Printer Friendly Version

Particulars of Christianity:
307 Free Will and Calvinism


Calvinism and Logical Fallacies (Part 2)

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



The second logical fallacy that Calvinism makes is called Complex Cause. Complex Cause is part of a category of logical fallacies called Causal Fallacies. Causal Fallacies obviously deal with the relationship of Cause and Effect. The fallacy of Complex Cause occurs when one factor is assumed to be the only factor causing a particular effect when in reality there is more than one factor responsible for that effect.

Certainly there are an ample number of scripture verses, which focus on God's role in determining who will be saved. Calvinists look at these passages and correctly identify God as a cause for who will be saved. However, where they err is by assuming that this is the only cause. Therefore, they set about the task of negating the vast number of passages describing the role of man in determining his salvation.

This gets back to what we spoke of earlier. The books of the Bible were not written with precise logical statements in view. The Bible was written in the language of everyday speech. Keeping in mind our examples about Dave and Fred, let's read the following Bible passages describing God's choice in salvation.

Ephesians 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

Ephesians 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

(For an in depth look at the logical fallacies Calvinists apply to phrases like "Gods own will," please visit the article titled "Romans 9: God's Irresistible Will?" in our In Depth Studies section.)

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

In these passages, the word "predestinate" is defined as follows from the original Greek.

4309 proorizo pro-or-id’-zo
from 4253 and 3724; TDNT-5:456,728; v
AV-predestinate 4, determine before 1, ordain 1; 6
1) to predetermine, decide beforehand
2) in the NT of God decreeing from eternity
3) to foreordain, appoint beforehand

(For a more comprehensive evaluation of the implications of the word "predestined" please visit our article titled, "The English Word Predestined.")

We should note the fact that just because God determines who will be saved beforehand does not mean that God alone determines this. Because of God's foreknowledge (which we will get to shortly), the timeframe of when God made his determination has nothing to do with whether or not He is the sole determining factor. Logically speaking these two elements are unrelated and by assuming that they are Calvinists commit another logical fallacy known as non sequitur. Non sequitur occurs when the premise does not lead to the conclusion.

For example, for a bill to become law in America, it must first be passed by both houses of Congress. Then it must be signed by the President. Both Congress and the President act as two independent factors when determining if a bill will become a law. Just because the Congress makes its determination days or weeks or months ahead of when the President makes his decision does not mean that the President has no part in the determination process.

That is because timing has nothing to do with the number of determining factors. In other words, causal factors do not have to occur simultaneously. One can occur earlier in time than another and still maintain the independence of the latter factor.

Calvinists believe that simply because God made his determination in advance that there is no possibility of another factor in the determination process. Neither logic nor these two verses leads to any such claim.

As we read these passages we should recognize that they are not written in logically precise structure. They are written in the language of common, everyday speech. Therefore, we do not see anything that indicates "God and only God." So, while we know that God determines who will be the elect, the structure and language of these passages does not make the claim that Calvinists insist it does. The structure and language of these passages does not claim that God and only God determines who will be the elect.

Calvinists want us to believe that if man can choose to accept or reject God's offer of salvation that somehow God is no longer predestining us according to his good pleasure. This is an assumption. Just because some reject God's offer does not mean he was not pleased to determine salvation for those who would accept. To assert as Calvinists do that God's good pleasure negates man's ability to choose is yet another example of a non sequitur argument.

Calvinists read these passages and believe they have their proof texts for two reasons. First, these passages absolutely attest that God predetermined who would be saved according to his own will and he did so before any man had ever done right or wrong. Second, they rely on the two logical fallacies mentioned above.

We have already talked about the first of these fallacies in part one. Having committed the fallacy of False Dilemma, Calvinists assume that only one party, either God or man can determine who is saved. So, because they have found proof that God determined who would be saved they conclude that man has no part in determining this. Therefore, they ignore the third option, that both may have a part in the determination process. And so Calvinists commit the logical fallacy of False Dilemma.

The second logical fallacy is closely related. Having found one causal factor for who will be saved, the Calvinists commit the fallacy of Complex Cause by assuming that the factor they have found is the only factor. Therefore, Calvinists overlook and resist the possibility that there is a Complex Cause with more than one factor, namely that both God and man play a part in determining who will be saved.

Calvinists assume that because God determined who would be saved before man ever made any choice that he did it without regard for man's choices. They assume that because man's choices came after God's choice, they were not a factor in the decision he made.

Now if we were talking about men this would have to be the case solely because man has no capability to take into account things that have not happened yet. Men make determinations based on what they can see. We can see what happened in the past. We can see what is happening in our present. But we cannot see what will happen in future. And so, the choices we make will have to be based on things in our past or present.

But God is not limited in this capacity. Past, present, and future are all the same to God. From his vantage point, God sees all things past, present, and future and so he is able to take into account events that have not yet happened when he makes a decision. In fact, Roman 8:29 and I Peter 1:2 tell us this is exactly what happened.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Romans 11:2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,

1 Peter 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

Calvinists assume that because God determined something before an event, He therefore must have determined it without regard for that event. There is no reason to assume this relationship and, in fact, the incorporation of foreknowledge into the equation indicates that this Calvinist assumption is unequivocally dead wrong.

Together these three verses tell us that even though God determined who would be saved before any man made any choice, He did so according to his foreknowledge. But if God was employing His foreknowledge in the process of making this decision that means He was taking into consideration future events that had not yet happened. In other words, God made this determination ahead of time, not because He was not taking into account men's choices but in order to glorify himself by displaying His omniscience through His foreknowledge.

By making this assumption Calvinists have committed a third logical fallacy known as Wrong Direction. Wrong Direction is another Causal Fallacy wherein the direction between cause and effect is reversed. Calvinists assume that a man's acceptance or rejection of God is determined by God's selection before time began. In reality, God's selection beforehand was made with man's future rejection or acceptance in full view. Therefore, the Calvinists have reversed the cause effect relationship and committed a third logical fallacy, the fallacy of Wrong Direction.

There is more to the Calvinist theory that needs to be addressed. There are other key verses that need to be examined and other arguments that need to be assessed. For an analysis of these other aspects and Bible passages please visit our other articles on the topic of Calvinism.