Contradictions in Calvinism

[ivdavid]

I think I am following, but just to clarify can you post the passages in question regarding what you believe is an inconsistency in Calvinist thinking?

So as I said, calvinism upholds double predestination - essentially God counselling/decreeing a committed decision over the non-elect to be condemned. In accordance with this, there should be no opposing desires of God's against what He Himself has here predestined by decree - no desires that imply He is pleased with the opposite of His decrees happening. But we have -

Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Again, not focusing on man and what he deserves, whether he's jew or not, in the OC or NC - not focusing on any of these. Simply God alone and whether His revealed desires are opposed to His predestined decrees or not. God reveals that He did desire the non-elect of Israel to be saved under His wings and that He rather has pleasure that they repent and live instead of dying. What do we do with Scripture that shows God's desire in opposition to His own earlier counsel/decrees?

 

[ivdavid]

He doesn't.

Again clarifying your misunderstanding, I'm not saying God desires during Matt 23 that the non-elect Israel repent and live - they've filled their measure of iniquity and His wrath is already turned against them then. Matt 23:37 however has on record that God did desire this throughout the OT, during the sending of the prophets and their stoning of them. How do you reconcile this desire of God that they live when it's directly against His predestined decree that they die?

 

[Rob_BW]

Are any of you fathers? I know if my child sits down in front of a plate of liver and onions and macaroni and cheese, his fork his going straight for the macaroni and cheese.

If I can recognize that, I don’t see how God recognizing that mankind will sin equals double predestination. God is infinitely more wise than I am, and surely knows more about our nature than I know about my child's nature.

Maybe my analogy is simplistic. But I have yet to see an example where a human being won't at some point choose to sin, outside of Jesus Christ.

 

[1689Dave]

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?

I think you are holding up a strawman, not understanding the topic well enough.

 

[ivdavid]

I think you are holding up a strawman, not understanding the topic well enough.

And this usually gets followed with how I have done so. Else, how can I stand corrected or defend myself?

Practically speaking, does anyone ever post a thread here thinking, "Oh let me attack that strawman given I have no understanding on this topic at all"? The onus is on you to prove this is the case of me - else, what purpose does your opinion have on its own?

 

[Iconoclast]

Do you actually believe this word for word? Because you've only described Single Predestination here - God in love elects and predestines those to be saved but does not do anything towards the rest.

Do you believe that God, at the same time that He lovingly elects, also looks over at the non-elect who're already deserving condemnation and specifically predestines them to that end? Is there an active determination/decree of their end at that time or not?

Active predestination is only spoken of the elect being conformed to the image of Jesus in Roman's 8.
The others are left In The realm of death.

 

[ivdavid]

Active predestination is only spoken of the elect being conformed to the image of Jesus in Roman's 8.
The others are left In The realm of death.

You'll have to be precise here given the context of this discussion - are the others left in the realm of death by God's decree or not? While God intentionally predestines the elect, does God also look at the non-elect in the realm of death and say "Yes, I have made my decision to choose to leave you in the realm of death"? Or does God not look at them at all and we find them perishing as they were in the realm of death?

Basically, calling it Active predestination seems redundant - all predestination is intentional and cannot be passive therein. So either God makes up His mind about the non-elect's destiny before the ages - or He doesn't. It's binary. Which is it? That's the difference between double and single predestination.

 

[1689Dave]

And this usually gets followed with how I have done so. Else, how can I stand corrected or defend myself?

Practically speaking, does anyone ever post a thread here thinking, "Oh let me attack that strawman given I have no understanding on this topic at all"? The onus is on you to prove this is the case of me - else, what purpose does your opinion have on its own?

“In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things [including our free choices] after the counsel of his own will:” Ephesians 1:11 (KJV 1900)

 

[Scott Downey]

Again clarifying your misunderstanding, I'm not saying God desires during Matt 23 that the non-elect Israel repent and live - they've filled their measure of iniquity and His wrath is already turned against them then. Matt 23:37 however has on record that God did desire this throughout the OT, during the sending of the prophets and their stoning of them. How do you reconcile this desire of God that they live when it's directly against His predestined decree that they die?

God does this to demonstrate His justice, God gives them many chances to change their ways, repent and believe. Destruction coming from God is not instantaneous upon the very first transgressions. So at the final judgement, God can tell them He sent to them the witness of His goodness, to turn and live, but they continually refused to listen, or only did so half heartedly and then backslid back to or worse than before. So God is not to blame, they are and they own their own destruction.

For example the flood of Noah, Noah was a preacher of righteousness, yet they refused to listen, and God said their remaining days shall be 120 years, then the floods came.

