In a previous article, I examined the language of “foreknowledge” in the New Testament; that article introduced a series in which I am considering the Biblical language of “foreknowledge,” “election,” and “predestination” within a Reformed Arminian, Free Will Baptist framework. The following two posts turn to election. The language of election (or choosing) appears with much more frequency in the New Testament compared to that of either foreknowledge or predestination; even so, I attempt to give some attention to each of these occurrences over the following articles. Consequently, I cannot say all that could be said about the passages in question.
Practically all words have a range of meaning, including words for election. Sometimes, their meaning is specific to salvation, which this article examines, but other times, their meaning is more general, which the following article examines. This article argues that God has elected individual believers in Christ from eternity past by faith according to His foreknowledge unto eternal life.
God elects believers . . .
Firstly, we see throughout the New Testament that God elects believers. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus told a parable in which He compared the kingdom of heaven to a wedding feast, stating, “For many are called [klētoi], but few chosen [eklektoi]” (22:14).[1] This statement appears to distinguish divine calling from divine choosing/electing, indicating that not everyone who is called is chosen. In fact, the usage of “calling” throughout the New Testament suggests that calling and choosing may overlap but are nonetheless distinct; a person must be called to be chosen, but he is not always chosen just because he is called.
God chooses, but His choosing is not arbitrary. In the parable of the wedding feast, those who attended the wedding first exercised their agency to accept the invitation. The passage does not say they accepted the invitation because the king had chosen them, only that the king issued a wide invitation that some accepted and others rejected. J. Matthew Pinson explains this passage this way: “Interpreting this parable as teaching unconditional election not only reads into the passage but also flies in the face of its plain meaning.”[2] Furthermore, the king invited other guests who exercised their agency to decline his invitation. So, in relation to salvation, God calls many people unto Himself, some of whom accept His invitation and some of whom do not, but He elects only those who accept His invitation.
The apostle Paul also spoke to the theme of God’s electing believers. In his first epistle to the Corinthians, he wrote that the called (klētois) recognize that their calling (klēsin) is from God because He has elected (exelexato) people we would not expect: the foolish, the weak, the lowly, and the despised rather than the wise, the strong, and the noble (1:26–28). Similarly, in his epistle to the Ephesians, Paul stated quite plainly that God elected (exelexato) believers (1:4). Other passages, which I examine throughout this piece and the following, also make this point, whether implicitly or explicitly: the king calls, and he chooses; God elects.
The question remains as to whether divine election is further qualified by other considerations. The parable of the wedding feast intimates that divine election occurs in conversation with human volition. Indeed, the following passages teach that divine election is qualified not only by human volition but also by other factors as well, including ground (Christ), condition (faith), means (foreknowledge), and end (holiness).
In Christ from eternity past by faith . . .
In the passage from Ephesians, Paul did not state that God elected believers, period. He qualified his statement by saying that God grounded election in Jesus Christ: “in Him before the foundation of the world” (1:4), meaning that election is both “Christocentric” and “eternal.”[3] God determined from eternity past that believers would be saved in Christ. Christ and Christ alone, said Jacobus Arminius, is the “meritorious cause” of election.[4]
Whereas election is grounded in Jesus Christ, it is conditioned on faith. The elect have believed in Christ (1:13); they have placed their faith in Christ (1:15). Hence, whereas Calvinists hold to the doctrine of unconditional election, Reformed Arminians hold to that of conditional election, with personal faith in Christ being the condition for one’s election. Both F. Leroy Forlines and Robert E. Picirilli observe that, according to Paul, God elects people “in Christ,” not that He elects them “to be in Christ,” so that election in Christ is conditioned on personal faith in Christ.[5] Thus, God, from eternity past, elected persons who would believe (and persevere) in Christ, making an individual’s faith “certain” while also being “truly contingent and free.”[6]
Paul appealed to similar ideas in 2 Thessalonians, writing that God has chosen (heilato) believers “from the beginning unto salvation” (2:13).[7] Quite simply, divine election occurred in eternity past. However, Paul further qualified his statement by saying that God has elected believers “by the faith of the truth.” Divine election is not absent the condition of the personal faith that individual believers exercise in Christ. As Pinson puts it, “God chose the elect in faith.”[8]
Because of passages like these, the Free Will Baptist Articles of Faith state the following concerning election: “God determined from the beginning to save all who should comply with the conditions of salvation. Hence, by faith in Christ men become His elect.”[9] In summary, God has elected the believer from eternity past on the basis of his personal faith in Christ.
