(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

Introducing the Discussion

Oscar and I love theology.  We believe it makes a huge impact in how we live out our lives.  Some who read this may know little or nothing about the differences between two major schools of Protestant thought -- that of the Calvinist and the Wesleyan-Arminian.  And although the doctrinal differences can seem great at times, we both confess that earliest of Christians creeds:  "Jesus is Lord."  In a world of heated rhetoric, angry talk-shows, and bitter disputes, it is our conviction that as Christians we are called to model unity and respect even in the midst of disagreement.  Oscar and I may disagree, but when we do it is always with mutual respect, humility, and plenty of laughter.  He jokes with me that I just need to rest in the fact that God has chosen me.  And I think he's right.  I have much to learn from my friend Oscar.  And so we are embarking on this online journey not to prove each other wrong, but to hopefully sharpen our understanding of God and his marvelous grace.  I hope to set the record straight on many misperceptions that people have about the Wesleyan-Arminian perspective.  I'm sure Oscar is eager to do the same about the Reformed tradition.

For those unfamiliar with the debate, let me give a very short introduction.  Calvinists, also known as those from the Reformed tradition, follow the teachings of John Calvin and his followers.  They tend to emphasize the sovereignty of God first and foremost.  Those who are chosen (the elect) were ordained from the foundation of time to live in unity with God; that is, they were predestined for salvation before even being born.  Arminians (also known as Wesleyans or just Methodists who trace their heritage back to Jacob Arminius and John Wesley), on the other hand, emphasize human free will and believe that human beings have a choice in their own salvation to either accept or reject Christ.  Oscar may decide to revise this brief synopsis, but that is the best way I can describe the matter in a few sentences.  As important as these differences may seem, however, we agree on all matters that are central to the Christian faith -- that there is One God in Three Persons, that Jesus Christ is God Incarnate, that salvation comes by faith through grace alone, that Christ will return to establish his Kingdom forever, and that the Church is his Bride.  The central affirmations of the Apostles' Creed are the definition of orthodoxy and we are both certainly orthodox (or at least I hope so!).

I propose that for the first few posts, Oscar and I examine what some have called the five points of Calvinism which can be summarized using the acronym "TULIP."  This is what TULIP stands for:

T - total depravity
U - unconditional election
L - limited atonement
I - irresistable grace
P - perseverance of the saints

I'm suggesting that we take each point one at a time and talk about these doctrines in depth to see where we agree and disagree.  Wesleyans have the response to each of these in their doctrines of original sin (rightly defined), conditional election, unlimited atonement, human freedom in salvation, and the possibility of apostasy.

Oscar is free to post whenever he wants to and so am I.  So let the conversation begin!

(One final footnote:  neither of us are world-class experts on these matters.  We're just pastors who happen to be passionate about good theology.  If you want some more expertise scholarship on the matter, you can certainly find it.  But, at the very least, we will try to make what we write accessible to the common layman.)