Clive Lewis and John Piper's Calvinist Confusions, by Dr. Jerry Walls
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 พ.ค. 2014
- Dr. Jerry Walls gives his critique of Calvinism, and more specifically, John Piper's written and held beliefs on the subject, all framed through C.S. Lewis' rather different views on the matter. In this seminar held at Azusa Pacific University in spring of 2014, Dr. Walls finds Piper's Calvinism, and indeed Calvinism in general, severely wanting.
Anyone that thinks that God seeks to satisfy Himself does not understand what agape means...
Php 2:13 "for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure."
Eph 1:9 "he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ,"
Isa 55:8 "“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord."
We either worship a god we create, or we worship the God of the Bible.
God is always satisfied with Himself from eternity to eternity because He is eternally and timelessly immutable.
God is the only one who can please Himself. He was satisfied that His Son suffered and died on the cross for our sins.
The Batman shirt doesn’t guarantee that Jerry’s presentation will be the tour de force that it is, but it definitely helps. Can you imagine John Piper wearing an old Batman T-shirt ? Nah.
The George Washington / Major Andre story was also VERY well done, as it exposed the fallacies that are present in Piper's thinking. Well done!
Definitely was. Jerry Walls is sharp dude that I would not debate if I was still a Calvinist.
When Jerry wears Batman, you know he means business.
Batman is Jerry's god?
Matthew 23:31-33 (NKJV): Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?
To me it means he’s trying to draw attention to himself.
The part about David killing Uriah through secondary causes was BRILLIANT! It shows, both Biblically, and logically, that Calvinism blasphemes God by making God the author of sin. This point alone was worth the price of admission. Well done, Dr. Walls!
The point Calvinists make concerning evil acts of wicked men is that only secondary, and tertiary causes are responsible/accountable for sinful/wicked acts…God never is.
Why? Because the term(s) responsibility/accountability can never apply to God.
I have pointed out the failure of Dr. Walls to properly establish the correct prerequisite of responsibility/accountability. He believes "libertarian free will" is the prerequisite. I have demonstrated that Dr. Walls is wrong because he doesn't know what the proper definition of responsibility is.
For example, why can God kill, but is also not responsible when He decrees that murder would be (cf. Acts.4:27-28)? Because God never has to give a response (or, render and account) for anything He does, to any of His creatures; and, second, because there is no higher authority to whom God is obligated to give a response (responsibility), or render and account (accountability).
This is what responsibility/accountability means:
1) The obligation to give a response, or render an account; and,
2) There must exist an higher authority to whom, or to which one is obligated to give a response, or render an account (God, of course, being the highest authority, and which there is none higher).
Finally, in attempting to refute the idea of secondary and tertiary causes as the only ones responsible/accountable, Dr. Walls is comparing God with His creatures (in this case, David). This is just an example of Dr. Walls' blurring of the Creator/creature distinction. One cannot compare the omnipotent, omniscient Creator (the Triune God), with impotent, ignorant and sinful creatures (like David). To do so is quit near what you would call "blasphemous". It is the result of fallen man attempting to elevate himself, and, at the same time, to bring God down from off of His rightful throne.
There are all kinds of errors inherent in Dr. Walls' presentation(s); the chief error is that Dr. Walls does not take the Bible (the WHOLE Bible) as his sole authority in matters of doctrine; he seems to rely far more upon philosophy, and, sadly, emotion.
Now, there's nothing wrong with the study of philosophy, as long as it is biblically derived theology that is its master.
Soli Deo Gloria!
In Jesus' precious name.
You wrote: "...in the Bible God is said to be love, to be righteous and good, holy and sinless."
This is true; but He is also said to be a jealous God (Ex.20:5; Deut.5:9), wrathful as well (too many citations to even begin), and also a hater of sinners (Ps.5:5). Why do synergists, like Dr. Walls, emphasize certain attributes of God over others? Calvinists emphasize *all* of what the Scriptures say concerning *all* of the attributes of God.
You wrote: "If He makes the evil happen, none of these (righteousness, holiness, love…etc.) would apply to Him."
This is a mere assertion with no explanation. And what do you mean by the ambiguous word "makes"?
More importantly, how would you answer this question (if you are not an Open Theist, that is, and believe in the omni-prescience of God): 'if God knew, even before He created, that all this wickedness would enter into it (or, rather, fall from its original glory), and yet decided to create anyways, knowing that it the wickedness and evil would come about only if He decided to actuate the creation, how is God not, in some way, the ultimate cause of evil?'
Calvinists, of course, distinguish between 'ultimate causation' (which is the Triune God alone), and 'secondary/tertiary causation' (which is creaturely). Being the 'author' of something does not make one the ultimate cause of anything, only a secondary or tertiary one.
For example: J.K. Rowling was not the ultimate cause of the Harry Potter series, since she did not give herself the breath of life in the first place; God did. And, He only gave her the breath of life (not spiritual life, but natural life) as a result of His original creation, without which she could never have come into existence, and eventually *author* the Harry Potter series. God did not write the Harry Potter series; J.K. Rowling did. But she could not have written it without God's providential hand.
So you see how this statement of yours, "A calvinist makes God the source of sin, the Bible does not…", is ambiguous?
Why?
Because you do not explain what you mean by "source". If you mean that God is the ultimate, or primary cause (Creator) of the heavens, the earth, the sea, and all that in them is, then, yes, God is the "source" even of sin itself (since sin could not have been without God having created); however, if you mean that God is the *author* of sin, then I just explained to you why this is not true.
This is what the *authors* of both the Westminster Confession, and the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith mean when they deny that God is the *author* of sin [WCF, ch.3, sec.1; LBC ch.3, sec.1]. God did not *author* these confessions of faith (they would be much better if He did ;)
You quoted me and my citation of Acts 4:27-28; but where did I (or any Calvinist in history) ever say that God "made them do it"?
Calvinists recognize the universal sinfulness of mankind, and that that universal sinfulness is primarily directed toward God. This is why evildoers do evil things. They are conceived and born that way. God had to do no "work" on them for them to do what they did. They were conceived and born murderers (just like you and I were). But God decreed it and it couldn't have happened any other way than it did…lest God be proven to be fallible, impotent, and ignorant.
But, again, you have to answer the same questions concerning this text; you have to reconcile in the text where it says that God decreed the crucifixion, with what these evildoers did to the Messiah.
You wrote: "Now you may think God is not "responsible", but if He made (decreed) it happen then how is He good, holy and blameless?"
I thought we agreed on why the term "responsibility" can never apply to God?
Why are you bringing this issue up again?
Yes, God is good, holy, and blameless; these words do have meaning for the Calvinist. They always have.
The problem is when certain Christians, because of a flawed theological system, exalt certain attributes of God to the exclusion of others. And this is what I've seen in Dr. Walls' presentation(s): grabbing people by their emotions by emphasizing certain attributes (ones that 'make people feel good') and not others (ones that 'make people feel bad').
Because, let's face it, there are not many people who want to hear about the jealousy, hatred, and wrath of God…but people generally don't mind hearing of the love, mercy, grace, and forgiveness of Him.
Am I right?
In Jesus' precious name,
Ryan.
btw, I enjoy our correspondence, dear brother. You make me have to remember the importance of these doctrines. I hope I can do the same for you…all by the grace of God, of course.
Soli Deo Gloria!
The error you male is that you are not looking at the life of Jesus Christ. It is obvious when you read scripture that Jesus was loving all even the proud. So, when you say God is wrath, can you show is where Christ was walking about trying to shoe his wrath? The wrath of God is for those who willfully reject Him and are disobey what is right in His sight.
You say God hates sinners, well these are the same sinners Jesus came to die for. That would be you and I. Thus the love of God trumped His hate for the sinner, for Christ died for us while we were sinners. So while God will hate and show His wrath (due to sin), He is the embodiment of love. Love is his Person and that will always be, while his wrath is for a moment.
48jackpotjohnny - I agree that it blasphemes God. It denigrates His character.
I agree that was an incredibly irrefutable argument against Calvinism secondary causes.
"Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone."
The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil. (Prov. 16:4 KJV)
@@cranmer1959 He didn't make them in an evil state of being, (God created evil?) He let's them continue to exist so He will use them for the good of other people even though they themselves constantly choose to resist God in their own free will.
@@adventures8977 If God did not create evil who did? Isaiah 45:7
@@adventures8977 How does libertarian free will get God off the hook? After all there is no sin or evil in heaven. If God is sovereign over evil in heaven, why not on earth, too?
@@ThomasCranmer1959 you are misunderstanding. God does not create anything or anyone in a state of evil but because people and angels willfully rebel and do evil then God sends calamity on them if He chooses to do so. The Calvinist theology says that people are born with a sin nature and that God does not even offer forgiveness/reconciliation to most people but rather He prefers that they remain evil/sinful/rebellions and condemned to hell.
A very good lecture.
keep up the good work.
souls are to be saved not rejected .
very enlightening, clear, and important. Thank you so much for this.
Trained as an Augustinian monk, Luther largely embraced Augustine’s doctrine of predestination. This was especially seen in Luther’s debate with Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536); although Erasmus affirmed human freedom, Luther insisted that humans lack free will. For Luther, this was a doctrine of comfort, as believers’ salvation may be taken entirely out of their control and placed under the control of God alone. If our salvation lay under our control, Luther averred that no one would be saved, since the devil would overpower everyone. But because God’s predestination cannot fail, believers have unassailable hope in the face of sin.
Luther believed in absolute predestination as much as Calvin did. Jerome Zanchius, also.
So you're saying Luther thought the devil is more powerful than God?
Nice
Luther was even stronger on the sovereignty of God than Calvin and the other reformers. He was not saying just that the human will was in bondage to sin--though that was indeed what he said--but more to the point Luther said that man's will was not free from God's sovereign will.
@@shredhed572 no, he said that God was more powerful than the devil but humans are not. Therefore, man couldn't be any bit in control of their reconciliation to God since, if that was the case, the devil would overpower man. Therefore... God's predestination had to be the only choice since it establishes salvation as solidly under God's full control.
I get the sentiment but he's dead wrong
That is good. I read Bondage of the Will while driving chopper in the corn harvest. The boss and employers were all Catholic, and something made them mad about me while the boss was drinking whiskey and his truck drivers were running stop signs. He fired me, ending my harvesting career.
44:00 David and Uriah argument is an insanely good argument, definitely ruining any silliness that God is not responsible for second causes in Calvinism
I love Dr. Walls Batman T-shirt.
I also love his teaching. I wish I had such a mentor in my life. People that follow the word of God without compromising it. 💪🏼🙏🏻
Batman was actually an evil vigilante in the original comics. Walls should think about the symbolism before wearing such a shirt.
Ive got to hear you speak live, So blessed thank you!!!
Yes, I heard Dr. Walls in class around 1992 or 1993 at Asbury Seminary. It was his bad reasoning that led me to accept Calvinism. If God foreknows that you will go to church next Sunday, is it possible that you will not go to church next Sunday?
