Biblical Coherence and Theological Consistency

I have probably heard a hundred times people say that they don’t subscribe to any theological system—they are “just biblical.” In this view, some biblical passages make you sound like a Calvinist and others like an Arminian, and people say we simply need to hold these things in tension, respecting the text. Now, let’s assess this reasoning. This is not about defending Calvinism, but about hermeneutical (interpretive) consistency.

It is true that we should not commit to a theological framework and then try to force every text to fit it, bending Scripture when it seems not to align. This is a poor and dishonest interpretive approach. In this sense, I agree with those who are cautious about rigid systems.

At the same time, as Protestants we believe—or should believe—in the clarity of Scripture (the doctrine of perspicuity). Of course, not all texts are equally clear or equally easy to interpret, but we should be committed to receiving what the plain reading of the text teaches. Along with this, there is another core Protestant principle we must uphold: Scripture interprets Scripture. We believe that the best instrument to give us the meaning of a text is not tradition, mystical revelations, philosophy, or my favourite internet preacher, but Scripture itself.

This principle rests on an even more foundational presupposition: the Bible is coherent. God does not contradict Himself. That is why we cannot simply abandon theological frameworks altogether. The question is not whether we will have a system, but whether our system is explicit, tested, and biblically accountable. Theological frameworks are our best attempts to harmonize the whole of Scripture. When someone says that their interpretation sometimes fits one framework and sometimes an opposing one, they are often—perhaps unknowingly—undermining the coherence of Scripture itself.

Now, it is true that the Bible presents us with realities that are difficult for us to harmonize fully. Not knowing how to harmonize is very different from holding two contradictory beliefs. For example, Scripture teaches that God is absolutely sovereign, and it also teaches that human beings are fully responsible. We may struggle to explain precisely how these two truths work together, but it is very different to say that God is sovereign and also not sovereign. That is not a tension; that is a contradiction. We must keep this distinction clear when interpreting the Bible.

Calvinism and Arminianism are opposing systems; what one affirms, the other denies. They cannot both be true at the same points. If at times your interpretation fits neatly within one and at other times within the other, it likely reflects unresolved hermeneutical inconsistency. It may also be the case that there is not yet a full understanding of what these systems actually teach, or that there is a faulty or incomplete view of them.

Now, let us say someone abandons both Calvinism and Arminianism altogether. This is a viable option. But even then, they are not free from the task of harmonizing Scripture. They will inevitably embrace a third system or create a new one, because embracing contradiction is never an option. To do so would undermine the very foundation of Christian faith, which rests on the unity and truthfulness of God’s revelation.

Another option some people take—which I do not believe is good or valid—is to embrace doctrinal minimalism or intentional shallowness. This is often expressed as a desire to return to the “simple gospel.” There are two serious problems with this approach.

First, it creates a setting for immaturity and ignorance. This posture may sound humble (“We are small, and we can’t fully understand God”), but humility is not about making ourselves intellectually small. True humility is about submitting to God’s way. Scripture does not present shallowness as a virtue. God calls us to know Him truly and deeply. To refuse to grow in the knowledge of God is not humility; it is disobedience. The goal of understanding how salvation works is not to dissect spiritual realities for their own sake, but to know and understand the love of God more fully, so that we may give Him the honour and glory He deserves.

Second, the “simple gospel” approach fails to account for the real complexity of life and the real pastoral aims of Scripture. When Paul writes Romans 9, for example, he is not engaging in abstract theology for the sake of mental exercise. He is addressing real issues in the church of his time. He is using the doctrines of God’s sovereign purposes (predestination and election) to deal with questions of assurance, suffering, and the trustworthiness of God’s promises—especially in light of Israel’s unbelief. A vague appeal to a “simple gospel” will not do justice to the weight of Paul’s argument or to the pastoral needs it addresses.

So, independent of your theological position, we must seek biblical coherence. To give one final (and perhaps extreme) example: you cannot sometimes sound like a Trinitarian and sometimes like a Unitarian, depending on the text. We cannot read passages in isolation and come to contradictory conclusions. Sound doctrine is not only about respecting individual texts, but about respecting the whole of God’s revelation.

We need more pastors and Christians who will embrace the challenge of truly knowing Scripture well, and who will not settle for a fragmented view of God and the Christian life. Faithfulness requires more than isolated proof texts—it requires a coherent, whole-Bible faith that reflects the unity, wisdom, and truth of the God who has spoken.

Nino Marques