Calvinism vs. Arminianism Debate | Is Unconditional Election Biblical?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ส.ค. 2024
- David Pallmann (Arminian) and J.D. Martin (Calvinist) face off in a debate over Unconditional Election. Sorry about my mic clicking in the beginning. This was my first time live-streaming and first time moderating any kind of debate, so expected to make a ridiculous mess of things. But it actually went pretty smooth!! I really appreciate both of these guys and their charitable spirits.
Subscribe to J.D.'s TH-cam Channel and Sermon Audio below:
/ @exploringtheologychan...
www.sermonaudi...
Subscribe to David's TH-cam Channels below: / @faithunaltered and here: / @faithunaltered
Keywords: Calvinism vs Arminianism debate, Calvinism vs Arminianism, Calvinism debate, Arminianism debate, Calvinism, Arminianism, Calvinist, unconditional election debate, unconditional election, david pallmann, david pallman, JD Martin, J.D. Martin, David pallmann debate, jd martin debate, calvinism versus arminianism, christian debate, practical faith debate, practical faith, cole perkins, cole perkins debate, is unconditional election biblical, calvinism refuted, arminianism refuted
I encourage everyone to watch the full video, but in case anyone wants to jump around, here are the time stamps:
JD's Opening: 4:12
David's Opening: 25:23
JD's Rebuttal: 45:25
David's Rebuttal: 56:20
Open Discussion: 1:07:50
Q & A: 1:46:30
JD's Closing: 2:07:29
David's Closing: 2:10:00
Not all heroes wear capes....
you da man
Thanks for hosting Cole! Thanks for the discussion JD! God bless you both.
Two years an no reply. Hello from 2022 ✝️
Wow, David's opening argument on the defense of the Arminian position is way stronger than I expected it to be. Biblically, scriptural, Theologically and imperical defense was far strong in his opening then JD's in my view.
Thanks!
💯
Thoroughly enjoyed this. Im the "provisionist" who was going back and forth with brother J.D. he is great to interact with. Great job David, you surprised me, you really held your own very concisely.
Thanks for watching and for your own videos. I found them very helpful!
66
1:14:22 I really love the exchange here where there is an agreement on this point and both sides handled it with grace, there was an acknowledgement of conceding the point, and there was no "gotcha" reaction from the other side. Both men handled that as men who follow Christ should, I salute both of them. May God continue to bless them and grow them in faith to be the type of Godly men we need in leadership. I thank God for both of these gentlemen.
David’s opening statement is *solid*
J.D. nailed it at every point of discussion. Thank you for declaring the unadulterated Word of God in such a clear and concise manner.
Looks like someone is biased.
Agreed. The opposing question about faith is answered in Ephesians 2 where we learn that grace and faith are both gifts of God.
Going to parents house so hopefully I can download on phone so I can listen on the way there and back(2-2.5 hours one way.)
I think the starting point involves which attribute of God is the primary one by which to view the others is right on point.
Faith and repentance become our nature once it's given by God.
Where does Scripture develop a concept that Faith becomes a nature? Faithfulness perhaps… But saving faith?
@@chaddonal4331as far as saving grace I believe that Ephesians 2:8 explains that it is a gift from God. 8For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9not by works, so that no one can boast.
As far as our sinful nature, in Colossians 2 we read; 11In Him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of your sinful nature, with the circumcision performed by Christb and not by human hands. 12And having been buried with Him in baptism, you were raised with Him through your faith in the power of God, who raised Him from the dead.
@@chaddonal4331so by looking at these 2 principles we see that the grace that saves us is through faith and that those are not of (or from) us, we also see that the putting off (changing) of our sinful nature is also something that Christ has done. We already know from other scripture, Acts 11:18When they heard this, their objections were put to rest, and they glorified God, saying, “So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life.”
God granted repentance, that means it comes from God too.
I'd say that the statement made may have been worded better, but it seems to be supported by scripture.
@@chaddonal4331 Faith only comes one way. ''Rom 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.''
@@o0o_OutCast_o0o Right. Our faith is birthed and grows from the hearing of the gospel message, empowered by the Spirit. When convicted, we (via our will) can respond to the divine truth. This is different than the (OC) suggestion of a changed nature of faith (which I don’t think is a biblical concept, as I am unaware of any direct scriptural teaching either that God gives us a new nature or that faith is a nature or related to it). Rather, Christ redeems our human nature. We always need to remember on such topics: whatever Christ had in his humanity is exactly what we have. (If not, then whatever about us is different remains unredeemed!)
great discussion!thankyou so much.a great reasonings with love for both sides
Acts 13:48 was where David demonstrated his own will over God's will to save those He has elected to salvation, according to His will and works.
Well done both.
JD is one of my favorite calvinists. He knows the scriptures and applies them as well as a calvinist can based on his presuppositions. I wish David would have drilled down on the calvinist doctrine of regeneration and exposed their error.
Supposing this was "settled" on either side what fruit would it bear? Would it make Armenians more thankful for the cross of Christ? Would it make Calvanists have a greater zeal for evangelism?
Hopefully!
Why would God let us make all decisions in our daily life, like choosing who to marry, what car to drive, what house to buy, but the only decision that we're not allowed to make is regarding our eternal destiny. Makes no sense.
Just to clarify calvanists believe all the other decisions are preordained as well .
@@flippintobyland7257 Is there any way we can test and demonstrate your claim?.... Or if you believe it hard enough in your imagination, then it must be true...
Luke .Haidautu why are you asking me ?, I’m not affirming calvanist doctrine I’m only affirming > what they believe < .
@@flippintobyland7257 Sorry, my bad.
Do you think a loving Father Would give a Choice to His Children to burn in hell Forever?
That doesn't make any sense to me.
There are Children of God and Children of the devil.
Galatians 3 says that we are children of God through faith in Christ.
If there's a Bible verse it says that people are children of God before faith in Christ that would prove predestination.
John 11:52
and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.
There are Children of God all over the World who have not Even heard the Gospel yet.
But Gods Death would Gather them All into One.
And
Galatians 1:16
to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood,
God The Son was INSIDE of Paul before it was revealed at Faith.
And it was Revealed by the Father.
Guys I love you but there is no way God Leaves salvation in our Hands.
Wouldn't you want the most important decision to be made by God for you?
If not Why?
We don't have faith on our OWN. It's a GIFT. Listen to the Word, my dear
I hate to break it to JD, but John Calvin and JD’s own confessions do affirm determinism when they claim that God determines everything that comes to pass. The compatibilist view of free will is no less deterministic than hard determinism, according to leading Calvinist sources. I think he’s the one who doesn’t properly understand true Calvinism.
Ken B Amen , no he doesn’t. still has some arminian tendencies
I agree with you on your first statement but I'm not sure I agree with the second. Can you help me to understand what "hard determinism" is please?
What I hate about this problem is I suspect its actually really simple and compatibalism when boiled down is just a square circle. It's just the medium or material which allows people to make the illogical logical
Saved by Grace through Faith (AND THAT); And What? Answer; Grace and Faith (This Is The Gift of God). Faith is the Noun and Believing is the Verb, not of yourselves, lest any man should boast. Not understanding that Faith is part of the Gift, causes those who believe they have Free Will to "Accept" Christ. We are born; not of blood, nor of the flesh, Nor Of The Will Of Man, But of God!!! Where is Man's Free Will?
Amen
Not really. GRACE and FAITH are both feminine nouns in the Greek. THAT is Neuter in this particular verse. Greek requires that the pronoun agrees with the noun it represents but it doesn't in this verse. Hence the gift refers to neither grace nor faith but to SALVATION.
The Bible speaks of grace being from God. However there is no verse in the Bible which speaks of faith being from God.
@@noelenliva2670 The Gift of God is Faith which results in salvation. He that believeth in me has eternal life. You can't have salvation without the Gift of Faith given by God's Grace. Therefore, it is of Faith, that it might be by Grace.
@@themasterscall2426 If by grace you mean that the Gospel message itself is the grace of God. Faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God. Faith is our own. Grace is from God.
There is a supernatural faith that is classed among the miraculous gifts of the Spirit along with miracles healing tongues prophecy. But that supernatural faith is given to only a few even among the believers
@@noelenliva2670 Man cannot "Hear" unless God opens his ears. "Hearing" is not physically, but spiritually. The Gospel is foolishness to them that perish and "Hid" to them that are Lost. John 1:13 says, we are born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Faith is not of our own will. Faith is the Gift God gives to His Elect.
Question for the Arminian.. do you pray for the non-believers? If so what exactly are you asking God to do?
Praying that he will reveal himself to them in such a way that they will accept him.
@@hezzi3283 right, which goes against Arminian theology
I'm not an Arminian or a Calvinist -- no dog in the fight. J.D., one thing you said REALLY caught my ear. At 1:30:35 you said there really isn't any bias in these translations where the committee includes Calvinists and non-Calvinists. ALL PEOPLE ARE BIASED, whether in committees or not, and regardless of who is in the committee. A scripture student's best friend is a concordance. Remember, people, one the groups that opposed Jesus was the scholars. I see too many people bow to the words of scholars without examining what the scholar actually says. Don't do it. Kudos to you David for challenging a word choice. I'm not saying you're right. I'm just saying I applaud your mindset.
I agree. Committee still can have bias but they are significantly less biased than individual translations.
Very enlightening for both positions... Congrats 👏👏👏
So good so good!!
Lol JD said David was just playing with broad terms with prevenient grace. Lol JD is the semantical master of playing with broad terms. Lol like how he plays with the word "free."
Thank you, God bless you both. Let's the word of God guide us to the truth. I love Calvinism because it explains the Bible by keeping the integrity of God.
