Deity of Deception Argument

Does Calvinism Leave Room For Genuine Choice (video added)

Published by Papa Giorgio

IS “PASSING OVER” AN ACTIVE CHOICE BY GOD?

Within the Calvinist system itself:

It is a sovereign decision that is part of God’s eternal decree, but Reformed theologians deliberately describe it as passive / negative rather than active in the same way election is active.

ELECTION
Equels
God positively acts (chooses, regenerates, grants faith).

PASSING OVER / REPROBATION
Equels
God withholds that positive action and leaves the person in their fallen state.

So Calvinists say it is not “as active” as election.

I disagree, under exhaustive sovereignty, the decision not to elect is still a deliberate, decisive choice by God. Calling it “passing over” changes the verb but does not remove the determination. In that sense, yes — it is still an active choice of the decree, even if executed by omission.

IS COMPATIBILISM DETERMINISTIC?

Yes.

Compatibilism is a form of determinism (specifically soft determinism). It affirms that every event, including every human choice, is determined by prior causes (ultimately God’s decree). It simply defines “freedom” as acting according to one’s own desires/nature without external coercion. John Hendryx’s statement is accurate: compatibilism is no less deterministic than hard determinism; the difference lies only in whether that determinism is considered compatible with moral responsibility.

Bottom line in the MacArthur / Reformed framework:

  • God’s decree determines both the salvation of the elect and the non-salvation of the reprobate. The elect are saved by God’s active, effectual intervention; the non-elect are left in their sin by God’s sovereign decision to pass them over. Compatibilism is the philosophical tool that allows Calvinists to call both outcomes determined while still affirming that people make real, responsible choices according to their natures.

“Does calvinism leave room for genuine choice?” but “If exhaustive divine determinism determines our beliefs and reasoning, what grounds do we have for trusting the theological conclusions we reach—including Calvinism itself?”

JOHNNY MAC’s TRANSCRIPT

You say, well, in a world of multiple religions, how can there only be two choices? Because you either choose the way that leads to heaven or you choose a way that does not. And while there may be varieties of that, it’s the same thing. It ends up in the same place. There really are only two religions in the world. There is the religion of human achievement, and that’s all religion in the world that offers heaven for good works, morality, religious ceremonies, rituals. On the other hand, there’s the religion of divine accomplishment which offers heaven to those who admit there is nothing they can do to earn it. One comes the way of works and flesh and merit and ceremony and ritual and ends up in hell, whatever its label. And the true way is by faith and grace and the Holy Spirit. The first way involves what we do and the true way involves what God did.

The Free-Thinking Argument is especially useful here because it explicitly applies the problem to exhaustive divine determinism. (PDF)

MacArthur’s distinction between the “religion of human achievement” and the “religion of divine accomplishment” sounds compelling, but it creates a problem for his own theology. No one who believes salvation is by grace through faith is claiming that a person’s decision to trust Christ is a meritorious contribution to Christ’s saving work.

  • Faith does not compete with divine accomplishment.
  • Christ accomplishes salvation;
  • faith receives what Christ has accomplished.

The person who trusts Christ is not saying, “I helped save myself.” He is saying, “I could not save myself; I am trusting the One who did.” To equate the exercise of faith with “human achievement” is therefore a category error. The disagreement is not over whether salvation is God’s accomplishment. It is over whether God must first determine the individual’s response in order for that response to be genuine faith.

The deeper problem arises when MacArthur’s “two religions” argument is placed alongside his Calvinistic doctrine of sovereign determination. If God unconditionally determines who will be saved, and effectually gives the elect the faith and repentance necessary for salvation, then the elect do not independently determine that outcome. Their faith is the result of God’s prior determination, not the cause of it. But the same logic necessarily applies to those who remain lost. If God sovereignly chooses not to give them that saving grace—what Calvinists call “passing over”—then their unbelief and eventual condemnation are likewise the inevitable result of God’s sovereign decision.

Calling one side “active election” and the other “passive passing over” does not remove the divine determination from the second side. It changes the description of how God brings about the two outcomes, but it does not change the fact that both outcomes are ultimately grounded in God’s decree. As George Bryson documents, even the Reformed distinction between a “positive” decree and a “negative” decree leaves reprobation ultimately connected to the divine decree.

This makes MacArthur’s “Make your choice” language particularly difficult. The issue is not whether people make choices—they obviously do. The issue is whether they ultimately determine which choice they will make. Calvinistic compatibilism answers that the person makes a real choice, but that choice is itself determined by God’s sovereign decree and the person’s God-determined nature and desires. That may be called “freedom” within a compatibilist framework, but it is not self-determination in the ordinary sense. And this is where MacArthur’s own argument about evil becomes relevant. MacArthur has argued that if God is the primary cause and human beings are merely secondary causes “moved by the primary cause,” then people are not free and God would be responsible for their actions. Yet in his soteriology, God’s sovereign determination of the human will is precisely what guarantees the saving response of the elect.

If divine determination of the will destroys meaningful freedom when explaining evil, why does that same determination preserve meaningful freedom when explaining salvation?

There is an even deeper epistemological problem. If exhaustive divine determinism means that God determines not merely what we choose, but our desires, thoughts, evaluations, judgments, and beliefs, then the problem extends beyond salvation and free will to our ability to know that our beliefs are true in the first place. Timothy Stratton and J. P. Moreland’s “Free-Thinking Argument” specifically defines exhaustive divine determinism as the view that God necessitates all events, including human “desires, thoughts, intuitions, beliefs, actions, behaviors, evaluations, and judgments.”

They argue that if our beliefs are exhaustively determined, and we know that human beings sometimes believe false things, then we have a serious epistemic problem: if something or someone else determines us to affirm a falsehood, what gives us confidence that we could have arrived at a better or true belief in the same circumstances?

That raises a devastating question for theological determinism: If God determines every belief, including false theological beliefs held by Christians, how do I know that my belief that Calvinism is true is not simply another belief God has determined me to hold? I cannot appeal to my reasoning process as an independent check if God also determined the reasoning process, the premises I find persuasive, the conclusions I draw, and even my confidence that I have reasoned correctly.

