Responsibility Amidst Sovereignty

A Look At Compatibalism

Within modern evangelicalism we often talk about a concept referred to as “free will.” Most presentations of the Gospel today are loaded with this notion of an autonomous human will. A will that is free to act and choose according to one’s own desires without any cause directing those choices. As a Calvinist, it is clear that every plot of history finds it origins in the Sovereign God. Yet, it is also equally clear that man is a responsible agent. The question is obvious. How does divine sovereignty work with human responsibility?

The term “free will” does exist within Calvinism, just not in the moral sense. We are totally depraved creatures and therefore do not possess a “free will” in the common/modern sense. Because of Adam’s transgressions, all men have inherited a sinful nature (Ro. 5:12). The corruption of the fall left man deep in his sin and separated from God. Not only is our standing before God effected, but our mind is also affected and is hostile to God (Ro. 8:7). Because of this hostility of our minds we cannot submit to God. This is what constitutes our complete inability as depraved creatures.

Although we do not have a moral free will, we are still responsible for our actions. Our responsibility is held alongside God’s sovereignty. Both are true. This idea is called Compatibalism because it says that God’s sovereignty is compatible with man’s responsibility. The other two philosophical views do not find the two to be compatible and instead emphasize one in contrast to the other. These two views are Libertarianism, which says that man is free to act and choose as he wills (this excludes any form of Sovereignty that denies free will, or denies humans the ability to be responsible), and the other view being Determinism, which says everything is pre-determined (this is so staunchly emphasized that responsibility and freedom do not exist). Compatibalism states that ultimately God is the absolute Sovereign being, yet this fact does not diminish that man makes choices and is responsible for those choices.

Biblical Evidence

Gen 5:20 "You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives."

In this passage, Joseph had just been reunited with his brothers after a long and crazy series of events, which originated with his brothers selling him into slavery out of their hatred for him. The amazing thing about this verse is that it teaches both God’s sovereignty over the situation and man’s responsibility for their choices. His brother’s intentions were to harm. They meant to harm him. Their choice, or “will,” was to put him into slavery. However, all along the Sovereign God meant this event for good. This verse is not implying that God had fixed this horrific situation and turned it into a happy ending, but that he intended it for good all along. Both God and man had their intentions. Yet despite the intentions to harm, God ordained all the sufferings of Joseph through the means of the evil intent of his brothers, for the overall good of saving many lives.

Acts 2:23 "This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross."
Acts 4:27-28 "Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen."

Here is the linchpin of Compatibalism. This passage clearly teaches that God ordained the death of Christ. There is no dispute about this, but it goes further. Even the people who committed the act were predetermined to do it! The crucifixion is something that could not have NOT happened! It is the most important part of redemptive history. However, Herod and Pilate were raised up for this very event. They did “what [God’s] power and will decided beforehand should happen.” Now, are they not responsible for this action simply because God sovereignty ordained this event? Absolutely not! This was the most sinful act in human history. Killing the God of the universe is the most horrendous of sinful acts. They are most certainly responsible, even in light of God’s sovereignty.

Now, some might say, as Paul knew many would, “How does he still find fault, for who can resist his will?” (Ro 9:19). This obviously is the starting point of the whole election debate, but it goes deeper. Because the question here is whether or not we are responsible, despite our lack of a moral “free will.” Romans 9:17 says, “For the scripture says to Pharaoh: I raised you up for this reason, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Even though Pharaoh was wicked and did terrible things against Israel, God used it to proclaim his glory. In fact, God was the one who raised Pharaoh up in the first place! The sole purpose being the proclamation of his might and strength.

So then, how are we to truly understand divine providence and human freedom? The answer is that we will never fully understand how to the two work together. However, the Bible teaches both. The Bible teaches that God is absolutely sovereign, and that man is totally responsible for his actions. Therefore, since the Bible teaches both, both are true. Although the nuances will never be fully grasped, somehow God ordains the actions and choices of men in such a way that they willingly and actually choose to do those things, and remain entirely responsible for those choices.

