Calvinism – An Introduction

Article Title: Calvinism Introduction

Before We Begin

The Nature of the Debate

The topic of Election and predestination is among theology’s most debated and divisive subjects. Many hold their views with deep conviction, and disagreements can quickly become contentious, with some even treating opposing positions as heretical. Sadly, it is not uncommon to see believers treat one another with greater disdain over theological disagreements than they would treat an unbeliever who openly rejects the Gospel. When this happens, it should be clearly understood that the issue is not with the subject itself but is instead with the individuals and their lack of humility, love, self control and spiritual unity that Christ commands of His people.

Others regard the doctrines of election and predestination as too difficult or too speculative to warrant careful study, often dismissing them with comments such as, “It is not important for us to know.” To such arguments, I simply respond: what we believe matters because what we believe has consequences. Our theology shapes how we understand God, the gospel, salvation, evangelism, the Christian life, and even the character of God Himself. While it is certainly true that a correct understanding of election and predestination is not a prerequisite for salvation, it is quite another matter to conclude that these doctrines are therefore unimportant.

The Responsibility to Test All Things

We are not to be passive or accept everything we hear or see at face value. Instead, we are encouraged, we are commanded, and we are held both responsible and accountable to take an active role in our faith, to audit everything, our notions, theologies, beliefs, interpretations, and doctrines. To the faithful and objective word of God so that we might discern what is good, be justified in our words, and prevail when we are judged, Romans 3:4, Psalm 51:4. Although this verse advises discernment regarding the things we hear, see and say, scripture does not advocate for the closing of our ears to differing viewpoints. Job 12:11

The Value of Hearing Differing Perspectives

Hearing and being challenged with alternative perspectives allows for critical examination of one’s own beliefs, interpretations, biases, and assumptions. While the book of Proverbs contains many verses that encourages this very practice, I cannot think of one that explains it any better than Proverbs 27:17.

The Christian who is afraid to hear different perspectives of Scripture risks falling prey to confirmation bias. This occurs when a person cherry-picks, seeks out only those people, those interpretations and or information that confirms their existing beliefs, while ignoring or dismissing evidence to the contrary. For a Christian this can mean only reading scripture that supports their current understandings and filtering out passages that pose a challenge, leading to a skewed understanding.

We as Christians are right to TRUST ONLY GOD AS THOUGH ALL OTHERS WERE LIARS Romans 3:3-4. This only reinforces our call to imitate the Bereans, who were commended for joyfully listening but then testing even the apostolic message against the Scriptures (Acts 17:11). Therefore, the reader should not assume that every statement made by a well-known teacher is correct simply because of the teacher’s reputation, but should diligently examine all things and hold fast to what is true. 

Sound Reasoning and the Authority of Scripture

Our interpretations, doctrines and theologies come from one of two places, either directly from Scripture or from reasoning. In either case interpretation, doctrines, and theologies should be reasonably explainable, traceable, and testable to assure they fit – without any contradiction – with Scripture. In clarification, there is nothing wrong with “sound reasoning” for even the Apostle Paul engaged in sound reasoning, Acts 17:2-3, Acts 17:17-18, Acts 18:4, Acts 18:9, Acts 19:8-9 and Acts 24:25.

With this said this article assumes that the readers quest is for the truth contained in God’s word and not merely confirmation of preconceptions or biases. Therefore, in order to better understand the truth of God’s word we need agree that Scripture must be allowed to interpret Scripture so that all interpretations fit contextually, progressively and intact – without any contradiction – throughout all Scripture. Equally all interpretations must fit without contradiction to the perfect nature and character of what and who God is. Any interpretation that falls short of this standard must be considered either incomplete or completely wrong

The Pursuit of Truth Requires Perseverance

To those who consider the longevity of the debate over Election & Predestination (example; Calvinism vs Arminianism) to mean the debate is unresolvable. The debate between believers and unbelievers – over God’s existence – has lasted even longer, yet Christians rightly understand the debate resolvable for those who genuinely seek the truth. In the same way, the fact that believers have wrestled with election for centuries does not imply that Scripture is silent or that clarity is impossible. There is a significant difference between saying, “I have not yet found the answer,” and saying, “Because I have not found the answer, no answer exists.” The former is honest; the latter is self‑defeating. A person may search their entire life and still not reach a conclusion — but that is no reason to stop searching, nor to assume the truth is unattainable. Proverbs 2:4-5, Proverbs 25:2.