According to foreknowledge . . .
The means by which God elects believers from eternity past is His foreknowledge (examined in the previous article), which is a logical consequence of His being omniscient. Paul illustrated this point in relation to election in Romans by appealing to God’s election (eklogēn) of Jacob over Esau prior to their birth, prior to their doing good or evil (9:11). Again, while Calvinists interpret this passage to demonstrate the doctrine of unconditional election, Reformed Arminians see it as being consistent with conditional election because temporal priority is not tantamount to logical priority; divine choice may temporally precede human action but logically follow divine foreknowledge of human choice. As Forlines explained, “Individual conditional election by God in eternity past does not involve a logical contradiction.”[10]
This point follows from reading this passage through the lens of what immediately precedes it, where Paul explained that God has foreknown, predestined, called (ekalesen), justified, and glorified (8:29–30) those who love Him (8:28), namely, the elect (eklektōn, 8:33). Hence, said Forlines, “[T]hose who are saved in time were chosen by God in eternity past.”[11] In relation to Jacob and Esau, then, God foreknew the good and the evil they would freely commit and, based on their choices, elected Jacob over Esau.
In relation to personal salvation, election is predicated on God’s foreknowing individual faith, not in one’s membership to a certain family or nation.[12] In a manner of speaking, God chooses those who choose Him. As Picirilli puts it, “Romans 9–11 indicates that God shows saving mercy to whom He pleases and that He pleases to show this saving mercy to those who put faith in Jesus Christ.”[13] From this perspective, Romans 9 speaks not to the doctrine of unconditional election but rather to the doctrine of conditional election, as well as to the doctrines of divine knowledge and power because the sovereign God will realize His purposes according to His ability to foreknow and His power to elect.
Peter also articulated God’s election as being based on His foreknowledge. Specifically, he wrote to the sojourners who are elect according to the Father’s foreknowledge (eklektois . . . kata prognōsin theou patros, 1 Peter 1:1–2). This passage states plainly that the Father’s election is derived from His foreknowledge, making election, says Picirilli, “subordinate” to foreknowledge.[14] Peter then proceeded to explain in the next sentence that the elect are protected by God’s power “through faith” (1:5). So, Peter, like Paul, mentioned the condition of faith and, according to Kevin L. Hester, not just faith but also “perseverance in that faith.”[15] Consequently, as with Paul, we see in Peter that election is based on God’s foreknowledge of individual faith in Christ.[16]
Unto eternal life.
Finally, the end, the goal, the telos of election is the individual’s salvation. That is, the elect are (or will be) justified, sanctified, and glorified in Christ.
Justification
The New Testament explains, on several occasions, that the elect are justified in Christ. For example, Paul taught that the elect are justified by the death, resurrection, and intercession of Jesus Christ in Romans 8:33–34: “Who will bring a charge against God’s elect [eklektōn]? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us” (NASB95). Several questions arise from these verses: what is the nature of election, and what is its relationship to justification?