My first thought is if God has predestine us, why did he put two trees with two choices in the garden. The tree of life, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil? In the beginning God placed free will before sin.
Um, he said "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." It was a command not a choice.
@@mercibeaucoup2639 That has **nothing** to do with the fall of mankind
@@mercibeaucoup2639 I agree. I don't see how that changes my position. Ecc 7:29
@@mercibeaucoup2639 I would say that you misunderstand us when we say "control". It does not mean 'force'. I recommend listening to James White's info on compatiblism
Calvinist would said it's for his infinite wisdom and glory
Excellent
Even after this, I am more understanding of Calvinism.
At 8:40 Walls says "listen to these (Piper's) lies"; his hubris is amazing. It is interesting how he doesn't scrutinize his own inconsistencies but sees himself as sound. He then goes on to refer to Talbot with, "If God truly loves me, He must love who I love". Who says? Where is this in Scripture or logic? If the one whom the believer loves is an atheist then that person is a God hater just like the natural man is (of whom we once were!). This is indefensible because it is ordering God with an ultimatum. No thoughtful, humble Believer could ever defend such an assertion. The inverse of Talbot's statement is actually true. This qualifier is, in reality, how believers should view the recognition and love for God that everyone should have. Instead of ordering God to love sinful haters of Him, we should hold this type of regard for God. We should insist that others love God instead of demanding that He love who we want Him to. Here is a perfect example of the man-centeredness that is always underneath this type of theology. I repeatedly try to give Walls a chance to persuade with His position, but He always disappoints. He is a "Catholic Baptist"; therein lies the oxymoron. This is where these positions start to derail, and it goes on from there.
Scott Carter Just to clarify, I think you've misheard and he says "listen to these lines" :)
Walls is or at least was a United Methodist. That explains why he has an aversion to the biblical doctrine of hell as well. Walls thinks the wicked need a second chance after they die.
Thank you Dr. Walls. No wonder MacArthur is worried that the current resurgence of pompous Calvinists will be short lived.
Why would anyone be worried about the resurgence of "pompous Calvinists"?
As a Calvinist, I sure hope that "pompous Calvinists" will remain in the minority, and that educated, humble, godly Calvinists will be the majority in the group that claims to be Reformed. ;)
Ryan Gallmeier Pompous or humble error remains error.
What error(s) are you talking about?
Start with man's total inability to make truly free choices. Where does that come from? Bible? Where?
What is a "truly free" choice?
Is a "choice" the same, or different from, a "truly free" choice? Please clarify.
How about, for example, when Jesus says, "no one can come to me, unless the father who sent me draws him…(Jn.6:44)"?
Jesus seems to teach inability in this text.
If no one is able to come to Jesus, unless something happens first, then isn't He teaching that there is at least one "truly free choice" that fallen man is unable make?
*Insert Calvinist arrogant dismissive response, added to an ad hominem attack against speaker, mixed with a false presupposition about faith and works; add finally a misrepresentation of the Arminian understanding of the efficacy of human will. Repeat if necessary-- if all else fails, accuse speaker of loving philosophy over exegesis, while committing the same mistake.*
There. I've done all the work for you, Calvinists. No need to post here.
Besides, God has sovereignly determined that not only should Dr. Walls say what he said, but also that he'd be an Arminian in the first place-- indeed, not only that, but even that he'd wear that Batman t-shirt.
+Sketchpad Warrior Talk about arrogant... According to the Arminian view God looked down the corridors of time and saw Jerry choosing the batman shirt and since his foreknowledge is infallible he couldn't freely but choose the batman shirt or frustrate God's foreknowledge. If God foresaw the shirt choice, could he have choose another shirt????
+Richard Moore It only frustrates God's foreknowledge if you don't understand what a modal fallacy is.
Exactly, it's chronological priority vs. Logical priority.
Sorry, not an ad hominem. Please learn what one is.
+eklektos44 He didn't say anyone made an ad hominem, just that Calvinists typically will when faced with someone who disagrees with them.
Paul constantly made sure to let us know that he was coming at the people humbly without brilliant words and philosophies. He let the word of God speak for itself and didn't give a bunch of his opinions which he came to using his fallen reasoning. If the bible says it, it is settled no matter what you think about it.
Unfortunately, we modern Gentiles here in the West are really, really bad at interpreting both the Old and New Testaments. We do not naturally read the languages nor did we grow up in 1st century Judaea or the Eastern Mediterranean. As a result, our exegesis is often absolutely abysmal.
Halo4Lyf Excellent point. Jonathan Edwards' view of free will was itself heavily influenced by the views of Newtonian physics and philosophy of his day. Unfortunately, his view of compatibilism is itself not compatible with the views of the primitive Church or with the authors of scripture.
Its not a matter of who believes scripture. Seriously. What if Calvinism is wrong? Then the gospel has been denied. If Arminianism is wrong than, oops sorry God, we were trying to show you in a better light.
Dr Walls, thank you for confirming my choice to leave Calvinism many years ago. I enjoyed all of your classes and loved my time at Asbury 😀
It was the opposite for me. I had Walls for Christian philosophy at Asbury and it was Walls's weak arguments for Arminianism that caused me to leave Pentecostalism and Arminianism and become a Calvinist and a Presbyterian. God is Logic. John 1:9. Arminianism is inherently contradictory at so many points that it ends up in Open Theism and atheism if followed to its logical conclusion. For Arminians God is not immutable, omniscient or omnipotent. The Arminian god is finite and unable to do anything about moral evil or the throes of natural disasters. Arminianism has more in common with deism than with biblical Christianity.
God called me back to faith recently - a prodigal daughter - and being naiive to the Christian-denomination-lay-of-the-land, I took my first step into a prezzy church. Found it robbed me of the joy of Christ as they were a strange mix of outward piety but also petty, cold judgmentalism, with no discernable love for the lost, while my heart bled for the lost. It was more like a self-righteous club. Walking away from that church was like a breath of fresh air, and my love and faith has been rekindled. Only recently have I put two and two together (and got 4, by the way) that the problem was the Calvinist ideology of the pastor and his inner clique. Subsequently I've noticed how many Christians have had a similar experience and have left Calvinist shackles behind. Calvinism is a hot (or rather cold) mess, and in no way reflects the LOVING God I know, both personally and from true biblical knowledge. All the best to you and all those who have woken up to its erroneous and God-misrepresenting nonsense.
There are many false churches out there. Just because it has the name Presbyterian on the door does not make it a true church. @@cord11ful
husbands, love your wives even as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it."
A verse about how a husband’s relationship to his wife resembles Christ’s relationship to the Church and not at all dealing with the idea of limited atonement if that’s what you’re going for.
If Christ gave himself for the church, obviously He didn't give himself for the secular world.
@@cranmer1959 Before any member of the Church was saved, he or she was secular. Your reasoning is hopefully different now after a year.
"While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." The secular people are sinners. The saved were sinners. See, you can't just cherry pick verses.
@@matthewbrown9029 You sound like a Calvinist! Of course Jesus died only for the elect and all of the elect were sinners and unregenerate prior to their regeneration and conversion. An atonement that does not actually save anyone has no power to redeem or save.
@@matthewbrown9029
John Gill's commentary on John 10:15
The Cause of God and Truth
“2. The argument is retorted upon thus‡; “He that died for his friends, and for his enemies, for the church of God, and for the unrighteous, that he might bring them to the church of God; for the sheep that heard his voice, and for the lost ones that did not hearken to his voice, died for all. But Christ died for his friends, &c. therefore he died for all.” The fallacy of this argument will easily appear, when it is observed, that they are the same individual persons who are styled the enemies and friends of Christ, the unrighteous, and the church, the lost sheep, and such as hearken to Christ’s voice; BEING THE FORMER AS CONSIDERED IN THEIR UNREGENERATE ESTATE, AND THE LATTER THROUGH THE POWER OF HIS GRACE UPON THEM.”
ref.ly/o/causgodtruth/660299 via the Logos Bible Android app.
The all caps is my emphasis.
Jerry Walls, and every highly educated "philosopher", always makes me so grateful that God has given me grace to understand the Word enough that I find myself in the company of Jesus, Paul, Peter, John, and James and the O.T. writings.
You are also in the company of papists and other heretics.
If God foreknows that Jerry Walls will go to hell, is possible that Walls won't go to hell?
Lord, Open the eyes by your Spirit of the calvanist so that they may see You for who you really are.Amen
Amen
This is how we bornagains dig into the word.
Well said..Dr.Jerry Walls..God bless you
Arminians 1 - Calvinists 0. And from the looks of the comments below, it doesn't look like those numbers will flop any time soon...
Agreed: the church is truly becoming less God-centered and more man-centered.
There are other choices in theology than Arminian and calvinist. Arminius was dutch Calvinist who wanted a reformed form of calvinism.
ARMINIANISM IS ROBBERY OF GOD'S PREDESTINATED WILL OF SOVEREIGN GRACE
Having read most of the comments under this video it's no wonder why we the Church are so pathetic at reaching the lost with the Gospel. When we refuse to repent of our pride, we call one another all sorts of names, and then attempt to worship God with the same minds and hearts that just lambasted our brothers in Christ. We truly need to repent! Everyone of us! Quit listening to philosophers to develop your theology and start listening to the Spirit of Christ period.
Where is John Calvin in the Scripture?
Dr. Walls nailed it again!
Dr walls is clueless
@@paul.etedder2439
you are 2
Excellent, thank you!
great speech, i wish id heard and understood these things 30 years ago, before i destroyed my life in false religion
Glory To GOD!!!
Thank you Jerry Walls!
You mean glory to Walls, don't you?
This is really good!
He shouldn't make the assumption that all "Calvinists" agree with double predestination. I am a monergist, though my belief that God predetermines salvation does not mean that he predetermines everything. I wish that he used more scripture. I often wonder what these sorts of people think when they read Romans 9.
Philosophy has its place in these discussions though one should not stop there in the totality of one’s understandings. That being said, much of Calvinism is defended on philosophical grounds and it’s okay to use philosophy as a tool to dispute that. He and others have done extensive exegetical work on Romans 9, interesting how Calvinists single out Chapter 9 and force a contextual divorce from 10 and 11, which were not written with the chapter distinctions we use for easy referral today.
There is an enormous scholarly wealth and robust church history of material interpreting Romans 9 non-Calvinistically. Step out of the Calvinist echo chamber and at least seek out and read (or watch) some of those play out.
You might want to read Leighton Flowers’ expose of Romans 9-He had been a Calvinist for many years and came out of that movement. Thiss is the first time I have heard Dr. Jerry Walls-very interesting especially the part on David planning and executing the murder of Uriah-
Well by default, if God chooses who will be saved, he’s also determining who won’t, which is double predestination. Romans 9 is also talking about the past of Israel when you read it along side of Romans 10 and 11. In full context, Romans 9 is about Israel, not individual election.
I wonder if anyone else sees where Calvinist diminish the work of Christ to satisfy all wrath and the position Christ is exalted to - to be over all, and above all.