@@elei417 It explains nothing
Calvinism for some...
Yet, Arminianism for all?! 🤔
There is no text that supports "prevenient grace." NONE!
Except for John 1:9, John 12:32, and Romans 2:4
@@davidpallmann8046 I do not see prevenient grace on those verses.
Arminian Similarities with Reformed Theology:
(1) All men need to be saved from God's wrath through the atoning work of Christ
(2) Both Reformed and Arminians believe, that, without the grace of God, man is totally incapable of responding to the Gospel. In this both positions are in total agreement.
Arminian Differences with Reformed Theology is in its understanding of the meaning of grace:
Let’s observe at least three ways in which prevenient grace sharply differs from the monergistic view:
(1) The Arminian doctrine of "prevenient grace" is exhaustively universal; meaning, it is extended to all people regardless of whether or not they have heard the gospel. This appears to be in direct contradiction to the Bible, for instance the apostle's question: "how can one be believe if they have not heard?" and "...faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ." - Rom 10:14-17. This view, then, affirms (or at least make room for) the idea that the gospel is not cognitively necessary for one to be saved. In spite of the overwhelming case made by Paul against the Gentiles in Romans 1-3, some Arminians believe that if a person is faithful, that is, responds believingly to, the degree of revelation made to them then God will accept that faith and impute it to them as righteousness, whether or not that have actually heard the gospel. This is, of course, purely speculative and not derived from revelation.
(2) Prevenient grace is not effectual but rather renders the sinner "neutral" - able to decide for themselves whether they will accept or reject Christ. First, since we must always go to Scripture as our authority in matters of faith (especially maters of this magnitude) we must seriously inquire whether there is any biblical evidence whatsoever to substantiate the Arminian dogma that there is a state of being that God places sinners into that is neither regenerate nor unregenerate, an in-between state which is neither corrupt nor good. It is imperative that this “state” is substantiated biblically, not merely by unaided speculation or logical necessity. Where does the Bible say that when God's gives grace to people they become partly regenerate but not fully regenerate?
(3) Arminians hold that while still unregenerate (or partly regenerate as they would have it) some can and will improve on that grace. In other words, God's prevenient grace takes us part of the way to salvation (makes us partly regenerate) but man's will (or nature) does the rest (or completes it). Given this were the case, if all human beings have this prevenient grace at some point in their life, consider, if two persons hear the same gospel, why does one man believe and not the other? What makes them to differ? Obviously it was something in nature which made the difference, not grace. From this we surmise that it wasn't prevenient grace that makes these two persons to differ from one another, but rather, something in the man who made use of prevenient grace that made them to differ. Simply put, if we desire to believe in Christ, where did this good desire come from? Grace or nature? The Arminian may say "grace". If so, why did not the one who rejected him also have this much grace? Since grace is not what ultimately sets the two men apart it must be something else. In other words, one man somehow had the natural or innate ability to create a right thought, generate a right affection, or originate a right volition toward Christ... and if these thoughts were themselves autonomous and independent of this prevenient grace that led to their salvation, springing from the heart of natural man, then this is quite a troublesome doctrine. This leads us to ask, why do some men make use of prevenient grace and not others? The Arminian, therefore, still sees the grace of God as only a penultimate cause of salvation while the sinners' faith is what is ultimate, the sine qua non of his salvation. It can therefore be demonstrated that Arminian prevenient grace does not teach salvation by grace alone but salvation by grace plus nature. So whether or not God extends prevenient grace you still have the same result: one man from his unregenerate will generates belief, another man from his unregenerate will does not generate belief and rejects Christ. Does one have a natural humility lacking in the other? Is not humility itself a gift of grace? The Apostle says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10). In the case of believing the gospel, one person is making a morally good choice and the other a morally bad choice. In fact, any way to look at Arminian prevenient grace, it comes down to one person's internal principle of merit that ultimately makes him to differ from others. This then leads to boasting that they are unlike others who don't have faith. But again, even more importantly, prevenient grace has no biblical support and this is what makes the position untenable.
In the end the problem with Arminian prevenient grace is that it is guided by unaided human logic and rationality rather than the Scriptures.The Scriptures testify that the man without the Spirit cannot understand the things of God (1 Cor 2:14). Even with prevenient grace theoretically putting humanity in a neutral position, we would still lack the quickening Spirit to give us what we need. How is it then that the natural man can understand or desire God independent of such quickening and renewing grace? Can a blind man see prior to his eyes being opened? Can a man with a heart of stone love and desire God before His heart is made flesh? How can an ox desire flesh to eat ...can water rise above its source? We believe that salvation is of the Lord from beginning to end. He deserves all the glory. While we were still helpless Christ died for us and His death purchased everything we need to be saved, including our regeneration. For an unregenerate man would not ever desire the things of God on his own. If God's grace does not save us then man still ultimately decides based on some principle within, either good or evil.
-an excerpt from www.monergism.com/short-response-arminian-doctrine-prevenient-grace
The gymnastics of the Arminian to get around Acts 13:48 is amusing 😮
i want greater understanding of both sides of this subject. I do think JD had a much stronger biblical argument.
I believe I interacted with all of his biblical arguments. Was there anything in particular that you found inadequate about my responses?
@@davidpallmann8046 One question? I assume you believed Salvation is God and man working together. I dont really know how to put it better so pardon me.
Calvinist believed that Salvation is the grace of God and it is God alone who gave it and man has nothing to do with it.
Armenian believed that man have free will to reject God's grace and have the ability to accept based on their autonomous free will.
So my question is; Are you saying God is not able to saved me without me?
Btw Im not calvinist or arminian, but I would lean more towards Calvinism, I dont agree with everything on both sides...
@@jonathanhauhnar8434 no, I don't believe that salvation is God and man working together. Salvation is an act of God alone conditioned upon faith.
No, I don't believe that God can't save you unless you believe. I believe that Scripture clearly teaches that He won't save you unless you believe.
@@davidpallmann8046 God wont saved us unless we believed him first. Is that what your saying...
@@davidpallmann8046 Calvinist would said God elect us before the foundation of the world. If this is true how can we believed first?
Faith and repentance are both gifts from God that we excercise after we've been regenerated by God.
Says no verse in the Bible
@@davidpallmann8046 JOHN 6 :37 All the Father gives to me comes to me and the one who comes to me I in no wise will cast out. John 6;44 NO ONE can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up on the last day.
So if God gave individuals for Jesus to die for and save,you better believe that Jesus accomplished that task.
@@CBALLEN neither of those verses mention regeneration so, as I said, your claim remains unsupported
@@davidpallmann8046 ALL THAT THE FATHER GIVES TO JESUS COMES TO JESUS AND IS RAISED UP BY JESUS.This is salvation.
@@CBALLEN I thought we were talking about regeneration per your original comment. Are you admitting that Scripture never once says that regeneration precedes repentance?
The issue with Calvinism and Arminian debates is that when the calvinist is talking you say yes this guy is correct but when the Arminian is talking you say yes this guy is also correct 😅😅😅😅😅😅
It's as if both are correct
I'll wait till I get to heaven to fully understand however honestly when I think about my life and look at scripture I have to lean towards Calvinism.
Honestly only God would have given me the faith I have right now and for the many unbelievers around me only God can open their eyes and save them because they honestly have no will to follow GOD
I respect David and consider him as a brother, as well as other Arminians, but his "exegesis" on those passages are really eisegesis. Twisting the meaning of the plain text and ignoring its context to make it conform to their humanistic tradition. And his soteriology is pretty much the same soteriology as with the Arminians in the middle ages, in which there is no assurance of it. That's not really biblical. Most Arminians now days do believe in assurance of salvation.
Both opening statements are outstanding presentations of both views (in 20 minutes). Well done!
I find here the Arminian position more strongly biblical, flowing from textual and contextual exegesis (while the strengths of the Calvinist view are more deductively arrived at and defended via logic and proof-texting).
The pivotal keys are: God”s desire that all people be saved (vs. God having a revealed will that is in contradiction to His Sovereign will), and the clear biblical/logical priority on faith preceding regeneration. These two issues give the Arminian the clear upper hand.
That said, this defense of Arminianism by Pallman may need to consider the usage of “election”, as it seems to be borrowing the Calvinistic definition (I.e. equivalent to those finally saved). But now you have elect people potentially mot retaining salvation…
A better approach is to recognize that “elect” (chosen) people are people or groups appointed by avid to be messengers of His redemptive plan (and/or the group in which God is working His redemptive purposes).
So, Israel WAS the elect nation (through whom the Gospel progressive revelation came via Abraham, Moses, David, the Prophets, and ultimately Jesus), BUT in whom most of the nation were not spiritually saved. So, “elect” cannot be equivalent to “spiritual salvation.” Meanwhile, post-resurrection, the scope of God’s “election” (sphere of access to salvation and the realm in which God is redemptively working) is the world of all nations (among whom some, not all, are saved through faith in Christ).
I was wondering how there can be free will with Calvinism.
If there is no way that you can choose God without him first coming to you, and there is no way that you can say no to him once he does..then there is no free will in the matter of salvation.
And to take it a step further, if called to a life of righteousness or no righteousness, your thoughts and actions will replicate that decision in everyday life for the rest of your days in every moment. Which means again you have no free will in the matter.
Scripture says we are either slaves to sin or slaves to Christ. So regardless of where you land on this debate, this is the reality, either sin rules over you and influences you or God does. This does not mean that you do not have a will. My toddler has a will but he cannot walk out of our front door at night because I have a latch that is too high for him to reach, he is under my rule.
