Apologeet.nl

The Struggle with Election

Are you afraid that you might not be among the elect, or do you lie awake wondering whether your own choice will stand firm?

Whenever election and free will come up, two names quickly spring to mind: Calvin and Arminius. One is seen as a cold fatalist who turned people into helpless pawns; the other as a false teacher who taught that we save ourselves.

Yet both are widely misunderstood.

I want us to examine the myths surrounding Jacobus Arminius and consider his teaching fairly alongside that of Calvin and the Synod of Dort.

We will look at the fundamental difference between what theologians call monergism and synergism. In other words, does God’s grace unfailingly bring faith about, or does God’s grace make it possible for a person to respond freely?

No, this is not dry ivory-tower theory. It is a search for who truly saves you, and how you can find peace in the assurance of your faith today. Let us begin with the biggest caricature.

The Great Caricature: Arminius Was No Pelagian

Let us begin with a widespread misconception.

In some Calvinist and Reformed circles, the term Arminianism is almost used as a term of abuse. People assume that Arminius taught that human beings are good in themselves, can choose Jesus independently, and ultimately bring about their own salvation.

That sounds like what we call Pelagianism. But anyone who reads the writings of Jacobus Arminius will discover a very different picture. Arminius taught that, because of the Fall, human beings have become spiritually unable to do what is good and pleasing to God by themselves. The human will is not merely a little damaged. No one can turn to God without the working of God’s grace.

Arminius described the free will of fallen humanity as wounded, weakened, captive and lost. Human beings need God’s grace even to be able to come to faith. That is not a doctrine of self-salvation.

Calvin also emphasised that human beings are spiritually dead and cannot save themselves. In Ephesians 2:1, Paul writes that we were dead in trespasses and sins. And in Romans 3, Paul makes it clear that no one seeks God of their own accord.

On this fundamental point, then, Arminius and Calvin largely agreed: human beings cannot save themselves.

The question is not whether God’s grace is necessary. They agreed on that.

The question is: how does that grace work? And what happens when God brings a person to faith?

That is the heart of the disagreement.

Monergism versus Synergism: Who Brings About Salvation?

Here we come to an important theological distinction.

The words monergism and synergism may sound complicated, but they help us understand the difference between the two approaches.

The word monergism is made up of two Greek words: monos, meaning “one” or “alone”, and ergon, meaning “work”. Monergism therefore means that there is one acting agent.

In classical Reformed theology, this means that God alone is the decisive agent in regeneration. Human beings do not bring themselves to life; God does so through His Spirit.

Synergism comes from the Greek syn, meaning “together”, and ergon, meaning “work”.

In the discussion about salvation, synergism refers to a view in which both God’s grace and the human response play a part in the process of salvation.

But note this: synergism does not automatically mean that people save themselves or that they do not need God’s grace. That would be a caricature.

The classical Arminian view insists that God’s grace comes before faith. Human beings cannot come to God by their own strength. But God’s grace makes it possible to respond to the Gospel.

The difference, then, is not whether grace is necessary. It is whether God’s grace unfailingly brings about the human response, or whether a person can genuinely resist that grace.

Let us look at both views more closely.

The Reformed View: God Actually Brings People to Faith

Calvin taught that, before the foundation of the world, God chose certain people to be saved. This election is not based on something God foresaw in them, as though He knew that certain people would believe of their own accord and chose them for that reason. Election is based on God’s own gracious decree.

But how can someone who is spiritually dead come to faith?

According to classical Reformed teaching, God must first bring that person to life. The Holy Spirit renews the heart, changes the will and actually brings the person to faith. This is also called effectual calling or irresistible grace.

That last term can easily be misunderstood. It does not mean that God drags someone to heaven against their will. It means that, through His grace, God renews the will so that the person genuinely wants to follow Christ. The person really does come to faith willingly. He does not believe because he is a helpless pawn, but because God has renewed his heart.

In this view, faith itself is the fruit of God’s gracious work.

That is why we speak of monergism: God is the decisive agent in regeneration. The human response is not an independent contribution that completes God’s work; it is the result of God’s grace. God does not merely create a possibility that may or may not become reality. He actually brings His work of salvation to completion.

