Is Predestination Unfair? (Part III)

Is Predestination Unfair?

Part III: The Unfairness and Inequality of Arminian “Free Will”

We’ve been exploring the question of whether God’s pre-selection of those to be saved is less fair than the opposing view, known as Arminianism, which holds that everyone has the same ability, or free will, to trust in Christ, or reject Him. Arminians argue that a God of justice would not fore-ordain those to be saved. One critic of Calvinism, South African Johan Malan, characterizes the “error” of unconditional election this way: “Before the foundation of the earth, [God] . . .  compiled a ‘good luck list’ for the elect and a ‘tough luck list’ for the lost^[1].” Let’s see, however, if the Arminian view really is any fairer.

What Exactly is Arminian “Free Will?”

Before we can assess whether predestination is unfair or not, defining the meaning of, “free will” is crucially important. Preachers who reject Calvinism tend to speak of “free will” without ever defining it, as though its meaning were self-evident. Yet, without a clear definition of “free will,” it is impossible to construct or articulate any intelligible role of human agency in salvation.

Calvinists, contrary to popular assumptions, do embrace free will, which the brilliant Reformed theologian Jonathan Edwards described as the ability of human beings to freely act upon their strongest inclinations at any given moment. People won’t and don’t choose Christ because, in their fallen condition, they have zero inclination to submit to God. For Arminians, that conception of free will may seem like an apparition: one has the ability to act upon all of their deepest desires, but none of those desires are to seek and know the true God. While “free will” and predestination may not be opposites, a free will that never can choose or trust in Christ may seem no better than not having free will at all.

Yet, contrary to Arminianism, there is impressive biblical support for the idea that the human will is chained, imprisoned, and, along with its owner, destined for hell apart from unilateral divine action. (See, for instance, Romans 18, 20, and 22) Jesus compares sin directly to slavery, a theme that is consistent throughout the New Testament. (John 8:34, Romans 6:6, 17) Many, if not most, Christian theologians understand ancient Israel’s physical enslavement in Egypt as a metaphor for spiritual enslavement, and thus the miraculous exodus and release from Egyptian bondage mimics and foretells the work of Christ to release captives from the slavery of sin.

For the Apostle Paul, salvation is preceded by, and the answer to, the universal inheritance of original sin, which is spiritual death: “But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy,  made us alive with Christ . . .” Thus, resurrection is not merely a metaphor for the transformation of the human heart in salvation, but — as described by Jesus in John’s gospel — it is quite literally a new birth miraculously conceived and brought forth by the Holy Spirit. (See John : 1-21)

Unchained Wills

Arminianism, on the other hand, contends that the will of an unbeliever is not bound or in chains, as Calvinists claim. Hence, an unbeliever can exercise a choice to believe, presumably in accordance with the workings of his or her reason, moral sense, and emotions. Yet, the Arminian conception of a human will, unfettered by the unbreakable chains of a sin nature, must still account for both internal and external factors that deeply influence, if not constrain, human choices. Or, not. Perhaps there exists, within every person, an utterly pristine and untouched capacity to choose anything — including to repent and trust in Christ. This “pristine” will would and could supersede the effects of original sin, as well as any other influence that might sway one from trusting in Christ.

Yet, everything we know about human decision-making, not to mention the multi-billion dollar advertising industry, suggests otherwise. People do act upon, or refrain from acting upon, desires that are shaped, at least in part, by external influences, not to mention their own physical and psychological needs. Every major, and even minor, decision we make is surely preceded by a host of influences, of which we may be entirely oblivious. Yet, Arminianism seems not to account for these influences in protesting the unfairness of predestination. So, lets discuss how they muddy the waters and fatally undermine the view that Arminian free will is fairer than predestination.

The Inequality of Family, Culture, Personality, Experience, and Genes

The influences on each individual that mitigate for and against faith in Christ would presumably need to be perfectly equal for “fairness” to be achieved, according to Arminianism. Otherwise, one person might be more likely to believe in Christ than another person that didn’t share the same Christ-friendly predisposition and  experiences. Thus, some folks would be “free-er” than others to choose Christ, a concept heretical to Arminianism.

Consequently, in practical terms, each person’s prior experiences, as well as any individual genetic predispositions, might cause a person to be more likely than others to accept or reject Christ, resulting in an “imbalance of fairness.” Because all of those experiential and genetic factors clearly are not evenly applied across humankind.

In fact, we doubt very much that you, dear reader, chose your parents, the country and culture you were born into, the socio-economic environment you grew up in, the religious point of view you were taught, the schools you attended, and so on. If we’re correct, then perhaps it’s not unreasonable to say that all of your DNA, and virtually all of our earliest formative experiences, were pre-determined and pre-arranged for you (and us). To wit, we had absolutely no choice in these matters.

It is clearly indisputable that the pre-determined influences that shape us – often without our assent or knowledge — unavoidably play a formidable role in whether or not we’ll ultimately put our faith in Christ. Therefore, if we reject the idea of God decisively acting to negate or overcome the factors that pull us away from Christ, otherwise known as Calvinism, it seems the unavoidable alternative is to embrace belief in the predestinating power of sociology and DNA. How fair is that?

God’s Sovereignty Encroaches from Every Direction

Of course, who ultimately determines all of the biological, familial, cultural, psychological, and other factors that influence choices for or against Christ? Naturally, God does. In his famous speech at Mars Hill, Paul declares, “ From one man [God] made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.^[2]” (Acts 17:28)

Thus, if God has planted anyone – which He certainly has — in a Christian family, surrounded by Christian friends, taught by Christian teachers — well, he’s certainly stacked the deck, hasn’t He? To any such person, He’s given an incredible advantage toward embracing Christ, certainly as compared to the person born in Saudi Arabia to devout Muslim parents, whose friends are strictly Muslim, and who attends a strict Islamic Wahhabi school. The charge – “Isn’t that grossly unfair of God?” — is hardly less pointed in such a scenario as it is when Arminians make the same challenge to the Calvinist doctrine of predestination.

Ironically, for Arminianism to be truly fair, it would need to be more like Calvinism, in which God’s grace is absolutely unimpeded by prior experiences and genetic make-ups. That, in part, is why it is so amazing – the unlikeliest people can and do get saved. Arminian “fairness” is undone by the considerable and different baggage that make many (“all,” Calvinists would say) predisposed to decline salvation.

Arminians face an insuperable problem: just when they think they’ve built an ironclad case for free will as regards salvation, the sovereignty of God breaks in from every other direction and smashes it to pieces.

But Arminians have one more card up their sleeves: “prevenient” grace, which we’ll get to in our next post, along with some empirical evidence that supports our suspicion that growing up outside a Christian family and culture is a decided disadvantage to one’s salvific odds, contrary to Arminian assumptions. So, hang in there – we’re about to put the final daggers in the Arminian beast. You don’t want to miss that!

 

^[1] Malan, Johan, “Calvinism Refuted from the Bible,” from http://www.truegospel.co/articles/english/false-teaching/121-calvinism-refuted-from-the-bible

^[2] Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011

Additional Sources:

R.C. Sproul, What is Reformed Theology?, 2005.