---------------------------
The author has appeared in our blog twice before, and neither time did he acquit himself well. The second link was about predestination, which is his principal theme today as well.
The author has appeared in our blog twice before, and neither time did he acquit himself well. The second link was about predestination, which is his principal theme today as well.
What is the actual reason the author wrote? D'Souza is guilty of the cardinal sin: He disagrees with Calvinism. Calvinists will defend to the death their doctrines. In fact, that's all Calvinists talk about, their Calvinism. They will never, ever, discuss the Bible apart from making sure these doctrines are inserted.
Calvinism is stark in its surprising non-utility. There is no Christian obligation or privilege that changes as a result of Calvinism. The need for salvation, holiness, obedience, worship, generosity... none of it changes because of Calvinism. The doctrines are totally irrelevant to Christian living.
It is inescapable that we will need to follow the author into the weeds. We apologize for this.
He writes over 3500 words, even after we redacted an irrelevant introduction. Only about 300 are words quoted from the Bible. Most are Scripture snippets and not full verses, and one verse (John 6:44) is quoted three times.
The author tries hard to justify his Calvinistic doctrine but fails spectacularly. He makes an effort to explain from the Bible, but the results must still be deemed Bad Bible Teaching.
------------------------
------------------------
Dinesh D’Souza is a prominent conservative political commentator, filmmaker, and author who is familiar to Fox News audiences. He has also spent much of his public life defending Christianity against atheists. He commands a large following and exercises considerable influence among American evangelicals. That influence makes his recent attacks on Calvinism ("Attacks?" Is the author hyperventilating a little bit, perhaps? Sir, the proper word would be "critique.")
worth answering carefully.
(...)
Claim 1: “God Is to Blame for Their Damnation”
D’Souza’s claim: “If the Calvinist doctrine of pre-destination is right, then atheists are right to reject God, because God has rejected them first. They don’t believe because they can’t; God didn’t give them the grace to believe. God is to blame for their damnation, not their own free will.”
The short answer: Non-election (Undefined terminology.)
is not the judicial ground of anyone’s condemnation. Humanity already stands condemned in Adam. Those who reject Christ are judged for their guilt, actual sins, and willing unbelief.
What Scripture Says
Paul anticipates D’Souza’s objection almost word for word: “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” His answer defends the potter’s right over the clay (Romans 9:19 to 21). Paul doesn’t rescue divine justice by making an independent human will sovereign over grace. ( (Undefined phraseology.
Paul was talking specifically about the nation of Israel [Romans 9:3-8] and how God predestined the lineage of the "children of the promise" [vs. 8]. This does not include gentiles like us.
Gentiles [the "objects of His wrath"] finally appear in verse 22, contrasted with Israel, the "objects of His mercy" [vs. 23]. Notice the gentiles were given "great patience," but Israel was "prepared in advance for glory" [vs. 23]. One received patience, the other was prepared in advance.
Clearly Paul's point was not individual predestination, but rather the contrast with the gentiles who obtained "righteousness by faith" [vs. 30 ]. Even though Israel was predestined for glory, they failed because they "pursued a law of righteousness" vs. 31]. But only the remnant, the "children of the promise," were predestined for salvation. We cover this in detail here.
This passage is not about individual predestination. We are surprised the author cannot see this.)
Paul has already stated the principle plainly: “So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy” (Romans 9:16).
Scripture also locates unbelief in the sinner. “The light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil” (John 3:19). Jesus says people refuse to come to him that they may have life (John 5:40). The sinner does what he wants, but the horror is what he wants. (None of this relates to predestination.)
Calvinism doesn’t teach that unbelievers want Christ but God bars the door. They reject the light they have, (The author contradicts his own Calvinism. Calvinists actually teach Total Depravity, so unbelievers have no light at all.)
and they won’t come to Christ. When Jesus says, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6:44), inability and unwillingness meet in the same sinner. (The author will quote this verse three times, but truly doesn't understand its meaning. He thinks being drawn is predestination, but this is incorrect. John uses the same word, draw, here:
Jn. 12:32 But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.
