Author: lucas

“For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters” — Romans 8:29

This is a hallmark verse for the Calvinist, and it’s fair to see why. If you take a casual reading of this verse, it would suggest that God predestined the salvation for the roster of those he “foreknew”. However, we need to make sure we’re including context, as well as a full understanding of the words Paul is using.

First, context. Romans 8:28–30 sits in a chapter about assurance amid suffering for believers (“those who love God” and “are called according to His purpose”). Paul reassures Roman Christians facing trials that God sovereignly works all things for their ultimate good. Verses 29–30 explain how God does this by outlining His redemptive plan for believers.

Ok, so this chapter is meant to encourage Christians and basically say “don’t worry, God’s anticipated this and God’s got this”.

Now for the words Paul chose and how they should be interpreted:

In the verse above, there are two words that are the crux of this: “foreknew” and “predestined”. Let’s flesh out those words:

Foreknew (proginosko)

I feel as if there needs to be some clarification on a few things. First, few non-Calvinists (myself included) would ever question the sovereignty of God. There’s no denying that God knows the future, and there are many instances in scripture where we can see this:

1. Every prophet had knowledge of the future, given to him by God
2. There are many instances of dreams given by God foretelling the future (Daniel, Joseph, etc)
3. Sometimes the prophesies themselves are the catalyst to fulfill other prophesies, such as Herod killing the children in Bethlehem because of a prophecy of Jesus being the king, or Joseph’s dreams of being a great ruler being what caused him to be enslaved and relocated to a place where he would become the ruler
4. Direct verses where David talks about God knowing him before he was born, etc

One of the most obvious ones in the New Testament, is how the plan for Jesus to die for our sins was already set into motion, before mankind fell:

“The precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. He was foreknown (proginōskō) before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you” — I Peter 1:19-20

Later in this blog you can see that Paul uses this as a theme. In Ephesians 1 and 3, Paul excitedly lets us in on a secret that even the angels and demons didn’t know: God’s plan was always to include the Gentiles:

“This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. … the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God, … so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places” — Ephesians 3:6-10 (abridged)

(More on that here)

Ok so we can see that “foreknew” isn’t a word that should raise any eyebrows to a non-Calvinist. Of course God foreknew who would be saved. And we can see from several examples in history that God doesn’t just know, He actively plans and anticipates.

It’s this second word, “predestine” that seems to cause all of the controversy. Let’s focus in on that word, because I think it really is the crux to everything Paul is saying here:

Predestined (proorizō)

Calvinists believe that “predestined” essentially means an “inescapable decree” (I think most Calvinists would say that’s a fair representation of their view). God “predestines” your salvation (to Heaven and hell) and once predestined, it is entirely inescapable, or to use their verbiage “irresistible”.

However, is that a fair definition of that word?

Remember how I mentioned that it was strange that none of the early church fathers seemed to have gotten tripped up by these verses? Did you know that Origen specifically brings up this Greek word in the context of Romans and uses it to say that God doesn’t predestine believers?

First, the context: Origen is so against predestination (the leading secular view at the time), that he writes entire explanations on the book of Romans to refute it. Here is an excerpt:

“For if this [the call or initial action] were the beginning of what follows, then those introducing the absurd doctrine concerning natures (predestination) would have the most plausible case. But foreknowledge (proginōskō) is higher than predestination (proorismos). Therefore, one should not consider God’s foreknowledge to be the cause of future events”.

Did you catch that? Origen, a Greek speaker who lived less than 200 years after Paul wrote Romans, just let us know that the word “proorismos” or “predestination” wasn’t some inescapable decree. In fact, God’s knowledge superseded it. The word simply couldn’t have meant “inescapable decree”, or Origen wouldn’t have categorized it as of lower authority than “foreknew”.

We can see there is even a reference in I Corinthians where Paul uses the same word, in a much more toned down way:

But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed (same word as “predestined”: proorizō) before the ages for our glory. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him” — I Corinthians 2:7-9

Notice how Paul makes a comparison and says (paraphrased): “God decreed secret and hidden wisdom, and the Old Testament also speaks to this when it says that God ‘prepared unimaginable things for those who love Him’”. 

Finally, there is another early church, Greek-speaking church father who also clearly softens this word:

“In reply to those who argue by all possible means that a predetermination (proorizō) of God exists for the years of each person, we shall say this: … Again, if the predetermination concerning the time [of life] of each person is a fixed and unchangeable proorismos, then no one who falls ill should call upon the saints in prayer for help, and none of them should turn to doctors—for whatever God has predetermined (proorizō), that must come to pass completely.” — Anastasius (c. 700AD)

Anastasius continues by noting that this would make God the author of wars and evils (which is absurd) and that people do in practice pray and seek medical help—proving that proorismos alone does not imply something irrevocable or fatalistic. He adds the qualifiers “fixed and unchangeable” precisely because the bare word does not carry that force by itself.

Thus, I think that “inescapable decree”, and even “predestination” is an inaccurate translation for “proorizō”. “Planned for” or “anticipated” seems much more accurate. Now let’s take a look at that verse again:

“For those whom he foreknew he also planned for/anticipated to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters” — Romans 8:29

Now, let’s bring back the context once more:

This chapter is meant to encourage Christians and basically say “don’t worry, God’s anticipated this and God’s got this”.

The verse fits in perfectly with the context of the entire chapter.

Once you actually dig into this word and the context, it becomes clear why Origen, Polycarp, and the entire early church father consensus was strictly anti-predestination. They would have had a perfect translation and background for those words and they would have known that Paul was never suggesting that God pre-ordains our salvation. And, for me, this finally made it so that I can read this verse and not feel confused or feel as if there are contradictions in the bible. I hope it does the same for you.

Hēmas (meaning “us”): this word is far more than a simple debate for amusement amongst Greek scholars. Let’s dig into Ephesians 1:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,  to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. — Ephesians 1:4-13

This verse has become a Calvinist staple. To a Calvinist, when Paul says “In love He predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will”, it means that God predestined all of our salvations, and the part where Paul says “he chose us in him before the foundation of the world” means that God chose and predestined us individually, even before Adam and Eve fell. It’s understandable why this chapter trips up a lot of people. So then, why didn’t it trip up the early church fathers? Why did all of them have perfect unity for 350 years, while all reading the same letter?

First, I want to clarify that the English word “predestine” is very strong and implies inescapability. “Prepared for”, “anticipated”, or “mapped out” are much better words that both fit the context of other times Paul used this word (I Corinthians 2:7-9), as well as contemporary sources at the time who specifically tell us that this word wasn’t to be meant in an inescapable sense (Origen).

For a deep dive on that word, click here

There are two ways you can read this verse:

1. This verse is read on an individual level. God predestined individual souls for Heaven and Hell since before the foundation of the world.
2. This verse is read on a corporate level. God predestined, from before the foundations of the world that Jews and Gentiles alike were to take part in this, and wouldn’t just be followers of God, but adopted as sons.

So it’s a bit of a 6 or a 9 conundrum: this verse can be read in two ways depending on your perspective. Put simply, does the Greek word for “us” (hēmas) in this passage mean “you and I individually”, or “both Jews and Greeks alike”?

