Choosing an theology

Whether we like it or not, as Christians we all adhere to some form of theological thinking. Our theology should not rule the Bible; the Bible should rule our theology.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Have you ever wondered how there can be so many denominations when we all read the same Bible? Have you ever been frustrated by your inability to be able to explain to others what you believe and why you disagree with them? Well, the reason in most cases is that you are working from a different theology.

If we can be so far apart on some key issues, it is apparent that one of us is using a faulty theology, or even worse, we are both using flawed theology. I have not met a Christian that did not want to be Biblically right in their thinking. It is natural for us to want to know the truth. Now, if two are in a disagreement, then both cannot be right. At least one of the two is wrong Biblically.

The source of their error is usually based upon their theological presuppositions, and not upon their desire to know the truth.

Many people are blinded to the fact that they believe in any form of theology at all. They are under the impression that they just “believe the Bible.” The Bible is the only place to start and finish our theology, but whether we like it or not , we are all given theological presuppositions immediately after our salvation. This is natural since in the early stage of questioning the new believer is fed this theology through friends, family and clergy.

Theology is the framework in which we are able to understand what we find in the Bible, without it we would real in confusion.

The bottom line is, our first theology is chosen for us by whoever gets to influence us first. We can choose to change our theological thinking, but we must be determined and open enough to think outside of the theological box that we are in.

The Biblical laws of interpretation demand that we make Scripture agree with Scripture. We all realize that a perfect, all knowing, holy God could never lie or contradict Himself. So if we cannot reconcile two or more verses of Scripture, it is not that the Scripture is in error, but it is because we are not interpreting it right. For our thinking to be correct, we must find a way to understand these alleged contradictions so that they harmonize with the whole of Scripture. Any interpretation of Scripture that which contradicts the Bible at any other point cannot be of God.

Theology is the basis of how we see Scripture, God, and the plan of salvation. If we are wrong in our theology we are wrong about God’s plan for us, and we are potentially wrong to the point of missing the saving grace of God altogether. We should all see the gravity of the importance of this issue!

If Scripture cannot contradict Scripture and still be of God, then our theology cannot contradict itself and truly be of God. Although many sincere Christians attempt to be true to the Bible, they have been unwittingly misled by faulty and inconsistent theological thinking. As much as we would like to believe that theology has nothing to do with our interpretation, we must realize that we do have a theological bias which enables us to understand Scripture only in the way that our bias allows us to.

In the next section I will be covering the three most prevalent types of theology today. You may be surprised to find that almost every Protestant theology known to man is based upon just two systems of thought. Now some pick and choose bits and pieces from each, but as will explain, this can only lead to error.

(proof of salvation is contingent upon the perseverance of the believer to the end of life)

(The Elect will unfailingly continue to persevere) (They are Elect only as they persevere)

We must demand that our theology passes the same scrutiny that our method of Bible interpretation has to pass. Our interpretation of Scripture must allow Scripture to be self consistent and non-contradictory, otherwise we must conclude that our way of thinking is flawed and our thoughts cannot be the same as God’s.

There are only two systems of theology that can pass the acid test of non-contradiction and self-consistency, these are pure Calvinism and Arminianism. All other forms of theology are not consistent within themselves which give undeniable evidence that they could not have come from God.

To produce a system that picks and chooses as the Baptist scheme does, seems admirable, but destroys the self consistency and cannot support itself, and thus, must be dismissed as error.

Based by the law of non-contradiction, we are left with only two systems that can possibly come from God Himself. The problem that faces us is that the two available choices, Calvinism and Arminianism, are at two polar ends from each other. This leaves the student with the question, “which should I choose?”

This question may be answered by looking to see which of these theologies are consistent with the Word of God, since a theology that is not in harmony with the Scriptures is of no use to the believer who desires the truth over denomination or wishful speculation.

It is important for us to see what this system is and how it is consistent within itself.

The foundation of Calvinism is the Doctrine of predestination. They believe that God is all powerful, and in His Sovereignty, he has decreed whatever is to come to pass throughout history and eternity from the foundation of the world. God decreed what will happen, so it must happen without fail. God will bring everything to pass as He wills because he has already determined that it will be that way.