As far as exercising “free will” in order to believe in God, we cannot change our depraved state unless God does something first. An analogy of how free will and God’s sovereignty work together in salvation would be if someone decided they were going to ride their bike to work one morning. Unless the conditions were altered, they would actualize their desire to ride their bike to work. But if it were raining outside, they would choose not to ride their bike but instead they would choose to drive their car. This person was not forced to drive their car, but chose to because of the added external factor. In this same way we are not forced into faith, but freely choose salvation because of the added factor of God’s drawing and the Spirit’s regeneration of our lives. The man who decides to ride his bike to work will willingly choose to ride his car when he realizes that it is raining. The realization that it is raining is analogous to realizing that we need a savior. Of course we will then freely choose God. However, we will not choose the contrary, just as the bike rider will not ride his bike to work when it is pouring rain outside. This is sometimes referred to as “effectual calling” in Calvinistic circles. It is a calling that breeds a saving response every time. This idea is obviously coupled with “Irresistible Grace.” Since salvation is from God, and is initiated by God, man cannot frustrate the work of God. John 6 is the best example of this. Through the drawing of the Father (John 6:44), we are awakened to the beauty of the Gospel and become able to receive it. This idea is seen clearly through Jesus’ words when he said that not only would all whom the Father gives to him come (indicating effectual grace), but that those who come would also never be driven out (John 6:37). Therefore God’s effectual calling cannot be resisted. This is not because God over powers us, but because when we are drawn by him (John 6:44), we are able to choose and will choose.

The "L" Word

A Discussion of Limited Atonement

Perhaps nothing appears more threatening to non-Calvinists then the concept of a “Limited” Atonement. Like most Arminians, I found myself perplexed that any Christ-loving believer would ever talk about the Atonement in such terms. It seemed to me that Christ’s shed blood on the cross was sufficient for all individuals and powerful enough to save the whole world. I wondered why anyone would ever believe anything less than that. However, I realized that my original thoughts on this issue was misguided and characterized by many misconceptions. As it turns out, the “L” word wasn’t the heretical position I once thought it was.

I do not intend to give an exhaustive defense of Limited Atonement (or Particular Redemption), but I have a few thoughts that may be helpful in understanding the dreaded “3rd point” of Calvinism.

The first thought deals with the exclusivity of Christ. Any cursory study of the scriptures will indicate that Christ is the only way to heaven. John 14:6 tells us that no one can get to the Father except through Christ. Likewise Acts 4:21 says that Christ is the only name given under heaven for our salvation. Clearly, the New Testament intends for us to understand that Christ is the only means to the Father. It is important to note that “coming to Christ” is an action that is preceded by the drawing of the Father. We find this concept demonstrated very clearly in John 6:37-44. We know from this passage that all people are not drawn by the Father, whether by prevenience or other means, instead those that are drawn are also those that are raised on the last day. There is a necessary link between the drawing of the Father, and the coming to Christ. No one can come (i.e. believe) unless there was a prior act of initiative on behalf of the Father. Now we are left realizing that the drawing of God necessitates salvation. For this reason alone we know that all are not drawn, otherwise all would be saved. There is no other alternative in this passage. This concept of all being saved is known as “Inclusivism.” This idea states that people practicing other faiths can be saved by Christ regardless of their personal faith in Him. However, we have seen that the Bible talks in explicitly exclusive terms. Now, if there is an “X” amount of people being described here, which most certainly are those elect individuals whom God predestined unconditionally for salvation before the foundations of the world were laid (Ro 9:11-23; Eph 1:3-11; 2 Tim 1:9; Rev 13:8), then most certainly Christ’s death was to secure the salvation of those individuals. The question then becomes, would Christ die for the “non-elect” as well?

There a few reasons as to why the answer for this question is “No”. If Christ died for every individual person’s sins then why will anyone spend eternity in Hell? The idea is simple, as a substitutionary atonement Christ took our place. He met all the necessary requirements to satisfy the wrath of God on our behalf. Now, if Christ has appeased the wrath of God on behalf of all men everywhere then everyone should ultimately end up in heaven. But we know this is not the case. Therefore, Christ did not die in the place of every individual sinner. John 17:2 says, “You have given him [Christ] authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you [The Father] have given him.” Once again we see a definite group of people being given to the Son for him to redeem. Later on in this “High Priestly Prayer” Jesus says that he is praying not for the world but for those whom [the Father] has given to him (John 17:9). There are also a few other examples that teach this idea of a Particular group of people being redeemed at the cross. Paul tells husbands in Ephesians 5:25 to love their wives “as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” Also, we are told in Acts 20:28 that the Church of God was “obtained with [Christ’s] own blood.” Perhaps this concept is most clearly depicted in John 10:11 where Christ says that he is the good shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep. Now this is important because Christ describes his sheep as ones who hear the voice of Christ, are known by Christ, and follow Christ (Jn 10:27). This is contrasted with those who are not Christ’s sheep. Christ tells those near him that they do not believe because they are not of his flock (Jn 10:26). Believing in Christ depends upon whether or not someone is one of “Christ’s sheep.” Therefore, when it says that Christ laid his life down for his sheep, he was indicating that he was doing it on behalf of them alone.

