Refuting Calvinism has nothing to do with being Armenian. Many people quote scripture all day long. It's their take away that is the issue. Calvinism is a different gospel than what was preached, for example by the apostle Paul. Why is their even "Calvinism@ if they're just followers of Christ? Are you a Calvinist or a Christian? They claim to be both but that's rather odd. It's odd bc if you're a follower of Christ and the Bible is your authority than why would an ideology of a man (John Calvin) be your authority? If one is convinced that Calvinism is 100% biblical truth why would t you just defend the Bible than? Why would you need to subscribe to something different than Christianity? Why would what you identify with not just be a Christian? These are common sense questions not to be rivalrous but to just stop and think for a moment. Wouldn't one just be preaching the Bible than if Calvinism were true? There would be no need for another label. Unless the other label is somehow different than the Bible? It's no different than Catholics saying they're Christian. Well than if you're Christian wouldn't you just be Christian? Do you agree catholicism is different than Christianity? And if the answer is yes couldn't you apply that same logic here with Calvinism?
@@hopeforeveryone9808 _"What came first, Calvinism or the Bible?"_ "Calvinism" is older than Calvin. Read the Canon of Orange for example, a consensus statement of the church over 1000 years before Calvin was born. It affirms many of the things most non-Calvinists are rejecting when they reject "Calvinism". _"Calvinism is a different gospel than what was preached, for example by the apostle Paul."_ Why do you say that? It seems very Pauline. _"Why is their even "Calvinism@ if they're just followers of Christ?"_ Because enemies of Reformed Theology named it after Calvin even through it is just Biblical Christianity. _"Are you a Calvinist or a Christian?"_ Is Christ divided? Don't violate 1 Cor 1:13. Why would you divide Christ with words like "Christian"? _"They claim to be both but that's rather odd."_ I believe Reformed Theology accords with scripture. If you disagree, it would be helpful if you didn't just assert that you disagree, but actually compared the Reformed Confessions against scripture and showed where they erred. If an anti-Calvinist could do this in detail with the Westminster Confession, I would be pleased. But the truth is that most anti-Calvinists hate Calvin more than they love Christ, so they don't want to bring forward the witnesses Christ commands when making charges. They'd rather just name call and play the accuser. _"It's odd bc if you're a follower of Christ and the Bible is your authority than why would an ideology of a man (John Calvin) be your authority?"_ What is odd is that you are falling for your own side's propoganda. Enemies of Reformed Theology named it "Calvinism" and now you have been duped into thinking Calvin holds some special place in our hearts. And let's put the shoe on the other foot. If your charge is appropriate against the people who brought us "Sola Scriptura", then you are just as guilty of asking us to follow your teachings instead of scripture. Why should I listen to your comment any more than I should listen to Calvin? Your double standard is obvious. _"If one is convinced that Calvinism is 100% biblical truth why would t you just defend the Bible than?"_ That's exactly what we do. You are the one trying to make this about Calvin the man instead of the thoroughly biblical doctrines that unfortunately bear the name. _"Why would you need to subscribe to something different than Christianity?"_ Put the shoe on the other foot. Why are you pushing your "Hope For Everyone"-ism instead of Christianity? Do you find that offensive? Then take the tropical rain forest out of your eye. _"Why would what you identify with not just be a Christian?"_ Again, falling for your own propaganda. We are Christians. "Calvinist" is your side's slur, and by an accident of history, the name stuck. _"These are common sense questions not to be rivalrous but to just stop and think for a moment."_ And they have pretty obvious answers if one thinks for but one moment more. _"Wouldn't one just be preaching the Bible than if Calvinism were true?"_ As Spurgeon said, "Calvinism is the gospel." We preach the Word, and anti-Calvinists here "Calvinism" and hate it and the Word of God that teaches it. It has nothing to do with the man. _"There would be no need for another label. Unless the other label is somehow different than the Bible?"_ You'll have to ask the propogandists on your side who named it. They certainly were trying to falsely insinuate that it is different from Biblical Christianity, though we contend it is just what scripture teaches. But do you just use this to accuse, or do you apply this equally? Do you equally condemn "Provisionism" for having a label? "Arminianism"? "Molinism"? Or is this the argument you use when you hate something so much but don't have a scriptural argument against it? _"It's no different than Catholics saying they're Christian."_ You mean Romanists. You mean Papists. _"Well than if you're Christian wouldn't you just be Christian?"_ Yes, we are just Christians. _"Do you agree catholicism is different than Christianity?"_ No, if you are not a member of the church catholic, you are outside of Christ. But Papists are different from Christianity. _"And if the answer is yes couldn't you apply that same logic here with Calvinism?"_ Likewise, couldn't you say the same about Provisionism, Arminianism, Molinism, or any other label? I don't see how your argument says anything of substance, and if followed through to the logical end, we end up with less clarity. If I say I am a "Calvinist" I communicate something about how I understand scripture. If I didn't have the word, I would use the word "Reformed" (I'd use it anyway, as it is more accurate in many ways). If I didn't have any word at all, I'd have to recite an entire confession of my faith in order to communicate what I believe, or borrow from an existing one, like the Westminster Confession. Labels are useful for communicating a lot of information quickly. It seems that the logical end you are arguing for is worse than the current situation. Labels are useful. If you don't understand what a word means, it is better to actually study and learn the full meaning than argue semantically against them. If you don't agree with the theology behind the label, argue from scripture against it instead of playing word games.
I was raised that you ask God into your heart. When God revealed to me that I had nothing to do with Him redeeming my heart I was a wreck for weeks. And I am not exaggerating. I spent weeks studying the scriptures to find out what the Bible said because there is not way I had nothing to do with my coming to Christ. In the end, the Holy Spirit gave me an amazing peace and reassurance that God chose me and I had nothing to with choosing Him. I was a wreck again for a while and completely humbled God would choose me. I can’t even put into words the grace I felt and still feel to this day. I don’t deserve Him but He chose me. Why? I don’t know but I’m so thankful He did. Loved when you mentioned pride being the reason why we think we have something to do with our salvation. I had been trying to figure out the words to describe that for a while now but will remember this.
I can relate! I was practically patting myself on the back until it was revealed to me that I had no hand in my conversion. I was born-again supernaturally. I was mind-blown for several days, during which time I was spiritually led to research TULIP. Our God is Awesome, and that's a humongous understatement.
The Bible is literally calling us to have something to do with it. Telling us to have faith and believe over and over time and time again. Does God choose us? Yes Does God provide everything we need to be saved? Yes. We love God because he first loved us? Yes , but over and over he is telling us to repent and believe. For us to do it. Not him do it for us. Man has a responsibility to believe through faith on God's completed work. Without freewill then there can be no love.
The other day I was reading my Bible and came across this passage in 2 Kings 19:25-26 where God is speaking through the prophet Isaiah to king Hezekiah, “Have you not heard that I determined it long ago? I planned from days of old what now I bring to pass, that you should turn fortified cities into heaps of ruins, while their inhabitants, shorn of strength, are dismayed and confounded, and have become like plants of the field and like tender grass, like grass on the housetops, blighted before it is grown." God has made His plans and He will bring them to pass. He is in charge and we are not. Great show today, brothers! Soli Deo Gloria!
2Peter 3:9 says, "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise...not wanting ANYONE to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." Most don't; God's will is NOT being done. John 7:17 says, "Anyone who CHOOSES to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God..." Joshua 24:15 says, "...CHOOSE for yourselves this day whom you will serve..." Genesis 2:16-17 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free (you can CHOOSE) to eat from any tree in the garden..." Deuteronomy 30:19-20 says, "...I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now CHOOSE life..." There are MANY more verses where we are offered a choice. So, while God does predestine some things, in other things we are given a choice. It's like a University predestines they are going to have a football team next season, but it is up to the free will of who will decide to try out for the team.
@@Mike-qt7jp Quote the entire passage of 2 Peter 3:7: "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, but is longsuffering towards *us*, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone [that is, everyone of *us*] to come to repentance." "If anyone's will is to do God's will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority (John 7:17)." The Bible is clear that natural man wants nothing to do with God's will for their lives. For a man to want God's will, God must regenerate that man first, as seen in John 3 and 6. Notice that that pronouncement in Deuteronomy was given to the Israelites alone. The other nations weren't even given this apparent choice. When God regenerates a person, they can now choose to follow God, which they eventually would.
@@Mike-qt7jp Synergism can only be supported by proof-texts taken out of context, and strung together with other verses (or pieces of verses) and in direct opposition to other texts. Reformed doctrines are supported by entire chapters of didactic teachings from Jesus Himself, full chapters in context, and consistent testimony from Genesis to Revelation. If you’ve ever studied the issue honestly, you would have already found that the verses you’ve listed have been thoroughly exegeted and explained consistently by Reformed theologians.
Reformed. Ha more like you need to reform. John Calvin misinterpreted tons of scripture. He didn't have computers in the year 1500 so he can't search as quickly for all of the verses which contradict calvinism like we can today. I have defeated calvinist after calvnist easily using scripture. Because they misinterpret scripture because they do not take into account the totality of scripture and what the bible teaches contradicts calvinism. @@tylerbuckner3750
Wonderful episode. I grew up Arminian (UMC mostly), but now my family and I are checking out a PCA church. I've found that Calvinist theology makes the most sense when dealing with certain passages, but there are aspects I've never been able to wrap my mind or my heart around. I appreciated your thoroughness and especially your tone in this episode. A lot of Calvinists can be rather snooty when explaining their theology, but you guys kept it respectful and humble and compassionate while at the same time confident. That blessed me so much it almost brought me to tears toward the end. I want to believe what's true, whatever that is. If it's Calvinism, then glory to God! I'm looking forward to the rest of this series!
I’m going to show you something that John Wesley the great evangelist wrote but before I do understand this sister, God did not make robots we have free will to accept him or deny him. He does not create His greatest creation for the sole purpose of sending it to hell..:pray Rebecca! Now read this👇 “Calvinists, who deny that salvation can ever be lost, reason on the subject in a marvelous way. They tell us, that no virgin’s lamp can go out; no promising harvest be choked with thorns; no branch in Christ can ever be cut off from unfruitfulness; no pardon can ever be forfeited, and no name blotted out of God’s book! They insist that no salt can ever lose its savor; nobody can ever “receive the grace of God in vain”; “bury his talents”; “neglect such great salvation”; trifle away “a day of grace”; “look back” after putting his hand to the gospel plow. Nobody can “grieve the Spirit” till He is “quenched,” and strives no more, nor “deny the Lord that bought them”; nor “bring upon themselves swift destruction.” Nobody, or body of believers, can ever get so lukewarm that Jesus will spew them out of His mouth. They use reams of paper to argue that if one ever got lost he was never found. John 17:12; that if one falls, he never stood. Rom. 11:16-22 and Heb. 6:4-6; if one was ever “cast forth,” he was never in, and “if one ever withered,” he was never green. John 15:1-6; and that “if any man draws back,” it proves that he never had anything to draw back from. Heb. 10:38,39; that if one ever “falls away into spiritual darkness,” he was never enlightened. Heb 6:4-6; that if you “again get entangled in the pollutions of the world,” it shows that you never escaped. 2 Pet 2:20; that if you “put salvation away” you never had it to put away, and if you make shipwreck of faith, there was no ship of faith there!! In short they say: If you get it, you can’t lose it; and if you lose it you never had it. May God save us from accepting a doctrine, that must be defended by such fallacious reasoning!” ~ John Wesley
PCA can be sketchy, mainly because that denomination has been so overrun with liberals. There are still some great teachers there, don't get me wrong. Bruce Gore is one. If that one doesn't work out, look into the OPC. That's where I took about 10 years ago. We've been there ever since and are very happy.
@@stuffipost137 Not the church we're looking at, thankfully. So far, so good. 😅 And they actually preach from the Bible and use long passages!! I can't overemphasize how refreshing that's been after years of "preaching" that's usually more anecdotes and philosophizing and moralizing and a couple Bible verses thrown in almost as an afterthought. Ah, the UMC... 🙄 It still has its faithful teachers, too, but they seem to be fewer and farther between these days.
Calvinism is a different gospel than what was preached, for example by the apostle Paul. Why is there even "Calvinism@if they're just followers of Christ? Are you a Calvinist or a Christian? They claim to be both but that's rather odd. It's odd be if you're a follower of Christ and the Bible is your authority than why would an ideology of a man (John Calvin) be your authority? if one is convinced that Calvinism is 100% biblical truth why would t you just defend the Bible than? Why would you need to subscribe to something different than Christianity? Why would what you identify with not just be a Christian? These are common sense questions not to be rivalrous but to just stop and think for a moment. Wouldn't one just be preaching the Bible than if Calvinism were true? There would be no need for another label. Unless the other label is somehow different than the Bible? It's no different than Catholics saying they're Christian. Well than if you're Christian wouldn't you just be Christian? Do you agree catholicism is different than Christianity? And if the answer is yes couldn't you apply that same logic here with Calvinism?
@hopeforeveryone9808 You get 'em, boy! Go get them strawmen! You get a belly rub. Good boy. (Now, for those who have a clue what they're talking about, this guy is well versed in silly arguments against nothing, and that's usually what you get from the synergists: Supreme ignorance.)
TIMESTAMPS: 4:10 -for skipping the Ezra Institute ad 10:00 -continuing the Calvinism discussion 12:31 -today's topic is Total Depravity/Inability or Radical Corruption (with ad for the ion layer) 20:00 -Why do you believe in Total Depravity? Why is it important? 27:50 -"Well I agree with all that and I'm still not Reformed" (response) 28:35 -Where this issue arises in church history 37:30 -The Calvinist term explanation (not about the guy John Calvin) 39:46 -Scripture passages and stuff 48:08 -Honestly representing your opponents (addressing claims of "it makes men robots" "why pray if God already determined everything") 52:35 -More Scripture: God brings the dead to life 1:04:30 -When Christians hate this doctrine 1:12:03 -What if you grew up being told you were a piece of garbage? Are you still depraved when you're a Christian? (importance of being clear on our new identity) 1:16:30 -Even your stupid prayers will be made acceptable in the throne room. What a comfort. -Followed by closing Scripture passage (John 6 I think)
This was a really impactful episode for me today. Thanks guys for helping me grow. I've been leading a recovery group and working to get it in line with God's word more. It's been a challenge but you guys have really helped me to grow in my faith and understanding through God's word so that I may be well equipped to help others. Open to suggestions! In fact, I welcome them!
Just curious to the outline of the recovery group, because I live in Colorado Springs and have gone to a Biblical group that comes from a more free will Arminian perspective from a church called Calvary Worship Center and it's quite irking to hear the deacon that leads it talk about "free will" all the time 😅
The most important suggestion I can give you is: pray to the Holy Spirit to guide you and then read the Bible. Don't adopt positions before you have read the Bible for yourself and let it speak. It's the living Word of God. God bless
Thank you JD and David. As a pastor that was bivocational and now full time, every single minute serving must be unto Jesus alone. Sinners still sin, Christians sin, people will always hurt you unintentionally and intentionally. If it’s all for Christ they cannot touch you.
I don’t understand why people are against this it makes sense to what they are saying. And they’re not explaining scripture to their own idea the scripture seemed pretty self explanatory. there are people who love to hate god and they will probably refuse him all their life.
2Peter 3:9 says, "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise...not wanting ANYONE to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." Most don't; God's will is NOT being done. John 7:17 says, "Anyone who CHOOSES to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God..." Joshua 24:15 says, "...CHOOSE for yourselves this day whom you will serve..." Genesis 2:16-17 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free (you can CHOOSE) to eat from any tree in the garden..." Deuteronomy 30:19-20 says, "...I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now CHOOSE life..." There are MANY more verses where we are offered a choice. So, while God does predestine some things, in other things we are given a choice. It's like a University predestines they are going to have a football team next season, but it is up to the free will of who will decide to try out for the team.
If the content is free, and open to everyone then why do folks need to sign up for yet another account on yet another website to access the information?
I am in 100%agreement on these topics! I am the .0001 % here in Michigan that does and i have zero like minded friends to share with! I am literally a judgmental a hole due to lack of agreement!
Early on in my journey there were several authors that gave clarity on these issues of grace. I had been a Christian for a few years and was challenged one day by a friend. He was Episcopalian and attended a liberal church (a redundant statement). We were discussing the church where I attend, a PCA congregation, one of the oldest actually, and my friend was saying to another friend, who was at that time a Russian Orthodox, he (me) goes there but he doesn't believe all that Calvinist stuff, do you?. I said I don't know, I'd not thought about it as it's not something that is constantly discussed like Apologia does. So, I began to investigate and compare what is being said in the name of God to the Word of God. The Word says this and that, but how does that compare to what is being taught here versus what I learned growing up Baptist and Methodist, and popular Christian literature. As Dr. White says, I had to take the tradition lenses off. I started with Duane Edward Spencer's little book TULIP, which compared the Calvinist soteriology to the Arminian system. But what about this "free will?" Martin Luther took care of that in the diatribe against Erasmus. I found in my church library The Plan of Salvation by B.B. Warfield, which I highly recommend if you want to see a comparison from all spectrum of theism, from the primitive to the debated supralapsarian-infralapsarian divide. Dr. Warfield made a great matrix as well. A thing I found interesting is his analysis that anything less than a monergistic soteriology is, at the base of it, a works salvation. He and Luther make this point: to the extent that salvation depends on a human choice, the human is the fulcrum upon which the entire salvation and work of God is balanced. Erasmus said free will is a small thing, a still small voice if you will..no,.sir! If Erasmus is correct, It is THE thing upon which all of history is turned. If true, it is not God's will that prevails, but man's. Free will, in autonomous terms, is anti-biblical and not logical. Just consider, it would be impossible to reason that God knows all things future and determines the ends from the beginning if, at any moment, creaturley free will among any one of his creation could upend His plans.
Impeccable logic, and Scriptural reasoning. It also leads to a god who is not omniscient, where it is required for the Sovereign of the universe to be omniscient (the source of all knowledge).
@michaelsowerby8198 I don't know how old the video is, but there's a video out on YT by James White/ Alpha and Omega where he shows Frank Turek and himself versus a guy named Silverman at separate debates, but Silverman asks the same question. Turek (an Arminian) and White answer the question completely differently. Turek has a very difficult time, whereas when dealing with a consistent Reformed view, Silverman has a difficult time. I respect Dr. Turek and his evangelism that I see on YT. He's very erudite and deals with issues raised. However, as White says, the only consistent Arminian is an open theist. But I might also add, the ultimate consistent Arminian is a universalist. Because the claim is that God wills all men to be saved.
Kind of odd to speak of removing traditional lenses, but then refer to Spencer, Luther, Warfield, followed by a philosophical argument. Not that there's anything wrong with that per se, but any sort of high ground to be gained by appealing to "scripture uninhibited by traditions of men" so to speak is severely weakened by admitting that you're reading the Bible through a different tradition and/or different philosophical presuppositions. That's not taking off traditional lenses, that's trading them in for different ones. You might as well just argue based on the merits of the position, unless you have a principled reason to suppose that "tradition" somehow infects the non-Calvinist position but leaves the Calvinist one untainted. Otherwise it's just question-begging
Im actually rather glad that these guys encourage people to value church history, even though they constantly give tainted complements to the saints, if their viewers ever dive into the fathers they may very well end up Catholic or Orthodox like I did
I came to Christ kicking and screaming, from alcoholism mainly, but other stuff as well. God made me want to repent. He made me want to submit. Without Christ I was sunk. God used the wickedness and horrors of this world to make me repent. My friends say “You did it. You defeated it all”. They can’t see the spiritual side of things, and all I can do is tell them about the Grace of God. I can show them my life has changed, but they just think what a deluded fellow I am. Very depressing. The thing I sometimes stumble over is why God allows sinners to be born at all. Is it because God allows the will of Man to bear fruit, to multiply because that’s just what he wants to do? I hope those too young to decide but old enough to die, in wars, abortion etc will get into heaven. I’d appreciate your thoughts on this.
Keep sharing your beautiful testimony and giving Christ glory. Your friends may say this and that right now. But God may use it in their lives or in the lives of those they know, maybe years down the line!
Lean not unto your own understanding of every little thing, fast and read the Bible, slowly, methodically, and strain to understand every single word. !!
Amen! I was brought out of severe addiction to cocaine myself and only by God and his sovereignty. God made my heart repentant that day when I was saved. Before I was trying to do it all on my own and failed every time under my own power. A slave to my sin. Many times in my life I had tried to follow Christ but always fell away. It wasn't until God tore out my heart of stone and gave me that heart of flesh, that I came to repentance and understood in fear and trembling the power of God's grace to choose to save me. Before I would be lukewarm to God and scripture but now I make everything in my life for Christ because I have the Holy Spirit in me. I truly understand the absolute power and awe of God now because there was nothing of my doing in any of it. So glad to hear another testimony of the same work in your life that our awesome God wills to do. I was nothing and will never be anything, apart from Him. God has chosen to save some because it's His will to choose and not ours. Had we been given the choice, we would ALL choose sin and death and do it gladly in defiance to Him, every time. God didn't have to save a single person (He didn't even save the angels who rebelled) but in His decision to show grace, love and mercy, He has made His choice to save some and not others. This is a hard pill to swallow, even for myself who has been saved. It however gives me the absolute understanding of grace and to cling to Christ because of this gift. Who are we to question God?
