Is Calvinism a Heresy? (Bonus: Allie Beth Stuckey)

Published October 13, 2026October 16, 2026 by Papa Giorgio

VIDEO VIA IDOL KILLER!

For the entire video by Idol Killer, see: “What is the Gospel? – Allie Beth Stuckey vs John Mark Comer“

For clarity and historical depth: The first four belonged to the Western Latin Church, the historical church that developed into the Roman Catholic Church. They were not Eastern Orthodox councils. The first four gatherings occurred before the Great Schism of 1054, the conventional date associated with the separation between Eastern Orthodox and Western Catholic Christianity.

They therefore belong to the history of the Western Church, although their geographical and political settings differed. Mainz and Quierzy, in particular, were Frankish synods rather than ecumenical councils of the entire Christian church.

Jerusalem in 1672 was different: it was an explicitly Eastern Orthodox synod responding to Protestant theology, including doctrines associated with Calvinism.

Council or synod	Church tradition	Historical setting
Arles (475–480 AD)	Western Latin Church	Late Roman Gaul, in what is now southern France
Orange (529 AD)	Western Latin Church	Southern Gaul, now France; associated with Caesarius of Arles
Mainz (848 AD)	Western Latin Church	The Carolingian Frankish Church, in what is now Germany
Quierzy (853 AD)	Western Latin Church	The Carolingian Frankish Church, in what is now northern France
Jerusalem (1672 AD)	Eastern Orthodox Church	Convened under Patriarch Dositheus II of Jerusalem

Council of Arles (475–480 AD)

Issue: Human freedom, predestination, and the extent of Christ’s atonement

Arles required the priest Lucidus to renounce propositions associated with an extreme form of predestinarian teaching. These included the denial of meaningful human freedom after the Fall, the claim that Christ did not die for the salvation of all, and the idea that some people were predestined to damnation.

Connection to the “later” TULIP (explained in APPENDIX):

Total Depravity: Challenges interpretations that eliminate any meaningful capacity to respond to God’s gracious initiative.
Limited Atonement: Challenges the claim that Christ’s death was not intended for the salvation of all.
Unconditional Election and Reprobation: Raises objections to certain formulations of predestination to damnation.

The central question is whether God’s sovereignty and humanity’s fallen condition require the conclusion that human responses are determined by God rather than genuinely resistible.

Second Council of Orange (529 AD)

Issue: The necessity of grace and predestination to evil

Orange affirmed that fallen humanity cannot turn to God or embrace saving faith apart from God’s prior grace. It rejected the idea that God predestines people to evil and emphasized the necessity of divine grace in salvation.

Connection to the “later” TULIP (explained in APPENDIX):

Total Depravity: Orange affirms humanity’s dependence on grace, but does not establish every later Calvinist claim about spiritual inability.
Unconditional Election: Its teachings raise questions about how election and condemnation should be understood, although Orange did not settle every later debate over election.
Determinism: Its rejection of predestination to evil challenges interpretations in which God’s decree is understood to determine sinful actions in a way that makes God the ultimate determiner of evil.

The important distinction is between God permitting and governing a world in which sin occurs and God determining that particular sinful choices must occur. The council’s rejection of predestination to evil is relevant to that distinction, though it does not by itself settle the modern debate over theological determinism.

Synod of Mainz (848 AD)

Issue: Gottschalk’s doctrine of double predestination

The Synod of Mainz condemned Gottschalk of Orbais, who taught a form of double predestination: God predestines some people to eternal life and others to eternal death. His position also included a restricted understanding of the beneficiaries of Christ’s death.

Connection to the “later” TULIP (explained in APPENDIX):

Unconditional Election: Related to the teaching that God elects individuals to salvation independently of their response.
Limited Atonement: Gottschalk held that Christ died for the elect rather than for all people.
Double Predestination: His formulation raises the question of whether God’s decree determines not only who will be saved but also who will be condemned.

This is particularly relevant to the historical debate over whether reprobation is simply God’s decision not to elect certain people or a positive predestination to damnation.

The distinction matters because later Calvinists have offered different explanations of reprobation and do not all formulate it identically.

Synod of Quierzy (853 AD)

Issue: Predestination to salvation versus predestination to sin and damnation

The proceedings against Gottschalk began earlier, but the doctrinal statement associated with Quierzy dates to 853. It affirmed predestination to salvation while distinguishing it from God’s foreknowledge of those who would be condemned. It also affirmed God’s desire to save all and the universal scope of Christ’s redemptive provision.

Connection to the “later” TULIP (explained in APPENDIX):

Unconditional Election: The synod’s account of election and condemnation differs from formulations of double predestination.
Limited Atonement: Its affirmation of universal redemption conflicts with strict formulations that limit Christ’s saving provision to the elect.
Determinism: Its distinction between predestination to salvation and foreknowledge of condemnation challenges the claim that both outcomes should be understood as equivalent acts of divine predetermination.

From a Provisionist perspective, this distinction is important: God’s sovereign provision of salvation does not necessarily entail that God determines which individuals will believe or refuse to believe.

Synod of Jerusalem (1672 AD)

Issue: Unconditional predestination and the Reformed understanding of salvation

The Synod of Jerusalem, associated with Patriarch Dositheus, the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, responded to Protestant teachings it regarded as inconsistent with Eastern Orthodox doctrine. Its confession rejected unconditional predestination as it understood the Calvinist position and emphasized the relationship between divine grace and human response.

Connection to the “later” TULIP (explained in APPENDIX):

Unconditional Election: The synod rejected the Calvinist formulation of unconditional predestination that it addressed.
Irresistible Grace: Its understanding of grace and human response differs from the Calvinist claim that saving grace effectually brings the elect to faith.
Perseverance: Its broader understanding of salvation differs from the Reformed account of the perseverance of the saints.

Jerusalem is the most direct example in this list of an ecclesiastical body addressing doctrines identified with Calvinism after the Reformation.

One qualification: it was an Eastern Orthodox synod, so its decisions represent the doctrinal position of that church, rather than a universally binding judgment accepted by all Christian traditions.

Augustine, the Father of TULIP?
Examining the Historical Foundations of Augustinian-Calvinism

Introduction: Did Calvinism Begin with Augustine?

The five points of Calvinism, commonly summarized by the acronym TULIP, are among the most recognizable features of Reformed theology. They describe a system of salvation involving humanity’s inability to come to God apart from divine grace, God’s unconditional election of individuals, the particular intent of Christ’s atonement, the effectiveness of saving grace, and the perseverance of the saints.

But where did this theological framework originate?

Many Calvinists appeal to Augustine of Hippo (AD 354–430), one of the most influential theologians in Western Christianity. John Calvin himself acknowledged Augustine’s enormous influence on his theology. The question, therefore, is not whether Augustine influenced Calvinism. The more significant question is whether Augustine’s later teachings on determinism, election, grace, and perseverance supplied the historical foundation for the distinctive doctrines later associated with TULIP.

Kenneth M. Wilson directly addresses this question in two works:

The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism (2019), which develops his historical argument concerning Augustine’s theological development and the philosophical and religious influences he believes shaped it.
“Calvinism Is Augustinianism,” Chapter 6 of Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique (2022), which presents a more concise version of his argument within a broader critique of Calvinism’s historical foundations.

Wilson makes a particularly strong claim: Augustine was the historical father of the theological framework underlying TULIP.

According to Wilson, Augustine’s later theology represented a significant departure from the earlier Christian emphasis on human freedom to respond to God’s gracious offer of salvation.

That conclusion is controversial. Nevertheless, Wilson’s historical argument raises an important question for anyone examining Calvinism:

Did Augustine recover the original Christian understanding of predestination, or did his later theology introduce a deterministic interpretation that substantially departed from earlier Christian thought?

1. Augustine’s Importance to Calvinism

Augustine is a towering figure in the history of Western Christianity. His writings influenced medieval theology, the Protestant Reformation, and subsequent debates about sin, grace, election, and salvation.

Wilson emphasizes that Calvin’s dependence on Augustine was substantial. In Calvinism Is Augustinianism, he quotes Calvin acknowledging that he could express his theology through Augustine’s writings. Wilson also notes that Calvin cited Augustine hundreds of times in his Institutes of the Christian Religion.

Wilson cites other Reformed writers who acknowledge this relationship. The Reformed theologian Loraine Boettner famously characterized the Reformation as essentially a revival of Augustinianism.

Wilson also cites Matthew McMahon’s (a Calvinist arguing in favor of Augustine’s influence on TULIP) argument that Augustine, rather than Calvin, had already systematized much of what later became known as the five points of Calvinism. These admissions establish an important historical connection: Calvin did not develop his theology in isolation. He inherited and adapted an extensive theological tradition, and Augustine was a major source within that tradition.

One aspect of Augustine’s understanding of grace needs further comment. As human beings were incapable of saving themselves, and as God gave his gift of grace to some (but not all), it followed that God had “preselected” those who would be saved. Developing hints of this idea to be found in the New Testament, Augustine developed a doctrine of predestination. The term “predestination” refers to God’s original or eternal decision to save some, and not others. It was this aspect of Augustine’s thought which many of his contemporaries, not to mention his successors, found unacceptable. It need hardly be said that there is no direct equivalent in Pelagius’s thought.

Alister E. McGrath, Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought (Malden, MA: Wiley & Sons LTD, 2013), 34.

However, influence does not establish that Augustine and Calvin taught identical doctrines in every respect. The issue is the relationship between Augustine’s later theological framework and the distinctive doctrines subsequently associated with Calvinism.

The filtered systematization of the five points of Calvinism which have been brought to the modern church as the doctrines of grace were originally systematized and widely written on, not by Calvin, but by Augustine. This is why one finds that every four pages written in the Institutes of the Christian Religion John Calvin quoted Augustine. Calvin, for this reason, would deem himself not a Calvinist, but an Augustinian. And both Augustine and Calvin would really deem themselves children at the feet of Jesus Christ and the teachings of the Bible, especially quoting their favorites passages from the Apostle Paul over and over again.

They are Pauline, and bibline, to the glory of Jesus Christ. To work backwards, then, one moves from the doctrines of grace today, to the Synod of Dordt, to the Institutes of the Christian Religion by Calvin, to the writings of Augustine, to the Bible. The biblical record is the foundation for all that came after concerning grace. It is no wonder why Augustine, even in his own day, was deemed the “Doctor of Grace.” Here we turn to him for this study.

This work is concerned with the writings of Augustine to determine Augustine’s views on the doctrines of grace (or what has become to be known as Calvinism or TULIP) and if his views are the same as John Calvin‘s, or for that matter the Synod of Dordt, the Westminster Confession and other reformed viewpoints on the Gospel that have been since penned. Knowing that the Bible does not change, and the matters of faith and practice in the Bible do not change, one should find Augustine’s words and thoughts about grace lying within the same veins as any reformer who believed the Gospel of grace, or any Puritan afterwards. It is easy to see where the Reformers or Puritans believed these doctrines. Again, those who believe these doctrines are referred to as “Calvinists.” But why are they not referred to as Augustinians? This is the scope of the study. Is it determinable that instead of calling one who believes the doctrines of grace a Christian Calvinist, should they be more likely deemed an Augustinian Calvinist? Are those terms interchangeable? Did Augustine believe these doctrines in the same way that Calvin, or the later Puritans did, or even Calvinists today?

C. Matthew McMahon, Augustine’s Calvinism: The Doctrines of Grace in Augustine’s Writings (Coconut Creek, FL: Puritan Publications, 2012), 7–9.

2. The Turning Point: Augustine’s Development Toward Determinism

One of Wilson’s most important arguments concerns the development of Augustine’s theology over time.

Wilson distinguishes Augustine’s earlier Christian writings from his later writings on predestination, grace, and the human will.

According to Wilson, Augustine initially defended a view of human freedom that allowed people to respond to God’s gracious offer of salvation. During this period, Augustine opposed Manichaean teachings that made human destiny dependent on a unilateral divine determination that left no genuine alternative response.

Wilson argues that this changed around AD 412, during Augustine’s controversy with Pelagius and Caelestius.

In Wilson’s reconstruction, Augustine increasingly adopted a theology in which God determined who would receive saving grace and who would not. Human beings remained responsible for their actions, but their ability to respond positively to God depended on God’s prior and decisive intervention.

Wilson calls this a form of “non-free free will”: people act voluntarily according to their desires, but their ultimate spiritual condition and saving response are determined by divine action rather than an independently exercisable ability to accept or reject God’s offer.

Why does Wilson identify AD 412 as significant?

Wilson argues that Augustine’s theological transition has often been dated too early, particularly to his work Ad Simplicianum, traditionally associated with approximately AD 396.

Wilson contends that Augustine continued defending positions compatible with human freedom for years after that work. He argues that the decisive shift becomes apparent around AD 412, when Augustine’s response to the Pelagian controversy led him to reconsider the implications of infant baptism, original sin, grace, and election.

Wilson believes this controversy was crucial because it forced Augustine to explain why some infants received baptism while others died without it, even though infants could not personally choose or reject baptism.

Wilson reconstructs Augustine’s reasoning as follows:

Baptism was understood to convey forgiveness of sins and the reception of the Holy Spirit.
Infants could not personally choose baptism or exercise faith in the same manner as adults.
Some infants received baptism, while others died without it.
If baptism was necessary for salvation, the difference between those outcomes could not be explained by the infants’ own choices.
Augustine therefore concluded that God determined which infants would receive saving grace.

Wilson argues that this reasoning helped move Augustine toward unconditional election and a more comprehensive theology of divine determinism. The important point is that Wilson does not portray Augustine’s later theology as simply an unchanged continuation of his earlier writings. He argues that Augustine’s understanding of grace and predestination developed substantially in response to particular theological controversies.

3. The Philosophical and Religious Background: Stoicism, Neoplatonism, and Manichaeism

Wilson’s argument goes beyond Augustine’s response to Pelagius. He contends that Augustine’s earlier philosophical and religious experiences influenced his later theology. In The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism, Wilson examines four major intellectual traditions: Stoicism, Neoplatonism, Gnosticism, and Manichaeism.

His contention is that certain deterministic concepts found in these traditions reappeared in Augustine’s later Christian writings.

A. Stoicism: Meticulous providence and determinism

Stoicism taught a comprehensive understanding of providence in which events occurred within an ordered causal structure governed by fate.

Wilson argues that Augustine retained a strong conception of meticulous divine providence even after becoming a Christian. In this understanding, God’s providential ordering encompasses not merely broad historical purposes but the specific events and circumstances of human life.

Wilson sees a significant parallel between this conception and theological determinism: if every event is comprehensively determined by divine providence, then human decisions ultimately occur within an order from which they cannot finally depart.

This raises a question central to the debate between Calvinism and Provisionism:

Does God’s sovereignty require Him to determine every human choice, or can God sovereignly govern His creation while allowing people genuinely to respond to His gracious call?

Provisionists answer that God’s sovereignty does not require exhaustive divine determination of every human decision. God can accomplish His purposes while permitting meaningful human responses to His commands and offers.

Wilson argues that Augustine’s later understanding of providence moved away from the earlier Christian emphasis on divine foreknowledge and human freedom.

B. Neoplatonism: The corrupted will and the need for divine restoration

Wilson also examines the influence he attributes to Neoplatonic philosophy, particularly the writings of Plotinus and Porphyry. He argues that certain Neoplatonic concepts supplied a framework in which humanity’s fallen condition rendered the human will incapable of choosing the good without divine restoration.

Within Wilson’s comparison, this resembles the later Calvinist doctrine of total inability: the sinner cannot produce the saving response God requires unless God first acts to overcome that inability.

Wilson further argues that Neoplatonic thought offered a way to reconcile the absence of genuine alternatives with personal responsibility. A person could act voluntarily according to an existing disposition even if that disposition and the resulting action were ultimately determined. For Wilson, this resembles the compatibilist understanding of freedom found in some forms of Calvinism.

The comparison is important, but it requires precision. Neoplatonism was a diverse philosophical tradition, and its concepts should not automatically be equated with the full Reformed doctrine of total depravity. Wilson is arguing for a historical and conceptual relationship, not demonstrating that every Neoplatonic teaching is identical to Calvinist theology.

C. Gnosticism: A divinely differentiated humanity

Wilson also discusses Gnostic teachings in which humanity was divided into different spiritual categories. In some Gnostic systems, only a predetermined group possessed the capacity to receive saving knowledge, while others lacked the ability to attain salvation.

Wilson sees a structural resemblance between this idea and unconditional election understood as God’s unilateral determination of who receives the ability to believe. His comparison concerns the unequal distribution of saving ability: salvation may be proclaimed broadly, but only those specially enabled by divine action can ultimately respond.

This comparison should not be mistaken for a claim that Calvinists accept Gnostic cosmology or the Gnostic distinction between a good spiritual realm and an evil material realm. They do not need to hold those beliefs for Wilson’s narrower comparison to be relevant.

Calvinists desire to stand out among complacent Christians who might not be as educated in biblical studies as they are. At face value, being intellectual about the Bible is not an error in itself. That is, until intellectualism takes over. Dr. Ron Comfort, president and founder of Ambassador Baptist College in Lattimore, North Carolina, has noticed this. He observes the similarities between the ancient heresy of Gnosticism and present day Calvinism. He notes what the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia writes about Gnosticism:

Gnosticism is Christianity perverted by a learning and speculation. The intellectual pride of the Gnostics refined away the gospel into a philosophy making salvation exclusive and not universal. They lived under the conviction that they possessed a mysterious knowledge that could only be understood by them.

Comfort concludes with the question, “Now, I wonder, does that sound like something that is prevalent in our land today?” The parallels between Calvinism and Gnosticism are stunning. By speculative and intellectual assumptions, both Gnosticism and Calvinism deviate from orthodox Christianity in concluding that salvation is exclusive.

Micah Coate, A Cultish Side of Calvinism (2011), chap. 3, “The Marks of a Cult within Calvinism,” 66–67.

Gnosticism, as presented in the quotation: Salvation is associated with special knowledge unavailable to everyone.
Calvinism, as Coate characterizes it: Saving grace is given effectively to the elect, while others are not given the ability to respond savingly.

The question is whether a theological system that restricts the effective ability to respond to a predetermined group shares a significant structural feature with earlier systems that similarly differentiated the saved from the unsaved.

D. Manichaeism: Inability and unilateral divine intervention

Manichaeism is particularly important in Wilson’s argument because Augustine spent approximately nine years as a Manichaean hearer before becoming a Christian.

THE CORE CONNECTIONS & ACCUSATIONS

Augustine’s Background: Critics point to Augustine of Hippo’s approximately nine years of involvement with Manichaeism, a religious movement with dualistic teachings, before his conversion to Christianity. Because Augustine’s writings significantly influenced John Calvin and later Reformed theology, critics question whether aspects of his earlier worldview influenced his understanding of sin and human nature. [1, 2]
Total Inability / Total Depravity: Manichaeism presented a deeply dualistic understanding of good and evil and the human condition. Critics argue that Calvinism’s doctrine of total inability—the “T” in TULIP, which teaches that fallen humanity cannot come to faith apart from God’s enabling grace—resembles this pessimistic view of human nature. [1, 2, 3, 4]
The Material World and the Flesh: Gnostic movements often viewed the material world as inferior, corrupt, or even evil, although Gnostic beliefs varied. Critics argue that Augustine’s teachings concerning original sin, its transmission through human generation, and the effects of sexual desire reflect a similar pessimism about embodied human existence. They further contend that aspects of this outlook carried into later Reformed theology. [1, 2]

Wilson contends that Augustine later returned to certain deterministic interpretations associated with his former religious environment, particularly when addressing the relationship between inherited sin, the human will, and saving grace.

In Wilson’s reconstruction, the human will cannot independently escape its corrupted condition. A decisive divine intervention must restore the capacity to respond, and this intervention is not equally effective for everyone.

Wilson argues that this pattern resembles the later Calvinist understanding of regeneration and effectual calling: saving grace does not merely offer assistance to a person who may respond; it effectively brings about the saving response in those whom God has chosen.

The important qualification is that resemblance does not establish identity. Manichaeism’s cosmology, its account of matter and evil, and its understanding of salvation differ fundamentally from historic Christian theology. Wilson’s argument concerns specific parallels in determinism, inability, and divine selection—not an assertion that Calvinism is simply Manichaeism under another name.

4. Augustine and the Five Points of TULIP

Wilson brings these historical arguments together in his discussion of the five points of Calvinism. He argues that Augustine’s later theology supplied the essential framework from which these doctrines developed.

It is important to remember that TULIP is a later summary of Reformed theology. Augustine did not write a work organized under that acronym, and the five points were not formally formulated in their familiar arrangement during his lifetime.

Wilson nevertheless argues that the underlying theological ideas can be traced to Augustine’s later writings.

T — Total Depravity or Total Inability

The question: Can fallen human beings respond to God’s gracious offer of salvation, or must God first regenerate them so that they can believe?

Wilson argues that Augustine’s later theology developed a particularly strong understanding of humanity’s inability.

According to Wilson, Augustine moved beyond the idea that humanity is sinful, morally weakened, and dependent on grace. He increasingly taught that fallen humanity lacked the ability to make a saving response to God unless God first intervened.

