The Election Process

Growing up in the Churches of Christ, I often heard that the main differences between us and 'the Baptists' was that they viewed baptism differently and that they used instruments, and the whole 'once saved, always saved' concept came up often as well. These assessments always came from folks in the Churches of Christ, only skirted along the surface of the issues, and lumped all Baptists into one group despite the fact that there are several stripes.

It is not until recently that I've heard it from someone from a different background. The differences between Churches of Christ and some stripes of Baptists/Evangelicals run more deeply than I knew, because I was unaware of the a vastly different theological underpinning that created the most serious differences. Here it is: Arminianism vs Calvinism. And the key focus of the difference is our understanding of election. Put in oversimplified terms, the distinction is as follows: whereas Churches of Christers (Arminians) believe that we freely choose to believe the gospel, Reformed Baptists/Evangelicals (Calvinists) believe that God elects those who will be saved.

Choice vs No Choice.

But, it is very important to realize that, in espousing each of these views, both sides seek to uphold important characteristics of God.

The motive in Arminians for believing in free will is to free God of the 'blame' for choosing who will or won't believe. In the mind of an Arminian, it doesn't make sense for a God who is love and wants all to be saved to still choose not to save everyone. So, in espousing free will, Arminians try to make God look good by putting the blame for unbelief on us. Arminians want to make sure God looks LOVING.

The Calvinist motive for believing in predestined election is to uphold the total SOVEREIGNTY of God. If humans have a part in deciding whether to believe or not, then they are tempted to boast, to take credit for believing and thus for earning their salvation. This boasting takes away from the sovereign work of God to save us by grace through Jesus Christ.

In sum, according to Arminians, we believe and thus demonstrate that God has elected us through Jesus, the Elect One. Whereas according to Calvinists, God elects us, and our faith in Jesus demonstrates that he has indeed elected us.

Both sides agree, however, that God is BOTH sovereign and loving and also agree that one way or the other, it is God who elects us. He calls us and saves us through grace and we do nothing to earn our salvation. And, works are important to both as well, not as a means of earning salvation but rather as evidence that one is indeed elected and saved. (There are nuances, however, in the way each side, and even subcategories within each side, view works. See the article below for more.)

I've based most of what I've said on an article I came across tonight while exploring John Mark Hicks' website. The article, "Mediating the War between Arminians and Calvinists on Election and Security: A Stone-Campbell Perspective," is very good and I recommend it if you want to understand this issue better.

In the first half of the article, Hicks gives some historical orientation that explains how the founders of the Stone-Campbell Movement actually came from a Calvinist background but eventually rejected it in favor of Arminianism. The first half is good, and it is important to know one's history, so I recommend you read it. But if you find the historical stuff tedious, you might skip on ahead to the second half where Hicks seeks to find common ground between the two camps and then goes on to show that the theological difference does not actually make much practical difference: either way we seek to live holy lives in the manner of Christ.

All of this reiterates to me how important it is to know our history. Until I came to ACU, I had no historical awareness of how our movement began and developed, and therefore no way of truly understanding where our differences with others stem from.

[In addition to theological differences, one sad reason Arminians and Calvinists have had a hard time getting along is that they often demean each other. Let's not continue that tradition.]