"Yeah, but...."  (Arguments Against Unconditional Election)

Arminians and Calvinists agree on most of the issues!.  Both agree upon the veracity and authority of the Holy Bible.  Both agree on the divinity of Jesus--that he is eternally God the Son who took human form.  Both agree this triune God predestined his elect to be saved, and both agree none can be saved apart from God's grace.  Calvinists even agree with Arminians that individuals volitionally choose to trust their salvation to Christ's atoning sacrifice!

Arminius had no problem with Election per se; his problem was only the unconditionalness of election.  Modern Arminians likewise do not generally contest the fact of election, but dispute that God's election can be unconditional.

Anyone who's studied other Bible doctrines knows that there are standard arguments and "proof texts" used to prove or disprove any doctrinal position.  Not surprisingly, modern Arminians who continue to challenge the unconditionalness of election do so by turning to the same arguments the original Arminius did 400 years ago. 

Unconditional Election Would Make God Unfair

It is unreasonable to think that God would make covenants with men and urge them to choose His way over the way of disobedience if He knew all along that man is by nature "utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite of all good, and wholly inclined to all evil." [Stinson, What Does the Bible Say] 

The first charge leveled against any suggestion that God might actually get to select the people he will spend eternity with is that this just wouldn't be fair!  It's interesting that this is essentially the same argument used by Atheists against Christianity as a whole:  If God is infinite in power and holiness, why does He allow so much sin and misery to exist in the world? Why are the wicked often allowed to prosper through long periods at the expense of the righteous?  Why when it's all over does God supposedly save only a few and sends countless other "good" people--many who've been abused and taken advantage of all their lives--to continued punishment? And, of course, you can hear them join Arminians in the refrain--"It just isn't fair!" 

Stinson (above) says it's "unreasonable" but doesn't even consider that he's basing his doctrinal argument upon human reasoning.  The whole idea of removing the decision for my eternal destination from an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, loving, and merciful God and placing it in my own corrupt, inconsistent, ignorant, and bumbling hands is highly questionable.  But the concept of sinful creatures actually telling our righteous creator what's fair--based on what's "unreasonable" to us--is down-right laughable. 

Arminians accuse God of being a "respecter of persons" by saving any (by his own choosing) while not saving all.  But by definition, and by God's holy nature, whatever God does is fair!  Paul simply asks,

Romans 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Luke writes:

Acts 10:34 ...Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

The context of Acts 10 was Peter (a Jew) realizing God had chosen to save Cornelius (a Gentile--someone his religious training had led him to expect NOT to be saved).  God is not a "respecter" because God does not choose based upon outward circumstances or conditions like race, nationality, gender, status, wealth, power, or sexual orientation.  He certainly doesn't elect someone based on how much they pray, how hard they work, or how sincerely they don't want to go to hell.  On the other hand,

A "respecter of persons" is one who, acting as judge, does not treat those who come before him according to their character, but who withholds from some what is justly theirs and gives to others what is not justly theirs — one who is governed by prejudice and sinister motives, rather than by justice and law. [Boettner, Objections]

Not being a "respecter of persons" doesn't mean God must give all-men-without-exception exactly the same.  God obviously makes many distinctions between individuals and between groups of individuals.  Israel is the prime example:

Amos 3:2 You only have I known of all the families of the earth

Psalm 147:20 He hath not dealt so with any nation; And as for His ordinances, they have not known them

For many centuries Israel was the "chosen people" to the total exclusion of everyone else.  They were given the revelation of God, the Law, Ordinances, Prophets, and God's personal and direct intervention in their affairs--everyone else got zilch!  Yet Israel was continually disobedient and rebellious--chasing after "other gods" regularly and frequently.  Was God unfair in selecting Israel and not every other nation?  Was God's preference for Israel unfair to, say, the Chinese of 1400 B.C. who weren't extended the same opportunities?  Not even Arminians would accuse God of being unfair to the Chinese when he chose Israel and excluded them!  Why, then, if God can choose Israel and exclude China without being unfair, is it difficult to accept that God could likewise save individuals he chooses without being unfair to the rest?

Look around!  Day to day, God blesses certain people with abundant material wealth, while others struggle their entire lives getting little or nothing.  Electing this child to be born in Indiana to loving Christian parents who nurtured, loved, and protected me rather than me being born in the outback of Australia to heathen aborigines is an obvious blessing,  It allowed me to hear the Gospel at an early age and be regularly exposed to prayer, worship, and God's Word during my formative years.  This undoubtedly aided me in being saved at the age of eight, while most aborigines born in 1946 have died never hearing the "good news" from Arminians that "God loves them and has a wonderful plan for their life!" 

Is God's election for me to God-fearing parents unfair to those children whose parents worshiped a tree stump?  Is God somehow obligated to accommodate all aborigines children with the same opportunity he provided me?  Having revealed himself to all mankind in nature and the universe around us, is he now somehow obligated to assure everyone in the world hears the Bible stories I heard growing up? Of course not.

A beggar who contemptuously rejects the five dollars offered by a benevolent man, cannot charge stinginess upon him because after this rejection of the five dollars he does not give him ten. Any sinner who complains of God’s passing him by in the bestowment of regenerating grace after his abuse of common grace, virtually says to the High and Holy one who inhabits eternity, ‘Thou hast tried once to convert me from sin; now try again, and try harder.’ [Boettner, Objections]

God certainly has the power and right to save every man, woman, and child on the face of the earth--if that had been his plan.  Christ's death was more than sufficient to pay for every sin committed or imagined by everyone, everywhere, for all time.  Christ's atonement was more than sufficient to blot out even Satan's sins as well as those of all the fallen angels--if God had chosen to do so!  But he didn't choose to do that, did he?  He chose only to blot out the sins of his elect.

Is there anyone willing to go on record saying God is unfair offering salvation to "whosoever" (as defined by the Arminians) but excluding both the devil and all the fallen angels from this generous offer? 

