OBJECTIONS TO UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION
Objections to the doctrine of unconditional election fall into two categories: (a) Objections on supposed moral grounds, and (b) objections on supposed exegetical grounds.
MORAL OBJECTIONS
The most often objection to the Reformed doctrine of unconditional election is that it makes God unjust, in that He willing does for one what He will not do for another. This objection evidences a devastating flaw in Arminian theology. It assumes that humanity is not guilty of any sin at all! When Arminians say God must be just they mean He must make salvation available to all. However, this is not justice -- it is grace. For God to be just, He must condemn the unrighteous and justify the righteous. Justifying the unrighteous is unjust. The Arminian should take care not to yell to loudly that God must be just in His dealings with him; God might hear and grant his demand!
Of course, the Arminian does not really mean he wants God to be just. What He wants is for God to be fair. Fairness, however, is a human idea, and not an attribute of God. God must be just. God is just. But unconditional election--the choosing of some unto salvation and not others--is not a display of God's justice, but of His grace! Election is of grace: "So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace" (Rom. 11.5 NRSV).
Moreover, note: (1) The Scripture teaches that God has a right to do as He wills with what is His. For example, in Rom. 9.21, the apostle Paul is answering the accusation that his doctrine of election makes God unjust (vs. 19). Paul writes: "Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make of the same lump one vessel for honorable use, another for common use?" In other words, Paul is simply saying that God is not unjust since He is free to do as He wills with what belongs to Him. As the potter has the right to do as he wills with his lump of clay, so too God has the right to do as He wills with His creation. The New Testament Commentary says: "The main idea Paul is putting across is this: If even the potter has the right out of the same lump or mass of clay to make one vessel for honor, and another for dishonor, then God, our Maker, has the right, out of the same mass of human beings who by their own guilt have plunged themselves into the pit of misery, to elect some to everlasting life, and to allow others to remain in the abyss of wretchedness" (Hendriksen, NTC: Romans , P. 327).
May not the Sovereign' reign Lord on high
Dispense His favors as He wills;
Choose some to life, while others die,
And yet be just and gracious still?
Shall man reply against the lord'
And call his Maker's ways unjust?
The thunder whose dread word
Can crush a thousand worlds to dust.
But, O my soul, if truth so bright
Should dazzle and confound thy sight
Yet still His written will obey,
And wait the great decisive day!
(2) The providence of God proves that not only does God have the right to do as He wills with what is His, but He also exercises His right; and He is under no obligation to do for one what He graciously does for another. Is it fair that you or I should be born in a country where we have plenty to eat, while another is born in a different place living only long enough to die of starvation? Is it fair that one is born with an I. Q. of 180, while another only 70 (Ex. 4.11)? God is not obligated to treat one based on how He treats another. God obviously does not deal with His creatures equally. God deals with His creatures as He wills. His treatment of them is always just; however, it is according to His justice, and infinite wisdom, and not what the creature thinks or believes to be just, wise, or fair. In saying this "We teach nothing but what experience proves to be true - that God always been at liberty to bestow his grace on whom He would." (Calvin).
The harsh realities of life, when viewed in divine sovereignty and providence, can have a chilling affect on our souls. However, at this point the Calvinist can take heart, realizing that God is not some arbitrary despot randomly ordering our existence on a whim; rather He is our sovereign Father who has promised He will " Cause all things to work together for good, to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose "(Rom. 8.28).
Ye fearful saints, fresh courage take;
The clouds ye so much dread
Are big with mercy, and shall break
In blessings on your head.
Judge not the Lord by feeble sense,
But trust him for his grace;
Behind a frowning providence
He hides a smiling face.
William Cowper
(3) If God was under obligation to provide salvation to all sinners, then God would be unjust to save some while excluding others from His saving grace. But where in the Scripture is the idea that God is under obligation to save anyone at all? Search the Scriptures! It is by Grace, and not obligation that God in His infinite mercy and wisdom chooses some to salvation, leaving the rest in their sin and misery; and if God is not obligated to bestow His saving grace on all alike, then is He not free to bestow it on whom He Pleases?
