Stalemate and Biblical Contrast - Part 1
I treat a theological discussion or dialogue like it’s a game of chess. It’s a dance across the chessboard with moves and counter-moves. But sometimes it ends in a stalemate. Both sides make good arguments and it seems to go nowhere from there. What do you do in such a situation? In real chess, it is an actual stalemate – the game is literally over. But in Soteriology, a stalemate persists until you know how to use biblical examples to support your case. In other words, your way out of a stalemate in Soteriology depends on how well you can reason biblically and make use of biblical examples, eventually leading one side to make the stronger move and end the impasse.
Note what I said: “make use of biblical examples”, and not philosophies or man-made analogies. You actually have to know your way around the terrain of Soteriology. Our thoughts and thinking must be saturated with God’s words. This does not come naturally, but it will come as you consistently stand in the truth (cf. John 8:31,44).
Non-Calvinists typically resolve a stalemate by supplementing their understanding of Scripture with philosophical ideas and analogies (cf. Colossians 2:8). However, a Calvinist aims to allow Scripture to interpret itself. Now, I know everyone claims to allow “Scripture to interpret itself,” but few actually do it effectively. For the context and purpose of what we’re discussing, I’m going to call it “Biblical Contrast.” This is essentially another way of describing Scripture interpreting itself, but framing it as “Biblical Contrast” allows us to more easily identify contrasts within Scripture and how they can be used to end a stalemate. Do keep in mind that ending a stalemate doesn’t necessarily mean that your opponent will admit defeat or come to embrace the truth. It simply means “they were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which” you speak (Acts 6:10).
I believe God, in His wisdom, provides biblical contrasts and parallels for those who naturally look for patterns and grasp the larger picture – perhaps even to confound the wise, as suggested in Matthew 11:25-26. We often see complex arguments by scholars attempting to disprove Eternal Security, only to have a layperson readily defend it by contrasting Peter and Judas Iscariot. While scholars meticulously analyze warning passages, they sometimes miss the broader pattern – that assurance typically follows a warning. Here’s a list I have compiled:
Warning (Galatians 5:1-4), Assurance (Galatians 5:5)
Warning (Galatians 5:2-6), Assurance (Galatians 5:7-10)
Warning (Philippians 2:12), Assurance (Philippians 2:13)
Warning (1 Thessalonians 5:2-3), Assurance (1 Thessalonians 5:4-10)
Warning (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12), Assurance (2 Thessalonians 2:13-17)
Warning (2 Thessalonians 3:2), Assurance (2 Thessalonians 3:3-5)
Warning (Hebrews 6:4-8), Assurance (Hebrews 6:9)
Warning (Hebrews 10:26-38), Assurance (Hebrews 10:39)
Warning (1 John 5:16-17), Assurance (1 John 5:18)
Warning (1 John 3:10), Assurance (1 John 3:1,16)
Warning (1 John 2:18-19), Assurance (1 John 2:20)
Warning (Jude 16-19), Assurance (Jude 20-21)
Warning (Romans 8:5-8), Assurance (Romans 8:9-11)
Warning (2 Timothy 2:12), Assurance (2 Timothy 2:13)
Warning (Romans 8:5-8), Assurance (Romans 8:9-11)
Warning (John 6:66-67), Assurance (John 6:68-70)
Warning (Luke 22:31), Assurance (Luke 22:32)
Warning (Matthew 26:21), Assurance (Matthew 26:29)
Assurance (1 Samuel 12:22), Warning (1 Samuel 12:24-25)
Assurance (2 John 1:1-2), Warning (2 John 1:8-9)
Assurance (Luke 21:18), Warning (Luke 21:19)
Peter is a picture of true believers (Elect). Judas, on the other hand, is a picture of apostates (Non-Elect) and false believers. See my post on that here » https://soteriology.substack.com/p/on-eternal-security-part-7. To be a good Berean, we need to be both meticulous and holistic recognizing patterns and contrasts which I’ll demonstrate in Part 2.
Here’s a short clip (57 seconds) demonstrating the point I made earlier, “Non-Calvinists typically resolve a stalemate by supplementing their understanding of Scripture with philosophical ideas and analogies”