Here, we examine John Wesley’s Doctrine of Prevenient Grace in the context of an academic study of salvation (soteriology), focusing on what salvation means and how it is achieved doctrinally.

I. Wesley’s Teaching: God’s Intervention to Save

Our Salvation’s Necessity of Grace: Original Sin and Human Incapacity

The necessity for a doctrine such as prevenient grace arises directly from the profound theological problem inherent in existing after the Fall of Man: the condition of Original Sin, or Total Depravity. If, as Christian theology holds, humankind is utterly corrupted by the inheritance of Adam’s sin, the individual is rendered incapable of seeking God, believing the Gospel, or initiating any movement toward spiritual good. John Wesley began his defence of grace by affirming this absolute human wickedness, referencing Scripture to assert that man’s depravity was so complete that “the imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5).¹ This profound inability established the indispensable requirement for an external, divine intervention to commence the path to salvation.

Historical Teachings of Prevenient Grace

Wesley’s theological method was rooted not only in Scripture but also in the teachings of the Church Fathers, whose proximity to the early church granted them significant authority in his estimation ²

His concept of prevenient, meaning preparatory grace, aligns with the theological ideas and writings of the early Church Fathers — Christian writers and theologians from approximately the late 1st to the 8th centuries AD. John Wesley wanted to respect the foundations of Christian doctrine and included interpreting scripture and defending orthodox Christianity against heresies.

Crucially, by affirming the absolute spiritual incapacity of fallen humanity, Wesley firmly rejected two earlier, condemned theological positions: Pelagianism, which claimed salvation was attainable through natural human moral ability, and Semi-Pelagianism, which posited that humanity could initiate goodwill toward God, requiring only subsequent divine assistance.³ Both Wesley and Classical Arminians agreed that, following the Fall, “fallen humanity has no ability or power to reach out to the grace of God on its own” ³, aligning their views against the notion that humans could possess initiative without divine assistance.

Overview of Wesley’s Tripartite System of Grace

For Wesley, Prevenient Grace (PG) is not an isolated concept but the essential first dynamic in a holistic, continuous process of God’s saving work. He defined grace broadly as God’s “bounty, or favour: his free, undeserved favour.” ⁴ This divine favour is expressed through three dynamic movements:

1. Prevenient Grace, which prepares the individual for faith;
2. Justifying Grace (or saving grace), which grants forgiveness and acceptance, and
3. Sanctifying Grace, which facilitates transformation toward Christian living, holiness and perfection.⁵

Prevenient Grace functions as the crucial logical presupposition for Wesley’s entire system of “free grace, free for all”. ⁶ Because Wesley affirmed Total Depravity ¹, he maintained that any movement toward God must be fully God-initiated, thus protecting the doctrine of sola gratia (salvation by grace alone).⁷ Simultaneously, to ensure God’s justice and universal love, this initial grace had to be applied to all mankind, thereby enabling everyone to respond genuinely and faithfully.⁸ Without a universal, enabling grace that overcomes inherited inability, the assertion of human responsibility for choosing faith would be impossible to justify.

II. Defining Prevenient Grace (PG)

Wesley’s Explicit Definitions and Analogies

Prevenient Grace is defined by Wesley as the grace that “goes before” the individual’s conscious decision to follow God.⁵ In his sermon “On Working Out Our Own Salvation,” Wesley provided a precise definition of its inward operation, detailing that PG is what “elicits the first wish to please God, the first dawn of light concerning His will, and the first slight transient conviction of having sinned against Him”.¹ This initial action does not wait for any human effort or call.⁹

To explain its preparatory but non-salvific nature, Wesley frequently employed vivid analogies. He compared Prevenient Grace to a house’s porch, stressing that it is the place where one prepares before entering the main structure.⁵ Similarly, if salvation is viewed as a journey, PG constitutes the prerequisite gifts: the desire to travel, the road, the vehicle, and the map. These elements are “unmerited gifts—grace!”.5 These analogies illustrate that while PG provides the means and the ability, it demands the subsequent action of “entering the house or beginning the journey” — the active believing in Christ. (Justifying Grace).⁵

Addressing Total Depravity and Restoring Moral Agency

The central purpose of Prevenient Grace is to act as the initial remedy for Original Sin.¹ It initiates a “deliverance from a blind, unfeeling heart” by Christ performing a “partial restoration of the polluted human faculties,” as we move along consciously with an opened heart to hear more of the Word of God. ¹

