Calvinism has both a complicated answer and a simplistic answer. Either way, Calvinism gives a comprehensive answer to the freewill dilemma. God is good and God is in control. #fearnot
ah but what if in the end it turns out you were never 'elect' but were predestined to the other camp all along - will you still accept G.d's sovereign will, or will you rebel instead?
@@blackfalkon4189 God is good. He decisions and judgements are beyond any critique I could give. I don’t have a man centered theology. No matter what God wins.
@@pinknoise365 it's a simple question really I'll rephrase : if in the end it turns out you were not among the 'elect', will you still accept G.d's decision (submit) or will you rebel (like Lucifer did)?
Heiser says free will is required for love 🤣 heiser has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to this topic, he should stick to divine council, his teaching on predestination is horrible
For Soteriology101 @ //...why compatibilism is theologically necessary based on scripture.//: Because (1) Scripture teaches divine determinism, evidenced minimally by the biblical doctrine of infallible divine omniscience, and (2) Scripture also teaches human moral responsibility for their moral actions. Therefore, (3) Compatibilism is both biblical and true. While divine omniscience in and of itself DOES NOT determine events, it does prove that all events are determined (i.e., they cannot be other than God knew they would be in eternity before he created). The only question remaining is, "Who or what could possibly have determined all events in creation, which events God infallibly knew would occur from eternity before he created, when he was literally the only thing that existed"? Answer: Only God.
My question would be: Does God command us to do good while exhaustively determining that we don't do that. Or Does God command us to do good but we are unable within ourselves?
@@javariusjavarlamariuslamar3759God can want something and actulize something else.... Anyone who holds to libertarian free will affirm this very concept
Is the relationship of Creator vs Creature distinction a good apologetic tool. It would make it impossible for God to do evil within His creation. Also to accuse someone of making God the cause of evil, isn't that also an impossibility? A non existent category? God is good!
If God tempts no one with sin, and always provides a way out of temptation, then I cannot see how he would decree human evil. Decreeing evil seems to be far beyond tempting someone with evil. Call me a simpleton, but I really think it's that simple. Calvinism majestically swan dives into the realm of theological recklessness and insanity because it refuses to allow for any limits on what God would do.
Why don't they do a live debate with Leighton Flowers? It is very easy to answer for a recorded video and that nobody can argue with you at the moment you are speaking....
All three individuals were invited to come on and engage when this was recorded, and they did not. However, they were definitely watching and asking questions in the comments (So they could have engaged had they wanted to). Furthermore, Guillaume has engaged the best of the best on this topic in written form against proponents on the other side that are way more qualified than all three of the gentlemen he is critiquing in this video. So, this is not simply an example of sitting comfortably answering objections of non-present opponents. I can assure you he is well aware of all the objections they would raise and has ready and thorough responses to each of them. That said, that does not mean that Guillaume is right, but be sure that this discussion is not an example of trying to make things easy:)
@@RevealedApologetics I would really like to know why they were not present, if due to time or whatever the reason, in any case they asked questions and answered. It would be good if you invited him back to a debate asking him when they would be available to do it. It is not practical to debate for TH-cam comments. Thank you for your answer in the by the way.
Guillaume Bignon is absolutely brilliant, his thoughts are extremely well organized and he possesses the social communicative skills to convey his theological beliefs to a broad spectrum of people; however, in every case when you get down to the logic of the final proofs and conclusions his arguments end up defying belief, by being illogical, where they fall on their face, as is inexorably true with every Calvinist.
Bignon uses logic to build a narrative that comes to illogical conclusions; a lot of his conclusions are really just claims about assumed false assumptions that are in dispute.
@@JohnQPublic11 No examples or evidence? Seems like you are doing just what you are accusing Dr. Bignon of doing, except he was actually willing to put forth his ideas for critical evaluation.
@@douglasmcnay644 ---- It may seem that way to you but its not. When a person claims the Calvinist God is the author and determiner of everyones thoughts, beliefs and actions and yet they *ARE NOT* a muppets then that person has lost touch with reality and is spewing nonsense.
This is the question and answer portion of an interview I did with him a while back. This is not a live discussion. However, you are free to ask a question and I can be sure to get to it when I’m able to :-)
@@RevealedApologetics Here is my question. How can God require an account of someone for sin He predestined them to do? I promise this question is genuine and I sincerely want to know the answer. Edit: to put it another way. How can God punish someone for something he predestined them to do?
@@khumbomunsaka I know what the Calvinist's answer to this - God does not force anyone to do anything, they do it of their own free will. The problem is that we are evil and want to do evil, and so do it. Eli can tell me if I have this wrong.
