A Brief Critique of Wayne Grudem’s Reformed Calvinist Theistic Determinism and Doctrine of Unconditional Election

---

In his book on basic Christian doctrine titled Christian Beliefs: Twenty Basics Every Christian Should Know, Wayne Grudem makes the following statements which lay out a theology of God and man and the nature of the relationship between them.

“Not only does God exist, he exists in such a way that we can know things about him and come to know him personally…while we can never fully know God, we can personally know God.”[1]

“…there is tremendous value in learning God’s attributes, for in them we will find the true things about God that he wants us to know.  And as people created for God’s glory (Isa. 43:7), we can bring him glory…”[2]

“…though God is completely independent, he also chooses to give us value and significance.  He allows us to be important to him!”[3]

“God’s unchangeableness does not mean he will not act nor feel differently in response to different situations (for he would hardly be good or just if he did not respond differently to sin than to repentance and righteousness).”[4]

“All his knowledge and all his words are both true and the final standard of truth…We can imitate God’s truthfulness…by being truthful in what we say and do (Col. 3:9-10).”[5]

“As I mentioned earlier, “God is love” (1 John 4:8).  God eternally gives himself for the good of others…Because God has loved and will love us for all eternity, we are able to freely give that love to others.”[6]

“Of God, Moses said, “All his ways are justice…So, as we seek to do what is just and what is right – as we seek to bring about what ought to be – we must seek to do that which is in line with God’s moral character, for that is the ultimate standard of righteousness.”[7]

“Ultimately, we should pray that evildoers would repent and trust Christ for forgiveness…The wrath that we deserve was fully given to Jesus, who through his death and resurrection “delivers us from the wrath to come” (1 Thess. 1:10).  But for those who reject Jesus, God’s wrath is something to fear, for it fully remains on them (John 3:36).”[8]

“…we have great hope and respect for all people – regardless of their state.  They, like us, are the culmination of God’s infinitely wise and skillful creation.  They have the potential to return to the beauty of Jesus Christ, the “image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15), by turning away from their sin and turning to their Creator.”[9]

After making all these claims about what the Bible teaches about God and man, Grudem goes on to teach that,

“God continually “works all things according to the counsel of his will” (Eph. 1:11).  God’s will is the ultimate reason for everything that happens.”[10]

What Grudem means by this is that God has predetermined by his own will all that occurs.  It is the Calvinist deterministic understanding of God’s eternal decree and sovereignty.  We know this is what he means because in chapter eight, “What Is Sin?,” we find Grudem struggling with the inconsistency between the biblical testimony to the fact that “sin is a complete contradiction to God, he cannot sin, and we should never blame God for sin or think that he bears the responsibility for sin,”[11] and his Reformed Calvinist idea that God has predetermined everything that happens before the world was even created.  Grudem states,

“Yet the Bible also says that God “works all things according to the counsel of his will” (Eph. 1:11), so it seems that God somehow ordained that sin would come into the world.”

The use of the word “ordained” is in accord with Grudem’s Reformed Calvinist theology and means that God had predetermined that sin should come into the world.  And here we run up against the problem Grudem says cannot be characteristic of God, that is, that “we should never blame God for sin or think that he bears the responsibility for sin.”  But how, if God ordained “whatsoever comes to pass,”[12] can we avoid making God responsible for sin?  Grudem goes on to say that,

“Sin did not surprise God when it came into the world, nor did it overpower him.  Instead, God decided that he would allow moral creatures to willfully and voluntarily choose to sin.”[13]

Note here that Grudem introduces the concepts of contingency, conditionality, free will, and volition into his theology of the Fall of man into sin.  God decided that he would “allow” something to happen.  But to “allow” is very different than saying that God unfailingly predetermined, by his own will, that all things will happen as they do.  I see Grudem’s statement above, although inconsistent with his theistic determinism, as a sufficient logical, moral, and biblical explanation for the introduction of sin into the world.  It has to do with how God made man in his own image with a will of his own and the freedom to act from his own will in acceptance or rejection of God as his sovereign Creator.  But these concepts are incoherent with the Calvinist idea that God ordained, by his own will, that Adam and Eve should sin.  So Grudem is inconsistent with his own theology.  How is it that God “allowed moral creatures to willfully and voluntarily choose to sin” in a world in which God himself predetermined that they would do just that?   That is, God predetermined that Adam and Eve would surely sin; therefore, God must have been the cause of the event lest it not occur as he had predetermined.  Now, if God had to cause them to sin, it is God who is ultimately responsible for it.  This is problematic with respect to the nature and character of God, for it implicates God as sinning.  It is also problematic for what it means for God to be a person in a personal relationship with creatures made in his own image.  In a genuinely personal relationship, can one party determine the thoughts, attitudes, desires, and actions of the other?  Furthermore, despite the fact that Grudem provides for a better solution for this problem by stating that “God decided that he would allow moral creatures to willfully and voluntarily choose to sin,” he still gives us the impression that he is struggling with the theistic determinism that is rooted in his Calvinist line of thought.  For he goes on to say,