There's no reason on Calvinist principles to think that God would save unborn infants or young children anymore than he would any other class of people. Being "too young to decide" is irrelevant. You're never too young to be liable for Adams sin. You're never too young to be totally depraved. You're never too young to have an evil heart. We were all infants once; the infants who God chose in eternity past get regenerated and glorified, the ones who don't are not. It doesn't matter if some of them happen to live long enough to become adults in the meantime. If you have a problem with this logic, you should probably examine the presuppositions that get you there.
I love that he said “we don’t like Strawman” then proceeded to present a strawman on what other people say, instead of playing the video or audio to hear what they really say. This is the most common thing that apologia studios do. Thanks for the strawmen argument. Hope you change.
Come on guys, read it in context, I don't consider myself a bible expert buy any means, but when I read Romans 8:7 its clear what its talking about, from verse 5 it states those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the spirit set their minds on the things of the spirit, the mind of the flesh is death, but the mind of the spirit is life and peace, then further on it says those controlled by the flesh cannot please God. Its simply saying if you live by the flesh you will set your minds on things of the flesh, in other words don't love the world or worldly things, live by the spirit, don't be controlled by the flesh, there's nothing in there that says you don't have the ability to repent.
@@jozzen77 The flesh, but then I made a decision to accept Jesus, it says those controlled by the flesh cannot please God, but it doesn't say that when you're controlled by the flesh you'll always be controlled by the flesh, so when someone decides that they no longer want to be controlled by the flesh they repent and accept Jesus, then they're no longer controlled by the flesh, that passage is simply talking about the differences between the unsaved and the saved.
@ejj1939 it's part of soteriology, if it wasn't then why would you say soteriology wasn't what it was about. Why not something unrelated like archeology. If you said hey that comment had nothing to do with archeology then it would make sense. But your categorization that associates my comment with soteriology actually implies that it is in the same category as a soteriological premis.
@ejj1939 it's not out of context. He spoke, they rose. Just like when Peter and the disciples preached the gospel on Pentecost. If you deny this you have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof. The Bible says we're dead in our sins and trespasses. If you don't believe your dead in your sins and trespasses unable to come to knowledge of the truth and instead believe you have the ability to seek God without the spirit calling you, you believe in a false gospel.
Hey Jeff and Zach, I've enjoyed watching your recent videos on Calvinism. One thing that stood out to me in this conversation was when you brought up the analogy of the lion who attacked the woman. Jeff you made the point, and rightly so, that if someone asked "why did the lion do that?" -- the answer is obvious... because it's a lion! But, would we condemn the lion for its actions? Do we charge lions with evil when they simply do what their God-ordained instincts naturally drive them to do? Of course not. You won't find a lion standing on trial for the crime of being a lion and acting like one. Why? Because that's just what it is! It can't be anything other. It can't help but do what it does and cannot choose to do otherwise. The lion ate the woman because that's what lions want to do! But if this is being applied to the condition of fallen man, then how does this not excuse the behavior of the totally depraved from wrongdoing in the same way it excuses the lion? Of course the totally depraved sins because it is their instinctual desire to do so... just as the lion eats human flesh because it is their instinctual desire to do so. How is the totally depraved any more blameworthy than the lion? Are they not simply acting out their God-ordained desires and instincts just as the lion is? You emphasize that fallen man is blameworthy because when they sin they are doing what "they want to do." Again, is not their desire and instinct just as determined as the lions? Why do they desire what they desire? Because God ordained it to be so, just as he ordained what the instinct of the lion would be. My point Jeff and Zach is that I think by paralleling the condition of mankind with that of instinctual beasts you are unavoidably but certainly eliminating the blameworthiness of the sinner. In fact, I think this makes the sinner a victim of their God-ordained nature. If the lion was brought to court and condemned to an excruciating demise (as the totally depraved of Calvinism will be), then certainly we should see that lion as being a victim in the situation just as much as the woman that it killed. What else could the lion have done other than what it did? The lion that is put to death for its actions is in many ways just as much deserving of our pity as the woman that was killed by it. How can it be charged with "wrongdoing" in any legitimate or meaningful way? It cannot. This is why we don't describe the lion's actions as "sinful" or "blameworthy," unless we entirely redefine what sin and blameworthiness mean. So my question is... How is the totally depraved sinner any more blameworthy than the lion? And again, the fact that they act on what they desire is not an answer or solution, being that their desires are equally ordained by God as the lion's.
The bible doesn't seem to think that we are totally deprived, infact it keeps calling us to do the very things they (calvinist) say we are incapable of doing. Over and over calling us to have faith calling us to repent. Yet calvism says we don't have that ability. It's contradictory.
If you can explain how, in your doctrine of Total Depravity, did God speak to Eve, Adam, Cain and they all heard Him? If we are, as you teach, unable to hear God, seek Him then when did Total depravity begin? Noah? Actually, Noah heard God and began to build the Ark, etc..
Can you guys do some stuff on marriage and being a husband, that kinda thing? Homeschooling and being a godly father. Protestants seem to be lacking on this front while the famous catholics are leading the charge there. Pints with aquinas and lila rose and that. We need good reformed voices on this. Maybe I'm unaware of ones that exist but it doesn't seem to be present as far as I can tell.
Amen, until I believed the Doctrines of Grace, I didn't understand that all of us have the same seed of wickedness as the worst criminal on Earth and that we would all be baby raping cannibals , if not for God's restraint.
@hopeforeveryone9808 God freely gives it to whomever He chooses, however from our standpoint we repent and believe. The point is, there is no one wanting to believe and then God says, " I'm sorry, you're not elect". If one has the desire to come to Christ its all God's doing.
Doesnt restraint imply autonomy? Is there a natural state of man that somehow would follow a set course of action but that God supernaturally intervenes? How does this make sense at all of God's total sovereignty?
I. Total Inability By total inability Calvin meant that a lost sinner cannot come to Jesus Christ and trust Him as Saviour, unless he is foreordained to come to Christ. By total inability he meant that no man has the ability to come to Christ. And unless God overpowers him and gives him that ability, he will never come to Christ The Bible teaches total depravity, and I believe in total depravity. But that simply means that there is nothing good in man to earn or deserve salvation. The Bible says in Jeremiah 17:9, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked." A preacher brought a wonderful sermon on the depravity of the human heart. And when he finished his message, someone came to him and said," I want you to know I can't swallow that depraved heart that you preached about." The preacher smiled and said, "You don't have to swallow it. It's already in you!" While the Bible teaches the depravity of the human race, it nowhere teaches total inability. The Bible never hints that people are lost because they have no ability to come to Christ. The language of Jesus was, "Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life" (John 5:40). Notice, it is not a matter of whether or not you can come to Christ; it is a matter of whether or not you will come to Christ. Jesus looked over Jerusalem and wept and said, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem . . .how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" (Matt. 23:37). Here again notice, He did not say, "How often would I have gathered you together, but you could not." No. He said, "Ye would not!" It was not a matter of whether they could; it was a matter of whether they would. Revelation 22:17, the last invitation in the Bible, says, "And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely ." If it is true that no person has the ability to come to Christ, then why would Jesus say in John 5:40, "Ye will not come to me." why didn't He simply say, "You cannot come to me."? The only thing that stands between the sinner and salvation is the sinner's will. God made every man a free moral agent. And God never burglarises the human will. D. L. Moody addressed a large group of sceptics. He said ,"I want to talk about the word believe, the word receive, and the word take." When Mr. Moody had finished his sermon, he asked, "Now who will come and take Christ as Saviour?" One man stood and said, "I can't." Mr. Moody wept and said, "Don't say, 'I can't.' Say, 'I won't!'" And the man said, "Then, I won't!" But another man said, "I will!" Then another said, "I will!" And another said , "I will!" Until scores came to trust Christ as Saviour. Some Calvinists use John 6:44 in an effort to prove total inability. Here the Bible says, "No man can come to me except the Father which hath sent me draw him...."But the Bible makes it plain in John 12:32 that Christ will draw all men unto Himself. Here the Bible says, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." All men are drawn to Christ, but not all men will trust Christ as Saviour. Every man will make his own decision to trust Christ or to reject Him. The Bible makes it clear that all men have light. John 1:9 says, "That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." Romans 1:19,20 indicates that every sinner has been called through the creation about him. And Romans 2:11-16 indicates that sinners are called through their conscience, even when they have not heard the Word of God. So in the final analysis, men go to Hell, not because of their inability to come to Christ, but because they will not come to Christ-"Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." The teaching that men, women and children are totally unable to come to Christ and trust Him as Saviour is not a scriptural doctrine. The language itself is not scriptural.
I think Limited Atonment will be the most interesting podcast in this series. I think the L and the T kinda hit around the same area. Calvinists think that a men are totally depraved because they don’t seek for God. That doesn’t mean men can’t respond to a God that seeks for men. Also Calvinists think that God choosing us means we automatically respond to his choice. God can choose us and we not choose him back. People who respond to the pull of God aren’t evidence that the people who don’t respond were never chosen.
Strictly from a rhetorical standpoint, this is a bad take/straw man. It’s not that reformists believe man is totally depraved BECAUSE they don’t seek God. But instead, man doesn’t seek God BECAUSE he is totally depraved. Reformists don’t use people who respond to the “pull of God” as evidence that people who don’t respond were never chosen, but instead use scripture as evidence. People who respond to God’s calling is simply coherent with what scripture says.
You're absolutely correct. Although calvinists generally mean inability when they say total depravity , which of course this idea is built solely on philosophy of the texts instead of what the texts actually say themselves. Actually there's not even one biblical passage that explicitly backs up the claims of TULIP except for maybe the P in TULIP and this is because TULIP is built solely on philosophy and not what the biblical texts actually say .
@@jvke.p Ok Men don't seek for God because they are totally depraved. I don't think that counters the idea that it doesn't mean we cant respond to a God that seeks us. I don't think there's a Bible passage in context that shows people who don't respond were never chosen.
@@jvke.p John 6:44 Doesn't say all men aren't chosen, I can't see how you'd get that out of a plain reading of the text. Neither does John 3:3. How do you get "non believers were never chosen" out of God must choose.
How does God choose who he will save, if nobody wants God and everyone loves darkness and everyone are children or wrath how does God choose who to give a new heart too.
Exodus 33:19 NLT "The LORD replied, “I will make all my goodness pass before you, and I will call out my name, Yahweh, before you. For I will show mercy to anyone I choose, and I will show compassion to anyone I choose." Romans 10:20 NLT "And later Isaiah spoke boldly for God, saying, “I was found by people who were not looking for me. I showed myself to those who were not asking for me.”
I don’t think that this can be labeled a great conversation unless there is someone with an opposing view of scripture that is there in the conversation. I am have been just exploring this the last month or so and there are reasonable rebuttals to all of that was spoken here.
Paul said in his flesh dwelt no good thing. Yet in his mind he wanted to serve the Lord. The context is his life under the Mosaic Law (see logical flow of Romans 7). So man is not totally depraved. He just is drawn to sin and the Law makes it worse.
The doctrine of total depravity is truly wicked. How were men of the Old Testament able to live righteous and pleasing lives if they were not capable of making good decisions themselves?
Well, you may not believe in total depravity, but Yahweh does... Genesis 8:21 - The Lord smelled the soothing aroma; and the Lord said to Himself, “I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done. Men are by nature children of wrath - this is what scripture teaches.
Good decisions dont get you saved if you are alluding to work based salvation here. You can easily follow rules (what Israel was doing) but not be saved or have saving faith. Even a depraved human can do that. What he cannot do is repent.
@@lawrencestanley8989 The inclination of man's heart is indeed evil, but this does not make man totally depraved unable to do anything good. Many men in the OT were described as righteous because they made good decisions despite their evil inclinations.
Those who deny their own Total Depravity is affirmation of it working in their heart in their Adamic nature. Thats why ones ontological nature must be changed in the new birth, then, and only then does the elect son of God realize just how deprived he was and is dependent only on the effectual grace of God.
2Peter 3:9 says, "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise...not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." Most don't; God's will is NOT being done. John 7:17 says, "Anyone who CHOOSES to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God..." Joshua 24:15 says, "...CHOOSE for yourselves this day whom you will serve..." Genesis 2:16-17 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free (you can CHOOSE) to eat from any tree in the garden..." Deuteronomy 30:19-20 says, "...I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now CHOOSE life..." There are MANY more verses where we are offered a choice. God says I have put before you life and death, CHOOSE life. So while God does predestine some things, in other things we are given a choice. It's like a University predestines they are going to have a football team next season, but it is up to the free will who will decide to try out for the team.
It's amazing how clear Scripture is about God being sovereign even in His election and yet even still the pride of man (even some who are saved) wants to muddy the water and question their part to play. It is pride after all, that makes a person kick and scream when a Calvinist says "you had NO PART TO PLAY in your salvation other than the sin". Why else would someone fight so hard to cling to autonomous free-will; it's not out of love for God's Character or even His Word (since both are clear and visible), it is pride. You were DEAD in your sins....DEAD. God foreknew you (that is a particular love He had for you before the foundations of the world). God elected you and gave you new life; you can't will yourself into your mother's womb can you? God keeps you eternally.
_"It's like a University predestines they are going to have a football team next season, but it is up to the free will who will decide to try out for the team."_ Ah yes, the "I totally don't believe in salvation by works" side making salvation based on our performance in a tryout...
@@ejj1939 _""Free-will means I am entirely guilty for my sins and no one else determined that I sin. Free will means God is holy and iin Him is no unrighteousness so He would never decree that man would sin."_ That definition accords with the free will affirmed in Reformed confessions. For example, Westminster Confession chapter 9, 3, and 5 in which God establishes and upholds human free will through what he ordains and his providence. Usually the disagreements about free will are of a different sort, whether man can save themselves through a pure act of will, or if our will is corrupted by sin and we need a savior to save us from even our sinful will. The former is more Pelagian, and the latter is often called "Calvinism" these days, but was affirmed in older statements of the church, like the Canon of Orange, 1000 years before Calvin was born.
Did you watch and listen and pay attention actively to the whole video? The pastor and pastors they go over what that is what that they don't they're not worship painters describing as a calvinist to John Calvin it's they look at scripture where the scripture say? The Bible itself had already subscribed to what they now call Calvinism that's the whole point so it's what scripture says not with John Calvin says
Good for you. I don't understand how anyone can still be a Mormon, Muslim, JW, or Scientologist today with all the information available to smarten one up?
@@Nicky-hr1qzcareful. The Bible didn’t subscribe to anything. The Bible IS, and John Calvin came along to say “HEY! here’s a quick summary of the attributes to God and Man, and their relationship.
It's wonderful to hear you've found CHRIST JESUS my friend. I hope you won't get caught up in this calvinism mess though , because it corruptly portrays GOD and HIS righteousness and accuses CHRIST of hypocrisy when held in contrast to what HE said and did. GOD bless
@jvke.p Exactly! And Calvin's portrayal of GOD is false and corrupt . Have you ever heard of what Calvin called evanescent grace? It's a horrible thing to accuse our SAVIOR CHRIST JESUS to be guilty of .
The non reformed are blinded to the fact that when they claim that a spiritually dead sinner can come to Christ, in that state, they call Jesus a liar.
@@joshuadonahue5871Exodus 4:11 NLT Then the LORD asked Moses, “Who makes a person’s mouth? Who decides whether people speak or do not speak, hear or do not hear, see or do not see? IS IT NOT I, THE LORD?"
Hey I’m not sure if these questions are answered in the video, and I’m seeking genuine understanding and not an argument. How does the belief that no man has free will not make God the author of evil? If I don’t have free will would that not mean God is choosing to make me sin, and then sending me to Hell for it? I bet this is probably a common rejection to five point Calvinism, so if anyone could explain this to me I’d appreciate it.
_"How does the belief that no man has free will not make God the author of evil?"_ I'd recommend reading some actual Calvinist confessions. I like the Westminster Confession of Faith. Chapter 9 lays out the Calvinist _affirmation_ of human free will. Chapter 3 shows how it interacts with God's decree, in which he _establishes_ human free will and the liberty and contingency of second causes by what he ordains. Chapter 5 shows how it interacts with God's providence, in which they fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, _freely,_ or contingently. In answering this way, they show that man, not God, is the author of their own sin. So I agree that whoever it is that denying free will outright has problems answering your question without making God the author of sin, but Calvinists aren't the ones denying human free will. Our confessions clearly affirm man's free will. Non-Calvinists often disagree with our understanding of free will, but to reduce our position to "no free will at all" is a strawman. But it is one that many lay-Calvinists also get wrong, as they end up saying they deny "free will" without really being clear about what specifically is being denied. But that goes both ways. Most non-Calvinists affirm "free will" but aren't at all clear about what that means to them. Often, I think their understanding of free will is not that dissimilar to Calvinists once you actually walk through the issue of having an all powerful, all knowing creator God who designed all aspects of this universe with intention and purpose. But sloppy philosophical reasoning is common among lay people, so the whole "debate" over free will is usually handled poorly in online discussions.
@@oracleoftroy Oh okay thank you, that does explain a lot, because I have absolutely heard Calvinists unapologetically proclaim that we have no free will. I was unaware this wasn't really Calvinist doctrine.
@@shanezarcone5401@shanezarcone5401 the short answer is that they equivocate on the term free will. What most people mean by "free will" is different than what Calvinists mean by "free will". In the interest of precision and clearing up confusion, you should look up the difference between Libertarian Free Will (non-Calvinist) and compatiblist free will (Calvinist). Anyone can assert that two things are compatible when they are in fact not. If the Westminster confession said that God created squares that were round, and bachelors who were married, we would have to conclude that they meant something different by the terms than the ordinary usage, or that they were flat out contradictory.
The reason Calvinism exists is because people want to keep sinning yet have ASSURANCE of salvation as well. It is man centered. Which is why they deceptively chant about God's sovereignty all the time. There's guilt. The gospel is something we STAND IN. Every promise in scripture is conditional. And, the condition is where man has agency and accountability. Calvinism completely removes the FEAR of GOD which is the very thing needed to unlock the secret of the LORD and His Covenant. God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble.
Just reading Ezekiel chapter 33 alone, blows up Calvinism. Paul reiterates this same message in Acts 18:6. Wake up people, read your WHOLE Bible, not just certain verses taken out of context. The Old Testament Prophets blow up Calvinism, like a bomb.
Could you spell out why? I might be a bit daft, but I don't see anything that refutes Calvinism. Maybe "Calvinism" as taught by Leighton Flowers, but not as confessed in the Westminster Confession or Three Forms of Unity. It would be helpful if you could show from my confessions where they contradict these passages. I assume you believe Leighton's lies and think Calvinists deny man's choice entirely, so you think it refutes "Calvinism". If that's the case, WCF chapter 9 gives a good overview of the Calvinist affirmation of human free will.
@@oracleoftroy So I take it you believe OT Israel, all of them where in a state of grace so they could turn from evil to good . Because Ezekiel 33 is God asking them to choose life over death to repent and do justice and their sins will not be imputed to them. WCF 9,3 says in natural state man can do no good or prepare himself for any spiritual good .
@@davidmansfield1796 Ok, and? They choose poorly. That is consistent with "Calvinism" and scripture. We have the choice, and we all chose the bad option, sin. Condemnation is our choice. Salvation is God's choice to show mercy, not something we can demand from God.
@@oracleoftroy So is God asking for what He knows can't be done which would be pointless and callous or did Israel have the grace to repent ? Did they have the ability to repent or not.
John 6. The ones that the fathers draws and gives to the Son are the one’s that heard and learned. It is right there in the text. This is 120 minutes video and this was not even address or even quoted. Neither are all the scriptures that imply that grace is available to all, which there are many. Neither are reasonable rebuttals discussed. I hope that those that are courting Calvinists are also flirting with other view points. I am actually a big fan of this channel but just not this part of it I suppose. I like a lot what apologia does.
Moments of virtue, motivation for the broken, consolation to the wicked, deprivation to the sinful, reparation to the good. This vessel is at the mercy of the sea, throughout the voiage it tries with might to get inside. It's beams repellant, it's systems secure, with ballist it rides on an knives edge, balanced in a boyant dance, it sails unto a void precipice. Only preserved by hand unseen, less it's pulled asunder.
I have to admit, the NAD commercial really turned me off. I've never heard of this. And $500 a month?! Who can afford that?! Not anyone I know! If there was a "fountain of youth", why is it not common knowledge? Why is this not being offered in hospitals as a normal part of any medical treatment? Why isn't it being passed around in old folks' homes and rehab centers?
Not exactly sure why Jeff's recommendation of a very well-known and well-documented treatment is so upsetting to you. If you do some quick research you'll see that it is a VERY well-known and popular thing. Jeff is thankful for it and it's benefits. He isn't making or telling anyone they have to do it. If you don't care to research it or do it, no hard feelings. He likes it and it has been a blessing to him and his wife. Blessings to you.
