Contradictions in Calvinism

No, not all of calvinism. Only specifically the pre- part of predestined reprobation of man. Only this and the implications derived directly from this. The rest stand completely. I am a 5 point TULIPer.

I've understood calvinism which is why I hold to most of its doctrines. Can't there be any error at all within the subset that could be reformed. We are products of the protestant reformation, right? Predicated on the basis that no doctrinal/theological system is infallible and that we hold each other accountable to sola scriptura and not by a theological diktat, right? Why do you get so defensive - and why treat me as the outsider when I am simply desiring the little error to be pruned away from the very tree I am a part of?

 

What you've described here specifically is Single Predestination. The Double part is inferred, right? Human inferences are fallible, right? Especially when I can show the exact logical fallacy of inverse premises - which I have in my earlier response to you and you haven't responded one way or the other to it specifically. So how do we move along here? Engage with the points raised on this thread - the points where Arminianism is wrong in their upholding any man is actually saved by self-determinism can be saved for later or another thread. I agree that part is wrong and I will work with our arminian brothers to persuade them against that. But two wrongs don't make a right - their being wrong on some other specificity has nothing to do with the inconsistency I'm raising here. How does calvinism engage with just this internally?

 

I completely agree. It's just that you simply asking a question never places the same necessity for the other to respond to the logical end, that a declaration to disprove places. It's difficult to draw conclusions because people refrain from committing to responses or stances or inferences when it doesn't suit them - the additional implication of the declaration simply aids this process. This wouldn't at all be necessary if all engaged in fair discussions, open-minded and willing to consider all perspectives.

 

A loaded question or complex question is a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption.

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

There are no assumptions here - it simply is a hypothetical question. It's like asking do you believe it possible for pigs to fly - yes or no, with no contained assumptions that you'd also be implying as true in answering. So again, what unfair contained assumption do you see yourself implying as true if you were to answer my question above?

God previously decreed that all the non-elect be condemned to death.
He now desires, for a time until they fill up their measure of iniquity, that the non-elect repent and live.
Desire for them to live is opposed to previous Decree for them to die.
Can i be any clearer?

How do you decide what's already done and dusted? I thought this is still being discussed - so far there have been 2 attempts at explaining this. One involved saying God never desired for any of them to be gathered, the other involved saying God desired only some of them to be gathered - if calvinism has got it all together, why the disparity between your own two views? I responded to the first by pointing out how the never interpretation would also have the israelites never having desired against God, which is obviously not true - And I responded to the second by presenting Scripture in Gal 4 which specifically says there is no room for an interpretation of some but only all. I am awaiting further responses to both these attempts and the ball still is in the calvinist court on this - so how do you make your above statement in all fairness?

Again, still under discussion. After the initial attempts to digress into the covenants and man's response, which were never what I was raising - there was only 1 attempt made holding pleasure to be possible without an implied preceding desire. I've again raised Scripture against such a possibility in God and am awaiting further responses. So again, do you expect your first attempt at any explanation to be taken as a holy grail of truth without any further push-backs and validations? Engage with these arguments to the end in order to draw conclusions. If i end up ignoring a point that wasn't a strawman, then that's on me and I've proven to be a troll wasting everyone's time on cyclic arguments - but show me where I have done so. Isn't my summary of the responses so far fair and justified?

I do not see an impasse - at least one of you is responding with newer points and I am addressing those in return, precisely because I am accepting those as valid responses. If more of you want to contribute, engage with the points raised - what use is generic assertions without addressing the specific concerns?

 

Oh come now. I have engaged with your position - if I've misunderstood, kindly clarify it. Else, list out the fallacies or where I've added words to Scripture?

You said God gathered SOME of Jerusalem's children under His wings - yes? Have I misunderstood this?
I showed you from Gal 4:25-26, that irrespective of which Jerusalem is being addressed, it can only be ALL its children and not SOME. And further showed that Matt 23:37 must refer to the Jerusalem which is now given the context of condemnation. So, no room for this additional insertion and qualification of SOME?

