How to Approach the Election Dispute

By Ronald W. Leigh, Ph.D.

March 6, 2016
Copyright © 2015 Ronald W. Leigh
Bible quotations are from the New International Version unless otherwise noted.

A.  What is the doctrine of election?

The word "elect" means to choose or select.  The Bible speaks of God choosing a number of things.  For example:

• God chose certain times and places for people to inhabit, so they would seek him (Acts 17:26-27)
• God chose Abraham and the nation of Israel out of all the peoples of the earth (Deuteronomy 7:6)
• God chose the sons of Levi to be Israel's priests (Deuteronomy 21:5)
• God chose certain kings for Israel (Deuteronomy 17:15)
• God chose Christ (Luke 9:35)
• Christ chose his twelve apostles (Luke 6:13)
• God chose believers (1 Peter 1:1-2)

It is this last item, God's choice of believers, that is the focus of this paper.  Here are some of the many passages that mention divine election.

And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.  (Matthew 24:31)

Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies.  (Romans 8:33)

Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad – in order that God's purpose in election might stand …  (Romans 9:11)

So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace.  (Romans 11:5)

Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.  (Colossians 3:12)

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

Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory.  (2 Timothy 2:10)

Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ for the faith of God's elect and the knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness …   (Titus 1:1)

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.  (1 Peter 1:1-2)

So there is no denying it – the Bible teaches election.  The dispute arises, however, when we try to work out the implications of this teaching and integrate this teaching with other biblical doctrines.

Here are several brief definitions of election.  I include these definitions not because I agree with all of them, but merely to help focus the discussion.

An act of God before creation in which he chooses some people to be saved, not on account of any foreseen merit in them, but only because of his sovereign good pleasure.  (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Zondervan, 1994, p. 1241)

"Election" is the selection of some for eternal life, the positive side of predestination; "reprobation" is the negative side.  (Millard Erickson, Introducing Christian Doctrine, 2nd edition, Baker Academic, 2001, p. 298)

… election in the Scripture frequently refers to God's eternal decree whereby He has chosen a people from among the sinful mass of humanity and has appointed them to obtain everlasting life through our Lord Jesus Christ.  (James Oliver Buswell, Jr. A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, Vol. 2, 1963, p. 149)

By election we mean that sovereign act of God in grace whereby He chose in Christ Jesus for salvation all those whom He foreknew would accept Him.  (Henry Clarence Thiessen, Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Eerdmans, 1949, p. 344)

The heart of the issue is this question:  Regarding the salvation of any particular individual, who makes the determinative choice, God or that individual?

B.  Why election is important

The subject of election is important simply because it is a biblical doctrine, as shown above.  And it is especially important because it is an integral part of the larger subject of salvation which is central among all the various biblical doctrines.  (See the diagram Theology as a Network of Doctrines.)

So, while it is clear that the Bible teaches election, there has been a long running dispute regarding the nature of election.  This tension comes about when we try to integrate the Bible's teaching on election with other closely related topics such as sovereignty, foreknowledge, predestination, and free will.  Was Calvin's integration correct?  Was Arminius' integration correct?  We will have to be careful to evaluate Calvin, Arminius, and everyone else solely on the basis of a thorough and careful integration of all that the Bible teaches on this topic.

Some might avoid the subject of election because the dispute has been rancorous at times.  And there have been many unfortunate results when the topic has been approached with a combative attitude.  But the solution is not to avoid the subject of election – it is too important to ignore.  Rather, we need to approach the subject of election prayerfully, with humility and respect for those who differ, and seeking only to learn what the Bible teaches on the subject.

And since we go to the Bible for this topic, as we must do for the study of every doctrine, we must be attentive to our methodology and apply sound principles of interpretation.  See such hermeneutics sources as

• Hermeneutics Summary,
• Immediate Context: Key to Interpretation
• Direct Bible Discovery.