Arminius: Prevenient Grace and Human Responsibility

So what did Arminius teach?

Arminius agreed that, because of the Fall, human beings had become spiritually unable to come to God by themselves. However, he saw a problem with the way classical Reformed teaching connected election and grace.

If God chooses only certain people and then unfailingly grants them faith, how are we to understand God’s call to all people to repent? And how can people be held responsible for unbelief if, according to this view, they have never received the grace that would enable them actually to believe?

Arminius did not want to deny God’s sovereignty, nor did he want to deny human depravity. He sought an explanation in which God’s grace remained absolutely necessary, while human responsibility was also taken seriously.

The concept of prevenient grace plays an important part here. The Latin term is gratia praeveniens. The word praeveniens literally means “going before”. The idea is that God, through His grace, comes to meet people before they are able to come to faith by themselves.

God works through His Word and His Spirit. He convicts people of sin, opens the heart and makes it possible to respond to the Gospel. However, a person can resist this grace. God’s grace is therefore necessary, but according to Arminius it does not unfailingly bring every person to faith. Through God’s grace, a person can come to faith, but can also reject that grace.

That is the synergistic element in the Arminian view. The human response is not a merit. No one can say, “I saved myself.” But the human response does genuinely matter. Grace can be resisted.

And What About Election?

According to Arminius, God offers His grace to people and thereby enables them to believe. However, that grace can be resisted. God knows beforehand who will believe in Christ through His grace. His election is connected with this foreknowledge. Faith is not a merit, for according to Arminius, God’s grace remains indispensable.

Here lies an important difference from Calvin. In the classical Reformed view, God’s election is unconditional. This means that God does not choose people because He knows beforehand that they will believe, or because He foresees something good in them. God chooses them by grace, according to His own will. That election is then the foundation on which they come to faith: God works faith in them, through which they receive Christ.

The other side of this is that not everyone is chosen by God for eternal salvation. According to this view, there are therefore people who do not come to faith and salvation because God has not chosen them. They are not brought to faith by God’s electing grace.

According to Arminius, by contrast, God’s election is connected with His foreknowledge of those who will believe in Christ through His grace. God therefore knows beforehand who will receive His grace in faith, but His grace is not offered only to them. Everyone is given the opportunity, but God knows who will and will not come to faith.

An Overview: Calvin, Arminius and the Heart of the Difference

Let us set out the differences side by side.

Download the comparison as a PDF

Of course, this comparison is a summary. There are different emphases within both the Reformed and Arminian traditions. Nevertheless, it helps us see what the debate is really about.

Not: Does humanity need God’s grace?

Both traditions agree on that.

But: Does God’s grace unfailingly bring faith about, or does it make it possible for a person to believe while also allowing that person to reject that grace?

What Does the Bible Teach About This?

Both traditions appeal to the Bible. That is understandable, because Scripture speaks both of God’s sovereign action and of human responsibility.

Let us look at some important passages.

John 6:44 – No One Can Come of Themselves

Jesus says in John 6:44:

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Jesus says that no one can come to Him unless the Father draws them. Calvinists understand this as an effectual calling: God actually brings those whom He draws to faith. Arminians acknowledge that no one can come to Christ without God’s grace, but understand this drawing as a gracious work that enables a person to believe without forcing them to do so. The question, then, is whether God’s drawing unfailingly leads to faith or whether a person can resist this grace.

Acts 7:51 – God’s Grace Can Be Resisted

In Acts 7:51, Stephen says to his hearers:

Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

This passage is often cited to show that people can resist the work of the Holy Spirit. Arminians see it as an important indication that God’s grace can be resisted.

Reformed interpreters often distinguish between the general work of the Spirit, which people can resist, and the special, effectual work of the Spirit in regeneration.

We should therefore be careful not to use a single passage as a complete explanation of the entire debate. Nevertheless, the passage makes clear that the Bible takes human resistance to God’s work seriously.

