Clarifying "Election" & Wesley's "Assurance"

Thanks for that informative post, Oscar.  I had never had anyone explain to me the difference between Calvin and Barth's views on election.  And I'm sure you could say plenty more!  I do have a couple of questions, though, as I process what you are saying:

1.  Are you saying that individuals are no longer elected, but only the community (i.e. Church) of God?  If so, I want to say that I fully agree.  I believe in a doctrine of election -- that God has elected a chosen people for Himself and "predetermined" that the Church would be His primary vehicle for ushering the kingdom.  Wesleyans prefer to speak of election in terms of a community rather than of individual election.  Is that what Barth was teaching?

2.  Some of what you say seems to point to human free will in choosing to "live into their election" or choosing not to.  So how would that be any different than choosing to be saved or to reject salvation?  I guess I always thought that Calvinists like to insist humans have absolutely no role in their own salvation -- even in choosing to accept or reject the gospel.  Am I misunderstanding the Reformed tradition here?

It is very interesting to me that both those of the Reformed and Arminian traditions have wrestled on an existential level with the question, "Am I really saved?"  I remember hearing that great Calvinist band Caedmon's Call sing, "Sometimes I fear / maybe I'm not chosen / maybe You've hardened my heart like Pharaoh's."  That always struck me as odd because I had thought that this existential crisis over one's salvation was peculiar to Methodists (after all, we're the ones who insist that "without holiness no one will see the Lord").

John Wesley developed a doctrine of "assurance" which has lived on ever since then in the Methodist tradition to respond to many who feared for their salvation.  He divided it into objective and subjective types of assurance.  "Objective assurance" comes from the Word of God which promises us that "The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children" (Romans 8:16).  "Subjective assurance" is an inner, spiritual experience in which God grants the believer an overwhelming sense of peace that s/he rests in God's hands.  Do you find the same tradition of "blessed assurance" within the Reformed church?


We have spoken together before that I am still plagued by too much worry over my salvation -- thoughts that I have to do something for God in order to earn my way to heaven.  Of course, this is not true Wesleyanism or true Christianity (it is Pelagianism).  But I do appreciate about the Calvinist tradition the emphasis on "chosenness" and perhaps sometimes I just need a good healthy dose of Calvinism to cure me! 


Learning and Growing,
Greg the Arminian

An Apology + Election

So right from the start I apologize for not interacting as much with this blog YET. Last week I took some vacation days and due to some struggles at work my mind and thoughts were elsewhere this week. As well, I need to say that writing has proven more difficult than expected. I guess like all things in life : discipline, dedication, and willingness all have to come together in perfect harmony.

I had written an earlier post where I wanted to highlight some learning points from our conversation so far but decided to scrap it because we've moved on. I will say this: I need to learn to see the potential of people rather than their corruption. Greg reminds me of that in subtle ways that not everything is completely gone, people still have the potential to do much good.

Now to our topic:

Election and I won't say much on the subject tonight is one of my most favorite doctrines. When speaking of election there are at least two viable options available to understanding it. One John Calvin and the other is Karl Barth.

Now when speaking of election the question that is ultimately asked is this, "how does God decide whom he saves?"

However, election was never meant to answer that question directly, instead it was to bring assurance to recent converts of Catholicism to Protestantism that they were still firmly in the hands of God. As well, election helped Calvin to answer an important question for his conscience, "how can someone hear the gospel but not respond to it?" This greatly frustrated Calvin because he was living in a time where conversions to Protestantism were great and rarely did someone leave his preaching without being 'saved'. Calvin, and I will disagree with him here, believed that obviously God chooses some people and rejects other - that is why some don't respond to the gospel!

Now ever since Calvin this doctrine alone has caused many problems for those within the reformed tradition, it is the endless conversation of debate and, honestly, puts many of us into a corner we cannot escape.

However, great strides have been made in this doctrine and Karl Barth revolutionized it for a new generation. Barth believed that Calvin's presuppositions were wrong, you can't look at humans and ask why do humans act this way and then look to God to answer that question. Instead, Barth believed that we must first look to God and then as a consequence answer our questions about humanity, as we understand God. Kind of like a top down approach, rather than a bottom up one.

For Barth, election was the best news of the universe, "God is for us. We are for God." So Barth understood election within the Trinity, that God both 'chooses' his Son for the salvation of the world, but also 'rejects' him because of the sins of the world. This acceptance and rejection took place before the foundations of the world because God wanted to create another to stand alongside him and 'knew' that he would 'fall'. Barth says that the only decision God makes is a free and loving one, will he be the God of the people he creates, even at a great cost to Himself? The answer is an unequivocal yes.

Now what this means for us is simply this, Jesus Christ is the true mediator of all humanity, God interacts with the world because of what Jesus has done. So individual election no longer matters, as Calvin understood it, instead the entire world is chosen in Jesus Christ, so the choice for us becomes if we live into our election or reject it. However, even if we reject it God still chooses us because we are chosen by extension of his Son.

Now hold it up! This is universalism! Yes and No. However I will wait to see what you and Greg might have to say.

Oscar - learning, growing, reforming.