Typically in the debate of Calvinism vs Arminianism in regards to free will is related, not whether or not man has an autonomy but specifically in the role of mans will when it comes to accepting Christ. Neither party denies that we are slaves to sin but rather to what extent sin rules over us. Total Depravity says we are so enslaved to sin that we cannot turn to God unless he pulls us out of that sin vs Partial Depravity says we are corrupted by sin but not so far as to be unable to turn to God.
So either I'm given the faith to see and once I see how good and great God is I cannot turn away but surrender to him, receiving salvation or I choose to believe and surrender to him and then taste and see how good and great God is. Either way, I've exchanged one master for another and the discussion of free will doesn't have to do with day to day actions but in my role in my salvation. Do I choose God or does God choose me?
Often this issue gets confused with a debate about determinism which posits that every single breath, action, dinner choice and itch scratch was decided before creation, in which case, yes- you have no free will. But that is not the standard Calvinist position but is held by those who go even further to the right.
A good example of the will at work is in the crucifixion. Did God make the pharisees kill Jesus? No, in their sin, they desired to do so and God saw fit not to intervene in their hearts and give them eyes to see Christ for who he is. God did not overpower their will to make them do something they didn't want to, rather he gave them over to the desires lusts of their hearts (their will), intending it for good, namely our salvation.
Predestination seems so unnatural to the human nature. Can you go into a court of law and say to the judge that you were predestined to do a certain thing?... The judge will surely told you, you have choices. So why would God speak in terms to people that are foreign to human existence?
Calvinism teaches man has a will but that will is subject to its nature. A fallen depraved nature. We are depraved because our free will led us to slavery of sin.
@@ShepherdMinistry
Yet, Jesus said, you being evil know how to give good gifts to your children. Jesus himself, evil men, still do good. Now let's look at the bible before the flood. Gid said, their thoughts were evil continually. Which suggests that before their thoughts weren't evil continually. Jesus said, just becore his return, it will be like that again, but wr aren't there yet. So, men still do good.
@@livingforjesus8551 Depraved does not mean incapable of doing good, it simply means our nature is bad as a whole. That is why we need a savior. To say you are not in bondage to sin, is to say you do not need an atonement for it.
Men can do a good thing, that does not make men good. Only God is good.
Hitler, I’m sure did some good things in his life (from a worldly point of view), would you call him a good man?
@@ShepherdMinistry
Wow, you are the first calvinists that I talked to, and the first calvinists that I ever heard, say, men do do good. They always quote, romans 3 to me, there is none that do good, there is none that seek God. One can recognize they are a sinner, in need of a Saviour, but to say one needs to recognize that they are in bondage to sin, no. One can recognize that they are a sinner, but not understand that they are in bondage to sin, and they can still recognize they are in need of a Saviour. Exactly, men can do good, but that is not what saves them, it is by grace you are saved through faith, it is the gift of God. Notice it says we are saved trough faith, which means faith comes first. No, I wouldn't call anyone good, but Jesus, and that is why he is the Saviour of all men, especially to those that believe. That is 2 different groups there, ones who don't believe and on their way to hell, and those who do believe and are saved, but it says, that he is still the Saviour of all men.
@@ShepherdMinistry
Ye who commits sin, is a slave to sin. Tell me, have you stopped sinning? No, you haven't, so, wouldn't that mean you are still a slave to sin? Yes, you are, your flesh is still a slave to sin, but your spirit has been set free, which doesn't sin at all, because it is alive in Christ Jesus. We can see that Paul was still a slave to sin, that is his flesh of course, in Romans 7. He said, the things that I want to do, I do it not, but the thing I don't want to do, that I do, then he goes onto say, that it is no longer him that does it, but sin that dwelleth in him, that is in his flesh. Paul still struggled with sin, and he said he was wretched for it.
Romans 7 KJB
14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
I believe in predestination.
I believe that Jesus was predestined to die for He was the Lamb “slain before the foundation of the world.
I believe that the outcome of the choice that a person makes is predestined. Who chooses Christ by faith are predestined to eternal life and to those who harden their heart, they receive anguish, indignation and wrath as stated in Romans 2:5-11. There are other verses.
Also, those who God forknows (not election), are predestined to be conformed to the image of God’s son as stated in Romans 8.
My simple thought. I love you bro and I love what you’re doing.
You state (not election) after he says foreknew but read THE VERY NEXT VERSE.
(Romans 8:30)
“And those whom he predestined he also CALLED, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.”
And who are those called by God?
(John 6:37)“All that the Father *gives Me shall come to Me*, and the one *who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out”* (v. 37); “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone *who beholds the Son and believes in Him*, may have eternal life” (v. 40); “No one can come to Me, *UNLESS* the Father who sent Me *DRAWS HIM* “
(John 15:16)
“You *did not choose me*, but *I chose you* and appointed you...”
The Verse JUST BEFORE the verse you mentioned also states it is the CALLED God foreknew, they are not just random people, they are elected and Paul went over the order of which occurs to the elect from verse 28 to 30.
(Romans 8:28)
“...for those who are *called according to his purpose.*”
(starting at verse 28)
All things work together for them>who are CALLED by Gods purpose>God FOREKNEW them>PREDESTINED THEM to be conformed to image of son>He CALLED them>He JUSTIFIED them>He GLORIFIED them. (verse 30 ends)
@RICO PARADISE
Do all Calvinists have difficulty reading scripture?
I stated that FOREKNOWLEDGE is not election. You supported my argument by pointing out to me what I already knew, namely, it starts with foreknowledge. God knows if a person is going to choose Him or reject Him. Based off of that knowledge, God predestines those who choose Him to be conformed to the image of His Son. Those that He predestines (based off of foreknowledge), He then calls. Those who He calls, He justifies. Those that He justifies, He glorifies.
I’d also point out, that all things work together for those who are called of course. But, Paul makes it clear in the following verses that God calls who He predestines, and predestines who He foreknows.
I stand by my first comment. I do believe in predestination. But, I don’t believe that God predestines people to go to hell at birth. Nor does He choose WHO is going to be saved. In fact, you quoted John 6:40, which says “that EVERY ONE which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life.”
“God is not willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9).”
“God so loved the WORLD that He gave His only begotten Son, that WHOSOEVER should believe in Him, should not perish, but have everlasting life (John 3:16).”
I could go on, but you get the point. Calvinism is a heretical doctrine and is only accepted by those who teach the same. You should read the scriptures for yourself. Stop spouting what you’ve been taught, repent, and teach truth.
@@TimNewton0829 If it's all about human free will, then you just got lucky. Because some people are genetically better at making choices and discipline. Your upbringing from Home and environment has a LARGE part to do with it, too. Non-Calvinists must admit that them persisting to the end, was because of "luck", not because of God.
@@FabledNarrative
So, is it upbringing or is it genetic?? It can’t be both. If it was genetic, it wouldn’t matter what your upbringing is, you will either reject or accept Christ because you’re genetically predisposed to do so.
If its upbringing, then it isn’t inward forces that influence your choice. It’s outward forces. And you can choose or reject Christ regardless of your upbringing, which I’m a perfect example of.
If it’s genetic, that means that God created certain individuals without the capacity to ever believe in Him. That’s unjust, which is something God is not.
Persisting to the end is, by definition, a choice. You can continue, or you can give up. There is still a choice, which eliminates much of the Calvinist belief.
Definitely a 5-point Calvinist! Very thankful for this discussion. JD did amazing!
I like the phrase “ground of salvation” to help understand Romans 9… but for the Arminian, it’s really no help to them. It illustrates how they’d need to equivocate but the question of Pauls lament at the beginning of the text, was it due to the grounds of salvation or its application? Certainly the Jews were not believing and thus it was the application. Paul is laboring to explain why Jews are not believing, which to the Arminian should translate to application of salvation. So that seems to be particularly weak. Abasciano unwittingly makes a similar blunder in his dissertation.
I don't believe calvinists can truly say God wants to save all people because according to their beliefs, if he did, he would.
1:50:02 The Arminian has a profound misunderstanding of grace and favoritism, election is unconditional " is based in the good pleasure of God" there is nothing in the recipient of the free grace that warrants the favor, much rather they are totally unworthy of it. On the other hand favoritism is looking at the recipient of the favor and basing the favor bestowed on some condition such as their height, or anything else. God is holy therefore he cannot show favoritism, because their is nothing in us or about us that is holy.
God does show favoritism to those who love Him. Psalm 147:11
Don’t let philosophy supersede scripture, mate
@@ryanwall5760 Im not your mate first off. Secondly election is not on the basis of favor, but on the basis of God's own pleasure. He has mercy on whom he wills. Favor only comes as a result of Gods will being revealed, and obeyed, obedience is by God working in us again of his own good pleasure. The scripture you cited has nothing whatsoever to do with election, which was what my comment was about. Please take the time to actually read and comprehend what a person says before throwing around the tired philosophy tropes.
“Mate” is a nice thing to say, but okay. Slap my hand. God tells us He favors those He loves Him. He tells us the condition for being saved (belief). You’re bringing a lot of philosophy into the discussion that doesn’t belong there and isn’t proven by any of the Scriptures you’re citing. I believe you’re a brother in Christ and that you mean well with your beliefs with regard to Soteriology, I just don’t agree with you and you don’t agree with me.
