Wesleyan (Arminian) Jerry Walls Refuting Calvinistic Soteriology
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 ก.ค. 2010
- This is a segment of Jerry Walls' opening statement in "The Great Debate: Predestination vs. Free Will." You can purchase the debate from The Apologetics Group at: www.theapologeticsgroup.com/sh...
I am neither a Arminian nor a Calvanist. Just a former sinner washed and cleansed in the BLOOD of Christ my Savior! Do I need more? NOPE!
How can you be neither Arminian nor Calvinist?
@@fredharvey2720 cause he doesn't understand what is being said, much like the speaker in this video.
@@fredharvey2720 he could be a molonist
@@fredharvey2720 Both Calvinism and Arminianism is putting God into a box....
@@77Friction What on earth is that supposed to mean?
I watch and listen to a lot concerning this topic, and this is the single most visited video I keep coming back to. -the whole debate was great, but this was just such a great summation. -thanks
Hey, fancy seeing you here. I just finished watching one of your videos 😁
@@rodgermilner7800 - hey. Fun stuff! I love me some J-dubs
@@davidleebrown3956 he does seem great, do you have any other (non-calvin) pastors who you would recommend?
@@rodgermilner7800 David Pawson is very good
I'm an Arminian and confess I have negative feelings toward Calvinists. While the love/sovereignty of God is very important, the division is a distraction. Am I spreading the Gospel? Am I loving my neighbor? Am I seeking to be more like Christ?Let us be like simple children in our faith.
Nicholas Gilson Maybe you could explain what your negative feelings are predicated on. Surely you don't believe that Christians holding to the doctrines of grace are unevangelical? Did you ever hear of or read the sermons of George Whitefield or Charles Spurgeon? How about D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones? You won't find better messages aimed at the unregenerate explaining the need for salvation through repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
+R. Crompton Good question. I suppose it's largely based on the idea that I don't know if I want to worship the God as described by Calvinists. You might say, "Ah but who are you if that is who God is based on Scriptures?" And that's a fair point. But I just don't see that in Scripture as Calvinists do. So we are really at an impasse. I flirted with being a Calvinist once when I thought I was refining my theology to something more pure, but now reject it.
+Nicholas Gilson I would suggest that you worship the God who is revealed in the Bible and forget about labels like Arminian andCalvinist. Try being a "biblicist."
+R. Crompton I try. Both sides try. We just disagree on what Scriptures say on this.
+Nicholas Gilson The important thing in our witness to the lost is we focus strictly on the free offer of the gospel and leave the drawing, convicting and saving of souls to the Lord. Theology relating to God's sovereignty and our responsibility in the face of the gospel is stimulating; but too much preoccupation with it can be detrimental to the winning of souls.
Any one know where this video is taken from? What could I TH-cam search to see the whole thing?
I am beginning to understand. I see what he has written. Thank you for your faithfulness in replying biblically to him.
James 1:13 When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;
Wait a minute, Calvinism teaches that God Predestines a sinner to sin (predestination). Hold on, he can't tempt anyone to sin, but he can force (predestine) someone to sin, that doesn't even make sense.
I dare not wave my finger at the Almighty and blame him for my sin, I would shake in my boots at the mere thought of doing that.
Yes, but if God predestines sinners to sin and to go to hell, how is God the person who is acting? The Bible says that God is not the one who sins, man is. And further, if God is not the one who is sinning, how would that not make the man who sins accountable to God? God can do with His creatures whatever He desires because there is no one above God to hold God accountable. Whatever God does is right because He is God and subject to no one outside of Himself.
@@cranmer1959 well said brother
I think this is why my scholars tell me negative things about Calvanism.
@@thetrintarianmessianicyahw589 A god who is helpless before his creatures is no god at all.
God does not cause you to sin in any direct way. You are the proximate cause of your own sins and you are the author of your own sins. Why blame God for what you do? Of course, God is the remote cause of everything because He created the universe and providentially brings to pass everything according to His plan. If God did not create Adam with the weakness that would cause him to rebel against God then none of this would have happened. The fall was predestined by God but did God sin when He placed the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden? So the Arminian answer is that God could not prevent Adam from sinning? Really?
can anyone help me by typing what he worded at 3'26'' i cannot understand it
WOW!!!!!! THIS GUY IS GOOD. And right on with his knowledge. Why did Jesus pleaded with the Pharisees if they were doomed already?
Obviously because not all of the Pharisees were condemned to reprobation. Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea ring a bell? Secondly, in His human nature Jesus did not know all things as His Father, the Logos, and the Holy Spirit did. God does know who would be condemned and who would not be condemned.
th-cam.com/video/qRt8j08vC0E/w-d-xo.html
Ez 36;27"I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.…
Yeah, that’s a specific, documented case.
This doesn’t prove the General case at all. That’s a logical jump you cannot support from scripture. Sorry it took 6 years for me to find your comment!
Email me at Faithuntoobedience@gmail.com if you want to discuss further.
Here's how I know whether people have the right Jesus or not.The real Jesus actually saved 100% of the people that He died for,.Jesus took the sin of all the people that He died for into His own body and everyone He died for will be with Him at their death.Those who go to Hell,He didn't die for.
Tim Ballentine . Well, that’s just good and wrong my friend. Jesus death reconciled all of mankind back to himself, via Jesus Christ. Reconciled doesn’t mean everyone is saved. Everyone has been provided salvation via the atonement. We must continue in faith to utilize that salvation.
Oh, and all of this is right out of scripture. See below.
Reconciliation
Colossians 1:20-23 KJV
[20] And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. [21] And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled [22] In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: [23] If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;
Reconciliation is the means in which mankind is put back on good terms with god. Before Jesus shed blood, there was no means for us to be presented holy/blameless before god. This is why the faithful who died in the OT, were in captivity in Abraham’s bosom. They were awaiting the accomplished work of Christ, such that they could be seen as blameless before god. This is why Jesus went to lead captivity captive.
So, reconciliation is Jesus accomplished work, which does away with the the age of the law, and transitions ALL OF MANKIND to the age of grace. The scripture say god has reconciled the world to himself, and that reconciliation is via Jesus Christ. This is the atonement for all men. And read verses 22 and 23. We are reconciled to be presented holy and blameless, but the condition is “If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven”
The atonement is for all, as it’s Jesus accomplished work, which reconciled all men to god. That reconciliation allows all men to be presented holy and blameless before god, “If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven”
Reconciliation didn’t save anyone. Reconciliation puts man back in good standing with god, and if man submits in faith and endures, he can be presented holy and blameless before god.
Hopefully I have made it clear enough.
My email address is in the comment above, if you want to discuss further on a google hangout or a livestream.
@@craigjoyner9857 iF JESUS TOOK EVERY HUMAN BEINGS SIN INTO HIS OWN BODY,then all would be saved.When it says Jesus died for all men,it means ,not only JEWS but GENTILES too,but not all JEWS and Gentiles.Jesus died for MANY of all men.
Tim Ballentine
Jesus, being sinless, suffered the punishment for sin. This transfers all mankind from being under the law, to being under grace. This is for all mankind, and this is the reconciliation via Jesus Christ, which is referenced in 2 Corinthians 5.
2 Corinthians 5:18-21 KJV
[18] And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; [19] To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. [20] Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. [21] For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
WE MIGHT BE MADE RIGHTEOUS!!!!! This is only if we stand in the faith and endure until the end.
Romans 9 is not Paul teaching predestination by G-d over individuals, but rather his sovereign influence upon nations. Paul is not referring to the persons of Esau and Jacob, but rather to the nations of Edom and Israel. Nevertheless despite the correct context of what Paul is trying to teach to his Gentile audience, the Calvinist and they that are unlearned and unstable will wrest, Paul's writings, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
God is most glorified by His word and His most Holy glory. My satisfaction is not needed. But by His grace I am now able to reflect back His glory by His indwelling Spirit.
Hello, who is the "You" that you are referring to here please ?
I like the whole video, but the last 25 seconds are very good! Good point!
With great personal piety, depth of knowledge, insightful logic, and sincerest love does the esteemed Professor Dr. Walls construct propositions both faithful to Scripture and the Spirit of God as well as foundational to constructing more accurate biblical theology for the development of global Christian civilization to come.
What's the logic? That God can change and stop being sovereign?
th-cam.com/video/qRt8j08vC0E/w-d-xo.html
Hey brother, how have you been?
I would appreciate any thoughts on my question. I DEFINITELY lean Arminian. With that said, the only issue I have a problem reconciling is: Why does scripture state very clearly that there is election? My impression is that there is both. I believe there are some elected but some saved by free choice faith in the sacrifice and ressurection of Jesus Christ.
I believe the reason that everyone who gets saved was elected, is because God had foreknowledge of how they would respond to the gospel message. But God, having exhaustive foreknowledge, doesn’t determine causation.
This is superb. Very thought provoking. Thanks for posting; I appreciate having been able to watch it.
When you have the God of Calvin, who needs the devil?
