Uncovering Unconditional Unfairness

Dr. Rick Patrick, Pastor
FBC Sylacauga, Alabama
Exec. Director, Connect 316

In the vocabulary of the immigration debate, DREAMers were brought to America by their illegal immigrant parents when they were too young to bear any responsibility for the crime. Their name derives from the DREAM Act first introduced in 2001, which never passed. (Perhaps we should simply speak of the DREAM Bill.) The acronym stands for Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors, a group of people generally innocent of any wrongdoing. But what happens when a DREAMer becomes an adult? They are neither citizens nor criminals. Their unique status has resulted in no small amount of controversy regarding what to do with them. In addition to the ethical concerns, political strategists clearly covet these 3.6 million potential voters.

The aim of this essay is not to discuss the ethical or political implications of the debate, but rather, to explore the underlying philosophical and theological arguments concerning injustice that have been presented by those who oppose DREAMer Deportation, on the one hand, and those who oppose Reformed Reprobation, on the other. In listening to the logic of deportation opponents, I have been struck by the similarities and parallels with my own line of reasoning concerning the basic unfairness of the Calvinist doctrine of Reprobation. 

The doctrine of Reprobation has no precise parallel in a Traditionalist systematic theology. Under Traditionalism, God foreknows the eternally lost condition of those who freely reject Him, rendering the matter certain. Under Calvinism, God decrees the eternally lost condition of those He refuses to unconditionally elect, rendering the matter necessary. From God’s point of view, there is a difference between knowing something (Traditionalism) and causing something (Calvinism). From man’s point of view, there is a difference between freely rejecting the grace of God (Traditionalism) and being born incapable of ever accepting the grace of God (Calvinism). These parallels are more fully explored by considering the position, condemnation, and salvation of both groups. 

Position

Both the DREAMer and the Reprobate are in the position of being born into a class of unfavored people. In the case of the DREAMer, by unanimous consent, they did nothing wrong as a child to deserve any kind of punishment. They were not free moral agents at the time they became part of this Illegal Immigrant class. Their mere existence as the dependents of criminal trespassers resulted in their unfavored and unfortunate classification. In the same way, the Irresistibly Reprobate, under Calvinism, were placed in just such an unfavorable position, due to no fault of their own. Under Traditionalism, however, one’s salvation status is conditional upon one’s free will response of faith—still not a work, but at least an option of accepting or rejecting the work of Christ on one’s behalf. Reformed Reprobation teaches that before the foundation of the world, God decreed that they must be Non-elect, either by actively condemning them or by passively refusing to elect them. Either way, under Calvinism, God does not merely allow, but He causes the outcome. The Elect are never in danger of hell. The Reprobate are never in “danger” of heaven. Thus, neither the DREAMer nor the Reprobate are born with a silver spoon in their mouth. Instead, each of them are born with no spoon at all.

Condemnation

Both the DREAMer and the Reprobate inherit their condemned status rather than having taken any personal action deserving of punishment. In the case of the DREAMer, the sin of one’s parents in crossing the border illegally causes their condemnation as a resident living in a country in which they are not a legal citizen. Unfortunately, the children of illegal immigrants inherit the illegal immigration status of their parents in the same way that any child might inherit a genetic disorder. They got something bad from their parents even though they never did anything wrong to deserve it. In the case of the Reprobate, Calvinism teaches that a person not only receives an inherited sinful nature, but also inherited guilt from the fall of Adam. This “born guilty” view is generally disaffirmed by Traditionalists, who admit that we inherit a sinful human nature and an environment inclined toward sin, but reject that we are condemned for Adam’s sin rather than our own. Thus, neither the DREAMer nor the Reprobate are initially condemned for anything that they have done at all, but only because of the wrongful actions of their parents or their ancestry. 

Salvation

Neither the DREAMer nor the Reprobate possesses any genuine pathway leading to salvation or to the escape of their current condition. In the case of the DREAMer, there is no pathway for any kind of amnesty that would allow them to become free American citizens. No provision has been made for their freedom. In the case of the Reprobate, there is also no pathway to salvation or provision for their freedom from sin. The Calvinist doctrines of Limited Atonement and Irresistible Grace for the Elect mean that, for the Reprobate, even if they could accept the grace of God—which they cannot because it has not been so decreed—there is no salvation for them to accept because no atonement has been made for their sins, but only for the sins of the Elect. These two fixed salvation categories have been explored previously by Marty Comer in The Hell Pile and Michael Cox in Is Calvinism Spiritual Racism? Whether one is talking about wood blocks, skin color, Hindu castes, or those born into illegal immigration, the parallels with Calvinistic determinism are striking. Who wants to be born into an unfavored category in which one is already guilty with no chance at all to escape? If I truly believed that God had set up the salvation board game in this manner, with the winners and losers already fixed from the start, I would consider His rules grossly unfair. I doubt I could even play such a game with a clean conscience. Thankfully, I disaffirm this blueprint for soteriological favoritism.

Conclusion

Is it unfair for a person to be born into a position where their status is unfavored due to no fault of their own? Is it unfair for a person to be condemned for the sins and crimes of their parents rather than their own personal behavior? Is it unfair for a person to be placed at birth in a prison for which there exists no genuine pathway to escape such bondage and be free? The very principles of fairness and justice used to argue that DREAMers should not be deported are applicable in the debate over Reprobation. If it is unfair for man to treat others this way—to put them in an unfavored category, condemn them for the sins of their parents, and offer them no genuine plan of salvation—then how much more would it be unfair for God to treat man this way under the Calvinist doctrine of Reprobation? 

As the debate over immigration continues, opponents of DREAMer deportation will argue persuasively that this situation is demonstrably unfair to the DREAMer, to which I say: “Yes, I see your point.” But I cannot help but wonder to myself: “Do they see their point?” While DREAMer deportation opponents have consciences plagued by ethical considerations, opponents of the doctrine of Reprobation are plagued by the very same concerns.

Even fallen men are capable of calling this an injustice. How could our Righteous God do any less?