"A Theology of Election
The nature of election is the subject of a longstanding debate. Some have understood the scriptures to teach that God has chosen a people, i.e. the church of Christ, for salvation, but has not chosen individuals. Similarly, it has been suggested that God has chosen Christ to be the means by which people are saved (Eph. 1:4), but has not determined which individuals will actually be incorporated into Christ.
Such a view rightly acknowledges that God is calling out a people for himself, and correctly emphasizes that the elect are chosen in Christ. None the less, the attempt to separate corporate from individual election is unsuccessful. John focuses on the individual in his teaching that any and all who are drawn by the Father will come to the Son (John 6:37; cf. John 17:2, 6, 9). Conversely, individuals cannot come to or believe in (*cf. John 6:35) Jesus unless God grants them the ability to do so (John 6:44, 65). Such texts cannot be adequately explained if corporate election is separated from the election of individuals. Moreover, God’s electing work begets faith in his people. John 10:26 says, ‘[Y]ou do not believe because you do not belong to my sheep.’ It is tempting to reverse the syntax, to make the verse say that one is not Jesus’ sheep because one does not believe. The text, however, says just the opposite, conveying the idea that being chosen as one of the sheep is the means by which God’s people come to believe. Luke articulates the same theology when he says that all those in Pisidian Antioch who were ordained to eternal life believed (Acts 13:48; cf. Matt. 11:25–27). The syntax of the verse clearly indicates that God’s ordaining work precedes, enables, and secures human belief. In Ephesians 2:8–9, Paul says that the salvation event ‘is the gift of God’; this event includes the whole saving process of grace, faith and salvation. Scholars, of course, continue to dispute this reading, but Romans 8:30 seems to confirm that faith is a gift. Here Paul contemplates God’s saving work from beginning to end, affirming that those whom God has foreknown he will also glorify. The list of God’s saving works includes the statement, ‘those whom he called he also justified’. It is immediately evident that the word ‘called’ (kaleō) cannot possibly be translated as ‘invited to believe in Christ’. Otherwise, the verse would say that all those who are summoned to believe in Christ are justified (see Righteousness, justice and justification). Paul does not believe this, for he often insists that justification is only by faith (*e.g. Rom. 5:1), and not all people believe in Christ. In Paul the word ‘called’ refers to God’s effective call, which produces or begets faith in those to whom it is addressed. All who are called are justified, since the calling is performative, bringing people into a saving relationship with God. If this is so, then the calling must produce faith and be limited in scope. All those who are called are justified because God’s effective call begets faith in them, and by virtue of their faith they are justified. James also identifies faith as God’s gift, teaching that God has chosen the poor to be rich in faith (Jas. 2:5).
That God’s call is effective is confirmed by 1 Corinthians 1. The gospel is preached indiscriminately to both Jews and Greeks (1 Cor. 1:23), but only those called among Jews and Greeks embrace it as the wisdom and power of God (1 Cor. 1:9, 24). Paul then describes the ‘calling’ of the Corinthians (1 Cor. 1:26–31). Three times in 1 Corinthians 1:27–28 he explains ‘calling’ in terms of God’s choosing (eklegomai) the Corinthians, indicating that the call is a powerful work of grace which inducts believers into the kingdom and confers faith in Jesus Christ.
In 1 Corinthians 1:30 Paul refers to believers’ induction into Christ. Some understand Ephesians 1:4 to say that God chose Christ, and that those believers who choose to be part of Christ are thereby ‘elect’. Such a reading ignores the syntax of Ephesians 1:4, for the text does not actually say that God chose Christ, but that he chose ‘us’ to be ‘in Christ’. The reading also seems to ignore 1 Corinthians 1:30, which clearly teaches that believers are in Christ because of God’s work (*ex autou, ‘of him’). No room is left for the idea that believers themselves are ultimately responsible for their faith. Paul, of course, does not teach election to provoke intellectual debates. In both Ephesians 1:3–14 and 1 Corinthians 1:26–31 he emphasizes that God elects his people in order to bring glory, praise, and honour to his name. God’s election is ‘to the praise of his glory’ (Eph. 1:6, 12, 14). He chose some and not others so that no one would boast in human beings (1 Cor. 1:29) and so that we would boast only in the Lord (1 Cor. 1:31).
