The author of this article, The Doctrine of Election in Calvinism, is Myk Habets, a theologian and professor at R.J. Thompson Centre for Theological Studies. The purpose of the piece is to inform other theologians or those interested in theology of the complicated beliefs behind Calvinism and to present many modern arguments against those past perspectives. Habets mostly focuses on the work of contemporary theologian Thomas Torrance, contrasting modern Calvinists’ beliefs on election through grace, the tethering of faith to the sacrifice of Christ, and the personal character of God’s salvation of mankind within a predestination based religion.
Many Christians find that predestination, which is the “the central dogma of Reformed theology”, is too harsh to be equated with a loving God (Habets 334). For this reason, many modern believers have “adopted a form of Arminianism to explain those passages of scripture which speak of God’s electing will” (Habets 334). Theologian Thomas Forsyth Torrance is a major supporter of reforming and re-explaining the legalistic boundaries that have caused Calvinism to fall “... on hard times in recent years…” (Habets 334-335). Traditionally, predestination requires the idea of unconditional election. Although these two beliefs started out seperate, they have morphed into one inseparable tenant to Calvinists. According to Habets, “Predestination simply emphasizes the truth that God has chosen us [believers in Calvinism] in Christ before the foundation of the world” (Habets 336). Since election is Christologically conditioned, grace from God is still a personal phenomena to believers. Predestination is the “acute personalization” of Grace to individual believers within the faith (Habets 337). Predestination, therefore, is the belief that Christ died for all people (through the incarnation of Christ) to the have the ability to accept grace. However not all people will accept that grace in the end (due to God’s election) (Habets 339-341). Reprobation is the opposite of election, the idea that a person who does not believe is damned to Hell (Habets 349). To explain why God elects a chosen few, early/traditional Calvinists formed the belief of “double predestination”-- that you are first predestined to live, and then predestined to accept or decline grace (Habets 350). According to Habets, modern “evangelical” Calvinists do not accept this belief, but rather claim that when considering who is elected and who is not: “there is only one will of God not two, and yet his will is secret and hidden from us, reserved in his eternal wisdom, to be revealed at his glorious return” (Habets 349).
The information given by Habets above is relevant to my topic because is answers several of my most important questions-- namely, how have the beliefs in predestination within Calvinism changed (or continue to change) today. The shift from legalistic Calvinism to a more free-will based Arminianism, mentioned by Habets, details this change, along with his focus on modern reformists’ beliefs compared to those of Calvin and other older, traditional theologians. The traditional beliefs laid out on predestination give further insight to the general beliefs given by Van Wyk in Luther and Calvin on Predestination: A Comparison. Habets definitely helped solidify my understanding of what predestination is and how the election process works and why. Something very interesting that was brought up by Habets was the personability of unconditional election (something which I had never seen or considered) (Habets 90). This seemingly gentler version of predestination (one in which God elects because he loves on a personal level) changes the overarching attribute of a Calvinist God from one of supremacy and sovereignty to one of love and relationship on a unique level.
When compared with Robert Olson’s Don’t Hate Me Because I’m Arminian, I find that the two different perspectives actually intersect on a lot of different ideas. This is because while Olson takes a moderate view on Arminianism, Habets also takes a moderate view on Calvinism, and both authors are able to meet in the middle on some beliefs-- including the loving attributes of God. As Habets mentioned early in his article, Arminianism has been more popular than Calvinism as of late because it gives more gentle, loving, and graceful attributes to God that meet the standards found within our modern world (Habets 334-335). However, Habets perspective that God’s individual election of a believer creates a personal relationship with them sheds light on a personal level of Calvinism that assigns attributes to God which are similar to that preferred by Robert Olson and other Arminians (Habets 337) (Olson 90). Furthermore, these attributes given by Habets perspective on Calvinism are different from those presented in my first Calvinist source, Luther and Calvin on Predestination by Ignatius W.C. Van Wyk. As a Bible Historian/Historical Theologian, Van Wyk provides a much more traditional viewpoint on Calvinism taken by Calvin and other early believers themselves. In Van wyk’s perspective on Calvinism, God’s attributes are focused on sovereignty, and he is seen as an almighty justice whose will can ultimately not be questioned or changed by mere human “free-will”(Van Wyk 3). In this way, Van Wyk sides with Habets who also states that the ultimate will of God is unknown (when considering unconditional election) (Van Wyk 3) (Habets 349). On this point, both Van Wyk and Habets differ from Olson, who shows through his article that free-will to choose or reject salvation is ultimately God’s will when considering election (Olson 88).
Habets, Myk. "The Doctrine of Election in Evangelical Calvinism: T. F. Torrance as a Case Study." Irish Theological Quarterly 73.3-4 (2008): 334-54.