Better yet, why don't all of you who believe in justification by works just become Roman Catholic and be done with it. You know Protestantism is based on the 5 solas. Go be Catholic and leave the theology to, IDK, the theologians.
@@Postmillhighlights oh all the time. They appeal to mystery when they can't explain why God would choose one person over the other or when they are asked why God would say one thing and do another.
@ well, that’s what I suspected. It isn’t much of a ‘gotcha’ to say we appeal to mystery when being asked to explain something scripture doesn’t tell us. I would hope we’d all do that. But when I hear people use it as an argument against Calvinism as if we can’t defend and outline our position according to scripture, I have to wonder if you’re being serious.
Question for WCF Calvinists: WCF 2.2 says, "His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain." and yet WCF 3.1 says, "nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." How God whose knowledge is infinite and infallible and to whom nothing is contingent, how can second choices that God unchangeably ordains be contingent?
I believe you misunderstood the confession. Secondary causes namely motives of man's choices are contingent upon God's decree not the other way around. It is creation that is contingent upon God not the other way around.
@nathanhellrung9810 the primary or ultimate cause is God's eternal decree when it comes to both human decisions and motives. But it's the motives that determine the choices we make. So essentially there is more than one cause for human decisions namely God's decree and personal human motives. In Calvinism human decisions is never the ultimate cause for human behaviour.
@@4jchan if our motives determine the choices we make and our motives are determined by God's eternal decree, not contingent on man, then you cannot escape God from being the ultimate cause of our choices.
@nathanhellrung9810 correct I have no problem with that. But if libertarian free will is true and that the choices we make are not determined then our choices happen by random chance. We cannot control what is random by definition. Therefore self determination is false. This is the biggest dilemma that LFW has There is no view of the human will that can logically state that we are in ultimate control of our choices
Calvinism is just a complete misunderstanding of Romans 9. Nowhere does is say, anywhere, that anyone is predestined to be saved. Nowhere. What it does say is some sre predestined to fulfill a soecific part of Gods plan. Abraham was predestined, not to be saved, to be the father of nations.
@KevC1111 Im sure there has been some one who hated the doctrines of Grace before Leighton. Certainly not any official councils accept for Trent of course. 😂 Why would we trust 10 people including Leighton when we stand on the shoulders of theological giants? Right, we shouldnt.
@rebukeandreprove. Oh boy are you wrong. 🙄 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. - Romans 8:29 We know that Christ was in the form of God and took on himself the form of a servant also. Which of these two is it that the believer is to be conformed to? … In my opinion, new converts are conformed to the image of the servant, and as they progress in the faith, they become conformed to that image which is the image of God. In Scripture, words like foreknew and predestined do not apply equally to both good and evil. For the careful student of the Bible will realize that these words are used only of the good…. When God speaks of evil people, he says that he “never knew” them. … They are not said to be foreknown, not because there is anything which can escape God’s knowledge, which is present everywhere and nowhere absent, but because everything which is evil is considered to be unworthy of his knowledge or of his foreknowledge. . - Origen of Alexandria For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. - Romans 8:29 This text does not take away our free will. It uses the word foreknew before predestined. Now it is clear that “foreknowledge” does not by itself impose any particular kind of behavior. What is said here would be clearer if we started from the end and worked backwards. Whom did God glorify? Those whom he justified. Whom did he predestine? Those whom he foreknew, who were called according to his plan, i.e., who demonstrated that they were worthy to be called by his plan and made conformable to Christ. . - Diodorus of Tarsus
This video could've been a lot shorter if Tim Stratton didn't ramble so much. His question is simply, "What is the Biblical case for exhaustive divine determination?" but he repeats the question multiple times and rambles for two whole minutes. It would also be a bonus if there was a transcript of this video.
It appears to be quite the hangup for Stratton. When he chases the question down to see if it applies to every molecule, he seems to not understand that the question is a categorical question: It either is the case or it is not the case that everything is determined. Just answer the question and move on. (Reminds me of someone who couldn't believe that a guy had perfect pitch: "But wait... can you sin F#?" HIM: "Yes. Hmmmmmmmmm[F#]" DISBELIEVER: "Well.. how about Bb??" HIM: "Yes. Hmmmmmmmmm[Bb]" DISBELIEVER: "Hang on a sec.. how about a really high E??" HIM: "Yes. Hmmmmmmmmm[really high E]" DISBELIEVER: "Well,yeah, but how about ..." Bro! Quit!! Either he has perfect pitch or he doesn't. Efforts to chase down every note on the piano is just a failure to understand that 'perfect pitch' is a categorical condition: you either have it or you don't. Same for Determinism: Either everything is determined or it's not. Don't waste our time chasing crumbs. (and yes, everything is Determined, imho)
@4:00 1 Corinthians 10:13 absolutely does not teach libertarian freedom. Not sure if Hunter agrees with the argument for libertarian freedom from 1 Cor 10:13, but the verse does not say anything about freedom ("genuine freedom" for that matter). No where. Manata, Cowan, and myself have all written extensively on this one single verse/topic. The verse doesn't entail libertarian freedom.
The verse can't use the word "may" and determinism also be true. The word "may" also implies an open future and an entailment of that is freedom of the will.
@@stevenoney3152 > implies an open future and an entailment of that is freedom of the will. Or it could simply mean that the future is unknown to the speaker.
@@BraxtonHunter No, it's because of constitutive luck. I have argued on my Volume 3 reply to Stratton, due to issues pertaining to constitutive luck, that there is no relevant difference between constitutive moral luck, and causal moral luck. If there is no relevant difference between constitutive moral luck and causal moral luck, as well as no relevant difference between causal moral luck and divine determinism (as many philosophers, both incompatibilist and compatibilist would seem to affirm), then there is no relevant difference between divine determinism and constitutive moral luck. But, libertarians themselves suffer from constitutive moral luck, and so arguing such freedom is needed for temptation is thus unmotivated (see the volume for the full argument). It's also because the dispositional analysis is compatible with the verse as well. If a dispositional analysis is compatible with the verse, then the verse cannot entail libertarian freedom because if the verse entailed libertarian freedom, then it also must entail incompatibilism. But if the verse is compatible with an analysis that is already compatible with determinism, then that means that the verse cannot entail an analysis that is incompatible with determinism (i.e., libertarian freedom, or the categorical ability to do otherwise). Sure, the verse might still be compatible with libertarian freedom; but so what? The dispositional analysis (i.e., a compatibilist analysis) would still be compatible with the verse just as well. So no further progress has been made for the libertarian. I also don't think that the verse teaches compatibilist free will. It's not a metaphysical textbook, the Bible that is. So we should just all remain agnostic when it comes to verses trying to "prove" metaphysical matters, such as free will.
Answers to 1-5: 1 - Dr. Flowers: We just agree that God gives "life, breath, and EVERYTHING" to all men. This would entail the giving of the offer of the gospel AS WELL AS the good sense, the wisdom, to accept that offer. Affirming the former but not the later implies that you don't need to be given the wisdom to accept the former. That removes the glory from God who did give it. 2 - Dr. Hunter: A. In ETERNITY, ie outside of time. God created the world (i.e. space and time and everything in it). He could have created a different world where different things happen. But He chose to create this world for a good purpose. It begins, proceeds/unfolds, and ends exactly as He intended. When He created the world He SPOKE it into existence by His Word. This command to create this world we call the decree, e.g. God, able to create any world, chooses to create this one and says "Let it be so" (i.e. the decree). It ultimately determines what takes place in this world. It should be DISTINGUISHED from specific things that are determined WITHIN THE WORLD itself. God does not actively DETERMINE everything in the world - in terms of being an active agent within it. All evil is the LACK of hHs activity in the world. But again, we must distinguish between His ETERNAL act to create and His TEMPORAL acts within the world He created. 3 - Dr. Pritchett: It is a fair question, although it seems rather evident that John 6 is a statement about the whole church and so the given must be read in that light. John 17 is about the disciples specifically. The whole church was not given to Christ as disciples. Amongst the disciples who were given to Jesus by God, one of them was given for a specific purpose, to betray Christ. So the given is in the context of two separate groups, i.e. church/elect vs. disciples. All the elect were given specifically to be saved. Not all of the disciples were given to be saved. A Venn Diagram might be helpful with the Church being one circle and the disciples being another where they mostly overlap, but Judas being outside. 4 - Dr. Stratton: I don't know what you mean by "exhaustive divine determinism" exactly. Its not a phrase Calvinists use. In general, we believe there is a difference between God creating the world as an ETERNAL act and his activity in the world. These are different KINDS of determinations and God is not actively determining everything in the world at every moment. However: God is the creator of heaven and earth (Gen 1:1). God created the world and EVERYTHING in it (Acts 17:24-25, Col 1:15-19, John 1:3). God creates all things, even the wicked, for a purpose (Prov 16:6). God declared the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10). From these passages it can be inferred that God is the sufficient condition for THE WHOLE WORLD from beginning to END. This is the world He intended to create. 5 - Dr. Flowers: Natural man is spiritually dead, not physically. He can still physically see and hear and even understand, at some level the message of the gospel. For example, the Jews in Deuteronomy 29 were physically capable of hearing, seeing, and understanding what Moses was saying. Yet, we read in verse 29: "...to this day the Lord has not given you a heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear." This is speaking to a spiritual incapacity to really see or understand it IN THE HEART, i.e. to take it to heart. When God brings further blindness to a spiritually dead people it refers primarily to the taking away of even the PHYSICAL ability to see or hear or understand it. It is done in several ways. For example: (1) parables obscure what might otherwise be CLEAR statements of truth so that they can only really be understood by SPIRITUAL discerners, (2) the proclaiming of clear truth (e.g. Stephen's sermon) that results in a cutting or callousing of the heart so that they try to eliminate the messenger (e.g. by killing Stephen they removed the truth from their midst, self blinding), or (3) just a numbness to the truth repeated often enough - and the built in defenses to it - so that you are not really even listening any more (e.g. ears growing dull). This removal of even the physical ability to hear is itself a judgment. It means that God, at least for a time, is not even trying to reach them. Second, it is a visible reminder to those of us who can see how terrible it would be to have the truth removed entirely. When the truth is removed, the society sinks deeper and deeper into the Romans 1 depravity. Truth provides, even to the wicked, as a restraint against evil. Its removal from the midst of a people altogether results in deep depravity.
6 - Dr. Hunter: I think that is a very serious misreading of that text in 1 Corinthians 10. After almost 9 chapters of Paul excoriating the Corinthians for their sinful behavior, the natural question comes up about whether God will be displeased with them as He was displeased with the Jews in the wilderness... leading to their destruction and failing to enter the promised land. Paul comforts them by first explaining that (1) all of that (ie the Jews being destroyed for their idolatry in the wilderness) happened by the fore-ordination of God so that we might see what happens when we give ourselves over to temptation, specifically idolatry, and (2) that it will not be that way for us because Christ will provide a way of escape. Now, if you teach that "in each particular moment of temptation, their is a defined way of escape, and that our hope of not ending up like the Jews in the wilderness is in finding that escape"... oof. That's terrible. No, faith in Christ is the way of escape. Temptation will not overcome us to our destruction, not because we won't still occasionally continue to sin, but because we have FAITH IN CHRIST. He will keep us from the ULTIMATE sin of idolatry and even our moments of temptation, and sin, will remind us of our ONE HOPE in Christ. This is why he moves right into, in the next passage, by discussing the cup of Christ and body of Christ (ie communion) which constantly reminds us of our faith in Christ, and warns against any other pagan sacrifices that distract from that. 7 - Dr. Pritchett: I can honestly say that I don't understand the question. I am sure it was a good one, it just went over my head. Apologies. 8 - Dr. Stratton: What is the difference between a demon who determines someone to believe a false theological belief and God who does it? God literally IS THE TRUTH. He determines that we believe the truth by PUTTING HIMSELF within us. He determines that we believe a lie by NOT PUTTING HIMSELF within us. He IS THE TRUTH. This is not true of a demon. A demon is not THE TRUTH. To the extent he can determine someone to believe the truth, he does so by keeping that person FROM GOD, i.e. who IS THE TRUTH. So the misunderstanding here begins with a misunderstanding of what the TRUTH ultimately is (i.e. it is God Himself) and a misunderstanding of the ontology of God, i.e. who IS HIS ATTRIBUTES, e.g. Truth, Love, Beauty, Goodness, Justice, etc.... God's determining of good, truth, and love in this world is an ACTIVE determination in the world, i.e. He gives HIMSELF. His determining of the opposite is just His determination to WITHHOLD Himself from the world. This is why we look forward to the day when God will one day fill ALL THINGS (1 Cor 15:28). Meanwhile, a demon is merely trying to keep God out. If he could determine someone to believe lies or do evil, it is by keeping that person away from and God outside of that person. 9 - Dr. Hunter: Good question. There is stated sovereignty (e.g. King Charles is the sovereign over England and has authority over it all) and practical sovereignty (e.g. King Charles is just one man and his authority... in practice... extends only so far as he can practically extend/project his his power). It is obvious that human kings/sovereigns have very limited practical power. They are one man limited by time, knowledge and intelligence, and location who MUST rely on other human agents to project their power. As a result, human sovereignty fails and is naturally limited in the recognizable ways described. God has no such limitations. His stated sovereignty (i.e. over all creation) is unlimited in any practical sense. As a result, there can be no failure in design or intention or authority. To the extent God delegates any of his authority to anyone else, they remain, at all times, underneath His unlimited practical sovereignty and so all things are still within His total control. 10 - Dr. Pritchett: I suppose it is possible to try to understand the language in Ephesians 1 in terms of a statement of corporate predestination. Maybe we can say, it can't absolutely be ruled out. Perhaps even I am approaching it through a more western, individualistic, lens. I'll be honest though, I just can't imagine being in the assembly where this letter was read out loud and having no sense that Paul wasn't writing to me as an individual. I just have a very difficult time even conceptualizing the language from that vantage point. Now, having said that, I don't take a "chose us to BE IN HIM" reading as if we were put in some location. I think the "in Him" means "through Him" as in, Christ is the means through which we were chosen. But I still don't see how you get away from the personalizing language. But that could be just my problem. I can get to more questions later.
11 - Dr. Stratton: Referring back to my previous response, there is no such thing as a "deity of deception", whatever is ultimately true, i.e. THE TRUTH, is God. God can either give Himself, i.e. the Truth, to us or not. So the problem just runs up against the commitments of Classical Theism and a misunderstanding of the ontology of God that stands behind Calvinism. However, to the deeper question of whether Calvinism could be wrong, the answer is "of course." I am sure there are things that are not quite right in any theology. Things that still need to be learned or understood better. However, I can't seem to get around the fundamental, and apparently indubitable reality, that as creatures we are ENTIRELY DEPENDENT on our creator. So, while I may be wrong, in the end I just have to trust God because I depend on HIm. But that is kind of the point of Reformed Theology. If He doesn't fix me, give me the truth, work in through me, then I am lost. What seems plain to me from Scripture is that our current imperfections (imperfect knowledge and continued sin), even as Christians is designed to humble us and remind us of our need for Him. If I speak truth it is God at work in me. If I do good it is God at work in me. Seeing my own faults and deficiencies just causes me to WANT GOD AT WORK IN ME more, and causes me to look forward to the day when He dwells in me completely. When God finally answers that prayer of Paul in Ephesians 3:14-19 and we are filled with the fullness of God. 12 - Dr. Hunter: I am not a presuppositionalist. I don't think it is a bad method. But as far as I am concerned it is just one tool in the toolbox amongst others. I fall into the RC Sproul Classical Apologetics group. 13 - Dr. Pritchett: Once again, your question, which I assume is very good, went over my head. 14 - Dr. Stratton: Once again, this question runs smack up against the Classical Theism commitments that are behind Reformed Theology. God IS THE TRUTH. If He determines that anyone will be deceived, it is because He has determined that they will not HAVE HIM, ie the TRUTH, within them. A person not having THE TRUTH does not make the truth a deception, it just makes that person deceived and WITHOUT THE TRUTH. God is not obligated to give you, or me, or anyone Himself... not His BEING or His GOODNESS or His KNOWLEDGE or His WISDOM or His LOVE. Him not giving Himself to us does not make Him a "deity of deception". At the end of the day, we depend on God for everything. He gives to all mankind life, breath, and EVERYTHING (Acts 17:24-25). It seems to me that the first step in being a person with the truth in you is to admit that we depend on God for it. 15 - Dr. Hunter: A morally good man is defined as someone willing to serve God, where the service of God, and the revealing of His glory, is the greatest desire of their heart. Both the man with the arms and the man without the arms are judged by God. If the man without the arms desires to serve God by moving the box, but can't, he is still judged. But God, who can see the heart, doesn't require moving of the box. God doesn't need to see the work to know the heart. Meanwhile, God can also see the heart of the man with arms. He knows before the man performs the deed, or fails to perform it, whether or not the desire is there. The task given, e.g. moving the box, is the occasion for God GOD TO SHOW US what is in the man's heart, i.e. what he desires. If He moves the box, it is evidence that he desires to serve God. If He doesn't move the box, it is evidence that he doesn't desire to serve God. Again, God doesn't need this evidence. He can see directly what is in the heart. But the evidence is useful for US to judge the actions of men. This is what Jesus describes in Luke 6:43-45, i.e. "a tree is known by its fruit". Our FRUIT (i.e. our actions) demonstrate what kind of TREE (i.e. our internal character/nature/heart) we are. Acts provide a basis for human EPISTEMOLOGY to function and show EXTERNALLY what cannot be perceived us INTERNALLY. But as can be seen, ONTOLOGY (i.e. what we are) precedes activity. We do what we do, because we are what we are. As a result, EPISTEMOLOGY can follow from activity (i.e. we can know what we are from what we do). In this way, evil works/disobedience, demonstrates that there is something missing from the heart of men, specifically, God's Spirit. Meanwhile, good works, obedience, and telling the truth proceed from a heart filled with that Spirit, i.e. a good heart that has been made Godly by God dwelling in it.
