The Kingdom Come

In the debate between Arminianistic (human free-will) and Calvinistic (God's control) theology, each has its proof-texts. Each claims to be using Scripture alone to prove its position. Perhaps one way to resolve the dispute, so you'd think would be to simply put all the proof-texts side by side. Yet, as often as this has been done, the dispute continues. It could be because the proof-texts are presented as negating factors in an attempt to negate or cancel out another proof-text.

The approach of proof-texting does more damage than good, since to the non or weak Christian observer, it may appear Scripture is highly contradictory.

A further side effect of proof-texting is that; in order to not seem combative it tends to cause some observers and disputants to relativize otherwise important doctrines. Usually they will say something like; "Let's just agree to disagree" or "Let's not argue over something that isn't a salvation issue".

Many times, when a person claims they are doing "exegesis" (bringing the meaning out of the text) they are actually proof-texting. These same people will often become irate if other people will not engage them in a back and forth proof-texting. They will further disparage people as "not relying on Scripture" if the other person will not engage them in proof-texting.

As with the debate between Arminians and Calvinists, the issue isn't settled by proof-texting. We must look at the overarching premise of both positions and then see where the claimed interpretation of the proof-texts remain consistent with the premise.

With the premise of each position as the starting point, we can then determine if the proof-text is being bent to the premise. In this approach, it is extremely important that the premises are presented honestly, accurately, and simply.

ARMINIAN PREMISE:
God does not impose His will on people in salvation but instead calls on each person to freely choose or reject.

CALVINIST PREMISE:
God must impose His will on people in salvation, otherwise because of our corrupted nature no one would choose salvation.

Before we could continue, both Arminian and Calvinist must decide if their operating premise has been accurately presented. If the premise isn't verified as being accurate, one or both disputants will at some point blame the misrepresentation as the reason their position fails and not because it is erroneous in itself.

As the premise of both positions is compared to the proof-texts and the overall theme of Scripture, sub-premises may reveal themselves. For example, with the Arminian position, some sub-premises may be:

• Human nature is not "totally depraved" but only damaged.
• God must love everyone equally or He is showing favoritism and God can never show favoritism.
• All humans must have the natural ability to respond to the Gospel offer, otherwise it would be an insincere offer.

The sub-premises must also be compared with the individual proof-texts to see if they are overall validated.

In the final analysis, if the premise and sub-premises are not well supported by the various proof-texts -- from both sides of the argument -- then the premise is flawed. If the disputant argues one or few proof-texts that seem to support the overall premise (ex: John 3:16 for free-will), this approach is flawed. You should not build a theology on apparent exceptions to the overall theme of Scripture.

CONCLUSION:
So, whether we are talking about the dispute between Arminianism or Calvinism or Hyperpreterism and Orthodoxy; jumping into a back and forth proof-texting match disguised as "exegesis" is very unproductive. We must define and present the premise of each position and then determine if Scripture supports the premise.

In my debates with Hyperpreterists, they are often reluctant to openly and accurately define their premise which then makes discussion a non-starter. Instead, they often go away with their chests puffed up; claiming I would not discuss Scripture with them. The fact is, it is not a matter of who is or isn't going to Scripture but rather how Scripture is being interpreted in light of a person's overarching premise.