Contradictions in Calvinism

[ivdavid]

“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)

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

God has decreed whom he elect are, and the remainder are permitted to stay in that state. Predestination refers to the God election in active sense his own, not in the lost sinner state.

 

[Reformed]

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.

Monergists see similar contradictions in Synergism. God's sovereignty and man's responsibility has been debated for centuries. It is nothing new. The problem both sides have is trying to dot every "I" and cross every "T". All of us are limited by the constraints of human knowledge. Monergists look at the totality of biblical evidence and make their determination. Some passages are clear and other more obscure. The obscure ones are interpreted through the clear ones. Is it a contradiction for a Mongergist to preach the gospel to all when only the elect believe? The Monergist will tell you that God ordains the means by which he calls His elect. So, the gospel is freely proclaimed to all knowing that is God's plan. This is why Monergists do not see any contradictions in their theology.



Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

 

[ivdavid]

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....

 

[1689Dave]

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.

God controls our free choices through the reasons we base them on.

 

[Particular]

Both questions are based upon presupposition.

1. Do you believe God sovereignly predestined/counselled/decreed the condemnation of the non-elect before the ages? Yes/No

God knew and ordained (said yes)to the fall of Adam. He did this before Creation ever took place. Therefore all humanity was predestined to the effects of the fall, the first being rebellion against God by all humanity. This means all humans are condemned by their sin.
God chose (elected) to redeem a portion of humanity at the same time.

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

God doesn't desire against His Sovereign choice. He weeps that man followed after rebellion and sin when He ordained to possibilty that mankind could rebel.
Adam had the capacity to rebel. Adam had no capacity to invoke reconciliation. Only God has the capacity to redeem and reconcile.

 

[ivdavid]

It's a call to repent emphasizing the personal responsibility of the individual.

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.

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

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.

God's desire is His want that pleases Him when fulfilled.

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.

 

[Rob_BW]

I guess you must have me on ignore.

 

[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.

This post has been bothering me about the ideas your suggesting.
Do you see the conflict you have setup?
If God declares the elect obtain the salvation, and God knows and determines the future, then of course it is frozen forever in the decrees God made before the beginning of time. So then how can a non elect unfreeze the decree of God? You create an impossible situation where God decreed the salvation of the elect, but depending on if the non elect obey they are saved, when God already knows they won't be obedient. And now your also introducing a situation where a non elect can choose to believe by the force of their own will, and John 1 says we are not born of God by the will of man. Unless a man is born again, they will have an enduring enmity with God and Christ, and they will consider salvation in Christ foolish talking.
Your setting up a situation that can not occur.

Now these scriptures are important to understand as to the reason why some persons did receive Him.
And it is not by their will, but this was by God's will that they received Him.
Otherwise your endorsing Pelagianism. And you should look up that heresy.

John 1
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.
11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. (the jews)
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:
13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

Do you hold to Double Predestination then?

 

[utilyan]

Monergists see similar contradictions in Synergism. God's sovereignty and man's responsibility has been debated for centuries. It is nothing new. The problem both sides have is trying to dot every "I" and cross every "T". All of us are limited by the constraints of human knowledge. Monergists look at the totality of biblical evidence and make their determination. Some passages are clear and other more obscure. The obscure ones are interpreted through the clear ones. Is it a contradiction for a Mongergist to preach the gospel to all when only the elect believe? The Monergist will tell you that God ordains the means by which he calls His elect. So, the gospel is freely proclaimed to all knowing that is God's plan. This is why Monergists do not see any contradictions in their theology.



Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

First the terms monergist and synergist are Calvinist invented and unbiblical terms for things that have nothing to do with Christianity.

Self proclaimed monergist are Synergist.

According to the order of salvation, a person MUST ACCEPT LISTENING to the gospel or else regeneration cannot take place.

"17So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ."



100 unregenerate folks.

100 refuse to hear the gospel = 100 won't be saved. They have to make the CHOICE to hear the gospel.


And if you ask any calvinist here......all ex christians. Where is the outsider or even the cradle calvinist?

Where is the guy from some tribe who never heard of Jesus spontaneously CALVINIST? It never happens. Calvinist requires over the shoulder conversion. Someone has to indoctrinate you with it, you can't build it with just quoting scripture.

 

[Yeshua1]

First the terms monergist and synergist are Calvinist invented and unbiblical terms for things that have nothing to do with Christianity.

Self proclaimed monergist are Synergist.

According to the order of salvation, a person MUST ACCEPT LISTENING to the gospel or else regeneration cannot take place.

"17So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ."



100 unregenerate folks.

100 refuse to hear the gospel = 100 won't be saved. They have to make the CHOICE to hear the gospel.


And if you ask any calvinist here......all ex christians. Where is the outsider or even the cradle calvinist?

Where is the guy from some tribe who never heard of Jesus spontaneously CALVINIST? It never happens. Calvinist requires over the shoulder conversion. Someone has to indoctrinate you with it, you can't build it with just quoting scripture.

Lost sinners spiritual dead in their sin natures cannot just will themselves to now believe!

 

[ivdavid]

I guess you must have me on ignore.

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

 

[utilyan]

Lost sinners spiritual dead in their sin natures cannot just will themselves to now believe!

Neither can ghost and spirits will themselves into human bodies as babies and breathe air. Its on you to display where GOD took away the capacity to believe.

Your beliefs I can easily write them in one sentence, yet you believe God was so dumb and incompetent author he failed to put the point across with more than 40 thousand verses.

 

[Particular]

First the terms monergist and synergist are Calvinist invented and unbiblical terms for things that have nothing to do with Christianity.

Self proclaimed monergist are Synergist.

According to the order of salvation, a person MUST ACCEPT LISTENING to the gospel or else regeneration cannot take place.

"17So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ."



100 unregenerate folks.

100 refuse to hear the gospel = 100 won't be saved. They have to make the CHOICE to hear the gospel.


And if you ask any calvinist here......all ex christians. Where is the outsider or even the cradle calvinist?

Where is the guy from some tribe who never heard of Jesus spontaneously CALVINIST? It never happens. Calvinist requires over the shoulder conversion. Someone has to indoctrinate you with it, you can't build it with just quoting scripture.

Neither can ghost and spirits will themselves into human bodies as babies and breathe air. Its on you to display where GOD took away the capacity to believe.

Your beliefs I can easily write them in one sentence, yet you believe God was so dumb and incompetent author he failed to put the point across with more than 40 thousand verses.

LOL [emoji23][emoji1787][emoji23]

 

[ivdavid]

I do not read about Noah repelling people from entering the ark. The door was open ,until it was not.

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?

 

[ivdavid]

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

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.

 

[Reformed1689]

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.

I do not agree that there is any contradiction as I have already stated. And as far as pre being in the mix. Has God no right to make out of the same lump vessels prepared for dishonorable purposes? Vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

 

[Yeshua1]

I do not agree that there is any contradiction as I have already stated. And as far as pre being in the mix. Has God no right to make out of the same lump vessels prepared for dishonorable purposes? Vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

I keep seeing here in these postings the desire to make salvation "fair", but that would be assuming that we deserved to get saved in the first place!

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

If the 5 points of Grace are true, then we cannot reconcile cals and non cals in their salvation theology, as we both have different premises!