@@khumbomunsaka you should read Guillaume's book "Excusing sinners and blaming God". He deals with this and others objections to Calvinism in a pretty convincing way to me
@@khumbomunsaka Because predestination is not incompatible with moral responsibility. God is able to predestine all things via his decree such that the actions of individuals are both determined and morally culpable. Now, I don't want to equate "predestination" with divine determinism as the term has a wide range of uses depending upon one's theological convictions on this topic. However, I come from the perspective in which I affirm the thesis that theistic determinism is true, and such determinism is not incompatible with moral responsibility. This is called Compatibilism. I also affirm that while God predestines "ends", he also predestines the "means" whereby the ends are accomplished. The ends include the free and morally responsible actions of men. (Acts 4:27-28): "For 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, to do whatever your hand and your plan "predestined" to take place." So scripture affirms that God predestines the actions of those involved in the crucifixion of Jesus and yet, they are also responsible for their sin. Now, I know there are those who disagree with this, but I do not wish to debate the issue here. My discussion with Guillaume Bignon goes into the details and folks can make their own evaluations. But for me, I affirm that there is no incompatibility between God's meticulous determiniation/predestination of all things, and moral responsibility and I remain unconvinced by the arguments put forth by those who adhere to incompatibilism/libertarianism. Hope this answers your question. But if not, you can check out my pass discussions with Guillaume and Micheal Preciado on this very topic. -Blessings!!!
@@robb7855 Thanks for the clarifications. Respectfully, I believe he did a thorough job in presenting reasons to accept compatibilism and while trying to thoroughly address some of the best objections. At the end of the day, you are unconvinced. That's fine. But being unconvinced for the reasons you remain unconvinced is not the same as him not providing responses to objections and reasons to affirm compatibilism. Thanks for sharing your opinion though. I think these discussions are super helpful even though one remains unconvinced either way:)
Calvinism has both a complicated answer and a simplistic answer. Either way, Calvinism gives a comprehensive answer to the freewill dilemma. God is good and God is in control. #fearnot
ah but what if in the end it turns out you were never 'elect' but were predestined to the other camp all along - will you still accept G.d's sovereign will, or will you rebel instead?
@@blackfalkon4189 God is good. He decisions and judgements are beyond any critique I could give. I don’t have a man centered theology. No matter what God wins.
@@pinknoise365 alrite but that doesnt answer the question
@@blackfalkon4189 Why not?
@@pinknoise365 it's a simple question really
I'll rephrase :
if in the end it turns out you were not among the 'elect', will you still accept G.d's decision (submit) or will you rebel (like Lucifer did)?
“It started with Adam…” Awesome!
Mike Heiser - 'If there is no freewill then we have no problem of evil.' Straight bullseye through the Reformed symposium on folly...
Slaves aren’t free
Of course we do. Heiser’s comment is flat out wrong.
I disagree with that assertion. And that's all it is, by itself. I'd love to see his reasoning for that.
Heiser says free will is required for love 🤣 heiser has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to this topic, he should stick to divine council, his teaching on predestination is horrible
I am reading Bignon's book "Excusing Sinners, Blaming God"
For Soteriology101 @ //...why compatibilism is theologically necessary based on scripture.//:
Because (1) Scripture teaches divine determinism, evidenced minimally by the biblical doctrine of infallible divine omniscience, and (2) Scripture also teaches human moral responsibility for their moral actions. Therefore, (3) Compatibilism is both biblical and true.
While divine omniscience in and of itself DOES NOT determine events, it does prove that all events are determined (i.e., they cannot be other than God knew they would be in eternity before he created). The only question remaining is, "Who or what could possibly have determined all events in creation, which events God infallibly knew would occur from eternity before he created, when he was literally the only thing that existed"? Answer: Only God.
Compatibilism is determinism. It’s not separate. It’s determinism disguised as free will.
@@javariusjavarlamariuslamar3759there is incompatiblistic determinism and compatibilistic determinism, you didn't watch any of the video did you?
My question would be: Does God command us to do good while exhaustively determining that we don't do that. Or Does God command us to do good but we are unable within ourselves?
God does command us to do good through his revealed will. However, we are unable to without his Grace in regenerating us.
@@gch8810 Does God determine who will be saved? Does He want all to be saved?
@@garyboulton2302 under calvanism it seems as if he doesn’t want all to be saved. See dr strattons omni argument against calvanism
@@garyboulton2302God can want something while willing a higher purpose.... Libertarian free willers literally affirm this...
@@javariusjavarlamariuslamar3759God can want something and actulize something else.... Anyone who holds to libertarian free will affirm this very concept
I was predestined to NOT be a Calvinist 😂🤣😂
Love these conversations!
Yet you're still going to be held responsible for false beliefs
It's too bad his blog isn't more active.
Though I am an ex-Calvinisticus - this is worth quoting - The problem with Calvin is that he won't admit how much God loves us - Robert Bellarmine
Is the relationship of Creator vs Creature distinction a good apologetic tool. It would make it impossible for God to do evil within His creation. Also to accuse someone of making God the cause of evil, isn't that also an impossibility? A non existent category? God is good!
If God tempts no one with sin, and always provides a way out of temptation, then I cannot see how he would decree human evil. Decreeing evil seems to be far beyond tempting someone with evil. Call me a simpleton, but I really think it's that simple. Calvinism majestically swan dives into the realm of theological recklessness and insanity because it refuses to allow for any limits on what God would do.