Wesley connected this theological concept to the universal moral awareness observed in humanity. He identified PG with what is commonly called “natural conscience,” arguing that this awareness is not, in fact, natural, but is “more properly termed preventing grace”,⁹ not enabling grace. This universal endowment explains why the requirements of the law, regardless of an individual’s realized awareness, are inscribed on every heart (Rom. 2:15) and why God’s power is evident in creation (Rom. 1:20), providing a foundation for conviction and culpability in all people.⁹

This linkage of PG to moral awareness has significant practical implications for Wesleyan thought. The partial restoration of faculties ¹⁰ rules out a strict dichotomy between the secular and the religious life in achieving God’s purpose. Rather, it provides a theological basis, recognizing that moral effort, even among the unsaved, stems from God’s gracious provision and preparation of the conscience — which is Prevenient Grace. ¹⁰ 

John Wesley, a preacher who preached to tens of thousands in his lifetime, was a trusted servant of Christ, to whom He revealed this amazing doctrine. As a first, an Armenian, then a devout Calvinist, I confess this doctrine of Prevenient Grace, attributing to God all Sovereign Guidance in the affairs of the saved (a major tweak of Calvin’s doctrine of election). Faith comes by hearing the Word (the Armenian’s activation of the Conscience to hear God’s call).

Universal Scope yet Resistible Dynamic of PG

Wesley insisted that Prevenient Grace is universally “imparted to all”. ⁷ The grace of God that brings salvation has “appeared to all persons” (Titus 2:11).⁹ This universality is non-negotiable within Wesleyan theology, as it affirms that God truly invites “all people, regardless of race, social status, economic class, or gender, to accept his salvation”. ¹⁰

The operational dynamic of PG is inherently one of resistibility. Unlike grace that coerces relative to Calvin’s view of election, PG works in an “influence-and-response fashion”.¹¹ It is the Holy Spirit calling and convicting each person (John 16:8) and Jesus Christ knocking at the door of every heart (Rev. 3:20).⁹ However, individuals retain the power to “resist and reject the grace of God” (Acts 7:51).⁹

This resistible dynamic is crucial for upholding moral responsibility. While the initial act of restoring the ability to choose is a monergistic act of God, the subsequent choice to believe is voluntary.⁷ PG thus restores true moral agency, ensuring that if an individual ultimately rejects salvation, they are rejecting a genuine, enabling opportunity provided by God’s grace. It is not that the individual wasn’t of the “called elect,” which is the only possible viewpoint of a reformed Calvinist.

III. Wesley’s PG vs. Calvinism’s Irresistible Grace

The contrasting doctrines of Prevenient Grace and Irresistible Grace (Effectual Calling) mark the most significant theological divide between Wesleyan Arminianism and Calvinism, reflecting different primary theological commitments.

Contrasting Views: Initial Human Depravity and Divine Intervention

Calvinism posits that Total Depravity is so complete that the human will is entirely in “bondage to sin” and cannot be freed until it is monergistically “transformed” by God — who is the sole cause of a particular work, such as salvation or spiritual rebirth^.13 Because of this profound inability, Calvinists hold that God must employ a grace that is both particular (directed only to the elect) and effectual (guaranteed to succeed). The difference between the saved and the lost is therefore attributed entirely to God’s choice and subsequent work in the human heart.¹⁴ This deep commitment to human inability is necessary to protect the doctrine of Unconditional Election. ¹⁴

• Monergism is a theological concept in which one agent, typically God, is the sole cause of a particular work, such as salvation or spiritual rebirth. Derived from Greek roots meaning “one work,” this view holds that the Holy Spirit alone brings about spiritual regeneration, without any cooperation from the individual’s will. It is contrasted with the idea of synergism, which suggests that both divine and human effort are necessary for salvation. 

Wesleyan theology affirms the initial state of total inability ³, but Prevenient Grace functions to overcome the bondage of sin by restoring “freedom from necessity”.¹³ The effect of PG is to make the individual genuinely able to believe.¹¹ God’s grace is sufficient for all people to respond faithfully.⁸

The Efficacy of Grace: Coercion vs. Enablement

The core difference lies in the efficacy of the divine call:

• The Monergistic Model (Calvinism): Irresistible Grace is a work of God that is determined and certain in its outcome — a view of the doctrine of election.¹³ It does not merely offer salvation but guarantees regeneration, making belief an inevitable consequence for the elect.¹³ God draws for the purpose of forced regeneration. ¹¹

• The Synergistic Model (Wesleyanism): Prevenient Grace is preparatory; it only makes belief possible. It draws (John 6:44), convicts, and enables.¹¹ Salvation results from a voluntary, enabled response (synergism) to the preceding monergistic grace.⁷

This conflict reflects a deeper disagreement over which divine attribute takes soteriological priority. Calvinism places priority on God’s sovereign prerogative (Unconditional Election), thus requiring irresistible means to ensure that election is honoured. Wesleyanism places priority on God’s universal love and justice, requiring a universally supplied, resistible grace to ensure that God’s invitation is genuinely accessible to all.

