The doctrine of election concerns God’s plan and
purpose, worked out before the creation of the world, to save condemned sinners
and reconcile them to himself through Christ.
In the Thirty-Nine Articles, which form part of the doctrinal basis of
the Church of England, the statement on predestination and election is one of
the longest. The language is at points
unfamiliar, but worth careful reading.
The main part of the Article reads as follows:
Article XVII |
Of Predestination and Election
Predestination to Life is the
everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were
laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from
curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to
bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour.
Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called
according to God’s purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through
Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption:
they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk
religiously in good works, and at length, by God’s mercy, they attain to
everlasting felicity (happiness).
There are many important questions and issues associated with this
doctrine. For example:
- is election conditional, based on God’s foresight of
a person’s response to the gospel, or unconditional,
based entirely in God’s sovereign will?
- if election is unconditional, how does it differ from
pagan determinism – the idea that everything in life is pre-set
and fore-ordained, and we are powerless to change things?
- is election active, being God’s sovereign
determination to save some, or passive,
being simply God’s sanction of a person’s decision to trust in Christ?
- is election single, i.e., election to eternal life,
or double, election to eternal life
and to eternal death (the doctrine of reprobation)?
Is election conditional or unconditional?
One way that debates on the doctrine of election are often framed
compares a ‘Calvinist’ and ‘Arminian’ position.
These labels take their cue from the names of two 16th century
theologians, John Calvin and James Arminius.
John Calvin (1509-1564) was a French theologian, who spent a lot
of time ministering in Geneva, Switzerland.
One of Calvin’s great abilities was to complement exegetical study of
the Scriptures with systematic and doctrinal thinking. His Institutes of the Christian Religion
continues to exert a strong influence on all branches of Reformed theology
(theology that is descended from the Protestant Reformation). People often refer to the ‘five points of Calvinism’
as a summary of the main areas of his doctrine, which are sometimes remembered using
the mnemonic ‘tulip’: Total depravity, Unconditional election,
Limited atonement, Irresistible
grace, and Perseverance of the saints.
Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609) was a Dutch theologian who served at the
University of Leiden. He disputed
Calvinist views on predestination and election, limited atonement, and the
bondage of the sinner’s will. He reacted
particularly against the double predestination view of some who followed
Calvin. His views challenged the then
standard Reformed doctrinal statement, the Belgic Confession. At the later Synod of Dort, the five points
of Calvinism were formulated, largely in response to Arminius’ teaching.
In debates on election, the chief point of
comparison between the two positions concerns the distinction between
conditional (Arminian) and unconditional (Calvinist) election.
Calvin writes: ‘We call
predestination God’s eternal decree, by which he compacted with himself what he
willed to become of each man. For all
are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is foreordained for
some, eternal damnation for others.
Therefore, as any man has be created to one or the other of these ends,
we speak of him as predestined to life or to death.’ (Institutes, Book III, Ch. XXI, Pt. 5). Or again: ‘we
say that God once established by his eternal and unchangeable plan those whom
he long before determined once for all to receive into salvation, and those
whom, on the other hand, he would devote to destruction.’ (Institutes, Book III, Ch. XXI, Pt. 7). In other words, Calvin understood election to
be entirely unconditional, based solely on God’s sovereign decree.
Arminius taught that God had established four principal decrees
regarding salvation: first, focussing on the election of Jesus Christ to be the
Saviour of mankind; second, concerning that there would be a people of God who
adhered to this way of salvation and be saved; third, about the provision of prevenient grace (grace that goes before
us, to prepare us for responding to the gospel); and fourth, the election of
individuals on the basis of foreknowledge regarding their response to the
gospel. In other words, Arminius
understood election to be conditional, based on God’s foreknowledge of a
person’s response to the gospel, as enabled by his general prevenient
grace. He also taught single election,
election to eternal life. Those who
receive eternal punishment are those who, by rejecting the gospel, have spurned
God’s general prevenient grace.
What view of mankind does one’s view of
election presuppose?
It is almost impossible to consider a doctrine,
such as the doctrine of election, in isolation from other doctrines. One area of doctrine that has a huge impact
on one’s understanding of election is the doctrine of sin. Just as the doctrine of election can be framed
as a choice between Calvinist and Arminian theology, the doctrine of sin can be
framed in terms of Augustinian or Pelagian (or Semi-Pelagian) thinking. These labels also take their cue from
important theologians, though much earlier than Calvin and Arminius.