If it was consistent with God’s infinite goodness and justice to pass by the whole body of fallen angels and to leave them to suffer the consequences of their sin, then certainly it is consistent with His goodness and justice to pass by some of the fallen race of men and to leave them in their sin. When the Arminian admits that Christ died not for the fallen angels or demons, but only for fallen men, he admits limited atonement and in principle makes the same kind of a distinction as does the Calvinist who says that Christ died for the elect only.  [Boettner, Objections]

God would have also been perfectly justified and absolutely fair in invoking his righteous justice immediately and executing judgment on everyone--mankind and angels alike.  God is under no obligation to save anyone!  He could justifiably destroy everyone and start over again.  Or, he could let the universe tick on for another 10,000 years and then destroy everyone.  He could do this all without any incrimination whatsoever.

Instead, God chose the middle ground--He choose to save some who sinned.  He chose to let the universe continue on for thousands of years before executing final judgment.  In the mean time, God chooses to use those who will eventually be punished--devil, fallen angels, and fallen mankind--as he sees fit to develop character and spiritual maturity in those he has elected to redeem. 

Since God was under no obligation to create the world in the first place, or save anyone that sinned, those who are excluded have no reason to complain--they will still get exactly what they deserve.  From their human prospective each individual willfully chose to reject whatever revelation was given to him and is therefore "without excuse" according to Romans.  In the mean time they have free run of the prison yard, with all the blessing and problems associated with it.  When the saved face Jesus they will admittedly get much more than they deserve--howbeit, not at the expense of the lost.

Romans 1:19-21 ...that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.  For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

John 5 tells an illustrative story relating to God's "fairness."  Sick and infirmed people were waiting at the pool of Bethesda hoping an angel would disturb the water.  The first person into the water afterward was supposed to be healed.  One man had been sitting by this pool for 38 years hoping to be healed.  Unfortunately, he had never been first into the water because others crowded in ahead of him.  One day Jesus walked by the pool, healed the man, then left! 

Was it fair that any should be infirmed (if God is fair)?  And why was God seemingly toying with these people--did he have some angel disturb the water just to see who'd be the first one in?  Just how fair is it that the second person in the pool never got healed--only the first one?  Finally, the million dollar question:  Why did Jesus heal only one man when he could have easily healed them all?

Arminians argue that God must be unfair in saving some, but not all; however, here we see Jesus healing one, but not all.  In either case God is under no obligation to heal (or save)!  Jesus had the power to heal every one there... everyone in the country... every person in the world--but didn't do it!  This man lay crippled for 38 years so that one day Jesus could demonstrate his authority over sickness and disease, fulfill prophecy, prove he really was the promised Messiah, and add an informative story to the book John was going to write.  God used this one man, as he uses everything in creation, to bring glory to himself.

It is as unreasonable to charge God with unfairness, partiality, or being a "respecter of persons" in not saving everyone, as it is for him not healing everyone.  Following this argument to it logical conclusion, the Arminian must likewise argue that since God punishes some, he is unfair in not punishing all!  I haven't heard any Arminians claim God is unfair for not punishing everybody; I don't expect to.

...a lady goes to an orphans’ home and from the hundreds of children there, chooses one, adopts it as her own child and leaves the rest.

She might have chosen others; she had the means to keep others; but she chose one. Will you tell me that woman is unjust? Will you tell me that she is unfair, or unrighteous, because in the exercise of her undisputed right and privilege she chose out that one child to enjoy the comforts of her home, and become the heir of her possessions, and left all the others, possibly to perish in want, or sink into the wretched condition of gutter-children? . . . Have you ever heard any lay the charge of injustice, or of unrighteousness against the one who has done such an action? Do men not rather hold such an action up to praise? Do they not speak in the highest terms of the love, the pity, and the compassion of such a person? Now why do they do this? Why do they not condemn the taking of the one, and the leaving of the rest? Why do they not complain that it was unjust for this particular one to be chosen, and not another, or not all? . . . The reason is this — because men know — as we also know — that all those children were in exactly the same plight and that not one of them had a single claim, or the least vestige of a claim, upon the person whose will and pleasure it was to adopt one as her own . . . Do you, or can you, see anything different in this act of God’s from that of my neighbor’s? The children in that foundling home had no claim upon my neighbor. Neither had fallen man any claim upon God; and God’s choice, therefore, just as it was free and unmerited, so was it also righteous and just. And this free and unmerited fore-choice of God in view of man’s self-procured ruin, is all that is meant by the Calvinistic doctrine of Predestination.

Since the merits of Christ’s sacrifice were of infinite value, the plan which usually first suggests itself to our hearts is that God should have saved all. But He chose to make an eternal exhibition of His justice as well as His mercy. If every person had been saved, it would not have been seen what sin deserved; if no person had been saved, it would not have been seen what grace could bestow. Furthermore, the fact that salvation was provided, not for all, but only for some, makes it all the more appreciated by those to whom it is given. All in all, it was best for the universe at large that some should be permitted to have their own way and thus show what a dreadful thing is opposition to God. [Boettner, Objections]

Unconditional Election makes God's Offer of Salvation Insincere

This argument is very similar to the universal atonement argument which follows.  This one, however, doesn't address whether Christ's death was actually credited to every-man-without-exception; instead, this argument questions the sincerity of Jesus' directives to preach the "good news" to all men while knowing who had already been selected.  How can Jesus send his disciples as witnessess into all the world having already picked the winners beforehand?  Isn't this insincerity? 

If this presents a problem for Unconditional Election, it is equally troublesome to Conditional Election.  Even an election based exclusively on God's foreknowledge of future human decisions and events (Arminianism) remains just as inevitable and unchangable as if it were unconditionally predetermined! 