16 - Dr. Stratton: Who could possibly claim that they are not immensely fortunate? Let's be clear. Humanity itself makes up less than .000000000001% of the whole universe. There are 2.16 known species of anmials. We could have been dogs, ants, peacocks instead of humans. The odds of any of us even being born are infinitely small. We were literally 1 of 100,000,000 sperm that got to the egg, each being a genetically distinct human. So our good fortune cannot be denied. In addition, we deserve nothing of what we have. We didn't deserve life, don't deserve any moment of it, don't deserve food, don't deserve health, don't deserve any of our wealth. As God says, He has given to all men life, breath, and everything... and all of it was a gracious gift. We have a lot to be grateful for... and so God's anger at Mankind's ungratefulness (Romans 1:21) is well justified. Why would be be more surprised that not all will be amongst the ones who receive ETERNAL life. I mean, even the idea of eternal life is inconceivable and profound. Why should we "expect it"? Why should it be a "given"? Those who do not receive it will only receive justice, so they have no room to complain. God will not, indeed cannot, take from them more than He has given to them. He can remove from them the gracious life He has given to them, and all the goodness they received during it, but that is just. To those who escape justice, to whose against whom the Lord does not count inequity, they are blessed indeed. One of my concerns amongst non-Calvinists is how they appear to take God's grace for granted. Finally, to be clear, God does not choose us based on anything GOOD in us, or based on any condition we have met. But as we can see in 1 Corinthians 1:26-31, that does not mean He chooses without purpose, selecting those Corinthians particularly because they were weak and insignificant... meaning that they were good vessels through which to show His power. 17 - Dr. Pritchett: I didn't sense a question here, just a statement with which I agree whole heartedly. The anti-semitism and racism in reformed circles, although probably a minor fad, is extremely disappointing. 18 - Dr. Hunter: Yes, God loves all of His creation. It is the work of His hands. But obviously, He loves ants and beetles and mountains and trees in a different way from Mankind. He loves His Son, a particular man, above all. But He provides for all. He gives to all things their existence, their life (if the have it), their daily bread, their breath at every moment. But in pure grace, He has chosen to give to some of Mankind an ETERNAL LIFE. This is a profound grace. We should not trivialize it by claiming that God is not loving towards us UNLESS He gives it to us. Doing so turns it into an EXPECTATION, not a profound and loving gift that He has given. 19 - Dr. Stratton: Yes, God is a personal being. He is also GOODNESS, TRUTH, and LOVE. Would you still be a "puppet" in the sense you describe if all of your choices were said to be determined by GOODNESS, TRUTH, and LOVE? It seems to me that this is the very idea of freedom, to be able to do perfectly what is good, based in the truth, and which constitutes love. But that is where your question again runs up against Classical Theism. God is not just another person amongst other persons. He is the ULTIMATE BEING, the being who is Himself the very substance of Goodness, Truth, Love, Justice, Joy, etc. He IS HIS ATTRIBUTES. If being controlled by Him means being a puppet, then I want nothing more. This is the fundamental point. Reformed Theology teaches that we are to be like Him... how? By being FILLED BY HIS SPIRIT. If we are not, then the converse of us is true, we are the slave... the PUPPET... of evil, lies, hatred, injustice, and sorrow. It was Jesus who is the very embodiment of this ideal, and it is Jesus who says: "I CAN DO NOTHING by Myself; I judge only as I hear. And My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me." (Jn 5:19). Jesus also says: "Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words I say to you, I do not speak on My own. Instead, it is the Father dwelling in Me, performing His works." (Jn 14:10). Sounds almost like a puppet doesn't it. But that is what we should all desire. 20 - Dr. Hunter: I'm most cautious about various aspects of how to unfold or explain Limited Atonement. I think there is a lot of disagreement here amongst Calvinists and I tend to shy away from the Owens interpretation of that doctrine and view Christ's work as being universal in its extent.
@@brentonstanfield5198my man, as a fellow Calvinist - if they actually wanted answers to the questions, they can be had. This stuff has been written about for a long time. It’s as if they want to live in a world where they are the first to think on these things.
[+] The first to state his case seems right .....until another comes and cross-examines him. (Prov 18:17) Check out the rebuttals in the comments and let me know what you think.
@@Tim.Foster123 Tim for me Calvinism was a real screw job...I began doubting my salvation at a time that I still held to ECT. Now I am free of this Theological Subterfuge and I am doing great and don't doubt my salvation...I am a much healthier Christian with Calvinism behind me...
@@TimBarr-e8p I'm not sure what ECT has to do with it, since most of all Church History has affirmed ECT. Sects of ancient Judaism even believed in ECT, and that was thousands of years before Calvin was born. But I'm glad you feel better these days. Hopefully that's worth something.
It looks like my comment went missing. It may have been because of the link I left, so here's a truncated link. It's to a TH-cam video: watch?v=yxbVec_dhFo I was inspired by your video to make one of my own asking 15 questions of Christians who are not Calvinists.
Questions 1-5. (Questions 6-10 in my reply below) [DISCLAIMER: I'm a Determinist, and therefore often confused with being a Calvinist. Nonetheless, these questions from my brothers interest me, so here goes. (Do understand that all my answers will be kept brief. Much more could be said about each item) ] 1. "Giving God all the glory" I'm not sure I agree with the premise. I guess real Calvinists have a different view on this one? Dunno. Everything God does gives Him glory one way or the other; whether the recipient receives or rejects the gift. 2. "Does God determine/decree everything..." A. Everything. (More on Tim Stratton's answer in #4 below) 3. "Judas was given/lost..." This challenge operates under the assumption that when an author uses a particular word, he always+only means the same thing. The notion is easily disproven, and honestly, I don't know why anyone would hold it. Look at how Matthew uses the word "Friend". Look at how Paul uses the word "fool". Look at how John uses the word "world". Etc, etc, etc. So when Jesus repeats that He will lose none that the father gives Him, that 'given' must refer to eternal security (Let's be consistent now: how many of us think Jesus will lose any of us who make it to heaven? Won't we have free will in heaven? Hullo??) And when Jesus says He 'lost' Judas, clearly Judas was not 'given' to Him for the purposes of eternal security. As Ps 109, Matt 26:24, John 6:64, Acts 1:16-20, Acts 2:23, Acts 4:27-28 point out/imply, Judas was appointed to betray Jesus, and God knew it from Day1. Clearly, the 'given'/'lost' for Judas is a different kind of 'given' for true saints. 4. "Calvinists accuse Molinists of starting with philosophy..." Everyone everywhere starts with philosophy, no exceptions! Few are epistemically self-aware enough to realize what their philosophical commitments are; The rest are untrained and blindly assume they aren't making philosophical commitments. EDD (a childish pejorative, frankly) is the necessary conclusion if the following presuppositions are true: P1 God knows all things P2 God is the only Creator P3 God is a free Creator [He's not obligated to create anything He doesn't want to create] P4 God reserves the right to create whatever He wants and stop anything that He doesn't want to happen P5 (optional) God can change a person's heart and mind without that person knowing that God did it Given the above, EDD is a necessary conclusion. The argument is airtight. Without having me elaborate on it extensively, just test it: If you agree to the above 5 points, please name just one event in the entire universe that 1) God didn't already know well in advance would happen and 2) God was powerless to disable and/or 3) was powerless to intervene and disrupt. If you can't name one, then you must concede that either 1) all events are deliberately allowed or 2) all events are deliberately predestined. (or some mix of both). In either case, they are deliberately and knowingly set in place by God, since He is the only Creator. * NOTE: This is not a modal fallacy. In WLC's objection to "foreknowledge is not predestination", he rightly waves the modal fallacy flag. However, he doesn't discuss the premise that God is the only free creator. I do, therefore I'm averting the modal fallacy Oddly enough, only Open Theists deny any of the above premises - yet so many Christians of all stripes reject the necessary conclusion. Weird, huh? And of course, there is Biblical support for this. I'll offer just one: "In Him we live and move and have our being". Re-read that verse, and be sure to think about it. (If we exist in Him and have our very being in Him ..how, exactly, are we 'free' in any real sense?) 5. "Why does God blind dead people..." Incredulity is not an argument. If God wants to double-do a sure thing, that's not a logical problem. In Europe and Africa, dead bolt locks can be double-locked by turning the key twice, not just once. One time, my grandmother asked me to lock her front gate, and reminded me to double-turn the key to double-lock it. "Oma - if someone can pick the lock once, they can pick it twice. Locking it twice doesn't help keep thieves out". "Lock it properly, young man!" was her reply. These kinds of locks are all over Europe and Africa. And I've never seen one in the USA. Point being... a ) why do you care how other People roll? If you don't like it, go make your own universe. b ) just because you object to how God goes about doing something does doesn't mean He won't or shouldn't do it. There is no logical contradiction here. Move along. c ) oftentimes, God does things to show other beings [angelic powers] a thing or two. In these cases, you're not even the spectator. It's not about you, so don't worry about it (See Eph 3:10)
Questions 6-10 6. "God has provided a way out of temptation..." * Does the sun move as it rises in the east and sets in the west? * Or does the sun sit still and the earth spin on its axis? Both are true, so there is nothing wrong with describing the interaction of the sun and earth with either paradigm; but pick a lane and stay in it! One paradigm will be from a heavenly perspective; the other paradigm will be a down-to-earth man-to-man perspective. They're both valid, and they do not contradict. So it is with the interaction of God's decrees ("heavenly perspective") and man's behavior ("earthly perspective"). It is completely valid to discuss man's actions from either perspective since both paradigms are valid INSOFAR as you pick one paradigm and describe all events with respect to that paradigm! The contradictions happen when you pick one paradigm, but then start describing 1/2 of the events with language from the other paradigm. EG, we could say "the spinning earth moves Dallas, TX from shade to sunlight at 6am" (heavenly), or "at 6am, the sun began to rise in the east, shining light on Dallas, TX" (earthly). But we would never say "at 6am, the earth began to spin at Dallas, TX" (mixed). Bungling perspectives/paradigms is where the contradictions show up.
Sometimes the Bible speaks from a heavenly perspective; sometimes from an earthly perspective. Nothing wrong or contradictory about this. [Much more could be said about this!!] 7. "Rom 9:20 why does Paul grant the interlocutor's premise..." Maybe I'm not understanding this one, but Incredulity is not an argument. Even if it's true that Paul doesn't grant his interlocutor's premise anywhere else ... so what? Where is it written that he can't do it just once? As I read it, he seems to not only grant the interlocutor's premise, but he points to history where God did indeed find fault with those whose hearts He hardened! (What more proof do we need?) After all, Pharaoh was punished by God for not letting the people go .. exactly as He ordained (Exod 4:21-23. Please note the phrase "so that") 8. "No one is infallible ... So God determines people to affirm false beliefs, right???" Of course! If there's a moral objection here, it is silenced when we realize that God Himself says that He will fool people at His discretion. His words, not mine. * Principle: Ezek 14:1-11 * Practice: 1 Kings 22:1-36 * Prediction: 2 Thess 2:11-12 ...yet somehow I'm supposed to believe God won't do what He says (repeatedly) He will do? How do you figure?? We could add more: Deut 29:4; Ps 147:19-20; 2 Sam 24:1 John 3:27 Think about it: Bad things happen when we don't have all of God's word, and/or can't comprehend all of His word, right? And who is the one seeing to it that we don't have/comprehend it? You don't have to like that. But you cannot deny it. From these passages, we can safely posit that if a person has false beliefs, he did not (or has not yet) heed fully God's word. God is not morally culpable. 9. "Sovereignty of kings --> God's authority vis-a-vis determinism or free will" Non-determinists tend to overlook a critical fact about the analogical use of language when comparing man to God. Because God and man are so vastly different (eg, God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnitemporal, etc), for any given point of comparison, the difference of *degree* actually becomes a difference of *kind*. So we can get in trouble with language used to compare man to God. * For example, Johnny Cash can sing "I've been everywhere, man", and so can God. But the difference in degree begets a difference in kind. That is, the *way* in which God is everywhere is vastly different - and thus incomparable - to the way Johnny has been everywhere. * Better still, we can say "that man is intelligent; he has an IQ of 140" and we can say that "God is intelligent". But if we believe that God is omniscient, then "intelligence" as applied to Him is a completely different kind of thing when compared to man. In this case, the man has an IQ of 140, so we say He's "intelligent". But in God's case - He has no IQ! IQ cannot apply to God (look up the definition of IQ and think about how that applies to an omniscient person)f The same could be said for many of His immutable attributes: man has a vague similarity of any particular divine attribute, but because His is orders of magnitude higher than ours ..at what point does the difference in degree beget a difference in kind? Because if/when that happens, we need to watch out for falling into a trap with the analogical use of language. So the question is now this: When God describes Himself as 'sovereign', does He **only** mean that He is in charge of stuff in His domain that He bothers to see and think about (like a human king), or is that degree of charge/control so vastly superior both in realm and substance that it's a different *kind* of sovereign control? Remember - He IS everywhere in His kingdom and He created everything in His kingdom - from the electron of every atom of every molecule of every compound of every object in every solar system in every galaxy! And unlike a human king, He can change anything anywhere at His discretion, without informing anyone or asking for permission from anyone. Nebuchadnezzar learned the hard way (Daniel 4) that the best king's "sovereignty" pales in comparison to His. Thus, it is completely up to Him whether or not He wants to grant a created being Libertarian free will, compatibilistic free will, or no free will at all. [After all, the heavens, stars, animals, trees, winds, etc, have no free will, yet they praise Him, do they not?] 10. "Corporate election..." From Genesis to Revelation, we read of all sorts of persons, places, and things are elected/chosen for God's purpose and destiny. Mountains, cities, temples, patriarchs, nations, kings, tribes, prophets, apostles, saved individuals, traitors, authorities/principalities, etc, etc, etc, etc. Given that so many of these are explicitly said to be chosen, why on earth would anyone want to insist that this particular thing or that particular thing was not chosen just because it's not said to be chosen? Honestly, I don't understand why anyone would want to affirm that argument from silence. Given the sheer weight of Biblical evidence to the contrary, I think it's just simple denial to assume that humans are not likewise elected both for salvation and good works in Him. We are elected individually. And corporately. And appointed for good works in Him. That's enough for now. Maybe I'll do 11-20 some other time. Thanks.
@@Ldgreggbell I made a separate/new post about #15. It's labeled as Q15 "Conditional ability vs categorical ability: why is the man morally culpable for one and not the other?" Thanks.
Why is it that these questions are asked over and over but have all been answered? Dis you not hear the answers before? These are not new questions and I know I've seen 99% of these answered by Calvinists. #3 for example is such an easy one to answer. Jesus made an exception for Judas so that prophecy would be fulfilled. Thats like one of the oldest questions and that brother still keeps asking it?
First, it's possible that the answers have not sufficed to actually answer the questions. Second, so you agree that Judas was in fact given to the Son?
Why is it that the answers to these questions are stated over and over but have all been rebutted? Please share the best example of one that has not been refuted.
If you admit that Judas was given but was lost, then it's not true that Jesus lost none of those who were given. So you can give this up as one of your proof texts.
Dr James White seems to be your kryptonite. I predict the first line of response would be half of these questions are not even close to critiquing what Calvin actually taught. Calvin actually believed in the will of man. A creaturely will that is. He would be considered a compatibilist if he were alive and preaching today. Not a hard determinist. Perhaps distinctions should be made between what Calvin taught and what some today might believe regarding determinism.
@rebukeandreprove. I agree with this A good resource would be Richard Muller and his work of post reformation reformed dogmatics This is all coming from a Calvinist who has appreciated Whites work in the past I was just making a joke 😁
3: you do know what Perdition means right?and in verse 12 he never said Judas was Given he said he was Lost, how do we know that? Because before that he literally said “ None of them is Lost” and before that he said “Those who you Gave me was kept” so when he said None were Lost then he said “except” he is telling you that Judas is “Lost” because he was never given. Jesus can’t say he kept them all and didn’t lose any, to contradict himself and say one was lost even though he kept them all ….that doesn’t make sense
John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled Notice the word "except" used here? Judas was the EXCEPTIONG to the RULE. What is the rule here? That none would be lost. NOT that Judas wasn't given. Judas was one of the 12 that was given to the Son and the rule was that all given to Him would not be lost, EXCEPT Judas. Nowhere does the text say that he was lost because he wasn't given. He was lost because he was the exception to the rule that Jesus would not lose any given to Him. Jesus is not contradicting Himself. He's pointing out the exception to the rule.
"and none of THEM" Who's THEM? The THEM is those given to the Son. And the one exception that was lost of the them is Judas. He's still clearly given as he's included in the THEM.
@ read the verse friend he Those who you gave me I have “Kept” and “NONE IS LOST” if Judas is lost then 1 is plus in Context of the book of John in John 13:10-11 Jesus said Judas was never Clean Reading the Greek of that chapter and those verses specifically when Jesus says his disciples are clean it is in the “Aorist Tense” it is a completely action in the past….so it’s “they have been made clean” from some point in the past but Judas “was never clean” but even if you are using this to argue that people can lose their salvation it doesn’t help your case because the verse ends with “so the prophecy could be fulfilled” and worst of you are using that to argue against Calvinist you are proving Predestination right there which I don’t believe in, but that verse doesn’t teach nor in the context that Judas was ever given .
@@nathanhellrung9810 what??? You are looking at the Word “Except” here that word is not even in the Greek so how can you form a Rule over a word that isn’t even originally there?
@@DaChristianYute yes, read the verse. It says that none of THEM (which is those given Him) is lost EXCEPT the son of perdition. The EXCEPTION here has to do with being lost, NOT being given. Judas being never clean has no bearing on if he was given. I'm not arguing that people can lose their salvation or even arguing against Calvinism or predestination. I'm arguing against your argument that Judas was never given. Clearly he was given to the Son. If that causes a problem with your theology then get a new theology.
I've been confused by Calvinists trying to explain EDD, and I'm no theologian, but I've tried to wrap my head around the idea of an atemporal God and how determinism would work. So I start from the natural model, where it appears as though God created the universe initially and allows nature to take its course, intervening when he sees fit. Then I'll try to shoehorn all this into EDD. Suppose we have a divinely simple God, specifically he's atemporal. That means God has to do everything in a single monadic action. That single divine act would be God expressing all his freedom and sovereignty. As in the natural model, most of the time God chooses to let nature take its course, so everyone doing experiments are seeing the laws of physics work as expected. Just as God largely chooses to allow nature to take its course, he'd grant human beings their free will by allowing our willful nature to take its course. We'd then make our choices freely as part of the monadic act of creation, thus your libertarian freedom stems directly from God's freedom. From God's atemporal perspective, it's all subsumed into the singular act of determination, and as temporal beings, our perspective is to experience it all play out. To my mind, this monadic model doesn't get you anything over the natural model, and it smells a bit like pantheism. But maybe it answers some of Tim's questions.
Sure, I'll answer from my perspective. I'm from the historic confessional Reformed camp, and I realize this channel and these participants typically deal with Calvinist/Calvinist-adjacent Baptists, so it might be a bit outside what you expect. Christ told us that if we love him, we are to obey his commandments, so in order to avoid bearing false witness about what the Reformed Tradition says, I will cite from the historic confessions and catechisms such as the Westminster Standards and Three Forms of Unity to act as several witnesses for the Reformed position as needed. My hope is that any counter-argument would also base counter-claims about the Reformed position directly on those same confessions. These discussions tend to be filled with misconceptions and strawmen, and so I think by rooting my claims in the doctrinal standards Reformed denominations actually use and hold their teaching elders accountable to rather than unsourced claims or this or that individual person, we can avoid many distractions and focus on the real points of disagreement.
