Some Arguments Against Unconditional Election

[Wyman]

What I present below is merely a handful of reasons, some rigorously formulated and some not, why I think unconditional election is false. I welcome any objections, comments, questions, or whatever.* Enjoy.

I.
Unconditional Election Implies that God is Unjust

(1) It is unjust to punish someone for something over which they have, or had, no control.
(2) If unconditional election is true, then a god would be condemning people to hell for something (being sinners) over which they had no control.
(3) Therefore, a god who performs unconditional election would be unjust. (From 1 & 2)
(4) But God is just.
(5) Therefore, unconditional election is false. (From 3 & 4)


Anticipated objection against (2): Of course, the unelect who went to hell did have control over the fact they were sinners. God can justly send sinners to hell. Sinners deserve hell, don’t they?

Reply: But, those people remained sinners only because God never elected them in the first place. If He elected them to begin with, they wouldn’t have remained sinners. They had no control over the fact that God didn’t elect them (after all, it happened before they were born), and they had no control over the fact that God’s not electing them entailed their perpetual state of sinfulness in God’s eyes. Therefore, they had no control over the fact that they remained sinners in God‘s eyes, and thereby went to hell. If unconditional election is true, it seems like God is creating souls, choosing not to elect them -- ipso facto cutting them off from any chance to not remain sinners -- and then destroying them shortly thereafter for remaining sinners.

II.
Unconditional Election Implies that Nobody has Free Will

(6) S has free will with respect to choosing to do D only if (i) S could have chosen ~D, and (ii) S is ultimately responsible for choosing D.
(7) If unconditional election is true, then for any person x, and for any choice to do y by x, it’s false that x could have chosen ~y, and x is not ultimately responsible for choosing y.
(8) Therefore, if unconditional election is true, then nobody has free will.
(9) But many of us have free will.
(10) Therefore, unconditional election is false.

Definitions:

S is ultimately responsible for bringing about some state of affairs T =df. (i) S is personally responsible for bringing T about, and (ii) for any two occurrences of events o1 and o2, if S is personally responsible for o1, and if o2 is an explanation for o1, then S is personally responsible for o2.

S is personally responsible for bring about some state of affairs T =df. T's obtaining entails that there is at least one action A, such that S voluntarily did or did not perform A, and A causally contributed to T. (These are influenced by Kane '96.)

nb: (6) not only requires alternate possibilities, but also ultimate responsibility; I know of no frankfurt-style counterexample to these joint requirements.

III.
Unconditional Election is Metaphysically Problematic

Most who believe in unconditional election believe that there is nothing about us which serves to inform, or even remotely influence, God's decision to elect. If God elects so-and-so, it is not based on anything particularly unique about so-and-so. After all, the election is unconditional. Many will gladly endorse

P: For any person S, and for any property (or feature or quality) F of S, God does not actively consider F(S) at the moment of electing S.

So,

(11) If unconditional election is true, then P.
(12) But ~(P)
(13) Therefore, unconditional election is false.

Why (12)? Because if P is true, then God does not actively consider properties (or features or qualities) such as being self-identical, being human, bearing the relation of conducing to so-and-so's salvation, having a haecceity or an essence. But if this is true, the set of objects on which God performs election would be a vast blur to God; God would not be considering anything that serves to distinguish one object from another. Moreover, humans would be indistinguishable from inanimate obects like rocks and tables. So P is metaphysically problematic. (12) is true.

(nb: E is an essence of S iff E is a property that is essential to S and, for any possible world W, everything distinct from S in W has ~E essentially.) (See Plantinga, 1974)

IV.
Unconditional Election Robs God of His Glory

(14) God brings more glory to Himself in making salvation possible for all humans than He would were He to make salvation possible only for some.
(15) God does that which brings Him more glory.
(16) Therefore, God makes salvation possible for all people. (from 14 and 15)
(17) If unconditional election is true, God would make salvation possible only for some.
(18) Therefore, unconditional election is false. (from 16 and 17)

V.
Unconditional Election Takes Away Salvation-assurance

(19) If unconditional election is true, then we can’t be assured of our salvation.
(20) But the bible says we can be assured of our salvation.
(21) Therefore, unconditional election is false.

