In Search of a Coherent Narrative
Part 1: Arminianism – A Seemingly Attractive Narrative
Part 5: A Biblical Universalism
Part 6: Biblical Support for Universalism
Part 7: A Systematic Understanding of Universalism
Part 6: Biblical Support for Universalism
Part 7: A Systematic Understanding of Universalism
Photo by Stuart Anthony
Introduction
This series is about a search for a
coherent scriptural narrative of our lives in relation to God and the world
that we live in. Looking at reality, we all create some sort of narrative or
way of understanding the world around us - sometimes realised and sometimes
not. Within Christian circles today, two grand narratives go head to head. They
are the narratives of Arminianism and Calvinism. These two narratives are not
synonymous with each other even though they both fall under Christian belief. At
first glance, they seem to be a dichotomy, but I do not see them as necessarily
being so. This series will seek to draw a sought after unity between concepts within
Arminianism and Calvinism with regards to their inherent difficulties. The first
analysis will cover the key concepts of Arminianism - what it is, why it is
attractive, and why I believe it does not work. The second analysis will cover
Calvinism - what it is, why it is attractive, and why I believe it doesn’t
work. The third analysis will provide a potential solution to the inherent
difficulties within the Arminian and Calvinistic narratives.
Before I begin, I will share a little
of my background surrounding these issues to shed some light on where I am
coming from. I grew up in a dedicated Christian family who taught me to search
for truth. Ever since I was young, I enjoyed mulling over idealistic views
about life. I relished the challenge of explaining reality in a way that others
could understand. My journey ventured into trying to provide an answer that
tied together the disparities between Arminianism’s “man’s free will” and
Calvinism’s “God’s free will”. I originally held to Arminian thought but became
more and more unsettled by it. I valued human choice. To me, if we were without
choice, then questions like these arise - how can one have love for God? Or –
How can one be loyal without the opportunity to be disloyal? I understood love to
be a choice and therefore not compelled. Not only that, but as I read the Bible
it seemed to me that man’s free will was evident, especially considering that
God required and expected certain actions and outcomes from people. However,
emphasizing man’s responsibility meant that I read over many of the passages
that talked about predestination and the role that God played in choosing who
would be His chosen people (the elect) and who would not be. I tried many a
time to get around these passages. This disparity left me perplexed - how God
could expect actions and outcomes from people contrary to what He had already
predestined them to do? For a good while, I simply saw this inconsistency as a
paradox and trusted in God’s love and grace to bring about the best outcome for
individuals and humankind. However, I have since studied these disparities more
closely and discovered an idea that I believe provides a possible resolution to
these otherwise opposing narratives.
To further explore Arminianism and
Calvinism, I will first give an overview of the KEY components of each respectively.
At the end of each overview, I will raise in more detail the scriptural, philosophical,
and moral struggles of each that I have found inherent in their thought. Now I
realise there are multiple variants of Arminianism and Calvinism, such as the
difference between Moderate Calvinism and High Calvinism. However, I believe
they all fundamentally have the same core issues. It is predominantly these
core issues that I will address.
Part 1: Arminianism – A Seemingly Attractive Narrative
The key components of an Arminian
worldview are found in the five points of Arminianism, which is given in a
little more detail here (http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/reformed-theology/arminianism/calvinism-vs-arminianism-comparison-chart/). A key concept in the Arminian
thought is the very common idea of Freewill. (For the purpose of this series,
in order to help distinguish what I mean by Freewill, I will use a capital “F”
for Freewill when referring to Arminian Freewill.) Here is my brief summary of
the five points of Arminianism:
Freewill or Human Ability. This understanding of man’s
relationship to sin and God consists of a Freewill that is not bound. Man can
freely choose to have faith in God but can also choose not to. Man’s will is
not entirely subject to the sin nature. Once a man freely accepts God and puts
faith in Him, then that is when the Spirit provides the needed assistance and
intervenes in a person’s life.
Conditional Election. This is a reference to the process
of how God choses those whom He will save. “Conditional Election” is where God
chooses based on foreknowledge of the future as to who would place their faith
in Him and who would not. Therefore, humankind ultimately chooses whom God
chooses to be saved. God’s choice for salvation is a reply to man’s faith in
Him.
Universal Redemption or Universal
Atonement. This covers
the scope of atonement provided by Christ on the cross. “Universal Atonement”
says that Christ died for everyone’s sins, but that redemption will only come
into effect if a person accepts what He has done for them on the cross. If a
person rejects Christ, then there remains no atonement for their sins and therefore
no forgiveness.
God’s Holy Spirit can be resisted. Similar to the above notions, this
concept emphasises man’s Freewill. The Holy Spirit will work in people’s lives
by calling them to Himself, but only will have effect for salvation when He is
not resisted by them.
Falling from Grace. Some Arminians (not all) consider
that those who are truly part of God’s people can still turn away from God.
Some others believe that once a person has turned to God they cannot then turn
away, thus creating division on this thought.
