John Piper does an amazing, earnest job at attempting to explain the calvinist paradox of holding God’s predestining the condemnation of the non-elect before any good or evil simultaneously with God’s desire for these very non-elect to be saved. You can read it here – https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/are-there-two-wills-in-god

Piper begins illustrating the theory with the betrayal and crucifixion of Christ. We all know it is God’s will(1) for all to obey His law and not commit sins – and yet Scriptures clearly state that these sins of betrayal etc were by the will(2) of God. So, God could have 2 opposing wills of which He chooses to fulfill the one based on a higher purpose He has planned.

Similarly, the argument goes, God could have a will(1) that all the wicked may be saved and simultaneously have a will(2) that they be condemned under His wrath and that God chooses the latter on the basis of it fulfilling the higher purpose of glorifying Him before the elect.

Note, this isn’t the explanation itself of the paradox of God predestining condemnation and desiring all to be saved – it’s instead showing from Scriptures how such a similar paradox already exists and that on these grounds, the calvinist position must be accepted as a mystery of God’s working.

Scriptural revelation, not Mystery

Every single illustration of Piper’s from Scripture is true and God does have a hierarchy of purpose. But there is an equally plausible explanation, one that does not resort to mystery. Here, God does not predestine condemnation and desires all be saved. God conditionally desires this for the non-elect until such time that they have filled their measure of iniquity, at which point God wills their condemnation then and only then, pouring out His wrath. God factoring in human self-determinism is still an act of His sovereignty to manifest His glory.

So, a lot hinges on this calvinist two wills theory. If proven to be false, the calvinist doctrinal system would rest only on an appeal to mystery while the alternative is a reconciliation that provides a larger scope of explanation without the contradictions and paradoxes. To point out the contradiction, we must first set context in terms of definitions and concepts.