I can't see any strong reason to accept it.
Why don't they do a live debate with Leighton Flowers? It is very easy to answer for a recorded video and that nobody can argue with you at the moment you are speaking....
All three individuals were invited to come on and engage when this was recorded, and they did not. However, they were definitely watching and asking questions in the comments (So they could have engaged had they wanted to). Furthermore, Guillaume has engaged the best of the best on this topic in written form against proponents on the other side that are way more qualified than all three of the gentlemen he is critiquing in this video. So, this is not simply an example of sitting comfortably answering objections of non-present opponents.
I can assure you he is well aware of all the objections they would raise and has ready and thorough responses to each of them. That said, that does not mean that Guillaume is right, but be sure that this discussion is not an example of trying to make things easy:)
@@RevealedApologetics I would really like to know why they were not present, if due to time or whatever the reason, in any case they asked questions and answered. It would be good if you invited him back to a debate asking him when they would be available to do it. It is not practical to debate for TH-cam comments.
Thank you for your answer in the by the way.
This seems really interesting. I will have to check it out. Based on the description, I think I previously watched this.
Calvinism is of the devil.
Anti Calvinism is a humanistic enlightenment idea
Absolute blasphemy and contradiction.
Guillaume Bignon is absolutely brilliant, his thoughts are extremely well organized and he possesses the social communicative skills to convey his theological beliefs to a broad spectrum of people; however, in every case when you get down to the logic of the final proofs and conclusions his arguments end up defying belief, by being illogical, where they fall on their face, as is inexorably true with every Calvinist.
Prove it.
Bignon uses logic to build a narrative that comes to illogical conclusions; a lot of his conclusions are really just claims about assumed false assumptions that are in dispute.
@@JohnQPublic11 No examples or evidence? Seems like you are doing just what you are accusing Dr. Bignon of doing, except he was actually willing to put forth his ideas for critical evaluation.
@@douglasmcnay644 ---- It may seem that way to you but its not. When a person claims the Calvinist God is the author and determiner of everyones thoughts, beliefs and actions and yet they *ARE NOT* a muppets then that person has lost touch with reality and is spewing nonsense.
Do you have an argument to go with that claim?
Can we ask in the comment section?
This is the question and answer portion of an interview I did with him a while back. This is not a live discussion. However, you are free to ask a question and I can be sure to get to it when I’m able to :-)
@@RevealedApologetics Here is my question.
How can God require an account of someone for sin He predestined them to do?
I promise this question is genuine and I sincerely want to know the answer.
Edit: to put it another way.
How can God punish someone for something he predestined them to do?
@@khumbomunsaka I know what the Calvinist's answer to this - God does not force anyone to do anything, they do it of their own free will. The problem is that we are evil and want to do evil, and so do it. Eli can tell me if I have this wrong.
@@khumbomunsaka you should read Guillaume's book "Excusing sinners and blaming God". He deals with this and others objections to Calvinism in a pretty convincing way to me
@@khumbomunsaka Because predestination is not incompatible with moral responsibility. God is able to predestine all things via his decree such that the actions of individuals are both determined and morally culpable.
Now, I don't want to equate "predestination" with divine determinism as the term has a wide range of uses depending upon one's theological convictions on this topic. However, I come from the perspective in which I affirm the thesis that theistic determinism is true, and such determinism is not incompatible with moral responsibility. This is called Compatibilism.
I also affirm that while God predestines "ends", he also predestines the "means" whereby the ends are accomplished. The ends include the free and morally responsible actions of men.
(Acts 4:27-28): "For 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, to do whatever your hand and your plan "predestined" to take place."
So scripture affirms that God predestines the actions of those involved in the crucifixion of Jesus and yet, they are also responsible for their sin.
Now, I know there are those who disagree with this, but I do not wish to debate the issue here. My discussion with Guillaume Bignon goes into the details and folks can make their own evaluations. But for me, I affirm that there is no incompatibility between God's meticulous determiniation/predestination of all things, and moral responsibility and I remain unconvinced by the arguments put forth by those who adhere to incompatibilism/libertarianism.
Hope this answers your question. But if not, you can check out my pass discussions with Guillaume and Micheal Preciado on this very topic. -Blessings!!!
Ask him how to motivate compatibilism.
This is not alive discussion. It is a portion of our Q&A segment of a much longer conversation we had a while back.
@@RevealedApologetics ooh. That's where he didn't do that at all.
@@robb7855 Hm. Not sure what you are getting at. What do you mean by “motivate compatibilism?” Thanks.
@@RevealedApologetics Motivate, meaning give reasons to accept or overcome objections.
@@robb7855 Thanks for the clarifications. Respectfully, I believe he did a thorough job in presenting reasons to accept compatibilism and while trying to thoroughly address some of the best objections. At the end of the day, you are unconvinced. That's fine. But being unconvinced for the reasons you remain unconvinced is not the same as him not providing responses to objections and reasons to affirm compatibilism. Thanks for sharing your opinion though. I think these discussions are super helpful even though one remains unconvinced either way:)