Argument Against Calvinistic Understanding of Election & Predestination

[Monergism]

It's been quite some time since I've stepped foot into Christian Forums, so to speak. I came across a fellow who wished to challenge the Calvinist view of predestination, and his method would seem to have dismantled the idea that the Calvinistic belief of election and predestination is arbitrary and brings a moral issue for God and man. I know that the Reformers disagree that God arbitrarily elects and predestines. However, I thought I'd come here to get some replies. Here I lay out the fellow's argument.

I'm afraid I've little ability to keep myself out of this particular argument. I have tried, though.

Argument from Arbitrary Selection:

1. All humans are born into a state of Total Depravity. (premise)
2. Because of Original Sin, humans cannot be born into any state other than that of total depravity. (premise—or true by definition of 'total depravity')
3. Because of total depravity, humans are incapable of doing anything of his own free will that is wholly free of sin or of choosing to follow God. (premise—or true by definition of 'Total Depravity')
4. The cause of original sin (i.e. the act that created the condition of original sin) is Adam and/or Eve. (premise)
5. Any human being born after the fall, though inheriting the guilt of original sin, is not the cause of original sin. (from 4)
6. No human being born after the fall chose to be born into a state of total depravity. (from 2 and 5)
7. All human beings are condemned to a state of total depravity by forces wholly outside of their control. (from 6)
8. All humans are equally sinful and/or unworthy of God. (from 1 and 3)
9. All humans are equally inculpable for their sinful state. (from 7)
10. All humans are morally equal. (from 8 and 9)
11. Justice is not arbitrary. (premise)
12. Some humans will be elected to salvation. (premise)
13. All humans not elected to salvation will be damned. (premise)
14. Not all humans will be elected. (premise)
15. God's election is based on his will alone and not foreknowledge (i.e. Arminianism is false). (premise)
16. Some humans will be damned. (from 13 and 14)
17. Some humans will be saved. (from 12)
18. God's has divided humans between the elect and the reprobate. (from 16 and 17)
19. The elect are no more or less sinful than the reprobate. (from 10)
20. Election/reprobation is arbitrary as regards the individuals selected. (from 15, 18 and 19)
21. Election/reprobation is not just. (from 11 and 20)
22. God is just. (premise—or true by the definition of 'God')
23. God is responsible for election/reprobation. (premise)
24. God engages in unjust activities. (from 21 and 23)
25. Items 22 and 24 are contradictory; therefore, one or more of the premises is false: either God is not just and the reprobation/election scheme arbitrary, or God is just and the scheme is not arbitrary.

You could, of course, argue that God is all working this out to some ultimately and unknowably just end; but then he is achieving an end that is just on balance via a means that is unjust in and of itself, which makes God a utilitarian rather than a being of inviolable justice, and utilitarianism is unacceptable in an omnipotent being for whom such moral compromises should be unnecessary:

Argument from Moral Compromise

1. God is just. (premise—or true by the definition of 'God')
2. God is omnipotent (premise—or true by the definition of 'God')
3. The doctrine of unconditional election is true. (premise)
4. Unconditional election is unjust. (premise; see 'Argument from Arbitrary Selection')
5. God can use unjust means to achieve a just end. (premise)
6. God is using the the unjust election/reprobation scheme for just ends. (from 3, 4 and 5)
7. God is making a moral compromise. (from 6)
8. Omnipotent beings do not need to compromise. (premise—or true by the definition of 'omnipotence')
9. God is perpetrating unjust acts unnecessarily. (from 7 and 8')
10. Items 1, 2 and 9 are contradictory; therefore, one or more of the premises is false: either God is not just, or God is not omnipotent, or the doctrine of unconditional election is false.

 

[mlqurgw]

It's been quite some time since I've stepped foot into Christian Forums, so to speak. I came across a fellow who wished to challenge the Calvinist view of predestination, and his method would seem to have dismantled the idea that the Calvinistic belief of election and predestination is arbitrary and brings a moral issue for God and man. I know that the Reformers disagree that God arbitrarily elects and predestines. However, I thought I'd come here to get some replies. Here I lay out the fellow's argument.

Without answering each of his premises it is clear that he has no understanding of the headship of Adam or Christ. I would take him to Rom. 5 and expalain to him the difference between his view of original sin, that he imposes on Calvinists, and the Biblical teaching on it. The rest of his argument falls then.

 

[bradfordl]

All of these premises presuppose that the doctrine of original sin is arbitrary and unjust. What the author assumes is that God is not perfectly just in condemning every single descendent of Adam to eternal damnation. He would then have to conclude that God was unjust in visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the sons as stated here:

Exo 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Exo 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

This presumption renders his argument at the very least unbiblical, and by extension unchristian.

Ask him if God was unjust in Exodus 20 in this pronouncement. He must answer yes, if he intends to maintain that God would be unjust to condemn all to hell.

That He does not, that He saves any, is therefore all of grace, and all of His decree. After all, cannot God say, "Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?"

Hidden in this presumption is the erroneous idea that creation's main purpose is the redemption of mankind. It is instead God's glory, and His decrees are designed to fulfill that purpose, not any false 'fair deal' for the foul lump of clay of which humanity is formed. He said:

I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. (Rom 11:4b)

Why not seventy thousand, or seven million? Why not all? In this passage your friend would also be forced to declare God unjust. This is not a Christian argument. Tell him to decide what it is he believes and pursue it, but to do so outside of the pale of orthodox Christianity, because that is not the faith in which he trusts.

 

[heymikey80]

Makes a couple of mistakes, which if you suppress the linguistic connotation of "arbitrary" and "just", you find glaring.

1. God is permitted to perform gracious acts (ie, on those who don't deserve it). Undeserved favor is not unjust -- it is actually good.
2. Unequal punishment is unjust.
3. To be just, God must find a solution which allows parties to escape punishment for evil, while allowing other parties to accept punishment for what they haven't done. God has a solution to this called a covenant.
4. Election is not arbitrary if a just God performs election.
5. Justice is meted out to parties. A party may be a union of individuals, not simply an individual. (Read: modern individualism is a narrow and inaccurate view of humanity.)
6. God can be just while giving preferences to those He pleases ("Don't I have the right to do what I wish with what I have?").
7. God accepts the just condemnation of those He prefers and chooses to accept that condemnation on Himself. In other words, there is no injustice when God accepts "paybacks" in retribution on Himself.

 

[JM]

My fav is...."but, but, but it's not fair!"