If the Father's drawing is predestination, then John 12: 32 means all men are predestined. This of course is not true, which can only mean the author is misinterpreting the word "draw." The Greek word for "draw," used in both verses, means induce (draw in), focusing on the attraction-power involved with the drawing. If the drawing was predestination, there would be no need for "attraction power," it would simply be done by God's sovereign will. Predestination has no uses for "attraction power."
We are surprised the author cannot see this.)
The Reformed Answer
The Canons of Dort say that God leaves the non-elect in the misery “into which they have willfully plunged themselves” and condemns them for their sins, including unbelief (Canons of Dort I.15). R. C. Sproul writes:
The Canons of Dort say that God leaves the non-elect in the misery “into which they have willfully plunged themselves” and condemns them for their sins, including unbelief (Canons of Dort I.15). R. C. Sproul writes:
“God gives mercy to the elect by working faith in their hearts. He gives justice to the reprobate by leaving them in their own sins. There is no symmetry here. One group receives mercy. The other group receives justice. No one is a victim of injustice.”6
R. C. Sproul Chosen by God, 148
God owes justice to all and saving mercy to none. The elect receive undeserved mercy; the condemned receive judgment for willing sins. Withholding mercy is not the cause of their guilt. (The author dodges the issue. ALL men are guilty. Some receive mercy, some do not. This is God's sovereign choice, which no one can change. This means that God sovereignly chose not to save some people. Therefore, he chose people to hell.)
D’Souza’s own essay concedes the point. In the same piece he writes, “Those who are in hell deserve to be there. They chose to be without God and God has granted them their wish.”7
That is the Reformed answer to his own post. If the damned chose to be without God and deserve their end, then God is not to blame for their damnation. (Neither the saved nor the damned can make any other choice. If God predestines some for salvation, then everyone else is damned by God's choice.)
Both of his claims cannot stand together, and the second one is right.
Claim 2: “Calvinists Appeal to Free Will for Evil, Then Deny It in Salvation” (The author will not answer this claim.)
D’Souza’s claim: “Calvinists appeal to free will to explain the existence of moral evil—then they deny it when it comes to salvation.”
The short answer: Confessional Calvinism doesn’t use libertarian free will (Undefined phraseology.)
to explain evil. It teaches voluntary creaturely action under God’s sovereign providence. (Undefined phraseology.)
What Scripture Says
Scripture presents fallen people as choosing according to what they love. Jesus says, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6:44). (The author repeats this verse.)
Paul describes the natural mind as “hostile to God” and says it “cannot submit to God’s law” (Romans 8:7). We were “dead in the trespasses and sins” in which we once walked (Ephesians 2:1).
Our inability is moral, not mechanical. God doesn’t restrain a neutral sinner who longs for Christ. Apart from grace, the sinner doesn’t want Christ. Calvin says fallen man sins “not forced or unwilling, but voluntarily,” yet cannot move except toward evil.8
Necessity is not compulsion.
Scripture also places divine purpose and human guilt in the same event. Joseph tells his brothers, “you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good” (Genesis 50:20). Christ was crucified according to God’s plan, while his killers acted wickedly (Acts 2:23; 4:27 to 28). God intends a holy end; the creature intends evil.
Our inability is moral, not mechanical. God doesn’t restrain a neutral sinner who longs for Christ. Apart from grace, the sinner doesn’t want Christ. Calvin says fallen man sins “not forced or unwilling, but voluntarily,” yet cannot move except toward evil.8
Necessity is not compulsion.
Scripture also places divine purpose and human guilt in the same event. Joseph tells his brothers, “you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good” (Genesis 50:20). Christ was crucified according to God’s plan, while his killers acted wickedly (Acts 2:23; 4:27 to 28). God intends a holy end; the creature intends evil.
The Reformed Answer
Westminster says that God’s decree does no violence to the creature’s will and doesn’t make God the author of sin (Westminster Confession of Faith 3.1). (This is simply a summary denial. It's a dodge, a work-around to avoid the plain conclusions of Calvinistic doctrine. Predestination puts God in control of the entire process, and He made His choices sovereignly. If He chose some for salvation, then everyone else was not chosen. No amount of verbal maneuvering can change this fact.)
