Reformed Theology and the Nature of God:
A response to Andrew at The Worldview Bulletin
First things first. This is a response to another substack. Go read it first to get the context for this response.
Andrew posited a couple of questions in response to my comments:
(1) identify the "bad" SBC theology and
(2) how that bad theology is linked in some intrinsic way to systemic abuse.
I chose to respond over here because I want to give a more thorough discussion that I would generally post in a comment.
Bad Theology
Identifying “bad” SBC theology is really the wrong question. Identifying bad theology generally is the better question.
The practice of theological development is a derivative exercise. We take the Bible, study the passages, then attempt to develop a theology from that study. From there we develop an entire theological system. The theological concepts that we develop are derivative of the Biblical text. Some of those points are historical, accepted by most Christians (the Trinity), other are simplistic (the song “Jesus Loves you”), others are complex (the relationship between salvation, justification, regeneration, and predestination as laid out by Reformed theologians), but they are all derivative (which is why they are frequently proof-texted).
Identifying bad theology can be a complex process. Consider the following passage, considered by many in the Reformed tradition to be taken from one of the best sermons of all time:
The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours.1
Yet, I cannot find a way to reconcile Edward’s presentation the relationship between God and man with the Bible. Consider this passage:
Beloved, let us love one another; for love is of God, and he who loves is born of God and knows God. 8He who does not love does not know God; for God is love. 9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. 10 In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins. 11Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No man has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.
13 By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his own Spirit. 14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world. 15Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. 16So we know and believe the love God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. 17 In this is love perfected with us, that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so are we in this world. 18There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and he who fears is not perfected in love. 19 We love, because he first loved us. 20 If any one says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. 21And this commandment we have from him, that he who loves God should love his brother also.2
This is where the complication of identifying bad theology comes into play. It is crystal clear to me that the Theology in Edward’s sermon is abysmal. He does not seem to understand the core of Christianity: God’s love. Yet, people in the Reformed tradition swear by his work.
In seeking to identify bad theology, I have a couple of standards that I use:
Bad theology starts with poor exegesis
Bad theology is inconsistent with the demonstrable nature and character of God found in the Bible
Bad theology results in bad fruit
Reformed Theology
The Reformed tradition accepts the Calvinist view of salvation.
The saved are predestined
Without regard to any foreknowledge regarding their behavior (unconditional election)
Following the logic, the fall was necessary for God’s plan to take place. This so obviously follows from the Calvinistic position on predestination that the Westminster confession includes a disclaimer that contradicts the remainder of their defense of predestination:
I. God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.
III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others fore-ordained to everlasting death.
IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated and fore-ordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it can not be either increased or diminished.3
The problem with this statement is that it is broadly inconsistent with the rest of their theology. It is the same problem they have with double predestination: simply stating that God doesn’t predestine some to hell but merely predestines some to heaven is logically inconsistent given the laws of formal logic applied to a binary choice. Likewise, claiming that God predestined without regard to foreknowledge necessitates that the fall of both man and angels must proceed. This makes him the architect of the fall (through direct intervention or simply by putting an inevitable -predestined - sequence of events into motion).
With this established, we can examine the remainder of the Calvinistic position (continuing from above):
God condemned mankind for the predestined fall
God has the power unilateral ability (according to the Calvinist understand of the irresistible grace and total depravity) to save all, but chooses to save only some (who have no say in the matter)
Thus Jesus died on the cross for only the elect (limited atonement)
What do I identify as the reformed “bad” theology? I see major problems in their systematics across the board, but in particular:
Theology proper
Soteriology
Anthropology
Teleology
Abuse
Here is a summary of the Calvinist view of the message of the Bible.
God created mankind
God caused mankind to sin
God damned all of mankind, for all of eternity, for the sin of those who God caused to sin.
God has chosen certain people for salvation.
People not chosen will spend eternity in hell for their disobedience, despite God causing mankind to sin.
Mankind has the freedom to do any sinful thing that they want, but lack the free will to choose God. Only through divine intervention can any individual be saved.
God has the ability to choose everyone, but chooses not to for his glory.
A good analogy to the character of the God outlined by Calvinists is as follows:
A father has several sons.
The father cuts off the legs of the sons and demands that they run.
Because they can’t run, the father punishes them.
But the father chooses one son to save and takes him to the hospital.
The father tells them that they will die for their disobedience by refusing to run.
The other sons are free to do anything they like, but because they lack legs they are unable to get to the hospital to be saved. The only way they will be saved is if the father takes them, but he refuses.
The father does all of this to demonstrate his greatness.
Is this a loving father, or an abusive one?
Is it any wonder that there is a systemic problem of spiritual abuse in churches with such a perverted view of the Good News? Of course not, because their behavior directly emulates the God that they worship.
This brings us back to where we started: all theology is derivative. Bad exegesis results in bad theology. We can see in Edward’s sermon that the Reformed soteriology and theology proper are wholly inconsistent with the picture of God painted by the Biblical narrative. We see the rotten fruit of that bad theology in the massive abuse scandal laid out in the SBC report. Furthermore, we see the same types of abuse widespread amongst the thought leaders within reformed circles.
If politics is downstream of culture, then culture is downstream of theology. We should be examining the culture of the Church, holding it against the bright light of Scripture, particularly the admonitions as to what the Christian life should look like.
Without the disinfecting light of truth, truth spoken lovingly as kindness, and the all-too-often-neglected interplay between the Holy Spirit and Holy Scripture, the church is merely another religion, devoid of the power of God.
I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all people will know that you are My disciples: if you have love for one another.”
John 13:34-35
Jonathon Edwards, Sinners in the hands of an angry God
1 John 8-21
Westminster Confession 3:1-4