THREE VIEWS ON THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION

INTRODUCTION

The concept of election is one that is found throughout the witness of the Old and New Testaments.  For many, the word itself conjures up feelings of angst over theological debates that have raged for centuries. Exegetes and theologians have written extensively on the matter, and much of the debate has been civilized.  However, with an issue such as this, civility is not a foregone conclusion.  John Wesley, hardly a neutral figure on the subject, observed when commenting on St. Peter’s concession that much of Paul is difficult to understand that “it is certain not only the unlearned, but many of the most learned men in the world, and not the ‘unstable’ only, but many who seemed to be well established in the truths of the gospel, have for several centuries, ‘wrested’ these passages ‘to their own destruction.’”[1]  He goes on to caution that:

"Hard to be understood" we may well allow them to be, when we consider how men of the strongest understanding, improved by all the advantages of education, have continually differed in judgment concerning them. And this very consideration, that there is so wide a difference upon the head between men of the greatest learning, sense, and piety, one might imagine would make all who now speak upon the subject exceedingly wary and self-diffident. But I know not how it is, that just the reverse is observed in every part of the Christian world. No writers upon earth appear more positive than those who write on this difficult subject. Nay, the same men, who, writing upon any other subject, are remarkably modest and humble, on this alone lay aside all self-distrust, “And speak ex cathedra infallible.”[2]

It is, then, with great deference to those scholars who have gone before that we journey into the debate that has often coalesced into the question, What does God know, and when?”  While the subject of election is very broad in scope, this paper will seek to define three of the primary competing views and adjudicate between them, offering a solution that is both ecumenical and biblical.  The solution will be based chiefly on correcting a misapplication of the timelessness of God that has been common to the various traditions.  A proper understanding, then, of this timelessness will open the door to a fuller appreciation of the mystery of God, and an avenue for ecumenism that has often been closed by dogmatists on all sides.

ELECTION DEFINED

            Election, in a non-theological sense, can be defined as “the selection of a person or persons for office by vote,” or “a public vote upon a proposition.” In a theological sense, however, election is “the choice by God of individuals, as for a particular work or for favor or salvation.”[3]  While the “doctrine of election” is generally concerned specifically with salvation, the idea of election is used in the Bible to refer to many things. 

            Fred Klooster identifies five categories of biblical election.  The first of these refers to “elect angels.”[4]  Paul, in writing to Timothy, solemnly charged him “in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of His chosen angels” to maintain the principles outlined in his letter.[5] 

The Bible also speaks of God electing individuals to a particular office or service. 1 Samuel 16 recounts the anointing of David as king of Israel.  This passage makes it clear that David had been chosen by God for this office.   Jesus continued to exercise this prerogative of choice in his choosing of the apostles during his earthly ministry.

Abraham and his descendants were elected to be God’s holy nation.  Here, we have a third type of biblical election which involves not only an individual, but an entire people group.  Klooster observes that “[t]he election of Israel originated in God’s sovereign choice, expressed his covenantal love, and served the goal of redemptive history culminating in Jesus Christ.”[6] 

A fourth type of election is cited in Klooster as being “the election of the Messiah.”[7]  Here, once again, is an example of the sovereign choice of God impacting earthly people and events.  Here, Jesus is spoken of as having been elected to his sacrificial and mediatorial roles on behalf of humanity.

The fifth type of election that Klooster mentions is the one with which this paper will be concerned.  This is election to salvation.  Indeed, when the “doctrine of election” is discussed, it is this type that is usually at the center of the debate, as it is the most common type of election discussed in the New Testament, and the one most directly applicable to the lives of Christians.  It is from this that the “doctrine of election” derives.

Augustus Hopkins Strong gave a concise summary of the “doctrine of election” when he wrote that “[e]lection is that eternal act of God, by which in his sovereign pleasure, and on account of no foreseen merit in them, he chooses certain out of the number of sinful men to be the recipients of the special grace of his spirit, and so to be made voluntary partakers of Christ’s salvation.”[8]

