Calvinism is distasteful to many people, including myself – and even many Calvinists – because it teaches that God has only chosen to save some human beings even though He has the power to save all. This seems unfair. It makes God’s will seem arbitrary. After all, why would He choose to save person X but not person Y if He loves them both, and has the power to save both? Many who reject Calvinism reject it for this reason alone.
While there are formidable theological, exegetical, and philosophical[1] problems with Calvinism, I’ve come to think that the “fairness” objection is not a good argument against Calvinism. First, there is nothing unfair about God’s choosing to save some but not others. God is not obligated to save anyone. Those who commit moral crimes all deserve to be punished for their crimes. When they are punished, they are punished justly. If God chooses to save some, He is not acting unjustly, but rather graciously. It is similar to a governor who chooses to pardon some inmates, but not others. Is this unfair? No. The inmates who were not pardoned are getting what they deserve. They are rightfully paying for their crimes. Those who are pardoned are objects of the governor’s grace. The governor is not acting unfairly to extend mercy to some but not others, even if the public does not understand why he has chosen as he has.
Secondly, even Arminians acknowledge that God does not extend salvation to all persons. While God has extended the possibility of salvation to human persons, He has not extended the possibility of salvation to angelic persons. As the author of Hebrews noted, “Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, he likewise shared in their humanity, so that through death he could destroy the one who holds the power of death (that is, the devil), and set free those who were held in slavery all their lives by their fear of death. For surely his concern is not for angels, but he is concerned for Abraham’s descendants. Therefore he had to be made like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he could become a merciful and faithful high priest in things relating to God, to make atonement for the sins of the people.” (Hebrews 2:14-17).
God chose to become a man to redeem fallen man, rather than an angel to redeem fallen angels. Why did God choose to save humans, but not angels? Surely He has the power to save us both, and arguably He loves those angels who have fallen just as He loves us humans who have fallen. Interestingly, I’ve never heard a single Arminian charge God with unfairness for choosing to save men but not angels.
If we think God is fair and just despite the fact that He has chosen to limit the offer of salvation to only human sinners, how is this principally different from Calvinism? Both theologies admit of a God who only chooses to save some. They only differ in how wide they believe the net of salvation to be. While that is an important point to argue about (particularly if you are a human), it is a mere footnote once you have swallowed the concept that God’s salvation is limited. So to my Arminian peers, I would urge you to stop charging the God of Calvinism as an arbitrary, unfair, unjust, and capricious God. After all, the fallen angels probably say the same thing about the God of Arminianism. If that claim is not justified when coming from the mouths of fallen angels, then neither is it justified when coming from the mouths of fallen Arminians.
[1]See my post on theological determinism at https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/against-theological-determinism-compatibilism/, as well comments 13 and 21.
Thinking to Believe 
July 16, 2013 at 3:39 pm
Hey Jason,
You said,
>>>When they are punished, they are punished justly.
A punishment that is without a future remedial, protective, or deterrant goal is purposeless, and thus cruel. Purely retributive punishment (that is, retribution without such goals) is completely unjust.
The Bible tells us many times what it means to maintain balanced justice: Give in metered and exact proportion to the work.
The Bible gives us many examples of what it means to pervert justice by adding weighty objects to, or removing weighty pieces from, the scales of justice. These examples include indifference to those without husbands, taking bribes, bias against foreigners, partiality to the rich, pity upon the poor, and “the weight of the great” — favoritism to victims great in glory or majesty. Adding God’s glory to the scales of justice is an extraneous weight and completely unjust.
Thus, it makes absolutely no sense to use the word “just” to describe an everlasting punishment. That’s simply a patently incorrect term to use. It’s very common to hear Christians excuse everlasting punishment by saying it’s “God’s justice,” which is a way of making the term “justice” incomprehensible and thus incoherent.
But it’s not incomprehensible. The Bible tells us what justice means, and what it means to pervert justice. Isaiah tells us that God’s goodness and justice can be reckoned and demonstrated. Elihu invites us to reason and discern his goodness. These aren’t properties that God just “has, automatically, by definition.” Not only does that leave us in a circular quandary, but that’s just not the God of which the Bible tells us. The God of the Bible EARNS those properties through what he’s done and promises to do.
