There is a tendency in many Christian circles to think that if a particular theological viewpoint can quote a lot of Scripture, it must be right.
For example, in a recent book defending The Five Points of Calvinism
I recently listened to a debate from several years ago between Bob Wilkin and James White. Dr. White used almost his entire opening statement to simply read Bible verses. The implication was that to prove Calvinism, all you have to do is read the Bible, and anybody is not a Calvinist, hasn’t read Scripture.
Shotgun Hermeneutics
I call this shotgun hermeneutics. Those who use this tactic try to “blow you away” by the sheer number of verses they can quote which they feel proves their point. When you try to explain one or two of them to show that you are aware of these passages but have a different understanding, they will focus on all the other passages they quoted which you did not explain.
A Sample Conversation
In my discussions, the dialogue generally goes like this:
Calvinist: My view is right because of Passages A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J. If you would simply read and believe the Bible, you would agree with what God said.
Me: I have read and studied the Bible, and am aware of all of those passages you just quoted. I simply understand them in a different way. Let’s take the first one as an example. (I then proceed to explain Passage A.)
Calvinist: Well, that certainly is a creative way to understand Passage A. But we know your interpretation is wrong, because of Passage B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J.
Me: I wasn’t trying to explain those passages, but again, I am aware of them, and all of them can be understood in a similar way as Passage A.
Calvinist: No, they can’t, because no one I’ve ever read has ever understood them that way. Here is what Piper, MacArthur, Sproul, and Calvin had to say about those passages. (They then proceed to quote their favorite authors.)
Me: But those are all Calvinistic authors. Of course they will agree with your interpretation.
Calvinist: Are you smarter or more godly than they are?
Me: No, of course not, but I do think…
Calvinist: Then since they said that this is what those passages mean, and there are so many passages that teach Calvinism, Calvinism is the truth. After all, what about Passages K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, and T?
Me: Yep. Those are all in the Bible.
Calvinist: Hah! I knew you would be silenced by the logic of my system and the irrefutable evidence of my many Scriptural proofs. To God be the glory!
Me: Well, I’m not really silenced, nor am I convinced….
Calvinist: That’s because you’re a depraved heretic.
Me: Oookaay…I gotta go. See ya later.
Calvinist: I’ll be praying for your soul that you would repent from your darkness and be brought into the light!
Theology Discussions
If you have ever tried to discuss theology with someone who holds strongly to a particular system of theology, you know that this is how many of these discussions go.
Recently, I have noticed this tactic being used by some who disagree with me on various other issues.
In their own blogs and in their comments on this blog, they seem to imply that I have not read the Bible, and that if I did, I would see the truth of their position. They argue that when they quote Scripture at me, I am silenced by the weight of Biblical evidence.
Yet when I attempt explanations of one or two passages they quoted, they say that my interpretation cannot be correct because of so many other Biblical passages which say something different, and furthermore, nobody they have ever read holds to my interpretation.
Then I get called a heretic.
A Proposal for Theological Debate
Shotgun hermeneutics and name calling is no way to proceed in theological discussion.
To really get somewhere in theological debate, the two sides must agree to discuss one passage at a time, and stick to it, camp upon it, walk around it, and work through it. Then, hopefully, you can both arrive at two or three possible interpretations of that one passage.
Only then can the two sides go to a second passage.
The same thing is done with passages A-Z.
Only when this is complete, can the two sides go back and reconsider all the evidence, in which any contradicting interpretations are discarded, and hopefully, only one possible interpretation remains. Though this usually doesn’t happen, at least then you will understand each other rather than thinking the other side has never actually read the Bible.
My Exodus from Calvinism
This is the approach I used about 15 years ago to leave Calvinism.
In the early 1990’s, I was a five-point, hyper-Calvinistic, Lordship Salvationist. Then, a good friend challenged my thinking on James 2:14-26. I camped on that passage for a few months. I saw that my friend’s interpretation was one possible understanding. However, I wanted to reject that view because “there are so many other passages that contradicted it.”
But he said, “That’s one option. Or maybe you are wrong on your understanding of all those passages too, and you need to study each one individually.” So that’s what I did. It took me about ten years, at the end of which time, every single point of Calvinism had fallen for me.
