Understanding the doctrine of election is, to say the least, a difficult task. It is a subject that many, if not most, would gladly avoid and leave to the “theologians” to figure out. I believe Warren Wiersbe once said that the preacher who tries to completely understand election will lose his mind, but the one who completely avoids it should lose his job. Without question, there are some areas of bible doctrine that are more complex than others; Peter states that some of Paul’s writings were difficult to understand (2 Peter 3:16). Having stated that though, we are also reminded by Paul that we are not to be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 11:3). I believe Calvinism’s doctrine of unconditional election has created unnecessary confusion in the Body of Christ and the reason for the confusion is that unconditional election is simply an erroneous doctrine.
The Canons of Dort define unconditional election as, “…the unchangeable purpose of God, whereby, before the foundation of the world, he hath out of mere grace, according to the sovereign good pleasure of his own will, chosen, from the whole human race…a certain number of persons to redemption in Christ…” Simply stated, unconditional election declares that before the world began, God made a sovereign choice out of all who would live, that He would save some. The qualifying factor(s) that God used to determine who He would choose to save is nowhere stated in Scripture (hence, unconditional), but the Calvinist claims that God’s choosing is consistent with His love and grace and justice.
The need for the doctrine of unconditional election is simply at outgrowth of Calvinism’s understanding of total depravity (see How Depraved Is Man?). Because Calvinism states that man is incapable of believing the gospel, any invitation to do so apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, would be futile and none would be saved. Therefore God chose to save some. The most obvious question at this point is why God didn’t choose to save all of mankind. The standard Calvinist response is that for whatever reasons, God chose not to. Calvinists continue that if God would chose to save any it would be an act of love and grace on His part because all of us are worthy of only eternal condemnation. That God would save any is undeniably an act of love and grace, but the real question is whether that love and grace is consistent with the love and grace that Scripture declares that God has for all mankind.
In order to circumvent the charge of injustice on God’s behalf, Calvinists state that there are two types of gospel invitations. The first is the general call. It is the call of general revelation as well as that of Scripture that invites man to accept by faith the salvation that Christ supplies. Passages such as Matthew 11:28 would fall under the category of a general call to salvation. Because the non-elect man does not respond to that call, he can then be held accountable to God and condemned because of his unbelief. The second type of call is the special or effectual call of salvation. Dwight Pentecost defines this call in this manner, “…the drawing of the Father is the call of the Father to those who have been elected by God’s grace, to those who have been predestined or set apart unto glory, to those who God had foreknown would be the instruments to accomplish His foreordained purpose, which is settled by the sure and unchangeable decree of God.” Such a call is distinguished from a general invitation in that it “effectually” changed the sinner into a saint and it was a call that was only issued to those whom God had elected to salvation, hence “special”. According to Calvinists, such a call is declared in passages such as Romans 8:28 where “the called” are distinguished from the unsaved.
Having stated Calvinism’s position on unconditional election, it is time to compare it to what Scripture states and determine its biblical accuracy. We begin with the proposition that divine election is necessary because of the depravity of man. As determined in the article dealing with depravity, biblical total depravity does not include the idea that man is incapable of believing. While unsaved man is “bent” or inclined towards unbelief, he is still capable of believing and being saved. At this point the Calvinist counters with the statement of Jesus in John 6:44, “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.” It is then asserted that God must take the initiative and draw men unto Himself which would include the concept of election and regeneration. While it is true that unless God would take the initiative in reaching man, no man would be saved, it is not necessary to equate initiative with compulsion (which ultimately Calvinism does). More importantly, that God takes the initiative in salvation does not preclude Him from seeking the salvation of all mankind. In fact, Jesus would later declare, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.” (John 12:32) Likewise, in Luke 19:10 Jesus stated, “For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.” In that all men are lost, it must be understood that Jesus came to save all men. Calvinists insist that these verses, and others like them, must be understood in the context of only the elect- that Jesus would only draw elect men unto Himself and that He came to seek and to save the elect lost. Such hermeneutics is isogetic rather than exegetic and is completely unwarranted.
