The term 'double predestination' is used by many Reformed writers to refer to a doctrine that God has predestinated some to justification, and others to condemnation. The problem with this phrase (as I see it) is that the way God uses the word predestination, and the way some theologians use it, is in conflict. For contrary to popular opinion, God does not use the words predestination and preordained synonymously. And thus, I do not believe that we should either.

While the phrase may be unbiblical, often the doctrine held by those theologians using it is quite sound Biblically. Yet with others it goes well beyond the boundaries of scripture. While I certainly understand what I believe 'most' reformed theologians intend in using this term, and completely agree with the view of God's complete Sovereignty, I do have a major problem both with the phrase 'double predestination' itself, and the definition it implies. Some have said that this is simply semantics and thus not really important, and in some cases I think this probably is true. However, I do think that proper scriptural linguistics is important, especially in such a potentially confusing issue as this one is. While many think that they are protecting God's Sovereignty by using such language, I believe it's use actually distorts the undergirding of truth.

It is self evident that the term 'double predestination' does not sufficiently delineate the biblical position that God from eternity decided 'not to choose' unto Salvation a host of people who were desperately wicked on their own, and this alone should give us reason to pause. For this is the Biblical doctrine of preordination, not of double predestination. The subtle difference is that predestination is always an 'action' by God which moves to assure that something will happen. e.g., God had to take action to move us in His before determination (predestining) that we would seek after Christ and conform to His image. In other words, it wouldn't have happened except God took some action to force it to happen. By contrast, God never took action to predetermine that anyone would 'not' seek after Christ and continue in sin, thus being condemned. He merely (albeit consciously) allowed our own sinful actions to go unrestrained. And therein is the Biblical difference between what is predestination and what is preordination. God predestinating men to condemnation would put the causative action directly upon God and not upon man. We cannot in any fashion exclude responsibility of unbelievers in their own condemnation. It wasn't predetermined by God's action that men would go to Hell, it was preordained or pre-appointed God's inaction in allowing them to continue in their sins. God didn't 'actively' predetermine it, it was by His inaction that He ordained it. The problem is that some people taking intellectualism to the extreme seem to wish to make God's inaction, an action in itself. The way the scripture uses the term predestination is in the sense of God determining to 'impose' a direct course of action beforehand either upon or for believers. It is never used in any other sense. Indeed there are many different reasons for conscientious Christians NOT to use the term double predestination, and only recent 'tradition' in favor of using it.

  1. It implies that God has actively 'elected or chosen' the wicked to Condemnation.
  2. God's Word does not use this confusing phrase, thus it is unnecessary for us to use it.
  3. Inevitably it breeds a misunderstanding of the intended doctrine.
  4. Predestinated to condemnation implies God before causes men to sin that they'd be condemned.

It implies that God has 'elected or chosen' the wicked to Condemnation

Unfortunately, this phrase 'double predestination' is often used by many theologians in a very misleading and ambiguous fashion, as to imply that God has created the wicked to suffer in Hell and be condemned. Not only implied, often this is flat out declared by those using both this term, and it's near cousin 'double election.' However, these are the phrases from the minds of men, and not from the pages of the Bible. It's obvious implication is to deny that the message of salvation we take to the world includes any sincere proposal of mercy to sinners. This is not the case. God foreknows that the wicked will not come to Christ, thus it is foreordained, but it is not a predestinating that they won't. When God uses the term predestination in scripture, the context is always clear precisely who God is referring to. It is always Christ, or those redeemed from the earth by His work.

Ephesians 1:11

• "In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:"

By contrast, this same word [pro'orizo] is never used in scripture in relationship to the condemned. Though proponents of it's improper use (to include the condemned) would like you to 'ignore' that fact, it is something which is very pertinent and not to be deemed insignificant. For if God differentiates between the wicked and the just by saying they were vessels 'before ordained' to condemnation (jude 1:4), why would we go to great lengths to un-differentiate this? This word translated preordained in Jude [prographo] means [pro] before, and [grapho] scribed, or by implication, described before. It illustrates that the condemnation of the wicked being before known unto God, was before written. Obviously, by God not predestinating these to be (an action) conformed (Romans 8:29) to the image of Christ, He has passively preordained or pre-appointed them to condemnation. In other words, that God has not chosen them to Salvation automatically means that they will be condemned. And this was already immutably foreknown and thus appointed of God by His not CHOOSING to change it.

