Asking if you are a Calvinist is the fastest way to get a acurate representation on what you believe about key Scripture, as well as the character of God himself. Answering with a no knowing this is dishonest sneaky and dishonest at best.
He has made a very good point. We follow The Lord Jesus Christ, not John Calvin, and Jesus taught, in John 6 (and other places too!) that people cannot believe unless God draws them and grants the gift of faith. Look up John 6 v 44 and 65.
God is even called sovereign in scripture. Predestined is used repeatedly. This is systematic throughout the bible, even in the old testament, God's sovereign election and predestination. When people have trouble squaring seemingly contradictory truths in the bible they end up denying one. But to show hostility towards "calvinism", like I'm seeing in these comments, how can you be this unlearned and hostile to professing Christian and claim the love of the Father is in you?
How can you claim the love of the Father is in you when you believe in a system of theology that makes God the creator of sin? Please don't call God Holy then speak against His Holy nature.
The predestination spoken of in the new testament is only of conditional categories of people (those who love God, us in Christ). The word is never applied to individuals.
@@Rbl7132 clearly and specifically not... though I'd be happy to review an example or two where predestination is mentioned and is clearly and specifically talking about individual destinies.
@@austin3789 Hello I don't know what "clearly and specifically not" means.... We can begin in Romans 8...the Golden chain of redemption....absolutely speaking of individuals..... Do you disagree? This is only the first passage in Scripture I can point to.
Yes, Austin, yes, the NT Epistles are written to the the Body of Christ, not individual Christians. The Church, is the Bride, not individuals. Corporately, individuals are the Church. There will be one marriage, one Bride, one Groom. There will not be individual marriages, that Glorious Day, only one. “Sovereign”, yes, God is, at all times and He sovereignly pleased/satisfied Himself before the world was ever formed and before sin ever entered the world, He designed/ authored the Plan of Salvation. Ephesians 1:5 “predestined us (church)….according to His hood will and pleasure ( Only God can please/satisfy Himself). “Before the foundation of the world Christ was crucified”, only a GOD (Son) can please a GOD (Father). Jesus’ blood was an sweet aroma to Heaven. The Plan of Salvation belongs solely to God the Father and His Son is the only executioner of the Plan. “It is finished!” The Father chose/elected only One, His Son the Messiah, the Christ. The only way to be “elect”, is to be in the body of Christ, the Church. Jesus is the only way to the Father, no man (mankind)…, except through Me (Jesus). And “through me”…is very important and that needs to highlighted to understand Ephesians 2:8, No Jesus, no saving grace. The Fathers plan of salvation, His Grace is only extended “through” Jesus. It was not the work of any lest any should boast but it was the work of God that designed the Plan of Salvation, a gift, to the fallen world. Predestined, the Church is predetermined, by The Father, to be like His chosen/elect Son. “Christlike” Elected/Elect/Election, only applies to the Church. The Bride, takes on the identity of the Bridegroom, she accepted and reject His proposal. “I stand at the door and knock..” The Church is the “elect” of the Father but only because the Church accepts, is known, is loved by the Son. “One flesh” Only Jesus pleased The Father. No, not Adam or Adams lineage (until Jesus), no not Abraham or his lineage, nor Moses, neither any Prophet, Apostle, Pastor/Priest/Elder/Bishop, Deacon, neither Eve, Mary the mother of Jesus (yes a sinner, can’t be worshipped, either; Luke 1:47 Mary is blessed but not sinless; a virgin but not sinless) ( What does she need a Savior?), no man or woman pleased God the Father, only Jesus. No, not even Jacob, a sinner, like his brother Esau. God, sovereignly, chooses His Gospel Ministers, all are sinners and not all males are chosen/“called”, in every household. God is sovereign in choosing Jacob to work through but this was not about “Salvation” for Jacob and excluding Esau form Salvation. “Before either sinned, God chose Jacob”, Salvation was coming but by faith, not birthright (oldest). Paul, the writer of Romans (all of) but here Romans 9:3 The Jews, Israel of the flesh, Paul’s kinsmen, not gentiles. Chapters 9,10, & 11 are to the Jews in the Church, to all NT churches, not just Rome. “Not by birthright but by faith”, does Salvation come….the gentiles have received the Gospel message, it is available unto them, also. Jews are the “firstborn”, but that does not exclude the “younger” gentiles. God has given the responsibility of taking the Gospel to the world away from the Jews and given it to the “younger” gentiles, they believe God. The Israelites fought against God, rejected His Messiah, so God “turned to the gentiles”. 9:14 Is Gods “sovereignty” being questioned or His “righteousness”? The Jews, in the church, are having difficulty understanding the fate of Israel of the flesh. Is God being accused of unrighteousness because He “hardened” some Jews hearts? Was He unrighteous to “harden” Pharaohs? Is what Paul asks the Jewish Christians. God was righteous with Pharaoh and, now, with our fellow Jews. God knew (foreknowledge) that Pharaoh would reject His offer to reconcile but God offered it to the sinner Pharaoh (Gracious and Loving God to all but righteous, also.) Gods righteous was not satisfied with Pharaoh, so His Judgment comes. God “gave” Pharaoh over to his own hard heart. God knew pharaoh would never accept Him. Just as God knows that only certain Jews will accept His Messiah, the rest of the Jews He has righteously Judged. But, there still a “remnant”, those that will “believe/accept” Jesus. The OT remnant were not “elected” (some allowed, some not), as some think. The OT “remnant”, didn’t “bend the knee to Baal”, they kept their faith in God. Romans 9-11 are not speaking to Gentile Christians. Gentiles are not excluded, no not one, from Salvation but Gentiles need not get boastful because Israel is Gods “beloved”( first to the Jew, then to the Greek). The responsibility of the Gospel will return to the Jews but only after all the gentiles that will accept has been fulfilled. That’s how you know God hasn’t hardened the hearts of Gentiles but speaking only about the Israelites. “Because of their unbelief”….God hardened their hearts. For there to be unbelief the Gospel had to be presented to reject it. Human responsibility…..man chose to sin on his own, no help, accountable. So must man choose Salvation, with no help. “Scripture, alone is sufficient to bring a sinner unto repentance”, God draws all men unto Himself, by His Word of Truth, the Scriptures. The Father magnifies the Son. The Scriptures point to Jesus. Andrew, and Peter believed the OT scriptures about the coming Messiah. The Ethiopian, Acts 8, “alone with the scriptures”, the Holy Spirit searching the heart of every sinner for repentance. A “soft heart”, pricked, not callous and hard, to Gods Truth. The Holy Spirit moves in but only after one accepts, Jesus (Ephesians 1:13 “after”). Paul was contemplating the Gospel that he heard Stephen, the Deacon, defend, while headed to Damascus. “Hard to kick against the pricks/goads”, hard to deny The Truth. Paul knew that only God could’ve known what his thoughts were on, “Paul, was amazed…” Paul’s acceptance of Jesus “What will you have me do?” Paul tells Agrippa that the Gospel is hidden from no one, “it was not done in a corner”. In public, in plain sight. John 3:16 is not a lie and Jesus is not a liar. Also, 1st John 1 “not only for our sins (Church) but for all the world, also”. John 3 “must be born again”; “born of water and Spirit”; “do not marvel..” John 1 “only Jesus baptizes one in The Holy Spirit”, No Jesus, no Grace; A person is born again, after, Jesus allows the Holy Spirit to come in and begin a new work. Now, “He that began a good work in you…” “Water and Spirit” Jesus is the living water, the Spirit Jesus leaves to dwell. “Do not marvel..” Salvation can’t be explained, only experienced. Don’t get caught up, Nicodemus, trying to understand “born again”. One will know when the Holy Spirit has indwelled them, just as one can physically hear and feel the wind physically, so you’ll know inwardly. It’s an experience that can’t be explained. No one is so “bent” they can’t hear Gods truth. Adam, Eve, and Satan heard God, post fall. No Holy Spirit to “open their hearts”. Cain and Abel, both heard God, no help. Abraham “believed” God, then God imputed righteous ness upon Abraham. Jesus with the Pharisees.. “You know who I am and you still reject me”; no Holy Spirit for them to hear or understand God. “Because of the hardness of your hearts….” accountability is own the individual sinner. Always rejecting Gods Truths.
I agree. I don't particularly like being called a Calvinist because so many uninformed people attach so many negative stereotypes to it without truly understanding what Reformed theology is all about. If anything, call me an Augustinenist as the foundation for Reformed theology was laid by Augustine .
uninformed lol. We truly do not understand reformed theology lol. like there is ONE unified reformed theology. I'll tell you something - the OPC I went to was completely ignorant of the differences in calvinism, as are you
They probably know Calvinism better than you mate. Calvinists adopt the no true Scotsman fallacy more that anyone every did anywhere. You swallow that poison because it places your own personal salvation in the realm of the certain. Too bad about all those non believers and heretic though right? Prevented from belief by the very nature they were cursed with. Calvinists are deluded.
He is incredibly humble and makes his arguments with respect to others who may not agree with him. He is always respectful of others views. This is unusual for someone who has studied the word as he has. I love this man’s ministry. To call him heretic or sneaky or deceptive is just the absolute opposite of what he is. At the end of the day go to the scripture nothing can be clearer and more truthful.
I believe in predestination because the bible teaches it, despite the fact that it seems unfair to our carnal logic. However I do not consider myself a calvinist. Back then, evryone believed in predestination, even Luther and Armanius (the one who supposedly started the free will movement). Bible talks about both, free will and predestination, therefore we must take it by faith and believe in both. When you look into Christs teachings deeper, you realize that there is both. Predestination does not take someone's free will away, it just knows what you will choose when left to your own free will, because God sees our nature.
