1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Contradictions in Calvinism

Discussion in 'Calvinism & Arminianism Debate' started by ivdavid, Jan 8, 2020.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ivdavid

    ivdavid Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2019
    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    35
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. ivdavid

    ivdavid Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2019
    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    35
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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?
     
  3. ivdavid

    ivdavid Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2019
    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    35
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. ivdavid

    ivdavid Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2019
    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    35
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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?

    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?

    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?

    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?

    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?
     
  5. Scott Downey

    Scott Downey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2019
    Messages:
    3,270
    Likes Received:
    567
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    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?
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  6. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    48,645
    Likes Received:
    2,484
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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!
     
  7. Reformed1689

    Reformed1689 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2019
    Messages:
    5,944
    Likes Received:
    1,282
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. Reformed1689

    Reformed1689 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2019
    Messages:
    5,944
    Likes Received:
    1,282
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Except you still try to make them the same thing.
    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?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. ivdavid

    ivdavid Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2019
    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    35
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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?
     
  10. ivdavid

    ivdavid Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2019
    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    35
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
  11. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    18,635
    Likes Received:
    1,908
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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
     
  12. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    48,645
    Likes Received:
    2,484
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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?
     
  13. ivdavid

    ivdavid Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2019
    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    35
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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?
     
  14. ivdavid

    ivdavid Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2019
    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    35
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
  15. ivdavid

    ivdavid Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2019
    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    35
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
  16. Scott Downey

    Scott Downey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2019
    Messages:
    3,270
    Likes Received:
    567
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    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.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  17. ivdavid

    ivdavid Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2019
    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    35
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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!
     
  18. Scott Downey

    Scott Downey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2019
    Messages:
    3,270
    Likes Received:
    567
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    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.
     
  19. ivdavid

    ivdavid Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2019
    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    35
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.

    tower of beliefs.jpg
     
  20. Particular

    Particular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2019
    Messages:
    2,331
    Likes Received:
    500
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...