An Inquiry into Divine Sovereignty and Human Will

by Owen H. Alderfer

The Christian church across the years has wrestled continuously with issues related to divine sovereignty and human will. Relative to human nature the persistent questions concern man’s condition as sinner: is he sinner by nature or by imitation in an exercise of his will and what is the nature of his responsibility for his sin? Relative to divine sovereignty the questions focus on the paradox of grace: is grace unto salvation irresistibly provided for a limited body of elect? Or is grace generally offered to all on condition?

Generally, the contemporary church has moved elsewhere in its doctrinal concerns; nevertheless, current presuppositions with which the church operates include these issues. Because these matters continue to be material for discussion, it seems appropriate that yet another statement on them be offered. An historical review and Biblical analysis relative to these issues may provide material for new thinking for some. Here, then, is a study which seeks to find middle ground in an age-old theological and philosophical struggle which was present before the beginning of the Christian era and has been crucial across the years of Christian history.

This study focuses centrally upon that area where soteriology and anthropology converge. Upon the presuppositions of the writer, a great many issues are already decided: the supreme authority of the scriptures for Christian doctrine; the sovereignty of God and the necessity of the divine initiative in man’s salvation; the atoning work of Christ as the means appointed by God for man’s salvation. The issues of this study, then, are rather narrow of focus: the study does not deal with questions of works—however much or little—as compared to grace in man’s salvation. It does not raise questions as to the appropriateness of such concepts as “election” and “predestination” in Christian discourse: these are Biblical concepts which must be responsibly incorporated into the conversation.

Of the state of commitment relative to Christian anthropology Reinhold Niebuhr has written, “The Christian doctrine of sin in its classical form offends both rationalists and moralists by maintaining the seemingly absurd position that man sins inevitably and by a fateful necessity but that he is nevertheless to be held responsible for actions which are prompted by an ineluctable fate.”[1] This classical formulation as it has been worked out in Augustine, Luther, and Calvin is arbitrary and inflexible, leaving little or no room even for discussion on subjects regarding which much more must be said. The study of the history of doctrine shows that the church cannot live for long with a complete and steady emphasis upon the sovereignty of God and arbitrary election of individuals to salvation or not irrespective of human will. Views such as those of Faustus of Reiz, sixth century bishop in Gaul inevitably appear to question the classic position: “If you pay careful attention, you will recognize clearly and abundantly how through the pages of the Scriptures sometimes it is the power of grace and at other times it is the assent of the human will that is asserted.”[2] Jaroslav Pelican, after quoting Faustus, reflects on the situation: “Grace and freedom stood in a kind of antinomy, which has been resolved first in favor of freedom and was now being resolved in favor of grace, but which ‘the rule of the church’s faith’ did not permit one to resolve at all.”[3]

The scriptures are clear beyond question that salvation is by grace; man does not merit, win, or earn it. The question with which this paper deals, then, is this: Does the offer of grace exclude a genuine role for human will in the reception of the offer? Is this a matter of either … or? Is it an issue of both … and? The issues for this study narrow in on grace and free will: Do the scriptures provide place for complete dependance upon divine grace while yet allowing for the operation of a genuine human freedom?

Historical Views on Free Will and Grace

The effort to deal with the issues stated above begins with an examination of the views of the early church on these matters What the Fathers of the ancient church saw in the scriptures relative to free will and grace is significant for us and needs to be examined with care and concern. The issues gained the attention of the earliest Fathers because they were already current in the world in which they lived. Jaroslav Pelican observes that both responsibility and inevitability had been prominent in the classical understanding of man. From the time of Homer and forward the two themes struggled for predominance; the same is true later in the Latin writers. At the time of the dawn of the Christian era concepts of determinism and inevitability tended to dominate the Greek-Roman philosophical and religious systems. Pelican comments:

In the conflict of Christian theology with classicism it was chiefly this sense of fate and necessity that impressed itself upon the interpreters of the gospel as the alternative to their message, rather than, for example the Socratic teaching that with proper knowledge and adequate motivation a man could, by the exercise of his free will, overcome the tendency of his appetites toward sin. With very few exceptions the apologists for the gospel against Greek and Roman thought made responsibility rather than inevitability the burden of their message.[4]

Context seems always to contribute to the development of one’s views. This is true in the development of Christian doctrine. As Pelican has stated, the commitment of contemporary religion and philosophy to determinism pressed the Christian Fathers toward an emphasis upon free will and human responsibility. What the Fathers found to be implied in the scriptures on these matters had to be elucidated in terms understandable to their contemporaries. Sometimes new words such as “Trinity” were set forth to help systematize a thought. Where, in their study of the scriptures in the face of the current climate of opinion, they inferred the concepts of choice, freedom, and option the fathers set forth the term “free will” to endow that general concept with meaning. Forster and Marston have worked through the writings of the Fathers as they deal with free will. They write:

The early church noted the Scriptures (such as Matthew 23:37) which indicated that man sometimes defied and disobeyed God’s will…. They therefore coined the term “free will” to describe the will of man. This was to emphasize the Bible’s teaching that man’s will was free to choose not to do the will of God… . 

The doctrine of “free-will” seems to have been universally accepted in the early church. Not a single church figure in the first 300 years rejected it and most of them stated it clearly in works still extant. We find it taught by great leaders in places as different as Alexandria, Antioch, Athens, Carthage, Jerusalem, Lycia, Nyssa, Rome, and Sicca. We find it taught by the leaders of all the main theological schools. The only ones to reject it were heretics like the Gnostics, Marcion, Valentinus, Manes (and the Manichees), etc. In fact, the early Fathers often state their beliefs on “free-will” in works attacking heretics. These ideas seem to be in their teaching: 

1. The rejection of free-will is the view of heretics. 

2. Free-will is a gift given to many by God—for nothing can ultimately be independent of God. 

3. Man possesses free-will because he is made in God’s image, and God has free-will.[5]

Forster and Marston include pages of quotations from early fathers illustrating these facts. Cited are Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Athenagoras of Athens, Theophilus of Antioch, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Novatian, Origen, Methodius of Olympius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, Jerome, and Chrysostom.[6] It is quite clear that the early church understood the Word as saying that man has free will to respond to the commands and callings of God. Grace is an offer and man has capacity to respond to that offer.