Augustine of Hippo (354-430) is regarded as one of the most
important early theologians. Although he
wrote in many areas of theology, his thinking about sin and the state of sinful
man is particularly significant.
Augustine argued that with the fall, mankind lost his ability to do good
apart from God’s grace (i.e., mankind is both corrupt and powerless). For
Augustine, doing good was something only the redeemed could do, and this
redemption only came through the work of God’s unmerited grace.
Pelagius was a moral teacher in Rome in the late 4th
century. He taught that mankind retained
genuine freewill, and was, therefore, able to take the required steps towards
salvation by his own efforts, apart from special grace. Semi-Pelagianism was a development of this
doctrine that regarded the views of both Pelagius and Augustine to be extreme
and incorrect. It is a position that
sees salvation as a co-operative work between divine grace and human will: man,
who retains elements of free will, begins the work of salvation by taking steps
towards God, which God then brings to fullness through the work of his
grace. According to Semi-Pelagianism,
therefore, when the Bible refers to predestination it is simply talking about
God’s foreknowledge.
Returning to the question of conditional and
unconditional election, one’s view of election nearly always builds on a
particular understanding of man:
- an Arminian view of conditional election
builds on a Semi-Pelagian view of sinful man, and contradicts the teaching of
Scripture with respect to both the state of sinful man and God’s election
- a
Calvinist view of unconditional election builds on an Augustinian view of
sinful man, and faithfully captures the teaching of Scripture with respect to
both the state of sinful man (e.g., Eph 2:1-3) and God’s election (e.g., Eph
1:3-14)
Therefore, it is right to affirm that election is unconditional,
based entirely in God’s sovereign will, and not at all dependent upon God’s
foresight of a person’s response to the gospel. Accordingly, the apostle Paul teaches in Rom 9:11-12 that, ‘before the twins [Jacob and Esau]
were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in
election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she [Rebekah] was told,
“The older will serve the younger.”'
Is election single or double?
As with many questions, it depends what is meant by the question. At least three broad positions can be
identified:
- The quotations
from Calvin’s Institutes, given
above, reveal that Calvin seems to have taught double predestination, in the
sense that God determined some for salvation and some for destruction; that
eternal life is foreordained for some and eternal damnation for others. In other words, for both those who are saved
and those who are judged, God actively determined, in eternity past, their
eternal destiny. Some have disputed this
understanding of Calvin, suggesting that such a strong view of double
predestination only came later, with those who followed him. (I.e., they suggest there is a difference between what Calvin taught and what 'Calvinism' teaches.) Whether this is true or not is debated. However, a double predestination view where
God actively determines some for salvation and others for damnation is the
strongest position that can be taken. The chief difficulty with such a view is the questions it raises
concerning God’s fairness and purpose in creating some to be eternally
condemned.
- A slightly less
confronting position on predestination is to affirm that God predestines some
to salvation, and the condemnation of the rest is simply a result of God’s
non-predestining them. In other words,
God elects some for salvation, and the rest he simply passes by, without
electing them. The chief difficulty with
this position is logical: can God really be thought of as doing something by
default? Doesn’t such an understanding
of God’s work threaten any assertion of his genuine sovereignty?
- Yet a third position
of predestination/election is to follow the lead of the Thirty-Nine Articles
and make a bold assertion of God’s election concerning the saved, while
remaining basically silent on the relationship of God’s sovereignty concerning
the condemned. The chief difficulty with
this position is that it begs the question about God’s predestining of those
who face condemnation.
All three positions, however, have important elements of theological
truth. The benefit of the first is that,
whilst it raises difficult questions concerning our understanding of God’s
character, it safeguards God’s absolute sovereignty in all things. The benefit of the second is that it reflects
the kind of asymmetry that exists in relation to God’s sovereignty towards the
saved and those who are condemned. The
benefit of the third is that it presents the doctrine positively as teaching
for God’s people, in order to build their assurance and keep them humble, which
is the chief way that Scripture teaches the doctrine.
