Why A "Calminian" Theology Will Not Work: The Principle of Excluded Middle and Soteriological Systems

The Principle of Excluded Middle, according to oxforddictionaries.com, is “the principle that one (and one only) of two contradictory propositions must be true.” The Principle of Excluded Middle (PEM)is one I learned coming to seminary, but it’s a principle that just makes sense when applied to all of life. For example, as I was instructed in my theology classes, a light bulb is “either on or off; it cannot be both ‘on’ and ‘off’ at the same time, in the same way.” This leads to a contradiction (where both “on” and “off,” two logical opposites, coexist at the same time in the same way).

One can easily apply this to genders: for the evangelical community, an “androgynous” gender (one that integrates both male and female traits) is impossible, simply because there are two genders in the world---male and female. Scripture itself confirms the PEM on this one; Genesis tells us that God made only two genders. “Male and female He created them” (Gen. 1:27, NKJV). There is no transgender, asexual sex.

When it comes to soteriological systems, particularly the theologies of 1) Calvinism, 2) Arminianism, and 3) Molinism, or 4) some “Calminian” combination of 4 points Arminian and 1 pt. Calvinist, or 4 pts. Calvinist, 1 pt. Arminian, etc., the principle of excluded middle can apply. If two things are contradictory and only one can be right (because to affirm both leads to contradiction), then both cannot be right at the same time in the same way.

Let’s start with the soteriological systems of Calvinism and Arminianism. Are Calvinism and Arminianism soteriological opposites? Yes they are. Before I go on, let me demonstrate that both systems oppose each other. We can see this by comparing the five points of each system.

First, let’s see the Calvinist “TULIP”:

Total Depravity

Unconditional Election

Limited Atonement

Irresistible Grace

Perseverance of the Saints

Now, on to the five points of Arminianism (“FACTS”):

Freed by Grace (to believe)

Atonement for All

Conditional Election

Total Depravity

Security in Christ

Both Calvinism’s “TULIP” and Arminianism’s “FACTS” hold to Total Depravity. The other points, however, are where the two camps differ. While Arminianism says that election is “conditional,” Calvinism says that election is “unconditional.” The “un” prefix in unconditional is a negation of “conditional” (it means “not conditional”). Therefore, “conditional” and “unconditional” election are opposites, contradictions of each other. Since these two types of election are opposites, they are “mutually exclusive” opposites...and therefore, cannot be integrated to find a middle ground. Mutually exclusive systems have, by default, an “excluded middle”; in other words, there is no middle ground between conditional and unconditional election.

What about “Limited Atonement” (Calvinism) and “Atonement for All” (Arminianism)? Can these two mix? On the surface, both are direct opposites: Atonement cannot be for a select few (limited) and for all persons at the same time. These can work together if one qualifies them...but the qualification of both terms demonstrates that there is a surface contradiction to both terms together. Once again, the principle of excluded middle applies.

As for grace in both systems? Calvinism holds to “irresistible” grace (the “ir” prefix meaning “not”; the term meaning “not resistible”). Arminianism holds to “freed by grace to believe,” or “resistible grace.” One cannot say that grace cannot be resisted and grace can be resisted at the same time. This leads to a contradiction.

The last point remaining to discuss is security in Christ. Calvinism holds to “perseverance of the saints,” or “unconditional security,” while Arminians hold to “security in Christ” (in this case, conditional security). “Unconditional” security is the direct opposite of “conditional” security. Thus, to affirm these two is to affirm a contradiction. Once again, as with all the others, where there is a contradiction (two opposing terms), the principle of excluded middle (PEM) applies. By virtue of the above opposing concepts being “mutually exclusive” views, there is no middle ground between them. Where two terms are both exclusive, there can be no hybrid of the two.

All this is to say that the two systems themselves, by virtue of being direct opposites of each other (Calvinism and Arminianism), cannot be combined to create a hybrid theology. And how can we know this for certain?

