[Editor’s note: This article gets aggressive towards the end. It does not necessarily represent SEA’s viewpoint, which should go without saying because our standing policy is to publish a variety of Arminian viewpoints without publication implying SEA’s approval of a given article’s views. But the author’s concern about the tactics of some Calvinists is worth considering.]
Calvinists often object that non-Calvinists misrepresent Calvinism. Here is Calvinist, Charles Spurgeon explaining it:
Charles Spurgeon: “…there are many of our opponents, who, when they run short of matter, invent and make for themselves a man of straw, call that John Calvin and then shoot all their arrows at it.”570
This is why it is so critical for non-Calvinists to quote leading Calvinist authors when stating objections to Calvinism, in order to avoid being accused of inventing Calvinism. The reality is that there is vast diversity within “Calvinism,” thus making an isolation of what is truly “Calvinism” somewhat challenging. In Calvinism, there are 4-Point Calvinists, 5-Point Calvinists, Low Calvinists, High Calvinists, Hyper Calvinists, Single Predestinationists, Double Predestinationists, Sublaparians, Infralapsarians and Supralapsarians, Molinist-Calvinists and various other hybrids. Even Spurgeon himself debated his variety of Calvinism with other Calvinists, in his denial of Double Predestination.571 So, given all of Calvinism’s variations, Calvinists probably ought to pause before asserting offenses against their critics and instead show more sympathy and understanding.
Braxton Hunter: “Calvinists will say—well some Calvinists will say—whenever I say what Calvinists will say, I know that at least half of them in any given situation are going to have a problem….”572
So, what might be a misrepresentation for one Calvinist could be a perfect representation of what another Calvinist believes. What happens in many cases is that the “internet Calvinist layman” will take a non-standard position on a particular doctrine, which contradicts mainstream Calvinist authors, and then on the basis of their unique position, they will condemn non-Calvinists for having “misrepresented Calvinism.” One common example involves regeneration. The Calvinist layman will agree with non-Calvinists that “regeneration comes after faith,” but in a way which takes a more nuanced view on Irresistible Grace, in which the “Effectual Calling” is taken to mean that God simply “made the gospel irresistible to them,” after which they are made Born Again. It’s fine if Calvinist laymen wish to take non-standard views, but in doing so, they’ll need to temper their sweeping denunciations of “misrepresentation,” which restraint, though, they often fail to exercise.
Often, the real dispute by Calvinists over “misrepresentations” centers on non-Calvinists simply applying logical consistency to the claims of Calvinism. Let’s cite an example:
1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 3: “God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree.”573
So, a non-Calvinist inference could be: If God fixed and decreed all things from eternity, including all sin, then isn’t God simply redeeming His own determinations? Is God both the fireman rescuing us from the fire and also the arsonist who started the fire? Therefore, is that truly a misrepresentation, or rather is it a reasonable and logical criticism?
What do Calvinists believe?
People use an improper understanding of a teaching to prove a point and to make themselves feel better. Fallen man is born in sin and shaped in iniquity. They love the darkness rather than the light. It is a misrepresentation to say that as Calvinists, we deny that the Reprobate have a choice and a will. We simply point out that as a result of their fallen condition, the only choice of their will is to refuse and reject God.
Our reply:
If people are born in a condition where they cannot want God, we must ask Calvinists: “Whose choice do you believe it was to punish humanity for Adam’s sin by making all men born morally incapable of responding positively to God’s own appeals to be reconciled?”
Calvinism is like a two-sided coin. Calvinists often focus their attention solely on the one side of the coin depicting fallen humanity while ignoring the other side of the coin which necessarily contains implications about a God who, in a sinful world, decrees whatsoever comes to pass. Indeed, fallen humanity equates to dead rebel sinners, but who decreed the sins of the dead rebel sinners in the first place, as part of a “total plan” of all things? So, before leveling a charge of misrepresentation, Calvinists should first consider the necessary logical implications of absolute determinism, and the fact that most will not accept their tendency toward Special Pleading.
Some Calvinists insist that Calvinism should only be represented by the historical Creeds and Confessions. However, even that carries certain objections.
Johnathan Pritchett: “We already know that Traditionalism, Arminianism, Calvinism has a standard to it that identifies it as such, or otherwise it doesn’t mean anything. And so, quoting prominent Calvinists, if you just want to disagree with all of them, in what meaningful sense are you calling yourself ‘Calvinist’ if your brightest scholars—you don’t agree with them? … Just appealing to the Confessions—the Confessions are just summary statements of beliefs. They’re not arguments for those beliefs, and the second you give an argument for those beliefs, we’re no longer talking about the Confession itself, we’re talking about what undergirds the Confession’s statements, which either I can discuss that with my opponent and if he says something similar to what all these other prominent Calvinists that they end up saying, ‘Well, that’s not me,’ at what point is it Calvinism?”574
So, to accommodate certain Calvinists, by limiting all quoted references to just the Creeds and Confessions, would mean that Calvinist logic could never really be tested, and which may be their primary objective, that is, to render it unfalsifiable.