This is why everlasting punishment is considered an outrageous perversion to nearly all of our Jewish forebears.
You said,
>>>He has not extended the possibility of salvation to angelic persons.
The portion you quoted is entirely about death — NOT the second death of post-resurrection punishment. The devil does not hold the power of the second death, only the first (he was the catalyst for the first death by tricking man into getting expelled from access to the “Tree of Life”). His concern is “not for the angels” because angels don’t suffer the first death. It’s worrisome to me that you’d think the devil holds the power of the second death.
Salvation from death is the prospect the writer revels in. Salvation from punishment entirely is the prospect the writer fights for and encourages: wanting the recipients not to “become lazy,” to “show diligence,” etc., for a “fully-realized hope.”
“Salvation” is not a homogenous term in the Bible. Sometimes it means salvation from earthly trial. Sometimes it means salvation from the devil and death (the first death; the natural consequence of losing the “Tree of Life,” God’s miraculous provision of immortality) BY MEANS OF the general resurrection. Sometimes it means salvation from punishment (the second death; the non-natural punishment, given by God, of agonizing and purifying fire, AFTER the general resurrection and judgment).
In conclusion:
1. “Justice” as an ill-defined variable, rather than according to the Bible’s definition, cannot apply to an everlasting hell. This is why our Jewish friends think it insane. The Problem of Everlasting Hell is insurmountable for a theology that believes in deterministic sovereignty.
2. The Bible did not say that Christ has refused to save angels, only that he hasn’t saved them from the first death (because they don’t need such salvation). The Arminians don’t have a dilemma here.
3. The Arminian folly is by “solving” the Problem of Everlasting Hell by introducing an incoherent or (depending on its definition) false concept — libertarian free will — to divorce a tough conclusion from what simply follows from accepted premises (deterministic sovereignty DOES follow from omnipotence, omniscience, and a will capable of intervening). Not only is libertarian free will incoherent (or false), but it is completely refuted by Scripture. Calvinists have it mostly right — God arbitrates the destinations of all. It is “not by works,” i.e., not caused by a prospective glance at the so-called “free actions” of man, but “by him who calls,” i.e., God’s deliberate ordination.
4. Their shared folly is buying into an ancient doctrinal error — everlasting punishment — carved into stone by the popularity of Augustine, and made commonplace by the ubiquitous “aion -> forever” mistranslation.
Wrote Clement of Alexandria in 190 AD, in a commentary on 1 John 2:2:
“1 John 2:2. ‘And not only for our sins,’ — that is for those of the faithful, — is the Lord the propitiator, does he say, ‘but also for the whole world.’ He, indeed, saves all; but some [He saves], converting them by punishments; others, however, who follow voluntarily [He saves] with dignity of honour; so ‘that every knee should bow to Him, of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth.'”
LikeLike
July 16, 2013 at 3:52 pm
Stan, the post is regarding whether the unfairness objection against Calvinism is a good objection. It’s not about the doctrine of hell, and thus I will not respond to that portion of your comments. Please stay on point.
As for the second portion of your comments, I realize that the passage I quoted is talking about physical death. But this is irrelevant to my point. I bolded the portion of the verse that concerned me, which is that God’s concern is about men, not angels. That’s why God became incarnate as a man to atone for our sins, as opposed to becoming an angel to atone for angelic sins. Redemption is an exclusively human program. And that is important to the point of this blog post: God has not given every person a chance to be saved (since angels have no redemption), and thus if Arminians want to accuse the God of Calvinism of being unfair because He does not choose to save all humans, they must accuse their own God of being unfair since He does not choose to save all persons, including angels. In the end, I don’t think the unfairness objection works.
Jason
LikeLike
July 16, 2013 at 4:02 pm
Apologies… the first point of conclusion should have said,
“‘Justice’ should not be employed as an ill-defined variable. But if we use the Bible’s definition, it cannot apply to an everlasting hell.”
