why i am a calvinist

Exegetical, Logical, and Doctrinal Failures in Why I am not a Calvinist

Introduction

Does God rule his Creation or does he respond and submit to the desires of men? Is man righteous or a sinner? Is man free to choose his eternal destiny or is he a slave to sin? Jerry Walls, a professor of philosophy, and Joseph Dongell, professor of biblical studies, attempt to answer these questions in their book, Why I am not a Calvinist. Arguing more from philosophy than biblical exegesis, the authors disregard major themes in scripture in an attempt to preserve man's free will and avoid the disturbing implications of the doctrine of sovereignty.
Walls and Dongell tell us that they write this book not to protect human liberty, but to defend God’s character.

Protecting the tree of liberty…is not in fact the crux of our concern. The fundamental issue here is which theological paradigm does a better job of representing the biblical picture of God’s character: which theological system gives a more adequate account of the biblical God whose nature is holy love?[1]

The authors frame the question in reference to God’s love for men, with only passing regard to scripture. For them, God centers his existence and his character on his love for humanity, with hardly any other concern. They ask, “Can we be assured, regardless of our lot in this life, that God truly loves us, desires our well-being and wants us to have his ultimate gift of eternal life?”[2]

Compare their goals to those of the companion book, Why I am not an Arminian. Robert Peterson and Michael Williams write their book because they “believe that Calvinism is true to the intent and content of Scripture.”[3] They lament the unattractiveness of Calvinist theology, with its adherence to the doctrine of human depravity and complete inability, its “prejudice” against the unelect, and its belief that God saves men without any act or will on the part of men, and ask, “Why would anyone be a Calvinist then?”[4] They answer, “Scripture, and Scripture alone, is the final test of all doctrinal dispute and theological construction.”[5] Walls and Dongell begin their study, not by seeking to understand scriptural revelation, but by asking whether or not they can be assured that God loves them and wants them to be happy. They first assume that God loves men, and then proceed to interpret scripture. In other words, they begin with their beliefs and build their theology around that.

We cannot begin with assumptions on our part, no matter how “biblical” they may seem. To declare that “God is holy love” and that the whole of the Gospel centers around this statement is to declare a complete understanding of God, his nature, his motives, and character before even exploring the content of the Bible. They use one verse to build a complete system of doctrine, something which they consistently claim that Calvinists do.[6] God is love (1 John 4.8), but God is also life (John 6.35), light (John 8.12), holiness (Isaiah 6.3), justice and righteousness (Genesis 18.19), and wrath (Isaiah 10.5), to name a few. If we dare construct the Gospel on any single attribute, we create a false god, we declare our wisdom greater than his, and we do great damage to the Church. The authors of Why I am not a Calvinist fail to consider God’s complete character and instead focus on his love, assuming that God loves every person in creation equally, ignoring thorny verses that describe God’s hatred and wrath for sinners, and God’s unconditional election of believers. They place God in the passive role of responder, submissive to man who initiates eternal activities, and they ignore the full weight of sin and its consequences against the soul of man. They acknowledge “troubling” aspects of Calvinism, revealing their inability and unwillingness to trust the revelation given by God, and to trust God himself.

In defending God’s character of “holy love,” the authors conveniently force themselves to uphold human freedom and deny human depravity. They remove sin because it necessitates unconditional election and unconditional election requires a God who chooses by his own will, without respect to men. This cannot be. Election must be conditional upon men, for this is “holy love.” Unconditional election is not “fair,” but conditional election removes sovereignty from God and places it in the hands of man. Man decides his fate. Conditional election also leads to conditional salvation, and the authors express this in multiple places in their book.[7] They repeatedly assert that salvation “depends on a Christian’s continued connection to Jesus”[8] and that we do not have a guarantee that God will keep us in his love until death (John 6.37, 39, 40; Romans 8.29,30, 38, 39; 14.4; 2 Corinthians 1.22; 5.5; Ephesians 1.14). What is conditional salvation but salvation by works? If our salvation depends on our continued connection to Christ that we maintain by our will, and we lose this connection by some sin of ours, either some moment of unbelief, fear, or indecision, or some act of rebellion, then they believe that we save ourselves by our works and we are not saved by grace through faith.

At every point of Arminian theology, we enter, we stand, and we endure by our will, and not by grace. Grace becomes a side note, a parenthetical that God gives to everyone, not just his children.[9] Grace is the initial push that opens our eyes, but it is we who decide to trust, and live, and persevere in Christ. The authors believe in free will because they believe in their ability to choose right and be righteous. They believe in conditional election because they believe that they have met the condition of election. They believe that the believer can lose his salvation because they believe their will can persevere until the end. Arminianism is a theology of pride.

Exegesis

What guides our exegesis? Logic? God’s character? Comparative studies? In discussing the centuries old controversy between Arminianism and Calvinism, Walls and Dongell suggest two guides: “discernment”[10] and “the experiences and interpretations of others.”[11] Neither Walls or Dongell elaborate on the specific nature of “discernment,” nor how the “wisdom” of other men can now immediately somehow clarify a question that has dogged well-intentioned and diligent theologians for centuries. They readily admit that “none of the resources available to us can definitively resolve the challenges we face in interpreting the Bible.”[12] To this point, I ask, “Why did you even write this book?” The best these men can offer is their own personal belief that “the interpretations we offer are stronger than those of our debate partners.”[13] I am not flushed with optimism that these men can definitively answer a single question, and apparently, neither are they.

