In addition, we see here a crisis over the character of God. As much as Luther claims he is assured that he knows God to be merciful, just, and loving, his own soteriological doctrines present God as unmerciful, unjust, unkind, and unloving. Luther is required to accept doctrines which present God as unjust, unmerciful, unkind, and unloving. Luther has an insurmountable problem here. The logical and moral result of his soteriological doctrines is a God who is unjust, unmerciful, unkind, and unloving. This requires Luther to try to persuade us God is not what his doctrine make him out to be. That is why he must say, “however much it may seem otherwise to us” God is just, merciful, kind, and loving.
Now think about this carefully. Luther’s doctrines present God other than he truly is. But if that is the case, then Luther’s theology is simply wrong because it does not tell us what is true about God. It is at best confusing and at worst a lie. It is certainly a misinterpretation of Scripture. Luther’s theology doesn’t match reality and therefore it is false. God must “seem otherwise to us” than Luther’s theological and soteriological doctrines present him. This means that Luther’s theological and soteriological doctrines teach what is false about God. This means that Luther’s theology of divine sovereignty as deterministic and election as unconditional teach us that God is unjust, unmerciful, unkind, and unloving! On the basis of Luther’s theology, God really is that way towards many people! Therefore, if we were to accept Luther’s theology, we would be required to believe that is the way God really is! That is what sound reasoning tells us, despite Luther’s attempt to convince us otherwise by telling us that glory is to be “given to God, Who, since He alone is just and wise, wrongs none and can do nothing foolish or inconsiderate – however much it may seem otherwise to us.” Well, it only “seems otherwise to us” given Luther’s theology of divine sovereignty as deterministic and election as unconditional. So, which is it? Is God like Luther’s theology makes him out to be – unjust, unmerciful, unkind, and unloving? Or is God like Luther says he must be – “just and wise, wrongs none and can do nothing foolish or inconsiderate?” Apart from Luther’s theology, God is exactly as the Bible depicts him with respect to our salvation – just, merciful, kind, and loving towards us all as we read in John 3:16 and Rom. 5:8. Many other scriptures speak of God’s love.
“For you, O Lord, are good and forgiving, abounding in steadfast love to all who call upon you.” (Ps. 86:5; see v.15) “Even now—this is the Lord’s declaration—turn to me with all your heart, with fasting, weeping, and mourning.13 Tear your hearts, not just your clothes, and return to the Lord your God. For he is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger, abounding in faithful love, and he relents from sending disaster.” (Joel 2:12-13, CSB)
And in contrast to Jonah’s human urge for the destruction of the ungodly Ninevites, he yet knew what God was like. Jonah knew all along that God is gracious and merciful in his very nature, responding accordingly to those who respond in faith and obedience to his word.
“He [Jonah] prayed to the Lord, “Please, Lord, isn’t this what I said while I was still in my own country? That’s why I fled toward Tarshish in the first place. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger, abounding in faithful love, and one who relents from sending disaster.” (Jonah 4:2, (CSB); see also Matt. 20:1-16)
Indeed, John tells us that,
“…God is love.” (1 Jn. 4:8, 16)
Therefore, Luther’s (and Calvin’s) theology are simply wrong because they do not lead us to what is true about God. And if that is the case, that is, that their theology portrays God in opposite terms of what he is truly like – just, merciful, kind, and loving – then that theology is not what the Bible teaches. Neither is it glorifying to God, for to glorify God is to present God as he truly is. Therefore, the Calvinist’s theology and soteriology dimished and impugn God’s glory in making him out to be something he is not. They make him out to be unjust, unmerciful, unkind, and unloving.
