What he said about the “mystery” disappearing when you read the verse like a non-Calvinist, that really stood out to me. That’s been a huge factor in my journey away from Calvinism over the last few years.
I think it is exactly right that the "mystery" disappears when one reads the Scripture as a non-Calvinist. No system of Theology that gets rid of mystery can be correct. "How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past tracing out."
Absolutely me too!! Was just talking with my mom about this.. we also uses the word treasure.. it really does open up scripture in a whole new way. I pray for the people I love stuck in this way of thinking. Theyre missing so much
42:00 oh my goodness. That is the question I asked a Calvinist pastor. He said no, God made them sin and I said I didn't believe that. Then he called me a servant of the devil. It hurt a lot. I didn't understand at the time that I was questioning his "gospel", which was Calvinism.
YIK little fella, but James says exactly the opposite God can't tempting anyone nor doing evil works. How in the world calvinist concludes that God decrees the fall of humans and if not then God isn't sovereign.
What’s really sticking out to me is his gentle spirit. Even though he isn’t being challenged in his thoughts, he’s not at all prideful about anything he is saying, rather there’s a gentleness and humbleness to him.
This was very encouraging and informative. I am not a theologian, but a homeschooling mama. I found this to be very accessible, as well as personable. Sir your testimony of your childhood education and where you are now is an incredible display of God's grace and your hard work. While I love and have grown from many of the men you all mentioned who hold to Calvinism, I have always been convicted that on this one BIG thing they are wrong. Thank you as well as Soteriology 101, Leighton Flowers. You all seem very approachable and put the cookies on the bottom shelf for us. Thank you.
Excellent interview, really enjoyed his insights on how he was looking at texts - in what they did not say. This is thinking outside of the box. He indicated that he did not just do this for one or two texts. It is an excellent method to keep us all honest.
"They don't even believe that God can be sovereign over a libertarian free world and He surely can't know what's going on, so that's a diminished view of God." (34:30 - 34:42) This is an underrated point. For all of the talk by Calvinists that only they believe that God is truly sovereign, the opposite is true. Calvinists are the only ones who *don't* believe that God is truly sovereign.
Great interview! Ronnie's book, 'Reflections of a Disenchanted Calvinist' was one of the first I read after leaving Calvinism. It has helped immensely! Highly recommended. A few things that stood out: Calvinist generated mysteries Entailment violations Not answering the questions Reading hard to understand books
Thank you for this. I went to a church for two years and only by going to a membership class was it revealed that the church was Reformed and the pastor is a Calvinist. His preaching NEVER revealed his theology and he always has a salvation message at the end of his sermons. If he had preached his Calvinist doctrine I would've left two years earlier.
My pastor is an obvious Calvinist : big long hairy beard gives him away. But many of his preaches are moderately Calvinist but I tend to De TULIP all the bits that i think are biblically unsound. I find some of the preaches really inconsistent. The more you look into Calvinism the more you realise what a mess it is.
Since when did you think that a Calvinist doesn't call unsaved persons to believe the gospel? Then, you left the church even as he did what you expected. You're the enigma, not that pastor.
Wow great guest and interview! I'm almost done with his book. Ronnie is excellent at dissecting what Calvinism actually means by what it says, and why it doesn't really line up with Scripture. I'd like you to have him back and focus on one topic at a time. (ie... Total depravity or break down compatiblism etc) Everyone do yourself a favor and get his book and read it!
I grew up in Norman, Oklahoma and have driven past Ronnie's church dozens of times, though I've never entered. The church I grew up in used to be on the same street (Frank Street) a few blocks eastward and is now a Chinese Baptist church. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Ronnie and the pastor who baptized me were acquainted at one time or another!
@@TheProvisionistPerspective I’ve been struggling with how to respond to Calvinism and your channel popped up. You have what I have been looking for in that while others like Leighton have been great with questions to consider when refuting what “seems right”, this particular episode of yours has provided another resource. Having Pastor Rogers give his testimony in a manner that is balanced, and the real struggles that he endured as a Calvinist, while seeking truth will challenge other Calvinists to possibly stop and listen. Along with that, both moderators kept going DEEPER, insisting that error absolutely needs to be corrected. The moderators have also provided simple yet profound questions to ask. A testimony from a former, lifelong, humble Calvinist pastor combined with next steps is a great solution to not only refuting, but going on the offensive in a positive manner. We all learn that way, by not telling each other what they need to do, but asking “Would you consider what I am saying?” Keep going deeper fellas, and be sure to vote this week. That hasn’t been determined yet either Blessings MD BTW, I’ve ordered Roger’s book and Harwood’s systematic theology. Maybe you should consider collecting your thoughts and writing a book also ???
