Section 4
Go to Chapter 7 – The Indispensibility of Reason and Logic in Biblical Interpretation
Ironically, yet inconsistently, many Calvinists agree with these fundamental truths about the source and function of logic. Calvinist James White states,
“I would say logic belongs to God because God created the universe and mankind in a particular fashion. It has been well said that when we think logically were are thinking God’s thoughts after him because we are derivative from God, and that we are never more human in our thought processes than when we are most disciplined and thinking logically…”[10]
Why then does White, along with his fellow Calvinists, hold to doctrines that are incoherent, inconsistent, and contradictory, especially when White says,
“One of the greatest losses in modern day Western civilization is the ability to think logically, to recognize logical categories, to recognize logical errors in argument…the reality is that the more stringent you are in seeking to be logical and to reason and to speak consistently, the less popular you are going to be.”[11]
Astonishingly, Calvinists simply ignore the matter of logical thinking and the recognition of logical errors in their arguments when it comes to defending their interpretation of God’s sovereignty as a universal divine causal determinism. Defending his presuppositional approach to apologetics, White makes a point about how the unbeliever inconsistently borrows from the Christian worldview when they affirm and employ logic and reason. He states,
“We do not grant to the unbeliever the right of judgment. We do not grant to the unbeliever the right to arrogate to himself that which he is actually borrowing from God. The whole point is to provide that internal critique….of the other person’s world view that demonstrates that they are inconsistently borrowing from the world view they deny to prop their own up. And so if they talk about logic and reason and things like that they can’t give us a reason why this world should function in those ways.”[12]
So, according to White, the Calvinist presuppositionalist points out to the atheist or unbeliever the fact that they are borrowing the logic and reason given by God to serve in their arguments against God. Logical reasoning comes to them from the God they claim doesn’t exist or will not believe in. The point is that even White, as a Calvinist, values and employs the criteria of consistency to critique the unbeliever when they employ logic and reason because these are things that are grounded in God, the God that the atheist does not believe exists. White sees the unbeliever as being inconsistent in his worldview. Hence, White defends his presuppositional apologetic by stating that logic and reason are grounded in God and bequeathed to us as reliable for discerning truth. Yet White will not evaluate his own theology based on the logical and moral reasoning grounded in God and bequeathed to us as reliable for discerning the truth. The Calvinist refuses to employ these same God given gifts of logical and moral reasoning in discerning the validity of their interpretations. This is hypocritical.
Calvinist D. A. Carson also affirms the indispensability, reliability, and universality of the laws of logic. He distinguishes four uses of the term “logic” but it is the first sense given here that he goes on to defend. He writes,
“… “logic” at the theoretical and symbolic level is a comprehensive term that refers to sets of axiomatic relationships, “an analysis and evaluation of the ways of using evidence to derive correct conclusions.”[13]…logic in the first sense is universal. It is not to be dismissed as the peculiar debatable theory of Aristotle. Rather, it is the set of relationships (nicely formulated by Aristotle and others) that must apply if any knowledge is possible and if any communication of propositional knowledge is possible…a dialectical theologian either holds that his apparently contradictory beliefs are ultimately logically compatible or he is talking nonsense…The necessary substratum of all coherent knowledge and of all rational communication is simple logic in the first sense. The fundamental “laws” of logic, such as the law of non-contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, are universally true.”[14]
According to Carson, logic “must apply if any knowledge is possible and if any communication of propositional knowledge is possible.” But as a Calvinist, Carson gives his textual interpretations and theology a pass on the application of the laws of logic by stating that his “contradictory beliefs” are only “apparently” so and “ultimately logically compatible.” What he means to say here is that his Calvinist beliefs are ultimately logically compatible, although they present themselves to us here and now as logically incompatible, that is, that they violate the laws of logic, particularly the law of non-contradiction. So, on the one hand, on pain of being irrational, Carson knows his hermeneutic cannot violate the laws of logic, yet, on the other hand, since his interpretations do result in incoherencies, inconsistencies, and contradictions, he declares his interpretive contradictions to be only “apparent.” But this, of course, is ad hoc. It is merely to assert that his interpretations and theology are “ultimately” logical and rational and therefore correct, but right now they only “appear” to be illogical and irrational. The point being that if they are really illogical and irrational, they would surely be incorrect. By claiming “apparent contradiction,” Carson can give lip service to the need to be logical in his thought and communications while maintaining his logically problematic interpretations of key biblical texts and the theology he has constructed upon them. This ad hoc assertion of “apparent contradiction” is just a way to dismiss having the probative force of the laws of logic to critique his Calvinist beliefs. It, in effect, eliminates the laws of logic from being hermeneutically significant. It is to embrace a hermeneutic that allows for incoherence and contradiction. For the Calvinist, interpretive coherence, consistency, and non-contradiction are not reliable or necessary for determining the validity of their interpretations. Carson, like all Calvinists, must jettison logic along with moral intuition from his hermeneutic to maintain his deterministic doctrinal beliefs. The Calvinist position is not “apparently contradictory” but a real contradiction. There is no reason to think otherwise. And therefore, according to Carson, the Calvinist is “talking nonsense.”
