Calvin's Contradictions (simplified)
In the comment section of a Soteriology 101 post - Flowers Man Bad - someone (Simon Peter) was defending John Calvin, quoting him as saying "the gate of salvation is open to all," making it sound like he thought Calvin really taught that salvation is truly available for all and possible for all.
I replied that Calvin contradicts himself in his writing, and so I wouldn't believe what he said in one place because he would contradict it or qualify it or add another layer to it in another place, changing what he originally said.
Simon Peter replied: "A sign of being a great scholar is the ability to change one’s mind and improve one’s system of thought. Calvin had that ability, as did Luther and many other great theologians. In this light I would ask you to demonstrate the alleged contradictions from Calvin’s writings?"
I'm guessing he thought that I made a baseless, ignorant comment, that I didn't have anything to back me up.
And so I pulled up an old post I wrote - "Some of Calvin's Contradicting Nonsense" - and, after simplifying it, I shared it with him. These are contradictions in Calvin's writing from one book, one time in his life, not contradictions over years as he grew and learned more. (For the record, I only read through the early part of Calvin's Institutes Book 2 because that's all I could stomach. If I ever go back to finish it - gag me! - I'm sure I'll find a lot more contradictions.)
And so for your reading pleasure, here's the new, shorter, just-the-bottom-line version, with a few extra things thrown in (if you want all the rambling and side-notes and links to Calvin's work, see the original):
One of the big problems I have with John Calvin's theology (with Calvinism) is that he contradicts himself. Honestly, I had almost no problems with the first four chapters of the first book of his Institutes of the Christian Religion, other than that he paints with very broad brushstrokes about how all people respond to God the same way. But other than that, it was fine enough.
But then Calvin goes and ruins it at the end of book 1 chapter 5 section 14, when he begins to talk about how the evidence of God in His creation is insufficient to lead us to God (Romans 1:20 says otherwise) and how our own minds can't perceive it without first being given faith from God. This is when he slowly starts to alter the Bible's truth and contradict himself.
For starters, in chapter 2 section 1, he says "For, until men feel that they owe everything to God ... they will never submit to him in voluntary obedience ..." He calls it "voluntary obedience,” making it seem like we make real choices and have some sort of control over ourselves, our behaviors, our thoughts, etc.
But as he says in other places:
"The counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined" (book 1, chapter 16, section 8).
"... everything done in the world is according to His decree..." (book 1, chapter 16, section 6).
"... the devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are, in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how much soever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as [God] permits - nay, unless in so far as he COMMANDS..." (book 1, chapter 17, section 11, added emphasis)
“[Man] cannot even give utterance except in so far as God pleases..." (book 1, chapter 16, section 6).
"... it is certain that not a drop of rain falls without the express command of God" (book 1, chapter 16, section 5) and "... no wind ever rises or rages without His special command" (section 7).
Calvin goes on and on about how we have no control, no ability to act or even speak on our own, saying that God controls every action of His creation, even all the evil and tragedies. And this contradicts the idea of “voluntary obedience.”
In one place, he talks like we have control over ourselves, but in other places, he talks like we have no control. He talks out of both sides of his mouth and expects us to accept it.
(When Calvinists use words like voluntary, choice, free-will, etc., they mean something far different than what we think they mean, different than the way we commonly understand/define these words. And that’s just how they want it. They want us to think they are saying something they aren’t, in order to hook us in deeper into Calvinism.)
And there are lots of other times when Calvin makes it sound like he believes that mankind makes real decisions, that we have some sort of control/influence over our thoughts, behaviors, choices, etc., but he totally negates/contradicts these with the above “God controls everything” statements:
#1: In chapter 17 section 3, he says that we should "inquire and learn from Scripture what is pleasing to God, and then, under the guidance of the Spirit, endeavor to attain it."
So here it’s “endeavor to attain it,” as if we can choose to do it, as if we have control/influence over it … but in other places it’s "the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined" and "... everything done in the world is according to His decree..." and “[we cannot] move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as [God]…commands," etc.
