Reformed Theology Vindicated:

David Allen refuted.

A Van Tillian Presuppositional Response to: Liberating Romans from Reformed Captivity

Man's Will is a Slave to Sin

Introduction

The polemics surrounding Calvinism are as old as the Reformation itself, and indeed older, for they are but the recasting of the ancient debate between Augustine and Pelagius in new forms. The conclusion of Liberating Romans from Reformed Captivity charges Calvinism with presenting not merely a different theological emphasis, but an entirely different theological picture. It claims that Calvinism is simply Augustinianism, that its headwaters are polluted, that its logical consequences make God the author of sin, that its doctrines of election, limited atonement, and irresistible grace render the gospel non-universal and incoherent, and that its conclusions are among the most disastrous in Christian history.

These charges are neither novel nor unexpected. From James Daane’s critique of “decretal theology” in the mid-twentieth century, to David Bentley Hart’s contemporary denunciations of Augustine, Calvinism has always provoked both admiration and horror. Yet, as in every age, these critiques rest upon presuppositions foreign to Scripture, misrepresentations of the Reformed confessions, and philosophical assumptions about freedom and responsibility.

This essay will respond to the critic’s arguments from the perspective of the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), the 1688 London Baptist Confession, and Van Tillian presuppositional apologetics. It will be shown that:

1. There is no neutrality in theology. Every critique begins with presuppositions, either biblical or autonomous.

2. Augustine’s anti-Pelagian theology was biblical, not pagan, and Calvin’s theology faithfully expounded Pauline truth.

3. The Reformed doctrine of God’s sovereignty does not make Him the author of sin, but preserves His holiness and man’s responsibility.

4. Election, limited atonement, and irresistible grace are not contradictions of the gospel but the very foundation of its power and universality.

5. The sentimental alternatives offered by Hart and others collapse into incoherence, denying both justice and mercy.

In short, what is alleged as “captivity” is in fact freedom: freedom from man-centered theology, freedom from uncertain grace, freedom from a gospel that saves no one. It is the liberty of God’s sovereign grace, revealed in Christ and applied by the Spirit.

I. No Neutral Ground: A Presuppositional Challenge

The critic admits openly: “I have not written with neutrality, for neutrality, in such matters is neither possible nor desirable.” This statement is more profoundly Reformed than the critic realizes. It echoes Cornelius Van Til’s central claim: neutrality is impossible. Every thought is either subject to the law of Christ (2 Cor. 10:5) or suppresses the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18).

A. The Myth of Neutrality

The non-Reformed critic frequently believes that he is merely reading Scripture “as it is,” while Calvinists impose foreign philosophical categories onto the text. Yet, in reality, everyone comes to Scripture with presuppositions. The critic’s presupposition is that libertarian freedom, that is, freedom understood as the power of contrary choice independent of God’s decree is a necessary condition for moral responsibility and genuine gospel proclamation.

But this presupposition is not derived from Scripture; it is derived from Enlightenment rationalism and Aristotelian causal categories. Scripture never defines freedom as autonomy. Instead, freedom is defined as the ability to act in accordance with one’s nature. Thus, fallen man is “free” to sin, but not “free” to choose righteousness apart from grace (John 8:34; Rom. 6:20). The only true freedom is found in Christ (John 8:36).

B. Presuppositions and the Creator-Creature Distinction

Van Til insisted that the most fundamental distinction is between Creator and creature. God alone is self-contained and autonomous; man is derivative and dependent. Therefore, man’s freedom can never be the autonomous freedom demanded by libertarianism. The attempt to demand such freedom is itself a rebellion against God’s sovereignty.

The critic’s claim that Calvinism reorders the theological mosaic is true in a sense: Calvinism does not place man’s freedom at the center of the picture, but God’s sovereignty. Yet this is not distortion, it is restoration. The Reformed presupposition is not autonomy, but the self-contained triune God who “works all things according to the counsel of His will” (Eph. 1:11).

C. The Necessity of Presuppositional Exegesis

Thus, when the critic objects that unconditional election or irresistible grace contradicts the “gospel for all,” he does so from a presuppositional commitment to autonomy. From within that framework, of course, Calvinism seems incoherent. But presuppositional apologetics exposes that the framework itself is incoherent. Only by starting with God’s exhaustive sovereignty can one make sense of revelation, responsibility, and redemption.

In this way, the debate is not merely exegetical, but methodological. The question is: Will we read Scripture as creatures under God’s authority, or as autonomous interpreters imposing philosophical standards of fairness?

II. Augustine and the Reformed Tradition

The critic contends that Calvinism is Augustinianism, and that Augustine’s polluted headwaters yield impure streams. But such a historical and theological narrative is deeply flawed.

