Dinesh D’Souza recently raised an interesting objection to Calvinism. His argument, which you can hear in this short video, is essentially this: Calvinists say that human beings freely choose to sin, while also saying that salvation depends entirely upon God’s sovereign action. If we have enough free will to choose evil, why don’t we have enough free will to choose God?
It sounds persuasive, because it seems to expose an obvious contradiction. Either we possess free will or we don’t. But the argument depends upon an assumption which needs to be examined: that fallen human beings stand neutrally between God and sin, possessing an equal spiritual capacity to choose either. Scripture gives us a very different picture.
Paul says, “The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be” (Romans 8:7). Those final words matter: “nor indeed can be.” Jesus says something equally striking: “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (John 6:44). Paul goes further still when he describes our condition before salvation as being “dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1).
The important distinction, therefore, is between having a will and having a will that is spiritually free. Fallen people certainly make real choices. We aren’t robots. We choose between countless alternatives every day, and we can behave generously or selfishly, honourably or wickedly, kindly or cruelly. But all those choices are being made from within a fallen spiritual condition. The fact that we possess a functioning will doesn’t mean that the will itself has escaped the consequences of the Fall.
Paul actually describes our condition as slavery: “You were slaves of sin” (Romans 6:17). Yet a slave still makes choices. Indeed, much of the power of sin lies precisely in the fact that we willingly choose what we desire. Jesus describes this vividly when He says that “men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil” (John 3:19). They weren’t dragged unwillingly into the darkness. They loved it. Their bondage and their willing operated together.
That is why the freedom to sin does not prove that fallen man possesses a spiritually neutral freedom to choose God. A person can willingly choose what his fallen nature desires while remaining incapable, without God’s intervention, of restoring the relationship with God which sin has broken.
There is another important distinction here. Choosing something morally good is not necessarily the same thing as choosing God. Fallen human beings remain capable of love, generosity, courage, sacrifice and kindness. A man may love his children, care devotedly for an elderly parent, give generously to somebody in need or risk his own life to save another. The image of God has not disappeared from humanity. But reconciliation with God goes deeper than ordinary moral choice. It requires a movement of the heart towards the God from whom fallen humanity has become estranged.
This is why Scripture repeatedly shows God taking the initiative. When Lydia heard Paul preaching, Luke tells us that “the Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul” (Acts 16:14). Paul preached, Lydia heard, and Lydia responded. Her response was real and personal, but Luke deliberately tells us what made it possible: the Lord opened her heart.
The same truth lies behind Paul’s great statement about salvation: “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast” (Ephesians 2:8–9). Salvation originates with God. Grace comes from God, Christ comes from God, the gospel comes from God, the drawing comes from God and the opening of the heart comes from God. Yet the human being really does hear, believe and receive Christ.
This is also why the biblical language surrounding salvation is so dramatic. Scripture speaks of being born again, of the dead being made alive, of slaves being set free, of the blind receiving sight, and of hearts being opened. These aren’t descriptions of a spiritually neutral person simply being presented with two equally available alternatives. They describe God doing something for us which we could not do for ourselves.
None of this means that every conclusion subsequently associated with Calvinism must therefore be correct. There remains a genuine and important question about what happens when God draws, convicts and enables a person. Is that grace irresistible, so that the person will certainly come to Christ, or can God’s enabling grace finally be resisted? That is one of the places where Calvinists and Arminians part company.
But that disagreement should not obscure something which both traditions, properly understood, have historically recognised. Fallen man cannot come to God entirely from his own unaided spiritual resources. Classical Arminianism answers this through what is commonly called prevenient grace: God acts first, enabling the sinner to respond, although that grace may still be resisted. Calvinism says that God’s effectual calling ultimately brings the sinner willingly to Christ. The disagreement is therefore about the nature and effect of God’s grace, rather than about whether grace is necessary in the first place.
That is why D’Souza’s apparent contradiction doesn’t really hold. Saying that human beings willingly sin while also saying that salvation originates with God isn’t having it both ways. It recognises the spiritual consequences of the Fall. Fallen man still possesses a will, but that will operates within a nature which has become alienated from God.
Perhaps, then, the deepest question isn’t, “If we can choose evil, why can’t we choose God?” The more searching question is: what has God already done in the human heart when someone finally turns to Jesus Christ in faith? That takes us beyond a simple argument about free will and brings us face to face with the extraordinary mystery of grace.
For a fuller exploration of this question, including the important distinction between Calvinism and Arminianism, read the complete article on The Way of Truth: Does Calvinism Really Contradict Itself on Free Will?