Guest Post by Nathan Amerson
Is the Bible ambiguous? As Evangelicals who stake our truth claims upon the authority of Scripture we would certainly prefer to answer this question in the negative. At the same time, we must recognize that many of the foundational beliefs we hold dear may be simultaneously defended or critiqued using the same Scriptures. This is a reality we must continually confront with both reason and humility.
A Classic Example: Arminian vs. Reformed on Salvation and Election
We see this potential ambiguity in a long-standing, historic debate on the issues of Salvation, Election and Predestination. On the one hand, the Calvinist will point to Romans chapter 9, where Paul clearly states that some people are equated to “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” (ESV). Here the Reformed position will claim that God alone has prepared each individual for salvation or destruction before the beginning of time and, therefore, the elect are determined in God’s mind from all eternity.
On the other hand, the Arminian will emphasize passages such as John 3:16-17 and 1 Tim 2:3-4. These passages speak clearly of God’s universal love and desire for all to be saved. Yet, if God desires all people to be saved, how can He condemn some to never believe in Him before they had the chance or ability to do so? Thus we have two positions which appear to contravene one another. Nevertheless, apologists for both camps draw from the same Scriptures to establish their positions.
While both of these positions incorporate a wide variety of additional nuance, I have mentioned them in this article to highlight the simple fact that the same Scriptures may be used to support an argument for what would appear to be mutually exclusive principles. But how can this be?
Is God A Liar?
Does God lie? Is God hypocritical or two-faced? If the reader is to be true to Scripture he or she must answer “Of course not” to both. Yet the exegete is left weighing the difficulty of the veracity and believability of Scripture when faced with such challenges. Several principles come into play here, which may be of value to the reader. While much has been written on the subject of biblical authority and hermeneutical principles, most pastors, lay ministers, and Christians in the pew are not going to take the time to read these often very academic works, excellent though they may be. Therefore we need to outline a few basic principles of interpretation.
The first principle is to reaffirm the authority of Scripture for today’s Christian reader. We must recognize the Scriptures as the revelation of God Himself, His very words recorded for us, which are the highest authority on all issues and doctrines of the faith. As D.A. Carson reminds us: “Any genuine knowledge human beings have of God depends on God’s first disclosing of himself.” Further, revelation “refers to God’s self-disclosure in speech, the active sense envisage[ing] God’s making himself known in words, while the passive sense focuses on the words themselves insofar as they constitute the message God chose to convey.” (Carson, “What The Bible Is“, in Collected Writings: Crossway, 2010)
If we first accept the Bible’s authortative position in our lives because it is God’s revelation of himself in understandable words, then we cannot approach the text as we would any other document. Therefore, when the reader encounters seemingly disparate positions within Scripture, the first consideration must be that God is revealing distinct aspects of himself which are indistinguishable in terms of their authority. So if God is not a liar, and if He is not attempting to deceive us but rather reveal Himself through personal communication to the world, then an answer to apparent disagreement within the Scriptures must be present.
Some Hermeneutical Helps
Here we must apply another principle, that of the whole of Scripture being equally authoritative. If all of the Bible as we read it today is sourced in God himself (2 Tim 3.16-17), then no one part is of greater value, veracity, or dependability than any other. This is not just the Protestant principle of “sola scriptura,” but its counterpart “tota scriptura“. When the reader draws seemingly counterintuitive or contradictory conclusions from different parts of Scripture, he or she must apply themselves to better understand how the issue is portrayed across the whole of the Bible. Some passages will deal with the issue directly, some indirectly, and many not at all. Yet when the reader inquires of the whole of Scripture to determine God’s revelation on an issue, and apparent contradictions remain, the determination must be that these apparent contradictions are simply that: apparent.
To rectify a tortured mind on such an issue requires the reader’s willingness and effort along three axes: first, to search diligently through the Scriptures, second, to give up certain presuppositions, and third, to balance faith and reason. We have already seen how the first effort requires a perusal of the whole of the Bible to answer questions. The second effort requires one to approach the text with a relinquishment of presupposed ideas, moral values, or doctrinal positions. As difficult as this may be, if we are unable to approach the words of Scripture with some objectivity, then we will be unable to stop ourselves from reading our own preconceptions into Scripture. This is called “eisegesis,” or “putting into,” as opposed to “exegesis” which is akin to “drawing or extracting out of.”
Eisegesis, reading into, results in three fallacies of application pointed out by Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard: 1) taking passages completely of context, 2) neglecting literary or historical context, and 3) assuming analogy where none exists. The authors wisely deduce: “No passage of scripture can be casually or carelessly applied to any and/or every situation.” (KBH, 2004, 482)
The third task required of the careful exegete is to recognize that both faith and reason must be employed to understand God’s self-revelation. God has created rational creatures with minds that strive to grasp truth and understand the difficult. He has also created us with hearts that yearn to believe in him, because only God can answer the deepest desires of the soul. Anselm of Canterbury, in the 11th century famously declared “credo ut intelligam”, which means “I believe in order to understand.”
Our rationality and our mysticality may not experience the words of Scripture in the same way, but the same God who created humankind in his image uses the words of Scripture to reveal himself in a manner dependent upon both modalities. Therefore, what we can believe about God and what we can know about Him are interlocked. When this balance is applied to the issue of predestination we can and must conclude that Romans 9 and 1 Tim 2 are not in conflict with one another, they simply reveal God in two different ways.
Conclusion: No Easy Answers for Fallen Creatures
I do not attempt here to propose an “easy” answer to difficult issues, or to diminish the complexity of thorny and much debated theological judgements. What I do intend is for the reader to recognize that many of these doctrines, which have been subjected to great dispute through the centuries, may in fact be held in juxtaposition.
The orthodox believer also understands in the Incarnation Christ exists as fully God and fully man at the same time. This was established by the early councils, thereby balancing two ostensibly conflicting doctrines. In the opening example, we must understand both that God is absolutely sovereign and human beings have effective free will at the same time. To sway too far in emphasis toward one side of this matter or the other is to commit a fallacy.
John Calvin overemphasized God’s sovereignty in an attempt to counter a doctrine of works within his time. Likewise to overstate an Arminian position deflates God glory, sovereignty, and power by allowing human beings to be responsible for their own salvation. Both sides of this debate are contested with fiery rhetoric and conviction, yet a middle position may effectually be attained. Tim Keller shows how this tension between divine sovereignty and human freedom works out in our practical, everyday Christian life in this sermon.
The same may be said for other issues: inerrancy (which largely hinges on one’s definition of the term anyway), concepts of the Atonement, and old-earth versus young-earth Creationism. The God of Scripture reveals himself in other ways as well, to include in the created order, a sense of right and wrong within human being, and our rationality. All of these may be, and in fact are, employed to know all we can about God. Like the Bereans, therefore, let us search the Scriptures when we encounter doctrinal disputes. Let us also remember the words of the great 20th century prophet, Obi-Wan Kenobi: “Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.” But just because there is a point of view, does not mean there are not truths to cling to.
Nathan Amerson holds a PhD in Theology (2021) from Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary in Indiana in Medieval Theology. Nathan serves the worldwide Church and the local church teaching theology and Bible. He joined the US Army in 2004, served in Afghanistan and Iraq, and moved back to Oregon in 2013. Nathan is currently a staff officer supporting security programs for the units of the Oregon National Guard.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In