Contradictions in Calvinism

I'm sure there are many differences in doctrinal interpretations between the calvinists and the others - but I do not term each one a contradiction. It is a contradiction only if it is internally inconsistent with what the calvinists themselves hold as seen in Scriptures, not when others find it inconsistent with their respective views.

Since calvinism upholds a high standard for logical consistency, it must uphold that standard itself. While a lot of calvinism lends itself to logically airtight arguments, given that they do hold to several truths from the Bible, there is one that is simply incorrect and damaging to giving God all the glory.

I've identified the erroneous doctrine of predestined reprobation/condemnation to be the root of all its ensuing wrong inferences and I've been raising the following concerns as unexplained contradictions in several threads with no particular responses yet - hence this dedicated thread.

1. How do calvinists explain the contradiction seen in God desiring the non-elect to repent and live which is directly against His own preceding sovereign decree for them to be condemned and destroyed? How can God desire against His own prior sovereign counsel/decree?

For instance, can God desire to not show mercy upon the elect whom He Himself sovereignly counselled/decreed to be redeemed before the ages - if not, how can God desire the opposite of what He Himself sovereignly counselled/decreed for the non-elect before the ages?

2. How are Hebrews 6, 10, 2Pet 2 falling away from repentance and truth with no more sacrifice or renewal possible explained? If it's simply superficial knowledge of the truth and not true repentance, isn't that typical of even the elect until before he becomes a believer - in what sense then is there no more sacrifice for sins and renewal again unto repentance impossible?

 

Of course God has sovereign entitlement to have mercy upon whom He has mercy and none should question His sovereign authority. That is not what I'm pointing to as the contradiction at all - I'm referring to God's nature being inconsistent. Can God desire against His own preceding counsel? This is an independent question unrelated to Rom 9 as such.

If I were to ask you something contradictory over God's nature, such as - can God do evil after commanding us good, and you pointed me to Rom 9 and said "who are we to tell Him otherwise", wouldn't that be an insufficient response? So again, how can God desire the opposite after He has decreed the non-elect condemnation and destruction (which I agree He has every sovereign right to do)?

 

I do not even contest the facts of the calvinists - only the sequence, the logical order. I am absolutely fine with God decreeing condemnation based on man's rejection of God calling Him to repent and live - but then that would not be predestined before the ages, before any man has done good or evil. As per calvinism, condemnation is predestined by sovereign counsel/decree which by definition precedes the calling to all man to repent and live.

All this would've been absolutely fine if God had not expressed His desire for them to have repented and lived as in Matt 23:37 etc. We see God dealing similarly with the non-elect angels for whom He has expressed no such desire and consistent with that, no Savior has been provided for their redemption. Scriptures revealing this desire of God for man after His sovereign decree is a contradiction in calvinist theology.

 

Totally agree. But I'm not raising objections against any one particular individual - this is simply against calvinism and Calvinist theology holds to double predestination.

 

Does God's determining to save out His own occur before the foundation of the world, before any man has done good or evil (Rom 9:11) or is it made after man's evil in rejecting this command to repent and live? The latter wouldn't be calvinism.

Agreed. There are 4 point and 5 point calvinists and so many other variants. But what does calvinism itself officially state as per their creeds or catechisms?

 

All I know is I have asked these same questions before and I haven't received this repeated answering, much less any answer, from anyone at all. You could at the very least post a link here - else, effectively you've replied by saying you wouldn't reply?

 

I am curious, what do you discuss on a discussion board - about where not to discuss?
Theoretically, if everyone were to do their own research from Google, why would they need to come here? If you have something to contribute and move the discussion forward, it'll be appreciated. Else, you are absolutely free to spend your time on Google or elsewhere instead of feeling compelled to hit the Post Reply button here, which you seem so weary of after much repetition.

 

I wish. Predestination by definition sets the sequence as before and not after - how do you see this as being open ended? This is what distinguishes calvinism and the rest particularly - the predestined part about condemnation.

Also, the infras-supras debate is only with the fall at eden in view - not with individual man's rejection of God's call to repent and live after the fall. Do you see this differently?

 

Done it beforehand. Which is why I am raising only these as contradictions. The closest has been Piper's two will theory - again, doesn't address my question here specifically. Still waiting for a consistent resolution. If you've got one, I'm ready to evaluate that too. If you've got differing research, feel free to share.