ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ก.ย. 2024
- For many people, “Reformed” means “Calvinism.” While Calvinism is certainly a piece of Reformed theology, Reformed theology is much more than Calvinism. In this conversation, Jon and Justin talk about the differences between the modern Calvinistic evangelical movement and the historic Reformed faith. The guys talk autobiographically and also aim to put words to the experiences of many Christians.
Note: If you have not listened to the previous two episodes, “What Is Pietism?” and “What Is Reformed Theology?”, we would encourage you to do so before listening to this one.
What is Pietism?: • What is Pietism? | The...
What is Reformed Theology?: • What is Reformed Theol...
JOIN THE THEOCAST COMMUNITY:
www.theocastco...
FREE EBOOK:
theocast.org/p...
PARTNER with Theocast:
theocast.org/p...
OUR WEBSITE:
theocast.org/
INSTAGRAM:
Theocast: http: / theocast_org
TWITTER:
Theocast: / theocast_org
Jon Moffitt: / jonmoffitt
Justin Perdue: / justin_perdue
FACEBOOK:
/ theocast.org
I’ve listened to this carefully, and the distinction is not super clear.
Maybe make a Venn diagram.
I came a from a calvinistic grace church. My problem with that version of calvinism was their stance with the doctrine of double pre-destination. Meaning God determines who goes to heaven, and who goes to hell, and there is really no choice for anyone. Those who choose Jesus were chosen for heavrn, and those who don't were chosen for hell. I'm against that, since it contradicts for one:
John 3:16
[16] “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life."
And
2 Peter 3:9
"[9] The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance."
And lastly
1 Timothy 2:3-6
[3] This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, [4] who wants all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. [5] For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and mankind, the Man Christ Jesus, [6] who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time."
Sorry, but you are completely deceived and do not understand the gospel, nor the Bibles Christianity. God absolutely predestined everyone. A few for heaven (1%), and the rest for hell (the remaining 99%). It is the 99% that fill all the 100% apostate churches.
Exodus 20::13 Acres 4:27
Deut32:39 Isaiah 11:4
Ezekiel 33:11 Exudes 20:16 2tim 2:25,26 2 Tim 2:10
You are completely blind, lost, and deceived, as you have exposed, and this is because this is the destiny God chose for you.
I have heard that Calvinist churches do not go door to door any longer because 'God already knows those who are His; so why bother? Totally defeats the purpose of the Great Commission.
@@s.l.7982 well do not follow man ;the bible teaches Election by God not by Man so that how’s someone know how is not?
Can you imagine the original disciples hearing such a conversation? The amount of labels and categories man has attached to the work of God is mind-numbing.
It isn't labels for label's sake. They mostly come from defending against false teachings and some from distinctions in nonessentials.
For an example of the first, look at the use of the word Trinity and for the second calvinist vs arminian.
the fact that you are attacking the labels instead of disputing the ideas is just a weak tactic and a fallacy
looking for a boogeyman
when I ask someone what they believe, do you think they have a huge list of what exactly they believe on every topic?
@@tomtemple69 I wasn't attacking anything. I commented that the sheer number of labels is overwhelming, not that they can't be useful or that they required disputing.
@@spiritman-em4qr come up with a new good doctrine or completely heretical doctrine that catches steam and they'll name it after u lol
Amen; stick to scripture alone.
Talk about a word salad! I watched hoping to gain clarity, but I’m even more confused now! Can you guys just stick to scripture and explain your views from scripture?
I feel so bad for these guys. Calvinism is really Augustinianism. How many times did Calvin quote Augustine in Institutes? What did Augustine really believe and why? What strange doctrines came about from Augustine? Why do they think those closest to the Apostles, who had a better understanding of Greek, reject what they believe? Even Luther did not believe what the later Reformers believed. But in the end, the idea of Calvinism and Reformed Theology arises from a misunderstanding of what the term "sovereignty of God" means scripturally. As with many theologies it is a system of religion based on part of the gospel but not all of it. People should really at least ask, is this the end times deception?
Calvinism does not equal Reformed theology, Calvinism=Gnostisim
@@andrewmattiewalter I don't think that is largely true although there are some differences. Would you be able to help me and tell me what YOU see as the differences? Have you read Institutes?
@@andrewmattiewalterOffered without evidence, dismissed without effort
Calvinism repackages and compartmentalizes Augustinianism which is simply Biblical theology. Calvinism is the thing that everyone agrees with until you call it what it is.
"Do you believe God is Sovereign?" "Yes." "Congratulations you're a Calvinist."
If you're coming from a dispensational eschatology, yes you can't reconcile your eschatology with calvinist soteriology because the logical conclusion of dispensationalism is that there's two modes of salvation, Gentile believers, and Ethnic Jews whether they believe or not, which is borderline heresy because there's no other way to the father except through Christ.
As far as the sovereignty of God, it's simple. God wills all things that come to pass, and there's not a hair on your head that falls that God is not in sovereign control of. This goes hand and hand with Biblical Limited Atonement, and Predestination. If you redefine sovereignty apart from that, you humanize God. And when you humanize God, who is Holy Other, you paganize God.
@@jaxonlindsey9457 Untrue. The problem is Calvinists do not understand the sovereignty of God. Their understanding of the sovereignty of God comes from the men they follow, not the breadth of Scripture. They have redefined it in their own image, and unBiblically at that. God does NOT will all that comes to pass. That is shown clearly in Scripture. If you make such a claim, you are claiming that God is a) untrustworthy (because God says things that He wills to happen and they don't , and b) the first cause of evil which is directly opposed to scriptural teaching (because if your sovereign God wills evil to occur, it cannot happen any other way). As has been stated, God's sovereignty does not require control of, or dependence on men, in the nominal case. Its the difference between causality and foreknowledge. There are purposes that God has which will not be denied although even there all God has to have is the foreknowledge in many cases to allow it to occur but individually chosen salvation is not one of them (we know this because of the breadth of teachings in scripture). Each of us will have to decide whether we will follow men or follow Scripture. I encourage you to follow the latter.
"i have never met one single person who got saved in a reformed church." Hello I'm Jerry, nice to meet you caman171. I was saved in a reformed church. Sort of.... God had been working on me for a long time before I came to that church. All glory to God. It was the expositional preaching in that reformed church that lead me to the cross and explained what God had done and had been doing in me for a long time.
I’m sincerely glad to hear your testimony, but I have to point something out which exposes the absurd assumption behind the quote you’re responding to; the church _isn’t meant_ for unbelievers. It’s meant for believers. The assumption behind the statement is that there is something wrong with reformed churches because people aren’t saved while attending; the gathering of believers is primarily for the edification and communion of _saints_ and to worship God, not a career fair for unbelievers to “check us out” and “see if Jesus is a good fit”.