Arminians concede that God knows everything, and he knows it beforehand.  This includes the identity of every individual who will eventually "accept" his Gospel message.  Yet they still maintain God commands them to go out and preach this message of salvation to "all men"--which they define as every-man-without-exception.  Arminians certainly don't consider themselves acting insincerely when they share the salvation message with people God already knows will never be saved, or conclude God is insincere in having them proclaim his message to "all men" while already knows which of "all men" will accept.  Is there a double standard here?

Arminians are not only presenting the Gospel to men who God already knows won't accept it--but they are actually increasing the sinner's condemnation because now (having heard the Gospel) they are more accountable!  Those whom God foreknew would reject the Gospel now will suffer even worse punishment because these Arminians shared the Gospel with them! 

How, then, is Arminian witnessing significantly different than evangelism by Calvinists?  In either case God already knows the outcome--yet, still commands Arminian and Calvinist alike to witness to both the elect and non-elect.   If one is insincere, than obviously both must insincere.

God told Moses to demand of Pharaoh that the Children of Israel be allowed to journey three days into the desert for a feast and sacrifice,  God told Moses ahead of time he knew Pharaoh will not let them go.  If it is not insincere for God to still present Pharaoh with an option God knows he will refuse, it certainly is not insincere for God to present the Gospel to people who he already knows will refuse.

 ...Arminians object that God could not offer the Gospel to those who in His secret counsel were not designed to accept it; yet we find the Scriptures declaring that He does this very thing...  Isaiah was commissioned to preach to the Jews, and in 1:18, 19, we find that he extended a gracious offer of pardon and cleansing. But in 6:9-13, immediately following his glorious vision and official appointment, he is informed that this preaching is destined to harden his countrymen to their almost universal destruction. Ezekiel was sent to speak to the house of Israel, but was told beforehand that they would not hear, Ezek. 3:4-11. Matt. 23:33-37 presents the same teaching. In these passages God declares that He does the very thing which Arminians say He must not do. [Boettner, Objections].

Why would God offer salvation to "all" (if he actually has) knowing ahead of time that most will not respond?  There might be at least three possibilities:

1. To demonstrate the hardness of the man's sinful heart. 

2. Preaching the Gospel demonstrates God's sincerity because salvation really is available to all who will repent. 

3. Those who do repent will be able to reflect on the hardness of their own hearts for all eternity and realize that, "But for the grace of God there go I."

Because only God knows who the elect really are, it is impossible for believers to share the Gospel only with other elect.  Therefore we are commanded to be witnesses through the whole world.  Even the Elect have to hear the Gospel to believe--that's the means by which God foreordained their salvation.  But throughout Scripture, this call is presented not to those self-satisfied souls unaware of any need, but to those who are "thirsty," "weary," "heavy laden," and "willing"--in reality, "the Elect."  While it's true the message must be preached to everyone, it's equally true that only those who "have ears to hear" will respond.  Only those whom God elects and adds to the church daily can respond.

Yet while it is certain that the non-elect will not turn to God, repent of their sins, and live good moral lives, it is, nevertheless, their duty to do so. Though members of a fallen race, they are still free moral agents, responsible for their character and conduct. [Boettner, Objections].

Unconditional Election Conflicts with Moral Responsibility and Free Agency of Man

Another argument often used against Unconditional Election is that man is a "free moral agent" with the responsibility--no, the right--to choose his own destiny.  This line of reasoning first begs the question that man has "free" will in the first place (which I've already demonstrated above is an unproven assumption because of fallen man's sin nature--and even God can't do anything contrary to his own nature), then presents a fallacy of the excluded middle argument. 

The fallacy of the excluded middle is an argument in which the the question is deliberately framed so as to eliminate all middle ground from possible consideration--leaving only an "either/or" alternative of two extremes.  Think of the question of Election as really being a difficult multiple-choice question with several possible answers.  Arminians posing this excluded middle argument, in effect, define all the possible answers out of existence except the one too horrible to imagine (unconditional election), and the one they want you to pick.  You might honestly be trying to reconcile how man might be a responsible agent for what has already been foreordained by God, but Arminians only want to present you with two extreme choices.

Arminians assume man's salvation must be either foreordained by God and man can't do anything at all about it, or his salvation totally depends on his own "free" decision, and God can't do anything about it.    Arminians caricature Unconditional Election as man nothing but a brainless puppet, or robot, completely devoid of decision-making responsibility and controlled by God.  But Unconditional Election doesn't leave man with no decision to make; Calvinists acknowledge man MUST willingly choose God as the Bible plainly states.  However, they believe man cannot make that decision unless God first chooses and empowers him to do so.  Although God has predetermined the outcome, unknowing mankind still makes moral decisions every day.  From our earthly prospective we really are making the choices and decisions we choose.  But from God's heavenly prospective, we are making exactly the decisions he is counting on us to make--every time..

This is the middle choice Arminians want you to overlook:  Both man's exercise of individual will and God's sovereign will co-exist at the same time, to accomplish the same purpose.  

Scripture contains many detailed predictions which were perfectly fulfilled through the actions and decisions of moral agents.  Those moral agents usually were totally unaware their choices were fulfilling God's foreordained plan--that, in fact, they were doing exactly as God had predestined!  Yet, while willfully choosing for their own perceived self-interest (within the confines of their fallen sinful nature) they fully and completely did exactly as ordained by God to accomplish God's purpose formulated before the founding of the world.

God's sovereignty and human will cooperate together--they are not mutually exclusive as Arminians suppose.  Human will is not in contrast to divine sovereignty--it's a means God uses to fulfill what he has foreordained.  So, while God is the sovereign Ruler and primary cause of all things, man remains a moral agent within the limits of his fallen nature.  God controls the thoughts and wills of men so they "freely" and willingly do what He has planned for them to do.

Proverbs 21:1 The king‘s heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.

Proverbs 16:9 A man’s heart deviseth his way; But Jehovah directeth his steps.

Jeremiah 10:23 O Jehovah, I know that the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.

Exodus 12:36 And Jehovah gave the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they let them have what they asked.

