Common logical fallacies¶

This file names the recurring moves in the debate, with examples from both sides. A fallacy is not a sin; it is a shortcut the mind takes when it already knows the conclusion. The point of naming them is to make the conversation slower and better.

1. The negative inference fallacy¶

Form: "X is said to be true of group A; therefore X is not true of anyone else."

Calvinist use: "Christ died for the church / his sheep / the elect; therefore he did not die for anyone else." "All that the Father gives me will come; therefore no one else comes."

Non-Calvinist use: "The Bible says God desires all to be saved; therefore he does not decree any to be lost." (This is a valid inference only if "desire" and "decree" are the same kind of thing — which is the point in dispute.)

Why it fails: An inclusive statement does not entail an exclusive one. "Paul loved the churches" does not mean he loved no one else. The inference is valid only when the text itself is contrastive ("not for ours only, but also for the whole world" — 1 John 2:2 — is contrastive; "Christ loved the church" is not).

The fix: Ask whether the text is making a contrast or a statement of scope. If it is not contrastive, the exclusion is imported.

2. Equivocation on "all," "world," "every"¶

Form: The same word is read universally in one verse and restrictively in another, with no stated principle.

Calvinist use: "All" in "all have sinned" (Rom 3:23) is universal; "all" in "God desires all men to be saved" (1 Tim 2:4) is "all kinds." "World" in John 3:16 is "the elect"; "world" in 1 John 5:19 is "the whole world."

Non-Calvinist use: "All" is always universal — which ignores genuine restrictive uses (e.g., "all Judea" in Matt 3:5, "the whole world" in Luke 2:1 as the Roman Empire).

Why it fails: Words have ranges, and context decides. The fallacy is not using a restricted sense; it is using it when the context gives no signal, and doing so selectively.

The fix: Ask for the contextual signal. If the only signal is "my system requires it," the restriction is not exegetical.

3. Begging the question (petitio principii)¶

Form: The conclusion is assumed in the premise.

Calvinist use: "Irresistible grace is taught in John 6:44, because 'draw' means an effectual, irresistible drawing." (The meaning of "draw" is the thing to be proved.)

Non-Calvinist use: "Total inability cannot be true because Ezekiel 36 says God gives a new heart." (That is an argument about order, not about inability.)

Why it fails: It produces the appearance of an argument without the substance.

The fix: State the premise without the disputed term and see whether the argument still works.

4. False dilemma¶

Form: Two options are presented as exhaustive when there is a third.

Calvinist use: "Either God is sovereign and chooses unconditionally, or man is sovereign and saves himself."

Non-Calvinist use: "Either God loves everyone exactly equally, or he is a monster."

Why it fails: The middle positions are the interesting ones: God is sovereign and genuinely permits human response; God loves all and has a special covenantal love for his people.

The fix: Name the third option explicitly. "There is a third possibility: ..."

5. The appeal to mystery used selectively¶

Form: "God's ways are higher than our ways" is invoked precisely where the system generates a contradiction, and never where it would cost the system something.

Example: The claim that God sincerely desires the salvation of all and eternally decrees that some not be saved is said to be a "mystery" — while the non-Calvinist's claim that God desires all and some resist is said to be a contradiction.

Why it fails: Mystery is legitimate where Scripture is silent. It is not legitimate as a way of holding two propositions that cannot both be true in the same sense. See ../07-answers/07-you-cant-understand-gods-ways.md.

6. Selective evidence¶

Form: Citing the texts that support the conclusion and not the ones that don't, or treating the supporting texts as clear and the others as problems for the other side.

Both sides do this. The Calvinist cites John 6 and Romans 9; the non-Calvinist cites 1 Tim 2:4 and 2 Pet 3:9. The question is not which list is longer but which reading can account for both lists.

The fix: State the strongest text against your position before you state your own. If you cannot, you have not understood the position.

7. The straw man¶

Form: Refuting a weaker version of the view.

Calvinist use: "Non-Calvinists believe man saves himself / that faith is a work / that God is not sovereign."

Non-Calvinist use: "Calvinists believe God creates people to damn them for his pleasure / that evangelism is pointless / that God is the author of sin."

Why it fails: It is refuting a view nobody holds, and it hardens the other person.

The fix: The steel-man rule. State the view so well that the other person says "yes, that is what I believe." See ../EDITORIAL-STANDARDS.md.

8. No true Scotsman¶

Form: When a bad consequence of a view is pointed out, the response is "that's not real Calvinism."

Examples: "Hyper-Calvinism isn't Calvinism." "That's just a consistent Arminian." "You're not really Reformed if you deny the free offer."

Why it fails: It may be true that a position is a distortion. But the family resemblance has to be argued, not asserted, and the same move is available to the other side ("that's not real Christianity").

The fix: Define the family by its shared architecture (see ../07-answers/11-which-calvinism.md), and then say which member of the family you are criticizing.

9. The genetic fallacy¶

Form: A view is false because of its origin.

Examples: "Calvinism comes from Augustine's Manichaeism." "Arminianism comes from humanism." "Provisionism is just resurgent semi-Pelagianism."

Why it fails: Origins can explain why a view was attractive; they do not make it false. The historical argument is valuable, but it is corroborative, not conclusive. See ../04-history/02-manichaeism-and-the-making-of-a-determinist.md.

10. The argument from silence¶

Form: "The text doesn't mention X, therefore X is not true."

Examples: "Romans 9 doesn't mention faith, therefore faith is not the issue." "John 6 doesn't mention the Spirit, therefore the Spirit is not involved."

Why it fails: Silence is evidence only when the author would have been expected to speak. Use it carefully, and say why the expectation is reasonable.

11. Illicit totality transfer (the "word study" fallacy)¶

Form: Importing the full lexical range of a word into a single occurrence.

Examples: "Helkō can mean 'drag,' therefore John 6:44 means drag." "Proōrisen means 'to mark out beforehand,' therefore it means an eternal decree."

Why it fails: Words mean what the context selects from their range. A lexicon gives possibilities, not meanings. See ../07-answers/09-the-greek-word-argument.md.

12. Anachronism¶

Form: Reading later theological categories back into an earlier text.

Examples: Reading the Dortian "five points" into John; reading "the ordo salutis" into Ezekiel 36; reading "the covenant of works" into Genesis 2.

Why it fails: The text may teach the reality without teaching the later formulation. The distinction matters, and it cuts both ways: the Calvinist who reads Dort into John is anachronistic, and the non-Calvinist who reads "prevenient grace" into John 1:9 is too.

13. Appeal to authority (including "the Reformers")¶

Form: "Calvin said..." "The Westminster Standards say..." "The early church said..."

Why it fails: Authorities are evidence, not arguments. They can be wrong, and they can be misread. Cite them, then show why they are right.

14. The motte-and-bailey¶

Form: Defend the modest claim (the "motte") when attacked, then retreat to the ambitious claim (the "bailey") when the pressure is off.

Example: When challenged on reprobation, retreat to "we all believe in election"; when teaching, assert "God eternally decreed the fall and the damnation of specific individuals."

Why it fails: It makes the position unfalsifiable in conversation.

The fix: Ask which claim is being defended, and hold the conversation to it.

15. The fallacy of the undifferentiated "we"¶

Form: "We believe..." when the group is diverse.

Example: "Calvinists believe infants who die are elect" — some do, some don't, and the confessions are not uniform.

The fix: Name the school and the author.

A final word¶

Naming a fallacy is not an argument. "That's a negative inference" is a promissory note; you still have to show why the inference fails in this text. Use these categories to find the weak joint, then do the exegesis.