To proceed rationally, we must give care to the language and context of scripture. In language, we encounter declarations, when a statement declares a truth, and we also encounter suppositions, when a hypothetical statement declares something to be true if a condition is met. Suppositions have two parts: an antecedent and a consequent. The consequent can only be true if the antecedent condition is true, so a supposition may or may not be true. Declarations have no such required antecedent condition. In scripture, we can assume that declarations are always true, such as “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” We cannot assume, however, that the consequent of a supposition will always hold true, such as “You must die” (Romans 8.13), which is the consequence to “If you are living according to the flesh.” We must also carefully define terms. Regarding this supposition, “If you are living according to the flesh, you must die,” we must explicitly explain the meaning of “living according to the flesh,” and “you must die.” Is “living according to the flesh” constant, daily sin? Is it a general attitude of rebellion against God and his law? Is it sporadic, but lifelong sin, diminishing as the believer (if this passage even refers to a believer) grows in knowledge and intimacy with Christ? Is it even possible for a Christian to “live according to the flesh”? What does Paul mean when he says, “die”? Is this physical death or spiritual death? Walls and Dongell fail immediately in the introduction when they assert that “It is possible to begin a genuine relationship with God but then later turn from him and persist in evil so that one is finally lost.”[14] This kind of hit-and-run assertion serves only to aggravate the conversation, rather than settle any kind of debate. They toss a couple of throwaway sentences at a question that has been raging for centuries and intend to end discussion without even bothering to distinguish between the intent of the language involved in the passages or even so much as acknowledge the passages which clearly and directly oppose their assertion.

The authors also fail to consider the context of these passages. Romans 8 describes two groups of people: those who live according to the Spirit and those who live according to the flesh. Paul says, “The mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so” (8.7). This verse does not describe the believer, but the unbeliever, but the authors confuse the two when they apply verse 13 to those with a “genuine relationship with God.” They do not correctly exegete this very simple passage by any means. They also fail to consider the broader context of scripture. Multiple passages in both the Old and New Testaments declare that God keeps his people. In the book of Jeremiah, God says, “Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar; the Lord of hosts is his name: ‘If this fixed order departs from before me, then the offspring of Israel also will cease from being a nation before me forever’” (Jeremiah 31.35,36). Christ tells his disciples in John 6, “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and the one who comes to me I will certainly not cast out” (6.37). Later in John, Christ says, “I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish” (10.28). In this very passage in question, Paul says that nothing will separate us from the love of God (Romans 8.38,39). I cannot imagine why the authors would choose to ignore these obvious objections to their statement. In making this simple claim that a believer can lose his salvation, they commit grievous exegetical errors both contextually and logically. Every passage they use either describes an unbeliever or states a supposition. Romans 11.21 says, “Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in his kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.” Galatians 5.21 states that “those who practice [the deeds of the flesh] will not inherit the kingdom of God.” This is another supposition: “If you practice the deeds of the flesh, you will not inherit the kingdom of God.” Galatians 6.7-10 describes unbelievers. They make similar mistakes with Hebrews 6 and Revelation 2. Revelation 2 plainly speaks to unbelievers, commanding the church there to “repent” (Revelation 2.5). If they have not repented, as Christ commanded at the beginning of his ministry (Mark 1.15), they do not have a genuine relationship with God. Finally, Walls and Dongell fail to compare their exegesis of these passages with Christ’s parable of the sower, which clearly describes the presence of false believers in the church. Some hear the word and receive it with joy, but bear no fruit, and “when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he falls away” (Matthew 13.21). All of these errors, the authors commit in merely two sentences in the introduction.[15]

Doctrine and Reason

As a tool to guide our exegesis, may I suggest the character of God, as plainly revealed in scripture, but not merely one aspect of his character—his love, justice, or holiness, etc.—but all attributes at once. Admittedly, this requires careful and studious inquiry, along with a constant view to the larger panorama of scripture, but I believe we can do it. May I also suggest that we consider the character of man as we examine scripture. After all, if we seek to understand God’s relationship to man, we should consider the nature of both parties involved. What do we know about God? What can Arminian and Calvinist agree on without looming doubts? God is spirit. God is sovereign. God is love. God is just and holy. God executes wrath on the guilty. God shows mercy and grace to the repentant. What do we know about man? Man is a sinner (Romans 3.23). Man is enslaved to sin (John 8.34), not externally as if he were forced to sin, but internally, in his heart, his will, and his desires (Genesis 6.5). He is not able to please God (Romans 8.7,8). He is wicked and desperately sick (Jeremiah 17.9). He is dead in his sin (Ephesians 2.1). Regarding the moral ability of men, scripture does not speak kindly.

If we take only one attribute of God and the singular, definitive attribute of man, we conclude that God does not wish all men to be saved. If man, through his slavery to sin and dead nature in sin, cannot exercise faith and save himself, then God must save him and God alone. God sovereignly saves those whom he chooses to save, but he does not save everyone. We know this from many places in scripture and these statements clearly, directly, and definitively describe God’s unilateral, unconditional election.

