Dear Mike, I can only hope that you will see this, but I appreciate your honesty and dedication to keeping the peace, in what could have been a heated debate. I'm also grateful for the joy you have while covering a sensitive topic. You truly set a good example in confrontation, on how to be gentile and wield Gods word with care. I thank God for all the great work he is doing through you, and I wish you many great years in fruitful ministry! I have been walking with Christ for almost 3 years, and the thing I have wrestled with the most (theologically speaking) is whether or not Calvinism accurately represents the truth. While I admire the boldness, commitment to scripture, wisdom, and firm faith that I see in many Calvinist teachers and preachers. Something didn't feel right about the theological system. However, I didn't want to follow my feelings alone, so I would describe my position as "not quite a Calvinist." But after watching this video I can confidently say, that I love my Calvinist brothers and sisters, I am glad we share the same hope and salvation, but I do not subscribe to the same theological system. This was a very important dilemma for me to sort out, because the gravity of what being a Calvinist Christian means can change how you interact with non-believers, and how you view God in his purpose for salvation. All of this in a way, I thought, opened the door to a sort of spiritual elitism. God bless, and thanks again for all you do!
God bless you brother! I had the same feelings too, but when a system of theology cannot be simply explained by the Scriptures and we have to take verses out of context or change definitions to fit our system then our system is wrong! I pray you continue to grow in grace and knowledge of the Lord brother! 🙂
Mike, one of the most important aspects of your ministry (both in terms of being godly/loving and in terms of having genuine ethos that stands a chance of convincing anyone of anything) is that you do thought-out, measured response videos like this. So many Christian TH-camrs just do the thing where they watch the video, pause it when they wanna say something, comment/ramble about it for a few minutes, play the video, and repeat. Your not going off the top of your head provides your videos so much persuasive power, I think. Seeing you model this has played a huge role is my learning to disagree in a loving way (and to be more persuasive by being calm, reasonable, and specific).
josh portie CONTEXT. That was said with respect to being persecuted and brought before the courts of unbelievers. It was NOT saying you should never use critical thinking or reply with a well thought out response.
I couldn't agree more, Judah. The beautiful thing is that when I watch these, I learn just as much about responding to criticism with love and grace as I do about theology, and that is something admirable and extremely rare these days. Keep up the good work in the Lord, Mike. God bless you.
I chanced upon your podcast a year ago when I was hospitalised. It was an eye opener and the 7 nights passed by very quickly . You are truly a gifted and humble teacher. I thank God for the day I found your channel
You are absolutely right! I was taught to interpret God’s Word like you do in this video. It seems like all the TH-camrs I’ve been finding are Calvinists. So refreshing to find this video. I will show this to my son. He is 21 and seeking truth. We raised him in church and he loves God, but he’s struggling to know what to believe because he hears so many different takes on what the Bible means.
Pastor Mike, thank you for setting my mind at ease with this topic. I’ve only learned of Calvinism recently (I’m a newer Christian) and the thought of some being predestined to hell seemed very unlike the one true God I’m learning about. After watching your arguments, Calvinism seems to only make sense if you come to the scripture with the thought of trying to prove Calvin’s points and stretch a few passages while completely ignoring many other that talk about the atonement for all. I appreciate the in-depth dive into this topic and look forward to watching more of your videos!
If no one is pre-destined to hell than that means there is either no Hell or people can over power God! If God is not sovereign, than God is not God? And the existence of Hell and the fact that most people will be in Hell not heaven is made very clear all throughout scripture. Narrow is the way.
@@christianpolitics260 No. You need to think more deeply about this and try to understand what scripture teaches, and get away from what Calvinism has taught you. Of course God is sovereign. Sovereign means king. God is over all. That does not mean He controls everything that happens. Pride and lust are not from the Father, and He does not tempt anyone. There are quick, simple examples that the Calvinistic idea of sovereignty is clearly wrong. The only people that are destined for hell, are those that are condemned. Jesus says in John 3 that if you do not believe in the son, you are condemned already. But in John 6, we see that the will of the Father is that those who look to the son and believe will have eternal life. We see that He gave Himself as a ransom for all men, and that God wants all to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. Hell and judgement is reserved for those who choose to suppress the truth in unrighteousness and trade it in for a lie. Before you were a believer, you were destined for hell, and now, you're not. From the foundation of the world, God has set up reality so that the faithful in Christ were destined to be saved, to be conformed to the image of the son. He has placed before us life and death, and He wants us all to choose life, and we all can.... but not all of us will. I pray that you would let scripture shape your thinking on this.
@@christian_gamer_guy6447 This is such a well stated reply. I was considering replying to @ChristianPolitics to note several wrong assumptions in his argument (such as it was). I think you covered them succinctly.
@@christianpolitics260 you’re mistaking foreknowledge with predetermination. God gives us free will, he knows what choices we’ll make before we make them, but that doesn’t’ mean God destined some for Hell. How can an all knowing, all good and all powerful God create a world with such evil? Simple because of free will. Calvinist’s entire world view denies free will.
That final word you had about brotherly unity and acting graciously towards each other, even in disagreement is exactly what we need right now. God bless, man. Learned a lot from this.
I have an honest question: How do I keep unity with a doctrine that attacks the very core principles of the faith? This doctrine is growing rapidly and it has been destructive to so many people. I know there are brothers and sisters who are Calvinists so I don't know how to balance this situation. I'm in agreement that everything needs to be done in love regardless and I do not WANT to divide, but the Calvinist and non calvinist views on gospel issues are like oil and water. Maybe that is not so, but I'm finding it hard to see otherwise. I don't want to have to divide with the people but I don't know how to not divide with the doctrine? HELP!
Loves2HugItOut Tough question honestly. Calvinism actually gave me a lot of doubts when I first encountered it, so I DO think the tenants can have a lot of adverse effects. But we have to remember that both Calvinists and non-calvinists are seeking biblical truth. They have, in my estimation, a flawed view of the atonement but it isn't a sin to be wrong. They aren't trying to be malicious or warp text, they're trying to interpret scripture truthfully. Just try to give their intentions the benefit of the doubt. Also, you probably already know this but it's worth repeating: The Calvinism debate is non-essential to salvation. This means two things. One, your salvation isn't in jeopardy when falling on either side of the issue. And two, Calvinists are your brothers and sisters no matter what. We'll be seeing them in heaven so treating them with love is a necessity. We should be praying about it too. Not praying that Calvinism would go away, but that God would reveal to us biblical truth. It could turn out that Calvinism is true. If it is true, I pray that God would reveal that. And if it isn't, I pray that God would reveal that to the Calvinists of the world and that they would begin to teach sound doctrine. In the end, we have to love one another no matter what. This doesn't mean we shouldn't address wrong theology.
Quick Attack Films this is an absolute lie. It is very much a salvation issue. Calvinists flat out call God a liar and refuse to accept His word. If I had remained true to the reformed theology I grew up with I never would’ve sought Jesus and never would’ve been saved.
First of all, what I said is "an absolute lie?" I'm trying to deceive you? Not the case. Second, no. Believing God determines everything doesn't damn one to hell. Third, Calvinists CAN'T deny biblical essentials like how to act and how to be saved. And they don't... for the most. There are always people on the fringes, no matter the biblical position that don't act in accordance with the bible. For instance, people brought up to Jeff Durbin whether they need to evangelize because of God's determinations. He basically said "Of course you need to! Because that's what the Bible says to do." Respectfully, I think you have a warped view of calvinism brought on by the extreme views held by either the people around you or maybe the people you've seen online. To summarize, the idea of calvinism may be flawed theology, but it's surely isn't damnable theology.
@Mike Winger Thank you for your teaching and thorough walkthrough of scripture. One of my best friends recently became a Calvinist. He began to challenge our group of friends during our weekly Bible study. His challenges increased our need to dive into scripture and understand God more fully in order to respond. I greatly appreciate your vidoes. They have helped all of us understand scripture with more accuracy and consistency than ever before.
One thing I really appreciate about Mike is his willingness to admit that he could be wrong. You will never hear James White or other ultra-educated Calvinist show that kind of humility. God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble
Saying you're open to being wrong is not the standard of humility. Christ is the standard. The most Christ like and humble men I know are Reformed in their theology.
I do not believe that those who support the doctrine of ELECTION are spiritually proud FOLLOWERS of KING 👑 YAHSHUA HAMASHIACH. We could say exactly the SAME for non-Calvinist - perhaps more proud than "Calvinist" I wouldn't call myself a "Calvinist" at face value but more of a Bible believing FOLLOWER of YAHSHUA HAMASHIACH.😱😱😱🙏🙏🙏🙏
I wish he would actually read all of 2nd Peter before pulling a verse out of context to suit his personal preferences. If you read 2Peter3:9 in context, you would have had questions at around 29:40 in the video when Mike pondered confusedly that when God is being patient toward "*YOU*" in 2Peter3:9, Calvinists teach that Peter is speaking of the Elect but he waves his hands and poo-poos such a notion. Where could that crazy idea come from? Bereans who actually read the rest of 2 Peter might point to chapter 1: 10 Therefore, *BROTHERS*, be all the more diligent to confirm *YOUR* calling and election. Peter is writing to the Elect (just as He did in his first letter - 1Peter1:1). Who besides the “Elect” would be interested in confirming their “election?” This is not complicated. This is 6th grade reading comprehension. Peter is telling the family of God that God is being patient for their sake in delaying Jesus' return. Peter has just spent a chapter and a half railing against *THEM* (the unbelievers) to warn the Elect about listening to them and falling for their crap. 2Peter is a riff on Psalm 73, which also recommends taking the longer view instead of envying the wicked, who often seem insulated from the persecution and suffering that Peter's readers were dealing with. If 2Peter3:9 were speaking from a human point of view, Peter would have said that Jesus has not returned because God is being patient with *THEM*. But it doesn't, because Peter doesn't ever ever ever speak of God's love for "them" in his letter. Speaking from God's eternal viewpoint, Peter only repeats the point that judgment is coming for *THEM* - to God, *THEY* are only like wild animals, born to be caught and destroyed - as Peter is warning the Elect (*YOU*) in his letter to avoid being misled or discouraged by *THEM.* So 2Peter3:9 is just reminding Christians who are suffering that Jesus' delay is only motivated by His love for all of His people, including those who have not been born or accepted Him within space and time. He will return when the last of His sheep have come to faith. As 2Peter3:15 says, "count the patience of our Lord as salvation." Not the optimistic hopes of maybes and possibilities but as Jesus securing the actual salvation of His sheep, whom He knows by name.
I’m glad you and Jimmy went skydiving together, but I noticed you didn’t remember your parachutes, so I must say seeing you here is a surprise and more evidence of God’s miraculous power!
Hi Mike! My husband and I thoroughly enjoyed your clear teaching today. We have only discovered your TH-cam channel and are blown away with how articulate you speak on God’s word. You are truly blessed and are blessing us. Thank you! We are now doing your Mark series and will be submitting questions on your Friday Q&A which starts at 8am here in Australia. God bless! Constance (and Peter)
I've had a couple of Jew's, tell me; Jesus only came for them. And Gentiles were Jew's who were the "world." Not gonna lie, it did get to me and I questioned it. But, thankfully my precious grandpa, who is now with the Lord reassured me, it's EVERYONE. Yes, He came to the Jew's first, but then also to the rest of the world!
Everyone descended from Adam.... We're all cousins by blood..... Jesus is the uniter of all mankind except for those who refuse him as the Messiah... God will not be mocked, every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Yahoshua Hamashiac/Jesus the Messiah is Lord and Savior!
Mike, I am so amazed at your ability to be accommodating to those who misinterpret you! You are really gracious to them and that is such a godly position to make. It is not that easy either! When writing a response to people in these threads, I ask Holy Spirit what to write, then wait for him to give me permission to respond and quite often I end up not responding at all, because by the time I've gotten a sense of what to say, I've gotten the sense that it's not worth saying!
Thank you so much for this Brother Mike. I did not know that limited atonement was Calvinism until couple of years back. We were always taught based on the texts from Matthew 20:28...But now thanks to God he has given much more insight. I can understand the heart of the Father. Thank you so much. Watching it way later but edified in Christ. I trust when we meet with him in eternity even all this will become more clear..
Lunch, hiking, Disneyland and sky diving?!?!! Mike, you are such a wonderful friend..lol I just enjoy your sense of humor; but, also your desire to prioritize what is important in life. You are definately a gift to the Christian community.. I thank God for your desire to build and uplift not only the church but also those who who may yet come to faith by Jesus.
@ 27:29 Winger says “God leaves it up to your will” in reference to being saved. Interestingly, Jesus’s talk with Nicodemus and Nicodemus asked him who could be saved, why didn’t Jesus tell him “it’s up to your will” ? Where exactly does the Bible teach “it’s up to your will?” The Bible says it’s the opposite of your will …Romans 9:16 [16] So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.
Revelations 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. IF ANYONE should hear My voice and open the door, THEN I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me
@@rickhuntling7338 shut up you brainwashed calvinist. Stop saying God can act immorally to protect his sovereignty, not how that works. You people are insane
There are literally 100’s of verses in the overall Calvinist debate and this isn’t one of them. On the atonement there are a lot fewer and Mike covered a good many of them.
I did a little research (barely scratched the surface if I’m being honest) on Calvinism vs Arminianism a few years ago, and your videos popped up. I’ve watched ever since and am so grateful because you’ve helped me think biblically about every issue, and to truly test the words of either legalistic, progressive, or just plain false teachings. So grateful for you Mike!!
Thank you for this video! My husband and I are on a road trip, and we've now spent a couple of hours listening to your videos specifically about calvinism. Very thought-provoking and educational. We appreciate your analysis and looking at all of scripture to teach the truth of Christ dying for the world.
Why buy something if you know the person isn't going to like it, want it, or appreciate it? If you know you will have to throw it away or return it, why not just get them something they do want...if you know. God made some for eternal life, and some for destruction. Who are you to judge God for His creations?
@@jackslapp9073 free will? Are you talking about the idea that God isn't 100% sovereign and that reality plays out independently of God's will? Where did i say Moses judged God? Im talking about what Paul said.
Haha. Amazing how I read this comment while watching and was really confused that I didn't hear him say that, then 5 seconds later I'm at that point in the video. Chronological comments
Amazing video, thank you so much for breaking this down. The subject of Atonement is important to understand and I was having a hard time reconciling these two ideas and you made it clear. As a relatively new believer I was brought into the Calvinist doctrines from the start and I'm so glad to have found such an informative video that covers the differences of thought. God bless you for the work you do TY.
I was a calvinist, but while there is some verses I’m not sure how to explain regarding election and free will, but God clearly says His desire is for all men to be saved. I couldn’t reconcile this verse into a limited calvinist box, God clearly desires all men to be saved. Election, Being chosen in eternity past, all of these truths must also align with Gods desire. And He gave His Son for the world. Again you can’t just say God’s desire is for… SOME to be saved. The verse says all.
I'm afraid you're making a serious mistake by applying a universal meaning to the word "all". It actually ends up making the Bible nonsensical mess. The word "all" (just as "everyone" or "all men", etc.) has a context, and that context cannot contradict the rest of Scripture. Firstly, you must always ask "All of what?" Is it "all without exception" or "all without distinction"? It has to be one of those two in each passage. And in fact, you have to be able to determine this sometimes within the same passage, and it cannot be arbitrary, or else again, you're contradicting other Scripture, and that's a No-No. Rom 3:23-24 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." So ALL have sinned, and ALL are justified. While part one is universal, part two is not, for it begs the question EVEN THE UNREPENTANT? The real question is ALL OF WHAT? However, the people who believe in universal salvation look at that verse and say "See?! All have sinned BUT all are justified free by God's grace -- Universal salvation!" But you and I and Mike know this is not the teaching of Scripture. The question you must ask yourself is this -- Does God help sinners to save themselves, or does God saves sinners by Himself? This might sound like a ridiculous question for a legitimate Christian who knows that their works played no part in their salvation, but think of this -- What is the difference between you and the other person who heard the same Gospel, and instead of believing upon the Lord Jesus, was offended and went deeper into their sin and idolatry? Why did YOU believe and THEY did not? Is the difference IN you or from WITHOUT you?
@@stegokitty Christ died and we are given a choice. Their is only one way into heaven, and that is through Grace. It's a gift, and the gift can only be received. We don't do anything to get into heaven, we just believe and get everything He ever earned! Why don't Calvinists stop at the word Whosoever in John 3:16?
@@jaxsonfanta5420 I noticed that you didn't address what I said, but went on to another related issue. Do you, or do you not concur that we must be careful in how we interpret "all" and other such words in the Scriptures (or anywhere for that matter), lest we come away with ideas that are utterly foreign to the meaning of the Scriptures? Just so you know, I can provide for you a plethora of other Bible verses that show the fact that "all" almost never means "everyone without exception" but rather "everyone generally" or "everyone without distinction". So I will be glad to touch base with your follow up comments, if you'll kindly respond to what I said and presented as an example of why "all" doesn't mean "every single person without exception". Thanks in advance.
@@stegokitty All doesn't always mean everyone all the time, but in the context I was speaking of in the original verse John 3:16 the whosoever is the word I am most concerned with. Every knee will bow and every tongue confess... Does that mean there is a special group of people that this verse isn't referencing that won't be bowing the knee when Christ returns? In the case of John 3:16 you have to change the meaning of the verse to make it say something other than what it is explicitly saying, which is that whoever puts their faith in Christ is saved, whoever doesn't is not saved. 'All of those who put their faith in Christ' shall be saved is perhaps an easier way of saying it so we are both on the same page. How predestination works itself into this is beyond me, lol... While all doesn't always just mean the word all, it does in this context, and this verse certainly doesn't say anything different than that lest we add to scripture, which I have seen Calvinists do to this verse to fit their predestination mold.