Sometimes, when we lock ourselves into a debate framed by two opposing systems, we can overlook the possibility: that both systems may be incomplete or completely wrong. The fact that neither Calvinism nor Arminianism has been able to harmonize its interpretation with the whole of Scripture without contradiction — and the fact that Calvinism struggles to align fully with the revealed character of God — would strongly suggest that the truth may lie beyond the boundaries of either framework. 

With this said, Christian tradition contains multiple, distinct models of election — each shaped by different understandings of God’s sovereignty, human freedom, grace, and the nature of salvation. While Calvinism and Arminianism are among the most influential, they are far from the only voices in the conversation.

Defining the Terms: Calvinism and Reformed Traditionalism

When someone claims to be a Calvinist or a Reformed Traditionalist, it is assumed they affirm the doctrines historically associated with those labels. After all, theological labels only have value when they communicate a recognizable set of beliefs. If a person can discard essential doctrines yet retain the label, the label itself becomes meaningless. For that reason, throughout this discussion, references to “Calvinist” or “Reformed Traditionalist” should be understood as referring to those who affirm all the core doctrines historically tied to those systems — not to everyone who casually adopts the label while holding substantially different views.

A Respectful Critique of Systems, Not Sincere Believers

While this article critically scrutinizes and questions the doctrines and theologies of Calvinism and the broader Reformed Tradition, it is not directed at nor is it intended to criticize or question the Christianity, sincerity, devotion or commitment to Scripture of individuals who hold to the doctrines and theologies of Calvinism or the broader Reformed Traditions. While It should go without saying, it will not go without saying that many godly men and women have held such convictions while demonstrating profound love for Christ and unwavering commitment to the authority of Scripture.

Examining Influential Teachers by the Standard of Scripture

Equally, throughout this article, I will occasionally reference statements made by renowned and respected theologians, scholars, pastors, and Christian leaders with whom I disagree. My purpose in doing so is not to call into question the sincerity of their faith or their commitment to Christ, nor is it to suggest that everything they have taught is erroneous. On the contrary, many of these individuals have made significant and lasting contributions to the Church. However, because of their considerable influence, it is both appropriate and necessary to examine their teachings carefully. Their prominence does not render them infallible and so where I believe they have erred, those errors should be and will be identified and evaluated in light of Scripture.

Every Doctrine Matters

Scripture testifies that “all Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable” (2 Timothy 3:16), and Jesus affirmed that not even “one jot or one tittle” would pass away without significance (Matthew 5:18). God is a God of purpose, and every part of His Word has been given for our instruction, edification, and spiritual growth. To conclude that a doctrine is unworthy of careful study simply because it is difficult risks undervaluing the wisdom and intentionality with which God has revealed Himself.

Difficult Doctrines Deserve Diligent Study

Certainly, some subjects—such as biblical prophecy or the relationship between divine sovereignty and human responsibility—can be challenging to understand. Yet their difficulty should motivate deeper study rather than avoidance. Throughout church history, believers have grown in their understanding through careful examination of Scripture, respectful dialogue, and the testing of every teaching against the Word of God. The doctrines of election and predestination deserve the same thoughtful and prayerful consideration.

There is No Debate that God Elects & Predestines

The Bible leaves no ambiguity on the matter: God elects and God predestines. The real questions are not whether He does so, but whom He elects and for what purposes He predestines them. Calvinism and the broader Reform Tradition doctrines and theologies of Election and Predestination are but one framework that offers answer to those questions. Their doctrines have had a great impact on the shaping of many a Christian perspective in regard to salvation, the gospel, God’s grace, His sovereignty, human responsibility, and divine justice. Equally though, and evidenced by many testimonies, misunderstandings or rigid formulations of these doctrines, so too have they influenced some unbelievers to reject the Christian faith altogether. Therefore, the statement that “Election and Predestination is not critical to salvation” begs asking the question; “for whom is it not critical?”