But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in his name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. John 1.12, 13

When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. Acts 13:48

For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. Romans 8:29-30

For though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then [election] does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. Romans 9:11-16

But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus. 1 Corinthians 1.30

But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. 2 Thessalonians 2:13

Walls and Dongell counter unconditional election by stating that God “enables and encourages a positive response of faith for everyone.”[16] They fail to consider the logical implications of their statement. If man is a sinner, dead in sin, a slave to it, hostile to God and unable to please God through faith (Romans 8.7,8; Hebrews 11.1), then God must completely regenerate their hearts before they can do so (John 3.3). The corruption of sin is complete in the heart of a man. Men either live as slaves to sin, or God recreates their hearts so that they trust in Christ and desire to obey God. Scripture cannot be more clear on this point, yet the authors believe that God enables men without completely regenerating their thoughts, desires, or intentions, and that mankind exists in some kind of contradictory fantasy state where a sinner who is hostile to God and unable to please God actually loves God and pleases God by trusting in him. Otherwise, the authors must admit that God completely changes the heart of a man in order that he places his trust in Christ. This describes the Calvinist position, however, where God chooses some men and causes them to love him and desire to obey him through faith in Christ. Either they believe in universalism, wherein God enables every man to trust in him by completely regenerating his dead heart (thus accomplishing salvation), or they believe in Calvinism.

Sovereignty and Universal Love

The authors take issue with the Calvinist position on divine sovereignty. While Calvinists believe that God controls and ordains all events in the universe down to the most minute detail, including every thought and intention of men, Walls and Dongell give numerous objections to this idea. God loves everyone and therefore does not sovereignly elect those who will be saved, thereby limiting his love. His grace is not irresistible. We cannot build a doctrine of sovereignty based solely on his perfection. We cannot conclude absolute foreknowledge or determinism based on the biblical record. The authors ultimately fall short, both biblically and logically.

God does not and cannot love every person in creation because every man sins and therefore incurs God’s wrath. God cannot love any man because he is holy and men are sinners. We should wonder that he loves any of us. Psalm 5.5 declares that God hates “all who do iniquity.” Proverbs 6.16-19 also declares that God hates the sinner. God can only love sinners who are in Christ (Romans 8.39), who have been chosen in Christ (Ephesians 1.4). Paul says that God demonstrates his love toward us (believers), not toward all, by sending Christ to die for us (Romans 5.8). In Romans 8, Paul distinguishes between believer and unbeliever. The believer sets his mind “on the spirit” and the unbeliever “on the flesh” (8.1-8). At the end of this chapter, Paul describes the benefits of God’s complete, conditional salvific love:

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? … But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 8:28-35,37-39

This love belongs only to those who love God. This love cannot in any way belong to the unbeliever; man can only enjoy this love in Christ. If Paul calls this love, we cannot describe any blessing that falls short of this as love, whether goodness, benevolence, or even any sort of desire on God’s part for the salvation of sinners. However, we will see that God does not desire salvation for every sinner.

Logically, we can disprove any universal statement, such as “God loves and desires to save every person in creation” if we can find a single counterexample. Paul gives us this counterexample in Romans 9, but Pharaoh isn’t the only example. God used Pharaoh as an instrument to display his wrath (Romans 9.17). God hardened his heart so that he refused to let the Israelites free, giving God just reason to wreak havoc in Egypt through the plagues. Arminians counter that God only responded to rebelliousness that was already present in Pharaoh’s heart, implying that God would not have hardened his heart if Pharaoh had initially wanted to release Israel, and that God would have allowed Pharaoh to release Israel at any point, therefore avoiding his wrath. Scripture reveals precisely the opposite, however. God declared his intentions before Moses even meets Pharaoh. He says, “I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from their bondage. I will also redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments” (Exodus 6.6). God intended to deliver Israel through judgments against the idolatry of Egypt. These “judgments” were the plagues God sent against Egypt (Exodus 7.4; 12.12). At no point did God intend to allow Egypt to avoid his wrath.  God tells Moses he will harden Pharaoh’s heart as early as Exodus 4. He repeats this again in 7.3 and even when Pharaoh may have relented and given in to Moses’ demands, God does not allow him to (9.27-35; 10.16-17). God desired to demonstrate his wrath to glorify his name before Israel so they would tell to their children through all generations (10.1-2). God had no intention to deliver Egypt from his wrath. In the New Testament, Peter tells us that men refuse to believe in Christ because they were “appointed” to this (1 Peter 2.8). Jude says that false teachers have “long beforehand [been] marked out for this condemnation” (1.4). Paul tells us that God alone decides on whom he will have compassion (Romans 9.15-16), that “he has mercy on whom he desires, and he hardens whom he desires” (9.18), and this does not depend on the decision of any man. John echoes this (John 1.13). God has no intention to save every person.

Every person resists God. This is our nature. Death and slavery in sin so completely describe us, that Christ tells us we must be “born again” in order to love him (John 3.3). Calvinists call this rebirth through “irresistible grace.” By default, we refuse God, yet when he chooses us, he causes us to be reborn (John 1.13), utterly without our permission because we refuse to give it. If left to ourselves, we would all perish eternally. Walls and Dongell complain about scripture that portrays God desiring the salvation of those he will not save. God yearns for his people in Hosea, “When Israel was a youth I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. The more they called them, the more they went from them; they kept sacrificing to the Baals and burning incense to idols.” While the Calvinist believes that men can only come to God by his will (John 6.44), these verses seem to contradict this. How can God express any regret over the rebellion of his people when he holds the solution to this rebellion? The authors lament, “We face the troubling prospect of a God whose action (or inaction) contradicts his words. While his words may seem like a warm invitation or command to repent and seem to indicate that God desires an appropriate human response, God’s choice to withhold his transforming power reveals his deeper desire not to create in humans the appropriate response.”[17] Admittedly, this is confusing on the surface, but we must continue to found our exegesis on what scripture clearly reveals: man is dead in sin, a slave to it, hostile to God, completely unwilling to surrender to him and indeed, unable to do so. These passages describe the heart of God, desiring the salvation of his people, yet for some reason unwilling to save them. God has greater purposes in mind than immediate salvation and we rarely, if ever, understand the complete intent behind his actions. Sometimes God tries us (Isaiah 48.10). Sometimes God displays his wrath (Isaiah 51.20). God may display many attributes through many means, while we abide as infants, barely comprehending the greatness of his might, his splendor, his wisdom, his justice or any other aspect of his character. He tells us through Isaiah, “My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” (55.8,9).[18]

