Five bad arguments against calvinism

I enjoyed writing the other "Five bad arguments..." posts, so I thought I would write another one. When I first heard of Calvinism, I heard about it from a friend who really disliked the Calvinist theology. He seemed to know a lot about it, so I didn't put much thought into researching it myself. Well, one day I was bored on the internet and thought, "Why not look up Calvinism." At first, I was a little confused. To be more exact, the TULIP confused me; not total depravity (the "T" in the TULIP), but the rest of the arguments. Unconditional election? Limited atonement? Irresistible grace? Perseverance of the saints? Where did all of that come from? It couldn't have came from the bible.

I began to research the TULIP in scripture, read and listened to the ideas from teachers of Calvinism and found Calvin's ideas to be strongly supported by the Bible. I also read and listened to the opponents of Calvinism. I eventually learned, for myself, the opponents of Calvinism attack strawmen; they're not attacking Calvinism, they're attacking Hyper-Calvinism. No, hyper-Calvinism is not taking Calvinism to its logical conclusion, hyper-Calvinism is taking a theology, twisting and distorting it to it's own theology. What's annoying is to hear opponents of Calvinism attack hyper-Calvinism and say they're debunking Calvinism. So, this post will be my attempt to clear the room of smoke and possibly help Calvinism's opponents to stop attacking straw.

1. If God is sovereign, then there is no free will.

Not all opponents of Calvinism raise this objection, e.g. middle-knowledge folks, but many do raise this objection. I'm not sure why they do because Calvinists are not hardcore determinists. We do not think God causes everything to happen. When I pickup my cup of coffee for a drink, I don't think that was caused by God. My choosing to take a drink of coffee was a choice of my own free will. Now, some would say "I understand that. That's not why I object to Calvinism. If God is sovereign, guaranteeing certain outcomes in people's lives, then that is a violation of man's free will; that's why I object to Calvinism." I personally don't see the conflict and here's why: It doesn't follow that if God is in full control, then free acts aren't possible. Let me explain.

What we need to understand is how God guarantees outcomes in the lives of people, or, the relationship of God's omniscience and man's free will. The relationship is quite compatible. How does God know our choices? Are our choices made because in God's knowledge He sets in stone what will we do and then our carrying out of the action "appears" to us as a free choice? Or does God have knowledge of what we do because He foresaw our action? Maybe even, there is a middle option of all of the possibilities of our actions according to our personalities? How does it work? Let me lift an illustration from blogger Sam Harper:

1. Ethel will boil peas tomorrow.

2. Ethel will not boil peas tomorrow.

Regardless of which one happens to be true, the thing that makes it true is that it corresponds to what Ethel will actually do tomorrow. Let’s suppose that (1) is true. In that case, Ethel will boil peas tomorrow. Now we can form the following argument:

4. God knows (1) because it’s true.
5. (1) is true, because in reality Ethel will boil peas tomorrow.
6. Therefore, God knows (1) because Ethel will boil peas tomorrow.

Here is another good illustration given by Greg Koukl:

How would you catch a criminal who is on the run? Well, you'd think about where he might go, then you'd try to be there to intercept him. Now, if you had perfect knowledge--if you knew everything-- you'd not only know where he is at any given moment, but where he'll be at any moment in the future. You'd know exactly what time he'd arrive at any point along his entire route. 

Would you be able to catch a criminal if you knew the exact moves he was going to make? If you knew the things he was going to freely choose to do--and this is important--at any given point, would you be able to catch him? Sure you could. 

If you know he's going down a particular road and will come around a particular corner at a particular time, you could place your men there so that when he takes the route he freely chooses (though known by you), your men would be right there to nab him. You're in control the entire time--you're sovereign. You're able to be in control because you know every move he's going to freely make. Therefore, your plan can be perfectly executed, even though he's making his free choices. 

God knows enough about our free choices to carry out His sovereign plan. He does this without violating our free will.

2. If God chooses whom to save, then we are predetermined machines. 

"If God determines my salvation, then I have no free will at all! Either everything I do is a free choice, or nothing I do is a free choice!" That's another way to word the objection. I hear and read this objection a lot. "Calvinists view human beings as robots!" or "Calvinists view human beings as puppets!" Basically to our opponents, we are cold determinists, but that just isn't true. God determines one aspect of our lives, so we are mindless robots? It doesn't follow that since one part of our lives is determined then we are predetermined machines without a clue. We can do many things freely (as pointed out above). We freely choose to sin a lot (some more than others) and that makes us guilty. What does God do? He makes a choice to forgive and show grace for the sin we freely chose to commit.