I hope he continues to do well. I have prayed for him when he was having health issues a while back. Hope God keeps him around and healthy for many more years.@@ApologiaStudios
Ephesians 2:8-9 New International Version 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 King James Version 3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. King James Version (KJV) Bible Book List Font Size Passage Resources Hebrew/Greek Your Content Galatians 1:8-9 King James Version 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Man I really wish these guys would be honest with Scripture. When they talk about John 3 that the condemnation is light came into the world and men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil, why don't they continue to verse 21. Is it because they know it shatters the conclusion they're making or are they truly just not aware that the passage in context doesn't support the theology they've been taught and they've decided to cherry pick verses that support their preconceived notions. When Jeff talks about Romans 3, again, amen that none seeks after God no not one, but it's what he concludes by that statement without the plethora of examples throughout the new testament that disregard his conclusions that matter when were making doctrinal dogmatic statements. We know from James etc. that if anyone does the whole law but fails in one point he is guilty of all, and we see unregenerate people all through the old and new testament having faith counted to them as righteousness (Abraham in Romans 4 for starters, but Hebrews 11 for more comprehensive examples). So why would we read into romans 3 that every decision everyone has ever made is completely from evil motives, when we read through the Gospels and Acts and see the opposite. The pharisees were given over to evil which is why Jesus speaks to them as such, but was that true for the disciples, or the centurion with greater faith than all in Israel. Even better, all the examples of those who were called a "just man" before the Spirit and regeneration were given (Joseph Matt.1:19; John the baptist Mark 6:20; Simeon Luke 2:25; Cornelius Acts 10:20). These people had not fulfilled the law nor sought after God completely for sure and were not perfect, nor perfected but the blood of Jesus which hadn't been shed yet, but man especially in the case of Cornelius it's so clear these guys are confused by "Christian" philosophies rather than proclaiming what the scriptures really teach, and anyone willing to test these teachings even a little bit shouldn't be led away by these winds of doctrine that have led to so much division in Christ's Body over the centuries. It's sad there's a market for these seeds to flourish. May God richly bless those who do seek Him in Spirit and in truth!
In Jeremiah 7 God says, "People built places to sacrifice their children (in fire) to foreign gods, and He (God) says, "I did NOT COMMAND this, nor did it enter my mind." So, who do we believe, Jeff Durbin, RC Sproul, James White, John Piper or God Almighty and His Holy Word, the Bible?
Seek the Greek/hebrew for this. God is saying he would not entertain the thought and when he says “mind” it’s also translated as heart. So god can know something but choose not to think about it and it not contradict.
Err, I am not aware of any of those men claiming that God commanded people to sacrifice children or even any form of worship of other gods. In fact, he explicitly commands against it in his Law. I think this bait and switch argument is supposed to use a more archaic translation with the word "decree" that you equivocate on. Using a modern translation shows how it obviously says nothing that Calvinist don't also say.
How do Calvanists explain Paul distancing himself from sin in Romans 7? Also how do they explain the goodness of Creation and David saying that he was created in his mother's womb . . . perfectly. Also, is there a distinction between good and perfect? Might God have created things good and not perfect?
“No one is good not even one” “Behold, I was brought forth in inequity. And in sin my mother conceived me” “Incapable of producing spiritual actions… apart from the grace of God” “But we are all unclean” “Our good deeds are filthy rags” I think that’s how.
They're just going to qoute you verses out of context over n over . It's hard to actually get them off their script to have an actual biblical conversation. Very cult like actually.
@@cecilspurlockjr.9421 hang on now 😂 the guy asked how Calvinist’s explain an excerpt of scripture. My answer is simply… more scripture. If The Bible isn’t sufficient enough of an explanation, I’m not sure what you’re looking for. Also what script?😂 please use scripture to defend your stance on the matter.
@jvke.p You're not understanding what I meant I guess . What Calvinists believe many different passage mean is different than what roughly 80% of protestants believe they mean . In other words just quoting scripture without an explanation of your exegesis of the passage is useless in these type of conversations. For instance Hebrew 2 : 9 sltells ilus that CHRIST tasted death for every man. Or Titus 2 : 11 explicitly says that the grace that brings salvation has appeared to all men. Most Christians realize these passages literally mean all men but calvinists on the other hand doesn't. Also, calvinists believe that atonement equals salvation but that's utterly unbiblical because nowhere in scripture is sacrifice accepted without faith being applied . CHRIST actually saved all men but most of mankind rejects that salvation like in 1 Timothy 4 : 10 it says CHRIST IS THE SAVIOR of all men, specially those who believe. Calvinism just srats from the wrong point and then becomes exponentially erroneous with its interpretation of scripture.
@@cecilspurlockjr.9421 If Christ died for everyone, why do people still go to hell? Atonement is quite literally the pardoning of sin. I would love to know what scripture you’re using to justify the position that atonement does not equal salvation.
Fallen man's goodness is no good in the eyesight of God. Isa. 64:6, as you have previously stated. There is no man apart from God that is good. I put the question to many in the comment section, asking after reading three verses , Jer.13:23, Jer. 17:9, and Isa. 64:6, is there any part of mankind that is not affected, or untainted by the fall, or inception of original sin? The answer to this question is no, but many people are preaching , " Jesus loves you just give him a chance type of stuff. Jesus called us evil he didn't bite his tongue. Matt. 7:11 , " If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him ? Matt. 7:17-18. The teaching of the good tree and bad tree is a good example of mankind , v.17. " Even so every good tree bringeth forth, good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. v.18. "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."
I definitely recommend The Five Points of Calvinism 2nd Edition book for both Calvinist, Arminians, and everyone in between. The book is a clear, concise (approx. 70 pages) of what the Doctrines of Grace, or the 5 Points of Calvinism are, and why Reformers held to those points. Avoid strawman arguments on both sides of the debate. Edit: haha, they recommended the same book at the end of the talk. Edit 2: Also, go read the Canons of Dort. oracleoftroy below pointed this out to me. Go directly to the source.
Calvinism is a different gospel than what was preached, for example by the apostle Paul. Why is there even "Calvinism@if they're just followers of Christ? Are you a Calvinist or a Christian? They claim to be both but that's rather odd. It's odd be if you're a follower of Christ and the Bible is your authority than why would an ideology of a man (John Calvin) be your authority? if one is convinced that Calvinism is 100% biblical truth why would t you just defend the Bible than? Why would you need to subscribe to something different than Christianity? Why would what you identify with not just be a Christian? These are common sense questions not to be rivalrous but to just stop and think for a moment. Wouldn't one just be preaching the Bible than if Calvinism were true? There would be no need for another label. Unless the other label is somehow different than the Bible? It's no different than Catholics saying they're Christian. Well than if you're Christian wouldn't you just be Christian? Do you agree catholicism is different than Christianity? And if the answer is yes couldn't you apply that same logic here with Calvinism?
@@hopeforeveryone9808 you've already shown you have no understanding of the 5 Points of Calvinism if you believe that Calvinists follow John Calvin. The book I recommended is FULL of the scriptures, both from the Old and New Testament. We would agree in Sola Scriptura, that the Bible is final and infallible authority on all matters of doctrine. Again, I recommend the book to avoid strawman arguments, as shown by your very own comment. The Doctrines of Grace are found not only in the scriptures, but being proclaimed from Church Fathers of all of the centuries. I am convinced by the scriptures first and foremost. Both the Old and New Testament show what we now call "the Five Points of Calvinism". Christians will always declare the Gospel, that "God saves sinners." (cf. 1 Tim. 1:15; Rom. 5:8)
@@minizimi3790So why aren't you just "Christians"? Why do you make the distinction of Calvanist and 5 points, and all that? Also, Do you believe that God made certain people to go to heaven and Others to Go to hell? If I have no choice in the matter, if the only way I can believe and repent is by God, and God may not have picked me, then that means I was made to Go to hell? How in the word can you square that with anything in the Bible? The entire Bible from word one to the last is following different people who either choose to follow God, or not follow God. Those that do are rewarded with life everlasting and those that don't are given eternity in hell, and we have no say in the matter? Some of us are puppets that will respond yes, because it's irresistible and other won't be give the chance to respond because God doesn't want them? Not to mention the complete lunacy of the story of Noah if Calvanism is true? Noah only found Grace in the eyes of the Lord because God gave him that grace in a way that he couldn't say no, and every other person on earth who rejected God, because God didn't offer them the chance to believe on him, so God said he repented of making them when all he had to do was extend them Grace, but he chose not to extend them the chance and then is mad that they didn't believe? That god would be an idiot, a god who is mad that people are doing what they have no choice but to do, a god mad that the people have not followed him but they only not followed him because they aren't capable of following him? Complete and utter nonsense.
I'd also recommend going straight to the source for the five points, the Canons of Dort. Freely available on the internet, and is actually part of the statement of beliefs for many Reformed denomination, so it has some degree of authority for defining Calvinism that any book other than scripture won't have. Noting against that book in particular or books in general, but I dislike pointing people to things they have to buy and that have no confessional weight in Reformed denominations. They end up being, to various extends, the author's private beliefs about Calvinism, so there is always some degree of descernment required. The confessions represent a more consensus view that has unified Reformed churches for centuries. That said, books can be helpful and the confessions a bit obtuse.
Take it for what it is! This man tries with diligence to provide a solid biblical foundation, using the real true word of God! We can easily nitpick human characteristics. Jeff Durbin is human i.e. as yourselves! Trying to find someone that speaks truth is nearly impossible these days and you all have nothing but better things to do but bicker amongst each other nitpicking someone that is doing something good! Why can’t you go nitpick Taylor Swift or even T.D. Jakes or Andrew Wommack perhaps! Joel Osteen perhaps! These men are charlatans/blaspheme the word of God! Go fix whats broke! You can’t fix truth! It will not work out well for you!
Sooooo much question begging. The hosts are presuming Reformed anthropology, reading verses, and then pronouncing the Reformed teaching “just what the Bible says”. This is a rhetorical fallacy and a problem. Especially because they don’t even make an attempt to deal with any competing claims.
@@oracleoftroy the issue isn’t with *holding* an anthropology per se, it’s the *assuming* of that anthropology. If you deny total inability, this whole argument falls apart. They didn’t bother to even defend that claim, they simply assume it. I totally get that most of Apologia’s audience are already Reformed, but if they post a video called “Defending Calvinism”, they should probably give a positive case for their positions rather than simply assuming them.
@@TheBillyDWilliams Ok, but it's one thing for me to tell you that you shouldn't read the Bible with your "TheBillyDWilliams"-ism anthropology, its a whole other thing to present a positive case for what anthropology one should have when reading the text. Thus, I find your sort of comments completely unhelpful. If you don't have a better alternative, what are you really accomplishing besides communicating that you simply don't like Reformed Theology? More and more, comments like this just reveal that "Calvinism" is the proper understanding. At least, that's how I see it. If it wasn't, people wouldn't just leave drive by comments, they would present the truth. They don't because they don't have a workable alternative. If they spelled out what they really believed, it would reveal the real nature of their teachings. They have to hide their view because they must to gain any traction among God's people. Calvinists boldly proclaim a positive message because they are firmly convinced their position is solidly biblical. I have doubts about anyone who just drives by to shout how bad Calvinism is but won't put themselves at risk by boldly claiming what the truth is. I don't have a problem with "Calvinists" assuming "Calvinism" or "TheBillyDWilliamsists" assuming "TheBillyDWilliamsism", but at least one is taking a stand.
@@oracleoftroy ohh, so what you were actually asking is "what is your anthropology?" That's a different question than what I understood your first comment to mean. I'll gladly answer that one! :) In short form of course lol, I'll respond in more detail later if you want some elaboration. Got a job and a family and such lol I do believe I have a more biblical alternative to Calvinism, and it's the anthropology that the entirety of the church held up until (about) Augustine: Man is inclined towards sin, but not unable to resist it. Man is not born condemned, because humanity is not collectively guilty of Adam's sin (no federal headship). Man is not under "total inability" to seek Christ. Man has been given the ability to work synergistically with Christ in the works that He prepared for them, and this includes non-Christians. In terms of free will, I'd hold to classical (pre-Renaissance) compatibilism. I believe all of these are the teachings of Scripture, and that Calvinism only works if you read Scripture through its lens. However, it is foreign to those closest in time and worldview to Scripture, and therefore is to be rejected. All of the above aspects of anthropology are simply assumed by the hosts of this video (instead of "defended" as per the title) which was the point of my initial comment. It's now started a discussion, which was the goal. :) Feel free to poke at that or ask followup questions/Scripture citations. I'll get to it when I can, but I think the above suffices for "boldly claiming what the truth is" as you requested. :) Blessings!
@@TheBillyDWilliams Thanks! I would like clarity on a few things: _"Man is inclined towards sin, but not unable to resist it."_ What inclines man towards sin? In what sense is he not unable to resist it? Or to remove the double negation, in what sense is he able to resist it? Particularly, is possible for man to live a perfectly sinless life? As a Calvinist, I would agree with this statement as worded. However, if this meant to affirm a historical error like Pelagianism, I would reject that aspect of it. But insofar as this is a rejection of Utter Depravity and fits within Total Depravity, I agree with it. _"Man is not born condemned, because humanity is not collectively guilty of Adam's sin (no federal headship)."_ How do you understand Romans 5 if you reject Federal Headship? _"Man is not under "total inability" to seek Christ."_ How do you understand Romans 3? I can see ways to affirm this statement as a Calvinist, but not in a meritorious for salvation sense that some people have in mind. After all, many unregenerate people find a home in the church and feel a sense of satisfaction in a form of Christ of their own making, but don't put their faith in the Biblical Christ. I'm not sure if that sort of thing would be covered by this statement. _"Man has been given the ability to work synergistically with Christ in the works that He prepared for them, and this includes non-Christians."_ That doesn't sound very controversial. In fact, that's something I often see non-Calvinists push back against regarding Calvinism. Yes, indeed God has a very good purpose for the evil he allows. My guess would be you brought this up because you see a difference here between Calvinism and your anthropology. If so, what is that difference? And thanks for being willing to do this! I find it exceptionally rare for non-Calvinists to lay their view on the line like this. Feel free to take your time. I'm in a similar boat and respond only as I have time as well, so I understand if life keeps you from less important things like TH-cam comments.
John 3:34 says God gives the Spirit with no measure. There is NO limit to who He will give the Spirit to. 3:36 whoever believes the Son has eternal life, whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God wrath remains on them.
"You did not choose Me but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit..." John 15:16 Blessed is the man You choose and cause to approach you that he may dwell in Your courts... Psalm 65:4 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him..." John 6:44a God has made all for Himself even the wicked for the day of doom. Proverbs 16:4 No one believes apart from God choosing them for salvation.
Your eyes saw my substance being yet unformed and in your book they all were written the days fashioned for me when as yet there were none of them. Psalm 139:16
@@gerrydean7696 John 14,15 read in context. He is taking only to the disciples. He chose them to be disciples, they did not choose to be disciple but He hand picked them. Psalms 65 are you dwelling in his courts, house, temple? This is talking about Israel the chosen people. John 12:32 When Jesus died He drew ALL men to himself… Read a couple more verse down in proverbs 16 to verse 6 God told us how we can avoid the day of doom and what we must do to have our sins atoned for, faith and steadfast love.
Psalms 139:16 yes God is all knowing and has made us in His image but that has nothing to do with salvation. Quit using verse out of context to prove your theology that isn’t biblical. I used all scripture to prove your points wrong. If you respond use scripture not theology
If God IS all knowing, he knows who will believe...from the beginning...right? And who will not believe..right? And he chose to create...knowing those who would burn in hell for not believing...right? But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. - John 6:64
It is more imperative to defend the Gospel than it is to defend Calvinism or Arminianism, which are tertiary to the questions of “How are we saved” and “How do we then live”? I am not advocating an enlightened. “third way“ that usurps the conversation either.
"For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot." - Romans 8:6 ---- There is no reason to take this as a "total depravity" proof text. An analogy which I think explains what Paul is communicating here... The hand set on the water is hostile to dryness. It is not dry, indeed, it cannot be. What is being described is the natural, unavoidable outcome of a hand that is set on/in contact with water. It will unavoidably be "wet" and incapable of being dry inasmuch as it continues to be set on water. This says nothing about the ability or inability of the hand to set itself somewhere other than on the water. It's simply stating that it's impossible for a hand, inasmuch as it is in a certain condition (set on water) to be anything other than wet. In the same way, a mind that is set on the flesh will unavoidably be hostile to God and unable to please him - inasmuch as it remains in that state. As a hand that is set on water cannot be dry inasmuch as it remains set on water, so also a mind that is unbelieving/leaning on its own understanding/set on the flesh cannot be righteous or do righteousness inasmuch as it remains in that state. The inability here relates to the "outcome" produced by the place on which the mind is set. This however says nothing about an inability to set the mind on one place or the other and I believe that is the confusion that takes place in this passage for the Calvinist. It's a bit of a category error really. Because the bible says the natural result of A is an inability to do B... therefore the bible teaches we are unable to do A. This is a confusion of the passage. Romans 8:6 does not teach total depravity.
@kobewhitlock8641 exactly but some Total D folks say that the dead person cannot respond to he gospel utnless they ae saved first....they say you can't know if Hitler was saved, for example as there is no outward indication of salvation. It's jacked up but other total D folks dispute that definition...
@@johnnyplunkett8532 I’m not sure what that means and I havent heard it before. Being saved always does bring an outward indication of fruit, because the Holy Spirit begins and finishes a good work in the person. But you need to be regenerated in order to believe. And those who are regenerated will believe. And those who believe are justified and saved.
@@johnnyplunkett8532 and all those who are justified are glorified. And as the scriptures show, sanctification is begun upon justification and completed upon glorification which assumes there is a work occurring in the between time. The golden chain of redemption is the best way to show how things happen. The “calling” is the regeneration and it’s followed by justification which occurs upon belief. Also see 1 Corinthians 1 and how it talks about the calling of God being the reason some people understand the gospel and others don’t when it is preached
@@ejj1939 I’m pretty sure the tense is aorist which can either be past or present. But because Paul is speaking from an eternal perspective of Gods action outside of time, the most natural way for him to speak is past tense. The context is speaking about believers whom Christ died for
2 things. No one in the entire Bible was ever predestined to hell…pharaoh and Judas had nothing to do with salvation btw and acts 17:26-27 destroys total depravity. God put us on the earth to seek him and grope for him because he is not far from any of us…
Except Romans 3 and 8 exist, so there goes the idea of unregenerate men seeking after God. As for your first point, I have to wonder what you do with a passage such as Proverbs 16:4 and all of Romans 9.
@@douglasmcnay644 Proverbs 16:6 says what we must do to avoid that day of doom. Just read the context and Roman’s 3:9-20 specifically I assume is what verse you mean. This says that all men are sinners not all men chooses not to seek after God. Acts 17:26-27 Says we are made to seek Him so if you say that Roman’s 3 contradicts them either the Bible is wrong or you have to reinterpret acts 17. Roman’s 8:28-30 I also assume is the verse you’re talking about. This is a statement known from the past it start with “and we know” so Paul is talking is saying “because of what has happened in the past” we know all things work to get her for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose. So if you love God and are called to accomplish His purpose then all things will work together for good. Example: David and Goliath. David loved God and all things worked together for good.
If God IS all knowing, he knows who will believe...from the beginning...right? And who will not believe..right? And he chose to create...knowing those who would burn in hell for not believing...right? But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. - John 6:64
For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. - Jude 4
Mind boggling how the Church cannot believe how a Calvinist comes to the understanding of the soteriology they come to and how an Arminian comes to that understanding. I can see how they get what they get from Scripture. Brothers and sisters, come on now. I would like to point out that our brothers here did not represent an Arminian view I lean to. I think what was critiqued was a Finny type of Arminianism. There’s also Wesleyan, Classical/Reformed, a modern one like Calvary Chapel etc.
Excuse me, while I agree with majority of your teachings when you are quoting scripture, I do not agree in defending Calvinism. You are defending religion. Defend God’ Word it is the truth cover to cover, no Calvinism required. When you start following mans teaching of what God requires you just took a wrong turn. Everything and I mean everything you need is in God’ Word.
I love Apologia. Rather than go over scripture that supports Calvinism, how about going over the scriptures that are used to dispute Calvinism and expound on those. I am an hour through so if they hit on those verses later then nvm.
@MBegneaud hello, here are just a few: John 3:16, 1Timothy4:10, Hebrews 2:9, 2Peter 3:9, 1John 2:2. I've heard it argued that John was writing to Jews in his epistle and therefore the "whole world" means Gentiles. FYI I'm not a believer in universalism. But it is hard for me to reconcile these passages and several others that would indicate some type of calling to accept or reject Christ.