“How we put these two truths together is one of the most difficult questions in theology…”

Why is this difficult?  Because the “two truths” Grudem is trying to put together are his Calvinist eternal, deterministic decree which states that by the will of God alone he foreordained, and therefore causes, “whatsoever comes to pass,” and the reality and presence of sin and evil in the world, which by virtue of God being totally good, he cannot actively will, determine, nor directly cause to come into existence.  Grudem is trying to reconcile the contradictory propositions caused by his Calvinist theistic determinism.  He calls them “two truths.”  I submit that one of them is not a “truth” precisely because they have landed him in a contradiction.  I contend that Grudem’s theistic determinism, that is, his definition of God’s sovereignty, is not a biblical truth.

Now it is important to note how Grudem attempts to solve this problem in his theology.  He writes,

“…and it is healthy for us to allow a substantial element of mystery, admitting that a full understanding is beyond anyone’s ability in this age.”[14]

This is very interesting in that Grudem has already suggested a less “mysterious” solution to the problem by indicating that Adam and Eve are moral creatures whom God allowed (not predetermined by his own will), to exercise their own wills and act voluntarily as they did in disobedience to the clearly expressed will of God when he gave them the commandment not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  This non-deterministic explanation is coherent with the data in the Genesis account.  As moral creatures, they had moral responsibility to obey the commandment, which presupposes that God did not predetermine their act and hence “whatsoever comes to pass.”  But note that Grudem’s Calvinist presuppositions will not allow him to accept this as a sufficient explanation of the entrance of sin into the world.  He seems compelled to hold to his theistic determinism despite the incoherence it creates with his own description of the origin of sin and the Genesis account.  We agree that their “sin did not surprise God when it came into the world, nor did it overpower him.”  God foreknows all things.  But we strongly disagree that God preordained that Adam and Eve sin in the exhaustively deterministic sense required by Grudem’s Calvinist doctrines of an eternal decree and sovereignty. So, which is the biblical explanation? It cannot be both, as Grudem asserts and tries to convince us of, for these are logically mutually exclusive views.

It appears that Grudem feels compelled to maintain a deterministic interpretation of Ephesians 1:11 despite the fact that such an interpretation is incoherent with the data that we find in the Genesis account. And here is the important point to be observed. Grudem dismisses the incoherence generated by his interpretation and theological position via “mystery” rather than allowing the incoherence of his position to force a re-examination of the textual data and his interpretation of it.  Grudem uses “mystery” to avoid the interpretive engagement his deterministic view engenders and requires.  He uses mystery and incomprehensibility to squelch any further intellectual or hermeneutical pursuit of the matter.  In brief, he has adopted a hermeneutic of incoherence while also engaging in the suppression of logical reasoning, our moral intuitions, and common sense.  Both the hermeneutic of incoherence and the suppression of reason are necessary for the acceptance of Calvinism. Grudem then goes on to state,

“The recognition that there is mystery here should also guard us against getting into heated arguments over this topic!”[15]

Granted, “heated arguments” are unnecessary, but we cannot embrace the interpretive relativism intrinsic in this statement and Grudem’s Calvinist approach.  He stated that “it is healthy for us to allow a substantial element of mystery…” What does he mean by “healthy?” Why is mystery “healthy” in this regard? And “mystery” will “guard us against getting into heated arguments over this topic!” What these amount to are pleas to not raise logical and moral critiques against Grudem’s Calvinism. But these are ad hoc and poor excuses for avoiding any intellectual and interpretive challenges to his Calvinist views. “Mystery” becomes a euphemism for “please don’t confront me on the contradiction in my position.” Further inquiry is certainly in order from an interpretive perspective, let alone the implications for practical gospel ministry.  And it is in reference to the biblical gospel that Grudem’s theology becomes even more troubling.