#2: In chapter 15 section 1, Calvin basically says that we can't blame God for mankind's problems or try to excuse ourselves for the problems we cause. He says we must "diligently guard" against the "depraved procedure" of blaming God and trying to excuse ourselves.
So we must “diligently guard” ourselves… but "the counsels and wills of men are so governed…” and “everything done in the world is according to His decree” and so on and so forth.
#3: In chapter 2 section 2, Calvin says that the pious man stands in awe of God's justness and thereby "curbs himself." And in chapter 4 section 3: "…[men] choosing rather to indulge their carnal propensities than to curb them ..."
So man can supposedly “curb” himself, and he can choose between indulging or curbing his sinful desires, but "the counsels and wills of men are so governed…”, etc.
#4: In chapter 3 section 1: Calvin says that primitive man "chooses to worship wood and stone..."
So it's "choice" here, but later it's "the counsels and wills of men are so governed …”, etc.
And fyi, by "choice," Calvinists mean that we "choose" to do what the desires of our nature tell us to do, but that it was God Himself who gave us the nature we have (either the unregenerated/non-elect one or the regenerated/elect one) and who built into those natures the desires He wants us to carry out, that He predestined for us (the desires to sin, rebel, hate/reject God were built into the non-elect one, and the desires to seek/love/obey God and believe in Jesus were built into the elect one). And we don't get to choose which desires/nature we get, and we can't do anything about the one we got.
Therefore, if we got the unregenerated nature that contains only the desire to sin/reject God, then that's what we will "choose" to do. We have no other options, no choice or ability to choose anything different. And yet Calvinists, with a straight face, call that "choice" - being only able to "choose" to do the one thing God predestined, causes, controls you to do. So deceptive!
#5: In chapter 3 section 3: "When the stupid hardness of heart, which the wicked eagerly court as a means of despising God ..."
So here he says we "eagerly court" hard hearts, as if we desire/choose to do it on our own. But later he says “the counsels and wills of men are so governed…”, etc. Contradiction.
But do you know why he can say "eagerly court" with a straight face, making it sound like he's teaching that we willingly choose to do it? Because God has built into the unregenerated nature the desire to "eagerly court" a hard heart, to rebel against/despise God - and only this desire - and so that's what they will inevitably "choose" to do, "willingly", according to the desires of the will God gave them.
#6: Likewise, in chapter 4, section 1, Calvin says that men “of their own accord court darkness, nay, bewitch themselves with perverse, empty show."
“Of their own accord”, and yet "the counsels and wills of men are so governed…”, etc.
#7: In chapter 4 section 2: "The expression of David 'The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God,' is primarily applied to those who ... stifle the light of nature, and intentionally stupefy themselves."
“Intentionally stupefy themselves", but our “counsels and wills are so governed…”, etc. Do you see a deceptive pattern here, trying to sound like he is teaching that we make real choices and have a level of control over ourselves, while REALLY believing that we have no control, that God preplans, causes, decided, controls everything we do?
Calvin's got very loose definitions of things like "voluntary," "choose," "of their own accord," "intentionally," etc. - definitions that ultimately say that we don't do any of it ourselves, that God is the one who causes it all to happen to us. And this totally contradicts what he wants you to think he's saying, the common and proper usage/understanding of words like "voluntary, choose, of their own accord, intentionally," etc.
#8: In chapter 5 section 15, Calvin says: "It were, indeed, a strange defence for man to pretend he has no ears to hear [to hear God]…” He says that we are guilty of "corrupting the seed of divine knowledge so wonderously deposited in [our] minds" and we "prevent it from bearing good and genuine fruit."
But "the counsels and wills of men are so governed…”, etc. And if God predetermined that we would act in such a way that it wouldn’t bear fruit, then what exactly are we preventing? How can we prevent something that God predestined wouldn’t happen anyway? Doesn’t make sense. And it's a contradiction.
#9: In chapter 11 section 1, he warns about the dangers of "clinging to [our] own speculations."
Our “own” speculations, but "the counsels and wills of men are so governed…”, etc.
And here are some more contradictions, on different notes:
#10: In chapter 11 section 4, Calvin states "Whence had idols their origin, but from the will of man?" But in chapter 18 section 2, Calvin says, "… the will of God is said to be the cause of all things.”