This decree applies to individuals and salvation. It is clear that the Scriptures teach that not all shall be saved, so in Calvin’s mind this must be the will of God to only save some (the Elect) and not all. No one or any created thing can resist the will of God whether it be to salvation, or condemnation.

If only the chosen ones of God can or will be saved, then God has determined that Christ would only atone for those that He has willed that He will save. This is what is meant by a Limited Atonement . As you can see, a theory of a limited atonement rests on the assumption that the Calvinistic interpretation of predestination to salvation or damnation is true. There is no Bible proof that the atonement is limited, but this is the nature of theology that it has to support its original premise.

If a man is predestined, and the atonement is limited to only those who shall be saved, how does God ensure that those that he chose will actually decide to follow Him? This is answered by the next step in this theological system, which is the doctrine of Irresistible Grace. This means that God will draw those he pleases to save, and only those, with a calling that they will find themselves unable to resist.

How does a holy God fellowship with those who are predestined to salvation apart from any ethical consideration? If it is based upon God's good pleasure and decree, and all our actions are already predestined, then how can God be one with a "saved" but sinful creature? Calvin solves this with the theory of imputed righteousness. Since according to this system, God is 100% responsible for everything including the choice of who will be saved. Mans' cooperation or cessation from sin is not required because, if man had any input or power to do anything, then God would not be Sovereign and all powerful. In their minds, if man had a free will then God would be at the mercy of man in salvation.

Imputed Righteousness claims that the holiness of Christ is transferred to the believer and counted as the believers own. Regardless of the true nature of the believer, God sees him as pure as the wind driven snow.

Now, if one is predestined to salvation, irresistibly drawn to God, and the righteousness of Christ is Imputed to the believer, then he must persevere to the end and be infallibly saved. This is so because God has decreed it to be. Since man has nothing to do with this process, then he cannot undo his predestination, thus he would be what is called in this day and age, “eternally secure.” If God can no longer see the predestined sinners sin because of imputed righteousness, (which is an impossibility since God is all knowing) then this makes the Elect person's salvation irrevocable, non-negotiable, and inevitable.

If we remove any part of this system because we feel it is untrue, then the entire system falls with it. If there is no decree of God to salvation or hell, then there is no cause or support for a fatalistic predestination. If there is no predestination to heaven or hell, then there is no need to distort the Scriptures to support a limited atonement to a select few. If the atonement is not limited, there is no need to invent a forced grace by a payment for the "elect" alone, or a need to create a fictional imputed righteousness to make up for the ethical shortfall of a doctrine of salvation by fate instead of a conversion of the individual and salvation from sin.

Calvin’s system meets the need of self-consistency in a superb manner, but is it Biblical?

Contrary to Calvinism, Arminians believe the Scriptures which declare that whosoever will may receive the grace of God and be saved. Arminians believe God when He said in John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life,“ and that the Atonement of Jesus "is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." 1 Jn. 2:2.

Instead of the Calvinistic predestination to eternal life or death, we believe that God’s grace is offered to the whole world as the Scriptures say, and not just to a lucky few. We believe God ‘s sincerity when he said that whosoever will believe, shall be saved, and not the whosoever must of Calvinism. If God’s offer is to all the world, then his atonement must be unlimited, encompassing all.

Since God’s provision for salvation is unlimited, and we also know from the Bible that not all shall be saved, then we must conclude that God’s grace is resistible. Not that we can stop grace from being offered, but that we can obey or disobey, receive or reject the offer of grace. It is never God’s will that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9) , and God’s will does not lock anyone into or out of salvation as the fatalistic decreed fate of Calvinism does.

What does the Arminian system teach about God’s dealing with the sin in believers? God makes the believer holy (not by Calvinistic imputation– calling that which is sinful holy, for God cannot lie,) but by impartation of holiness. Through the new birth, called regeneration, we have been given a new nature that enables us not to sin. Prior to regeneration, our sinful nature made desire or compliance to holiness impossible. Through justification, all our past sins were erased from the record that was against us, leaving us judicially free from any charge of sin or wrongdoing. With the slate of offenses that stood against us being cleared, we are judicially righteous (justified), this is why the believer can rightfully be called holy. Concomitant with justification and regeneration, the New-Birth changes our nature so we do not gravitate towards sin, but toward God. This change in direction is called initial sanctification. After this, the believer is everywhere exhorted by the Scriptures to holiness and purity, which is called sanctification. This is not by a Gnostic mysticism, (declaring that which is sinful as holy,) but is an actual change that is wrought within the believer as God molds them into His image by actually making them holy. Jesus came into this world to save his people from their sins (Matt. 1:21,) and to free us from the power of sin, (John 8:36) “ If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.“ See also 1 Jn. 3:8; Rom. 6:14-18.