A practical analogy would be if I have a plant and I don't water it. By that non-action I have 'passively' preordained it's death. I didn't actively kill it, but by not Saving it I have pre-appointed it to death. Likewise, by God not Saving the wicked He has appointed them to be condemned for their sins. But in the way the term Predestination is used in scripture, in the analogy of the plant I would have 'actively' intervened to water the plant and ASSURE it's growth. The key here being, preordination is often an inaction by God, not an active predetermination. Mankind is condemned for their own disobedience, and for their own sins which they have committed. God didn't will them to sin, they sinned by their own will which was in bondage to that sin. God in no way predestinated these or preset their boundaries that they would be condemned. He prescribed it or wrote it, having foreseen it.

1st Peter 2:8-9

• "And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
• But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:"

So while some may call this a matter of semantics, I see it as more of an important distinction. For God is Omniscient and He knows the end from the beginning. Thus He was before aware that by Choosing (electing) some to Salvation, He is passively ordaining or immutably allowing all others to be condemned. Yet He chose never to inspire those who wrote the scriptures to use this word 'predestination' in reference to the wicked. So our using the term 'double predestination' when God has not, is a misnomer and warps these divine differentiations. Because Christians confuse God allowing the wicked to be condemned with God actively setting boundaries that they will be condemned, or with His giving them the determination to condemnation before.

Predestination implies a positive action in God's setting those chosen, thus God only inspired the use of this Greek term for those He elected. What does God mean when He says that He predestined 'some' to be like Christ? It obviously means that some were predestinated, and likewise, some were not predestinated. It does not mean some were predestinated to condemnation, for we were 'all' under condemnation to begin with. But God predestinated some 'out of this whole' to be conformed to Christ that there is now (Romans 8:1) no condemnation.

Romans 8:29

• "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren."

Romans 8:30

• "Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

Ephesians 1:4-5

• "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:
• Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,"

Again, I want to reiterate that I have no argument with the truth that by God not appointing the rest of mankind unto Salvation, He has thus ordained them to condemnation, but this is a non-action in the divine Sovereignty of God. The action of condemnation was in our sin against God, not in His (alleged) predestinating us to it. There was no 'action' by God, it was His Sovereign right to non-action in ordaining or appointing the rest of mankind to condemnation when He chose whom He loved. i.e., God was obligated to Save no one, thus without His active predestination of some, we all would be appointed or ordained unto condemnation. God's choice was of an election, and the group of humanity that were not part of this selection process are not then called elected to damnation, rather, they are those not rescued from the damnation they bring upon themselves because of their sin. The term 'double predestination,' as well as 'double election,' puts the onus on God for damnation. It rightfully belongs upon man himself.

God's Word does not use this confusing phrase, thus it is unnecessary

Even if this were in some way intellectually accurate (which I don't believe that it is), why would a Christian concerned for the Church insist on using a term which #1) wasn't used in scripture, #2) is a misnomer and confusing, and #3)and is more often than not, misapplied and misunderstood? The only logical answers I can come up with is, our own ego, our pride or our recent tradition. The truth is, this term is unnecessary, mostly counterproductive, and inordinately divisive for no good reason. So much so that many theologians who might 'intellectually' believe in what they think some theologians mean when using the term 'double predestination,' will rarely call it that. And in my view, rightly so. For there is only one predestination mentioned in the Bible, and that is of Christ and His own. To label God's Sovereign right to choose some and not choose others, 'double predestination,' is I believe to take undue liberties with the Word of God.

God could have very easily inspired His prophets to write that the wicked were [proorizo] or 'predestinated' to be condemned, but He didn't. Was that an oversight, or did God purposely inspire the word used for the ordaining of the wicked to condemnation as a different word? Again, the answer 'should be' obvious. Is it different by coincidence, accident, or is God making a distinction? God knows what He is doing, even when we do not. God says the Elect are predestinated, [proorizo], and those condemned are preordained [prographo], and why cannot theologians just leave it at that. Why must we invent phrases and adjectives to conjure up new ways to confuse people? Is it a misguided elitist intellectualism, or is it inspired by a sincere desire for most Christians to come to clarity in truth? Is it to the Glory of God to confuse the many in order to receive praise of a few? Are we as Christians, in attempting to make a point, missing the real point of the gospel?