The Free-Thinking Argument presses precisely this concern: under exhaustive determinism, if something or someone else determines our thoughts, there is no obvious basis for claiming epistemic responsibility for those thoughts; and if our cognitive faculties are not reliably aimed at truth, our conclusions—including our conclusions about determinism—are themselves subject to rational doubt.

Under Calvinistic determinism, the problem extends beyond our choices to our theological beliefs themselves. If God exhaustively determines every thought, desire, judgment, and belief, then He necessarily determines not only true theological beliefs but also the false theological beliefs people hold. A Calvinist who rejects the Trinity, misunderstands Scripture, embraces Islam, or simply arrives at a false interpretation of a biblical passage does so because God sovereignly determined the cognitive circumstances and beliefs that led him there.

The obvious epistemological question follows: if God determines both true and false beliefs, what makes my belief that Calvinism is true trustworthy? I may sincerely believe that I have arrived at Calvinism through careful exegesis and sound reasoning—but if God also determined my reasoning, premises, intuitions, and conclusion, sincerity and rational confidence cannot by themselves demonstrate that my conclusion is actually true. The problem is not that truth ceases to exist; it is that exhaustive determinism seems to undermine our ability to know that our determined beliefs correspond to it.

This is the concern I have explored elsewhere in “If God Determines Every Belief, Why Trust Yours?”: exhaustive divine determinism does not necessarily deny that objective truth exists, but it raises the question of how a determined creature can reliably distinguish truth from divinely determined error.

That brings us back to MacArthur’s “two religions.” Within his system, the elect are sovereignly determined to receive divine accomplishment, while the reprobate are sovereignly determined to remain without it. One person believes because God sovereignly grants the necessary grace; another remains unbelieving because God sovereignly passes him over. And if God also determines the beliefs and reasoning processes by which we arrive at our theological conclusions, then even the Calvinist who concludes, “Calvinism is true because Scripture teaches it,” must acknowledge that his interpretation of Scripture is itself the product of the same divine determination.

The question therefore becomes unavoidable: What makes his conclusion a genuine discovery of truth rather than simply the belief God determined him to hold?

This is why the issue cannot be dismissed by saying, “But people still make choices.” Of course they do. A determined person can experience deliberation, make choices, form beliefs, and sincerely believe he has reasoned correctly. The question is whether he is the ultimate rational agent directing that process or merely the endpoint of a causal chain he did not originate. Stratton and Moreland describe the alternatives starkly: are we genuinely responsible agents “steering the ship,” or are we passive passengers waiting to see where the antecedent causal chain takes us?

If MacArthur wants to insist that human beings possess genuine self-determination because otherwise God becomes responsible for their evil, then he needs to explain why that same self-determination disappears when discussing salvation, while the resulting determination of beliefs and choices somehow remains sufficient for genuine epistemic responsibility.

So the problem with MacArthur’s two-religion illustration is not that it distinguishes works from grace. We [non-Calvinists] agree with that distinction. The problem is that his illustration presents salvation as though two genuinely available alternatives stand before the individual—“human achievement” or “divine accomplishment”—while his theological determinism ultimately makes the individual’s choice itself the product of God’s prior determination. The non-Calvinist does not believe that trusting Christ earns salvation, contributes merit to the cross, or makes Christ’s accomplishment possible.

We believe Christ accomplished salvation and that the sinner is genuinely called to trust Him. Faith receives; it does not merit. And unlike exhaustive determinism, this preserves something essential not only to moral responsibility but to rational responsibility: the human being is an active agent capable of responding to reasons, evaluating evidence, rejecting error, and genuinely trusting the truth rather than merely being determined to believe whatever God has decreed him to believe.

BOTTOM LINE:

MacArthur says there are “two religions,” but exhaustive Calvinistic determinism ultimately leaves us with only one determining power: God. There may be two religious outcomes, two paths, and two destinations, but there are not two ultimately autonomous alternatives. God determines who believes, what they believe, which path they take, and where they finally arrive. The apparent dualism disappears. There aren’t two competing religions ultimately determining human destiny. There is one sovereign decree determining two outcomes.

JOHNNY MAC’s TRANSCRIPT 2.0

You say, “In a world of multiple religions, how can there only be two choices?” Because ultimately there are only two destinations: heaven or hell. There may be thousands of religious labels and countless variations, but every person will end up on one of those two paths.

There really are only two religions in the world. There is the religion of human achievement—every system that looks to works, morality, religious ceremonies, rituals, merit, or human effort as the basis for acceptance with God. That is the way of the flesh, and it ends in condemnation, whatever name the religion bears.

On the other hand, there is the religion of divine accomplishment. Salvation is entirely God’s work. The elect do not contribute anything to their salvation; God chose them before the foundation of the world, regenerated them, granted them faith and repentance, and brought them irresistibly to Christ. Their believing is not what ultimately distinguishes them from the unbelieving; God’s sovereign choice does. Their faith is the result of God’s saving determination, not the determining cause of it.

And that means the two paths are not ultimately two independently available choices that determine one’s eternal destiny. The elect believe because God sovereignly determined to save them and effectually gave them the grace to believe. The non-elect do not believe because God did not choose to give them that saving grace. He “passes them over,” leaving them in their fallen condition. Thus, one person arrives at heaven because God sovereignly determined to give him saving grace, while another arrives at hell because God sovereignly determined not to give him that grace.

So the first way involves what God has determined to leave the sinner to, while the true way involves what God has sovereignly determined to accomplish. The decisive difference is not ultimately the sinner’s choice; it is God’s decree. The sinner certainly chooses, but even that choice is the result of the nature, desires, and grace God sovereignly determined for him.

Therefore, when I say, “Make your choice,” I do not mean that the sinner possesses an autonomous ability to determine which eternal destiny he will choose. I mean that God has sovereignly ordained both the destination and the means by which each person will arrive there. The elect will choose Christ because God determined to give them the grace to choose Christ; the reprobate will reject Christ because God determined to pass them over.

