Monday, November 10, 2025
I Joined a Presbyterian Church
Sunday, June 08, 2025
An Answer to Two Thoughtful Questions
On another site where I have occasionally commented about issues related to divine sovereignty, a reader left the comment and questions below. Since the moderator on that site tends to be hostile towards Calvinists, and since these are interesting topics for readers of THEOparadox, I have elected to respond here.
Pamela wrote:
"Hi Derek, I have recently been reading with interest your dialogue with Matt “Strider” from a number of years ago. I have not yet finished the entire thread, but I appreciated both of your efforts to illuminate the differing doctrines. It does seem to me that both of you danced around the crucial point, although I would say Matt came a little bit closer to addressing it. The issue of whether we can freely choose white socks or blue socks is irrelevant. Even the issue of whether we can freely choose to sin or not is irrelevant. Christ’s work on the cross is complete. Our proclivity to continue sinning does not affect the sufficiency of his completed work. I have some hypothetical questions for you that I think get more to the point.
1) Can a non-elect person choose to put their faith in Christ, and worship and serve him throughout their life? Conversely, can an elect person reject Christ and refuse to worship and serve him throughout their life?
2) If the answer to those questions is yes, will the non-elect person who spent his life faithfully worshiping and serving Christ still be eternally condemned? And conversely, will the elect person who rejected Christ throughout his life still go to heaven?
I hope these questions are straightforward enough to warrant a straightforward answer. Thank you in advance."
I appreciate these questions and the opportunity to clarify a few items regarding Reformed Theology, at least as I understand and embrace its tenets. In order to adequately answer these questions, we must distinguish between what we might call "basic ability" and "moral ability," and we must define "elect" and "non-elect."
To the first question, I would answer that there is a sense in which a non-elect person can believe in Christ, worship, and serve Him. Both elect and non-elect persons have a heart/mind/soul which has the basic ability to trust in any person or concept that is encountered (and, in fact, every person does by necessity place faith in various persons or ideas). Each of us has this basic capacity and ability to trust or not trust as we move through life. We also have the basic ability to worship anything we encounter and serve anyone we encounter, whether we are elect or non-elect.
The elect certainly have this basic ability to reject Christ, and refuse to worship or serve Him, and indeed they exercise this ability consistently prior to their conversion.
With that said, we must also recognize a sense in which it is impossible for a non-elect person (or an unregenerated elect person) to trust in Christ. As sinners, though we may have the basic ability, we lack the moral ability to trust Christ (as an illustration of this distinction, I have the basic ability to eat liver, but lack the moral ability, so I never eat liver). Our hearts/minds/souls are bent against Christ and simply unwilling to trust Him, though we have hearts/minds/souls that are capable of exercising such trust. In our eyes, when we are in the unregenerate state, He has no value or trustworthiness to us. Thus, while having the basic ability to trust in Him or anyone else we encounter, we lack the moral ability to trust in Him (choosing unfortunately to trust in ourselves instead--which epitomizes our horrific bondage to sin and selfishness).
With regeneration comes the moral ability to trust in Christ as our eyes are opened by the Lord and we begin to see the worthiness, power, love and faithfulness of Jesus. Then we trust Him. Then we worship and serve Him. I nearly weep now with exuberant joy as I consider the way this miracle of regeneration was given to me by grace and changed my hardened heart to a heart of love for Christ!
To the second question, the answer is "no" because election and non-election speak not to what a person can do (by basic ability), but to what they will do. The elect are elected not simply to arrive someday in heaven, but to be called, regenerated, and converted here. They will live in a new heaven and a new earth because they were made new in this world by the pure grace of God.
On that note, I will add a huge "AMEN" and agreement to these comments from Pamela:
"Christ’s work on the cross is complete. Our proclivity to continue sinning does not affect the sufficiency of his completed work."
I hope this is helpful in providing a clear answer to your inquiries. Have a blessed Lord's day!