Great interview with Brother Ronnie. I've never heard of him before but appreciated his humbleness. Hoping to read his book. Keep up the good work guys, very blessed by what you do.
I definitely want to read it. I just looked on Amazon it's 38$ for paperback so it'll have to wait but I did add it to my book list. I'm building my library and learning how to witness to Calvinist and Catholics are at the top of my list after apologetics and Biblical marriage and family!
Thoughts on the "ought never implies can" argument: Disclaimer: This is not meant to be an exhaustive treatment of the subject, just some thoughts that come to mind. Questions and comments are welcome! Terms: Claimant - The one who says, "You ought to..." Respondent - The target or subject of "You ought to..." Observations: "Ought" implies at least two things about the claimant's opinion of the respondent's abilities: o _a belief or an expectation of can_ o _a belief or an expectation of choice_ "Ought" can also imply other things about the claimant's opinion: o _a belief in a correct and an incorrect response to "ought"_ o _a moral aspect to the correctness of "ought"_ Contributing Factors: o _Logical implications based on the identity of the claimant_ Conclusion(s): *Identity of the claimant is paramount!* Human claimant - Since humans can err, ought can never truly imply "literally can." It can only imply a human belief or expectation, the basis of which is imperfect knowledge. God is the claimant - God has perfect knowledge and does not err, thus if He believes the respondent literally can then it is necessarily true that they literally can.
My friends and I play D&D once jn a while and it taught me a lot about how God may govern our world. He makes the world, the scenario, the character types, the stats, and sometimes the options we have but doesnt choose the choice that we make. What He does determine is the reaction/ the consequences of those choices or non-choices.
@@gofigure_1 Do you have any to evidence to back up your claims of demon possession or is it just hearsay based on 1980s salem witch trial like logic and reasoning? It's a game and it can be used to the glory of the One True God YHWH. If you do have evidence of said claims, I would love to read/ see them as to correct my views but thus far no possessions to be heard of from anyone ive known to play DnD. I appreciate you looking out for fellow followers of Christ and i hope we can keep each other accountable in every way possible.
That was a super inspiring conversation gentlemen. I’m not a big reader, but I have a desire toward theology, toward knowing God deeper. Good stuff here. Thank you.
Part of the difficulty with Calvinism is that they make absolute claims about everything, whereas most other systems do not make as many absolute metaphysical claims, and so they’re able to actually accept more “Calvinist” verses at face value than vise versa.
I’ve noticed this myself. I always go back to, if we can’t question anything then it should be a red flag. How can we be so sure about every text and it’s meaning? Yes we have the Holy Spirit to guide us, but when we think about how we grow and evolve as a believer some things change. We understand text differently as our wisdom grows in the Lord. But with Calvinism, you must not question anything unless it’s to believe as a Calvinist, cause if it’s to question the doctrine then it often doesn’t turn out well for the one asking.
I have also noticed this. My pastor has said to us many times, " Beware of a Bible teacher who can never use the words 'I don't know the answer to that'"
I am a former Calvinist. I was a Calvinist for 20 years and pastored 2 Calvinistic churches. I finally saw cracks beginning to form in my theology after exegeting 2 Peter verse by verse. 2 Peter 2:1 and 3:9 led me away from Limited Atonement. When Limited Atonement proved to be unbiblical the other points started cracking as well. I still haven’t figured everything out, but as I am working through verse I thought were Calvinistic, I am amazed at how I misinterpreted them. Everything Ronnie says blows my mind because I have experienced many things that he thought and experienced.
I am going to a bible study/book club where they are reading a book titled "Knowing God" by J.I. Packer. He is a calvinist. The guys at the bible study say they aren't Calvinist and that the book won't effect them. And yet, they don't recognize the Calvinist doctrine when it comes up and they all believe little bits of Calvinism. "We can't know." is one guys answer to just about everything. They are all "mysteries" and "paradoxes" that come up when you believe in Calvinism. It is super frustrating because I am the youngest least educated person there and so anything I say is quickly dismissed. But the church itself doesn't teach Calvinism. Just the people who go there have been indoctrinated. It gets pretty loopy. They don't even know their own beliefs.
That would be frustrating! I wonder how they would take it if you gave some pushback when they say we cant know? Not saying you dont , but I would have a hard time NOT saying, " yes we can! Its right there in the text!" Hold the line, brother! Who recommended the book? A calvinist? If so, stealth calvinism making its move.