The predestination spoken of in the new testament is only applied to conditional categories of people (those who love God, us in Christ). The word is never applied to individuals absolutely unconditionally.
@@austin3789 Acts 13:48 Says all who were appointed for eternal life believed. That does not sound conditional. The parable of the tares Jesus explains that the tears were sowed by the enemy and they are the children of damnation, and will be bound up and thrown into fire. Matthew 15:13 Jesus calls the pharisees that were offended trees that the Heavenly Father did not plant and will be up rooted and cast out. Galatians 1:4-5 and Ephisians 1:4 say we were chosen before the foundation of the earth. 1 Corinthians 16:22 says those who do not love the Lord are cursed. Its talking about tnn he children of damnation, they cant love the Lord because satan is their father. John 8:42-44 Jesus explains to the pharisees that if God was their Father, they would love Him, but there Father is satan, that's why they hate Him. The children of the kingdom of heaven are the only once who are chosen and given the ability to love God.
@@dmitrykishko3947 Acts 13:48 the conditional category is those who believed. It is those who believed who were appointed to eternal life and who were those appointed to eternal life? Those that believed... Certainly not those who didn't believe. They don't meet the condition.
@@austin3789 your flipping it backwards to make it agree with your theology. It does not say that those who believed were ment for eternal life, it said those who were ment for eternal life, they believed. And I posted much more verses then that one.
@@dmitrykishko3947 *your flipping it backwards to make it agree with your theology* Actually, in the original Greek, it is stated in reverse to what's translated in English: biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/13-48.htm. I hope by now you understand what I mean by conditional category. Only believers are the chosen. The chosen are those who believed. *And I posted much more verses then that one.* I like to discuss one verse at a time. If we don't agree on how to interpret one verse we are not going to agree on 5 others. I'd have to write 5 times what you did to undo the divergent thinking on each of those verses.
I whole heartedly agree with this answer. We shouldn't label ourselves after anyone's name and put an "ism" or "ist" at the end of it, but where we agree with that particular person (because it lines up with scripture), then we agree. Whenever I am privileged to teach (or even preach a message), I go through whatever the verses in scripture say in context. If it talks about predestination, election, sin, etc., I just try to teach the text. I remember once in a Bible study being asked about 2 Peter 3:9 and instead of making a blanket assertion, I started back at verse 1 of the chapter and had the guys read it verse by verse; I then asked them each verse about the content/context and who the pronouns referred to. By the time we got to verse 9, I asked who was the "any" and the "all" in this verse and the connected it to the "us-ward" (KJV translation) which (after following the flow of scripture and the pronouns) were the believers; the beloved. It didn't pertain to the "whole world of every single person on the face of the earth." No mention of any "isms" at all, just let scripture speak for itself. This is the way we should teach Ephesians 1:4-5, 2:1-10, Romans 9, John 6:37-44, as well as all verses of scripture (including John 3:16). The name labeling just causes problems, because as it was illustrated in the video, Calvinism could mean you baptize babies or that you're an amillennialist or you must hold to a certain confession over another. This makes the definition of Calvinism so broad that anyone could label you one. And if you say you believe in God's election or sovereignty, you may get an eye roll because now suddenly you're a Calvinist. The bottom line, if the Bible teaches it clearly in the whole of scripture; we should agree to it regardless of the titles.
Jinyue, how am I understanding the Bible in my own way? Feel free to go to the example I gave in 2 Peter 3:9 and begin at 3:1 and follow the flow of thought and the pronouns. By the time you get to 3:9, you will notice the pronoun "us-ward" and the antecedent of "any" and "all" pertains to the pronoun, and that pronoun describes believers. That is letting scripture interpret itself by the content, context, and grammar. As for the doctrine of the offer of the gospel, you assume I don't understand it because you disagree with my comment. The Bible clearly tells believers to repent, believe, choose, etc. So since it does, I don't disagree with it because the Bible is God-breathed and sufficient for all believers (2 Timothy 3:16-17) and must be studied rightly (2 Timothy 2:15). And finally, your response really has nothing to do with the crux of my comment, which is we should never label ourselves outside what the Bible calls us; putting ourselves into groups causes schisms. If something is taught clearly in scripture, then we agree with it, regardless if people want to call it Calvinism or not.
And by the way, Jinyue, if Calvin held to that, that is fine, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with him. I don't follow Calvin or anyone else unless they follow Christ pertaining to a scripture. If you isolate 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Timothy 2:4 out of its context, you make the verse say something different. Chapter and verses are there to help us, but many times we forget they separate whole sentences, which is why we follow the commas, semi-colons, and colons until we get to a period (sometimes 4 or 5 verses are actually a whole sentence). In addition, if you take a verse or verses out of the context of the thought presented (which could be several verses) or even the broader context of the book itself, you again may do damage to that verse or verses.
Jinyue, since I am only "advertising myself as Biblical" and "you've already known before" the way I am "defending my own understanding," then I guess you can be satisfied that you're "right" and I am "wrong." Nothing more needs to be said on my end. You felt the need to comment on my comment and I appreciate the time you took to do so, but to continue to go back and forth would mean our comments would reach the number of 20 or 30 and there would be no resolution or coming to agreement. When I sense this is the case, I stop commenting because it becomes vanity. I will end by saying that I don't discount the reformers of any teacher, but I must prayerfully study the text of scripture asking the Lord for direction. If I could give you some brotherly advice, be careful in telling people what they think or how they are doing something because they disagree with you. I don't make such assertions about you because I'm sure you study the Word with a love for God and a desire to know the truth. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I doubt your sincerity and the validity of your study of the Word, which 2 Timothy 2:15 tells us. This is the reason I don't assume anything about the person I address in a post and try my best not to attack or insinuate anything about their character, their study habits, or their walk in the Lord. This would be condescending and somewhat insulting. Ephesians 4:11-16 gives us teachers/pastors so that we can be unified in the faith for ministry and maturity. I try to keep this in mind when I post. If my post or responses offended you in any way, I can only apologize for the inadvertent insensitivity on my part. Suffice it to say, we disagree on some of these doctrines and I will leave it at that. Thanks for reading.
I don't know who deleted all my comments, but there is still something helpful for your:theologicalmeditations.blogspot.com/2013/07/thomas-schreiner-on-2-peter-39.html Dr. Schreiner's commentary at 2 PETER 3:9
The Bible clearly teaches that Gods desire is for ALL men to be saved 1 Timothy 2:4. This of course will not be the case since free will is a reality in mans life. When the Bible speaks of predestination or chosen it refers to Gods act in including the born again christian into the family of God. When someone chooses God, then God chooses them to become part of the family of God. God does not have respect of persons (Romans 2:11) and salvation had been provided for anyone. "For God so loved the world... " - this statement includes all humanity. God would not by a righteous God if He would only choose the ones that He wanted to be saved. He loves anyone and everyone and salvation is opened to whosoever beliveth in Him.
“There were indeed false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who BOUGHT THEM, and will bring swift destruction on themselves.” 2 Peter 2:1 .
Soverign election is the key element here. God chooses who will be saved and then ensures their salvation. "No one can come to me unless my father draws him"
Rebeca Branco He died for the sins of the whole world. Romans 3:25 says that his death means “the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God.” Because of that sacrifice, men can be saved *IF* they will believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as Lord and savior. Whoever believes can be saved. And God will only save those who believe. The question then is: what does it mean to believe the Lord Jesus Christ?
Calvin counted among Roman Catholics one of their most if not their most favourite Protestant. Probably as his theology especially on predestination so closely aligned with foremost Doctor of the Catholic Church, St Augustine ,
The main hang up I have with Presbyterian Calvinism is the infant baptism. I'm all about following the scriptures, which is why I always wonder where in the scriptures people are getting infants baptism. Otherwise, Calvinism seems to reflect the biblical reality,
To me, being a Calvinist means that you agree with TULIP, or at least 4 points of it. Nothing more. Calvinists can disagree on other matters such as whether or not water baptism should be done on infants, those old enough to believe, or not at all. They can also disagree on a whole host of other issues. I consider myself to be a 4.5 point Calvinist, because I believe that the Bible teaches both limited atonement as well as unlimited atonement, and hence I half agree on the 3rd point.
i dont understand this whole calvinist why dont we call it then paulist or peterist or johnist... Calvanist the word in itselve is rediclous. We dont make up labels by peopls name except Christ... I am a Christian not a paulist or a calvanist
I have trouble entertaining the thought that we, like all of God's creatures, were given free will and are predestined. God knows exactly who His people are in the end but still gives us the option to be His.
" "I have trouble entertaining the thought that we, like all of God's creatures, were given free will and are predestined." ----- you should have trouble with it - "free will" and "predestination" are contradictory concepts - which is why sects that believe in predestination DON'T believe in free will - --- however, if "God knows exactly who His people are in the end" then that is predestined - omnipotence means free will is an illusion - omniscience also indicates predestination
Using the label "Calvinist" is nothing more than a way to distinguish between two theological views, one being the reformed view, of which Calvin was a part of, the other being Arminianism. An Arminianist would be a person who agrees with Jacobus Arminius (who opposed the doctrine of predestination.) I don't understand the vitriol against John Calvin. So many people I have talked to that hate John Calvin have never even read him. It's just bizarre .The only conclusion I can come to is that people so hate the doctrine of predestination-which they incorrectly identify as being solely from Calvin-because we're so steeped in a postmodern, expressive individualistic culture which worships at the altar of free will.