Misunderstanding the subject of election can have serious consequences.  For example, after the Protestant Reformation one extreme view of election led some Christians to conclude that evangelism and missionary activity was a waste of time and effort.  Olson comments,

… Protestants during this period [1500s and 1600s] were hostile to missions.  In these two centuries there are less than a dozen incidents in which any issue of missions arose and most of these involved strong reactions from the Protestant establishment to any such outrageous notion as world evangelism.  In the few cases where there was positive action it came from the fringes of Protestantism, not from the Lutheran or Reformed core. … Theodore Beza, Calvin's successor in Geneva, … insisted that the Great Commission was binding only on the apostles, not on the church today.  (C. Gordon Olson, Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism: An Inductive Mediate Theology of Salvation, Global Gospel Publishers, 2002, p. 374-375)

The most serious rationalization was that the heathen are too depraved to respond to the gospel. … Clearly Ursinus [a Lutheran theologian] did not understand that the doctrine of depravity involves all men including Europeans, not just the heathen. He seems not to have understood the power of the Holy Spirit to convict and convince men of the truth of the gospel.  (Olson, op cit, p. 377)

Other extreme views have led believers to fear losing their salvation, as though the elect can become the non-elect.  Olson makes this interesting comment:

I have observed another striking parallel between extreme Calvinists and Arminians. Both assume that there is no such thing as fruitless or carnal believers. Arminians would say that any Christian who is fruitless or carnal has lost his salvation; extreme Calvinists would say that such a person was never really saved in the first place.  (Olson, op cit, p. 297)

Perhaps the most troublesome misunderstandings about election are those which reflect on the nature of God.  In fact, Dave Hunt has written an entire book on this problem (see the bibliography below).  His point is that, when we misrepresent the doctrine of election, which has to do with how salvation works, we misrepresent the savior.  There have been some at one extreme (the hyper-Calvinists) who have explicitly said that God does not really love every human being.

God's love can not be some powerless emotion that would like to see all men saved, but does not have the strength to accomplish that desire. God's love must be an effectual power that not only wills the salvation of its objects (election), but actually does save them. … Thus it can not be that God loves everyone. Since God's love is sovereign and therefore always a saving love, only those who experience the salvation of the Lord can be the objects of His love. God loves His elect people, whom He has chosen to salvation, but His eternal hatred and wrath abides upon the reprobate sinner. … The man who goes to hell, then, does not go there in spite of God's love. He goes there without God's love.  (Steven Houck, "God's Sovereignty in Salvation," Evangelism Cte., Protestant Reformed Church, South Holand, Illinois, n.d., p. 10, available online at prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_48.html, under the heading "God's Sovereign Love," underscore added)

Others at an opposite extreme (the Open Theists) claim that God does not know the future decisions of free agents, and thus they redefine God's omniscience.

… it is logically impossible that God should have foreknowledge of a genuinely free action. … God's failure to know what logically cannot be known in no way detracts from God's omniscience. As soon as these truths become available, God will be the first to know them!  (William Hasker, "A Philosophical Perspective," The Openness of God, Pinnock, Rice, Sanders, Hasker, and Basinger, InterVarsity Press, 1994, p. 148)

God knows an immense amount about each one of us – far more, in fact, than we know about ourselves – but he does not, because he cannot, plan his actions toward us on the basis of a prior knowledge of how we will respond.  (op. cit. p. 151)

Any doctrine can be mishandled, which will always affect other doctrines as illustrated above.  Since every doctrine affects other doctrines, there are no unimportant doctrines. 

C.  An open mind

We all come to a doctrinal topic with initial assumptions and ideas about that topic.  Perhaps we have uncritically adopted particular definitions of terms.  Perhaps we have read articles and web pages about the topic.  Perhaps we have accepted an admired teacher's view on the topic, or read our favorite author's book on the topic.  The problem is that recognizing our own mental baggage is often very difficult, some would say impossible.  Whatever ideas we bring to a topic, we must learn to ask ourselves, "Where did I get this idea?"  Perhaps it is impossible to be completely objective, but that should be the goal.  Only then will our study be honest and worthwhile.

The subject of election is a complex subject, so another caution seems appropriate here.  When we hear or read someone else express an idea that does not fit our present system of thought, we cannot simply evaluate the idea isolated from that person's system of thought.  It is just too easy to hear a particular idea and then evaluate it from within our own system of thought.  Rather, we need to recognize how that idea fits into his system of thought, and eventually evaluate whole systems, not just isolated ideas.