Ezra 6:22 For Jehovah had made them joyful, and had turned the heart of the king of Assyria unto them, to strengthen their hands in the work of the house of God (rebuilding the temple).

Ezra 7:6 And the king [Artaxerxes] granted him [Ezra] all his request, according to the hand of Jehovah his God upon him.

Isaiah. 44:28 [Jehovah] that saith of Cyrus [the heathen king of Persia], He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure, even saying of Jerusalem, She shall be built; and of the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.

Revelation. 17:17 [Concerning the wicked it is said] God did put in their hearts to do His mind, and to come to one mind, and to give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God should be accomplished.

I Samuel 2:25 They [Eli’s sons] harkened not unto the voice of their father, because Jehovah was minded to slay them.

I Kings 12:11, 15 And now whereas my father [Solomon] did lade you with a heavy yoke, I [Rehoboam] will add to your yoke; my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions . . . So the king harkened not unto the people; for it was a thing brought about of Jehovah.

II Samuel 17:14 And Absalom and all the men of Israel said, The Counsel of Hushai is better than the counsel of Ahithophel. For Jehovah had ordained to defeat the counsel of Ahithophel, to the intent that Jehovah might bring evil upon Absalom.

No better Old Testament story illustrates the cooperation of man's "free" will and God's foreordained election working together than the account of Joseph being sold by his brothers into Egypt.   Joseph was sold into slavery because his brothers were jealous of him--they exercised their "free" and willful choice.  But Joseph rose to great power in Egypt, to save both Egypt and his own family from starvation.  He brought the entire family into Egypt where they would eventually grow into a large nation, become slaves themselves, but then be miraculously delivered so God could demonstrate his power.

The brothers didn't know they were fulfilling God's plan foretold to Abraham many years before, they were just exercising their own "free" moral agency--yet in doing so they were exactly fulfilling God's predetermined plan:

Genesis 15:13-14 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance.

Genesis 45:5, 8; 50:20 Now therefore be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that ye sold me hither: for God did send me before you to preserve life.  ...it was not you that sent me hither, but God: and he hath made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house, and a ruler throughout all the land of Egypt.  ...But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.

The crucifixion of Jesus is another example.  Who really killed the Christ?  Was it Judas who betrayed him?  Judas was "free" to decide whether to betray Jesus.  What about the Sanhedrin who held the illegal trial at night that condemned Jesus?  They exercised their "free" will and elected to kill him.  How about Pontius Pilate?  He exercised his "free" will and caved in to the political pressure of the Jewish mob although he knew Jesus was innocent.  The crucifixion could not have occurred if any of these free moral agents had "freely" chosen otherwise, but this crucifixion was foreordained by God before the foundation of the world!  None of these people could have chosen otherwise, IT HAD TO HAPPEN!  Each required participant "freely" chose to do exactly as he individually wanted--and exactly what they wanted to do was exactly what God foreordained them to do so Jesus, the sacrificial lamb, could be slain in that very place, in the specific manner, and at the exact instant God purposed.

Acts 4:27-28 For of a truth in this city against thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, were gathered together, to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel foreordained to come to pass....

Acts 2:23 Him [Jesus] being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye by the hands of lawless men did crucify and slay....

Acts 3:18 The things which God foreshowed by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ should suffer, He thus fulfilled....

Acts 13:27-29 For they that dwell in Jerusalem, and their rulers because they knew Him not, nor the voice of the prophets which are read every Sabbath, fulfilled them in condemning Him. And though they found no cause of death in Him, yet they asked Pilate that He should be slain. And when they had fulfilled all things that were written of Him, they took Him down from the free, and laid Him in a tomb....

Minute details of the crucifixion were predicted hundreds of years in advance.  Read the prophecies of casting lots for his clothes, giving him vinegar to drink, the mockery, his being crucified with the thieves, that his bones wouldn't be broken, the spear thrust in his side--you cannot deny on one hand that  all these participants had choice and accountability for their individual actions, yet God foreordained it, and even wrote it down--so it HAD to come to pass!  This is the middle ground Arminians are ignoring.

Finally, this argument that foreordination somehow eliminates the possibility of free agency (just like the Insincerity  and Unfairness arguments) cuts both ways.  If God foreordains nothing and only foreknows some particular future event will occur a particular way--it still must come to pass exactly that way as inevitably as if he had foreordained it!  How silly to imagine God might foreknow something, then it turns out--oops!--he was wrong.  Imagine God foreknowing Adolph Hitler will be a good little Jewish boy who will grow up and accept Jesus as Messiah--only to find out, oops! he turned out German (and a bad German at that)!  This type of foreknowledge makes a mockery of God's omniscience; foreknowledge is worthless unless it accurate.  Accurate foreknowledge that I would be saved one particular Sunday night in Tabernacle Baptist Church necessitates that I willfully make that decision to "accept" Jesus at that time and in that place!  While it may appear to me (earthly view) that I'm exercising my own "free" will, from the prospective of God accurate foreknowledge and omnipotence (heavenly view) I am doing exactly what God intended me to do. 

If foreordination is inconsistent with free moral agency, then any election based upon simple foreknowledge has to be equally impossible.

All the sects which have sprung up in these latter times, however divergent in their doctrines and practices -- Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Pentecostalists, Mormons, Christadelphians, Cooneyites, etc., etc., have all in common, the fatal lie of free-willism. It is Satan's sovereign drug, which causes the soul to sleep in delusion, and the end of such delusion is death. "Free will," says Spurgeon, "has carried many souls to hell but never a soul to heaven." [MacLean, Another Gospel]

Unconditional Election Does Not Promote Good Morality

Another charge leveled against Unconditional Election (particularly because of the resulting doctrine of Eternal Security) is similar to that made against the pretribulation rapture theory--that it encourage believers to become lax and indifferent  toward their Christian responsibilities, obedience, and moral conduct.  It provides, somewhat like Ian Fleming's James Bond character, a "license to sin."  Never mind that only God knows who he's pre-selected, this argument contends that the mere fact that he has done so eliminates any necessity to obey his obviously stated commands.

