Contradictions in Calvinism

Yes, this is true and I agree. But has my question been about man's free choices? Have I not asked about God alone and His sovereign decrees and desires within Himself? Strawman?

My question is not about man or what man is owed or about how he is treated/judged etc. It's only about the portrait of God's consistency within Himself that I find calvinism internally contradicting.

 

I'm taking a breather here.

If a heretic walked into church and started spouting arguments about how Jesus is not God, you know how we'd normally respond to that guy, right? If at all we engage with the guy, there definitely wouldn't be brotherly compassion - with the utmost courtesy, we'd still pounce on his every word in constant suspicion and try to correct every perceived error or misaligned thought against our own. For how could he hold any truth when he's not a brother in Christ?

This thread and a couple others make me feel the same way - I'm not complaining, simply observing. We're 5 pages into this thread and everyone responding to my question barring @davidtaylorjr have been attacking strawman arguments. The fact that one person is at least directly engaging with the argument and that an observer too empathizes tells me it's possible to comprehend my question. I haven't set up an impossibility to debate or discuss.

You may find my question redundant or my arguments invalid - that's fine and that's why we debate/discuss the validity of positions here - but at least in fairness, I could be granted your effort in engaging my own position than random strawmen, yes? And that would be possible if people actually listened - instead of being quick to assume what I must mean. Ask questions - I have always been willing to clarify. I will find the language to get it across to each of you if you show the willingness to cooperate likewise. This is again not said to berate anyone, lest any get defensive - this is simply my appeal for all to take a step back and engage afresh with a more relaxed vibe.

Everyone who believes in Christ here must be passionate. We all die this very moment in our faith in Christ, we will be spending eternity together. Why then the under-the-surface suspicious hostility, just because I argue against some of your beliefs - I argue against various positions not in the least bit threatened about being wrong myself over my own position. I expect you to persuade me on my errors just as take it upon myself to share my persuasions to others. Calvinist, Arminian - in the long run, does it really matter? I am convinced both are in much truth and in some error, but I do not believe I'll be shaken if I consider your positions openly. How would this conversation play out in our living rooms with friends over coffee and board games - like this? (It's true, we did manage that once.)

Anyway, back to the trenches, I suppose....

 

This is True. But I'm staying away from focusing on what's required of man - simply focusing on what God thinks, decrees, desires, does etc. by revelation. The focus here is simply that God revealed He has pleasure in the wicked turning away and living.

How did you come to this conclusion? If you were say reading Shakespeare or Plato before visiting this thread and you came across the words "desire" and "pleasure", you wouldn't have associated the two as one implying the other at all, is it?

I ask only because I want to draw attention to the fact that our reading Scriptures have become constrained by our theological positions rather than our positions being constrained by Scripture. John 3:16 always meant ALL the world to the lay person - calvinism runs into an issue, and 'all' has to be qualified. Why can't calvinism change to accommodate this reading of the normal ALL? Why must it come down to word definitions of something as synonymous as desire/pleasure for an entire theological framework to stand? Even John Piper concedes these verses do imply that God does desire their repentance and life - for which he then writes an entire book to try and reconcile the contradiction. My argument here is picking on what he's not addressed. I don't recollect exactly, but the title was something like Does God really want all to be saved..It's a free pdf download in case anyone's interested.

The point is, I expected such distinctions to be made and I thought I preempted that by providing my working definition earlier. Again, I could be told this is just my opinion and then I'd labor to prove the same from Scripture. But before we begin this definition trek, would you then concede this to be an internal contradiction if I prove that desire and pleasure are meant the same in Scriptures? I'm not trying to hold you to an ultimatum, not at all - I'm simply emphasizing this is not worth it and that you should work out an explanation that does read this as being God's desire. Not the hill to die on, basically.

 

Nope. Just realizing my memory is fallible
I did like your post at the time, though - that hasn't lapsed my mind...

 

This is a nice reference. So when was the door shut on the non-elect by God - before the foundation of the world, before man's good or evil OR after man's unbelief in God?

Because we have God in Scriptures revealing His desire for the non-elect to enter in the door and live. This would be perfectly fine if God shut the door after His expressing this conditional desire and man's rejecting it in unbelief as seen in Matt 23:37. However, this would be contradictory of God to desire them to enter the door that He has already shut before the ages. Calvinism implies that this decree was done before the ages - how does it explain away the contradiction then?

 

Sure, I'll clarify..I'm exclusively addressing this to the calvinists adopting their terms.

I am arguing only against "predestined reprobation/condemnation of man".

I do not even say there is no such thing as double predestination. I see it in some sense in the elect and non-elect angels - the non-elect angels were not provided a Savior for redemption though God knew they would fall away to their destruction. I only say there is no revelation of predestined condemnation decreed in man.

I am also not denying "destined condemnation of man by God" - I just oppose the pre-. God does swear in His wrath to destroy and He could do so by destroying the non-elect in their sleep or by hardening them and using them as props to show forth more of His power and glory - however not pre- but after their filling up their measure of iniquity in unbelief.

I do not argue that man must be treated better - that he's owed anything more. I do not call God unjust if He were to decree condemnation without offering redemption in a Savior - we see it with the non-elect angels. I simply am arguing for God's nature to be consistent as seen in Scriptures.


I hold to single predestination in man. I hold to everything calvinist apart from the above doctrine and its implications. I hold to everything arminian apart from people actually being saved by self-determinism and its implications.

Again, to be very clear, I am not arguing for a total collapse of calvinism through this. I do not see the other doctrines stand or fall on just this. If you were to say you agree with me on this posing a contradiction and therefore this particular doctrine of predestined condemnation of man needs reevaluation - this is not you saying TULIP is false. You conceding an error in this one doctrine does not make calvinism redundant where everyone must necessarily jump to arminianism or another variant - it simply opens you up to reconcile more parts of Scripture. I intend to do the same with arminianism too and show how both can be reconciled together - having the errors pruned away and uniting on the common truths in Scripture.