THREE VIEWS

The primary debate within evangelical Christianity, with regard to election, is where to place the locus of control in man’s salvation.  Several solutions have been suggested.  One of these, often referred to as sublapsarianism, states “that all people stand under the judgment of God for their sin but that God sovereignly chooses to elect some to salvation and actively works in their heart to bring them to Christ.”  In this view, “those who are not elected are left to perish for their sin.”[9]  A second view asserts that God has predestined those whom he knew would believe if given the chance.  Steven Waterhouse summarizes this view, writing that “God has a program of election to reach all of those whom he foreknows will believe if the blindness [caused by sin] is dissipated.”[10]  Here, both salvation and damnation are decreed by God on an individual basis, according to his sovereign will.  To a third group, “[f]aith is offered as God’s free gift, but the sinner must then actively respond to that offer and reach out with the arms of true repentance to receive the gift.”[11] 

These three views all support the idea that man is utterly depraved, that is, that sin has made man unable to please God without diving intervention.  Where they differ is primarily in the distribution of God’s grace.  Placed on a spectrum for clarity, we have three scenarios.  On the one side, grace leading to salvation is given to a specific group of individuals, chosen by God to receive his favor.  We will refer to this as the Calvinist position.  On the other end of the spectrum, grace is distributed to all, enabling all to choose to accept or reject Christ of their own volition.  This, we will call the Wesleyan position.  In the middle, we have grace given to those who, through divine foreknowledge, would accept it if given the ability.  This will be referred to as the Foreknowledge position.  There have been a variety of other views throughout history, but these three views will be the primary ones treated here.

Calvinist Position

            Much has been made over the years of the “five points” of Calvinism.  These tenets, total depravity, unconditional predestination, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints, are all impactful in a Calvinistic doctrine of election.  To those learning about Calvinism from the outside, this “TULIP” model is often all that is taught.  These five points, however do not represent the sum total of Calvinism.  In arguing against those who would use a Calvinistic doctrine of election to preclude the need for evangelism, Steven Cowan observes:

Concerning the hyper-Calvinist, he seemingly holds to orthodox Calvinism as far as the five points are concerned but formulates some of his concepts in such a way as to diverge from that system . . .Yet Calvinism is not limited to the five points. Edwin H. Palmer rightly argues that "Calvinism has an unlimited number of points: it is as broad as the Bible." It can therefore be argued that when the Scriptures are seen in their totality, evangelism is not only compatible with Calvinism but is a necessary part of its theology.[12]

While Cowan is correct in observing that Calvinism is broader that the five points, these points go a long way in understanding why the Calvinistic doctrine of election has been formed as it has.  Therefore, it is prudent to explain the TULIP model here.

            The first petal in the TULIP system is total depravity.  Total depravity means that man is so corrupted by the fall that he is incapable of doing anything that has salvific merit before God.  As Millard Erickson puts it, “every individual is so sinful as to be unable to respond to any offer of grace.”[13]  Citing scriptural evidence for the doctrine of total depravity, he writes:

A key passage often cited is Ephesians 2:1–3: “As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.” Numerous other passages indicate both the universality and the seriousness of this condition (e.g., John 6:44; Rom. 3:1–23; 2 Cor. 4:3–4).[14]

Thus, the sinful nature is such that man, even when confronted with the truth-claims of God, is unable to respond positively to those claims, at least to the extent that such a response would have saving effect.  C.C. Ryrie clarifies this definition, writing that:

A proper definition of total depravity should not focus primarily on the questions of sinfulness vs. goodness or ability vs. inability, but on fallen man’s relation to a holy God.  Because of the effects of the fall, that original relationship of fellowship with God was broken and man’s entire nature was polluted.  As a result no one can do anything, even good things, that can gain soteriological merit in God’s sight.  Therefore we may concisely define total depravity as the unmeritoriousness of man before God because of the corruption of original sin.[15]

The second of the “five points” is unconditional predestination.  That is, those who will be saved have been predetermined by God in eternity past, and that predestination, not dependent on anything other than the sovereign will of God, is unalterable.  As Calvin wrote in Book 3 of Institutes of the Christian Religion, “By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he has decided in his own mind what he wishes to happen in the case of each individual.”[16]  Thus, the eternal destiny of all men is predetermined, for the elect, by the sovereign decree of God, and for the non-elect, by their sinfulness.