There are therefore two roads—but within exhaustive divine determinism, God ultimately determines who walks each road.

If God determines the belief, the reasoning, and the moral judgment by which I conclude that God is good, what makes that conclusion trustworthy?

In putting together this post the CS LEWIS illumination from his The Problem of Pain and my posts on it

CS Lewis: Our White Being God’s Black

Lewis’s point becomes especially relevant when applied to exhaustive theological determinism. If God determines not only what we choose, but also what we believe, how we reason, what we judge, and even what we call “good,” then God necessarily determines both true and false theological conclusions. If our moral and rational faculties are sufficiently corrupted that we cannot trust them, while God simultaneously determines the beliefs we arrive at through those faculties, what independent basis do we have for knowing that our conception of God’s goodness is actually good—or that our theology is actually true? We don’t need human judgment to be infallible, but we do need it to be sufficiently connected to truth that we can recognize when we are wrong.

This is where Lewis’s argument cuts against the claim that God’s morality can simply be “beyond” ours. If “God is good” could mean that God calls good what we rightly recognize as evil, then the statement “God is good” becomes practically meaningless; we could just as easily obey an omnipotent fiend. Lewis is not arguing for human moral autonomy—he allows that our moral judgments can be corrected and brought into greater conformity with God’s. His point is that God’s goodness transcends our moral understanding without becoming its opposite or becoming unintelligible. Likewise, if Calvinistic determinism makes God the ultimate determiner of our reasoning, beliefs, and moral judgments, then the Calvinist needs to explain what makes his determined conclusion about God’s goodness—and his theology generally—trustworthy. Otherwise, both “God is good” and “Calvinism is true” risk becoming assertions without a meaningful epistemic standard by which we can know either one is actually true.

If God Determines Every Belief, Why Trust Yours?

Published by Papa Giorgio
  • If nihilism says “brain chemistry determines true and false beliefs,” and exhaustive divine determinism says “God determines true and false beliefs,” then what ultimately grounds confidence that my current belief is true rather than merely determined?

The same kind of self-defeating epistemic concerns raised against naturalistic nihilism can be raised against exhaustive divine determinism, especially concerning rational agency, deliberation, responsibility, and confidence in theological conclusions.

Calvinism doesn’t equal Nihilism, but it mirrors it in many ways.

Here is some conversation with GROK, going from a challenge to my position to getting more information on the issue and seeing the light. I am including the moment it hit me. Here is the audio question/conversation I had with GROK:

RPT

  • I just thought of a concept. I was doing a study of Calvinism a year ago and I came across an article by Albert Mohler talking about how atheists are determinists. They don’t believe in truth. Because everything is chemically charged in our brain to produce a certain viewpoint. So there is no real truth. And that’s what atheistic naturalistic determinism leads to. So within the studies of Calvinism, there’s a form of theistic determinism. Where everything is determined beforehand by God. And so no matter our choices, it doesn’t lend to actually finding truth. It’s whatever God determines us to believe. So I just heard an interview where a guy became a Christian again after losing faith and becoming a nihilist. And his view of nihilism is that there is no ultimate truth. So is it possible to call Calvinists Christian nihilists? That’s my question.

Grok Responds

No, calling Calvinists “Christian nihilists” doesn’t really hold up. Nihilism says there’s no ultimate truth or meaning at all—everything’s pointless. Calvinism says there is ultimate truth: God’s sovereign will and his revealed word in scripture. They just believe God determines who accepts that truth.

The parallel you’re drawing from Mohler’s critique of atheist determinism is fair as a gotcha—both systems make beliefs the product of forces outside our control, so why trust your brain chemicals or God’s decree more than the other? Critics of Calvinism love pointing that out. But Calvinists dodge it by saying God, being good and all-powerful, ensures the elect believe actual truth, not illusion. It’s circular, sure, but that’s their answer.

The guy who came back from nihilism to Christianity probably found real meaning and truth in the gospel, which Calvinists would say God sovereignly gave him. So they’re on opposite ends there—nihilism is the void, Calvinism claims God’s got the whole map. Interesting thought experiment though.

After some short talk and requests for Grok to go through the transcripts from these videos as well as an article and book.

  • Is Divine Determinism A Different Gospel? (VIDEO)
  • Arguments From Reason Show that Divine Determinists Have Worse Problems than Naturalists | EPS 2023 (VIDEO)
  • An Explanation and Defense of the Free-Thinking Argument (JOURNAL ARTICLE)

Here is Grok after the above:

GROK

Core of Their Case (Deity of Deception Argument)

From the transcripts:

  1. Everyone (including Christians) holds some false theological beliefs. This is uncontroversial—no one claims infallibility.
  2. If EDD is true, God determines all of them. Every false belief a Christian holds (about God, salvation, etc.) is ultimately caused/decreed by God.
  3. Therefore, God determines His followers to affirm falsehoods about ultimate reality. This makes Him a “Deity of Deception” (even if for “morally sufficient reasons”). His word/Scripture becomes untrustworthy because the same source inspires truth and plants error.

This leads to epistemic meltdown: You can’t rationally trust any theological belief, including the ones supporting EDD itself (a self-undermining loop, like an adapted Lewis Argument from Reason). It’s not just “we’re wrong sometimes”—it’s that there’s no reliable mechanism for sorting truth from the divinely determined falsehoods.

They contrast this with naturalism: Blind chemistry/evolution also undercuts reason (Darwin’s doubt, Plantinga’s EAAN), but at least it doesn’t involve a personal, truthful God actively determining deception. Divine determinism makes the problems worse because it attributes the unreliability to a supposedly omnibenevolent, truthful God.

Ties to Your “Christian Nihilist” Idea

  • Nihilism: No ultimate truth/meaning; nothing grounds reliable knowledge.
  • Atheist naturalism (per Mohler): Determinism via brain chemistry → beliefs are just caused, not truth-tracking → no real truth.
  • Calvinist EDD: Determinism via God’s decree → same problem, but the cause is God → undermines the gospel’s reliability, God’s trustworthiness, and any claim to “know” Calvinism is true.