I don’t think this guy understands the purpose of the church.
As a former Calvinist/Reformed I can agree that such a statement is misleading and false. But, i do know that Calvinist and Reformed teachers are prone to frontload salvation by teaching one must "repent of their sins" as a necessary condition to be saved, or backload salvation by teaching that a genuine Christian will necessarily demonstrate good works in their live to prove their salvation, and if they don't, then they must not be a Christian. Both of these are actually very serious works based defects of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and therefore a counterfeit, whereby the genuine Gospel is salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ apart from the works of the Law.
Do you know you are saved, or I should ask, are you certain you are elect? Is there even the slightest possibility in your mind that you might not be one of the elect?
@@lukehelpmetakethisdangmaskoffFriend, Lordship Salvation is nothing new. It has been around since the Apostle Paul, which Paul addressed in the book of Galatians. Read the inspired Word of God....
Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?
Galatians 3:2-3
Paul is calling out Lordship Salvation, a damning heresy that was popular back then and is still popular today. It is a serious error that is taught by false teachers like John McArthur, John Piper, and many other false teachers; it sounds biblical and is accepted uncritically, and has infected churches everywhere.I'm sure you've heard of this manifestation of Lordship Salvation before....
...We are justified by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone....
[Or as the pastor at Redeemer Bible church preaches the same proposition using different words, ("it is true that God's grace in a mans life inevitability results in obedience")]
Let's unpack this theological statement; I will demonstrate the damning heresy imbedded in it. I will refer to Galatians 2:2-3 in parentheses, translating the statement above according the inspired Word of God....
1. "We are justified by faith alone.... (recieved the Spirit by hearing with faith),
2. ...but not by a faith that is alone ("Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?) Galatians 3:2-3
Paul is basically correcting the Galatians who became Christians by faith in Jesus Christ, but fell into serious error after being taught by false teachers that they must finish their salvation by works; a hybrid of faith in Jesus Christ melded together with obedience to the Law. Sound familiar?
Incredibly, this damning heresy is still around today, popularized by the notion that there must be works in the life of a professing Christian. They must persevere, they must be obedient, they must submit to the Lordship of Christ, they must do more and try harder, and if these works are not present in the life of a professing Christian then they are not a Christian.
The end result of this is that you become a Pharisee, and your focus is on you and your works and not the finished work of Jesus Christ. Under Lordship Salvation YOU become worried that YOU are not doing enough works to prove YOUR justification, which leads to YOUR despair. Therefore, YOU must do more and try harder, YOU must be obedient to God's Laws, and YOU must persevere to the end. And when YOU finally succeed, then YOU become proud of YOUR efforts, that Is, until YOU begin to worry again that YOU are not doing enough works to prove YOUR justification, so again, YOU must do more and try harder.....and it goes on and on in an endless cycle of pride and despair. Do you see how Lordship Salvation is bondage to the Law of God, (obedience) and not freedom from the Law by faith in Jesus Christ?
Again, in Galatians the Apostle Paul reminds us that we who have faith in Jesus Christ are no longer under the curse of the Law......
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us-for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”-so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
Galatians 3:13-14
We are free from the Laws demands on us by faith in Jesus Christ....
For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
Galatians 5:1
The Apostle Paul issues a stern warning against anyone who seek to be justified by their obedience to the Law....
You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.
Galatians 5:4
The Jewish people in Jesus's day were broken and laboring under the Pharisees and their strict demands to follow all of their man made rules. The modern day Pharisees of today who teach Lordship Salvation are essentially doing the same thing as the Pharisee of old. Jesus didn't make such demands. He only requires faith in Him, opposing all of the false gospels demanding repentance from sins and obedience to the Law for one's justification....
Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”
Matthew 11:28-30
We are either justified by faith or justified by works, and the two can not be mixed. The Apostle Paul in Galatians made this abundantly clear. Its all or nothing. The Bible teaches over and over that we are justified/saved by faith alone in Jesus Christ apart from the works of the law. If you can not accept the utter simplicity of the Gospel, then you are calling God a liar. Please read God's Word.
And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,
Romans 4:5
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Ephesians 2:8-9
I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.
Galatians 2:21
For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
Romans 3:28
Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”
Galatians 3:11
And be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith-
Philippians 3:9
Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
Galatians 2:16
For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
Romans 3:20
And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,
Romans 4:5
if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Romans 10:9
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
John 3:16
Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:1
Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
John 5:24
But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
John 20:31
Can you please explain to me how the absence of obedience in the life of a professing Christian who has faith in Jesus Christ apart from the works of the law is not saved? Please reply
@lukehelpmetakethisdangmaskoff
I have faith in Jesus Christ apart from the works of the law. That is the only requirement for justification. Election is a term that Calvinists have hijacked from its original biblical meaning and twisted the word election to mean something that the bible never intended. Btw, election biblically means "service" not "being chosed by God before the foundation of the world". I was a Calvinist for over 20 years, but Calvinism is simply not supported biblically
This is why i know i am saved, because the Bible says i am saved by faith alone
And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,
Romans 4:5
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Ephesians 2:8-9
I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.
Galatians 2:21
For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
Romans 3:28
Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”
Galatians 3:11
And be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith-
Philippians 3:9
Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
Galatians 2:16
For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
Romans 3:20
And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,
Romans 4:5
if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Romans 10:9
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
John 3:16
Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:1
Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
John 5:24
But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
John 20:31
How do you know your elect?
Why did Jesus speak in parables? It can't be that He was trying to keep the unregenerate from facing a greater judgement b/c they would have no will to respond no eyes to see or ears to hear unless God grants regeneration...so why would God try to hide something the spiritually blind could not see unless they were given the ability to see it?
2 Cor 4:4 talks about satan blinding the minds of unbelievers so they will not see the light of the Gospel..Why would satan need to blind those who are spiritually blind already? Is this a double blinding?
Why does God call people to choose life and to humble themselves? Could it be that humans have the ability to do this, but the will to do this is not what grants regeneration or salvation?
Why would God command all men to repent (Acts 17:30) if they can't unless God aids them by granting regeneration?
Why do so many Calvinists struggle with assurance?
If God only saves some (the elect) isn't election what truly saves and not the Gospel and Christ's work on the cross? Seems like the Gospel and Christ's work on the cross is just a means to the end of election.
Why is there not 1 Bible verse that explicitly states that regeneration precedes faith?
Why does Ephesians 1:13 tell us that we hear and believe before we are sealed with the Holy Spirit?
If God tells us that His nature is that He cannot lie, then why would it appear He has a revealed will in Scripture (all can come: Jesus will draw all men to Himself; whosoever believes) but He has this secret will that only the elect can come?