However, I still read books and articles by Calvinists and those who disagree with my views. Why? Because if I am wrong in my understanding of a particular passage, I want to know. I hope you do too.
So don’t practice shotgun hermeneutics. Such a practice is not beneficial since all it does is take aim at other people’s heads in an effort to blow them away.
Sam (4)
Dave Leaumont (2)
Clive Clifton (1)
Jeannette Altes (1)
Matthew Aznoe (1)
Ntando (1)
Scott Johnson (1)
Yirmeyahu (1)
Dan B. (2)
Kirk (2)
Philip (2)
Swanny (2)
Ant Writes (1)
Cameron (1)
bullet (87)
Kirk (76)
FedExMOP (73)
B Crump (60)
Tim Nichols (56)
Jeremy – I enjoy your blog very much. I love the spirit in which you write.
Blessings…
Trey,
Thanks for the comment. I read your blog every day and am always challenged and encouraged by it. Keep up the good work.
The good ol’ rapid fire proof text — machine gun apologetics.
Funny, yet sad post. Very true.
Antonio
Jeremy you have put into words something I have felt for a long time. Be Blessed!
Antonio and Tom,
Thanks for the comments. You have a good start at your blog there Tom. I liked the “Friend of Sinners” post. Antonio, I laughed when I read the “machine gun apologetics” statement. That describes it quite well.
Jeremy
A rather funny approach to the topic. Unfortunately I think more than just Calvinists to this. Lots of Christians rattle off context-free verses to prove a point and never stop to consider those passages in context.
The implication was that to prove Calvinism, all you have to do is read the Bible, and anybody is not a Calvinist, hasn’t read Scripture.
Does that not get just so annoying?!
Chris,
You are absolutely right that many Christians use this tactic to defend their view. I am sure I have been guilty of it at times!
I checked out your blog and was encouraged by your post about looking for a church to serve in rather than a church that will feed you. Keep up the good work over there at Homeward Bound.
Hi Jeremy,
I love this post! So true and well written. You have put into words my sentiments after reading Dennis Rokser’s Fall 2007 GFJ article titled “Examining Lordship Salvation: Weighed In The Balances And Found Wanting Pt. 2″. While I do agree with Rokser’s basic conclusions, I believe he used “Shotgun Hermaneutics” and attempted to blow the heretics away with the sheer number of Scriptures he quoted! When reading his article, I kept asking myself: “Dennis, don’t you think after teaching the Bible for 40 years, John MacArthur is already quite familiar with these Bible verses, but just has a different understanding?!”
Jonathan,
Yes, I have often wondered if this is a big reason Free Grace theology has not made greater inroads in certain areas, and why men like MacArthur just ignore us. If all we do is list Bible verses, I would ignore us too!
Thanks for sending me your thesis. I will be reading it and thinking through it this week, and will probably have some questions about it.
It is so encouraging to read this post, as it confirms many things I have been discussing with the LORD lately. I have recently become very disgusted with the way theology makes so many people act when they are confronted by their beliefs, and you have described those reactions perfectly in your description of “shotgun hermenuetics.” While there are certain theologies that I know I agree with, and I don’t see anything wrong with allying one’s self with a theology, I have been impressed lately with the danger of being ultimately loyal to a theology, rather than to the Word of God. Because theologies are ways of describing what someone believes the Word of God says, and are therefore subject to the possibility of human error.
I will never again stand by a theology simply because it is what I am taught, or because the pastor of the church I go to believes it. I have realized the importance of testing EVERYTHING I hear against the Word for myself, and to do so repeatedly and with much prayer, because only then can I hope to know what the truth is, through the understanding of the Holy Spirit within me.
Thank you again, I’ll be reading your blog often I think.
