Author: lucas

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 condoned 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:

“God’s grace indeed cooperates with our will, but it does not compel it. For if all is determined by divine predestination, why do we exhort men to strive for virtue, or why does Scripture command us to choose life? The human will must begin, and God completes.” — John Cassian (c. 425–429 AD)

For the next 100 years, the early church had many disputes on what was known as the “Semi-Pelagian controversy” (at this point, many had taken a “semi-pelagian” approach to say that we need both God’s grace, and our free-will response), finally coming to a head in the Second Council of Orange. The final church position was that of most modern-day non-calvinists and can be summed up with the quote from the council:

“We confess that all men are properly capable of believing by the aid of divine grace, and that this grace is offered to all, so that those who are saved are saved by their own will cooperating with grace, not by necessity.” — Canon 5 of the Second Council of Orange (529 AD, Gaul)

After the council, the free-will emphasis continued. Faustus of Riez, a Semi-Pelagian leader, affirmed:

“God invites all to salvation, and His grace is offered universally. The human will… retains the power to accept or reject” — De Gratia (c. 470–475 AD)

Resistance persisted for centuries. In the East, John of Damascus (c. 675–749 AD) condemned predestination as fatalism:

“God foreknows all things, but He does not predetermine all things…. He does not compel virtue” — Exact Exposition, Book 2, Chapter 30 (c. 675–749 AD)

In the West, John Scotus Eriugena (c. 815–877 AD) rejected predestination, affirming free will and universal salvation potential. This became the widely accepted view of the church up until the reformation.

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 1500 years later.

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. That way you can choose how deep you want to go on each topic. 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, 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. 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 both 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.

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 read Ephesians 1, and Romans 9, and John 17, and none of them came to the conclusion that our salvation is predetermined? I think a deep dive on translations and context can clear a lot of this up.

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

“In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will…making known to us the mystery of his will … 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” — Ephesians 1:4-13 (abridged)

The kicker here is what the word “we” and “us” means. If “us” means “you and I individually”, then this leans more Calvinist. However, if “us” means “Jews and Greeks collectively”, then the entire lens of this verse changes. Basically, is Paul speaking in corporate terms, or in individual ones?

Calvin Attributes a Lost Letter

Did you know that John Calvin (1600s) believed that Paul wrote an earlier letter to the Ephesians, even though there isn’t a single record or reference to the letter existing? Why would he suggest this? Because just 2 chapters later, Paul writes this:

“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” — Ephesians 3:3-4

Note how he says “as I have written briefly”. It seems incredibly unlikely that Paul would be referencing a lost epistle because it flows perfectly in context; he reference the exact same things in Chapter 3 as he does in Chapter 1 (a mystery, revealed to the disciples recently, uniting Heaven and earth).

So why the need for the lost letter? Why does Chapter 3 threaten the Calvinistic reading of chapter 1? Because it clearly explains the mystery and defines the “us”:

“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)

It’s the same format and reference as in Chapter 1, but now he expands on that predestined mysterious plan, and that plan isn’t that our salvations were all preordained, the mystery is that God ALWAYS intended for the gentiles to be a part of the “elect”.

So now that we know exactly who Paul is referring to, let’s replace “us” in Ephesians 1 with “Jews and Gentiles” and see how it reads:

“In love he predestined us (Jews and Gentiles) for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ” — Ephesians 1:11

Way different huh? I think this must be why Calvin suggested an earlier letter with no record of it existing, and it’s also why I believe the early church didn’t get tripped up. Paul’s scope here is corporate, not personal.

Click here to dive more into why a long-lost letter is improbable, and how even this Chapter itself references free will

Romans 9

Many Calvinists use Romans as their “black and white” chapter, arguing that there aren’t many ways to read these verses differently.

Jacob and Esau

“though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election 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.’” — Romans 9:10-13

“Hated” here is a bad translation. It’s the same word Jesus uses: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate 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. Clearly Jesus doesn’t want us to hate our parents or our wife or our own life. A better translation would be to “esteem one over the other” Also, Esau reconciled with Jacob, and his descendants, like Teman, were later linked to wisdom (Jeremiah 49:7). This shows ‘hated’ refers to his role, not his salvation or legacy.

So who is Paul referring to when he says “in order that God’s purpose of election might continue”? This verse is why Calvinists often use the “election” language, however, if we skip just two chapters ahead we find this verse:

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

How is it that you can be an enemy of the gospel, yet part of the “elect”? Either the “elect” means a preordained remnant, or it means the Jewish people. It can’t mean both. So in this case, “election” would refer to God electing the Jews as covenant-bearers, and He’s choosing Jacob as the leader of that, not Esau.

