The Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man

Click here for the updated article: https://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-parable-of-rich-man-and-lazarus.html

A Critical Look at the Christian Doctrine of "Free Will"

"Free will is the modus operandi of destiny." C.S. Lewis 

It would not be an exaggeration to say that, for most Christians (especially those outside of the "Reformed" branch of Christianity), the doctrine of free will is vitally important to their theological system. Whether they realize it or not, this doctrine is one of the primary pillars upholding their particular religious worldview. Without this doctrinal pillar in place, their entire religious worldview would begin to collapse. Because of its great importance to so many Christians - as well as its bearing on the conflicting doctrines of eternal torment and universal salvation - I believe it behooves us to carefully examine it. 

Before I begin, however, a few words of clarification are in order. Among philosophers, the kind of free will in which most Christians (and many non-Christians) believe is known as "libertarian free will" or "libertarian freedom." This rather redundant-sounding terminology is intended to distinguish the kind of "freedom" in view from notions of freedom that are thought to be compatible with "determinism" (a philosophical position which holds that everything that happens is caused by a prior event or state of affairs, and thus has a sufficient, antecedent cause and an understandable reason for its taking place). 

In contrast to the freedom that is thought to be compatible with determinism (i.e., "compatibilistic freedom"), libertarian freedom is understood to be "indeterminist" in nature, meaning that the outcome of a future choice that is free in a libertarian sense is thought to be a probability rather than a certainty. To most people, the commonly-used expression "free will" basically means what philosophers mean when they speak of "libertarian free will." Thus, I will be using the expressions "free will" and "libertarian free will" interchangeably. 

I will also, on occasion, refer to the theological position held to by Christians who affirm free will as both the "Free Will" position as well as the "Arminian" position. The theological position known as "Arminianism" is named after 16th century Dutch theologian, Jacob Arminius, who, in contrast with the French theologian and Protestant Reformer, John Calvin (a near-contemporary of Arminius), affirmed that human beings have the free will to either believe the gospel or not, and taught that God elected people for eternal salvation on the basis of his foreknowledge of their faith. Because of his (and especially his followers') opposition to the theology of Calvin, any Christian viewpoint which affirms and emphasizes free will is commonly labelled as a form of "Arminianism."[1] 

What is "Free Will?" 

After coming to reject the Reformed theology I'd grown up believing, I began exploring the non-Calvinistic branches of Protestant Christianity, hoping to discover and know the true God, and to quench my thirst for truth. I was thrilled by the idea that such a large number of Christians believed that God really did love everyone, and that Christ had died to save everyone. Having already become convinced that God truly desired that everyone be saved - and that he had sent Christ for this purpose - I decided to make the "Arminian" theological camp my home. At the time, I didn't know of any other option; I had come to believe that if one wasn't a Calvinist or an Arminian, then one was either just uninformed, inconsistent or confused. 

Despite my eagerness to get as far away from Reformed theology as I could, I never quite felt at home in the free will-affirming camp of evangelical Christianity. While I found the emphasis that Arminian theologians tended to put on the universal love and mercy of God refreshing, I often found their interpretations of certain verses and passages (e.g., those which I'd formerly viewed as affirming God's complete sovereignty over all people and their destinies) somewhat strained and contrived. I also found the concept of free will extremely puzzling, and always thought I was missing something whenever I would read free will-affirming Christian theologians attempt to explain and justify their belief in it. 

For instance, in his book Most Moved Mover(2001), the late Clark Pinnock wrote (p. 127), 

What I call 'real freedom' is also called libertarian or contra-causal freedom. It views a free action as one in which a person is free to perform an action or refrain from performing it and is not completely determined in the matter by prior forces - nature, nurture or even God. Libertarian freedom recognizes the power of contrary choice. One acts freely in a situation if, and only if, one could have done otherwise. Free choices are choices that are not causally determined by conditions preceding them. It is the freedom of self-determination, in which the various motives and influences informing the choice are not the sufficient cause of the choice itself. The person makes the choice in a self-determined way. A person has options and there are different factors influencing us in deciding among them but the decision one takes involves making one of the reasons one's own, which is anything but random. 

In this passage we read of "contra-causal freedom" and of "choices that are not causally determined by conditions preceding them." And then Pinnock goes on to say that such a choice is "anything but random." But is this really the case? In response to Pinnock, one could ask, "Why does a person choose one reason over another when 'making one of the reasons one's own'"? According to Pinnock, the answer to this question cannot be because of any given factor or influence. It cannot be because of the circumstances in which the person happens to be at the time they're making their decision. According to the Arminian position, two people could, hypothetically, share the same exact motives and have the same exact influences operating on them when faced with the same exact decision, and yet they could still use their "libertarian freedom" to make two completely different decisions. 

Is there any rational explanation that could be given for why two different decisions could be reached in this hypothetical situation that does not involve pure randomness? I can't think of one. To say that a person has the "power of contrary choice" means that, given the same exact influences operating on them, and the same exact motives being present, a person could have made a different choice than the one that was actually made. But what, other than a purely random and inexplicable event taking place in a person's mind, could possibly account for a different outcome resulting? 

Consider the conversion of the apostle Paul. All Christians will agree that, as a result of his encounter with the risen Christ on the road to Damascus, Paul became a changed man. Instead of continuing in hard-hearted rebellion against Christ, he became humbly and joyfully submitted to him. But let's say that Paul's decision to submit to Christ was "free" in the sense that Arminian Christians believe our choice to believe the gospel is "free." If that were the case, then it would mean that Paul could have chosen otherwise. That is, in an identical state of affairs and with all things being equal (i.e., with the same exact influences being present and operating on Paul), a different outcome could have resulted. 

Think of it this way: if God were to "rewind the tape" of Paul's life and allow him to choose again, he could've made a completely different choice, given the same exact circumstances. But how could such a change in outcome be explained and accounted for? If nothing new enters into the equation immediately prior to Paul's decision, then this theoretical change in outcomes would be completely arbitrary and random. The only thing that could account for a different outcome taking place would be a purely random event occurring in Paul's mind. Thus, it follows that, if the choice Paul actually made was "free" in this sense, then it, too, was a completely arbitrary and random event. 

In Why I Am Not A Calvinist(2004), Arminian philosopher Jerry Walls writes (p. 103): 

The common experience of deliberation assumes that our choices are undetermined. When we deliberate, we not only weigh the various factors involved, we also weight them. That is, we decide how important different considerations are in relation to one another. These factors do not have a pre-assigned weight that everyone must accept. Part of deliberation is sifting through these factors and deciding how much they matter to us. All of this assumes that it really is up to us how we will decide.

In response to Walls, one could very well ask, "But why does a person 'weight' one factor more or less than another factor when coming to reach a decision?" When "sifting through the factors," why would a person decide that one factor means more to them than another if they have no "pre-assigned weight"? According to his view, Walls might answer, "Because I chose to weight this factor more than the others." But in response to this, one could then ask, "But why did you choose to weight one factor more than the others?" And I believe the answer to this question exposes what the doctrine of free will really amounts to: things being determined by random, irrational and inexplicable events. For what non-circular answer could Walls give that is consistent with his position except, "I chose to just because." 

It would be circular (or else lead to an infinite regress) to respond with, "I chose to because I chose to." That's no different than saying, "It happened because it happened." According to his position, the real "reason" for his choice would ultimately have to be, "just because." But to say that something happens or occurs "just because" is simply to say that there is no reason for its occurring, and that it has no explanation. It's just a random, irrational and inexplicable event. And that is what a "free" choice (in the libertarian sense) would essentially be: a random, irrational and inexplicable event. 

