Six different views of predestination, what do calvinists and arminians believe?

Post

Six different views of predestination, what do calvinists and arminians believe?

March 8, 2013

A friend recently asked me what I personally believe about predestination. His confusion was that because, according to him, it seems that everyone has a different version of predestination. In some sense I agree, there are multiple views, yet I believe they can easily be narrowed down to only a few. Any other differences are only based on semantics and the way we use words, not an actual difference in ideas. Calvin, whose name is often closely associated with the idea of predestination said it is a “baffling question,”. He also wrote that “if anyone with carefree assurance breaks into this place, he will not succeed in satisfying his curiosity and he will enter a labyrinth from which he can find no exit.” As with many other doctrines, a lighthearted or careless approach can be dangerous. So let’s review the different ways people view predestination. We shall start with the most “harsh” type of predestination and work our way down. I shall try to keep this as simple as I can without losing important details. (Fortunately for us I will avoid supralapsarianism  and infralapsarianism.)

DEFINITION

Predestination  (pr-dst-nshn) n.

Combination of two word groups, “pre” and “destination”/”destiny.” The idea that one’s destination/destiny is predetermined beforehand. Example: If I decide to go to New York, that is my destination and I because have decided beforehand to make the trip, I have predestined myself to go to New York. Also, if I decide beforehand (pre) to take my cat to the vets office (destination), then I have ‘predestined’ him to go to the vet

1. Equal ultimacy (hypercalvinism) predestination

Simply put, “equal ultimacy” says that: Everyone is neutral, and God uses the same equal ultimate force to pull some into good works/heaven and push others into sin/hell, all while ignoring their will. The idea is that people are nice and neutral, they want to become good Christians, and instead God gives no chances. Some people he actively sanctifies making them holy and sending them to heaven. Others he actively demonizes, makes into sinners, and actively pushes them to hell.  In both cases he uses an equal amount of force, in both cases people are neutral before, in both cases people don’t follow their desires or sometimes are said to have no personality or will. In both cases God forces everyone and that's it. Chances are, if you have never heard of predestination or Calvinism, you equate Calvinism with “equal ultimacy.” One of my greatest challenges since embracing the reformed theology has been dealing with this strange position. There is not a Calvinist in the world who has ever believed in “equal ultimacy.” Yet every single day I meet people who accuse Calvinists of believing it. So every day I repeat again, “this is a theoretical position, no one believes it, it’s a caricature.” The biggest criticism with this view is that is stupid and horrendous and no one in their right mind believes it.

2. Calvinist double predestination

Most people who have heard of the phrase “double predestination” have probably assumed it's the same as “equal ultimacy” above. This is very incorrect. All Calvinists do not believe in equal ultimacy and do believe in single or double predestination. In my opinion, once we have clarified we are not for "equal ultimacy," the double vs single predestination is only a game of semantics and words. True historic double predestination simply means this: All freely chose to disregard God and hate him. Then God predestined to save ‘some’ from that sin they chose, and predestined to pass over ‘others.’ Salvation is not based on anything we did or could do but of Grace. This first group is called “the elect,” and the second group is called “the reprobate.” In double predestination everybody freely chose sin and enmity with God. Everyone daily chooses to remain slaves to sin because they love sin and hate Jesus. No one ever wants to repent (John 6:44; Rom 3:11). So Jesus actively pulls some away from sin, and passively does not act on others. As an example lets use Luke 8:10, Jesus says His disciples can only understand Him because it has been given to them and to others it has not. Here God is not actively preventing the Pharisees from joining Him against their will, no, they actually want to stay away. He predestined to passively let them have what they desire in their evil hearts. Others, He predestined to save from that evil desire. The biggest criticism with this view is that it seems to downplay personal responsibility. “If I can’t be good, how can God punish me” is a common question. Calvinists often answer this by pointing out that we sin by choice, will, and desire, not against our will, choice, and desire. We all freely choose to sin, no one forces us. So for those that are not elect, it’s not a matter of “I want to repent but can’t,” instead it’s “I hate God and I really want to sin.” Having no free will is not an issue of “I can’t choose the right thing” it always an issue of “I sin because I want to and I like it.”