Another point is that if the Father has elected a group a people for salvation, then it would demonstrate disunity within the Trinitarian counsel for Christ to die for those whom the Father has not elected. However, we are told that there is a unified purpose between all three members of the Godhead. In Ephesians 1:11 we are told that God works “all things according to the counsel of his will.” It would not make sense for Christ to go against the immutable decrees of God.

The last point I’d like to make is this: Calvinists, if they’re honest, are willing to admit that the atonement is definitely limited in it’s intent. That is, although it is sufficient for all, it is only efficient for the elect. However, it is the Arminian who truly “limits” the atonement. The reason for this is because the Arminian position has to admit that, in reality, no one was saved at the cross. Essentially, from an Arminian standpoint, Christ merely made men “savable.” This ought to indicate that the Arminian position limits the atonement of its power, since it is not capable of saving anyone. It is inconsistent for an Arminian to talk about “Christ dying for them,” because such an idea is bound in the Calvinistic doctrine of “Limited Atonement.”

In closing I think it is necessary to quote Charles Spurgeon's response to Arminians who questioned Limited Atonement, “We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ's death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it."

God's Sovereign Election

What is Election?

The Doctrine of Election is the teaching that before God created the world he predestined those whom he would call to salvation: demonstrating both his loving-kindness and sovereignty over creation.
The Doctrine of Election is established upon God’s Initiative. Long before he created the heavens and the earth he chose whom he would save (Eph. 1:4, 2 Tim 1:9). It is simply his work, and not our efforts (Ro. 9:16, Eph 2:8-9).
The Doctrine of Election demonstrates man’s utter inability to please God on his own (Ro. 3:10, 23), it also further demonstrates man’s depravity in that he cannot choose God unless God has drawn him (John 6:44).
The Doctrine of Election is based upon God’s complete foreknowledge. Since God knows all of his actions before he does them (Acts 15:18), he planned out the course of history and chose whom he would justify and glorify (Ro. 8:28-29). Election therefore means that all whom God has chosen will receive salvation and sanctification by the Spirit (2 Thess 2:13).
The Doctrine of Election is also the election of Christ as the Savior of the world. Christ was foreknown before the foundation of the world to be our atonement, and reconciliation to God (Acts 2:23, 1 Peter 1:18-21). He was the one chosen by God for the specific task of redeeming us from the fall (Gen 3:15, Is. 42:1, 1 Pet. 2:6).
NOT: The Doctrine of Election is not about working for salvation. It is God’s redemptive work in man’s heart that justifies him from his former state of ungodliness (Ro. 4:4-5). Otherwise grace could not be called grace since the contingent factor would be man’s efforts and not God’s gift (Ro. 11:6).

A Brief History of the Debate

The beginning of the debate on election started in the late Patristic Period with Augustine and Pelagius, but it did not become as much of a mainstream debate until the Reformation. John Calvin, who was a second-generation reformer that lived during the sixteenth century, attempted to systematize biblical data, which for him mostly concerned soteriology (EDT, “Calvinism” pg. 201). Calvin’s main point of emphasis was on the sovereignty of God. Salvation was therefore a providence of God and a part of his eternal plan for fallen man. God’s specific design for salvation was necessary because of man’s complete corruption. Not only is man unable to please God, but he is also incapable of seeking or accepting God, because he does not recognize his need for God. God therefore chose to elect by his own pleasure, since he didn’t need to save any. It is God who calls those whom he wills to save and seals them for the day of the Lord. This attempt by Calvin to systematically approach the Bible was a great theological advancement for the Church. By upholding scripture as God’s inerrant Word, Calvin was able to delve deeper into the mystery of salvation and ask the question what does the Bible teach as a whole. It was very important for Calvin to uphold the Bible as authoritative in what it taught on the subject.

