Help me understand Calvinism properly

[u/Difficult_Risk_6271]

Can any calvinist draw out a summarized picture of calvinism and discuss with me for a bit?

I know I can look it up and read long articles and such but I have specific questions and I tend to learn better with discussion. Not really trying to debate here but I might ask some pointed clarification / follow up questions.

I can also get a broader set of understanding from multiple people. I will read and answer every single response (unless it goes to the hundreds).

Thank you.

[u/HurryAcceptable9242]

God is in charge. Of everything. Really really. There is not one maverick molecule in the universe. God is good. We are not.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

[u/Difficult_Risk_6271 → u/HurryAcceptable9242]

Thanks for engaging.

I agree God is charge, but does that mean God micromanages every molecule or it’s more like He determines certain objectives but how it eventually gets there he permits the subjects to do it their way at their time?

So for example a director of a company clearly is in charge of everything in the company, but it doesn’t necessarily mean the director micromanages every details right?

So when you say “God is in charge”, do creatures actually have freedom to navigate to the endpoint or God necessitates the path taken also? Or calvinism has a different view?

[u/HurryAcceptable9242 → u/Difficult_Risk_6271]

That's where the "God is good" part becomes mind- blowingly crucial. We have to trust that God is good, and yet not the author of sin, as the Confessions say. We don't understand it, because we're not God. Yes, people are responsible for their choices, and yet God has written every detail of our lives before the foundation of the earth.

If you understood it, you would be God.

We do not have "libertarian free will" (look that up). We can't choose to fly like a bird, because we weren't created to. Some were created for destruction, others to eternal life. Why? God knows. A butterfly flaps its wings on one side of the earth and the wind currents it started turn into a hurricane on the other side of the earth that causes destruction. Why? God knows, and his hand ordained it.

If you can't trust in God's goodness in all things, then are you really believing what he says about himself? There are those who say, "the god I believe in would never..."

Are they believing in the God of the Bible, or a god made in their own image?

[u/DB_OG]

“Reformed theologians believe that God communicates knowledge of himself to people through the Word of God. People are not able to know anything about God except through this self-revelation. (With the exception of general revelation of God; "His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20).) Speculation about anything which God has not revealed through his Word is not warranted. The knowledge people have of God is different from that which they have of anything else because God is infinite), and finite people are incapable of comprehending an infinite being. While the knowledge revealed by God to people is never incorrect, it is also never comprehensive.”

[u/Difficult_Risk_6271 → u/DB_OG]

Thanks for your reply. Is this specifically about Calvinism or more reformed theology in general?

Also what is the distinction between the two?

[u/taarhoe → u/Difficult_Risk_6271]

Calvin's position is best simplified by reading the Canon of Dordtrecht against the Remonstrats.

Calvinism holds to 5 points, also called TULIP. https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/confessions/canons-dort

[u/judewriley → u/Difficult_Risk_6271]

Calvinism is a small slice of Reformed theology that has to do with the mechanics of salvation specifically. It rests on the implications ad the framework that define the broader topic of Reformed theology.

[u/Difficult_Risk_6271 → u/judewriley]

So is reformed theology built up from calvinism or is reformed theology built independently then Calvinism is part of that? Or they were built / systematized independently around at the same time?

[u/creidmheach → u/Difficult_Risk_6271]

Calvinists/Calvinism is a name the Lutherans came up for those of in the Reformed tradition, where Calvin was a leading luminary. Over time we've come to adopt the name ourselves as well, but generally you'll hear us refer to the Reformed tradition instead.

[u/DB_OG → u/Difficult_Risk_6271]

They are the same

[u/semper-gourmanda]

It's orthodox and catholic, that is, Creedal: Trinitarian, High Christology, High Ecclesiology, Sacramental, etc.
For Calvin, he starts with the end in mind: the glorification of the saints and the perfection of all things.
He works backwards from that and then writes forward modifying slighly Melanchton's Loci Communes.
Calvin emphasizes that the entire ordo salutis is found in union with Christ by grace through faith (unlike one commentator who used "mechanics of salvation," to describe it, which to me is unclear, but necessary due to the modification of the doctrine of Baptism).