It appears to me they diminish it.
In the end, it came down to adding up arrows (38:00)
In the end the god of Arminianism can do nothing about evil nor can he save anyone.
Walls just described total depravity. Rebels do not even believe they are hell bound. They are UNABLE to repent. Romans 3.
Keep up the good work because simplistic Calvinites embrace non-contextual distortions of Scripture and think that those abused quotes of Scripture support the idolatry of Calvinitis, blaspheming the God Who is Love.
Calvinists are blasphemers masquerading as pious angels of light. Sound familiar?
Lucius Zedaker Some are, doubtless. But let's not be uncharitable, shall we? Many are sincere, but simply mistaken. Nothing wrong with having an incorrect opinion, honestly held, is there? That certainly isn't idolatry, just an honest mistake.
Halo4Lyf We must often distinguish between a religious system and the adherents of the system. Hinduism is idolatry, but that doesn't mean that the one true God cannot be the object of worship of an individual within but breaking free from the idolatrous system. Calvinitis, like Hinduism, is a false religious system; individuals within both systems can, IN SPITE OF (not because of) their system, and due to the prevenient Grace of Holy Spirit, sometimes worship the one true God. It is better to destroy both systems and liberate all those enslaved within; that is true charity toward the adherents.
olorin3k Calvinitis -- yes!
Walls is clueless
this is a really cool guy!!
Calvinism is Christianity as if it were Islam: based upon WILL aka god's Sovereign will. This man end's the primacy of "faith alone" thus knocks out one of the pillars of the "protest of the 1517." And since there are two by design, the last one standing, scripture alone, falls. This is true since there is such a divide in the interpretation of scripture from self proclaimed "pastors." Bravo.
Last time I looked Trespass and Sin were things we do (Verbs)
They are what those outside of salvation do.
His degrees ... his college ... his t-shirt says it all.
Emily Harris Oh my... you're right!
HE'S BATMAN!!!!!
Lewis disputed reformed doctrine constantly.
Lewis had no formal training in theology, and it is obvious from his writings that he had a poorly informed and incomplete understanding of some doctrines. However, I do not, like some, question Lewis' salvation because of his doctrinal misunderstandings.
@@gregb6469 that's not a qualifying factor. Peter had no formal education but was one of the 12 apostles. Also to speak to the idea that Lewis was unlearned have you read his biography? He grew up learning latin and greek along with an extensive education. The argument that in order to form a theology you must have had particular training says very little of a Sovereign God. So God is so all powerful, He draws us to Himself and we are hopelessly lost unless He does so but He cannot create a bible in which it can be read and understood by anyone even the most common of men who know Him? Calvinism stands on a grain of truth and a grain of interpretation. The main defeating issues for it come from the idea that there can be no free will and the spirit cannot be resisted which are both refuted in scriptures when God constantly refers to "choosing life" and our "willful choice" as well as when Stephen preaches telling the crowd "you always resist the Holy Spirit". Then there's above all what I find the most grievous doctrine of Calvinism which is the ideal that God has foreordained all possible events, including sin, which makes God a liar. God does not tempt man to sin (James 1:13). Don't mistake me though either, the Arminian perspective isn't correct either. Our salvation isn't something we can have no confidence in and can lose. The truth is in between and I'll go ahead and tell you neither Calvinism or Arminianism is all that important to begin with. If a man in the Appalachian Mountains living in the woods in the 1800's received the Gospel and was saved, understanding what Jesus did on the cross for him then he has the necessary components for salvation. He doesn't need to be saved and then come to Calvinism to "really be saved". It's Jesus alone and if both of you, Arminians and Calvinists would focus on preaching that message and let God draw and God save then these petty arguments can be settled in the presence of the Lord Himself one day.
It is so sad that The Light of God can be darkened by such dark thoughts of judgment, determinism and evil as part of Gods character. Free Will is what brings the beauty to Gods Grace to move us to believe.
If the creature is free why did Adam rebel against God in the first place? Better yet, why would God test Adam's obedience knowing beforehand that Adam would fail? Even Arminians have to acknowledge that God foreknew the fall. Therefore, God is the ultimate cause of the fall because He tested Adam's obedience. Is there testing in heaven?
@@ThomasCranmer1959How would Adam have had the ability to choose God out of love had he not had free will? There is no conclict between God knowing what he'd choose, with offering him the ability to choose.
@@2Chronicles714_Where does Scripture mention Trinity explicitely? Where does Chrits say "I am God", word for word?
Muslim's favorite "gotchas" (they think) against Christians.
@szilardfineascovasa6144 There is absolutely a conflict. What kind of "love" sets up the fall of Adam on purpose? Libertarian free will fails to get God off the hook. First off. by your definition of love, free will cannot exist in heaven. That would make salvation defective and mutable even after the judgment!
Secondly, who tested Adam's obedience by placing the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden and then commanded Adam and Eve not to eat from it? Who placed the serpent in the garden to entice Eve? Answer? God did.
If you saw a young child playing in the street and about to get hit by a car and did nothing, would you not be responsible? A police officer who watched a robbery or murder and did nothing would also be responsible.
God is all powerful and could easily prevent all kinds of evil even now. Yet God planned the fall. He is the ultimate cause of evil and the Armi Ian's just dodge the issue and pretend that the emotion of "love" gets God off the hook. You should do the right thing and stop pretending that your argument gets Godd off the hook.
And lastly, if God foreknows that you will backslide tomorrow and go to hell, is it possible that you won't go to hell?
God's character? What kind of character sets Adam up to fall, foreknowing all the evil that would result? What kind of "love" wants that kind of suffering and even eternal perdition? Does love exist in heaven? If so, then is salvation also defectible in heaven?
Luke 13:34: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing."
A man knows in his heart that he desires a person to love him for who he is and that that kind of love means more than the love of someone made to love if indeed he could make someone to love him. It is the love given to us because of who we are that we treasure most. A rich man might try to buy love but that is not the way of God. He will not buy it by "electing" certain ones. He will not "gather" his love to him by changing her. Irresistible grace is only irresistible if it is overpowering and overpowering anyone to make them love you is not what God is about.
Calvinists say that if free will is affirmed, God's sovereignty is at peril. Arminians affirm free will not to go against the sovereignty of God but because it is affirmed in the Bible. What does this imply? It implies that the sovereignty of God doesn't have to be in conflict with the reality of human free will. The problem with the Calvinists is that, they think that the only viable concept of sovereignty is the sovereignty of arbitrary exercise of power. The sovereignty of God which the Bible presents is more a dynamic and personal kind of sovereignty which rules not arbitrarily but 'personally,' so that in God's ruling, He does it in a way human persons are 'respected' and treated as human persons with the capacity of moral choice, not as rocks or animals. This is why Jesus says that He knocks at the door of our heart for our response. Jesus here is exactly exercising His divine sovereignty and he is not crushing the human-ness of humanity which is the being that makes a moral choice. When God hardens the heart of Pharoh, God does the same thing to any human being who 'chooses' to harden his or her own heart. It is simply the law of human heart that, if it does not use the conscience and reason that God has given to it, it will get hardened toward more useless thing. This is why the Bible says that God hardened Pharoh's heart. This truth is also reinforced in Rom 1:18. Calvinism is truly sickening because it turned the dynamic elements of the Bible into a stiff system called Five Points.
Is there any reason, of any kind, why the exercise of human freedom of will cannot be an exercise of God's Will through creatures ? Maybe the reality of human freedom is one of the ways in which God's absolute and universal sovereignty is carried out.
One of the flaws in the Calvinist objection that if human willing is free, then it hinders God's sovereignty, is, that the objection treats Divine and human willing and freedom as though God and man were like two balls on a pool table: where one ball is, the other cannot be; they exclude each other. But, the will, unlike a billiard ball, is not a material object. It is a spiritual faculty, of the immortal spirit that is the human soul. The Calvinist objection is a materialist one.
The Transcendental Spirit that is God created and made possible the spirits we call angels, and the spirits we know as human souls: why then can God not create and make possible angelic and human freedom and willing ? If creaturely spirits can exist and not hinder God, why should creaturely wills, willing, and freedom hinder God ?
Excellent comment.
Yeah, Calvinism is theistic determinism. It paints God as the author of evil and is blasphemy of the highest order. They’ll always comeback at you and have “answers.” They’ll say, “You don’t understand Calvinism.” We actually understand the implications better than them, tbh.
Batman t-shirt...????
ONLY THEM THAT HAVE THE HOLY SPIRIT BELIEVES JESUS IS LORD (SEE 1 CORINTHIANS 13:3)... PS: THE ORDER OF SALVATION STARTS WITH GOD IMPUTING HIS HOLY SPIRIT IN AN UNBELIEVER'S HEART, AND AFTER THAT, HE BELIEVES AND ARE BORN AGAIN. + the batman guy is a demon !!
The Lord has clearly chosen His Church In Him, before the foundation of the world. The preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery has been clearly made known unto All Nations and All Men, however, many are perverting, distorting and confusing this great mystery All In The Name Of John Calvin !
The logic is clear, as are the contradictions in Calvinism
The logic of Arminians is self refuting. Who is higher than God to hold Him accountable?
Matthew 23:31-33 (NKJV): Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?
The 5 wrongs of Calvinism that I find are infant baptism, a belief that God is a family of individuals rather than a relational Being within Himsef, they read the wrong Bible, they deny the gifts of the Spirit for today, and they teach a Christian still can commit sin. But I find no errors with T.U.L.I.P..
So much "logic," so little Scripture. This seems to be much more of a personal vendetta against Piper, rather than an honest intellectual/theological pursuit.
To begin with Scripture does not simply mean chronologically, but rather logically, meaning that we approach Scripture and let it say what it says rather than approach the text assuming the legitimacy of our own understanding. Perhaps it's not the text that needs to be fixed, but our minds, which cannot fully grasp the mysteries of God's desires and working (Rom. 11:34).
I would also love an explanation of Mark 4:10-12. Just my initial thoughts.
+Joshua Prairie I could not agree more. Our puny human minds are not tailored to perfectly understand the mysteries and greatness of our God as written in scripture. We are to read the Word for what it is and from there supplicate for understanding, rather than fixating on how we can rationalize scripture using our own logic. Unfortunately, this is a major issue with modern Christian apologetics, where many teachers rely too heavily on their own understanding.
Actually, it is Piper who relies on his own logic, or rather Augustine's and Calvin's rather than the revelation of the character of God in scripture through the person of Christ. An attack on Piper's "logic" is not a vendetta against Piper himself. Walls even presupposes that Piper and his ilk arrive at their errors through sincere piety (which is perhaps a rather generous assumption) so it seems that you are the one approaching this assuming the legitimacy of your own understanding. If you watch this with anon mind, you'll see Walls is attacking a position, not a person.
at 39:20 or so, Jerry Walls says that in Arminianism, the rejection of grace is the necessary and sufficient condition for damnation. There is one more necessary condition: that the individual was created to begin with by God. C.S. Lewis admits in PILGRIM'S REGRESS that God is a gambler in creating us. Lewis admits that people advance this idea as an objection to the justice of hell, and then does not answer this objection, to the best of my recollection.