@@ryanwall5760 Were talking past each other I never said that God does not favor those he loves, but this favor is not the basis for our salvation rather the result of his love. Romans 8:28-30. The 28th verse " them that love God" and why do they love him, for we know that all men have not faith. For they were called according to his purpose, why because he foreknew them, ( not foresaw events but foreknew them fore loved them) and he then presdestined them to be conformed to the image of Christ, and so in his own time in time he called them ( out of darkness into his marvelous light, this is not simply a general call but an internal efficacious call, irresistible call) he justified them, that he foreknew, sanctified and sanctifies them, and he will glorify them in his own time. So that it is all of grace, Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name give glory, for thy mercy, and for thy truth's sake. Amen
Are people really “pretending” to be believers (around 55:00 mark), or is John Calvin correct with his belief in evanescent grace that says God gives a temporary faith to reprobates to deceive them and later rips that faith away and judges them harsher than reprobates not given that temporary faith? 🤔
Calvinism stinks.
Ken B, Any belief that is not found or contradictory the scriptures is evil... Evanescent grace is not biblical and therefore it is an evil doctrine... I do not mean that those who believes in evil doctrine is evil... They can be an elect but with some wrong knowledge... I believe that God judges a person in his heart... There are some Calvinist that can be an elect and some are not... and there can be some Arminians that are elect and some are not.... Luke 6:45 (NIV) says: ''A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.''...
I agree with brother Joseph that evanescent grace is unbiblical. I can’t think of any passage that gives an example of God granting grace to someone then revoking it. Honestly I think “evanescent grace” is merely a necessary insertion into Calvin’s theology in order to plug the holes pertaining to apostasy.
This Faith is not from God but from Within themselves so it's not Saving Faith.
Most people believe that They are Saved Based on Works that they Do.
So they're not True Believers and are going to Hell.
it's one thing to say I believe Jesus Is God and I believe He died for my sins. All the While Believing You're Good Works save You.
And Another Thing
To believe or Trust that Because Jesus is God and Because He died for my sins I'm going to heaven.
This latter statement can only be made Through God The Holy Spirit.
They never had faith to begin with because it wasn’t God given, Spirit generated, and they were never regenerated to begin with….
I’m really surprised that my Calvinist brother chose to use John 15 as an example of election when the entire chapter is speaking about conditional election. For example verse 2 Jesus says He cuts off every branch in Me that beareth not fruit. Now some translations will use the term “lifts up” or “taketh away” but if you look at the definition of the Greek word used there it refers to moving or removing something and when used particularly in reference to something that is attached to something else the definition means to remove or cut off. So let’s take a look at Luke 13:6-9 which specifically pertains to those who do not bear fruit and see which definition actually fits the description of both passages.
“And He began telling this parable: “A man had a fig tree which had been planted in his vineyard; and he came looking for fruit on it and did not find any. And he said to the vineyard-keeper, ‘Behold, for three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree without finding any. Cut it down! Why does it even use up the ground?’ And he answered and said to him, ‘Let it alone, sir, for this year too, until I dig around it and put in fertilizer; and if it bears fruit next year, fine; but if not, cut it down.’ ””
Luke 13:6-9 NASB1995
bible.com/bible/100/luk.13.6-9.NASB1995
So according to this illustration those that don’t bear fruit are not lifted up, they’re cut off or in this case chopped down. Just like every other illustration about plants that aren’t producing fruit, like the fig tree that withered & died. So John 15 is no different on this matter. Furthermore notice that in Luke 13:6-9 even despite Jesus’ efforts to save the tree, the outcome is still uncertain whether or not it will be saved. Of course God knows the outcome because He has chosen His elect according to His foreknowledge of those who will repent and abide in Christ. But the point here is that not everyone who is drawn and connected to Christ will be saved, that can still fall away thereby forfeiting the salvation they would’ve received had they abided in Christ.
Then Jesus says “abide in Me” or “remain in Me”. This implies that the 11 faithful apostles were capable of falling away. Then He said in verse 5 “unless you abide in Me” again indicating that they can fall away. Then He said “anyone who doesn’t abide in Me is cast away to wither and cast into the fire to be burned”. This again indicates that people can fall away even to the point of condemnation. Then in verse 7 He says to the faithful 11 “IF you abide in Me” indicating again that they are capable of falling away. So over and over this passage is destroying Calvin’s doctrine of election because without eternal security Calvin’s doctrine of election cannot exist.
So, based on what you're teaching, Christ only abides in us only if we abide in Him? Jesus Christ also says in v.4 that the branches can do nothing apart from Him. This statement pertains to abiding in Him and producing fruit. How do you reconcile Jesus' statement with the ideas your positing?
One passage that immediately comes to mind that supports unconditional election is I Cor 1:26-31....."Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things-and the things that are not-to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God-that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.” If anything the only condition was that they were not influential, not wise, not strong.....
"But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ" Eph 2.13. We are not in Christ before believing in him.
We actually are, inasmuch as Eve was in Adam before she married him.
When Eph 2:13 speaks of being "in Christ", it is referring to our having come together with Him as 'one spirit', analogous to the marriage relationship. So it is speaking of our born again experience.
When Eph 1:4 speaks of having been "chosen in Him", it is referring to our having been in Him before the foundation of the world, analogous to Eve's having been in Adam before she was taken out of him.
So in theology we have to be very wary of simply aligning like phrases: the context, and moreover, the concepts upon which the phrases are based, have to be taken into account.
So God chose all those who were in Christ, just like He took 'all' of Eve out of Adam. So only those in Christ were predestined. Those who are not predestined (those who are not elect) were never in Christ before the world began.
So what we have to now take into our theology, is the metaphysical aspect of God's person, and specifically, who is internal to His person, and who is external to His person.
In this sense, we may think of God as having a spirit and flesh: the elect are forever part of His spirit (they are part of His internal person), the non-elect forever part of His flesh. And so just as the flesh and the spirit of a human being can never be fused together (the flesh and the spirit are distinct) so too God's flesh and God's spirit can never be fused together. This doctrine I am now expounding is Statal Calvinism, and is based on the 'anatomical structure' of God.
@@lawrence1318 Nope, that's reading into the text.
@@ht5869 What I have said is correct.
@@lawrence1318 it is... according to your philosophy read into the text.
@@ht5869 No it is expounding the text. And proof of this is that is not dependent on the text, but intuitive. Spiritual knowledge existed before the bible was accessible to common man.
Good work. All three of you!
This was a fun debate.
If salvation was conditional then none would be saved because we don't bring ANYTHING to the Lord
1:30:00 in and I think that it’s still wouldn’t help to translate it as “prepared” in order to make it non Calvinist. Christ said in John 6:44-45 “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.” So if we translate it that way then it would still be obvious that those who are being “prepared” are those who are being taught by God so that they may accept the gospel. Lydia’s heart was prepared to accept Paul’s preaching so I don’t see how this would make it less Calvinist.
How is it not immoral if God CHOOSES who to give grace to?
No one argued that it was immoral.
In calvinism God not only chooses who to grace but He also chooses to decree all others must have a nature that hates God and cannot come to him, then punishes them for being under that decree.
@@coryalbright9798 Wrong. See you try to place some immoral stance on God as if He is OBLIGATED to save when He is not. Calvinism actually comes to terms with the biblical reality all men are by birth DESERVING of just punishment for their sin. We have inherited sin from our patriarch Adam & so every further action from God is by Grace, meaning He can show Grace as He wills & harden as He wills as stated atleast twice in Romans 9. It is such a prideful thing to claim God evil for “not choosing everyone” when none of us deserve it to begin with.
@@coryalbright9798 Paul literally responded to such as you:
Romans 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then *it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.* 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then *he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.*
I’m not super learned in the area of theology. I just hop around saying “sola scriptura”. I am only eighteen years old right now and I’m only just doing a first read through of the Bible. The scripture tells me that the Holy Spirit will lead me in truth and the scripture is infallible, so I’m cool beans 😎 🫘
edit: fun fact I learned- classical Arminianism affirms perseverance of the saints. Thought that was a cool tid bit. Love and peace to both brothers engaging in this debate. ✝️
I pray your strength as you continue on this walk with the Lord.
Let's point to the elephant in the room that everyone is ignoring : the Scripture is not as clear on these topics as every side wants to be. Thus we're torturing ourselves to figure this out, why not let it be a mystery.
The Scripture is clear to me. Calvinism isn't there.
@@davidpallmann8046 It's clear to me Calvinism is lol.
Amen@@intothekey
41:04 on the text in Hebrews, this is were the difference between Presbyterian and Baptist reformers comes. Baptists believe that the covenant involves only the elect regenerate, while Presbyterians believe that the covenant has the elect regenerate, professors of faith and the children of both these. So because of the clear text of John 6:39 that says Jesus will never lose those given Him, we know that those who are walking away aren't those given Him. Also Paul said in one of the epistles, "they came out from among us because they were not of us."
1 Cor 7:15 shows us that there is a participation in the new covenant by proxy resulting in those individuals being clean/holy but not saved, for salvation is only by faith and not birthright nor relationship. So the Presbyterian view of covenant is helpful in understanding this, I also think it's the biblical view of covenant
I wanted to address JD’s comment about Matthew 20:1-16. He said that in this parable Jesus is giving an example of The Father granting more grace to some than others but I don’t see how this could represent that since all the workers received the same wage equally. What I see is that they all received the same grace by answering the calling of the landowner. I’m curious how one person can receive more grace than another and if there are verses to support this idea.
“"For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. When he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius for the day, he sent them into his vineyard. And he went out about the third hour and saw others standing idle in the market place; and to those he said, 'You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.' And so they went. Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did the same thing. And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing around; and he said to them, 'Why have you been standing here idle all day long?' They said to him, 'Because no one hired us.' He said to them, 'You go into the vineyard too.' "When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last group to the first.' When those hired about the eleventh hour came, each one received a denarius. When those hired first came, they thought that they would receive more; but each of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they grumbled at the landowner, saying, 'These last men have worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the scorching heat of the day.' But he answered and said to one of them, 'Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what is yours and go, but I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious because I am generous?' So the last shall be first, and the first last."”
