Redeeming God

Liberating you from bad ideas about God

Learn the MOST ESSENTIAL truths for following Jesus.

Get FREE articles and audio teachings in my discipleship emails!


Paul Does Not Teach Total Depravity in Romans 3

14 Comments

Romans 3 in contextYesterday we look at the context of Romans 3 to see that Paul is not teaching Total Depravity or total inability in Romans 3:9-20. Today we want to take a closer look at Romans 3:10-12 to see what Paul is really teaching in these verses. We argued briefly that Romans 3 is part of an “epistolary diatribe” against an imaginary objector.

Of course, even if one does not accept the idea that Romans is an “epistolary diatribe,” the point of Romans 3:9-20 is still the same.

In either case, Paul is saying that Jewish people have traditionally thought that as God’s elect, they existed in a privileged position before God. In a sense, Jewish people believed God needed them to carry out His plan and purposes for the world, and so even if they sinned and fell away from Him, He would eventually rescue and redeem them so that His promises to them could be fulfilled. One of Paul’s points in Romans 1–3 and 9–11 is that this is not necessarily so.

Paul Quotes from the Hebrew Bible to Prove His Point

Paul’s collection of quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures in Romans 3:10-18 is intended to show his readers that despite being the chosen people of God and having the Law and the Prophets, the Jewish people are just as guilty as the Gentiles.

Paul’s point in Romans 3:9-20 is that if the Jewish people did have a privileged position by virtue of having the “oracles of God” (Romans 3:2), then these oracles of God condemn them all as sinners, which puts them right back on equal footing with the Gentiles. Paul defends this point by quoting numerous texts from the Hebrew Scriptures which condemns them all as sinners.

Of course, Paul is not at all denying that Gentiles are sinners. To the contrary, he states in Romans 3:9 that “all” Jews and Greeks are under the power of sin. But Paul is not intending to make a statement about the universal Total Depravity of mankind. Instead, his point is that when it comes to being in right standing before God, Jews are on the same footing as Gentiles. Whatever Jews want to say of Gentiles is also true of Jews. To prove his point, Paul quotes numerous texts from the Hebrew Scriptures (Rom 3:10-18). Laurence Vance is absolutely right when he says this about Paul’s point in Romans 3:

Paul, in establishing the universal guilt of both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 3:1, 9), quotes from the Old Testament to give weight to his arguments, not to charge each individual of the human race in particular with every indictment, nor to teach the inability of the unregenerate man to believe on Jesus Christ. There is a difference between establishing the universal depravity of man and charging individual men with sins (Vance, Other Side of Calvinism, 229).

Paul Quotes from Psalm 14 (cf. Psalm 53)

It is important to note that Romans 3:10-12 are quotations from Psalm 14:1-3 (cf. also 53:1-3). Many modern people like to say that Psalm 14 and 53 are condemning atheists when the Psalmist says, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’”

Psalm 14But in the Psalmist’s day, there was no such thing as atheism. Everybody believed in a God or gods. There were, however, many people who chose to live “godless” lives, that is, to live for themselves and not serve God. They believed that God existed, but they chose to not obey Him or follow His commands. It is this sort of person that the Psalmist has in mind in Psalm 14:1 (cf. 53:1).

Therefore, the rest of the statements in Psalm 14 describe this sort of person. Psalm 14 then, is not a chapter describing the Total Depravity of all people everywhere throughout time, but rather, the specific behavior of the people who choose to live with no regard for God in their lives.

Some argue from Psalm 14:7 that this Psalm was written during Israel’s captivity, and so those who live without regard for God are the foreign captors who worship their own god but do not accept or believe in the God of Israel.

However, if this were the case, Paul would not be able to quote from Psalm 14 as a way to show that the Jews were just as guilty as the Gentiles. It seems better to understand Psalm 14 as a Psalm which calls to account those Jewish people who turned away from worshipping the God of Israel after being taken into captivity. Maybe they started worshipping foreign gods, or maybe they just decided to live without any god whatsoever.

