Refuting the Impeccable Logic of Calvinism

In many ways, the Calvinist theology of Grace is the result of a logical rigor which, despite feeling so very wrong, is (almost) entirely internally consistent. I understand this theology to be thus:

1. As a result of the Fall, Man is totally depraved.
2. Double predestination is in full effect: God actively decides who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell.
3. If you are numbered in the Elect, it is through no merit of your own (see #1), but due to God's gratuitous Grace.
4. If you are condemned to Hell, you deserve it (see #1).
5. Christ's Atonement was only partial (see #2).

Additionally:
a) God can do no wrong, as he is by definition the Good.
b) God is omnipotent.
c) God is omnibenevolent.

If you admit a, b, and c, points 1-5 seem to be internally consistent. But internal consistency does not mean the system is correct. Calvin's theology of Grace, like so many others, is very much the product of a priori axioms. Even given the axioms a, b, and c, one can easily arrive at a very different theology of Grace.

For me, Calvinism poses two main problems: 1) God is unable to do wrong and, in effect, is not held to any ethical standard and, 2) Christ's sacrifice and suffering was only partially effective.

The tautology of God's righteousness defies the conception of God as "Good" in any sense that we can relate to. One asks Calvin, "Why is God's predestination of some to Hell just?" He answers, "Because he is God." This is not a real reason. God's standard of behavior may be different than ours, but if the meaning of "Good" is to retain any stability, the standards must be commensurate to our different roles and persons.

Regarding Christ's sacrifice, if it was only partial, does that mean that it was a mistake? Does it mean that God could not perform a truly efficacious sacrifice? If God had the choice (see #2 and b) between a sacrifice of full atonement and limited atonement, why (if c) would he choose the latter?

Even if internally consistent, Calvinist Grace corresponds poorly to both Scripture and to any well-adjusted person's common sense. It seems to be more of a product of a masochistic mind than a well-rounded construct.

Genesis

Genesis is really great until Jacob and Esau come along. Then it's all about land and donkeys and wives and shit. Snooooore.

BUT, after all the flooding I started to skim. Apparently I missed some pretty sweet stuff:

The founding fathers of the 12 tribes of Israel lie, breach a contract, encourage pagans to convert to Judaism only in order to incapacitate them for slaughter, murder some innocents and enslave others, pillage and profiteer, and then justify it all with an appeal to their sister's defiled honor.

Sounds good! If only there were less donkeys (e.g. "Issachar is a strong donkey..." (Gen. 49:8)).

Stepping back in Genesis for a moment, I would like to call attention to Genesis, chapter 6. I have never been convinced on a common sense level by the Calvinist double standard which affords God constant moral superiority and impunity.

In Genesis 6:5-7, Wotan laments:

5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them."

Never have I read or heard the possibility voiced that God is, frankly, endevouring on a course of genocide, of mass murder. What's more, Almighty God is filled with regret. If we are but pieces of Clay unfit to question the sculptor, why is it that God feels regret? His sorrow only confirms our similarity in image. If God and Man are so similar in this respect, why should there be such an enormous gulf between the ethical standards of human beings and the the Almighty?