Calvinists are constantly accusing people of misrepresenting Calvinism, of not knowing what Calvinism “REALLY IS” of engaging in straw man arguments against their doctrines. I think that most “Calvinists” aren’t REALLY Calvinists. They don’t even know what “Calvinism” is. I’ve studied Calvinism, and for the most part, those who are against Calvinism have properly represented it. I think that many people who call themselves “Calvinists” haven’t studied much about Calvinism. They probably heard a passionate sermon from James White or Jeff Durbin or John MacArthur. Then they put their theological “stake in the ground” and say, “I’m a Calvinist." how ever, there are some Calvinists who have studied Calvinism and know what it teaches even though they don’t like to talk about the “bad side” of Calvinism. They “hide it” and only talk about it when someone presses them on the issues. Or when they engage in words like, “free will”, “sovereignty”, “author of sin”, etc. the following quotes are from John Calvin’s book, Institutes of Christian Religion. If you can’t agree with Calvin on these issues, then you should not call yourself a “Calvinist” and if you can’t call yourself a Calvinist, then make all Christians aware of what TRUE Calvinism really is so that they don’t become Calvinists. “But those who, while they profess to be the disciples of Christ, still seek for free-will in man, notwithstanding of his being lost and drowned in spiritual destruction, labor under manifold delusion, making a heterogeneous mixture of inspired doctrine and philosophical opinions, and so erring as to both.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 15, Paragraph 8) “Creatures are so governed by the secret counsel of God, that nothing happens but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 3) “We hold that God is the disposer and ruler of all things, -that from the remotest eternity, according to his own wisdom, He decreed what he was to do, and now by his power executes what he decreed. Hence we maintain, that by His providence, not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 8) “thieves and murderers, and other evildoers, are instruments of divine providence, being employed by the Lord himself to execute judgments which he has resolved to inflict.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 5) “The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11) "We call predestination God’s eternal decree, by which he compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is fore-ordained for some, eternal damnation for others.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 21, Paragraph 5) “…we say that God once established by his eternal and unchangeable plan those whom he long before determined once for all to receive into salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, he would devote to destruction…he has barred the door of life to those whom he has given over to damnation.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 21, Paragraph 7 “Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)) “I admit that in this miserable condition wherein men are now bound, all of Adam’s children have fallen by God’s will.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 4) “But since he foresees future events only by reason of the fact that he decreed that they take place, they vainly raise a quarrel over foreknowledge, when it is clear that all things take place rather by his determination and bidding.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6) “The first man fell because the Lord deemed it meet that he should.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 8) John Calvin was not a “great man of God," or a “great theologian." In fact, I don’t think that he was a Christian at all. John Calvin might have been a Christian at one point in time, but not when he wrote any of the above nonsense. The “god” of John Calvin is not the God of the Bible. The Calvinism of John Calvin is NOT “Christianity." Hopefully now, all of the “Calvinists” out there can see exactly that Calvinism was not misrepresented. the Calvinism of John Calvin was properly represented. does a “Calvinist” must agree with Calvin on EVERYTHING in order to be a “Calvinist”? No. BUT he must agree with him on issues concerning salvation, if you are going to call yourself a “Calvinist” -issues such as predestination, free will, sovereignty of God, etc. If you aren’t willing to agree with the above quotes from John Calvin, then stop claiming that people don’t understand Calvinism, are misrepresenting it or are straw manning Calvinism.
I do think it is telling that you are quoting relatively small, cherry-picked snippets from Calvin's Institutes, in which he is quite well known for taking great time to spell out his theology in great detail such that just snipping a sentence here or there says little to nothing about what Calvin might mean. Your own citation shows it, they are from "paragraphs", yet it isn't even the whole paragraph, just a sentence, or more often, a fragment of a sentence. It would be helpful if perhaps you gave commentary on what you think is being taught. Many of them are basic Christian teachings that have been uncontroversial until the recent rise of Open Theism and neo-Pelagianism. _Book 1, Chapter 15, Paragraph 8_ - Yes I reject the heresy of Pelagianism. As Calvin writes, Man has free will. In the garden, Adam made a free choice to sin and that has consequences. Now my free will isn't an innocent one, but one tainted by sin in everything it does. I know many of the loudest Calvin haters of the last 5ish years reject him precisely because they have given over to the heresy of Pelagianism, and many who wouldn't otherwise buy into it are being swayed because they hate Calvinism more. _Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 3_ - Yes I affirm that God is omnipotent. There is nowhere we can go and nothing we can do to hide from God. God is actually a God, and not basically a man with superpowers. I suspect you might have an ecliptic understanding of "decree". Consider this sentence from earlier in the chapter: "For he is deemed omnipotent, not because he can indeed act, yet sometimes ceases and sits in idleness, or continues by a general impulse that order of nature which he previously appointed; but because *governing* heaven and earth by his providence, he so *regulates* all things that nothing takes place without his deliberation." God is the King of kings and Lord of lords after all, so he governs and rules over all things. There is no other god before him. Here you can see that "decree" isn't a stand-in for fatalism or hard determinism like many anti-Calvinists assume, but about God as ruler executing his rule. Just as Governors and Kings and other officials rule by issuing decrees, God rules by decree as well. This doesn't deny the previous chapter that affirms man's free will, if that's what you think it is saying. _Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 8_ - Yes, God is the King of kings and Lord of lords, and beside him there is no other. Here again we see the language of a governor or king or other magistrate, one of "ruling", "disposing", "decreeing", "executing" (as in the executive branch, not the punishment), "counsels", "governed", etc. If you deny this, who is God over God? Did Jesus lie when he said he has all authority in heaven and on earth? What isn't under God's rule and authority? _Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 5_ - Isn't that clearly Biblical? Read Gen 50: 20, Job 1: 12, 15, 21, Amos 3: 4, 1 Kings 22: 18-23, etc. Just read the book of Judges or prophets, where God raises up nations to conquer and oppress Israel for their wickedness. What exactly do you find objectional? Do you find senseless, purposeless evil in the world better for some reason? That makes your god a monster, in my opinion. The God of the Bible has a purpose for the evil he allows, and it is for bringing about his very good plan. _Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11_ - Sounds like Job 1. What exactly do you object to? In studying Calvin, did you forget to study scripture as well? _Book 3, Chapter 21, Paragraph 5_ - Again "decree", kingly language about God's rule and in this case, judgement for sin. This isn't fatalism. _Book 3, Chapter 21, Paragraph 7_ - What exactly do you find objectional here? That God saves those who deserve judgement? Again, this isn't fatalism, God isn't making people sin. He either chooses to have mercy or to show justice. The Justice is deserved, the mercy undeserved. _Book 3, Chapter 23 ..._ - I'd be careful handling this chapter. This chapter is titled "Refutation of the False Accusations with Which This Doctrine Has Always Been Unjustly Burdened, and throughout this chapter, Calvin sets up the false claims and then goes on to refute that understanding. I don't feel the need to specifically comment on these, as you haven't double checked that this is indeed Calvin's view or the view Calvin is refuting, but are just tossing out the quotes as if they are Calvin's view. To be honest, nothing you cite here seems unusual in the history of Christianity. For example, read over the Canon of Orange, written over 1000 years before Calvin was born. I'd bet you wouldn't like the "Calvinism" being taught in it. If anything, given what you are citing as objectional, I wonder if you have embraced a heretical form of Christianity and are using Calvin as a foil to attack all of Classic Christian theology.
@@oracleoftroy I am a Bible defined Christian. I have the same salvation Peter had, Paul, Timothy, Lydia, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Priscilla, Apollos, rufus, etc. etc. first century Christianity. Calvin was a talking contradiction heretic. there is no biblical truth in anyone who contradicts himself. he spoke from both sides of his mouth. YES at times he said man had freedom of choice. at other times he said man's will was constantly fettered to God's sovereignty and he lacked free will. I chose to post the WORST side of these 2 contradictions that rejects the existence of contingencies thus making God the author of sin and evil. Calvin spoke these slanderous blasphemous words. if you agree with this madman on this issue, you are as evil and wicked as he was.
@@oracleoftroy Let's examine the immoral implications of agreeing with the "dark" side of Calvin's contradiction which I assume you agree with by the way you defended him. If you agree with Calvin: “Creatures are so governed by the secret counsel of God, that nothing happens but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 3) “The first man fell because the Lord deemed it meet that he should.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, s. 8 "I admit that in this miserable condition wherein men are now bound, all of Adam's children have fallen by God's will." Book 3, Ch 23, s. 4 "Again I ask: whence does it happen that Adam's fall irremediably involved so many peoples, together with their infant offspring, in eternal death unless because it so pleased God? ... The decree is dreadful indeed, I confess. Yet no one can deny that God foreknew what end man was to have before he created him, and consequently foreknew because he so ordained by his decree." Book 3, Ch 23, s. 7 THEN you must also agree that it was God's plan and purpose for Adam to sin. God knew all these heinous crimes would be committed by a depraved humanity after Adam's rebellion. hence all evil and wicked events in human history occurred by the sovereign will of God. this slander of God's integrity, implies that the purpose of God was to corrupt the purity of primitive Christianity by making emperor Constantine the first pope of a paganized counterfeit Christianity that sits today in the Vatican. and to further this heinous agenda, He guided pope Sergius III (904-911) to have a mistress, Marozia. it was God's prerogatives that she, her mother Theodora, and her sister, filled the pagan papal throne with their fornicators and bastard sons, and turned the papal palace into a den of robbers. the prerogative and will of God was for pope John X (914-928) to become pope by prostitute Theodora. it was the secret and sovereign counsel of God that pope John X was to be smothered to death by Marozia. and it was the purpose of the Divine will for this harlot to raise to the papacy, popes Leo VI (928-929), and Stephen VII (929-931), and her own illegitimate son: John XI (931-936) And to corrupt humanity even more, it was God's will that predestined Muhamad to rape Aisha when she was 6 years old. it was God's influence which guided Penn State U football coach, Sandusky, to rape little boys and for Adam Lanza to shoot 26 people. twenty of the victims were children between 6 and 7 years old, and the other 6 were adult staff members. it was God's purpose for Nikolas Cruz to open fire on students and staff at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School murdering 17 people and injuring 17 others. it was God's purpose for Stephen Paddock in the Las Vegas Strip in Nevada to kill 60 people and wound at least 413 and it was God's purpose for Salvador Ramos to fatally shoot 19 students and 2 teachers at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas. and to compel homosexuals to display their depraved nudity in public parades. it was God Who guided these perverts to offer little children, who were brought by their imbecile parents to these depraved parades, candies in the shape of penises. it was God's purpose for homosexuals to dress as women in Drag Queen shows and for these deviants to invite children. it was God's purpose and will that guided pedophile advocacy organizations in the US and throughout the world to molest children. it was God's will that predestined the US Senate to confirm a transgender degenerate, Richard Levine, to lead the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. the hormone blockers and Frankenstein operations agenda offered to children to change their sex were implemented by this animal. God knew all these depravities would come about that is why He predestined Richard Levine to win the confirmation. it was God's SOVEREIGN purpose that at least 1 million abortions are to be performed every year in the US. and, of course, it is God's purpose to influence these women to carry out His irresistible will to murder their babies and the doctors to perform the abortions. "The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord regretted that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him to His heart." Gen. 6:5, 6 QUESTION for you Calvies. if God predestined Adam to sin, WHY was He shocked to see the way mankind turned out? HOW could the triune God have a genuine disappointment and failed expectation about an event He caused by predestining man to do? WHY did He regret creating man if it was His purpose and will for Adam to sin????
@@enriquemoure7212 wow !!!! That was great my friend ,it's not until the consequences of calvinism are thought about or written down that you see how EVIL it is . Godspeed.
@@enriquemoure7212 My major problem is that you are snipping sentence fragments out of Institutes and presenting them as if they tell the whole story of Calvin's theology. They don't. They still don't as you continue to do it. I would encourage all to read the Institutes in full and see each of these quotes in the full light of Calvin's careful reasoning and decide for themselves whether what the carefully chosen snippets seem to teach matches the narrative they were selected to represent. Could you make the same argument from the Reformed Confessions that actually serve as doctrinal standards in Reformed denominations? To my knowledge, not a single work of Calvin has any authority in supposedly "Calvinist" denominations, whereas things like the Westminster Confession or the Three Forms of Unity do. They are much more succinct in laying out Calvinism as actually practiced. Could you make the same argument based solely on them? Or does your argument require chopping up Calvin's long paragraphs to fit a narrative?
"Rome... pulling it out of a hat.." Sorry, but Jesus was an Israelite, a Hebrew, a Jew. The "pulled out of a hat" items usually looked at with misunderstanding are Jewish in origin because, being like our Lord Jesus, we celebrate in the Jewish tradition, just a post-messianic Jewish tradition instead of a pre-messianic tradition. That is where a lot of the ceremony comes from in "do this in memory of me" in the Roman rite is from the Jewish traditions of Shabbat and Passover. That and we follow closely Christs final words, and command, to the beloved disciple as He was on the cross.
my thoughts exactly! i've read comments on jeffs channel by people taking this calvinists stuff to mean they don't need to witness to people at all because it's all been decided. this is meaningless garbage. God is not the author of confusion!
That's a good question, its irrelevant to salvation, the only thing it can do is turn people away from God, because it makes people think that God chooses to save some and just let others perish, its like a life guard at a beach who saves some people from drowning but just chooses to let others drown, who would ever think that was a good person?
If there is no free will, did God make Satan bad? Or did he choose to turn against God? And how about the angels that followed Satan? Why were some angels good and some bad? Are you blaming God for sin?
Just know these are philosophical questions. So you will likely get an opinion and not truth from scripture. That’s not a bad thing. Just pointing out that to you. However a paradox I have found is. God being sovereign over sin. Yet, not responsible for it. I haven’t found a good answer to God’s responsibility when it comes to sin. But that doesn’t steer me from the truth of scripture
I love a lot of what this channel brings other than the false teachings of John Calvin. Follow Jesus Christ, not John Calvin. I pray that Pastor Jeff opens his heart to the truth and not be stuck in a position just because he has defended it for so long.
You should hear Durbin talk about teachers like Calvin saying something great on one page then face planting on the next. You're falsely representing a his views.
Can a calvinist clear this up for me Jeremiah 32:35 “And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.” Seems like you have a complete power of free will to me also I love how “Calvin” is a 5 point calvinist all the way but these dudes are 2,3,4 the dude your holding to would completely disagree with you
Sorry but people who practice Calvinism, have a bad habit of saying, "if you backslide, you were never saved in the 1st place." Last I checked, no human can see inside another person's mind and how sincere that person was when they were born again. Only God knows that, so Calvinists can go sit down somewhere, and keep their self righteous opinions to themselves.
Are you thinking about 1 John 2:19? 19.They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. -That is in reference to false teachers but I think the same applies to our lives as a whole...or maybe you're thinking about this at the same time... 1 John 3:9&10 9.No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God. 10. By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother. Both of these examples are true, considering they're scripture we must take it as truth whether we like it or not. -Let's not for get this applies too... 1 John 1:8-10 8. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. -Although we're sinners for the entirety of our lives, we should see evidence of our sanctification along the way. In other words, I'm not what I need to be but thank God, I'm not what I was. With salvation comes a new nature. God removed the heart of stone & has given us a heart of flesh that desires holiness/repentance, not perfectly, but gradually more & more as we're being sanctified. Just because you believe what the scripture plainly teaches dosen't mean you're a self righteous jerk(paraphrase, but your words...);)
Calvinism - Arminianism Trinitarianism - Unitarianism Republican - Democrat Each of the above is the same bird having two wings. The truth is a completely different bird.
@@lawrence1318 That's not what the text says. Also, wasn't Abraham's Faith counted as righteousness? I didn't read anything saying that Jesus residing within Abraham, made him righteous. It was Abraham's decision to trust God and that was accounted to him as righteousness. [5]By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, “and was not found, because God had taken him”; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God. [6]But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. [7]By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith. Faithful Abraham [8]By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he would receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. Hebrews 11:5-8
@@NeededGR13FIt's the love language of anti-Calvinists. It basically means "I know it is Biblical and I can't refute it, but I still don't like it, so I will name call instead."
What is Provisionism? The terms Provisionism and Provisionist are new by the standards of Christian theology. These labels have only been formally defined and used in the past few years. In broad terms, a Provisionist-someone who holds to Provisionism-holds a generally Arminian view of free will and salvation, with notable differences such as positive belief in eternal security. The main gist of Provisionism is the idea that the gospel is the Word of God, which is sufficient in itself, through the power of the Holy Spirit, to enable a response in all who hear God’s appeal to be reconciled to Him (John 6:63; Hebrews 4:12). The clearest differences between Provisionist doctrine and classical Reformed theology are seen in the concepts of total depravity and limited atonement. The doctrine of total depravity suggests all people are inherently sinful, such that they could not even want to be saved without a direct, predestined act of God. Provisionism counters that all people are sinful and responsible for their sin, but they are also responsible for answering God’s universal call for men to be saved (Titus 2:11). Limited atonement is a doctrine teaching that Christ only died for those God had designated as the elect. A Provisionist would reject this, saying that the Bible teaches that Christ died for all people (1 John 2:2), which is why God promises to save any who come to Him in faith (Romans 10:11-13; Revelation 22:17). The Provisionist holds that Christ genuinely desires all of humanity to be saved (Luke 5:32; 19:10; 1 Timothy 2:4-6; ). In effect, this means a Provisionist would also reject other Reformed doctrines such as irresistible grace. The main use of the term Provisionism comes from the writings of theologian Leighton Flowers. The term is also meant to describe the general approach to salvation held by most Southern and Independent Baptists. So far as Reformed doctrine is concerned, this means narrow disagreement on the subjects of total depravity and limited atonement, as well as the exact meaning of words like predestined and elect. Similar to the TULIP in Calvinism, Provisionism can be summarized with the acrostic PROVIDE Responsible: Able-to-respond to God’s appeals for reconciliation. Open door: For anyone to enter by faith. Whosoever will may come to His open arms. Vicarious atonement: Provides a way for anyone to be saved by Christ’s blood. Illuminating grace: Provides clearly revealed truth so that all can know and respond in faith. Destroyed: For unbelief and resisting the Holy Spirit. Eternal security: For all true believers.
Taking Calvinism out of the question, I'm curious what you think of the teaching found in the Canon of Orange, written 1000 years before Calvin was born. It seems to me that is outright condemns much of what Leighton and other "Provisionists" teach. Its hard to tell though, as most Provisionists don't make a positive claim, it is purely a negative anti-Calvinist claim. The actual beliefs that self-described "provisionists" hold doesn't seem to have much unity beyond hating Reformed Theology.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 87 วันนี้!! คู่เอก "ก้องชัย vs โชคปรีชา"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YN6e7HVnekw/mqdefault.jpg)
Before Arminians comment “Stop following Calvin! Follow Christ!” Show me one spot in this video where Jeff Durban quotes Calvin instead of Scripture.
Why try and map christ followers to Armenians? Silly. What came first, Calvinism or the Bible?
Refuting Calvinism has nothing to do with being Armenian. Many people quote scripture all day long. It's their take away that is the issue. Calvinism is a different gospel than what was preached, for example by the apostle Paul. Why is their even "Calvinism@ if they're just followers of Christ? Are you a Calvinist or a Christian? They claim to be both but that's rather odd. It's odd bc if you're a follower of Christ and the Bible is your authority than why would an ideology of a man (John Calvin) be your authority? If one is convinced that Calvinism is 100% biblical truth why would t you just defend the Bible than? Why would you need to subscribe to something different than Christianity? Why would what you identify with not just be a Christian? These are common sense questions not to be rivalrous but to just stop and think for a moment. Wouldn't one just be preaching the Bible than if Calvinism were true? There would be no need for another label. Unless the other label is somehow different than the Bible? It's no different than Catholics saying they're Christian. Well than if you're Christian wouldn't you just be Christian? Do you agree catholicism is different than Christianity? And if the answer is yes couldn't you apply that same logic here with Calvinism?
@@hopeforeveryone9808 _"What came first, Calvinism or the Bible?"_
"Calvinism" is older than Calvin. Read the Canon of Orange for example, a consensus statement of the church over 1000 years before Calvin was born. It affirms many of the things most non-Calvinists are rejecting when they reject "Calvinism".
_"Calvinism is a different gospel than what was preached, for example by the apostle Paul."_
Why do you say that? It seems very Pauline.
_"Why is their even "Calvinism@ if they're just followers of Christ?"_
Because enemies of Reformed Theology named it after Calvin even through it is just Biblical Christianity.
_"Are you a Calvinist or a Christian?"_
Is Christ divided? Don't violate 1 Cor 1:13. Why would you divide Christ with words like "Christian"?
_"They claim to be both but that's rather odd."_
I believe Reformed Theology accords with scripture. If you disagree, it would be helpful if you didn't just assert that you disagree, but actually compared the Reformed Confessions against scripture and showed where they erred. If an anti-Calvinist could do this in detail with the Westminster Confession, I would be pleased. But the truth is that most anti-Calvinists hate Calvin more than they love Christ, so they don't want to bring forward the witnesses Christ commands when making charges. They'd rather just name call and play the accuser.
_"It's odd bc if you're a follower of Christ and the Bible is your authority than why would an ideology of a man (John Calvin) be your authority?"_
What is odd is that you are falling for your own side's propoganda. Enemies of Reformed Theology named it "Calvinism" and now you have been duped into thinking Calvin holds some special place in our hearts.
And let's put the shoe on the other foot. If your charge is appropriate against the people who brought us "Sola Scriptura", then you are just as guilty of asking us to follow your teachings instead of scripture. Why should I listen to your comment any more than I should listen to Calvin? Your double standard is obvious.
_"If one is convinced that Calvinism is 100% biblical truth why would t you just defend the Bible than?"_
That's exactly what we do. You are the one trying to make this about Calvin the man instead of the thoroughly biblical doctrines that unfortunately bear the name.
_"Why would you need to subscribe to something different than Christianity?"_
Put the shoe on the other foot. Why are you pushing your "Hope For Everyone"-ism instead of Christianity? Do you find that offensive? Then take the tropical rain forest out of your eye.