@@jaxsonfanta5420 //All doesn't always mean everyone all the time ... // Yes, it does. It means everyone IN the context of what is being said. //... but in the context I was speaking of in the original verse John 3:16 the whosoever is the word I am most concerned with. I'm not sure why you're stuck on "whosoever" as if it makes any difference. Whosoever means "anyone" or "everyone" and it means "anyone" or "everyone". Everyone who trusts in the Name of the Lord shall indeed be saved. Who the heck ever said anything differently? There's not a Calvinist on the planet who denies that ANYONE who believes upon the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved. So why are you pretending that this is the case? The question concerning the Doctrines of Grace is asking the question why does one person believe and another person disbelieve? Just as I asked you in my first response, and it appears that you dodged it, I'll ask you again. WHY did you believe and the other bloke sitting on the same pew heard the same Gospel and thought it was as attractive as a frontal lobotomy? From where comes the DIFFERENCE? The difference is EITHER something that is inherently in you, something more noble, more wise, less sinful perhaps, than was in the other person who disbelieved. OR the difference is from OUTSIDE of you -- something that was done TO you, by God, that was not done to the person who disbelieved. You were both unbelieving idolators of one sort or another (you're not going to deny this are you?) and you both heard the Gospel. You believed, and he didn't. WHY? Either you're a better person than the other person or God gave you a grace He didn't give to the other person. Please answer this question. //Every knee will bow and every tongue confess... Does that mean there is a special group of people that this verse isn't referencing that won't be bowing the knee when Christ returns?// I highly doubt that. I think even the souls in Hell will have to admit that Jesus Christ is Lord. They will know their guilt before the infinite, eternal, and unchangeable God, and have not even a shadow of doubting it. They will bend the knee just the same as those who are ushered into everlasting blessedness. Does that help? //In the case of John 3:16 you have to change the meaning of the verse to make it say something other than what it is explicitly saying, which is that whoever puts their faith in Christ is saved, whoever doesn't is not saved.// Again, no Calvinist changes anything in that verse. Perhaps some new person to Calvinism who hasn't understood things properly -- like the one who go about saying "We don't have free will" .... which is only half true, and we should talk about that later since it's directly connected to the necessity of sovereign grace, but it's also half false. So new Calvinists should not go around saying that. //'All of those who put their faith in Christ' shall be saved is perhaps an easier way of saying it so we are both on the same page.// Already established and as you can see, I'm wholeheartedly in agreement with you. NO ONE IS LEFT OUT if they believe upon the Lord Jesus. //How predestination works itself into this is beyond me, lol... // Well that's precisely the point isn't it? Now I'm not claiming to have all knowledge of how predestination works, and I'm glad that you didn't speak as if predestination was not a Biblical doctrine. However, predestination is precisely the reason why one person believes and the other doesn't. See, I believe you're not interpreting John 3:16 simply as "everyone who believes shall be saved" but rather, and you may correct me if I'm wrong here but ... I believe you're forcing a meaning onto "whosoever" that is waaaaaayyy more than "everyone". I believe you're applying super-powers to "whoseover" -- that people who are still DEAD in their sins, enemies of God, opposed to the things of God -- that these people, by the almighty power of their fallen wills, have the ability to turn from their sins (which they love, and will defend to their deaths ... which you can see by the insane things that abortion advocates and transgender folks and atheists saying all the more these days) unto Christ, whom they LOATHE (though they don't mind the idol "Jesus" they've invented in their wicked imaginations) in saving faith, repenting of their sins (which they deny are sins), repenting of their self-righteousness (a label which they try to pin on you and me, when it's actually they who are self-righteous), and turning from their idols (which they love, love, love, love, love!) and trusting in Christ .... whom they do not trust. Do you see the problem here? //While all doesn't always just mean the word all, it does in this context, // See above. //and this verse certainly doesn't say anything different than that lest we add to scripture, which I have seen Calvinists do to this verse to fit their predestination mold.// Any Calvinist that has to manipulate Scripture to fit into a predestination mold doesn't really know what he ought to know. I can guarantee you that there will be no Scripture manipulation by me. I will absolutely demand that you consider the context AND that you remember that one verse cannot contradict another. And if you're willing to abide by that, and if you're willing to participate, I'd like to challenge you to go through a study of Calvinism with me.
This is a particular helpful presentation. Mike! I love your videos, and don’t always comment, but I also love the attitude with which you share these. The fellowship you share with those you have disagreements with is an example to everyone. I find you research and interpretations very biblical and thoughtful. Thanks so very much. I’m subscribed and get notified when you post new videos. I remember the shock I felt when I first heard of some of these Calvinist doctrines. I’ll try to listen to the others you listed.
@Jason Koemans Calvinism doesn't posit that God is any less sovereign for all man's decisions, as long as it's understood that nothing God does is ultimately dependent on man's decisions.
Mike, thanks for the work you put into this. I am no theologian but I know many Calvinists so you've helped me immensely with my understanding of Calvinism. I sat down with a Calvinist pastor and had him explain the TULIP doctrine to me. I asked a lot of questions, many he couldn't answer with scripture. He said he would provide me with scriptural answers but never did. In 2 Peter 3:9 the Calvinist view of God not wanting "any" of the "elect" to perish rather than simply any at all seems to refute the I in TULIP, Irresistible Grace. If God elects you for salvation, you cannot resist and therefore cannot perish. At least that's the way it seems to me. Love your ministry, God is using you in a profound way during these times of false teachers.
Thanks for the music. And I so appreciate your teaching about Calvism. I've never thought that it was right. But you are helping me understand it better and also to be able to talk about it more knowledgeably. I also really appreciate how you don't believe in dividing from and judging other believers over secondary issues!
Mike, I agree completely!! Very well done brother. You covered a tough topic with love, grace and wisdom. You went to the great passages that our brothers cannot refute. They simply ignore them. If it helped I would stand and cheer you! Thank you.
1) The non-elect individual is commanded to believe in the Gospel or be damned. 2) "The Gospel" = Jesus died for your sins. 3) But according to Limited Atonement, Jesus didn't really die for the non-elect. 4) Thus, non-elect are told to believe Jesus died for them when He in fact did not. 5) Thus, the non-elect is not legitimately given an option to accept, and thus cannot be damned because the offer wasn't even genuine. He is being damned for not accepting God's lie to him! Conclusion: Limited Atonement is false, which in turn means Calvinism is false.
You just gave an argument for Calvinism. The parable of Lazarus and the richman has two sides of hell "Abraham's bossom aka paradise Torment the richman's side" before the Gospel was confirmed. If all sin was paid for the wicked are set free. JESUS emptied only the paradise side of hell, the richman's side waits the lake of fire. Ps. 1 the wicked will not stand with the righteous on judment day because the believers sin have been erased and forgotten.
Those who do not believe are condemned already, not after they have been presented and reject the Gospel. Jesus died for all, but the payment is only applied to accounts of believers, otherwise everyone is saved. Therefore the atonement or the payment is only applicable to some accounts. And is therefore limited. This applies to all versions of Christ based salvation except universalism.
Calvanist are right to a point we are called according to his elect but then Jesus did not die for only elect or believers. Jesus died for non believes too . Redemption is a free gift but not everyone will receive it because there is a Satan seed which has been planted since long ago.
@@pskima4274so JESUS died and paid for the sins of satan's seed? Howabout the potter made some vessels to contain glory and some vessels were meant for destruction is HIS will? Knowing the end from the begining is part of HIS title Alpha and the Omega. HE planed for you before you were born and before the foundations of the earth were laid. ✝❤
The teaching is very well done. Enough biblical references and good reasoning. I like your humility and teachability. I do not support Calvinism and I never knew how to 'argue' against it. You have taught me a lot, Mr. Winger.
I appreciate how patient Mike has been in addressing the shortcomings of Calvinism. Calvinism is a contrivance and a credal system that seeks to render scripture contrary to the theoretical framework it represents as misunderstood. Whenever you require that a great body of scripture be discounted in order to put forth your own theological viewpoint, then you are on shifting sand.
🎵 A mighty fortress is our God, a bulwark never failing🎶 Jesus also said He came to seek and to save the lost (Luke 19:10). Jesus also said He came not for the righteous, but the unrighteous (Matthew 9:13). So wouldn't it stand to reason that Jesus came for everyone, just from the theology in those passages? Since even the elect were both lost and unrighteous before they know Christ, and therefore even more so for everyone else
As I am listening to this, I wonder: Why do I enjoy this dealing with questions I never had and never came in touch with? Maybe it just gives me joy listening about God.
Truth matters, there is one truth or there is no truth. There is one Biblical truth or nothing is true. When we read Scripture through the lense of denominational doctrine instead of reading the Scripture and letting that Scripture stand on it's own merit through proper Hermeneutics we risk falling into false doctrines. So one should ask when a teaching is presented "What does the Bible say regarding this and what is the context of that Scripture when it was written?" Now read your Bible and find God's truth! God bless!
Chris Holman I completely agree. however, even Jehovah Witnesses will say exactly what you’re saying in order to state what they say is true...Regardless of their teachings being from the Watch Tower.
@@defiance1790 First thing, I apologize for the novel, bare with me for a moment. That is a good point. I have learned that when I need to find the truth in the Word of God that I should ask myself a set of questions and find the answers to those questions. That being: 1. Who wrote it 2. Who was it written to 3. What is the subject being discussed. 4. What did it mean at the time it was written and it's relevance at that time. 5. How is it then relevant to us today. If I can accurately answer these questions I will find the truth in His word. There is a term for this process, it's call Exegesis. At this point this has become natural for me to do. One should never attempt to apply a modern interpretation to Scripture written thousands of years ago that it could not possibly mean. What matters is what the Scripture meant when it was written. Groups like Jehovah Witnesses could not arrive at the conclusions that they do if they applied proper Exegesis. An example of Scripture missused and misinterpreted is Psalm 105:15, also found in 1st Chronicles 16. "Touch not my annointed..." Many use this Scripture to mean "never question or challenge your pastor." If your Pastor says this immediately get up and leave, he will be a controlling Pastor setting himself up as the center of a cult of personality. What this Scripture was referring to as the "annointed" is God's chosen people as a whole. We are now grafted into the vine. So the relevance to us today is that we as children of God fall under His protection. Another example is Isaiah 14:12 but that is a very long topic on it's own. One thing I would like to note is the phenomenon of Linguistic Drift. The meaning of words change over time that is why I believe, and many agree with me, that it is important to look at the root Greek and Hebrew as well as the meaning of the words chosen at the time the Bible was translated into that edition. Many words found in the KJV are no longer used outside of the KJV so many people have no idea what they mean, particularly new Christians and non believers. In my opinion most Scripture does not require to be dissected like this, they are quite clear on what is being said. I hope this helps and further clarifies what I was trying to say. God Bless!
@@exploringtheologychannel1697 Exactly! In addition to diligently searching for truth we must all have civil dialogue as well. A true seeker of truth will be willing to admit when they have been proven wrong and accept the truth as it has been revealed. I admit that at one time in my life I did not do this. God Bless!
I'm soo glad for this video!!! Sooo good . My soul told me this is what God meant. So glad you did the hard work!! One thing more: how could Jesus' sacrifice not pay for the whole world? Of course his life would atone for every sin, its value was infinite. Except somebody reject it and not "cash" it. To that person only it would not avail. The value is there, the payment was made, it was despised, disdained. From Argentina. THANKS
@@BloodBoughtMinistries in one of his debates (white) he told God would be lacking something if he would want to save everyone but couldn't in reality, therefore he have to predestine everything so he keeps his sovereignity. It's like demanding something of God so he can be your God.
Christ died for His sheep john 10. But they were ungodly that's why we need His blood. Now go read john 10 very carefully and listen as Jesus clearly tells some jews He is laying His life down for His sheep and that they are not His sheep... Ie He is not giving His life for them. We can fit all scriptures in their original language into our understanding you can not but must ignore some. So 😥
Thank you Mike. Your defense of unlimited atonement was solid to me. I, too, am not a Calvinist but was trained in seminary as one. I looked at the scriptures that you presented, you have to twist them to make them to mean limited atonement. If Jesus did not die for everyone, how can we genuinely offer the invitation to someone we are witnessing to and tell them that Christ died for you! We can only say that may be God died for you if you are one of God’s elects.
That has always been a sticking point for me as well, which is difficult because my husband and church leaders lean strongly Calvinist (although it’s rarely taught outright in church). Our pastor says “this has been a disagreement in the church for 500 years & we’re not going to settle it today.”
That's exactly how I see it. If I offered $100 to all who came to my house and only a few showed up that's the fault of the ones who missed out. The offer still stands. Just because they didn't believe doesn't mean I didn't offer.
My biggest problem with Calvinism is that it is based on a "logical system of thought" that requires the Word of God to be redefined according to their "system." The Word of God must define and outline our position, never the reverse. I also know, from having spent time in conversation with Calvinists, that they deny this, and simply proclaim that I don't understand.
So yes we require that our theology be logically sound because, important note, if it literally doesn't make sense then you can't make any sense of it and you don't have a theology at all :-) Now on to your lack of honesty. Is Calvinism based on "a logical system of thought"? No. It is based on the bible and what it says. The clue is that it is a systematic theology not a philosophy 🙂 I think you must know this and are being dishonest, especially so because (by your own admission) you have been corrected many times. Is dishonesty, straw manning and refusing to be corrected by others about what they believe the right way for a Christian to behave? No, it is not. Let me tell you what your biggest problem is, sin. That's your biggest problem here too. Let's imagine you are an Arminian, and not a full on Pelagian, and clarify your position as indicated by your post. 1) You have a problem with logical systems of thought 2) You are so right that you know what people believe better than they do 3) You think arrogance and dishonesty are acceptable ways to behave 4) Your theology teaches that consistent wilful sin will make you unsaved 5) Only point 1 prevents the conclusion that you are going to hell But let's examine your theology and see why you might not like logical schools of thought. 1) You believe that Jesus bore the whole penalty for every sin for everyone that ever lived 2) That didn't fully atone for them and God requires something else in addition to that 3) What God requires is that they believe that this is true 4) If we don't believe it is true then even though it is true that Jesus paid the price for every single sin that anyone ever committed God will act like it isn't 5) God is truly just I can see why you might prefer illogical thought. If I'm wrong then there isn't any point telling me because it will be based on an illogical system of thought and therefore I won't be able to understand it. Mike's a good guy generally but on the Charismatic nonsense and his rejection of Reformed Theology he is hopeless.
@@Phill0old Arminianism is Diet Calvinism. Presenting it as the only real other choice outside of works based salvation is a false dichotomy. God draws all, all can reject God’s call, those that accept the call of God and place their faith in Christ and repent of their sins will find salvation. Faith is not a work. If you claim that unless God forces me to have faith then my faith is a work is not found in scripture. Faith in God is presented in scripture as the reason we can’t boast.
@@ChristianZangief I would never present it as a dichotomy because there is at least one other kind of semi Pelagian theology and full on Pelagianism. So it would be neither correct nor honest to do so. Since I'm a Christian honesty is important to me. You, on the other hand, present the idea that in Reformed theology faith is forced on people. Now that isn't true so either you don't know what you are talking about and should have kept quiet until you understood it you are not honest. Ignorance or dishonesty appear to be the only options here, unless you are insane? So which is it? Are you mad? Ignorant? Or a liar? For a proper understanding of how and why people are saved I refer readers to the Bible where they will find that people are chosen, selected and blessed by God in special ways and the rest are not so blessed but are left to their own desires.
@@ChristianZangief Just over tiny issue with the idea that God calls all. You didn't say what God calls all people to. You didn't explain why God calling them means that they can do what they are called to do or why they would be so inclined. Could you clear that up? Since you are stating that the Bible makes those claims it should be an easy thing....
@@Phill0old you’re claiming that in reformed theology the elect can choose not to be the elect? If not then their faith is forced on them from God. If so then they have freewill to reject God and some will. So which is it? God draws all to him but He allows us to either accept or reject his call. My phone can ring but I can choose not to answer it.
Thank you for affirming something I have thought for a long time. The bible clearing talks about some people being predestined for good works, for ministry, but it also talks about salvation being for all men. Since it has BOTH I believe in both.
Thanks, Mike. 1. Election is not about individual salvation. It is about duty/service to which all believers are called, hence the term, "the elect". 2. There is no RECONCILIATION without REPENTANCE. Believing without repentance is the same as acknowledging the free gift of salvation without accepting it.
This I agree. Calvinism says (afaik) God has chosen people from the beginning who will be saved and who will be damned; thus our fate is sealed whether we're saved or damned. This interpretation is hilariously wrong. A more accurate understanding would be God chose to save those who would choose to be saved. Jesus knocks on our doors; we can choose to let Him in or not (Rev 3:20).
I can stay calm about Calvinism on paper, but when I see some of the ways it destroys people I know, work with, or live with....then I get passionate against it. Well...after further thought(lol), I also get passionate when I think about how Calvinism ruins the character of God made plain in scripture.
Justin Harrell I could agree with most of that. I personally can’t say all the way only because I never actually met a real Calvinist/cessationist/reformer in real life yet. Hard to believe I know, but I only know of them through TH-cam so far.
@justin harrell I can, in love and concern, reverse everything you've said: "I can stay calm about Arminianism on paper, but when I see some of the ways it destroys people I know, work with, or live with....then I get passionate against it. Well...after further thought(lol), I also get passionate when I think about how Arminianism ruins the character of God made plain in scripture." Saying that about Calvinism -- or Arminianism -- is a blanket statement that needs justification. There are saved, growing, mature, Calvinists and Arminians out there. To say otherwise, without proof is unloving, judgmental, and illogical -- it's a straw man....and it's offensive. Most of the people I know are Arminian, while I am a five-point Calvinist. I see so many Arminians struggle about knowing whether they are saved or if they have lost their salvation. I grew up as a "five-point Arminian" and struggled with assurance. It scared me to death. When I would read 1 John 5:13 or Hebrews 6 (especially vv. 3-6), I wondered how I could know if I was really saved, since I believed I could lose my salvation -- and possibly never get it back. I also saw that it was utterly inconsistent to pray for somebody else's salvation if God did not intervene against somebody's free will, being an Arminian, at the time. On top of that, as an Arminian, I always worried that when I witnessed to somebody, that if I mess it up or was a bad witness at the moment or don't say the right words, I could be guilty of causing the other person to be less likely to believe in Jesus. For me and countless others, Arminianism is fear about salvation (my own and to those I witness to), not assurance. After searching the Scriptures and praying for myself, I saw that I was the one who was wrong. It started with understanding that the Scripture teaches assurance of salvation and that you cannot lose it -- but only if you're actually saved in the first place. At that point, I re-read 1 John 5:13, Hebrews 6, Romans 7-9, Ephesians, and Galatians. The book of John -- election is everywhere, along with assurance that you are saved (or that you are lost). Now, I witness, when I get the chance and pray for them harder, believing that God commands us to preach/teach the Gospel and that He "gives the increase," calls the elect, and is able to save people, in spite of me. Now, I should always be "ready to give an account" (1 Peter 3:15) and I strive to witness through my life, as well. Several years later, as a "five-point Calvinist," I have assurance of my salvation in Christ, I love both Calvinist and Arminian brothers and sisters in Christ, I worry less about witnessing, and I am growing like never before. My Bible reading and prayer are far more consistent. I love Jesus. So, has Calvinism "destroyed" me? That silly idea is utterly false. I can also reverse it, too, and show you brothers and sisters in Christ who are Arminian. Being a non-Christian "Arminian" or "Calvinist" will destroy you, though. That person gets an extra bad place in Hell, for eternity -- not because of those beliefs, but because they sat under the teachings of Scripture, time after time after time and still rejected Christ. Being a Christian "Arminian" or "Calvinist" who lacks growth will destroy you, as well. I saw Mike Winger's video but disagree with it in some areas -- and it's fine. As a 5 point Calvinist, I truly believe Mike W is a born-again believer. I like his ministry, and have both been edified by it, and have shared some of his videos. I love his attitude and his love for the Church -- Arminians, Calvinists, or other. If we get nothing else out of his video, we should take his example of living out the fruit of the Spirit and do likewise. I am also a fan of James White. It's so awesome that these two can sit down and love each other, just as Christ loves the Church. It's OK to have a heated debate about beliefs, in the Church -- "iron sharpens iron." Taking cheap pot shots against fellow believers is forbidden in Scripture. That's why blanket statements about "A's" or "C's" are so wrong. 'In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.' -- Augustine Mark 1:15 is true for "A's" and for "C's": “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel (ESV).”
