Calvinism’s decretal theology and commitment to compatibilism create a host of conundrums that result in Calvinists’ frequent visits to the storehouse of mysteries. One of which is the idea that even though God has unconditionally elected only some to have any meaningful opportunity to experience the forgiveness of salvation, we are to have hope for all and offer salvational hope to all. This is to be done without ever divulging that such hope only exists in the theoretical cauldron of unconditional election and reprobation for which there is not one whit of concern that the nonelect will perish nor hope that the reprobate will not.
The moderate Calvinist W.T. Shedd reveals the entanglements of Calvinism. He notes, “Consequently, whoever holds the doctrine of election must hold the antithetic doctrine of reprobation. A creed that contains the former logically contains the latter, even when it is not verbally expressed (e.g., Augsburg Confession 1.5; First Helvetic Confession 9; Heidelberg Catechism 54).”[1] Shedd then cites the Second Helvetic Confession 10.4 as explicitly mentioning both the elect and the reprobate, which says, “And although God has known those who are his and mention is made somewhere of the small number of the elect, nevertheless we ought to hope the best for all people, nor fear that someone is numbered among the reprobate”[2] (emphasis added).
The declaration that we know God has predetermined the existence of the reprobate class, who by definition have no eternal hope, raises the question, from whence do we derive a legitimately God-honoring directive that we “ought to hope the best for all people”? This seems to position God’s people as being directed to hope in an idea that is undeniably discordant with God’s desire, sovereign will, and good pleasure, since some are reprobate by God’s desired design; therefore, they are divinely excluded from a chance for “hope” and “the best.”
Reliance upon a “good faith hope” seems to fail just as a “good faith offer” of the gospel fails. Such is an illusion and immeasurable cruelty since the call to believe and be forgiven is an unmatchable pretense of hope that is actually a predetermined, vacuous, hopeless, non-accessible offer for most. If Calvinism is true, we can say this because we know most assuredly that the reprobate class exists just as surely as the gospel provides no accessible entree or hope to them. Not knowing who each of the reprobates is does nothing to assuage this reality because there simply is no actual possibility for all or any of the reprobates to believe, which is the genesis of hope.
If the hope the Calvinists are offering is said to be for people to hope they are not reprobates, then such should be made clear in the offer of hope in the gospel, lest the listeners falsely believe that hope is there for the taking by all who hear. It would certainly not be less true to declare as forthrightly in the gospel presentation that it pleased God to save some and to reprobate many, and it would at least be more consistent with Calvinism’s unique core tenets. It would make it distinctively clear that Calvinism entails the reality that people are not in hell merely because they are sinners or do not believe the gospel, but rather, they are there because God was pleased to prevent them from receiving the gospel. Remember, the elect deserve hell as much as the nonelect; consequently, people whose destiny is hell are destined there because of God’s sovereign decree, his good pleasure, and not merely because they deserve to be in hell.
In my estimation, if the Calvinists leave their listeners thinking that the offer of hope they present is of the same nature and dynamic as Extensivists (those who believe God salvifically loves everyone), they have failed to be forthright.[3] Accordingly, it would be more informative to the hearers, even the theologically unsophisticated, if God’s good pleasure in preventing masses from believing the gospel and having actual hope was included in talking to the lost because then even the most deprived spiritual dolts would understand what was actually being said and offered, whereas normal Calvinist presentations leave only the upper-class of theological sophisticates understanding the ontological vacuousness of the proffered hope for all according to Calvinism.
It would even seem that it would be far more applaudable to be honest with people and tell them to believe but also to fear because there are apparently more reprobates than unconditionally elect. Because the truth is, the person to whom the Calvinist speaks actually has a higher probability of having no hope than hope. This state of affairs exists solely because God was well pleased to have created the nonelect class for which, by definition, there is no hope.
The reason often provided for not doing so is because we do not find such in gospel offers in the New Testament. However, we do not find such included in gospel offers in the New Testament because reprobation, selective regeneration, and the limitation of who can actually be saved are constructs of Calvinism rather than revelations of the Scripture. Consequently, for Calvinists to say they do not mention such because the New Testament does not is, in reality, an argument against their position rather than for it.
Another thought relates to the Calvinist who has a desire for a particular person to be saved who is, in fact, (unbeknownst to the Calvinist) one whom God desired to reprobate. Such desire might understandably be seen to make the Calvinist appear more benevolent than God, except that such is an impossibility. At least one must ask where such a desire originated. It most assuredly did not come from the Holy Spirit operating in the Calvinist’s individual life since God reprobated the particular person. That seems to leave only self or a deceptive satanic influence, neither resolving the conundrum.
This is not a problem for Extensivists since we believe God does, in fact, desire to redeem every person; therefore, we can rightly believe that our desire for every individual to be saved is reflective of God’s desire. Even if the Calvinist believes that he only has such a desire for those whom God gives him the desire, thereby signifying that the individual is elect, it seems appropriate to ask if the Calvinists would feel secure in passing on such valuable information to the individual. If the Calvinist senses this desire for a particular person to be saved is prompted by God, that would mean the individual is one of the elect because it would seem that God would never prompt one to believe a person is one of the elect when he is actually a reprobate.
If the Calvinist chooses this line of reasoning (that the prompting is from God), then it is fair to ask if he feels certain enough to share such good news with the individual; if not, we are back to the original dilemma. If the Calvinist concedes that such desires have no known or certain genesiacal relationship to the desires and plan of God, then his desire can equally be the result of demonic delusion or self-desire—flesh. Either case is suggestive of the individual having more compassion and love than God, which seems to require immediate repentance and again leaves us in the original dilemma or “inscrutable mystery.”
[1] William Greenough Thayer Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, ed. Alan W. Gomes, 3rd ed., Logos electronic edition (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub., 2003), 333.
[2] Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 333. Following is one worded slightly differently even though it does not change the challenge to “hope.” “And although God knows who are his, and here and there mention is made of the small number of elect, yet we must hope well of all, and not rashly judge any man to be a reprobate” Chapter 10 – “Of the Predestination of God and the Election of the Saints,” The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Part I, Book of Confessions (Louisville, KY: Geneva Press, 1996) http://www.creeds.net/helvetic/, accessed February 15, 2016.
[3] I use the term Extensivist as a general term for all who reject Calvinism’s selective soteriology.
