Printer Friendly Version

Particulars of Christianity:
307 Free Will and Calvinism


Calvinism and Logical Fallacies (Part 1)

Calvinism and Logical Fallacies (Part 1)
Calvinism and Logical Fallacies (Part 2)
Romans 9: God's Irresistible Will?
The English Word Predestined
Freewill Belief: Is It a Saving Work?
John Calvin: His Life in Geneva
John Wesley Defines The Issues
What Does It Mean to be Spiritually Dead?
"Dead IN Sin" vs. "Dead TO Sin"
The Apostolic Origins of Freewill Doctrine
Isaiah 64:6: Are Man's Best Efforts at Righteousness Filthy Rags?
Illustrating How Freewill Works



In this study we will examine the logical fallacies that create the Calvinist doctrine. Before we begin it is important to go through a few short exercises in the way language conveys meaning, particularly claims of exclusivity. This will become quite significant as we evaluate the main claims of Calvinism.

Let's begin by taking a quick look at a series of short statements. The point of this exercise is to identify the logical claims in everyday English sentences. In each of the following sets we will find two very similar sentences. At first glance the two sentences will appear very similar. The first sentence in each set is written as it might be heard in everyday English. The second sentence is written using a more precisely logical structure.

Set 1.
1. Dave paid for Dinner.
2. Dave and only Dave paid for dinner.

Set 2.
1. Fred drives a car.
2. Fred and only Fred drives a car.

What is the difference between these two sets of statements? In Set 1 we would assume that the first statement is equivalent to the second. In other words, if we hear "Dave paid for dinner," we assume just from the context that "Dave and only Dave paid for dinner." We naturally assume that Dave was the sole party that paid for dinner.

In Set 2, we would assume that the first and second statements are not equivalent. If we hear, "Fred drives a car," we would not assume that "Fred and only Fred drives a car." What makes the difference between the first and second sets? The context and the sentence structure make the difference. From the content we make certain assumptions about the logical claims made in common language. This is very essential to any study and particularly to Calvinism.

When studying logic one of the first things a person will learn is that there is a difference between how statements are phrased in everyday speech and how they are structured for the purposes of logical evaluation. When determining the logic of an argument, statements have to be constructed using very precise and particular grammar and wording.

The first sentence in each set is worded in everyday speech and as such does not specify whether or not other people perform the activity. The second sentence in both of the above sets is more logically precise. The use of the phrase "and only" in both the second sentences rules out that anyone else other than the subject is performing the action. This will become significant as we study Calvinism's proof texts.

Of course, everyday speech is not primarily concerned with making precise logical statements. We use things like context to fill in the blanks. Like everyday speech, the Bible is not written as a series of precise logical statements. This is because the Bible was written in the everyday speech of the human authors. Fortunately we have the rest of the Bible as a context filled with other related statements.

Let's look again our examples only this time not in isolation. Suppose these sentences occurred in the middle of a paragraph or a short story. Perhaps later in the short story we see another statement that says, "Fred's brother also drives a car," or "Dave and Don always took turns paying for meals." Additional statements also help us to figure out exactly what logical claim is being made in a given statement.

This is true with causal statements as well. In everyday speech, we make causal statements all the time without being aware of the specific (or unspecific) logical claims being made by the structure or grammar. Imagine that Dave's friends knew him as a guy who frequently skipped out on the check. Perhaps the statement, "Dave paid for dinner," occurs in the context of the following conversation between his two friends.

Paul: I went out to eat with Dave the other day.
Tom: Oh really. Did you have to pay for his share again?
Paul: No, Dave paid for dinner.

The other statements have completely changed the meaning of our original statement. When we view "Dave paid for dinner," by itself we assume that Dave took his friends out for dinner. When we view the same statement in the context of this conversation, we know that Dave really only paid for his share.

Now that we understand how everyday speech deals with exclusive claims, we can use that in the study of Calvinism and freewill.

Although there is more than one version of modern Calvinism, the bare bones of the theory can be boiled down to three statements.

1. Sinful man is incapable of choosing to repent and obey God.
2. God and only God determines which people will be saved.
3. Men cannot resist God's choice in this matter.

Notice the precise rendering of statement 2. We could have said "God determines" instead of "God and only God determines." This one small grammatical difference embodies a very large part of the argument between Calvinists and those who disagree with them. Both sides of this debate believe that God determines who is saved, but Calvinists believe that God and only God determines this.

Calvinism asserts that only one party determines our salvation. Because Calvinists believe that any part of man in the determination process negates the sovereignty of God, they frame the issue as either man or God, not both. As such, Calvinists choose God and believe their opponents have chosen man. By taking this viewpoint, Calvinists make two logical fallacies.

First by framing the dispute as an either/or scenario (either God or man), the Calvinist commits the fallacy of False Dilemma, also known as the Either/Or Fallacy. This fallacy is part of a category of logical fallacies referred to as Fallacies of Distraction. The False Dilemma fallacy occurs when:

A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while in reality there are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use of the "or" operator. You assume that taking a certain viewpoint or course of action will result in one of two diametrically opposed outcomes (no other outcomes possible).

What Calvinists want to rule out is a third option, the option that both God and man play a role in determining who will be saved.