Implications for Free Will and Culpability

In Calvinism, human will is typically understood in terms of compatibilism: the person acts voluntarily, but the underlying disposition is determined by God’s decree.⁷ In this framework, the choice of faith is not a meritorious work, but a determined response of a transformed will of the elect individual.

In Wesleyanism, Prevenient Grace restores a true, libertarian moral freedom, meaning the choice to accept or reject grace is non-determined. The individual is morally responsible for his choice because PG has ensured he has the restored ability to choose.⁷ The Wesleyan argument against Calvinism emphasizes that if salvation is truly a choice for which man is held responsible, God cannot “draw for the purpose of forced regeneration.” ¹¹

Furthermore, Wesley addressed the Calvinist concern that a voluntary choice of faith might constitute a “good work” and thus reject sola gratia.⁷ However, since the capacity (the ability to choose) is provided entirely by unmerited grace (PG), the subsequent voluntary act of faith is merely a response to the gift of the Holy Spirit’s active participation to activate the moral conscience with responsive conviction, not the creation of a meritorious work through inherent human ability.⁷

Election and Atonement

Wesley’s doctrine of PG is universally applied ¹², affirming that God’s provision of grace and love is “free in all, and free for all.” ⁶ This necessitates the rejection of Limited Atonement, confirming that Christ’s death created the possibility of salvation for everyone.¹⁵

• Limited atonement, also known as definite atonement, is a Christian theological doctrine that holds that Jesus’s death atoned for the sins of the elect (those chosen by God for salvation) alone, not for all of humanity. While the sacrifice of Christ is seen as sufficient to save everyone, its saving power is applied only to those God has chosen, making the atonement effective for them. This is one of the five points of Calvinism.

Consequently, the Wesleyan view posits Conditional Election, in which God’s choice is based on foreknowledge of who will exercise the enabling power of Prevenient Grace in faith.¹³

• Conditional election is a theological belief that God chooses individuals for eternal salvation based on his foreknowledge of their future free response of faith and repentance. In this view, God’s election is “conditional” upon a person’s willingness to accept his offer of grace. 

IV. Analyzing the Arminian Lineage: Wesley’s Development of Prevenient Grace

Wesleyan Arminianism and Classical Arminianism (associated with Jacobus Arminius) form the two primary schools within the broader Arminian tradition.¹⁶ They share vital agreements but Wesley’s system presents a more formalized, progressive model of grace.

Shared Foundation and Defining Agreements

Both Arminius and Wesley recognized the extreme depth of Original Sin, agreeing that human beings are “imprisoned, destroyed and lost” in sin without the exciting power of grace.³ They agreed that human beings have no power to seek God unless they are radically affected by divine grace, distancing themselves definitively from Semi-Pelagianism.³ Both schools maintain the core principles that Prevenient Grace is necessary to prepare for regeneration, that this grace is universal, and that it is fully resistible.¹³ This common foundation emphasizes that the human response to God’s universal call (repentance and belief) determines election based on divine foreknowledge of an individual’s personal acceptance of the offered gift of salvation via faith in the declared word of God that Jesus is Lord. (Romans 10:17) ¹⁵ 

Wesley’s Emphasis on the Progression of Grace (Sanctification)

Wesley’s unique contribution lies in systematically formalizing the continuum of grace, placing distinct emphasis on the phase that follows justification: Sanctifying Grace.¹⁶ While Classical Arminianism focuses heavily on the conditionality of faith and justification, Wesley established Prevenient Grace as merely the starting point, leading to Justifying Grace (the doorway) and continuing into Sanctifying Grace (the process of perfection).⁵

This structured view of grace underscores the non-negotiable expectation for practical holiness and moral growth—the essence of Wesleyan discipleship. Because PG provides a restored capacity for moral action, Sanctifying Grace mandates the disciplined use of that capacity.¹⁰ Wesley organized Methodists into small groups (“classes and bands”) to foster accountability in “growing in grace” through the active practice of “means of grace,” such as public worship, prayer, searching scriptures, and fasting.⁵ This system of discipleship is functionally enabled by the initial restoration achieved through Prevenient Grace.  (see 1 Peter 1:15-17)

Nuances and Later Divergence within Arminianism

Although fundamentally aligned, minor theological nuances exist. For instance, while Classical Arminians traditionally uphold the doctrine of God’s exhaustive classical foreknowledge of the future, some later Wesleyan circles have shown greater openness to the philosophical school of open theism.¹⁷ This difference suggests that within Wesleyan thought, the priority placed on radical, libertarian free will sometimes extends to philosophical considerations of how God interacts with an open future.

