For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you… (1 Thessalonians 1:4)

The sovereignty of God is foundational to Christian theology. This is because “God” is not an empty word or sound, but it refers to a person with definite characteristics, and one of these is the unique quality of absolute and exhaustive sovereignty over all things, including every event in creation, and even every thought and decision of the human mind. This characteristic of sovereignty defines him, and since it is what it is – an absolute and exhaustive quality – it excludes all other possible referents, so that the word “God” can refer to only one being, that is, one who possesses this quality of complete sovereignty.

By extension, the doctrine of election is foundation to Christian soteriology, since it is an application of God’s sovereignty to the salvation of individuals. The doctrine maintains that in eternity, before the universe was made, God had selected an unchangeable number of specific individuals for salvation in Christ, and he did so without basing his decision on the faith and works, or any other condition, in the individuals so selected. Rather than choosing an individual because of any foreseen faith, the elect individual receives faith because God has first chosen him.

Arminianism opposes this biblical doctrine. Its proponents turn divine election into God’s reaction to what we choose, so that our choosing Christ is logically prior to God’s choosing us, so that mere human beings determine the will of God in salvation. Against this heresy, Paul declares, “For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you.” It is God who sovereignly chooses the elect, so that Paul says, “He has chosen you,” and not “He has approved of your choice.” If God merely accepts our choice, then he does not choose us in any real sense of the term. But Jesus says, “You did not choose me, but I chose you” (John 15:16). Therefore, Arminianism is false.

The corollary of election is reprobation. Just as God has chosen those individuals who would be saved, he has also deliberately and individually (that is, “by name”) decreed the damnation of all others. Many of those who affirm the doctrine of election nevertheless reject the doctrine of reprobation. However, just as election is a necessary conclusion from the sovereignty of God, reprobation is also true if by nothing else other than logical necessity, although it is also supported by direct biblical teaching. Those who reject the doctrine do so on the basis of their irrational prejudice instead of on biblical argument or logical inference.

One common objection is that this biblical doctrine of divine sovereignty removes or contradicts the moral responsibility of man. That is, if God controls everything, including human beliefs, thoughts, decisions, and actions, then it seems to some people that man would not be morally responsible for anything. However, man is responsible precisely because God is sovereign, since for a person to be responsible means that he will be held accountable to his actions, that he will be rewarded or punished according to a certain standard of right and wrong. So moral responsibility has to do with whether God has decreed a final judgment, and whether he has the power to enforce this decree. It does not depend on any “free will” in man. In fact, since human responsibility depends on divine sovereignty, and since divine sovereignty indeed contradicts human freedom (not human responsibility), this means that man is responsible precisely because he is not free.

Man is responsible because God will reward obedience and punish rebellion, but this does not mean that man is free to obey or rebel. Autonomy is an illusion. Romans 8:7 explains, “The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so.” The Bible never teaches that man is responsible for his sins because he is free. That is, man is responsible for his sins not because he is free to do otherwise – this verse says that he is not free, but he is still counted as sinful. Whether man is responsible has nothing to do with whether he is free, but whether God decides to hold him accountable. And man is responsible because God has decided to judge him for his sins. Therefore, the doctrine of human responsibility does not depend on the unbiblical teaching of free will, but on the absolute sovereignty of God.

The issue then becomes one of justice, or whether it is just for God to punish those whom he has predestined to damnation. Paul anticipates this question in Romans 9:19, and writes, “One of you will say to me: ‘Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?'” He replies, “But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?'” (v. 20). God rules by absolute authority; no one can halt his plans, and no one has the right to question him. This is true because God is the creator of all things, and he has the right to do whatever he wishes with his creation: “Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?” (v. 21).

Paul continues, “What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath – prepared for destruction? 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…” (v. 22-23). He is still answering the question cited in verse 19: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” He denies that man has the right to question God in the first place, but then he proceeds to answer the objection anyway. And he writes that, since God is sovereign, he can do whatever he wishes, and this includes creating some vessels destined for glory, and some destined for destruction. Peter says regarding those who reject Christ: “They stumble because they disobey the message – which is also what they were destined for” (1 Peter 2:8). Whereas the elect rejoice in this doctrine, the non-elect detest it, but either way, this is the way it is and there is nothing that anyone can do about it.

It is because of poor reasoning that the issue of justice is even brought up against the doctrine of reprobation. In its various forms, the objection amounts to the following:

1. The Bible teaches that God is just.
2. The doctrine of reprobation is unjust.
3. Therefore, the Bible does not teach the doctrine of reprobation.

However, the second premise is assumed without warrant. By what standard of justice does a person judge whether the doctrine of reprobation is just or unjust? In contrast to the above, the Christian reasons as follows:

1. The Bible teaches that God is just.
2. The Bible teaches the doctrine of reprobation.
3. Therefore, the doctrine of reprobation is just.

The pivotal point is whether the Bible affirms the doctrine, and one must not assume whether the doctrine is just or unjust beforehand. Since God is the sole standard of justice, and since the Bible affirms the doctrine of reprobation, this means that the doctrine of reprobation is just by definition. As Calvin says:

For God’s will is so much the highest rule of righteousness that whatever he wills, by the very fact that he wills it, must be considered righteous. When, therefore, one asks why God has so done, we must reply: because he has willed it. But if you proceed further to ask why he so willed, you are seeking something greater and higher than God’s will, which cannot be found. Let men’s rashness, then, restrain itself, and not seek what does not exist, lest perhaps it fail to find what does exist.

Just as the elect comes to Christ by an irresistible summon, and “it is God who works in [him] to will and to act according to his good purpose” (Philippians 2:13), the reprobate is by no means autonomous – not even in his sins. God directs a person’s thoughts “like a watercourse wherever he pleases” (Proverbs 21:1), and there is no free will.

It is futile to repeat the silly objection that God permits some actions but does not will them, for as Calvin says, “Why shall we say ‘permission’ unless it is because God so wills?”  Since God controls and sustains all things, what does it mean for him to permit something except to say that he wills and causes it? That is, to say that God “permits” something is nothing more than an ambiguous way of saying that God “permits” himself to cause something. There is no distinction between causation and permission with God; unless he wills an event, it can never happen (Matthew 10:29).

The election and reprobation of individuals belong to God’s secret decree, so that the members of either group are not listed for public examination. So on what basis does Paul say, “For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you” (1 Thessalonians 1:4)? Paul lists the indications that his readers were chosen by God for salvation in the next several verses.