I don't think you actually understand the arguments against Calvinism. This is such a hypersimplification of the argument that it's actually just wrong. I am not personally a Calvinist. I also firmly believe in predestination. I just don't believe in fatalistic determinism in the doctrine of predestination. I believe God chose whom He chose based on the foreknowledge of faith in response to the proclamation of the Gospel, not just arbitrarily. Though scripture clearly teaches that, the theological framework of Calvinism fundamentally opposes it.
'we're so steeped in a postmodern, expressive individualistic culture which worships at the altar of free will.' The early church believed in free-will, it has nothing to do with today's culture. For example; Ireneaus was a disciple of the martyr Polycarp (who was a disciple of the Apostle John). Irenaeus says: 'But because *man is possessed of free will from the beginning,* and God is possessed of free will, in whose likeness man was created, advice is always given to him to keep fast the good, which thing is done by means of obedience to God. And not merely in works, but also in faith, has *God preserved the will of man free and under his own control,* saying, According to your faith be it unto you; thus showing that *there is a faith specially belonging to man, since he has an opinion specially his own.'* (Against Heresies Book 4 Chapter 37, ~180AD) You're right that predestination was not solely from Calvin, it stems back to Augustine, but prior to that it is not found in the early church writers, in fact they repeatedly argued against such doctrine.
I as an Evangelical Christian identify as a Calvinist, because I agree with the 5 points of Calvinism, represented by the acronym TULIP (I actually only half agree with the 3rd point, making me a 4.5 point Calvinism).
@@stevendrumm4957 Thanks for the explanation, every now and then, I hear the word "Calvinist" but never bothered to ask, I figured it must be another religion completely separate from the Catholic
@@thomasjust2663 To be fair John Calvin was instrumental in the Reformation so it's not surprising Calvinists are almost always Reformed and tend to reject Roman Catholicism. So I don't think you can be a Catholic Calvinist as I think you'd be anathema for claiming such. In general the major objection from Protestants as a whole in regards to salvation would be the synergistic teaching that certain things can be combined with the once-for-all salvation given through Christ, subsequent doctrines around purgatory, treasury of merit, prayers to saints etc. We take Paul's teaching in places like Galatians 3 as a rebuke against these doctrines. Personally I'm probably a partial Calvinist of sorts but I'm much more concerned with how salvation works than how God calls us versus how much free will is involved.
Paul didn't say call yourself a Paulian. Actually preached against such actions. Calvin taught baby baptism which is Catholic heresy and I'm pretty sure he also had someone murdered. Follow Christ not Calvin
@@christophermannino8627 I love God's truth. Calvinism is a human system. They make truth claims in the framework of a man-made system. That does not make it truth.
Calvinisim is a term that is very unfortunate. Just like covenant theology. Both terms are human derived terms for the truth contained in the scriptures. If anyone wants to reply to me asking in the spirit of wanting to understand rather than argumentative reply to this with a question not a statement.
Beware of the deception from a Preacher that will not tell you that you he is a TULIP Calvinist when indeed he is. He is being deceptive to the a Church or pastors search committee. Should he become their pastor, it could be destructive to the congregation that’s not Calvinist. I have witnessed this deception and this destruction in a few local Churches in my county and surrounding counties.
I think you shouldn’t identify as a snake and call yourself a Christian to hide your putrid doctrine behind the faith. People aren’t pre chosen to go to Heaven or hell when they are created.
Amen! Usually when people ask us Christians here wether we are Calvinist or Armenian, what they really meant was wether we believe in Predestination or not. My question is, Christians who dont believe in Predestination can be saved as well right? Since i heard somewhere that people who believe in the wrong Christian doctrine might not be saved. Thank you.
Anyone who repents of their sin and puts their faith in Christ alone for salvation will be saved. You don't have to affirm the five points to receive salvation. Armenians were predestined to be Armenians for their good and God's glory ;)
Oooops... English may not be my language but I understand that Armenians are people born in Armenia. So if I was born in Mexico was I predestined to be Mexican? (ARMINIANS... with an "I" instead "E" is what you truly mean. Blessings to all. :-)
Arminians believe in single predestination. They do not believe in double predestination or irresistible grace (except to the degree that prevenient grace irresistibly provokes a free-will response in beings who are otherwise totally depraved and incapable of giving a free-will response, and that response will either be one of submission or one of rejection). The single predestination is based on divine foreknowledge of the sinner's response to the inward call. God sovereignly elects all those who will trust in Christ and provides the sufficient means for them to trust in Christ via the Holy Spirit. The human reception of faith is passive, so it is still in essence monergistic. Now, various groups get clumped together with Arminians even though they believe things contrary to the Scriptural interpretations of Arminius, the Remonstrants, and John Wesley, which is why people might mistakenly suggest that Arminians don't believe in predestination. Too often, people who promote semi-Pelagianism (e.g. Alexander Campbell) are unhelpfully labeled as Arminians when they're really anti-Calvinists. Arminius and others like him weren't looking to renounce Calvin's interpretations, but rather to modify them while staying within the Reformed tradition, whereas the groups with no predestination doctrine are typically founded by sectarian ex-Calvinists.
Not an answer at all unless your playing dodge ball. You can do better than that. That was like saying the Jehovah witness believe in God, now what could be wrong with that...
What is the Trinitarian Calvinist's advice to the unbeliever who is being confronted with Trinitarian Arminian evangelism? Should we listen because the true gospel is surely in there somewhere despite the other misrepresentations of God? Should we turn away because no genuinely born again person could adopt a theological position that so consistently denies '"clear" biblical truth? Remember, I'm an unbeliever, so I lack ALL of the spiritually protective armaments listed in Ephesians 6:13 ff. If you view me as an absolutely spiritually helpless fool, and yet you still advise me to listen to those whom you say contradict many plain teachings of scripture, you have no rational reason to think I will do anything except convert to Arminianism specifically, and not merely convert to the gospel generally. So telling an unbeliever to turn away from the Trinitarian Arminian gospel makes better sense. If you tell me to stay away from Arminian evangelism, YOU are the one who gave me an excuse to turn away from one type of evangelism.
Isnt it remarkable that the one ingredient all these heresies have in common is 'sola scriptura'? ... "I just believe what the Bible says." ...completely oblivious to the fact that they are projecting their own personal biases onto the text.
@@westondavey4871 The dude in this video says he is careful not to say the word Calvinism or to identify as a Calvinist, but that Calvin "essentially got it right" with his understanding of the Bible. So then, he just says his own view is the Biblical one, and Calvin just happens to share the same view, because he was such a biblically correct guy, too. Such garbage. Dude's a Calvinist, and calmly but arrogantly wants to identify Calvinist doctrine as what the Bible's "really all about", drop the label and call 'Calvinism' simply 'biblical Christianity'. What does that make other Christians who happen to disagree with his hot take? Then, he says, essentially all we're saying is that God is sovereign. (Guess what, dude? All other Christians say that God is sovereign, too. But sovereign doesn't mean to control or to predetermine all things. It simply means that he can do all he pleases.) He goes on, "we just believe that apart from God, we are dead in our trespasses". All Christians believe this, too. But only Calvinists take the 'dead' analogy as meaning that a man is unable to respond to his free gift, unless he's lucky enough to be one of the exceptionally few men that God loves. I shouldn't pass judgment on the guy, but I haven't seen people propagandize this way, unless they are snakes.
What about the scripture over nearly 2000yrs ago? Which Bible are you using? The one that's updated and edited to suit the needs of the movement of the time's just over 500yrs ago? Something is wrong with that.
@@christopherbrewer4421 "You also realize that the bible we have today matches the original manuscripts collectively 99% and the 1% that doesn't match effects no doctrine in the bible whatsoever?" ------ they do ? and, seeing as how we have NO ( as in "NONE', "NOT A", "NARY", "ZERO" ) autographs ( which is what "original manuscripts" are called ) of ANY of the books or epistles of ANY of the Old or New Testaments, how , exactly, do we know what we have now ( tiny bits and pieces for the most part from the first 300 years ) matches this fabulous 99% ? Do your research so you don't end up with such a straw man argument - I'll even suggest a good introductory work : " God's Library" by Brent Nongbri
If Jesus be lifted up - he will draw all to HIM . I think JESUS SAID THAT . He also said acts 1:8 With a guaranteed promise . Just before he ascended to heaven . So kick aaa and stay focused on Jeremiah 29:11 & Joshua 1:8&9
Amen! What a subtle, snake like avoidance of the truth. Calvanism is opposed to biblical truth because free will is necessary for us to choose to worship the one true God. God is love and love can't exist without free will. I hope people read the Bible and let the Holy Spirit be their guide for understanding, not some man made tradition of belief that one must read- into the Bible.
Google “Calvinist quotes on God determining evil.” That is why I’m not a Calvinist. They have an unbiblical view on divine sovereignty that makes God’s holy nature the origin of conception for everything that is contrary to holiness. The former is Arminianism and the latter is Calvinism.
Cody Markley There is a big moral difference between (A) determining to allow people to misuse their freedom and commit evil and (B) determining to conceive in one’s mind all the evils of the world and then determining who will commit each and evil in the exact manner that God conceived.
@@mattb7069 so there is predestination and double predestination, what you are describing as your reason against calvinism is, if I understand what you're saying, double predistination. It feels like the logical conclusion of predestination but the distinguishing feature is permission. I don't know if this helps but I guess u can try.
@@mattb7069 Romans chapter 9 seems to support the idea of double predestination, but " I think," it's not so much God determining mans evil, but being aware of our conceptions of evil as morally fractured agents. Does God command things that appear evil to man, sure, canaanite genocide, moses eradicating the unfaithful hebrews when he comes down from Sinai, there is a lot that appears evil at first glance but seen from a larger biblical narrative, it becomes understandable.
