DID GOD CHOOSE BEFORE CREATION EXACTLY WHO WOULD BE SAVED?
JOHN CALVIN, ELECTION, AND PREDESTINATION
The Reformation was spreading.
Luther challenged Rome.
Zwingli disagreed with Luther.
The Anabaptists challenged both.
Then another Reformer became enormously influential:
JOHN CALVIN.
Calvin emphasized the sovereignty of God.
God is not waiting helplessly for human beings to determine His plan.
God acts.
God calls.
God saves.
God rules.
But Calvin’s teaching raises a difficult question:
BEFORE WE WERE BORN, DID GOD DECIDE WHICH INDIVIDUALS WOULD BE SAVED AND WHICH WOULD NOT?
We cannot answer that question by saying:
“CALVIN SAID…”
Nor by saying:
“MY CHURCH SAYS…”
We have to open the text.
1. WHO WAS JOHN CALVIN?
John Calvin was born in France in 1509.
He was younger than Luther.
He eventually became closely associated with the Reformation in Geneva.
In 1536, he published the first edition of his most famous theological work:
INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.
Calvin continued expanding and revising it throughout his life.
His influence spread far beyond Geneva.
Reformed churches in Switzerland, France, the Netherlands, Scotland, England, and eventually North America were deeply influenced by Calvin and the broader Reformed tradition.
But Calvin did not personally create everything later called:
CALVINISM.
That history continued after him.
2. SO DON’T START WITH “TULIP”
Many people hear Calvinism and immediately think of five teachings:
TOTAL DEPRAVITY.
UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION.
LIMITED ATONEMENT.
IRRESISTIBLE GRACE.
PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS.
These are commonly called the:
FIVE POINTS OF CALVINISM.
But Calvin himself did not write these five points under the acronym TULIP.
The familiar five-point framework is associated with a later controversy, especially the response to the Remonstrants at the Synod of Dort in 1618–1619.
The English acronym TULIP became popular still later.
So if we want to understand Calvin fairly:
START WITH CALVIN.
Then examine what later Calvinism became.
And throughout the study, keep asking:
WHAT DOES THE TEXT SAY?
3. CALVIN BEGAN WITH GOD
Calvin’s theology strongly emphasized:
GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY.
God is Creator.
God rules history.
God’s purposes cannot finally be defeated.
Salvation begins with God, not man.
Paul wrote:
“For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.”
— Romans 11:36, KJV
Jesus said:
“No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him.”
— John 6:44, KJV
Paul wrote that God:
“worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.”
— Ephesians 1:11, KJV
The question is not whether God is sovereign.
HE IS.
The question is what Scripture says God’s sovereignty means for human salvation.
Does God’s sovereignty require Him to determine beforehand which particular individuals will believe?
Does His sovereignty allow Him to establish the means of salvation and call people to respond?
We must not decide what sovereignty requires before examining the passages.
4. THEN WE COME TO THE WORD “PREDESTINED”
Paul actually uses the word.
This is not something Calvin invented.
Ephesians says:
“According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.”
— Ephesians 1:4, KJV
Then:
“Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.”
— Ephesians 1:5, KJV
And again:
“Being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.”
— Ephesians 1:11, KJV
We cannot avoid the word:
PREDESTINATED.
It is in the text.
So the question is not whether we should believe in predestination.
If Scripture teaches it, we must take it seriously.
The question is:
WHAT DID PAUL MEAN BY IT?
5. START WITH THE WORDS PAUL ACTUALLY USED
Look carefully at Ephesians 1.
Paul says:
“he hath chosen us in him”
— Ephesians 1:4, KJV
Notice those last two words:
IN HIM.
Throughout the chapter, Paul repeatedly speaks of blessings received in Christ, through Christ, and in the beloved Son.
Christ is at the center of the passage.
So before building a complete system of individual election, we should ask:
WHAT EXACTLY DID GOD CHOOSE BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD?
Did God choose particular individuals unconditionally to become believers?
Or did God determine beforehand what would be true of those who are:
IN CHRIST?
Reformed interpreters generally understand the passage as describing God’s gracious choice of particular people in Christ.