It also says fallen man has “wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation” (Westminster Confession of Faith 9.3). (Yes. All men are fallen, even the chosen ones. Every man is in the same situation, only some are fortunate to be chosen without merit, while everyone else is not chosen and are also without merit. The author still dances around the issue.)
Fallen people therefore choose voluntarily but lack the moral ability to love God until grace renews the will (Canons of Dort III/IV.16). We believe, repent, and come because God first makes us willing.
Fallen people therefore choose voluntarily but lack the moral ability to love God until grace renews the will (Canons of Dort III/IV.16). We believe, repent, and come because God first makes us willing.
Claim 3: “Predestination Turns God Himself into a Deceiver”
D’Souza’s claim: “Moreover, the Calvinist doctrine of predestination turns God Himself into a deceiver. I cannot go along with this nonsense.”
In the accompanying video, D’Souza says that people merely think they chose Christ, when they are actually reflecting God’s prior choice. He compares the Calvinist account to Descartes’s deceiving demon.
The short answer: God doesn’t deceive a Christian by graciously causing the Christian to understand, desire, and trust what is true.
What Scripture Says
God openly tells us what he is doing. Jesus says, “All that the Father gives me will come to me” (John 6:37), (The remnant of Israel. Romans 9:27 and 11:5. This is not us.)
then says, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (The author quotes this verse a third time.)
(John 6:44). Lydia attends to Paul’s preaching because “the Lord opened her heart” (Acts 16:14). Christ teaches divine sovereignty and real human response together. (Yes, for Lydia. Descriptive, not prescriptive. We should not assume this is about us.)
The Reformed Answer
Westminster says the elect come “most freely, being made willing by His grace” (Westminster Confession of Faith 10.1). Dort says the renewed will “becomes itself active” (Canons of Dort III/IV.12). To borrow an image from artificial intelligence, regeneration isn’t a spiritual deepfake. God doesn’t manufacture a counterfeit “yes” while the real person remains unwilling underneath. He removes blindness, creates faith, and renews the person so that he freely embraces Christ. (Wow, the author is doing his best to avoid answering the charge. If God chose those who are to be saved, then the human act of choosing is necessarily irrelevant. If it's solely God's choice, it's God's responsibility.)
D’Souza’s charge would make every divine work in the heart deceptive. (This does not follow. The matter is plain: If God makes the choice, man didn't. And to blame or reward a man for choices he did not make is indeed deceptive.)
If God gives wisdom, is the resulting judgment artificial? If God grants repentance, is the repentance imaginary? Scripture speaks differently: “for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Philippians 2:13). Grace that changes what we love is not a trick. (Deceptive rephrasing, and a bare denial.)
It’s rescue.
Claim 4: “Either Jesus Died for the Sins of All, or He Did Not”
D’Souza’s claim: “Either Jesus died for the sins of all, or he did not. If he did, then salvation must in principle be available to all who freely accept Jesus. If salvation is only available to those whom God predestined from the beginning of the world, then it is not open to all. In that case, it makes no sense to say the Jesus [sic] died for the sins of all. This is the core problem with the Calvinist doctrine of predestination.”
The short answer: Christ’s death is infinitely sufficient, the gospel is sincerely offered to everyone, and the cross actually secures the salvation of the people Christ intended to redeem.
What Scripture Says
Jesus says plainly, “I lay down my life for the sheep” (John 10:15). (The sheep is Israel. The "other sheep" are not until the next verse. We discuss the sheep in detail here.
Notice once again that this verse does not describe individual predestination. It is about a class of people, not the individuals who might be included.)
Paul likewise writes that “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Ephesians 5:25). (This is not a statement of the scope of Jesus' sacrifice. Calvinists want to read their doctrine into this verse, but Paul was making an illustration, not describing how salvation applies.)
The cross doesn’t merely make salvation possible, awaiting autonomous sinners to supply the decisive condition. (Bare denial.)
Christ purchased a people and secured every saving benefit necessary to bring them home.
The passage most often raised against this teaching is 1 John 2:2:
The passage most often raised against this teaching is 1 John 2:2:
“He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2).
