A Brief Response to the Self-Proclaimed “Destroyer of Calvinism”

After discovering yet another “refutation of Calvinism” on Twitter yesterday, I felt compelled to respond, and thus I shall. I am hoping to make this “short and sweet”. The video, in which the “refutation” is presented, is very brief, and only amounts to one paragraph of text. I will type up a full transcript of the video, thus making it much easier to critique and respond to. Click here to watch the video. Below is a transcript of the video.

“Destroying Calvinism in less than one minute. If Calvinism is true and people are predestined by God to believe what they believe, then no can prove anything and anyone who changes their mind about something is predestined by God to change. And this would apply to everyone including Calvinists themselves. Therefore if Calvinism were true, we would never be able to verify that it is true. As a result, Calvinists are like naturalists and evolutionists. They both argue from a self-undermining worldview that can never be rationally justified.”

If you are like me, you are probably scratching your head right now. This 40 second clip of incoherent rambling amounts to, supposedly, the “destruction” of Calvinism? Throw away all of your books, burn the creeds and confessions, dismiss the history of Christianity, we have just witnessed the downfall of Calvinism (*sarcasm*). I will break this down, thought for thought, as best as I can. It is quite difficult to follow the argument due to its lack of cogency, but we will try.

“Destroying Calvinism in less than one minute. If Calvinism is true and people are predestined by God to believe what they believe, then no can prove anything and anyone who changes their mind about something is predestined by God to change.

This first portion, perhaps, is the most incoherent of all. To illustrate this, we need to break this down even further. First, “…if Calvinism is true…” (Premise A) is least significant, as it is not pertinent to the drawn conclusion. The main premise (Premise B), “…[if] people are predestined by God to believe what they believe…”, is the key component in this somewhat unusual attempt at deductive reasoning (perhaps, hypothetical syllogism ???) . The conclusion (C) is, “…then no can prove anything…”. Somehow, the author concludes that, if [hypothetically] A + B is true, then C is necessarily true, or, [hypothetical] (if) + [hypothetical] (if) =  [by necessity] (then). The question is, how in the world does the author draw such a conclusion from the stated premises? There is no elaboration on the implied argument of, “If our beliefs are predestined, then we cannot prove anything.” The author makes no attempt, at all, to demonstrate the supposed veracity of these mere assertions (which is truly all they amount to). Furthermore, the author adds, “…and anyone who changes their mind about something is predestined by God to change…”, but this is truly irrelevant to the main point of this argument. A change in one’s belief system has nothing to do with the ability (or inability) to prove the beliefs’ validity through one source or another. In reality, this portion of the argument amounts to nothing more than baseless assertions, lacking even the slightest attempt at substantiation. This is a classic example of a non sequitur fallacy. The conclusion is not, by any means, corroborated by the premises, and there is no elaboration on the alleged necessity of the stated conclusion.

“And this would apply to everyone including Calvinists themselves.”

Yes, this would apply to everyone, including Calvinists, if the stated conclusion is true (we will examine this closer in the next section).

“Therefore if Calvinism were true, we would never be able to verify that it is true.”

Viewing this as a separate conclusion to the first illustration, we must dismiss this as a begging the question fallacy. The author presupposes the validity of his first conclusion (“If Calvinism is true and people are predestined by God to believe what they believe, then no can prove anything…”), and then erroneously applies this presupposed validity to a newly introduced conclusion. This is faulty logic, to say the least. The author must first demonstrate the validity of the first conclusion before citing it as the means by which his second conclusion is validated. Ironically, the author claimed it would be impossible for me to respond to this article without “begging the question”*** (see below), yet this is precisely what we find when we examine this argument.

***The author claimed “genuine free will” is required for “free thinking”, and thus argues that, in order for me to respond, I must presuppose “genuine free will” and “free thinking” (as defined by the author, of course). This is fallacious on many accounts, namely it suggests that one is (in the author’s view) inherently aware of the ability to exercise “genuine free will”. I do not wish to get too detailed with this. However, if I have the desire to respond, and if I will to respond, then I can respond in accordance with my will. This is the exercising of my will, and is not, by any means, in opposition to Calvinism, or more specifically, compatibilism. The author’s assertions do not amount to forceful argumentation.***