(See the paper Mindset and Approach.)

D.  Beware loyalty to "one man"

Don't try to be loyal to any particular view.  Rather, be loyal to the Bible, and work hard at letting the Bible speak for itself, without bringing preconceived ideas to the text.

"Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another. (1 Corinthians 4:6)

E.  Original sources

The importance of original sources cannot be overemphasized.  When it comes to Bible topics, the obvious original source is the Bible itself.  So the key question is not, What did Calvin say?  Nor, What did Arminius say?  The key question is, What does the Bible say?

Unfortunately, at this point we have to face the fact that Bible translators occasionally reflect a certain theological perspective rather than staying true to the explicit statements of the original Hebrew and Greek.  This becomes relevant to the study of election when we see, for example, a translator replace an explicit "foreknowledge" or "foreknown" in the Greek with words and phrases that mean something different in the English, as illustrated in various translations.

This is an obvious illustration of how one's theological system can affect how one translates.  (The meaning of the word "foreknowledge" is discussed in greater detail in The Order of Salvation and Divine Foreknowledge, section D.)

Certainly study in the original languages is the best, but if that is not possible, comparison of various English translations can help.

Similarly, if we are comparing and contrasting Calvin (1509-1564) and Arminius (1560-1609), we will go first to the writings of Calvin and the writings of Arminius.  We will not go first to one of their followers, and certainly not to one of their critics, since critics often misrepresent (perhaps unknowingly) what they are criticizing (see next section).  For original sources relevant to the historical debate over election, see the entries listed under "Reformation Era" in the bibliography at the end of this paper.

F.  Misrepresentation

The imaginary Calvin

Calvin is often misrepresented as a "five point Calvinist" assuming that he affirmed the typical five points often associated with Calvinism:

• T – Total depravity (total spiritual inability)
• U – Unconditional election
• L – Limited atonement (particular redemption)
• I – Irresistible grace (effectual call)
• P – Perseverance of the saints (eternal security)

"Limited atonement," also called particular redemption, is the idea that Christ's death was intended only for the elect.  But the TULIP was developed decades after Calvin.  In 1610, shortly after the death of Arminius and long after the death of Calvin, Arminius' followers, known as the Remonstrants, published five points against Calvinism.  Later, in 1618 in the Netherlands, the Calvinists countered by formalizing their five points in the "Canons of Dort."

In his Institutes, Calvin never affirms limited atonement.  Indeed, his commentaries appear to affirm just the opposite.  When commenting on 1 John 2:2 he expresses agreement with the idea that Christ's death was sufficient for all mankind but efficient, of course, only for the elect.  And when commenting on other passages he makes statements such as the following:

… it is the will of God that we should seek the salvation of all men without exception, as Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world. (Commentary on Galatians 5:12)

… though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him. (Commentary on Romans 5:18)

So Calvin was not really a "five point Calvinist."

The imaginary Arminius

The views of James Arminius are often confused with those of Pelagius as well as those of the semi-Pelagians, who underestimated the effects of the fall of man and overestimated the spiritual abilities of fallen man.  Here is an example of a fairly common misrepresentation of the teachings of James Arminius

From the Reformed church itself there arose the serious trouble in connection with what is known as Arminian theology (Jacob Arminius, 1560-1609). The entire tendency of this teaching was to emphasize human effort and freedom of the will and to make salvation a work of man rather than a work of God, with the human will replacing the work of the Spirit in regeneration.  (Charles C. Ryrie, The Holy Spirit, revised & expanded, Moody Publishers, 1997, p. 199)

But this is a complete misrepresentation of James Arminius by someone who, it appears, never read Arminius.  See, The Works of James Arminius, vol. 1, p. 252-253.  Also see the quotations from Arminius in the section entitled "Seven Key Questions" in the paper Calvin and Arminius (especially Question 2).

G.  The continuum

There is a spread of views concerning the subjects of election, predestination, foreknowledge, etc.  Even though the following continuum is an over­simplifi­cation, it provides a general picture of the situation.