..he arranges all things by his sovereign counsel, in such a way that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction.
John Calvin ~ Institutes
God doesn’t Tempt you to sin.
(1 Cor 10:13) But God Decrees you to sin?
What if election has nothing to do with Salvation, but rather to Service?
@@glenncook8140Simply because God declared that we will not come and we cannot come in our deadness and trespasses. Just take God at HIS Word --- we don't understand HIS ways and HIS ways are not our ways
The Lord led me to this post before I became a full Calvinist warrior. Thank you. I want to add, if love is forced, it's a contradiction in terms. If you are UNABLE to accept Christ and punished for doing so, that's not just. I have children and I don't punish them for something they can't avoid doing. Lord help us sinners.
Jesus clearly tells "why" he [ in the parables] has hidden the truth from the bling unbelieving. You need to read what Jesus said to the 12 concerning why He started using parables near the end of His ministry. As a matter of fact, He used only parables from that point on. It is unfortunately the opposite from what you have stated above. Just read your bible--- it is all spelled out. You are having a human reaction without reading what He plainly teaches. Goodness are you going to be surprised.
I appreciate this dialogue from an academic standpoint because it’s fascinating to me how believers can read the same things and come to vastly different conclusions. For yall, the more you read on Calvinism, the more it made sense to you… and for me, the opposite happened; the more it seemed obviously erroneous in its interpretation.
Which I think just speaks to how humble all believers should be… and how charitable and understanding we should strive to be towards one another. 😊
Try reading the Bible instead.
I had the opposite effect: the more I studied the Bible, the more I saw the wisdom of the Calvinistic perspective in explaining the Bible and the world at large. (And I've never read Calvin).
I don't claim to be a Calvinist, but I am definitely a Determinist. I find that people who don't live in 1st world countries are far more likely to be fundamental Determinists. Makes me wonder how much influence the Enlightenment period (and post-modernity) has had on contemporary Christian thought.
Nail it! Jesus paid it all for all!
The more I study my Bible the more sure I am against calvinism.
@timffoster I really have never been able to find a real solid difference between determinism and Calvinism. Yet when I mention that to a Calvinist they say that determinism is unbiblical.
Calvinism has no Gospel. No "good news of glad tidings that shall be to ALL people".
If you are going to try to tell folks what the bible says and what it means you really need to learn how certain words are used in scripture Here are a few of those words -- all-- if--world-- chosen-- predestined --called and a few others. Your above mentioned of "All "shows a very shallow understanding of biblical doctrine. This is not a negative critique just a hopeful push toward farther study of thousands of years of careful bible study. Lord bless
Sometimes you two and really most highly educated Reformed or Calvinistic Evangelical theologians lose most non Christians or even some Christians like me with your emphasis on being Calvinistic or Reformed- when really the only emphasis should be on Jesus and through him Salvation by grace because of God's love!! Doesn't even sound like true Christianity without Jesus and his love for us!! Without Jesus' blood and confession of him being Lord there is no forgiveness of sins- Biblical teaching on the deity of Christ Jesus and his part of the Holy Trinity(Father Son and the Holy Spirit) being preached- this is what you two should be emphasizing!! To bloviate and argue about what's not important is senseless!! Y'all need to become less and let Jesus be preached more!! To him be all the glory and honor!!
You do not understand because you still need milk. These men are feeding you meat and you are not ready for it.
The purpose here is historical; when the church of Christ became divided over arguments and questions which were heavily debated and had to be answered.
The issue was how to be saved, is it faith and works or something else. The underlying issue was the need for assurance of their salvation.
Reading Romans WITHOUT someone else's presuppositions is "flat out incredible". Everyone should give it a go. I would advise anyone to do the opposite of what these 2 gentlemen advocate - read the Bible for yourself. Do not marry yourself to a set of doctrines someone else has developed.
Just curious, my understanding was that only Presbyterians are truly reformed since covenant theology dictates infant baptism. How can baptist be truly reformed?
Hopefully you have an answer already, but reformed baptist hold to a Federalist covenant Theology or a progressive (not the gay kind) covenant Theology.
Both have historic backings ❤
As a confessional reformed Presbyterian, I appreciate you two trying to portray the difference between historical reformed faith with what these days is being redefined as Calvinism and how it is negatively impacting the church. So many that I personally know have admitted that once they started adopting the covenant theology and they began to study the scripture through the lenses of the covenant theology, it was then that the true understanding of the gospel exploded on their conscience.
I’m one of those… 🙏
Yes---I would say the "same thing to you concerning " concerning what later theology studies have seen and understood as some really bad cracks in early COVENANT THEOLOGY. We understand exactly what you believe and why you believe it. We understand that the bible teaches you this theology---however the bible does not teach us this theology. We have as much right to believe what the bible teaches us as you do. We clearly understand your point of view we just don't see it in scripture. Doesn't in our view say you are bad folks just that the whole of scripture gives us a better more biblical understanding of God.
I was disappointed with this episode. I thought you were going to give a bullet point comparison between Reform Theology and Calvinism. I no further along than before I listened to this program. Be less verbose and more on point with the title.
Yes more confusion than light. Trying to make so much is not helping. It would be incredible difficult to understand all the nuances. I think you will have problems with having you hearers explain what you are trying to teach.
Both are false to the extent that they believe god punishes for eternity, his own creations, for a gospel rejection that god himself decreed. To punish original sin eternally is tantamount to punishing a being for having a genetic disease. It affirms that only God can save, but God is still somehow wrathful at those who are not able to save themselves.
I'm sorry, but if you're going to hold the church in such a high position that her teachings can supplement scripture, you may as well go back to Rome.
You talk about conflicts and heresies in the past, but how do you know which side were the orthodox and which side were the heretics? How do you know the reformers were faithful expositors of scripture, and not the Council of Trent? Is it not by the scriptures?
So how do you know the Council of Nicaea was correct and not the Arians? Is it not by the scriptures? How do you know Augustine was correct and not Pelagius? Is it not by the scriptures?
So when you evaluate any church controversy, past or present, you have to compare both sides to the scriptures. You do not know who, in the past, had the Holy Spirit, except by comparing their teachings to the scriptures. And so, in that sense, you do have to make yourself the highest authority, to make the Bible the highest authority; because if the teachings of anyone, however honored, in the past do not line up with the scriptures when you study them, you cannot accept them as Biblical.
Would it be safe to say that all who hold to Reformed Theology are Calvinists but not all Calvinists are Reformed?
There is something painfully typical about this video. The guy goes, “I’m reformed” and then talks about “the beauty of Calvinism”. That sort of says it all now. doesn’t it?