1. (Leighton) Why Biblically and Philosophically do you believe that the gift has to be irresistibly given for the giver to get full credit for the giving of the gift? I'm not sure I understand the question. It seems very abstract from the typical conflict between "Calvinists" and most objections from non-Calvinists. What is the gift in view? Eternal Life? Does the baby get any sort of credit for causing their life? Does the baby contribute to the conception? Christ compared our becoming saved and entering the kingdom to being "generated", an old-timey word for how babies are made. Regardless about word games regarding gift receiving and whether "credit" is due for not rejecting a gift, the gift of salvation doesn't even seem open to such a discussion in the first place. John makes it clear throughout his gospel, salvation is such a thing that our will doesn't play into it. Just as it is solely the parent's acts that bring the gift of life to a child, so too it is solely as the Spirit moves that bring the gift of new life to a person. 2. (Hunter) Does God determine or decree... A. Everything that happens in a person's life? B. Only their response to the gospel? C. none of the above. First, "determine" and "decree" are not synynoms. The former is a philosophical word (usually understood overnarrowly by non-Calvinists), and the latter is about God's governance. God is the King of kings and Lord of lords, so of course all things fall under his authority, and thus fall under what God decrees and ordains. How could it not? I doubt anyone asking questions means to imply there is some other co-equal god out there with similar authority to the God of scripture. The Reformed Confessions don't speak of God determining all things, certainly not in the immediate sense that many non-Calvinists seem to mean. For example, WCF 9.1 says "God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature *determined* to good or evil." Even something like the fall falls under God's decree, but we don't claim it determined beyond the fact that God is creator and sustainer of all creation, the baseline sort of determinism all Christians affirm (no matter how much they hate that word). He does "decree" or "ordain" all things. The Westminster Shorter Catechism nicely defines what is in view here: Q. 8. How doth God execute his decrees? A. God executeth his decrees in the works of *creation* and *providence.* Q. 9. What is the work of creation? A. The work of creation is, God’s making all things of nothing, by the word of his power, in the space of six days, and all very good. Q. 10. How did God create man? A. God created man male and female, after his own image, in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, with dominion over the creatures. Q. 11. What are God’s works of providence? A. God’s works of providence are, his most holy, wise, and powerful *preserving* and *governing* all his creatures, and all their actions. Q. 12. What special act of providence did God exercise toward man in the estate wherein he was created? A. When God had created man, he entered into a covenant of life with him, upon condition of perfect obedience; forbidding him to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, upon the pain of death. Q. 13. Did our first parents continue in the estate wherein they were created? A. Our first parents, *being left to the freedom of their own will,* fell from the estate wherein they were created, by sinning against God. That's what is in view when we speak of God's "decree" or what God "ordains". This much really shouldn't be controversial to be honest. If one denies God's decree, what are they denying? That in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth? That's the very first verse of scripture. Or are they denying God's providence? Odd thing for a "Provisionist" to do, don't you think? Are they denying his governance, his position as King of kings? And so, we have WCF 3.1 - "God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." This really shouldn't be that controversial given how Westminster defines "decree" and "ordains". Yes, God "ordains" all things, he is the King of kings and Lord of lords, he is creator and sustainer and govener of all creation. And yet he "ordains" in such a way that he establishes human free will (doing no violence to our will) and the liberty (freedom) and contingency (i.e. not some theory of exaustive determinsim) by what he ordains. Where exactly is the disagreement? 3. (Pritchett) So why doesn't Judas disprove the notion that merely being given by the father to the son to not lose disproves that Jesus never loses it. The question seems to ignore the purpose for the giving expressed in the passages being contrasted. In Jn 6, the context is regarding those Jesus ultimately raises up, but in chapter 17, an exception is specifically carved out for the son of perdition for the purpose that the Scripture might be fulfilled. In all cases, Jesus fulfilled the purpose for the giving without fail, including the giving of the son of perdition. The respective passages make that very clear.
3. (Pritchett) So why doesn't Judas disprove the notion that merely being given by the father to the son to not lose disproves that Jesus never loses it. The question seems to ignore the purpose for the giving expressed in the passages being contrasted. In Jn 6, the context is regarding those Jesus ultimately raises up, but in chapter 17, an exception is specifically carved out for the son of perdition for the purpose that the Scripture might be fulfilled. In all cases, Jesus fulfilled the purpose for the giving without fail, including the giving of the son of perdition. The respective passages make that very clear. 4. (Stratton) What is the Biblical case for Exaustive Divine Determination (EDD)? As far as I can tell, EDD is a strawman of the Reformed position. It isn't how our confessions express themselves, nor does it come from any Reformed writer that I am aware of. In fact, I was under the impression that it was something Leighton came up with, but someone recently corrected me and pointed out that it was Stratton's own idea. So he'd have to document why he thinks that is even an approprate label for our position in the first place. It seems question begging. Our confessions uphold the classical primary cause second cause distinction that Christians have classically held to, and even Molinists would defend (including WLC in his discussion with White). It is unclear what is being asked that wouldn't also apply to Molinists. Mind, this framing is far older than Calvin and is one that has been accepted by the Church for most of its history. But if this really is just a case of the anti-Calvinist imputing some idea of EDD to us and now demanding we defend it, that is a textbook strawman argument. 5. (Leighton) If man is born totally depraved, then why would God blind them? This question seems to be based on looking at the two word phrase "totally depraved", inferring what was meant by it, and not actually going to the source for that doctrine to make sure they understood it correctly. The "total" in this case is not understood as "maximally" depraved, but rather that there is no aspect of our being that is not under the corruption of sin. The effect is total in its extent, but we can be more or less sinful. As TULIP is meant to point to the Canons of Dort, let's get our definition straight from the source: The Third and Fourth Main Points of Doctrine Human Corruption, Conversion to God, and the Way It Occurs Article 1: The Effect of the Fall on Human Nature Human beings were originally created in the image of God and were furnished in mind with a true and sound knowledge of the Creator and things spiritual, in will and heart with righteousness, and in all emotions with purity; indeed, the whole human being was holy. However, rebelling against God at the devil’s instigation and by their own free will, *they deprived themselves of these outstanding gifts.* Rather, in their place *they brought upon themselves blindness, terrible darkness, futility, and distortion of judgment in their minds; perversity, defiance, and hardness in their hearts and wills; and finally impurity in all their emotions.* Article 2: The Spread of Corruption Human beings brought forth children of the same nature as themselves after the fall. That is to say, being corrupt they brought forth corrupt children. The corruption spread, by God’s just judgment, from Adam and Eve to all their descendants-except for Christ alone-not by way of imitation (as in former times the Pelagians would have it) but by way of the propagation of their perverted nature. Article 3: Total Inability Therefore, all people are conceived in sin and are born children of wrath, unfit for any saving good, *inclined to evil,* dead in their sins, and slaves to sin. Without the grace of the regenerating Holy Spirit they are neither *willing* nor able to return to God, to reform their distorted nature, or even to dispose themselves to such reform. Article 4: The Inadequacy of the Light of Nature *There is, to be sure, a certain light of nature remaining in all people after the fall,* by virtue of which they retain some notions about God, natural things, and the difference between what is moral and immoral, and demonstrate a certain eagerness for virtue and for good outward behavior. *But this light of nature is far from enabling humans to come to a saving knowledge of God and conversion to him* - so far, in fact, that they do not use it rightly even in matters of nature and society. Instead, in various ways they completely distort this light, whatever its precise character, and suppress it in unrighteousness. In doing so all people render themselves without excuse before God. Even in the question, it was related to being "blind". But blindness isn't a binary, you can be legally blind and yet see quite a bit, or only barely enought to see more or less light, or be completely unable to see anything at all. So it is consistant to say they are "blind" yet see enough to see "the difference between what is moral and immoral", etc., yet they grow even more blind as time goes on and they habitually live in sin. As highlighted above, Dort frames it as being "inclined" to evil, and not a position of being maximally evil.
6. (Hunter) How is this (people taking the way of escape from sin God provides) possible if God has decreed and determined all things? To be honest, it sounds to me like you are asking about a tautology. How can A obtain if A obtains? How is it possible for God to decree something if God decrees something? God is King of kings and Lord of lords. He has authority over his creation. He has the authority to order things so that the temptations we face aren't as bad as they could be as well as making sure every temptation he allows us to face has a way out. I don't get why Braxton seems to suppose God can't do both these things, thus I fail to see the force of the question. 7. (Pritchett) What makes you think that Paul grants the premise of Romans 9: 19 from the interlocutor when his very response "who are you oh man to answer back to God" indicates he doesn't, exposing the folly of the interlocutor's protest. I don't know where this question is coming from. Why would I think that the interlocutor's premise is granted? It clearly isn't. When the interlocutor demands, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?", he assumes that he is in God's place as judge and that God must give an account that accords with man's idea of fairness independant from God. Paul spares no mercy for how foolish an idea this is, no more so than God himself does for Job in Job 38-42. Such demands that God must meet human standards of fairness, as if we are King of God, is yet another echo of Satan's temptation in the garden, that we can be like God. All of us must be careful to let God be God and man be God's creation under His authority. This is often brought up in these debates when the non-Calvinist strays too far in trying to judge God or accuse Him of unfairness by raising similar concerns as that Paul deals with in Romans 9. If I can critique my own side a bit, I think we go to verse 20 too quickly, but it is because we strongly reject the premise of such questions that we so often cite verse 20. 8. (Stratton) If God determines all things.... This seems to be based on the same strawman I've pointed out in questions 2, 4, and 6. Stratton would do well to stop making up terms for Calvinists to belief and just go by what we already confess. He would do well to incorporate WCF 9 _Of Free Will_ and chapters 3 and 5 wherein we explicitly have a place for God's decree to establish and uphold free and contingent second causes. As it stands, this doesn't seem to be a question for Calvinists in any historical or confessional sense. 9. (Hunter) Why do you think that Calvinists often speak as though determinism is part of God's soveringty such that if you are not a Calvinist you must think that God is not quite as soverign as the Calvinist does? Does he, from that position of soverign authority, choose to give man libertarian freedom, or choose determinism? This seems to be two different questions. With the first question, I agree that soverignty has to do with God's authority and isn't a philosophical statement at all, let alone one dealing with some theory within the category of determinism or man's free will. I don't understand why many non-Calvinists equate the two, but I suspect it is for similar reasons as some Calvinists do: One, lack of training in philosophy, so people misuse terms like "determinism", "free will", and anything that ends up touching those things. Frankly, it would be better to not try to use philosophical arguments if one doesn't have that background and just stick to Biblical language. Mind, this is a good thing to prefer even if one does have the philosophical background. Regardless of whatever way one wants to claim man has free will (and there are many possible competing options here), it must accord with Biblical statements regarding being a slave to Satan and sin or to Christ and righteousness and both God and man intending various actions of men for asymetric moral purpose, man for evil and God for good. Two, God is soverign, but God is also God. He doesn't cease to have any of his other "god" properties when he puts on his crown and rules his creation. He is always all powerful, all knowing, and soverign. So when God determines something, he often does so with a decree, "let there be light!", and the universe shapes itself to obey God's soverign command. And yet as pointed out in previous answers, that God determins all things does not reduce to EDD or other theories, God establishes the liberty and contingency of second causes by what he ordains. Our free will is under God's soverign rule. Here I think it is an issue of Divine Simplicity and confusing the idea that God isn't made up of parts with blurring the attributes of God into one single thing without distinction. It is sometimes useful to call out God's holiness distinct from his love or soverignty, etc, even though we must also not think of them as parts of God, but one unified inseperable being that is. I think this is a great question, as it is an excellent oppertunity for both sides to learn and grow and improve their arguments. As for the second question, this seems to presuppose an incompatiblist answer: that it must be either determinism or a particular libertarian philosophy concerning the will. Calvinsts reject that as a false dichotomy and think that God can decree in terms of creation and providence in such a way that man's will isn't violated and yet man's will is still part of God's creation decree and under God's divine soverign rule. I think in these debates, some non-Calvinists can accept that readily enough, and others seem to insist our will must be completely independant from God and its own thing. I think this strays too far into making man to be god and ignores that God created us, including designing and implementing our will. I don't think this has historically been much of a point of contention in the church for the last 1500 years.
10. (Pritchett) (Re: Eph 1) Why think that something that is true of the corporate body applies even further to individuals? I don't really understand the question. It doesn't seem to have Reformed has Covenant Theology in mind, so perhaps it is directed at some low church vaguely "Calvinistic" believer. Is Pritchett implying that an individual can be in Christ as a true part of the corporate body and yet will not receive the promises made to the corporate body? If that is possible, could we push it to the extreme and say that it is possible that corporately speaking, we receive (per verse 7) "redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses", but no actual individual believer receives redemption or forgiveness? In so far as it is corporate, it seems like any individual ought to be able to have assurance of the promises made corporately to those in Christ by virtue of being in Christ. If we separate them as the questioner does, it seems to give God an excuse to renege his promises on some weird technicality that doesn't make sense to me. But if individuals in the corporate body can indeed lay claim to those promises, what exactly is the objection at that point? In general, I've found the move from individual promises to corporate promises to be a weird move on the part of non-Calvinists. What is a corporate body made up of if not many individuals? I wonder if this lies at the root of the lack of assurance many non-Calvinists express. It would make sense if they can't know if the promises apply to them as individuals even though every evidence shows they are part of the corporate body. Baptist sacramentology (or really, the lack thereof) probably plays a big role here too. 11. (Stratton) Without begging the question, how do you know that Calvinism is not one of those false theological beliefs? WCF 1.10 - The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture. Reminder that the Reformers were the ones who strongly defended sola scriptura in the face of death for opposing Rome. Reformed Theology has an advantage here. It is creedal and confessional, meaning we write down in great detail what we believe and where in scripture we get it from. We write catechisms to train people in our beliefs. Most of the work is done for you. One has only to read our confessions side by side with scripture and see if what is being said accords with God's word. Where it does, believe it because it is God's word, where it doesn't, believe God's word. This is actually quite a stark contrast with many modern anti-Calvinist groups. Most are not at all forthcoming with what they really believe. It is hard to actually get a clear statement about their teaching, and often their real beliefs don't stand on their own but have to be read between the lines of their attacks on other Christians. I'd be surprised if any of the people in this video went into as much positive detail and breadth of topics about the Christianity they defend as either the Westminster Standards or Three Forms of Unity do. 12. (Hunter) Why could God not use the production of apologetic evidence embedded in the gospel message where a preacher might use stories and illustrations along with Biblical data, the apologist might use evidence for the resurrection along with the Biblical data; why can God not use means in this way? And if he can, why do we need to be presuppositional apologists instead of classical apologists? I think it is an error to treat evidences and presuppositionalism as contrary. Rather, I see presuppositionalism as foundational to evidence based arguments. Classical arguments work because they presuppose the God of scripture in their use of evidence and reasoning. What does using Biblical data and evidence presuppose about the reliability and truth of the Bible? Clearly the apologist has some underlying presupposition that may not be shared if he is talking to, say, a Muslim or an Atheist. If he is then challenged on the reliability of scripture, he has to work backwards and address the presuppositions of the person he is talking to. Presuppositionalism gives you the tools to do this, though of course people who reject presup also have to deal with these sorts of basic differences. Eventually the hardened unbeliever is going to simply dispute your use of evidence. Evidence isn't neutral, but interpreted within a framework, and the Christian's framework and the non-Christian's framework is in theory completely incompatible. How do you break down that difference? That's where presuppositionalism excels. Certainly where there are overlapping presuppositions, the arguments used by presuppositionalists and evidentulists will look very similar. That isn't because the presuppositionalist abandoned presuppositionalism, it's because they share a common presupposition that allows such arguments to work. When they stop working, the presuppositionalist has the tools to dig as deep as needed to get to the root issue. But yes, God uses means, and he can even bring people to him from the worst of arguments, or even from no argument at all. I think people need to not think of apologetics as about wining people to Christ, but merely about defending the faith from arguments and false accusations made against it. Often, the defense of the faith isn't for the person making the attack, but for the audience. And even then, it is often better for Christians to get to know people and help meet their real needs with a spirit of charity rather than engage in apologetics. Apologetics is important, but I think it has a distorted place in modern Christianity.
13. (Pritchett) Why is it noticibly absent in all the doctrines of grace in the Reformed circles is any discussion about benefaction, gift giving, and socio-economic ??-client reprocity? This question is confusing to me. I had to synthasize this question to make it make sense, as he didn't lay it out especially clearly. Even then, I wasn't entirely clear on what he said or what he was trying to ask. TH-cam's automatic transcript doesn't help much either. At the end, it sounds like he is suggesting that grace doesn't apply to salvation, but is purely about acts of charity to the community. That or we are saved by our works of charity. At least in terms of the doctrines of grace, we are viewing that in the context of soteriology: "salvation by grace through faith." Works of charity are important parts of a living faith that works, but protestants in general (no need to bring Calvinism into this) do not think we are saved by such works. Because of that, I assume that isn't what he is getting at. If he is claiming we don't talk about charity at all, well, he is just wrong. This would be especially ironic given that I went into exactly that in the previous question before I heard this question. He may be biased due to only contacting Calvinism explicitly when he attacks our view or sees his view challenged, but maybe he should spend some time with us and see first hand our work in this area or get more familiar with the people working in his favorite charities. If he just means that Dort didn't address acts of charity, well that wasn't being challenged. It also doesn't deal with something as fundamental as the Trinity or incarnation, but it would be dishonest to use its absense in one confession as a basis to charge Reformed Christians as heretics. It addresses a narrow range of topics. The Heidelberg Catechism (As does the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechism) get into this more in their breakdown of the 10 commandments. If it is a claim that we don't define the doctrines of grace using Biblical terminology, I challenge you to read the Canons of Dort and then get back to me. Just about every article is steeped in Biblical phrases and references. Or if it is about using theological jargon at all, try remaking this video without using any similar jargon and see how far you get. If he is implying we should toss out scripture's explinations of salvation when it doesn't involve charitable work, well, I reject that premise. If he was asking something else entirely, I haven't got a clue what he meant. 14. (Stratton) Why should you believe the Bible if it were inspired by a deity of deception? Is that what Stratton thinks scripture is? He claims to be a Christian, right? How does this not beg the question against himself insofar as he claims to be a Christian? We don't claim scripture is inspired by a diety of deception, so the very premise is a strawman. We likely make the same claims to Biblical authorship and inerrency and historical transmition, etc., so it puzzles me how this is a question for Calvinists and not an atheist asking 101 level questions to Christians. Is there something he would say is inadiquate about the answers any Christian would give if that Christian happens to be Reformed? Either scripute is written by a false god and all Christians (not just Calvinists) are screwed, or it isn't and this just seems uncharitable on Stratton's part. To be honest, this is a major problem I've had with Stratton and his ministry. He often repackages athiestic arguments and re-poses them as if they are Calvinist specific problems. He never mentions that the same arguments apply to all Christians, nor does he give his own answers to them. The first time I stumbled on his website, I was on my phone and just saw "freethinking " (the rest was cut off due to screen size), and thought I stumbled on an atheist site. The content didn't immediately set me straight as the article was a repackaged problem of evil. I don't remember what it was that made be take a closer look, but it was not at all obvious that it was a Christian website at a first and even a second glance. I think it indicates a major problem when the arguments against Calvinism are indistinguishable from arguments against the whole of Christianity. But I unfortunately do get the impression that many anti-Calvinists would gladly burn down and destroy the whole Christian house to deal with the spider they think they see in Calvinism. I hope that isn't the case for anyone in this video or in these comments. I long for more Christian charity in this debate. 15. (Hunter) Why is man morally culpable if he can't be perfect? I synthasize this question a bit to make it fit. It makes it more scriptural as Christ commands us to be perfect and helps highlight that this is a problem for all Christians, nothing speical about Calvinism. Part of the problem is that it is being framed in an incompatiblist framework, but Calvinists aren't incompatiblists. We "can't" do some things because we have no physical ability to do it, and we "can't" do some things because we do not want to do them even though we do have the ability. They simply aren't the same category. It is the latter that Calvinists are speaking of in terms of moral culpability. Read any of our confessions and you'll see that the issue is always a matter of our will. We will to sin, so we sin. Having sinned, we are guilty for that sin. Westminster 9.2 puts it as losing "all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation." Dort was quoted more fully earlier, but where it lays the blame is clear "However, rebelling against God at the devil’s instigation and by their own free will, they deprived themselves of these outstanding gifts. Rather, in their place they brought upon themselves blindness, terrible darkness, futility, and distortion of judgment in their minds; perversity, defiance, and hardness in their hearts and wills; and finally impurity in all their emotions." In Reformed theology, these are all things man determines for themselves according to the nature of second causes. God doesn't directly cause this though he is creator and sustainer of creation. The solution is simple, don't sin in the first place! Live a perfect life! That's how we can save ourselves from any condemnation through an act of free will; never will to sin. Now think through why not one single person has been able to use their free will to not sin. It should be possible on a libertarian theory, but scripture tells us that all have fallen short. Having sinned, we are no longer capable of being sinless, we are guilty and will stand before a just God to be judged. No matter how much we might will it to not be the case, our will no longer matters, what matters is the impartial judgement based on the facts of the case. Nor is sin like a karma system, as if we could erase bad deeds with good. Good works don't merit anything, they are just how we are susposed to behave in the first place. It is sin that owes a debt, and the payment is death. We fully deserve the second death for our willful sin. That's why we need a savior. We cannot save ourselves anymore, our sin condemns us. Our will can't save us, our sinful will is what got us in trouble to begin with. Only God can save us. Rather than focusing on man's will, focus on God's will. This is just basic justice 101 to be honest. Everyone knows that no matter how much good a person may have done in their life, if they murder someone, that good doesn't unkill the person or lessen the severity of their crime. It's no different with God. It's not unfair for God to rightly judge us for our willful sin. Our will to do evil doesn't mean God has to be unjust and submit to our fallen free will. God is just, so those of us that put our will above God's will are going to learn the hard way who is the real God, more so than any human criminal who thought they got away with it until the police showed up.