_"Why would what you identify with not just be a Christian?"_
Again, falling for your own propaganda. We are Christians. "Calvinist" is your side's slur, and by an accident of history, the name stuck.
_"These are common sense questions not to be rivalrous but to just stop and think for a moment."_
And they have pretty obvious answers if one thinks for but one moment more.
_"Wouldn't one just be preaching the Bible than if Calvinism were true?"_
As Spurgeon said, "Calvinism is the gospel." We preach the Word, and anti-Calvinists here "Calvinism" and hate it and the Word of God that teaches it. It has nothing to do with the man.
_"There would be no need for another label. Unless the other label is somehow different than the Bible?"_
You'll have to ask the propogandists on your side who named it. They certainly were trying to falsely insinuate that it is different from Biblical Christianity, though we contend it is just what scripture teaches.
But do you just use this to accuse, or do you apply this equally? Do you equally condemn "Provisionism" for having a label? "Arminianism"? "Molinism"? Or is this the argument you use when you hate something so much but don't have a scriptural argument against it?
_"It's no different than Catholics saying they're Christian."_
You mean Romanists. You mean Papists.
_"Well than if you're Christian wouldn't you just be Christian?"_
Yes, we are just Christians.
_"Do you agree catholicism is different than Christianity?"_
No, if you are not a member of the church catholic, you are outside of Christ. But Papists are different from Christianity.
_"And if the answer is yes couldn't you apply that same logic here with Calvinism?"_
Likewise, couldn't you say the same about Provisionism, Arminianism, Molinism, or any other label? I don't see how your argument says anything of substance, and if followed through to the logical end, we end up with less clarity. If I say I am a "Calvinist" I communicate something about how I understand scripture. If I didn't have the word, I would use the word "Reformed" (I'd use it anyway, as it is more accurate in many ways). If I didn't have any word at all, I'd have to recite an entire confession of my faith in order to communicate what I believe, or borrow from an existing one, like the Westminster Confession. Labels are useful for communicating a lot of information quickly.
It seems that the logical end you are arguing for is worse than the current situation. Labels are useful. If you don't understand what a word means, it is better to actually study and learn the full meaning than argue semantically against them. If you don't agree with the theology behind the label, argue from scripture against it instead of playing word games.
@hopeforeveryone9808 Pelagius, a heretic, came very soon after the Bible (AD 400s), and Arminians followed Pelagius's teachings.
@@blchamblisscscp8476not reformed arminians, they’re more semi-pelagian but that term is a little harder to define.
I was raised that you ask God into your heart. When God revealed to me that I had nothing to do with Him redeeming my heart I was a wreck for weeks. And I am not exaggerating. I spent weeks studying the scriptures to find out what the Bible said because there is not way I had nothing to do with my coming to Christ. In the end, the Holy Spirit gave me an amazing peace and reassurance that God chose me and I had nothing to with choosing Him. I was a wreck again for a while and completely humbled God would choose me. I can’t even put into words the grace I felt and still feel to this day. I don’t deserve Him but He chose me. Why? I don’t know but I’m so thankful He did.
Loved when you mentioned pride being the reason why we think we have something to do with our salvation. I had been trying to figure out the words to describe that for a while now but will remember this.
ALL GLORY TO GOD AMEN!!!
I can relate! I was practically patting myself on the back until it was revealed to me that I had no hand in my conversion. I was born-again supernaturally. I was mind-blown for several days, during which time I was spiritually led to research TULIP. Our God is Awesome, and that's a humongous understatement.
The Bible is literally calling us to have something to do with it. Telling us to have faith and believe over and over time and time again. Does God choose us? Yes Does God provide everything we need to be saved? Yes. We love God because he first loved us? Yes , but over and over he is telling us to repent and believe. For us to do it. Not him do it for us. Man has a responsibility to believe through faith on God's completed work. Without freewill then there can be no love.
The other day I was reading my Bible and came across this passage in 2 Kings 19:25-26 where God is speaking through the prophet Isaiah to king Hezekiah, “Have you not heard that I determined it long ago? I planned from days of old what now I bring to pass, that you should turn fortified cities into heaps of ruins, while their inhabitants, shorn of strength, are dismayed and confounded, and have become like plants of the field and like tender grass, like grass on the housetops, blighted before it is grown." God has made His plans and He will bring them to pass. He is in charge and we are not. Great show today, brothers! Soli Deo Gloria!
2Peter 3:9 says, "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise...not wanting ANYONE to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." Most don't; God's will is NOT being done. John 7:17 says, "Anyone who CHOOSES to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God..." Joshua 24:15 says, "...CHOOSE for yourselves this day whom you will serve..." Genesis 2:16-17
And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free (you can CHOOSE) to eat from any tree in the garden..." Deuteronomy 30:19-20 says, "...I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now CHOOSE life..." There are MANY more verses where we are offered a choice. So, while God does predestine some things, in other things we are given a choice. It's like a University predestines they are going to have a football team next season, but it is up to the free will of who will decide to try out for the team.
@@Mike-qt7jpcontext
@@Mike-qt7jp Quote the entire passage of 2 Peter 3:7: "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, but is longsuffering towards *us*, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone [that is, everyone of *us*] to come to repentance."
"If anyone's will is to do God's will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority (John 7:17)." The Bible is clear that natural man wants nothing to do with God's will for their lives. For a man to want God's will, God must regenerate that man first, as seen in John 3 and 6.
Notice that that pronouncement in Deuteronomy was given to the Israelites alone. The other nations weren't even given this apparent choice. When God regenerates a person, they can now choose to follow God, which they eventually would.
@@Mike-qt7jp
Synergism can only be supported by proof-texts taken out of context, and strung together with other verses (or pieces of verses) and in direct opposition to other texts.
Reformed doctrines are supported by entire chapters of didactic teachings from Jesus Himself, full chapters in context, and consistent testimony from Genesis to Revelation.
If you’ve ever studied the issue honestly, you would have already found that the verses you’ve listed have been thoroughly exegeted and explained consistently by Reformed theologians.
Reformed. Ha more like you need to reform. John Calvin misinterpreted tons of scripture. He didn't have computers in the year 1500 so he can't search as quickly for all of the verses which contradict calvinism like we can today. I have defeated calvinist after calvnist easily using scripture. Because they misinterpret scripture because they do not take into account the totality of scripture and what the bible teaches contradicts calvinism. @@tylerbuckner3750
Wonderful episode. I grew up Arminian (UMC mostly), but now my family and I are checking out a PCA church. I've found that Calvinist theology makes the most sense when dealing with certain passages, but there are aspects I've never been able to wrap my mind or my heart around. I appreciated your thoroughness and especially your tone in this episode. A lot of Calvinists can be rather snooty when explaining their theology, but you guys kept it respectful and humble and compassionate while at the same time confident. That blessed me so much it almost brought me to tears toward the end. I want to believe what's true, whatever that is. If it's Calvinism, then glory to God! I'm looking forward to the rest of this series!
I’m going to show you something that John Wesley the great evangelist wrote but before I do understand this sister, God did not make robots we have free will to accept him or deny him. He does not create His greatest creation for the sole purpose of sending it to hell..:pray Rebecca! Now read this👇
“Calvinists, who deny that salvation can ever be lost, reason on the subject in a marvelous way. They tell us, that no virgin’s lamp can go out; no promising harvest be choked with thorns; no branch in Christ can ever be cut off from unfruitfulness; no pardon can ever be forfeited, and no name blotted out of God’s book! They insist that no salt can ever lose its savor; nobody can ever “receive the grace of God in vain”; “bury his talents”; “neglect such great salvation”; trifle away “a day of grace”; “look back” after putting his hand to the gospel plow. Nobody can “grieve the Spirit” till He is “quenched,” and strives no more, nor “deny the Lord that bought them”; nor “bring upon themselves swift destruction.” Nobody, or body of believers, can ever get so lukewarm that Jesus will spew them out of His mouth. They use reams of paper to argue that if one ever got lost he was never found. John 17:12; that if one falls, he never stood. Rom. 11:16-22 and Heb. 6:4-6; if one was ever “cast forth,” he was never in, and “if one ever withered,” he was never green. John 15:1-6; and that “if any man draws back,” it proves that he never had anything to draw back from. Heb. 10:38,39; that if one ever “falls away into spiritual darkness,” he was never enlightened. Heb 6:4-6; that if you “again get entangled in the pollutions of the world,” it shows that you never escaped. 2 Pet 2:20; that if you “put salvation away” you never had it to put away, and if you make shipwreck of faith, there was no ship of faith there!! In short they say: If you get it, you can’t lose it; and if you lose it you never had it. May God save us from accepting a doctrine, that must be defended by such fallacious reasoning!”
~ John Wesley
PCA can be sketchy, mainly because that denomination has been so overrun with liberals. There are still some great teachers there, don't get me wrong. Bruce Gore is one. If that one doesn't work out, look into the OPC. That's where I took about 10 years ago. We've been there ever since and are very happy.
@@stuffipost137 Not the church we're looking at, thankfully. So far, so good. 😅 And they actually preach from the Bible and use long passages!! I can't overemphasize how refreshing that's been after years of "preaching" that's usually more anecdotes and philosophizing and moralizing and a couple Bible verses thrown in almost as an afterthought. Ah, the UMC... 🙄 It still has its faithful teachers, too, but they seem to be fewer and farther between these days.
Calvinism is a different gospel than what was preached, for example by the apostle Paul.
Why is there even "Calvinism@if they're just followers of Christ?
Are you a Calvinist or a
Christian? They claim to be both but that's rather odd. It's odd be if you're a follower of Christ and the Bible is your authority than why would an ideology of a man (John Calvin) be your authority? if one is convinced that Calvinism is 100% biblical truth why would t you just defend the Bible than? Why would you need to subscribe to something different than Christianity? Why would what you identify with not just be a Christian? These are common sense questions not to be rivalrous but to just stop and think for a moment. Wouldn't one just be preaching the Bible than if Calvinism were true?
There would be no need for another label. Unless the other label is somehow different than the Bible? It's no different than
Catholics saying they're
Christian. Well than if you're Christian wouldn't you just be Christian? Do you agree catholicism is different than Christianity? And if the answer is yes couldn't you apply that same logic here with Calvinism?
@hopeforeveryone9808
You get 'em, boy! Go get them strawmen! You get a belly rub. Good boy. (Now, for those who have a clue what they're talking about, this guy is well versed in silly arguments against nothing, and that's usually what you get from the synergists: Supreme ignorance.)
You guys are spot on here!!! May God be merciful to his people!
TIMESTAMPS:
4:10 -for skipping the Ezra Institute ad
10:00 -continuing the Calvinism discussion
12:31 -today's topic is Total Depravity/Inability or Radical Corruption (with ad for the ion layer)
20:00 -Why do you believe in Total Depravity? Why is it important?
27:50 -"Well I agree with all that and I'm still not Reformed" (response)
28:35 -Where this issue arises in church history
37:30 -The Calvinist term explanation (not about the guy John Calvin)
39:46 -Scripture passages and stuff
48:08 -Honestly representing your opponents (addressing claims of "it makes men robots" "why pray if God already determined everything")
52:35 -More Scripture: God brings the dead to life
1:04:30 -When Christians hate this doctrine
1:12:03 -What if you grew up being told you were a piece of garbage? Are you still depraved when you're a Christian? (importance of being clear on our new identity)
1:16:30 -Even your stupid prayers will be made acceptable in the throne room. What a comfort.
-Followed by closing Scripture passage (John 6 I think)
Very kind of you
Thank you dude!
This was a really impactful episode for me today. Thanks guys for helping me grow. I've been leading a recovery group and working to get it in line with God's word more. It's been a challenge but you guys have really helped me to grow in my faith and understanding through God's word so that I may be well equipped to help others.
Open to suggestions! In fact, I welcome them!
Just curious to the outline of the recovery group, because I live in Colorado Springs and have gone to a Biblical group that comes from a more free will Arminian perspective from a church called Calvary Worship Center and it's quite irking to hear the deacon that leads it talk about "free will" all the time 😅
The most important suggestion I can give you is: pray to the Holy Spirit to guide you and then read the Bible. Don't adopt positions before you have read the Bible for yourself and let it speak. It's the living Word of God. God bless
Start by realizing that if you are not totally depraved then you do not need a Savior and the Bible is false.
Well done gentlemen, fantastic series.
Thank you JD and David. As a pastor that was bivocational and now full time, every single minute serving must be unto Jesus alone. Sinners still sin, Christians sin, people will always hurt you unintentionally and intentionally. If it’s all for Christ they cannot touch you.
I don’t understand why people are against this it makes sense to what they are saying. And they’re not explaining scripture to their own idea the scripture seemed pretty self explanatory. there are people who love to hate god and they will probably refuse him all their life.
I really like apologia, I've been blessed by their content. On this episode it seemed like Jeff hardly got a word in.
2Peter 3:9 says, "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise...not wanting ANYONE to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." Most don't; God's will is NOT being done. John 7:17 says, "Anyone who CHOOSES to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God..." Joshua 24:15 says, "...CHOOSE for yourselves this day whom you will serve..." Genesis 2:16-17
And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free (you can CHOOSE) to eat from any tree in the garden..." Deuteronomy 30:19-20 says, "...I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now CHOOSE life..." There are MANY more verses where we are offered a choice. So, while God does predestine some things, in other things we are given a choice. It's like a University predestines they are going to have a football team next season, but it is up to the free will of who will decide to try out for the team.
Great conversation. Glory to God
If the content is free, and open to everyone then why do folks need to sign up for yet another account on yet another website to access the information?
Excellent work, guys.
I am in 100%agreement on these topics! I am the .0001 % here in Michigan that does and i have zero like minded friends to share with! I am literally a judgmental a hole due to lack of agreement!
Hello fellow Michigander . God bless you
3 more here in Auburn Mi
I think there are a lot of dutch reformed in Grand Rapids
Tfs. This episode has been so helpful. Downloaded.
Early on in my journey there were several authors that gave clarity on these issues of grace. I had been a Christian for a few years and was challenged one day by a friend. He was Episcopalian and attended a liberal church (a redundant statement). We were discussing the church where I attend, a PCA congregation, one of the oldest actually, and my friend was saying to another friend, who was at that time a Russian Orthodox, he (me) goes there but he doesn't believe all that Calvinist stuff, do you?. I said I don't know, I'd not thought about it as it's not something that is constantly discussed like Apologia does. So, I began to investigate and compare what is being said in the name of God to the Word of God. The Word says this and that, but how does that compare to what is being taught here versus what I learned growing up Baptist and Methodist, and popular Christian literature. As Dr. White says, I had to take the tradition lenses off. I started with Duane Edward Spencer's little book TULIP, which compared the Calvinist soteriology to the Arminian system. But what about this "free will?" Martin Luther took care of that in the diatribe against Erasmus. I found in my church library The Plan of Salvation by B.B. Warfield, which I highly recommend if you want to see a comparison from all spectrum of theism, from the primitive to the debated supralapsarian-infralapsarian divide. Dr. Warfield made a great matrix as well. A thing I found interesting is his analysis that anything less than a monergistic soteriology is, at the base of it, a works salvation. He and Luther make this point: to the extent that salvation depends on a human choice, the human is the fulcrum upon which the entire salvation and work of God is balanced. Erasmus said free will is a small thing, a still small voice if you will..no,.sir! If Erasmus is correct, It is THE thing upon which all of history is turned. If true, it is not God's will that prevails, but man's. Free will, in autonomous terms, is anti-biblical and not logical. Just consider, it would be impossible to reason that God knows all things future and determines the ends from the beginning if, at any moment, creaturley free will among any one of his creation could upend His plans.
Impeccable logic, and Scriptural reasoning. It also leads to a god who is not omniscient, where it is required for the Sovereign of the universe to be omniscient (the source of all knowledge).
@michaelsowerby8198 I don't know how old the video is, but there's a video out on YT by James White/ Alpha and Omega where he shows Frank Turek and himself versus a guy named Silverman at separate debates, but Silverman asks the same question. Turek (an Arminian) and White answer the question completely differently. Turek has a very difficult time, whereas when dealing with a consistent Reformed view, Silverman has a difficult time. I respect Dr. Turek and his evangelism that I see on YT. He's very erudite and deals with issues raised. However, as White says, the only consistent Arminian is an open theist. But I might also add, the ultimate consistent Arminian is a universalist. Because the claim is that God wills all men to be saved.
Kind of odd to speak of removing traditional lenses, but then refer to Spencer, Luther, Warfield, followed by a philosophical argument. Not that there's anything wrong with that per se, but any sort of high ground to be gained by appealing to "scripture uninhibited by traditions of men" so to speak is severely weakened by admitting that you're reading the Bible through a different tradition and/or different philosophical presuppositions. That's not taking off traditional lenses, that's trading them in for different ones. You might as well just argue based on the merits of the position, unless you have a principled reason to suppose that "tradition" somehow infects the non-Calvinist position but leaves the Calvinist one untainted. Otherwise it's just question-begging
Im actually rather glad that these guys encourage people to value church history, even though they constantly give tainted complements to the saints, if their viewers ever dive into the fathers they may very well end up Catholic or Orthodox like I did
Starts at 5:52
I came to Christ kicking and screaming, from alcoholism mainly, but other stuff as well. God made me want to repent. He made me want to submit. Without Christ I was sunk. God used the wickedness and horrors of this world to make me repent. My friends say “You did it. You defeated it all”. They can’t see the spiritual side of things, and all I can do is tell them about the Grace of God. I can show them my life has changed, but they just think what a deluded fellow I am. Very depressing.
The thing I sometimes stumble over is why God allows sinners to be born at all. Is it because God allows the will of Man to bear fruit, to multiply because that’s just what he wants to do? I hope those too young to decide but old enough to die, in wars, abortion etc will get into heaven. I’d appreciate your thoughts on this.
Keep sharing your beautiful testimony and giving Christ glory. Your friends may say this and that right now. But God may use it in their lives or in the lives of those they know, maybe years down the line!
Lean not unto your own understanding of every little thing, fast and read the Bible, slowly, methodically, and strain to understand every single word. !!
Amen! I was brought out of severe addiction to cocaine myself and only by God and his sovereignty. God made my heart repentant that day when I was saved. Before I was trying to do it all on my own and failed every time under my own power. A slave to my sin. Many times in my life I had tried to follow Christ but always fell away. It wasn't until God tore out my heart of stone and gave me that heart of flesh, that I came to repentance and understood in fear and trembling the power of God's grace to choose to save me. Before I would be lukewarm to God and scripture but now I make everything in my life for Christ because I have the Holy Spirit in me. I truly understand the absolute power and awe of God now because there was nothing of my doing in any of it. So glad to hear another testimony of the same work in your life that our awesome God wills to do. I was nothing and will never be anything, apart from Him.
God has chosen to save some because it's His will to choose and not ours. Had we been given the choice, we would ALL choose sin and death and do it gladly in defiance to Him, every time. God didn't have to save a single person (He didn't even save the angels who rebelled) but in His decision to show grace, love and mercy, He has made His choice to save some and not others. This is a hard pill to swallow, even for myself who has been saved. It however gives me the absolute understanding of grace and to cling to Christ because of this gift. Who are we to question God?
@@hlwdrum Wow! What a cool testimony. One I can relate to. Praise be to Jesus Christ. 🙂.
There's no reason on Calvinist principles to think that God would save unborn infants or young children anymore than he would any other class of people. Being "too young to decide" is irrelevant. You're never too young to be liable for Adams sin. You're never too young to be totally depraved. You're never too young to have an evil heart. We were all infants once; the infants who God chose in eternity past get regenerated and glorified, the ones who don't are not. It doesn't matter if some of them happen to live long enough to become adults in the meantime.
If you have a problem with this logic, you should probably examine the presuppositions that get you there.
Awesome episode! 🤯
I love that he said “we don’t like Strawman” then proceeded to present a strawman on what other people say, instead of playing the video or audio to hear what they really say. This is the most common thing that apologia studios do. Thanks for the strawmen argument. Hope you change.
Come on guys, read it in context, I don't consider myself a bible expert buy any means, but when I read Romans 8:7 its clear what its talking about, from verse 5 it states those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the spirit set their minds on the things of the spirit, the mind of the flesh is death, but the mind of the spirit is life and peace, then further on it says those controlled by the flesh cannot please God.
Its simply saying if you live by the flesh you will set your minds on things of the flesh, in other words don't love the world or worldly things, live by the spirit, don't be controlled by the flesh, there's nothing in there that says you don't have the ability to repent.
Hello benjy, when you were unsaved, were you living according to the flesh or to the Spirit?
@@jozzen77 The flesh, but then I made a decision to accept Jesus, it says those controlled by the flesh cannot please God, but it doesn't say that when you're controlled by the flesh you'll always be controlled by the flesh, so when someone decides that they no longer want to be controlled by the flesh they repent and accept Jesus, then they're no longer controlled by the flesh, that passage is simply talking about the differences between the unsaved and the saved.
@benjy288 Right on!
Learning so much.
Thank you!
This was great.
Elijah commanded the dry bones to live. Did they choose to obey?
@ejj1939 it's part of soteriology, if it wasn't then why would you say soteriology wasn't what it was about. Why not something unrelated like archeology. If you said hey that comment had nothing to do with archeology then it would make sense. But your categorization that associates my comment with soteriology actually implies that it is in the same category as a soteriological premis.