Not really. All those who subscribe to Reformed Theology are Calvinists but not all Calvinists subscribe to Reformed Theology.
Calvin and his institutes are beautiful + Doctrines of Grace and the sola's, T.U.L.I.P. too, it is rightly dividing the word of Truth
@@IamGreatsword cringe, you have been brainwashed.
@@TylerJames-yu5hf Hmm? Interesting your opinion is duly noted and dismissed.
@@IamGreatsword how could it be duly noted and dismissed at the same time? It wouldn’t be noted if it was dismissed…
Anyways. You are adoring men and their teachings. It’s not biblical nor does it align with God’s character…
Keep studying without the presumption..
I have this picture of Jesus being a third person in this video, looking very puzzled and wondering why He was there.
Well, if you were a Christian, you would not have had this unbiblical picture. Repent!
Brilliant!
2Peter 3:9 says, "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise...not wanting ANYONE to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." Most don't; God's will is NOT being done. John 7:17 says, "Anyone who CHOOSES to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God..." Joshua 24:15 says, "...CHOOSE for yourselves this day whom you will serve..." Genesis 2:16-17
And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free (you can CHOOSE) to eat from any tree in the garden..." Deuteronomy 30:19-20 says, "...I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now CHOOSE life..." There are MANY more verses where we are offered a choice. So, while God does predestine some things, in other things we are given a choice. It's like a University predestines they are going to have a football team next season, but it is up to the free will who will decide to try out for the team.
Excellent
Actually , at most Universities , the scouts or coaches choose/recruit players to come play for the team..... just saying.
Maybe it's just my lack of education, but it was really difficult to understand what you guys were trying to say in this conversation. What I was able to understand I did agree with, but what I was not able to understand it sounded like you were saying that we don't have free will to choose through faith to believing in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. It sounded like you were saying God chooses through us to believe in Himself. We don't have a choice. And everybody else he doesn't choose is going to hell. If that was the case, why does John 3:16 say whomsoever believes? That sounds like we have free will to either choose to believe in God or not. I do agree that we don't save ourselves. He chose us first because we weren't around before the foundation of the earth. He saves us by grace through faith. We can not separate His foreknowledge from how He predetermined. He is all-knowing. He knew all hearts before the foundation of the earth. He knows who is going to choose to believe in him or not. Please help me understand if that was what you guys were saying or not, and if not, please explain in layman's terms. Thank you.
Thank you. I give God the glory for his directing me down this path I'm on, that I could not really name. After reading Spurgeon and Authur Pink, and my search for answers with dispensationalism, I knew I've been missing something. I've been wrestling with scripture for a couple years. From what I was taught in a Pentecostal preachers home, to what scripture is saying. I found you through the video you were in defending Dr Michael S Heiser. Thank you for that as well. More fresh water in my desert.
Former IFB, found Calvinism etc in seminary early 90’s. Be careful knocking biblicism. You have traded the pagan pantheon of IFB for the Belgic pantheon of fatalism that flows from an over zealous epistemology of certainty. Historically you have left the first 1400 years of Gospel unaccounted for as if the reformation is 2,000 years old. I would recommend you read the works of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Tertullian, Origen, the Cappadocean fathers, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Jerome, Anthony the great, John Cassian and the Gallic monks of Lyon. You think you have left dogmatism behind but you still have that virus in your devotion to Calvinism. The Bible and the gospel anchor is to the Logos and not the reformation alone.
My problem is that I've never read of either title of these respective beliefs referred to in scripture. Wouldn't it be better to just call yourself just a Christian? Nothing more or less. Just a member of Christ church? Speaking the way the Bible speaks and it would cut down on a lot of division and confusion.
"Dead in your trespasses"... While we all believe this scripture, we all impose our preconceived notion of its meaning differently.
Calvinists will subconsciously impose "dead like Lazarus" (total depravity leading to monosynergism ) while the Provisionists and others will insert "dead like the prodigal son" (total depravity leading to synergism).
so basically what i am getting from this, is that the vast majority of calvinists came to "faith" in a non calvinist church! wow if it werent for those independent baptists and calvary chapel folk, calvinists wouldnt exist. what does that say about calvinism? it says they must recruit. i have never met one single person who got saved in a reformed church. and even if they did, how could they be sure> calvinists dont know on what basis God chooses, and unless u know that, u cannot know for sure ur saved. gnosticism is very alluring
I have to point something out which exposes the absurd premise behind your statement; the church _isn’t meant_ for unbelievers. It’s meant for believers. The assumption behind your statement is that there is something wrong with reformed churches because people aren’t saved while attending; the gathering of believers is primarily for the edification and communion of _saints_ and to worship God, not a career fair for unbelievers to “check us out” and “see if Jesus is a good fit”.
I don’t think you understand the purpose of the church. That’s your primary error, although the rest of your tirade is also abjectly ridiculous and portrays a sad ignorance of both scripture and history.
@@matthewdyer2926 ah tha all knowing calvinist has spoken. so since "the church" isnt meant for unbelievers, please explain why God uses those non calvinist churches to bring people to Christ. what a dumb ass statement to make. u are admitting that people arent saved in reformed churches, and that most calvinists are saved in non reformed churches, then u blast said churches for filling ur pews! my "absurd premise" of believing its the church's job to PREACH THE GOSPEL, and when the gospel is preached people are saved is what u object to? oh u reformed fool! just further proves my point. people with ur view must recruit in order to fill ur ranks, because nobody is gonna be born again in ur churches. you dont reproduce so u have to recruit. just like the homosexual
On target!
@@matthewdyer2926 I agree that the purpose of the church is primarily communion and edification, but the fact remains that the vast majority of global evangelism is done by non-Calvinists, and the growth in Calvinism in the 21st century is largely due to the disillusionment of charismatics and covert Calvinism.
Let's condense your point: a virus needs a host.
So basically, if I come to a passage is no longer what the text says but what the text says including what faithful brothers have said about it. I am not against commentaries, but they are not inspired. The writings of the puritans are not inspired. Scripture is God-breathed not faithful brothers because they could be wrong.
I find it troubling that you keep saying Biblicists are against creeds and confessions. I hold the Bible in high authority and creeds and confessions as summaries of the faith. I love 1689 LBC but I do not hold to it as inspired Scripture.
One of the reasons I am not paedobaptist is 99% percent of the arguments come from creeds, confessions, and catechisms rather than the Bible.
Hey brother. Just to bring clarity on the part of Theocast. I don’t believe that the brothers at Theocast are saying that creeds and confessions are inspired the way Scripture is. I think they would articulate that creeds and confession are other forms of authorities not on the same level as the Bible (since the Bible is the Final Authority - the authority above all other authorities) and are subject under. But creeds and confessions and all other authorities are always subject under the authority of the Holy Scriptures.
