Contradictions in Calvinism

[Yeshua1]

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?

I see predestination in the Bible related to God dealing with His elect, not with the lost, as do not see Him directly determining them to be reprobate in same fashion as He does His elect to get saved!

 

[Scott Downey]

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.

The parable of the Tares and the Wheat describe spiritual truth we are best to pay attention too. Christ does nothing for the Tares, they do use up the ground intended for the wheal to grow and bear fruit, I see no kindness to the tares in anything Christ says.

24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. 26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. 27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.” ’ ”

The parable explained

36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field.”
37 He answered and said to them: “He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one. 39 The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels. 40 Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. 41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, 42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!

 

[ivdavid]

That would to you seem unChrist like and callous?

Why so? I too completely embrace God's hardening of hearts above and beyond our own hardening through sin. Again, how does this address my questions?

We are under no obligation to unharden the hardened, only God does that, and for many, they remain hardened because God has not chosen to reveal to them the truth.
Christ tells us don't get involved with them, if he tells us that, he is not concerned about them either.

No arguments against not getting involved or trying to do God's work ourselves.

You say God has chosen not to reveal the truth to them - and this was predestined, counselled/decreed before the foundation of the world, yes? How does God desire something against what He Himself chose earlier? So Matt 23:37 describes human time through the OT and God is revealing His desires for them to repent and live then - but this is after He has already chosen for them to be destroyed. Isn't this a contradictory inconsistent nature?

 

[ivdavid]

I see predestination in the Bible related to God dealing with His elect, not with the lost, as do not see Him directly determining them to be reprobate in same fashion as He does His elect to get saved!

Sure. I definitely know that calvinism doesn't hold equal symmetry in God's double predestination - but they still hold God decreeing His choice/counsel for the non-elect to be condemned then, call it indirectly if you will, but a decree over their end nonetheless without the need to factor in their further individual acts of disobedience in time. Again, if this is not your view, my argument is not with you at all.

 

[Yeshua1]

Sure. I definitely know that calvinism doesn't hold equal symmetry in God's double predestination - but they still hold God decreeing His choice/counsel for the non-elect to be condemned then, call it indirectly if you will, but a decree over their end nonetheless without the need to factor in their further individual acts of disobedience in time. Again, if this is not your view, my argument is not with you at all.

God chose to bypass their election, so they already were judged and condemned in Adam, but that would be confirmed over and over again by them willing rejecting Jesus to save them from their sins!

 

[Scott Downey]

Why so? I too completely embrace God's hardening of hearts above and beyond our own hardening through sin. Again, how does this address my questions?


No arguments against not getting involved or trying to do God's work ourselves.

You say God has chosen not to reveal the truth to them - and this was predestined, counselled/decreed before the foundation of the world, yes? How does God desire something against what He Himself chose earlier? So Matt 23:37 describes human time through the OT and God is revealing His desires for them to repent and live then - but this is after He has already chosen for them to be destroyed. Isn't this a contradictory inconsistent nature?

Of course God the Father has chosen to destroy those who do not believe, Christ is also weeping towards this people who have continually resisted the Holy Spirit, 'all day long' and they are enemies of the gospel, but beloved because of the fathers,we see Christ's humanity in this. It is why the New Covenant is so vastly superior to the OC, because in the NEW, God writes His laws in them into their minds and hearts and He will be their God, and they will be His people and no one needs to teach anyone to know the LORD anymore. But this Old Covenant relationship Christ is weeping for these Old Covenant Jews because they had rejected Him and He knew their end was death.

This is really about the difference in these 2 major covenants, the new one is so much better and has no sadness in it.

 

[ivdavid]

God chose to bypass their election, so they already were judged and condemned in Adam, but that would be confirmed over and over again by them willing rejecting Jesus to save them from their sins!

You've spoken about man and his deserved condemnation over time and I agree with you.

Now tell me about God's sovereignty in all this - when God elects someone and predestines them for salvation, He is essentially promising their end to be eternal life without basing it on any of their good or bad works. Does God, in His bypassing the non-elect, make a similar determination of their very end?
Or is it simply an evaluation of their current status that God hasn't frozen forever and which theoretically is susceptible to change down the corridors of time depending on whether they obey or reject? The former is held by calvinism and I object to that.

 

[Scott Downey]

You've spoken about man and his deserved condemnation over time and I agree with you.

Now tell me about God's sovereignty in all this - when God elects someone and predestines them for salvation, He is essentially promising their end to be eternal life without basing it on any of their good or bad works. Does God, in His bypassing the non-elect, make a similar determination of their very end?
Or is it simply an evaluation of their current status that God hasn't frozen forever and which theoretically is susceptible to change down the corridors of time depending on whether they obey or reject? The former is held by calvinism and I object to that.

Sorry that you believe Devil's tares can turn into the good seed (which is planted by Christ), on their own ? How would they do such a thing? By good works? By whose definition would be these good works. Scripture is clear, we are are not saved by works at all.