The Reformed Calvinist Gospel: The-Not-So-Good-News

Grudem goes on to say,

“The good news is that God has designed the world in such a way that our individual failings can be redeemed through the work of another.  Our individual disobedience can be made right by the obedience of another.  Our individual sin can be removed by the sinlessness of another…”

“…just as God didn’t bring the penalty of death immediately upon Adam and Eve, so he doesn’t bring the penalty of death immediately upon us.  In fact, through Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, God offers us freedom from the condemnation sin brings.”[16]

Grudem goes on to say,

“If Jesus wasn’t fully human, his obedience in our place would be meaningless.  Just as Jesus had to be human to live in our place, he also had to be human to die in our place…If Jesus weren’t fully human, his death in our place would be meaningless.”[17]

So far, we have “good news” here.  It seems that Grudem is holding out the possibility of salvation for all of “us” as sinners.  But note how he takes back what he has just told us about the gracious action of God on “our” behalf and the “good news” that “our individual failings,” “disobedience,” and “sin” can “be redeemed through the work of another.”  Grudem now introduces his Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election.

“Although it was not necessary that God save any people at all, in his love he chose to save some.”[18]

Note how Grudem is now limiting the salvation he spoke of as being “for us” in his former statements.  This raises the question, “Who are the “us” he constantly referred to?”  Why isn’t this “us” all who read these words, including you and me?  Why did Grudem make it seem as if anyone reading his words could be assured that they were included in the “freedom from the condemnation that sin brings” and the substitutionary work Jesus accomplished “in our place” when he now says that God only “chose to save some?”  Moreover, we must also ask who are the “some” he “chose to save?”  Grudem continues,

“Jesus knew there was no other way for God to save us than for him to die in our place.  Jesus had to suffer and die for our sins.”[19]

“Christ lived a perfect, sinless life and died a horrific, sinner’s death in order to “save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21).  He paid the penalty we deserved to pay for our sin.  He bore the wrath we deserved to bear.  He overcame the separation our sin caused between God and us.  He freed us from the bondage caused by sin.  Because of Christ’s work on our behalf, God can “deliver us from the domain of darkness” and transfer “us to the kingdom of his beloved Son” (Col. 1:13).  What a great salvation!”[20]

Again, from these statements, one would think that all sinners, including you and me, are being assured that Christ died for us.  Yet Grudem has said that God “in his love chose to save some.”  If there is any doubt about what Grudem means by this, we only have to read chapter twelve, “What is Election?” to find out.  Grudem defines election as follows:

“Election is an act of God before creation in which he chooses some people to be saved, not on account of any foreseen merit in them, but only because of his sovereign good pleasure.”[21]

And Grudem also adds that,

“The New Testament presents the entire outworking of salvation as something brought about by a personal God deeply in love with personal creatures.  “In love he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ” (Eph. 1:5).  God’s act of election was permeated with personal love for those whom he chose (see also John 3:16; and Rom. 8:28).

And yet continuing on, Grudem can also state the following.

“Moreover, Scripture continually views us as personal creatures who make willing choices to accept or reject the gospel.  For example, this is seen clearly in the invitation at the end of Revelation: “The Spirit and the Bride say, ‘Come.’  And let the one who hears say, ‘Come.’  And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price” (Rev. 22:17).  This invitation and many others like it (for example, Matt. 11:28) are addressed to genuine persons who are capable of hearing the invitation and responding to it by a decision of their own wills.  These real decisions have eternal consequences…But does that mean that God had nothing to do with our choices?  Do we want to insist that God, our infinitely powerful and wise Creator, cannot influence and mold and shape our hearts and our desires according to his plans?”[22]

Now, no one would maintain that God must not or has nothing to do with our choices.  God is an active and personal God who, by his Spirit and Word, interacts with us personally and at times determinatively.  That is his prerogative as God.  The question is whether the Bible testifies to Grudem’s view that God has predetermined every one of our choices, thoughts, attitudes, actions, and eternal destiny.  The question is whether Grudem’s claims about God’s love for “us,” our personal relationship with God, and his statements about salvation being offered to “us” remain genuine, coherent, and credible concepts in light of his doctrine of deterministic sovereignty and unconditional election.  By posing the questions, “But does that mean that God had nothing to do with our choices?  Do we want to insist that God, our infinitely powerful and wise Creator, cannot influence and mold and shape our hearts and our desires according to his plans?”, Grudem is reflecting on how he can retain his theistic determinism in light of what he has just said.  What he is suggesting is that God eternally ordained each person’s eternal destiny in heaven or hell, and God is able to accomplish that predestination by influencing, molding, and shaping our hearts and desires so that each of us realizes one of those two ends.  The point is that one can maintain that God can “influence and mold and shape our hearts and our desires according to his plans” without maintaining that God does this exhaustively, that is, in every single minute detail of our existence, especially regarding our eternal destinies.  I contend that the Bible does not testify to such a theistic determinism.

