Many Christians resist the doctrine of election, not because Scripture is unclear, but because the doctrine confronts assumptions we bring to the text. We live in a culture that prizes autonomy, self determination, and personal sovereignty, so the idea that God chooses first feels foreign. Election tells us that salvation begins with God’s initiative, not ours, and that challenges the modern belief that we are the ultimate choosers of our own destiny.
For many Christians, election also feels “unfair.” We assume that if God chooses, He must be excluding. But Scripture never presents election as injustice; it presents it as mercy. Justice would give us what we deserve. Mercy gives us what we don’t. If “fair” means “everyone gets exactly what they’ve earned,” then none of us would be saved. Election isn’t unfair; it’s gracious.
We also tend to confuse equality with sameness. We assume God must love and call everyone in the same way, yet Scripture is full of God making distinctions—Israel and the nations, Jacob and Esau, disciples chosen from among the crowds. God’s love is perfect, but it is not symmetrical, and that unsettles us.
Some believers fear that election undermines human responsibility, but the Bible never pits God’s sovereignty against our duty to repent and believe. Jesus says no one can come unless the Father draws, and He also invites all who are weary to come. Both are true. We resist election because we want a system without mystery; God gives us one where He is God and we are not.
Others reject election because they’ve only encountered caricatures of it. It has been taught harshly, argued arrogantly, or used as a theological weapon. But the misuse of a doctrine doesn’t negate its truth. At a deeper level, election confronts human pride. It tells us we didn’t save ourselves, we weren’t wiser or better than others, and we have nothing to boast about. Grace is beautiful, but it is humbling, and humility is uncomfortable.
Ultimately, people resist election not because it is unclear, but because it is uncomfortable. It's not because it is unbiblical, but because it is unflattering. Election reminds us that God is God, we are not, and salvation is His work from beginning to end. And that is very good news.
7 comments:
I think you did a good job summarizing the most common objections to the doctrine of election. I agree with you that the protests are based more on human factors than theological precepts. Personally, I find that the “God saves those who freely choose to follow Him” contradicts so many Bible verses, and the “God establishes the elect through His foreknowledge of man’s actions” notion plays out illogically in my mind. Clearly, the biblical view--and the only reasonable one to me--is that God saves those whom He draws to Himself and enables to resolve to follow Him.
In a book of mine titled, God Chose to Save: Why Man Cannot and Will Not Be Saved Apart from Election, author Joseph M. Bianchi states that the debate between “conditional election” and “absolute election” rests upon one’s view of God’s sovereignty--i.e. is God absolutely sovereign in salvation, or not? Of course He is--He’s absolutely sovereign in everything! What true believer could argue otherwise? And we are back to those human protestations.
The question often bandied about is, "Why doesn't God save everyone?" We like to think we're special and God loves us SO much. But because we fail to regard how bad our sin is, we fail to ask the right question, "Why does God save anybody?" Without an accurate understanding of God's holiness and our sinfulness, we'll never get the question right.
Election is one of the clearest doctrines throughout Scripture, both through the recounting of YHWH's actions and through teaching. You are correct that the objections to it stem from the human desire to be the one who chooses not the one who is chosen (or not).
As it happens, today (6/29/26) Tim Challies linked to an article by John Piper titled, “7 Reasons God Takes Pleasure in Election.” Here are the points that Piper fleshed out in the article (all good food for thought on this topic and echoing much of what you wrote):
--First, this truth is biblical.
--Second, this truth humbles sinners and exalts the glory of God—especially the glory of his grace.
--Third, this truth tends to preserve the church from slipping toward false philosophies of life.
--Fourth, this truth is the good news of a salvation that is not just offered but effected.
--Fifth, this truth enables us to own up to the demands for holiness in the Scripture and yet have assurance of salvation.
--Sixth, this truth opens us to the overwhelming experience of being loved personally with the unbreakable electing love of God.
--Seventh, this truth gives hope for effective evangelism and guarantees the triumph of Christ’s mission in the end.
David, I know your last question is mostly rhetorical, but I was rather hoping you would answer it for readers. Any chance you want to give it a shot? (I do think there is a biblical, God-honoring answer and am curious if you do as well.)
Out of His abiding grace and mercy, and to establish a bride for the Son, God has chosen to save some for eternal life with Him.
Thanks. That ties nicely with Stan’s specific theme of election to salvation (rather than salvation in general). You might enjoy Piper’s article, which seemed to answer the very question you posed very nicely (it was quite timely, as I mentioned).
Post a Comment