The Doctrine of Predestination (Election)

A Survey of Different Approaches

I was asked by a friend about my view on election. The following is probably more than you were asking for; however, it does cover a broad overview of 9 different views regarding election.

One’s belief about election is a reflection of one's view of God, Christianity, and humanity. Election is prominent in both Old and New Testaments. To be elect simply means to be chosen. However, there is a range of what God’s choice of a person/people group could mean - it could be for a specific purpose, mission, or for salvation. Election, along with foreknowledge, free will, and reprobation, is a subset of the Doctrine of Predestination. Predestination is God's salvific plan for mankind.

The doctrine of predestination is 'the sum of the gospel because, of all the words that can be said or heard, it is the best: that God elects man and that God is for man as the One who loves in freedom.'¹ I will survey 9 viewpoints on the doctrine of predestination: Infralapsarianism, Supralapsarianism, Amyraldianism, Arminianism, Sovereign Election, Congruent Election, Lutheranism, Universal Reconciliation, and Corporate Election (not in any particular order). I will identify how each viewpoint defines predestination, foreknowledge, and election. I will highlight how they each order God's decrees regarding predestination and offer a short recap of their collective implications in the conclusion.

Infralapsarianism

The Canons of Dort are a response by John Calvin's followers to the Remonstrant's Five Articles. 'The First Head of Doctrine' outlines their views on divine election and reprobation. For infralapsarian Calvinists: God decrees Creation, the Fall, election of some fallen men to salvation, atonement for the elect only, and application of redemptive benefits to the elect. God in His good pleasure leaves the reprobate to their misery or permits them to follow their own way.² Ultimately, for this group, predestination is 'God’s choice of persons for eternal life or eternal death.'³ Election is the positive side of predestination although distinguished from Arminianism such that eleciton is ‘the sovereign act of God before the foundation of the earth by which he chooses a certain number of people to be the special objects of his grace resulting in their eternal salvation, not based on any foreseen merit or faith on their part but simply because of His good pleasure.’⁴ Foreknowledge means forelove, 'not that He knew what they would do, but rather whom He did foreknow (forelove).'⁵ R.C. Sproul expands, "From all eternity God foreknew his elect. He had an idea of their identities in his mind before he ever created them. He not only foreknew them in the sense of having a prior idea of their personal identities, but he also foreknew them in the sense of foreloving them."⁶ In regards to reprobation, God electing persons to damnation, Sproul describes double predestination as a ‘positive-negative, asymmetrical view of unequal ultimacy’ meaning God passes over the reprobate. The ‘positive-positive, symmetrical view of equal ultimacy,’ known as hyper-Calvinism, has God actively working unbelief in the reprobate.⁷

Supralapsarianism

Although not original to Theodore Beza, as Calvin's successor, the acknowledged champion of Genevan orthodoxy, and chief spokesman for Reformed Protestantism,⁸ he influenced the 'hardening' of Calvinism in respect to the doctrine of predestination.⁹ Supralapsarians have two different approaches however, the latter seems to reflect a consistency in pre-ordaining:

1. God decrees to elect some and reprobate others, God decrees Creation, the Fall, atonement for the elect only, and application of redemptive benefits for the elect,

2. God decrees to elect some and reprobate others, to apply the redemptive benefits for the elect, atonement for the elect only, the Fall, and Creation.¹⁰

Predestination is the eternal purpose of God's redemptive will and activity. Election is God's particular grace towards those He sovereignly foreknew (foreloved).

Amyraldianism

Amyraldianism, also known as four-point Calvinism, is responsible for passing down the famous adage, 'Christ's death was sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect.'¹¹ Amyraldianism is often referred to as 'hypothetical universalism' because it seeks to hold:

1. God's will for salvation to all (conditional by faith) with the unconditional saving of the elect, and

2. Christ's universal atonement and the particular effect of grace.¹²

God decrees Creation, the Fall, universal atonement, election to salvation of some while permitting reprobation in others, and the application of Christ's benefits to the elect.¹³ Foreknowledge is cognitive, meaning to know beforehand. Predestination is God's guidance of all events towards those destined for salvation. Election is God choosing individuals for salvation.

