Does God predestine some people to go to Heaven and others to go to Hell?

Through the annals of church history there has been much debate as to the meaning of predestination. The underlying question is whether or not those of us who are saved were predestined to be saved before we were even born. The gist of the argument surrounds the debate over whether or not the gift of salvation has already been promised to some even before they’ve confessed a belief in Christ or whether or not salvation is a gift that is not given until one expresses a heart-filled belief in the Lordship and deity of Jesus Christ. It is my contention that the latter train of thought, between the two, is the only one that is doctrinally reasonable. The doctrinal teaching of predestination stems from the following verses of scripture that are cited below:
“And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he called he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.” (Romans 8:28-30 NIV) Then Ephesians 1:5-11 (NIV) reads, “Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ in accordance with his pleasure and will—to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.”
Because of the interpretation given to these scriptures, many theologians believe that God made certain people for salvation and certain people for damnation and that those made for damnation never had a chance for salvation because they were predestined to be damned the day they were born. They go on to say that there are those who, on the other hand, were predestined for salvation before they were even born again, before their faith in Jesus Christ became manifest. This is what is referred to as the Calvinist view of predestination.
Then there is the Arminian view of predestination. The Arminian view says that faith comes before regeneration (before one is born again in Christ) and although God predestined those who were called, they were predestined because God is all-knowing so he knew (foreknew) that they would, at some time, confess a belief in Christ and therefore they were predestined to be saved. Those who support the Arminian view use the following verses of scripture, among others, to support their arguments:
“But what does it say? ‘The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, that is the word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, ‘Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame. For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Romans 10:8-13 NIV). Then John 3:16 quotes Jesus as saying, “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. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” (John 3:16-18 NIV).
It appears that Calvinism first developed from the teachings of John Calvin who was born in Noyon Picardy France in 1509. Jacob Arminian boldly opposed the views of Calvinism at a time when it was not popular to do so. He was born in Oudewater Holland in 1560, four years before Calvin’s death.
The debate surrounding Calvinism and Arminianism is found in many theological texts, particularly those writings that focus upon Christian apologetics (studies that defend the faith). In their book, The Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli have this to say about the Calvinist views of predestination: “Perhaps the worse exaggeration of hell is the Calvinistic doctrine (not even held by all Calvinists) of a double predestination. According to this doctrine, God decrees and designs some souls for hell before they are born; God wills their damnation. This is contradicted both by Scripture (Mt 18:14) and by moral sanity—how could one love such a monster God?” 1
The basic disagreement between Calvanism and Arminiamism has to do with whether or not human beings have free will to express and confess a belief in Jesus or whether or not a confessed belief in Jesus is totally due to God’s will. In order to obtain even a clearer understanding of the two differing positions it is important to briefly present further comparisons.
There are five subcomponents to the two opposing views. The first has to do with free will. Calvinism teaches that there is nothing that human beings can do to save themselves. Human beings have no free will. And therefore, if a person has faith in God, that faith did not derive from the person’s own heart but was instead planted in the person’s heart by God. Arminianism teaches that all sinners do indeed have free will to believe and confess the Lord Jesus as Savior. He or she has the option whether to accept Christ (exercise faith) thus reaping the gift of salvation. Arminianism teaches that this decision rests on the sinner. The sinner is faced with cooperating with the Holy Spirit (because as Paul has told us, one cannot be saved without having the Holy Spirit) to experience the regeneration of being born again or rejecting the unction of the Holy Spirit altogether and continuing to live a sinful life without God.
The second subcomponent has to do with the argument of whether or not election is conditional or unconditional. Calvinism subscribes to what is referred to as unconditional election. Unconditional election supposes that a person’s receiving of the gift of salvation is an unconditional occurrence on the part of that person. In other words, that person did not have to do anything to receive salvation because God’s will was for that person to have the gift of salvation before he or she was even born. On the other hand, Arminianism says that salvation is conditional upon the confession and belief of the one who is seeking it. The gift of salvation is available for everyone. But having a gift available and receiving that gift and making use of it are two different things. While Arminiansim says that the gift is available to everyone but in order to be useful must be received, Calvinism says the gift is not really available to everyone but only to those who are assigned to have it and that it is therefore hoisted upon the receiver with an assurance of a guaranteed acceptance.
The third subcomponent focuses on atonement. Calvinism says that Christ only came to save and atone only for those who were already elected to be saved. No one else has a chance, only those who were previously elected by God. Arminianism says that Christ died for the salvation of everyone and that his atonement on the cross (the ultimate living sacrifice to redeem the world of sin) is available to all who will embrace him.
The fourth subcomponent has to do with the argument of whether or not the Holy Spirit can be rejected or resisted. Calvinism says that the Holy Spirit calls sinners to salvation, but only those sinners whom God has called to be saved. The call is irresistible and once the sinner is called, he or she cannot resist the call. Arminiansim says that because of the free will that God has given man, all sinners have equal opportunity whether or not to accept the Holy Spirit’s invitation to embrace the gift of salvation.
