(Un)conditional Election

While we could certainly carry on for much longer about the topic of total depravity, I thought we might move on for the moment to the "U" in Tulip -- as long as we all understand that this acronym is a feeble attempt at synthesizing the thought of John Calvin and the Reformed tradition -- which stands for "unconditional election."  Of course, I will leave it to Oscar to fully explain what those of the Calvinist tradition mean by "unconditional election," but I will start by explaining the Wesleyan-Arminian position of "conditional election."

Did God know from the foundations of creation, before there was time, that certain people would live forever with Himself in glory and that another group would be damned for all eternity?  I answer that He did not.  Now I know the red flags pop up as soon as I say "God does not know...(fill in the blank)" because that seems to deny his omniscience.  So how does a Wesleyan preserve a belief in God's omniscience while maintaining that he did not pre-elect some people to salvation and others to damnation.  There really are two popular solutions.

First, many (and I would say most) Wesleyans believe that God KNOWS the future, but that he does not CAUSE the future.  So, for example, I could know that it is raining outside of my window, but that does not mean that I am causing it to rain.  In a similar way, God might ultimately know if I will accept or reject Him but that does not necessarily mean that my choices were all predetermined.  This is the line of reasoning that C. S. Lewis takes in Appendix B of his book "Miracles" (which, in my opinion, is the best part of the whole book).

A second and more radical option is taken by those who call themselves "open theists."  The open theist believes that in order to preserve genuine, authentic human free will, He has limited his knowledge.  From this perspective, if God knows something will happen, then it is absolutely predetermined that it will happen since God cannot be wrong.  And, if He knows whether or not I end up in heaven or in hell, then nothing that I can do or not do will change that fact.  The "fact" of my eternity is already written in a book and that book's ink is immutable.  The open theist still believes that she is orthodox in believing that God is omniscient as long as omniscience is properly defined as "knowing all that may be known."  If God could choose to limit his knowledge in order to allow for perfectly free agents to exist apart from himself, then he could still know all that is possible to know, but also not know my every move before it happens.  (A similar argument is made for omnipotence:  Can God make a square circle?  I answer "no."  To say that God is omnipotent is to say that he can do all that is possible to do).

I just have to throw one of my favorite Homer Simpson quotes here:  "Can Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that even he couldn't eat it?"

But underlying all of these issues is the fundamental issue of free will and of God's character.  The Wesleyan believe, above all, insists that God is love and that as a God of love "he is not willing that any should perish, but that all may come to eternal life" (2 Peter 3:9).  For God to have created the world knowing full well that many (or most) human beings would choose to reject relationship with Him and live forever in damnation seems to me to be inconsistent with a God of LOVE.  Instead, I believe in a God who genuinely desires that ALL humans would enter into relationship with Him, that none of these people are predetermined to either accept or reject Him, and that He gives human beings the choice to accept or reject his love.  Any alternative to this seems to me to be less than a God of LOVE. (This is why the great Nazarene theologian Mildred Wynkoop titled her book about Wesleyan-Arminian theology "A Theology of Love").

I write this with all due respect to my Reformed sisters and brothers and recognize that they too believe in a God of love.  I'm simply trying to explain why some aspects of Reformed Theology seem to exist in tension with my understanding of love.  I am open to learn.

Grace and Peace,
Greg the Arminian

If I may interject here....

Greg thanks for starting the conversation and for choosing such an easy topic like Total Depravity! Now I should qualify that I am not a five-point Calvinist, meaning that I think TULIP is a very crude and simplified way of distinguishing Calvin’s theology. His movements within each of these doctrines was more nuanced and allowed breathing room, however, there will be many who disagree with me at this point. With that being said let us proceed.

Total Depravity within the Reformed tradition has always dealt with the means by which people are saved. At this point, Greg and I will disagree but we do so because we see the same truth only in a different light. Reformed Christians believe that our human nature has been corrupted by sin. That means that if we were left to our own, we will always turn towards ourselves, we will always reject God; turn our backs on God’s will and God’s ways for our lives. With a belief that our very nature is sinful it only makes logical sense that our free will has been corrupted. Now Presbyterians make a distinction here because we do not believe that we have a ‘free’ will, emphasis on the free. We do have a ‘will’ but it always chooses sin over life and our will, consequently, seeks it own self-interests. So Presbyterians would argue, ‘is it really freedom that you can choose life and death?” or is freedom to live in complete joy and submission to Jesus Christ?(so if the son sets you free, you will indeed be free)

All of this culminates at the heart of the matter, can people earn their salvation? Since we are unable to lift ourselves out of this condition of sinfulness, we need some power or someone who can do for us what we cannot do for ourselves. That is why within Presbyterian theology, salvation is a true gift of grace that we did not deserve or could ever with a pure heart seek out God and receive. The work of salvation is ultimately the kindness and love of Jesus Christ towards his creation. This begs us to ask another question, how does God choose His recipients of grace? I’m sure we’ll touch on this topic later on in our conversations.

However the concept of Total Depravity has progressed over the past few centuries and we now understand that sin has a social dimension as well. As millions of people make selfish choices they impact the social structures of the world, so that institutions, nations, and legislature can be deemed sinful. As Reformed Christians we call this ‘social sin’ and believe that this is the real affront against the Kingdom of God. The social sins of people have created the different kingdoms of this world, which God’s Kingdom is constantly coming up against. So as reformed Christians who believe that the power of sin is real, and that sin can hold the minds and hearts of people captive, we believe that regenerated Christians are called as ambassadors into the other kingdoms of this world to bring about the ethics and morals of the Kingdom of God.

I leave us with this thought, no matter how deep sin has truly permeated our being, we can both agree that sin is destructive and seeks to consume our neighborhoods, families, and friends. So both Wesleyan and Presbyterian Christians must take a united stand against injustice, in all its forms, and be diligent about pursuing righteousness, so that Christ's witness may be more clearly seen and known.

Sincerely,

Oscar the Reformed