Calvinists often assume Calvinism in order to prove Calvinism, which is “Circular Logic.” Circular Logic involves presuppositional thinking. As an example, while it would be perfectly fine for two Christians who are debating Calvinism to mutually agree on the central premise of the existence of God and the authority of Scripture, it would conversely be inappropriate to assume that presupposition in a debate with an atheist. It’s like saying: “We know that God exists and we know the Bible is true, so why, again, are you an atheist?” Obviously, the Christian would first have to prove that. So, too, whenever Calvinists debate non-Calvinist Christians, the Calvinist should never presuppose the very “determinism” they are trying to prove to the non-Calvinist. However, this happens quite regularly among Calvinists, and they may not even realize it. They will assume the core principles of Calvinism, and then use that as a way to ask non-Calvinists why they have the nerve to doubt Calvinism. Let’s consider some examples.
Example 1: When “Calvinism restricts salvation only to the elect,”126 non-Calvinists ask: “So, are you saying that Satan wants everyone but God does not?” Calvinists respond by saying this is true of anyone who is not a “Universalist.” But why? What premise are Calvinists relying on to reach that conclusion?
In Calvinism, if God really wants something, then proof of what He wants is found in what He gets. If God really wants a certain thing, then He gets a certain thing. However, as a non-Calvinist, I believe that Jesus sincerely desires everyone to come to know Him, but just because I don’t believe that He forces His love on to everyone, doesn’t mean that I question His sincerity. I believe that God wants everyone to be saved freely. Nevertheless, Calvinists assume their own premise, as a fact, in order to reach a Calvinistic conclusion. In order to avoid Circular Logic, Calvinists should first attempt to prove that God always gets what He wants, rather than just assuming it. Non-Calvinists argue from Ezekiel 18:23 and Matthew 6:10 that God Himself testifies that His will is not presently being done on earth, as it is in Heaven, though one day it will.
Example 2: If you believe that God is omniscient and all-knowing, then according to Calvinism, you have to believe in determinism. After all, if God knows what you will do tomorrow, and if His knowledge is perfect, then how can you avoid doing what He knows will certainly come to pass, and therefore if you cannot avoid it, how are you free, as in, free will? Calvinists then opine that if you truly believe in free will, you must be an “Open Theist.”
In other words, a premise of Calvinism is that divine omniscience is grounded in divine determinism, such that God must necessarily know what He decrees, and since He has decreed everything (assumption), He must therefore, on that account, know everything. To avoid Circular Logic, Calvinists should first try to prove, not assume, that God’s knowledge is somehow restricted to only that which He does. Non-Calvinists certainly do not accept that premise. Non-Calvinists believe that God knows what you will do tomorrow because He exists outside of time, in eternity. The error is in conflating certainty with necessity. God knows with certainty what we will do tomorrow, but whatever we choose tomorrow is not necessary, as we self-determine our own choices. So, God’s knowledge does not cause our choices tomorrow but rather is aware of what our choices will be.
The key trick to selling Calvinism is for the Calvinist to get the non-Calvinist to buy into their key assumptions. When you reject their assumed premise, Calvinism no longer becomes necessary, and that’s what frustrates Calvinists. So, you always need to isolate and identify the core premise to each Calvinist argument.
Example 3: If you reject Calvinism, then you reject divine sovereignty, meaning that God is no longer in control.
So, what are Calvinists assuming? Calvinists are assuming that God did not make His own sovereign choice to create autonomously free creatures. In fact, Calvinists believe that if there was a single molecule in the universe that God did not meticulously control, then that molecule could hypothetically overthrow God.127 Indeed, Calvinists believe that any Christian who rejects belief in exhaustive determinism might as well be an atheist.128 To avoid Circular Logic, Calvinists should not assume that God must play both sides of the chessboard in order to remain in control. Calvinists should seek to prove their premise that God cannot be sovereign without exhaustive determinism. As a non-Calvinist, I don’t think God must determine what demons think and do in order to remain sovereign.
Example 4: In Arminianism, those who believe in Christ do so because there is something different about them.
In saying this, Calvinists assume an external cause that differentiates one from another, which essentially assumes determinism in order to prove determinism. In order to avoid Circular Logic, Calvinists should not simply assume an external cause, but rather consider the non-Calvinist premise of an internal cause, in which an individual is endowed by their Creator with autonomy of reason, such that our own volition is a sufficient cause to choose one way or another.
Example 5: “For now let me say simply that, if the final decision for the salvation of fallen sinners were left in the hands of fallen sinners, we would despair of all hope that anyone would be saved.”129
In other words, without an Irresistible Grace (in which Calvinists say that God makes the “final decision” for us), then no one would ever choose Christ and be saved. But why should he assume that as a given? The answer is that Calvinists believe—as a premise—that mankind is so fallen and depraved that he cannot confess his sins, admit his error and welcome the forgiveness that God offers. To avoid Circular Logic, Calvinists should question their own premise. For instance, did any apostle ever say that fallen man is completely unable to believe in the gospel apart from an Irresistible Grace? Certainly fallen man is morally unable to perfectly keep God’s standard of moral perfection at all times, but he can admit his shortcoming and welcome the redemption that God offers.
Example 6: “From where did man ever gain the slightest inclination to sin? If he was created with a desire for sin, then a shadow is cast on the integrity of the Creator. If he was created with no desire for sin, then we must ask where that desire came from?”130
Calvinists naturally assume an external cause, rather than an internal cause. Calvinists cannot fathom that the desire of Adam and Eve to sin came from within themselves as autonomous creatures. To avoid Circular Logic, Calvinists should not assume determinism as a given. Non-Calvinists believe that God created human beings with autonomy of reason and creative intelligence in order to be suitable caretakers of God’s living ways. Of course, non-Calvinists will need to prove their own premises, but the point is that Calvinists present the dispute as if the only possibility is determinism, when yet that is the very point of debate. In other words, you cannot just assume what you are trying to prove. Each side is allowed their own premises, but you have to back it up, not just assume it.
Syllogisms
A syllogism is a logical equation that involves two premises followed by a conclusion. Many logical errors committed by Calvinists could be prevented if Calvinists knew how to employ logical arguments, such as by the use of well-constructed syllogisms. Often, you will see Calvinists making only one premise, followed by multiple conclusions which end up resulting in logical fallacies, such as a “false dilemma.” Here is one example of a logical syllogism:
- Premise 1: Ephesians 1:3 states that God has blessed us with “every” spiritual blessing in the heavenly places “in Christ.”
- Premise 2: Regeneration and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit are two examples of God’s spiritual blessings.
- Conclusion: It logically follows that Regeneration and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit must be “in Christ.”
Of course, syllogisms can result in erroneous conclusions if the proposed premises are unsound, but a disciplined use of well-constructed syllogisms can help foster better argumentation and reduce numerous logical fallacies.
_______________________________________
126 R.C. Sproul, Chosen By God (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1986), 33.
127 “If there is one single molecule in this universe running around loose, totally free of God’s sovereignty, then we have no guarantee that a single promise of God will ever be fulfilled.” R.C. Sproul, Chosen By God (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1986), 26-27.
128 Ibid., 25.
129 R.C. Sproul, Chosen By God (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1986), 33.
130 Ibid., 29.
[This post has been excerpted with permission from Richard Coords, Calvinism Answered Verse by Verse and Subject by Subject, © 2024.]
