Systematic Theology is an endeavor that can be approached in numerous manners. Us Lutherans in general are not huge writers so much anymore of Systematic Theologies, but there are some exceptions, and we do have numerous Systematics available. Francis Pieper’s Christian Dogmatics is in essence a Systematic Theology, to mention one example. Melanchthon and Chemnitz have them as wwll. Our Reformed friends, on the other hand, have more contemporary Systematic Theologies coming out of their ears. There are all sorts of various modern Calvinistic Systematic Theologies available. Michael Horton has one, Herman Bavinck, Wayne Grudem, and so on. Both Lutherans and Calvinists have spilled a lot of ink on numerous tomes of Systematic Theology.
Systematic Theology can be a worthwhile endeavor. The main point here, however, is that Systematic Theology can, and is,
done very wrong on a consistent basis. It is invalid, in this blogger’s
opinion, to use Systematic Theology to draw inferences in Scripture that end up
contradicting other Scriptures that are plain and clear.
To put this simply, when a Systematic Theology ends up
drawing a conclusion by inference that is in direct opposition to Scripture, it
is not the Systematic Theology that is correct; it is the Word of God. It is my
intention here to show how Reformed Systematics do exactly this and thereby
oppose the Word of God.
The most common example of this in Reformed Systematics is
regarding the doctrine of limited atonement. This doctrine states, in simple
form, that Christ atoned for the elect alone and did not atone for those who
are “non-elect.” Therefore, Christ’s death was only intended for those who will
be saved, and in no way was intended for those who will not be saved. This idea
sounds foreign to most Lutherans, as most Lutherans are not familiar with
Reformed Theology and Systematics.
Let’s examine some of the texts that the Reformed use to
support this doctrine and then show how their usage of these texts is invalid
and based on inferences and deductions made to align Christ’s work with the
rest of their theology. The Gospel of John is the book in Scripture used the
most often by Reformed Systematics to defend and support the doctrine of
limited atonement.
We will start in John 10. Here are two verses used by the
Reformed to support limited atonement.
St. John 10:11(ESV): I am the good shepherd. The good
shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.
St. John 10:15(ESV): Just as the Father knows me and I know
the Father; and I lay my life down for the sheep.
And the Lutherans all say amen. But here is where Reformed
Systematics infers things from these passages that aren’t there and contradict
other plain and clear passages. Reformed Systematics takes these passages and
infer that this means that Jesus *only* died for the sheep and therefore *did
not* die for everyone. But that idea is not found here in St. John. This is an
inference, not a reading of Scripture.
If Calvinists had passages that plainly state that Jesus did
not die for someone or some group of people, they would have a biblical
doctrine. The problem is, there are not any. And likewise, there are passages
that say differently.
1 John 2:2(ESV): He is the propitiation for our sins, and
not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
1 Timothy 4:10(ESV): For to this end we toil and strive,
because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all
people, especially of those who believe.
Thus, the Calvinist reading of John 10 is inferred and made
to fit a Systematic Theology, and then 1 John 2:2 and 1 Timothy 4:10 are
twisted to mean some somewhat goofy things that aren’t plain readings of
Scripture.
John 17 is another place Calvinists go to try to support
limited atonement, but as we will see, their reading here is drawn from
inference as well.
St. John 17:9(ESV): I am praying for them. I am not praying
for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.
Here the Calvinist erects a rhetorical question that is
easily rebutted. They ask, Why would Jesus die for those whom He refused to
pray for?
The answer is really quite simple. This is a specific prayer
for specific people. In this particular prayer, Jesus is not praying for the
world. This does not mean, however, that Jesus never prays for unbelievers and
others. In fact, in 1 Timothy 2, we are commanded to pray for all people
universally. We are commanded to love and pray for our enemies as well.
Thus we can only conclude that the Calvinist inferences into
these passages, as they are in contradiction to other clear Scriptures, are dishonest.
I am not saying Calvinists are intentionally dishonest or intentional liars.
But nevertheless, this is the result of their inferences in these passages.
Their readings here are erroneous precisely because they contradict other
passages of Scripture, which Calvinists fumble all over themselves trying to
reinterpret to fit with limited atonement.
We must, at the end of the day, as Christians, allow all of
Scripture to be true. We cannot pick and choose half of this and half of that
to fit a Systematic Theology, as Calvinists and Arminians are known to do. These two camps see each other as bitter
enemies and opposites of each other, but in reality, they are both recent
theologies and are more closely related to each other than they are to historic
Christianity, or to Scripture. They are, in essence, two sides of the same
coin.
There are other doctrines clearly stated and taught in
Scripture that Calvinist inferences also deny, but we shall save that for
another day.
+Pax+
