Jerry Walls on Problems w/ Calvinism (and what we can learn from Calvinists)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ต.ค. 2020
- Why is Calvinism so popular? What can Arminians learn from Calvinists? What’s the problem with Calvinism? Matt O’Reilly asks Jerry Walls about these questions and more in part two of this Theology Project Author Interview.
WATCH: Part 1 of Jerry's Interview • Jerry Walls on Purgato...
Author Interviews Playlist • Author Interviews
Calvinism vs. Arminianism Playlist • Calvinism vs. Arminianism
Check out JERRY'S BOOKS
Why I'm not a Calvinist (with Joe Dongell) amzn.to/372K6iJ
Jerry's Amazon Author Page: amzn.to/30FRLzw
Dr. Jerry L. Walls is Scholar in Residence and Professor of Philosophy at Houston Baptist University in Houston, Texas. Visit: jerrylwalls.com
Other resources MENTIONED in the interview:
"Original Sin" by John Wesley wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the...
Against God and Nature by Thomas McCall amzn.to/2SK2p3N
Arminian Exegesis of ROMANS 9
Paul's Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9:1-9 amzn.to/36T763z
Paul's Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9:10-18 amzn.to/3jXFSMY
SUBSCRIBE: / theologyprojectonline
Matt's BOOKS:
Paul and the Resurrected Body amzn.to/2xOJmyj
The Letters to the Thessalonians (w/ videos) tinyurl.com/oreillythess
Bless the Nations amzn.to/3eEpiiF
RESOURCES: www.theologyproject.online/re...
FOLLOW:
www. mattoreillyauthor
www. theologyprojectonline
/ mporeilly
theologyproject.online
LISTEN & SUBSCRIBE to my podcast:
/ user-2721231
SUPPORT Theology Project: www.theologyproject.online/give
Dr. Matt O'Reilly is Lead Pastor of Hope Hull United Methodist Church near Montgomery, Alabama, Director of Research at Wesley Biblical Seminary, and a fellow of the Center for Pastor Theologians.
I love Jerry Walls and his works refuting Calvinism.
I would love if he'd make anything else to refute it..
His why I'm not a calvinist and does God love everyone are both excellent.
Read Ken Wilson's book "The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism", if you want to understand the true source of the doctrine. Augustine was attempting to explain how infants could become the "elect" through water baptism. Since the child had not come to faith, it must be based on the will of another. It could have nothing to do with the will of the child.
WHO CARES OF WHO SAID WHAT. "LET GOD BE TRUE, AND EVERY MAN A LIAR."(ROMANS 3:4)... IF ANY MAN DOES NOT PREACH CALVINISM WITH A KING JAMES VERSION; AND HE HAS NOT READ "THE BONDAGE OF THE WILL", AND/OR "FREEDOM OF THE WILL" BY LUTHER & EDWARDS... HE KNOWS NOTHING OF GOD'S SUPREMACY AND SOVEREIGNTY. NEITHER BIBLICAL SOTERIOLOGY / SALVATION ... HE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND SOUND DOCTRINE, AND POINTS TO CORRUPT MAN, COMMANDING THE TRIUNE INCARNATE ÇHRIST AROUND, WHICH SPOKE THE UNIVERSE ONTO EXISTENCE ... CONSIDER PSALM 39:5 WHICH WOULD BE FOLLOWED BY THOUSANDS OF SCRIPTURES WITH THIS EXACT CALIBER OF RIGHTEOUSNESS: "EVERY MAN AT HIS BEST STATE IS ALTOGETHER VANITY. SELAH."
Great interview!
Thanks! It was a fun discussion.
Great discussion! Quick note - William Lane Craig is a Molinist, not an Arminian
Thank you for the segment on Calvinism.
Could you do a study on how the Arminian approach to texts like these which give an ordo salutis differs from the Calvinist?
Galatians 3:2-7
Ephesians 1:13
John 20:31
Again thank you for your ministry and God bless you!
Glad you found it helpful.
Let me think through these verses and what a study on them might look like.
@@TheologyProjectOnline
Can you or have you done a video on Cage stage calvinism?
This would be good as it's obvious from certain people posting here it's a problem in the church..
Matt you could write a book about romans 9.
I'm surprised they didn't talk about Romans 9, where Paul goes into a lot of detail giving what seems to be a very Calvinism-supporting description of God's sovereignty.
Consistent Arminianism says that total depravity and original sin is true and as Jerry Walls says..
People need to do their own research and see how imitating Wesley on this would help us to be consistent Arminians..