Romans 8:29 – God’s Foreknowledge and Election

Paul writes in Romans 8:29:

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son…

Arminians often emphasise the words “did foreknow”. They connect God’s election with His foreknowledge of those who will believe in Christ.

Reformed interpreters emphasise that the word “know” in the Bible can also have a relational meaning. It can refer to God’s loving, personal knowledge of people. On this interpretation, foreknowledge does not simply mean that God has prior information about human choices.

Here too, we see that the debate is not simply about one word, but about how different biblical passages are read together.

John 6:37 – Whoever Comes to Christ Will Not Be Cast Out

In John 6:37 we read:

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

This passage brings us to an important point.

Jesus speaks about those whom the Father gives to Him. But He also makes a clear promise to the person who comes to Him. Whoever comes to Christ will not be cast out.

That is a promise every believer can rely on.

Dort: A Response to Arminius

The debate between Calvin and Arminius did not end with their lifetimes.

After Arminius’s death, a movement emerged that became known as the Remonstrants. In 1610, they formulated their objections to certain Reformed doctrines.

This was followed by the Synod of Dort, which met from 1618 to 1619. The synod rejected the Remonstrant position and drew up the Canons of Dort.

The Canons of Dort are often summarised in five points. In English-speaking contexts, the mnemonic TULIP was developed for these points: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints.

• Total Depravity: Because of the Fall, human beings have become spiritually unable to save themselves. They cannot come to faith by their own strength, but are entirely dependent on God’s grace.
• Unconditional Election: God chooses people by grace. His choice is not based on foreseen faith, human merit or anything within the person.
• Limited Atonement: Christ’s sacrifice is entirely sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world. According to the classical Calvinist view, however, God’s purpose in this sacrifice was the actual salvation of the elect.
• Irresistible Grace: When God effectually calls someone to faith through His Spirit, He renews that person’s heart and will. God’s grace actually brings the person to faith, so that they freely choose Christ.
• Perseverance of the Saints: God preserves those whom He has saved. He keeps them in the faith and brings them safely to the end.

The Canons of Dort were primarily intended to safeguard the truth that salvation comes entirely from God’s grace. That is an important and biblical concern.

But we must also be honest about the historical context. Dort was responding to a particular theological movement, and its formulations are therefore sometimes sharp and polemical. In later debates, the emphasis on election has sometimes become so strong that people have gained the impression that they must first discover within themselves whether they are elect before they can come to Christ with confidence.

That, however, is not how Calvin himself wanted to lead people to assurance of faith. He warned against trying to fathom God’s hidden decree and pointed instead to Christ as the one in whom believers may see their election. We must therefore distinguish between the doctrine of election, the historical controversy in which it was formulated, and the way the doctrine was later applied pastorally.

The Pastoral Pitfalls of Both Approaches

So much for the theological debate.

But what effect does this debate have on our life of faith? Let us be honest: both approaches can sound very convincing on paper. Yet when people wrestle with them, pastoral difficulties can arise.

The Calvinist Pitfall: Looking Within for Evidence of Election

When someone strongly emphasises that salvation depends entirely on God’s hidden decree of election, the question may arise: Am I really one of the elect?

Some believers then start looking within their own hearts for signs of regeneration. Do I have enough awareness of my sin? Was my repentance deep enough? Are my desires pure enough? Is my faith genuine? The tragedy is that their gaze can shift from the cross of Christ to their own inner life. And if you are constantly looking within yourself for assurance, you will always find something to make you doubt.

That does not mean that self-examination is wrong. The Bible calls us to examine ourselves. But self-examination is not intended to uncover God’s hidden decree. It is intended to bring our lives into the light of God’s Word.

The Arminian Pitfall: Relying on the Strength of Your Own Choice

On the other hand, the Arminian approach can also have a pastoral pitfall.

When the human response to God’s grace is strongly emphasised, someone may begin to think: Apparently I was wise enough to choose, whereas my neighbour was not. Human choice then risks becoming a kind of merit after all. But that is not what classical Arminian teaching intends. There too, God’s grace is the source of faith.

