Are the “Non-elect” of Calvinism Blameworthy?

We wouldn’t condemn people for not being able to flap their arms and fly. Neither would we condemn people for their skin or hair color, or any other feature they were born with or without which was beyond their control. We wouldn’t condemn a cat for purring or a lion for choosing to eat meat instead of lettuce. Neither would we condemn a convicted criminal who committed murder if it was found out that his brain was hardwired by another (by no fault of his own) to commit that murder.

So how is it just on Calvinism for God to ordain countless millions to be born with a nature that is incapable of trusting God and then to eternally condemn them for not trusting him? How is it good or loving for God to choose to create countless masses of people throughout history whom he hates (according to the Calvinist rendering of Romans 9:13) and then condemns them when they simply hate him back?

To be clear, this objection is NOT based upon “wanting to make God in our image” or wanting to define live on our own terms — unfortunately this has been the common response to this legitimate problem Leighton and other non-Calvinists pose.

This objection is based upon…

1. The definitions and description of love and what it looks like in the Bible in passages like 1 Corinthians 13 and Matthew 5. Love “does no wrong to its neighbor” and always seeks for the ultimate well-being of the other. Can it really be said that God in Calvinism truly seeks for the ultimate well-being of the “non-elect”? I really don’t see any rational way that one could say he does.

2. The character of God revealed in scripture most clearly in the person of Jesus, who gave up his own power and privilege for ALL of his enemies, not just a select few and invites ALL of his enemies to come to him to find life.

3. The explicit commands in scripture to love our enemies “perfectly” as our Heavenly Father loves his enemies…

“Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven… You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” - Matthew 5:38-48

When we bring this objection about the character of God, the Calvinist will often appeal to mystery and say that “God’s ways are higher than ours” and we cannot try to define love on our own terms. What they fail to realize is that the entirety of this objection is founded upon an attempt to uphold the clear definitions of love given explicitly in scripture. This objection is based upon the conclusion that it is in fact the Calvinist who is attempting to define love on their own terms.

Matthew 5 tells us to love our enemies perfectly… or perhaps EXACTLY as our Heavenly Father loves his enemies. How in the world are we supposed to fulfill this command if the Calvinist is right in saying that we can simply appeal to mystery on this matter and we cannot actually know what love is or looks like or even have a clear definition of it because “God’s ways are higher than ours.” I am sorry, but passages like Matthew 5 leave no room for that deflection from this objection.

Jesus tells us to love perfectly like God loves perfectly because he knows that in his life he demonstrated exactly what that should look like. It didn’t look like picking and choosing certain people whose well-being we would be concerned for while neglecting or “passing over” the well-being of others. In Calvinism though, this is precisely what God does. He does not look out for the well-being of all, but only a selection of people and leaves the rest to a horrific fate without any meaningful attempt to help or promote their good.

So please, any Calvinist that might respond to the object raised by someone like Leighton Flowers who suggests that God seems to be unloving and unjust on Calvinism, do not respond by accusing us of “defining love on our own terms” or attempting to “make God in our own image. That is the exact objection being raised against Calvinism.

In this scenario, it is the non-Calvinist fighting to uphold the clear revelation of what God’s love looks like, and I’d argue that it is Calvinism that is defining love on it’s own terms and allowing for massive distortions in what we understand God’s love to look like.

This objection being raised is a valid, legitimate and rational objection which deserves a valid, legitimate and rational response.

Immediately dismissing this objection in the way Calvinists often do, with an ultimate appeal to mystery, is neither valid, legitimate or rational and does precisely nothing to solve the dilemma raised by it.

@Soteriology101

[lightofathousand]

Calvinism reduces God to the level of a 5th-grade girl making up bad behavior for her Barbie dolls and then punishing them for it.

[cecilspurlockjr.]

Amen brother Leighton. GOD bless you .

[elteacher]

He said, she said, blah blah blah.
Bottom line: The god invented by Calvinism is the great mobster of the universe, and he's all powerful; but calvinists are under his protection, so it's OK if he's a monster worse than Hitler, Stalin, and Idi Amin put together.

[johncmeade]

Romans 9:18-23
[18]Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
[19]One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”
[20]But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ ”
[21]Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
[22]What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?
[23]What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—

[aletheia]

Paul answers flowers objection

Romans 3:5 But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)
Romans 3:6 God forbid!

[aletheia]

He says “the natural reaction”. Lol

Yes, it is the natural reaction of the human mind of the flesh that has not the inner man of Christ.

He is the objector in Romans nine to which the answer is …

Romans 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Romans 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

[carsondann]

You see the issue with this is you have such a low view of God as well as sin, that you believe God should bend to your will and answer to human "Morals" and that sin is not something worth punishing to the full extent. God is just as holy as he is righteous, and just as Just as he Loving. Adam Chose sin and death, we are born into that nature. God chooses whom he has mercy on, and hardens whom he hardens. As Paul clearly states, God very well has the ability to choose a vessel for righteousness out of the kindness of his own heart, and choose another vessel for destruction. If you believe this to be "Unfair" then I would like to point out that the wages of sin is death, which means if God were to be "Fair" as humans understand the concept, then he would send everyone to hell and save no one, because Grace is not "Fair" by nature.

[Thinking-Biblically]

You sound like romans 9. "How can He still find fault for who can resist His will?" I'll ask you what Paul full of the Spirit asked in his response. "Who are you o man to answer back to God, will the thing molded say to the one who made it why did u make me like this?" Your living in romans 9 and really can't see it? Wonder why???

[aletheia]

You would think that the great doctor would’ve bothered to look up the Greek word accountable in the Bible. And he would’ve found that it’s not there. Nor is the word responsible, which comes out of his mouth repeatedly.

The Greek word is krino or hupokrino, which means under judgment, literally.

If you break the law, without knowing the law, you’re still Judged guilty because the law was there. If you obey some of the laws, not knowing where the laws came from, then you’re just obeying the laws unto yourself, not the Lawgiver.

So the answer to the great doctors question is, the unelect are not held accountable. They are hupokrino, under judgment for breaking a law they knew nothing about.

And why are they judged for breaking laws from a Lawgiver that they know nothing about? So that the vessels of mercy would know the power and glory of grace. Romans 9

And who are you oh man to say God can’t do it like that?

Freewill = ignorance

[ManassehJones]

This verse prophecies of (B) Leighton Flowers.
2 Peter 2:1-2 KJV
But there were false prophets also among the (A) people, even as there shall be (B) false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them (A. the people), and bring upon themselves swift destruction. [2] And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom (B) the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.