Craig D.

McClure
craig@scoreintl.org

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD: DEMONSTRATED IN THE DOCTRINE OF

UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION

Issue

A simple mention of the doctrine of election results in a divergence of passionate

opinions among Gospel believing Christians. The profundity of the doctrine of election in

Scripture and the limitation of human understanding contributes much to the differing positions

on the subject. For some, like those of the Arminian tradition, the concept that a loving God

would only efficaciously elect a portion of humanity to salvation is appalling. They contend that

if God is love His desire must be to give equal opportunity to all of His creatures to believe in

Christ and the Gospel. The sovereignty of God is compromised in order to extended decisive

freedom of choice to the creature. Others holding to the reformed tradition argue the doctrine of

election is the quintessential manifestation of God’s love. It is an inspiration for praise and

worship and God’s glory is contingent of the veracity on unconditional election.

Among the diverse positions on election some suggest God’s decree of election is

conditional, while others insist it is unconditional. Both are persuasively defended, but only one

consistently submits to the comprehensive teaching of Scripture. An examination of the others

reveals theological presuppositions and not objective hermeneutics. Therefore, this essay will

attempt to demonstrate that in accordance with His divine prerogative God sovereignly and

unconditionally elected a particular people from fallen humanity to become holy and blameless

in Christ before creation. This will be accomplished by first reviewing differing positions related

to the doctrine of election, then transitioning to explicit biblical texts demonstrating God’s

sovereign unconditional choosing of the elect.

 Positions on the Issue

In this section two opposing positions related to the doctrine of election will be presented.

First, is the open theism view of divine election as corporate and vocational. Open theism is a

minority view that stands outside the parameters of orthodoxy. Second, is the Arminian view of

conditional election. Conditional election is considered because of its popularity in orthodox

Protestantism and the frequency with which it is used in objection to the reformed view of

unconditional election. Admittedly, an exhaustive analysis of either perspective on election will

reveal variances among adherents. However, a comprehensive inquiry is not the purpose of this

position paper. The intention of this section is to provide a broad overview of the opponents to

the reformed position of unconditional election.

Open Theism View of Election

The fundamental component of open theism is the denial of God’s exhaustive

foreknowledge of all future events. God’s sovereignty and providential authority over creation is

secondary and restricted by human freedom. The limitation of the omniscience of God dictates

open theist deny traditional perspectives on divine election. The argument is, for humanity to be

free it is impossible for God to know or control future decisions. Therefore, the concept of an

eternity past divine decree to elect specific individuals to salvation is not only detestable to the

open theist, but also impossible. For the open theist an authentic love relationship with God is

dependent on God not influencing humanity coercively or persuasively.

Open theism acknowledges God’s sovereign power in creation, but suggests God

sacrificed His sovereignty to humanity in order to maintain unrestricted human freedom. 1 The

1
Bruce Ware, God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books
2001) 31.

2
surrender of His active engagement in creation included His sovereign prerogative to

unconditionally elect individuals to salvation. Bruce Ware summarizes the openness position

saying, “either God gives up unilateral control or he takes away the freedom and moral

responsibility of the human agent.” 2 Therefore, exercising His divine freedom God voluntarily

created a world open to future possibilities determined by human choices. Among those choices

is the creature’s right to an uninfluenced acceptance or rejection of election in Christ.3

Specifically related to divine election open theism denies the idea that election is

soteriological by nature, but rather ecclesiological and missiological. In other words, God does

not elect individuals to salvation, but extends an open invitation to all of humanity. An invitation

to join the cooperate body of Christ. 4 After joining the cooperate body the believer is given the

vocation of proclaiming the good news to the nations. 5 These two components of election define

the open theist’s position. Leading proponent of open theism Clark Pinnock submits, “election is

not God’s choice of a restricted number of individuals whom God is willing to save, it is a

description of the corporate body which God is in fact saving through Jesus.” 6 Election is not

particular and salvific, but cooperate and vocational.