Limited Atonement is the third petal in TULIP.  By this, Calvinists mean that the death and resurrection of Christ was effectual only for the elect.  It teaches that “in the Bible there is a qualification as to who will benefit by the death of Christ, thus limiting its effect.”[17]  Citing such scriptures as John 10:11, Acts 20:28, and Romans 8:32-35, limited, or particular, atonement argues that “the world” that Christ died for (cf John 3:16) is the “world of the elect.”  Elwell writes that “[t]he passages that speak of Christ’s death for “the world” have been misunderstood.  The world really means the world of believers, the church, or all nations.  Finally, the passages that say Christ died for all have also been misunderstood.  The word all means “all classes” of people, not everyone.”[18]

Irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints complete the TULIP model.  These will be treated together, as they are logical results of the previous tenets.  According to the doctrine of irresistible grace, if God has unconditionally elected certain men to salvation, and God’s ways cannot be thwarted, then the elect are unable to resist the call to be saved.  This fits logically within the model, for if one is to accept Calvinistic predestination and the absolute sovereignty of God, then it would be absurd to view man as being able to resist what God has ordained.  Perseverance likewise follows predestination and sovereignty, stating that those God has deemed will be saved will, in fact, be saved.

Wesleyan Position

            Wesleyan soteriology differs from Calvinism chiefly in its definition of the extent to which grace is administered to man.  Many Wesleyan distinctives flow from this, including general atonement, the free choice of man in receiving or rejecting salvation, and the ability for one to “lose their salvation”.  At the base of these doctrines is that of prevenient grace.  Wesley affirms, as does Calvin, that man is totally depraved as a result of the fall.  Wesleyan theologian Mildred Bangs Wynkoop affirmed that “[n]atural man is devilish, evil, wholly corrupt.  Any good in any man is only by the free grace of God.  Man is totally corrupt and helpless in himself.  Grace is the back of every good ability in man.  Not even the Christian, no matter how established he may be, possesses goodness in himself.”[19]  Prevenient grace, then, is the free act of God by which he enabled man not only to exercise choice in matters of salvation, but is also the means by which any man does any good.  Robert Rakestraw quotes Wesley as writing:

Salvation begins with what is usually termed (and very properly) preventing grace; including the first wish to please God, the first dawn of light concerning his will, and the first slight transient conviction of having sinned against him. All these imply some tendency toward life; some degree of salvation; the beginning of a deliverance from a blind, unfeeling heart, quite insensible of God and the things of God.[20]

Maintaining Wesley’s archaic use of the term preventing grace, which moderns have updated to prevenient grace, Rakestraw explains Wesley’s position further, writing:

Wesley insists that "all men are by nature not only sick, but 'dead in trespasses and in sins.' " It is "impossible for us to come out of our sins, yea, or to make the least motion toward it, till He who hath all power in heaven and earth calls our dead souls into life." Yet the fact that all are dead in sin by nature excuses none, seeing that there is no man that is in a state of mere nature; there is no man, unless he has quenched the Spirit, that is wholly void of the grace of God. No man living is entirely destitute of what is vulgarly called natural conscience. But this is not natural: It is more properly termed, preventing grace. Every man has a greater or less measure of this, which waiteth not for the call of man ... And every one, unless he be one of the small number whose conscience is seared with a hot iron, feels more or less uneasy when he acts contrary to the light of his own conscience.[21]

Conscience, then, according to Wesley, is not natural to man.  Rather, it is the prevenient grace of God that instills an ability to do good and to receive further grace (i.e. salvation).  By this doctrine, the Wesleyan affirms the total corruption of man and provides a way for man to receive salvation.  Unlike Calvinism, however, the ability to receive salvation is by God’s grace administered universally (preveniently) rather than particularly (as in predestination).   Leo Cox captures this sentiment well in his article on prevenient grace when he writes:

For Wesley the very existence of the race was dependent upon God's grace. Had the penalty of Adam's sin fallen without mercy, Adam would have died and the race perished with him. Thus physical life itself and all blessings resulting therefrom are a direct result of this grace. God's grace is in every man, not in the sense of being born in him, but it is "infused" into him. The heathen in some measure are given a knowledge of God and a conscience that bears witness to right and wrong. Wesley wrote that the "very first motion of good is from above, as well as the power that conducts it to the end."[22]

Foreknowledge Position

            At a midpoint between the deterministic Calvinist position and the prevenient grace position of Wesley lies a theological perspective which incorporates elements of both.  Such a perspective is articulated well by Dr. Steven Waterhouse in his compendium of Christian doctrine, Not By Bread Alone.  Acknowledging man’s depravity, Waterhouse writes that man is a “slave to sin,” with a “propensity to do evil” that inevitably dominates in the life of the unsaved person.[23]  This depravity can only be overcome by an act of grace in the person’s life.  This grace, however, is neither universal nor unconditional. 