Wilson connects this development with Augustine’s changing understanding of original sin. He argues that Augustine’s later doctrine involved inherited guilt and condemnation, rather than merely the mortality, moral weakness, and propensity to sin associated with his earlier writings.

Wilson also examines Augustine’s interpretation of passages such as Romans 5:12 and Psalm 51:5, arguing that Augustine’s later conclusions differed from his earlier understanding.

For Wilson, this change was foundational because the remaining doctrines of TULIP followed logically once humanity was understood to be totally unable to respond to God.

The Provisionist objection:

Humanity’s universal sinfulness does not necessarily establish that people have no ability to respond to God’s gracious call. Provisionism maintains that fallen people cannot save themselves, earn salvation, or come to Christ independently of divine grace. Nevertheless, God graciously provides what is necessary for people to respond to the gospel.

The disagreement is not whether grace is necessary. It is whether grace must first regenerate a person in order to make faith possible.

U — Unconditional Election

The question: Does God choose individuals for salvation without reference to their response to His gracious offer, or is election conditional upon faith that God foreknows?

Wilson argues that Augustine’s later doctrine of election developed from his understanding of humanity’s inability and the necessity of divine intervention.

His discussion of infant baptism is central. Because infants could not personally exercise faith or choose baptism, Wilson argues that Augustine concluded their salvation depended on God’s unilateral decision to provide the means of salvation.

Wilson contends that Augustine then extended this logic to humanity more generally. God determines who receives the saving grace necessary for faith, while others do not receive that grace.

Wilson uses the term “Divine Unilateral Predetermination of Individuals’ Eternal Destinies” (DUPIED) to distinguish this form of determinism from election understood in relation to God’s foreknowledge of human responses.

In Wilson’s interpretation, Augustine’s later understanding of election resembles the unconditional election taught in Calvinism.

The Provisionist objection:

Conditional election does not mean that people earn their salvation. God determines the gracious provision and the condition under which its benefits are received. Faith is not payment for salvation; it is the means by which a person receives what God has provided in Christ.

Provisionists therefore distinguish God’s sovereign decision to save believers from the claim that God unconditionally determines which individuals will believe and which will remain unable to believe.

L — Limited Atonement

The question: Did Christ die with the intention of saving only the elect, or did He provide atonement for all humanity, with its saving benefits received by those who believe?

Wilson argues that limited atonement follows logically from Augustine’s later understanding of election and providence.

His reasoning is that if God unilaterally determines who will be saved, and God’s providential purposes cannot ultimately fail, then Christ’s atoning work must be understood in relation to the people God has determined to save.

Wilson believes Augustine’s later theology increasingly restricted the saving intent of Christ’s death to the elect. He examines Augustine’s attempts to interpret 1 Timothy 2:4, which says that God desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Wilson argues that Augustine struggled to reconcile the universal language of this passage with his increasingly deterministic understanding of divine sovereignty.

An important qualification is necessary here: Wilson acknowledges that Augustine did not always state the later doctrine of limited atonement in the explicit form familiar from Reformed confessions. Wilson’s claim is that Augustine’s later premises implied a restriction of Christ’s saving work to the elect.

The Provisionist objection:

Universal atonement does not require universal salvation. Christ’s death can be sufficient and intended for all without every person receiving its saving benefits. The atonement is God’s provision; faith is the means of receiving its benefits.

The central question is whether Christ’s death was provided for all people or exclusively for those whom God unconditionally determined to save.

I — Irresistible Grace

The question: Can a person resist God’s gracious call to salvation, or does God’s saving grace unfailingly produce the response He intends?

Wilson argues that Augustine’s later theology treated saving grace as an effective divine action that brings about the sinner’s saving response.

He connects this understanding with the philosophical and religious traditions he believes influenced Augustine, particularly their emphasis on divine intervention to restore an otherwise incapable will.

Wilson’s argument is that once total inability and unconditional election are accepted, irresistible grace follows naturally. If only those unconditionally elected receive the grace necessary to believe, and God’s decision to save them cannot fail, then saving grace must effectively secure their response.

In this framework, the person believes willingly, but the ultimate outcome is determined by God’s prior action.

The Provisionist objection:

Grace can be necessary, powerful, and entirely initiated by God without being irresistible. God calls, draws, convicts, reveals, and provides. A person does not overpower God by resisting His grace; rather, God has sovereignly permitted a genuine response to His gracious initiative.

Provisionism rejects the assumption that God’s saving purpose must be accomplished by determining every person’s response to the gospel.

P — Perseverance of the Saints

The question: Is perseverance guaranteed to every genuinely regenerated believer, or does final salvation depend on a special divine gift that determines who will persevere?

Wilson gives this point a distinctive historical treatment.

He argues that Augustine developed the doctrine of a special gift of perseverance to explain why some people who had received baptism and the Holy Spirit continued in faith while others subsequently fell away.

In Augustine’s developing framework, according to Wilson, the initial reception of grace did not necessarily guarantee final perseverance. God therefore had to grant an additional gift to those who would ultimately persevere.

Wilson sees this as a historical precursor to the perseverance doctrine later incorporated into TULIP.

However, this is also where an important distinction appears. Augustine’s account of perseverance does not map neatly onto the modern Calvinist assertion that everyone who is genuinely regenerated will certainly persevere to the end. Wilson argues that Augustine’s baptismal theology allowed for people who had received the Holy Spirit to fall away without receiving the additional gift of perseverance.

The historical point:

Wilson is not simply claiming that Augustine and modern Calvinists used different words for precisely the same doctrine. He is arguing that Augustine developed a theological solution to a problem that later became part of the Reformed understanding of perseverance, while the details of the two positions differ.

5. How the Five Points Fit Together

Wilson’s argument is not that Augustine independently developed five unrelated doctrines. He believes the doctrines emerged as interconnected consequences of a more fundamental change in Augustine’s understanding of the human will, divine sovereignty, and saving grace.

His proposed sequence can be summarized as follows:

Total inability: Fallen humanity cannot make a saving response without prior divine intervention.
Unconditional election: God determines which individuals receive the grace necessary for salvation.
Effectual grace: God acts to ensure that those chosen respond to His saving call.
Limited atonement: The intent and application of Christ’s saving work are restricted to those God has determined to save.
Perseverance: God grants the additional grace necessary to ensure the final salvation of those who will persevere.

This is a summary of Wilson’s historical and theological reconstruction, not a claim that Augustine himself presented the doctrines in this exact order or in the modern terminology of TULIP.

Wilson’s argument is that the system developed from a foundational premise:

God’s unilateral determination of the individual’s eternal destiny, rather than a genuine human response to God’s universally offered grace.

Once that premise is accepted, Wilson contends, the remaining doctrines follow with considerable logical consistency.

The Provisionist challenge is directed at the foundational premise itself. If Scripture teaches that God graciously provides salvation to all, genuinely calls people to believe, and permits them to accept or resist His call, then the remaining points of TULIP cannot simply be assumed to follow from God’s sovereignty.

6. What About the Early Church Fathers?

One of Wilson’s strongest historical claims is that Augustine’s later determinism represented a significant departure from earlier Christian thought.

In both works, Wilson argues that the earlier Christian tradition generally defended human freedom to respond to God’s gracious provision while rejecting forms of unilateral determinism associated with Stoicism and Gnostic or Manichaean teachings.

He discusses figures such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen. Wilson interprets their writings as evidence that early Christian authors generally affirmed divine foreknowledge, grace, and predestination without concluding that God unilaterally determined each individual’s eternal destiny independently of that person’s response.

He also argues that Augustine’s earlier writings were more consistent with this understanding before his later theological shift.

If Wilson’s historical reconstruction is correct, this raises a significant question for appeals to church tradition:

should Augustine’s later theology be treated as the definitive interpretation of the early Christian consensus, or should it be examined against the writings of earlier Christian authors?

7. From Augustine to Luther and Calvin

Wilson traces the subsequent influence of Augustine through the Protestant Reformation.

Martin Luther, an Augustinian monk, drew heavily on Augustine in his understanding of grace and the bondage of the will. His 1525 work The Bondage of the Will became a major statement of his rejection of the idea that fallen humanity could independently choose salvation.

John Calvin likewise drew extensively on Augustine. Wilson argues that Calvin’s theological system adopted and further developed Augustine’s later understanding of predestination, human inability, and divine sovereignty.

This helps explain the term Augustinian-Calvinism. It describes the historical and theological relationship between Augustine’s later doctrines and the Reformed system associated with Calvin.

Nevertheless, Calvinism is not a single, unchanging body of thought in every historical detail. Later Reformed theologians developed, refined, and systematized their doctrines, and Calvinists disagree among themselves on a number of issues.

The five points of Calvinism were formally articulated in their familiar confessional setting at the Synod of Dort (1618–1619), long after Augustine and Calvin. Wilson’s argument is therefore best understood as a claim about the historical roots of the underlying theological ideas, not the literal existence of the TULIP acronym in Augustine’s writings.

8. Does This Mean Calvinism Is Gnosticism or Manichaeism?

No—not in the sense that the systems are identical. This distinction is essential to a responsible historical critique.

Wilson argues that certain deterministic concepts in Augustine’s later theology bear significant similarities to concepts found in Stoicism, Neoplatonism, Gnosticism, and Manichaeism. He believes Augustine incorporated elements of these earlier systems into his Christian interpretation of Scripture.

That is a claim about intellectual influence, historical development, and structural resemblance.

It does not mean that Calvinists accept every doctrine of these ancient philosophical or religious traditions. Historic Calvinism affirms the Christian doctrines of creation, the incarnation, the Trinity, the resurrection, and the goodness of God’s creation—positions that distinguish it sharply from important aspects of Gnostic and Manichaean systems.

The relevant question is narrower:

Did certain concepts concerning determinism, human inability, selective divine intervention, and saving grace enter Augustine’s later theology through philosophical and religious influences that differed from earlier Christian teaching?

Wilson answers yes.

His critics dispute aspects of his historical reconstruction and the degree to which the similarities demonstrate actual doctrinal dependence.

A fair assessment should examine the primary sources, the chronology of Augustine’s writings, and the specific doctrines being compared rather than treating a historical resemblance as proof of complete theological identity.

9. The Provisionist Alternative: Grace Without Theological Determinism

For those approaching the question from a Provisionist perspective, the historical discussion raises a deeper theological issue.

Does God’s sovereignty require Him to determine every human decision, including who will believe the gospel? Or can God sovereignly provide salvation, initiate the work of grace, and genuinely call people to repentance and faith without determining their response?

Provisionism maintains that salvation is entirely dependent on God’s gracious provision in Jesus Christ. Fallen humanity cannot earn salvation or save itself. God initiates the work, Christ provides the atonement, and the gospel calls people to believe.

But the fact that salvation is entirely of grace does not necessarily mean that God must unilaterally determine which individuals will believe.

The five traditional Provisionist affirmations can be summarized this way:

Human sinfulness: All people are sinful and need God’s grace, but sinfulness does not automatically establish total inability to respond to God’s gracious call.
Conditional election: God determines the condition of faith for receiving salvation; believers do not earn their election or salvation.
Universal atonement: Christ’s atoning work is provided for all humanity, although not everyone receives its saving benefits.
Resistible grace: God graciously calls and enables people to respond, but His gracious invitation can be resisted.
Faith and perseverance: Faith is not a meritorious work, and genuine Christian faith is to be lived out in continuing trust and obedience to Christ.

These affirmations do not deny God’s sovereignty or the necessity of grace. They reject the conclusion that grace must operate through the unilateral determination of every individual’s saving response.

From this perspective, Wilson’s historical argument is relevant because it challenges the assumption that theological determinism is the only possible way to understand divine sovereignty, election, and grace.

Conclusion: Examining the Foundation Rather Than Merely the System

Kenneth Wilson’s The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism and his chapter “Calvinism Is Augustinianism” offer a sustained historical challenge to the idea that the distinctive doctrines of Calvinism simply represent the uncontested teaching of the earliest Christian tradition.

Wilson argues that Augustine’s later theology departed from his own earlier emphasis on human freedom and developed a deterministic framework influenced, in Wilson’s interpretation, by Stoicism, Neoplatonism, and Manichaeism. He further argues that this framework became a major historical foundation for the theology later associated with Calvin and the five points of TULIP.

His most important contention is that total inability and unconditional election were foundational changes from which the other doctrines followed. He sees irresistible grace, limited atonement, and perseverance as interconnected consequences of Augustine’s later understanding of divine providence and saving grace.

These are substantial claims, and they should not be treated as established merely because Wilson presents them forcefully. His historical reconstruction is contested, and Calvinist theologians offer alternative readings of Augustine and the early church fathers.

Nevertheless, the questions he raises deserve serious consideration:

Did Augustine’s theology of predestination develop significantly during his controversy with Pelagius?
How did Augustine’s earlier philosophical and religious experiences affect his later understanding of divine providence?
To what extent did Calvin inherit Augustine’s later theology, and where did later Reformed theology develop it further?
Does the early Christian evidence support the claim that theological determinism was the original Christian understanding of salvation?
Does God’s sovereignty require the unilateral determination of every individual’s eternal destiny, or can God sovereignly provide salvation while allowing a genuine response to His grace?

For Provisionists, the central concern is not simply whether Augustine influenced Calvin. That influence is well established. The deeper concern is whether the deterministic features of Augustine’s later theology faithfully represent the biblical teaching on God’s character, universal saving provision, divine grace, and human responsibility.

The historical question and the biblical question must ultimately be considered together. A doctrine’s antiquity does not prove its truth, and a doctrine’s later development does not automatically disprove it. Each must be tested against Scripture and examined in its historical context.

The issue, then, is not whether Augustine was an important Christian theologian. It is whether the particular theological framework that developed in his later writings—and that Wilson identifies as the foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism—provides the most faithful account of God’s sovereignty and His gracious offer of salvation to humanity.

BONUS:

Allie Beth Stuckey gets early church history wrong:

The “Pauline Particularism” Thought Experiment (+ JohnnyMac)

Published September 17, 2026September 18, 2026 by Papa Giorgio

Calvinism is built on prooftexts. In this episode we will be conducting an experiment to demonstrate why CONTEXT is more important than prooftexts. We will also consider why people become Calvinists in the first place. Get ready to see ULTRA Limited Atonement!

Here is the “Pauline” Systematic:

The Thought Experiment: Inventing Pauline Particularism

J17 Apologetics makes an unusual move in Why CONTEXT Beats Prooftexts! – Episode 24. Rather than simply telling the audience that proof-texting can be misleading, he invents a fictitious theological system and then demonstrates how easily that system can be made to appear biblical when passages are removed from their contexts. He repeatedly interrupts himself to remind the audience that the theology is fake, that he invented it, and that he does not actually believe it. The purpose of the exercise is methodological: it shows what happens when a theological conclusion is established first and biblical passages are then gathered to support it.

He calls his fictional system “Pauline Particularism,” which he also describes as an “ultra limited atonement.” The central proposition is deliberately outrageous, and that outrageousness is part of the demonstration: if a reader can be shown a case for a claim this obviously false, then the problem with proof-texting becomes easier to see.

Jesus Christ died only for Paul.

Obviously, J17 is not arguing that Scripture actually teaches this. Instead, he asks us to imagine someone who genuinely believed it and then constructed a theological case for it using biblical proof texts. The exercise shows how statements that are individually true can be removed from their contexts, linked to other statements, and arranged into an elaborate theological system that appears to have substantial biblical support.

The key to the exercise is that the conclusion comes before the evidence. The fictional theologian begins by deciding that Jesus died only for Paul. He then goes looking through the Bible for passages that contain language that might be made to fit that conclusion. J17 describes this as starting with an idea and then searching Scripture for verses that appear to support it. Once enough verses have been collected, the resulting list can be presented as evidence that the Bible teaches the doctrine.

Building the Case from Isolated Passages

Galatians 2:20 becomes an obvious starting point because Paul says that the Son of God “loved me and gave himself for me.” The fictional theologian can emphasize the word “me”:

Christ loved Paul, Christ gave Himself for Paul, and Paul is therefore the particular object of Christ’s self-giving.

The same verse can then be pressed further through Paul’s statement, “I have been crucified with Christ,” so that the passage begins to sound as though it describes a uniquely Pauline relationship to Christ’s death.

J17 also demonstrates how someone could make the argument sound more authoritative by appealing to Greek. He walks through grammatical features of Galatians 2:20 and shows how Paul’s relationship to the verbs of loving and giving can be emphasized. The grammatical observations themselves do not establish the fictitious doctrine; they show how technical language can give an interpretation an appearance of greater certainty. J17’s point is that Greek does not automatically rescue someone from bad interpretation. A person can understand the grammar and still misunderstand the author’s intention.

The fictional theologian can then move to 1 Timothy 1:15, where Paul says that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners and identifies himself as the chief of sinners. The reasoning becomes deceptively simple: Jesus came to save sinners; Paul says he is the chief of sinners; therefore, Jesus came to save Paul. Once that conclusion is accepted, the theologian can connect it back to Galatians 2:20 and say that Jesus not only came to save Paul but gave Himself specifically for Paul.

The same approach can be applied to Jesus’ teaching about the lost sheep. Because Jesus speaks of leaving the ninety-nine and going after the one sheep that has gone astray, the fictional theologian can simply identify Paul as the one sheep. Once that identification is assumed, another biblical passage appears to support the theory: Jesus goes after the one, and Paul is the one.

Therefore, the argument goes, Paul’s salvation occupies this unique place in Christ’s saving work. The passage has now been made to serve a conclusion that was already established before the passage was examined.

The argument can continue with Paul’s discussion of the race and the prize in 1 Corinthians 9. Paul says that those who run a race run to obtain a prize, and he speaks about running in such a way as to obtain it. The fictional theologian can then connect this with Paul’s statement in 2 Timothy 4 that he has finished the race and kept the faith. Paul receives the crown of righteousness. Therefore, the argument can be constructed that Paul is the particular person who has been selected to receive the ultimate prize.

When Contradictions Are Reinterpreted by the System

But the same passage also creates a problem. Paul says that the crown is not for him only, but also for all who have loved Christ’s appearing. The fictitious theology therefore has to absorb a statement that appears to broaden the promise beyond Paul. Rather than abandoning the system, the theologian reinterprets or qualifies the contradiction. J17 uses this move to demonstrate an important feature of proof-text systems: once the conclusion becomes the controlling framework, passages that appear to challenge it are given secondary interpretations rather than being allowed to challenge the conclusion itself.

Paul’s unique apostolic calling can then be recruited into the system. Paul is described as a chosen instrument, separated to the gospel, and given a distinctive mission. Those statements are true descriptions of Paul’s ministry, but the fictional theologian can subtly move from Paul has a unique calling to Paul has a unique salvific status. The distinction between Paul’s particular apostolic role and the broader biblical discussion of salvation disappears because the theological system requires it to disappear.

Romans 9 can then be brought into the argument to explain why everyone except Paul is excluded. The fictional theologian appeals to the potter and the clay and the vessels made for honor and dishonor. Paul becomes the vessel of honor, while everyone else becomes a vessel of dishonor. God’s sovereign authority over His creation then becomes the theological explanation for why Paul alone receives salvation. J17 intentionally pushes the language in this direction to show how biblical statements about God’s sovereignty can be incorporated into a completely invented system when the surrounding context is ignored.

At this point, the fictitious theology has become self-reinforcing. Whenever a passage appears to contradict the doctrine, the theologian does not necessarily reconsider the doctrine. Instead, the passage is reclassified, qualified, or interpreted through the already-established system.

In effect, the doctrine has stopped being something derived from Scripture and has become the lens through which Scripture is interpreted.

Why Context, Not Quantity, Tests an Interpretation

That is the critical distinction J17 wants the viewer to recognize. There is nothing inherently wrong with having biblical evidence for a theological position. The problem occurs when a person starts with a theological conclusion and then searches Scripture for isolated statements that can be made to support it. The resulting collection can become extremely persuasive simply because of its size. A person can look at twenty, thirty, or even a hundred references and conclude, “Surely this doctrine must be biblical.”

But the number of references does not answer the more important question:

What does each passage actually mean in its own context?

J17’s fictional Pauline Particularism demonstrates this by producing a surprisingly large collection of apparently supportive texts for an obviously fabricated doctrine. He says that he assembled roughly twenty-five passages and could easily have found more. Once the passages are gathered together, the temptation is to assume that the sheer quantity of biblical material proves the conclusion. But none of the authors of those passages intended to establish the proposition that Jesus died only for Paul. The appearance of support comes from the way the texts have been selected and assembled.

This is why context is so important. A biblical statement cannot be understood merely by extracting its words. We need to know who is speaking, who is being addressed, what circumstances are being discussed, what question or problem the author is addressing, and how the statement fits within the author’s larger argument. The meaning of a sentence is not determined simply by the fact that its individual words can be found somewhere else in support of our preferred theological conclusion.