In tracing out in detail doctrinal developments among the Fathers relative to grace and free will, inevitability and responsibility relative to sin, J. N. D. Kelly in his definitive work Early Christian Doctrines documents a clear emphasis upon free will. The church in the East—the Greek speaking part of the church— consistently and uniformly emphasized free will and human responsibility; indeed, the predominant position in the East to this day is in these directions. Even though there was a gradual movement in the west toward a position of original sin anticipating total depravity, Kelly observes, “On the related question of grace, the parallel truth of man’s free will and the need of God’s help were maintained, …”[7] Summarizing the situation existent up to the time of Pelagius, Kelly states:

The preceding pages (344–357) while revealing the firm hold which fourth-century Christians had on the truth of man’s fallen condition and consequent need of divine help, have also brought to light the persistence, side by side with it of a dogged belief in free will and responsibility. These two sets of ideas were not necessarily irreconcilable, but a conflict was unavoidable unless their relations were set down very subtly.[8]

When Pelagius appeared on the scene in Rome around the end of the fourth century and brought strong emphasis on man’s innate goodness, free will, and perfectability he was on alien ground and difficulty was certain to ensue. His challenge of growing tendencies within Western Christianity toward the inevitability to sin, original sin, and moral pessimism brought Pelagius into confrontation with Augustine and other like-thinking people. Pelagius was an effective Bible teacher with an attractive message. Shortly he had a following some of whom—as is so often the case—outdid their master in emphases on human ability. Pelagius is not without some appropriate Biblical concern, but he and his followers moved too far toward human autonomy and came to positions that can be charged with work-righteousness.

It is not surprising that a champion of Western theological tendencies was pressed in spirit to answer the Pelagians; and so, after more than 300 years of almost universal agreement among Christian writers on the subject of free will, Augustine comes forth with a sharp emphasis upon human helplessness in the inevitability of sin and irresistible grace. The writings of “the earlier Augustine reflect views that man actively responds to the overtures of grace. The later Augustine, under the pressures of the Pelagian controversy, moves to the concept that grace is irresistibly given by God unto salvation to persons whom He has elected from all eternity on the basis of His own good pleasure. Augustine was not unaware that he had shifted from the focus of earlier Christianity to a new position. He holds that he is only working through issues that the earlier church had not. He wrote:

… before this heresy Pelagianism arose, they did not have the necessity to deal with this question, so difficult of solution. They would undoubtedly have done so if they had been compelled to respond to such men.[9]

In the nature of this study we need not trace out the process by which Augustine reached his positions. It is necessary, however, to note several points at issue in the shape of his mature thought. The early church had no concept of justification by works. Justification by faith is to be found in the writings from the beginning—not as pointedly outlined as some today should like to see it. In his statements Augustine seldom properly distinguishes between the Pelagian notion of work righteousness and the position of the early church on justification by faith. Forster and Marston observe: “This may have been partly due to the unfortunate practice in his day of referring to the ‘merit of faith’ and the ‘merit of conversion.’ This led or enabled Augustine to regard faith as a form of ‘work.’”[10] In a church, by his time well advanced toward a sacramental institutionalism, Augustine was influenced to see faith regarded as work in a sense not known in the earlier church. Holding this stance he tends to include the earlier positions of the church regarding human nature, grace, and salvation in with Pelagianism. In reaction, he takes the extreme position that faith is a gift of grace and is given irresistibly.

One wonders whether Augustine’s conclusions might have been somewhat different had he not been limited to the Latin translations of the Scriptures for his research. He himself wrote an acquaintance that he knew nothing of Hebrew. In his Confessions he stated his early dislike for Greek, which prevented him from developing overmuch in it. In about 394 he wrote to Jerome begging him not to waste his time in translating from the Hebrew in his work on the Vulgate; Jerome straightened him out on this matter in no uncertain terms and brought Augustine to modify his position. Further, Augustine draws from the Apocryphal sources as well as the Old and New Testaments in developing his views on the issues of our concern.

In the process of the controversy that ensued between Pelagius and Augustine and their followers the Pelagians were ultimately condemned in a series of councils throughout the Christian world and culminating in the condemnation of Pelagianism in the Third Ecumenical Council, the Council of Ephesus, 431. Ostensibly Augustine and Augustinianism had won the day:

total depravity and the inevitability of sin, election from all eternity implying a genuine determinism relative to man, the atoning work of Christ limited in benefit only to the elect, grace irresistibly conferred upon the elect unto regeneration, faith, and justification, and the perseverance of the elect unto eternity were incorporated into the doctrinal furniture of the church including its sacramental structure. Still, while Augustinianism was regarded as the official position for the moment the church could never understand or bear the rigor and austerity of the position. The East continues to have a more optimistic view of man and never took the soteriology and anthropology of Augustine seriously. By the end of the sixth century Pope Gregory I (The Great) regarded himself an Augustinian but Reinhold Seeberg, in his definitive Textbook of the History of Doctrines writes:

If we compare the Christianity of Gregory with that of Augustine, we reach a remarkable result. Almost everything in Gregory has its roots in the teaching of Augustine, and yet scarcely anything is really Augustinian. That which was un-Augustinian in Augustine become the vital element of this Semi-augustinian.[11]

A Semi-Augustinianism—or Semi-Pelagianism—became the real position of the church as the role of free will and works was seen as essential to righteous living and the value of the sacraments.

Toward the middle of the ninth century Gottschalk of Orbais, a monk of checkered career, recovered the essence of Augustine. As Augustine before him and Luther after, Gottschalk’s troubled spirit found peace in the doctrine of election. This monk championed the fundamental issues of Augustine and gained a following; the church, however, was not of disposition to accept a pure Augustinianism. Gottschalk’s doctrine was condemned in 848 and he was imprisoned. The church judged at this time that God had indeed elected some from the mass of fallen men, but this was according to His prescience. Grace has made our will free. Christ died for all and God wishes all men to be saved. Seeberg summarizes the decision of the two Councils of Chiersy and Valence, 853, on the subject of the lost:

He foreknew that the others, whom by the judgment of righteousness he left in the mass of perdition, would perish; but he did not predestinate that they should perish, but because he is just he predestinated to them eternal punishment. Hence, they acknowledge but one predestination.[12]

With Gottschalk out of the way the predestinarian controversy of the ninth century faded away.