If I may, let me borrow another excellent illustration from Greg Koukl (He's full of excellent illustrations).

If you owe me a million dollars and I choose to completely forgive the debt, how is your will violated? The debt is owed to me; it's on my side of the ledger. I can cancel it if I want. It may have a further impact on your life, that in canceling the debt you don't have to work for 20 years to pay it off. But it seems to me such an action grants you freedom, not bondage. 

Further, freedom usually has some limitations. Even a criminal in prison has a measure of freedom. Though some choices are restricted, it doesn't follow that he has no choices at all. In the same way, if God chooses us for forgiveness and salvation, it doesn't follow that we have become robots.

3. If God saves some, but not others, then God is responsible for sending the rest to hell.

Again, the conclusion doesn't follow. If God saves some and not the rest, it doesn't follow that he is responsible for causing the sin in their lives, thereby sending the rest to hell. Now, hyper-calvinists will tell you, yes, God does cause the sin in those who aren't saved and sends those who aren't saved to hell, which is not true. We are responsible for our own sin. If God chooses to save some and not others, it seems to me that he's entitled to such a decision because it's His choice, His mercy. Mercy is undeserved. People go to hell based on their own sin not because God created the sin in their souls and then damns them for eternity based on sin He created in them.

We've broken His law, we're in deep trouble; all of us. Those who are punished are punished justly because they are guilty. Some receive forgiveness, but not all. Why are some forgiven and not all? It's a mystery, but those who are forgiven are not forgiven in an arbitrary or capricious manner.  

Now, we do have to ask: Does God love everybody? Or as Michael Horton asks, "Does God only love the elect, and fatten the wicked for slaughter as some hyper-Calvinists have argued?" Horton then goes on to answer his own question:

"Scripture is full of examples of God’s providential goodness, particularly in the Psalms: “The Lord is good to all, and his mercy is over all that he has made …. You open your hand; you satisfy the desire of every living thing” (Ps. 145:9, 16). Jesus calls upon His followers to pray for their enemies for just this reason: “For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matt. 5:44). Christians are supposed to imitate this divine attitude.

The doctrine we are talking about has come to be called “common grace,” in distinction from “saving grace.” Some have objected to this term (some even to the concept), insisting that there is nothing common about grace: there is only one kind of grace, which is sovereign, electing grace. However, it must be said that whatever kindness God shows to anyone for any reason after the fall, can only be regarded as gracious. Once again, we face two guardrails that we dare not transgress: God acts graciously to save the elect and also to sustain the non-elect and cause them to flourish in this mortal life. While it is among the sweetest consolations for believers, election is not the whole story of God’s dealing with this world.

When we, as Christians, affirm common grace, we take this world seriously in all of its sinfulness as well as in all of its goodness as created and sustained by God. We see Christ as the mediator of saving grace to the elect but also of God’s general blessings to a world that is under the curse. Thus, unbelievers can even enrich the lives of believers. John Calvin pleads against the fanaticism that would forbid all secular influence on Christians, concluding that when we disparage the truth, goodness, and beauty found among unbelievers, we are heaping contempt on the Holy Spirit Himself who bestows such gifts of His common grace (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.2.15)."

Horton's full article can be read here.

Now, there is another answer to this objection as well, (it's not the Calvinist answer), but I don't think it's entirely incompatible with Calvinism. See "middle knowledge."

4. God wills all men to be saved, yet Calvinists say God only wills the elect to be saved.

Yes, on the surface, there seems to be a contradiction, especially after reading such texts as 2 Peter 3:9 and Matthew 23: 37, one would come to the conclusion that there is a contradiction given Calvinism. This poses a problem for Calvinism, doesn't it? If God wills all men to be saved, but only the elect are saved, then something isn't right. Shouldn't all men be saved? This isn't only a problem for Calvinists, this is a problem for all Christians. Why is it a problem for all Christians? Well, because the Bible seems to indicate all are willed to be saved.

Fortunately, there is an answer. It may be a little confusing for some on first reading. Rather than try to explain it myself in detail I'll reference Greg Koukl and others from time to time. The answer is that there are two aspects to God's will: His moral will (what he merely desires, but doesn't come to pass, e.g., salvation for everyone) and His sovereign will (that which He purposes and always happens). Greg Koukl describes this well:

"Two wills of God. Moral will and sovereign will. Moral will entails all those things God wants us to do, yet we may disobey. God wants us to be saved, yet many are not. God wanted Israel to turn to Jesus, yet most did not. God wants all kinds of things of His people--He wills those things--but they don't come to pass. There's a sense of God's will that can be violated. 