The non elect can not believe in Christ, it is impossible as the god of this world, (devil) has blinded their minds. Only Christ can make you free of that blindness. And the only way that can happen is becoming a new creation, born of God as a newborn babe, it is only to babes God reveals the things of God. read Luke 10 and 2 Corinthians 4


You cannot and will not know God and Christ, unless Christ wills that you know God.

20 Nevertheless, do not rejoice at this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are enrolled in heaven.
21 In that same hour He rejoiced and gloried in the Holy Spirit and said, I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have concealed these things [relating to salvation] from the wise and understanding and learned, and revealed them to babes (the childish, unskilled, and untaught). Yes, Father, for such was Your gracious [c]will and choice and good pleasure.

22 All things have been given over into My power by My Father; and no one knows Who the Son is except the Father, or Who the Father is except the Son and anyone to whom the Son may choose to reveal and make Him known.

 

[ivdavid]

Of course God the Father has chosen to destroy those who do not believe

What you've written, I do agree with. And outside of this context, I find it edifying. But perhaps you may have misunderstood my argument here on this thread. I am not being sentimental here in requiring an explanation for Jesus weeping etc. or in demanding that God show kindness to the non-elect or that He's somehow obligated to saving them - no, not at all.

I am merely raising a contradiction in calvinist theology when it upholds the doctrine of predestined condemnation - in your above quote itself, you say God has chosen to destroy those who do not believe. Run this by an Arminian and he too will agree. In fact, an Arminian could place this too before the foundation of the world with God looking down the corridors of time to foresee who will believe and who won't.

But calvinism says - God has chosen to destroy the non-elect before looking down the corridors of time to evaluate each and every individual act, including acts of faith and unbelief. Why then does God behave in such a way as to express His desire for them to repent, believe and be saved after having already made such a choice in Himself?

 

[Scott Downey]

What you've written, I do agree with. And outside of this context, I find it edifying. But perhaps you may have misunderstood my argument here on this thread. I am not being sentimental here in requiring an explanation for Jesus weeping etc. or in demanding that God show kindness to the non-elect or that He's somehow obligated to saving them - no, not at all.

I am merely raising a contradiction in calvinist theology when it upholds the doctrine of predestined condemnation - in your above quote itself, you say God has chosen to destroy those who do not believe. Run this by an Arminian and he too will agree. In fact, an Arminian could place this too before the foundation of the world with God looking down the corridors of time to foresee who will believe and who won't.

But calvinism says - God has chosen to destroy the non-elect before looking down the corridors of time to evaluate each and every individual act, including acts of faith and unbelief. Why then does God behave in such a way as to express His desire for them to repent, believe and be saved after having already made such a choice in Himself?

I can look at Acts 17 and see God commands all men everywhere to repent and believe in the gospel, but this does not imply anymore than a command to all repent, where is the desire? The reason Paul says God gives this command is right here,

30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”

'Assurance to all', but this does not imply the ability to believe. This is a command that unbelievers due to the enmity and them being the tares , children of Satan can not follow. This comes under the righteous judgement of God, that He told people, like those of the world what to do and they refuse Him, and so then are guilty before God.

 

[ivdavid]

Sorry that you believe Devil's tares can turn into the good seed (which is planted by Christ), on their own ?

I do not believe this. Where ever did you get this idea from?

Only Christ can make you free of that blindness.

Completely True.

And the only way that can happen is becoming a new creation, born of God as a newborn babe, it is only to babes God reveals the things of God. read Luke 10 and 2 Corinthians 4

The only way that results in assured salvation is by being birthed again in the spirit - and only the elect are such new spiritual creations. No arguments against that. I could extend my argument over how fleshly people too could potentially receive temporary regeneration (never rebirth) like king Saul and the people in Hebrews who fall away - which is them being washed only for them to run back to the dirt as in 2Pet.

But let's not digress from the intent of this thread itself - how would calvinism resolve the direct contradiction in its own system? We could very well discuss differences between regeneration and rebirth in another thread or at a later time...

 

[Yeshua1]

You've spoken about man and his deserved condemnation over time and I agree with you.

Now tell me about God's sovereignty in all this - when God elects someone and predestines them for salvation, He is essentially promising their end to be eternal life without basing it on any of their good or bad works. Does God, in His bypassing the non-elect, make a similar determination of their very end?
Or is it simply an evaluation of their current status that God hasn't frozen forever and which theoretically is susceptible to change down the corridors of time depending on whether they obey or reject? The former is held by calvinism and I object to that.

ALL apart from the election and will of God will forever keep on rejecting Jesus to save them from their sins, so He is just giving to them what they want.

 

[Yeshua1]

What you've written, I do agree with. And outside of this context, I find it edifying. But perhaps you may have misunderstood my argument here on this thread. I am not being sentimental here in requiring an explanation for Jesus weeping etc. or in demanding that God show kindness to the non-elect or that He's somehow obligated to saving them - no, not at all.

