A Dictionary of Disputed Terms: Calvinism and the Plain Meaning of Words

Calvinists point to verses like Amos 3:2, where God says, "You only have I known of all the families of the earth," and Jeremiah 1:5, where God tells Jeremiah, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." In both cases, they argue that "know" really means "chose" or "set my love on," not plain knowledge.

J.I. Packer put it this way: foreknowledge in the Bible "regularly carries the sense not of simple prescience [knowing ahead of time], but of selective knowledge, taking note of, fixing regard upon" (Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God). In other words, on this view, when the Bible says God "foreknew" someone, it is not saying God knew something about that person in advance; it is saying God picked that person out in advance.

That would make Romans 8:29 just another way of saying "those whom He chose," not an explanation of why He chose them.

Here is the problem with that argument. Look again at Jeremiah 1:5: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." If "knew" here only means "chose" and not real, actual knowledge, then the verse is quietly saying God did not actually know Jeremiah as a real person before Jeremiah existed, but only that God picked him out, the way you might pick a name out of a hat without knowing anything about it. But that cannot be right.

The Bible is clear everywhere else that God knows everything, past, present, and future, completely and perfectly (Psalm 139:1-4; Isaiah 46:9-10). God does not need to trade in real knowledge for mere choosing, because He already has both. He knew Jeremiah completely, as a real person, before Jeremiah was even formed, and He also chose him. The verse does not ask us to pick one meaning over the other. Both are true at the same time, because God is capable of both.

The same point applies to Romans 8:29 and 1 Peter 1:2. Both verses use the Greek word that literally means "to know beforehand." If Paul wanted to say "those God chose in advance," he had a perfectly good word for that: predestined. And he uses it in the very same sentence.

Why would he use two different words to say the exact same thing twice in a row? It makes far more sense that "foreknew" and "predestined" mean two different things: first God truly knew people in advance, including how they would respond to the gospel, and then, based on that knowledge, He predestined them.

There is also a simpler way to see the problem. If "foreknew" really just means "chose," then these verses are quietly saying that God, who knows everything, including the future, chose not to use what He knows when deciding who to save. That does not fit with a God who, according to Ezekiel 18:23 and 1 Timothy 2:4, wants everyone to be saved and takes no pleasure in anyone's death. A God who knows everything and genuinely wants everyone saved has no reason to ignore what He knows about a person's future response.

Bible passages

We are commanded to hate sin and to thoroughly oppose and reject everything that goes against God, not to merely "love sin less." We are told to put off our old self (Ephesians 4:22) and to actively resist anything, even people we love, that tries to drag us back into the ways of the world. That is not reduced affection. It is rejection and opposition.

2 Corinthians 7:10-11 makes this concrete: godly sorrow over sin produces real, strong responses: indignation, fear, and even what Paul calls "revenge" against sin in ourselves. That is what genuine hatred of sin looks like in practice. It is active, not passive.

So when Jesus says to "hate" father, mother, wife, and children if they compete with loyalty to Him (Luke 14:26), He is not asking for a slightly cooler ranking of affections. He is calling for decisive rejection of any claim, even the closest, most natural one, that gets in the way of following Him.

John Piper writes that the "hate" of Esau "refers to God's rejection of Esau as the carrier of the covenant promise," language he treats as distinct from the active wrath used elsewhere for those who do evil (The Justification of God).

We do not accept that softening, and we think it gets the word backwards. Hate is not a weaker word that occasionally gets used for stronger things. It is a strong word, and Scripture's own usage confirms it. Turning "hated" into "loved less" or "passed over" empties the word of the very force it carries elsewhere in the Bible, including in the verses just discussed.

A father who gives an inheritance to one son and nothing to the other has made a choice, but choosing is not the same thing as the text using a word that means active opposition or rejection.

Our real disagreement with the Calvinist conclusion here is not only about the meaning of the word "hate". It is also about who Romans 9:13 is talking about. Paul is quoting a passage about two nations, not two individuals. Genesis 25:23, quoted in the verse right before this one (Romans 9:12), says: "Two nations are in your womb... and the older shall serve the younger." As individuals, Esau never served Jacob a single day. It was their descendants, Edom serving Israel, that fulfilled this centuries later.

Malachi 1:2-4, written long after both men were dead, confirms it: God says He "laid waste" the hill country of Edom, which is judgment on a nation, not a personal verdict on a man. So whatever active opposition "hated" describes in Romans 9:13, it is describing God's posture toward the nation and line of Edom, not God's eternal disposition toward Esau as an individual, and certainly not a template for how God relates to every person who is not among His elect.