The Historical Roots of the Debate

The debate regarding Election and predestination is commonly associated with the 16th‑century Reformers—Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Jacobus Arminius. However, their theological roots and controversies reach much further back. The debate itself extends to the early centuries of the church, involving figures such as Ignatius of Antioch, Augustine of Hippo, Gottschalk,  Thomas Aquinas and the philosopher Pelagius.

The Modern Resurgence of Calvinism and Reformed Theology

Today, we are witnessing an unprecedented resurgence of 16th‑century Calvinist and Reformed theology. Over the past century—and especially in recent decades—its influence has grown rapidly across North American Protestant churches and seminaries. This expansion is due – in part – to the efforts of prominent and highly mobilized leaders and advocates. As a result, many Protestant seminaries and educational institutions now identify as Calvinist and embrace the rallying cry “ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda”—“the church reformed, always reforming.”

Ecclesia Reformata, Semper Reformanda: Its Original Intent

Ironically, the original intent of this phrase was not to promote the spread or preservation of any particular theological system. Rather, it served as a call to the Protestant churches to avoid becoming like the very religious institution from which they had separated by continually submitting their doctrines and traditions to the scrutiny of Scripture. It was an appeal for ongoing self-examination, open and honest discourse, and doctrinal accountability.

Scripture Above Systems

After all, the goal should never be to defend or preserve a theological system at the expense of biblical truth, but to ensure that every doctrine remains faithfully subject to the authority of God’s Word. Therefore, in keeping with this original sentiment, and because these doctrines address matters central to the gospel—who is saved, why they are saved, and how God’s eternal purposes relate to humanity — they deserve our careful and thoughtful examination.

Why Defining the Terms Before Debating Them Matters

Such an examination requires more than a familiarity with theological vocabulary. Terms such as election, predestination, calling, grace, faith, regeneration, and foreknowledge often carry meanings that are shaped and defined by the theological systems in which they are used. This is one of the reasons why the study of Calvinism and the broader Reformed Tradition can be particularly challenging.

Many Christians—regardless of their theological persuasion—are surprised to discover not only how these terms are defined within those systems, but also the far-reaching theological implications and conclusions that flow from those definitions. Consequently, meaningful discussion requires that we carefully define our terms rather than assume that we are all using the same words in the same way.

Defining  “T.U.L.I.P.”

TULIP is an acronym that summarizes the five principal doctrines commonly associated with Calvinism:

• Total Depravity
• Unconditional Election
• Limited Atonement
• Irresistible Grace
• Perseverance of the Saints

The acronym itself was not coined by John Calvin. Rather, it emerged later as a convenient summary of the doctrinal conclusions associated with the Synod of Dort (1618–1619), which convened in response to the five Articles of Remonstrance presented by the followers of Jacobus Arminius. Although not all churches within the broader Reformed tradition explicitly use the acronym TULIP, many nevertheless affirm substantially the same Augustinian and Reformed doctrines as expressed in historic confessional documents such as the Westminster Confession of Faith. Consequently, throughout this article, references to Calvinism and the broader Reformed Tradition should be understood as encompassing theological systems that affirm these core doctrines, whether or not they are formally identified by the acronym TULIP.

The Logical Implications of TULIP: A Case for Theistic Determinism

TULIP – like the Westminster Confession – teaches that “God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass.” This is commonly referred to as God’s eternal decree. By logical implication, if whatsoever comes to pass has been eternally and unchangeably ordained by God, then all things—down to their minutest detail—occur according to His decree and purpose.

The Language Implies Theistic Determinism

To understand why I posit the doctrines summarized by TULIP – and the Westminster Confessions – logically entail a form of theistic determinism, one need only consider the language of the Westminster Confession itself. It states: “God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass.” It further states: “Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, yet hath He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.”

These statements indicate more than God’s passive permission or mere foreknowledge of future events. Rather, they describe a decree that determines what will occur independent of any foreseen conditions or contingent human responses. If God has not decreed events because He foresaw them, but instead foresaw them because He decreed them, then the decree itself becomes the ultimate explanation for why events unfold as they do. For this reason, I contend that the language naturally lends itself to a deterministic understanding of God’s relationship to history.