Thursday, February 13, 2025
A reflection on Psalm 25:1 — Lifting Our Souls Up to God
This past Sunday, I heard a good sermon on Psalm 25, which led to some encouraging meditation on this verse:
“To you, O LORD, I lift up my soul.”
— Psalm 25:1
A short verse we might read past quickly on our way to the rest of the Psalm. But let’s stop here and reflect for a moment.
My soul. The invisible part of me that is constantly thinking, feeling, desiring, and choosing. The part that loves, hates, fears, delights, and struggles. My inner self.
Lifting this soul up to God. What does that mean?
1. Proximity. Putting the inward person nearer to him and becoming exposed to His presence. His terrifying holiness and His comforting grace.
2. Visibility. Holding this messy and broken soul up to Him for His inspection. Entrusting it to Him, without being afraid.
3. Trust
4. Surrender
The alternative would be to clutch this desperate soul close within myself in a futile attempt to conceal. To hide and cover and draw away in fear and shame.
What a foolish thing it would be to keep this soul for myself, and not to share it in surrender to Him. To have no presence but my own to enjoy. To give this soul no exposure, except to myself.
I have found that despite my many sins and the deep brokenness (and even the disappointing vileness) of this Adamic soul, He always treats it much better than I do. The most I can do is cover it (like throwing myself on a grenade). But He CARES for it. Diffuses it. Beings His peace to it.
He alone can forgive and heal the soul. He alone knows it truly and fully as it is. He, in pure grace, treats it as a thing of value, rescuing and restoring it.
To refuse to lift the soul to Him in trusting surrender would be the ultimate act of self-destruction and self-hatred. A false kind of self-love that emaciates the thing it claims to love.
To always lift the soul to Him, regardless of its condition, is the act of love, worship and trust that flows inevitably from a knowledge of His good and merciful character—and leads to a greater knowledge of who He is.
These applications to our own souls, modeled by King David, are useful and encouraging.
But far more encouraging is the fact that the One who knew the Heavenly Father best—Jesus Christ, the Unique Son of God—lifted His soul to the Father as an offering and sacrifice on our behalf. He LIVED (and died, and RE-LIVED) this simple prayer of soul-surrender.
“Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.”
— Isaiah 53:10-11
Thursday, March 14, 2024
Sunday, October 02, 2022
Desire, Need, and Grace
1. Nothing that is sinful is needed or necessary (i.e., we never "need" what is sinful)
Wednesday, August 07, 2019
Isaiah 53:7 - The Lamb Slain
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so He opened not His mouth.
In this verse, the lamb-like qualities of the Savior are emphasized as His sufferings are further explained. The primary lamb-like quality to which our attention is drawn is silence. The explored aspect of His suffering is its essential injustice.
The Nature of Christ's Suffering: Injustice
Our Lord was oppressed as men--His own creation--placed Him under their authority and exercised their false judgments against Him. He was afflicted and humbled as He willingly subjected Himself to this treatment. At the same time, He received from the Father all of the wrath and condemnation that should have been borne by sinners, and submitted Himself to the will of the Father. Man's judgment against Him--as He stood innocently before human rulers--was unrighteous, untrue, and hateful. God's judgment against Him as He stood in our place was righteous, accurate, and an act of infinite mercy.
The comparison to a lamb that is led to slaughter brings our attention to the nature of His death: a sacrificial offering lovingly made on behalf of guilty sinners.
Ephesians 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
Jesus' death and suffering was "for us" and it was "to God." And this is what Christian love always is: sacrificial (i.e. unselfish) action that is done FOR OTHERS (to benefit them) and TO GOD (to honor Him). The cross of Jesus radiates this love in full power, and our lives of faith--sharing in the sufferings of Christ as well as His resurrection power--can radiate it, too. We are commanded to WALK in this love. Steps of sacrifice, steps of mercy, steps of worship, steps of joy. "Offering and sacrifice" are the language of worship.
Jesus' worship of the Father was further expressed in His response to the oppression and affliction He experienced.