This is about the sorriest excuse in defense of Arminianism I have ever heard of--but, yes, I really have heard it.  Simply looking at the lives of the Puritans and other groups who live by the doctrine of election should put to rest this frivolous argument.  It is, in fact, those who have wholeheartedly adopted this doctrine  that have been so grateful to their merciful God that they should try to please him in every way possible.

Regardless of this consideration, however, believers are specifically commanded to live holy lives.  Those failing to do so will reap the consequences--but those consequences are not eternal separation from their adopted Father.  Linking personal conduct to eternal salvation is inserting human "works" into the justification formula. 

It is not the individual as such, but the individual as holy and virtuous that is predestinated to eternal life [Boettner, Objections].

Christians should live holy lives, perform works of righteousness, and maintain lives above reproach as a result of salvation--not in order to gain (or maintain) it.  Practicing good morality is part of the learning process conforming us into the image of Jesus. 

Ephesians 1:4-6 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

Romans 8:29 29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Westminster Confession states:

"As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power through faith unto salvation. (111:6).

After quoting the above passage, one writer concluded:

God decreed that fifteen years should be added to Hezekiah’s life[ 2 Kings 20:6]; this made him neither careless of his health, nor negligent of his food: he said not, ‘Though I run into the fire, or into the water, or drink poison, I shall nevertheless live so long’; but natural providence, in the due use of means co-wrought so as to bring him on to that period of time preordained by him. ^[Ness, Antidote Against Arminianism].

Unconditional Election Discourages Christian Works

This one is similar to the preceding argument; but this argument attacks evangelism.  One online person criticizing Election claimed (again, excluding all middle ground) that if Unconditional Election were true Christians would have no need to witness and pray (the elect would be saved no matter what we do).  This is just stupidity since there's ample commands in Scripture to the contrary to take this argument seriously.  However, I believe this concern arises because of a misconception based upon some prior wrong assumptions:

The answer to all these misconceptions is simply that not only the end (salvation) is predestined, but the means are too (So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the [spoken] word of God [Romans 10:17]).  God ordained that the earth should be fruitful, but that didn't preclude the necessity of sunlight, rain, and people to till the ground.  The fact that God ordained some to eternal life does not automatically mean this doesn't include holy living here and now! 

The experience of the Church in all ages has been that this doctrine has led men, not to neglect, nor to stolid unconcern, nor to rebellious opposition to God, but to submission and to a sure trust in Divine power. The promise given to Jacob that his posterity was to be a great people did not in the least prevent him from using every available means for protection when it looked as though Esau might kill him and his family. When Daniel understood from the prophecies of Jeremiah that the time for the restoration of Israel was at hand, he set himself earnestly to pray for it (Dan. 9:2, 3). Immediately after it had been revealed to David that God would establish his house, he prayed earnestly for that very thing (II Sam. 7:27-29). Although Christ knew what had been appointed for His people, He prayed earnestly for their preservation (John, Ch. 17). And although Paul had been told that he was to go to Rome and bear witness there, it did not in the least cause him to be careless of his life. He took every precaution to protect himself against an unfair trial by the Jerusalem mob, and against an unwise voyage (Acts 23:11; 25:10, 11; 27:9, 10). The decree of God was that all those on board the ship should be saved, but that decree took in the free and courageous and skillful activity of the seamen. Their freedom and responsibility were not in the least diminished. The practical effect of this doctrine, then, has been to lead men to frequent and fervent prayer, knowing that their times are in God’s hands and that every event of their lives is of His disposing. [Boettner, Objections]

People don't get saved because you and I knock on doors, or pass out tracts, or give them a great sales pitch and sing 8 stanzas of "Just As I Am".  They don't get saved by witnessing our holy lifestyle, listening to our chaste conversation.  They only get saved because the Holy Spirit quickens their heart.  Although God has chosen to use us to demonstrate the good news to them, he didn’t have to.  God doesn't NEED us to market his wares--he's perfectly capable of meeting all sales quotas without our help. 

In my humorous game show contestant analogy, our job is not to kibitz the contestant from the audience into selecting savior #3. Our job, simply, is to do whatever God tells us to do when he tells us to do it--and let him take care of the rest.  Evangelism, i.e., preaching the gospel, witnessing, and praying for the lost have been ordained as the means, and rather than discouraging believers to pray for lost souls and witnessing, the doctrine of unconditional election encourages us because we are absolutely assured there are people "out there" who will respond to the Gospel message--because God has already chosen them!  The Holy Spirit will lead us to find them, they will hear the Gospel, and those Elect will "willingly" receive because God willed them to be willing.

If God has ordained a man to be saved, He has also ordained that he shall hear the Gospel, and that he shall believe and repent. As well might the farmer refuse to till the soil according to the laws disclosed by the light of nature and experience until he had first learned what was the secret purpose of God to be executed in His providence in regard to the fruitfulness of the coming season, as for any one to refuse to work in the moral and spiritual realms because he does not know what fruitage God may bring from his labor. We find, however, that the fruitage is commonly bestowed where the preliminary work has been faithfully performed. If we engage in the Lord’s service and make diligent use of the means which He has prescribed, we have the great encouragement of knowing that it is by these very means that He has determined to accomplish His great work.  [Boettner, Objections]

Unconditional Election Will Lead to Fatalism and Determinism

This is a sad state of mind that people fall into sometimes, in which they do not know the difference between God and Fate. One of the most astonishing illustrations of it in all history is, no doubt, that afforded by our Cumberland Presbyterian brethren, who for a hundred years, now, have been vigorously declaring that the Westminster Confession teaches "fatalism." What they mean is that the Westminster Confession of Faith teaches that it is God who determines all that shall happen in his universe; that God has not — to use a fine phrase of Dr. Charles Hodge’s — "given it either to necessity, or to chance, or to the caprice of man, or to the malice of Satan, to control the sequence of events and all their issues, but has kept the reins of government in his own hands." This, they say, is Fate: because (so they say) it involves "an inevitable necessity" in the falling out of events.  [Warfield, Selected Writings]