J17 makes the same point about the original languages. Greek can provide valuable information, but simply knowing Greek does not make an interpretation automatically correct. He illustrates this with an ordinary expression such as “we’re going to go in there and take them out.” The exact same words could mean very different things depending upon whether the speaker is a military operator, a dentist, or a contractor. The words themselves do not tell us what is happening. The context does.

That principle applies just as strongly to biblical Greek. A person can identify the correct vocabulary, grammatical forms, cases, tenses, and syntactical relationships and still miss what the author is actually saying. Grammar tells us important things about the text, but grammar operates within context. As J17 puts it, “Context is more powerful than Greek.”

The Pauline Particularism thought experiment therefore exposes a fundamental weakness in the “pile of proof texts” approach (Phil Bair | Soteriology 101).

Passage	Calvinist use	Contextual observation
Matthew 10:22	“He who endures to the end will be saved” = perseverance of the saints	Examine who is being addressed, the immediate mission/persecution context, and what “saved” means
Luke 21:19	Endurance proves genuine faith	Examine the Olivet context and the relationship between endurance and deliverance
1 Peter 1:5	God guarantees perseverance	Explicitly examine whether the passage establishes that proposition or is being used to interpret Matthew 24:13
Jeremiah 32:40	God guarantees that believers will never turn away	Covenant context and the identity of the people addressed matter
1 John 2:19	Those who leave were never genuinely saved	Examine John’s immediate argument concerning the antichrists/false teachers
John 10:28–29	No true believer can ultimately fall away	Directly discuss what the passage says about Christ’s protection
Philippians 1:6	God completes His work	Examine Paul’s specific context and what “good work” refers to
Jude 24	God keeps believers from stumbling	Distinguish divine preservation from the particular meaning of Matthew 24:13
Ephesians 1:3–14	Unconditional election / individual predestination	Is Paul describing individuals predestined to believe, or what God predestined for those who are “in Christ”?
Romans 9:6–24	Unconditional election / reprobation	Is Paul answering a question about individual eternal destinies, or explaining God’s faithfulness to His covenant purposes concerning Israel?
John 6:25–71	Total inability / irresistible grace	What does Jesus mean by “draw,” “give,” “come,” and “believe,” and how does the entire discourse function?
Romans 8:28–30	Foreknowledge → predestination → calling → justification → glorification	Does “foreknew” necessarily mean foreordination of individuals, and does the passage itself establish the entire Calvinistic causal chain?
Acts 13:48	Unconditional election / effectual calling	What does Luke mean by “appointed/ordained” and who exactly are the people being described in the immediate context?
Ephesians 1:11	Meticulous divine determinism	Does “works all things according to the counsel of His will” actually establish that God determines every individual human choice?
Romans 8:7–9	Total inability	Does inability to live according to the flesh equal inability to respond to the gospel?
1 Corinthians 2:14	Total inability	Does “the natural person does not accept…” mean the unregenerate person cannot understand/respond to the gospel at all?
Ephesians 2:1–3	Spiritual death / Total Depravity	Does being “dead in trespasses” itself define the mechanics of the sinner’s will?
Romans 3:10–18	Total Depravity	Does Paul’s indictment establish inability to believe, or does it establish universal unrighteousness apart from God’s provision of righteousness by faith?

SEE APPENDIX FOR MORE – JUMP

Imagine someone appearing in a church and announcing that Jesus died only for Paul. Suppose that person then produced a long list of biblical references: Galatians 2:20, 1 Timothy 1:15, Acts 9, 1 Corinthians 9, 2 Timothy 4, Romans 9, Matthew 18, 2 Corinthians 12, and many others.

The natural reaction might be, “That’s an awful lot of Scripture.” The right test is not how many passages have been collected, but whether those passages actually teach the doctrine being attributed to them.

This is ultimately what J17 is attempting to demonstrate with his fictional theology. He is not claiming that Calvinists literally believe Jesus died only for Paul. He is demonstrating that a theological system can be made to look biblical when its conclusion is established first and Scripture is subsequently mined for supporting statements. The warning is aimed at the method, not at a claim that any real group teaches Pauline Particularism.

The Proper Movement from Text to Doctrine

The lesson, then, is not that proof texts are useless. Biblical passages are the foundation of Christian theology. The issue is how those passages are used. Scripture should not merely be searched for words that resemble our doctrinal vocabulary. It should be read as communication from authors who wrote to particular audiences, in particular circumstances, for particular purposes.

J17’s fictitious Pauline Particularism makes the difference visible. If someone can construct an elaborate theological system claiming that Jesus died only for Paul by collecting enough isolated biblical statements, then the mere existence of a large collection of proof texts cannot be considered sufficient evidence that a theological system is true.

The number of proof texts is not the proof; context is the test.

For a quick adult Sunday class handout I made [and taught years back], see my “Five Finger Life Punch.”

VIDEO DESCRIPTION:

What does Jesus mean when He says “he who endures to the end will be saved” in Matthew 24:13?

Much of Scripture has been hijacked by wrong theology due to philosophical presuppositions, seeking to interpret passages from a Western mindset, and attempting to spiritualize or allegorize its meaning. When we understand the passage within the literary genre, cultural context, and surrounding context, we often discover that what we’ve heard doesn’t match with what God’s word actually says.

This is the case with Matthew 24:13, where some teach that if you don’t endure in good works, faith, love, or obedience, then either you lose your eternal life, or you never truly had it. But is that really what Matthew 24:13 means?

This video uncovers the cultural context surrounding Matthew 24:13 and how a Jewish perspective is vital in properly understanding these words of Jesus.

Matthew 24:13 in Its Immediate Prophetic Context

This study argues that Matthew 24:13 should first be read within Jesus’ end-times discourse before it is enlisted as a proof text for a broader doctrine of perseverance. The concern is not whether perseverance is biblical, nor whether systematic theology has a legitimate place, but whether this specific verse carries the full theological weight often placed on it. The argument proceeds by examining the verse’s immediate context, the meaning of “saved,” the force of Jesus’ warning, MacArthur’s treatment in both the Study Bible and larger commentary, and the qualified contrast provided by the Bible Knowledge Commentary. That contrast is useful not because BKC agrees with every Free Grace conclusion, but because it shows that a conservative premillennial commentary can read Matthew 24:13 as Tribulation deliverance within the passage’s own prophetic framework.

Matthew 24:13 occurs within Jesus’ response to the disciples’ question about the destruction of the temple, the sign of His coming, and the end of the age (Matt. 24:1–3). The surrounding discourse is unmistakably concerned with events associated with the end: false Christs and deception, wars, famines and earthquakes, persecution, death, betrayal, false prophets, increasing lawlessness, the cooling of love, the abomination of desolation, the Great Tribulation, the coming of the Son of Man, and the gathering of the elect.

Within that flow Jesus says, in Matthew 24:13, that the one who endures to the end will be saved. The statement is direct. The interpretive question is not whether Jesus expects endurance—He plainly does—but what theological conclusions may legitimately be drawn from this statement in its immediate context.

A broader Calvinistic formulation can turn the statement into a larger theological chain: regeneration produces certain perseverance; perseverance demonstrates that regeneration was genuine; and failure to persevere demonstrates that regeneration never occurred. That may be defended from a wider systematic theology, but it is not identical to the proposition stated in Matthew 24:13.

The exegetical issue, then, is one of direction. Is the larger theological system being derived from Matthew 24:13, or is Matthew 24:13 being interpreted through conclusions already established elsewhere in the system? A theologian may argue for the broader doctrine from other passages, but this verse should first be allowed to speak within the argument Jesus is actually making.

What Does “Saved” Mean Here?

By “systematic theology,” this study means the practice of organizing biblical teaching across multiple passages into a coherent doctrinal framework. The issue is not whether that practice is legitimate, but whether the completed framework is allowed to determine the meaning of a passage before the passage has been read in its own literary and historical setting.

The Greek verb sōzō can refer to salvation in the ultimate spiritual sense, but its range can also include deliverance or preservation from danger. Because Jesus is discussing persecution, tribulation, deception, and the culmination of the age, the immediate context matters before the word is automatically assigned a fully developed systematic meaning.

This reading is strengthened by a common Free Grace observation: the verb sōzō does not always mean eternal salvation from condemnation. It can mean to save, preserve, rescue, or deliver from danger, and the context must determine which sense is in view. Since Matthew 24 describes persecution, deception, betrayal, flight, tribulation, and the coming deliverance associated with Christ’s return, the possibility of physical deliverance or preservation should not be dismissed before the context has been allowed to speak.

A related point is the use of “saved” later in the same discourse. In Matthew 24:22, Jesus says that unless those days were cut short, “no flesh” would be saved. That use naturally refers to physical survival through the severe days of tribulation. While verse 13 and verse 22 are not identical statements, their proximity within the same prophetic discourse cautions against assuming that “saved” in verse 13 must automatically mean justification or final entrance into heaven.

The question is not whether Matthew 24:13 can have implications for ultimate salvation. It may. The question is whether the verse itself establishes the additional claims that regeneration necessarily guarantees perseverance and that failure to endure proves regeneration never took place.

The phrase “to the end” should also be read in the discourse itself. Jesus is answering questions about the end of the age, the events that precede His coming, and the climactic period of distress described immediately afterward. On that reading, “the end” need not mean the end of an individual believer’s life; it may refer to the end of the tribulational period in view. This reinforces the need to distinguish endurance through a prophetic crisis from a generalized proof text for lifelong perseverance.

The Bible Knowledge Commentary makes this contextual point with unusual clarity, though its use here should be carefully qualified. Louis A. Barbieri Jr. interprets Matthew 24:9–14 as part of the coming Tribulation and states that those who remain faithful “until the end of that period of time” will be saved, “that is, delivered.” He then distinguishes this from the idea of personal endurance producing eternal salvation, explaining the verse as physical deliverance for those who trust in the Savior during the Tribulation and who will enter the kingdom in physical bodies. This does not make BKC a Free Grace commentary in every respect; it makes BKC a valuable witness to the fact that the immediate prophetic context can control the meaning of “saved” in Matthew 24:13.

That sequence is important:

Tribulation, persecution, endurance, deliverance, and entrance into the earthly kingdom.

It is not the same sequence as regeneration, guaranteed perseverance, evidence of regeneration, and proof of eternal salvation. The issue, again, is not whether the latter doctrine can be argued from other passages, but whether Matthew 24:13 itself establishes that doctrine when read in the flow of Jesus’ discourse.

The Force of the Warning

The warning in Matthew 24 is presented as a real warning. Jesus tells His hearers to beware of deception, remain faithful amid persecution, and endure to the end. If a theological system already defines the perseverance of every genuine believer as infallibly guaranteed, however, the reader must still ask what function the warning has within Jesus’ own argument.

A Calvinist can answer that God uses warnings as the means by which He secures the perseverance He has already ordained. That answer may be internally coherent within the system, but it also illustrates the precise interpretive issue under examination. The warning is no longer being explained only from Matthew 24; it is being explained through a prior doctrine concerning God’s determination of the believer’s perseverance.

The distinction is important. Jesus plainly commands endurance, and BKC also treats faithfulness, watchfulness, and preparedness as meaningful responses of those who trust the Savior during the Tribulation. The further claim that endurance is guaranteed because of prior regeneration, and that eventual failure therefore proves the absence of genuine regeneration, is a theological inference that requires its own exegetical demonstration.

MacArthur’s Study Bible and Larger Commentary:
Same Theological Move, Different Presentation

That distinction becomes especially important when evaluating MacArthur, because the question is not whether he recognizes the prophetic setting, but how he connects that setting to the doctrine of perseverance. The comparison with BKC should therefore be framed narrowly: both readings operate within an eschatological framework, but they draw different conclusions from the function of “saved” and “endure” in verse 13.

A more precise assessment of John MacArthur’s treatment is important here. MacArthur does not simply remove Matthew 24:13 from its prophetic setting. Both his Study Bible and his larger commentary understand Matthew 24 within an end-times framework involving Christ’s coming, persecution, deception, apostasy, the Tribulation, the proclamation of the gospel, and the events surrounding the end of the age.

The Study Bible actually preserves that prophetic framework around Matthew 24:13. Its note on verse 10 interprets those who fall away as people who demonstrate that they were never true believers. Its note on verse 13 then explains perseverance through the doctrine that God secures the perseverance of true believers and that those who ultimately fall away prove that they were never truly believers. Most significantly, its note on verse 14 explicitly identifies “the end” with the final birth pains associated with the Great Tribulation.

The larger commentary gives the same theological move a longer contextual runway. MacArthur first establishes that Matthew 24:4–14 describes events associated with Christ’s future coming and the Tribulation. He then treats verses 10–13 under the heading “Defection of False Believers,” explaining the people who fall away as individuals who had an outward identification with Christ but demonstrate by their defection that they never truly belonged to Him.

At verses 12–13, the larger commentary makes the systematic connection especially explicit. MacArthur explains that endurance does not produce salvation but functions as a Spirit-empowered product and proof that a person is already saved. True believers, he argues, will not ultimately renounce Christ because Christ protects them from such defection. Endurance therefore becomes evidence of genuine salvation within his broader doctrine of perseverance.

The difference between the two works is therefore primarily one of presentation, not of basic theological direction. The Study Bible states the systematic conclusion very compactly at verse 13, while the larger commentary develops the prophetic setting more extensively before making the same connection between endurance, genuine salvation, and perseverance.

This distinction matters because the criticism should not be that MacArthur fails to recognize the end-times context. He clearly does. The more precise issue is that, within that recognized end-times context, he interprets Jesus’ statement about enduring to the end through a broader Reformed doctrine of perseverance.

The Bible Knowledge Commentary Provides an Important Contrast

The Bible Knowledge Commentary offers a useful comparison because it explicitly maintains the same prophetic framework while interpreting Matthew 24:13 differently. Barbieri understands Matthew 24:4–14 as describing events associated with the future period preceding Christ’s return, with verses 9–14 describing persecution, deception, apostasy, and increasing wickedness during the Tribulation.

When Barbieri reaches Matthew 24:13, he states that those who remain faithful “until the end of that period of time” will be saved, “that is, delivered.” He then specifically distinguishes this from eternal salvation resulting from human endurance, explaining that the verse refers instead to physical deliverance of those who trust in the Savior during the Tribulation, followed by their entrance into the kingdom in physical bodies.

This interpretation is significant because it demonstrates that recognizing endurance in Matthew 24:13 does not necessarily require interpreting endurance as the Calvinistic doctrine of guaranteed perseverance of the saints. The BKC recognizes the command and necessity of remaining faithful, yet understands the promised “salvation” in the immediate prophetic context as deliverance from the Tribulation and preservation into the Messianic kingdom.

The BKC further states that the primary application of Jesus’ instructions in this section concerns the future generation that will experience the days of the Tribulation, while allowing a secondary application for believers living today. It also adds that the church is not directly in view in these verses. That qualification matters because the argument does not depend on treating Matthew 24:13 as addressed to the church in the same direct way that later epistles are. The primary contextual setting is a future prophetic crisis, while broader application must be drawn carefully by principle rather than assumed as the verse’s immediate doctrinal subject.

Thus, the contrast is instructive. MacArthur reads endurance as evidence of genuine salvation within a broader doctrine of perseverance. The Bible Knowledge Commentary reads endurance through the Tribulation as resulting in physical deliverance and entrance into the earthly kingdom. The difference demonstrates the central question of this study: what does Matthew 24:13 establish from its own context before a broader theological system is brought to bear on the passage?

This comparison also helps keep the critique fair. The point is not that the Bible Knowledge Commentary agrees with every aspect of a Free Grace interpretation or rejects every theological concern MacArthur is trying to protect. Barbieri operates within a conservative premillennial framework, speaks of people being redeemed during the Tribulation, identifies them as believers, and understands later judgment scenes as revealing genuine faith through preparedness, watchfulness, mercy, and faithfulness. The narrower point is stronger: even within that framework, Matthew 24:13 is interpreted as deliverance through the Tribulation rather than as a direct formulation of guaranteed perseverance.

This qualification also prevents an overstatement of the evidence. The BKC can be used to show that a contextual, Tribulation-focused reading of “saved” as delivered is not novel or merely polemical. It should not be used to claim that Barbieri shares the same doctrine of justification, assurance, rewards, or perseverance as every Free Grace writer. Its value is comparative and exegetical:

it demonstrates that the immediate prophetic context can control the meaning of “saved” in Matthew 24:13 even in a commentary that remains conservative, premillennial, and concerned with genuine faith.

Where Does the System Enter the Interpretation?

Matthew 24:13 says, in straightforward terms:

The one who endures to the end will be saved.

MacArthur’s theological explanation becomes substantially larger:

Genuine believer → God secures perseverance → believer necessarily endures → endurance demonstrates genuine salvation → those who ultimately fall away were never genuinely believers.

The second formulation is not simply a restatement of the first. It is a theological synthesis that brings Matthew 24:13 together with numerous other passages concerning divine preservation, perseverance, apostasy, and genuine faith. MacArthur cites texts such as 1 Peter 1:5, Jeremiah 32:40, 1 John 2:19, John 10:28–29, Romans 8:38–39, 1 Corinthians 1:8–9, Philippians 1:6, Hebrews 10, Revelation 3, and Jude in developing this argument.

Those passages may be relevant to a broader doctrine of perseverance. But their accumulation also demonstrates that the argument has moved beyond what Matthew 24:13 says by itself. A theological system can take a statement from one passage, connect it with statements from several other passages, and then bring the resulting synthesis back to the original passage as though the entire synthesis were already present there. Consistency with a theological system is not the same thing as demonstrating that the original passage teaches every component of that system.

A Significant Point of Agreement—and a Significant Point of Difference

Interestingly, MacArthur’s treatment actually provides substantial support for the contextual observation that Matthew 24:13 belongs within an end-times setting. His larger commentary explicitly connects the passage with the future Tribulation and the people who will experience that period. The Study Bible likewise connects the surrounding verses with the Great Tribulation and Christ’s return.

The more precise disagreement concerns what is then made to follow from verse 13. MacArthur moves from Jesus’ statement that the one who endures to the end will be saved to a broader conclusion in which endurance functions as evidence of prior genuine salvation and ultimate defection demonstrates that a person was never truly a believer. BKC, while still concerned with genuine faith and redeemed Tribulation believers, does not make verse 13 itself carry that full doctrinal sequence.

That may be a legitimate topic for a broader theological argument. But it should not be confused with the immediate grammatical statement of Matthew 24:13 itself. The question is not whether MacArthur can construct a doctrine of perseverance from Scripture. The question is whether this particular verse establishes that doctrine in the full sense assigned to it.

The Cross-References Reveal the System

The cross-references make the method especially visible. MacArthur appeals to passages such as Matthew 10:22, Luke 21:19, 1 Peter 1:5, Jeremiah 32:40, 1 John 2:19, John 8:31, Matthew 7:23, Matthew 10:32–38, and 2 Timothy 2:12. These texts may be relevant to a broader doctrine of perseverance, but their accumulation shows that the argument has moved beyond the immediate statement of Matthew 24:13.

This is an important distinction for any study of proof texts. The more passages that must be assembled to explain what a single verse supposedly means, the more carefully we should distinguish the meaning of the verse from the theological synthesis built around it.

The Free Grace critique therefore presses the same methodological concern from another angle, and the BKC comparison gives that concern an important qualification. If Matthew 24:13 is read as a Tribulation-context promise of deliverance for those who endure that period, then using it as a direct proof of perseverance of the saints requires an additional interpretive step. At the same time, the argument should not imply that every commentator who reads “saved” as deliverance shares the same doctrine of assurance, rewards, or perseverance. The narrower point is that the verse may still be discussed alongside passages on endurance, reward, faithfulness, and preservation, but it should not be made to bear conclusions that arise only after it has been relocated into a different doctrinal framework.

The literary flow supports that caution. Matthew 24:9–14 describes Tribulation conditions and the need for endurance. Matthew 24:15–26 continues with the abomination of desolation and the Great Tribulation. Matthew 24:27–31 then describes the visible return of the Son of Man and the gathering of the elect. Matthew 25 develops judgment and preparation for the kingdom. Read in that sequence, verse 13 functions naturally within a prophetic argument about enduring through the crisis until Christ’s delivering intervention.

Context Before System

The better starting point is to resist the temptation to ask, “What verse proves perseverance of the saints?” Instead, begin with the passage in front of us. Who is Jesus addressing? What question is He answering? What events does He describe? What does “the end” refer to in this discourse? What does “saved” mean in this setting? How do verses 10–14 function together? What happens immediately afterward in verses 15 and following?

Only after those questions have been answered should we ask how Matthew 24:13 relates to doctrines developed from the rest of Scripture. That order matters because it prevents the theological system from silently becoming the interpretive framework by which the text is defined. It also keeps comparative evidence in its proper place: BKC may support the contextual reading of “saved” as deliverance, while still operating from theological commitments that are not identical to a Free Grace framework.

The principle is simple: establish the meaning and context of the passage before drawing the theological conclusion. Define the terms, examine their usage, follow the author’s argument, and consider the historical and literary setting. Only then should the conclusion be compared with other passages of Scripture. In that order, Scripture controls the system rather than the system controlling the text.

The concern is not that systematic theology exists; it is whether the system is being derived from the text or imported into the interpretation of it.