It was not until the Protestant Reformation that full blown Augustinianism emerged again on any scale. This time it was in the thought and teaching of the two greatest leaders of the Reformation, Luther and Calvin. Conditions within Christianity, positions relative to Christian doctrine, and the personalities of the reformers themselves converged in time and place in the making of a new and powerful statement of the Augustinian position. Of this situation Pelikan writes:

Only seldom in Christian history have the spokesmen for the Christian tradition been confronted with equal force by those who denied that sin was inevitable and by those who denied that man was responsible. Martin Luther, for example, one of the most eloquent interpreters of the inevitability of sin, did not face opponents whose fatalism would have made a mockery both of moral responsibility and of salvation; and therefore he was able to ignore the potentially fatalistic implications of his own one-sided formulations. Most of the doctrinal developments in the first four centuries had, like Luther, faced only one option; but in this instance it was the deterministic alternative that constituted the major opposition, with he result that Christian anthropology, … leaned noticeably to one side of the dilemma, namely, the side of free will and responsibility rather than the side of inevitability and original sin.[13]

The official position of the Great Church had moved so far toward Pelagianism and the optimistic humanism of the Renaissance was so favorable to human autonomy that Luther and Calvin, in their reaction to the anthropology and soteriology of the Catholic church, had but one way to go. They articulated a rigorous Augustinianism. In Lutheranism this lasted less than forty years; in the Reformed Churches the witness has been maintained with varying degrees of success to the present.

Time and space will not allow this study to pursue the historical development of this tension in the thought and life of the church to the present. The Reformed were shortly challenged by Arminius in Europe. Pietistic emphasis upon personal response to the call to salvation and a developing democratic idealism in both Europe and America further challenged the one-sidedness of Augustinianism in its emphases upon the absolute sovereignty of God and the total helplessness of man. Augustinianism insists that there is no dilemma at all here— that the entire cosmic situation is clearly evident on the basis of God’s sovereign will. Man can be seen as nothing more than a passive recipient in the cosmic drama, being included or passed over, redeemed or rejected, saved or damned to the glory of God. The history of Christianity testifies that there is a real dilemma here: Scripture, tradition, human thought, and human experience all demonstrate the reality of the dilemma and point to the necessity of dealing with both the divine initiative and the human response in the process of man’s salvation.

Free Will and Implications

Biblical Evidence on Human Will

There is no systematic treatment of the human will in the scripture from anything like a modern psychological viewpoint; however, we can make inferences on the subject. For our purposes in this study we will deal primarily with New Testament materials. Herein there is clear ascription of individual responsibility for self-initiated decision relative to personal faith and walk. Jesus declares, “If any man is willing to do His will, he shall know of the teaching…” (John 7:17): “If any one wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me” (Matt. 16:24). The passage on counting the cost (Luke 14:25–35) implies the necessity of a rational process in dealing with the claims of the gospel; both reason and will are involved in the decision to follow or reject. The final invitation in the New Testament is a freely and universally given appeal to response: “And the Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come.’ And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost” (Rev. 22:17). From the divine side, God “… desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4). He “… is patient … not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9). There is a yearning in the heart of the Father for the salvation of all. Jesus’ yearning over Jerusalem seems genuine and rejection of Him is a willing act for He says, “… you were unwilling” (Matt. 23:37).

Over against these passages which call for a real and willing response on the part of people are those which indicate that the decision is not a free one but that the individual cannot come, apart from a special drawing and empowerment from God.

Jesus’ words in John 5:21 and 6:36–45 imply the necessity of the drawing of the Father if any is to have salvation.

Being confronted with these tensions we are forced to make judgments about the evidence in one way or another. Possibilities include at least the following: (1) There is no free will; all is determined. Salvation has been determined for some; these alone will be called. Acceptance of this position must regard the passages implying a genuine free will as having special application only. The universal calls attributed to the Father and the Son must be seen as a special kind of communication. In such a position the salvation struggle is not genuine; the case is open and shut from the beginning. (2) There is a universal call which is to be responded to by all people in one way or the other. The following passages imply such a call: Jesus said, “I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself” (John 12:32); John 3:16–18; and Romans 5:15, “But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one (Adam) the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.” Here the call is universal and the invitation real, but what then of the election and predestination passages? (3) The two positions of the determinate will of God and the free will of man are parts of the greater whole. God is sovereign, electing and predestining; man has a genuine role in responding to the divine initiative. What seems certain is that we have to deal with both of these aspects of Biblical truth; the tension is resolved in terms of the person and work of Christ. Christ is the author and source of salvation; the divine decrees are to be considered in light of Him.

This dare not be seen as a confrontation of human will against divine will. Salvation in no way originates with man. Any freedom to respond positively to God’s overtures is derived rather than autonomous. None can effectively stand up at a given point and declare, “I will find God and salvation upon my terms when I choose.” Both a determinism based on divine sovereignty and a humanism based on autonomous free will are incomplete and do not cover the gamut of Biblical revelation. Biblical revelation, not philosophical logic, must be the key to our understanding in this issue. Deterministic theological systems work from logical assumptions relative to divine decrees and personal predestination rather than sound Biblical exegesis. Biblical truths hold both aspects together.

Two cardinal truths are implicit in the passages noted above dealing with free-will. Robert Shank in his work Elect in the Son addresses them:

First, a moral element enters into the reception and knowledge of holy truth. “If any man wills to do his will, he shall know …” Only those who will to do God’s will may know His saving truth, and indeed His truth to any appreciable degree in any of its content. … A moral element enters into faith and the reception of holy truth. 