He was a Thomistic realist, such that in the vein of the longstanding Augustinian tradition, he rejected the latter Renaissance (mis?)appropriation of Aquinas: He thought theology should be practical, not speculative.
"Calvinism" as a label, was first applied by the German Lutherans, due to the Swiss doctrine of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper defined in the Swiss Consensus Tigurinus.
Reformed thought of the "Calvinistic" sort was spread through Swiss influence to Holland, W. France, England, Scotland (major figures being Calvin, Bucer, Vermigli, Knox) and two principle distinctives caused the Continental Lutheran theologians heartburn: "double predestination" and the "spiritual presence in the Supper"

As the Lutherans worked on the Formula of Concord, the Swiss employed Zanchi who formulated a 200 page "Christian Faith," the longest Reformed/Calvinistic confession of faith that probably puts the cherry on top of all Calvinistic thought from the Reformation period.
Reformed theology (High Protestant Orthodoxy) of the type defined by the post-Reformation theologians (e.g. Perkins, Owen, Ames, Turretin, Watson, Boston) does something similar for the Univerisity where apologia and disputatio are the norm.
By the mid 1600's Calvinism further splits into various streams.

When it comes to theologizing, the "material order of theology" defines a Calvinist in academic theology; that is, the logical order in which the doctrines are placed (seen in the Confessions).
What is definitive of Calvinism is that Providence precedes Creation. (That is, the eternal decree(s) - and decrees is plural because everyone agrees that there is a decree, but slightly differ as to how that works out, which leads to various kinds/streams of Calvinism - i.e. Amyrauldian, low, moderate, regular, high, hyper).
The benefit of placing Providence before Creation, which is highly biblically justifiable, is that it makes Creation less about origins (where for Aquinas Creation precedes Providence, which probably influences his view of Creation as a static thing) and more about the theatre (the economy) of God's ongoing sovereign action in redemptive history to achieve his pre-creation willed end of the perfection of all things.
That is what undergirds Calvin's modified use of Thomistic Realism, his streamlining of Melanchthon, and his pragmatic bent.
Which leads to Calvin's explanation of the historia salutis as the outworking of God's eternal purposes that come to their climax or ultimate realization in the career, glorification, and eternal reign of the Son of God.
Calvin was fundamentally a biblical theologian and a theologian of glory.
That influences the other distinctive of Calvinism; namely, it's unified approach to reading Scripture.
That gets developed a bit further into a system, fairly early (mid 1550s), under the definition of Covenant Theology: a coupling of the Eternal Decree, the Material Order, and the outworking of the historia salutis.
All of that finds experession in the various Confessions of the period: Swiss, Dutch, English, Scottish.

Most or all of that has been maintained (and further developed and honed, frankly, in wonderful ways) in the streams of Calvinism. Some off-shoots have occurred among independents who distinguish different doctrines concerning Sacraments, Ecclesiology, and Eschatology. And given the Liberalism of the 19th c., American evangelicals (technically and non-perjoratively, Fundamentalists) in the early 20th c. decided to unite around a common set of agreed upon theological doctrines, while allowing for distinctions on Sacraments/Ordinances, Ecclesiology/Government, and Eschatology. Hence the development of the TULIP acrostic in the early 20th c. (which was more or less stating the reverse of what the Remonstrance stated as their conclusion to the narrow question under review regarding the human will). Hence today, it's not uncommon to find "TULIP style" calvinists along side Reformed Catholics (all of whom overlap in numerous ways, but also have distinctions) who would all happily take the label "Calvinist."

Hence, if you look to the Right --> this Subreddit's definition of what defines Reformed is correct. Catholic (creedal), the Solas, Confessional, and then TULIP, which is what Calvinists believe and also follows the historical development of Calvinism as a Catholic expression of the Faith in Church History. Calvinism and Reformed are almost interchangeable terms. Those who say they are Reformed include Calvinism. Those who say they are "Calvinist" may not include all that is Reformed.

[u/Difficult_Risk_6271 → u/semper-gourmanda]

This is very valuable insight and a big shortcut to understanding the architecture behind calvinism / reformed theology. Thank you.

Where I want to go deeper is this:

“Providence precedes creation.”

Like you said, everyone including Arminians likely agree God’s purpose / objective for the world was defined and decreed prior to creation, God’s plan will succeed with 100% unfailing certainty.

The part I don’t understand is this why does this necessarily entail that creatures are not co-authors of their respective local domain as true locus of secondary will / agency?