Either way, note what the Psalmist says about these people. He does not say that they were born this way, or that they have always been this way. No, the Psalmist specifically says that they have become this way. He writes that they have “turned aside … become corrupt” (Psalm 14:3). These Jewish people have chosen to abandon the worship of the God of Israel, and have turned aside into corruption and sin.

Poetic Hyperbole in Psalm 14

Furthermore, when the entirety of Psalm 14 is read, it becomes obvious that the Psalmist is using poetic hyperbole to describe the sin into which God’s people have fallen. Just like most poets, those who wrote the Psalms often used exaggerated imagery to make their point. This is true of the author of Psalm 14 as well.

For example, Psalm 14:4 says that the workers of iniquity “eat up my people as they eat bread.” They are not literally eating God’s people; they are not cannibals. No, this is an exaggerated and poetic way of saying that these people who live without regard for God are misusing, abusing, and destroying God’s people. So also with the rest of the Psalm.

The Psalmist is not saying that these people can never do any good whatsoever at all. No, he is using poetic hyperbole to point out the error of their ways. It is likely that Paul understands this, and has the same point in mind. His quotation from Psalm 14 is not a statement about the total depravity of mankind, but a statement about how Jews too have fallen into sin, just like the Gentiles.

Ultimately, as Paul states, “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). While Romans 3 does not teach Total Depravity, it does teach universal sinfulness.

People Can (and do) Seek God

Romans 3:11, often thought to be a statement about the total inability of mankind, is also balanced by the fact that it comes from the exaggerated statements of Psalm 14, and is further balanced by the numerous statements in the Bible which says that humans can and do seek God (1 Chr 16:11; 2 Chr 11:16; Lam 3:25; Isa 55:6-7; Jer 29:13; Amos 5:4).

believe in Jesus

Furthermore, it is critical to remember that one does not gain eternal life by seeking God, but by believing in Jesus Christ (John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47), which all people can do, for along with humanity’s ability to seek God, Jesus seeks after people (Matthew 18:11; Luke 19:10), and in doing so, calls on all to believe in Him for eternal life. Many do not seek God, not because they cannot, but because they are proud and refuse to seek him (Psalm 10:4).

So by way of summary, Romans 3:9-20 does not teach Total Depravity or total inability.

While the chapter can be used to teach the universal sinfulness of humanity, the real point of this section of Paul’s letter is to show that the Jewish people are on equal footing before God with the Gentiles.

There is no privileged position before God, not special status as God’s chosen people. Jewish people are sinful just like Gentile people. Both are equally in need of God’s righteous deliverance, which He offers freely to all through Jesus Christ.

If you want to read more about Calvinism, check out other posts in this blog series: Words of Calvinism and the Word of God.

God is z Bible & Theology Topics: , , , , , , , , , ,

Advertisement

Is Paul teaching Calvinism in Romans 3:10-12?

4 Comments

Romans 3 and CalvinismOf all the various texts used to defend the Calvinistic teaching on Total Depravity, Romans 3:9-20 is one of the most popular (another being Ephesians 2:1-3). Rather than quote the entire passage, a few select verses from the beginning of this section are representative of the whole.

As it is written: “There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one” (Romans 3:10-12).

It is not difficult to see why these texts are popular among Calvinistic defenders of Total Depravity. The text clearly teaches that nobody is righteous or does any good, which sounds like Total Depravity, and that nobody understands or seeks after God, which seems to infer total inability.

Below are a few quotes from Calvinists on Romans 3:9-20.

The text … moves in a remarkable way from the general to the specific. Not only does it say there is none righteous, but it says there is none who does any good, no, not one. We are not considered unrighteous because the dross of sin is mixed together with our goodness. The indictment against us is more radical: in our corrupt humanity we never do a single good thing (Sproul, Grace Unknown, 120).