In his book Making Sense of Your Freedom (1994), philosopher James W. Felt writes (p. 81): 

After the antecedent conditions have all been considered, as well as the temperament and motives of the agent, there is still room for freedom inasmuch as there is no strict necessity that one of the possible outcomes rather than another must emerge. Yet there is an outcome. A choice is made; a decision is reached. The mind in its drive toward intelligibility asks, "What is the ultimate reason why this rather than that outcome has resulted?" (Why did Lee, for instance, decide to go ahead and attack entrenched Union forces at Gettysburg?) If the act is free, then the only possible answer - admittedly still perplexing, yet perfectly adequate - is this: the sole, ultimate reason, given a variety of enabling motives, is the acting person, the agent. There is no possibility of looking farther, but then there is also no need. Given all the requisite circumstances, it is the agent who is explanation for the act and its outcome, in such a way as not to stand in need of further explanation. 

Here Felt asserts that the sole, ultimate reason why one outcome results rather than another is the person making the decision. In view of his answer to the question he poses, let's imagine a teenage girl asking her mother, "Why did you and dad get divorced?" According to Felt, a "perfectly adequate" (yet "still perplexing") answer to this legitimate question would be, "Your dad and I. We are the only explanation, and there is no need for any other." But what exactly does this mean? According to the libertarian free will position, it would mean that their decision to get divorced has no rational explanation. It "just happened," inexplicably. 

When we keep in mind that a choice that is free in the libertarian sense is essentially an inexplicable, random event, we can conclude that what Felt calls the "acting person, the agent" is (at least, at the time a decision is made) akin to a "random number generator," with the only difference being that what's being randomly generated are choices rather than numbers. Thus, when Felt says that "there is no possibility of looking farther" for an explanation, he is correct. If the choices that we make are being randomly generated by us (as the free will position entails), then the only possible explanation for any "free" choice is the "random choice generator" itself - i.e., "the acting person, the agent." 

Does Love and Moral Accountability Require Free Will? 

It is often argued by free will-affirming Christians that without free will human beings couldn't love, and that it is for this reason that God gave us free will. Christian author and theologian Dr. Gregory Boyd sums up this position in the first thesis of his "Warfare Worldview" as follows: 

By definition, love must be freely chosen. We are able to program computers to obey our commands perfectly, but we don’t consider them "loving." They lack the capacity for love because they have no choice but to do what we program them to do. Humans would be in the same category as computers if God merely "programmed" our actions. In order for creatures to be loving, they must have the freedom to do otherwise (to not love).[2] 

By "freely chosen," Dr. Boyd does not merely mean that a person loves because their heart is such that this is what they truly want and desire to do, and is (for this reason) what they choose to do. Rather, the kind of "freedom" that Dr. Boyd has in mind is libertarian freedom - i.e., the "power of contrary choice." That is, Dr. Boyd believes that, whenever something is "freely chosen," it means that a different outcome could have been effected given the same exact circumstances in which the choice was made, and given the same exact influences the person was experiencing at the time. 

In other words, if my decision to propose to my wife was "freely chosen" in the sense of which Dr. Boyd speaks, then I could've chosen not to propose to her. If God were to "rewind the tape" of my life, I could've made a different decision if my decision was "free" in the libertarian sense. But if everything leading up to my choice (i.e., the various influences and factors involved in the circumstances) remained unchanged - if everything else remained the same - then the only possible, non-deterministic explanation for a different outcome being realized is that a truly random event took place in my mind and changed the outcome. So if love truly "requires freedom" (i.e., libertarian freedom), then it would mean that what love actually requires is the occurrence of an inexplicable, random and irrational event. Thus, for Dr. Boyd, our love for one another is actually a result of pure chance. 

In addition to asserting that love requires free will, it is commonly claimed by Christians that free will is the only basis for which people could be held morally accountable by God for their choices and actions. But as we've seen, a choice that is free in the libertarian sense is actually a completely random event - and how such bizarre randomness can possibly be a prerequisite for a person's being held accountable for their actions is just as inexplicable as "free will" itself. 

Ironically, then, it is the Free Will position which, by ultimately reducing our choices to random, irrational and inexplicable events, eliminates any meaningful way of accounting for moral accountability. To quote philosopher J.J.C. Smart, "Indeterminism does not confer freedom on us: I would feel that my freedom was impaired if I thought that a quantum mechanical trigger in my brain might cause me to leap into the garden and eat a slug."

Is the God of Free Will Christianity Loving? 

According to Arminian Christians, the faith by which believers are saved and avoid being "eternally lost" is the result of the exercise of their free will. Thus, they can blame the unbeliever - rather than God - for the lack of faith that (they believe) will ultimately send them to hell if they die in their unbelief. For most Christians, it is mankind's God-given free will that "lets God off the hook," so to speak, from being responsible for people dying in unbelief, and for the supposed eternal consequences of their "free" decision. However, as we've seen, the kind of free will in which most Christians believe is akin to a random number generator. It is a mysterious power by which choices are randomly and inexplicably generated by a person. A choice that is free in the libertarian sense is essentially an irrational event that has no explanation for its taking place. Whether one outcome results rather than another would, if the free will position were true, be a matter of pure chance. But remarkably, it is on just such a chance event that most Christians believe God has suspended the eternal destinies of all of his human and angelic creatures. 

For most Christians, that which will determine where and how people will "spend eternity" is how they exercise their free will during this relatively brief lifetime (with some lifetimes being much briefer than others)! At some point - either sometime before death, or at the point of death - the "window of opportunity" closes, and there is no "second chance" to make the right decision and be saved.[3] And according to those Christians who believe this to be how things really are, whose ultimate decision was it that this would be so? Who is responsible for the existence of such a bizarre and nightmarish state of affairs in which the eternal destinies of billions of created beings is essentially left to chance? Answer: the God who chose to give his creatures free will, of course! Thus, the "loving" and "wise" God in whom most Christians profess to believe would, if he existed, actually be a depraved being who has decided to let chance determine the eternal destinies of his human (and angelic) creations. 

If this seems too hard to believe, simply ask any Christian who believes in free will the following question: "Why did you make the eternally-significant decision to believe the gospel, while so many others don't?" If the free will-believing Christian is being consistent, he or she will not be able to answer in any of the following ways: 

"God gave me the desire to know him, but he has not yet given this desire to everyone."

"God drew me to Christ, and Christ made God known to me, but he has not yet drawn all." 

"God opened my heart so that I could believe the truth, but he hasn't yet opened the hearts of everyone." 

"God granted me repentance so that I could come to a knowledge of the truth, but he has not yet granted this repentance to all." 

"God gave me the faith to believe the truth, but he has not given faith to all." 

What do all of these responses have in common? Answer: They all acknowledge God as the ultimate explanation and reason for why someone is a believer rather than an unbeliever. And this, I believe, is consistent with what Scripture teaches. According to Scripture, God is completely sovereign over all that takes place. We read, for example, that God "declares the end from the beginning" and accomplishes whatever he purposes (Isaiah 46:9-11). Paul sums up the extent of God's sovereignty when he declares that God works "all things according to the counsel of his will" (Eph. 1:11).[4] 

In view of God's sovereignty, it is evident that, apart from his graciously bringing about faith in our hearts, no one would believe. It is ultimately because of God's sovereign will and purpose that anyone becomes a believer or remains an unbeliever in this life. The faith that distinguishes the believer from the unbeliever is not something that the believer originates by his own "free will," and for which he or she can take any credit. According to Christ, no one knows God except those to whom Christ has chosen to reveal him (Mt. 11:25-27), no one knows the "mysteries of the kingdom" or can receive Christ's teaching except those to whom it has been granted (Mt. 13:11), and no one can come to him unless they have been drawn [lit. "dragged"] by the Father (John 6:44). We cannot receive even one thing unless it has been given to us from heaven (John 3:27). God alone is ultimately responsible for whether one receives the truth or not. 