The Bible is the inerrant, infallible inspired Word of God. It is the authority above all other authorities, which are not inspired (God-breathed). Though they may not be inspired (like Pastors who may give godly wisdom) we still can learn from them.
Also I think what they mean by Biblicistm is a person believes “no creeds but Christ/Bible”. An extreme example are JW’s who may read the Bible and come to a conclusion that is highly exclusive to their theology especially reading with presuppositions. Since everyone reads with presuppositions, confessionalism is helpful, because it brings clarity to what Christians articulate and actually confess and believe, especially addressing the errors and heresies of their day. They also may be prescribed as guards or walls against wayward and unsound doctrines. Christians, today, can use Creeds and Confessions for historical and theological reasons. This should not say that the Bible is not sufficient to guard against heresies, because the Bible is sufficient to guard the doctrine it teaches, but creeds and confessions may define what may fine tune unclear or ambiguous doctrines.
I hope I didn’t come across as heady or uncharitable. I’m sure this is something you and many others already know. God bless!
Problem is the church fathers that created the creeds were the ones that put together the biblical canon. The bible is not self evident, it requires interpretation. It requires reason, the wesleyan quadrilateral. The Trinity for example is not explicitly anywhere in the bible. It took church fathers hundreds of years to develop the theology.
Y’all using too many words. I’m halfway through and have no idea what Calvinism and reformation is. Y’all keep talking about covenant theology and dispensationalism.
Please, make a five min video and simplify the difference. Make a chart maybe with the difference.
It's clear to see (from the comments) the confusion on what "Reformed" REALLY means (and likewise its connection to Calvinism).
For truth's sake, I think the title should be corrected to reflect, "CALVINISM = REFORMED"
In its simple term, to be Reformed means that somebody holds to the doctrines of grace (later known as Calvinism) that are taught in the Reformed creeds (Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, and Canons of Dort) aka, "the 3 Forms of Unity" from the 16th century. So that you can see what teachings were held to by the Reformed churches at the time of the Protestant Reformation sparked by Martin Luther. It was held to by John Calvin and the other Reformers like Zwingly, John Knox, Tyndale, and dozens more. Calvin was a preacher and teacher who gave much doctrinal instruction. The Reformers honored Scripture as the highest authority because they believed the Bible to be the divinely inspired Word of God. It's in the Canons of Dort (1618-1619) that explains the points in great detail of what it means to be to be Reformed and they go into each of the 5 points of Calvinism (or the doctrines of grace) known as TULIP (Total depravity of man; the sovereign and Unconditional election of God; Limited or particular and complete atonement of Christ made only for the elect; Irresistible power of the grace of God in the work of salvation; Preservation (or perseverance) of the saints). In a nutshell, to be Reformed means that one holds to the idea that salvation is ENTIRELY by God's sovereign grace, entirely.
I recommend searching and watching 'What it Means to be Reformed,' a seminar by Rev. James Laning (which helped me with the wording).
A healthy critique of the show: It would be great if you guys could provide more definitions and/or examples for all the words and terms that you’re using. A lot of newer people perhaps are gonna see this and not understand what y’all are talking about.
Why blame satan for diverting people from the truth of Calvinism? Don’t Calvinist believe that God has to allow everything? That means it’s God’s will that the vast majority of the people in the world are not Calvinist.
Whatever the difference you intended to reveal to us that distinguishes reformed theology from Calvinism, I didn't hear it. Sorry.
You can attempt to explain this away all you want but the truth is that those in the Reformed camp do indeed adhere to Calvinism!
I am watching this video a few months after it was made, but I think their point was that all Reformed are indeed Calvinists, but not all Calvinists are Reformed. As a person who agrees with Reformed Baptists in theology and is a Southern Baptist by membeship, I would be excluded by some as a "truly Reformed" person, as I do not agree with infant baptism.
Unbelievable amount of jargon! Love you guys
Why can’t we all be one? God never intended for there to be religions!!!!!! They do nothing but divide!
Exactly. Paul admonished the Corinthians because of these exact schisms - some followed Paul and some followed Apollos: "Therefore, stop boasting in men. All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future. All of them belong to you, and you belong to Christ, and Christ belongs to God." (1 Cor 3:21-23)
In order to prevent confusion, it seems that the title of this video should have said..."the difference between historical reformed theology and New (modern-day) Calvinism. That would have really simplified things.
Thanks to the Lord God for you guys teaching us these TRUTH s that have been scrambled through the years by the church's teachers 💜🙏
Not all the reformers were Calvinist but that’s now what the Calvinist call themselves to go rogue.
Either this video is an attempt to deceive or just very naive.
35:03 "You lean in to the sovereignty of God" - every Christian affirms the sovereignty of God. Translation for those who are watching: "You lean in to the idea that God meticulously isnthe originator and determines every single thing that happens, including the thoughts and actions of every man"
The word "sovereignty" does not mean all-doing and meticulously determining. It simply means authority.
So are you an Open Theist too then ?
Col 1:16-17 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things were created through him and for him.
17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
@@toolegittoquit_001 What does open theism have to do with my comment? I made a comment about re-defining words, not the veracity of the concept of meticulous determinism.
@@toolegittoquit_001I am not an open theist and I 100% agree that sovereignty does not mean determinism. It means God's right to rule and to do what He pleases. It's the same type of sovereignty that kings of the earth have over their nations. God is the king of kings. Nowhere anywhere in history does sovereignty mean determinism of every detail (or every movement of every adam). That is ridiculous.
Excellent! Yes!
There's no gospel and no love in Calvinism. None. Nobody would respond to it. Which is why its kept on the "down low" until after closing.
I don't think most Calvinists really know what Calvin taught. In his "Institutes of the Christian Theology", Book 3, Chapter 21, Section 5, he says, "By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, buy which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, other to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for on or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or to death." This teaching had it's origins from Augustinian's Gnosticism and Manichaeism. This flies in the face of Jesus words in John 3:16. The only mystery in reconciling these are introduced by Calvinism. There was no mystery to Jesus when he said "Whosoever believes..." Having left the Calvinism belief system over the past 2 years, I find it very difficult to listen to pastors like John MacArthur, John Piper, RC Sproul, Matt Chandler, etc...If they get salvation (the key teaching of Christianity) wrong, why would I trust them in any other of their teachings?
The biggest challenge I had, was bringing my beliefs to the text and interpreting scripture as opposed to reading the scripture, and letting it drive my beliefs. I forgot that it's the Holy Spirit's job to lead me into all truth. I depended on commentaries and sermons rather than asking God to give me ears to hear and eyes to see.