Christ's Response to His Sufferings: Silence
Jesus' use of words was perfect. His selection of verbiage was precise. He knew when to keep silent, when to utter a few efficient words, and when to unleash a torrent of speech. We usually hold these matters in reverse proportion, remaining sinfully silent when we should speak, and babbling incessantly when we should hold our tongues. Jesus' silence before his accusers and His quiet acceptance of suffering remind us that He went willingly to the place of sacrifice.
Matthew 26:62-63a And the high priest stood up and said, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?” But Jesus remained silent.
Mark 14:60-61a And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?” But he remained silent and made no answer.
Silence in the face of false accusations, injustice, and suffering is a dauntingly difficult discipline to master (or to practice from time to time, or even to achieve once). Jesus' mastery of this discipline is evident.
Nevertheless, He did not remain entirely silent and later answered in wisdom and truth, thereby ensuring a false condemnation. His silence had merely set the stage for the answer that would follow, building the sense of anticipation and drawing attention and emphasis to His final reply. In this way, He assured His own condemnation while securing our release from divine wrath. He accepted man's false judgments against Him and He embraced the Father's true judgments that were rendered for us. He willingly chose to be condemned and graciously chose to die in our place.
Matthew 26:63b-66 And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy. What is your judgment?” They answered, “He deserves death.”
Even from the cross, His statements are few and deliberate. As He dies, Jesus' words are life-giving. How much more as He now lives and sits exalted in the heavens!
Dear friend, do you trust in Jesus' sacrifice on your behalf? Do you hang on His words? Do you confess a confident and sure trust in the One who suffered and remained silent, then spoke deliberately and accepted the sentence of death--only to rise again in victory?
There are many problems in the world today. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only answer to the greatest of them. And it is the only answer to your greatest problem, and mine: sin against a wise, holy, and loving God, and the condemnation it brings. With this problem resolved forever, you and I go free, and we are set free to walk in God's holy love.
Saturday, September 08, 2018
At a Debate with Dr. James White and Dr. Michael Brown
This should be quite interesting!
Monday, June 04, 2018
Wise Words from David Powlison
Why David Powlison Wrote His Newest Book from Crossway on Vimeo.
What Is the Ultimate Goal of Sexual Renewal? from Crossway on Vimeo.
Is Sexual Renewal a Simple or Complex Process? from Crossway on Vimeo.
Thursday, November 23, 2017
Thanksgiving Thoughts
1 You will say in that day: "I will give thanks to you, O LORD, for though you were angry with me, your anger turned away, that you might comfort me. 2 "Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and will not be afraid; for the LORD GOD is my strength and my song, and he has become my salvation." 3 With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation.4 And you will say in that day: "Give thanks to the LORD, call upon his name, make known his deeds among the peoples, proclaim that his name is exalted. 5 "Sing praises to the LORD, for he has done gloriously; let this be made known in all the earth. - Isaiah 12:1-5
Sunday, August 20, 2017
Answering Leighton Flowers on Libertarian Freedom and Compatibilism
LFW = "The categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from a given moral action."
LFW = "The unambiguously explicit and direct ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from a given moral action."
LFW = "the willingness of the will to choose what is good (as God defines it), apart from grace."
I Cor. 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.
Romans 7:24-25a Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!May those who downplay the need for grace in these matters find themselves desperately longing for the only Redeemer who can rescue us from the results of our own ability and will.
Saturday, June 17, 2017
Calvinism, Arminianism, Southern Baptist Traditionalism, and Accusations of Theological Dishonesty
https://soteriology101.wordpress.com/2017/06/07/calvinist-slight-of-hand-a-brief-arminian-interaction-with-wayne-grudems-arguments-against-the-compatibility-of-foreknowledge-and-conditional-election
That post was re-blogged from here:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2017/06/07/calvinist-sleight-of-hand-a-brief-arminian-interaction-with-wayne-grudems-arguments-against-the-compatibility-of-foreknowledge-and-conditional-election
As a side note: For some reason, the person who moderates the Arminian Perspectives site finds my comments unworthy of approving for publication, and has a long history of either denying my comments outright once the substantive points are on the table, or editing out the most important parts before publishing.
