A Problem with Double Predestination

Predestination is one of the most contentious topics in the history of Christianity. In previous posts, I highlighted the New Testament statements on predestination and the major views throughout church history. This post will focus on the specific doctrine of double predestination: God predestines certain individuals for heaven and others for hell. Hence predestination is double. 

John Calvin’s Affirmation of Double Predestination

In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin (1509-1564) expressed this doctrine in its starkest terms. He writes,

By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death. . .

We say, then, that Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his pleasure to doom to destruction. We maintain that this counsel, as regards the elect, is founded on his free mercy, without any respect to human worth, while those whom he dooms to destruction are excluded from access to life by a just and blameless, but at the same time incomprehensible judgment. (Calvin’s Institutes, ch. 21, sect. 5, 7, emphasis mine)

In contrast with the Declaration of Independence, written more than 200 years later, Calvin says, “All are not created on equal terms.” He reasons that predestination inserts an eternal wedge splitting humanity into two groups. And this division is symmetrical because Calvin uses the same terms for both the saved and the damned:

• some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation
• predestinated to life or to death
• determined once for all
• those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his pleasure to doom to destruction

Why are particular individuals elected?

It had absolutely nothing to do with them. God’s choice is based on “his free mercy, without any respect to human worth.” Thus election is unconditional. Calvin claims God’s eternal decision to split humanity into two groups is “a just and blameless, but at the same time incomprehensible judgment.”

Many recoil at this teaching, primarily for two reasons. First, the sheer arbitrariness of God’s choice. If a person in the damned group asked, “Why am I here?” the answer is ultimately, “because God predestined you to be here.” I said “ultimately” because Calvinists could say that the reprobate deserve their punishment, but their sin is only the proximate cause. The ultimate cause is a divine decree. Second, many have shuttered at the negative side of double predestination—preordained to eternal damnation. How could a good and loving God predestine people to eternal judgment? How could God block their access to life, guaranteeing their entrance to death? Why did God bother to create them? Does God love the world or not?

Intriguingly, Calvin’s magnum opus is more than 500 pages and filled with Bible verses, but you will not find even one reference to the assertion “God is love” (1 Jn 4:8, 16). In this formulation of double predestination, God is power not love. I say “this formulation” because Calvin wrote a lot and I am not claiming that this is all he said on the topic. However, we should take this statement seriously because Calvin revised the Institutes several times over many years so we know he carefully pondered its contents.

Calvin was not the first to express something like double predestination. In Enchiridion, Augustine (AD 354-430) writes,

As the Supreme Good, he made good use of evil deeds, for the damnation of those whom he had justly predestined to punishment and for the salvation of those whom he had mercifully predestined to grace. (100, emphasis mine)

Augustine was also a voluminous author so pinning down his one view on the matter is not so simple. But for him to speak here of predestination in negative terms—”predestined to punishment”—is unfortunate and unbiblical. In the Bible to be predestined is a blessing and never a curse.

Jacobus Arminius’ Rejection of Double Predestination

Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609) disagreed with Calvin on many issues, including double predestination based on unconditional election. Arminius gives many reasons for rejecting this doctrine, including the following:

• “This doctrine was never admitted, decreed, or approved in any Council, either general or particular, for the first six hundred years after Christ.” (147)
• “I affirm, that this doctrine is repugnant to the Nature of God, but particularly to those Attributes of his nature by which he performs and manages all things, his wisdom, justice, and goodness.” (149)
• “This doctrine is highly dishonourable to Jesus Christ our saviour. For, It entirely excludes him from that decree of Predestination which predestinates the end: and it affirms, that men were predestinated to be saved, before Christ was predestinated to save them; and thus it argues, that he is not the foundation of election.” (155)
• “However highly Luther and Melancthon might at the very commencement of the reformation, have approved of this doctrine, they afterwards deserted it. This change in Melancthon is quite apparent from his latter writings: And those who style themselves ‘Luther’s disciples,’ make the same statement respecting their master, while they contend that on this subject he made a more distinct and copious declaration of his sentiments, instead of entirely abandoning those which he formerly entertained. But Philip Melancthon believed that this doctrine did not differ greatly from the fate of the Stoics” (161). (It is true that Luther’s followers deserted double predestination. Luther’s views are not so clear and have been the source of debate among scholars. When analyzing individual authors, part of the challenge is that their views often develop or even change over time. So keep in mind that early Luther and later Luther do not necessarily agree with each other.)