Now, in order to decipher which way Paul wants us to read this, we need to keep in mind that chapter 1 references four things (highlighted above from verses 8-10):

1. A mysterious plan
2. Since the beginning of time
3. Made known to Paul and the apostles recently
4. Uniting things in Heaven and on earth

Most people don’t know that chapter 1 is actually just a brief summary of chapter 3. How do we know? Paul says as much in chapter 3:

“how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.” — Ephesians 3:3-4

Two chapters later, Paul once again brings up: 

1. A mysterious plan
2. Since the beginning of time
3. Made known to Paul and the apostles recently

Chapter 3 is a problem for Calvinists. So much so, that Calvin suggests that Paul wrote a long lost epistle to the Ephesians before this and that’s what Paul was referencing when he says “as I have written briefly”:

“If we adopt the view which is almost universally approved, that the Apostle had formerly written to the Ephesians, this is not the only Epistle which we have lost — to another Epistle” — Calvin’s Ephesians commentary

Almost universally approved? This must come from some kind of evidence right? Actually no, there wasn’t a single early church historian that referenced another epistle to the Ephesians. No early father—Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian—hints at such a document. No manuscript tradition supports it. Calvin doesn’t have any reference to back up his claim, and he sounds a little too confident — almost as if he needs it to be true. But there’s simply no way Paul could have been referencing a long lost epistle. Here’s why:

Try to look back to earlier to when I wrote “this word is far more than a simple debate for amusement amongst Greek scholars”. Did you find it? Good! Oh, by the way, when I said “Try to look back to earlier”, I wasn’t referencing this blog, I was referencing the blog I wrote 6 months ago called “Skubalon”. So when you went to look for it, you looked at my previous blog post from 6 months ago right? That kind of absurdity is what Calvin is claiming that Paul did when he says “as I have written briefly”. (and yeah, to illustrate I purposely started this blog with the same phrase as I did in my Skubalon blog)

Paul writes about a mysterious plan, since the beginning of time that was made known to the apostles recently, in Chapter 1. Then he references a mysterious plan, since the beginning of time that was made known to the apostles recently, in Chapter 3 and adds “as I briefly mentioned before” and goes on to expand on the exact same topic with more detail…and somehow Calvin thinks he’s talking about a long-lost epistle?

Today most scholars agree with me, but here’s why Calvin didn’t want the two chapters to be connected. In verse 6 we get this:

“This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. … the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God, … so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places” — Ephesians 3:6-10 (abridged)

So this neatly ties up the 4th point:

1. A mysterious plan
2. Since the beginning of time
3. Made known to Paul and the apostles recently
4. Uniting things in Heaven and on earth

The mystery’s core? Gentiles join Jews as co-heirs in Christ. Thus, the most accurate way to translate hēmas in 1:5—“he predestined us for adoption”—would be Jews and Gentiles collectively: “In love he predestined us—Jews like me, Gentiles like you—for adoption as sons.” Predestination here is corporate, a plan to unite both groups, not a roster of pre-chosen individuals. The text’s focus is inclusion, not exclusion.

Even if we don’t use chapter 3…

Ok, so it’s pretty obvious from chapter 3 that “us” refers to “Jews and Gentiles alike” but EVEN IF we decide to play along and say that Paul was in fact speaking about a long lost epistle in chapter 3, chapter 1 still clashes with Total Depravity. Let’s start at the top:

“he chose us in him before the foundation of the world” — Ephesians 1:4

He doesn’t say “He chose us before the foundation”, it adds “in Him”. The Greek “exelexato” here means “he picked us out,” and it’s tied to “in him”—Christ. Perhaps a more straightforward translation can help us here:

“before the foundation of the world, He picked us out of those who are in Christ”

Calvinism’s Unconditional Election claims God’s choice is arbitrary (not based on human action). But “in him” implies a condition: being in Christ. The predestination here is of a plan (uniting all things in Christ, per Ephesians 1:10) rather than individual destinies. God didn’t preselect who would be saved but how salvation would work: through Christ, for all who join Him; Jews and Gentiles alike.

Thus, this isn’t a roll call of individual names etched in eternity; it’s a collective choice rooted in Christ’s body, the church—Jews and Gentiles as one unit, chosen and set apart for God’s purpose.

Also, according to Calvinism, it’s God who chooses and brings us to Christ, not the other way around. So in order to be accurate from a Calvinist perspective, the verse wouldn’t say that God chose us in Christ because that would be putting the cart before the horse.

Verse 12 continues the theme

“so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory” — Ephesians 1:12

If we are unable to choose God, this verse would simply say, “so that we who were the first to believe in Christ”. Instead, we have this phrase “the first to HOPE in Christ”. The Greek proelpizō, “to hope before confirmation” implies active trust, not passive selection. Also, if it’s not us who are even capable of hoping on our own, and God’s leadings are irresistible, wouldn’t “certainty”, or “knowledge” be more appropriate?

Simply put: hope can only be experienced by those who don’t know the future (“Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees?” -Romans 8:24). If we need God to “irresistibly woo us” into having hope, then it’s no longer hope, because God knows the future.

Finally:

“In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit” — Ephesians 1:13

The sequence is deliberate: hear, believe, then sealed. However, Calvinism gives a different sequence: we’re sealed before the foundations of the world, then we’re irresistibly woo’d to hear and belief is inevitable after that. It’s in the wrong order for the Calvinist. Also, if grace is irresistible, why list “heard” and “believed” as steps? Calvinism demands God gifts us both—without any human role. But this reads like a response, not a decree.

So even if Paul had this really weird way of writing where he references a long-lost epistle out of nowhere, the actual chapter itself references free will and goes against most of TULIP.

Conclusion

After using the full context and meaning of the words, I think it’s obvious why this chapter never tripped up the early church fathers. They would have read the entire book (not split into chapters or verses) and they would have had a translation that would have matched their native tongue and made it more obvious that Paul was always pairing God’s salvation with man’s free-will response.

Paul is a Jew, excitedly telling a church full of Gentiles that they aren’t excluded from the promises of God. In fact, Jews and Gentiles were both predestined to be a part of it, and wanna know a secret that even angels and demons didn’t know about? God and Christ have been planning this since before the foundations of the world were built!

Standing alone, Chapter 1 still gives us plenty of content to affirm free will, but by combining Chapter 3 as a reference, it becomes incredibly convincing that Paul was referring to the secret plan to include everyone. Gentiles are now “fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel”, and that plan has been hidden from even the angels and predestined since “before the foundations of the world”.

Did all of the early church fathers really agree on the idea that man had the ability to choose God? Remarkably — yes. In all of the known writings before Augustine in 411 AD, I have yet to find a single one that believed that God preordained salvation.