Neither can faith be used as an excuse to justify believing in a contradictory and incoherent theology. It is not the “highest degree of faith to believe that He is merciful, though He saves so few and damns so many; to believe that he is just, though of His own will He makes us perforce proper subjects for damnation, and seems (in Erasmus’ words) ‘to delight in the torments of poor wretches and to be a fitter object for hate than for love.’” This is not the “highest degree of faith.” Indeed, it is not biblical faith at all. Rather, it is theological confusion. To believe this is to be deluded to hold onto a faulty theology out of belief that Calvinism is a religiously superior position because one is “giving all the glory to God.” But I submit that this is a “glory” concocted by the teachings of men. How is it that God “is merciful, though he saves so few and damns so many.” To be clear, those damned are damned by an eternal decree which has nothing to do with their “decisions” or “choices” because even these have been predetermined by God. So, on Calvinism, he is not merciful to the reprobate. How is it that God is just “though of His own will He makes us perforce proper subjects for damnation?” Again, “perforce” means necessarily, that is, decreed “by force of circumstance.” The “us” here would be those of the human race who have been predestined to damnation. God is not just, for he gives no opportunity to these “proper subjects for damnation” to avoid damnation. The Calvinist can believe, contrary to Scripture, that God makes these people for the purpose of damning them to an eternity in hell. On Calvinism, God does “delight in the torments of poor wretches.” Given these doctrines, God seems” to be a fitter object for hate than for love.” The reason for this is that the Calvinist doctrines have turned upside-down what we know of the moral values and duties of mercy and justice and told us of a God who turns these values upside-down. Yet we are supposed to believe he is not that way. This is to present an unworthy and flawed portrait of God, for we know the nature of God cannot be the opposite of what we know mercy and justice to be precisely because we get these from God himself. We are made in the image of God. Therefore, our understanding of mercy and justice accurately reflect God’s mercy and justice. And when Luther tells us about what God does in predestinating so many to damnation which makes us cringe, we know that this cannot be a valid interpretation of Scripture on the matter. Note that it also made Calvin and Luther cringe. Indeed, even gross injustice within our own human judicial sytems makes us cringe. Regarding God decreeing the damnation of so many people, Calvin has admitted it to be “a horrible decree.” Luther described it as “doubtless [giving] the greatest possible offence to common sense or natural reason” and seeming to be “an iniquitous, cruel, intolerable thought to think of God” such that he himself stumbled over this doctrine “more than once, down to the deepest pit of despair, so that [he] wished [he] had never been made a man.”[24] John Piper testifies to suffering the following mental and emotional distress over the Calvinist doctrines.
“And I know what it is like to see these things at first and not see how they fit with his justice and goodness. And I have wept. I mean, my early twenties was a season of great torment mentally and emotionally over theological issues like this. I have tasted what it means to put my hands on my desk, face in my hands and cry out to God: I don’t get this.” 1
He didn’t get it and he shouldn’t have gotten it because it is not what the Bible teaches. They do not correctly present the character of God. That is why Calvin, Luther, Piper and all Calvinists have to force themselves through their mental and emotional torment to believe what is not true about God. That is the reason for their distress and despair.
Old Testament scholar H. L. Ellison has written the commentary on the book of Jonah in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary series. In that commentary Ellison makes an interesting, if somewhat enigmatic, remark in the context of Jonah’s displeasure and anger with God in 4:1 as compared to what he knew of God’s character as expressed in 4:2. In explaining the translation of the Hebrew word for “love” (hesed) in the description of God’s character, Ellison states,
“What is clear is that Jonah was finding fault with God as he really is, not as he imagined him to be. This trait is more common among godly men than we sometimes realize. It explains why those who pride themselves on their loyalty to Scripture hold to doctrines that stand in plain contradiction to the revealed character of God.” 2
Luther, Calvin, Piper, et al. are of course godly men. But their deterministic doctrines blind them to what produces true humility, that is, that despite our sin and helplessness to right ourselves before a holy God, God loves each of us so much that he sent Jesus to die for us so our sins could be atoned for and we could be reconciled to God. This was done while we were yet sinners and could never earn or deserve such saving love. This is the “good news” that brings peace, not despair. This is the “good news” that truly humbles us. Many Calvinists will tell us that their “doctrines of grace” (i.e., TULIP doctrines) are the “gospel” doctrines. But the torment and despair they suffer is comeing to accept these doctrines indicates that they are not what the Bible teaches, especially regarding whta is supposed to be “good news.” Rather, over and