0:42 -- "If its true, that God from all eternity saves His elect & nothing's going to change that, why should we be involved in evangelism?" Sproul: "Jesus commands us to... God gives me the uspeakable privilige of participating in this work of redemption..." Logic: If it's true, God commands the vast majority of mankind whom God alone has purposely rejected from the foundation of the world, who have no savior or gospel to repent to, to 'repent & believe the gospel."
1:17 'obedience'??? really? I spoke with an old friend who has become convinced of Calvinism. I asked the obvious question "why witness".. His canned response was "obedience"... I asked "could you be disobedient"... there was a silence for a moment... then he hung up on me🤣🤣🤣🤣
The flip side of your claim is that someone could literally be responsible for another’s salvation based on how well you evangelize…That seems like a heavy burden
So you're supposed to CHOOSE to witness because God commands it, BUT can only CHOOSE to obey God's command if God has predetermined it-BUT you are also disobeying God's command if you don't CHOOSE to witness? Yep! That makes perfect sense!
@@jessebryant9233 Lol! But it's my greatest desire to say more! Yes, it's unfortunate that people can't see it, but I guess I was in the echo chamber for a long time too! I really am starting to believe most Calvinists don't understand the logical implications of Calvinism.
@@beberean612 Kind of does seem that way, doesn't it? But then, isn't that also why they disavow they hyper Calvinists? It's like they're bumping into their own reflection and don't like what they see.
A silly but actually a good argument when debating Calvinists is asking them: “why are you arguing against God’s decree of my argument? Who are you to answer back to God?” 😂😂😂
This response fails to grasp that God's will can be bifurcated into a secret/hidden will and a revealed will. Humans are commanded to follow God's revealed will. If the anti-Calvinist is incorrect or wrong in any way that violates God's revealed will, then he can be argued against. What God is doing in His secret/hidden will is irrelevant. [+]The hidden things belong to the LORD our God, but the revealed things belong to us and our children forever, **so that we may follow all the words of this law.** (Deut 29:29)
@@richbaker7187 The sophomoric answer is brain-dead simple: "Because God ordained me to argue against it" A more sophisticated answer is that the claim fails to understand the difference between God's secret will (aka, decrees) and His public will. Humans are never to try and appeal to God's secret decrees to defend or excuse their behavior. Never. Try this: Can Judas say "I'm not responsible for betraying Jesus because satan entered me!!" Although it's true that satan entered him (Luke 22:3), he can't use that as an excuse for his behavior. He will be condemned for betraying Jesus (Matt 26:24 states so explicitly). In the same kind of way, a person cannot invoke God's secret decrees as a defense for their behavior.
Interesting but very sad story. In June of 2001, during his message at a Ligonier’s Conference in Orlando, Fla., the late Dr. R. C. Sproul indicated that Dr. James Boice, a scheduled speaker at the conference, was dying that very night. Then at the end of the message he asked all 5,000 present to pray that Jim "dies in faith". Dr. Boyce was considered a great pastor, theologian, teacher, and author, yet Sproul was not sure that he was regenerate. Dr. Boyce did die that night. They all hoped he persevered ... but they cannot know if that was God's "gift" to him or not. The real irony lies in their 'prayer' that Dr. Boyce would truly be saved. According to "U"conditional Election... God either loved him 'salvifically' or he hated him. just like Esau, and literally nothing could ever be done to change his eternal decree. And, if God hated him, why would they run the risk of 'loving' him?... They just don't know, and believe they cannot know, but most won't admit it, even to themselves. It is said that Dr. Sproul even wondered out loud near is own death if he had done 'enough'. Still looking to his 'work's as 'evidence' of his own 'election'. Calvinists can have no real personal assurance, they're only hoping for the best, because they believe they're either 'picked' or they'll bust Hell wide open without a prayer.... literally. Desperate for 'evidence' of salvation, they cling to their 'works' as pieces of a broken shipwreck at sea. After having explained away, to their own satisfaction, every verse that simply says man can believe unto salvation, it's all they have.
@@SugoiEnglish1 Inane: (silly; stupid)🤔Seriously??? I have no problem with the actual Biblical text.... in proper context. I did not invent the story of Dr. Sproul's comments, it's legit. Suggesting it's merely anecdotal and consequently unreliable is an error. It sounds to me like your advice would have been better shared with Dr. Sproul (RIP) whose Calvinist interpretation of the prooftexts he preferred ignored the actual Biblical 'context' which does not support his "Reformed" arguments. His own arguments actually deny himself and his Calvinist comrades any true assurance they were actually loved by the God they claim 'made them love him'. The doctrine they 'willingly' embraced never affords them any confidence that God's affection for them was genuine, or if the faith and love for God which he "effectually" imposed upon them was intended to last either. Dr. Sproul's own explanation of who and how God saves men is akin to spiritual/rape because the reprobate literally has "no say in the matter", and salvation is forcibly imposed upon them against their will. As a renowned Calvinist theologian, these are his own words, I can post them if you need. In the end, an honest Calvinist can no more trust the faith they think they have been given, than the God they think gave it to them.... I.e., they worship, and encourage others to worship, a God who cannot be trusted to love any one particular individual. It would be an interesting encounter to face Jesus and have him lean over with a raised eyebrow and ask... "So, what's this I hear about you telling people I didn't die for everybody?" I am more confident of Dr. Sproul's salvation than he was at the time of his death. I am also confident he is no longer a Calvinist. He professed faith in Christ unto salvation, which is sufficient ... except not for a Calvinist if Unconditional Election is a "thing".
0:09 LOL... Even Sproul says it was a "critical meeting".....critical to what??? CONSISTNECY IS TOTALLY ABSENT... The only thing Calvinists are consistent about is their inability to accept anyone ever rejects Calvinism because they 'DO' understand it.
I think you can find unlimited arguments like this because the Calvinist rejection of free will. What is abundantly clear is that guilt and culpability makes no sense without free will. You don't condem laundry for being dirty but you can condem the person who made it dirty.
Exactly & Calvinists blame God ultimately because He made the laundry dirty, while traditional Christians blame the wearer of the clothes because he made the laundry dirty They don't like to admit this - but ultimately it's true
You know what else doesn't make sense? The fact that there was a being that existed before matter, time, space, etc., who knew and decreed the end before he created the beginning. ...Yet, we still believe in God. The point is, we believe God is sovereign over good, but not evil because Scripture tell us so... Not because it "makes sense" to you.
“You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory- even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?” Romans 9:19-24 ESV
@@justinmillsapRCC It's the Jews asking the Lord why did He make them like that - the entire nation of Israel was elect, but they're a vessel fitted for dishonor and the gentiles are now the vessels fitted for honor because they come to the Lord by faith vs the Jews coming by their own works righteousness. What's your point? If you continue reading Paul essentially spells that out word for word in the ending verses of chapter 9
As I understand it, Calvinists don't believe that there is an open offer of salvation to the masses of people. So they do not invite anyone to respond to the gospel because that would be "decisionism" or synergism. So I ask any Calvinists: How do you do evangelism? How would you know if someone got saved by your 'evangelism'?
We Evangelize because that's the primary way God Effectually Calls His Elect unto Himself. Pretty simple. No "circle" that needs to be "squared," here. God's Grace ALONE is what is being besmirched by the synergists, here. *Soli Deo Gloria*
The Bible tells us to work out our own salvation and also tells us that both the willing and the working are from God. Trying to square that is like trying to square the doctrine that God is one and yet three, or trying to square that Christ is both fully man and fully God. The Christian faith is full of truths that have more than one side. Anyone who argues with a Calvinist by denying that God's predestinates man is denying the clear revelation of the Bible, just like any Calvinist who tells you that based on predestination we aren't therefore responsible to work is denying God's commandment.
There is a utube video where Mark Driscoll asks RC Sproul " Does God really want all people to be saved ?" and Sproul fails to answer that question. Instead Sproul answers anther question that wasn't actually asked !
@@gregorylatta8159 Hey Greg. Look up a youtuber named Kristi Burke. She was a Christian and now is a full blown Apostate because at a certain point she embraced Calvinism and now thinks Christianity is a joke. It's unbelievable.
@@TimBarr-e8p The same is true of Derek Webb. I love Cademon's Call and it was heart breaking, absolutely heartbreaking to hear him talk about it. He said, "I'm like Lazarous," waiting for God to call him out of death. Unbelievable.
Of course, and great question! We believe God sets people apart from the womb to fulfill his purposes. Another example, "Listen to me, O coastlands, and give attention, you peoples from afar. The LORD called me from the womb, from the body of my mother he named my name." Isa 49:1 We believe God does this through perfect counter factual knowledge. Counter factual knowledge is the knowledge that lies between what (will) be, and what (could) be, namely, what (would) be, and we have examples of this in Scripture. For example, "David knew that Saul was plotting harm against him. And he said to Abiathar the priest, 'Bring the ephod here.' Then David said, “O LORD, the God of Israel, your servant has surely heard that Saul seeks to come to Keilah, to destroy the city on my account. Will the men of Keilah surrender me into his hand? Will Saul come down, as your servant has heard? O LORD, the God of Israel, please tell your servant.” And the LORD said, 'He will come down.' Then David said, 'Will the men of Keilah surrender me and my men into the hand of Saul?' And the LORD said, 'They will surrender you.' Then David and his men, who were about six hundred, arose and departed from Keilah, and they went wherever they could go. When Saul was told that David had escaped from Keilah, he gave up the expedition." 1 Sam 23:9-13 God did not tell David what (will) happen, because what He said did not come to pass (Saul gave up the expedition), nor was He merely telling David what (could) happen, as a number of possibilities could happen, and David may never have fled. Instead, God told David what most certainly (would) happen, if he stayed on his current path. That is counter factual knowledge, and we believe God has perfect counterfactual knowledge. God knew a blinding light (would) most certainly influence Paul to freely believe in Christ. If we can influence others with imperfect counterfactual knowledge, i.e., knowing my son will freely choose to clean his room, if I tell him we're going to the beach as soon as it's cleaned, God, with perfect counterfactual knowledge, can perfectly influence people as He sees fit to accomplish His purposes, without the need to violate free will. Could Paul have done otherwise you might ask? Yes, but (freely) unwilling.
@@beberean612I get that. Another thing: what's your views on libertarian free will and free will of compatiblism (as they call it) which one of them do you believe in? Or if none, what then?
@@inad2166 I believe in libertarian free will. (Compatibilism) free will is just soft determinism. It's saying we are only free to do what we want to do, which is no less deterministic than hard determinism, because God determines the desire, that causes our choice. Now that doesn't mean we believe people can just seek after God own their own, but we believe the means God determined to use to enable us to respond positively to Him, are the Holy inspired Scriptures, the law and the gospel. It divides, soul and spirit, bone and marrow. It is the power of God for salvation, for everyone who believes it.