LikeLike
July 16, 2013 at 4:18 pm
Sorry, I didn’t realize that I was going too far off-topic in my address. Upon re-reading, I’m seeing why I thought I was on the same topic:
I agree with you that Arminians cannot accuse Calvinism of having an “additional unfairness.” Under both theologies, only some are saved. If it is unjust that some will suffer forever when God had it within his power to save them, then that injustice applies to both Arminianism and Calvinism alike.
The trick, of course, is that Arminians incoherently claim that God is excused of all responsibility for the destinies of the unsaved, such that “man damns himself,” by means of libertarian free will. This is how they (think that they) escape the Problem. Since Calvinism is not compatible with most notions of libertarian free will, Arminians fear that the Everlasting Hell Problem would pop back out of the jack-in-the-box.
You rightly indict their thinking here as incoherent: the fact is that, under both paradigms, a God with the raw capability to save all *willfully chooses* not to save some (whether angels or man). This indictment is a cogent, fierce, and unassailable attack on the Arminian claim that libertarian free will solves the Problem. Some other solution (like that it is “just,” though of course I wholeheartedly disagree with that claim) must be adopted.
LikeLike
July 16, 2013 at 4:42 pm
Great article, election was a hard thing for me to swallow at first(specially since Im a oneness Pentecostal) but there is so much scripture that I could not see fitting within the Arminian position.
So then, God has mercy on whom he chooses to have mercy, and he hardens whom he chooses to harden. (Romans 9:18 NET)
LikeLike
July 16, 2013 at 6:13 pm
The Bible teaches that God is no respecter of persons. He doesn’t love one anymore than another. So to choose one over another arbitrarily would be showing favoritism. It doesn’t really matter whether or not God is obligated to save anyone. Neither is it gracious to save some when he could save them all. Since God wants everyone to be saved, he throws the lifeline out to everyone not only to a few. Your first argument doesn’t represent a just prison warden or a just God.
As for the second argument about not saving fallen angels as being unjust, I don’t believe we have enough information to understand why they are beyond redemption. Yet we do know that fallen angels are not deceived (like human are)in that they know who God is and willingly rebel and resist him everyday. They once served God in heaven and were in his presence. I guess they have no excuse for their actions and maybe they don’t want to be redeemed!
LikeLike
July 17, 2013 at 4:47 am
The non-salvation of any lost angels is an across the board, equal decision made by God for His own reasons. In this way, all fallen angels are judged fairly, i.e. by the same standard/criteria–namely the refusal of God to do so, for whatever secret reason God has refused to disclose.
If Calvinism is true, then the salvation of lost humanity is an not across the board, equal decision.
Since Calvin was adamant that predestined election was only attributable to God’s good pleasure (and not based in His pre-science), then the decision made by God to save some and damn others is capricious. There is no determining factor other than a ‘want to” and a ‘don’t want to’ on behalf of God, decided upon before ever the world and all in it was even created.
That seems incredibly unfair, from a mere mortal’s perspective. While it’s fair to say no one can merit salvation from God since all have sinned, it’s not fair to say that billions upon billions of souls will never have the chance of being saved because God condemned them–not on the pre-science that they would sin against Him in the future, and so fall–but because, pardon the expression, played a game of pre-Fall of Man bingo and only called certain numbers.
However, if we see that salvation is for “whosoever will”, and that the offer of eternal life is an across the board affair, then some being saved and some being lost is an entirely fair enterprise for humans–since we all have a chance, even though angels who’ve fallen can never be saved.
Hence, to me, the critique against which you write is not valid.
LikeLike
July 17, 2013 at 8:05 am
Aaron, do you think decisions of angels or men can be unexpected or surprising for God?
LikeLike
July 17, 2013 at 9:19 am
Calvinism has a problem like all religions have in that religion starts with a false premise and then offer various sectarian conclusions.
What seems fair or unfair to a created supernatural entity is on the face of it capricious since humans debate supernatural justice using human values of like “fairness”.
Even if one presumes the existence of a supernatural entity the arbitrary attributes of cultural, religious and moral values and biases seem rather pointless unless you were making a hollywood movie but even then it would be impossible for human values to have any relevance in the created supernatural cosmic civilized world.
See what I mean: simply injecting the topic of whether the supernatural state is civilized or uncivilized is rather imprecise to say the least.