Second, whatever is moral necessarily involves the will: men, as moral agents, are free and therefore responsible to choose to do the will of God—the will of God, who wills that all men be saved… .[14]

Genuine freedom is a concomitant of responsibility. The words of Jesus imply as much. Statements such as are found in John 5:21, “As the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will,” must be taken in the light of their context. To the same disbelieving people he later says: “You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me, that you may have life” (John 5:39–40). What prevented these from coming was their willful rejection of the testimony of John, of Jesus’ mighty works, and of the witness of the Scriptures. I infer from the evidence here that they could have done otherwise. Jesus’ charges were only cruel and meaningless rhetoric if his auditors did not have a real and destiny-affecting decision to make. Shank cites Berkouwer posing the question: “‘Does our redemption depend on God’s decision, or does it depend on ours?’” I concur with Shank that this is the wrong question. Clearly no one is saved by his own decision apart from God’s initiative. The Biblical evidence points up the further aspect of the question: “… does it [our redemption] depend on God’s decision alone, or does it depend on God’s decision and ours?” In a true sense God is “a waiting God” and His long patience speaks of infinite grace; cf. Isa. 1:18, 55:6; Rom. 10:21; Jas. 5:7; 1 Pet. 3:20; 2 Pet. 3:7–9, 15; other passages could be cited as well.[15]

Belated Implications

Universal atonement, a correlative of free will—The nature and extent of the atonement are of large significance to the consideration of free will. We must begin with the realization that, while the atonement is for man, it is essentially Godward rather than manward. Its authenticity and value in no way depend on human response; rather, they depend on its satisfaction of God and the demands of His righteousness.[16] It looks toward God and the vindication of His holiness, that He might be just and the justifier of him who believes in Jesus (Rom. 3:26). Christ “gave himself a ranson for all” (1 Tim. 2:5, 6; Heb. 2:9). To whom was the ransom paid? To Satan? To God? No. Shank writes:

… His offering was in no sense a payment of ransom to a reluctant God. God needed no persuasion to be gracious toward men, for He so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son and delivered Him up for us all. … In reality, the Father by proxy concurred with the Son in the payment of the ransom. Christ “by his own blood entered in once into the holy place,” not to procure salvation for us from God, but already “having obtained eternal redemption for us” (Heb. 9:12). 

But having obtained eternal redemption from whom? We believe that He obtained it—not from whom, but from what [from the Old Aeon of Adam—the tyranny of Sin, Wrath, and Death] and that He obtained redemption in the sense of creating it, as the Author of eternal salvation, by the merits of His once-for-all-for-ever act of atonement whereby He vindicated and satisfied the inexorable necessities of the moral economy …[17]

Some insist that if any for whom Christ made atonement are lost the atonement is not efficacious. They raise the question: “Did Christ come to make the salvation of all men possible? Or, did He come to save his people?” I concur with Shank on the point: “Here is that ubiquitous theological bugbear, an assumed either…or. Christ came to do both: to make the salvation of all men possible … and to save His people from their sins.”[18] I find the following statement held by many Reformed thinkers regarding the atonement inadequate on Biblical grounds: “Christ suffered sufficiently for all, but efficiently only for the elect.” Shank’s formulation is more in keeping with the data: “The atonement is efficacious for all men potentially, for no man unconditionally, and for the Israel of God efficiently.”

Shank uses the ordinance associated with the Day of Atonement to illustrate the point; namely, the sending out of the Scape Goat. It was sent out with the sins of all, but only those who were penitent found the offering efficacious. “The benefits of the atonement, graciously provided for all, were not conferred on all people or any individuals automatically and indiscriminately.”[19]

“… He Himself is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). “For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this that one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all, that they who live should no longer live for themselves, …” (2 Cor. 5:14–15). Passages such as these and others noted above clearly imply an atonement efficacious for all. To say that the atonement is not efficacious because some are lost is no more logical than to say that the preaching of the Gospel, though addressed to all, is a failure because some refuse it, or that Jesus failed because the children of Jerusalem did not all respond to His call. Atonement is efficacious but it is not coercive.

Drawing: Divine initiative and human response—Upon the authority of the Word there is no question but that the initiative in salvation rests with God and not with man. Apart from the calling and drawing of God none can come to salvation. The force and direction of these statements are qualified by the whole of the truth contained in many of the passages declaring divine initiative: “… the Son of man has come to seek and to save that which was lost” (Lk. 19:10). Jesus said, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself” (John 12:32). These words imply divine initiative; they are also solemn words of confrontation which demand from hearers a genuine response. People respond in one way or another. These are invitations and an invitation is not coercive. “Turn to Me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other” (Isa. 45:22). “Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were entreating through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:20). These divine invitations either expect human response or they have no meaning. As Shank asserts: Some labor under the misconception that if salvation is conditioned on faith it is somehow not of grace.

But quite to the contrary, Paul asserts … that “[justification] is of faith, that it might be by grace: (Rom. 4:16). Far from nullifying grace, faith, as the condition of salvation, actually establishes grace … Certainly, while faith is the condition of salvation, the ground of salvation is the grace of God.[20]

Passages such as John 6:37, 44, and 65 stand alongside John 12:32. Both 6:44 and 12:32 use the same word for “draw.” The latter implies that divine initiative has already taken place; those outside of Christ are already drawn by the atoning work of Christ. In the absence of this work and apart from it, indeed, no salvation is possible; still man must respond to the drawing power. Again and again scripture parallels passages which indicate the necessity of man to respond in the one case to the divine initiative extended in the other. Compare the following which, though addressed specifically to Israel, have application more generally: “…I shall give them one heart, and shall put a new spirit within them. And I shall take the heart of stone out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh” (Ezek. 11:19). Cf. “Cast away from you all your transgressions which you have committed, and make yourself a new heart and a new spirit! For why will you die, O house of Israel? ‘For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,’ declares the Lord God” (Ezek. 18:31–32). The same truths are paralleled in Jeremiah: “I will give them a heart to know me” (Jer. 24:7), but God also entreats, “O Jerusalem, wash your heart from wickedness, that you may be saved” (Jer. 4:14). Of these parallel truths Shank writes:

