts doubt on that position as the truth according to Scripture. In that I take the non-Calvinist position to be closer to the truth of Scripture, it is incumbent upon me to provide the reasons for my conviction and present what I believe is the more biblical position. It is also incumbent upon me to be open to challenge from my Calvinist friends.
I have endeavored on this website to present the evidences that persuade me of my present position while examining the Calvinist responses and arguments that seek to persuade me of theirs. In doing so I remain convinced that a version of non-Calvinism (e.g., Arminianism, Provisionism, etc.) is the more biblical position. And yet, I will admit, as I think we all must admit, that our understanding is in progress due to the fact that none of us has complete comprehension of what has been revealed by God in his Word. But here I am not referring to the limitations on our knowledge due to God withholding further information regarding some things he has revealed (e.g., how God created the universe and subsequent creation via his spoken word), rather, I am referring to what has been revealed and can be known but is either known erroneously or is simply not yet understood from Scripture and nature. There are things revealed that are yet to be discovered, and there are things revealed that we know incorrectly. I submit that Reformed Calvinist soteriology is knowledge of things sufficiently revealed but known incorrectly. I contend that how we know this to be true is by virtue of the scope and nature of the incoherencies, inconsistencies, and contradictions inherent in the Calvinist theological interpretations in the light of the things that are clearly taught and explained in Scripture.
This is at the heart of the problem I have experienced in reading Calvinist theology and discussing it with Calvinists. The problem resides in the mode of Calvinist interpretive thought. On this website I believe I have provided substantial evidence and have given sound reasons as to why Calvinism is in error and that the non-Calvinist position is more in accord with Scripture. What I have found is that the Calvinist operates under a flawed hermeneutic. I find that the Calvinist cavalierly dismisses the presence of incoherencies, inconsistencies, and contradictions in their interpretations. The Calvinist does not sufficiently or consistently acknowledge the role of human reason (i.e., logical thinking) and moral intuition in hermeneutics. They have adopted a hermeneutic of incoherence when it comes to their interpretations. I find that the Calvinist summarily dismisses the fact that their interpretations prove to be incoherent, inconsistent, and contradictory with other clear teachings of Scripture. There traditional Calvinist theological beliefs must be preserved no matter what the intellectual, moral, or theological price tag. He approaches hermeneutics or the principles of interpretation as if his theological conclusions are a priori true regardless of the rational incoherence, inconsistency, and contradiction they cause with most of the Scriptures and within their own theology. If there is further understanding to be had and one dismisses out of court the only intellectual tools with which that understanding can be gained, there can be no progress in theological dialogue and discovery.
I submit that the use of the reliable interpretive principle of coherence, which is directly related to the widely recognized principle of context, tells us that the Calvinist does not presently understand Scripture correctly in the matters of divine sovereignty, salvation, and the gospel message. The reliable interpretive principles that the Calvinist ignores can be summed up in one word: coherence. In other words, if the Calvinist is to dismiss rational and moral coherence as necessary in a proper biblical hermeneutic and therefore also necessary for discerning valid from invalid interpretations of Scripture, then engaging the Calvinist with respect to getting at the biblical truth just ends in a rational void. All too prematurely the non-Calvinist hits the Calvinist brick wall of “high mystery.” Although many moral, epistemological, and biblical evidences are presented against Calvinism on the basis of the laws of rational thought and discourse (i.e., a sound hermeneutic), at a predictable point there is a strange silence from the Calvinist, as if rational thought and discourse no longer matter. Here is where reading Vanhoozer’s call for “honest dialogue” and for “exposing oneself to the rigors of honest conversation” for the purpose of avoiding theological dishonesty rings hollow. It is the Calvinist that has “an incapacity for conversation.” When the substantial inconsistencies, incoherences, and contradictions in Calvinism are exposed, “mystery,” “apparent contradiction,” “tension,” “incomprehensibility,” “the Bible teaches both,” “God’s ways are higher than our ways,” etc. become the Calvinist’s ultimate defense of their interpretation of certain key passages. They refuse to discuss and address the substantive rational and moral critiques of their theology. Once “mystery” and “incomprehensibility” are used as a defense of their theology obviously nothing more can be said. One cannot dialogue with the Calvinist when they dismiss the canons of reason and their moral intuitions in the discussion. When the non-Calvinist presents to the Calvinist the incoherence of their propositions as substantial evidence that cast doubt upon the biblical validity of those propositions, the Calvinist simply dismisses that incoherence as human reason attempting to comprehend the incomprehensible. Again, one cannot dialogue with someone who does not share your rational and moral framework. It is a certain rational and moral framework that I have defended on this website and still believe is necessary for a sound, biblical hermeneutic. I do not doubt that there is mystery in Scripture. It is just not where the Calvinist says it is. This difference in interpretive approach between the Calvinist and non-Calvinist is what I have labeled the hermeneutical divide.
There seems to be another route the Calvinist takes in attempting to avoid non-Calvinist critiques and make sense of his deterministic doctrines. It is the Vanhoozer route. It is to examine Scripture through the lens of recent linguistic and “speech-act theory” that use terms like “God in communicative act,” “communicative joint,” “locution,” “illocution,” “perlocution,” “supervenience,” “advenient grace,” etc. To me, when all is said and done, the Calvinist still has the same problems of incoherence, inconsistency, and contradiction. This is because his theology is one of universal divine causal determinism.[1] Such a deterministic theology is antithetical to the biblical witness and worldview. I hope to demonstrate this through these essays. They are a critique of Vanhoozer’s attempt to justify his Calvinist theistic determinism via an examination of the “effectual call.”
On this website I have sought to show how Calvinism insulates its doctrines from a substantive hermeneutical critique. I have sought to argue for a biblically sound hermeneutic of coherence as necessary to get at the heart of the biblical truth about salvation and the gospel message and as the way to resolve the differences that divide the Calvinist and the non-Calvinist. Again, the essence of those differences being the role of the laws of logic and moral intuitions in the interpretive process is what I call the hermeneutical divide. If the Calvinist chooses to dismiss this problem, so be it. If he seeks answers in other disciplines like Vanhoozer attempts to do in his works, I hope he finds them. But I submit that Vanhoozer will end up speaking disingenuously in his own “communicative acts” when compared with his own Calvinist theological doctrines and beliefs. He should not cavalierly dismiss the rational and moral critiques given against his Calvinism. Once his position shows itself to be incoherent let him declare the reasons why the non-Calvinist position is not the more biblical position. Let the Calvinist explain why he does not embrace the thesis that a biblically sound hermeneutic must be a coherent hermeneutic. If he does not, then we non-Calvinists can only conclude that the Calvinist does theology and interpretation from the a priori position that his doctrines are true and what the Bible teaches. But we would also have to conclude that the Calvinist has adopted a hermeneutic of incoherence. I now turn to a critique of Vanhoozer’s First Theology: God, Scripture & Hermeneutics[2] and Remythologizing Theology: Divine Action, Passion and Authorship.[3]
[1] Again, this term is used by Dr. William Lane Criag in the following lecture in which he critiques Calvinist determinism. William Lane Craig, Defenders 2 Class, Doctrine of Creation: Part 10. Oct. 21, 2012. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-2/s2-doctrine-of-creation/doctrine-of-creation-part-10/ You can read the transcript or listen to the lecture at this link. Last accessed January 15, 2024.
[2] Kevin J. Vanhoozer, First Theology: God, Scripture & Hermeneutics, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2002).
[3] Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Remythologizing Theology: Divine Action, Passion, and Authorship, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).
The Truth of the Gospel 