Proverbs 16:33. There are no contingencies in God's eternal mind. There is no such thing as a rejection of grace since grace is irresistible. Romans 2:4. Also, if a wicked man rejects the command to obey the Gospel, is it not the bondage of sin that compels him to rebel? Only the sovereign grace of God through Jesus Christ can free a man from his slavery to sin:
32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.
36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. (Jn. 8:32-37 KJV)
Finally, if grace can be resisted, then it would mean that grace itself is not the cause of salvation but your own work that saves you since you must do the work to believe and save yourself. Only Calvinism and the biblical message teaches that salvation is totally and absolutely a grace of God. You cannot receive grace by an act of the will because it is grace that causes you to believe, not your own determination to cause yourself to believe.
And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand. (Lk. 8:10 KJV)
In other words, Lewis admits that the semi-pelagian position makes God unable to save and that salvation is up to mere chance. A finite good god might just as well be a finite evil god who is unable to do anything about good. A finite god results in dualism in other words.
@@cranmer1959Read Romans 4. Faith isn’t a work. I can put faith in God to give me grace even though I don’t deserve it one bit. Thank you. Btw, I used to believe in things of Calvinism. Now I see it as blasphemy since it paints God as the author of evil. It’s theistic determinism.
@calebcrawford2520 Either faith is a gift whereby God causes you to believe and cooperate, or faith is something you can boast about. The difference, according to semi-pelagians is that the person who believes did the right thing, while the unbeliever did not. The Bible, on the other hand, says that depravity is total and no one can do the right thing without first being born again.
Jeremiah 13:23 (KJV 1900): Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.
Romans 3:10-12 (KJV 1900): As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Ephesians 2:8-10 (KJV 1900): For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
And finally, who are you to judge God? Even the Arminian must admit that God must be responsible for moral evil in the world because He allegedly gave Adam libertarian free will, foreknowing that Adam would sin.
If God foreknows that you will go to church next Sunday, is it possible that you won't go? Foreknowledge makes the future inevitable.
Revelation 13:8 (KJV 1900): And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
@@calebcrawford2520If God gives everyone grace, then grace is not effectual. The deciding factor is not God's grace but your own effort to give yourself faith.
Excellent lecture. Thanks for posting.
Isaiah 45:7
The horrifically ironic thing about Calvinism is that, when taken to it's ultimate end, actually teaches us that most of humanity should side with Satan, for the Calvinist god created most men to burn in hell with him forever and ever simply so that god could bask in the glory of it all. Satan could credibly argue that it is not he that is evil, but god. After all, Satan didn't predetermine anyone to go to hell, only god did. Indeed, no matter how bad Satan is, there is nothing he could do that could compare to this hateful evil. He can't even lead anyone to hell. The Calvinist god has predetermined to send most everyone to hell despite anything Satan does or doesn't do.
I've dealt with false teachings in the past (Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc..) and though they are all demonic deception, not even they dared paint Satan in a superior light. Calvinism might just be the ultimate wolf in sheep's clothing.
Matthew 11:27
John 6:44
No free will in choosing God.
Only by the grace of God are we saved for whom God chooses, first.
You're reaching.
@@wserthmar8908 how so?
@@FabledNarrative God gives grace to all who accept it. Not just privileged elites who are arbitrarily chosen. Jesus died for all so that all could find salvation. The Bible is utterly clear.
You cannot reason--Is. --1:18---- being angry like you are.
Yeah, Matthew 23:37 doesn't say, "I would've like to gather you under my wings." It says, "I long to gather your children under My wings, but you do not." This verse has nothing to do with free will. All Jesus is saying is that the Pharisees, despite being the spiritual leaders of the people, had no desire to see the people follow Jesus. They tried to stand in the way of Jesus' work, and that is why Jesus condemns them. Look at the context. Matthew 23:18-37 is condemnation toward the Pharisees and scribes. Who is Jerusalem in Matthew 23:37? The Pharisees and scribes. Who are the children in Matthew 23:37? The regular people. All Jesus is saying is that the Pharisees and scribes did not want to see the regular people follow Jesus. The fact that you misquote Scripture to try and prove your misconstrued philosophy is both scary and revealing.
How do you explain away where God said He would use Babylon to punish Israel, then punish Babylon for taking Israel into captivity?
It doesn't say it was for what it did to Israel.
It says it was for iniquity
You're presuming that onto the text
Define love.
"Why is God not responsible for secondary causes like Rape," Incest, etc? (you ask) Because God is the author or all things good, pure, lovely, and of good report. He is not the author of evil.
Which means he didn't forordain evil because if he did foreordain evil things he is authoring it.
@@prayunceasingly2029 God decreed evil and foreordained evil. The Bible says so:
The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil. (Prov. 16:4 KJV)
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isa. 45:7 KJV)
Now Eli was very old, and heard all that his sons did unto all Israel; and how they lay with the women that assembled at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. 23 And he said unto them, Why do ye such things? for I hear of your evil dealings by all this people. 24 Nay, my sons; for it is no good report that I hear: ye make the LORD'S people to transgress. 25 If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him: but if a man sin against the LORD, who shall intreat for him? Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the LORD would slay them. (1 Sam. 2:22-25 KJV)
@@cranmer1959
So you think God fore ordained all evil acts when he could have fore ordained only good actions? You think God makes a person to send them to eternal torment for his glory? Satan doesn't need to even exist if God already planned (fore ordained) for people's damnation before they were born...
@@prayunceasingly2029 I think what the Bible says is true. Do you disagree with the Bible? Was it just an accident that Judas Iscariot, Pontius Pilate and Pharaoh were born? Was it an accident that Esau was born and that God hated him prior to his birth? Romans 9:11-13.
Your problem is that libertarian free will does not get God off the hook. Either God is too weak to defeat evil or God decreed it all. Of course the other option is that if God is finite and cannot do anything about evil then it must be that there is the possibility that God is evil and cannot do anything about good. But that brings up another question? Why is there no evil in heaven? Is salvation defectible in heaven because God loves you so much that you must have a choice betweeen two equally valid choices in order for you to have true freedom? Or is freedom free from evil thoughts and desires? Are the elect in heaven predetermined to not fall or can they choose to go to hell later on?
@@cranmer1959
There are more options than you allow in your arguments. I will write some later on. At the moment I can't.
Minute 45:00 His example of David and Uriah is not the same as God and sin. David wanted Uriah to be killed in a way that God does not want man to sin in a Calvinistic understanding. The only way he can use David as an example is to misrepresent the Reformed position.
+Carl Peterson except that in the full TULIP Calvinist position, God DETERMINES before the foundation of the world, that some would sin and then be unable to receive grace and become saved. You can't have a Calvinist perspective of ROmans 9 and vessels of dishonor and say that God doesn't want people to sin... they're DESIGNED to sin, and to want it.
Wall's point is that if God can be glorified by both judging sinners and delivering sinners by grace, then why predetermine some to sin at all if sin is bad and he can receive glory from extending irresistible grace to all? If the only answer is "you're questioning God" or "it's amystery" then you miss the point. He's not saying this is true of God, he's pointing out that Calvinists say this about God and he's just pointing it out. The Bible is innocent. The Calvinist doubter doesn't doubt the Bible. It's an issue of which theology makes the most sense against internal logic and the bible.
+ravissary79 I'm so tired of people claiming Calvinist are inconsistent while being inconsistent. Your argument works against your own position. Did God create them knowing they would sin? Yes. Therefore he must have wanted them to sin. Unless you're an open theist you can't CONSISTENTLY use that argument. Spare me a helpless god and pointless evil. That's not the God of scripture.
eklektos44 that's not a defense. After all, I'm not making my own case, That's not what this is about. I didn't write a book or start my own systematic theology.
You're right, God isn't unable. And at no point is he presented as pulling out his metaphorical hair, scurrying around and freaking out.
However, he also doesn't come off as schizophrenic and maniacal. He isn't capricious. Being Sovereign and so above us that he doesn't need to justify himself to us doesn't mean that he IS arbitrary and that he HASN'T justified himself, because he has, over and over. That's one of the amazing things about God that floors me, is that despite him being unimaginably above us, he doesn't grope and grasp at his power and status, he's never threatened by man's questions. He's the sort of person that actually let Jacob wrestle with him and gave him what he asked for before putting him in his place.
God LOVES people. He loves the lost far more than they deserve and far more than any of us understand.
---
also, Wall's position doesn't make God unable, it makes him a being who is bound by his word and his character, but not unable. He's GOOD. Goodness is bound by goodness. That's not inability, that's ability to be himself. He's never out of control, he's in control of how he responds to sin and only responds how he wants to. He's not surprised or caught off guard. But he's genuinely interactive, not playing pretend with robots.
+ravissary79 "Bound by His word"? His word says otherwise. You are making God reactionary no matter how you spin it. It has nothing to do with capricious. He chooses for His own reasons. He doesn't roll dice to see who He'll save and won't. That is a caricature. And I don't see single verse in support of your claims. Whereas John says, Jo 6:44 " No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day." And the word draw does not mean woo, it literally means impel or drag. And this follows 6:39 where Jesus stated "And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day." Nowhere does this text suggest or imply any conditions for this giving of the Father that has anything to do with mans "choice". Nor is there any disconnect between the Fathers giving and the CERTAINTY of Jesus raising them up on the last day. " he doesn't grope and grasp at his power and status, he's never threatened by man's questions." You're right, He doesn't grope, He exercises ALL his attributes.. Stop anthropomorphizing God.
interesting that none of your multiple initial responses to me had any scripture at all. And yet now I'm the one not using it. maybe no one uses it till they use it, and if I used it last night, or on my lunch break, how would you know? Do you ask for it? Usually this goes like a conversation. DO you just walk up to people, interrupt their conversation with someone else and then go "HA, YOU DIDN'T USE SCRIPTURE". You're right I didn't. But again, you fail to use any benefit of the doubt or sense when talking to someone, consistently assuming the worst and painting things in an extreme light, not based on what is said, but just how far you can spin it. It's bad manners, bad logic and bad debate.
1)- The word CAN mean drag. It can also means persuade, pull and draw. Not all of them have the violently coercive implication by comparison. You utterly and blatantly manipulate scholarly materials that are meant to be used in intellectual honesty and good faith. biblehub.com/greek/1670.htm
Yeah. it was that easy. Look it up for yourself next time. Also, many Bible translation committees know what they're doing, maybe not all, but certainly many. And it's hardly ever translated "drag". So... you have no point. Also, I used "woo" in a like or similar sense. I was painting a word picture. I never said that was the preferred definition.