Other interpreters emphasize the corporate identity and predetermined destiny of God’s people in Christ.
But notice something important.
The words us and in him do not automatically settle the disagreement.
We must examine the whole argument.
Who are the people Paul calls us?
How do they come to be in Christ?
What blessings has God determined for them?
And what does Paul say about their response to the gospel?
6. WHAT WAS PREDESTINED?
Paul says believers were predestined:
“unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself”
— Ephesians 1:5, KJV
Romans uses similar language:
“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son.”
— Romans 8:29, KJV
Notice what is explicitly stated.
God predestined those He foreknew:
TO BE CONFORMED TO THE IMAGE OF HIS SON.
That describes God’s predetermined purpose for His people.
But does the verse itself explain how individuals come to be among those people?
The Reformed interpretation understands the people foreknown and predestined as particular individuals whom God chose for salvation.
Other interpretations understand the passage in relation to God’s prior knowledge of believers or His predetermined purpose for those who belong to Christ.
We must examine those explanations rather than assume the word predestined automatically proves one of them.
DON’T MAKE THE VERSE ANSWER MORE THAN IT ACTUALLY ANSWERS.
7. THEN COMES ROMANS 9
This is one of the major passages in the entire debate.
Paul writes:
“For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth.”
— Romans 9:11, KJV
Then:
“As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”
— Romans 9:13, KJV
And:
“I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.”
— Romans 9:15, KJV
Then Paul asks:
“Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?”
— Romans 9:19, KJV
Those are powerful words.
It is easy to see why this chapter became central to Reformed theology.
But before building a doctrine from Romans 9:
WHAT IS PAUL TALKING ABOUT?
8. ROMANS 9 DID NOT BEGIN AT VERSE 11
Paul begins the chapter grieving over:
ISRAEL.
His fellow Israelites possessed the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, the promises, and the patriarchs.
Read Romans 9:1–5.
Yet many Israelites had rejected Christ.
That created a serious problem.
Had God’s promise to Israel failed?
Paul answers:
“Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.”
— Romans 9:6, KJV
So the chapter begins with a question about:
GOD’S FAITHFULNESS TO HIS PROMISES.
That context matters.
Paul is explaining why the unbelief of many Israelites does not mean God has failed to keep His word.
We must understand that question before deciding how every statement in the chapter relates to individual salvation.
9. “THEY ARE NOT ALL ISRAEL, WHICH ARE OF ISRAEL”
Physical descent did not automatically make every descendant an heir of the promise in the same way.
God chose Isaac rather than Ishmael for the promised line.
Then Jacob rather than Esau.
God had the sovereign right to determine:
HOW HIS PROMISE WOULD MOVE FORWARD.
That much is plainly in the passage.
But we must ask:
Is Paul describing God’s selection of particular individuals for eternal salvation and condemnation?
Is he discussing God’s sovereign choice of people and nations for roles in carrying forward His redemptive purpose?
Does his argument involve both the historical fulfillment of God’s promise and the salvation of individuals?
We should not assume that the answer must be only one of those possibilities.
FOLLOW PAUL’S ARGUMENT.
10. “JACOB HAVE I LOVED, BUT ESAU HAVE I HATED”
Those words come from:
MALACHI 1.
And that matters.
Malachi was written centuries after Jacob and Esau died.
In Malachi 1:2–5, the names refer not merely to two brothers but also to the peoples descended from them:
ISRAEL AND EDOM.
That does not make Romans 9 irrelevant to individual salvation.
But it warns us not to assume that Paul’s Old Testament quotation originally described two unborn individuals being assigned their eternal destinies.
At the same time, Paul deliberately places the quotation alongside the account of God’s choice before the twins were born.
We must account for both the original setting in Malachi and Paul’s use of it in Romans.
WHAT POINT IS PAUL MAKING BY BRINGING THESE PASSAGES TOGETHER?
That is the exegetical question.
11. PAUL ALSO USES PHARAOH
Paul writes:
“Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.”
— Romans 9:17, KJV
Then:
“Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.”
— Romans 9:18, KJV
Again:
STRONG LANGUAGE.
But go back to Exodus.
God announced beforehand that He would harden Pharaoh’s heart.