If we are predestined to be conformed into the image of Jesus. It's as simple it can be
When I take the “clutter” off the gospel I do not see Calvinism.
As someone who affirms the 5 Solas and holds an Arminian view toward soteriology, I much appreciate this video.
You can't affirm the 5 Solas and hold an Arminian position. That's a logical and theological contradiction.
@@matthewdyer2926 Hm, I sense potentially inaccurate presuppositions about Arminian theology. Care to elaborate? Which Sola(s) in particular are incompatible with Arminian soteriology and why?
@@henryb.7723 Grace, for one.
Arminians believe that man has so-called "free will" in the sense of a self-determination to _choose_ to accept or reject the Gospel. Grace plus anything cannot be said to be grace alone; grace plus your free decision is not Sola Gratia. That is a logical and theological fallacy. Sola Gratia necessitates a Divine and monergistic act to accomplish salvation. This is incompatible with semi-Pelagian (Arminian) theology.
John Owen put Arminianism to death definitively in the 1600's. If you're interested in the truth, check out "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ".
@@matthewdyer2926 Salvation is completely monergistic in Arminian soteriology because having faith is a separate category from doing works (as described extensively in scripture). I've never quite understood why Calvinists attempt this as a counterargument. If I am drowning, someone reaches down their hand and asks me to grab hold of them, and I do so, the rescuer still deserves 100% of the credit for my rescue.
Therefore, I can easily and confidently proclaim that I am saved by nothing other than the grace of God.
@@henryb.7723
No, salvation in Arminianism is definitely not monergistic in any meaningful or historical sense. If it were, then there would be no distinction between our positions.
Your drowning analogy actually reveals the Arminian error very aptly. A drowning man is heading toward death, but isn't dead yet. He can therefore make the _choice_ whether or not to take the hand of his rescuer. The problem is that scripture never anywhere describes the spiritual condition of fallen man as someone who is _about_ to drown, but as someone who is _already dead._
"...for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Gen 2:17
"Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned-" Romans 5:12
"And you were _dead_ in your trespasses and sins..." Eph 2:1
Not dying, but dead.
"...even when we were _dead_ in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ-by grace you have been saved." Eph 2:5
Dead, not dying.
"When you were _dead_ in your trespasses and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ." Colossians 2:13
Not drowning, but dead
And Ezekiel 37, the valley of dry bones. We are so spiritually dead that our bones no longer hold any water. Again, not dying, but dead. Dead bones cannot reach out of the water to be rescued.
And where on earth did anyone say that faith is a work? Of course it isn't a work; it's a _gift._ Those who are given the gift are saved, and those from whom the gift is withheld are damned. I'm not sure where you found that concept, but it's nowhere to be found in reformed, Biblical theology.
"For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the _gift_ of God..." Eph 2:8
God seems to be in the process of deconstructing the effects of Reformed Calvinism
in my life so I came here wanting to find out what you thought the difference between Reformed and Calvinism was.
Not much
Calvinism is a construct deduced from things said in the Bible and is definitely not the Gospel
Jesus is
The Bible under the Holy Spirit speaks for itself
He doesn't need the philosophies of man
I so disagree with many statements you make
I left here wondering what religion you are
35 minutes in and all I’ve mostly heard what they are NOT. It would’ve been helpful if they made clear side-by-side arguments and then presented their evidence.
There are no Calvin churches. Calvinists take over the churches.
Historic theology: indeed. When you dig into the writing that the catholics didn't burn along with the believers they murdered, then you are left with calvinism. Fundamentally, you believe that God spoke a list of names in secret, and said to the rest that they must seek him in vain, and that the scripture is in error when it says
Isaiah 45:19 I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.
The lost fly to the pope for certainty, because they don't have the paper pope.
Wow Guys !!! Thank you so much for sharing this video !! I'm trying to learn what i believe ( like what catagory I'm in ; like what yall are talking about ) . So far I think I'm like you guys , Reformed?? Please help me figure this out lol 😂
I'm not a Calvinist....John Calvin wasn't a Calvinist. I am a Christian who had his ears, eyes, and mind opened to the Gospel of Jesus...The Christ. He chose me, and I'm so grateful.
This is why you will properly praise Him for "His mercy and grace to you" for all eternity.
@@bobwood5146 true
The Catholics, call all Protestant Christians, "reformed."
Protestants argue about who is reformed and who isn't.
Yes, Calvinism, is one version of "reformed." It does not represent all the reformed versions.
the only people who refer to themselves as calvinists are Calvinistic baptists. (and historically certain methodists), due to the otherwise wholesale rejection of reformed dogmas concerning the sacraments, ecclesiology, and polity.
Oh you weren’t even trying to hide that you are Calvinist. I haven’t gotten to the substance yet. Why don’t we just go to the Bible.
Paul would call this carnal.
Hasn’t Piper embraced continuitionism? I cringed every time you said his name with John MacArthur’s.
It is not continuitionism, a man made construct to deny the scripture and the work of the Holy Spirit that's the problem
It's that the God Jesus revealed in the Gospel is not of the same nature and character as their concept of God.
Its funny you meantioned Calvary Chapel, i grew up in it and am now seeming issues with dispensationalism and am looking to reformed theology and covenant theology hence how i found your podcast
Well, you spoke for quite a while and taught me nothing.
Theological determinism is associated with both Calvinist and Reformed theology correct? I don't see how theological determinism is biblical because it denies the basic laws of logic.
How can it be a real joy to preach in incomplete in glorified gospel.
That's nice but you make it sound like for 500 years, No one touched these documents and all the sudden it was discovered by a new generation and that's simply not true. The method of delivery and discovery changed but the messages had already impacted generations and generations of reformed Christians
Calvinism = Westminster Standards as a summary of the system of propositional truth in the Bible. The Bible alone is word of God. Theocast is not equal to Reformed theology or Calvinism.
Thanks for addressing FLAME’s conversion to Lutheranism. I have always wondered what branch of Calvinism he was part of, whether it was a confessional Reformed tradition or the new Calvinist types of churches.
Sometimes historical categories are not the clearest expressions of present day phenomena.
There are some good things in Calvinism. But I am Wesleyan. I do not find the five points to be accurate. On the Bible.
this is nonsensical. Calvinism means to be a follower of John Calvins theology, not mearly the 5 points of TULIP. So yes, Calvinism = Reformed. "Reformed" Baptists aren't truly Calvinists.
No one comes to Calvinism by simply reading the Bible. Even Sproul, Piper and MacArthur say that they didn't believe Calvinism and even had to be convinced of it by long arguments with their seminary professors. God does not determine the rape of children, at least not the God of the Bible. Romans 5 is not about orginal guilt. There is not context, grace or context in Calvinism. But there is plenty of Manichean gnosticism.