Calvinists build the doctrine of absolute sovereignty on the doctrine of God’s perfect nature, but the authors believe sovereignty does not follow from this. They use secular philosopher Plato to say that a perfect God does not change and therefore cannot become man.[19] A perfect being has no need to love, since perfection implies self-satisfaction.[20] They say, “Given only the abstract principle of perfection, we can reasonably deliver a God quite unlike the loving and redeeming Father revealed by the incarnate son.”[21] But Calvinists do not base the doctrine of sovereignty solely on some abstract idea of perfection. The authors dishonestly create a false Calvinism, and refute it through an unbelieving philosopher. Plato adds nothing to any biblical discussion, and refuting an idea that does not exist is illogical. Calvinists arrive at sovereignty through the perfections of God as revealed in scripture. Charles Hodge says, “Sovereignty is not a property of the divine nature, but a prerogative arising out of the perfections of the Supreme Being. If God be a Spirit, and therefore a person, infinite, eternal, and immutable in his being and perfections, the Creator and Preserver of the universe. He is of right its absolute sovereign. Infinite wisdom, goodness, and power, with the right of possession, which belongs to God in all his creatures, are the immutable foundation of his dominion.”[22]

Nebuchadnezzar understood God’s sovereignty through much affliction. God removed his sanity and his sovereignty when Nebuchadnezzar glorified himself in all his splendor and all he accomplished (Daniel 4.28-37). God showed himself sovereign not only over his kingdom but over his very mind. In Genesis, God glorified himself through seven years of famine and seven years of plenty, but not before he led Joseph’s brothers to sell him into slavery. Joseph says to his brothers, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive” (Genesis 50.20). Through the entire ordeal, however, God not only delivered many from death, but he also sent the famine and plenty (Isaiah 45.7). He gave dreams to the baker and the cupbearer (Genesis 40.5).

To God belongs sovereignty in authority, but also in power. God abides in omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence, and every atom in creation is laid bare to him (Psalm 18.15; Hebrews 4.13), whether animate or inanimate, every thought, desire, event, disaster, nation, person, etc. We know from prophecy that he knows the future, and we know from his declared purposes that he ordains it as well. If God desires to act, he acts, on any object, people, person, animal, etc. If he refuses to act to prevent an act of man or beast, nation, or nature, then he desires whatever comes to pass. He can do anything to accomplish his will, and he can stop anything that contradicts his will, and nothing limits the scope of it, small or great, whether the greatest galaxy or the smallest atom and beyond. We conclude his sovereignty necessarily from these perfections of his nature, not because we desire sovereignty to be appropriate to God, but because sovereignty follows logically and scripturally. Why should God allow sinful, arrogant, self-centered, ignorant, simple man the free will to disturb his righteous, wise, and holy will? In whose creation do we exist: man’s or God’s? In heaven and earth there is but one will, his (Matthew 6.10).

The Mechanics of Redemption

Walls and Dongell examine various passages in the New Testament that support Calvinist ideas and attempt to refute the Calvinist position in each of them. They ignore and pervert the doctrine of depravity while simultaneously claiming its veracity. They claim that faith does not originate from God but from men. They claim that verses that guarantee our salvation and God’s eternal love for the believer actually do not. They claim that God does not elect individuals but groups of people. While they do all of this, they accuse Calvinists of using convoluted scriptural gymnastics to support their claims while they do the same, ignoring clear passages that seriously erode their claims.

The authors appear to agree with the doctrine of depravity, that teaches that man is enslaved to sin, dead in it, unable and unwilling to please God. They say, “Calvinists surely have the clearer view, with a full arsenal of scriptural passages to prove that sin perverts the very mechanisms of insight and judgment, of desire and will, and of the fundamental moral disposition.”[23] They immediately abandon this position and propose an analogy of a person “imprisoned in the deepest corner of a terrorist camp” to illustrate and prove their position.[24] Nothing can be proven by analogy, however.

We survive in this terrorist camp, “weak and delusional, gagged, blindfolded, and drugged.”[25] Calvinists believe, according to the authors, that sin has imprisoned us in this terrorist camp, and that God breaks in and “injects ‘faith’ into [our] veins.” The authors believe that God breaks into this camp, injects some serum that clears the delusions, and then begins to whisper divine truth, wooing the prisoner to salvation. They believe this analogy “captures the richness of the Bible’s message: the glory of God’s original creation, the devastation of sin, God’s loving pursuit of helpless sinners and the nature of love as the free assent of persons.”[26] God must have some serious trouble wooing men because Christ tells us “the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it,” but “the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it” (Matthew 7.13,14). The authors lament that there “is room for tragedy, for the inexplicable (but possible) rejection of God’s tender invitation by those who really know better and who might have done otherwise.”[27] The Almighty Creator of this magnificent, beautiful, wonderful Universe, the great Lover of our Souls barely possesses the creativity, the tenderness, or the influence necessary to win over a majority of the souls he desires. Arminian theology mocks the Almighty and this ridiculous analogy completely misrepresents the witness of scripture that testifies to the complete and utter devastation of sin. Walls and Dongell may say they agree with the Calvinist position on sin, but they either misunderstand it or ignore it when they actually apply it to redemption.

