How many times have we seen an objection to Calvinism that goes something like this-- "A loving God (would/could) never elect some to go to heaven and leave others to go to hell..?" I've been trying to identify some presuppositions that under gird such an objection. Here's some that I've come up with: 1. This objection presupposes that a 'Loving God' SHOULD never elect some and pass over others. Nowhere in scripture are we ever told that God 'Could Never' or 'Would Never' do such a thing; rather on numerous occasions we are told that is exactly what he does. For example: Rather than taking scripture at face value, this objection presupposes that we may take such phrases as "God is Love" and interject our own muddled understanding of 'love,' hence defining it by our own terms rather than scripture, and then attempt to set parameters on God by our own distorted definition of 'Love.' A Calvinist understands and accepts that 'God is Love' from scripture, but doesn't attempt to use an unbiblical definition of 'Love' to try and determine what a Loving God should do and not do. 2. This objection presupposes that we are somehow special; that God is somehow obligated to view and treat us differently than the people whose lives were recorded in scripture. God could hate one son of Isaac and love the other before they were ever born, but He could never treat our children this way. He could choose to treat his chosen people one way in OT times and set special affection on them, but perish the thought of Him not loving everyone equally today-- after all, we deserve far better. Which leads to-- 3. This objection presupposes that God is not one who "changeth not." He can tell Moses that He can "have mercy on whomever he will" but today He has too offer the same chance to everybody. If He doesn't, then He isn't 'Loving.' 4. This objection presupposes that 'Love' is God's main attribute (rather than His Holiness). I want to be careful here, because what I say may be easily misunderstood or distorted. I am not denying that God is Love; but I am saying that Love is defined in terms of His utter and complete Holiness. The Love of God is a Holy Love. This Holy God justly hates sin (and the wicked). 5. This objection presupposes that we may object to any action of God that offends our sensibilities. Just like liberals do with denying the doctrine of eternal punishment—“A Loving God would never damn people to eternal fiery torment”—they say. Some supposed “free-will” is the only ground on which we have to stand—even as it crumbles beneath our feet. Our ‘god’ becomes some kind of wax nose, an idol, that we can mould and shape to our own liking. 6. This objection presupposes that we have the right to accuse God with “Why have you made me thus?” Our creator does not have the right to make an object for useful purposes and another for destruction. So there is no potter and there is no clay; unless that is, of our own free-will we give the potter permission to mold us…and then He is only free to work in accordance with our own desires. 7. This objection presupposes that God ‘owes’ us something. We have our rights. We have the right to choose to obey or disobey, to reject or accept. We will not put up with any denial of our rights. For God to make decisions for us would be an infringement on our rights, and a ‘Loving God’ would never do that. 8. This objection presupposes that God is not just. Nor wise. Nor good. Any attack on His ‘Love’ as far as it concerns an attack on the doctrines of election, reprobation and predestination is in reality an attack on His justice, wisdom or goodness. God declares that he is just and that He has chosen His elect apart from any goodness in them. This objection insists that this cannot be so, that it would be injustice. He says that he is wise and that chooses according to His own good pleasure. It insists that would be folly. He declares that He is good, and gives mercy to whom He wills and hardens the rest. It insists that would make Him despicable, one to be despised and rejected rather than loved and obeyed.