In other chapters on this website, I deal with the problematic nature of Grudem’s Reformed compatibilism, which is the idea that human freedom consists of doing what you desire to do, but then also arguing that it is God who determines your desires.  According to this way of thinking, an exhaustive theistic determinism is supposedly made logically and morally “compatible” with free will.  God causes everyone to desire to do what they do, and as long as they are able to do what they desire to do, they do it freely.  I think you can see that this does nothing to solve the Calvinist’s problem of theistic determinism. I just kicks the can down the road a bit, but the deterministic result is the same. Here, I only wish to point out that Grudem is establishing serious incoherencies within his own soteriology.  Everything Grudem has said about God’s love, his justice, the promise of personal relationship with him, the purpose for which he created us (to give him glory), the value and significance he bestows upon man as created in his own image, God’s ability to respond to different situations, the fact that he is a God who always tells the truth, that he loves us for all eternity, that he bestows common grace on all humanity, etc., are rendered incoherent by Grudem’s doctrines of deterministic sovereignty and unconditional election.  For example, Grudem writes,

“If election is true, then does God still want everybody to be saved?”  Yes, according to some Scripture passages…This is what is sometimes called his “revealed” will, what he tells everybody on earth they should do.  But such verses are not talking about God’s secret hidden plans from all eternity to choose some people to be saved.”[23]

These statements are highly incoherent with each other and make God out to be disingenuous.  These statements conflict with what Grudem has said previously about God and man – that we can “come to know him personally…we can personally know God.”[24]  That “…as people created for God’s glory (Isa. 43:7), we can bring him glory…”[25]  That “…he also chooses to give us value and significance.  He allows us to be important to him!”[26]  That God can “act” and “feel differently in response to different situations (for he would hardly be good or just if he did not respond differently to sin than to repentance and righteousness).”[27]  That “all his knowledge and all his words are both true and the final standard of truth.”[28]  That “God is love” (1 John 4:8).  God eternally gives himself for the good of others…Because God has loved and will love us for all eternity, we are able to freely give that love to others.”[29]  That “All his ways are justice…So, as we seek to do what is just and what is right – as we seek to bring about what ought to be – we must seek to do that which is in line with God’s moral character, for that is the ultimate standard of righteousness.”[30]  That “we should pray that evildoers would repent and trust Christ for forgiveness…The wrath that we deserve was fully given to Jesus, who through his death and resurrection “delivers us from the wrath to come” (1 Thess. 1:10).  But for those who reject Jesus, God’s wrath is something to fear, for it fully remains on them (John 3:36).”[31]  That “…we have great hope and respect for all people – regardless of their state.  They, like us, are the culmination of God’s infinitely wise and skillful creation.  They have the potential to return to the beauty of Jesus Christ, the “image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15), by turning away from their sin and turning to their Creator.”[32]

Grudem makes all these statements that are incoherent with his Calvinist doctrine of predestination or unconditional election. In effect, he has told us that God predestined that only some people will be saved, and yet God still wants everyone to be saved!  Note there are two conflicting divine “speech-acts” here.  There is what God says to people – “what he tells everybody on earth they should do” – and God’s “secret hidden plans.” But the two are in contradiction with each other as they apply to the non-elect.  God tells the non-elect that they should believe and be saved when that very same God has not predetermined it to be so, and therefore it cannot be so. God speaks to all people that they can be saved, but that contradicts his “plans from all eternity to choose some people to be saved.”  This makes God out to be disingenuous. Indeed, given Grudem’s Calvinist reasoning, God is a liar.

All of Grudem’s theological statements above are simply bafflingly incoherent in light of his theology that states God predetermined everything from before he made the world, including all the minutest details of each person’s everyday existence and their eternal destiny in heaven or hell.  Note how Grudem’s “good news” fades into the ominous doubt and darkness of his doctrine of unconditional election.  Grudem confesses that,

“The fact that not everyone will be saved is one of the most difficult doctrines in Scripture to consider.”[33]

Only the Reformed Calvinist soteriology makes the fact that “not everyone will be saved” one of the most difficult “doctrines in Scripture to consider.”  That is because it is God himself who keeps people from being saved. That is truly something difficult to consider. Indeed, it is impossible to consider! Scripture itself does not make this a “doctrine” in the sense that it is God himself who ordains a limited number to salvation and all others, even if by default, to damnation.  Rather, Scripture simply testifies to the fact that if one is not saved in the end, it is a result of their own rejection of the offer of salvation that God has accomplished on their behalf.  Grudem himself has affirmed this, although again, obviously inconsistent with his own theistic determinism.  Recall he has said,