***** you sort of sound like those stereotipical Catholic medieval fanatic preachers. Tell me, is it possible you are wrong about Calvinism? I honestly don't find the idea of election in any way rational, and thankfully I don't believe in such a God. I believe in a God who loves everyone and sent His Son for everyone, but not everyone accepts Him
annoyingdude76 Ya mean like it says in the Bible? Really?
"If you reject the God of Calvin" -- I've heard of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but Calvin who?
*****
"Were you to be a Christian ( by that word you really mean to say "Calvinist") you would understand that what separates you from the unbeliever is not your over praised acceptance, but rather, the grace of God in Christ making you "willing in the day of HIs power." May God give you light and rescue you from your version of "Christian humanism.," in which you are the object of your own praise and worship".
So only Calvinists are Christians? Couldn't a Sovereign God foreordain a non-Calvinist to salvation? I think that follows your determinist logic consistently and infallibly. "God has mercy on whom He will have mercy ..." Where do you get that "Were you to be a ______..." -- that big IF?
***** "But I do believe God is sovereign over all things. Doesn't every Christian?"
I am not a Calvinist, but before I had an encounter with the living God, Calvinism seemed to make sense.
Of course God, to be God, must be Sovereign over all creation. Even an atheist can admit that -- at least theoretically. But let's see what Scripture has to say about how He exercises His sovereign power concerning mankind:
Genesis 1:
" …26Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
Seems as if God singled out Adam and Eve to hand over to them some of His sovereignty (right and power to rule). Nowhere do I find He took that back after the Fall.
Can God, in His Sovereign power, rule as He pleases? Does He not have the sovereign right (not obligatory) to delegate men and women with the right and ability to rule over "every creeping thing" in His creation?
I don't see why not.
Seems that's what He did.
You?
*****
You must not get out much.
Lots of people who were once "Reformed" have come to their senses after an encounter with the living God in Jesus Christ. I am but one of many.
So the Bible really says what about God' giving man dominion over the living things of the earth in the passage I sent?
In what sense is Calvinism upheld here specifically?
A minor issue?
Let me try to get a straight answer from you, again: why do you presume to forbid God to exercise or limit His absolutely sovereign rule how and when and if he chooses?
Who is imposing upon God's omnipotence here?
Are not Calvinists forcing their will upon God?
Sure looks like it.
Not me.YOU.
What books you recommend on this I have some from Bruce ware on middle knowledge compatibilism
th-cam.com/video/jLCqmTc6kvk/w-d-xo.html
Middle knowledge is not the Calvinist view. That is Molinism.
He has a good point about compatabilism working with the fact that God could make all be saved by their own free will. What’s a rebuttal for that one?
The Arminian makes God unable to save anyone. The creature is sovereign over God and the Arminian view makes God finite. If God foreknows that you will go to church next Sunday, is it possible that you will not go to church next Sunday?
God doesn't owe anyone salvation. Romans 9:18
Jerry Wall is pure Wesleyan testosterone
He is also sexy....
A Calvinist born into sin, who cannot know God's ways and God's thoughts, thinks he can teach people about God. Absolutely absurd. And Calvinists get so angry. I wonder why?
You're the one spewing insults and breaking the Lord's command against judging. You're the one being angry.
@@yeoberry th-cam.com/video/jLCqmTc6kvk/w-d-xo.html
Do you subscribe to equal ultimacy?
Amen, the prerequisite for responsibility is first, b/c God can, and 2nd, knowledge!
Your supposition may sound good but is not scriptural.
L Morter, the Bible is loaded with verses that refutes Calvinism, fair enough, there are verses that back Calvinism. However, you can take your favorite verses and make a teology while ignoring the ones that don't fit your teology.
@@luke31ish So, are you saying you're also taking verses that fit your theology and ignores the verses that back Calvinism?
If we have no free will, then why does the Bible tell us to exercise self control? Seems like yet another glaring contradiction in the face of calvinism. If calvinism is true, the Bible sure does tell us to do things and holds us responsible for things we are unable to change...
You mean like the king of the Syrians? Cause he was used as judgement against Israel and then judged for it.
@@kellygipson8354 it wasn't just him. When we read the major prophets, we see many nations where that happens. But that doesn't mean they didn't have an honest choice. God doesn't work *with* evil to accomplish His purpose, He works *through* it.
@@MrMarkovka11 so evil happens, then God reacts? What is this thing that not even God has control over?
What do you mean by honest choice? I would agree we all make choices, but Romans is clear, we cannot do what is pleasing to God. We make all kinds of choices, but none are to choose God.
@@kellygipson8354 forgive my confusion, but are you asking me a question or are you making a statement? Please clarify lol.
anyway I need to go I'll pick this up later!
After listening to this response to "Calvinistic Soteriology" I am reassured of my Calvinistic theology.
Ezekiel 36:26
I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.
Would you say that you believed first with your heart of stone?
Yep
Tim, lose your presuppositions and get back to the Bible
Correct
The bible says Abraham did in Romans 4
@@TheBluegoatman Abram didnt believe in God on his own desire. He was a gentile in a land with many false gods. God called and enabled him to believe and this faith he was given was enacted upon and God counted it for righteousness. Believing in what God had said was only possible if God made it possible. To many unlearned Christians give Abram the credit when it stands to reason Abram didnt call on God. God called to Abram. So the calling, empowering, instilling and declaring fall within God's purview.
People love to quote John 3:16: if Calvinism is true, then Jesus should have said: "For God so loved ONLY THOSE WHOM HE CHOSE IN THE WORLD that He gave His only begotten Son that WHOMEVER HE CHOSES TO IMPUTE FAITH ON WHETHER THEY LIKE IT OR NOT should not perish but have eternal life!" Of course, no Bible says that. The passage says...WHOSOEVER BELIEVES... that's a choice!
Faith is not imputed. Faith is caused by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. But thanks for recognizing that John 3:3-8 teaches exactly what you say the Bible does not teach. There are plenty of other verses that teach that God causes faith and that we are passive in regeneration. You seem to overlook the fact that the Bible also says that no one can believe in the first place. Romans 3:10-25. See also John 3:18-20, 36. Finally, no Calvinist denies that AFTER regeneration the new born Christian makes synergistic choices in cooperation with God's sanctifying grace. Regeneration and perseverance in faith, however, are both monergistic since it is God who causes both and the sinner is passive in both.
No. Read 3:18 too in conjunction, there are still people condemned. Calvinists understand that God, who possesses eternal, complete knowledge of all things, know who's saved and who's condemned before we are ever born; and therefore when the Scripture says "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life," we need to keep in mind that he knows whom he's sending Jesus to the world for.
What does your plain reading of the text "yield" to you,that salvation is obtained by him who wills and works for it and not according to God who shows Mercy?Did you learn this from Arminius or one of his followers?
God will use this for His glory Eph 1:11 even if I don't like what Jerry is saying.This is a comfort for me and should be for God's elect or children. Nothing happens without God's permission, God is in control and will work it out for His glory. Thank God for that!
As I read the comments below, I was right, God indeed use this video for His glory, because one person became Reformed from studying the passages of John 6:44.
A lot of what you said is taken out of context, but I admit I don't know how to answer all Scripture passages against Reformed theology, no theology is perfect, I just think Reformed theology is closer to the biblical truth.
You like many people misunderstand the definition of predestination .Predestination in the Greek means "marked out before hand"
So a simple question for you, what did God mark out before hand?
A lot of his objections against Calvinism apply exactly to his own Wesleyan views. Arminianism still teaches that God passes over (or chooses not to be gracious) to many sinners (even though He had the power to save them), therefore damning them to hell (because they didn't believe). Arminians still have to deal with that. Jerry Walls doesn't solve the problem at all.
God wants to save us all but He must also punish sin. This seems to be an impossible task. God desires to have us united to himself forever but he must punish our sin and that would remove us from him forever. So God makes an unthinkable move and comes to earth in order to take our sin upon himself. He perfectly punishes sin by taking it on Himself on the cross and accomplishes it by not removing us from Him forever. Now what you and I do with our sin is up to us. We can reject God and his Son and take the penalty ourselves (Hell) or we can accept His Son and his sacrifice by professing our faith in Jesus as our Lord and Savior. There is your answer. God is able to save ALL by the blood of his Son, that's finished. But those who reject his Son are not covered by his blood and cannot be saved. It is accomplished for all but not all will accept it.
So when you evangelize, you tell unbelievers that their sins are already paid and gone?
An unbeliever's sin is not paid and gone. If they die in their unbelief they will pay the terrible and eternal price of their sin. I tell people that we are all sinners under the penalty of death. If God is really a just God he MUST punish sin. There is no getting off the hook. But his punishment results in eternal separation from Him. And He doesn't want that. He wants us to be with Him. So He became the punishment for our sin. God is able to justly punish all sin in His Son in our stead and so we are able to be justified before Him.
What do YOU tell unbelievers? Are you honest and tell them God MIGHT love them or they might be predestined from eternity to be a vessel of wrath for all eternity? Or do you play word games with the word love? Well God has three types of love and he loves us with one type and blah blah blah blah blah........
