These are the endnotes for all the sections in Chapter 5 – The Nature and Scope of the Calvinist Difficulties
[1] By epistemological, I mean whether or not you can know God aright and know for sure his salvific will for each of us. Can we know for sure the character of God, and can each of us know for sure that we can be saved? These are critical issues at stake in this controversy. They are the most important questions of life.
[2] Henry C. Thiessen, Introductory Lessons in Systematic Theology, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 347-348.
[3] Jerry L. Walls and Joseph R. Dongell, Why I Am Not A Calvinist, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 156.
[4] I. Howard Marshall, Kept by the Power of God, 3rd ed., (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1995), 270
[5] Jerry L Walls and Joseph R. Dongell, Why I Am Not A Calvinist, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 185.
[6] I. A. Richards, Principles of Literary Criticism, chap. xxv as found in C. S. Lewis, Miracles, (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1947), 12.
[7] Here, I refer you to chapter 4 and William Lane Craig’s critique of Calvinism. In his Defenders Bible study class, Dr. Craig offers a five-fold critique of Calvinist theology, which he describes as “universal divine causal determinism.” It should be noted that the reasons Dr. Craig gives for rejecting Calvinism rest upon the logical and moral entailments of the Calvinist’s interpretations of Scripture as deterministic. Calvinists claim that this determinism is the result of proper exegesis of the relevant texts. But how can that be? Doesn’t clear thinking about one’s exegetical conclusion matter? What Dr. Craig does is examine the logical and moral entailments of what Calvinists conclude from their exegesis of the biblical text to determine if those entailments are logically consistent, non-contradictory, and morally coherent. Based on the problematic logical and moral entailments of Calvinism, Dr. Craig concludes that the Calvinist’s “universal divine causal determinism” is “unacceptable for Christian theology.” The point is that, based on the use of logical and moral reasoning, we can be certain that the Calvinist’s exegesis is incorrect and therefore, not what the scriptures teach. Philosophy matters in exegesis and hermeneutics. See William Lane Craig, Defenders 2 Class, Doctrine of Creation: Part 10. Oct. 21, 2012. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-2/s2-doctrine-of-creation/doctrine-of-creation-part-10/ You can read the transcript or listen to the lecture at this link. Last accessed Oct. 10, 2025.
[8] William Lane Craig, Defenders 2 Class, Doctrine of Creation: Part 10. Oct. 21, 2012. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-2/s2-doctrine-of-creation/doctrine-of-creation-part-10/ You can read the transcript or listen to the lecture at this link. Last accessed Oct. 10, 2025.
[9] Leighton Flowers, “Why Do Most Christians Resist Calvinism?” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-xevDfG4S4 From Nov. 15. 2019, (01:38 – 03:35) Last accessed Oct. 10, 2025.
[10] Leighton Flowers, “Why Do Most Christians Resist Calvinism?” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-xevDfG4S4 From Nov. 15. 2019, (00:31 – 01:24) Last accessed Oct. 10, 2025.
[11] I will critique the Calvinists’ attempts to alleviate their logical and moral problems later. Suffice it to say here that they have their arsenal of “explanations” that fail to convince, such as, “the Bible teaches both” determinism and human freedom and responsibility, compatibilism in which you do what you desire but God determines your desires, “God has “two wills” – prescriptive and decretive, God works through “secondary causes” and “means” (which are also determined by God), “our position is only an apparent contradiction,” “incomprehensibility – you cannot fathom God’s ways,” “paradox,” “antinomy,” “high mystery” and “faith seeking understanding.” All these are either ad hoc or question-begging. What these “explanations” demonstrate is that ultimately Calvinists realize their difficulties are insurmountable as far as logic and morality goes, and hence, also interpretively.
[12] The logical quandaries run deep for Reformed thought. For instance, in light of the Reformed doctrine of deterministic sovereignty, I ask the following questions. If I do not accept the Reformed position, was I predestined to do so? The answer must be “Yes.” Furthermore, would a Calvinist be concerned that I do not accept the Reformed doctrines as biblical and true? On what basis would they have this “concern”? The word “concern” presupposes the real contingency of a genuine freedom and ability for me to choose what is good or something other than what is good. It presupposes that things may and should be otherwise concerning some matter by virtue of the choices a person makes or fails to make. The concept of wisdom presupposes genuine human free agency.