The word “propitiation” matters. John doesn’t say Christ merely made propitiation possible. Propitiation is an accomplished sacrifice that satisfies divine justice and turns away wrath.
In the preceding verse, John writes, “But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 John 2:1). His priestly work isn’t an unfinished possibility awaiting completion by an autonomous choice. It’s the effective ground of our forgiveness. (The author is mixing together the status of a sinner who gets saved with a Christian who happens to sin, thus leading to a false conclusion.
Further, no Christian believes that Jesus' sacrificial death is an unfinished possibility, let alone being contingent on a person's choice. This is simply nonsense phrasing intended to bias the reader.)
Its benefits are received through faith, but even that faith is granted by God (Philippians 1:29). Faith receives Christ’s finished work. It doesn’t complete it. (Again, a nonsense refutation. The human contingency does not complete Christ's work, it affirms it.)
What then does “the whole world” mean? John uses “world” in several ways. Later he writes that “the whole world lies in the power of the evil one” (1 John 5:19), while immediately distinguishing believers as those who are from God. The phrase therefore doesn’t automatically mean every individual without exception standing in the same saving relation to Christ. (First, the use of the word varies in meaning depending on the context. Second, John specifically extends propitiation to a grand proportion that does not imply predestination. And third, the author is doing a dance once again. John writes of "our sins" [The Jewish remnant, i.e., those already saved], and then of the sins of others [gentiles, i.e., those who are not saved]. The world contains everyone who is not saved, an allusion to the gentiles. Two categories, Jews and gentiles.)
A close Johannine parallel appears in Caiaphas’s prophecy. Jesus would die for Israel, “and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad” (John 11:51-52). (Same thing, yes indeed. Jews and Gentiles.)
What then does “the whole world” mean? John uses “world” in several ways. Later he writes that “the whole world lies in the power of the evil one” (1 John 5:19), while immediately distinguishing believers as those who are from God. The phrase therefore doesn’t automatically mean every individual without exception standing in the same saving relation to Christ. (First, the use of the word varies in meaning depending on the context. Second, John specifically extends propitiation to a grand proportion that does not imply predestination. And third, the author is doing a dance once again. John writes of "our sins" [The Jewish remnant, i.e., those already saved], and then of the sins of others [gentiles, i.e., those who are not saved]. The world contains everyone who is not saved, an allusion to the gentiles. Two categories, Jews and gentiles.)
A close Johannine parallel appears in Caiaphas’s prophecy. Jesus would die for Israel, “and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad” (John 11:51-52). (Same thing, yes indeed. Jews and Gentiles.)
The movement is from one nation to God’s people scattered among all nations. 1 John 2:2 fits that same missionary pattern. Christ is not the propitiation of one congregation, ethnicity, or country. He’s the only Savior and effective propitiation for God’s people throughout the whole world.
The Reformed Answer
The Canons of Dort declare that Christ’s death is “of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world” (Canons of Dort II.3). They tell Reformed Christians that the gospel promise and the call to believe are to be proclaimed “to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction” (Canons of Dort II.5). They also teach that the cross effectively redeems the elect (Canons of Dort II.8). The formula is pretty straightforward: sufficient for all, proclaimed to all, effective for the elect. (Calvinists make a big deal out of something that makes absolutely no difference. The mechanism is irrelevant. The effect of the Cross is all that matters. Christ died. People get saved. The rest is unprofitable parsing.)
Calvin explains that John “does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world.”9
Louis Berkhof says:
“The Reformed position is that Christ died for the purpose of actually and certainly saving the elect, and the elect only.”10
Louis Berkhof Systematic Theology, 394
D’Souza treats universal words such as “world” and “all” as though they must always mean every individual without exception. But read 1 John 2:2 alongside John 11:51-52. The phrase “the whole world” extends the scope beyond one ethnicity, congregation, or nation to the children of God scattered throughout all nations. It doesn’t teach that Christ satisfied God’s wrath for every individual who ever lived, including those who will finally bear God’s wrath themselves. (This is the key part of the author's position on this issue, and is nothing more than a bare assertion.)