If scripture only called us “slaves” (John 8.34), if sin merely held us captive externally, against our will, this analogy may have had some credibility, but scripture goes much further. Scripture says we are dead (Romans 4.17; 6.13; Ephesians 2.1, 5; Colossians 2.13) and it describes this death with vivid, overwhelming language. Genesis tells us that “the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6.5). Jeremiah describes our heart as “more deceitful than all else and desperately sick” (Jeremiah 17.9). Paul says that we are “hostile toward God” (Romans 8.7). God does not merely “woo” us with beautiful sentiment; he causes us to be reborn (John 3.3) because that is what we need. We are dead and we need new life. He calls himself “the bread of life” (John 6.35) and this life, his Spirit, can only come from him. We do not create it or originate it in any way. We do not call it forth by our will (John 1.13). In John 6, Christ says twice that no one can even understand his words and come to him unless God gives this life (6.44, 65). To use the scriptural metaphor, God sees the dead person, and gives him new life, causing him to be reborn. He does this completely apart from any initiative or even consent on our part because we are completely, utterly, overwhelmingly unable and unwilling.

Faith and Regeneration

Man cannot and will not believe in God, so God must completely change his heart in order for him to respond positively to Christ. Since some do not choose to believe in God, we conclude that God chooses some for regeneration. Calvinists call this election. While Walls and Dongell pretend to support the doctrine of depravity, they do not apply it to election any more than to salvation. They believe “God loves the whole world” and that he “pursues every human being with inviting love and makes it possible for each person to respond positively to available light.”[28] The authors claim that scripture troubles many Christians when it speaks of “unconditional, individual predestination—that God unilaterally and unconditionally decides which individuals will be saved.”[29] Unconditional election maybe initially troubling, but our “trouble” with scripture should not motivate or have any influence whatsoever on our exegesis.

Throughout this book, the authors pick verses that support their claims while ignoring those that do not. When they acknowledge scripture that contradicts what they wish to be true, they either create some caricaturish analogy or bend the context to suit their aims. Examining John 6.37, 39, 44, they ignore the whole message of the chapter and instead focus on a few verses from this chapter and the previous. Christ tells his audience, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me…This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing…No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him,” John 6.37, 39, 44. The authors cite these verses, but I will add one more because I believe it correctly places the discussion in context: “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father,” John 6.65.

Christ was arguing with the hostile Jewish leaders, and the authors claim that these verses only apply to these because they had already completely rejected Christ. They refused to believe in Christ because God had not “granted” them faith (John 6.65), but Walls and Dongell do not believe that this all-inclusive statement is actually all-inclusive. They claim that it only applies to the Jewish leaders in this text. If we could accept their claim that God only woos the sinner, and does not need to completely regenerate his heart in order for the sinner to receive him; if we denied scripture that teaches that man is enslaved to sin, dead in it and hostile to God, then possibly we may be able to accept that this statement does not apply to all men. We must consider the whole of scripture, however. Faith pleases God (Hebrews 11.1) and as Jeremiah tells us, God writes his law, this faith, on our hearts (Jeremiah 31.33). In John 6, Christ declares that he is “the bread of life” (John 6.35) and that without this life, “no one can come to [him].” Jewish leaders refuse to believe because God has not chosen them for life (John 1.13), nor caused them to be reborn (John 3.3), but we cannot narrow this statement of Christ’s when all of scripture claims that all men are sinners and in need of this life in order to trust in God. Christ is not the bread of life only for those in his immediate audience, but for all who believe. Christ says that God gives this life (v. 32), and that he also gives himself as this bread (v. 51). Christ repeatedly declares that this life comes from God and only from God, and he says this many times and in many ways, both to “the Jews” and to the general audience:

Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. John 6.32

All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. John 6.37

This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. John 6.39

No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. "It is written in the prophets, 'and they shall all be taught of God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me. John 6:44-45

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. John 6.63

For this reason, I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father. John 6.65

When we couple Christ’s declaration of life and of who gives it, with his declaration that only those whom God draws can come to him, and then also combine that with the doctrine of man’s depravity, we can only conclude that all men need this life in order to believe, and that they only have this life when God grants it (John 6.65), therefore God decides who will be saved.

Walls and Dongell do not believe that faith originates from God. Scripture tells us otherwise. In John, we have the chapter on the new birth (John 3) and we have this chapter on the new life (John 6). Faith pleases God and without it, we cannot please God (Hebrews 11.1). If we have faith, we please God, but we naturally do not please God. We do not even want to! We cannot possibly create faith without God’s complete regeneration of our hearts. Paul says that faith is granted (Philippians 1.29; 2 Timothy 2.25) to believers, and God has raised us from the death of our sin (Colossians 2.12,13). Peter says that God causes us to be born again (1 Peter 1.3) and that we receive faith from God (2 Peter 1.2). Deuteronomy tells us that God “circumcises our hearts” to love him with all our heart and soul (30.6).  Both Ezekiel and Jeremiah declare that God gives us a new heart and a new spirit (Ezekiel 11.19,20; Jeremiah 31.33), removing our heart of stone and giving us a heart of flesh. We do not believe in Christ without this life, and we do not receive this life apart from God’s choice (John 1.13), not ours.

Scripture does not describe humanity as merely disabled or impaired regarding righteousness and faith. Scripture tells us that we are dead. Death is more than impairment or inability. Death is complete and irreversible except by some miracle effected completely and utterly apart from the dead one. If scripture describes men as dead to God and dead in sin, we should expect a complete remedy of this death. We should expect a resurrection or some other description of new life. Thankfully, scripture gives us exactly that. Christ tells us that men can and must be born again (John 3.3), that he is life (John 6.35), and that he gives life (John 6.51). The regeneration that gives life to the dead and faith in Christ comes from God and by his choice.