According to Romans 3, no one unaided by God 1) has any righteousness by which to lay a claim upon God, 2) has any true understanding of God, or 3) seeks God (Boice and Ryken, Doctrines of Grace, 79).

Romans 3:9-10 does not teach Total Depravity

Despite these sorts of statements from Calvinists, Romans 3:9-20 does not actually teach either Total Depravity or total inability. While Romans 3:9-20 does teach that all are sinners (cf. Romans 3:23), the overall context of this passage must be understood in light of the progression of Paul’s argument if we are to grasp his point.

In other words, though this passage does seem to defend both Total Depravity and total inability when quoted out of context, when studied in its context the passage teaches something else entirely (See Campbell, The Deliverance of God).

To fully grasp the argument, a complete analysis of Paul’s entire letter would be necessary. But since that is impossible to do here, let me try to just point out a few of the highlights.

Context of Romans 3

Romans Is Not about How to Go to Heaven When you Die

First of all, it is critical to note that the overall message of Romans is not about justification or how to receive eternal life. In other words, Romans is not primarily directed toward unbelievers. Instead, the message of Romans is primarily directed toward believers, and specifically, how they can live and function as followers of Jesus who live according to the gospel of Christ (Romans 1:16-17).

In Romans, “Salvation” is about Deliverance from the Temporal Consequences of Sin NOW

Related to this, it is important to note that “salvation” in Romans is not about how to go to heaven when you die, but about the salvation (or deliverance) that God provides to believers.

Lots of people think that Romans is just about how “unsaved” people can get “justification” so they can go to heaven when they die. But this approach to Romans doesn’t really know what to do with Romans 9–11 when Paul seems to suddenly switch gears and start talking about God’s covenant with Israel.

However, if we understand that Paul is primarily writing to believers and instructing them about the deliverance available to them in this life, then Romans 9–11 becomes immediately applicable, for Paul uses the example of Israel to show what happens when God’s people do not live by faith, and as a result, are not delivered.

And don’t think that Paul is threatening believers with hell. Hell is nowhere in Paul’s discussion in Romans (not even in the phrase “the wrath of God”).

So when Paul writes what he does in Romans 3:9-20, he is writing a warning to believers in Rome about becoming proud of their privileged position before God. In this section of Romans, Paul is pointing out that all people are on equal footing before God. There is no privileged position.

In Romans, Paul uses “Epistolary Diatribe” to Make His Point… (What?)

Third, and related to this, it is critical to understand exactly how Paul goes about making his argument. He is using specific rhetorical rules from the first century called epistolary diatribe argumentation.

What does that mean?

Paul didn’t just sit down and write Romans based on whatever he wanted to say. No, in writing Romans, Paul followed a set pattern and structure which was quite common in the first century for when scholars, philosophers, and teachers wanted to refute the ideas of an opponent.

A large part of this diatribe structure involved quoting the ideas and words of your opponent so that you might then turn around and refute them. This means that some of the statements in Romans which have traditionally been attributed to Paul are actually the ideas and statements from an opponent of Paul, whom Paul quotes so that he can then refute those ideas (See Campbell, The Deliverance of God).

So Romans 3 is not exactly a continuation of Paul’s own argument and logic, but rather, a continuation of the argument Paul is having with an imaginary objector.

In other words, Romans 3:9-20 is part of Paul’s rebuttal of an opponent, not a continuation of his own argument. In this way, Paul’s collection of quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures in Romans 3:10-18 is intended to show his objector that despite being the chosen people of God and having the Law and the Prophets, the Jewish people are just as guilty as the Gentiles.

Romans context of Romans 3Up to this point, Paul’s objector was trying to argue that only the Gentiles were guilty, and that the Jewish people had a privileged status before God. Paul’s point in Romans 3:9-20 is that if the Jewish people did have a privileged position by virtue of having the “oracles of God” (Romans 3:2), then these oracles of God condemn them all as sinners, which puts them right back on equal footing with the Gentiles.