@ejj1939 it's not out of context. He spoke, they rose. Just like when Peter and the disciples preached the gospel on Pentecost. If you deny this you have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof. The Bible says we're dead in our sins and trespasses. If you don't believe your dead in your sins and trespasses unable to come to knowledge of the truth and instead believe you have the ability to seek God without the spirit calling you, you believe in a false gospel.
Great podcast
Thank you.
Hey Jeff and Zach, I've enjoyed watching your recent videos on Calvinism. One thing that stood out to me in this conversation was when you brought up the analogy of the lion who attacked the woman. Jeff you made the point, and rightly so, that if someone asked "why did the lion do that?" -- the answer is obvious... because it's a lion! But, would we condemn the lion for its actions? Do we charge lions with evil when they simply do what their God-ordained instincts naturally drive them to do? Of course not. You won't find a lion standing on trial for the crime of being a lion and acting like one. Why? Because that's just what it is! It can't be anything other. It can't help but do what it does and cannot choose to do otherwise. The lion ate the woman because that's what lions want to do! But if this is being applied to the condition of fallen man, then how does this not excuse the behavior of the totally depraved from wrongdoing in the same way it excuses the lion? Of course the totally depraved sins because it is their instinctual desire to do so... just as the lion eats human flesh because it is their instinctual desire to do so. How is the totally depraved any more blameworthy than the lion? Are they not simply acting out their God-ordained desires and instincts just as the lion is?
You emphasize that fallen man is blameworthy because when they sin they are doing what "they want to do." Again, is not their desire and instinct just as determined as the lions? Why do they desire what they desire? Because God ordained it to be so, just as he ordained what the instinct of the lion would be.
My point Jeff and Zach is that I think by paralleling the condition of mankind with that of instinctual beasts you are unavoidably but certainly eliminating the blameworthiness of the sinner. In fact, I think this makes the sinner a victim of their God-ordained nature. If the lion was brought to court and condemned to an excruciating demise (as the totally depraved of Calvinism will be), then certainly we should see that lion as being a victim in the situation just as much as the woman that it killed. What else could the lion have done other than what it did? The lion that is put to death for its actions is in many ways just as much deserving of our pity as the woman that was killed by it. How can it be charged with "wrongdoing" in any legitimate or meaningful way? It cannot. This is why we don't describe the lion's actions as "sinful" or "blameworthy," unless we entirely redefine what sin and blameworthiness mean.
So my question is... How is the totally depraved sinner any more blameworthy than the lion? And again, the fact that they act on what they desire is not an answer or solution, being that their desires are equally ordained by God as the lion's.
The bible doesn't seem to think that we are totally deprived, infact it keeps calling us to do the very things they (calvinist) say we are incapable of doing. Over and over calling us to have faith calling us to repent. Yet calvism says we don't have that ability. It's contradictory.
If you can explain how, in your doctrine of Total Depravity, did God speak to Eve, Adam, Cain and they all heard Him? If we are, as you teach, unable to hear God, seek Him then when did Total depravity begin? Noah? Actually, Noah heard God and began to build the Ark, etc..
Is the first 40 seconds important to the topic? Just ask because the audio cuts out for 20 seconds between 0:20 and 0:40
YOU GUYS ARE DOING YOUR OWN WILL
Can you guys do some stuff on marriage and being a husband, that kinda thing? Homeschooling and being a godly father.
Protestants seem to be lacking on this front while the famous catholics are leading the charge there. Pints with aquinas and lila rose and that. We need good reformed voices on this.
Maybe I'm unaware of ones that exist but it doesn't seem to be present as far as I can tell.
R.C. Sproul has a few series on marriage and Doug wilson has a bunch on raising kids. Also michael Foster, hope this helps:)
Actual conversation starts at 17:00
Sorry I gotta pause this video to go find this lion vs lady video
Amen, until I believed the Doctrines of Grace, I didn't understand that all of us have the same seed of wickedness as the worst criminal on Earth and that we would all be baby raping cannibals , if not for God's restraint.
Tell me, is grace a free gift from God? And if yes, how does one come into possessing that Grace?
@hopeforeveryone9808 God freely gives it to whomever He chooses, however from our standpoint we repent and believe. The point is, there is no one wanting to believe and then God says, " I'm sorry, you're not elect". If one has the desire to come to Christ its all God's doing.
@@CBALLEN
Perfectly stated. The problem with hopeforeveryone9808 is he views The Scriptures through the lens of emotional vomit.
Doesnt restraint imply autonomy? Is there a natural state of man that somehow would follow a set course of action but that God supernaturally intervenes? How does this make sense at all of God's total sovereignty?
@joshuadonahue5871 The only one with autonomy is God. Our default position is to be a haters of God,so what are you asking,exactly?
I. Total Inability
By total inability Calvin meant that a lost sinner cannot come to Jesus Christ and trust Him as Saviour, unless he is foreordained to come to Christ. By total inability he meant that no man has the ability to come to Christ. And unless God overpowers him and gives him that ability, he will never come to Christ
The Bible teaches total depravity, and I believe in total depravity. But that simply means that there is nothing good in man to earn or deserve salvation. The Bible says in Jeremiah 17:9, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked."
A preacher brought a wonderful sermon on the depravity of the human heart. And when he finished his message, someone came to him and said," I want you to know I can't swallow that depraved heart that you preached about."
The preacher smiled and said, "You don't have to swallow it. It's already in you!"
While the Bible teaches the depravity of the human race, it nowhere teaches total inability. The Bible never hints that people are lost because they have no ability to come to Christ. The language of Jesus was, "Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life" (John 5:40).
Notice, it is not a matter of whether or not you can come to Christ; it is a matter of whether or not you will come to Christ.
Jesus looked over Jerusalem and wept and said, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem . . .how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" (Matt. 23:37). Here again notice, He did not say, "How often would I have gathered you together, but you could not." No. He said, "Ye would not!" It was not a matter of whether they could; it was a matter of whether they would.
Revelation 22:17, the last invitation in the Bible, says, "And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely ."
If it is true that no person has the ability to come to Christ, then why would Jesus say in John 5:40, "Ye will not come to me." why didn't He simply say, "You cannot come to me."?
The only thing that stands between the sinner and salvation is the sinner's will. God made every man a free moral agent. And God never burglarises the human will.
D. L. Moody addressed a large group of sceptics. He said ,"I want to talk about the word believe, the word receive, and the word take." When Mr. Moody had finished his sermon, he asked, "Now who will come and take Christ as Saviour?"
One man stood and said, "I can't."
Mr. Moody wept and said, "Don't say, 'I can't.' Say, 'I won't!'"
And the man said, "Then, I won't!"
But another man said, "I will!" Then another said, "I will!" And another said , "I will!" Until scores came to trust Christ as Saviour.
Some Calvinists use John 6:44 in an effort to prove total inability. Here the Bible says, "No man can come to me except the Father which hath sent me draw him...."But the Bible makes it plain in John 12:32 that Christ will draw all men unto Himself. Here the Bible says, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me."
All men are drawn to Christ, but not all men will trust Christ as Saviour. Every man will make his own decision to trust Christ or to reject Him. The Bible makes it clear that all men have light. John 1:9 says, "That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." Romans 1:19,20 indicates that every sinner has been called through the creation about him. And Romans 2:11-16 indicates that sinners are called through their conscience, even when they have not heard the Word of God.
So in the final analysis, men go to Hell, not because of their inability to come to Christ, but because they will not come to Christ-"Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life."
The teaching that men, women and children are totally unable to come to Christ and trust Him as Saviour is not a scriptural doctrine. The language itself is not scriptural.
Amen
Did he said (Jeff) that he has never read Calvin?
I think Limited Atonment will be the most interesting podcast in this series. I think the L and the T kinda hit around the same area. Calvinists think that a men are totally depraved because they don’t seek for God. That doesn’t mean men can’t respond to a God that seeks for men. Also Calvinists think that God choosing us means we automatically respond to his choice. God can choose us and we not choose him back. People who respond to the pull of God aren’t evidence that the people who don’t respond were never chosen.
Strictly from a rhetorical standpoint, this is a bad take/straw man. It’s not that reformists believe man is totally depraved BECAUSE they don’t seek God. But instead, man doesn’t seek God BECAUSE he is totally depraved.
Reformists don’t use people who respond to the “pull of God” as evidence that people who don’t respond were never chosen, but instead use scripture as evidence. People who respond to God’s calling is simply coherent with what scripture says.
You're absolutely correct. Although calvinists generally mean inability when they say total depravity , which of course this idea is built solely on philosophy of the texts instead of what the texts actually say themselves. Actually there's not even one biblical passage that explicitly backs up the claims of TULIP except for maybe the P in TULIP and this is because TULIP is built solely on philosophy and not what the biblical texts actually say .
@@jvke.p Ok Men don't seek for God because they are totally depraved. I don't think that counters the idea that it doesn't mean we cant respond to a God that seeks us.
I don't think there's a Bible passage in context that shows people who don't respond were never chosen.
@@iAintSayDat John 3:3, John 6:44.
And yes. You’re halfway right about that first part. We do respond to the Holy Spirit.
@@jvke.p John 6:44 Doesn't say all men aren't chosen, I can't see how you'd get that out of a plain reading of the text. Neither does John 3:3. How do you get "non believers were never chosen" out of God must choose.
Ephesians 3 comes after Ephesians 2.. that is what I called a inability sandwich😮
How does God choose who he will save, if nobody wants God and everyone loves darkness and everyone are children or wrath how does God choose who to give a new heart too.
Exodus 33:19 NLT
"The LORD replied, “I will make all my goodness pass before you, and I will call out my name, Yahweh, before you. For I will show mercy to anyone I choose, and I will show compassion to anyone I choose."
Romans 10:20 NLT
"And later Isaiah spoke boldly for God, saying, “I was found by people who were not looking for me. I showed myself to those who were not asking for me.”
Love God with all your strength, mind and soul but we don't; only Jesus did. We love him because he loves us. Our love is conditional. His is not
I don’t think that this can be labeled a great conversation unless there is someone with an opposing view of scripture that is there in the conversation. I am have been just exploring this the last month or so and there are reasonable rebuttals to all of that was spoken here.
No more big christian channels for me. Small channels only
Paul said in his flesh dwelt no good thing. Yet in his mind he wanted to serve the Lord. The context is his life under the Mosaic Law (see logical flow of Romans 7). So man is not totally depraved. He just is drawn to sin and the Law makes it worse.
The doctrine of total depravity is truly wicked. How were men of the Old Testament able to live righteous and pleasing lives if they were not capable of making good decisions themselves?
Lol. What Bible are you reading?
Well, you may not believe in total depravity, but Yahweh does...
Genesis 8:21 - The Lord smelled the soothing aroma; and the Lord said to Himself, “I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done.
Men are by nature children of wrath - this is what scripture teaches.
Good decisions dont get you saved if you are alluding to work based salvation here. You can easily follow rules (what Israel was doing) but not be saved or have saving faith. Even a depraved human can do that. What he cannot do is repent.
@@lawrencestanley8989 The inclination of man's heart is indeed evil, but this does not make man totally depraved unable to do anything good. Many men in the OT were described as righteous because they made good decisions despite their evil inclinations.
@@aletheia8054 I'm reading the Bible where many men were declared righteous despite their evil inclinations.
Those who deny their own Total Depravity is affirmation of it working in their heart in their Adamic nature. Thats why ones ontological nature must be changed in the new birth, then, and only then does the elect son of God realize just how deprived he was and is dependent only on the effectual grace of God.
I disagree. I am well aware of how dependant I am on the grace of God.
@@mistertracey1 Totally dependent?
@@ManassehJones on God's grace, yes
@mistertracey1 Why are you totally dependent on Gods grace? How is Gods grace working in your life today?
@ManassehJones grace is not having to pay for the choices I've made. If they were not choices I made I do not need grace.
2Peter 3:9 says, "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise...not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." Most don't; God's will is NOT being done. John 7:17 says, "Anyone who CHOOSES to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God..." Joshua 24:15 says, "...CHOOSE for yourselves this day whom you will serve..." Genesis 2:16-17
And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free (you can CHOOSE) to eat from any tree in the garden..." Deuteronomy 30:19-20 says, "...I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now CHOOSE life..." There are MANY more verses where we are offered a choice. God says I have put before you life and death, CHOOSE life. So while God does predestine some things, in other things we are given a choice. It's like a University predestines they are going to have a football team next season, but it is up to the free will who will decide to try out for the team.
God being the university and the football team being those whom he predestined to save?
No, it's more like C.S. Lewis predestined the actions written in the Chronicles of Narnia, but C.S. isn' the "Do-er" of the actions
It's amazing how clear Scripture is about God being sovereign even in His election and yet even still the pride of man (even some who are saved) wants to muddy the water and question their part to play. It is pride after all, that makes a person kick and scream when a Calvinist says "you had NO PART TO PLAY in your salvation other than the sin". Why else would someone fight so hard to cling to autonomous free-will; it's not out of love for God's Character or even His Word (since both are clear and visible), it is pride.
You were DEAD in your sins....DEAD.
God foreknew you (that is a particular love He had for you before the foundations of the world).
God elected you and gave you new life; you can't will yourself into your mother's womb can you?
God keeps you eternally.
_"It's like a University predestines they are going to have a football team next season, but it is up to the free will who will decide to try out for the team."_
Ah yes, the "I totally don't believe in salvation by works" side making salvation based on our performance in a tryout...
@@ejj1939 _""Free-will means I am entirely guilty for my sins and no one else determined that I sin. Free will means God is holy and iin Him is no unrighteousness so He would never decree that man would sin."_
That definition accords with the free will affirmed in Reformed confessions. For example, Westminster Confession chapter 9, 3, and 5 in which God establishes and upholds human free will through what he ordains and his providence.
Usually the disagreements about free will are of a different sort, whether man can save themselves through a pure act of will, or if our will is corrupted by sin and we need a savior to save us from even our sinful will. The former is more Pelagian, and the latter is often called "Calvinism" these days, but was affirmed in older statements of the church, like the Canon of Orange, 1000 years before Calvin was born.
I was a Mormon and now am a Born again Christian. I enjoy his ministry to the Mormons.. But I didn't realize he was a Calvinist
Did you watch and listen and pay attention actively to the whole video? The pastor and pastors they go over what that is what that they don't they're not worship painters describing as a calvinist to John Calvin it's they look at scripture where the scripture say? The Bible itself had already subscribed to what they now call Calvinism that's the whole point so it's what scripture says not with John Calvin says
Good for you. I don't understand how anyone can still be a Mormon, Muslim, JW, or Scientologist today with all the information available to smarten one up?
@@Nicky-hr1qzcareful. The Bible didn’t subscribe to anything. The Bible IS, and John Calvin came along to say “HEY! here’s a quick summary of the attributes to God and Man, and their relationship.
It's wonderful to hear you've found CHRIST JESUS my friend. I hope you won't get caught up in this calvinism mess though , because it corruptly portrays GOD and HIS righteousness and accuses CHRIST of hypocrisy when held in contrast to what HE said and did.
GOD bless
@jvke.p
Exactly! And Calvin's portrayal of GOD is false and corrupt . Have you ever heard of what Calvin called evanescent grace? It's a horrible thing to accuse our SAVIOR CHRIST JESUS to be guilty of .
The non reformed are blinded to the fact that when they claim that a spiritually dead sinner can come to Christ, in that state, they call Jesus a liar.
Who created them blind? Who desired them to be blind? Who inexorably fore-ordained that they would be blind? Do you find fault with this decree?
@@joshuadonahue5871Exodus 4:11 NLT
Then the LORD asked Moses, “Who makes a person’s mouth? Who decides whether people speak or do not speak, hear or do not hear, see or do not see? IS IT NOT I, THE LORD?"
Hey I’m not sure if these questions are answered in the video, and I’m seeking genuine understanding and not an argument. How does the belief that no man has free will not make God the author of evil? If I don’t have free will would that not mean God is choosing to make me sin, and then sending me to Hell for it? I bet this is probably a common rejection to five point Calvinism, so if anyone could explain this to me I’d appreciate it.
_"How does the belief that no man has free will not make God the author of evil?"_
I'd recommend reading some actual Calvinist confessions. I like the Westminster Confession of Faith. Chapter 9 lays out the Calvinist _affirmation_ of human free will. Chapter 3 shows how it interacts with God's decree, in which he _establishes_ human free will and the liberty and contingency of second causes by what he ordains. Chapter 5 shows how it interacts with God's providence, in which they fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, _freely,_ or contingently. In answering this way, they show that man, not God, is the author of their own sin.
So I agree that whoever it is that denying free will outright has problems answering your question without making God the author of sin, but Calvinists aren't the ones denying human free will. Our confessions clearly affirm man's free will. Non-Calvinists often disagree with our understanding of free will, but to reduce our position to "no free will at all" is a strawman.
But it is one that many lay-Calvinists also get wrong, as they end up saying they deny "free will" without really being clear about what specifically is being denied. But that goes both ways. Most non-Calvinists affirm "free will" but aren't at all clear about what that means to them. Often, I think their understanding of free will is not that dissimilar to Calvinists once you actually walk through the issue of having an all powerful, all knowing creator God who designed all aspects of this universe with intention and purpose. But sloppy philosophical reasoning is common among lay people, so the whole "debate" over free will is usually handled poorly in online discussions.
@@oracleoftroy Oh okay thank you, that does explain a lot, because I have absolutely heard Calvinists unapologetically proclaim that we have no free will. I was unaware this wasn't really Calvinist doctrine.
@@shanezarcone5401@shanezarcone5401 the short answer is that they equivocate on the term free will. What most people mean by "free will" is different than what Calvinists mean by "free will". In the interest of precision and clearing up confusion, you should look up the difference between Libertarian Free Will (non-Calvinist) and compatiblist free will (Calvinist).
Anyone can assert that two things are compatible when they are in fact not. If the Westminster confession said that God created squares that were round, and bachelors who were married, we would have to conclude that they meant something different by the terms than the ordinary usage, or that they were flat out contradictory.
The reason Calvinism exists is because people want to keep sinning yet have ASSURANCE of salvation as well. It is man centered. Which is why they deceptively chant about God's sovereignty all the time. There's guilt.
The gospel is something we STAND IN.
Every promise in scripture is conditional. And, the condition is where man has agency and accountability.
Calvinism completely removes the FEAR of GOD which is the very thing needed to unlock the secret of the LORD and His Covenant.
God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble.
Just reading Ezekiel chapter 33 alone, blows up Calvinism. Paul reiterates this same message in Acts 18:6. Wake up people, read your WHOLE Bible, not just certain verses taken out of context. The Old Testament Prophets blow up Calvinism, like a bomb.
Dead right!!!!
I cant see how anyone could stay a calvinist after reading Ezekiel 33 that's without the rest of scripture.
Could you spell out why? I might be a bit daft, but I don't see anything that refutes Calvinism. Maybe "Calvinism" as taught by Leighton Flowers, but not as confessed in the Westminster Confession or Three Forms of Unity.
It would be helpful if you could show from my confessions where they contradict these passages. I assume you believe Leighton's lies and think Calvinists deny man's choice entirely, so you think it refutes "Calvinism". If that's the case, WCF chapter 9 gives a good overview of the Calvinist affirmation of human free will.
@@oracleoftroy
So I take it you believe OT Israel, all of them where in a state of grace so they could turn from evil to good .
Because Ezekiel 33 is God asking them to choose life over death to repent and do justice and their sins will not be imputed to them.
WCF 9,3 says in natural state man can do no good or prepare himself for any spiritual good .
@@davidmansfield1796 Ok, and? They choose poorly. That is consistent with "Calvinism" and scripture. We have the choice, and we all chose the bad option, sin. Condemnation is our choice. Salvation is God's choice to show mercy, not something we can demand from God.
@@oracleoftroy
So is God asking for what He knows can't be done which would be pointless and callous or did Israel have the grace to repent ?
Did they have the ability to repent or not.
John 6. The ones that the fathers draws and gives to the Son are the one’s that heard and learned. It is right there in the text. This is 120 minutes video and this was not even address or even quoted. Neither are all the scriptures that imply that grace is available to all, which there are many. Neither are reasonable rebuttals discussed. I hope that those that are courting Calvinists are also flirting with other view points.
I am actually a big fan of this channel but just not this part of it I suppose. I like a lot what apologia does.
Moments of virtue, motivation for the broken, consolation to the wicked, deprivation to the sinful, reparation to the good.
This vessel is at the mercy of the sea, throughout the voiage it tries with might to get inside. It's beams repellant, it's systems secure, with ballist it rides on an knives edge, balanced in a boyant dance, it sails unto a void precipice. Only preserved by hand unseen, less it's pulled asunder.
What does NAD stand for?
I have to admit, the NAD commercial really turned me off. I've never heard of this. And $500 a month?! Who can afford that?! Not anyone I know! If there was a "fountain of youth", why is it not common knowledge? Why is this not being offered in hospitals as a normal part of any medical treatment? Why isn't it being passed around in old folks' homes and rehab centers?
Not exactly sure why Jeff's recommendation of a very well-known and well-documented treatment is so upsetting to you. If you do some quick research you'll see that it is a VERY well-known and popular thing.