“As a result, Calvinists are like naturalists and evolutionists. They both argue from a self-undermining worldview that can never be rationally justified.”This, again, assumes the stated conclusions are valid, which would not be an issue (per se) if the author had taken the time to illustrate the alleged connection between the premises and the conclusions. The irony of this statement is the author’s endorsement of street apologist Sye Ten Bruggencate, who is a Calvinist. Furthermore, the author seemingly adheres to presuppositional apologetics, which is dominated, both historically and currently, by Calvinistic apologists. It is the presuppositional methodology that (in my opinion) most adequately exposes the “self-undermining worldview” of naturalists and evolutionists by proving the inability of the naturalistic worldview to account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws, such as the laws of logic. Dr. Greg Bahnsen (also a Calvinist), brilliantly illustrated the naturalist’s dilemma when he applied the transcendental argument in a debate with (atheist) Dr. Gordon Stein. Click here to watch this debate. Thus, these unfounded conclusions are even more confusing in light of the author’s implied usage of presuppositional apologetics, given its rich Calvinistic history.

---

After watching this video, I sought to engage the author in hopes of obtaining a clearer view of his/her position. Though I gained some clarity, it was quite difficult to get a “straight answer” from the author. At one point, the author tweeted, “Isn’t it a fact that if our beliefs are predestined/predetermined, nobody can prove anything? LOL”. This is the precise assumption the author insists on making throughout the video. The supposed factual basis of this notion is never illustrated, nor is it even argued for; rather, it is merely assumed. This, my friends, is not an example of sound, logical argumentation. Nonetheless, the author is brazenly arrogant in declaring this so-called “destruction” of Calvinism, as illustrated by the “LOL” following the previous statement. This is quite difficult to understand given the argument presented in this video. Essentially, it is equivalent to me saying, “This video is wrong”, and declaring victory. If anyone were to question me, I would boastfully pose the question, “Isn’t it a fact that this video is wrong? LOL”.

I do not intend on venturing into the realm of defining and defending compatibilism at this present time. It would be fruitless to do so. Brilliant minds of the past (and present) have already settled the logical consistency found in the relationship between the sovereignty of God and the free agency of man. Click here if you would like to read a wonderful article on the subject. The bottom line is that the Bible is the unchanging source of truth, and it is the highest standard by which we measure truth. Calvinists appeal to the Bible for the declaration and defense of Calvinism. Click here for a detailed list of Biblical support for T.U.L.I.P. Calvinism does not need liberation from secularist claims of alleged philosophical inconsistency. Reformed Theology rests on the foundation of “What saith the Scriptures?”.

“What God reveals in His Book we accept. We bow to the authority of Holy Scripture. We come to the Word of God, to be taught. However unpleasing to the natural mind the revealed truth of God may be, we acknowledge its supreme rulership. Our task is not to question, our duty is rather to accept and obey.” ~Ian Paisley~

In conclusion, the author’s attempt to “disprove” Calvinism (namely on philosophical grounds) is proven to fail to stand against scrutiny. The ridiculous claim of, “Destroying Calvinism”, is unfounded, unsupported, and unworthy of acceptance. This video has done nothing to advance the ranks of the non-Calvinist attacks against the grand truths of Holy Writ. This is yet another example of how the articles/videos that obnoxiously claim to “destroy Calvinism” or “totally refute Calvinism”, are typically the worst attempts at doing so.

“In all this opposition to the absolute will of God, we see the self-will of the last days manifesting itself. Man wanted to be a god at the first, and he continues the struggle to the last. He is resolved that his will shall take the precedence of God’s. In the last Antichrist, this self-will shall be summed up and manifested. He is the king, that is, to do “according to his will.” And in the free-will controversy of the day, we see the same spirit displayed. It is Antichrist that is speaking to us, and exhorting us to proud independence. Self-will is the essence of anti-christianism. Self-will is the root of bitterness, that is springing up in the churches in these days. And it is not from above, it is from beneath. It is earthly, sensual, devilish” ~Horatius Bonar~

***Interestingly, the author admits to favoring open theism, which (if understood correctly) explains a whole lot concerning the argument found in this video. The theological and philosophical implications of open theism are horrendously dangerous to Christianity, as demonstrated by theological stalwarts such as Dr. John Frame, John Piper, and Bruce Ware, as well as many others. It is my prayer that the author will forsake open theism.***

Thank you for taking the time to read this blog. I hope it has been helpful to you.

SOLI DEO GLORIA