Classical Arminianism

There is a lot of overlap between Arminianism and Calvinism – God's sovereignty, man's total depravity, penal substitutionary view of atonement, and salvation by grace through faith alone. There are two major points of disagreement:

1. Arminians believe God's foreknowledge of the certainty of human action truly includes contingency; God allows the genuinely free acts of morally responsible persons¹⁴

2. Calvinists believe predestination precedes foreknowledge whereas Arminians believe foreknowledge precedes predestination.¹⁵

Jack Cottrell says the official Roman Catholic teaching is in line with Arminianism (which is why I will not discuss their view specifically).¹⁶ Foreknowledge, for the Arminian, is cognitive in nature. God foreknows the future actions of free creatures, God decrees Creation, atonement for all, salvation for the elect, and reprobation. Predestination is God's will to cause or determine 'the salvation of specific individuals to eternal life and the rest to eternal condemnation, based on his foreknowledge of their freewill responses to his law and to his grace.' Thus, election is the positive side of predestination, choosing individuals to salvation. The Neo-Arminianist limits foreknowledge to 'all that is possible to know,' resembling open theism. This is a manifestation of the tension between God's foreknowledge and the decree to still create the reprobate.

Sovereign Election

The Molinist uses elements of both the Arminian and Calvinist viewpoints through the concept of middle knowledge – God's knowledge of the counterfactuals. Kenneth Keathley calls this sovereign election. God decrees the Creation of this world with the wisdom of His foreknowledge of human free choices out of all possible worlds. Within that world, God decrees the Fall, atonement for all, salvation of the elect, damnation of the reprobate in a way that does not violate genuine human freedom nor make God the author of evil. As opposed to Calvinism in which God accomplishes His purposes through His omnipotence, in Molinism, God accomplishes His purposes through His omniscience.¹⁷ As opposed to Arminianism, in which God's foreknowledge is 'passive,' in Molinism, God's foreknowledge (knowing beforehand) is active among the many possibilities of free creatures.¹⁸ Predestination and election for the Molinist are the same as the Arminian, except that God is more active.

Congruent Election

The congruent election model centers on two main distinctions:

1. Recognizing the difference between an Abrahamic election (corporate) and salvation election (individual), and

2. Affirming the belief that foreknowledge means 'experience with eternally – from before eternity past and into eternity future.'¹⁹

Richard Land proclaims Calvinists interpret the doctrine of election with an ecclesiology that confuses Israel and the church, as well as conflating two differing types of election. This view also differs from the Arminian understanding of cognitive foreknowledge and prevenient grace. On the congruent view of election, the understanding of foreknowledge takes precedence in the schema for an individual's election to salvation. The elect's 'solicitous call' and the non-elect's 'sufficient call' are based upon God's 'punctiliar eternal now' experience that gives a fuller meaning to Him as 'fatherly' towards all men.²⁰ In other words, God experiences time in totality, meaning past, present, and future are all present to God.²¹ Therefore ‘foreknowledge’ in the ‘eternal now,’ is God experiencing in every moment the elect's response to His solicitous call, conviction, repentance, conversion, sanctification and glorification. As well as the non-elects sufficient call, rejection of the Spirit, hardened heart, and ultimate condemnation.²² In the totality of time, God 'foreknows,' creates, predestines, atones, calls, sanctifies and glorifies individuals.²³ Reprobation, similar to the Lutheran's and corporate view of election, is excluded in this view. The definition of predestination and election resemble the Arminians' view.

Lutheranism

The Lutheran position is often left out of the evangelical debate regarding predestination.²⁴ Jordan Cooper proclaims that the Lutheran's 'approach to predestination serves as a mediating view between both Calvinistic particularism and Arminian free will theology.' He sees the Lutheran position as providing a biblical approach that contains the Arminian's 'insistence of the universal nature of God’s saving will' while maintaining the Calvinist's 'contention that salvation occurs sola gratia.'²⁵ Predestination for the Lutheran is complex:

1. God decrees Creation,

2. God decrees 'Christ’s atonement [is] offered for every individual indiscriminately'

3. Individuals have free will except in regards to conversion,

4. The nature of Christ's intercession is a mystery in regards to a person's unbelief negating the reception of forgiveness, and