“…Scripture continually views us as personal creatures who make willing choices to accept or reject the gospel.”[34]

And also,

“…we should pray that evildoers would repent and trust Christ for forgiveness…The wrath that we deserve was fully given to Jesus, who through his death and resurrection “delivers us from the wrath to come” (1 Thess. 1:10).  But for those who reject Jesus, God’s wrath is something to fear, for it fully remains on them (John 3:36).”[35]

This is “one of the most difficult doctrines in Scripture to consider,” but only for Reformed Calvinists like Grudem.  It is difficult because they believe what is contrary to what the Bible teaches us about God and the gospel as “good news.” They believe that God himself has unalterably, unfailingly, willfully determined that a myriad of persons (the non-elect) will not be saved.  God never intended to save them, and therefore, he has not provided for their salvation.  In fact, he has created the non-elect for the very purpose of their eternal damnation.  The thought brings one to the brink of despair.  It is true that not everyone will be saved, but it is not because God does not desire or will their salvation (1 Tim. 2:1-7).  He has demonstrated as much in the manner in which he has purposed, planned, and accomplished the way of their salvation (Jn. 3:16-18; Rom. 5:8).

Now, even though Grudem believes in unconditional election, he can go on to talk about the “gospel” consisting of three elements.

“There are three key elements that should be a part of every gospel call: an explanation of the facts concerning salvation; an invitation to respond to Christ personally in repentance and faith; a promise of forgiveness and eternal life.

The facts concerning salvation are basically these:

1. All people have sinned (Rom. 3:23).

2. The penalty for our sin is death (Rom. 6:23).

3. Jesus Christ died to pay the penalty for our sins. (Rom. 5:8)

But simply stating these facts isn’t enough.  There must be an invitation to repent and believe this good news personally…To those who respond in faith to the gospel call, God promises that their sins will be forgiven and that they will experience eternal life with God himself…After an invitation to respond to the gospel is given, God must bring about a change in an individual’s heart before he or she is able to respond in faith.  That change, a secret act of God in which he imparts new spiritual life to us, is sometimes called regeneration.  We play no role in this regeneration; it is completely an act of God”[36]

Can you discern the inconsistency in language and thought here?  Grudem talks about “invitation,” which presupposes the ability to accept or reject that invitation, or “respond” to it either positively or negatively.  But any “response” to this “invitation” only happens after having experienced a regeneration in which “we play no role.”  Note that Grudem has the unsaved person regenerated, which equates to salvation, before they believe. In effect, Grudem is saying that the person must be saved (i.e., regenerated) before they can repent and believe. They must be saved before they can believe, yet he states that “To those who respond in faith to the gospel call, God promises that their sins will be forgiven and that they will experience eternal life with God himself.” That sounds like salvation to me. But what then are they being invited to?  What are they responding to?  What happened to the “personal creatures who make willing choices to accept or reject the gospel?”  According to Grudem, a person’s salvation is not granted by God upon their believing what they hear in the gospel.  Rather, for the Calvinist, when a person hears the “facts” of the “gospel” and the “invitation” to respond, it is only if they are among the elect that they are first regenerated by God, and only subsequent to that regeneration that they will certainly believe. They “respond” to the “invitation” to salvation that they heard.  But they have already been saved by a “secret act of God,” that is, an act that “imparts new spiritual life” or “regeneration!”  It is after being “born again” that the elect believe.  Faith, therefore, becomes simply an evidence of one’s election.  Only the elect will have true saving faith.

What is going on here?  The Calvinist is seeking to be consistent with another of their doctrines – total inability.  They believe that due to the sin nature, people cannot believe in Christ unless God regenerates them first.  For the Calvinist, if the sinner could believe in his sinful state, this would amount to a meritorious work on behalf of the sinner.  Believing, if it is up to the sinner themselves, would mean that the sinner is contributing to their own salvation.  But all this is not in accord with Paul’s understanding of the nature of man, the nature of faith, and the relationship between faith, works, and salvation.  Paul does not consider the idea that if it is truly the sinner who must and can believe the gospel as the Holy Spirit presses its truths upon their mind and heart, that this believing or exercising faith would be a meritorious work. That is a serious misconception in Reformed Calvinist theology regarding the nature of faith.  The logic is that “totally depraved” sinners could never exercise such a positive response on their own.  Agreed.  But because of the content of the message and the Spirit who is at work in the gospel message, the sinner is positioned such that they can and should accept the message and believe.  The message of salvation is for sinners! But precisely because it is the person who is being called to respond, their response is not determined apart from their person, which includes their will.  Having established salvation upon faith, God involves the sinner’s will, in humbling themselves, in their salvation. They are being called to either willfully and freely accept or reject the “good news.”  Either response is open to them.  But the response of faith is not a work.  The Calvinist is mistaken in this regard.  It is the opposite of a work.  It is the person’s response of trust in another – Jesus – for their salvation.  Faith is the one condition upon which God grants salvation and regeneration to the sinner, precisely because it is all a sinner can do given the message of “good news.”  It is, after all, “good news” to the sinner.  In that God has provided a salvation for sinners that they could not provide for themselves, God has determined that salvation would come on the basis of faith.  All the sinner can do is trust.  All they are called to do is believe.