above what Scripture teaches, the Calvinist takes it upon himself to induce a crushing “humility” that annihilates personhood and the genuine response of faith that Scripture clearly teaches is the sinner’s responsibility. God seeks a reciprocal, free, loving response from us. John writes, “This is how we have come to know love: He laid down his life for us.” (1 Jn. 3:16, CSB) And also, “Love consists in this: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins. (1 Jn. 4:10, CSB) And again, “And we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and the one who remains in love remains in God, and God remains in him.” (1 Jn. 4:16, CSB) The Calvinist doctrines distort these truths about God’s love for us and the fact that we can as sinners respond in love towards God for his forgiveness in Christ. An acceptance of the Calvinist’s doctrinal distortions require either the suppression of reason, moral intuition, and emotion to the point of delusion, or if the doctrines are honestly dealt with, the rejection of God and Christianity and even torment, anxiety, depression, and despair. Calvinists testify to as much. Contrary to this distortion, it is because we are sure of God’s love for us that we can love him in return. Without that assurance, and in the context of the Calvinist doctrines of unconditional election and reprobation he would become “a fitter object for hate rather than love.” (Erasmus)
Even though “God is love,” the combined doctrines of total inability and unconditional election leave behind a mass of unloved reprobate persons who cannot reach the depths of humility that the Calvinist has determined God requires through the acceptance of their deterministic doctrines. Calvinists are the gate-keepers of this requisite degree of humility. They are the ones who demonstrate by their acceptance of their deterministic doctrines that they are able to believe that God “alone is just and wise, wrongs none and can do nothing foolish or inconsiderate” however much their doctrines make it seem otherwise to us. These are the doctrines that teach us that God is unjust, unmerciful, unkind, and unloving to a vast number of people. And this is supposed to humble us before this God. One cannot help but think there is a subtle form of pride in the ability to believe in doctrines that portray God as the opposite of what he truly is like.
Calvinist’s will rightly point out that God need not have saved any of us and therefore they take refuge in God’s “grace,” defined as choosing some for salvation. And of course, they consider themselves among the elect. But that is merely a presumption on their part. On this view, Calvinist’s must presume their own election. And although this is not necessarily a source of pride (“Who am I that God should choose me?”), it certainly is a presumption (one can never know they are among the elect), and as a presumption, that places them in a favored status over others who may not evidence being so favored by God. Perhaps Calvinism is susceptible to producing in a person a degree of humility one can be proud of!? The point I am making is that the Bible does not lead us into this confused thinking, either about God’s nature as merciful, just, and loving, or his love for us in Christ Jesus, the assurance of our salvation, or whether humility requires belief in unconditonal election.
Now, as I have argued, we know the difference between just actions and unjust actions. We know what mercy is as compared to the lack of it. We know the difference between what is loving and what is unloving. Erasmus had it right. On Luther’s theology God certainly does “delight in the torments of poor wretches” and the non-elect are “a fitter object for hate than for love.” And Luther adds,
“That there may be room for faith, therefore, all that is believed must be hidden.”
Faith is not belief in a vacuum, nor does it require the jettisoning of reason. Biblical faith is revealed, reasonable, and responsible trust in an object – Jesus Christ. Granted, formal apologetic arguments are not neceesary for a person to believe, but if all that is believed must be hidden then what is to be believed? There is at least the essentials of the gospel that are to be believed. What Luther refers to as what “must be hidden” is the incoherence his doctrines produce with the known character of God. Luther has a vested interest in rationalizing belief in his doctrines so he doesn’t have to face the logical result that if God is actually the way Luther’s doctrines portray him to be then we could not believe in such a God. Luther talks about “the impossibility of understanding” how God can be the way his doctrines make him out to be. But this is simply an attempt to rationalize away the insurmountable problems his theology has created with the character of God and salvation. Luther must rationalize and assert that God isn’t really what his theological doctrines make him out to be. Luther embraces a “however much it may seem otherwise to us” theology.
What certainly is not hidden because God has surely revealed it to us, is the way of salvation for all individuals. The Bible is clear on that score. God desires every individual to be saved. (See Jn. 3:16-18. 20:30-31; Rom. 3:23-26, 5:8, 17-21, 10:6-13, 15:8-13; 2 Cor. 5: 14, 15, 18-6:1; 1 Tim. 2:3-6. 3:10; 2 Pet. 3:9; 1 Jn. 2:2, 4:14, et al.) There are of course the more formal arguments of natural theology, if they are sought for, that are sound and convincing and aid the sinner to come to realize the existence of God and their need to know and trust Jesus Christ as their personal Savior.