God's message is consistently, repent or perish to Israel.
That figtree never does bear fruit, even though well fertilized and taken care of.
Signifies again you must be fundamentally transformed as in Born again or you will never change your evil ways.
In the natural, the flesh, it is impossible to please God, so all of their rejections proves God right by what He has said.

Romans 3:4 Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar.
As it is written: “That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged.”


Luke 13 New King James Version (NKJV)
Repent or Perish
13 There were present at that season some who told Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had [a]mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? 3 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.”

The Parable of the Barren Fig Tree
6 He also spoke this parable: “A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none.

7 Then he said to the keeper of his vineyard, ‘Look, for three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Cut it down; why does it use up the ground?’

8 But he answered and said to him, ‘Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and fertilize it.

9 And if it bears fruit, well. But if not, after that you can cut it down.’ ”

 

[Reformed1689]

So as I said, calvinism upholds double predestination - essentially God counselling/decreeing a committed decision over the non-elect to be condemned. In accordance with this, there should be no opposing desires of God's against what He Himself has here predestined by decree - no desires that imply He is pleased with the opposite of His decrees happening. But we have -

Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Again, not focusing on man and what he deserves, whether he's jew or not, in the OC or NC - not focusing on any of these. Simply God alone and whether His revealed desires are opposed to His predestined decrees or not. God reveals that He did desire the non-elect of Israel to be saved under His wings and that He rather has pleasure that they repent and live instead of dying. What do we do with Scripture that shows God's desire in opposition to His own earlier counsel/decrees?

With regard to Eze 33:11, I don't see this as a contradiction or opposite. All it says is He does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked but does take pleasure in those that repent. It's a call to repent emphasizing the personal responsibility of the individual.

I am curious how you see Matthew 23:37 playing into this discussion?

Are these verses really revealing what God desires? I believe it is revealing what he takes pleasure in. Those are not the same thing.

 

[Particular]

Again clarifying your misunderstanding, I'm not saying God desires during Matt 23 that the non-elect Israel repent and live - they've filled their measure of iniquity and His wrath is already turned against them then. Matt 23:37 however has on record that God did desire this throughout the OT, during the sending of the prophets and their stoning of them. How do you reconcile this desire of God that they live when it's directly against His predestined decree that they die?

No reconciliation needed. The call is sent out to all, but only the elect respond and believe. This is no different before Jesus became human than it was before he became human. God's prophets spoke to the nation as a whole, but only the children of the promise responded in faith. Others may respond in remorse, but they will never cede control over to God in faith. Instead, they will work to appease God's wrath in hopes of finding a loophole. (There are many in the church today who are just looking for a way to control their own destiny and appease/uae God for their own benefit. This must make God sad.)

 

[Scott Downey]

There is a big difference here in these 2 statements.
John 6:29
Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”

versus

Acts 17
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.”
32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, while others said, “We will hear you again on this matter.”

John 6:29, means that they believe, as in they believe, not any unbelieving, that is the work of God and it has a certain outcome of salvation.
While Act 17:30 is a command which some ignore and some obey. The ones who obey, God worked His works in them which is why they were obedient to the command of God. The ones who mock and refuse God, their judgement and doom is on them by their own evil responses.

You are by nature a child of wrath, unless God makes you born of God. Otherwise you are not His child, you are the children of Satan, planted by the devil, a son of the evil one, in God's field, the world..

 

[Iconoclast]

You'll have to be precise here given the context of this discussion - are the others left in the realm of death by God's decree or not? While God intentionally predestines the elect, does God also look at the non-elect in the realm of death and say "Yes, I have made my decision to choose to leave you in the realm of death"? Or does God not look at them at all and we find them perishing as they were in the realm of death?

Basically, calling it Active predestination seems redundant - all predestination is intentional and cannot be passive therein. So either God makes up His mind about the non-elect's destiny before the ages - or He doesn't. It's binary. Which is it? That's the difference between double and single predestination.

I do not read about Noah repelling people from entering the ark. The door was open ,until it was not.
God is not subject to your philosophical construct.
When you went to the grocery store you picked out 5 oranges to purchase.
Did you spend alot of time thinking about the others you left
God elects a multitude. The others are passed over.
Sin is going to be punished,in the sinner or the substitute. Connect the dots.

 

[Reformed1689]

I do not read about Noah repelling people from entering the ark. The door was open ,until it was not.
God is not subject to your philosophical construct.
When you went to the grocery store you picked out 5 oranges to purchase.
Did you spend alot of time thinking about the others you left
God elects a multitude. The others are passed over.
Sin is going to be punished,in the sinner or the substitute. Connect the dots.

For clarity, are you arguing that there is no such thing as double predestination?

 

[1689Dave]

As far as Supralapsarianism, how does this sit with yall?

How unique are you?


