Scripture’s Dual Paradigmsan e-Mail response by Daniel D. Goehring as a response to inquiries regarding his position on these doctrines while serving at First Baptist Church of Winter Springs in Florida, USA. Copyright © 2003
Dear X___________ In the other emails I presented Biblical evidence for the so-called "Five points of Calvinism" view and evidence that historically the founders and early leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention were thoroughly Calvinist. Charles Spurgeon, the most famous Baptist pastor / preacher in history thus far, was very much a defender of Calvinism and an opponent of Pelagianism / Arminianism. The Southern Baptist Seminary, it's Abstracts of Principles, and the current Seminary President, R. Albert Mohler Jr., are very much Calvinist. I firmly believe that the TULIP, properly explained and understood, is the clear, Biblical teaching on the fallen state of man, the gospel of Christ, and above all the character and sovereignty of God. I believe the Pelagian / Arminian view is wholely a man-centered view based on misinterpretations and inconsistent reasoning that seeks to put man in control of his destiny. While in the earthly paradigm of visible human reality we seek for unbelievers to "choose you this day whom you will serve" the Lord Himself is very clear that "...no one can come to me unless the Father draws him" and "You did not choose me, but I chose you". Scripture plainly teaches that "...the natural man cannot understand the things of the Spirit" and "... there is no one who does good, there is no one who seeks God".
Yet God speaks to humanity and says, "...seek Me while I may be found". In Romans it is stated that salvation is by faith alone, without works while in 1 John it is stated that a man is saved not by faith alone, but by works. How do we understand these apparent contradictions. We must look at the author, his audience, and his topic and we must practice good hermeneutics (the science of interpreting literature. Here, specifically, Biblical interpretation). We must also understand the two paradigms of Scripture if we are to interpret correctly.
There are two paradigms or perspectives throughout Scripture. One is the earthly, physical paradigm, where man is looking at and dealing with man. He cannot see the heart of another, and must judge according to their words and works, their fruit in the physical realm (you will know them by their fruit). We seek to reason with each other in our minds and emotions for that is all we can do. We cannot touch or change their spirit or heart. Only the Spirit of God can do that. The second paradigm is God’s perspective, the spiritual realm where ultimate truth resides. The Sovereign One sees and understands the entire truth of what He has created. He sits far above the entire physical realm and the perceptions of reality mankind may have. The Omniscient Creator knows what a human can and cannot do. He fully understands the nature, the inability, and the enslavement of the fallen man he has condemned righteously in accordance with His holiness. These things He has revealed to His redeemed, His adopted sons and daughters, through His prophets and His written revelation. He has also revealed to us some knowledge of Him and the eternal things. His revelation we can understand, by the instruction of the Spirit and holy living (Christ-likeness), though we may never fully comprehend in this life. Examples of the two paradigms in Scripture are: 1) Salvation by faith with or without works. John deals with the earthly, human reality in the physical realm. His context is the saints relationships to other humans. In his letter’s context (1 John) we, being unable to see the heart of man, must judge a person’s salvation by their fruit. As Jesus says, “… you will know them by their fruits…”. Good works are the evidence of one’s reconciled relationship to God. Paul, in the Romans text, deals with ultimate truth and reality from God’s perspective. The context of Paul’s letter in Romans deals with the laws, precepts, statutes, and declarations of God as the Omniscient and Supreme judge. This is from the Divine perspective and a legal judicial perspective. 2) Man’s will, free or not. From the human perspective, we see mankind as able to chose between good and evil, according to man’s definitions and situational ethics. Fallen man does indeed have an independent will to a certain degree. Some believe that man is basically good. No one can see the evil in their thoughts or the motives of their heart, or the chains of sin that enslave them. In light of God’s revelation of truth, we understand God’s standards and ethics, and God tells us that mankind, even at his best, is still totally depraved, completely enslaved to sin and in utter rebellion against his Creator. Therefore, I act in somewhat of an “Arminian” fashion in the “perceived reality” of physical mankind, seeking to “reason together” with men and “compel them to come in” to the truth of Christ. At the same time I have come to fully understand from Scripture the biblical truth (which some call “Calvinistic”) that behind the physical stage of humanity where the evangelistic drama takes place (many are invited), it is the Spirit of the Sovereign God who orchestrates everything. It is the Spirit of God initiating each step in the process of the new birth in the life of those He has determined to draw to Himself, redeem, eternally seal, regenerate, and sanctify according to His will. The natural, unregenerate man can reason in the mind and come to an intellectual acknowledgement and acceptance of elements of truth, yet they cannot truly and fully understand spiritual truth, as Holy Scripture states (it is foolishness to them). Though they have a knowledge of the truth they refuse to bow the knee and surrender their lives to Christ. These are those who “fall away” from grace, from the truth. These are those whose state -- in the end -- is worse than had they never heard the truth of Christ, as it is written. See Hebrews chapters three through six and chapter 10. I believe the issue should be presented before the entire church for study. I believe that sometime later the issue should be brought before the church as a whole to do one of three things:
A fourth option would be to start from scratch and develop it’s own doctrinal statement as a majority of Baptist churches and many, if not the majority of SBC churches do. Basically, the church body needs to deal with the issue and take a stand for one, the other, or neither (not making it an issue of fellowship). The decision should be based on the desire to uphold God’s truth and not on convenience or the easiest way to deal with it. Where the Scriptures speak clearly, so should the church. Where things are not clear, there should be charity and freedom. As one famous quote in church history says, “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, freedom; and in all things charity”.
Since the issues between Arminianism and Calvinism speak to the character of God, the character of humanity, and the nature of Gospel of salvation, the issues are essential and demand the serious attention of the leadership of every church body so that there may be unity in the truth. At the same time, however, knowing that saints are at different stages of spiritual growth and maturity, there must be charity in the differences of opinions, particularly of those who are not elders/pastors. We must remember “Iron sharpens iron”. We should question, challenge, and encourage each other in what we understand to be the truth. We learn from the testing of our beliefs. It should drive us all to study God’s Revelation in depth.
If the church is going to make this an issue of fellowship, it needs to make a clear statement as to it’s position on the subject. In Christ, our Sovereign King, Daniel D. Goehring |