Doctrine of Election

1. THE “MYSTERIOUS” DOCTRINE OF ELECTION:
A SOURCE OF BOTH COMFORT AND CONTROVERSY AMONG CHRISTIANS
Marisa Hahn

2. Hahn 2
THE “MYSTERIOUS” DOCTRINE OF ELECTION:
A SOURCE OF BOTH COMFORT AND CONTROVERSY AMONG CHRISTIANS
Whenviewed withby magisterial reasoning,whichplaces Scriptureabove humanlogic,the
seeminglymysterious doctrine of electionisfoundtobe a positive,comfortingdoctrine of Gospel forall
believers,yet,darkenedhumanreasoningandlogicattemptstodistortwhatis foundinScriptures.
These distortionsanddifferentperceptionsaboutthe doctrine of electionhasmade formuch
theological debatethroughouthistory,especiallywithinthe LutheranChurchinAmericainthe 1800s.
However,the doctrine of electionismeanttobe learnedbyall believersatall intellectual levels,and, by
usingScripture asthe supreme authority,the Christianisable toaddressquestionssuchas“Who?”
“What?” “When?”“Why?” and “How?” andalso refute false viewsaboutelectionandpredestination.
What exactlyiselection?The doctrine of electionisGodchoosingcertainpeopletobe adoptedas
hissonsthroughJesusChrist,or itis “justificationbyfaithalone asseenfromGod’sperspective.”1
When
didthiselectiontake place? Inhislettertothe church inEphesus,St. Paul revealsthe answer,andit’s
made knownthat God chose the elect“before the foundationof the world” (Eph.1:4). It isnot by
chance or an accidentthateach Christianischosentobe in the elect,butpart of God’s divine planfrom
before the beginningof time. He thoughtof eachof memberof the electindividually,anddecidedwho
wouldtobe given“aholycalling…inChristJesusbefore the agesbegan”(2Tim1:9)2
.
Who thenare the chosenpeople,alsocalled“the elect?”Itisevidentthroughoutthe whole
Bible thatGod choosespeople specificallyforhispurposesinboththe OldandNew Testament.Inthe
NewTestament,Christcallsonlyafewtobe hisdisciplestoserve withhiminhispublicministry(Luke
6:13). Inthe Old Testament,Godchose Israel overall of the otherpeople onearthto be “a people for
1Timothy J. Wengert, "The Formula of Concord and the comfort of election." Lutheran Quarterly 20, no. 1 (March
1, 2006): 48, http://0-web.a.ebscohost.com.topcat.switchinc.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=11bc6503-54f8-
4220-a3a8-d0e476219a63%40sessionmgr4005&vid=11&hid=4201,accessed October 16, 2014.
2Theodore Laetsch, (The Abiding Word, Volume I. St. Louis: Concordia PublishingHouse,1946), 524.

3. Hahn 3
histreasured possession,outof all the people whoare onthe face of the earth” (Duet7:6).3
In the same way,the body of people inthe electare Christians, forGod “chose usin ChristJesus
to be hisown people.”4
Whenaddressingdifferentcongregationsand members of the Church,St.Paul
usesthe term“God’s elect”(Titus1:1)5
It isthroughJesusthat we are chosento be in the elect,andlike
all otherdoctrinesandwordsof Scripture,electionpointsustoChrist. The Bible makesitclearthatnot
manyare numbered amongthe elect.AlthoughGoddesiresall people tobe saved,and,whentellingthe
parable of the weddingfeast,Christhimselfdeclaresthat“manyare called,butfew are chosen”(Matt
22:14).6
While itiscomfortingtoknowas a Christinthatwe were especiallychosenbyGodbefore the
dawnof time,ourhuman mindsautomatically jumptothe conclusionsandaskthe question,“If God
chose us to believe bythe Word,thendidn’the choose everyone else aswell?How couldthisbe?”
While Scripture doesaddressthisquestion,itis imperative torememberthatGod’sunderstandingis
immenselydeeperthanman’sunderstanding. Questionssuchasthose stemfromour blindedsinful
nature,so we mustrealize thatnotall answerscan be comprehendedbythe humanmindwhichhas
beenlongtaintedanddarkenedbysin.Asa secondaryauthorof Scripture,St.Paul writes,“Ohthe
depthof the richesof wisdomandknowledge of God!How unsearchable are his judgments andhow
inscrutable hisways!‘Forwhohasknownthe mindof the Lord?’“ (Rom11:33-34a).7
Withall that beingsaid,whatwere God’sreasonsforchoosingusto be inthe elect?The answer
3Lueker, 42.
4Steven Mueller, Called to Believe, Teach, and Confess (Eugene, OR: Write: Permissions,Wipf & Stock, 2005),286.
5
Erwin L. Lueker, The Concordia Bible Dictionary (St. Louis: Concordia PublishingHouse,1963),42.
6
Paul Timothy McCain, Concordia, The Lutheran Confessions, A Reader’s Edition of the Book of Concord (St. Louis:
Concordia PublishingHouse,2005), 637.
7Wengert, 48.