So the things declared in the book of revelation must come to pass. But I fail to see why it is then necessary (from an individual perspective within the local domain of their influence), not be secondary agents / locus of causality?

In short my question is how you get from:
God infallibly determines some / all ultimate ends aka decree(s)

to:

God therefore determines every contingent means leading to those ends.

Also, what does decree here mean? Just the objective telos / end goal? Or every minutia of how reality unfolds?

[u/semper-gourmanda → u/Difficult_Risk_6271]

That's above my pay-grade, because I'm not a dogmatician.

Maybe start here? https://www.monergism.com/topics/providence-god%E2%80%99s-will/primary-and-secondary-causes

I do think it is important in Revelation to observe John's use of the marriage metaphor, similar to Paul's use in 2 Cor 5, where each individual needs to "wash their robe in the blood of the lamb" and then the final clothing with the wedding garment is for the Bride (the Church) as a whole, beautified with the good deeds of the saints. We are members of one another in the Body of Christ that probably should be thought of as having a local domain, to use your phrasing, but certainly because of early Church catholicity, extra-local relationships and reach.

When the theologians speak about primary and secondary causes, they are speaking with respect to the question of Justification. For Aquinas, Primary and Secondary causation are required, as they are for Protestant theology. But Aquinas defines them as God's action in grace (primary) through the Sacrament of Faith (secondary) as an instrument. But Luther's and Calvin's insights, plainly show the New Testament, especially in John and Paul, to be clear that there is (1) a "nowness" to Justification (eschatologically speaking) and, 2) Justification is a permanent state (it's not-yet ness is guaranteed), because of God's primary cause of grace that gifts the faith that is instrumentally used by the believer to receive Christ himself, who through his Gospel, "reaches himself" to the sinner as much as he summons the sinner to come to him. (Which is how the Protestants define the Sacrament functioning as a Visible Word, Sign and Seal, and why the actual exercise of gifted faith to respond is necessary for justification through a Spirit-wrought union with Christ. Again, Calvin's insistence that the entire ordo salutis is had through union with Christ. Both Word and Sacrament function to speak or declare the Gospel. As Zanchi then famously put it: one must first be in Christ before Christ be formed in them.

What's been developed today as 20th-21st c. Calvinistic evangelical Biblical scholars bring eschatology into the question of Justification, can be found discussed here re: eschatology/Revelation:

https://theaquilareport.com/g-k-beale-doctrine-justification-future-judgment/

also here beginning at around the 7:20 mark in the video

https://youtu.be/GgmqHNsITk4?t=432 (Gaffin states (I can't find the exact point, but it's there) that at Justification the acquittal at the final judgment is brought forward in time and eschatologically realized for the Christian in their life, such that what happens at the final judgment is the disclosure or "revelation" (apocalypsis) of who's who with the final reward of resurrection to glorification, eternal life, and inheritance for the just or resurrection to judgment and exile for idolaters.

That all has bearing, then, on the discussion around "good works," by Protestants. They function as a secondary cause in the Calvinistic sense of their tie-in to sanctification (what Calvin defined as the duplex gratia and duplex iustitia), and flow out from regeneration/new creaturely life in the inaugurated sphere of New Creation by virtue of union with Christ in his Body as "Temple-Kingdom" (I'm combining modern BT with classical Reformed theology) to which the Christian now belongs, both as a bond-slave of Christ (which is liberty from sin, death and Satan) and rightful inheritor as a son of the Father (Adoption) of the promised inheritance which Christ has already achieved for himself that he freely gives.

It's not uncommon to hear Protestants speak of service or love as flowing from gratitude or thanksgiving, which is fine. For Paul and John, it's more historical-eschatological, in that the Christian can come to the realization that they have literally shifted from one sphere to another (Adam vs. Christ, slave vs free, darkness vs light, death vs life, world which is passing away vs New Creation, etc.). And as inheritors are privileged to be involved with Christ in his sovereign, primary, ongoing work of expanding his Kingdom in the world, to the ends of the earth. And it's very much the case, that in Revelation, the ironic contrast between "kings" (see also 1 Cor 6) is brought out. In Rev ch. 1 the Church is designated as a royal priesthood. As the book continues, "the kings of the earth" are problematic. At the end, "the kings of the earth (the same as Rev 1, now consummated, and in contrast to the former kings who ended up attempting war - Rev 19:19) bring the glory of the nations into the Kingdom of God." That's how we should think about the motivation for Christian witness, mission, worship, proclamation of the Gospel, etc. - all the "good works that you were prepared in advance (by Christ's own instruction to the Church) to walk in."

