There are logical and theological inconsistencies, but there are no biblical inconsistencies. How can salvation simultaneously be entirely of God while being unlimited in the scope of its efficacy? We can answer the question in many ways, but the best way to answer it is biblically.
I was a Calvinist but have now come to embrace Lutheranism joyfully. Having come from a Calvinistic Baptist background and a stint visiting a Presbyterian congregation, I can attest to the neatness of the coherence of their soteriological views. However, what began to bother me was how those views didn’t comport with scripture. My Calvinistic and Reformed brothers and sisters will push back and point out the “inconsistency” of my views. My reply? Biblical consistency trumps logical consistency. We must align with scripture instead of aligning scripture with our logic.
I see the scriptures misapplied in the name of consistency in two ways. First, we absolutize a biblical principle beyond the scope of what scripture itself reveals. Second, we take the average of biblical truths instead of letting them stand on their authority. These represent two opposite sides of the same interpretive fallacy coin. Let’s consider a few soteriological aspects as a way to identify, engage with, and wrestle through these fallacies.
Framework Fidelity
One approach is to take what is often referred to as a proof text and universalize it without considering other texts that bring nuance to the principle or doctrine we are advocating. The doctrine of reprobation within a Calvinistic soteriological framework is an excellent example. The go-to text for this is Romans 9, where we pit Jacob and Esau against each other as soteriological guinea pigs in our theological laboratory. One was predestined for salvation, while the other for damnation. In many Calvinistic understandings, this is the logical extension of the doctrine of unconditional election, whereby God elects to judgment and wrath. While this does make sense, it takes a passage that has a more faithful contextual interpretation and pits it against what other passages reveal about God’s universal desire for salvation. Is God the author of inconsistency or contradiction? No, He is the transcendent God whose judgment, lovingkindness, and sovereignty surpass our finite and frail minds’ ability to grasp how they intersect.
Can salvation be monergistic while also being efficacious for all? Logically, the simple answer is no. However, we must come to the scriptures with humility and let them shape our thinking instead of allowing our thinking to shape the scriptures. My reply is simply that this is what the Bible states. Read for plain meaning, and in context, it is clear that salvation is entirely a gift from God (Romans 3:21-15 and Ephesians 2:8-10). Yet it is also clear that the work of Christ is for all people (1 John 2:2 and 1 Timothy 2:2, 4:10). The goal must be faithfulness to the scriptures, not our framework.
Philosophical Cohesion
Another approach is to find the mean of the texts instead of letting the texts mean what they say. The scriptures aren’t meant for statistical regression. They are a supernatural revelation. Splitting the difference to accommodate our finite capacity to understand is inadequate. A Reformed and Lutheran perspective on perseverance and apostasy demonstrates this well. Is it possible for those who believe to forfeit their salvation? Again, what does scripture say? Will those whom God has elected persevere to glorification (Romans 8:30)? Is it impossible for anyone to snatch us out of the hand of God (John 10:28-29)? Does the Bible teach that those who were enlightened, tasted the heavenly gift, shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come can fall away without hope of repentance (Hebrews 6:4-6)?
Two of these fit nicely together, while the third throws a wrench into a theological system’s gears. One theological paradigm argues that the third cannot mean what it says because it cannot logically sync with the other two. So, that approach averages them together and appeals to other interpretive possibilities rather than the plain meaning to make them fit. However, the better way is to let God’s word stand and accept that while we cannot reconcile His persevering, electing, sovereign work with our ability to walk away, our faith in God and His word must stand above our dependence on our fallen capacities to grasp the magnitude of God’s wonder and revelation.
It was difficult to leave the theological camp I had called home. These few soteriological issues were not the only ones that required revisiting and ultimately changing. Still, they were some of the best examples of the underlying Biblical disconnect I felt in the Calvinistic and Reformed camps. That consistent inconsistency led me to the humility of mystery and embracing the beauty of our God, who transcends our understanding while immanently attending to our wisdom.