The debate in this topic is unfalsifiable. Making unfalsifiable claims are a way to leave the realm of rational discourse, since unfalsifiable claims are usually faith-based, and not founded on evidence and reason.
Tip: Never assume you must be right simply because you can’t be proven wrong.
LikeLike
July 17, 2013 at 10:55 am
@CarolJean,
Yes I would also to agree that God is not a respecter of persons, being that there is no wall dividing Jew or gentile. God through Christ Jesus has broken down that wall(Eph 2:14). Did God show favoritism in choosing Israel among other nations, was there injustice on God for choosing Jacob over Esau before they were even born or have done anything wrong?
No matter what Christianity has to answer that fact “Why does God not save all, if indeed He is capable?” Calvinsm and Arminianism both have to answer the question. God is just to punish all for their wretchedness but gracious in having on whom ever He chooses, can what’s being molded say to its molder, “why have you made me this way?”
Regarding fallen angels, God could save but is clear that concern it not for them.
LikeLike
July 17, 2013 at 10:58 am
Remember that quoting Romans 9 to talk about the justice of God’s sovereign ordination/predestination/arbitration needs to include the conclusive thesis to his Romans chs. 8-11 narrative:
Romans 11:32
For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
LikeLike
July 18, 2013 at 11:53 am
While we can’t rule out the possibility that angels were also created in the image of God, Scripture does not explicitly declare it to be the case. The fact that men were created in the image of God would play a major role in why He chose to offer salvation to them as opposed to angels.
Regardless, there is definitely a different dynamic between God and angels, God and mankind.
Aside, what translation are you using for Hebrews 2:14-17? There is a bit of discord between the translations I have viewed. In the context, it seems like a proper translation for verse 16 would be “For certainly he does not take angels to himself, but takes the seed of Abraham to himself.” Compared to the other places that epilambanomai is used in Scripture, I don’t see much justification for the translation given.
LikeLike
July 19, 2013 at 1:47 pm
Colossians 1:20 states “and having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.”
Not orthodox doctrine, but I see hints in the scriptures that the power of the cross may impact more than just humans on the earth. Won’t die for this, but I will not rule out the possibility that other celestial beings may benefit from this eternally gracious act.
LikeLike
July 22, 2013 at 5:22 am
Jason,
Beaux hi-lights what I was going to suggest that since scripture only states that humans are made in the image of God, that to not redeem angels is perfectly fine.
I also have in the back of my mind that since angels have seen the fullness of God, that they count as apostates.
Hebrews would hold that if they are apostate, they could not return, just as those humans who become apostate (something neither calvanism nor Arminianism addresses imo) cannot re-attain salvation either.
Hope this is ok Jason, but as I enjoyed Stan’s comment re:hell, I thought I’d pose a simple question for him: If the people bound in hell continually sin rather than seek repentance, then God is perfectly just to extend the punishment is He not? And if released from captivity, they may/would continually sin. If true, then He would be bound to either keep them condemned for eternity or annihilate them wouldn’t He? I’m not sure which is worse and so rely on God’s judgement on that one.
LikeLike
July 22, 2013 at 8:17 am
If we assume that hell is indeed agonizing and humiliating and purifying, and that God is capable of successfully exerting his remedial will even against the stubborn and/or mechanically broken, then it is implausible that a person would be such that they’d remain after 1 year, 10 years, 100 years, 1000 years, 10,000 years, 100,000 years, 1,000,000 years, a billion years, a quadrillion years, a septillion years, a googol years, a googolplex years, unfixable. In other words, that thought experiment asks for an element so ludicrous so as to defy all explanation.
LikeLike
July 26, 2013 at 9:45 am
Jason
Forgive me if someone has raised this point. I raise it to address the comparison of human beings and angelic beings. I feel it to be an unfair comparison for the simple reason that angels do not operate on faith. Their knowledge is first hand while our knowledge is by revelation. To hold both beings to the same standard of salvation would give angelic beings an advantage of having more first hand knowledge and a second chance. Humanity’s knowledge is second hand and far more prone to ignorantly ignore actual facts. True, both beings can be deceived but when one is deceived it is by mere rebellion instead of lack of knowing. Humanity is made lower than the angels, weaker, and without the knowledge of what eternity is all about. We see through a glass darkly. In my opinion it would be like holding the native American to the same rules and regulations as a citizen of the British empire. The native has never met the king and their disobedience is by total ignorance.