2)- John 6:35-40
"35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”"
Do you not see the part in there about believing? Yet he says the father draws them. And yet he also says those who believe, and he, despite knowing the content of their hearts, extends it to them anyhow. Even those who had believed after a fashion left later in after hearing this at the end of the chapter. This could be an eye of the needle type situation (not that they're rich, it's just a comparison... the way was made more narrow by saying something hard that scared away the hipsters and fair-weather followers instead of the true believers).
Of course it's also interesting that in John, and really only in John, is this phrase about those the father brought to him, or draws, it's like a buzz word or code phrase. You can see it's use repeatedly in the priestly prayer in John 17. He also says that the Father gave him Judas, and yet he mentions that he was the son of perdition and the implication is that he wasn't a true believer, but was picked based on his flawed nature. The 12, after all, are symbolic of Israel, the tribes, the chosen people of God. This is why it was so important in Acts that they return to a full 12 after Judas hung himself and Christ left, so the 11 appointed a 12th so they'd be 12 again. The symbolism wasn't lost of them.
Check out how he talks about those who believed in him at THAT time (right before his crucifixion), and contrast that with those who he talks about believing in him through THEIR word. He doesn't use the same language. The 12 were chosen in a special way. This is reflected here.
"6 “I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. 7 Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you. 8 For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. 9 I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. 10 All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them. 11 And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. 12 While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. 13 But now I am coming to you, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves. 14 I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 15 I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one.[a] 16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them[b] in the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sake I consecrate myself,[c] that they also may be sanctified[d] in truth.
20 “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. 24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. 25 O righteous Father, even though the world does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me. 26 I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.”
Interesting aside. Check out how they're referred to in contradistiction to the non-believers. They're called "out" of the World, they aren't the "World". And John uses specific special language to describe parties in his gospel that is set apart from the other Synoptics. Thus this passage, and chapter 1 (that introduces the different parties, "The Word / the light", "His own", "The world", "those who receive / children of God". See?
"9 The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own,[b] and his own people[c] did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."
This interprets John 3. God really DOES love the whole world. The world doesn't mean those called out of the world. It says what it means. This language is used again and again to refer to the parties involved and the code language is distinct and unmistakable. He also talks about the importance of being born again there as well, and the crux of belief in receiving the right to become Children of God. Indeed, they are not born of the will of man (no one can make themselves perfect, justified of saved, it is a gross mischaracterization of non-Calvinist theology to couch it in this way unless expressly said so).
I pray you receive the soft heart necessary to let this speak to you instead of just blindly going into attack mode or reinterpreting it through the Calvinist lens. If you read enough of it together and just try to imagine you're reading a story instead of a block of Calvinist proof texts wrapped in a story, then the meaning in context will become more apparent to you. Augustine's definition of these terms was an innovation in the early church. Those who were personally taught by the apostles didn't talk like Calvinists. There's a reason for that.
On one hand Calvinism claims that we are save ONLY by Grace but it must be through FAITH but on the other hand demands works to authenticate that FAITH!.In other words the way for us to judge if someone believed the gospel and is save is by 1st looking at his works to determine if his FAITH is the type of FAITH needed to be save or NOT!.That is works salvation because our salvation is not dependent on how we performed but on the sole redemptive work of Jesus Christ on the cross who through his payment to God The Father of our debt declares us JUST in God's eyes (we acquire Jesus Christ Justness).
Arminian theology has its problems too and both camps are guilty of throwing the same arguments at each other. To be fair listen to Piper. I saw the debate between Walls and Ware and Walls arguments didnt seem to shine in a live debate compared to this video where He does all the talking.
Joseph Alvin Almeda
What do you believe to be the weakness in Arminian theology?
God needs creation? You make God less than eternally self-existent. God needs nothing. He is by definition complete in and of Himself.
*****
God willed that Armenians do ALL that they do and say all that they say; get over it! Accept what God allows and ordains--all of it. LOL
Mark Mountjoy
Yes, God has ordained the reprobation of the Arminians and their eternal damnation as vessels of destruction. The appointed means of causing their damnation is their belief in the heresy of man's autonomy. 1 Peter 2:8
Charlie Ray
Man's autonomy is GOD's idea and he is going to damn people for it. RIght!
@@cranmer1959
Theology perspectives isn't the true reason people go to hell. Rejection of Christ is. The fact that you think only calvinist Theology saves people shows a dogmatism similar to catholic dogmatism where only the catholic church can be the way to salvation.
I'm glad neither the catholic church nor calvinism are the gracious Savior of humanity... 😄
@@prayunceasingly2029 If doctrine does not matter then I guess a good Buddhist goes to heaven, too? If doctrine does not matter why are the papists still not accepting Protestants? Of course doctrine matters because God spoke His word and it was written in the Bible for all to read and understand. If you do not believe Moses and the Prophets, you will not believe what Jesus said either. Read Luke 16 sometime.
Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: 28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. 29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. 30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. (Lk. 16:27-31 KJV)
Please answer this question before reading on.... "Can someone who is "chosen" then choose to be "un-chosen?"
Your answer: YES/ NO... Jesus said to His disciples "I have chosen you - you have not chosen me!" The issue in the battle over freedom of choice is whether or not we can or cannot resist His choice? Some say we cannot. However, Judas did indeed "un-choose" Jesus, did he not?!
No Jesus chose Judas knowing good and well what he was going to do exactly what he did . So scripture would be fulfilled . Matthew 26:54
I am not arguing whether or not Judas was foreknown to do exactly what he did (and thus predestined to do it because God knew what His choice and end result would be) and thus fulfilling what came to pass. That is a given... My only point is that Judas chose to do what he did freely.... There is not conflict between foreknowledge and inevitable predestination of results.
+Michael Pearcy
Judas "un-chose" to follow Jesus around, which is what Jesus chose him for. However, regarding those given to Jesus by the Father, Judas was not given to Jesus in a salvific sense. If you believe that Judas was given to Jesus in a salvific sense to Jesus, then you must believe that Jesus failed to do God's will, because Jesus said God's will is for Him to never lose anyone given to Him in a salvific sense in John 6:37-40. Do you honestly believe that Jesus failed to do the will of the Father by losing Judas? You have to agree that Jesus succeeded in doing the will of the Father. Therefore, those given to the Son by the Father in a salvific sense cannot include Judas. Judas was given to Jesus by the Father not for salvation, but for the opposite reason. The Father gave Judas to the Jesus to be the son of perdition.
+Josh Peterson So how is what your saying in conflict with what I said? Also, I never even hinted at some of the points you are making... Jesus "chose" His disciples which included Judas. Of course Judas betrayed Christ. God knew he would. God knew what Judas would chose to do for God has perfect foreknowledge of everything. Let me ask you, Josh... what does the bible mean when it says "Many are called, but few are chosen?!"
Judas Iscariot never "unchose" Jesus Christ because Jesus Christ never chose him unto eternal life. Judas was merely chosen to be one of Christ's
apostles so that he would be the one to ultimately betray Him in order to fulfill the Scripture as per John 17:12. Jesus reiterates in 18:9 that He lost none that the Father gave Him. In comparing John 6:39,40 and 10:28,29 with the aforementioned verses, the clear conclusion is Judas was never one of Christ's sheep. That is corroborated by Christ's remark in John 6:70. A devil is a devil -- not a sheep; and thus Judas could not be chosen in the salvific sense. Judas Iscariot was a devil in disguise -- his true nature as an emissary of Satan showing forth, so that he would fulfill the role he was assigned in God's redemptive plan.
Both Calvinists and Arminians face the same problem. The only way an Arminian can consistently criticise calvinism is if they believe in "open theism", a view that God is ignorant of all or some of the future events that will happen.
If God is Omniscient, and therefore knows in advance all who will accept and all who will reject salvation, doesnt that somewhat contradict the idea of genuine free will as taught by Arminians? If God foreknows all future events, including individual choices, then, "freedom" and love as taught by Arminians is also called into question.
But its all a mystery, and what I find bothering sometimes is both Calvinists and Arminians trying to explain away every single bible verse that seems to contradict their position. It's fine to hold either of the 2 positions, and still acknowledge that you're not sure of how can you can explain some verses in light of your belief.
I LOVE this talk. I, however, disagree that Calvinists are concerned with Glorifying God. I believe rather that they are so overcome with a spirit of fear that they are willing to bend to all types of repulsive doctrines, even agreeing to the arbitrary damnation of their own children.
On the one hand, Dr. Walls brings forth good points regarding the utter failure of Calvinism as a theological system. Calvinism is based on a faulty theology and a faulty anthropology. Calvinists regard humanity not as children of God, but as vassal slaves and sons of the devil. This is at odds with the biblical description of the first man, Adam, who is described as "the son of God." (Luke 3: 38).
One thing that came to me is the description of charity, which is God's very nature, found in 1 Cor. 13. "Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,"
Calvinists act as if God does just the opposite, being ultimately consumed with the desire for His own glory. Yet the great"love chapter" of 1 Cor. shows just the opposite about love.
I would, however, be interested in how Dr. Walls reconciles his separation from the Church which Jesus established upon St. Peter, especially in the light of Jesus' prayer that we all be one community, found in John 17.
***** All manner of incorrect doctrine may receive periodical Biblical support. For a doctrine to be Biblical in a full, meaningful sense, it should not only have agreement with a few verses here or there but furthermore stand in a relation of concord with the whole of Scripture.
Luke 3: 38 is very problematic for the Calvinists I have read. Do you understand what it means to be called "the son of God?" It makes Adam something different than a mere vassal slave, which is the constant definition of mankind which I find throughout Calvinist writings.
Here is a statement of the more traditional Calvinist description of the “Covenant of Works.” See if you can spot one very telling little word in it which shows us the Calvinist understanding of Adam as merely vassal slave:
“The Covenant of Works, also known as the Edenic Covenant, is the covenant that God had with Adam in the Garden of Eden where Adam would maintain his position with God through his obedience to the command of God to multiply and fill the earth, subdue it, and also not eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.”
Do you see it?
The word is “position,” found on line three. Adam did not have a “position.” Slaves and serfs have positions. Bosses and owners give me my position in a corporate setting. Here is another quote from a Calvinist which shows this same idea:
“Some scholars see in the covenant of works a form of what is called a suzerain-vassal covenant. In these types of covenants, the suzerain (i.e., king or ruler) would offer the terms of the covenant to the vassal (i.e., the subject). The suzerain would provide blessing and protection in return for the vassal’s tribute. In the case of the covenant of works, God (the suzerain) promises eternal life and blessing to mankind (the vassal represented by Adam as the head of the human race), in return for man’s obedience to the stipulations of the covenant (i.e., don’t eat from the tree).”
Adam was no vassal! The Bible describes Adam as the son of God! Do not forget that! Sonship and family relationship set the tone for everything which comes after the Garden of Eden!
“ The rewards we will receive from God in heaven are also acts of grace. They are God’s crowning of His own gracious gifts. Had Adam been obedient to God’s covenant of works, he would only have achieved the merit that comes by virtue of fulfilling the covenant agreement with God. Because Adam fell into sin, God, in His mercy, added a new covenant of grace by which salvation became possible and actual.”