According to Paul, a person becomes a believer rather than an unbeliever because God chose them before the foundation (or "disruption") of the world and predestined them for adoption as sons through Christ Jesus (Eph. 1:4). Those who believe were chosen beforehand as the "firstfruits" to be saved (Rom 8:28-30; 2 Thess. 2:13). It was granted to them by God that they should believe (Phil 1:29), and thus God graciously assigned to them a measure of faith (Rom 12:3). In order for one to come to a knowledge of the truth and escape the snare of the devil, they must be granted repentance by God (2 Tim. 2:25-26; cf. Acts 11:18). Paul understood that it was God's grace - not his own innate goodness or willingness - that was the source of his faith and love (1 Tim 1:13-14). When a person believes and becomes a "new creation in Christ," this is no less the sovereign work of God than the creation of the heavens and the earth. It is all God's doing (2 Cor. 5:17-18). 

Although God certainly works through the instrumentality of human beings in reconciling people to himself, it is God alone who "gives the growth" (1 Cor. 3:5-9). There is nothing that we contribute to our salvation that does not ultimately have its source in God. Apart from God's Spirit at work in one's mind and heart, one would have no interest in spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). Our hearts must be opened by God just so that we will pay attention to what is being said when the gospel is proclaimed to us (Acts 16:14), and those who hear and believe the truth do so only because they were appointed by God for this (Acts 13:48). No one becomes a believer or remains an unbeliever apart from the divinely-controlled circumstances that God is using to accomplish his redemptive purpose in the world. 

Now, let's return to the question we posed earlier to the free-will believing Christian: "Why did you make the eternally-significant decision to believe the gospel, while so many others don't?" If they are consistent, they will have to answer something like this: "Because I chose to, and they didn't." In other words, "I chose to because I chose to, and they didn't because they didn't." And if you then ask them, "But why did you choose to, when so many others don't?" they will most likely either shrug their shoulders or say something along the lines of, "I don't know why; I just did, and they just didn't." 

And they would be correct. For if their faith (and someone else's unbelief) was a result of a choice that was free in the libertarian sense, then the choice was a completely random event that simply can't be explained or accounted for. The fact that they chose one way (to believe the gospel), while someone else chose another (to remain in unbelief), would be due to chance alone. And so it is chance which their "loving God" decided would determine who will, and who won't be, eternally saved. 

But it gets worse. Not only has the God of Arminian Christianity left the eternal destiny of all people up to pure chance, he (according to most Arminian Christians) foreknew before the creation of the world who would and who wouldn't choose to believe. In other words, the God of Arminian Christianity - before he ever created anything - knew full well that billions of his creatures (both human and angelic) would fail to exercise their "free will" properly, and yet he callously brought them into existence and allowed them to "freely" damn themselves for all eternity.

Consider the following argument: 

1. The God of Arminian Christianity foreknew before creation how every created person would exercise their free will in response to his grace if he were to create them.

2. The God of Arminian Christianity foreknew that some (most) created persons would fail to meet the requirement(s) of salvation if he were to create them. 

3. The God of Arminian Christianity created - and will forever sustain in existence - those whom he foreknew would never be saved, and who will spend eternity in hell. 

4. Any being who would do this is depraved and malevolent. 

5. The true God is not depraved and malevolent, but perfectly good.

6. The "God" of Arminian Christianity is not the true God. 

But let's be generous and say (as some Arminians do) that God does not have foreknowledge of any choices that are free in the libertarian sense, and thus did not have certain knowledge of who would and who wouldn't be eternally saved. This position within the Arminian camp is known today as "Open Theism." But with this view, we still have a God who has suspended the eternal destinies of his creatures on pure chance by giving them "free will" and making them the arbiters of their eternal destiny. And there is absolutely nothing "loving" about this. Only a depraved God - a "God" who was completely indifferent towards the best interests of his creatures - could gamble with their eternal destinies in such a way. 

For God to actualize such a state of affairs would be entirely inconsistent with the best interests and ultimate well-being of his creatures, since he would have no way of knowing which of his creatures (if any) would exercise their free will in such a way that they would become eternally happy rather than eternally miserable. A truly good and benevolent God would never actualize a state of affairs having a possible outcome that is inconsistent with the best interests and ultimate well-being of his creatures. 

Consider now the following argument against the Open Theism position: 

1. Before creating, the God of Open Theism would've either expected that all would be saved or he wouldn't have had this expectation. 

2. If it was his expectation before creation that all would be finally saved, and all are not finally saved, then he would be a fool for expecting this outcome, and would not be worthy of our trust and confidence.[5] 

3. If it wasn't his expectation before creation that all would be finally saved, then the God of Open Theism would be malevolent for bringing persons into existence whom he had no expectation of being saved. 

4. The true and living God is neither a fool nor malevolent, but is worthy of our full trust and confidence.

5. The "God" of Open Theism is not the true and living God. 

Conclusion

So what's the final verdict? In view of the above arguments, I cannot help but conclude that the "God" of Arminian Christianity - no matter how attractively he may be presented by those who profess (and desire) to love and trust him - is just as much a fraud as the "God" of Reformed Christianity. Although he is said to love everyone and to genuinely desire that everyone be saved, the reality is that he is no more loving (and no more sane!) than the depraved, tyrannical being whom the Calvinists believe has predestined a select few for an eternity in heaven while the vast majority of his human creatures are doomed to an eternity in a place of eternal conscious torment. The "God" of Arminian Christianity (who so callously gambles with his creature's eternal destinies and lets chance decide their fate) is neither Christ's God nor Paul's God, and he should not be our God, either.

---

[1] It should be noted, however, that the free will-affirming theology of Jacob Arminius did not in any way originate with him. Most of the post-apostolic "early church fathers" of the first few centuries - along with most Catholics throughout church history - strongly believed that all human beings have the "free will" to do or believe whatever is necessary for salvation. See, for example, the well-researched appendix in God's Strategy in Human History, by Roger Forster and Paul Marston (the appendix can be read online here: http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/Z5237P.pdf). 

The most well-known exception to this widely-held belief in human free will within the post-apostolic church was Augustine of Hippo, who (in famous opposition to the free will-affirming theology of the British monk, Pelagius) believed that it was God - rather than man - who decided who would be eternally saved and who wouldn't. If Augustine's position sounds familiar, it's because John Calvin was heavily influenced by the works of Augustine, and the "Reformed" theological position that bears his name is really "Augustinianism," repackaged.

[2] http://reknew.org/2007/12/what-are-the-main-principels-of-the-warfare-worldview/

[3] It's telling that one of the most common responses by Christians to the doctrine of universal salvation is that there is no "second chance" after death.

[4] If by "free will" one meant the ability to make choices that are not constrained by circumstances external to oneself, then we could say that God is the only being who has free will. For it is God who is the Author and Creator of all the circumstances in which creatures find themselves. However, even God's freedom to choose is constrained - not by circumstances external to himself, but by his own nature. We are told that "God is love" (1 Jn. 4:8). Assuming this refers to his divine nature or essence, we can conclude that all God does is constrained by a perfectly loving disposition. This would explain why God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), since lying would be inconsistent with God's loving nature. 

[5] As my friend Phillip Garrison noted after reading an earlier draft of this article, the God of Open Theism would, in this case, be like the foolish man of Christ's parable who decided to build a tower but, after having already laid the foundation, realized he did not have enough money to finish what he started (Luke 14:28-30). Such a "God" would be deserving of mockery and pity rather than our devotion and worship.