In sum, Arminius rejected double predestination because:

• It was not officially approved by any church council in the first six centuries.
• It is repugnant to God’s wise and good nature. 
• It is highly dishonorable to Jesus Christ because it removes him from being the “foundation of election.” In other words, our salvation is ultimately based on a divine decree in eternity past not on Jesus Christ. 
• It was ultimately abandoned by Luther’s followers, including Melancthon. 

So how did Arminius understand predestination? He argued that predestination is rooted in divine foreknowledge. God saw who would place their trust in Christ then based on that knowledge, he predestined those individuals to eternal life. Election, then, is conditional.

Arminius was not the first to reject double predestination. About a millennium earlier, the Second Council of Orange, which met in Orange, France renounced this doctrine in the strongest terms possible: “We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema.”

John Wesley on Double Predestination

John Wesley (1703-1791) agreed with Arminius, attacking the doctrine of unconditional election by claiming that it made God worse than the devil. This led to a falling out with his Calvinist friend George Whitefield. In his book Predestination Calmly Considered, Wesley explains,

But do not the Scriptures speak of election? They say, St. Paul was ‘an elected or chosen vessel;’ nay, and speak of great numbers of men as ‘elect according to the foreknowledge of God.’ You cannot, therefore, deny there is such a thing as election. And, if there is, what do you mean by it?” I will tell you, in all plainness and simplicity. I believe it commonly means one of these two things: First, a divine appointment of some particular men, to do some particular work in the world. And this election I believe to be not only personal, but absolute and unconditional. Thus Cyrus was elected to rebuild the temple, and St. Paul, with the twelve, to preach the gospel. But I do not find this to have any necessary connection with eternal happiness. Nay, it is plain it has not; for one who is elected in this sense lay yet be lost eternally. “Have I not chosen” (elected) “you twelve?” saith our Lord; “yet one of you hath a devil.” Judas, you see, was elected as well as the rest; yet is his lot with the devil and his angels.

I believe election means, Secondly, a divine appointment of some men to eternal happiness. But I believe this election to be conditional, as well as the reprobation opposite thereto. I believe the eternal decree concerning both is expressed in those words: “He that believeth shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be damned.” And this decree, without doubt, God will not change, and man cannot resist. According to this, all true believers are in Scripture termed elect, as all who continue in unbelief are so long properly reprobates, that is, unapproved of God, and without discernment touching the things of the Spirit. (16, 17, emphasis mine)

According to Wesley, election refers to two things: (1) God’s appointment of individuals to a particular role or task and (2) the conditional election of some people to eternal happiness and others to reprobation. Regarding the latter, what is the basis for the distinction between people with some going to eternal happiness and others becoming reprobate? Faith. Those who believe the gospel are elected or predestined to eternal life. Of course, Methodists follow Wesley on this as do Pentecostals and some Baptists.

Karl Barth’s Christ-Centered Predestination

Karl Barth (1886-1968) was one of the most influential theologians of the 20th century. Barth admired Calvin’s theology but rejected double predestination because he believed it strayed from Scripture. He reformulated the entire discussion of predestination by centering it on Christ.

The doctrine of election is the sum of the Gospel because of all the words that can be said or heard it is the best: that God elects man; that God is for man too the One who loves in freedom. It is grounded in the knowledge of Jesus Christ because He is both the electing God and elected man in One. It is part of the doctrine of God because originally God’s election of man is a predestination not merely of man but of Himself. Its function is to bear basic testimony to eternal, free and unchanging grace as the beginning of all the ways and works of God. (Church Dogmatics II/2)

According to Barth, predestination is positive, showing that God is for man. Predestination is also rooted in Jesus Christ because “He is both the electing God and the elected man in One.” Hence predestination is primarily focused on God’s choice of one unique human being who is his own Son. Barth used Ephesians 1 as the biblical basis for this idea: God “chose us in him [Christ] before the creation of the world” (v. 4). So, Christ is God’s eternally chosen one and we are chosen by being connected to him. Hence predestination is single, positive, and Christ-centered.