Furthermore, if God must provide salvation for all, or at least provide an opportunity for all--and this Arminians must admit--then why are some providentially position in a place and time that ensures that they never hear the gospel (Acts 17.24-26)? That this has occurred, and still occurs, no one can refute. Some Arminians have attempted to answer this with the explanation that if those who never hear the gospel would respond to the light given to them in both nature and consciousness, then God will save them. But where is this doctrine found in the Scriptures? And how is this notion different from salvation by works? According to Romans 1-3, the light of nature and conscious only serves to make all accountable before God. Furthermore, this notion is a complete denial of the biblical doctrine of the total depravity of man: "There is none who seek for God" (Rom. 3.11).
A Second objection to the doctrine of unconditional election is that it violates freewill. However, the element of personal choice is as much a part of Calvinism as Arminianism. Calvinists believe that salvation is by grace through faith, and although faith is a gift from God, it is still a choice we exercise. We believe. We exercise faith. There is no dispute here between the Arminians and Calvinists. Before God's work of grace in us we did not believe. The reason for our unbelief is that we were slaves to sin, Satan, and the world. The gospel to us was foolishness; a crutch for the simple minded. But after God's great and glorious work within our hearts, through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, the gospel became the good news and we chose to believe. There was no coercion. No one is forced to believe against their will. D. M. Lloyd-Jones has well said:
"The will is never forced. What happens is that the Holy Spirit, by putting this new disposition within us, this new ability, enables us to appreciate the truth. What used to be 'foolishness' suddenly becomes meaningful to us, becomes wonderful; and because we now see what it is, we desire it. The important factor is not the will itself, but that which governs and controls the will. The will is merely a kind of executive faculty; it is always determined by something else. Formerly it was determined by the devil; but now the Holy Spirit reveals these things to us and we desire them. No man is ever saved against his will, or browbeaten into salvation. You are given such a view of it that you want it with the whole of your being. You who formerly rejected it, and regarded it as folly, now see its glory and you embrace it with all the energy of your will." ( Romans: 8.17-39 . P. 247).
We might add that when one rejects the gospel message, it is done so by one's own choice. Furthermore, the idea that God will not violate our "freewill"--freewill as conceived by those who decry God's absolute sovereignty and predestination--is only accomplished through God's death. One is invariable force to recreate God, to make a less powerful god who does not foresee all things. For if we reduced God's sovereignty to the bare minimum of merely allowing what He foresees, those events are nonetheless eternally fixed, since what He allows to occur surely must occur; that it does occur means it is according to His plans and purpose (Eph. 1.11). Consequently, God's very existence violates the freewill as envision by the opponents of Calvinism. This biblical Deity must die. Arminians must create a softer, less obtrusive god to protect their sacred freewill.
Most believers have a problem with Calvinism because they do not understand what freewill means and does not mean. Will means the power of choice. God created humanity with the power of choice, and the fall did not alter this ability to choose. But what does free mean? Or, to put the question more precisely, free from what? Free from God? Free from the flesh? Free from Satan? Free from ones environment and fixed limitations? Free to act independent from any and all internal or external forces? The will is not free in this manner. In other words, Calvinists deny the Arminian idea of freewill as having the power of contrary choice; that in any given situation-- having taken in all factors and conditions-- a person can choose in any direction whatsoever. That no cause affects the will. This is the Arminian doctrine of the power of contrary choice, or the liberty of indifference, and it is essential to a truly "free" will in Arminian theology. However, as John Gerstner, in his excellent pamphlet, A Primer on Freewill explains: "Free will in the sense of a will, or faculty, in us that produces our choices out of thin air, out of nothing, based on no controlling factors, is a will-o-wisp. It is a nonentity. It makes no sense at all. We simply do not exercise our wills that way. We do, as a mater of fact, choose, but we always have reasons for choosing the way we actually choose."
(3) Another objection to the doctrine of unconditional election is that such a doctrine removes human responsibility. This objection, however, is another example of the Arminian failure to understand the Calvinist teachings. Calvinists do not deny that we determine our destiny. A. A. Hodge, who is not shy about his Calvinistic views, writes: "That our consciousness of personal freedom is reliable, that we in a true sense stand outside of the current of necessary causation and do truly originate and give direction to our own actions, is a principle fundamental to all morals and religion." ( Evangelical Theology , P.134).
The Scripture teaches that God has decreed all that occurs, both events and means, and that no event occurs outside God's decree (Eph. 1.11). The Scripture also teaches that we, as free moral agents, are responsible and that our destiny is in our hands as much as belongs to rational, finite creatures. Not only is this true in our everyday affairs, it is also true in our spiritual life as well. Whether we choose to believe the gospel and receive the gift of eternal life, or reject it and perish in our sin and misery, the choice-- along with its consequence--belong to us.
