Predestination refers to God having determined everything that happens in the world at (or before) the time of creation. Everything that happens is due to God-determined destiny. People who hold this belief understand God’s sovereignty to be absolute.
Predestination is particularly associated with the concept of the elect. Before creation, God predestined certain people to be saved (the elect). Those who are not part of the elect will not be saved (the reprobate). The elect will be saved with certainty. When those of the elect hear God’s call, they will be saved by faith and have no choice in the matter, referred to as irresistible grace. Once the elect respond to God’s call, they will persevere in their faith and also have no choice in the matter. Similarly, the unlucky remainder who are not part of the elect will never respond to God’s calling and have no choice in the matter.
The doctrine of predestination has two basic flavors. The belief that God predestines the elect to be saved but does not explicitly predestine the rest to damnation is referred to as single predestination. The belief that God predestines the elect to be saved and also predestines the rest to damnation is referred to as double predestination. These two views on predestination are functionally equivalent, but single predestination has more of an emphasis on God’s grace and double predestination has more of an emphasis on God’s sovereignty. In single predestination, all of mankind is sinful and deserving of eternal punishment but God in His mercy chooses to save some. In double predestination, God has a sovereign plan that includes both the elect and the reprobate.
Both Reformed theology and Roman Catholicism believe in double predestination, although the doctrine is prominent in the former and not prominent in the latter. Lutheranism believes in single predestination, but also teaches that anyone who believes in the Gospel is saved and is therefore one of the elect. Arminianism stands in stark contrast. It believes that people, through free will, can either accept or reject the Gospel. However, Arminianism also teaches that God has perfect foreknowledge of people’s free choices, and therefore knows with certainty who will be saved and who will not be saved.
The Bible certainly refers to a certain group of people that God seems to have predestined to be saved. The key passages are both from Paul’s epistles (emphasis added):
- “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified” (Rom 8:28-30); and
- “[J]ust as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons and daughters through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will” (Eph 1:4-5).
A plain reading of these verses strongly suggests that God has chosen certain people to be justified and adopted into His spiritual family. Furthermore, God does this strictly for His own reasons. This is the essentially the understanding of Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Reformed theology. However, Paul also uses the term “foreknew” in the Romans verse. Arminianism understand this to mean the following: (1) Paul is referring to God’s perfect foreknowledge of who will make the free choice to be saved in the future; (2) knowing this, God makes a provision for these people through the redemptive work of Christ; resulting in (3) the predestination of those who God foreknew to actually be saved.
The theological topic of predestination is difficult. From one perspective, it seems unfair for God to elect some to be saved and to not allow any others the chance to be saved. From another perspective, it seems that God must have known everything that would happen in the universe based on how He created it, including everyone’s choices. Those believing in predestination tend to say, “Who are we to say what is fair or not. We should not second guess God.” But this is not a theological answer to why God would predestine some to eternal damnation without any possibility of salvation. Those opposed to predestination tend to say, “A loving God would never predestine people to Hell without the possibility of salvation.” But this is not a theological answer to the issue of God’s absolute sovereignty. As such, it is worthwhile to examine some addition verses that address predestination and the elect (emphasis added):
- “To those who … are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you” (1 Pt 1:1-2);
- “In Him we also have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things in accordance with the plan of His will” (Eph 1:11);
- “For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory” (2 Tim 2:10); and
- “When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and all who had been appointed to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48).
The first thing to note is that the first three verses, like the first two that were presented, are all from the epistles of Paul. Therefore, they can all be examined together in an attempt to understand what Paul is trying to communicate. The verses from 1 Pt 1:1-2 and Eph 1:11 seem to support the plain reading of Rom 8:28-30 and Eph 1:4-5: God’s foreknowledge led to some people being chosen for salvation according to His will and plan. This view is also supported by Acts 13:48, written by Luke, who was presumably very familiar with the teachings of Paul. But Paul in 2 Tim 2:10 implies that some of the chosen may not obtain salvation if he does not continue to evangelize. That is, 2 Tim 2:10 can be interpreted as salvation not being certain for at least some of the chosen (although other interpretations are possible).