• Open Theism is a theological view that holds that God’s relationship to the future is “open,” meaning the future is not fully settled but includes possibilities that depend on human free will. It contrasts with classical theism, which holds that God’s knowledge of the future is exhaustive and unchanging. Open theists believe that because humans have libertarian free will, God has made His knowledge of future free choices conditional on their actions, though He can predict with great accuracy what will happen. This means that while God knows all that is knowable, the future is partially open to what we will freely choose to do, and in this sense, God is affected by events as they unfold. 

V. Synthesis and Conclusion: The Mediating Role and Enduring Legacy

Prevenient Grace, as defined by John Wesley, is the cornerstone of his soteriology (how salvation is accomplished), serving as the essential theological concept that validates the consistency of God’s character. It is the mediating principle that permits Wesley to affirm the entirety of salvation as being initiated by unmerited grace (PG precedes and enables everything) while simultaneously demanding that the human response be a genuine, responsible sanctification, non-determined choice (PG is resistible).⁷

The Theological and Practical Functions of PG

The doctrine fulfills critical theological requirements:

1. It ensures the universal provision of the ability to respond to the Gospel, thereby maintaining that God’s offer of salvation is “free for all”.⁶

2. It resolves the logical conflict between Total Depravity and human culpability by establishing that the lost reject a divine enabling gift rather than an impossible command.⁷

3. It serves as the foundation for the rigorous Wesleyan emphasis on Christian perfection, making intentional spiritual discipline and moral transformation necessary in the life of grace.⁵

Comparative Summary of Initial Grace and Will

The comprehensive comparison highlights the pivotal role of Prevenient Grace in defining Wesleyan theology against its counterparts:

Comparative Soteriology of Initial Grace and Will

Final Assessment

Wesley’s doctrine of Prevenient Grace is not a peripheral theological detail, but the central mechanism by which he constructs a coherent system of salvation. It secures the theological assertion that God’s grace is universally distributed and sufficient for all, restoring the capacity for faith that Original Sin had removed. It ensures that God’s justice is maintained and that those who accept salvation receive it entirely as an unmerited gift, while those who reject it are fully culpable for willingly resisting the divine light already offered to them. This synthesis remains the enduring hallmark of Wesleyan systematic theology.

Cited for this study:

1. From Putrefecation to Sanctification: John Wesley’s Understanding of Original Sin and Theology of Grace – CSB and SJU Digital Commons, accessed November 24, 2025, https://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1191&context=obsculta
2. John Wesley’s doctrine of prevenient grace and its significance for youth ministry – Asbury Theological Seminary, accessed November 24, 2025, https://place.asburyseminary.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2463&context=ecommonsatsdissertations
3. Classical Arminianism: Imputed Sin and Total Inability – Founders Ministries, accessed November 24, 2025, https://founders.org/articles/classical-arminianism-imputed-sin-and-total-inability/
4. Accessed November 24, 2025, https://www.resourceumc.org/en/content/a-wesleyan-understanding-of-grace#:~:text=John%20Wesley%20defined%20grace%20as,all%20things%20under%20his%20feet.
5. A Wesleyan understanding of grace | ResourceUMC, accessed November 24, 2025, https://www.resourceumc.org/en/content/a-wesleyan-understanding-of-grace
6. Free Grace Or Forced Grace?. By Steve Witski, Fundamental Wesleyan… | by Michael R. Cariño | Medium, accessed November 24, 2025, https://medium.com/@michaelrcarino/free-grace-or-forced-grace-3048975e6dc5
7. Prevenient grace – Wikipedia, accessed November 24, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevenient_grace
8. Why Wesley, and Not Calvin – AFTE – A Foundation for Theological Education, accessed November 24, 2025, https://johnwesleyfellows.org/perspectives/why-wesley-and-not-calvin/
9. Theology Corner, accessed November 24, 2025, https://christianapologetic.org/theology-corner/what-did-john-wesley-teach-about-prevenient-grace.aspx
10. The Socio-Political Function of Grace in Wesleyan Theology and Praxis – ResearchGate, accessed November 24, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369095134_The_Socio-olitical_Function_of_Grace_in_Wesleyan_Theology_and_Praxis
11. Irresistible grace – Wikipedia, accessed November 24, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irresistible_grace
12. Roy Ingle, “Prevenient Grace Compared With Irresistible Grace”, accessed November 24, 2025, https://evangelicalarminians.org/roy-ingle-prevenient-grace-compared-with-irresistible-grace/
13. Five Points of Calvinism – Wikipedia, accessed November 24, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Points_of_Calvinism
14. Total Depravity – Examining Calvinism, accessed November 24, 2025, http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Articles/Total_Depravity.html
15. How the Arminian View Responds to Calvinist Beliefs About Salvation and Free Will by Pastor Rudolph P. Boshoff – Ad Lucem Ministries, accessed November 24, 2025, https://adlucem.co/arminianism-calvinism/responding-to-calvinist-objections-from-a-classical-arminian-viewpoint-by-pastor-rudolph-boshoff/
16. Arminianism – Wikipedia, accessed November 24, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism
17. A Comparison of Wesleyanism and Classical Arminianism, accessed November 24, 2025, https://wesleyanarminian.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/a-comparison-of-wesleyanism-and-classical-arminianism/