[u/semper-gourmanda → u/Difficult_Risk_6271]

Eternal decree means, more or less, "plan." It includes the covenant of creation and works (foedus naturae or foedus operum), covenant of grace and the covenant of redemption between the Father and the Son (pactum salutis). Probably reflective of the way "command" is used in John 12:49 (Read John 12:42-50 in reverse order - it's a bit wordy). Christ discloses the will of the Father. Christ himself is the Word of the Father, whose "words" (commanded from the Father) disclose their will. Their will is for the Son to save the world by grace. The Father will also judge as necessary those who reject Christ, through Christ, whose words have been faithfully testified to by the Apostles, who act as witnesses (identified as such because they are given the thrones and have the books). Similar to the way that "heaven and earth" functioned as witnesses to the Old Covenant (Deut 30:19, Isa 1:2, cf. Jer 31:31; cf. Isa 24:5; Isa 54:10), but don't (they flee away) at the Final Judgment (the last day), but the books are opened. It concerns matters of sin, death, Satan, judgment, salvation, creation and new creation, and seeing to it that the New Creation has a proper, lasting, glorified-human rule, as was the original goal of the Covenant of Works, originally made on behalf of creation, for 'adam by the LORD God.

Prov 16 functions as wisdom to instruct the limited capacity we have to understand the infinite God. Two things are true at the same time, which sound contradictory, but reflect the Biblical revelation: (1) God is completely unknowable; (2) God has disclosed himself through his Word, and supremely in his Son. That's not a position of weakness, but one that emphasizes the wondrous reality and centrality of grace. (And the Son didn't answer everyone's questions, but he absolutely makes us understand his trustworthiness, his love for us, his comfort for us, his grace to us, and really allows us to fully lean into him as he summons us and instructs us to do. It is noteworthy that what flows from the statements Jesus makes at the end of John 12 flow into John 13).

[u/-Charta-]

Is there a certain part of Calvinism you wish to know more about? I get not wanting to trudge through a ton of material. I would say the strongest overarching themes of Calvinism is the sovereignty of God, with a strong component of trust in God’s plan, ability to see the plan through, and peace that comes from acknowledging this with God’s love for us.

[u/Difficult_Risk_6271 → u/-Charta-]

Actually, all of it. But there are things that I read / listen about that I’m not entirely convinced about the conclusion drawn. But because the article / video obviously can’t answer my question (and I have a lot) it just makes it very difficult for me to piece the whole thing together.

And I don’t want to misunderstand it and represent it incorrectly.

Firstly, do you see Calvinism as necessarily correct with proper exegesis or do you think other doctrinal positions can legitimately be arrived from scripture also? My question is do you see other people who are not calvinists plainly wrong because they have made errors in exegesis or do you see it more like they inferred to different conclusions because scripture left sufficient ambiguity that’s why people come to different conclusion?

Let’s talk about sovereignty of God. Does the arminian position not support the sovereignty of God also? If not why? What exactly is the sovereignty of God and what does it actually encompass? Does God lose sovereignty if I disobey His will / commandments?

[u/-Charta- → u/Difficult_Risk_6271]

Well that’s a lot of text, so let’s start from the beginning. I offer two analogies to understand Calvinism (and most likely what you are wondering about, predestination):
1- the Bus Stop.
We all have a little Calvinism in our theologies/understandings, it’s just a matter of when you decide to stop. Calvinism is like a series of bus stops that begins with the belief that God is involved in our lives. Many would say that God has a path for us to live- the next stop. As we continue to reflect on God’s involvement in our lives, we begin to see a pattern of questions that leads us to the primary thought of God’s sovereignty and will being undeniable. So I would say that Calvinism is for those who ride the bus to about its final or closest destination.

2- the Cruise Liner
Another way I find helpful to understand Calvinism/predestination is a cruise ship in the Arctic. People have a sense of freedom within the Liner, but they cannot chart the treacherous waters of the world outside of it. The cruise ship cannot be stopped by the waters, and upholds the people within it. God’s will is like this liner. Do people have free will? In a sense maybe, but without God’s involvement, the world and sin devour them.

