The preacher isn’t the first person in history to have to wrestle with God’s electing people before the creation of the world to be saved co-existing with people having free will. Nor unfortunately is he the first person to attempt to reconcile the two things the way he does here (the method the preacher uses is Tim Keller and John Piper’s way of reconciling election with free will). He dares to argue that our problem isn’t our choices - the problem is that we have ‘wrong’ desires. Before I explain from scripture why that isn’t a viable view note what he is saying. He is saying something truly terrifying - when one considers that it is being spoken in the name of God. He is saying that while there is free will - there is NO SUCH THING as taking responsibility. Instead of responsibility there is only God changing the desires of people - causing them to ALWAYS ‘choose’ in alignment with their strongest desire. If this were true then human beings are no different to animals in respect of their moral capacity. It means that either animals who ‘commit crimes’ should be in jail - or everyone in jail should be freed (sent to the zoo instead?). He is arguing that both people’s responsibility and irresponsibility are ordained by God - immutable. Note something else - the person who is saying that the elect come to 'obey' God due to his changing their desires is actually saying (without speaking it - Calvinists never quite manage to outline ALL of their beliefs - so aware are they of their despicable nature) that everyone whose desires have not led them to be saved were created by God only for eternal punishment (this while according to Calvinists their original rebellion against God is nothing other than the absence of desire). I respond to the preacher's defense - that none of us deserve to be saved - further down - but note that he cannot argue that no human being deserves to be saved if sin is merely the absence of God given desire. (To create culpability in human beings some Calvinists believe in compatibilism - the idea that God predestines all human actions while human beings continue to have free will. But this is no more logical than believing 1 = 2). There is no half way house when it comes to Calvinism - if people’s ‘choices’ are ‘what they wanted’ and God is the only one who changes what we want - the preacher is defending Calvinism in full. It is God the partial monster CREATING most people who will ever live FOR ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. That’s WHY they were created. Instead of God being the one who sacrifices himself that all might come to him. If there was room to be charitable to the preacher it would only be if the preacher presented other interpretations of Ephesians 1 and explained why those are not viable. He does not (the preacher must therefore be sanctioned for failing to create a TRUTH SEEKING CULTURE). Any person acquainted with the mercy of God would prove it in being eager to find evidence in scripture that God has chosen to show ALL people the same mercy he has shown them. They would be committed to exploring interpretations of scripture which didn’t make God a partial monster. But no - the preacher never got around to mentioning other interpretations of Ephesians 1 - interpretations which are present in every second UA-cam video discussing the passage. So I will - the most common alternative view to the Calvinist view of Ephesians 1 - is that instead of God CHOOSING PEOPLE to be in Christ - he CHOOSES CHRIST as the means by which he chooses people to be saved. If that sounds like an unlikely interpretation (that was my initial reaction when I first heard it) I ask that you read Ephesians 1:1-13 again - this time looking for every phrase which is the equivalent of “in Christ” (through Christ - in him - etc). You will find that there are thirteen such phrases in the first thirteen verses of Ephesians 1. When I re-read the passage after this was pointed out to me I couldn’t believe it. How could I have missed it?! It was like watching the last scene of The Sixth Sense - which causes everything one has watched up to that point to be seen from a completely different perspective. Proof that unconditional election is false doctrine exists in the following bible passages: 2 Peter 1:10-11 ESV Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. For IN THIS WAY there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Hebrews 3:12-14 ESV Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end. 2 Corinthians 6:1 ESV Working together with him, then, we appeal to you not to receive the grace of God in vain. The preacher must explain how free will in respect of God survives the ideas he presents about our moral choices always being in alignment with our strongest desire. He doesn’t explain - he simply says that the bible never denies our having free will. Proof that total depravity - the idea that non-believers are inclined toward sin in every thought, word, and deed - preventing them from choosing God - is wrong doctrine - exists in the passages below (if we find a passage in scripture where someone definitely doesn’t believe and acts in a way that is obedient - without it being their conversion - we have disproved total depravity): Mark 12:34 ESV