In Romans 3:9-20, Paul defends this point by quoting numerous texts from the Hebrew Scriptures which condemns them all as sinners.

So far, we have only really looked at the context of Romans 3. Tomorrow, we will discuss what Paul is saying in Romans 3. Until then, what do you think about the context of Romans 3 as laid out above? Has anybody read that book by Campbell? What do you think of it?

If you want to read more about Calvinism, check out other posts in this blog series: Words of Calvinism and the Word of God.

God is z Bible & Theology Topics: , , , , , , ,

Advertisement

Because the Bible Tells Me So… or does it?

28 Comments

Do you struggle with the Bible? Do you wrestle with what it says, what it means, and how to apply it to your life?

Confession time…

I do.

Here’s another confession….

When it comes to helping me understand what to do with Scripture, Bible college and seminary didn’t help me much. In fact, some days, I wonder if Bible College and Seminary hindered more than they helped.

We have probably all had run-ins with Christians who like to condemn others (or condemn you) by saying, “The Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it.”

Okay, here’s another confession…

god said it I believe it that settles itI used to be one of those Christians. I used to preach that very thing.

Anyway, the only thing that Bible College and Seminary really did for me was giving a more “scholarly” way of saying, “The Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it.”

We were trained to talk about the Greek and Hebrew, and to reference the cultural, historical, and grammatical contexts of whatever passage were were studying, thereby giving us more and better ammunition against those with whom we disagreed.

In the end though, it all boiled down to the same thing…

Though the uneducated masses say, “The Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it!” I could now say, “The Hebrew says this, the cultural background study backs it up, therefore, I believe it, and you better not disagree with me, you ignorant and uneducated worm!”

Anyway, I have begun to try to back away from that sort of approach to Scripture, mostly because it looks nothing like Jesus, and have begun to try to figure out what the Bible is, how it should be used, and how it should be read, taught, and applied to our lives.

The Bible Tells Me So

So it was with great interest that I recently picked up The Bible Tells Me So, by Peter Enns. I had previously read his book, Inspiration and Incarnation, and found it extremely helpful, and so decided to read this newest book of his as well.

The Bible Tells me So

As with everything Dr. Enns writes, this book was full of deep insights and helpful ideas about the nature and authority of Scripture. What surprised me most about this most recent book, however, was the keen sense of humor that was displayed on every page. There were numerous places where I laughed out loud at what I was reading. Dr. Enns has a very good sense of humor!

Humor is important for a book like this, where so much of what is foundational to many forms of modern Christianity is being challenged.

In The Bible Tells Me So, Peter Enns attempts to present an approach to Scripture which allows for us to accept that it has historical and scientific errors and that it contradicts itself at various places, and yet still retain the Bible as an important witness to the theological and spiritual struggles which were faced by our forefathers in the faith, and more importantly, as a historical document about the life of Jesus and how the death and resurrection of Jesus resulted in the transformation of the first century mediterranean world.

Reading over that paragraph again, I am pretty sure that Peter Enns would not agree with how I phrased everything in there…

…Maybe it is best to say this: Peter Enns wants us to stop agreeing with the Bible in everything it says, and instead, begin arguing with God about what is in the Bible. That, he says, is the purpose of Scripture. He says that if the Bible teaches us anything about God, it is that we learn about God and develop a relationship with Him, not by simply accepting everything the Bible says, but by actually engaging with God in a spirited (both senses of the word are intended there) discussion about the Bible.

In other words … don’t be this guy…

wrong approach to Scripture

Frankly, I really, really like this approach, because (as you may know if you have been reading my blog for the past six years or so), this is all I have been able to do with Scripture for the past decade or so. Despite all my training and education, I still cannot make heads or tails of the Bible. If Peter Enns is right, this is exactly how God wants it!

Though not directly stated anywhere, Peter Enns appears to be a proponent of the idea that the Bible is a library of books written by various authors from various theological perspectives, who are in dialogue with each other over the nature of God and what the human response to Him should be. Others who hold this view say that rather than the Bible being “uni-vocal,” it is “multi-vocal.” That is, rather than speaking with one voice on various topics and subjects, there are numerous voices, and sometimes they disagree with and even contradict one another.