Justin Martyr has entire chapters dedicated to this, and he speaks as if he’s speaking on behalf of all of the Christians at the time (“we hold it to be true ,etc”), and doesn’t even consider that his fellow church members might believe in something different: 

Justin Martyr’s Defense of Free Choice

“But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand… We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions…. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed…. For not like other things, as trees and quadrupeds, which cannot act by choice, did God make man: for neither would he be worthy of reward or praise did he not of himself choose the good…” — Justin Martyr, First Apology 43 (abridged)

Irenaeus also made strong statements affirming free will:

“This expression [of our Lord], “How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not,” set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests (ad utendum sententia) of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves” — Irenaeus

Disciples of John, Peter, and Paul

Ignatius was a disciple of John and believed that we can choose to be a “man of God”, against our own nature:

“If any one is truly religious, he is a man of God; but if he is irreligious, he is a man of the devil, made such, not by nature, but by his own choice.” — Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35AD – 107AD)

Polycarp was also a disciple of John himself. He emphasizes our responsibility to actively choose to align with God’s will, and suggests that God will reward us for our obedience:

“If we please Him in this present world, we shall receive the future world, … and that if we live worthily of Him, ‘we shall also reign together with Him,’ provided only that we believe.” — Polycarp (c. 110–140 AD)

Clement was a disciple of both Peter and Paul and recognized a sinner’s own agency in his punishment:

“For no other reason does God punish the sinner either in the present or future world, except because He knows that the sinner was able to conquer but neglected to gain the victory.” — Clement of Rome (c. 140AD)

Church fathers for 350 years

So now we have the earliest writings from disciples of the Apostles themselves agreeing, and we can see that it continued for centuries:

Melito mentioned that we all have the free will to change:

“There is, therefore, nothing to hinder you from changing your evil manner to life, because you are a free man.” — Melito of Sardis, c. 170AD

Tatian compares our free will to that of angels:

“The Logos…before the creation of men, was the Framer of angels. And each of these two orders of creatures was made free to act as it pleased, not having the nature of good, which again is with God alone, but is brought to perfection in men through their freedom of choice, in order that the bad man may be justly punished…but the just man be deservedly praised…” — Tatian the Syrian (c. 110–172 AD)

Mathetes said that our “willingness” was what enables us to become imitators of God:

“And do not wonder that a man may become an imitator of God. He can, if he is willing.” — Mathetes (2nd century)

Shepherd of Hermas emphasized all of our free will:

“It is therefore in the power of every one, since man has been made possessed of free-will, whether he shall hear us to life, or the demons to destruction.” — Shepherd of Hermas (c. 130–140 AD)

Athenagoras also compared our free will to that of the angels:

“Just as with men, who have freedom of choice as to both virtue and vice, so it is among the angels…Some free agents, you will observe, such as they were created by God, continued in those things for which God had made and over which he had ordained them; but some outraged both the constitution of their nature and the government entrusted to them.” — Athenagoras of Athens (c. 133–190 AD)

Theophilus tells us that our free will can lead us to death:

“If, on the other hand, he would turn to the things of death, disobeying God, he would himself be the cause of death to himself. For God made man free, and with power of himself.” — Theophilus of Antioch (died c. 185 AD)

Clement attributes our salvation to voluntary choice:

“We…have believed and are saved by voluntary choice.” — Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215 AD)

Tertullian reinforces mankind’s free will:

“I find, then, that man was constituted free by God. He was master of his own will and power… Man is free, with a will either for obedience or resistance.” — Tertullian (c. 160–225 AD)

Hyppolytus believed in free will:

“Man is able to both will and not to will. He is endowed with power to do both.” — Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170–235 AD)

Origen makes the case that free will is “clearly defined in the teaching of the church”:

“This is also clearly defined in the teaching of the church, that every rational soul has free will and volition….we are not forced by any necessity to act either rightly or wrongly.” — Origen of Alexandria (c. 185–254 AD)

Cyprian uses the Old Testament to prove his point:

“The liberty of believing or not believing is placed in free choice. In Deuteronomy, it says, ‘Look! I have set before your face life and death, good and evil. Choose for yourself life, that you may live.’” — Cyprian of Carthage (c. 200–258 AD)

Novatian introduces free will and the consequences being God’s command:

“When he had given man all things for his service, he willed that man alone should be free. And lest an unbounded freedom would lead man into peril, He had laid down a command.” — Novatian (c. 200–258 AD)

Archelaus stresses free will:

“All the creatures that God made, He made very good. And He gave to every individual the sense of free will, by which standard He also instituted the law of judgment…. And certainly whoever will, may keep the commandments.” — Archelaus (3rd century)

Methodius acknowledges that the pagan view at the time was predestination, and he refutes and contrasts it with what Christians believe:

“Those [pagans] who decide that man does not have free will, but say that he is governed by the unavoidable necessities of fate, are guilty of impiety toward God Himself, making Him out to be the cause and author of human evils.” — Methodius (c. 260–312 AD)

Eusebius tells us that our nature is not to blame for our conduct, but rather our own decisions, made out of free will:

“Every rational soul has naturally a good free-will, formed for the choice of what is good. But when a man acts wrongly, nature is not to be blamed; for what is wrong, takes place not according to nature, but contrary to nature.” — Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 263–339 AD)

Arnobius makes it clear that God’s invitation is for everyone and that everyone has the power to come to God:

“Does He not free all alike who invites all alike? Or does He thrust back or repel any one from the kindness of the supreme, who gives to all alike the power of coming to Him.” — Arnobius (c. 297–303 AD)

Cyril claimed that the devil couldn’t overpower our own free will:

“The soul is self-governed: and though the devil can suggest, he has not the power to compel against the will.” — Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 312–386 AD)

The Calvinist Steelman

Some Calvinists argue that you can, in fact, find instances where early church fathers affirm predestination before Augustine. They would point to some quotes by Justin Martyr and Clement:

“Unless, therefore, a man by God’s great grace receives the power to understand what has been said and done by the prophets, the appearance of being able to repeat the words or the deeds will not profit him, if he cannot explain the argument of them.” — Justin Martyr

Nowhere in this quote does Justin reference salvation. He’s merely saying that it takes God’s grace to fully be able to understand the prophets and scripture. 

“For a man by himself working and toiling at freedom from passion achieves nothing. But if he plainly shows himself very desirous and earnest about this, he attains it by the addition of the power of God.” — Clement

Once again, nothing here implies salvation. We need the power of God in order to free ourselves from lustful passions. 

Calvinists might misread these as predestinarian because they mention God’s grace or power, but both Justin and Clement explicitly defend free will elsewhere, focusing on sanctification, not salvation.

I’ve searched extensively for more quotes, but I can’t find anything. These quotes are both from men who defended man’s free-will very explicitly and neither one of the quotes seem to reference salvation.

Then came Augustine

Augustine originally explored pagan religions like Manichaeism, which emphasized predestination. After converting to Christianity, he initially affirmed free will after his conversion in 386 AD. In De Libero Arbitrio (On Free Will, c. 387-395 AD), he wrote:

“For we do not say that sins are committed by necessity, but by free will…. Therefore, since God is just, it is certain that men sin by their will, not by necessity.” — Augustine, De Libero Arbitrio, Book 2, Chapter 2

Then, in 411, there was this British Monk named Pelagius who made the controversial stance that Christians could achieve righteousness without grace. Augustine began countering Pelagius, and his response was to swing the pendulum to the other side, asserting that mankind couldn’t even make the decision to choose God without grace. This progressed and by 429, Augustine seemed to have landed on his theological destination, suggesting that God predestined those to whom He would save. However, even in Augustine’s need to counter Pelagius, he still couldn’t concede the idea of dual predestination; that is, that God both wills those to Heaven AND Hell.

