Calvinism and Ephesians 1

 In my last post, I discussed the Calvinist problems with Romans 9. Today, I would like to discuss their interpretation of Ephesians 1 and how a person can hold to unconditional election without holding to Calvinism. 

Historically, the doctrine known as ''Unconditional Election'' was endorsed by Augustine of Hippo, Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, and John Calvin. It was denied by many of the Greek fathers, many Medieval theologians, and the later Arminians. Unconditional Election asserts that God has predestined men for salvation not based on foreseen merits. Today, it is still a common view among Thomists (Roman Catholics) and Lutherans. Many Amyraldists (4-point Calvinists) also hold to unconditional election. 

Unconditional Election teaches that God's choice of your salvation is not based upon your given response. Conditional Election, though, says that God has taken your reaction to His calling into account. 

Common passages from Scripture used to justify Unconditional Election are 2 Thessalonians 2: 13, Romans 8: 29, Ephesians 1:1- 5, Acts 13: 48, John 6: 36,  John 15: 16, and 2 Timothy 1: 9. Those who support this view see these verses as evidence that man in no way contributes to His predestined status with God. 

On the contrary, those who hold to Conditional Election often cite 1 Peter 1: 1-2, Romans 8: 29-30. To those who hold to this position, they see the mentioned passages as confirming God's choice of humanity into salvation based on the obedient response of those humans. 

People on both sides of the predestination debate often have strong reactions against the other view. Without mentioning it by name, C. S. Lewis was sharply critical of Calvinism and referred to Total Depravity as ''Blashphemey.'' Tim Lahaye also considered Calvinism heresy*2. The seventeenth-century Synod of Dordt, on the other hand, condemned Arminian teachings as heresy*3. 

While much could be said about this historic debate on the election, I will refrain from discussing my personal views on the subject here. Rather, I hope that those who walk away from this post will feel assured that they can embrace Unconditional Election without having to endorse limited atonement. Far too often, it is claimed by Calvinists or Arminians that acceptance of one doctrine that they endorse automatically leads to another one that they also embrace. 

Basically, if all the arguments for Conditional Election were ignored or proven wrong, it would still not prove Calvinism. Aquinas, for example, taught Unconditional Election long before the Reformation yet he never claimed as many later Calvinists would---that Christ only died for the elect. For now, however, I will be waiting to discuss the debate on the atonement in the next post. At the moment, I wish to concentrate on predestination in Ephesians 1. While it is true that Thomists and some Calvinists would differ in that all of the former see a distinction between election and predestination, that is not the topic of this post. For more information on the debate of election and predestination, I recommend seeing my previous posts on Hebrews. 

God's act of predestination described in Ephesians 1 was one of grace. Arminians would agree that this is the case. Even though many Calvinists would report being more grace-believing than Arminians, the fact that Arminians believe in a conditional election doesn't mean that they don't see predestination as grace. In other words, while Arminians and Calvinists would differ over Conditional vs. Unconditional Election, both righty believe that no one deserves God's grace of salvation. But even if Calvinists differed from me on this point and insist that Arminians deny an essential doctrine of grace by denying Unconditional Election, many of them ignore the many, many Christians throughout history who have been neither Arminian nor Calvinists. In fact, far more Christians in the history of the church have never held to either Calvinism or its Arminian alternative. 

In conclusion, many Calvinists (especially in the Baptist tradition) simply assume that they alone hold to the Unconditional Election even though this doctrine received the support of many Western theologians for centuries before its existence. Belief in Unconditional Election may lead a person as much into the Lutheran or certain Roman Catholic camps of thought as becoming a Calvinist. Calvinists own neither Unconditional Election nor Ephesians 1. 

Aquinas, historically recognized by the Catholic Church as its greatest theologian, endorsed Unconditional Election as I already mentioned*4. Perhaps modern Calvinists would benefit themselves to read about the saints before the sixteenth century including a rich amount of Catholic theology from which Calvinism was drawn. 

Notes:

*1-https://derekzrishmawy.com/2013/07/11/that-time-c-s-lewis-got-total-depravity-wrong-like-everybody-else/

*2-https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/reformed-apologetics/lahaye-on-calvinism/

*3-https://crta.org/the-synod-of-dordt-condemned-arminianism/

*4-https://journal.rts.edu/article/aquinas-and-calvin-on-predestination-is-there-any-common-ground/