Contradictions in Calvinism

Just so we're on the same page, what is the premise that you're referring to as False?

 

But this is the very premise that's being debated here, right? This is the OP of this thread.

If you find it a False premise, you engage with the points raised and prove your defense or prove the invalidity of my inferences. That's how debates go and contradictions are resolved either way. But when you say you can't engage because you disagree there is a contradiction, then you're essentially saying you do not want to participate in this debate/discussion - which you're absolutely entitled to not be a part of. But why even post here about you not being interested in engaging - why not simply ignore the thread altogether?

Anyway, feel free to move on. But if you find yourself interested in giving a defense, you know the binary questions you could begin responding to..

 

You asked me to clarify my position, said you followed my argument and asked me to cite Scripture, then said you do not see a contradiction in Eze 33:11 because you consider "pleasure" to be different from "desire", then asked me how Matt 23:37 fits in.

I replied that "pleasure" and "desire" do mean the very same thing since the very same word is used to denote either in Scriptures. Also, I pointed to how God's desire is specifically mentioned in Matt 23:37. So the question stands as to how you resolve this God's desire being in contradiction to His own preceding sovereign decree, as sequenced by calvinism.

Now, as normal expectations go, I'm waiting for you to respond to what I replied above. If you have responded, and you think I've missed it, then simply quote the post and I am sorry for unintentionally overlooking it. And if not, no worries - you could respond now.

 

Yes. And so how do we ascertain the many different ways it could mean different things? By looking up all possible usage of the word in the dictionary.

World - cosmos - orderly arrangement, that is, decoration; by implication the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively [morally])

Contained within the definition is the scope for application - wide or narrow sense - but always centered on an orderly arrangement. Cosmos cannot mean a spoon or a rabbit, right?

Pleasure - châphêts - properly to incline to; by implication (literally but rarely) to bend; figuratively to be pleased with, desire

How can you use this word in many different ways to mean different things when the dictionary itself tells you that it must amount to "being inclined to"?

Accordingly, I am willing to alter my question - how can God be inclined to something against and in opposition to His own sovereign preceding decree?

Also, what you're inferring is that God could have pleasure in something He has not Himself desired. Do you really believe this outside of having to defend this argument? There is a strict correlation of desire<->pleasure seen especially in Eph 1:5, 1:9, Php 2:13.

 

How long did it take to come up with this unique interpretation? Listen to yourself, in order for this to be held without contradiction henceforth everywhere, every Pastor should preach and every commentary should annotate that Jerusalem was not willing but her children were willing even though the text reads differently to any lay person.

Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

Why are Jerusalem's children in bondage with her then if God had gathered them already under His wings?

 

Why don't you expand your responses - if you believe you have interpreted the truth, provide a biblical exegesis of these verses that we're considering. Why wait for me to ask these questions to hold you to a consistent interpretation?

What did you mean by you did not say ALL of Jerusalem's children - could you point to anything within the verse itself which implies it's not to be read as all but only some? Firstly, I am not asking what you said, I'm asking what Scripture says. And more importantly, Scripture does say ALL of Jerusalem's children are in bondage in Gal 4 -

Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Jerusalem which now is, which is addressed to in Matt 23:37, is in bondage with ALL her children.
Jerusalem which is above, covering the saved elect, is free with ALL her children.

Do you read only SOME and NOT ALL of this Jerusalem's children being in bondage from these verses 25,26? Yes/No
Consequently, do you read SOME and NOT ALL of the spiritual Jerusalem's children being free?

Binary thought again - Jesus was either addressing Jerusalem which now is and her children OR Jesus was addressing Jerusalem which is above. Jesus mentions that the Jerusalem He was addressing did not want what God wanted - so rules out the free Jerusalem which is above. Leaves us with Jerusalem which now is, in bondage with ALL her children.

Therefore, we're back to God's desire that this Jerusalem which now is and her children to be gathered under His wings - how is this conclusion escapable? Isn't this resistless logic derived directly from Scriptures? Again, I am willing to engage with any further explanations you may have regarding the ALL of Gal 4:25 - but I wish you'd stop creating interpretations in desperation.

 

I try and avoid loaded questions - those are not fair in a discussion. I believe I'm being precise in my language and argument in order to draw conclusions, and these necessarily have to be narrow in scope. But let's evaluate if I have raised a loaded question -

My question - Do you believe it is inconsistent for God to desire against and in opposition to what He has previously sovereignly counselled/decreed? Yes/No

This is an independent generic question on what you yourself hold to be the invariance of God's nature. You saying Yes does not imply that God did desire in such a way - it just says you do not see such a situation, if it were to arise, as being consistent.

We then proceed to discussing if Scripture really has revealed God desiring in such a way - the texts in consideration are Matt 23:37 and Eze 33:11 as shortlisted by John Piper from which he believes God does desire in such a way. I'm throwing in the weight of a renowned calvinist, whom I greatly admire too, to show that this isn't my own device. If I am able to show that these verses do present such a desire for the non-elect, then it is proven to be an internal contradiction as per your own stance above. If not, then you have defended the doctrine of predestined reprobation.

So what specifically is the loaded presupposition here? What part of this disallows your defense fairly? Help me see it as you see it by pointing to specifics....

 

Don't you? Aren't you pleased in the Spirit to honor your commitments or are you disgruntled in the flesh?

The point is, we are not filled with the Spirit at all times and we do have a tug of war between sinful flesh and God's spirit. And they are opposed to each other - fulfilling the desires of the Father will cause pain in the flesh and not fulfilling those godly desires will result in pleasure in the flesh.

But we are talking about God here - He has no such internal struggles or opposition. He desires -> He counsels -> He does. All for His good pleasure that He purposes in Himself. This is the picture of God's infallible nature seen in Eph 1:3-14, right? Are you in disagreement with anything I've stated so far here? If you want to extend this to ourselves, then apply it to either the flesh or the spirit singularly and you will find it fits the same image.

Yes, I agree. I've meant that they imply the same thing and altered my language to become more precise after learning you distinguish between the two - but the inference is still the same, that one cannot exist without the other.

Desire is the strong feeling of wanting something to happen - for what? What is the end result of the fulfillment of such a desire - is it not pleasure?
Pleasure is a feeling of happy satisfaction and enjoyment - derived when? On the fulfillment of a preceding desire, right?

Can one occur without the other within the same nature of God? "The pleasure of His desires" is the link between them seen in Eph 1:5. Compare Eph 1:11 and Isa 46:10 - God does what He counsels of His desire which is all His pleasure.

All the above is to present a wholesome explanation for your persuasion. But for the sake of drawing conclusions, I'd boil it down to Eph 1:11 and Isa 46:10 to ask you to show how God could take pleasure in something He has not Himself desired? A corollary of it would be - can God be pleased in the absence of any desire? My assertion is that they are inextricably linked and I've presented my verses from which I draw this inference. You disagree - and I'm willing to engage your basis and your disproving of what's been presented here.