In the words of Brian Wagner: 

“There seems to have been no exceptions among early Christian writers to the orthodox teaching that man has been granted by God a free will to choose his destiny, and that salvation is available to all. The opposing view, that man is controlled by fate, could only be found in the Greek philosophical schools, Gnosticism, and Eastern mysticism during the first 300 years of Christianity. It is no wonder that the man who introduced Greek fatalism into Christianity should come from a Gnostic and Neo-Platonic background. Augustine’s theory differed from the Greek philosophers mainly by naming the CAUSE of fate — God’s mysterious will which must not be questioned, and cannot be understood by mortals. The impact of Augustine’s teaching probably would not have been nearly so great if Pelagius had not gone to the opposite extreme in renouncing Augustine.”

Augustine faced a lot of pushback at the time

Augustine faced harsh criticism and pushback. Julian of Eclanum (a Bishop at the time) fiercely condemned Augustine’s stance and attributed Augustine’s predestination stance to his prior beliefs in Manichaeism:

“You [Augustine] make God the author of our sins by asserting that He predestines some to salvation and others to damnation, as if human will has no role in its own choices. This is nothing but Manichaean determinism dressed in Christian garb.” — Julian of Eclanum (421AD)

John Cassian’s pushback against Augustine verbalizes how most non-calvinists today see free will and grace:

“The grace of God always co-operates with our will… [and] sometimes even [requires] some efforts of good will from it….” — John Cassian (c. 425–429 AD)

For the next century or so after Augustine, the Western church wrestled with what became known as the “Semi-Pelagian controversy.” Many sought a middle path, affirming that salvation involves both God’s grace and a genuine free-will response. This debate came to a head at the Second Council of Orange (529 AD).

The council shows clear Augustinian influence. It strongly emphasized the necessity of prevenient grace (grace that must come first) due to the corruption of human free will after the Fall. For example:

“If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith.” — Second Council of Orange, Canon 8

This marked a noticeable shift from the earlier Fathers (such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Origen), who consistently portrayed free will as retaining the ability to initiate a response to God, even if weakened by sin.

At the same time, Orange deliberately moderated Augustine’s stronger predestinarian tendencies and rejected any notion of God predestining people to evil:

“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.” — Conclusion of the Second Council of Orange

And it affirmed ongoing human responsibility after grace is received:

“According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul.” — Conclusion of the Second Council of Orange

Christianity in the East never formally received or elevated the Council of Orange as authoritative (it was a regional Western gathering, later approved by a Western pope). Because of this, Eastern theology continued to emphasize an understanding of grace and free will that was consistent with the pre-Augustinian church fathers consensus and continues to this day, while Western theology became increasingly Augustinian overall, influencing medieval Catholicism and later Protestant Reformers like John Calvin, who drew heavily on Augustine.

Conclusion

I feel as if history can help provide some context and understanding on this topic. While I get that the early church wasn’t perfect (especially into the middle ages), it’s nearly impossible for me to believe that every church father, from disciples of the apostles themselves, to Cyril of Jerusalem (386AD) somehow missed the fundamental doctrine of free will, and then over 300 years after the New Testament (for context, it’s been 250 years since the signing of the Declaration of Independence), the real truth was revealed by a man who was clearly swinging a pendulum to counter a heresy at the time, and whose background was steeped in pagan determinism. And even Augustine couldn’t allow himself to go as far as to say that God predestines both Heaven and Hell — that concept would be left to a man born more than a century later (John Calvin).

While the early church fathers aren’t scripture or the final authority, it’s strange to me that in the 21st century we find ourselves quibbling over correct Greek translations of scriptures to prove or disprove the theology of a man who was separated from the source by more than a millennia (Calvin wrote Institutes of the Christian Religion, in 1536). We would be remiss to ignore the opinions of those who were immersed in the same culture and spoke the same language as Paul and the disciples, and who perceived and translated those original texts at the time. The fact that they all agreed seems very credible, and their consensus could not be more clear: mankind has always had the free will to choose God, and our salvation was never predestined.

Calvinism is one of the most controversial theologies in the modern Protestant era. Many pastors and theologians don’t even touch it, and those that do often feel very strongly about their side, fueling further division. Another unfortunate aspect, is that Calvinism seems to creep into many seminaries and Christian higher learning, often creating a perceived division amongst Christian authority figures, and the layman. It’s for these reasons that I have felt not just a desire, but a compulsion to write this blog, despite the daunting nature of the task. My hope is that this offers some clarity, peace, and understanding to those who may believe one side or the other, but aren’t sure they know enough about it to feel confident.

In order to stay accessible, I will be splitting up this blog up into several sections, with this overview explaining the top-level arguments, and expanded sub-blogs on the topics that call for more steelmanning or exposition. If any of what I’m writing raises alarm bells or makes you bristle, I encourage you to click on the links and I’ll have much more room in the sub-blogs to flesh out everything I’m saying.

What is Calvinism?

For those who may be new to the concept, Calvinism is most commonly summed up in the acronym T.U.L.I.P. which stands for Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. In a nutshell it’s the belief that you were too sinful to be able to choose God or make a righteous decision (Total Depravity), so God chose you. God chose you (and all other Christians) before time and before you could do anything good or evil (Unconditional Election), which means He actively chose NOT to include everyone else, which means He only died for those He chose (Limited Atonement). It had nothing to do with your own free will, because once you’re chosen, you can’t resist God (Irresistible Grace). You also can’t lose your salvation, because you were “elected” and can’t become “unelected” (Perseverance of the Saints).

Calvinism is nothing new. Perhaps the 16th century TULIP version that John Calvin came up with would have a few differentiating factors, but this idea that mankind is a passenger to his own fate predates the New Testament itself and was a well-established belief amongst the prevailing theologies at the time:

The Greeks viewed fate as a powerful force governed by the Moirae, the three Fates who determined the destinies of both mortals and gods (you may recognize them by the scene in Hercules the cartoon when they tried to cut Hercules string of life). The Romans adopted and adapted the Greek concept of fate, calling it Fatum. To them, Fatum was inescapable, often revealed through divination.

You would expect then, that the early church fathers would have confronted this idea head-on. If they were in agreement on the topic (i.e. “God decides our salvation/fate”) then it would have been an easy connecting point for the early church, and I would expect a Mars Hill style conversation (I.e. “I know the real decider of fate: the unknown God you pray to”). But if they were in disagreement, it would have been pushed back on heavily so as not to allow Greek and Roman theology to distort the church.

So what do we get? In all of the known writings from all of the church fathers, we have 350 years (up until Augustine in 411) of unity on the topic:

“This expression [of our Lord], ‘How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not,’ reveals the ancient law of human liberty. God made man a free agent from the beginning, with his own power to obey God voluntarily, not by compulsion” — Irenaeus, circa 178 AD

“Neither do we affirm that it is by fate that men do what they do, or suffer what they suffer; but that each man by free choice acts rightly or sinfully… If it were fated, no one could ever turn from evil to good.” — Justin Martyr, circa 100-165 AD

“Those [pagans] who decide that man does not have free will, but say that he is governed by the unavoidable necessities of fate, are guilty of impiety toward God Himself, making Him out to be the cause and author of human evils.” — Methodius circa 260–312 AD

“This is also clearly defined in the teaching of the church, that every rational soul has free will and volition….we are not forced by any necessity to act either rightly or wrongly.” — Origen of Alexandria (c. 185–254 AD)

The early church disagreed with each other on the 1,000 year reign, the eucharist, circumcision, and the Trinity, but despite the fact that the idea that your life was pre-ordained was a very popular gnostic belief at the time, every documented church father for the first 350 years…from Irenaeus, to Justin Martyr, to Polycarp (a disciple of John himself), to Tertullian…all believed salvation and hell were the result of man’s free-will choice. Sure, some might cite vague references to election (Clement’s “chosen of God”), but these reflect God’s foreknowledge or corporate calling—never in the context of salvation, and never without man’s free-will involvement.