@@beberean612 Whenever (most) Calvinists talk of this particular doctrine, (to me) they'd sound more sovereign than what they affirm of God. Like as if they knew they would do that because it was predetermined.
Humans are required to obey God's revealed will or be judged/punished. What God is doing in His secret will is besides the point. [+]The hidden things belong to the LORD our God, but the revealed things belong to us and our children forever, **so that we may follow all the words of this law.** (Deut 29:29)
@@seanvann1747 Dont' confuse God's 'secret' will with His 'revealed' will. In the Bible, we see that three things are true: 1. Everything that happens is part of God's SECRET/DECREED will, no exceptions. Even the number of hairs that fall from my dog's fur today. 2. God's REVEALED will, can, at times and places, be construed as contradictory to God's DECREED will. (Eg: "Tell Phraoh to let My people go [revealed will], but I will harden his heart SO THAT he will not le them go [decreed will]". God could have had mercy on him so that he would immediately release His people. He chose to not do so. There are dozens(!) of such examples in the Bible.) 2. Man is morally culpable anytime he is out of conformity with God's **REVEALED** will. It is none of our business what God's SECRET/DECREED will is, and on a few occasions He will share with us what His SECRET/DECREED will. But we are always/only morally obligated to conform to His REVEALED will. So in the case of Pharaoh, it was God's SECRET/DECREED will that Pharoh NOT let the people go until the 10th Plague, despite His repeated revealed commands to do otherwise. AND Pharaoh was held morally culpable for disobeying God's revealed command ("Let My people go") for the first 9 Plagues. He is never rewarded for complying with God's secret/decreed will to not let the people go. Thanks.
Of course! Do we determine that (thing) that comes to pass, and God just determines everything else? But how does that equal (all) things that come to pass on Calvinism? You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either God causally determines (all) things, or He does not.
@@timffoster So even though He clearly has revealed that He abhors sin the last time you sinned it is because God decreed for you to commit that sin correct? Thanks 👍
@@seanvann1747 two things can be true at the same time . Just out of curiosity, what part of that passage that I quoted did you not understand? Find any passage anywhere in the Bible that talks about how God predestined for men to do a sin (there are many), and then you ask yourself that same question and see what answer you come up with. The way you're leaning, the only possible answer you can try and offer is denial. And that would mean that you're not believing what the Bible clearly says. And that would cause us to wonder why you're trying to challenge me on the same, when I am actually believing what the Bible says, and you're not.
Some things are predetermined, some are not by God. If a mother determines to name her child a name and a way to raise that child and then does so... how much more does God determine for us as our Heavenly Father? And if a parent adopts a child, is that child not now determined a child of that parent? And if a kind and wise parent allows their children to choose their hobbies, careers, and who they choose to marry, how much more does the kindest and wisest parent, Our God, give us freedom to choose? The only way I've seen to change what God has determined is humility and begging at His feet. Amen.
It's always amazing to me how these calvinists ALWAYS portray this, look how humble I am, I'm MUCH more humble than the others, and at the same time presenting the arrogance of how their point of view is the obvious answer, although is one continual contradiction to their own previous statement. You need none of this confusion, by simply reading scripture in context, this type of sovereignty is simply NOT in the scripture, if it was, the Bible should be alot shorter, really all that should be said is, " human being, just know this, everything you do or say, is decreed by God" end of statement. Of course, they will give a philosophical explanation to my statement and the oversimplification of said statement, but one cannot deny it is still, a true statement...
We are not robots. In Romans 1 it says “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions…”. The “freedom” Calvinists talk about is that we are enslaved to sin and cannot chose to believe. We are not saying that God controls us like a robot and He makes us say and do everything. He allows us to follow our own folly while remaining in control and ensuring His purpose is always being fulfilled. Presenting Biblical truth is not arrogance. Nor do I think predestination is obvious. Our natural inclination is to believe we all have free will to believe. I was there at one time. It is unnatural to believe in predestination as God choosing us because it takes away all pride that somehow we are better than someone else because we understood and believed and they were too evil or stupid to do so.
@@Nuclearnav Romans 1:21-24 NIV For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. [22] Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools [23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. [24] 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. Brother please read the scripture, I beg of you to take off your calvinistic lenses and simply let scripture speak. Romans 1 absolutely teaches that we are NOT born unable to respond to the Gospel, it plainly disproves total depravity, although we KNEW God, their thinking BECAME futile and darkened, therefore God GAVE THEM OVER to their sinful desires. NOT FROM birth. Even though Romans 1 plainly teaches we are NOT totally depraved, or totally unable to respond, and you WILL NOT find not one scripture to support this Augustinian philosophy, you will still REFUSE to simply let scripture speak. YOU love your theology, more than God's Word, no matter how many stumbling blocks it causes the weaker ones to stumble, they're struggling with sin, and after hearing this false doctrine, they simply give up, convinces they must not be one of the elect. Christ WARNS about causing one to stumble, he didn't make an exception that as long as you lead some to me your exempt from this warning, you WILL answer for this arrogant, narcissistic doctrine. The calvinist has the audacity to call me a BEGGAR, for my beautiful Lord to have mercy on me in my sins verus the calvinist that sits on their pillar of manure stating" you poor thing, sorry but He chose me" brother you guys are only pulling the wool over your own eyes.
"It's always amazing to me how these calvinists ALWAYS portray this, look how humble I am, I'm MUCH more humble than the others, and at the same time presenting the arrogance of how their point of view is the obvious answer, although is one continual contradiction to their own previous statement." ALWAYS? This grossly unBiblical, arrogant judgment of other believers CANNOT be substantiated and risks God's judgment. May God grant repentance. Matthew 7:1-5 1901 ASV Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you. 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me cast out the mote out of thine eye; and lo, the beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. Romans 14:4 Who art thou that judgest the servant of another? to his own lord he stands or falls. Yea, he shall be made to stand; for the Lord hath power to make him stand.
This is a genuine question, weather it can answered correctly and honestly is up for debate. If a person puts faith in and is consistent in adhering to the TULIP are we even on the same page when discussing the God of the bible, is this non sensical monster narcissistic god the same god and outside Calvinistic systematic is there salvation to be found in their god and systematic. All views welcomed ✌️
@@beberean612 You're twisting things because you're caught out. When Paul says: "You will say to me, why does God still find fault if He's causing the very will which He finds fault in?", he is talking to you anti-Calvinists. He's not talking to us Calvinists. And because you know this, and resist it, your position is necessarily errant and you are in denial. Essentially your resistance to this is wickedness. And so ironically, the wickedness which manifests as your resistance to the obvious teaching in Rom 9:19, is caused by God.
@@lawrence1318 You are begging the question my friend, which you have every right to do, but we don't believe Calvinism is in the Bible, and certainly not in the first century mind of Paul. What you should be doing, instead of just assuming Calvinism is true (begging the question), is explain to us (why) the Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 9 is the correct interpretation. Give us some actual evidence. You can't do this by simply quoting Romans 9, because we quote Romans 9 as well and interpret it differently.
The disagreement boils down to the extent of personal autonomy or personal sovereignty. Do you believe you can successfully reject God if he calls you?
I am not sure how getting hung up on predetermination then requires you to throw out the entire doctrine of predestination. God does not control everyone like a robot, but He does rule over everyone and everything and no one can thwart His will. Just as when a sovereign king rules over his kingdom, he does not have to personally control everyone’s every move, but he controls them through the laws and systems he has set up. The difference is that God does this infinitely so you can say that God has predetermined everything. Keep in mind that every analogy and explanation has its limitations because we are trying to describe an infinite God to our finite minds. So this question on whether God predetermined if I would or would not witness is hard to understand by our finite minds. Yes, He determines everything in a sense, but as believers we are no longer slaves to sin so we can choose to obey or disobey. If we disobey then God will use someone else or some other means to bring that person to salvation. It is our loss of not participating in fulfilling His will. He is not suddenly at a loss to save someone because of our disobedience just as He was not at a loss of creating the nation of Israel because of Abraham’s disobedience of trying to use Hagar to produce a son to fulfill God’s promise. but one thing that the scripture is clear about is that God predetermined everyone’s salvation and He will use whatever means He predetermines to bring that person to salvation. In revealing Himself to Paul He used an extraordinary means of a personal vision of Christ. For most it is a person or some writing or movie or something a human has done
You said, "God does not control everyone like a robot, but He does rule over everyone and everything and no one can thwart His will. Just as when a sovereign king rules over his kingdom, he does not have to personally control everyone’s every move, but he controls them through the laws and systems he has set up." I think you are saying God does (not) causally determine our every move? But does our every move come to pass? Do you believe God determines all things that come to pass? It seems like you're claiming God determines everything, but He does this through managing and permitting our free will choices. Do you believe in the freedom of contrary choice (libertarian free will), or the free will of compatibilism (freedom to choose according to our greatest desire)? Or something else?
@@beberean612 why categorised or give distinction to the word Freedom? does man's freedom equal to God's freedom? Take it from the answer of GOD when Job asked Him. GOD did not rationalised to satisfy Job's logical thinking..
I can show you one perfect example of human free will thwarting the will of God - very explicitly at that. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:9 KJV That very explicitly says God's will is none should perish & all repent, yet they don't. Why dont all live & come to repentance - because human free will chooses to deny the Lord Jesus Christ.
@@beberean612the Reformed Orthodox embrace the freedom of contrariety; that isn’t how “LFW” is accurately defined. We believe in a simultaneity of potencies or a “synchronic contingency” so to speak
Scripture never says God predetermines individual salvations. How disingenuous of you to say "Scripture is clear", when it absolutely does not say that about salvation anywhere.
Please, predestination is not about salvation, its about God choosing whom ever to accomplish his will. However, many are called but few are chosen. Paul wrote about it because he was called and chosen to preach to the gentiles!
We believe chosen simply means, "God's chosen people." In the old covenant and the new, True Israel has always been those who have the faith of Abraham, the man of faith. "So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith." Gal 3:9 We believe predestination (is) about salvation, but only in the sense that God predestined those who have faith in Christ, to be adopted as sons. Not that He predestines us to (be) sons, as Calvinist like to understand it. He chose us (believers) in Him (Christ) to be (holy and blameless). Not that He chose us to (be) in Christ. We believe we are "chosen" (i.e., become one of God's chosen people), when we place our faith in Christ, and the decision that those who place their faith in Christ, will be holy and blameless, was made before the foundation of the world. Consider this analogy to better understand the concept: The founding fathers chose us, in America, before the foundation of the Country, that we should have freedom and liberty. This is a true statement, and we, as Americans, can understand how this applies to us today because we intuitively understand the concept of corporate election. The founding fathers weren't choosing individuals to be citizens, rather, they were choosing that all within the corporation of America (citizens), should have freedom and liberty. The founding fathers chose us (citizens), in America, before the foundation of the Country, that we (citizens) should have freedom and liberty. In the same way, "He chose us (believers) in Him, before the foundation of the world, that we (believers) should be holy and blameless." Eph 1:4 Staying consistent with the analogy, God was not choosing individuals to be believers, rather, He was choosing that all within the corporation of Christ (believers), should be holy and blameless. And it has always been Israel's (God's chosen people's) duty (although they rarely were obedient), to be a light to the Gentiles, to all people. Hope this helps! Thank you for commenting! God bless!