Claim 5: “Without Free Will, the Bible Collapses”
D’Souza’s questions: “Did Lucifer make a free choice to rebel? Did Eve choose to eat the apple? Did Abraham decide to obey God and sacrifice his son? Did the rich man choose not to follow Jesus? Did one of the two crucified men reach out to Christ? Without free will, the Bible collapses.”
D’Souza’s biblical examples offered in defense of free will.
The short answer: Every person and angel in these examples truly chose. The examples do not involve the same moral condition, and none proves libertarian freedom. (Undefined phraseology.)
The short answer: Every person and angel in these examples truly chose. The examples do not involve the same moral condition, and none proves libertarian freedom. (Undefined phraseology.)
What Scripture Says
Lucifer and the fallen angels.
Did the fallen angels choose to rebel? Yes. Second Peter says God “did not spare angels when they sinned” (2 Peter 2:4). Jude speaks of angels who “did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling” (Jude 6). Scripture locates the wickedness in the angels themselves. God created no evil spirits. (The author agrees with D'Souza.)
Their voluntary rebellion wasn’t an autonomous event outside God’s decree. Westminster (Waaait. This subhead is "What Scripture Says." So what does Scripture say? The author will not tell us.)
includes angels among those whose destinies fall under God’s eternal counsel, and it says providence extends “even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men,” while the sinfulness proceeds “only from the creature” (Westminster Confession of Faith 3.3 to 4; 5.4). The decree made the event certain, but it didn’t supply the evil desire or author the sin.
Eve. Eve was created upright and able to fall. Westminster says humanity in innocence could do good, “but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it” (Westminster Confession of Faith 9.2). Her choice doesn’t prove that fallen descendants retain her original moral ability. Also, Genesis identifies the fruit but never calls it an apple. That detail has had a remarkably successful public-relations campaign.
Abraham. Abraham’s obedience was real and voluntary, but it was the fruit of faith and grace, not autonomous merit (Undefined terminology.)
Eve. Eve was created upright and able to fall. Westminster says humanity in innocence could do good, “but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it” (Westminster Confession of Faith 9.2). Her choice doesn’t prove that fallen descendants retain her original moral ability. Also, Genesis identifies the fruit but never calls it an apple. That detail has had a remarkably successful public-relations campaign.
Abraham. Abraham’s obedience was real and voluntary, but it was the fruit of faith and grace, not autonomous merit (Undefined terminology.)
(Hebrews 11:17; Romans 4:16). (Both verses are about Abraham and his offspring, Jews. Neither verse deals with "autonomous merit.")
The rich ruler. The rich ruler rejected Christ voluntarily because he loved his possessions. Jesus then said, “With man it is impossible, but not with God” (Mark 10:27). (The author selects verses both sides would agree to.)
The rich ruler. The rich ruler rejected Christ voluntarily because he loved his possessions. Jesus then said, “With man it is impossible, but not with God” (Mark 10:27). (The author selects verses both sides would agree to.)
As proof texts for independent saving power go, this one has chosen a difficult career. (An indecipherable statement.)
The believing criminal. The believing criminal truly turned to Christ. Yet he had no time to complete his faith with works. (What does this mean? No Christian believes that salvation gets completed with works.)
The believing criminal. The believing criminal truly turned to Christ. Yet he had no time to complete his faith with works. (What does this mean? No Christian believes that salvation gets completed with works.)
One dying man reviled Christ; the other asked to be remembered. Both saw the same Savior. The difference was mercy (Luke 23:39-43).
The Reformed Answer
The Belgic Confession says God “created the angels good.” Some “are fallen from that excellency in which God created them,” while the others “have, by the grace of God, remained steadfast” (Belgic Confession, Article 12). The fallen angels are condemned “by their own wickedness.”
Reformed theology distinguishes four conditions rather than forcing every biblical chooser into one category: the mutable (changeable) freedom of angels and humanity before the fall, the willing bondage of fallen sinners, the liberated will of the regenerate, and the confirmed holiness of the glorified. D’Souza’s examples confirm real choice. They do not establish that fallen people possess the autonomous power to regenerate themselves. (Sigh. No Christian believes they regenerate themselves. What nonsense.)
