Contradictions in Calvinism

[ivdavid]

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?

 

[Yeshua1]

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?

Think Paul answered that in his discussion about the vessels of clay and the pottery that God creates and made, who are we to tell him otherwise?

 

[JonC]

Most Calvinists present God calling to all man to repent and none will. Out of these God elects a people to salvation.

 

[ivdavid]

Think Paul answered that in his discussion about the vessels of clay and the pottery that God creates and made, who are we to tell him otherwise?

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)?

 

[ivdavid]

Most Calvinists present God calling to all man to repent and none will. Out of these God elects a people to salvation.

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

I do not even contest the facts of the calvinists - only the sequence, the logical order. As per calvinism, condemnation is predestined by sovereign counsel/decree which by definition precedes the calling to all man to repent and live - this sequence 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.

Also depends if we hold to either single or double predestination!

 

[Yeshua1]

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)?

God Will and His desires not same thing, as he can desire all to repent and believe in Jesus, but knowing they cannot do that unaided, determines to save out His own by act of His will!

 

[ivdavid]

Also depends if we hold to either single or double predestination!

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

Some Calvinists do, and some do not....

 

[ivdavid]

God Will and His desires not same thing, as he can desire all to repent and believe in Jesus, but knowing they cannot do that unaided, determines to save out His own by act of His will!

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.

Some Calvinists do, and some do not....

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?

 

[Particular]

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?

The contradiction is manufactured by synergists who demand free will and control from God as well as presumptive interpretation of the Bible.
Calvinists have answered this repeatedly. Go research it as I will not repeat it here.

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?

Again, this has been repeatedly addressed here at the BB. Go research it yourself. I will not repeat it here.

 

[ivdavid]

Calvinists have answered this repeatedly. Go research it as I will not repeat it here.

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?

 

[Yeshua1]

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?

Open ended, as there is allowed both views to be held!
Just as can hold to either Supralapsarianism or Infralapsarianism

 

[Particular]

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?

www.google.com

 

[ivdavid]

www.google.com

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.

 

[Particular]

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.

Do your research. Share it with us and we'll tell you if you are close.

 

[ivdavid]

Open ended, as there is allowed both views to be held!
Just as can hold to either Supralapsarianism or Infralapsarianism

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?

 

[Scott Downey]

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?

Why then does Christ tell us this about these unbelievers who are troubling Him and His disciples?
12 Then His disciples came and said to Him, “Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?”
13 But He answered and said, “Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted.
14 Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch.”

That would to you seem unChrist like and callous?
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.

Matthew 15 New King James Version (NKJV)

1 Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, 2 “Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.”
3 He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 5 But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God”— 6 then he need not honor his father [a]or mother.’ Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition.

7 Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying:
8 ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth,
And honor Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
9 And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ”
10 When He had called the multitude to Himself, He said to them, “Hear and understand: 11 Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.”
12 Then His disciples came and said to Him, “Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?”
13 But He answered and said, “Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. 14 Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch.”

 

[ivdavid]

Do your research. Share it with us and we'll tell you if you are close.

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.

 

[Particular]

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.

You believe they are contradictions. If you can't reconcile this through self-study and research, no one here will change your mind.