@@beberean612 if God choses who is saved, then you have to get rid of freewill. Christian gentiles are the mystery hidden by God since the beginning. Being chosen by God means exactly that, what God does with you is His choice! A vessel of noble use or less.
@@sandylend3562 I would disagree. I would say that Corporate Election by faith, which teaches that God elects anyone and everyone who enters the Corporation of Christ through faith, is far more loving that the Calvinistic understand that God chooses some, to the neglect of all others. I say it's less loving because Christ said it was the good Samaritan who (loved) his neighbor, because he did not pass by even his enemy on the road. But if the Calvinist understanding of election is correct, this means that Christ passes by the majority of His enemies, while commanding us not to. This goes against the very definition of love that Christ Himself gave us. Instead of trying to rationalize how Christ can tell us love is one thing, while He Himself does otherwise, it is better to simply reject the doctrine that pits Christ's own words against Himself, in favor of a position that brings harmony between election, and the teachings of Jesus. Thank you for your kind comment! God bless!
@@sandylend3562 Okay please understand, this is the very thing that we are contending with: The Calvinist understanding of what it means to be "chosen," and the Calvinistic interpretation of Scripture, including Romans 9, which, in our opinion, ignores the first century context of the chapter, and in doing so misses the entire point Paul is trying to make. Not to mention, it pits chapter 9 against chapter 11, where Paul speaks again about the same people who are hardened in chapter 9. He says... "What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The ELECT obtained it, but the REST were HARDENED, as it is written, 'God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.' So I ask, did THEY (those hardened) stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather, through their trespass (the crucifixion) salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous...and even THEY (those hardened), if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft THEM (those hardened) in again." Romans 11:7,8,11,23 This makes no sense from a Calvinistic perspective. Paul is contrasting the elect and those who are hardened in verse 7. "The ELECT obtained it, but the REST were HARDENED." Now, Calvinists are quick to say Paul is contrasting the elect and the reprobate in Romans 9, but if they are consistent with their understanding of (who the elect are) and (who the hardened are) in chapter 11, the way they do in chapter 9, you end up with Paul saying God has the power to graft in the reprobate, "if they leave their unbelief." However, if Calvinism is true, the reprobate are incapable of believing, and by definition will never be grafted in, because they are not elect. As Paul said, "The ELECT obtained it, but the REST were HARDENED, as it is written, 'God gave them a spirit of stupor, EYES THAT WOULD NOT SEE and EARS THAT WOULD NOT HEAR." Interestingly enough, this verse is often used by Calvinists as a proof text to support the doctrine of total inability of the will, but if you just keep reading, and stay consistent with the Calvinistic interpretation established in chapter 9, Paul ends up saying those who are hardened (the reprobate) can be grafted in. Not in the "we were all reprobate prior to regeneration" sense, because Paul contrasts the elect with those who are hardened. The people who are HARDENED are (not) elect according to Calvinists in chapter 9. But the Calvinistic interpretation self-destructs in chapter 11. The Corporate view of election by faith, however, brings perfect harmony to both chapters. Thank you for your comment and God bless!
If you share the gospel with a reprobate, one who is unable to have God’s grace, are they being offered a lie? A false gospel? I am sincerely offering salvation to one unable to be saved - that sounds like false witness to me? I don’t understand this. I have a Calvinist bible teacher who always tells me this is not about salvation for the elect. But he’s never willing to talk about the reprobate. How can God’s means for the elect be a lie and falsehood for everyone else? I’m so confused my Calvinist I can’t see straight…
Take your teacher to Romans 1 and ask him why does he believe the reprobates are born that way when Paul wrote 3 times that they became reprobate after choosing to close their eyes. God only gave them over to reprobation after they continually refused to believe in God. The verses where he explicitly says God did A because of B are : Romans 1:24, 26 & 28 In no way does it support them being born reprobates, it shows they were given light (Romans 1:18-22) and they chose to ignore this light (Romans 1:21-23) and for this the Lord progressively turns them over to their lusts (beginning in Romans 1:24 and progressing until Romans 1:31/end of chapter) God bless - don't be deceived
It's because we as Christians do not know who the elect are, and God commands that to gospel be preached. God has ordained the ends and the means of how He saves sinners
Brother you’ve misunderstood the determinism of God and the free will of mankind. Calvinism (reformed theology) never says that God determines us to sin such that He causes us to sin - Sin is our natural bent, it’s what we desire as fallen people. God doesn’t make us sin, we chose to sin freely and wholeheartedly! Calvinism says that none of us, by our fallen nature, will chose not to sin. That is, none of us will freely and wilfully turn to God in repentance and faith because we love our chosen life of sin (rebellion). We need a new heart that has God’s law written on it (Ezekiel 26:36) such that, though we still fail to live perfectly, yet now we hunger and thirst to live a righteous life that is pleasing to our God and saviour Jesus Christ. We are not privy to who the elect of God are, but we are called to proclaim the Good News to all people in the knowledge that God is pleased to involve us in His miraculous work of salvation. He knows who His sheep are, and He opens their ears so that they hear the gospel and believe. If we chose to disobey God’s command to proclaim the gospel in our lives and are content to live that way, then the sad truth is that we are probably not part of God’s elect as the Holy Spirit would not let us feel comfortable in our sin, but rather He would convict us such that we would change our ways. No one born of The Spirit is comfortable in their rebellion. If you mean that on a certain occasion we failed to evangelise someone and in retrospect are concerned about this. We do not blame God for our sin, it is the old self exerting it’s influence on us (the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak). God naturally foreknew this would occur and it will have been in line with (though not in tune with) His overall plan of redemption.
Very good clip. I have studied Calvinism with all the greats and the more they try to explain it, the more incoherent it sounds. So, God wants us to evangelize just to give us something to do??? Incoherent!!!!
If you choose not to proclaim the gospel then you are disobedient and rebellious to God and in so doing at the Bema your reward or loss will be given. If God has determined who will be saved your disobedients will only affect you and not God's plan, even if you believe we all have a choice to accept the gospel then someone has to proclaim, based on your disobedients not too proclaim you still end up with the same consequences. This debate will go on until the Lord returns so it's best you proclaim the gospel and have rewards in heaven, anything else is wood, hay, stumble
The point being, as you have missed the point of the metaphor, is that two contradictory statements cannot be simultaneously true, because of the law of non-contradiction. A cannot equal not-A. This is basic common sense.
@@beberean612 No, I have not missed the point. Your argument is androcentric. You say that it is not possible but Jesus says "The things which are impossible with men are possible with God." Luke 18:27. "Let God be true and every man a liar." I am comforted by this.
@@Saratogan You can't just pluck a verse out of its context and use it to support Calvinism. You believe my argument is man centered? I could say the same thing about Calvinism. Again, that begs the question. Just because all things are possible with God, doesn't therefore mean Calvinism is true. That depends on what God chose to do with His freedom. Furthermore, if my argument is androcentric, it is because God determined I would think this way, and I could not have done otherwise. Right? Or did I determine that thing that came to pass before the foundation of the world, and God simply determined all other things that come to pass? So, how can you rationally disagree with something God has determined for me to say? Has God determined for you to disagree with what He has determined for me to say?
This metaphor is about circular reasoning (which is calvinism in a nut shell). Not an actual circle. You literally called it a metaphor but you still took it literally. So yes.... You can square (metaphor) circular reasoning.
@@beberean612 , What is your understanding of God's sovereignty or do you not believe that He is sovereign? Think of Peter's preaching on the day of Pentecost "This (Jesus), delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put [Him] to death." Peter seems to hold apparent opposite concepts in tension. The counsel of the Godhead determined the death of the Son and man is held accountable. How can man be held accountable for what God has determined? I don't know but it evidently is so.
Sad to see foolish, sinful men time and again prescribing to God how He is supposed to save. I aldo see that stubborn hearts are truly incapable of understanding the simplicity of God's sovereign and saving election.
Not how He is supposed to save...how we interpret salvation differently than our Calvinist brothers and sisters. You are begging the question as this is the very point that is up for debate (i.e., circular reasoning).
I like how you keep coming back to the issue and not let Calvinists side track you, like they like doing. You keep going back to: did God decree that too? That´s basically the only argument you need to get good at when debating or talking to a calivnist. Its gonna sound harsh but at its root calvinism is devilish. It tells people that God is in total control of everything, that you can´t do anything freely, that God hates some and loves others, that God decides to send even the unborn to hell and that He is basically at blame for every evil in the world. So yeah, its satanic.
Sadly you’ve misunderstood the determinism of God and the free will of mankind. Calvinism never says that God determines us to sin such that He causes us to sin - Sin is our natural bent, it’s what we desire as fallen people. God doesn’t make us sin, we chose to sin freely and wholeheartedly! Calvinism says that none of us, by our fallen nature, will chose not to sin. That is, none of us will freely and wilfully turn to God in repentance and faith because we love our chosen life of sin (rebellion). We need a new heart that has God’s law written on it (Ezekiel 26:36) such that, though we still fail to live perfectly, yet now we hunger and thirst to live a righteous life that is pleasing to our God and saviour Jesus Christ. We are not privy to who the elect of God are, but we are called to proclaim the Good News to all people in the knowledge that God is pleased to involve us in His miraculous work of salvation. He knows who His sheep are, and He opens their ears so that they hear the gospel and believe. If we chose to disobey God’s command to proclaim the gospel in our lives and are content to live that way, then the sad truth is that we are probably not part of God’s elect as the Holy Spirit would not let us feel comfortable in our sin, but rather He would convict us such that we would change our ways. No one born of The Spirit is comfortable in their rebellion. If you mean that on a certain occasion we failed to evangelise someone and in retrospect are concerned about this. We do not blame God for our sin, it is the old self exerting it’s influence on us (the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak). God naturally foreknew this would occur and it will have been in line with (though not in tune with) His overall plan of redemption.
@@timlyg Now, do we determine whether or not we feel we are prepared to share the gospel? Do we determine that part of God's decree and God just determines all other parts of His decree?
So, to be clear. You disagree and you think that other people go to hell forever based on your decisions? That God wants to save them but it is up to you whether he can? Thanks for clearing that up. Do people who have read the bible take you seriously?
