Category: Arminianism

Theological Balance

As I prepare a lesson on AVL trees (a form of balanced BST), I notice the similarity of the imbalanced tree and the least God-honoring thing that occurs in theological discussions within many blogs. For example, many adhere to a Calvinist theology and in support of that they have read much of the standard corpus on the topic and can quite handily post quotes from these works on their blogs. Many times, the posts are without comment, I suppose to confer some finitude to the quote that is posted as if to say, here is a statement by John T. Ulip which says that Calvinism is right, all other theological constructs are wrong and no analysis is necessary.

While the pursuit of truth is noble, the true pursuit of truth requires the engagement of opposing viewpoints to the same degree as you pursue those you agree with. In other words, the Calvinist (or Arminian) library should be nearly equally filled with works representing both theological schools. This is far different from presenting a quote by Mr. Ulip who says Arminianism is false and heretical; you honor God in your pursuit of the truth by reading deeply from both schools before presenting something as fact. In matters of theology, it is not acceptable to believe something is wrong simply because someone else told you it is wrong. God gave you a mind and the ability to use it to discern truth, and you honor his gifts in you by coming to a decision from the fruits of your own labors.

Because, after all, the Arminian is also going to say “the Arminian view is correct because the bible teaches it.” How will this argument go? Is, is not! Is, is not! 

Views on Divine Election: Corporate & Open

The view that election in the Bible is corporate in nature is one of the least discussed and considered positions when this topic comes up for discussion. William Klein, one of my seminary professors, wrote the seminal book on this topic in The New Chosen People. In order to understand this view of election two terms must be inextricably linked in your mind: corporate and vocational. Any discussion that purports to refute this view without this pair of terms front and center should be dismissed out of hand due to its ill formed argument.

Election as Corporate and Vocational

1 Peter 2:9 provides a starting point from which to work: “But you are a chosen people , a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” (NIV) The challenge to the predominant belief that election is about a number of the fallen being unconditionally or conditionally chosen for salvation begins with the reading of plurality found in this body of scripture. Rather than election as individuals, election is seen as a people group. Thus, when Peter writes that ‘you are a chosen people’ (cf. NASB – race, KJV – race, RSV – race: race confers community better than the NIV choice of ‘people’) he is speaking corporately and he assigns their God given mission in saying ‘that you may declare the praises of him’. Election then,is about a people and their God-given task. God’s objective in a corporate election is found in the calling given to this people: not the salvation of a few but the gathering of the nations into an eschatological fellowship. The election of the community is a component of God’s comprehensive will to save humankind.

The Corporate view developed out of theological struggles with what Calvin himself calls a dreadful decree (Institutes 3.23.7) in which God who on one hand exclaims His love for the whole of the world while simultaneously electing some to salvation and choosing others for destruction. Barth (himself one of the greatest Calvinist theologians) diverged from his mentor as he considered the Augustinian double predestination that the theological framework demands and found it unacceptable saying that makes God out to be two-faced saying ‘that it makes it sound as if God were saying to humanity, not “yes” but “yes” and “no”‘ (Church Dogmatics)

Theologians Paul Jewett and William Klein, among others, point out that when the topic of election is raised in the Bible, it is consistent in referring to the elect as a class, not individuals. The plural language puts election into corporate terms, Klein saying “The biblical data present an impressive case that election is not God’s choice of a restricted number of individuals whom he wills to save but the description of that corporate body which, in Christ, He is saving.” (New Chosen People) This notion is most clearly portrayed in the election of Israel as a people through which the world will be blessed. The Church continues in this tradition as those elected in Christ to carry on the blessing of the world. This election is not for privilege however, but for vocation. God calls a people to himself in order to change history. The corporate entity elected by God would be His covenant partners in the salvation of the whole human race. The called community has the potential to be an advance representation of eschatological future, attractive and welcoming those still outside the community (1 Cor 7:29).

Conclusion

This view of election is little discussed in the shadow of the ongoing Calvinism-Arminianism tussles but it presents a substantial enough body of texts and logic to prevent it from being dismissed out of hand. Though it can sometimes veer into the areas of Open theism and Unviversalism, it is representative as a whole of the loving character of God presenting Him not as capricious and arbitrary but as desirous of the salvation of all of His children and His willingness to use the Church to to fulfill this desire.