Calvinists: "Jesus probably didn't die for you ... God most likely created you with no possible way of avoiding eternal hell fire ... God loves ME cause I'm ELECT" These guys: Calvinists are our BROTHERS! Bible: Galatians 5:19-21 KJV Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these ... HERESIES and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Acts 10:34-35 KJV Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: [35] But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
Sorry, I left this in someone else's comment. No, Im not a Calvinist. Just a "faith alone" who has studied heresies in the Christian church. Every new heresy has already been tried before, yeah, and failed to hold true: That's New Perspective, which is quickly, lnot quickly enough dying out. If the Book by NT Wright hadn't come out, not one of you would be spouting this nonsense. Go read the answers to your questions that were answered in 2010 in Arguments Against Future Justification According to Works by RICHARD PHILLIPS
Are non determined believers to call believing determinists brothers in Christ? In what way if the two are polar opposites through the systematic approach... They want inclusion to a "hellbound community that God didn't love as much as them...🤔🤫🤐 Lot called the townspeople "brothers" and they were determined to have their way Lot's visitors. Did God make this RSVP? Did God force Lot to offer his kids to the townspeople as an exchange for "expressing hoSPITality" to the guests? Did God force Lot's daughters to get dad drunk and have his kids? This is no different than Muhammad being given "revelation and abrogation" to appeal to some wicked sin desired by Muhammad.....of course this is ISLAM...which God (through Calvinism) forced this religion to be for God's glory...sounds like Calvinism turned God into the "Author of confusion"..Islam says Allah is the greatest of deceivers... Maybe we just don't understand Calvinism...cuz this system only protects itself and those that it brings in....I have deducted that the "father" that leads people into this group is the father of all lies that masquerades as an angel of light... God's Only Son Permits Eternal Life! 😇🙏💪
For anyone out there that believes you have to accept Gods offer of salvation. Do you pray for the salvation of non believers? And if so why do you even bother if God can not move in them without their permission.
You seem to assume that those who pray for the salvation of others are praying for God to save them against their wills. I pray that God would continue to reveal Himself to them, to send them more light, etc. in the hopes that they will humble themselves and believe God before it’s too late for them.
For anyone out there that believes God decided before the foundations of the world who will believe, do you pray for the salvation of non believers? And if so why do you even bother if God has already decided the matter?
Do you think your statement "God can not move in them without their permission" is something anyone believes or are you just representing an actual belief in a non-charitable manner?
If all Christians were more familiar with the OT and intertestamental literature, there would be much less confusion about terminology and imagery used by the authors of the NT. And that would result in much less Calvinism.
In regards to question 16, I think this is a good question, but I think it could be made more rigorous to bypass the common Calvinist answer. Typically, when you ask some variation of "what makes God choose the elect?" you just get a vague "we don't know why, He has His reasons, but we don't know what they are." This is bypassing the logical conclusion of the election process. The WCF and common Calvinist notion is that God doesn't choose His elect based off of any identifiable attribute about them, and yet He still "has reasons". Okay, so we have to zero in on what could possibly in any understanding be a "reason". If there is a reason, but we don't know what it is, and it can't be a physical attribute or a behavioral attribute that is quantifiable by creatures, then it must be a metaphysical reason. There is simply a trait possessed by the elect that we could identify as "electability", even if we don't know what that trait actually entails. The elect are created with electability, a metaphysical attribute undetectable by creatures but known to God. This is, however, an identifiable trait and if true, God is then showing partiality for electing people based on their possession of the trait of electability. However, if there is no identifiable reason, metaphysical or otherwise, because God is not a respecter of persons, then there must be no "trait of electability" (whatever it actually is, whether metaphysical or physical) and thus there is truly no reason for choosing someone. Either there is a reason and it is because they possess the trait of electability and whatever that entails, or there is no reason, and the election process therefore is in fact completely random under all understandings.
God manifests His glorious grace through His elect and His glorious justice through those He passes over. There is the “reason”. Is it random? No, God coordinates all of History so that His wrath and power are known and His mercy are known as He wishes. Romans 9:22-24 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, [23] in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory- [24] even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
@@classicchristianliterature This doesn't answer the question. You have answered why God has an elect and what God does through the elect, but not why the elect, specifically as individuals, have been chosen over other individuals.
@@pascalpowers could not the same thing be said about literally anything? Why did God create “this particular individual creation”. Why did God in flesh (Jesus) come the year he did and not 50 years sooner or 300 years later? You’re trying to get behind God to see why He is God the way He is.
@@classicchristianliterature Actually, the question being asked is much simpler and it entails a true dichotomy. Either God has reasons for which individuals He chooses as His elect, or He does not. Either p is true or p is not true. This is the rule of the excluded middle, there is no other option. We are not actually asking for the reason in specific. The question posed is "if God chooses based on a reason, any reason, even if we don't know the reason, how could it be a reason that is anything other than an attribute of the person, even if it is a metaphysical attribute that we could call "electability"?" This is entirely different from asking why God created the universe, it would be more like asking "Did God create this universe for a reason or was it random?" That a question like this could be answered from Scripture is highly likely, if not certain. Either someone has the trait of electability or they do not. It doesn't matter *what* electability actually is. Either people have a trait of electability, or the election is truly random and there is actually no specific reason within an individual for why God chooses them and doesn't choose another person so that one cannot defer to "God has His reasons, we just don't know what they are" as the answer. So, which is it?
@@BraxtonHunter I assume nothing. I have read the comments on these sorts of videos, and listened to the vitriol in the videos themselves. I see the glee you and so many like gain from condemning Calvinists. Zero emotion you say, now you are lying to me as well.
@@derekdavis3004 I've never seen Braxton condemn Calvinists. Being against a system is not the same as being against the people that hold to that system. You can hate Calvinism without also hating Calvinists, and Braxton of all people has shown this to be the case.
@@nathanhellrung9810 What are you saying? You can hate without hating? I don't believe you because you are claiming something impossible. There is no way one could maintain complete neutrality throughout all the bashing and condemning.
All of these questions are insanely easy to answer, but not worth the time and effort to respond to. There is no reason to speak to people who are not truly listening. And no, I will not debate.
@@Franjipane-lh8ni It means coming to and believing in Christ. John 6:35 And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me shall never hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.
@@Franjipane-lh8ni And yeah we eat bread and drink wine because that's what Jesus' disciples did at the last supper. Jesus took bread and poured wine. He didn't cut off a piece of his skin and make himself bleed and tell his disciples to eat that.
@ I imagine you thought a lot of things friend. I imagine you were genuinely asking questions. But your body language is very obvious. I would suggest examining yourselves. In fact, you called reformed and calvinistic Christians your brothers but then accused them of worshipping a “Deity of Deception” and so it’s obvious you don’t think of them as brothers at all. This was, as usual, a misrepresentation of reformed/calvinistic beliefs and more of a representation of a combination of views. Partly a representation of your own caricatures of the reformed view, partly a representation of what is called hyper calvinism. Mostly your own caricatures. But I especially point out Pritchett because he was outright angry. Anyone who reads his body language, listen to his semantics and tone can see that he not only disagrees but absolutely loathes calvinism and reformed theology. I would wager that many of time, at least in private if not public, he has considered the reformed to be damnable heretics who worship a false god. I imagine, like most of you do, you will refute my observation. You will pretend it was in good faith and you love the reformed as brothers but I just know its not the case because I can see it and I can see if because I spent the majority of my years as a Christian just like you are now. The truth is, you hate what is called calvinism. You hate that people believe it. You don’t understand calvinism. You have never subjected yourself to the scriptures in totality. You have never been a good Berean. You simply do things like you did on this video. You have a philosophical argument. A logical one, though you start with the wrong premise and finish often times with non sequiturs and make all sorts of categorical errors such as comparing the depraved man to a man without arms which doesn’t properly represent the view at all which tells me you don’t understand it to begin with. But that aside, calvinists don’t spend a lot of time refuting your sort. Not near as much as you do them and I often wonder why that is. Its not because they can’t. Quite frankly I have seen them refute you all and often tear you to shreds in the process. No I think there is something more going on and I base this largely on my own experience. I used to argue like you do but no longer. Either way. Good luck. And I hope and pray that you all learn the answer to your questions.
Would you consider those who believe that Jesus's brother is Satan a brother? (Mormons) Would consider those who do not believe Jesus is God a brother? (JW) Would you consider those who believe Jesus doesn't love the whole world and die for it brothers? What's the difference? Don't they worship a different 'Jesus' ?
Questions about Doctrine of Election: From Gods eternal perspective; Are the elect, who where chosen before being born, and before the foundation of the World, going to be saved no matter what? Or can there be some first or secondary causual event that could change my status? Let me clarify, If there is nothing that can Change Gods choice of election, then the fact is Calvinism unintentionally turns Christ death into an unnecesary, meaningless, academic "means" to save people or condem people who are already *predestined before the foundations of the world, before there they did anything good or bad (before sin was comitted and grace and judgement was required). It reasons to believe Im going to be condemed or saved no matter what. Specially if I am unable or have any choice in the matter. I mean, its not like God is going to change his mind about Me because Christ died, right? Thank you, God bless you all.
> Are the elect, who where chosen before being born, and before the foundation of the World, going to be saved no matter what? Of course. That's what 'elect' and 'predestined' mean. > Or can there be some first or secondary causual event that could change my status? Respectfully... where is it written that you are elect? Don't get me wrong: I hope you are elect. But nowhere is that written. So don't make it your concern. God's job is to elect and predestine. Our job is to believe. Let's concern ourselves with our job, and leave God's job to Him. > then the fact is Calvinism unintentionally turns Christ death into an unnecesary, meaningless, academic "means" to save people or condem people who are already *predestined before the foundations of the world, Respectfully, this is silly. God ordains both the people and the means. Why do you think one precludes the other? In the case of 'corporate election' where God ordains where the ship will go but doesn't ordain who gets on that ship - - do you also think the ship is not needed because the passengers will get there regardless? I hope not.
@@Tim.Foster123 @Tim.Foster123 Thanks for your respectful replys. I appreciate the response. However you are missing the point, as you responded to all but one. To me the most important. So respectfully let me ask again, taking into consideration Gods election from eternity past over my destiny, saved or lost, Its not like Christ death is going to change anything for me? - Right?
To be clear, Its not that I believe Christ's atoning death was unnecesary, from a non-calvinistic interpretation of election, there is a difference between God predestining that those who receive the invite to enter the ship to go to the wedding will feast from His blessings, From chosing (by some secret decree) specifically who will feast from the blessing. In calvinism, its all said and done before time, by decree, so God could use any means, or no means to save me because he already elected me to be saved or to be lost. The means is really not important, its academic because the "means" don't really mean or change anything - in Calvinism. This is why, with respect and love, I coment and ask, if its a given, then its not like Gods going to change his mind about me because Christ died? - Right? Specially if I am unable to say or do anything and God is giving me life (or not) in order for me to believe (or not understand). I mean no respect, but That is what is silly. God bless.
@ > taking into consideration Gods election from eternity past over my destiny, saved or lost, Its not like Christ death is going to change anything for me? - Right? Christ's death is **how** the elect can go to heaven. You keep phrasing things in term s of your change. But I'm not sure why you think that's the point.
Q15 "Conditional ability vs categorical ability: why is the man morally culpable for one and not the other?" As a Determinist, I don't struggle with this question because it doesn't resolve anything as far as the big picture goes. (Read to the end) As far as I'm concerned, God (alone) decides what it takes for a thing to be morally culpable. - If He designs the universe so that conditional ability is sufficient for moral culpability, so be it. - If He designs the universe so that categorical ability is sufficient for moral culpability, so be it. - AND if He designs the universe so that **MAN** is not permitted to consider categorical ability for moral culpability but He is permitted to do so, so be it. - etc, etc, etc. It's His universe. And He is wholly other than we. We need to grant that morality looks a bit different to Him than it does to us. Consider the following: Consistently through the Bible, we see that when **man** makes moral judgments, we are required to consider ability, motive, means, and opportunity (etc) before passing judgment. And we're not allowed to do the following: - punish sons for the sins of their fathers, & vice versa (Deut 24:16; Ezek 18:20) - punish a man for the sin of his brother - punish an entire city/nation for the sin of its leaders - entice/appoint/command/send people to do things that are sinful for them to do - etc But if we look carefully, we'll see that God doesn't have those constraints. - God reserves the right to punish children to the 3rd and 4th generation for the sins of the father (Exod 34:7; Num 14:18). We might be inclined to say that it only applies to those offspring "who hate Him", but how do we explain the death of the firstborn in the Tenth Plague? Many male infants died because their fathers disobeyed Moses. - God reserves the right to punish nations for the sins of its morally culpable adults and/or leaders. Eg; * How many children under the age of accountability were drowned by God in the flood? Hundreds? Thousands? * How many 'women and children' were killed by God in the destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah and the cities of the plain (Gen 19:24-25). * How many 'women and children' were killed by God in Korah's Rebellion? (Num 16) * How many Amalekite women and children were slated for destruction by God's command? (in light of the previous 3 points, I don't find a lot of persuasion in Paul Copan's arguments) * How many men, women, and children were destroyed by the Angel of the Lord because David took a census? 70,000 men. Just men, or women and children too? (2 Sam 24) - God reserves the right to "meant", "command", "send", "entice" people to do things that are sin for them to do. Myriad examples in the Bible. * God sent Joseph to Egypt through the sinful hands of his brothers selling him into slavery (Gen 45:8) * God hardened Pharaoh's heart so that he wouldn't let the people go and then punished him for not letting the people go (Exod 4:21-23) * God "commanded" and "sent" Sennacherib to plunder and trample Israel. It's a sin for Sennacherib to do that. And then punished him for doing so (Is 10:6-14) * God used Babylon like a hammer to destroy multiple nations. Then punished Babylon for destroying multiple nations (Jer 51) * God used Cyrus to destroy Babylon, even though Cyrus didn't know Him. Then He punished Persia for destroying Babylon. Dittos for Greece->Persia, and Rome->Greece. * God predestined/planned for Judas, Pilate, Herod, the chief priests, and Jews to crucify Jesus on Nisan 14, 30AD. *Note: THEY COULD NOT DO OTHERWISE*. They were predestined to crucify Christ on that Passover day! (Matt 26:24; Acts 4:27-28) And then Peter (and God) held them morally culpable for doing that which they were predestined to do. Long story short - to answer the question: It is manifestly clear that in God's court, God has means, methods, and moral options that are not available to humans and human courts. God can (and will) find people morally culpable for their actions even though He is the one who brought it about that they did so and had no option to do otherwise.
We may not like it, but that doesn't change the reality of the universe God has created. - - - - [+] And that slave who knew his master’s will and didn’t prepare himself or do it will be severely beaten. ***But the one who did not know and did things deserving of blows will be beaten lightly***. Much will be required of everyone who has been given much. And even more will be expected of the one who has been entrusted with more. (Luke 12:47-48) According to Jesus, In God's court, everyone who does wrong gets a "beating". Means, methods, motives, abilities and knowledge affect the *degree* of punishment, but not the *fact* of punishment. Thanks.
@@chrisharris9710 - I tried answering all of them above (algorithm seems to have made a few vanish). Interested to see how your answers compared to mine brother.
You will notice that if you read the KJB you will not find the word sovereign used one time. The modern versions are heavily influenced by Calvinism in their translation of scripture and many use dynamic equivalence rather than verbatim equality. Stick with the good ole KJB.
you people deny the Gospel. you trust in your own righteousness. you believe you determine your own destiny. you deny the sovereignty of God. you are not brothers in Christ
@@hondotheology which part of the gospel is denied? They trust in being covered in Christ’s righteousness, not an “elect” status granted long ago. God determined the destiny of believers and God determined the destiny of unbelievers. They believe God, in his sovereignty, is free to give his image-bearers freedom.
Okay, Calvinist brothers and sisters, what do you think?
@@BraxtonHunter they were good questions.
Can I come on the channel and respectfully present my answers? I don’t want to type a book that no one will read lol 😂
@@TwitchyTheologianyou could host a Reformed panel response.
Better yet, why don't all of you who believe in justification by works just become Roman Catholic and be done with it. You know Protestantism is based on the 5 solas. Go be Catholic and leave the theology to, IDK, the theologians.
@@DRVenard who's believing in justification by works?
Que the calvinists replying with:
1-redefined words
2-double speak
3-appeal to mystery
4-claiming we don't "understand" calvinism.
Forgot taking proof text out of context to prove a point they don't make...
@ I sure did
I see this a lot - the mystery thing. Do you often see Calvinists defaulting to ‘mystery?’ And in what way?
@@Postmillhighlights oh all the time. They appeal to mystery when they can't explain why God would choose one person over the other or when they are asked why God would say one thing and do another.
@ well, that’s what I suspected. It isn’t much of a ‘gotcha’ to say we appeal to mystery when being asked to explain something scripture doesn’t tell us. I would hope we’d all do that.
But when I hear people use it as an argument against Calvinism as if we can’t defend and outline our position according to scripture, I have to wonder if you’re being serious.
Braxton's questions are top shelf. Question 15 is a big one, and one that I had to accept a Soft Libertarianism/Sourcehood incompatibilism.
I appreciate that. I genuinely want a meaningful answer.
See my reply in the main body of the comments.
IMHO, Braxton's question #15 doesn't consider all that Scripture has to say about the topic.
Thanks.
Question for WCF Calvinists: WCF 2.2 says, "His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain." and yet WCF 3.1 says, "nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." How God whose knowledge is infinite and infallible and to whom nothing is contingent, how can second choices that God unchangeably ordains be contingent?
I believe you misunderstood the confession. Secondary causes namely motives of man's choices are contingent upon God's decree not the other way around.
It is creation that is contingent upon God not the other way around.
@@4jchan so then the secondary causes are just as determined as the primary causes.
@nathanhellrung9810 the primary or ultimate cause is God's eternal decree when it comes to both human decisions and motives. But it's the motives that determine the choices we make. So essentially there is more than one cause for human decisions namely God's decree and personal human motives. In Calvinism human decisions is never the ultimate cause for human behaviour.
@@4jchan if our motives determine the choices we make and our motives are determined by God's eternal decree, not contingent on man, then you cannot escape God from being the ultimate cause of our choices.