Jacob Arminius, who also lived during the sixteenth century, studied theology at the University of Leiden where his professors taught against Calvinism (EDT, 98). After his schooling, Arminius eventually became a pastor in Amsterdam and openly taught against Calvin’s teachings. Where he found the greatest area of disagreement with Calvinism was not on whether or not there is an elect, but on how someone is a part of the elect. Arminius went against Calvin and taught that man comes to knowledge of Christ by prevenient grace, rather than God’s effectual calling. This grace is available for all and is part of God’s drawing of all men to himself. The elect therefore are not chosen unconditionally, but upon God’s foreknowledge of their faith response. Although I don’t fully agree with the Arminian emphasis on man’s free will, I don’t think that this doctrinal position has ruined Christianity. The issue of election tries to solve the tension between human responsibility and God’s sovereignty, with Arminianism putting the emphasis upon man’s responsibility. In many ways Arminianism brings about how one ought to act in application of a doctrine. Since Arminians believe that man has the ability to choose God, they are very outgoing in presenting the gospel. This is not to say that Calvinists are not, but only to say that Arminians are not wrong in their application of wanting to preach the gospel to all people. Since that is the essence of the great commission for all believers.

Key Passages For Understanding This Doctrine

Eph. 1:1-11 teaches plainly the nature of election. Paul begins his letter to the Ephesians by stating several key truths about God’s sovereign plan of salvation. First, he mentions that his apostleship is strictly due to the will of God (Eph. 1:1). God’s sovereign will for Paul to be an apostle was indicated by the nature of his conversion on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:3-18). After Paul received the vision of Christ and became blind, Ananias also received a vision in which Christ told him to go to Paul because he was a chosen vessel by God (Acts 9:15). Clearly, Paul’s life and mission were based upon the will of God. The next thing Paul states about election is that we were predestined in Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4). Not only were we elected before we were created, but we were elect in Christ. In Christ we were also adopted, but not because we are anything special, but because of his will (Eph. 1:5). This adoption is our inheritance and guarantee of salvation (Eph 1:14). It is for this reason that we can be so certain as to call it a guarantee. Our predestination as adopted sons of God is based solely upon his purposes, which he works all things according to (Eph. 1:11).

John 6:22-65 reveals how someone comes to the knowledge of Christ as Savior. A discussion arises about God’s providential manna for the Israelites who wandered in the wilderness for 40 years. Jesus equates himself to manna, explaining that in the same way he has come because of the providence of God, although in a greater way then the temporal provision of manna. Those who ate manna eventually died (John 6:49), but Jesus refers to himself as the bread of life, indicating that God’s provision of him is one of eternal significance (John 6:35,50-51). Although Jesus tells them that whoever believes in him would receive the ultimate demonstration of God’s providence, he then begins to tell them why not everyone will come to him. The first thing Christ mentions is that all whom the Father gives to him will come to him (John 6:37). This tells us that not everyone will partake of the bread of life, but only those who are given by the Father. These who are given to Christ will also not be lost, but will be raised on the last day (John 6:40). Christ then tells the multitude, that only those whom the Father draws will come to him and be raised on the last day (John 6:44). So the ones that are raised on the last day are given by the Father to Christ, and were also drawn by the Father. These statements teach us that the reason why not all come to Christ is because not all are drawn by the Father. If all were drawn then all would be raised on the last day, since that is the result of the drawing of God (John 6:44). Therefore not all are drawn. Jesus told the disciples after this that it is the Spirit who gives life, and that is why he told the crowd that no one can come unless the Father draws him (John 4:63-65). Aside from the Father’s drawing, and the Spirit’s working we cannot partake of the bread of life.

Gen. 25:19-28 is an example of God’s unconditioned election. Isaac’s wife Rebecca was barren, but Isaac prayed that she would conceive and God answered his prayer. When Rebecca conceived, the Lord told her that she would have twins. The Lord also told her that there were two nations within her womb, and that the older would serve the younger (Gen 25:21-23). This declaration by the Lord was part of his sovereign plan for the nation of Israel. Paul tells us that although neither of them were born, and had not done either good or bad, God chose Jacob in order to continue his purpose of election (Ro. 9:11). This election of Jacob was the very election of the nation of Israel as God’s covenant people. God chose Israel because he loved her (Deut. 7:6-8), and not because she was a great nation. In God’s sovereignty he chose to bless the lineage of Israel and not the Edomites, but did so before they even existed (Mal. 1:2-3).