Mzsnobunny88 Then you are saying that Jesus did not pay the price for all sins, that sinners have to do some work on their own behalf to make up for what Jesus did not pay for. Hence, you're saying we're saved by works.
Mzsnobunny88 Well I encourage you to do further study on Calvinism from Calvinist pastors. There are plenty of Calvinists who teach that God desires the salvation of every person, that He grieves over the destruction of the wicked, that the gospel is a genuine offer and God has love and mercy for every person. Calvinism might not be as dark as you think it is. I truly believe that Calvinism gives sinners hope. Without predestination, all would go to hell. The gospel is indeed a genuine offer. I can tell unbelievers that, If you repent and trust in Christ, you will be saved and your sins will be covered by the grace of God because God is love. And it's true. They're commanded by God to repent (Acts 17). Tell me, do you believe Christ took away the wrath and penalty for sin on behalf of *every human*? If so, how can any human receive the wrath and penalty in hell for sin? And did Christ die for those *already in hell* before the crucifixion? Isn't it logical (and biblical) to believe Christ gave His life as a ransom for the church (the elect, the sheep. See John 10:11, Eph 5:25)?
Calvinists take an extremely literal translation of John 6:39, 44 and base their entire worldview on it. Very distorted.
UPDATE: After really studying this topic, I'm a Calvinist now, haha. The Bible is very clear on the concepts of total depravity, predestination, the fact that God must come to us and regenerate us **before** we can have faith in Christ, etc.
I'd appreciate your translation of these verses to bring balance.
Another clueless comment If you really believe that your biblical understanding is weak .
Jerry Dodson Paul.E Tedder "Draw" from the Greek in John 6: 44 (ἑλκύσῃ) can be translated as "draw, *persuade*, pull, unsheathe". Calvinists will insist that it means it must be a forceful drawing, "irresistible grace," but it can also be translated as "persuade". They will say "you're using an outdated lexicon." Okay...when anyone sets up the argument and *forces* the opponent to translate a word from a specific dictionary/lexicon, it's obvious you can force a particular translation/understanding of the passage. Also, Calvinists completely ignore or distort passages where Christ died for the world and invites all to come to repentance (John 3:16, 2 Cor. 5:14-15, II Peter 3:9) by saying "well, 'world' and 'all' can plainly refer only to the elect/predestined," when there is absolutely no reason to say such in that context. I'm not going to continue arguing because Arminianists have done a much better job at this than I for centuries by now.
+Daric You really hate the idea that God is the cause of salvation and not you . Don't you ?
Paul.E Tedder
That doesn't really make sense. That's not what I was saying at all. Of course God saves. But what is unbiblical is how God saves regardless of the actions or feelings of "the elect". Calvinists basically say "God saves whom He will because...reasons."
Jerry Walls did based his comments on scripture! Which excerpts did you listen to?
My algebra teacher told the class "you can't add apples and oranges together". You can't compare fallen physical life to regenerated spiritual life. Read Ephesians chapters 1 and 2. John 6:35-44
Can anyone show me one verse where you have FREEWILL in regards to salvation ? Book , chapter , verse in context and Joshua 21:14-15 is NOT talking about salvation . Anybody !
Every time Jesus says repent. He isnt telling the Father to repent. The whole Bible talks about our sin, and warns us about not accepting Jesus. Why a warning if there is nothing to worry about. Its the forest through the trees. God bless :-)
Revelation 3:20 , John 1:12
Bro. Paul, I agree, there's none. And to say that " there is" is a complete heresy. There is no such thing as free will. I wonder why many of the evangelical churches today still insist that free will is a valid term because there has to be a motivation behind any "will" and so it is not free in that sense. Our freedom to choose is a given thing which relies on involuntary factors such as chemical compositions and reactions inside our body (for example) that trigger us to feel pain, hunger, sadness, etc. that are also acted upon by other external factors such us natural phenomenon, natural events, disasters, etc. (which are obviously not under human control) And these events are dictated, manipulated, "predestined" and still under God's sovereign will." I prefer (if you would agree with me) to use the term Individual soul liberty. It's not in the scripture but it makes more sense than free will.
However, when it comes to salvation, our will in any form does not have any merit. An unregenerated person is "spiritually dead" and therefore cannot respond to the call (a dead would be called in the first place) unless quickened by the Holy Ghost. Lazarus' death and resurrection is telling us about this. The purpose of this miracle is to illustrate man's inability to hear unless he is born from above (born again). Jesus has to "wake" Lazarus up before calling him to "come out".
Rejecting the gospel made a man responsible for his damnation because he is not chosen by God makes it impossible to understand for someone who lacks faith. Like a railway, divine grace and human responsibility are two visible parallel truth that goes on the same direction but will never ever meet. Every major doctrine is impossible to harmonize (ex. Trinity: how can 3 become one in essence?) and has to be taken in faith value. If we know how to answer these things, then, we would all be gods and there would be no distiction of sinners and people who are imputed with Christ's rigtheousness. Again, Free will is a myth, may be you'll find a free wheel instead. LOL.
Aside from getting the context of the verse, Revelations 3:20: Imagine a sovereign God knocking on the door of your heart begging for you to let Him in. What a puny God! Are you somebody? John is pertaining to the Church.. to the elect! And please, if you believe that you are one one the elect then rejoice. If a person goes to hell then it is not your problem. But this wouldn't mean you don't have to show compassion! Still.. preach the Gospel! God has sanctified the ends and so are the means!
John 1:12 ALL who received Him. How about those who won't and did not? Same as John 3:16. Read and exegete the whole chapter. Don't be mislead by traditional cherry picking.
+John Q. Public you of little understanding . Another Arminian idiot
To all commentating Calvinists, saying that they need Scripture as proof: search up Soteriology 101 on TH-cam for biblical debunking of Calvinism verse by verse.
lol leighton flowers the great exegete who admits that he uses different exegesis depending on what passage he interprets
@@hondobondo Your comment is annoying. God bless you.
Might be annoying but it's true
😂 Heretic pelagian Leighton Flowers? the guy who gets refuted by both Lutherans and Calvinists?
Jerry Walls indictment of reformed theology around 4:15 “that God should withhold his grace from some of sons...” If grace is expected or even demanded, it is not grace at all. Many comments seem to lack this understanding. Instead of saying why isn’t grace given to everyone, it is far remarkable that anyone receives grace at all.
okay, but why was any of that neccessary if you were already preselected?
Alltough I am strongly convinced that the calvinistic doctrines of grace are the closest ones to the biblical doctrines,pastor Jery Walls is right about what he is saying in this video.Only God can know the whole truth,and that shows us how limited we are,and how vaste He is..I guess will end up in heaven,and our eyes will be opened,and we will all be wrong,and only God will be true..to Him be all glory! God bless you all,sincere seekers of the truth..Keep Christ exalted..thank you for the video
"Let all the sons of Adam come forward; let them quarrel and argue with their Creator that they were by his eternal providence bound over before their begetting to everlasting calamity. What clamor can they raise against this defense when God, on the contrary, will call them to their account before him? If all are drawn from a corrupt mass, no wonder they are subject to condemnation! Let them not accuse God of injustice if they are destined by his eternal judgment to death, to which they feel-whether they will or not-that they are led by their own nature of itself. eHow perverse is their disposition to protest is apparent from the fact that they deliberately suppress the cause of condemnation, which they are compelled to recognize in themselves, in order to free themselves by blaming God. But though I should confess a hundred times that God is the author of it-which is very true-yet they do not promptly cleanse away the guilt that, engraved upon their consciences, repeatedly meets their eyes."
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion & 2. Ed. John T. McNeill. Trans. Ford Lewis Battles. Vol. 1. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011. Print. The Library of Christian Classics. Book III, xxiii, 3.
th-cam.com/video/qRt8j08vC0E/w-d-xo.html
Any place trickery on the final verse that he uses he is preaching emotionalism
He destroyed Calvinism.
I'm trying to Figure out if I'm Arminian, Molinist, Or Calvinist.
@@thetrintarianmessianicyahw589 Try Traditional Provisionist!
@@johndisalvo6283 Thank You for the suggestion. I will look into it!
@@MrMuse777 No he did not.
based on your logic, do you believe that Psalm 22 applies to you too?
(especially this: "Dogs surround me, a pack of villains encircles me; they pierce[e] my hands and my feet. 17 All my bones are on display; people stare and gloat over me. 18 They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment." Psalm 22:16-18)
also, based on your logic again, do you believe that the victims of abortion will be under the Wrath of God despite Jesus` statement in Heb 5:13-14?
Also, if one can only reach Salvation through free will, and only be damned through free will, at what point exactly in the process does it become impossible for a person to change their mind? How can we interpret Rev 20:15 in the light of the idea that those in the book of life might later decide otherwise?
Those not found in the book of life is in my best understanding talking about at the end when mankind stand before God. We obtain salvation by grace through faith. Whose faith? Our individual faith. What's does our faith come down to? Whether or not you believe and trust. I think what I believe and what or who I trust is a personal decision that God allows me to make, which is freewill. If there is no such thing as freewill why would God give man a conscience, or the ability to make decisions, to accept or deny. No one argues that some men/women deny the very essence of God, but we can't agree that those same men/women also have the ability through freewill to accept GOD...