Luther’s statements are a prime example of the dichotomous confusions that certain Calvinistic doctrines create in our thinking and pervert the biblical witness. Without Luther’s doctrinal presuppositions God would “seem” just as he really is – just, merciful, kind, and loving! There would be truth correspondence between what we know of God and the reality of his character and nature. We would therefore know the truth. Luther would not be in the bind of having to affirm God is really merciful, just, and loving, but then because of the way his theology portrays God qualify that with “however much it may seem otherwise to us.” But it only “seems otherwise to us” if we adopt Luther’s understanding of predestination as deterministic and election as unconditional. It is only his own theological construct that forces upon him to admit that God “seems” unmerciful, unjust, hateful, and torments many (i.e., the non-elect). But his theology doesn’t just “seem” to make God out as unmerciful, unjust, and hateful, rather, that’s exactly what his theology does make God out to be. That is precisely what his theology teaches – that God is unmerciful, unjust, hateful, and torments many (i.e., the non-elect). But then we are instructed by the Calvinist to believe that God is not as the Calvinist makes him out to be. We are told God cannot be like that. The bottom line to this confusion is that the theology must be flawed. Throughout the chapters of this website I have presented numerous other arguments – both philosophical and biblical – as to why Luther and Calvin’s theology and soteriology are incoherent and therefore unbiblical. This is just one more.
I have said that given Luther’s soteriological doctrines, he has to presume his own unconditional election to salvation. But on a non-Calvinist soteriology Luther could know God’s loving and merciful disposition towards him “in Christ.” Because Jesus’ death on the cross comes to him as it comes to all of us as a public display of God’s love, Luther can know that it is God’s will that he and all persons can be saved, and that salvation can be appropriated by all sinners simply by faith. You see, Luther cannot assuredly know of his salvation and eternal destiny because the reference point for his salvation is not in the cross of Christ but in a decision God made about his eternal destiny in eternity past. Rather than embracing the proposition that “all that is believed must be hidden,” including whether God is kindly or malevolently disposed towards him or any one of us; rather than having to wait for God to work in you and being “very near to grace for salvation” but not knowing whether you can ever be in the grace of God for salvation; rather than the “highest degree of faith” being to believe God is merciful, just, and loving while his theology simultaneously teaches that he is unmerciful and unloving in that “He saves so few and damns so many” and that he is unjust in that “of His own will He makes us perforce proper subjects for damnation, and seems (in Erasmus’ words) ‘to delight in the torments of poor wretches and to be a fitter object for hate than for love’); rather than not knowing whether God has predetermined him or you for eternal life or eternal wrath, the biblical position is one of the demonstration of God’s saving love towards us all “in Christ.” Assurance returns and despair dissipates. The “good news” of the gospel, which is always accompanied by the work of the Spirit to enable the sinner to accept that news, brings hope, salvation, and joy! It is truly “good news!”
So, what Luther has told us is that what we already know about God from Scripture is incoherent with the way his “doctrines of grace” depict him. Therefore these “doctrines of grace” are in dichotomous relationship with the biblical portrayal of God’s character and the true biblical teaching on grace and faith. And although included in Luther’s view is the biblical truth that all sinners are undeserving of God’s saving grace, it is obvious that in other respects it is a biblically deficient view. It is most obviously deficient in that it pits Scripture against Scripture. It presents two diametrically opposed views of God’s character with both views based on Luther’s interpretations of Scripture. That is simply bad hermeneutics and indicative of the fact that Luther misinterpreted Scripture on this score. Scripture does not teach two diametrically opposed views of God’s nature, and a theology that does so is just wrong.
I have said that given Calvinist predestination or unconditional election, the Calvinist, or anyone for that matter, cannot know they are among the elect. The Calvinist will respond that a person can know they are among the elect by believing on Jesus. But that only brings us back to the main point that salvation is available and obtainable by any sinner and that salvation is appropriated by the sinner for themselves by exercising faith in Jesus. So, the Calvinist answer defeats their own deterministic doctrines. The Calvinist may also respond that the fact that a person has believed in Jesus demonstrates that they are among the elect. But this is just question-begging. It presumes Calvinism is true.