While the grace applied is not universal, he asserts, the extent of the atonement is.  He lists several supports for this conclusion.  The first of these is God’s love for the world.  Rather than take “the world” to mean the world of the elect (as above), this in its plain sense to be universal in scope.  Additionally, he asserts an unlimited atonement, citing such sweeping verses as “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” and “that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.”[24] The declaration of salvation is also universal in scope, as is God’s desire for all to be saved.  In his most comprehensive statement of the foreknowledge position, Waterhouse writes:

God knows all the people who will ever believe, if given enlightenment.  Yet, even those with a latent potential for faith will never respond unless their blindness is penetrated and dispelled by God himself so their faith can be exercised.  Therefore, God has a program of election to reach all of those whom He foreknows will believe if the blindness is dissipated.[25]

So, here the necessity of specific divine intervention in the accepting of salvation is maintained, as in Calvinism, but the criterion for that intervention becomes the foreknowledge of God rather than selection based on unknown divine criteria.  The response to this divine initiative, in Waterhouse’s view, is still a free choice, enabled by the initial work of the Holy Spirit, applied selectively out of the foreknowledge of God.

SUGGESTED SOLUTION

            Each of the views above (and there are others) regarding election has been developed by theologians throughout the centuries with a great deal of piety and care.  So, how is one to come to terms with both the biblical witness and the finest in Christian scholarship represented above?  The key to the solution proposed here can actually be found in the writings of the scholars whose views have just been enumerated.  The chief problem with the positions above, especially the Calvinist and Wesleyan ones, is in their conception of time.  Though they universally recognize that God is outside of time, they have a tendency to subject him to time when developing doctrines such as that of election.  This is reflected in modern theologians as well, as Millard Erickson distinguishes between supralapsarian, infra-lapsarian, and sublapsarian Calvinist positions.  He writes, “The other major variation among Calvinists has to do with the logical order of God’s decrees. Here we distinguish the supralapsarian, infra-lapsarian, and sublapsarian positions. The terminology relates to whether logically, the decree to save comes before or after the decree to permit the fall.”[26]

            Wesley and Calvin both acknowledge the timelessness of God, and in similar fashion.  In the very sermon that is so famous for delineating his views on predestination, Wesley wrote:

But, in order to throw light upon this dark question, it should be well observed, that when we speak of God's foreknowledge, we do not speak according to the nature of things, but after the manner of men. For, if we speak properly, there is no such thing as either foreknowledge or afterknowledge in God. All time, or rather all eternity, (for the children of men,) being present to him at once, he does not know one thing in one point of view from everlasting to everlasting. As all time, with everything that exists therein, is present with him at once, so he sees at once, whatever was is, or will be, to the end of time.[27]

Likewise, Calvin, in Institutes of the Christian Religion, wrote:

When we attribute foreknowledge to God we mean that all things have ever been, and eternally remain, before his eyes; so that to his knowledge nothing is future or past, but all things are present; and present not in the sense that they are reproduced in imagination. . . , but present in the sense that he really sees and observes them placed, as it were, before his eyes.  And this foreknowledge extends over the whole universe and over every creature.[28]

Both of these master theologians recognize that God, the creator of time itself, resides outside such time, viewing the entirety of history at once.  The omnipresence of God does not simply mean that he is not merely every-where, but every-when.  Erickson observes that “God is also infinite in relation to time, which does not apply to him. He was before time began. The question, How old is God? is simply inappropriate. He is no older now than a year ago, for infinity plus one is no more than infinity. He simply is not restricted by the dimension of time.”[29]  This is where the chief difficulty in the doctrine of election comes into play.  Theologians argue whether God determines who will be saved before they are born, indeed before the world was created, or whether men choose God, thus securing their salvation.  All of the answers discussed above place God’s work within the constraints of time, which is, in Erickson’s parlance, inappropriate.  If God, as the Bible teaches, is not bound by time, if he “is equally aware of all points of that order [of human experience] simultaneously,” then it may rightly be said that God predestines outside of time, rather than at a particular point in or before human chronology.   Erickson draws the following conclusion about God’s timelessness: “While there is a successive order to God’s acts and a logical order to his decisions, there is no temporal order to his willing. His deliberation and willing take no time.”  Keeping this orderless-ness of God with respect to time in perspective when considering election will help one to understand that it is not a question of God’s foreordination or man’s choice, but the two bound together across the very thresholds of time itself.