And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions. Jesus says that the scribe is DEFINITELY not yet in the kingdom - and Jesus DEFINITELY commends the scribe for his answer to his question - which proves that both the answer and the intent in answering were righteous. Acts 17:22-23 ESV So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription: ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. The men of Athens are definitely not believers - they worship idols (see Luke 14:26). Yet Paul describes their activities in relation to ‘the unknown God’ as WORSHIP - something he could not do if their actions were rebellion in every thought, word, and deed. The preacher mentions John 6:44 - this is not a knock out punch for Calvinism. There is no reason why it could not mean that people aren’t able to come to God without grace being offered to them WHICH THEY MUST THEN CHOOSE TO RECEIVE. In seeking to defend the idea of God changing the desires of only some people the preacher says that it is key to understand that no-one deserves mercy. But that isn’t relevant - the only thing that is relevant is whether God IS merciful - or NOT merciful. If he is merciful he is merciful in all circumstances - and therefore towards all people. He mentions Romans 6:23 (the wages of sin is death). He interprets the verse to mean that the wages of sin is hell - but the most common interpretation for the word translated death is about physical not spiritual death (the verse therefore means that the only guaranteed result of ALL sin is physical death - and by the way it isn't a judgement - it is only a consequence - since children in the womb who never get to sin may die when their mother is killed). And let’s be clear on something - if people have become worthy of hell BEFORE they hear the gospel - all gospel preaching - instead of being about God’s love - is saving people from hell - I hope the reader understands what effect this would have on gospel preaching (people don’t become worthy of hell until after they have heard and refused the gospel). Why does the preacher bother to tell us that God ‘wants’ all people to be saved - if God has only changed the desires of some people - causing them to be saved? He says incorrectly that God’s love is UNCONDITIONAL. If God’s love is unconditional that must mean BOTH that some people are unconditionally saved and other people are unconditionally damned. But do not worry - as I showed above by proving that unconditional election is wrong doctrine - he is wrong - God’s love is UNCHANGING - not unconditional. But isn’t that practically the same thing? No - we have the freedom to position our lives in respect of God’s unchanging love so that it either restores us - unites us with God - or ends up judging us without our being restored. With unconditional election and total depravity each shown to be false from scripture - and with my having introduced corporate election - I ask that the reader do two things: 1. Read Ephesians 1:1-13 to see if the corporate election view is viable 2. Watch/listen again to the sermon video starting from 22:39
The preacher says that any relationship in which love is conditional - instead of unconditional - is a bad relationship - an abusive relationship. If so every New York City employer - in imposing conditions for ongoing relationship with their employees - is an abuser. What are marriage 'oaths' if not conditions for a marriage to be a marriage? How should a spouse respond to their partner's committing adultery - with unconditional love? How seriously can we consider the preacher to be when while saying these wrong things he believes that there is nothing abusive about a God who creates most people without the necessary desire to be obedient - and then punishes them eternally for behaving in alignment with their desires - or lack of desire? Is a father who shows favouritism - who treats most of his children without mercy - a good father - or an abusive father? The preacher mentions the parable of the prodigal son. He points out that while the prodigal rehearses his repentance speech the father doesn't wait to hear it. He says that this is proof that God's relationship with the elect is unconditional. His interpretation directly contradicts Romans 8:13 - which reveals that those who live unrepentant lives will not be saved: ESV For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. I don't want to mislead anyone - so I must explain that Christianity has two equal dimensions/conditions: 1. Christ died and rose for us. 2. We must die and rise with Christ. The first is salvation NOW - and BEFORE repenting - we must simply receive the grace that is Christ dying and rising for us. The second is salvation AFTER repenting - we must repent/imitate Christ in order to be saved. How can these two ideas co-exist? Like this - if we receive Christ's death and resurrection we are forgiven - however our CONTINUING to be forgiven is conditional upon our turning from sin. Note that these truths match the parable of the lost son - he is repentant - but the father embraces him before he repents. If I was the preacher I wouldn't bring up the parable of the lost son - since the parable of the lost son is inconsistent with total depravity (the