So by whose Will were idols created: man's or God's? Plus, as you’ll see next, Calvin doesn’t believe in free-will, but here - when it comes to who created idols – he tries to blame it on the will of man, even though he says that God’s Will is the real cause of all things. Contradiction.
#11: In book 2 chapter 2 section 8, Calvin condemns the use of the term "free-will." And he says, "If any one, then, chooses to make use of this term ... but I am unwilling to use it myself; and others if they will take my advice, will do well to abstain from it."
But as we’ve already seen, Calvin believes God controls and causes everything, even our utterances, and so therefore there can be no free-will. But then Calvin claims he has the freedom to will himself to not use the term "free-will".
Ha-ha-ha! What irony! What contradiction!
And he says that other people could "choose to make use of this term," but that they would do well to take his advice and not use it - AS IF they had any control over themselves or any ability to make decisions about their will (something Calvin totally denies is possible).
You can't have it both ways, Calvin. Make up your mind!
The only way Calvin affirms the idea of free-will is by using it to make us responsible for sin, as if we somehow willingly sin, even though, as Calvin claims, God is really the one who controls all sin and wickedness and rebellion and unbelief.
Calvinists still deal with this messy contradiction - believing that God causes all evil and unbelief but saying that He is not responsible for it, that we are still somehow responsible for our sin and unbelief even though God caused it and created us that way. And the only answer they can come up with to this contradiction is "Well, the Bible teaches both God's sovereignty and mankind's responsibility, so we have to believe both, even if we can't understand it."
But the problem is that Calvinists misunderstand what sovereignty means, how God works sovereignly in the world. They say it has to mean that He preplans/causes all things, even sin and evil and unbelief, but then they run into the problem of who's responsible for evil - because they know they can't accuse God of being responsible for it, even though in their theology, He is.
But in reality, sovereignty really just means that God is the highest authority there is and cannot be ruled by anyone else. It's about His position of power, not about how He has to use His power, as Calvinists make it out to be.
And being sovereign, He gets to decide how to use His power. And in the Bible, it's clear that He's chosen to voluntarily limit His ability/power to control everything in order to allow people to make real choices. Because that's the way He wanted it to be. He wanted free creatures who can choose for themselves whether to love Him or reject Him, because He didn't want robots who were forced to love Him. What glory or joy would there be in that?
And fyi, when a Calvinist says "human responsibility," they don't mean that we actually make our own decisions, that we make real choices among various options and so we can be held accountable for our choices. They just mean that even though God predestined/causes/controls everything we do - every sin, evil, rejection of Him - He will still hold humans responsible for it, because we "chose" to do it, according to the nature He gave us.
Calvinism is demented! Twisted, slithery, deceptive, demented.
#12: In chapter 5 section 1, Calvin says that the impression of God in creation is so bright that "none, however dull and illiterate, can plead ignorance as their excuse" for not believing in God. And in chapter 5 section 2, he says that all of us can see God in His creation, that it's clear to all: "It is plain that the Lord has furnished every man with abundant proofs of his wisdom."
So here he makes it sound like all men should be able to see God in creation and, consequently, to believe, like we all have the ability, the choice.
This contradicts not only his idea that "the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined," etc., but it also contradicts what he says later about the evidence of God in His creation being insufficient to lead us to God and that our own minds can't perceive it without first being given faith from God, book 1 chapter 5 section 14:
"Wherefore, the apostle, in the very place where he says that the worlds are images of invisible things, adds that it is by faith we understand that they were framed by the word of God… we have no eyes to perceive it until they are enlightened through faith by internal revelation from God. When Paul says that that which may be known of God is manifested by the creation of the world, he does not mean such a manifestation as may be comprehended by the wit of man (Romans 1:19); on the contrary he shows that it has no further effect than to render us inexcusable (Acts 17:27)."
Calvin is saying that even though Romans 1:19-20 appears to teach that God put enough evidence of Himself in creation so that we can understand that He exists and then turn to Him, believe in Him (the simplest, plainest, most commonsense way of understanding it, which is exactly why no person has an excuse for not understanding that God exists - because He puts enough evidence of Himself in nature that all people can and should see it and know He exists. And since all people have that ability and opportunity, there's no excuse for not. If we do not see it, it's because we were willfully blind to it, to Him, because we didn't want to see.) ... but, according to Calvin, it doesn't really mean that.
