In my last post I expressed sympathies with my Calvinist friends. And frankly, I am tempted (sometimes) to throw my hands up and say with Rodney King, “Can’t we all just get along?” But after a cup of coffee, I remind myself that getting our doctrine right is not just important—It’s the duty of every Christian. But it’s especially vital for the Pastor. Paul is clear on this point: “He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it (Titus 1:9).” I am reminded of the penetrating words of J. Gresham Machen at this point (who was a Calvinist!), “In the Sphere of religion, as in other spheres, the things about which men are agreed are apt to be the things that are least worth holding; the really important things are the things about which men will fight (Machen, J. Gresham. Christianity and Liberalism, 1-2).” And while I still stand by my words in the previous post, I don’t want to imply that this doctrinal divide is unimportant. On the contrary, because the topic deals with issues of soteriology (i.e. salvation), it is of utmost importance that we strive to get the Bible’s teaching on this right (even if it isn’t an issue that is heretical in nature).
The Main Point: Hermeneutics
Now, to the main point I want to make in this post—why is it that godly, faithful, Bible scholars and preachers divide over the issue of election, predestination, freewill, sovereignty, and the like? It seems to me that one of the reasons involves hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation. When we study scripture, we dare not do so arbitrarily or frivolously. Hermeneutics offers rules of interpretation that assist the interpreter in understanding the Bible accurately. However, when it comes to summarizing ones understanding of what the Bible teaches regarding a topic such as the relationship between God’s sovereignty and mans responsibility, we move from dealing with an isolated passage of scripture (that is, isolated from the rest of the Bible; not necessarily from its immediate grammatical context), to understanding how the Bible as a whole speaks to, what seems on the surface, two contradictory ideas—God is completely in control; and humanity has free will. This approach to understanding scripture is called Systematic Theology. Systematic Theology presupposes a particular view of the Bible; namely, that the Bible is a cohesive, non-contradictory, whole. Jack Cottrell summarizes:
Since the whole Bible is God’s inerrant word, it possesses the quality of epistemic unity. That means that everything it teaches, from Genesis to Revelation, is a single body of consistent truth. This is true of all its doctrines combined, and also of any one specific doctrine… Thus, to have a complete understanding of [any particular subject in the Bible], we must study everything the Bible says about [it], and then set forth our conclusions as a unified whole.
Cottrell, Jack., Power from on High., 11.
When it comes to a topic as complex as God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility, one can’t simply settle the matter on the exegesis of two or three passages. Nor is it as simple as pointing to a text that explicitly settles the issue. There is not, for example, a verse that says “God chooses who will be saved apart from their choice to believe (Calvinism).” Or, “God would never overrule man’s choice to believe (Arminianism). The task is to collect all the material the Bible has to say on the issue and then formulate a “system” of thought that corresponds with the data collected.
A Trinitarian Hermeneutic
Understanding election and free will is akin to the way we understand the doctrine of the Trinity. The word or concept of the Trinity is nowhere tersely stated, “God is one being and three persons.” Nevertheless, as one studies the entire Bible it compels the interpreter to conclude that this is exactly what the Bible teaches. When all the data is collected, God as a Trinity is inescapable. Similarly, when seeking to understand whether Calvinism or Arminianism is correct it will involve a systematized effort on the part of the interpreter.
Our Preunderstandings
So, if we understand that systematic theology is the key to achieving closure on this issue, why is there still a great divide on this topic? Klein (et al) offers a very helpful observation:
The systematic theologians’ own preunderstandings shape the categories and issues they use in their systems (though they may insist, with some justification, that their goal is to allow the Bible’s own teaching to provide guidance). As well, the theologians’ own perspectives will guide their selection process as they choose various texts within each category and as they determine the relative weight to give the Bible’s various teachings on specific issues. This is readily apparent when one reads the theologies dealing with specific controversial issues, say election versus free will. People come to different positions on the Bible’s teaching on this matter because they bring different preunderstandings to their analyses of the relevant texts and they give different weight to the relevant texts.
Klein, William W, et al., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation., 459.
Klein puts his finger on what seems to be the big hurdle that stands before the Bible interpreter: “People come to different positions on the Bible’s teaching on this matter because they bring different preunderstandings to their analyses of the relevant texts and they give different weight to the relevant texts.” The reason the Calvinist and the Arminian cannot see eye to eye is because they are coming to the text with two very different presuppositions.
For example, the Calvinist presupposes that sovereignty means that God is meticulously in control of every single thing in the universe, including the free will choices of men. The Arminians presupposes that God sovereignly limits himself and chooses to sovereignly allow men to be endowed with libertarian freewill. Both positions lead each to emphasize passages in the Bible that (obviously) favor their perspective. What inevitably happens when the two defenders come to the table to present their view, is a proof texting battle. The Calvinist fires their proof texts (e.g. Romans 9:16), and the Arminian theirs (e.g. John 3:16).
