Yes John Piper the great Calvinist describes his god as follows. " God . . . brings about all things in accordance with his will. In other words, it isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those who love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects for his glory (see Ex. 9:13-16; John 9:3) and his people’s good (see Heb. 12:3-11; James 1:2-4). This includes-as incredible and as unacceptable as it may currently seem-God’s having even brought about the Nazis’ brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child . . . That abuse of children is a nice Calvinist touch! Don't you think? Well what about the founder of Calvinism? Let him school you as well. Here goes from the founder of Calvinism. “The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11) Well that "forced to do him service" is a nice touch! As well. So you see, you are defending an evil system that says god is the source. inventor, and commissioner of evil! It is true that calvi-god is the source of evil and slanderer of the True God. But calv-god is satan wanting the top spot. Sorry it is taken. Truth in Love
@@FaithfulServantsOfChristCalvinites get really hostile when you show the unvarnished face of their hideous system. It is ok to say "Sovereign Grace" and divine Election. But show the words of their father the Devil .... sorry I mean John Calvin and then they are ashamed. But not ashamed enough to leave the hive.
Love the video. I myself had turned to listening to many Calvinist preachers because us was so tired of watered down preachings that’s so common today. But, at the time I wasn’t aware of what Calvinism was and had never heard it taught specifically by any of the preachers. But when I did hear of it and learned there doctrine, it literally made me sick to my stomach for weeks. It totally went against what I had known of God my entire life. But as a result of it, I prayed harder and studied harder than ever before determined to learn the truth regardless of what it was. Thankfully God answered my prayers and gave e me the wisdom to see Calvinism for what it is, a contradiction of the Bible and total misunderstanding of the gospel.
I can relate to this. The majority of Christian content online is either prosperity gospel or Calvinism and they’re both damnable heresies, but one can seem like the antidote to the other for people who are fleeing one of them.
Understanding the purpose of creation nullifies the foundational belief of Calvinism. Also, there is the fact that if God was the author of all of our sinful actions, they would not be our sins. If we cannot do good, we cannot incur guilt. It is that simple.
This fact is a stain on Calvinism. I have listened to a lot of James White. The man is so full of the sin of pride that it oozes from his pores. He seems to be almost incapable of honesty. If you watch White and Leighton Flowers the difference between them in terms of humility and honesty is stark. The fact that Calvinists consider him a hero was a big step in me rejecting Calvinism. I came to faith through self-study so I did not have an existing tradition that I was either raised in or converted into. When I became Christian I decided to start investigating denominations and traditions to find out where my home in the faith would be, and I almost immediately ran across James White and was subsequently influenced away from Calvinism without even knowing the doctrines very well just by observing James White and concluding that any movement that considered that man a spokesman had serious ethical problems. That being said, White is worth watching. He's an entertaining speaker.
@@patrickbarnes9874 I have to wonder if when Jesus was here and the people said He spoke as one with authority you would've been put off also. Many see confidence as pride/arrogance they truly do appear similar, the main difference being whether what they say is true. So the very fact that you buy into the god palatable to man, where man controls his destiny, you see James as being wrong. Ergo he is arrogant.
@@raymondrinehart5957 I don't know how universal it is, since many still engage with him & he is in demand in the debate community. Now in the community that disagrees with his views, it maybe universal. But then we do not tend to have a warm feeling for those with whom we disagree strongly. I know I do not have warm feeling for Leighton, and even though he is a large fellow he seems weaselly to me. Others may find the same traits super lovable. I suppose it would depend on the person. Just look at politics, many hate the other party's candidate, but if the same person were spouting the talking points they love so much, they would love them. So saying that in your circles he is universally despised, and in his own camp they love him is just human nature. I like White when I agree with him and when I disagree.. not such a fan. And there are areas where I disagree with him. Not soteriology though.
Interesting talk he did. What was odd is when he said the Calvinist view of God was worse than Satan. The Holy Scriptures says, "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." Romans 9:13-16 KJV
I don't really see how the passage you quoted relates to your statement, so I can't address that. But he was repeating a quote about God being worse than Satan in reference to Satan tempting people to sin whereas under Calvinism God forces people to sin. That's what makes God worse than Satan in Calvinism. It really is simply a logical conclusion. It is self evidently worse to punish someone for something you forced them to do than it is to try to convince them to do it.
Every bit of Roman's 9 was written about Jews, and Paul did not have in mind God chosing certain people for salvation before the foundation of the world. You are approaching Roman's 9 with your Calvinist presuppositions eisegesing the text instead of properly exegeting in the proper historical context. Calvinists presuppose Calvinism is true, then cherry-pick verses out of context that support Calvinism instead of reading the Bible to see if Calvinism is true. Calvinists do not hold to Scriptural authority. They hold to the authority of Calvinism instead
@@zebra2346I concur with Zebra. The fact that you posted that Romans 9 quote as if it supported your case, rather than demolished it, shows you’re not reading this right. Paul was actually destroying the Jews’ version of Calvinism, not establishing it. If Augustine or Calvin had any context at all we wouldn’t have Calvinism.
Completely ripped out of context. In Romans 9, when Paul quoted, Jacob I loved Essau I hated, he was showing God's preference from which son of Isaac the Messiah would come. Jesus said, whoever doesn't hate his mother more than me can't be my Disciple. Does Jesus mean hate like the Calvinist's believe how God hated Eaaau?
No sir, I’ve done a very deep dive on the context. When Paul uses the quote about Jacob and Esau he is neither using it to speak about God’s preference for who the Messiah would come through nor attempting to use “hated” in the same way Jesus did about hating your mother and father. Both of these are long-held anti-Calvinist positions, but they’re very wrong. (And Calvinism is wrong too.) No, Paul is using this quote but he’s turning it back around on the Jews. This was one of their slogans that they used to promote their special favor (akin to Calvinism.) It would have been very much like as if Joe Biden had co-opted the MAGA slogan when he was running against Trump to say sarcastically that Trump has actually ruined the country and Biden was going to make it great again. Do you see the striking irony there? Paul was reversing their slogan back on them by reverse of the roles. When Paul uses it in verse 13 he’s saying the Jews are now Esau and the Gentiles are now Jacob. And if you’ve been tracking his argument so far in this chapter, this would be just another of several role reversals that he’s already done. And several more will follow. If you don’t see this we should talk. Or, I have more on this on my UA-cam profile page you can download for free.
Calvinism has spawned several good jokes. Here's one. A seminarian expresses to his old Scottish professor his concern regarding how to know whom to evangelize, given that only the predestined elect are saved. "Dinna worry, laddy...should you get the wrong one saved, the gud Laird'll forgive ya." After several decades of contemplating the tulip, and Calvinism at large, I came to understand that the underlying problem with it is that it presupposes that all theology must be systematic. That is, all the T's must be crossed, all the I's dotted, no questions unanswered, everything fitting together nicely for our precious little minds, in a perfectly reasonable package. This, of course, necessitates cherry-picking from the Bible the passages you need, explaining away those that are troublesome, and then going forth with a cocksure attitude that you "Have The Truth." Those who have dealt with true, diehard Calvinists are very much aware of this attitude. They love to tell you how they "Rightly Divide the Word." It is hard to talk very long with such persons because their condescending attitude becomes suffocating. The Christian comedian, Mark Lowry, once poked fun at his own Baptist tribe (they're Calvinist) by saying: "We may not always know...but we're never in doubt." That is called hitting the nail on the head.
Thank you for this talk. Very well done. Simple and relatable. Sometimes these talks get so deep in their heads it becomes too complicated. It doesn't need to be so. It's nice to hear someone stand up and say, once saved, always saved us false. There are 80 passages in the Bible saying this doctrine of once saved us false. I also appreciated that calvanists are not all bad. They do some good things, but, bad doctrine cannot go unchallenged.
@@brettmathews3191 Glad it helped. I have a doctorate in Christian apologetics. Even so, it took me years to understand what the essential problem was with Calvinism. You are right, it gets complicated.
So you will have a later session where you will show that Calvinism began with Augustine while that means it’s historical. The normal historical western Christian position can be found in the council of Orange
P is what makes Calvinism works based salvation. No Calvinist has assurance of salvation and must persevere until the end to know if they were saved. To put it another way, if you continue to do "good" works it is an indication they were elect. If the "good" works stop, they were never elect to begin with. This is very different from preservation of the saints which means, in this dispensation, once justified, you cannot lose your righteousness,
@@marklindsey1995I know where you’re coming from on the P turning Calvinism into a world based salvation, but honestly that’s only for the low-IQ Calvinists. And that’s saying something. Relying on proof of continued good works to tell you if you’re one of the elect is silly under Calvinism because C teaches it’s not based on works in any way. C teaches you could have the biggest murderer in the world and if they’re elect, they’re elect. And you could have the kindest soul in the world and if they’re reprobate, they’re reprobate. I think you’re right though on L. To me L and U are both the worst because they both teach God loves some people, not all people. Totally anti-biblical. T is fine as far as it goes because even non-Calvinists believe all men are sinful, no one is not touched by sin, and we all need God’s grace. That’s all that T accomplishes anyways under Calvinism.