Election

While the doctrine of sin presents a genuine problem to Arminianism, Romans 9 also radically compromises the entire breadth of Arminian theology. Walls and Dongell examine the verses in question:

Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” … It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy… Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden… Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

Romans 9.11,12, 16, 18, 21

The authors contend that these verses do not describe how God elects individuals, but how he has dealt with Israel as a whole.[30] Even though Paul describes God’s election of individuals, the authors believe that God does not elect individuals to salvation, nor does he elect individuals for damnation. Paul uses three men as examples: Jacob, Esau, and Pharaoh. All of these are individual men, but Paul places these examples within the larger framework of Israel’s election. The authors say, “Paul distinguishes the irrevocable call of the nation of Israel as a whole from the fate of individual Israelites. While the final destination of the people of God is absolutely certain, the future of any given individual is determined by his or her continued faith and trust in God.”[31] God does not elect any individual, but each individual either exercises faith and receives salvation or remains hardened and damns himself. The authors believe that to interpret these verses as teaching God’s unconditional election is to contradict the rest of chapters 9-11 which condition salvation upon individual faith.[32] The focus is not on this narrow scope of the individual election of Jacob for salvation and Esau and Pharaoh for damnation, but on the hardening of Israel so that the Gentiles will be saved.[33]

This interpretation directly contradicts the text. Paul uses examples of individuals to demonstrate how God elects the members of the true, spiritual nation of Israel. God chose Jacob and rejected Esau. God elects corporate Israel by electing individuals. The authors have no reason to assume that Paul does not intend both corporate and individual election. Why can Paul not use the examples of individuals to demonstrate that God chooses individuals as he creates the corporate Israel? Indeed, he must, if no Israelite can obey without an external work accomplished by God (Joshua 24.19; Jeremiah 31.33). He must decide who will receive his Spirit and become a member of the Israel of promise. Paul uses two examples: one positively and two negatively. God chooses Jacob for redemption and not Esau. He passively allows Esau to perish. To confirm God’s right in passively allowing some to perish, Paul mentions Pharaoh as an example of God actively choosing some to perish. Paul answers the question in chapter 9 by referring to individual election, and then in chapter 11, he reiterates God’s gracious choice of the “remnant” (11.5). He then echoes his words in 9.11, that election is by God’s grace alone, and not by anything good or bad that we do: “If it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace” (11.6). Paul brackets the whole discussion of Israel’s apostasy with two nearly identical statements, that election is by God’s gracious choice and not because of any desire, act, or intent of any man.

John Murray in his commentary on Romans asks, “Is the case such that the phrase ‘the purpose of God according to election’ is not applied in this context to the sphere of individual destiny?”[34] Regarding 1 Thessalonians 1.4, he says that the phrase “unquestionably refers to election to everlasting life,” and nearly “all other instances refer to particular election to salvation and life.”[35] Murray continues

The question posed for the apostle is: how can the covenant promise of God be regarded as inviolate when the mass of those who belong to Israel, who are comprised in the elect nation in terms of the Old Testament passages cited above (Deut. 4:37 et al.), have remained in unbelief and come short of the covenant promises? His answer would fail if it were simply an appeal to the collective, inclusive, theocratic election of Israel. Such a reply would be no more than appeal to the fact that his kinsmen were Israelites and thus no more than a statement of the fact which, in view of their unbelief, created the problem.[36]

Answering the problem of Israel’s unbelief with the corporate election of Israel would not answer the question at all, Murray says. Paul would be answering the question with a restatement of the problem. Further examining the “corporate election” argument, Murray says that Paul distinguishes between the remnant that possess faith and the corporate Israel in chapter 11.

Hence the ‘remnant’ and ‘the election’ are those conceived of as possessors and heirs of salvation. The election, therefore, is one that has saving associations and implications in the strictest sense and must be distinguished from the election that belonged to Israel as a whole. It is this concept of election that accords with the requirements of Paul’s argument in 9:11 and its context.[37]

To say that Paul refers to corporate election and not individual election completely dismantles Paul’s argument and destroys all coherence. Murray concludes his analysis by comparing Paul’s use of the clause, “not of works, but of him that calleth.” He says,

‘Calling’ in Paul’s usage, when the call of God is in view and when applied to the matter of salvation, is the effectual call to salvation…This is all the more necessary when it is conjoined with the negative ‘not of works’; this stresses the freeness and sovereignty as well as efficacy which are in such prominence elsewhere in connection with God’s call.[38]

Calling, election, and choice all belong to God and God alone.

I have already shown that the authors neglect to give full weight to the depth and consequence of Adam’s sin. No one will come to God. No one wants to. If anyone does, it is because God has given him life. Does God close his eyes and throw regeneration around like falling rain, hoping some will trust in him, knowing many will not? Or does God select us individually, giving us purpose, commanding us to do his will? How does anyone trust if everyone is enslaved to sin? Are not we all hardened by default? Paul uses the example of Jacob and Esau to show that God has chosen individual believers within the nation of Israel, and that just as Jacob was the son of promise, as was Isaac, so all who believe are the children of promise. God initiates his promises and fulfills them himself. He does not wait for us to possibly align with his desires or his promises. We are weak, irresponsible, undependable, sinners.

