# Paradox of Calvinistic Predestination



## Scot (Dec 2, 2004)

This is a post from another forum:

I agree that Arminianism is logically flawed. It is logically extreme to the point that it is self-contradictory. 

One depends on God's decision to impute them with righteousness by grace alone (ref. Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:1-5, 23-24, James 2:23, Philippians 3:9). And grace cannot be mixed with works, otherwise grace ceases to be grace (Romans 11:6, Ephesians 2:8-9). However, Arminianism violates this by saying that the demerits of our works can nullify the unmerited favor (grace) of God, which is paradoxical. 

However, Calvinistic Predestination is also logically flawed. This is because it is logically extreme to the point that it is self-contradictory as well. 

- - - - - - - - - - 

Calvinists assert: "God´s will is the absolute control of and the sole cause an of anything and everything. God predestines the free and voluntary choices of all beings (while the subject may not be able to sense it and feel in control) thereby making all beings deserving of their predestination, whatever it may be. This is not a contradiction, but a mysterious truth beyond human logic." 

This issue is a key foundational premise that Calvinistic Predestination is based upon. This is because the premise of free and voluntary choice of any being under the predestination of God is used as the "catch all" against anti-Calvinist arguments. If one was to disprove the idea of "predestined free and voluntary choice," then Calvinism would make God directly responsible for causing the fall of Lucifer and his angels, the fall of man, the birth of sin and death, the arbitrary salvation/damnation of people, etc. 

Paradox #1: The One-option Choice 

According to Merriam-Webster´s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition: 

1Choice: (1): the act of choosing: SELECTION (2): the power of choosing: OPTION (3): (a): the best part: CREAM (b): a person or thing chosen (4): a sufficient number and variety to choose among (5): care in selecting 

By definition, a choice requires a minimum of two or more options that can be acted upon. If there is only one option that can be acted upon, then it ceases to be a choice and the one option becomes the default and unalterable plan of action. 

In the context of Calvinism, God´s will is in absolute control and is therefore the only option which can be acted upon. The mere use of the word "choice," by definition, implicitly declares that there is another option to God´s will that can be acted upon, which clearly contradicts absolute control by God. 

Paradox #2: Two Causes? 

"Free and voluntary choice" means God´s created beings themselves cause their choice. 

According to Merriam-Webster´s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition: 

1Voluntary: (1): proceeding from the will or from one´s own choice or consent (2): unconstrained by interference: SELF-DETERMINING (3): done by design or intention: INTENTIONAL (4): of, relating to, subject to, or regulated by the will (5): having power of free choice 
"God´s will is in absolute control" means that God is the sole cause of choice in created beings. 

God and his created beings cannot both be the cause of choice within the created beings. One must be primary (in control) and one must be secondary (not in control). 

The cause itself must have an ultimate point of origination. God existed first and predetermined everything, therefore the cause must have ultimately originated with God. To assert that a choice originates with a created being implies that God did not predetermine everything. 

Paradox #3: Illogical Logic 

When this critical paradox in Calvinism is pointed out to Calvinists, there are generally two responses: 
-There is no contradiction. 
(and/or) 
-This is a mysterious truth beyond human logic. 

Contrary to the Calvinist assumption that these responses are convenient "escapes" from the logical paradox of their doctrine, they actually self-annihilate their own doctrine. They attempt to discredit human logic (specifically the logic of non-Calvinists) while attempting to defend and validate their own assertions. 

However, the discredit of human logic means that all logic and reasoning used by all humans is discredited. Therefore, in saying human logic and reasoning doesn´t matter, Calvinists (which are humans that use human logic and reasoning) also unintentionally declare that their own logic and reasoning doesn´t matter as well. 

This results in yet another paradox: Calvinists use human logic and reasoning to defend and support their own doctrine that is supposedly not based on and beyond human logic and reasoning. 

- - - - - - - - - - 

Thus, because Arminianism and Calvinistic Predestination are both self-contradictory, I advocate the position that free will and predestination work in a harmonious balance. God permits the existence of a certain realm of free will choice, which is surrounded and permeated by a framework of rules and fixed realities. For instance, God considers certain choices as being more binding than others.


----------



## john_Mark (Dec 2, 2004)

*Paradox #1: The One-option Choice*

God is in control of everything. Sovereignty is what it is. For a sort of crass example I could ask, "If I round kick you in the face and you yell an explicitve does this make me responsible for your language?" In the same sense, that God is in control of "how" this world runs yet we are responsible for our actions.

I wonder if this person has the same objection to the 10 Commandments? How can God hold anyone accountable to Laws that one could never fully obey? I digress.