Little Johnny, God has predestined the minority of people to be saved and go to heaven forever, and He has predestined the majority of people to be eternally damned and burn in the fires of hell. We have no idea, little Johnny, if God has predestined you to be forever damned or forever saved. We love you, little Johnny, but we accept the fact that God might not love you, and that He may have plans to send you to hell for your future sins. If you do find yourself one day burning in hell because He hasn’t elected to save you, just remember that we will always love you, even if God hates you. Take comfort knowing that we are not like God. We will be in heaven forever only because we were unconditionally chosen for salvation before we were born. That would be the only reason that we won’t be in hell with you if you find yourself there. It won’t be because of anything we did. So also take comfort in knowing that. It may not seem fair, but who are we to judge God? So again, if you find yourself in hell, remember that we will always love you as we forever worship the God who loved us but who hated you, the God who sent His Son to die for us but not for you. Please, we ask, don’t let it bother you-if you find yourself in hell-that we love the God who hated you and showed you no mercy. We must accept the fact that God is sovereign, and He does what He pleases. My dear beloved Calvinist, will you teach that to your children or grandchildren? I suspect that your answer will be “never.” But why not? Why would you ever hide the wonderful “doctrines of grace,” the “Bible truth,” from your own children or grandchildren? TRUTH IN LOVE
@truth7416 Little Esau, Mom and I love you a lot, but I need to tell you the bad news. Little Esau, While we love you, God hates you. Little Esau: “But dad, what have I done that God would hate me?” No little Esau it is not for something you did. At the time before you were born God already hated you. Oh and what about Little Jacky, my twin brother? No not him God Loves him. But God also told my dad to kick my Halve Brother Ismael and his mom, out of the house, for we were children and sometimes he was acting bad to me, and also that God would bless me, and I would inherit everything and my halve brother Nothing. Esau you need to accept the fact that God hates you, and that He may send you to hell for the sins you will commit. If you do find yourself one day burning in hell because He hasn’t elected to save you, just remember that we will not even think about you or grieve for you. We and your brother little Jacky will be happy and Rejoice forever without any grieve. We mom and dad and your brother Jacky will be in heaven forever while you are suffering in pain and burning. This is because only those who were APPOINTED to eternal life from before the foundation of the world.” Will be in Heaven. That would be the only reason that we won’t be in hell with you. You punishment won’t be because of anything we or you did. So also take comfort in knowing that. It may not seem fair, but who are we to judge God? Well I’m reformed, ( For Name callers a Calvinist.) I have 12 children from one marriage, One of them is in Heaven. I trust in God’s wisdom and His mercy and grace, and that also is what I tell my Children. I prayed when I was 16 to My Lord God and I said: Lord I will not touch a girl till You give me one and give me a large family to the Glory of your name. God is sovereign in all he does. Jesus Our Lord Is God with the Father and The Holy Spirit. Jesus Is from eternity with no begin and the WORD is Eternal. Jesus is All-knowing God, and He knew from all eternity that He would be born from a Virgin and take on Humanity with no begin of Him knowing. He also knew that He would hang at the Cross and die for the sins of the World caused by the fall of Adam and Eve. He also knew for whom He would Die. It is impossible That God Who created the endless Universe, in one day, and God the creator of all things would not know or even be unaware of one Single event. God said He repented that He has Created men on the earth and had to destroy a whole creation with 5 Billion people dying without the Gospel, and not a chance to be saved, and only Noah and his family were saved from drowning in the Flood. The LORD regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart, and that was not a vain saying, it was sincere. Why then did God not change it? Answer! Because It was already decided from eternity. A loving God did not predestine anyone to hell. It was already there from Eternity, predestination, has not, a begin, like God has not a begin, but is from eternity. Creation was not Finished on day 6 but it will be finished when God create the new Heaven and The New earth. The New Jerusalem will come down from heaven and there is no longer a distance between the Heaven and the earth. All thing that happen is for that one purpose from Eternity. And there will be no more dead, God will have His throne with men, And Jesus will be God and MAN with us. God The Lord will then reveal the Most perfect plan of His Creation. The Fullness of the Gentiles means that there is a Number determent.
Pretty sure you would be joining Johnny cause you love him more that the God who created both you & him. The acorn doesn't fall far from the tree as they say.
@@fuzzycounsellor9147 I think you misunderstand my point. John Calvin and his Doctrine of Demons has become one of the Devils most prized false teachers. And his reward is that it destroyed him. Calvinism is a Cancer that has infested every Church that I have ever been involved with. Truth in love.
Hmm... Could it be because that is what they are? Martin Luther was part of the reformation as was John Calvin, it is a movement that was also called Protestantism. Those who choose to reject the teachings of both Luther & Calvin use the term Calvinism as a pejorative, and say they are following a man and not scripture. We also call ourselves monergists, all these terms are words to describe what our doctrines are. I am fine with them all & use them all interchangeably. But haters love to use "Calvinism", so some of us choose to avoid the term, but never it's doctrines. I must say I have never encountered so many hateful comments from those calling themselves believers & followers of Messiah, till I came to understand the doctrines of grace. Not claiming victim hood here just stating my experience. They say I am making God the author of evil, yet God Himself takes credit for doing things we would consider to be evil. If you cannot think of any you really should read your bible more carefully. They say God doesn't make robots, yet we have examples of God taking control of people. It really is silly that people cannot see these examples in scripture. O well, God is still on His throne decreeing whatever comes to pass, glad my freewill doesn't interfere with Him accomplishing all His heart's desire.
@@fuzzycounsellor9147So, you’re saying, you never came across so many angry Christians as when you picked up Satan’s theology and started blaspheming God? I wonder why that got Christians so angry? And your response is factually false. Arminius, who Arminianism is named after, which is often cited as the antithesis to Calvinism, was also a reformer. So Calvinists calling themselves reformed is manipulative at best, deceitful at worst.
@@fuzzycounsellor9147 I think it's a little hard to defend "his ideas were rejected." He had and has a ton of followers. Did people argue against him? Absolutely. But he was part of the reformation, the movement that rebelled against the Catholic Church, so in the true sense of the word he's reformed. While my views would align more with Arminianism that Calvinism for sure, no, there are many distinct portions of Arminianism I disagree with. Both Calvinism and Arminianism hold as their core tenet that God predestined some people to eternal life and some to eternal death. They just argue with the particulars of how he did that. I believe that is entirely anti-biblical. And I'm happy to argue it from scripture.
@@TheRomans9Guy Synod of Dort is my reference. Many errant views have tons of followers, Roman Catholicism being the largest in what purports to be "christian", Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses. Read Kingdom of the Cults by Walter Martin for more, where he doesn't even list The Latin church. Amazing. You seem to like a chapter that certainly teaches the method God has determined by which to elect his people/children/his bride. Tell me what you think Paul is trying to convey in Romans 9. Pretty sure you already know many of my views. I'm happy to gain insight into other's views. I have been known to change my mind occasionally. I mean at one time I was a mainstream semi-Pelagian futurist, even read the late great planet earth, back in the day. Even now I have some position where I am not firm. I have gained insights from those I disagree with while not adopting their misguided positions. Understanding other's position is the best way to ponder how to defeat it's weak points. Argue on my friend..
Wonderful presentation: my wife and I heard Jhon MacArthur say on a radio program that when someone response to a call for salvation, he and an elder will take that person into another room and he (MacArthur) and his elder will determine if that person was indeed called to salvation,
Back in the day, Calvinists used to try to argue that human beings have free will even though God sovereignly foreordains all of their choices, but nowadays, most Calvinists openly admit that mankind doesn't have free will. It's jarring to hear them say this, and even more jarring that they don't realize that religious determinism (i.e., Calvinistic predestination) is ultimately no different than evolutionary determinism. In the case of the former, humans are nothing more than semi-sentient robots without free will, and in the case of the latter, humans are just bags of flesh and chemicals lacking free will. They're essentially identical, and yet some Calvinists have the audacity to say that unregenerate sinners can be held morally responsible for the "choices" they "make" (I used quotation marks because people aren't actually _making_ those choices in any meaningful sense).
Jesus said if you sin you are the slave of sin.. John 8:31-36, if you think a slave is free, maybe you need to define the word slave. If all have sinned in Adam as Paul teaches are not all condemned already? The scriptures says.. And this is the judgement, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light; for their deeds were evil. John 3:19 But I'm sure you are the exception to these verses and love God rather than your sin. Yeah not really. You are free like the Jews who said they had never been enslaved to anyone, while living under the heel of Rome. I'm sure God is wrong and men love Him more than their sin, He must just be mistaken. Sorry If I seem to be mocking.. yeah, not really. Remember in the Garden Adam has a free will as yet untested, He walked with God and communed with Him, but when tested the flaw/iniquity was discovered. Do you think you are better than Adam was in the beginning? Jesus said without Me you can do nothing, yet you say you can choose to love God more that sin without Jesus. Remember The Father, The Son & The Holy Spirit are One. Ye must be born again/from above/of the Spirit to even see the kingdom of God John 3:8, so how can you desire something you cannot even see? Why is it so hard to understand the order when Jesus gives it to us? First God gives you the new birth so you can believe. Or did you choose to be born the first time? Did you say; hey mom & dad go have some fun so I can be born? Oh, I see you, cannot get past the *fair* part.. pretty sure that is why Paul's argument is "who are you oh man to talk back to God". Romans 9:20 God does as He pleases as Daniel 4:35 tells us. He really could care less what we think of His methods. All the peoples of the earth are counted as nothing, and He does as He pleases with the army of heaven and the peoples of the earth. There is no one who can restrain His hand or say to Him, ‘What have You done?’ ” Daniel 4:35
Once saved always saved being mocked is unsettling to say the least. I am vehemently opposed to Calvinism (all 5 points), and that includes their definition of the "P" which is basically the belief that a saved individual will not fall into sin, which is the most dishonest belief that I could even imagine. I really hope that the speaker does not think that a saved individual can be stripped of the unmerited eternal cleansing of the blood of my Saviour. The rapture will be explained away because of this mindset. There will be multitudes caught up in whom most "professing" Christians ignored and passed off as "those who just thought they were saved" otherwise they would not do this or that, while they walk about in their own sin. I can hear it now: "Well so and so was taken, so it must not be the biblical rapture".... When so and so needed a loving brother or sister in Christ to simply reach out in love.