I tried to read J I Packer’s book titled Knowing God. I never got through it both times, it just did not click with me. I now think that Holy Spirit was absent in his teaching. They think they know it all, but the truth did not get into his heart. So sad. Also, the real love of God is not there, as the Bible says, when a person receives God’s love, they can then truly love others like He does. I learned that in the last many years. God’s love is unconditional,not given to people when they have been “good”. God’s gift of salvation is free. But I need to accept it!
@@cbradwilson No, the book was recommended by one of guys who is the least Calvinist out of them all. At first I thought it was a test, but I guess not. I did give some push back, but I got worn out after 10 chapters.
@@margriettalen6713 I certainly think Packer is wrong, but I don't want to in any way presume anything bout anyones walk with God. There is no apparent sin in their life. I often wonder if God will accept me since my knowledge of God has to be filtered through my intellect and biases. So there is a good chance I am wrong about many things. I know a lot of people, who know for sure, that various denominations are headed to hell. I can't say that with any certainty. I got like 80% to 90% in school. I am not sure that intellectually qualifies me to be able to understand God or the book he has given us, if that makes sense. Every denomination claims to have His Spirit leading them into all truth, so perhaps that is a misunderstanding as well... I don't know.
@@margriettalen6713 THIS IS HOW CALVIN PREACHED THE GOSPEL He calls all men to himself, without a single exception, and gives Christ to all, that we may be illumined by him. When we pray, we ought, according to the rule of charity, to include all. God invites all indiscriminately to salvation through the Gospel, BUT THE INGRATITUDE OF THE WORLD IS THE REASON why this grace, which is equally offered to all, is enjoyed by few. Other than the result of men’s refusal. Calvin as you can see and put the responsibility by men.
I'd like to know which non-Calvinistic theologians and bible commentators Ronnie now refers to. This will be helpful for ex Calvinists or those considering leaving Calvinism and who only know reformed theologians/commentators
Khun is a must read for anyone who wants to understand how ideas evolve and inform or prevent people from learning certain things. Another good, short book on this notion is Pollard's "Physicist and Christian: a diskogue between the communities". Pollard was a catholic priest, so it's not si much that I agree with his theology... but it's that he VERY thoughtfully dissects why different fields produce the communities they do, and as social entities they govern themselves, not by science or theology, but by social games theory and sociological motivators... acceptance, gate keeping, thought policing, shame, competition, etc. And he doesn't criticize that this happens, but explains why and for what reason communities resist change, fail at cross-ideolpgical dislogue, etc.
*UNDERSTANDING CALVINISM'S AS-IF THINKING AND LANGUAGE PATTERN* In order to fully understand Calvinism - it is critical to understand Calvinism's *AS-IF* thinking pattern - which the Calvinist must unwittingly adopt in order to evade the logical entailments of the doctrine. American Theoretical Physicist, and Determinist - Sean Carrol -quote All Determinists - no matter how Anti-Free-Will they are - will always speak *AS-IF* man makes decisions. William Lane Craig -quote Determinists recognize that they have to act *AS-IF* they have free will such that they can weigh options and decide on what course of action to take. John Calvin -quote “All future things being uncertain to us, we hold them in suspense, *AS-IF* they might happen either one way or another.” (Institutes Vol 1, 16,9) Here Calvin (as a Determinist) is smart enough to understand that every event which comes to pass in his world is predestined per his doctrine. And he is smart enough to understand - a predestined event - by definition - cannot happen any other way than what was predestined. And yet he is treating what his doctrine stipulates *AS-IF* it is FALSE John Calvin -quote “Hence as to future time, because the issue of all things is hidden from us, each ought to so to apply himself to his office, *AS-IF* nothing were determined about any part.”(Concerning the eternal predestination of God) Here Calvin knows his doctrine expressly stipulates that EVERYTHING is determined in EVERY part. And once again - he is treating what his doctrine stipulates *AS-IF* it is FALSE Anyone who wants to fully understand Calvinism - must understand this as a part of Calvinist thinking - and Calvinist language. The process of asserting an aspect of his doctrine as TRUE - while treating it *AS-IF* it is FALSE - eventually becomes an automatic pattern of thinking and speaking for the Calvinist. When he makes a statement - you need to learn to recognize - when he is speaking in *AS-IF* language. For example - when he claims that humans are granted multiple options within any given event. Is he treating that claim as TRUE? Or is he treating that claim *AS-IF* it is TRUE when something inside him tells him it isn't. The Calvinist will make a statement which APPEARS to assert something as TRUE. When what he is really doing is speaking *AS-IF* it is TRUE His mind is conditioned to flip back and forth - between TRUE and *AS-IF* TRUE without being cognizant he is doing it.