The fifth and final subcomponent has to do with the argument of whether or not salvation can be lost, once obtained. The Calvinist view says that once someone is saved, he or she is always saved, especially since they were predestined to be saved and really didn’t have anything to do with the gift of salvation that they have obtained. The Arminian view is split on this point. There are some who support the doctrine of “once saved, always saved” as do I. Then there are others who believe that the saved can fall from grace and lose their salvation.
In his book, The Mystery of the Holy Spirit, the renowned Christian apologist R.C. Sproul argues on behalf of the Calvinist viewpoint by stating the following: “A monergistic work is a work produced singly, by one person. The prefix mono—means one. The word erg refers to a unit of work. Words like energy are built upon this root. A synergistic work is one that involves cooperation between two or more persons or things. The prefix syn—means ‘together with.’ I labor this distinction for a reason. It is fair to say that the whole debate between Rome and Martin Luther hung on this single point. At issue was this: Is regeneration a monergistic work of God, or is it a synergistic work that requires cooperation between man and God? When my professor wrote ‘Regeneration precedes faith’ on the blackboard, he was clearly siding with the monergistic answer. To be sure, after a person is regenerated, that person cooperates by exercising faith and trust. But the first step, the step of regeneration by which a person is quickened to spiritual life, is the work of God and of God alone. The initiative is with God, not with us. The reason we do not cooperate with regenerating grace before it acts upon us and in us is because we cannot. We cannot because we are spiritually dead. We can no more assist the Holy Spirit in the quickening of our souls to spiritual life than Lazarus could help Jesus raise him from the dead. It is probably true that the majority of professing Christians in the world today believe that the order of our salvation is this: Faith precedes regeneration. We are exhorted to choose to be born again. But telling a man to choose rebirth is like exhorting a corpse to choose resurrection. The exhortation falls upon deaf ears.” 2
In the preceding quote Sproul concludes that the relationship between regeneration and faith can only be one of monergism (produced singularly by one person without the cooperation of another party). He concludes that regeneration is a monergistic occurrence since, in his view, being born again happens without human influence and only by the will of God. This thinking gives justification to his Calvinist views. He, and other prominent theologians, reject the possibility that regeneration is a synergistic occurrence, involving cooperation between God and man. Sproul concludes that regeneration cannot be synergistic because, as he puts it, those who are spiritually dead cannot make themselves become spiritually alive. But Sproul, (as well as other theologians) totally neglects a third possibility: that regeneration and faith are simultaneous monergistic occurrences. In other words, when one confesses a belief in the Lordship of Jesus Christ, regeneration happens instantly, not afterwards…but during. The Holy Spirit is at work instantly.
When looking at it this way, we can counter Sproul’s dead man argument by pointing out that a man who is dead in the Spirit can indeed experience a rebirth as a result of his faith if we conclude that upon his confession and belief, rebirth takes place at the exact same moment that faith is made manifest. Therefore, faith doesn’t have to occur before regeneration for regeneration to occur. This view upholds the monergistic view of regeneration while at the same time supporting the Arminian view of predestination. When taking into account the possibility of simultaneous occurrence between the regeneration and faith, one does not cancel out the other.
A particularly daunting question comes to mind when entertaining the doctrinal teachings of Calvinism, and that is this: If God made certain people specifically to be doomed to hell then wouldn’t we consider the conditions upon which every sin they commit as spiritual entrapment? Entrapment is when governing authorities purposely lure someone to do wrong (an illegal practice). Then, once the person succumbs to the temptation, they are arrested and thrown in jail. By the same token, hell is an eternal jail for those who have practiced sin and have never accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior. God is our ultimate spiritual governing authority. But If a person, therefore, is created to be damned then it would seem that God would not punish him or her for acting in ways that are familiar to the nature of one who is already condemned, because to do so would be spiritual entrapment. Hell is a punishment made for those who are spiritually dead and are spiritual lawbreakers by their own choice, just as jail is a punishment made for those who are societal lawbreakers by their own choice. Immorality is a choice not a calling. And therefore to go to hell is not a calling, but a choice.
The debate regarding predestination will continue to persist until the Lord raptures the church. Only then will we all know for sure. But it is my estimation that there is a simultaneous cause and effect relationship between expressing one’s faith and being reborn. There is indeed something we must do in order to be saved. We must confess and believe that Jesus is Lord. The Calvinist view is a particularly dangerous one. For those who uphold it, it can lead to feelings of superiority, racism, and arrogance. In closing we must keep in mind the declaration Paul made in Romans 10:13 which reads, “For anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” Anyone means everyone. And everyone excludes nobody.

1.Kreeft, Peter, and Tacelli Ronald, Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, 1994
2.Sproul, RC., The Mystery of the Holy Spirit, Tyndale House Publishers, Inc Wheaton Illinois, 1990, p. 103-104