2
Ibid., 131.
3
Open theists argue the only individual person in human history elected by God is Christ. All others are
elected in Him when they freely accept the Gospel and enter the cooperate body of Christ, the church. See Clark H.
Pinnock, Divine Election as Corporate, Open and Vocational, in Perspectives On the Election, ed. Chad Owen
Brand, 276-314. (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2006) 301.
4
Rice Richard, Biblical Support for a New Perspective, in The Openness of God: A Biblical
Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God, by Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker
and David Basinger, 11-58. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994) 55.
5
Pinnock, Divine Election as Corporate, Open and Vocational, 280.
6
Ibid., 300.

3
 In summary, the open theist’s commitment to unprecedented libertarian freedom has

resulted in the sacrifice of God’s sovereignty and the biblical concept of divine election. Open

theism erroneously interprets election passages as general and non-particular. 7 Moreover,

election is available to all pending they freely meet the condition of faith. Advocates of open

theism contend that “if God knows the future completely, the future must be fixed, and man

cannot be really free.” 8 Therefore, in order to maintain freedom the only individual elected by

God is Christ and all others have free choice to respond in faith to God’s invitation. The open

theism position of divine election is an unorthodox misrepresentation of Scripture that destroys

the sovereignty of God and exalts the autonomy of humanity.

Arminian View of Conditional Election

Existing in many modern western evangelical churches is the theological belief that

divine election is conditional. It is a natural anthropocentric belief that is based on experiential

evidence from one’s conversion. Meaning most believers, at least initially before exposure to

Scriptural evidence to the contrary, attribute their conversion to their free volition of belief.

Historically adherents of Arminian theology hold this view as a doctrinal cornerstone.

Divine election has long been debated between Calvinist and Arminians. Beginning when

the Remonstrants, followers of Jacob Arminius, presented Five Articles of belief in Holland in

1610 in response to the popularity of Calvinistic theology and the Belgic Confession. Later,

international delegates comprised of moderate and high Calvinist convened at the Synod of Dort

Cornelis P. Venema, “Open Theism and the Doctrine of Election: Does God either Elect or Foreknow
7

Those Whom He Will Save?," MAJT 27 (2016) 24.

8
John M. Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R
Publishing Company, 2016) 310.

4
and refuted the Five Articles of the Remonstrants in 1619. The Synod terminated with the

Canons of Dort, articles containing what are contemporarily known as the five points of

Calvinism. Obviously, among the doctrinal issues addressed at the Synod of Dort was the

Arminian view of conditional election.

The Arminian understanding of election is regarded as conditional because, for the

Arminian, God’s election is conditioned on the individual’s uninfluenced free choice to believe

the Gospel. In other words, election is “conditioned on foreseen faith.” 9 Unlike the open theist

who denies God’s exhaustive foreknowledge Arminian theology holds divine foreknowledge as

foundational to their understanding of election. God in eternity past looked into time and

foreknew those who would meet the condition of belief and elected them to salvation. According

to Arminian Jack Cottrell because God “foreknew that some would freely accept the free offer of

grace and meet the conditions for receiving it, God predestined them to eternal life.” 10 This is a

classical Arminian interpretation of Romans 8:29 and will later be demonstrated to be a

misinterpretation of Paul’s intent.

Similar to open theists Arminians have embraced a position on election that exalts human

freedom of choice over divine sovereignty. God cannot unconditionally predestine the elect

because He is not allowed to interfere with man’s freedom of choice. For authentic relationship

to exists there must be uninfluenced reciprocity of love between God and man. Therefore, God

9
Norman L. Geisler, Chosen but Free: A Balanced View of Gods Sovereignty and Free Will (Minneapolis,
Minn: Bethany House, 2010) 50.

Jack W. Cottrell, The Classic Arminian View of Election, in Perspectives On the Election, ed. Chad
10

Owen Brand, 50-134. (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2006) 108.