The sovereignty of God and the freewill of humanity is an antimony. How can God be sovereign and we act freely? How is it possible that God ordains and we, of our own will, accomplish that which had been determine in eternity? Calvinists do not pretend to know the answers to these perplexing questions. We do know that the Scriptures teach both truths side by side.
Those with overly tidy minds think that believing that God is sovereign in all things, yet we are still free moral agents unreasonable. Yet they carp at the idea only when it is spoken of concerning salvation and unconditional election. In their practice they are nevertheless Calvinists. If, for example, when they begin a new business adventure they will not call upon some impotent pathetic deity. No, they will call upon the Mighty and Sovereign Lord to make their enterprise prosperous, knowing that He is in Control; yet they work hard, plan well, and succeed through their efforts. Or what farmer prays for a good crop, knowing God is sovereign, yet does not plow and sow his field? As Christians, in our everyday practical experience we all work and pray believing that God is in absolute control of all things, and that we are responsible. Calvinists merely ask that we turn and face the conductor as we play.
Arminians object that the doctrine of unconditional election makes the preaching of the gospel unnecessary. This is not true. Salvation is not by election. Election is one part of many in the redemption of God's people. Election means that God has chosen some to be saved, and these alone will be saved. But as we have seen, God normally works through means; and the means God has chosen to cause the salvation of the elect is the preaching of the gospel; moreover, the objection is itself irrelevant since God commands us in His word to go into all the world and preach the gospel. Since we have God's command, we need no justification to act.
Finally, we point out again that the Scriptures teach that we all have a will, we make choices, and we are responsible for them; nothing written in this article is intended to say differently. Scripture is equally clear that God "works all things after the counsel of His will," and "for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Eph. 1.11; Phil. 2.13), and nothing in this article is intended to say differently.
You may have heard that Calvinists and those who hold to a Reformed view do not believe in freewill; that we do not preach the gospel least by mistake someone might be saved who has not been elected; or believe that God will not save a repentant sinner if the sinner is not on "the list." These accusations and false caricatures are the products of minds that are both theological shallow and historically inept. All too often, the view of some obscure writer or extreme group is found to support false accusations against Calvinism, and in secular media style are made representative of all Calvinists. This tactic, which slanders and bears false witness against fellow brothers in the Lord, is intellectually dishonest and sinful; and points to the reason why statements about what a particular group believes must come from their authoritative sources.
Unlike many "contemporary" churches that boast "no creed but Christ," the Reformed hold to the Standards and Creeds of their faith. Therefore, one need not sit in a Reformed church and listen to the preacher for six months to learn what the church teaches and believes; nor does one need to go to "special classes" to discover what the church believes. If one wants to know what the Reformed really believe all one needs to do is turn to the Westminster Confession of Faith, one of the Creeds of the Reformed. If, for example, one wants to know what the Reformed believe concerning freewill they can read it for themselves in 3.1 and 9.1.
The idea that the Reformed do not evangelize is absurd. Those with even an elementary knowledge of Church history know that some of histories greatest evangelists and missionaries have been Calvinists. Even more absurd is that such accusations sometimes come from those who in their own churches use the most successful evangelistic program ever produce, Evangelism Explosion. Evangelism Explosion is currently used in many countries resulting in the salvation of hundreds of thousands of people. Evangelism Explosion was developed and written by Reformed pastor Dr. James D. Kennedy, of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church.
We urge everyone, especially those standing behind pulpits, inform yourselves with the facts. If Calvinism or Reformed theology trouble you, make sure that you do not resort to the use of misinformation, lies, and slander. For everyone will stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
EXEGETICAL OBJECTIONS:
(1) Arminians object that since the Bible makes a universal offer of the gospel, unconditional election cannot be true. This objection is groundless. Calvinists insist, right along with Arminians, that whosoever wants to come can come, and the one who does come Christ will never cast out. The salvation made by Christ is sufficient for all; and anyone - whether they have been elected from the foundation of the world or not - who believes in Christ will be saved; however, Calvinists insist that only the elect will choose to believe.