Given that we weren’t there watching God as he unconditionally elected people (assuming He did), we don’t really know who He picked. Ultimately, the only way to know that you’re part of the elect, and thus saved, is to wait until you die and see where you wind up. Other than that, you may speculate based on the amount of religious experience in your life. This seems contrary to what John says: we can know that we are saved -- we know we are saved when we have put our faith in Christ.

VI.
Unconditional election isn’t supported by Scripture

(22) Unconditional election is true only if it's supported by Scripture.
(23) Scripture doesn't support unconditional election.
(24) So, unconditional election is false.

(Unconditional election is 'supported by' scripture =df. (i) there is at least one proposition p in the Bible such that p entails the truth of unconditional election.)

For the verses picked out to support unconditional election, they could serve as equally strong evidence for election via middle knowledge. Thus, they don't entail unconditional election; in fact, the precise nature of election is underdetermined with repsect to biblical data. For example, take the drawing in John chapter 6: does the Father weakly draw people or strongly draw them?

God weakly draws S to Christ iff (i) there is a state of affairs T such that God actualizes T and T counterfactually implies S's freely coming to Christ. God strongly draws S to Christ iff (i) God causes S to come to Christ. (This is (slightly) influenced by Plantinga '88)

The problem is that the passage does not indicate the exact sense in which people are drawn; only that they are drawn in some sense. And it doesn’t seem that there’s a forthcoming exegetical method for determining whether the ‘strong’ or ‘weak’ sense of God's action is being used in many of the typical verses appealed to in support of unconditional election.


-----

*As I've presented it, this issue properly falls within philosophical theology. So, I posted it in the theo dept. and here.

Kane ('96), The Significance of Free Will
Plantinga ('74), The Nature of Necessity
____('88), "Epistemic Probability and Evil", The Evidential Argument from Evil, ed. Howard-Snyder

[OracleofTroy]

I'm a tad confused. Are you sure you mean Unconditional Election singularly, and without reference to the rest of TULIP? It sounds like several (most?) of your arguments are refering to the other points of Calvinism.

e.g.
1..5
(2) If unconditional election is true, then a god would be condemning people to hell for something (being sinners) over which they had no control.

I think you mean Total Depravity.

6..10
(7) If unconditional election is true, then for any person x, and for any choice to do y by x, it’s false that x could have chosen ~y, and x is not ultimately responsible for choosing y.

Again, I think your point is about Total Depravity.

11..13
(12) But ~(P)

?

14..18
(17) If unconditional election is true, God would make salvation possible only for some.

Here, I believe you mean Limited Attonement.

19..21
(19) If unconditional election is true, then we can’t be assured of our salvation.

I'm not sure why you hold this premise to be true; it is a non-sequitur. I think the argument is more about Perseverance of the Saints, but then again, everything I see about Perseverance of the Saints would affirm our salvation.

22..24
(23) Scripture doesn't support unconditional election.

It sounds like you denied this point when you said, "The problem is that the passage does not indicate the exact sense in which people are drawn; only that they are drawn in some sense."

[Wyman]

Yes, it's about unconditional election, although they might be used for other parts of TULIP as well.

And no, I did not deny that point.

[LindaK]

I am not an advocate of Gnostic beliefs (of eternal and borrowed souls) or of election as it is defined on this forum.

I do have a question of those that are and do; however, and it is this:

If the body of a non-elected (of a borrowed soul or one not destined for eternal life) dies, does that mean that body simply turns to dust and no remnant or fingerprint of that life spent on Earth lingers anywhere in the universe? OR does it mean necessarily that the energy of that body is condemned to hell?

I do not see any reasoning for believing in the condemnation, but rather (if one must believe this at all) believe in that there is simply no evidence left behind of that individual having existed. (In the form of energy hereafter lingering in the Universe be it in a heavenly realm or a Hellish one...etc.)

Just curious….

[Adam]

What I present below is merely a handful of reasons, some rigorously formulated and some not, why I think unconditional election is false. I welcome any objections, comments, questions, or whatever.* Enjoy.