Then Augustine came onto the scene and broke from 350 years of established church beliefs, influencing the Western church from then all the way up until now. Surprising? Here’s how it all happened:

Click here for a sub-blog on early church fathers’ free-will teachings, their context, and Calvinist counterarguments.

So how is it that the entire early church, including disciples of John himself, read Ephesians 1, and Romans 9, and John 17, and none of them came to the conclusion that our salvation is predetermined? I think speaking the same language and living in the same culture as Paul made many of these scriptures less confusing for them, and it’s my hope that I can make it less confusing for you as well.

The Scriptures

Every time I bring up this argument to a Calvinist, I get the same response: “But what about those black and white verses in the Bible talking about being predestined?”. I’m going to go through each of these confusing verses and chapters and hopefully shed a little more light on who, and what, Paul is talking about.

Ephesians 1

Why did Calvin insist there was a long lost epistle written to the Ephesians before this letter, despite having zero historical evidence or reference? Because connecting Ephesians 3 makes it very difficult to defend Calvinism.

Click here for a full explanation of Ephesians 1

Romans 8:29

Did you know that Origen had a full commentary on this chapter a mere 200 years after it was written, and was adamant that Paul never suggested that God pre-ordains salvation?

Click here for a deep dive into one of the most misunderstood verses in the bible

Romans 9

This chapter is the most dense and requires the most explanation, so I recommend you follow the link below for a more references, verses, and context.

Click here for a sub-blog on more Romans verses and Calvinist counterarguments.

John 17

The reason I decided to use John 17, is because I can not only address the confusion surrounding this chapter, but clear up a lot of the confusion in the Gospels where Jesus alludes to God “giving believers to Him” (i.e. Matthew 11:27, Luke 10:22, John 6:37-39, John 10:29, and this chapter itself)

First, let’s consider the order of salvation from a Calvinist, and non-Calvinist perspective:

Calvinist

1. God chooses you before the foundations of the world
2. At some point, because you were chosen, you are irresistibly woo’d to accept God
3. Once you accept your need for God, Jesus’ sacrifice cleanses you and gives you new life, and you’ll “never be snatched from His hand” — John 10:29

Non-Calvinist

1. You recognize your own sinful state and desire repentance, either through someone sharing, or your own realization (God “knocking”)
2. God “judges your heart” and brings you to Jesus
3. Once you accept your need for God, Jesus’ sacrifice cleanses you and gives you new life, and you’ll “never be snatched from His hand” — John 10:29 (some believers don’t believe in “once saved, always saved”, so this might leave room for someone who willingly walks out of God’s hand, but I digress)

We share the 3rd step. Using that as context, let’s begin:

“since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him — John 17:2

And

“I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word” — John 17:6

I’m failing to see where there is any controversy — the verses themselves speak to the 3rd step in both theologies: God bringing you to Jesus to be washed clean and given eternal life. The only conflict we have is WHEN God gave someone to Jesus. Calvinists say before the foundations of the world, non-Calvinists say once they were receptive to it.

Most of Jesus’ miracles involved recipients showing prior faith in God or Jesus (i.e. Matthew 8:5-13). So did God set up their already willing heart with a divine encounter with Jesus? If God did, then how does that violate free-will?

Next, here’s the verse Calvinists often quote:

“I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours” — John 17:9

Calvinists argue this excludes the world from Jesus’ atonement, claiming that combining it with John 17:2 (“to give eternal life to all whom you have given him”) proves only the elect are saved and eternal life is only for a pre-chosen elect, but Jesus is clearly speaking solely to His inner circle (the disciples) here. Why? Because 3 verses later Jesus references Judas as one of them:

“I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled” — John 17:12

(Overlooking the fact that Judas is considered one of the ones that God gave to Jesus and was still lost…)

We have even more evidence of Jesus narrowing the prayer’s focus, because later he joins the outer circle, as well as the rest of the world into his prayer in verse 20 and 21:

“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me” — John 17:20 — 21

Once again, a chapter that Calvinists use to validate their theology, ends up turning against them since here Jesus desires for 3 categories to hear and believe:

1. The disciples
2. Those who believe because of the word that the disciples shared
3. The rest of the world

According to Calvinists, the “elect” would be covered in the first 2 categories, and “the rest of the world” shouldn’t have been included in this prayer. Some Calvinists might suggest that the world might believe that Jesus was the Son of God, but that doesn’t mean they are saved. However, that word “believe” (pisteuō) is the same word as the one in John 3:36: “The one who believes (pisteuō) in the Son has eternal life”.

So to summarize: the order of our salvation was always supposed to be us crying out to God, and God bringing us to Jesus to act as our High Priest on our behalf to reconcile us with God (In fact, this chapter is commonly referred to as the “High Priestly Prayer”). So Jesus mentioning those “to whom God sent” falls in line with what non-Calvinists have believed all along.

There Are a Lot of Verses That Contradict Calvinism

Ok, now that we’ve addressed the verses Calvinists use, it’s my turn. There are tons of verses that contradict Calvinism, and unlike the verses above, they are a lot more straightforward, in context, and difficult to dodge:

“For God so loved the world, that WHOSOEVER believes in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life” — John 3:16

The common Calvinist reply to this, is that the word “whosoever” here in the Greek is “pas” and “pas” in certain contexts can mean “all kinds of people” not necessarily “all people”. Now, there’s still the issue of the word ‘world’ here being ‘kosmos,’ meaning ‘the inhabitants of the earth,’ but let’s roll with their take. In that case, this verse is really a doozy:

“So then as through one trespass [Adam’s sin] there resulted condemnation for all (pas) men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all (pas) men” – Romans 5:18 (emphasis on “to”. Justification is presented TO all men, not received by all men)

If John 3:16 isn’t black and white, then this one certainly is. Calvinists must believe that the word “pas” translates to “all men” in the first part of the verse when speaking of Adam, because one of their TULIP pillars (Total Depravity) must apply to every man. But that means that “all men” must also be given the gift of justification by Jesus, which contradicts the other TULIP pillar, Limited atonement. 

So Even if “pas” means “all kinds of people” in John 3:16, Romans 5:18 uses the same word in a way Calvinists can’t dodge.

I think it’s one of the most black and white verses against Calvinism in the Bible, and the more you dive into the translations and context of those words, the more you find that it simply couldn’t have been translated another way.

There are many more verses:

“He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” — 1 John 2:2

Calvinists might claim ‘whole world’ means the elect across nations, but Revelation 7:9 (“a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation”) shows there were plenty of ways to say ‘every nation’ if he wanted—‘holos kosmos’ is deliberately broader. Calvinism forces us to bend and twist this unnaturally to limit an expression that none of the early church fathers interpreted as limited. And let’s not forget that the pagan religions at the time believed in preordained outcomes orchestrated by the gods, so would Paul really be so vague here and just expect us to go “whole world just means specifically chosen people from all parts of the world”?