He knew us before he laid the foundation of the earth.. Which means he knew already who was going to appeal to "free will" and chose him. So he DOES NOT chose who is saved, but he gives grace to those who will choose him. He is beyond time and space. In order to have free will we needed a choice.. So his actions on the chosen are because he knew us from the begining and never knew the ones who choose not to believe or not believe in the resurrection and repentance.
This doesn't remove Gods power or seriousness.. It just says that God knew who was who already.
Please what is the title of Tom's book on sin?
Against God and Nature
Link: amzn.to/3Soceo9
What I would say to the calvinistic people who object to God being good, I say that they who say we call ourselves special and better I simply ask them how do they avoid the Antinomian logical conclusion of their view if God is going to save you unconditionally yet then in the next breath say we are going to have to repent and place faith in Christ..
The consistent calvinist would know he or she mocks the unsaved person and knows they are requiring something they can't do .
I watch these things to try to fully understand other perspectives and thoughts regarding these things. I would like to address the fact that no reformed person thinks that God isn’t good. People get punished for their sin. God is holy and we are sinful. People that get grace don’t deserve it and the people that get justice deserve it. That’s why mercy is mercy because God doesn’t give us something we deserve. Also, not a single truly reformed person thinks they’re special more like humbled because of God’s grace and mercy. They would understand it’s a gift of God and undeserved. True grace takes works righteousness and arrogant beliefs of be special away. The antinomian comment is also absurd because nobody that is truly under grace that is born again thinks it’s ok to sin because they’re elected. In fact if they remain in bondage to sin it would become obvious that God hasn’t done a work in you. We don’t believe in free grace live however that’s what a lost person would think. The scriptures are clear about this in Hebrews it talks about a holiness without which no one will see the Lord. Matthew says you will know a tree by its fruit. Ephesians 2:10 says “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” It also says that if they go out from us they were never of us in 1st John. We wouldn’t be mocking anyone knowing they can’t be saved when evangelizing because we don’t know who is elect and who isn’t we’re commanded to proclaim the gospel to everyone and God uses it to save His elect. We treat everyone as if they are His because we don’t know who will come and who won’t. You have a very big misunderstanding of the reformed view. Let me as you this in John 6:37 when Jesus says “All that the Father gives me will come to Me, and the one who comes to me I will certainly not cast out”. Then down in (v.39) when He says “This is the will of Him who sent me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing but raise it up on the last day”. Think about that seriously. It doesn’t say whoever will make a free will choice it plainly says all that the Father gives Me will come. The elect are the love offering from the Father to the son from before the foundation of the world. Revelation 13:8-9 says this ““and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain. If anyone has an ear, let him hear:” When did these saints that won’t worship the first beast in Revelation have their names written in the book of life? Also, in proverbs 16:4 when it says ““The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.”
What do you make of that? It says what it says so what do you do with that? What about this in 1st Peter 2:7-10 “So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, “The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,” and “A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.” They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.”
Notice how the first type of person stumbled over Christ as they were “destined” to do and then immediately the comparison goes to another group the “chosen” and that they we’re God’s possession and that He called them out of the darkness into the light. All by His mercy. Once again not because of your free will choice. Only way someone makes a decision for Christ is if the Holy Spirit has regenerated them. In Ephesians 2 it states that we’re dead in trespasses and sins and dead means exactly what it says spiritually dead then look what God does in (v.4-5) ““But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ-by grace you have been saved-” Once again because of Gods mercy and love He made dead sinners alive in Christ by grace. It’s so clear I even avoided the main passage arguments purposely in Romans and Ephesians 1 etc…I can go on and on outside of that. I hope it helps and your willing to see scripture and thoroughly look at it and worship God for who He reveals Himself to be in His Word no matter how you believe. It should always be willing to change if scripture shows you otherwise. Have a good night and take care.
@@nathangilliland9869 actually I've met antinomianism affirming easy believism Calvinists for starters..
And one was a former friend of twenty years who took his Calvinism to the logical conclusion of antinomianism...
So it's not absurd..
There's a book titled, antinomianism, reformed theology's unwelcome guest for a reason..
Written by a Calvinist mind you..
Actually I've met many a Calvinist who weren't humble and were quite arrogant..
One who I met once resorted to calling me stupid for refusing to engage with him and another Calvinist at a hookah bar so they could try to convert me to Calvinism..
Instead of trying to encourage me in my walk,the motive was a convert for John Calvin..
@@nathangilliland9869 and the typical statement of the you just don't understand Calvinism is what I hear all the time ..even if one quotes a Calvinist...it's actually very much the other way around..
The you just don't understand what Arminians believe in is the proper statement to be said here ..when Calvinist people get their misinformation about what Arminians believe in from guys like the late RC Sproul and John macarthur Jr and John Piper, James White etc..it's clear you are most likely wrapped up in misinformation.
