Election
I. Election is a Biblical doctrine.
a. Eph. 1:4-6
b. 2 Tim. 1:9.
c. Romans 8:28-30
d. Therefore, to deny predestination/election is to deny scripture itself.
e. It is a Biblical word and term.
f. Our understanding of what it election means is what differs.
g. All are orthodox positions covered. Whatever you hold, hold humbly without getting
upset when you are challenged. Unfortunately, in this debate Arminians get upset and
Calvinists get arrogant. You want to avoid both extremes!
II. How does God predestine us?
a. The two most popular are Calvinism and Arminianism.
b. A Calvinist sees that God chose his elect out to demonstrate his grace. Knowing that
eventually the ‘elect’ would become saved.
c. An Arminian would say “on the contrary, God chose us when he saw that we were going
to choose him.” In other words, God bases his election upon knowledge.
d. Let’s look at both sides’ main points.
III. Calvinism-5 Points
a. Total Depravity- We are totally in sin and won’t choose God left to our own devices.
b. Unconditional Election-God chose his elect from eternity to be in relation to him.
c. Limited Atonement-Christ’s substitutionary atonement is effective for the sins of the
elect only.
d. Irresistible Grace-God’s grace and calling overcomes all of the elect’s inhibitions towards
the gospel to being saved.
e. Perseverance of the Saints-All those who God has chosen will remain in him to the end.
f. Pros- Makes much of God’s sovereign will and power.
i. Makes sense of human nature and sin (Romans 1-3).
ii. Takes certain scriptures seriously at their face value. (Rom. 8:28-30)
g. Cons-
i. Seems as if evangelism is not necessary since it is all God.
1. They would answer, on the contrary, it is our reason to evangelize since
God has appointed that some (the elect) will respond. But it seems like
it could be begging the question.
ii. Makes God seem unfair not offering salvation to some but not all.
1. They answer the fair thing would be for God to not save anybody citing
Romans 9:20-24. (I think they answer this objection well).
iii. Seems as if humans do not have a free will.
1. Answer-Need to define what you mean by human freedom. In what
sense are we free? Free in the sense that we make choices in our own
will. However, our infinitely wise and powerful God can work through
our choices. Therefore, this preserves our ability to choose willingly yet
God’s ordaining those decisions.
2. Is this right though? Are we still responsible since God ordained these
choices?
3. The Bible certainly teaches that we are responsible for our choices (John
3:18)
4. Responsibility for choices is a tough objection for them to answer.
Grudem, acknowledges that choices are important and that unbelievers
stand condemned because of them. Claims that this is a mystery.
iv. What about those verses about everyone being saved?
1. 1Timothy 2:4.
2. God desires for all to be saved. Yes! But just because God desires
something does not mean he is offer salvation to all.
3. God has great sorrow over those who are not saved.
4. Seems to honor their choice to not be with him.
5. God shows much grace to all. Sunshine, food, clothing, governing
institutions, etc. God delays his judgment and allows all (believers and
unbelievers) to enjoy his grace.
IV. Arminianism.
a. Free will/human ability-We have the ability to choose God. Basket analogy. Enables all
to choose him but honors our choice. Each sinner has the ability to choose God.
i. Fits nicely with our sense of justice and fairness.
b. Conditional Election- God’s choice and election was based upon his seeing how we
would respond to his call.
c. Universal atonement- Jesus died to save all on the condition that they choose to believe
in Jesus’ substitutionary atonement.
d. Holy Spirit is resistible- Humans can resist the work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit
can cause regeneration after we respond in faith to Jesus’ work.
e. Falling from grace (some)-, you can lose your salvation through failing to keep up your
faith.
f. Pros-Makes much of all of mankind’s ability to choose.
i. Makes sense of the ‘world’ passages and Jesus dying for all (John 3:16).
ii. Fits our notions of justice better.
g. Cons-Seems to make God incompetent.
i. Seems to ignore the plain meaning of certain passages (Romans 8:28-30).
ii. Can make too much of our ability to choose and little of sin.
V. My understanding-
a. I hold a mixture of both views and try to hold them both. It seems that if I error on one
side God is a wimp and the other that God is a bully. In some way, I think both have
elements of truth.
b. I hold a position called Molinism which holds the following.
i. God is maximally great and good God would create a maximally great and good
universe.
ii. To have great potential for good, we must also have a great potential for evil.
Free will.
iii. Out of all the possible worlds God could have created, he created one that was
maximally good and great fully knowing what free creatures would do in the
universe in their particular circumstances. He either wills unconditionally for
positive things to occur so wills that they occur. However, there are things he
does not desire but permits them to allow creaturely freedom knowing that
these sinful acts will fit into the overall scheme of things so that God’s ultimate
ends are accomplished.
iv. Therefore, he created a universe in which the maximal number of free creatures
would choose him and ordained circumstances to bring them to saving
knowledge. So we were both predestined yet it was our choice.
c. So I believe in both human ability and unconditional election, perseverance of the saints
(once saved-always saved), total depravity, Holy Spirit working in all but resistible yet
God knows who will choose him, still works in all, and makes salvation available to all.
d. Kind of complicated I know. But it strikes me that both have elements of truth in some
mysterious way.