Fatalism, is the belief that all events happen by blind, impersonal forces, but are inevitable and unchangeable nevertheless.  The modern colloquialism (edited and paraphrased) would be, "STUFF HAPPENS!"  Quite the contrary, Calvinists believe that God controls all events in the universe, and all "stuff" comes together "for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose" [Romans 8:28].  They believe there is purpose and design in an orderly universe, and that God interacts and intervenes in that universe for the good of those he has called.  God is purposefully directing all history toward his foreordained conclusion.  So, in reality there is only one similarity between Fatalism and Predestination--both believe the absolute certainty of all future events.  The difference, however, is that whereas Christianity teaches the the guidance and interaction by a personal caring and loving Father, Fatalism allows for no such control.

Unconditional Election Makes God the Author of Sin

Another argument used by Arminians to refute the possibility of God actually controlling the actions and decisions of his creation is that by controlling any individual’s will God effectively makes himself responsible for that person’s often sinful choices—God would not only be ultimately responsible for the sin, but the originator of that sin.  Since the Bible plainly states God CANNOT sin, and DOESN’T tempt man to sin, Arminians conclude God must not be any part of it, and is therefore NOT in control of individual decision-making.

Calvinists agree that God CANNOT sin, but although God does not commit sin, he has obviously built-in that capacity for sin and evil within his creation—knowing beforehand the results and counting on those results to fulfill his plan.  In fact, it is this very capacity for evil within mankind that distinguishes us from the rest of creation as moral agents.  While man is commanded not to sin, but permitted to sin, he is nonetheless required to make his own willful decision and reap the consequences of his actions (and frequently the consequences of someone else’s sinful decisions!).  As with everything else in creation, God uses both the sinful and evil decisions of man and the unselfish and righteous acts of man whenever and however it suits his purpose. 

Just as a king might pass a law prohibiting treason within his kingdom, God repeatedly has warned believers to avoid sin, flee from it, resist it, and repent from any occurrence of it.  But no king is necessarily obliged to constantly do everything within his power to assure individual under his control are consistently obedient to his rules.  Boettner points out that it just might be in the best thing of the king and his kingdom if the king allows treason to occur and the offender to be punished.  But delaying that inevitable punishment, or incorporating the treasonous act in his overall plan for his kingdom, in no way makes that king an accessory to the crime.  It neither demonstrates the king condones any treason. 

 Likewise, God is not required to watchdog his creation for any treachery to assure all sin is immediately eradicated.  For God to do so would require him to eliminate all actual sin and all potential sin--and that'd be the end of all of us moral agents! 

“God's motive for allowing treason to continue and man's motive for committing treason are two entirely different things.” [Boettner, Objections]

Likewise, Satan's motive for tempting man to sin is entirely different than God's motive for allowing Satan to continue his deceiving and accusing.

Throughout Scripture God has incorporated the sinful acts of men and angels into his ultimate plan.  The fall of Adam and Eve is only the first example.  Where was God when the snake tempted Eve or when Eve gave the fruit to her husband?  If God is omnipresent, he must have been there!  Why didn't God stop them?  He had the omnipotence to do so.  He had the omniscience to know what was going to happen!  He had the righteous authority to immediately dispatch Satan, or at least give Eve one more warning or clarification.  Why didn't he? 

1 Peter 1:19-20 ...Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world,

Ephesians 3:11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:

Hebrews 13:20 ... our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

These verses give us the answer.  God had a plan which was foreordained (predestined) before Adam and Eve were created, before the world was created, even before Satan was created in which God the Son would become human and atone for the sins of “the elect.”  The fact that this was God’s plan before creation precludes any possibility that Satan would not fall, or that Satan would not tempt Eve, or that Adam and Eve would not fall!  They HAD to fall into sin for God’s foreordained plan (Christ redeeming them from sin) was to happen.  Notice that I said "was to happen" rather than "might possibly happen if Satan decides to fall and Adam and Eve decide to eat the fruit."  Before the creation of the universe God foreordained the fall and incorporated Satan's deceit, Eve's gullibility, and Adam's deliberate knowing disobedience into his plan to crucify Jesus--which was equally foreordained.   This foreordained redemption necessitated a foreordained fall--and presupposed a fallen Satan to deceive and tempt Eve.  The fact God elected not to prevent Adams' fall in no way means he participated in Adam's sin.  Like the king analogy above, God is not obligated to constrain every sin every time. 

He does obviously constrain much sin, but he is not obligated to--he only does so to the extent it suits his purpose.  The continued existence and activity of Satan testifies to that fact every day.  In the case of Adam, it fit his foreordained plan for Satan to deceive Eve.  On the other hand, Eve still exercised her free (in this case, it really was free) will

"as if there had been no decree, and yet as infallibly as if there had been no liberty" [Boettner, Objections].

Other sins in the Bible God used to fulfill his purpose include Jacob’s deception of his blind, aged, father, and Joseph being sold into slavery by his brothers.  Each of these acts originated in the sinful heart of a willful creature, but was foreknown, permitted, and used by the omnipotent and omniscient creator to fulfill his own purpose.  Even David's adultery with, and eventual marriage to, Bathsheba was used in God's plan to redeem Israel through a Savior of the lineage of King David. 

Probably the most frightening book in the Bible is Job.  The catastrophic events that happened to this poor guy at first seem to depict God as amusing himself by playing games with Satan and using Job as the "dupe".  But we soon come to realize that it is really Satan who is the dupe--while God has complete authority and ownership over both Job and Satan.  God is in complete control all along.  He continually sets the limits of Satan's involvement in Job's life—all the while knowing ahead of time exactly what Satan’s next action and Job’s next response will be.  In using Satan's adversity and sinful rebellion, God develops Job’s patience and character, and presents all believers with a vivid object lesson of who is in control of this universe.