The result is a more disciplined use of proof texts and a fairer use of secondary sources. Matthew 24:13 can still contribute to a larger discussion of perseverance, but it should do so after its own context has been heard clearly. The Bible Knowledge Commentary helps show that this contextual reading is not merely polemical, but its support must be stated with precision: it confirms a Tribulation-deliverance reading of the verse without requiring agreement on every related doctrinal question. That approach does not weaken doctrine; it strengthens it by requiring theological conclusions to rest on careful reading rather than inherited assumptions.

Primary Sources Used

John MacArthur, commentary on Matthew 24:1–14, in the uploaded PDF “Macarthur – Jesus 2nd coming.pdf,” especially the sections on the background (24:1–3), the birth pains (24:4–14), and “Defection of False Believers” (24:10–13).

John MacArthur, Study Bible notes on Matthew 24:10–15, including the notes on falling away, perseverance, and “the end” in relation to the Great Tribulation.

“A Free Grace Interpretation of Matthew 24:13,” Free Grace Free Speech, January 25, 2026.

Bob Wilkin, “He Who Endures Will Be Saved (Matthew 24:13),” Grace Evangelical Society, November 17, 2020.

Louis A. Barbieri Jr., “Matthew,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 76–81.

The main argument directly above has focused on Matthew 24:13 and the danger of allowing a broader doctrinal system to determine the meaning of a single text before that text has been read in context. The appendix applies the same method to several other passages commonly used in discussions of perseverance, offering brief contextual checks rather than full exegetical treatments.

Appendix — The “Proof Text” Problem

Quick contextual responses to commonly cited perseverance texts via Phil Bair (The Wilted Flower) and SOTO 101 (Answering Calvinistic Proof Texts | and more: HERE,

The following passages are among the texts commonly brought into discussions of the perseverance of the saints. The point is not that these passages are irrelevant to security, God’s faithfulness, or perseverance. Rather, each passage should first be allowed to make its own contextual claim. A promise of God’s faithfulness is not automatically a statement that apostasy is metaphysically impossible, and a description of present security is not automatically a guarantee of future perseverance.

1. John 5:24 — “Whoever hears … and believes”

“Whoever hears my word and believes … has eternal life.”

The verse gives strong assurance to the person who hears and believes. The Calvinist argument often moves from present possession of eternal life to the conclusion that the person can never subsequently abandon the faith. But the verse itself does not discuss the possibility of later apostasy. Its stated condition is hearing and believing. The text therefore establishes a promise to the believer; the additional claim of guaranteed future perseverance requires support from other passages.

2. John 6:35–37 — “I will never cast out”

“Everyone who comes to me will never be hungry, and the one who believes in me will never be thirsty.”

Jesus gives assurance to those who come to Him and believe. Nothing in the promise says that Christ will cast away a person who genuinely continues to come to Him. The larger discourse must be considered before turning the promise into a proposition about the impossibility of future apostasy. John 6:66 also records disciples who stopped following Jesus, demonstrating that the discourse itself contains a distinction between those who follow and those who depart.

3. Romans 8:35–39 — Nothing can separate us

“Who can separate us from the love of Christ?”

Paul’s list emphasizes external afflictions and hostile forces—trouble, distress, persecution, famine, nakedness, danger, sword, death, life, angels, rulers, things present, things to come, powers, height, depth, and creation. The passage establishes the invincibility of God’s love against external opposition. It does not explicitly address a believer’s own repudiation of Christ. Therefore, the conclusion that the passage proves the impossibility of apostasy goes beyond what the listed obstacles actually address.

4. 1 Peter 1:3–5 — “Kept … through faith”

“You are being guarded by God’s power through faith for a salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time.”

This is one of the most important texts to examine because it explicitly combines divine preservation with faith. God’s power guards believers, but Peter says this guarding operates “through faith.” The verse therefore strongly affirms God’s active preservation without, by itself, defining preservation as an unconditional mechanism that eliminates the believer’s continuing response.

5. Philippians 1:6 — “He who started a good work”

“He who started a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.”

Paul expresses confidence in God’s faithfulness toward the Philippians. But the verse is a pastoral expression of confidence within a letter that repeatedly calls believers to continue in faithful obedience. It does not explicitly formulate the proposition that every genuinely regenerated individual is metaphysically incapable of apostasy. That broader doctrine must be established from the whole biblical witness rather than assumed from the promise.

6. Ephesians 1:13–14 — Sealed with the Spirit

“In him you also were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit. He is the down payment of our inheritance…”

The seal signifies God’s ownership and the Spirit’s role as a pledge of the inheritance. That is powerful assurance. But the passage does not use the word “seal” to define a doctrine of inevitable perseverance. The same letter contains exhortations to believers and warns them not to grieve the Holy Spirit (Eph. 4:30). The existence of a divine seal therefore should not be expanded into a conclusion the immediate verse does not state.

7. 1 Corinthians 1:6–8 — “He will sustain you to the end”

“He will also strengthen you to the end, so that you will be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

This is a significant assurance of God’s faithfulness. But it occurs in a letter that repeatedly warns believers about serious consequences of disobedience and falling. The promise establishes God’s ability and faithfulness to sustain His people; it does not, standing alone, define the precise relationship between divine sustaining grace and a believer’s continuing response.

8. Jeremiah 32:39–40 — “They will not turn away from me”

“I will put the fear of me in their hearts so that they will not turn away from me.”

This is a strong covenant promise concerning God’s work among His covenant people. It is therefore important evidence for divine initiative and preservation. But its covenantal and prophetic setting should be established before it is transformed into a universal proposition about the mechanics of individual regeneration. A promise concerning God’s covenant faithfulness does not automatically settle every question about the possibility of apostasy in every context.

9. John 17:12 — “I guarded them”

“I protected them in your name that you have given me.”

Jesus is speaking specifically about the disciples entrusted to Him. The verse demonstrates Christ’s protective care over those disciples in the context of His earthly ministry and prayer. It should not automatically be generalized into a systematic proposition that every true believer must necessarily persevere. The identity and situation of the persons Jesus is describing matter.

10. Hebrews 13:20–21 — God equips believers

“May the God of peace … equip you with everything good to do his will.”

This benediction celebrates God’s ability to equip His people for faithful living. It is not a technical statement about whether apostasy is possible. Hebrews must be read as a whole, including its repeated warnings about drifting, hardening, and failing to continue. The benediction should therefore be read alongside—not used to erase—the warnings.

11. Hebrews 6:17–19 — “Hope as an anchor”

“We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure.”

The imagery emphasizes the reliability of God’s promise and gives believers strong encouragement. It does not itself say that a believer cannot abandon the hope. The same chapter contains the sobering warning of verses 4–6. Consequently, the assurance passage and the warning passage should both be permitted to retain their force rather than allowing one to cancel the other.

SOME OF THE BIGGIES

12. Ephesians 1:3–14 — “Chosen in Him”

“He chose us in him before the foundation of the world … having predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ.”

Ephesians 1 clearly teaches divine initiative, election, predestination, adoption, redemption, and the believer’s inheritance. The question is not whether Paul speaks about God’s choosing and predestining work, but who was chosen, for what purpose, and how the passage describes participation in those blessings.

The phrase “in Christ” is especially prominent throughout the passage. Paul speaks of believers being blessed “in Christ” (v. 3), chosen “in Him” (v. 4), accepted “in the Beloved” (v. 6), redeemed “in Him” (v. 7), receiving an inheritance “in Him” (v. 11), and finally being “sealed with the promised Holy Spirit” after hearing the gospel and believing in Christ (v. 13).

Verse 4 also states the purpose of the choosing: “that we should be holy and blameless before Him.” The passage therefore clearly connects God’s choice with a specific purpose, but it does not explicitly state the complete theological sequence often inferred from it:

unconditional individual election regeneration irresistible calling faith.

That sequence requires additional theological premises drawn from other passages.

Verse 13 deserves particular attention because Paul explicitly describes the readers’ response in this order:

they heard the gospel, believed in Christ, and were sealed with the Holy Spirit.

Thus, the passage itself gives us a clear hearing believing sealing sequence, while the stronger Calvinistic sequence must be established through a synthesis of this passage with other texts.

The grammatical relationship between “He chose us” and “to be holy and blameless” also raises an important exegetical question:

Is Paul describing individuals being selected for salvation before creation, or is he describing the blessings and destiny of those who are “in Christ”?

The passage itself must be examined carefully before the broader theological system is brought to bear. The key question is therefore not whether Ephesians 1 teaches election. It does. The question is whether Ephesians 1 itself defines that election as unconditional individual election to salvation followed by regeneration and an irresistible call to faith.

13. Romans 9:6–24 — “The Potter and the Clay”

“So then it does not depend on human will or effort but on God who shows mercy.”

Romans 9 is one of the strongest passages cited for unconditional individual election and reprobation. Paul certainly emphasizes God’s sovereignty, His freedom to show mercy, His right to harden, and His authority as the Potter. The question, however, is what problem Paul is actually addressing and what conclusion the potter-and-clay analogy is intended to establish.

Paul begins Romans 9 by expressing profound sorrow over Israel (vv. 1–5). He then immediately explains that “not all who are descended from Israel are Israel” (v. 6), and develops his argument through Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, Pharaoh, and finally the potter and the clay. The issue is therefore introduced in the context of God’s covenant purposes, Israel, the Gentiles, and the question of whether God’s promises have failed.

That context matters when Paul reaches the potter-and-clay analogy in verses 20–24. The passage certainly establishes God’s sovereign authority: “Does not the potter have the right over the clay?” But the analogy itself does not explicitly say that God eternally and unconditionally selects particular individuals for salvation while passing over others for reprobation.

The Old Testament background is especially important. Paul is not inventing the potter-and-clay metaphor. Scripture repeatedly uses this imagery to describe God’s sovereign relationship with His creation and with His covenant people. Jeremiah 18 is particularly significant: God sends Jeremiah to observe a potter reshaping a marred vessel and then explicitly applies the illustration to nations. God says that if a nation turns from its evil, He will relent concerning the announced judgment; if a nation turns to evil, He will reconsider the good He had intended.

Other biblical uses of the imagery likewise emphasize God’s authority without automatically establishing the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional individual salvation or reprobation. Isaiah 29 uses the potter-and-clay imagery in addressing rebellious people who are attempting to hide their works from God. Isaiah 45 uses it in the context of God’s sovereign use of Cyrus for Israel’s deliverance. Isaiah 64 presents Israel collectively as clay in the Potter’s hands while appealing to God for mercy. Paul himself later uses vessel imagery in 2 Timothy 2:20–21, where a person becomes a vessel for honorable use by cleansing himself.

There is therefore an important distinction between what the metaphor clearly establishes and what a theological system may infer from it:

The immediate argument also continues beyond Romans 9. In Romans 9:30–33, Paul contrasts Gentiles who attained righteousness by faith with Israel, which pursued righteousness as though it were by works. Romans 10 then repeatedly places the emphasis on hearing, believing, confessing, and calling upon the Lord, culminating in the statement that “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (10:13). Romans 11 continues the discussion by describing branches being broken off because of unbelief and warning others to continue in faith (11:20–23).

GRACIOUSLY GRAFTED BACK IN:

Thus, Romans 9 certainly establishes God’s sovereignty and freedom in accomplishing His purposes. What remains to be demonstrated is whether Paul is using the potter-and-clay imagery to establish the specific proposition that God unconditionally determines the eternal salvation or destruction of individual people apart from their response to Him.

The key question is therefore not whether Romans 9 teaches divine sovereignty. It unmistakably does. The question is:

whether Romans 9:6–24 itself establishes the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional individual election and reprobation, or whether that conclusion depends upon importing additional theological premises into Paul’s potter-and-clay analogy.

SOTO 101: HERE | RPT: HERE and HERE

14. John 6:25–71 — “Drawing, Giving, Coming, and Believing”

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.”

John 6 contains several statements that are central to Calvinistic arguments concerning human inability and irresistible grace. Jesus speaks of those whom the Father gives to Him, those who come to Him, those who believe in Him, and the Father’s drawing. Jesus says that no one can come unless the Father draws him, and that the one who comes will be raised up on the last day.

The important contextual question is what Jesus means by the Father’s drawing. Jesus immediately explains the drawing in terms of being taught by God:

“Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me” (John 6:45).

The passage therefore clearly teaches divine initiative. But the text does not itself define that drawing as an irresistible inward regeneration given only to a predetermined group of individuals.

This becomes especially important when the surrounding context is considered. Flowers argues that Jesus is addressing an audience of Israelites who had already received extensive revelation through the Law and the prophets but were responding to that revelation with unbelief and grumbling. His reading of John 6:45 connects the Father’s teaching with the broader biblical theme of hearing God’s revealed word and responding to it. He specifically connects this with Romans 10:17:

“faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.”

The Greek verb translated “draw” (helkō) also does not, by itself, settle the question of irresistibility. The same verb appears in John 12:32, where Jesus says, “I will draw all people to myself.”

The parallel does not automatically resolve the interpretation of either passage, but it demonstrates why the meaning of draw must be established from context rather than simply equated with “irresistibly regenerate.”

The larger discourse must also be considered. John 6 includes people who believe, people who object to Jesus’ teaching, and disciples who subsequently turn back and no longer walk with Him (6:66). These observations do not by themselves establish a doctrine of apostasy or disprove Calvinism. They do demonstrate, however, that the chapter contains more contextual material than the isolated statement, “No one can come unless the Father draws him.”

John 6:37–40 also places repeated emphasis on coming and believing: “the one who comes to Me I will never cast out” (v. 37), while verse 40 states, “everyone who looks on the Son and believes in Him should have eternal life.” Thus, the passage simultaneously emphasizes God’s initiative and the human response of coming, looking, hearing, learning, and believing.

The text clearly establishes God’s initiative in bringing people to Christ. The question is whether John 6 itself establishes the additional propositions that this drawing is irresistible, restricted to the elect, and accomplished through regeneration prior to faith. Those conclusions require additional theological argument beyond the mere statement that “the Father draws.”

The key question is therefore not whether John 6 teaches divine drawing. It does. The question is whether Jesus’ explanation of that drawing—hearing, learning, and coming—requires the specifically Calvinistic doctrine of irresistible grace and regeneration preceding faith.

A Closer Look at “I Will Draw All” — John 12:32

John 12:32 deserves particular attention because Jesus uses the same Greek verb for “draw” (helkō) found in John 6:44:

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day. (John 6:44)
As for me, if I am lifted up from the earth I will draw all people to myself.” (John 12:32)

But John 12 does not present this statement in isolation. Jesus immediately explains that being “lifted up” refers to the manner of His death (12:33). This also recalls Jesus’ earlier comparison between Himself and the bronze serpent Moses lifted up in the wilderness:

“Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, so that everyone who believes may have eternal life in Him.” — John 3:14–15

The Numbers 21 account is therefore worth considering. God provided a means of deliverance, but the Israelites were told to look at the lifted-up serpent in order to live. The remedy was provided by God; the response of faith was still required. John then presents Christ as the ultimate fulfillment of that imagery: the Son of Man is lifted up, and those who believe in Him receive life.

This does not by itself settle every question surrounding helkō in John 12:32. Nor does the serpent account establish a particular doctrine of prevenient or irresistible grace. But it does place Jesus’ statement within a larger Johannine pattern of divine provision, Christ being lifted up, and a response of faith.

That matters when John 12:32 is compared with John 6:44. If helkō in John 6 is defined as an irresistible saving action given only to the elect, then John 12:32 requires an explanation of why Jesus says that He will draw ALL. Calvinistic interpreters commonly answer that “all” means all kinds of people—Jews and Gentiles—rather than every individual. The presence of Greeks seeking Jesus in the immediate context (12:20–22) provides a contextual basis for that interpretation.

But “all without distinction” is an interpretation of “all”; it is not the literal wording of the verse. The contextual argument must therefore be demonstrated rather than simply assumed.

The same Greek verb appears in both passages. The question is consequently not whether helkō can have different contextual nuances, but what each context requires the word to mean.

Context should determine the meaning of “draw”—not the theological system being used to interpret it.

15. Romans 8:28–30 — “Foreknown, Predestined, Called, Justified, Glorified”

“Those he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son … those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.”

Romans 8:28–30 presents one of the most important passages in the discussion because Paul describes a closely connected sequence of God’s activity: those whom God foreknew, He also predestined, called, justified, and glorified. The passage therefore provides a strong statement about God’s purposeful work concerning those who belong to Him.

The crucial questions are what Paul means by “foreknew” and what exactly those people are predestined to. Paul explicitly says they are predestined “to be conformed to the image of his Son.” The text does not explicitly say that God predestined particular individuals to believe, nor does it define foreknew as synonymous with unconditional individual election.

But there is another important contextual consideration:

Romans 8:28–30 should not be detached from the argument that follows in Romans 9–11.

Paul moves from God’s purpose and calling in 8:28–30 to the assurance that nothing can separate His people from His love (8:31–39), and then immediately turns to his anguish over Israel (9:1–5). Richard B. Hays observes that readers who have followed Paul’s argument through the first eight chapters should not be surprised when Paul turns to Israel in Romans 9–11. Hays argues that this section is not “some excursus or appendix peripheral to the letter’s theme,” but “the heart of the matter.” He specifically connects Romans 8:39 with the question Paul confronts concerning Israel.¹

This broader context matters because Romans 9–11 repeatedly develops themes introduced in Romans 8:

God’s purpose, election, calling, mercy, Israel, the Gentiles, and the faithfulness of God’s promises.

Hays describes Romans 9–11 as an extended demonstration that God’s dealings with Israel and the nations are consistent with His past actions and declared purposes. He describes the scriptural connections throughout these chapters as “structural girders, not filigrees.”²

The meaning of “foreknew” therefore deserves careful attention. Interpreters have understood the term in different ways. Frédéric Godet, for example, argues that God’s foreknowledge in Romans 8:29 refers to His foreseeing the faith of those who would believe, while distinguishing that foreknowledge from predestination. He maintains that the object of predestination is glory, not faith itself.³ William R. Newell likewise connects Paul’s language of divine foreknowledge with God’s prior “acquaintanceship,” drawing particular attention to Paul’s statement in Romans 11:2 that God “foreknew” His people.⁴

Leighton Flowers, drawing on several interpreters, presents another possible reading: foreknew may carry the sense of formerly or previously known, emphasizing God’s prior relationship or knowledge rather than making the word itself synonymous with unconditional individual election.⁵ Tim Warner’s Last Generation Version of Romans also provides a useful resource for examining Paul’s terminology and argument across Romans rather than treating 8:28–30 as an isolated theological proposition.⁶

The passage itself clearly establishes a remarkable connection between foreknowledge, predestination, calling, justification, and glorification. But it does not, by itself, explain every theological question concerning the nature of foreknowledge, the condition or scope of election, or precisely how calling relates to faith. Those conclusions require interpretation of Romans 8:28–30 within its immediate context and in light of the argument Paul develops through Romans 9–11.

In that sense, Romans 8:28–39 functions almost like a theological table of contents for questions Paul will develop in Romans 9–11. That is an interpretive analogy, not a claim that Paul literally intended the chapter divisions that way.

The text gives us the sequence. The context gives us the questions Paul is addressing. The theological system must still explain what each term means and what the sequence establishes.

Footnotes

Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989), 63.
Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, 64.
Frédéric Godet, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, trans. A. Cusin, rev. and ed. Talbot W. Chambers (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1956), 325–26. Godet discusses Romans 8:29 specifically, arguing that foreknowledge concerns those whom God foresees as believing and that predestination is directed toward glory rather than toward faith itself.
William R. Newell, Romans Verse-by-Verse (Chicago: Moody Press, 1938), 186. Newell discusses Romans 8:29 and connects divine foreknowledge with the idea of prior “acquaintanceship,” specifically bringing Amos 3:2, Romans 11:2, and 1 Peter 1:20 into his discussion.
Leighton Flowers, “Romans 8:28–30: Foreknowledge and Predestination,” Soteriology 101, February 14, 2018. Soteriology 101 article
Tim Warner, The Letter of Paul to the Romans: Last Generation Version, trans. and notes by Tim Warner (rev. September 11, 2026), 20–21. Warner’s notes on Romans 8:28–30 explicitly interpret “foreknew” as referring to those God “knew previously,” connect the term with God’s prior relationship with figures such as Abraham and David, and interpret the predetermination in verse 29 in relation to resurrection.

16. Acts 13:48 — “Appointed to Eternal Life”

“As many as were appointed to eternal life believed.”

Acts 13:48 is one of the shortest and most frequently cited texts in arguments for unconditional election. Read in the traditional rendering, the verse appears to present a straightforward sequence: certain people were appointed to eternal life, and consequently they believed. Calvinistic theology naturally understands this as evidence that God’s prior appointment produces saving faith.

The important question is not simply whether the word “appointed” can describe divine action, but what Luke means by the appointment and how the statement functions within the larger narrative. The immediate context concerns Paul’s preaching in Pisidian Antioch, where Jews, Gentiles, and Gentile God-fearers respond differently to the gospel. The contrast becomes especially important in verses 46–48: some Jews reject the message and “judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life,” while Gentiles rejoice and believe.

