# Is the Doctrine of Election "fair"?



## Andres (Dec 14, 2009)

Sunday evenings at church we have begun studying the Three Forms of Unity, beginning with the Canons of Dordt. The first article in the Canons deals with God’s right to condemn all people. It reads: 
_Article 1. As all men have sinned in Adam, lie under the curse, and are deserving of eternal death, God would have done no injustice by leaving them all to perish, and delivering them over to condemnation on account of sin, according to the words of the apostle, Rom. 3:19, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. And verse 23: for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. And Rom. 6:23: for the wages of sin is death._

Of course this opened up the discussion on the related subjects of election and whether or not the doctrine of election itself was fair. Obviously we (humanity) are in no position to question our creator (see Job 38 &39) but at the same time our finite, fallen minds seem to naturally want to object to the fact that some are predestined to salvation and some predestined to damnation. So what is the answer as to why God would choose some to save and leave others to His wrath? 

Let us look at it by posing some questions. What if:
1. God wants to demonstrate His wrath and power?
2. God wants to demonstrate His mercy, grace, and love? 
How would God do this? He would fashion two different types of people, the elect and the reprobate. But it does not stop there – the beauty of both of these demonstrations is that both of them – the elect and the reprobate - are both unto His glory and His glory alone! 

And this is exactly what Paul is trying to get across in Romans 9:13-24. Once the Holy Spirit illuminates this passage to us, can we come to any other conclusion than to say the doctrine of election is completely Soli Deo Gloria!


----------



## Knoxienne (Dec 14, 2009)

What's fair is if God had thrown Adam and Eve in eternal hellfire after they sinned in the garden instead of sending His innocent Son to die for those persons He elected to save. That would have been fair. Praise the Lord God isn't fair. I don't want fair. I want grace.


----------



## Rogerant (Dec 14, 2009)

The word "fair" should only be used to describe one thing. That if God were to be "fair" he would have to throw everyone one in to hell. That is the only way to describe fairness is the sense of how God deals with humanity. We have all offended him and He would have to treat us all the same. But the bible does not speak of fairness. It speaks of righteousness, wickedness, justice and grace (mercy). In election, justice and mercy kiss each other so that god may be gracious to those in whom He places His love.


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 14, 2009)

Sounds like an excellent study, Andres!

Implicit in the question of whether it is fair is usually... from man's point of view.

But, is man's "fairness" God's "fairness?" 

Actually, as created beings, we cannot even contain the variables that an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God does. Nor does God have to prove Himself to the intellectual satisfaction of His Creatures. (It is sin that we think He does have to).


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Dec 14, 2009)

It seems like the answer could be colored by ones position _a la _infra versus supralapsarianism, with election being logically viewed either _before_ or _after_ the fall.

Infra's see God as choosing to save some from a fallen humanity, all deserving eternal destruction, thus leading to a certain kind of answer. Supra's, however, must argue from a different perspective: God chose some (and not all) from an unfallen or uncreated humanity as a primary means to bring glory to himself.

In either case, the question of God being _fair_ can be addressed, albeit a bit differently.


----------



## toddpedlar (Dec 14, 2009)

The idea of "fairness" in salvation is almost the same, it seems to me, as the issue of "fairness" in people's economic circumstances. The politically correct thing to say is that everyone must have exactly the same opportunity to advance their life situation -their standard of living - or life isn't "fair". The socialist picks up on this and goes one step further and says not only this, but everyone must have the same outcome -the same resources available to them, or life isn't "fair". These perspectives, it seems to me, are matched quite well with the Arminian and universalist views of many. 

The problem with both of these situations - the economic and the salvific - is that life is patently "unfair", and that's ok. The Bible doesn't proclaim a "fair" life. In looking at the question of salvation, when one argues that everyone "deserves the same chance" and "should have the same ability to choose", what the Arminian doesn't realize is that everyone DOES have the same exact ability to choose, by nature... and also that when one posits the requirement that all should have the same chance, and the same ability to choose, one is putting forth Man as the deciding factor and God the one who "owes" salvation to men who do choose him. Ultimately, the only "fair" view of salvation is the universalist view where everyone gets the same thing.


----------



## Ivan (Dec 14, 2009)

Knoxienne said:


> What's fair is if God had thrown Adam and Eve in eternal hellfire after they sinned in the garden instead of sending His innocent Son to die for those persons He elected to save. That would have been fair. Praise the Lord God isn't fair. I don't want fair. I want grace.



AMEN to that, sister! That's the truth!