Your label captures the functional similarity: Both leave you without independent grounds for confidence in truth. The ex-nihilist in the interview likely escaped by finding grounding in a non-deterministic gospel—free response, genuine relationship, trustworthy revelation—which these Molinist-leaning critics say EDD erodes. Calvinists aren’t nihilists (they affirm God’s truth and meaning), but the view risks collapsing into a practical skepticism about accessing that truth.

Calvinist Counters (and Why Critics Say They Fail)

Calvinists typically respond:

  • God ensures the elect believe saving truth; errors are compatible with His sovereignty.
  • “Moral sufficient reasons” for decreeing error (e.g., displaying justice, greater goods).
  • Compatibilist freedom: We’re “free” enough in the determined sense.
  • Scripture teaches determinism (e.g., Eph 1, Rom 9).

Stratton et al. push back hard:

  • This still makes God the source of deception for all Christians’ false beliefs.
  • Double effect/morally sufficient reasons don’t work when God could just determine the good without the error (no need for “greater goods” via determined sin/falsehood).
  • It downgrades views of God (love, truth), man (passive cogs, not agents), sin (no real “missing the mark”), and the gospel (bad news for the non-elect; different from the “good news” of free grace).

They conclude EDD isn’t outright heresy (it gets core orthodoxy like Trinity right, unlike Mormonism), but it’s a flawed, sub-biblical view of God that distorts the gospel enough to warrant strong critique—hence the “different gospel?” title.

Bottom Line for Your Study

This isn’t a gotcha that disproves Calvinism overnight—philosophical theology has deep debates here (Molinism vs. Calvinism, libertarian vs. compatibilist freedom, etc.). But the parallel you spotted is legitimate and echoed by these philosophers. EDD risks turning God into the ultimate determiner of illusion, mirroring the nihilistic/atheistic dead-end Mohler critiques. Provisionist or Molinist frameworks (emphasizing genuine free will/responsibility) avoid this by letting humans be active agents who can be held responsible for error without God authoring it. …

I then asked,

  • Here is a transcript to detour you on the “‘Moral sufficient reasons’ for decreeing error (e.g., displaying justice, greater goods).”

An provided two more resources:

  • A Rational Refutation of Divine Determinism (VIDEO)
  • Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism, Second Edition: A Biblical, Historical, Theological, and Philosophical Analysis (BOOK)

GROK:

Mere Molinism is Stratton’s (and Craig’s, etc.) proposed solution to the exact problems you’ve been wrestling with—the Deity of Deception, epistemic meltdown under exhaustive divine determinism (EDD/Calvinist theological determinism), and the functional similarity to naturalistic determinism that risks practical nihilism about reliable truth-seeking.

Quick Recap of the Tension

From Mohler → atheist brain chemistry determines beliefs (no truth-tracking).

From EDD (per the transcripts) → God determines all beliefs, including false ones among Christians (Deity of Deception).

Result: No independent grounds to trust your reasoning or Scripture, since the determiner (chemistry or God) plants errors as the “normal case.”

“Morally sufficient reasons” don’t fix it if God could just determine the good without the deception (as Stratton and the EPS talks emphasize).

Your “Christian nihilist” label captures the epistemic despair: ultimate truth exists, but accessing it reliably collapses under exhaustive determination.

[….]

Ties to Your Provisionist Lean

Provisionism emphasizes God’s universal salvific will, genuine free will/responsibility, and rejection of determinism that makes God the author of unbelief. Mere Molinism is highly compatible (many Provisionists/Molinists overlap). It avoids Calvinist EDD while affirming strong sovereignty—God isn’t surprised or limited; He knows exactly how free creatures will respond and arranges circumstances accordingly.

Stratton’s personal story (Preface) mirrors many: former 5-point Calvinist whose marriage and faith were strained by EDD implications, transformed by Molinism.

Bottom Line for Your Study

Calling Calvinists “Christian nihilists” is provocative but highlights a legitimate vulnerability in exhaustive determinism. Mere Molinism (or similar libertarian + middle knowledge frameworks) dissolves the Deity of Deception and restores reliable agency/truth-seeking without sacrificing God’s greatness. It’s not the only option (open theism, simple foreknowledge, etc., have their own issues), but Stratton makes a robust cumulative case: biblical, historical (Molina, pre-Reformation surveys), philosophical (FTA, Argument from Reason), and practical (problem of evil, prayer, assurance).

After some back and forth…

… I asked GROK a last question:

  • Recap not on the positive case for Molinism and how it fixes anything… My position is that Calvinism is close to nihilism and no free will or way to substantiate true positions or trust biblical theology or truths

GROK ANSWERS

Yes, your core position holds: Exhaustive divine determinism (EDD) in Calvinism functionally approximates nihilism regarding reliable access to truth, despite affirming God’s ultimate meaning. It undermines genuine free will in a way that leaves no independent ground for substantiating or trusting true positions—including biblical theology itself. Here’s a tight recap based on the materials and arguments we’ve covered.

The Nihilism Parallel

  • Atheistic naturalism (Mohler’s point): Blind brain chemistry/evolution determines all beliefs. No rational agent steering toward truth—just caused outputs. Beliefs are not “up to you”; they’re products of non-rational forces. Result: No trustworthy path to objective truth. Skepticism/nihilism about knowledge follows.
  • Theistic determinism (EDD/compatibilism): God’s decree determines all beliefs, desires, reasoning processes, and conclusions (including false theological ones as the “normal case”). Compatibilist “freedom” (Hendryx: no less deterministic than hard determinism; MacArthur: we act willingly per our determined nature) redefines freedom but doesn’t restore agency. You’re still a determined effect in God’s causal chain—willingly hitting targets God aims, including error.

Both systems make beliefs the inevitable product of forces outside the agent’s ultimate control. The ex-nihilist convert escaped into a gospel with real meaning, responsibility, and truth-tracking. EDD risks pulling back toward functional nihilism: Truth exists (in God), but you have no reliable, non-circular way to access or justify it.