All through the Scriptures may be found two parallel truths equally emphasized: the assurance of God’s gracious initiative in salvation, and fervent appeals and exhortations predicated on the initiative of men and the necessity of their deliberate response to the prior initiative of God in the realization of personal, individual salvation. No one man ever has turned to God for saving grace except on the basis of the prior initiative and enabling grace of God. And not one man ever has sought God and His saving grace without the deliberate exercise of his own initiative in response to God’s gracious initiative.[21]

In all this there are main points on which those who hold to free will and those who hold to a determinism in grace will agree: Man is helpless through the fall, God must and does take the initiative in the salvation process, Christ made atonement and opened the way of salvation, justification is by faith alone, and, whether by God’s choice or man’s choice, some are included and some excluded. Beyond these points of agreement are positions of difference: One system holds that man is a passive being acted upon by God in His sovereign will. The will is in the bondage of sin in such a way that man is incapable of hearing and responding to the divine overtures. God takes initiative to quicken some and bring them into life. Still, each man is fully responsible before God for his sinful condition and sinful acts. Another system holds that God has taken initiative for man’s salvation so that, however fallen man is, he is given the right to become a child of God (John 1:12) on the condition of faith and the grounds of grace. Enabling grace is given to all (John 12:32) so that man must make a choice relative to Jesus Christ. His responsibility, therefore, is real in keeping with responsibility as understood in any other context. The latter position, which I find most compatible with scripture, draws together divine sovereignty and initiative with human free will. By enabling grace man is sensitized to the drawing of God. To this he responds positively or negatively, a response for which he is fully responsible. He who draws and equips with free will also elects and predestines unto salvation and life those who come unto Him.

The Offer of Grace and Implications

Biblical Evidence Relative to Grace: Resistible/Irresistible

The Biblical data are clear that the entire salvation process arises in grace. I find Shank’s logic helpful here: Election is the election of grace. In the eternal purpose of God to elect, that grace was “… granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity …” (2 Tim. 1:9). Drawing heavily from scripture, Shank writes:

In the unfolding of God’s eternal saving purpose, historically that grace “came by Jesus Christ” (Jn. 1:17), and it came for all men alike: “for the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,” (Tit. 2:11) and God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4).[22] 

“God … is not wishing that any should perish” (2 Pet. 3:9), desiring to have mercy on all (Rom. 11:32), having sent His Son into the world that the world through Him might be saved (John 3:16 f.)…. God addresses Himself to all the sons of men, “There is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else” (Isa. 45:21f.).[23]

That some men are lost reflects the fact that salvation, offered to all by the grace of God, is not unconditional. Many-passages posit that the election is not of works, but of grace. This does not establish that election is unconditional, but only that it is not conditioned on works. Furthermore, that election is conditioned on faith is affirmed repeatedly in the Scripture. Consider the following propositions from Shank which deal with these issues:

1. Romans 11:6 says in effect, Not of works, but of grace. 

2. Romans 4:1–5 says, Not of works, but of faith. 

3. The Bible nowhere says, Not of faith, but of grace. 

4. Romans 4:16 says, By grace, through faith. 

5. Ephesians 2:8 says, By grace, through faith. 

Consider Romans 4:16: “Therefore [justification] is of faith, that it might be by grace.” … Paul affirms: … faith, as a condition, establishes grace and is its sine qua non as a modus operandi… ,”[24]

In an inference from a writing of Arminius, Carl Bangs, noted scholar of Arminius and Arminianism, deals with the question of grace from another viewpoint: In his Declaration of Sentiments Arminius is warning against pleading the cause of grace to such an extent that one takes away the free will to do that which is evil. He charges that injustice is done to grace by ascribing too much to free will. “The whole controversy reduces itself to this question, ‘Is the grace of God a certain irresistible force?’” He holds that this is not a question of the extent of grace but rather of the mode of its operation. Arminius writes, “I believe that many persons resist the Holy Spirit and reject the grace that is offered.” Picking up from that point Banks declares, “There is the point: grace is not a force; it is a Person, the Holy Spirit, and in personal relationship there cannot be the sheer overpowering of one person by another.”

This leaves us with the question of who, then, can believe. Bangs states that it is too simple to say for Arminius that everyone can believe. Rather, “Only he who does believe can believe … The possibility and the act cannot be separated. Whatever is said about the possibility, however, it is a possibility of grace. Then, in the act of believing, man’s will is liberated, and his liberated will concurs in its gracious liberation.”[25]

The crux of the issue is that the data indicate that grace is not irresistible. Paul wrote to the Galatians (2:21) “I do not nullify the grace of God: …”; that is, by seeking righteousness through works rather than faith in Christ. Unless it is a possibility for one to “nullify,” the statement has no meaning. To the Corinthians he wrote, “And working together with Him, we also urge you not to receive the grace of God in vain: … (2 Cor. 6:1). This, the following section shows, would be possible through failure to go on with God’s purpose for them. In the days of Noah God declared, “My spirit shall not always strive with man” (Gen. 6:3). If these were fulfilling their ordained purpose, what does it mean that God’s spirit would strive with them? “‘You always resist the Holy Spirit!’” was Stephen’s charge against his accusers (Acts 7:51). These typical illustrations imply a genuine struggle of the mind and spirit of man with the overtures of grace. Unless these represent a different usage and significance from usual language and relationships, it is possible for man to resist the grace of God Who declares, “All the day long I have stretched out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people” (Rom. 10:21).

