The Calvinist doctrine of predestination, is the religious doctrine sometimes referred to as "double predestination". The term double predestination is usually used in a disparaging way to refer to the Calvinist belief that God has not only appointed the eternal destiny of some to salvation (Unconditional election), but by necessary inference, also appointed the remainder to eternal damnation (Reprobation). In other words, the doctrine of "double predestination" says that, before the foundation of the world, (1) God appointed his elect to eternal life, and (2) God condemned the rest to everlasting punishment.

Early Expressions of the doctrine

The Waldensian Confession of Faith

That God saves from corruption and damnation those whom he has chosen from the foundations of the world, not for any disposition, faith, or holiness that he foresaw in them, but of his mere mercy in Christ Jesus his Son, passing by all the rest according to the irreprehensible reason of his own free-will and justice. (Spurgeon’s Sermons, Vol. 2, P. 69)

The Waldensian Confessions of Faith 1120

That Christ is our life, and truth, and peace, and righteousness - our shepherd and advocate, our sacrifice and priest, who died for the salvation of all who should believe, and rose again for their justification.

The Waldenses Confession of Faith 1544

We believe that there is one holy church, comprising the whole assembly of the elect and faithful, that have existed from the beginning of the world, or that shall be to the end thereof. Of this church the Lord Jesus Christ is the head - it is governed by His word and guided by the Holy Spirit. In the church it behooves all Christians to have fellowship. For her He prays incessantly, and His prayer for it is most acceptable to God, without which indeed their could be no salvation.

The Belgic Confession of Faith: 1561

We believe that all the posterity of Adam, being thus fallen into perdition and ruin by the sin of our first parents, God then did manifest himself such as he is; that is to say, merciful and just: Merciful, since



he delivers and preserves from this perdition all whom he, in his eternal and unchangeable council, of mere goodness hath elected in Christ Jesus our Lord, without respect to their works: Just, in leaving others in the fall and perdition wherein they have involved themselves. (Art. XVI)

The Westminster Confession of Faith: 1643

As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected . . . are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power. through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His Sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice. (Chap. III — Art. VI and VII)

Reformed theology and double predestination

The following two subsections are excerpts from

Caricature of Reformed view

The use of the qualifying term "double" has been somewhat confusing in discussions concerning predestination. The term apparently means one thing within the circle of Reformed theology, and quite another outside that circle, and at a popular level of theological discourse. It has been used as a synonym for a symmetrical view of predestination, which sees election and reprobation being worked out in a parallel mode of divine operation, which usage involves a serious distortion of the Reformed view of double predestination.

The distortion of double predestination looks like this: There is a symmetry that exists between election and reprobation. God WORKS in the same way and same manner with respect to the elect and to the reprobate. That is to say, from all eternity, God decreed some to election and by divine initiative, works faith in their hearts, and brings them actively to salvation. By the same token, from all eternity, God decrees some to sin and damnation (destinare ad peccatum) and actively intervenes to work sin in their lives, bringing them to damnation by divine initiative. In the case of the elect, regeneration is the monergistic work of God. In the case of the reprobate, sin and degeneration are the monergistic work of God. Stated another way, we can establish a parallelism of foreordination and predestination by means of a positive symmetry. We can call this a positive-positive view of predestination. This is, God positively and actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to bring them to salvation. In the same way God positively and actively intervenes in the life of the reprobate to bring him to sin.

This distortion of positive-positive predestination clearly makes God the author of sin, who punishes

Reformed view

In sharp contrast to the caricature of double predestination seen in the positive-positive schema, is the classic position of Reformed theology on predestination. In this view, predestination is double, in that it involves both election and reprobation but is not symmetrical with respect to the mode of divine activity. A strict parallelism of operation is denied. Rather, we view predestination in terms of a positive-negative relationship.

In the Reformed view, God from all eternity decrees some to election, and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect, God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves. He does not monergistically work sin or unbelief into their lives. Even in the case of the "hardening" of the sinners' already recalcitrant hearts, God, as Luther stated, does not "work evil in us (for hardening is working evil) by creating fresh evil in us." Luther continued:

When men hear us say that God works both good and evil in us, and that we are subject to God's working by mere passive necessity, they seem to imagine a man who is in himself good, and not evil, having an evil work wrought in him by God; for they do not sufficiently bear in mind how incessantly active God is in all His creatures, allowing none of them to keep holiday. He who would understand these matters, however, should think thus: God works evil in us (that is, by means of us) not through God's own fault, but by reason of our own defect. We being evil by nature, and God being good, when He impels us to act by His own acting upon us according to the nature of His omnipotence, good though He is in Himself, He cannot but do evil by our evil instrumentality; although, according to His wisdom, He makes good use of this evil for His own glory and for our salvation. (Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will (Westwood: Fleming H. Revell, 1957), p. 206)

Thus, the mode of operation in the lives of the elect is not parallel with that operation in the lives of the reprobate. God works regeneration monergistically but never sin. Sin falls within the category of providential concurrence.

Criticisms

From a Universalist perspective

Historically, Christian Universalist thinkers and others have criticized Calvinist predestination on the grounds that it reduces the great majesty and sovereignty of God. Such opponents believe that an omniscient, omnipotent, and all-loving Creator would not fail to save all of humanity.

Universalists argue that God would be motivated by His love for His creation to save all souls from eternal damnation. They posit that there is no Hell, Satan, or sin that lies beyond the redeeming power of God's love and the sacrifice of Jesus. Continuing this line of reasoning, Universalists argue that, having purposed to save everyone, God, as the omnipotent Creator, shall certainly succeed. Hosea Ballou wrote that a God who did not want to, or was unable to save everyone, was not a God worth worshipping.

Calvinists agree that God is sovereign, and will save all those whom he has purposed to save. Calvinist theologians however, along with the majority of Christian theologians from other traditions, believe that Scripture clearly indicates that not all will, in fact, be saved.

From a Wesleyan/Arminian perspective

From a Roman Catholic perspective

From a Unitarian/Freethought perspective

The logical critism of predestination is that it denies the individual of their own free will. Free thinkers and Unitarians tend to ask questions such as:If god is choosing our path for us, then what choices do we have? Moreover what do our choices matter? God demands that we worship him of our own free will, but if we're predestined to damnation or salvation then how could we possibly have free will at all?

Another criticism is ethical. The Calvinist view of predestination leads inevitably into moral nihilism. If one's actions, deeds, faith or anything initiated by him are worth of nil in the eyes of God and if the human being cannot influence on his eventual final depository in any manner by himself, then what is the point on repention and living according to the God's will? Wouldn't it be far more plausible to just obey your animalistic instincts, lusts and desires, since the outcome will be the same anyway?. The traditional Calvinist answer is that God's irresistible grace will make his elect to live in a Godly manner and not vice versa. This claim, however, is logically a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Likewise, it cannot be empirically proven that the ethical or moral standars were any higher in those countries where Calvinism is dominant (US, UK, South Africa, Netherlands, Switzerland) than in the Lutheran countries (Scandinavian countries, Baltic countries, Germany), Catholic countries or countries of non-Christian denomination, or that people were more spiritual or religious or godlier in those countries in respect to non-Calvinist countries.

Recent developments

See also

• Determinism
• Predestination
• Reprobation
• Unconditional election

Con

• - Arminian objections to the Calvinist view
• by John Fletcher
• by J. Kenneth Grider
• by John Wesley
• by John Wesley