Tyrannus Deus
By Nate Harlan
“That God would choose to save only a select few and leave the rest to suffer eternal
damnation would be contrary to His very nature of infinite love and mercy as the
Bible presents Him…” - Dave Hunt in What Love Is This? (p.100)
Monster God
In my discussions with Arminian friends, many have voiced an objection to monergism
similar to that of Mr. Hunt’s above. In their opinion, the idea of God hand-picking
those who would be saved before the foundation of the world is not only offensive,
but contrary to the character of God. After all, “God is love” according to 1 John,
and a loving God wouldn’t do something as monstrous as electing only some to be saved
while allowing the rest to be damned. No, a truly loving God would give everyone
a reasonable opportunity to be saved if they chose to do so. Thus, many consider
the doctrine of unconditional election - the monergist position - to be grossly misrepresentative
of God’s perfect nature, which would never permit Him to do such a heinous, nasty
thing.
Holy, Holy, Holy
Would it be in violation of God’s character to only elect some and damn the rest?
I suppose many would offer a knee-jerk “Yes, of course! What’s wrong with you?!”
in response, but let’s think this through before we draw any hasty conclusions. What
do we know about God’s character? For starters, He is holy, that is, there’s not
a hint of wickedness within Him; He is perfectly (i.e., completely, thoroughly) righteous,
moral, pure, and guiltless in every motivation, thought, word, and deed. Because
He is holy, He must judge sin, otherwise He would indeed compromise His impeccable
character: “Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrong” Hab.
1:13 (NIV). Man, as we are well-aware, rebelled against God and subsequently fell
into depravity (sin) and is subject to the judgment of God (see Genesis, Romans,
etc.). Therefore God, who is perfectly just, is obligated (due to His holiness) to
pour out His wrath upon mankind for rebelling against His holiness.
“See, the Name of the Lord comes from afar, with burning anger and dense clouds of
smoke; his lips are full of wrath, and his tongue is a consuming fire” Is. 30:27
(NIV).
However God is also merciful, and has seen fit to bring salvation to man through
our Lord Jesus Christ, though He is not obligated to do so - that‘s what makes it
grace (unmerited favor). Thus we see 3 attributes of God at work: His holiness, His
justice, and His mercy; He is free to exercise either His justice (under obligation)
or His mercy (via Christ) without compromising His holiness. His character requires
Him to judge sin; it does not require Him to forgive sinners. Just to make sure we’re
crystal clear, here’s a brief summary:
1.) God is holy
2.) Therefore, God must judge sin, or else compromise His holiness
3.) Man is sinful
4.) Therefore, God must judge man
5.) God is not obligated to show mercy to sinners
Getting what we deserve…
In light of the above, does man deserve to be saved? Obviously not, according to
Scripture. Does man deserve to be eternally condemned? You bet - He rebelled against
a holy God. Thus, the fact that some are saved is due only to God’s unwarranted grace
apart from any merit within man; even Arminians agree with this. Now let’s assume
that the doctrine of unconditional election is true. God elected a number of individuals
to be saved before the founding of the world according to His good pleasure, while
allowing the rest to perish. Does this compromise His character? Not in the slightest,
for as I discussed above, God is not required to save a single heathen soul (see
Ex. 33:19 & Rom. 9:15). Isn’t it unjust of Him to save only some without giving everyone
a chance? Nope - Man does not deserve to be saved, nor does anyone deserve a ’chance’
to be saved - we deserve judgment, and that’s it (at least according to the entirety
of Scripture).
So according to unconditional election, God saves whom He chooses (by His grace,
which His nature does not obligate Him to do), though the chosen ones in no way merit
His choosing, while He condemns (which His nature does obligate Him to do) the rest
of humanity (who are not entitled to His saving grace, but deserve judgment). In
the elect, God’s saving grace is demonstrated; in the non-elect, His justice is confirmed.
What charge, then, can be brought against God for His election of the saints? Only
that of incredible mercy, for though all of humanity deserves hellfire, He has chosen
to save some through our Lord Jesus Christ while the non-elect justly receive “the
due penalty“ for their rebellion. In this there is no injustice whatsoever.
That’s not very warm and fuzzy…
Unconditional election, however disconcerting it may be, does not violate the character
of God; rather, within the doctrine His holiness, justice, and mercy (with none superceding
the others) are not only preserved, but are also cogently displayed. I would suggest
that it is the violation of human sentiment, rather than God’s character, that leads
detractors to reject the doctrine. Many are disturbed by the idea that God would
allow sinners to perish when He could have elected them (though they don‘t deserve
it). My advice is this: get over it; He can, He did, and He’s justified, even glorified,
in doing so, no matter how unfair or brutish it may seem to our 3 pounds of depraved
gray matter. Stop whining and thank Him for His grace! Our God is not some over-bearing
Cosmic Tyrant who gets His jollies from damning poor little sinners; He is a holy
God who has every right to consign each and everyone of us godless, unholy sinners
unto an eternity of maddening torment. How dare we even suggest that it is contrary
to His nature to elect and to condemn as He sees fit, irrespective of our puny intentions
and desires: He’s the Lord of Creation, and we are but mites! We should instead join
with the Apostle in proclaiming: “What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from
this body of death? Thanks be to God - through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (Rom. 7:24-25).
As for Mr. Hunt’s sentiment-driven declaration above (which may be summarized as
“it‘s not fair!“), I believe the Apostle Paul would respond thusly:
“But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? ’Shall what is formed say to him who
formed it, ’Why did you make me like this?’ Does not the potter have the right to
make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common
use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with
great patience the objects of wrath - prepared for destruction? What if he did this
to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared
in advance for glory - even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also
from the Gentiles?” Romans 9:20-24 (NIV - emphasis mine).
