Contradictions in Calvinism

[Yeshua1]

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.

I see single predestination, but if there is indeed Double predestination, would God be wrong doing it that way?

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

WeCalvinisted have spirited discussion in our camp, between infant or believers baptism, when Jesus returns, if Israel and Church always are same in Bible, double/single predestination etc,but Arminian theology just on a different line all together, no way to reconcile!

 

[ivdavid]

I see single predestination, but if there is indeed Double predestination, would God be wrong doing it that way?

Wouldn't be wrong at all. God simply wouldn't have revealed His desire for non-elect man to repent and live then - He would've made clear the absence of offering of redemption in a Savior similar to what He reveals about the non-elect angels.

 

[ivdavid]

WeCalvinisted have spirited discussion in our camp, between infant or believers baptism, when Jesus returns, if Israel and Church always are same in Bible, double/single predestination etc,but Arminian theology just on a different line all together, no way to reconcile!

Rome wasn't built in a day.

Again clarifying, reconciling does not mean accepting all doctrines as they are - it means finding common truth for all to unite on through persuasion of all concerns. I believe this is possible in our human timeline - but anyway, this will inevitably happen on Christ's return.

 

[JonC]

6 hour warning - this thread will be closed sometime after 10 pm EST.

 

[Yeshua1]

Rome wasn't built in a day.

Again clarifying, reconciling does not mean accepting all doctrines as they are - it means finding common truth for all to unite on through persuasion of all concerns. I believe this is possible in our human timeline - but anyway, this will inevitably happen on Christ's return.

Sotierology cannot be reconciled, as just between us and Rome, its not both are true!

 

[ivdavid]

Sotierology cannot be reconciled, as just between us and Rome, its not both are true!

How differently should I have worded my last post to you for you to read my clarification that reconciliation is not holding opposite beliefs as true but finding a single common truth to unite on, that addresses everyone's core Scriptural concerns.

Infra and Supra both can't be true - clearly at least one or both of them are in error. But that means there is a single truth that all of us will inevitably unite on on that final day. Would be just as well if we strive for it now.

 

[Yeshua1]

How differently should I have worded my last post to you for you to read my clarification that reconciliation is not holding opposite beliefs as true but finding a single common truth to unite on, that addresses everyone's core Scriptural concerns.

Infra and Supra both can't be true - clearly at least one or both of them are in error. But that means there is a single truth that all of us will inevitably unite on on that final day. Would be just as well if we strive for it now.

We have, its called the Person of Jesus Christ!

 

[Scott Downey]

I have wondered about those at the White Throne judgement when they come out of Hell at the resurrection of the dead, if they ever know the final truth of these matters, as is said of them, the dead know nothing. They may still not be given to understand, and they just have weeping and gnashing of teeth, They are separated from God in 'outer darkness' which implies they do not become enlightened.

But for the saved this about the coming ages,

4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

 

[Scott Downey]

Does God desire the reprobate to repent?
Does God Really Desire to Save the Reprobate? – CPRC

Good reading

C. Regeneration
Let us move on from election and atonement to the very beginning of the application of salvation—regeneration. The sinner is totally depraved, “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1), without any spiritual life and “wholly incapable of doing any good, and inclined to all wickedness” (Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 8). God quickens His elect, giving them life. The Bible calls this the “new birth” or being “born again.” It is evident that there is no salvation without the new birth, because Jesus says, “Ye must be born again” (John 3:7; cf. v. 5). If you are not born again, you are not saved.

We are told that God really desires and wants to save the reprobate. But does God regenerate them? No. Jesus declared, “The wind bloweth where it listeth [i.e., where it wills], and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is everyone that is born of the Spirit” (John 3:8). The wind blows where it wants. You do not say to the wind, “Could you blow in that field, but not blow in my garden.” The wind does what it wills. Jesus here is drawing an analogy between the blowing of the wind and the blowing of the Holy Spirit in regeneration. He blows where He wills or wants or desires. The Greek word, thelo, encompasses all three of those ideas. The Spirit regenerates whom He wills or wants or desires. He desires to regenerate this one, and He actually regenerates them. He does not regenerate that one. Why? Because He does not desire, wish or want to regenerate that one. The Spirit blows where He wills, and He does not blow where He does not will to blow. But if God sincerely wishes to save everybody, why does the Spirit not blow where He supposedly wants to blow?

 

[ivdavid]

We are told that God really desires and wants to save the reprobate.

This is a sufficient conclusion for this thread. I'd say this scripturally dictates that we not hold predestined condemnation of man to be true - the arguments are listed in this thread.

But does God regenerate them?

I'll save this for another thread - but suffice it to say I agree with you in the sense you meant it.

 

[JonC]

Thread is closed.