Taking all these key ideas together,
they create a narrative or “worldview”. This narrative goes something like
this: In the beginning, God created humankind. He created us like Himself so
that we have Freewill to determine our own outcomes. We are ultimately our own
sovereign over the outcome of our lives. Some say the reason for this is that
God wanted a people who would be able to love Him freely and without
compulsion. It would be impossible to have loyalty without the opportunity to
be disloyal. God gave Adam and Eve this Freewill, but they used it to turn
against God and put all of humanity in a state of separation from God. This
grieved God. It grieved Him so much that He wanted to restore mankind to Himself.
Yet God must keep justice by punishing evil. If He merely let Adam and Eve do
as they wish with no consequences, He would be unjust as the Sovereign Creator.
Therefore, He separated mankind from Himself because dark could not dwell with
light. His grand plan was to send a Redeemer (Jesus Christ) who was to pay for
the evil done by mankind, thus fulfilling the justice due. At the same time as
this desire to draw mankind to Himself, He still values man’s Freewill and wants
to draw them to Himself according to their choosing. If He forces mankind to
choose Him then it would defeat one of the purposes of creating them in the
first place – to have a people who would love Him freely and without
compulsion. It would violate their Freewill. Thus God is divided – He wants
good to reign and yet at the same time have Freewill. God values Freewill over
all other desires of His, including the salvation of all people. Being a
righteous judge, He must punish those who chose evil while still respecting
their Freewill, and thus sends them to an eternal separation from Himself. Evil
and light will not forever dwell together. In conclusion, sin is the result of
mankind’s choice. However, mankind can seek after salvation and then form a
partnership with God that will ultimately restore them into the image of God.
Another scenario that may help to
explain the saving relationship between God and people is the drowning man (borrowed
from David Pawson, http://davidpawson.org/). To an Arminian, salvation is like
a man drowning in a river. God sees the man and throws him a rope to pull him
ashore. The man then chooses whether he will grab hold of the rope or not. Many
will reject it but some will accept it. As the man is pulled to shore, it would
be incorrect to say that he saved himself. Yes, he did choose to grab hold of
the rope, but God is the One who ultimately pulls him to shore.
The reasons behind accepting this
paradigm are potentially many. The key ones that I see as the most relevant
are:
- Arminianism takes the responsibility
for sin away from God and places it on the individual. The alternative would
state that since God is the Creator of all then that also makes Him the Creator
of sin. If we were not responsible for our sins (that is, if God was
responsible for sin) then that would seem to make God unfair – it paints Him as
having unreasonable expectations of people, especially if He then sentences
them to eternal conscious torment for acts of sin that they had no choice in. However,
the Bible requires us to love God. Some Arminians believe that if God is the
Creator of all and we are to love Him, then he must be lovable. Arminianism
gets around the problem of a God who does “evil” (through directly creating
sin) by attributing the existence of sin to mankind’s Freewill, thus letting
God off the hook.
- Arminianists believe that people
ultimately do not have a predisposition to choose God or not. When God judges
people, He judges us according to our Freewill deeds. God would be unjust to
judge us according to predisposition, because He created our predisposition.
- If man’s Freewill did not exist, then
love or loyalty would not exist because it would not be free. How can one be
loyal without the opportunity to be disloyal? We would be robots, mere play
figures in the Creator’s world of evil and good.
- Much of scripture supports the
Arminian belief. The general message of the Bible is that man is responsible
for our sins and that God holds us accountable for our every action and thought.
NEXT...
Hi Dan :) Really nice description of Arminianism.
ReplyDeleteAs we've discussed before, there are a couple of variations which deserve mentioning, though they still boil down to the same fundamental issues.
1 - Freewill or Human Ability: Some Arminianists say that humanity IS entirely bound under the sin nature, until God's 'prevenient' grace frees us to see and consider his offer of salvation. At this point the person enters the state of Arminian 'Free Will' as you describe it here. Since most Arminians admit that this prevenient grace applies to all humanity at some point, the universal condition of humanity in the state of 'Free Will' is still a valid pillar for Arminianism.
2 - Conditional Election: Some Arminianists say that election is not about any particular foreknowledge of individuals. Rather election is for a hypothetical defined group of people. In other words, an individual's participation in the group is entirely conditional, but the election of the group does not require any particular foreknowledge of individuals. Most (except Open Theists) will still admit that God DOES know the individuals who will be part of the group, which makes this a mute point. Also, the bottom line is that ultimately humankind chooses whom God chooses to be saved.
Looking forward to the next instalment!
Thanks Josh for those add ons. You are right though, those extra bits are interesting but ultimately don't fundamentally change the Arminian position. The first just changes the times when people are able to freely come to God rather than changing how. The second kind of fudges over the question of how or why individuals choose to follow God or not. Both views try to incorporate Calvinist aspects of election and depravity but don't fully address them.
ReplyDeleteHi Daniel;
ReplyDeleteArminians believe that the catalyst of salvation is the free will of men, while the Calvinists believe that salvation is unmerited to men, a free gift of God.
I believe that both are right.
Arminians speak of a universal natural salvation, while the Calvinists address the free gift of God, the salvation of the spirit.
The problem is that both groups try to amalgamate the two different salvations and end up in a never ending dispute and never come to a satisfactory conclusion in those important matters.
