The Predestination Objections

Why, why, why does this never end? I read this kind of stuff over and over and it is addressed by better folks than me over and over and still I read this kind of stuff over and over. Why?

In the ceaseless debate over the hot topic of Predestination, you will find these kinds of arguments:

Misconception #1: Predestination is the belief that God has chosen only certain people for salvation.

I know ... that's the common idea. I know ... a lot of proponents of Predestination use that definition. I know ... most of us -- that includes me -- use that definition much of the time. It's so common that it's accepted as normal. But it's not the biblical definition. The biblical definition is more like this: "God works all things after the counsel of His will" (Eph. 1:11). In other words, Predestination says that God has ordained all that comes to pass. Nothing occurs outside of His will. That includes the doctrine that says "God has chosen only certain people for salvation", but that doctrine is more correctly called "Election" and is simply a subset of "Predestination." Now, Predestination as I've just defined it is just as offensive to many Christians as Election, but Predestination is rarely debated in the terms I defined it, so we'll continue on the topic of objections to Election.

Misconception #2: Election means that God has chosen special people, those who are "worthy to spend eternity in His presence".

The idea of Election is not that there are special people. It is absolutely opposed to the idea that God picks people He likes because they're nice people or some such nonsense. The starting place of Election is that all humans are damnable. All humans have sinned. All humans have chosen and deserve Hell. There is none good, no, not one. There is absolutely nothing "special" or "worthy" in the humans chosen for salvation. They are made special and worthy, but only by Christ's sacrifice, not by anything that is within themselves. I know, I know, it is offensive to think that God chooses some because it is popular to think that there is something in the chosen that causes God to choose them, but get that thought out of your head. It's not part of Election. And those "Calvinists" you've met that seem to flaunt their "chosen" status are misrepresenting the concept. For that, I apologize. But don't evaluate the doctrine based on those who erroneously express it.

Misconception #3: Election eliminates Free Will.

The idea of Election is not that God forces people to choose Him. The idea is that He enables people to choose Him, people who would not otherwise have been able to do so. It is predicated on the notion that Man is sinful by nature, dead in sin, and if God didn't intervene, Man would choose nothing other than sin. I know, I know, that's not popular nor accepted across the board. Fine. But it's a red herring to argue that it eliminates Free Will when it's not the argument at all. If you want to object to that characterization of natural Man, object to that, but can't we please drop this red herring argument that it eliminates Free Will? All sane adherents of Election also agree that the chosen must choose Christ. They simply believe that, once they are enabled to do so, they will do so. What's the phrase? There is no "violence offered to the will of the creatures" (Westminster Confession, Chapter III).

Misconception #4: Election eliminates the need for preaching the Gospel.

Very popular objection. You'll find this one lots of places. It's not reasonable, but it's very popular. You see, it is an argument in a vacuum. It assumes that Election holds that God simply and directly causes all things. (Remember? The elimination of Free Will?) It forgets that God is a God of means. He uses means to accomplish His will. What is the biblical means by which God chooses to reach the Elect? (If you object to "the Elect", you can substitute "anyone at all", because the answer is the same.) The means that God has determined will be used is the preaching of His Word. Note that right after Paul's brilliant defense of the doctrine of Election in Rom. 9, he follows with, among other things, this: "But how are they to call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in Him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?" (Rom. 10:14). Now, the objectors would say, "Well, if God has chosen to save some and not others, couldn't He do it without the preaching of the Gospel?" And if you believe in the omnipotence and sovereignty of God, you'd have to answer honestly, "Yes, He could." But what He could do and what He has chosen to do appear to be two different things. He has chosen to use people to preach the Gospel, and, by that means, call people to Himself. Thus, the Great Commission is absolutely in effect and the need to spread the Gospel is never diminished because none of us know who is Elect or not. So we spread the Gospel much like that sower in Matt. 13, throwing the seed of the Word indiscriminately and waiting for God to produce a crop.

These are arguably the most popular objections to the doctrine of Election. Not in order, perhaps, but the most popular. 1) It suggests that some people are inherently more special than others. 2) It eliminates Free Will. 3) It eliminates the need to preach the Gospel. There are other objections, and some of them much more interesting to discuss, but these are too often and too easily deflected. There are more interesting questions, like, "Does God choose some for damnation?" or "Doesn't this make God the author of evil?". Surely we can get past these simple misconceptions and move to a more fruitful dialog, can't we?