Challenging the Doctrine of Unconditional Election: A Quest for Truth, Justice, and Spiritual Integrity
Historical Distortions and Ethical Reckonings: Reassessing Calvinism’s Unconditional Election
Calvinism's TULIP doctrines have deeply influenced Christian theology by emphasizing God's sovereignty. These doctrines include Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. Each doctrine sparks discussions about salvation, human agency, and divine justice, urging believers to rethink traditional beliefs.
A close look at Unconditional Election reveals it suggests God predestines individuals for salvation, often leading to ethical and moral debates due to its historical misuse, notably in justifying oppression. This doctrine has been exploited in contexts like the Atlantic Slave Trade, the Holocaust, and Colonialism, underscoring its potential to foster discrimination and social division. Its echoes persist today in religious exclusivism, nationalism, and prosperity theology, affecting societal dynamics and interpersonal relationships.
Advocating for a reevaluation of Unconditional Election involves aligning with biblical teachings of justice and inclusivity, challenging dividing doctrines, and embracing God's impartial love and universal salvation. Similarly, the doctrine of Total Depravity, which describes human nature as wholly corrupt without divine grace, can foster pessimism and determinism if misunderstood.
This exploration calls for a theology reflecting divine love, justice, and inclusivity, breaking human-made barriers and celebrating humanity's shared essence. Let us champion a living faith that aligns with the Gospel's message of love while promoting equality, justice, and compassion.
Within the vast tapestry of theological discourse, few doctrines evoke as much contemplation and controversy as that of Unconditional Election. A cornerstone of Calvinist theology, this doctrine proclaims that God has preselected certain individuals for salvation, regardless of their deeds, beliefs, or inherent virtues. While it underscores divine sovereignty, Unconditional Election also introduces profound ethical and moral quandaries. Historically distorted to rationalize systems of oppression and atrocity, its repercussions ripple through modern contexts. Here, we delve into the logical, ethical, and spiritual dimensions of Unconditional Election, urging a rereading that harmonizes with the principles of justice and equality central to the scriptural narrative.
Hierarchical Implications and Social Marginalization: The Divisive Fault Lines
At its heart, Unconditional Election instills a dualism between the “chosen” and the “non-chosen,” inherently fostering social marginalization. This doctrinal stance establishes theological grounds for inequality, which fundamentally contradicts ethical doctrines that esteem human dignity. By embedding ideological hierarchies, Unconditional Election undermines societal cohesiveness, resulting in discrimination and exclusion. Consider the scriptural call to unity and equality, as exemplified in Galatians 3:28, which states that “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” This verse invites us to reassess and reject any belief systems that foster division rather than unity.
Historical Misappropriations: A Legacy of Oppression
Throughout history, Unconditional Election has been exploited to justify oppression and atrocity. Its theological tenets have been distorted to serve the narratives of power and domination:
The Atlantic Slave Trade:
Puritans invoked Unconditional Election to legitimize the enslavement of Africans, self-identifying as God’s elect while regarding Africans as divinely destined for servitude. This theological rationalization entrenched racial hierarchies and institutionalized egregious forms of human subjugation. Consider how the essence of Christ’s teachings, such as in Matthew 22:39—“Love your neighbor as yourself”—condemns such hierarchical views and demands a thorough reevaluation of doctrines that divide.
Historically, these doctrines were sometimes misused to justify racial hierarchies. Key groups include:
Reformed Churches: Denominations like the Presbyterian Church are grounded in Calvinistic principles, although they no longer uphold the historical misuse of these doctrines.
Congregational Churches: Originating from Puritan influences, these churches include Calvinist doctrines in their history but now focus on individual liberty and community governance.
Baptist Churches: “Particular Baptists” have traditionally adhered to Calvinist theology, while “General Baptists” reject some aspects, highlighting diversity in belief regarding predestination.
Dutch Reformed Churches: Integral to North America and historically linked to Calvinist theology, elements were misappropriated in South Africa to justify apartheid, illustrating theological impact on social policy.
