It is imperative that before discussing the arguments against Calvin’s notion of election from both Arminius and Wesley’s standpoint that we first reflect on the true intentions behind Cavin’s magnum opus body of work titled “The Institutes of the Christian Religion” These institutes are ultimately the source of tension as well as all the differentiating protestant beliefs about “Election” and “Predestination” However when Calvin wrote these institutes, he meant for them to be an instructional manual on the concept of “godliness” and “edification” for the reformed believers and not necessary as theological Christian doctrine. Calvin had a pastoral heart and his main concern for the believer during his time was advocating and facilitating their advancement in biblical literacy and understanding. He strove to do this through a systematic concept that would enhance believers' ability to study, interpret and understand scripture from his perspective. So what Calvin was striving to do in the Institute's pertaining to his explanation of election and predestination was to systematically exegete this subject using humanist hermeneutics from what he understood scripture to be saying about it. So, what did he understand about that election which he and Arminius deemed a crucial topic in religion?
According to Calvin in the “Institutes” God’s foreknowledge/predestination is called “God’s eternal decree” of divine eternal election foreordained for some, and eternal damnation reserved for others despite merit of works (Janz 309). God does not indiscriminately adopt all men into the hope of salvation but gives to some what he does not give to others. Calvin argues that until we understand this concept of eternal election, we will never appreciate the fact that our salvation flows from the wellspring of God’s mercy. It is his good pleasure that preserves some and gives some to damnation. For that reason, the covenant of life is not preached equally to men. Among those whom it is preached to, it does not constantly gain the same acceptance and in equal degree (Janz 305) It is especially here at this juncture, pertaining to the proclamation of the word to some versus to all, that both Arminius and Wesley challenge Calvin’s premise of this notion of election. On one hand Arminius argues that if the call to faith is not by the “Word” which nudges a person’s will towards God, but as Calvin proposes by some inward preordained working of the spirit already within him, how then can that truly be justified as a true call to faith? There is no personal will involved here because that person was already inclined to believe (irresistible grace) whether or not they would have heard the Gospel. Thereby nullifying the power of the Gospel as well as that of evangelism. To add on to that argument, Wesley argues against Calvin by saying that because predestination makes the topic of preaching pointless, it makes an ordinance of God void. Therefore, there is no way that it can be a doctrine from God. This is because God is not divided among himself. He would not have institutionalized the office of preaching and asserted it in scripture if its effect was meaningless. Why would scripture say in Timothy, “Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction” (2 Timothy 4:2). and in Romans, “Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ” (Romans 10:17).
As I mentioned before Arminius did agree with Calvin on the notion of election to be a very crucial topic in religion, he just disagreed on what Calvin said about that election. The first being that of “Supralapsarian” which predestination suggested but put the character of God in question according to Arminius. This is because supralapsarianism suggest that God had a whole plan before creation that included men sinning. Somehow then God orchestrated all things to make it all happen so that his plan of redemption through Jesus Christ would become a reality. Arminius did not disagree with the total depravity of man, what he disagreed with was that God had preordained the sin of Adam from the beginning. With the intention that he could execute his eternal decree of election by electing some and damming others for his good pleasure and to demonstrate the glory of his justice and mercy (Arminius 614). Which raises questions of original righteousness in the likeness of God, sin of Adam, and the removal of that original righteousness to condemn some to eternal death and bestow eternal life unto others. What would this say about God’s character if it were so, except that he is the author of sin. Which Arminius refuses to accept and thereby rejects Calvin’s notion towards this notion of election. This is because of all the implications that this belief has towards the doctrine of salvation through the saving work of Christ. If God was the originator of humanity’s sin, then was redemption through Christ necessary or justified? Calvin’s notion of election also nullifies the outward call into faith through the word of God because as suggested by Calvin if the spirit is already the one calling people inwardly, then through irresistible faith they cannot do otherwise but believe. Which means in the same manner good works will flow from them because of an innate spirit driven sanctification and the blood of Jesus working in them. Which in turn dismisses the concept of free will, since accepting God becomes an irresistible inclination rather than a free choice. Arminius also rejected the gift of perseverance of the saints which suggested that elect people could not sin with a full perfect will or completely fall away totally from faith and grace. This would imply some sort of perpetual holiness for all believers. Yet even Bonhoeffer determined that there is such a thing as costly grace despite it being free. Calvin defends his notion using passages in scripture such as John 10 which says “I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand” (John 10:28-29).