3. Calvinist single predestination

In my opinion (and many others whom I learned from) single predestination is the same as double, just using different language. Primarily because when people hear “double predestination” they often assume it means “equal ultimacy.” But theoretically what single predestination means is as follows: All freely chose to disregard God and hate him Then God predestined to save ‘some’ from that sin they chose. Salvation is not based on anything we did or could do but of Grace.  If you noticed, the only thing missing from the double predestination above is “God passed over others.” The basic premise of this single predestination is that God saved the elect and the rest just live their lives and will get what they deserve. Often the only noticeable difference between single and double is that supporters of double predestination would talk about God having a dual purpose for actively choosing to save the elect and passively choosing to allow the reprobate to sin as they please. Conversely, proponents of single predestination will say God’s only purpose was to choose the elect. I am here, since I think both single and double say the same thing in a different way.

3. Historic Arminian predestination

Early Arminians understood the word predestination was in the Bible. So thus they devised a way that predestination and libertarian free will could be true. This is: All freely chose to disregard God and hate him. Then God looked into the future to see who would one day of free will choose Him and then, as a result, predestined to save only those. Salvation is based on two things, Gods grace AND us having a better free will response to God than our neighbor. This view does good in that it engages the Bible and deals with a word like predestination. I once talked with a  few pastors who didn’t believe in predestination, then upon showing them a few passages (Rom 8:29; Eph 1:5) one quickly changed his mind and formulated something similar to the “historic Arminianism” response. Philosophically this view could work. Yet, it requires so much interpretive gymnastics to twist what the Bible says about predestination that, I consider this view very lacking. While Eph 1:5 and 1:11 says we were predestined “according to the purpose of [God’s] will” this view says the opposite, that we were predestined according to our personal will. Also Paul in many places says we are not saved by works or merit, yet this view would say we are saved ONLY because of our ‘merit’ because “God saw that we would respond better than our neighbors.” In addition, one of the biggest blows is that this view is not in the Bible. There is nothing that says God chose us based on our good response in the whole Bible. Nothing at all.

4. Corporate predestination

This is my favorite non Calvinist view (it is one of the two common Arminian views). It is that: All freely chose to disregard God and hate him. Then God predestined to save a group through Christ. This view doesn’t deal with predestining individuals but predestining salvation in general. So basically whenever the Bible speaks of predestination, it only refers to the fact that God predestined to save people through Jesus before the beginning of time. According to this view, individuals are not chosen one-by-one, instead God chose to have “a church” or “a bride” for Jesus before the beginning of time. This view avoids dealing with all the debates of Calvinism, and the hermeneutical gymnastics of Historic Arminianism, and espouses an attractive position. I like it. God chooses a “group,” called His bride, and then whoever joins this group is his. The biggest criticism leveled against corporate election is that it deals with an abstract “empty set” and is impersonal. We can compare it to an empty school bus.  In historic Arminianism and Calvinism, God chooses individual people to put onto this school bus. He has personal seats reserved for all his students, whom he knows by name. You have personal faith, a personal relationship with Jesus, personal forgiveness from sin, and are personally predestined for salvation. In corporate election, God only chooses the empty school bus but not people. Some scholars argue that salvation through the cross is about Jesus paying for individual people’s sins, not an abstract atonement for a group without individuals. Another way of putting it, Jesus did not die to save an empty school bus, he died for individual people that get onto the school bus. There are also criticism leveled because the predestination passages often use language that refers to individuals (1 Thess 1:4-5)

5. Spiritual gifts predestination

This is a very unique view, that some people I have met invented. Quite frankly, I doubt anyone who is scholarly actually holds to this, and I have not found them. This view, as presented to me by numerous people over the years says: God doesn’t predestine people for salvation; they choose that themselves. God’s predestination only determines what spiritual gifts you have. This view is held by a few Arminians/Semi-Pelagians, though is popular only in “folk religion” type churches. The primary criticism of this view is that the Bible never says predestination/election is about gifting, while it does say it has to do with salvation. Paul says “He predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ” not “He predestined us to have different gifts” (Eph 1:5). In fact the first two chapters in Ephesians are all about salvation, and not about spiritual gifts.

