Tip #173*: Beat Them To The Punch
This week we’re going to look at yet another way to debate theology successfully online. In Tips #57 and #112, we alluded to the very limited list of scriptures that can be erroneously employed by Calvinists to support their platform. That is assuming that they choose to use scriptures, rather than sensational arguments announcing man's inability to comprehend a divine paradox.

Once more, let me lay a foundation for the mechanics of this tactic: Four of the five Calvinist points (U.L.I.P.)are nonexistent in Christian theology or Christian commentaries before the 1500’s. That means that for every scripture the Calvinists employ, there is a 1500-year tradition of interpretation that requires no such interpretation. Many of these scriptures, when taken in their proper context, mean exactly the opposite of what John Calvin would have us believe that they mean.

Many Arminians and Pelagians, as a result of this scripture hijacking, fear to use these scriptures in a debate, for fear of making the Calvinists’ case for them. Such worry is unfounded and imposes limits on your usage of scripture.

This week, let me suggest that the next time you’re debating, try out a new approach. Start your argument with a few properly interpreted, though usually Calvinist-favored scriptures, such as Romans 9 or John 10:28. The former is perhaps one of my favorites, because, as I said in Tip #4, one of the greatest ironies in biblical interpretation is that Romans 9, a writing that was meant to explain away a misinterpretation of the Jewish people—namely, that God shows favoritism—has been misinterpreted again, by the Calvinists, to say that God does, indeed, show favoritism. By beginning with a proper interpretation of election, conveying Paul’s original point, you undercut inevitable Calvinist attempts to stake a claim on that epistle. They may still try to redefine the scripture, but by bringing it up, you may be breaking a rhythm that they had intended to establish later on.

John 10:28, which I also mentioned, says “I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.” Instead of giving someone the opportunity to quote this verse out of context, begin by starting the quote a verse before, when Jesus defines who the “them” actually is: “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.” There is great emphasis put on active movement with Christ. Listening to Him. Knowing us. If you don’t listen to Christ, if He doesn’t know you, if you’re not following Him, verses 28 and 29 do not apply to you.

I anticipate that some will try to reverse this method of debate, by striking first and imposing Calvinist interpretations on, well, any scripture, to beat us to the punch, but be encouraged and remember: a theology that began the race 1500 years late can never truly have the first word.







*No, there aren’t really any other “tips” on this blog yet. Funny?

I do believe that I’ve found the perfect way to ring in the New Year, namely, by being declared a heretic. For someone having a blog titled Just This Side of Heresy, you cannot plan this kind of attraction. The story follows thusly: I posted a comment on YouTube that said, in essence, that the shared belief of Muslims and Christians, that we are sinful people, can be used as an opportunity for evangelism. This was read by one enthusiastic person as “All religions are the same. Let’s not make salvation by Christ a requirement for Heaven.” I tried to clarify myself with another response, affirming that I do believe we should preach Christ crucified, but I was too late—I was labeled a heretic and an enemy of Christ. The first part had no impact, because I’ve been called that on several occasions (now three), but the second statement genuinely hurt. I felt as though I was being chided by a high school student, who was insisting that they were Jesus’ best friend. Even though I know that they’re in no place to make such a judgment (nor am I), it still stung. Unity of the body is important to me, so I found the person’s blog, read a few entries, posted a positive and hopefully encouraging comment, with a preface that said I hope that there are no hard feelings between us. I cannot guess how it will be received, but I can hope for something positive.

This comes on the tail of a joke I made to a friend, only a few weeks ago. I said that if my non-fiction career ever takes off, it will be a great pleasure to be declared a heretic by the likes of John MacArthur or R.C. Sproul. Perhaps, I thought, it might even be worthy of the Top One-Hundred Things To Do Before I Die (dispensationalists, you may insert “…before the Rapture,” if you so choose). As I am currently reading Brian McLaren’s A Generous Orthodoxy, I am surely already on their prayer list. It’s a sad commentary on the Christian community that McLaren (may I call you Brian?) can preface the book with a half-comic warning to his readers that they risk guilt by association, and everyone knows what he’s talking about.

So it’s true, in my very first theological discussion of the year, I was declared a heretic and worse. Perhaps this is going to be easier than I thought. Rather than shooting for a condemnation by MacArthur, I ought to make a New Year’s resolution to insure that my excommunication is an earmark in the next Reformed Baptist constitution. What I find most distressing is that though I follow McLaren closely in orthodoxy, I am not primarily a post-modern Christian. Where I part ways with most evangelicals is my departure from T.U.L.I.P. Calvinism which, somehow, is still misconstrued as being morally relative. Someday, I hope someone will explain that accusation to me in light of the fact that Calvin preached something that was entirely new in his day.

Epilogue: I refuse to be the guy who gets self-righteous about other people’s self-righteousness. Hypocrisy-detectors have become the new Pharisees, replacing those that they accost. I was pleasantly surprised to find that neither McLaren nor Doug Pagitt, who co-wrote Church Re-imagined, do this. It’s a very likely pitfall for people who don’t follow the recently traditional version Christianity.