Objections to Reprobation: 2. Isn't God Merciful?

The second objection Arminians make against the doctrine of Reprobation regards the mercy of God. How can God be merciful if He either actively wills the damnation of certain of His creatures without a view to anything in them or if He passes them over as sinners and chooses someone else equally deserving of eternal damnation?

Mercy can be thought of in two ways: as a Divine attribute and as it is exercised toward man. As an attribute of God, it is infinite. All God’s attribute are because they coincide with His Essence. To say that God is just is not that same as saying Todd is just. Todd can cease to be just and still be himself. God’s attributes are at one with His Essence, so that if He were not just, He would not be God. Hence we repeat that as a divine attribute, God’s mercy is infinite.

But mercy, as it exercised toward man, is neither necessarily infinite nor actually infinite. The fact that God did not create more worlds than He has is no indictment of His omnipotence. Likewise, that not all men are saved is no indictment of His mercy. Augustus Toplady writes, “Goodness, considered as it is in God, would have been just the same infinite and glorious attribute, supposing no rational creatures had been created at all, or saved when created. To which may be added, that the goodness of the Deity does not cease to be infinite in itself, only because it is more extended to some objects than it is to others. The infinity of this perfection, as residing in God and coinciding with His Essence, is sufficiently secured, without supposing it to reach indiscriminately, to all creatures He has made. For, was that way of reason to be admitted, it would lead us too far, and prove too much: since, if the infinity of His goodness is to be estimated by the number of objects upon which it terminates; there must be an absolute, proper infinity of reasonable beings to terminate that goodness upon. Consequently, it would follow from such premises, either, that the creation, is as truly infinite as the Creator; or, if otherwise, that the Creator’s goodness could not be infinite, because it has not an infinity of object to make happy.”

If the decree of Reprobation is disproved by the imaginary incompatibility with divine mercy, then we must also charge God with a lack of goodness in almost every other part of His conduct. We spent quite some time proving that assertion in the previous post.

Arminians should therefore think carefully of the logically consequences of their doctrine. There is no way of asserting eternal providence or justifying God’s actions towards humanity except by saying that the exercise of His infinite mercy is regulated by the voluntary determining of His sovereign pleasure. Once this scriptural proposition is established, every objection against Reprobation that is grounded on its being unmerciful ceases to exist. 

Note, I said, “established as scriptural.” Here goes.

In Matthew 11:20-24, Christ reproves the cities that did not believe Him. He goes on to say that had Tyre, Sidon and Sodom seen the mighty deeds they had witnessed, these cities would’ve repented. The logical inference it this: God saw fit to NOT show these cities the very mighty deeds that would have resulted in their repentance. If this does not demonstrate Preterition, nothing does. “Unfair,” you say. Yet in verses 25 and 26, Christ thanks the Father for doing the very thing Arminians exclaim against as unjust and unmerciful. I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.

Witness further:

“He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.” Matt 13:11

“it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.” Matt 20:23

“For many are called, but few are chosen.” Matt 22:14

“for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.” Matt 24:22

“Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:” Matt 25:34

“Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.” Mark 4:11-12

“rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.” Luke 10:20

“Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.” Luke 12:32

“one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.” Luke 17:34

“All that the Father giveth me shall come to me” John 6:37

“ye are not of God.” John 8:47

“ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep” John 10:26

“But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.” John 12:37 - 40

“Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you” John 15:16

“Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.” Acts 1:16-20

“Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain” Acts 2:23

“Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.” Acts 4:27-28

“as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.” Acts 13:48

“God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace” Gal 1:15

“Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began” 2 Tim 1:9

“For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation” Jude 1:4

Every single one of the above passages contains at least one side of the Election/Reprobation equation. Mention is made of those who are shown special, undeserved favor; hence, demonstrating the passing over of the non-elect. Or mention is made of the decree regarding the reprobation of certain individuals. Here we have multiple Scriptures asserting Election, and by logical consequence, its corollary, Reprobation. And not a single one of these passages even remotely hints at questioning God’s justice or mercy.

Objections to Reprobation: 1. It's Not Fair

One of the ramifications of the doctrine of Election is the doctrine of Reprobation. Election is God’s choosing of some men to salvation. If some are chosen, others are not chosen. This being not chosen is what is called the doctrine of Reprobation.