Exactly. If election is mutable here on earth and free will is essential to God's love, then it follows that free will must exist in heaven and that election is not a done deal even in heaven. After all, Satan fell from heaven, didn't he?
Quite a few convincing arguments. Thanks for the upload. Some statements didn't work for me, but I appreciate the perspective.
th-cam.com/video/jLCqmTc6kvk/w-d-xo.html
"Let all the sons of Adam come forward; let them quarrel and argue with their Creator that they were by his eternal providence bound over before their begetting to everlasting calamity. What clamor can they raise against this defense when God, on the contrary, will call them to their account before him? If all are drawn from a corrupt mass, no wonder they are subject to condemnation! Let them not accuse God of injustice if they are destined by his eternal judgment to death, to which they feel-whether they will or not-that they are led by their own nature of itself. eHow perverse is their disposition to protest is apparent from the fact that they deliberately suppress the cause of condemnation, which they are compelled to recognize in themselves, in order to free themselves by blaming God. But though I should confess a hundred times that God is the author of it-which is very true-yet they do not promptly cleanse away the guilt that, engraved upon their consciences, repeatedly meets their eyes."
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion & 2. Ed. John T. McNeill. Trans. Ford Lewis Battles. Vol. 1. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011. Print. The Library of Christian Classics. Book III, xxiii, 3.
@@ThomasCranmer1959 thanks for the thorough reference.
@@Vitaconfide I'm 63 years old. I was a master of divinity student at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, KY from 1992-1995. While there I had Dr. Walls for philosophy 101, aka apologetics. I was a Pentecostal and an Arminian at the time. After hearing Dr. Walls strawman arguments against Calvinism I began to question Arminianism. Basically it means that God is no sovereign over moral evil or even natural disasters and calamities. The universe is just running amuck and God can do nothing about it. Or God is almighty and evil is part of His ultimate plan. I will go with Calvinism, not the feckless view of God of the semi-pelagians and the Arminians.
@@Vitaconfide I highly recommend that you listen to Dr. Gordon H. Clark's lecture, Predestination in the OT. It's available here on TH-cam. The Q&A at the end is especially enlightening. th-cam.com/video/qRt8j08vC0E/w-d-xo.html
I appreciate Jerry Walls (i am a calvinist) but i dont think he has thought through his position as much as he thinks he does. Every argument and every tough question he has for a calvinist...he has to answer the exact same question. Case in point, we both believe God is able to save all...so why doesnt he? He is either able to and not willing in which case some are saved. He is able to and willing in which case all are saved, or he is not able to do so.
God wants to save us all but He must also punish sin. This seems to be an impossible task. God desires to have us united to himself forever but he must punish our sin and that would remove us from him forever. So God makes an unthinkable move and comes to earth in order to take our sin upon himself. He perfectly punishes sin by taking it on Himself on the cross and accomplishes it by not removing us from Him forever. Now what you and I do with our sin is up to us. We can reject God and his Son and take the penalty ourselves (Hell) or we can accept His Son and his sacrifice by professing our faith in Jesus as our Lord and Savior. There is your answer. God is able to save ALL by the blood of his Son, that's finished. But those who reject his Son are not covered by his blood and cannot be saved. It is accomplished for all but not all will accept it.
Mzsnobunny88 I don't think you see the hole in your argument. If his atonement was made on behalf for all (it was accomplished for all like you said) but at the same time those who reject are not covered...then it isn't on behalf of all. You are missing the whole idea of what atonement and propitiation is. IF Jesus died a substitutionary death for all people, then ALL will go to heaven. Other wise he didn't do so for all people. He died for a specific people. His people.
First of all, I'm not the one who said it was accomplished for all. The Bible says it.
1 Tim 2:5-6 "...one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time."
2 Cor 5:15 "and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised."
Jesus's death happened to provide a sin offering once for all people for all time. However Jesus is under no obligation to apply it to you if you are living a life of rejecting him. It is available to all men but not all men will accept it.
John the Baptist understood that Jesus was about to effect the sins of all men when he exclaimed in John 1:29 "The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"
How does "all" and "world" equal a specific people instead of all people and the world (all people in the world)? God has provided the way through his Son, He is not forcing people to take it.
*****
The Father knows who is going to be with him because God lives in eternity. At this very moment God is experiencing all saved people living with him in their glorified bodies in the New Jerusalem. That is the nature of God's eternity. He knows all because to him it has already happened. He is not peering down "through the corridors of time" as Calvinists love to say and picking who he wants.
Please show me how "a ransom for all", "died for all" and "takes away the sin of the world" doesn't mean that in those versus. Simply because in OTHER versus the author uses the common terms of contrasting the believers against the world how does that fit here? It really doesn't. Sometimes "all" and "world" really does mean all and world.
PS....do a little study of the word "elect" in the Bible and you find it often does not mean the people God predestined from the foundation of the world to be saved. It means Israel.
Isaiah 45:4 "For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me."
Isaiah 65:9 "And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my mountains: and mine elect shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there."
1 Chronicles 16:13 "O ye seed of Israel his servant, ye children of Jacob, his chosen ones."
Elect? Gentile you and me? There is a wonderful answer to this in the new testament I'm hoping you get it. Do some study.
Mzsnobunny88 - Point taken, now you do a word study of the words all and world...all what? all is always in reference to something. All what? All cats? All left handed homeless people? And world...John uses the term 14 different ways in his gospel alone, so your case is not as slam dunk as you might think.
And I have looked at elect. You posted only OT references to the word...any NT references...? I know the direction you are going. Elect of God refers to Israel...but what is the true Israel according to Paul? The children of the Promise, which includes gentiles as well.
Elect refers to God's appointed people, you should look up the term remnant, as it is also relevant here.
Lastly... The Jews were not american individualists. They saw things as Jews and Gentiles. The Word World, many times, is used just as that...Jews and Gentiles. So saying that Jesus gave himself up for the whole world is just as well meaning...Jews and Gentiles, not all individuals every where all times.
You have no argument against a universalist.
Well, what was the purchase of the fall? In what sense is man fallen?
All men are born guilty of Adam's original sin and worse they are born with an inherited corruption that makes their human nature totally corrupt through and through such that mankind cannot please God nor can they turn from their sins and turn to Christ in faith.
I really wasn't trying to be pious in all honesty. I was trying my best to be accurate and follow the clues where the lead. @ Simple Earthling
In order to refute Calvinism, Walls appeals to his audience's intuition about who they believe God is. I became a Calvinist when I decided to give up my preconceptions about God for a different God--God as He is described in the Bible. The God of Romans 8 and 9, a God who is within his rights to do as he will with the work of his hands, a God who loved Jacob but hated Esau (Romans 9:3, quoting Malachi 1:3).
At 9:00 Walls uses the "ought implies can" argument that is, indeed, intuitive to almost everyone, Christian or non-believer, philosopher or layman. But where do we see "ought implies can" in the Bible? Isn't Pharaoh punished after God Himself hardens Pharaoh's heart? Shouldn't Walls say, then, that God is making a huge infraction for punishing Pharaoh (Romans 9:17) for the exact hard heart that God himself gave Pharaoh?
Your first problem is taking scripture as infallible. When you have Jesus telling people to repent and be saved, how does this even fit into a Calvanistic model. Paul interjected a lot of opinion as Godly ordinance. Don't eat meat sacrificed to idols, but then churches are reprimanded in Revelation for eating meat sacrificed to idols. Paul says faith in Jesus' resurrection saves, but Jesus said to keep the commandments. Paul and Jesus conflict on a lot of very major areas.
@@edenicchristian335 There are no conflicts between Paul and Jesus.
@@hellohurricane912 Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law, but make it more complete (i.e. Fulfill). He also never spoke of faith alone saving. The rich ruler even shows that keeping the (10) commandments (The Law) are paramount. This is before you even get into Paul's predestination garbage. Every time Jesus tells someone to repent that is acknowledging that the person has a CHOICE in their salvation.
@@edenicchristian335 A lot of what Jesus spoke was still under the Old Covenant for one thing, and telling someone to repent does not conflict with predestination.
@@hellohurricane912 Saying it is a choice of the individual (not God) certainly does! And he didn't say the new covenant was in affect, even after his death. Only Paul does.
9:59 "...Carson doesn't know who are the recipients of electing love...any more that you or I do."
10:15 "...if all he knows is God is giving you the gospel even though you can't possibly respond to it."
Contradict yourself much Mr. Walls?
The first statement is true. No one can look upon the world of lost people and know who will receive salvation and who will not. Both the Calvinist and the Arminian should be sharing the gospel because they are commanded to, out of their love for the Father who compels us to love others (Another means by which God loves the world). The second statement is illogical and so it is a mistake or a deception; "...if all he knows is...you can't possibly respond to it".