Matthew 20:1-16 NASB
www.bible.com/100/mat.20.1-16.nasb
One is given Grace and the other is based on wages for what they have done.
Justin Wilson I don’t understand what your saying brother. Can you please elaborate?
@@mikewiththebluecar, You have a good point, But in JD's point of view, They receive grace by hiring them from being jobless, While some more grace is granted by working only few hours but receiving the same amount of money.... I am against Calvinism though I agree that God predestined some to be saved and others to be cast to the lake of fire....
Joseph Durraz I believe the wage they received would be compared to eternal life and that those who came to Christ in their last days will receive the same gift as those who followed Christ most of their life. That’s what I believe the message is. Grace is grace, there’s no more or less. Either you’ve been atoned of your sins or you haven’t because just one sin carries the same punishment as a multitude of sin. So there’s no forgiven a little bit or forgiven a lot it’s either forgiven or not.
@@mikewiththebluecar, You may be right but you are wrong to say that one sin carries the same punishment as a multitude of sin. Punishment is according to the sins you have committed... See Revelation 20...
At 1:03:57 David contradicts himself because he assumes God wants to save the entire world but then affirms the Calvinist on God having mercy on whom He wills and hardens whom He wills.
So God actually doesn't want to save everyone. . . He only wants to save who he wants to save right.
Why does God not keep all people alive until they believe if it is ultimately up to them? Could it be the world to come that He so loved that He gave His only begotten Son?
Perhaps people would never believe even given infinite time (transworld damnation)
I do not identify myself as a Calvinist or Arminian, but JD seems to contradict himself. He said he believes God desires all people to be saved but people based on their own free will refuse to meet His condition. And people cannot meet these conditions by themselves, it's God who works through these individuals. If this is the case, isn't God selectively picking who to save? In his view, people cannot come to God if God doesn't make them come to Him. And those who God doesn't move are damned. If that's the case, God chooses whom He wants to save. Won't this be similar to an analogy of a father who can save his two children from falling from a building but only choose to save one? Both children are destined to fall, they can't save themselves only their father can, and instead of saving both, their father only saves one of them although he can save both. Furthermore, why did God pick someone over the other when they can't meet His conditions by themselves? I know God can choose whom to have mercy on whomever He chooses, but will JD's stand represent a God who's just and all-loving? On the contrary, if he means God already knew who would come to Him so He elects them before birth and ordered the world based on His middle knowledge. Won't this be Molinism and not Calvinism? Am I not understanding his point? Can someone help?
JD’s opening was way off in people rejecting Calvinism because it’s repugnant.
That’s a straw man argument with zero substance that doesn’t address anything.
All that is is a Calvinist talking point.
Non-Calvinists reject Calvinism because it’s unbiblical.
Period.
I agree with you. I’m not a Calvinist and I’m more in line with David, but I do think there might be some people who might reject Calvinism do to it being repugnant. Arminius himself said that he rejects it because Calvinism is repugnant to the nature of God. I don’t think it’s a wrong objection of Calvinism but Arminius overall rejected Calvinism on biblical grounds. I do think however that the majority of Arminians reject Calvinism because Arminianism is more biblical and portrays more biblically the character of God.
David’s opening statement along with other people I’ve heard speaking makes me realise that a lot Arminians don’t understand Calvinism. Perhaps there are many people who speak for Calvinism that have the speaking points he was addressing 🤷🏾♀️
Specifically where do you feel that I misunderstood Calvinism?
Because Calvinist don't truly understand what they believe. It's a cult like belief system. You're never going to find an Arminian cult, but Calvinist cults exists everywhere.
@@davidpallmann8046 for one I'd point out that you say that election is conditional because it is by faith, if faith is a gift of God, then isn't it a choice of God as He is the one that determines who He gives this gift. If you would say that some refuse to act on the faith but we know that His word doesn't return void, those who received faith receive it by hearing the word of God. Those who hear and don't believe hear but don't understand as is explained in the Bible. So those who are hearing and understanding have had their ears opened therefore prepared for salvation effectually
@@davidpallmann8046 I only got notified because of huntsman's recent comment so I don't remember what I may have heard particularly then but as I relistened it is that you define Calvinism through your worldview instead of it's worldview. I'd also recommend if you'd like to see the Presbyterian reformer view as it is more comprehensive in my opinion
In this CCShort th-cam.com/video/57zJjUjbbso/w-d-xo.html The Consistent Calvinist shows how Provisionism , and even some Calvinists, misrepresent Unconditional Election… then he lays out the Proper understanding of Calvinism
Proverbs 16:4 The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.
David, the Arminian, fails to consider, when dealing with the "all men" in Timothy, that even Jesus himself did not prayer for the world (John 17). His God seems like one who is wanting to do something but is unable to to influence the outcome. At the heart of this controversy is the will of man. Paul asks the question, "what makes you to differ from another, what do you have that you have not received?" of course, the answer is nothing. The Arminian, however, can put his hand up and say that his faith makes him differ. Faith becomes a work. Man in sin is literally dead in trespasses and sins. He is spiritually dead, at enmity with God. He is in the flesh and cannot please God. Yet the Arminian tells us that such a man can put his faith in Christ - something that can please God. The idea that a Christian can lose his position in Christ arises from an inadequate understanding of what takes place at conversion. Our old man, the man we were once in Adam has been crucified. He will never come back.
Amen. The old man will never come back.
Is David suggesting a Christian can lose their salvation if they stray away? Can they come back to their faith?
Yes a Christian can. . . Unless Hebrew 6:4-6 is suggesting something else
CAN JD MARTIN or any CALVINIST ANSWER THIS PLEASE... HOW CAN GOD BE JUSTIFIED BY CREATING JACK FROM NOTHING (NEVER EXISTED) AND TORMENT HIM ETERNALLY FOR REFUSING TO OBEY GOD? THANKS FOR ANY ONE WHO WHO WILL ANSWER MY QUESTION...
I don't understand your question. What are you driving at?
1:52:21 "Conditional security"? How is there any security if the condition is based on our strength and hold on Christ rather than Christ's strength and hold on us?
Is faith a condition?
@@PracticalFaith Yes. But based on the Arminian view why would the word "secure" be there?
Does it not ultimately and decisively lead to God seeking to work in people but it's up the the human whether or not they will continue in the faith and cooperate with God's grace?
Question: In 1 Samuel God tells us he looks on the heart and does not judge man the way man does.
Doesn't judgment of someone assume they made choices?
Calvinist don't believe in free will or that you make any choices. They ultimately believe that God made Adam and Eve sin. He is the author of sin.
But yeah, we make choices and are responsible.
A question for the Armenian or Calvanist.
What is faith?
I have listened to both sides, the Armenian and the Calvinist theologians. From James White, John MacArthur, RC Sproul, Jerry Walls, David Hunt, and others.
Neither side seems to know what true faith is, among the ones that teach the Armenian or Calvinist beliefs.
Is there anyone among you that know what faith truly is?
It is no wonder that neither side can boast eternal security, having full assurance of salvation, for you must have true faith.
What is faith, anyone?
Believing God will save you
@@vlads97
Yes, to repent and believe the Gospel.
But what is faith?
Many teach it is an emotion that stirs up within someone.
It is taught that it is a strong belief, based on evidence and personal experiences.
So basically, it is taught that faith is just another word for believe.
What does the Bible teach what faith is?
Galatians 5:22
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Ephesians 6:16
Above all, taking the shield of faith,
-----------
The Bible teaches that they are attributes of God.
Faith has everything to do with God, and absolutely nothing to do with a human emotion.
Galatians 2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ,
Romans 3:3
For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
Romans 3:22
Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
Galatians 2:20
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
------------
All these versus, attribute faith, as belonging to the Father, Son, Holy Spirit. The faith of, not in.
Here is another.
Ephesians 2:8
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
------
Saved by the faith of God, not by intellect or any human emotion.
Faith is the fruit of the Holy Spirit. A believer is not partaker of the Holy Spirit, and the fruit of the Spirit, until they are born again.
Faith is a gift given to a person, when they repent and believe the Gospel. They dont have the faith of Jesus until then.
Can someone break this down for me 😂 smh. 47:00 Would a Calvinist believing they are elected be work based therefore? Or would them thinking they have faith be considered work based? If they say No then they either believe God believes on behave of them but don’t wanna acknowledge it or they are determining Gods fate in accordance to the Calvinistic doctrine.
John 3:19; And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. Every Man is in Darkness and loves Evil more than the light. Because of this love for Darkness, they Cannot come to Christ in Faith. II Cor. 4:6; For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. Lazarus, cannot come out of the Tomb unless God Calls him out by Name. The Blind Man cannot See unless Jesus opens his eyes. Man is in Darkness and will not Come to Christ unless the Father draws him through the Holy Spirit to have Faith in His Son.
I dont find election to belief in The Bible
The fact that JD complains about the Arminian view of Acts 13:48 because of the popular translations in Bible when Calvinists regularly try to change the words actually in all of the Bible translations. 🤔
Do you believe this is a fair statement?
Bought WithAPrice Yes. Several Calvinists insist that all really means “all kinds of people” and John 3:16 really means the ones already believing and not whosoever, despite the fact that not one single Bible translation says either of those two.