Cody Markley I think you are falling way short of what Calvinism actually entails-and affirms. In Calvinism, it is not simply a matter of God determining things that would be evil absent God’s command (i.e. the Canaanite conquest, Moses ordering the death of the rebellious). Rather in Calvinism ALL evil has been determined by God-every rape, every act of adultery, every act of child abuse...every abortion. There is nothing that happens in this world that was not PREVIOUSLY pre-determined to occur. God doesn’t just allow foreknown evil, he determinatively decreed each act of evil before the world began. In Calvinism, God only foreknows all things BECAUSE he determined all things. The theory of compatibilism would not help in this regard because it must always be conceded that God determines WHICH strongest desires will act upon our wills so as to secure his prior decree. Lastly it must be said that if any Calvinist tries to use the language of “God permitting evil” to explain their view, they are borrowing the “furniture” of Arminianism while sitting in it to criticize it. On the other hand Arminians can hold to a language of divine “allowance” and “permission” because we hold that God sovereignly decided to create humans genuinely free-that is to say free from causal constraints OUTSIDE their will. In Calvinism people are not free to choose contrary to God’s prior decree. It is said God’s decree determines everything. Does God need to get permission from himself to allow his own determination to come to pass? To even ask the question is to see the folly of Calvinist attempt to deflect away criticism by borrowing the language of God “permitting” sin. John Piper (in a rare moment of honest confession) admits that Calvinistic divine sovereignty means “God determined every dust mote and all our besetting sins.” No thanks. I would rather not try to rescue God’s glory under the rubble of such a theology. If you think anything I have said does not rightly capture the logic of Calvinism, then answer this question: Has any human being EVER committed a sin that God did not decree? God bless
If any teaching doesn't lead to Christlikeness, the divine power and love life we see in Christ, freely given by Jesus blood and indwelling spirit, get rid of it. It is not worth following. I have some reformed friends. They do not understand the Gospel: the restoration of a wo-/man back to the image of God. A very sad thing. Once spoke with some of their pastors. When i mentioned spiritual giftings given to us by the indwelling Holy Spirit and the Spirit changing us into the image of God again, they looked at me as if they saw water burning. They really had no clue what i was talking about. They follow some weird doctrine, a teaching of man and forefathers. So sad. Because it leaves a vast community powerless and mere human. Calvijn on the other hand is pretty ok. I once looked at his writings: a whole chapter was on spiritual gifts by Holy Spirit. Calvijn was pretty spot on. Nowadays Calvinists don't get Calvijn theached but a watered down version.
@@willgold9705 maybe you missed it. Most calvinists dont want to be called that so they sneak in thru the backdoor subtly inder the radar. So yes, you have to call yourself a calvinist...i can settle for you calling yourself a reformed Christian. But what you cant call yourself is, a Christian. Christian implies God loves everyone and died foe everyone
Those who follow teaching on election that is summarized with a term "Calvinism" believe the gospel is available for everyone. However, only the elect will respond. John 6 talks about how only those who the Father draws will come to Christ. I John talks about how we loved him because he first loved us. Romans 9 talks bout how election is based on God's sovereign choice, not human choices. It is indeed true that "Whosoever will may come." However, many people are not willing. I did not get myself into the faith. I believed the Gospel, yes. But I did so because of grace. Ephesians 2 says we are saved by grace through faith. I believe the gospel offer is available for everyone. In that sense Arminians and Calvinists agree. We also agree that not all are saved (neither of us are Universalists). As a Calvinist I can truly say I was saved by God's grace. Not because I "made a better choice." I chose to believe yes. But God gave me a willing heart. So I get to genuinely thank God for making my heart willing. I don't have to thank myself for that. Finally, I don't think Arminians are necessarily lost. I think there are probably many saved. I just think they are inconsistent and have not rightly considered all of the Biblical data. As a Calvinist, I can rightly say "I did not get myself into the faith. Therefore I can't take myself out." Romans 8 talks about how nothing can separate believers from the love of God. Why should that not include themselves. If we are truly born again, are we not adopted. Does God "un-adopt" me if I stray. I realize some Arminians believe in eternal security. But my position more rightly aligns with a position of Christians persevering to the end by the grace and power of God, not by their own efforts. There is an element of mystery in all of this. However, I think the Calvinist position more rightly says "Though I don't understand all of how this works, I will accept BOTH what the Bible says about the necessity of willing hearts in coming to the Lord as well as what the Bible says about God being the one ultimately doing the drawing to himself. So I am willing to say that Arminians may be Christian (many are) but they are inconsistent and haven't taken in all of the Biblical data. On the other hand, you apparently as an Arminian, simply say that I as a Calvinist cannot rightly call myself a Christian. How audacious and brash of you. I believe Christ died for my sins according to the Scriptures (I Cor. 15) and that he was buried and raised from the dead three days later. I commit my life to him with repentance of sin and faith. I believe the Five Solas of the Reformation - that we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, by Christ alone, according to the Bible alone, for God's glory alone. Yet you apparently have the audacity to say I am not a Christian. I realize your comments are not meant as a personal attack and that you are just seeking to assert truth claims. Nevertheless, when you make broad statements about Calvinists not being Christians, I am right to feel offended.
@@willgold9705 you misunderstood my intentions. I said that calvinists are deceivers when they label themselves Christian. And acceptable label is either calvinist or reformed Christian. Anything else is deception to gradually incorporate the unknowable into the doctrine. I defined Christian as core beliefs being God loves everyone, died for everyone and commands everyone to repent and everyone has the ability to repent. Calvinists can only assert that God commands everyone to repent. I was saved when i was a calvinist. I am a traditionalist. Not arminian. Would you say Christ died for everyone or just the elect? Can people repent? Please answer that for me.
Frankly, out of this exchange, you're the one who doesn't sound like a Christian. You're going to have a tough time reconciling Romans 9 to your belief system. That God made out of the same lump of clay vessels prepared BEFOREHAND for destruction. And vessels prepared for glory. In order to make known his power so that he could show his mercy. See, your problem is with the word of God.... not with us. Let that sink in. Does the potter have no right over the clay? God is sovereign. And you called people who hold this belief "deceivers".
To be honest, you would have to say the difference between biblical Christian belief and calvanism is the lack of free will in calvanist teaching. The Bible is entirely about us making a choice to worship the one true God. I can't stand the subtle, snake like avoidance people like this man use to act like they aren't a calvanist. Being a liar is something God hates. Calvanism is not true biblical teaching. True love requires true free will, period.
I don't think he was claiming to 'not be a Calvinist' but rather stating that it's not a core doctrine. To say that the 'Bible is entirely about us making a choice to worship the one true God' seems to put the emphasis on our decision making, aside from significantly simplifying the Scriptures. Do you think that's portraying the sort of honesty you are asking of from this man?
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God" yeah sounds like something he is asking of us and we get to chose. No! God commands love, it is all over scripture OT and NT.
Correct. The Bible teaches us that the EXTENT of God’s love is infinite, but the application is only toward those who accept it; unfortunately only those who are drawn to it may accept it. And some people may never be drawn to it.
@@michellejohnsen912 I wish that verse were referring to this context, but unfortunately, it is not. Additionally we can fact check against real life uncontacted tribes that have gone dozens of generations without even having a guy who knows a guy who saw a Christian once come through their tribal jungle village.
I am absolutely not a Calvinist. Why would you make this video? Know your audience. I think both Calvinism and Armenianism are equally guilty of being a historic name brand and nothing else ... And in that only following sone verses and not others. Why would I be a Calvinist of course I'm not. I'm neither. Im definitely neither. Its not even an issue the bible melds together fine for me without creating an all one side response like Calvinism or Armenianism. Both sides of those issues are entirely true and people can't see its not logically exclusive or biblically exclusive. Its not even like that at all.
" both sides of those issues are entirely true " --- I'd really like to hear the explanation of how both sides of contradictory arguments can be entirely true - are you saying that both sides points are found in the bible ?
As a calvinist, I and any other true calvinist would have to 100% agree with everything this man said.
Asking if you are a Calvinist is the fastest way to get a acurate representation on what you believe about key Scripture, as well as the character of God himself. Answering with a no knowing this is dishonest sneaky and dishonest at best.
He has made a very good point. We follow The Lord Jesus Christ, not John Calvin, and Jesus taught, in John 6 (and other places too!) that people cannot believe unless God draws them and grants the gift of faith. Look up John 6 v 44 and 65.
God is even called sovereign in scripture.
Predestined is used repeatedly.
This is systematic throughout the bible, even in the old testament, God's sovereign election and predestination.
When people have trouble squaring seemingly contradictory truths in the bible they end up denying one. But to show hostility towards "calvinism", like I'm seeing in these comments, how can you be this unlearned and hostile to professing Christian and claim the love of the Father is in you?
How can you claim the love of the Father is in you when you believe in a system of theology that makes God the creator of sin? Please don't call God Holy then speak against His Holy nature.
The predestination spoken of in the new testament is only of conditional categories of people (those who love God, us in Christ). The word is never applied to individuals.
Your statement is an absolute lie.
It is clearly and specifically about individuals. You are in denial.
@@Rbl7132 clearly and specifically not... though I'd be happy to review an example or two where predestination is mentioned and is clearly and specifically talking about individual destinies.
@@austin3789 Hello I don't know what "clearly and specifically not" means....
We can begin in Romans 8...the Golden chain of redemption....absolutely speaking of individuals.....