preacher argues that the person who lives unrepentant isn't able to turn to the father - he says that the father must 'draw' him. What then is the son's heading for home?). The preacher says that we can be confident that the God who began his work in us will carry it on to completion. I agree that the unchanging God will continue to be himself - but that isn't the issue that the preacher raised - he raised whether the way in which God saves us erases our ability to turn away from God. For proof that we can use our freedom to turn away from God - having begun with him see Romans 11:22, 2 Peter 2:20, Hebrews 10:29, and Hebrews 6:4-6 (it's not possible to interpret these passages to be about people who were never justified - various statements make that view unviable). And that brings me neatly to the final thing that the preacher covered - how we can know that we are chosen (if we are). His answer was circular - he said that if we believe in God - put our faith in God - then we know we are chosen. But that's the wrong way around when it comes to Calvinism - Calvinism is about people who are chosen believing because they are chosen - not about people who believe being chosen. Please read the four passages I quoted in the previous paragraph - they are proof that people having a changed life isn't assurance of their eternal destiny. Below is the first of the four passages - it shows that people who Paul says only need to continue as they are to be saved - are AT THE SAME time able to turn away - and if so - will be cut off: Romans 11:22 ESV Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. I have presented various logical and biblical proofs above that Calvinism is wrong doctrine. But there is also a Holy Spirit argument - a reason why any person relying on the testifying of the Spirit for understanding - instead of on their fallen mind - is able to instantly know that Calvinism is wrong doctrine. The Calvinist must choose between EITHER believing the conclusions of his fallen mind from scripture - unconfirmed by the Spirit - OR rely on the Spirit's testifying (Romans 8:16) about God's character (towards all people). Why must he choose between the two? Because it isn't possible to relate with the Spirit as BOTH one of the Calvinist elect - and the Calvinist non-elect - to get a complete picture of God's character - to verify the truth of Calvinism. Calvinism is therefore LOGICALLY Pharisaism - word without Spirit (the only way for the Calvinist not to be a Pharisee is if he lives favouring the Spirit's testifying over the conclusions of his fallen mind - this requiring him to live illogically).
Tim great job!!!!
The preacher isn’t the first person in history to have to wrestle with God’s electing people before the creation of the world to be saved co-existing with people having free will. Nor unfortunately is he the first person to attempt to reconcile the two things the way he does here (the method the preacher uses is Tim Keller and John Piper’s way of reconciling election with free will). He dares to argue that our problem isn’t our choices - the problem is that we have ‘wrong’ desires.
Before I explain from scripture why that isn’t a viable view note what he is saying. He is saying something truly terrifying - when one considers that it is being spoken in the name of God. He is saying that while there is free will - there is NO SUCH THING as taking responsibility. Instead of responsibility there is only God changing the desires of people - causing them to ALWAYS ‘choose’ in alignment with their strongest desire. If this were true then human beings are no different to animals in respect of their moral capacity. It means that either animals who ‘commit crimes’ should be in jail - or everyone in jail should be freed (sent to the zoo instead?). He is arguing that both people’s responsibility and irresponsibility are ordained by God - immutable.
Note something else - the person who is saying that the elect come to 'obey' God due to his changing their desires is actually saying (without speaking it - Calvinists never quite manage to outline ALL of their beliefs - so aware are they of their despicable nature) that everyone whose desires have not led them to be saved were created by God only for eternal punishment (this while according to Calvinists their original rebellion against God is nothing other than the absence of desire). I respond to the preacher's defense - that none of us deserve to be saved - further down - but note that he cannot argue that no human being deserves to be saved if sin is merely the absence of God given desire. (To create culpability in human beings some Calvinists believe in compatibilism - the idea that God predestines all human actions while human beings continue to have free will. But this is no more logical than believing 1 = 2).
There is no half way house when it comes to Calvinism - if people’s ‘choices’ are ‘what they wanted’ and God is the only one who changes what we want - the preacher is defending Calvinism in full. It is God the partial monster CREATING most people who will ever live FOR ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. That’s WHY they were created. Instead of God being the one who sacrifices himself that all might come to him.
