In Part 1, I briefly surveyed New Testament statements on predestination. In this post, I have compiled a list of views on predestination held by church leaders throughout Christian history with the help of Predestination: The American Career of a Contentious Doctrine by Peter J. Thuesen. Here are the major views I noticed along with my brief reflection of each perspective.
Two Major Views on Predestination
1. God predestines individuals to salvation based on Christ’s merit alone. God foresees absolutely nothing in individuals that would cause him to predestine them to eternal life (e.g., Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Edwards). In contrast with view #2, God does not foresee the faith individuals will express and then on that basis predestine them to salvation. Because of the influence of Augustine, this view is often linked with original sin. Original sin, as Augustine understood it, is the idea that because of Adam’s sin, all humans are born corrupt and therefore deserving of damnation. As a result, if individuals are saved it can only be due to God’s gracious predestination of them to salvation.
Within this view there are two primary subviews:
- Single Predestination – Before the creation of the world, God determined which individuals he would save and which individuals he would pass over. Those whom God passed over are left in their state of corruption and condemnation due to original sin and, therefore, they are guaranteed to be damned (Augustine, Aquinas). Note that according to this view, God is not actively doing anything to the damned, he is simply passing them over.
- Double Predestination – Before the creation of the world, God determined which individuals he would save and which individuals he would damn (Gottschalk, Calvin). This determination is expressed in time by God regenerating his elect and by God hardening the reprobate. Contrary to single predestination, God is not simply passing over the reprobate; he is doing something to them which guarantees their damnation.
Reflection: First, while this view emphasizes God’s sovereignty or rule, it seems to directly contradict the idea that “God is love” (1 Jn. 3:16) and therefore, God is “not willing that any should perish” (2 Pet. 3:9), but “wants all to be saved” (1 Tim. 2:4). At best, this makes God’s predestination of individuals appear arbitrary and at worst evil. Why would God create individuals if he had already planned to damn them? (Remember, however, if the default position is condemnation because of original sin then proponents of this view say that God is not acting unjustly in passing over some or even hardening some in their sin because they were already guilty and deserving of judgment.) Second, this view also seems to contradict human agency. If God has already decided our eternal fate before we were born, what role do we play? Finally, some believe this contradicts the promises in Scripture that “whoever believes” will be saved (Jn. 3:16)? In other words, the promise is not really offered to “whoever” but only to those who have been elected.
2. God predestines individuals to salvation based on the faith that he knows they will express in Christ. God foresees that particular individuals will express faith in Christ and he responds by electing them to salvation (Chrysostom, earlier Augustine, Cassian, Arminius, Wesley).
Reflection: First, this view does not present us with the same explicit problem with God’s character as the previous view (e.g. arbitrary, unloving, evil?) because it gives us a reason why God made the decisions he made. And that reason fits with the promise offered in the gospel—”whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (Jn. 3:16). However, while this view gives us a reason why God elects certain individuals, it doesn’t give us a reason why God, foreknowing which individuals would not believe, still proceeded to create them. So the problem with God’s character persists, but it is implicit rather than explicit. Second, those who hold firmly to the previous view believe this perspective contradicts the idea that salvation is based on God’s grace alone. According to objectors, the determining factor in this view is the individual’s faith not divine mercy.
Those are the two major views and they have clashed throughout Christian history. The following views can potentially break the stalemate between the big two.
Six Alternate Views on Predestination
God predestines individuals to salvation in view of the faith he will give them. Since faith is a gift from God, God foresees the faith he will give them and, therefore, he elects those individuals on that basis (some Lutheran scholastics).
Reflection: This is a rather ingenious solution because although it includes a condition, the condition is based on God’s giving of faith rather than on the individual’s expression of faith. However, those who adamantly support unconditional election object to this view because it still involves a condition.