Probably the most controversial text on election is Romans 9–11 (especially Romans 9). In these chapters, Paul emphasizes God’s saving plan in history, affirming that God is faithful to his word (Rom. 9:6). A strong view of divine sovereignty is found throughout chapter 9. Some have said that the text refers only to corporate and not to individual salvation, but this distinction is not made elsewhere in the NT (see above). In addition, the separation of individual and corporate election is illogical, for all groups are comprised of individuals. Others suggest that chapter 9 relates to the historical destiny of Israel, Ishmael, Esau, Jacob and Pharaoh, and thus they conclude that Paul’s discussion is not about salvation at all. Such arguments are unconvincing. Paul is indeed concerned about the historical destiny of Israel, but that destiny is inextricably intertwined with salvation. Paul’s deep grief and willingness to suffer for Israel is precisely because the nation is unsaved (Rom. 9:3; 10:1) in contrast to the Gentiles (Rom. 8:28–39). It is this which precipitates Paul’s discussion in the first place, and he does not leave the issue of salvation behind in Romans 9:6–23. Indeed, in Romans 9 he uses soteriological terms: ‘Abraham’s children’ (Rom. 9:7); ‘children of God’ (9:8); ‘children of the promise’ (9:8); ‘election’ (9:11); the contrast between ‘works’ and ‘call’ (9:12); ‘loved’ and ‘hated’ (9:13); ‘mercy’ (9:15–16, 18); ‘special use’ and ‘ordinary use’ (9:21); and ‘objects of wrath’ and ‘objects of mercy’ (9:22–23). Thus historical destiny must not be divorced from salvation. In fact, chapters 9–11 have a single theme: God’s promise relating to Israel’s salvation, and the conclusion of the argument is that ‘all Israel will be saved’ (Rom. 11:26).
Romans 9, therefore (*cf. Rom. 11:1–10), emphasizes God’s sovereignty in salvation. He will surely accomplish what he has ordained. Since he chooses people by virtue of his own good pleasure and from his mercy, not on the basis of foreseen works or foreseen faith, his promises will certainly be fulfilled. Those who are dead in trespasses and sins have no ability or inclination to believe (Eph. 2:1–10), and thus the only means by which new life may be obtained is a powerful resurrection work of God.
The biblical teaching on election makes clear that salvation is God’s work, that his purpose will be accomplished, and that his promise to bless all nations will be fulfilled. Of course, such teaching raises questions about human responsibility and divine justice. The scriptures do not provide a complete answer to such questions. They do, however, teach a form of compatibilism in which human responsibility is assumed, even though God has predestined everything which will occur. This tension between divine sovereignty and human responsibility is articulated in Acts 2:23 and 4:27–28. The death of Jesus was predestined before the foundation of the world, and yet the people who did the evil deed were held responsible for their motives and actions. Nowhere do the scriptures teach that if events are predestined, then those who do what is evil are free from responsibility. Rather, they present God as sovereign over all things, even the toss of the dice (Prov. 16:33), and the choices of human beings as real and significant; people are held responsible for their actions.
Bibliography
D. A. Carson, Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical Themes in Tension (Atlanta, 1981); P. K. Jewett, Election and Predestination (Grand Rapids, 1985); W. W. Klein, The New Chosen
People: A Corporate View of Election (Grand Rapids, 1990); C. H. Pinnock, The Grace of God, the Will of Man: A Case for Arminianism (Grand Rapids, 1989); idem (ed.), Grace Unlimited (Minneapolis, 1975); J. Piper, The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1–23 (Grand Rapids, 21993); T. R. Schreiner and B. A. Ware (eds.), The Grace of God, the Bondage of the Will, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids, 1995); R. K. M. Wright, No Place for Sovereignty: What’s Wrong with Free Will Theism (Downers Grove, 1996).
(New dictionary of biblical theology, Thomas Schreiner)