Read Exodus 4:21 and 7:3.
The narrative also describes Pharaoh hardening his own heart, Pharaoh’s heart becoming hardened, and God hardening Pharaoh’s heart.
Read Exodus 8:15, 9:12, and 9:34.
So the story is more detailed than one isolated sentence.
God’s sovereignty is real.
Pharaoh’s resistance is also real.
We should preserve both.
And we must ask what Paul’s use of Pharaoh establishes about God’s purpose in salvation.
12. THEN PAUL USES THE POTTER AND THE CLAY
Romans 9 says:
“Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?”
— Romans 9:21, KJV
That image did not originate with Calvin.
And it did not originate with Paul.
The Old Testament uses it.
One especially important example is:
JEREMIAH 18.
Jeremiah watched a potter working clay.
God then applied the picture to:
NATIONS AND KINGDOMS.
But notice what God said.
If He announced judgment against a nation and that nation turned from its evil, He could withhold the announced judgment.
If He announced good for a nation and it turned to evil, He could withhold the announced blessing.
Read Jeremiah 18:7–10.
So the potter has sovereign authority.
But in Jeremiah’s use of the image, human response still matters.
That background deserves attention when reading Romans 9.
We must also recognize that Paul develops the image for his own argument.
Jeremiah 18 is relevant background, but we still have to establish how Paul uses the picture in Romans.
13. AND ROMANS DOES NOT END AT CHAPTER 9
This is extremely important.
Romans 9 flows into:
ROMANS 10.
Paul writes concerning Israel:
“Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.”
— Romans 10:1, KJV
Then:
“For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
— Romans 10:13, KJV
And:
“So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
— Romans 10:17, KJV
Then comes:
ROMANS 11.
Paul warns Gentile believers:
“Be not highminded, but fear.”
— Romans 11:20, KJV
Why?
Because branches were broken off through unbelief.
And Gentile believers stand:
“by faith.”
— Romans 11:20, KJV
Then Paul warns:
“For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.”
— Romans 11:21, KJV
That warning must also fit our doctrine of election.
14. PAUL EVEN SAYS THEY CAN BE CUT OFF
Paul continues:
“Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.”
— Romans 11:22, KJV
Those words are also Scripture.
So whatever we conclude about Romans 9 must fit:
ROMANS 10 AND ROMANS 11.
We should not build a doctrine from Romans 9 that makes Paul’s warnings in Romans 11 meaningless.
Reformed interpreters generally understand these warnings as genuine means God uses to preserve His people, while distinguishing true saving faith from merely outward membership among God’s people.
Other interpreters understand the warnings as describing the real possibility that believers can abandon faith and be cut off.
The disagreement cannot be settled merely by repeating Romans 11:22.
We must ask whom Paul is addressing, what it means to stand by faith, and what being cut off means in the olive-tree illustration.
PAUL WROTE ALL THREE CHAPTERS.
15. WHAT ABOUT GOD’S FOREKNOWLEDGE?
Romans 8:29 says:
“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son.”
— Romans 8:29, KJV
What does:
FOREKNEW
mean?
Does it mean God knew beforehand who would believe?
Does it mean God chose beforehand to enter into a loving relationship with particular people?
Does it describe God’s prior recognition of His covenant people?
Different traditions answer differently.
And simply finding the word does not settle its meaning.
We have to examine how Scripture uses it.
We should also examine the rest of Romans 8:29–30.
Paul speaks of those whom God foreknew, predestined, called, justified, and glorified.
HOW DOES THAT ENTIRE STATEMENT FIT PAUL’S ARGUMENT ABOUT GOD’S PURPOSE FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM?
Read Romans 8:28–30 together.
16. DOES GOD WANT EVERYONE TO BE SAVED?
Now other passages enter the discussion.
Paul writes that God:
“will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.”
— 1 Timothy 2:4, KJV
Peter writes that the Lord is:
“not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”
— 2 Peter 3:9, KJV
Jesus said:
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
— John 3:16, KJV
Those passages must not be placed in one pile while Romans 9 and Ephesians 1 are placed in another.
THEY ALL BELONG TO THE SAME BIBLE.
But context matters here too.
