Contradictions in Calvinism

You've raised this more than once and I've asked the same questions for clarification. When you say "predestination refers not to the lost sinner state", you're describing Single Predestination - not double predestination which calvinism upholds. Again, to make sure of your position, consider the following -

Before the ages, God is active in electing some to salvation.
1. At that same time, before any man's individual good or evil acts of faith or unbelief, does God make up His mind that the rest will definitely be condemned?
2. OR does He simply pass over the rest at that moment, not considering anything yet over their end, permitting them their own ways in time until He holds them accountable to their own individual continual evil over their lives for which He then makes up His mind to condemn these unbelievers?

Which of the above do you hold? Again note, these are only indicative of God's logical order or sequencing - both the above probably happened in an instant before the foundation of the world. We're only sequencing it as per their occurring before or after one another in God's consideration.

 

I see this as progress. We do find agreement here that God doesn't and cannot desire against His own sovereign choices.

To avoid the contradiction I've raised, you assert that God does not desire but rather weeps in Matt 23:37

Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

The verb in bold above is what's used in Scriptures to denote the will or desire of God or man, disproving your above assertion.

 

I do not see any conflict myself - but now that you do, I'm willing to help clarify.

This is the crux of the logical fallacies that ail both calvinism and arminianism - why do you think logical inversion is valid?

God predestining the elect alone to salvation does not logically imply God predestines the non-elect to condemnation - it simply means God did not predestine the non-elect to salvation. And if you thought they mean the same, then please give pause and reconsider how logic dictates inferences. God not doing something is not the same as God doing the opposite. Inaction is not the same as Opposite action. Logically. Do you agree on this or do you see logic working differently - these are absolutes that none of us should disagree on, it's not even theological but simply a common tool of reason that all the world uses.

Why is this an impossible situation? Firstly, predestined election and condemnation do not consider future choices of any man at all according to calvinism - so your claiming that God foreknows their disobedience sounds more arminian than calvinist.

But more importantly, why can't God proceed down a path He very well knows the outcome of, when primarily intending to show the non-elect the outcome of their own self-determinism so every mouth may be stopped.

You yourself have referred to this very thing.

Is giving the Law an impossible situation where God decreed justification by faith alone, but depending on if any man does the works of the law they are justified, when God already knows they won't be obedient to it?

Why then can't God passively allow all the non-elect to self-determine their own unbelief after which He decrees condemnation over them and not before?

Why do you assume I haven't looked it up already? Pelagianism doesn't hold to original sin or total depravity. Have I said anything that alludes to this logically? I've already addressed this very point of yours on this thread refuting and denying clearly that I hold any man able to come to God on his own apart from a supernatural work of God in him - why do you continue asserting this?

 

Since this has not been implied here nor is it being discussed, let's save it for later or another thread.

Could you commit to responding to the following so we can move forward on the OP, if you are still interested in this discussion -

1. Do you believe God sovereignly (passively) predestined/counselled/decreed the condemnation of the non-elect before the ages? Yes/No

2. Do you believe it would be inconsistent for God to then desire against and in opposition to what He has above sovereignly counselled/decreed? Yes/No

 

This is a first, truly. I first thought of cracking a light-hearted joke on this but then got hit with this sick feeling of what a doctrinal system can do to one's interpretation.

Can you get your fellow calvinists to agree with you on this?

But Matt 23:37 does not have it answering the Why - it simple places it with an And which is to be read as connecting 2 events that occurred.

Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Both events are part of the "how often.." question - so if the answer is Never, then it means the Israelites Never desired against God?? Where are you going with this? Again, there is no need to be defensive over this - I am not here trying to compete or score debate points. Why don't we take time and be edified by the Word instead of rushing into regrettable places?

 

When have I ever made such a point for it to be muted??

I completely agree with this statement as such. I do know you hold regeneration and rebirth to be the same and we can discuss that on another thread but I hold your quoted statement as completely True. Therefore you should move on to addressing my concerns in the OP which has nothing to do with this per se.

 

Your stating so still needs a reasonable explanation, right? I wrote an entire post if you really wanted to go down the route of holding Desire different from Pleasure in Eze 33:11 - they are the same as used in Scripture. Besides we have Matt 23:37 specifically using the word for Will/Desire of God or man -

Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

How does this Desire of God get explained by calvinism in opposition to His predestined decree of condemnation?

For the umpteenth time. I wrote a dedicated clarifying post after already having stated the same several times that I am not questioning God's sovereignty or justice. Why do you respond as if I am questioning this? Help me understand - what happens when you read me stating this is not my issue - do you not believe me, do you skip reading it, are you looking for something that you want me to hold so that you could critique that?

My concern as per the OP is only the consistency within God's nature - God cannot pre-decree because He has revealed Himself desiring in opposition to such a decree which would be a contradiction of His consistency. That's my concern - not what man is owed or how man feels or whether God is fair or just or whatever other strawmen you can set up.

 

Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
This is God revealing His desire for the non-elect.

Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Sticking to the text. God reveals the conditional desire He had over these non-elect Israel. God desired to gather them under His wings on the conditional if they too had desired it - they desired not, hence God swears in His wrath to destroy them.

I totally agree. So how do you reconcile the above verses with calvinism? The verses aren't the problem - hence calvinism should be what needs changing. Sound logic?

Try to avoid the side-step argument - where you bring the entire force of other calvinist texts to prove that if calvinism is right in all those other places, it must be true here. That's not how contradictions are resolved - you need to engage with these texts directly and resolve the contradiction I've raised here specifically. Again, I do not see this interlinked with any other calvinist doctrine, so you're safe to engage just with this.

Also, I'm trying to get everyone here to commit to a response so we can progress in the discussion - Yes/No questions are helpful in that they're binary. If you've got questions like these for me, I'm happy to answer too. If they aren't exactly binary, I could qualify them with further nuance too. Could you likewise begin with your reply to -
Do you believe it is consistent of God to desire something against and in opposition to His own preceding sovereign decrees? Y/N

 

Right. So help me show you the actual inconsistency by beginning to commit to responses -

Do you believe it is consistent for God to desire against and in opposition to what He has previously sovereignly counselled/decreed? Yes/No
(IOW, Do you believe it contradicts an invariant nature of God when He chose to go left and then desires to go right?)

Do you see the words used in Eze 33:11 and Matt 23:37 are the same denoting the Will or Desire of God or man? Yes/No

 

Completely agree. But I wasn't talking about what man desires or doesn't. This is what happens when we don't stick to binary questions - I ask one thing and you reply about something else and we're not progressing in the dialog. I'm happy to reply to any of your binary questions too - but why don't you humor me for the sake of moving ahead?

I'm focusing on God's desires, not man's. So again,
Eze 33:11 not only mentions what God has no pleasure in, but also what He does have pleasure in ie what He does desire. Matt 23:37 not only shows the failure of man and his just destruction, but also what God had desired over them before they reached this point of condemnation.
1. Do you acknowledge that these verses also reveal God's desire that these non-elect live? Y/N.

2. Do you believe it is consistent of God to desire something against and in opposition to His own preceding sovereign decrees? Y/N

A letter for each question is all you have to type - just a Y or an N. We could begin there and then dig deeper wherever that may take us...