@@beberean612wait, you actually think people could go to hell because you didn’t evangelize properly? God is so indifferent to someone’s salvation that he would leave it up to pure chance whether someone hears the Gospel or not?
Absolutely not! Calvinism in and of itself has changed the True Gospel of Jesus Christ. Calvinist is a Christian Sect no different than Jehovahs Witnesses and Mormons. Regeneration before Faith, is a lie, limited atonement is a lie, Unconditional Election is a lie, Irresistible Grace is a lie, Preservation of the Saints is a lie…. Repent and accept Jesus as Lord and Savior..
@@icilahmb most calvinists jjust want to be believers but really don't understand the original theology , and are kept in the dark by their teachers, yet they know christ died so they can live, that makes us family. But yes, original calvanism is flawed.
@@sandylend3562 Ok… let’s say that’s true.. If I told you that Mormons were just good people that are trying to believe in Jesus but are guided incorrectly.. what would your response be? So, if I am to believe that statement.. then Mormons or Jehovahs Witnesses are no different. But they are, aren’t they. Listen I get your point, but there is a level of complicity in Calvinist Parishioners that is Devilish. I heard John MacArthur preach this garbage 40 years ago and knew it was a different gospel and not the gospel of Jesus Christ.. There is a point where your passiveness is now sending you to hell…
So, "Calvinism" is OK, but "hyper-c" isn't? In your view, what are the key differences between the two? Additionally, which category would you put folks like Sproul, Piper or Macarthur in? Thnx.
"You contribute nothing to your salvation except the sin that made it necessary." -Jonathan Edwards If you don't believe that God knew the end before he created the beginning, that he wrote the names of those who would be saved in His book of life, and that he is sovereign over all that is good, but not that which is evil, then your quarrel isn't with "Calvinism", it's with the Bible.
You are conflating knowledge and necessity. We believe IF any name was written (before the foundation of the world) it was based on God's omniscience, but that's not what the passage says, and more likely, this misunderstanding is rooted in a bad translation of Rev 13:8. We would say a better translation is, "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." KJV This translation leaves room for the understanding that "names" have been written in this book from the foundation of the world, and names are being added through faith every day. I believe this is a more consistent interpretation of Rev 13:8. If names are written from before the foundation of the world through omniscience or decree, it is (set in stone), but this would lead us to a logical contradiction when names are blotted out of the book. "Yet now, if You will forgive their sin-but if not, I pray, blot me out of Your book which You have written. And the LORD said to Moses, “Whoever has sinned against Me, I will (blot him out) of My book." Exo 32:32-33 "He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not (blot out) his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels." Rev 3:5 Scripture clearly teaches that names can be blotted out of the book. If this is the case, these names are not set in stone before time began. The most Scripturally consistent understanding is that names are added to be book of life through (faith) and have been being added (from the foundation of the world). If God is Sovereignly and unchangeably decreeing to write names in the book, they could not be blotted out... Lastly, on our view, Sovereignty does not mean determinism, it means what it means in every single Lexicon available... A King.
@@beberean612 You’ll have to forgive me for siding with the ESV Bible study notes, which specifically refute your theory on the translation: ‘13:8 written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain. Before creation and by grace alone, God chose individuals to be redeemed by Christ’s death (see Eph. 1:4-14; and note on Eph. 1:11). God’s registry of life appears in Ex. 32:32-33; Dan. 12:1; Luke 10:20; Rev. 3:5; 17:8; 20:15. Those not enrolled in the Lamb’s book blindly worship the beast and will be cast with it into the lake of fire. The parallel expression in 17:8 shows that “before the foundation of the world” is best taken to modify “written” rather than “slain” as in some translations.’ When we talk about NT wording, what really matters is the original Greek- and that’s what these study notes are appealing to in their conclusions. Therefore it makes no sense to appeal to slight wording differences in the KJV in an attempt to write off other translations as “bad”. If we’re going to split hairs, technically ALL translations fail to do the Greek justice. That’s why it’s essential to have the study notes written by scholars who have done the work to understand the original language, and therefore, the original wording. I fear the idol of “free will” has blinded you so that you can’t see the absurdity of the intellectual hoops you jump through to justify your willful rejection of extremely clear scripture. Friend, I sincerely pray you repent.
Interesting, quoting a MAN and concluding that IT'S THE BIBLE , exactly what Jehovah's Witnesses do: they call the Watchtower magazine the Bible! The exact same spirit operating behing the two DOCTRINES OF MEN!
I’ll never understand how Bible-believing Christians can so blithely gloss over the words of Jesus and be so wrong in their understanding of Salvation. Didn’t Jesus say that NO ONE can come to him unless the Father draws them? Did he not say that everyone who is drawn will come? What non-Calvinists need to get their heads around is that no one is lost and goes to Hell because a Christian missed an opportunity to evangelize them. God chose those whom he would save before the foundation of the world, Jesus said that of them will be saved, and he said that none of them will be lost. He commanded us to go into all the world and preach the gospel because that is the means by which the Father draws those whom he had chosen to save. Only the elect respond to the gospel message in a way that results in them being truly born again. But since none of us knows who any of the elect are before they are saved, we preach to everyone. Any deficiencies on an individual Christian’s part to evangelize will never cause God’s plan of salvation to fail.
And since you preach to someone who YOU say cannot even make that choice, then you are preaching lie. The bible never says God chose those who are to be SAVED. He predestined the church/elect for adoption, not individually who will or won't be saved. Talk about "glossing over". God is not willing that anyone should perish, but that all would come to the knowledge of repentance. Here's where the Calvinist has to insert other words like JWs and the NWT. Apparently there's a "secret" will and some other kind of will. And ALL doesn't really mean ALL in they mind of a Calvinist. OH, and don't bother arguing with me. Who are you to argue with God's will that I believe the way I do?
Do you preach calvinism? Do you preach that God will save only those who are unconditionally elect and either they have absolutely no chance to be saved or they will absolutely be saved even if they don't want to? That they have no choice in the matter? It's deceitful to allow people to think they have a choice when they really don't. John 12:32, 33 32And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. 33This he said, signifying what death he should die.
@@richbaker7187Your argument isn't with me, it is with God's Word. Read John chapter 6 and do the math. If no one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws them, and if everyone who is drawn will come, and if Jesus never loses those whom the Father has given to him, then why are there people in Hell?
@@juanitadudley4788 Was it deceitful for Jesus to minister to the crowds and then tell them that no one can come to him unless the Father draws them? Therefore, we preach the gospel knowing that only the elect will respond.
@@miketatreau2347 I have no problem with the scripture. The scripture doesn't say God chooses who will be saved and who will not. It's your interpretation of pre-loaded Calvinism into the text. John 6 isn't saying God sends certain people, for no good reason, for salvation. The subject of the text is being "raised up on the last day". Those who make the choice for Christ will be with Him, and NONE of them will by no means lose out on that wonderful day. The text isn't talking about salvation, it's about glorification. YOU have to believe. God doesn't make you believe. Belief isn't a work, as some Calvinists constantly conflate the 2. I will go with Paul's definition.
I’ve listened to a lot of RC Sproul over the years. I’m a completed Jew. A lot of this theology, I’m only really now only coming to terms with and understanding. Part of the reason for that is that it’s taking me years to understand all the nuances and the questions that have nag me since I became a Christian. So I am taking up theology in a much more intense basis now because I want to understand what I understand. I must say that in the limited time I have been listening to you, which is a total of seven minutes I’m not terribly impressed with your arguments. In fact, it almost seems like you’re spending most of your time mocking what he believes rather than arguing from the Bible. So you have not convinced me.
I was a Calvinist for most of my adult life and understand the nuances of the doctrines. It was my personal experience that Calvinism almost led me into atheism. That's why I am speaking out against it, because it so easily and logically leads to fatalism. I love R.C. as a brother in Christ. I simply disagree with his view of election and predestination, which I believe is corporate in nature, as it has always been throughout the Torah and the Prophets. It's the corporation (election) of faith, the faith of Abraham; faith in the promise God gave to him, that through him, and his (S)eed, all nations of the earth will be blessed, and Christ is the fulfillment of that promise. So those who are in the corporation of faith in Christ (the promise), are counted as Abraham's seed, not that God unilaterally chose certain individuals to be in Christ, to the neglect of all others.
If you believe and repent, and Jesus cleanses you and you become a new creature, then you're saved. Stop all these sniffing around and read your bible. "You will know them by their fruits." How to know? The beatitudes are the outcome, relying on the Spirit of God, and you might not even realize that having been beatified, you manifest the true light. Jesus didn't say, "be salt" or "light". He said, "you are". It's God who does all these in you. Stop boasting on your knowledge. Read the bible with humility, giving reverence to God.
RC was one of the great theologians of our time. His answer was perfect. We bring the Gospel because God commands us too. That is how the Elect hear the word of God and become saved. The Bible is NOT about man's "logic," it is about the bible being the word of God and is the truth. BTW, the King James Bible is THE HOLY BIBLE for all English speaking people.
Yes! Let's just abandon rational thought and uphold our favorite doctrine. It's a married bachelor but who cares, R.C. Sproul says I should think this way.
0:42 -- "If its true, that God from all eternity saves His elect & nothing's going to change that, why should we be involved in evangelism?"
Sproul: "Jesus commands us to... God gives me the uspeakable privilige of participating in this work of redemption..."
Logic: If it's true, God commands the vast majority of mankind whom God alone has purposely rejected from the foundation of the world, who have no savior or gospel to repent to, to 'repent & believe the gospel."
1:17 'obedience'??? really? I spoke with an old friend who has become convinced of Calvinism. I asked the obvious question "why witness".. His canned response was "obedience"... I asked "could you be disobedient"... there was a silence for a moment... then he hung up on me🤣🤣🤣🤣
The flip side of your claim is that someone could literally be responsible for another’s salvation based on how well you evangelize…That seems like a heavy burden
So you're supposed to CHOOSE to witness because God commands it, BUT can only CHOOSE to obey God's command if God has predetermined it-BUT you are also disobeying God's command if you don't CHOOSE to witness? Yep! That makes perfect sense!
Thank you for commenting on this channel! God bless!
@@beberean612
Thanks for NOT "choosing" to address the content of my post. 😉
@@jessebryant9233 Lol! But it's my greatest desire to say more! Yes, it's unfortunate that people can't see it, but I guess I was in the echo chamber for a long time too! I really am starting to believe most Calvinists don't understand the logical implications of Calvinism.
@@beberean612
Kind of does seem that way, doesn't it? But then, isn't that also why they disavow they hyper Calvinists? It's like they're bumping into their own reflection and don't like what they see.
🤪🤪yeah... perfect sense. Calvinists are impervious to cognitive dissonance... it's there 'super power'.