According to Arminius the administration of the execution of the decree of divine election and reprobation creates tension of a determination that is absolute which suggests that the elect will never perish and be elect forever, and the reprobate are eternally doomed and cannot be saved. This is not a foundation of Christianity or salvation, and therefore he rejects it. Yet Calvin says that human curiosity cannot solve this dilemma because it is a mystery. Predestination encompasses the mystery of not being able to determine the elected and the unelected. He says that this is a divine wisdom only preserved to God the arbiter of all things. To this Arminius says that such a notion not only makes predestination a mysterious concept which creates uncertainty in believers but is problematic as a foundation for Christianity as a religion. God can have foreknowledge of something without necessary controlling the outcome of that thing. I agree with him on this argument because if we look at the ministry of Christ, it was not steeped in mystery preserved only for a few to comprehend and receive. The Gospel was free and available to all with the message of redemption, repentance, and hope at its core. The notion of predestination is neither whole nor any part of the gospel message which is all about forgiveness of sins, grace, and eternal life through justification by faith in Christ Jesus.
Wesley rejects predestination in all its Calvinist versions and holds a different view on the concept of predestination. He refutes the notion that God through his absolute pleasure and sovereign will has eternally decreed the greater part of humanity to death and to some (the very few) to life (Wesley 50). These individuals damned to death, somehow must live their whole lives under that irrevocable curse of God without any opportunity for redemption. Wesley in relation to this notion of election believes in an alternative which he calls “The election of grace” Which is that yes God did preselect his remnants of faith precreation, however the rest that he did not select still could choose God for themselves. God’s love and grace for the world is free for them to choose or reject him. This grace is not conditional to the merit of men but is based on God alone. If we are to adhere to the Calvinistic view of election which suggest an eternal, unchangeable, irreversible decree by God then that means the fate of all humanity as it stands is divided into two groups of people were some are infallibly saved and the rest infallibly damned. If that is the case not only is there no need for the office of preaching the Gospel but also the concept of striving for holiness is no longer necessary because you are already saved, so why strive to be Holy like God since your salvation is already secure.
Wesley, like Arminius, does not like the mysterious nature of predestination and the implications that uncertainty and pressure of whether one is elect or not puts on the saints. Even for those that are sure of their election, on what basis can they know this for sure. Since technically “full assurance of faith” just means all your past sins are forgiven and not necessarily that you are guaranteed salvation. In the same manner this notion of election also affects good works in the sense that some people might no longer be inclined to do good works for those that they deem not part of the elect group. Wesley feels that the doctrine of predestination in quoting and using verses such as Malachi 1:3 as a basis for its arguments overthrows the whole mystery of Christian revelation and flatly interprets scripture in such a literal way that creates contradiction and blasphemy because of how God is represented as worse than the devil.
Reflecting on whether the arguments by Arminius and Wesley are fair to the position of Calvinism, I would say I agree to a greater degree but not completely. I say this because as I initially stated in my essay that before getting into the discussion against the notion of election it was important that we understood the heart and reason behind the Institutes. In the same manner it is still important that we understand the heart of Calvinism before accepting all the refutes against it. What sets Christianity apart from most religions other than our faith in Christ is the freedom for different beliefs and doctrines within the religion itself based on various interpretations of scripture. There are exceptions to this, e.g., cults or other forms of heresies. Now whether these Christian denomination’s interpretations are right or wrong is for the Lord to determine. I do think that is what keeps pushing Christianity in evolving and moving forward are the men and women who have strong convictions within and about these faith issues and are willing to take a stand for their beliefs. Going back to the heart of traditional reformed understanding, it seems that Calvin had a pastoral spirit and was just trying to contribute what he knew and understood to other believers so that they would be better informed on Biblical principles and truth. So, the motive behind what he was doing was evangelistic in some way. The problem is that he made the claims about predestination absolute. We must also realize that with any movement/belief system they often evolve to have a whole distinctive character of their own as other people and views are added along the way. This is true for Calvinism as well in which those that came after Calvin were willing to go much further than he did with the doctrine of predestination.
For the church today I do think that all these arguments are important to the believer of this time period. The fact that many of the arguments brought forth by both Calvin, Arminius, and Wesley in terms of their positions on predestination are rooted in scripture makes them truly relevant to today’s church. The church continues to wrestle and be divided on these very same issues, all the way to the micro level of individual families. Your position on these issues not only determines the denomination a Christian of today identifies themselves as, but it also shapes your ministry and ways of evangelizing. Clearly, if you believe that some people are eternally damned to hell, then your zest for preaching the word or going to unreached places is minimized. People like William Carey are notable examples of what living out the concept of free grace looks outside the belief of predestination looks like, and as a witness for Christ. Carey went all the way to India as a missionary to Hindu believers in hopes of preaching the gospel to all so that some might be saved. This is how today I believe we are called to live out our faith and evangelize as believers. We plant the seeds, and it is God who does the watering and growing. The mystery is not in the exclusivity of the gospel to a chosen few, but in how God works out his mission of the gospel within us as his created beings. Some yielding to the call and others not. Which for those who do not respond is not enough basis for us to determine if they are part of the elect or not. This is because as long as there is breath in a person on this earth they could still proclaim and accept Jesus as their Lord and savior with their very last breath, as the thief did on the cross.
No comments