6. Ignorant-ism (no predestination )

This is my favorite view to deal with. It’s very simple, it goes like this: “I don’t believe in predestination, the Bible doesn’t teach it!” The simplest way to deal with this view is to bring up Bible passages. Of course, in my experience, those who are in this position don’t like Bible passages. There are many serious Arminians who love the Bible, honor Jesus, and carefully deal with Scripture. The people of this view are not them. Just last week a gentleman emailed me accosting me for believing in the horrors of predestination. I simply responded with Bible passages that used that word. His response was anger and condemnation. I responded politely again, with more passages, saying he ought to have some view of predestination, whatever it is. More condemnation.  Here is the main criticism of ignorantism, the Scripture talks of election and predestination in nearly every New Testament book. Mat 11:25-26, Mat 22:14,Mat 24:24, Mat 24:31;Mark 4:10-12; Luke 18:7; John 5:21, John 6:37–39, John 13:18, John 15:16, John 15:19; Acts 4:27–28, Acts 13:17, Acts 13:48; Rom 8:29–30, Rom 8:33, Rom 9:15-33, Rom11:14-15; 1 Cor 1:27–28; Eph 1:3–12; Phil 1:29; Col 3:12; 1 Thess 1:4–5; 2 Thess 2:13; 2 Tim 2:10; Titus 1:1; James 1:18; Jude 1:4; 1 Peter 1:1; 1 Peter 2:4; 1 Peter 2:9; 2 Peter 1:10;  Rev 13:8

 

Comments (15)