The Scope of the Divine Decree

Accordingly, TULIP – like the Westminster Confession – teaches that God has eternally ordained the entirety of history, including every attitude, belief, desire, decision, and action of men, angels, and demons, as well as their ultimate destinies. Before creation itself, God decreed all that would come to pass, and nothing can occur outside of or contrary to that decree. It is for this reason that I contend the doctrines summarized by TULIP logically entail a form of theistic determinism, in which every event ultimately unfolds according to God’s eternal and determining will.

The Westminster Qualification and the Logical Tension It Creates

At this point, however, the Westminster Confession also adds the qualification: “Yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.”

From my perspective, this qualification creates a significant logical tension. If God has freely and unchangeably ordained whatsoever comes to pass and has not decreed events on the basis of foreseen conditions, then it is difficult to see how the same decree can simultaneously avoid making God the ultimate determiner of sinful acts while also preserving genuine creaturely liberty and contingency.

The fact that the confession affirms both exhaustive ordination and meaningful contingency without adequately explaining how the two coexist, renders the statement incoherent. Neither John Calvin – the namesake of Calvinism – nor renowned Calvinist proponents like R. C. Sproul or John Piper are able to reconcile these self-contradicting statements and the concepts.

The Implications of Theistic Determinism on Calvinism

The Implications for the Doctrine of Salvation

Applied to the doctrine of salvation, this reasoning leads to the conclusion that, apart from any consideration of the unbeliever’s response, God has chosen certain individuals—His elect—for eternal salvation, while all others, often described within Reformed theology as the reprobate, are left in their fallen condition and, under the doctrine of Limited Atonement, are destined for eternal condemnation according to God’s eternal decree.

Total Depravity and Unconditional Election

Consequently, salvation is not conditioned upon anything the unbeliever does, including believing in Christ. Because mankind is held to be totally depraved, the unbeliever is understood to be incapable of believing the gospel or responding to God in faith through any autonomous exercise of the will unless God first sovereignly, effectually, and selectively regenerates that individual. This is termed Unconditional Election, because election is understood to rest solely upon God’s sovereign choice and not upon any condition met by the sinner.

Irresistible Grace and the Perseverance of the Saints

Likewise, Irresistible Grace ensures that those whom God has chosen will infallibly come to saving faith, and Perseverance of the Saints guarantees that they will ultimately persevere because God has determined that they do so.

Reprobation, Double Predestination, and the Logical Conclusion

By this line of reasoning, the fact that salvation is not universal means that God’s unconditional election of some by irresistible grace necessarily involves a corresponding passing over of others. Although not represented by a separate letter in the acronym TULIP, this concept is commonly referred to within Reformed theology as reprobation, and in some discussions as double predestination. Therefore, I believe it is more than reasonable to conclude that these doctrines, taken together, logically follow from and reinforce a deterministic understanding of God’s eternal decree.

After all, if God chooses (predetermines) only some individuals for salvation, then it follows that those not chosen remain destined for eternal condemnation. However, this is where the Reformed tradition and Calvin himself are often distinguished. Many within the broader Reformed tradition teach that God does not actively choose individuals unto damnation but instead passes them over, leaving them in their fallen condition while choosing others unto salvation.

For all intents and purposes, however, this distinction appears largely semantic. Whether one says the light is off or another says the light is not on, the result is exactly the same. Likewise, whether one says God chooses some unto salvation while passing over the rest, or that God positively chooses some unto salvation and chooses others unto damnation, the practical outcome is identical: one group is eternally saved, while the other is eternally condemned according to God’s eternal decree.

John Calvin himself rejected the “passing over” distinction as insufficient. In opposing those who attempted to separate election from reprobation, he wrote: “This they do ignorantly and childishly, since there could be no election without its opposite reprobation… whom God passes by He reprobates, and that for no other cause but because He is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which He predestines to His children.“

It is difficult to disagree with Calvin’s logic on this particular point. If election is unconditional and God’s eternal decree comprehensively determines every historical event—including the eternal destiny of every individual—then the passing over of the non-elect is not merely a passive omission but an essential component of that same decree. Indeed, this conclusion appears entirely consistent with the Westminster Confession’s broader assertion that God has “freely and unchangeably ordained whatsoever comes to pass.” If God has exhaustively decreed all things, including every attitude, desire, decision, action, and eternal destiny, then distinguishing between actively choosing some and merely passing over others seems to describe two different ways of expressing the same decretive reality rather than two substantively different doctrines.