Evangelical Movement: With roots in Reformation theology, segments emphasize predestination, although there’s a shift towards personal relationship and experience.
Colonialism:
The notion of divine right, anchored in Unconditional Election, often justified the domination and exploitation of indigenous peoples by European colonizers. This led to cultural devastation and entrenched socio-economic disparities, the echoes of which resonate today.
Colonialism was entwined with religious justifications that European powers used to legitimize their control over indigenous peoples. The doctrine of Unconditional Election, part of Calvinist theology, was misused to claim a divine right for European expansion, suggesting they were chosen to dominate other races. This belief in divine right facilitated cultural imperialism, erasing indigenous customs, languages, and governance, leading to a loss of cultural identity and causing deep psychological and social harm.
Economically, colonization extracted resources from colonies to enrich European nations, entrenching socio-economic disparities that persist today. Former colonies often face development challenges rooted in these historical inequities. Additionally, colonial powers imposed arbitrary borders, ignoring ethnic and cultural divisions and sowing conflict that endures.
The historical injustices of colonialism echo in modern issues, highlighting the need for global reconciliation. Addressing these legacies requires acknowledging wrongs and promoting equitable development. Cultural revitalization helps restore suppressed indigenous identities.
Scripture offers a clear rebuke against such theological distortions. Galatians 3:28 states, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” This calls believers to unity and equality, rejecting hierarchies and exploitation. Moreover, Micah 6:8 reminds us to “act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God,” urging a pursuit of justice and compassion that fundamentally opposes the subjugation and injustice of colonial practices.
The Holocaust:
The Nazi regime’s manipulation of pseudo-Calvinist rhetoric, particularly the concept of divine election, highlights how theology can be distorted to justify heinous acts. By claiming the Aryan race as divinely elected, the Nazis perverted Unconditional Election, historically a doctrine of salvation, into a rationale for racial supremacy and genocide. This twisted reinterpretation shows how theological tenets can be exploited to legitimize human rights atrocities.
This misuse underscores the critical importance of maintaining ethical oversight in theological discourse. When doctrines are abstracted from their original context and manipulated to support ideologies of hate, the consequences can be catastrophic. It reveals the need for vigilance in religious teachings, ensuring they align with principles of justice, equality, and human dignity.
The lessons from this dark chapter in history emphasize the responsibility of religious leaders and scholars to critique and challenge interpretations that deviate from foundational tenets of love and inclusion. Scriptures like Matthew 22:39, commanding to “Love your neighbor as yourself,” must underpin theological discussions, serving as a safeguard against ideological abuses and ensuring doctrine promotes peace and unity rather than division and violence.
Contemporary Resonances: The Echoes of a Faulty Doctrine
Despite historical reflections, the vestiges of Unconditional Election persist in modern societies, manifesting in subtle and overt ideologies:
Religious Exclusivism: Some religious sects claim divine favor, fostering elitism, and division, and hindering interfaith cooperation, thereby inviting division and cultural superiority.
Nationalism: Nationalist rhetoric that claims divine selection for specific ethnicities mirrors past misinterpretations of election, promoting xenophobia and exclusion, thereby fracturing the fabric of social cohesion.
Prosperity Theology: The problematic correlation of wealth with divine favor perpetuates economic inequality, often ignoring structural barriers and compounding the marginalization of underprivileged communities.
Psychological and Relational Impact: The Erosion of Societal Bonds
When viewed through a flawed lens, divine election affects both interpersonal relationships and broader societal dynamics.
In-Group/Out-Group Dynamics: The assumption of being “chosen” or “non-chosen” fosters bias and sectarianism, corroding the trust necessary for social harmony.
Moral Superiority and Inferiority Complexes: Such beliefs often promote a false sense of moral superiority while inducing feelings of worthlessness in others, impeding both mental well-being and community engagement. This contradicts the humility modeled by Christ, as illustrated in Philippians 2:3, which encourages us to “do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.”