I'm entering this debate more to cross swords with Wyman, whom I admire and basically agree with, than to argue the contrary exhaustively. To some extent my argument will be internally inconsistent, a "Devil's Advocate" role.

I.
Unconditional Election Implies that God is Unjust

(1) It is unjust to punish someone for something over which they have, or had, no control.
(2) If unconditional election is true, then a god would be condemning people to hell for something (being sinners) over which they had no control.
(3) Therefore, a god who performs unconditional election would be unjust. (From 1 & 2)
(4) But God is just.
(5) Therefore, unconditional election is false. (From 3 & 4)
Anticipated objection against (2): Of course, the unelect who went to hell did have control over the fact they were sinners. God can justly send sinners to hell. Sinners deserve hell, don’t they?
Reply: But, those people remained sinners only because God never elected them in the first place. If He elected them to begin with, they wouldn’t have remained sinners. They had no control over the fact that God didn’t elect them (after all, it happened before they were born), and they had no control over the fact that God’s not electing them entailed their perpetual state of sinfulness in God’s eyes. Therefore, they had no control over the fact that they remained sinners in God‘s eyes, and thereby went to hell. If unconditional election is true, it seems like God is creating souls, choosing not to elect them -- ipso facto cutting them off from any chance to not remain sinners -- and then destroying them shortly thereafter for remaining sinners.

Not all who believe in Unconditional Election believe in Hell. They are Annihilationists. If God simply destroys the puppets He created, no harm and no foul.
Some who believe in Unconditional Election are Universalists. There is a tendency for those who find themselves scripturally and theologically compelled to believe in Calvinism to find ways to believe that God's mercy eventually wins out sooner or later. Karl Barth went more and more this way in his voluminous writings.
You assume that we humans had no part in becoming as sinful as we are. Ephesians 1:3-5 tells us that we existed before the creation of the world. In these billions of years we had ample opportunity to prove ourselves worthy of salvation or condemnation. (Yes, and I have taken the additional step of believing in reincarnation of humans of Earth, so there are second chances.)

II.
Unconditional Election Implies that Nobody has Free Will

(6) S has free will with respect to choosing to do D only if (i) S could have chosen ~D, and (ii) S is ultimately responsible for choosing D.
(7) If unconditional election is true, then for any person x, and for any choice to do y by x, it’s false that x could have chosen ~y, and x is not ultimately responsible for choosing y.
(8) Therefore, if unconditional election is true, then nobody has free will.
(9) But many of us have free will.
(10) Therefore, unconditional election is false.
Definitions:
S is ultimately responsible for bringing about some state of affairs T =df. (i) S is personally responsible for bringing T about, and (ii) for any two occurrences of events o1 and o2, if S is personally responsible for o1, and if o2 is an explanation for o1, then S is personally responsible for o2.
S is personally responsible for bring about some state of affairs T =df. T's obtaining entails that there is at least one action A, such that S voluntarily did or did not perform A, and A causally contributed to T. (These are influenced by Kane '96.)
nb: (6) not only requires alternate possibilities, but also ultimate responsibility; I know of no frankfurt-style counterexample to these joint requirements.

While I have a hard time denying that I have free will, I cannot verify its existence in anyone else. Though I do see people making radical life-style changes, I tend to see this as just their reversion to their genetic, psychological, or spiritual essence. Also, since I do not find any other people to be similar to me, I cannot generalize that what seems true for me (free will) is true for anyone else. Even the free will I feel I have does not seem to result in any effect on the world outside myself, so I conclude that the free will I feel (and the free will others feel as well) is illusory, because everything is going to happen as predestined. I have even come to believe that my own exercize of "free will" lessens my impact on the world at large because I failed to take my predestined role to have the impact I was destined to have.

