Does Reformed Theology Make God Unfair?
Perhaps the greatest objection to Reformed Theology is the notion that people aren’t getting a fair shake. If God has chosen some for eternal salvation and not others, how can we blame the person who wasn’t chosen? I resonate with this objection. And I can certainly understand why it would lead many to go looking for different interpretations.
So let me just say on the front end: I get it. There’s a certain part of me that doesn’t like it. In fact, I wish that all people were saved and that hell didn’t exist. But alas, Scripture compels me to believe otherwise.
In the remainder of the post, then, allow me to respond to two objections related to fairness.
Suffering the Consequences for Adam’s Sin?
The first objection is that it’s unfair for God to judge us for something that Adam did. After all, we did not ask to be born in our fallen state. That was forced upon us! How can God hold us responsible for something we didn’t do?
This objection has much to do with what Augustine called Original Sin. It’s the idea that because of Adam’s sin, all the world was cursed, including his future descendants. Nothing and no one remains unaffected.
As Paul writes in Romans 5:12, “Just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.” Here Paul indicates that no one escapes the consequences of Adam’s sin. We’re all born in it and suffer the consequences for it.
How, then, should we think about our relationship to Adam? While alternative theories have been proposed, the Reformed view argues that Adam was our Federal or Representative Head. That is to say, during his trial period in the garden, Adam represented the entire human race. So when he sinned, he did so on our behalf.
This understanding leads many to ask why should God hold us accountable for something our representative did, especially when we had no say in picking him? At least in political elections, we get to cast a vote for our representatives.
While casting our vote may seem like a better alternative, we quickly realize it’s not when we consider that no political representative has ever represented us perfectly. Politicians frequently make false promises and change their stances after the election. They can be bribed. Or they can have ulterior motives. Now, sometimes they do what we want them to do, but many times they do not. In short, we’ve never voted for a perfect political representative, so we shouldn’t think we could have picked better than Adam.
Now the reason we can be confident that Adam did, in fact, represent us perfectly is because the all-knowing, all-wise God of the universe hand-picked him. And since God’s ways are always perfect, we can rest assured that Adam was the most accurate representative for us possible. Meaning, if we would have been in the garden, we would have done just as he did.
Therefore, when Adam sinned, in a sense, we all sinned with him (Rom 5:12). We all collectively dove head first into the pit. Yes, we’re in there because of Adam. But we’re in there because of us too.
Predestined for Hell?
Perhaps the more challenging objection has to do with the idea that since God predestines some for salvation, others must be predestined for hell. Again, let me reiterate that I think this is a difficult issue, and I can see why many look for alternative interpretations. But Romans 9 leads me to affirm this position.
Now let me clarify on the front end that God’s predestination of the saved and the unsaved is asymmetrical. As I tried to show in a previous post, God must directly cause faith in his elect through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. That is to say, sinners would never believe apart from his supernatural intervention (Eph 2:1-5). For the non-elect, however, God does not actively cause unbelief. He simply allows them to keep freely choosing to live their life as they see fit. God does not force or compel them to reject him.
The false picture many have of Reformed Theology is that they think it teaches that the entire human race is standing at the gates of heaven trying to get in. But because God only elected some and not others, he arbitrarily rejects many who otherwise would be very glad to enter in with him. I think a more accurate picture is one where the entire human race is sprinting away from the gates of heaven towards eternal destruction. But before they can plunge into the depths of hell, God reaches out his gracious arms and rescues many of them.
According to Romans 9, he reaches out to snatch Jacob but not Esau. And this snatching has nothing to do with Jacob or Esau’s choices. As verse 11 notes:
though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad–in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls–she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
Notice that God’s choice of Jacob over Esau has nothing to do with their wills or choices. It has everything to do with God’s sovereign choice. Now the reason I think this is what Paul is, in fact, saying is because Paul goes on to raise his opponents’ objections. In the next verse Paul asks, “What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part?”
Now why would Paul feel the need to raise that objection if he was not referring to God’s unconditional election? You see, it’s only the Reformed position that has to deal with this objection. Those who believe God’s election is based upon his foreknowledge are off the hook. After all, how could anyone call God unfair if he elects based on what he sees those people freely choosing in the future?
Paul’s response to those who think God is unjust is an emphatic “by no means! For he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.” (Rom 9:14).
And once again, Paul raises another objection that I think only makes sense if he is proposing what the Reformed position says he is proposing. Paul says, “You will say to me then, why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” If Paul is convinced that God’s election is based on human free will choices, then this objection makes no sense. After all, who would find fault with God if his election was based on the free choices of human creatures? The very fact that Paul is raising his opponents objections suggests that he is teaching God’s unconditional election.
What about Pharaoh?
In Romans 9:17-18, Paul raises the issue of Pharaoh. He writes:
For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
When we go back to Exodus, we find several instances where it says that Pharaoh hardens his own heart and several instances where it says that God hardens his heart. What should we make of this hardening since God cannot tempt anyone to sin? (James 1:13).
As I said earlier, God did not need to create fresh sin or unbelief in Pharaoh’s heart to cause him to reject Moses. Pharaoh’s own sinful heart did what it wanted to do. When Scripture speaks of God hardening Pharaoh’s heart, we should understand that to mean God removed his gracious restraints from Pharaoh and handed him over to his own desires.
Christians often forget the doctrine of common grace. It’s the idea that God is doing much good in the world to all people–both the just and the unjust (Matt 5:45; Acts 14:17). And because God is pouring out his common grace on the whole world, the world is not as bad as it could be. His common grace, then, functions like a restraint upon evil.
But what happens when God removes the restraints? Evil increases. When Paul speaks of God “giving people over” to their sinful desires, he’s referring to God removing his restraints (Rom 1:24, 26, 28).
Fortunately, God’s common grace is holding back a lot of evil in the world. But when God removes the restraints from a powerful dictator like Pharaoh, this frees him up to unleash more evil upon the world. What we find in the case of Pharaoh, then, is not that God actively produced evil in him. Rather, God removed his gracious restraints and handed Pharaoh over to his own evil desires.
Is God Unfair?
As we circle back to the question of whether God is being unfair or unjust, we must reply in the same manner as Paul: “By no means!” God never acts unjustly because God is just. His very nature is justice.
As I understand it, God is under no obligation to show mercy to anyone (Rom 9:15). If in his good pleasure he decides to save some and not all, there is nothing unjust about that. If God decided to save no one at all, there would be nothing unjust about that. He did not have to choose Jacob! But as it is, God shows mercy towards some and justice towards others. He is never unjust or unfair with anyone.
