Unconditional Election

| | Comments (4)

Jollyblogger is now up to Unconditional Election, the second of the five points of Calvinism. It includes a biblical argument for a wider scope to God's sovereignty than the particular issue of salvation that Calvinism deals with. You can technically be a Calvinist and not believe God has his hand in every event but just the ones necessary for the salvation of the elect and the major events of salvation history, but as a matter of fact most Calvinists are theological determinists (i.e. they believe that every event falls under God's sovereignty). The reason is not generally philosophical but simply because the Bible seems to lead to that conclusion, and this post gives some of that reasoning. He also tackles a couple alternative interpretations of election that don't in the end fit the biblical data, the mere foreknowledge view and the merely corporate election view. I had a couple issues with some of what he said or how he said it, but I've left those in a comment and won't bother to repeat them here.


I have added my thoughts over on my own blog.....

The quote is a little too close for my comfort to "double predestination" or the notion that some people are eternally elected to be damned in just the same way as the elect are chosen for salvation. At its most extreme, any sense of human will being involved in salvation or damnation is lost. People are sent to hell according to the most extreme interpretation of this view simply because God wanted to send them there

What quote?

The term 'double predestination' is ambiguous. Calvinists usually use it to refer to the view that logically follows from Calvinist thought, i.e. that since God has chosen the elect, he therefore logically has to have also selected that the rest would be damned, since he couldn't select one group without knowing who would end up in the other group. Any other view involves God forgetting who is elect and who isn't so that he can make a general election to damnation that doesn't involve particular election. That view amounts to either Arminianism or a denial of God's omniscience, so this kind of double predestination is required for the Calvinist.

Some people use the term (and it came up with this sense at some council hundreds of years ago, I believe) to describe a more extreme view, which amounts to fatalism, i.e. that some people were chosen to be saved and others to be damned no matter what they would end up doing. Since that view is heresy, it should rightly be condemned. I'm not sure that's what you're talking about, though, because you didn't give any context for what you called "the quote".

I posted my thoughts on both Adrian and David's posts but from a very different slant . I am not so interested in the nuances of the views but how the views effect a believers well-being or experience of God.

Leave a comment


    The Parablemen are: , , and .



Books I'm Reading

Fiction I've Finished Recently

Non-Fiction I've Finished Recently

Books I've Been Referring To

I've Been Listening To

Games I've Been Playing

Other Stuff


    thinking blogger
    thinking blogger

    Dr. Seuss Pro

    Search or read the Bible

    Example: John 1 or love one another (ESV)

  • Link Policy
Powered by Movable Type 5.04