You make a great point in that we all deserve death. However, comparing limited human knowledge to God’s knowledge is not a comparison. When a human pardons someone it is by good reason or, perhaps not, usually it is politically motivated. Humanity has limited knowledge while God is all knowing. If God pardon’s one it is because of that one responding to the revelation of God’s justice and falls on the mercy of God. All have sinned, this we know, all have an opportunity to repent. Some may have a longer journey to find truth but the truth is the only thing that can make them free.
LikeLike
July 29, 2013 at 7:34 am
Maybe my analogy is not the best. Maybe comparing human beings to animal beings would be a better analogy. Would we hold an animal to the same standards of judgement as humans? Animals are not the same in knowledge and perhaps in the makeup of soul. Animals do have a will, ability to know right from wrong, and choice. Perhaps, they too see through a glass darkly? Nonetheless, angels and humans are not the same nor are animals and humans.
LikeLike
February 20, 2018 at 1:14 pm
The angels cannot be saved for a simple reason. They experienced a fullness of the knowing and glory of God and turned away. This is the impication of Hebrews 6:4, and also why in Acts, Ananias gave up the Ghost. They tasted the heavenly gift, and turned away from it. That is unforgiveable. To offer salvation to such would cheapen something called “faith”; those who believe yet have not seen.
The fallen angels play a much larger role in the biblical narrative than most today recognize, because sound doctrine is being abandoned. There is a continuity from genesis to revelation regarding the fallen ones. They are the “sons of God” in Genesis 6. The fallen angels attempted to mimmick God’s creation with that of their own. Their actions led to the flood. Their actions led to Joshua’s extinguishment of Caananite (Amorite) cities. Their actions increased sin in mankind. They have influenced the nations. The fallen angels assault people in their dreams. These are the principalities and powers we are at war with. Serpents and scorpions refer to these beings and their progeny. The serpent in the garden wasn’t a snake. Giants who tormented man came from somewhere. Evil spirits who continue to torment man come from somewhere.
It was said that we will judge the angels. We will judge the angels because of what they have hoised upon humanity since the time of the garden.
The fallen have played an enormous role in the unfolding of time, seeking to dismantle, detour, copy, or hijack prophecy; destroying as many of God’s “humans” as possible along the way.
We are by no means finished dealing with them. They play a major role in the last of last days. Apollyon is waiting. The one third are already here.
LikeLike
February 20, 2018 at 2:00 pm
Whelan:
You are delusional and may just as well be reading Alice in Wonderland, Three Blind Mice; or, watching Black Panther.
Why is faith worthy of so much respect? Would someone show me the calculations because I just don’t get it. People keep saying to me. You know you should show a bit more respect; you don’t have to call people mentally ill just because they disagree with you.
Well it’s not that they disagree with me that I call them mentally ill; it’s about what they believe about reality and more importantly what they want to do with those beliefs. I mean if that’s all it was; just a belief, well then I’d have no problem giving religion all the respect it wants. In the same way that I respect a person’s dress sense or the decor in their home, even if I found it tasteless I would respect them enough not to say so.
But religion is more than just a belief, religion wants to impose a universal morality which is why it has always attracted the kind of person who thinks other people’s private lives are their business. And giving respect to this mentality is exactly what’s got us into the mess that we’re in.
We’ve given religion ideas that are above its station and we persuaded it that it’s something it’s not. When the truth is that faith is nothing more than the deliberate suspension of disbelief. It’s an act of will. It’s not a state of grace; it’s a state of choice. Because without evidence, you’ve got no reason to believe apart from your willingness to believe.
So why is that worthy of respect anymore than your willingness to poke yourself in the eye with a pencil? And why is faith considered some kind of virtue, is it because it implies a certain depth of contemplation and insight? I don’t think so.
Faith by definition is unexamined, so in that sense it has to be among the shallowest of experiences and yet if it could it would regulate every action, every word and thought of every single person on this planet.