@@nathangilliland9869 lastly I never mentioned anything about free will..you did..
Obviously you're omitting the fact that arminianism teaches that semi Augustinian concept of prevenient grace going before to even enable anyone to believe..
We believe in the fall of Adam and it's actual affects..we are aware that apart from grace..none can come...
I highly recommend you read arminian theology myths and realities by doctor Roger E Olson,and what is an arminian by John Wesley..and the newly released 40 questions about arminianism by Matthew pinson.. because you sir are misinformed.
@@nathangilliland9869 I think it would be best that you leave the fake news about what Arminians believe in first and foremost before we can further discuss this sir..
Arminianism teaches a freed will freed up by grace view..not a free will view that omits the necessity of grace..
Until you find out what Arminians believe in from Arminians, you'll be going back to the talking points that resort to saying misinformed statements such as that we hold to a free will view apart from grace being implemented and needed..
The guy affirms purgatory, has seemingly little issue calling RCC brothers , and was a minister of a UMC , i think just from that we can see Walls isn’t someone we should be getting theology from 🤷🏼♂️.
I can agree to disagree with him on purgatory and not all wesleyans are about liberalism as a good amount of United Methodist church folks are .
By the way, the global Methodist church is here or about to be...the actual biblical methodists are leaving the United Methodist church.
Look into it.
I believe that some Roman Catholic folks will be saved..
Not many but some will be.
I don't agree with him on this either but no two people agree with each other on all things..
I believe in a purgatory this side of eternity. Hebrews 1 - '...he, by himself, purged our sins..."
Jesus tells us in Matt. 12:30 that those who are not for me are against me. Man comes into this world with his back toward God and will stay that way unless the Spirit of God
changes him (John 3:3).There is no middle ground with Christ. The idea that God lifts man up spiritually so that he is able to accept Christ or reject Christ is nonsense.
In liberal theology it is taught that all men have a spark of goodness and that man can be saved if you fan the flame of goodness. My question for Mr. Walls is how much
difference is there in what he believes and what is taught in liberal theology ?
We didn't make up the God who would have all men be saved. That's God, revealing himself through the apostles. Augustine made up the one who doesn't want all men saved, and he made it up out of pagan, Gnostic ideation, every bit inspired by the spirits who inspired the Fates, Allah, and all the other examples of the unbiblical paradigm of predestination of everything. God shows that He did not predestine everything, when he spoke to Cain. He showed it before that, with Adam and Eve, and all through the Bible through Revelation 22, where whosoever will may come and drink of the water of life, freely.
If God needs to damn some people to fully show His justice and glory, wouldn't one person be sufficient as an object lesson? Why need billions?
Good question.
Both 'systems' are, in my opinion, far too rigid if it comes to 'Total Depravity', which is only the end result of Romans 1. This means that in many cases the Holy Spirit still is able to appeal to the conscience based on the truth, this is how in my opinion conviction works, which means for many they still have the capacity to acknowledge the truth and their need for the gift of salvation. Acceptance of salvation depends strongly on the moral capacity and condition of the conscience. This does not negate our dependancy on grace in any way. There is not one 'system' I fully accept, I also totally reject a third alternative 'free grace soteriology'.
Thanks for taking to time to watch and comment. Appreciate your thoughtful response.
Look at 'total depravity' here: Or when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law, and here: If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him! One day, in heaven, we'll ask Cornelius, the centurion, about total depravity.
@@caonexpeguero9984 Bulls Eye
God tells us in Romans 2:11 that He has no partiality and in James 2:9 partiality is called a sin. Calvinism teaches that God elects individuals unto salvation thru totally unconditional means. Sounds like Calvinism teaches that God has partiality on steroids to me.
It’s too bad Arminianism is less of a household name than Calvinism!
Are Calvinist save
Arminians are saved in the same way that many say that Calvinists are saved,IF they're consistent..
How is it that you do not know that Arminius was a Calvinist?
Arminianism isn't necessarily the opposite of Calvinism.
Credibility out the window.
Thanks for taking the time to comment. We don't suggest in this video that Calvinism and Arminianism are opposites. Only that there are significant differences.
By highlighting what Arminians can learn from Calvinists, I think we imply that this is an in-house debate that can be conducted charitably.
He didn't say it's the exact opposite of calvinism.
Read, listen and don't be so quick to speak.
Would love to hear how your reconcile a God who directed the entirety of the OT exactly according to His will is now (in the new and better and highly-anticipated covenant) willing to just sit by and let countless billions of His image bearers make the wrong "choice".