Another question concerns perseverance. If someone believes they can lose their salvation when their faith weakens, they may become constantly preoccupied with their own commitment. What if I grow slack? What if my commitment is weaker tomorrow? What if I eventually fall away after all? Here too, the focus can shift to one’s own willpower.

And that is precisely the danger: in both approaches, people can end up staring at themselves once again.

Assurance of Faith: Look to Christ

Where, then, do we find assurance of faith?

Not by peering into God’s hidden decree to discover whether our name is written there. Calvin himself warned against searching into God’s hidden election. He described it as a dangerous labyrinth and pointed to Christ as the mirror in whom we may see our election.

That is an important point. We must not try to fathom God’s hidden decree before coming to Christ. Nor do we find assurance of faith by relying on the strength of our own choice.

What, then, is the foundation of our assurance? God’s Word and the person of Jesus Christ.

Jesus says in John 6:40

And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Notice what Jesus says. He does not point to a hidden list that we must first find. He points to Himself. Whoever believes in the Son has everlasting life.

And in John 6:37 He says:

…and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

If you are struggling with doubt today, do not begin by asking whether you can fathom God’s hidden decree. Ask yourself: Do I believe in the Son of God? Do I trust in Jesus Christ, who died on the cross for sinners and rose from the dead?

A longing for salvation can be a strong indication that God’s Spirit is at work in you. From an Arminian point of view, you may receive God’s grace and trust Christ in faith. From a Calvinist point of view, that same faith is evidence that God has been at work in your life by His grace and has brought you to Christ.

In either case, you may trust Christ and hold fast to His promise of salvation! You do not first have to discover whether you are one of the elect. Look to Christ, trust in Him and hold on to His promise.

If you come to Him, He has promised that He will not cast you out. This is not dry theological theory. It is a divine promise, and we may take that promise seriously.

God’s Sovereignty and Human Responsibility

Perhaps you are now thinking: “But how are we to balance God’s sovereignty and human responsibility?”

That is a fair question.

The Bible teaches us that God is sovereign. He is the Creator. He takes the initiative in salvation. No one can save themselves. No one can compel God to show grace. At the same time, the Bible calls people to repent, believe and follow Christ.

These calls are not a charade. They are genuine.

God’s sovereignty does not cancel human responsibility. And human responsibility does not mean that God’s grace is unnecessary.

The Bible holds both truths together.

That does not mean that every theological question can be easily resolved. There remains a mystery in the way God’s sovereign action and our responsibility come together. But we must take care not to say more than Scripture itself says.

We do not have to choose between a sovereign God and responsible human beings. The Bible teaches both.

The question is how we understand these truths in a way that does justice to the whole of Scripture. That is precisely why it is important not to look only at one passage or one theological system, but at the whole counsel of God’s Word.

Conclusion – Grace Is No Invitation to Navel-Gazing

Whether you feel more at home with the emphasis on God’s absolute sovereignty or with the emphasis on human responsibility as Arminius understood it, never let this debate distract you from the wonder of God’s grace.

Both Arminius and Calvin desired to honour God.

Calvin emphasised that salvation comes entirely from God’s sovereign grace. Arminius likewise emphasised that salvation is possible only by grace, but also wanted to take human responsibility and the sincere call to repentance seriously.

Their theological differences are real. We do not need to gloss over them. But we must stop labelling one another with caricatures. Arminius did not teach that people can save themselves. And Calvin did not teach that people are helpless pawns.

Both traditions seek to do justice to God’s grace. They differ over the way in which God’s grace brings about the human response.

And ultimately, we must ask ourselves: what is my faith resting on? Not the strength of my own choice. Not the depth of my own repentance. Not my ability to fathom God’s hidden decree.

But on Jesus Christ. Fix your eyes on Him. In Him we see God’s grace. In Him we find the promise of everlasting life. And whoever comes to Him, He will in no wise cast out.

Related Articles:

Infant Baptism and Believer Baptism: What Does the Bible Really Teach About Baptism? What is the Role of Prayer? What does the Bible mean by ‘believing’? THE UNFORGIVABLE SIN: What Jesus Really Meant