Yet, at the same time, there are other things which are clearly stated about God's will that He intends actually come to pass. We see some of those details in the book of Daniel, and this is why Daniel makes the statement that God's will, in this sense, cannot be violated. Daniel's statements can only be sound if we're talking about a different aspect of God's will. If we're not talking about a different will, then we have a contradiction. 

If you reject the notion that there are two aspects of God's will-- sovereign and moral--and don't want to concede the obvious contradiction, you have one of two choices. Either all of God's will is moral, or all of God's will is sovereign. 

If you choose the first option, that there is only one aspect of God's will--the moral aspect--which can be broken by our free choices, then it's hard to see how God can have ultimate and sovereign control over human history if our choice is the deciding factor. You might take refuge in the element of God's omniscience, as I mentioned above. I think that explains some things, but I think the full sense of God's sovereignty entails more than just incorrigible anticipation of our moves." 

Greg doesn't say this, but I will, he then goes on to describe Hyper-Calvinism, not Calvinism folks, Hyper-Calvinism.

"If, on the other hand, God's sovereign will is the only concept taught in Scripture, then there can be no immorality. Everything we do is something that He, as the primary and sufficient cause, irrevocably ordains. We don't choose to disobey His moral will; we're just doing what God has already caused us to do. This would make God the direct author of evil." 

I think it's clear that there are two wills or two aspects to God's will. This fourth objection is defeated, I think, by this answer because the two alternatives do not make sense of humans and their relationship with God. If God's will is all sovereign (as hyper-calvinists declare) then we would not be responsible for our sin, we could not disobey God, morality would be illusory. On the other hand if God's will is totally moral, then scripture wouldn't make sense at all. God wouldn't have any control and things would be in chaos because He would be totally dependent on His creation; that also doesn't make sense. There's a moral will and a sovereign will.

5. Calvinists shouldn't evangelize. That's a contradiction. 

If those who are saved are predestined to salvation, then why evangelize? Why is evangelism important to Calvinists? First, God has told us to evangelize in the Bible, so firstly, we evangelize because God has told us to do so. Second, God works through secondary causes (us) to regenerate hearts. It might be a process of months of dialoguing with someone over God, science, and philosophy, then one day the person finally realizes Jehovah God exists, God did raise Jesus from the dead, and the plan revealed in the Bible is true. For others, it could be hearing a message given by a pastor in a church on a Sunday. Still others, it could be hearing a lecture on TV or radio. We don't know when, how, or where a person will hear the gospel, but for the Calvinist we do know God will save the person and it's our job to deliver the gospel and to give a defense for the truth claims of Christianity. 

Also, Charles Spurgeon was asked since he believed in election, why preach? Why do you care about spreading the gospel? He said if you can lift up a person's shirt and see an 'E' stamped on their back standing for elect then he won't preach. We don't know who is elect and we don't know the means God will use to reveal the gospel to the elect. 

There you have it folks. This is my take on the five bad arguments against Calvinism. This post is in now way a clear-cut, end-all arguments post, but I do hope it shows why some arguments against Calvinism are weak and better at attacking strawmen than actual Calvinism.

Related posts

For further study I suggest you read Greg Koukl's article "Bad arguments against Calvinism," which is where my excerpt's of Koukl came from for this post. 

Check out the post "Is divine election fair?" and "Does Calvinism produce a God who is a moral monster?"

Check out the discussion over Calvinism between Michael Horton and Roger Olson here.

Edit: After reading over this post again, I realized I didn't clarify some things in point number 3. I left out that hyper-calvinists hold that God creates the evil in the reprobates' souls. 

Five bad arguments for theism

Last week, I wrote a post about five bad arguments against theism. Today, I'll cover five bad arguments for theism. The arguments I'm covering are mainly from the street theists. The theists most atheists encounter in their daily lives, you know, the ones that simply say, "Hey, religion helps me," or the famous, "Ya gotta' have faith," like the song by George Michael (or that's what I think of every time I hear someone say that). The problem with that kind of approach is not that folks shouldn't say those things to non-theists. The problem occurs when you use those statements as reasons for proof of God's existence. Not once did I take, "ya just gotta have faith" as a valid reason for believing in God when I wasn't a Christian. To me, it was a cop-out. 

So here are, in my opinion, the top five bad arguments for theism. 