“’I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’ So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.” — Romans 9:15-16

First, Pharaoh’s story shows free will—he hardened his heart at the beginning (Exodus 7:13, 8:15), and God’s later hardening (Exodus 9:12) continued his choices, a pattern that repeats (Exodus 9:34, 10:1)

Second, “man looks at the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart” — 1 Samuel 16:7. Human will or exertion doesn’t welcome God’s mercy, but our heart condition towards Him does (“God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble” — James 4:6). So there’s nothing in this verse to suggest God’s grace is indiscriminate. Let’s also consider the broader point Paul is making: the Jews missed out on being the ones to usher in the Christ, despite the fact that there wasn’t a single group who looked better on the outside. Their human will and exertion clearly didn’t bring them any favor with God.

“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 me like this?’ Has the potter no right over the clay, to make one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?” — Romans 9:19-21

Where have we heard the words “one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use”?

“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” — II Timothy 2:20-21

Same author, same allegory, but now we have three more details:

1. Both vessels are in the “master’s house”, alluding to both vessels being a part of the Kingdom, “in my Father’s house there are many rooms” casting doubt on this text being about heaven and hell
2. It’s possible to transition from “dishonorable” to “honorable”, so these aren’t fixed outcomes.
3. “Cleansing ourselves” is a free-will response, and what this all hinges on

We are confronted with this dance between God’s plan, and our response to it. God will accomplish His purpose and it’s his prerogative on how He wants to use you to do it — whether that is in righteousness or rebellion.

To Summarize

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.

Let’s review a little: Calvinism would force us to believe that Paul starts Romans 9 talking about the Jews as a whole, abruptly switches to a personal lens and drops a theological bomb, announcing that all of our paths are predestined (steering very close to the pagan views at the time), then goes back to talking about Jews as a whole again without explaining himself or going into detail. 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”?

As if that’s not enough, two chapters later he tells us that the “elect” are the Jews and can be enemies of the gospel. Years later, he uses the exact same “vessels” analogy writing to Timothy, but lists both vessels as being in the same house, avoids predestination entirely, and commands a free-will action (“cleanse yourself”) — which would be redundant and unnecessary if God already predestined it.

The Calvinistic view of Romans 9 is an absolute mess when you put it into context.

It seems to me that the early church, with a perfect translation, would have known that Paul was always referring to a corporate lens, 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.

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, along with a steelmanned Calvinist pushback.

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.

Click here for my full breakdown on John 17

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.

Check out my deep dive on this verse, including the Calvinist steelman

Why do I need a deep dive on this one verse? Because 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. On top of that, it shows up in the same book and author as the infamous Romans 9 that Calvinists use often…adding to the argument that Roman’s 9 was always meant to be from a corporate lens. If I was forced to use only one verse in the Bible to disprove Calvinism, this verse would be enough.

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.

“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.

Click here for many more verses and a calvinist steelman on them

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 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!

Skubalon. This word is far more than a simple debate for amusement amongst Greek scholars. This word encompasses lifestyles and a general understanding about the kinds of people the Apostles were, and poses a certain threat, or comfort, depending on which side of the isle you happen to be on.

A little context: Paul and I seem to have some connecting points. I was raised in an incredibly conservative home, and we grew up under the pretext of always seeming to want to outdo the purity index. My mom’s constant phrase was, “don’t water down your faith”. In her perspective, “water down” could probably be seen as “not profitable” as a hail to the verse, “all things are lawful, but not all things are profitable”. The mistake that I think happened, was that my mom with golden intentions, translated that verse in her head as, “if it isn’t profitable, it isn’t lawful”. The issue with that, is that the term “profitable” should be relative, while “lawful” should be black and white.

Consequently, I grew up with a constant push to be more “lawful”. If music wasn’t Christian, or if it was too rocky, it wasn’t lawful. If fashion was too “worldly”, it wasn’t lawful. If speech wasn’t proper, it wasn’t lawful. If romantic relationships weren’t practical, they weren’t lawful. So for example: since marriage wasn’t practical in Jr High or High School, romantic feelings weren’t lawful, and I was watched like a hawk by my other siblings to make sure that I wasn’t being flirtatious with a girl when I was 14, lest I break the family law. The music I listened to was heavily monitored and my parents used to preview my CDs, track by track, removing any of the tracks that had too much electric guitar. My Audio Adrenaline CD was taken away, and my Avalon CD was whittled down to 6 tracks. Bright colors became popular when I was in high school, so I once bought a bright orange t-shirt from Target, and when I showed it to my parents, they made me take it back and get my money back. 

My parents would tell me that no one was going to hell by breaking those rules, but that those precepts would help to make sure that my faith wasn’t “watered down”.

There’s something in all of us I think, that wishes for an ideal. We see the Holiness of God, and understandably don’t measure up, so we climb ladders in a hope that God doesn’t need to come down quite as far to reach us. 