Jeff is thankful for it and it's benefits. He isn't making or telling anyone they have to do it. If you don't care to research it or do it, no hard feelings. He likes it and it has been a blessing to him and his wife.
Blessings to you.
I hope he continues to do well. I have prayed for him when he was having health issues a while back. Hope God keeps him around and healthy for many more years.@@ApologiaStudios
@@ApologiaStudiosSo many comments and genuine questions about Jesus; and this is the comment you, choose too address? Why?
Ephesians 2:8-9
New International Version
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
2 Corinthians 11:3-4
King James Version
3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
King James Version (KJV)
Bible Book List
Font Size
Passage
Resources
Hebrew/Greek
Your Content
Galatians 1:8-9
King James Version
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
God would have decreed them to put idols in their own restaurants, or anywhere else.
Man I really wish these guys would be honest with Scripture. When they talk about John 3 that the condemnation is light came into the world and men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil, why don't they continue to verse 21. Is it because they know it shatters the conclusion they're making or are they truly just not aware that the passage in context doesn't support the theology they've been taught and they've decided to cherry pick verses that support their preconceived notions.
When Jeff talks about Romans 3, again, amen that none seeks after God no not one, but it's what he concludes by that statement without the plethora of examples throughout the new testament that disregard his conclusions that matter when were making doctrinal dogmatic statements. We know from James etc. that if anyone does the whole law but fails in one point he is guilty of all, and we see unregenerate people all through the old and new testament having faith counted to them as righteousness (Abraham in Romans 4 for starters, but Hebrews 11 for more comprehensive examples). So why would we read into romans 3 that every decision everyone has ever made is completely from evil motives, when we read through the Gospels and Acts and see the opposite. The pharisees were given over to evil which is why Jesus speaks to them as such, but was that true for the disciples, or the centurion with greater faith than all in Israel. Even better, all the examples of those who were called a "just man" before the Spirit and regeneration were given (Joseph Matt.1:19; John the baptist Mark 6:20; Simeon Luke 2:25; Cornelius Acts 10:20). These people had not fulfilled the law nor sought after God completely for sure and were not perfect, nor perfected but the blood of Jesus which hadn't been shed yet, but man especially in the case of Cornelius it's so clear these guys are confused by "Christian" philosophies rather than proclaiming what the scriptures really teach, and anyone willing to test these teachings even a little bit shouldn't be led away by these winds of doctrine that have led to so much division in Christ's Body over the centuries. It's sad there's a market for these seeds to flourish. May God richly bless those who do seek Him in Spirit and in truth!
In Jeremiah 7 God says, "People built places to sacrifice their children (in fire) to foreign gods, and He (God) says, "I did NOT COMMAND this, nor did it enter my mind." So, who do we believe, Jeff Durbin, RC Sproul, James White, John Piper or God Almighty and His Holy Word, the Bible?
Seek the Greek/hebrew for this. God is saying he would not entertain the thought and when he says “mind” it’s also translated as heart. So god can know something but choose not to think about it and it not contradict.
Err, I am not aware of any of those men claiming that God commanded people to sacrifice children or even any form of worship of other gods. In fact, he explicitly commands against it in his Law. I think this bait and switch argument is supposed to use a more archaic translation with the word "decree" that you equivocate on. Using a modern translation shows how it obviously says nothing that Calvinist don't also say.
How do Calvanists explain Paul distancing himself from sin in Romans 7? Also how do they explain the goodness of Creation and David saying that he was created in his mother's womb . . . perfectly. Also, is there a distinction between good and perfect? Might God have created things good and not perfect?
“No one is good not even one”
“Behold, I was brought forth in inequity. And in sin my mother conceived me”
“Incapable of producing spiritual actions… apart from the grace of God”
“But we are all unclean”
“Our good deeds are filthy rags”
I think that’s how.
They're just going to qoute you verses out of context over n over . It's hard to actually get them off their script to have an actual biblical conversation. Very cult like actually.
@@cecilspurlockjr.9421 hang on now 😂 the guy asked how Calvinist’s explain an excerpt of scripture. My answer is simply… more scripture.
If The Bible isn’t sufficient enough of an explanation, I’m not sure what you’re looking for.
Also what script?😂 please use scripture to defend your stance on the matter.
@jvke.p
You're not understanding what I meant I guess . What Calvinists believe many different passage mean is different than what roughly 80% of protestants believe they mean . In other words just quoting scripture without an explanation of your exegesis of the passage is useless in these type of conversations. For instance Hebrew 2 : 9 sltells ilus that CHRIST tasted death for every man. Or Titus 2 : 11 explicitly says that the grace that brings salvation has appeared to all men. Most Christians realize these passages literally mean all men but calvinists on the other hand doesn't. Also, calvinists believe that atonement equals salvation but that's utterly unbiblical because nowhere in scripture is sacrifice accepted without faith being applied . CHRIST actually saved all men but most of mankind rejects that salvation like in 1 Timothy 4 : 10 it says CHRIST IS THE SAVIOR of all men, specially those who believe. Calvinism just srats from the wrong point and then becomes exponentially erroneous with its interpretation of scripture.
@@cecilspurlockjr.9421 If Christ died for everyone, why do people still go to hell?
Atonement is quite literally the pardoning of sin. I would love to know what scripture you’re using to justify the position that atonement does not equal salvation.
Fallen man's goodness is no good in the eyesight of God. Isa. 64:6, as you have previously stated. There is no man apart from God that is good. I put the question to many in the comment section, asking after reading three verses , Jer.13:23, Jer. 17:9, and Isa. 64:6, is there any part of mankind that is not affected, or untainted by the fall, or inception of original sin? The answer to this question is no, but many people are preaching , " Jesus loves you just give him a chance type of stuff. Jesus called us evil he didn't bite his tongue. Matt. 7:11 , " If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him ? Matt. 7:17-18. The teaching of the good tree and bad tree is a good example of mankind , v.17. " Even so every good tree bringeth forth, good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. v.18. "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."
Durbin defending his own cult. Durbin will never change.
I definitely recommend The Five Points of Calvinism 2nd Edition book for both Calvinist, Arminians, and everyone in between. The book is a clear, concise (approx. 70 pages) of what the Doctrines of Grace, or the 5 Points of Calvinism are, and why Reformers held to those points. Avoid strawman arguments on both sides of the debate.
Edit: haha, they recommended the same book at the end of the talk.
Edit 2: Also, go read the Canons of Dort. oracleoftroy below pointed this out to me. Go directly to the source.
great minds
Calvinism is a different gospel than what was preached, for example by the apostle Paul.
Why is there even "Calvinism@if they're just followers of Christ?
Are you a Calvinist or a
Christian? They claim to be both but that's rather odd. It's odd be if you're a follower of Christ and the Bible is your authority than why would an ideology of a man (John Calvin) be your authority? if one is convinced that Calvinism is 100% biblical truth why would t you just defend the Bible than? Why would you need to subscribe to something different than Christianity? Why would what you identify with not just be a Christian? These are common sense questions not to be rivalrous but to just stop and think for a moment. Wouldn't one just be preaching the Bible than if Calvinism were true?
There would be no need for another label. Unless the other label is somehow different than the Bible? It's no different than
Catholics saying they're
Christian. Well than if you're Christian wouldn't you just be Christian? Do you agree catholicism is different than Christianity? And if the answer is yes couldn't you apply that same logic here with Calvinism?
@@hopeforeveryone9808 you've already shown you have no understanding of the 5 Points of Calvinism if you believe that Calvinists follow John Calvin. The book I recommended is FULL of the scriptures, both from the Old and New Testament. We would agree in Sola Scriptura, that the Bible is final and infallible authority on all matters of doctrine. Again, I recommend the book to avoid strawman arguments, as shown by your very own comment.
The Doctrines of Grace are found not only in the scriptures, but being proclaimed from Church Fathers of all of the centuries. I am convinced by the scriptures first and foremost. Both the Old and New Testament show what we now call "the Five Points of Calvinism". Christians will always declare the Gospel, that "God saves sinners." (cf. 1 Tim. 1:15; Rom. 5:8)
@@minizimi3790So why aren't you just "Christians"? Why do you make the distinction of Calvanist and 5 points, and all that?
Also, Do you believe that God made certain people to go to heaven and Others to Go to hell? If I have no choice in the matter, if the only way I can believe and repent is by God, and God may not have picked me, then that means I was made to Go to hell? How in the word can you square that with anything in the Bible? The entire Bible from word one to the last is following different people who either choose to follow God, or not follow God. Those that do are rewarded with life everlasting and those that don't are given eternity in hell, and we have no say in the matter? Some of us are puppets that will respond yes, because it's irresistible and other won't be give the chance to respond because God doesn't want them? Not to mention the complete lunacy of the story of Noah if Calvanism is true? Noah only found Grace in the eyes of the Lord because God gave him that grace in a way that he couldn't say no, and every other person on earth who rejected God, because God didn't offer them the chance to believe on him, so God said he repented of making them when all he had to do was extend them Grace, but he chose not to extend them the chance and then is mad that they didn't believe? That god would be an idiot, a god who is mad that people are doing what they have no choice but to do, a god mad that the people have not followed him but they only not followed him because they aren't capable of following him? Complete and utter nonsense.
I'd also recommend going straight to the source for the five points, the Canons of Dort. Freely available on the internet, and is actually part of the statement of beliefs for many Reformed denomination, so it has some degree of authority for defining Calvinism that any book other than scripture won't have.
Noting against that book in particular or books in general, but I dislike pointing people to things they have to buy and that have no confessional weight in Reformed denominations. They end up being, to various extends, the author's private beliefs about Calvinism, so there is always some degree of descernment required. The confessions represent a more consensus view that has unified Reformed churches for centuries. That said, books can be helpful and the confessions a bit obtuse.
Evil and false doctrine 🙇♂️
wrong
What is the true doctrine? I think you should let Satan be the accuser and you just promote truth instead.
Take it for what it is! This man tries with diligence to provide a solid biblical foundation, using the real true word of God! We can easily nitpick human characteristics. Jeff Durbin is human i.e. as yourselves! Trying to find someone that speaks truth is nearly impossible these days and you all have nothing but better things to do but bicker amongst each other nitpicking someone that is doing something good! Why can’t you go nitpick Taylor Swift or even T.D. Jakes or Andrew Wommack perhaps! Joel Osteen perhaps! These men are charlatans/blaspheme the word of God! Go fix whats broke! You can’t fix truth! It will not work out well for you!
Sooooo much question begging.
The hosts are presuming Reformed anthropology, reading verses, and then pronouncing the Reformed teaching “just what the Bible says”.
This is a rhetorical fallacy and a problem. Especially because they don’t even make an attempt to deal with any competing claims.
What would be a better anthropology to hold to when reading the texts?
@@oracleoftroy the issue isn’t with *holding* an anthropology per se, it’s the *assuming* of that anthropology. If you deny total inability, this whole argument falls apart. They didn’t bother to even defend that claim, they simply assume it.
I totally get that most of Apologia’s audience are already Reformed, but if they post a video called “Defending Calvinism”, they should probably give a positive case for their positions rather than simply assuming them.
@@TheBillyDWilliams Ok, but it's one thing for me to tell you that you shouldn't read the Bible with your "TheBillyDWilliams"-ism anthropology, its a whole other thing to present a positive case for what anthropology one should have when reading the text.
Thus, I find your sort of comments completely unhelpful. If you don't have a better alternative, what are you really accomplishing besides communicating that you simply don't like Reformed Theology?
More and more, comments like this just reveal that "Calvinism" is the proper understanding. At least, that's how I see it. If it wasn't, people wouldn't just leave drive by comments, they would present the truth. They don't because they don't have a workable alternative. If they spelled out what they really believed, it would reveal the real nature of their teachings. They have to hide their view because they must to gain any traction among God's people.
Calvinists boldly proclaim a positive message because they are firmly convinced their position is solidly biblical. I have doubts about anyone who just drives by to shout how bad Calvinism is but won't put themselves at risk by boldly claiming what the truth is. I don't have a problem with "Calvinists" assuming "Calvinism" or "TheBillyDWilliamsists" assuming "TheBillyDWilliamsism", but at least one is taking a stand.
@@oracleoftroy ohh, so what you were actually asking is "what is your anthropology?" That's a different question than what I understood your first comment to mean.
I'll gladly answer that one! :) In short form of course lol, I'll respond in more detail later if you want some elaboration. Got a job and a family and such lol
I do believe I have a more biblical alternative to Calvinism, and it's the anthropology that the entirety of the church held up until (about) Augustine: Man is inclined towards sin, but not unable to resist it. Man is not born condemned, because humanity is not collectively guilty of Adam's sin (no federal headship). Man is not under "total inability" to seek Christ. Man has been given the ability to work synergistically with Christ in the works that He prepared for them, and this includes non-Christians. In terms of free will, I'd hold to classical (pre-Renaissance) compatibilism.
I believe all of these are the teachings of Scripture, and that Calvinism only works if you read Scripture through its lens. However, it is foreign to those closest in time and worldview to Scripture, and therefore is to be rejected.
All of the above aspects of anthropology are simply assumed by the hosts of this video (instead of "defended" as per the title) which was the point of my initial comment. It's now started a discussion, which was the goal. :)
Feel free to poke at that or ask followup questions/Scripture citations. I'll get to it when I can, but I think the above suffices for "boldly claiming what the truth is" as you requested. :) Blessings!
@@TheBillyDWilliams Thanks! I would like clarity on a few things:
_"Man is inclined towards sin, but not unable to resist it."_
What inclines man towards sin?
In what sense is he not unable to resist it? Or to remove the double negation, in what sense is he able to resist it? Particularly, is possible for man to live a perfectly sinless life? As a Calvinist, I would agree with this statement as worded. However, if this meant to affirm a historical error like Pelagianism, I would reject that aspect of it. But insofar as this is a rejection of Utter Depravity and fits within Total Depravity, I agree with it.
_"Man is not born condemned, because humanity is not collectively guilty of Adam's sin (no federal headship)."_
How do you understand Romans 5 if you reject Federal Headship?
_"Man is not under "total inability" to seek Christ."_
How do you understand Romans 3?
I can see ways to affirm this statement as a Calvinist, but not in a meritorious for salvation sense that some people have in mind. After all, many unregenerate people find a home in the church and feel a sense of satisfaction in a form of Christ of their own making, but don't put their faith in the Biblical Christ. I'm not sure if that sort of thing would be covered by this statement.
_"Man has been given the ability to work synergistically with Christ in the works that He prepared for them, and this includes non-Christians."_
That doesn't sound very controversial. In fact, that's something I often see non-Calvinists push back against regarding Calvinism. Yes, indeed God has a very good purpose for the evil he allows.
My guess would be you brought this up because you see a difference here between Calvinism and your anthropology. If so, what is that difference?
And thanks for being willing to do this! I find it exceptionally rare for non-Calvinists to lay their view on the line like this. Feel free to take your time. I'm in a similar boat and respond only as I have time as well, so I understand if life keeps you from less important things like TH-cam comments.
John 3:34 says God gives the Spirit with no measure. There is NO limit to who He will give the Spirit to. 3:36 whoever believes the Son has eternal life, whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God wrath remains on them.
"You did not choose Me but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit..." John 15:16
Blessed is the man You choose and cause to approach you that he may dwell in Your courts... Psalm 65:4
"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him..." John 6:44a
God has made all for Himself even the wicked for the day of doom. Proverbs 16:4
No one believes apart from God choosing them for salvation.
Your eyes saw my substance being yet unformed and in your book they all were written the days fashioned for me when as yet there were none of them. Psalm 139:16
@@gerrydean7696 John 14,15 read in context. He is taking only to the disciples. He chose them to be disciples, they did not choose to be disciple but He hand picked them. Psalms 65 are you dwelling in his courts, house, temple? This is talking about Israel the chosen people. John 12:32 When Jesus died He drew ALL men to himself… Read a couple more verse down in proverbs 16 to verse 6 God told us how we can avoid the day of doom and what we must do to have our sins atoned for, faith and steadfast love.
Psalms 139:16 yes God is all knowing and has made us in His image but that has nothing to do with salvation. Quit using verse out of context to prove your theology that isn’t biblical. I used all scripture to prove your points wrong. If you respond use scripture not theology
If God IS all knowing, he knows who will believe...from the beginning...right? And who will not believe..right? And he chose to create...knowing those who would burn in hell for not believing...right?
But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him.
- John 6:64
Please stop defending the undefendable God bless you brother's
If you debate flowers 😢😫💯😅🙏🤍✝️
It is more imperative to defend the Gospel than it is to defend Calvinism or Arminianism, which are tertiary to the questions of “How are we saved” and “How do we then live”? I am not advocating an enlightened. “third way“ that usurps the conversation either.
I get why we want to put Sovereignty at the beginning, don't get me wrong.
But if you put it at the end you still have a real word 😐
agreed. "STULIP" sounds too derpy.
"For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot." - Romans 8:6 ---- There is no reason to take this as a "total depravity" proof text. An analogy which I think explains what Paul is communicating here...
The hand set on the water is hostile to dryness. It is not dry, indeed, it cannot be.
What is being described is the natural, unavoidable outcome of a hand that is set on/in contact with water. It will unavoidably be "wet" and incapable of being dry inasmuch as it continues to be set on water. This says nothing about the ability or inability of the hand to set itself somewhere other than on the water. It's simply stating that it's impossible for a hand, inasmuch as it is in a certain condition (set on water) to be anything other than wet.
In the same way, a mind that is set on the flesh will unavoidably be hostile to God and unable to please him - inasmuch as it remains in that state. As a hand that is set on water cannot be dry inasmuch as it remains set on water, so also a mind that is unbelieving/leaning on its own understanding/set on the flesh cannot be righteous or do righteousness inasmuch as it remains in that state.
The inability here relates to the "outcome" produced by the place on which the mind is set. This however says nothing about an inability to set the mind on one place or the other and I believe that is the confusion that takes place in this passage for the Calvinist. It's a bit of a category error really.
Because the bible says the natural result of A is an inability to do B... therefore the bible teaches we are unable to do A.
This is a confusion of the passage. Romans 8:6 does not teach total depravity.
So does God regenerate people BEFORE they hear the gospel?
Actually, he regenerates them before they believe. He regenerates them through the hearing of the gospel
@kobewhitlock8641 exactly but some Total D folks say that the dead person cannot respond to he gospel utnless they ae saved first....they say you can't know if Hitler was saved, for example as there is no outward indication of salvation. It's jacked up but other total D folks dispute that definition...
@@johnnyplunkett8532 I’m not sure what that means and I havent heard it before.
Being saved always does bring an outward indication of fruit, because the Holy Spirit begins and finishes a good work in the person.
But you need to be regenerated in order to believe. And those who are regenerated will believe. And those who believe are justified and saved.
@@johnnyplunkett8532 and all those who are justified are glorified. And as the scriptures show, sanctification is begun upon justification and completed upon glorification which assumes there is a work occurring in the between time.
The golden chain of redemption is the best way to show how things happen. The “calling” is the regeneration and it’s followed by justification which occurs upon belief.
Also see 1 Corinthians 1 and how it talks about the calling of God being the reason some people understand the gospel and others don’t when it is preached
@@ejj1939 I’m pretty sure the tense is aorist which can either be past or present. But because Paul is speaking from an eternal perspective of Gods action outside of time, the most natural way for him to speak is past tense. The context is speaking about believers whom Christ died for
Name of the Song?
2 things. No one in the entire Bible was ever predestined to hell…pharaoh and Judas had nothing to do with salvation btw and acts 17:26-27 destroys total depravity. God put us on the earth to seek him and grope for him because he is not far from any of us…
Except Romans 3 and 8 exist, so there goes the idea of unregenerate men seeking after God.
As for your first point, I have to wonder what you do with a passage such as Proverbs 16:4 and all of Romans 9.
@@douglasmcnay644 Proverbs 16:6 says what we must do to avoid that day of doom. Just read the context and Roman’s 3:9-20 specifically I assume is what verse you mean. This says that all men are sinners not all men chooses not to seek after God. Acts 17:26-27 Says we are made to seek Him so if you say that Roman’s 3 contradicts them either the Bible is wrong or you have to reinterpret acts 17. Roman’s 8:28-30 I also assume is the verse you’re talking about. This is a statement known from the past it start with “and we know” so Paul is talking is saying “because of what has happened in the past” we know all things work to get her for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose. So if you love God and are called to accomplish His purpose then all things will work together for good. Example: David and Goliath. David loved God and all things worked together for good.
If God IS all knowing, he knows who will believe...from the beginning...right? And who will not believe..right? And he chose to create...knowing those who would burn in hell for not believing...right?
But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him.
- John 6:64
So God creates knowing people won't believe.
People who don't believe go to hell.
Therefore...GOD predestinated some for hell...right?...right.
For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
- Jude 4
Mind boggling how the Church cannot believe how a Calvinist comes to the understanding of the soteriology they come to and how an Arminian comes to that understanding. I can see how they get what they get from Scripture. Brothers and sisters, come on now.
I would like to point out that our brothers here did not represent an Arminian view I lean to. I think what was critiqued was a Finny type of Arminianism. There’s also Wesleyan, Classical/Reformed, a modern one like Calvary Chapel etc.
John MacArthur 83, me 62 , Chris Rosenbrough 50's , you 45 , Joel Webben , 38 , Colin 27.