A. Augustine’s Battle Against Pelagius

Pelagius denied original sin, teaching that man could obey God without grace. Augustine, in response, insisted on the total depravity of man, the necessity of grace, and the sovereignty of God in salvation. His exegesis of Romans 9 was particularly decisive:

“It depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy” (Rom. 9:16).

Far from importing Neoplatonic determinism, Augustine simply unfolded Paul’s argument. Pelagius’s anthropology was optimistic but unscriptural. Augustine’s anthropology was pessimistic about man but hopeful about grace.

B. Augustine’s Influence on Calvin

Calvin admired Augustine not because of his philosophy, but because of his fidelity to Scripture on grace. He noted:

“Augustine is so wholly with us, that if I wished to write a confession of our faith, it could abundantly be done out of his writings” (Institutes 2.2.4).

But Calvin was no slavish imitator. Where Augustine erred, on sacramentalism, ecclesiology, or Mariology, Calvin and the Reformed departed. Calvin’s soteriology is not an Augustinian novelty but Pauline truth, clarified and systematized.

C. Purity of Headwaters

The axiom “polluted headwaters yield impure streams” is true only if the headwaters are truly polluted. But the headwaters of Reformed theology are not Augustine’s philosophy but God’s revelation. Augustine, insofar as he was faithful to Scripture, offered pure water. The Reformed confessions distilled that biblical water further, removing errors and preserving truth.

Thus, the historical claim collapses. Reformed theology is not captivity to Augustine, but liberty in Pauline grace.

III. The Sovereignty of God and the Problem of Evil

The critic, citing James Daane, charges that Calvinism makes God the author of sin, takes pleasure in the death of sinners, and renders preaching a curse for the reprobate.

A. Confessional Safeguards

The Westminster Confession (3.1) is explicit:

“God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures…”

Likewise, the 1689 London Baptist Confession affirms the same balance. God ordains all things, yet He is not morally culpable for sin.

B. Biblical Testimony

1. Acts 2:23 – Jesus was “delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God,” yet “you crucified” Him. The same event is both divinely decreed and humanly responsible.

2. Genesis 50:20 – Joseph tells his brothers, “You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good.” One act, two intentions: creaturely evil, divine good.

3. Isaiah 45:7 – God declares, “I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the LORD, who does all these things.”

The biblical pattern consistently affirms both God’s sovereignty and human responsibility.

C. Van Til’s Antinomy

Van Til described this as an “apparent contradiction,” not a real one. From God’s perspective, all is coherent; from our finite perspective, we cannot reconcile sovereignty and responsibility exhaustively. To demand that we must is to refuse the Creator-creature distinction.

D. Misrepresentations Answered

1. God as “author of sin” – Reformed theology denies this explicitly. God ordains sin, but does not commit sin. Secondary causes are real and morally responsible.

2. “Preaching is per se a curse” – No. Preaching is always sincere, and the rejection of it is the sinner’s fault. Yet, in God’s decree, it can harden some even as it softens others (2 Cor. 2:15–16).

3. “God takes pleasure in the death of sinners” – Scripture explicitly denies this (Ezek. 33:11). God’s decree of justice is distinct from His disposition of compassion.

The caricatures collapse under confessional and biblical scrutiny.

IV. Election and the Free Offer of the Gospel

The critic charges: “One cannot simultaneously affirm a strict decretal theology and proclaim a gospel for all.”

A. Biblical Pattern

In Acts 13, Paul proclaims forgiveness of sins to all who believe (v. 38). Yet Luke concludes: “as many as were appointed to eternal life believed” (v. 48). The same sermon contains both universal proclamation and particular election.

Jesus declares: “Whoever comes to me I will never cast out” (John 6:37). Yet in the same verse He affirms: “All that the Father gives me will come to me.” Both truths stand side by side.

B. The Canons of Dort

Dort affirms both: “The promise of the gospel ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction” (II.5). The external call is universal; the internal call is effectual only for the elect.

C. Van Til on the Well-Meant Offer

Van Til defended the well-meant offer, arguing that God’s revealed will expresses a genuine desire for the salvation of all (Ezek. 33:11), while His decretive will ensures the certain salvation of the elect. To reject this distinction is to collapse Creator into creature.

Thus, election does not nullify gospel proclamation; it guarantees its success.

V. Particular Redemption

The critic charges: “One cannot have a limited atonement and a gospel for all.”

A. Sufficiency vs. Efficiency

Reformed theology distinguishes between the sufficiency of Christ’s death (infinite, sufficient for all) and its efficiency (effective only for the elect).