5
responds to human choice and in His divine omnipotence is still able to accomplish His purposes

with limited sovereignty. 11

Interestingly, Arminians affirm original sin and man’s inherited deadness in sin. Leading

Arminian Roger Olsen explains the Arminian position on human depravity. “Arminianism

teaches that all humans are born morally and spiritual depraved, and helpless to do anything

good or worthy in God’s sight without a special infusion of God’s grace to overcome the affects

of original sin.” 12 The special infusion of grace is prevenient grace. Prevenient grace asserts that

in order to restore human freedom from the morally depraved condition God bestows on all

humanity a non-salvific grace to restore their free will of contrary choice. 13 This bestowal of

grace allows the unsaved individual to believe or reject the Gospel.

In summary, the Arminian position of conditional election asserts that divine election is

dependent on God’s foreknowledge of those who would through prevenient grace freely choose

to trust Christ. The decisive agent in regeneration is man who freely decides to trust in Christ or

reject Christ. Attempting to preserve the autonomy of man Arminians limit God’s comprehensive

sovereignty because God’s election is subordinate to those who would freely choose Him.

Unfortunately, as this position paper will demonstrate the Arminian view of conditional election

is incorrectly founded on subjective presuppositions and not objective hermeneutics.

11
Wayne Grudem, Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-
Varsity Press, 2010) 115.
12
Roger E. Olson, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009) 33.
13
See Thomas Schreiner, Does Scripture Teach Prevenient Grace in the Wesleyan Sense, in Still
Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge and Grace, ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce
A. Ware, 229-246. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000) 229-246.

6
 Support for Unconditional Election

The preceding section outlined two opposing positions to unconditional election. This

section will now prove the essay’s thesis that in accordance with His divine prerogative God

sovereignly and unconditionally elected a particular people from fallen humanity to become holy

and blameless in Christ before creation. Here the reformed position of unconditional election will

be presented and shown biblically to be the only view that upholds the absolute sovereignty of

God. In this presentation unconditional election will be defined and defended through Scriptural

evidence that demonstrates God’s meticulous sovereignty in electing specific individuals.

Unconditional Election Defined

The doctrine of unconditional election asserts, “that God, before the foundation of the

world, chose certain individuals from among the fallen members of Adam’s race to be the objects

of His undeserved favor. These, and these only, He purposed to save.” 14 In other words, God

was resolved to redeem a remnant of humanity and that remnant was elected by the Father and

gifted to the Son (John 17:9). It was the intent of God, in accordance with His divine prerogative

as sovereign Creator, to create, to permit the fall and according to His good pleasure elect a

chosen people out of fallen humanity who would be redeemed through the atonement of Christ

(Rom 8:29-30; 9:11-13; Eph 1:4-5; Rev 13:8). 15 This action of God occurred in eternity past as a

pre-temporal sovereign act (Eph 1:4; 2 Thess 2:13; 2 Tim 1:9; Rev 13:8; 17:8). Wayne Grudem

14
David N. Steele, The Five Points of Calvinism (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publications, 2004) 27.
15
The position of this essay is consistent with the infralapsarian view of the ordering of divine decrees.
Meaning, that in eternity past God decreed to create, to permit the fall and only then did He decree to elect a chosen
people out of the fallen humanity. The decree to elect follows the decree of the fall. See Frame, Systematic
Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief, 226-227.

7
concisely defines unconditional election as, “an act of God before creation in which He chooses

some people to be saved, not on account of any foreseen merit in them, but only because of His

sovereign good pleasure.” 16 Therefore, election is not contingent in any way on the elect

individual meeting a precondition, but results solely from God’s sovereign determination and

action. Divine election is unconditional.

Unconditional Election Defended

The complexity of the diverse positions related to divine election demand more than the

undefended definition provided. Biblical support of the doctrine of unconditional election is

imperative to uphold the definition given in this essay. Here a Scriptural defense of unconditional

election will be presented providing clear evidence that unconditional election is the most

biblically faithful position on election.