The rapture is the 1st Resurrection. John says if you say you have no sin you liar & the truth is not in you. I am a Calvinist & all of us sin or the bible is a lie. You are lying about our beliefs and are a sinner & need to repent of your lying.
Calvanism has got me thinking its the greatest birth control. Why would i ever bring a child into this world and its a gamble that child is destined to eternal punishment no matter what? No way!
If a Christian is defined as someone who follows or is a disciple of Christ, then a Calvinist would be considered a Christian if they adhere to the teachings of Christ. Conversely, if a Calvinist does not follow Christ's teachings, they would not be classified as a Christian. So I guess it depends on the Calvinist.
I've stopped the video at 28 minutes to say: despite your anti-Calvinist feelings you have thus far properly represented my reformed soteriology and have therefore earned my respect to now hear your rebuttal. Had you, like so many, merely built a straw man, I'd cast you into the list of unhonest critics. So again, at least this far into the video having just completed TULIP (we hate every name except Perseverance for being misleading but won't abandon it because it's an acronym) thank you for properly stating our view. I've always been told that non-Calvinst have a flower too. A daisy... He loves me, He loves me not, He loves me... LOL. Joke aside, I press play to hear you out now.
Hospody-Pomylui: Did you miss the fact that, beginning at @15:40, he used the term ‘double predestination’ and never mentioned equal ultimacy? How is that an accurate representation of Calvinists? I have to beg to differ with you on that one.
You just don't understand John Calvin. a little history of the man. THE FOLLOWING IS CALVIN'S REIN OF TERROR! John Calvin’s Bodycount… The victims are listed, followed by references, (A)…(L), the URLs of which are at the bottom. A. Execution 1. Jacques Gruet (A)”Thus the State issued dogmatic decrees, the force of which had been anticipated earlier, as when Jacques Gruet, a known opponent of Calvin, was arrested, tortured for a month and beheaded on July 26, 1547, for placing a letter in Calvin’s pulpit calling him a hypocrite. Gruet’s book was later found and burned along with his house while his wife was thrown out into the street to watch. ” (C)”Calvin cut off the head of Jacques Gruet “for having written impious letters, libertine verses, and for working to overthrow ecclesiastical ordinances.” (D)Quoting Stephan Zweig’s “The Right to Heresy”: “Jacques Gruet was racked and then executed merely for having called Calvin a hypocrite.” (E)”This regime was resisted by a party incorrectly described as ‘Libertines’, which Calvin succeeded in overcoming by force. Among the opponents executed after torture were Jacques Gruet (1547), Raoul Monnet (1549), and, best known, Michael *Servetus (1553).” (F)”Even eminent men were not safe from Calvin’s control. Jacques Gruet was beheaded for blasphemy, treason, and a threat to the ministers.” (J) 2. Giovanni Valentino Gentile (A)and(G)”Another victim of Calvin’s fiery zeal was Gentile of an Italian sect in Geneva, which also numbered among its adherents Alciati and Gribaldo. More or less Unitarian in their views, they were required to sign a confession drawn up by Calvin in 1558. Gentile signed it reluctantly, but in the upshot he was condemned and imprisoned as a perjurer. He escaped only to be twice incarcerated at Berne where, in 1566, he was beheaded.” (H) & (I) Very full accounts of Gentile 3. Michael Servetus Is much needed about him? Is there any debate about his murder? (A) (C)”Seven years before the conference which was now to take place in Calvin’s house on the proposals of the queen-mother, Michel Servet, a Frenchman, travelling through Switzerland, was arrested at Geneva, tried, condemned, and burned alive, on Calvin’s accusation, for having “attacked the mystery of the Trinity,” in a book which was neither written nor published in Geneva.” (E)(J) 4. Raoul Monnet (E) (J)page 223 “This regime was resisted by a party incorrectly described as “Libertines, which Calvin succeeded in overcoming by force.Among the opponents executed after torture were Jacques Gruet (1547), Raoul Monnet (1549), and best known, Michael Servetus (1553). By 1555, however, all resistance had ceased and Calvin was the uncontested master of the city.” 5. Others (A)”Calvin also had twenty women burned at the stake after accusing them of causing a plague that had swept through Geneva in 1545.” (A)”Calvin did not shrink from his self-appointed task. Within five years fifty-eight sentences of death and seventy-six of exile, besides numerous committals of the most eminent citizens to prison, took place in Geneva.” ( F)”A heretic who also was an anti-Trinitarian was burned at the stake.” NOTE: Probably Servetus B. Banishment (mere banishment!) 1. Castellio (A)”Gruet’s death was more highly criticized by far than the banishment of Castellio or the penalties inflicted on Bolsec - moderate men opposed to extreme views in discipline and doctrine, who fell under suspicion as reactionary.” (B) (K) Very full account of Castellio 2. Bolsec (A)(B)(F)”Jerome Bolsec, a physician who attacked Calvin’s doctrine of predestination, was banished.” (L) 3. Others (A)”Calvin did not shrink from his self-appointed task. Within five years fifty-eight sentences of death and seventy-six of exile, besides numerous committals of the most eminent citizens to prison, took place in Geneva.” A. www.biblelife.org/calvinism.htm B. www.gospeltruth.net/heres…_chap5.htm C. www.worldwideschool.org/l…hap16.html D. www.dimensional.com/~randl/calvin.htm E. www.gospelcom.net/chi/HER…l047.shtml F. www.churchlink.com.au/chu…alvin.html G. www.newadvent.org/cathen/03195b.htm H. www.ccel.org/s/schaff/hcc…xv.xiv.htm I. online.sksm.edu/ouh/chapter/13_XIII.html J. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church; F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone; Oxford University Press; K. www.ccel.org/s/schaff/hcc….xv.ix.htm (different page from H) L. www.ccel.org/s/schaff/hcc…v.viii.htm John Calvin is a man who is held up by many evangelicals as an example of the most perfect systematic theologian that ever lived. And yet it would appear that he did not even meet the basic requirements of a NT overseer/bishop as to godly character! 1 Tim 3:2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. The New Testament approach to false teachers is the precise opposite of what Calvin’s modus operandi was: 2 Tim 2:24 The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, 25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses {and escape} from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will. As to the relationship of his doctrine to his practice, as he plainly taught that everything that happens is God’s will (I can provide the quotes if you would like), then it necessarily follows that he considered everything he did as God’s will, even having his detractors beheaded, burned at the stake, or banished. I’m saying that one’s theology inevitably works out in one’s practice, and this was all too apparent in the life of John Calvin. If I had someone who disagreed with my theology put to death (had I the political power Calvin had), would I be qualified to teach the Word of God? One’s actions don’t have any bearing on the authenticity of one’s teaching? It seems to me that we should hold ANY theologian to the same moral standard as any other teacher in the body of Christ.
It came from the reformation Altho Wesley was an arminian He left it to God to do the saving and didn't have people Coming forward at meetings To make a decision!
Funny to me how Dr. Finny condemns the God of scriptures who killed the entire antediluvian world save 8 souls because rather than let it be the entire world, He chose to save 8. He doesn't see that there are none who would respond to the gospel if God didn't choose to give faith/regeneration to some. In his system man has the ability to respond, while scripture says they do not. Somehow Dr. Finny thinks that man can conjure up faith that will please God. Dr.Finny says he has a high view of God but does he? He puts God into a box that his feeble human mind can accept and basically says He hates the God of scripture if He is as Calvinists believe He is... and He is. So he has made up his own god who is more palatable to his humanity. We Calvinists know that God is good & just & that if everyone got justice there would be none saved. We also know that He has put love for Him as He is into our hearts. I love the God of scripture, while others like Dr.Finny hate Him. Either the God of the Calvinists is God or the God of the Armenians is, they are not the same. The difference between the 2 systems is who is in control, God or man. In both systems most are going to hell. In both systems few find the straight gate. God is under no obligation to give grace or mercy to any of fallen humanity that hate Him & His law & His Messiah. But He has determined that a few will receive Grace through Faith/regeneration who in no way deserve it. This is determined by His good pleasure of His will, not by anything those people have done. This is such a foreign concept to the human psyche that they reject it as unworthy of their imagined all loving god. They neglect God's holiness & focus instead only on His agape, which is defined as keeping His commandments, but they define as more of a humanitarian kinda love. I was very happy to see that the true Gospel is being proclaimed by so many Godly men. Too bad Dr.Finny chooses to attack it rather than embrace it. Oh well it's his loss.
