Contradictions in Calvinism

[ivdavid]

To prove Calvinism is error, why else?

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.

it is not really trying to understand Calvinism so as to understand truth according to the scriptures, but poke holes in it.

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?

 

[ivdavid]

Calvinists believe in God's electing love, according to the scriptures, God loved some before they had done anything good or evil and that is why He elects them according to the principle that His calling is according to His election of them apart from any merit they had.

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?

 

[ivdavid]

I have found that most of the time question are better than declarations when examining opposing views.

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.

 

[ivdavid]

That is a loaded question.

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?

What has God previously decreed that you think He now desires against and opposes?

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?

We have already shown how Jesus comment about Jerusalem is not a contradiction.

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?

We have already shown you that Ezekiel 33 is not a contradiction.

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?

You will not accept our response, therefore we have an impasse.

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?

 

[Scott Downey]

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?

By doing that very thing, God choosing to pass over the non elect and leave them in their sins, and since God has done this from before the foundation of the world, before their birth, this not just a pure single predestination. God creates people who He knows will sin, He could have decided to not make any such people. He does not aid them salvation because it needs be so that His calling according to election might stand, and this is a fallen world, so on the other side, those that get His justice is not because they had done anything evil or good, so there is a reprobation. But of course our salvation is really all about God saving and delivering us from this current evil age.
Those reprobates suffer because they do not believe in His Son, so for their sins, they receive God's justice as they were not chosen to know and follow Christ.

John Bunyan wrote an interesting work on this subject. He also wrote the popular Pilgrim's Progress.

Reprobation Asserted, John Bunyan | The Reformed Reader

2. Another scripture you have in the eleventh chapter of this epistle, from these words, ?The election hath obtained it, and the REST were blinded.? Rom. xi. 7. These words are shedding* words, they sever between men and men; the election, the rest; the chosen, the left; the embraced, the refused: ?The election have obtained it, and the rest were blinded.? By rest here, must needs be understood those not elect, because set one in opposition to the other; and if not elect, what then but reprobate?

 

[Yeshua1]

You've raised this more than once and I've asked the same questions for clarification. When you say "predestination refers not to the lost sinner state", you're describing Single Predestination - not double predestination which calvinism upholds. Again, to make sure of your position, consider the following -

Before the ages, God is active in electing some to salvation.
1. At that same time, before any man's individual good or evil acts of faith or unbelief, does God make up His mind that the rest will definitely be condemned?
2. OR does He simply pass over the rest at that moment, not considering anything yet over their end, permitting them their own ways in time until He holds them accountable to their own individual continual evil over their lives for which He then makes up His mind to condemn these unbelievers?

Which of the above do you hold? Again note, these are only indicative of God's logical order or sequencing - both the above probably happened in an instant before the foundation of the world. We're only sequencing it as per their occurring before or after one another in God's consideration.

Not all Calvinist hold to Double predestination, and my view is that God will not save any that he has not already chosen from eternity past as one of his own elect!

 

[Reformed1689]

Why don't you expand your responses - if you believe you have interpreted the truth, provide a biblical exegesis of these verses that we're considering. Why wait for me to ask these questions to hold you to a consistent interpretation?

What did you mean by you did not say ALL of Jerusalem's children - could you point to anything within the verse itself which implies it's not to be read as all but only some? Firstly, I am not asking what you said, I'm asking what Scripture says. And more importantly, Scripture does say ALL of Jerusalem's children are in bondage in Gal 4 -

Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Jerusalem which now is, which is addressed to in Matt 23:37, is in bondage with ALL her children.
Jerusalem which is above, covering the saved elect, is free with ALL her children.

Do you read only SOME and NOT ALL of this Jerusalem's children being in bondage from these verses 25,26? Yes/No
Consequently, do you read SOME and NOT ALL of the spiritual Jerusalem's children being free?

Binary thought again - Jesus was either addressing Jerusalem which now is and her children OR Jesus was addressing Jerusalem which is above. Jesus mentions that the Jerusalem He was addressing did not want what God wanted - so rules out the free Jerusalem which is above. Leaves us with Jerusalem which now is, in bondage with ALL her children.

Therefore, we're back to God's desire that this Jerusalem which now is and her children to be gathered under His wings - how is this conclusion escapable? Isn't this resistless logic derived directly from Scriptures? Again, I am willing to engage with any further explanations you may have regarding the ALL of Gal 4:25 - but I wish you'd stop creating interpretations in desperation.

So many fallacies in this post. It is obvious you don't want to actually have discussion. I have told you my position, you reject it, that is your right. But you are adding things into things that are not there and not allowing for words to mean different things based on usage.

 

[Reformed1689]

Yes, I agree. I've meant that they imply the same thing and altered my language to become more precise after learning you distinguish between the two - but the inference is still the same, that one cannot exist without the other.

Except you still try to make them the same thing.

Desire is the strong feeling of wanting something to happen - for what? What is the end result of the fulfillment of such a desire - is it not pleasure?

If I desire justice for a murderer and they receive it. Does that mean I am happy and take pleasure in that person's death? Do you not see the absurdity of your argument?

 

[ivdavid]

So many fallacies in this post. It is obvious you don't want to actually have discussion. I have told you my position, you reject it, that is your right. But you are adding things into things that are not there and not allowing for words to mean different things based on usage.

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?

 

[ivdavid]

If I desire justice for a murderer and they receive it. Does that mean I am happy and take pleasure in that person's death? Do you not see the absurdity of your argument?