No Genuine Free Will → No Epistemic Responsibility

  • Under EDD, there are no categorical alternative possibilities. You could not have believed/thought/reasoned otherwise in the exact same circumstances—God determined the desires, deliberations, and outcome.
  • Deliberation collapses: True deliberation (weighing reasons, estimating arguments, choosing the best—per Webster/Stratton) requires the ability to evaluate and select among options. If God determines the entire process (how and what you think), you’re not deliberating; the process is happening to you. Reasoning becomes illusory.
  • The Deity of Deception (from the talks): Everyone, including Calvinists/elect, holds false theological beliefs. God determines those too. This isn’t rare pedagogy—it’s systemic. Even “morally sufficient reasons” (greater goods, displaying justice) don’t help: God could determine the good without decreeing the error. The ultimate source of deception is God Himself.

Result: You can’t trust your cognitive faculties for metaphysical/theological truth. Any belief you hold (including EDD, compatibilism, or a specific interpretation of Romans 9) is just what God caused you to affirm. No independent justification.

Inability to Substantiate or Trust Biblical Theology

  • Transfer of trust problem: Scripture is inspired by the same God who determines false beliefs in His followers. If He determines Christians to misread or affirm errors about His word, why trust any interpretation—including the ones supporting EDD? Every proof-text has an undercutting defeater: “God determined me to see this as true.”
  • Self-undermining: The belief that EDD is true is itself determined. You can’t rationally affirm it without begging the question (assuming the reliability of a process God may have determined toward error). This is epistemic meltdown—adapted Argument from Reason.
  • Low view of man and sin: Humans are “passive cogs” or “bags of beliefs” none of which are up to the bag. Sin isn’t genuine missing the mark by a responsible agent—it’s determined. Moral intuitions (and theological reasoning) get undercut.
  • Gospel implications: The “good news” becomes bad news for the non-elect (determined to reject it with no real alternative). Assurance and trust in Scripture erode when the Author determines widespread theological falsehood.

Compatibilism (MacArthur/Hendryx) doesn’t resolve this. It preserves “willingness” and responsibility language, but the determinism is total. Willing puppets are still puppets when it comes to epistemic accountability. You act according to your determined nature, but that nature (and every belief it produces) traces back to the decree.

This is why critics label it close to nihilism: Ultimate truth and meaning exist in God, but finite knowers are left in a predetermined fog with no reliable flashlight. Your Provisionist emphasis on genuine free will and responsibility directly counters this by preserving active agents who can be held accountable for reasoning and responding to truth—without making God the determiner of deception.

The transcripts and arguments we’ve reviewed (Deity of Deception, FTA applications, etc.) consistently press this as a serious vulnerability in EDD, even if Calvinists find it biblically compelling on sovereignty texts. It’s a live tension worth pressing in your study.

Evanescent or Temporal Grace | Deity of Deception

Published by Papa Giorgio

Gavin Ortlund Defends Calvinist Assurance—Does It Work?

  • This is a clip from a longer youtube reaction video to ‪@TruthUnites‬‘ defense of Calvinism. For the full reaction click here:     In this video Tim and Josh (with guest Phil) discuss Gavin Ortlund’s defense of the Calvinist position on assurance and how… some things just don’t add up.

Here is the Calvinist doctrine Temporal Grace, as taught by John Calvin:

temporal faith

“Let no one think that those [who] fall away…were of the predestined, called according to the purpose and truly sons of the promise. For those who appear to live piously may be called sons of God; but since they will eventually live impiously and die in that impiety, God does not call them sons in His foreknowledge. There are sons of God who do not yet appear so to us, but now do so to God; and there are those who, on account of some arrogated or temporal grace, are called so by us, but are not so to God.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.66, emphasis mine)

And,

“Experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them. Hence, it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a temporary faith is ascribed to them. Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption …. there is a great resemblance and affinity between the elect of God and those who are impressed for a time with a fading faith …. Still it is correctly said, that the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God; but because, under a covering of hypocrisy they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I even deny that God illumines their mind to this extent …. there is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent.” (3.2.11, Institutes, emphasis mine)

Calvin adds: 

“Yet sometimes He also causes those whom he illumines only for a time to partake of it; then He justly forsakes them on account of their ungratefulness and strikes them with even greater blindness.” (Institutes of Christian Religion, 3.24.8, emphasis mine)

Therefore, by “some arrogated or temporal grace,” God “illumines only for a time” the alleged non-elect in order to overcome his Total Inability and thus temporarily think that he was “of the predestined.” Realize that Calvin taught the doctrine of Temporal Grace because he needed to plug a hole in his theology, such as how to explain passages such as Matthew 7:21-23, where the perishing, that is, those who are being condemned to Hell, had performed miraculous things that spiritually dead people are not supposed to be able to do, according to the Calvinistic doctrine of Total Inability. Calvin’s answer for such instances was a temporary grace. 

John Calvin again:

“Whoever has sinned, I shall delete him from the book of life. … But the meaning is simple: those are deleted from the book of life who, considered for a time to be children of God, afterwards depart to their own place, as Peter truly says about Judas (Acts 1:16). But John testifies that these never were of us (1 Jn 2:19), for if they had been, they would not have gone out from us. What John expresses briefly is set forth in more detail by Ezekiel (13:9): They will not be in the secret of My people, nor written in the catalogue of Israel. The same solution applies to Moses and Paul, desiring to be deleted from the book of life (Ex 32:32; Rom 9:3): carried away with the vehemence of their grief, they prefer to perish, if possible, rather than that the Church of God, numerous as it then was, should perish. When Christ bids His disciples rejoice because their names are written in heaven (Lk 10:20), He signifies a perpetual blessing of which they will never be deprived. In a word, Christ clearly and briefly reconciles both meanings, when He says: Every tree which My Father has not planted will be rooted up (Mt 15:13). For even the reprobate take root in appearance, and yet they are not planted by the hand of God.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, pp.151-152, emphasis mine) 

John Calvin comments on Hebrews 6:4-6: 