Johan van Oldenbarnevelt was a martyr for his political principles and a States man and had no part in the Synod of Dordrecht. The president's name was Boogerman. Remonstrant, means opposition. Arminius had studied theology under Theodore Beza, Calvin's successor. Beza was one of the stronger proponents of the Reformed doctrine of predestination. But Arminius's theology represented a retreat from this position. In some ways, ARMINIUS'S THEOLOGY WAS ACTUALLY A RETURN TO THE POSITION TAKEN BY ROMAN CATHOLICISM AT THE COUNCIL OF TRENT. NATURALLY, ARMINIANISM STIRRED HEATED CONTROVERSY IN THE REFORMED CHURCHES. Arminius died in 1609, almost a decade before the controversy over his teachings peaked. That occurred in 1618, when a group of the Arminius followers, known as the Remonstrants wrote and issued: “Five Articles of the Remonstrands. " Those articles were condemned by the Synod of Dordt in 1619. The synod's five-point reply was an article-by-article refutation of the Remonstrants. The position as defined by the Synod of Dord became to be known popularly as "the five points of Calvinism," though the five points were actually a response to the Arminian Articles. Calvin himself never systematized his doctrine into five points). We find Limited Atonement not in the writings of the Reformers. I made a website with writings of Martin Luther. Maartenluther with com in Dutch, German and English. It happened when Arminius was asked to counter Dirck Coornherd as he joined the reformation. Coornherd fully agreed with Palagius. After having studied Coornherd and Palagius, Jacob Arminius started to agree with Dirck Coornherd and brought it out as a professor in theology in Leiden Holland. He was opposed strongly by a colleague Franciscus Gomaris, as being a Heretic and Palagianist. The Arminius side was named REMONSTRANDS and Gomaris CONTRA REMONSTRANDS Arminius his real name not Latinized was Jacob Hermanszoon as being a custom for professors. Arminius became good friends with Coornherd. However bringing out the teaching of Pelagius as Leighton does, would have cost Arminius his position at the university and no way of earning an income in Holland. So Arminius was very cautious in his words special in writing but less in speaking. Arminius's thoughts were later defended by Dirck Coornherd on the Synod of Dordrecht in 1618 10 years after Arminius dead. It was clearly Pelagian and condemned as a heresy. Arminius full-out denied Total depravity and claimed the ability of men to reject or accept the offer of salvation and the ability to become sinless by his own will. I have and read all the works of Arminius and the Institution and most works of Calvin. Arminius claimed that when Paul said: "Wretched man I'am' he says that before his conversion and would not say that after his conversion. He also claimed that Go’s PlaN OF salvation came after the Fall in Paradise, and that Jesus was not the Savior from Eternity, otherwise God would be the author of sin. Predestination he explained as God foreknew a person would come to faith, but not from eternity but after the fall in Paradise. All works of Arminius were forbidden and never printed in Dutch. The first print of his works in English was in 1825 The Canons of the Synod of Dordt thus constituted the Reformation's official reply to the Remonstrants. The Remonstrants were expelled from the Reformed Churches in Holland, and Arminianism was tagged as a deviant doctrine. Far from dealing a crushing blow to the movement, however, the Synod of Dordt merely became the starting point for the underground spread of the doctrine. There are many strains of Arminianism. The classic Arminianism of the Remonstrants had much in common with Pelagianism (a compromise position between the radical free-will doctrine of Pelagius and a twisted predestinarian view ) The tendencies of the Remonstrants (Arminianism) and those who followed them were barely evangelical. In the eighteenth century, John Wesley adopted Arminian doctrine and refined it with a strong evangelical emphasis on the Reformed doctrine of justification by faith. Wesley's variety of evangelical Arminianism survives today in many Churches. Two of them that brought it strongly out in their preaching were Charles Finney and later Billy Graham. We clearly find in both their preaching: “man’s free-will” and the alter call and invitation to pray the sinner's prayer or even to fill out a sinners-card would safe. I belief: "Never Lost is Never saved" We need the conviction of the Holy Spirit like soil need the plow in order to the seed to bring forth fruit. Jesus came to save that which was lost. What about 70 Million Buddhists in Thailand. 93% in Thailand are Buddhists and 5.5% Islam. Why??? If God wants all men to be saved, did God fail to bring the gospel there so they could chose to be Christian or Buddhist? One born into Buddhism has no choice but Buddhism, Only the conviction by The Holy Spirit can change hearts.
Is this about Catholicism? Calvin primarily wrote to convert Catholics to Grace Alone. If you are talking about something newer, you can't ignore Catholicism. If you are discussing Calvinism vs baptists - baptists didn't exist back then.
Unfortunately, you can find belief in the different aspects of TULIP in the Church Fathers (See John Gill's, The Cause of God and of Truth). But nice try. No cigar.
The historical presentation in the first 2/3 of the video is quite good and accurate. But his critique of Calvinism in the remaining third is a bit off. He's aiming at an extreme form of Calvinism known as Superlapsariasm, which is probably not held by the majority of Calvinists. Calvin himself (and the Westminster Confession of Faith) did take a rather extreme view of predestination (double predestination), but the Synod of Dort was arguably quite close to what the Bible has to say on the "Five Points." Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement have to be understood in the context of Total Depravity. It is a matter of God sovereignly choosing to show mercy to rebellious sinners who fully deserve God's wrath and condemnation.
This is not posted as an argument. It is an honest display of praise toward God that I posted on FB for no other reason then to give God glory. I leave it here to display the heart of a Calvinist for the benefit of your understanding: Any theology which does not thoroughly dethrone me is ineffective for a creature as wicked as I am. Any salvation that is in any part dependant upon me is not secure enough to produce hope, joy or preservence for a creature as wicked as I am. Please do not leave me at the mercy of my own will, for then my will being so thoroughly corrupt, I shall surely perish. No, give me that good and pure doctrine of an all sovereign and terrifying master that has set His love upon me and left me bewildered in awe and worshipful in His wake. Let my heart cry out "what love is this?"
You say that the reformed have a monster for a God? What kind of God came to the top of Mt. Sinai? Killed his own elect in the desert for complaining about the conditions of the desert? Wiped out all of mankind but one family? Killed all the first born of the Egyptians? Is returning to slay until blood floods up to the horses bridle? Speaks about a great pile of corpses that He will pile up? This God is the very same that is said is love. This is the God of hesed, loving-kindness! In any theology, be it Calvin or otherwise... we must not tame God. As C.S Lewis (who definitely wasn't a Calvinist!) said; He is good, but He is not safe.
Above all reformed people believe sola scriptura. So if you can demonstrate from the scripture that any tenet of the doctrines of grace are wrong, I'll recant them. The thing that matters most is knowing this God that reached down and saved me. But honestly, to think that I'm sovereign over myself in place of Almighty God is at once scary and blasphemous. To think that rather than being safe in the hand of God from which no one can pluck me that I'm rather saved by ability to persist in faith and can lose it... makes of grace a new kind of works based salvation and God's love not dependent on His divine whim (as hard as that is to accept) but on my performance in maintaining faith and belief because a person says so, not the keeping power of the Holy Ghost? And you still believe God created people knowing full well most of them will go to hell. You're not in a position to call my God a monster simy because yours is a different kind of monster! So then let's see which kind of monster does scripture truly present? And then worship Him for both His terribleness and His mercy.
My apologies. I've never ranted on any UA-cam video before. I didn't mean to. You didn't and me to watch this video. I repent of my divisiveness. God bless you for seeking to honor Him. If this offends, then please delete it all. If it serves the purpose of showing "what a Calvinist is like in their thinking" then this material is yours. We both stand before the same Master. We both seek to glorify and honor Him. We both will hold the same theology in Heaven where we will no doubt both learn we're wrong. Peace to you and your school.
@Francis Cafazzo 😆 I've become an Orthodox Christian ☦️ since I wrote this. I recant all 5 points as neither demonstrated from scripture nor the tradition which proceeds from the Apostles. The Greek words for hell are Hades, which was defeated from the inside by Christ, and "fire and Theion" which is to say "the firey divinity" or fire and brimstone (sulfur) that proceeds from Christ at the last judgement. A river of fire; God's love shed abroad on all mankind expirenced as condemnation by those who reject it 😔.
If God saves everyone then why doesn’t everyone end up in heaven? Because He won’t violate our free will? Who cares about free will if we’re all blindfolded and running toward hell! So, the Arminian view is that God prioritizes free will over salvation? Now that’s repugnant. The doctrine of election does not say God withholds salvific grace. It says we are saved by grace, not by anything good in us. Arminians claim we are the authors of our own salvation because we are just slightly better, more humble, more open, more repentant than a non-Christian, and, because of that enlightenment, we are saved. That is the implication of Arminianism.
48 mins …. What an absolutely incorrect and false statement to make. I am not sure what research this bloke has done, but every Calvinistic church I have attended or know of has a very high view of sanctification, doctrines on the covenant of marriage. Disagree with Calvinism, but don’t create a straw man and then critique it as it is absolutely untrue … especially when some of the most liberal views on marriage come in non Calvinistic churches .. again from experience. Sorry but this is a false and misleading point.
2 Peter 2:1 KJV "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction" It's not that we don't know the scriptures. It may just be that Calvinists ignore the scriptures that speak against their doctrine in a very clear and precise manner in which the most common of men can understand as truth.
As a former Calvinist of 20 years, you couldn't be more wrong. Calvinism is rooted in Maniachian Gnosticism, Pelagian presuppositions of free will, and Augustinian views of predestination and election. Calvinism has another, god, another christ and another gospel. Please take care to look into this and don't assume Calvinism is biblical Christianity just because somebody told you it was
Yes John Piper the great Calvinist describes his god as follows.
" God . . . brings about all things in accordance with his will. In other words, it isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those who love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects for his glory (see Ex. 9:13-16; John 9:3) and his people’s good (see Heb. 12:3-11; James 1:2-4). This includes-as incredible and as unacceptable as it may currently seem-God’s having even brought about the Nazis’ brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child . . .
That abuse of children is a nice Calvinist touch! Don't you think?
Well what about the founder of Calvinism? Let him school you as well. Here goes from the founder of Calvinism.
“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)
Well that "forced to do him service" is a nice touch! As well.
So you see, you are defending an evil system that says god is the source. inventor, and commissioner of evil!
It is true that calvi-god is the source of evil and slanderer of the True God. But calv-god is satan wanting the top spot.
Sorry it is taken.
Truth in Love
I'd suppose Calvinists will say John Calvin and John Piper are misrepresenting Calvinism. 😂
@@FaithfulServantsOfChristCalvinites get really hostile when you show the unvarnished face of their hideous system.
It is ok to say "Sovereign Grace" and divine Election. But show the words of their father the Devil .... sorry I mean John Calvin and then they are ashamed. But not ashamed enough to leave the hive.
DR Finny well done and keep up the good work. Many Calvinists are waking up and realizing they are in a Cult!
Truth in Love
There’s a behind it too. If you’re at all interested I recommend diving deeper into it. I don’t think you’ll be disappointed.