God predestines individuals to salvation neither conditionally or unconditionally. Predestination is based on God’s middle knowledge. This idea proposes that God has three types of knowledge: natural knowledge, free knowledge, and middle knowledge. Natural knowledge is God’s knowledge of all necessary and hypothetical truths – these are things God knows to be the case or knows could be the case, but he doesn’t will to be the case (e.g., “LeBron James plays in the NBA.” “It is possible that LeBron James played in the NFL instead of the NBA.”). Free knowledge is God’s knowledge of what he wills to be the case (e.g. “LeBron James exists” or “The earth revolves around the sun”). These are things that are contingent on God’s will alone. Middle knowledge is God’s knowledge of what free creatures would do in any circumstance (e.g. “If LeBron James grows up in Akron, Ohio, he will play basketball.”) According to middle knowledge, God doesn’t will LeBron to play basketball, because if he did, LeBron would cease to be a free creature. Instead God knows the conditions under which LeBron, as a free creature, would play basketball then proceeds to establish those conditions. Likewise, God knows the conditions under which his free creatures will repent and believe. And God used his knowledge of what free creatures would do in any circumstance to create a world in which the maximum number of free creatures would repent and believe and, therefore, be saved. (Molina)
Reflection: This view is helpful in cautioning us against assuming that God’s knowledge is exactly like human knowledge. There must be differences in the way God knows things especially when we consider God’s knowledge of humans before the world began, which is precisely what predestination is concerned with. However, this proposal is highly speculative because it seeks to peer into the mind of God in eternity past.
Predestination primarily applies to Christ who was God’s chosen one but who became reprobate for us (Barth, Jenson).
Reflection: This proposal removes predestination from the realm of controversy by focusing on something most Christians agree with. There is explicit Scriptural support for the idea that Christ is the chosen and rejected one (Lk. 9:35; Gal. 3:13; 1 Pet. 2:4) and we are predestined only in or through our relationship with him (Eph. 1:5, 11). But the question remains: How do we understand the phrase “God predestined us” (Eph. 1:5)?
There are three groups of people: elect, reprobate, and those in a probationary status. Therefore, God hasn’t ultimately decided everyone’s final destiny (John Edwards, not Jonathan Edwards). God has chosen some to salvation, God has hardened some to damnation, but God has also left some in a probationary status. For those in probation, God is genuinely open to their repentance.
Reflection: The idea of probation is helpful. Being forced to pick between two choices can often be a false dichotomy so this is a good reminder that there may be more than two choices. But it still leaves us with the problems of unconditional election because it includes God’s predestination of some individuals to salvation and others to damnation.
We shouldn’t speculate about how God made his decision to predestine because it is part of God’s counsel, which is secret to us. (Article 17 of the Anglican Church’s 39 Articles, Luther).
“Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby, before the foundations of the world were laid, He hath constantly decreed by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom He hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation as vessels made to honour.” (Article 17)
While Luther’s view was actually unconditional election (view 1), he also discouraged speculation about predestination. “He hath constantly decreed by His counsel secret to us.” Luther also said, “I have been baptized. I believe in Jesus Christ. I have received the Sacrament. What do I care if I have been predestined or not?” — Tischreden, no. 2631b (Quoted in Thuesen, Loc. 2840).
Reflection: As we saw in the previous post, explicit biblical comments on predestination are limited yet the controversy has been enormous, which means speculation has been rampant. It’s nice to see an official church statement that reminds us of the futility of speculating on this topic. God’s eternal counsel is secret to us. However, while some think this is the honest and humble approach, others who believe Scripture is clear on this topic, view this as a sign of weakness by those who want to avoid controversy.
Luther’s statement brings up an important point. In his book, Thuesen explains how this issue is deeply connected with the knowledge of salvation. What are the ways people become convinced of their salvation? Participation in the sacraments (e.g. baptism and communion), an ecstatic experience of the Spirit (a dream, an overwhelming feeling of transcendence and love, speaking in tongues, etc.) and believing that God decreed that they would be saved in eternity past. These ways of coming to a knowledge of salvation tend to be mutually exclusive. If a church tradition emphasizes the sacraments, such as Catholicism, which was Luther’s initial tradition, or spiritual experiences such as Pentecostalism then predestination cannot become a big issue. Predestination has become a deeply divisive issue in those church traditions which emphasize the intellectual aspect of Christianity more than sacramental or spiritual experiences.
