Theology

My Quibble with Reformed Theology

by J.W. Phillips
06/26/25
Not For Sale

  Message Writer
  Hire Writer

Tweet

My Quibble with Reformed Theology 

A major theological divide in the Protestant Church involves the doctrine of predestination. Following Augustine and Calvin, Reformed theology emphasizes it; other protestant churches do not.

There can be no doubt that there is a strong biblical underpinning for this teaching. The words predestination and election are used many times in Scripture, and therefore we should say what Scripture says.

But should we try to explain it? Yes, so far as we can without speculating.

One’s initial objections to predestination usually result from not understanding it. Scripture will remedy much of this, though, admittedly, it will require considerable time and superb bible teaching to progress this far.

But there is a limit, or should be a limit in this endeavor. And most Reformed teachers exceed that limit. 

Picture a triangle. On one side of the triangle are verses teaching man’s responsibility to choose and the exercising of human volition. On the other side of the triangle are verses that affirm predestination and election. 

Contrary to what many first thought, we can ascend both sides of the triangle (let’s say two-thirds of the way up) and see both views coming closer together. But Reformers make the mistake of trying to reach the apex of the triangle, and this simply cannot be done.

One reason it can’t be done has to do with God being both transcendent and immanent—that is, beyond space and time (II Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2; Ephesians 1:4; I Peter 1:20) and within space and time (Jeremiah 23:23-24; Acts 17:27-28).

These truths should have stopped the speculating.

Can you see why?

Predestination happened outside time. But we don’t really know what that means. We understand the concepts of before and after, but that sequence activates in time. Outside time is another dimension about which we have almost no understanding.

Reformers assume a linear connection, the before and after dynamics, then rush to the apex of the triangle to explain what they cannot explain.

The results have been disastrous. 

In the third book of The Christian Institutes, Calvin comes to the edge of human understanding and acknowledges that it does look like God is the author of evil, though Calvin stops short of declaring that. John MacArthur, on the other hand, goes right over the edge to declare that God willed wickedness to exist. It was God's plan that man would sin. God did it for his own glory.¹

Oh, my! John MacArthur—he who has ably corrected other teaching that needed to be corrected, makes the most egregious error of all.

Think of it! The holy God whose eyes are too pure to even look upon sin (Habakkuk 1:13) turns out to be the author of it.

When tracking the intricacies of this debate, one can see how this mistake can be made. But it would not have been made had there been no attempt to reconcile scriptures which Scripture itself makes no attempt to reconcile.

We should embrace all that God reveals, but we should never extend what he reveals with human reasoning.

Given our finite perspective, especially our ignorance of those dynamics operative outside time, we should proclaim what Scripture sets forth, yes, but resist attempting to explain what Scripture itself doesn’t explain.

The attempt to harmonize Scripture has brought disharmony to the body of Christ. So now we have to choose sides, when both sides have errors.

What Reformers put front and center isn’t there with Scriptural support. Their emphasis, in fact, distorts Scripture.

Chapter and verse, please, for an agenda like T-U-L-I-P. The Lilies of the field maybe, but not that! If theologians must, speculate in the back room. Spare the rest of us.

I remember one man telling me about the disenchantment he experienced when he began to pastor a large Reformed Church in Georgia. He had been well-schooled in Reformed theology. But then he lamented how little that had to do with helping his people. He verbally cited some of their problems—and these distinctives of Reformed theology had nothing to do with any of that!

Reformed theology claims to know more than it does, but, ironically, offers pitifully little help, unique to their perspective, for the daily problems people are facing.

That’s my quibble.

After falling down the stairs and breaking both legs, one Reformed pastor did try to squeeze some comfort from his theology by saying, “I’m glad that’s over.”

Um, not much comfort there. My quibble still stands 

Note:

1. John MacArthur video, “Contending for the Truth,” Ligonier Ministries' 2007 National Conference.