Those two posts raise some interesting issues that are worthy of discussion. However, we should take a far greater interest in the not-so-subtle accusations of theological dishonesty found in the posts, and then stated even more strongly in the comment threads. The reason for this should be obvious: any Christian who publicly accuses a fellow believer (or, in this case, an entire group of fellow believers) of a pattern of dishonesty may face dire spiritual consequences in the event that it was his own misunderstanding or confusion (and not a fellow believer's dishonesty) that led him to a false conclusion.
Scripture is clear on both sides of this point:
The person who accuses a brother of one of these evils (deceit) may in face be guilty of another (slander). Other Scriptures also apply:
Friends, here is a little parable for your consideration, which may illustrate well the dynamic that is occurring on this comment thread (and many, many others across the internet, unfortunately).
Cal Venice and Amond Ian are little kids discussing their respective homes. Let's listen in . . .
Armond: I love my house, it is so great! It has a really solid foundation. You should come over and visit sometime.
Cal: Cool. Sounds like fun! You might want to visit my house sometime, too. It is very unique and interesting.
Armond: What's so great about your house? Someone told me it isn't even a "real" house and has no foundation. Is that true??? Tell me about the foundation.
Cal: Well, that is partially true. My house does not have the kind of foundation you are used to seeing on a house, it's actually a---
Armond: Is it a foundation made of cement, and planted firmly into the ground, like my house's foundation?
Cal: No, it's not like that at all. It's actually--
Armond: Really? Is it even a house then?
Cal: Well, yes, it is actually a house, but it is much more than just a house. It's a hou--
Armond: That is the strangest thing I have ever heard. If it doesn't have a foundation, it can't be a house at all, right? LOL.
Cal: If you say so. But my house has four bedrooms, one and a half baths, a living room, dining room, kitchen, family room, quality metal roof, plenty of windows, and lots of awesome closets. It is two stories tall and filled with all of the usual household furniture, like beds and couches and stuff. It has a great HVAC system, plumbing, electricity, and all of that. You'll be surprised when I tell you what kind of house it is.
Armond: You keep calling it a "house" when it obviously isn't one, since it clearly has no foundation. However, other than the odd lack of a foundation, that sounds just like my house! But how can a house not have a foundation? Are you trying to trick me? I'm getting very suspicious.
Cal: No, I assure you I am being completely honest with you. Let me explain further. Unlike your house, which sits permanently on one spot, my house was designed with flexibility in mind. It is able to move around and goes places where a house like yours could never even be built. It's called a--
Armond: Oh, I get it now, your house is nothing more than a two-story trailer!!!!!!! Why didn't you just say so in the first place?
Cal: Because it's not a trailer. It's--
Armond: Okay, let's stop playing games and just be upfront and honest about our houses. A house without a regular foundation that moves around to different places is just a trailer. Someone told me your family has been dishonestly acting like you don't live in a trailer for years. But everyone knows your family is a bunch of pretenders who can't admit that they live in a trailer. I even heard a famous architect, Willie Lame Cage, say people who live in trailers don't like to admit it. He's the smartest guy in the world, almost as smart as my dad, James. Or is it Jacob? I can't remember. In any case, you and your family are clearly disingenuous trailer dwellers. Let's fight now!
Cal: Okay, but before we start punching each other, I would like to ask you another question: out of curiosity, have you ever heard of a house boat?
Armond: A house boat? LOL, what a stupid idea! A "house boat," if such a thing even exists, would be nothing more than a boat! I heard that somewhere, and my teacher, Lee Tin-Flowers, also read it on a website. He says a "house-boat" is just a boat--as much a "boat" as any other kind of boat! Boats are boats, and can't be houses, so there! If you say you live on a boat, then you can't possibly live in a house, and if you say you live in a house, you can't possibly live on a boat. Why aren't you getting this? I knew you were a liar from the moment I first saw you! After I get done beating you up, I'm going to start a podcast and a blog to tell the world how messed up you are. You and your family are clearly disingenuous trailer dwellers who pretend to be house-boaters!