5. Election is a cause of faith that extends only to believers and 'has no reference to the rejection of grace on behalf of the reprobate.'²⁶

John Mueller attributes the antinomy between particular election and universal grace to mystery, concluding that it is beyond reason and is neither to be criticized nor explained because such would result in synergism or Calvinism.²⁷ Lutherans argue that election is conditional and God's grace is received by those who do not resist grace.²⁸ For the Lutheran, the purpose of predestination is giving ‘assurance to God’s people and to serve as a reminder that salvation comes sola gratia and is not an abstract discussion regarding God’s sovereignty’ (a shot across the bow at Calvinism).²⁹ The Formula of Concord (1584) states that foreknowledge is God knowing all things before they come to pass, extended 'both to good and evil men; but nevertheless it is not the cause of evil, nor is it the cause of sin, impelling man to crime.'³⁰ Predestination and election are synonyms referring to God procuring and appointing salvation for the children of God.³¹

Universal Reconciliation

God's love is the cornerstone, theologically and biblically, for universalists. The scriptures profess that God's love is not a mere attribute but the essence of who He is. Universalists like Thomas Talbott argue:

1. God's essential love is expressed to all persons completely and equally,

2. Love is inclusive in nature, binding persons together such that 'their purposes and interests, even the conditions of their happiness, are so logically intertwined as to be inseparable'

3. It is a logical impossibility for God to love unequally,

4. The doctrine of divine simplicity means that God is perfectly loving, compassionate, merciful and just to all persons including the non-elect, or else He be inconsistent,

5. God has foreknown (foreloved) all who will be predestined to His image by responding to human free choices toward a path that leads to the salvation of all.³²

Therefore, God decrees Creation and salvation for the whole human race. Talbott sees; predestination as the plan from the beginning in which, 'despite the many atrocities in human history, God never permits truly irreparable harm to befall any of his loved ones' through unconditionally electing (choosing) them to salvation.³³

Corporate Election

Those subscribing to a corporate view of God's plan for the salvation of humanity offer a unique biblical synopsis not seen in the other views. I will conveniently label these followers as 'corporatists.' Corporatists challenge the hyper-individualistic biblical hermeneutic for a more communal or corporate reading of the Scriptures (such as commonplace amongst Jewish persons historically). Corporatists believe:

1. God foreknows His people corporately (not in an elective sense but with a prescience and a special relationship).

2. God purposes to predestine his people (corporately) to be adopted into His family through Jesus.

3. God elects the corporate body of Christians.

4. God decrees Creation and atonement.

5. God applies salvation, marking individuals whom were foreknown and predestined as the corporate people of God.

Eric Hankins summarizes the corporatist view with five main trajectories that flow from the Old Testament's governance of election to the New Testament's: Election is covenantal, Christocentric, categorical, concurrent, and corporate.³⁴ In regard to reprobation, William Klein argues that corporatists do not have to deal with this conundrum, unlike the Calvinist, because 'Jesus will not cast out any who come to him; those who refuse to come to Jesus have only themselves to blame.'³⁵

Conclusion

Predestination is of the utmost importance because it reflects or influences one's understanding of free will, the authority of the scripture, the character of God, the doctrines of providence, man, sin, salvation, and the atonement. There are several implications that each camp wants to honor. Calvinists demand God be recognized as the Sovereign God that He is and given the glory He is due. Universalists argue that the character of God and Christianity's solidarity with humanity is at stake. Others want a God-honoring distance from God's character and any association with Him and evil or injustice. Most want the removal of any arbitrary elitism of an elect people group that leads to self-righteousness. While others want the fullness and magnificence of Christ's work to be most appreciated, specifically in His atoning work. However, all attempt to be faithful to God's Word and character.

There are four implications to draw from the various views discussed in this paper:

1. All viewpoints are monergistic; God initiates and completes predestination, salvation for humanity. This act by God should humble and unite humanity.

2. God uses means, including men, to execute His salvific purposes, such as evangelism and missions, and the doctrine of predestination only inspires those efforts.