The asymmetry of God’s election with respect to
the saved and the condemned
Remembering that doctrines cannot be studied in
isolation, it is important to recognise that the Bible does not teach the
doctrine of reprobation (that God predestines some to eternal damnation) in the
same manner that it affirms the doctrine of election to eternal life. The chief reason for this seems to be the interaction
between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility – in this case, our human
responsibility for sin and rebellion. To
put it simply, the eternal salvation of some through Christ according to God’s
unconditional election is all of grace, and therefore in spite of human sin and rebellion; the eternal damnation of the
many is all of justice, and therefore fully
consistent with a holy God’s response to human sin and rebellion. The first is merciful; the second is just. Also, since the Scriptures are chiefly
addressed to God’s people, the first features more prominently in both Old and
New Testaments, as a means of building assurance among God’s people, and as a
means of keeping them humble with regard to their status as God’s people.
However, acknowledging that the relationship of
God’s sovereignty to the saved is different to the relationship of God’s
sovereignty to the condemned does not mean that God’s sovereignty is in any way
reduced with regard to those who face condemnation. The Bible permits no such shift. It simply recognises that the two
relationships are presented differently, on account of the deserving effects of
sin, and the overcoming effects of God’s mercy. Understanding this point is crucial if we are
to give any useful answers to the complaints of injustice that arise almost
instinctively whenever the doctrine of unconditional election is taught. It is also what prevents a biblical view of
unconditional election falling into pagan determinism.
What about Romans 9? Doesn’t it teach double predestination?
Romans 9 is often regarded as the place where a doctrine of double
predestination is most clearly taught in the Scriptures. Supporters of such a view cite the following:
- the language of
‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated’ (9:13)
- the emphasis on
God ‘hardening’ Pharaoh’s heart (9:17-18)
- the potter’s
right to make from the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and
some for common use (9:21)
- the teaching that
some have been ‘prepared for destruction’ (9:22-25)
The following responses can be given:
- the language of
‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated’ (Rom 9:13)
Paul cites this text from Mal 1:2-3 in order to support his
teaching that a) ‘not all who are
descended from Israel are Israel. Nor
because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children’ (Rom 9:6-7),
and b) God unconditionally
elected Jacob (Rom 9:10-12).
As part of Paul’s developing argument, therefore, the emphasis is
on the un-deservedness (considering his later moral character) and
unexpectedness (considering he was not the firstborn) of Jacob’s election,
rather than on God’s election of Esau to condemnation. To use the verse in such a way actually reverses
Paul’s emphasis.
- the emphasis on
God ‘hardening’ Pharaoh’s heart (Rom 9:17-18)
To an initial enquiry concerning God’s justice (Rom 9:14), Paul
cites Ex 33:19 – ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have
compassion on whom I will have compassion’.
Extraordinarily, God made this statement at the height of Moses’
intercession when Israel made and worshipped a golden calf. If ever there was a time for God’s just
judgment against deserving sinners, this was it! Yet God’s acceptance of Moses’ mediation and
his forgiveness of Israel was a clear demonstration that ‘It does not,
therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy’ (Rom 9:15).
Then, in Rom 9:17, Paul cites Ex 9:16, where God says to Pharaoh:
‘I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you
and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.’ God makes this statement after he has just
told Pharaoh that, ‘by now I could have stretched out my hand and struck you
and your people with a plague that would have wiped you off the earth’ (Ex
9:15). God is speaking here not simply
of his power and ability to do such a thing, but also of the fact that had he
done such a thing, it would have been completely just. In other words, Pharaoh, too, like Israel, is
a clear example of a deserving sinner who ought to face God’s just judgment. This fits well with the progression of ideas
in Exodus which starts with Pharaoh’s heart becoming hard (7:13, 22), then
refers to Pharaoh’s heart being hard or Pharaoh hardening his heart (7:14; 8:15,
19, 32; 9:7, 34, 35), and only finally to God hardening Pharaoh’s heart (9:12;
10:1, 20, 27).
Paul concludes (Rom 9:18) by observing that ‘God has mercy on whom
he wants to have mercy’, speaking of Israel, ‘and he hardens whom he wants to
harden’, speaking of Pharaoh. Putting it
all together, the Old Testament texts that Paul uses seem to be drawing out a
point discussed previously: that there is a difference in the relationship between
God’s sovereignty and human responsibility in salvation to the relationship
between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility in judgment. In both cases, God is absolutely sovereign –
he either has mercy or he hardens. In
both cases, God’s judgment is justly deserved, and therefore human
responsibility is genuine. But God’s
sovereignty in salvation is in spite of God’s judgment being justly deserved;
it overcomes the deserving effects of sin.
It is, therefore, a matter of mercy, which is the emphasis of Rom
9:14-16.