I desire to grasp the idea behind predestination based "on foreknowledge". If God is only aware of every future event, is there a practical way for him to decide (predestine) anything?; isn't it "already predestined" as foreknown? If God is expecting for the humans arbitrary decisions, where we base His providence? What kind of God is it? I don't want to initiate a thread of arguments but to understand God's sovereignty vs. humans capricious motivations. By the way, considering humans have not free-will (well, "free-will" yes, but to make evil not good consistently), I don't see contradictions in how God can changes the motivation of a heart, not from outside but from the bottom, through the power of the Holy Spirit. Is not that what he does for we to keep in His holy road? Please help me to understand.
My Jesus didn't even pray for the world when He was about to be crucified, but He only prayed for those God gave Him out of the world and all who would believe their testimony.
Mark Wyatt says, "I have read Romans 9 a million times and do not see the Calvinistic Election taught in it."
Then you are still in blindness Mark!
Paul anticipates 2 questions that his opponent will ask Romans 9:14 is the first question "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God?" Then Paul says "God forbid" he goes on to reinforce his teachings to the objector in Romans 9:15-18: "For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheath mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might whew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth."
Just look at that teaching, Paul is blasting with both barrels, and this hard teaching for the natural man leads to Paul's anticipated second question by the objector, in Romans 9:19: "Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?" then Pauls great answer to the one who would dare question God, Romans 9:20-23: "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? What if God, willing to whew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,"
Mark Wyatt, why are you asking the same anticipated questions that Paul new his objectors would ask? Doesn't that make YOU an objector of the Apostle Paul? I would be very afraid if I were found being an objector to Paul! Paul was answering YOU! This is a hard teaching for the natural man! Are you still the natural man Mark?
***** I don't see how I misinterpreted your comment but if you say so then correct me.
WCOFTheology Mark makes a lot of accusations but can't back any of them up .These Arminians make many unbiblical statements,both doctrinally and accusatorial,but when someone points their nonsensical,deceptive ramblings out,w/scripture,or asks them to prove their false accusations, they simply mock those they accuse or they try to change subject.I know that no one is perfect,but to accuse people of flat out lying just because one doesn't agree with them or can't hold his own in an argument with them,is serious indeed.
***** You proved my point,just more accusations and no proof to back them up.
Tim Ballentine Amen!
***** Did I not tell you to correct me if I am wrong? and instead of correcting me where I got it wrong you gave me a whole paragraph of insults. LOL And BTW, I reread my comment to you, the one you responded to and I didn't see where I called you an Arminian!
Under Calvinism, the Gospel is NOT for Eveeyone. Disgusting theology.
You proved my point
THIS MAN IS SAYING THAT WE ARE ALL HIS CHILDREN, BUT IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN IT SAYS THAT ONLY THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN BORN OF GOD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CALL THEM SELF CHILDREN OF GOD.....JOHN CH;1
: We are All God's creatures (mankind)/
Reformed theology comes to us by carefully looking at the scriptures after Arminius brought in false teaching. It is a response to bad exegesis. Again we have another false teacher trying to Glorify man. Sola de La Gloria.
Ray Dicey lol
See Romans 9.
Romans 9 is not about salvation. It is election of nation and gentiles.
@@kallumkadavu1 so when Paul writes "Gods mercy depends not on human will or exhertion" thats just about nations? How does that make any sense.
@@danielomitted1867 THAT'S THE TOPIC IN CHPTER 9
@@kallumkadavu1 so what? Thats a topic, not the topic. The argument leading up to Romans 9 was about predestination. Do words have meaning or not? You believe Gods mercy does depend on human will and exertion. Before giving that verse Paul is talking about Gods choice in election. Screeching "its just about nations" isnt a rebuttal. Its a lame attempt to handwave away clear doctrine. Then Paul says YOU will say to me why does he still find fault. Wow almost as if this has more application here than what your claiming.
@Steven Irizarry lol the bible says they were Gods chosen. Just like in OT God had an elect people God has an elect people in the NT. Its funny people like you will sneer at ideas like predestination and election when these topics clearly presented within scripture.
The Westminster Shorter Catechism gives us a succinct answer: “The decrees of God are his eternal purpose, according to the counsel of his will, whereby, for his own glory, he hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass” More simply, whatever happens in your life is according to the infinite wisdom of God.
If God is NOT obligated to provide chance of salvation for everyone as you say, why is it you all are the first to scream UNFAIR when we claim God only provides salvation for His chosen people?
This guys seems angry.
derek barber Hmm. He seems excited to me. Passionate.
The Apostle Paul was passionate too as he watched Steven being stoned and then before his salvation went passionately on a hunting Christians and putting them to death.
The question is does God choose his people? Yes, He chose Israel for his people in the OT. Would God pass over some? Well, look at the passover, clearly the answer is yes. It is not that God chose some people to damn, it is quite the opposite, he chose some (from the guilty) to save. A Calvinist is not someone who believes every quote Calvin made, but rather one who thinks his general theology is correct. This guy is picking, and taking out of context Calvinistic doctrine. And lastly... did I hear that correctly? did this guy really just say "How does God prophet a man"?!?!... What! Dude better check for lightning bolts.
The people of Israel along with any citizen of Egypt were given the opportunity to kill a lamb, put the blood on their doorposts and be saved. God did not say he would visit the land and arbitrarily decide who would live or die. He gave place for a human response. Neither did God say ONLY Israel was eligible for salvation In fact, some Gentiles were saved because they believed Moses' words (the so-called "mixed multitude"). It would follow that any of God's elect nation who did not follow Moses' instruction would bring judgment upon themselves.
I feel like what is not being represented here is that we all run after sin and if left up to our own devices we would only choose sin
Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions. (Eccl. 7:29 KJV)
Here's how Calvinists think and argue by using an analogy of a married couple who cannot get along, let us suppose that Bob represents sovereignty and Sue represents freedom. Since it is believed that Sue cannot peacefully coexist with Bob, we replace her
with Sally, whom we rename Sue, and then claim we have resolved the differences between Bob and Sue and saved the marriage.
If we did this to a married couple, everyone would see right through it. To this new problem we merely assert that everyone is looking at it from fallen human reasoning and that their failure to see that Bob and Sue's reconciliation is genuine is due to the 'fact' that only people who have been 'regenerated' can really understand the truth.
In Romans 9, Paul discusses God’s absolute freedom in His saving purposes. He uses the illustration of the twins, Jacob and Esau, stating that God’s choice of Jacob over Esau had nothing to do with either of them. Rather, God chose “so that [His] purpose according to His choice would stand.” This choice was “not because of works but because of Him who calls” (Rom 9:11). He goes on to say that salvation “does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy” (Rom 9:16), and then supports that claim by referring to God’s hardening of Pharaoh’s heart for the expressed purpose of demonstrating His power and proclaiming His name through the events that followed (Rom 9:17; cf. Exod 9:16). Paul then summarizes his point by declaring: “So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires” (Rom 9:18).
Then, Paul anticipates an objection: “You will say to me, then, ‘Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?’”
First, let us understand the objection itself. Paul’s imaginary (or perhaps not so imaginary) interlocutor has understood all that Paul has said about God up until this point.
He understands that salvation is entirely a work of God’s grace, and owes to nothing in man.
He also understands that it is God’s will, not man’s will, that is determinative and decisive in salvation (again, Rom 9:16; cf. John 1:13). He asks a rhetorical question to underscore this very point: “Who resists His will?” That is to say, “No one resists God’s will.” “Our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases” (Ps 115:3). He accomplishes all His good pleasure (Isa 46:10), and no purpose of His can be thwarted (Job 42:2).
The objector also understands that God still holds man accountable. “He still find[s] fault.”
So the question is, “Since no one can resist God’s will, how is it fair that He still finds fault?”
Making Sense of the Objection
This objection proves very helpful in the Christian’s understanding of the nature of God’s sovereignty in salvation. Because whatever our conclusions are about the doctrines of grace, they must make sense of that objection.
And the fact is: the only way that this objection makes any sense at all is if three things are true: (1) Man ought to repent and be saved as commanded by God, (2) Man lacks the moral ability to repent and be saved, and (3) God still holds man accountable to repent and be saved, and will punish them for their failure to do so. In philosophical terms, this objection only makes sense if “ought” doesn’t imply “can”-that is, if commanding something of someone does not necessarily mean that they are able to do what you command. In theological terms, this objection only makes sense if the doctrines of total depravity, unconditional election, and irresistible grace are true.
But it is repugnant to the natural mind that we could be held accountable for something that we are unable to do-especially if we claim that it is a loving God that imposes this standard. And so different schools of thought devise alternative understandings of God’s sovereignty in an effort to save Him from what they believe to be unfair. However, none of these alternatives make sense of the objection in Romans 9:19. Let’s consider these alternatives.
Universalism
One alternative is universalism. God has required something of humanity that they are unable to do, so he brushes their sins under the rug-after all, kids will be kids, right?-and He lets them off the hook. Now, aside from being patently unbiblical, this position would be to deny that God “still finds fault” with humanity. No one can resist His will, so He simply does not find any fault with them.