The Truth about Election

The fact that most people have not been chosen by God and will never believe the gospel in this lifetime does not mean God does not love them, or that he has forsaken them. Most Christians believe that there will be a permanent and eternal division between the members of the human race. It is believed that there will be a permanent division between those who are presently “holy and blameless in God’s sight,” and those who aren’t; a division between those who presently love and obey God, and those who don’t; a division between those who get to spend eternity in God’s presence, and those who must remain eternally separated from him. 

There are, of course, certain passages of Scripture are relied upon as supporting this common view. However, while Scripture does, in fact, speak of a division between people that has lasted – and will continue to last – for much of human history, it also reveals that God's story of redemption is not going to end this way. The few glimpses of the final scene of redemptive history which God has provided for us in Scripture (through the apostle Paul) do not depict a permanent division between human beings, and of multitudes of human beings in a state of eternal separation from God. Not only would this be a terrible and tragic ending to redemptive history, it would mean that God is either unable to accomplish his redemptive plan for all people, or that God is unwilling to save all people (and is thus less loving than he calls his children to be). Fortunately, the final scene with which Scripture presents us is much more beautiful and God-glorifying than this. Consider Paul’s words in Ephesians 1:9-10:

“…making known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he purposed in him unto a dispensation of the fullness of the times, to sum up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth…” (ASV)

What’s fascinating about this passage is that Paul is not only telling us what God’s will is with regards to the ultimate destiny of everything in the universe, but he's telling us that this “mystery” has been made known to God’s elect – i.e., those whom God has chosen beforehand to believe Paul’s gospel and become members of Christ’s body. So what is the "mystery" of God's will that has been made known to those who are members of Christ’s body? It is this: that “all things” – both “in the heavens” and “upon the earth” - will be summed up “in Christ!” 

The Greek word variously translated as “sum up” (ASV), "unite in" (ESV), "summing up of," (NASB), "bring unity to" (NIV), "gather together in one" (RSV) and “bring into one the whole” (YLT) is anakephalaiomai. It is found only here and in Rom 13:9, where Paul speaks of the entire law being "summed up" in the commandment to love. In his “Modern English” translation, J.B. Phillips beautifully captures the meaning of Paul’s words in verse 10: “For God had allowed us to know the secret of his plan, and it is this: he purposes in his sovereign will that all human history shall be consummated in Christ, that everything that exists in Heaven or earth shall find its perfection and fulfillment in him.”

According to Paul, Jesus Christ is ultimately destined to “fill all things” (Eph 4:10). Christ has already sacrificed himself on behalf of all sinners as the divine pledge of their redemption from sin and their reconciliation to God (John 1:29; 12:32; 2 Cor. 5:19; Col 1:19; 1 Tim 2:3-6; 4:10; 1 John 2:2; 3:4-8). He was raised from the dead as the pledge that death itself will one day be abolished, and that all people will ultimately be made immortal (1 Cor. 15:20-22, 50-57; 2 Tim 1:10). And he has been made Lord over all and given all authority in heaven and on earth to bring about this glorious victory (Acts 2:36; 10:36; Rom 10:12; 14:9; Matt 28:18). However, we do not yet see this victory fully manifested. 

What was accomplished prospectively through Christ’s death and resurrection has not yet been fully realized in the universe. The kingdom of Satan has yet to be overthrown, and both sin (which John calls the “works of the devil”) and death (which Paul calls the “last enemy”) have yet to be abolished. Christ has not yet subjected all to himself (1 Cor. 15:25-28; Heb 2:8-9), since many created beings – both human and angelic – remain in a state of rebellion against him. Only a relative few can be said to have been “subjected to Christ” and (prospectively) brought into his kingdom at this present time (Col 1:13). But just as the church is presently subjected to Christ and under his headship (Eph. 5:22-24), so shall all created beings ultimately be subjected to him. And when this time comes, all things in heaven and on earth will finally be unified under Christ, Christ will finally “fill all things,” and God will finally be “all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28).

When understood correctly, I submit that the scriptural doctrine of election is fully consistent with this understanding of the consummation of redemptive history, and does not entail such a deeply unsettling view of God as that found in Calvinistic Christianity. Although (as noted earlier) the traditional Christian view is that certain people were selected by God to spend eternity with him in heaven while the rest are doomed to be eternally separated from him in a place of conscious, fiery torment (which is traditionally thought to be the “default fate” for sinners), election in Scripture has nothing to do with avoiding such a fate. It is not about where or how one will spend eternity. It is not about one’s final destiny at all.

To better understand the subject of election in the Bible, consider the following examples of both individuals and corporate groups that were “chosen” or “elect” according to God’s redemptive purpose: Israel (Isaiah 45:4; Deut 7:7; Acts 13:17; Romans 9:11; 11:28), Christ (Isaiah 42:1; Luke 9:35; 23:35; 1 Peter 2:4, 6), the twelve disciples (Luke 6:13; John 6:70; 13:18; 15:16, 19; Acts 1:2, 24-25) and the Apostle Paul (Acts 9:15; see also Acts 22:14; 1 Cor. 9:1, 15). In none of these cases does election have anything to do with one’s being chosen by God to spend eternity with him in heaven rather than being eternally separated from him in “hell.” 

This is especially evident with Christ’s election: while Christ is said to be “chosen” and “elect,” his being chosen and elect has nothing to do with his spending his eternal destiny in one location rather than another (for of course, Christ’s eternal destiny was never in question). Rather, Christ’s election was all about his unique vocation and divine calling. Christ was chosen for a certain redemptive mission, and that mission involved his perfectly manifesting the will and character of God to the world, and his faithfully doing the work of his Father (a work which culminated in his sacrificial death on the cross for the sins of the world). And I submit that Christ’s election is the paradigm for how the election of the believer should be understood. Election is essentially about God’s choosing individuals or groups of people ahead of time for certain important roles or tasks (e.g., lineage and/or service). As was the case with Christ, to be elected or chosen by God involves being given a certain office or vocation (which carries with it both blessing/privilege and responsibility).

To better understand the significance of election, we should take a look at Israel’s purpose in the Hebrew Scriptures or "Old Testament." In these Scriptures we find that God singled out the nation of Israel to ultimately be a blessing to the rest of the world. It is significant that God is recognized as not just God over Israel but over the whole earth and all nations (e.g. Psalm 24, 96, 1 Chron. 29:11, etc.). Early in the Scriptural narrative, then, we find that God has a purpose and a goal in regard to the inhabitants of this planet: blessing all the families and nations of the earth through the (Jewish) offspring of Abraham (Gen 12:3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14; Ps. 22:27; 67:2; 72:11; 82:8; 86:9; Isaiah 25:6-8). 

God’s special favor toward Israel stood at the center of his plan to eventually bless the entire world. Just as God singled out Joseph from among his brothers to be a blessing to the entire nation of Egypt, so the nation of Israel was marked by God as the divinely chosen agent in ultimately mediating blessing to all nations (see Isaiah 61-66). As many students of Scripture have noted, Jesus seems to be alluding to the original purpose of Israel in choosing twelve Jewish disciples to continue God’s redemptive plan for the world. Just as Israel was to be a light to the nations, the twelve disciples were chosen to be a light to the rest of the darkened world (Matt 5:14), so that the world would know God and glorify him (5:16). The number twelve is, of course, significant, as twelve is also the number of the tribes of Israel.

Just as national Israel is to be the agent through which God will ultimately mediate redemption to the nations on earth, so the body of Christ is to be the agent through which God makes known his manifold wisdom to the rulers and authorities "among the celestials" (Eph. 3:10; cf. Eph. 2:4-7). Paul said that those who are “in Christ” by faith (i.e., those who are “members of his body”) were chosen to be “holy and blameless in God's sight” (Eph. 1:4). They are also said to be “predestined to be adopted through Jesus Christ” (v. 5). Paul isn’t talking about anyone being chosen for one eternal destiny rather than another here; he’s talking about what's true of believers now, and what will be true of believers during the coming ages or "eons" of Christ’s reign (Eph. 2:6-7). 