Freedom of Will, Freedom of Action, and Freedom of Response

Within such a framework, individuals may indeed act according to their desires, but they cannot choose to desire otherwise, nor can they ultimately act contrary to what has been eternally decreed. The will functions not as a genuinely free faculty of moral response but as the predetermined means through which the decree is carried out. Consequently, while one may speak of people acting “willingly,” that willingness is itself the product of prior determination rather than an independent capacity to respond differently.

This has profound implications for the concepts of freedom of action and freedom of response. A person whose every decision has already been fixed cannot meaningfully choose (in any practical sense) between alternatives, because no alternative is actually available. The apparent freedom to act is reduced to acting out what has already been determined, and the apparent freedom to respond becomes merely the inevitable manifestation of an unchangeable decree. In practical terms, if one cannot will otherwise, cannot act otherwise, and cannot respond otherwise, then talk of freedom becomes largely semantic rather than substantive.

Theistic Determinism and its Implications on Responsibility and Accountability

The same tension extends to the idea of moral responsibility. Responsibility, properly understood as response-ability, presupposes that a moral agent has the capacity to respond to what has been revealed or commanded. Scripture repeatedly calls people to repent, believe, obey, choose righteousness, and turn from evil. Such commands naturally imply that those addressed are capable of responding to God’s revelation. Under exhaustive theistic determinism, however, every response has already been causally fixed, making the distinction between obedience and disobedience appear to rest not upon the individual’s meaningful response but upon an antecedent decree that could not have been otherwise.

Likewise, the concept of accountability is placed under considerable strain. To hold someone accountable ordinarily implies that the individual is answerable for conduct that he or she could meaningfully have embraced or rejected. If every decision was immutably determined before creation and no other course of action was genuinely possible, then accountability risks becoming little more than the declaration of consequences for actions that were themselves unavoidable. Praise and blame, reward and punishment, justice and condemnation all lose much of their ordinary significance if the person being judged possessed no practical ability to do otherwise.

Illustrative Analogy: The Programmed Machine

To illustrate, imagine a judge who programs a machine to perform a specific act, knowing with absolute certainty that it cannot deviate from its programming, and then condemns the machine for doing precisely what it was programmed to do. Most people would instinctively recognize a tension between the certainty of the programming and the justice of assigning blame. Human beings are not machines, but the philosophical concern is analogous: if every thought, desire, and action is exhaustively determined by an irresistible decree, then the practical distinction between willing and being compelled becomes increasingly difficult to maintain.

The Biblical Case for Genuine Moral Agency

For this reason, I distinguish between freedom of will, freedom of action, and freedom of response. Human beings have never possessed absolute autonomy, nor do they exist independently of God or outside the constraints of creation. Yet Scripture consistently portrays them as genuine moral agents who hear God’s commands, receive His revelation, deliberate, believe or disbelieve, obey or rebel, repent or harden their hearts. In my judgment, these repeated biblical appeals presuppose that God’s commands are addressed to persons with a meaningful capacity to respond to the revelation and opportunities He has graciously provided.

Accordingly, my concern is not to defend an unrestricted or autonomous conception of free will, but to preserve the practical reality of moral agency as Scripture presents it. If exhaustive theistic determinism renders freedom of will, freedom of action, and freedom of response functionally indistinguishable from necessity, then the biblical concepts of responsibility and accountability are likewise diminished. If, however, responsibility and accountability are genuine, then the response God requires of human beings must itself be genuinely meaningful and not merely the inevitable outworking of an immutable decree.

Foreknowledge, Predeterminism, Predestination, and Divine Intention

Calvinism’s Teaching: Foreknowledge & Predestination

Augustinianism, the Reformed tradition, Calvinism, TULIP, and the Westminster Confession teach that God’s foreknowledge is the consequence of His predestining that which He creates. Thus, according to this system, the reason God foreknows who will and will not be saved is because He has first predestined, by His sovereign will, who will and who will not be saved.