----------



## earl40 (Dec 14, 2009)

Jimmy the Greek said:


> Infra's see God as choosing to save some from a fallen humanity, all deserving eternal destruction, thus leading to a certain kind of answer. Supra's, however, must argue from a different perspective: God chose some (and not all) from an unfallen or uncreated humanity as a primary means to bring glory to himself.



I know this is a sidebar but does not the infra position appear to have God "making up His mind" in time?

BTW Andres, love how you think.


----------



## BertMulder (Dec 14, 2009)

Is there unrighteousness with God???


----------



## JennyG (Dec 14, 2009)

BertMulder said:


> Is there unrighteousness with God???



that way of looking at it will give confidence evejn when human logic is at fault.
Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?


----------



## PresbyDane (Dec 14, 2009)

Don`t ask God for "Fair" just don`t!

If we where all sitting together discussing this, this would be the time were everybody went "Oh no he said the F... word, lets hope God will be merciful"


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 14, 2009)

If it's not fair(?) and just, the whole universe will come to an end, because the LORD will have been immoral.


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 14, 2009)

Perhaps you should ask if it is fair that our terrible sins were heaped Christ while His perfect righteousness was credited to us. There is nothing remotely "fair" about that. The only One who ever had a right to complain about "fairness" was Jesus Himself, and He did not, but went willingly to the cross in our place.

It reminds of the words from "O Sacred Head, Now Wounded":
"What Thou my Lord has suffered
Was all for sinners' gain;
Mine, mine was the transgression,
But Thine the deadly pain."


----------



## Skyler (Dec 14, 2009)

Is the doctrine of election just? Yes, because all sin is paid for. Is it "fair"? If by fair you mean "just", then yes. If by fair you mean "the way I want it", then no, probably not. But so what?


----------



## Andres (Dec 15, 2009)

hmm...well I appreciate the responses, but I feel as though many of you didn't even read my original post. Instead, you simply posited your response based only on the thread title. I actually was presenting a _defense_ to the question "Is Election fair", not attempting to make a case against it.


----------



## JennyG (Dec 15, 2009)

Andres said:


> hmm...well I appreciate the responses, but I feel as though many of you didn't even read my original post. Instead, you simply posited your response based only on the thread title. I actually was presenting a _defense_ to the question "Is Election fair", not attempting to make a case against it.


sorry Andrew...that may have been true of me (not reading the OP carefully enough I mean, just following a thought through)
However, to be fair (!), if anyone had asked I would certainly have assumed that you being you, your post was _not_ going to be attempting to convict the Lord of unfairness!


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 15, 2009)

Andres said:


> hmm...well I appreciate the responses, but I feel as though many of you didn't even read my original post. Instead, you simply posited your response based only on the thread title. I actually was presenting a _defense_ to the question "Is Election fair", not attempting to make a case against it.



Well that is one defense to help you:-

If election is unfair, God is unfair.

Is it likely or even possible that God could be unfair?

I think your original post mentioned the fact that we have finite, fallen [I'll add "fallible"] minds. This is why we would find fault with God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - in electing some to salvation and others to damnation.

God's election does no injury to Man's responsibility and free agency, remember.


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 15, 2009)

> Romans 9
> 
> 13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
> 
> ...


.


----------



## toddpedlar (Dec 15, 2009)

Andres said:


> hmm...well I appreciate the responses, but I feel as though many of you didn't even read my original post. Instead, you simply posited your response based only on the thread title. I actually was presenting a _defense_ to the question "Is Election fair", not attempting to make a case against it.



Andres -

First, I don't think most of the people reading this thread missed your post - they were just offering their two cents on the question. You did seem to be asking people how they would respond to the questions you received from folks who were asking if election makes God 'unfair'. 

Second, if you want to be heard more clearly, then I wouldn't title a thread like you did. You also could be a little more direct in what you're saying, i.e. "here is the way I answered this". Your post itself didn't necessarily make clear how you wanted people to respond - or what you were looking for... so perhaps that's why you got the variety of responses you got. (but I don't think it's "fair" to assume by those responses that people didn't actually read your OP. I think their responses were all completely reasonable responses to what you actually wrote) 

TKP


----------



## Andres (Dec 15, 2009)

toddpedlar said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> > hmm...well I appreciate the responses, but I feel as though many of you didn't even read my original post. Instead, you simply posited your response based only on the thread title. I actually was presenting a _defense_ to the question "Is Election fair", not attempting to make a case against it.
> ...



thanks Todd. I guess whenever a person is writing something it makes perfect sense to them at the time! I apologize if my post was ambiguous. It's not really a big deal. Thanks for eveyone's input and I am certainly glad that we all agree God is completely fair in His decisions.


----------