But, God, who once commanded light to shine out of darkness, can marvelously bring, if He pleases, salvation out of hell itself, and thus turn darkness itself to light. But what worketh Satan? In a certain sense, the work of God! That is, God, by holding Satan fast bound in obedience to His Providence, turns him whithersoever He will, and thus applies the great enemy’s devices and attempts to the accomplishment of His own eternal principles [Calvin, Secret Providence].

By the time one reads through to the end of Revelation it turns out that while Satan exercises his considerable will in causing hurt, deception, accusation, condemnation, and destruction in the lives of countless humans--he's obviously been on a very short leash all along.  Rather than God being the willing accomplice alleged by this Arminian argument, God knows exactly what Satan will do, what Satan cannot help but doing, and graciously sets limits beyond which Satan CANNOT tread.  When Satan enters your life to wreck havoc, it is only because God is allowing him to--and whatever Satan may intend for bad, God intends for good for “the elect” [Romans 8:28-29]

Walter Martin somewhere said it is only by the grace of God that any believer can wake up alive and safe in the morning.  Satan hates believers so much that were he not controlled and constrained by God’s gracious plan none of us would be alive tomorrow.  That is one of the most frightening aspects of the coming Tribulation Period--for the most part, Satan will be unrestrained as God uses him to drive the nation Israel to repentance.

The Scripture doctrine ...is that God restrains sin within certain limits, that He brings good out of intended evil, and overrules the evil for His own glory. Since God is infinite in power and wisdom, sin could have no existence except by His permission. God was free to create, or not to create; to create this particular world order, or one entirely different. All evil forces are under His absolute control and could be blotted out of existence in an instant if He so willed. The murderer is kept in life and is indebted to God for the strength to kill his victim, and also for the opportunity. When Jesus said, "Get thee hence, Satan," Satan immediately went; and when Jesus commanded the evil spirits to hold their peace and come out of the possessed persons, they immediately obeyed. The psalmist expressed his confidence in God’s power to overrule sinners when contemplating their works, he wrote, "He that sitteth in the heavens will laugh; the Lord will have them in derision," 2:4. Job said, "The deceived and the deceiver are His," 12:16; by which he meant that both good and evil men are under God’s providential control. [Boettner, Objections]

Satan eagerly desires to kill and destroy—that’s his nature—but he can only do so within the permissive limits set by God; therefore, what destruction is allowed, in effect, proceeds from God--although God's motive for allowing it, and Satan's motive for doing it, are two entirely different things.  Both God and Satan willed the destruction of Jerusalem, yet for different reasons.

As Augustine tells us, God wills with a good will that which Satan wills with an evil will, — as was the case in the crucifixion of Christ, which was over-ruled for the redemption of the world. Sometimes God uses the wicked wills and passions of men, rather than the good wills of His own servants, to accomplish His purposes.  [Boettner, Objections]

It turns out, then, that rather than Satan and God being locked in a struggle of good and evil contending for the hearts of men, Satan is an instrument of divine vengeance in the hands of God.  God uses Satan and the demon spirits to accomplish his foreordained goals, yet doesn't condone their crime or motive for it.  When he has no further use for them they will be disposed of.

In one place we are told that God, in order to punish a rebellious people moved the heart of David to number them (II Sam. 24:1, 10); but in another place where this same act is referred to, we are told that it was Satan who instigated David’s pride and caused him to number them (I Chr. 21:1). In this we see that Satan was made the rod of God’s wrath, and that God impels even the hearts of sinful men and demons whithersoever He will. While all adulterous and incestuous intercourse is abominable to God, He sometimes uses even such sins as these to punish other sins, as was the case when He used such acts in Absalom to punish the adultery of David. Before Absalom had committed his sin it was announced to David that this was the form which his punishment was to take: "Thus saith Jehovah, Behold I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house; and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbor, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of the sun," II Sam. 12:11. Hence these acts were not in every way contrary to the will of God. [Boettner, Objections]

Unconditional Election's Limited Atonement Contradicts the Universalistic Scripture Passages

These verses, taken alone, do seem to say Christ died for all-men-without-exception because God wants all-men-without-exception to be saved.  However, all-men-without-exception is but one interpretation out of several; Arminians have selected this one specific interpretation for the words "all," "whosoever," "every," and "world" in these verses and ignored other possibilities which don't support their conclusion.  They apply the broadest definition possible (i.e., "all" = every person who ever lived with absolutely no exceptions allowed) while other possibilities can be supported by the context.  If these words mean anything other than this one specific definition this argument completely falls apart.

Lets look at both verses closely.

John 3:16

Is all-men-without-exception the only valid interpretation within the context of these passages?  In order for the Arminian doctrine of universal atonement to be correct John 3:16 must read: 

"For God so loved all-men-without-exception, that he gave his only begotten Son to die for all-men-without-exception, with the desire that all-men-without-exception be saved, so that whosoever believeth in him, of his own free will, should not perish, but have everlasting life" [Engelsma, World].  