Furthermore, in what reality would the Calvinist’s “concern” for me be grounded? If the Calvinist is “concerned,” as a sinful man, that I believe and walk in the truth, would not God, who is the God of truth, perfect love and compassion, also be “concerned” that I believe and walk in the truth? Would he not then desire that I embrace the Calvinist doctrines? But why would God then not predetermine my acceptance of those doctrines? Yet given the Reformed doctrines of God’s sovereignty and unconditional election, how can I be or do otherwise?
Moreover, many Calvinists make the claim that their “doctrines of grace” are the very gospel message. That would include unconditional election. And therefore, since it is the Calvinist’s gospel, it must be their desire that all embrace those doctrines and be saved. Would the Calvinist not say then that it is God’s desire that I embrace the “doctrines of grace” since He “desires all people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4; see also vs. 6 and 4:10)? Can the Calvinist’s desire, as an expression of God’s desire, be in opposition to God having ultimately determined that I do not embrace the truth of the gospel? Can the God of truth will, predetermine, and then cause something other than what is good and true? Can God desire something to be contrary to what he has predetermined and decreed it to be? Is God’s “desire” (what he wants to happen) in conflict with his “sovereign will” (what he has decreed and predetermined to happen)? And hence is the Calvinist’s desire that all believe their “doctrines of grace” appropriate and accurate? It would seem to me that the Calvinists’ determinism ultimately produces an extensive practical and spiritual indifference.
Bringing this down to the level of human actions, is the Calvinist trying to persuade me to embrace Calvinism, or simply inform me of it? What meaning does the word “persuade” have for the Calvinist? Is it just another “means” through which God accomplishes what he has already predetermined to occur? If so, if the “means” have therefore also been predetermined, doesn’t that render words such as “persuade,” “convince,” “command,” “invite,” “offer,” etc., meaningless?
Most importantly, can we know the answer to these questions? Can we know from Scripture that God wants me (and you and everyone) to live in the truth and be saved? What is the biblical definition and nature of “hope?” Even if I come to accept the Reformed view in the future by “sovereign grace,” how would a Calvinist explain my present rejection of the doctrines? What is the meaning and implication of this “rejection?” Would the Calvinist say that I am presently exercising what they must admit to be something like “free will” in opposition to God’s desire for me that he has predetermined and will realize in my life in the future? Surely one’s stubbornness is not ordained by God…or is it? According to Calvinist sovereignty, it must be. But does God work against himself? Is it in his nature to will not only good but ultimate evil? Where is such a conflicted dynamic found in biblical teaching? It boggles the mind! The real “mystery” lies in the Calvinist thought process, not the biblical doctrines of sovereignty, election, and human free will.
I maintain that all these questions are better accounted for from a non-Calvinist perspective. I can honestly admit that what I appear to be doing is actually what I am trying to do, that is, persuade you! Your present and eternal situation is not fixed but open to genuine possibilities and influences.
[13] This is a summary of compatibilism. It is the position that God’s sovereignty as an exhaustive determinism is compatible with human freedom. What the compatibilist does is qualify human freedom to mean doing as one desires. As long as you are doing what you desire to do, you are doing it freely. Yet, the compatibilist maintains that it is God who determines your desires. For a full critique of this position, see Jerry L. Walls, “Why No Classical Theist, Let Alone Orthodox Christian, Should Ever Be a Compatibilist”, Philosophia Christi, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2011. See also Wall’s lecture on YouTube, “What’s Wrong With Calvinism,” given during the Evangel University Philosophy Guest Lecture Series published on Feb. 19, 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Daomzm3nyIg. Last accessed Oct. 10, 2025.
[14] C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, (New York: Macmillan Co., 1962), 28.
In this book, Lewis deals with the topics of divine omnipotence and divine goodness as they relate to the pain and wickedness we observe and experience in the world. “If God were good, he would wish to make His creatures perfectly happy, and if God were almighty, He would be able to do what He wished. But the creatures are not happy. Therefore God lacks either goodness, or power, or both. This is the problem of pain, in its simplest form.” Lewis goes on to examine under what conditions God made the world, which entailed the consequent possibility of pain and wickedness. Divine omnipotence and divine goodness are further defined as they are exhibited in a world of fixed laws, divine self-limitation, and the free will of creatures. The book is pertinent to our topic. It is also important to note that, on Calvinist determinism, Christians lose the force of the “free-will defense” against the problem of evil and suffering.