Do you disagree? This is only the first passage in Scripture I can point to.
Yes, Austin, yes, the NT Epistles are written to the the Body of Christ, not individual Christians.
The Church, is the Bride, not individuals. Corporately, individuals are the Church. There will be one marriage, one Bride, one Groom. There will not be individual marriages, that Glorious Day, only one.
“Sovereign”, yes, God is, at all times and He sovereignly pleased/satisfied Himself before the world was ever formed and before sin ever entered the world, He designed/ authored the Plan of Salvation. Ephesians 1:5 “predestined us (church)….according to His hood will and pleasure ( Only God can please/satisfy Himself). “Before the foundation of the world Christ was crucified”, only a GOD (Son) can please a GOD (Father). Jesus’ blood was an sweet aroma to Heaven. The Plan of Salvation belongs solely to God the Father and His Son is the only executioner of the Plan. “It is finished!” The Father chose/elected only One, His Son the Messiah, the Christ. The only way to be “elect”, is to be in the body of Christ, the Church. Jesus is the only way to the Father, no man (mankind)…, except through Me (Jesus). And “through me”…is very important and that needs to highlighted to understand Ephesians 2:8, No Jesus, no saving grace. The Fathers plan of salvation, His Grace is only extended “through” Jesus. It was not the work of any lest any should boast but it was the work of God that designed the Plan of Salvation, a gift, to the fallen world.
Predestined, the Church is predetermined, by The Father, to be like His chosen/elect Son. “Christlike”
Elected/Elect/Election, only applies to the Church. The Bride, takes on the identity of the Bridegroom, she accepted and reject His proposal. “I stand at the door and knock..” The Church is the “elect” of the Father but only because the Church accepts, is known, is loved by the Son. “One flesh”
Only Jesus pleased The Father. No, not Adam or Adams lineage (until Jesus), no not Abraham or his lineage, nor Moses, neither any Prophet, Apostle, Pastor/Priest/Elder/Bishop, Deacon, neither Eve, Mary the mother of Jesus (yes a sinner, can’t be worshipped, either; Luke 1:47 Mary is blessed but not sinless; a virgin but not sinless) ( What does she need a Savior?), no man or woman pleased God the Father, only Jesus. No, not even Jacob, a sinner, like his brother Esau. God, sovereignly, chooses His Gospel Ministers, all are sinners and not all males are chosen/“called”, in every household. God is sovereign in choosing Jacob to work through but this was not about “Salvation” for Jacob and excluding Esau form Salvation. “Before either sinned, God chose Jacob”, Salvation was coming but by faith, not birthright (oldest). Paul, the writer of Romans (all of) but here Romans 9:3 The Jews, Israel of the flesh, Paul’s kinsmen, not gentiles. Chapters 9,10, & 11 are to the Jews in the Church, to all NT churches, not just Rome.
“Not by birthright but by faith”, does Salvation come….the gentiles have received the Gospel message, it is available unto them, also. Jews are the “firstborn”, but that does not exclude the “younger” gentiles. God has given the responsibility of taking the Gospel to the world away from the Jews and given it to the “younger” gentiles, they believe God. The Israelites fought against God, rejected His Messiah, so God “turned to the gentiles”.
9:14 Is Gods “sovereignty” being questioned or His “righteousness”? The Jews, in the church, are having difficulty understanding the fate of Israel of the flesh. Is God being accused of unrighteousness because He “hardened” some Jews hearts? Was He unrighteous to “harden” Pharaohs? Is what Paul asks the Jewish Christians. God was righteous with Pharaoh and, now, with our fellow Jews. God knew (foreknowledge) that Pharaoh would reject His offer to reconcile but God offered it to the sinner Pharaoh (Gracious and Loving God to all but righteous, also.) Gods righteous was not satisfied with Pharaoh, so His Judgment comes. God “gave” Pharaoh over to his own hard heart. God knew pharaoh would never accept Him. Just as God knows that only certain Jews will accept His Messiah, the rest of the Jews He has righteously Judged. But, there still a “remnant”, those that will “believe/accept” Jesus. The OT remnant were not “elected” (some allowed, some not), as some think. The OT “remnant”, didn’t “bend the knee to Baal”, they kept their faith in God.
Romans 9-11 are not speaking to Gentile Christians. Gentiles are not excluded, no not one, from Salvation but Gentiles need not get boastful because Israel is Gods “beloved”( first to the Jew, then to the Greek). The responsibility of the Gospel will return to the Jews but only after all the gentiles that will accept has been fulfilled. That’s how you know God hasn’t hardened the hearts of Gentiles but speaking only about the Israelites.
“Because of their unbelief”….God hardened their hearts. For there to be unbelief the Gospel had to be presented to reject it.
Human responsibility…..man chose to sin on his own, no help, accountable. So must man choose Salvation, with no help. “Scripture, alone is sufficient to bring a sinner unto repentance”, God draws all men unto Himself, by His Word of Truth, the Scriptures. The Father magnifies the Son. The Scriptures point to Jesus. Andrew, and Peter believed the OT scriptures about the coming Messiah. The Ethiopian, Acts 8, “alone with the scriptures”, the Holy Spirit searching the heart of every sinner for repentance. A “soft heart”, pricked, not callous and hard, to Gods Truth. The Holy Spirit moves in but only after one accepts, Jesus (Ephesians 1:13 “after”). Paul was contemplating the Gospel that he heard Stephen, the Deacon, defend, while headed to Damascus. “Hard to kick against the pricks/goads”, hard to deny The Truth. Paul knew that only God could’ve known what his thoughts were on, “Paul, was amazed…” Paul’s acceptance of Jesus “What will you have me do?”
Paul tells Agrippa that the Gospel is hidden from no one, “it was not done in a corner”. In public, in plain sight.
John 3:16 is not a lie and Jesus is not a liar. Also, 1st John 1 “not only for our sins (Church) but for all the world, also”.
John 3 “must be born again”; “born of water and Spirit”; “do not marvel..”
John 1 “only Jesus baptizes one in The Holy Spirit”, No Jesus, no Grace; A person is born again, after, Jesus allows the Holy Spirit to come in and begin a new work. Now, “He that began a good work in you…”
“Water and Spirit” Jesus is the living water, the Spirit Jesus leaves to dwell.
“Do not marvel..” Salvation can’t be explained, only experienced. Don’t get caught up, Nicodemus, trying to understand “born again”.
One will know when the Holy Spirit has indwelled them, just as one can physically hear and feel the wind physically, so you’ll know inwardly. It’s an experience that can’t be explained.
No one is so “bent” they can’t hear Gods truth. Adam, Eve, and Satan heard God, post fall. No Holy Spirit to “open their hearts”. Cain and Abel, both heard God, no help. Abraham “believed” God, then God imputed righteous ness upon Abraham.
Jesus with the Pharisees..
“You know who I am and you still reject me”; no Holy Spirit for them to hear or understand God.
“Because of the hardness of your hearts….” accountability is own the individual sinner. Always rejecting Gods Truths.
I agree. I don't particularly like being called a Calvinist because so many uninformed people attach so many negative stereotypes to it without truly understanding what Reformed theology is all about. If anything, call me an Augustinenist as the foundation for Reformed theology was laid by Augustine .
uninformed lol. We truly do not understand reformed theology lol. like there is ONE unified reformed theology. I'll tell you something - the OPC I went to was completely ignorant of the differences in calvinism, as are you
They probably know Calvinism better than you mate. Calvinists adopt the no true Scotsman fallacy more that anyone every did anywhere. You swallow that poison because it places your own personal salvation in the realm of the certain. Too bad about all those non believers and heretic though right? Prevented from belief by the very nature they were cursed with. Calvinists are deluded.
Strange. Augustine is not in the Bible. He wrote none of it. If that is where your theology begins, you are not a Biblical Theologian.
He is incredibly humble and makes his arguments with respect to others who may not agree with him. He is always respectful of others views. This is unusual for someone who has studied the word as he has. I love this man’s ministry. To call him heretic or sneaky or deceptive is just the absolute opposite of what he is. At the end of the day go to the scripture nothing can be clearer and more truthful.
I believe in predestination because the bible teaches it, despite the fact that it seems unfair to our carnal logic. However I do not consider myself a calvinist. Back then, evryone believed in predestination, even Luther and Armanius (the one who supposedly started the free will movement).
Bible talks about both, free will and predestination, therefore we must take it by faith and believe in both. When you look into Christs teachings deeper, you realize that there is both. Predestination does not take someone's free will away, it just knows what you will choose when left to your own free will, because God sees our nature.
The predestination spoken of in the new testament is only applied to conditional categories of people (those who love God, us in Christ). The word is never applied to individuals absolutely unconditionally.
@@austin3789 Acts 13:48 Says all who were appointed for eternal life believed. That does not sound conditional.
The parable of the tares Jesus explains that the tears were sowed by the enemy and they are the children of damnation, and will be bound up and thrown into fire.
Matthew 15:13 Jesus calls the pharisees that were offended trees that the Heavenly Father did not plant and will be up rooted and cast out.
Galatians 1:4-5 and Ephisians 1:4 say we were chosen before the foundation of the earth.
1 Corinthians 16:22 says those who do not love the Lord are cursed. Its talking about tnn he children of damnation, they cant love the Lord because satan is their father.
John 8:42-44 Jesus explains to the pharisees that if God was their Father, they would love Him, but there Father is satan, that's why they hate Him.
The children of the kingdom of heaven are the only once who are chosen and given the ability to love God.
@@dmitrykishko3947 Acts 13:48 the conditional category is those who believed. It is those who believed who were appointed to eternal life and who were those appointed to eternal life? Those that believed... Certainly not those who didn't believe. They don't meet the condition.