Jurgen Moltmann summarizes Barth’s views:

Before God chooses human beings or rejects them, he determines himself to be for these human beings their Creator, Reconciler and Redeemer. Predestination is in the first place God’s determination of himself before it becomes the determination of human beings. Consequently God’s ‘eternal resolve’ is universal. (Kindle 3585)

Essentially, then, predestination is the glorious doctrine that God in Christ has always been for us not against us.

So far, we have explored the opinions of individual thinkers on predestination, but what are the official church statements on this matter? Since there are thousands of denominations, I will only highlight a few.

The Canons of Dort on Predestination

The Synod of Dort (also spelled Dordt) convened in 1618-19 in the Netherlands to respond to challenges to Calvin’s teachings. Article 15 of the Canons of Dort is stated below:

Moreover, Holy Scripture most especially highlights this eternal and undeserved grace of our election and brings it out more clearly for us, in that it further bears witness that not all people have been chosen but that some have not been chosen or have been passed by in God’s eternal election—those, that is, concerning whom God, on the basis of his entirely free, most just, irreproachable, and unchangeable good pleasure, made the following decree:

to leave them in the common misery into which, by their own fault, they have plunged themselves; not to grant them saving faith and the grace of conversion; but finally to condemn and eternally punish those who have been left in their own ways and under God’s just judgment, not only for their unbelief but also for all their other sins, in order to display his justice.

And this is the decree of reprobation, which does not at all make God the author of sin (a blasphemous thought!) but rather its fearful, irreproachable, just judge and avenger.

While Calvin’s statement uses the same terms for both groups, the Canons make a distinction, “some have not been chosen or have been passed by in God’s eternal election.” “Passed by” adds a layer of asymmetry to Calvin’s statement. God was not doing exactly the same thing with both groups—preordaining, predestinating, etc.

To be fair to Calvin, he uses the language of “passed by” in another place:

Those, therefore, 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. (Calvin’s Institutes, ch. 23, sect. 1)

But as we have seen, Calvin also expresses a clear symmetry between being predestined to life or predestined to death, which is not apparent in the Canons. Moreover, this statement from Calvin is enough to make readers shiver with horror: “for no other cause but because he is pleased to exclude them . . .” 

Is God being unjust in making this choice? According to Article 15, we are guilty not God. “By their own fault . . . left in their own ways . . . for their unbelief but also for all their other sins.” But aren’t those who are elected equally guilty? Yes. In fact, Article 1 establishes God’s right to condemn all people.

Since all people have sinned in Adam and have come under the sentence of the curse and eternal death, God would have done no one an injustice if it had been his will to leave the entire ­human race in sin and under the curse, and to condemn them on account of their sin. As the apostle says: “The whole world is liable to the condemnation of God” (Rom. 3:19), “All have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23), and “The wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). 

So God didn’t have to save anyone. If he had passed by every single person who had ever lived, leaving us all to suffer eternally, he would still be just. Perhaps, but that kind of God would definitely not be loving. 

What is God’s choice based on? “On the basis of his entirely free, most just, irreproachable, and unchangeable good pleasure.” The word “free” matches with Calvin’s statement— “founded on his free mercy, without any respect to human worth,” which emphasizes that God’s choice was not conditioned by any human merit.

By limiting predestination or unconditional election to God’s active and saving work, Dort is an improvement from Calvin’s expression because it is closer to biblical language. But does it really make a difference? By “passing by” the reprobate isn’t God foreordaining their final outcome? God could have saved them, but instead he walked passed them. Aren’t we back to double predestination, just with an asymmetry of God’s work? (The Canons of Dort have much more to say about predestination so I encourage you to read the other articles. Along with the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism, the Canons of Dort are considered to be one of the three forms of unity of the United Reformed Churches in North America.)

The Westminster Confession of Faith on Predestination

The Westminster Confession of Faith, written by the Church of England in 1648, also affirms a moderate view of double predestination:

This predestination and foreordination of angels and men are precise and unchangeable. The number and identity of angels and men in each group are certain, definite, and unalterable.