III.
Unconditional Election is Metaphysically Problematic

Most who believe in unconditional election believe that there is nothing about us which serves to inform, or even remotely influence, God's decision to elect. If God elects so-and-so, it is not based on anything particularly unique about so-and-so. After all, the election is unconditional. Many will gladly endorse
P: For any person S, and for any property (or feature or quality) F of S, God does not actively consider F(S) at the moment of electing S.
So,
(11) If unconditional election is true, then P.
(12) But ~(P)
(13) Therefore, unconditional election is false.
Why (12)? Because if P is true, then God does not actively consider properties (or features or qualities) such as being self-identical, being human, bearing the relation of conducing to so-and-so's salvation, having a haecceity or an essence. But if this is true, the set of objects on which God performs election would be a vast blur to God; God would not be considering anything that serves to distinguish one object from another. Moreover, humans would be indistinguishable from inanimate obects like rocks and tables. So P is metaphysically problematic. (12) is true.
(nb: E is an essence of S iff E is a property that is essential to S and, for any possible world W, everything distinct from S in W has ~E essentially.) (See Plantinga, 1974)

I'll consider a reply to this later if I come to understand it.

IV.
Unconditional Election Robs God of His Glory

(14) God brings more glory to Himself in making salvation possible for all humans than He would were He to make salvation possible only for some.
(15) God does that which brings Him more glory.
(16) Therefore, God makes salvation possible for all people. (from 14 and 15)
(17) If unconditional election is true, God would make salvation possible only for some.
(18) Therefore, unconditional election is false. (from 16 and 17)

This fails for some of the same reasons I adduced for (I).
God can greater maximize His glory if He takes longer about the process of Election in the course of a long time. If few are elected to Life after this one lifetime, but many, most, or all are eventually saved in the course of a longer process of God's plan of salvation, His longer-term plan is more glorious. No cheap grace. I would use the phrase "have to earn it", but only in the weaker sense of having made ourselves worthy in our prior existences or now and in the future suffering or enduring what God has ordained for us as His sovereign plan for redeeming us in spite of or against our will.

V.
Unconditional Election Takes Away Salvation-assurance

(19) If unconditional election is true, then we can’t be assured of our salvation.
(20) But the bible says we can be assured of our salvation.
(21) Therefore, unconditional election is false.
Given that we weren’t there watching God as he unconditionally elected people (assuming He did), we don’t really know whom He picked. Ultimately, the only way to know that you’re part of the elect, and thus saved, is to wait until you die and see where you wind up. Other than that, you may speculate based on the amount of religious experience in your life. This seems contrary to what John says: we can know that we are saved -- we know we are saved when we have put our faith in Christ.

The Biblical case against Salvation-assurance is too weak to need my argument against it, and hence that extraneous doctrine of Calvinism cannot be used against Calvinism itself.

VI.
Unconditional election isn’t supported by Scripture

(22) Unconditional election is true only if it's supported by Scripture.
(23) Scripture doesn't support unconditional election.
(24) So, unconditional election is false.
(Unconditional election is 'supported by' scripture =df. (i) there is at least one proposition p in the Bible such that p entails the truth of unconditional election.)
For the verses picked out to support unconditional election, they could serve as equally strong evidence for election via middle knowledge. Thus, they don't entail unconditional election; in fact, the precise nature of election is underdetermined with repsect to biblical data. For example, take the drawing in John chapter 6: does the Father weakly draw people or strongly draw them?
God weakly draws S to Christ iff (i) there is a state of affairs T such that God actualizes T and T counterfactually implies S's freely coming to Christ. God strongly draws S to Christ iff (i) God causes S to come to Christ. (This is (slightly) influenced by Plantinga '88)
The problem is that the passage does not indicate the exact sense in which people are drawn; only that they are drawn in some sense. And it doesn’t seem that there’s a forthcoming exegetical method for determining whether the ‘strong’ or ‘weak’ sense of God's action is being used in many of the typical verses appealed to in support of unconditional election.

Unconditional election can be true even if not supported by Scripture. Indeed, any number of Naturalists insist upon absolute Determinism. The more extreme Calvinists don't back off from having God rule every little part of our lives, making their position little different from the Determinists.
There are numerous cases in Scripture of God determining someone's actions, like hardening the heart of Pharaoh. There is no case of God determining how a person should behave where by free will that person did the opposite. Indeed there are cases where God simply told the person what to do, the person "chose" to do something else, and God brought it about anyway: Jonah. Job kept saying he had done nothing wrong to bring about his sorry state, but when God spoke to him from the tempest or whirlwind, Job acknowledged God's absolute rightness.