We also believe that only “he that overcometh” shall be saved as the Scriptures teach. True Saints will persevere. We do not question the security of the one who is and remains a believer. Our difficulty is not with the perseverance of the Saints, but with the doctrine of the perseverance of the Sinners.

This system bares the marks of theological and Biblical consistency, and is therefore, the theology of the Bible.

As has been shown, you cannot pick and choose from different theologies and still have a system that could have possibly come from God. Many Baptist’s are three point Arminian’s, and two point Calvinist’s. The problem is that you cannot justify eternal security without a mystical imputed righteousness, and you cannot justify both imputed righteousness and eternal security without absolute predestination and a limited atonement!

If by grace God does not hinder man’s freedom to choose, then there cannot be any guarantees of eternal security because man would still be free to choose death. Man does not have freedom before salvation, and somehow loses it after salvation.

The theory of an ethical transfer of character, so-called Imputed righteousness, is totally without any Scriptural support. This theological fiction is an invention that has been created just to prop up and support another unbiblical doctrine, the Perseverance of the Saints and eternal security. For without the doctrine of fatalistic determinism, called predestination by Calvinism, there is no basis for this transfer called imputation, nor for an unconditional eternal security. The false doctrine of unconditional assurance which is the cornerstone of Baptist doctrine is without a non-contradictory theological support, and thereby, must be denied as a viable option for the Bible believer.

Choosing a theology is an extremely important issue which should not be put on the back-burner. If our theology is wrong, our Biblical interpretation will be wrong. There is no way around this. To ignore this truth is a sign of complacency or a cover-up for sin!

God knows if we are avoiding truth and will hold each one of us accountable before the Great White Throne of Judgment. God help us in our search for truth!

So you think it's possible to not err in knowledge of the Bible? No Puritan, Methodist or anyone else would make such a claim.

Of course, I do not think that. I cannot see why you might think that I would do, since even you just wrote, above, that no one would. 8-)>

No one said anything about not submitting presuppositions to the Word of God.

The problem with his position is that he makes the unfounded presumption that his theology has already been "submitted" to the Bible. This makes him imagine that his theology is the only way to "interpret" the Bible.

Now, it is remotely possible that he has stumbled upon the only true theology, but many here would disagree.

It is easy to see that anyone who holds to a different theology, and who presumes that their theology has already been "submitted" to the Bible, might follow his example, and "interpret" the Bible by their own theology.

I think that would be very sad. Of course, it is what we have, now.

I thought that this polemic related to you because you have already stated that you think that it's
possible to have a presupposition-free position on the Bible,

Actually, I wrote:
(To my way of thinking, this is exactly wrong, i.e., backwards. The Bible should not be "interpreted"
through the dark glass of any theological presuppositions. Only when the Bible is accepted at face
value, and accepted as the word of God, can we even begin to form any legitimate theology.
DG)

AND

(You wrote):
Hence, it matters not whether we have any presuppositions (we do),

(and I responded):
Agreed.

You will note that I agreed that "(we do)" (have presuppositions). If we are ever to be free from theological suppositions which are contradictory to the Bible, we must be able to "love the truth" so much that we will no longer be tied to any false assumptions, and begin to develop theological concepts which are in accord with the bible.

(For theology to be true, it must be informed by the study of the Bible. It follows that true theology
cannot inform the Bible, rather, vice versa.)

Mr. Paton does not state otherwise in this article. He says, "If we put the Bible first we will place
theology in its proper place as a tool to understanding."

Yes, he wrote that, and I agree, with THAT statement. It would seem that the author did not. He also wrote:

Theology is the framework in which we are able to understand what we find in the Bible, without it we would real (sic) in confusion.