Before the creation of the world, according to his eternal, unchangeable plan and the hidden purpose and good pleasure of his will, God has chosen in Christ those of mankind who are predestined to life and to everlasting glory. He has done this solely out of his own mercy and love and completely to the praise of his wonderful grace. This choice was completely independent of his foreknowledge of how his created beings would be or act. Neither their faith nor good works nor perseverance had any part in influencing his selection.

According to the hidden purpose of his own will, by which he offers or withholds mercy at his pleasure, and for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, it pleased God not to call the rest of mankind and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin to the praise of his glorious justice. (4, 5, 7)

This statement makes it crystal clear that divine foreknowledge was not involved in God’s choosing of the elect. God did not look ahead and see who would believe then use that knowledge as a basis for his decision in election. Westminster says, “This choice was completely independent of his foreknowledge of how his created beings would be or act. Neither their faith nor good works nor perseverance had any part in influencing his selection.” What about the non-elect? “It pleased God not to call the rest of mankind and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin to the praise of his glorious justice.”

This statement has elements of symmetry and asymmetry. Strangely, both the extension of mercy and the withholding of mercy make God happy: “he offers or withholds mercy at his pleasure.” On the other hand, asymmetry is apparent in the term “predestined” being limited to salvation and “ordained” being used for damnation. However, this may be a distinction without a difference. Consider the two key statements: 

• God has chosen in Christ those of mankind who are predestined to life and to everlasting glory
• it pleased God not to call the rest of mankind and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin

Linking ordaining with dishonor and wrath gets us very close to the negative side of double predestination, or as Arminius calls it, predamnation. God has still essentially done the same thing—decided the eternal demise of certain people before the creation of the world. This confession is still used by Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Reformed, and some Baptists, but you may attend one of these churches for many years and not hear much on the topic of predestination. 

The Confession of Dositheus (Eastern Orthodox) on Predestination

In 1672 a Synod of Eastern Orthodox Churches convened in Jerusalem. The result was the Confession of Dositheus, which explicitly condemns unconditional election:

We believe the most good God to have from eternity predestinated unto glory those whom He has chosen, and to have consigned unto condemnation those whom He has rejected; but not so that He would justify the one, and consign and condemn the other without cause. For that would be contrary to the nature of God, who is the common Father of all, and no respecter of persons, and would have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth {1 Timothy 2:4}. But since He foreknew the one would make a right use of their free-will, and the other a wrong, He predestinated the one, or condemned the other. 

But to say, as the most wicked heretics do and as is contained in the Chapter [of Cyril’s’ Confession] to which this answers — that God, in predestinating, or condemning, did not consider in any way the works of those predestinated, or condemned, we know to be profane and impious. For thus Scripture would be opposed to itself, since it promises the believer salvation through works, yet supposes God to be its sole author, by His sole illuminating grace, which He bestows without preceding works, to show to man the truth of divine things, and to teach him how he may co-operate with it, if he will, and do what is good and acceptable, and so obtain  salvation. He takes not away the power to will — to will to obey, or not obey him.

But than to affirm that the Divine Will is thus solely and without cause the author of their condemnation, what greater defamation can be fixed upon God? and what greater injury and blasphemy can be offered to the Most High? We do know that the Deity is not tempted with evils, {cf. James 1:13} and that He equally wills the salvation of all, since there is no respect of persons with Him. We do confess that for those who through their own wicked choice, and their impenitent heart, have become vessels of dishonor, there is justly decreed condemnation. But of eternal punishment, of cruelty, of pitilessness, and of inhumanity, we never, never say God is the author, who tells us that there is joy in heaven over one sinner that repents. {Luke 15:7} Far be it from us, while we have our senses, to believe or to think this; and we do subject to an eternal anathema those who say and think such things, and esteem them to be worse than any infidels. (emphasis mine)

This statement agrees with Arminius’s view that election is conditioned on God’s foreknowledge. God does not condemn anyone “without cause.” God “foreknew the one would make a right use of their free-will, and the other a wrong, He predestinated the one, or condemned the other.” This corresponds with ancient Orthodox thinkers, such as John Chrysostom (AD 347-407). Regarding the choosing of Jacob and not Esau in Romans 9, Chrysostom writes,

for this was a sign of foreknowledge, that they were chosen from the very birth. That the election made according to foreknowledge, might be manifestly of God, from the first day He at once saw and proclaimed which was good and which not. (Homilies on Romans 9)

Divine election is not free and unconditioned but rooted in foreknowledge. 

Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod on Predestination

Skipping ahead more than two centuries, in 1932 the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod adopted a brief statement of their doctrinal position. Article 36 rejects election based on foreseen faith or any other meritorious human quality.

Accordingly we reject as an anti-Scriptural error the doctrine that not alone the grace of God and the merit of Christ are the cause of the election of grace, but that God has, in addition, found or regarded something good in us which prompted or caused Him to elect us, this being variously designated as “good works,” “right conduct,” “proper self-determination,” “refraining from willful resistance,” etc. Nor does Holy Scripture know of an election “by foreseen faith,” “in view of faith,” as though the faith of the elect were to be placed before their election; but according to Scripture the faith which the elect have in time belongs to the spiritual blessings with which God has endowed them by His eternal election. For Scripture teaches Acts 13:48: “And as many as were ordained unto eternal life believed.” Our Lutheran Confession also testifies (Triglot, p. 1065, Paragraph 8; M. p. 705): “The eternal election of God however, not only foresees and foreknows the salvation of the elect, but is also, from the gracious will and pleasure of God in Christ Jesus, a cause which procures, works, helps, and promotes our salvation and what pertains thereto; and upon this our salvation is so founded that the gates of hell cannot prevail against it, Matt. 16:18, as is written John 10:28: ‘Neither shall any man pluck My sheep out of My hand’; and again, Acts 13:48: ‘And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.’ ” (emphasis mine)

This aligns closely with Calvin’s view. However, the following article rejects a core tenant of Calvinism—predestination to damnation:

But as earnestly as we maintain that there is an election of grace, or a predestination to salvation, so decidedly do we teach, on the other hand, that there is no election of wrath, or predestination to damnation. Scripture plainly reveals the truth that the love of God for the world of lost sinners is universal, that is, that it embraces all men without exception, that Christ has fully reconciled all men unto God, and that God earnestly desires to bring all men to faith, to preserve them therein, and thus to save them, as Scripture testifies, 1 Tim. 2:4: “God will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” No man is lost because God has predestined him to eternal damnation. — Eternal election is a cause why the elect are brought to faith in time, Acts 13:48; but election is not a cause why men remain unbelievers when they hear the Word of God. The reason assigned by Scripture for this sad fact is that these men judge themselves unworthy of everlasting life, putting the Word of God from them and obstinately resisting the Holy Ghost, whose earnest will it is to bring also them to repentance and faith by means of the Word, Act 13:46; 7:51; Matt. 23:37. (emphasis mine)

This is a unique synthesis of ideas—an acceptance of unconditional election to salvation followed by a rejection of predamnation. Keep in mind that Luther (1483-1546) preceded Calvin so Lutheran beliefs are not primarily rooted in a Calvinist-Arminian framework. If God does not predestine anyone to damnation, why aren’t all saved? The statement answers candidly:

As to the question why not all men are converted and saved, seeing that God’s grace is universal and all men are equally and utterly corrupt, we confess that we cannot answer it. From Scripture we know only this: A man owes his conversion and salvation, not to any lesser guilt or better conduct on his part, but solely to the grace of God. But any man’s non-conversion is due to himself alone; it is the result of his obstinate resistance against the converting operation of the Holy Ghost. 

Catholic Catechism on Predestination

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) also rejects double predestination:

God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance” [citing II Peter 3:9] (CCC 1037).

And,

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 (CCC 600).

These statements reject predamnation and affirm conditional election.

New Testament on Predestination

As we have seen from previous posts, there are only a few texts in the New Testament that explicitly refer to predestination. The major texts are Romans 8:28-30; Romans 9-11; Ephesians 1. In each case, predestination is referred to in positive terms. In other words, it does not refer to predamnation.