Being “in Christ,” believers are presently considered holy and blameless in God’s sight (that’s why they’re said to be “justified,” and are always addressed as “saints” – even the ones who were in obvious need of further spiritual growth!). Believers are also given the special status of being “adopted” (a beautiful metaphor which Paul elaborates on in greater depth in Galatians 3:23 through 4:7). Although this status enjoyed by believers brings with it great privileges, believers are not blessed for their own sake alone. Rather, believers are called to serve others (both now and in the future) and to "wrestle" against the “principalities and powers” that are in rebellion against God and hostile towards humanity (Eph 6:10-17). In the Bible, election is always a vocational calling; the election of believers is inseparable from their calling to humbly serve and be a blessing to others.

Elsewhere Paul writes that believers are "[God's] workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared in advance for them to walk in" (Eph 2:10).

God’s election of Jacob instead of Esau, and his “hating” Esau and “loving” Jacob (Rom. 9:13; Mal. 1:2-3) is sometimes thought to support the idea that God has permanently divided humanity into two groups, with one portion of humanity destined for an eternity in heaven and another destined for an eternity in “hell.” However, as noted earlier, God's election of individuals or groups is always to historic and redemptive vocation (e.g., lineage and service), and does not entail that those who weren't elected are eternally doomed. God's "hatred" of Esau was no more a literal, personal hatred of Esau and his national descendents than was Jacob’s "hatred" of Leah (Gen 29:30-31). Nor was it any different than the "hatred" Christ says we are to have toward our family and our own lives (Luke 14:26). It was an idiomatic way of speaking common among the Hebrew people to use the terms "love" and "hate" in a comparative sense, with "love" denoting a greater regard or affection for someone, and "hatred" denoting less regard or affection for someone (as opposed to positive hatred or indifference). 

God's "hatred" of Esau (that is, the nation of Edom - Gen 25:23; Mal. 1:3-4) simply meant that, in contrast to Jacob and his descendents, God had less regard towards Esau and his descendents in relation to the outworking of his redemptive plan in history. In other words, God’s love of Jacob (Israel) and his hatred of Esau (Edom) simply had reference to the higher and more preeminent position of the Hebrew nation in God’s sovereign purpose. Before Jacob and Esau were even born, God determined that Esau’s nation, Edom, would not to be the chosen people and vessel through which the Messiah would come, and through which he would ultimately bless all the nations of the earth. To affirm that God literally and absolutely hates some would be completely inconsistent with the God revealed by Jesus and his apostles. According to Christ, God loves the world, including those who do not (yet) love him (John 3:16; Mt. 5:43-48). And according to the apostle John, God’s love for this sinful world defines his very essence (1 John 4:8-9, 14; cf. 1 John 2:2; 5:19).

But are not the non-elect said to be "vessels of wrath" (that is, under God’s wrath), and to be "vessels of dishonor?" Certainly, but nowhere does Scripture say or suggest that God’s wrath should be understood as eternal conscious torment in “hell.” As far as Scripture reveals, any divine wrath that fell upon Esau’s national descendants was confined to this life (Isaiah 34:5-10; Mal. 1:2-3). It did not extend beyond this mortal, earthly existence. Moreover, throughout his epistle to the Romans, Paul nowhere speaks of God's wrath as something that will take place in “eternity,” during the immortal state of man’s existence (Rom 1:18, 24, 26, 28, 32; 12:19; 13:2, 4). Like the wrath that fell upon Edom, the destruction of the "vessels of wrath" of which Paul spoke (Rom 9:22) is also spoken of as being an imminent temporal judgment “upon the earth”: 

"Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel: 'Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, The remnant will be saved. For He will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness, because the LORD will make a short work upon the earth.' And as Isaiah said before: 'Unless the LORD of Hosts had left us a seed, we would have become like Sodom, and we would have been made like Gomorrah.'" Romans 9:27-29

What Paul quotes in verses 27-28 was spoken originally of the few Israelites that were saved from the ravage of the Assyrian army (Isaiah 10:22-23). This historical judgment - like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (v. 29; cf. Luke 17:29-30; 2 Peter 2:6) - was completely temporal (as opposed to "eternal") in nature - and the salvation of the "remnant" of which he speaks was no different in this regard. Paul never said a word about God's “wrath” or "indignation" being experienced by immortal human beings in an eternal state of existence. Like God’s wrath upon Edom, it is solely confined to those sharing in this temporal, mortal existence. Those of whom Paul wrote as being "vessels of wrath" were his unbelieving, first-century Jewish brethren. And the judgment for which they had been prepared was not endless torment in an immortal state of existence, but a judgment that would be similar in nature to the judgments that came upon the unrighteous previously in history.

But what about "predestination?" Does this word not imply that some have a different eternal destiny than others? Not at all. To "predestinate" simply means to "designate beforehand"; the word doesn't tell us what a person was predestined to or for. Whenever it is used by Paul in reference to believers, it never need be understood to refer to our final, eternal destiny. Instead, it refers to the destiny of certain people (i.e., members of Christ’s body) before the final consummation (i.e., before the time when all are subjected to Christ and God becomes “all in all”). The destiny given to believers is their being conformed to Christ’s likeness, before anyone else (Eph. 1:4-7; Rom 8:29-30). This is a process that begins now (2 Cor. 3:18). It is this noble destiny which God marked out for those whom he "foreknew" - i.e., those whom God graciously chose beforehand for a special purpose, as part of his redemptive plan for the universe. 

Unlike the rest of mankind, those who are chosen to become members of Christ’s body are granted the faith that leads to reconciliation with God and a deliverance from sin’s dominion in this present life. And it is these whom God is going to be showing “the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness” in Christ (Eph. 2:7) – not in eternity (with everyone else eternally excluded), but in “the ages [plural] to come.”[1] But this in no way means that only those who are called to be believers in this life will be finally saved, for Paul calls God "the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe" (1 Tim 4:10). Believers – those whom God has chosen before the foundation (or rather, “disruption”) of the world are being saved now, and enjoy God’s grace during this life and in the ages to come. Those not chosen by God will be saved later, when the future ages of Christ’s reign reach their conclusion and he subjects all to himself.

The elect are essentially God’s pledge on behalf of the rest of humanity, and as such may be understood as a prophetic sign to the rest of the world revealing their ultimate destiny. An illustration of how God elects some on behalf of others can be seen from the scriptural theme of "firstfruits" and the "firstborn." Israel, as God’s elect nation, was known as the "firstfruits" (Jer. 2:3) and "firstborn" (Ex 3:22). But "firstfruits" serve as the pledge of the whole harvest. To offer up firstfruits to God meant that the rest of the harvest belonged to him as well. The New Testament uses this imagery as well; as those who are included in Christ’s body in this age of redemptive history, believers are known as "firstfruits" (2 Thess. 2:13; cf. James 1:18; Rev 14:4) and possess the "firstfruits of the Spirit" (Rom 8:22). But such language can only mean that an even greater, more inclusive harvest is yet to come in the future. In the same way, the "firstborn" involves and includes (in the divine economy) the whole family. Jesus is the firstborn of not the elect only, but of all creation (Colossians 1:15). While the firstborn and firstfruits are few in number, they have relation to the entire creation - all who are in need of being reconciled to their Creator.

