Election is
either by:
1.) God
2.) God and man
3.) man
4.) chance
1.) God gets all the glory
2.) man gets a little glory for choosing to coperate with God's grace
3.) man gets all the glory
4.) no glory neither for God nor man
1.) God is in control
2.) God allows man some control
3.) man is in control
4.) neither God nor man is in control
1. man is helpless and unable to choose God, God does the choosing
2. man has the ability to freely choose or reject God, man does the choosing, God helps
3. man has the ability to freely choose without any help from God
4.neither man nor God choose, fate does
1.) Monergism (Theonomy)
2.) Synergism (Semi-Autonomy)
3.) Autonomy (self-determinism)
4.) Lottery (indeterminism)
1.) Fully Biblical (Reformed)
2.) Partially Biblical (Semi-Palagian)
3.) Non-Biblical (Palagian)
4.) Way out in left field (Naturalistic theory akin to evolutionary theory)
According to the Semi-Palagian, both them and God harmoniously determined the outcome. Problem is, this has more in common with philosophy than Scripture.
"The five points of the Arminians were, first, election and condemnation are conditioned by divine foreknowledge, and dependent upon the foreseen faith or unbelief in man. In other words, they did not believe in unconditional election. They believed that election and condemnation are conditioned by divine foreknowledge. They believed that God looked down through the years, seeing who would believe and who would not believe, determined on the basis of what he saw who should be saved, and who should be lost. So, that salvation is dependent upon the foreseen faith of individuals. Now, if you will think a moment about that, you will see immediately that salvation depends upon human response rather than divine foreordination. What really determines a person's election is not what God does, but what man does. God ratifies man's decision. It is not election by God, it is election by man. God sees what man will do, and chooses those who respond. Those who do not, he does not choose, but consigns to everlasting perdition. All kinds of questions arise by this, of course. One question that arises immediately is, if it is true that God looked down through the years and saw who would believe, did he gain in knowledge by so-doing. Well, if he gained in knowledge by sodoing, if he learned by foreseeing, then he did not know that before he foresaw. And thus, he was not omniscient. So, God is changeable and not omniscient. Lots of questions arise out of that particular doctrine. But as you can see, it locates salvation in man, election particularly." S. Lewis Johnson "For Whom Did Christ Die?" Lecture II
either by:
1.) God
2.) God and man
3.) man
4.) chance
1.) God gets all the glory
2.) man gets a little glory for choosing to coperate with God's grace
3.) man gets all the glory
4.) no glory neither for God nor man
1.) God is in control
2.) God allows man some control
3.) man is in control
4.) neither God nor man is in control
1. man is helpless and unable to choose God, God does the choosing
2. man has the ability to freely choose or reject God, man does the choosing, God helps
3. man has the ability to freely choose without any help from God
4.neither man nor God choose, fate does
1.) Monergism (Theonomy)
2.) Synergism (Semi-Autonomy)
3.) Autonomy (self-determinism)
4.) Lottery (indeterminism)
1.) Fully Biblical (Reformed)
2.) Partially Biblical (Semi-Palagian)
3.) Non-Biblical (Palagian)
4.) Way out in left field (Naturalistic theory akin to evolutionary theory)
According to the Semi-Palagian, both them and God harmoniously determined the outcome. Problem is, this has more in common with philosophy than Scripture.
"The five points of the Arminians were, first, election and condemnation are conditioned by divine foreknowledge, and dependent upon the foreseen faith or unbelief in man. In other words, they did not believe in unconditional election. They believed that election and condemnation are conditioned by divine foreknowledge. They believed that God looked down through the years, seeing who would believe and who would not believe, determined on the basis of what he saw who should be saved, and who should be lost. So, that salvation is dependent upon the foreseen faith of individuals. Now, if you will think a moment about that, you will see immediately that salvation depends upon human response rather than divine foreordination. What really determines a person's election is not what God does, but what man does. God ratifies man's decision. It is not election by God, it is election by man. God sees what man will do, and chooses those who respond. Those who do not, he does not choose, but consigns to everlasting perdition. All kinds of questions arise by this, of course. One question that arises immediately is, if it is true that God looked down through the years and saw who would believe, did he gain in knowledge by so-doing. Well, if he gained in knowledge by sodoing, if he learned by foreseeing, then he did not know that before he foresaw. And thus, he was not omniscient. So, God is changeable and not omniscient. Lots of questions arise out of that particular doctrine. But as you can see, it locates salvation in man, election particularly." S. Lewis Johnson "For Whom Did Christ Die?" Lecture II