This, however, presents a significant theological and philosophical problem. Augustinianism, the Reformed tradition, Calvinism, TULIP, and the Westminster Confession not only infer that predestination is something God may choose either to exercise or not exercise, but they also appear to render God’s foreknowledge contingent upon His sovereign decree of predestination (see Westminster Confession, Of God’s Eternal Decree, III.2). In other words, foreknowledge becomes the consequence of predestination rather than predestination flowing from God’s eternal omniscience.

This has profound implications. If God’s knowledge of future events depends upon His prior decree determining those events, then foreknowledge is no longer functioning as an essential attribute of God’s nature but as the logical result of His decretive will. God’s omniscience would therefore appear, at least conceptually, to derive its knowledge of future realities from His decree rather than from His intrinsic nature as the One who eternally knows all things.

Openess Theology

Augustinianism, Reformed tradition, Calvinism, TULIP, and the Westminster Confession in essence shares the same flawed rationale of Openness Theology which teaches that God does not infallibly foreknow all that shall come to pass. The only difference between Augustinianism, Reformed tradition, Calvinism, and TULIP theology and Openness Theology in this aspect is that Augustinianism, Reformed tradition, Calvinism, and TULIP teach that God can know of all that shall come to pass, if and only when, He chooses to predestine all that shall come to pass. This is in part why Augustinianism, Reformed tradition, and Calvinism cannot accept the concept of Man having free will, for if God has not chosen to predestine as in sovereignly choosing (ultimately coercing) who will and who will not be saved, God would have no foreknowledge of how an autonomous free willed being would choose and or act. God would be constantly taken by surprise; His plans would be both dependent upon and thus reactionary to Man’s indeterminate choices and actions.  

In Summary: While Augustinianism, Reformed tradition, Calvinism, TULIP, and the Westminster Confession often use the term “predestination”, they do not teach that God simply created a world in which He foreknew each person’s choices and then allowed history to unfold accordingly. Rather, their doctrines deny any practical sense of human free will and therefore God does not merely foresee outcomes; but instead He has “predetermined” them according to His sovereign will, including who will choose Christ and salvation and who will choose evil and damnation. It is ironic however, that in admirably seeking to exalt God’s sovereignty, glory, and majesty by stressing His absolute divine control over all things—including human beliefs, thoughts, actions, and choices— their doctrines and Confession end up limiting God’s sovereignty by leaving no room for God to sovereignly will individuals the ability of choice.

Historical Christian Teaching: Foreknowledge & Predestination

Historically, the Christian understanding of omniscience has been that God knows all things—actual and possible, created and uncreated, past, present, and future—not because He first determines every event, but because omniscience is an eternal and essential attribute of His being. God does not become all-knowing by willing events into existence; rather, He knows all things because He is, by His very nature, omniscient. Consequently, making foreknowledge logically contingent upon predestination appears to reverse that relationship, causing God’s decree to function as the explanation for His foreknowledge rather than His omniscience serving as the explanation for both His decree and His perfect knowledge of all reality.

Middle Knowledge

Middle Knowledge (AKA: Classic Theism) teaches that God’s Predestining is the consequence of His foreknowing that which  He creates. Thus, the reason God actively predestines who will and who will not be saved is because He, by His sovereign Will created that of which He foreknew. Hence, Middle Knowledge affirms that God, by His very nature, foreknows all possible realities both created and uncreated and that God is therefore, Omniscient. This means that predestination, in and of itself, is not a choice that God can choose to Predestine or choose not to predestine in relation to the act of creation but rather whatever God chooses to foreknowingly create (from among all possible realities), automatically becomes predestined to happen just as He Omnisciently and Omnipotently willed it to be. In essence, it is a form of a premeditated (Foreknown and planned) act, in so much that predestining becomes the consequence of creating that, in which God foreknew of all that shall come to pass. Unlike Augustinianism, Reformed tradition, Calvinism and Openness Theologies, the theology of Middle Knowledge postulates that God can Omnisciently and Predestinetly create a foreknown reality in which He gives Man whatever amount of uncoerced autonomy (Free Will) that He Sovereignly Wills to give Man. Thus, because God infallibly foreknows all that shall come to pass, God is not taken by surprise. It is reasonably acknowledged that God being Omnisapient (All Wise) has considered and configured into creation all necessary contingencies to ensure that all His plans unfold as per the means and the methods that He has chosen. As the saying goes, you can’t lose at poker when you know the cards that all the other players hold. Figuratively speaking, God not only knows the cards that Man holds in his hands, but God also knows how man will play the cards that he holds. God does not need to force mans hand, to win. It is by no coincident that every verse that mentions Foreknown and Predestined puts Foreknown before Predestined, and that is because Predestination is the biproduct of creating what is foreknown.