---

[1] While Christ often spoke of the “age to come” during his ministry, Paul makes it clear that there is more than one age to come. Thus, the “age to come” is not an endless duration of time, since it is to be followed by another age. The “age to come” of which Christ spoke refers to the coming age of the millennial kingdom (to which every Israelite looked forward and hoped to inherit). And since this coming age is not eternal, we need not understand the age to follow it to be eternal, either (and Scripture elsewhere reveals that it is not).

Reformed Theology and the Doctrine of Election

According to my understanding of Scripture, we can rest assured that my 20-month-old daughter, Miriam, is loved by God with a perfect, unsurpassable love. We can also, I believe, have confidence that he sent his Son – Christ Jesus – into the world to save her, and that he will ultimately be successful in his mission. Thus, even though she is not yet a believer, her ultimate salvation is not just "possible" (or even "probable") but absolutely certain. We can also, I believe, be confident that the very same can be said for all of God's human creatures, whether they are children or adults. According to my understanding of Scripture, there is no human being born into this world whom God does not love with a redeeming love, and whom he has not planned on ultimately delivering from sin, pain and death. And since Jesus taught that, with regards to man's salvation, all things are possible with God,[1] I believe we can trust that God can and will ultimately reconcile all human beings to himself, irrespective of their beliefs or the condition of their heart when they "breathe their last." Our choices in this life do not determine our final, "eternal" state, and there is no verse of Scripture (when properly translated and understood) that reveals otherwise.

Most Christian churches and denominations throughout history, however, have not shared this view of what God will accomplish in the end. Instead, they have denied either God's power and ability OR his desire and will to save all people. It would seem that most Christians today - no matter what denomination they are apart of - believe that God truly wants everyone to be saved. However, it is also believed that God is - for whatever reason - unable to bring this about and make it a reality. In what sense (one might reasonably ask) could God be unable to accomplish the salvation of everyone he genuinely wants to save? That's a good question. I doubt most Christians who believe this to be the case can even say; most likely, they just accept it as being so, and choose not to give it too much thought or reflection. Perhaps it's because God just doesn't know how to bring about the circumstances in which all people will eventually choose to trust in and love him. Whatever the reason, God - according to most Christians - truly wants something to happen (the salvation of all) but, ultimately, just can't make it so. His "hands are tied."

Although this is arguably the belief of most Christians today, there are other Christians who think otherwise. Those who disagree that God is unable to save everyone he wants to save typically identify themselves as "Calvinists" or "Reformed" Christians. According to the distinctive beliefs of this theological camp, God is not at all unable to save all people. No, he's perfectly able to do so; theoretically, he could reconcile all people to himself if he really wanted to. According to these Christians, the reason why all people will not be reconciled to God and saved is because it's not part of God's sovereign purpose (and never has been). 

Among the Christian denominations denying God's desire and will (or "sovereign purpose") to reconcile all people to himself is the Presbyterian church to which I belonged for more than thirty years. According to the Reformed theology to which this denomination (but not necessarily all, or even most, of its members) subscribes, God's sovereign desire and intention has never been to save all people. If the "official" Reformed theological position of my former church is true, then one must admit the following as being a very real possibility: My daughter Miriam (who, being only 20 months old as I write this, is not yet a believer) is not one of those whom God has ever had any real intention of saving. That is, by virtue of that which the theology of my former church explicitly affirms regarding God's redemptive purpose, it implicitly affirms the very real possibility that my daughter is, at this very moment, destined for an eternity in hell.

Like all Reformed denominations, the doctrinal stance of the Presbyterian church in which I grew up is based on the theology of John Calvin and his theological successors. One of the things John Calvin believed and taught was that only a select few have been selected and predestined by God to go to heaven, while the rest (the majority of people) are doomed to suffer God's wrath in hell for all eternity. According to Calvinism, the majority of people (the non-elect, or "reprobate") were doomed for hell before they were even born, without any hope of being saved. Their fate was sealed long before they even came into the world and took their first breath.

Historically, Calvinists have been divided over whether the fate of everyone who will ultimately end up in hell was fixed by God before the fall of man (historically known as "supralapsarianism") or after the fall of man ("infralapsarianism"). The so-called "supralapsarian" view is considered the historic Calvinist view.[2] But regardless of which view to which the Calvinist holds, the fact remains that, according to Reformed theology, there are many human beings who come into this world whom God has never had any intention of saving, and who thus have never had any hope or "chance" of being saved. They come into this world predestined for an eternity in hell, according to the sovereign purpose of the God who created them and continually sustains them in existence. Calvin even taught that all infants come into the world hell-bound - that is, until they are regenerated and saved. But according to Calvin, God has elected only some to be regenerated. Consider the following excerpts from Calvin (emphasis mine), keeping in mind that this man is highly revered by many Christians (including the leaders of the church in which I was brought up):

"We call predestination God's eternal decree, by which he determined with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition: rather, eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others. Therefore, as any man has been created to one or the other of these ends, we speak of him as predestined to life or to death." (Inst., Book 3, Sec. 5)

"We say, then, that Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his desire one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his desire to doom to destruction. We maintain that this counsel, as regards the elect, is founded on his free mercy, without any respect to human worth, while those whom he dooms to destruction are excluded from access to life by a just and blameless, but at the same time incomprehensible judgment...But as the Lord seals his elect by calling and justification, so by excluding the reprobate either from the knowledge of his name or the sanctification of his Spirit, he by these marks in a manner discloses the judgment which awaits them."(Inst. Book 3, Sec. 7)

"The human mind, when it hears this doctrine, cannot restrain its petulance, but boils and rages as if aroused by the sound of a trumpet. Many professing a desire to defend the Deity from an invidious charge admit the doctrine of election, but deny that any one is reprobated (Bernard. in Die Ascensionis, Serm. 2). This they do ignorantly and childishly since there could be no election without its opposite reprobation. God is said to set apart those whom he adopts for salvation. It were most absurd to say, that he admits others fortuitously, or that they by their industry acquire what election alone confers on a few. Those, therefore, whom God passes by he reprobates, and that for no other cause but because he is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines to his children." (Inst. Book 3, Sec. 1)

"And the Apostle most distinctly testifies, that "death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned," (Rom. 5:12); that is, are involved in original sin, and polluted by its stain. Hence, even infants bringing their condemnation with them from their mother’s womb, suffer not for another’s, but for their own defect. For although they have not yet produced the fruits of their own unrighteousness, they have the seed implanted in them. Nay, their whole nature is, as it were, a seed-bed of sin, and therefore cannot but be odious and abominable to God. Hence it follows, that it is properly deemed sinful in the sight of God; for there could be no condemnation without guilt." (Inst. Book 2, Sec. 8)

"But how, they ask, are infants regenerated, when not possessing a knowledge of either good or evil? We answer, that the work of God, though beyond the reach of our capacity, is not therefore null. Moreover, infantswho are to be saved (and that some are saved at this age is certain) must, without question, be previously regenerated by the Lord. For if they bring innate corruption with them from their mother’s womb, they must be purified before they can be admitted into the kingdom of God, into which shall not enter anything that defileth (Rev. 21:27). If they are born sinners, as David and Paul affirm, they must either remain unaccepted and hatedby God, or be justified." (Inst. Book 4, Sec. 17)

"If those on whom the Lord has bestowed his election, after receiving the sign of regeneration, depart this life before they become adults, he, by the incomprehensible energy of his Spirit, renews them in the way which he alone sees to be expedient." (Inst. Book 4, Sec. 16, 21)

"And, indeed, Christ was sanctified from earliest infancy, that he might sanctify his elect in himself at any age, without distinction…This, at least, we set down as incontrovertible, that none of the elect is called away from the present life without being previously sanctified and regenerated by the Spirit of God." (Inst. Book 4, Sec. 18)

