Neither Calvinist nor Arminian? (a post in which I convince yet more of you that I'm a heretic)

The content of this post is inspired by a book I just finished reading for the second time: The Inescapable Love Of God, by Thomas Talbott.

The fact that I'm writing about it is inspired by Brent's first entries in his Episcopal Catechism series, and by Travis' comment on Brent's post. Brent writes that the current Episcopal Church is definitely not Calvinistic (at least officially). And Travis remarks that it is sometimes amazing how much Calivinistic doctrine he hears from supposed Arminians.

Growing up, I was probably an Arminian without realizing it. Most people in the Church of Christ are. But in high school, I began listening to The White Horse Inn radio show, and reading books like The Sovereignty of God by A.W. Pink. After that, and for many of my college years, I was convinced. Partially, I think I was seduced by the way that all five petals of the TULIP seemed to logically fit together so perfectly.

I'm grateful for the time that I spent in that theological mode, because it convinced me that my salvation (whatever that is) doesn't depend on me, but comes from God's grace. This was a great comfort to me during the time when I was first really beginning to come to grips with the fact that I'm gay. The White Horse Inn helped convince me that my salvation didn't depend on my "straightening" myself out (a task which seemed pretty hopeless).

But it turns out that I've rejected Calvinism after all. I just can't believe, as Calvinists do (even if they try to use prettier language), that Jesus didn't really die for everyone, and that God doesn't really love everyone.

So, am I back to being an Arminian? Maybe not.

Talbott asks us to consider the following set of propositions. They are an incompatible set, meaning that at least one of them must be wrong. They can't all be true:

1. God loves everyone and desires (wills) that every sinner be "saved" - that is, God wills that all sinners be reconciled to God.
2. God can and does accomplish his will. (God's purposes cannot ultimately be defeated.)
3. Some people will be forever "lost" - forever separated from God.

(The above is just my paraphrase of his propositions, not his exact words).

Readers of the Bible can find some verses which appear to support all three of these propositions. But they can't all be true. One of them must be rejected.

Calvinists (Talbott calls them Augustinians, since Calvin's doctrine of election was first articulated by St. Augustine) deny proposition 1. They say that God does not intend to save everyone, but only the elect.

Arminians deny proposition 2. They say that human beings can defeat God's purpose for them, because God has decided to give them free will. So a person's free choice could defeat God's intent for that person.

Talbott and other "universalists" deny proposition 3. The Arminians are right that God wants to save everybody. And the Calvinists are right that God is able to do it. Universalists argue that the biblical support for propositions 1 and 2 is much stronger than any supposed support for proposition 3. Moreover, there are plenty of passages in the Bible which flatly state that God will save all persons (or "the world") through Christ. (For example, Romans 5:18; Romans 11:32; 1 Cor 15:22; 2 Cor 5:19; 1 John 2:2; Col 1:19-20; 1 Timothy 4:10; and others)

Talbott argues that the biblical support for proposition 1 is simply overwhelming. And the Augustinians have always made a good case that the biblical support for proposition 2 is very strong. One could almost stop there and say that if the Bible clearly teaches both 1 and 2, then 3 must be false. But add to that the fact that the Bible passages cited in support of 3 are mostly in parables or apocalyptic literature. And the passages in Romans which seem to teach universal reconciliation are part of the most systematic theological discussions in the whole Bible.

I think I'm on the verge of being convinced. But I remember my seduction by Calvinism's seeming logic. And I'm mindful of Jen's comment that heresy has often come about by "an overemphasis on pushing doctrines to their logical conclusion and arguing from logical necessity." On the other hand, Talbott doesn't simply argue from logical necessity, but also from Scripture (and from historical considerations). (See here to read Talbott's ideas about "heresy" and a quick summary of his position.)

Still, I'm trying to think about it some more. That's why I'm also reading The One Purpose of God, by Jan Bonda (from the Dutch Reformed tradition) and Universal Salvation?: The Current Debate, in which Talbott summarizes his case, various evangelical authors respond to his arguments, and then Talbott replies to the critics.

I haven't made up my mind. But I think a good case can be made that even if we can't be sure that everyone will be reconciled to God, we can at least hope and pray that Christ will "draw all people" to himself.