Firstly, Paul did not claim that God has justified only the elect, only that He has justified the elect. “[S]tatements that Christ died for some particular group or person fall far short of saying that He died only for them,” remarks Picirilli. “In logic, a restricted statement does not invalidate a universal one.”[17] Consequently, this verse does not invalidate the doctrine of general atonement. Secondly, these verses say the elect are justified, but they do not say the justified are necessarily elect. Pinson explains, “God elects for eternal salvation only those people whom he foreknows will persevere in faith to the end of life.” Accordingly, someone could be justified but not elect if they would not also become glorified: not “everyone who is justified will be glorified.”[18]
Again, in Ephesians 1:4 (examined above), Paul explained that God elected (exelexato) believers in Christ. Similarly, in 2 Timothy 2:10, he stated that he had endured hardship for the sake of the elect (eklektous) so that they may obtain salvation in Christ. Like Paul, Peter also believed that the elect shall be justified, writing to sojourners who were elected to be sprinkled with Jesus’ blood (eklektois . . . eis . . . rhantismon haimatos Jēsou Christou, 1 Peter 1:1; cf. 2:4). Such verses fundamentally concern our justification in Christ, or our “union with Christ.”[19] By definition, the elect are justified.
Sanctification
The New Testament also demonstrates that the elect are sanctified. For example, Paul instructed God’s holy and beloved elect (eklektoi) to clothe themselves in compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, patience, forbearance, forgiveness, love, peace, and the word of Christ (Colossians 3:12–16). He also stated that the believer’s election (eklogēn) can be known according to his faith, love, and hope in Christ (1 Thessalonians 1:3–4). Although election is foreknown from eternity past by divine omniscience, it is evidenced in space and time by sanctification. For this reason, Picirilli suggests that 1 Thessalonians 1:4 may be an example of election referring to “acts in time rather than in eternity.”[20] Again, Paul wrote that God has chosen (heilato) believers in the sanctification of the Spirit (2 Thessalonians 2:13). Finally, he described his ministry as being for the sake of the elect (eklektōn) and of their knowledge of the truth in godliness in the hope of eternal life (Titus 1:1–2).
James and Peter also joined the concepts of election and sanctification. James stated that God has chosen (exelexato) the poor who love Him to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom (2:5). Peter, not unlike Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:13, wrote to the sojourners who are elect by the sanctification of the Spirit unto the obedience of Jesus Christ (eklektois . . . en hagiasmō pneumatos eis hypakoēn . . . Jēsou Christou, 1 Peter 1:1–2). Peter also said that believers can make their election (eklogēn) sure (2 Peter 1:10) by producing the fruit of sanctification, including faith, virtue, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly affection, and love (1:5–9). So, just as the elect are justified, they are sanctified, and they make their election sure by the fruit of the triune Godhead.
Glorification
Finally, the New Testament teaches that the elect are glorified. Paul explained that God foreknew that the elect (eklektōn) are predestined to become conformed to Christ’s image (8:29, 33). In the words of Hester, conformity to Christ’s image is the “terminus of election.”[21] Again, God elected (exelexato) the saints to be holy and blameless (Ephesians 1:4; cf. 1:12). That is, it has the telos of final sanctification, or glorification. Threading together several themes from this passage, Pinson writes, “God’s decree to elect individuals to eternal salvation is based on his consideration of the merit of Christ imputed to an individual through faith.”[22] Similarly, Paul remarked that he had endured hardship for the sake of the elect (eklektous) so that they may obtain eternal glory (2 Timothy 2:10). Hence, the doctrine of election encourages the true believer in his faith because, even if he is not yet perfected, he shall be one day.
Conclusion
The language of election is thoroughly biblical and eminently practical. It teaches us about God’s might and goodness. From eternity past, He chose the elect in Christ to be justified, sanctified, and glorified. Thus, when the elect are tempted to despair, they may lean into the promise that God shall surely finish what He has begun (Philippians 1:6). At the same time, election encourages us in our Christian walk. While it is God’s work, it is not absent human agency. The elect place their faith in Christ, and they make their election sure by practicing spiritual fruit.
The next article I post will continue considering the language of election in the New Testament, further examining the topic of individual election, as well as that of Israel, the last days, Jesus, the apostles, the fathers, and human choice.
[1] Translations represent my own unless otherwise indicated. Additionally, this statement also appears in some translations of Matthew 20:16, but because it is not a strong textual variant, it is not found in more modern translations. See Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (New York: United Bible Society, 1994), 41.