Alternate Views:

  • The Calvinist View
  • The Arminian View
  • The Supralapsarian Calvinist View
  • The Sublapsarian Universalist View

    • Views on Divine Election: Sublapsarian Universalism

    The doctrine of limited atonement (the L in TULIP) states that Christ’s work on the Cross was effectual only for the elect, who in God’s sovereign will were chosen out of the mass of humanity for salvation. This is represented by the infralapsarian and supralapsarian order of decrees. The sublapsarian sequence of decrees broadens the scope of what was accomplished by Jesus Christ through His death. The order of divine decrees reads:

    1. Creation of human beings
    2. Permit the Fall
    3. Provide salvation sufficient for all
    4. Election to salvation and reprobation

    Universalism

    As you notice upon comparing the infralapsarian and supralapsarian decrees, the salvation made possible by Christ was only for the elect. The Universalist searches the whole of Scripture and finds a different idea; that Christ’s work on the cross was sufficient for all people and made effectual upon their exercise of faith. This is the view of an interesting union of Arminians and some Calvinists and it makes the gospel message of John 3:16(-17) come to life:

    For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him.

    Election, for the universalist, is neither limited nor conditional but is rooted in merciful character of God. As portrayed in the well known passage above, election is an expression of God’s love for the world which is unconstrained in scope and unconditional in application. In other words, the universalist will point out that the New Testament declares that God at a minimum wills or desires the salvation of all humans and is not will that any of them should perish. To link these ideas to scripture:

    This is good, and pleases God our savior who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim 2:3-4)

    The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. (2 Pet 3:9)

    God’s mercy is fixed in his love, and God is love. Universalism will dispute that God’s love is evidenced by the Augustinian God who separates in His mysteries one from another for salvation. This unconditional election is incompatible with the God of love described by 1 John 4:8-16 whose very essence is love and the object of that love is all the world. The Arminian who is able to thwart God’s desire, thus His plan, is also considered to be incorrect because, though God’s love may be resisted, it cannot be denied or challenged. God does not stop loving those who reject them and this brings Him ever greater glory.

    Conclusion

    Christian universalists believe that, apart from a corporate salvation of the human race as a whole, there is no real grace and no worthwhile salvation for anyone. Limited election replaces mercy with a decree, and an arbitrary one at that, while conditional election grants the human agent who exercises their free will to choose God a kind of moral superiority that outshines God’s grace. To quote Thomas Talbott, “For no power in the universe, not the power of death itself and not even the power of our own recalcitrant wills, can finally ‘separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.'” (Rom 8:30)

    Sola Scriptura

    Other Views on Election

    Views on Divine Election: Supralapsarian Calvinism

    Within the Calvinist soteriological discussion, there exists an intramural debate regarding the order of God’s sovereign decrees for redemption and reprobation. Specifically, the question to answered is this, when the decrees of election and reprobation came into being was humankind considered to be fallen or unfallen. In other words, what did God have in view when His decrees were issued. Did He contemplate humankind as collective members of a corrupt, fallen mass or, were they seen as simply as beings that He would create. In the earlier discussion of the traditional Calvinist view, the majority Infralapsarian position was detailed. Briefly, the Latin infra locates the decree for election after the Fall and makes the objects of that decree fallen and corrupt. The complete ordering of decrees (as detailed by Boettner in Reformed Doctrine of Predestination) reads then as:

    1. Creation
    2. Permit the Fall
    3. Election to redemption
    4. Decree the work of Jesus Christ as atonement
    5. Sending of the Holy Spirit for the application of redemption

    Supralapsarianism

    Those who order God’s decrees in a Supralapsarian fashion place the decree to election to redemption and eternal life and reprobation and destruction prior to the Fall. Thus, the reordered decrees would be:

    1. Election of some of the future creation of humankind to life and others to death
    2. Creation
    3. Permit the Fall
    4. Send Christ to redeem the Elect
    5. Send the Holy Spirit to apply the redemption

    With Beza as his teacher, Arminius was exposed to this plan’s ordering and it became one of the primary factors in the development of his theology. He vehemently disputed this idea as, for Arminius, it made God the author of sin and ran completely contrary to His holy character. By placing the discriminating decree in the first position, God exercises His sovereign will to elect humans as humans, not fallen humans.

    The debate between the infralapsarian and supralapsarian positions is very speculative as scripture does not provide an overwhelming body of evidence confirming one side or the other. The choice is largely made along the lines of procedural logic (the rational planning principle.) Placing God’s will over the lives and eternal destinies of His creations in the forefront of all of His succeeding decrees manifests His sovereignty in what some theologians call the greatest example of soli Deo Gloria. They are convinced that this exercise best brings glory to God, the predominant aim exhibited in Scripture for all of God’s activities.

    Other Views on Election

    Views on Divine Election: Classical Arminian

    The Arminian view of election is often caricatured or misunderstood by those adhering to alternate views. Many times, the Arminian is portrayed as insisting on taking the glory that rightfully belongs in God alone and in doing so, is attacking or denying the sovereignty of God. As God’s sovereign will plays such a central role in any discussion of election, the necessary first step in examining the Arminian position is to establish how this term is defined within the framework. Picirilli (Grace) offers this succinct definition:

        …if the sovereign God unconditionally established faith as the condition for salvation (and therefore for election), then His sovereignty is not violated when He requires the condition. Neither Calvinist nor Arminian, by “sovereignty,” means that God acts in a way that men call “arbitrary.”