Claim 6: “Foreknowledge Is Not Predestination”
D’Souza’s claim: “We are foreknown by God but we are not predestined by God.”11
The short answer: Romans 8:29 speaks of persons whom God foreknew in covenant love, not facts he passively observed in advance.
What Scripture Says
Romans 8:29 doesn’t say God foresaw that certain people would believe. It says, “those whom he foreknew he also predestined.” The objects of foreknowledge are persons. (Which persons? The author assumes it's the Calvinistic Elect, but it's not. Throughout chapter 8 Paul refers to us and we. We need to pay attention to who they are. And Paul tells us right there in the narrative:
Ro. 8:23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.
Later Christians cannot receive the "firstfruits of the Spirit." This is only possible for the earliest Christians, likely the Jewish remnant. Romans 9:27 and 11:5. This is not us.)
In Scripture, God’s special knowledge is covenant love.
Paul says God predestined us in love “according to the purpose of his will” (Ephesians 1:4-5), (Again, the pronouns are important. Who is "us?"
The author's sloppy scholarship betrays him. Ephesians chapter one is what started us on our quest to ascertain the problems of Calvinism. Aside from noticing that Calvinism necessitates work-arounds for various Scriptures, it also misinterprets verses that actually do talk about predestination. Ephesians chapter one is the prime examples.
So, who is "us?" Paul directly tells the reader:
Ep. 1:11-12 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.
It's right there: "We, who were the first to hope in Christ." This is not present-day Christians. The first to hope in Christ, likely the Jewish remnant as well as other very early Christians, we predestined, not us.)
not according to foreseen faith. Acts records the order plainly: “as many as were appointed to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48). (Again, first century believers.)
Faith follows appointment.
An Unexpected Echo from Trent
D’Souza originally concluded, “In summary, the doctrine of predestination is a fallacy and perhaps even a heresy.” He has since retracted the word “heresy,” which is a welcome correction. His original wording nevertheless creates an unexpected historical parallel.
Plot twist: D’Souza’s “heresy” sounds much like Trent’s “anathema.”
D’Souza: “The doctrine of predestination is . . . perhaps even a heresy.”
“If any one saith, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called indeed, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil; let him be anathema.”12
Council of Trent Session VI, Canon 17
The parallel isn’t exact, and I’m not suggesting that D’Souza borrowed his argument from Trent. The canon includes the claim that the rest are “predestined unto evil,” language Reformed theology rejects if it makes God the author of sin. The historical echo lies in treating particular, effectual grace as a threat to Christian orthodoxy. That resemblance becomes more significant because D’Souza elsewhere describes justification using faith and works language that resembles Roman Catholic categories.
When an evangelical apologist begins with faith and works, invokes Trent, and then makes salvation rest finally “in our own hands,” the disagreement has crossed an old Reformation fault line. (A completely irrelevant discussion. And here we have no section on what Scripture says.)
The Reformed Answer
God’s foreknowledge and decree are distinct, but they can’t be separated as though God watches an already established future that exists independently of his will. Westminster confesses that God doesn’t decree because he foresees events as future or conditioned upon something else (Westminster Confession of Faith 3.2).
Bare foreknowledge also leaves D’Souza’s moral objection untouched. If God infallibly knew before creation who would reject him, their future was certain on D’Souza’s view too. Why create them if they are going to Hell? (A question Calvinists need to answer, not non-Calvinists.)
Foreknowledge without decree retains every hard question while removing sovereign grace from the answer. (The author creates a false binary equation. He requires God to act based on His foreknowledge. That is, God is at the mercy of His foreknowledge. He must act because He knows. This necessarily impedes His sovereignty.
We must come to grip with the fact that God defines His sovereignty. He is who He chooses to be, and acts or not acts according to His own pleasure. He decides what to do or not do with His foreknowledge. There is no conflict in God knowing everything yet not predetermining everything.)
Claim 7: “Is He Not Appealing to Your Free Will?”
D’Souza’s question: When a pastor gives an altar call and asks everyone to receive Jesus, “Is he not appealing to your free will?”
The short answer: The gospel appeals to the human will, but it doesn’t teach that the fallen will can raise itself from spiritual death. (No Christian believes this.)