[2] J. Matthew Pinson, 40 Questions about Arminianism (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2022), 276. See also F. Leroy Forlines, The Quest for Truth: Answering Life’s Inescapable Questions (Nashville: Randall House, 2002), 404.
[3] Robert E. Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation; Calvinism and Arminianism (Nashville: Randall House, 2002), 49, 52 (italics removed). See also Kevin L. Hester, “Election and the Influence and Response Model of Personality,” in The Promise of Arminian Theology: Essays in Honor of F. Leroy Forlines, ed. Matthew Steven Bracey and W. Jackson Watts (Nashville: Randall House Academic, 2016), 62–63.
[4] Jacobus Arminius, The Works of James Arminius, trans. James Nichols and William Nichols, 3 vols. (Nashville: Randall House, 2007), 3:293; quoted in Pinson, 40 Questions about Arminianism, 249.
Additionally, I would add that, theologically speaking, the doctrine of election is set against a covenantal, relational, and even familial backdrop, seen for example in the language of “adoption” from this passage in Ephesians 1, but I do not develop this point because it goes beyond my present purposes.
[5] Forlines, Quest for Truth,264, 401; Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free Will, 53, 55, 83. See also Pinson, 40 Questions about Arminianism, 247, 251.
[6] Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free Will, 55. See also Robert E. Picirilli, “Foreknowledge, Freedom, and the Future,” JETS 43, no. 2 (June 2000): 261–65; and Forlines, Quest for Truth, 374.
[7] Both Forlines and Pinson examine the question of the how the textual variant in the verse impacts the broader question of election, namely, whether the phrase should be “from the beginning” or “firstfruits.” They observe that neither interpretation presents a problem for the doctrine of conditional election (Forlines, Quest for Truth, 402; Pinson, 40 Questions about Arminianism, 278–80). Translations adopting “from the beginning” include the NASB, HCSB, NET, and KJV, and translations adopting “firstfruits” include the NIV and ESV; “from the beginning” appears to have the majority.
[8] Pinson, 40 Questions about Arminianism, 279.
[9] A Treatise of the Faith and Practices of the National Association of Free Will Baptists (Nashville: Executive Office of the National Association of Free Will Baptists, 2016), 36.
[10] Forlines, Quest for Truth, 362.
[11] Forlines, Quest for Truth, 402. Forlines gave several prooftexts for this proposition, including Matthew 24:22, 24, 31; Mark 13:20, 22, 27; Luke 18:7; Romans 8:33; 16:13; Colossians 3:12; 2 Timothy 2:10; Titus 1:1; 1 Peter 1:2; 2:9; and Revelation 17:14.
[12] Forlines, Quest for Truth, 363,400; Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free Will, 72; Pinson, 40 Questions about Arminianism, 265, 268. Furthermore, Picirilli remarks, “Arminians tend to set this aside as election to office rather than salvation” (Grace, Faith, Free Will, 74), and Pinson argues that Jacob and Esau serve as types (40 Questions about Arminianism, 267–69).
[13] Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free Will, 84.
[14] Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free Will, 78. See also Forlines, The Quest for Truth, 400.
[15] Hester, “Election and the Influence and Response Model of Personality,” 67.
[16] Peter used similar language of “choosing” when he described the witnesses who saw the resurrected Jesus, namely, the apostles and others, as having been chosen beforehand (prokecheirotonēmenois) by God (Acts 10:41). This choosing does not appear to be salvific in nature.
[17] Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free Will, 91.
[18] Pinson, 40 Questions about Arminianism, 261. He also states concerning 8:35, 38–39: “Paul does not mean for these texts to address the question of endurance in the faith or the security of the believer. Rather, they concern the benefits that come to the believer through union with Christ. . . . Romans 8:35–39 is not considering the question of whether a regenerate person can be lost again” (319).
[19] Pinson, 40 Questions about Arminianism, 103. He makes this remark specifically concerning 2 Timothy 2:10.
[20] Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free Will, 52.
[21] Hester, “Election and the Influence and Response Model of Personality,” 65.
[22] Pinson, 40 Questions about Arminianism, 246.
Recent Comments