Views of Election and Predestination
by Wesley Wilson
When most people explain the doctrines of election and predestination in the Bible, they present either the traditional Calvinist view or the traditional Arminian view. Both views explain certain of the truths contained in Scripture, but both, as they are most commonly explained today, fail to explain other truths. As in science, the theory that best matches the evidence—in this case the Bible—is the most accurate theory.
The Calvinist View
The Calvinist view of election holds that God sovereignly elected, chose, or predestinated certain individuals before the foundation of the world to be saved. He chose to show mercy on those people, the elect, and on them only. This election was unconditional, because it was based on nothing these blessed individuals had done or would ever do. Because God has predestinated His elect, they cannot escape His salvation. God's grace is irresistible. Furthermore, Christ must have died to save only those people. God would be unjust, the theory states, to punish sins for which the blood of Christ atoned. Thus Christ's atonement is limited to the elect. Finally, if God's grace is irresistible, nothing can make a person fall from that grace. Those who are truly God's elect will persevere in the faith and will be eternally secure. So the Calvinist view of election binds together the U, L, I, and P of the Calvinist TULIP, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saints.
The Traditional Arminian View
The traditional Arminian view of election holds that God sovereignly decreed before the foundation of the world that "whosoever will may come." God chose to save every individual who would respond to His grace. His mercy is offered to all. This election is conditional upon the individual's response. Thus it is possible to resist the grace of God, and it is possible to fall from that grace after a genuine conversion by rejecting it through sin. Those who persevere in the faith will be saved.
Flaws in both views
Unconditional election is the strongest disputed point of Calvinism. (Total depravity is the strongest point, but Arminians hold to it as firmly as Calvinists. The perseverance of the saints is another point of practical agreement, although it is viewed in different ways.) Calvinists can show convincingly from Romans 9 that God's election is not based on anything those who were chosen did. "(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)" (verse 11). "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." (verse 16). So conditional election is the weakest point of the traditional Arminian view. Other points of Calvinism are more easily refuted, but we are focusing on election. The primary problem of the Calvinist view of election is that it denies that God "will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (I Tim. 2:4). By choosing certain people to be saved, God by default sends all others to hell, without a chance of redemption.
The National Election View
A third, less common view lies firmly within the Arminian camp. The nation of Israel was God's chosen people in the Old Testament. Certainly they were not all saved. "The soul that sinneth, it shall die," in Ezekiel was clearly a warning to the house of Israel. Romans 9 is a blueprint of how God chose, or elected, the elect. In short, God chose nations, or people groups. For a time, Israel was God's elect. When Christ brought a new, "better covenant," all people, both Jews and Gentiles, became His chosen, or elect, people. The "grace of God. . . appeared to all men." Thus the national, or corporate, election view holds that election is indeed unconditional, but in all other respects it agrees with the traditional Arminian view.
A Closer Look at Romans 9
Does Romans 9 really support the national election view? The first five verses tell Paul's sorrow for the Israelites, who have received many blessings from God. He then shows that not all descendants of the patriarchs received these blessings. For example, the promises to Abraham were fulfilled through Isaac, not Ishmael, and through Jacob, not Esau. These blessings were sovereignly determined by God, not based on any deeds of those He chose to bless. It was "not of him that willeth"—Isaac intended to give Esau the blessing—"nor of him that runneth"—Esau ran to get venison to receive his father's blessing—"but of God that sheweth mercy." In verse 15, Paul quotes God's declaration to Moses when He offered to destroy the rest of the children of Israel and fulfill his promises through Moses' descendants: "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion."
We notice first that these choices for blessing were totally arbitrary and unconditional. Second, each example given—Abraham and Isaac, Isaac and Jacob, and Moses—deals not with personal salvation, but with the group of people whom God would bless above all other groups.
Then Paul deals with the accusation against God of unfairness. He shows that God chose, elected, or predestinated the people of Israel to "make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles." He quotes Hosea's and Isaiah's prophecies that the Gentiles would become the people of God. He concludes that the Gentiles "have attained to righteousness," but Israel did not.
In short, God, before the foundation of the world, elected the nation of Israel to be His people until the coming of Christ, after which the Gentiles are also His elect. Thus He fulfilled his promise to Abraham that "In thee shall all nations be blessed." (Gen. 12:3; 22:18; Gal. 3:8).
For a more thorough discussion of the election of nations, see Adam Clarke's Commentary, especially on the book of Romans.
For a concise explanation of the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism, see "What is an Arminian?" by John Wesley.