[Funny that Calvin first states the correct interpretation of it (a manifestation as may be comprehended by the wit of man), as though he knows this is what it clearly teaches, but then he denies that it's the correct way to read it, choosing instead to reinterpret it incorrectly (on the contrary he shows that it has no further effect than to render us inexcusable.)
I have heard Calvinist theologians do this too, saying things like, "Scripture seems to be saying insert correct interpretation here, but that's not really what it means. It really means insert wrong Calvinist one." They can articulate the right one, can see it in the plain wording of Scripture, but then they toss it out, in favor of the Calvinist interpretation. Ludicrous!]
According to Calvin, in this quote, God didn't really put evidence of Himself in nature to help us find Him and turn to Him (contradicting what he said earlier, that all people have enough proof to see that God exists), but so that He could hold us guilty for not seeing Him (even though, in Calvinism, He is the one who causes people to be blind to Him).
As he says in chapter 6 section 1, God gave revelation of Himself in nature (paraphrased) "in order to bring the whole human race under the same condemnation."
Basically, Calvi-god needed a justifiable-sounding reason for punishing us, for condemning us all to hell... and so he put evidence of himself in nature that he expected us to see... but we failed to see it... and so now he can punish us (despite the fact that he made us that way).
So full of contradictions.
[And let's look at Acts 17:27, the verse used as a reference in his quote to supposedly support his claim that God puts evidence of Himself in nature to "render us inexcusable": "God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us."
This is the exact opposite of the idea that God put evidence of Himself in nature so that we would be guilty of missing Him, of not finding Him, so that He could punish us. In fact, it further confirms that the very reason God put Himself in nature was so that we would see Him, seek Him, find Him, so that we wouldn't miss out on Him. And it's the fact that He's so obvious that makes us guilty, because we should have and could have seen Him, found Him.
It's like the difference between someone leaving $100 near a homeless person so that the homeless person might find it, take it, and use it ... and someone leaving $100 near a homeless person, after having first tied up and blinded the homeless person so that he cannot see it or take it, so that when the homeless person doesn't take the money, they can say, "Well, it's your fault. You didn't take it, and so now you deserve to starve to death."
That's the difference between the Bible's God and Calvinism's god. One wants to save; the other wants to condemn. One does all He can to make us innocent; the other does all he can to make us guilty.
(Always double-check verses that Calvinists give to "prove" their views. Just because they rattle off a lot of verses doesn't mean they are understanding or using them correctly.)]
#13: Along these lines, not only does Calvin says that God puts enough evidence of Himself in creation so that all men may see Him and seek Him ... and then say that God put evidence of Himself in nature to condemn us ... but in chapter 14 section 1, he says "... yet so sluggish and grovelling is our intellect, that it was necessary he [God] should be more clearly depicted [in creation], in order that the faithful might not fall away to Gentile fictions.... So that we might not wander to and fro in uncertainty." [And of course, don't forget that this contradicts “the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined."]
So which is it? Did God reveal Himself in nature to help us find Him, to condemn us, or to keep the elect from falling into lies?
Not to mention that if the elect fall into lies, it’s because Calvi-god caused it to happen, because it was his Will. And so why would Calvi-god bother to try to stop them from falling into lies if that’s what he wanted/planned to have happen all along? It doesn’t make sense.
Contradictions.
[This thing is, Calvinists have no problem saying that God gives proof of His existence to all people and calls all people to believe and wants all people to be saved... but that He still makes the non-elect unable to respond/believe, and then He holds them responsible for their unbelief.
They would say this isn’t a contradiction.
And do you know why?
Because they change the word “contradiction” to “mystery.” Voila, no contradictions in Calvinism anymore!
(This reminds me of a question Abraham Lincoln once asked that went like this:
Lincoln: “If we call a dog’s tail a ‘leg’, how many legs does a dog have?”
The audience answers, “Five.”