4. Hahn 4
isquite simple andisveryhumbling. He chose usbecause of Hisdivine loveandHisincrediblegrace
“The Lord sethislove onyour fathersandchose theiroffspringafterthem, youabove all peoples” and
“the Lord your God turnedthe curse of Balaamintoa blessingfor[Israel],becausethe LordyourGod
lovedyou”(Duet10:15, 23:15).8
Althoughthispassage wasspeakingof the Israelitesfromthe Old
Testament,the same istrue for us believers today.He didn’thave tochoose us,butbecause He loved
us,he rescuedus.Ourhuman actionsdon’tcontribute tohischoosinginanyway. Instead,God“saved
us and calledusto a holylife notbecause of anythingwe have done butbecause of hisownpurpose and
grace. Thisgrace wasgivenusin ChristJesusbefore the beginningof time”(2Tim1:9).9
Evenbefore
each of us had a chance to “do anything”forGod that wouldincline himtoelectus,He alreadyhadeach
of the believersinmind.Itisonlybyhisgrace anddivine will thatwe are chosenfromthe many.
While thisismeantto be comforting, ourhumanmindsstill mayquestionGod’sdoingoutside
whatis revealed tousinthe Scriptures.If God’slove andgrace are so great,whydidn’tHe justchoose
everyone?Toanswerthese questions,itisnecessarytolookatthe will of God. The Lord “worksall
thingsaccordingto the counsel of hiswill” andthis“will of God… isgoodand acceptable andperfect
(Eph1:11, Rom12:2).10
Althoughthe Bible isclearthatGod’swill isperfect,desiringall mentobe saved,
some Christiandenominationschoose torejectthisidea.The Calvinistsuse ministerial reasoningwhen
theysay thatbecause God isomniscientandomnipotent,itcannotbe possiblethathe wouldpermit
humanitytofall to sin.Therefore Godmusthave plannedthe Fall because he didnotpreventit.11
This
false ideaisopposedtoScripture andneglectsthe factthatGod gave humansfree will.
8Lueker, 42.
9McCain,638.
10Lueker, 141.
11Philip Schaff,"The Calvinisticsystemin the lightof reason and the scripture." Andover Review (Boston, Mass.) 17,
no. 100 (April 1,1892): 331, http://0-web.a.ebscohost.com.topcat.switchinc.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid
=11bc6503-54f8-4220-a3a8-d0e476219a63%40sessionmgr4005&vid=8&hid=4201,accessed October 13, 2014.