Rom. 9:14-24 explains how much authority God has as the Creator of all things. Election is not unjust because God has the right to show mercy on those whom he wills to show it to (Ro. 9:15, 16). Likewise God has the right as Creator to harden the hearts of whom he chooses as demonstrated through the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart in the Exodus event. God did this to show his glory so that his name might be proclaimed in all the earth (Ro. 9:17-18). Paul further explains this idea through the analogy of the potter and the clay. Being that we are molded by God for whatever use and purpose he has for us, we have no right to question the potter’s work (Ro 9:20-21). God uses the vessels of wrath to demonstrate his glory to the vessels of mercy, just like he did with Pharaoh (Ro. 9:22-23).

I Cor. 1:18-31 affirms election by showing its effects upon man. Neither the Jews nor the Greeks understand the concept of Christ’s atonement for sins. To the Jews it is a stumbling block because they were expecting the Messiah to be a political savior who would physically reign as king over Israel, and to the Greeks it is foolishness to believe that a dead man has saved the world from their sins. However, God chose that which was foolish to shame the wise (1 Cor. 1:27). It is to the called only, that Christ is the power and wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:24). Therefore, because God did not choose to work though wisdom, we could not believe this on our own because it is foolish. When Paul wrote to the Thessalonians he told them that he knew God had called them because his message came in power to them (1 Thess. 1:4-5). Since the gospel is foolishness otherwise, only those who are called to respond in saving knowledge to the gospel would do so.

In Summary: The biblical evidence teaches God’s complete sovereignty over Creation, his mode in election as being based upon his will, and his drawing of sinners as resulting only in salvation.

Major Questions & Concerns

Question 1) What is the nature of election? This doctrinal dispute is on the basis of how God elects. Is it unconditional? Or is it conditioned upon man’s faith response to the gospel?

In response to this question, I affirm that election is an unconditional process by which only the will of God is a factor (2 Tim 1:9). Just as God chose Jacob without any earthly factors being evaluated, so God also chose the elect (Ro. 9:11). It is only because of his mercy that we are caused to be born again (1 Pet. 1:3). Since we are indeed saved in this unconditional fashion our salvation is accredited to God’s grace, and not our own doing (Eph. 2:8-9). This idea is further tied together when Paul says that we are God’s workmanship, which he prepared beforehand (Eph. 2:10). These points are in contention with those who would say that God saves us based on a conditional basis, like by our works or even by our faith response. We truly cannot assert that any aspect of our salvation can be attributed to us. This includes our faith. We are told that Jesus is both the author and finisher of our faith (Heb. 12:2). So if faith is the means to salvation (Ro. 10:9-10), and our salvation is due to God’s will in election, then our faith is also accredited to God.

Question 2) What is the nature of man’s freedom? Does he have libertarian freedom in the sense that he has free agency to do and chose as he pleases? Or is he restricted in some way due to his fallen nature?

In response to this question, I affirm that man does not have the freedom to choose good over evil. Man is dead in his trespasses (Eph. 2:1, 5), and is by nature an object of wrath (Eph. 2:3). We are characterized as being enslaved by sin (Titus 3:3, Ro. 6:17, 20). Our freedom is therefore, as John Wesley said, to do only what is evil (Schreiner, pg. 233). As descendants of Adam we inherit sin (Ro. 5:12). Therefore we cannot do other than what we were determined by our nature to do, which is sin. Even those good deeds that we may do keep us in our sinful state. Jesus said that even people who do good things for their children are evil (Luke 11:13), so how then can those acts be good, since the person is still evil? Paul said himself that no good thing dwells within him, and that he has no ability to do the right thing (Ro. 7:18). Some people believe however that we are free moral agents who can indeed choose between right and wrong. This is very contrary to scripture, which tells us time after time that we are all sinners. Paul tells us plainly that we were free from righteousness when we were servants to sin (Ro. 6:19, Ro. 7:14). Truly by man’s disobedience we were made slaves to sin, but through Christ’s obedience we have complete freedom (Ro. 5:19).

Question 3) What is the nature of God’s foreknowledge? Does he have foreknowledge of persons in election? Or foreknowledge of actions?