Let’s take the so-called “hybrid” theology, Molinism, for our test example. Molinism holds to “Sovereign” election, a code name for “unconditional election” (Calvinism); in its view of the atonement, Molinism holds to “singular redemption,” which qualifies the terms “limited” and “unlimited.” The atonement is “limited” (in this view) in that only those who believe appropriate Christ’s redemption; it is “unlimited” in that Jesus died for all. On these qualifications, Molinism is Arminian because it holds to the universal love of God while positing the Arminian condition of faith by which one becomes a believer. So far, we have one point of the system as Calvinist and the other point as Arminian.

Next on the list is “overcoming grace,” the “O” in the Molinism acronym “ROSES.” Overcoming grace posits that one can initially resist the grace of God; however, God will eventually win out and that person will find God’s grace to be “irresistible” and be drawn to come to Jesus. In this sense, Molinism holds to “ultimately irresistible grace,” thus identifying with the Calvinist camp. Molinism, so far, is two points Calvinist, one point Arminian.

Last but not least is “E” in the Molinist system for “eternal life.” This is where Molinism, once again, conforms to Calvinism: it too, holds to the unconditional security of the believer and the eternal security of the saints. The final score of where Molinism stacks up as the hybrid theology? Three points Calvinist, one point Arminian. Total depravity (“R” for “Radical Depravity” in Molinism), is a neutral point; however, Molinism does agree with Arminianism in this regard.

 In the final score, is Molinism a true hybrid of the two? No, not at all: it is (not counting radical depravity) three points Calvinist, one point Arminian. Is this a genuine hybrid of the two theologies? No. If it were, Molinism would not be overwhelmingly Calvinist in its theology. Half of four points is two points. Molinism has three points attributed to Calvinism, so it is beyond the half of the two theologies combined.

 As a result, there can be no hybrid achieved between these two mutually exclusive systems. In the debate, one will either come down Calvinist or Arminian. I suggest that the Principle of Excluded Middle (PEM) is far more underestimated in theology than it ought to be. This calls for a resurrection of PEM in contemporary theology.

Do You Believe In Logic?, Part II: Jesus' Identity

The ultimate example in the Gospels (according to me, at least) of the Law of Non-Contradiction occurs in the seeming paradox of Jesus as both Son of David and Lord in Matthew:

“While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying, ‘What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?’ They said to Him, ‘The Son of David.’ He said to them, ‘How then does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool’? IF DAVID THEN CALLS HIM ‘LORD,’ HOW IS HE HIS SON?’” (Matthew 22:41-45)

Jesus’ earth-shattering question to the Pharisees is the ultimate question of the Law of Non-Contradiction in the Scriptures. Here, we have on our hands what seems to be a blaring contradiction: how can a “son,” one under a father (who is over the son), be the “Lord” (a position of superiority)? It is a “seeming” paradox: only the father can be “Lord,” right?

How can one who is the Son (of David) be over David (as David’s Lord)? If we examine the Pharisees, we will find that they could not answer Jesus’ question. Why? was it because it was a contradiction? Maybe they thought it was; but as those who love God’s Word, we know that Jesus titles as “Son” and “Lord” are not contradictory: they are reconciled within both of His natures, the human and the divine.

Most believers don’t think about it, but they come to the Bible with a presupposition of reconciling one seemingly contradictory passage with another. As believers, we operate by the Law of Non-Contradiction. According to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics (Article 17):

ARTICLE XVII
We affirm the unity, harmony and consistency of Scripture and declare that it is its own best interpreter.
We deny that Scripture may be interpreted in such a way as to suggest that one passage corrects or militates against another. We deny that later writers of Scripture misinterpreted earlier passages of Scripture when quoting from or referring to them.

According to the statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, there is a “unity, harmony, and consistency” to Scripture. This means that Scripture will always confirm itself; never will Scripture contradict, or speak against itself (in any part). The idea that “Scripture is its own best interpreter” is a view of the Reformers, such as John Calvin (see Henry Virkler’s work on “Hermeneutics”). And all believers use the Law of Non-Contradiction (that the Scriptures must always confirm each other) when they interpret Scripture. Hence, ALL BELIEVERS USE LOGIC!!! Why? because logic comes from God, and is how we make sense of God’s special revelation (i.e., His Word, the Bible).