The aim of this article and the next one is not to describe Reprobation in either supralapsarian or infralapsarian terms. (Only those who are already on our side will be interested in that subject anyway.) Nor do I intend to resolve that theological issue; although I am admittedly a supralapsarian. I simply mention this because all Arminian objections to the doctrine of Election arise because of this corollary doctrine of Reprobation. I intend to go a step further and address the objections to Reprobation, all of which boil down to two topics: God’s justice and God’s mercy. This article will deal with the question of justice. The next post will deal with the issue of divine mercy as it relates to Reprobation.

A fair (no pun intended) definition of justice would be: giving every man his due. This definition might stand a bit of tweaking. But at the end of the day, it’ll do. When we come to the supposed problem or injustice of Reprobation, it hangs on whether God is or is not a debtor to man. He obviously is not. If it can be proved that God owes salvation to everyone, only then will it follow that Reprobation is unjust. If we can show that God is not debtor, but rather creditor, then the objection vanishes into thin air.

Moreover, this objection weighs as heavily against limited salvation as it does against the limiting decree. You have to prove that everyone is decreed to be equally happy – even in this life. If God is a debtor to any man, why not all men? If God owes salvation to all men, why does He condemn anyone finally? If the Arminian answers that they disqualify themselves from receiving salvation, I reply that to speak of man not permitting God to be just is assuming a principle that cannot be allowed. God can never be overruled by man. And the Arminian hypothesis of man being God’s creditors rests on the natural claim to happiness with which man is supposed to be invested as a right in virtue of involuntary creatureship. In other words, man didn’t ask to be created, therefore God is obligated to make him happy. Arminianism presupposes that since man derives his existence from God, God is bound and obligated to make that existence happy. The fact is that if God owes happiness to all His creatures, then even those who die in their sins must be saved or else God ceases to be just.

Arminians love to claim that Calvinism leads to antinomiansim, but the exact opposite appears to be the case. It seems unavoidable to me that if you probe Arminianism to its bottom, IT, and not Calvinism opens the floodgates of licentiousness. Arminian principles force us to this conclusion. Every son of Adam is God’s creature; every creature of God is good. We are all endued with independent free-will. He loves all men alike. His justice will not let Him reject any of us. Christ’s death atoned for the sins of all men; hence we are all redeemed. This all leads to but one conclusion: Let us eat, drink and be merry.

Of course, I’m not claiming that all Arminians reason this way. Indeed, few do. Most are blissfully unaware of the logical consequences of their own system. They are too busy slinging mud to notice that it is they who are losing ground.

Now, you may say to me that salvation is only given to men once they meet certain conditions. My cheap reply is this: If salvation is every man’s due whether he fulfills the conditions or not, then you indeed a wide-eyed Antinomian. If you say then that salvation is not man’s due unless he fulfills certain conditions then it either follows that:
1. Man earns his own salvation, and by his works he makes God his debtor. Or,
2. Man, as a creature is not entitled to salvation, and God as Creature is under no obligation to save anyone He has created.

There are no other alternatives. Either God is obligated, in justice, to save everyone or He is not. If He is, then it is man’s works that put Him under obligation. If not, then He is not unjust by passing over some men. In fact, He could’ve passed by the entire human race without electing anyone to salvation and remained perfectly holy and just.

Let’s pursue this line of reasoning a little further. If eternal happiness is due to everyone, then surely temporal happiness is too. Face it. If all men have equal right to the greatest possible happiness, what reason would they have to doubt the lesser? If God is bound, on penalty of being unjust, to do all He can to make every man happy in the next life, He is certainly bound to do the same in this life.

God, in His omnipotence, could banish misery from the universe. Nothing speaks louder than facts. It is obviously not His will to do so. Here’s the burning question: Are all men equally happy? Some men are born blind; some with sight. Some are born with full use of their mental faculties; some are not. Some are born into wealthy homes; some into poor. Some are born into freedom; some into slavery. Some men are born to kings; some to criminals. Some have loving parents; some have abusive ones. Some have faithful spouses; some have adulterous ones. The simple fact is that there is obvious inequality of station in this present, temporal life. Any objection against Reprobation as injustice weighs equally against any inequality of status in this life. If God is not allowed to be sovereign in eternal affairs, He is equally barred from sovereignty in temporal affairs. Yet no Arminian claims that God is unjust because not all men are equally rich, talented, intelligent or attractive.