    As Arminius states this same idea,

    The freedom of the goodness of God is declared…when He communicates it only on the condition, which He has been pleased to impose. (Works III:274)

    the requirement that men and women exercise their will to adhere to a condition of their election in no way tampers with the sanctity of God’s sovereign will nor does it lay claim to any of His glory for the human agent who fulfills it.

    Jacobus Arminius did not develop the theological system that bears his moniker out of thin air. Rather, his proclamations derived from his initial following of Calvinist doctrine. He studied in Geneva under Beza, fully accepting of Calvin’s Reformed theology until, while studying in preparation to defend these doctrines, he discovered that his understanding of Scripture did not support the same. The general theme of difference that moved Arminius was that he felt that God’s revealed character did not the Supralapsarian predestination of some to destruction as a part of the eternal decrees. This, he felt, made God the author of sin and was contrary to the God of love revealed through Christ. Arminius insisted on a soteriology that was thoroughly Christocentric.

    Election in the Arminian framework can be either to service (e.g. Pharaoh in Rom 9:17, Israel corporately) as a vessel or agent through which can bring about this desired end, or to salvation as previously discussed in the Calvinist view. Many disagreements between the Calvinist and the Arminian on Scripture interpretation locate around this critical differentiation. For purposes of brevity, election to salvation is in view in this essay and this election is conditional.

    Conditional Election

    The most pronounced difference between the two systems in view is the belief of Arminians in conditional election that is rooted in the foreknowledge of God. This prescient foreknowledge is God’s eternal view of his creatures and the knowledge of how each of them will respond to the offer of grace by placing their faith in Christ. Thus, their election from eternity past is conditioned upon their free-will acceptance of God’s predetermined conditions for salvation. It is this human effort that is often pictured as a challenge to God’s sovereign will since, being rooted in human free-will, it can be resisted.

    Scripture: Romans 8:29, 1 Peter 1:1-2

    Total Depravity

    Classical Arminian theology teaches that all of humanity is born morally and spiritually depraved, that is, they are helpless to do anything good in God’s view without an infusion of God’s grace sufficient to overcome this stillborn nature. Arminius writes:

    In this state, the Free Will of man towards the True Good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost: And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace. (Works 2:192)

    The grace that is visited upon God’s elect is known in Arminian terminology as prevenient grace. This grace is infused by the Holy Spirit and it prepares the soul for entrance into an initial state of salvation. Prevenient grace brings the dead in sin back to life and enables their will such that a man or woman may make the free-will decision to accept or deny the salvific act of the Lord Jesus Christ. Full regeneration is achieved when this decision, empowered by the Spirit, results in repentance and faith.

    Scripture: John 6:44, Jeremiah 31:3

    Conclusion

    Classical Arminian theology is often lumped together with Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian thought leading to mis-characterization of the reality of the framework. The major difference that separates Arminius from Calvin has to do with the conditionality of God’s divine election. Arminius found in Scripture, not a God of imposition, but a God of unbridled love for his creation who, seeing into the eternal future who would respond favorably to His offer of grace, elected those to salvation while allowing others to choose perdition.

    Soli Deo gloria

    Other Views on Election

    Views on Divine Election: Traditional Calvinist

    The key to understanding the Calvinist notion of divine election rests in shielding the sovereignty of God from any effectual interference by humankind. Election to salvation is rooted purely in the sovereign grace of God and it is unconditional in every aspect; it does not rely in any way on the behavior, belief, or action of the man or woman on which it is visited. Calvin says:

    We shall never feel persuaded as we ought that our salvation flows from the free mercy of God as its fountain, until we are made acquainted with his eternal election, the grace of God being illustrated by the contrast—viz. that he does not adopt all promiscuously to the hope of salvation, but gives to some what he denies to others. It is plain how greatly ignorance of this principle detracts from the glory of God, and impairs true humility. (Institutes III, xxi, 1)

    Calvin is quoted in a different context restating this principle a bit more starkly:

    Predestination we call the eternal decree of God, by which he hath determined in himself what he would have to become of every individual of mankind…eternal life is foreordained for some, and eternal damnation for other. Every man, therefore, being created for one or the other of these ends, we say he is predestined to life or to death. (Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature ‘Calvinism’)

    The Calvinist view of election has three facets; it is unconditional, individual, and infralapsarian, and scriptural references abound in support of each of these ideas. When election is referenced in this discussion, the Calvinist has in view a salvific election, one that produces salvation from perdition. This is an important but often overlooked distinction because theology also recognizes that there is an election to service and many theological disagreements balance on the recognition of this fine point. Careful exegesis is required then when stating unequivocally that one’s theological position is absolute; remember, context must always be considered when referring to a single verse in support of a tenet. Let’s look at each of the facets on their own.

