Therefore, my brothers and sisters, make every effort to confirm your calling and election. (2 Peter 1:10)

The Greek word translated as election is ἐκλογή eklogé (Strong’s 1589); formed from ek ‘out’ or ‘from’, and lego ‘to speak’, especially to reach or draw a conclusion; this noun means to select to a given (divine) outcome; this then is the theological principal of the sovereign choice of God.  For election could substituted ‘chosen’.

Throughout the Bible, God makes choices without reference to humankind; he chooses Abraham, from which comes Israel, his chosen people.  Jesus tells his disciples:

You did not choose me, but I chose you (John 15:16)

But understanding ‘election’ is fraught with difficulties because it strikes at the heart of human pride.  For instance, that God exercises his sovereign will discriminately does not seem fair, and that is because divine election is never a matter of morality.  Yet, God does select people for salvation:

For he (God the Father) chose us in him (Jesus Christ) before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight (Ephesians 1:4)

From this, there are at least two outstanding insights, the first is that viewed from an eternal perspective, those saved are foreknown before they were conceived.  There is nothing that any did to merit that status.

Secondly, and most importantly, it is remarkable that he extends this status of blamelessness to anyone at all.  Given the sinful state of all humankind, God has every right to reject everyone.  To render to his creation what they do not deserve is of course the improbable and utterly perplexing gift of grace.

Both insights are contained within these verses,

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – not by works, so that no one can boast.

(Ephesians 2:8-9)

Yet, many Christians struggle with the idea of election, thinking perhaps of the moment in life when Christ came ‘alive’ to them.  This moment of rebirth, called justification, is set in time – yet the Bible tells us that moment happened before time itself!

And herein lies the difficulty with election.  It can seem so much like ‘I chose God’ rather than ‘he chose me’.  Moreover, if there is not a process of choice for a person, what is the point of any Christian proclaiming the Gospel as Jesus commands to the non-believer – which is the basis of hyper-Calvinism?

In Romans, Paul reaches a juncture when God’s sovereign choice and human responsibility has to be examined:

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.  For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.  And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.  (Romans 8:28-30)

Here we have ‘those that love God’ is everyone that turned to God.  But did they turn of their own free will or was it irresistible grace?

Paul pulls apart this paradox.  In chapter nine he looks at election and in chapter ten, human responsibility.  Like a barrister, he calls Scripture to be examined, first to declare God’s inalienable sovereignty and his just nature:

What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,

‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’

It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.

(Romans 9:14-16)

A chapter later Paul says this:

if you declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved (ibid 10:9)

So, what is salvation?  An act of God or a work of man?  Who decides on whom?

Paul deliberately does not attempt to resolved these questions.  Divine selection and human free will are Biblical and therefore both are true.  They stand together as an antinomy – which is defined: A contradiction between two beliefs or conclusions that are in themselves reasonable; a paradox. (OELD)

It is critical that all grasp that (once again by means of enacted faith. i.e. trust) there is no way to bring these two truths together and make them cohere.

Using two of the examples from Scripture that Paul himself uses, it is easy see this…and with it the pitfalls of human logic:

‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’ (ibid 9:13)

Jacob was the second twin, not the firstborn, yet God chose him to favour; on the other hand, Esau was hated.  What had Esau done to deserve God’s hate? This seems unfair and leads to Paul is impassioned plea to remember God is just.

Perhaps God’s partiality could be explained by looking forward in time, just as God is able to do.  From Esau came the race of the Edomites.  The book of Obadiah is merely one chapter prophesying the doom against Edom, the implacable enemies of the Israelites, personified as Jacob:

Because of the violence against your brother Jacob,
you will be covered with shame;
you will be destroyed forever.  (Obidiah 10)

But at the time of Jesus, it was the Edomites who held power in Judea, because the Herodian dynasty were Idumean (the Greek form for Edomite); Jesus was persecuted by Herod Antipas, the son of Herod the Great, who tried to kill Jesus as a child.  It could be argued that God knows this and retrospectively turns his hatred on Esau.  While that seems plausible, this explanation cannot stand, because it presupposes that God’s will is dependent on human choices – and that cannot be.

To use another example of Paul’s:

For Scripture says to Pharaoh: ‘I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.’ Therefore, God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. (Romans 9:17-18)

Yet, a reading of Exodus shows both that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart and that Pharaoh hardened his own heart against God:

But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the Lord had said.  (Exodus 8:15)

But Paul is clear God is in control.  So, if any turn to consider Judas and ask, was he predestined to betray Christ?  The answer has to be, yes.  On the other hand, did Judas have the freedom not to act treacherously?  Again, the answer is yes!

This is important to grasp because of another trap into which rationality can lead the unwary: that if they are those that are selected for salvation, it stands to reason that that there are also those that are chosen for damnation.  Perfectly logical, one might say, but it is not Biblical.

The name for this theological concept is ‘double predestination’ and associated with it is the doctrine of reprobation.  Both posit that some are born ‘reprobates’ and are destined only for destruction.  Yet, something rebels against such an idea, and with good cause:

The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

(2 Peter 3:9)

Peter refers to the gracious delaying of Christ’s return in order that more might be saved.  God does not want any to perish.

Against the ungodly concept of double predestination then, one might venture these statements:

• God chooses whom he will save but he does not choose whom he will condemn.
• Condemnation comes through unbelief and that is a person’s free choice.

This is confirmed in many places in the Bible, but most famously:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.  For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.  Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. (John 3:16-18)

Yet, clearly no one can be saved unless God decrees it, otherwise it is men and women dictating the will of God; therefore, every Christian is individually and specifically chosen and so human comprehension is pulled between the paradox of election and free will.  The best one can do is make approximation like: a man may condemn himself but he can never save himself,

But all debate ends with the Cross; whatever the selection process, it was for everyone that Jesus submitted himself to a harrowing death from which his Father raised him.  In front of this Gospel, the Christian is best to put all his meagre comprehension to one side, to be thankful and marvel.  Doubt and humility are probably more valuable companions to the walk to Calvery than certainty.