@@helicam1234 Firstly, I am not Arminian. Secondly, I only took "pot shots" at a system..not the people...at least that was my intent. Lastly, I am sorry you had to write all that ;) I think both systems have flaws because I don't see them portrayed by the whole of scripture.
Getting into a debate with a well versed Calvinist backed me into a corner of choosing Universalism. He didn’t give me a third option such as looking at it Biblically as Mike does here. Railing against limited atonement and into universalism then sent me into new age and new thought. That’s been my journey for the last 20 years. Believing in a Jesus that looks like me. Thank God that I’m starting to wake up thanks to being convicted of my own sins. I’m not a good person. I finally get it. Now I’m slowly rebuilding my belief that the Bible is the word of God. So grateful to you Mike for taking the time to do this and giving me more hope in the Bible.
You only get backed into a corner if you presuppose Penal Substitution Atonement theory. That’s Christ payed for your sins or took the wrath you deserved. Yes Jesus died for you but it doesn’t mean he paid for your sins. Scriptures never say this
@@missinsanelogic Interesting that you don’t see Penal Substitutionary atonement in scriptures. You must have a different way of interpreting Romans 3:25 and Isaiah 53:5. I was backed into a corner because the man I was talking with was so adamant that Jesus did NOT die for everyone. He came only for those that believe. Which is quite contrary to John 3:16. When I now look at the whole picture of the Bible, I see what you must be trying to tell me. That Jesus came to die for everyone, but only those that believe will have their sins covered by his sacrifice. Is that what you’re saying?
@@gennafifi Isaiah 53Note the part where the verse says: "yet we considered him punished by God". This phrase implies that it is wrong to consider him punished by God, which is explicitly what penal substitution teaches. He wasn’t actually punished by God. He voluntarily took our pain; God was not punishing him because he needed some satisfaction. The iniquity was laid upon to accomplish the purpose of transforming man, not of fulfilling some need for retribution Notice that it says "by his wounds we are healed", and not "by his wounds God is satisfied". I personally think this is a very strong argument against substitution because it only talks about Christ's work as healing us, not satisfying God requirement for penal satisfaction. With Romans 3:25 many people take propitiation to mean “ payment for sin” but it’s not, it means mercy seat, like the mercy seat in the Old Testament on the arc of the covenant. So in 1 John 2 days “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world”. The Calvinist will say see either He is the payment of sins of the whole world or payment of sins for only those who are predestermined to believe. Both super flawed doctrines. We should see at it as , Jesus is the mercy seat for the whole world, in other words He is the place where the whole world can be made right with God, but off course we know not everyone will come to Him. This fits perfectly. Yes Jesus came to die for everyone but not everyone will come to Him , to the place we can be made one with God. There is a lot more to these passages but I very breifly came some two cents about them
@@missinsanelogic Thank you this! You call it 2 cents worth, but I got a ton out of it! Is there more information you could point me to that goes deeper into this? I’ve never heard it explained that way before.
Mike Winger has a lot of inconsistencies in his theology! Though I watched some of his videos but not all. Some of his ideas on other topics like Roman Catholicism and Baptism are good. But not this one. The problem with Mike Winger is that he lacks exegesis and hermeneutics on this topic. He can't really exegete Romans 9! Also, Mike is saying that Salvation is Synergistic. The problem with that view is that you make man Sovereign and not God. He doesn't really understand what the Apostle Paul said in Ephesians 2. We are saved by grace alone through faith alone not by works so that no one may boast!
@@samuelaguilar9668 You might enjoy Leighton Flowers on this issue. He was a Calvinist himself for over 10 years, so has a good grasp of the doctrine. Mind you, I think Mike Winger is pretty good at digging into the scriptures too.
@@samuelaguilar9668 Mike is not synergistic. That’s blatantly false unless of course you believe faith is a work. And under that crumbles everything else you said.
Calvinist thinkers often employ the same debate tactics as many skeezy politicians and it rubs me the wrong way Step 1: misrepresent your opponent's argument Step 2: demand your opponent disprove the point they were never making in the first place Step 3: smugly claim victory over an argument that was never made They dilute the argument and muddy the water so that nobody can actually tell what you were originally arguing anymore
I've come upon this video mainly because of a discussion I had with a gentleman leading a Bible Study (Zoom style!) at my church a couple of days ago. I thought prior to this that Calvinism was completely discredited and abandoned as a theology a long time ago. I've certainly never had anyone try to persuade me of its concepts in my Christian walk before (42 years). So, I'm now trying to find out more about Calvinism, what its teachings are and why people believe it to be a correct interpretation of scripture. The salvation issue: We are bound for hell (the spiritual ‘death’ as in Genesis 3) because we have all broken the most important commandment: Deuteronomy 6:5 & others, quoted in Matthew 22:37 like Lemmings racing en masse for the edge of a precipice. We need saving if we're not wanting 'to go over the edge'. A lot of the Calvinist arguments seem to be based on a ‘framework’ which is based on complicated human philosophies, based on Biblical concepts that are over simplified (often quoted as a formula, rather than a concept). As Mike points out, the arguments for it are inconsistent, eg, either you believe in Universalism or Limited Atonement. Like JWs, like the Pharisees before Jesus, there are just two simplistic options, it would seem. The truth, however, is that it's not that simple. I hope the analogy below helps someone understand some of the errors of Limited Atonement: Imagine there are two people dying of the same disease in adjacent hospital beds. Let's call them Jane and Joe for identification. However, a treatment that can save them has been discovered! The doctor offers both the same treatment. (This is analogous to God/Jesus "drawing all people", same offer for all.) Jane says "yes" when the doctor offers it to her, and several days later her family are celebrating her gradually improving health, and are massively grateful to the doctor for availing Jane of the treatment. Did she save herself? No, it was the treatment that saved her, but it was only effective because she accepted it. Joe , sadly, passed away, dying in agony, having refused the treatment. Did he die because the treatment was unable to save him? No, it proved effective for Jane, so that's not the problem. Did he die because the doctor didn't offer him the treatment? No, they were both given the same offer. Was Jane saved because the doctor forced the treatment on her? No, clearly not, Joe had the same offer, but he wasn't forced to accept it. Failed Saviour non sequitur Was the treatment a failure because Joe died? No, the treatment was successful because Jane was ‘saved from death’. The reason the treatment was unsuccessful for Joe was because he refused it. Limited atonement non sequitur Was the treatment that the doctor recommended only available to Jane, and not to Joe? The ‘treatment’ for the disease was available to all (including to Joe) but didn’t heal all- because some (eg Joe) freely rejected it!
I would check out Leighton Flowers if you haven't already to learn more about how the teachings of scripture do not line up with Calvinism. Calvinism SHOULD have died out long ago, but it sadly has not.
As with all the awful analogies used by those who can't deal with reality yours is chock full of nonsense. You said that Jesus draws all men to himself meaning all people for all time and the problem with that is that it is not true and Jesus never made that claim. You changed what he said, ignored the context and misused it to make it fit your theology and that is bad. Let's look at the text, in context, and see if you 1) Believe what it says 2) Even believe what you want it to say Here is the passage in question 30Jesus said, “This voice was for your benefit, not mine. 31Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. 32And I, when I am lifted up g from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” 33 He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die. So let's look at why he said it, thankfully the text tells us - "He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die." It isn't about who will be saved but what death Jesus will die. So let's break down what it actually says When Jesus is lifted up (his death on the cross) he will draw all people to himself. Points to note 1) The tense, when this happens I will do that 2) What does all men or all people mean? On point 1. This is a promise to do something in the future, it therefore cannot be applied to those who have already died because they die and then face judgment, unless you are claiming that dead sinners are drawn to Christ? Now that automatically limits the scope of the drawing to exclude all those who died before Jesus was crucified. On point 2. What do "all" and "people/men" mean? in the text Well first up there isn't a word for men or people in the text, there is just "pas" which is translated "all" and no word for who or what the all are. so we need to deal with what that means only 🙂 Let's see if "pas" without any referent means all the people that ever lived or all the people alive from then on shall we? Pas occurs 1243 times in the NT. Want to guess how many times it means that? I recommend that you read Matthew Chapter 2 and tell me how many times of the 4 times it is used it means every single person. Let's look at just one "When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him." Does that mean every single person that ever lived in Jerusalem was troubled? Does that mean every single person then living in Jerusalem was troubled? Does that mean every single person that ever lived or would ever live in Jerusalem was troubled? Or........ Does it mean that some people, of various kinds, that lived in Jerusalem at that time were troubled? In conclusion. Either you are a heretic and believe in faith attained after death, I doubt that, or you don't even believe what you need that passage to mean for it to mean that each and every person has the same offer of salvation. Not that you really believe that anyway since millions died after Jesus was crucified who never heard the gospel or heard of Jesus. Now to correct your analogy You are in the morgue. There are lots of other people in the morgue. You all died because you were killed by the consequence of the evil actions first of your family and then of yourself. You never wanted to change those actions, you enjoyed them and despised anyone who told you to stop. Anyone who warned you of the outcome you would face you despised and one of them you killed. Then the man you killed brings you back to life, totally forgives you and gives you a new understanding of himself and of how much he always loved you. 1) You then start whining that he didn't ask you first if you wanted to be alive. You are an Arminian. 2) You thank him and trust everything he says and no longer trust your own judgment but defer to him. You are Reformed. Have a blessed day and trust in the Lord.
@@1958vintage Of course, when corrected by scripture and sound argument you have..... Nothing. Thanks for demonstrating the shallowness of your argument and theology.
@@Phill0old Your story about the person in the morgue... I must say that you are making sweeping statements without being in possession of all the facts! You haven't ascertained the responses of everyone in such a scenario. I would be the one so grateful, but I am not "Reformed" in my theology. I'm not Arminian, but certainly not a Calvinist either!!! Why do people insist that one must be either one or the other? You can't pigeonhole people so conveniently. 🤪🤪🤪 Btw, it's *unChristlike* to *attack* someone with accusations of shallowness for disagreeing with you, as if you know all theology in every degree and detail perfectly. It reeks of arrogance 😳
I'm so thankful that JESUS was loving and merciful enough to die for everyone! To say that he never, is to diminish his love and mercy! How sad for those who do!
The good shepherd knows HIS sheep and the sheep know their masters voice. There is still mercy and love while the wicked burn. You forget a just and righteous GOD who is also the potter making vessels for glory and others meat for destruction according to HIS will. The FATHER draws to the SON according to HIS will not your will. Give thanksgiving your among the chosen with no free will of your own.
@@bobbyadkins6983 World to the Jews means Gentiles. You can believe Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin are square with our Righteous GOD but I assure you they will be paying for their own sins in the lake of fire along with any other nonbelievers. You're saying the attonment is universal believer or not. 1st Jn. 2:2 goes straight into knowing HIM and keeping HIS commandments. Mao did't keep JESUS's commandments . You discernment is zero when it comes to the attonment. The blood covered the house of the treshold it was painted on. The National sacrifice was sprinkled on the congregation to cover them for the year. It didn't atone for egypt nor does CHRIST blood cover the nonrepentant sinner. Jn. 17:16,17 says we are not of this world and HIS sacrifice sanctifies CHRIST so we may be scantified also. Look up the word James. It says we are separated from the world. The same world that will burn for their sins you claim are paid for.
That’s what I was confused about. If you bear a different gospel are you a brother/sister in Christ? At what point is that line drawn? The idea of limited atonement fundamentally not only alters the Gospel but the God behind it. Very confused how this situation is different from say anyone who harbors a works based gospel (in this case it’s just altered differently).
Learned so much......... I’ve been a born again believer for 40 years. Worked in the ICU for 20 years as a RN and have shared the gospel with so many patients and families. Many have asked Jesus to forgive their sins right there in the hospital in the trauma unit. I never heard of such a mess with this so called Calvinism. I’ve read the Bible thoroughly and never heard Calvinism mentioned or referred to., honestly. ( a little sarcasm sorry ), but anyway there is plenty of scripture to refute this claim.Boy .... can man really muddy the waters. Such a shame.😕
NKJV But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. John 14 :26
@@Cyberfender1 conveniently left off the part where Jesus said "Obey my commands" right before that.. but I'm guessing that doesn't for your easy believing, sin forgiving, holy spirit receiving theology?
@@UniteAgainstEvil Jesus replied that the two greatest commands are to love the Lord GOD with all one's heart, mind and strength and to love one's neighbor(friend or enemy) as one would love one's self.. In God there seem to be great mysteries.. I am God's creature. Let God be LORD.
Is this a correct analogy? -I picture a patron paying for the meals of everyone in the restaurant, but many step up and say “no”, as they would like to pay for their own. They don’t have or don’t want a relationship with the giver, or fear strings attached if they accept the offer. It’s not that their meal wasn’t paid for, but they didn’t except the gift.
It was God’s intent to save all those who BELIEVE. That’s what pleases God. That’s His intent. ...According to 1 Corinthians 1:21 does it please God to save those that believe or does it please Him to save people so that they can then believe after they’re born again? 1 CORINTHIANS 1:21 21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching TO SAVE THEM THAT BELIEVE. Nowhere in scripture does it say God’s intent in sending Jesus to die on the cross was to secure salvation for anyone. His intent in sending His Son was to reconcile the world to Himself and to provide a WAY to Him which would be through FAITH. Christ died for the sins of the world. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. He did not die to secure the salvation of the world. Salvation is secured by FAITH. WHERE IN SCRIPTURE DOES IT SAY GOD’S INTENT WAS TO SECURE ANYONE’s SALVATION? **(Although it did secure the salvation of the OT Saints who died in faith such as Abraham who had their faith credited to them as righteousness and were simply waiting in Abraham’s Bosom for the blood atonement.)
Craig Smith I agree with Mike in this video. I believe my post lines up with his teaching. What did I say that you disagree with or that you feel Mike doesn’t?
THANK YOU! the limited atonement issue seemed to be a calvinist's most compelling point for appearing to present a more coherent plan for atonement than other models. i agree that scripture really makes it clear that jesus didn't only die for the elect, but the trinitarian harmony, trilemma, and double jeopardy were still compelling due to them appearing to be pretty solid when first presented, so i had no answer for any of these objections.
Some will say they are of Baptist, some will say they are of Luther, some will say they are Methodists, Some will say they are of Catholicism, Some will say they are of Calvinist. I will say I am of Christ, for Christ is the one who died for me. Man sees through a dim glass.
As you consider calvinism think about some of the contradictions and double talk present in this theology - God decrees all evil - God "restrains" the evil he decrees - all doesn't mean all, everyone doesn't mean everyone and the whole world doesn't mean whole world - faith is a work if not effectually given - admitting your a sinner in need of grace = earning your own salvation - God must condemn to hell most babies in the womb in order to show his justice These facts of calvinism are opposed to what we're taught in scripture. God desires all to be saved and come to the knowledge of him. God does not need to decree every action and thought of every man to be sovereign and in control.
Mike's methods of teaching are so clear, measured, thought-out, and thorough; they are scholarly and well-researched, without language that goes over the head of a typical person. I feel like his work on Women in Ministry is something I have been hoping for almost my whole life. And now, even though I haven't listened to much of his work on Calvinism yet, I feel like he gives a clear but thorough refutation of determinism that could be understood by maybe even an intelligent older child. I just got done listening to William Lane Craig with James White, and there are a lot of people who would have been lost in the language, though it was valuable. Mike, your work is so important because you don't cut corners, but your words can reach a larger audience of seekers. On a personal note, passages that seem to promote Calvinism have always bothered me. I tend towards doubting my own salvation, so I have periods of intense fear that Calvinism makes too much sense. Or, I will just get tangled up in how the Scriptures seem to support both Calvinism and Arminianism, and I'll kind of bang my head against a proverbial wall for a season. All I can say is that this video helps. I like when Mike shows that when there is "clear teaching" that demonstrates one side of an issue and then another passage can be used to maybe muddy the waters or support another side, you need to focus on the abundance of clear teaching.
They don't realize that the sacrifice of the Son was ultimate and complete, by reason of His endless purity and grace, so is His blood endless in value.
When Dr White said that you shouldn't read 1 John 3 to understand 1 John 2, it proves my point about why I HATE the chapter/verse breakdown of the Bible. So often, people get hing up on a verse or a chapter, and forget that those things were added in later. 1 John was just a letter that they would read through in it's entirety, probably in 1 sitting. So, when we break it down into little snippets, it's like receiving a letter, reading the 1st paragraph, and then walking away and not worrying about the rest of it, atleast in the moment. That's a horrible way to read a letter. You have to read the letter.all the way through before you can break it down, especially when the letter wasn't written with the modern day breakdown we have applied to it!!!
I think Frank Turek got it right when he said that God is not a dictator, He loves us so much, but He will not force Himself in us. We have our free will, either to accept or to reject His free offer.
This idea begins to fall apart when you look at God's plan of atonement through Jesus Christ. If Herod or Pilate or the Pharisees or the Romans hadn't decided to kill Jesus, then God's plan would have been thwarted. I think we attribute too much power to man's capabilities. Instead we should focus on what the Bible teaches, which is the sovereignty of God to bring things to pass as He sees fit and how we are actually enslaved to our sinful nature, unable to seek after God unless He draws us to Himself.