In The Bible Tells Me So, Peter Enns begins by showing that most of the traditional approaches to the Bible don’t match up with what the Bible actually appears to be. Following this, he goes through several sections of the Bible, forcing us to read it and see it in a way that you probably won’t hear in most seminaries, churches, or home Bible studies. Then, the book concludes with some explanation of how Jesus, Paul, and the apostles used Scripture, and what we should do with the Bible as it is. 

Frankly, this book is going to require a second read for me, and I plan on reading it out loud to my wife. She is a better theologian than I am, and I trust that she will have discernment to see the right (and wrong) with what Peter Enns has written. I figure that if he invites us to argue with God about the Bible, he will not mind too much if my wife and I argue with him…

For now, though, here is my one main reservation about what Peter Enns has written (I have many reservations about the book …. please don’t read my review as a glowing endorsement)…

The problem with the approach of Peter Enns in The Bible Tells Me So is not so much in what he says, but in the logical ramifications of what he says.

For example, he says that the Bible teaches us about Jesus (p. 237). But does it? If large chunks of Scripture are stories that have been fabricated to answer the pressing social and theological questions of the author’s day (pp. 75, 94, 105, 107-130, etc.), why could this not also have been true about the stories of Jesus? This is especially true if the Gospel authors were not actually eyewitnesses to Jesus (as Enns believes – p. 78).

Ultimately, if Enns is right, the Bible is little more than the best-selling piece of historical literature of all time. Is it inspiring? Yes! Interesting? Sure! Can it guide us in our own life and with our own questions? You bet! Is it life changing? It can be. But is it really from God? Not so much.

the bible tells me soLook, this approach to Scripture is way better than the fundamentalist approach where we carry out all manner of atrocities in Jesus’ name. But I just struggle with having a Bible like this. If Enns is right, what sets the Bible apart from other religious books? How can it be authoritative at all? How can it be reliable or trustworthy in what it says about anything?

In the end, I highly recommend you buy and read The Bible Tells Me So. I recommend it, not because I agree with everything that is written (though in time, maybe I will!), but because the book made me think. This is the best kind of book! I like books that make me think, even when I disagree.

Hmmm…. maybe that is what the Bible is after all….

Until then,  what sort of issues do you have with Scripture? Do you think that the approach of Peter Enns (according to my woefully inadequate summary above) could provide a way of escape from your problems with the Bible? Or do you think his approach simply creates more (and greater) difficulties? Let me know in the comment section!

God is z Bible & Theology Topics: , , , , ,

Advertisement

It’s the White Man’s Fault! It’s the Black Man’s Fault!

14 Comments

People love to point fingers.

It’s been happening since the Garden of Eden when, after he ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, Adam said to God, “The woman, whom you gave to me, gave me the fruit and I ate.” Adam not only blames Eve, but blames God as well.

When God turns to Eve, she said, “Don’t look at me! It was the serpent!” She also was implying that it was God’s fault. After all, didn’t God create the serpent and put it in the Garden?

Down through the eons of history, this approach has been our standard operating procedure. Every time something goes bad in our life, our family, our town, our country, or our world, everybody starts pointing the finger at everybody else.

pointing the finger

Take the events in the Middle East for the past 20 years:

It’s the West’s fault for what is happening in the Middle East! Death to the great satan!

No, it’s the Muslims fault! Let’s blow them off the face of the earth!

No, it’s not Muslims; it’s only extremist Muslims.

Yeah, but Muslims only become extreme in reaction to Western abuse of power.

Who cares? Let’s kill ’em all and let God sort it out! (Have you ever seen this bumper sticker?)

The same sort of conversation happened during the “Occupy Wall Street” protests:

All those rich people are to blame for our county’s problems. They are stealing our money!