In 1 Timothy 2, Paul is discussing prayer for all people, including rulers.
In 2 Peter 3, Peter is explaining the Lord’s patience in the face of the apparent delay of His coming.
In John 3, Jesus speaks of God’s love for the world and the necessity of believing in His Son.
Different traditions offer different explanations of how these passages relate to election.
We should examine those explanations rather than assume that quoting one verse automatically settles the meaning of the others.
17. JESUS ALSO INVITES PEOPLE TO COME
Jesus said:
“Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.”
— Matthew 11:28, KJV
Near the end of Revelation, we read:
“And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.”
— Revelation 22:17, KJV
The gospel invitation is real.
So any doctrine of election must explain why Scripture repeatedly calls people to hear, believe, repent, come, obey, and remain faithful.
Reformed theology understands God’s gracious calling as the reason sinners are enabled and brought to respond.
Other traditions understand grace as enabling a response that can still be resisted.
Both are attempting to explain how God’s initiative and the gospel invitation fit together.
WE SHOULD NOT EXPLAIN AWAY EITHER SIDE OF THE EVIDENCE.
18. BUT HUMAN RESPONSE DOES NOT MEAN HUMAN BEINGS SAVE THEMSELVES
This is another place where discussions go wrong.
Suppose a person believes.
Did he therefore earn salvation?
No.
Suppose a person repents.
Did repentance purchase the blood of Christ?
No.
Suppose a person is baptized.
Did getting wet force God to save him?
No.
Salvation remains:
BY GRACE.
Paul says:
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”
— Ephesians 2:8–9, KJV
But Paul continues:
“For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”
— Ephesians 2:10, KJV
Grace and obedient response do not have to be treated as enemies.
But the relationship between grace, faith, and human response must be established from Scripture.
We should not assume that every theological tradition defines those terms in exactly the same way.
19. A GIFT CAN REQUIRE A RESPONSE WITHOUT BECOMING WAGES
Suppose someone offers you a gift and says:
“COME AND RECEIVE IT.”
Your walking across the room does not mean you earned the gift.
Receiving is not purchasing.
Likewise, Scripture can speak of God’s grace while also calling people to believe, repent, confess, be baptized, and remain faithful.
The existence of a response does not automatically turn grace into wages.
But the illustration has limits.
It does not, by itself, settle whether fallen human beings can respond to the gospel apart from a particular work of divine grace.
That is one of the very questions under discussion.
Paul’s contrast between grace and works deserves careful study.
Read Romans 4:1–8 and Ephesians 2:8–10.
WHAT DOES PAUL MEAN BY WORKS?
WHAT DOES HE MEAN BY FAITH?
AND WHAT DOES HE SAY GOD DOES?
Let Paul define the terms.
20. WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE WHO FALL AWAY?
This becomes especially important.
The New Testament contains serious warnings to believers.
Hebrews says:
“Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.”
— Hebrews 3:12, KJV
Jesus warned the church at Smyrna:
“be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.”
— Revelation 2:10, KJV
Paul said:
“If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us.”
— 2 Timothy 2:12, KJV
Whatever doctrine of election we construct must allow these warnings to mean what the writers intended them to mean.
The question is not whether the warnings are serious.
They are.
The disagreement concerns what they establish about the possibility of a person who truly belongs to Christ finally falling away.
That requires us to examine the people being addressed, the nature of the warnings, and the promises that accompany them.
21. DOES THAT MEAN CHRISTIANS SHOULD LIVE IN CONSTANT FEAR?
The New Testament also contains magnificent promises of God’s faithfulness.
Jesus said of His sheep:
“And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.”
— John 10:28, KJV
Paul wrote:
“Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
— Romans 8:39, KJV
Peter says believers:
“are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.”
— 1 Peter 1:5, KJV
God is faithful.
God preserves His people.
But notice Peter’s words:
“THROUGH FAITH.”
The promises and the warnings belong together.
We must examine how the biblical writers intended them to work together rather than allowing one set of passages to cancel the other.
22. PERHAPS WE KEEP TRYING TO ANSWER THE QUESTION THE WRONG WAY
People sometimes frame the issue as:
DOES GOD CHOOSE US?