- the potter’s
right to make from the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and
some for common use (Rom 9:21)
Paul’s ‘illustration of the potter and the clay is the second part
of his response to the objection that man cannot surely be blamed (Rom
9:19). The first part of his response
comes in Rom 9:20, and concerns the impropriety of a man talking back to God,
of the one who was formed complaining to the one who formed him. Then in Rom 9:21, Paul considers the same
point from God’s perspective: ‘Does not the potter have the right …?’. In other words, Paul’s point in these verses,
and his use of the potter-and-clay illustration, is to defend God’s right to
act sovereignly, and the importance of mankind accepting his place as ‘not
God’, but rather a creature that God has made.
Even with this in place, however, the illustration must be kept as
it is and not pressed. For those who use
this passage to support double predestination, the element of Paul’s
illustration that is equivalent to the reprobate is those pieces of pottery
that have been made for ‘common use’.
But notice that this is what Paul says: they have been made for common
use, not for reprobation or destruction.
- the teaching that
some have been ‘prepared for destruction’ (9:22-25)
In Rom 9:22-29, Paul brings to a conclusion the first main part of
his teaching in chs.9-11. Having just
argued in 9:19-21) that God has sovereign rights, simply because he is God, and
that humans don’t have some rights, simply because they are creatures, Paul now
provides a reason that God has acted in the way that he has.
With respect to the wicked (9:22), he has born with great patience
those who deserve his wrath and judgment, in order to show his wrath and make
his power known. This could virtually be
a commentary on God’s dealings with Pharaoh in Exodus, to which Paul has
already referred in 9:17 – God could justly have wiped him off the face of the
earth, but he patiently bore with Pharaoh, so that when his judgment eventually
fell, his wrath would be shown and his power made known. With respect to those made for noble purposes
(9:23), he has done it to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of
his mercy, which he goes on to show includes now through the gospel, both Jews
and Gentiles (9:23-24).
The NIV describes both groups similarly – one is ‘prepared
for destruction’, the other is ‘prepared in advance for glory’. Although this could be taken as support for
double predestination, it is significant that Paul uses different verbs to
describe both of these ‘preparations’.
Given the broader argument of the chapter, this is not what we would
probably expect, had Paul intended the two preparations to be viewed
identically.
Three final comments on the argument of Rom 9
1. With respect to single vs. double predestination, the argument
of Romans 9 maintains each of the truths contained in the three positions
identified previously. It affirms God’s
active sovereignty and absolute freedom to act (position 1). It upholds the asymmetry of God’s sovereignty
in relation to the salvation of some and the condemnation of others (position
2). It puts forward God’s election as a
comforting teaching for God’s people (position 3).
2. For those who wish to reject a Calvinist position and argue for
a conditional view of election, one factor that needs explanation is
that the usual objections to
the Calvinist position (about God’s fairness and justice, and whether men can
be held accountable if God has predestined everything) are precisely the objections
that Paul deals with in Romans 9. An
Arminian understanding of election does not lead to these same objections. Implicitly, this suggests that the Calvinist
understanding is correct.
3. In Rom 9, the emphasis is largely on the sovereignty of God in
election, as a proof that the present status of Israel should not be taken as
an indication that God’s word has failed (9:6).
As discussed earlier, however, doctrines cannot be properly understood
when taken in isolation. So in Rom 9:30-10:21,
Paul places alongside his teaching on God’s sovereignty in election his
teaching on human responsibility, expressed in Israel’s rejection of the gospel
that was preached to them (9:31-33; 10:16-18), and in the Gentiles’ acceptance
of the gospel that was preached to them (9:30).
Conclusions concerning single or double
predestination
The challenge of using these labels is that they
can mean different things to different people.
Also, it is inherently difficult to reduce the Bible’s teaching on what
is a very complex doctrine down to a two-word summary. However, the following conclusions are an
attempt to reflect both biblical teaching and some of the important theological
positions on this debate:
- since God’s active sovereignty is complete, he is
certainly actively sovereign over the eternal destinies of both the saved and
those who face condemnation
- God’s sovereignty with respect to the saved is
marked by mercy and compassion, and overcomes the deserving effects of sin; his
sovereignty with respect to those who are condemned is marked by justice and is
fully consistent with the deserving effects of sin
- the Scriptures show a
sustained emphasis on God’s gracious election of his people to salvation, to
build their confidence and lead them to humility