Love the video. I myself had turned to listening to many Calvinist preachers because us was so tired of watered down preachings that’s so common today. But, at the time I wasn’t aware of what Calvinism was and had never heard it taught specifically by any of the preachers. But when I did hear of it and learned there doctrine, it literally made me sick to my stomach for weeks. It totally went against what I had known of God my entire life. But as a result of it, I prayed harder and studied harder than ever before determined to learn the truth regardless of what it was. Thankfully God answered my prayers and gave e me the wisdom to see Calvinism for what it is, a contradiction of the Bible and total misunderstanding of the gospel.
I can relate to this. The majority of Christian content online is either prosperity gospel or Calvinism and they’re both damnable heresies, but one can seem like the antidote to the other for people who are fleeing one of them.
@@heathporter752 my exact response too. I was thinking I was the only one who literally got sick to my stomach.
Great work bro.. Learnt so much
Calvinism as I have experienced it puts God to the test under the disguise of sovereignty.
Or, slanders God under the guise of “worship.”
Understanding the purpose of creation nullifies the foundational belief of Calvinism.
Also, there is the fact that if God was the author of all of our sinful actions, they would not be our sins. If we cannot do good, we cannot incur guilt. It is that simple.
James White is a big C player also.
This fact is a stain on Calvinism. I have listened to a lot of James White. The man is so full of the sin of pride that it oozes from his pores. He seems to be almost incapable of honesty. If you watch White and Leighton Flowers the difference between them in terms of humility and honesty is stark. The fact that Calvinists consider him a hero was a big step in me rejecting Calvinism. I came to faith through self-study so I did not have an existing tradition that I was either raised in or converted into. When I became Christian I decided to start investigating denominations and traditions to find out where my home in the faith would be, and I almost immediately ran across James White and was subsequently influenced away from Calvinism without even knowing the doctrines very well just by observing James White and concluding that any movement that considered that man a spokesman had serious ethical problems.
That being said, White is worth watching. He's an entertaining speaker.
@@patrickbarnes9874
I have to wonder if when Jesus was here and the people said He spoke as one with authority you would've been put off also.
Many see confidence as pride/arrogance they truly do appear similar, the main difference being whether what they say is true. So the very fact that you buy into the god palatable to man, where man controls his destiny, you see James as being wrong. Ergo he is arrogant.
@@raymondrinehart5957
I don't know how universal it is, since many still engage with him & he is in demand in the debate community.
Now in the community that disagrees with his views, it maybe universal. But then we do not tend to have a warm feeling for those with whom we disagree strongly.
I know I do not have warm feeling for Leighton, and even though he is a large fellow he seems weaselly to me. Others may find the same traits super lovable. I suppose it would depend on the person.
Just look at politics, many hate the other party's candidate, but if the same person were spouting the talking points they love so much, they would love them.
So saying that in your circles he is universally despised, and in his own camp they love him is just human nature.
I like White when I agree with him and when I disagree.. not such a fan. And there are areas where I disagree with him. Not soteriology though.
@@fuzzycounsellor9147. You really are a fuzzycouncellor aren’t you? Lame
Interesting talk he did. What was odd is when he said the Calvinist view of God was worse than Satan. The Holy Scriptures says, "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy."
Romans 9:13-16 KJV
I don't really see how the passage you quoted relates to your statement, so I can't address that. But he was repeating a quote about God being worse than Satan in reference to Satan tempting people to sin whereas under Calvinism God forces people to sin. That's what makes God worse than Satan in Calvinism. It really is simply a logical conclusion. It is self evidently worse to punish someone for something you forced them to do than it is to try to convince them to do it.
Every bit of Roman's 9 was written about Jews, and Paul did not have in mind God chosing certain people for salvation before the foundation of the world. You are approaching Roman's 9 with your Calvinist presuppositions eisegesing the text instead of properly exegeting in the proper historical context. Calvinists presuppose Calvinism is true, then cherry-pick verses out of context that support Calvinism instead of reading the Bible to see if Calvinism is true. Calvinists do not hold to Scriptural authority. They hold to the authority of Calvinism instead
@@zebra2346I concur with Zebra. The fact that you posted that Romans 9 quote as if it supported your case, rather than demolished it, shows you’re not reading this right. Paul was actually destroying the Jews’ version of Calvinism, not establishing it. If Augustine or Calvin had any context at all we wouldn’t have Calvinism.
Completely ripped out of context. In
Romans 9, when Paul quoted, Jacob I loved Essau I hated, he was showing God's preference from which son of Isaac the Messiah would come. Jesus said, whoever doesn't hate his mother more than me can't be my Disciple. Does Jesus mean hate like the Calvinist's believe how God hated Eaaau?
No sir, I’ve done a very deep dive on the context. When Paul uses the quote about Jacob and Esau he is neither using it to speak about God’s preference for who the Messiah would come through nor attempting to use “hated” in the same way Jesus did about hating your mother and father. Both of these are long-held anti-Calvinist positions, but they’re very wrong. (And Calvinism is wrong too.)
No, Paul is using this quote but he’s turning it back around on the Jews. This was one of their slogans that they used to promote their special favor (akin to Calvinism.) It would have been very much like as if Joe Biden had co-opted the MAGA slogan when he was running against Trump to say sarcastically that Trump has actually ruined the country and Biden was going to make it great again. Do you see the striking irony there?
Paul was reversing their slogan back on them by reverse of the roles. When Paul uses it in verse 13 he’s saying the Jews are now Esau and the Gentiles are now Jacob. And if you’ve been tracking his argument so far in this chapter, this would be just another of several role reversals that he’s already done. And several more will follow.
If you don’t see this we should talk. Or, I have more on this on my UA-cam profile page you can download for free.
Calvinism has spawned several good jokes. Here's one.
A seminarian expresses to his old Scottish professor his concern regarding how to know whom to evangelize, given that only the predestined elect are saved. "Dinna worry, laddy...should you get the wrong one saved, the gud Laird'll forgive ya."
After several decades of contemplating the tulip, and Calvinism at large, I came to understand that the underlying problem with it is that it presupposes that all theology must be systematic. That is, all the T's must be crossed, all the I's dotted, no questions unanswered, everything fitting together nicely for our precious little minds, in a perfectly reasonable package.
This, of course, necessitates cherry-picking from the Bible the passages you need, explaining away those that are troublesome, and then going forth with a cocksure attitude that you "Have The Truth." Those who have dealt with true, diehard Calvinists are very much aware of this attitude. They love to tell you how they "Rightly Divide the Word." It is hard to talk very long with such persons because their condescending attitude becomes suffocating.
The Christian comedian, Mark Lowry, once poked fun at his own Baptist tribe (they're Calvinist) by saying: "We may not always know...but we're never in doubt." That is called hitting the nail on the head.
Or, a Calvinist trips and falls and then says "Well, I'm glad that's over with".
@@normmcinnis4102 I heard it that the Calvinist says: "Inasmuch as that had to happen ....... I'm glad that's over with."
Thank you for this talk. Very well done. Simple and relatable. Sometimes these talks get so deep in their heads it becomes too complicated. It doesn't need to be so. It's nice to hear someone stand up and say, once saved, always saved us false. There are 80 passages in the Bible saying this doctrine of once saved us false. I also appreciated that calvanists are not all bad. They do some good things, but, bad doctrine cannot go unchallenged.
@@brettmathews3191 Glad it helped. I have a doctorate in Christian apologetics. Even so, it took me years to understand what the essential problem was with Calvinism. You are right, it gets complicated.
So you will have a later session where you will show that Calvinism began with Augustine while that means it’s historical. The normal historical western Christian position can be found in the council of Orange
I'm surprised he says that T is the easiest and U is the worst in TULIP. I thought for sure that P was the least egregious and L is the worst.
P is what makes Calvinism works based salvation. No Calvinist has assurance of salvation and must persevere until the end to know if they were saved. To put it another way, if you continue to do "good" works it is an indication they were elect. If the "good" works stop, they were never elect to begin with. This is very different from preservation of the saints which means, in this dispensation, once justified, you cannot lose your righteousness,
@@marklindsey1995I know where you’re coming from on the P turning Calvinism into a world based salvation, but honestly that’s only for the low-IQ Calvinists. And that’s saying something. Relying on proof of continued good works to tell you if you’re one of the elect is silly under Calvinism because C teaches it’s not based on works in any way. C teaches you could have the biggest murderer in the world and if they’re elect, they’re elect. And you could have the kindest soul in the world and if they’re reprobate, they’re reprobate.
I think you’re right though on L. To me L and U are both the worst because they both teach God loves some people, not all people. Totally anti-biblical.
T is fine as far as it goes because even non-Calvinists believe all men are sinful, no one is not touched by sin, and we all need God’s grace. That’s all that T accomplishes anyways under Calvinism.
Little Johnny, God has predestined the minority of people to be saved and go to heaven forever, and He has predestined the majority of people to be eternally damned and burn in the fires of hell. We have no idea, little Johnny, if God has predestined you to be forever damned or forever saved.
We love you, little Johnny, but we accept the fact that God might not love you, and that He may have plans to send you to hell for your future sins. If you do find yourself one day burning in hell because He hasn’t elected to save you, just remember that we will always love you, even if God hates you.
Take comfort knowing that we are not like God.
We will be in heaven forever only because we were unconditionally chosen for salvation before we were born. That would be the only reason that we won’t be in hell with you if you find yourself there. It won’t be because of anything we did.
So also take comfort in knowing that. It may not seem fair, but who are we to judge God?
So again, if you find yourself in hell, remember that we will always love you as we forever worship the God who loved us but who hated you, the God who sent His Son to die for us but not for you.