The Reformers and the Puritans simply called it, 'the doctrine of predestination' because there is one predestination. There was not this attempt to make election of the Saints and the ordaining of the wicked by their non-election to condemnation, one and the same predestination. God ordained both, He did not predestinate both. To which we whole heartily agree. Yes, we confess God chose to save some and not others before the foundation of the world, and this has never been in debate. But He did not predestinate anyone to be condemned, this is never declared in scripture, and we should not declare it 'as' scripture. Unfortunately, many people use the word predestination as if it simply means God simply decided. As in, God decided to save some, and decided not to save others. But God didn't use the word decided, or ordained, or appointed, because the word predestination delineates more than that, as illustrated in it's use for only the elect.

So often when we read what many of these theologians who speak of 'double predestination' write, it is more times than not a Biblical doctrine. But it's truth is hidden in unadvisedly unbiblical clothing. The value of these writings are often overshadowed and obscured by these valueless terms like 'double predestination' and 'double election.' We who believe in Predestination most certainly believe in the destiny of the non-elect being ordained by God from before, because God is sovereign and knows all, but He did not predestinate them unto condemnation. More than semantics, it is a mindset of what is right and wrong. Playing word games in insisting that, "if God allowed it, then He predestinated it," is of no value and is certainly self-serving. It should be self-evident that allowing something to happen is not the same as predestinating it to happen. While it may 'seem' to be valid to speak against the belief that God only determines those who will be Saved, upon closer evaluation we understand that "ALL" were to be condemned, and God 'did' determine those to be Saved out of them. And in doing this, the rest by God's immutability are ordained to remain in their condemned state. God didn't add anything, He didn't put on an extra condemnation, they were all under condemnation for their sin to start with.

We know that the Bible is it's own interpreter, and the scriptures their own dictionary. Thus we can determine what God intends in His use of the Word predestination by where and how 'He' uses it. And in being honest with ourselves, when we see that He always uses it in context of Christ and His elect, then why would we use it in context of the condemned? God has not done this, so are we wiser than God?

Inevitably it breeds a misunderstanding of the intended doctrine

This term almost without exception leads those unfamiliar with what many theologians mean by it (and even some of those familiar), to the wrong conclusions. That is because the phrase itself is confusing. For we know what predestinated unto Salvation means, and it appears inconsistent to then claim predestinated unto damnation does not mean that very same drawing or forcing one to move in the direction to accomplish this predisposition. Therefore do many surmise that God before predestinated men to sin, as He predestinated men to conform to Christ. They logically (and in my view, rightly) surmise that predestinating the wicked would likewise mean that the wicked are predetermined to move to conform to evil. Since predestinating those to Christ means they are moved to conform to Christ.

This is the misunderstanding 'inherent' in the idea of God predestinating the wicked to be condemned. And nothing could be further from the truth. For every man is moved to condemnation by his own sin, and God does not tempt or try men that they would sin. We're all inherently sinners. Thus God can hate any one of us He wants. But by the same token, God can love anyone of us He wants, and predetermine that these will be drawn to Christ and obtain mercy. The fact that God hates the sinner does not mean that He predetermined His sinfulness and therefore His condemnation. There is no unrighteousness with God, He doesn't tempt or move any man to sin. He Saves those He loves from sin, while using those He hates to His glory. The example of Esau and Jacob immediately comes to mind.

Romans 9:13-16

• "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
• What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
• For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
• So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy."

It is also evident that God foreknew those whom He elected unto Salvation in a way that He never knew the non-elect. So what does that tell us of those that are not predestinated unto Salvation? It is quite clear that God did not know them personally, nor love them that they would be elect. Obviously it is not necessary that God actively work to 'not-know' the vessels of destruction, they simply do not actively receive the blessings, care, and love that is given to the chosen. In other words, God knows those whom He loves actively and intimately and He chose them, while there was no action taken for the rest to condemnation, they simply are allowed to continue in their sins unto judgment. Some more than others. Thus they are ordained by God unto condemnation. God never knew them to predetermine their works in Christ, or in Satan.

Matthew 7:23

• "And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

Fore-ordained can be used in the sense that God either passively or actively determines something will happen, while Predestination is always used to mean God took an active role, made an active determination that we would be conformed to Christ. i.e., He forced or actively predetermined it would occur, not passively. It is always used in scripture in 'this context' of God actively bringing about an action. This being a concept illustrated in many different ways, and understood in the truth that indeed no one 'would come' without God's predetermination or predestination.

Romans 3:11

• "There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God."

• "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."

Acts 4:27-28

• "For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
• For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done."

James 1:13-14

• "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
• But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed."