Calvinist writer R. C. Sproul also makes the traditional mistake of all Calvinist theologians in not seeing Adam as son. Therefore, he describes the reception of eternal life as “reward of merit” rather than what it is - an inheritance. Slaves are given rewards by their masters. Good and productive servants receive rewards for work well done. But sons receive inheritance by virtue of being family and remaining in a relationship of love and honor with the father. My children do not have to merit my love and the blessings that go with my love! I have every right to use this familial image because the scriptures do when they describe Adam as the “son of God.”
***** And just where do you find that idea in the Bible? God uses analogies in Sacred Scripture to teach us truth. One analogy is that of family, and my children, no matter what they do, do not cease to be my children if they do not live up to the family standard.
***** Your anthropology has several problems. Let's start with the last one first.
"Dead" does not mean "unable to respond" in the way a human corpse is insensate and unaware. Why don't we use the biblical definition of dead?
Remember in the Parable of the Prodigal when the father said "...for my son, WHO WAS DEAD....." Now, Mark, was the boy insensate and a "stinking rotten corpse" (as one rather well known Dutch Calvinist used to teach). We he devoid of any ability to exercise his free-will as a corpse is?
No. He was SEPARATED FROM HIS FATHER. That is the biblical meaning of death, and not the state of being insensate. We see that this happened in Genesis when Adam sinned. He was separated from the presence of God. He still retained his ability to reason and make decisions. The image of God was not destroyed in him, and nowhere in the scriptures does it indicate that the image of God was lost.
As for the other point....I'm curious to ask you....do you find the idea of "original sin" to be problematic and if so, why? I don't want to say much until I understand what you are speaking of and your understanding.
Romans 5: 12-19 is very interesting because of the construction of the words within those verses. Verse 15 starts the interesting progression with this:
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
Now we know and believe that when Paul states that "many" be dead, the fact is that ALL MANKIND is separated from God in a state called "death" So many really means ALL, doesn't it? No exceptions. Then later in the verse, the same construction of words says that the gift of grace (i.e. eternal life) has abounded unto many. Many must therefore mean ALL, just as it did in the beginning of the verse.
Further on down, we see:
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Again, note the use of the word "many" ALL were made sinners, and it says that therefore ALL shall be made righteous (or put in right standing with God in a legal sense). I see no escape clause to support the idea that one a select few receive this gift of grace and the rest are ... well, out of luck.
The Eastern Orthodox have a very interesting view of the afterlife. They state that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient to save all, and that in fact, all are going to be in the presence of God in eternity. However, not all will enjoy it, since those who love evil will find to be in the presence of God will be TORMENT. This to me manages to unite the desire of God to save all (through Christ He has done that) and at the same time, shows that despite His love for all, there will be those who are tormented in eternity --not of God's choosing or desire, but through their own rejection of God and His mercy.
The command "thou shall not kill" was given arond 3500 years ago and Jesus confirmed it again 2000 years ago with wider implications.The desciples taught it and the early church practiced it.
But a man named Calvin who broke the Lord's command plainly and openly by involving
directly or indirectly in killing created a theology around 1500 years later and a great number of people follow that theology now. The God of the Bible who punishes the wicked doesn't choose a man with a murdering spirit to carry His divine truth.
I don't understand why many of those scholars accept this man's theology as divine truth.
+Levas N Though Calvin was a sinner you probably need to look into the Servetus incident more fully as it is incorrectly related by some. Yes, Calvin is a sinner but he didn't want Servetus burned, but the decision was out of his hands. He wasn't the one standing there lighting the green wood laughing with glee. What shall we make of David and his sins??? Who God said he was after his own heart??
+Richard Moore You can't compare David's sin with any one else. David's sin is given as an example for us - not to repeat it. We are not to follow their fall but their qualities which God appreciated. After all we have a perfect example to follow, that is Jesus not David.
Jesus commanded us to love even our enemies. Did Calvin follow that perfect commandment?.The apostles practiced it. Siting the sins of OT figures as an excuse is bad theology and the result of lack of understanding of the scriptures.
True followers of Jesus follow Jesus not David, Moses or even Paul.
+Levas N
(((((Siting the sins of OT figures as an excuse is bad theology and the result of lack of understanding of the scriptures))))
You are reading too much into what is said. I'm not saying it's ok to kill because David was involved in the killing of Uriah. My point was good men can do bad things and David was an example of this, not that we should follow him in evil.
To get back on point, yes Calvin did threaten Servetus life before Servetus came to Geneva, but when he came there the decision on Servetus' fate was not in Calvin's hands but the city counsel. Calvin visited him after his arrest and tried to get him to recant. Calvin asked he die a more merciful way, by the sword but he was burned. It may appear that I'm excusing him which I'm not. anti-Calvinist's like to portray him as it was all Calvin, to the point of claiming he recommend greenwood. Prior to this Servetus had escaped the Catholic's who arrested him for heresy (he escaped the flames there) and when in custody in Geneva other Reformers recommend his death. I agree none were following Christ correctly, but I do understand people are molded by the culture they live in..
((((( True followers of Jesus follow Jesus not David, Moses or even Paul)) Paul said to be imitators of him as he follow Christ (1Cor 11:1)
((I don't understand why many of those scholars accept this man's theology as divine truth))
Because it's the correct interpretation of scripture. Calvin didn't pull the doctrines of Election and Predestination out of thin air or his imagination.
Like C.H. Spurgeon said " The old truth Calvin preached that Augustine preached that Paul preached is the truth I must preach today for be false to me conscience and my God......."
+Richard Moore Threatening is murdering according to Jesus. It's just not something which happened as an outburst of anger in a moment. Obviously ,as you hinted, it was his attitude towards Servetus and others. God doesn't use such a person to reveal His truths to the world. Calvnism is his Calvin's own interpretation of the Bible which has an appeal to a certain group of people who use more of their own reasoning than the spirit of God for understanding of the scriptures.
"Paul said to be imitators of him as he follow Christ (1Cor 11:1)".
Paul said "What a wretched man I am". Does that mean we too can be wretched following him?. I had explained that in my comment.
He chose Saul...
God cannot command the believer to love his enemies, if He does not love them, otherwise God (the Spirit of God) is not the only source of Godly love. Of course, God could have arranged that all of the believers’ enemies are themselves called, but this seems a tad strained.
Claiming God’s glory yet twisting His nature and character is not glorifying God.
All you have to do is look at the OT and see that Calvinism just isn't there, what does God constantly do all throughout the OT? He forgives Israel of their wickedness and foolish behavior constantly, all he asked was that they repent and all was well again. If Israel was totally depraved and unable to come to God and repent there wouldn't even be an Old Testament.
ARMINIANISM IS ROBBERY OF GOD'S PREDESTINATED WILL OF SOVEREIGN GRACE + CALVINISM IS ON EVERY SINGLE PAGE IN THE KJV....
Calvinists seem to be under some type of a spell. People like Jerry Walls are telling them what the problems are with Calvinism and it is like they don’t even hear it. It is like they can’t understand what is being spoken.
I really like Jerry Walls. Every other anti-Calvinism I've heard end up burning strawmen, but with Walls, I find myself amen-ing along with his description of Calvinism as the supporting scripture come to mind.
The reason I find Walls unconvincing is that when he argues against Calvinism, he uses arguments that are high on emotional appeal but low on scripture content. Even in this video, he used scripture just to fill a quota at the beginning, and ignores it the rest of the time when actually making his arguments.
oracleoftroy
You don't always need scripture to show what the moral and logical problems are with Calvinism.
Jerry Walls shows what the moral problems and the logical problems are with Calvinism and those like Piper who endorse it.
TheMirabillis While it is true that we can sometimes correctly recognize immoral beliefs or practices apart from direct scriptural confirmation, it is still much better to have scriptural support. The Bible is constantly warning us of doing what is right in our own eyes while being given over to our unrepentant sin. "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death." Proverbs 14:12
Regardless of our beliefs on God, Calvinism, etc, we should conform our view based on scripture and not what seems moral to our own eyes.
oracleoftroy You don't need scriptural support to show that Calvinism is false.
TheMirabillis Ok, I guess. I'm not interested in whether Calvinism is true or false by some non-scriptural standard. I want to know whether Calvinism is taught in scripture. It sure seems to be.
"IF A PROPHET BE DECEIVED, I THE LORD HAS DECEIVED THAT PROPHET, AND WILL DESTROY HIM " (HOLY BIBLE KING JAMES VERSION)
I was ready to go somewhere else when I heard him say something like if God is in control of everything, how do we have free will. Finite man can not understand the deeper things of an infinite God, how can we know when we see through a glass darkly 1Cor. 13:12.
Free will is a gift from God. Why would any gift from God diminish His glory? In fact, when is it ever glorious for the powerful to rule as a dictatorship with an iron fist? Is it not more glorious when the powerful willingly share their power by giving others freedom? Would the Calvinists revere Stalin over Washington? They just don't understand the nature of God.
Quote JOHN PIPER
"God . . . brings about all things in accordance with his will. In other words, it isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those who love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects for his glory (see Ex. 9:13-16; John 9:3) and his people’s good (see Heb. 12:3-11; James 1:2-4). This includes-as incredible and as unacceptable as it may currently seem-God’s having even brought about the Nazis’ brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child . . .
Quote to JOHN PIPER from the Word of God!
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel- 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse! Galatians 1:6-9
Truth in Love
Hopefully the holocaust was the culmination of punishment due to Christ rejecting Jews whose forefathers said "His blood be on us, and our children".
@@ralphowen3367 They had no authority to say "His blood on our Children!" They did have authority to say "His blood be on our heads!" and so it was as they wished. Just because they said it doesn't make it binding for their children.
Truth in love
@@truth7416 I take it to be an unwitting prophecy which got fulfilled in the Jewish people up to the time of the holocaust. Of course, they are still under the curse of the Law and there is still rampant anti-semitism, but now they have a homeland, and God has purposed to save all of the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
wow, I can't believe how self proclaimed *Christians* converse with one another. Even if you believed that one sect was mislead over another, where in the world is the love you are meant to show everyone, even your enemies? What a hateful comment section. Your theology means nothing if you're not practicing what you are preaching, please remember that. Satan's theology is better than ours, he know's the bible in and out, but that will not save him in the judgment to come.
Grace and peace to all, through Christ Jesus our Lord and God!
So well said -- if there is anything that makes my skin crawl, it's Christians being hateful/impatient/arrogant to one another whilst arguing a point!
What character are you so easily condemning? Maybe the truth is painful.
At 15:22, well, if N.T. Wright believes that God does not act for His own glory, then he has not read the scriptures. Go read Isaiah 37:35, 43:25, 48:9, 11, 1 Samuel 12:22, Psalm 25:11, 79:9, 106:8, 143:11, Jeremiah 14:7, Ezekiel 20:9, 14, 22, 44, Daniel 9:17-19, and Ephesians 1:4-6 as just a few places that talk about God acting for His own glory.