(2) There are some passages in Scripture that seem to indicate that it is God's will that all be saved. The classic Arminian proof text on this is 1 Tm. 2.4, "This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our savior, who desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth." Lets assume that this verse is saying exactly what Arminians claim it says: That it is God's will for all people to be saved. If this is true, then:
(a) God failed to do as He desired, for not all are saved; and if God is unable to accomplish His desire then there can never be assurance of salvation for anyone. For if God is not able through His almighty power to accomplish that which He desires, then how can we be sure that this power (1 Pet. 1.4), which man can defeat, can keep anyone safe? Furthermore, since God knew that His purpose would fail, least we rob Him of His foreknowledge as well, yet still implemented a plan doom to failure, cast doubt on His perfection of wisdom.
Arminians, however, point out that the problem is not with God's power, but with man's freewill. God cannot, or at least will not, violate human freewill. This sounds appealing, but where in the Scripture is this fundamental principle of Arminian theology to be found? No where. In fact, a careful search of the Scriptures reveals that human freewill poses no problem for God in accomplishing His desires. (Ex. 14.4; Deut. 2.30; Jud. 9.23; 7.22; 2 Sam. 17.14; 2 Kgs 12.15; 1 Chron. 5.26; 2 Chron. 25.20; 36.22; Ezra 6.22; Prv. 19.21; 21.1; 1 Sam. 2.25; Rev. 17.17; 2 Thess. 2.11-12; Isa. 44.28).
(b) The biblical doctrine of the sovereignty of God is denied. The Scriptures clearly teach that God's sovereignty rules over all, (Ps. 103.19), that the Lord does whatever He pleases (Ps. 135.6), He does according to His will in both heaven and earth (Dan. 4.35), that nothing is too difficult for Him (Jer. 32.27), and that He knows the end from the beginning and His purpose and good pleasure will be accomplished (Isa. 46.9-10). The Arminian, however, needs to supply to these verses the exception, "except when it involves human freewill." That God's sovereignty rules over all, except man's freewill; that whatever the Lord pleases He does, if man's freewill agrees; that nothing is too difficult for God, except man's almighty freewill. This of course stabs at the very heart of theistic theology and destroys the very foundation of Christianity.
(C) Why, if God's will is for all to be saved and come to the knowledge of truth, does God place people in times and places that ensure they never hear the gospel and come to a knowledge of the truth? Why does He do more in one age than another? Why does He at one point in history send true revival resulting in thousands upon thousands being saved, and at other times, more so then the latter, nothing at all? Why did Christ do miracles in Chorazin and Bethsaida instead of Trye and Sidon, pagan cities that according to our Lord would have repented? Why did God wait so long after the fall of Adam to send the Second Adam? And on we can go. If God desires all to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth, then God is an impotent deity who lacks both power and wisdom to accomplish His purposes.
CALVINISTIC VIEW
Calvinists generally understand 1 Tm. 2.4 to mean all kinds of people, much in the same manner as 1 Tm. 6.10: "The love of money is the root of all sorts of evil" (NAS). The NAS rightly supplies the word "sort." However, in the original language the verse reads, "A root for all evils is the love of money." Yet money is not the root of all evil. The sense here, as the NAS translates, is "all sorts of." In 1 Tm. 2.4 and 6 "all" is used in the sense of all kinds of people, Jew, Greek, barbarian, women, etc. It certainly cannot mean, as has been shown, every person whoever lived.
The context of this passage supports this view. Surely Paul is not saying that Christians should pray for every person, but for all kinds of, all classes of people. However, least I am accused of allowing my Calvinistic view to color my interpretation - which of course it does, but no more than the Arminian his -- I cite the following comment on 1 Tm. 2.1-2 : "Have we gone to our knees and buried our faces in our hands and wept before God for all men? - for the mighty and the lowly, the rich and the poor, the well fed and the hungry, the wicked and the "good," the responsible and the lawless, men in the Kremlin and men in the White House, the black, the white, the red, the yellow . . . all men (The ellipsis is the author's). When once we truly have prayed for all men, . . . we may understand something more of the mercies of "God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of truth" (1 Tm. 2.4)."
These are not John Calvin words, although I do not believe he would disagree with them. These are the words of Robert Shank from his book, Elect in the Son, P.91. Shank, in case some are unaware, has probably done more in our day to advance Arminianism then any other writer.
© Copyrighted
Top of page
[TOC][Part III][Calvinism][Home]