The hours and days following the horrifying murder and arson at a Latter-day Saints church service in Michigan was not the time to parse theological identities. However, many used the tragedy as an opportunity to offer their answer to a question that has grown in importance and controversy in recent years: “Are Mormons truly Christian?”

Pew Research lists Latter-day Saints among “All Christians,” along with Protestants, Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Mormons not only call themselves Christian, it’s in their name, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

However, to borrow from Shakespeare, naming a flower a rose doesn’t make it smell just as sweet. Though Mormonism uses similar concepts and terms as Christianity, what is meant is often very different from what Christianity teaches. As Lukus Counterman put it at The Gospel Coalition, “While both Mormons and historic Christians believe in ‘Jesus Christ,’ they’re referring to different people.”

Mormonism began in the early 19th century on what was then the American frontier. So many new religious groups were sparked in that part of New York state, the region became known as the “burned-over district.” Many of these new movements claimed to know what everyone else in Church history had missed.

While many of these groups added or subtracted from biblical teaching, Joseph Smith claimed to have received a series of expansive visions that completely rewrote the script on Christianity. While Marcion in the second century and Thomas Jefferson in the 19th subtracted what they didn’t like from the Bible, Smith crafted Mormon doctrines by adding three books, each with concepts unlike anything in the Bible. This led to a reimagined understanding of God from anything that Christians have preached since the Apostles. In fact, the Mormon view of God is even more extraordinary than the more notorious aspects of Mormon doctrine and practice, including special undergarments, polygamy, and that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri.

Mormon theology is simply incompatible with the Christian understanding of God. Christians see God as eternally existing from before all time and creation. Mormons claim God has not always been as He is. As Joseph Smith put it in a sermon in 1844,

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret … I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form … I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.

Further, in Mormonism, the Godhead is made of three distinct beings, or three gods. Their unity is “one of purpose,” but not, as the Christian doctrine of the Trinity clarifies, of one nature.

Another key difference is who and what Jesus is. Christianity has always taught that Jesus is the eternal Son of God, a full member of the Trinity, “begotten not made.” He has always existed, but at the Incarnation He took on flesh and came to Earth, remaining then and now as fully God and fully man. In Mormonism, Jesus is God’s natural son, the offspring of the Father and a “Heavenly Mother.” All human beings are also God’s children in this way, according to Mormon doctrine, having lived in Heaven before our conception and birth.

In other words, Mormons and Christians hold different and incompatible views about God, Jesus, humans, sin, salvation and the Church.

As many people can attest, Mormons are often wonderful people. Despite some oddities, like not being able to drink coffee, they are often moral allies in an increasingly immoral society. However, Mormonism is not Christian, because Mormons and Christians do not worship the same God.

As a friend often says, this is a case in which sharing vocabulary does not mean sharing a dictionary. Sharing certain convictions of morality does not imply sharing a theology, Christology, anthropology, soteriology, ecclesiology, or eschatology. Watering down the truth is not only unhelpful, it is an insult to both groups.

Source Authors: originally published at BreakPoint. 