I checked out Ion Layer. If I stop buying gasoline and groceries, I might be able to afford it for a couple months.
Jeff, can you confirm if John Calvin believed and taught that our Lord Jesus was the archangel Michael ? If so, do you agree?
Of course Jeff doesn’t believe that.
If Calvin believed that, he’d say he’s anathema
Excuse me, while I agree with majority of your teachings when you are quoting scripture, I do not agree in defending Calvinism. You are defending religion. Defend God’ Word it is the truth cover to cover, no Calvinism required. When you start following mans teaching of what God requires you just took a wrong turn. Everything and I mean everything you need is in God’ Word.
Calvinism is just the word used to describe the doctrines of grace. The doctrines of grace are rooted in the Bible
@@TheFinalJigsaw I think you mean routed. I looked for their roots in the bible, and I didn't find them.
Ok your still wrong as you like to put sincerely wrong
I love Apologia. Rather than go over scripture that supports Calvinism, how about going over the scriptures that are used to dispute Calvinism and expound on those. I am an hour through so if they hit on those verses later then nvm.
What are those verses?
@MBegneaud hello, here are just a few: John 3:16, 1Timothy4:10, Hebrews 2:9, 2Peter 3:9, 1John 2:2. I've heard it argued that John was writing to Jews in his epistle and therefore the "whole world" means Gentiles. FYI I'm not a believer in universalism. But it is hard for me to reconcile these passages and several others that would indicate some type of calling to accept or reject Christ.
Calvinists are constantly accusing people of misrepresenting Calvinism, of not knowing what Calvinism “REALLY IS” of engaging in straw man arguments against their doctrines. I think that most “Calvinists” aren’t REALLY Calvinists. They don’t even know what “Calvinism” is. I’ve studied Calvinism, and for the most part, those who are against Calvinism have properly represented it. I think that many people who call themselves “Calvinists” haven’t studied much about Calvinism. They probably heard a passionate sermon from James White or Jeff Durbin or John MacArthur. Then they put their theological “stake in the ground” and say, “I’m a Calvinist." how ever, there are some Calvinists who have studied Calvinism and know what it teaches even though they don’t like to talk about the “bad side” of Calvinism. They “hide it” and only talk about it when someone presses them on the issues. Or when they engage in words like, “free will”, “sovereignty”, “author of sin”, etc. the following quotes are from John Calvin’s book, Institutes of Christian Religion. If you can’t agree with Calvin on these issues, then you should not call yourself a “Calvinist” and if you can’t call yourself a Calvinist, then make all Christians aware of what TRUE Calvinism really is so that they don’t become Calvinists.
“But those who, while they profess to be the disciples of Christ, still seek for free-will in man, notwithstanding of his being lost and drowned in spiritual destruction, labor under manifold delusion, making a heterogeneous mixture of inspired doctrine and philosophical opinions, and so erring as to both.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 15, Paragraph 8)
“Creatures are so governed by the secret counsel of God, that nothing happens but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 3)
“We hold that God is the disposer and ruler of all things, -that from the remotest eternity, according to his own wisdom, He decreed what he was to do, and now by his power executes what he decreed. Hence we maintain, that by His providence, not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 8)
“thieves and murderers, and other evildoers, are instruments of divine providence, being employed by the Lord himself to execute judgments which he has resolved to inflict.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 5)
“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)
"We call predestination God’s eternal decree, by which he compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is fore-ordained for some, eternal damnation for others.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 21, Paragraph 5)
“…we say that God once established by his eternal and unchangeable plan those whom he long before determined once for all to receive into salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, he would devote to destruction…he has barred the door of life to those whom he has given over to damnation.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 21, Paragraph 7
“Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1))
“I admit that in this miserable condition wherein men are now bound, all of Adam’s children have fallen by God’s will.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 4)
“But since he foresees future events only by reason of the fact that he decreed that they take place, they vainly raise a quarrel over foreknowledge, when it is clear that all things take place rather by his determination and bidding.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)
“The first man fell because the Lord deemed it meet that he should.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 8)
John Calvin was not a “great man of God," or a “great theologian." In fact, I don’t think that he was a Christian at all. John Calvin might have been a Christian at one point in time, but not when he wrote any of the above nonsense. The “god” of John Calvin is not the God of the Bible. The Calvinism of John Calvin is NOT “Christianity." Hopefully now, all of the “Calvinists” out there can see exactly that Calvinism was not misrepresented. the Calvinism of John Calvin was properly represented. does a “Calvinist” must agree with Calvin on EVERYTHING in order to be a “Calvinist”? No. BUT he must agree with him on issues concerning salvation, if you are going to call yourself a “Calvinist” -issues such as predestination, free will, sovereignty of God, etc. If you aren’t willing to agree with the above quotes from John Calvin, then stop claiming that people don’t understand Calvinism, are misrepresenting it or are straw manning Calvinism.
I do think it is telling that you are quoting relatively small, cherry-picked snippets from Calvin's Institutes, in which he is quite well known for taking great time to spell out his theology in great detail such that just snipping a sentence here or there says little to nothing about what Calvin might mean. Your own citation shows it, they are from "paragraphs", yet it isn't even the whole paragraph, just a sentence, or more often, a fragment of a sentence. It would be helpful if perhaps you gave commentary on what you think is being taught. Many of them are basic Christian teachings that have been uncontroversial until the recent rise of Open Theism and neo-Pelagianism.
_Book 1, Chapter 15, Paragraph 8_ - Yes I reject the heresy of Pelagianism. As Calvin writes, Man has free will. In the garden, Adam made a free choice to sin and that has consequences. Now my free will isn't an innocent one, but one tainted by sin in everything it does. I know many of the loudest Calvin haters of the last 5ish years reject him precisely because they have given over to the heresy of Pelagianism, and many who wouldn't otherwise buy into it are being swayed because they hate Calvinism more.
_Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 3_ - Yes I affirm that God is omnipotent. There is nowhere we can go and nothing we can do to hide from God. God is actually a God, and not basically a man with superpowers.
I suspect you might have an ecliptic understanding of "decree". Consider this sentence from earlier in the chapter: "For he is deemed omnipotent, not because he can indeed act, yet sometimes ceases and sits in idleness, or continues by a general impulse that order of nature which he previously appointed; but because *governing* heaven and earth by his providence, he so *regulates* all things that nothing takes place without his deliberation."
God is the King of kings and Lord of lords after all, so he governs and rules over all things. There is no other god before him. Here you can see that "decree" isn't a stand-in for fatalism or hard determinism like many anti-Calvinists assume, but about God as ruler executing his rule. Just as Governors and Kings and other officials rule by issuing decrees, God rules by decree as well. This doesn't deny the previous chapter that affirms man's free will, if that's what you think it is saying.
_Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 8_ - Yes, God is the King of kings and Lord of lords, and beside him there is no other. Here again we see the language of a governor or king or other magistrate, one of "ruling", "disposing", "decreeing", "executing" (as in the executive branch, not the punishment), "counsels", "governed", etc. If you deny this, who is God over God? Did Jesus lie when he said he has all authority in heaven and on earth? What isn't under God's rule and authority?
_Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 5_ - Isn't that clearly Biblical? Read Gen 50: 20, Job 1: 12, 15, 21, Amos 3: 4, 1 Kings 22: 18-23, etc. Just read the book of Judges or prophets, where God raises up nations to conquer and oppress Israel for their wickedness. What exactly do you find objectional? Do you find senseless, purposeless evil in the world better for some reason? That makes your god a monster, in my opinion. The God of the Bible has a purpose for the evil he allows, and it is for bringing about his very good plan.
_Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11_ - Sounds like Job 1. What exactly do you object to? In studying Calvin, did you forget to study scripture as well?
_Book 3, Chapter 21, Paragraph 5_ - Again "decree", kingly language about God's rule and in this case, judgement for sin. This isn't fatalism.
_Book 3, Chapter 21, Paragraph 7_ - What exactly do you find objectional here? That God saves those who deserve judgement? Again, this isn't fatalism, God isn't making people sin. He either chooses to have mercy or to show justice. The Justice is deserved, the mercy undeserved.
_Book 3, Chapter 23 ..._ - I'd be careful handling this chapter. This chapter is titled "Refutation of the False Accusations with Which This Doctrine Has Always Been Unjustly Burdened, and throughout this chapter, Calvin sets up the false claims and then goes on to refute that understanding. I don't feel the need to specifically comment on these, as you haven't double checked that this is indeed Calvin's view or the view Calvin is refuting, but are just tossing out the quotes as if they are Calvin's view.
To be honest, nothing you cite here seems unusual in the history of Christianity. For example, read over the Canon of Orange, written over 1000 years before Calvin was born. I'd bet you wouldn't like the "Calvinism" being taught in it. If anything, given what you are citing as objectional, I wonder if you have embraced a heretical form of Christianity and are using Calvin as a foil to attack all of Classic Christian theology.
@@oracleoftroy I am a Bible defined Christian. I have the same salvation Peter had, Paul, Timothy, Lydia, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Priscilla, Apollos, rufus, etc. etc. first century Christianity. Calvin was a talking contradiction heretic. there is no biblical truth in anyone who contradicts himself. he spoke from both sides of his mouth. YES at times he said man had freedom of choice. at other times he said man's will was constantly fettered to God's sovereignty and he lacked free will. I chose to post the WORST side of these 2 contradictions that rejects the existence of contingencies thus making God the author of sin and evil. Calvin spoke these slanderous blasphemous words. if you agree with this madman on this issue, you are as evil and wicked as he was.
@@oracleoftroy Let's examine the immoral implications of agreeing with the "dark" side of Calvin's contradiction which I assume you agree with by the way you defended him. If you agree with Calvin: “Creatures are so governed by the secret counsel of God, that nothing happens but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 3)
“The first man fell because the Lord deemed it meet that he should.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, s. 8
"I admit that in this miserable condition wherein men are now bound, all of Adam's children have fallen by God's will." Book 3, Ch 23, s. 4
"Again I ask: whence does it happen that Adam's fall irremediably involved so many peoples, together with their infant offspring, in eternal death unless because it so pleased God? ... The decree is dreadful indeed, I confess. Yet no one can deny that God foreknew what end man was to have before he created him, and consequently foreknew because he so ordained by his decree." Book 3, Ch 23, s. 7
THEN you must also agree that it was God's plan and purpose for Adam to sin. God knew all these heinous crimes would be committed by a depraved humanity after Adam's rebellion. hence all evil and wicked events in human history occurred by the sovereign will of God. this slander of God's integrity, implies that the purpose of God was to corrupt the purity of primitive Christianity by making emperor Constantine the first pope of a paganized counterfeit Christianity that sits today in the Vatican. and to further this heinous agenda, He guided pope Sergius III (904-911) to have a mistress, Marozia. it was God's prerogatives that she, her mother Theodora, and her sister, filled the pagan papal throne with their fornicators and bastard sons, and turned the papal palace into a den of robbers. the prerogative and will of God was for pope John X (914-928) to become pope by prostitute Theodora. it was the secret and sovereign counsel of God that pope John X was to be smothered to death by Marozia. and it was the purpose of the Divine will for this harlot to raise to the papacy, popes Leo VI (928-929), and Stephen VII (929-931), and her own illegitimate son: John XI (931-936) And to corrupt humanity even more, it was God's will that predestined Muhamad to rape Aisha when she was 6 years old. it was God's influence which guided Penn State U football coach, Sandusky, to rape little boys and for Adam Lanza to shoot 26 people. twenty of the victims were children between 6 and 7 years old, and the other 6 were adult staff members. it was God's purpose for Nikolas Cruz to open fire on students and staff at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School murdering 17 people and injuring 17 others. it was God's purpose for Stephen Paddock in the Las Vegas Strip in Nevada to kill 60 people and wound at least 413 and it was God's purpose for Salvador Ramos to fatally shoot 19 students and 2 teachers at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas. and to compel homosexuals to display their depraved nudity in public parades. it was God Who guided these perverts to offer little children, who were brought by their imbecile parents to these depraved parades, candies in the shape of penises. it was God's purpose for homosexuals to dress as women in Drag Queen shows and for these deviants to invite children. it was God's purpose and will that guided pedophile advocacy organizations in the US and throughout the world to molest children. it was God's will that predestined the US Senate to confirm a transgender degenerate, Richard Levine, to lead the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. the hormone blockers and Frankenstein operations agenda offered to children to change their sex were implemented by this animal. God knew all these depravities would come about that is why He predestined Richard Levine to win the confirmation. it was God's SOVEREIGN purpose that at least 1 million abortions are to be performed every year in the US. and, of course, it is God's purpose to influence these women to carry out His irresistible will to murder their babies and the doctors to perform the abortions.
"The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord regretted that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him to His heart." Gen. 6:5, 6
QUESTION for you Calvies. if God predestined Adam to sin, WHY was He shocked to see the way mankind turned out? HOW could the triune God have a genuine disappointment and failed expectation about an event He caused by predestining man to do? WHY did He regret creating man if it was His purpose and will for Adam to sin????
@@enriquemoure7212 wow !!!! That was great my friend ,it's not until the consequences of calvinism are thought about or written down that you see how EVIL it is .
Godspeed.
@@enriquemoure7212 My major problem is that you are snipping sentence fragments out of Institutes and presenting them as if they tell the whole story of Calvin's theology. They don't. They still don't as you continue to do it. I would encourage all to read the Institutes in full and see each of these quotes in the full light of Calvin's careful reasoning and decide for themselves whether what the carefully chosen snippets seem to teach matches the narrative they were selected to represent.
Could you make the same argument from the Reformed Confessions that actually serve as doctrinal standards in Reformed denominations? To my knowledge, not a single work of Calvin has any authority in supposedly "Calvinist" denominations, whereas things like the Westminster Confession or the Three Forms of Unity do. They are much more succinct in laying out Calvinism as actually practiced.
Could you make the same argument based solely on them? Or does your argument require chopping up Calvin's long paragraphs to fit a narrative?
"Rome... pulling it out of a hat.." Sorry, but Jesus was an Israelite, a Hebrew, a Jew. The "pulled out of a hat" items usually looked at with misunderstanding are Jewish in origin because, being like our Lord Jesus, we celebrate in the Jewish tradition, just a post-messianic Jewish tradition instead of a pre-messianic tradition.
That is where a lot of the ceremony comes from in "do this in memory of me" in the Roman rite is from the Jewish traditions of Shabbat and Passover.
That and we follow closely Christs final words, and command, to the beloved disciple as He was on the cross.
I heard on recent video , oh? Calvinism , AUGUSTINE IS A GIANT? Joell Webben did interviews on giants and nephillim
Why? What is the big push for such an unnecessary concept even for?
my thoughts exactly! i've read comments on jeffs channel by people taking this calvinists stuff to mean they don't need to witness to people at all because it's all been decided. this is meaningless garbage. God is not the author of confusion!
That's a good question, its irrelevant to salvation, the only thing it can do is turn people away from God, because it makes people think that God chooses to save some and just let others perish, its like a life guard at a beach who saves some people from drowning but just chooses to let others drown, who would ever think that was a good person?
If there is no free will, did God make Satan bad? Or did he choose to turn against God? And how about the angels that followed Satan?
Why were some angels good and some bad? Are you blaming God for sin?
Did God know that Lucifer would rebel?
And did He permit yet constrain his rebellion?
And if so, why?
Just know these are philosophical questions. So you will likely get an opinion and not truth from scripture. That’s not a bad thing. Just pointing out that to you.
However a paradox I have found is. God being sovereign over sin. Yet, not responsible for it. I haven’t found a good answer to God’s responsibility when it comes to sin. But that doesn’t steer me from the truth of scripture
@@Firefitroman What does being "sovereign over sin" mean to you?
I love a lot of what this channel brings other than the false teachings of John Calvin. Follow Jesus Christ, not John Calvin. I pray that Pastor Jeff opens his heart to the truth and not be stuck in a position just because he has defended it for so long.
Was that supposed to be an argument?
You should hear Durbin talk about teachers like Calvin saying something great on one page then face planting on the next. You're falsely representing a his views.
Works for me.
This is an opinion brother! Ground your exhortation in the word.
@@anunzieopinions aren't allowed here?
Can a calvinist clear this up for me
Jeremiah 32:35 “And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.” Seems like you have a complete power of free will to me also I love how “Calvin” is a 5 point calvinist all the way but these dudes are 2,3,4 the dude your holding to would completely disagree with you
Is Calvinism the Bible?
Sorry but people who practice Calvinism, have a bad habit of saying, "if you backslide, you were never saved in the 1st place." Last I checked, no human can see inside another person's mind and how sincere that person was when they were born again. Only God knows that, so Calvinists can go sit down somewhere, and keep their self righteous opinions to themselves.
Are you thinking about
1 John 2:19?
19.They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.
-That is in reference to false teachers but I think the same applies to our lives as a whole...or maybe you're thinking about this at the same time...
1 John 3:9&10
9.No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God. 10. By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.
Both of these examples are true, considering they're scripture we must take it as truth whether we like it or not.
-Let's not for get this applies too...
1 John 1:8-10
8. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
-Although we're sinners for the entirety of our lives, we should see evidence of our sanctification along the way. In other words, I'm not what I need to be but thank God, I'm not what I was. With salvation comes a new nature. God removed the heart of stone & has given us a heart of flesh that desires holiness/repentance, not perfectly, but gradually more & more as we're being sanctified. Just because you believe what the scripture plainly teaches dosen't mean you're a self righteous jerk(paraphrase, but your words...);)
Faith is not a work.
Ecclesiastes 7:29
Calvinism - Arminianism
Trinitarianism - Unitarianism
Republican - Democrat
Each of the above is the same bird having two wings. The truth is a completely different bird.
And yet you won't tell us the truth, you just throw stones from a distance.
What about Enoch? He pleased the Lord so much that He escaped death!
Actually it was Christ in Enoch who pleased God.
@@lawrence1318 That's not what the text says.
Also, wasn't Abraham's Faith counted as righteousness?
I didn't read anything saying that Jesus residing within Abraham, made him righteous.
It was Abraham's decision to trust God and that was accounted to him as righteousness.
[5]By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, “and was not found, because God had taken him”; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
[6]But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
[7]By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith. Faithful Abraham
[8]By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he would receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going.
Hebrews 11:5-8
@@lozferris1719 It was as I said: Christ in Enoch and Christ in Abraham.
@@lawrence1318 I prefer to go with what the Bible says; not you.
@@lozferris1719 What I've said is correct. Your problem is you don't want to learn.
Calvinism is a cult.
In the "being outside of God's grace" type of sense?
@@NeededGR13FIt's the love language of anti-Calvinists. It basically means "I know it is Biblical and I can't refute it, but I still don't like it, so I will name call instead."
What is Provisionism?
The terms Provisionism and Provisionist are new by the standards of Christian theology. These labels have only been formally defined and used in the past few years. In broad terms, a Provisionist-someone who holds to Provisionism-holds a generally Arminian view of free will and salvation, with notable differences such as positive belief in eternal security. The main gist of Provisionism is the idea that the gospel is the Word of God, which is sufficient in itself, through the power of the Holy Spirit, to enable a response in all who hear God’s appeal to be reconciled to Him (John 6:63; Hebrews 4:12).
The clearest differences between Provisionist doctrine and classical Reformed theology are seen in the concepts of total depravity and limited atonement. The doctrine of total depravity suggests all people are inherently sinful, such that they could not even want to be saved without a direct, predestined act of God. Provisionism counters that all people are sinful and responsible for their sin, but they are also responsible for answering God’s universal call for men to be saved (Titus 2:11). Limited atonement is a doctrine teaching that Christ only died for those God had designated as the elect. A Provisionist would reject this, saying that the Bible teaches that Christ died for all people (1 John 2:2), which is why God promises to save any who come to Him in faith (Romans 10:11-13; Revelation 22:17). The Provisionist holds that Christ genuinely desires all of humanity to be saved (Luke 5:32; 19:10; 1 Timothy 2:4-6; ).
In effect, this means a Provisionist would also reject other Reformed doctrines such as irresistible grace.
The main use of the term Provisionism comes from the writings of theologian Leighton Flowers. The term is also meant to describe the general approach to salvation held by most Southern and Independent Baptists. So far as Reformed doctrine is concerned, this means narrow disagreement on the subjects of total depravity and limited atonement, as well as the exact meaning of words like predestined and elect.
Similar to the TULIP in Calvinism, Provisionism can be summarized with the acrostic PROVIDE
Responsible: Able-to-respond to God’s appeals for reconciliation.
Open door: For anyone to enter by faith. Whosoever will may come to His open arms.
Vicarious atonement: Provides a way for anyone to be saved by Christ’s blood.
Illuminating grace: Provides clearly revealed truth so that all can know and respond in faith.
Destroyed: For unbelief and resisting the Holy Spirit.
Eternal security: For all true believers.
Taking Calvinism out of the question, I'm curious what you think of the teaching found in the Canon of Orange, written 1000 years before Calvin was born. It seems to me that is outright condemns much of what Leighton and other "Provisionists" teach. Its hard to tell though, as most Provisionists don't make a positive claim, it is purely a negative anti-Calvinist claim. The actual beliefs that self-described "provisionists" hold doesn't seem to have much unity beyond hating Reformed Theology.