Election and salvation: Four views
The following are four commonly-known views of election and salvation. Although older church bodies such as Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Lutheranism aren’t really part of the whole Calvinist/Arminian debate on election (yes, other options exist!), I include the Lutheran view because it makes a neat four-square comparison.
- Calvinism: “unconditional election.” God chooses who will be saved and appoints others to damnation according to his own pleasure and will. Those chosen are incapable of falling away. This view of election is very much bound up with an oft-noted Calvinist first principle of God’s sovereignty, so election is put in the same category as the nature and attributes of God. (I.e., “God is sovereign, therefore this is true about election…”)
- Arminianism: “conditional election.” Individuals choose to accept God or choose to reject God– the “opposite” of Calvinism as it were. This would be as strictly a logical position as Calvinism, except that for the first half of that, Arminians also toss into the mix the idea of God “sovereignly choosing and appointing,” but oddly, that “sovereignty” is based on us. Presumably Arminianism is designed to give us something to do in connection with attaining our salvation, but also affirms, unlike Calvinism, that God desires the salvation of all. It may also be bound up with human obedience as being a first principle for reading Scripture, which is why Methodists and others are attracted to the theology. (I.e., “Humans must be able to follow and be obedient to God, therefore this is true about election…”)
- Lutheranism can be misunderstood as being a via media between these first two positions, but any such notion is completely accidental– it was not designed to have any kind of mediating role in this debate, which came later in history than formal Lutheran theology. Lutherans hold that completely apart from human will, God chooses those who would be saved in Christ, but unlike Calvinism, does not believe that God predestines to damnation. Rather, it is human choice and resistance which results in the death of the sinner, though God desires the salvation of all. Believers may fall away if they do not remain in Christ. Lutherans believe that theologically, election and ”sovereignty” is not so much tied up with attributes as it is with the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone, in Christ. If there is a first principle or an attribute of God we would connect with election, it is God’s mercy towards sinners in Christ. (I.e., “God is gracious to sinners through Christ, therefore this is true about election…”)
- So, the position that remains in this four-square puzzle would be a kind of opposite of the Lutheran paradox: The belief that we make a decision to become saved, but that once we are saved, we are unable to fall away. We choose salvation (generally in the convoluted Arminian sense of God also “sovereignly choosing” but based on our choices), and yet we cannot choose to reject God once we’ve got our decision truly and sincerely made, hence “once saved always saved.” This position does strike me as an attempt to find a via media between Calvinism and Arminianism. Perhaps it is counted as a form of Arminianism. At any rate, it seems to be a popular view of election for a large number of evangelicals.Â
Of all these positions, #4 sounds to me like the most convoluted, unlikely, and most unsatisfying explanation offered. It is the most “smorgasboard” approach, taking what seems most humanly pleasing about Calvinism (”we can’t fall away no matter what we do”) and what’s most humanly pleasing about Arminianism (”God’s gentlemanly enough to leave the attaining of salvation up to me… I forge my own individual path and choose my destiny”). It seems designed for the comfort of the believer, but actually is not comforting at all. As for part A, how does a person know if they were sufficiently sincere enough in the first place to know that they are now part of this privileged crowd? It is this position that sets itself up for people “walking the aisle” time after time after time, re-dedicating and re-committing themselves, even getting baptized multiple times– all because they were not sure if they were sincere enough the first 20 times in making their decision.Â
And with part B of position #4, the notion that real Christians would never fall away or commit apostasy… probably most of us have known people who were absolutely convinced that they believed in Jesus as their Savior and started showing evidence of that, only to become disillusioned and even openly hostile to their former faith later in life. Such a believer can only uneasily say that that person was never really a Christian in the first place. If that’s the case, then none of us have any certainty, for we believers are certainly convinced– today– that we truly believe in Christ. How would we know that we won’t do what that guy did, who was also so convinced he had faith in Christ? The possibility that we just might commit apostasy would completely invalidate any “faith” we hold today, leading to constantly looking inside our sinful hearts to determine our sincerity levels! What a disturbing mess to be in!
Needless to say, I find the Lutheran position not only the most biblical but also the most comforting. In one sense, it is exactly what we humans don’t really like to hear– that we have not the slightest little claim on having attained our salvation, and that without faith in Christ we will certainly be lost. The good news is genuinely good news, though– salvation is outside of us, completely dependent on the strength and doing of God, and our salvation is absolutely secure in Christ. Our promises may fail, but his promises for all people will never fail us.
12 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
January 7th, 2007 @ 11:22 pm
Eternal security (#4) also runs afoul of all the multitude of passages which talk about what happens to those who fall away.
For instance in Hebrews 6:4ff:
“For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they then fall away, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. 7 For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. 8 But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned.”
“The last time I got a discussion with a proponent of Eternal Security, I found all kinds of passages about the final state of one who believes and falls away. Not only is eternal security not supported by Scripture, but it would seem that, like Judas, people who believe and fall away would be better off never having been born.
Scary stuff, this is…I’m glad my assurance of salvation doesn’t lie with me or anything I do, but with God Himself. It’s much easier to have Him carry that load than for me.