God has never lost anything. His will is always done. He always wins... from Genesis to Revelation... He wins. He's the same now as He always has been. Not a single person in all of human history went to hell outside of God's plan.... and we Calvinists relish it the opposite, which is the impetus of eternal worship of His chosen people, that not a single one of His elect throughout all of human history will be lost (our choices be damned!)
God is sovereign. He will have compassion on whom He will have compassion. That is utterly His choice and His right. He will not desire a child that He will not have. There's no injustice in the eternal judgement of billions for rejecting His authority and His son.... There's only an eternity of wonder and worship for those who have been granted totally-underserved grace!
The real problems lie with those who add anything at all to God's sovereign choice. Your position renders God a failure... or at best, one who settles. That's not the God I see in scriptures.
My position only renders God a failure given your view with regard to God's purposes, not with regard to mine.
Ii read the first sentence and it is absolutely contrary to scripture. In 1 Kings 20 towards the end of the chapter we find a prophet rebuking Ahab because (I quote from memory typing with phone) "thou hast let go out of thine hand him who I APPOINTED TO UTTER DESTRUCTION.) This verse quote conveys God's dealings with Israel in OT that is diametrically opposed to your assumptions.
Why would God extend salvific love to those whom He knew would never be saved? Why would God the father waste the blood of His only Son upon those whom He knew would never be saved? Was the blood of Christ that cheap?
You're looking at it from a calvinistic vaccum and echo chamber insinuating if it's not according to the calvinistic narrative, that the blood of Christ is cheap..
That's error to say because scripture clearly says that God didn't send his son into the world to condemn the world, John 3:17 and he tasted death for all men, Hebrews 2:9..
And he's the propitiation for the whole world 1 John 2:2..
Again you are bringing an argument that's rooted in a calvinist narrative and must rely upon that narrative.
@@rauldelarosa2768
Not at all, I wouldn't dream of importing a narrative onto the text - that's something that you are doing, and I will demonstrate.
*John 3:17*
The passage begins with “for God so loved the world…” So our first question is over who it is that Jesus is talking about when he says “the world?” Fortunately, we do not have to guess about this since it is defined for us in the very same verse. In English, the second part of the verse is rendered “that whoever believes in Him;” in the Greek, this passage reads “πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων,” which literally means “all the believing ones.” In context, this passage is saying that there is a specificity to faith, that there are a certain people who believe, and there are a certain people who do not believe, and that those who believe in the Son (which is the world whom God loves) the same receive salvation, and consequently, those who do not believe in the Son receive condemnation. The term “the world” here is clearly not universal in scope.
Just as an illustration to try to understand the text better, let’s apply this passage to a large church and we’ll change the language just a bit. Now, in any church, especially a large one, it is safe to assume that there are unbelievers in the congregation - maybe a rebellious teenager, or a wife who is dragged to church by her husband, or maybe a husband who is a member on the books, but who would much rather be at home watching the ball game. So then Jesus enters the scene and declares: “For God so loved the church that He gave His only begotten Son so that all the believing ones shall not perish, but have everlasting life.” Here it is easy to see that what is meant by “the church” are “all the believing ones” who reside in the church.
So, “whoever” believes in the Son (whoever that may be, Jew or Gentile), is a part of the world whom God loves and to whom the Son is given, and are the ones being saved, and Jesus did not come to condemn them even though they have sinned like the rest, but He came to save them.
*Hebrews 2:9*
The author states that Jesus “tasted death for everyone” (παντος), but this “everyone” doesn’t consist of “absolutely everyone without exception; this “everyone” consists of all of those who are the subjects of the whole passage, that is:
1. Every one of the heirs of salvation (Hebrews 1:14, cf. Matthew 25:34, Titus 3:7)
2. Every one of those “many sons” which God is “bringing unto glory” (Hebrews 2:10). "As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God" (Romans 8:14). “Into this "glory" the many sons do not merely "come," but are "brought." It is the same word as in Luke 10:34 where the Good Samaritan "brought" the poor man that was wounded and half dead, and who could not "come" of himself, to the "inn." Let the reader consult these additional passages: Song of Solomon 2:4; Isaiah 42:16; 1 Peter 3:18. This "bringing" of the many sons "unto glory" is in distinct stages. At regeneration they are brought from death unto life. At the Lord's return they will be brought to the Father's House (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17). The whole is summarized in the parable of the lost sheep; see Luke 15:4-6.