            There are many passages in scripture that teach God’s timelessness.  Some of these are fairly straightforward, such as John 1:1-3.  Here, the evangelist writes, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.”  Thus, we know that the Word (i.e. Christ) preexisted before the creation of the world.  He existed prior to the first day (cf Genesis 1:1-5).  Other passages in the Bible word temporal statements about God in such a way that they are only understandable in light of his timelessness.  Jesus said, “Before Abraham was born, I am,”[30] and John testifies that Christ is “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”[31]  James testified to God’s exemption from the constraints of time when he wrote, “the Father of Lights, with whom there is not variation or shifting shadow.”[32]  In light of these passages (and others), it may be seen that God is indeed every-where and every-when, as Wesley and Calvin affirmed in their statements above.  This aspect of God allows for a more full reconciliation of scriptures that teach man’s election before time with those that speak to decisions made in time. 

CONCLUSION

The doctrine of election is perhaps one of the most debated in evangelical Christianity.  Throughout the centuries, scholars on various sides of the discussion have labored to be faithful to the scriptures, to the human experience, and to reason.  Still, it proves an area where common piety has failed to yield common results.  A common thread in the determinism of Calvin, the provenience of Wesley, and, to a lesser degree, the foreknowledge view of Waterhouse, has been a lack of consideration for the fact that God is outside of time.  Keeping this divine timelessness at the forefront allows one to appreciate that an “ordering of decrees” and before/after statements concerning God’s actions, while amenable to our humanity, fail to honor the transcendence of our Creator.

In sum, a fuller appreciation for scripture’s statements on the matter of election must rest in the knowledge that God’s ways are above our ways, his thoughts above our thoughts, and his presence every-where and every-when throughout eternity.  It is true that some precision is sacrificed in favor of awe, but the awe is preferable by far.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bangs, Carl. 1961. "Arminius and the Reformation." Church History 30, no. 2: 155-170. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 14, 2013).

Bettenson, Henry, and Chris Maunder. Documents of the Christian Church. 4 ed. Oxford, England.: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Bruce, F. F. The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (New International Commentary On the New Testament). 2nd ed. Garden City, New York: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1984.

Chalamet, Christophe. 2010. "No timelessness in God: on differing interpretations of Karl Barth's theology of eternity, time and election." Zeitschrift Für Dialektische Theologie 4, 21-37. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 7, 2013).

Cooper, Lamar Eugene. 2012. "Predestination as an Exegetical Question." Criswell Theological Review 10, no. 1: 73-90. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 14, 2013).

Cowan, Steven B. 1990. "Common Misconceptions of Evangelicals Regarding Calvinism." Journal Of The Evangelical Theological Society33, no. 2: 189-195. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 7, 2013).

Cox, Leo G. 1969. "Prevenient Grace - A Wesleyan view." Journal Of The Evangelical Theological Society 12, no. 3: 143-149. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 7, 2013).

den Boer, William. 2011. "Cum delectu": Jacob Arminius's (1559-1609) praise for and critique of Calvin and his theology." Church History And Religious Culture 91, no. 1-2: 73-86. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 14, 2013).

Elwell, Walter A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1998.

Goroncy, Jason A. 2008. "'That God may have mercy upon all': a review-essay of Matthias Gockel's Barth and Schleiermacher on the doctrine of election." Journal Of Reformed Theology 2, no. 2: 113-130. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost(accessed July 14, 2013).

Hunsinger, George. 2008. "Election and the trinity: twenty-five theses on the theology of Karl Barth." Modern Theology 24, no. 2: 179-198. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 7, 2013).

Loader, J A. 2009. "Calvin's election mix in small-scale theology." Hts 65, no. 1: ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost(accessed July 7, 2013).

McMaken, W Travis. 2009. "Election and the pattern of exchange in Karl Barth's doctrine of the atonement." Journal Of Reformed Theology 3, no. 2: 202-218. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 7, 2013).

Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996

Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to Matthew. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1992.

Nicolaides, Angelo. 2010. "The laos tou Theou: an Orthodox view of the 'people of God'." Hts 66, no. 1: ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 7, 2013).

Park, Song-Mi. 2010. "Transformation and demarcation of Jacob's "flocks" in Genesis 30:25-43: identity, election, and the role of the divine." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 72, no. 4: 667-677. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 7, 2013).

Picirilli, Robert E. 2000. "Foreknowledge, freedom, and the future." Journal Of The Evangelical Theological Society 43, no. 2: 259-271. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost(accessed July 14, 2013).