John 3:16. What if the original Greek says it that way? Isn’t that worth knowing? I mean we do have our ways of interpreting today’s words in today’s ways and possibly not the way it was originally meant. No issue with the word whosoever but putting our baggage on a word is a little dangerous. I mean the rest of the paragraphs in John 3 point against an understanding of whosoever meaning “man’s free will ability” added onto the word. I mean of course all the talk of rebirth and the spirit blowing where it wills is more than easily used to refute man’s free will ability added onto the whosoever word. But even down to verse 20 says we don’t come to the light, but then it turns right around and says some come to the light. What does this mean? One says we don’t and then we do. How are we to understand this double talk? Well it’s a line. Either you come to the light or you don’t. Any chance a sinful person living in darkness will come into the light? Verse 20 says we don’t. So why does it say in verse 21 some do? The end of verse 21 is where we probably both agree it’s been carried out in God. It’s that simple just do right and come to the light? Verse 20 says we don’t if we are in darkness. This is why Calvinists exclaim we must be set free in order to see that we are in bondage to sin. Hence regeneration precedes faith. Some argue they happen at the same time. I have no argument against that but faith first is a hard stretch considering the Bible really argues against that way of thinking.
I didn’t touch the all meaning all kinds since you didn’t necessarily point to a verse.
Bought WithAPrice Stay on topic. Show me any Bible that doesn’t say “whosoever.” I’ll wait.
Bought WithAPrice You are creating red herrings. My point was that JD was complaining about David going back to the original Greek for a definition that doesn’t match what the Bible translators actually use. Yet, Calvinists do exactly the same thing when it benefits their cause. Stick to the actual topic.
5:58 Did you mean your mind cannot accept what your heart rejects?
JD’s attempt to explain Paul’s use of “in Christ” was... not so good. Corporate election wins the day every time.
JD’s final word reveals he wrongly assumes “the Reformers” is a synonym for “Calvinists.” Unfortunate. Jacob Arminius was the leading REFORMER in the Netherlands.
Lastly David’s final word at the end of the video was excellent and summarizes the debate well.
Matt B I’m not sure how “corporate election” won the day..
So does God “know” who He will save in eternity/before the foundations of the world?
I think I've personally made that mistake. The reformation seems like it's a lot bigger than the gospel of Calvin.
@@eagleclaw1179 what does God knowing have you do with anything 🤣 ofc he knows everything. He just didn’t make the choices that decided that
1:00:14 prepared by who? What is the preparation needed for eternal life? If God has chosen who to prepare still doesn’t that prove the point?
Preparation of rational beings requires interplay between both the prepared and the Preparer.
@@davidpallmann8046 so sorry I never saw these replies at the time. I'll try get to them now
@@davidpallmann8046 if you have to be prepared before you can do something, you are being prepared to do that thing. Therefore you, and not the other person has been chosen for that purpose
Amazing how we think we give our opinions and thoughts BUT ignore the Word of God.
God will NOT share HIS GLORY with another. HE WILL DO ALL HE WILL and you and l cannot thrwart HIS plans. IF you chose to be SAVED then you ARE arrogant because NONE seek after God
Host needs a new mic.
God gives some the faith by grace alone while desiring for all to be saved. . . . That makes no sense.
A problem with the assertion that Adam was a perfect representative of humanity (meaning that any other human would have done the same thing) is that this implies that God didn’t do a very good job in creating human beings, given that we accept the premise that choosing to resist the temptation to eat of the forbidden fruit is more virtuous than eating from it. Why not simply create human beings such that they don’t rebel?
Because would that have given God any glory in the long run? And also, who are we to question God. It doesn’t matter if it doesn’t make sense to us, the Potter has right over the clay.
On the contrary.
If it were not the case that Adam was created to be humanities "perfect" representative from God's most wise and perfect will then that would mean God failed us. Because, implied in what you said above is that God could have made a better choice than he did in creating Adam. That God could have just created a better representative that would not have done the same thing. Therefore God made a less wise choice in having Adam represent all humanity.
@@dylanmcphee8454 I should have put the time stamp of what I was commenting on. It’s been several months, so I have to try to get back to what the train of thought was.
Thanks for your response.
The point I was getting at is given God knew the result of creating Adam would be Adam sinning, why not create a different Adam who wouldn’t sin? If not sinning is better than sinning, the creating an Adam who wouldn’t sin could have been an improvement. Given God is perfect, then we have to rule that out.
That means any human created in Adam’s place would have sinned, which means any creation of human beings would lead to sin. That’s problematic too. How could a creation be deemed “very good” that would inevitably sin?
Does God like sin? Does He want it? That would seem to be the inevitable conclusion if He creates beings that will inevitably sin. Why not create beings that wouldn’t inevitably sin instead?
@@conservativecalvinist3308 Are you saying that if Adam had not sinned, that would not have brought God glory? God is dependent upon sin in order to receive glory?
@@ewallt Right. I think I agree with you.
I would say that God willingly chose to create Adam knowing he would fall because he is sovereign over evil and intends it for good (Genesis 50:20) & (Atcs 4:27-28).
As R.C. Sproul says, "Sin is not good. But it's good that sin is."
His point being that God, who is all wise and omnipotent and he IS love, chose to create a world with evil and even though we can't see how God intends it for good and brings about only for good we still trust Him at His word.
It's in the text so we believe it even though we can't really grasp it.
J.D.'s first words basically are that Arminians all have in common that they find the Calvinist understanding of God to be repugnant and that's why they reject it because their mind can't accept what they find repugnant and immoral and they look for an escape from the text.
I would agree with that in general but I would push him to be consistent on that same point in reference to his rejection of compatiblism. Which is the view that God determines all things that come to pass and in a harmonious way the creature still has true and real choice for which we are responsible.
J.D. rejects the view because he see's it as making God repugnant and immoral since it would mean God is involved with sin in such a way that God is doing wrong and going against His own nature. Which is not the case. Calvinist's believe that God meant it for good and man (ALONE) meant it for evil. Genesis 50:20
Armenians believe that Christ went to the cross for ALL. So those who do not, of their own free will, believe in Him will come under judgment. Therefore, Armenian theology is saying that Christ's sacrifice was not sufficient for those who do not believe (of their own free will). Also, saying faith is not a work is shocking. Faith in Christ is the most important work anyone can do on this earth. Without God's intervention nobody will (of there own free will) come to God (anymore than Adam and Eve did). "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one." (Romans 3.10-12).
Unconditional election is not biblical. God looks down the corridors of time and sees who is clever enough, humble enough, smart enough, brave enough, etc to choose Him, and He elects them to salvation, based on that. But He still makes Jesus bear the wrath of everyone, including those God knows will NOT choose Him. That way no one can say He's unfair or unjust. That's the biblical position.
Unconditional election is not biblical
Neither is the God looking down the corridors of time straw man
Great satire. 🤣
@@JRey-re9rl Sometimes you need to laugh or you'll cry.
1:09:30 Ok this is an egregious moment here by JD. He has simply turned the parable of the Just Employer on its head!
By saying that “God is not a respecter of persons” here because everyone works different time amounts and get the same wage is to completely misread the parable. This is in fact the point!
People will work different amounts but the reward is the same! Because God is no respect or of persons of what they bring to the table.
Furthermore, contextually, this is about the Gentiles being brought into the kingdom. God is no longer favoring the Jews (who have tended His vineyard a long time). Rather, the Johnny-come-lately Gentiles are given the SAME privilege and reward as the Jews! This is the point of the parable!
Folks. Read the Bible your self. Follow the teachings of Christ your self. We are in a war. Christ said to spread the Gospel and make disciples and baptize people among nations. That's is what is needed not some debate about C vs. A
Un-watchable.... but then there is only one flavor of ice cream.....right ?
All the obsession with calvin on both sides is SO crazy. God will NOT share HIS GLORY with another --- not you or calvin
The fear of Hell keeps people from sinning that's Works salvation
It seems like David might not even be a believer.
He might be trusting in his works for salvation.
If I could lose my salvation I'd Sin even more just to get back at the traitorous God who said he saved me but he lied.
I don't think David believes you forfeit your salvation by sinning. You forfeit it by losing faith
@@PracticalFaith
He doesn't mention anything about faith at about 1:51:49
He says it keeps people from sinning and leads to "holy living"
So keep the Commandments out of fear of going to hell.
I feel really bad for him the other guy should have told him something.
He might not have a full understanding of The Gospel.
Belief in Christ
Is this
Hebrews 10:19
We're confident to enter Heaven by the blood of Jesus and His Ressurection.
I hope someone talks to him.
Because
Romans 9: 30 and 32 says
Those seeking to enter Heaven by their works are damned to hell but those trusting in Christ are saved.
Romans 4: 5 to the man who does not work but believes in Christ his faith saves him.
If anyone thinks salvation is even a tiny bit based on our Actions they've not Understood the gospel or are confused Believers like the Galatians.
Elias be very careful with what you're saying. Both J.D and David presented excellent Biblical exposure to their positions. Therefore, your personal conclusion to the state of his salvation hinges solely on where you stand within the parameters of theological debate. Let God be true, and every man a liar.
I'm not affirming any side but I just want to ask...if people are dead as in dead in the spirit then how do you preach the gospel to them. Second, if people are in that state, that they are already incapable of understanding the gospel, what is there to be hardened by God. And if that's the case, then what was left for Satan to do...🤣😆😂
I hope this helps:
God has ordained that men shall be saved through the work of evangelism and ministry. We are to proclaim the gospel to the world because we know not who is chosen. God told the apostles and disciples he wished to work this way which is why the decree went out, "preach the gospel...". God wanted the church involved because of the good pleasure of his will. God brings about the moment of conversion through the weaving together of various circumstances, conditions, and individuals.
2timothy 2:24-26
And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.
1corinthian 1:21
For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.