A silly but actually a good argument when debating Calvinists is asking them: “why are you arguing against God’s decree of my argument? Who are you to answer back to God?” 😂😂😂
It's a great question!
👍
This response fails to grasp that God's will can be bifurcated into a secret/hidden will and a revealed will. Humans are commanded to follow God's revealed will. If the anti-Calvinist is incorrect or wrong in any way that violates God's revealed will, then he can be argued against. What God is doing in His secret/hidden will is irrelevant.
[+]The hidden things belong to the LORD our God, but the revealed things belong to us and our children forever, **so that we may follow all the words of this law.** (Deut 29:29)
I've asked that when a Calvinist bucks up against me.....silence.
@@richbaker7187 The sophomoric answer is brain-dead simple: "Because God ordained me to argue against it"
A more sophisticated answer is that the claim fails to understand the difference between God's secret will (aka, decrees) and His public will. Humans are never to try and appeal to God's secret decrees to defend or excuse their behavior. Never.
Try this: Can Judas say "I'm not responsible for betraying Jesus because satan entered me!!"
Although it's true that satan entered him (Luke 22:3), he can't use that as an excuse for his behavior. He will be condemned for betraying Jesus (Matt 26:24 states so explicitly).
In the same kind of way, a person cannot invoke God's secret decrees as a defense for their behavior.
Interesting but very sad story. In June of 2001, during his message at a Ligonier’s Conference in Orlando, Fla., the late Dr. R. C. Sproul indicated that Dr. James Boice, a scheduled speaker at the conference, was dying that very night. Then at the end of the message he asked all 5,000 present to pray that Jim "dies in faith". Dr. Boyce was considered a great pastor, theologian, teacher, and author, yet Sproul was not sure that he was regenerate. Dr. Boyce did die that night. They all hoped he persevered ... but they cannot know if that was God's "gift" to him or not. The real irony lies in their 'prayer' that Dr. Boyce would truly be saved. According to "U"conditional Election... God either loved him 'salvifically' or he hated him. just like Esau, and literally nothing could ever be done to change his eternal decree. And, if God hated him, why would they run the risk of 'loving' him?... They just don't know, and believe they cannot know, but most won't admit it, even to themselves.
It is said that Dr. Sproul even wondered out loud near is own death if he had done 'enough'. Still looking to his 'work's as 'evidence' of his own 'election'. Calvinists can have no real personal assurance, they're only hoping for the best, because they believe they're either 'picked' or they'll bust Hell wide open without a prayer.... literally. Desperate for 'evidence' of salvation, they cling to their 'works' as pieces of a broken shipwreck at sea. After having explained away, to their own satisfaction, every verse that simply says man can believe unto salvation, it's all they have.
Stick to the biblical text rather than your inane anecdotal commentary.
@@SugoiEnglish1 Inane: (silly; stupid)🤔Seriously??? I have no problem with the actual Biblical text.... in proper context. I did not invent the story of Dr. Sproul's comments, it's legit. Suggesting it's merely anecdotal and consequently unreliable is an error. It sounds to me like your advice would have been better shared with Dr. Sproul (RIP) whose Calvinist interpretation of the prooftexts he preferred ignored the actual Biblical 'context' which does not support his "Reformed" arguments. His own arguments actually deny himself and his Calvinist comrades any true assurance they were actually loved by the God they claim 'made them love him'.
The doctrine they 'willingly' embraced never affords them any confidence that God's affection for them was genuine, or if the faith and love for God which he "effectually" imposed upon them was intended to last either. Dr. Sproul's own explanation of who and how God saves men is akin to spiritual/rape because the reprobate literally has "no say in the matter", and salvation is forcibly imposed upon them against their will. As a renowned Calvinist theologian, these are his own words, I can post them if you need.
In the end, an honest Calvinist can no more trust the faith they think they have been given, than the God they think gave it to them.... I.e., they worship, and encourage others to worship, a God who cannot be trusted to love any one particular individual.
It would be an interesting encounter to face Jesus and have him lean over with a raised eyebrow and ask... "So, what's this I hear about you telling people I didn't die for everybody?"
I am more confident of Dr. Sproul's salvation than he was at the time of his death. I am also confident he is no longer a Calvinist. He professed faith in Christ unto salvation, which is sufficient ... except not for a Calvinist if Unconditional Election is a "thing".
You have an excellent understanding 👏
Keep these coming and God bless your ministry 🙌
Thank you and God bless!
0:09 LOL... Even Sproul says it was a "critical meeting".....critical to what??? CONSISTNECY IS TOTALLY ABSENT... The only thing Calvinists are consistent about is their inability to accept anyone ever rejects Calvinism because they 'DO' understand it.
I think you can find unlimited arguments like this because the Calvinist rejection of free will. What is abundantly clear is that guilt and culpability makes no sense without free will. You don't condem laundry for being dirty but you can condem the person who made it dirty.
I agree.
Exactly & Calvinists blame God ultimately because He made the laundry dirty, while traditional Christians blame the wearer of the clothes because he made the laundry dirty
They don't like to admit this - but ultimately it's true
You know what else doesn't make sense?
The fact that there was a being that existed before matter, time, space, etc., who knew and decreed the end before he created the beginning.
...Yet, we still believe in God.
The point is, we believe God is sovereign over good, but not evil because Scripture tell us so... Not because it "makes sense" to you.
“You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory- even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?”
Romans 9:19-24 ESV
@@justinmillsapRCC It's the Jews asking the Lord why did He make them like that - the entire nation of Israel was elect, but they're a vessel fitted for dishonor and the gentiles are now the vessels fitted for honor because they come to the Lord by faith vs the Jews coming by their own works righteousness.
What's your point? If you continue reading Paul essentially spells that out word for word in the ending verses of chapter 9
As I understand it, Calvinists don't believe that there is an open offer of salvation to the masses of people. So they do not invite anyone to respond to the gospel because that would be "decisionism" or synergism. So I ask any Calvinists: How do you do evangelism? How would you know if someone got saved by your 'evangelism'?
Thank you for commenting and God bless!
Spurgeon… for the sake of the elect.
We Evangelize because that's the primary way God Effectually Calls His Elect unto Himself.
Pretty simple.
No "circle" that needs to be "squared," here.
God's Grace ALONE is what is being besmirched by the synergists, here.
*Soli Deo Gloria*
Agreed. Not that complicated.
swallows hard at 6:51 lol
Hahaha! Swallow that contradiction!
The Bible tells us to work out our own salvation and also tells us that both the willing and the working are from God. Trying to square that is like trying to square the doctrine that God is one and yet three, or trying to square that Christ is both fully man and fully God.
The Christian faith is full of truths that have more than one side. Anyone who argues with a Calvinist by denying that God's predestinates man is denying the clear revelation of the Bible, just like any Calvinist who tells you that based on predestination we aren't therefore responsible to work is denying God's commandment.
So if one didn’t witness, people could be unsaved as a result of never hearing the gospel? Doesn’t this seem unjust?
There is a utube video where Mark Driscoll asks RC Sproul " Does God really want all people to be saved ?" and Sproul fails to answer that question. Instead Sproul answers anther question that wasn't actually asked !
I'm going to check that out! Thank you for your comment and God bless!
Great video, check out the Calvinist contradiction channel he talks about this a lot.
Thank you I will!
Refuting Calvinism should be a Priority for all of His Children. Good Job. If you have a Biblical Theodicy one must reject Calvinism.
Thank you for your comment and God bless!
Any many other false doctrines!!!!
@@gregorylatta8159 Hey Greg. Look up a youtuber named Kristi Burke. She was a Christian and now is a full blown Apostate because at a certain point she embraced Calvinism and now thinks Christianity is a joke. It's unbelievable.
@@TimBarr-e8p The same is true of Derek Webb. I love Cademon's Call and it was heart breaking, absolutely heartbreaking to hear him talk about it. He said, "I'm like Lazarous," waiting for God to call him out of death. Unbelievable.
I'd like you to explain to me this Gal. 1:15, if u don't mind?
Of course, and great question! We believe God sets people apart from the womb to fulfill his purposes. Another example,
"Listen to me, O coastlands,
and give attention, you peoples from afar.
The LORD called me from the womb,
from the body of my mother he named my name." Isa 49:1
We believe God does this through perfect counter factual knowledge. Counter factual knowledge is the knowledge that lies between what (will) be, and what (could) be, namely, what (would) be, and we have examples of this in Scripture. For example,
"David knew that Saul was plotting harm against him. And he said to Abiathar the priest, 'Bring the ephod here.' Then David said, “O LORD, the God of Israel, your servant has surely heard that Saul seeks to come to Keilah, to destroy the city on my account. Will the men of Keilah surrender me into his hand? Will Saul come down, as your servant has heard? O LORD, the God of Israel, please tell your servant.” And the LORD said, 'He will come down.' Then David said, 'Will the men of Keilah surrender me and my men into the hand of Saul?' And the LORD said, 'They will surrender you.' Then David and his men, who were about six hundred, arose and departed from Keilah, and they went wherever they could go. When Saul was told that David had escaped from Keilah, he gave up the expedition." 1 Sam 23:9-13
God did not tell David what (will) happen, because what He said did not come to pass (Saul gave up the expedition), nor was He merely telling David what (could) happen, as a number of possibilities could happen, and David may never have fled. Instead, God told David what most certainly (would) happen, if he stayed on his current path. That is counter factual knowledge, and we believe God has perfect counterfactual knowledge. God knew a blinding light (would) most certainly influence Paul to freely believe in Christ. If we can influence others with imperfect counterfactual knowledge, i.e., knowing my son will freely choose to clean his room, if I tell him we're going to the beach as soon as it's cleaned, God, with perfect counterfactual knowledge, can perfectly influence people as He sees fit to accomplish His purposes, without the need to violate free will. Could Paul have done otherwise you might ask? Yes, but (freely) unwilling.
@@beberean612I get that. Another thing: what's your views on libertarian free will and free will of compatiblism (as they call it) which one of them do you believe in? Or if none, what then?
@@inad2166 I believe in libertarian free will. (Compatibilism) free will is just soft determinism. It's saying we are only free to do what we want to do, which is no less deterministic than hard determinism, because God determines the desire, that causes our choice. Now that doesn't mean we believe people can just seek after God own their own, but we believe the means God determined to use to enable us to respond positively to Him, are the Holy inspired Scriptures, the law and the gospel. It divides, soul and spirit, bone and marrow. It is the power of God for salvation, for everyone who believes it.
@@beberean612 Whenever (most) Calvinists talk of this particular doctrine, (to me) they'd sound more sovereign than what they affirm of God. Like as if they knew they would do that because it was predetermined.
@@beberean612Loved to have discussed some correlated matters with you. Thanks!
Humans are required to obey God's revealed will or be judged/punished.