Micah D
I'm glad you distinguished between 1. and 2. I once heard it said that Double Predestination is a heresy belonging to Hyper-Calvinists. I was horrified as they explained the doctrine (which you give the name equal ultimacy) to me. I would later learn to start teaching double predestination, except not in the 'hyper' sense.
Yev
Thanks Yuriy
David
I like that you point out the straw man of equal ultimacy. But perhaps, allow me to point out, that you have made a straw man of the Arminian position. First, I am sure it is the case that you have encountered Arminians that have actively made a straw man of Calvinism. However, any serious Arminian theologian, from what I have seen, attacks the double or single predestination that you present. I base what I am saying on research in this area. The issue, I would take, and I am sure those who are more than just lay Arminians would take (I avoid calling myself an Arminian because I don't know the entirety of Arminianism, I don't want to ascribe to theology I don't agree with. If what I say here reflects Arminianism accurately then I guess I am an Arminian. But If not, I am not), is that Christ only died for those who are elected to salvation. God, being an all knowing God, knew perfectly well before he created his creation how it would turn out. If we are talking about using scripture to back up, the idea that Christ's blood was shed for the sins of the world, do you at least concede that Calvinism loses? Jesus said, "for God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever should believe in Him should not perish but have eternal life." You say that Arminians have to do gymnastics when talking about verses that deal with predestination, this much is somewhat accurate. But it is also true that Calvinists have to do gymnastics that deal with God wanting people to accept his grace. Is it not God's will that all should come to repentance? This is what I mean by you making some what of a straw man of the Arminian position. We don't reject Calvinism because we think that God is somehow obligated to save everyone. We reject it because we believe that God wants to save everyone. I have the strongest conviction that this statement is accurately described in scripture. And then I am sure the Calvinist would continue by saying that the Arminian believes that God is unable to save everyone, thereby limiting God's sovereignty. This, however, I say is once again an inaccurate summarization of Arminianism, or at the very least it fails to see other possibilities. I would not claim that those who God's wrath falls upon God was unable to save, instead that God was ultimately unwilling to do anymore than he had already done. This may sound like Calvinism, but it is not. What I am saying is that God has given us all, every opportunity to repent, but some will not. It is true, that we can not come to faith in Jesus Christ unless the Father draws our hearts, but this does not mean that this grace is irresistible. Furthermore, you make a straw man of Arminianism by your dealing with their views on faith. Yes, we believe that no one can be elected to Salvation unless they have faith, but we do not view faith as a work per se. It's like this, if someone offers me a million dollars, it does not make and I accept it, that does not mean that I have worked for that money, far from it. It is the same with faith, Jesus said that if we have faith the size of a mustard seed, we could say to this mountain "be thou removed and cast into the sea, and it would be done" was Jesus speaking literally here? Or was Jesus making a point about our salvation, that by believing in Christ, we can say to the mountain of our sin, be thou removed and cast into the sea. Sure, there is some sort of effort put into Salvation, but it is the effort of picking up a mustard seed, not the effort of moving an entire mountain. Even Paul speaks to the Galatians in this way, that they were saved because they believed with faith what they were told, and not through works. Sure, we could say that we are somehow better for accepting God's free gift of salvation, but could not the Calvinist also make the assumption that he is somehow better because God chose him? You make the argument that the Arminian believes that his freewill is better than that of his neighbor, but do you concede that the Calvinist believes that God loves him more than his neighbor? I am guessing not, so why are you so willing to launch that accusation against Arminianism? On this point of defense for the Arminian, I will say that scripture teaches us that Salvation requires an effort on our part. Think of Matthew 16:24-25. As far as the predestination verses go, I think we need to ask the question of why the term "predestined" is used as opposed to "destined".
Duane Hensley
Fantastic response to Yuriy, David. I couldn't have said it better myself.
Loucrecia
Thank you, David! I have often struggled with how best to explain my beliefs, mainly because this is the first time I’ve heard of some of these explanations & terms. I admit that my view of Calvinism was that of the equal ultimacy. I had never had these other positions explained to me, not had any Calvinist/reformed believer explained their own views in such a way that led me to understand their beliefs were not in fact that if the first group...very harsh indeed. I have always hoped and suspected that the true views of myself & my reformed friends were not actually as starkly contrasted as that, but that we were less far apart than it seemed. They always got hung up on the idea that any concept of free will meant that I believed a person’s acceptance of God’s gift of salvation was a form of a work & that I didn’t view God as sovereign. So thank you for better explaining the views that I’ve always held. Now I can further study Armenian beliefs to see if indeed it is a better explanation of what I’ve believed. I have been praying that God will help me to understand the truth, & if I’ve been wrong in my beliefs, correct my beliefs, otherwise help strengthen my prepared response on these matters. It is not my desire to stir up strife, but I want to know God better. Ultimately, I’ve always responded with the attitude that God’s ways are above man’s ways, thus we are not able to fully understand God. I don’t like trying to put God in a box. Some things in scripture are clear as day. God is the Creator. Sin is defined. Jesus is the only way by which man can be saved. Often the things that divide different denominations fall into gray areas, things that are mentioned in scripture (I’ve always been aware of the word predestination in the Bible), but left more to interpretation. I’ve even seen certain verses used to support both the notion of free will as Calvinism! It was just two different perspectives on interpretation. Therefore, I pray that the Holy Spirit will do the interpreting for me. I only pray that I can get out of the way enough to accept whatever that is. If I’ve been wrong, I’ve been wrong. This isn’t about me being right or wrong, but about understanding God better.
