Within Conservative Inc, Dinesh D’Souza has been a longstanding NeoCon commentator going back to the 1990’s. He is best known for his film projects, the most notorious being about a Hillary Clinton presidency which became the basis for the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. He also did a film, 2000 Mules, on the 2020 election fraud. For the past couple years, he has delved more into theological subjects with a recent debate against JD Hall on Zionism where he invoked some novel interpretations to merge dispensationalism with Augustine.
Lately, he took on Calvinism’s understanding of Predestination, making a particular challenge to RC Sproul (whose name he mispronounces Sprowl). He first begins by agreeing with Sproul on the protestant understanding of the relationship of faith and works before condemning Sproul’s understanding of predestination. To Dinesh, if God chose some for salvation from the beginning and others for wrath, then he is “shocked” about what this says about God’s character. His counterargument is that foreknowledge is compatible with free choice. The fundamental problem with this argument is that God is active in His Creation. God did not set the world into motion only to recline, but intervenes in the creation, actively bringing about His will, so the foreknowledge of God is of a different nature than that of man, where God orchestrates Creation to His will. In the scheme of Providence, the only way men become saved is through the orchestration of particular events, so the active will of God brings about their regeneration, where if one variable were altered, then the believer may not have been saved at all.
This is the same issue as accusing God of being the author of sin under Calvinism. God ordained the suffering of Job, but the Chaldeans acted in their own self-interest while Satan acted in his interest. God did not need to implant the sinful thoughts in the minds of the Chaldeans for them to plunder Job, so God is not the author of sin, but rather it is Man’s nature. Under Calvinism, because they possess this sinful nature, this inherently separates them from “choosing” God of their own free will.
Dinesh continues:
My real objection to predestination, however, does not arise out of some philosophical puzzle. I think it contradicts the central premise of the entire Bible. It’s incompatible with the core message of the Gospels… That God made man in his own image, that God loves us so much that he created us to be in eternal fellowship with him. And what is the core message of the Gospels? That Jesus died for our sins, not just for your sins or my sins. Jesus died for the sins of the world. Jesus came to save mankind because all mankind is in need of a savior.
Now, how is that compatible with the idea that God made man, but He never intended some to be in eternal fellowship with Him, or that Jesus died for all mankind, but Jesus refused to give many, perhaps the majority of human beings, the faith necessary to recognize that and believe it? Jesus did the work, but he withheld the faith so that his saving deed would not benefit people who are marked at the outset for damnation, not salvation.
This is a low-IQ argument for a question that all sects of Christianity have to contend with. The majority of human history is wrought with nations which for thousands of years did not know God, including entire continents of men. Those people were born, lived, and died without the possibility of salvation, as they were not part of the Israelite nation, nor did they know of the presence of the Church. The Mayan or Aztec civilizations pre-1492 had no possibility of salvation, yet untold millions existed under the will of God. To say that Christ died for these many generations who had no possibility of hearing the gospel is farcical, and to claim that they are condemned to hell for their rejection of the gospel is illogical.
One could just as easily claim God is unjust for condemning them for rejecting a gospel they had never heard. Rather, they are condemned for their sin that is their nature. The “world” in John 3:16 does not mean everyone in the world universally—past, present and future- but the world as in all the nations of the world, as the Gospel was to go forth to all the nations. Christ makes exceedingly clear in John’s gospel His predestination of His disciples.
The Catholics would differ in that the Church is the means by which the nations can receive or reject the Gospel, but the absence of the Church still means the absence of the gospel.
If God is the one who decides who is saved and who is damned, then we cannot credit in any way those who are saved, but we cannot blame in any way those who are damned.
By default, Man is condemned for his sin, unworthy of being saved and deserving of damnation. Even under the most caricatured version of Calvinism, Man is still bears the blame for sin on account of Man’s fallen nature. God willfully rejecting Man does not absolve Man’s responsibility to bear the consequences for his sin. The question could then follow as to whether Dinesh believes in Original Sin?
He then argues that predestination arose in reaction to Catholicism, whereby Calvinists are hostages to the centuries of historic debate and development, irrespective of the fact that Calvin’s understanding of grace stems from Augustine. Furthermore, the Arminian soteriology is even more reactionary to Catholicism than the Calvinists. Generally, what Catholics condemn in Protestantism is the result of Arminian practices, whether those that arose because of Charles Finney’s easy-believism or the charismatic cringe and televangelists.
He finishes his argument by using a generic example of an altar call (a product of Charles Finney) to suggest that the pastor is appealing to free will. The altar call is not a product of Calvinism and is most prevalent in Baptist churches. Hardly will it be practiced in Anglican, Catholic, Presbyterian, or Lutheran churches, if at all. A stronger argument could be made against the practice of altar calls because they pressure people into disingenuous confessions and easy believeism.
In many ways, Dinesh is ignorant of even his own soteriological camp, as Arminians might assert that God suspends one’s barrier towards belief to allow for acceptance or rejection of the gospel. This is generally called Prevenient Grace. However, that this grace was given to all mankind equally is an absurd proposition, which, if pressed, Dinesh would probably assert that all men have equal ability to accept or reject God. Under Dinesh’s framework, one could just as easily raise an indictment against God for the inequality of opportunity in accepting or rejecting salvation.
Furthermore, Arminianism naturally concludes that just as one can choose God, they can likewise lose their salvation, so there is no assurance of salvation for the Christian, unlike Calvinism, which asserts that one can know they are saved provided they are not engaged in reprobate sin (amongst other signs). The ability to choose or abandon faith rejects the efficacy of the Holy Spirit in giving salvation. Arminianism has historically flirted with being Pelagian or semi-Pelagian, rejecting original sin, which is the logical conclusion to the notion that Man can choose God since one is denying a core element of the Fall, where Fallen Man is incapable of willing himself to worship God.
Dinesh D’Souza tries to condemn Calvinism but ultimately reveals his inadequate understanding of theology. His understanding of Calvinism is a caricature that does not engage in the substance of the issues but uses Reddit-tier slogans against the system while being ignorant of the very Arminian position that he is supposed to be positing. In his ignorance, his anti-Calvinism borders on Pelagianism while elevating free will as “the Helen whom [he] so ardently love[s] and whom [he does] not hesitate to fight for” (Francis Turretin, IET 10.1).
Dinesh D’Souza started getting into theology only a few years ago and, working for Salem Media, has been tasked with going after various tenets of Reformed Theology, most notably Covenant Theology. The same absence of quality in his argument against Covenant Theology is shared in his arguments against Calvinism, ultimately creating an idol out of free will. Not only is he a Conservative Inc Diversity hire, but he is also the H1-B theologian.
Powered by RedCircle