@nathanhellrung9810 correct I have no problem with that. But if libertarian free will is true and that the choices we make are not determined then our choices happen by random chance. We cannot control what is random by definition. Therefore self determination is false. This is the biggest dilemma that LFW has
There is no view of the human will that can logically state that we are in ultimate control of our choices
Calvinism is just a complete misunderstanding of Romans 9. Nowhere does is say, anywhere, that anyone is predestined to be saved. Nowhere. What it does say is some sre predestined to fulfill a soecific part of Gods plan. Abraham was predestined, not to be saved, to be the father of nations.
Says no one until Leighton Flowers in 2015
@rebukeandreprove. Do you genuinely believe that Dr. Flowers is the first person to say something that?
@KevC1111 Im sure there has been some one who hated the doctrines of Grace before Leighton. Certainly not any official councils accept for Trent of course. 😂 Why would we trust 10 people including Leighton when we stand on the shoulders of theological giants? Right, we shouldnt.
@rebukeandreprove. Oh boy are you wrong. 🙄
For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. - Romans 8:29
We know that Christ was in the form of God and took on himself the form of a servant also. Which of these two is it that the believer is to be conformed to? … In my opinion, new converts are conformed to the image of the servant, and as they progress in the faith, they become conformed to that image which is the image of God. In Scripture, words like foreknew and predestined do not apply equally to both good and evil. For the careful student of the Bible will realize that these words are used only of the good…. When God speaks of evil people, he says that he “never knew” them. … They are not said to be foreknown, not because there is anything which can escape God’s knowledge, which is present everywhere and nowhere absent, but because everything which is evil is considered to be unworthy of his knowledge or of his foreknowledge. .
- Origen of Alexandria
For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. - Romans 8:29
This text does not take away our free will. It uses the word foreknew before predestined. Now it is clear that “foreknowledge” does not by itself impose any particular kind of behavior. What is said here would be clearer if we started from the end and worked backwards. Whom did God glorify? Those whom he justified. Whom did he predestine? Those whom he foreknew, who were called according to his plan, i.e., who demonstrated that they were worthy to be called by his plan and made conformable to Christ. .
- Diodorus of Tarsus
@@rebukeandreprove. so your first comment was a lie. Tanks for the admission.
Very good, can we also do 20 questions for 'open theists?'
@@Obrandoporlaverdad I’d be open to it
@@BraxtonHunter zing
LOL, looking forward to the coming rebuttals.
Haha!
...Predetermined before the foundation of the world.
@@BraxtonHunter "eat my flesh and drink my blood" = "eat my flesh and drink my blood" not "eat bread and drink wine" (Calvin)
This video could've been a lot shorter if Tim Stratton didn't ramble so much. His question is simply, "What is the Biblical case for exhaustive divine determination?" but he repeats the question multiple times and rambles for two whole minutes. It would also be a bonus if there was a transcript of this video.
If you go up to the details of the video there is a transcript button.
@@nathanhellrung9810 Thank you!
@@philochristos you’re welcome!
It appears to be quite the hangup for Stratton. When he chases the question down to see if it applies to every molecule, he seems to not understand that the question is a categorical question: It either is the case or it is not the case that everything is determined. Just answer the question and move on.
(Reminds me of someone who couldn't believe that a guy had perfect pitch: "But wait... can you sin F#?"
HIM: "Yes. Hmmmmmmmmm[F#]"
DISBELIEVER: "Well.. how about Bb??"
HIM: "Yes. Hmmmmmmmmm[Bb]"
DISBELIEVER: "Hang on a sec.. how about a really high E??"
HIM: "Yes. Hmmmmmmmmm[really high E]"
DISBELIEVER: "Well,yeah, but how about ..."
Bro! Quit!! Either he has perfect pitch or he doesn't. Efforts to chase down every note on the piano is just a failure to understand that 'perfect pitch' is a categorical condition: you either have it or you don't.
Same for Determinism: Either everything is determined or it's not. Don't waste our time chasing crumbs.
(and yes, everything is Determined, imho)
@@Tim.Foster123 Do you see the irony is claiming how this video could have been different and then ending with everything is determined.
Can someone explain question 13 please?
He said something about Calvinist beliefs not lining up with the way Jews talked about reciprocity.
@4:00 1 Corinthians 10:13 absolutely does not teach libertarian freedom. Not sure if Hunter agrees with the argument for libertarian freedom from 1 Cor 10:13, but the verse does not say anything about freedom ("genuine freedom" for that matter). No where.
Manata, Cowan, and myself have all written extensively on this one single verse/topic. The verse doesn't entail libertarian freedom.
Is that because one may have the conditional ability?
The verse can't use the word "may" and determinism also be true. The word "may" also implies an open future and an entailment of that is freedom of the will.
@@stevenoney3152 > implies an open future and an entailment of that is freedom of the will.
Or it could simply mean that the future is unknown to the speaker.
@@BraxtonHunter No, it's because of constitutive luck. I have argued on my Volume 3 reply to Stratton, due to issues pertaining to constitutive luck, that there is no relevant difference between constitutive moral luck, and causal moral luck. If there is no relevant difference between constitutive moral luck and causal moral luck, as well as no relevant difference between causal moral luck and divine determinism (as many philosophers, both incompatibilist and compatibilist would seem to affirm), then there is no relevant difference between divine determinism and constitutive moral luck. But, libertarians themselves suffer from constitutive moral luck, and so arguing such freedom is needed for temptation is thus unmotivated (see the volume for the full argument).
It's also because the dispositional analysis is compatible with the verse as well. If a dispositional analysis is compatible with the verse, then the verse cannot entail libertarian freedom because if the verse entailed libertarian freedom, then it also must entail incompatibilism. But if the verse is compatible with an analysis that is already compatible with determinism, then that means that the verse cannot entail an analysis that is incompatible with determinism (i.e., libertarian freedom, or the categorical ability to do otherwise). Sure, the verse might still be compatible with libertarian freedom; but so what? The dispositional analysis (i.e., a compatibilist analysis) would still be compatible with the verse just as well. So no further progress has been made for the libertarian.
I also don't think that the verse teaches compatibilist free will. It's not a metaphysical textbook, the Bible that is. So we should just all remain agnostic when it comes to verses trying to "prove" metaphysical matters, such as free will.
@@stevenoney3152 The word "may" is not incompatible with determinism; why would "may" entail an open future?
Answers to 1-5:
1 - Dr. Flowers: We just agree that God gives "life, breath, and EVERYTHING" to all men. This would entail the giving of the offer of the gospel AS WELL AS the good sense, the wisdom, to accept that offer. Affirming the former but not the later implies that you don't need to be given the wisdom to accept the former. That removes the glory from God who did give it.
2 - Dr. Hunter: A. In ETERNITY, ie outside of time. God created the world (i.e. space and time and everything in it). He could have created a different world where different things happen. But He chose to create this world for a good purpose. It begins, proceeds/unfolds, and ends exactly as He intended. When He created the world He SPOKE it into existence by His Word. This command to create this world we call the decree, e.g. God, able to create any world, chooses to create this one and says "Let it be so" (i.e. the decree). It ultimately determines what takes place in this world. It should be DISTINGUISHED from specific things that are determined WITHIN THE WORLD itself. God does not actively DETERMINE everything in the world - in terms of being an active agent within it. All evil is the LACK of hHs activity in the world. But again, we must distinguish between His ETERNAL act to create and His TEMPORAL acts within the world He created.
3 - Dr. Pritchett: It is a fair question, although it seems rather evident that John 6 is a statement about the whole church and so the given must be read in that light. John 17 is about the disciples specifically. The whole church was not given to Christ as disciples. Amongst the disciples who were given to Jesus by God, one of them was given for a specific purpose, to betray Christ. So the given is in the context of two separate groups, i.e. church/elect vs. disciples. All the elect were given specifically to be saved. Not all of the disciples were given to be saved. A Venn Diagram might be helpful with the Church being one circle and the disciples being another where they mostly overlap, but Judas being outside.
4 - Dr. Stratton: I don't know what you mean by "exhaustive divine determinism" exactly. Its not a phrase Calvinists use. In general, we believe there is a difference between God creating the world as an ETERNAL act and his activity in the world. These are different KINDS of determinations and God is not actively determining everything in the world at every moment. However: God is the creator of heaven and earth (Gen 1:1). God created the world and EVERYTHING in it (Acts 17:24-25, Col 1:15-19, John 1:3). God creates all things, even the wicked, for a purpose (Prov 16:6). God declared the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10). From these passages it can be inferred that God is the sufficient condition for THE WHOLE WORLD from beginning to END. This is the world He intended to create.
5 - Dr. Flowers: Natural man is spiritually dead, not physically. He can still physically see and hear and even understand, at some level the message of the gospel. For example, the Jews in Deuteronomy 29 were physically capable of hearing, seeing, and understanding what Moses was saying. Yet, we read in verse 29: "...to this day the Lord has not given you a heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear." This is speaking to a spiritual incapacity to really see or understand it IN THE HEART, i.e. to take it to heart. When God brings further blindness to a spiritually dead people it refers primarily to the taking away of even the PHYSICAL ability to see or hear or understand it. It is done in several ways. For example: (1) parables obscure what might otherwise be CLEAR statements of truth so that they can only really be understood by SPIRITUAL discerners, (2) the proclaiming of clear truth (e.g. Stephen's sermon) that results in a cutting or callousing of the heart so that they try to eliminate the messenger (e.g. by killing Stephen they removed the truth from their midst, self blinding), or (3) just a numbness to the truth repeated often enough - and the built in defenses to it - so that you are not really even listening any more (e.g. ears growing dull). This removal of even the physical ability to hear is itself a judgment. It means that God, at least for a time, is not even trying to reach them. Second, it is a visible reminder to those of us who can see how terrible it would be to have the truth removed entirely. When the truth is removed, the society sinks deeper and deeper into the Romans 1 depravity. Truth provides, even to the wicked, as a restraint against evil. Its removal from the midst of a people altogether results in deep depravity.
6 - Dr. Hunter: I think that is a very serious misreading of that text in 1 Corinthians 10. After almost 9 chapters of Paul excoriating the Corinthians for their sinful behavior, the natural question comes up about whether God will be displeased with them as He was displeased with the Jews in the wilderness... leading to their destruction and failing to enter the promised land. Paul comforts them by first explaining that (1) all of that (ie the Jews being destroyed for their idolatry in the wilderness) happened by the fore-ordination of God so that we might see what happens when we give ourselves over to temptation, specifically idolatry, and (2) that it will not be that way for us because Christ will provide a way of escape. Now, if you teach that "in each particular moment of temptation, their is a defined way of escape, and that our hope of not ending up like the Jews in the wilderness is in finding that escape"... oof. That's terrible. No, faith in Christ is the way of escape. Temptation will not overcome us to our destruction, not because we won't still occasionally continue to sin, but because we have FAITH IN CHRIST. He will keep us from the ULTIMATE sin of idolatry and even our moments of temptation, and sin, will remind us of our ONE HOPE in Christ. This is why he moves right into, in the next passage, by discussing the cup of Christ and body of Christ (ie communion) which constantly reminds us of our faith in Christ, and warns against any other pagan sacrifices that distract from that.
7 - Dr. Pritchett: I can honestly say that I don't understand the question. I am sure it was a good one, it just went over my head. Apologies.
8 - Dr. Stratton: What is the difference between a demon who determines someone to believe a false theological belief and God who does it? God literally IS THE TRUTH. He determines that we believe the truth by PUTTING HIMSELF within us. He determines that we believe a lie by NOT PUTTING HIMSELF within us. He IS THE TRUTH. This is not true of a demon. A demon is not THE TRUTH. To the extent he can determine someone to believe the truth, he does so by keeping that person FROM GOD, i.e. who IS THE TRUTH. So the misunderstanding here begins with a misunderstanding of what the TRUTH ultimately is (i.e. it is God Himself) and a misunderstanding of the ontology of God, i.e. who IS HIS ATTRIBUTES, e.g. Truth, Love, Beauty, Goodness, Justice, etc.... God's determining of good, truth, and love in this world is an ACTIVE determination in the world, i.e. He gives HIMSELF. His determining of the opposite is just His determination to WITHHOLD Himself from the world. This is why we look forward to the day when God will one day fill ALL THINGS (1 Cor 15:28). Meanwhile, a demon is merely trying to keep God out. If he could determine someone to believe lies or do evil, it is by keeping that person away from and God outside of that person.
9 - Dr. Hunter: Good question. There is stated sovereignty (e.g. King Charles is the sovereign over England and has authority over it all) and practical sovereignty (e.g. King Charles is just one man and his authority... in practice... extends only so far as he can practically extend/project his his power). It is obvious that human kings/sovereigns have very limited practical power. They are one man limited by time, knowledge and intelligence, and location who MUST rely on other human agents to project their power. As a result, human sovereignty fails and is naturally limited in the recognizable ways described. God has no such limitations. His stated sovereignty (i.e. over all creation) is unlimited in any practical sense. As a result, there can be no failure in design or intention or authority. To the extent God delegates any of his authority to anyone else, they remain, at all times, underneath His unlimited practical sovereignty and so all things are still within His total control.
10 - Dr. Pritchett: I suppose it is possible to try to understand the language in Ephesians 1 in terms of a statement of corporate predestination. Maybe we can say, it can't absolutely be ruled out. Perhaps even I am approaching it through a more western, individualistic, lens. I'll be honest though, I just can't imagine being in the assembly where this letter was read out loud and having no sense that Paul wasn't writing to me as an individual. I just have a very difficult time even conceptualizing the language from that vantage point. Now, having said that, I don't take a "chose us to BE IN HIM" reading as if we were put in some location. I think the "in Him" means "through Him" as in, Christ is the means through which we were chosen. But I still don't see how you get away from the personalizing language. But that could be just my problem.
I can get to more questions later.
11 - Dr. Stratton: Referring back to my previous response, there is no such thing as a "deity of deception", whatever is ultimately true, i.e. THE TRUTH, is God. God can either give Himself, i.e. the Truth, to us or not. So the problem just runs up against the commitments of Classical Theism and a misunderstanding of the ontology of God that stands behind Calvinism. However, to the deeper question of whether Calvinism could be wrong, the answer is "of course." I am sure there are things that are not quite right in any theology. Things that still need to be learned or understood better. However, I can't seem to get around the fundamental, and apparently indubitable reality, that as creatures we are ENTIRELY DEPENDENT on our creator. So, while I may be wrong, in the end I just have to trust God because I depend on HIm. But that is kind of the point of Reformed Theology. If He doesn't fix me, give me the truth, work in through me, then I am lost. What seems plain to me from Scripture is that our current imperfections (imperfect knowledge and continued sin), even as Christians is designed to humble us and remind us of our need for Him. If I speak truth it is God at work in me. If I do good it is God at work in me. Seeing my own faults and deficiencies just causes me to WANT GOD AT WORK IN ME more, and causes me to look forward to the day when He dwells in me completely. When God finally answers that prayer of Paul in Ephesians 3:14-19 and we are filled with the fullness of God.
12 - Dr. Hunter: I am not a presuppositionalist. I don't think it is a bad method. But as far as I am concerned it is just one tool in the toolbox amongst others. I fall into the RC Sproul Classical Apologetics group.
13 - Dr. Pritchett: Once again, your question, which I assume is very good, went over my head.
14 - Dr. Stratton: Once again, this question runs smack up against the Classical Theism commitments that are behind Reformed Theology. God IS THE TRUTH. If He determines that anyone will be deceived, it is because He has determined that they will not HAVE HIM, ie the TRUTH, within them. A person not having THE TRUTH does not make the truth a deception, it just makes that person deceived and WITHOUT THE TRUTH. God is not obligated to give you, or me, or anyone Himself... not His BEING or His GOODNESS or His KNOWLEDGE or His WISDOM or His LOVE. Him not giving Himself to us does not make Him a "deity of deception". At the end of the day, we depend on God for everything. He gives to all mankind life, breath, and EVERYTHING (Acts 17:24-25). It seems to me that the first step in being a person with the truth in you is to admit that we depend on God for it.
15 - Dr. Hunter: A morally good man is defined as someone willing to serve God, where the service of God, and the revealing of His glory, is the greatest desire of their heart. Both the man with the arms and the man without the arms are judged by God. If the man without the arms desires to serve God by moving the box, but can't, he is still judged. But God, who can see the heart, doesn't require moving of the box. God doesn't need to see the work to know the heart. Meanwhile, God can also see the heart of the man with arms. He knows before the man performs the deed, or fails to perform it, whether or not the desire is there. The task given, e.g. moving the box, is the occasion for God GOD TO SHOW US what is in the man's heart, i.e. what he desires. If He moves the box, it is evidence that he desires to serve God. If He doesn't move the box, it is evidence that he doesn't desire to serve God. Again, God doesn't need this evidence. He can see directly what is in the heart. But the evidence is useful for US to judge the actions of men. This is what Jesus describes in Luke 6:43-45, i.e. "a tree is known by its fruit". Our FRUIT (i.e. our actions) demonstrate what kind of TREE (i.e. our internal character/nature/heart) we are. Acts provide a basis for human EPISTEMOLOGY to function and show EXTERNALLY what cannot be perceived us INTERNALLY. But as can be seen, ONTOLOGY (i.e. what we are) precedes activity. We do what we do, because we are what we are. As a result, EPISTEMOLOGY can follow from activity (i.e. we can know what we are from what we do). In this way, evil works/disobedience, demonstrates that there is something missing from the heart of men, specifically, God's Spirit. Meanwhile, good works, obedience, and telling the truth proceed from a heart filled with that Spirit, i.e. a good heart that has been made Godly by God dwelling in it.
16 - Dr. Stratton: Who could possibly claim that they are not immensely fortunate? Let's be clear. Humanity itself makes up less than .000000000001% of the whole universe. There are 2.16 known species of anmials. We could have been dogs, ants, peacocks instead of humans. The odds of any of us even being born are infinitely small. We were literally 1 of 100,000,000 sperm that got to the egg, each being a genetically distinct human. So our good fortune cannot be denied. In addition, we deserve nothing of what we have. We didn't deserve life, don't deserve any moment of it, don't deserve food, don't deserve health, don't deserve any of our wealth. As God says, He has given to all men life, breath, and everything... and all of it was a gracious gift. We have a lot to be grateful for... and so God's anger at Mankind's ungratefulness (Romans 1:21) is well justified. Why would be be more surprised that not all will be amongst the ones who receive ETERNAL life. I mean, even the idea of eternal life is inconceivable and profound. Why should we "expect it"? Why should it be a "given"? Those who do not receive it will only receive justice, so they have no room to complain. God will not, indeed cannot, take from them more than He has given to them. He can remove from them the gracious life He has given to them, and all the goodness they received during it, but that is just. To those who escape justice, to whose against whom the Lord does not count inequity, they are blessed indeed. One of my concerns amongst non-Calvinists is how they appear to take God's grace for granted. Finally, to be clear, God does not choose us based on anything GOOD in us, or based on any condition we have met. But as we can see in 1 Corinthians 1:26-31, that does not mean He chooses without purpose, selecting those Corinthians particularly because they were weak and insignificant... meaning that they were good vessels through which to show His power.
17 - Dr. Pritchett: I didn't sense a question here, just a statement with which I agree whole heartedly. The anti-semitism and racism in reformed circles, although probably a minor fad, is extremely disappointing.
18 - Dr. Hunter: Yes, God loves all of His creation. It is the work of His hands. But obviously, He loves ants and beetles and mountains and trees in a different way from Mankind. He loves His Son, a particular man, above all. But He provides for all. He gives to all things their existence, their life (if the have it), their daily bread, their breath at every moment. But in pure grace, He has chosen to give to some of Mankind an ETERNAL LIFE. This is a profound grace. We should not trivialize it by claiming that God is not loving towards us UNLESS He gives it to us. Doing so turns it into an EXPECTATION, not a profound and loving gift that He has given.