Please, we ask, don’t let it bother you-if you find yourself in hell-that we love the God who hated you and showed you no mercy. We must accept the fact that God is sovereign, and He does what He pleases.
My dear beloved Calvinist, will you teach that to your children or grandchildren?
I suspect that your answer will be “never.” But why not?
Why would you ever hide the wonderful “doctrines of grace,” the “Bible truth,” from your own children or grandchildren?
TRUTH IN LOVE
@truth7416 Little Esau, Mom and I love you a lot, but I need to tell you the bad news. Little Esau, While we love you, God hates you. Little Esau: “But dad, what have I done that God would hate me?” No little Esau it is not for something you did. At the time before you were born God already hated you. Oh and what about Little Jacky, my twin brother? No not him God Loves him. But God also told my dad to kick my Halve Brother Ismael and his mom, out of the house, for we were children and sometimes he was acting bad to me, and also that God would bless me, and I would inherit everything and my halve brother Nothing. Esau you need to accept the fact that God hates you, and that He may send you to hell for the sins you will commit. If you do find yourself one day burning in hell because He hasn’t elected to save you, just remember that we will not even think about you or grieve for you. We and your brother little Jacky will be happy and Rejoice forever without any grieve. We mom and dad and your brother Jacky will be in heaven forever while you are suffering in pain and burning. This is because only those who were APPOINTED to eternal life from before the foundation of the world.” Will be in Heaven. That would be the only reason that we won’t be in hell with you. You punishment won’t be because of anything we or you did. So also take comfort in knowing that. It may not seem fair, but who are we to judge God?
Well I’m reformed, ( For Name callers a Calvinist.) I have 12 children from one marriage, One of them is in Heaven. I trust in God’s wisdom and His mercy and grace, and that also is what I tell my Children. I prayed when I was 16 to My Lord God and I said: Lord I will not touch a girl till You give me one and give me a large family to the Glory of your name. God is sovereign in all he does.
Jesus Our Lord Is God with the Father and The Holy Spirit. Jesus Is from eternity with no begin and the WORD is Eternal. Jesus is All-knowing God, and He knew from all eternity that He would be born from a Virgin and take on Humanity with no begin of Him knowing. He also knew that He would hang at the Cross and die for the sins of the World caused by the fall of Adam and Eve. He also knew for whom He would Die. It is impossible That God Who created the endless Universe, in one day, and God the creator of all things would not know or even be unaware of one Single event.
God said He repented that He has Created men on the earth and had to destroy a whole creation with 5 Billion people dying without the Gospel, and not a chance to be saved, and only Noah and his family were saved from drowning in the Flood. The LORD regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart, and that was not a vain saying, it was sincere. Why then did God not change it? Answer! Because It was already decided from eternity. A loving God did not predestine anyone to hell. It was already there from Eternity, predestination, has not, a begin, like God has not a begin, but is from eternity. Creation was not Finished on day 6 but it will be finished when God create the new Heaven and The New earth. The New Jerusalem will come down from heaven and there is no longer a distance between the Heaven and the earth. All thing that happen is for that one purpose from Eternity. And there will be no more dead, God will have His throne with men, And Jesus will be God and MAN with us. God The Lord will then reveal the Most perfect plan of His Creation. The Fullness of the Gentiles means that there is a Number determent.
Pretty sure you would be joining Johnny cause you love him more that the God who created both you & him. The acorn doesn't fall far from the tree as they say.
@@fuzzycounsellor9147 I think you misunderstand my point. John Calvin and his Doctrine of Demons has become one of the Devils most prized false teachers. And his reward is that it destroyed him. Calvinism is a Cancer that has infested every Church that I have ever been involved with.
Truth in love.
Very good introduction! Will there be more Uploads of this series? I would greatly appreciate it.
Thanks! Go to thehistoricfaith.com/courses/a-grace-worth-saving-evaluating-the-doctrines-of-grace/ for the rest of the series!
Hi, can you or someone provide a good list of Non-Calvinistic preachers??
Church of Christ check out Gospel Broadcasting network they have debates against reformed pastors
No, the best preachers are Calvinistic
@@elijahraya2429 do you ignore any passage in scripture where it says not to follow the doctrine of men
Check out David Pawson. He must have 1000 hours of UA-cam content
Why do Calvinists insist on using their code word "Reformed"?
Hmm... Could it be because that is what they are? Martin Luther was part of the reformation as was John Calvin, it is a movement that was also called Protestantism.
Those who choose to reject the teachings of both Luther & Calvin use the term Calvinism as a pejorative, and say they are following a man and not scripture. We also call ourselves monergists, all these terms are words to describe what our doctrines are. I am fine with them all & use them all interchangeably. But haters love to use "Calvinism", so some of us choose to avoid the term, but never it's doctrines.
I must say I have never encountered so many hateful comments from those calling themselves believers & followers of Messiah, till I came to understand the doctrines of grace. Not claiming victim hood here just stating my experience. They say I am making God the author of evil, yet God Himself takes credit for doing things we would consider to be evil. If you cannot think of any you really should read your bible more carefully. They say God doesn't make robots, yet we have examples of God taking control of people. It really is silly that people cannot see these examples in scripture. O well, God is still on His throne decreeing whatever comes to pass, glad my freewill doesn't interfere with Him accomplishing all His heart's desire.
@@fuzzycounsellor9147So, you’re saying, you never came across so many angry Christians as when you picked up Satan’s theology and started blaspheming God? I wonder why that got Christians so angry?
And your response is factually false. Arminius, who Arminianism is named after, which is often cited as the antithesis to Calvinism, was also a reformer. So Calvinists calling themselves reformed is manipulative at best, deceitful at worst.
@@TheRomans9Guy
But his views were rejected, did you consider that? So he is not reformed, but is a heretic.
That is whose views you hold?
@@fuzzycounsellor9147 I think it's a little hard to defend "his ideas were rejected." He had and has a ton of followers. Did people argue against him? Absolutely. But he was part of the reformation, the movement that rebelled against the Catholic Church, so in the true sense of the word he's reformed.
While my views would align more with Arminianism that Calvinism for sure, no, there are many distinct portions of Arminianism I disagree with. Both Calvinism and Arminianism hold as their core tenet that God predestined some people to eternal life and some to eternal death. They just argue with the particulars of how he did that. I believe that is entirely anti-biblical. And I'm happy to argue it from scripture.
@@TheRomans9Guy
Synod of Dort is my reference. Many errant views have tons of followers, Roman Catholicism being the largest in what purports to be "christian", Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses. Read Kingdom of the Cults by Walter Martin for more, where he doesn't even list The Latin church. Amazing.
You seem to like a chapter that certainly teaches the method God has determined by which to elect his people/children/his bride. Tell me what you think Paul is trying to convey in Romans 9.
Pretty sure you already know many of my views. I'm happy to gain insight into other's views. I have been known to change my mind occasionally. I mean at one time I was a mainstream semi-Pelagian futurist, even read the late great planet earth, back in the day. Even now I have some position where I am not firm.
I have gained insights from those I disagree with while not adopting their misguided positions. Understanding other's position is the best way to ponder how to defeat it's weak points. Argue on my friend..
Our 'will' is gifted to us at birth and is free by nature.
Wonderful presentation: my wife and I heard Jhon MacArthur say on a radio program that when someone response to a call for salvation, he and an elder will take that person into another room and he (MacArthur) and his elder will determine if that person was indeed called to salvation,
Unfathomable to think that people presume to determine who is saved and who is not. They’re not the first, the pope started the trend.
Back in the day, Calvinists used to try to argue that human beings have free will even though God sovereignly foreordains all of their choices, but nowadays, most Calvinists openly admit that mankind doesn't have free will. It's jarring to hear them say this, and even more jarring that they don't realize that religious determinism (i.e., Calvinistic predestination) is ultimately no different than evolutionary determinism. In the case of the former, humans are nothing more than semi-sentient robots without free will, and in the case of the latter, humans are just bags of flesh and chemicals lacking free will. They're essentially identical, and yet some Calvinists have the audacity to say that unregenerate sinners can be held morally responsible for the "choices" they "make" (I used quotation marks because people aren't actually _making_ those choices in any meaningful sense).
Jesus said if you sin you are the slave of sin.. John 8:31-36, if you think a slave is free, maybe you need to define the word slave. If all have sinned in Adam as Paul teaches are not all condemned already?
The scriptures says.. And this is the judgement, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light; for their deeds were evil. John 3:19
But I'm sure you are the exception to these verses and love God rather than your sin. Yeah not really. You are free like the Jews who said they had never been enslaved to anyone, while living under the heel of Rome. I'm sure God is wrong and men love Him more than their sin, He must just be mistaken. Sorry If I seem to be mocking.. yeah, not really.
Remember in the Garden Adam has a free will as yet untested, He walked with God and communed with Him, but when tested the flaw/iniquity was discovered. Do you think you are better than Adam was in the beginning?
Jesus said without Me you can do nothing, yet you say you can choose to love God more that sin without Jesus. Remember The Father, The Son & The Holy Spirit are One. Ye must be born again/from above/of the Spirit to even see the kingdom of God John 3:8, so how can you desire something you cannot even see? Why is it so hard to understand the order when Jesus gives it to us? First God gives you the new birth so you can believe. Or did you choose to be born the first time? Did you say; hey mom & dad go have some fun so I can be born?
Oh, I see you, cannot get past the *fair* part.. pretty sure that is why Paul's argument is "who are you oh man to talk back to God". Romans 9:20 God does as He pleases as Daniel 4:35 tells us. He really could care less what we think of His methods.
All the peoples of the earth are counted as nothing, and He does as He pleases with the army of heaven and the peoples of the earth. There is no one who can restrain His hand or say to Him, ‘What have You done?’ ” Daniel 4:35
Once saved always saved being mocked is unsettling to say the least.