Second, scholars are divided regarding the referent in each NT passage: Is Paul talking about corporate salvation (e.g., Jew and Gentile) or individual salvation? Or, is Paul expressing God’s general arrangement of salvation instead of the salvation of individuals? If the former is correct, Paul is simply saying that God has predestined those who believe in Christ to be called, justified, glorified. He was not thinking about the salvation of specific individuals. 

Third, no text explicitly says that anyone is predestined to eternal conscious torment (ECT). I can say that because I don’t believe ECT is taught in the New Testament as I explain in my book. What about the general idea of election to salvation or judgment? Perhaps the closest we get is Paul’s statement in Romans 9: “Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden” (v. 18). Note, however, that this does not say anything about final destinies and it is only the beginning of Paul’s three-chapter argument regarding the salvation of Jews and Gentiles. If we continue reading we learn that the hardening of the Jews, whom Paul calls “vessels of wrath,” is temporary and purposeful. The argument ends on a note of universal salvation and mercy:

I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, and in this way all Israel will be saved. (11:25-26)

Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. (11:30-32, emphasis mine)

As long as Romans 9-11 is interpreted carefully, preordaining some to eternal damnation cannot be found in Scripture. So where did it come from? Moltmann contends that it stems from a love of aesthetics. We want symmetry in art because it makes art more beautiful. Likewise we want symmetry in theology because it makes for a more beautiful system (Kindle 3562).

Fourth, there are many NT statements that don’t correspond with God pre-selecting some to be damned. Here are five:

• For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (Jn 3:16)
• On the last and greatest day of the festival, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.” (Jn 7:37-38)
• This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people. (1 Tim 2:3-6)
• The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. (2 Pet 3:9)
• God is love. (1 Jn 4:8, 16)

Finally, double predestination doesn’t correspond with Jesus and his mission to save. Predestining people to damnation guarantees their condemnation, but Jesus came into the world to bring salvation: “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him” (Jn 3:17). The God revealed in Christ cannot be the kind of God who makes eternal and unconditional decrees of damnation. He is the God who predestined Christ to be the savior of the world. And Christ went to the cross in order to save us. That is the heart and nature of God. This kind of God would never unconditionally elect people to be damned. 

Conclusion

In recent centuries the doctrine of predestination has been the source of much controversy. There has been very little middle ground. Either you accept double predestination based on unconditional election or you reject it. In my opinion, Calvin’s double predestination is fatally flawed. 

I think Eastern Orthodoxy, the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, the Catholic Church, Arminius, Wesley, and Barth were right to reject predamnation. It simply cannot be found in Scripture. Furthermore, a theological decision must be made. You can have the God who genuinely wants all to be saved (1 Tim 2:4; 2 Pet 3:9) or the God who damns people before they were born, but you cannot have both. That would be a God who is diametrically opposed with himself.

At this point, I must add an important caveat: I am only saying that these churches and theologians were right to reject the doctrine of double predestination, and in particular, predamnation. In light of the overall biblical presentation of God, predamnation cannot be right. I am not saying that any of these others formulations got everything exactly right.

Augustine’s concern with divine predestination based on foreknowledge is valid. How can we be saved by grace if God chose us based on what he saw in us? That formulation ultimately gives us the credit for salvation. So how is salvation planned, accomplished, and applied? No one can claim to fully understand this process because that takes us into the mind of God in eternity past. But I am certain of one thing: we should not think of the God of love preordaining people to eternal damnation.  

Finally, double predestination in reformed theology is especially horrifying because it is linked with the traditional view of hell, which asserts that hell is a place of eternal conscious torment. This results in the most terrifying portrait of God—a God who predestines certain people before they were born, even before he created the world, to suffer in eternal conscious torment for absolutely nothing to do with them, but only because it was his pleasure to do so. It’s bad enough that God could have saved them but was “pleased” to pass them by. Double predestination says that God was pleased to predestine some to eternal torture. It’s unfathomable, but try to let it sink in.

Something has gone terribly wrong in the development of this doctrine. A God who is love, who creates out of love, a God who gave his only Son to die for the world, would never predestine people to eternal suffering. Double predestination be damned.

Les Bridgeman

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. For a deep dive into church history and the character of God, see my book Surprised by Hell.