The above implies the logic for faithful witness to the lost of the earth and for intercession with God for the souls of men. Paul declares, “First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgiving, be made on behalf of all men, …” (1 Tim. 2:1). Paul’s purpose and urgency is a reflection of the very heart of God “… Who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4). He has made his love and intention clear in “…one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all…” (1 Tim. 2:5, 6). He has not left Himself without a witness and is concerned that men should seek after Him: in fact, He is not far from each one of us (Acts 17:26–27). Shank summarizes these principles satisfactorily:

“The grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men,” as Paul affirms. Because grace has appeared for all men, because God desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, because Christ gave Himself a ransom for all and tasted death for every man, the election comprehends all men potentially.[26]

The Offer of Grace: Belated Implications

Calling—Romans 8:28 promises great blessing “…to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.” Providential care (Rom. 8:28), eternal life (Jas. 1:12), glorification together with Christ (Rom. 8:29f), and eternal blessings are assured now to believers by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:9f). On the authority of the scriptures there is no question as to these truths. A crucial question confronts us, however, in view of Romans 8:29, 30: Why do some people love God while others do not? Have men a choice here? What is clear is that some do love God and some do not: how this distinction among men comes about is less clear. Some maintain that there is a universal call which some people reject; others hold that there is a “general call” addressed to all men, a call which is only rhetorical— one on which men have no power to act. Within, alongside, or in addition to that call is a hidden, special call granted to some and withheld from others. The question as to whom God calls is crucial in our discussion and must be considered.

The scriptures bear repeated testimony that the call to salvation is a universal one extended to all mankind. God’s gracious word to all men everywhere is

Turn to Me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other (Isa. 45:22 and context). And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come”. And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost (Rev. 22:17).

The gracious invitations of Jesus are universal in scope and include “whosoever will” and “any man”. The Gospel commission of our Lord to disciples is

Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned (Mk. 16:15–16). 

Peter said, “I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right, is welcome to Him” (Acts 10:34, 35). 

For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call upon Him; … (Rom. 10:12).

The Gospel is as broad as the command to repent, for “…God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent” (Acts 17:30). Is this an authentic call? Or is it only a representation? According to all the rules of serious communication such calls may be taken seriously as invitations and declarations of God’s loving purpose extended to all. It would appear that people are lost in that they heard a call common to all and rejected it. This returns us to the question of grace as irresistible or resistible. If the call is authentic, grace is resistible. If it is, on another hand, operative only in special cases and on conditions other than those stated, then scripture does not communicate clearly to us.

Election, predestination, and faith—No complete system of soteriology can omit the important terms “election” and “predestination.” The issues relative to these concepts lie within their relation to grace as resistible or irresistible. Can election and predestination in some way encompass free will or can they not? Can these elements within divine grace be operative only in conjunction with irresistible grace? These concerns must be examined in this study.

What did the New Testament writers mean to convey by the word eklektos? Forster and Marston, in a helpful analysis, see the term used in six different contexts:

1. Of Christ: Luke 9:35; 23:35; 1 Peter 2:4; 2:6; …
2. Of the church in Christ: Romans 8:33; Ephesians 1:4; Colossians 3:12; 1 Thessalonians 1:4; 2 Timothy 2:10; Titus 1:1; 1 Peter 1:2; 2:9; 5:13; 2 Peter 1:10; Revelation 17:14, …
3. Of the nation of Israel: Acts 13:17; Romans 9:11; 11:28.
4. Of believers within the nation of Israel: Romans 11:5, 7.
5. Of the twelve disciples: Luke 6:13; John 6:70; 13:18; 15:16, 19; Acts 1:2, 24, 25.
6. Of Paul: Paul occupied a special position as an “apostle of Christ” with the others, and is thus called a “chosen vessel” in Acts 9:15, …[27]

These authors deduce the following meaning from these passages:

… the main idea in the New Testament seems to be one of responsibility and a task to perform. In this sense it seems to be close to the concept of a “calling” or vocation. God bestows an office, and with it he also gives a “name” or “calling” to the agent concerned. This being so, it is possible to refuse to live up to that calling…”[28]

G. Schrenk in Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament supports the position of Forster and Marston. After tracing the idea of eklektos through the Bible and examining its use elsewhere, Schrenk summarizes:

a. Against the background of later Judaism, with its nationalistic pride in election and its sectarian restriction, primitive Christianity gives a wholly new turn to the concept on the basis of Christ Himself. It has in view the election of a universal community in which there is no place for the development mentioned. 

b. For it, too, election denotes the eternal basis of salvation. But in the NT we never find the danger against which the history of dogmas has continually to fight, namely that of bringing the concept of election into too close proximity to a view which is to be described as enslavement to eimarmenee or fate. It is never separated from responsibility and decision. It is never remote from living history. If anchored in eternity, it is also functional in history. 

c. The truth that election does not aim at the preferential treatment of one part of the race involves the further positive truth that the community as a whole is elected for the whole of the human race. It is commissioned to fulfil eschatological and teleological tasks in service of the divine overruling.[29]

Two of the uses of election as noted require special attention: (1) The election of Christ; and (2) The election of the Church in Christ. These are considered with some attention to their relation to individual election. (1) Christ is specifically denoted as elect of God, “… a living stone, rejected by men, but choice (eklektos) and precious in the sight of God” (1 Peter 2:4). Other passages, as well, denote Him as the “Chosen One.” If His work for our salvation was to be effective Christ had to take the several steps in a process. As far as our salvation is concerned His work was a necessity, but in the deepest sense it was not an absolute necessity to Him. Shank writes:

… A death of Jesus, a moral and mediatorial necessity, was not an absolute necessity per se, but rather an instrumental necessity. It was a necessity only on the predication of the election. This becomes clear to us as we reflect on the words of Jesus … in Gethsemane: “… Thinkest thou that I cannot pray to my Father and he shall immediately give me twelve legions of angels? …” (Matt. 26:52–54). Thus Jesus was completely voluntary in His death and laid down His life of Himself, by His own free choice. The voluntary character of His death made it the precise moment and the authentic act of election for time and eternity. 

The Father chose that the Son should die and gave Him up to death … but only on condition that the Son should choose to die. … In the final deliberation, it [the decision] was made by Jesus in Gethsemane…. His decision in Gethsemane to drink the cup, and the death that followed, became the authentic decision and act of election, irrevocable and eternal.[30] 

Jesus Christ was indeed born Son of God. But that fact did not of itself make Him the Savior of men. If we may believe the testimony of the Holy Scriptures, the incarnation did not of itself make Him the Elect and the Elector: “Although he was a Son, he learned obedience from what he suffered; and having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation” (Heb. 5:8, 9). 