Now using the idea that all of Scripture can be reconciled, let’s approach this question of Christ as “Son of David” and “David’s Lord.”

How was Christ “The Son of David”? He was born in the physical lineage of David (descendant), according to the Matthean genealogy (Matthew 1). How then, is Christ “David’s Lord”? Christ is David’s Lord because He is not just human, but divine:

“For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder: AND HIS NAME WILL BE CALLED WONDERFUL, COUNSELOR, MIGHTY GOD, EVERLASTING FATHER, PRINCE OF PEACE. OF THE INCREASE OF HIS GOVERNMENT AND PEACE THERE WILL BE NO END, UPON THE THRONE OF DAVID AND OVER HIS KINGDOM, to order it and establish it from that time forward, even forever” (Isaiah 9:6-7, NKJV).

In Isaiah 9, we find that a “Son” is given; notice that “the government will be upon His shoulder,” which means that He will be king (“government” gives this away!). What is His name? He is not a special name of a physical descendant of David, but “Mighty God, Everlasting Father”...in other words, this Son of David that will rule “upon the throne of David and over His kingdom...even forever,” is Christ.
As I aforementioned in the first part of this mini-series (Part I), the Scriptures themselves have a logical nature to them. If this be the case, then how can we choose theological systems with contradictory elements and then throw up our hands and say, “It’s a mystery”, or “My theological system doesn’t have to be consistent”? Our theological systems DO have to be consistent, if for no other reason than that they reflect the nature and character of our God!!

I will discuss more regarding the logical consistency of Scripture and much-needed consistency in theological systems in the coming days.

Do You Believe In Logic?, Part I: The Dilemma Of An Inconsistent Theology

Just yesterday, I had a conversation at the local coffee shop with a good acquaintance of mine, someone I hadn’t spent time with in a while. The last time he and I were in church together was about two weeks ago, and much of life had happened since then...so we were due for another get-together. God decided that it was time to meet again yesterday, so we did (although it was unexpected to us).

We talked about a number of things, like his calling to go overseas. I remember when he first talked to me about his calling. He went overseas for about two or three months (taught school there), then came back to Wake Forest. He told me that overseas life wasn’t for him...and then, yesterday, he told me that the Lord knows how to pull us out of our comfort zones. We had something to laugh about there: God always knows how to do that. If you find yourself too comfortable in life, look out! Something will happen to uproot that. It’s just the way our God works...

Somehow, I found the conversation turning towards theology. And then came the most blaring statement I think I’ve ever heard: he talked about how he held to a theology that incorporated what seemed to be contradictory concepts, but he held to them because he believed that is what the Bible teaches. He said to me, “I’ve met people that have said, ‘You can’t hold to an inconsistent theology,’ but who are they to decide what’s right or not? How do we know that the Bible really holds to one specific system?”

Usually in conversations surrounding theology, I get very quiet. What I like to do in such times is listen more than I talk. That’s not to say that I don’t have a view on things, or that I don’t know the subject matter---it’s just that I hold off so I can better understand the person that’s talking to me. I did the same in this situation, and let him say what his theological convictions were. And I’m glad I did; not only did it help me create another post (voila, here it is!), but it also helped me to understand more of the “average churchperson’s” belief regarding theological study.

What is so shocking about this acquaintance’s statement is not so much that he said it as the fact that such train of thought did not originate with him. There have even been theologians who held to this same thought. One such theologian was the French theologian Moise Amyraut:

“If Adam’s sin happened through the providence of God, God was therefore its author; if it is said that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, then he punishes sins and vices he himself created; if God wanted to reprobate the greater part of mankind, he therefore does not want to save all; if he declares to us he wants to save all, there is therefore no absolute, precise election and predestination of a certain small number only; if Jesus Christ died for all, therefore the gospel must be preached equally clearly through the whole earth; if the gospel is not preached equally clearly, however, God does not lead the rest of mankind to repentance...when GOD’S WORD TEACHES ON THE ONE HAND THAT SOME ARE REPROBATED...and when on the other side THE SAME WORD TEACHES ME GOD WANTS ALL TO BE SAVED...EVEN THOUGH MY REASON SHOULD FIND THERE THINGS WHICH SEEM TO CLASH...I will not stop holding the doctrines as true” (G. Michael Thomas, “The Extent of the Atonement: A Dilemma for Reformed Theology from Calvin to the Consensus.” United Kingdom: Paternoster, 1997, page 217).

