A presupposition is something you carry into any discussion, dealing with what you already presuppose to be true, and if you’re presupposition is accurate, then there is no problem, but if it’s false, then you become prone to compounding your errors. So, you’d want to ensure that your presuppositions are on solid ground, and it’s certainly helpful to routinely challenge your own presuppositions so as to avoid Circular Logic.
Since the Bible doesn’t explicitly teach the Five Points of TULIP Calvinism, Calvinists will need to get its converts to buy into core presuppositions which may then naturally require Calvinistic conclusions. One core premise of Calvinism is the notion of God having decreed “whatsoever comes to pass,” so anticipate that Calvinists will try whatever means possible to get you to buy into this core presupposition. Here are some examples:
Calvinist: “So, you don’t believe in God’s decree?”
Not if it means that God decreed whatsoever comes to pass, including every sinful thought and action ever conceived. No, I don’t.
Calvinist: “Well, don’t you believe in divine omniscience? If God knows what you will do tomorrow, and if His knowledge is perfect, then how are you free to do otherwise? And if God knows all things, then how are you free to do anything, including anyone else, and hence there can be no free-will and everything must be determined.”
I don’t believe that God’s knowledge causes anything. I believe that God is omniscient because of who He is as an eternal and uncreated Being who exists outside of time, in eternity.
Calvinist: “Well, don’t you believe in divine permission? Anything that happens, He must permit to happen, and if He allows some things but not others, then everything that happens must be by His conscious choice, and if God has a plan for everything then everything that exists must be by His will and determination.”
By permission, do you mean that God permits something that “may or may not” happen or do you mean something else? Because I think you mean something else. The whole point of permission is to acquiesce to another party’s wishes, but the way you describe permission, it means that God “permits what He already decreed,” which is no longer permission but just veiled determinism.
Calvinist: “Well, don’t you believe that God is sovereign?”
It depends on what you mean by “sovereign”? Are you simply redefining the word sovereignty to mean exhaustive, meticulous determinism? I think you are, just as I think you abuse “omniscience” and “permission” to sucker me into a position that you know I reject.
Calvinist: “Well, don’t you believe in letting God be God?”
It depends on what you mean by letting God “be God.” Are you suggesting that letting God “be God” means exhaustive, meticulous determinism? Because I think you are. What if God doesn’t want to be the determiner of sin? You might be trying to depict God as doing things He doesn’t want.
Notice how the Calvinist is intent on getting you to buy into their core presupposition of determinism. Once they are successful in that, then it’s a straight path to the dark side. You simply then find proof-texts to justify determinism and ignore the passages which refute it. All other difficulties are just punted to mystery. And if there is still any doubt, then just look at all of the self-proclaimed “Reformers” and ask yourself whether those godly men could really all be wrong? Of course not, and hence welcome to Calvinism. Now be fruitful and multiply, especially on Christians who aren’t prepared for these tactics. This is what I see whenever encountering Calvinism. Calvinists first presume determinism as a Calvinism within Calvinism. Whenever I read or listen to Calvinists, I look for the underlying presumption of exhaustive, meticulous determinism.
_________________________________________
439 See also the discussion on Circular Logic.
[This post has been excerpted with permission from Richard Coords, Calvinism Answered Verse by Verse and Subject by Subject, © 2024.]