Little can we know of all it cost Jesus to become the Savior of men—the Elect and the Elector.[31]

(2) The election of the church is in Christ. The Biblical data suggest that election must not be dealt with only in terms which imply that particular men are unconditionally elect from eternity, individually and independent of all else. Shank writes:

… the thesis that the election to salvation is corporate and comprehends individuals only in identification and association with the elect body does not require for its defense ingenious interpretations of simple, explicitly categorical statements of Scripture. Furthermore, the thesis of corporate election is substantiated by the fact that, in certain passages of Scripture, the matter of the salvation of individuals within the body is abstracted from the matter of the salvation of the corporate body and is viewed as contingent. 

The certainty of election and perseverance is with respect, not to particular individual men unconditionally, but rather with respect to the ekklesia, the corporate body of all who, through living faith are in union with Christ, the true Elect and the Living Covenant between God and all who trust in His righteous Servant (Isa. 42:1–7; 40:1–12; 52:13—53:12; 61:1).[32]

These principles are fleshed out in the several passages that deal with election and predestination. Paul is specific that God’s eternal purpose in grace is effected by our election in the Son: “He chose us in Him … that we should be holy and blameless (agious kai amomous) before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will” (Eph. 1:4, 5). “… He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless (agious kai amomous) and beyond reproach—” (Col. 1:22). The fulfillment of this election corporately is certain: “… Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her … that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory … holy and blameless (agious kai amomous)” (Eph. 5:25–27). The fulfillment individually, however, is contingent: “He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body … in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach—if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard…” (Col. 1:22, 23). Forster and Marston comment on this line of exposition as follows:

The church is elect because it is in Christ and he is elect… 

The Bible does not say that we are chosen to be put into Christ, but that we were chosen in Christ. Our election is not separate from his election. The meaning of Christ’s election was certainly not that he should repent, and since it is this same election that we share in Christ, how can it be anything thing to do with why we repent? We may well believe that God, in his grace, placed us in Christ (to share his election) because we repented; but it is an inverse logic that ascribes the repentance itself to the election. Christ’s election implied two things for him; (a) a task and (b) a belovedness. This is what it also implies for us when we share in that election.[33]

The essentiality for maintaining perspective in the relation of election to Christ is seen in the results that occur when this is lost. In developing his system under pressure to refute the views of human autonomy put forward by Pelagius Augustine stressed the sovereignty of God to the ultimate extent. The divine decrees became the determining principle in the salvation process. Mildred Wynkoop addresses a problem that emerges from such a point of view and focus:

It has been observed that Augustine’s theory of predestination makes the divine decrees the prime cause of salvation and Christ’s death a subsidiary and secondary cause. Certainly salvation by divine decree and salvation by faith in Christ’s meritorious death on the Cross are two very different things. In the first case, Christ is not absolutely essential to salvation but is only a link in a predetermined chain of events. In the second case, Christ is absolutely essential to salvation and from Him stream the benefits of the atonement. The latter seems a better interpretation of Scripture.[34]

Church history illustrates the dangerous results which can follow when divine sovereignty is not held in balance with the role of Christ in the election process: the person and work of Christ tend to be neglected in concept, teaching, and discipleship, leading to a practical unitarianism of the First Person.

These Biblical data make several points regarding election and the offer of grace: First, election is essentially a calling. This involves relationship, vocation, and responsibility. Second, election is not absolutely arbitrary; rather, in the plan of God it has associated conditions. The prime example on both of the above points is Jesus Christ; He is the paradigm. Our election, being in Him, is in the order and pattern of His election. Third, election is related absolutely to the church, the corporate body— Christ’s body, and contingently to the individual; that is, the election of the church is assured; the election of individuals is God’s gracious act of relationship toward those who trust in His righteous Servant and who through living faith are in union with Christ. It is not apart from the church, Christ’s body. This has heavy implications for the church, both as to its glory and its responsibility.

Further, Biblical data make it clear that election does not comprehend persons unconditionally. The view that election is the condition of faith would render meaningless the opposite evidence that faith is the condition of election. Paul declares, “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself” (2 Cor. 5:19). The universal reconciliation is immediately complemented by the statement of personal responsibility and invitation: “… be reconciled to God” (v. 20). The implication is that God has done the reconciling work. If the invitation has any meaning, man must ratify the reconciliation. As Shank says,

The complementary relation of God’s provision and man’s appropriation appears throughout the Scriptures, confirming the fact that “without faith it is impossible to please God” (Heb. 11:6). Thus the Scriptures posit faith as the condition of election, the condition whereby the election potential for all men becomes realized in individual men…[35]

This brings us to a consideration of predestination in association with election and related to the offer of grace. Election is sometimes confused with predestination, the two concepts being regarded as synonymous or nearly so. A clarification of meanings and uses helps toward an understanding of the significance of the two terms. A lengthy quote from Shank is helpful on this point:

It is noteworthy that the very eklego appears in the New Testament only in the middle voice (eklegomai, to choose out for one’s self). The use of the middle voice, representing God as acting with reference to Himself in the election of men, is in marked contrast with the New Testament usage of the verb pro-oridzo (to predetermine, decide beforehand), which never appears in the middle voice. The contrast is significant. 

