Every election known to human experience has been conditional. We elect (or choose) a spouse based on criteria we have established. We elect politicians based on their records and promises. We choose jobs based on the benefits they offer. Outside of Calvinistic theology, the word election always refers to a conditional choice. Who has ever heard of an “unconditional election” in any other context?

Calvinists sometimes reply that a lottery could be considered an unconditional election. But no one calls a lottery an “election.” Lottery winners are called lucky winners, not the elect. For that reason, the phrase “unconditional election” can reasonably be viewed as an oxymoron.

Non-Calvinists believe that before the foundation of the world, God elected to save those who would believe. Those who believe constitute the group the New Testament epistles call the elect or chosen of God. Because God is all-knowing, He foreknew those who would believe. As Peter writes, we have been “chosen according to the foreknowledge of God” (1 Peter 1:1-2). This view alone is consistent with the whole of Scripture, as we will see.

The Calvinist who holds to total depravity and irresistible grace has little choice but to affirm unconditional election. That is why defenders such as John Piper typically begin by citing those two doctrines when they turn to election (see Piper, p. 19). If man is totally depraved and unable to repent, and if salvation is entirely God’s work with no human participation, then those who are saved must be saved solely because God chose them. There is no need to answer this initial argument at length, however, because we have already shown that its two foundational premises are unbiblical. God does not save people by irresistible grace, and no saved person was ever totally depraved according to the Calvinistic definition.

Election and Reprobation

The idea that God predestines some to salvation necessarily implies that He also predestines others to eternal damnation—what is called reprobation. Calvin wrote in his Institutes:

All men are not created for the same end; but some are fore-ordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation. So according as every man was created for the one end or the other, we say, he was elected, that is, predestined to life, or reprobated, that is, predestined to damnation (Institutes, Book 3, Chapter 21, Section 1).

Some Calvinists affirm election while denying reprobation, but it is logically impossible to hold one without the other. Those not chosen for salvation are, by that very fact, chosen for damnation. Calvin himself insisted on this:

Many indeed (thinking to excuse God) own election, and yet deny reprobation; but this is quite silly and childish. For without reprobation, election itself cannot stand; whom God passes by, those he reprobates. It is one and the same thing (Institutes, Book 3, Chapter 23, Section 1).

Calvin’s logic is unassailable: “Without reprobation, election itself cannot stand.” Although many Calvinists may hesitate to say it openly, their system requires that God wills certain people to go to hell; otherwise He would have predestined them to heaven and given them irresistible grace.

This is what makes the doctrine of unconditional election so repugnant to those who love God: it portrays Him as a being who creates people for the express purpose of sending them to hell. From before their birth they were doomed, with no possibility of escape. It would have been better if such people had never been born. Yet some Calvinists claim this arrangement glorifies God.

Dear Calvinist, what would you say if you learned that people were whispering about you and your new spouse, “I hear they plan to have six children—five of whom they intend to torture cruelly all their lives, and one of whom they plan to treat kindly”? Would you not be deeply offended that anyone would even entertain such a rumor? Yet that is essentially what the doctrine of Unconditional Election attributes to God.

Conflict with God’s Desire That All Be Saved

How can unconditional election (and its necessary counterpart, unconditional damnation) be reconciled with the many Scriptures that clearly state God desires all to be saved? Here is a small sampling:

Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find there, invite to the wedding feast (Matthew 22:9; emphasis added).

And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation” (Mark 16:15; emphasis added).

I say these things so that you [those who persecuted Him and sought to kill Him; see John 5:16-18] may be saved (John 5:34; emphasis added). [Why were they not saved? Jesus explains:] And you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life (John 5:40; emphasis added).

And He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us (Acts 17:26-27; emphasis added).

Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent (Acts 17:30; emphasis added).

This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time (1 Timothy 2:3-6; emphasis added).

The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9; emphasis added).

We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world (1 John 4:14; emphasis added).

Anyone who takes these passages at face value must abandon the idea of unconditional election and damnation.