Pinson, J Matthew. 2010. "The nature of atonement in the theology of Jacobus Arminius." Journal Of The Evangelical Theological Society 53, no. 4: 773-785. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 7, 2013).

Rakestraw, Robert V. 1984. "John Wesley as a theologian of grace." Journal Of The Evangelical Theological Society 27, no. 2: 193-203. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 14, 2013).

Stanglin, Keith D., and Thomas H. McCall. 2005. "S M Baugh and the meaning of foreknowledge: another look." Trinity Journal 26, no. 1: 19-31. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 14, 2013).

Strong, Augustus Hopkins. Systematic Theology a Compendium. Philadelphia, PA: Judson Press, 1958.

Ticciati, Susannah. 2011. "Reading Augustine through Job: a reparative reading of Augustine's doctrine of predestination." Modern Theology 27, no. 3: 414-441. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 14, 2013).

Ticciati, Susannah. 2012. "The nondivisive difference of election: a reading of Romans 9-11." Journal Of Theological Interpretation 6, no. 2: 257-277. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 7, 2013).

van der Kooi, Akke. 2010. "Election and the lived life: considerations on Gollwitzer's reading of Karl Barth in CD II/2 as a contribution to actual discussions on trinity and election." Zeitschrift Für Dialektische Theologie 4, 67-82. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 7, 2013).

Waterhouse, Steven W. Not By Bread Alone: An Outlined Guide To Bible Doctrine. Amarillo, TX: Westcliff Press, 2010.

Wright, Conrad. 1942. "Edwards and the Arminians on the freedom of the will." Harvard Theological Review 35, no. 4: 241-261. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost(accessed July 14, 2013).

Wynkoop, Mildred Bangs. Foundations of Wesleyan-Armenian Theology. Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press, 1967.

---

[1] John Wesley, “Sermon LXIII – On Predestination “ in John Emory ed., The Works of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M. – Sermons, Volume 2,  Third American Complete and Standard Edition. (New York, NY: Eaton & Mains, 1904),  38.

[2] Ibid.

[3] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/election?s=t (Accessed August 5, 2013).

[4] Fred H. Klooster, “Elect, Election” in Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 370.

[5] 1 Timothy 5:21, italics mine.

[6] Klooster, Election, 370.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology a Compendium (Philadelphia, PA: Judson Press, 1958), 779.

[9] Steven B. Cowan, "Common misconceptions of Evangelicals regarding Calvinism." Journal Of The Evangelical Theological Society33, no. 2: 189-195, 1990. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 7, 2013), 191.

[10] Steven W. Waterhouse, Not By Bread Alone: An Outlined Guide to Bible Doctrine (Amarillo, TX: Westcliff Press, 2010), 128.

[11]Robert V. Rakestraw,  "John Wesley as a theologian of grace." Journal Of The Evangelical Theological Society 27, no. 2: 193-203, 1984. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 14, 2013), 199.

[12] Steven B. Cowan, Common Misconceptions, 191.

[13] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1998), 927.

[14] Ibid., 927-928.

[15] C. C. Ryrie, “Depravity, Total” in Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 337.

[16] John Calvin in Henry Bettenson and Chris Maunder, Documents of the Christian Church, 4 ed. (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2011), 228.            

[17] Walter A. Elwell, “Atonement, Extent of” in Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 115.

               

[18] Ibid.

[19] Mildred Bangs Wynkoop. Foundations of Wesleyan-Armenian Theology, (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press, 1967), 69.                

[20]  Robert V. Rakestraw, John  Wesley, 196.

[21] Ibid., 196-197.

[22] Leo G. Cox, "Prevenient Grace - A Wesleyan view." Journal Of The Evangelical Theological Society 12, no. 3: 143-149, 1969. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 7, 2013), 144.

[23] Steven W. Waterhouse, Not By Bread Alone, 80.

[24] John 1:29 and Hebrews 2:9 respectively, in Waterhouse, Not By Bread Alone, 126 (emphasis his).

[25] Ibid.

[26] Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 930, (italics mine).

[27] John Wesley, On Predestination, 39.

[28] John Calvin in Henry Bettenson and Chris Maunder, Documents of the Christian Church, 228.

[29] Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 300.

[30] Joihn 8:58 (NASB).

[31] Revelation 13:8 (NASB).

[32] James 1:17 (NASB).