In response to this question, I affirm that his foreknowledge is of persons, and not of the person’s faith. When scripture refers to God knowing someone it involves deep intimacy and a saving relationship (Grudem, 676). If we love God, we are known by God (1 Cor. 8:3). This means that God knows us in a saving way. The opposite is also the case for those who do not know God. What does Jesus tell the workers of iniquity who say to him that they prophesied in his name and cast out devils in his name? He tells them that they do not have a saving relationship with him by saying that he never knew them (Matt. 7:21-23). It is those whom God knew before creation that were predestined for salvation (Ro. 8:29). This means that God’s foreknowledge is of the person. Some would argue however, that the foreknowledge of God allows for people to have the free will to choose God. However, if we acknowledge that there is an elect that is saved by God’s foreknowledge (1 Pet. 1:2), and accept that the number of the elect is already known to God, being that their names were written in the lambs book of life before the creation (Rev 13:8), then our destinies are already determined.

Question 4) Is God’s grace and calling effectual? Or is it prevenient? This dispute deals with whether or not God’s grace can be resisted or is it always effectual, because God never fails?

In response to this question, I affirm that God's effectual calling cannot be resisted. By effectual I am referring to something that demands a response (Grudem, 692). Through the drawing of the Father (John 6:44), we are awakened to the beauty of the Gospel and become able to receive it. Since the calls of God are irrevocable (Ro. 11:29), his call towards the elect is also irrevocable. This idea is seen clearly through Jesus’ words when he said that not only would all whom the Father gives to him come (indicating effectual grace), but that those who come would also never be driven out (John 6:37). Therefore God’s effectual calling cannot be resisted. This is not because God over powers us, but because we are drawn by him (John 6:44), we are able to choose and will choose. When Paul went to Philippi and preached the Gospel there, Lydia was able to receive it because the Lord had opened her heart to believing in it (Acts 16:14). This idea is analogous with someone who decided he was going to ride his bike to work one morning. Unless the conditions were altered, he would actualize his desire to ride his bike to work. But if it were raining outside, he would choose not to ride his bike but instead he would choose to drive his car. This person was not forced to drive his car, but he chose to because of the added external factor. In this same way we are not forced into faith, but freely choose salvation because of the added factor of God’s drawing and the Spirit’s regeneration of our lives. Because God’s drawing results in salvation we know that not all are drawn by the Father, but some would disagree on this point. The passage that is usually brought up in dispute of this point says that when Jesus is lifted up, he will draw all men to himself (John 12:32). This statement came after a group of Greeks came and asked Phillip if they could see Jesus (John 12:20-21). Jesus’ following response that he would draw all men was not a reference to drawing all men without exception, but rather all men without distinction (Schreiner, 242). The point Jesus was making was that he would not just draw Jews to himself, but Greeks as well as other Gentile people groups. This is ultimately because the effectual calling of God is unconditional and brings men into the fellowship of Christ (1 Cor. 1:9).

Question 5) Is there any point to evangelism within the Calvinistic framework?

In response to this question, I affirm that there is. It is a common misconception amongst non-Calvinists to think that evangelism would be pointless within Calvinism because if people are elect they will be saved regardless of whether someone evangelizes or not. However, I think this notion is extremely faulty. The first reason why this is faulty comes from Christ’s own words in the call of the Great Commission to preach to all nations (Mt. 28:19-20). As followers of Christ we have all been called to evangelize. Paul did not allow his knowledge of the elect to hinder him from preaching of the risen Lord. Instead Paul went on three different missionary journeys and even spent many days in prison for what he was preaching. Paul said that he is willing to endure anything for the sake of the elect so that they can obtain salvation just like he did (2 Tim. 2:10). It was because Paul knew that there was an elect that he wanted all the more to evangelize. The fact of election meant people were going to come to Christ. After Paul left Athens during his second missionary journey he went to Corinth and reasoned with the Jews and the Greeks that Jesus was the Christ (Acts 18:4-5). After they opposed his sayings, God told Paul in a vision that he should stay in Corinth because he had many of his people there, so Paul stayed for a year and six months in order to preach the Gospel (Acts 18:10-11). Because there was an elect Paul wanted to preach, and even endure many hardships for those who would soon come to Christ. Lastly, we simply will never know who is the elect and who is not. Therefore we must be ready to give a response to all people for the hope that we have (1 Pet. 3:15), even if they never respond in saving faith. This is seen clearly in the life of Isaiah who was called to preach to people who would never listen to him (Is. 6:9-10), but this did not cause him to discontinue his message. Evangelism is of utmost importance as Paul noted that no one can come to Christ unless they’ve heard, and they will never hear unless the word is preached (Ro. 10: 14).