[15] C. A. Campbell, On Selfhood and Godhood, (New York: Macmillan, 1957), 413.
[16] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 926.
[17] David Baggett and Jerry L. Walls, Good God: The Theistic Foundations of Morality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 75. Those familiar with apologetics will recognize that the Calvinist is impaled on the “God wills the good” horn of the Euthyphro Dilemma.
[18] C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, (New York: Macmillan, 1962), 37, 38.
[19] C. S. Lewis, A Grief Observed, (New York: Bantam Books, 1961), 36-38.
[20] Ibid., 65.
[21] Roger E. Olson, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 99,100.
[22] Dr. Leighton Flowers, “Acts 13:48: Appointed to Eternal Life?,” August 8, 2017 podcast at 1:14;25. The podcast can be heard here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjIWs-YRokw Last accessed Oct. 10, 2025.
[23] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeil, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 3.24.8; see also 3.2.11. (Italics mine.) See the full discussion of the above quotes in Jerry L. Walls & Joseph R. Dongell, Why I am Not A Calvinist, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 164-69.
[24] As Calvin states, “We call predestination God’s eternal decree, by which he compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others. Therefore, as any man has been created to one or the other of these ends, we speak of him as predestined to life or to death.” – John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 926.
[25] 1 John 1:5.
[26] C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, (New York: Macmillan, 1962), 37.
[27] C. S. Lewis, A Grief Observed, (New York: Bantam Books, 1961), 36-38.
[28] Epistemology is that branch of philosophy that deals with questions of knowledge and how we know what we know. Here, it refers to whether we can assuredly know God’s disposition and saving will with respect to every person and whether we can know God’s true nature and character.
[29] C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 10-12.
[30] Here, “ontological grounds” has to do with the way things actually are in reality. We know from Calvinism that there is a limited number who are elect to salvation, and all others God has determined not to save. Hence, it is a real possibility that God has not elected you to salvation. Therefore, if that is the case, he certainly does not love you or have your good in mind. That is your ontological status. It cannot be changed. Being ontological, it is not subject to your feelings, wishes, presumptions, opinions, etc. I take it that our response of love and thankfulness to God, for it to be at all coherent, will accord with the surety of our knowledge of his love and saving disposition towards us personally and individually. Our ontological status must be one in which God loves us and has accomplished salvation for us, and that we can be saved.
[31] Kelly M. Kapic, A Little Book for New Theologians: Why and How to Study Theology, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2012), 103.
[32] J. I. Packer, Evangelism & the Sovereignty of God, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1961), 21.
[33] David Baggett and Jerry L. Walls, Good God: The Theistic Foundations of Morality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 80.
[34] Ibid., 67, 68.
[35] Gregory Koukl, Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 31-33.
[36] David Baggett and Jerry L. Walls, Good God: The Theistic Foundations of Morality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 80.
[37] J. P. Moreland, Love Your God With All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul, (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1997), 99.
[38] The meaning of logos in John 1:1 is wider than reason alone; it also indicates verbal communication. See Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), pp. 54-55. The apostle John uses ‘logos’ in a manner that goes far beyond its use in Greek philosophy, since the logos is personal, moral, and transcendent. For a thorough development of these themes, see Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1976-1983), 3:164-247.
[39] Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2011), 177.
[40] C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, (New York: Macmillan, 1962), 37, 38.
[41] C. S. Lewis, A Grief Observed, (New York: Bantam Books, 1961), 36-38.
[42] David Baggett and Jerry L. Walls, Good God: The Theistic Foundations of Morality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 80
[43] Ibid., 77
[44] A phrase taken from Jerry L. Walls, “Divine Commands, Predestination and Moral Intuition” in The Grace of God, The Will of Man, ed. Clark H. Pinnock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989), 261-276.
Back to Chapter 5 – The Nature and Scope of the Calvinist Difficulties
The Truth of the Gospel 