I asked you if you read SOME into Gal 4? You could begin your response with a simple yes or no.
This is as direct an argument as it gets - you make a SOME assertion and I show Scriptures require an ALL conclusion. Where is the fallacy here - what words are added here if not for you adding SOME into Scriptures?

This is me having a discussion - you say something, I contest that from Scriptures, you explain yourself, I agree with that or push-back with more concerns - as long as we're moving forward, this is how a discussion goes, yes?

 

Qualify it precisely - don't compare apples and oranges. If you desired justice, you will take pleasure in the fact that justice is upheld. If you did not desire the death of the wicked, you will not take pleasure in his death. If God desired to bruise His Son for all things to be gathered in Him for His glory, He is pleased in doing so (Isa 53:10).

Dealing with Eze 33:11, would working the other way round help you see it better - try beginning with the pleasure and tell me if there can be any pleasure in God without Him having desired it in the first place? God wills or purposes pleasure for Himself, He doesn't passively derive it from external sources like we do.

 

I've enjoyed his works and find them quite edifying. Concerning this topic itself, I cannot find more agreement elsewhere than in what he's written -

Chapter 2:

I pretty much state the same - the non-elect are only denied the benefit that will infallibly bring them to eternal life, which benefit is given to the elect alone.

Chapter 6:

Bunyan too argues against the "appointing beforehand to eternal condemnation" - hasn't this been all that I've opposed so far here?

Have I not argued earlier on this very thread to your post that God's Inaction is not the same as Opposite action?

Bunyan in Chapter 3 states "Which serveth yet further to prove that reprobation could not be with respect to this or the other sin...", hence condemnation as justice which is according to specific sins cannot be passed during reprobation before the ages.

Chapter 9:

How many calvinists are willing to affirm the above reason where Christ is believed to have died for all, even the non-elect, even while simultaneously holding on to Limited Atonement? It is not a contradiction, and is a position I find myself happy to follow in the steps of Bunyan.

God desires all to lay hold of life, whether elect or reprobate - isn't this all we've been disputing so far here? Why can't Bunyan settle Eze 33:11 and Matt 23:37 for us in saying God does desire even the non-elect to repent and live and consequently this pre-decree or appointing beforehand to condemnation is not Scriptural?

 

I went through the canons of Dort and I agree with the language there. I agree with Bunyan's writing referenced here. Has calvinism lost its way in adopting this doctrine of "predestined condemnation of man" when neither affirm this?

Can't we agree with the Arminians that condemnation is only based on man's own sins and not a sovereign predestined decree of God? Single Predestination would definitely resolve this.

 

As clarification, I have been using the words "reprobation" and "condemnation" interchangeably. I've come to realize they mean different things - but the weight of the meaning wherever I've used these earlier is that of "condemnation" alone.

 

Can't prove a negative. Onus is therefore on you to defend where the positive is seen, hence Eze 33:11 and Matt 23:37.
Where did God say anything about justification by faith in Lev 18...did not see it in verse 5!

 

I don't propose they can come together as they are, No. Some adjustments are necessary without compromising on the core of each system.

I may be entirely wrong on the specifics but as a general overview, Calvinism began with emphasizing predestined salvation of the individual elect as glorifying God alone. The Arminian objection was not against this directly but against the logical inference (fallacy) that God also effectively predestined condemnation for the non-elect with their self-determinism not even being factored in. They wanted condemnation to be predicated only on man's own self-deterministic failure and not on God's predestined sovereign decree. Consequently, they committed their own logical fallacy in thinking this implied man does actually saved by self-deterministic success. Take away these couple of logical fallacies, and why can't the rest be worked out to incorporate the core beliefs of both camps?

A simplistic comparison between calvinism, arminianism and the reconciled views. Again, not to digress from the OP of this thread, but as a framework for where I come from...if you need elaborate discussions on this specifically, let's start another thread.