In those early years my interest in the Bible naturally spilled over into theology, what other people thought about what the Bible says, philosophy, other “Holy” books and writings, ancient and modern, as well as the history of such stuff. I just kind of followed the path of least resistance and wound up in the Philosophy Program at a state university, specializing in Aristotle’s Metaphysics.
One day in my junior year I had a “moment of clarity.” I realized that the only thing one can do with a philosophy degree is teach philosophy. I had already come to the conclusion that as a method for arriving at Truth, philosophy in the formal sense is badly, sadly lacking. In addition to that it seemed that the most bizarre-o people wound up in the philosophy dept, and did I want to deal with that for the rest of my life? Nope. Besides that I hate getting up early. So I dropped out and have since made a living at other things. Things that allow me to stay up late and sleep late! Philosophy and Theology, while still of interest - sometimes intense interest - are now relegated to the category (in good Aristotelian fashion) of "hobby." Having said that, the study of philosophy taught me how to think, and that is a very good thing, although without the counter-balance of a healthy intuitive/emotional, thinking can be a problem. That is another subject.
Anyway, one of the doctrinal/theological/philosophical issues that bugged me the most when I read the Bible was the predestination/free will stuff. There seemed to be a multitude of scriptures that indicated I was predestined by God to choose Him, and so it seemed to say that even though it FELT like I was making a choice there was really no choice in the matter. There also seemed to be a multitude of scriptures that indicated that it was all up to me, it was my choice. This dilemma is illustrated in Philippians 2:12-13: “…work out your own salvation with fear and trembling…” – it’s all up to me – “…for it is God who is at work in you both to will and to work for His good pleasure.” – it’s REALLY God who is willing and working.
After going down several intellectual blind alleys on the issue, I basically gave up. I just couldn’t come to a compelling conclusion based on the Bible. It seemed a morass of contradiction. I did, for many years, entertain the notion that two seemingly mutually exclusive categories could exist at the same time, and that it was my western hyper-rationality that was getting in the way. I eventually realized that this is not common sense, it doesn’t “go beyond” reason, it denies it. Eventually I could not maintain those kinds of games in myself and I squarely faced the fact that the two concepts (predestination/free will) are contradictory and mutually exclusive. (For a short digression on Predestination and Free Will click the corresponding link below.)
In light of this unresolved issue I came to a couple of conclusions:
1) IF God has monergistically predestined everything, then what I believe doesn’t matter. IF it REALLY depends on me and the choices I make, then what I believe DOES matter. So, to be safe, it’s better to believe that I have free will and if I don’t, my belief in free will won’t matter. Conversely, if I believed God predestines everything and He actually doesn’t, I could be in real trouble. So, I believed in free will, and left predestination on the shelf.
2) It is not my purpose here to debate the inspiration/inerrancy of whatever we define as scripture. But, relative to the Protestant Bible in general use today, I decided that, given the presupposition that the Bible was inerrant and did not contain contradiction, then I obviously did not understand it. I had to conclude that I had some unconscious presuppositions that were coloring my Bible reading – so I quit reading. It seemed to me that continuing to read the Bible over and over from the same unconscious presuppositions was an exercise in futility. It made no sense to keep reinforcing my confusion. So I put it all away until such time as it seemed likely that I could see the Bible with new eyes as it were, and turned my attention to other ways of pursuing God and personal growth. That is another story, and to say that I quit reading the Bible entirely would be inaccurate, but as far as any kind of systematic theology goes, in the early eighties I put it all in the garbage disposal and hit the switch.
And so it was in this frame of mind that many years later, in January of 2001, I was confronted by an aggressive, intelligent, educated and confirmed Calvinist from whom disengagement was not an option (for reasons I will not elucidate here). As a result of this confrontation, I was forced back to the Bible in general, and Romans 9 in particular after roughly 15 years of conscious benign neglect, as well as much personal growth (part of the “other ways” of pursuing God I mentioned earlier).
Over the course of the next few months, issues that I had resigned myself to never resolving in this life became resolved, integrated, and clear. My correspondence with my beloved Calvinist opponent has resulted in thousands of pages of email and I have written hundreds if not thousands of pages of position papers on various topics in response to his challenges and positions. I have decided to post some of this material on the net for the sake of those who may be wrestling with these issues and who may want some kind of counter-perspective to the arguments and teachings of Reformed Theology. The internal logical consistency of the Reformed construct is quite impressive and can seem airtight and overwhelming at first. However, this logical interdependence is also its greatest weakness. If any aspect of the whole can be compellingly refuted then the whole cloth will eventually unravel.
The REAL issue, of course, is not to attack or defend ANY theological belief-system or tradition, but to get at what the Bible REALLY says. I question whether that is really possible, but I now have hope that we can get reasonably close, and that is not something I would have said even 5 years ago.
Another thing that contributes to this hope is what has come to be called the “New Perspective on Paul.” I’ve been reading a great deal of N.T. Wright lately. He is, ironically, a Calvinist theologian as well as an Anglican Bishop. Nevertheless, I think he’s asking the right questions and coming up with very interesting answers. While I’m reasonably sure he would not agree with my conclusions (after all he IS a Calvinist) I find myself in substantial agreement with his insistence on trying to read Paul in the context of his own time and not overlay 16th century Reformed or 21st century paradigms onto Paul’s writings. I also find myself in substantial agreement with Wright’s positions on what, exactly, Paul was really saying.
Keep in mind that the following material was written in the context of a dialogue via email. I have removed my Calvinist friend’s name and paraphrased his quotes. I was not concerned at the time about documenting sources. I have since gone back and tried to document sources when I quote somebody. It’s probable I have missed some. Any plagiarism is unintentional. If you recognize something from a book or another web site and no credit is given please bring it to my attention and I will rectify the situation as soon as possible.
The best way to go through the material on this site is to click on the “Romans 9 Introduction” link below. The first link at the bottom of each page will take you to the next page. By proceeding in this way you will be able to read every page on the site – in order. The “Main Index” link will take you to a complete index of every page on the site.
Romans 9 Introduction
A Short Digression on Predestination and Free Will
Main Index
N.T. Wright
New Pauline Perspective Information