Also, anyone who uses C. S. Lewis as the basis of their theology is very misled. Lewis believed in the ransom theory of atonement, as opposed to penal substitutionary atonement. He had an extremely high view of baptism, bordering on baptismal regeneration, as opposed to seeing baptism as an outward symbol of an inward reality. He thought Jesus legitimately could have sinned, despite being God, as opposed to the impeccability of Christ. He embraced inclusvism by saying people who sincerely pray to false gods are actually praying to God, as opposed to the exclusivity of Christ. He believed in theistic evolution, as opposed to creationism. He believed Scripture has errors, as opposed to the inerrancy of Scripture. He believed there are many divinely inspired books, as opposed to the sole inspiration of Scripture. He believed in purgatory. He believed in annihilationism. Lastly, he believed in mysticism and advocated contemplative prayer. There is no reason to cite C. S. Lewis unless it is to demonstrate what *not* to believe.
"Lewis believed in the ransom theory of atonement, as opposed to penal substitutionary atonement." Because the ransom theory is in the Pauline epistles and penal jackass theory is not.
Ransom was the only theory of atonement until Anselm. Luther believed in baptismal regeneration.
Lewis was a high church Anglo-Catholic, which explains why his apologetics are based on human reasoning rather than propositional revelation in the Bible.
@@davidbrainerd1520 The penal substitutionary view of the atonement is taught in the Pauline epistles, not the ransom theory. Furthermore, the ransom theory presupposes dualism, not the sovereignty of God. Do you really believe that Satan is God's equal?
The wrath of God was satisfied when it was poured out on Christ on the cross. He took the punishment for sin.
If Jesus took the punishment for your sin of unbelief then He will also grant you the grace of regeneration and free you from your moral inability to believe.
@@cranmer1959 says no bible verse
"It says it is by faith that we entered into this grace"
You aren't arguing with men, your arguing with God Himself
Repent!
@@shredhed572 I do not deny that faith is required. I deny that your faith gives your grace. Faith IS a GRACE or GIFT of God. Ephesians 2:8-9. What you are denying is total depravity. When Adam sinned the entire human race was cursed with original sin and lost the moral ability to obey God or the Gospel or the moral law of God. Romans 3:10-23 says so. The ONLY way you could have faith AT ALL is IF God grants you the new birth BEFOREHAND (John 3:3-8). What you are espousing is the heresy of Pelagianism. No one is innocent. No, not one. They are ALL dead in sins and trespasses and totally unable to believe the Gospel. You do not believe the Bible and I do:
As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one; 11 There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. 12 They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one." (Rom. 3:10-12 NKJ)
And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, (Eph. 2:1 NKJ)
even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), (Eph. 2:5 NKJ)
and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, (Eph. 2:6 NKJ)
And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, (Col. 2:13 NKJ)
@@shredhed572 The word trinity is not in the Bible but by logical deduction we can deduce the doctrine from the Scriptures. But you should read the Bible more carefully because the Bible does say that we enter into grace by faith:
through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. (Rom. 5:2 NKJ)
@@shredhed572 Faith is the result of regeneration, not the cause of it.
Ephesians 2:8 (NKJV)
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
Thumbs up 2 minutes in simply for the Batman shirt, content aside.
@@daveg7970 "Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful."
2 Timothy 2:23-24
Stop picking TH-cam fights and work out your own salvation.
The World John is referring to is not Batman and if you think it is, then as Christ told the Sadducees, "you know neither God nor scripture"
I decided to watch more. I believe what ever God does is correct and you need to have this faith no mater what happens. Lets say you see a little girl running into the street and a car is coming and you don't do anything and just stand there when you could have grabbed her and brought her to safety. If this took place I would be counted as a coward and unloving. Has God not the power to have prevented this knowing in he foreknowledge this would happen?? This is what separates the Arminian's from the Calvinist's. How do Arminians deal with this??????? God knew about this, could he not prevent this??? We accept God as He has revealed Himself in scripture , not how we think he should be. Jesus said, he how loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy or me. We bow to Scripture not human philosophy. We are created to one end to worship and Glorify God.
you are a sarcastic thing aren't' you...... If I have said what is in error, show me via scripture. Does God not know the future? Does God not have the power to intervene in this world? Did God not bring upon pharaoh and Egypt plagues for the purpose of letting his power be known which included the killing of all the firstborn. If you don't like the God of the bible make up your own.
What happened to Jerry Walls?? He's looking very weary. Perhaps it's all the philosophy and arguments against Scripture?
Is that your philosophical conclusion?
aging?
I approve of the batman shirt
it's over, bro...Calvinism is a manmade system that is unscriptural and leads to God as a glory hound moral monster.
I'm sorry, but honestly....
A Batman T-shirt ?????
Tired of -isms. If you’re searching for answers and you’ve been saved, don’t worry. You’re in God’s hand.
At 17:18, I don't believe that you understand 1 Timothy 2:4, because if you think that here Paul is meaning "absolutely everyone without exception," then you are ignoring context.
We know that the word “all” in verse 4, that God desires all men to be saved, and the word “all” in verse 6, that Jesus gave Himself a ransom for all is not meant in a universal sense of “all without exception.” We know this because Jesus tells us that it isn’t. The covenant, ratified with the blood of the sacrifice (cf. Genesis 8:20, 15:9-10) was made for "many," and not "all" (see Matthew 26:27-28), and this same "many" was spoken of earlier by Jesus in Matthew 20:28 where He declared that He paid the ransom price for "many," and not "all." By paying the ransom price, Jesus made propitiation with the father (1 John 2:2), and the act of propitiation actually removes God’s wrath - we know this because we are told that the certificate of debt has actually been removed (Colossians 2:14). Neither of these realities are “potential,” that is, neither is based upon a condition to be fulfilled later by the one who was ransomed, that is simply not how a ransom payment works - when a ransom has been paid, wrath is appeased, and the one ransomed is no longer under condemnation. Therefore if the notion of an unlimited atonement were true and Jesus gave Himself as a ransom for “absolutely everyone without exception,” then because of the nature of propitiation, and the fact that those for whom Christ has made propitiation have had their certificate of debt removed, then absolutely everyone without exception would be indeed be saved, and this is simply not true.
Read Romans 9
Gen 25:23 And the LORD said to her: "Two nations are in your womb, Two peoples shall be separated from your body; One people shall be stronger than the other, And the older shall serve the younger."
Which part of Romans 9? Let's discuss it?
Yes, there are two wills for the Arminian God that are at odds with each other. One part of God says, "I want to save everybody!" The other part of God says, "I don't want to save everybody!" Now, if we can all agree that God can save everybody according to Matthew 19 (Jesus says all things are possible for God in the context of salvation), then the Arminian has a problem. If God can save everyone but doesn't, then why? Is it because He loves free will sooooo much? Is it because God would rather send people to hell for eternity because, in their ignorance, they did not make a better choice in the present? Are you honestly saying that God is going to be frustrated for eternity because He could have saved everyone in the present, but decided to not get His way by allowing people to go to hell for no reason other than He really loves free will? That, my friends, is a conflicted God. The Calvinist God is truly worthy of glory. He does everything to demonstrate His glory, even the intentional damnation of people to hell. No one will be in hell purposelessly, contrary to what the Arminians say. God will not be frustrated for eternity.
Nice summary! But you would do better to cease using the title, "The Calvinist God..." The God you describe here is the God of the Holy Bible,
not the god of any particular theologian or denomination.
+Josh Peterson You say: as per what some believe.... "One part of God says, "I want to save everybody!" The other part of God says, "I don't want to save everybody!" My reply: What a cocked up and twisted presentation you provide of the biblical gospel (good news) message. I can clearly show you the verse that states... "who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." 1 Tim 2:4 - but can you show me just one verse that says "I don't want to save everybody!" (as so stated - not your contrived and formulation of verses to say this, but an actual single verse like I can use in support of my position). "All things are possible with God" indeed. But that does not mean nor does it say "God imposes salvation!" It simply states the fact that salvation is impossible with man alone. No one comes to God on their own. It is wholly and entirely based on Grace alone. You err in your patching verses and human ideas together to formulate a doctrinal position by saying ridiculous things like "If God can save everyone but doesn't, then why?" Isn't your doctrinal position this exact train of thought? "IF God can save everyone, because He has the power to do so, He must want to damn and send to hell, without any choice in the matter, those He deems to be unlucky enough to be chosen?" You present another equally ridiculous argument that God is frustrated "for eternity" because "He could have saved everyone... but decided not to!" which again confirms my prior point of your own position for since He "could" have, but decided to damn instead of save, He would be equally frustrated. What rubbish thinking. And you were correct.... This is the Calvinist god!
+Michael Pearcy
You affirmed that God wants to save everyone by quoting from 1 Timothy 2:4. That's good, but now you have to explain why everyone isn't saved. Is it because God can't save everyone because some people are just too stubborn, and God has to play with the cards He's been dealt? That seems to contradict Matthew 19:26 where Jesus says, "With man, this (referring to salvation) is impossible, but with God all things are possible (presumably including salvation)." Therefore, the issue is not that God can't save everyone. He can if He chooses to do it. You now have to answer the question, "Why doesn't God choose to save everyone?" The only answer I can think of from your perspective is this: "God loves free will more than He loves saving everyone." Good luck backing that assertion up with Scripture. Either way, you have to believe that God has two wills. One will says, "I want to save everybody," but the other will says, "I don't want to save everybody," because otherwise everyone would be saved since God is capable of doing just that.
Here's how I reconcile God's desire for people's salvation with His decree that they won't be saved. Yes, He desires everyone to be saved *IF* they repent and believe the gospel. However, mankind is incapable of exercising faith and repentance because of their sin nature. Therefore, God has to be the One to grant faith and repentance to people by regenerating them. This leaves only three options on the table. 1. God could choose to not save anyone and demonstrate His justice, wrath, and power by punishing everyone in hell. 2. God could choose to save everyone and demonstrate His love, mercy, and grace. 3. God could choose to save some and not save others in order to demonstrate His justice, wrath, power, love, mercy, and grace, thereby showing everyone what He is really like in total. I believe that God values glorifying Himself and demonstrating what He is like in total more than He desires to see everyone saved. I have verses to back this up: Romans 9:14-24. God hardened Pharaoh and destroyed him for the sole purpose of glorifying Himself. God showed mercy to Moses and Israel for the sole purpose of glorifying Himself. God brought about some people into existence to be the recipients of His mercy, grace, and love, and others He brought into existence to be the recipients of His wrath, justice, and power. All of it is for His glory, which is what we should be most concerned about. This gets into another question you have to answer: "Did God have to bring the people who do not believe and will go to hell into existence? Why not just create people that will cooperate with Him? Why is God constrained to make people who He knows will never believe in Him?" So many questions that you have to deal with that I don't.