Logical Defense. Divine election leads to faith and is not the result of faith. Faith is a

result of God’s appointment of the elect to eternal life in eternity past (Acts 13:48). Calvinists

maintain humanity is unable to exercise any act of faith apart from this appointment and

regeneration. This inability is due to the total depravity of man. This moral inability provides a

logical defense in favor of unconditional election. Total depravity does not mean every individual

is as wickedly sinful as they possible could be, but rather the entirety of human nature is radical

corrupt. 17 The natural man is wholly immoral, unable to do anything spiritually good because of

moral inability. The “sinner is so spiritually bankrupt that he can do nothing pertaining to his

16
Grudem, Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith, 282.
17
R.C. Sproul, What is Reformed Theology? Understanding the Basics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Publishing Group, 2005) 117-118.

8
salvation.” 18 If the nature of humanity is absolutely depraved logically God must sovereignly

intervene and save individuals through His choice and action or there will be no salvation.

Scripture teaches all by nature are in a state of spiritual deadness, children of wrath and

unable to please God (Rom 3:9-18; 5:12; Eph 2:1-3; Col 2:13). All are born in enslavement to sin

and Satan and consequently unable to understand or pursue God apart from His initiatory act

(John 6:65; 8:34; 1 Cor 2:14; 2 Tim 2:25-26; 1 John 3:10; 5:19). Total depravity, therefore, is one

of the strategic biblical doctrines defending unconditional election. Left uninfluenced by God’s

sovereign action all people would continue to reject God and justly perish in sin. However, God

has unconditionally chosen to select from depraved humanity a remnant that will receive mercy

and grace guaranteeing their eternal redemption.

Scriptural Defense. Affirmation of total depravity leads to the question of why would

God freely choose to elect anyone. According to Arminian theology the answer is grounded in

prevenient grace and foreknowledge. God bases His pre-temporal choice of election on the

foreknowing of those who would meet the condition of faith. However, this is not a concept that

is consistent with Scripture. The motive for divine election set forth in Scripture is multifaceted.

Each element demonstrations the sovereign will of God to elect specific individuals completely

independent of human participation.

Concerning election Paul writes, “even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of

the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love, He predestined us for

adoption to Himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will, to the

praise of His glorious grace” (Eph 1:4-6). First, note the eternal timing of election. God

sovereignly predetermined to elect a people to salvation in Christ before time began (2 Thess

18
Steele, The Five Points of Calvinism, 19.

9
2:13; 2 Tim 1:9; Rev 17:8). This is a pre-temporal election discrediting the concept that election

is based on foreseen human response to the Gospel. Consequently, it is impossible for election to

be conditional. Ware remarks, “placing election before the very creation of the world and time is

this, we did not yet exist, and so God’s election of us simply can having nothing to do with

certain truths about us.” 19 This is demonstrated in Jacob’s election and the elect names written in

the book of life before the foundation of the world (Rom 9:11; Rev 13:8). Paul gives irrefutable

evidence of unconditional election by confirming the motive is “in order that God’s purpose of

election might continue, not because of works but because of His call” (Rom 9:11).

Paul also highlights a second motive for unconditional election, a transformation of

character. God’s choosing of totally depraved individuals is motivated by His desire to transform

the elect into the image of Jesus, making them holy and blameless (Rom 8:28-30; Eph 1:4). Sam

Storm’s rightly observes Paul is “referring to that absolutely sinless, holy and blameless

condition in which we shall be presented to God at the second coming of our Savior.” 20 This

interpretation shows it is a future righteousness and blamelessness that awaits the believer.

Therefore, the elect’s transformation of character is the result of election and cannot be the

conditional requirements of election.

Thirdly, unconditional election is motivated by a unique love for the elect. It is clear that

God predestined the elect in love (Eph 1:4). So what is the proper biblical understanding of

foreknowledge? Did God foresee a reciprocal love from some and not others? As previously

noted affirmation of total depravity supports the doctrine of unconditional election because,

19
Bruce Ware, Divine Election to Salvation, in Perspectives On the Election, ed. Chad Owen Brand, 1-58.
(Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2006) 15.
20
Samuel Storms, Chosen for Life: The Case for Divine Election (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007) 108.

10
“depraved sinners’ inability morally and spiritually rules out the equation of divine

foreknowledge with mere prescience.” 21 Therefore, the proper understanding of foreknowledge

should be understood as a demonstration of God’s love motivating unconditional election.