Yes, election is the foreknowledge of particular individuals. The Lord Jesus knows those who are His children because they were in Christ before the foundation of the world.
When the sons of God have been revealed, we then know that they are our brothers who were in Christ before the foundation of the world.
Oops! Nearly forgot.
It amazes me that a mighty man of God like David Pawson can give us such a pathetic illustration of salvation.
He portrays the Lord Jesus to be some kind of impotent saviour who throws a rope to a drowning man.
Our lifesavers here in Australia can do a lot better than that.
This is how my saviour Jesus Christ saves.
All have fallen into a raging river, God's children and Satan's children alike. But the Lord Jesus being a mighty saviour demonstrates His superiority by standing at the shore and patiently waiting till ALL have died.
He then strips His outer garment and leaped into the raging river and brings all of His children to shore and loses not one. After that He confounds the wise and the intelligent and causes ALL of His children to receive a new life and are born again apart from them having done anything, a 100% success rate.
What a mighty saviour we have in Jesus Christ.
Hi Paul, thanks for your comment.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Pawson and his analogy, I think it is a rather creative and good illustration as to how Arminians see salvation. From what I can gather it definitely doesn't sound like you are an Arminianist so of course you would not agree. For Arminians, the analogy demonstrates man's choice to take hold of the rope, but emphasises that man can not actually save him self. God is the one who would always be claimed to have saved the drowning man. The analogy addresses the salvation people receive from God. It does not address the first death but emphasises salvation from the SECOND death.
Has your analogy tried to incorporate the first death where God lets them drown but then resurrects them before the second and more "final" death? Or do you emphasise that mankind actually cannot choose God because they are metaphorically dead in their sins - as in unconscious?
Arminians would deny the latter question.They would claim that we are dead in our sins, as in, we are heading for hell. Although to them, we still have choosing capabilities as to whether we accept God or not. Thus they don't see people as ultimately unconscious per se.
I like the drowning person scenario because it provides a picture by which we can apply our own understanding of salvation, just as you have done.
After reading what you have written here and in other posts, it sounds like your view on Soteriology is quite unique. It sounds much like Calvinism to me though, with a different spin on the meanings of salvation.
I will leave you with a couple of questions. What causes a person to be a child of Satan or a child of God? and, when was that person decided to be a child of Satan or a child of God?
Cheers
Daniel, If a man in a raging river grabs a rope, that man has definitely saved himself, if however he could not take hold of that rope he would have perished. That is because it depends on what he does or can do and that is called salvation by works.
ReplyDeleteCalvinists major on salvation by GRACE alone and not by works lest any men should boast.
In that respect I give the Calvinists a big AMEN!
The Arminians try to justify their position and say that grabbing the rope is not works.
But I think we both know that grabbing a rope is works, everything we DO is called works, it's a salvation by works. The Calvinists vigorously oppose their idea and so do I.
In the allegory I meant that in Adam all have died and in Christ Jesus all have been made alive. The first death in Adam was spiritually, his spirit was separated from God (called the first death). He then needed to be born again by the Spirit of God as a free gift eternal life, never to die again of the Spirit and 960 years later he physically died, his body was separated from his soul (called the second death) and at the resurrection; physical mortality must take on physical immortality in a twinkle of an eye so that death is swallowed up in victory.
That is only for God's children the believers, first from Adam and then to all of God's children, and Satan's children have no part in that.
I believe that the complete revelation and understanding of election, predestination and salvation depends on understanding your last two questions.
"I will leave you with a couple of questions. What causes a person to be a child of Satan or a child of God? and, when was that person decided to be a child of Satan or a child of God? "
The answer to that is in the beginning.
Before God's children and Satan's children were made, God said to Satan who was in the Serpent the beast (Gen. 1:25and 3:1); "Let US make man in OUR image, according to OUR likeness." (Gen. 1:26)). That is in the image of both, God and the Serpent.
So God first made Adam in His own image (Gen. 1:27)and after Adam he made Eve, both of them He made 'THEM' in His own image male and female He created them (Gen. 1:27).
.
Adam became God's first son (Luke 3:38).
After that it was Satan's job to pollute God's perfect creation 'Man' and he beguiled Eve to bring forth his son 'Cain' who was born of the evil one (1 John 3:12).
Because Satan has done that (Gen. 3:14) the Lord decreed that his children shall be in enmity with her children (Gen. 3:15 ).
Now this enmity between God's children and Satan's children has been from the beginning to this very day, from the time He divided Satan's, the Serpents children from His children (Gen. 4:16) into two lines of the tree of life, Cain and his children (Gen. 4:17-24) and Adams (God's children) (Gen. 5:1-32).
And remember, Eve became the mother of both (Gen. 3:20).
At this point we can see that the election and predestination has kicked in, and from that position the entire plan of God and the Scriptures has been made known to us who believe in our wonderful Lord and saviour Jesus Christ.
Hi Paul. We seem to have encountered similar discussions in different threads. To save us repeating ourselves, we can continue here if you like:
ReplyDeletehttp://thebenevolenthecklers.blogspot.co.nz/2014/06/arminianisms-scriptural-and.html#comment-form
I have replied to your comments in that thread. Cheers!