5. Hahn 5
It isaccording to God’sgoodwill thatHe earnestlydesiresthe salvationof all men.“ForGod so
lovedthe whole world,thathe gave hisonlySon”(Jn3:16). God providesall people withthe Gospel of
Christ,andthe Holy Spiritwantsall to be converted.However,most of mankindconstantlyresistsand
rejectsthe savingWordand the HolySpirit.12
It iseach human’sfaultalone whichcauses hisown
demise.“Youstiff-neckedpeople,uncircumcisedinheartsandears,youalwaysresistthe HolySpirit”
(Acts7:51).13
PhillipMelanchthon,acollaboratorof MartinLuther,correctlynotedthat“God is the
cause of our election.We are the cause of alienation.”14
However,if mancan do nogood to contribute tohisownsalvations,how doesGodcall his
elect?Godcallseach of us throughfaithby the HolySpiritto be inthe electbythe meansof grace: His
Word and Sacraments.The Lord “has blessedusinChristwitheveryspiritual blessinginthe heavenly
places”(Eph1:3).15
Althoughthe “promise of Gospel isuniversal,thatis,itbelongstoall people,the
electheartthe Gospel,are converted,andthe HolySpirit continuestoworkintheirhearts.16
The
doctrine of electionamplifiesourneedforChrist,anddisplaysthe heartof the Gospel because the
savingfaithof the electisa giftof God’sgrace that comesthroughChrist,inHis wordand sacramentsby
the powerof the HolySpirit.17
Some maytake thisto meanthat the faithand electionare separate
issue,andthatthe doctrinesof electionandsubjective justificationare mutually exclusive,butactually
they worked“handinhand,” alongwithoursanctification.18
12McCain,638.
13Laetsch, 533.
14Wengert, 46.
15Laetsch, 526.
16McCain,635.
17McCain,645.
18McCain,635.

6. Hahn 6
As Christians,we stillmayaskourselves,“whyme?WhywouldGodchoose me and notmy
neighbordownthe street?The answermaybe unsatisfactorytoourhumanunderstanding,but
Scripture issilentonthe matter. It ispart of God’ssecretwill whichmancan nolongerdiscern.19
We are
onlyto trustwhat is revealed tousby God inthe Word, where hispredestinationisrevealedaspurelya
Gospel message forall Christians. Infact,itisextremelyharmful toview the doctrine of electionany
otherway because itwill resultindespair,drivingusfurtherawayfromGod.20
As statedabove,the humanmindisblindedbysin,andthere isaparadox withinthe doctrine of
election.Thishascauseddiscomfortamongsome Christiansthroughouthistory,causingthemtoturnto
humanlogicinorder to getany sort of answer. Thisparadox has to dowiththe conceptsof harmonyof
God’sgracious election,“bygrace alone,”and“universal grace.”21
The concept “bygrace alone”isdeniedbysome groupssuchas Arminians andsynergists.It
emphasizesthatthere musthave beensome goodinthe electorsomethingthatsets themapartin
orderto make God choose them.22
Thisview is verydangerousbecause itconfusesthe rolesof God’s
foreknowledgewithHispredestination. Because of God’somniscience,itiseasytocomprehendthat
God knowsandcan foresee all things,includingthe exactnumberof people whoare inthe elect and
theirindividual identities.23
Thisviewwhollyembracesthe conceptof intuitu fidei or “foreseenfaith”
whichstatesthat God chose the electbecause he foresaw thattheywouldhave faithuntilthe end. This
ideaisagainstthe basisof Christianitybecauseitplacesthe responsibilityof salvationinthe handsof
man. God’s foreknowing isonlyinthe New Testamentthree timesandineachverse,the objectof god’s
19McCain,643.
20McCain,644-645.
21Laetsch, 534.
22Mueller, 292.
23McCain,639.