I am vehemently opposed to Calvinism (all 5 points), and that includes their definition of the "P" which is basically the belief that a saved individual will not fall into sin, which is the most dishonest belief that I could even imagine.
I really hope that the speaker does not think that a saved individual can be stripped of the unmerited eternal cleansing of the blood of my Saviour.
The rapture will be explained away because of this mindset. There will be multitudes caught up in whom most "professing" Christians ignored and passed off as "those who just thought they were saved" otherwise they would not do this or that, while they walk about in their own sin.
I can hear it now: "Well so and so was taken, so it must not be the biblical rapture"....
When so and so needed a loving brother or sister in Christ to simply reach out in love.
The rapture is the 1st Resurrection. John says if you say you have no sin you liar & the truth is not in you. I am a Calvinist & all of us sin or the bible is a lie. You are lying about our beliefs and are a sinner & need to repent of your lying.
Calvanism has got me thinking its the greatest birth control. Why would i ever bring a child into this world and its a gamble that child is destined to eternal punishment no matter what? No way!
So Calvinists are not Christians?
If a Christian is defined as someone who follows or is a disciple of Christ, then a Calvinist would be considered a Christian if they adhere to the teachings of Christ. Conversely, if a Calvinist does not follow Christ's teachings, they would not be classified as a Christian. So I guess it depends on the Calvinist.
I've stopped the video at 28 minutes to say: despite your anti-Calvinist feelings you have thus far properly represented my reformed soteriology and have therefore earned my respect to now hear your rebuttal. Had you, like so many, merely built a straw man, I'd cast you into the list of unhonest critics. So again, at least this far into the video having just completed TULIP (we hate every name except Perseverance for being misleading but won't abandon it because it's an acronym) thank you for properly stating our view. I've always been told that non-Calvinst have a flower too. A daisy... He loves me, He loves me not, He loves me... LOL. Joke aside, I press play to hear you out now.
Hospody-Pomylui: Did you miss the fact that, beginning at @15:40, he used the term ‘double predestination’ and never mentioned equal ultimacy? How is that an accurate representation of Calvinists? I have to beg to differ with you on that one.
You just don't understand John Calvin. a little history of the man.
THE FOLLOWING IS CALVIN'S REIN OF TERROR! John Calvin’s Bodycount… The victims are listed, followed by references, (A)…(L), the URLs of which are at the bottom.
A. Execution 1. Jacques Gruet (A)”Thus the State issued dogmatic decrees, the force of which had been anticipated earlier, as when Jacques Gruet, a known opponent of Calvin, was arrested, tortured for a month and beheaded on July 26, 1547, for placing a letter in Calvin’s pulpit calling him a hypocrite. Gruet’s book was later found and burned along with his house while his wife was thrown out into the street to watch.
” (C)”Calvin cut off the head of Jacques Gruet “for having written impious letters, libertine verses, and for working to overthrow ecclesiastical ordinances.”
(D)Quoting Stephan Zweig’s “The Right to Heresy”: “Jacques Gruet was racked and then executed merely for having called Calvin a hypocrite.”
(E)”This regime was resisted by a party incorrectly described as ‘Libertines’, which Calvin succeeded in overcoming by force. Among the opponents executed after torture were Jacques Gruet (1547), Raoul Monnet (1549), and, best known, Michael *Servetus (1553).”
(F)”Even eminent men were not safe from Calvin’s control. Jacques Gruet was beheaded for blasphemy, treason, and a threat to the ministers.”
(J) 2. Giovanni Valentino Gentile (A)and(G)”Another victim of Calvin’s fiery zeal was Gentile of an Italian sect in Geneva, which also numbered among its adherents Alciati and Gribaldo. More or less Unitarian in their views, they were required to sign a confession drawn up by Calvin in 1558. Gentile signed it reluctantly, but in the upshot he was condemned and imprisoned as a perjurer. He escaped only to be twice incarcerated at Berne where, in 1566, he was beheaded.”
(H) & (I) Very full accounts of Gentile 3. Michael Servetus Is much needed about him? Is there any debate about his murder? (A) (C)”Seven years before the conference which was now to take place in Calvin’s house on the proposals of the queen-mother, Michel Servet, a Frenchman, travelling through Switzerland, was arrested at Geneva, tried, condemned, and burned alive, on Calvin’s accusation, for having “attacked the mystery of the Trinity,” in a book which was neither written nor published in Geneva.” (E)(J) 4. Raoul Monnet (E) (J)page 223 “This regime was resisted by a party incorrectly described as “Libertines, which Calvin succeeded in overcoming by force.Among the opponents executed after torture were Jacques Gruet (1547), Raoul Monnet (1549), and best known, Michael Servetus (1553). By 1555, however, all resistance had ceased and Calvin was the uncontested master of the city.”
5. Others (A)”Calvin also had twenty women burned at the stake after accusing them of causing a plague that had swept through Geneva in 1545.” (A)”Calvin did not shrink from his self-appointed task. Within five years fifty-eight sentences of death and seventy-six of exile, besides numerous committals of the most eminent citizens to prison, took place in Geneva.” (
F)”A heretic who also was an anti-Trinitarian was burned at the stake.” NOTE: Probably Servetus B. Banishment (mere banishment!) 1. Castellio (A)”Gruet’s death was more highly criticized by far than the banishment of Castellio or the penalties inflicted on Bolsec - moderate men opposed to extreme views in discipline and doctrine, who fell under suspicion as reactionary.”
(B) (K) Very full account of Castellio 2. Bolsec (A)(B)(F)”Jerome Bolsec, a physician who attacked Calvin’s doctrine of predestination, was banished.” (L) 3. Others (A)”Calvin did not shrink from his self-appointed task. Within five years fifty-eight sentences of death and seventy-six of exile, besides numerous committals of the most eminent citizens to prison, took place in Geneva.”
A. www.biblelife.org/calvinism.htm
B. www.gospeltruth.net/heres…_chap5.htm
C. www.worldwideschool.org/l…hap16.html
D. www.dimensional.com/~randl/calvin.htm
E. www.gospelcom.net/chi/HER…l047.shtml
F. www.churchlink.com.au/chu…alvin.html
G. www.newadvent.org/cathen/03195b.htm
H. www.ccel.org/s/schaff/hcc…xv.xiv.htm
I. online.sksm.edu/ouh/chapter/13_XIII.html
J. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church; F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone; Oxford University Press; K. www.ccel.org/s/schaff/hcc….xv.ix.htm
(different page from H) L. www.ccel.org/s/schaff/hcc…v.viii.htm
John Calvin is a man who is held up by many evangelicals as an example of the most perfect systematic theologian that ever lived. And yet it would appear that he did not even meet the basic requirements of a NT overseer/bishop as to godly character! 1 Tim 3:2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. The New Testament approach to false teachers is the precise opposite of what Calvin’s modus operandi was: 2 Tim 2:24 The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, 25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses {and escape} from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will. As to the relationship of his doctrine to his practice, as he plainly taught that everything that happens is God’s will (I can provide the quotes if you would like), then it necessarily follows that he considered everything he did as God’s will, even having his detractors beheaded, burned at the stake, or banished. I’m saying that one’s theology inevitably works out in one’s practice, and this was all too apparent in the life of John Calvin. If I had someone who disagreed with my theology put to death (had I the political power Calvin had), would I be qualified to teach the Word of God? One’s actions don’t have any bearing on the authenticity of one’s teaching? It seems to me that we should hold ANY theologian to the same moral standard as any other teacher in the body of Christ.
It came from the reformation
Altho Wesley was an arminian
He left it to God to do the saving and didn't have people
Coming forward at meetings
To make a decision!
Debate James White
Funny to me how Dr. Finny condemns the God of scriptures who killed the entire antediluvian world save 8 souls because rather than let it be the entire world, He chose to save 8. He doesn't see that there are none who would respond to the gospel if God didn't choose to give faith/regeneration to some.
In his system man has the ability to respond, while scripture says they do not. Somehow Dr. Finny thinks that man can conjure up faith that will please God. Dr.Finny says he has a high view of God but does he? He puts God into a box that his feeble human mind can accept and basically says He hates the God of scripture if He is as Calvinists believe He is... and He is. So he has made up his own god who is more palatable to his humanity.
We Calvinists know that God is good & just & that if everyone got justice there would be none saved. We also know that He has put love for Him as He is into our hearts. I love the God of scripture, while others like Dr.Finny hate Him. Either the God of the Calvinists is God or the God of the Armenians is, they are not the same.
The difference between the 2 systems is who is in control, God or man. In both systems most are going to hell. In both systems few find the straight gate. God is under no obligation to give grace or mercy to any of fallen humanity that hate Him & His law & His Messiah. But He has determined that a few will receive Grace through Faith/regeneration who in no way deserve it. This is determined by His good pleasure of His will, not by anything those people have done. This is such a foreign concept to the human psyche that they reject it as unworthy of their imagined all loving god. They neglect God's holiness & focus instead only on His agape, which is defined as keeping His commandments, but they define as more of a humanitarian kinda love.
I was very happy to see that the true Gospel is being proclaimed by so many Godly men. Too bad Dr.Finny chooses to attack it rather than embrace it. Oh well it's his loss.
Johan van Oldenbarnevelt was a martyr for his political principles and a States man and had no part in the Synod of Dordrecht. The president's name was Boogerman. Remonstrant, means opposition. Arminius had studied theology under Theodore Beza, Calvin's successor. Beza was one of the stronger proponents of the Reformed doctrine of predestination. But Arminius's theology represented a retreat from this position. In some ways, ARMINIUS'S THEOLOGY WAS ACTUALLY A RETURN TO THE POSITION TAKEN BY ROMAN CATHOLICISM AT THE COUNCIL OF TRENT. NATURALLY, ARMINIANISM STIRRED HEATED CONTROVERSY IN THE REFORMED CHURCHES.