Conflict with God’s Universal Invitations

How can unconditional election be reconciled with God’s many universal invitations to salvation? How could He be anything less than a cruel deceiver if He invites people to receive a gift while having sovereignly decreed that they will never receive it?

What would we think of a man who holds a rope thirty feet above someone trapped at the bottom of a well and pleads with him to take hold of it so he can be pulled out—while knowing the rope is far too short? We would regard the rope-holder to be either deranged or sadistic.

Consider the following words from the lips of God’s Son. If God has unconditionally elected some to salvation and the rest to damnation, could Christ have been sincere when He said:

Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest (Matthew 11:28; emphasis added).

And He was saying to them all, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me” (Luke 9:23; emphasis added).

For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it (Matthew 16:25; emphasis added).

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him (John 3:16-17; emphasis added).

If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world (John 12:47; emphasis added).

If God has unalterably decreed some to salvation and the rest to damnation, then all the above statements are misleading and Christ is a deceiver.

Moreover, why does God plead with people to repent if, by His own sovereign decree, they are incapable of doing so? Consider this small sampling and ask how they can be reconciled with unconditional election without making God insincere at best and a cruel deceiver at worst:

Oh that they had such a heart in them, that they would fear Me and keep all My commandments always, that it may be well with them and with their sons forever! (Deuteronomy 5:29).

But My people did not listen to My voice, and Israel did not obey Me. So I gave them over to the stubbornness of their heart, to walk in their own devices. Oh that My people would listen to Me, that Israel would walk in My ways! I would quickly subdue their enemies and turn My hand against their adversaries (Psalm 81:11-14).

Say to them, “As I live!” declares the Lord God, “I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?” (Ezekiel 33:11).

Hundreds of similar passages could be cited. Why would God lament that His people would not change their hearts and plead with them to do so if they were unable to do so by His own decree?

Conflict with Christ’s Universal Atonement

How can unconditional election and damnation be reconciled with the many Scriptures that declare Jesus came to save all by dying for all, atoning for everyone’s sins—including those who ultimately perish?

All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him (Isaiah 53:6; emphasis added).

For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost (Matthew 18:11; emphasis added).

The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29; emphasis added).

For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him (John 3:17; emphasis added).

I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world (John 12:47; emphasis added).

For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all (Romans 11:32; emphasis added).

For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf (2 Corinthians 5:14-15; emphasis added).

For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time (1 Timothy 2:5-6; emphasis added).

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men (Titus 2:11; emphasis added).

But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone (Hebrews 2:9; emphasis added).

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves (2 Peter 2:1; emphasis added).

and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world (1 John 2:2; emphasis added).

In the last two passages we see plainly that Jesus paid for the sins of those who are not saved, including even false teachers.

Conflict with God’s Justice

How can unconditional election and damnation be reconciled with God’s perfect justice? “Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?” (Genesis 18:25).

How will God judge the world in righteousness if this doctrine is true? When He says to the goats on His left, “Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink…” might they not rightly reply, “But we could not help but sin, because You created us totally depraved, and because we were not among the elect You never bestowed on us Your irresistible grace! We never had a chance to be saved, for You predestined our damnation before we were born! How can You righteously condemn us?”

Will God condemn people for what it was impossible for them not to do? Will He punish them everlastingly for failing to escape what they could not escape? He might as justly punish people for the beating of their own hearts. In this way Calvinists nullify God’s justice by elevating His sovereignty beyond what Scripture teaches.

Conflict with God’s Love

How can unconditional election and damnation be reconciled with the many Scriptures that speak of God’s love? We are told that “God is love” (1 John 4:8) and that He “is kind to ungrateful and evil men” (Luke 6:35). “The Lord is good to all, and His mercies are over all His works” (Psalm 145:9). How can it be said that God is good to those whom He creates and predestines to damnation?

Calvinists often speak of a “common grace” enjoyed by all, distinguishing it from “saving grace” extended only to the elect. In common grace, they say, everyone experiences God’s goodness and love—even those predestined to damnation—because they enjoy food, covering, pleasures, and other temporal blessings while on earth.