Lincoln replies, “No, the correct answer is four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”)]
#14: In chapter 5 section 8, when talking about God being seen in all things and how few there are who acknowledge it, Calvin says "Still, neither [God’s] power nor his wisdom is shrouded in darkness."
So here Calvin says that God's power and wisdom is not a mystery … yet later he clearly teaches that God's sovereign Will (regarding salvation) IS a mystery, that it's unclear, that we can't understand why He chooses some and not others or how He can cause evil/unbelief yet hold us responsible for it. Yet here, in this section, Calvin says that God's power and wisdom are not shrouded in darkness, that we can all readily see Him at work in the world, enough to find Him.
So which is it? Is He or is He not shrouded in darkness? Is He or is He not clear to all?
Contradiction.
#15: Calvin calls God "just" for punishing the wicked [chapter 10 section 1: "… he is the just punisher of the wicked, especially when they continue obstinate notwithstanding of all his forbearance"] ... even though, in Calvinism, He is the cause/controller of that wickedness and obstinance ["the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined" and “[we cannot] move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as [God] permits - nay, unless in so far as he commands ..." and "… the will of God is said to be the cause of all things,” etc.].
Is this not a contradiction? But once again, switch the word to “mystery” and – abracadabra! – no more contradictions!
#16: In chapter 14 section 13, Calvin says "... let us invoke the help of God, and attempt nothing without trusting in him..."
And yet in chapter 17 section 4, he says that Solomon "derides the stupidity of those who presume to undertake anything without God, as if they were not ruled by his hand..."
So which is it: Can we attempt to do things on our own or are we ruled completely by His hand?
Contradiction.
#17: In chapter 14 section 15, Calvin calls Satan the "adversary of God," saying that Satan aims at the extinction of God's glory.
And yet "... the devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are, in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how much soever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as [God] permits - nay, unless in so far as he commands ..."
And "[God is] the most perfect cause of all things..."
And "everything done in the world is according to His decree".
And don't forget that Calvinism teaches that God does everything for His own glory.
And so, therefore, God causes Satan to try to extinguish His glory, for His glory.
Contradiction!
[What was it again that Jesus said in Matthew 12:25 about a kingdom divided against itself? That it cannot stand, that it will be laid waste. And what does James 1:8 say about a double-minded man? That he is unstable in all his ways. And yet Calvi-god actively works against himself and contradicts himself all the time.]
#18: In chapter 17 section 5, Calvin addresses the dilemma of "If God controls us and we do the evil He wills us to do, why is He not accountable for it? Why are we?"
And about the actions of wicked people, he says "I deny that they serve the will of God." He says that we cannot say that "he who has been carried away by a wicked mind are performing service on the order of God" because the evil person is "only following his own malignant desires," not acting in obedience.
And yet… "the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined" and “[we cannot] move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as [God] permits - nay, unless in so far as he commands ...", etc.
And in section 4, he goes on to say that even "prudence and folly are instruments of divine dispensation," that God either causes us to be prudent and safe or to be foolish and to bring disaster on ourselves.
But now he says that wicked men doing wicked things are not controlled by God. Contradiction!
#19: And Calvin says that "Obedience is when we are instructed in his will and hasten in the direction he calls" (chapter 17 section 5).
Doesn't needing to be "instructed in his will" imply that there are things that happen outside of His Will?
Yet according to Calvin, as we already saw, "… the will of God is said to be the cause of all things.”
Contradiction.
And if everything that happens is because God preplanned, willed, caused it, then isn’t everything and everyone technically acting in obedience to Him anyway, even those who are wicked and break His commands? And so why should we bother trying to be obedient if everything – even disobedience - is actually obedience to His Will?
Contradiction.
[Basically, Calvin's theology is "Everything that happens is done by the Will and hand of God. We can't do anything, even evil things, unless God wills/causes it to happen. But if we do evil, it's not God's Will because only obedience to the Word is God's Will, even though God controls all we do and we can't do any evil unless God wills/causes it. And if you don't agree with me then you are a bad, unhumble Christian who dishonors God, and I’ll have you burned at the stake with green wood that takes longer to burn."]