Time-stamps 5:50, 6:40 7:24 - John Owens 1:02:40, 1:04:40 - trilemma 1:05:16 - Saved by the cross, when they believe and receive Christ 11:38, 11:58, 12:50 - trinitarian harmony in the atonement 13:46, 14:26 - 19:18 - 1 John 2:2 36:55, 43:15 - Romans 8 and foreknowledge
God has all wisdom and knowledge throughout all eternity from everlasting to everlasting and we as humans only have a finite perspective through out time... This topic involves some deep introsepction and internal wrestiling of the heart and mind towards a persons faith in why and how they spiritualy came to their belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour in the first place? God does not and can not contradict himself and in being triune as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have to be in complete harmony in accordance with the totality of Gods Word. If there is any discrepencey its in mans own interpretations. With that being said and with much love here are some passages of John that can't be easliy glossed over... He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. but to all who did receive Him, to those who believed in his name, He gave the right to become children of God- children born not of blood, nor of the desire or will of man, but born of God. John 1:11-13 Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. John 3:18 Truly, truly, I tell you, whoever hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life and will not come under judgment. Indeed, he has crossed over from death to life. John 5:24 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that I shall lose none of those He has given Me, but raise them up at the last day. For it is My Father's will that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day".. “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:40-45 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on My own, but He sent Me. Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you are unable to accept My message. John 8:42-43 "I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep...even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep...But because you are not My sheep, you refuse to believe. My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one can snatch them out of My hand. My Father who has given them to Me is greater than all. No one can snatch them out of My Father’s hand. I and the Father are one. John 10:11.15,26-30 "I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom Thou hast given Me; for they are Thine;" John 17:9
This was very interesting!! Thank you!! I am NOT a Calvinist. My major objection is - if God only saves so many people - then Satan has won! He knows who he’s getting and how many. I can’t live with that or believe that. God will save as many as He can! Thanks again Pastor Mike for your great videos.
I don't think God will save as many as He "can". He is God and does whatever He pleases at any point in time to any degree. He will save as many as He WILL, the elect. God does not need us, we need Him.
Guys, take heed*, we must be nice to all types of people. You can choose whom to be peaceful with just don't limit it to one nationality or position in society. Romans 12:18 Christian Standard Bible (CSB) 18 If possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Pas anthropos
@ 28:43 Winger talks about who the “All” are ? Calvinist says “all kinds” and Winger suggests “all” are everyone whoever lived….but as history on this earth is winding down we get a glimpse of who the “All” are in Revelation Chapter 7. There is a massive group of people who are standing at the throne of God… …..people who were killed, but got saved during the great tribulation…. As verse 14 of chapter 7 says…. These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. But who are in part the “All”? Go back to Rev. 7:9 for your answer…. Revelation 7:9 [9] After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of “ALL” nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands… Clearly, the “All” are everyone without distinction, not everyone without exception, which is what Winger is trying to convince you of. So the Calvinist position is correct in assuming it’s all kinds of people of every tribe, tongue & nation.
"...so Jesus just goes rogue..." 🤣 You have a way with words Mike! Yes, sadly Calvinists seem to start with a premise and build a theology based on man's faulty logic, brick by brick, until God becomes made in man's image - a psychopathic tyrant. I choose instead to trust what the Bible actually SAYS about God. THAT is a God no man could create; so full of grace, mercy, goodness, compassion, love, holiness, and with a sovereignty that is in no way threatened by man's free will, a free will GIVEN to us by our loving Creator.
Thank you Mike, I really love that you stressed the importance treating this topic as Brothers and Sisters in Christ and not be divisive. I really like your quote from 2:47-3:07. I do believe that "Inside Baseball" is a beneficial thing to have amongst believers, so we can be ready to defend our faith, and as His church, grow in our knowledge of God. It seems like to me, that the disagreement isn't really about the interpretation or meaning of Christ's atonement, but about its classification: "For “all men” the death of Christ is the foundation of the free offer of the gospel... The sending of the Son is for the whole world in the sense that Jesus makes plain: so that whoever believes in him should not perish... When the gospel is preached, Christ is offered to all without discrimination. And the offer is absolutely authentic for all. What is offered is Christ, and anyone - absolutely anyone - who receives Christ receives all that he bought for his sheep, his bride." - "Five Points" by John Piper So, to summarize most Calvinists who believe in "Limited Atonement" do still believe that: 1) Christ died for all 2) (so that) All that believe are saved So to me it seems like the difference between the interpretation of these two truths as "Christ died for all in the same way" and "Christ's death is different for believers and unbelievers". Both sides agree about these two statements, and both sides agree about the meaning of those two statements, but they disagree about their classification. "Limited Atonement" fellas say that the Atonement part is different for believers and unbelievers, and "Universal (unlimited) atonement" fellas says that atonement was the same, but the application is different. Let me know if I'm missing anything. Thank you.
The elected mentioned were the disciples who were chosen to go to the world to preach the gospel, for all to be given the good news of salvation, John 3; 16 is so clear , “ for GOD so Loved The World that He Gave His only begotten Son that Whoever believes in Him should not parish but have eternal life”. All the world , period, man chooses to accept the gift or not. Simple and clear.
@@williamgullett5911 no they are definitely saved. If you believe in Christ as your lord and savior and confess ur sins. U shall be saved. All the finer details about what u believe probly doesn’t affect ur salvation as much as it affects ur life on earth and what u do with it.
@@amandacarmel6084 As a newish 3 yr Christian I always had those things and will continue focusing on those things...then I started seeing these videos...and while it didn't change anything it muddied the waters. I know where my faith, my worship has to be...Jesus, the cross...His shed blood..Matthew 22:37...my heart is for GOD, not doctrines...although it makes me sad to see doctrinal debates..not because one side is right on an issue and one wrong..but because those debates divide Christians. Thank you for the response. GOD bless
Mike Winger thanks forr setting an example in your videos. It is convicting to see how you speak truth in love to our brothers and sisters in Christ even those that disagree with you. We are suppose to be known for our love for one another, and I pray God helps us to do just that, because we can't do it alone. Only by faith in him. God bless
Practical Faith He’ll derive some arbitrary esoteric phrase and say Mike hasn’t dealt with the fundamental aspects of reformed theology (who read it in his voice?), but he won’t say specifically what that is. In their world, if you don’t hold to it, you don’t understand it. Quit flattening it out, Mike 😉
He doesn't answer the double jeopardy argument though, it still remains that both Jesus and the sinner in hell pay for the same sin... Not that it matters if scripture teaches it is so... But I can understand why someone would think it unjust...
@@jessethomas3979 hey i can answer that christ gave himself for their sin paying but saying no is like turning round and giving that payment back and saying no ill pay myself thank you. See you can pay for a gift for someone and tha ty person refuses to take the gift.
@@darklydevine2983 That's not exactly Mike's position or an arminian position... Jesus finished the payment on the cross... The payment for each particular sin of the non elect... That is why it can be said "Jesus paid for your sin" to anyone... What must be remembered is that the payment was made to the father... And the non elect will once more pay for the same sin in hell...
@@jessethomas3979 hey jesse im not a follower of arminianism and i dont get my theology from mike, i get it from the bible, we recieve the gift of salvation so we can turn it down its paid upto god but we recieve the gift, im just going from my understanding of what a gift is and what i read from the scriptures, and why do i think we recieve the gift As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God's varied grace For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23. I feel it isnt paid twice as if the gift is turned down our sin still has a cost. There could be in a way tqo payments but i doubt if we pay our sins in hell god is taking it as payment, sorry i could be wrong, but i wasnt going off mikes posistion i was going of mine
Mr. Winger, even though I think you wrong on this issue, I appreciate that you recognize us Calvinists as fellow believers. Too many online anti-Calvinist warriors condemn us as unsaved because, well, I don't know why they do so, since we proclaim salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, just like they say they do.
I have posted a lot on this feed as someone against Calvinism, so I cannot speak for everyone else, but I certainly believe there are some (if not MANY) Calvinists who are saved and REALLY love Jesus and know Him. (ie Jimmy Needham considers himself a Calvinist (probably a low Calvinist) and is actually my all time favorite Christian singer and I listen to his music everyday) My contention is with the TULIP systematic and many Calvinists are inconsistent with the false doctrine. I believe only hyper Calvinists are actually consistent with what TULIP requires of them to believe. I am trying to expose Calvin and Augustine's false interpretations of scripture that is a twist of the very core principles of the faith.
@@Loves2HugItOut When you say TULIP, do you mean the simplified version that came about in the last century, some incredibly warped and twisted version that many anti-Calvinists like to toss around, or do you mean the historic meaning as found in the Canons of Dort? I've found that even the most well meant opponents who try to be as fair as possible often get tripped up by not understanding how TULIP actually fits in to Calvinist theology and assume a point means something it doesn't. For example, hyper-Calvinism really only makes sense if you ignore important premises like the nature of God's decree and how it establishes man's free will and the primary / second cause distinction. But once the whole of Calvinism is understood, a hyper-Calvinist understanding of TULIP is completely bogus.
@@Loves2HugItOut "I believe only hyper Calvinists are actually consistent" Not true at all and they aren't consistent either. The Gospel does not encourage passivity.
Randy Couture the only consistent Calvinism is double predestination, but even THAT is logically contradictory, because even THAT is making a truth claim, and to make a truth claim requires libertarian fee will. Calvinists are ignorant fools that call God a liar.
@Greg B. If you look around you will find people who are or claim to be calvinists that claim non-calvinists are unsaved heretics that worship an idol of God, instead of God himself. But if you are submitting to following the Lion of Judah, the one who rose from the dead on the third day, then you are my brother regardless of labels and theologians.
Isn’t this actually quite simple? you accept Christ’s sacrifice as payment for your sins or you face judgement under the law which nobody will be found worthy?
@@peterfox7663 Calvinism does not agree. They believe the payment is applied before faith and before it is accepted by the believer. Nay, the believer's actions play no importance or meaning in their salvation whatsoever. They are regenerated and saved before faith, thus their accepting the sacrifice of Christ is after it has already been applied. If they (the majority of calvinists) believed as you say, they would not need to believe in limited atonement. I am not a calvinist and I disagree with this view, but I've heard it enough in debates to represent it correctly.
@@lordblarg Calvinists still profess a person needs to accept Jesus as savior, to hear and believe. They are not saved until they accept Christ (they are predestined to salvation, yes). But a person cannot accept Christ unless God has regenerated their heart first. And God chooses who He will regenerate according to reasons known only to Him. It sounds like you are conflating the "regeneration" with "salvation". I am not a Calvinist and vehemently disagree with the philosophy. It is consistent within itself, if a person holds to all 5 parts of TULIP. But it falls apart if you get rid of any of those, and also fails when compared to the Bible.
@@peterfox7663, Calvinism believes that God chooses those who are saved, and saves them to the uttermost before the foundation of the world independent of anything that they do. There is no point in time where an elect person is not saved. There is a time before they are regenerated, but salvation is the first chain in the order of salvation on their worldview. For them, it goes: salvation -> regeneration -> faith, and not regeneration -> faith -> salvation. Their explanation of limited atonement makes this clear. There is no faith required to apply the work of Christ, it is just applied and those to whom it is applied will be given faith at some point in their life. John Owens' famous trilemma (which Mike mentions in this video) is based on this misconception. If they agreed that faith is required before Christ's work is applied, then the trilemma would make no sense and they could ditch limited atonement. Limited atonement is only a necessary tenant of their belief system because they (falsely) believe Christ's work is applied unconditionally, and before one has been given faith. If it were given in light of faith, all the philosophical arguments for limited atonement they make fall apart.
You got my like after you played "Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott". I laughed tears. This is a way, to make a statement. My employer is a Lutheran church in Bremen (Abraham-Gemeinde), but we work closely with the reformed church next door (evangelisations and we operate a large tent for that purpose together). We are joking over our diffrences, in a similar way. Nice to see, that the world can be so small.
What I see is that Calvinists paint themselves into corners with their choice of words and then demand that you get them out of it. If we just drop the terminologies, drop the labels and team names, and stay anchored in the Word and what it SAYS and none of what it DOESN'T SAY. Seems simple. 😬📖
That was unintelligent non Calvinists are just as stupid! People who use the Calvinist in their argument is using a straw man.. lol trash debated skills
Really? The bible is straightforward? So straightforward that you can't understand it unless the Holy Spirit (God Himself) tells you what it means! So straightforward that Jesus had to explain some of the parables to the disciples and nobody else understood them! So straightforward they Jesus had to constantly explain the scriptures to the Jews who had been reading them for their whole lives! Here is the Gospel. God sent His son to die for and save a people for Himself. He did that. If you believe in Him you are one of those people. Here is the Synergistic gospel. God want's to save you but He can't because you have to want Him to but you don't want him to so you need to start wanting to and keep wanting to because if you stop wanting Him to you will undo the saving of you that Jesus did when, at some point, you wanted him to. Yeah that's way more straightforward.
@@Phill0old non calvinist here, you do realise there will always be people who have different theological views than you , not everyone has the same conscience , and all your arguments can be countered , and I'm sure you can counter mine, I can see why people agree with Calvinism, and I can see why people don't. No theology is 100% accurate, neither mine nor yours. I'm sure in your eyes, your theology is just right, and im glad, go for it , believe it but do know that there are people who don't agree with you.
@@parth_prashant Of course there are people who disagree. And if they do you reasonably and don't misrepresent what I believe we can have a reasonable discussion. If they choose to strawman and slander then we can't. But you are wrong if you think there is another consistent theology that can walk through the whole of scripture. That's why they don't do it.
@@Phill0old I knew you'll say that. Not my first encounter with a Calvinist online. Even you have to admit, that all your theology (including Calvinism) is not 100% accurate. No theology is, that's the whole point. We have to humble ourselves before the things of God. You cant tell me that there doesn't even exist the possibility that Calvinism is not 100% accurate.
You say Im wrong if I think there's another consistent theology, I say you're wrong if you think Calvinism is perfectly consistent Like I said, it suits your conscience? Go for it, believe it, but there are a great many solid theologians who don't believe in Calvinism (like there are many calvinists).
I attend a church who believes in limited atonement. I have not adopted that view and appreciate your approach that is gentle and backed with scripture. Grateful for my church and for you!
Dear Mike,
I can only hope that you will see this, but I appreciate your honesty and dedication to keeping the peace, in what could have been a heated debate. I'm also grateful for the joy you have while covering a sensitive topic. You truly set a good example in confrontation, on how to be gentile and wield Gods word with care. I thank God for all the great work he is doing through you, and I wish you many great years in fruitful ministry!
I have been walking with Christ for almost 3 years, and the thing I have wrestled with the most (theologically speaking) is whether or not Calvinism accurately represents the truth. While I admire the boldness, commitment to scripture, wisdom, and firm faith that I see in many Calvinist teachers and preachers. Something didn't feel right about the theological system. However, I didn't want to follow my feelings alone, so I would describe my position as "not quite a Calvinist."
But after watching this video I can confidently say, that I love my Calvinist brothers and sisters, I am glad we share the same hope and salvation, but I do not subscribe to the same theological system. This was a very important dilemma for me to sort out, because the gravity of what being a Calvinist Christian means can change how you interact with non-believers, and how you view God in his purpose for salvation. All of this in a way, I thought, opened the door to a sort of spiritual elitism.
God bless, and thanks again for all you do!
God bless you brother! I had the same feelings too, but when a system of theology cannot be simply explained by the Scriptures and we have to take verses out of context or change definitions to fit our system then our system is wrong! I pray you continue to grow in grace and knowledge of the Lord brother! 🙂
@@stevensingleton1855, thank you!
Had the same struggle. Theology changing the way I witness, the way I interact with the lost.
Very helpful. May God bless!
Doctrines of grace should lead you to witness actively in love. I don’t understand what gospel were you living in.
Awesome 😎
Mike, one of the most important aspects of your ministry (both in terms of being godly/loving and in terms of having genuine ethos that stands a chance of convincing anyone of anything) is that you do thought-out, measured response videos like this. So many Christian TH-camrs just do the thing where they watch the video, pause it when they wanna say something, comment/ramble about it for a few minutes, play the video, and repeat. Your not going off the top of your head provides your videos so much persuasive power, I think. Seeing you model this has played a huge role is my learning to disagree in a loving way (and to be more persuasive by being calm, reasonable, and specific).
Even though Jesus said to not plan but to speak from the heart. Let your nay be nay and yay be yay.
josh portie CONTEXT. That was said with respect to being persecuted and brought before the courts of unbelievers. It was NOT saying you should never use critical thinking or reply with a well thought out response.
@@joshportie
The heart is desperately wicked. Who can know it? I’d hate to be speaking desperately wicked things all the time.
@@joshportie you didn't actually read the Bible did you?
I couldn't agree more, Judah. The beautiful thing is that when I watch these, I learn just as much about responding to criticism with love and grace as I do about theology, and that is something admirable and extremely rare these days. Keep up the good work in the Lord, Mike. God bless you.
I chanced upon your podcast a year ago when I was hospitalised. It was an eye opener and the 7 nights passed by very quickly . You are truly a gifted and humble teacher. I thank God for the day I found your channel
By grace alone, by faith alone, In Christ alone!
i believe both sides of this argument believe this.
@@nealwright5630I believe it’s a declaration of unity, not that he’s saying only mikes side believes this.
I'm a Calvanist, and I agree that these are powerful arguments. I consider them strongly especially since Mike is a trusted teacher
A flawed man made theology.
Uncalvinize yourself and trust in Jesus.🙏🏼🇺🇸
God bless you and keep you and your loved ones. I agree Mike is a trusted teacher encouraging us to look to scripture.
@@chuckdriver8269uncalvinize is such a weird word haha
No you're not.
You are absolutely right! I was taught to interpret God’s Word like you do in this video. It seems like all the TH-camrs I’ve been finding are Calvinists. So refreshing to find this video. I will show this to my son. He is 21 and seeking truth. We raised him in church and he loves God, but he’s struggling to know what to believe because he hears so many different takes on what the Bible means.
I laughed out loud when you played the intro. I did not see that coming. Well done, sir :))
Same!
Same cuz is almost a anthem flag for reformed church
And the photoshops?😂😂
Uvvvvuvvu8 hv 9 iv. Vv iu uihv8 u 8hvv u 8u h. H 9u vu8i. V. Vhuhv uvvui. H vh8 8. 8 h. Vhvv
Vugv v u v u vuv8 8vvv9u iivh v
Pastor Mike, thank you for setting my mind at ease with this topic. I’ve only learned of Calvinism recently (I’m a newer Christian) and the thought of some being predestined to hell seemed very unlike the one true God I’m learning about. After watching your arguments, Calvinism seems to only make sense if you come to the scripture with the thought of trying to prove Calvin’s points and stretch a few passages while completely ignoring many other that talk about the atonement for all. I appreciate the in-depth dive into this topic and look forward to watching more of your videos!
All in the Bible does not mean all, all of the time.
If no one is pre-destined to hell than that means there is either no Hell or people can over power God! If God is not sovereign, than God is not God? And the existence of Hell and the fact that most people will be in Hell not heaven is made very clear all throughout scripture. Narrow is the way.