I think Paul had a similar mindset. He was raised in a hyper-conservative home, became a top Pharisee, and seemed to also see everything “not profitable” as equating to “not lawful”. If holiness was a ladder, Paul seemed to be in the business of manufacturing rungs. 

So back to Skubalon — this word seems to be of a special importance to me, because curiously, Paul uses this word to describe his previous accolades in wrung manufacturing:

“Although I myself could boast as having confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else thinks he is confident in the flesh, I have more reason: circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless. But whatever things were gain to me, these things I have counted as loss because of Christ. More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them mere skubalon, so that I may gain Christ”

Philippians 3:4-8 

So what does skubalon mean exactly? The controversy rests in the NET bible cliff notes describing this word:

“The word here translated ‘dung’ was often used in Greek as a vulgar term for fecal matter. As such it would most likely have had a certain shock value for the readers. This may well be Paul’s meaning here, especially since the context is about what the flesh produces.”

So if we take this note to heart, then the word should have been more properly translated to “shit” or “bullshit”. I mean, what other word could be translated “dung”, but with shock value? “Crap” simply doesn’t have shock value, since you could use that word in a G-rated movie (although amusingly, some translations have suggested “crap” as the appropriate translation). 

From what I’ve seen, this causes a conundrum amongst two sides of the church: the first side seems to be those who came from the world and who are careful to not give someone liberty to swear. They would use the verse “let no unwholesome thing come out of your mouth” as pretext for why Paul would have never used a cuss word. The other side (the one I came from) are those who come from religion and find this word as a source of freedom to explain that not only is Paul outlining the fact that his religious background was worthless, but he was using a cuss word to do it in order to further extend the point.

Espousing a different perspective, even momentarily, can be among the most alien and offensive concepts to our human nature. In my case, it’s very difficult to consider the idea that Paul DIDN’T cuss, because it offers sweet justification for why I no longer identify with the legalistic and religious views that I was raised with. However, I must also consider the perspective of those who find this concept offensive, because in many cases, those on the opposing side of the isle have found a ton of freedom in the structure and self-discipline that the Christian life offers, and this appears to be an affront to that.

So as with many things, I must be careful not to straw man either side (“straw man” is when you prop up an unfairly weak argument on the opposing side so as to be able to easily dismantle it). In preparing for this, I read many articles on both sides of the issue in order to get a full understanding.

So without further ado, the answer lies in etymology, as do many controversial topics to the Christian faith.

Skubalon is another one of those words that only show up a few times in ancient writings, and only once in the Bible. The first record of this word was in the 3rd century BC, and the last reference seems to have been in the late 4th century. As many obscure greek words go, the meaning seems to have changed a bit in those 700 years, becoming less offensive as time went on.

During the time of Paul, the word was used primarily for “dung”, but there seemed to be a distinction between dung in a chamber pot, and dung that was thrown out:

“till, there is a problem and not a small one in the work of the engineers. When they paved the streets they did not install beneath them underground drainage. Instead τὰ σκύβαλα covers the surface, and especially in the rain when τῶν ἀποσκευῶν is thrown out” (Strabo, Geography. 14.1.37)

Here, the dung (σκύβαλα (Another form of Skubalon) covers the surface, while another word is used when it is thrown out.

Critics have argued further that the word would have been an acceptable word, since there are references to it in a medical sense:

Artemidorus, Oneirocritia (second century AD) “ In the context of his first book, a discussion of anatomy, he refers to human excrement as σκύβαλον (Skubalon)”

Conversely, Josephus uses it to outline the disgusting practices of those suffering a famine during the fall of Jerusalem:

“some persons were driven to that terrible distress as to search the common sewers and old dunghills of cattle, and to eat the dung [σκύβαλα] which they got there”

Because of this, scholars have been divided on the meaning of the word, and it becomes tricky whenever something in the Bible is gray, because both sides can bring strong claims, and thus, your individual perspectives end up reigning supreme.

However, (perhaps because of my own perspective) I found the work of John David Punch to be helpful in this analysis, since he brings up the argument that Paul could have used several other words, yet chose not to. In his words:

“While it is important to remember that it is always tenuous to suggest what words an author must or must not use, it is wise to consider alternative terms that were available at the time of composition, especially any technical terms that are more widely used than obscure slang”

κόπρος, σκῶρ, περίττωμα/περίσσωμα, and χέζω are all words that could have been easily substituted for a less controversial tone, and all those words are used far more commonly in ancient writings. όπρος is associated with animal waste and was used by Homer and is generally seen as an unoffensive term. σκῶρ was commonly used for human waste in an unoffensive way. περίττωμα was used as a medical term describing human waste and was used commonly and without controversy. Lastly, χέζω was used to describe “bowel movement”, and was acceptable to general audiences. As Punch describes: 

“Each of these terms has thousands of occurrences dating back to the time of Homer, none of which appears to have offensive overtones. By contrast, σκύβαλον occurs only a very few times in a comparable period and at least a handful of these appear to have the intent of provoking strong reactions to foul and loathsome descriptions.”