Dort II.3: “The death of the Son of God is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.”

B. Biblical References

1. John 10:15 – “I lay down my life for the sheep.” Particularity.

2. Matthew 1:21 – “He will save his people from their sins.” Design, not mere potential.

3. Ephesians 5:25 – Christ “loved the church and gave Himself up for her.”

The atonement is not a mere possibility but an actual accomplishment.

C. Assurance of Salvation

Universal atonement makes salvation possible but not certain. Particular redemption ensures salvation is actually accomplished. Far from undermining gospel proclamation, it empowers it: the preacher can declare with confidence that Christ’s cross truly saves.

VI. Effectual Calling and Irresistible Grace

The critic charges: “One cannot have an irresistible effectual call and a gospel for all.”

A. External vs. Internal Call

Scripture distinguishes:

• External call: “Many are called” (Matt. 22:14).

• Internal call: “Lydia’s heart the Lord opened” (Acts 16:14).

B. Biblical reference

1. John 6:44 – “No one can come unless the Father draws him.” The verb helkō means effectual drawing.

2. 1 Cor. 2:14 – The natural man does not accept spiritual things.

3. Rom. 8:30 – “Those whom He predestined He also called; and those whom He called He also justified.” This calling is effectual, since all who are called are justified.

C. Grace as Liberation

Irresistible grace is not coercion but liberation. It frees the sinner from bondage to sin, so that he willingly embraces Christ. The will is not violated but renewed.

VII. Hart’s Eastern Universalism vs. Reformed Particularism

David Bentley Hart describes Augustine’s theology as “disastrous” and embraces universal salvation.

A. The Sentimental Alternative

Hart’s universalism denies the eternity of hell and reduces divine justice to therapeutic healing. This is attractive to modern sensibilities, but unbiblical. Jesus spoke more of hell than heaven (Matt. 25:41, Mark 9:48).

B. Justice and Mercy

Reformed theology preserves both: justice in punishing sin, mercy in saving sinners. Universalism destroys both: it nullifies justice (by denying real wrath) and cheapens mercy (by making salvation automatic).

C. Presuppositional Collapse

Hart’s horror is not exegetical but presuppositional: he begins with human sentiment rather than divine revelation. Van Til’s apologetic exposes this: man-centered starting points always end in distortion.

VIII. Calvinism as the True Gospel

Far from undermining the gospel, Calvinism grounds it.

1. Missions – Because God has chosen a people, missions cannot fail (Acts 18:10).

2. Preaching – The gospel is not an empty invitation but a powerful summons.

3. Assurance – Because salvation rests on God’s decree, the believer can never be lost (John 10:28).

4. Worship – God receives all the glory, for salvation is of the Lord (Jonah 2:9).

Calvinism is not captivity, but liberty, the liberty of grace.

Conclusion

The critic of Calvinism asserts that Augustine’s polluted headwaters yield distorted theology, that Calvinism’s logic makes God the author of sin, and that unconditional election, limited atonement, and irresistible grace nullify the universality of the gospel. Yet these charges collapse under biblical, confessional, and presuppositional scrutiny.

• Augustine and Calvin were faithful exegetes of Scripture.

• The Reformed confessions preserve both sovereignty and responsibility.

• The doctrines of grace do not contradict the gospel but secure its success.

• Hart’s sentimental alternatives collapse into incoherence.

Therefore, Calvinism is not captivity but liberty—the liberty of sovereign grace. The true gospel is not “whatever will be, will be,” but “He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion” (Phil. 1:6).

Soli Deo Gloria.

References

(Abridged — full bibliography would be 50–70 sources; here is a representative sample.)

• Augustine. On the Spirit and the Letter.

• Augustine. Against Two Letters of the Pelagians.

• Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology.

• Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion.

• Clark, Gordon H. Religion, Reason, and Revelation.

• Dabney, Robert L. Lectures in Systematic Theology.

• Daane, James. The Freedom of God.

• Hart, David Bentley. That All Shall Be Saved.

• Murray, John. Redemption Accomplished and Applied.

• Van Til, Cornelius. The Defense of the Faith.

• Van Til, Cornelius. Christian Apologetics.

• Warfield, B. B. The Plan of Salvation.

• The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647).

• The London Baptist Confession (1688).

• The Canons of Dort (1619).

• Holy Scripture: Genesis 50; Isaiah 45; Ezekiel 18, 33; John 3, 6, 10; Acts 13, 16; Romans 8–9; 1 Corinthians 2; 2 Corinthians 2; Ephesians 1, 5; Philippians 2.