There are basically two kinds of Protestants: Calvinist and Arminian. Calvin found all the Scriptures that say if you go to heaven, it is because God chose you. He concluded, logically, that if you do not go to heaven, it is because God did not choose you. This makes God responsible for damnation, and so horrifies most people that few Calvinists believe it anymore.
Arminius went at it from the opposite direction. Arminius found all the Scriptures that say if you go to hell, it is be cause you choose to do evil. He concluded, logically, that if you do not go to hell, it is because you did not choose to do evil, that is, you did not reject Christ.
Logically speaking, you either have to be a Calvinist or an Arminian. On the doctrine of election there is no other reasonable alternative. Lutheran doctrine is unreasonable and logically impossible. Lutheran doctrine is half Calvinist, half Arminian -- it ignores the logical conclusions and sticks with the Scriptures that each collected. Lutheranism accepts the paradox.
So Lutherans conclude that if a man goes to heaven, it is because God chose him; but if a man goes to hell, it is because man chose to do evil. If you tried to run the Lutheran doctrine through a computer, you'd burn out the logic circuits. We are unreasonable; we are illogical -- but we are trying to be Scriptural. We take Calvin's Scriptures and Arminius' Scriptures and let both stand. God has no part in man's choice of damnation; man has no part in God's choice for salvation. We interpret Scripture by Scripture -- not by human reason, not by human authority. The conservative Lutheran could describe his church as ``The Church of the naked Bible.'' No human reason or human authority is allowed to cover it. However, we will say that God's judgment is not arbitrary or evil, because those who chose to do evil would want to continue to do evil for all eternity. Those who cry out to Jesus like the Thief on the Cross were thereby saying that they want nothing more for all eternity than the ability to do good and serve God. It is not arbitrary when God saves someone in view of an eternity of future good works.
From this Commandment. we draw three corollaries. First, we find our doctrines in the clear passages. In the Christian News Encyclopedia (Volume II, p. 1315), I tried to demonstrate that the number 144,000 in Revelation does not mean that only 144,000 are going to heaven. Rather, it means ``Whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved, but whoever does not believe shall be damned.'' However, I did not find that doctrine of salvation by faith alone in Revelation; I found it in Mark 16, Ephesians 2, and Romans 3.
Secondly, we find our doctrines in the passages that were written to reveal those doctrines. We call such passages the ``seats of doctrine.'' The seat of doctrine for the Vicarious Atonement is Isaiah 53, not some parable that might mean one of a dozen things. The seat of doctrine for the Humiliation and Exaltation of Christ is Philippians 2, not the scattered unclear one-liners like ``The Father is greater than I'' (Jn. 14:28) that Jehovah's Witnesses are so fond of. In that case Philippians 2 is the foundation, Jn. 14:28 is the trim. If you put the trim in place before the foundation is firm, someone who walks into your house will fall through a hole in the floor and break his neck.
The fifth corollary of this Commandment: Let the Bible say what it wants to say! In other words, if the passage wants to be taken literally, take it literally. But if it wants to be taken as picture language, take it as picture language. And don't mix up the two.
For instance, there isn't a hint in any of the Last Supper texts that Jesus is using picture language. When He says ``This is My body,'' we can't interpret that to mean ``This represents My body,'' unless you want the freedom to change is into represents anyplace you feel like it. Then the Bible would fall into a mass of contradictions and human opinions.
Contradictions? Yes, contradictions. Because when a Protestant ``interprets'' the words ``This is My body,'' he says ``This is my body'' means ``This is not my body.''
Yep. ``This is'' means ``This is not.''
That's not interpretation. That's denial. And it explains why Protestantism has splintered so badly over the centuries. Where that much freedom to ``interpret'' is allowed, virtually any teaching, including cultic teaching, is possible.