January 8th, 2007 @ 1:01 am
I think that the biggest thing that had been confusing me about the doctrine of “eternal security” as posited by either positions #1 or #4 is that the term itself is potentially misleading. It’s tempting to see those words and think: “This must be the way to go; if I don’t hold this, my salvation and eternity won’t be secure!” Nothing could be further from the truth; in fact I don’t think there’s anything particularly secure about either a God who may have chosen to damn you before the foundation of the world OR a God with whom you can only feel secure if you’re secure in your own decison-making sincerity and commitment upkeep. The beautiful thing about the Lutheran position, as well as its other points, is that they’re all about being *in Christ.* In Christ, we are perfectly secure and have nothing to fear.
I was chatting with someone about this on some blog or another, and what I was mostly trying to explain was that those beautiful passages about how secure our salvation is, *as well as* those passages that say that those who do not have faith and are not in Christ (including those who formerly believed) are condemned, are BOTH true. They’re both things we Christians need to hear, just as we always need to hear Law and Gospel depending on where we’re at– with the point being to drive us to the hope and promises of Christ.
Thanks for commenting!
January 8th, 2007 @ 8:12 am
Along those same lines, evangelism efforts by people who hold to eternal security can consist of getting somone to convert (make a decision, etc.) and then leaving them. Why? Because if they’re really saved, they’ll stay that way and don’t need to be further taught, shepherded, or protected from the wiles of the evil one.
Scary stuff…
January 8th, 2007 @ 9:56 am
Hi Kelly,
Thanks for your comments at The Beast’s Lair, it is always good to know there are people who understand the importance of Doctrine being taught in our churches. If it is acceptable, I thought I would make a couple of comments on your post.
First of all, you have a classical error in your understanding of Calvinism, one that drives most people away immediately, much like yourself. The very first “point” (if you want to use the 5 point thing) of Calvinism is “Total Depravity.” God does not “predestine” anyone to damnation. We all, by nature, fall short of the glory of God and are destined to hell. God does, however, choose those who will be reconciled to Himself. He “has mercy on whom he has mercy.” From what I have read of your point #4 of the Lutheran view, you hold to the same concept. However, for some reason, presumably to sound less like Calvin, you have tried to remove God’s sovereignty from the mix and replace it with the doctrine of Justification. If you genuinely hold that God saves sinners by His own choosing and without any responsibility of the sinner, then that is the Sovereign hand of God at work.
Secondly, as soon as you made your point that salvation comes “completely apart from human will” you then assert a few sentences later that salvation comes from “grace alone by faith alone.” Whose faith? And if it is the faith of the sinner, how does that come about without any expectation on the part of the sinner? Just simply saying “God brings it about” is not a good enough answer. Calvinism believes, as you do, that God works through the Holy Spirit to call sinners to himself, and it is only by the effectual calling of the Spirit, which we cannot “will”, that we are saved. However, part of that process as God has ordained is through belief and repentence. I have asked this question to several Lutherans before and have yet to get a satisfactory answer. According to the Lutheran model, how does a person enter into a relationship with God? If someone today, Kelly, walked into your house and said, I want to be a Christian, I know I need Jesus Christ, what would you tell them?
Blessings to you.
January 8th, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
Thanks for stopping by, Beast. (Every time I say that I can’t help but think, “Why, in the Disney movie, did Belle never bother to find out his real name?†Hee hee.)
Going by Calvin’s Institutes: “We say, then, that Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his pleasure to doom to destruction.†And the 1646 Westminster Confession: “God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: … 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. These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed: and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished.†I don’t doubt that other Calvinists have varying ways of explaining total depravity, nor is there unilateral agreement between Calvinists. But their official confessions do speak of “predestination†or “foreordaining†to damnation, so I don’t think my little summary is inaccurate, though it is simply stated.
I do believe in the sovereignty of God, that he sovereignly saves. I just mean that the first principles within which theologies operate tend to lead to different places. Calvinism holds to double predestination, and a belief that the “world†must mean the “elect,†primarily because they feel that to define the word “world†as all people in this context would override their more important principle of the sovereign will of God. I don’t want to remove sovereignty and replace it with justification– I just hold that election goes along with justification more solidly than with an attribute of God such as his sovereignty. [Scaer clarifies this idea in the article I linked to at the bottom of my post here: "Election is only the side of the coin from grace. What is viewed as grace in time is viewed as election from the perspective of eternity. Therefore to preach grace alone is to preach the election."]