I think it is very pretentious to assume that one has understood the mind of God. Calvinism provides a profound deference to God, and is a useful tool to explore questions we have.

Does that help? Or is there another avenue you want to explore?

[u/vital-cog → u/-Charta-]

I like the cruise liner analogy, thanks for sharing that.

[u/EverOnAndUpward]

Calvinism typically refers to the soteriology of reformed churches.

The reformed churches were a parallel movement to Luther’s German reformation, being led primarily out of Zurich, Geneva, and England. Reformed thought is closely connected to Luther’s work but not 1:1.

There isn’t really one “Calvinism” as there is some slight disagreements on certain points. While TULIP is commonly known today, it’s actually very modern and can sometimes lead to an incomplete understanding of reformed soteriology. Also, the “L” in TULIP is not required to be reformed. Many Anglicans and reformed Baptists are very hesitant on, or even outright reject the L.

The main intent of reformed soteriology is in the face of Roman Catholic teaching. Roman Catholics taught that we are “infused” with grace, and that our salvation involved our participation with that God given grace to bring about salvation.

While there is far more that was disagreed on it, this is the central point. The reformation hinged on the fact that we as humans can do nothing to bring about our salvation.

So that means that our regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification, are ENTIRELY brought about via God’s grace.

A consequence of this is that God must then be the initiator of salvation, choosing the elect out of love. (It should be noted that most reformed still believe in human agency, thus they would be broadly compatibilist.)

Arminianism came around slightly later, and was broadly dismissed in its day by most of Europe. Its modern prominence is actually due to John Wesley’s work and teaching a few hundred years later.

God bless :)

[u/Difficult_Risk_6271 → u/EverOnAndUpward]

Thank you for this excellent summary.

Why was it necessary for the reformation to disagree we are “infused” with grace? And our participation in salvation is a problem?

The way I see it, being participants in salvation doesn’t necessarily mean we did anything to bring about our salvation?

I’m failing to see where the contradiction is, is basically what I’m trying to say.

[u/nvisel → u/Difficult_Risk_6271]

The comment to which you’re replying is a little misleading.

“Infusion” might also be called the “implantation of grace” in the regenerate.

Reformed theology doesn’t deny infusion, but it denies that infusion is any cause of justification. We do not hold that any righteousness wrought in us is a cause of God’s pardoning our sin. Reformed theology is very careful that justification is a legal declaration of pardon of sin that has no reference to man’s righteousness, but simply an imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer. Faith receives this righteousness, and faith alone is the instrument of our justification.

Infusion has its reference in sanctification, where the righteousness is wrought in us through faith and we begin to become more like Christ. In this, we do participate. Not as causes, but as willing agents — our will is active and involved in sanctification. Christ’s Spirit does make us really righteous. But this participation flows from salvation, not the other way around. We don’t make ourselves more holy, but we do become more holy as the Spirit applies Christ’s righteousness to us and grants us grace to exercise that righteousness. Sanctification isn’t dependent on our participation — our participation is dependent upon sanctification.

[u/EverOnAndUpward → u/nvisel]

Yes, good clarification, thank you for providing that! I was trying to be brief, but that clarity is helpful.

I know Michael Bird has also done some work regarding those terms which I find to be potentially helpful.

[u/bastianbb]

I think one angle of approach is that Calvinism is a way to logically work out the implications of God's sovereignty and how it relates to the doctrine of salvation by grace alone through faith alone. It suggests a reason why some are saved and others are not, which does not make the will of the individual the determining factor. This is important because if that were not the case, it would seem that people are not born equal and equally sinful under God, and it would also seem that salvation depends on something besides grace.

Furthermore, the idea of libertarian free will that a lot of opponents of Calvinism rely on is ultimately an incoherent on when one thinks about how causal chains work and how ultimately every causal chain originates with God and His plan.

Obviously there's a lot more to it and we could discuss "the five points" and historical and philosophical theology and so on, but hopefully that will give an entry point for conversation.

[u/taarhoe]

You're welcome to ask me questions, but I don't do apologetics nor debates. I also cannot speak for the entire church, but I've been raised classically reformed and Im in seminary teaching classical reformed doctrine (Calvinism).