Conditional Election Based on Foreseen Faith
Another alternative is to deny that God’s election is unconditional, and rather to assert that it is conditioned upon faith which God foresaw in a particular person. Said another way: He chose them because He knew they would choose Him. Since our natural minds find it unfair to hold people accountable for something they are unable to do, this theological position maintains that we actually were able to do something-namely, believe-that would result in God granting us mercy.
But if this were the case, Paul’s imaginary companion would not have made the objection in Romans 9:19. It would be no mystery as to why God “still finds fault” with those who do not believe. They simply did not have the faith necessary to be elect.
Libertarian Free Will
Still another alternative, akin to the previous, is to claim that God is indeed sovereign, but God has sovereignly chosen to grant a sort-of-sovereignty to humanity in the form of libertarian free will. God commands repentance and faith, and He will find fault in those who fail to repent and believe. But according to this view, those who fail to repent and believe do so because they have the free will to accept or reject God. God did His best, and He would save everybody if He could, but He left the final decision for salvation up to man. In other words, they can “resist His will.”
Here again, we find that the objection in 9:19 would make no sense. There would be no mystery as to why God would find fault with those who reject Him. But Paul’s interlocutor makes the statement (via a rhetorical question) that no one resists God’s will.
The Genius of Grace
And so, if we are to make any sense of the objection Paul raises in Romans 9:19, we cannot explain God’s sovereignty and man’s inability by appealing to conditional election or libertarian free will. This objection only makes sense if the Calvinistic doctrines of total depravity, unconditional election, and irresistible grace are true.
But how is that fair? How can God command that which is impossible, and still hold people accountable? How can He command people to be born again, even though the new birth depends entirely upon “God, who has mercy” (Rom 9:16)? Well, Paul’s answer is to rebuke the questioner who seeks to impugn the righteousness of God: “On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God?” (Rom 9:20). If you seek to find fault with God’s character, you have a skewed understanding of righteousness (Rom 9:14; cf. 3:5b-6) and better put your hand over your mouth fast.
But there is a way to ask the question out of a sincere desire to understand God and worship Him for how He has revealed Himself. And if the question is asked in that spirit, I believe there is a clear answer. And that is: God grants to His people what He requires of them.
This is the genius of grace. By commanding something of everyone that is impossible for them to do, God magnifies mankind’s true helplessness and inability related to our spiritual condition. And because He commands only what is possible for God Himself to accomplish, He magnifies His own sufficiency and fullness of glory. As Paul goes onto explain, He does this “to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy” (Rom 9:23).
By granting what He requires, God displays Himself as all in all. He places humanity in our proper position, as needy beggars eager to receive from His hand. Then, as our benefactor, He grants what He requires and thus captures our affections, so that we see Him as altogether lovely, altogether worthy, and altogether wonderful.
Well all I can say is well put sir. Very nice. I lack such eloquence in my explanations.
It's a cut and paste from the Cripplegate thecripplegate.com website. I could never take credit where credit is not due. But it is a beautiful explaination and refutation of synergistic salvation.
rdftreeman spoken like a true "Calvinist" Augustinian, Paulian or should we say Christian
I would say that I am christian, who believes that salvation is by sovereign grace and monergistic, and the gospel is the proclamation of the finished work of Christ on behalf of His people whereby those who believe that truth sincerely have eternal life based solely on the intercessory work of Christ alone. The gospel is not a well meant offer.
rdftreeman amen brother. I just threw those names in to show the progression. I completely agree with you this is not Calvin's baby. Even Calvin himself admits it.
I like how the title of the debate is "Predestination vs. Free Will" Notice how only one of those terms is written in the Bible
Both terms are actually in the Bible. That's why Molinism is the best option.
This would be the old changaroo of meanings. Predestination occurs 4 times in two chapters and does not come close to meaning a set determined destiny for a select few. No Jesus is the only eternal chosen one.. Pre appointment all points forward to what we are in Jesus as believers and out hope... In Hebrew we have the word ""rawtson"", most certainly means a free will offering, and indicates even more so a non compelled self motivated decision of the hearts will, freewill seems to be too shallow here, indicating not only the mechanics of free will, but the motivation of the heat. Of their own desire or self decision..
In the Greek we have ""Hekoisious"", this would mean literally willing.. ""Sos gnome,"", is of your own mind,, eg Philimon 1.14.. Not by constraint,"",Anagkostos"",, indicates not the slightest pressure on the choice, but only Gods attempting to persuade you with good.. Guys this idea that the self choice or will is not in the bible is just so ridiculous,, It is just saturated with thousands of verses and many different words to describe. We have not even touvhed the word ""Choice"".. ""Thelema"" or will, occurs around 7000 times, including Jesus use of it in the garden, showing will is ours. This is not even to scrape the surface, we can still look up hearts internet, intents, mans desires, God will, Jesus will. This is pure and utter educational laziness. Just the word ""will"" would keep you busy for a couple of years at least.. . .
Stupid argument...you will not find the word "trinity" Anywhere in the Bible either.
@@Norcalcrimewatch That is true. But more ironically, both of those terms (predestination and freewill) ARE found in the Bible.
Predestination does not appear in the bible friend. Predestinated does. We are all predestinated once we are in Christ to be God's child. It's simple and clear Jesus died for all men. Don't read into it what is not there. I am not an Arminian either but a bible believing Christian who knows he is sealed for ever by the Holy Ghost (Ephesians 1:13)
I believe Romans 9:20-24 answers your objection.
I've read material written by different individuals on the Wesleyan church. I've found that what they believe is fundamentally in line with what I have come to know as the foundational teachings of Christianity, but why the label of Wesleyan church? The church is Christs' and His alone. Should we still consider the doctrinal teachings, Wesleyan or a contribution of any other reformer.
I am a total Calvinist. Not at all does this guys dispute what I have learned about the just how Powerful and ALL Knowing my Father is.
here is what a "true calvinist" believes
Let me paint a brutally honest picture of what a Calvinist must believe if he/she is a determinist, Compatibilist, or affirms the statement from the Calvinistic confessions that "God from eternity past has decreed everything whatsoever that comes to pass."
So let's picture God existing alone before creation ever existed. No humans, no angels, not even Satan. Just God meticulously planning out every detail of every event that would ever take place in creation, down to the exact momentum of every subatomic particle. Let's imagine what went through God's mind when planning out everything and writing it down like a script. God had to plan out every single gruesome detail of everything that would ever come to pass. He could have planned for love to reign supreme from the beginning, but instead, God specifically decreed child rape, murder, torture, gratuitous suffering, cannibalism, incest, adultery, child sacrifice, slavery, genocide, abortion, all natural disasters, slander, lying, deception, etc.
But it gets worse...much much worse. Not only did God decide that these things would happen, but God planned out every gory detail. For instance, let's examine a scenario of child rape. God pre-planned that a grown man would break into a family home, tie up the parents, go get the 7 year old twin brother and sister, and precede to rape them in front of the parents. God decreed every scream, scratch, bite, and claw. God planned out how many times the man would enter the children and in what areas, and how much blood there would be. Before creation even existed, and with no input from anyone else, God supposedly planned out every meticulous detail of every scenario like this that has ever and will ever come to pass. God planned out every single time a doctor would rip a baby into pieces inside their mothers womb. He planned out every torture device that a serial killer would use on his victims and exactly how many pounds of pressure the man would put into slicing the person open with it. He planned out that fathers would sleep with their daughters and mothers with their sons. He planned out that a marriage of 20 years would end in one of the spouses cheating on the other, breaking up a family and devastating the kids. He decided all of these things in advance, and apparently thought that creating this world would be a good thing for Him to do.
Now keep in mind, all of these things were fixed from eternity past on determinism. It would not be possible for the rapist to enter the twins even one less time than he did, let alone to refrain from raping them. The adulterer could not decide to refrain from cheating. The torturer could not have used a different tool or exerted less force on his victim, let alone refrain from torturing. Once God thought these things up, and decreed them, they could not fail to happen. But not only this, God gave these people the desire to do what He decreed them to do, so this somehow makes them responsible for it. Yeah, right.
This is what a determinist is committed to logically speaking. It sounds harsh, and no Calvinist would ever say this as clearly as I have just now, although some have admitted to it, like John Piper, James White, and others. And it seems as though many Calvinists have tried to escape this by appealing to Compatibilism, but they dont seem to realize that Compatibilism entails determinism. It's the view that determinism is true, but free will somehow still exists because people do what they desire(even though God decreed every desire they would ever have). Even Calvinistic scholars have said that Compatibilism is no less deterministic than hard determinism.
Now, please save your objections that "your view has the same problem because God knew all things from eternity past." Well that's not the same problem AT ALL. There is a HUGE difference in God allowing people to freely do evil things and experience the weight of their own evil, and God meticulously planning out every persons evil thoughts, intentions, motives, desires, and actions beforehand such that they could not do otherwise. The difference is between God being the author of sin vs humans being the author of sin. And with that, I'll be looking forward to the usual "strawman" or "you dont understand Calvinism" or "who are you to judge God" or "you're just misrepresenting us". I'm not actually trying to persuade Calvinists here...they have already swallowed the jagged pill and chased it with the koolaid. I just want rational people who are considering the different views to consider what theistic determinism commits them to.