If there was room to be charitable to the preacher it would only be if the preacher presented other interpretations of Ephesians 1 and explained why those are not viable. He does not (the preacher must therefore be sanctioned for failing to create a TRUTH SEEKING CULTURE). Any person acquainted with the mercy of God would prove it in being eager to find evidence in scripture that God has chosen to show ALL people the same mercy he has shown them. They would be committed to exploring interpretations of scripture which didn’t make God a partial monster. But no - the preacher never got around to mentioning other interpretations of Ephesians 1 - interpretations which are present in every second UA-cam video discussing the passage.
So I will - the most common alternative view to the Calvinist view of Ephesians 1 - is that instead of God CHOOSING PEOPLE to be in Christ - he CHOOSES CHRIST as the means by which he chooses people to be saved. If that sounds like an unlikely interpretation (that was my initial reaction when I first heard it) I ask that you read Ephesians 1:1-13 again - this time looking for every phrase which is the equivalent of “in Christ” (through Christ - in him - etc). You will find that there are thirteen such phrases in the first thirteen verses of Ephesians 1. When I re-read the passage after this was pointed out to me I couldn’t believe it. How could I have missed it?! It was like watching the last scene of The Sixth Sense - which causes everything one has watched up to that point to be seen from a completely different perspective.
Proof that unconditional election is false doctrine exists in the following bible passages:
2 Peter 1:10-11 ESV
Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. For IN THIS WAY there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
Hebrews 3:12-14 ESV
Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end.
2 Corinthians 6:1 ESV
Working together with him, then, we appeal to you not to receive the grace of God in vain.
The preacher must explain how free will in respect of God survives the ideas he presents about our moral choices always being in alignment with our strongest desire. He doesn’t explain - he simply says that the bible never denies our having free will.
Proof that total depravity - the idea that non-believers are inclined toward sin in every thought, word, and deed - preventing them from choosing God - is wrong doctrine - exists in the passages below (if we find a passage in scripture where someone definitely doesn’t believe and acts in a way that is obedient - without it being their conversion - we have disproved total depravity):
Mark 12:34 ESV
And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions.
Jesus says that the scribe is DEFINITELY not yet in the kingdom - and Jesus DEFINITELY commends the scribe for his answer to his question - which proves that both the answer and the intent in answering were righteous.
Acts 17:22-23 ESV
So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription: ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.
The men of Athens are definitely not believers - they worship idols (see Luke 14:26). Yet Paul describes their activities in relation to ‘the unknown God’ as WORSHIP - something he could not do if their actions were rebellion in every thought, word, and deed.
The preacher mentions John 6:44 - this is not a knock out punch for Calvinism. There is no reason why it could not mean that people aren’t able to come to God without grace being offered to them WHICH THEY MUST THEN CHOOSE TO RECEIVE.
In seeking to defend the idea of God changing the desires of only some people the preacher says that it is key to understand that no-one deserves mercy. But that isn’t relevant - the only thing that is relevant is whether God IS merciful - or NOT merciful. If he is merciful he is merciful in all circumstances - and therefore towards all people.
He mentions Romans 6:23 (the wages of sin is death). He interprets the verse to mean that the wages of sin is hell - but the most common interpretation for the word translated death is about physical not spiritual death (the verse therefore means that the only guaranteed result of ALL sin is physical death - and by the way it isn't a judgement - it is only a consequence - since children in the womb who never get to sin may die when their mother is killed). And let’s be clear on something - if people have become worthy of hell BEFORE they hear the gospel - all gospel preaching - instead of being about God’s love - is saving people from hell - I hope the reader understands what effect this would have on gospel preaching (people don’t become worthy of hell until after they have heard and refused the gospel).
Why does the preacher bother to tell us that God ‘wants’ all people to be saved - if God has only changed the desires of some people - causing them to be saved?
He says incorrectly that God’s love is UNCONDITIONAL. If God’s love is unconditional that must mean BOTH that some people are unconditionally saved and other people are unconditionally damned. But do not worry - as I showed above by proving that unconditional election is wrong doctrine - he is wrong - God’s love is UNCHANGING - not unconditional. But isn’t that practically the same thing? No - we have the freedom to position our lives in respect of God’s unchanging love so that it either restores us - unites us with God - or ends up judging us without our being restored.