Divisive Community Structures: The theological rift between chosen and not, only limits inclusivity but stifles dialogue, innovation, and mutual growth within communities, contrary to the cooperative spirit emphasized in scriptural teachings.
Reaffirming Divine Intent: A Return to Justice and Inclusivity
The current interpretations of Unconditional Election diverge significantly from the God of justice and love depicted in the scriptures. The Old Testament covenant with Israel serves as a call to exemplify divine values to all nations (Genesis 22:18), and the New Testament expands this vision through the inclusive offer of salvation seen in John 3:16.
The New Testament’s consistent theme—God’s impartial love and salvation available to all—invites us to challenge doctrines that restrict divine grace. The parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) serves as a poignant reminder of the universal call to love, service, and the breakdown of barriers.
A Call to Corrective Action: Toward Unity and Compassion
To align with biblical teachings, it becomes imperative to:
Promote Equality and Justice: Reinterpret divine choice through a lens of service and responsibility, reflecting Christ-like love and justice.
Foster Inclusivity: Actively reject doctrines that divide, championing a universal call to salvation that unites humanity.
Embrace God’s Character: Trust in God’s consistent, unwavering nature as loving and just, rejecting human imposition of favoritism.
Logic and Faith: Reconciling with Total Depravity
Reflecting on the doctrine of Total Depravity, we see similar patterns of disparity and arrogance. Total Depravity proposes that humanity is fundamentally flawed and devoid of goodness without divine intervention. Though it seeks to accentuate the need for grace, it risks fostering a pessimistic, fatalistic worldview that denies the possibility of change and improvement. When combined with Unconditional Election, it can deepen a sense of determinism, perpetuating passivity and disengagement from moral action.
Both doctrines, when misinterpreted, can promote intellectual arrogance among those who profess divine election and despair among those considered non-elect, creating moral and spiritual apathy. This echoes the exclusive relationships fostered by hierarchical divisions seen in historical misuses. The overarching danger lies in reducing the complex spiritual journey to simplistic narratives of predestined elects versus inherently depraved, diminishing individual agency and the transformative potential through faith.
Our endeavor calls us to restore a theology that upholds universal dignity and reflects the encompassing message of the Gospel. In addressing past and present misuses of doctrines like Unconditional Election and Total Depravity, communities can embrace a message of love and justice that transcends human-made boundaries and celebrates our shared humanity. This pursuit requires the application of common sense and sound logic, focusing on the original format of the church as a community rooted in love and equality.
Reflecting on the origins of the faith, the earliest followers of Jesus referred to their belief system as “The Way,” deeply grounded in Jewish tradition and understanding. This historical context underscores the faith’s true foundation in Jewish teachings of justice, mercy, and communal responsibility. It reminds us of the importance of returning to these core principles to ensure our faith remains authentic and inclusive.
Moreover, considering the metaphor of the tree of life, being “grafted in” symbolizes full integration into the values and spirit of this original faith—unity, growth, and bearing fruit reflective of divine love. By recommitting to a living faith that embodies such love, nurtures introspection, and fosters open dialogue, we align our spirituality with truth and integrity. This commitment to justice not only corrects historical misinterpretations but also invigorates a faith that earnestly seeks to realize the inclusivity inherent from its earliest days.
If you found this article insightful please consider sharing.
Thank you and Shalom.
This is the second of five articles addressing the TULIP acronym. Stay tuned for article number three, which will cover Limited Atonement.
References
Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of God. T&T Clark, 1957.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill, translated by Ford Lewis Battles, Westminster Press, 1960.
Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity: Volume 2, The Reformation to the Present Day. HarperOne, 2010.
McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction. Wiley-Blackwell, 2017.
Piper, John. Five Points: Towards a Deeper Experience of God’s Grace. Christian Focus Publications, 2013.
Noll, Mark A. The Rise of Evangelicalism: The Age of Edwards, Whitefield, and the Wesleys. IVP Academic, 2003.
