FALSE OBJECTIONS TO UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION
The doctrine of unconditional election says that God chooses some people for
eternal salvation and not others who must suffer from death in Hell for all
eternity. It denies that there is anything you can do about God's decree. The
argument is that God is sovereign and is under no obligation to save anyone for
all deserve Hell. There is a version of unconditional election that argues that
God has a plan to do what is best and as evil exists he has to make some
terrible decisions. The casualties are those who are damned forever. That
contradicts the notion of a truly sovereign God. God is forced to make do with
saving some so he is not sovereign.
Those who oppose the doctrine of unconditional election argue that if it is true
then whatever will be will be and there is no point in preaching the gospel to
others. They see the commands in the Bible that we must spread the good news as
proof of its falsity. But if those who are predestined to salvation are those
who trust in the gospel then it follows that the word had to be preached to all
so that the elect will be reached.
The Bible tells us to pray for the world. Many say that Calvinism must be false
because it would be a sin to pray to God for the salvation of the souls he has
not chosen for salvation. But the Bible may mean that you just pray for those
who are now lost and who are destined to get saved later. It seems absurd to
pray when prayer makes no difference and does not influence God concerning who
to save. But God-religion teaches that God only answers a prayer because it fits
in his plan so God was planning to do what you asked anyway even if you had
never asked. So an answer to prayer is a coincidence and not God having being
influenced by it. The Bible taught predestination and unconditional election but
it never denied that God could at times decide to predestine the whole world and
do so.
The fate of dead babies, baptised and unbaptised, is another problem for the
doctrine.
Calvin believed that all these babies who die go to Heaven.
Augustine who developed the theology of unconditional election centuries before
him confirmed that they all go to Hell. Augustine taught that God wants to save
all in accordance with their free will (Question 709, Radio Replies Volume 2).
But these statements are not necessarily anti-predestination. God might want to
save all but he does not save all. God could force salvation on you and then you
could be freely accepting of it a moment later and forever.
The Dominicans believed that some dead babies were destined for salvation and
the others were not. The latter went either to Hell or Limbo. Morally speaking,
life is the absolute value. Therefore if God is right to visit the death penalty
on babies for Adam’s sin as the Bible says he must have the right to send babies
to Hell forever for that is not destroying their lives and not doing the worst
evil to them.
When the Bible says that all begin to exist in a state of estrangement from God
it is most likely that the babies go to Hell. Christianity says that sin is
worse than even everlasting suffering therefore nobody can dare to say that God
is too nice to do that to a baby for when he maintains it in sin he does worse
to it than damning it.
If God did not intend to damn babies he had predestined to die in infancy he
would have kept them free from original sin from their conception.
We can be elect according to the foreknowledge of God (1 Peter 1:2) in Calvin’s
theology. A predestined person can be chosen for Heaven according to the
foreknowledge of God who sees that he or she will get there. It is the problem
with everything having two or three different senses that confuses theology
students and proves that the Bible theology is not divinely inspired for God
would be aware of the care needed to avert confusion. So a hardcore Calvinist
can say that God predestines on the basis of foreknowledge of the person’s
goodness for he sees the person will be saved and causes that salvation by
keeping the person in existence though he will deny that God fixes the person’s
fate on the basis of the person’s good works in the sense that the person
deserves to be chosen.
When the Bible says Jesus died for all it means he died for all the chosen. We
see Paul claiming that Jesus redeemed all from sin and got all forgiven in
Romans (5) though we know he did not mean all in the sense of all people on
earth. The New Testament Church meant all who are chosen to be saved by all.
Unconditional election does not deny that God invites all to be saved (1 Timothy
2:3-6; 2 Peter 3:9). According to it the sinner is so bad that they won’t
respond until God influences the will so the invitation is sincere but the
sinner won’t take it. A man who hates you will not accept your invitation to the
party. If you show him proof that he should not hate you he changes his mind and
accepts. It is exactly the same thing with God. Before, the man was in prison of
his own free will and you used his free will to get him out. And when you
invited him in his former state of mind your invitation was sincere even if you
know he won’t accept.
The God of unconditional election wants to save all but he will not. Perhaps he
cannot save all for if he did it would be a sin for him for he has a mysterious
purpose to fulfil? But this denies that the election is unconditional. The
purpose must have something to do with us for God is all-powerful. And if it has
something to do with us then it is something to do with our morals because God
is interested only in our spirits.
Jesus said that many are called but less than that are chosen (Matthew 22:14).