7. Hahn 7
foreknowingisthe person,nottheirfaith (Rm8:29, 11:2, 1 Pt 1:12). God foreknew whowouldbe partof
the elect,buttheywere notchosenbecause theywouldhave faith.24
Thisideawouldbe amaintopicof
controversyinthe Lutheranchurch inthe late 1800s.
On the otherside of the paradox is the conceptof “universal grace,”whichisalsorejectedby
some denominations suchasCalvinists,whoessentiallybelieve thatChrist’ssacrifice wasonlydone for
the elect.25
Thisleadsrightintothe false view of doublepredestinationthatCalvinistsembrace. Itstates
that God had alreadychosenwhowouldgotoheaven,andwhowouldbe damned,andbothchoices
were accordingto his will.The Calvinistsbelievethatbehindthe will of Godrevealedinthe Scriptures,is
the secretwill of God whichhe willfullypredestinespeople togoto hell.26
The ideaof reprobation isnot
foundanywhere inthe NewTestament,yet,some pointtoRomans9 as proof of such a horrible idea.27
“What if God, desiringtoshowhiswrathand to make knownhispower, hasenduredwithpatience
vesselsof wrathpreparedfordestruction,inordertomake knownthe richesof hisgloryforvesselsof
mercy,whichhe has preparedbeforehandforglory”(Rm9:22-23). Ata quickglance,thiscould
immediately cause alarmtothe Christian,butafterlookcloserwe see thatmankindisthe creatorof his
ownvessel of destruction.ItisbyGod’sgrace that he “endureswith patience”the evilsof humanity,
and showshisgrace because he actually chose tocreate vesselsof mercy andsalvationforthe elect.28
Thisideacan alsoleadto a false sense of security,orcarnal security,forthose inthe elect.The ideaof
“one saved,alwayssaved”isnot Scriptural.Infact, Scripture teachesthatapostasyif possible because
some “receive [the Word] withjoy.Butthese have noroot;theybelieveforawhile, andintime of
24Laetsch, 527.
25Laetsch, 536.
26Schaff, 334.
27Lueker, 42.
28McCain,643.

8. Hahn 8
testingfall away”(Lk8:13).29
Infact, electionismeanttohave the opposite effectonChristians,andSt.
Paul encouragesChristians“tobe all the more diligenttoconfirmyourcallingandelection,forif you
practice these qualitiesyouwill neverfail”(2Pt 1:10).30
Therefore,itisevidentthatwe are saved“by God’sgrace alone”andthe God displays“universal
grace” to all people anddesiresall tocome tosalvation. Bothare vital and necessarypartstothe
Christianfaith,andbothare taught as explicitlytrue inthe Scriptures. Whatthenshould one believe?
Shouldone jointhe Calvinistsandrejectthe conceptof God’suniversal grace,orshouldone jointhe
synergistsandrejectthatwe are savedsolelybyGod’sgrace,andnot our actions?If one is usinga
magisterial reasoning,thenwe mustacceptboth “universal grace”and“bygrace alone” as true!31
It is
not rightthat humansattemptto justifythis mystery withourownerroneous sin-taintedlogicbecause,
althoughitprovidesanswers,theyare neithercorrectnorharmoniouswithScripture.Knowingthis,
Martin Luthercorrectly statedthat “Onlyinthe lightof glorywouldwe be able tounderstandGod’s
election.”32
Because of itsparadoxical andsomewhatmysteriousnature,the topicof electionand
predestination hascauseddistressanddivisionsthroughoutthe theological worldthroughout history,
particularly,the LutheranchurchesinAmerica inthe late nineteenth century. The Predestinarian
Controversyhadlong lastingeffectswithinthe synodsinvolvedandcompletelydashedthe hopesof one
havingsingle unitedLutheranchurchinAmerica.33
29McCain,538.
30Lueker, 42.
31Laetsch, 538.
32 Wengert, 45.
33WilliamJ.Schmelder, "The Predestinarian Controversy:Review and Reflection." Concordia Journal 1, no. 1
(January 1, 1975): 21-22,http://0-web.a.ebscohost.com.topcat.switchinc.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid
=da7b9d88-ef26-4dd6-a300-a974d7264e78%40sessionmgr4003&vid=11&hid=4204,accessed October 16, 2014.