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.

 

[Iconoclast]

Completely agree. But I wasn't talking about what man desires or doesn't. This is what happens when we don't stick to binary questions - I ask one thing and you reply about something else and we're not progressing in the dialog. I'm happy to reply to any of your binary questions too - but why don't you humor me for the sake of moving ahead?

I'm focusing on God's desires, not man's. So again,
Eze 33:11 not only mentions what God has no pleasure in, but also what He does have pleasure in ie what He does desire. Matt 23:37 not only shows the failure of man and his just destruction, but also what God had desired over them before they reached this point of condemnation.
1. Do you acknowledge that these verses also reveal God's desire that these non-elect live? Y/N.

2. Do you believe it is consistent of God to desire something against and in opposition to His own preceding sovereign decrees? Y/N

A letter for each question is all you have to type - just a Y or an N. We could begin there and then dig deeper wherever that may take us...

You did not answer in Gen6...where did God say anything about desiring to save the world of the ungodly? Did not see it in verse3

 

[Yeshua1]

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?

God is not predestinating the lost to hell, as they are the ones that keep on rejecting Jesus to save them from their sins, correct?

 

[ivdavid]

John Bunyan wrote an interesting work on this subject. He also wrote the popular Pilgrim's Progress.

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:

Neither doth this act alienate the heart of God from the reprobate, nor tie him up from loving, favoring, or blessing of him; no, not from blessing of him with the gift of Christ, of faith, of hope, and many other benefits. It only denieth them that benefit that will infallibly bring them to eternal life, and that in despite of all opposition; it only denieth so to bless them as the elect themselves are blessed. Abraham loved all the children he had by all his wives, and gave them portions also; but his choice blessing, as the fruit of his chiefest love, he reserved for chosen Isaac.

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:

IT hath been the custom of ignorant men much to quarrel at eternal reprobation, concluding (for want of knowledge in the mystery of God's will) that if he reprobate any from eternity he had as good as said, "I wilt make this man to damn him; I will decree this man, without, any consideration, to the everlasting pains of hell," when, in very deed, for God to reprobate, and to appoint beforehand to eternal condemnation, are two distinct things, properly relating to two distinct attributes, arising, from two distinct causes.

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

Now, there is a great difference between my refusing to make of such a tree a pillar in my house and of condemning it unto the fire to be burned.

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

As to the causes. Sovereignty being according to the will of God, but justice according to the sin of man.

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:

Whether God would in deed and in truth that the Gospel, with the Grace thereof, should be tendered to those that yet he hath bound up under Eternal Reprobation?...(YES)...And the reason is, because Christ died for all, tasted death for every man, is the Savior of the world, and the propitiation for the sins of the whole world.

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 the Father and Jesus Christ his Son would have all men whatever invited by the Gospel to lay hold of life by Christ, whether elect or reprobate

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?

 

[ivdavid]

God is not predestinating the lost to hell, as they are the ones that keep on rejecting Jesus to save them from their sins, correct?

Not all Calvinist hold to Double predestination, and my view is that God will not save any that he has not already chosen from eternity past as one of his own elect!

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.

 

[ivdavid]

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.

 

[Scott Downey]

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 am glad you like Bunyan, I do also.
Did John Bunyan believe in predestination and irresistible grace?

Bunyan can't settle any such issue, he is as any other writer about christian doctrine, and in the reformed camp there is a spectrum of views. I simply used what he wrote to support that there is a reprobation which is inevitable considering there is an election, which might help some here who dont think so to understand calvinism and reformed ideas better.

 

[ivdavid]

You did not answer in Gen6...where did God say anything about desiring to save the world of the ungodly? Did not see it in verse3

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!

 

[Scott Downey]

Arminianism was rejected by the Synod of Dort even though holding to a more Infralapsarian position.
When you read about the controversy between Arminianism and Calvinism there can be no coming together, not really.

The Development of the Doctrine of Predestination among the Reformed | Monergism

F. The Development of the Doctrine of Predestination among the Reformed
(1) This controversy is rooted in the struggle between Augustine and Pelagius. According to Pelagianism both original and actual sin (unbelief) logically precede election and reprobation; according to Augustine ONLY original sin precedes predestination. According to supra, predestination logically precedes not only actual but also original sin. Hence, Pelagianism: original sin, actual sin, predestination; Augustinianism or infralapsarianism: original sin, predestination, actual sin; supralapsarianism: predestination, original sin, actual sin.
(2) Many followers of Augustine accepted the doctrine of two-fold predestination: a predestination unto glory and a predestination unto death.
(3) The three Reformers: Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin, arrived at the supralapsarian view: election and reprobation are deeds of God's sovereignty, logically preceding God's decree concerning the fall. Nevertheless, Calvin often follows the infralapsarian reasoning.
(4) For the order of the elements of the decree see III C.
(5) The Synod of Dort expressed itself in an infralapsarian manner but did not in any sense condemn supralapsarianism. It rejected Arminianism.

 

[ivdavid]

When you read about the controversy between Arminianism and Calvinism there can be no coming together, not really.

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.

 

[Particular]

Why can't Bunyan settle Eze 33:11 and Matt 23:37 for us?

Let me be frank. Ezekiel 33:11 and Matthew 23:37 is settled for me.

Clearly it is not settled for you.

Many people have attempted to help you settle these verses. You reject their comments.

All this is fine. You are free to go on with your life being unsettled. No amount of comment from any of us will help alleviate your unsettled spirit. I dust off my sandles from this thread.