How about the one Irenaeus used?

“How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!” — Matthew 23:37

Why would Jesus have any frustration for something that was preordained and irresistible? Calvinists might say Jesus’ frustration reflects God’s sovereign will, but then the verse would need to say, “but God was not willing!”. There is no divine frustration without culpability, and there is no culpability without the freedom to make the choice.

Final Thoughts: Logical Inconsistencies

I’ll wrap this up with the logical inconsistencies and worrisome outcomes that are implicated by Calvinism. It isn’t scripture, but now that the full scriptural argument has been laid out, I felt it was appropriate to also include my own feelings and thoughts:

First, my biggest concern with this theology, is that it turns Divine Romance into Divine Coercion. Since I’m unable to even respond to God on my own volition, then my relationship with God becomes just an acknowledgment of His goodness, not a response to His kindness (“God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance” — Romans 2:4) and eliminating your ability to reciprocate in your relationship with God can be very damaging to your God-view.

If we’re made in God’s image to judge angels, why would we lack the free will that God and angels have, and how could we possibly judge an angelic creature?

Why does the Kingdom of God always spread at the same rate, time, and location as the missionaries who go there? Shouldn’t there be just as many Christians in random African villages as there are in the Bible Belt? If God chose the elect and it had nothing to do with any decision they may or may not make, then why is the most common reason for identifying with Christianity your place and family of origin?

Why do we need evangelism? If you’re a Calvinist, it would just be: “someone is irresistibly woo’d to tell someone about God, and that person is irresistibly woo’d to accept” — but even that goes too far, since we wouldn’t even need the evangelist. Someone could just be irresistibly woo’d to pick up a Bible. So then this verse doesn’t really make sense:

“How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent?” — Romans 10:14

According to the Calvinist, someone should have just told Paul, “they don’t need to be preached to, and they don’t need to hear — they’re just going to be irresistibly woo’d into calling on Him”.

How can there be “weeping and gnashing of teeth” if the unsaved never had a chance? Also, it seems really dark to have a God make someone, just to damn them through no fault of their own. Try saying “God’s ways are higher than ours” to the mother who must watch her son go to hell because Jesus didn’t die for him because he wasn’t chosen.

If salvation outcomes are God-ordained, what is satan even trying to accomplish? If he has no effect on where a person ends up, then what exactly makes satan evil? Ireneaus answers that question brilliantly:

“He did not predetermine that some should be wicked and others righteous, for then He would be the author of evil, which is impossible.”

The goal was to allow this overview blog to stand on its own, but if anything is still confusing, feel free to click on the links for a further deep dive.

Hopefully this helps clarify some of those tricky parts of the Bible and can be used as a resource in the future!

Romans 9 is often used by Calvinists as a kind of cornerstone for their theology. If you read it on its face, it’s understandable how Calvinists came to the conclusion that humankind lacks free will. However, I think there’s a reason why the early church fathers weren’t swayed by this chapter, and a lot of it comes down to translation and context.  

The first several verses don’t raise any controversy. Paul sets the stage by saying he’s torn up at the fact that, while Gentiles were coming to Jesus en masse, his own Jewish people rejected Jesus and were far less open to Christianity:  

“I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh…To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all” — Romans 9:1-5 (abridged)  

For a Jew living in the first century, the fact that the Gentiles would have been the ones to receive the Christ and not the Jews would have caused a lot of pushback. Paul begins to explain how the God always welcomed outsiders to the faith:  

“But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring”  

It’s after this that Paul brings up the first controversial verse. He uses Jacob and Esau as examples of how God isn’t a respecter of bloodlines, and says this:  

“…though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election (*eklogē*) might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—she was told, ‘The older will serve the younger.’ As it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated (*miseō*).’” — Romans 9:11-13 ESV  

Whenever Calvinists use the word “the elect”, they are referring mainly to this verse. If you rely on the common English translation of this verse, it’s very understandable how this could trip someone up. However, there are some very unfortunate translations throughout this chapter. Let’s start with *miseō* (translated as “hated”):

“Hated”

This word is also used by Jesus in Luke 14:26:  

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate (*miseō*) his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” — Luke 14:26 ESV  

Clearly Jesus doesn’t want us to hate our children or our own life. A better translation for this word would be “preferring one over the other”, so perhaps “demote”?  

Paul had many other ways to use the word “hate” here. Bdelyssomai (To abhor, loathe, or detest with disgust”), kataphroneō (To despise, look down on contemptuously), Apostygeō (To abhor intensely, shrink from in horror, or detest as vile.), his choice to use a mild “demote” word is notable. If Paul’s point here is that Esau has been chosen by God to be eternally condemned (as Calvinists suggest), Paul’s choice of words avoid a much more direct way of saying so.

Election

The last word I want to dig into on this verse is “election” or eklogē. According to Calvinists, the “elect” are those whom God chose to save “before the foundations of the world”. Out of the 7 times this word is used in the New Testament, several talk about the fact that God clearly does choose us:  

“Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect (*eklogē*)? It is God who justifies.” — Romans 8:33 ESV

“There has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice (*eklogē*)” — Romans 11:5 ESV  

“Those who were chosen (*eklogē*) obtained it, and the rest were hardened” — Romans 11:7 ESV  

However, this begs the question: “God chooses us, but do we need to choose Him back?”. This is where we find two more instances that answer that question:  

“As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election (*eklogē*), they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.” — Romans 11:28 ESV  

According to Calvinists, being “elected” by God means that you are irresistibly a part of God’s kingdom, so then how can you be “elected”, and yet an enemy of the gospel? Keep in mind this verse is a mere two chapters after the one we’re studying now.  

Peter weighs in as well:  

“Therefore, brothers and sisters, be all the more diligent to make certain about his calling and choice (*eklogē*) of you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble” — 2 Peter 1:10 ESV

 Here not only does Peter say we need to have diligence to recognize God’s calling and “choice” (eklogē), but he wraps God’s “choice” in a conditional “as long as you practice these things”.  

If you need to diligently recognize God’s “election” of you, then it must require a human response. God chooses you and calls you, but you must accept His choice of you, otherwise you could not only stumble (2 Peter 1:10), but you could become an enemy of the gospel entirely (Romans 11:28).  

So we’re already finding that the true translations of these words are posing a challenge for the Calvinist. Let’s continue:  

If Esau was the one whom God “hated”, we should expect to see him reject God and live a life marked by God’s condemnation right? However, we get no hint of that. Esau reconciled with Jacob:  

“Esau ran to meet him and embraced him and fell on his neck and kissed him, and they wept. … Esau said, ‘I have enough, my brother; keep what you have for yourself.’” — Genesis 33:4, 9 ESV  

So Esau had a little redemption arc of his own within this story, which further supports Pauls mild “demote” word (not “hated”) for Esau.  

So to summarize, God chose Jacob to lead Israel, not Esau. However, this choice needed reciprocation on Jacob’s part, and we have no indication that it was a damnation sentence for Esau.  

God Has the Right to Give Favor to Whomever He Wants  

Paul continues:  

“What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.’ So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy” — Romans 9:14-15 ESV  

Calvinists use this verse to claim that Paul is once again referring to salvation, but is that fair?   