The authors ignore multiple instances of individual election. God spoke to Abraham, as an individual. Peterson and Williams tell us, “Abraham the father of the faithful, came from a family of idolaters! And he would have continued the family tradition had not the Lord intervened. But God called Abram, commanding him to leave his people and his father’s household.”[39] God came to Jacob and wrestled against him, as an individual (Genesis 32.24-32). God selected Joseph from among the twelve to deliver the nation of Egypt from famine. Was Joseph more righteous than his brothers? Or did God gift him and enable him by his Spirit (Genesis 41.38)? God spoke individually to Moses (Exodus 3.4), Joshua (Joshua 1.2), Saul, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, singling out every one of these men for specific purposes. Were they “better” or more faithful than any other men? Were they not all sinners, dead in sin, enslaved to sin, hostile to God and unable to please God? Why would God choose any of them? The authors claim that Calvinists build the doctrine of unconditional election on a “single verse” in Romans 9,[40] conveniently ignoring John 1.13, which says, “As many as received him, to them he gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in his name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1.13). We are born of God (John 3.3), and this new birth gives us this faith to believe in his name. There is no other possible way. In their discussion of Romans 9-11, the authors not only ignore sin, and the universal statement of election in 9.11-23, which agrees with the entire witness of scripture, but 11.5, where Paul says, “There has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice.” God conditions salvation upon our faith, but he conditions faith upon election, which has no condition but God’s sovereign will.

In discussing Romans 9, the authors ignore Paul countering the reader’s objection. After he says that God chooses unilaterally, without regard to a man’s choices or actions, he asks, “What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there?” (9.14). Then he immediately answers the anticipated objection, “May it never be!” (9.15). Why would Paul need to answer this objection if he was only speaking of the softer and more easily accepted notion that God does not single out individuals for salvation or damnation, but rather blindly tosses out a well-meaning blanket acceptance of all who potentially may believe? Surely this would not warrant this kind of stiff objection. Peterson and Williams agree when they say, “The protest lodged in Romans 9.14 confirms our interpretation of Romans 9.6-13,” that “God sovereignly fulfills his word contrary to all human ability and expectation.”[41] Further reinforcing this radically offensive, unilateral and unconditional election of God, he repeats God’s word to Moses from Exodus 33.19, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion” (Romans 9.15). Why would any reasonable, self-respecting man object to God choosing men based on their good deeds, desire, or faith? No man will, and Paul knows this, which is precisely why he answers the objection of every reasonable, self-respecting, sinful, proud man who objects to this notion that offends his pride: God does not choose because of any trait, action, desire, or faith on your part, but only by his sovereign will. To reinforce his point once again, Paul says, “It does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy” (9.16). Then he continues the same point using Pharaoh, only now he says, not only does God elect men like Jacob to be his, but he elects men like Pharaoh to be objects of wrath (9.17, 22). Paul cements the final stone in God’s great, horrible, glorifying doctrine of election that has caused many men to stumble over the centuries. Does God not have a right to exercise his wrath (9.21)? Who are we to say that he doesn’t?

This doctrine of election magnificently crushes the pride of men, even Christian men, and many still struggle against it. Election falls under the doctrine of God’s sovereignty, and though many Arminians say they accept his sovereignty, they in fact do not. God expresses his sovereignty from the first chapter of scripture, through all of Genesis, Exodus, the story of Israel, their struggles with idolatry, and then into the advent of Christ and his death. God sovereignly rules over all the nations (Isaiah 40.15), and no one can ask him, “What have you done?” (Daniel 4.35), as if God must answer to anyone, or as if our will supersedes his.

Conclusion

Arminian theology fails at a number of points. In asserting the freedom of the human will, they deny the completeness of God’s sovereignty and the depravity of the human heart. In believing that God responds to the desires of man, they place Almighty God in submission to sinful man. In denying the clarity of these truths, they claim that they reign as superior “gods” to the true God. They are just, good, and loving because they know better who should be chosen and how they shall be chosen.

The authors believe that men will choose God if given the chance, possibly if they hear the right words from the right minister, or the correct Gospel presentation, or maybe if their emotions sit well on a certain day, or they suffer some sort of personal loss or even blessing at the right time. God “woos” all, but salvation depends on our response, which depends completely on us. Scripture teaches nothing of the sort. We know how men will respond. We know from the third chapter of the Bible. Adam existed in the perfect condition to know God, to love him, to respond positively and obediently to God’s love, and what did he do? He defied God. He followed Eve and threw creation into darkness. Adam had all the advantages: intimacy with God, all of his needs met, authority over all creation, and a sinless heart. Despite these advantages, he chose to disobey. We have none of these advantages because everything in creation has been tainted by Adam’s sin, especially our hearts, yet Walls and Dongell believe that we will choose better than Adam. They ignore sin and its overwhelming presence in our hearts and assert that we are all more righteous than Adam and that some of us will choose to believe in God because God has “enabled” us. Did he not enable Adam? Adam had no sin! How will the children of Adam respond? We know this too! In Genesis 6, scripture again denies we will respond positively. God left men to their own devices and again they chose sin: “The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6.5). So God reserved Noah for himself and destroyed everyone else. Why did God “enable” all of humanity yet only Noah trusted in God? Is there something wrong with God’s ability to enable that only Noah believed in God? Was humanity’s sin so complete that it overwhelmed God’s ability to enable them? Was Noah so inherently righteous and superior in his faith that only he trusted in God? Is God so impotent to “woo” us, or does he have desires and intentions that we do not understand? The authors ignore every witness of scripture.  When Joshua commands the Israelites to “Choose for yourselves today whom you will serve” (Joshua 24.15), he immediately tells them that they will indeed be unable to do so (24.19). Joshua destroys the claim of every Arminian who says that “God will not command that which we are unable to do.” All of scripture plainly denies this. None of us are righteous (Romans 3.23), none of us can please God (Romans 8.7,8), yet God still commands us to obey. God’s command remains the same as it did with Adam, but Adam’s sin corrupted us. Should God change his holy nature because our nature changed?