The Greek verb tassō can carry the sense of arranging, appointing, assigning, or ordering, and the precise interpretation of its participle in Acts 13:48 has been debated. A 2024 scholarly study specifically reexamines the traditional strongly predestinarian interpretation, arguing that the lexical and discourse evidence does not adequately establish the usual understanding of the passage.

Craig Keener likewise notes that “appointed” can refer to enrollment, while suggesting that the verse may concern God’s plan for the Gentiles. He connects this possibility with Acts 13:17, where Luke has already described God as choosing Israel, and with the immediate contrast between 13:46 and 13:48. Keener also observes that early Jewish thought did not necessarily regard divine predestination and human responsibility as mutually exclusive, and he sees a deliberate tension between God’s sovereignty and human choice in the passage.

This does not mean that Acts 13:48 cannot support a Calvinistic interpretation. It means that the theological conclusion should not simply be smuggled into the English word “appointed.” The interpreter still has to establish what Luke means by the appointment, who is being described, how the statement relates to the Jewish rejection and Gentile response in verses 46–48, and how it fits Luke’s larger presentation of God’s purposes for Israel and the Gentiles.

The question, therefore, is not whether Acts 13:48 speaks of divine appointment. It does. The question is whether the passage itself establishes the full theological proposition of unconditional individual election producing irresistible saving faith—or whether that conclusion requires additional theological premises brought to the text.

17. 1 Corinthians 2:14 — “The Natural Person”

“The natural person does not accept the things of God’s Spirit, because they are foolishness to him; he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.”

This passage is frequently used to support the doctrine of total inability. The argument is straightforward: the natural person cannot understand spiritual things; therefore the unregenerate person cannot respond positively to the gospel unless God first regenerates him. The verse certainly describes a serious spiritual incapacity and emphasizes the necessity of the Spirit for spiritual discernment.

The contextual question, however, is what kind of inability Paul is describing and what “the things of God’s Spirit” refers to in this particular argument. The immediate context is dominated by the contrast between the wisdom of the world and the wisdom of God. Paul speaks of God’s previously hidden wisdom, now revealed through the Spirit, and explains that these things are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 1:18–2:16). The issue is therefore not simply “saved versus unsaved,” but the contrast between human wisdom and God’s revealed wisdom, as well as the distinction between those who are spiritually discerning and those who are not.

The following chapter adds an important contextual consideration. Paul addresses the Corinthians as people who are already “in Christ,” yet describes them as immature and “of the flesh,” unable at that point to receive the deeper instruction he wants to give them (1 Corinthians 3:1–3). This does not mean that psychikos (“natural”) in 2:14 and sarkinos/sarkikos (“fleshly”) in 3:1 are simply interchangeable terms. They are not. Rather, the progression cautions against turning Paul’s discussion of spiritual discernment into a technical definition of every aspect of human ability. The same letter can describe believers as possessing the Spirit while still being unable to receive certain spiritual instruction because of immaturity.

There is also an important distinction between the Spirit’s necessity for understanding spiritual truth and the additional claim that regeneration must precede faith. Paul certainly teaches that God’s wisdom cannot be discovered by human wisdom alone and that spiritual discernment depends upon God’s revelation through the Spirit. But the passage does not explicitly state the complete theological sequence, regeneration → spiritual ability → faith. That sequence requires additional theological argument.

The passage therefore establishes an important truth:

human wisdom is insufficient to comprehend God’s revealed wisdom, and genuine spiritual discernment depends upon the Spirit.

The additional proposition that an unregenerate person is metaphysically incapable of believing the gospel unless regeneration occurs first is a theological conclusion that must be demonstrated rather than simply read into the word “unable.”

The question, then, is not whether 1 Corinthians 2:14 teaches spiritual inability. It does. The question is whether Paul’s particular discussion of spiritual discernment establishes the full Calvinistic doctrine of total inability and regeneration preceding faith.

Returning to Matthew 24:13

This is why the cross-references must not be allowed to determine the meaning of Matthew 24:13 before Matthew 24:13 has been interpreted in its own setting. The surrounding discourse concerns the events leading to Christ’s return, including persecution, deception, tribulation, and the end of the age. The Bible Knowledge Commentary interprets those who endure to the end as being delivered through the Tribulation, specifically describing this as physical deliverance into the kingdom. The verse therefore deserves to be understood in that immediate prophetic framework before it is recruited as a proof text for a broader doctrine of guaranteed perseverance.

The issue is not whether other passages can be assembled into a doctrine of perseverance. The issue is whether the doctrine has first been demonstrated from those passages in their own contexts—and whether that demonstrated doctrine should then be imported into Matthew 24:13.

Source credit: Appendix adapted from ideas associated with Phil Bair, The Wilted TULIP, with additional contextual framing for this study. As well as Answering Calvinistic Proof Texts (with others mentioned above.

John MacArthur Practicing Eisegesis in Matthew 24:13

Published September 14, 2026September 14, 2026 by Papa Giorgio

ORIGINALLY POSTED OCTOBER 2025

Matthew 24:13 reads – “But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved” (NASB 1995)

Before and after this verse, MacArthur is rightly discussing the topic presented to the Jews. Their survival during the 7-year tribulation and the hunting of them by the anti-Christ. But in this verse he leaves the exegetical study of the Word of God and inserts a 16^th century systematic reintroduced by John Calvin of Perseverance of the Saints. The “P” of the acronym, TULIP.

Here are the notes from his study Bible:

24:13 endures to the end … be saved. Cf. 10:22. The ones who persevere are the same ones who are saved—not the ones whose love grows cold (v. 12). This does not suggest that our perseverance secures our salvation. Scripture everywhere teaches precisely the opposite: God, as part of His saving work, secures our perseverance. True believers “are protected by the power of God through faith for … salvation” (1Pe 1:5). The guarantee of our perseverance is built into the New Covenant promise. God says: “I will put the fear of Me in their hearts so that they will not turn away from Me” (Jer 32:40). Those who do fall away from Christ give conclusive proof that they were never truly believers to begin with (1Jn 2:19). To say that God secures our perseverance is not to say that we are passive in the process, however. He keeps us “through faith” (1Pe 1:5)—our faith. Scripture sometimes calls us to hold fast to our faith (Heb 10:23; Rev 3:11) or warns us against falling away (Heb 10:26–29). Such admonitions do not negate the many promises that true believers will persevere (Jn 10:28, 29; Ro 8:38, 39; 1Co 1:8, 9; Php 1:6). Rather, the warnings and pleas are among the means God uses to secure our perseverance in the faith. Notice that the warnings and the promises often appear side by side. For example, when Jude urges believers, “keep yourselves in the love of God” (Jude 21), he immediately points them to God, “who is able to keep you from stumbling” (Jude 24).

John F. MacArthur Jr., The MacArthur Study Bible: New American Standard Bible. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2006), Mt 24:13.

This is not exegesis – but eisegesis. In fact, that idea of the Perseverance of the Saints is foreign to the Bible but not even hinted at in this eschatological warning to the Jews. The church will be gone, so it is the Jewish nation and other new Christians during this time that are trying to “persevere” to the end.

Matthew 24 has ZERO to do with this much later dogma. Making it to the end is the end of the 7-years.

This is a must listen presentation:

Neo-Calvinism vs. The Bible 042. Mathew 24:13

The Verse That Changed Augustine—and Shaped Calvinism | Matthew 24:13

These are the notes a fuller version of notes I printed and pasted into my bible at this verse (it is recalling my “Five Finger Life Punch“):

Matthew 24 has ZERO to do with this much later dogma. Making it to the end is the end of the 7-years.

MACARTHUR: Endurance is Spirit-empowered evidence that the person is genuinely saved.
BIBLE: Endurance refers to surviving the Tribulation; “saved” means physical deliverance.
QUESTION: What does Matthew 24:13 itself establish before either theological system is brought to the text?

Matthew 24:13 isn’t discussing this doctrine of perseverance at all; its context concerns endurance through the future Tribulation and physical deliverance.

The question becomes:

“Are we dealing with three separate biblical concepts here—justification, sanctification, and glorification—or are we making sanctification/perseverance a necessary condition for receiving final salvation?”

CONTEXT BEFORE SYSTEM

Don’t start with “What verse proves perseverance of the saints?”

Start with:

Who is Jesus addressing?
What events are being described?
What does “the end” refer to?
What does “saved” mean here?
What does the surrounding passage say?

THEN ASK what theological doctrine, if any, the passage establishes. Remember, don’t interpret verse 13 in isolation; verse 15 immediately tells you what Jesus is talking about—the “abomination of desolation,” Daniel, Judea, fleeing to the mountains, and the coming Tribulation.

FIVE FINGER LIFE PUNCH:

MATTHEW 24:13 — CONTEXT BEFORE SYSTEM

“But the one who endures to the end will be saved.” — Matthew 24:13

Before using Matthew 24:13 as a proof text for the perseverance of the saints, we should first ask what Jesus is discussing. The “Five-Finger Life Punch” emphasizes a simple principle:

Establish the meaning and context of a passage before drawing theological conclusions. Define the terms, examine their usage, consider the surrounding context and historical setting, and follow the evidence where it leads.

MACARTHUR’S INTERPRETATION

John MacArthur understands Matthew 24:13 in connection with perseverance. The one who endures is the same one who is genuinely saved. Perseverance does not earn salvation; rather, God secures the perseverance of genuine believers. Those who ultimately fall away demonstrate that they were never truly believers.

THE CONTEXTUAL QUESTION

But does Matthew 24:13 itself establish that doctrine?

Matthew 24:3 identifies the subject as Jesus’ teaching concerning His coming and “the end of the age.” The surrounding passage speaks of deception, persecution, tribulation, false prophets, the “abomination of desolation,” Judea, fleeing to the mountains, and the coming of the Son of Man.

Most importantly, verse 15 immediately follows verse 13 with the “abomination of desolation” spoken of by Daniel. Jesus then specifically refers to Judea and fleeing to the mountains. Therefore, verse 13 should not be isolated from the larger discourse.

This raises two important questions:

What does “the end” mean in this passage?
What does “saved” mean in this passage?

The contextual argument presented by Andy Woods is that Matthew 24:13 concerns endurance through the future Tribulation and physical deliverance at its conclusion—not the later theological formulation of the perseverance of the saints. His broader interpretation depends upon a dispensational understanding of prophecy, but his basic challenge is worth considering:

What does the immediate context establish before we bring a theological system to the verse?

THREE CONCEPTS TO KEEP DISTINCT

Are justification, sanctification, and glorification three distinct aspects of salvation?

Or are we making sanctification/perseverance a necessary condition for receiving “final salvation”?

That question must be demonstrated from Scripture rather than assumed from a theological system.

JUSTIFICATION God declares the believer righteous through faith in Christ.
SANCTIFICATION The believer’s ongoing growth in holiness and conformity to Christ.
GLORIFICATION The believer’s final transformation and completion of salvation.

The important question for your Matthew 24:13 discussion is:

Is perseverance/endurance simply an aspect or evidence of sanctification, or is it a necessary condition for ultimately receiving “final salvation”?[1]

[1] “Final salvation” is John Piper’s term for the believer’s ultimate salvation at the last judgment—glorification, eternal life, and entrance into God’s kingdom. Piper distinguishes this from initial justification, which he affirms is by faith alone, yet teaches that the believer must persevere in faith and produce sanctifying fruit because, as he puts it, “we are finally saved through sanctification.” Thus, sanctification does not earn justification, but it becomes a necessary condition for final salvation. This raises a significant sola fide question: if faith alone justifies, but persevering faith and sanctifying fruit are necessary to finally receive salvation, in what sense is salvation ultimately by faith alone?

Reformational Determinism Undermines the Christian Witness

Published September 5, 2026September 11, 2026 by Papa Giorgio

See my:

The problem begins with the salvation appeal itself. The Calvinist tells the unbeliever, “You must believe and repent,” but then explains that the unbeliever cannot believe, cannot repent, and cannot come to Christ unless God first regenerates him. The person is therefore commanded to do what, by the system’s own definition, he is incapable of doing unless God first performs a work in him. The command remains, but the ability to fulfill the command does not.

What happens when an atheist takes Calvinism’s claims about faith, regeneration, and God’s sovereignty to their logical conclusion? In this conversation, an atheist (PineCreek) presses a Calvinist (Eli Ayala) on a simple question: If I cannot believe unless God first changes me, then who is ultimately responsible for my unbelief? Leighton Flowers examines the exchange and explains why he believes this exposes a serious problem with Calvinistic theology—especially when it comes to evangelism and human responsibility. Does Scripture teach that unbelievers are simply waiting for God to make them willing to believe? Or has God genuinely provided what is necessary for people to hear the truth, respond to the gospel, and be reconciled to Him?

This creates a serious tension concerning responsibility. The sinner is held responsible for his unbelief, yet he is told that he cannot overcome that unbelief unless God first gives him the ability to believe. In the exchange above, Derek Murrell from Irresistible Truth initially resists the conclusion that the unbeliever’s condemnation has anything to do with what God did or did not do. Yet when pressed, he acknowledges that the person cannot repent without God, cannot believe without God’s work, and finally agrees with fundementalist Christian turned atheist, Douglas Letkeman’s conclusion:

“every single person in hell today is in hell today… because of what God didn’t do.” His answer? “Correct.”

This is where John Hendryx’s admission becomes particularly important.

Hendryx explains that theologians use “compatibilism” to reconcile God’s sovereignty with human responsibility, but he explicitly acknowledges that “compatibilism is a form of determinism” and is “no less deterministic than hard determinism.” The Calvinist answer, therefore, is not to deny that God determines human choices, but to argue that a person can still be morally responsible for a choice that God has determined him to make. In other words, compatibilism doesn’t solve the determinism problem by denying that human choices are determined; it attempts to reconcile determinism with human responsibility by insisting that a determined choice can still be considered the person’s responsible choice.

And that is precisely where the problem arises. If God determines that one person will believe and another will remain in unbelief—and the latter cannot believe unless God first regenerates him—then what does “responsibility” actually mean? The Calvinist can say the unbeliever willingly rejects Christ, but the deeper question remains: could he have done otherwise without God first giving him the ability to do otherwise? If the answer is no, then simply calling him “responsible” does not explain how responsibility works; it merely asserts it.

John MacArthur, however, shows why that distinction raises a profound problem. He argues that if God is the primary cause and humans are merely secondary causes moved by that primary cause, then the determinism ultimately extends to the secondary cause as well. God is the one who ultimately “decided,” “compelled,” and “coerced” the action. In other words, the human being remains the immediate or secondary cause of the action, but that secondary cause itself is also determined by the primary cause. God remains the ultimate determining cause behind both the action and the secondary cause through which that action occurs.

Put these pieces together, and the tension becomes difficult to escape.

Hendryx acknowledges that compatibilism is determinism.

MacArthur highlights the problem that arises when the primary cause determines the secondary cause.

And the salvation conversation puts that problem into practical terms. The sinner is commanded to believe and repent, yet is told that he cannot believe or repent unless God first regenerates him. If God must provide that ability before the sinner can respond, and God chooses to provide it to some while passing over others, then the one who is passed over remains unable to produce the very response God requires of him.

The issue, then, is not whether Calvinism uses the word “responsibility.” It clearly does. The real question is whether calling a person responsible resolves the problem of his inability. If the sinner cannot believe, cannot repent, and cannot come to Christ unless God first acts upon him, then the decisive difference between the one who believes and the one who remains in unbelief is ultimately the prior work—or lack of work—of God. The sinner may willingly reject Christ, but according to this system, he cannot will himself out of that condition unless God first gives him the ability to do so.

And that brings us back to the most striking moment in the conversation. The conclusion is essentially this:

if God has to do something in me in order for me not to go to hell, and He chooses not to do it, what could I possibly do about it?

When that implication is put directly to Derek Murrell, his answer is simply: “Correct.” At that point, the question is no longer whether man is called responsible. The question is whether the decisive difference between salvation and condemnation ultimately rests in the sinner’s response—or in God’s sovereign determination to give or withhold the ability to respond.

GOSPEL COALITION article summary

One-Paragraph Summary

The article defends the Reformed doctrine of double predestination/reprobation, arguing that God’s eternal decree includes both the unconditional election of some individuals to salvation and the passing over of others, who are ultimately condemned according to divine justice. It appeals particularly to Pharaoh and Romans 9, arguing that God actively hardened Pharaoh and raised him up to display His glory, and that Paul’s “vessels of mercy” and “vessels of wrath” describe God’s sovereign distinction between individuals. The article further argues that reprobation logically follows from unconditional election: if God unconditionally chooses some but not all for salvation, then the others are necessarily excluded from that saving choice. It distinguishes preterition, God’s withholding of saving grace, from predamnation, God’s determination to judge the non-elect according to justice. Although Reformed theology maintains an asymmetry between election and reprobation, the article nevertheless places both salvation and condemnation within God’s eternal sovereign decree rather than treating the damnation of the non-elect as merely something God foreknows or passively permits.

SUMMARY OF THE GOSPEL COALITION ARTICLE: “THE DOCTRINE OF REPROBATION”

The article is a defense of the Augustinian/Reformed doctrine of reprobation, which teaches that God’s eternal decree concerns not only those whom He chooses to save, but also those whom He does not choose to save. In the author’s formulation, reprobation involves God eternally withholding saving grace from certain individuals and determining to judge them according to divine justice. The author therefore understands reprobation as more than God’s foreknowledge that certain people will reject Him; their exclusion from saving grace and ultimate condemnation fall within God’s sovereign eternal decree.

The article develops this position in three primary ways.

Scripture Teaches Reprobation

The author argues that Scripture directly supports reprobation, with Pharaoh and Romans 9 serving as the principal examples. In the Exodus account, the author rejects the interpretation that God hardened Pharaoh merely as a response to Pharaoh’s prior self-hardening. Instead, the article argues that God announced beforehand that He would harden Pharaoh and raised him up for the purpose of displaying His power and glory.

Romans 9 is presented as the clearest New Testament explanation of this principle. The author interprets Paul’s discussion of the “vessels of mercy” and “vessels of wrath” as teaching that God sovereignly distinguishes between individuals, preparing some for mercy and enduring others who are prepared for destruction. The purpose is ultimately God’s glory: His mercy and grace are displayed toward the elect while His wrath and power are displayed toward those destined for destruction.

Reprobation Logically Follows From Unconditional Election

This is one of the article’s most important arguments.

If salvation depends upon God’s unconditional choice of particular individuals, and God does not choose everyone, then there must necessarily be individuals whom God does not choose for salvation.

The author therefore argues that unconditional election necessarily entails reprobation. Simply calling the position “single predestination”—God predestines some to salvation but does not predestine anyone to condemnation—does not resolve the problem. According to the article, such a view leaves the destiny of the non-elect outside God’s purposeful decree, which the author considers inconsistent with God’s comprehensive sovereignty.

The argument is therefore:

Unconditional election → some are chosen → others are not chosen →
their exclusion from saving grace falls within God’s sovereign decree.

God’s sovereignty extends over salvation and human choices

The article’s argument does not stop with election. It presents God’s sovereignty as extending over everything that comes to pass, including human choices. Consequently, the distinction between those who believe and those who reject Christ ultimately falls under God’s sovereign will.

The doctrine is also presented as spiritually beneficial because it humbles humanity. Rather than viewing humanity as the ultimate reference point, believers are reminded that human beings exist for God’s glory and that God’s purposes, rather than human preferences, determine reality.

The Two Aspects of Reprobation

The article makes an important distinction between two aspects of reprobation:

Preterition — the negative aspect:
God eternally chooses not to extend saving grace to particular individuals. The article says this decision is not based on foreseen works, merit, or sin, but on God’s sovereign will.

Predamnation — the positive aspect:
God eternally determines to deal with those individuals according to divine justice. Reformed theologians disagree over whether this decree itself is conditioned upon foreseen or actual sin, but the article maintains that the ultimate condemnation of these individuals is included within God’s sovereign purpose.

The article goes further and states that the Augustinian/Reformed tradition agrees that God predestines certain individuals to be justly punished, and that at least some aspect of this reprobation is not based on foreseen sin but on God’s good pleasure, with the purpose of magnifying His justice and grace.

Is This Double Predestination?

In substance, yes. The article is defending a form of double predestination, although it insists that election and reprobation are not perfectly symmetrical. The distinction can be summarized this way:

The author specifically identifies the “asymmetry between election and reprobation” as an important qualification within Reformed theology. Thus, the article is not merely saying that God permits some people to reject Him. Its position is substantially stronger:

God’s eternal decree establishes both who will receive saving grace and who will be passed over, with the non-elect ultimately being condemned according to divine justice.

And the author’s fundamental argument is that this conclusion follows from the combination of unconditional election, God’s exhaustive sovereignty, and the author’s interpretation of passages such as Pharaoh and Romans 9.

Sproul’s View of Double Predestination (Logical Consequences)

Published September 4, 2026September 27, 2026 by Papa Giorgio

Jump to the UPDATE inspired by the GOSPEL COALITION.