What God is doing in His secret will is besides the point.
[+]The hidden things belong to the LORD our God, but the revealed things belong to us and our children forever, **so that we may follow all the words of this law.** (Deut 29:29)
We absolutely are required to obey God's "revealed" will, however when we do not it is because God did not decree/will for us to do so correct?
@@seanvann1747 Dont' confuse God's 'secret' will with His 'revealed' will.
In the Bible, we see that three things are true:
1. Everything that happens is part of God's SECRET/DECREED will, no exceptions. Even the number of hairs that fall from my dog's fur today.
2. God's REVEALED will, can, at times and places, be construed as contradictory to God's DECREED will. (Eg: "Tell Phraoh to let My people go [revealed will], but I will harden his heart SO THAT he will not le them go [decreed will]". God could have had mercy on him so that he would immediately release His people. He chose to not do so. There are dozens(!) of such examples in the Bible.)
2. Man is morally culpable anytime he is out of conformity with God's **REVEALED** will. It is none of our business what God's SECRET/DECREED will is, and on a few occasions He will share with us what His SECRET/DECREED will. But we are always/only morally obligated to conform to His REVEALED will.
So in the case of Pharaoh, it was God's SECRET/DECREED will that Pharoh NOT let the people go until the 10th Plague, despite His repeated revealed commands to do otherwise. AND Pharaoh was held morally culpable for disobeying God's revealed command ("Let My people go") for the first 9 Plagues.
He is never rewarded for complying with God's secret/decreed will to not let the people go.
Thanks.
Of course! Do we determine that (thing) that comes to pass, and God just determines everything else? But how does that equal (all) things that come to pass on Calvinism? You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either God causally determines (all) things, or He does not.
@@timffoster So even though He clearly has revealed that He abhors sin the last time you sinned it is because God decreed for you to commit that sin correct?
Thanks 👍
@@seanvann1747 two things can be true at the same time .
Just out of curiosity, what part of that passage that I quoted did you not understand?
Find any passage anywhere in the Bible that talks about how God predestined for men to do a sin (there are many), and then you ask yourself that same question and see what answer you come up with.
The way you're leaning, the only possible answer you can try and offer is denial.
And that would mean that you're not believing what the Bible clearly says.
And that would cause us to wonder why you're trying to challenge me on the same, when I am actually believing what the Bible says, and you're not.
Some things are predetermined, some are not by God. If a mother determines to name her child a name and a way to raise that child and then does so... how much more does God determine for us as our Heavenly Father? And if a parent adopts a child, is that child not now determined a child of that parent? And if a kind and wise parent allows their children to choose their hobbies, careers, and who they choose to marry, how much more does the kindest and wisest parent, Our God, give us freedom to choose? The only way I've seen to change what God has determined is humility and begging at His feet. Amen.
It's always amazing to me how these calvinists ALWAYS portray this, look how humble I am, I'm MUCH more humble than the others, and at the same time presenting the arrogance of how their point of view is the obvious answer, although is one continual contradiction to their own previous statement. You need none of this confusion, by simply reading scripture in context, this type of sovereignty is simply NOT in the scripture, if it was, the Bible should be alot shorter, really all that should be said is, " human being, just know this, everything you do or say, is decreed by God" end of statement. Of course, they will give a philosophical explanation to my statement and the oversimplification of said statement, but one cannot deny it is still, a true statement...
Thank you for your comment!
We are not robots. In Romans 1 it says “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions…”. The “freedom” Calvinists talk about is that we are enslaved to sin and cannot chose to believe. We are not saying that God controls us like a robot and He makes us say and do everything. He allows us to follow our own folly while remaining in control and ensuring His purpose is always being fulfilled. Presenting Biblical truth is not arrogance. Nor do I think predestination is obvious. Our natural inclination is to believe we all have free will to believe. I was there at one time. It is unnatural to believe in predestination as God choosing us because it takes away all pride that somehow we are better than someone else because we understood and believed and they were too evil or stupid to do so.
@@Nuclearnav Romans 1:21-24 NIV
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. [22] Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools [23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. [24] 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
Brother please read the scripture, I beg of you to take off your calvinistic lenses and simply let scripture speak. Romans 1 absolutely teaches that we are NOT born unable to respond to the Gospel, it plainly disproves total depravity, although we KNEW God, their thinking BECAME futile and darkened, therefore God GAVE THEM OVER to their sinful desires. NOT FROM birth. Even though Romans 1 plainly teaches we are NOT totally depraved, or totally unable to respond, and you WILL NOT find not one scripture to support this Augustinian philosophy, you will still REFUSE to simply let scripture speak. YOU love your theology, more than God's Word, no matter how many stumbling blocks it causes the weaker ones to stumble, they're struggling with sin, and after hearing this false doctrine, they simply give up, convinces they must not be one of the elect. Christ WARNS about causing one to stumble, he didn't make an exception that as long as you lead some to me your exempt from this warning, you WILL answer for this arrogant, narcissistic doctrine. The calvinist has the audacity to call me a BEGGAR, for my beautiful Lord to have mercy on me in my sins verus the calvinist that sits on their pillar of manure stating" you poor thing, sorry but He chose me" brother you guys are only pulling the wool over your own eyes.
"It's always amazing to me how these calvinists ALWAYS portray this, look how humble I am, I'm MUCH more humble than the others, and at the same time presenting the arrogance of how their point of view is the obvious answer, although is one continual contradiction to their own previous statement."
ALWAYS? This grossly unBiblical, arrogant judgment of other believers CANNOT be substantiated and risks God's judgment. May God grant repentance.
Matthew 7:1-5 1901 ASV Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you. 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me cast out the mote out of thine eye; and lo, the beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Romans 14:4 Who art thou that judgest the servant of another? to his own lord he stands or falls. Yea, he shall be made to stand; for the Lord hath power to make him stand.
This is a genuine question, weather it can answered correctly and honestly is up for debate.
If a person puts faith in and is consistent in adhering to the TULIP are we even on the same page when discussing the God of the bible, is this non sensical monster narcissistic god the same god and outside Calvinistic systematic is there salvation to be found in their god and systematic.
All views welcomed ✌️
Rom 9:19 is written to the anti-Calvinist.
But who are you, oh non-Calvinist, to talk back to the Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 9?
@@beberean612 You're twisting things because you're caught out.
When Paul says: "You will say to me, why does God still find fault if He's causing the very will which He finds fault in?", he is talking to you anti-Calvinists. He's not talking to us Calvinists.
And because you know this, and resist it, your position is necessarily errant and you are in denial. Essentially your resistance to this is wickedness.
And so ironically, the wickedness which manifests as your resistance to the obvious teaching in Rom 9:19, is caused by God.
@@lawrence1318 You are begging the question my friend, which you have every right to do, but we don't believe Calvinism is in the Bible, and certainly not in the first century mind of Paul. What you should be doing, instead of just assuming Calvinism is true (begging the question), is explain to us (why) the Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 9 is the correct interpretation. Give us some actual evidence. You can't do this by simply quoting Romans 9, because we quote Romans 9 as well and interpret it differently.
@@beberean612 Rather, you are resisting what Rom 9:19 says, and why it is there. It is addressed specifically to people like you.
The disagreement boils down to the extent of personal autonomy or personal sovereignty. Do you believe you can successfully reject God if he calls you?
Yes, if God has given us that ability. If Calvinism is true, no.
I am not sure how getting hung up on predetermination then requires you to throw out the entire doctrine of predestination. God does not control everyone like a robot, but He does rule over everyone and everything and no one can thwart His will. Just as when a sovereign king rules over his kingdom, he does not have to personally control everyone’s every move, but he controls them through the laws and systems he has set up. The difference is that God does this infinitely so you can say that God has predetermined everything. Keep in mind that every analogy and explanation has its limitations because we are trying to describe an infinite God to our finite minds.
So this question on whether God predetermined if I would or would not witness is hard to understand by our finite minds. Yes, He determines everything in a sense, but as believers we are no longer slaves to sin so we can choose to obey or disobey. If we disobey then God will use someone else or some other means to bring that person to salvation. It is our loss of not participating in fulfilling His will. He is not suddenly at a loss to save someone because of our disobedience just as He was not at a loss of creating the nation of Israel because of Abraham’s disobedience of trying to use Hagar to produce a son to fulfill God’s promise.
but one thing that the scripture is clear about is that God predetermined everyone’s salvation and He will use whatever means He predetermines to bring that person to salvation. In revealing Himself to Paul He used an extraordinary means of a personal vision of Christ. For most it is a person or some writing or movie or something a human has done
You said, "God does not control everyone like a robot, but He does rule over everyone and everything and no one can thwart His will. Just as when a sovereign king rules over his kingdom, he does not have to personally control everyone’s every move, but he controls them through the laws and systems he has set up."
I think you are saying God does (not) causally determine our every move? But does our every move come to pass? Do you believe God determines all things that come to pass? It seems like you're claiming God determines everything, but He does this through managing and permitting our free will choices. Do you believe in the freedom of contrary choice (libertarian free will), or the free will of compatibilism (freedom to choose according to our greatest desire)? Or something else?
@@beberean612 why categorised or give distinction to the word Freedom? does man's freedom equal to God's freedom? Take it from the answer of GOD when Job asked Him. GOD did not rationalised to satisfy Job's logical thinking..
I can show you one perfect example of human free will thwarting the will of God - very explicitly at that.
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
2 Peter 3:9 KJV
That very explicitly says God's will is none should perish & all repent, yet they don't. Why dont all live & come to repentance - because human free will chooses to deny the Lord Jesus Christ.
@@beberean612the Reformed Orthodox embrace the freedom of contrariety; that isn’t how “LFW” is accurately defined. We believe in a simultaneity of potencies or a “synchronic contingency” so to speak
Scripture never says God predetermines individual salvations. How disingenuous of you to say "Scripture is clear", when it absolutely does not say that about salvation anywhere.
Please, predestination is not about salvation, its about God choosing whom ever to accomplish his will. However, many are called but few are chosen. Paul wrote about it because he was called and chosen to preach to the gentiles!
We believe chosen simply means, "God's chosen people." In the old covenant and the new, True Israel has always been those who have the faith of Abraham, the man of faith.
"So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith." Gal 3:9
We believe predestination (is) about salvation, but only in the sense that God predestined those who have faith in Christ, to be adopted as sons. Not that He predestines us to (be) sons, as Calvinist like to understand it. He chose us (believers) in Him (Christ) to be (holy and blameless). Not that He chose us to (be) in Christ. We believe we are "chosen" (i.e., become one of God's chosen people), when we place our faith in Christ, and the decision that those who place their faith in Christ, will be holy and blameless, was made before the foundation of the world. Consider this analogy to better understand the concept:
The founding fathers chose us, in America, before the foundation of the Country, that we should have freedom and liberty.