1. Ya Gotta' Have Faith 

I'm never quite sure if the person that uses this reasoning for his belief truly believes you just got to have faith or if he simply doesn't have good reason for his holding theism. If the former, then he doesn't have a proper understanding of faith. If the latter, then the person probably doesn't care about reason and probably thinks it's wrong to have reasonable faith. Telling an unbeliever that you just need faith is foolish. Does the person expect the conversation to go like this: "Sir, how do you know God exists?" she asks the theist. "Well, you must have faith, that's how you know," he answers. "Oh, wow! I never thought of it like that before! Sir, count me in the theist camp!" she exclaims. 

That is not how it goes. In reality, she would dismiss him entirely and most likely theism all together. I did. Growing up, that's all I heard was that I just needed faith and then I would know God exists. Faith is not blind. Faith is not wishing. Faith is actually rational and reasonable. I know I use Greg Koukl's resources a lot, but hey, they're great resources! Check out the following resources to properly understand faith.

Faith and Facts article by Greg Koukl

Faith and Wishing article by Greg Koukl

What does the bible mean when it uses the word "faith"? by Wintery Knight

2. Theism Helps Me

This reasoning shoots you in the foot. When you talk to unbeliever about Christianity or theism in general, you don't want to use the phrase, "Well, it helps me," I know the phrase is meant to show the benefits of theism and not "shove" theism down the throat of your listener, but the reasoning has many faults. 

A) You slip into relativism. 

When you say, "It helps me," you're actually slipping into a "true for me, not for you" argument without realizing it. You're not arguing for God at all, you're actually proving the relativist's point of "if it helps you, great. It doesn't help me, so I don't need it." 

B) You make theism a crutch 

The "It helps me" reasoning makes theism a crutch instead of a truth finally acknowledged, which is great ammunition for those that say religion is the opiate of the masses. It's for the weak and the downtrodden and not for the strong they say and you're telling them, unknowingly, that they're correct in thinking that. Theism is not a crutch at all. My life would be much easier if wasn't a theist, however, I can't ignore the evidence for it. 

Using this reasoning will not get you anywhere with a clear thinking atheist or skeptic. Honestly, it won't get you anywhere with me either. If this is all you have for your belief in God, what will you do when it's not "helping" you anymore? When I'm at my darkest, at my lowest, knowing Jesus' resurrection actually happened is a great asset to my discipleship. It's not a crutch or blind faith; it's knowledge that is beneficial to my life. If all I had was blind faith and a crutch, then I wouldn't be a Christian. What would be the point?

Resources

Relativism mp3 by Paul Copan

True for you, not for me article by Paul Copan

3. You'll Go To Hell 

So since he won't believe you about the existence of God, then you sentence him to hell? That's classy. If the non-theist isn't going to believe in God, how do you expect him to believe in hell? If he doesn't hear you when you're telling him about God, he is not going to hear you when you tell him about hell. Further, even if you do manage to scare him enough into believing a hell exists, what happens when the fear wears off (it will)? Please don't use this argument. It will not stick. 

Also, the non-theist probably already has a low-view of God, hell will only strengthen that low-view. Using hell will not convert the thinking atheist. Hell won't even stick on the emotionally driven atheist. This is a bad argument. 

4. Prove God Doesn't Exist

This is another bad argument for theism. Why? The reason is because God isn't falsifiable. He can't be tested in a lab or studied under a microscope. This is scratching frantically at the bottom of the idea bucket to try and show the atheist how dumb she is when actually she isn't. The atheist knows she can't prove God doesn't exist and she isn't trying. She wants good reason for believing in God (there are good reasons, this isn't a good reason) and she wants to be taken seriously. Using this argument is not taking her seriously. Throw it away theist! Throw it away!

5. Pascal's Wager

I know some may disagree with me on this, but I have to list Pascal's Wager. If you're unfamiliar with the argument, it goes like this: a person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose. Pascal also stated that even though some are unable to believe, they should live as if they did believe, which may lead them to belief. At the time, his wager was groundbreaking, but it's not without problems. 

I've heard some atheists and skeptics say that if they lived their life as though God did exist, somehow manage to find that He doesn't, what about all of the wasted time put into belief in God? I know it's not a strong case against Pascal's wager, however I can't help myself from understanding the rebuttal. This is a problem, because if God doesn't exist, then you could have lived your life the way you wanted instead of the way God wanted. 

There are also other problems with the wager, e.g., argument from inconsistent revelations, assumption that one can choose belief, and others. It should be said, in Pascal's defense, he was not trying to prove God's existence by his wager philosophy. 