"As far as relates to young children, they seem to perish not by their own, but for another's fault; but the solution is twofold; for although sin does not appear in them, yet it is latent,since they carry about with them corruption shut up in their soul, so that they are worthy of condemnation before God." (Ezek. Comm. 18:4)

"We ought, therefore, to hold it as a settled point, that all who are destitute of the grace of God are involved in the sentence of eternal death. Hence it follows, that the children of the reprobate, whom the curse of God pursues, are liable to the same sentence. Isaiah, therefore, does not speak ofinnocent children, but of flagitious and unprincipled childrenwho perhaps even exceeded their parents in wickedness; in consequence of which they were justly associated with their parents, and subjected to the same punishment, seeing that they have followed the same manner of life…it was with their parents that the rejection began, on account of which they also have been forsaken and rejected by God. Their own guilt is not set aside as if they had been innocent; but, having been involved in the same sins as to reprobation, they are also liable to the same punishments andmiseries." (Isa. Comm. 14:21)

"I again ask how it is that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infant children in eternal death without remedy unless that it so seemed meet to God? Here the most loquacious tongues must be dumb. The decree, I admit, is, dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknow what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he had so ordained by his decree. Should anyone here inveigh against the prescience of God, he does it rashly and unadvisedly. For why, pray, should it be made a charge against the heavenly Judge, that he was not ignorant of what was to happen? Thus, if there is any just or plausible complaint, it must be directed against predestination." (Inst. Book 3, Sec. 23, 7)

Now, according to the Reformed theology of Calvin, while we may hope that my daughter is among those whom God has predestined for heaven, we cannot have any real assurance that this is the case - at least, not until it becomes evident that she has become a believer (and even then, there's always a chance that we could be mistaken about this, just as we can be mistaken about whether some adults have truly come to saving faith). In fact, we cannot have any assurance that God intends to save any newborn, infant or young child who, as far as we know, has yet to be "regenerated" by God, and has not yet given any indication that they really understand - let alone believe - the truth of the gospel. Even if my daughter does turn out to be one of those fortunate few whom God chose for salvation before the foundation of the world, the following would (according to Calvinist theology) still be the case: there are, in all likelihood, multitudes of human beings at various stages of life who came into this world whom God has never had any intention of saving, and who thus have only an eternity in hell to look forward to.

It should be emphasized that this article isn't "merely" about the possibility of infant damnation, only. The view of Calvin and other like-minded theologians on the subject of infant damnation was merely an extension of their view on election and salvation in general. Although John Calvin and other Reformed theologians clearly believed that some (perhaps even most) human beings who die in infancy are not regenerated by God before they die (and thus are among the non-elect, or reprobate), the issue I want to focus on is not whether one believes that some who die in infancy will be damned. Instead, the position I want to challenge is that there are ANY human beings who come into this world whom God has never had any intention of saving, and who thus have no hope of ever being saved by God. For it is this position that all honest, informed and consistent adherents of Reformed theology - the kind of theology to which my former denomination faithfully submits (as I will demonstrate shortly) - must affirm. To deny it would be to deny an essential and distinctively Reformed doctrine.

Consider, for example, the following excerpts from the Westminster Confession of Faith (a document containing an explicit affirmation of Reformed theology):

THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH. A.D. 1647

CHAPTER 3 - OF GOD'S ETERNAL DECREE

3.1 God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

3.2 Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.

3.3 By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.

3.4 These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.

3.5 Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace.

3.6 As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power, through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

3.7 The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.

3.8 The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men, attending the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.

CHAPTER 10 - OF EFFECTUAL CALLING

10.1 All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and, by his almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.

10.2 This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.

10.3 Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth: so also are all other elect persons who are uncapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

10.4 Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the laws of that religion they do profess. And, to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested.

Now, it is evident that the denomination to which my former church belongs (the “Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians,” or “ECO”) views this particular Reformed confession (among others) as a good expression of their theological position. Consider the following statements from ECO's "Essential Tenets and Confessional Standards"[3]:

The Reformed understanding of the church’s confessional and theological tradition sees contemporary Christians as participants in an enduring theological and doctrinal conversation that shapes the patterns of the church’s faith and life. Communities of believers from every time and place engage in a continuous discussion about the shape of Christian faith and life, an exchange that is maintained through Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. Today’s church brings its insights into an ongoing dialogue with those who have lived and died the Faith before us. Voices from throughout the church’s life contribute to the interchange – ancient voices that articulate the enduring rule of faith, sixteenth and seventeenth century voices that shape the Reformed tradition, and twentieth century voices that proclaim the church’s faith in challenging contexts. The confessions in the Book of Confessions were not arbitrarily included, but were selected to give faithful voice to the whole communion of saints.

The Book of Confessions is an appropriate expression of the Reformed commitment to honor our fathers and mothers in the Faith. It begins with two foundational creeds, shared throughout the whole Church. The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed is the decisive dogmatic articulation of Trinitarian faith. It establishes the vocabulary, grammar, and syntax of Christian theology. The Apostles’ Creed is the Baptismal creed that expresses the shared belief of the faithful as persons are incorporated into the body of Christ. Two Reformation confessions, Scots and Second Helvetic, and one Reformation catechism, Heidelberg, give voice to the dawning of the Reformed tradition. The seventeenth century Westminster standards powerfully express God’s sovereignty over all of life. The Theological Declaration of Barmen, the Confession of 1967, and A Brief Statement of Faith articulate the church’s fidelity to the gospel in the midst of uncongenial and sometimes hazardous cultures. These confessions, from widely different contexts, are complementary. They do not sing in unison, but in a rich harmony that glorifies God and deepens our enjoyment of the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit.

Are these the only voices that could be included in the church’s theological conversation? No, but they are faithful witnesses to the gospel and appropriate expressions of the Reformed perspective on Christian faith and life. Participating in their colloquy frees us from the narrow prison cell of our own time and place by listening to the voices of our brothers and sisters who struggled to be faithful in diverse circumstances. Through their confessions of faith we are privileged to hear their wisdom in the midst of our own struggle to be faithful. We overhear conversations among our forebears that expand and enrich our apprehension of the gospel. Sometimes we simply listen in on their discussion, at other times we pay particular attention to one of their voices, and many times we find ourselves participating actively in lively instruction.

The questions of our parents in the faith may not be identical to ours, but their different approaches enable us to understand our own questions better. Their answers may not be identical to ours, yet their answers startle us into new apprehensions of the truth. We may sometimes be puzzled by their particular questions or answers, but even that perplexity serves to clarify our own thinking and the shape of our faithfulness. Throughout the conversation we are aware that all councils may err, yet because we are not doctrinal progressives we acknowledge the confessions have a particular authority over us: we are answerable to them before they are answerable to us.

This section closes with the following words:

Neither the Fellowship nor the ECO can imagine that it should or could disavow the Reformed confessional heritage. Whatever the church’s confessional and theological failings may be, they are the failings of all of us. The task now is to embody faithful ways of being Presbyterian. The most appropriate footing for a new venture is the faithful doctrinal and theological foundation provided by the creeds, confessions, and catechisms of the Book of Confessions.

Not only does ECO implicitly affirm the Reformed theology expressed in the Westminster Confessions, but we find also an explicit affirmation of the Reformed doctrines of "Total Depravity," "Unconditional Election" and "Irresistible Grace." In the next section entitled "Essential Tenets," we read:

Presbyterians have been of two minds about essential tenets. We recognize that just as there are some central and foundational truths of the gospel affirmed by Christians everywhere, so too there are particular understandings of the gospel that define the Presbyterian and Reformed tradition. All Christians must affirm the central mysteries of the faith, and all those who are called to ordered ministries in a Presbyterian church must also affirm the essential tenets of the Reformed tradition. Recognizing the danger in reducing the truth of the gospel to propositions that demand assent, we also recognize that when the essentials become a matter primarily of individual discernment and local affirmation, they lose all power to unite us in common mission and ministry.