Ty for this. ❣️ #PreciousPuritans being a Calvinist or an Armenian are both non-essentials of what it means to be a Christian. Historically Christianity has had few core beliefs and excessive non core beliefs. We've made it harder than it ever was and have fought pushed people away from JESUS and divided over these non essentials for far too long. See the Scholar Dr. Leighton Flowers / #RuslanKD
Non essentials? The concepts behind election, grace, perseverance of the saints, even the gospel itself is tied up into these. Let's see anyone face true persecution, or a terrible event. Funny that when facing these things....all the Armenians suddenly sound like calvinists. These debates are essential to flush out sound, coherent doctrine. -God bless
Your doctrine is completely essential, otherwise you’re just someone who says he believes in Jesus. These theological disagreements are so important to the gospel that they cannot be ignored. It’s like saying that it doesn’t matter if you’re Catholic or Protestant because they both believe in Christ. Theology matters, and so does doctrine because without it you have no foundation. Good theology is one of the rocks on which our faith is built. Without it, our faith is built on sand. The Bible clearly teaches one of these doctrines, so in saying that it doesn’t matter you’re basically saying that the teaching of the Bible doesn’t matter.
The “scholar”? Just out of curiosity, how many books has the the scholar, Dr. Leighton Flowers written?
@@conservativecalvinist3308 I just wonder how little time the thief on the cross had to develop his theology and doctrine, such little time to be sanctified, and yet still met Jesus in paradise that very day.
Every word of the Bible is essential.
Romans 9 nations ? nations is a mutiple of people which is 2 groups .. according to the flesh and those according to abraham’s seed .
Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
Nations are chosen through a corporate head/ representative
David Pallmann the chapter 9 does not stop or end there , lines up with the chapters before and after and The verses i applied even aligns with Galatians 3:7,27-28 . if not and we are all in big trouble
@@wretchedsavedbygrace4499, You have a good scriptural knowledge... Are you really a woman as your avatar shows? So please answer this question for me... =>>>> How can God be justified by creating Jack from nothing(never existed) and torment him eternally in hell because Jack refuse to obey God?
The Romans argument about the branches misses the point of why Israel had to reject the messiah the first time. Their rejection is the life to the gentiles.
In Zechariah it says in that the day that the Lord pours out His Spirit upon Jerusalem then they will lol upon Him whom they pierced and mourn as one does for an only child.
The branches here spoken of can easily be understood in terms of sovereign election.
They were chosen to reject Christ so that His first coming would be as the suffering servant. How can they then, being in apostasy come to accept Him if He doesn’t pour out His Spirit on them first?
Election is of God.
This is a good point many nonCalvinist miss. Since libertarian free will exist according to the non-Calvinist, then God has been violating man's will for thousand of years within Israel, because He was the one who grated Israel out, and He's the only one who can and will graft them back in.
So. . . In Daniel God gave Israel a probationary period, but then by the time the even comes around that would be their ultimate choice God causes them to reject Him? So the only way to save the gentile would be to condem Israel?
@@hezzi3283 It's not the only way God could have done it, but it's THE way God chose. A hard truth, no doubt.
@@rjay5603 so what I want to get clear. . . God tell Israel they have a probation period and then prevents them from making good in this situation. . . So He gave that time to do something he then prevents them from doing?
@HEZZI Well, I don't agree that that God gave Israel a probationary period in Daniel. But, even if I would grant that, how long would the probationary period have to be?
"As an former calvinist should we not listen to Jesus' actual words like John 15 , 3:16, Matt 16:27? Nothing destroys OSAS, predestination sola fide like Jesus parables.e.g. If Calvinism is true, it means that God creates disposable people, people without any hope,” “It means that God not only allows, but micro-manages and sovereignly ordains, every war and every abortion and every rape of a child. It means that Calvin’s god does not love the world; he hates it because it is full of *“totally depraved”* individuals . If Calvinism is true, it means that if that dying child that you held in your arms was not among the elect, then God did not love her. He never had any intention of loving her. She was nothing to Him. In fact, he would delight and find glory in her eternal torture in hell.”
*Who are really created in the image of then, God or satan?*
“And whenever I raise these points with Calvinists, all they can say is that I should be more grateful for my own salvation! It’s like, ‘as long as my eternal destiny is secure, as long as my life is all planned out and taken care of by God, who gives a damn about anyone else!’ How can you be okay with that? How can anyone be okay with that? Why do I feel find this heresy morally offensive?” Only the devil should be at ease with such an abomination!
How can I be okay with that? How can gays be okay with not sleeping with men because God told them not to? What your complaining about is subjective feelings. (Yes probably determined by God) just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s not true. A lot of atheists don’t want God to be true. does that make atheism true? No. The problem I have with Arminianism is that God only knows potential possible futures. Not the actual future. Which means he only knows the possibility of me being born not that I will be born. How did God know me before I existed if there’s a chance that I could never exist? My Mom would’ve had to be with my dad or I wouldn’t exist. Does He know potential people? Sorry by definition That’s not knowing. If a potential never actualizes it was never real or experienced. Also Revelation is just a possibility because there’s many ways the future can play out. Either God knows what WILL happen or what COULD happen. What will happen is Forsure what can happen is just a possibility and who cares why is it in the Bible if it’s just a possibility?
You were never a Calvinist lol
Do you know what happened to JD Martin’s channel?
What do you mean?
the gospel is according to the scriptures not Calvinism or arminism let God be true and every man a liar as it is written that you might be justified in your sayings and might overcome when you are Judged.follow Jesus not John calvin or Jacob arminious try standing before God and tell him you are Calvinist or arminist and see where it gets you
Yes! God has call all men everywhere to repeat. It's all about Christ. Follow the Christ.
Free will is the lie of Satan, and also papish. Why would anyone chose to go to hell ? That's what free will believes. The Reformed Faith is the only faith that gives God ALL the glory and praise for salvation.
🤢
What an awful take
The incarnate Word ,God manifest in Flesh, who said three times, Heaven and earth will pass away but My words will never pass away, they are eternal.so when He says in John chapter 3v16 , that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life, and in v17, for did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world but to save the world, and in John chapter 6v33, for the Bread of God is He who came down from heaven to give live unto the world, and in verse v51,He says, I am the Living Bread which came down from Heaven m if any man eat of this Bread he will live forever, and the bread that I give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world, and in John chapter 12v47, if anyone hears my words, and does not believe, I do not judge Him for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. so three times in the Gospel of John, the Eternal God manifest in Flesh said that God loved the world and gave His Son to give eternal life to everyone in the world who believes in Him and twice that God did not send Him into the world to condemn the world but to save the world, anyone who denies these eternal words are liars , and no liar has eternal Life, as for the doctrines of total depravity or partial depravity after sixty two years of studying my bible both of these are also lies.
2o years i was with the wrong followers of Arminism. But now i have fnd the right biblical understanding of Calvinism. Goodbye to my brothers n sisters frm Arminism and i warmly welcome my brothers frm CAlvinism. Amen.
Calvinism is an unbiblical doctrine first introduced by a former manichean gnostic in the 4th century. Calvinism practically refutes itself.
@@coryalbright9798 Explain why rather than seemingly making a baseless statement. I have found no better explanation as to Gods act of election/predestination other than Calvinisms. Romans 8 & 9 only confirm furthur what Calvinism claims of the extent of Gods sovereignty, that it is above all. Arminianism etc. will claim Gods sovereignty over all things EXCEPT when it comes to the topic of mans salvation, yet we see throughout scripture it is God’s Will being done for His glory, NOT the other way around. Point me to one place in scripture that mans will supersedes God as the deciding factor. Was it the Israelites will to choose God & flee Egypt from slavery? Or did God predestine that event & even told Abraham prior He would do this. Did God not say to Moses He would harden Pharaohs heart? not 1, not 2, but multiple times in order to show His glory through these acts.
@@coryalbright9798 I’ll even use a NT example that correlates with Roman 9. Did God not partially harden Israel from accepting the Messiah in order that His glory may be shown? Did He not harden Caiaphus’ heart to seek out Jesus & crucify Him that scripture may be fulfilled? (John 11:49-51)49But one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all! 50You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.”
51Caiaphas *did not say this on his own.* Instead, as high priest that year, he was prophesying that Jesus would die for the nation, 52and not only for the nation, but also for the scattered children of God, to gather them together into one.”
@@ricoparadiso your post makes my point. You as a calvinist think election and predestination are the same as evidenced by your "election/predestination remark. This is absurd. They are different words with different meanings unless you follow an unbiblical doctrine. You also misuse the word sovereignty. Sovereignty and determinism are not the same thing. You calvinists map the Bible to your paradigm and conflate basic words to make everything fit into your gnostic doctrine.
@@ricoparadiso your point on caiaphas is odd. Not sure how what your saying proves anything involving calvinism. Predestining one thing does not equal determinism. Predestining Christ's death on the cross doesn't even mean those who did it were predestined to act in that way. You get that from your doctrine, not the Bible
1:02:04 what faith? How did Jacob have faith in the uterus? And if he’s talking about salvation in the text how do you put it in the context of choosing a nation? Hebrews 11:21 shows that Jacob was actually listed as one who was saved, not only chosen for the nation.
You may have the time stamp wrong here, but I would argue that God's foreknowlege of Jacob's faith played a role in his election over Esau (which wasn't unto salvation). Paul explains that this election wasn't based on works and that is what the phrase "before they had done anything good or bad" means.
@@davidpallmann8046 No you are reading into Romans 9 the very thing the passage directly prohibits. We understand from Romans 9 that when we are told that salvation is according to God's mercy, such mercy is the very causative agent for the faith through which one is saved.