I am merely raising a contradiction in calvinist theology when it upholds the doctrine of predestined condemnation - in your above quote itself, you say God has chosen to destroy those who do not believe. Run this by an Arminian and he too will agree. In fact, an Arminian could place this too before the foundation of the world with God looking down the corridors of time to foresee who will believe and who won't.

But calvinism says - God has chosen to destroy the non-elect before looking down the corridors of time to evaluate each and every individual act, including acts of faith and unbelief. Why then does God behave in such a way as to express His desire for them to repent, believe and be saved after having already made such a choice in Himself?

God does not force the lost to reject Jesus does He?

 

[ivdavid]

this does not imply anymore than a command to all repent, where is the desire?

Which is why I quoted Matt 23:37 that expresses God's desire and not simply a command.

 

[Scott Downey]

Christ tells the ones He has chosen, that they are not of the world, they have been taken out of the world and will not come under judgement of God.
Christ tells us that those of the world hate him and do not believe.
Christ tells us the ones God has chosen are blessed of His Father
And that the kingdom was prepared for them from the world's foundation.

Matthew 25:34 Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

 

[Scott Downey]

Which is why I quoted Matt 23:37 that expresses God's desire and not simply a command.

Like I tried to share with you, that was all about the OC relationship, and it is not at all how the NC relationship works after Christ institutes it in His shed blood.

AND Christ was not talking to the world, just the jewish people who rejected Him.

 

[ivdavid]

God does not force the lost to reject Jesus does He?

How does this tie into the main argument I've raised? I am not focusing on man's responses at all - remove him altogether from our tablet of consideration for now. I am looking at God and His nature alone.

Calvinism states -
1. God sovereignly predestines condemnation over the non-elect before any man's good or evil, before the foundation of the world.
Scripture then follows it with -
2. God desires the non-elect to repent and believe as seen throughout the OT and NT.

Looking at just these 2 events that occur within God alone, how can 2) follow 1)? You don't need man's responses factored in here - just a sovereign decree of God and His own desire within Himself. How can they be opposed to one another when the counsel is already made before the desire?

God desires. God counsels/decides. God does. Nothing to prevent Him from whatever He has chosen to do. And once He's chosen to do something, there is no variance in Him, no second-guessing, no opposing desires - this is consistent with God, right? Do you see this violated by the above 2 points?

 

[ivdavid]

Like I tried to share with you, that was all about the OC relationship, and it is not at all how the NC relationship works after Christ institutes it in His shed blood.

AND Christ was not talking to the world, just the jewish people who rejected Him.

Do you realize, whether it was OC or NC, it was still after the predestination moment before the foundation of the world? My question still stands then, right? And what does them being jews have anything to do with this - they still are rejected and hence are proven to be the non-elect, right?

I'll even qualify my original qn for you - If God had already predestined the condemnation of the non-elect Jews during the OC from before the foundations of the world, how can God then desire them to be saved in direct contradiction to His earlier predestined decree?

 

[Scott Downey]

How does this tie into the main argument I've raised? I am not focusing on man's responses at all - remove him altogether from our tablet of consideration for now. I am looking at God and His nature alone.

Calvinism states -
1. God sovereignly predestines condemnation over the non-elect before any man's good or evil, before the foundation of the world.
Scripture then follows it with -
2. God desires the non-elect to repent and believe as seen throughout the OT and NT.

Looking at just these 2 events that occur within God alone, how can 2) follow 1)? You don't need man's responses factored in here - just a sovereign decree of God and His own desire within Himself. How can they be opposed to one another when the counsel is already made before the desire?

God desires. God counsels/decides. God does. Nothing to prevent Him from whatever He has chosen to do. And once He's chosen to do something, there is no variance in Him, no second-guessing, no opposing desires - this is consistent with God, right? Do you see this violated by the above 2 points?

The word is preached to all the nations, but this does not imply God desires the non elect to believe, if he did, why is there the elect?, and only they get saved?
What your describing is a double minded God somewhat schizophrenic seeing all the things he has said in scriptures.

And if you try and use the old testament prophets, they were speaking mostly to Israel about repentance.
God does have enemies.
God will judge the world in righteousness and it cuts both ways, just like Romans 9 says.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?”
20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?”
21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory,
24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

 

[Yeshua1]

Do you realize, whether it was OC or NC, it was still after the predestination moment before the foundation of the world? My question still stands then, right? And what does them being jews have anything to do with this - they still are rejected and hence are proven to be the non-elect, right?

I'll even qualify my original qn for you - If God had already predestined the condemnation of the non-elect Jews during the OC from before the foundations of the world, how can God then desire them to be saved in direct contradiction to His earlier predestined decree?

God does not jump back and forth on the tracks, either One is elected by God, or one is not.