[After this, there is a very long pause, during which Cal ponders whether he should try to explain the compatibility of "house" and "boat." They look at one another suspiciously, considering whether they should start throwing punches, then back away slowly. At last, both boys go home for dinner and then listen to some of their favorite podcasts.]
Lee Tin-Flowers: Am I wrong for questioning what the "house-boaters" say? Am I wrong for saying I see it another way? Here on the podcast, I always like to point out how I once had a part time job as a speed boat driver. I quit that job because I never could understand how boats can be houses. No one in their right mind would try to live on a speed boat, right? I try to tell these so-called "house-boat" people that they actually just live on a boat and can't possibly live in a house, and they never seem to be able to admit it, even though I quote their own favorite website, house-boats-r-us dot com, which clearly states: "A house boat is no less a boat than any other boat." So, as you can see, no matter how many times they try to tell you they live in a house, or a "house-boat" (whatever that is), they just refuse to admit they are actually nothing more than casual boat people without real houses. They also contradict themselves constantly, trying to say they actually do live in houses, which is obviously not true since houses have foundations, and they admit their so-called houses don't have foundations, which means they must actually live in trailers. None of this ever made any sense to me when I was a speed boat driver. It is all just casual boater double speak, as I explain on my website, HouseFoundations101. Go there to read the five best reasons why house-boats don't exist, and why I quit my job as a speed boat driver. Here is a quote from A.W. Tow-boat that proves my point . . .
Armond: Aha! I just knew Cal Venice was a liar, and this confirms it! I'm going to go around telling everyone how he lies! Liar, Liar Liar!!!!!
[Meanwhile, Cal Venice reads a few good books on architecture, engineering and boating, then goes to volunteer at an agency that builds houses for the homeless. Later, he goes to the mission field and gives his life for the cause.]
[Armond and his friend, Trey DeShaun Alice, more firmly convinced than ever of their views on the utter incompatibility of houses and boats, continue to slander Cal and his friends as dishonest liars. They later find themselves standing before a rather concerned Judge who solemnly calls them to account for every word they have ever spoken or written.]
THE END.
Hopefully the tie-ins with determinism, compatibilism, freedom of will, divine sovereignty and human responsibility are clear to all readers.
While we are on the topic of house boats and conversations that miss the point, you might enjoy this video on YouTube:
https://youtu.be/pXUcmVibTUI
One of my favorites.
May you know the blessings of godly fellowship with grace, mercy, and peace in Christ, dear friends!
Wednesday, June 07, 2017
Beza's 38 Aphorisms: A Concise & Pointed Defense of the Reformed Doctrine of Providence
Calling all "theology nerds"!
Although I am generally not a big fan of Theodore Beza's supralapsarianism, this is nonetheless a key Reformed text that deserves our attention and consideration. As a systematic articulation of divine sovereignty and a sound Biblical/philosophical defense of the Reformed doctrine of Providence, these 38 Aphorisms answer directly the false assertions of modern-day anti-Calvinists such as Leighton Flowers. If I was in serious debate with Flowers, I would ask him whether he has read this text and how he answers it, since it directly contradicts his misreading and misrepresentation of the prevailing Calvinistic viewpoint on these matters. Although these statements are dense and demanding of thoughtful reflection, a careful reading is well worth the time and mental effort involved. Right from the start, you will see how this text influenced the Westminster Confession of Faith and the London Baptist Confession of 1689. The many Biblical citations are helpful, too.
HT: http://www.covenanter.org/reformed/2015/8/17/theodore-bezas-thirty-eight-aphorisms-against-castalio and http://www.truecovenanter.com/supralapsarian/beza_against_castalion.html
Presented here for your edification and strengthening in the faith—enjoy!
