The most well-known feature of Calvinism is its famous five points, often referred to by Calvinists as “the doctrines of grace” and represented by the acronym TULIP.[1] There is much more to Calvinist theology than this, of course, but TULIP is definitely the centerpiece. The acronym summarizes the Calvinist understanding of salvation like this:
- Total Depravity
- Unconditional Election
- Limited Atonement
- Irresistible Grace
- Perseverance of the Saints
Each of these points expresses a key component of Calvinism’s understanding of how God saves people. In this article, we’ll take a look at “unconditional election.”
Unconditional Election
“Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him.” (Ephesians 1:4)
According to Calvinism, “unconditional election” is the remedy for the inability of humans to choose. “Why in the world does anyone get saved if we are so warped in our nature and will, and unable to turn to God? Unconditional Election is the explanation.”[1]
Unconditional election refers to God choosing who would become believers, and making that choice before the foundation of the world. God made this choice unconditionally, that is, with no consideration for anything in the human person but solely based on his own sovereign will. In eternity past, God didn’t look down through the halls of human history and pick people he thought had great potential. He didn’t pick the most beautiful or talented. He didn’t even pick the people he knew would respond in faith to the message of the gospel, because no one can do that until God first chooses them. He simply picked some people for no reason other than that he did.
These people and only these people God “purposed to save.”[2]
The rest of mankind he chose to leave unable to respond and thus unsaved. The Westminster Confession expresses it as “passing by” them and explains it like this:
“The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.”[3]
“Unconditional election refers to God choosing who would become believers, and making that choice before the foundation of the world.”
When people say that Calvinists believe in predestination, this is what they are referring to. Yet this isn’t to say that non-Calvinists don’t also believe in a form of predestination. Sometimes both Calvinists and non-Calvinists make the mistake of thinking that Calvinists believe in predestination or election and non-Calvinists don’t.
A handful of years ago, I was sitting around a table with leaders from a wide variety of churches in the area where I live—Baptists, Lutherans, and Presbyterians. We were seeking to create a broad theological document based on the historic creeds to guide the teachers of a local Christian school that had students enrolled from all these churches. When we came to the sections on predestination, the head of the school who was guiding our meeting had already crossed out everything.
I spoke up. “You can’t say nothing about predestination,” I explained. “That leaves your teachers with no direction whatsoever.”
Since I was the only non-Reformed person in the room, he was surprised and said, “You’re not Calvinist or Reformed, so I didn’t think you believed in predestination.”
But the idea of predestination and election appears in the Bible, and that means we can’t delete it, no matter our theological persuasion.
So as a non-Calvinist, the problem with unconditional election isn’t the election part; it’s the unconditional part and how that unconditional part is explained within Calvinism. So let me offer a few observations that lead me to believe that what the Bible means by election is not the same thing Calvinism teaches.
“As a non-Calvinist, the problem with unconditional election isn’t the election part; it’s the unconditional part and how that unconditional part is explained within Calvinism.”
My first observation actually applies to Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike. It’s this: it doesn’t work to construct a theological view of election (usually based on questions and debate flowing out of the Protestant Reformation) and then read that view back into the passages where the words “election” or “predestination” show up. The reason for this is that different passages use the language of election in different ways to emphasize different things. Each passage must be taken on its own and understood in its own context.
On one hand, some non-Calvinists teach that election is about “the plan, not the man,” meaning that God predestined a way to be saved but not the people who would be saved. They then suggest that passages such as Ephesians 1:4-6 show this, emphasizing that the choosing is in Christ. But that passage also uses the personal pronoun “us,” and other texts are explicit that people are predestined, such as Romans 8:29: “Those whom he foreknew, he predestined …”
Calvinists, on the other hand, tend to bring the idea of unconditional election with them to Romans 8:29 (quoted above) and contend that “foreknew” can’t mean that God foreknew something about those he predestined (e.g., that they would respond in faith to the gospel), or it would no longer be unconditional, and thus somehow compromise God’s sovereignty or grace. But the basic meaning of the word “foreknowledge” is to have some knowledge ahead of time, and I find Calvinism’s redefinition of this word (i.e., as “foreloved”) unconvincing.
“The basic meaning of the word ‘foreknowledge’ is to have some knowledge ahead of time, and I find Calvinism’s redefinition of this word (i.e., as ‘foreloved’) unconvincing.”
I think it would help all of us to try to hear each individual passage on its own terms in its original first-century context rather than importing a pre-packaged theological construct about election into our exegesis.
Second, the language of “election” in the New Testament derives from the Old Testament where it refers to the nation of Israel as God’s chosen people who are set apart for a specific purpose. In other words, the most common way election is used throughout the Bible is for the corporate identity of God’s people. It refers to a chosen people, not a chosen person.[4]
Finally, none of the passages about predestination in the New Testament speak about people being predestined to believe. In Calvinism, predestination is about unbelievers being chosen to become believers. But the passages about predestination aren’t about how unbelievers become believers; instead, they speak about the great benefits and goals God has pre-planned for believers. For example, believers are predestined to be adopted as his sons (Ephesians 1:5), to receive an inheritance (Ephesians 1:11), and to be conformed to the image of his Son (Romans 8:29).
Therefore, it seems to me that predestination and election in the Bible mean something quite different from what they mean in Calvinism.
[1] J. A. Medders. Humble Calvinism (The Good Book Company), 75.
[2] David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas, The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, Documented (Philipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1963), 30.
[3] Westminster Confession, III, 7.
[4] Gordon Fee: “As in the Old Testament the term refers not to individual election but to a people who have been chosen by God for his purposes.” In Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996), 73, note 5.