Meaning, foreknowledge is not God foreseeing faith, but God, not coerced by human influence

set a particular love on a particular people. As Grudem notes the reality is, “God knew persons,

not that He knew some fact about them, such as the fact that they would believe.” 22

Foreknowledge is God’s pre-temporal knowing of a person and not human action.

Foreknowledge should properly be understood as the pre-temporal love of God resulting in a

covenantal commitment with those whom He chose to know personally and intimately. 23

Finally, and arguably most importantly, Scripture demonstrates God’s motive in

unconditional election is His glory. God’s glory depends on the unconditional nature of election.

“Only if God’s election of those whom He determines to save is grounded on the good pleasure

of God and not at all on any quality, decision, or action that will one day be true of those persons

whom God creates can we proclaim, without qualification, that salvation is altogether from the

Lord and to Him alone belongs the exclusive glory.” 24 Sovereignly God has chosen to save some

and not others “according to the purpose of His will” (Eph 1:5).

The ultimate objective of this sovereign choice is worship (Eph 2:7). “Election was

undertaken to establish a platform on which the glory of God’s saving mercy might be seen and

21
Bruce Demarest, The Cross and Salvation: The Doctrine of Salvation (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1997)
115.
22
Grudem, Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith, 286.
23
S.M. Baugh, The Meaning of Foreknowledge in Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election,
Foreknowledge and Grace, ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware, 183-202. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Books, 2000) 194.
24
Ware, Divine Election to Salvation, 6.

11
magnified and adored and praised.” 25 Unconditional election assures the glory of God will not be

shared and consequently leads to the eternal “praise of His glorious grace” (Eph 1:11; 1 Cor

1:27-29). There is no contribution from humanity towards redemption; therefore, gratitude for

salvation ignites eternal worship (John 15:16; Rom 9:16; 10:20; 11:33-36). The elect were

unconditionally chosen for the supreme purpose of knowing and proclaiming the glory of God

(Ps 106:5; 1 Pet 2:9; Rom 9:23).

Although many other motivations for God’s sovereign choice of election unto salvation

exist this section has highlighted a few of the more explicit Scriptural defenses. Acknowledging

total depravity necessitates the divine intervention of God to act on behalf of a morally unable

people. Scripture affirms that God does this before time in eternity past assuring His action is not

conditioned on any human behavior. Furthermore, God acts motivated by a unique love for the

elect in order to transform their character resulting in eternal worship and praise of His glory.

God’s foreknowledge of a people is “a sovereign distinguishing love,” not a cognizant

understanding of future human choice. 26

Objections to Unconditional Election

The final section of this essay will address two objections to unconditional election. First,

the objection that unconditional election compromises the righteousness and justice of God will

be addressed. Secondly, a response will be given to the objection that unconditional election

negates the need for evangelism.

25
Storms, Chosen for Life: The Case for Divine Election, 41.
26
Steele, The Five Points of Calvinism, 161.

12
First Objection

If God, seemingly arbitrarily as Arminians contend, choses some for salvation and denies

salvation for others how can God be just? Opponents of unconditional election frequently ask

this question claiming the God of Calvinism is unfair and unjust. However, Paul affirms the

Calvinist position because his understanding of divine election led him to anticipate the same

objection. 27 “What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means!” (Rom

9:14). This is not an objection that would proceed from an Arminian or open theist view of

election.

Furthermore, God’s divine prerogative to sovereignly choose whom He will save is

explicitly taught (Exod 33:19; Deut 7:6-7; Rom 9:15). God is under no obligation to save

anyone. Affirmation of original sin and total depravity demand the acceptance of the rightness

and goodness of eternal damnation. Therefore, to this objection the proponent of unconditional

election must highlight had God predestined all of humanity to hell His justice would not have

been in jeopardy. Rather, the forgiveness of the guilty and the justification of the ungodly does

jeopardize His righteousness (Rom 3:26). God’s forgiveness of the elect would compromise His

holiness if not for the cross because no individual should be the beneficiary of salvation. This is

the incredible wonder of the Gospel.