Those are the top five bad arguments for theism, in my opinion, and I hope that I've put a stone in your shoe with this post. There are good reasons for believing in God. You don't have to resort your belief to one of the five mentioned above. Faith is not blind, God is not a crutch, fear of hell does not produce a firm foundation, trying to get someone to falsify God will not cause them to hold theism as true, and Pascal's Wager only brings criticism. You may ask now, what are the good reasons? Click here to learn.

Five bad arguments against theism

*Don't forget to also read the accompanying post titled, Five Bad Arguments for Theism. 

In this post I'm going to list the top five worst arguments against theism; arguments I've heard in debates (professional and lay-level) that I think are simply not reasonable enough to not hold theism. What I want to make clear here in the beginning is I don't think a person is stupid for using these arguments. I'm not intending for this post to read like an insult to anyone that uses the arguments. I'm simply voicing why I find the arguments to be the worst of the bunch. I'm also going to write a post about the worst arguments against atheism; so atheists, skeptics, etc. don't think I'm not fair.

1. Hating God. 

The argument goes something like this 1) I hate god 2) therefore, god does not exist. Come on. Not liking something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. This is not a valid reason for disbelief; either God exists or He doesn't, it's not up to whether we believe it or not. Plus, how can you hate something that doesn't exist? This argument violates the law of non-contradiction. 

2. Hypocritical Christianity 

This isn't an argument that professional debating atheists will use (I haven't heard any use it anyway), but atheists "on the street" use. Christians are hypocritical so God cannot exist. This argument is bad because 1) it doesn't follow that God doesn't exist because some Christians are hypocritical and 2) you can't base something's existence, character, etc. on the character of it's followers. Even if all of the Christians in the world and in history were hypocritical, didn't follow God's commands, do you really think that would make God non-existent? God's existence isn't dependent on the actions of His children. 

This argument is contradictory like the argument "Hating God." You must acknowledge the existence of God to use the argument. Let me explain. If you say Christians are hypocritical, therefore God does not exist; where are you getting the standard for how Christians should act? Are you not acknowledging God's standard for living in the process of judging the character of His children? If you are acknowledging God's standard then you must acknowledge His existence I would think. Either way, the person that uses this is simply finding a reason to not believe in something he or she doesn't like, which doesn't disprove the existence of the thing not liked. All this argument is good for is for not attending church, which can be understandable. However, not all churches are hypocritical. 

3. Euthyphro's Dilemma

This "dilemma" has been answered time and again, yet it still resurfaces (kind of like Pascal's wager, not sure why theists use that anymore) like a bad case of ants. You think the ants are gone then BAM you see one again. This is a bad argument because it's not a dilemma at all. There aren't only two answers to the dilemma there are actually more. Many atheists stand behind this argument, I cannot imagine why when the dilemma is not a true dilemma. 

See my posts on Euthyphro's Dilemma and the answers to it by clicking here.

4. Problem of evil 

Atheists stand behind this argument very proudly too. The problem of evil argument is stated something like this 1) If God was really good, He would want to get rid of all evil. 2) If God was really powerful, He would be capable of getting rid of all evil. 3)Since we do have evil, either your God is not good or He is not powerful, either of which sends the knockout punch to the one professing the existence of God. My quick response is that this has nothing to do with God's goodness, power, or existence. This argument doesn't destroy God or Christianity. Like Greg Koukl says, "It wasn't a problem of power that there is evil. And it wasn't a problem of goodness, that there is evil. And in fact, goodness requires evil and power doesn't have anything to do with getting rid of it." 

There is a four-step process (thanks Koukl) for answering the problem of evil. 1) People ought to be allowed to choose between moral alternatives. 2) It's a good thing that we have the freedom to make moral choices. 3) It's part of the nature of moral freedom to be able to choose between good and evil. 4) Raw power cannot make it possible for a morally free being to only choose good. Having genuine moral freedom means you might choose evil and having moral freedom is a good thing. 

More on this four step response by clicking here to read Greg Koukl's article Sixty Second Theodicy.  

5. Multiple Religions 

The argument is that since there are multiple religions then God, or at least the Christian God, cannot exist because of the varieties of gods created by man. It doesn't follow that God doesn't exist because there are multiple religions. There are multiple hypotheses on the mechanisms for evolution. Does that mean evolution isn't fact? Of course not. There are multiple views on aesthetics, yet that doesn't mean there is no art. You see where I'm going with this. Since there are many religions, does that mean God doesn't exist? Not at all. 

These arguments raised against theism I find wanting. I don't mean at all that these are stupid or irrelevant claims raised against theism. What I mean is that these objections do not go very far when analyzed. Many people think some of these are end-all arguments and that's simply not true. When thought over, one can see that these objections fail.

Check out my post about five bad arguments for theism.