Face it. Some angels fell and some didn’t. God could’ve prevented this. God could’ve prevented the Fall of Adam. Some men are converted, some are not. The only thing that can account for this is the absolute sovereignty of God. God does according to His will in the armies of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth (Dan. 4:35; Ps. 135:6).

Someone may reply that just because God acts as sovereign in the disposal of earthly benefits does not prove that He acts on the same principle in the disposal of eternal blessings. This is easily refuted. For:

1. Eternal things are as much at His disposal as temporal things; either He is sovereign over everything or not. If He couldn’t dispose of eternal things with the same sovereignty as He does temporal things, then He could never give to His people the spiritual blessings He promises them.
2. Even granting that time and eternity are not equal, yet if God were unjust in not ordaining one man as well as the next to eternal happiness, then He must be proportionately unjust in not ordaining all men to equal happiness here on earth. If God can, with absolute justice allow one man to be unhappy and miserable temporally, He can with equal justice allow him to be unhappy and miserable for eternity. If God cannot be unjust for a second, He cannot be unjust for eternity. If He can be unjust for a second, He can be so for eternity.

Does anyone deny temporal evil? Are there no wars, no crime? Are these exempt from the providence of God? Affirming this would be atheism. Suggesting that God is unaware of future events or that He is unable to do anything about them is tantamount to denying God’s existence. As an aside, this means that I deem Open Theism to be atheism. A God with any limitations is no God at all.

Our conclusion then is this: There is temporal evil and everyone has some share in it. This does not arise from any deficiency in God’s wisdom, power or justice. Either this is true, or God has been acting unjustly ever since the Fall. If you reply that moral evil is the cause of natural evil, you are saying nothing that we Calvinists haven’t been saying for centuries.

But the older issue remains unaddressed: How did moral evil come to pass. Natural evils are the result of moral evil and if God had not permitted the former, the latter would never have come to pass. The Arminian replies: “He gave man free-will.” So what? Didn’t God, in His infinite knowledge and wisdom, foresee what the consequences would be of granting man this ability? Was He unable to foresee how man would use this will? And couldn’t God have given Him such a will that he would never have used it for evil? The Arminian will reply, “But then he wouldn’t be a free agent.” Yes, he would have been! God is a free agent and yet His will is such that He cannot but be eternally holy, good and righteous. Why would the same will in man make him less free than it makes God?

God is just amidst all the sufferings of fallen men and fallen angels. He will remain just no matter how much more any of them suffer. If so, where is the objection to Reprobation on the grounds of injustice?

Patristic Witnesses to the Reformed Doctrine of Imputation and Justification

1. 1 Clement, chap. XLIX: “For the love which he had unto us, he gave his blood for us, according to his purpose, and his flesh for our flesh, and his life for our lives.” Note that we have a testimony taken from the very prime of undoubted antiquity, where we are told: 1. The cause of Christ’s death, viz., His love to us. 2. Its object — us, or believers. 3. The manner how he redeemed us: by substitution.

2. Epistle to Diognetus, Chapter IX: “He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!”

3. Gregory of Nyssa, Oration 2 on Canticles: “He has transferred unto Himself the filth of my sins, and communicated unto me His purity, and made me partaker of His beauty.”

4. Augustine, Enchiridion, 41: “He, then being made sin, just as we are made righteousness (our righteousness being not our own, but God’s, not in ourselves, but in Him); He being made sin, not His own, but ours, not in Himself, but in us …”

5 Chrysostom, Homily XI on 2 Cor. On verse 21: “What words, what thought shall be adequate to realize these things? ‘For the righteous,’ saith he, ‘He made a sinner; that He might make the sinners righteous.’ Yea rather, he said not even so, but what was greater far; for the word he employed is not the habit, but the quality itself. For he said not ‘made’ [Him] a sinner, but ’sin;’ not, ‘Him that had not sinned’ only, but ‘that had not even known sin; that we’ also ‘might become,’ he did not say ‘righteous,’ but, ‘righteousness,’ and, ‘the righteousness of God.’ For this is [the righteousness] ‘of God’ when we are justified not by works, (in which case it were necessary that not a spot even should be found,) but by grace, in which case all sin is done away. And this at the same time that it suffers us not to be lifted up, (seeing the whole is the free gift of God,) teaches us also the greatness of that which is given. For that which was before was a righteousness of the Law and of works, but this is ‘the righteousness of God.’”