For you to exist, each union of each sperm and ovum in your family tree must have fallen out precisely according to God's plan. Every free choice in marriage partners, including the events leading up to the moment of conception. Or every evil act as with David and Bathsheba that eventually produced Jesus. Or accidents, wars, diseases and violent deaths, that placed someone different in your family tree, must be under God's direct control. Or you would not exist. From untold trillions of sperm egg unions, each producing a different person, all falling-out according to his eternal decree for you to be reading this now. Think what this means if God wrote your name in the book of life before the foundation of the world.

 

[Particular]

For clarity, are you arguing that there is no such thing as double predestination?

There is simply...predestination.
Should it bother a person that all fallen humans are, justly, objects of God's wrath except those whom he chooses to redeem?

 

[Iconoclast]

For clarity, are you arguing that there is no such thing as double predestination?

There is the biblical doctrine of reprobation.
It would not bother me if suprelapsarianism were true, however the 4 texts are not conclusive and can be problematic.
I am holding to infralapsarianism as the biblical view.
The word for predestined is used for the sanctification of the elect being conformed to the image of the Son.
Some pull the word out and improperly offer it in the place of ordination,decreed,or purposed.
I do not jump off that bridge.

 

[ivdavid]

God does this to demonstrate His justice, God gives them many chances to change their ways, repent and believe. Destruction coming from God is not instantaneous upon the very first transgressions. So at the final judgement, God can tell them He sent to them the witness of His goodness, to turn and live, but they continually refused to listen, or only did so half heartedly and then backslid back to or worse than before. So God is not to blame, they are and they own their own destruction.

For example the flood of Noah, Noah was a preacher of righteousness, yet they refused to listen, and God said their remaining days shall be 120 years, then the floods came.

God's message is consistently, repent or perish to Israel.
That figtree never does bear fruit, even though well fertilized and taken care of.
Signifies again you must be fundamentally transformed as in Born again or you will never change your evil ways.
In the natural, the flesh, it is impossible to please God, so all of their rejections proves God right by what He has said.

Romans 3:4 Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar.
As it is written: “That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged.”


Luke 13 New King James Version (NKJV)
Repent or Perish
13 There were present at that season some who told Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had [a]mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? 3 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.”

The Parable of the Barren Fig Tree
6 He also spoke this parable: “A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none.

7 Then he said to the keeper of his vineyard, ‘Look, for three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Cut it down; why does it use up the ground?’

8 But he answered and said to him, ‘Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and fertilize it.

9 And if it bears fruit, well. But if not, after that you can cut it down.’ ”

I've quoted your entire post to show (apart from a few minor phrases that I'd word differently) that I agree with the full force of your post.

But this is my issue - you are addressing a strawman. Your post seems written to the question - how can God bring about destruction on Israel after wanting to gather them under His wings. Am I right on this?

But I never asked such a question. I have no issues with God permitting evil in man, nor do I have issues with God having conditional desires that require man's response in obedience - God can conditionally desire good things for king Saul and when he disobeys, God can very well turn in His wrath and desire to reject him. All this is very well and I've never questioned any of this.

We're running not even in circles but in random zigzag paths away from my central point. Please answer the following 2 questions alone so we get on the same page, if you are still interested in discussing here -

1. Do you believe God sovereignly predestined/counselled/decreed the condemnation of the non-elect before the ages? Yes/No
2. Do you believe it would be inconsistent for God to then desire against and in opposition to what He has above sovereignly counselled/decreed? Yes/No

No man. Just God and His attributes of His nature. His sovereign decree, His desire. You don't have to drag any other factors into this because I haven't.

 

[Yeshua1]

You'll have to be precise here given the context of this discussion - are the others left in the realm of death by God's decree or not? While God intentionally predestines the elect, does God also look at the non-elect in the realm of death and say "Yes, I have made my decision to choose to leave you in the realm of death"? Or does God not look at them at all and we find them perishing as they were in the realm of death?

Basically, calling it Active predestination seems redundant - all predestination is intentional and cannot be passive therein. So either God makes up His mind about the non-elect's destiny before the ages - or He doesn't. It's binary. Which is it? That's the difference between double and single predestination.

God determined to save out his own people, the elect, among race of lost sinners, so Active in that decree, and He permitted the lost to say as they desire in their own sins.

 

[George Antonios]

@ivdavid It seems like I would disagree with you on some things but I just want to say Kudos for your patience, grace, clarity of thought, and sticking to the OP.
It's still surprising to me how, with a possible exception by one poster, your points were ignored (almost methodically so) and derided (and oh! the oozing pride and scornful looks) without any reply relative to the crux of the matter you were addressing. That is how men without answers deal. It's frustrating, although there is a minority with whom I disagree but who will at least address the matter head-on.