Bible passages

We agree with Calvinists on this much. The disagreement starts with what comes next: does being fully sovereign mean God must personally control every single human choice, including whether a person believes the gospel or not? Or can a sovereign God choose to give people a real ability to decide, without that making Him any less in control?

Louis Berkhof states the Calvinist position clearly: "The sovereignty of God... is asserted in the unconditional decree of election and reprobation. ... The ultimate ground of the differentiation between those who are saved and those who are not, lies in the sovereign will of God" (Systematic Theology). In other words, on this view, if a person's own choice played any real part in whether that person is saved, that would somehow make God less sovereign.

We do not think that follows. Think about an earthly king. If a king gives his people real freedom to obey or disobey him, and then justly rewards or punishes them based on what they actually chose, is he less of a king? Not at all. His authority is just as real, maybe even more impressive, because it works even though his people are free.

The Bible shows God ruling this way again and again: He lets people choose, holds them responsible for what they choose, and still accomplishes everything He intends (Deuteronomy 30:15-19; Genesis 50:20; Acts 2:23, where the same event is described as both a human choice and part of God's plan). None of that makes God smaller or weaker. Giving real choice to His creatures, and still being completely in control of the outcome, is itself a sign of how great His power is.

The Bible shows people with:

• the ability to obey, and the ability to disobey,
• the ability to believe, and the ability to disbelieve,
• the ability to accept God, and the ability to reject Him.

This does not threaten God's sovereignty. It is actually an example of it. He chose, by His own sovereign will, to make people who have real, meaningful choices.

1a) People can obey: the Bible says obedience is possible and expected. Joshua 24:24 says, "And the people said to Joshua, 'The LORD our God we will serve, and His voice we will obey!'" Deuteronomy 30:11-14 says God's commands are not too hard. John 14:21 says, "He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me."

1b) People can disobey: the Bible also says people can really reject God's commands. Luke 7:30 says, "But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him." These verses describe real moral choice. Calvinists also believe in human responsibility; the real disagreement is whether "responsible" choices are choices that could genuinely have gone a different way.

2a) People can believe: belief is shown as a real human response. John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish..." John 6:29 says, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent." Acts 16:31 says, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household."

2b) People can disbelieve: the Bible also shows unbelief as a real choice. John 5:40 says, "But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life." John 3:18 says, "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already..." Belief and unbelief are shown here as real, live options, not just the outward sign of something already decided ahead of time.

3a) People can accept God: accepting God is shown as a meaningful decision. John 1:12 says, "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God..." Acts 2:41 says, "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized..." 2 Corinthians 5:20 says, "We implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God."

3b) People can reject God: the Bible also shows people refusing or resisting God. John 1:11 says, "He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him." Matthew 23:37 says, "How often I wanted to gather your children together... but you were not willing!" Matthew 23:37 stands out: Jesus says He wanted to gather Jerusalem's people, and they were not willing. That is hard to square with a system where only one will, God's, is ever truly at work.

R.C. Sproul said it plainly: "If there remains even one part in a billion that is the contribution of man, then salvation just to that small degree is not of grace" (Chosen by God). On this view, if a person's choice played any real role at all in that person's own salvation, then grace would no longer be fully grace. It would partly be a human achievement.

This follows pretty directly from the Calvinist doctrine of Irresistible Grace, which says that once God calls someone to salvation, that person cannot ultimately say no. If that is true, then a person's "yes" or "no" cannot really be the deciding factor, because the outcome was already locked in the moment God called that person.

So where do we actually disagree? Not really with the word "sovereignty" itself. We disagree further back, with two other Calvinist beliefs: Total Depravity, the idea that people are completely unable to respond to God at all on their own, and Unconditional Election, the idea that God's choice of who to save has nothing to do with how that person would respond.

We do not think the Bible teaches either of those. If those two beliefs are not true, then Irresistible Grace does not have to be true either, and if Irresistible Grace is not required, there is no need to redefine "sovereignty" to rule out any role for human choice.

Here is the simplest way to put it: both sides believe God is sovereign. The real question is what sovereignty looks like in practice. Does it mean God personally causes every single individual outcome, or does it mean God is so powerful and wise that He can give real choice to people and still guarantee that His purposes come true? We think the Bible points to the second option.

But notice that this whole debate is not really about the word "sovereignty." It is about Total Depravity and Unconditional Election. Settle those two questions, and the right definition of "sovereignty" follows naturally.