I don't think you fully appreciate what faith actually is. It doesn't simply consist of 'believing'. It consists of "the evidence of unseen things". That is, it consists of the indwelling Holy Spirit, who alone can only be that evidence.
So when we say that we have faith in Christ, what we are actually saying is that we have the Holy Spirit within, who witnesses to the Truth who is Christ.
So we don't have faith and then receive the Spirit, but rather, the faith that we have is itself the indwelling Spirit, for only the Spirit can be the evidence of unseen things.
@@davidpallmann8046 The problem with that solution is: (1) that the passage says nothing about foreknowledge of Jacob's faith; (2) foreknowledge as an account of election makes the concept of God's election senseless. The concept of election in any context make sense only if it is *the election* that *makes the difference* between what is elected and not-elected in a given situation. According to calvinism is the gift of faith unto salvation the *result of election* , but for armianism is election the *result of faith* . But if God determined that faith that is given equally to everybody would be the means for people to be united with christ (i.e saved) then what is the point of God's election? It becomes redundant and vacuous; how can one elect something if it causes itself to be in the situation it is supposed to be elected for? For instance, if you own a company and have three candidates for a jobb and you choose one of them for the job, then it make sense to claim that *you* elected him for the jobb. But if he himself just started to work there and himself *made the difference* as to which of them got the job, then it make no sense to claim that. Rather, it makes only sense to claim that *he* choosed your company. Hence, only a reformed view seems to makes sense of God's election.
@@andrejuthe nor does the text state that the election was unconditional. So the Arminian isn't reading anything more into the text than the Calvinist is. We're simply both reading it in light of our greater understanding of Scripture.
Why should election become unnecessary if it is based on faith?
@@davidpallmann8046 Well, it does say that Jacob were chosen and Esau rejected *before* they had done any good or bad, and what would be the biblical way of expressing unconditional election if not that? "Why should election become unnecessary if it is based on faith?" Reply: please read (2) in my previous post once again *carefully*.
Jd says regarding the reprobate that God "passing them over and leaving them in there hardened reprobate state" but doesnt calvibism teach God the one who decreed them to be in this state?
JD also presupposes calvinism onto his proof texts. You cant have a debate when you assume your point is the right one and go from there.
There is a distinction between Calvinism and determinism.
@@exploringtheologychannel1697 perhaps there is in your calvinism but not most. Coukd the reprobate that's been passed over have actually repented and believed? My question isn't about desire but ability. if he was created without the ability to believe then that's a form of determinism
@@coryalbright9798 You raise a great question. I think this is where a distinction of possibility vs what a person will actually do is helpful. Suppose one says they have the ability but are simply unwilling. What are your thoughts on that?
@@exploringtheologychannel1697 anyone who is able but unwilling is then justly condemned if they die in that state. Buy if they were born unable to be willing then why are they condemned for unbelief? That's why I'm curious whether you believe the reprobate has the ability to believe
an 1hr of this was enough for me .. to much compromising in here is to much to take ..
First 😎
Shall be the last 😎
Lol I mean that in playful friendly fire by the way 🤓
Is Unconditional Election Biblical? NO.
Is Unconditional Election Biblical? Yes.
@@JRey-re9rl prove it.
@@donhaddix3770 Prove your position first. 😂
@@JRey-re9rl 1. If unconditional election is true, salvation is an arbitrary lottery.
I affirm the sovereignty and omniscience of God while acknowledging I don’t understand how it all works. Yet I’m very uncomfortable with the idea that God’s election is “not based on forseen faith”. If it is God’s “free choice” of what “traitors” he will “pardon” and “adopt”, I can see no way to understand this other than as purely arbitrary.
it seems to paint God as random and capricious. Regardless of how we understand sovereignty or free will or salvation, it implies that God picks and chooses favorites for no apparent reason.
2. If unconditional election is true, God’s creation is an act of cruelty.
For the sake of discussion within this framework, how many souls should we presume have “embraced the Savior”? Five percent of humanity? Ten percent? Even if we’re generous and suppose that twenty percent of people who have ever lived have “believed on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” and been saved, that means eighty percent of everyone who has ever lived never even had a chance to be “saved”.
If God chose before the foundation of the world who He would save and who He would not save, then it is an act of unimaginable cruelty to create those people He has already chosen not to save. They never have any hope of anything other than eternal conscious torment. If God, who is in control of every aspect of the universe, chooses to create people He has not also chosen to elect, is He not simply creating human firewood destined only to stoke the flames of hell forever?
3. If unconditional election is true, loving my neighbor is an unfair demand.
I believe that God loves the whole world so much that He made a way for anyone to enter into eternal life. This seems to stand in strong contrast to a version of God who would make a way for only the pre-selected few to be adopted “into his everlasting family of joy”.
This leads me to wonder, if God only loved a few enough to save them from hell, why should I love my neighbor? Statistically speaking, God probably didn’t love him enough to choose him to be part of God’s family before the foundation of the world, so why should I care about him during these few brief years before he’s sent crackling into hell (presumably for God’s glory)?
Furthermore, to “share the Gospel” with my unsaved neighbor would be quite difficult. If I was theologically honest, I’d have to say: “God randomly chose some people millennia ago to be part of the family, and the rest He’s destined to eternal torture. Let’s both hope you’re one of the chosen ones, but there’s really nothing you can do about it either way. Good luck in the afterlife!”
That is not good news.
@@JRey-re9rl your turn.
arminian guy has no clue what he saying Acts 13:48 appointed / ordained
sayin that man appointed themselves is just nonsense ! 50:21 and if you look at the kjv Acts 1:22 the word ordained was inserted an it doesn’t exist in the greek structure and Acts 14;23 kjv ordained is 5500 cheirotonesantes
Acts 16:4 is 2919
dude is like over the place..” conditional” is unbiblical
Well I didn't argue they appointed themselves. I argued that "appointed" is an incorrect transaction. Based on lexical and contextual evidence, I argue that "disposed" is a better rendering of the word tetagmenoi.
Regarding your claim that conditional election is unbiblical, you'd have to answer the three arguments I gave in support of conditional election.
Wretched Saved by Grace, Can you please answer this question for me? How can God be justified by creating Jack from nothing(never existed) and torment him in hell eternally by not obeying the Will of God? Thank you very much....
@@josephdurraz8574 Well He wouldn't. This is one reason I'm an annihilationist. I don't believe the torment of hell is everlasting. But the reason for hell is sinful behavior.
@@davidpallmann8046, Thanks for answering, but I am asking the Calvinist's point of view...
Armenianism is right 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
I have a couple questions for my Calvinist brothers & sisters. My first question is a bit similar to one that was asked but it’s addressed in a different way.
1. How can God’s punishment on the unelected be just if, according to Calvin’s theology, the unelected are incapable of meeting God’s expectations of repentance?
2. How can a person fail to abide in Christ as Jesus mentions in John 15:6 if they cannot be in Christ unless The Father has granted them as Jesus said in John 6:44 & John 6:65?
1 why do police officers punish drunk drivers if that's the way they are.
2 abiding in Christ words or teachings both wheat and tares are there hearing his words in teaching.
Justin Wilson Alcoholics quit drinking everyday. Some choose not to. They do have the capability to choose to drink and drive or not and many people drink alcohol responsibly and don’t drive. So this comparison doesn’t quite fit the situation of the unelected according to Calvin’s theology because Calvin teaches that the unelected are incapable of repentance.
Justin Wilson are tares in Christ? Are you saying that those who do not remain in Christ were never in Christ to begin with? Bless you brother Justin but that doesn’t fit the context of the message Jesus gave. Were Jesus’ faithful 11 apostles in Christ at the time He gave this message? If so then why would He tell them to remain in Him in verse 4 if they are incapable of failing to remain in Him? Furthermore why would He say UNLESS you remain in Me you can do nothing if it is impossible for them to do otherwise and on top of that why does He say to them IF you remain in Me in verse 7? Even in verse 2 He says The Father cuts off every branch IN ME that doesn’t bear fruit.
@@mikewiththebluecar yes it does a person not born again is like a drunk. Why does the police officers punish them? Same logic.
JD complains about non-Calvinists being all over the place? What a joke. Calvinists are the ones all over the place since you could quote leading Calvinists and the confessions word for word, and you’ll be accused of misunderstanding Calvinism 99 percent of the time.
You make fair statements 1% of the time.
Bought WithAPrice Explain. What I said is accurate. Also, Calvinism is NOT a monolithic group. There are an estimated nine different versions of Calvinism, including the lapsarian differences. And even if you focus on the atonement, Calvinists have a bunch of varying views. Phil Johnson, John MacArthur’s right hand man, estimated there are seven different views of the atonement just within Calvinism.
Could be accurate.
Non-Calvinists are harder to nail down what they believe since there are over 9 different non-Calvinist beliefs out there plus or minus :-) That’s why we talk it out.
Calvinists do use that misunderstanding crutch too often. Both sides of any argument say similar things like “you don’t get it” or “you don’t get what I am saying” maybe in different ways. We are all learning and screw up 99% of the time. We must show grace to one another. Just be thankful that each of us are attempting to know and figure out the most outstanding thing ever.
Bought WithAPrice But JD was the one complaining about non-Calvinists being nailed down. David didn’t complain about Calvinism. You can’t be complaining about a belief system when your own belief system has the same problem. That’s my point.
Horrible debate
Which side are you on? Would you want to debate one of these guys?
@@PracticalFaith no. I sinned in anger. I got upset cause 10 minutes in and nothing of substance had yet to be said, just a lot of fluff. I didn't finish it I shut it off and made a unwarranted comment.