No we’re not! You are poor because you just want to sit out here, hold signs, and commit crimes!

But that’s only because we can’t get jobs because you are so greedy!

We can’t hire anybody because Obama — whom you voted into office — ruined our economy.  It’s your own damn fault!

Then there are the recent events in Ferguson, MO:

You white people are always killing black people for no reason!

What? It was self-defense! And he was a criminal!

Self-defense?! You shot him six times!  You’re all racist!

No, we’re trying to uphold the law. Look at you! You’re rioting and looting stores. You’re all criminals!

ferguson racial tension

We could go on and on and on. This sort of exchange takes place every day in our lives, communities, job sites, and even families.

And you want to know what the solution is? Jesus showed it to us, if we have courage to look.

The solution is crucifixion … not of our enemies, but of ourselves.

Death truly is the answer … but not the death of our foes, but of me. I. Myself.

The church claims it follows Jesus, but we only want to follow Him if it leads to personal glory, pay raises, a higher standard of living, and the death and destruction of our enemies.

Nobody wants to follow Jesus into death; especially into death for our enemies … and maybe even at the hands of our enemies.

This is hard teaching, and frankly, I am not fully sure about how to live it out.

As I write this, my inner self is screaming, “But what does that mean, Jeremy?!” And frankly, I don’t know. Actually, I don’t think I want to know.

I am not ready to follow Jesus into death.

The idea terrifies me.

But I believe that following Jesus into death is the only way that violence and finger-pointing will ever end. As long as I refuse to own up to the violence and hatred in my own heart, I will forever be pointing the finger at someone else, saying, “They made me do it!”

dying for our enemies

It’s not the white man’s fault or the black man’s fault. It’s me.

It’s not the rich people or the poor people. It’s me.

It’s not the Muslims or the Christians. It’s me.

It’s not the Democrats or the Republicans. It’s me.

This is the first step in dying to ourselves. Recognizing that I am the one at fault, I am the one to blame, is the first step toward laying down our lives for others.

Racial tensions are at an all-time high. White people blame the black man, and black people blame the white man. But neither is at fault. I am the one at fault.

It is not “they” who must die, but me. If Jesus is our guide, we bring peace, not by killing others, but by laying down our lives for others, and especially for our enemies. 

This post is part of the September 2014 Synchroblog. Below is a list of other bloggers who contributed to the Synchroblog this month. Go read them all and see what others have to say about race and violence.

God is z Bible & Theology Topics: , , , , , , , ,

Advertisement

3 Tactics Calvinists Use Against Non-Calvinists

226 Comments

In my current series on Calvinism, I have had several Calvinists leave comments about their areas of disagreement with what I have written.

I fully expect and invite disagreement. Please … if you are a Calvinist and disagree with what I am writing, let me know, and present your views!

However, I have noticed a trend in the comments that have been left by Calvinists thus far. There seems to be three main tactics or approaches that Calvinists have used in their attempts to defend their ideas and disprove mine.

1. Name Calling

Calvinist name callingIt always surprises me how quickly some Calvinists turn to name calling as a way to defend their ideas. If you are not a Calvinist and seek to teach your views, be prepared to be called a heretic, a reprobate, a mouthpiece of Satan, and a fool. Some Calvinists may simply say that you are stupid, ignorant, or spiritually blind.

When I was in grade-school, I never understood why some kids thought they could win arguments by calling other people names, and I still don’t understand it today.

Very rarely  is there any proper place in serious theological discussion for cajoling, slander, vilification, and the mocking of others.

If you are a Calvinist and you believe that I am stupid, ignorant, and the mouthpiece of Satan because I am not a Calvinist, show it by the weight of your exegetical arguments; not by calling me silly names.

2. Scripture Quotations

Along with name calling, Calvinists seem to think that everybody would become a Calvinist if they would just “read their Bible.” I often find that when Calvinists disagree, they think they can settle the argument by telling the person to go “read their Bible.”