If none of the views is correct, it would be idiotic to try to integrate a bunch of wrong views in order to come up with the right view.

Even if two views were close to being correct, such as Calvinism and Arminianism, we should not try to find a view that is right in the middle between them, as though that would be the "balanced" view.  Such a procedure is based on compromise, not on biblical research.  It is dangerous to try to balance any two views because:

• One view may be correct and the other incorrect.  In this case, the more you try to compromise, the further you end up from the true biblical view.
• Or, the true biblical view may be to the left of Calvinism, or to the right of Arminianism.  Again, the more you try to compromise, the further you end up from the true biblical view.

The only sane approach is to base your study of election squarely on the Bible, without mentally dragging any particular view or views into your study, but letting the Bible speak for itself.

H.  Beware quick paradox, quick mystery

Some scholars give up prematurely on solving such issues as sovereignty versus free will, predestination, election, etc.  They label such issues "paradoxes" or "antinomies."  Norman Geisler calls this "the punt to paradox."

Don't be quick to jump to the conclusion that predestination is one of those biblical mysteries that cannot be understood.  In fact, when the word "mystery" is used to refer to something that defies understanding, it is entirely different than the meaning of the word "mystery" found in the Bible.  The New Testament notion of a mystery is this:  information which was formerly hidden, but now in the New Testament is revealed and understandable.

Surely you have heard about the administration of God's grace that was given to me for you, that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets.  (Ephesians 3:2-5)

Indeed, the very purpose of revelation is for our understanding (see Deuteronomy 29:29; Daniel 9:22-23; John 16:12-13; 2 Corinthians 1:13; 2 Peter 3:15-16). See the paper Mystery – A Caution.

I.  Should a church ever split over election?

The sad fact is that differing views of the doctrine of election have at times turned Christians into adversaries and split churches.

While it is certainly the case that, as a generalization, truth is more basic than unity, we must let the Bible itself inform us on what is basic and what is secondary.  Here are two obvious basics mentioned in scripture:

• The gospel message
  • Paul said this was "of first importance" (1 Corinthians 15:3)
  • Anyone delivering a different message is eternally condemned (Galatians 1:8)
• The responsibility of evangelism – the final command from our Lord – the great commission (Matthew 28:19-20)

While it may well be important to add other basic doctrines to those listed above (the inspiration of scripture, the trinity, the deity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith, etc.), it is also important to:

Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.  (Ephesians 4:2-3)

J.  Suggested reading sequence

In order to lay a foundation and then progress in a good sequence, we suggest that you read the following papers in the order listed below.

---

Bibliography

Reformation Era, 1500s

Erasmus, Desiderius, Freedom of the Will, 1524, published along with Luther's Bondage of the Will in the Barnes & Noble 2013 reprint of Discourse on Free Will

Luther, Martin, The Bondage of the Will, 1525, translated by Henry Cole, 1823, (Old Paths Gospel Press, 1931)

A response to Erasmus.  Available online at Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1536 (Eerdmans 1957 edition, translated by Henry Beveridge)

Available online at Bible Study Tools and at Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Calvin, John, Calvin's Commentaries, 22 volumes, (Baker Books, 1974)

Available online at Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Arminius, James, The Writings of James Arminius (Baker 1956 reprint, translated by Nichols and Bagnall)

Available online at Wesley Center Online and at Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Recent Era, 2000s

Hunt, Dave, What Love Is This? Calvinism's Misrepresentation of God, 3rd ed., (The Berean Call, 2006) 590 pages

Annotations on Hunt's book are found in the bibliography at the end of the paper Calvin and Arminius

Olson, C. Gordon, Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism: A Inductive Mediate Theology of Salvation, (Global Gospel Publishers, 2002) 538 pages

Annotations on Olson's book (as well as his less technical version of this book called Getting the Gospel Right) are found in the bibliography at the end of the paper Calvin and Arminius

Geisler, Norman L., Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of God's Sovereignty and Free Will, 3rd ed., Bethany House Publishers, 2010, 347 pages

Annotations on Geisler's book are found in the bibliography at the end of the paper Calvin and Arminius