In some cases, there is a darker side behind the motivation of serially asserting “misrepresentations.” It involves a technique of “mock, scoff and ridicule” in order to shame and humiliate people into emotional manipulation. It’s also known as “Gaslighting.”
Example: “It’s ludicrous, laughable and so obvious that you’re wrong.”
Example: “This is all just a bunch of misrepresentations. You people don’t understand Calvinism. You should first take the time to learn what it really means before criticizing something you clearly don’t understand. You just refuse to accept the sovereignty of God.”
Example: “Just say you don’t understand Reformed Theology and move along.”
In reality, Calvinists claim their views are being misrepresented often only when the fallacy behind them is clearly exposed and brought down to its basic level, such as Calvinism’s teaching that God is the author of whatsoever comes to pass, but is not the author of evil.
Consider the following rebuke by a Calvinist regarding alleged misrepresentations:
James White: “First, he confuses terms, such as salvation and regeneration. In most theological works, regeneration is a subset of the larger and broader term, salvation, which often includes within it justification, forgiveness, redemption, and adoption. Sometimes it can be used in a narrower sense, but in historical discussions of these issues, regeneration has a specific meaning that Mr. Hunt normally confuses.”575
What, then, might we conclude about “Mr. Hunt”? He doesn’t just “confuse” things, but he “normally” misrepresents matters. Maybe, then, he is incompetent, or worse, a deceiver. That appears to be the intention behind these subtle insults. Notice, however, how much worse it gets:
James White: “Dave Hunt’s fourth presentation is marked by shrill rhetoric, an incredible lack of understanding of the issues he has chosen to denounce, and a scattergun approach that presents a disjointed collage of false allegations against Reformed theology containing so many basic errors of fact and logic that one could fill a book with in-depth refutations. To say it is disappointing is a gross understatement. Mr. Hunt does not understand the issues before him. I, along with dozens of others, have attempted over the past couple of years to explain to him the large number of misapprehensions he has about the Reformed faith, but he has refused to listen. This chapter exhibits many of these mistaken assumptions in full color. But what should concern all serious readers is the fact that in his dogged attacks upon Calvinism, Hunt does not provide a coherent, thought-out alternative. In this chapter, Hunt derisively attacks God’s sovereign rulership over all things.”576
So, in this case, the Calvinist charge of misrepresentation is used for the darker purpose of character assassination. “Misapprehensions” with an “incredible lack of understanding” and “basic errors of fact” implies gross ignorance, while a “disjointed” collage of false allegations” implies gross incompetence. The implication of “dozens of others” who have “attempted over the past couple of years” to explain things implies gross incorrigibility. The accusation of derisively attacking “God’s sovereign rulership” implies gross irreverence. So, over alleged misrepresentations, the subject is scolded for being ignorant, incompetent, incorrigible and irreverent. That is the essence of “mock, scoff and ridicule” in order to shame and humiliate a person into intimidating emotional manipulation.
What do Calvinists believe?
Charles Spurgeon: “I recollect an Arminian brother telling me that he had read the Scriptures through a score or more times, and could never find the doctrine of election in them. He added that he was sure he would have done so if it had been there, for he read the Word on his knees. I said to him, ‘I think you read the Bible in a very uncomfortable posture, and if you had read it in your easy chair, you would have been more likely to understand it. Pray, by all means, and the more, the better, but it is a piece of superstition to think there is anything in the posture in which a man puts himself for reading: and as to reading through the Bible twenty times without having found anything about the doctrine of election, the wonder is that you found anything at all: you must have galloped through it at such a rate that you were not likely to have any intelligible idea of the meaning of the Scriptures.’”577
Our reply:
Again, the allegation by Calvinists that non-Calvinists do not “understand” is undergirded with mockery and insults, such as, “the wonder is that you found anything at all.” Atheists are well-known for talking so derisively, and it seems that Calvinists, in their dialogue with non-Calvinists, have adopted a similar posture as well.
____________________________
570 Exposition of the Doctrines of Grace, April 11, 1861, emphasis mine.
571 Jacob and Esau, paragraphs 18-20, January 16, 1859.
572 Braxton Hunter, S7E11: Atheists, Calvinists, and Open Theists – Oh My!, 3:52-4:03. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UFVPnzzjIU.
573 A simple disclaimer here. That was not a quote from the Bible, but only what an assembly of Calvinists composed. That is an important distinction because we need to recognize the difference between biblical inerrancy vs. fallible man’s interpretations.
574 Johnathan Pritchett, Does the Westminster Confession Really Explain Anything?, 17:55-19:28. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sX5CZt0org.
575 Debating Calvinism (Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Publishers, Inc., 2004), 305.
576 Ibid., 319.
577 Charles Spurgeon, A Defense of Calvinism. http://www.romans45.org/spurgeon/calvinis.htm.
[This post has been excerpted with permission from Richard Coords, Calvinism Answered Verse by Verse and Subject by Subject, © 2024.]