We ARE reeling in confusion, because people put their own theology above the Bible.

Theology is the basis of how we see Scripture, God, and the plan of salvation.

It all to often IS, but should not be.

If we are wrong in our theology we are wrong about God's plan for us, and we are potentially wrong to the point of missing the saving grace of God altogether.

I imagine that there are a lot of people who will never know God, or Jesus, because their personal "theology" is informed by comics, cartoons, movies, and television. They think the devil is a guy dressed up in a red costume, with a pitchfork. They imagine they will be received into the kingdom by their own merit, not by submitting to Jesus.

Could the same thing happen who imagine that someone else has submitted their denominational "theology" to the Bible hundreds of years ago?

If Scripture cannot contradict Scripture and still be of God

Here, he is inadvertently laying a snare, for weak or young Christians. When some atheist starts pointing out some imagined flaw, in the Bible, these may fall away, due to learning theology, instead of the Bible. A theology based on the Study of God's word, on the other hand, will have answers built in.

they have been unwittingly misled by faulty and inconsistent theological thinking.

Here, he means every who does not agree with him. Does he not have any problems in his theology? The problem with that, is that everybody else thinks the same thing.

we do have a theological bias which enables us to understand Scripture only in the way that our bias allows us to.

By writing this, he is urging that we must necessarily "...understand Scripture..." through our "theological Bias." My opinion is that he is attempting to excuse putting his own bias above the Bible. Start with the Bible, and BUILD a theology on that foundation.

This seems to require a lot of gall. Only "pure" Calvinism and Arminianism are non-contradictory? Of course, only his theology is the right one. Unfortunately, everyone else thinks the same thing. This can be taken at face value, only by others who share his particular "bias."

To produce a system that picks and chooses as the Baptist scheme does, seems admirable, but destroys the self consistency and cannot support itself, and thus, must be dismissed as error.

Everybody is wrong, but me. Yeah, right.

This system bares(sic) the marks of theological and Biblical consistency, and is therefore, the theology of the Bible. If our theology is wrong, our Biblical interpretation will be wrong. There is no way around this. To ignore this truth is a sign of complacency or a cover-up for sin!

What if his theology is wrong, on even one point? His Biblical "interpretation will be wrong." Something to remember.

Any interpretation of Scripture that which contradicts the Bible at any other point cannot be of God.

Anyone who imagines that Arminianism has no portion which "contradicts the Bible should read these verses: (NIV)

Jeremiah 15:2

And if they ask you, 'Where shall we go?' tell them, 'This is what the LORD says: " 'Those destined for death, to death; those for the sword, to the sword; those for starvation, to starvation; those for captivity, to captivity.'

Romans 8:29

For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

Romans 8:30

And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

Ephesians 1:5

5 He predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will

Ephesians 1:11

In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,

1 Thessalonians 3:3

so that no one would be unsettled by these trials. You know quite well that we were destined for them.

1 Peter 2:8

and, "A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall." They stumble because they disobey the message which is also what they were destined for

Please note that I am not defending the Calvinist position. I am merely pointing our that, at one point, Arminianism is vulnerable to the charge that the Bible "teaches" predestination.

you have already stated that you think that it's possible to have a presupposition-free position on the Bible, which is what Mr. Paton is referring to as 'a theology of anti-theology'--the believing that one doesn't believe one's presuppositions, "just the Bible."

First, I have shown that I did not state that. Second, Paton never defines "anti-theology." He does use these two sentences, in his first paragraph:

"We do not teach theology, we teach the Bible!"... The implication is that if you believe in theology, you cannot believe in the Bible.

One must "believe in" God, and his Son Jesus. We are not to "believe in" anything else. Neither the Bible (absent the person and Grace of Jesus) nor any creed or theology can save us.

Even the above putative definition is merely the beginning of a page full of "straw man," and "name calling" propaganda techniques. A person, such as myself, who holds to the concept that the Bible has precedence over, is superior to, and must inform, our theology. If we do it the other way around, we are courting trouble. The concept of theology is not evil, but a theology which places itself over the Bible is wrong.

p.s. By the way, please refer to the post to which you are replying, so that these unfortunate misquotes will not continue. Thanks.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.