Second Objection

The accusation that unconditional election negates evangelism is common. The reasoning

is that if God has already predetermined who will and will not get saved then why share the

Gospel. To contest this objection one must first acknowledge Scripture clearly mandates the

27
Sproul, What is Reformed Theology? Understanding the Basics, 149.

13
believer to proclaim the Gospel liberally and to all of creation (Matt 28:18-20; Mark 16:15; Acts

1:8). This is nonnegotiable and must be obeyed.

Secondly, the confidence of evangelism success is grounded in the doctrine of

unconditional election. Evangelism is done with full assurance that the Holy Spirit will

illuminate the hearts of His elect and bring them to salvation (Acts 13:48; 16:14). Moreover,

unconditional election preserves the purity of the Gospel. It prevents the evangelist from

compromising the message in order to manipulate a response to the Gospel. Unconditional

election is the motivation for fidelity to laborious evangelism so that the elect “may obtain the

salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory” (2 Tim 2:10). For the Calvinist, unconditional

election emboldens a universal offer of the Gospel knowing that all whom God has elected to

salvation will respond positively to the Gospel (John 10:16; Acts 13:48; Phil 1:29).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the only explanation consistent with Scripture as to why some individuals

savor the beauty of Christ demonstrated in the Gospel and others reject it is the doctrine of

unconditional election. God is not a spectator in human history. Rather, He is meticulously

orchestrating His sovereign plan to display His glory through the redemption of the elect in

Christ and the execution of His justice on the reprobate. The pre-temporal timing of election

accompanied with the total depravity of humanity demonstrates the necessity for affirming

unconditional election. Moreover, a proper understanding of the biblical motivation for God’s

choosing of the elect further solidifies the truth that divine election is intended by God to display

His love, glory and sovereignty as He transforms His children into the holy and blameless image

of Christ Jesus. Unconditional election is, therefore, one of God’s great manifestations of His

sovereignty.

14
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baugh, S.M., "The Meaning of Foreknowledge." In Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives

on Election, Foreknowledge and Grace, edited by Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A.
Ware, 183-302. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000.

Cottrell, Jack W. “The Classical Arminian View of Election.” In Perspectives On the

Election, edited by Chad Owen Brand, 70-134. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group,
2006.

Demarest, Bruce. The Cross and Salvation: The Doctrine of Salvation. Wheaton, IL: Crossway,
1997.

Frame, John M. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R
Publishing, 2013.

Geisler, Norman L. Chosen but Free: A Balanced View of Gods Sovereignty and Free Will.
Minneapolis, Minn: Bethany House, 2010.

Grudem, Wayne. Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith. Grand Rapids, MI:
Inter-Varsity Press, 2010.

Olson, Roger E. Arminian Theology: Myths And Realities. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic,
2009.

Pinnock, Clark H. “Divine Election as Corporate, Open and Vocational.” In Perspectives On the
Election, edited by Chad Owen Brand, 276-314. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group,
2006.

Rice, Richard. “Biblical Support for a New Perspective.” In The Openness of God: A Biblical
Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God, by Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice,
John Sanders, William Hasker and David Basinger, 11-58. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity, 1994.

Sproul, R.C. What is Reformed Theology? Understanding the Basics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Publishing Group, 2005.

Steele, David N. The Five Points of Calvinism. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2004.

Schreiner, Thomas R., "Does Scripture Teach Prevenient Grace in the Wesleyan Sense." In Still
Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge and Grace, edited by
Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware, 229-246. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books,
2000.

Storms, Samuel. Chosen for Life: The Case for Divine Election. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books,
2007.

15
Venema, Cornelis P. "Open Theism and the Doctrine of Election: Does God either Elect or
Foreknow Those Whom He Will Save?." Mid-America Journal of Theology 27 (2016): 7-
48.

Ware, Bruce A. “Divine Election to Salvation.” In Perspectives On the Election, edited by Chad
Owen Brand, 1-58. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2006.

. Gods Lesser Glory: A Critique of Open Theism. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books,
2001.

16