As Calvin says in other places, in addition to the previous “God causes everything” statements:
- God completely controls and causes every little thing that happens, "down to the minutest detail, down even to a sparrow." (book 1 chapter 16 section 5)
- "Therefore, since God claims for himself the right of governing the world, a right unknown to us, let it be our law of modesty and soberness to acquiesce in his supreme authority regarding his will as our only rule of justice, and the most perfect cause of all things..." (book 1 chapter 17 section 2. If God causes all things, even everything we do, then if we do not “acquiesce,” wouldn’t it be because He caused it? And if He willed to cause it, how could we even attempt to do otherwise? Advising people about how to live is a contradiction when you believe that God preplans/controls how we live.)
- And we commit blasphemy if we "refuse to admit that every event which happens in the world is governed by the incomprehensible counsel of God." (book 1 chapter 17 section 2)
- And it is "insipid" to say God is just the originator of all things, but not the controller of all things (book 1 chapter 16 section 3). [And yet isn't it a contradiction to say that God controls all things, including what we say (“[Man] cannot even give utterance except in so far as God pleases..."), but then to make it sound like we have the ability to decide what we say? According to Calvinism, if we say God doesn't control all things, then it would have to be because God is controlling us to say that, because it's His Will? And yet Calvin calls it "insipid." Therefore, he's calling God's Will "insipid." And yet he criticizes other people for being "insipid." Ironic!]
So ... everything that happens in this world is "by His Will," yet there is still some need to be "instructed in His Will," as if anything can happen outside of His Will!?!
Contradiction.
"Hi, my name's John Calvin. I'm a schizophrenic megalomaniac with irrational thinking, delusions of grandeur, and a messianic complex. Would you be my disciples?"
#20: And in a grand display of contradiction: In chapter 18 section 2, Calvin says, "The sum of the whole is this, - since the will of God is said to be the cause of all things, all the counsels and actions of men must be held to be governed by his providence; so that he not only exerts his power in the elect, who are guided by the Holy Spirit, but also forces the reprobate to do him service."
Hold your horses there, mister ...
Remember that he just said "I deny that [wicked men] serve the will of God. For we cannot say that he who is carried away by a wicked mind performs service on the order of God ..."
But now he says "the reprobate do him service"!?!
If that’s not a clear contradiction, I don’t know what is!
Calvin says God controls all evil when he's trying to uphold God's "sovereignty" (by that, he means "micromanaging, controlling, causing everything"), but then he denies that God controls all evil when he's trying to figure out who to "blame" for it.
"Confused, inconsistent theologian, table of one!"
Conclusion:
Calvinism is so full of contradiction, nonsense, and hogwash. And yet most Calvinists eat it up because they think Calvinism is simply about upholding God's sovereignty. And yet in attempting to uphold their messed-up, unbiblical view of God's sovereignty, they are doing great damage to the Gospel, Jesus's sacrifice, God's character, His love and grace and justice and righteousness and trustworthiness, people's hope and salvation and faith, etc.
You know, one thing we learned in my graduate school psychology classes was that the more words people use, the less truthful they are. And I think Calvin's 1000+ pages of trying to describe his theology are 1000+ pages of trying to make nonsense into sense, trying to clean up the messes his wrong assumptions and bad views created. And since that's not possible, he has to constantly add more words and ideas to try to make his errors and inconsistencies and contradictions sound reasonable and biblical.
By comparison, the Bible's book of John - which pretty much contains the foundational things we need to know about mankind and Jesus and the path to salvation - is only about a couple dozen pages long. Interesting!
The Bible nicely explains the gospel in one verse (John 3:16). But because Calvinists won't take the Bible at face-value, they have to write hundreds of pages and spend months and months studying the writings of Calvinist theologians to even slightly understand it. And even then, in the end they still have so many contradictions and unsolvable, illogical problems that they have to resort to “Well, God is so far above us that we can’t understand Him, and so we just have to accept these ‘mysteries’ and live with the tension.” (Hogwash!)
I've said it before and I'll say it again: If you do not see the grave theological errors in Calvinism, then you either don't really understand Calvinism or you don't really understand the Bible!