Calvinists also attempt to present their contradictory beliefs as logically rational, that is, that their contradictory beliefs are logically compatible. They label this attempt as compatibilism. But this compatibilism ultimately fails. It fails because it never relieves the contradiction. It only produces more incoherence and contradiction.[15]
Dr. Erwin Lutzer, a Calvinist and former pastor of The Moody Church in Chicago, Illinois, clearly states,
“Nobody can believe a contradiction.”[16]
So Calvinists themselves affirm that it is essential to acknowledge the laws of logic and adhere to them if our thinking is to be coherent and our communication rational, that is, to avoid thinking and talking nonsense. But given these affirmations, we must ask whether the Calvinist values logic and reason in his own biblical exegesis. Are these Calvinists credible when they make these claims about the need for logic, and yet they offer up a theology that contains incoherencies, inconsistencies, and contradictions? Shouldn’t the Calvinists’ interpretive conclusions also exhibit consistency, coherence, and non-contradiction? Or, have they actually convinced themselves that, as “dialectical theologians,” their “apparently contradictory beliefs are ultimately logically compatible?” How so? Does the Calvinist have the prerogative to disregard reason and logic when it comes to their own interpretations and theological conclusions? What do you think?
What is precisely at issue here is whether Calvinists can convincingly argue that their “apparently contradictory beliefs are ultimately logically compatible” or whether they are “talking nonsense.” I submit to you that they are talking nonsense. I contend that their assertion of apparent contradiction is an example of the cavalier dismissal of the laws of logic in an attempt to justify and retain their theology despite its logical and moral difficulties, which have been clearly exposed by non-Calvinist scholars. It is an attempt at “compatibility” (e.g., compatibilism) between incompatible propositions (e.g., theistic determinism and human responsibility), that ultimately fails the test of the logic that White, Carson, and Lutzer, as Calvinists, affirm above. Therefore, as I have demonstrated in other chapters, the Calvinist is ultimately talking nonsense.
Calvinists do not carry through with the truth they say they affirm, that is, that logic and reason are grounded in God, are reliable, and must be employed in the search for truth. When the search for truth involves their interpretations of divine revelation, the Calvinist does not hold that the laws of logic and our moral intuitions are essential for determining the validity of those interpretations. The evidence I provide on this website shows that Calvinists do not value logic, reason, and consistency as essential in their hermeneutic, especially when it comes to their soteriological interpretations. They themselves admit to and evidence exegetical and doctrinal incoherence, inconsistency, and contradiction. Hence, Calvinism is false.
Read the next section – Confusing Reason with Rationalism
Footnotes
[10] James White, “God Made Man and Woman. PERIOD. Then Back to William Lane Craig and Presuppositionalism.” July 27, 2017 Podcast. https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/2017/07/27/god-made-man-woman-period-back-william-lane-craig-presuppositionalism/ (45:40) Last accessed Dec. 8, 2025.
[11] Ibid. time 45:40.
[12] Ibid. time 50:40
[13] William J. Kilgore, An Introductory Logic, 2d ed. (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1979), 7.
[14] D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 92-94.
[15] See Chapter 8 “Calvinist Attempts to Justify Sovereignty as Theistic Determinism”
[16] Dr. Erwin W. Lutzer, “Praying for the Glory of God,” Sermon 5 in the series “Prayer That Makes a Difference.” Oct. 7, 1990. https://www.moodymedia.org/sermons/prayer-makes-difference/praying-glory-god/ (13:00 – 13:02) Last accessed Dec. 8, 2025. Note that the transcript incorrectly reads, “Nobody can believe the contradiction.”
The Truth of the Gospel 