I listened to the entire 10 minute video, and the only thing I witnessed that was refuted was this teachers credibility, by not refuting even one passage of Scripture " Calvinists " use to teach God's conditional election. Disappointing, but very informative. This person is destined to lose any debate with an experienced Reformed Theology debater. Please keep Him where He is.
I get the emotional tug at what we think a loving God would do. However, the Bible is what tells us who God is, what He is like, and what He does. If God is God, there should be some things that He does that we as His creation do not understand. This is an issue of scriptural authority, not our preferences.
Is the Bible beyond your understanding? I thought revelation meant we were to understand the propositional statements in revelation. If God says that He created the heavens and the earth does that mean you don't know what He just said in Genesis 1:1?
Should I take a big black magic marker and cross out the words "none", "all", "choose", and "if" in my bible?
This man does not quote a single scripture verse! His words are unconvincing.
:He don't need to, Calvinism is contrary to God's character and to man's free will and accountability!.Calvinism does not make sense and does not bring the sinner to Jesus Christ , go out and preach to sinners and tell them what Calvinism is all about .Tell them that some of them might be part of the elected and some might not be (surely you can not guarantied to them that all will be part of the elected, if not you will be lying to them).At the end of your sermon I bet just a few will come to accept Jesus Christ as Lord, why? because this only the elected will saved theory sounds to prejudiced and bias.Please show me in the bible where does it says that ONLY the elected (the Bride of Christ) will be saved .
Very well articulated. I agree totally.
It astounds me how many times Calvinists use "but you wanted to do what you were determined to do, you God can still judge you for it." I mean, don't they get that that doesn't solve the problem at all, because we couldn't have not wanted to do what we were determined to do!? Like, have they even thought about the argument that they are using for more than two seconds?
You don't get that God can judge you for what you choose to do and you know that you do evil because your own heart is desperately wicked? Why would you be surprised? It does not follow that because you sin in ignorance or because you were unable to choose otherwise that you are not accountable for your choices. Even in modern criminal courts such arguments hold no water. Why blame God for your own wickedness?
If you were born without sin then you would always want to do what God commands. The fact that you sin proves that are enslaved by sin just as everyone else is enslaved by sin. Why blame God for the sin you see in your own heart? The whole human race is fallen in Adam. Deny it and the result is Pelagianism. But the Bible plainly says you are a wicked sinner without hope:
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. (Rom. 3:10-12 KJV)
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (Rom. 3:20 KJV)
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; (Rom. 3:23 KJV)
If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand? (Ps. 130:3 KJV)
And enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified. (Ps. 143:2 KJV)
Yes it does. What you desire to do, your free will, is always limited. This isn't hard to understand. You don't choose what you don't know, nor do you choose what you can't choose. A new born baby doesn't choose their first language, nor can a criminal choose mercy. A sinner without God's regeneration doesn't know God, and therefore it is as though they are speaking a foreign language and never truly understand Jesus or salvation. And a criminal, on the last day, is nevertheless condemned because they deserve punishments for their crime.
Just because something sounds off to our fallen intuition does not mean it is false.
If I were an Arminian, I would feel shame for Walls' extremely poor exegesis and lack of logic and coherency in his talk.
The funniest moment is at 4:17, when he, seemingly out of desperation, has to resort on people feeling and understanding of the Scripture to support his position. Though that's not a bad strategy to win popularity, but that clearly has nothing to do with truthfulness. Nice try, Walls, nice try. But no, thanks; I don't buy what you are selling.
If I were a Calvinist I would feel shame for every Calvinists who have butchered and eisegeted every passage that they believe supports their false theology.
this is an awesome video! Thanks! I wish I had done this one, lol. This is one of the better videos on YT exposing calvinism's utter stupidity. The preacher did a fantastic job exposing their lies. Keep up the amazing work!
Walls is preaching to the heretical crowd. Any Calvinist who has studied Dr. Gordon H. Clark's books can easily refute all of Walls's points.
I find it interesting that nearly all, if not all afterlife testimonies they all testify to free will in some regard. Mary Baxter, Howard Pittman, Bill Weise and the list goes on.
So here is the question you dodged when asked by Greg. What must I do to be saved?
Romans 10:9
If I wasn’t a Calvinist already and then heard this, I would become a Calvinist all over again lol
Why, you love false teaching?
Translation = I fell for foolishness once, I now am aware of it and want to fall again. Search your bibles, freewill is prevalent throughout. "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
Meaning ...pride is too high, will continue to be unsaved,,believing another god
@@johndisalvo6283 The Bible is unequivocally for the doctrine of God's absolute sovereignty. th-cam.com/video/qRt8j08vC0E/w-d-xo.html
@@davidelks8972 th-cam.com/video/qRt8j08vC0E/w-d-xo.html
Jerry Walls, you're all right brother....!
Yes, I love Clark, and his book "God and evil problem solved" is where i got this on responsibility. I just got my copy of Robert Reymond's systematic theology.
"Let all the sons of Adam come forward; let them quarrel and argue with their Creator that they were by his eternal providence bound over before their begetting to everlasting calamity. What clamor can they raise against this defense when God, on the contrary, will call them to their account before him? If all are drawn from a corrupt mass, no wonder they are subject to condemnation! Let them not accuse God of injustice if they are destined by his eternal judgment to death, to which they feel-whether they will or not-that they are led by their own nature of itself. eHow perverse is their disposition to protest is apparent from the fact that they deliberately suppress the cause of condemnation, which they are compelled to recognize in themselves, in order to free themselves by blaming God. But though I should confess a hundred times that God is the author of it-which is very true-yet they do not promptly cleanse away the guilt that, engraved upon their consciences, repeatedly meets their eyes."
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion & 2. Ed. John T. McNeill. Trans. Ford Lewis Battles. Vol. 1. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011. Print. The Library of Christian Classics. Book III, xxii, 3.
th-cam.com/video/qRt8j08vC0E/w-d-xo.html Thanks for posting this.
You and I can agree that "ALL" means the rich, poor, masters, servants, Jews, and Gentiles, but again this does not mean every person ever born, it just means that God's elect are found in every walk of life.
Wow. A lot of people deceived by calvislam in the comments
My GOODNESS! Jerry Walls passion for destroying Calvinism makes me SOOOO HAPPY! We need more Christians like Jerry Walls to speak out against this false doctrine that is turning people into having a non-relational relationship with God.
Perhaps you would like to hear a balanced presentation?
Dodson --- We already heard the incoherent doctrines of disgrace gibberish, that's how we know they are unbiblical!
Markus Ghambari.....that's your warped Arminian opinion! This guy should read the Bible in context instead of slandering the theology found in it!
LOL there is nothing in the Bible remotely Calvinistic. Calvinists are blinded by their own false presuppositions that have nothing to do with true Biblical teaching.
You know what interesting is Jesus told the rich man to sell all his possessions and follow him. The rich man being wroth walked away knowing how great his possessions were. Sounds like Jesus gave the rich man a CHOICE.
This is not so, we could say that the first man in space is the father of space travel, but that does not mean he is the inventor of it.
Piper: “though I think I would give my life for my son’s salvation, if they would be lost to me, I would not rail against the almighty.” Mr. Piper, with all due love and respect as a brother in Christ, someone already died for your sons, and wants them as His sons, as He told us in 1 Timothy 2:3-6.
If Jesus died for those in hell, then the atonement is a miserable failure.
@@cranmer1959 Just my thoughts: It's a failure unless the purpose of the atonement was to provide atonement for sins, not to outright save. Atonement and salvation are different. Believing in his name won't save us unless there is sacrifice made. Since he died for everyone, all who refuse to believe are guilty because there WAS an atonement for them. If there wasn't atonement, it's not their fault because God didn't want them. 1 Tim 2:3-4 1 Pet 3:18 1 John 2:2 John 3:17
If God cannot save anyone without their permission, then it is not actually God who saves. You must save yourself. But the Bible teaches that not one of those who are given to Jesus by the Father will be lost. The atonement accomplishes salvation, it does not merely make salvation a contingency or possibility.
@@nachoooooo800 If Christ actually accomplishes salvation on the cross, then none of those for whom He died will perish. All who refuse to believe were and are unable to believe because they are enslaved by sin. Whom the Son makes free will be free indeed. John 3:3-8; John 8:32-34; John 10:1-25.
If the atonement does not actually save anyone, then it is merely a contingency. It's just as possible that no one will be saved at all if the atonement is not efficacious. Secondly, why atone for sins if the atonement is not actually salvific? You in effect must save yourself and God cannot actually save you. @@nachoooooo800
I don't even understand why this is still a debate. Its clear that reformed theology has been clearly taught throughout all of church history. The problem is that people have a hard time accepting a God that the bible clearly teaches and so they create a God that tickles there ears. This is called idolatry.
