Proving Calvinism Without Paul – Introduction
Posted on 20. Oct, 2009 by Les in Proving Calvinism Without Paul
I meet with a good friend, Andrew, every Wednesday morning for an hour at Bob Evans, to talk about God. When we started our get-togethers, I was still attending Calvary Chapel. He wanted to hear me out on my disagreements with Calvary’s theology, and what direction I was going in. It’s been an awesome blessing to be able to talk to someone who doesn’t agree with me on everything, but is willing to hear me out and honestly debate. The purpose is to edify eachother, to hold eachother accountable to consistent Biblical theology, and for each of us to know what we believe, and why we believe it. It’s really become a highlight of my week.
So naturally, when I started to hear James White linger on the topic of Calvary Chapel for a few episodes of his radio show The Dividing Line, I shared it with Andrew to see what he thought. Here’s a clip from one of the episodes.
In the clip one of the Calvary guys says, “I’ve often said about Calvinism, that it’s Christianity without Jesus. They just take certain statements of Paul and read their own theology into it.”.
Andrew thought it was an interesting statement, and thought it might make an interesting challenge. I know him well enough to know that he doesn’t have any malicious thoughts in mind. He doesn’t think that ‘red letters’ have more canonical weight, or that I’m misunderstanding Paul. But, as lots of non-reformed Christians point out, we do rely a lot on Paul. So he has challenged me to prove Calvinism without Paul. It sounds like a lot of fun, so I accepted.
He allowed me the gospels, Acts 1-8, James, Jude, Revelation, and 1 & 2 Peter. I countered with the fact that just because Paul is IN Acts shouldn’t exclude it. Since Acts was written by Luke it’s not a Pauline work. He agreed.
Basically I’m looking for election, absolute sovereignty, man’s inability, etc. After starting to look through random new testament books, and seeing the overwhelming amount of texts, I realized we wouldn’t be able do it in just a week or two. So each week we’ll look at one book, starting tomorrow with Matthew. I’ll post my findings here. Maybe a top 5 texts from each book, along with a list of all the rest from that book. If I miss any, hit me up.
A. Davis
Oct 21st, 2009
Wow. This Andrew guy sounds really kewl. I’d like to meet him…
Les
Oct 21st, 2009
See, since you commented, you were turned into a robot. This is helping my case already.
K. Tanner Barfield
Oct 23rd, 2009
you should be able to use the old testament also
Les
Oct 23rd, 2009
I think we had some kind of reason for that…
Andrew?
Was it because the old testament speaks too bluntly of a people that didn’t deserve grace and constantly tried to run away from God, but He continued to work in them, and reveal Himself solely to His elect people?
Or was it something else? ;P
A. Davis
Oct 23rd, 2009
Well, first… to be fair I didn’t exactly concede all of Acts. My actual response was that Luke wrote it and he spent quite a few years with Paul and thus would’ve been “tainted” by Paul’s doctrines, at least moreso than James, Peter, John, or Jude. And thus, while its not exactly a Pauline work, its more likely to line up with Paul’s letters than the other books of the NT. Of course, I say this only in the context of the task at hand. I do not consider Paul’s works to be tainted, unscriptural, blasphemous, etc. In fact, Galatians and Ephesians are my favorite NT books. But in the context of (dis)proving Calvinism w/o Paul, I suggested we completely toss out Acts. But I’m still willing to give you Acts 1-8.
Additionally, I also gave you 1st thru 3rd John. The total list is the four gospels, Acts 1-8, James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1 – 3 John, Jude, and Revelation (Hebrews is out as most agree its probably from Paul).
As for the OT, I don’t recall why we decided to drop it, but I believe the original idea was a focus on the “red letters” instead of Paul and thus comparing Jesus’ doctrines to Paul’s. In that sense, I think we chose to focus only on the NT, but with the restrictions mentioned above.
Les
Oct 23rd, 2009
Wouldn’t that line of thinking about Luke exclude the gospel of Luke?
A. Davis
Oct 23rd, 2009
Good point, Les… so Luke is out. And he hung out with the other disciples for three years, so Matthew, Mark, and John are out too… as are James and Peter. So now you have Jude and Revelation… oh, wait… Revelation is from John, so you’re left with Jude. Can you prove Calvinism from Jude alone (hint Jude 1:24)?
Maybe I should restrict you to the “red letters” only? 
All humorous sarcasm aside, for this “exercise” I think its safe to simply drop the known writings of Paul, the assumed writings of Paul (Hebrews) and the portion of Acts that follows Paul’s life. You’re still left with quite a bit for this “exercise”. The bulk of the remaining text is Jesus’ words and if he was a Calvinist, I think it should be evident.
And for those who don’t know me personally, please don’t think I’m against Paul or Calvinism. Quite the opposite (Les will attest to this), though in fairness I hold to the Calvary Chapel viewpoint as it relates to Calvinism… I definitely agree with parts of the five points… most of the total depravity point, and definitely the perseverance of the saints, and parts of the others. What Les and I are doing isn’t meant to bash Calvinism or Paul’s writings, but rather to educate both ourselves on the issue(s), though without Paul’s doctrines at hand. Scripture admonishes us to “work out our own salvation” and I think, at least for myself and Les, that this is an interesting exercise in the process. Of course, not that in the end we will have arrived, but we should at least be a bit closer.
K. Tanner Barfield
Oct 23rd, 2009
I’m sorry but those rules are so whack Andrew. Luke and Acts were completely written off of eye witness accounts. They are more of a collection of interviews than anything. Furthermore, to say that Luke was “tainted” by the most influential apostle and ground shacking church planter of all time is horrifying. Paul was full of the Spirit to a degree that none of us can even imagine. What about his words are any less inspired by God than any other man?
K. Tanner Barfield
Oct 23rd, 2009
Disregard that last comment. But for our next challenge I think that Andrew should PROVE Calvary’s statement of faith with nothing but the maps in the back of the bible : )
Les
Oct 24th, 2009
XD
Simmer down now, lol.
A. Davis
Oct 27th, 2009
@Tanner… lol. I would totally agree that the rules are whack. I love what Paul had to say and all comments about “tainting” were completely in jest and intended to be humorously sarcastic. But its still an interesting “exercise” as I’ve repeatedly referred to it.
As for the maps idea… I don’t think I’m going to be taking you up on that one, not unless you’re willing to prove Calvinism using only the table of contents in your Bible. And what’s the “our” stuff. Last I checked, this is between Les and me. There’s no “our” for the next challenge.