Punch continues: 

“This provides the second piece of evidence to consider. It seems apparent that the term σκύβαλον, and likely various related terms, are regularly used to provoke an emotional response, at least in earlier references. Later usage shows signs that the term had lost much of its shock value (Wallace 2007), but early references seem to suggest that σκύβαλον was used to express extreme disgust. As Lang comments (1985, 445), ‘Only with hesitation does literature seem to have adopted it from popular speech.’ The infrequent occurrence of the term in written form should confirm that understanding of it.”

Lastly, and perhaps the most convincing, is the graffiti at Pompeii. The reason that this is the most convincing to me, is because we have a nearly perfect date (79AD), and we have the word (or at least a derivative) in full context. The graffiti at Pompeii looks very similar to the graffiti of today — a litany of “street terms” that are often inappropriate, and yet sometimes even profound. Here are a few amusing inscriptions that were found:

“I screwed the barmaid.” — Caupona of Athictus; right of the door

“Celadus the Thracian gladiator is the delight of all the girls.” — House of the Gladiators; column in the peristyle

“Cruel Lalagus, why do you not love me?” — On the Vico degli Scienziati

“Blondie has taught me to hate dark-haired girls. I shall hate them, if I can, but I wouldn’t mind loving them. Pompeian Venus Fisica wrote this.” — Atrium of the House of the Large Brothel

“If anyone does not believe in Venus, they should gaze at my girl friend.” — Atrium of the House of the Ara Maxima

“Atimetus got me pregnant.” — In Vicolo del Panattiere, House of C. Vibius

So amongst those wonderful phrases (as well as several that were too obscene to list), are 4 phrases with the original latin word (cacare), which is the base for the word κόπρος, a derivative of our word used by Paul:

“Lesbianus, you defecate (cacare) and you write, ‘Hello, everyone!’” — Pottery Shop or Bar of Nicanor; right of the door

“To the one defecating (cacare) here. Beware of the curse. If you look down on this curse, may you have an angry Jupiter for an enemy.” — House of Pascius Hermes; left of the door

“Defecator (cacare), may everything turn out okay so that you can leave this place.” — Just outside the Vesuvius gate

“’Secundus defecated (cacare) here’ three time on one wall.” — House of the Centennial; in the latrine near the front door

“Apollinaris, the doctor of the emperor Titus, defecated (cacare) well here.” — House of the Gem

This to me, offers some legitimate context. Skubalon was a word that would have been at home amongst bathroom stall scribbles. It was crude and offensive.

Conclusion

Paul was clearly wanting to convey a certain amount of harshness. That fact is something that most scholars agree to on both sides, due to the fact that he seems to be increasing the intensity as the verse goes on:

“But whatever things were gain to me, these things I have counted as loss because of Christ. More than that, I count all things to be loss (zēmia, “loss” is a good translation) in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss (zēmioō, [passive] to suffer damage — more intense) of all things, and count them mere skubalon (most intense), so that I may gain Christ”

Taken in the context of etymology, it would seem as if the term would have been at best slang (due to the profound lack of commonality of the term), and at worst offensive. I tend to lean towards the offensive side of the scale.

If you’ve read the Bible enough, this doesn’t seem too far out of character. Jesus called the Pharisee’s “sons of snakes” and “white-washed tombs”. In Galatians, Paul sarcastically tells the religious that if they view circumcision as the means to salvation, they should go all the way and “emasculate themselves entirely”. 

In closing, I believe that there are certain instances where one cuss word can say a thousand words. We should note however, that just like today, there were many Greek cuss words that Paul could have used, and yet didn’t, and the cuss word that he did appear to use was only written once. I don’t believe that cussing like a sailor is helpful to your witness or in line with the language of the apostles:

“If someone believes they have a relationship with God but fails to guard his words then his heart is drifting away and his religion is shallow and empty”

I also don’t believe that truly obscene phrases and words are helpful, and that’s further emphasized with the verse “let no unwholesome word come out of your mouth”.

However, there is a difference between offensive, and unwholesome. The Bible can be very offensive, but it is always wholesome. Telling someone, “you’re a badass” may be offensive if there are kids in the room, but the effect you would have on someone would be positive, thus, wholesome. 

Looking back at my past and comparing notes with Paul gives me a bit of context I think. I can look back at all of my religious strivings and happily use the word “bullshit” to describe them, especially after experiencing the true freedom of Jesus. The fact that I would use a slang and offensive term to describe it carries even more meaning, since by using the word, I am also ironically betraying the concepts of religion. So after much study, I believe Paul was doing the same.