I don't wish to paint everyone with the broad brush, but I can only see one reason why anyone would 'insist' upon using the term 'double predestination' when it is unnecessary, and that is summed up in the words, 'self absorbed egotism.' Let us not bring occasion that a weaker brother should stumble because of our arrogance. Since the phrase is not in scripture, and the word predestination is used only in contexts opposing the condemned, at best we can say it is not-scripturally supported. So why use this term when so many think that it means God not only predestinates some to do the will of God, but He predestinates some to do the will of the devil. This is what is implied by double predestination. An unnecessarily confusion kept going more by stubbornness, pride and arrogance, than by a Christian desire for the widest understanding of truth. The question must then be posed, why would conscientious and concerned Christians insist upon using the phrase? What does it profit and who does it profit?

Predestinated to condemnation implies God caused them to sin

While most of those using this phrase would deny it, the term 'double predestination' does imply that God has taken a determinate action to destine some to be conformed to Christ unto good works, and taken the same action to destine others to be conformed to Satan unto bad works. it bridges dangerously close to what is commonly called hyper calvinism. As previously stated, though the act of God in choosing a people for Himself has surely by default left those 'not-chosen' as vessels fitted for destruction, that is not double predestination, it is not double election, and it is not a double imaging. Some were chosen despite their sins, and the rest were not chosen and not predestinated. They bear the responsibility for their own condemnation, not God in His (alleged) predestinating it.

Romans 9:22-23

• "What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
• And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,"

Ephesians 2:10

• "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."

It is true that many who use this term are quick to point to the book of Jude where God declares these were ordained. But they nearly always neglect to mention that this word is a different word than that used for predestinating the Saints. ..as if this is insignificant.

Jude 1:4

• "For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ."

Let me make a simple analogy. There is a basket of fruit, and I as the owner of the basket look into the basket and see that they 'all' are not fit to eat. But I mentally pre-select a few of the fruit that I favor out of that bunch, and decide that I will cut off their bad parts and make use of them. That doesn't then mean that I pre-chose the remaining fruit to be either bad, or thrown away. They were already bad, and so what else were they good for? I predetermined that those I favored would be made good, and by that predetermination I appointed the rest to be cast away. And what if by casting them away, I use them for fertilizer for the good of the ground to bear more fruit? Does that mean I predestinated them to be cast away in the ground? Not at all.

Of course, it's an imperfect analogy, but you get the point. By the same token God's choice doesn't create a by-product from the Human race, it draws out those He favors 'from' the human race who were all under condemnation. The rest are not those double chosen or predestinated. On the contrary, they are those not-chosen and not predestinated, and thus ordained by that non-choosing to be cast away as unfit.

Romans 5:15-19

• "But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
• And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
• For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
• Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
• For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."

God chose His election from eternity out of a world that God foresaw as desperately wicked and completely corrupt. These predestinated are His people, not the condemned. The decree of God to predestinate a people for Himself, in Christ Jesus, was one decree, not a double decree. It has two results it's true, but this is not double predestination, it's the natural outcome of what's left after God 'chooses' the Elect. God's plan is of our blessed redemption, and the justice is what man deserves for the wages of his sin. Both truths come from two precepts, God's justice and God's mercy. His mercy is called predestinated unto Salvation. His immutable justice is called ordained unto condemnation. We should not use the term 'double predestination' because it does not 'signify' this truth, it is confusing, and it implies that in using the wicked God has predestinated some to sin to the good of others. It is self evident that the harm such terms do to the cause of Christ far outweighs any egotistical pleasure we might derive from our insistence upon using them.

So, in conclusion, we gladly affirm the Biblical position that Predestination is the belief that from eternity past, and prior to the creation of the universe, God chose a people for Himself whom he would actively move to conform to the image of His dear son (Romans 8:29), and thus passed over the remainder of man, and reprobating them to their own devices. This is predestination, not double predestination. We affirm there is no such term in scripture, and that the word predestination is never used with reference to the condemned. I see the reprobate as being eternally punished on their own merit, and not in any wise because of an eternal decree by God that they should be created to be punished. Thus, in predestination the sinner is the author of his own sin, not God. While I'm sure many would argue that in 'double predestination,' man is the author of His own sin as well, however, a term like God predetermined man's condemnation doesn't at all illustrate this, it conflicts with it.

May the Lord God who is gracious above all, give us the guidance, humility and understanding, to not only be faithful, but also careful, wise, prudent and conscientious in the dissemination of His Holy Word.

Amen!