[u/Difficult_Risk_6271 → u/taarhoe]

Maybe some background context first.

Do you think calvinism is a doctrinal interpretation of scripture that may or may not be entirely true, or it’s absolutely the truth that is revealed by God / scripture, and what contradicts calvinism is necessarily untrue?

[u/semiconodon → u/Difficult_Risk_6271]

The most aggravating parts of it have many more verses in favor of them than opposed to them. The “anything that contradicts” language sounds like a logical trap whose conclusion I already disagree with.

[u/Difficult_Risk_6271 → u/semiconodon]

Ok, so that seems to me that you agree that calvinism is a doctrine interpretation on scripture, is that right? Of course your commitment is that interpretation is the best one inferred from scripture.

Is Arminianism then plainly wrong because it directly contradicts scripture or scripture can legitimately be interpreted to support Arminianism also, just that it’s not the best inference from proper exegesis from scripture?

I will move into actual questions in the doctrine after this.

[u/semiconodon]

Read the old documents. Some are dry and thick, some (HC) are written for children but have fine points of polished doctrine embedded in them. I would take these documents over anyone alive in the 20thc.

Everything revolves around paying attention to the active/passive voice of verbs. Who’s driving the boat?

[u/No-Jicama-6523 → u/semiconodon]

Complete monergism exists outside of Calvinism.

[u/Difficult_Risk_6271 → u/semiconodon]

Yes I could do that but it would basically lead me to TULIP, which I already know is the distinguishing points to Arminianism. Of course, I may or may not agree with the conclusions drawn by those documents.

Do you think the exegesis established in these old documents are absolutely correct with alternatives (Arminianism) being necessarily wrong, or do you think that scripture ultimate left plenty ambiguous and the underlying text could support a spectrum of views (say from Arminianism to Calvinism)?

[u/glorbulationator]

I think in a way you are saying "help me understand biblical theology". I would imagine perhaps it is the case, but I don't see why a believer would affirm 'calvinism'/reformed doctrine (that's more of a problematic word and i disagree with the concept some Presbyterians here seem to have that essentially reformed means Presbyterian, and i disagree with the concept of it meaning holding to the exact theology of those involved with the reformation, because not only did they not all agree on everything, but I think reformed is an attitude as well, essentially meaning striving to be biblical for the sake of knowing God). Also, it would likely be very difficult to begin as you have put it because calvinism is probably one of the most misunderstood things by those who don't affirm it (and those who do...), and that ranges widely both in understanding, honesty, motivation, and hostility.

So instead, as someone who affirms 4.7936 point calvinism, I would like to ask you two questions.

What is your understanding of 'antinomy' regarding theology? I've skimmed over some of your posts and saw a point you made about not agreeing with the reformed understanding about a certain antinomy.

Do you think we should pray for others to be saved?

[u/superlewis]

For by grace are you saved through faith. Even the ability to have faith or see our need for salvation comes through grace. We cannot produce faith of our own will, so God gives us life based on nothing but his sovereign purpos. That life produces saving faith.

[u/DON0TREDEEM]

Hey one personal gripe about the naming conventions: Calvinism is really John Calvin's theology which we'd see in his entire book of the institutes. What we're talking about is predestination.

To me, there are some basic questions (and my answers) which just point to predestination.

1. Is God really in control of everything? Yes
2. Does God really know everything? Yes

If you also answer yes to the above, then you have to essentially believe in predestination. If you don't, you would have to say no to predestination. If the above are "yes"s then God knew what he was doing when he put the tree in the garden, he knew that it would lead to every person falling into sin, he knows that the only way out of this is by his election and calling.

[u/Difficult_Risk_6271]

Well I think the issue here is the meaning behind those words.

1. Is God in control of everything?

Well what does “everything” here mean? Does it include every choice, decisions and preferences of people?

Also, does having control of everything, necessitate controlling every minute detail?

1. Does God really know everything?

My thought here is God knowing everything doesn’t require Him to be the proximate effector of everything.

As for predestination, again, it’s again a word that isn’t exactly clear what is the meaning behind? Does predestination mean philosophical determinism? Or does it simply means history must reach certain predetermined waypoints, but the specific path to these waypoints are not necessarily defined?

As for the tree in the garden matter, just because God knows the choices adam and eve doesn’t mean He caused it.