6. Bernard, Epistle 190: “It was man who owed the debt, it was man who paid it. For if one, says S. Paul, died for all, then were all dead (2 Cor. v. 14), so that, as One bore the sins of all, the satisfaction of One is imputed to all. It is not that one forfeited, another satisfied; the Head and body is one, viz., Christ.”

Christ's View of Scripture

The Bible asserts its own inspiration. The Bible claims to deal authoritatively with all questions of religion and morality. The Old Testament claims, “Thus saith the Lord,” 413 times. There are numerous direct quotations and allusions throughout by the Old Testament authors to each other. The New Testament gives its familiar “It is written,” sixty-three times. The New Testament also cites itself on many occasions. Peter classes all of Paul’s epistles with the inspired Scriptures (2 Pet. 3:15-16). Paul quotes Luke’s gospel as Scripture in 1 Timothy 5:18 (cf. Luke 10:7). Luke refers to his previous work (Acts 1:1). Jude cites 2 Peter 3:2-3 in verse 18 of his Epistle. John alludes to his own gospel. Paul mentions another letter he had written to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9). Some of these examples are not formal quotations, but they do illustrate the fact that within the New Testament there is recognition of one inspired book by another.

The clincher though is Revelation 1:2, where the Word of God is identified with the testimony of Jesus Christ! This statement runs in both directions. Firstly, it means that the testimony of Jesus Christ in the New Testament in as fully God’s Word as the Old Testament. Secondly, it means that the Old Testament is equally the testimony of Jesus Christ.

If Christ possesses any authority or integrity as a teacher (not to mention His authority as God), then the Scriptures are inspired. This can be demonstrated by His use of Scripture:

1. He knew the Scriptures thoroughly, even to words and verb tenses. He obviously had either memorized vast portions or knew it instinctively: John 7:15.

(Incidentally, Jesus need not verify every passage in the Canon or else we would find the whole Old Testament re-quoted in the New Testament, which is unnecessary. He verifies enough of it to assure us of complete approval of it all, including passages from all but a few books. Yet those also were in His Canon. He did not refute any of them.)

2. He believed every word of Scripture. All the prophecies concerning Himself were fulfilled, and He believed beforehand they would be.

3. He believed the Old Testament was historical fact. This is very clear, even from the Creation (cf. Genesis 2:24 and Matthew 19:4, 5) onward. Much of what Jesus believed has long been under fire from the critics as being mere fiction. Here are some examples of historical facts from the Old Testament attested to by Jesus:

• Luke 11:51 Abel was a real individual

• Matthew. 24:37-39 Noah and the flood (Luke 17:26, 27)

• John 8:56-58 Abraham

• Matthew 10:15; 11:23, 24 (Luke 10:12) Sodom and Gomorrah

• Luke 17:28-32 Lot (and wife!)

• Matthew 8:11 Isaac and Jacob (Luke 13:28)

• John 6:31, 49, 58 Manna

• John 3:14 Serpent

• Matthew 12:39-41 Jonah (vs.42 - Sheba)

• Matthew 24:15 Daniel and Isaiah

4. He believed the books were written by the men whose names they bear:

• Moses wrote the Pentateuch (Torah): Matthew 19:7, 8; Mark 7:10, 12:26 ("Book of Moses" the Torah); Luke 5:14; 16:29, 31; 24:27, 44 ("Christ's Canon"); John 1:17; 5:45, 46; 7:19; ("The Law [Torah] was given by Moses; Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ.")

• Isaiah wrote Isaiah: Mark 7:6-13; John 12:37-41.

• Jonah wrote Jonah: Matthew 12:39-41.

• Daniel wrote Daniel: Matthew 24:15.

5. He believed the Old Testament was spoken by God Himself, or written by the Holy Spirit's inspiration, even though the pen was held by men: Matthew 19:4, 5; 22:31, 32, 43; Mark 12:26; Luke 20:37.