@@austin3789 your flipping it backwards to make it agree with your theology. It does not say that those who believed were ment for eternal life, it said those who were ment for eternal life, they believed. And I posted much more verses then that one.
@@dmitrykishko3947
*your flipping it backwards to make it agree with your theology*
Actually, in the original Greek, it is stated in reverse to what's translated in English: biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/13-48.htm.
I hope by now you understand what I mean by conditional category. Only believers are the chosen. The chosen are those who believed.
*And I posted much more verses then that one.*
I like to discuss one verse at a time. If we don't agree on how to interpret one verse we are not going to agree on 5 others. I'd have to write 5 times what you did to undo the divergent thinking on each of those verses.
I whole heartedly agree with this answer. We shouldn't label ourselves after anyone's name and put an "ism" or "ist" at the end of it, but where we agree with that particular person (because it lines up with scripture), then we agree. Whenever I am privileged to teach (or even preach a message), I go through whatever the verses in scripture say in context. If it talks about predestination, election, sin, etc., I just try to teach the text. I remember once in a Bible study being asked about 2 Peter 3:9 and instead of making a blanket assertion, I started back at verse 1 of the chapter and had the guys read it verse by verse; I then asked them each verse about the content/context and who the pronouns referred to. By the time we got to verse 9, I asked who was the "any" and the "all" in this verse and the connected it to the "us-ward" (KJV translation) which (after following the flow of scripture and the pronouns) were the believers; the beloved. It didn't pertain to the "whole world of every single person on the face of the earth." No mention of any "isms" at all, just let scripture speak for itself. This is the way we should teach Ephesians 1:4-5, 2:1-10, Romans 9, John 6:37-44, as well as all verses of scripture (including John 3:16).
The name labeling just causes problems, because as it was illustrated in the video, Calvinism could mean you baptize babies or that you're an amillennialist or you must hold to a certain confession over another. This makes the definition of Calvinism so broad that anyone could label you one. And if you say you believe in God's election or sovereignty, you may get an eye roll because now suddenly you're a Calvinist. The bottom line, if the Bible teaches it clearly in the whole of scripture; we should agree to it regardless of the titles.
Jinyue, how am I understanding the Bible in my own way? Feel free to go to the example I gave in 2 Peter 3:9 and begin at 3:1 and follow the flow of thought and the pronouns. By the time you get to 3:9, you will notice the pronoun "us-ward" and the antecedent of "any" and "all" pertains to the pronoun, and that pronoun describes believers. That is letting scripture interpret itself by the content, context, and grammar. As for the doctrine of the offer of the gospel, you assume I don't understand it because you disagree with my comment. The Bible clearly tells believers to repent, believe, choose, etc. So since it does, I don't disagree with it because the Bible is God-breathed and sufficient for all believers (2 Timothy 3:16-17) and must be studied rightly (2 Timothy 2:15). And finally, your response really has nothing to do with the crux of my comment, which is we should never label ourselves outside what the Bible calls us; putting ourselves into groups causes schisms. If something is taught clearly in scripture, then we agree with it, regardless if people want to call it Calvinism or not.
And by the way, Jinyue, if Calvin held to that, that is fine, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with him. I don't follow Calvin or anyone else unless they follow Christ pertaining to a scripture. If you isolate 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Timothy 2:4 out of its context, you make the verse say something different. Chapter and verses are there to help us, but many times we forget they separate whole sentences, which is why we follow the commas, semi-colons, and colons until we get to a period (sometimes 4 or 5 verses are actually a whole sentence). In addition, if you take a verse or verses out of the context of the thought presented (which could be several verses) or even the broader context of the book itself, you again may do damage to that verse or verses.
Jinyue, since I am only "advertising myself as Biblical" and "you've already known before" the way I am "defending my own understanding," then I guess you can be satisfied that you're "right" and I am "wrong." Nothing more needs to be said on my end. You felt the need to comment on my comment and I appreciate the time you took to do so, but to continue to go back and forth would mean our comments would reach the number of 20 or 30 and there would be no resolution or coming to agreement. When I sense this is the case, I stop commenting because it becomes vanity.
I will end by saying that I don't discount the reformers of any teacher, but I must prayerfully study the text of scripture asking the Lord for direction. If I could give you some brotherly advice, be careful in telling people what they think or how they are doing something because they disagree with you. I don't make such assertions about you because I'm sure you study the Word with a love for God and a desire to know the truth. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I doubt your sincerity and the validity of your study of the Word, which 2 Timothy 2:15 tells us. This is the reason I don't assume anything about the person I address in a post and try my best not to attack or insinuate anything about their character, their study habits, or their walk in the Lord. This would be condescending and somewhat insulting. Ephesians 4:11-16 gives us teachers/pastors so that we can be unified in the faith for ministry and maturity. I try to keep this in mind when I post. If my post or responses offended you in any way, I can only apologize for the inadvertent insensitivity on my part. Suffice it to say, we disagree on some of these doctrines and I will leave it at that. Thanks for reading.
I don't know who deleted all my comments, but there is still something helpful for your:theologicalmeditations.blogspot.com/2013/07/thomas-schreiner-on-2-peter-39.html Dr. Schreiner's commentary at 2 PETER 3:9
The Bible clearly teaches that Gods desire is for ALL men to be saved 1 Timothy 2:4. This of course will not be the case since free will is a reality in mans life. When the Bible speaks of predestination or chosen it refers to Gods act in including the born again christian into the family of God. When someone chooses God, then God chooses them to become part of the family of God. God does not have respect of persons (Romans 2:11) and salvation had been provided for anyone. "For God so loved the world... " - this statement includes all humanity. God would not by a righteous God if He would only choose the ones that He wanted to be saved. He loves anyone and everyone and salvation is opened to whosoever beliveth in Him.
Great response and clear example of why we should stay clear of labels as they manifest into indoctrination.
“There were indeed false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who BOUGHT THEM, and will bring swift destruction on themselves.”
2 Peter 2:1 .
Soverign election is the key element here. God chooses who will be saved and then ensures their salvation. "No one can come to me unless my father draws him"
And chooses the rest to be reprobated and damned
@יהוחנן לואיס well then calvinism is wrong because calvinism results in God determining reprobation
Amen Brother hit it in the nail
Choose you this day who you will serve.
well, Jesus did not die at the cross just for some people.......
Rebeca Branco
He died for the sins of the whole world. Romans 3:25 says that his death means “the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God.” Because of that sacrifice, men can be saved *IF* they will believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as Lord and savior. Whoever believes can be saved. And God will only save those who believe. The question then is: what does it mean to believe the Lord Jesus Christ?
@@paeng46yes, If they believe!!!
Rebeca Branco
Exactly; *IF* they believe. And what does it mean to believe is the next question.
Calvin counted among Roman Catholics one of their most if not their most favourite Protestant. Probably as his theology especially on predestination so closely aligned with foremost Doctor of the Catholic Church, St Augustine ,
Great answer! 👌🏼
A good rule of thumb is DEU. 13 👍
My man! 🔥
The main hang up I have with Presbyterian Calvinism is the infant baptism. I'm all about following the scriptures, which is why I always wonder where in the scriptures people are getting infants baptism. Otherwise, Calvinism seems to reflect the biblical reality,
To me, being a Calvinist means that you agree with TULIP, or at least 4 points of it. Nothing more. Calvinists can disagree on other matters such as whether or not water baptism should be done on infants, those old enough to believe, or not at all. They can also disagree on a whole host of other issues. I consider myself to be a 4.5 point Calvinist, because I believe that the Bible teaches both limited atonement as well as unlimited atonement, and hence I half agree on the 3rd point.
Unlimited atonement (extent), not unlimited atonement (application)
No.
i dont understand this whole calvinist why dont we call it then paulist or peterist or johnist... Calvanist the word in itselve is rediclous. We dont make up labels by peopls name except Christ... I am a Christian not a paulist or a calvanist
I don’t think Calvin got it right. He was close, but he didn’t get it.
I have trouble entertaining the thought that we, like all of God's creatures, were given free will and are predestined. God knows exactly who His people are in the end but still gives us the option to be His.
"
"I have trouble entertaining the thought that we, like all of God's creatures, were given free will and are predestined."
----- you should have trouble with it - "free will" and "predestination" are contradictory concepts - which is why sects that believe in predestination DON'T believe in free will -
--- however, if "God knows exactly who His people are in the end" then that is predestined - omnipotence means free will is an illusion - omniscience also indicates predestination
Using the label "Calvinist" is nothing more than a way to distinguish between two theological views, one being the reformed view, of which Calvin was a part of, the other being Arminianism. An Arminianist would be a person who agrees with Jacobus Arminius (who opposed the doctrine of predestination.) I don't understand the vitriol against John Calvin. So many people I have talked to that hate John Calvin have never even read him. It's just bizarre .The only conclusion I can come to is that people so hate the doctrine of predestination-which they incorrectly identify as being solely from Calvin-because we're so steeped in a postmodern, expressive individualistic culture which worships at the altar of free will.
I don't think you actually understand the arguments against Calvinism. This is such a hypersimplification of the argument that it's actually just wrong. I am not personally a Calvinist. I also firmly believe in predestination. I just don't believe in fatalistic determinism in the doctrine of predestination. I believe God chose whom He chose based on the foreknowledge of faith in response to the proclamation of the Gospel, not just arbitrarily. Though scripture clearly teaches that, the theological framework of Calvinism fundamentally opposes it.
'we're so steeped in a postmodern, expressive individualistic culture which worships at the altar of free will.'