9. Hahn 9
In 1877, the issue of predestination wasbroughttothe forefrontof the Synodical Conference,
whichincluded the “General Synod”thatwasfoundedin1869. It includedthe Missouri,Ohio,
Wisconsin,Minnesota,Norwegian,andIllinoisSynods.34
The controversybeganwhenaseriesof papers
that C.F.W.Waltherof the Missouri Synodwasaccusedof beingagainstdoctrine.Waltherhadbeen
teachingthatthe ideaof intuitu fidei was not Scriptural.35
Thiscauseda disruptionbecausethe wide
heldviewof the Lutheranchurchin the 1860s wasthat of intuitu fidei, or “’savedbyfaith”,but Walther
claimedthatit wasGod’s grace alone throughfaith.36
Althoughthe varioussynodsweretakenabackby
Walther’steachings,the Missouri Synodremainedunitedunder Waltherashe statedthat“God foresaw
nothinggoodinhumanswhenhe resolvedtosave”andthere was“no cause inus forGod to electus.”37
He statedthat God chose usto be inthe electthroughChristbyfaithfor reasonsunknowntomankind,
but that ourforeseenfaithwasnotthe cause.38
Walther’smain opponentwasProfessorB.A.Schmidtof the NorwegianSynod, actuallyagreed
withWaltheruntil Waltherstatedthisin1879: “Holy Scripture makesfaithnotcause of justification,but
rather itsmeans.”39
However,afterthe 1879 Synodical Conference,Waltherdidnotretracthisviews,
34 Schmelder, 21.
35 Busch,136.
36
Edward E. Busch, "The Predestinarian Controversy 100 Years Later." Currents In Theology And Mission 9, no. 3
(June 1, 1982): 133,http://0-web.a.ebscohost.com.topcat.switchinc.org/ehost/
pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=9694d09c-6183-4f95-ad04-3e57c1ffaefe%40sessionmgr4002&vid=5&hid
=4201, accessed October 16, 2014.
37Schmelder,23.
38LutheranObserver,"The PredestinationControversyinthe LutheranChurch." AndoverReview (Boston,
Mass.) 3,no. 17 (May 1, 1885): 478, http://0-web.a.ebscohost.com.topcat.switchinc.org
/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=e75197ed-a9df-4943-bbb7-d5e2f594e4ae%40sessionmgr
4002&vid=4&hid=4201, accessedOctober16, 2014.
39Schmelder,23

10. Hahn 10
but only restated whathe hadsaidin 1877, heighteningthe controversybetweenvarioussynods.40
Even
thoughit wasunderstoodthatsuchmatters shouldbe keptoutof the publiceye,afterthe 1879
conference,SchmidtfranticallybeganlaunchingpublicattacksonWaltherand the Missouri Synod
throughhismonthlymagazine.41
Throughoutthe nextcoupleyears,the personalities of Waltherand
Schmidtclashed. Ithave beenrumoredthatSchmidtchangedhispersonal viewsonelectionbecause he
throughthat Walthermighttake hisplace at ConcordiaSeminary.42
Waltherhadbeencalleda“crypto-
Calvinist”by Schmidt,andWaltherreactedbycallingSchmidtandthe Anit-Missourians synergistsand
Pelagians.43
In 1881, the controversyreached itsclimax withtwomajorevents:the OhioSynodadopted
Schmidt’sviewsof intuitu fidei,andWaltherpubliclyapologizedforspeakingwithcrueltytowards
Schmidt,thoughhe didnotrecant his statementsonelection.44
Ata Synodical meetingin1882,
Schmidt’sviewswererejectedbythe Missouri,Wisconsin,and MinnesotaSynods,andhe wasno longer
acknowledgedbythe synods“asour brotherinChrist…solongas he doesnot penitentlyrecognize these
hissinsand make publichisapology.”45
The resultsof the PredestinarianControversyof the late 1800s had longlasting effectsoneach
synodinvolved. The WisconsinandMinnesotaSynodsalsoacceptedthe Missouri Doctrine,andover800
Missouri Synodpastorsremainedintheirplaces.46
The Missouri Synodcame outof the controversy
40Lutheran,479.
41Schmelder,23.
42 Busch, 137.
43
Lutheran,479.
44
Schmelder,24.
45Schmelder, 26.
46Lutheran, 481.