With unconditional election and total depravity each shown to be false from scripture - and with my having introduced corporate election - I ask that the reader do two things:
1. Read Ephesians 1:1-13 to see if the corporate election view is viable
2. Watch/listen again to the sermon video starting from 22:39
The preacher says that any relationship in which love is conditional - instead of unconditional - is a bad relationship - an abusive relationship. If so every New York City employer - in imposing conditions for ongoing relationship with their employees - is an abuser. What are marriage 'oaths' if not conditions for a marriage to be a marriage? How should a spouse respond to their partner's committing adultery - with unconditional love? How seriously can we consider the preacher to be when while saying these wrong things he believes that there is nothing abusive about a God who creates most people without the necessary desire to be obedient - and then punishes them eternally for behaving in alignment with their desires - or lack of desire? Is a father who shows favouritism - who treats most of his children without mercy - a good father - or an abusive father?
The preacher mentions the parable of the prodigal son. He points out that while the prodigal rehearses his repentance speech the father doesn't wait to hear it. He says that this is proof that God's relationship with the elect is unconditional. His interpretation directly contradicts Romans 8:13 - which reveals that those who live unrepentant lives will not be saved:
ESV
For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
I don't want to mislead anyone - so I must explain that Christianity has two equal dimensions/conditions:
1. Christ died and rose for us.
2. We must die and rise with Christ.
The first is salvation NOW - and BEFORE repenting - we must simply receive the grace that is Christ dying and rising for us.
The second is salvation AFTER repenting - we must repent/imitate Christ in order to be saved.
How can these two ideas co-exist? Like this - if we receive Christ's death and resurrection we are forgiven - however our CONTINUING to be forgiven is conditional upon our turning from sin.
Note that these truths match the parable of the lost son - he is repentant - but the father embraces him before he repents.
If I was the preacher I wouldn't bring up the parable of the lost son - since the parable of the lost son is inconsistent with total depravity (the preacher argues that the person who lives unrepentant isn't able to turn to the father - he says that the father must 'draw' him. What then is the son's heading for home?).
The preacher says that we can be confident that the God who began his work in us will carry it on to completion. I agree that the unchanging God will continue to be himself - but that isn't the issue that the preacher raised - he raised whether the way in which God saves us erases our ability to turn away from God. For proof that we can use our freedom to turn away from God - having begun with him see Romans 11:22, 2 Peter 2:20, Hebrews 10:29, and Hebrews 6:4-6 (it's not possible to interpret these passages to be about people who were never justified - various statements make that view unviable).
And that brings me neatly to the final thing that the preacher covered - how we can know that we are chosen (if we are). His answer was circular - he said that if we believe in God - put our faith in God - then we know we are chosen. But that's the wrong way around when it comes to Calvinism - Calvinism is about people who are chosen believing because they are chosen - not about people who believe being chosen. Please read the four passages I quoted in the previous paragraph - they are proof that people having a changed life isn't assurance of their eternal destiny. Below is the first of the four passages - it shows that people who Paul says only need to continue as they are to be saved - are AT THE SAME time able to turn away - and if so - will be cut off:
Romans 11:22 ESV
Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.
I have presented various logical and biblical proofs above that Calvinism is wrong doctrine. But there is also a Holy Spirit argument - a reason why any person relying on the testifying of the Spirit for understanding - instead of on their fallen mind - is able to instantly know that Calvinism is wrong doctrine. The Calvinist must choose between EITHER believing the conclusions of his fallen mind from scripture - unconfirmed by the Spirit - OR rely on the Spirit's testifying (Romans 8:16) about God's character (towards all people). Why must he choose between the two? Because it isn't possible to relate with the Spirit as BOTH one of the Calvinist elect - and the Calvinist non-elect - to get a complete picture of God's character - to verify the truth of Calvinism. Calvinism is therefore LOGICALLY Pharisaism - word without Spirit (the only way for the Calvinist not to be a Pharisee is if he lives favouring the Spirit's testifying over the conclusions of his fallen mind - this requiring him to live illogically).