Stuffing Straw: One Person's Thoughts on Calvinism

Here is a lovely example of a Straw Man argument, though most of the time they will not be this obvious. A Straw Man argument is when the opponent misrepresents the other side of the argument, builds up that argument, then defeats that argument. In a sense, they build up the straw man and push it over. In this example, a Lutheran woman is explaining how she used to be a Calvinist and is now Lutheran.


Calvinism is a dreary set of propositions put forth by a lawyer concerned with justice.

Such a system places the love of God on the bottom of the pile. There is no assurance that Jesus loves me, and one cannot tell the world in evangelism that Christ died for them or loves them.

Having once worshipped among the Calvinists for nearly a decade, I can say that assurance of Christ's compassion toward me, assurance of His mercy toward me, (or anyone else for that matter) was obscured.

ANALYSIS

Premise 1: Calvinism is a dreary set of propositions put forth by a lawyer concerned with justice.

The writer is already in error because she is assuming that John Calvin is responsible for the acronym TULIP. The "dreary set of propositions" were penned more than 50 years after Calvin's death at the Synod of Dort (1618-1619). That aside, she makes the assumption that the Calvinistic system of thought is based soley on a lawyer concerned with justice. I wonder if she has ever bothered to read Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion." Also, setting Calvin and his upbringing as a lawyer (note: Luther went to law school too) in a negative light does nothing to advance her argument toward the Calvinistic "dreary set of propositions." Therefore, this premise already commits the logical fallacy of Argumentum Ad Hominem (circumstancial) by assuming that Calvin's structure of theology is based completely on the circumstances of his upbringing.

Premise 2: Such a system places the love of God on the bottom of the pile. There is no assurance that Jesus loves me, and one cannot tell the world in evangelism that Christ died for them or loves them.

Having already put premise 1 in a negative light, she continues by claiming that Calvinism does not emphasize the love of God. Once again she misrepresents Calvinism by assuming that Calvinists just throw the love of God away. She doesn't realize that the Calvinist system is based upon the love of God (see my article: "Against Synergism"). Also, she assumes that a person cannot know if they are truly saved. Why? Is not Scripture clear that "whoever believes in me will not perish but have eternal life"? (John 3:16) If we are believing and continue to believe, we can have absolute assurance that Christ died for us. Next, she says that, because the love of God is not present and we can have no assurance, we cannot tell the world that Christ died for them or loves them. Her error here is based on her theological presuppositions. The Apostles never went around preaching to unbelievers that Jesus loves them or died for them. Rather, they always preached "Repent and Believe" (see my article: "Apostolic Preaching in the Book of Acts: Summary of Common Themes").

Conclusion: Having once worshipped among the Calvinists for nearly a decade, I can say that assurance of Christ's compassion toward me, assurance of His mercy toward me, (or anyone else for that matter) was obscured.

Seeing as how 2 fallacious premises do not make a true conclusion, I will not really deal with this conclusion other than the fact that this was her experience. I don't know what kind of Calvinist church she went to but it seems like she never truly understood Calvinism.

CONCLUSIONS

This argument is loaded with emotion and untrue assumptions. Notice how she built up the straw man in premises 1 & 2 and then proceeded to knock it down by concluding her 10 year experience in Calvinism and how those experiences back up her premises. An argument doesn't get more fallacious than this. It is safe to assume that the writer of this argument never completely grasped Calvinism. Misrepresenting the other side is never good in arguments.