I would argue, however, that such “common grace” cannot rightly be considered an expression of God’s love toward one predestined to be damned. In light of the hell he must suffer, it would have been better for him never to have been born. At the price he must pay, every temporal “blessing” is really a curse. During his life he is only being fattened for the slaughter that awaits him; it would have been better had he been born an animal destined for the butcher’s knife. Perhaps the “kindest” thing God did for him was to hide his unalterable destiny. This kind of “love” is enough to make one’s blood run cold.

Piper’s Explanation

In his treatment of unconditional election, Piper ignores this vast body of scriptural evidence that contradicts the doctrine and once again searches for isolated texts that seem to support it. He finds one in Acts 13:48:

When the Gentiles [in Pisidian Antioch] heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

This verse does not appear in the context of any systematic explanation of predestination. If one concludes from this single statement that God unconditionally appoints certain people to eternal life (and therefore others to eternal damnation), one must elevate the verse so highly that it nullifies hundreds of other passages that stand against it. We should instead adopt an interpretation that harmonizes with the rest of Scripture.

As already shown, before time began God chose to give eternal life to all who would believe. It was a conditional election. They were appointed to eternal life because of God’s foreknowledge of their faith. Luke’s phrase “as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed” does not prove that a prior unconditional election caused the faith of those Gentiles. They could just as well have been appointed to eternal life on the basis of a conditional election.

Piper’s error is to take a descriptive biblical phrase and force it to prove a particular cause of salvation, thereby reaching a conclusion that contradicts what Scripture plainly teaches is the actual cause of salvation.

Beyond that, because Jesus died for every Gentile and wants every Gentile to be saved, it can rightly be said that God has appointed every Gentile to eternal life in the sense of offering it to them. Luke may simply have been reporting that all the Gentiles who gathered to hear Paul believed the gospel.

Another Isolated Text

As Piper continues searching for supporting texts, he again assigns to a single verse an interpretation that fits his system. John 10:26 says, “But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep.” Piper notes that Jesus did not say, “You are not My sheep because you do not believe,” but rather the reverse. Therefore, he concludes, these people failed to believe because God had not first chosen them to be among His sheep. “Being a sheep is something that God decides for us before we believe,” Piper writes.

First, note that Jesus didn’t say, “You do not believe because God didn’t predestine you to be saved.” Piper forces meaning into “you are not my sheep” that isn’t there.

Piper also attempts to extract a precise order in the process of salvation from a verse that is simply descriptive. If I say to a stranger, “You do not believe I am David Servant because you are not my friend,” I am only saying that my friends believe I am David Servant, and the fact that you don’t believe I am David Servant indicates that you are not one of my friends.

Consider what happens if we apply Piper’s method to Jesus’ words about a newly converted woman in Luke 7:47: “For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much.”

Was Jesus teaching that the prostitute’s many sins were forgiven because she first, prior to forgiveness, “loved much”? Or was He simply describing people who have been forgiven much as those who love God much? The remainder of the verse makes the answer clear: “but he who is forgiven little, loves little.” Her love was the result of her forgiveness, not its cause.

We should therefore be extremely cautious about deriving an order of salvation from John 10:26, forcing a cause-and-effect relationship onto a statement that was intended only to describe true believers.

Why does Piper not quote the two verses that immediately follow? Jesus continues:

My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand (John 10:27-28).

Notice that Jesus mentions both what His sheep do and what He does for them. They believe, they hear His voice (because they are near and attentive), and they follow Him (because they have submitted to Him). True Christians believe in, listen to, and obey Jesus. Like any good shepherd, Jesus knows which sheep are His. He gives them eternal life, promises they will not perish, and guarantees they will not be stolen. This is a two-sided relationship in which both parties have responsibilities.

Of course, Calvinists rely heavily on Romans 9 to defend unconditional election. We will examine that chapter thoroughly in our next chapter.