P.S. I am a former member of Duluth Bible Church, and have been under Dennis Rokser’s teaching almost my whole life. I completely agree with Jonathon P.’s conclusion regarding Rokser’s article on Lordship Salvation. This “shotgun” approach is what Dennis uses every Sunday and every Wednesday in his messages, and is what he calls “verse by verse” study. While I appreciate the amount of Scripture he uses when he teaches, I do not always agree with the way he uses it, because more and more often, I am finding myself disagreeing with his conclusions, as I study the Word on my own. I’m so thankful that the Holy Spirit was able to show me how important it is to study the Word on one’s own, and not just accept unquestioning whatever comes over the pulpit.
Amanda,
Thanks for the comment. I appreciate what you are doing over at your blog. I tried to comment but couldn’t figure out how. It looks like you have comments turned off…
I am glad you are practicing a Bible study method which studies the Scripture in-depth, rather than just accepting whatever a certain Bible teacher tells you to think. Keep in the Word!
Jeremy,
Thank you very much for reading my blog, at least what I have so far, and for the encouragement and support.
I FINALLY figured out how to activate the comments on my blog, thank you for letting me know that they weren’t working, I didn’t realize it at first.
I’m looking forward to fellowshiping with you and discussing the Word in the future. God bless!
Good article. I think such an approach to hermeneutics seems to believe that the words somehow have inherent clear meaning in themselves without reference to a context. Personally, I think that the context includes not only where in Scripture the passages are from (including rhetorical function, narrative position, etc.) and the historical-cultural background, but also the context of the person using the quote. In other words, the quote is being used within the context of a theological position and it means what they assert it to mean (or don’t even bother to assert, but merely assume we should see) at least partially because of their presuppositions with which they come to the text. Their meaning/understanding is surely only self-evident if one shares their presuppositions in the first place. Part of persuasive argument must (in my opinion) include discussing our presuppositions with one another as part of the debate around context so that people see where we are coming from.
Joe,
Great point. There is so much to contextual issues, and uncovering our own presuppositions in the process. This is part of the reason we all need each other!
This is also basically my testimony of departing Calvinism. The shotgun approach was just attempted at me yesterday as a matter of fact… it turned out not one of the verses cited in the list had anything to do with the topic at hand
… as per usual.
Jeremy, so you are a 5 point Arminian?
Terry,
No. I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian. I believe that eternal life is a free gift of God to all who believe in Jesus for it, and that works play no part whatsoever in gaining, keeping, or proving eternal life. The whole Calvinism-Arminianism debate uses definitions for words and terms that I do not agree with, and so I am not in the ballpark for either team. I am in a completely different ballpark.
What ballpark? Your description of yourself above seems no different than how a Calvinist or an Arminian might describe themselves as well. You are very vague. You said you have rejected all five points of Calvinism, have you rejected all five points of Arminianism as well, or do you hold to any of them?
I know you write a lot of blogs and comments on many subjects, but can you classify yourself more clearly? Conscisely what are your views, for example, how would your position differ in regard specifically to the 5 points of calvinism?
Terry,
I do not agree with any of the five points of Arminianism either. I cannot say what “ballpark” I am in, because to my knowledge, it has no label.
I cannot be more specific in a short little comment. My disagreements with the five points of both Calvinism and Arminianism iare not exactly with their theology or understanding of Biblical texts, but with something much more basic than that: their definition of certain biblical words and theological ideas, such as election, grace, salvation, atonement, justification, eternal life, forgiveness of sins, etc, etc. Both Calvinists and Arminians agree on the definitions of these words, and then argue about how they all fit together. I disagree with their definitions of these words, and therefore, their issues with each other are not issues for me.
I would need to write a book to unravel it all…. *wink, wink. *
Out of curiosity, where do you stand on the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate?
I would agree with 4 of the 5 points of Calvinism, I hold to unlimited atonement – therefore I would be “labeled” as a “moderate Calvinist”.
Well then, perhaps you could give your definitions for the theological/biblical terms you cited above plus any other necessary terms that you didn’t cite (i.e., your definition in distinction to the Calvinist/Arminian definitions of those words)?
Terry,
I am not going to tackle those definitions in a Facebook comment. I will eventually get around to writing a whole series of posts about them, and would love to interact with you more at that time.
By the way, I used to be a five-point Calvinist, and Limited Atonement was the first one to go.
Please let me know when you write those posts, thanks!