FOR THE STOPPING OF THE MOUTHES OF THE SLAUNDEROUS, AS ALSO FOR THE FURTHER INSTRUCTING OF THE IGNORANT, IN THIS BOTH NECESSARIE AND COMFORTABLE DOCTRINE OF GOD HIS ELECTION, I HAUE THOUGHT GOOD HERE TO SET DOWN A SHORTE SUMME OF THE WHOLE MATTER, CONTAINED IN CERTAINE BRIEFE & PLAINE APHORISMES, TRANSLATED OUT OF A LEARNED TREATISE OF THEODORUS BEZA, AGAINST CASTALION.
fest by these so plaine testimonies, let the Pellagians, Freewillians, Annabaptistes, Papistes, and the rest of that filthie rabble, crye out if they liste, till they ware hoarse, and their heartes ake againe, that wee make G O D the Authour of sinne, from which blasphemie wee are as farre, as they are voide of Christian charitie, insoiudging of us, ascribinguntoG O D hisprouidence the whole swinge in all things, which as they proceede from him (as hath beene shewed before) are verie
good, albeit in respecte of the in-
struments, whereby it pleaseth
him in iustice sometime
to worke by, they
may be verie
evill.
Friday, September 02, 2016
Thoughts for a Young Man
Wednesday, August 03, 2016
UNBORN Lives Matter
Somebody tell that good Catholic brother, Tim Kaine. How does he justify the choice to murder? Certainly not by the TRUTH.
May God grant us repentance. Much repentance. And just a little bit of sanity and rationality, too. That would sure make a difference for ALL of the human lives that matter.
You and I were once unborn babies, too. So was Hillary. So was Tim. So were all of the Supreme Court Justices. May God have mercy on us. May all who approve of baby-murder repent and be forgiven before they die and face their Maker. May America admit the Truth and restore the rights of the most defenseless, whose Avenger is the Almighty.
Friday, September 04, 2015
America, I Weep for You: A Reflection on the Heroic Act of Kim Davis
Blessed nation, you now persecute Kim Davis and place her in jail. Why? Was it theft or murder? No. Was it fraud or extortion? No. Has she been jailed for attacking or slandering those who are forcing false marriage on our land (through judicial rape, it would seem), or those who turn from the natural male/female love that perpetuates our peaceful and productive existence and continually reorganizes us into biologically balanced families? No. She has caused no harm to them at all. Rather, she is jailed for refusing to deny the self-evident reality of God-created and God-defined marriage, as supported by 99.999% of all human society and all human history (regardless of race, religion, class, ethnicity or politics). She is jailed for acting according to her sincerely held beliefs when faced with new circumstances she did not expect or invite. She is unconscionably incarcerated for choosing to act according to her Christian conscience, because that conscience will not bow to a novel and immoral "law" that seeks to bind her against her will.

America, who freed the slaves, now attempts to enslave the conscience of a free people!
Kim Davis is no saint. However, imperfect as she is, Kim Davis is a modern day hero of American liberty. All freedom-loving Americans should praise her courage and imitate her steadfastness in the face of injustice. She suffers loss for the sake of freedom. Our freedom.
Like the students murdered in Tienanmen square, she has dared to defy an oppressive and overreaching government. America once praised such acts. Now it shamefully prosecutes those who are brave enough to oppose tyranny. America's founding fathers (and mothers!) would stand with Kim Davis in defiance of government coercion and oppression, were they alive today. Is their spirit alive in America today?
We hear much about "law." We hear little about genuine personal liberty.
God will judge the government of America for its defiance of His majesty. Let us pray that this nation repents and turns from its idolatry, blasphemy and stubborn refusal to accept reality as He created it.
America, I weep for you. Will you return from your insanity, or continue to pour moral acid upon yourself and your people, corroding what little remains of your decayed moral foundations?
America, I weep for you. Do you care?
Nonetheless (and all the more), I weep for you.