Therefore, Scripture does not teach deterministic sovereignty nor election as unconditional. Luther’s (and Calvin’s) interpretations are flawed. They disregard the clear biblical statements about the unchangeable nature of God as “merciful and gracious” (Ex. 34:6), the nature of God as “rich in mercy” (Eph. 2:4; Mt. 20:1-16), in the sense that it is extended prior to God meting out his ultimate justice (Jn. 3:16-18), that “God shows no partiality (Rom. 2:11, Gal. 2:6, Eph. 6:9, Acts 10:34, James 2:1, 9), and they fail to take into account what God did in Christ “so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” (Rom. 3:26) And finally, they disregard the nature and purpose of faith as clearly taught in Scripture. Salvation by God’s grace and mercy through faith becomes buried in the dark recesses of the decisions of God made in eternity past as to whom to save and whom to damn.
And as we saw in the previous chapter, the grace of God cannot be biblically defined as his premundane decision to save some out of all undeserving sinners. Divine grace knows no predestined exclusions. Only those who continue in unbelief are destined to suffer condemnation in hell for eternity. Grace is found in Jesus Christ as the focal point of salvation, and this demands a response of faith on the part of the sinner to receive that salvation.
We have seen that Calvinist’s believe God has created the non-elect for the sole purpose of demonstrating his wrath. God demonstrates his wrath in bringing upon them the punishment for their sin that they rightly deserve. This need to express divine wrath has led to the false doctrinal conclusion that God was eternally compelled to create a group of non-elect persons predestined to receive his wrath. But, again, such a view is christologically deficient. “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” (Jn. 3:36) Jesus bore this “wrath of God” for all mankind on the cross, and therefore “whoever believes in the Son” will not experience that wrath but will have “eternal life.” Salvation is about not having to suffer the wrath of God which is to come. And speaking about the believer’s future security and hope Paul writes, “For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us…” (1 Thess. 5:9, 10). God has not destined those who believe in Jesus Christ to experience his wrath, rather those who freely believe are destined to obtain salvation.
1 John Piper, “Ask Pastor John” Podcast, “Does God Predestine People to Hell?”, Episode 450, Oct. 14, 2014. See also the audio transcript. https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/does-god-predestine-people-to-hell Last accessed 3/6/2019. All the quotes in this section are taken from the transcript at this link.
2 H. L. Ellison, “Jonah,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 385.
This is similar to what is going on in the book of Job. Job tenaciously held on to what he knew God was like in his very nature – good, just and fair – not only to bring him through his suffering, but also present his complaint against God about the justice and fairness of his suffering in light of God’s goodness. The point is that Job’s conceptions of goodness, justice and fairness had to be true to or “track” with God’s nature as good, just and fair. In other words, if God wasn’t good, just and fair as Job knew goodness, justice and fairness to be, Job could never have called God into the dock to present a case against him. But Job knew God must be good, just and fair as he understood these and therefore Job had a basis upon which he could present his case that God could not avoid. In the end God said Job had spoken what was right about God (42:7). Of course the book of Job tells us that no one holds God accountable with respect to his plans and purposes in the world, but it also tells us that we can be sure that what God is up to with regard to those plans and purposes are what is good, just and fair as we would understand these as made in his image.
I think this has implications for Calvinism. For instance, when the Calvinist requires us to believe in theistic determinism, unconditional election and reprobation and these do not logically or morally “track” with our conceptions of goodness, justice, fairness or love, the Calvinist answers that “God’s ways are higher than our ways” to excuse the incoherencies. But if the very nature of God is the source of our conceptions of what is good, just, fair and loving, then on Calvinism we can know that God would be acting contrary to what is good, just, fair and loving and that therefore God is either, as C.S. Lewis concluded, “we know not what,” or, an omnipotent Fiend. The point is that God’s nature would not allow for a doctrine of unconditional election and reprobation. Job could stand upon what he knew God was like in his very nature, a nature that God himself cannot violate.
We therefore have good intellectual and moral warrant to conclude that Calvinists are wrong in their interpretation of Scripture on these matters. They do not accord with the nature of God.
The Truth of the Gospel 