Both Calvinists and Non-Calvinists agree that human will isn’t what justifies us or brings God’s favor. However, even though it isn’t dependent on works, it is dependent on faith:  

“a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ” — Galatians 2:16 ESV  

God always looks at our heart condition first. Human will or exertion doesn’t earn God’s kindness, but our posture before Him matters:  

“God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” — James 4:6 ESV  

“…For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.” — 1 Samuel 16:7 ESV  

“For the eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to give strong support to those whose heart is blameless toward him…” — 2 Chronicles 16:9 ESV  

So it depends on God, who judges and responds to our heart (1 Samuel 16:7), not our will or exertion.

God Can Also Oppose Whomever He Wants

Paul continues:  

“For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, ‘For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.’ So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.” — Romans 9:17-18 ESV  

God clearly hardened Pharaoh. The question is, was the hardening orchestrated from the beginning, or was it in response to Pharaoh’s choices up to that point? First, his story shows he hardened his heart on his own:  

“Still Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, and he would not listen to them, as the Lord had said.” — Exodus 7:13 ESV  

“But when Pharaoh saw that there was a respite, he hardened his heart and would not listen to them, as the Lord had said.” — Exodus 8:15 ESV  

God’s later hardening continued Pharaoh’s choices:  

“But the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he did not listen to them, as the Lord had spoken to Moses.” — Exodus 9:12 ESV  

This pattern continues, as seen in Pharaoh hardening his heart again (see Exodus 9:34) and God reinforcing it (see Exodus 10:1).  

We also know God preserved Pharaoh’s life to work miracles, but Pharaoh exalted himself:  

“‘For by now I could have put out my hand and struck you and your people with pestilence, and you would have been cut off from the earth. But for this purpose I have raised you up, to show you my power, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth. You are still exalting yourself against my people and will not let them go.’” — Exodus 9:15-17 ESV  

Calvinists, citing Exodus 4:21 where God plans to harden Pharaoh, argue God’s sovereignty predetermines outcomes. Yet, the sequence of Pharaoh’s self-hardening (Exodus 7:13, 8:15) before divine hardening (Exodus 9:12) suggests God responds to, rather than initiates, his rebellion. This Pharaoh, a self-proclaimed deity, perpetuated Israel’s brutal oppression (Exodus 1:8-14), which persisted during Moses’ 40-year exile in the desert (Acts 7:30). So the context points towards God using Pharaoh’s longstanding defiance to display His power.   

Just as God chose to exalt Jacob over Esau for His promise, He can also choose to wield someone’s pride and stubbornness for His glory. Calvinists would claim that God chose to harden Pharaoh without any free-will involvement, but then we wouldn’t expect to see any instance of Pharaoh hardening his own heart. Calvinists also use the earlier example of Jacob and Esau to say that God made the choice “before he was born”, but we’ll see later in this chapter that it’s erroneous to apply “before he was born” to Pharaoh.  

So let’s recap a little: God chooses us for a specific purpose (like Jacob chosen to lead the Jewish people). We must recognize and respond to that choice, or else we could stumble or become enemies of the gospel entirely. God can also harden us, but there’s no evidence in the story of Pharaoh that His hardening was indiscriminate.   

The Potter and Clay

“You will say to me then, ‘Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?’ But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you made (*poieō*) me like this?’ Has the potter no right over the clay, to make (*poieō*) out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?” — Romans 9:19-21 ESV  

The word “poieō” is key in this verse. Does poieō mean “create from scratch” as Calvinists suggest? If so, then it looks like we’re all just lumps of formless clay, and our destinies are shaped in God’s hand. However, up until this point, Paul has had this theme of God needing reciprocation from us (eklogē needing our diligence, and God continuing Pharaoh’s choices). So what does poieō actually mean?   The Greek word *poieō* appears 568 times in the New Testament with two main meanings:  

1. “Shape” or “prepare” in nearly all cases (e.g., “Prepare (*poieō*) the way of the Lord, make his paths straight” — Mark 1:3 ESV).
2. “Create from scratch” in less than 2% of cases (6–10 instances), like constructing a tabernacle (Hebrews 8:5) or divine creation (Matthew 19:4)

The more common meaning is to continue something already in place. In Mark, John the Baptist didn’t create the way of the Lord; he continued what was already being built for generations (the coming of Jesus); he prepared it. So why rush to rule out the common meaning? What does the context tell us?   Fortunately, Paul uses the exact same vessels metaphor when writing to Timothy:  

“Now in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and clay, some for honorable use, some for dishonorable. Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work.” — 2 Timothy 2:20-21 ESV  

We can use this verse to conclude 3 things:  

1. Your course isn’t fixed—a lump of clay can transition from “dishonorable” to “honorable”.
2. Whether we’re used for honorable or dishonorable purposes depends on our response (cleansing yourself), not an indiscriminate choice by God.
3. God is clearly the “master of the house,” and since both vessels are in the “great house,” we’d be taking liberties by claiming dishonorable vessels are damned by default.

In other words, Calvinists use this verse to suggest Paul was referencing predetermined paths (clay molded from scratch), but the context would suggest Paul was actually referencing sanctification (clay already having properties based on our choices, but shaped by God for His use).

How do we know that having a vessel made from “wood and clay” isn’t a referring to damnation? Paul uses yet another building metaphor in Corinthians, and he’s careful to separate sanctification from salvation:

“Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw—each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.” — 1 Corinthians 3:12-15 ESV  

Here, even when the materials are worthless, our salvation is not affected, just our reward. So we can conclude that “dishonorable” isn’t a prerequisite for a condemned vessel. It also adds more doubt to the Calvinist claim that sanctification is inevitable and void of human agency, since the fact that we can get to Heaven “as escaping a fire” introduces a level of imperfection in the sanctification process that warrants a flawed human component.

So as an aside: if sanctification is irresistible and directed by God, then there should never be a case where your sanctification process results in “being saved, but only as through fire”.

Given this context for the vessels metaphor, it seems unlikely Paul uses the rare “make from scratch” translation of *poieō*; the common meanings “shape” or “prepare” fit better:  

“Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you shaped (*poieō*) me like this?’ Has the potter no right over the clay, to shape (*poieō*) out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?”  

The difference between “make” and “shape” may seem subtle, but it matters greatly. When I “make a case,” I start from scratch to reach a conclusion. When I “shape a case,” I build on an existing narrative, implying the clay’s initial state plays a role in its purpose.  

Lastly, as even more reinforcement for the “shape” translation, this exact metaphor is also used in the Old Testament. There can be little doubt Paul was referring to this verse while writing this part of Romans, and the Jewish audience would have been familiar with it; notice how in Hebrew, the word is translated as “shape” (“I am shaping disaster against you”):  

I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was working at his wheel. And the vessel he was making of clay was spoiled in the potter’s hand, and he reworked it into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to do. Then the word of the Lord came to me: “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? declares the Lord. Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it. Now, therefore, say to the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem: ‘Thus says the Lord, Behold, I am shaping disaster against you and devising a plan against you. Return, every one from his evil way, and amend your ways and your deeds.’ — Jeremiah 18:3-11  

God is shaping the clay based on free will choices, and always offering an avenue for repentance; to just those whom He chose? No, He’s giving that opportunity to everyone: “return, every one from his evil way, and amend your ways and your deeds”.  