Why it Matters: Implications & Daily-life Relevance of the Doctrine

Because of election I do not have to spend eternity in separation from God like I deserve to do. If God decided not to save according to election then all humans would, in fact, be damned to Hell. If God did not choose us then no one would come to a saving knowledge of Christ, because man cannot accept God apart from his drawing. Therefore we as believers are completely indebted to election because without it we could never have been justified nor guaranteed for glorification. This should have huge implications for our lives as believers. Being that we are saved by grace through faith by God’s ultimate providence of election, this ought to cause us to live whole-heartedly to him.
Because of election I can be certain of my salvation. If God’s grace can be resisted then we really have no security as believers. Even if we accept God’s free gift of salvation, we could potentially fall away from salvation because his grace is not effectual or irresistible to make us persevere in the faith and keep us from personal apostasy.
Because of election God receives the glory in all things, even in my faith response. If I can boast in anything about salvation, it is in the Lord, and not of myself.
Because of election I desire to better serve God. Because I have been called with a holy calling, I want to be conformed more and more to the image of his son (1 Peter 1:15-16, Ro. 8:28).

How it Fits: Connections of the Doctrine to other Doctrines

The Doctrine of Election is grounded in the total depravity of man. Because of Adam’s transgressions, all men have inherited a sinful nature (Ro. 5:12). The corruption of the fall left man deep in his sin and separated from God. All aspects of creation were affected by this (Ro. 8:22). Not only is our standing before God effected, but our mind is also affected and is hostile to God (Ro. 8:7). Because of this hostility of our minds we cannot submit to God. This is what constitutes our complete inability as depraved creatures. Because we do not honor God as God, we are given up to our own lusts, and passions (Ro. 1:24-28). Our inheritance therefore is death because our efforts and righteousness cannot compete with the holistic nature of God’s righteousness (Is. 64:6, Ro. 6:23). This includes all forms of unrighteousness, because the most unrighteous thing is not acknowledging the truth about God (Ro. 1:18). The wrath of God is indeed what we deserve, but because of the gracious act of election, we can be reconciled back to God. This demonstrates the loving aspect of God’s nature because while we remained as sinners and enemies to God, he chose us in eternity past, and chose to send his Son to die for us (Ro. 5:8-11).
Since we are elected by God for salvation one important aspect of this is the work of the Spirit in our lives. When God chose us for salvation, he also chose to give us the Spirit for spiritual growth. Given that we are completely incapable of choosing God, we are also incapable of understanding God at any level, but because of the Spirit we can know some revealed truths about God through his Word. The work of the Spirit is so vital in our lives because without his work we cannot even say that Jesus is Lord (1 Cor. 12:3). The Spirit’s work in our lives is also seen through the process of sanctification, which was also elected for us when we were elected to be saved (2 Thess. 2:13, Ro. 8:28-29). Therefore, because we have been elected, the Spirit is necessary to keep us preserved in the faith, due to our fallen nature.

Final Thoughts

In light of the Doctrine of Election I am completely humbled by the gracious act of God to desire to save any when none needed to be. It’s hard for me to fully grasp the concept of election, but in light of it I desire to give all the glory to God as Paul did in his doxology in Romans 11. I also genuinely wish to strive to be a better person. I want to set my mind on the things of the Spirit (Ro. 8:5), and treasure his commandments (Proverbs 2:1-5). I want to strive for all of this because apart from election I’d be damned to hell. It is my reasonable service in view of the mercy that God has give to me to respond in a way that is holy and pleasing to him (Ro. 12:1). It is also my prayer to strive to be holy, because he called me with a holy calling (1 Pet. 1:16). I am completely indebted to Christ and I am so much more thankful for salvation and newness of life in view of the doctrine of election then I was before. It is truly both a humbling and frustrating thing to realize the truth of election. However, I have realized that my frustrations in the past on the doctrine of election have only been based on my emotions. Election is really best understood when I realize that I am much more sinful and evil apart from Christ then I realize, and that God is infinitely more holy then I can comprehend. All I can do in light of this incredible mystery of God is praise him and thank him for doing everything for my salvation.

Sources Used:
Elwell, Walter A. "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology 2nd Ed." Grand Rapids: Baker Academic Pub. 2001.

Grudem, Wayne. "Systematic Theology." Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994

Schreiner, Thomas R., Bruce Ware. "Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, & Grace." Grand Rapids: Baker

For Further Reading:
"Why I'm Not An Arminian" by Robert Peterson & Michael Williams
"Debating Calvinism" by David Hunt & James White
"The Sovereignity of God" by A. W. Pink