Everyone is predestined to salvation because eventually everyone will be saved through Christ (Christian Universalists).
Reflection: This removes the difficulties of the two big views. God is sovereign (view #1) and God does want all to be saved (view #2), therefore all will ultimately be saved. Also there have been significant Christian thinkers throughout history who have come to a universalist conclusion. The case for Christian universalism is stronger than many people realize, but it still must grapple with exclusionary statements. (For more details, see my book, Surprised by Hell.)
Conclusion
The amount of speculation involved in this debate is extremely high so I’m in favor of anything that reduces speculation. In seeking to articulate exactly how God predestines human beings, I think some of the views go too far into the realm of speculation. We’re talking about how God made decisions before the world was created. How can we fully understand what that means? Additionally, I think the first view—unconditional election and especially double predestination—has a serious problem with its presentation of God’s character.
As we saw in Part 1, the Bible doesn’t give us a lot of explicit information on this topic. It doesn’t clearly state that God elected some to eternal salvation and others to eternal damnation, nor does it link this topic with original sin or other topics as has been done throughout church history. I’m not even sure that the Bible clearly teaches that God predestines specific individuals. I think that may be an assumption that is taken for granted by several of the views. Perhaps, the idea is that God predestines a people, rather than specific individuals, for himself. Finally, I think each of the alternate views give us something to think about. Perhaps a combination of views is closer to the truth.
After graduating from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, I served as a high school Bible teacher in Asia. I enjoy traveling, writing, and playing the drums. My latest book focuses on Paul’s work as a tentmaker and what it means for today.
well, here’s the thing. The term ‘predestination’ in the Bible has nothing to do with ‘salvation,’ or should I say, the 1st part of salvation (regeneration). It does however have a lot to do with service (the sanctification part). Anyone who reads the text with an open mind and who allows the text to speak plainly reads that we are predestined to be ‘conformed to the image of Christ.’ Has zero to do with salvation. Oh, and another thing – this comment I hear from my Calvinist friends that we were “chosen since before the foundations of the world.” Actually, that is a mistranslation and, yes, an easy mistake to make – but the Calvinists tend to seize on this one and unfortunately somehow it is immediately put on the pedestal. The greek word means ‘from’ not ‘before.’ I was not chosen before the foundation of the world at all, however, Christians all over the world HAVE been chosen ‘from’ the foundation of the world – i.e., since God sovereignly (their favorite word, not mine) gave man a free will, if man ‘turns’ to Christ, he is immediately put ‘in’ Christ. So this one is an easy one to miss, but it is very important. I did an intensive study into the term ‘elect.’ This is a very good study and I would encourage anyone to do it. Jesus = “THE” Elect of God. Ok, so you mean Jesus can be saved then? Jesus was ‘elected’ to be saved? Obviously… no. When we get saved, we are put ‘in’ Christ; therefore, we are, by definition, the ‘elect’ of God. But you also find that the term ‘elect’ refers to the children of Israel, who obviously were made up of believers AND non-believers. Hmmm… that’s interesting. How can ‘elect/chosen’ therefore refer ONLY to those who are saved? Answer – it can’t and it doesn’t. Of course, the term elect only means ‘chosen.’ It is not anywhere as grandiose as the Calvinists make it out to be in the text, but Christians are duped and intimidated by the argument because they don’t know their Bibles. Get in the Word and learn good solid hermeneutics!
In regards to single and double predestination – at least one is honest (double). They both arrive at the same end and they both blame God, because He decreed it. One is just more palatable and ‘easier’ to swallow. This is such a blight on the holy majestic name of God in my view! God bless.