Arminius died in 1609, almost a decade before the controversy over his teachings peaked. That occurred in 1618, when a group of the Arminius followers, known as the Remonstrants wrote and issued: “Five Articles of the Remonstrands. " Those articles were condemned by the Synod of Dordt in 1619. The synod's five-point reply was an article-by-article refutation of the Remonstrants. The position as defined by the Synod of Dord became to be known popularly as "the five points of Calvinism," though the five points were actually a response to the Arminian Articles. Calvin himself never systematized his doctrine into five points). We find Limited Atonement not in the writings of the Reformers. I made a website with writings of Martin Luther. Maartenluther with com in Dutch, German and English.
It happened when Arminius was asked to counter Dirck Coornherd as he joined the reformation. Coornherd fully agreed with Palagius. After having studied Coornherd and Palagius, Jacob Arminius started to agree with Dirck Coornherd and brought it out as a professor in theology in Leiden Holland. He was opposed strongly by a colleague Franciscus Gomaris, as being a Heretic and Palagianist. The Arminius side was named REMONSTRANDS and Gomaris CONTRA REMONSTRANDS Arminius his real name not Latinized was Jacob Hermanszoon as being a custom for professors. Arminius became good friends with Coornherd. However bringing out the teaching of Pelagius as Leighton does, would have cost Arminius his position at the university and no way of earning an income in Holland. So Arminius was very cautious in his words special in writing but less in speaking. Arminius's thoughts were later defended by Dirck Coornherd on the Synod of Dordrecht in 1618 10 years after Arminius dead. It was clearly Pelagian and condemned as a heresy. Arminius full-out denied Total depravity and claimed the ability of men to reject or accept the offer of salvation and the ability to become sinless by his own will. I have and read all the works of Arminius and the Institution and most works of Calvin. Arminius claimed that when Paul said: "Wretched man I'am' he says that before his conversion and would not say that after his conversion. He also claimed that Go’s PlaN OF salvation came after the Fall in Paradise, and that Jesus was not the Savior from Eternity, otherwise God would be the author of sin. Predestination he explained as God foreknew a person would come to faith, but not from eternity but after the fall in Paradise. All works of Arminius were forbidden and never printed in Dutch. The first print of his works in English was in 1825
The Canons of the Synod of Dordt thus constituted the Reformation's official reply to the Remonstrants. The Remonstrants were expelled from the Reformed Churches in Holland, and Arminianism was tagged as a deviant doctrine. Far from dealing a crushing blow to the movement, however, the Synod of Dordt merely became the starting point for the underground spread of the doctrine. There are many strains of Arminianism. The classic Arminianism of the Remonstrants had much in common with Pelagianism (a compromise position between the radical free-will doctrine of Pelagius and a twisted predestinarian view ) The tendencies of the Remonstrants
(Arminianism) and those who followed them were barely evangelical. In the eighteenth century, John Wesley adopted Arminian doctrine and refined it with a strong evangelical emphasis on the Reformed doctrine of justification by faith. Wesley's variety of evangelical Arminianism survives today in many Churches. Two of them that brought it strongly out in their preaching were Charles Finney and later Billy Graham. We clearly find in both their preaching: “man’s free-will” and the alter call and invitation to pray the sinner's prayer or even to fill out a sinners-card would safe.
I belief: "Never Lost is Never saved" We need the conviction of the Holy Spirit like soil need the plow in order to the seed to bring forth fruit. Jesus came to save that which was lost.
What about 70 Million Buddhists in Thailand. 93% in Thailand are Buddhists and 5.5% Islam. Why??? If God wants all men to be saved, did God fail to bring the gospel there so they could chose to be Christian or Buddhist? One born into Buddhism has no choice but Buddhism, Only the conviction by The Holy Spirit can change hearts.
the historic faith ??? anabaptist? read the patristics or
Is this about Catholicism? Calvin primarily wrote to convert Catholics to Grace Alone. If you are talking about something newer, you can't ignore Catholicism. If you are discussing Calvinism vs baptists - baptists didn't exist back then.
Unfortunately, you can find belief in the different aspects of TULIP in the Church Fathers (See John Gill's, The Cause of God and of Truth). But nice try. No cigar.
The historical presentation in the first 2/3 of the video is quite good and accurate. But his critique of Calvinism in the remaining third is a bit off. He's aiming at an extreme form of Calvinism known as Superlapsariasm, which is probably not held by the majority of Calvinists. Calvin himself (and the Westminster Confession of Faith) did take a rather extreme view of predestination (double predestination), but the Synod of Dort was arguably quite close to what the Bible has to say on the "Five Points." Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement have to be understood in the context of Total Depravity. It is a matter of God sovereignly choosing to show mercy to rebellious sinners who fully deserve God's wrath and condemnation.
I was a Synergist for over 30 years and this guy ain’t teaching me anything !
Calvinism IS historic Christianity.
Thank you!
This is not posted as an argument. It is an honest display of praise toward God that I posted on FB for no other reason then to give God glory. I leave it here to display the heart of a Calvinist for the benefit of your understanding:
Any theology which does not thoroughly dethrone me is ineffective for a creature as wicked as I am.
Any salvation that is in any part dependant upon me is not secure enough to produce hope, joy or preservence for a creature as wicked as I am.
Please do not leave me at the mercy of my own will, for then my will being so thoroughly corrupt, I shall surely perish. No, give me that good and pure doctrine of an all sovereign and terrifying master that has set His love upon me and left me bewildered in awe and worshipful in His wake. Let my heart cry out "what love is this?"
You say that the reformed have a monster for a God? What kind of God came to the top of Mt. Sinai? Killed his own elect in the desert for complaining about the conditions of the desert? Wiped out all of mankind but one family? Killed all the first born of the Egyptians? Is returning to slay until blood floods up to the horses bridle? Speaks about a great pile of corpses that He will pile up? This God is the very same that is said is love. This is the God of hesed, loving-kindness! In any theology, be it Calvin or otherwise... we must not tame God. As C.S Lewis (who definitely wasn't a Calvinist!) said; He is good, but He is not safe.
Above all reformed people believe sola scriptura. So if you can demonstrate from the scripture that any tenet of the doctrines of grace are wrong, I'll recant them. The thing that matters most is knowing this God that reached down and saved me. But honestly, to think that I'm sovereign over myself in place of Almighty God is at once scary and blasphemous. To think that rather than being safe in the hand of God from which no one can pluck me that I'm rather saved by ability to persist in faith and can lose it... makes of grace a new kind of works based salvation and God's love not dependent on His divine whim (as hard as that is to accept) but on my performance in maintaining faith and belief because a person says so, not the keeping power of the Holy Ghost? And you still believe God created people knowing full well most of them will go to hell. You're not in a position to call my God a monster simy because yours is a different kind of monster! So then let's see which kind of monster does scripture truly present? And then worship Him for both His terribleness and His mercy.
My apologies. I've never ranted on any UA-cam video before. I didn't mean to. You didn't and me to watch this video. I repent of my divisiveness. God bless you for seeking to honor Him. If this offends, then please delete it all. If it serves the purpose of showing "what a Calvinist is like in their thinking" then this material is yours. We both stand before the same Master. We both seek to glorify and honor Him. We both will hold the same theology in Heaven where we will no doubt both learn we're wrong. Peace to you and your school.
@@Hospody-Pomylui what is the Greek word for the so called hell you think you believe in? you cant find scriopurte that supports limited atonement.
@Francis Cafazzo 😆 I've become an Orthodox Christian ☦️ since I wrote this. I recant all 5 points as neither demonstrated from scripture nor the tradition which proceeds from the Apostles. The Greek words for hell are Hades, which was defeated from the inside by Christ, and "fire and Theion" which is to say "the firey divinity" or fire and brimstone (sulfur) that proceeds from Christ at the last judgement. A river of fire; God's love shed abroad on all mankind expirenced as condemnation by those who reject it 😔.
If God saves everyone then why doesn’t everyone end up in heaven? Because He won’t violate our free will? Who cares about free will if we’re all blindfolded and running toward hell! So, the Arminian view is that God prioritizes free will over salvation? Now that’s repugnant.
The doctrine of election does not say God withholds salvific grace. It says we are saved by grace, not by anything good in us. Arminians claim we are the authors of our own salvation because we are just slightly better, more humble, more open, more repentant than a non-Christian, and, because of that enlightenment, we are saved.
That is the implication of Arminianism.
48 mins …. What an absolutely incorrect and false statement to make. I am not sure what research this bloke has done, but every Calvinistic church I have attended or know of has a very high view of sanctification, doctrines on the covenant of marriage. Disagree with Calvinism, but don’t create a straw man and then critique it as it is absolutely untrue … especially when some of the most liberal views on marriage come in non Calvinistic churches .. again from experience. Sorry but this is a false and misleading point.
So Who let the Devil go to Paradise. Jesus was Savior from Eternity.
Calvinism is Biblical Christianity. All the Reformers Affirm that. Along with Scripture. Those who say it isn't aren't well versed in Scripture
2 Peter 2:1 KJV
"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction"
It's not that we don't know the scriptures. It may just be that Calvinists ignore the scriptures that speak against their doctrine in a very clear and precise manner in which the most common of men can understand as truth.
You ignore every warning and every verse of someone falling away
As a former Calvinist of 20 years, you couldn't be more wrong. Calvinism is rooted in Maniachian Gnosticism, Pelagian presuppositions of free will, and Augustinian views of predestination and election. Calvinism has another, god, another christ and another gospel. Please take care to look into this and don't assume Calvinism is biblical Christianity just because somebody told you it was
😂
Everybody says their view is biblical including Satan