“…God certainly bestows His Spirit of regeneration only on the elect, and that they are distinguished from the reprobate in the fact that they are re-made in His image, and they receive the earnest of the Spirit in the hope of an inheritance to come, and by the same Spirit the Gospel is sealed in their hearts. But I do not see that this is any reason why He should not touch the reprobate with a taste of His grace, or illumine their minds with some glimmerings of His light, or affect them with some sense of His goodness, or to some extent engrave His Word in their hearts. Otherwise where would be that passing faith which Marks mentions (4.17)? Therefore there is some knowledge in the reprobate, which later vanishes away either because it drives its roots less deep than it ought to, or because it is choked and withers away.” (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: Hebrews and I and II Peter, p.76, emphasis mine) 

Calvinist, Mark Talbot: 

“Now of course, nothing, that I, nor anyone else, can say can guarantee that anyone will continue to believe. Faith is a gift of God that we cannot produce.”  (Sin and Suffering in Calvin’s World, emphasis mine)

In other words, the fact that you believe today is no guarantee that you will still believe tomorrow, or the next day, or the day after. You can only hope for the best, that your ordained fate is better than others, and that your grace is not a temporary grace, here today and gone tomorrow. Mark Talbot explicitly offers no illusion for your hope of tomorrow. There is nothing that you can do, but hope for the best. It’s completely out of your hands and completely in God’s hands. If you should find yourself an unbeliever tomorrow, your gift has run out.

One member of The Society of Evangelical Arminians: 

“The Calvinist’s assurance is obliterated by the fact that God ordains the illusory salvation of the seemingly-saved folks. This makes them a special sub-set of the damned. In Calvinism, God glorifies Himself by damning the ‘eternally reprobate.’ But the seemingly-saved folks have the unique privilege of ‘glorifying’ God in their earthly lives, by appearing to be saved on their way to Hell. Because God has pre-ordained this, there is nothing any apparently saved person can do. God has ordained the illusion! Of course, this brings up another question: Why is the God (who is Himself truth) ordaining such an illusion? How can God be truthful if He unconditionally pre-ordains illusions? And what kind of God could or would ordain such an illusion for the sake of His glory?” (SEA, emphasis mine)

One member of The Society of Evangelical Arminians: 

“For every person who has ever followed Jesus and then forsaken his name, we have to conclude that God ordained that said person would be eternally damned, but on their way to being damned, God ordains the illusion of redemption in Christ, in that they would come to know Jesus, exhibit kingdom fruit, and then apostatize, all for the sake of divine glory.” (emphasis mine)

​QUESTION: If there is a Temporal Grace, then how do Calvinists know whether this will some day apply to them?

ANSWER: If they stop persevering, then that is how they know, according to Calvinist, Erwin Lutzer. 

Calvinist, Erwin Lutzer: 

“Historic Calvinism stresses the ‘perseverance of the saints,’ namely that true believers never fall away, and if they do, it is not for long. If a person fails to continue in the faith, he is giving proof that he was never saved.” (The Doctrines That Divide, p.231, emphasis mine)

Arminian, Robert Shank: 

“In other words, the only real evidence of election is perseverance, and our only assurance of the certainty of persevering is—to persevere!” (Elect in the Son, p.214, emphasis mine)

Dave Hunt: 

“It is Calvinism that in effect offers salvation by works because it looks to works for assurance of salvation. Biblically, assurance comes by faith in the promise of eternal life in Christ made by ‘God, who cannot lie…before the world began’ (Titus 1:2).” (Debating Calvinism, p.416, emphasis mine)

QUESTION: How do Calvinists know if they are of the Calvinistically elect?

ANSWER: They presume it. …..

Read the rest at:

What is Evanescent Grace? 

| and |

Calvinist Complaints: Arminianism teaches “Conditional Security”)

The Puritan’s Died Fearful

This is why the Puritan’s never slept well in the security of their salvation. Pastor Andy Woods notes this in a truncated presentation:

Although there can be some abuse from Free Grace types, I thought this quick post illuminates Pastor Woods comments:

… You may remember that the Puritans were English Protestants in the 16th and 17th centuries who believed the English Reformation hadn’t gone far enough. They objected to Roman Catholic influences in the Church of England and wanted a purer church with purer doctrine (hence the name “Puritan”). Thus, they separated to form independent or dissenting congregations, with many fleeing to Holland and then to New England looking for religious freedom (at least for themselves, if not for others).

As Grenz explains, the Puritans were concerned with “the quest for certainty of personal election” (Grenz, Revisioning Evangelical Theology, p. 23). They wanted to be sure that they were saved. Why was that? Why did that become an area of particular doubt for them?

Simply put, it was due to the doubts created by their Calvinism:

“This movement developed a new kind of piety in response to anxieties produced by the Calvinist doctrine of election, which in Puritanism made the problem of assurance of salvation existentially central. In contrast to medieval paradigms, Calvinism couched the question of personal salvation in terms of God’s mysterious election. While this theology protected divine sovereignty, it offered no clear criteria whereby a believer could be assured of elect status” (Revisioning, p. 39).

As Grenz explains, many tried to ground their certainty of being elect in outward behavior, which had the opposite effect:

“As helpful as they may be, in the end no sincerity of profession of faith, no degree of faithful attendance at the sacraments, no accumulation of outward evidences of sanctified living could suffice as marks of election” (Grenz, Revisioning, p. 39).

Since looking at outward behavior didn’t give them the assurance they sought, the Puritans looked for inward evidence. Grenz continues:

“the Puritans did devise one definitive mark of election: the inward experience of God’s saving grace. The attendant emphasis on conversion that this move engendered led eventually—at least in devotional literature—to an emphasis on a subjective mark of salvation, the inner, conscious experience of the new birth. Assurance of elect status, therefore, became the product of a believer’s ability to narrate a testimony to a personal conversion experience” (Grenz, Revisioning, p. 39).

This emphasis on having a “new birth” conversion experience became one of the central features of preaching during the Great Awakenings in America. Men like John Wesley (representing Arminians) and George Whitfield (representing Calvinists) emphasized the necessity of conversion and having “the New Birth.” People who had that experience during the revival meetings began to distinguish themselves from people who hadn’t, leading to the question, “Are you really saved?” ….