> Paradox #1: The One-option Choice
> 
> 1Choice: (1): the act of choosing: SELECTION (2): the power of choosing: OPTION (3): (a): the best part: CREAM (b): a person or thing chosen (4): a sufficient number and variety to choose among (5): care in selecting
> 
> By definition, a choice requires a minimum of two or more options that can be acted upon.



As you can see this person adds to the very definition he quotes. The definition doesn´t say "œoptions that can be acted upon". No Calvinist says we don´t make choices. If you give a 10yr old the choice of dinner to have either broccoli and fish or a chocolate sundae, the child will take the sundae. (Most of the time) Just like the unregenerate will choose to sin instead of worship God.



> In the context of Calvinism, God´s will is in absolute control and is therefore the only option which can be acted upon. The mere use of the word "choice," by definition, implicitly declares that there is another option to God´s will that can be acted upon, which clearly contradicts absolute control by God.



How about if we just say God is in absolute control instead of His "œwill" as if His will is some detached entity? Again, we see the misapplication of the person´s stated definition of choice. And there is another option that can be acted upon from our standpoint, but we just won´t do it. From Judas perspective he had a "œchoice" to not betray Christ after Christ said Judas would betray Him. But since God stated what was going to happen there is no other cast of events that could have happened.

Be back later.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Dec 2, 2004)

> By definition, a choice requires a minimum of two or more options that can be acted upon. If there is only one option that can be acted upon, then it ceases to be a choice and the one option becomes the default and unalterable plan of action.
> 
> In the context of Calvinism, God´s will is in absolute control and is therefore the only option which can be acted upon. The mere use of the word "choice," by definition, implicitly declares that there is another option to God´s will that can be acted upon, which clearly contradicts absolute control by God.



This is ridiculous. When there is Pepsi and Coke in front of me, my dilemma is which soda I'm going to choose, not whether or not I'm gonna choose to do God's absolute, sovereign will. This person hasn't fairly represented what our choices are.

[Edited on 2-12-2004 by luvroftheWord]


----------



## john_Mark (Dec 2, 2004)

*2 & 3*



> Paradox #2: Two Causes?
> 
> "Free and voluntary choice" means God´s created beings themselves cause their choice.
> 
> ...



What point is this person trying to make by trying to define "œfree and voluntary choice"? Our choices do proceed from our will so what´s the big deal?



> "God´s will is in absolute control" means that God is the sole cause of choice in created beings.



This is an assertion not a proof of his position. 



> God and his created beings cannot both be the cause of choice within the created beings. One must be primary (in control) and one must be secondary (not in control).
> 
> The cause itself must have an ultimate point of origination. God existed first and predetermined everything, therefore the cause must have ultimately originated with God. To assert that a choice originates with a created being implies that God did not predetermine everything.



More assertions. Did God cause Nebuchaneezer to live like a beast? Whose plan was it for Abraham´s situation when he says, "œGod meant it for good, but you meant it for evil?" Those men were responsible for their actions against Abraham. Using his logic, does the fact that God even created Adam and Eve, without their permission even, mean that God is responsible for the actions of every person? Again, if I kicked someone in the face am I responsible for their reaction?



> Paradox #3: Illogical Logic
> 
> When this critical paradox in Calvinism is pointed out to Calvinists, there are generally two responses:
> -There is no contradiction.
> ...



Again, one doesn´t prove their point by simply stating assertions that merely assume their position. This person concludes with his point using his own assertions that Calvinists attempt to discredit human logic. He´s arguing with himself.  The Calvinist might say the Arminian systematic is illogical, but we don´t try to discredit logic. I am sure this person holds to the hypostatic union of Christ in that He is 100% man and 100% God yet He is not 200%. Now what?

- - - - - - - - - - 



> Thus, because Arminianism and Calvinistic Predestination are both self-contradictory, I advocate the position that free will and predestination work in a harmonious balance. God permits the existence of a certain realm of free will choice, which is surrounded and permeated by a framework of rules and fixed realities. For instance, God considers certain choices as being more binding than others.



Sounds like he´s trying to grasp a middle-knowledge position which cannot escape God´s sovereignty. (I believe I have shown on my blog that the middle-knowledge put for by William Lane Craig to be self-refutting.) What we have is just an attempt to debunk Calvinism based on a philosophical construct without using Scripture. This person would do better to bring forth Scripture with logic and look at the issues this way. Reminds me of Hank Hanegraaff the way he tries to explain that Calvinism is wrong. Most of his arguments are just assertions.


----------



## Reformed1 (Dec 2, 2004)

This fellow has hidden his ignorance in fancy language. He apparently has never read "The Freedom of the Will" by Jonathan Edwards. Edwards would have mopped the floor with this guy.

BTW, how does he feel his proposed "synthesis" has any merit? Where can he even defend such a position from Scripture?

[Edited on 11/04/2004 by Reformed1]


----------