Essential tenets are tied to the teaching of the confessions as reliable expositions of Scripture. The essential tenets call out for explication, not as another confession, but as indispensable indicators of confessional convictions about what Scripture leads us to believe and do. Essential tenets do not replace the confessions, but rather witness to the confessions’ common core. This document is thus intended not as a new confession but as a guide to the corporate exploration of and commitment to the great themes of Scripture and to the historic Reformed confessions that set forth those themes.

Under heading III ("Essentials of the Reformed Tradition"), A ("God’s grace in Christ"), we find an affirmation of the doctrine of Total Depravity (the "T" in the acronym "TULIP"):

As a result of sin, human life is poisoned by everlasting death. No part of human life is untouched by sin. Our desires are no longer trustworthy guides to goodness, and what seems natural to us no longer corresponds to God’s design. We are not merely wounded in our sin; we are dead, unable to save ourselves. Apart from God’s initiative, salvation is not possible for us. Our only hope is God's grace. We discover in Scripture that this is a great hope, for our God is the One whose mercy is from everlasting to everlasting.

This grace does not end when we turn to sin. Although we are each deserving of God’s eternal condemnation, the eternal Son assumed our human nature, joining us in our misery and offering Himself on the cross in order to free us from slavery to death and sin. Jesus takes our place both in bearing the weight of condemnation against our sin on the cross and in offering to God the perfect obedience that humanity owes to Him but is no longer able to give. All humanity participates in the fall into sin. Those who are united through faith with Jesus Christ are fully forgiven from all our sin, so that there is indeed a new creation. We are declared justified, not because of any good that we have done, but only because of God’s grace extended to us in Jesus Christ. In union with Christ through the power of the Spirit we are brought into right relation with the Father, who receives us as His adopted children.

Notice that, according to ECO, "all humanity participates in the fall into sin," and is thus "deserving of God's eternal condemnation." This means that newborns are just as deserving of God's eternal condemnation as adults (which, as we've seen, was the view of Calvin and the Westminster Divines). Moreover, according to the doctrine of Total Depravity (or "Total Inability"), we are, by nature, completely unable to respond positively to God and his grace, and must undergo a radical spiritual transformation (in which our heart is regenerated by God) before we are able to exercise faith in Christ and be saved. All who do not undergo this transformation of the heart and exercise faith in Christ before physical death must suffer the full outpouring of God’s wrath in hell for all eternity. And apart from God’s mercifully choosing to intervene in a person’s life and causing them to undergo this transformation, no one would be saved. We would all remain in a state of spiritual blindness and hardness of heart that makes us utterly incapable of responding to the gospel of Christ with saving faith.

To quote Reformed pastor and bestselling author Tim Keller, "...all human beings, given a hundred chances, a thousand chances, an infinite number of chances, will always – because their desires are such – will always choose to be their own lord and savior, and they'll never choose Jesus. And what God does, is he opens the eyes of some so they'll see the truth, but he doesn't open the eyes of everybody."[4] Although these words by Keller are part of his explanation of what he calls the "Doctrine of Election," this is actually a good summary explanation of the Reformed doctrine of "Total Depravity," and what it entails (i.e., that apart from God's choosing to "open the eyes of some so they'll see the truth," no one would ever "choose Jesus" and thus be saved).

Under section B ("Election for salvation and service") we find the doctrine of Total Depravity affirmed once more, along with the related doctrines of Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace (the "U" and "I" in "TULIP"):

The call of God to the individual Christian is not merely an invitation that each person may accept or reject by his or her own free will. Having lost true freedom of will in the fall, we are incapable of turning toward God of our own volition. God chooses us for Himself in grace before the foundation of the world, not because of any merit on our part, but only because of His love and mercy. Each of us is chosen in Christ, who is eternally appointed to be head of the body of the elect, our brother and our high priest. He is the one who is bone of our bone, flesh of our flesh, our divine Helper who is also our Bridegroom, sharing our human nature so that we may see His glory. We who receive Him and believe in His name do so not by our own will or wisdom, but because His glory compels us irresistibly to turn toward Him. By His enticing call on our lives, Jesus enlightens our minds, softens our hearts, and renews our wills, restoring the freedom that we lost in the fall.

As is evident from the above quote, the Calvinistic doctrines of "Total Depravity," "Unconditional Election" and "Irresistible Grace" are very much bound together in Reformed theology. This is also evident from the quote by Keller, where his explanation of the "doctrine of election" would make equal sense (if not more sense) when understood as an explanation of the doctrine of Total Depravity (and perhaps of Irresistible Grace as well). According to the Reformed doctrine of election affirmed by ECO, only those individuals who are chosen by God before the foundation of the world will escape "God's eternal condemnation," of which we are told all human beings (both young and old) are deserving. It is these elect individuals alone who will be finally and eternally saved. Those not chosen by God before the foundation of the world for salvation will suffer God's wrath for all eternity, forever excluded from heaven and without hope of ever being shown divine mercy.

Thus, according to the theology affirmed by the Presbyterian church to which I belonged (and the denomination with which it is affiliated), there are some people born into the world whom God has never had any intention of actually saving. And having never had any intention of saving them, it means that God has never had any intention of doing what is in their best interests. In other words, God never truly loved them at all. This, dear reader, is the shocking (and, I believe, God-dishonoring) conclusion to which the Reformed doctrine of election leads.

Imagine, if you will, a newborn child who has just come into the world. She is being tenderly embraced by her mother as tears of joy stream down her cheeks. Her proud father looks on. Now, imagine that Calvinism is true, and that neither the child nor her parents are elect (keep in mind that, according to most Calvinists – indeed, most Christians – the majority of people born into this world will not be saved, and are thus not elect). According to Calvinism, the non-elect parents love their child more than God does (for he does not really love her at all). As the parents gaze lovingly into the eyes of their newborn daughter, they want only the best for her, and are prepared to do whatever they can to secure her future happiness in this world. But as God "looks down" from heaven, he knows full well that whatever happiness may be in store for this child during her relatively brief, mortal existence on earth will end as soon as she breathes her last. God - who brought her into existence, and continually sustains her in existence - knows full well what her eternal fate will be. He knew before she was even conceived. Being non-elect, she is destined for an eternity in hell. Even as her parents look to the future with hearts full of hope for their newborn child, God looks to the future and sees their daughter forever banished from his presence, and suffering eternal conscious torment in hell. 

And why must this awful, nightmarish fate be hers? Why will she not ultimately be counted among the redeemed in heaven? Answer: Simply because the Calvinist God, in his sovereignty, wanted it this way. It was his "good pleasure" and "sovereign will" to forever withhold his electing love and saving grace from this girl, and from all who will share her fate. 

My hope is that what you just read makes your blood run cold, and that you find the "God" depicted above - the "God" believed in and worshiped by Calvinists and Reformed Christians - as horrible, appalling and unworthy of our faith and love as I, by the grace of God, now do. For those whose consciences have not been seared by years of indoctrination, the disturbing scenario described above will, I trust, be a sufficient refutation of the God-dishonoring system of Christian theology known as "Calvinism."

---

[1] In Matthew 19:23-26, we read:

And Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God." When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?" But Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

[2]http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/qna/superinfra.html

http://infralapsarian.askdefine.com/

[3]http://3fq58h366khe2vdo571ox0phstu.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/ECO-Essential-Tenets-Confessions.pdf

[4]http://timkeller.info/other/excerpts/