Calvinists insist that for God to save even one person is an act of grace, and without question, it is. But is that an act of grace that is consistent with God’s grace in regards to salvation as declared in Scripture? The answer is an absolute NO! Paul states in Titus 2:11 that, “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,” Once again, the Calvinist, in order defend his position, must insist that the context of all men is limited to only the elect (which is equally as absurd as above) or that the grace which Paul speaks of is only that grace as found in a general call to salvation and not the effectual call. But if that call is not effectual how can that grace bring salvation?
So far we have seen that the Lord promised that He would take the initiative in drawing all men unto Himself and that grace that is effectual for salvation has appeared to all. Another area that must be examined is the area of the heart of God. In fact, this is most crucial to our understanding of the doctrine and the area that Calvinism’s declarations farthest from the truth. Calvinists claim that God can love certain people in one way and others in another way. Therefore, God has a certain love for the entire world but a greater love for the elect. There are elements of truth to these statements. Because of marriage, I can demonstrate my love to my wife in ways that I dare not to anyone else. Because my children were born unto me and because of my love for them, I provide for them in ways that I would not (or at least am not required to provide) for other children in my neighborhood. However, having said that, we must ask the question of whether God has a distinct love for the elect that He would provide salvation for them and a different love for the non-elect that he would not provide for them. 2 Peter 3:9 declares the heart of God towards the world in regards to salvation. Peter writes, “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” Calvinists are quick to point out that the Greek word that is translated “willing” is a word that emphasizes desire rather than a decree of God. In other words, the Calvinist would state that God is desirous that all would be saved but has not decreed it to be so. But can that be so?
When preaching this message in a Sunday evening service I used the following example to illustrate desire. A family is sitting at home one night when the teenage daughter says to her father, “I could really eat a hot fudge sundae.” I know Mom got some ice cream and I know there is fudge that can be heated and whipped cream in the refrigerator and even cherries and nuts to go on top of it.” “Dad, would you get up from what you are doing and make me a nice hot fudge sundae?” The father replies, “If you want one, you may make it yourself!” The daughter then shrugs her shoulders and goes back to whatever she was doing without her sundae. Question: did the daughter really desire a hot fudge sundae? Of course the answer is NO. Whatever a person is truly desirous of, they will make every reasonable effort to accomplish. Whenever a person fails to make all reasonable efforts to accomplish their desires, it can only be concluded that they never really desired it (reasonable would be that which is within a person’s abilities). If God is capable of electing some to salvation then He is capable of electing all to salvation. If God is truly desirous that none should perish and that all should come to repentance, then it would require Him to elect all. It is obvious that not all repent and that not all will be saved, that some will perish. It can only be concluded then that Calvinism’s unconditional election stands contrary to the heart of God in salvation.
The Bible, in its most familiar verse, declares that God so loved the world, not just the elect. In light of this great declaration, what would you think of the following scenario? You are homeless and without any food. One day as I walk by you I notice your terrible condition and am moved with compassion for you. I graciously invite you to come to my house to eat, tell you when supper will be served and how to get there. Unfortunately, when supper time arrives, you don’t. The next day I walk bye and once again I see you, now one day hungrier. Again I invite you to dine with me and declare my love for you and implore you to come. Once again, you fail to show. The next day I come bye to find out what has been keeping you from enjoying all my good food which I graciously want to share with you. You tell me that you would like to come but that you are lame and can not come unless someone brings you. “Ah, that’s too bad,” I reply, “for I want only people who can walk on their own to sit at my table.” “Because you will not come, I am going to have the police put you in jail for vagrancy.” Now tell me, how would you characterize my love for you? Would it be consistent with the love of God as expressed in John 3:16? Of course not. And yet, that is exactly how the Calvinist describes the love of God to the non-elect. It invites him to do what he is incapable of doing (believing) and then judges him for failing to do so.
What is so difficult about believing that an omniscient God would know before the creation of the world those who would respond to His gracious invitation and that He chose to save them? That sounds rather simple to me.