19 - Dr. Stratton: Yes, God is a personal being. He is also GOODNESS, TRUTH, and LOVE. Would you still be a "puppet" in the sense you describe if all of your choices were said to be determined by GOODNESS, TRUTH, and LOVE? It seems to me that this is the very idea of freedom, to be able to do perfectly what is good, based in the truth, and which constitutes love. But that is where your question again runs up against Classical Theism. God is not just another person amongst other persons. He is the ULTIMATE BEING, the being who is Himself the very substance of Goodness, Truth, Love, Justice, Joy, etc. He IS HIS ATTRIBUTES. If being controlled by Him means being a puppet, then I want nothing more. This is the fundamental point. Reformed Theology teaches that we are to be like Him... how? By being FILLED BY HIS SPIRIT. If we are not, then the converse of us is true, we are the slave... the PUPPET... of evil, lies, hatred, injustice, and sorrow. It was Jesus who is the very embodiment of this ideal, and it is Jesus who says: "I CAN DO NOTHING by Myself; I judge only as I hear. And My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me." (Jn 5:19). Jesus also says: "Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words I say to you, I do not speak on My own. Instead, it is the Father dwelling in Me, performing His works." (Jn 14:10). Sounds almost like a puppet doesn't it. But that is what we should all desire.
20 - Dr. Hunter: I'm most cautious about various aspects of how to unfold or explain Limited Atonement. I think there is a lot of disagreement here amongst Calvinists and I tend to shy away from the Owens interpretation of that doctrine and view Christ's work as being universal in its extent.
Ah... looks like my last reply vanished into the internet.
@@brentonstanfield5198my man, as a fellow Calvinist - if they actually wanted answers to the questions, they can be had. This stuff has been written about for a long time. It’s as if they want to live in a world where they are the first to think on these things.
TR's efforts to expose Calvinism as False are a True and Noble endeavor...Thank You Gentlemen...Veritas Triumphus...
[+] The first to state his case seems right .....until another comes and cross-examines him. (Prov 18:17)
Check out the rebuttals in the comments and let me know what you think.
@@Tim.Foster123 Tim for me Calvinism was a real screw job...I began doubting my salvation at a time that I still held to ECT. Now I am free of this Theological Subterfuge and I am doing great and don't doubt my salvation...I am a much healthier Christian with Calvinism behind me...
@@TimBarr-e8p I'm not sure what ECT has to do with it, since most of all Church History has affirmed ECT. Sects of ancient Judaism even believed in ECT, and that was thousands of years before Calvin was born.
But I'm glad you feel better these days. Hopefully that's worth something.
You can pick and choose any versus to believe what ever you want.
It looks like my comment went missing. It may have been because of the link I left, so here's a truncated link. It's to a TH-cam video: watch?v=yxbVec_dhFo I was inspired by your video to make one of my own asking 15 questions of Christians who are not Calvinists.
Q12! Need this answered
Questions 1-5. (Questions 6-10 in my reply below)
[DISCLAIMER: I'm a Determinist, and therefore often confused with being a Calvinist. Nonetheless, these questions from my brothers interest me, so here goes. (Do understand that all my answers will be kept brief. Much more could be said about each item) ]
1. "Giving God all the glory"
I'm not sure I agree with the premise. I guess real Calvinists have a different view on this one? Dunno. Everything God does gives Him glory one way or the other; whether the recipient receives or rejects the gift.
2. "Does God determine/decree everything..."
A. Everything. (More on Tim Stratton's answer in #4 below)
3. "Judas was given/lost..."
This challenge operates under the assumption that when an author uses a particular word, he always+only means the same thing. The notion is easily disproven, and honestly, I don't know why anyone would hold it. Look at how Matthew uses the word "Friend". Look at how Paul uses the word "fool". Look at how John uses the word "world". Etc, etc, etc.
So when Jesus repeats that He will lose none that the father gives Him, that 'given' must refer to eternal security (Let's be consistent now: how many of us think Jesus will lose any of us who make it to heaven? Won't we have free will in heaven? Hullo??)
And when Jesus says He 'lost' Judas, clearly Judas was not 'given' to Him for the purposes of eternal security. As Ps 109, Matt 26:24, John 6:64, Acts 1:16-20, Acts 2:23, Acts 4:27-28 point out/imply, Judas was appointed to betray Jesus, and God knew it from Day1. Clearly, the 'given'/'lost' for Judas is a different kind of 'given' for true saints.
4. "Calvinists accuse Molinists of starting with philosophy..."
Everyone everywhere starts with philosophy, no exceptions! Few are epistemically self-aware enough to realize what their philosophical commitments are; The rest are untrained and blindly assume they aren't making philosophical commitments.
EDD (a childish pejorative, frankly) is the necessary conclusion if the following presuppositions are true:
P1 God knows all things
P2 God is the only Creator
P3 God is a free Creator [He's not obligated to create anything He doesn't want to create]
P4 God reserves the right to create whatever He wants and stop anything that He doesn't want to happen
P5 (optional) God can change a person's heart and mind without that person knowing that God did it
Given the above, EDD is a necessary conclusion. The argument is airtight.
Without having me elaborate on it extensively, just test it: If you agree to the above 5 points, please name just one event in the entire universe that 1) God didn't already know well in advance would happen and 2) God was powerless to disable and/or 3) was powerless to intervene and disrupt.
If you can't name one, then you must concede that either 1) all events are deliberately allowed or 2) all events are deliberately predestined. (or some mix of both). In either case, they are deliberately and knowingly set in place by God, since He is the only Creator.
* NOTE: This is not a modal fallacy. In WLC's objection to "foreknowledge is not predestination", he rightly waves the modal fallacy flag. However, he doesn't discuss the premise that God is the only free creator. I do, therefore I'm averting the modal fallacy
Oddly enough, only Open Theists deny any of the above premises - yet so many Christians of all stripes reject the necessary conclusion.
Weird, huh?
And of course, there is Biblical support for this. I'll offer just one: "In Him we live and move and have our being". Re-read that verse, and be sure to think about it. (If we exist in Him and have our very being in Him ..how, exactly, are we 'free' in any real sense?)
5. "Why does God blind dead people..."
Incredulity is not an argument. If God wants to double-do a sure thing, that's not a logical problem.
In Europe and Africa, dead bolt locks can be double-locked by turning the key twice, not just once. One time, my grandmother asked me to lock her front gate, and reminded me to double-turn the key to double-lock it. "Oma - if someone can pick the lock once, they can pick it twice. Locking it twice doesn't help keep thieves out".
"Lock it properly, young man!" was her reply.
These kinds of locks are all over Europe and Africa. And I've never seen one in the USA.
Point being...
a ) why do you care how other People roll? If you don't like it, go make your own universe.
b ) just because you object to how God goes about doing something does doesn't mean He won't or shouldn't do it. There is no logical contradiction here. Move along.
c ) oftentimes, God does things to show other beings [angelic powers] a thing or two. In these cases, you're not even the spectator. It's not about you, so don't worry about it (See Eph 3:10)
Questions 6-10
6. "God has provided a way out of temptation..."
* Does the sun move as it rises in the east and sets in the west?
* Or does the sun sit still and the earth spin on its axis?
Both are true, so there is nothing wrong with describing the interaction of the sun and earth with either paradigm; but pick a lane and stay in it! One paradigm will be from a heavenly perspective; the other paradigm will be a down-to-earth man-to-man perspective. They're both valid, and they do not contradict.
So it is with the interaction of God's decrees ("heavenly perspective") and man's behavior ("earthly perspective"). It is completely valid to discuss man's actions from either perspective since both paradigms are valid INSOFAR as you pick one paradigm and describe all events with respect to that paradigm! The contradictions happen when you pick one paradigm, but then start describing 1/2 of the events with language from the other paradigm.
EG, we could say "the spinning earth moves Dallas, TX from shade to sunlight at 6am" (heavenly), or "at 6am, the sun began to rise in the east, shining light on Dallas, TX" (earthly). But we would never say "at 6am, the earth began to spin at Dallas, TX" (mixed). Bungling perspectives/paradigms is where the contradictions show up.
Sometimes the Bible speaks from a heavenly perspective; sometimes from an earthly perspective. Nothing wrong or contradictory about this.
[Much more could be said about this!!]
7. "Rom 9:20 why does Paul grant the interlocutor's premise..."
Maybe I'm not understanding this one, but Incredulity is not an argument.
Even if it's true that Paul doesn't grant his interlocutor's premise anywhere else ... so what? Where is it written that he can't do it just once?
As I read it, he seems to not only grant the interlocutor's premise, but he points to history where God did indeed find fault with those whose hearts He hardened! (What more proof do we need?) After all, Pharaoh was punished by God for not letting the people go .. exactly as He ordained (Exod 4:21-23. Please note the phrase "so that")
8. "No one is infallible ... So God determines people to affirm false beliefs, right???"
Of course! If there's a moral objection here, it is silenced when we realize that God Himself says that He will fool people at His discretion. His words, not mine.
* Principle: Ezek 14:1-11
* Practice: 1 Kings 22:1-36
* Prediction: 2 Thess 2:11-12
...yet somehow I'm supposed to believe God won't do what He says (repeatedly) He will do? How do you figure??
We could add more: Deut 29:4; Ps 147:19-20; 2 Sam 24:1 John 3:27
Think about it: Bad things happen when we don't have all of God's word, and/or can't comprehend all of His word, right? And who is the one seeing to it that we don't have/comprehend it?
You don't have to like that. But you cannot deny it.
From these passages, we can safely posit that if a person has false beliefs, he did not (or has not yet) heed fully God's word. God is not morally culpable.
9. "Sovereignty of kings --> God's authority vis-a-vis determinism or free will"
Non-determinists tend to overlook a critical fact about the analogical use of language when comparing man to God. Because God and man are so vastly different (eg, God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnitemporal, etc), for any given point of comparison, the difference of *degree* actually becomes a difference of *kind*. So we can get in trouble with language used to compare man to God.
* For example, Johnny Cash can sing "I've been everywhere, man", and so can God. But the difference in degree begets a difference in kind. That is, the *way* in which God is everywhere is vastly different - and thus incomparable - to the way Johnny has been everywhere.
* Better still, we can say "that man is intelligent; he has an IQ of 140" and we can say that "God is intelligent". But if we believe that God is omniscient, then "intelligence" as applied to Him is a completely different kind of thing when compared to man. In this case, the man has an IQ of 140, so we say He's "intelligent". But in God's case - He has no IQ! IQ cannot apply to God (look up the definition of IQ and think about how that applies to an omniscient person)f
The same could be said for many of His immutable attributes: man has a vague similarity of any particular divine attribute, but because His is orders of magnitude higher than ours ..at what point does the difference in degree beget a difference in kind? Because if/when that happens, we need to watch out for falling into a trap with the analogical use of language.
So the question is now this: When God describes Himself as 'sovereign', does He **only** mean that He is in charge of stuff in His domain that He bothers to see and think about (like a human king), or is that degree of charge/control so vastly superior both in realm and substance that it's a different *kind* of sovereign control? Remember - He IS everywhere in His kingdom and He created everything in His kingdom - from the electron of every atom of every molecule of every compound of every object in every solar system in every galaxy! And unlike a human king, He can change anything anywhere at His discretion, without informing anyone or asking for permission from anyone.
Nebuchadnezzar learned the hard way (Daniel 4) that the best king's "sovereignty" pales in comparison to His.
Thus, it is completely up to Him whether or not He wants to grant a created being Libertarian free will, compatibilistic free will, or no free will at all. [After all, the heavens, stars, animals, trees, winds, etc, have no free will, yet they praise Him, do they not?]
10. "Corporate election..."
From Genesis to Revelation, we read of all sorts of persons, places, and things are elected/chosen for God's purpose and destiny. Mountains, cities, temples, patriarchs, nations, kings, tribes, prophets, apostles, saved individuals, traitors, authorities/principalities, etc, etc, etc, etc. Given that so many of these are explicitly said to be chosen, why on earth would anyone want to insist that this particular thing or that particular thing was not chosen just because it's not said to be chosen? Honestly, I don't understand why anyone would want to affirm that argument from silence. Given the sheer weight of Biblical evidence to the contrary, I think it's just simple denial to assume that humans are not likewise elected both for salvation and good works in Him.
We are elected individually. And corporately. And appointed for good works in Him.
That's enough for now.
Maybe I'll do 11-20 some other time.
Thanks.
@@Tim.Foster123 you referred me to your responses but you haven't addressed 15.
@@Ldgreggbell I made a separate/new post about #15. It's labeled as
Q15 "Conditional ability vs categorical ability: why is the man morally culpable for one and not the other?"
Thanks.
Why is it that these questions are asked over and over but have all been answered? Dis you not hear the answers before? These are not new questions and I know I've seen 99% of these answered by Calvinists.
#3 for example is such an easy one to answer. Jesus made an exception for Judas so that prophecy would be fulfilled. Thats like one of the oldest questions and that brother still keeps asking it?
First, it's possible that the answers have not sufficed to actually answer the questions. Second, so you agree that Judas was in fact given to the Son?
Why is it that the answers to these questions are stated over and over but have all been rebutted? Please share the best example of one that has not been refuted.
If you admit that Judas was given but was lost, then it's not true that Jesus lost none of those who were given. So you can give this up as one of your proof texts.
On a positive note im suspecting a response from chris date
On a negative note im suspecting a response from james white
Dr James White seems to be your kryptonite. I predict the first line of response would be half of these questions are not even close to critiquing what Calvin actually taught. Calvin actually believed in the will of man. A creaturely will that is. He would be considered a compatibilist if he were alive and preaching today. Not a hard determinist. Perhaps distinctions should be made between what Calvin taught and what some today might believe regarding determinism.
@rebukeandreprove. I agree with this
A good resource would be Richard Muller and his work of post reformation reformed dogmatics
This is all coming from a Calvinist who has appreciated Whites work in the past
I was just making a joke 😁
Yeah, if Chris Date fails, then James White is their last remaining hope to finally see the light 😂
3: you do know what Perdition means right?and in verse 12 he never said Judas was Given he said he was Lost, how do we know that? Because before that he literally said “ None of them is Lost” and before that he said “Those who you Gave me was kept” so when he said None were Lost then he said “except” he is telling you that Judas is “Lost” because he was never given. Jesus can’t say he kept them all and didn’t lose any, to contradict himself and say one was lost even though he kept them all ….that doesn’t make sense
John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled
Notice the word "except" used here? Judas was the EXCEPTIONG to the RULE. What is the rule here? That none would be lost. NOT that Judas wasn't given. Judas was one of the 12 that was given to the Son and the rule was that all given to Him would not be lost, EXCEPT Judas. Nowhere does the text say that he was lost because he wasn't given. He was lost because he was the exception to the rule that Jesus would not lose any given to Him. Jesus is not contradicting Himself. He's pointing out the exception to the rule.
"and none of THEM" Who's THEM? The THEM is those given to the Son. And the one exception that was lost of the them is Judas. He's still clearly given as he's included in the THEM.
@ read the verse friend he Those who you gave me I have “Kept” and “NONE IS LOST” if Judas is lost then 1 is plus in Context of the book of John in John 13:10-11 Jesus said Judas was never Clean Reading the Greek of that chapter and those verses specifically when Jesus says his disciples are clean it is in the “Aorist Tense” it is a completely action in the past….so it’s “they have been made clean” from some point in the past but Judas “was never clean” but even if you are using this to argue that people can lose their salvation it doesn’t help your case because the verse ends with “so the prophecy could be fulfilled” and worst of you are using that to argue against Calvinist you are proving Predestination right there which I don’t believe in, but that verse doesn’t teach nor in the context that Judas was ever given .
@@nathanhellrung9810 what??? You are looking at the Word “Except” here that word is not even in the Greek so how can you form a Rule over a word that isn’t even originally there?
@@DaChristianYute yes, read the verse. It says that none of THEM (which is those given Him) is lost EXCEPT the son of perdition. The EXCEPTION here has to do with being lost, NOT being given.
Judas being never clean has no bearing on if he was given. I'm not arguing that people can lose their salvation or even arguing against Calvinism or predestination. I'm arguing against your argument that Judas was never given. Clearly he was given to the Son. If that causes a problem with your theology then get a new theology.
I've been confused by Calvinists trying to explain EDD, and I'm no theologian, but I've tried to wrap my head around the idea of an atemporal God and how determinism would work. So I start from the natural model, where it appears as though God created the universe initially and allows nature to take its course, intervening when he sees fit. Then I'll try to shoehorn all this into EDD.
Suppose we have a divinely simple God, specifically he's atemporal. That means God has to do everything in a single monadic action. That single divine act would be God expressing all his freedom and sovereignty. As in the natural model, most of the time God chooses to let nature take its course, so everyone doing experiments are seeing the laws of physics work as expected.
Just as God largely chooses to allow nature to take its course, he'd grant human beings their free will by allowing our willful nature to take its course. We'd then make our choices freely as part of the monadic act of creation, thus your libertarian freedom stems directly from God's freedom. From God's atemporal perspective, it's all subsumed into the singular act of determination, and as temporal beings, our perspective is to experience it all play out.
To my mind, this monadic model doesn't get you anything over the natural model, and it smells a bit like pantheism. But maybe it answers some of Tim's questions.
Sure, I'll answer from my perspective. I'm from the historic confessional Reformed camp, and I realize this channel and these participants typically deal with Calvinist/Calvinist-adjacent Baptists, so it might be a bit outside what you expect.
Christ told us that if we love him, we are to obey his commandments, so in order to avoid bearing false witness about what the Reformed Tradition says, I will cite from the historic confessions and catechisms such as the Westminster Standards and Three Forms of Unity to act as several witnesses for the Reformed position as needed. My hope is that any counter-argument would also base counter-claims about the Reformed position directly on those same confessions. These discussions tend to be filled with misconceptions and strawmen, and so I think by rooting my claims in the doctrinal standards Reformed denominations actually use and hold their teaching elders accountable to rather than unsourced claims or this or that individual person, we can avoid many distractions and focus on the real points of disagreement.
1. (Leighton) Why Biblically and Philosophically do you believe that the gift has to be irresistibly given for the giver to get full credit for the giving of the gift?
I'm not sure I understand the question. It seems very abstract from the typical conflict between "Calvinists" and most objections from non-Calvinists.
What is the gift in view? Eternal Life? Does the baby get any sort of credit for causing their life? Does the baby contribute to the conception?
Christ compared our becoming saved and entering the kingdom to being "generated", an old-timey word for how babies are made. Regardless about word games regarding gift receiving and whether "credit" is due for not rejecting a gift, the gift of salvation doesn't even seem open to such a discussion in the first place. John makes it clear throughout his gospel, salvation is such a thing that our will doesn't play into it. Just as it is solely the parent's acts that bring the gift of life to a child, so too it is solely as the Spirit moves that bring the gift of new life to a person.
2. (Hunter) Does God determine or decree...
A. Everything that happens in a person's life?
B. Only their response to the gospel?
C. none of the above.
First, "determine" and "decree" are not synynoms. The former is a philosophical word (usually understood overnarrowly by non-Calvinists), and the latter is about God's governance. God is the King of kings and Lord of lords, so of course all things fall under his authority, and thus fall under what God decrees and ordains. How could it not? I doubt anyone asking questions means to imply there is some other co-equal god out there with similar authority to the God of scripture.