It is by grace we have been saved, through faith. But this faith is not “of ourselves; it is the gift of God– not by works, lest any man boast.†We are saved through faith, but faith is not the “object†that saves us, rather it is that which receives the gift. Lutherans, as you probably know, believe that faith itself is a gift of God, not a work of ours. We cannot have faith in faith, but only faith in Christ. Otherwise, there is plenty of room to boast, and I’ve certainly heard a lot boasting from those who believe themselves to be so much more “responsible†with their choice to salvation than unbelievers. Likewise, it is God who enlightens one with belief and repentance through his Law and Gospel: “God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel.†–Acts 5:31; “When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, “So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life.†–Acts 11:18
If someone walked into my house (“Why, hello there…â€) and said they wanted to be a Christian, I’d ask them why. If they said that they’d heard something about Jesus and wanted to learn more, I’d share the Gospel with them: although we are sinners who are enemies of God, God has reconciled the world to himself through the death of Jesus on the cross so that we could be forgiven of our sins, that this benefit is for all who have faith in him. If they said that they wanted to be a Christian because they already believed the Gospel, I’d tell them that the Holy Spirit has called them by the Gospel and enlightened them with the gift of faith already. Salvation was won for them 2,000 years ago and they are saved even now because they have faith in God’s promises in Christ. Subsequently, of course, either of us would tell them to not delay to be baptized right away and to join into the community of those who have their faith continually nurtured by God’s Word and Gospel promises.
For a much more concise explanation of the Lutheran doctrine of election than I could ever give, check out this David Scaer article. If I’ve stated anything confusing (entirely likely), I daresay he clears it up. http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/scaer2.htm
January 8th, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
You are a thelogian Kelly
I guess we have been posting on similar subjects lately, perhaps God is showing us that he is into gifts – Word and Sacraments that assure us.
Lito
January 8th, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
Kelly,
I do not know where the Beast is coming from but I do not think he is really a Calvinist. For if one reads WCF Chapter 3 v 3 we have this…
III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels[6] are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.[7]
You can play semantics with foreordain but the merriam webster dictionary says it is also predestine, so others have been predestined to everlasting death.
The desire to make the double predestination seemed palatable does not succeed, it is a doctrine in classical Calvinism.
I studied and identified with Calvinism myself before I became Lutheran and the decretal logic that predominates fails to give full weight to the Biblical data.
Lito
January 8th, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
To the question of the Beast,
I would say to that man who walks to my room confessing his need for Jesus to be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins.
Lito
January 11th, 2007 @ 10:20 am
If there is anything more suited to the Socratic method than the subject of election/eternal security I have yet to encounter it; for with every perceived answer five more questions arise like hydra.
Some questions (perhaps like Job’s in which case I know the answer is in the whirlwind):
- Assuming God elects some to salvation and has the foreknowledge of who will reject or “fall away” as it were” why elect any who would eventually reject? Why be so selective? Why not elect the whole world and then allow those who will fall away, fall away…or more economically simply elect those who He foreknows will not fall away?
- Although it has been argued that “once saved always saved” is a fallacy can it be said “once elected always elected”? Does one have to be “re-elected” if one choices to fall away?
- Through the sovereignty and grace of God the elect are chosen to salvation by no work or effort of their own. However – to keep their salvation – does this involve human effort?
It is no wonder we are called to “continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling…”
January 12th, 2007 @ 12:41 am
Hey Pete– the article I linked to is a helpful explanation, if you haven’t read it yet. For your questions 1 and 2, the Lutheran position does not speak of “election” in terms of those who reject God. The election is a doctrine for believers only. The atonement is the doctrine that’s for the whole world. It doesn’t make sense to ask why God doesn’t just elect those he knows won’t fall away. From the perspective of eternity, the elect are precisely those ones who *are* called, justified, sanctified, and glorified. Perhaps you might rather ask why Jesus didn’t simply *atone* for only those he knows won’t fall away. This is in fact the position of classic Calvinists, a highly rationalistic and economical people– they have Jesus fulfilling a “limited atonement” on the cross so that none of that atonement will “go to waste” on those who are not of the elect. However, we believe that the atonement was indeed “for the world,” so Lutherans are willing to uphold the paradox on the basis of what we see as clear Scriptural testimony on the matter, and an unwillingness to speak where Scripture is silent.
Our salvation is not something we upkeep on the basis of our good works– that “working out” is that which God works in us to will and to act according to his purpose. Our justification, sanctification, and glorification are brought about, fueled, and maintained by the work of God, through faith which is fueled through his gifts. This doesn’t, of course, mean that God’s gifts of faith and his Word and so on don’t produce good works in us– quite the contrary. But though our striving to keep the Law, in accordance with the desires of the new Adam, is good, our strivings don’t assure us that we are maintaining our salvation in any way, shape or form. This indeed is the “fear and trembling” that has proven to be so dangerous, sometimes fatally so, for many believers– the fear that after all, I’m not really a good enough Christian to truly be saved.
Seems like a lot of blogging Lutherans lately have been checking out the Westminster Confession and contemplating the ultimate differences in Lutheran and Calvinist soteriology. Like this post by my buddy Eric over On the Wittenberg Trail. Hist post is actually regarding the fall and its implications for the place of faith and works in understanding how our relationship with God is predicated. It seemed relevant enough to this convo to post a link to.
January 13th, 2007 @ 11:39 pm
[...] Kelly, Pastor Klages’ wife. operates her own blog and discussions four views of election and salvation. [...]
January 16th, 2007 @ 8:50 am
Good post, good follow-up, good gracious! — it’s an Aardie for Kelly.