How Did Assurance Become a Debate?

In discussing this with Grok and Chat-GPT, I got a hybrid breakdown of two sources:

The “P” of TULIP

Calvinism’s doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints does not ultimately provide the confident assurance of salvation that many assume it does. While Calvinism teaches that all of God’s elect will persevere to the end, assurance is often grounded not merely in faith in Christ but in the believer’s ability to demonstrate a lifetime of continuing faith, obedience, and holiness. Since only those who endure to the end are proven to be truly elect, the believer is left asking not simply, “Do I believe in Christ?” but also, “Will my faith ultimately prove genuine?”

According to these critics, this creates a built-in tension within the Calvinist system. If those who fall away are explained as never having been truly saved, then every professing Christian must consider whether his own faith might eventually prove to be temporary or spurious. Rather than resting entirely upon Christ’s finished work and His promises, assurance becomes linked to future perseverance that has not yet occurred.

The concern is reflected in several recurring themes:

  • Assurance is tied to visible perseverance, holiness, and good works rather than resting solely on God’s promises to believers.
  • Numerous Calvinist theologians, including John Calvin, John Murray, A.W. Pink, and others, stress that present faith is not sufficient unless one continues faithfully to the end.
  • Calvin’s doctrine of “temporary faith” or “evanescent grace” introduces the possibility that someone may appear converted for years and still not be among the elect.
  • Apostasy is interpreted as evidence that a person was never truly saved, causing believers to question whether their own faith is genuine.
  • Personal testimonies such as R.C. Sproul’s famous struggle with the question, “What if you are not one of the redeemed?” are cited as examples of the doubt this system can produce.
  • Biblical examples such as David, Peter, Solomon, and the carnal Corinthians are presented as evidence that true believers can fail seriously without proving themselves lost.

For these reasons, critics argue that Calvinism’s doctrine of perseverance functions less as a doctrine of assurance and more as a doctrine of ongoing self-examination. The believer’s focus can shift from Christ’s completed work to the search for evidences of election within his own life. In their view, the result is a form of assurance mixed with uncertainty, because the final proof of genuine salvation is not known until life’s race has been completed.

Thus, both sources conclude that Calvinism’s “P” in TULIP, though intended to safeguard eternal security, ultimately undermines it. Instead of offering believers settled confidence in Christ’s promise of eternal life, it replaces assurance with an ongoing test of endurance, leaving many to wonder whether they possess saving faith at all. True assurance, they contend, is found not in examining whether one has persevered enough, but in trusting Christ’s promise that all who believe in Him have eternal life here and now.

Dr. Leighton Flowers walks through a recent sermon entitled, “The Most Hated Christian Doctrine” by Dr. John MacArthur.

Faith Alone Thru Christ Alone

  • Flowers agrees with MacArthur that humanity is sinful and in need of grace, but argues that Calvinism wrongly transforms human rebellion into God-decreed inability, thereby undermining genuine responsibility, the universal offer of the gospel, and the biblical teaching that people receive life by believing rather than believe because they have already been given life.

The below video is Dr. Leighton Flowers’ response to John MacArthur’s sermon “The Most Hated Christian Doctrine.” While Flowers agrees with MacArthur that humanity is deeply sinful and incapable of saving itself, he argues that MacArthur goes beyond biblical depravity and imports the Calvinistic doctrine of Total Inability—the belief that people are born unable to respond positively to God’s revelation unless first regenerated by irresistible grace. Throughout the discussion, Flowers repeatedly distinguishes between people being unwilling because of rebellion and people being unable because of an innate condition decreed by God. He contends that passages such as John 5, John 6, John 8, Acts 28, and John 12 are addressing hardened, rebellious Israelites who became calloused through persistent rejection of God’s revelation, not describing the universal condition of every person from birth. According to Flowers, Calvinists mistakenly turn judicial hardening passages into proof texts for a doctrine of universal moral inability.

The larger theme of the video is the defense of human responsibility and the sufficiency of God’s revelation. Flowers argues that Calvinism ultimately makes unbelief trace back to God’s decree rather than to the sinner’s own rejection of truth. He repeatedly challenges MacArthur’s claim that unbelievers “cannot believe” by asking whether such inability is self-inflicted through rebellion or divinely determined from birth. Flowers maintains that God’s grace genuinely enables all people to respond to the gospel, that faith is not a meritorious work but a response to God’s gracious initiative, and that salvation remains entirely by grace even though individuals are responsible for whether they trust Christ. The video therefore centers on a fundamental disagreement: Calvinism teaches that people need new life in order to come to Christ, whereas Flowers argues that Scripture consistently presents people as coming to Christ in order to receive life.

Ultimately, as I see it, God is a deceiver in Calvinistic theology.

God the Cause

To bolster my point and not just make blanket statements, Dr. Theodore Zachariades shows that God wills [causes, not just permits] a man to be unfaithful to his wife.

  • God works all things after the Council of His will. Even keeping those kings who want to commit adultery from committing so! And when He wants to, he orders those to commit adultery when he wants to! (Video)

He gets that from John Calvin:

… how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be, not by His will but by His permission. . . . It is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing, but the author of them. . . . Who does not tremble at these judgments with which God works in the hearts of even the wicked whatever He will, rewarding them nonetheless according to desert? Again it is quite clear from the evidence of Scripture that God works in the hearts of men to incline their wills just as he will, whether to good for His mercy’s sake, or to evil according to their merits.

John Calvin, “The Eternal Predestination of God,” 10:11

John Piper:

Ephesians 1:11 goes even further by declaring that God in Christ

“works all things according to the counsel of his will.” Here the Greek word for “works” is energeø, which indicates that God not merely carries all of the universe’s objects and events to their appointed ends but that he actually brings about all things in accordance with his will. In other words, it isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those who love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects for his glory (see Ex. 9:13-16; John 9:3) and his people’s good (see Heb. 12:3-11; James 1:2-4). This includes—as incredible and as unacceptable as it may currently seem—God’s having even brought about the Nazis’ brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child: “The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil” (Prov. 16:4, NASB ).14 “When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider: God has made the one as well as the other” (Eccl. 7:14, NIV).