The doctrine of predestination often offends and triggers many with a bias against Calvinism. I prefer to view it as an important biblical doctrine easily defended by scripture. In addition to the doctrine of election being primarily held by Calvin, I include the evangelist John Wesley’s views on sanctification, which I believe conjoin with the doctrine of election.

It is simply the teaching of scripture that many theological camps agree on. In my studies, the scriptural view of Election works in harmony with the scriptural view of Sanctification.

Scripture, indeed, bears strong testimony to this doctrine, since it is a matter of supreme importance, yielding a proper understanding of the Lord’s will regarding the way of salvation. The doctrine inspires genuine sanctification and a love for our trinitarian God. Scripture refers to the election of a predestined group of people in a variety of ways. I have also written about how faith in the gospel message is operative and how all who call upon the Lord will be saved.

This indicates that those who follow the Lord will move towards holiness, allowing a transformation to continue by the indwelling Spirit, convicting our lives to submit to His Word in agreement. The following quotes from John Wesley, who believed that though we will be tempted, we will need to repent daily. His following words are not a contradiction — but rather, a paradox in line with Luke 13:24 NLT: “Work hard to enter the narrow door to God’s Kingdom, for many will try to enter but will fail.” See also: Hebrews 4:11 ESV: “Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience.”

The Lord Jesus Christ is called the Elect in Isaiah 42:1 NKJV: “Behold! My Servant whom I uphold, My Elect One in whom My soul delights! I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the Gentiles” and 1 Pet. 1:20: “He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you.”

The holy angels have been elected to an eternal and permanent state for God’s service to assist the elect people who follow Christ. Please understand this distinction — the Lord Jesus has been chosen or elected by the Father for the salvation of men and not angels. As God and man, however, Christ is exalted above the angels who worship Him and whom He, as Lord, uses according to His will to the benefit of His elect. ⁴

These holy angels have been chosen by God, which explains why they are called “elect” 1 Timothy 5:21: I charge you before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels that you observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing with partiality.

Some people are elected to a specific office, such as a government position, as Saul was chosen to be king. 1 Samuel 10:24: “Do you see him whom the LORD has chosen?” This was also true when he was rejected. 1 Samuel 16:1: “I have rejected him from being king”.

Others are chosen to a ministerial office, as was Judas, who was also chosen to be an apostle. John 6:70: “Did I not choose you, the twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.” This reveals how God elects people for specific purposes — eleven of His disciples to carry His gospel forward, one to use a man who would betray Him, all methods within the plan of redemption, all of which conjoin to redeem His sanctified elect to glorify His name.

The predestined elect children of God

This manner of election is not under discussion here, but rather the election of some people unto salvation. It signifies a determination of a matter before it exists or transpires to bring it to a certain end as defined in Acts 4:28 NAS: “…to do whatever Your hand and purpose predestined to occur.” This is further confirmed in 1 Corinthians 2:7, “But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory.”

It is this word predestined which is used to refer to man’s destiny and the means whereby they obtain this salvation. Ephesians 1:11, 5: “In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined… Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.” In Romans 8:29-30 our predestined calling and election are for the divine purpose of sanctification unto holiness – a transformation by the power of the Holy Spirit into Christ-likeness, with an obedient holy viewpoint, being led by the Spirit: “For those whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son…And those whom he predestined he also called.”

Election refers to a foreknowledge of God, characterized by love and delight. For this purpose, Christ is referred to as “the elect of God” (Isaiah 42:1 NKJ), as stated in 1 Peter 1:20: He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you.

Here, election pertains to those called by the Spirit to follow the Lord Jesus: Romans 8:28-30 ESV: “And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose…” And here is God’s purposed destination of the elect, the called, which I emphasize:

“…for those whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.”

This ties in with “for the LORD knows the way of the righteous” (Psalm 1:6); and “But God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: “The Lord knows those who are his,” (2 Tim. 2:19).

Believers are therefore called “elect… according to the foreknowledge of God the Father” (1 Pet. 1:2). It signifies election itself. “God hath not cast away His people which He foreknew” (Rom. 11:2); “For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate” (Rom. 8:29, 9:11). Paul makes it clear that God does predestinate people to salvation. Again, in Ephesians 1:11 ESV: In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will… (see also Acts 13:48)

^{1 John Wesley, The Holy Spirit and Power}

^{2 Ibid}

^3Ibid

^{4 Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, ed. Joel R. Beeke, trans. Bartel Elshout, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 1992), 211.}