11. Hahn 11
strongerthan everbefore.Thankstothe leadershipof Walther,the synodnow hadsounderdoctrine,
increase inseminarystudents,andarevived vigorforGod’sWord.47
The groupthat sufferedthe most
fromthe controversywasthe Norwegian Synod.Ithadbeendivided because of the viewsandactionsof
Schmidt,andwas notcompletelyuniteduntil1917.48
The controversyhadeffectsthatproducedhurtful
resultssuchas bad fellowshipbetweensynods,communities,andfamilies.However,there were also
positive effectsinthatstrugglesare sometimesnecessarytomaintainthe truthwritteninthe
Scriptures.49
In our personal lives,the doctrine of electionandpredestinationis notmeanttobe a daunting,
intimidatingmystery,butis meanttobe a comfortenjoyed andlearned byall Christians. Itisimperative
that electionis viewedasGospel andnotLaw,for the law will create despairandcause doubts.Thiswill
drive usfurtherfromGod, but the Gospel affirmsourgiftof faithinChrist.50
By learningaboutelection,
the Christianwill feel gratitudetowardsourCreatorbecause Godchose eachof us individually,not
because he hadto but because he lovedusandshowershismercyuponus.51
Through thisdoctrine,we
are encouragedtocontinue oursanctification byreadinghiswordand practicingthe Sacraments.This
studyingthe scripturesisveryimportant because the devil’sgoal andournatural tendencyisto doubt
whatGod has revealedtous.52
By remaininginGod’sword,Christianscanbe preparedbecause Satan
“prowlsaroundlike aroaring lion,seekingforsomeonetodevour”(1Pt 5:8).
On earth, humans are constantly battling and struggling against God’s good will, but election
47Schmelder, 27.
48Busch,140.
49Schmelder, 31.
50Wengert, 55.
51Laetsch, 539.
52McCain,638.

12. Hahn 12
“takesthingsoutof [our] handsand placesthemsquarelyin God’slap.”53
What a relief! Our salvation is
in Christ alone! As we face the struggles of this life and are called to bear our cross with Christ, God’s
predestinationremindsusthatwe are His chosenpeople.“ForIam sure that neither death nor life, nor
angelsnorrulers,northingspresentnorthingsto come,nor powers, norheightnordepth,nor anything
else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rm 8:38-
39)54
. The doctrine of election is intended as a comfort to all Christians, and should be preached to all
Christiansassuch. While we are still onearth,we know that God has called usto be hisown foreternity.
What a joy!
53Wengert,48.
54McCain,639.

13. Hahn 13
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Busch,Edward E. "The PredestinarianControversy100 Years Later."CurrentsIn Theology And Mission 9,
no.3 (June 1, 1982): 132-148. ATLA Religion Databasewith ATLASerials,EBSCOhost(accessed
October16, 2014).
Laetsch,Theodore. TheAbiding Word,VolumeI.St. Louis:ConcordiaPublishingHouse,1946.
Lueker,ErwinL., The Concordia Bible Dictionary. St. Louis:ConcordiaPublishingHouse,1963.
Lutheran,observer."The PredestinationControversyinthe LutheranChurch."AndoverReview (Boston,
Mass.) 3,no. 17 (May 1, 1885): 477-481. ATLA Religion Databasewith ATLASerials, EBSCOhost(accessed
October16, 2014).
The Lutheran Study Bible (ESV). St.Louis:ConcordiaPublishingHouse,2009.
McCain, Paul Timothy. Concordia,TheLutheran Confessions,A Reader’sEdition of the Bookof Concord.
St. Louis:ConcordiaPublishingHouse,2005.
Mueller,StevenP. Called to Believe, Teach,and Confess.Eugene,OR:Write:Permissions,Wipf &Stock,
2005.
Schaff,Philip."The Calvinisticsysteminthe lightof reasonandthe scripture." AndoverReview (Boston,
Mass.) 17, no.100 (April 1,1892): 329-338. ATLA Religion Databasewith ATLASerials,
EBSCOhost(accessedOctober13,2014).
Schmelder,WilliamJ."The PredestinarianControversy:Review andReflection." Concordia Journal1,no.
1 (January1, 1975): 21-33. ATLA Religion Databasewith ATLASerials, EBSCOhost(accessedOctober16,
2014).
Wengert,TimothyJ."The Formulaof Concord andthe comfortof election." Lutheran Quarterly 20,no.1
(March 1, 2006): 44-62. ATLA Religion Databasewith ATLASerials,EBSCOhost(accessedOctober16,
2014).