A theological assessment of predestination requires an examination of all related verses in the Bible, including those that address the intent and scope of Christ’s redemptive work. There are many verses that address this issue, with some of the more critical being the following (emphasis added):
- “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” (John 6:40);
- “The next day [John the Baptist] saw Jesus coming to him, and said, ‘Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world’” (John 1:29);
- “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him” (John 3:16-17);
- “For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all” (2 Cor. 5:14-15);
- “For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have set our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all mankind, especially of believers” (1 Tim. 4:10);
- “But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of His suffering death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone” (Heb 2:9); and
- “[John the Baptist] came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light. This was the true Light that, coming into the world, enlightens every person” (Jn 1:6-9).
These verses paint a much different picture when compared to the verses about predestination. Christ’s redemptive work was for everyone. He is the Savior of all mankind. In coming into the world He enlightens every person. Christ takes away the sin of the world, not just the sin of the elect. How can Christ have died for all if it is impossible for some people to benefit for Christ’s death. My goal is not to pick sides, but to demonstrate that this issue is not as simple as is often presented.
The doctrine of predestination is severe in that some people are born who will suffer torture for all eternity and there is nothing that they can do about it. This is a problem for practical theology in that Christians can experience extreme anxiety about whether they are one of the elect or not. A good example of this situation is nineteenth century Scotland, where assurance of salvation was a major issue for many congregations. There was much debate going on about limited versus unlimited atonement: did Christ die for all (2 Cor. 5:14-15; Heb 2:9) or did Christ die only for the elect (Rom 8:28-30; 1 Pt 1:1-2)? Reformed theology teaches the former and Arminian theology teaches the latter. The Synod of Dort was called in 1618 and categorically rejected Arminianism and affirmed strict Reformed theology. John Cameron, a Scottish theologian, was teaching in France at the time, reacted strongly against Dort. He developed a doctrine where Christ died for all (unlimited atonement), but God only elects some people to accept this atonement. That is, the atonement was not effective at the time of Christ’s death but will only become effective at the time of someone’s conversion. This position is called Hypothetical Universalism, because Christ hypothetically died for all but not all actually have the ability to partake in Christ’s salvific work. Cameron’s work was later extended by the French theologian Moses Amyraut, who added that God has two wills, one that will for the salvation of all, and another that will for salvation of the elect only. This is referred to as Amyraldism. Both Hypothetical Universalism and Amyraldism can be thought of as a middle ground between strict Reformed theology and Arminianism.
Neoorthodoxy has yet another view on predestination. Karl Barth understood the appeal of the Reformed position in that maintains God’s absolute sovereignty. But Barth did not feel that the Reformed position best represented divine truth. He writes, “I would have preferred to follow Calvin’s doctrine of predestination much more closely, instead of departing from it so radically.”[i] Barth views Christ as the only object of predestination as it relates to election. The divine part of Christ is the predestined elect and the human part of Christ is the predestined reprobate. In this way, Barth understands double predestination not as a division of the saved and the lost but as a division of the human and divine. Through this understanding, Barth includes all of mankind in the elect. He writes, “Not in and of himself, but in Jesus Christ as the eternal beginning of all God’s ways and works, no man is rejected, but all are elected in Him to their justification, their satisfaction, and also their vocation.”[ii] Because of statements like these, many maintain that Barth teaches universal salvation. Although it seems that this is true from his writings, Barth states in no uncertain terms that he does not teach universalism. “I do not teach it, but I also do not teach it.”[iii]
How one understands predestination cannot be separated from how one understands free will. All Christian theological systems agree that people have free will since this is necessary for moral accountability. But their understanding of free will is typically not what is generally understood as free will. To avoid confusion, theologians say that a people have libertarian free will if they are freely able to choose between different options. If A and B are choices, a person with libertarian free will can choose either A or B. With this definition of libertarian free will, the following can be said about different denominational views:
- Roman Catholic Theology. Roman Catholicism believes in libertarian free will. Its catechism states, “Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act … As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil.”[iv] However, Roman Catholicism also believes in predestination. It reconciles these views by placing God outside of time. “To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of ‘predestination,’ he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace.”[v]
- Lutheran Theology. Lutherans believe in libertarian free will in everything except the choice for salvation. Because people are in bondage to their sinful nature, only the elect are able to choose salvation, and this is through God’s grace. Lutherans also believe that the reprobate are not predestined to hell but go there due to their rejection of the Gospel message. That people cannot freely choose salvation but can freely choose to reject salvation is understood as a mystery beyond human understanding.