This is a true statement, and we, as Americans, can understand how this applies to us today because we intuitively understand the concept of corporate election. The founding fathers weren't choosing individuals to be citizens, rather, they were choosing that all within the corporation of America (citizens), should have freedom and liberty.
The founding fathers chose us (citizens), in America, before the foundation of the Country, that we (citizens) should have freedom and liberty.
In the same way,
"He chose us (believers) in Him, before the foundation of the world, that we (believers) should be holy and blameless." Eph 1:4
Staying consistent with the analogy, God was not choosing individuals to be believers, rather, He was choosing that all within the corporation of Christ (believers), should be holy and blameless. And it has always been Israel's (God's chosen people's) duty (although they rarely were obedient), to be a light to the Gentiles, to all people. Hope this helps! Thank you for commenting! God bless!
@@beberean612 if God choses who is saved, then you have to get rid of freewill. Christian gentiles are the mystery hidden by God since the beginning. Being chosen by God means exactly that, what God does with you is His choice! A vessel of noble use or less.
@@beberean612 Your trying to use logic about predestination instead of love.
@@sandylend3562 I would disagree. I would say that Corporate Election by faith, which teaches that God elects anyone and everyone who enters the Corporation of Christ through faith, is far more loving that the Calvinistic understand that God chooses some, to the neglect of all others. I say it's less loving because Christ said it was the good Samaritan who (loved) his neighbor, because he did not pass by even his enemy on the road. But if the Calvinist understanding of election is correct, this means that Christ passes by the majority of His enemies, while commanding us not to. This goes against the very definition of love that Christ Himself gave us. Instead of trying to rationalize how Christ can tell us love is one thing, while He Himself does otherwise, it is better to simply reject the doctrine that pits Christ's own words against Himself, in favor of a position that brings harmony between election, and the teachings of Jesus. Thank you for your kind comment! God bless!
@@sandylend3562 Okay please understand, this is the very thing that we are contending with: The Calvinist understanding of what it means to be "chosen," and the Calvinistic interpretation of Scripture, including Romans 9, which, in our opinion, ignores the first century context of the chapter, and in doing so misses the entire point Paul is trying to make. Not to mention, it pits chapter 9 against chapter 11, where Paul speaks again about the same people who are hardened in chapter 9. He says...
"What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The ELECT obtained it, but the REST were HARDENED, as it is written,
'God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes that would not see
and ears that would not hear,
down to this very day.' So I ask, did THEY (those hardened) stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather, through their trespass (the crucifixion) salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous...and even THEY (those hardened), if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft THEM (those hardened) in again." Romans 11:7,8,11,23
This makes no sense from a Calvinistic perspective. Paul is contrasting the elect and those who are hardened in verse 7. "The ELECT obtained it, but the REST were HARDENED." Now, Calvinists are quick to say Paul is contrasting the elect and the reprobate in Romans 9, but if they are consistent with their understanding of (who the elect are) and (who the hardened are) in chapter 11, the way they do in chapter 9, you end up with Paul saying God has the power to graft in the reprobate, "if they leave their unbelief." However, if Calvinism is true, the reprobate are incapable of believing, and by definition will never be grafted in, because they are not elect. As Paul said, "The ELECT obtained it, but the REST were HARDENED, as it is written,
'God gave them a spirit of stupor,
EYES THAT WOULD NOT SEE and EARS THAT WOULD NOT HEAR." Interestingly enough, this verse is often used by Calvinists as a proof text to support the doctrine of total inability of the will, but if you just keep reading, and stay consistent with the Calvinistic interpretation established in chapter 9, Paul ends up saying those who are hardened (the reprobate) can be grafted in. Not in the "we were all reprobate prior to regeneration" sense, because Paul contrasts the elect with those who are hardened. The people who are HARDENED are (not) elect according to Calvinists in chapter 9. But the Calvinistic interpretation self-destructs in chapter 11. The Corporate view of election by faith, however, brings perfect harmony to both chapters. Thank you for your comment and God bless!
If you share the gospel with a reprobate, one who is unable to have God’s grace, are they being offered a lie? A false gospel? I am sincerely offering salvation to one unable to be saved - that sounds like false witness to me? I don’t understand this. I have a Calvinist bible teacher who always tells me this is not about salvation for the elect. But he’s never willing to talk about the reprobate. How can God’s means for the elect be a lie and falsehood for everyone else? I’m so confused my Calvinist I can’t see straight…
William Lane Craig describes it as vertigo.
Take your teacher to Romans 1 and ask him why does he believe the reprobates are born that way when Paul wrote 3 times that they became reprobate after choosing to close their eyes. God only gave them over to reprobation after they continually refused to believe in God. The verses where he explicitly says God did A because of B are : Romans 1:24, 26 & 28
In no way does it support them being born reprobates, it shows they were given light (Romans 1:18-22) and they chose to ignore this light (Romans 1:21-23) and for this the Lord progressively turns them over to their lusts (beginning in Romans 1:24 and progressing until Romans 1:31/end of chapter)
God bless - don't be deceived
It's because we as Christians do not know who the elect are, and God commands that to gospel be preached.
God has ordained the ends and the means of how He saves sinners
What an utterly confused man he was.
Thank you for commenting and God bless!
Calvinism is Another Gospel. Galatians 1:8
How old are you sir?
39.
Brother you’ve misunderstood the determinism of God and the free will of mankind. Calvinism (reformed theology) never says that God determines us to sin such that He causes us to sin - Sin is our natural bent, it’s what we desire as fallen people. God doesn’t make us sin, we chose to sin freely and wholeheartedly! Calvinism says that none of us, by our fallen nature, will chose not to sin. That is, none of us will freely and wilfully turn to God in repentance and faith because we love our chosen life of sin (rebellion). We need a new heart that has God’s law written on it (Ezekiel 26:36) such that, though we still fail to live perfectly, yet now we hunger and thirst to live a righteous life that is pleasing to our God and saviour Jesus Christ.
We are not privy to who the elect of God are, but we are called to proclaim the Good News to all people in the knowledge that God is pleased to involve us in His miraculous work of salvation. He knows who His sheep are, and He opens their ears so that they hear the gospel and believe.
If we chose to disobey God’s command to proclaim the gospel in our lives and are content to live that way, then the sad truth is that we are probably not part of God’s elect as the Holy Spirit would not let us feel comfortable in our sin, but rather He would convict us such that we would change our ways. No one born of The Spirit is comfortable in their rebellion. If you mean that on a certain occasion we failed to evangelise someone and in retrospect are concerned about this. We do not blame God for our sin, it is the old self exerting it’s influence on us (the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak). God naturally foreknew this would occur and it will have been in line with (though not in tune with) His overall plan of redemption.
Very good clip. I have studied Calvinism with all the greats and the more they try to explain it, the more incoherent it sounds. So, God wants us to evangelize just to give us something to do??? Incoherent!!!!
Thank you for commenting and God bless!
If you choose not to proclaim the gospel then you are disobedient and rebellious to God and in so doing at the Bema your reward or loss will be given. If God has determined who will be saved your disobedients will only affect you and not God's plan, even if you believe we all have a choice to accept the gospel then someone has to proclaim, based on your disobedients not too proclaim you still end up with the same consequences. This debate will go on until the Lord returns so it's best you proclaim the gospel and have rewards in heaven, anything else is wood, hay, stumble
What is the Gospel?
If you know anything about geometry, you know that it is impossible to square a circle so your metaphor fails.
The point being, as you have missed the point of the metaphor, is that two contradictory statements cannot be simultaneously true, because of the law of non-contradiction. A cannot equal not-A. This is basic common sense.
@@beberean612 No, I have not missed the point. Your argument is androcentric. You say that it is not possible but Jesus says "The things which are impossible with men are possible with God." Luke 18:27. "Let God be true and every man a liar." I am comforted by this.
@@Saratogan You can't just pluck a verse out of its context and use it to support Calvinism. You believe my argument is man centered? I could say the same thing about Calvinism. Again, that begs the question. Just because all things are possible with God, doesn't therefore mean Calvinism is true. That depends on what God chose to do with His freedom. Furthermore, if my argument is androcentric, it is because God determined I would think this way, and I could not have done otherwise. Right? Or did I determine that thing that came to pass before the foundation of the world, and God simply determined all other things that come to pass? So, how can you rationally disagree with something God has determined for me to say? Has God determined for you to disagree with what He has determined for me to say?
This metaphor is about circular reasoning (which is calvinism in a nut shell). Not an actual circle.
You literally called it a metaphor but you still took it literally.
So yes....
You can square (metaphor) circular reasoning.
@@beberean612 , What is your understanding of God's sovereignty or do you not believe that He is sovereign? Think of Peter's preaching on the day of Pentecost "This (Jesus), delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put [Him] to death." Peter seems to hold apparent opposite concepts in tension. The counsel of the Godhead determined the death of the Son and man is held accountable. How can man be held accountable for what God has determined? I don't know but it evidently is so.
Sad to see foolish, sinful men time and again prescribing to God how He is supposed to save. I aldo see that stubborn hearts are truly incapable of understanding the simplicity of God's sovereign and saving election.
Not how He is supposed to save...how we interpret salvation differently than our Calvinist brothers and sisters. You are begging the question as this is the very point that is up for debate (i.e., circular reasoning).
I like how you keep coming back to the issue and not let Calvinists side track you, like they like doing. You keep going back to: did God decree that too? That´s basically the only argument you need to get good at when debating or talking to a calivnist.
Its gonna sound harsh but at its root calvinism is devilish. It tells people that God is in total control of everything, that you can´t do anything freely, that God hates some and loves others, that God decides to send even the unborn to hell and that He is basically at blame for every evil in the world. So yeah, its satanic.
Sadly you’ve misunderstood the determinism of God and the free will of mankind. Calvinism never says that God determines us to sin such that He causes us to sin - Sin is our natural bent, it’s what we desire as fallen people. God doesn’t make us sin, we chose to sin freely and wholeheartedly! Calvinism says that none of us, by our fallen nature, will chose not to sin. That is, none of us will freely and wilfully turn to God in repentance and faith because we love our chosen life of sin (rebellion). We need a new heart that has God’s law written on it (Ezekiel 26:36) such that, though we still fail to live perfectly, yet now we hunger and thirst to live a righteous life that is pleasing to our God and saviour Jesus Christ.
We are not privy to who the elect of God are, but we are called to proclaim the Good News to all people in the knowledge that God is pleased to involve us in His miraculous work of salvation. He knows who His sheep are, and He opens their ears so that they hear the gospel and believe.