So What Happened to the Good News?

Furthermore, given Grudem’s doctrine of unconditional election, what has happened to the gospel as “good news?”  Where is the “good news” for the sinner in the Calvinist doctrines of total inability, unconditional election, and an effectual call?  Is the Calvinist message consistent with our most innate need to hear that God loves us and we can be saved by trusting in Christ?  No, it is not.  The Calvinist “gospel” is that you may be among the elect, and therefore you will have to wait for God to regenerate you before you can believe. This is a confused, backwards soteriology. Is this the “good news” that Christ died for your sins and has made a way for your salvation by simply putting your faith and trust in him?  No, it is not.  The Calvinist “gospel” is that God has predestined an unknown number of people to salvation.  You may or may not be one of them.  And you have nothing to do with where you will spend eternity – in heaven or hell. That is the stark reality of the matter, and the Calvinist would like to keep these facts from you as long as possible, especially at the beginning of your Christian life. But these doctrines are not coherent with the definition of the biblical gospel message as “good news.”.

Note also that the word “invitation” is incoherent with Calvinist determinism and also becomes meaningless.  The word “invitation” presupposes a choice to accept or reject that which one is being invited to. But on Calvinism, no one has this “choice.” The elect need not be invited and are not invited in the sense that they could decline the “invitation.”  They are “effectually called,” not invited.  For the Calvinist to use this word is incoherent with their deterministic doctrines. And the non-elect never can accept such an “invitation,” even though the word “invite” implies that they may.  This amounts to God speaking dishonestly to the non-elect sinner.  It is truly perplexing how Grudem can speak these words of “invitation” and “hope” on behalf of God to the countless non-elect persons who hear them, while God has no intention for them to come to be saved or provide hope for them.  God offers them an “invitation” and “hope” in his “revealed” will, while according to his “secret hidden plans from all eternity,” he has unalterably assigned them to separation from himself in hell for all eternity.  Whatever Grudem says that might make one believe they can be assured of God’s love and provision of salvation is negated by his doctrine of unconditional election.  For all the non-elect people, these words are false, and therefore they cannot come from the God of truth. This Calvinist doctrine is therefore false.  To the non-elect, the words “God has loved and will love us for all eternity”[37] and “through Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, God offers us freedom from the condemnation sin brings”[38] are just not true. They are misleading, disingenuous, and false.  As spoken on behalf of God, they make God out to be a liar. I submit that this logical and moral incoherence indicates that the Calvinist idea of election as unconditional cannot be a valid interpretation of the biblical text.

It is baffling why Grudem believes the gospel consists of words that are incoherent with his underlying doctrines of unconditional election and predestination.  I submit that he should take his incoherence as a reliable indication that something has gone wrong in his interpretation of Scripture.  He should let the first principles of logic and reason play their essential role in his hermeneutic as reliable guides indicating the truth or falsity of his interpretive conclusions.  When speaking about this unbiblical post-regeneration faith and repentance, Grudem states,

“Once God has summoned through an effective call and changed a person’s heart through regeneration, the necessary response is repentance and faith.”[39]

I submit that, according to Scripture, he has things backwards.  Repentance and faith always precede regeneration in Scripture.  Also, why does Grudem call repentance and faith a “necessary response?”  He must mean that it is a “response” that has been predetermined by God. It is a given fact or necessitated by God that the sinner will repent and believe, but then is this truly a “response” in the sense of it being from the will of the person themselves?  No, it is not.  What takes place is the result of an irresistible “influence” or “effectual call” based on an unconditional election.  Given Grudem’s theology, the effectually called sinner will evidence repentance and faith.  Repentance and belief will happen to the elect sinner because God will cause it to be so by a prior regeneration.  The elect sinner does nothing. They do not repent or believe of their own will. They are caused to do so by God. For all the others who compose the non-elect, they will not repent and believe because God will not allow it by withholding regeneration from them.  The “gospel” call to the non-elect, although the same in content, invitation, etc., is not “effectual” because God has predestined them to eternal condemnation and separation from himself.  So the gospel as “good news” has been negated by the Calvinist doctrines. Moreover, the Calvinist will insist that God’s just judgment falls upon the non-elect for their rejection of his offer of salvation to them. This is the incoherence of the Calvinist theology.