R.C. Sproul’s Statement on Predestination (from Chosen by God):

“What predestination means, in its most elementary form, is that our final destination, heaven or hell, is decided by God not only before we get there, but before we are even born. It teaches that our ultimate destiny is in the hands of God. Another way of saying it is this: From all eternity, before we ever live, God decided to save some members of the human race and to let the rest of the human race perish. God made a choice–he chose some individuals to be saved unto everlasting blessedness in heaven and others he chose to pass over, to allow them to follow the consequences of their sins into eternal torment in hell.” (Chosen By God, p.22, emphasis mine)

This is double predestination in practice, even if Sproul calls the active-positive version for reprobation a caricature.

If the elect cannot fail to be saved,
and the reprobate cannot be saved because God withholds the only grace capable of producing faith,
then what practical difference remains between active reprobation and passive reprobation?

Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

– Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) 10.3

“Holy Spirit can save an infant by changing his heart, giving grace, and applying the merit of Christ to him. The Westminster divines certainly believed that babies can be saved. They did not teach that all infants are necessarily saved; rather, they taught that only an undetermined number of elect infants are saved. Obviously, an elect infant is going to be saved, and any saved infant is elect, but the divines did not speculate on which infants those would be.”

– R.C. Sproul, Truths We Confess: A Systematic Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith (Sanford, FL: Reformation Trust, 2019), 321.

Sproul conforms his support for the ideas in the WCF:

One of the most important confessions of faith ever penned, particularly in the English-speaking world, is the Westminster Confession of Faith. By the confession’s own statements, no confession written by uninspired authors is to be taken as having supreme authority over the believer. Confessions cannot bind the conscience in the manner that the Word of God can and does. At the same time, though human confessions and creeds are penned by fallible people without the benefit of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the profound level of theological and biblical precision manifest in the Westminster Confession of Faith is awe-inspiring. (Ibid., xvii.)

[….]

The Westminster Confession is the most precise and accurate summary of the content of biblical Christianity ever set forth in a creedal form. Creeds such as the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Scots Confession should be highly regarded, but no historic confession surpasses in eloquence, grandeur, and theological accuracy the Westminster Confession of Faith. (Ibid., xix)

Critiquing the matter via CHAT:

The Internal Tension

Sproul writes:

“The Westminster divines certainly believed that babies can be saved. They did not teach that all infants are necessarily saved; rather, they taught that only an undetermined number of elect infants are saved.”

The immediate question is:

If only elect infants are saved, what happens to non-elect infants?

Historically, Westminster does not explicitly answer that question. Critics argue that the silence is revealing. If the Confession intended to teach universal infant salvation, it could have said:

“All infants dying in infancy are saved.”

Instead it says: “Elect infants.” Sproul defends that wording rather than correcting it.

Critique #1: Election Becomes the Ultimate Divider

Sproul affirms:

unconditional election,
total inability,
monergistic regeneration,
and reprobation.

Therefore, infant salvation cannot be based upon:

personal faith,
conscious belief,
repentance,
or moral innocence.

It must ultimately rest on election.

Critics respond:

If election alone determines which infants are saved, then election alone determines which infants are not saved.

Thus the question becomes: Why would God elect some infants and not others? Sproul never provides a clear answer.

Critique #2: Original Guilt Creates the Problem

Sproul consistently taught:

Adam’s guilt is imputed to humanity,
infants are fallen,
infants need Christ’s grace.

Critics agree infants need grace but ask:

Does inherited guilt alone make an infant deserving of eternal punishment?

Many opponents argue Scripture consistently ties judgment to:

knowledge,
personal rebellion,
actual transgression.

Examples often cited:

Deuteronomy 1:39
Isaiah 7:15-16
Jonah 4:11
Romans 4:15

The criticism is:

Sproul imports Augustine’s doctrine of inherited guilt and then must wrestle with implications Augustine himself embraced.

Critique #3: The Moral Character of God

This is probably the most emotionally and philosophically powerful objection.

If:

an infant never consciously sins,
never rejects God,
never suppresses truth,
never commits personal acts of rebellion,

Yet could still be damned, Critics ask:

What meaningful sense of justice remains?

This is where many critics invoke the same concern raised by Juncker regarding determinism:

If moral categories are detached from personal responsibility, words like justice become difficult to understand.

FULLER QUOTE:

“If determinism is true then either God is evil and the author of evil or all talk of good and evil, of praise and blame, of moral responsibility, and of justice is meaningless and incomprehensible with reference to God. That is, if God can cause or determine evil and yet remain good, and if God can punish those who do exactly and only what He has meticulously caused and determined them to do and yet remain just, then we have no idea who God is or what He might or might not do or what Scripture could possibly mean when it calls Him ‘good’ and ‘just.'”

— Günther H. Juncker, “The Dilemma of Theistic Determinism“

The objection becomes:

Eternal punishment without personal rebellion appears inconsistent with ordinary moral reasoning and the biblical portrayal of God’s fairness.

Critique #4: Westminster Creates an Unnecessary Problem

Many critics argue Westminster itself created the issue. The Confession says:

“Elect infants.”

Critics ask why not simply say:

“Infants dying in infancy are saved through Christ”?

Mohler, Warfield, and Spurgeon essentially move in that direction. Sproul, however, insists the Westminster divines intentionally did not teach universal infant salvation. Critics argue:

That commitment to confessional precision ends up preserving a theological possibility that Scripture never explicitly teaches.

Critique #5: Sproul’s Loyalty to Westminster

This critique becomes stronger when paired with Sproul’s own statements:

“The Westminster Confession is the most precise and accurate summary of the content of biblical Christianity ever set forth in a creedal form.”

and

“One of the most important confessions of faith ever penned…”

Because Sproul viewed Westminster so highly, critics argue he was reluctant to depart from its language regarding elect infants even when later Reformed theologians moved toward affirming universal infant salvation.

The Strongest One-Sentence Critique

The strongest critique is probably this:

By affirming unconditional election, inherited guilt, and Westminster’s doctrine of “elect infants,” Sproul leaves open the possibility that some infants are not elect and therefore not saved, a conclusion many critics believe is inconsistent with both the justice and goodness of God as revealed in Scripture.

Exhaustive Determinism:

Sproul affirms that God ordains whatsoever comes to pass (echoing Westminster):

He knows all things that will happen because he ordains everything that does happen. This is crucial to our understanding of God’s omniscience. He does not know what will happen by virtue of exceedingly good guesswork about future events. He knows it with certainty because he has decreed it.

The Westminster Confession avers: “God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass. . . .”

This statement refers to God’s eternal and immutable decretive will. It applies to everything that happens. Does this mean that everything that happens is the will of God? Yes. Augustine qualified this answer by adding the words, “in a certain sense.” That is, God ordains “in some sense” everything that happens. Nothing that takes place is beyond the scope of his sovereign will. The movement of every molecule, the actions of every plant, the falling of every star, the choices of every volitional creature, all of these are subject to his sovereign will. No maverick molecules run loose in the universe, beyond the control of the Creator. If one such molecule existed, it could be the critical fly in the eternal ointment. As one grain of sand in the kidney of Oliver Cromwell changed the course of English history, so one maverick molecule could destroy every promise God has ever made about the outcome of history.

— What Is Reformed Theology, p. 172

Sproul’s view functionally equivalent to Calvin’s broader decretive will, even if he rejects “equal ultimacy” (symmetrical positive-positive reprobation where God actively works sin in the reprobate the same way He works faith in the elect). Sproul’s inconsistency is “too embarrassed to follow Calvinism to its logical extreme” and pleading ignorance/mystery on hard questions (e.g., the fall of Adam/Eve).

Calvin (Institutes 3.21.5): Explicitly symmetric language —

“some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation… created for one or the other of these ends.”

Sproul: Rejects the symmetrical mode (equal ultimacy / positive-positive) as sub-Calvinist or a caricature that makes God the author of sin. He prefers asymmetric (positive election + negative reprobation/preterition: God passes over the non-elect, leaving them in their sin). Yet critics [like myself] argue this is rhetorical softening — because Sproul still affirms:

God’s decree covers all events.
Reprobation is part of the eternal decree before creation.
The non-elect are chosen to be passed over before birth.

Sproul’s distinctions, while rhetorically softer than Calvin’s, do not ultimately escape the force of double predestination or exhaustive determinism.

… The issue here seems to be how one defines “ordains” or “foreordains.” Calvinists I debate on the internet consistently argue that “ordain” means to decree. I ask them, “Did God decree the Holocaust?” “Did God decree the killing fields of Cambodia?” “Did God decree every act of rape, torture and murder that has ever taken place?” And they say yes! Unbelievable.

What about Calvin on this issue? You deny he was supralapsarian, claiming God’s positive-positive, double-predestination, but excerpts from his writings strongly suggest that was his position. Calvin was quite straightforward on saying God decreed the Fall, writing:

…whence does it happen that Adam’s fall irremediably involved so many peoples, together with their infant offspring, in eternal death unless because it so pleased God?…The decree is dreadful indeed, I confess. Yet no one can deny that God foreknew what end man was to have before he created him, and consequently foreknew because he so ordained by his decree…God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his descendants, but also meted it out in accordance with his own decision.” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.23.7)

That seems to go beyond mere “permission.” He also wrote:

The predestination by which God adopts some to the hope of life, and adjudges others to eternal death, no man who would be thought pious ventures simply to deny….By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death (Institutes of the Christian Religion 3.21.5).

We also read:

From this it is easy to conclude how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be not by [God’s] will, but merely by his permission. Of course, so far as they are evils, which men perpetrate with their evil mind, as I shall show in greater detail shortly, I admit that they are not pleasing to God. But it is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely [= idly] 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 will just as he will, whether to good for his mercy’s sake, or to evil according to their merits.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, 177)

Other famous Calvinists say, for example,

“The Sovereignty of God over all, and his independency, clearly shew, that whatever is done in time is according to his decrees in eternity.” (John Gill, A Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, p. 173)

“As a builder draws his plan before he begins to build, so the great Architect predestined everything before a single creature was called into existence.” (Arthur Pink, The Doctrines of Election and Justification, p.9)

“Surely if God had not willed the fall, He could, and no doubt would, have prevented it; but he did not prevent it: ergo, He willed it. And if He willed it, He certainly decreed it.” (Jerome Zanchius, The Doctrine of Absolute Predestination, p. 88)

So, by claiming supralapsarianism is “anti-Calvinism,” you are dismissing not only prominent Calvinists from the past, but also Calvin himself. …

(JOHN WAGNER letter to R.C. SPROUL)

Jerry Walls’s observation at this point is apt:

- [T]heological compatibilists [RPT: like Grudem, Sproul, MacArthur, and the like] often make claims and engage in rhetoric that naturally lead people to conclude that God loves them and desires their salvation in ways that are surely misleading to all but those trained in the subtleties of Reformed rhetoric. . . . Such language loses all meaning, not to mention all rhetorical force, when we remember that on compatibilist premises God could determine the impenitent to freely repent, but has chosen instead to determine things in such a way that they freely persist in their sins.

Why No Classical Theist – Let Alone Orthodox Christian – Should Ever Be a Compatibilist (PDF)

God’s refusal to determine the repentance of sinners when it is within his power to do so can be called nothing other than immoral. Damning certain people by withholding something freely given to others is not glorious.

MORE: Is Double Predestination and Active Reprobation, Equal Ultimacy? (good critique of Sproul)

Sproul and Calvin say it is indeed a horrible decree. Sproul’s honesty at this point would be refreshing if his conclusions weren’t so disturbing:

“The nasty problem for the Calvinist [is] . . . . If God can and does choose to insure the salvation of some, why then does he not insure the salvation of all? . . . The only answer I can give to this question is that I don’t know. . . . One thing I do know. If it pleases God to save some and not all, there is nothing wrong with that.” On the contrary, it is the very definition of wrong.” (Fuller Quote)

Here is Sproul’s chapter 58 from his book, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, I will add some emphasis:

PREDESTINATION AND REPROBATION

Every coin has a flip side. There is also a flip side to the doctrine of election. Election refers to only one aspect of the broader question of predestination. The other side of the coin is the question of reprobation.

God declared that He loved Jacob but hated Esau. How are we to understand this reference to divine hatred?

Predestination is double. The only way to avoid the doctrine of double predestination is to either affirm that God predestinates everybody to election or that He predestinates no one to either election or reprobation.

Since the Bible clearly teaches predestination to election and denies universal salvation, we must conclude that predestination is double. It includes both election and reprobation. Double predestination is unavoidable if we take Scripture seriously. What is crucial, however, is how double predestination is understood.

Some have viewed double predestination as a matter of equal causation, where God is equally responsible for causing the reprobate not to believe as He is for causing the elect to believe. We call this a positive-positive view of predestination.

The positive-positive view of predestination teaches that God positively and actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to work grace in their hearts and bring them to faith. Likewise, in the case of the reprobates, He works evil in the hearts of the reprobate and actively prevents them from coming to faith. This view has often been called “hyper-Calvinism” because it goes beyond the view of Calvin, Luther, and the other Reformers.

The Reformed view of double predestination follows a positive-negative schema. In the case of the elect, God intervenes to positively and actively work grace in their souls and bring them to saving faith. He unilaterally regenerates the elect and insures their salvation. In the case of the reprobate He does not work evil in them or prevent them from coming to faith. Rather, He passes over them, leaving them to their own sinful devices. In this view there is no symmetry of divine action. God’s activity is asymmetrical between the elect and the reprobate. There is, however, a kind of equal ultimacy. The reprobate, who are passed over by God, are ultimately doomed, and their damnation is as certain and sure as the ultimate salvation of the elect.

The problem is linked to biblical statements such as those regarding God’s hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. That the Bible says God hardened Pharaoh’s heart is beyond dispute. The question remains, how did God harden Pharaoh? Luther argued for a passive rather than an active hardening. That is, God did not create fresh evil in Pharaoh’s heart. There was already enough evil present in Pharaoh’s heart to incline him to resist the will of God at every turn. All God ever has to do to harden anybody is to remove His restraining grace from them and give them over to their own evil impulses. This is precisely what God does to the damned in hell. He abandons them to their own wickedness.

In what sense did God “hate” Esau? Two different explanations are offered to solve this problem. The first explains it by defining hate not as a negative passion directed toward Esau but as simply the absence of redemptive love. That God “loved” Jacob simply means that He made Jacob the recipient of His unmerited grace. He gave Jacob a benefit that Jacob did not deserve. Esau did not receive the same benefit and in that sense was hated by God.

The first explanation sounds a bit like special pleading to get God off the hook for hating somebody. The second explanation gives more strength to the word hate. It says simply that God did in fact hate Esau. Esau was odious in the sight of God. There was nothing in Esau for God to love.

Esau was a vessel fit for destruction and altogether worthy of God’s wrath and holy hatred. Let the reader decide.

Summary

Predestination is double; it has two sides to it.
Some teach that God is equally responsible for election and reprobation. This is characteristic of hyper-Calvinism.
The Reformed view of double predestination reflects a positive-negative schema.
God passively, not actively, hardened Pharaoh’s heart.
God hated Esau in the sense of failing to give him a blessing of grace or in the sense of abhorring him as a vessel fit for destruction.

Biblical passages for reflection:

Exodus 7:1-5
Proverbs 16:4
Romans 9
Ephesians 1:3-6
Jude 1:4

In other words, as The Encyclopedia of The Reformed Faith (page 144), and later the The Westminster Handbook to Reformed Theology (page 87) clearly says:

The Reformed approach to divine freedom is nowhere more apparent than in the doctrine of the eternal decrees: God freely wills the existence and preservation of the created order and freely determines the eternal destiny of all creatures, solely on the ground of God’s goodness and solely for the sake of God’s ultimate glory. In creation and providence, God encounters no barriers to the exercise of God’s will, and in the work of redemption God acts utterly graciously, apart from any merit belonging to the creature.

[….]

Reformed theology has followed an Augustinian paradigm in its understanding of human freedom…

Donald K. McKim and David F. Wright, eds., Encyclopedia of the Reformed Faith (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992), 144,146.

JOHN 6:44

Steve Lemke

R. C. Sproul argued at great length that John 6:44 (“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” [HCSB]) does not refer merely to the necessity that God “woo or entice men to Christ,” such that humans can “resist this wooing” and “refuse the enticement.”¹¹ In philosophical language, Sproul said, this wooing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for salvation “because the wooing does not, in fact, guarantee that we will come to Christ.”¹² Sproul stated that such an interpretation is “incorrect” and “does violence to the text of Scripture.”¹³

Instead, Sproul insists, the term “draw” is “a much more forceful concept than to woo” and means “to compel by irresistible superiority.”¹⁴ However, in discussing irresistible grace, Sproul tells of a student who, hearing a lecture on predestination by John Gerstner, rejected it. When Gerstner asked the student how he defined Calvinism, the student described it as the perspective that “God forces some people to choose Christ and prevents other people from choosing Christ.” Gerstner then said, “If that is what a Calvinist is, then you can be sure that I am not a Calvinist either.”¹⁵What is the difference between compelling “by irresistible superiority” and “forcing” people to do something? Sproul likewise chastised a Presbyterian seminary president for rejecting the Calvinist doctrine that “God brings some people, kicking and screaming against their wills, into the kingdom.” Sproul described this Presbyterian theologian’s view as “a gross misconception of his own church’s theology,” as a “caricature,” and “as far away from Calvinism as one could possibly get.”¹⁶ So which way is it? If God compels people with “irresistible superiority,” in what way is it inaccurate to say that God forces people to choose Christ? The Synod of Dort insisted that such attempts at moral persuasion of unsaved persons was wasted time. The irresistibility of God’s grace (and not merely the use of strong moral persuasion) was precisely what the Synod of Dort rejected and the Remonstrants affirmed. While the Remonstrants affirmed that the compelling grace of God persuades the lost to receive Christ as Lord and Savior, the Synod of Dort insisted that this was not going far enough. Note their explicit denial that a person can “resist” God. The language used in the Synod of Dort describes God’s omnipotence as being such that God can “potently and infallibly bend man’s will to faith and conversion.”¹⁷

Bending the will of a fallible being by an omnipotent Being powerfully and unfailingly is not merely sweet persuasion. It is forcing one to change one’s mind against one’s will. Calvinists often describe their position as monergism as opposed to synergism. In monergism, God works entirely alone, apart from any human role.¹⁸

11. Sproul, Chosen by God, 69–70 (see chap. 1, n. 106).
12. Sproul, 69.
13. Sproul, 69.
14. Sproul, 69.
15. Sproul, 122.
16. Sproul, 122.
17. Dennison, Reformed Confessions, 4:143 (III–IV, Rejection of Errors, par. 8).

John Wagner’s Letter to Sproul

… Let me deal next with the issue of your concept and use of the Greek word helkō, commonly translated “draws” in John 6:44. Even if you reject everything else I write here, please accept this one. You really did not get this right. And Calvinists who have read CBG have passed on this incorrect information. You quoted Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, and claim because that word means “drag” or “compel” in a physical context such as Acts 16:19 and James 2:6, that therefore it means “drag” or “compel” in the spiritual context of John 6:44.

The evidence indicates it doesn’t. I assume you are aware that a Greek word can have more than one meaning. I looked at Kittel and I see for helkō in regard to John (i.e. 6:44, 12:32) it means, “a beneficent ‘drawing of God…of drawing to oneself in love. This usage is distinctively developed by Jn., perhaps with some influence of Gnosticism. Force or magic may be discounted, but not the supernatural element.” The abridged version of Kittel says, “There is no thought here of force or magic. The term figuratively expresses the supernatural power of the love of God or Christ which goes out to all (12:32) but without which no one can come.”

Did you get that? Both summaries dismiss force, which would be consistent with “drag” or “compel” (though I agree that would be accurate when the word is used in a physical context). Just wondering why you didn’t mention that! Let’s put your position to rest with more citations:

BDAG: has helkō in John 6:44 as “draw, attract.”
Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament by William Mounce says helkō means “to draw mentally and morally, John 6:44; 12:32.”
The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible by Calvinist Spiro Zodhiates: “Helko is used of Jesus on the cross drawing by love, not force” (Jn. 6:44; 12:32).
A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament by Ethelbert W. Bullinger, p. 235: Helko means “to draw, esp. implying a certain attraction mentally or morally; also to draw to a certain point.” This source also mentions surō as a word more consistent with how Calvinists interpret helkō. Surō generally implies a violent dragging. This source defines it as “to draw, drag or trail along as a net; esp. with the notion of force and sometimes with violence.”
The Renaissance New Testament by Randolph Yeager, says about helkō:

It does not necessarily involve coercion, though it does involve persuasion and motivation–John 6:44; 12:32…. [Helkō] does not imply coercion in the two places where it is applied to the elect [the two just-mentioned verses]. Swords, fish nets and political prisoners (John 18:10; 21:6, 11: Acts 16:19) may resist, but the element of resistance is not implicit in the word itself….

Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament by Edward Robinson, say helkō means “to draw by a moral influence, John 6:44, 12:32.”

