In his sermon “Free Grace,” John Wesley lays out several reasons why he finds predestination an unholy doctrine. Among those reasons is this one:
the doctrine itself, — that every man is either elected or not elected from eternity, and that the one must inevitably be saved, and the other inevitably damned, — has a manifest tendency to destroy holiness in general; for it wholly takes away those first motives to follow after it, so frequently proposed in Scripture, the hope of future reward and fear of punishment, the hope of heaven and fear of hell. That these shall go away into everlasting punishment, and those into life eternal, is not motive to him to struggle for life who believes his lot is cast already; it is not reasonable for him so to do, if he thinks he is unalterably adjudged either to life or death.
Despite the publicity received by some forms of resurgent Calvinism, we are not likely to run into a lot of hard-line predestinarians, but reading Wesley’s point makes me think of something we do encounter a great deal – universalism.
Universalism is predestination with a two-headed coin. It is a case of everyone wins. Wesley’s sermon on free grace raises some objections to predestination which universalism avoids, but the two doctrines run afoul of Wesley on some grounds.
In addition to the point raised above, Wesley objects to predestination because it undermines zeal for good works, it contradicts Scripture, and it calls into question the need for God’s revelation at all. If everyone is already set for heaven or hell – on in the case of universalism, heaven – then would that destiny not be the same if God had never been revealed?
The wise universalist will have answers to Wesley’s objections, and Wesley clearly would not object to universalism as strongly as he did to the “horrible doctrine” of predestination. But I think considering his arguments against the one might give us reason to think more about the other.
In the end, it seems to me, both doctrines remove from us responsibility. To claim that we are responsible but that we bear not accountability seems a hollow responsibility to me. It clearly is not for many. Universalism – or its more robust cousin predestination – can be experienced as a great relief, but I fear it is a case of easing the tension before the true cure is found.
I am a part-time local pastor serving 
This love we believe to be the medicine of life, the never-failing remedy for all the evils of a disordered world, for all the miseries and vices of men. Wherever this is, there are virtue and happiness going hand in hand. There is humbleness of mind, gentleness, long-suffering, the whole image of God; and at the same time a peace that passeth all understanding, and joy unspeakable and full of glory.
Good post, John, and to play devil’s advocate here, I would say that Universalism, at least some historic strains of it, doesn’t alleviate responsibility, especially given that Universalism still contains hell.
Thanks for posting this John.
I’m tweeting to annoy Calvinists this morning.
That’s always a fine thing to do on any morning, Craig!
Pingback: Universalism and predestination? Two heads, one coin? | Unsettled Christianity
Pingback: Christian Universalism: Hegemony Divinized | Political Jesus
Thank you for this post; I linked to it to prove Joel wrong again, as usual.
Unfortunately, Rodney only reads the text through the eyes of Cone. Shame, really.
Joel’s post about Gregory of Nyssa’s views do raise the important point that there is a qualitative difference between universalism that posits no hell and a universalism that says hell is a transfer point on the way to heaven.
http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2010/12/universalism-and-predestination-two-heads-one-coin/#comment-70369
Wesley’s critique of predestination does not fit universalism that has a hell.
We are only relieved of responsibility when we assume that by “doing good” we are earning our way to some reward, I think. I would argue that universalism is a wonderful message of hope and grace to an entire world that is fallen.
As you know, Ned, Wesley never taught that we “earn” our way to heaven, but as a practical matter, I think he saw that a desire to flee punishment and fly to God did get people to the society meetings where grace and the Spirit might work on them more fully.
My daughter agrees with you that universalism is a wonderful message. As a former universalist, I find it less hopeful, less gracious, and certainly less just than she does. But she’d tell you why I’m wrong.
Without arguing either predestination or universalism, the idea that a doctrine is not true because I don’t like some of its implications seems wrong. True is true, no matter where the chips fall.
Calvinists and Universalists will note that Arminian theologies – and “free will” theories more broadly – are not without their own problematic implications, both logically and practically.
And to be fair, you don’t find Calvin or his theological heir frequently arguing, “Do whatever the heck you want. Your either damned or saved. Doesn’t matter either way.”
I don’t think Wesley’s point on the practical implications of the doctrine of predestination, then, are necessarily correct. Today, it seems to me that one finds a greater concern with holy living among serious Calvinists than among the great mass of nominal Christians, most of whom will say that believe in “free will.” As you mentioned predestination does not market well in contemporary culture. You have to put at least a little effort and energy into being a Calvinist, so there’s a higher likelihood that you might actually want to please God with your life.
On the topic itself, fortunately I don’t see the issue as either-or. In the post-Newtonian universe, free-will and predestination are no more in conflict than are evolution and creation. God’s reigns over his truly contingent world.
I’m content to let the scriptures speak as they want on the matter, sometimes emphasizing God’s absolute sovereignty and human helplessness – and sometimes emphasizing the demand for holy living in response to God’s gracious and mighty deeds.
Mitch, if I implied that Wesley’s objections were based on his personal, subjective feeling that predestination is wrong, I owe Mr. Wesley an apology. I do not, however, fault him for considering experience in his theological musings. Indeed, as a Wesleyan, I find his appeal to experience most helpful.
Calvinists do – in fact – disagree mightily with Wesley. George Whitefield wrote a rather lengthy reply to Wesley’s “Free Grace.” Having read both, I find Wesley’s arguments more persuasive.
I’m afraid I’m not much of an expert on post-Newtonian contingency. I think I find myself more in line with the start of your comment than the end of it. Truth is truth, even if we cannot grasp it.
Pingback: The strange case of Dr. Universalist and Mr. Reformed at Undeception
It’s not about “winning.” And destiny wouldn’t be the same. The revelation of God changes who we are now. The Gospel is about life, not death (Luke 9:60).
I knew you would disagree with me. I don’t think I said – or Wesley said – the gospel is about death.
Traditionally, we have had false concepts of heaven and of judgment. Everyone is going to heaven but that doesn’t mean we aren’t judged for our sins. Nor does it mean that we shouldn’t repent. We should…and there are many benefits to doing so!
Nevertheless, everyone is going to heaven through Jesus Christ as I lay out in The Biblical Case for Everyone Going to Heaven:
http://wp.me/PNthc-i6