- Reformed Theology. Reformed theology does not believe in libertarian free will. It holds that (1) everything that happens is a result of God’s will; (2) people have free will even though they cannot freely choose between different options; and (3) this seeming contradiction is a mystery beyond human understanding. Louis Berkhof calls the Reformed view a “revised conception of freedom.” But in answering whether libertarian free will is consistent with predestination, he writes, “[I]t certainly is not.”[vi]
- Arminian Theology. Arminians believe in libertarian free will for all choices including the choice for salvation. However, God has perfect foreknowledge and therefore knows who will choose salvation and who will reject salvation. Those who are foreknown to choose salvation are the elect and those who are foreknown to reject salvation are the reprobate. Since God has perfect foreknowledge, free choices are certain and cannot be otherwise. The seeming paradox of people being able to freely choose and yet have these choices being certain is a mystery beyond human understanding.
- Open Theism. Open theism is the belief in true libertarian free will where people are actually free to choose between different options. Because of this, God cannot have perfect foreknowledge of every free decision. Of course, God can intervene in the world at His pleasure to ensure the eventual completion of His divine plan, but His knowledge of when and where this will be necessary is also not perfect. God therefore knows everything that is knowable, but future free choices are not knowable. Open theism is criticized as unbiblical because it seems to violate God’s omniscience (because God doesn’t know everything) and also God’s immutability (because God’s knowledge is growing over time).
All of the above positions except for open theism have logical challenges. This can be demonstrated by assuming that God has always existed, that the universe has not always existed, and that God created the universe. Based on these assumptions, the following logic holds:
- In creating the universe, God either:
- 1a. Created it is a way that He had perfect knowledge of all decisions that would be made by mankind; or
- 1b. Created it is a way that He did not have perfect knowledge of all decisions that would be made by mankind.
- If 1a: All decisions of mankind are exclusively a result of the creative decisions of God. Mankind cannot freely choose between moral options in a libertarian sense.
- If 1b: Decisions of mankind can be influenced by libertarian free will.
The implications of line 2 above are essentially the conclusion of the philosopher Baruch Spinoza in his masterpiece, Ethics.[vii] This work is a 180-page proof that mankind does not have libertarian free will. The implications of line 3 above are in agreement with open theism. The Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, and Arminian views are all somewhere in between and are therefore logically problematic. Nevertheless, each of these theological systems maintain the truth of their views, understand the logical difficulties, and characterize these difficulties as mysteries beyond human understanding. Although it does not solve the logical difficulty presented above, many find that viewing God as existing outside of time can be helpful. C.S. Lewis writes, “[I]f God foresaw our acts, it would be very hard to understand how we could be free not to do them. But suppose God is outside and above the Time-line. In that case, what we call ‘tomorrow’ is visible to Him in just the same way as what we call ‘today.’ All the days are ‘Now’ for Him … This idea has helped me a good deal. If it does not help you, leave it alone.”[viii]
[i] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, Westminster John Knox Press, 1932: II/2, x.
[ii] Ibid., IV/3, 482.
[iii] Eberhard Jüngel, Karl Barth, A Theological Legacy, tr. Garrett Paul, Westminster Press, 1986: 44-45.
[iv] Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶731-732.
[v] Ibid., ¶600.
[vi] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Eastford, CT: Martino Fine Books, 1941: 68.
[vii] Baruch Spinoza, Ethics, London: Penguin Books, 1677/1996.
[viii] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, New York, NY: HarperOne, 1952/2002: 170-1.
Leave a Reply