Election

rational creature has no deficiency or stinginess, and God from eternity predestines some to union with him and permits others to rebel permanently. These two affirmations must be held in balance, so that the logic of one does not overpower the other.”

²³⁰

Stephen Williams on the other hand claims that the NT only speaks of single predestination,

²³¹

which in fact may not even be predestination to life; instead, it refers to God’s

predetermination of who will reign with Him in the new heavens and the new earth.

²³²

Williams therefore is open to the possibility that those who have not been predestined may still be saved, though they will not rule alongside the elect.

²³³

As this brief overview of predestinarian theology shows, much disagreement

has always existed regarding eternal, non-retributive DRA. Yet throughout Christian

history, this form of DRA has had its defenders in proponents of double predestination. In

subsequent chapters, I will argue that the Scriptures do in fact attest to this absolute form

of DRA. At the same time, I will also demonstrate that there are other kinds of DRA

depicted within the Christian canon (which is a point often overlooked in discussions of

predestination).

decided to treat the matter separately because some scholars have argued that biblical election does not in fact refer to the predestination of individuals. On this basis, many in turn claim that the Scriptures do not attest to non-retributive, eternal DRA. For this reason, a review of recent scholarship on the matter is appropriate.

H. H. Rowley rejects non-retributive DRA in his work on election. He argues that election in the canon was always election for service, never primarily for privilege.

²³⁴

Furthermore, he emphasizes that God never chooses his servants arbitrarily; instead, He chooses fit instruments for the work that He intends.

²³⁵

This means in turn that the

“vessels of wrath” are those elected for service with no corresponding privilege because

“[God] saw that the very iniquity of their heart would lead them to the course that He could use.”

²³⁶

Shank meanwhile maintains that election in the NT does not speak primarily to the election of individuals; instead, the church is elect as a corporate body and individuals are elect insofar as they find themselves within the corporate body.

²³⁷

Furthermore, biblical election must be regarded as conditional and potentially accessible to all men.

²³⁸

Shank in turn denies that the Scriptures teach reprobation, as the doctrine is not required by conditional election, is not taught in the Bible, and is repugnant to God’s character.

²³⁹

Sigurd Grindheim’s work on election calls into question the views of both

234 H. H. Rowley, The Biblical Doctrine of Election (London: Lutterworth, 1950), 45.

235 Rowley, The Biblical Doctrine of Election, 34–35.

236 Rowley, The Biblical Doctrine of Election, 128.

237 As proof, Shank argues that the NT plainly depicts the possibility of apostasy for genuine believers. On this basis, he reasons that individuals can remove themselves from the sphere of election by falling away from Christ. For his discussion, see Robert Shank, Elect in the Son: A Study of the Doctrine of Election (Springfield, MO: Westcott, 1970), 27–55.

238 Shank, Elect in the Son, 99–116.

239 Shank, Elect in the Son, 188–94.

Rowley and Shank.

²⁴⁰

Grindheim argues that the idea of divine preference is implicit in the idea of election.

²⁴¹

He states, “The privilege of election is the presupposition for the obligation of election.”

²⁴²

Moreover, he argues that it is unwarranted to claim that Romans 9–11 does not involve individual election since “Paul’s answer [i.e., to the problem of Israel’s election in the face of their unbelief] to a significant degree is to distinguish between elect and non-elect individuals within the individual descendants of Abraham and to apply this distinction to his contemporaries.”

²⁴³

Joel Lohr limits his examination of election to the Pentateuch, arguing that the Torah does not present the non-elect as being necessarily destroyed by God. By examining what the texts have to say about Abimelech (Gen 20), Pharaoh’s daughter (Exod 2), Balaam (Num 22–24), and the nations (Deut 4, 7 and 10), Lohr concludes that the unchosen can respond correctly to God’s testing and receive blessing.

²⁴⁴

A. Chadwick Thornhill seeks to examine the Pauline doctrine of election through first exploring the views on the subject prevalent in Early Judaism.

²⁴⁵

He claims both Paul and his contemporaries understood election to be primarily corporate rather than individual; the difference between them is that Paul understood faith in Christ to be the condition by which an individual becomes a member

240 Grindheim helpfully emphasizes the cruciform nature of Pauline election. Election in Paul (as opposed to that in Second Temple Judaism) is paradoxical, as “God’s elect have been given an invisible status that contradicts their visible status.” Sigurd Grindheim, The Crux of Election, WUNT 2, vol. 202 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 195–97.

241 Grindheim, The Crux of Election, 7.

242 Grindheim, The Crux of Election, 13.

243 Grindheim, The Crux of Election, 137n5.

244 Joel N. Lohr, Chosen and Unchosen: Conceptions of Election in the Pentateuch and Jewish-Christian Interpretation, Siphrut 2 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 194–99.

245 A. Chadwick Thornhill, “To the Jew First: A Socio-Historical and Biblical-Theological Analysis of the Pauline Teaching of ‘Election’ in Light of Second Temple Jewish Patterns of Thought”

(PhD diss., Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, 2013), 2–4.

of the elect people of God.

²⁴⁶

Others however have contended that various biblical texts witness to unconditional, individual election to salvation. Robert W. Yarbrough finds evidence of this contention in each of the major sections of John’s Gospel.

²⁴⁷

Donald J.

Westblade understands Paul to agree with the beloved apostle, as both Paul’s negative anthropology and his view of God’s sovereignty require this understanding.

²⁴⁸

Both Thomas R. Schreiner and Mateen Assaad Elass defend a Calvinistic reading of Romans 9–11, as each attempts to demonstrate that divine election in these chapters is

unconditional, salvific and directed towards individuals.

²⁴⁹

Meanwhile, G. C. Berkouwer also argued that divine election is individual and is not based on foreseen merits;

nevertheless, he denied that reprobation should be asserted as a logical corollary or as a biblical teaching.

²⁵⁰

This cursory survey of scholarship on election suggests some correlation between one’s definition of election and one’s views on negative predestination. Those who claim that election is corporate, conditional, indeterminate, or primarily for service, also tend to reject eternal reprobation (though some do affirm retributive forms of DRA).

²⁵¹

It seems however that these descriptions of election are deficient, as are the

246 Thornhill, “To the Jew First,” 296.

247 Robert W. Yarbrough, “Divine Election in the Gospel of John,” in Still Sovereign:

Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace, ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 48–56.

248 Donald J. Westblade, “Divine Election in the Pauline Literature,” in Schreiner and Ware, Still Sovereign, 87.

249 Thomas R. Schreiner, “Does Romans 9 Teach Individual Election unto Salvation? Some Exegetical and Theological Reflections,” JETS 36, no. 1 (1993): 25–40; Mateen Assaad Elass, “Paul’s Understanding and Use of the Concept of Election in Romans 9–11” (PhD diss., Durham University, 1996), 269–72.

250 G. C. Berkouwer, Divine Election, Studies in Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), 198–205.

251 See for instance Thornhill, “To the Jew First,” 259–60; Williams, The Election of Grace, 75–76; Shank, Elect in the Son, 171–75. This is not a perfect correlation, as Berkouwer’s views do not fit