So, does the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional divine election and monergistic regeneration make God “a respecter of persons, arbitrary, and morally ambiguous”? Continue reading . . .
I recently came across this statement from Roger Olson, an evangelical Arminian theologian:
“From an Arminian perspective, if regeneration is monergistic (totally independent of any free human decision and irresistible) God would regenerate all people. Otherwise, if he selects a few to regenerate (the “elect”) he is a respecter of persons, arbitrary, and morally ambiguous if not monstrous (seeing that those he chooses not to regenerate are destined for hell)” (Roger Olson).
So, does the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional divine election and monergistic regeneration make God “a respecter of persons, arbitrary, and morally ambiguous”?
Or again, God is not impartial, say many Arminians, if he favors some with life but not all. He is guilty of showing partiality toward the elect.
Of course he is! That is what unconditional election is all about. But we should refrain from saying that God is “guilty” of being partial toward the elect because this kind of partiality is a virtue, not a vice. It is a divine prerogative for which God should be praised, not vilified. Let me explain what I mean.
To say that God is impartial means that he is not moved or motivated by human characteristics such as race or gender or color of hair or socio-economic achievements. When God set his electing love on some but not all, he was not influenced by wealth or power or beauty or education or skill or potential or any other human consideration. God favored the elect, God was partial toward them, because that is what he