    Election is Unconditional

    The U in TULIP represents election as unconditional; God graciously elected some to be saved according to His sovereign will without respect to their individual qualities, characters, or choices. This means that the choice was not conditioned on something that humans would do or the choices they would make, their behavior (good or bad) or any unique characteristic that might separate them from those who are bound by their sin and headed to perdition. Unconditional election is forwarded as the position that brings the greatest glory to God. Because salvation requires no human agency from start to finish God appropriately receives all of the glory for the transaction.

    Scripture: Eph 1:3-6, Rom 9:10-16, John 17:2,6

    Election is Individual

    Election to salvation is done on an individual basis by God, bypassing one while selecting the next. While scripture speaks of God choosing a people, the Church, or a bride, this election is composed of the collective individuals who are recipients of His grace. This deeply theological concept contributes in a much greater sense than just scholastically. The joy that the recipient feels is heightened by the idea that God the Father has elected them as an individual. They are not a faceless part of the whole but a known entity to the God of the universe.

    Scripture: John 6:37, Acts 13:48

    Election is Infralapsarian

    The question that remains in examining the Calvinist view of election has to do with the timing, or sequence of God’s decrees. The matter to be answered is when did God decree that salvation would be granted to the elect, before or after the decree to allow the Fall. Calvinist theologians can indicate disagreement on this point, some leaning toward Supralapsarian timing while others take the Infralapsarian view. The orders of each are:

    Supralapsarianism (Decree of Salvation/Reprobation precedes the decree to allow the Fall)

    • The decree to save some and condemn others
    • The decree to create both the elect and the reprobate
    • The decree to permit the Fall of both classes
    • The decree to provide salvation only for the elect

    Infralapsarianism

    • The decree to create human beings
    • The decree to permit the Fall
    • The decree to save some and condemn others
    • The decree to provide salvation only for the elect

    Of the two, the dominant position through Calvinist history has been the Infralapsarian position though the issue is often left in an indefinite state that allows for a melding of the two positions. Once again, the theological desire to protect the sovereignty and the moral integrity of God is foremost in the conduct of this intramural argument. When searching the Scriptures for support, an important cue to remember is that when election to salvation is seen, it must logically follow that the need for that election is driven by a humankind that requires saving.

    Scripture: Acts 13:48, Rom 8:29-30

    Conclusion

    The unconditional nature of election to salvation is key to the entire Calvinist theological framework. When contrasting this system with others, much of the debate hinges, knowingly or unknowingly on understanding the true positions of competing theologies with regard to election. It is incumbent upon us then to glorify God through our devotion to proper scholarship before engaging in any form of definitive declaration as to the validity or illegitimacy of positions not our own.

    Solus Christus

    Other Views on Election

    Calvinism & Arminianism: Election 2007

    The sotereological frameworks of Calvin and Arminius have been widely debated since their codification and there remains today an ongoing kerfuffle, especially in hyperventilated world of the blogosphere where anonymity often shields the purveyors of ideas from having to support them by examining their underpinnings. The positions taken are often of the ‘I’m right because my beliefs are beyond challenge’ sort and any engagement usually degenerates (with proper Christian faux-humility – e.g. ‘forgive me for disagreeing’, ‘we pray you’ll come to understand your error’, etc.) into disagreement without adequate consideration of the opposing position. What I often discover being left out of these C&A spats is any discussion of one of the fundamental differences between the two schools of thought, the concept of election. Because an understanding of divine election is so critical to being an educated participant in the debate, my contribution to the conversation will be to outline the different positions that are taken, starting with the classical Calvinist and Arminian positions.

    God is glorified and our faith enriched when we all contribute to the conversation and I would encourage anyone who has something to add to do so. That said, I have but one requirement and that would be that sources and citations be included with your statements. This helps all who read the threads to follow up and explore our points further AND it prevents us from furthering mythological positions that have no actual support. As an example, the Arminian position is often misrepresented on several points. For one, there is a meme that winds up in many posts that states Arminian theology as seeing humankind as less than totally depraved. Though it is completely untrue, this idea is passed from person to person without any real effort made to discover whether or not it is correctly representative of the theology. This lack of scholarship is not glorifying when discussing the matters of God.

    So, on with the show…

    Saddleback’s Easy Believism: Making a Difference

    While Rick Warren and the Saddleback community take a beating for their theology or supposed easy believism, Kay and Rick have done yeomon’s work in using the momentum of their community to address the AIDS issue. Here is a great profile in Good magazine on Kay and the ministry. Many will argue that having perfect doctrine in the non-essentials is the most important thing but, as I read Matthew 25, Jesus does not say examine your doctrine because there will be a test at the end. The only test I see Him mentioning is whether or not we saw Him in the oppressed, the downtrodden, and those in need. Is your theology making a difference?