Please notice that none of these sources indicate that helkō means drag or compel in John 6:44. And your version is especially problematic for John 12:32. Do you believe God drags all men to himself? So it’s kind of funny that the Arminian professor you debated didn’t need to cite some “obscure Greek poet.” The info is clear in many lexicons and similar sources. And by the way, contrary to what you experienced, in the formal 1999 debate I was in against a Calvinist pastor, he repeated your argument on helkō and I nailed him on this point.

And that ties into the issue of the nature of unsaved man. You write, “If a person who is still in the flesh, who is not reborn by the power of the Holy Spirit, can incline or dispose himself to Christ, what good is rebirth?” This is another strawman. Classical Arminians do not believe man can “incline or dispose himself ” all by himself. Arminius wrote strongly of man being depraved and dead and that man needs the heavy convicting and drawing of the Holy Spirit. However, he completely rejected irresistible grace, the biggest oxymoron I can think of. And as for rebirth, that comes after faith, not before.

You slightly acknowledge the idea of prevenient grace and then ask “If so, where” does the Bible teach this concept? Did you even make any effort toward finding an answer for this? Well, John 6:44, which I have proven is not about “dragging,” is one. Furthermore, let’s recall John 16:8, saying that the paraclete “will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment in regard to sin because men do not believe in me.”

The Greek for “convict” is elenchō, and has the connotation of a trial attorney making a legal and moral argument to a jury. In this case, the Holy Spirit conducts that function in the human heart—but not in irresistible manner. Other verses include John 1:9: “The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.” Also, John 12:32, in which Christ says, “When I am lifted up from the earth. I will draw (helkō) all men to myself.” But this is also not irresistible.

Describing prevenient grace, Thomas C. Oden writes:

Prevenient grace antecedes human responsiveness so as to prepare the soul for the effective hearing of the redeeming Word. This preceding grace draws persons closer to God, lessens their blindness to divine remedies, strengthens their will to accept revealed truth, and enables repentance. Only when sinners are assisted by prevenient grace can they begin to yield their hearts to cooperation with subsequent forms of grace….

Does scripture teach the concept of prevenient grace? There is no one passage that lays out a systematic definition of it, however, the concept becomes apparent throughout the overall tenor of scripture. Here are some passages that refer to the different aspects of prevenient grace:

Prevenient Grace Draws:

John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 12:32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself. Prevenient Grace is Universal:

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. John 1:9 The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.

John 16:7-8 But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment:

Romans 1:18-19 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

Prevenient Grace Convicts the Non-Believer:

Acts 16:14 One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message.

Acts 16:29-30 The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”

Prevenient Grace Works in Combination with the Hearing of the Word:

Acts 2:37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”

Romans 10:17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.

Prevenient Grace is Given Generously:

Romans 8:32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?

Romans 2:4 Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?

Acts 17:26-27 From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.

Prevenient Grace Can be Rejected:

Matt. 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.

John 5:34,39,40 Not that I accept human testimony; but I mention it that you may be saved…You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

Acts 7:51 You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit!

Heb 4:2 For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith.

Heb 10:29 How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

Prevenient Grace Results in Saving Grace when it is Accepted:

Ephesians 5:14 For it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: “Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.”

Ephesians 2:8-9 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.

There are actually three very good books on this issue of prevenient grace: The Transforming Power of Grace by Thomas C. Oden, Prevenient Grace by W. Brian Shelton, and Streams of Mercy by J. Gregory Crofford. …

BTW, I prefer pastor Rogers understanding vs a straight Arminian:

Within the Non-Calvinist camp, there are at least two nuanced views on how God allows sinners to respond in faith. The first view is the Arminian view — which says that God’s work of grace (prevenient grace) for all people is needed to enable any sinner to freely choose to respond in faith to the Gospel message. The second view is the Provisionist View — which says that the Gospel message itself [see more below] is God’s work of grace so that when it is preached to all people, any sinner can freely choose to respond in faith. The proclamation of the Gospel is powerfully sufficient enough to bring salvation to those who will believe. While the Arminian and the Provisionist each have a different take on why all humans can respond to God’s offer, these two views both affirm the importance of God’s initiative of grace to invite all sinners to salvation. (from the book Grace For All: Understanding God’s Plan of Salvation).

— Michael R. Cariño

The “More Below”

Grace Enablements

Includes but are not limited to: God’s salvific love for all (John 3:16), God’s manifestation of his power so that all may know he is the Sovereign (Isa 45:21–22) and Creator (Rom 1:18–20), which assures that everyone has opportunity to know about him. Christ paying for all sins (John 1:29), conviction of the Holy Spirit (John 16:7–11), working of the Holy Spirit (Heb 6:1–6), enlightening of the Son (John 1:9), God’s teaching (John 6:45), God opening minds and hearts (Luke 24:45; Acts 16:14; 26:17–18;), and the power of the gospel (Rom 1:16), without such redemptive grace, no one seeks or comes to God (Rom 3:11).

Because of these gracious provisions and workings of God, man can choose to seek and find God (Jer 29:13; Acts 17:11–12). Moreover, no one can come to God without God calling (Acts 2:39), drawing (John 6:44), and that God is drawing all individuals (John 12:32). The same Greek word for draw, helkuō, is used in both verses. “About 115 passages condition salvation on believing alone, and about 35 simply on faith.” Other grace enablements may include providential workings in and through other people, situations, and timing or circumstances that are a part of grace to provide an opportunity for every individual to choose to follow Christ.

These are grace enablements in at least three ways; first, they are provided by God’s grace rather than deserved by mankind; second, the necessary components for each and every individual to have a genuine opportunity to believe unto salvation are provided or restored by God; third, they are provided by God without respect to whether the individual will believe or reject, which response God knew in eternity past.

The offer of the gospel is unconditional, but God sovereignly determined to condition the reception of the offer upon grace-enabled faith; therefore, faith is not reflective of a work or virtue of man, but of God’s sovereign plan of salvation by grace through faith (Eph 2:8). This indicates faith is the means to being regenerated and saved, not the reason for being saved. This truth of Scripture does not imply God is held captive to the choice of man, but rather it demonstrates God in eternity coextensively determined to create man with otherwise choice and provide a genuine offer of salvation, which can be accepted by grace-enabled faith or rejected. Additionally, to fulfill this plan, God is not obligated to disseminate the gospel to people he knows have rejected the light he has given them (Rom 1:18–23) and will also reject the gospel; although he may still send the gospel to them.

Sproul continues his thinking is an audio message I have audio of here. In it he says:

Augustine said, I still, in my fallenness, have the ability to choose what I want, but in my heart there’s no desire for God. I have lost any desire for the things of God. If I’m left to myself, the desires of my heart are only wicked continuously. My heart and my soul are dead to the things of God.

I can listen to preaching, I can hear hymns, I can see — I can do all those things and see other people weeping and in ecstasy and all moved by all kinds of religious overtones and consideration.

It leaves me cold.

My heart has calluses on it. It’s recalcitrant.

My neck is stiff.

I’m not moved by anything that has anything to do with God. That’s our natural state. The Bible says that we are dead to the things of God in our fallen condition. Original sin deadens the soul to the things of God.

God so loved the world, He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth should not perish, but have everlasting life. And I have people quote that to me, to say man is not fallen to such a degree that he’s lost his power to choose Christ, because that verse says that whosoever believeth will not perish, but have everlasting life.

Now, what does that verse teach us about the extent of the fall of man? Absolutely nothing. It doesn’t say who will believe in Christ. All it says is, if you do A, if you believe, you will not perish, and you will have everlasting — you will live forever.

But the question still is left, Why does one person believe and another person not believe?

Augustine said, Now, you’re dead in your sins and trespasses. You don’t have any desire for Christ, and the only way you will ever choose Christ is if God melts your heart, if God softens that stone-cold, recalcitrant heart, if God the Holy Spirit rapes your soul and puts in you a desire for Christ.

That’s what has to happen.

According to Augustine.

And many try to do away with this control of God through what is called “compatibilism”, but as MacArthur notes, this is fictitious in the end:

In order to understand this better theologians have come up with the term “compatibilism” to describe the concurrence of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility. Compatibilism is a form of determinism, and it should be noted that this position is no less deterministic than hard determinism.

John Hendryx (John Hendryx is the creator and editor of Monergism . com)

And then this is John MacArthur:

So free will trumps evil on God’s value scale, so God had to allow for the possibility of evil in order to protect the more highly prized autonomy; and He had to protect autonomy to protect Himself from this bad press, being responsible for evil. Humans then must have self-determination, freedom to act. If God acted as the primary cause and humans only as a secondary cause moved by the primary cause, then God being the primary cause is responsible; and people are not free, and therefore God decided and God compelled and God coerced, and God actually overturned human will. Then God is responsible for all the evil and all the divine judgment and the determination of eternal punishment. This is a God that some people just can’t live with; they’ve got to get Him off the hook.

(See video to add to the above and Grace To You)

This passage is John MacArthur directly describing (and strongly rejecting) the popular “free will defense” theodicy. He uses it to contrast with his own high Calvinist / compatibilist view of God’s sovereignty.

Some AI convo:

Yes. If we define determinism as:

Every human choice is ultimately rendered certain by God’s decree and providential causation, such that no person could ultimately do otherwise than what God ordained,

then John MacArthur is unquestionably on the deterministic side of the spectrum.

The important thing is that MacArthur would almost certainly reject the label “fatalist”, and he would likely prefer “compatibilist” or “Reformed”, but philosophically speaking, compatibilism is a species of determinism. Hendryx is correct on that point.

The key question is:

Does MacArthur believe humans possess libertarian freedom (the ability to choose A or not-A under identical circumstances)?

The answer is no.

The MacArthur Quote You Posted

The fascinating thing about that quotation is that MacArthur is not denying determinism.

He is describing what he believes his opponents fear determinism entails.

Notice the structure:

“If God acted as the primary cause…“

“If God compelled…“

“If God actually overturned human will…“

“Then God is responsible…“

MacArthur is setting up the objection.

The question becomes:

Does MacArthur believe God does these things?

Elsewhere he clearly teaches:

Total inability
Unconditional election
Irresistible grace
Monergistic regeneration
God’s exhaustive sovereignty

Those doctrines require that God determine who will believe.

Compare MacArthur to Sproul

Sproul says:

“The only way you will ever choose Christ is if God melts your heart.”

Then he quotes Augustine:

“God the Holy Spirit rapes your soul and puts in you a desire for Christ.”

Sproul is being more explicit.

MacArthur teaches the same monergistic regeneration, but usually with softer language.

Both affirm:

Fallen man cannot come.
God must first regenerate.
Regeneration guarantees faith.
Those not regenerated remain unable.

That is deterministic in the relevant philosophical sense.

The Real Tell: MacArthur on Election

MacArthur repeatedly teaches:

God chose the elect before creation.
The elect will certainly come.
The non-elect will not come.
Faith itself is a gift from God.

Once those propositions are accepted, the outcome is fixed.

That is why Hendryx says:

“Compatibilism is a form of determinism.”

Because the certainty of the outcome remains intact.

The Important Distinction

A lot of Calvinists hear:

“determinism”

and immediately think:

“atheistic hard determinism.”

But philosophers don’t define determinism that way.

Determinism simply means:

Given the causes and conditions, only one outcome is possible.

MacArthur’s theology appears to satisfy that definition.

Why Your Argument Finds Tension Here

What’s interesting is that the quotation you cited almost sounds like MacArthur is describing your objection:

If God is the primary cause and humans are merely secondary causes moved by Him, then God becomes responsible.

The difficulty is that Calvin, Sproul, Piper, and many Reformed theologians frequently describe God as:

determining wills,
inclining hearts,
ordaining evil events,
governing every detail,
and ensuring outcomes.

So critics ask:

If God determines the desires, determines the will, determines the outcome, and determines who receives regenerating grace, how is He not functioning as the primary determining cause?

That is the exact issue your series has been exploring.

In Short

If by determinism you mean:

Human choices are rendered certain by God’s eternal decree and providential governance, with no ultimate ability to do otherwise,

then:

Calvin = Determinist
Edwards = Determinist
Sproul = Determinist
Piper = Determinist
MacArthur = Determinist
Hendryx explicitly admits compatibilism is determinism

The real debate is not whether these men are deterministic.

The real debate is whether compatibilist determinism can preserve meaningful moral responsibility, justice, and divine goodness.

That’s where the battle shifts from historical theology into philosophy.

This video is long, but has turned into one of my favorites!

Calvinist’s Fatal Flaw: Guilty Babies

Dr. Leighton Flowers plays a clip from Jeremiah Notier, aka The Apologetic Dog, in which he accuses Dr. Flowers of being a “Pelagian” because I do not affirm the concept that all babies are born guilty and deserving of Hell.

GOSPEL COALITION article summary

One-Paragraph Summary

SUMMARY OF THE GOSPEL COALITION ARTICLE: “THE DOCTRINE OF REPROBATION”

The article develops this position in three primary ways.

Scripture Teaches Reprobation

Reprobation Logically Follows From Unconditional Election

This is one of the article’s most important arguments.

The argument is therefore:

Unconditional election → some are chosen → others are not chosen →
their exclusion from saving grace falls within God’s sovereign decree.

God’s sovereignty extends over salvation and human choices

The Two Aspects of Reprobation

The article makes an important distinction between two aspects of reprobation:

Is This Double Predestination?

God’s eternal decree establishes both who will receive saving grace and who will be passed over, with the non-elect ultimately being condemned according to divine justice.

BABIES DESTINED TO HELL

Mind you, I am not the biggest fan of Faith On Fire, but once in a while there is really good stuff. It is 10-minutes long, here is his description:

Christianity is under attack more today than ever, and a big part of that attack comes from Calvinists. Did God create billons of people that God never wanted? Calvinism teaches that God did exactly. Calvinists want people to believe that the God of the Bible has predestined billions of people to hell before they were ever born. They think God has kept any hope of salvation from most people on purpose for His own glory and so God can demonstrate His wrath on them because God ordained and decreed their eternal punishment before the foundation of the world. They believe God reserves salvation for only some preselected elect people who are saved unconditionally by God’s grace.

According to Calvinism, Satan wants all people to join him in hell and the lake of fire, and they think God wants only most people to join Satan in hell and the lake of fire, and Satan doesn’t even have much of anything to do with any of it because it was all meticulously and divinely determined by God before Creation anyway.

TULIP or the 5 points of Calvinism are doctrines of salvation unique and distinctive to Calvinism, not Biblical Christianity. Those Calvinistic doctrines are from Satan and I expose the implications of them and the dangerous errors of that theology.

KINDA THE SUMMARY OF THE ABOVE [added to by RPT]

The Argument

Heaven is infinitely better than earthly life.
If a person dies in infancy and is therefore guaranteed eternal joy with God, then death produces an infinitely greater outcome than continued earthly existence. If that same child survives, however, the outcome is no longer certain. The child may eventually believe and be saved—or reject Christ and be lost.
On the assumption that all infants who die are saved, death in infancy cannot result in hell.
The theological premise establishes a guaranteed positive eternal outcome. The child loses earthly life, but does not lose salvation. Indeed, the child is removed from the possibility of later rejecting Christ and experiencing eternal condemnation.
Continued life therefore introduces a risk that did not previously exist.
The infant who dies remains within the category of guaranteed salvation. The infant who survives eventually becomes a morally accountable person whose eternal destiny, under the same theological system, is no longer universally guaranteed. Poverty, abuse, family circumstances, unbelieving parents, cultural influences, and personal rejection of the gospel can all become factors in that person’s earthly and spiritual history.
This creates an uncomfortable asymmetry.
If universal infant salvation is true, then preserving an infant’s earthly life simultaneously preserves the possibility of that person’s eternal salvation and the possibility of eternal loss. Death removes the second possibility entirely. Thus, within the stated theological premises, earthly life is not an unqualified spiritual benefit; it is also an exposure to the possibility of damnation.
The argument cannot simply appeal to the value of earthly life without addressing the theological premise.
If the decisive consideration is that every human life must be preserved because earthly life is intrinsically preferable to death, then that principle needs to be reconciled with the claim that death in infancy results in guaranteed eternal happiness. Likewise, saying that humans must never interfere with God’s timing does not by itself resolve the underlying question: Why is death unquestionably tragic if the death of an infant guarantees the very heavenly outcome that the believer regards as infinitely superior to earthly existence?
The same reasoning raises a broader question about moral consistency.
If the theological argument works because infants who die are guaranteed salvation, one must explain why that principle stops at infancy. If accountability is the relevant dividing line, then the argument necessarily raises questions about children who have not yet reached that threshold. If the argument does not extend beyond infancy, then the theological basis for making infancy the decisive boundary must be identified.

The central A→B problem is therefore this:

A: Every infant who dies is guaranteed eternal salvation.

B: Continued earthly life introduces the possibility that the child will eventually reject Christ and be eternally lost.

Question: Why should earthly preservation be treated as an unequivocal spiritual good when, according to A and B, preserving earthly life also preserves the possibility of eternal damnation?

The force of the argument is not that abortion is thereby proven morally permissible. Rather, it exposes a tension within the theological premises themselves. If universal infant salvation is asserted, then the believer must explain why preventing the loss of earthly life is necessarily more important than preventing the possibility of eternal loss. Simply saying that earthly life is valuable does not answer the theological question; it changes the question from

“What happens eternally to this child?”

“Is earthly life intrinsically valuable even when it introduces the possibility of eternal damnation?”

JAMES WHITE:

Does Calvinism Leave Room For Genuine Choice (video added)

Published August 7, 2026September 7, 2026 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.

The Consequences of Exhaustive Divine Determinism

Published July 28, 2026September 7, 2026 by Papa Giorgio

A theological system should be judged not only by the verses it cites,
but by the world it creates when all of its doctrines are held together.

The Consequences of Exhaustive Divine Determinism

One of the least discussed aspects of Calvinism is its commitment to compatibilism—the view that God’s exhaustive sovereignty and man’s moral responsibility are compatible because people freely choose according to the desires God has ordained. Compatibilism is not an alternative to determinism; it is a particular form of determinism. As John Hendryx explains, compatibilism is no less deterministic than hard determinism; it simply attempts to reconcile exhaustive divine causation with human accountability.[1]

Ironically, John MacArthur has articulated what many critics see as the central problem with determinism. He argues that if God is the primary cause who compels and determines every human action, then God—not man—would ultimately bear responsibility for evil, divine judgment, and eternal punishment. He concludes that this is a view of God many people simply cannot accept.[2]

Yet many leading Reformed theologians openly affirm that God’s eternal decree extends to every event, including the Fall itself.

Loraine Boettner writes:

“Even the fall of Adam, and through him the fall of the race, was not by chance or accident, but was so ordained in the secret counsels of God.”[3]

Jerome Zanchius is even more explicit:

“Surely, if God had not willed the fall, He could, and no doubt would, have prevented it; but He did not prevent it: ergo He willed it. And if He willed it, He certainly decreed it.”[4]

Arthur W. Pink likewise rejects the idea that God merely permitted sin:

“Plainly it was God’s will that sin should enter this world, otherwise it would not have entered, for nothing happens except what God has eternally decreed. Moreover, there was more than a simple permission, for God only permits things that fulfill His purpose.”[5]

Pink continues:

“Not only did God have a perfect foreknowledge of the outcome of Adam’s trial; not only did His omniscient eye see Adam eating of the forbidden fruit, but He decreed beforehand that he should do so.”[6]

Contemporary Calvinist philosopher Vincent Cheung states the conclusion without qualification:

“I would not say that God permitted Adam to fall, but that God caused it.”[7]

John Calvin himself wrote:

“God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at His own pleasure arranged it…. Though their perdition depends on the predestination of God, the cause and matter of it is in themselves…. Man therefore falls, divine providence so ordaining, but he falls by his own fault.”[8]

Likewise, Gordon H. Clark argued:

“I wish very frankly and pointedly to assert that if a man gets drunk and shoots his family, it was the will of God that he should do so…. In Ephesians 1:11, Paul tells us that God works all things, not some things only, after the counsel of his own will.”[9]

John Piper and Justin Taylor likewise argue that God does not merely permit evil but actively brings it about according to His sovereign purpose. They write:

“…he himself brings about these evil aspects for his glory…. 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.”[10]

These quotations are not drawn from obscure hyper-Calvinists. They represent respected voices within the Reformed tradition and reveal a consistent theological principle: the Fall was not merely foreknown or permitted—it was specifically decreed.

That conclusion raises an unavoidable theological question. Scripture opens by declaring:

“God saw all that he had made, and it was very good indeed.” (Genesis 1:31, CSB)

Yet if Adam’s sin was eternally decreed before creation, then humanity was declared “very good” while already destined by divine decree to rebel. Scripture also records God condemning the burning of children to Molech:

“…something I never commanded or mentioned; I never entertained the thought.” (Jeremiah 19:5) (CSB)

Those words appear difficult to reconcile with the claim that every evil act was specifically ordained from eternity. Which leads to the central question:

If God eternally decreed every sin—including Adam’s fall, every murder, every rape, and every atrocity—then isn’t the cross ultimately saving humanity from the consequences of God’s own decree?