According to Grudem’s theology, salvation is completely the work of God.  But the non-Calvinist confirms that also.  But we have seen what the Calvinist means by that.  Hence, Grudem should be more theologically accurate in his writing.  Everywhere he writes of “our,” “us,” or “we” in relation to what God has done in Christ with respect to salvation, he should have written “some of us” or “the elect.”  By using “our,” “us,” and “we,” Grudem speaks as though God has worked salvation in Christ for everyone and that everyone can receive that salvation.  For instance, when he writes, “Jesus knew there was no other way for God to save us than for him to die in our place.  Jesus had to suffer and die for our sins,”[40] he should have written, “Jesus knew there was no other way for God to save the elect than for him to die in their place.  Jesus had to suffer and die for the sins of the elect.”  This would clearly and consistently represent Grudem’s Calvinist soteriology.  When he states, “The doctrine of election demonstrates to us that God loved us, not for who we are or what we have done or will do, but simply because he decided to love us”[41], we are left wondering, “Who are the “us?”  You?  Me?  We really don’t know.  Grudem should have said “The doctrine of election demonstrates to us that God loved those he chose to save, not for who they are or what they have done or will do, but simply because he decided to love them.”  But then where has the gospel gone?  How is this “good news” if I cannot be assured God loves me?  Given Grudem’s doctrine of unconditional election, it is a real possibility that God does not love me or you.  Ultimately, I may be among the non-elect.  We can also ask upon what standard of justice, if all sinners deserve condemnation, does God choose some to be saved and not others?  This, too, is a serious moral and judicial problem in Calvinist soteriology.  Unconditional election makes God out to be arbitrary and capricious.[42]

Finally, in the preface, Grudem writes,

“I hope this shorter book will be useful for new Christians, for new member’s classes in churches, for home and college Bible study groups, and even for Sunday school classes for children from about thirteen on up.  It should also be helpful for non-Christians looking for a brief summary of basic Christian teachings.”[43]

Note three things here.  First, new Christians must have heard a message antithetical to the Reformed Calvinist doctrines of predestination and unconditional election for them to have been assured that God loves them, that Christ died for them, and that they can be saved by putting their faith and trust in Christ.  They could not have heard the Calvinist message that “God loves a limited number of unknown sinners, has chosen only them to be saved, and will work regeneration and faith in them alone, but you’re invited too.  Now, let’s wait and see what happens!”  This book would be confusing, if not devastating, to the faith of new Christians and is not a text to be taught in the classes Grudem mentions above unless as a study in comparative soteriologies and hermeneutics. Secondly, regarding the gospel as “good news,” two sinners can hear the same message, and it may apply to one and not to the other.  Why doesn’t the same message mean the same thing to each hearer?  Words have meaning. God is not duplicitous.  Grudem should speak consistently with his soteriology.  Thirdly, any non-Christian reading Grudem’s book will walk away saying, “So God has predestined some to salvation and others to damnation.  Where then is the “good news” for me in this message?  Who can tell me whether I am elect or not?  Can Grudem assure me or anyone else that they can be saved and proclaim that with all sincerity?

Hence, we have come to the reason why all this is critically important.  It has to do with being able to state clearly and confidently the gospel according to Scripture.  The gospel is at stake here. Accurately understanding, preserving, and proclaiming the biblical gospel message is at stake (Gal. 1:6-9, 2:5, 20).  For the reasons stated above, it is my opinion that Grudem’s Reformed Calvinist soteriology has successfully extinguished the “good news” of salvation in Christ.  He continues,

“Knowing and understanding basic Christian beliefs is important for every Christian.  People who don’t know what the Bible teaches will have no ability to distinguish truth from error, and they will be like “children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine” (Ephesians 4:14).  But Christians who have a solid foundation will be more mature, will not be easily led astray, and will have better judgment, and will “have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.” (Hebrews 5:14)[44]

Yes, it is important that we be able to distinguish truth from error and have our powers of discernment trained.  So how can we distinguish true doctrines from erroneous doctrines?  How can we know Grudem’s doctrines are inaccurate interpretations of the biblical text?  We know this when those interpretations just don’t make sense. We know this when they create inconsistencies and contradictions among the various biblical texts. Note, therefore, that the issue is fundamentally one of what constitutes proper interpretation.  This leads us into the study of hermeneutics, which deals with the principles and methods of proper textual interpretation.  I have tried to offer some criteria upon which you can discern true doctrine from false doctrine and, therefore, good interpretation from poor interpretation.  I submit that the rational and moral incoherence, inconsistency, and absence of the “good news” to sinners in Grudem’s doctrines are indicators that it is not an accurate interpretation of the biblical texts on sovereignty, election, predestination, faith, and the gospel message.