God does not submit to any man, nor does he allow a man to usurp the glory that rightly belongs to him alone. God leads, creates, initiates, rules, decides, gives, loves, judges, and punishes, while we follow, submit, worship, adore, receive, and suffer wrath. God does not accede to our wishes, respond to our will, nor confirm our desires apart from his. He leads the nations as if by a hook in the nose (Isaiah 37.29). He rules over the realm of mankind and bestows it on whomever he wishes (Daniel 4.16). He considers the nations to be dust (Isaiah 40.15) and men are insects (Isaiah 40.22). He creates good works so that we walk in them (Ephesians 2.10). He works in us so that we will work out our salvation (Philippians 2.12, 13). He gives us the Spirit by faith and not by works, a faith that he himself gives (John 1.13; Acts 13.48; Galatians 3.5; Ephesians 2.8; Philippians 1.29; 2 Timothy 2.25) because we have none (Genesis 6.5; Psalm 53.1-3; Jeremiah 17.9; John 8.34; Romans 3.23; 8.7,8; Ephesians 2.1). He numbers the hairs on our head (Matthew 10.30); he tracks the fall of every sparrow (Matthew 10.29); he leads forth the stars and calls them by name (Psalm 147.4; Isaiah 40.26); he upholds all things by the word of his power (Hebrews 1.3). Nothing exists, lives, dies, breathes, loves, hates, stands or falls apart from his knowledge or his will.

Joseph Dongell is a bible professor but Jerry Walls admits to being a philosopher and not a biblical scholar.[42] This weakness shows in their treatment of scripture. Relying more on philosophical assumptions than on biblical revelation, Walls and Dongell ignore or rewrite concepts that scripture presents very clearly. They are not doing anything new. Arminian theologians have attempted to distort scripture since Paul was an apostle. We see this in Romans 9, as he anticipates objections to election. Arminians believe that God does not sovereignly rule his creation, but instead has created “a world open to divine causation but not comprehensively determined by its divine Sustainer.”[43] Man is not dead in sin, but merely an impaired prisoner of it.[44] God may pursue all of mankind but does not bother himself to elect any individual man or woman, and instead elects groups of people with absolutely no regard to whoever the group may include.[45] This adding and rewriting of scripture betrays their pride and their refusal to trust in God’s righteous character. God has every right to elect whomever he desires. He has every right to decide the eternal fate of every creature. This in no way impugns his justice, his goodness, or his love. Scripture nowhere requires God to be good, loving or kind to all men in order for him to also be good, loving, or kind in his character. This is human philosophy. God is just at all times, and also merciful, good, and loving. He executes wrath on the sinner and he gives mercy to the righteous. He elects those he loves without respect to their deeds, their beliefs, or their desires. All of these comprise his character and he commands us to trust him, and he curses those who do not, who trust in themselves and rewrite scripture to fit their own intentions (Jeremiah 17.5; Revelation 22.18,19).

---

[1] Jerry Walls and Joseph Dongell, Why I am not a Calvinist, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), page 8.

[2] Ibid, page 7.

[3] Robert A. Peterson and Michael D. Williams, Why I am not an Arminian, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), page 13.

[4] Ibid, 18.

[5] Ibid, 18.

[6] Walls and Dongell, 85, 95

[7] Ibid, 11, 80, 82.

[8] Ibid, 80.

[9] Walls and Dongell go so far as to say that everyone is a child of God. In speaking of God’s love for the entire world, they use an analogy to say that “Our own experiences as parents teach us that expressing love, even special love, for one child in no way implies an absence of love for another, even a difficult child” (page 53). The “difficult child” is the person who does not believe in Christ, but the strong implication here is that every person, believer and unbeliever, is a “child” of God.

[10] Ibid, 37.

[11] Ibid, page 40.

[12] Ibid, page 43.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid, page 11.

[15] Ibid, page 11.

[16] Ibid, page 11.

[17] Ibid, 56.

[18] Ironically, the authors answer their own objection later in this same book. In their discussion of Romans 9-11, they say, “Israel is in a hardened state, while multitudes of Gentiles are streaming to God and will continue to do so until the Gentile response reaches its fullness” (page 88). The authors know full well why God allows his people to rebel against him, and they completely agree that God has other purposes in their rebellion, but they conveniently ignore this so they can dishonestly attack a valid point that counters their beliefs.

[19] Ibid, 59.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology: Volume 1: Theology, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2016), page 440.

[23] Walls and Dongell, page 67.

[24] Ibid, 68.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Ibid, 69.

[27] Ibid, 70.

[28] Ibid, page 73.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Ibid, 85

[31] Ibid, 87.

[32] Ibid, 90.

[33] Ibid, 91.

[34] John Murray, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: Romans, (Grand Rapids, W.B. Eerdmans: 1965), Volume II, page 17.

[35] Ibid.

[36] Ibid, 18.

[37] Ibid, 19.

[38] Ibid, 19.

[39] Peterson and Williams, page 43.

[40] Walls and Dongell, page 85.

[41] Peterson and Williams, pages 60-61.

[42] Walls and Dongell, 20.

[43] Ibid, 65.

[44] Ibid, 68-71.

[45] Ibid, 84-87.