Josh, you did not answer with a scripture verse - only your opinion. Here is the question again... I can clearly show you the verse that states... "who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." 1 Tim 2:4 - but can you show me just one verse that says "I don't want to save everybody!" (as so stated - not your contrived and formulation of verses to say this, but an actual single verse like I can use in support of my position).?? I cannot argue with Gods word. It states what it states plainly in that God "wants all people to be saved!" I cannot reason or deny that simply because I might not understand it. My challenge to you is just one verse that plainly states the opposite of 1 Tim 2:4. That's all.
+Michael Pearcy
You either didn't read my whole response or are putting a ridiculous limit on what qualifies as God saying, "I don't want everyone to be saved." I said Romans 9:22-24 specifically says God doesn't ultimately plan to save everyone because He created them to be the recipients of His wrath and power. "What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory- even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?"
Now answer the rest of my questions in my response please. Why isn't everyone saved if that's what God wants? Is it because He has to play with the hand He's been dealt, which includes people whom He cannot persuade to believe ever? Is it because He loves free will more than everyone's salvation? Why does God still bring into existence those whom He knows will die in unbelief and go to hell? Is God constrained to make them, and if so, by whom?
And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith the LORD, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations.
How do you explain this away? God uses Babylon like a tool to punish Israel for their sins but then turns around and punishes Babylon for attacking Israel?
If Meticulous Divine Determinism is true, no ‘glory’ in any meaningful sense is possible for any being at all, much less for God.
The purpose of Calvinism is to confuse everyone.
I'm very glad I'm no longer a calvinist but I still think their non calvinist messages are good.
Near 1:13, Wall says "the guys on our side" while he juxtaposes these "guys" against "Piper, Packer, Sproul, MacArthur" (P,P,S,M) who he says "flood the popular market"... In reality, the popular market is inundated by Arminian Theology. It is the default position of broadcast media (man loves to magnify his soteriological role) while P,P,S,M resources have to be sought out because man wants to be in ultimate control, and he will not stand for sound doctrine. MacArthur's published works have the most widespread circulation of the Reformed perspective, but even he is minimized in popular theology. Wall said that the amazing thing is that everyone is not saved. This is so "dyslexic" and unbiblical in its reasoning, because the Bible says that the natural man doesn't receive Spiritual things. They are foolishness to him and he can't know them (Corinthians 2:14). So the amazing thing is that anyone is saved!! All of the Arminian "proof texts" are unsubstantiatable when correct hermeneutical interpretation is applied. I used to be an Arminian until I followed it to its end. Mainstream Christianity (Arminianism), however, will not stand to be scrutinized, and, in the end, it makes man's future acceptance of God the actuator of his own salvation not God! Biblical Theology states one thing : God saves sinners (actually, not potentially)!
+Scott Carter This country is under judgment it seems. We'll be sifting the wheat from the chaff before long. It'll be interesting to see who endures.
Scott,
[ I am age 71]... I asked the Lord to teach me true verses false doctrine 14 months ago, and to take me where He wanted me to go in this venture.It is right here that the doorstep lead. [ Calvinism versus Arminianism ] Jerry Walls is a typical Professor , thinks and acts like same..I have studied under them most of my life.
I too , was an Arminian for many years , was an Evangelism Explosion Instructor and Sunday School Teacher.It always bothered me greatly, that we could go out to witness and tell people that they could know FOR CERTAIN they had eternal life...[ Acts 16:31 etc. ] , and lead them to Christ , but then ...I would return to hear preaching from the pulpit saying that we could willfully turn away from God and lose our Salvation..This always tormented me...when were you again LOST? ...one sin, two sins, a little doubt and unbelief mixed in with a couple of sins ? add infinum . This never made sense because one never could have full confidence / assurance in their Salvation..Dozens of scriptures speak of God's complete Sovereignty and His finishing the work that He started in all of the Saints..My own life is a perfect example of same..I grew up in the Methodist Church and was Saved at 9 years of age.in a Vacation Summer Bible School. I prayed every nite and attended church until age 18 when i went away to College/ Graduate School ..then Military ..A teaching Career ..I was far away from Christ from 18-36 years of age. But I came back on fire for the Lord ! He drew me BACK..I could never, Never have done that on my own..] I was Deep into the world]....yes the Lord IS in complete control and will always accomplish His purpose in all of His elect..I also believe that it is necessary for us to undertake the great commission and it had to be acted out in time and space.Preaching, Prayer, Scripture, Faith, and Grace , all were a means to that end. we now see through a dark glass. Predestination / election are difficult doctrines for us to embrace and we have rest in the knowledge that the Lord is in full control of even those things which seem to be paradoxical to our finite minds.We should allow , God the Holy Spirit , to guide us to all knowledge of doctrinal truths and point to the way we should go.. The Lord has also recently taken me to Coram Deo and is teaching me the importance of doctrines associated with His mighty Resurrection Power The Church today is sorely lacking in and understanding of the importance of Christ's Resurrection and how it is manifest in His work of Redemption....Praise His Holy Name..db
Bat man...bat man...lets debate James White on this....
Thanks to Jerry Walls for convincing me that Calvinism is true. I was his student at Asbury during the early 1990s. I was a student there from 1992 to 1995. At the time I was an Arminian and a Pentecostal who was trying seriously to understand how the Pentecostal and Arminian claim that God is sovereign over miracles and what not was actually true. It later dawned on me that humans can only cooperate with what God has already foreordained regarding miracles, healings and etc. That's because we humans cannot do miracles by cooperation with God but only as God Himself has foreordained and decreed. No Pentecostal can perform miracles at will as most of them will acknowledge.
Cant believe you people think this guys spot on. Lol.
Yet another Jerry Walls rant against Calvinism without any Scripture to support his opinions...the ones he used at the beginning do nothing to counter the doctrines of grace that are contained throughout Scripture... can he just stick to evangelism, and preach the gospel, please? God chose Noah, Abram, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua... I could go on. With their free will, they sinned along the way... God predestines for salvation, not puppetry. We still must offer our bodies as a sacrifice... Romans 12:1-2. Our free will will always result in sin. Our sacrificed will will result in obedience and holiness... it is a work of God through the Holy Spirit... Romans 8
The proof text of election, and the doctrines of grace is the entirety of the narrative of Scripture. To say all Calvinists have is Romans 9 is an ignorant statement... Genesis through Revelation reveals that God is for God. He restores. He saves. He chose before the foundation of the world. Genesis 1-3, 6-8, 12, Exodus 3, Exodus 11, John 17, Romans 9, Eph. 1...can't list them all, but that should suffice to make the point that Romans 9 is not an isolated excerpt/example of God's sovereign election...He chooses and initiates His plan...He is in no way waiting for his creation to choose Him... He moves. He calls. He saves...for His name's sake (Psalm 23:3)
Since when did "doctrines of grace" become a synonym for Calvinism? Shouldn't that apply to Christianity as a whole? Do Calvinists think they're the only ones who teach grace?
Yep, much better to go with Grace than the so called "doctrines of Grace", which is about the most ironic label you could come up with for Calvinist beliefs. And as for the "lack of scripture" in the video, people are in bondage to calvinism not because of scripture but because of the philosophical Calvinistic presuppositions imposed upon scripture (and despite Norq's protestations, the go-to chapter is nearly always Romans 9) therefore it makes perfect sense to undermine this philosophical understanding first of all in order that people might read scripture without a Calvinist lens. The lens we use is of the utmost importance, and as C S Lewis and George MacDonald state, if that lens is dirty we're going to have a very distorted vision of God and Truth.
Arminianism borrows from the Catholic Churches doctrine of free will. And before you go to St. Augustine. He was a Catholic Bishop thus those non catholics that advocate for his teaching that are non catholic christians, are still using Catholic Ministers.
The comment about the 99 sheep and 1 lost shows his misunderstanding . The 100 sheep were already His , he went after the one because Jesus said in John 17 all the Father gives Me I lose nothing and will raise it up in the last day .
+Joel Varner scripture uses the term the son of perdition twice to my knowledge Judas and the antichrist. ( apologia ) meaning one determined to remain spiritually lost .
But Judas was one of the "chosen" ones.. Luke 6:13 - Jesus speaking to his disciples said "I have chosen you!" Judas decided to become "un-chosen!"
+Michael Pearcy If you read what Jesus was speaking of . Jesus was speaking , so scripture would be fulfilled . Judas was chosen for that reason ( betrayal )
But not determined without his free choice in the matter! Judas was foreknown by God to betray Christ and thus predestined to do so because God already knows the present, the past and the future.
(1) God knows all things.
(2) Whatever God foreknows must come to pass (i'e'' is determined). If it did not come to pass' then God would have been wrong in what He foreknew An all-knowing Being cannot be wrong in what He foreknows.
(3) God knew Judas would betray Christ'
(4) Therefore, it had to come to pass (i.e. was determined) that Judas would betray Christ.
The logic is flawless. If God has an infallible knowledge of future free acts, then the future is completely determined'
But what does not follow from this is that
(5a) Judas was not free to betray (or not to betray) Christ. This is because there is no contradiction in claiming that God knew for sure (i.e., predetermined) that Judas would-freely (i.e. with free choice) betray Christ.
(5b) Judas was coerced to betray Christ freely
+Michael Pearcy Judas was ordained to betray Christ before the foundation of the world by Gods will . Christ chose him knowing good and well that Judas would carry out the God Head determined he would do before the world began . By Gods choice .
Batman return :)
Yeeeessss..
This is the terrible demonstration of what happens when someone pits God’s attributes against one another. God is just as much wrath as He is love. God is just as much power as He is grace. You can’t elevate one over another.
Wrath is not an attribute of God but a response to God's justice.
@@mikeparker840,
Nahum 1:2-3, “The Lord is a jealous and avenging God. The Lord is avenging and wrathful. The Lord takes vengeance on his adversaries and keeps wrath for his enemies. The Lord is slow to anger and great in power, and the Lord will by no means clear the guilty.”
That is a clear list of divine attributes. God is jealous. God is just. God is patient. God is powerful. God is just, and yes, God is wrathful. By nature, God is wrath toward anything evil, just as He is by nature loving toward anything good.
@@mikeparker840 Wrath is an anthropopathism. God does not literally have any emotions, including anger. But the biblical anthropopathisms express God's justice against wickedness and the violation of His moral law. The simplicity of God means that love and justice cannot be separated. God is all of His attributes, not just love.
@@joshpeterson2451 I ask you this. Why is God wrathful and why does He take vengeance upon his enemies? Is it not because of their just dues of what they have reaped and stored up for themselves? God is holy and because of his holiness and those who come against him and against what is holy, he acts with vengeance and wrath. It is righteous indignation he acts with and yes it’s God’s wrath. But is that Gods true character wrath that is? I don’t think so. God is love and good and that’s the true message of the holy Scriptures.
@@ThomasCranmer1959 God doesn’t have emotions? That goes against man being created in the image of God. I would need more convincing on that matter. Sorry
Proverbs 16 4
The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil. (Prov. 16:4 KJV)
You're wearing a batman shirt.