One Reformationist View of Election

Today, we return to Dr. Robert Reymond's view of election. If you haven't noticed, I was corrected (and rightly so) by Frank. Dr. Reymond has a P.H.D. from Bob Jones but is not on the faculty. Again, thanks for the correction Frank.

The last post on election had more to do with the Westminster Confession of Faith than I had anticipated. Although Dr. Reymond quoted much from the WCOF, it's now a good time to hear his own commentary.

Dr. Reymond argues from the Reformationist view of Calvinism. He uses the Pauline texts of Ephesians 1, Ephesians 3 (especially verse 11), and Romans 9 to articulate his point of God's election of certain individuals. The doctor attempts to convince the reader of a "logical" order of God's elements of salvation. Reymond also has much to say about the word "foreknew" (proegno) in Romans 8:29, going as far as defining the word as "set his (God's) heart upon" (160).

Dr. Reymond has very little to say regarding the Arminian view of election. The phrase "the Biblically informed Christian" will come to XYZ conclusion (Surprise! It always seems to be his conclusion.) is written time and time again. The essay is written to defend supralapsarian over infralapsarianism within Calvinism.

Dr. Cottrell is the first to address his concerns with Reymond. According to Reymond, every decree is made to serve the eternal purpose of God's salvation of mankind. For Cottrell, this idea sends up a red flag. "This means that God has decreed the fall of Adam and the ensuing sinfulness of the entire human race so that there would be sinners to redeem" (202). Others (the non-elect) are "passed over" or simply not chosen by God. These things happen by God's decrees having an ultimate purpose of God's glorification. Cottrell maintains, "To some Calvinists such a view of God and his decrees may sound like pious and glorious mysteries; but to most non-Calvinists it is the height of irrationality and moral contradiction and approaches blasphemy" (ibid).

Dr. Clark Pinnock offers his opinion as follows: "It would seem that the most important issue here (Reymond's view of God's determinism) is not the doctrine of election as such but the character of God" (203). He goes on to say, "Reymond and I both admire the awesome power of God...It is not the kind of power, spoken of in deterministic theologies, namely, raw power, the power to make everything else surrender...Surely the glory of God consists not in God's all-controlling power but in God's self-sacrificing love" (203-204).

Thoughts? Remember when responding that others will (sometimes passionately) disagree. Please respect those who agree or disagree.