Any Hope for Agreement?
So is there any hope for this seemingly hopeless endeavor for clarity and unity? Well, on the one hand, it seems that until Jesus returns godly men and women will be wrestling with this issue. The reason is obvious—the Bible speaks both of God’s sovereignty and human responsibility. Defining what the Bible means by these concepts will take a continual humility, tedious study of the various texts, and a conviction in our hearts that refuses to give up seeking the truth. That said, on the other hand, Klein offers a very helpful principle forward. They write:
But how do you formulate the Bible’s theology? Whether it be biblical or systematic, we cannot espouse a self-structured theology that promotes its own self-serving agenda. Therefore, valid theologizing must follow the sound exegesis of the appropriate biblical texts… theology ought to originate inductively out of a responsible analysis…of the relevant passages of the Bible. It will not do merely to invent theology and seek deductively to defend it in various texts… Unless a system of responsible hermeneutics guides the process of exegesis and theological formulation, theology, at best, will not rise above human wisdom, and at worst, will be false, misguided, tendentious, and even dangerous…A second key point…,theology must be based on the Bible’s total teaching, not on selected or isolated texts. For example, suppose we want to develop a theology of election and free will. We cannot develop a faithful and honest statement of this doctrine if we deny or discount texts that conflict with our preferred theory. If God authored the entire Bible, and if its parts do not hopelessly contradict…then a valid theological statement about an issue must take into account all that God has said concerning it.”
Klein, et al., Biblical Interpretation., 462-463
Bruce Ware helpfully observes:
“Calvinists and Arminians share, in principle, the same mindset that theological systems must not be permitted to rule over the best and most responsible biblical understandings and theological formulations. But the theological system that grows out of and makes the best sense of those most compelling and responsible biblical understandings ought then to be upheld and commended. Calvinism ought to be defended not because of its inherent logic, symmetry, or comprehensive structure per se, but because the substance of its biblical understanding is more compelling than that of its rivals.”
Ware, Bruce., The Grace of God and the Bondage of the Will. Edited by Schreiner, Thomas., and Ware, Bruce., 340.
Ware, speaking on behalf of the Calvinist view acknowledges that theological systems must not rule over good exegesis. In fact, as we have said, systematic theology should flow from sound exegesis, not the other way around. Furthermore, Ware is right when he says that the position—whether Calvinism or Arminians—one favors is not because of its inherent logic but because when placed side by side the one that corresponds most with the biblical data is the one that should be adopted. Therefore, the question for anyone seeking to discover which position is right is this: which position best corresponds most with the biblical data?
At this point I feel compelled again to stress that the issue dividing Calvinists and Arminians is not that one side is biblical and the other side relies on carnal reasoning.[1] Both sides are taking all of the biblical data and seeking to synthesize that data into a well informed theological view that makes the most sense of God’s Soveriegnty and Man’s responsibility. The question is—which side makes BEST sense of the biblical data?
Let’s Summarize
So, to summarize, the way forward is twofold: First, systematic theology of any given topic (in our case God’s sovereignty and Human responsibility) must begin with sound exegesis of passages relevant to the topic. As the authors suggest, one’s conclusions should be formulated inductively out of sound exegesis and not deductively, that is, one comes to the text with his theory in mind and then finds the texts that support said theory.
Second, when wrestling with a topic like the one here, one can’t simply cherry pick texts that are favorable to the interpreter’s presuppositions. One must look at all the relevant texts—especially the ones that seem at odds with their presuppositions—and then seek to exegete those passages as faithfully as one can, in order to avoid allowing one’s presuppositions to govern the outcome. When this has been achieved then a systematic proposal of one’s theological conclusions can be put forward.
I’ll leave you with this
I am under no allusion that what I have said above is a fireproofed approach that will lead to universal unity on this topic! Nor am I suggesting that thoughtful theologians throughout the church are ignorant of these hermeneutical principles. What I am saying is that in order to understand the frustrating circumstances we find ourselves in when dealing with these topics, we have to understand the deeper reality behind the positions each side takes. It’s not as if one side is biblical and the other side is not. Each faithful interpreter is doing their best to come to the Bible and understand what it teaches about God’s sovereignty and human responsibility. Nevertheless, hopefully what I have said here will assist some from avoiding the dangers of simply proof texting their position or disregarding sound exegesis that leads the interpreter to a right systematization of the data. If I have assisted in this way then I am pleased to have written it. But the mere thinking this out for myself has been worth the time alone! More to come on this issue, but for now, To God be the Glory!
[1] This is exactly the rebuke Douglas Wilson places on his opponent during a debate on this very topic. See, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2nHGlPAs6w
From Genesis to the Maps 