-----
*As I've presented it, this issue properly falls within philosophical theology. So, I posted it in the theo dept. and here.
Kane ('96), The Significance of Free Will
Plantinga ('74), The Nature of Necessity
____('88), "Epistemic Probability and Evil", The Evidential Argument from Evil, ed. Howard-Snyder

[harmonmsp]

Wyman,

While I appreciate your attempt, you get a raspberry for the length of your post. I simply can't respond in a decent manner because now I would have to pick and choose from what you've presented, which would make the discussion vague, misdirected and weak.

Perhaps you could separate your arguments next time and see which one gets response?

[Wyman]

Wyman,

While I appreciate your attempt, you get a raspberry for the length of your post. I simply can't respond in a decent manner because now I would have to pick and choose from what you've presented, which would make the discussion vague, misdirected and weak.

Perhaps you could separate your arguments next time and see which one gets response?

That's fine. What I presented were some arguments in support of a view I think christian theists should adopt: unconditional election is false. I don't claim to have delivered a knock-down refutation. And there are some controversial premises I didn't argue for in my OP for space considerations -- for example, that we have free will -- but that I'd be happy defend if necessary. Feel free to pick and choose from among the arguments.

Also, what's a raspberry?

[Ephesus]

I came across this site as I googled arguments against unconditional election and this is spot on! Thank you for this post. One of my favourite Bible verses is John3 v 16 and unconditional election does not fit with this!
Thanks again.

[Ephesus]

I came across this site as I googled arguments against unconditional election and this is spot on! Thank you for this post. One of my favourite Bible verses is John3 v 16 and unconditional election does not fit with this!
Thanks again.

[shunyadragon]

For the present i am following this thread and looking for clarification and better coherent presentations of contrasting views. Some of this has been presented. I am a Baha'i which I believe presents a more universal view of the relationship through Revelation in the evolving spiritual nature of humanity, and not the selective and arbitrary view of different belief systems in history. Salvation defined by a particular ancient doctrine or dogma fails to address the universal in terms of the spiritual nature of the journey of humanity as a whole. The variations of Judaism, Christian, Islamic, and by the way many other alternatives. What I see here so far is an effort to adapt and make things work from different perspectives using ancient scripture.

Salvation from the Baha'i perspective is the journey of the soul through many worlds that cannot be defined from the human perspective. It is probably best to describe salvation in terms of sincerity of the human journey and not adherence to specific doctrines and dogma of any one belief out of the tens of thousands of variations in human history.

[technomage]

(1) It is unjust to punish someone for something over which they have, or had, no control.

We have a different understanding, and different standards, of justice, as compared either to the post-exile Jews or the Hellenized Judaeans. To their standards, God is modeled after an oriental despot (the term did not have the negative connotations then that it has now) with absolute authority to not only declare his actions, but to define "just." In the Biblical-era understanding of the term, if God chose to send you to hell for having blue eyes, he was perfectly just in making that decision.

Of course, that is not how we see things now ... but there is a vast cultural difference.

[shunyadragon]

We have a different understanding, and different standards, of justice, as compared either to the post-exile Jews or the Hellenized Judaeans. To their standards, God is modeled after an oriental despot (the term did not have the negative connotations then that it has now) with absolute authority to not only declare his actions, but to define "just." In the Biblical-era understanding of the term, if God chose to send you to hell for having blue eyes, he was perfectly just in making that decision.

Of course, that is not how we see things now ... but there is a vast cultural difference.

Good response!!!!!!

[seer]

Salvation from the Baha'i perspective is the journey of the soul through many worlds that cannot be defined from the human perspective. It is probably best to describe salvation in terms of sincerity of the human journey and not adherence to specific doctrines and dogma of any one belief out of the tens of thousands of variations in human history.

I don't believe you have any idea what you are talking about...again...

[shunyadragon]

I don't believe you have any idea what you are talking about...again...

I do not expect a coherent intelligent exchange from you on any subject.

[seer]

I do not expect a coherent intelligent exchange from you on any subject.

Thanks for making my point...