According to Strong's Concordence, the word translated "world" (the object of God's love in this verse) is #2889 kosmos (kos’-mos), and is translated "world" 186 times in the Authorized Version.  It means:

1) an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government
2) ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, ‘the heavenly hosts’, as the ornament of the heavens. #1Pe 3:3
3) the world, the universe
4) the circle of the earth, the earth
5) the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family
6) the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ
7) world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly
7a) the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ
8) any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort
8a) the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (#Ro 11:12 etc)
8b) of believers only, #John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47 #1Co 4:9; 2Co 5:19

Notice that a number of different definitions are given to this single word--8b is exclusively believers only, and John is referenced five times!  Lets look at John's usage of kosmos in a few other verses :

...the world in John 3:16 must, in the final analysis refer to the world of God’s people. Must we say, for there is no other alternative solution. It cannot mean the whole human race, for one half of the race was already in hell when Christ came to earth. It is unfair to insist that it means every human being now living, for every other passage in the New Testament where God’s love is mentioned limits it to His own people — search and see! The objects of God’s love in John 3:16 are precisely the same as the objects of Christ’s love in John 13:1: 'Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that His time was come, that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved His own which were in the world, He loved them unto the end.' We may admit that our interpretation of John 3:16 is no novel one invented by us, but one almost uniformly given by the Reformers and Puritans, and many others since them." (Pink, The Sovereignty of God)

Without doing any damage to John, you can insert "the elect" in the place of "world" in John 3:16-17 and come out with a meaning that fits well within the overall context of the rest of Scripture.

John 3:16-17 For God so loved the elect, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.  For God sent not his Son to the elect to condemn the elect; but that the elect through him might be saved.

2 Peter 3:9

Peter addressed this message to "them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:1), the "brethren" (2 Peter 1:10), the "beloved" (2 Peter 3:1), and "us-ward" (2 Peter 3:9). Peter was writing to believers, not unbelievers, not a mixed crowd of both believers and unbelievers, but only to people who were already like-minded believers in Jesus Christ.

In this passage Peter is talking about what he previously mentioned in verse 3, those scoffers who mocked the idea of Christ's return.  In this verse he's reminding believers that the Lord is not slow to do what he has promised, but because God doesn't want any (of the "us-wards") to perish he is waiting until all come to repentence.

The key within this context is "us-ward."  Peter is specifically addressing believers.  God is not willing that "any" believers perish, so he's holding off until "all" the elect are saved.

The 1599 Geneva Bible provided this footnote on on this verse:

The Lord will surely come, because he has promised: and neither sooner nor later than he has promised.  A reason why the last day does not come too soon, because God patiently waits until all the elect are brought to repentance, that none of them may perish.

Wordslike "world," "all," "any," "every," and "whosoever" are almost always limited by their context and rarely mean every-man-without-exception.  Were they to really mean every-man-without-exception as the Armians claim, their logic must go like this:

I was in a Bible study a sometime back when one person arrived, looked around, and asked, "Where is everybody?"  No one there thought she meant every-man-without-exception; she didn't even mean everyone in Surfside Beach, or even everyone in our local church congregation.  She was inquiring where some of the regular participants were because she didn't see them.  There was absolutely no misunderstanding on the part of those of us who were there because we understood the context.

Did the "every man" in Exodus mean every-man-without-exception?  It's highly unlikely that poor farmers standing in their fields in Babylonia or Gaul were killed by this hailstorm.  Did all Judae, or even all of Jerusalem, come out to get baptized by John the Baptist?  In Romans, was their faith being spoken of by every-man-without-exception?  Was every-man-without-exception deceived by Satan?  When Christ returns, is every-man-without-exception killed?  The obvious answer to all these examples is, "No.  Of course not!  That'd be stupid."  Well, it's just as stupid to force one particular interpretation on verses like John 3:16 because we don't like the ramifications of using a more restrictive interpretation.

Some persons love the doctrine of universal atonement because they say, "It is so beautiful. It is a lovely idea that Christ should have died for all men.... There is much which I might admire in the theory of universal redemption, but I will just show what the supposition necessarily involves. If Christ on His cross intended to save every man, then He intended to save those who were lost before He died. If the doctrine be true, that He died for all men, then He died for some who were in hell before He came into this world, for doubtless there were even then myriads there who had been cast away because of their sins. Once again, if it was Christ's intention to save all men, how deplorably has He been disappointed, for we have His own testimony that there is a lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption, were bought with His blood. That seems to me a conception a thousand times more repulsive than any of those consequences which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular redemption. To think that my Saviour died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain. To imagine for a moment that He was the Substitute for all the sons of men, and that God, having first punished the Substitute, afterwards punished the sinners themselves, seems to conflict with all my ideas of Divine justice. That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards some of those very men should be punished for the sins for which Christ had already atoned, appears to me to be the most monstrous iniquity.... [C.H.Spurgeon, A Defense of Calvinism]

The Arminian limits the atonement as certainly as does the Calvinist. The Calvinist limits the extent of it in that he says it does not apply to all persons ...while the Arminian limits the power of it, for he says that in itself it does not actually save anybody. The Calvinist limits it quantitatively, but not qualitatively; the Arminian limits it qualitatively, but not quantitatively. For the Calvinist it is like a narrow bridge which goes all the way across the stream; for the Arminian it is like a great wide bridge which goes only half-way across. [Boettner, Objections]

Since He knew beforehand who they were that would be saved ...He would not have sent Christ intending to save those who he positively foreknew would be lost. For, as Calvin remarks, "Where would have been the consistency of God’s calling to Himself such as He knows will never come?" [Boettner, Objections]

In context with the rest of Scripture, the "all" who call upon the name of the Lord, and the "whosoever" who believes, must be those whom God has already called, and whom the Holy Spirit breathes on.  It is impossible for any others to answer that call because of their sin nature.

Another consideration one must make when evaluating the two alternatives is that only the Limited Atonement (sometimes called Particular Atonement) actually saves anyone.  Universal Atonement doesn't actually save anybody!

Let it not be thought that the Arminian by his doctrine escapes limited atonement. The truth is that he professes a despicable doctrine of limited atonement. He professes an atonement that is tragically limited in its efficacy and power, an atonement that does not secure the salvation of any. He indeed eliminates from the atonement that which makes it supremely precious to the Christian heart. [Murray, Arminiamism and Atonement]

I believe it was Boettner who described Calvinism as a narrow bridge across the chasm that only a few were allowed to cross; Arminianism was an extremely wide bridge anyone can cross... but it only goes half way across.