John Piper and Justin Taylor, eds., Suffering and the Sovereignty of God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006), 42. (FULLER QUOTE VIA THIS PDF)

More at my: Is God the “devil” Behind Satan? | Sovereign Puppeteer | and | Is Divine Determinism a Different Gospel?

MEMEVANGELIST (Facebook) just posted this doozy of a meme that I want to unpack here. I will post the original and then my updated version with some explanation.

Here is the original.

And here is some explanation for those not picking up what was shared.

The meme is trying to compress several Calvinist debates into one short point, so it’s pretty difficult to follow unless you know the background.

Here’s what it is getting at.

The First Issue: Unconditional Election vs. Assurance

Calvinism teaches:

  • God chose the elect before creation.
  • The elect will certainly be saved.
  • The non-elect will certainly be lost.
  • Election is unconditional (not based on foreseen faith).

The immediate question becomes:

“How do I know I’m one of the elect?”

That question has haunted Calvinism from Calvin onward.

The Second Issue: Evanescent Grace

The meme references “Evanescent Grace.”

This is a concept Calvin discussed. Calvin observed that some people:

  • appear converted,
  • appear faithful,
  • appear regenerated,
  • appear to persevere,

… and yet ultimately fall away.

So Calvin argued that some people experience something that resembles saving grace but is not actually saving grace.

In the Institutes he describes temporary believers who receive impressions of grace that later vanish.

Hence: Evanescent Grace

“Temporary grace.”

“Vanishing grace.”

“A faith that looks real but isn’t.”

The Problem Created

If Calvin is correct, then:

  • strong faith is not proof you’re elect,
  • assurance is not proof you’re elect,
  • perseverance today is not proof you’re elect,

because a person under “evanescent grace” can appear identical to a true believer for years.

So the question becomes:

How can anyone know they are elect before the end?

What the Meme Is Really Asking

The meme’s logic is:

  1. Election is unconditional.
  2. The elect are certainly saved.
  3. Some non-elect people may temporarily look saved.
  4. Therefore certainty of salvation cannot prove election.
  5. Therefore how do I know I am elect?

That is the “question that drives us, Neo.”

Here is my remake:

Again,

  • “If temporary believers can look exactly like true believers, then how is anyone supposed to know they are elect before they die?” — The Assurance Problem in Calvinism 

That’s really what the meme is trying to highlight: not election itself, but the tension between unconditional election and assurance of salvation when Calvin’s doctrine of evanescent grace is taken seriously.

CALVARY DISAPPEARS INTO A COSMIC LOTTERY OF ELECTION.

Is Divine Determinism a Different Gospel?

Published by Papa Giorgio

See my related post: “Why Both Atheists and Christians Need to Believe in Free Will“

Dr. Tim Stratton and Phil Kallberg present their paper at the Evangelical Philosophy Society on whether or not Divine Determinism (or EDD) is a different gospel, and if so, is it a heresy?

There is a rough patch around the 16:45 mark, here is that text:

  • … including the passages of scripture appealed to supporting ed. The entire project crumbles. This is epistemic meltdown. We can build on this with an adapted version of CS Lewis’s argument from reason. Premise one, no theological belief is justified if it can be fully explained as the result of untrustworthy antecedent conditions. Two, if that is true, then all theological beliefs can be fully explained as the result of untrustworthy anticedent conditions. Three, therefore, if Ed is true, then no theological belief is justified.

The paper that kicked off the topic in the video above is here: An Explanation and Defense of the Free-Thinking Argument, by Timothy A. Stratton and J. P. Moreland (PDF download here). Here is the Abstract:

This paper is a defense of the big ideas behind the free-thinking argument. This argument aims to demonstrate that determinism is incompatible with epistemic responsibility in a desert sense (being praised or blamed for any thought, idea, judgment, or belief). This lack of epistemic responsibility is problematic for the naturalist. It seems to be an even worse problem, however, for the exhaustive divine determinist because not only would humanity not stand in a position to be blamed for any of our thoughts and beliefs, but it also surfaces a “problem of epistemic evil”, which can be raised against the knowledge of God, the rationality of humans, and the trustworthiness of Scripture.

A couple syllogisms from a questioner via: “Is the God of EDD Deceptive?“:

  1. E1- If EDD is true, then God determines all Christians to affirm some false theological beliefs.
  2. E2- If God determines all Christians to affirm some false theological beliefs, then God is deceptive and His Word (the Bible) cannot be trusted.
  3. E3- God is not deceptive and His Word can be trusted.
  4. E4- Therefore, God does not determine all Christians to affirm some false theological beliefs.
  5. E5- Therefore, EDD is false.

Here is another (Ibid.):

  1. If God determines all things about humanity, then God determines all Christians to have some false theological intuitions and to hold some false theological beliefs.
  2. If God determines all Christians to have some false theological intuitions and to hold some false theological beliefs, then God is [an untrustworthy source of theological beliefs].
  3. If God is [an untrustworthy source of theological beliefs], then, there is reason to doubt God’s inspired word.
  4. There is never reason to doubt God’s inspired word.
  5. Therefore, God is not [an untrustworthy source of theological beliefs].
  6. Therefore, God does not determine all Christians to have some false theological intuitions and to hold some false theological beliefs.
  7. Therefore, God does not determine all things about humanity.

In another challenge proffered to Tim, here is a question/challenge after the person watched this video, found here: “Epistemic Meltdown“:

The key premise of the Deity of Deception Argument reads like this: “If God determines all Christians to affirm some false theological beliefs, then God is deceptive, and His Word cannot be trusted.” The committed determinist will try to provide some counter-examples to try to defeat the argument. The examples involve some sort of machine or process that are generally reliable but can fail on a handful of occasions. Listen to Tim while he examines this response to the argument! Hint: It misses the point!

A few more challenges/questions, and even a “chat” with ChatGPT”:

I will end with the opening by Doc Stratton from a debate. The full debate is linked at the videos YouTube