Sean Janiak
Actually the early church fathers believed in free will. It wasn't until Augustine around the year 400 that this doctrine came into the church. Calvin was an Augustinian. The early church fathers called it a gnostic heresy.
You should listen to Steve Gregg debate Calvinists. You may think otherwise.
Sean Janiak actually it started with Augustine
Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
So "all" has two meanings here?
Again do I need to put a qualifier and add to scripture with the words "elect"?
Do not insult my intellegence (literally speaking). What I wrote is that both views sometimes appeal to emotion. And you are the one who brought the issue up...
The Arminian always fails to realize this very important fact; God would have been just and righteous to have confined every human that has ever lived to the lake of fire for eternity. When we read the Scripture of God choosing Jacob and hating Esau, what should amaze us is not that God "hated someone", but that God " loved anyone " ( i.e. Jacob ). Anyone reading the actual Biblical account of this man Jacob knows that He was worthy of prison; not favor of God.
Sorry, I'm not amazed God loves anyone. That's part of His nature as love itself. That makes perfect sense. And for someone supposedly hated (in the modern, 21st century English vernacular use of the word) by God, Esau sure does come off as righteous in the end.
***** My point being, we are made in God's image and it's His nature to love. I'd go so far as to say God can't not love us, and I would consider that a strength.
***** If God hated the wicked, He'd hate all mankind.
+Zack Kondracki My mind isn't made up on it completely, but in instances like Psalm 5:5 and Hosea 9:15, there may be something in the use of "hate" since that meant something different at times in the ancient Hebrew culture. I will say that I don't think they're comparable to Romans 9:11-13 because the use of the word "hate" is based on their actions and sins while Romans 9:13 is said to not be based on actions and/or sins because the decision was made before they were born in that case. So even if God does mean in those OT passages that He literally hates them, that's a judgment and they didn't begin hated.
You show the depraved mind of the Calvinist. You say it is amazing that God loved any. God created us, he doesn’t love us because we’ve earned it he loves us because we are his creation. Jesus called God father. What kind of a father hates the children he Makes with his own DNA.
Not much refutation.
2Peter 3:9 does NOT say that God desires NONE should perish, it says that He desires all of the BELOVED not to perish, and NONE of them do!
Can you explain total depravity to me?
Jerry likes to be funny because that way people may miss His Man centered Gospel.
Great comment 👍
+Geoff Dick I'm replying to this comment of your's to Paul.E Tedder
"I've heard it said that no man can ever really understand God or his ways. Then others say that God gave us plenty to work with so that we can understand him. Would you say it's a bad idea to think that God is so nebulous and beyond us that we cannot ever figure it out to a level that makes a good difference?"
I have heard the same thing. I would say, yes. That is a bad, and wrong idea. I have heard the term "wholy other" to describe this and this is an unbiblica view. Now I believe that God is _other_ which would refer to His transcendence and His holiness. But to say God is _wholy_ other is to say that there are no means in this created world, whereby God communicates truths to us in a reasonable and intelligible way.
God has created the universe and everything in the universe in such a way that he communicates to us truths about Himself and about His creation (which would include us). This is why we can understand the gospel truths about God's character, our sin and separation from God, what God did in the person of Jesus Christ to redeem fallen man, and that God is going to create a new heavens and earth and there shall be no more sin.
First let me explain exactly what I mean when I tell someone that I am a "Calvinist".
When I use that word, I am merely seeking to relay a summary of the essential convictions I hold and see taught in scripture, in an immediate fashion instead of taking time to explain and go over each conviction.
I am in no way paying any attention to the person of John Calvin, merely his understanding of scripture which I believe is the correct and biblical understanding. Specifically on the doctrines of grace (soteriology).
Now, for the concise response lol
I truly and honestly believe "Calvinism", *IS* the *Word of God* _rightly divided_ as Paul says to Timothy.
+Geoff Dick Most people I talk to that disagree with the doctrines of grace, don't represent them correctly. They're attacking straw men.
+Geoff Dick
I believe these scriptures even though I can't explain how both truths are actually real and true. Here are six passages of God's word. The first three passages that clearly reveal to man God's complete sovereignty even over mans decisions, without God Himself doing evil and still allowing man to freely choose and follow his own will. The main truth that God is telling us in these passages is that the two truths cannot be higher than the other. There both equally true. The last three passages are God revealing His sovereignty and that His plan/will/decree will be done! He even contrasts His will over against the will of the nations (nations are made up of individuals) and says that His will is the one that will be accomplished.
Genesis
15When Joseph’s brothers saw that their father was dead, they said, “It may be that Joseph will hate us and pay us back for all the evil that we did to him.” 16So they sent a message to Joseph, saying, “Your father gave this command before he died: 17‘Say to Joseph, “Please forgive the transgression of your brothers and their sin, because they did evil to you.”’ And now, please forgive the transgression of the servants of the God of your father.” Joseph wept when they spoke to him. 18His brothers also came and fell down before him and said, “Behold, we are your servants.” 19But Joseph said to them, “Do not fear, for am I in the place of God? 20As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many peopleb should be kept alive, as they are today. 21So do not fear; I will provide for you and your little ones.” Thus he comforted them and spoke kindly to them.
Genesis 50:15-21
Acts
24And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, “Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, 25who through the mouth of our father David, your servant,d said by the Holy Spirit,
“‘Why did the Gentiles rage,
and the peoples plot in vain?
26The kings of the earth set themselves,
and the rulers were gathered together,
against the Lord and against his Anointed’e-
27for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.
Acts:4:24-28
Isaiah
1Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees,
and the writers who keep writing oppression,
2to turn aside the needy from justice
and to rob the poor of my people of their right,
that widows may be their spoil,
and that they may make the fatherless their prey!
3What will you do on the day of punishment,
in the ruin that will come from afar?
To whom will you flee for help,
and where will you leave your wealth?
4Nothing remains but to crouch among the prisoners
or fall among the slain.
For all this his anger has not turned away,
and his hand is stretched out still.
Judgment on Arrogant Assyria
5Woe to Assyria, the rod of my anger;
the staff in their hands is my fury!
6Against a godless nation I send him,
and against the people of my wrath I command him,
to take spoil and seize plunder,
and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.
7But he does not so intend,
and his heart does not so think;
but it is in his heart to destroy,
and to cut off nations not a
8for he says:
“Are not my commanders all kings?
9Is not Calno like Carchemish?
Is not Hamath like Arpad?
Is not Samaria like Damascus?
10As my hand has reached to the kingdoms of the idols,
whose carved images were greater than those of Jerusalem and Samaria,
11shall I not do to Jerusalem and her idols
as I have done to Samaria and her images?”
12When the Lord has finished all his work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, hea will punish the speechb of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the boastful look in his eyes. 13For he says:
“By the strength of my hand I have done it,
and by my wisdom, for I have understanding;
I remove the boundaries of peoples,
and plunder their treasures;
like a bull I bring down those who sit on thrones.
14My hand has found like a nest
the wealth of the peoples;
and as one gathers eggs that have been forsaken,
so I have gathered all the earth;
and there was none that moved a wing
or opened the mouth or chirped.”
15Shall the axe boast over him who hews with it,
or the saw magnify itself against him who wields it?
As if a rod should wield him who lifts it,
or as if a staff should lift him who is not wood!
16Therefore the Lord GOD of hosts
will send wasting sickness among his stout warriors,
and under his glory a burning will be kindled,
like the burning of fire.
17The light of Israel will become a fire,
and his Holy One a flame,
and it will burn and devour
his thorns and briers in one day.
18The glory of his forest and of his fruitful land
the LORD will destroy, both soul and body,
and it will be as when a sick man wastes away.
19The remnant of the trees of his forest will be so few
that a child can write them down.
Isaiah 10:1-19
Proverbs
4The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.
Daniel 4:34-35
34..for his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
and his kingdom endures from generation to generation; 35all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing,
and he does according to his will among the host of heaven
and among the inhabitants of the earth;
and none can stay his hand
or say to him, “What have you done?”
Romans
9For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad-in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls- 12she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
14What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16So then it depends not on human will or exertion,b but on God, who has mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
19You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory- 24even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? 25As indeed he says in Hosea,
Romans9:9-24
Calvinism is "another gospel"
Not really... "another good news" has nothing to do with Calvinism. It's certainly not good to the majority of humanity whom God might have chosen to save, but did not... Isn"t that gracious of Him?
sonlover62 z oh no it isn't salvation is by grace alone not by the WILL of man - John 1:13 "Which were born not of blood, nor of the WILL of the flesh, nor of the WILL of man, but OF GOD."
READ ROMANS 8 and ROMANS 9 - you are sadly mistaken!!!
I'm no theologian just a commoner (child) who can read and understand scripture for what it says.
Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.
44 No one is able to come to Me(believe) unless the Father Who sent Me attracts and draws him and gives him the desire to come to Me, and [then] I will raise him up [from the dead] at the last day.
65 And He said, This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless it is granted him [unless he is enabled to do so] by the Father.
66 After this, many of His disciples drew back (returned to their old associations) and no longer accompanied Him.