3. God has created humanity for His glory and their good.

4. The doctrine of predestination is of the greatest encourage for believers who can be confident in God for the assurance of their salvation.

• Which view do you most closely align with? Why?

• How do you see the different views on election impacting our understanding of God's character and justice?

• How is the doctrine of predestination an encouragement to your walk with the Lord?

1. Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of God, Volume 2, Part2: The Election of God; The Command of God. London: T&T Clark, 2004. 3.

2. The Three Forms of Unity: Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, Canons of Dort. Mission Committee of the Protestant Reformed Churches of America, 1900. 82-83.

3. Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Baker Publishing Group. 841.

4. Davis, Andrew M., Barrett, Matthew M., Nettles, Thomas J. Whomever He Wills: A Surprising Display of Sovereign Mercy. Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2012. 41.

5. Ernest C. Reisinger. A Southern Baptist Looks at the Biblical Doctrine of Election. Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2000. 26.

6. Sproul, R. C. Chosen by God. Tyndale House Publishers, 1986. 137.

7. Sproul, Chosen by God. 142-143.

8. Sinclair B. Ferguson and J.I. Packer, New Dictionary of Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 91.

9. Cross, F. L. and Livingstone, Elizabeth A., eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. 199.

10. Jack W. Cottrell et al., Perspectives on Election: Five Views, ed. Chad Owen Brand (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2006), 177-178.

11. McGowan, Andrew T. B. “Amyraldianism,” The Dictionary of Historical Theology. Carlisle, Cumbria, U.K.: Paternoster Press, 2000. 13.

12. McGowan, “Amyraldianism,” 12.

13. Cottrell et al., Perspectives on Election, 164.

14. Picirilli, Robert E. Grace, Faith, Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism and Arminianism. Nashville, TN: Randall House Publications;Worldwide Ministries, 2002. 36-44.

15. Cottrell et al., Perspectives on Election, 108.

16. Cottrell et al., Perspectives on Election, 71.

17. Keathley, Kenneth. Salvation and Sovereignty : a Molinist Approach. Nashville, Tenn: B&H Academic, 2010. 155.

18. Keathley, Salvation and Sovereignty, 155.

19. Little, Bruce A., Jeremy A. Evans, R. Alan Streett, Malcolm B. Yarnell III, Kevin Dixon Kennedy, Kenneth Keathley, Richard D. Land, et al. Whosoever Will : A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism. B & H Academic, 2010. 53, 57.

20. Little et al. Whosoever Will, 59.

21. Little et al. Whosoever Will, 55

22. Little et al. Whosoever Will, 57-58.

23. Little et al. Whosoever Will, 56, 58.

24. Cooper, Jordan. The Great Divide: A Lutheran Evaluation of Reformed Theology. Wipf & Stock, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. 2015. 6.

25. Cooper, The Great Divide, 6.

26. Cooper, The Great Divide, 47, 11, 54, 51, 13, 16.

27. Mueller, John Theodore, and Pieper, Franz. Christian Dogmatics : A Handbook of Doctrinal Theology for Pastors, Teachers, and Laymen. Concordia publishing house, 1934.177.

As does Cooper, "Though there is no logical solution to the dilemma of God’s active role in election and his non-involvement in reprobation, this paradox reflects New Testament teaching. God’s will is mysterious, and one must not go beyond the biblical testimony regarding the subject in an attempt to harmonize two truths which are seemingly in tension with one another." Cooper, The Great Divide, 20.

28. Cooper, The Great Divide, 8.

29. Cooper, The Great Divide, 13.

30. Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical Notes: The Evangelical Protestant Creeds, with Translations, vol. 3. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1882. 166.

31. Cooper, The Great Divide, 12.

32. Cottrell et al., Perspectives on Election, 216, 218, 220, 224

33. Cottrell et al., Perspectives on Election, 256.

34. Allen, David., Hankins, Eric., Harwood, Adam. Anyone Can Be Saved: A Defense of “Traditional” Southern Baptist Soteriology. Wipf & Stock, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. 93-97.

35. Klein, William W. The New Chosen People, Revised and Expanded Edition: A Corporate View of Election. Wipf & Stock, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. 297