Thus, election is the act whereby God chose men for Himself, whereas predestination is His act determining the destination of the elect whom He has chosen. Predestination is God’s predetermination of the eternal circumstance of election: sonship and inheritance as joint-heirs with Christ (Eph. 1:5, 11) and glorification together with Christ in full conformity to His image (Rom. 8:28–30). In Ephesians 1:3–14, the election is in view in verse 4 (“he has chosen us in him before the foundation of the world”) and the predestination is not to election and salvation, but to the circumstance of election: adoption as children of God (v. 5) and participation in an eternal inheritance (v. 11). In Romans 8:28–30, the election is concomitant with God’s foreknowledge, and the predestination is not to election and salvation, but to conformity to the image of His Son (v. 29), a predestination to be realized through calling, justification, and ultimate glorification (v. 30)…. Uncritical usage of the term predestination for election … has contributed to gross confusion …[36]

Perseverance—Biblical passages warn the elect explicitly to be on guard against apostasy (1 Tim. 1:19; 4:1; 2 Tim. 4:4; Heb. 3:12; 2 Pet. 3:17) and provide examples of some who have already fallen away (Acts 7:39; 2 Tim. 4:10; Heb. 6:6; 1 Jn. 2:19). Only an ingenious handling of the scriptures can explain away the real danger or experience of removal from God in these cases. Paul warns the “saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are at Colossae” (1:2), persons identified as elect of God (3:12), that the ultimate purpose and goal will be realized in them only if they “continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard… .” (1:23). Such a warning has no meaning if there is no possibility of their “moving away.” The same is clearly true of the Christians at Ephesus and those addressed in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The situation of both Jews and Gentiles relative to “removal from God” is outlined in Romans 11. Shank’s treatment is helpful here; he is primarily illustrating that election of individuals is in corporate relationships, but the concern for and possibility of falling comes through in the discussion:

The fact that the election is corporate and comprehends individuals only in association with the elect body is reflected in many passages of Scripture. For example, in Romans 11, Paul declares that the corporate election of the Israel within Israel remained unimpaired, though some of the branches were broken off because of unbelief. Observe that the “breaking off” was from the elect Israel within the national Israel; the Jews who refused the Messiah were not thereby severed from the national Israel. Gentile believers, grafted into the corporate body, are warned that they face the same contingency (vs. 19–22). Therefore, let them be diligent to continue in faith in humility and fear (vs. 20–22). Hope is held out for the branches broken off: they may be grafted in again if they do not continue in unbelief. Thus the election is of Israel, and individuals are elect only in identification and organic union with the body through faith.[37]

Recognition of the possibility of falling does not deny election or predestination; that is a firmly outlined Biblical principle. It does modify or condition them: Election and predestination are of such a nature as to imply contingency in one way or another. Divine sovereignty is self-limited to the extent that the believer must answer his election with a genuine response. Response is real—not a sham—and a favorable response at one point may be replaced by an unfavorable response at another. The passages noted from Ephesians, Colossians, Hebrews, and the Johannine writings make no sense otherwise.

Conclusion

Reduced to simplest concepts, the problems with which we are wrestling come about because the scriptures are less than coercively clear regarding how the Spirit moves convincing men of sin, how faith becomes operative in the believer, and how one experiences power for the Godly life. The evidence is clear: some people respond to the gospel and some do not; some are saved and some are not; some who have shown clear evidence of regeneration and sanctification fall away from these evidences and into apostasy. We go to the Word for understanding of these things and develop systems to explain the realities of our existence under the gospel. After I have done my best I have yet to confess that I live with mystery—that God’s ways are past finding out. After presenting proximate passages that deal with election, predestination, universal provision, human responsibility, and free will Paul declares: “For God has shut up all in disobedience that He might show mercy to all. Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! … To Him be the glory forever, Amen” (Romans 11:33–36).

At best we must recognize that we live with a measure of mystery. Among the points of mystery the following are crucial: (1) The infinite attributes of God including sovereignty and omniscience as strongly affirmed in the scriptures stand over against human free will and real responsibility also affirmed in the scriptures. (2) Man in the image of God, is universally included in the call to salvation with responsibility to respond to the call, according to the scriptures, and yet he is involved in election and predestination. Still a number of directions are pointed up that give us guidance in our quest for understanding: Divine sovereignty incorporates the work of Christ from before the foundation of the earth. He is the Author of salvation, and election is in the Son. Man stands before God with a freedom derived from the Sovereign of the universe. He is called to exercise that freedom by a surrender of self to God issuing in a holy life. God asks what is possible and makes possible what He asks as He fulfills in man His great purpose.

Notes

1. Reinhold Niebuhr, The Nature and Destiny of Man, vol. I (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1949). p. 241.
2. Faustus of Riez, quoted in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100–600), (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972), p. 320.
3. Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100–600), (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972), p. 320
4. Ibid., pp. 280-281.
5. Roger T. Forster and V. Paul Marston, God’s Strategy in Human History (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1973) pp. 243, 4.
6. To those acquainted with the early Fathers one readily notes in this list names that hardly meet the doctrinal standards of Reformation thought. The list, however, includes most of the great names in Christianity which we have from the first four centuries. In dealing with early Christianity we are forced to work with data we have—not those we wish we had.
7. J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (New York: Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1958), p. 356.
8. Ibid., p. 357.
9. Pelikan, quoting Augustine’s On the Predestination of the Saints, p. 280-
10. Forster and Marston, p. 265.
11. Reinhold Seeberg, Textbook of the History of Doctrines, vol. II (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, Reprint), p. 26.
12. Ibid., p. 33.
13. Pelikan, pp. 279-280.
14. Robert Shank, Elect in the Son, A Study of the Doctrine of Election, (Springfield, Missouri: Westcott Publishers, 1970), p. 150.
15. Ibid., pp. 128-129.
16. Ibid., pp. 71-72. This writer is much indebted to Shank’s discussion in the development of this section.
17. Ibid., pp. 69-70.
18. Ibid., pp. 72-78.
19. Ibid., pp. 85-86.
20. Ibid., pp. 200-201.
21. Ibid., p. 204.
22. Ibid., p. 124.
23. Ibid., pp. 97-99.
24. Ibid., pp. 124-125.
25. Carl Bangs, Arminius, A Study in the Dutch Reformation (New York: Abingdon Press, 1971), p. 343.
26. Shank, p. 108.
27. Forster and Marston, p. 117.
28. Ibid., p. 118.
29. Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionary of The New Testament, Vol. IV, p. 192.
30. Shank, pp. 65-67.
31. Ibid., pp. 150-151.
32. Ibid., pp. 48-49.
33. Forster and Marston, pp. 131-133.
34. Mildred Bangs Wyncoop, Foundations of Wesleyan-Arminian Theology (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press), p. 31.
35. Shank, pp. 108-110.
36. Ibid., pp. 155-157.
37. Ibid., pp. 50f.