@@christianpolitics260 No. You need to think more deeply about this and try to understand what scripture teaches, and get away from what Calvinism has taught you.
Of course God is sovereign. Sovereign means king. God is over all. That does not mean He controls everything that happens. Pride and lust are not from the Father, and He does not tempt anyone. There are quick, simple examples that the Calvinistic idea of sovereignty is clearly wrong.
The only people that are destined for hell, are those that are condemned. Jesus says in John 3 that if you do not believe in the son, you are condemned already. But in John 6, we see that the will of the Father is that those who look to the son and believe will have eternal life. We see that He gave Himself as a ransom for all men, and that God wants all to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. Hell and judgement is reserved for those who choose to suppress the truth in unrighteousness and trade it in for a lie. Before you were a believer, you were destined for hell, and now, you're not. From the foundation of the world, God has set up reality so that the faithful in Christ were destined to be saved, to be conformed to the image of the son. He has placed before us life and death, and He wants us all to choose life, and we all can.... but not all of us will.
I pray that you would let scripture shape your thinking on this.
@@christian_gamer_guy6447 This is such a well stated reply. I was considering replying to @ChristianPolitics to note several wrong assumptions in his argument (such as it was). I think you covered them succinctly.
@@christianpolitics260 you’re mistaking foreknowledge with predetermination. God gives us free will, he knows what choices we’ll make before we make them, but that doesn’t’ mean God destined some for Hell. How can an all knowing, all good and all powerful God create a world with such evil? Simple because of free will. Calvinist’s entire world view denies free will.
Lol! Just started but love the photos part haha
That final word you had about brotherly unity and acting graciously towards each other, even in disagreement is exactly what we need right now. God bless, man. Learned a lot from this.
I have an honest question: How do I keep unity with a doctrine that attacks the very core principles of the faith? This doctrine is growing rapidly and it has been destructive to so many people. I know there are brothers and sisters who are Calvinists so I don't know how to balance this situation. I'm in agreement that everything needs to be done in love regardless and I do not WANT to divide, but the Calvinist and non calvinist views on gospel issues are like oil and water. Maybe that is not so, but I'm finding it hard to see otherwise. I don't want to have to divide with the people but I don't know how to not divide with the doctrine? HELP!
Loves2HugItOut Tough question honestly. Calvinism actually gave me a lot of doubts when I first encountered it, so I DO think the tenants can have a lot of adverse effects.
But we have to remember that both Calvinists and non-calvinists are seeking biblical truth. They have, in my estimation, a flawed view of the atonement but it isn't a sin to be wrong. They aren't trying to be malicious or warp text, they're trying to interpret scripture truthfully. Just try to give their intentions the benefit of the doubt.
Also, you probably already know this but it's worth repeating: The Calvinism debate is non-essential to salvation. This means two things. One, your salvation isn't in jeopardy when falling on either side of the issue. And two, Calvinists are your brothers and sisters no matter what. We'll be seeing them in heaven so treating them with love is a necessity.
We should be praying about it too. Not praying that Calvinism would go away, but that God would reveal to us biblical truth. It could turn out that Calvinism is true. If it is true, I pray that God would reveal that. And if it isn't, I pray that God would reveal that to the Calvinists of the world and that they would begin to teach sound doctrine.
In the end, we have to love one another no matter what. This doesn't mean we shouldn't address wrong theology.
Sorry for the huge reply lol. Got carried away.
Quick Attack Films this is an absolute lie. It is very much a salvation issue. Calvinists flat out call God a liar and refuse to accept His word. If I had remained true to the reformed theology I grew up with I never would’ve sought Jesus and never would’ve been saved.
First of all, what I said is "an absolute lie?" I'm trying to deceive you? Not the case. Second, no. Believing God determines everything doesn't damn one to hell. Third, Calvinists CAN'T deny biblical essentials like how to act and how to be saved. And they don't... for the most. There are always people on the fringes, no matter the biblical position that don't act in accordance with the bible. For instance, people brought up to Jeff Durbin whether they need to evangelize because of God's determinations. He basically said "Of course you need to! Because that's what the Bible says to do."
Respectfully, I think you have a warped view of calvinism brought on by the extreme views held by either the people around you or maybe the people you've seen online.
To summarize, the idea of calvinism may be flawed theology, but it's surely isn't damnable theology.
@Mike Winger
Thank you for your teaching and thorough walkthrough of scripture. One of my best friends recently became a Calvinist. He began to challenge our group of friends during our weekly Bible study. His challenges increased our need to dive into scripture and understand God more fully in order to respond. I greatly appreciate your vidoes. They have helped all of us understand scripture with more accuracy and consistency than ever before.
One thing I really appreciate about Mike is his willingness to admit that he could be wrong. You will never hear James White or other ultra-educated Calvinist show that kind of humility.
God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble
Saying you're open to being wrong is not the standard of humility. Christ is the standard. The most Christ like and humble men I know are Reformed in their theology.
I do not believe that those who support the doctrine of ELECTION are spiritually proud FOLLOWERS of KING 👑 YAHSHUA HAMASHIACH. We could say exactly the SAME for non-Calvinist - perhaps more proud than "Calvinist" I wouldn't call myself a "Calvinist" at face value but more of a Bible believing FOLLOWER of YAHSHUA HAMASHIACH.😱😱😱🙏🙏🙏🙏
I wish he would actually read all of 2nd Peter before pulling a verse out of context to suit his personal preferences.
If you read 2Peter3:9 in context, you would have had questions at around 29:40 in the video when Mike pondered confusedly that when God is being patient toward "*YOU*" in 2Peter3:9, Calvinists teach that Peter is speaking of the Elect but he waves his hands and poo-poos such a notion. Where could that crazy idea come from?
Bereans who actually read the rest of 2 Peter might point to chapter 1:
10 Therefore, *BROTHERS*, be all the more diligent to confirm *YOUR* calling and election.
Peter is writing to the Elect (just as He did in his first letter - 1Peter1:1). Who besides the “Elect” would be interested in confirming their “election?” This is not complicated. This is 6th grade reading comprehension. Peter is telling the family of God that God is being patient for their sake in delaying Jesus' return. Peter has just spent a chapter and a half railing against *THEM* (the unbelievers) to warn the Elect about listening to them and falling for their crap.
2Peter is a riff on Psalm 73, which also recommends taking the longer view instead of envying the wicked, who often seem insulated from the persecution and suffering that Peter's readers were dealing with. If 2Peter3:9 were speaking from a human point of view, Peter would have said that Jesus has not returned because God is being patient with *THEM*. But it doesn't, because Peter doesn't ever ever ever speak of God's love for "them" in his letter. Speaking from God's eternal viewpoint, Peter only repeats the point that judgment is coming for *THEM* - to God, *THEY* are only like wild animals, born to be caught and destroyed - as Peter is warning the Elect (*YOU*) in his letter to avoid being misled or discouraged by *THEM.*
So 2Peter3:9 is just reminding Christians who are suffering that Jesus' delay is only motivated by His love for all of His people, including those who have not been born or accepted Him within space and time. He will return when the last of His sheep have come to faith. As 2Peter3:15 says, "count the patience of our Lord as salvation." Not the optimistic hopes of maybes and possibilities but as Jesus securing the actual salvation of His sheep, whom He knows by name.
I would never say, "this is the gospel, but is not really, others may be right"...
When the truth is the truth, it will set you free.
@@booner016 I agree Christ is the standard, yes. But what about people who are not open to admitting that they could be wrong. Are they humble?
I’m glad you and Jimmy went skydiving together, but I noticed you didn’t remember your parachutes, so I must say seeing you here is a surprise and more evidence of God’s miraculous power!
😂😂
You don't need a parachute if your survival is predestined.
Hi Mike! My husband and I thoroughly enjoyed your clear teaching today. We have only discovered your TH-cam channel and are blown away with how articulate you speak on God’s word. You are truly blessed and are blessing us. Thank you! We are now doing your Mark series and will be submitting questions on your Friday Q&A which starts at 8am here in Australia. God bless! Constance (and Peter)
I've had a couple of Jew's, tell me; Jesus only came for them. And Gentiles were Jew's who were the "world." Not gonna lie, it did get to me and I questioned it. But, thankfully my precious grandpa, who is now with the Lord reassured me, it's EVERYONE. Yes, He came to the Jew's first, but then also to the rest of the world!
I've heard this too. That the gentiles are just jews outside of of Israel.
@@Sirach144 I believe they say that the “gentiles” are the 10 lost tribes of Israel.
Just like the Bible says :)
Everyone descended from Adam.... We're all cousins by blood..... Jesus is the uniter of all mankind except for those who refuse him as the Messiah... God will not be mocked, every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Yahoshua Hamashiac/Jesus the Messiah is Lord and Savior!
@@skippy675 you're too smart for me and possibly too smart for God
Your exegesis is really refreshing and delivered very humbly.
Mike, I am so amazed at your ability to be accommodating to those who misinterpret you! You are really gracious to them and that is such a godly position to make. It is not that easy either! When writing a response to people in these threads, I ask Holy Spirit what to write, then wait for him to give me permission to respond and quite often I end up not responding at all, because by the time I've gotten a sense of what to say, I've gotten the sense that it's not worth saying!
Thank you so much for this
Brother Mike. I did not know that limited atonement was Calvinism until couple of years back. We were always taught based on the texts from Matthew 20:28...But now thanks to God he has given much more insight. I can understand the heart of the Father. Thank you so much. Watching it way later but edified in Christ. I trust when we meet with him in eternity even all this will become more clear..
The photoshopped picture of skydiving killed me.
I couldnt stop laughing
Photoshopped? They didn't really go? 🤣
Lunch, hiking, Disneyland and sky diving?!?!! Mike, you are such a wonderful friend..lol
I just enjoy your sense of humor; but, also your desire to prioritize what is important in life.
You are definately a gift to the Christian community..
I thank God for your desire to build and uplift not only the church but also those who who may yet come to faith by Jesus.
@ 27:29 Winger says “God leaves it up to your will” in reference to being saved.
Interestingly, Jesus’s talk with Nicodemus and Nicodemus asked him who could be saved, why didn’t Jesus tell him “it’s up to your will” ?
Where exactly does the Bible teach “it’s up to your will?”
The Bible says it’s the opposite of your will …Romans 9:16
[16] So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.
Revelations 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. IF ANYONE should hear My voice and open the door, THEN I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me
Who picked the door and knocked? Who spoke to who? Who comes in? I'm guessing you missed the "I wills" in the verse?
@@rickhuntling7338 shut up you brainwashed calvinist. Stop saying God can act immorally to protect his sovereignty, not how that works. You people are insane
There are literally 100’s of verses in the overall Calvinist debate and this isn’t one of them. On the atonement there are a lot fewer and Mike covered a good many of them.
Er that passage is to a church. Does context mean nothing to you?
This was written to the 7 churches in Asia Minor. Audience relevance is important, which is often overlooked by non-calvinists.
I did a little research (barely scratched the surface if I’m being honest) on Calvinism vs Arminianism a few years ago, and your videos popped up. I’ve watched ever since and am so grateful because you’ve helped me think biblically about every issue, and to truly test the words of either legalistic, progressive, or just plain false teachings. So grateful for you Mike!!
Thank you for this video! My husband and I are on a road trip, and we've now spent a couple of hours listening to your videos specifically about calvinism. Very thought-provoking and educational. We appreciate your analysis and looking at all of scripture to teach the truth of Christ dying for the world.
If I buy three people birthday presents but one refuses to take theirs, it doesn't change the fact that I bought it for them.
Why buy something if you know the person isn't going to like it, want it, or appreciate it? If you know you will have to throw it away or return it, why not just get them something they do want...if you know.
God made some for eternal life, and some for destruction. Who are you to judge God for His creations?
@@dw-rh6fb. So, why did you ask the question if you knew what the response would be?
@@jackslapp9073 i don't.
@@dw-rh6fb. Yes, you do. You know what free-will is, right? BTW, where did Muse judge God in the comment?
@@jackslapp9073 free will? Are you talking about the idea that God isn't 100% sovereign and that reality plays out independently of God's will?
Where did i say Moses judged God? Im talking about what Paul said.
"Let me take you to a passage you've probably never heard before....it's in the gospel of John..." lolz
Haha. Amazing how I read this comment while watching and was really confused that I didn't hear him say that, then 5 seconds later I'm at that point in the video. Chronological comments
@@homecactussame here!!
Amazing video, thank you so much for breaking this down. The subject of Atonement is important to understand and I was having a hard time reconciling these two ideas and you made it clear. As a relatively new believer I was brought into the Calvinist doctrines from the start and I'm so glad to have found such an informative video that covers the differences of thought. God bless you for the work you do TY.
I was a calvinist, but while there is some verses I’m not sure how to explain regarding election and free will, but God clearly says His desire is for all men to be saved.
I couldn’t reconcile this verse into a limited calvinist box, God clearly desires all men to be saved. Election, Being chosen in eternity past, all of these truths must also align with Gods desire.
And He gave His Son for the world. Again you can’t just say God’s desire is for… SOME to be saved. The verse says all.
I'm afraid you're making a serious mistake by applying a universal meaning to the word "all". It actually ends up making the Bible nonsensical mess. The word "all" (just as "everyone" or "all men", etc.) has a context, and that context cannot contradict the rest of Scripture. Firstly, you must always ask "All of what?" Is it "all without exception" or "all without distinction"? It has to be one of those two in each passage. And in fact, you have to be able to determine this sometimes within the same passage, and it cannot be arbitrary, or else again, you're contradicting other Scripture, and that's a No-No.
Rom 3:23-24 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."
So ALL have sinned, and ALL are justified. While part one is universal, part two is not, for it begs the question EVEN THE UNREPENTANT? The real question is ALL OF WHAT? However, the people who believe in universal salvation look at that verse and say "See?! All have sinned BUT all are justified free by God's grace -- Universal salvation!"
But you and I and Mike know this is not the teaching of Scripture.
The question you must ask yourself is this -- Does God help sinners to save themselves, or does God saves sinners by Himself?
This might sound like a ridiculous question for a legitimate Christian who knows that their works played no part in their salvation, but think of this -- What is the difference between you and the other person who heard the same Gospel, and instead of believing upon the Lord Jesus, was offended and went deeper into their sin and idolatry? Why did YOU believe and THEY did not? Is the difference IN you or from WITHOUT you?
@@stegokitty Christ died and we are given a choice. Their is only one way into heaven, and that is through Grace. It's a gift, and the gift can only be received. We don't do anything to get into heaven, we just believe and get everything He ever earned!
Why don't Calvinists stop at the word Whosoever in John 3:16?
@@jaxsonfanta5420 I noticed that you didn't address what I said, but went on to another related issue. Do you, or do you not concur that we must be careful in how we interpret "all" and other such words in the Scriptures (or anywhere for that matter), lest we come away with ideas that are utterly foreign to the meaning of the Scriptures? Just so you know, I can provide for you a plethora of other Bible verses that show the fact that "all" almost never means "everyone without exception" but rather "everyone generally" or "everyone without distinction".
So I will be glad to touch base with your follow up comments, if you'll kindly respond to what I said and presented as an example of why "all" doesn't mean "every single person without exception". Thanks in advance.
@@stegokitty All doesn't always mean everyone all the time, but in the context I was speaking of in the original verse John 3:16 the whosoever is the word I am most concerned with.
Every knee will bow and every tongue confess... Does that mean there is a special group of people that this verse isn't referencing that won't be bowing the knee when Christ returns? In the case of John 3:16 you have to change the meaning of the verse to make it say something other than what it is explicitly saying, which is that whoever puts their faith in Christ is saved, whoever doesn't is not saved. 'All of those who put their faith in Christ' shall be saved is perhaps an easier way of saying it so we are both on the same page.
How predestination works itself into this is beyond me, lol... While all doesn't always just mean the word all, it does in this context, and this verse certainly doesn't say anything different than that lest we add to scripture, which I have seen Calvinists do to this verse to fit their predestination mold.
@@jaxsonfanta5420 //All doesn't always mean everyone all the time ... //
Yes, it does. It means everyone IN the context of what is being said.
//... but in the context I was speaking of in the original verse John 3:16 the whosoever is the word I am most concerned with.
I'm not sure why you're stuck on "whosoever" as if it makes any difference. Whosoever means "anyone" or "everyone" and it means "anyone" or "everyone". Everyone who trusts in the Name of the Lord shall indeed be saved. Who the heck ever said anything differently? There's not a Calvinist on the planet who denies that ANYONE who believes upon the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved. So why are you pretending that this is the case?
The question concerning the Doctrines of Grace is asking the question why does one person believe and another person disbelieve?
Just as I asked you in my first response, and it appears that you dodged it, I'll ask you again. WHY did you believe and the other bloke sitting on the same pew heard the same Gospel and thought it was as attractive as a frontal lobotomy? From where comes the DIFFERENCE? The difference is EITHER something that is inherently in you, something more noble, more wise, less sinful perhaps, than was in the other person who disbelieved. OR the difference is from OUTSIDE of you -- something that was done TO you, by God, that was not done to the person who disbelieved. You were both unbelieving idolators of one sort or another (you're not going to deny this are you?) and you both heard the Gospel. You believed, and he didn't. WHY?
Either you're a better person than the other person or God gave you a grace He didn't give to the other person.
Please answer this question.
//Every knee will bow and every tongue confess... Does that mean there is a special group of people that this verse isn't referencing that won't be bowing the knee when Christ returns?//
I highly doubt that. I think even the souls in Hell will have to admit that Jesus Christ is Lord. They will know their guilt before the infinite, eternal, and unchangeable God, and have not even a shadow of doubting it. They will bend the knee just the same as those who are ushered into everlasting blessedness. Does that help?
//In the case of John 3:16 you have to change the meaning of the verse to make it say something other than what it is explicitly saying, which is that whoever puts their faith in Christ is saved, whoever doesn't is not saved.//
Again, no Calvinist changes anything in that verse. Perhaps some new person to Calvinism who hasn't understood things properly -- like the one who go about saying "We don't have free will" .... which is only half true, and we should talk about that later since it's directly connected to the necessity of sovereign grace, but it's also half false. So new Calvinists should not go around saying that.
//'All of those who put their faith in Christ' shall be saved is perhaps an easier way of saying it so we are both on the same page.//
Already established and as you can see, I'm wholeheartedly in agreement with you. NO ONE IS LEFT OUT if they believe upon the Lord Jesus.