What do I think about belief in god? Angels? Giants? wreaking havoc in dreams? It pollutes our understanding of reality. It gets in the way. And it brings out the worse in the best of us so that we’re even prepared to stoop so low as to poison the unformed mind of the people we love the most, our children. By the time they’re old enough to think for themselves, it’s too late. They’ve been well and truly, hypnotized. If you fill your child’s mind with images of satan, fallen angels and the horrors of nightmares, you’re a sick individual and you are mentally ill. And the only reason you don’t know this is because you’ve been indulged for far too long by people and institutions that really ought to know better.
Which is the reason that Jesus said of the religious scholars: “Woe to you experts in the law! For you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.” by offering them nonsense about angels and fallen angel demons.
“You’re hopeless, you religion scholars and Pharisees! Frauds! You keep meticulous account books, tithing on every nickel and dime you get, but on the meat of God’s Law, things like fairness and compassion and commitment—the absolute basics!—you carelessly take it or leave it. Careful bookkeeping is commendable, but the basics are required. Do you have any idea how silly you look, writing a life story that’s wrong from start to finish, nitpicking over commas and semicolons?
The truth is that your beliefs are infantile, your scriptures are lies and your gods are illusions. Mere offshoots of vain mythological imaginations. And I can say that with all due respect because no respect is actually due. And besides anyone who has to demand respect automatically deserves ridicule. If you deserved respect, you’d already have it. You would be rolling around in it like a televangelist, in other people’s money. No, what you deserve is mockery.
But I’m a reasonable person, and I want to make an effort so I’ll tell you what I’ll do. I’ll respect your beliefs for as long as I can keep a straight face while thinking about them. Which should be about half a second. But beyond that I can’t promise anything.
In the meantime, I don’t believe that god exists but if it turns out that I’m wrong about that, well, fair enough. I don’t think much of her attitude to be honest and if s/he wants to show him/erself, I’d be happy to tell her that to his/er face, if s/he’s got one.
But if god exists, I want her to tell me, herself, I don’t want to hear it from anybody else. And in case you’re wondering, that includes you.
So please, don’t quote anymore phantoms about fantasy scriptures at me, I’m really up to here with scripture. And frankly I don’t give a darn what the Bible has to say about much. You might as well be telling me about your dreams which is essentially what you are doing.
I mean I can understand why people are drawn to scripture and to religion because it’s so easy and convenient. It’s all laid out for you, all the thinking you’ll ever need has already been done. You don’t have to lift a single brain cell. That’s so convenient. It’s almost modern.
But what you’ve got to realize is that believing a thing, no matter how strongly, doesn’t necessarily make it real. I mean you could be hypnotized into believing that you’re a chicken but you can’t reasonably expect other people to share that belief, at least until they see a few eggs. And that’s the bottom line here. Evidence. If you show me a few eggs then I will believe that you are a chicken. Or a christian or whatever the heck you think you are.
But until then please, don’t tell me, your beliefs. That’s like telling me not to laugh at your toupee; it just makes the faith more ridiculous.
Peace to everyone and may you get all the respect that you deserve.
LikeLike
August 26, 2019 at 9:17 pm
Again. I enjoyed reading your blog
Whelan said”The angels cannot be saved for a simple reason. They experienced a fullness of the knowing and glory of God and turned away”
OH Really?
When did the Lord speak this truth to you that no one else knows?
I have a special kind of beating in mind for this type of proclamation of fact. 🙂
It’s precisely how Calvin himself boasted.
“I am above God’s Word” If the clear answer is not there, I formulate an answer and state it as scripture itself.
We don’t know!
Why is that so hard for people.
Also a point no one has considered.
we have no idea if they were given a chance to turn back.
It just says Christ was made flesh & blood to help humans. The incarnation was for us not them(Hebrews)
Others have already made the right points about their knowledge of God. It’s a completely different situation.
Their habitation is Already Heaven and immortal. But they may have been given a way or may have committed a sin that absolutely could Not be forgiven. So we’re ignorant here.
Calvin makes accusations against Holy God will no proof. He should of shut it – but instead, with the thinnest possible evidence, he went wild with all kinds of arguments and doctrine that he had no business with.
LikeLike