God can sovereignly plan creation and glorification without intending, causing, or determining anyone’s rejection of Him, even though He foreknows that some will freely choose it.

The Parent and Teenager Analogy

As an analogy: 

• A parent gives their teenager a car knowing that driving is essential for growth, maturity, and future independence. The parent also knows—based on experience and statistics—that the teen will likely make mistakes.
• The parent’s intent is the teen’s development.
• The parent’s permission allows the possibility of accidents.
• The parent’s foreknowledge does not cause the accidents.
• Neither, by any stretch of the imagination, does it imply that the parents intended the accidents.
• Likewise, God’s intent is human glorification. His permission allows free will. His foreknowledge does not cause rejection nor does it mean that God intended that anyone should reject Him.

This preserves God’s goodness, sovereignty, and desire for all to be saved while maintaining genuine human freedom.

How This Fits with Predestination

In the event that one should ask how does “Predestining” fit into this analogy I would simply answer that the Biblical context of predestining speaks to predetermining the resulting destiny of an action. For example, if the teenager makes the right decisions when driving, then the teenager is predestined to receive reward. Conversely, if the teenager makes a wrong decision, then they are predestined to receive some form of penalty. Again, the parents could be said to have given potential for the teenager to make a wrong choice, but their intent would be that the child make the right decision and receive the predestined reward. Regardless, it is the teenager’s choice that the parent uses to determine if they are to receive the reward or the penalty that the parents predestined.

Predestining Consequences Versus Predetermining Choices

Predetermining, on the other hand, when used in context of predetermining—as in this analogy—the choice and action of the teenager is simply unbiblical and such concepts do not fit contextually and or progressively—intact—throughout all Scripture.

The Analogy Summarized

The parent-and-teenager analogy illustrates a key distinction:

• Foreknowledge – the parent knows accidents are likely.
• Intention – the parent does not want or plan the accidents.
• Causation – the parent does not cause the accidents.
• Permission – the parent allows the teen to drive because driving is part of growing into maturity.
• Predestination – right choices and actions are destined to reward; wrong choices and actions are destined to penalty.

This maps closely to the theological categories of free will, foreknowledge, and divine permission. If God genuinely gives humans free will, then humans can choose something other than what God desires. This is exactly what the analogy captures: the parent’s will is for safety and maturity, but the teen’s free choices can diverge from that will.

This preserves God’s goodness, sovereignty, and desire for all to be saved while maintaining genuine human freedom. The real tension is not between foreknowledge and free will—those can coexist. The deeper tension is between God’s will of desire (what He wants) and God’s will of permission (what He allows for the sake of a greater good).

Biblical Definition of Predestine, Predestined and Predestining

The Greek word translated “predestined” is προορίζω (proorizō), identified in Strong’s Concordance as G4309.

• Original Word: προορίζω (proorizō)
• Strong’s Definition: “To limit in advance; that is, figuratively, to predetermine; determine before, ordain, predestinate.”
• Thayer’s Definition: “To predetermine; to decide beforehand; in the New Testament, of God decreeing from eternity; to foreordain or appoint beforehand.”

While these definitions establish that something is determined or appointed in advance, they do not by themselves specify what is being predetermined. That question must be answered by the immediate and broader context of Scripture.

It is therefore important to recognize that predestination need not mean that every human choice has itself been predetermined. Rather, it can reasonably be understood to mean that God has predetermined the boundaries, conditions, purposes, or destinies associated with those choices. In other words, God may sovereignly ordain the consequences and final outcomes without causally determining every intervening decision made by moral agents.