You’re half correct; so-called “Calvinism” (which is simply Biblical soteriology) runs against sinful human nature and the idolatry of self-determinism; therefor most genuine Christians move from their carnal Pelagian view to a Biblical, Calvinistic one as their understanding is sanctified by the Holy Spirit. That’s simply the nature of sanctification; we go from foolish to wise, from carnal to holy, like Spurgeon and the others you mentioned.
You’ll get there too, if you belong to Christ.
The rest of your post is just a handwaving appeal to emotions; nothing biblically or even logically grounded.
@@matthewdyer2926no hand waving. Ill debate you on any Calvinist proof text any time. Youre the emotional one whi cant be secure in your puny calvie god and your uneducated Augustinian idol.
@@matthewdyer2926and, I will Never get to calvinism because it is heresy and I believe what the bible says. You believe the LBC and WCF and cant read the Bible.
Do you know Ian Hamilton? 😉
@@PresbyterianPilgrimI know Alexander Hamilton and he wasn't a Calvinist!😂
I've recently come to rest in reformed theology after a long time in the charismatic movement.. reformed is just biblical and only our emotions would stop us accepted God for who He has revealed himself to be..100% sovereign..
Brothers I need advice please..
Regarding John Macarthur and John Piper who gave me good grounding on the basics of reformed theology BUT then I heard them both conflate works and faith as both being necessary for salvation .. this just isn't true.. we are saved by faith alone in Christ..
Why then would you endorse both Macarthur and Piper when they are clearly preaching a different gospel?
Forget categories and labels, as these are not arguments.
All Christians believe in salvation.
The difference between Calvinists and non-calvinists is HOW salvation happens.
And the Calvinist view of the "how," of salvation is basef on their view that Adam's sin changed human nature.
There is no scripture evidence that human nature changed. The choices of Cain and Abel disprove the "changed nature."
You said “keep reforming” while going back to how uninspired men thought. Going back?
Is Matthew Henry a Calvinist, but I don't know if he ever state the fact?
I wasn't sure of the exact theology of this channel but I've been loving how you hit on certain points like pietism that I've been concerned about in the church as a lutheran. Sorely needed in the Christian sphere imo.
John Calvin was going against the Heresies of the Catholic Church. One of which was that Salvation is our own doing or even can be bought with money. He used one of their own saints, and the patron of the Augustinians, to have a strong argument against the catholic (pope) doctrine. Calvin did not agree on everything with Augustine, but disagreed with many of them. What matters is the question: "Did the Early Church Believe the Doctrines of Grace?" In his New Testament Commentaries, Calvin’s most preferred Church-Father is John Chrysostom, and not Augustine. Calvin portrays his usual trust in Augustine in theological issues; when it comes to exegetical matters, his reservations are evident. Calvin is critical of Augustine’s allegorical method,and points out a discrepancy between Augustine’s exegesis and Paul’s letters,rejecting the Church Father’s interpretations. There are a number of websites and TH-cam Videos, (some quite terrible, others a bit scholarly, yet equally terrible) By quoting heretical people of the early church. and leave out the real church fathers. This as an attempt to dissuade investigative readers to believe that, except for Augustine, or at least until the “time of Augustine”, that the early church did not believe in the depravity of man, in unconditional election and/or a sovereign predestination, or in extent of Jesus Christ, grace that is irresistible, and the final perseverance of the saints. This is a tragedy. Why? With a hearty consulting of primary sources, readers can certainly find the “lack of knowledge” of all these Gospel doctrines throughout the writings of the early church. And not only these can be found with many of the early writers. the Bible makes mention of those 2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.
Not in any Reformed church is Predestination the Topic of the sermon, but invitation like Calvin himself preached.
THIS IS HOW CALVIN PREACHED THE GOSPEL (Calvin's Wisdom p119-120)
He calls all men to himself, without a single exception, and gives Christ to all, that we may be illumined by him. When we pray, we ought, according to the rule of charity, to include all. God invites all indiscriminately to salvation through the Gospel, BUT THE INGRATITUDE OF THE WORLD IS THE REASON why this grace, which is equally offered to all, is enjoyed by few.
So did Charles Spurgeon and Jonathan Edwards and all puritans who were Calvinist Millions came to Christ as their Lord and Savior under the preaching of Calvin Spurgeon, the Scottish Puritans like the Erskine brothers and so many more.
Election and predestination is a Scripture teaching, but comes AFTER our salvation in Christ. Before is the free offer of Grace to ALL no exception.
Free will, can say: “I DID IT” but election says: “BY GRACE I WAS SAVED” who of the two is false?
Ummm, guys y'all seem to be nice guys. But you didn't share with us the difference. So disappointed.
rather than read all comments, the main problems of the reformation is it did not keep reforming, and it kept some of rome's errors
That is a true statement!
Your analogy about your body feeling good when you eat good food is spot on. Thanks for the wisdom brothers.
What is the title of the song playing at the beginning of the vid?
The more I’m learning about the young restless and reformed, the more concerned I get. … I don’t think many Calvinists have worked through the implications of their ideology, especially for the reprobate.
Is GARBC reformed?
They are divided into camps
Calvanism / Reformed Theology and all it's conversation and outworkings is ultimately an excuse for unbelief.
Although I disagree with many aspects of reformed theology and even the dangers if having a systematic semantically disambiguated set of propositions as lenses to see God’s Word, I do extremely appreciate you guys sharing the difference between the “new” calvinism and the old. The new is cultish and I completely agree with the sacerdotal charismatic weirdness that comes from, mostly, Master’s Seminary.
Pietistic and revivalistic Calvinism is what McArthur and many others have pioneered today. They have hijacked a systematic that is repeatable and seems quite Biblical in order to make a new movement of sacerdotal servitude.
In other words, older reformed thinking (although I disagree with how it views scripture) is a read it, teach it, move on with it mentality.
Whereas the newer Calvinistic movement is an almost charismatic forcing of theological piety and reliance upon the master’s seminary (among others) teacher in order to create a “theological revival” where new leaders can take the charge and baton and serve God. “Who is with me! Hoorah!” It relies upon convincing people that scripture says what they say it says (and Calvinism is convincing initially) and when people walk with a teacher through “ah haa” moments, they trust the “ah haa” leader into a new identity. They essentially become baptized into that leader’s teaching.
Piety precedes a successful cult
Speaking of "history stopping there."
This understanding of Calvinism and Reformed Theology is Not the understanding of the 16th and 17th century Reformed/Calvinism.