Amyraut states here that “even though my reason should find these things which seem to clash,” he would still hold to these teachings. What this amounts to is, “Even though two doctrines are contradictory, I will still claim them both as true.” This sends a strong message that no matter how big the contradiction, God somehow operates “apart from logic,” as if logic isn’t one of the major indicators of truth.

“What’s all this stress on logic about?” you might ask. I am emphasizing the importance of logic because the Scriptures do as well. Read these words from the classical apologist (and Calvinist) Robert Charles Sproul:

“The Bible makes certain presuppositions or prior assumptions in communicating its truth to those who would listen. GIVEN THAT THE BIBLE IS GOD’S WORD, THE PRESUPPOSITIONS FOUND THEREIN ARE FOUND IN GOD HIMSELF, AND ARE THEREFORE ENDOWED TO HIS CREATURES, SINCE GOD HAS MADE US REASONABLE, SENSING, AND WITH THE ABILITY TO COMMUNICATE. That, of course, is simply another way of saying that God has made us in his image...we do see, for example, that the Scriptures TACITLY ASSUME THE VALIDITY OF THE LAW OF NONCONTRADICTION, which can be summed up in the following proposition: ‘A cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same sense or relationship’” (R.C. Sproul, “Defending Your Faith: An Introduction to Apologetics.” Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2009, page 31).

Sproul then provides us with an example:

“The Scriptures assume that there is a discernable difference between truth and lie, between righteousness and unrighteousness, between obedience and disobedience. We are therefore held accountable by our Maker. If God commands us to do A, then we can know that to do non-A would be in direct violation of his command. INDEED, IN ORDER TO BE OBEDIENT TO GOD’S WORD ONE MUST ASSUME THE LAW OF NONCONTRADICTION; THE ALTERNATIVE WOULD LEAD TO CHAOS, AS NOT EVEN ONE SENTENCE IN SCRIPTURE COULD BE INTELLIGIBLE WITHOUT THIS LAW” (“Defending Your Faith,” page 31).

Jesus Himself used such logic. One such passage is that of John 7:

“Did not Moses give you the law, YET NONE OF YOU KEEPS THE LAW? Why do you seek to kill Me?” (John 7:19, NKJV)

Jesus states that, since (according to the Jews) transgression of the law resulted in death, then why did they desire to kill Him (but yet, did not seek their own deaths)? If He was to die for supposedly breaking the law, then so were they. It would be problematic to execute Him for breaking the law when they had done the same. This would be an example of a contradiction: “It’s okay to break the law and not break the law” all at the same time.

Another example of the Law of Non-Contradiction comes from Luke:

“For a good tree does not bear bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. For every tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they gather grapes from a bramble bush. A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth evil. For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks” (Luke 6:43-45, NKJV).

We see that good trees bring forth good fruit, and bad trees bring forth bad fruit. Those who are noble in heart do good things, while those who are wicked do bad things. A wicked person will not consistently do good, nor will a good person consistently do bad. A person’s constant character will shine, whether good or evil.

Another instance of the Law of Non-Contradiction is Jesus’ statement regarding two masters:

“No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon” (Luke 16:13, NKJV).

Here Jesus tells us that God and “mammon” (or wealth) are opposed to each other, which confirms what we read later in John’s epistles:

“Do not love the world or the things in the world. IF ANYONE LOVES THE WORLD, THE LOVE OF THE FATHER IS NOT IN HIM” (1 John 2:15).

In other words, a person cannot love both God and the world, since they are enemies of each other. To love one (whether God or the world) is to hate the other (whether God or the world). Here, “God” and “world” stand for two polar opposites, to opposing sides (A and not-A). One cannot serve both “A” (God) and “not-A” (world) at the same time with the same loyalty towards both. I will cover the ultimate passage promoting the Law of Non-Contradiction in my next post.