The early church believed in free-will, it has nothing to do with today's culture.
For example; Ireneaus was a disciple of the martyr Polycarp (who was a disciple of the Apostle John). Irenaeus says: 'But because *man is possessed of free will from the beginning,* and God is possessed of free will, in whose likeness man was created, advice is always given to him to keep fast the good, which thing is done by means of obedience to God.
And not merely in works, but also in faith, has *God preserved the will of man free and under his own control,* saying, According to your faith be it unto you; thus showing that *there is a faith specially belonging to man, since he has an opinion specially his own.'*
(Against Heresies Book 4 Chapter 37, ~180AD)
You're right that predestination was not solely from Calvin, it stems back to Augustine, but prior to that it is not found in the early church writers, in fact they repeatedly argued against such doctrine.
😐
As a Catholic, I find this term very confusing, why would a self identified Christian, think of his/herself as Calvinist?
I as an Evangelical Christian identify as a Calvinist, because I agree with the 5 points of Calvinism, represented by the acronym TULIP (I actually only half agree with the 3rd point, making me a 4.5 point Calvinism).
@@stevendrumm4957 Thanks for the explanation, every now and then, I hear the word "Calvinist" but never bothered to ask, I figured it must be another religion completely separate from the Catholic
@@thomasjust2663 To be fair John Calvin was instrumental in the Reformation so it's not surprising Calvinists are almost always Reformed and tend to reject Roman Catholicism. So I don't think you can be a Catholic Calvinist as I think you'd be anathema for claiming such.
In general the major objection from Protestants as a whole in regards to salvation would be the synergistic teaching that certain things can be combined with the once-for-all salvation given through Christ, subsequent doctrines around purgatory, treasury of merit, prayers to saints etc. We take Paul's teaching in places like Galatians 3 as a rebuke against these doctrines.
Personally I'm probably a partial Calvinist of sorts but I'm much more concerned with how salvation works than how God calls us versus how much free will is involved.
Paul didn't say call yourself a Paulian. Actually preached against such actions. Calvin taught baby baptism which is Catholic heresy and I'm pretty sure he also had someone murdered. Follow Christ not Calvin
all the reformers had people murdered so by that logic you couldn't follow any of their teachings.
Don't confuse things with historical facts.
@@2wheelz3504 not confusing anything , truth is truth whether you like it or not.
@@christophermannino8627 I love God's truth. Calvinism is a human system. They make truth claims in the framework of a man-made system. That does not make it truth.
@@2wheelz3504 ok, I'm refuting Calvinism so I don't understand your point.
Be a Biblical Christian everyday.
Calvinisim is a term that is very unfortunate. Just like covenant theology. Both terms are human derived terms for the truth contained in the scriptures.
If anyone wants to reply to me asking in the spirit of wanting to understand rather than argumentative reply to this with a question not a statement.
Beware of the deception from a Preacher that will not tell you that you he is a TULIP Calvinist when indeed he is. He is being deceptive to the a Church or pastors search committee. Should he become their pastor, it could be destructive to the congregation that’s not Calvinist.
I have witnessed this deception and this destruction in a few local Churches in my county and surrounding counties.
Sorry but I feel like that was a dodge.
I think you shouldn’t identify as a snake and call yourself a Christian to hide your putrid doctrine behind the faith. People aren’t pre chosen to go to Heaven or hell when they are created.
Ephesians 1:5, "He predestined us for adoption to sonship for Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will".
Amen! Usually when people ask us Christians here wether we are Calvinist or Armenian, what they really meant was wether we believe in Predestination or not. My question is, Christians who dont believe in Predestination can be saved as well right? Since i heard somewhere that people who believe in the wrong Christian doctrine might not be saved. Thank you.
Anyone who repents of their sin and puts their faith in Christ alone for salvation will be saved. You don't have to affirm the five points to receive salvation. Armenians were predestined to be Armenians for their good and God's glory ;)
Joshua Lingerfelt thx for your answer!
Oooops... English may not be my language but I understand that Armenians are people born in Armenia. So if I was born in Mexico was I predestined to be Mexican? (ARMINIANS... with an "I" instead "E" is what you truly mean. Blessings to all. :-)
E. Diaz del Campo ooh yeah! sorry my bad :D thx for the input
Arminians believe in single predestination. They do not believe in double predestination or irresistible grace (except to the degree that prevenient grace irresistibly provokes a free-will response in beings who are otherwise totally depraved and incapable of giving a free-will response, and that response will either be one of submission or one of rejection). The single predestination is based on divine foreknowledge of the sinner's response to the inward call. God sovereignly elects all those who will trust in Christ and provides the sufficient means for them to trust in Christ via the Holy Spirit. The human reception of faith is passive, so it is still in essence monergistic.
Now, various groups get clumped together with Arminians even though they believe things contrary to the Scriptural interpretations of Arminius, the Remonstrants, and John Wesley, which is why people might mistakenly suggest that Arminians don't believe in predestination. Too often, people who promote semi-Pelagianism (e.g. Alexander Campbell) are unhelpfully labeled as Arminians when they're really anti-Calvinists. Arminius and others like him weren't looking to renounce Calvin's interpretations, but rather to modify them while staying within the Reformed tradition, whereas the groups with no predestination doctrine are typically founded by sectarian ex-Calvinists.
Not an answer at all unless your playing dodge ball. You can do better than that. That was like saying the Jehovah witness believe in God, now what could be wrong with that...
Amen.
Amen
What is the Trinitarian Calvinist's advice to the unbeliever who is being confronted with Trinitarian Arminian evangelism? Should we listen because the true gospel is surely in there somewhere despite the other misrepresentations of God? Should we turn away because no genuinely born again person could adopt a theological position that so consistently denies '"clear" biblical truth? Remember, I'm an unbeliever, so I lack ALL of the spiritually protective armaments listed in Ephesians 6:13 ff.
If you view me as an absolutely spiritually helpless fool, and yet you still advise me to listen to those whom you say contradict many plain teachings of scripture, you have no rational reason to think I will do anything except convert to Arminianism specifically, and not merely convert to the gospel generally. So telling an unbeliever to turn away from the Trinitarian Arminian gospel makes better sense.
If you tell me to stay away from Arminian evangelism, YOU are the one who gave me an excuse to turn away from one type of evangelism.
Huh?
@@2wheelz3504 Are you a Christian?
Only if you desire to be transparent and honest. Deception is ok as it denotes your father.
Isnt it remarkable that the one ingredient all these heresies have in common is 'sola scriptura'? ... "I just believe what the Bible says." ...completely oblivious to the fact that they are projecting their own personal biases onto the text.
@@westondavey4871 The dude in this video says he is careful not to say the word Calvinism or to identify as a Calvinist, but that Calvin "essentially got it right" with his understanding of the Bible. So then, he just says his own view is the Biblical one, and Calvin just happens to share the same view, because he was such a biblically correct guy, too. Such garbage. Dude's a Calvinist, and calmly but arrogantly wants to identify Calvinist doctrine as what the Bible's "really all about", drop the label and call 'Calvinism' simply 'biblical Christianity'. What does that make other Christians who happen to disagree with his hot take?
Then, he says, essentially all we're saying is that God is sovereign. (Guess what, dude? All other Christians say that God is sovereign, too. But sovereign doesn't mean to control or to predetermine all things. It simply means that he can do all he pleases.)
He goes on, "we just believe that apart from God, we are dead in our trespasses". All Christians believe this, too. But only Calvinists take the 'dead' analogy as meaning that a man is unable to respond to his free gift, unless he's lucky enough to be one of the exceptionally few men that God loves.
I shouldn't pass judgment on the guy, but I haven't seen people propagandize this way, unless they are snakes.
@@Giant_Meteor well said, so true!
What about the scripture over nearly 2000yrs ago? Which Bible are you using? The one that's updated and edited to suit the needs of the movement of the time's just over 500yrs ago?
Something is wrong with that.
@@christopherbrewer4421 "You also realize that the bible we have today matches the original manuscripts collectively 99% and the 1% that doesn't match effects no doctrine in the bible whatsoever?"
------ they do ? and, seeing as how we have NO ( as in "NONE', "NOT A", "NARY", "ZERO" ) autographs ( which is what "original manuscripts" are called ) of ANY of the books or epistles of ANY of the Old or New Testaments, how , exactly, do we know what we have now ( tiny bits and pieces for the most part from the first 300 years ) matches this fabulous 99% ?
Do your research so you don't end up with such a straw man argument - I'll even suggest a good introductory work : " God's Library" by Brent Nongbri
That’s cool what John Calvin would want me to be. But what would Jesus want me to be? Are we following Jesus or John Calvin here. Major red flags🚩🚩🚩🚩
You have to be biblical lol. Yeah, you have to have his biblical interpretation
If Jesus be lifted up - he will draw all to HIM .
I think JESUS SAID THAT .
He also said acts 1:8
With a guaranteed promise . Just before he ascended to heaven . So kick aaa and stay focused on Jeremiah 29:11
&
Joshua 1:8&9
Hopefully the irony of this segment being called "Honest Answers" is not lost on you...
Amen! What a subtle, snake like avoidance of the truth. Calvanism is opposed to biblical truth because free will is necessary for us to choose to worship the one true God. God is love and love can't exist without free will. I hope people read the Bible and let the Holy Spirit be their guide for understanding, not some man made tradition of belief that one must read- into the Bible.
"not some man made tradition of belief that one must read- into the Bible."
------- you mean like Pauline theology ?