What Scripture Says
God commands all people to repent, and Jesus invites the weary to come (Acts 17:30; Matthew 11:28). The Word goes to all, and everyone who comes to Christ will be received (John 6:37). (Everyone agrees.)
The same Scripture explains why anyone responds. The Spirit opens hearts, as he opened Lydia’s (Acts 16:14). God grants repentance (2 Timothy 2:25). Faith itself is God’s gift (Ephesians 2:8). The invitation addresses people as thinking, willing creatures, while the Spirit makes the call effective in those whom God saves. (A nonsense statement. The author keeps making men responsible for choices they didn't make, pretending that free will and predestination can co-exist. They can't.)
John gives the order in one compact sentence: “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God” (1 John 5:1). The new birth explains the believing. The sinner doesn’t believe in order to make himself born again. (??? What does this off-topic reference mean?)
The Reformed Answer
Dort (Unexplained term.)
commands the church to proclaim the gospel to all, while assigning unbelief to sinners and faith to God’s gracious work (Canons of Dort II.5 to 7).
An altar call can be sincere, but Reformed churches ordinarily call people to Christ through preaching rather than treating a walk to the front as part of conversion. The sincerity of the offer rests on Christ’s promise: everyone who believes will be saved (John 3:16; Romans 10:13). (Everyone agrees.)
Far from discouraging evangelism, election is a powerful stimulus to sharing the gospel with strangers. (Bare assertion. In fact, if God predestined those who will be saved, then evangelization is irrelevant. Certainly Scripture commands it, but apart from that it is clear that evangelization makes absolutely no difference in God's sovereign choice.
An altar call can be sincere, but Reformed churches ordinarily call people to Christ through preaching rather than treating a walk to the front as part of conversion. The sincerity of the offer rests on Christ’s promise: everyone who believes will be saved (John 3:16; Romans 10:13). (Everyone agrees.)
Far from discouraging evangelism, election is a powerful stimulus to sharing the gospel with strangers. (Bare assertion. In fact, if God predestined those who will be saved, then evangelization is irrelevant. Certainly Scripture commands it, but apart from that it is clear that evangelization makes absolutely no difference in God's sovereign choice.
Predestination turns God into a jokester, perpetrating a fiction on humankind. Men are actors in a play, reading their lines without independent agency. God pulls all the strings, writes all the lines, and has in effect if not on purpose made life futile.
This is not the God of the Bible.)
This is not the God of the Bible.)
God encouraged Paul to continue preaching in Corinth because “I have many in this city who are my people” (Acts 18:10). (Sigh. Let's quote a bit more of the passage:
Ac. 18:10 For I am with you, and no-one is going to attack and harm you, because I have many people in this city.
Oh, my.
"God has people" is not synonymous with "God elected people for salvation." The author is reaching for something, anything, that will bolster his false doctrines.
Let's look at the Greek:
| 1360 [e] dioti διότι because Conj |
| 2992 [e] laos λαός people N-NMS |
| 1510 [e] esti ἐστί there are V-PIA-3S |
| 1473 [e] moi μοι to me PPro-D1S |
| 4183 [e] polys πολὺς many Adj-NMS |
| 1722 [e] en ἐν in Prep |
| 3588 [e] tē τῇ the Art-DFS |
| 4172 [e] polei πόλει city N-DFS |
| 3778 [e] tautē ταύτῃ . this DPro-DFS |
The Greek here is rather simple. It doesn't even imply election. Plainly, this verse means that God knows that there are many people in this city who will not harm Paul, and/or they will even protect him.
The author is attempting to force his doctrine into this verse. This is not about those who are predetermined to be saved. We are beginning to think the author is not a competent Bible teacher.)
Paul didn’t know who they were, so he preached to everyone. He later wrote, “I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory” (2 Timothy 2:10). (The elect is the remnant of Israel. We cover this in detail here.)
Election doesn’t tell the church whom to exclude. It assures us that Christ will gather his people through the preaching of the gospel. Election is not why evangelism fails, it’s why evangelism succeeds.