This understanding is consistent with the repeated biblical pattern in which God places before humanity genuine alternatives and calls people to respond. Throughout Scripture, mankind is presented with a choice between life and death, blessing and curse, obedience and disobedience, faith and unbelief. Most fundamentally, the gospel presents the choice of accepting or rejecting Jesus Christ. God has predetermined the destiny attached to each response: those who trust in Christ receive eternal life, while those who reject Him remain under condemnation.

Another Illustration of Predestination

Another helpful analogy for understanding predestination is that of a transportation company offering passengers a choice between two buses:

• One bus has been predestined to arrive at a destination called Heaven.
• The other has been predestined to arrive at a destination called Hell.

The destinations of the buses have been fixed in advance by the company and cannot be altered by the passengers. In that sense, the destiny of each bus is predetermined. What is not predetermined, however, is which bus any given passenger chooses to board. The company establishes the destinations; the rider chooses which destination to embrace by choosing which bus to enter. This is the very meaning behind Proverbs 16:9. Thus, A man’s heart (his choices and actions) plans (indicating volition) his course, but the LORD directs his steps (Down whichever of the two path that God determined available, the mans choices and actions take him). 

In the same way, Scripture presents two predetermined destinies. God has ordained eternal life for those who are in Christ and eternal condemnation for those who reject Him. The destinies themselves are fixed because God has decreed them. Yet the repeated biblical invitations to repent, believe, come to Christ, and receive eternal life presume that individuals possess a genuine responsibility—and response-ability—to respond to God’s gracious offer.

By contrast, if one were to argue that God not only predetermined the destinations but also predetermined which passengers would board each bus, then the riders’ choices would become merely the inevitable outworking of a prior decree. In practical terms, the distinction between choosing a destination and being caused to choose it would disappear.

Thus, in my understanding, the biblical doctrine of predestination is better understood as God’s sovereign determination of the destiny attached to a response rather than the exhaustive predetermination of the response itself. The destinations are fixed; the call to choose between them is genuine. As Moses declared to Israel, “I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life” (Deuteronomy 30:19). Likewise, the gospel sets before every hearer the predetermined consequences of faith and unbelief: eternal life in Christ or eternal separation from Him. There is no third destination.

Accordingly, I understand biblical predestination primarily as God’s sovereign determination of the resulting destiny of a given response rather than the exhaustive predetermination of the response itself. God predestines the inheritance of those who are in Christ and the judgment of those who remain outside of Him. In this sense, the outcome is fixed because God has ordained it, while the individual remains genuinely responsible and accountable for his or her response to the revelation and grace that God has provided.

Such an understanding preserves both God’s absolute sovereignty and humanity’s meaningful moral agency. God remains the One who establishes the end from the beginning, who ordains the consequences of belief and unbelief, righteousness and unrighteousness, obedience and rebellion. At the same time, the biblical calls to repent, believe, choose life, and receive Christ retain their ordinary and practical significance, for they are addressed to persons who possess the God-given responsibility and response-ability to act upon the revelation set before them.

Predestination Challenges Our Understandings

It is understandable how some might view predestination as predeterminism. After all if God knows all possible realities and chooses to create one them, is then not everything that God foreknowingly created therefore predestined to happen just as He chose?  

In answer to that question, imagine for just a moment that God showed you three possible outcomes for your favorite hockey team in a game against an opponent: in one, they win; in another, they lose; and in the third, they tie. God then asks which outcome you would choose to become reality. Naturally, you would choose the scenario in which your team wins, and in that sense one could say you chose and predestined the victory. Yet choosing that outcome does not mean every move, action, and decision made during the game was not freely made by the players themselves.

It is not by coincident that the term “predestined” in Scripture follows some variation of  term “foreknew” and in each case, the word predestined speaks to the destiny of those already saved. In other words the context is never predestined unto salvation but predestined through salvation. It is by His sovereign will that He has given man the choice – metaphorically speaking – of which bus to board (be it destined to heaven or to Hell) and just because He created this reality, foreknowing our decisions, does not mean that our every thought, belief, action, and decision in this reality is not freely made by us ourselves.

End of Article