Torrance, Thomas F. The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2004.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Remythologizing Theology: Divine Action, Passion, and Authorship. Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Routledge, 2001.
Willimon, William H., and Stanley Hauerwas. Resident Aliens: Life in the Christian Colony. Abingdon Press, 2014.
if i may be so kind as to highlight, it doesn’t just mean predestination, the concept is “unconditional” the idea that salvation is not based on human works but rather on God’s part.
Article 9 of the first head of Doctrine of the Canons of Dort says
“This election was not founded upon foreseen faith, and the obedience of faith, holiness, or any other good quality
or disposition in man, as the prerequisite, cause or condition on which it depended; but men are chosen to faith and
to the obedience of faith, holiness, etc.; therefore election is the fountain of every saving good, from which
proceeds faith, holiness, and the other gifts of salvation, and finally eternal life itself, as its fruits and effects,
according to that of the apostle: “He hath chosen us [not because we were but] that we should be holy, and without
blame, before Him in love” (Eph. 1:4)”
I would also point out that the pharisees were prevented from understanding the parables Christ gave
Consider John 12:39-40
John 12:39-40: "Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again, 'He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, that they should not see with their eyes or understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.'”
or John 6:44
“44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.”
or John 10:26-30
26 but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”
Sergio,
You and I have enjoyed a great dialogue on the question of if and how the Torah applies to Christians. I hope that we can have a similar exchange on this subject.
Let’s start with the claim that the slave trade was based on Calvinism and Unconditional Election. The major players in the transatlantic slave trade included European nations like Portugal, Britain, Spain, France, and the Netherlands, as well as African kingdoms and individuals who facilitated the capture and trade of enslaved people. Of these nations, Calvinism was the state religion of the Netherlands for many centuries. The Dutch Reformed Church, which was rooted in Calvinism, was the de facto state religion. It was NOT the dominant religion of any other nation listed.
Furthermore, the largest purveyor of slaves has been and continues to be Islamic nations. Surely they are not Calvinists. Even the Wikipedia article says,
“The history of slavery in the Muslim world was throughout the history of Islam with slaves serving in various social and economic roles, from powerful emirs to harshly treated manual laborers. Slaves were widely employed in irrigation, mining, and animal husbandry, but most commonly as soldiers, guards, domestic workers,[1] and concubines (sex slaves).[2] The use of slaves for hard physical labor early on in Muslim history led to several destructive slave revolts,[1] the most notable being the Zanj Rebellion of 869–883, and led to the end of the practice.[3] Many rulers also used slaves in the military and administration to such an extent that slaves could seize power, as did the Mamluks.[1]
Most slaves were imported from outside the Muslim world.[4] Slavery in Islamic law does have a religious and not racial foundation in principle, although this was not always the case in practise.[5] The Arab slave trade was most active in West Asia, North Africa (Trans-Saharan slave trade), and Southeast Africa (Red Sea slave trade and Indian Ocean slave trade), and rough estimates place the number of Africans enslaved in the twelve centuries prior to the 20th century at between six million and ten million.[6][7][8][9][10] The Ottoman slave trade came from raids into eastern and central Europe and the Caucasus connected to the Crimean slave trade, while slave traders from the Barbary Coast raided the Mediterranean coasts of Europe and as far afield as the British Isles and Iceland.
Historically, the Muslim Middle East was more or less united for many centuries, and slavery was hence reflected in the institution of slavery in the Rashidun Caliphate (632–661), slavery in the Umayyad Caliphate (661–750), slavery in the Abbasid Caliphate (750–1258), slavery in the Mamluk Sultanate (1258–1517) and slavery in the Ottoman Empire (1517–1922), before slavery was finally abolished in one Muslim country after another during the 20th century.”
In the United States, the Puritans (Calvinists) heavily settled in the northern states and were so anti-slavery that they started a Civil War over the issue. Therefore, I think the basic premise of the article that slavery was based on the doctrine of Unconditional Election is not only completely baseless but it is demonstrably false.