What D’Souza Gets Right
D’Souza rightly wants to protect human responsibility, the universal gospel call, and God’s truthful character. Christianity without real repentance, faith, obedience, and choices wouldn’t resemble the Bible. (These are the crucial matters, but the author can't leave it there. D'Souza insulted Calvin's doctrines, and that cannot stand.)
The God Who Saves
Predestination answers a personal question: Why did I come to Christ when I was dead in sin and unable to give myself life?
I wasn’t wiser than my neighbor. Grace didn’t place us at a neutral line where I cast the deciding vote. “What do you have that you did not receive?” Paul asks (1 Corinthians 4:7). The answer is mercy.
The Reformed confessions refuse to edit either side of Scripture. God ordains all things, yet man sins. Fallen people choose willingly, yet can’t free themselves from their rebellion. The gospel goes to all, yet grace makes the elect willing to come. Christ’s death is sufficient beyond measure and actually saves his people.
I’m glad when D’Souza defends Christianity against unbelief. Here, however, he has aimed his gifts at a doctrine Reformed churches do not confess. His questions deserve answers. His accusations need correction. (The author has failed.)
Luther once thanked Erasmus for recognizing where the real dispute lay:
“You, and you alone saw, what was the grand hinge upon which the whole turned, and therefore you attacked the vital part [free will] at once; for which, from my heart, I thank you.”13
Martin Luther The Bondage of the Will, sec. 168
I can extend the same courtesy to D’Souza. He has pressed the question that lies at the center of the controversy: Is fallen man’s will the decisive cause of his salvation, or must sovereign grace first make the unwilling willing? D’Souza has identified the hinge. He hasn’t, however, answered it as Scripture does.
“Calvinism is collapsing” makes a lively post. It has also been posted, in one form or another, every year since 1536. The reason Calvinism survives isn’t Calvin’s personality or a Reformed talent for arguing online. It survives because Scripture won’t let the church place the decisive cause of salvation in the sinner. (No, it survives because Calvinists defend it vociferously. They are singularly focused on these doctrines, with an almost cult-like ferocity. It's very much kept alive by its zealous adherents.)
Calvinism affirms real human choices while tracing every saving response to God’s deeper choice. Grace explains how spiritually dead sinners answer an honest gospel invitation. It leaves sin with the sinner and salvation with the Lord.
✠ ✠ ✠
Footnotes
Dinesh D’Souza, “The Fallacy of Predestination,” Substack, August 18, 2026. The essay was also published by Charisma Magazine Online. See also D’Souza, “Calvinism’s Contradiction: Free Will for Sin, None for Salvation?” YouTube Short. ↩︎
Dinesh D’Souza, X post retracting the term “heresy,” August 22, 2026. ↩︎
Dinesh D’Souza, “About Dinesh D’Souza”; and “Faith and Culture.” ↩︎
D’Souza, “The Fallacy of Predestination.” See also D’Souza, “Calvinism’s Contradiction.” ↩︎
Anthony Faggiano, X reply concerning the unexpected doctrinal agreement, August 21, 2026. ↩︎
R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God (Tyndale House, 1986), 148. ↩︎
D’Souza, “The Fallacy of Predestination.” ↩︎
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 2.3.5, trans. Henry Beveridge. ↩︎
John Calvin, Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles, commentary on 1 John 2:2, trans. John Owen. ↩︎
Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Eerdmans, 1938), 394. ↩︎
D’Souza, “The Fallacy of Predestination,” Charisma Magazine Online. ↩︎
Council of Trent, Session VI, Canon 17, January 13, 1547. ↩︎
Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, trans. Henry Cole, sec. 168, PDF p. 165. ↩︎
About The Author
Anthony Faggiano
Husband, father, and friend. I serve as an elder in a United Reformed Church congregation and hold a B.A. in Theology from The Master’s University. My writing flows from a love for Scripture, the gospel that transforms hearts and minds, and the historic Reformed confessions. My aim is simple: to point others to Christ through truth, clarity, and grace.
I serve as an elder in a United Reformed Church congregation and hold a B.A. in Theology from The Master’s University. My writing flows from a love for Scripture, the gospel that transforms hearts and minds, and the historic Reformed confessions. My aim is simple: to point others to Christ through truth, clarity, and grace.
No comments:
Post a Comment