6. He believed Scripture was more powerful than His miracles: Luke 16:29, 31.

7. He actually quoted it in overthrowing Satan! The O.T. Scriptures were the arbiter in every dispute: Matthew 4; Luke 16:29, 31.

8. He quoted Scripture as the basis for his own teaching. His ethics were the same as what we find already written in Scripture: Matthew 7:12; 19:18, 19; 22:40; Mark 7:9, 13; 10:19; 12:24,29-31; Luke 18:20.

9. He warned against replacing it with something else, or adding or subtracting from it. The Jewish leaders in His day had added to it with their Oral Traditions: Matthew 5:17; 15:1-9; 22:29; (cf. 5:43, 44); Mark. 7:1-12. (Destroying faith in the Bible as God's Word will open the door today to a "new" Tradition.)

10. He will judge all men in the last day, as Messiah and King, on the basis of His infallible Word committed to writing by fallible men, guided by the infallible Holy Spirit: Matthew 25:31; John 5:22, 27; 12:48; Romans 2:16.

11. He made provision for the New Testament by sending the Holy Spirit. We must note that He Himself never wrote one word of Scripture although He is the Word of God Himself (the living Torah in flesh and blood, see John, chapter 1). He committed the task of all writing of the Word of God to fallible men guided by the infallible Holy Spirit. The apostles' words had the same authority as Christ's: Matthew 10:14, 15; Luke 10:16; John 13:20; 14:22; 15:26, 27; 16:12-14.

12. He not only was not jealous of the attention men paid to the Bible, He reviled them for their ignorance of it: Matthew 22:29; Mark 12:24.

The above leaves no room but to conclude that our Lord Jesus Christ considered the canon of Scripture as God's Word, written by the hand of men.

Why The "Rock" of Matthew 16 Cannot Be Peter

 Anyone familiar with the doctrinal position of the Roman Catholic Church knows her pretended appeal to the superiority of Peter over the other Apostles, which goes so far as the claim that he was the first pope!

The foundation of this supposition is their belief that Christ specifically appointed Peter as the head of the Church in His absence. This was supposedly done in Matthew 16:18. This text reads: “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The Greek text reads thus: “καγω δε σοι λεγω οτι συ ει πετρος και επι ταυτη τη πετρα οικοδομησω μου την εκκλησιαν και πυλαι αδου ου κατισχυσουσιν αυτης.

It is alleged that when Christ says these words He is claiming that Peter is the rock upon which the Church is to be built. Any fair assessment of the text will not hold such an interpretation. In fact, had Jesus wished to say this, He could simply had said, “You are Peter and upon you I will build My church.” But this isn’t what He said. There is also some interesting word play in the Greek. Peter’s name (πετρος) means “stone.” The word rendered rock (πετρα) refers to something massive, from which the smaller πετρος is broken or chipped. In other words the larger gives meaning to the smaller, not the other way around. Interestingly enough, when Peter himself speaks of the Church’s foundation, he too uses the word (πετρα – 1 Pet. 2:8); however, he specifically and explicitly uses this word to refer to none other than Christ. Paul uses this word too (1 Cor. 10:4), and again, he explicitly says this πετρα is Christ.

As fun as the exegesis of this word may be, there is something more substantial to be found elsewhere in Scripture. The book of Hebrews goes to great lengths to show the insufficiency of the Aaronic priesthood. The reason it could not bring the church into a perfect state is because the high priests were mortals who died one after another (Heb. 7:8, 23-24). The church could never be led into a state of maturity or perfection unless its high priest lived forever. Here’s the point: If the Holy Spirit deemed the Old Testament church to be weak and imperfect because it rested upon high priests who died one after another, are we really to believe that after Christ came to consummate the church He would turn around and re-establish it upon a dying order of priests? Yet this is exactly what the Papacy pretends to be. Even if we were to accept this impossible theory, history tells us of the interruptions of this priesthood that have occurred, not to mention the monstrous villains who have filled the office over the centuries. Are we to believe that Christ came to fulfill the Old Testament priesthood, to be our ultimate High Priest, only to turn the Church back over to the care of mortal priests of weaker caliber and character than the Jewish high priests of old?

Anyone interested in Patristic exegesis of Matthew 16:18 may find a massive collection of excerpts compiled by William Webster here