The Reformed Confessions don't speak of God determining all things, certainly not in the immediate sense that many non-Calvinists seem to mean. For example, WCF 9.1 says "God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature *determined* to good or evil." Even something like the fall falls under God's decree, but we don't claim it determined beyond the fact that God is creator and sustainer of all creation, the baseline sort of determinism all Christians affirm (no matter how much they hate that word).
He does "decree" or "ordain" all things. The Westminster Shorter Catechism nicely defines what is in view here:
Q. 8. How doth God execute his decrees?
A. God executeth his decrees in the works of *creation* and *providence.*
Q. 9. What is the work of creation?
A. The work of creation is, God’s making all things of nothing, by the word of his power, in the space of six days, and all very good.
Q. 10. How did God create man?
A. God created man male and female, after his own image, in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, with dominion over the creatures.
Q. 11. What are God’s works of providence?
A. God’s works of providence are, his most holy, wise, and powerful *preserving* and *governing* all his creatures, and all their actions.
Q. 12. What special act of providence did God exercise toward man in the estate wherein he was created?
A. When God had created man, he entered into a covenant of life with him, upon condition of perfect obedience; forbidding him to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, upon the pain of death.
Q. 13. Did our first parents continue in the estate wherein they were created?
A. Our first parents, *being left to the freedom of their own will,* fell from the estate wherein they were created, by sinning against God.
That's what is in view when we speak of God's "decree" or what God "ordains". This much really shouldn't be controversial to be honest. If one denies God's decree, what are they denying? That in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth? That's the very first verse of scripture. Or are they denying God's providence? Odd thing for a "Provisionist" to do, don't you think? Are they denying his governance, his position as King of kings?
And so, we have WCF 3.1 - "God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."
This really shouldn't be that controversial given how Westminster defines "decree" and "ordains". Yes, God "ordains" all things, he is the King of kings and Lord of lords, he is creator and sustainer and govener of all creation. And yet he "ordains" in such a way that he establishes human free will (doing no violence to our will) and the liberty (freedom) and contingency (i.e. not some theory of exaustive determinsim) by what he ordains.
Where exactly is the disagreement?
3. (Pritchett) So why doesn't Judas disprove the notion that merely being given by the father to the son to not lose disproves that Jesus never loses it.
The question seems to ignore the purpose for the giving expressed in the passages being contrasted. In Jn 6, the context is regarding those Jesus ultimately raises up, but in chapter 17, an exception is specifically carved out for the son of perdition for the purpose that the Scripture might be fulfilled.
In all cases, Jesus fulfilled the purpose for the giving without fail, including the giving of the son of perdition. The respective passages make that very clear.
3. (Pritchett) So why doesn't Judas disprove the notion that merely being given by the father to the son to not lose disproves that Jesus never loses it.
The question seems to ignore the purpose for the giving expressed in the passages being contrasted. In Jn 6, the context is regarding those Jesus ultimately raises up, but in chapter 17, an exception is specifically carved out for the son of perdition for the purpose that the Scripture might be fulfilled.
In all cases, Jesus fulfilled the purpose for the giving without fail, including the giving of the son of perdition. The respective passages make that very clear.
4. (Stratton)
What is the Biblical case for Exaustive Divine Determination (EDD)?
As far as I can tell, EDD is a strawman of the Reformed position. It isn't how our confessions express themselves, nor does it come from any Reformed writer that I am aware of. In fact, I was under the impression that it was something Leighton came up with, but someone recently corrected me and pointed out that it was Stratton's own idea. So he'd have to document why he thinks that is even an approprate label for our position in the first place. It seems question begging.
Our confessions uphold the classical primary cause second cause distinction that Christians have classically held to, and even Molinists would defend (including WLC in his discussion with White). It is unclear what is being asked that wouldn't also apply to Molinists. Mind, this framing is far older than Calvin and is one that has been accepted by the Church for most of its history. But if this really is just a case of the anti-Calvinist imputing some idea of EDD to us and now demanding we defend it, that is a textbook strawman argument.
5. (Leighton) If man is born totally depraved, then why would God blind them?
This question seems to be based on looking at the two word phrase "totally depraved", inferring what was meant by it, and not actually going to the source for that doctrine to make sure they understood it correctly. The "total" in this case is not understood as "maximally" depraved, but rather that there is no aspect of our being that is not under the corruption of sin. The effect is total in its extent, but we can be more or less sinful. As TULIP is meant to point to the Canons of Dort, let's get our definition straight from the source:
The Third and Fourth Main Points of Doctrine
Human Corruption, Conversion to God, and the Way It Occurs
Article 1: The Effect of the Fall on Human Nature
Human beings were originally created in the image of God and were furnished in mind with a true and sound knowledge of the Creator and things spiritual, in will and heart with righteousness, and in all emotions with purity; indeed, the whole human being was holy. However, rebelling against God at the devil’s instigation and by their own free will, *they deprived themselves of these outstanding gifts.* Rather, in their place *they brought upon themselves blindness, terrible darkness, futility, and distortion of judgment in their minds; perversity, defiance, and hardness in their hearts and wills; and finally impurity in all their emotions.*
Article 2: The Spread of Corruption
Human beings brought forth children of the same nature as themselves after the fall. That is to say, being corrupt they brought forth corrupt children. The corruption spread, by God’s just judgment, from Adam and Eve to all their descendants-except for Christ alone-not by way of imitation (as in former times the Pelagians would have it) but by way of the propagation of their perverted nature.
Article 3: Total Inability
Therefore, all people are conceived in sin and are born children of wrath, unfit for any saving good, *inclined to evil,* dead in their sins, and slaves to sin. Without the grace of the regenerating Holy Spirit they are neither *willing* nor able to return to God, to reform their distorted nature, or even to dispose themselves to such reform.
Article 4: The Inadequacy of the Light of Nature
*There is, to be sure, a certain light of nature remaining in all people after the fall,* by virtue of which they retain some notions about God, natural things, and the difference between what is moral and immoral, and demonstrate a certain eagerness for virtue and for good outward behavior. *But this light of nature is far from enabling humans to come to a saving knowledge of God and conversion to him* - so far, in fact, that they do not use it rightly even in matters of nature and society. Instead, in various ways they completely distort this light, whatever its precise character, and suppress it in unrighteousness. In doing so all people render themselves without excuse before God.
Even in the question, it was related to being "blind". But blindness isn't a binary, you can be legally blind and yet see quite a bit, or only barely enought to see more or less light, or be completely unable to see anything at all. So it is consistant to say they are "blind" yet see enough to see "the difference between what is moral and immoral", etc., yet they grow even more blind as time goes on and they habitually live in sin. As highlighted above, Dort frames it as being "inclined" to evil, and not a position of being maximally evil.
6. (Hunter) How is this (people taking the way of escape from sin God provides) possible if God has decreed and determined all things?
To be honest, it sounds to me like you are asking about a tautology. How can A obtain if A obtains? How is it possible for God to decree something if God decrees something?
God is King of kings and Lord of lords. He has authority over his creation. He has the authority to order things so that the temptations we face aren't as bad as they could be as well as making sure every temptation he allows us to face has a way out.
I don't get why Braxton seems to suppose God can't do both these things, thus I fail to see the force of the question.
7. (Pritchett) What makes you think that Paul grants the premise of Romans 9: 19 from the interlocutor when his very response "who are you oh man to answer back to God" indicates he doesn't, exposing the folly of the interlocutor's protest.
I don't know where this question is coming from. Why would I think that the interlocutor's premise is granted? It clearly isn't.
When the interlocutor demands, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?", he assumes that he is in God's place as judge and that God must give an account that accords with man's idea of fairness independant from God. Paul spares no mercy for how foolish an idea this is, no more so than God himself does for Job in Job 38-42. Such demands that God must meet human standards of fairness, as if we are King of God, is yet another echo of Satan's temptation in the garden, that we can be like God. All of us must be careful to let God be God and man be God's creation under His authority.
This is often brought up in these debates when the non-Calvinist strays too far in trying to judge God or accuse Him of unfairness by raising similar concerns as that Paul deals with in Romans 9. If I can critique my own side a bit, I think we go to verse 20 too quickly, but it is because we strongly reject the premise of such questions that we so often cite verse 20.
8. (Stratton) If God determines all things....
This seems to be based on the same strawman I've pointed out in questions 2, 4, and 6. Stratton would do well to stop making up terms for Calvinists to belief and just go by what we already confess.
He would do well to incorporate WCF 9 _Of Free Will_ and chapters 3 and 5 wherein we explicitly have a place for God's decree to establish and uphold free and contingent second causes. As it stands, this doesn't seem to be a question for Calvinists in any historical or confessional sense.
9. (Hunter) Why do you think that Calvinists often speak as though determinism is part of God's soveringty such that if you are not a Calvinist you must think that God is not quite as soverign as the Calvinist does? Does he, from that position of soverign authority, choose to give man libertarian freedom, or choose determinism?
This seems to be two different questions.
With the first question, I agree that soverignty has to do with God's authority and isn't a philosophical statement at all, let alone one dealing with some theory within the category of determinism or man's free will. I don't understand why many non-Calvinists equate the two, but I suspect it is for similar reasons as some Calvinists do:
One, lack of training in philosophy, so people misuse terms like "determinism", "free will", and anything that ends up touching those things. Frankly, it would be better to not try to use philosophical arguments if one doesn't have that background and just stick to Biblical language. Mind, this is a good thing to prefer even if one does have the philosophical background. Regardless of whatever way one wants to claim man has free will (and there are many possible competing options here), it must accord with Biblical statements regarding being a slave to Satan and sin or to Christ and righteousness and both God and man intending various actions of men for asymetric moral purpose, man for evil and God for good.
Two, God is soverign, but God is also God. He doesn't cease to have any of his other "god" properties when he puts on his crown and rules his creation. He is always all powerful, all knowing, and soverign. So when God determines something, he often does so with a decree, "let there be light!", and the universe shapes itself to obey God's soverign command. And yet as pointed out in previous answers, that God determins all things does not reduce to EDD or other theories, God establishes the liberty and contingency of second causes by what he ordains. Our free will is under God's soverign rule.
Here I think it is an issue of Divine Simplicity and confusing the idea that God isn't made up of parts with blurring the attributes of God into one single thing without distinction. It is sometimes useful to call out God's holiness distinct from his love or soverignty, etc, even though we must also not think of them as parts of God, but one unified inseperable being that is.
I think this is a great question, as it is an excellent oppertunity for both sides to learn and grow and improve their arguments.
As for the second question, this seems to presuppose an incompatiblist answer: that it must be either determinism or a particular libertarian philosophy concerning the will. Calvinsts reject that as a false dichotomy and think that God can decree in terms of creation and providence in such a way that man's will isn't violated and yet man's will is still part of God's creation decree and under God's divine soverign rule.
I think in these debates, some non-Calvinists can accept that readily enough, and others seem to insist our will must be completely independant from God and its own thing. I think this strays too far into making man to be god and ignores that God created us, including designing and implementing our will.
I don't think this has historically been much of a point of contention in the church for the last 1500 years.
10. (Pritchett) (Re: Eph 1) Why think that something that is true of the corporate body applies even further to individuals?
I don't really understand the question. It doesn't seem to have Reformed has Covenant Theology in mind, so perhaps it is directed at some low church vaguely "Calvinistic" believer.
Is Pritchett implying that an individual can be in Christ as a true part of the corporate body and yet will not receive the promises made to the corporate body? If that is possible, could we push it to the extreme and say that it is possible that corporately speaking, we receive (per verse 7) "redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses", but no actual individual believer receives redemption or forgiveness? In so far as it is corporate, it seems like any individual ought to be able to have assurance of the promises made corporately to those in Christ by virtue of being in Christ. If we separate them as the questioner does, it seems to give God an excuse to renege his promises on some weird technicality that doesn't make sense to me. But if individuals in the corporate body can indeed lay claim to those promises, what exactly is the objection at that point?
In general, I've found the move from individual promises to corporate promises to be a weird move on the part of non-Calvinists. What is a corporate body made up of if not many individuals? I wonder if this lies at the root of the lack of assurance many non-Calvinists express. It would make sense if they can't know if the promises apply to them as individuals even though every evidence shows they are part of the corporate body. Baptist sacramentology (or really, the lack thereof) probably plays a big role here too.
11. (Stratton) Without begging the question, how do you know that Calvinism is not one of those false theological beliefs?
WCF 1.10 - The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.
Reminder that the Reformers were the ones who strongly defended sola scriptura in the face of death for opposing Rome.
Reformed Theology has an advantage here. It is creedal and confessional, meaning we write down in great detail what we believe and where in scripture we get it from. We write catechisms to train people in our beliefs. Most of the work is done for you. One has only to read our confessions side by side with scripture and see if what is being said accords with God's word. Where it does, believe it because it is God's word, where it doesn't, believe God's word.
This is actually quite a stark contrast with many modern anti-Calvinist groups. Most are not at all forthcoming with what they really believe. It is hard to actually get a clear statement about their teaching, and often their real beliefs don't stand on their own but have to be read between the lines of their attacks on other Christians. I'd be surprised if any of the people in this video went into as much positive detail and breadth of topics about the Christianity they defend as either the Westminster Standards or Three Forms of Unity do.
12. (Hunter) Why could God not use the production of apologetic evidence embedded in the gospel message where a preacher might use stories and illustrations along with Biblical data, the apologist might use evidence for the resurrection along with the Biblical data; why can God not use means in this way? And if he can, why do we need to be presuppositional apologists instead of classical apologists?
I think it is an error to treat evidences and presuppositionalism as contrary. Rather, I see presuppositionalism as foundational to evidence based arguments. Classical arguments work because they presuppose the God of scripture in their use of evidence and reasoning.
What does using Biblical data and evidence presuppose about the reliability and truth of the Bible? Clearly the apologist has some underlying presupposition that may not be shared if he is talking to, say, a Muslim or an Atheist. If he is then challenged on the reliability of scripture, he has to work backwards and address the presuppositions of the person he is talking to. Presuppositionalism gives you the tools to do this, though of course people who reject presup also have to deal with these sorts of basic differences.
Eventually the hardened unbeliever is going to simply dispute your use of evidence. Evidence isn't neutral, but interpreted within a framework, and the Christian's framework and the non-Christian's framework is in theory completely incompatible. How do you break down that difference? That's where presuppositionalism excels.
Certainly where there are overlapping presuppositions, the arguments used by presuppositionalists and evidentulists will look very similar. That isn't because the presuppositionalist abandoned presuppositionalism, it's because they share a common presupposition that allows such arguments to work. When they stop working, the presuppositionalist has the tools to dig as deep as needed to get to the root issue.
But yes, God uses means, and he can even bring people to him from the worst of arguments, or even from no argument at all. I think people need to not think of apologetics as about wining people to Christ, but merely about defending the faith from arguments and false accusations made against it. Often, the defense of the faith isn't for the person making the attack, but for the audience. And even then, it is often better for Christians to get to know people and help meet their real needs with a spirit of charity rather than engage in apologetics. Apologetics is important, but I think it has a distorted place in modern Christianity.
13. (Pritchett) Why is it noticibly absent in all the doctrines of grace in the Reformed circles is any discussion about benefaction, gift giving, and socio-economic ??-client reprocity?
This question is confusing to me. I had to synthasize this question to make it make sense, as he didn't lay it out especially clearly. Even then, I wasn't entirely clear on what he said or what he was trying to ask. TH-cam's automatic transcript doesn't help much either.
At the end, it sounds like he is suggesting that grace doesn't apply to salvation, but is purely about acts of charity to the community. That or we are saved by our works of charity. At least in terms of the doctrines of grace, we are viewing that in the context of soteriology: "salvation by grace through faith." Works of charity are important parts of a living faith that works, but protestants in general (no need to bring Calvinism into this) do not think we are saved by such works. Because of that, I assume that isn't what he is getting at.
If he is claiming we don't talk about charity at all, well, he is just wrong. This would be especially ironic given that I went into exactly that in the previous question before I heard this question. He may be biased due to only contacting Calvinism explicitly when he attacks our view or sees his view challenged, but maybe he should spend some time with us and see first hand our work in this area or get more familiar with the people working in his favorite charities.
If he just means that Dort didn't address acts of charity, well that wasn't being challenged. It also doesn't deal with something as fundamental as the Trinity or incarnation, but it would be dishonest to use its absense in one confession as a basis to charge Reformed Christians as heretics. It addresses a narrow range of topics. The Heidelberg Catechism (As does the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechism) get into this more in their breakdown of the 10 commandments.
If it is a claim that we don't define the doctrines of grace using Biblical terminology, I challenge you to read the Canons of Dort and then get back to me. Just about every article is steeped in Biblical phrases and references. Or if it is about using theological jargon at all, try remaking this video without using any similar jargon and see how far you get.
If he is implying we should toss out scripture's explinations of salvation when it doesn't involve charitable work, well, I reject that premise.
If he was asking something else entirely, I haven't got a clue what he meant.
14. (Stratton) Why should you believe the Bible if it were inspired by a deity of deception?
Is that what Stratton thinks scripture is? He claims to be a Christian, right? How does this not beg the question against himself insofar as he claims to be a Christian?
We don't claim scripture is inspired by a diety of deception, so the very premise is a strawman. We likely make the same claims to Biblical authorship and inerrency and historical transmition, etc., so it puzzles me how this is a question for Calvinists and not an atheist asking 101 level questions to Christians. Is there something he would say is inadiquate about the answers any Christian would give if that Christian happens to be Reformed? Either scripute is written by a false god and all Christians (not just Calvinists) are screwed, or it isn't and this just seems uncharitable on Stratton's part.
To be honest, this is a major problem I've had with Stratton and his ministry. He often repackages athiestic arguments and re-poses them as if they are Calvinist specific problems. He never mentions that the same arguments apply to all Christians, nor does he give his own answers to them. The first time I stumbled on his website, I was on my phone and just saw "freethinking " (the rest was cut off due to screen size), and thought I stumbled on an atheist site. The content didn't immediately set me straight as the article was a repackaged problem of evil. I don't remember what it was that made be take a closer look, but it was not at all obvious that it was a Christian website at a first and even a second glance.
I think it indicates a major problem when the arguments against Calvinism are indistinguishable from arguments against the whole of Christianity. But I unfortunately do get the impression that many anti-Calvinists would gladly burn down and destroy the whole Christian house to deal with the spider they think they see in Calvinism. I hope that isn't the case for anyone in this video or in these comments. I long for more Christian charity in this debate.
15. (Hunter) Why is man morally culpable if he can't be perfect?
I synthasize this question a bit to make it fit. It makes it more scriptural as Christ commands us to be perfect and helps highlight that this is a problem for all Christians, nothing speical about Calvinism.
Part of the problem is that it is being framed in an incompatiblist framework, but Calvinists aren't incompatiblists. We "can't" do some things because we have no physical ability to do it, and we "can't" do some things because we do not want to do them even though we do have the ability. They simply aren't the same category. It is the latter that Calvinists are speaking of in terms of moral culpability. Read any of our confessions and you'll see that the issue is always a matter of our will. We will to sin, so we sin. Having sinned, we are guilty for that sin.
Westminster 9.2 puts it as losing "all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation." Dort was quoted more fully earlier, but where it lays the blame is clear "However, rebelling against God at the devil’s instigation and by their own free will, they deprived themselves of these outstanding gifts. Rather, in their place they brought upon themselves blindness, terrible darkness, futility, and distortion of judgment in their minds; perversity, defiance, and hardness in their hearts and wills; and finally impurity in all their emotions." In Reformed theology, these are all things man determines for themselves according to the nature of second causes. God doesn't directly cause this though he is creator and sustainer of creation.