He wept because Jerusalem would not accept the salvation he offered (Matthew
23:37). The sinner has the power to turn to God but won’t use it unless God
helps him to use it. Therefore God can sincerely call people who won’t be saved
to salvation. This is not a denial of total depravity and total inability for
you are only unable in the sense that you won’t turn to God. You make yourself
unable. The faculty to turn to God is used and twisted by you to keep yourself
evil so it is really evil. It is only potentially good and not actually good.
So, total depravity and inability are safe.
Romans 8:28-31 speaks of those who are called for the divine purpose. It says
that God foreknew them and also predestined them to be right with him. This is
supposed to say that God foresaw who would choose him of their own free will and
destined them for salvation. But this fails for it is not said what choices God
foresaw but who he foresaw. God foresees the chosen and predestines them to
salvation. This passage does indeed affirm the doctrine of unconditional
election. A person who God sees will choose him is not predestined for
predestination means causing a person to do something. Calvinists take the order
in Romans 8 as being of great significance. It says foreknowledge then
predestination and calling and then justification. This order could be literal
for God would have to know you and see you in the future before he could destine
and call you and calling and predestination would cause justification.
The other verses which have a different order are not to be taken as giving a
strict order that must be adhered to. They are not on about what leads to what.
But this one could be and so should be taken to be.
Jude 1:1 has sanctification preceding the divine calling but the order is not
intended to mean anything. Besides, God can’t make you holy to call you to be
holy! Maybe Jude just means that God makes us holy before he calls us in the
sense that he keeps us saved and has already saved us though this salvation
hasn’t been activated yet. It doesn’t activate until the person gains faith. If
I am saved once for all, God can still be said to be calling me to salvation
now, the present moment whether I am saved yet or not.
1 Timothy 4:10 says that God is the saviour of all and especially those who
believe. But saviour is meant loosely for it cannot mean that God saves
unrepentant unbelievers from Hell.
2 Timothy 1:9 says that God saved Christians with a holy calling not because of
works but because of his purpose. This says that goodness isn’t even considered
when God chooses you for salvation. That is exactly what unconditional election
says.
Opponents of unconditional election maintain the following. “We believe that God
chooses people for his purpose and because of their works. God saves such not to
reward their works or to treat their works as earnings but simply because he
chooses to. It would be the same as picking people with blonde hair for your
football team. So this verse does not disprove our position”.
This is dubious. If Paul had meant God saves for we will do good and not because
we have earned this salvation he would not have written the way he did. He would
not have written, “We are not saved in virtue of works.” He would have
written, “We are not saved in virtue of earnings”, which would be clearer.
If you are saved because of your future good deeds not your past ones then you
are earning salvation. It would be ridiculous for the Bible to stress that
salvation is a gift that God is plotting to be paid back for. To choose a person
for salvation because of their goodness would be wrong when it could be intended
as a reward and you won’t let it be for if it could be it should be.
2 Peter 1:10 makes the order to be salvation, election, God knowing your fate,
and then making you holy. But this order means nothing and is just a list
without regard to what causes what. God can’t save you before he does the other
things. But if you interpret saved to mean to make salvation possible then God
can elect after he saves in that sense. You can’t elect until you make salvation
possible first. If the order is that God doesn’t know your fate until you choose
salvation then that is absurd. God knows the future according to the Bible. This
proves the order is just ignored here.
We see then that the order the anti-Calvinists hope to find in the Bible that
contradicts that of Romans 8 does not exist. This makes Calvinism the at least
the probable teaching of the Bible.
BEWARE THE VANCE BOOK
Laurence M. Vance wrote and published his The Other Side of Calvinism.
This book is devoted to the demolition of Calvinism which is accused of
blasphemy and of being a perversion of the teaching of the Bible.
But there are dreadful errors in this book so the book fails to dispose of
Calvinism.
John Calvin is said to have taught that Jesus was spiritually present in the
bread and wine of Holy Communion and that this was a hangover from Catholicism
(page 36). Calvin taught that Jesus was spiritually eaten by faith in Holy
Communion. That means, faith alone gives us Jesus’ saving presence and if we
communicate in faith we are fed by him because of our faith. In reality, faith
is Jesus working in us so that faith feeds us with Jesus and Jesus feeds us by
faith. So, communion in Calvin was not something that gives you grace but is a
sign of the grace that is already yours. You are receiving Jesus all the time
anyway. Calvin should have realised that any food and drink we take would be the
same as the communion – but, it is certain he would have. Vance declares that
Calvin’s doctrine of communion was not far from Rome’s cannibalism! There is a
big gulf between bread becoming flesh and Jesus spiritually being inside bread.