Google “Calvinist quotes on God determining evil.” That is why I’m not a Calvinist. They have an unbiblical view on divine sovereignty that makes God’s holy nature the origin of conception for everything that is contrary to holiness.
The former is Arminianism and the latter is Calvinism.
If he is determined to allow it, then there isnt anything evil
Cody Markley There is a big moral difference between (A) determining to allow people to misuse their freedom and commit evil and (B) determining to conceive in one’s mind all the evils of the world and then determining who will commit each and evil in the exact manner that God conceived.
@@mattb7069 so there is predestination and double predestination, what you are describing as your reason against calvinism is, if I understand what you're saying, double predistination. It feels like the logical conclusion of predestination but the distinguishing feature is permission. I don't know if this helps but I guess u can try.
@@mattb7069 Romans chapter 9 seems to support the idea of double predestination, but " I think," it's not so much God determining mans evil, but being aware of our conceptions of evil as morally fractured agents. Does God command things that appear evil to man, sure, canaanite genocide, moses eradicating the unfaithful hebrews when he comes down from Sinai, there is a lot that appears evil at first glance but seen from a larger biblical narrative, it becomes understandable.
Cody Markley I think you are falling way short of what Calvinism actually entails-and affirms. In Calvinism, it is not simply a matter of God determining things that would be evil absent God’s command (i.e. the Canaanite conquest, Moses ordering the death of the rebellious). Rather in Calvinism ALL evil has been determined by God-every rape, every act of adultery, every act of child abuse...every abortion. There is nothing that happens in this world that was not PREVIOUSLY pre-determined to occur. God doesn’t just allow foreknown evil, he determinatively decreed each act of evil before the world began.
In Calvinism, God only foreknows all things BECAUSE he determined all things. The theory of compatibilism would not help in this regard because it must always be conceded that God determines WHICH strongest desires will act upon our wills so as to secure his prior decree. Lastly it must be said that if any Calvinist tries to use the language of “God permitting evil” to explain their view, they are borrowing the “furniture” of Arminianism while sitting in it to criticize it.
On the other hand Arminians can hold to a language of divine “allowance” and “permission” because we hold that God sovereignly decided to create humans genuinely free-that is to say free from causal constraints OUTSIDE their will. In Calvinism people are not free to choose contrary to God’s prior decree. It is said God’s decree determines everything. Does God need to get permission from himself to allow his own determination to come to pass? To even ask the question is to see the folly of Calvinist attempt to deflect away criticism by borrowing the language of God “permitting” sin. John Piper (in a rare moment of honest confession) admits that Calvinistic divine sovereignty means “God determined every dust mote and all our besetting sins.” No thanks. I would rather not try to rescue God’s glory under the rubble of such a theology.
If you think anything I have said does not rightly capture the logic of Calvinism, then answer this question: Has any human being EVER committed a sin that God did not decree?
God bless
Believing what Calvin believed about salvation (God chooses to save some) is not biblical. It is Calvinism.
So you believe God chose to save everyone?
Both Luther and Augustine believe the same thing. Are they Calvinists too or is it just in scripture?
Jesus said “let the kids come - it’s not that complicated !”
If any teaching doesn't lead to Christlikeness, the divine power and love life we see in Christ, freely given by Jesus blood and indwelling spirit, get rid of it. It is not worth following.
I have some reformed friends. They do not understand the Gospel: the restoration of a wo-/man back to the image of God. A very sad thing.
Once spoke with some of their pastors. When i mentioned spiritual giftings given to us by the indwelling Holy Spirit and the Spirit changing us into the image of God again, they looked at me as if they saw water burning.
They really had no clue what i was talking about. They follow some weird doctrine, a teaching of man and forefathers. So sad. Because it leaves a vast community powerless and mere human.
Calvijn on the other hand is pretty ok. I once looked at his writings: a whole chapter was on spiritual gifts by Holy Spirit. Calvijn was pretty spot on. Nowadays Calvinists don't get Calvijn theached but a watered down version.
Well it looks like he is a calvinist lol. Deceiver......
Wow Calvinism is deception? Goodness sakes.
@@willgold9705 maybe you missed it. Most calvinists dont want to be called that so they sneak in thru the backdoor subtly inder the radar. So yes, you have to call yourself a calvinist...i can settle for you calling yourself a reformed Christian. But what you cant call yourself is, a Christian. Christian implies God loves everyone and died foe everyone
Those who follow teaching on election that is summarized with a term "Calvinism" believe the gospel is available for everyone. However, only the elect will respond. John 6 talks about how only those who the Father draws will come to Christ. I John talks about how we loved him because he first loved us. Romans 9 talks bout how election is based on God's sovereign choice, not human choices. It is indeed true that "Whosoever will may come." However, many people are not willing. I did not get myself into the faith. I believed the Gospel, yes. But I did so because of grace. Ephesians 2 says we are saved by grace through faith. I believe the gospel offer is available for everyone. In that sense Arminians and Calvinists agree. We also agree that not all are saved (neither of us are Universalists). As a Calvinist I can truly say I was saved by God's grace. Not because I "made a better choice." I chose to believe yes. But God gave me a willing heart. So I get to genuinely thank God for making my heart willing. I don't have to thank myself for that. Finally, I don't think Arminians are necessarily lost. I think there are probably many saved. I just think they are inconsistent and have not rightly considered all of the Biblical data. As a Calvinist, I can rightly say "I did not get myself into the faith. Therefore I can't take myself out." Romans 8 talks about how nothing can separate believers from the love of God. Why should that not include themselves. If we are truly born again, are we not adopted. Does God "un-adopt" me if I stray. I realize some Arminians believe in eternal security. But my position more rightly aligns with a position of Christians persevering to the end by the grace and power of God, not by their own efforts. There is an element of mystery in all of this. However, I think the Calvinist position more rightly says "Though I don't understand all of how this works, I will accept BOTH what the Bible says about the necessity of willing hearts in coming to the Lord as well as what the Bible says about God being the one ultimately doing the drawing to himself. So I am willing to say that Arminians may be Christian (many are) but they are inconsistent and haven't taken in all of the Biblical data. On the other hand, you apparently as an Arminian, simply say that I as a Calvinist cannot rightly call myself a Christian. How audacious and brash of you. I believe Christ died for my sins according to the Scriptures (I Cor. 15) and that he was buried and raised from the dead three days later. I commit my life to him with repentance of sin and faith. I believe the Five Solas of the Reformation - that we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, by Christ alone, according to the Bible alone, for God's glory alone. Yet you apparently have the audacity to say I am not a Christian. I realize your comments are not meant as a personal attack and that you are just seeking to assert truth claims. Nevertheless, when you make broad statements about Calvinists not being Christians, I am right to feel offended.
@@willgold9705 you misunderstood my intentions. I said that calvinists are deceivers when they label themselves Christian. And acceptable label is either calvinist or reformed Christian. Anything else is deception to gradually incorporate the unknowable into the doctrine. I defined Christian as core beliefs being God loves everyone, died for everyone and commands everyone to repent and everyone has the ability to repent. Calvinists can only assert that God commands everyone to repent. I was saved when i was a calvinist. I am a traditionalist. Not arminian.
Would you say Christ died for everyone or just the elect? Can people repent?
Please answer that for me.
Frankly, out of this exchange, you're the one who doesn't sound like a Christian. You're going to have a tough time reconciling Romans 9 to your belief system. That God made out of the same lump of clay vessels prepared BEFOREHAND for destruction. And vessels prepared for glory. In order to make known his power so that he could show his mercy. See, your problem is with the word of God.... not with us. Let that sink in. Does the potter have no right over the clay?
God is sovereign. And you called people who hold this belief "deceivers".
Yeah he's a Calvinisn! Deceptive to the core...
To be honest, you would have to say the difference between biblical Christian belief and calvanism is the lack of free will in calvanist teaching. The Bible is entirely about us making a choice to worship the one true God. I can't stand the subtle, snake like avoidance people like this man use to act like they aren't a calvanist. Being a liar is something God hates. Calvanism is not true biblical teaching. True love requires true free will, period.
I don't think he was claiming to 'not be a Calvinist' but rather stating that it's not a core doctrine.
To say that the 'Bible is entirely about us making a choice to worship the one true God' seems to put the emphasis on our decision making, aside from significantly simplifying the Scriptures. Do you think that's portraying the sort of honesty you are asking of from this man?
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God" yeah sounds like something he is asking of us and we get to chose. No! God commands love, it is all over scripture OT and NT.
Correct. The Bible teaches us that the EXTENT of God’s love is infinite, but the application is only toward those who accept it; unfortunately only those who are drawn to it may accept it. And some people may never be drawn to it.
@@_DiJiT John 12:32
King James Version
32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
@@michellejohnsen912 I wish that verse were referring to this context, but unfortunately, it is not. Additionally we can fact check against real life uncontacted tribes that have gone dozens of generations without even having a guy who knows a guy who saw a Christian once come through their tribal jungle village.
I am absolutely not a Calvinist. Why would you make this video? Know your audience. I think both Calvinism and Armenianism are equally guilty of being a historic name brand and nothing else ... And in that only following sone verses and not others.
Why would I be a Calvinist of course I'm not.
I'm neither.
Im definitely neither.
Its not even an issue the bible melds together fine for me without creating an all one side response like Calvinism or Armenianism.
Both sides of those issues are entirely true and people can't see its not logically exclusive or biblically exclusive.
Its not even like that at all.
" both sides of those issues are entirely true "
--- I'd really like to hear the explanation of how both sides of contradictory arguments can be entirely true - are you saying that both sides points are found in the bible ?
Why would it matter? Yes. I am. Lol. This is lame. He taught what Paul did. Semantics.