3. Every one of those who are sanctified by Him whom He calls brethren (Hebrews 2:11-12, cf. Matthew 12:46-50, 23:8, 25:40)
4. Every one of the children given to Him by God (Hebrews 2:13, cf. John 6:37, 39, 44, 17:2, 24)
5. Every one of the children whom by death, He delivers from the fear of death (Hebrews 2:14-15). Every one for whom He tasted death shall themselves never do so (see John 8:52), and this is true only of the people of God who have come to repentance (cf. Hebrews 10:26-27).
6. Every one of the descendants of Abraham (Hebrews 2:16). And we will remember that according to Galatians 3:7 it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham, and, according to John 6:44, no one can come to Jesus (in faith) unless the Father who sent Jesus draws him.
7. Every one of “the people” for whom He has made propitiation (Hebrews 2:17). That is, every one of “the people” for whom Jesus has turned away the anger of God by the giving of Himself as the divine substitute, whereupon the certificate of debt against them has actually been cancelled (Colossians 2:13-14, cf. Ephesians 2:15), and all of their transgressions have been forgiven.
According to F.W. Grosheide:
“The meaning of ‘everyone’ is not that all men without distinction will reap the fruits of Jesus’ death. To assume such a universalism here would contradict ‘many sons,’ in verse 10; the ‘seed of Abraham,’ in verse 16; and ‘the people,’ in verse 17. ‘Everyone’ is merely the general term that is placed in the foreground and is to be defined subsequently.”
A.W. Pink has said:
“What we have just said above is confirmed by many Scriptures. "For the transgression of My people was He stricken" said God (Isaiah 53:8), and all mankind are not His "people." "I lay down My life for the sheep," said the Son (John 10:10), but every man is not of Christ's sheep (John 10:26). Christ makes intercession on behalf of those for whom He died (Romans 8:34), but He prays not for the world (see John 17:9). Those for whom he died are redeemed (Revelation 5:9), and from redemption necessarily follows the forgiveness of sins (Colossians 1:14), but all have not their sins forgiven.”
*1 John 2:2*
The word “propitiation” means: 1) “The turning away of anger by the giving of a gift” (Elwell, Walter A., and Barry J. Beitze. Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, 1988), 2) “The removal of wrath by the giving of a gift” (Bromiley, Geoffrey W., ed. The International standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised. Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1979-1988). Note that the wrath of God is not POTENTIALLY removed, it is ACTUALLY removed; that the certificate of debt has ACTUALLY been cancelled (Colossians 2:14). So the question for the Leightonist is, did Jesus ACTUALLY remove the wrath of God from absolutely everyone without exception? If so, and if God is just, then that means that NO ONE goes to hell... Of course this is not so, because we know that there are many people who DO receive the wrath of God, therefore the propitiation that Jesus made HAD to be limited in its extent. We see this in John 3:16 as well where the atonement is limited to all of the believing ones. Note Romans 5:6-11, Those sinners for whom Christ died have been justified and saved from the wrath of God. Period. End of story. No conditions, exclusions, or exemptions. Jesus reconciled them to God, saving them from death to life. This has all been perfectly completed in the past with future application to all those for whom Christ died; there is no allowance in the text for the notion that any of this was done “potentially,” as the universal redemptionist must necessarily insist, therefore justification and reconciliation was actually accomplished for a specific group of people. There is no room in the Christian theology of God for the notion that Jesus dies to propitiate the sins of an individual who then goes to hell; again, propitiation is neither potential, nor contingent, but rather, it is an actual event with real results. *Therefore, the word “world” refers to all “kinds” of people, both Jews and Gentiles - and indeed this theme is seen everywhere in the NT (cf. Revelation 5:9).*
A proper theology comes from when we understand the text; no Calvinism needed. You have much study yet to do sir.
@@lawrencestanley8989 I'm not interested in your calvinistic talking points that you obviously were trained by your calvinistic handlers.
Aw pink allegedly didn't go to church in his final years, that's consistent with the sectarianism that does follow consistent calvinism.
And your other commentaries from calvinist commentators shows nothing else but you bringing a long winded calvinist narrative that's biased and tainted by sectarian calvinistic teaching.
Again, nobody's said all will be saved,yet all those who do believe will be saved..your attempts to paint all who aren't calvinistic into a corner of universalism is futile..
@@lawrencestanley8989 aw pink was a calvinist, was he not?
Let's see if you'll be honest.
@@lawrencestanley8989 those who are condemned is further explained in the latter part of John 3 they loved darkness than light..
Try again.
Be honest sir.
You're a calvinist bringing calvinist talking points and a calvinist narrative.
Will you at least admit this and be honest?
He’s sounding more like a Calvinist every year. I guess you cant defeat a truth(Calvinism) that is written throughout Bible and given by God.
Uh, how so?