//How predestination works itself into this is beyond me, lol... //
Well that's precisely the point isn't it? Now I'm not claiming to have all knowledge of how predestination works, and I'm glad that you didn't speak as if predestination was not a Biblical doctrine. However, predestination is precisely the reason why one person believes and the other doesn't. See, I believe you're not interpreting John 3:16 simply as "everyone who believes shall be saved" but rather, and you may correct me if I'm wrong here but ... I believe you're forcing a meaning onto "whosoever" that is waaaaaayyy more than "everyone". I believe you're applying super-powers to "whoseover" -- that people who are still DEAD in their sins, enemies of God, opposed to the things of God -- that these people, by the almighty power of their fallen wills, have the ability to turn from their sins (which they love, and will defend to their deaths ... which you can see by the insane things that abortion advocates and transgender folks and atheists saying all the more these days) unto Christ, whom they LOATHE (though they don't mind the idol "Jesus" they've invented in their wicked imaginations) in saving faith, repenting of their sins (which they deny are sins), repenting of their self-righteousness (a label which they try to pin on you and me, when it's actually they who are self-righteous), and turning from their idols (which they love, love, love, love, love!) and trusting in Christ .... whom they do not trust.
Do you see the problem here?
//While all doesn't always just mean the word all, it does in this context, //
See above.
//and this verse certainly doesn't say anything different than that lest we add to scripture, which I have seen Calvinists do to this verse to fit their predestination mold.//
Any Calvinist that has to manipulate Scripture to fit into a predestination mold doesn't really know what he ought to know.
I can guarantee you that there will be no Scripture manipulation by me.
I will absolutely demand that you consider the context AND that you remember that one verse cannot contradict another.
And if you're willing to abide by that, and if you're willing to participate, I'd like to challenge you to go through a study of Calvinism with me.
1:11:00 John Bunyan’s Pilgrims Progress comes to mind as illustration. Christian’s burden did not fall away until he came to the Cross.
This is a particular helpful presentation. Mike! I love your videos, and don’t always comment, but I also love the attitude with which you share these. The fellowship you share with those you have disagreements with is an example to everyone. I find you research and interpretations very biblical and thoughtful. Thanks so very much. I’m subscribed and get notified when you post new videos. I remember the shock I felt when I first heard of some of these Calvinist doctrines. I’ll try to listen to the others you listed.
Since when did it make God less sovereign because He created mankind with the ability to make decisions?
I know right?!
God created mankind with the ability to make decisions, He can, He is sovereign.
@@edelbertlitangan5780 agreed. the fact that we get to choose IS the Will of God.
@Jason Koemans Calvinism doesn't posit that God is any less sovereign for all man's decisions, as long as it's understood that nothing God does is ultimately dependent on man's decisions.
@@Henry._Jones Some of what God does IS dependent on man's decisions, but only because He has chosen for that to be the case, in His sovereignty.
Mike, thanks for the work you put into this. I am no theologian but I know many Calvinists so you've helped me immensely with my understanding of Calvinism. I sat down with a Calvinist pastor and had him explain the TULIP doctrine to me. I asked a lot of questions, many he couldn't answer with scripture. He said he would provide me with scriptural answers but never did. In 2 Peter 3:9 the Calvinist view of God not wanting "any" of the "elect" to perish rather than simply any at all seems to refute the I in TULIP, Irresistible Grace. If God elects you for salvation, you cannot resist and therefore cannot perish. At least that's the way it seems to me. Love your ministry, God is using you in a profound way during these times of false teachers.
Thanks for the music. And I so appreciate your teaching about Calvism. I've never thought that it was right. But you are helping me understand it better and also to be able to talk about it more knowledgeably. I also really appreciate how you don't believe in dividing from and judging other believers over secondary issues!
Mike, I agree completely!! Very well done brother. You covered a tough topic with love, grace and wisdom. You went to the great passages that our brothers cannot refute. They simply ignore them. If it helped I would stand and cheer you! Thank you.
1) The non-elect individual is commanded to believe in the Gospel or be damned.
2) "The Gospel" = Jesus died for your sins.
3) But according to Limited Atonement, Jesus didn't really die for the non-elect.
4) Thus, non-elect are told to believe Jesus died for them when He in fact did not.
5) Thus, the non-elect is not legitimately given an option to accept, and thus cannot be damned because the offer wasn't even genuine. He is being damned for not accepting God's lie to him!
Conclusion: Limited Atonement is false, which in turn means Calvinism is false.
AMEN! I don't understand how something so simple is resulting in such confusion for many. I'm in shock by the Calvinistic view
You just gave an argument for Calvinism.
The parable of Lazarus and the richman has two sides of hell "Abraham's bossom aka paradise Torment the richman's side" before the Gospel was confirmed. If all sin was paid for the wicked are set free. JESUS emptied only the paradise side of hell, the richman's side waits the lake of fire.
Ps. 1 the wicked will not stand with the righteous on judment day because the believers sin have been erased and forgotten.
Those who do not believe are condemned already, not after they have been presented and reject the Gospel. Jesus died for all, but the payment is only applied to accounts of believers, otherwise everyone is saved. Therefore the atonement or the payment is only applicable to some accounts. And is therefore limited. This applies to all versions of Christ based salvation except universalism.
Calvanist are right to a point we are called according to his elect but then Jesus did not die for only elect or believers. Jesus died for non believes too . Redemption is a free gift but not everyone will receive it because there is a Satan seed which has been planted since long ago.
@@pskima4274so JESUS died and paid for the sins of satan's seed? Howabout the potter made some vessels to contain glory and some vessels were meant for destruction is HIS will? Knowing the end from the begining is part of HIS title Alpha and the Omega. HE planed for you before you were born and before the foundations of the earth were laid.
✝❤
The teaching is very well done. Enough biblical references and good reasoning. I like your humility and teachability. I do not support Calvinism and I never knew how to 'argue' against it. You have taught me a lot, Mr. Winger.
Well done on the intro! Loved the pics. Bringing a little levity to a heavy subject. Thank you for your attitude and example.
I appreciate how patient Mike has been in addressing the shortcomings of Calvinism. Calvinism is a contrivance and a credal system that seeks to render scripture contrary to the theoretical framework it represents as misunderstood. Whenever you require that a great body of scripture be discounted in order to put forth your own theological viewpoint, then you are on shifting sand.
Amen.
🎵 A mighty fortress is our God, a bulwark never failing🎶
Jesus also said He came to seek and to save the lost (Luke 19:10). Jesus also said He came not for the righteous, but the unrighteous (Matthew 9:13). So wouldn't it stand to reason that Jesus came for everyone, just from the theology in those passages? Since even the elect were both lost and unrighteous before they know Christ, and therefore even more so for everyone else
Respect brother. You truly contribute to this conversation. Your position is crystal clear and your humility is superb.
As I am listening to this, I wonder: Why do I enjoy this dealing with questions I never had and never came in touch with? Maybe it just gives me joy listening about God.
Truth matters, there is one truth or there is no truth. There is one Biblical truth or nothing is true. When we read Scripture through the lense of denominational doctrine instead of reading the Scripture and letting that Scripture stand on it's own merit through proper Hermeneutics we risk falling into false doctrines. So one should ask when a teaching is presented "What does the Bible say regarding this and what is the context of that Scripture when it was written?" Now read your Bible and find God's truth! God bless!
Chris Holman I completely agree. however, even Jehovah Witnesses will say exactly what you’re saying in order to state what they say is true...Regardless of their teachings being from the Watch Tower.
@@defiance1790 First thing, I apologize for the novel, bare with me for a moment. That is a good point. I have learned that when I need to find the truth in the Word of God that I should ask myself a set of questions and find the answers to those questions. That being:
1. Who wrote it
2. Who was it written to
3. What is the subject being discussed.
4. What did it mean at the time it was written and it's relevance at that time.
5. How is it then relevant to us today.
If I can accurately answer these questions I will find the truth in His word. There is a term for this process, it's call Exegesis. At this point this has become natural for me to do.
One should never attempt to apply a modern interpretation to Scripture written thousands of years ago that it could not possibly mean. What matters is what the Scripture meant when it was written. Groups like Jehovah Witnesses could not arrive at the conclusions that they do if they applied proper Exegesis.
An example of Scripture missused and misinterpreted is Psalm 105:15, also found in 1st Chronicles 16. "Touch not my annointed..." Many use this Scripture to mean "never question or challenge your pastor." If your Pastor says this immediately get up and leave, he will be a controlling Pastor setting himself up as the center of a cult of personality.
What this Scripture was referring to as the "annointed" is God's chosen people as a whole. We are now grafted into the vine. So the relevance to us today is that we as children of God fall under His protection. Another example is Isaiah 14:12 but that is a very long topic on it's own.
One thing I would like to note is the phenomenon of Linguistic Drift. The meaning of words change over time that is why I believe, and many agree with me, that it is important to look at the root Greek and Hebrew as well as the meaning of the words chosen at the time the Bible was translated into that edition. Many words found in the KJV are no longer used outside of the KJV so many people have no idea what they mean, particularly new Christians and non believers. In my opinion most Scripture does not require to be dissected like this, they are quite clear on what is being said. I hope this helps and further clarifies what I was trying to say. God Bless!
@@exploringtheologychannel1697 Exactly! In addition to diligently searching for truth we must all have civil dialogue as well. A true seeker of truth will be willing to admit when they have been proven wrong and accept the truth as it has been revealed. I admit that at one time in my life I did not do this. God Bless!
Chris Holman it not only clarifies, it helped to put some of my loose thoughts into a more structured mindset. Thank you 👍
@@defiance1790 You are quite welcome Brother!
*Gets ready for mind blowing theological discussion* BUT FIRST!!........*plays a little diddly doo* lol had me rolling. Awesome video Mike!
I'm soo glad for this video!!! Sooo good . My soul told me this is what God meant. So glad you did the hard work!!
One thing more: how could Jesus' sacrifice not pay for the whole world? Of course his life would atone for every sin, its value was infinite. Except somebody reject it and not "cash" it. To that person only it would not avail. The value is there, the payment was made, it was despised, disdained. From Argentina. THANKS
Thank you for this video and all of the videos in your playlist dealing with Calvinism. I am sincerely grateful.
ROMANS 5:6
6 For while we were still weak, at the right time CHRIST DIED FOR THE UNGODLY.
QUESTION: WHO are the ungodly?
ANSWER: EVERYONE
👏
@@BloodBoughtMinistries in one of his debates (white) he told God would be lacking something if he would want to save everyone but couldn't in reality, therefore he have to predestine everything so he keeps his sovereignity.
It's like demanding something of God so he can be your God.
While ‘WE’ were still weak.... who are the WE? Those justified by faith 5:1.... context is important and following Paul’s argument gives clarity.
Michael Borg Christ died for the ungodly, which is literally everyone.
Christ died for His sheep john 10. But they were ungodly that's why we need His blood. Now go read john 10 very carefully and listen as Jesus clearly tells some jews He is laying His life down for His sheep and that they are not His sheep... Ie He is not giving His life for them. We can fit all scriptures in their original language into our understanding you can not but must ignore some. So 😥
Mike is such a great teacher, God bless you brother!
Thank you Mike. Your defense of unlimited atonement was solid to me. I, too, am not a Calvinist but was trained in seminary as one. I looked at the scriptures that you presented, you have to twist them to make them to mean limited atonement. If Jesus did not die for everyone, how can we genuinely offer the invitation to someone we are witnessing to and tell them that Christ died for you! We can only say that may be God died for you if you are one of God’s elects.
Solid as the air I breathe.
That has always been a sticking point for me as well, which is difficult because my husband and church leaders lean strongly Calvinist (although it’s rarely taught outright in church). Our pastor says “this has been a disagreement in the church for 500 years & we’re not going to settle it today.”
Great job👍
The Gift of God was given to the entire world, but only those who receive this Gift are saved.
That's exactly how I see it.
If I offered $100 to all who came to my house and only a few showed up that's the fault of the ones who missed out. The offer still stands. Just because they didn't believe doesn't mean I didn't offer.
The gift of God does not have to be actively received to take effect. It's more like a punch in the face, you just get it.
My biggest problem with Calvinism is that it is based on a "logical system of thought" that requires the Word of God to be redefined according to their "system." The Word of God must define and outline our position, never the reverse. I also know, from having spent time in conversation with Calvinists, that they deny this, and simply proclaim that I don't understand.
So yes we require that our theology be logically sound because, important note, if it literally doesn't make sense then you can't make any sense of it and you don't have a theology at all :-)
Now on to your lack of honesty.
Is Calvinism based on "a logical system of thought"? No. It is based on the bible and what it says. The clue is that it is a systematic theology not a philosophy 🙂
I think you must know this and are being dishonest, especially so because (by your own admission) you have been corrected many times.
Is dishonesty, straw manning and refusing to be corrected by others about what they believe the right way for a Christian to behave? No, it is not.
Let me tell you what your biggest problem is, sin. That's your biggest problem here too.
Let's imagine you are an Arminian, and not a full on Pelagian, and clarify your position as indicated by your post.
1) You have a problem with logical systems of thought
2) You are so right that you know what people believe better than they do
3) You think arrogance and dishonesty are acceptable ways to behave
4) Your theology teaches that consistent wilful sin will make you unsaved
5) Only point 1 prevents the conclusion that you are going to hell
But let's examine your theology and see why you might not like logical schools of thought.
1) You believe that Jesus bore the whole penalty for every sin for everyone that ever lived
2) That didn't fully atone for them and God requires something else in addition to that
3) What God requires is that they believe that this is true
4) If we don't believe it is true then even though it is true that Jesus paid the price for every single sin that anyone ever committed God will act like it isn't
5) God is truly just
I can see why you might prefer illogical thought.
If I'm wrong then there isn't any point telling me because it will be based on an illogical system of thought and therefore I won't be able to understand it.
Mike's a good guy generally but on the Charismatic nonsense and his rejection of Reformed Theology he is hopeless.
@@Phill0old Arminianism is Diet Calvinism. Presenting it as the only real other choice outside of works based salvation is a false dichotomy. God draws all, all can reject God’s call, those that accept the call of God and place their faith in Christ and repent of their sins will find salvation. Faith is not a work. If you claim that unless God forces me to have faith then my faith is a work is not found in scripture. Faith in God is presented in scripture as the reason we can’t boast.
@@ChristianZangief I would never present it as a dichotomy because there is at least one other kind of semi Pelagian theology and full on Pelagianism. So it would be neither correct nor honest to do so. Since I'm a Christian honesty is important to me. You, on the other hand, present the idea that in Reformed theology faith is forced on people. Now that isn't true so either you don't know what you are talking about and should have kept quiet until you understood it you are not honest. Ignorance or dishonesty appear to be the only options here, unless you are insane? So which is it? Are you mad? Ignorant? Or a liar?
For a proper understanding of how and why people are saved I refer readers to the Bible where they will find that people are chosen, selected and blessed by God in special ways and the rest are not so blessed but are left to their own desires.
@@ChristianZangief Just over tiny issue with the idea that God calls all. You didn't say what God calls all people to. You didn't explain why God calling them means that they can do what they are called to do or why they would be so inclined. Could you clear that up? Since you are stating that the Bible makes those claims it should be an easy thing....
@@Phill0old you’re claiming that in reformed theology the elect can choose not to be the elect? If not then their faith is forced on them from God. If so then they have freewill to reject God and some will. So which is it?
God draws all to him but He allows us to either accept or reject his call. My phone can ring but I can choose not to answer it.
Thank you for affirming something I have thought for a long time. The bible clearing talks about some people being predestined for good works, for ministry, but it also talks about salvation being for all men. Since it has BOTH I believe in both.
Thanks, Mike.
1. Election is not about individual salvation. It is about duty/service to which all believers are called, hence the term, "the elect".
2. There is no RECONCILIATION without REPENTANCE. Believing without repentance is the same as acknowledging the free gift of salvation without accepting it.
This I agree. Calvinism says (afaik) God has chosen people from the beginning who will be saved and who will be damned; thus our fate is sealed whether we're saved or damned.
This interpretation is hilariously wrong. A more accurate understanding would be God chose to save those who would choose to be saved. Jesus knocks on our doors; we can choose to let Him in or not (Rev 3:20).
I can stay calm about Calvinism on paper, but when I see some of the ways it destroys people I know, work with, or live with....then I get passionate against it. Well...after further thought(lol), I also get passionate when I think about how Calvinism ruins the character of God made plain in scripture.
Justin Harrell I could agree with most of that. I personally can’t say all the way only because I never actually met a real Calvinist/cessationist/reformer in real life yet. Hard to believe I know, but I only know of them through TH-cam so far.
@@tarikR.R.5120 Yes I can believe because first contact for me was decades after being a Christian.
Justin Harrell Yes Justin. If Calvinism is true and God predestined people to go to Hell, that makes God a monster.
@justin harrell
I can, in love and concern, reverse everything you've said:
"I can stay calm about Arminianism on paper, but when I see some of the ways it destroys people I know, work with, or live with....then I get passionate against it. Well...after further thought(lol), I also get passionate when I think about how Arminianism ruins the character of God made plain in scripture."
Saying that about Calvinism -- or Arminianism -- is a blanket statement that needs justification. There are saved, growing, mature, Calvinists and Arminians out there. To say otherwise, without proof is unloving, judgmental, and illogical -- it's a straw man....and it's offensive.
Most of the people I know are Arminian, while I am a five-point Calvinist. I see so many Arminians struggle about knowing whether they are saved or if they have lost their salvation.
I grew up as a "five-point Arminian" and struggled with assurance. It scared me to death. When I would read 1 John 5:13 or Hebrews 6 (especially vv. 3-6), I wondered how I could know if I was really saved, since I believed I could lose my salvation -- and possibly never get it back.
I also saw that it was utterly inconsistent to pray for somebody else's salvation if God did not intervene against somebody's free will, being an Arminian, at the time.
On top of that, as an Arminian, I always worried that when I witnessed to somebody, that if I mess it up or was a bad witness at the moment or don't say the right words, I could be guilty of causing the other person to be less likely to believe in Jesus.
For me and countless others, Arminianism is fear about salvation (my own and to those I witness to), not assurance.
After searching the Scriptures and praying for myself, I saw that I was the one who was wrong. It started with understanding that the Scripture teaches assurance of salvation and that you cannot lose it -- but only if you're actually saved in the first place. At that point, I re-read 1 John 5:13, Hebrews 6, Romans 7-9, Ephesians, and Galatians. The book of John -- election is everywhere, along with assurance that you are saved (or that you are lost).
Now, I witness, when I get the chance and pray for them harder, believing that God commands us to preach/teach the Gospel and that He "gives the increase," calls the elect, and is able to save people, in spite of me. Now, I should always be "ready to give an account" (1 Peter 3:15) and I strive to witness through my life, as well.
