Calvinism employs a decentralized 'cancel culture' to silence critics through various tactics: claiming critics don't understand Calvinism well enough to speak against it, exploiting non-Calvinists' humility by urging them to wait for perfect knowledge, directing criticism only toward confessions rather than online Calvinists, using internal diversity (like limited atonement debates) to dismiss accurate generalizations, and demanding 'fairness' while never presenting non-Calvinistic arguments. This pattern mirrors tactics used by other religious groups like Mormons against critics.
Deep Dive
Prerequisite Knowledge
- No data available.
Where to go next
- No data available.
Deep Dive
Calvinism's Cancel CultureAdded:
Calvinism has a very impressive cancel culture.
Their goal is to shut down, out shout, or shut up anyone who is critical of their system.
No one person is organizing this activity. It would be paranoid to think so. Rather, it is organic. They all do their part instinctively in making sure that the Calvinistic voices are the only ones being heard.
I frequently get people telling me that I'm wasting my time on this channel when I could simply be preaching the gospel.
I think some of these people are well-meaning, but I believe others are just trying to cancel a voice that is speaking out against Calvinism.
I have to wonder if these zealous supporters of the gospel are saying the same things to the Calvinistic channels and ministries.
But here's the thing.
The people who are telling me to shut down or repurpose my channel are ignoring the Bible.
You see, the Apostle Paul, as zealous as he was for the gospel, spent a lot of time addressing false teaching in the church.
Likewise, much of the Bible is focused on teaching true doctrine.
So, as for the just preach the gospel argument, it doesn't wash.
Now, let me be clear. If you feel called to preach the gospel through a YouTube channel or handing out tracts or preaching on a street corner, I completely support you. It's just that God, at this particular point in time, has called me to do something different.
And if you're Calvinist, you can also say that God has decreed this.
Another cancel culture argument raised by Calvinists is that I don't understand Calvinism well enough to speak out against it.
This is the criticism that was leveled against Dave Hunt when he set out to write his book.
But here's the thing.
Calvinists believe that only Calvinists understand Calvinism well enough to talk about Calvinism.
After all, if you're not a Calvinist, it just means you don't understand Calvinism.
They will never stand up and say, "Well, you know, brother X is not a Calvinist, but he he understands Calvinism very well, and he's able to speak about this issue." That's just never going to happen.
The hubris of this position becomes clear when a former Calvinist speaks out against Calvinism and gets told that they were never a real Calvinist.
In pushing their cancel culture, Calvinists often tap into the humility of some non-Calvinists.
Those of us on the non-Calvinist side know that we're not perfect.
We know it's possible that we will make some genuine mistakes in presenting Calvinism, and so we are urged to hold off on speaking out until we have the perfect knowledge of Calvinism that comes from being a Calvinist.
Of course, this technique used by Calvinists is also used by others.
For example, Mormons would use the same technique against Christians who speak out against their system. You just don't understand Mormonism well enough to speak out against Mormonism.
I was recently asked if I thought I understood how Calvinists see themselves.
This is a variant of the you don't understand Calvinism well enough argument, but it does bear a specific mention.
You see, many Calvinists don't understand Calvinism, and many do not understand the implications of what they believe. They stick to the standard Calvinistic talking points, they do softening language, and they never do the hard work of thinking through the implications.
How they see themselves is kind of interesting, but it isn't definitive.
I've also seen it claimed that non-Calvinists should not address the brigades of online Calvinists. Instead, we're told that the Calvinistic confessions are the authoritative Calvinism, and so we should only try to address those.
This is a subtle mistake.
And it is a mistake in two ways. First of all, it sets up the confessions as the standard of truth.
And they're not.
Calvinists are always claiming that they're the only ones who care about the Bible, but then they quote the confessions as if they were scripture.
And that's just plain wrong.
But there's a second mistake here.
If I was to ignore all of the online Calvinists, then I would be giving them a free reign to spout their nonsense unopposed.
All Calvinism needs to be opposed, whether it's the online heavy hitters like Piper and Sproul, or the Theo Bros sitting in their mothers' basements.
And by the way, yes, it's true. I'm sitting in my own basement right now, but I paid for it.
Then there's the argument that I'm mistaken because some Calvinists think differently.
It's true that Calvinism is not monolithic. Nobody is claiming otherwise.
But when I say Calvinists believe X, I never have Calvinists step up uh honestly and correct me by saying, "Well, some believe X while others believe Y." Instead, they just claim that Calvinists don't believe X and I shouldn't make videos.
An example of this is on it is limited atonement.
I could make the statement that Calvinists believe in limited atonement because in fact most do. But some Calvinists, the four-point Calvinists, do not believe in limited atonement. But a Calvinist will claim I'm mistaken and I shouldn't make videos if I claim that Calvinists believe in limited atonement.
There's also the claim that I should not make videos because I'm not presenting both sides of the story.
Well, of course, this sounds very fair, doesn't it?
But as a Christian, I am under no obligation to teach error for the sake of being fair to the false teachers.
Of course, those calling for fairness would never make a serious effort to present the non-Calvinistic argument in their own videos and books. Instead, they just attack a straw man of their own devising.
Finally, there is the argument that Calvinism doesn't exist and that they just follow the Bible.
And in answer to this, I say "I'm not a dispensationalist. I just follow the Bible." But, of course, I am a dispensationalist and yes, I do follow the Bible. But, the argument that someone is not a Calvinist or they haven't read Calvin is not a reason for me to give Calvinism a free reign for them to teach their dreadful errors.
It is simply easier to talk about Calvinism rather than saying Augustinianism or the doctrines of grace or reformed theology.
Just because I'm using an expression that some Calvinists don't like or they deny, it's not a reason for me to shut up. In other words, I refuse to be canceled.
And I think that's a good way for me to close this video by just pointing out that I refuse to be canceled.
If you think this channel might interest you or might benefit you, I encourage you to subscribe and to share with your friends. Remember, if you have free will, you can freely choose to subscribe and share. Until next time, God bless.
Related Videos
BSA Goldstar - I gave up! And why animals beat humans!
thebingleywheeler
102 views•2026-05-31
The 'Islamic dilemma': Quran tells Christians to judge by the Gospel
canceledkings
1K views•2026-05-29
Letter to An Ex-Muslim
FarhanAhmedZia
5K views•2026-05-29
Seneca - Escape The Crowd, Find Your Inner Peace!
realfreewisdom
114 views•2026-05-29
Scholar Explains: WHAT IS A GNOSTIC?
fightbackpodcast
965 views•2026-05-31
Fulton Sheen: A Mente Tenta se Manter Jovem para não Sofrer com os Impactos do Tempo
SantoCotidiano-port
673 views•2026-05-29
Everyone is sprinting towards nothing.
ElinJen
2K views•2026-05-29
The fourth great humiliation. #jimmycarr #crowdwork #hecklers #standup
jimmycarr
576K views•2026-05-28