If we chose to disobey God’s command to proclaim the gospel in our lives and are content to live that way, then the sad truth is that we are probably not part of God’s elect as the Holy Spirit would not let us feel comfortable in our sin, but rather He would convict us such that we would change our ways. No one born of The Spirit is comfortable in their rebellion. If you mean that on a certain occasion we failed to evangelise someone and in retrospect are concerned about this. We do not blame God for our sin, it is the old self exerting it’s influence on us (the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak). God naturally foreknew this would occur and it will have been in line with (though not in tune with) His overall plan of redemption.
You assume those who do not evangelize must be saved anyway simply because they claim they are calvinists.
Have you ever missed an opportunity to share your faith?
@beberean612 regretfully yes. But always doing or thinking you're doing it doesn't always mean it's a good thing especially when you are not prepared.
@@timlyg Now, do we determine whether or not we feel we are prepared to share the gospel? Do we determine that part of God's decree and God just determines all other parts of His decree?
@beberean612 yes and no. Our determination is always a passive one.
@@timlyg As in, it is a determination that God allows? Just asking for clarity.
So, to be clear. You disagree and you think that other people go to hell forever based on your decisions? That God wants to save them but it is up to you whether he can? Thanks for clearing that up. Do people who have read the bible take you seriously?
Yes, to be clear... we are disagreeing with Calvinism...
@@beberean612 So God may intend to save someone but you can prevent it? The only thing clear about that is your stupidity,
@@beberean612wait, you actually think people could go to hell because you didn’t evangelize properly? God is so indifferent to someone’s salvation that he would leave it up to pure chance whether someone hears the Gospel or not?
A lot of arguments against "Calvinism" are actually arguments against Hyper-Calvinism. They are not the same thing.
Absolutely not! Calvinism in and of itself has changed the True Gospel of Jesus Christ. Calvinist is a Christian Sect no different than Jehovahs Witnesses and Mormons. Regeneration before Faith, is a lie, limited atonement is a lie, Unconditional Election is a lie, Irresistible Grace is a lie, Preservation of the Saints is a lie…. Repent and accept Jesus as Lord and Savior..
@@icilahmb most calvinists jjust want to be believers but really don't understand the original theology , and are kept in the dark by their teachers, yet they know christ died so they can live, that makes us family. But yes, original calvanism is flawed.
@@sandylend3562 Ok… let’s say that’s true.. If I told you that Mormons were just good people that are trying to believe in Jesus but are guided incorrectly.. what would your response be?
So, if I am to believe that statement.. then Mormons or Jehovahs Witnesses are no different.
But they are, aren’t they.
Listen I get your point, but there is a level of complicity in Calvinist Parishioners that is Devilish.
I heard John MacArthur preach this garbage 40 years ago and knew it was a different gospel and not the gospel of Jesus Christ..
There is a point where your passiveness is now sending you to hell…
@@icilahmb Total Depravity is a lie.
So, "Calvinism" is OK, but "hyper-c" isn't? In your view, what are the key differences between the two? Additionally, which category would you put folks like Sproul, Piper or Macarthur in? Thnx.
"You contribute nothing to your salvation except the sin that made it necessary." -Jonathan Edwards
If you don't believe that God knew the end before he created the beginning, that he wrote the names of those who would be saved in His book of life, and that he is sovereign over all that is good, but not that which is evil, then your quarrel isn't with "Calvinism", it's with the Bible.
You are conflating knowledge and necessity. We believe IF any name was written (before the foundation of the world) it was based on God's omniscience, but that's not what the passage says, and more likely, this misunderstanding is rooted in a bad translation of Rev 13:8. We would say a better translation is,
"And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." KJV
This translation leaves room for the understanding that "names" have been written in this book from the foundation of the world, and names are being added through faith every day. I believe this is a more consistent interpretation of Rev 13:8. If names are written from before the foundation of the world through omniscience or decree, it is (set in stone), but this would lead us to a logical contradiction when names are blotted out of the book.
"Yet now, if You will forgive their sin-but if not, I pray, blot me out of Your book which You have written. And the LORD said to Moses, “Whoever has sinned against Me, I will (blot him out) of My book." Exo 32:32-33
"He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not (blot out) his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels." Rev 3:5
Scripture clearly teaches that names can be blotted out of the book. If this is the case, these names are not set in stone before time began. The most Scripturally consistent understanding is that names are added to be book of life through (faith) and have been being added (from the foundation of the world). If God is Sovereignly and unchangeably decreeing to write names in the book, they could not be blotted out... Lastly, on our view, Sovereignty does not mean determinism, it means what it means in every single Lexicon available... A King.
@@beberean612
You’ll have to forgive me for siding with the ESV Bible study notes, which specifically refute your theory on the translation:
‘13:8 written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain. Before creation and by grace alone, God chose individuals to be redeemed by Christ’s death (see Eph. 1:4-14; and note on Eph. 1:11). God’s registry of life appears in Ex. 32:32-33; Dan. 12:1; Luke 10:20; Rev. 3:5; 17:8; 20:15. Those not enrolled in the Lamb’s book blindly worship the beast and will be cast with it into the lake of fire. The parallel expression in 17:8 shows that “before the foundation of the world” is best taken to modify “written” rather than “slain” as in some translations.’
When we talk about NT wording, what really matters is the original Greek- and that’s what these study notes are appealing to in their conclusions.
Therefore it makes no sense to appeal to slight wording differences in the KJV in an attempt to write off other translations as “bad”.
If we’re going to split hairs, technically ALL translations fail to do the Greek justice.
That’s why it’s essential to have the study notes written by scholars who have done the work to understand the original language, and therefore, the original wording.
I fear the idol of “free will” has blinded you so that you can’t see the absurdity of the intellectual hoops you jump through to justify your willful rejection of extremely clear scripture.
Friend, I sincerely pray you repent.
Interesting, quoting a MAN and concluding that IT'S THE BIBLE , exactly what Jehovah's Witnesses do: they call the Watchtower magazine the Bible! The exact same spirit operating behing the two DOCTRINES OF MEN!
I’ll never understand how Bible-believing Christians can so blithely gloss over the words of Jesus and be so wrong in their understanding of Salvation. Didn’t Jesus say that NO ONE can come to him unless the Father draws them? Did he not say that everyone who is drawn will come? What non-Calvinists need to get their heads around is that no one is lost and goes to Hell because a Christian missed an opportunity to evangelize them. God chose those whom he would save before the foundation of the world, Jesus said that of them will be saved, and he said that none of them will be lost. He commanded us to go into all the world and preach the gospel because that is the means by which the Father draws those whom he had chosen to save. Only the elect respond to the gospel message in a way that results in them being truly born again. But since none of us knows who any of the elect are before they are saved, we preach to everyone. Any deficiencies on an individual Christian’s part to evangelize will never cause God’s plan of salvation to fail.
And since you preach to someone who YOU say cannot even make that choice, then you are preaching lie.
The bible never says God chose those who are to be SAVED. He predestined the church/elect for adoption, not individually who will or won't be saved. Talk about "glossing over". God is not willing that anyone should perish, but that all would come to the knowledge of repentance.
Here's where the Calvinist has to insert other words like JWs and the NWT. Apparently there's a "secret" will and some other kind of will. And ALL doesn't really mean ALL in they mind of a Calvinist.
OH, and don't bother arguing with me. Who are you to argue with God's will that I believe the way I do?
Do you preach calvinism? Do you preach that God will save only those who are unconditionally elect and either they have absolutely no chance to be saved or they will absolutely be saved even if they don't want to? That they have no choice in the matter? It's deceitful to allow people to think they have a choice when they really don't.
John 12:32, 33
32And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. 33This he said, signifying what death he should die.
@@richbaker7187Your argument isn't with me, it is with God's Word. Read John chapter 6 and do the math. If no one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws them, and if everyone who is drawn will come, and if Jesus never loses those whom the Father has given to him, then why are there people in Hell?
@@juanitadudley4788 Was it deceitful for Jesus to minister to the crowds and then tell them that no one can come to him unless the Father draws them? Therefore, we preach the gospel knowing that only the elect will respond.
@@miketatreau2347 I have no problem with the scripture. The scripture doesn't say God chooses who will be saved and who will not. It's your interpretation of pre-loaded Calvinism into the text.
John 6 isn't saying God sends certain people, for no good reason, for salvation. The subject of the text is being "raised up on the last day". Those who make the choice for Christ will be with Him, and NONE of them will by no means lose out on that wonderful day. The text isn't talking about salvation, it's about glorification.
YOU have to believe. God doesn't make you believe.
Belief isn't a work, as some Calvinists constantly conflate the 2. I will go with Paul's definition.
I’ve listened to a lot of RC Sproul over the years. I’m a completed Jew. A lot of this theology, I’m only really now only coming to terms with and understanding. Part of the reason for that is that it’s taking me years to understand all the nuances and the questions that have nag me since I became a Christian. So I am taking up theology in a much more intense basis now because I want to understand what I understand. I must say that in the limited time I have been listening to you, which is a total of seven minutes I’m not terribly impressed with your arguments. In fact, it almost seems like you’re spending most of your time mocking what he believes rather than arguing from the Bible. So you have not convinced me.
I would love to speak with you in detail and give Scriptural evidence. What questions have nagged you the most?
I was a Calvinist for most of my adult life and understand the nuances of the doctrines. It was my personal experience that Calvinism almost led me into atheism. That's why I am speaking out against it, because it so easily and logically leads to fatalism. I love R.C. as a brother in Christ. I simply disagree with his view of election and predestination, which I believe is corporate in nature, as it has always been throughout the Torah and the Prophets. It's the corporation (election) of faith, the faith of Abraham; faith in the promise God gave to him, that through him, and his (S)eed, all nations of the earth will be blessed, and Christ is the fulfillment of that promise. So those who are in the corporation of faith in Christ (the promise), are counted as Abraham's seed, not that God unilaterally chose certain individuals to be in Christ, to the neglect of all others.
If you believe and repent, and Jesus cleanses you and you become a new creature, then you're saved. Stop all these sniffing around and read your bible.
"You will know them by their fruits." How to know? The beatitudes are the outcome, relying on the Spirit of God, and you might not even realize that having been beatified, you manifest the true light. Jesus didn't say, "be salt" or "light". He said, "you are". It's God who does all these in you. Stop boasting on your knowledge. Read the bible with humility, giving reverence to God.
That makes no rational sense.
Let's just abandon all logic and rational thought to uphold our favorite doctrine.
RC was one of the great theologians of our time. His answer was perfect. We bring the Gospel because God commands us too. That is how the Elect hear the word of God and become saved. The Bible is NOT about man's "logic," it is about the bible being the word of God and is the truth. BTW, the King James Bible is THE HOLY BIBLE for all English speaking people.
Yes! Let's just abandon rational thought and uphold our favorite doctrine. It's a married bachelor but who cares, R.C. Sproul says I should think this way.