Or stated another way:

If the Fall was not merely permitted but specifically decreed as part of God’s eternal plan, in what meaningful sense is humanity being saved from anything other than the consequences of God’s own decree?

C.S. Lewis recognized the danger of resolving this tension by redefining God’s goodness. He observed that if God’s moral standard bears no meaningful resemblance to ours, then calling Him “good” becomes an empty statement. We could no longer distinguish the God of Scripture from an omnipotent tyrant. Lewis warned that when the doctrine of total depravity is extended to mean that mankind’s understanding of good is entirely worthless, Christianity risks collapsing into a form of what he called “devil-worship.”[11]

The issue, then, is not whether God is sovereign. Critics of exhaustive divine determinism [Calvinism] do not deny God’s sovereignty. The issue has never been whether God determines some events. Scripture plainly teaches He does. The question is whether Scripture teaches that God determines every thought, desire, and sinful act. The issue, then, is what kind of sovereignty Scripture actually teaches.

Does God’s sovereignty require that He eternally decree every evil act in order to accomplish His purposes? Or is God’s wisdom, power, and providence so great that He can infallibly accomplish His redemptive plan without specifically decreeing every sin that made redemption necessary?

Clay Jones notes: Paul promises that with every temptation God provides “the way of escape” (1 Cor. 10:13). If every sinful choice has already been eternally determined, from what exactly is the believer escaping? No one can escape what God has decreed must occur.

Every theological system must harmonize difficult passages. The question is whether our theology is being shaped by Scripture, or whether Scripture is continually being reshaped to preserve the system. When the plain meaning of passage after passage must be qualified, restricted, redefined, or explained away to fit a prior theological commitment—when ordinary words such as “all,” “world,” “whoever,” or “desires” are repeatedly given specialized meanings, or when distinctions such as God’s “decretive” will and “preceptive” will are invoked to reconcile texts that appear to conflict—it is worth asking whether these interpretive moves arise naturally from the biblical text or from the theological framework brought to it.

At some point, the question is no longer whether Scripture is shaping our theology, but whether our theology is reshaping Scripture.

[1] John MacArthur, “Why Doesn’t God Save Everyone?” Grace to You. (Insert the exact sermon or transcript citation once verified.)

[2] John Hendryx, “What Is Compatibilism?” Monergism.

[3] Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1932), 234.

[4] Jerome Zanchius, The Doctrine of Absolute Predestination, chap. 2, sec. 2, para. 4.

[5] Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1930), 162.

[6] Ibid., Appendix II, “The Case of Adam,” 283.

[7] Vincent Cheung, “The Author of Sin,” accessed July 29, 2025.

[8] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 3.23.7–8.

[9] Gordon H. Clark, Religion, Reason and Revelation (Nutley, N. J.: Craig Press, 1961), 221.

[10] John Piper and Justin Taylor, eds., Suffering and the Sovereignty of God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006), 42.

[11] C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (New York: HarperOne, 2001), chap. 3, “Divine Goodness.”

Reacting With Faith Is a Work?

Published July 25, 2026July 25, 2026 by Papa Giorgio

Memevangelist’s (FACEBOOK) meme (see here) inspired the above. They have great ideas and thoughts that I love to expand on.

Calvinists Believe Faith Is a Gift from God

Synopsis

This article argues that one of Calvinism’s foundational doctrines is that saving faith is not something sinners exercise on their own but is a supernatural gift sovereignly implanted by God only in the elect. Jeremy Myers surveys numerous Calvinist theologians—including Calvin, Sproul, Piper, MacArthur, White, and others—to demonstrate that this is not merely an isolated belief but a defining feature of Reformed soteriology. He then challenges the common appeal to Ephesians 2:8–9, arguing that the “gift of God” is salvation by grace rather than faith itself, and contends that Scripture consistently portrays faith as the human response to God’s gracious revelation rather than a special endowment given only to certain individuals.

Calvinists Believe Faith Is a Work

Synopsis

Jeremy Myers argues that although Calvinists insist they do not believe faith is a work, their theological system implicitly treats it as one. Because Calvinism reasons that if faith originated with the sinner it would become a meritorious work, Calvinists conclude that God must first create faith in the elect. Myers contends that this reasoning misunderstands the biblical nature of faith, which Scripture repeatedly contrasts with works rather than equating with them. The article documents numerous Calvinist statements showing that their concern is preventing faith from becoming a human contribution to salvation.

Faith Is Not a Work

Synopsis

This article develops the biblical case that faith is fundamentally different from works. Myers examines Romans 4, Ephesians 2, John 6, and other passages to show that faith is the empty hand receiving God’s gift rather than a meritorious act earning salvation. Faith contributes nothing to the accomplishment of redemption; it simply trusts Christ’s finished work. Therefore, allowing sinners to believe freely does not diminish grace or provide grounds for boasting because faith receives rather than accomplishes salvation.

On Faith – The Calvinist Misunderstanding of Faith as a “Work” or “Meritorious”

Synopsis

This article argues that Calvinism’s understanding of total inability and exhaustive divine determinism leads it to redefine faith as something that must be sovereignly caused by God lest it become a human work. The author maintains that this conclusion rests upon a misunderstanding of both human responsibility and the biblical definition of faith. Scripture consistently portrays faith as humble trust and surrender in response to the gospel—not as a meritorious achievement. The article further argues that Ephesians 2:8–9 teaches that salvation is God’s gift, not faith itself, and that holding sinners responsible to believe does not make faith a work or diminish God’s glory.

Calvinism concludes that faith must be irresistibly given because it assumes that if faith originates in the sinner, faith would become a work that contributes to salvation. The article argues this assumption is mistaken because Scripture defines faith as trust, surrender, and reliance upon Christ—not as merit. Christ’s death is the ground of salvation; faith is simply the means by which that completed salvation is received. Therefore, requiring sinners to believe neither diminishes grace nor gives them grounds for boasting.

Faith

Synopsis

This article examines the Calvinistic doctrine of gifted faith by tracing its theological assumptions and comparing them with biblical teaching. It argues that Reformed theology makes regeneration logically precede faith because sinners are viewed as incapable of believing apart from irresistible grace. The author responds that throughout Scripture people are commanded to believe, are held accountable for unbelief, and are never told that faith itself must first be implanted by God. Faith is presented as trusting God’s promises rather than as a supernatural substance infused into the elect.

The Fallacies of Calvinist Apologetics – Fallacy #10: “Wait… Now Faith Is a Work?”

Synopsis

This article critiques the Calvinist claim that allowing sinners to exercise faith would make salvation partly dependent upon human effort. The author argues that this commits a false dilemma by assuming faith must either be God’s unilateral gift or else become a meritorious work. Scripture repeatedly distinguishes faith from works, especially in Romans 4, where Paul intentionally contrasts the two. Therefore, believing God’s promise cannot simultaneously be treated as the sort of work Paul excludes from justification.

What Is Faith?

Synopsis

Jeremy Myers argues that biblical faith is not intellectual assent, mystical certainty, or a supernatural force implanted by God. Instead, faith is relational trust—relying upon the character and promises of God revealed in Jesus Christ. Faith functions like trust in everyday human relationships: it responds to evidence, grows through experience, and involves personal reliance rather than meritorious effort. Understanding faith this way removes the false tension between grace and human responsibility, since faith contributes nothing to salvation except receiving what Christ has already accomplished.

Taken together, these articles advance one central thesis:

The Calvinist system concludes that faith must be sovereignly given because, if faith originated with the sinner, it would function as a work or human contribution to salvation.

The authors challenge that premise by arguing instead that:

Scripture consistently contrasts faith with works.
Faith is trust, not merit.
Faith receives salvation rather than earns
God commands all people to believe and holds them responsible for unbelief.
Therefore, allowing faith to be the sinner’s genuine response to God’s gracious revelation does not compromise salvation by grace alone.

Calvinism and Abortion [Bonus: Johnny Mac]

Published July 14, 2026July 14, 2026 by Papa Giorgio

Mind you, I am not the biggest fan of Faith On Fire, but once in a while there is really good stuff. It is 10-minutes long, here is his description:

A slightly unrelated post to confirm there are no rebellious creatures in Calvinism:

Sin and repentance, according to Johnny Mac, are fully subsidized by an eternal decree. So his TULIP belief undermines this graphic. There is no “person” outside the eternal decree to “sin”. There is no “rebellious creature” in Calvinism.

_________________

“…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…. [t]his 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…”

— Mark Talbot, in John Piper and Justin Taylor

“I wish very Frankly and pointedly to assert that if a man gets drunk and shoots his family, it was the will of God that he should do so.

— Gordon H. Clark

“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!”

— Theodore Zachariades

“Even the fall of Adam, and through him the fall of the race, was not by chance or accident, but was so ordained in the secret counsels of God.”

— Loraine Boettner

… 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

Too Depraved To Respond To The Gospel?

Published July 9, 2026September 7, 2026 by Papa Giorgio

As far as the Scripture is concerned, it is very clear that faith and believing come first and the new birth follows. The Scripture is replete, lucid, and compelling in teaching that the order is faith prior to regeneration, and faith is a gift that God endowed man with in creation not in selective regeneration; moreover, God is working in order to give men and women a real chance to trust Him unto salvation (John 16:8). Salvation is offered as a free gift (Romans 6:23) to all who are in need of forgiveness (Romans 5:15, 18), and people are summoned to act upon the offer by accepting the gift by—grace-enabled—faith (John 1:12). “Never does the Bible say, ‘Be saved in order to believe; instead, repeatedly, it commands, ‘Believe in order to be saved.’” (GEISLER)

If God has decided in eternity past which individuals he will not save, then those individuals cannot be thought of either as being truly loved by God or as being the objects of his saving intentions. Calvinists protest that it is simply a mystery as to how God loves people he wills to condemn before they are ever born. Some assert that God has two wills, one “hidden” and one “revealed,”¹⁰⁸ or two kinds of love,¹⁰⁹ but most Southern Baptists view these answers as having neither a biblical nor logical basis. Moreover, Calvinists’ affirmation of “single predestination” over against “double predestination” as a method for absolving God of the charge of actively causing the lost to spend eternity in hell is unconvincing. To say that God merely passes over the lost rather than actively causing their perdition is both a distinction without a difference¹¹⁰ and a flat refusal to own the implications of the Calvinist system.¹¹¹

108. Piper, “Two Wills,” 107–24; Grudem, Systematic Theology, 683–84.

109. MacArthur, “Does God love,” par. 4–5.

110. If I have the ability and opportunity to rescue someone who is drowning, then I have an obligation to render aid. If I simply stand aside and let them die, then I am morally culpable. Calvinist objections that the sinner is already dead will not suffice. If I have the ability and opportunity to regenerate a spiritually dead person but do not, then my culpability is the same.

111. Keathley, Salvation and Sovereignty, 148–49.

This statement by MacArthur is “anti-Gospel.”

It negates the power of the Word.

In the end this is what MacArthur is saying if you take into account his Calvinism:

God by means of divine decree determines all peoples decisions/actions
Potter by means of molding determines all pots decisions,actions,shapes, etc…
Programmer by means of preprogramming determines the Avatars/Robots decisions and actions
Puppeteer by means of strings determines all the puppets movements, actions, decisions
Author by means of writing a story determines all characters decisions, actions

This life in Calvinism has everything completely and fully scripted with every thought, action, deed. Welcome to the world of the avatar. The world of make belief – sounds much like the world of Walt Disney.

(Berean Apologetics)

The “gospel” according to Calvinists is akin to a “cosmic lottery” then.

In a post detailing misreading’s of Scripture, I end with this:

TO SUMMARIZE:

If the “T” is correct, there is no rebellion against God’s will. Add the “U” and the “I,” the Gospel is rendered meaningless. It is sad, but it is a logical outgrowth of those. The Word of God, the Gospel message sent to a dying and sick world is secondary, Calvary becomes moot. Your hope can only be in if you won the cosmic lottery.

So when the unbeliever stands before God and Romans 1:19-20 is in the thought of our Holy God, when the words come out of said unbelievers mouth,

“I could not believe in your salvific offer because of my nature which you ensured. I suspect you won’t torture a cow [cows are biologically designed to eat grass] for eternity because your command was to eat meat, but ensured their nature was vegetarian.

What should God’s response be?

Are We PRE-PROGRAMMED To Reject The Gospel?
Dr. Leighton Flowers | John MacArthur | Calvinism

Dr. Leighton Flowers, Director of Evangelism and Apologetics for Texas Baptists, responds to John MacArthur on whether we are pre-programmed to reject the Gospel or not. Check out the full video here:

Not only does this “pre-programming” dilute Scripture and it’s clear teaching, but it dilutes truth as well!

Preprogrammed definition: (of instructions or data) programmed into an electronic device to control future action. “the drones are designed to follow a preprogrammed route at the push of a button” (Berean Apologetics)

(Adapted from another comment) This is why Christians need to put on the whole armor of God to protect us against becoming infected By malware. We need to put on the Girdle of Truth! May we stand firm in the truth of Your Word so we will not be a victim of Satan’s lies.

RONNIE ROGERS completes the idea simply with the two views compared:

Compatibilism
Determinism and moral responsibility are compatible; hence, the name. This compatibility is not achieved by compatibilism being less deterministic than hard determinism. Rather, it is achieved by defining free choice to mean as long as a person chooses according to his greatest desire, he can be considered to have made a free choice for which he is morally responsible; even though given the same past, he cannot choose differently in the moral moment of decision.

Consequently, the difference between compatibilism (soft determinism) and hard determinism is not to be found in the levels of the deterministic nature of each because they are the same. Rather, the difference is compatibilism contends people are morally responsible for their choices if they are made according to their greatest desire, and hard determinism says they are not.

Therefore, moral responsibility is the product of defining free choice as a person acting in accordance with his greatest desire even though the desire is determined. I frequently find Calvinists who affirm soft determinism and disavow hard determinism because they think soft determinism is not as unflinchingly deterministic as hard determinism. That kind of thinking is based upon a misunderstanding of compatibilism.

Libertarianism
Man is not determined. He has the actual ability to choose between accessible options, at least in some scenarios. Libertarians contend determinism is not compatible with moral responsibility. Man possesses actual otherwise choice and can, therefore, act or refrain in the moral moment of decision even with the same past within a given range of options. Extensivism contends God endowed man with this ability, which is an aspect of being created in the image of God. [2] God determines the range of options. Adam’s range of options before the fall was greater than humanity’s options after the fall. The range of options available before the fall was the result of creative grace.

Fallen man can still choose between options. He did not lose his libertarian moral freedom, but the range of options is less than man had before the fall. Since the fall, man has lost the ability to make choices that are inherently righteous or spiritually restorative (making one right with God) based solely on creative grace. To make an inherently righteous or spiritually restorative choice, God had to provision redemptive grace, grace enablements.

For compatibilism to be the biblically reflective approach to understanding Scripture (what the Bible actually portrays and teaches), Calvinists would have to explain why the Bible, from Genesis 2 through Revelation 22, is absolutely permeated with verses, events, challenges, commands, offers, and judgments that clearly reflect that people have libertarian free will. That is to say; they can choose to act one way or differently in a myriad of passages (Gen 2:17-3:24; Josh 24; Jer 32; Mark 10:17-31; Rev 22:17-21).

Libertarian freedom allows for both determined events (events uninfluenced by human choice) and undetermined events (events influenced or caused by human choice) in which people choose between options. And whatever they did choose, they could have chosen differently even with the same past.

Compatibilism, Calvinism, requires that everything is determined, and if there is even one verse (I believe there are hundreds if not thousands that do so) that demonstrates the person had the freedom to choose differently than he chose, in the moral moment of decision, Calvinism and compatibilism collapse into an unbiblical perspective.

Consequently, unless a person can demonstrate the Bible teaches only micro-determinism (every verse that speaks of choosing reflects only a predetermined choosing wherein the appearance of having the freedom to choose differently is an illusion), he should totally and quickly disavow Calvinism. If a person chooses to remain a Calvinist, he is integrity bound to speak consistently with the micro-determinism of his position. In my book, Does God Love All or Some? I demonstrate that Calvinism’s view of moral freedom is absolutely in conflict with the teaching of Scripture when we consider all the Scripture.

What makes the micro-determinism in Calvinism, compatibilism, so difficult to detect is that Calvinists often interpret, talk, and teach the Scripture libertarianly. Meaning, they do so as though there is an undetermined choice involved, i.e., man can choose among the options available in the passage, and whatever he does choose, he could have chosen differently. Now, while that is true to the Scripture, it is in absolute contradiction to compatibilism, Calvinism.

Therefore, if a Calvinist is not going to live, speak, teach, interpret Scripture, and pray in a way that is consistent with micro-determinism so that both the Calvinist and the one whom he engages understands his deterministic perspective, he should disavow Calvinism.

(Emphasis added)

And that is the bottom line. If you adopt the Calvinist “TULIP,” you jettison truth. Truth in Scripture, truth in God, truth in reality, and truth in reason.

I believe I do understand Calvinism very well and that is why I argue that it cannot be put into the service of evangelism because there is no “good news” in the Calvinist soteriological doctrines. As such, Calvinism is not “evangelical,” which means “to bring good news.” When Calvinist’s do evangelism that have to abandon their soteriology and preach a non-Calvinist version of the gospel which is truly “good news,” but inconsistent with their Calvinist “doctrines of grace.” I argue against Calvinism because ultimately the truth of the gospel is at stake. (Source)

Calvary becomes moot.

The Gospel becomes moot.

A humorous look into the above via HOPPERS CROSSING:

A man has just entered heaven and is being given a guided tour by St. Peter. As they walk past a certain group of people, Peter tells him to be extra-quiet and not to disturb them. The man asks why and Peter replies, “They’re the Calvinists. They think they are the only ones here!”

A Calvinist is about to enter heaven. There are two lines, one labelled “Chosen” and the other “Free will”. He decides that the “Chosen” line is the one for him and lines up. When his turn comes, he is asked why he joined that line. He replies that he chose to join it.

“No!” he is told. “This is only for those who do not choose. You have to go to the other line. It’s the one for those who choose.”

So he lines up at the “Free will” line. When he gets to the official at the head of the line, he is asked, “Why did you join this line?”

He replies, “Because I was told to join it.”

“Then,” replies the official, “You’re in the wrong line. This is only for those who choose to join it.”

Is Faith a Work?

Published February 19, 2026 by Papa Giorgio

Dr. Leighton Flowers, Director of Evangelism and Apologetics for Texas Baptists, responds to John MacArthur’s position that Non-Calvinists aid in their salvation by having faith in Christ.

John Piper and Other Calvinists Mischaracterize Free Will

Published February 10, 2026 by Papa Giorgio

(A video that Warren McGrew made was mentioned in this video, I will embed that as well.)

Why did John Piper become a Calvinist?
Dr. Leighton Flowers | Soteriology 101

Dr. Leighton Flowers welcomes back Warren McGrew, the Idol Killer, to discuss a presentation by John Piper who is recounting his conversion into Calvinism

Responding to Calvinists on Total Depravity

A few months back, ‪@chrisharris9710‬ took to his YouTube channel to refute the claims Idol Killer made in our series refuting Original Sin and Total Depravity – specifically episode 2 & the Undercutting Defeater. In the process, Pastor Harris bravely took on the leading voices in Reformed Theology today and heroically swept aside the historical Reformed articulations of Total Depravity across various Confessions. Though, one has to wonder what his fellow Calvinists will think of his claims that entail John MacArthur of ‪@gracetoyou‬ Steven Lawson of ‪@ligonier‬ and others don’t rightly understand Calvinism.

1 of 4
1
2
3
4
Next »

Introduction: Did Calvinism Begin with Augustine?

1. Augustine’s Importance to Calvinism

2. The Turning Point: Augustine’s Development Toward Determinism

Why does Wilson identify AD 412 as significant?

3. The Philosophical and Religious Background: Stoicism, Neoplatonism, and Manichaeism

A. Stoicism: Meticulous providence and determinism

B. Neoplatonism: The corrupted will and the need for divine restoration

C. Gnosticism: A divinely differentiated humanity

D. Manichaeism: Inability and unilateral divine intervention

4. Augustine and the Five Points of TULIP

5. How the Five Points Fit Together

6. What About the Early Church Fathers?

7. From Augustine to Luther and Calvin

8. Does This Mean Calvinism Is Gnosticism or Manichaeism?

9. The Provisionist Alternative: Grace Without Theological Determinism

Conclusion: Examining the Foundation Rather Than Merely the System

Building the Case from Isolated Passages

When Contradictions Are Reinterpreted by the System

Why Context, Not Quantity, Tests an Interpretation

The Proper Movement from Text to Doctrine

Matthew 24:13 in Its Immediate Prophetic Context

What Does “Saved” Mean Here?

The Force of the Warning

MacArthur’s Study Bible and Larger Commentary: Same Theological Move, Different Presentation

The Bible Knowledge Commentary Provides an Important Contrast

Where Does the System Enter the Interpretation?

A Significant Point of Agreement—and a Significant Point of Difference

The Cross-References Reveal the System

Context Before System

Primary Sources Used

Footnotes

MacArthur’s Study Bible and Larger Commentary:
Same Theological Move, Different Presentation