Similarly, you can't change picture language to literal language just because it suits you. Revelation 20 drips with picture language. Many Protestants want to take the thousand years literally. But if they do that, them they have to take every thing else literally. They have to believe that there is a literal bottomless pit here on earth and that the angel got a literal chain, padlock, and key, maybe from Sears Roebuck, to tie up Satan with. Since a spirit can pass through walls and solid rock, that's a good trick. If we let the Bible say what it wants to say we will see that the thousand years does not mean a thousand years. Just as the chain and lock are spiritual, so the thousand years are spiritual. They mean a period of perfection (the proof can be found in the article The 144,000 mentioned above) and represents the Church age, from Pentecost to Judgment Day. Fundamentalist rhetoric about a ``literal interpretation of the Bible'' sounds good, but you can't interpret picture language literally. If you do, you have to believe that Jesus, the True Vine (Jn. 15:1) has leaves and tendrils. And grapes.
Many stories about the great saints of Scripture are unclear, i.e., have two possible meanings. Luther correctly pointed out that the patriarchs deserve the benefit of the doubt. So, for instance, when you wonder whether Joseph was using good judgment to tell his brothers his prophetic dreams about the day when they would all bow down before him, the answer is emphatically ``Yes.'' He had the word of God and had an obligation to proclaim it. Even Saul may have repented in the end, and suicided not as a final act of unbelief but to spare Israel the terrible political costs of having their anointed king in Philistine hands, and to get out of David's way.
Fourth corollary: Where two interpretations seem equally likely you choose the one that doesn't need outside information. For example, it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Are we to believe unsupported allegations by synergistic theologians that there once was a low gate in the Jerusalem wall called ``the Needle's Eye''? It is far better to choose the interpretation that it is impossible for anyone, rich or poor, to enter the kingdom of God without God's grace, because that makes excellent sense, fits the context, and doesn't require that we believe some historian who may have postulated something that never happened. ``The camel was the largest animal in Palestine. Jesus used the vivid contrast between the largest animal and the smallest opening to illustrate the impossibility for those who trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God. Salvation comes only through dependence on God.'' (The Plain Truth, January 1996, p 29.)
If arguments seem to be of equal weight on both sides, try interpreting the passage both ways and see where it leads you. A good example is Psalm 121, where we don't know whether the opening thought is a question or a statement -- the original has no punctuation. ``I will lift mine eyes up unto the hills. From whence cometh my help?'' There are several hills and mountains in the Holy Land that cause us fear. The Psalm was Psalm of Degrees and sun on the way up to Jerusalem, through mountains that could have hidden a thousand bandits such as those whose dirty work the Good Samaritan undid. Other mountains lead us to seek help, such as Mount Sinai which condemns us. And then there is Mount Moriah, where Abraham was at first told the price of sin was the life of his own son by his own hand. And then the moral laws of the Sermon on the Mount condemn my sins and myself. Maybe Ps. 121:1 should have a question mark.
There are other ``hills from whence my help cometh.'' First is Mount Carmel, where the Lord is shown to be God and the majority is shown to be nothing. On the Mount of Transfiguration we learn that instead of the Law and the Prophets, we are to listen to Jesus. On the Mount of Olives we find Someone who would drink the bitterest cup to the dregs for us. Mount Zion lifted up the Temple and the Most Holy Place where atonement could be acquired. Back to Mount Moriah where we first see the principle of substitution allowing an innocent victim to take our place on the altar of slaughter. And some scholars suggest that Mount Moriah was later known as Mount Calvary, where that same principle was most perfectly carried out.
The original Hebrews knew how to punctuate it. But maybe the Lord knew that the church would forget whether this passage was a question or a statement, and arranged it so that preachers could have a good sermon outline whether they interpret Psalm 121 as a question, as a statement, or -- most usefully -- both.
Similarly, all the centurions mentioned in the four Gospels must be either one man or two. Since the Bible doesn't settle the issue we can interpret it either way and see where it leads us. About the only time that I can say a sermon held an audience spellbound was when I interpreted it the former way, so I naturally favor it. But I would not hereticize the interpreter who maintains that there were two as long as he cut me the same slack. I'm not the pope.
Some questions have to remain open. Did Judas participate in the Lord's Supper or not? We don't know. Therefore, we can't use Judas as a reason to close Communion to those we know to be secret hypocrites. Better perhaps to greet them as they come for- ward, not with ``Take, eat,'' but with ``Friend, wherefore art thou come?''