Several years later, as a "five-point Calvinist," I have assurance of my salvation in Christ, I love both Calvinist and Arminian brothers and sisters in Christ, I worry less about witnessing, and I am growing like never before. My Bible reading and prayer are far more consistent. I love Jesus.
So, has Calvinism "destroyed" me? That silly idea is utterly false. I can also reverse it, too, and show you brothers and sisters in Christ who are Arminian.
Being a non-Christian "Arminian" or "Calvinist" will destroy you, though. That person gets an extra bad place in Hell, for eternity -- not because of those beliefs, but because they sat under the teachings of Scripture, time after time after time and still rejected Christ.
Being a Christian "Arminian" or "Calvinist" who lacks growth will destroy you, as well.
I saw Mike Winger's video but disagree with it in some areas -- and it's fine. As a 5 point Calvinist, I truly believe Mike W is a born-again believer. I like his ministry, and have both been edified by it, and have shared some of his videos. I love his attitude and his love for the Church -- Arminians, Calvinists, or other. If we get nothing else out of his video, we should take his example of living out the fruit of the Spirit and do likewise.
I am also a fan of James White. It's so awesome that these two can sit down and love each other, just as Christ loves the Church.
It's OK to have a heated debate about beliefs, in the Church -- "iron sharpens iron." Taking cheap pot shots against fellow believers is forbidden in Scripture. That's why blanket statements about "A's" or "C's" are so wrong.
'In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.' -- Augustine
Mark 1:15 is true for "A's" and for "C's": “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel (ESV).”
@@helicam1234 Firstly, I am not Arminian. Secondly, I only took "pot shots" at a system..not the people...at least that was my intent. Lastly, I am sorry you had to write all that ;) I think both systems have flaws because I don't see them portrayed by the whole of scripture.
The fact alone that Jesus died for the dammed TOO is the reason WHY their condemnation IS JUST, the hand was outstretched to them and they refused it!
Amen!
And by doing so they committed the sin of blaspheming the spirit which Jesus didn't pay for.
Amen
Seeing the pictures with James White is indeed refreshing. The pictures speak for itself. Great friendship inspite of differences in theology.
Getting into a debate with a well versed Calvinist backed me into a corner of choosing Universalism. He didn’t give me a third option such as looking at it Biblically as Mike does here.
Railing against limited atonement and into universalism then sent me into new age and new thought. That’s been my journey for the last 20 years. Believing in a Jesus that looks like me.
Thank God that I’m starting to wake up thanks to being convicted of my own sins. I’m not a good person. I finally get it. Now I’m slowly rebuilding my belief that the Bible is the word of God.
So grateful to you Mike for taking the time to do this and giving me more hope in the Bible.
You only get backed into a corner if you presuppose Penal Substitution Atonement theory. That’s Christ payed for your sins or took the wrath you deserved. Yes Jesus died for you but it doesn’t mean he paid for your sins. Scriptures never say this
@@missinsanelogic
Interesting that you don’t see Penal Substitutionary atonement in scriptures.
You must have a different way of interpreting Romans 3:25 and Isaiah 53:5.
I was backed into a corner because the man I was talking with was so adamant that Jesus did NOT die for everyone. He came only for those that believe. Which is quite contrary to John 3:16.
When I now look at the whole picture of the Bible, I see what you must be trying to tell me. That Jesus came to die for everyone, but only those that believe will have their sins covered by his sacrifice.
Is that what you’re saying?
@@gennafifi Isaiah 53Note the part where the verse says: "yet we considered him punished by God". This phrase implies that it is wrong to consider him punished by God, which is explicitly what penal substitution teaches. He wasn’t actually punished by God. He voluntarily took our pain; God was not punishing him because he needed some satisfaction. The iniquity was laid upon to accomplish the purpose of transforming man, not of fulfilling some need for retribution
Notice that it says "by his wounds we are healed", and not "by his wounds God is satisfied". I personally think this is a very strong argument against substitution because it only talks about Christ's work as healing us, not satisfying God requirement for penal satisfaction.
With Romans 3:25 many people take propitiation to mean “ payment for sin” but it’s not, it means mercy seat, like the mercy seat in the Old Testament on the arc of the covenant. So in 1 John 2 days “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world”.
The Calvinist will say see either He is the payment of sins of the whole world or payment of sins for only those who are predestermined to believe. Both super flawed doctrines.
We should see at it as , Jesus is the mercy seat for the whole world, in other words He is the place where the whole world can be made right with God, but off course we know not everyone will come to Him. This fits perfectly.
Yes Jesus came to die for everyone but not everyone will come to Him , to the place we can be made one with God. There is a lot more to these passages but I very breifly came some two cents about them
@@missinsanelogic
Thank you this! You call it 2 cents worth, but I got a ton out of it!
Is there more information you could point me to that goes deeper into this? I’ve never heard it explained that way before.
Thank you Mike I've been struggling with the logic pretzel of calvinism ,this explanation has helped alot.
Mike Winger has a lot of inconsistencies in his theology! Though I watched some of his videos but not all. Some of his ideas on other topics like Roman Catholicism and Baptism are good. But not this one. The problem with Mike Winger is that he lacks exegesis and hermeneutics on this topic. He can't really exegete Romans 9! Also, Mike is saying that Salvation is Synergistic. The problem with that view is that you make man Sovereign and not God. He doesn't really understand what the Apostle Paul said in Ephesians 2. We are saved by grace alone through faith alone not by works so that no one may boast!
@@samuelaguilar9668 You might enjoy Leighton Flowers on this issue. He was a Calvinist himself for over 10 years, so has a good grasp of the doctrine.
Mind you, I think Mike Winger is pretty good at digging into the scriptures too.
@@samuelaguilar9668 Did you watch his video on Romans 9?
Can't exegete scripture or can't say what you want him to say?
@@samuelaguilar9668 Mike is not synergistic. That’s blatantly false unless of course you believe faith is a work. And under that crumbles everything else you said.
@@judylloyd7901yeah Leighton is not exactly a credible source😂. He didnt/couldn't walk though Romans 9 against James White so
Calvinist thinkers often employ the same debate tactics as many skeezy politicians and it rubs me the wrong way
Step 1: misrepresent your opponent's argument
Step 2: demand your opponent disprove the point they were never making in the first place
Step 3: smugly claim victory over an argument that was never made
They dilute the argument and muddy the water so that nobody can actually tell what you were originally arguing anymore
This is so true dude
I've come upon this video mainly because of a discussion I had with a gentleman leading a Bible Study (Zoom style!) at my church a couple of days ago. I thought prior to this that Calvinism was completely discredited and abandoned as a theology a long time ago. I've certainly never had anyone try to persuade me of its concepts in my Christian walk before (42 years). So, I'm now trying to find out more about Calvinism, what its teachings are and why people believe it to be a correct interpretation of scripture.
The salvation issue: We are bound for hell (the spiritual ‘death’ as in Genesis 3) because we have all broken the most important commandment: Deuteronomy 6:5 & others, quoted in Matthew 22:37 like Lemmings racing en masse for the edge of a precipice. We need saving if we're not wanting 'to go over the edge'. A lot of the Calvinist arguments seem to be based on a ‘framework’ which is based on complicated human philosophies, based on Biblical concepts that are over simplified (often quoted as a formula, rather than a concept). As Mike points out, the arguments for it are inconsistent, eg, either you believe in Universalism or Limited Atonement. Like JWs, like the Pharisees before Jesus, there are just two simplistic options, it would seem. The truth, however, is that it's not that simple.
I hope the analogy below helps someone understand some of the errors of Limited Atonement:
Imagine there are two people dying of the same disease in adjacent hospital beds.
Let's call them Jane and Joe for identification.
However, a treatment that can save them has been discovered!
The doctor offers both the same treatment.
(This is analogous to God/Jesus "drawing all people", same offer for all.)
Jane says "yes" when the doctor offers it to her, and several days later her family are celebrating her gradually improving health, and are massively grateful to the doctor for availing Jane of the treatment.
Did she save herself?
No, it was the treatment that saved her, but it was only effective because she accepted it.
Joe , sadly, passed away, dying in agony, having refused the treatment.
Did he die because the treatment was unable to save him?
No, it proved effective for Jane, so that's not the problem.
Did he die because the doctor didn't offer him the treatment?
No, they were both given the same offer.
Was Jane saved because the doctor forced the treatment on her?
No, clearly not, Joe had the same offer, but he wasn't forced to accept it.
Failed Saviour non sequitur
Was the treatment a failure because Joe died?
No, the treatment was successful because Jane was ‘saved from death’.
The reason the treatment was unsuccessful for Joe was because he refused it.
Limited atonement non sequitur
Was the treatment that the doctor recommended only available to Jane, and not to Joe?
The ‘treatment’ for the disease was available to all (including to Joe) but didn’t heal all- because some (eg Joe) freely rejected it!
I would check out Leighton Flowers if you haven't already to learn more about how the teachings of scripture do not line up with Calvinism.
Calvinism SHOULD have died out long ago, but it sadly has not.
As with all the awful analogies used by those who can't deal with reality yours is chock full of nonsense.
You said that Jesus draws all men to himself meaning all people for all time and the problem with that is that it is not true and Jesus never made that claim. You changed what he said, ignored the context and misused it to make it fit your theology and that is bad.
Let's look at the text, in context, and see if you
1) Believe what it says
2) Even believe what you want it to say
Here is the passage in question
30Jesus said, “This voice was for your benefit, not mine. 31Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. 32And I, when I am lifted up g from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” 33 He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die.
So let's look at why he said it, thankfully the text tells us - "He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die." It isn't about who will be saved but what death Jesus will die.
So let's break down what it actually says
When Jesus is lifted up (his death on the cross) he will draw all people to himself.
Points to note
1) The tense, when this happens I will do that
2) What does all men or all people mean?
On point 1. This is a promise to do something in the future, it therefore cannot be applied to those who have already died because they die and then face judgment, unless you are claiming that dead sinners are drawn to Christ? Now that automatically limits the scope of the drawing to exclude all those who died before Jesus was crucified.
On point 2. What do "all" and "people/men" mean? in the text
Well first up there isn't a word for men or people in the text, there is just "pas" which is translated "all" and no word for who or what the all are. so we need to deal with what that means only 🙂
Let's see if "pas" without any referent means all the people that ever lived or all the people alive from then on shall we? Pas occurs 1243 times in the NT. Want to guess how many times it means that? I recommend that you read Matthew Chapter 2 and tell me how many times of the 4 times it is used it means every single person.
Let's look at just one
"When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him."
Does that mean every single person that ever lived in Jerusalem was troubled?
Does that mean every single person then living in Jerusalem was troubled?
Does that mean every single person that ever lived or would ever live in Jerusalem was troubled?
Or........ Does it mean that some people, of various kinds, that lived in Jerusalem at that time were troubled?
In conclusion.
Either you are a heretic and believe in faith attained after death, I doubt that, or you don't even believe what you need that passage to mean for it to mean that each and every person has the same offer of salvation. Not that you really believe that anyway since millions died after Jesus was crucified who never heard the gospel or heard of Jesus.
Now to correct your analogy
You are in the morgue. There are lots of other people in the morgue. You all died because you were killed by the consequence of the evil actions first of your family and then of yourself. You never wanted to change those actions, you enjoyed them and despised anyone who told you to stop. Anyone who warned you of the outcome you would face you despised and one of them you killed.
Then the man you killed brings you back to life, totally forgives you and gives you a new understanding of himself and of how much he always loved you.
1) You then start whining that he didn't ask you first if you wanted to be alive. You are an Arminian.
2) You thank him and trust everything he says and no longer trust your own judgment but defer to him. You are Reformed.
Have a blessed day and trust in the Lord.
@@Phill0old With respect, I shall limit my reply to your own first sentence.
@@1958vintage Of course, when corrected by scripture and sound argument you have..... Nothing. Thanks for demonstrating the shallowness of your argument and theology.
@@Phill0old Your story about the person in the morgue... I must say that you are making sweeping statements without being in possession of all the facts!
You haven't ascertained the responses of everyone in such a scenario.
I would be the one so grateful, but I am not "Reformed" in my theology.
I'm not Arminian, but certainly not a Calvinist either!!!
Why do people insist that one must be either one or the other? You can't pigeonhole people so conveniently. 🤪🤪🤪
Btw, it's *unChristlike* to *attack* someone with accusations of shallowness for disagreeing with you, as if you know all theology in every degree and detail perfectly.
It reeks of arrogance 😳
Thank you for your ministry, by which you show yourself to be a loving brother, Mike Winger.
I'm so thankful that JESUS was loving and merciful enough to die for everyone! To say that he never, is to diminish his love and mercy! How sad for those who do!
how can it be encouraging to believe a sovereign God died for everyone to have a chance but His death was nit effectual for any?
@@dfischer1709 it was effectual for all. But just like food is effective to nourish you, of you don't take and eat it you will starve.
The good shepherd knows HIS sheep and the sheep know their masters voice. There is still mercy and love while the wicked burn. You forget a just and righteous GOD who is also the potter making vessels for glory and others meat for destruction according to HIS will. The FATHER draws to the SON according to HIS will not your will. Give thanksgiving your among the chosen with no free will of your own.
@@rickhuntling7338 Believe what you want. The Bible says he's the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. Whole means whole, not just a few.
@@bobbyadkins6983
World to the Jews means Gentiles. You can believe Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin are square with our Righteous GOD but I assure you they will be paying for their own sins in the lake of fire along with any other nonbelievers. You're saying the attonment is universal believer or not.
1st Jn. 2:2 goes straight into knowing HIM and keeping HIS commandments. Mao did't keep JESUS's commandments .
You discernment is zero when it comes to the attonment. The blood covered the house of the treshold it was painted on. The National sacrifice was sprinkled on the congregation to cover them for the year. It didn't atone for egypt nor does CHRIST blood cover the nonrepentant sinner.
Jn. 17:16,17 says we are not of this world and HIS sacrifice sanctifies CHRIST so we may be scantified also. Look up the word James. It says we are separated from the world. The same world that will burn for their sins you claim are paid for.
At minute 2:58 the big problem that I have with Calvinism is that they distort the gospel that's a huge deal it's not a minor issue!
What do you say is the gospel?
@@PsychoBible I fully agree.
@@PsychoBible how would you say calvinism distort the gospel?
That’s what I was confused about. If you bear a different gospel are you a brother/sister in Christ? At what point is that line drawn?
The idea of limited atonement fundamentally not only alters the Gospel but the God behind it. Very confused how this situation is different from say anyone who harbors a works based gospel (in this case it’s just altered differently).
@@strykerdawn1. Jesus died for you…if you’re lucky.
Thank you. I needed this. It’s a tough pill to swallow that some are damned and unable to accept God’s gift.
That's not the teaching. ALL are able to believe and accept salvation. Most CHOOSE to be damned.
You are so right. Some of them deny it, but Calvinism is determinism. I, too, choked on the idea that God created souls specifically to be damned.
@@michaelbee2165 Please explain? I thought some are elected and others not.
I’ve watched this video 4 times and every time I watch it I learn something new. Thank you
Learned so much......... I’ve been a born again believer for 40 years. Worked in the ICU for 20 years as a RN and have shared the gospel with so many patients and families. Many have asked Jesus to forgive their sins right there in the hospital in the trauma unit. I never heard of such a mess with this so called Calvinism. I’ve read the Bible thoroughly and never heard Calvinism mentioned or referred to., honestly. ( a little sarcasm sorry ), but anyway there is plenty of scripture to refute this claim.Boy .... can man really muddy the waters. Such a shame.😕
NKJV
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. John 14 :26
@@Cyberfender1 conveniently left off the part where Jesus said "Obey my commands" right before that.. but I'm guessing that doesn't for your easy believing, sin forgiving, holy spirit receiving theology?
Bless you awesome testimony
@@UniteAgainstEvil You are jumping to conclusions about jason ferrell. Unkind and unnecessarily rude comment. 🙁🙁
@@UniteAgainstEvil Jesus replied that the two greatest commands are to love the Lord GOD with all one's heart, mind and strength and to love one's neighbor(friend or enemy) as one would love one's self..
In God there seem to be great mysteries.. I am God's creature. Let God be LORD.
Slaying the guitar brother! Great intro!
Is this a correct analogy? -I picture a patron paying for the meals of everyone in the restaurant, but many step up and say “no”, as they would like to pay for their own. They don’t have or don’t want a relationship with the giver, or fear strings attached if they accept the offer. It’s not that their meal wasn’t paid for, but they didn’t except the gift.
accept
I had to listen to multiple portions of this video multiple times, again and again ... mind-blowing. I love thinking critically about soteriology.
It was God’s intent to save all those who BELIEVE.
That’s what pleases God.
That’s His intent.
...According to 1 Corinthians 1:21 does it please God to save those that believe or does it please Him to save people so that they can then believe after they’re born again?
1 CORINTHIANS 1:21
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching TO SAVE THEM THAT BELIEVE.
Nowhere in scripture does it say God’s intent in sending Jesus to die on the cross was to secure salvation for anyone.
His intent in sending His Son was to reconcile the world to Himself and to provide a WAY to Him which would be through FAITH.
Christ died for the sins of the world.
For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
He did not die to secure the salvation of the world.
Salvation is secured by FAITH.
WHERE IN SCRIPTURE DOES IT SAY GOD’S INTENT WAS TO SECURE ANYONE’s SALVATION?
**(Although it did secure the salvation of the OT Saints who died in faith such as Abraham who had their faith credited to them as righteousness and were simply waiting in Abraham’s Bosom for the blood atonement.)
Dude what are you talking about Mike just showed you about 8 passage of Scripture and you still with that talk
Craig Smith I agree with Mike in this video.
I believe my post lines up with his teaching.
What did I say that you disagree with or that you feel Mike doesn’t?
@@apilkey my mistake I miss understood your writing my apologies
Craig Smith haha k no worries man God bless you...
@@apilkey GOD BLESS you to Aaron
THANK YOU! the limited atonement issue seemed to be a calvinist's most compelling point for appearing to present a more coherent plan for atonement than other models. i agree that scripture really makes it clear that jesus didn't only die for the elect, but the trinitarian harmony, trilemma, and double jeopardy were still compelling due to them appearing to be pretty solid when first presented, so i had no answer for any of these objections.
Some will say they are of Baptist, some will say they are of Luther, some will say they are Methodists,
Some will say they are of Catholicism,
Some will say they are of Calvinist.
I will say I am of Christ, for Christ is the one who died for me. Man sees through a dim glass.
Amen!!! All these reformed Christians all claiming to be Christian but look to reformers
1 John 2:2 - And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.
Yes, I believe that Jesus died for all, so that those who believe should be saved.
Please pray for me me and my mother are going through hard times
I will pray 💙
Praying..
