We come to another of the book’s 74 chapters that by itself is worth the price of purchase. Before dealing with the chapter in a somewhat unusual manner I would like to recollect several experiences, both mine and others.
One of my closest and dearest friends was the late Kenneth Connolly, a son of the notable Peter Connolly. I remember talking to Ken about his dad, so wonderfully used by God with Jock Troup in the Fisherman’s Revival in England in 1921. Later moving to the USA, Peter Connolly taught at a well-known Bible college in the Bible belt and was a favorite of students. One man mentored by Peter Connolly told me that “once you heard the man pray you were his former life.” Yet Peter Connolly was fired for teaching Calvinism, with the circumstances of his termination being very strange. Though only one of several men who served that Bible college as Calvinists (one being a man who later was my pastor), Peter Connolly was terminated because he was the most prominent. When approached by the college administration with the insistence that he stop using Calvinistic terminology while continuing to teach the same doctrinal truths, Connolly declined and was terminated. It has been widely believed that his termination was the result of protests by supporting pastors who were virulently opposed more to the word Calvinism than to the doctrines that lay back of the word.
A second anecdote occurred when a younger than I pastor in California related to me of his sad estrangement from his pastor, under whose ministry he came to Christ and was mentored. Then the young man became curious about the doctrine of salvation and began asking questions to his beloved pastor. Curiously, his pastor was unwilling to discuss what the Bible teaches about the doctrine of salvation. As the younger preacher began to press his pastor with questions about the issues a cooling of the relationship became more and more noticeable until finally the young man’s pastor ended the relationship. Interestingly, the young man’s opinion is that the relationship ended as a direct result of his interest in learning from his pastor what the Bible teaches about the salvation of a sinner.
My own experience was somewhat along this line. As a new Christian I asked my pastor several questions about the word election. My pastor responded by informing me that election was not an issue that should be discussed with new Christians. I found his answer unpersuasive, because of the words used by the Apostle Paul when writing to the new Christians in Thessalonica: “Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.”
A final comment about the half-century effort by the late John R. Rice to convince his Sword of the Lord readers that the Calvinism of C. H. Spurgeon, George Whitefield, and Jonathan Edwards (frequently referred to as five-point Calvinism) was Hyper-Calvinism. I accepted Rice’s assertion for many years, until I was made aware of Spurgeon’s concerted efforts against Hyper-Calvinism in London at the beginning of his ministry.[1] How could a five-point Calvinist be a Hyper-Calvinist if a five-point Calvinist strongly and publicly (and successful) opposed Hyper-Calvinism? He could not be. Rice’s insistence that five-point Calvinism is Hyper-Calvinism is erroneous. Agreeing on terminology is crucial.
I have been a Christian long enough to know that believers in Christ will not always agree with each other. I sometimes jokingly remark that at times I do not agree with myself. I would suggest that two prominent reasons for disagreement are, #1 studying God’s Word using differing hermeneutical approaches, and #2 God’s sovereign illumination of different believers in different ways and to different degrees. Yet so many are frightened to discuss doctrines with those with whom they disagree, frequently supposing that all differences are the result of personal sin. Although that can be the case, I am persuaded that it is not necessarily the case.
In this chapter the author deals with 22 objections to the doctrine of election. Regardless of the position one holds I think it is imperative that these objections be dealt with, discussed, and carefully examined.
Objection 1: “Calvinism kills evangelism.” Three paragraphs. My response to this objection is George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, William Carey, Adoniram Judson, Hudson Taylor, and my Nepalese Baptist church planting friend, Samuel Rai, who has established more than 160 Baptist churches over the last 30 years while embracing the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith.
Objection 2: “Whosoever will may come.” Four paragraphs. The author objects to the notion that there is a contradiction between election and the free offer. Additionally, he speaks to the errors of Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism.
Objection 3: “Calvinism portrays God turning away sinners because they are not elect.” Two paragraphs. The author writes, “Christ has never turned away any repentant sinner nor ever will – nor do Calvinists even hint that He will.”
Objection 4: “If election were true, then the non-elect would never have a chance to be saved.” Two paragraphs explaining why this is an ill-founded objection.
Objection 5: “God votes for you. Satan votes against you. How you vote decides the election.” Two paragraphs.
Objection 6: “God is no respecter of persons.” Three paragraphs. My opinion is that this objection betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between God being impartial and God being no respecter of persons.
Objection 7: “A similar objection says that ‘Predestination is privilege, and all privilege is wrong.’” Two paragraphs. Really? Abraham was privileged. Was that wrong?
Objection 8: “If I am elected, I can live in sin, for God will save me anyway.” One paragraph. Believed and stated by no Calvinist ever.
Objection 9: “To deny faith a place in election is like denying faith a place in justification, which is heresy.” Two paragraphs. The author deals with the five points of Arminianism.
Objection 10: “If election were true, then I would be saved if I am elect, whether I believe it or not, or I would be damned if not elect, whether I believe or not.” One paragraph.
Objection 11: “Election is not practical.” Two sentences.
Objection 12: “Calvin taught election and burned Servetus at the stake; Augustine taught election and believed in several Catholic heresies such as baptismal regeneration.” The author does not state, so I will, that Calvin was never in his lifetime at the helm of Geneva’s government. The author points out that Calvin and Augustine also taught the Trinity and infallibility. Are we, therefore, to deny those doctrines because they were taught by those two men?
Objection 13: “Election is too speculative.” Two sentences.
Objection 14: “Most Christians do not believe in election. My church does not.” Three sentences.
Objection 15: “It sounds like leftover Roman Catholicism.” The author deals with this objection with four sentences. My response is that if you advance this objection you know nothing of contemporary Roman Catholicism.
Objection 16: “It sounds too complicated.” One sentence. “What is complicated about these three words: ‘He choose us’ (Ephesians 1:4)?”
Objection 17: “I heard a well-known preacher warn against election.” Two sentences.
Objection 18: “I have read all the way through the Bible, and I cannot find the doctrine of election anywhere in it.” One paragraph. The author begins the paragraph, “Keep reading.”
Objection 19: “I do not believe in election even if it is in the Bible.” Four paragraphs. This is the statement of a lost person.
Objection 20: “God loves everybody equally, therefore a Reformed doctrine of election is not true.” Six paragraphs. God does not love everybody equally!
Objection 21: “Calvinist election looks like hospital triage. He could not save everyone, so He chose which ones had the best likelihood of being saved.” One paragraph, containing six sentences. In my opinion, this objection is blasphemous, severely limiting God’s power.
Objection 22: “It is not fair!” Ten paragraphs. My response to this objection is based on my experience of growing up in a different culture, where the concept of fair play is foreign. I assert that there is no such thing as fair, except in the minds of English-speaking westerners. The author’s response differs from mine.
Conclusion: Two paragraphs, which includes a quote from Jonathan Edwards: “It becomes worms of the dust therefore to subject their understandings to God’s and to own that God knows more than they, and not to find fault with what he did from eternal ages in his infinitely wise and holy counsel’s.
[1] Iain H. Murray, Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995)