Of course, I find this tactic used by many various groups within Christianity. Most people seem to think that what they believe is exactly what the Bible teaches, and if people would read the Bible, they would come to the same beliefs.

bible quotes Calvinist

What many Calvinists do not seem to grasp is that reading the Bible is one thing; understanding it is another. Even highly educated and well-respected scholars and Bible teachers disagree with each other about the meaning of the text.

Do I read and study the Bible? Of course! I have been reading and studying it for decades. In fact, it is exactly because of my reading and studying that I eventually abandoned Calvinism.

Often, along with inviting non-Calvinists to just “read the Bible,” Calvinists like to type out longs lists of Bible quotes which the Calvinists thinks proves and defends the Calvinistic system of theology.

Their approach goes like this:

You heretic! If you had simply read the Bible, you would know that you are filled with the lies of the devil! Here’s proof:

Bible Quotation 1

Bible Quotation 2

Bible Quotation 3

etc …

In fact, one classic book on Calvinism (The Five Points of Calvinism) contains little else but pages upon pages of Bible quotations.

In a post from several years ago, I referred to this tactic as Shotgun Hermeneutics. Some people seem to think they can win theology debates by simply quoting a lot of Bible verses, as if the other person was not aware of those verses and had never read them in the Bible.

Usually, when Calvinists do this to me, I simply reply with a comment like this:

I am fully aware of all of these verses. I have read them many, many times, and I have deeply studied most of them in the Greek or Hebrew, as well as in their historical, cultural, and grammatical contexts. I simply have a different understanding of these verses than you do, and if you read some of the others posts on this blog, you will learn how I understand those texts you quoted.

Of course, Calvinists think their understanding of Scripture is the only valid one, and part of this is because of their appeals to tradition and authority.

3. Appeals to Tradition and Authority

The final tactic that Calvinists often use to defend Calvinism is with appeals to tradition and authority. Usually, if you disagree with a Calvinist on the meaning of a particular Bible verse, rather than deal with the exegetical evidence that was prevented about the verse, they will say that your understanding is wrong, because it disagrees with what John Calvin, John Piper, or John MacArthur teaches (or some other Calvinist).

calvinistic authority and traditionI have a book in my library where an extremely popular Calvinist in which he lays and defends the Calvinistic doctrines. When I first read it, I was a Calvinist, but I remember being extremely uncomfortable with how he defended his views. Rather than base his arguments on a detailed analysis of pertinent Scripture texts, he tended to quote St. Augustine (who predated Calvinism), John Calvin, and other prominent Calvinistic theologians.

There is nothing inherently wrong with pointing out that other Bible teachers and scholars agree with your views, but the trouble comes in when some people seem ignorant of the fact that there are many good and respectable Bible teachers and scholars who disagree.

Furthermore, I always find it interesting that Calvinists praise men like Martin Luther and John Calvin for seeking to reform the traditional teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, but then condemn those who want to reform the traditional teachings of the Calvinistic system of theology.

Anyway, even though you can quote a bunch of scholars, authors, and Bible teachers who agree with your perspective, this does not prove that your view is correct.

Main Problem: A Lack of Grace

The main irony or problem with lots of the disagreement that comes from Calvinists is that it lacks grace.

Usually, when a Calvinist engages in the 3 tactics listed above, it is done with a complete lack of grace. I find this most troubling. Why is it that Calvinists, who claim to teach ‘The Doctrines of Grace” are so ungracious when dealing with those who disagree?

If we truly hold to grace, does it not seem that our dealings with others should also be full of grace? I think so.

I know that many non-Calvinists are guilty of the three things above (I fall into them myself sometimes), but what have been your experiences with debating Calvinists? Share in the comments below!

God is z Bible & Theology Topics: , , , , ,

Advertisement

Advertise or Donate

Search (and you Shall Find)

Get Books by Jeremy Myers

Books by Jeremy Myers

Schedule Jeremy for an interview

Click here to Contact Me!