You refer to the "objectivity" of Calvinism while displaying an ahistorical subjective understanding of Reformed Theology/Calvinism.
The first time the term "Calvinist(ism)" was used in history was as a theological category by the Lutherans directed at those who held to Calvin's sacramentology, Not Calvins soteriology. The Lutherans also coined the term "Extra-calvinisticum" in reference to those who held Calvin's Christology in explaining his understanding and belief of the "Real Presence" while Christ is seated in heaven corporally.
The 16th and 17th Century didn't consider the Anabaptist and English Particular Baptists as Reformed nor Calvinists, to the point of fencing them from the Lord's (right or wrong). The Westminster Confession of Faith Ch 28 Art 5 regarding neglecting baptism and their use of Exodus 4 was specifically directed at the English Particular Baptists, calling it "great sin" directed specifically at neglecting baptism of infants of believing parents. It was predominately Sacramentology that drove the 17th Century Reformed Churches to be in opposition to the Baptists and to not commune with them.
No one referred to Baptists nor the 1689 LBC as "Reformed" prior to the 1970s. Stick to the category that does have precedence in Historical Theology "Particular Baptist."
MacArthur doesn't teach the 5 points of Calvinism given the Canons of Dordt teaches that "unconditional election" includes the presumptive covenantal election of Believers children. First Head of Doctrine, Article 17.
If you don't believe in the presumptive covenantal election of Believers children, then you don't believe all 5 points based on the historical defining document. MacArthur has a history of redefining most Historical Theology terms for his own purpose anyways.
This demonstrates individuals REdefining "Calvinism" and "Reformed Theology" based on modern Summations of the 5 points and modern theological sentiments as opposed to ACTUAL Historical Confessional Calvinism and Reformed Theology. While there are nuanced differences between Reformed Theology and Calvinism, they're historically predominantly understood as synonymous within Historical Theology.
These are Historical Theological terms that have more than historical aspects to their definitions but also Confessions tied to their understanding. Just as Lutheranism is defined by its confessional standards, you can't claim to be a Lutheran and deny Christ's Real Presence in the Euchartist. Individuals want to use these terms more subjectively or inclusively as though they didn't have Confessional ties and more definitive history behind them like how "Arianism," "Nestorianism," and others are often used. The doctrines of grace understood as the 5 Points of Calvinism were defined within the Canons of Dordt, not the much later TULIP acronym that was Only a mere summation of the 5 points, not a full doctrinal representation. It's interesting how many individuals refer to the Canons as their defining source of the 5 points while showing little understanding of what is actually said and why in the Canons.
Peace of Christ
Does someone who has received Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and lives a life guided by scripture and the Holy Spirit, go to hell because they are not aware of or don’t subscribe to the Reformed Baptist 1689 and TULIP?
Who in there right mind rejects reformed calvinism ?....no one.
Yes we are dead in sin ...but God sent His Word Jesus..to quicken us..His word has the piwer to quicken us from the spiritual death enough ti chose heaven or hell
I’m an R C Sptoul Refirmed, Christian, you talk a lot, but say nothing really about the subject your discussing?
A difference without a distinction. A rose by any other name. If u believe in tulip u are a calvinist. Period.
I believe Paul's Gospels from year 40AD. And not Calvins gospel from 1500's..period...stop comparing Paul with Calvin....none comparible
Knocks other non-covenantal theological frameworks as pietistic… Ends video “humbly” convincing their audience they’re not brilliant. We know you’re not brilliant. 😂
A whole lot of terminology, not a lot of Bible, no mention of Jesus, and who in the presence of God is going to bring up the name John Calvin? the deity of these men?
10 minutes in, still an ad for Calvinism.
No problem, just not for me.
My reading Spurgeon in my early yrs together with a study of the Westminster shorter catechism lead me to the Calvinist position which lead me to the full reformed position- reading the Bible and reading “old” reformers helped me consolidate what I believed - but never read what is said about the bible at the expense of the reading the Bible - those who return to Rome were saved in the first place
Reformed or "reformed". many claim the label reformed, but do not hold to the three forms of unity, or the westminster catechism.
So like I said, you didn't learn it from the Bible
@@brucekriskovich4975Roman Catholic theology? Yeah definitely did not learn from the Bible. Reformed theology? Definitely in the Bible.
Just a correction on John Macarthur, he said he was a leaky dispensationalist. It was really nice to hear a down to earth tone and you both did a nice job explaining different views. I don't know if you touch at all on covenant theology also known as replacement theology, would you say that you both lean towards covenant theology?
It is not replacement theology. We covered this in our video. CT has never been RT
@@THEOCAST Did you not say it was transitioning from Old to New? That is Replacement Theology. Also I think I commented on that video as well.
Replacement theologians do not like the term "replacement theology".
it is not replacement theology, quit trying to use that strawman 🙄 seriously, do you have any actual arguments or do you try to label people who don't agree with you as anti semites? there are not 2 churches of God, there is One church, one israel
read romans 9 sometime
@@minorsingingairhead is there more than one way to salvation except through Jesus? is there more than one catholic church that God established?
Systematic Theology is not scripture and does not supersede scripture.
Augustine and Calvin did not write scripture
You must have mental dissonance to believe the Calvinist doctrine. All the verses these 2 brothers are throwing around are out of context. Please stop promoting this nonsense, do you not hear yourselves? Do you not understand the implications of your screwed theology?
If it's not good news for everybody it's not good news.
By using the whole Bible, do mean taking 1 interpretation of Romans 9 (& maybe Ephesians 1) and shoehorning it into every passage of scripture that's convenient?
If it was all decided before the foundation of the world, it is not even news.
7:50
We are dead in OUR transgressions. We are not guilty of Adam’s sin. Adam sinned sin into his nature…without a sin nature.
I am not guilty because of Adam’s sin.
“Lord please forgive me of Adam’s sin.” Sounds ridiculous and IS NOT BIBLICAL
how come you guys dont speak on the fact that you need to look at this whole plain of existence from either mans perspective or Gods. from man you get a man centered version of the gospel and you get a totally different view from Gods of the same gospel.
We grew up in the Christian Reformed Church. It was Calvanist.
Great topic, I have been doing more research not only for myself and our family and our growing son's faith, he too is searching for more deeper faith and does not care for "Protestant" faith and is now looking into the Orthodox faith ... due to exactly what yall have been saying, the "splits" here and there on calvinism, reformist, etc, etc... it's like we all need to attend a theological degree. Thank you for being open and speaking on topics like this.
Be married to 33:41 Jesus, not old saint’s understanding of Jesus.
Climb the mountain and see the view, don’t just study the books about the viewpoint
Please I want 😢 to write a pamphlet for you about our present glorification in the heavenlies.