This was a great presentation. I’d be considered “reformed”, but I’ve been questioning pretty much everything. This video was very helpful. Thanks.
As you consider calvinism think about some of the contradictions and double talk present in this theology
- God decrees all evil
- God "restrains" the evil he decrees
- all doesn't mean all, everyone doesn't mean everyone and the whole world doesn't mean whole world
- faith is a work if not effectually given
- admitting your a sinner in need of grace = earning your own salvation
- God must condemn to hell most babies in the womb in order to show his justice
These facts of calvinism are opposed to what we're taught in scripture. God desires all to be saved and come to the knowledge of him. God does not need to decree every action and thought of every man to be sovereign and in control.
@@coryalbright9798 I’m Lutheran now. :)
@@1920s 😃
@@1920s check out dr gene Kim and Robert breaker
@@1920s Isn't lutheran also "reformed" and wrong in many of the same ways that Calvinism is?
Mike's methods of teaching are so clear, measured, thought-out, and thorough; they are scholarly and well-researched, without language that goes over the head of a typical person. I feel like his work on Women in Ministry is something I have been hoping for almost my whole life. And now, even though I haven't listened to much of his work on Calvinism yet, I feel like he gives a clear but thorough refutation of determinism that could be understood by maybe even an intelligent older child. I just got done listening to William Lane Craig with James White, and there are a lot of people who would have been lost in the language, though it was valuable. Mike, your work is so important because you don't cut corners, but your words can reach a larger audience of seekers. On a personal note, passages that seem to promote Calvinism have always bothered me. I tend towards doubting my own salvation, so I have periods of intense fear that Calvinism makes too much sense. Or, I will just get tangled up in how the Scriptures seem to support both Calvinism and Arminianism, and I'll kind of bang my head against a proverbial wall for a season. All I can say is that this video helps. I like when Mike shows that when there is "clear teaching" that demonstrates one side of an issue and then another passage can be used to maybe muddy the waters or support another side, you need to focus on the abundance of clear teaching.
They don't realize that the sacrifice of the Son was ultimate and complete, by reason of His endless purity and grace, so is His blood endless in value.
When Dr White said that you shouldn't read 1 John 3 to understand 1 John 2, it proves my point about why I HATE the chapter/verse breakdown of the Bible. So often, people get hing up on a verse or a chapter, and forget that those things were added in later. 1 John was just a letter that they would read through in it's entirety, probably in 1 sitting. So, when we break it down into little snippets, it's like receiving a letter, reading the 1st paragraph, and then walking away and not worrying about the rest of it, atleast in the moment. That's a horrible way to read a letter. You have to read the letter.all the way through before you can break it down, especially when the letter wasn't written with the modern day breakdown we have applied to it!!!
I think Frank Turek got it right when he said that God is not a dictator, He loves us so much, but He will not force Himself in us.
We have our free will, either to accept or to reject His free offer.
This idea begins to fall apart when you look at God's plan of atonement through Jesus Christ. If Herod or Pilate or the Pharisees or the Romans hadn't decided to kill Jesus, then God's plan would have been thwarted. I think we attribute too much power to man's capabilities. Instead we should focus on what the Bible teaches, which is the sovereignty of God to bring things to pass as He sees fit and how we are actually enslaved to our sinful nature, unable to seek after God unless He draws us to Himself.
Time-stamps
5:50, 6:40
7:24 - John Owens
1:02:40, 1:04:40 - trilemma
1:05:16 - Saved by the cross, when they believe and receive Christ
11:38, 11:58, 12:50 - trinitarian harmony in the atonement
13:46, 14:26 -
19:18 - 1 John 2:2
36:55, 43:15 - Romans 8 and foreknowledge
God has all wisdom and knowledge throughout all eternity from everlasting to everlasting and we as humans only have a finite perspective through out time... This topic involves some deep introsepction and internal wrestiling of the heart and mind towards a persons faith in why and how they spiritualy came to their belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour in the first place? God does not and can not contradict himself and in being triune as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have to be in complete harmony in accordance with the totality of Gods Word. If there is any discrepencey its in mans own interpretations. With that being said and with much love here are some passages of John that can't be easliy glossed over...
He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. but to all who did receive Him, to those who believed in his name, He gave the right to become children of God- children born not of blood, nor of the desire or will of man, but born of God. John 1:11-13
Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. John 3:18
Truly, truly, I tell you, whoever hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life and will not come under judgment. Indeed, he has crossed over from death to life. John 5:24
And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that I shall lose none of those He has given Me, but raise them up at the last day. For it is My Father's will that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day".. “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:40-45
Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on My own, but He sent Me. Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you are unable to accept My message. John 8:42-43
"I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep...even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep...But because you are not My sheep, you refuse to believe. My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one can snatch them out of My hand. My Father who has given them to Me is greater than all. No one can snatch them out of My Father’s hand. I and the Father are one. John 10:11.15,26-30
"I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom Thou hast given Me; for they are Thine;" John 17:9
This was very interesting!! Thank you!! I am NOT a Calvinist. My major objection is - if God only saves so many people - then Satan has won! He knows who he’s getting and how many. I can’t live with that or believe that. God will save as many as He can! Thanks again Pastor Mike for your great videos.
I don't think God will save as many as He "can". He is God and does whatever He pleases at any point in time to any degree. He will save as many as He WILL, the elect. God does not need us, we need Him.
Guys, take heed*, we must be nice to all types of people. You can choose whom to be peaceful with just don't limit it to one nationality or position in society.
Romans 12:18 Christian Standard Bible (CSB)
18 If possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.
Pas anthropos
Heed, not head
@ 28:43 Winger talks about who the “All” are ?
Calvinist says “all kinds” and Winger suggests “all” are everyone whoever lived….but as history on this earth is winding down we get a glimpse of who the “All” are in Revelation
Chapter 7.
There is a massive group of people who are standing at the throne of God… …..people who were killed, but got saved during the great tribulation…. As verse 14 of chapter 7 says…. These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
But who are in part the “All”?
Go back to Rev. 7:9 for your answer…. Revelation 7:9
[9] After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of “ALL” nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands…
Clearly, the “All” are everyone without distinction, not everyone without exception, which is what Winger is trying to convince you of.
So the Calvinist position is correct in assuming it’s all kinds of people of every tribe, tongue & nation.
Fantastic teaching. Love your detail oriented approach to Biblical exegesis.
"...so Jesus just goes rogue..." 🤣 You have a way with words Mike! Yes, sadly Calvinists seem to start with a premise and build a theology based on man's faulty logic, brick by brick, until God becomes made in man's image - a psychopathic tyrant. I choose instead to trust what the Bible actually SAYS about God. THAT is a God no man could create; so full of grace, mercy, goodness, compassion, love, holiness, and with a sovereignty that is in no way threatened by man's free will, a free will GIVEN to us by our loving Creator.
You got me! 😅. - I was believing you until you showed the photo of you and James White jumping out of an airplane. That was so funny.
Thank you Mike, I really love that you stressed the importance treating this topic as Brothers and Sisters in Christ and not be divisive. I really like your quote from 2:47-3:07.
I do believe that "Inside Baseball" is a beneficial thing to have amongst believers, so we can be ready to defend our faith, and as His church, grow in our knowledge of God.
It seems like to me, that the disagreement isn't really about the interpretation or meaning of Christ's atonement, but about its classification:
"For “all men” the death of Christ is the foundation of the free offer of the gospel...
The sending of the Son is for the whole world in the sense that Jesus makes plain: so that whoever believes in him should not perish...
When the gospel is preached, Christ is offered to all without discrimination. And the offer is absolutely authentic for all. What is offered is Christ, and anyone - absolutely anyone - who receives Christ receives all that he bought for his sheep, his bride."
- "Five Points" by John Piper
So, to summarize most Calvinists who believe in "Limited Atonement" do still believe that:
1) Christ died for all
2) (so that) All that believe are saved
So to me it seems like the difference between the interpretation of these two truths as "Christ died for all in the same way" and "Christ's death is different for believers and unbelievers". Both sides agree about these two statements, and both sides agree about the meaning of those two statements, but they disagree about their classification. "Limited Atonement" fellas say that the Atonement part is different for believers and unbelievers, and "Universal (unlimited) atonement" fellas says that atonement was the same, but the application is different.
Let me know if I'm missing anything.
Thank you.
Any possible way you can put these arguments in a pdf ?
Joe Roubidoux, great idea! Mike, what about it?
Joe Roubidoux he’s already doing so much. One of us should transcribe it into a PDF.
I am doing one run. It will be out today or tomorrow
Lol right!
@@hotsauce4dayz222 let me know what you got.
The elected mentioned were the disciples who were chosen to go to the world to preach the gospel, for all to be given the good news of salvation, John 3; 16 is so clear , “ for GOD so Loved The World that He Gave His only begotten Son that Whoever believes in Him should not parish but have eternal life”. All the world , period, man chooses to accept the gift or not. Simple and clear.
Thank you for this, I’m debating with a Calvinist currently and this video helped me out a lot
Does this mean that Calvinists are not saved? Are they not saved if they believe that?
@@williamgullett5911 no they are definitely saved. If you believe in Christ as your lord and savior and confess ur sins. U shall be saved. All the finer details about what u believe probly doesn’t affect ur salvation as much as it affects ur life on earth and what u do with it.
@@amandacarmel6084 As a newish 3 yr Christian I always had those things and will continue focusing on those things...then I started seeing these videos...and while it didn't change anything it muddied the waters. I know where my faith, my worship has to be...Jesus, the cross...His shed blood..Matthew 22:37...my heart is for GOD, not doctrines...although it makes me sad to see doctrinal debates..not because one side is right on an issue and one wrong..but because those debates divide Christians. Thank you for the response.
GOD bless
Mike Winger thanks forr setting an example in your videos. It is convicting to see how you speak truth in love to our brothers and sisters in Christ even those that disagree with you. We are suppose to be known for our love for one another, and I pray God helps us to do just that, because we can't do it alone. Only by faith in him. God bless
Haven't got to watch this yet, but who wants to bet that James White will claim Mike isn't understanding his argument, or didn't answer the question?
Practical Faith He’ll derive some arbitrary esoteric phrase and say Mike hasn’t dealt with the fundamental aspects of reformed theology (who read it in his voice?), but he won’t say specifically what that is.
In their world, if you don’t hold to it, you don’t understand it.
Quit flattening it out, Mike 😉
He doesn't answer the double jeopardy argument though, it still remains that both Jesus and the sinner in hell pay for the same sin... Not that it matters if scripture teaches it is so... But I can understand why someone would think it unjust...
@@jessethomas3979 hey i can answer that christ gave himself for their sin paying but saying no is like turning round and giving that payment back and saying no ill pay myself thank you.
See you can pay for a gift for someone and tha ty person refuses to take the gift.
@@darklydevine2983 That's not exactly Mike's position or an arminian position... Jesus finished the payment on the cross... The payment for each particular sin of the non elect... That is why it can be said "Jesus paid for your sin" to anyone... What must be remembered is that the payment was made to the father... And the non elect will once more pay for the same sin in hell...
@@jessethomas3979 hey jesse im not a follower of arminianism and i dont get my theology from mike, i get it from the bible, we recieve the gift of salvation so we can turn it down its paid upto god but we recieve the gift, im just going from my understanding of what a gift is and what i read from the scriptures, and why do i think we recieve the gift
As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God's varied grace
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23.
I feel it isnt paid twice as if the gift is turned down our sin still has a cost. There could be in a way tqo payments but i doubt if we pay our sins in hell god is taking it as payment, sorry i could be wrong, but i wasnt going off mikes posistion i was going of mine
Mr. Winger, even though I think you wrong on this issue, I appreciate that you recognize us Calvinists as fellow believers. Too many online anti-Calvinist warriors condemn us as unsaved because, well, I don't know why they do so, since we proclaim salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, just like they say they do.
I have posted a lot on this feed as someone against Calvinism, so I cannot speak for everyone else, but I certainly believe there are some (if not MANY) Calvinists who are saved and REALLY love Jesus and know Him. (ie Jimmy Needham considers himself a Calvinist (probably a low Calvinist) and is actually my all time favorite Christian singer and I listen to his music everyday) My contention is with the TULIP systematic and many Calvinists are inconsistent with the false doctrine. I believe only hyper Calvinists are actually consistent with what TULIP requires of them to believe. I am trying to expose Calvin and Augustine's false interpretations of scripture that is a twist of the very core principles of the faith.
@@Loves2HugItOut When you say TULIP, do you mean the simplified version that came about in the last century, some incredibly warped and twisted version that many anti-Calvinists like to toss around, or do you mean the historic meaning as found in the Canons of Dort? I've found that even the most well meant opponents who try to be as fair as possible often get tripped up by not understanding how TULIP actually fits in to Calvinist theology and assume a point means something it doesn't.
For example, hyper-Calvinism really only makes sense if you ignore important premises like the nature of God's decree and how it establishes man's free will and the primary / second cause distinction. But once the whole of Calvinism is understood, a hyper-Calvinist understanding of TULIP is completely bogus.
@@Loves2HugItOut "I believe only hyper Calvinists are actually consistent"
Not true at all and they aren't consistent either. The Gospel does not encourage passivity.
Randy Couture the only consistent Calvinism is double predestination, but even THAT is logically contradictory, because even THAT is making a truth claim, and to make a truth claim requires libertarian fee will. Calvinists are ignorant fools that call God a liar.
@Greg B. If you look around you will find people who are or claim to be calvinists that claim non-calvinists are unsaved heretics that worship an idol of God, instead of God himself.
But if you are submitting to following the Lion of Judah, the one who rose from the dead on the third day, then you are my brother regardless of labels and theologians.
Isn’t this actually quite simple? you accept Christ’s sacrifice as payment for your sins or you face judgement under the law which nobody will be found worthy?
Exactly. It doesn’t get simpler than that
Calvinism agrees, but add that God chooses who will believe
@@peterfox7663 Calvinism does not agree. They believe the payment is applied before faith and before it is accepted by the believer. Nay, the believer's actions play no importance or meaning in their salvation whatsoever. They are regenerated and saved before faith, thus their accepting the sacrifice of Christ is after it has already been applied. If they (the majority of calvinists) believed as you say, they would not need to believe in limited atonement.
I am not a calvinist and I disagree with this view, but I've heard it enough in debates to represent it correctly.
@@lordblarg Calvinists still profess a person needs to accept Jesus as savior, to hear and believe. They are not saved until they accept Christ (they are predestined to salvation, yes). But a person cannot accept Christ unless God has regenerated their heart first. And God chooses who He will regenerate according to reasons known only to Him.
It sounds like you are conflating the "regeneration" with "salvation".
I am not a Calvinist and vehemently disagree with the philosophy. It is consistent within itself, if a person holds to all 5 parts of TULIP. But it falls apart if you get rid of any of those, and also fails when compared to the Bible.
@@peterfox7663, Calvinism believes that God chooses those who are saved, and saves them to the uttermost before the foundation of the world independent of anything that they do. There is no point in time where an elect person is not saved. There is a time before they are regenerated, but salvation is the first chain in the order of salvation on their worldview. For them, it goes: salvation -> regeneration -> faith, and not regeneration -> faith -> salvation. Their explanation of limited atonement makes this clear. There is no faith required to apply the work of Christ, it is just applied and those to whom it is applied will be given faith at some point in their life. John Owens' famous trilemma (which Mike mentions in this video) is based on this misconception. If they agreed that faith is required before Christ's work is applied, then the trilemma would make no sense and they could ditch limited atonement. Limited atonement is only a necessary tenant of their belief system because they (falsely) believe Christ's work is applied unconditionally, and before one has been given faith. If it were given in light of faith, all the philosophical arguments for limited atonement they make fall apart.
You got my like after you played "Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott". I laughed tears. This is a way, to make a statement. My employer is a Lutheran church in Bremen (Abraham-Gemeinde), but we work closely with the reformed church next door (evangelisations and we operate a large tent for that purpose together). We are joking over our diffrences, in a similar way. Nice to see, that the world can be so small.
What I see is that Calvinists paint themselves into corners with their choice of words and then demand that you get them out of it. If we just drop the terminologies, drop the labels and team names, and stay anchored in the Word and what it SAYS and none of what it DOESN'T SAY. Seems simple. 😬📖
Ikr?? Lol
That was unintelligent non Calvinists are just as stupid!
People who use the Calvinist in their argument is using a straw man.. lol trash debated skills
Calvinism makes understanding the scriptures so trival. Believe on Jesus and you will be saved. Keep it simple
Your statement has to be one of the most patently false ones I’ve read in awhile. Calvinism makes Scriptural understanding “trivial”?!?
The Bible is straightforward, Calvinism really complicates things
Really? The bible is straightforward? So straightforward that you can't understand it unless the Holy Spirit (God Himself) tells you what it means! So straightforward that Jesus had to explain some of the parables to the disciples and nobody else understood them! So straightforward they Jesus had to constantly explain the scriptures to the Jews who had been reading them for their whole lives!
Here is the Gospel. God sent His son to die for and save a people for Himself. He did that. If you believe in Him you are one of those people.
Here is the Synergistic gospel. God want's to save you but He can't because you have to want Him to but you don't want him to so you need to start wanting to and keep wanting to because if you stop wanting Him to you will undo the saving of you that Jesus did when, at some point, you wanted him to. Yeah that's way more straightforward.
@@Phill0old non calvinist here, you do realise there will always be people who have different theological views than you , not everyone has the same conscience , and all your arguments can be countered , and I'm sure you can counter mine, I can see why people agree with Calvinism, and I can see why people don't. No theology is 100% accurate, neither mine nor yours. I'm sure in your eyes, your theology is just right, and im glad, go for it , believe it but do know that there are people who don't agree with you.
@@parth_prashant Of course there are people who disagree. And if they do you reasonably and don't misrepresent what I believe we can have a reasonable discussion. If they choose to strawman and slander then we can't. But you are wrong if you think there is another consistent theology that can walk through the whole of scripture. That's why they don't do it.
@@Phill0old I knew you'll say that. Not my first encounter with a Calvinist online. Even you have to admit, that all your theology (including Calvinism) is not 100% accurate. No theology is, that's the whole point. We have to humble ourselves before the things of God. You cant tell me that there doesn't even exist the possibility that Calvinism is not 100% accurate.
You say Im wrong if I think there's another consistent theology,
I say you're wrong if you think Calvinism is perfectly consistent
Like I said, it suits your conscience? Go for it, believe it, but there are a great many solid theologians who don't believe in Calvinism (like there are many calvinists).
I attend a church who believes in limited atonement. I have not adopted that view and appreciate your approach that is gentle and backed with scripture. Grateful for my church and for you!