Michael Hammons
We are not arguing the text but different theological positions. The point of Ephesians 1:3-14 has nothing to do with these arguments. Quoting John 3:16 as a proof text for an Arminian argument is foolish. A first year Greek student knows better. I believe Christ died for the everyone. Although it has been many years since reading Calvin doctrines, I believe he stated the same. 1 John 2 & 1 Tim. 4:10 I believe poor hermeneutics and positioning leads us to totaling missing the point of the inspired text.
David Cole
Open theism is a valid view you didn't even consider and it is the only view that accurately describes the God of the Bible. Very narrow minded of you!
David
Thanks for this post. I like that you have tried to deal with the spectrum of thinking here, but, I'm not sure you have versed yourself with the Arminian view as well as you have with the Calvinist view. May I ask what sources you used to draw your understanding of the Arminian view from?
Mike Hoskins
I agree that this list is missing Open Theism (Hyperarminianism) and it needs to be addressed. Unfortunately, @david cole -- Open Theim is not a view compatible with Scripture. I pray that you and others lost in Open Theism repent of this false belief system and trust in the real Jesus, of Scripture (Mark 1:15). Most of the viewpoints listed above have sincere born-again Christians among them -- my brothers and sisters in Christ. However, Open Theism takes you down a different path -- the Broad Road to Destruction (hell). * Open Theism says that God can change and learn and grow and be wrong. * In Open Theism, election and predestination are impossible, since God cannot ever violate your free will. He doesn't just choose not to -- He is powerless to do so. * In Open Theism, God also does not really know the future and cannot really control it. Nor does He know those who will go to Heaven or Hell, otherwise that knowledge could influence somebody. * In Open Theism, God is nothing more than an exalted man, like the "god" of Mormonism. * Open Theism is a form of full-Pelagianism and is another reason it is not compatible with Christianity. An Open Theist can try to proof-text from the Bible saying that God "changed his mind" or "repented of ..." or "relented of ...." In context, these are anthropomorphisms, where God is compared in some way to us, so that we understand some aspect of His nature. These are not didactic texts but narrative texts. Scripture interprets Scripture: * Context is key. * The Bible is a unified whole and surrounding words, verses, chapters, and books interpret all the others. * One important hermeneutical aspect is we let the didactic (teaching) texts interpret the narrative texts. * Another hermeneutical aspect is that we allow the easy-to-understand texts interpret the harder ones. * Another aspect is that Scripture does not contradict itself. The Bible is ultra clear that God not only predestines and elects (as shown above) but that He never changes, knows everything, is eternal, does not lie, etc.; the Bible is also ultra clear that He is the only immortal, immutable, infinite God - James 1:17 // Hebrews 13:8 // Hebrews 6:17 // Romans 11:29 // Titus 1:2 // Exodus 3:14 // Philippians 1:6 // Psalm 138:8 // Isaiah 43:10 // Isaiah 46:10 // Psalm 33:11 // Psalm 102:25-27 // Psalm 139:4, 16 // Numbers 23:19 // Malachi 3:6 // 1 Timothy 1:17 (and many more verses, across the Old Testament and the New Testament)... Open Theism has a different "god" a different "Jesus" and thus breaks the first 2 of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:3-7 - ESV): 3 "You shall have no other gods before me. 4 "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. 7 "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain. Please repent, trust in Christ and His Word, and be saved.
Ron
Does God always get His way? If yes, God is as responsible for bad as for good. If no, then a lot of scriptures, including the present argument make more sense. What does, "God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance," mean? Drops of ink to make us think...
Megan
I know someone who believes in hypercalvinism :( So hard to talk about almost anything Biblical with him because he will always bring it back to this. But anyways, thank you so much for this article - helped me to better understand the differing views out there!
James
God wants all to be saved. If you place your faith in Jesus (with the Holy Ghost’s help) you will be. Free will (& our sinful nature) w/o Christ’s help , will lead us away from God’s destiny.
Gordon
#1 is not a caricature. It is really Calvin's own position when you understand what "freely" doing something means in Calvinism. What reformed catechisms mean by someone "freely" doing something, is that they freely pursue their wills. (That is, they do not have their desires overriden by greater desires). It does NOT mean that they are free to ALTER their wills. Howsoever someone's will is fixed, they freely follow it. It means the wind-up toy car's spring will freely move it wherever the car is pointed, not that the car can point itself. It means that the child playing with it still controls the toy car's direction and speed, but without pushing it by hand. Meticulous sovereignty means that man has no agency. See Calvin's Institutes, Bk. I Chap. 18 for How God causes others to commit moral evil with his biblical examples, and then see Bk. III. capp. xxi through xxiv on how God is excused from all the evil he causes. In III.xxiii§7, Calvin openly says that if we believe in the God who made Adam's sin affect the nature and impute guilt on everyone after him, and we accept that kind of thing as right and just, then it can't possibly "be absurd when I say, that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it." Calvin was a hyperCalvinist. P.S. I love how some people tell other believers to "Repent" having no idea how bad it is to use that word in English. Which "repent?" Modern English, or 1600s liturgical English? "Metaméllomæ," or "Metánœa?" "I'm so sorry," or "You know what, change-of-plans"? In English it always means the first one. Telling someone to "repent" means "I want you to feel bad," not "I want you to reconsider." It's the best way to convince someone to do the exact opposite of what you're telling them by putting on a coat of self-righteousness.
Peter
A short review of the historical men, Calvin and Arminius may render the above exercise obsolete... What if therefore the "web" was put in place in order to mislead as many as possible? Great blog!