Why “EDD” Belongs in Theological Discourse

Recently, during a public discussion on divine determinism, a Calvinist objected to my use of the term “EDD” — short for Exhaustive Divine Determinism (or Exhaustive Divine Determination). He said, “I’m just going to use the term everyone else uses in the literature — theological determinism,” and dismissed EDD as both "superfluous" and “a mouthful.”

That’s a fairly common response I hear online. Many Calvinists and divine determinists seem to bristle at the term EDD. Some say it's redundant, others claim it's unnecessary, and a few argue that scholars shouldn’t introduce terminology that isn’t already standard. These complaints raise a fair question:

Is there a good reason to use the term “EDD” rather than just sticking with “theological determinism”?

In my view — yes, absolutely! In fact, I think there are several strong reasons why it’s not only appropriate, but helpful to use this term. I’ll explain why.

The Motivation Behind “Exhaustive Divine Determinism”

Together with Dr. J.P. Moreland, I’ve contributed to the academic literature on this topic and have intentionally introduced the term EDD to help bring clarity to conversations that are often clouded with confusion. (See our paper entitled, An Explanation and Defense of the Free-Thinking Argument.)

I've found that one of the most persistent issues while discussing determinism among theologians today is that the term “theological determinism” is regularly misunderstood — even by PhD-level theologians and philosophers who are not focused on the metaphysics of freedom and determinism. Many assume theological determinism refers only to matters of salvation (i.e., who is saved, who is not, and how that is determined), which would fall under the umbrella of soteriology. But that’s far too narrow.

When I refer to divine determinism, I’m not merely talking about salvation. I’m referring to the claim that God determines everything that happens — every physical event, every thought, every belief, every neural impulse. This includes not only your choice to eat cereal, or pray, or write a social media post, but even what you think of, how you think about it, and when you think it. It includes your beliefs about God’s sovereignty, your beliefs about the very article you're reading right now, and your emotional and intellectual reactions to it. That’s what I mean by exhaustive.

So no — “exhaustive” is not redundant. It’s crucial clarification.

Clarity > Tradition

The objection I often hear is: “That’s not the term people use in the literature.” And my response is: So what?

Academic vocabulary doesn’t exist to preserve tradition — it exists to promote clarity. If a term is ambiguous, misleading, or easily misinterpreted, scholars should feel free — and even obligated — to clarify it. That’s how philosophical language evolves: people introduce distinctions, refine definitions, and propose terminology that improves understanding.

In this case, adding the word “exhaustive” does exactly that. It clearly distinguishes a global, all-encompassing view of divine causation from a narrower, salvation-focused one. And frankly, I don’t care if others prefer different terminology — so long as they clearly state what they mean and understand what I mean when I say EDD.

"EDD is a Mouthful"

Another pushback is that “EDD” is a mouthful. But academic language is full of mouthfuls:

• “Metaphysical libertarianism”

• “Divine conceptualism”

• “Epistemic justification”

• “Ontological nonreductive emergentist supervenience theory” None of these terms are simple. But they’re used because they communicate important distinctions. So if clarity requires an extra syllable or two, that's a small price to pay. But speaking of syllables . . . “EDD” is not a mouthful. It's one syllable. To avoid the so-called "mouthful" of EDD, the objector said that he’d prefer the term “theological determinism” -- but that’s TEN syllables (as opposed to the one I’m using). It’s much easier to say “EDD,” get clarity, purify the previously muddied waters, and save time in the process. It’s a win–win!

EDD is Already in the Literature — And It’s Doing Work

Let’s also be clear: EDD is already in the academic literature — and it’s doing the conceptual work it was created to do. It distinguishes a specific theological claim: that God determines all things (including all human mental activity, all thoughts, all beliefs, and all attitudes) without exception. If that idea deserves scrutiny, then it deserves to be identified precisely.

I’m not demanding that others adopt the term. I’m simply using it to make sure that when I critique this view, there’s not ambiguity about what I mean. If others prefer “theological determinism” but mean the exact same thing, that’s fine — as long as that’s made explicit. But I won’t stop using EDD just because a few Calvinists find it inconvenient.

Conclusion: Say What You Mean, Mean What You Say

In a field where misunderstandings are rampant and precision matters, we should welcome — not resist — terminological clarity. EDD isn’t an attempt to be clever or novel. It’s an attempt to be clear. If we’re going to have rigorous and careful conversations about divine sovereignty, free will, moral responsibility, epistemic responsibility, and the nature of belief, then we owe it to ourselves (and our readers or listeners) to be clear, precise, and specific about what we’re talking about.

So yes — I’ll continue to use Exhaustive Divine Determinism. Because that’s what I mean. I believe that matters.

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

Dr. Tim Stratton