The Biblical Doctrine of Election

1 The Biblical Doctrine of Election By: Bishop Barrington C. Hibbert, PhD Introduction The doctrine of election has been a subject that has occupied the thinking of many for many years, and with good reason; nothing less than our eternal destiny depends on it. Both the Old and New Testament affirm the concept of election. F. H. Klooster identifies five kinds of elections found in Scripture; (1) reference to his elect angels (1 Timothy 5:21); (2) election to service or office in God’s choice of David as king of Israel (1 Samuel 16:7-12) and Jesus choosing of the disciples and apostles (Luke 6:13; John 6:70); (3) the election of Abraham’s descendants to form the nation of Israel (Deuteronomy 4:37; 7:6-7; 10:15; 1 Kings 3:8; Isaiah 44:1-2; 45:4; 65:9); (4) the election of the Messiah (Isaiah 42:1); and (5) election to salvation. The doctrine of election is of importance to theologians of all stripes. For whether one believes in human freedom in choosing the offer of salvation as do Arminians, or in a strict form of election as Calvinists adherents do, it is recognized that God is sovereign and has the right to elect, or predestine persons for salvation. So whether or not God, by his foreknowledge of what one will do, chooses one for salvation, or whether he elects one without regard for the choice one will make in the future, the subject of election looms large in theological discourse. Karl Barth argues that election “must take precedence over every doctrine except Christology—it is the ultimate “divine self-determination” that frames the entirety of dogmatics, indeed, the entirety of the biblical revelation.” So for Barth, theological discourse is of little value unless we consider the subject of divine election. From the doctrine of redemption (Soteriology) to the doctrine of last things (eschatology) divine election forms the backbone of one’s understanding of God’s redemptive program in Christ. Yet despite the importance of this doctrine, or perhaps because of its importance, it is not without its detractors. Robert Hann argues that even some Reformed Christians have become uneasy with the doctrine of election. Hann cites two main objections to the doctrine. First, some object to the notion that God would choose some for special treatment, because this seems contrary to human understanding of "fair play." And, second, when “election came increasingly to be discussed in terms of God’s decrees before creation, and the fates of both the saved and the lost were thought to be equally the direct outcome of the will of God,” this became uncomfortable for many even within their Reformed Christian tradition. The argument is that if God already decree from before the creation of the world who should be saved, and who should be lost, then what is the whole point about grace, forgiveness, the preaching of the gospel, or even church membership, for that matter? Hann points out that the earlier Reformed confessions contain a more satisfactory approach to election. He observes that one example is the Second Helvetic Confession of 1566, which quotes Ephesians 1:4 and affirms that election is not based on God’s decrees nor to reprobation but to Christ: “God has elected us, not directly, but in Christ, and on account of Christ.. Let Christ, therefore, be the looking glass, in whom we may contemplate our predestination.” This early approach to election which sees our election in Christ, and on account of Christ, makes room for the centrality of the preaching of the gospel. This earlier approach says Hann, does not relegate election to a “side issue to Christian theology but an essential part of the way salvation is applied to the believer.” The doctrine of election, no matter the arguments and controversies that may surround it, is an important matter worthy of our keenest attention. 2 Thesis Statement This paper will be guided by the proposition that God’s election of us is unconditional, irrevocable, individual and corporate, and includes both Jews and Gentiles. The Research Question To what extent can biblical support be found for unconditional, irrevocable, individual and corporate election of both Jews and Gentiles? The Doctrine of Election Defined It is clear from the amount of attention the subject of divine election has received that it is important to Christian belief and conduct. But how is election defined? Chapter III, Item 3 of the Westminster Confession of Faith states: “By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.” Chapter 8 of the Scottish Confession of Faith states: “For that same Eternal God and Father, who of mere grace elected us in Christ Jesus his Son, before the foundation of the world was laid, [1] appointed him to be our Head, [2] our Brother,[3] our Pastor, and great Bishop of our souls.” According to Klooster election is defined as “the unchangeable purpose of God whereby, before the foundation of the world, out of the whole human race, which has fallen by its own fault out of its original integrity into sin and ruin, he has, according to the most free good pleasure of his will, out of mere grace, chosen in Christ to salvation a certain number of specific men, neither better nor more worthy than others, but with them involved in a common misery.” This definition is a distilled version of that contained in the Canons of Dort, and demonstrates that our election is initiated by God alone. By contrast the traditional Arminian view on election is the polar opposite of the Reformed view. Earle Ellis states that the Arminians argue that each one in one's 'free agency' chooses to accept or to reject Christ. The Arminian view amounts to conditional election. While John Wesley, an Arminian, agreed with Calvin that salvation is by grace, how that is applied differ quite a bit from John Calvin who held that God unconditionally elects those he has determined from before the foundation of the world to be saved. But perhaps the best definition of election came from the Bible itself. For example, Jesus told his disciples “You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit” (John 15:16). We observe from the pen of the apostle Paul that we blessed with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ; that God’s election of us was before the foundation of the world; that God predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself (Eph 1:3-5). As has been made clear, not everyone is in agreement with this view. In the Arminian view the idea of human freedom is pushed to the point where it would appear that man’s freedom overrides God’s choice. Election Based on Foreknowledge All sides in the divine election debate agree that salvation is by God’s grace because it is recognized that no one can save himself. It takes the finished work of Christ on the cross to bring about salvation. But how is election to be conceived? Gerald McDermott states that Wesley for example, agreed with Calvin that salvation is by grace, but when Wesley affirms this he meant a “free will supernaturally restored to every man, not just to the elect.” Wesley rejected Calvin’s notion of unconditional election. He preferred the idea that God’s salvation of us is based on the condition of faith which he sees from all eternity. According to this view, God does elect, but such election is conditioned on a person’s faith and free will. 3 Todd Mangum offers that an Arminian doctrine of redemption regards the atonement as universal. In this view the work of the Spirit is to draw a person to God. According to Mangum, Arminianism holds that since Christ’s atonement on behalf of everyone (universal atonement) humans are in a very good standing with God from a redemptive standpoint, so that the likelihood is that humans “will be eternally accepted by God unless they reject the abundant mercy he has displayed and continues to display towards them.” So, according to this view, while Christ atonement is universal, its application depends, not on God’s sovereign choice of individuals to be saved, but on man’s acceptance or rejection. Gary Shultz quotes Milliard Erickson as saying: “Christ died for all persons, but his atoning death becomes effective only when accepted by the individual.” Election Based on God’s Sovereign Will By contrast, Calvinism, or the Reformed tradition teaches that salvation is by divine unconditional election, and not a result of human choice. Robert Picirilli observes that human freedom is “entirely subject to God's government of all things for the accomplishing of his will.” This does not mean that in all things God dictates our actions, because as God’s image bearers mankind is free to make real moral choices and are responsible for such choices. Nevertheless, because of man’s fallen state he is incapable of any good that would justify him before God, or of responding in faith to the offer of salvation in Jesus Christ. Therefore, God’s election of those to be saved is not only unconditional, but even one’s response to this offer of salvation is a gracious act of God. Thomas Schreiner summarizes the Calvinistic view on election by saying that Calvinists cite Romans 9 as evidence to bolster their doctrine of divine election.

Load more