And Roman Catholicism does not teach cannibalism for you cannot get at Jesus in
communion but only the aspects of the wafer and chalice that are sensed. To
taste the wafer is to taste the veil of bread not the body of Jesus.
The anti-Calvinist, James Arminus, taught that God only chooses those who
believe (predestinates) for salvation and does not pick people for salvation
first regardless of their qualities like Calvinists say (page 51). In other
words, the divine choice does not cause one’s genuine decision to go to Heaven
in Arminianism but does in Calvinism. Vance approves of Arminius’s doctrine. But
how can you choose not to believe in the gospel unless you already believe? Such
a choice would be rejecting your perception of the real gospel. Calvin was right
to say that predestination causes the faith that makes you justified before God
for all eternity and which is your free ticket into Heaven. So if faith which is
God’s supernatural gift saves as the Bible says, then you cannot choose God
unless he enables you to. This means that the five points of Calvinism must be
right.
Page 67 says that there is a difference between the doctrine of total sinfulness
and total inability to accept God’s salvation. The first says that we can turn
to God freely but prefer to sin. The second says we sin and cannot turn to God
in repentance. There is no difference for the second simply means that we shut
God out by self-deception and depravity so that though we have the power to
change we will not use it and cannot even see it any more. In that sense, we
have suppressed our free will so as to stay away from God. Even Calvinism says
that we freely refuse to repent until God does something to make some of us
change our minds. Because we suppress and abandon our will to do good, we are
said to have no free will practically speaking. We just have it potentially.
WORKS CONSULTED
A Catechism of Christian Doctrine, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1985
A Summary of Christian Doctrine Louis Berkhof, The Banner of Truth Trust,
London, 1971
A Withering Branch, Joseph H Harley, John English and Co, Wexford, 1956
All One Body – Why Don’t We Agree? Erwin W Lutzer, Tyndale, Illinois, 1989
An Examination of Tulip, Robert L Sumner, Biblical Evangelism Press, Indiana.
1972
Apologia Pro Vita Sua, John Henry Newman, JN Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1955
Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic, David B Currie, Ignatius Press, San
Francisco, 1996
Can a Saved Person Ever Be Lost, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro,
Tennessee, 1943
Christian Answers About Doctrine, John Eddison, Scripture Union, London, 1973
Doubt The Consequences Cause and Cure, Curtis Hutson Sword of the Lord,
Murfreesboro, Tennessee, 1983
Eight Gospel Absurdities if a Born-Again Soul Ever Loses Salvation John R Rice
Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, 1946
Encyclopaedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason W Archer, Zondervan, Grand Rapids,
Michigan, 1982
Four Great Heresies, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, Tennessee,
1975
How to be a Christian without Being Religious, Fritz Ridenour, Regal Books,
California, 1970
HyperCalvinism, John D Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, 1970
Is it necessary for you to be baptised to be saved? Hoyt H Houchen, Guardian of
Truth, Bowling Green, Kentucky
Legalism – A Smokescreen, Mike Allison, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro,
Tennessee, 1986
Radio Replies, Vol 1, Frs Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul
Minnesota, 1938
Radio Replies, Vol 2, Frs Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul
Minnesota, 1940
Radio Replies, Vol 3, Frs Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul,
Minnesota, 1942
Reasons for Hope, Editor Jeffrey A Mirus, Christendom College Press, Virginia,
1982
Saved For Certain, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, 1953
The Catholic Church has the Answer, Paul Whitcomb, TAN, Illinois, 1986
The Catholicity of Protestantism Ed R Newton Flew and Rupert E Davies,
Lutterworth Press, London, 1950
The Eternal Security of the Believer, Curtis Hutson, Sword of the Lord,
Murfreesboro, Tennessee, 1982
The Grace of God in the Gospel, John Cheeseman, Philip Gardner, Michael
Sadgrove, Tom Wright, The Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, 1976
The Great Acquittal, Tony Baker, George Carey, John Tiller and Tom Wright,
Fount, London, 1980
The Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin, Hodder and Stoughton,
London,1986
The Other Side of Calvinism, Laurence M Vance, Vance Publications Pensacola,
Florida, 1991
There is no Difference for all have Sinned, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord,
Murfreesboro, Tennessee, 1939
Unitarian Christianity and Other Essays, William Ellery Channing The
Bobs-Merrill Company Inc, Kansas, 1957
Why I Disagree with All Five Points of Calvinism, Curtis Hutson, Sword of the
Lord, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, 1980
BIBLE TRANSLATION USED
The Amplified Bible