So after studying context and Greek definitions, even the Potter and clay metaphor that is a Calvinist staple poses a challenge for their theology.  

Vessels of Wrath and Mercy

In order to interpret Romans 9 in a way that fits the Calvinist theology, we need to presume that when Paul says “though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad”, it applies to both the righteous and the unrighteous equally. For the righteous, it would mean that we are chosen for salvation. For the unrighteous, it would mean we are chosen for damnation (Unconditional election, and Limited Atonement). However, if God’s “election” uses a different approach towards choosing the righteous vs the unrighteous, then much of the Calvinist foundation crumbles, because it means that our choices must impact how God responds to us.  

Prepared

Paul’s next verse is the most damning to the Calvinist argument. If I needed one verse to summarize Romans 9 and refute the Calvinist’s take on it, this would be it; Notice how he uses two different words for “prepared”:  

“What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared (*katartizō*) for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared (*proetoimazō*) beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?” — Romans 9:22-24 ESV  

Remember how I mentioned applying “though they were not yet born” to Pharaoh is erroneous? This verse offers a key distinction: “prepared” for destruction is *katartizō* (to adjust, continue what’s in motion), while “prepared” for glory is *proetoimazō* (to make ready beforehand). Curiously, Paul uses *proetoimazō* only one other time:  

“For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared (*proetoimazō*) beforehand, that we should walk (*peripateō*) in them.” — Ephesians 2:10 ESV  

“Walk” (*peripateō*) means to regulate one’s life, to conduct oneself. So once again, God prepares good works for us “beforehand” indiscriminately, but we need to respond and walk it out.  

How can we be sure of that? Remember the verse that talks about how you can be elected and yet enemies of the Gospel? Here’s the verse that comes directly after:  

“As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” — Romans 11:28-29  

We all have a God-given calling (eklogē) and predetermined good works (Ephesians 2:10) that cannot be taken away from us (Romans 11:29), but it takes the recognition of that calling (eklogē) (2 Peter 1:10), we must respond and cleanse ourselves (2 Timothy 2:20-21) and we must walk out that purpose (Ephesians 2:10), otherwise we can stumble (2 Peter 1:10) or even become enemies of the gospel entirely (Romans 11:28).  

For unbelievers (like Pharaoh), God’s preparation (*katartizō*) aligns with their choices up to that point and continues what’s already in place, yet even then God “endures with much patience” (why would God need “much patience” if God destined them to be that way and they never had the capacity to change, as Calvinists suggest?). For believers, God prepares (*proetoimazō*) good works indiscriminately (“before they could do anything good or evil”), yet we must choose to walk in them (Ephesians 2:10).   

Paul could have easily used *proetoimazō* in both instances, and would have been most appropriate if he wanted to convey that it’s God who orchestrates our salvation, so his choice to use two different words here makes it extremely difficult to defend the Calvinist take on this.  

This is further clarified once again, just two chapters later in Romans 11. Paul talks about how these same Jewish people he’s referring to in this chapter (whom God hardened) can still be grafted back in, and have an easier time than the Gentiles, as long as they “do not continue in their unbelief”:  

“And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in… how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.” — Romans 11:23-24 ESV  

Thus, the two “prepared” words in verses 9:22-24 show it’s inappropriate to apply “before they could do anything good or evil” to Pharaoh—Paul uses different words to distinguish God’s approach to the righteous and the prideful, and so should we.

This poses one more challenge for the Calvinist, since their theology depends on God making indiscriminate choices about our salvation, and applying that choice equally. Here we see that God indiscriminately gives everyone a purpose, but then has “much patience” for the unrighteous and uses their rebellion for His purpose, yet still offers them a chance to be “grafted back in”.   

We see this played out practically all the time. How many celebrities and rock stars have an immense amount of talent and purpose, and yet aren’t using it for God? How many leaders in the corporate world have a natural gift for their field, and yet aren’t using those gifts for the Kingdom? Their gifts and callings were irrevocable and their purpose was decided before they were born, regardless of whether or not those gifts were going to be used for good things, or evil things. Yet God still “endures with much patience” those who haven’t decided to give their lives to Him, and always offers them a way to be grafted back into the Kingdom.    

Paul Ends Corporately

I’m always surprised that many seem to miss the end of the chapter. Paul couldn’t be more clear about who he’s referring to, and why God rejected them:

“What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone” — Romans 9:30-32

Paul doesn’t say “why? Because, like Pharaoh, they weren’t chosen”. He says, “because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works”. That’s the crux of this entire chapter.

The Jews learned about God but rejected Him. They put Him to death. So, God uses their unrighteousness, like Pharaoh’s, to further His purpose, while still “enduring much patience”, and offering them a chance to be grafted back in (Romans 11:23-24).  

Paul is using a corporate lens, yet many Jews, like himself and the Roman believers he addresses, received the promise, so this judgment only applied to those who rejected Jesus personally. Paul confirms as much two chapters later:  

“I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite… God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew.” — Romans 11:1-2 ESV

Conclusion

Let’s review: Calvinism would force us to believe that Paul starts Romans 9 using the analogy of Jacob and Esau to say that Jacob (like all Christians) was part of the “elect” and that the elect are those whom God chose to save – diverting from all of the prophets and Jewish tradition at the time, and dropping a theological bomb by announcing that all of our eternal destinies are predestined to no fault of our own (steering very close to the pagan determinism views at the time)…but then two chapters later Paul says that the “elect” can be enemies of the gospel and not saved at all.

Then, Paul uses the hardening of Pharaoh to show God inescapably ordaining hell for those He hardens, but then two chapters later Paul mentions that those whom God hardened can still be grafted back in if they don’t continue in their unbelief…even though it’s impossible for them to believe unless God specifically woo’s them to.

Then, Paul paraphrases the Old Testament analogy of the Potter and Clay where God clearly tells the nation to repent and avoid God’s judgement – but in Paul’s version of the Potter and the Clay, God is molding your entire destiny in His hands and you have no say in it, and who are you to question whether or not He sends you to hell? And then a few years later he uses the exact same “vessels” analogy writing to Timothy, but lists both vessels as being in the same house, talks about how the vessels purposes aren’t fixed, but can change, and then commands a free-will action (“cleanse yourself”) in order to change the vessel’s purpose — which would be redundant and unnecessary if God already predestined it.

Then, even though He “chose us before the foundations of the world” and it had nothing to do with what we would or wouldn’t do, Paul uses two words to tell us that God has two different approaches in regards to how He deals with the righteous vs wicked, and He has a ton of patience with the wicked — a group He already chose to damn and never died for.

Then at the end of the chapter he plainly tells us he’s referring to the Jews as a whole and how God rejected them because they chose works over faith, but somehow God also rejected them before they were born, to no fault of their own, because they weren’t “elected”.

The Calvinistic view of Romans 9 is very difficult to reconcile when you flesh out the words and context.   It seems to me that the early church, with a perfect translation, would have known that Paul different words for “preparing” the righteous and unrighteous, and with cultural context (Roman and Greek beliefs at the time), they knew he wouldn’t have abruptly brought up a pagan view on predestination without a lot of explanation.