Or:
DO WE CHOOSE GOD?
The New Testament clearly contains language about:
GOD CHOOSING.
It also contains repeated commands for:
HUMAN RESPONSE.
Our first responsibility is not to force one set of texts to swallow the other.
God acts first.
God provides Christ.
God calls through the gospel.
God offers grace.
God saves.
Human beings are called to hear, believe, repent, obey, and continue in faith.
But the relationship between God’s gracious action and human response is precisely what the different theological systems attempt to explain.
We should not pretend that simply affirming both resolves every question.
Instead, we must ask:
WHAT DOES EACH PASSAGE ACTUALLY ESTABLISH ABOUT THAT RELATIONSHIP?
23. THIS IS WHERE THEOLOGICAL SYSTEMS CAN BECOME DANGEROUS
A system can be very logical.
Start with one proposition.
Follow it to another.
Then another.
Eventually, every passage is interpreted so that it fits the system.
When a passage seems to disagree, we explain why it cannot mean what it appears to say.
That can happen to:
CALVINISTS.
It can happen to:
ARMINIANS.
It can happen to:
CATHOLICS.
It can happen to:
CHURCHES OF CHRIST.
It can happen to:
ANY OF US.
But theological systems are not necessarily wrong merely because they organize biblical teaching.
We all make connections between passages.
The danger comes when we stop allowing those passages to correct our conclusions.
A beautifully consistent system can still be wrong if its starting assumptions are wrong.
THE SYSTEM MUST ANSWER TO THE TEXT.
Not the other way around.
24. SO WHAT CAN WE SAY WITH CONFIDENCE?
God chose His people in Christ before the foundation of the world.
Read Ephesians 1:4–5.
Salvation is centered:
IN CHRIST.
God’s purpose depends upon His grace, not human boasting.
Read Ephesians 2:8–9.
God sovereignly carried His saving purpose through history.
Read Romans 9.
Paul proclaims:
“For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
— Romans 10:13, KJV
People are called to believe.
Read Romans 10:9–17.
Those who stand by faith are warned to continue in God’s goodness.
Read Romans 11:20–22.
And Paul describes God’s purpose:
“That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him.”
— Ephesians 1:10, KJV
Those statements are in the text.
But the precise relationship between God’s eternal choice, the identity of the elect, the calling of individuals, and their continuing faith remains the subject of our examination.
OUR THEOLOGICAL SYSTEM MUST FIT THE TEXT.
Not the other way around.
25. BUT CALVINISM DID NOT STOP WITH CALVIN
After Calvin died in 1564, arguments about grace, election, human freedom, and perseverance continued.
Then another theologian entered the story:
JACOB ARMINIUS.
Arminius was born in 1560.
He worked within the Reformed tradition but questioned important parts of its developing teaching about election and grace.
After his death in 1609, his followers presented their objections in a document called the:
REMONSTRANCE.
Reformed leaders responded at the:
SYNOD OF DORT.
The controversy involved five disputed areas of teaching about salvation.
The Synod of Dort, meeting in 1618–1619, produced doctrinal statements responding to those objections.
Those statements later became commonly summarized in English as the:
FIVE POINTS OF CALVINISM.
So before we say:
“CALVINISM TEACHES…”
we need to distinguish:
CALVIN’S OWN TEACHING
from:
THE LATER REFORMED RESPONSE TO THE REMONSTRANTS.
And we need to understand what Arminius and his followers actually argued.
That brings us to our next study.
Not simply:
CALVIN OR ARMINIUS?
But:
WHAT WAS THE ARGUMENT REALLY ABOUT?
We will examine the five disputed areas, listen to the arguments, and put the relevant passages beside one another.
Because our purpose is not to defend a man’s theological system merely because it bears his name.
Our purpose is to learn how to examine every claim.
TEXT B4 TRADITION.
TEXT B4 TRADITION
Read First. Conclude Later.
RETURN TO MAIN SERIES: ONE CHURCH, SO MANY DIVISIONS—WHAT HAPPENED?
NEXT STUDY: CALVIN OR ARMINIUS — WHAT WAS THE ARGUMENT REALLY ABOUT?