---

Home

---

[1] Wayne Grudem, Christian Beliefs: Twenty Basics Every Christian Should Know, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2055), 22.

[2] Ibid., 22.

[3] Ibid., 23.

[4] Ibid., 24.

[5] Ibid., 28.

[6] Ibid., 30.

[7] Ibid., 30, 31.

[8] Ibid., 32.

[9] Ibid., 61.

[10] Ibid., 32.

[11] Ibid., 63.

[12] The Westminster Confession of Faith, the standard confession of Reformed Calvinist theology, states that, “God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.” – G. I. Williamson, The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes, (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1978), 30.  Note that the statement establishes an absolute theistic determinism from which Calvinism cannot coherently and consistently extract itself.  I submit that the disclaimers that “yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature” are simply bald assertions and contend there are no substantial, coherent, or convincing arguments as to how God can “ordain whatsoever comes to pass” and not be the author of sin and destroy human freedom.  We will see how Grudem struggles with this problem of theistic determinism that is inherent in his theology.

[13] Ibid., 63.

[14] Ibid., 63.

[15] Ibid., 63.

[16] Ibid., 64, 65.

[17] Ibid., 68, 69.

[18] Ibid., 72.

[19] Ibid., 73.

[20] Ibid., 75.

[21] Ibid., 79.

[22] Ibid., 83.

[23] Ibid., 85, 86.

[24] Ibid., 22.

[25] Ibid., 22.

[26] Ibid., 23.

[27] Ibid., 24.

[28] Ibid., 28.

[29] Ibid., 30.

[30] Ibid., 30, 31.

[31] Ibid., 32.

[32] Ibid., 61.

[33] Ibid., 86.

[34] Ibid., 82.

[35] Ibid., 32.

[36] Ibid., 91, 92.

[37] Ibid., 30.

[38] Ibid., 64, 65.

[39] Ibid., 93.

[40] Ibid., 73.

[41] Ibid., 88.

[42] The Calvinist will insist that this is not the case and that God has his reasons, but they are reasons “taken from within himself” and they spring from the “good pleasure of his will.”  This is a larger topic than can be entered into here that involves whether or not our understanding of justice is consistent with God’s justice.  I would encourage mediation upon the following quotes by C. S. Lewis and Dorothy Sayers in this regard.  Lewis writes,

                 “Any consideration of the goodness of God at once presents us with the following dilemma.

                 On the one hand, if God is wiser than we His judgment must differ from ours on many things, and not least on good and evil.  What seems to us good may therefore not be good in his eyes, and what seems to us evil may not be evil.

                 On the other hand, if God’s moral judgment differs from ours so that our “black” may be His “white,” we can mean nothing by calling Him good; for to say “God is good,” while asserting that His goodness is wholly other than ours, is really only to say “God is we know not what.”  And an utterly unknown quality in God cannot give us moral grounds for loving or obeying him.  If He is not (in our sense) “good” we shall obey, if at all, only through fear – and should be equally ready to obey an omnipotent Fiend.  The doctrine of Total Depravity – when the consequence is drawn that, since we are totally depraved, our idea of good is worth simply nothing – may thus turn Christianity into a form of devil worship.”

                 “Beyond all doubt, His idea of “goodness” differs from ours; but you need have no fear that, as you approach it, you will be asked simply to reverse your moral standards…This doctrine is presupposed in Scripture.  Christ calls men to repent – a call which would be meaningless if God’s standard were sheerly different from that which they already knew and failed to practice.  He appeals to our existing moral judgment – ‘Why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?’ (Luke 12:57) – C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, (New York: Macmillan, 1962), 37, 38.

Sayers writes,

“The fact is, that all language about everything is analogical; we think in a series of metaphors.  We can explain nothing in terms of itself, but only in terms of other things…To complain that man measures God by his own experience is a waste of time; man measures everything by his own experience; he has no other yardstick…If the word “Maker” does not mean something related to our human experience of making, then it has no meaning at all.” – Dorothy L. Sayers, The Mind of the Maker, (New York: Harper Collins, 1979), 23, 24, 27.

[43] Ibid., 9.

[44] Ibid., 10.

---

Home