The solution is simple, don't sin in the first place! Live a perfect life! That's how we can save ourselves from any condemnation through an act of free will; never will to sin. Now think through why not one single person has been able to use their free will to not sin. It should be possible on a libertarian theory, but scripture tells us that all have fallen short.
Having sinned, we are no longer capable of being sinless, we are guilty and will stand before a just God to be judged. No matter how much we might will it to not be the case, our will no longer matters, what matters is the impartial judgement based on the facts of the case.
Nor is sin like a karma system, as if we could erase bad deeds with good. Good works don't merit anything, they are just how we are susposed to behave in the first place. It is sin that owes a debt, and the payment is death. We fully deserve the second death for our willful sin.
That's why we need a savior. We cannot save ourselves anymore, our sin condemns us. Our will can't save us, our sinful will is what got us in trouble to begin with. Only God can save us. Rather than focusing on man's will, focus on God's will.
This is just basic justice 101 to be honest. Everyone knows that no matter how much good a person may have done in their life, if they murder someone, that good doesn't unkill the person or lessen the severity of their crime. It's no different with God. It's not unfair for God to rightly judge us for our willful sin. Our will to do evil doesn't mean God has to be unjust and submit to our fallen free will. God is just, so those of us that put our will above God's will are going to learn the hard way who is the real God, more so than any human criminal who thought they got away with it until the police showed up.
Calvinists: "Jesus probably didn't die for you ... God most likely created you with no possible way of avoiding eternal hell fire ... God loves ME cause I'm ELECT"
These guys: Calvinists are our BROTHERS!
Bible: Galatians 5:19-21 KJV
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these ... HERESIES and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Acts 10:34-35 KJV
Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: [35] But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
most calvinists dont talk like that
You've got your own whole little story going on in your head. Pretty cool, good for you!
Sorry, I left this in someone else's comment. No, Im not a Calvinist. Just a "faith alone" who has studied heresies in the Christian church. Every new heresy has already been tried before, yeah, and failed to hold true:
That's New Perspective, which is quickly, lnot quickly enough dying out. If the Book by NT Wright hadn't come out, not one of you would be spouting this nonsense. Go read the answers to your questions that were answered in 2010 in
Arguments Against
Future Justification
According to Works
by
RICHARD PHILLIPS
Are non determined believers to call believing determinists brothers in Christ? In what way if the two are polar opposites through the systematic approach... They want inclusion to a "hellbound community that God didn't love as much as them...🤔🤫🤐
Lot called the townspeople "brothers" and they were determined to have their way Lot's visitors. Did God make this RSVP? Did God force Lot to offer his kids to the townspeople as an exchange for "expressing hoSPITality" to the guests? Did God force Lot's daughters to get dad drunk and have his kids?
This is no different than Muhammad being given "revelation and abrogation" to appeal to some wicked sin desired by Muhammad.....of course this is ISLAM...which God (through Calvinism) forced this religion to be for God's glory...sounds like Calvinism turned God into the "Author of confusion"..Islam says Allah is the greatest of deceivers...
Maybe we just don't understand Calvinism...cuz this system only protects itself and those that it brings in....I have deducted that the "father" that leads people into this group is the father of all lies that masquerades as an angel of light...
God's Only Son Permits Eternal Life!
😇🙏💪
For anyone out there that believes you have to accept Gods offer of salvation. Do you pray for the salvation of non believers? And if so why do you even bother if God can not move in them without their permission.
You seem to assume that those who pray for the salvation of others are praying for God to save them against their wills. I pray that God would continue to reveal Himself to them, to send them more light, etc. in the hopes that they will humble themselves and believe God before it’s too late for them.
For anyone out there that believes God decided before the foundations of the world who will believe, do you pray for the salvation of non believers? And if so why do you even bother if God has already decided the matter?
Do you think your statement "God can not move in them without their permission" is something anyone believes or are you just representing an actual belief in a non-charitable manner?
If all Christians were more familiar with the OT and intertestamental literature, there would be much less confusion about terminology and imagery used by the authors of the NT. And that would result in much less Calvinism.
Braxton Bullshido
In regards to question 16, I think this is a good question, but I think it could be made more rigorous to bypass the common Calvinist answer. Typically, when you ask some variation of "what makes God choose the elect?" you just get a vague "we don't know why, He has His reasons, but we don't know what they are."
This is bypassing the logical conclusion of the election process. The WCF and common Calvinist notion is that God doesn't choose His elect based off of any identifiable attribute about them, and yet He still "has reasons". Okay, so we have to zero in on what could possibly in any understanding be a "reason".
If there is a reason, but we don't know what it is, and it can't be a physical attribute or a behavioral attribute that is quantifiable by creatures, then it must be a metaphysical reason. There is simply a trait possessed by the elect that we could identify as "electability", even if we don't know what that trait actually entails. The elect are created with electability, a metaphysical attribute undetectable by creatures but known to God.
This is, however, an identifiable trait and if true, God is then showing partiality for electing people based on their possession of the trait of electability. However, if there is no identifiable reason, metaphysical or otherwise, because God is not a respecter of persons, then there must be no "trait of electability" (whatever it actually is, whether metaphysical or physical) and thus there is truly no reason for choosing someone. Either there is a reason and it is because they possess the trait of electability and whatever that entails, or there is no reason, and the election process therefore is in fact completely random under all understandings.
God manifests His glorious grace through His elect and His glorious justice through those He passes over. There is the “reason”. Is it random? No, God coordinates all of History so that His wrath and power are known and His mercy are known as He wishes.
Romans 9:22-24
What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, [23] in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory- [24] even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
@@classicchristianliterature This doesn't answer the question. You have answered why God has an elect and what God does through the elect, but not why the elect, specifically as individuals, have been chosen over other individuals.
@@pascalpowers could not the same thing be said about literally anything? Why did God create “this particular individual creation”. Why did God in flesh (Jesus) come the year he did and not 50 years sooner or 300 years later?
You’re trying to get behind God to see why He is God the way He is.
@@classicchristianliterature Actually, the question being asked is much simpler and it entails a true dichotomy. Either God has reasons for which individuals He chooses as His elect, or He does not. Either p is true or p is not true. This is the rule of the excluded middle, there is no other option.
We are not actually asking for the reason in specific. The question posed is "if God chooses based on a reason, any reason, even if we don't know the reason, how could it be a reason that is anything other than an attribute of the person, even if it is a metaphysical attribute that we could call "electability"?" This is entirely different from asking why God created the universe, it would be more like asking "Did God create this universe for a reason or was it random?" That a question like this could be answered from Scripture is highly likely, if not certain.
Either someone has the trait of electability or they do not. It doesn't matter *what* electability actually is. Either people have a trait of electability, or the election is truly random and there is actually no specific reason within an individual for why God chooses them and doesn't choose another person so that one cannot defer to "God has His reasons, we just don't know what they are" as the answer. So, which is it?
@@pascalpowers so the year 0 AD had “incarnation-ability”?
Why do you guys hate Calvinists so much?
Why do you assume any of us hate Calvinists. Some of our best friends are Calvinists. I personally have zero emotion about Calvinists at all.
@@BraxtonHunter I assume nothing. I have read the comments on these sorts of videos, and listened to the vitriol in the videos themselves. I see the glee you and so many like gain from condemning Calvinists. Zero emotion you say, now you are lying to me as well.
@@derekdavis3004 I've never seen Braxton condemn Calvinists. Being against a system is not the same as being against the people that hold to that system. You can hate Calvinism without also hating Calvinists, and Braxton of all people has shown this to be the case.
@@nathanhellrung9810 What are you saying? You can hate without hating? I don't believe you because you are claiming something impossible. There is no way one could maintain complete neutrality throughout all the bashing and condemning.
Can you point me to the clip you’re referencing?
All of these questions are insanely easy to answer, but not worth the time and effort to respond to. There is no reason to speak to people who are not truly listening. And no, I will not debate.
that's a coward's response.
What substance is the Bread of Life?
Jesus is the bread of life and Jesus is a human being.
@@ABC123jd Jesus Christ is fully human and fully God. "eat my flesh and drink my blood" = "eat bread and drink wine" according to Calvin.
@@Franjipane-lh8ni It means coming to and believing in Christ.
John 6:35
And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me shall never hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.
@@Franjipane-lh8ni And yeah we eat bread and drink wine because that's what Jesus' disciples did at the last supper. Jesus took bread and poured wine. He didn't cut off a piece of his skin and make himself bleed and tell his disciples to eat that.
@@ABC123jd "eat my flesh and drink my blood" = "eat my flesh and drink my blood"
Im amazed at the pseudo intellectual philosophical arrogance of these guys. Especially the Pratchett guy. Do they not realize how obvious they are?
@@ScribeAlicious I thought we were pretty friendly and genuine. What do you mean?
@ I imagine you thought a lot of things friend. I imagine you were genuinely asking questions. But your body language is very obvious. I would suggest examining yourselves. In fact, you called reformed and calvinistic Christians your brothers but then accused them of worshipping a “Deity of Deception” and so it’s obvious you don’t think of them as brothers at all. This was, as usual, a misrepresentation of reformed/calvinistic beliefs and more of a representation of a combination of views. Partly a representation of your own caricatures of the reformed view, partly a representation of what is called hyper calvinism. Mostly your own caricatures. But I especially point out Pritchett because he was outright angry. Anyone who reads his body language, listen to his semantics and tone can see that he not only disagrees but absolutely loathes calvinism and reformed theology. I would wager that many of time, at least in private if not public, he has considered the reformed to be damnable heretics who worship a false god. I imagine, like most of you do, you will refute my observation. You will pretend it was in good faith and you love the reformed as brothers but I just know its not the case because I can see it and I can see if because I spent the majority of my years as a Christian just like you are now. The truth is, you hate what is called calvinism. You hate that people believe it. You don’t understand calvinism. You have never subjected yourself to the scriptures in totality. You have never been a good Berean. You simply do things like you did on this video. You have a philosophical argument. A logical one, though you start with the wrong premise and finish often times with non sequiturs and make all sorts of categorical errors such as comparing the depraved man to a man without arms which doesn’t properly represent the view at all which tells me you don’t understand it to begin with. But that aside, calvinists don’t spend a lot of time refuting your sort. Not near as much as you do them and I often wonder why that is. Its not because they can’t. Quite frankly I have seen them refute you all and often tear you to shreds in the process. No I think there is something more going on and I base this largely on my own experience. I used to argue like you do but no longer.
Either way. Good luck. And I hope and pray that you all learn the answer to your questions.
@@ScribeAlicious 🙄
Jonathan Pritchett is so cool 😎
Would you consider those who believe that Jesus's brother is Satan a brother? (Mormons) Would consider those who do not believe Jesus is God a brother? (JW) Would you consider those who believe Jesus doesn't love the whole world and die for it brothers? What's the difference? Don't they worship a different 'Jesus' ?
@@eugenejoseph7076 I think you just wrote out the difference.
Questions about Doctrine of Election:
From Gods eternal perspective; Are the elect, who where chosen before being born, and before the foundation of the World, going to be saved no matter what? Or can there be some first or secondary causual event that could change my status?
Let me clarify, If there is nothing that can Change Gods choice of election, then the fact is Calvinism unintentionally turns Christ death into an unnecesary, meaningless, academic "means" to save people or condem people who are already *predestined before the foundations of the world, before there they did anything good or bad (before sin was comitted and grace and judgement was required). It reasons to believe Im going to be condemed or saved no matter what. Specially if I am unable or have any choice in the matter. I mean, its not like God is going to change his mind about Me because Christ died, right?
Thank you, God bless you all.
I've never heard a Calvinist claim that those who were elected by God from all eternity could have any possibility of not being saved.
> Are the elect, who where chosen before being born, and before the foundation of the World, going to be saved no matter what?
Of course. That's what 'elect' and 'predestined' mean.
> Or can there be some first or secondary causual event that could change my status?
Respectfully... where is it written that you are elect?
Don't get me wrong: I hope you are elect. But nowhere is that written. So don't make it your concern.
God's job is to elect and predestine.
Our job is to believe.
Let's concern ourselves with our job, and leave God's job to Him.
> then the fact is Calvinism unintentionally turns Christ death into an unnecesary, meaningless, academic "means" to save people or condem people who are already *predestined before the foundations of the world,
Respectfully, this is silly. God ordains both the people and the means. Why do you think one precludes the other?
In the case of 'corporate election' where God ordains where the ship will go but doesn't ordain who gets on that ship - - do you also think the ship is not needed because the passengers will get there regardless? I hope not.
@@Tim.Foster123 @Tim.Foster123 Thanks for your respectful replys. I appreciate the response. However you are missing the point, as you responded to all but one. To me the most important. So respectfully let me ask again, taking into consideration Gods election from eternity past over my destiny, saved or lost, Its not like Christ death is going to change anything for me? - Right?
To be clear, Its not that I believe Christ's atoning death was unnecesary, from a non-calvinistic interpretation of election, there is a difference between God predestining that those who receive the invite to enter the ship to go to the wedding will feast from His blessings, From chosing (by some secret decree) specifically who will feast from the blessing.
In calvinism, its all said and done before time, by decree, so God could use any means, or no means to save me because he already elected me to be saved or to be lost. The means is really not important, its academic because the "means" don't really mean or change anything - in Calvinism.
This is why, with respect and love, I coment and ask, if its a given, then its not like Gods going to change his mind about me because Christ died? - Right? Specially if I am unable to say or do anything and God is giving me life (or not) in order for me to believe (or not understand). I mean no respect, but That is what is silly.
God bless.
@ > taking into consideration Gods election from eternity past over my destiny, saved or lost, Its not like Christ death is going to change anything for me? - Right?
Christ's death is **how** the elect can go to heaven.
You keep phrasing things in term s of your change. But I'm not sure why you think that's the point.
Q15 "Conditional ability vs categorical ability: why is the man morally culpable for one and not the other?"
As a Determinist, I don't struggle with this question because it doesn't resolve anything as far as the big picture goes. (Read to the end)
As far as I'm concerned, God (alone) decides what it takes for a thing to be morally culpable.
- If He designs the universe so that conditional ability is sufficient for moral culpability, so be it.
- If He designs the universe so that categorical ability is sufficient for moral culpability, so be it.
- AND if He designs the universe so that **MAN** is not permitted to consider categorical ability for moral culpability but He is permitted to do so, so be it.
- etc, etc, etc.
It's His universe. And He is wholly other than we. We need to grant that morality looks a bit different to Him than it does to us. Consider the following:
Consistently through the Bible, we see that when **man** makes moral judgments, we are required to consider ability, motive, means, and opportunity (etc) before passing judgment. And we're not allowed to do the following:
- punish sons for the sins of their fathers, & vice versa (Deut 24:16; Ezek 18:20)
- punish a man for the sin of his brother
- punish an entire city/nation for the sin of its leaders
- entice/appoint/command/send people to do things that are sinful for them to do
- etc
But if we look carefully, we'll see that God doesn't have those constraints.
- God reserves the right to punish children to the 3rd and 4th generation for the sins of the father (Exod 34:7; Num 14:18). We might be inclined to say that it only applies to those offspring "who hate Him", but how do we explain the death of the firstborn in the Tenth Plague? Many male infants died because their fathers disobeyed Moses.
- God reserves the right to punish nations for the sins of its morally culpable adults and/or leaders. Eg;
* How many children under the age of accountability were drowned by God in the flood? Hundreds? Thousands?
* How many 'women and children' were killed by God in the destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah and the cities of the plain (Gen 19:24-25).
* How many 'women and children' were killed by God in Korah's Rebellion? (Num 16)
* How many Amalekite women and children were slated for destruction by God's command? (in light of the previous 3 points, I don't find a lot of persuasion in Paul Copan's arguments)
* How many men, women, and children were destroyed by the Angel of the Lord because David took a census? 70,000 men. Just men, or women and children too? (2 Sam 24)
- God reserves the right to "meant", "command", "send", "entice" people to do things that are sin for them to do.
Myriad examples in the Bible.
* God sent Joseph to Egypt through the sinful hands of his brothers selling him into slavery (Gen 45:8)
* God hardened Pharaoh's heart so that he wouldn't let the people go and then punished him for not letting the people go (Exod 4:21-23)
* God "commanded" and "sent" Sennacherib to plunder and trample Israel. It's a sin for Sennacherib to do that. And then punished him for doing so (Is 10:6-14)
* God used Babylon like a hammer to destroy multiple nations. Then punished Babylon for destroying multiple nations (Jer 51)
* God used Cyrus to destroy Babylon, even though Cyrus didn't know Him. Then He punished Persia for destroying Babylon. Dittos for Greece->Persia, and Rome->Greece.
* God predestined/planned for Judas, Pilate, Herod, the chief priests, and Jews to crucify Jesus on Nisan 14, 30AD. *Note: THEY COULD NOT DO OTHERWISE*. They were predestined to crucify Christ on that Passover day! (Matt 26:24; Acts 4:27-28) And then Peter (and God) held them morally culpable for doing that which they were predestined to do.
Long story short - to answer the question: It is manifestly clear that in God's court, God has means, methods, and moral options that are not available to humans and human courts. God can (and will) find people morally culpable for their actions even though He is the one who brought it about that they did so and had no option to do otherwise.
We may not like it, but that doesn't change the reality of the universe God has created.
- - - -
[+] And that slave who knew his master’s will and didn’t prepare himself or do it will be severely beaten. ***But the one who did not know and did things deserving of blows will be beaten lightly***. Much will be required of everyone who has been given much. And even more will be expected of the one who has been entrusted with more. (Luke 12:47-48)
According to Jesus, In God's court, everyone who does wrong gets a "beating". Means, methods, motives, abilities and knowledge affect the *degree* of punishment, but not the *fact* of punishment.
Thanks.
“Conditional ability” “categorical ability”
Who makes up these terms?
@ It's an important distinction when wading into these waters.
@@Tim.Foster123 these are terms that you made up?
@@aletheia8054 No. They're in Braxton's Q15.
They're useful for nuancing, so I don't mind using them.
@@Tim.Foster123 so Braxton made them up
I answered all of these, some of Tim’s I felt were redundant, over on my X page.
Thanks, Chris! I’ll read with great enthusiasm.
If the questions keep being asked then perhaps you didn't do a satisfactory job of answering them.
@@chrisharris9710 - I tried answering all of them above (algorithm seems to have made a few vanish). Interested to see how your answers compared to mine brother.
You will notice that if you read the KJB you will not find the word sovereign used one time. The modern versions are heavily influenced by Calvinism in their translation of scripture and many use dynamic equivalence rather than verbatim equality. Stick with the good ole KJB.
Better yet, read The New Perspective on Justification by Richard Phillips. Again, in 2004 he covered even more than you.
Only 10 questions were b(a)old questions 😉
you people deny the Gospel. you trust in your own righteousness. you believe you determine your own destiny. you deny the sovereignty of God. you are not brothers in Christ
@@hondotheology which part of the gospel is denied? They trust in being covered in Christ’s righteousness, not an “elect” status granted long ago. God determined the destiny of believers and God determined the destiny of unbelievers. They believe God, in his sovereignty, is free to give his image-bearers freedom.
Good grief!
@@nathanhellrung9810 ah Hondo. Part of the Scott Chason, Alethia/Manny, Keith Thompson crowd. Have you seen his channel?
If I'm not elect, then there is no gospel for me on Calvinism lol
I responded to the questions on my blog: philochristos.blogspot.com/2025/01/20-questions-for-calvinists.html