If Calvinism were true we would have to change the words to the hymn “The Solid Rock”… My hope is built on nothing less than I am one of God’s elect…. The cross offers no real hope because everything was settled in Heaven even before the elect were created.
Calvinists commonly press issues too far. I'm thinking your comment here is also pressing too far against Calvinist implications. To be fair, in the Calvinist schema: what is determined prior to time still needs to be worked out in time. Specifically, the determination to send Christ to die for the sins of the elect still MUST happen, or there is no salvation. So, the cross can not be legitimately separated from the prior decree.
If God must have people he allows to go to hell in order to show his full wrath, not only does it demean the death of Christ on the cross, it denies the aseity/self-sufficiency of God. It makes God needy.
And if he made x people for heaven and y people for hell, to show x+y people his full traits, but their seeing anything of him at all is entirely because he made to do whatever they do, the what kind if audience is that anyways? If he doomed the y people not to believe, then aren't they not seeing his glory anyways? So he's glorified less in order to be glorified more by people who only glory or not because he determined them to... it's a contradictory mess. Note: I'm not saying determinism is contradictory, but calvinistms thoughts about itself, it's feelings about glory, will, rebellion, responsibility, the emotional core of the system... it's all irrational.
You make 2 good points. Thank you. A 3rd follows for me: From a proportionality standpoint, it seems apparent that for the Calvinist God has determined to receive glory via expressing his wrath far more dominantly than by expressing His mercy (by comparing numbers of people seemingly damned vs. those saved). Yet, every depiction of God's character present God in the opposite light. He always leads with mercy. Judgment is his "strange work."
I found this helpful I hope you will too... This is what our Father tells us before the day of the Lord (day of displeasure). does this sound familiar ? If your church is like this it's not good... “Son of man, say to her, ‘You are a land that is not cleansed or rained upon in the day of displeasure.’ “There is a conspiracy of her prophets in her midst, like a roaring lion tearing the prey. They have devoured life, they have taken wealth and precious matters , they have made many widows in her midst. “Her priests have done violence to My teaching and they profane My set-apart matters . They have not distinguished between the set-apart and profane, nor have they made known the difference between the unclean and the clean. And they have hidden their eyes from My Sabbaths, and I am profaned in their midst. “Her leaders in her midst are like wolves tearing the prey, to shed blood, to destroy lives, and to get greedy gain. “And her prophets have coated them with whitewash, seeing a false vision, and divining a lie for them, saying, ‘Thus said the Master YHVH' when YHVH' had not spoken. “The people of the land have practised oppression, and committed robbery, and have wronged the poor and needy. And they oppressed the stranger without right-ruling. “And I sought for a man among them who would make a wall, and stand in the breach before Me on behalf of the land, that I should not destroy it - but I did not find one! “Therefore I have poured out My displeasure on them, I have consumed them with the fire of My wrath. And I have put their way on their own head,” declares the Master YHVH'. Ezekiel 22:24-31
What are the roadblocks that we need to be aware of or we'll lose? I want to know them so they don't win...a friend's spiritual health depends on it....
Around 20 minutes in there's a discussion of "election" (choosing). He explains that God makes a choice. The calvinist claims there is no reason for the choice other than God's choosing, completely without condition. But how can a "choice" be made without a condition or a reason? The word choice implies there is a reason or a condition. If there is no reason or condition, it's just arbitrary or random. We know that it is not random or arbitrary. God's choice for salvation is choosing those that place faith in Christ.
BRAVO for fleeing that COLD-BLOODED CULT. There is HEARTLESSNESS to CALVINISM that is TRAGIC! For Calvinists reading this, before you reply, THINK about this question; DO YOU HAVE FAMILY AND/OR FRIENDS JESUS CHOSE *NOT* TO DIE FOR? Does that idea bother or worry or upset you AT ALL?😮😢
DW: Ronnie speaks of what he calls "Folk" Calvinist. And it appears he is saying they are not really Calvinists at all. Can this be explained? Thanks in advance
It is true that God will save everyone. He had just agreed with universalism. Because God does not have to show his wrath by putting anyone at all in hell. God can save every single person. Because Christ died for all.
Opposite error of Calvinism, to put all people into the box of the elect. Better to be biblical: to affirm that Christ is the elect of God. And all who are In Christ receive His benefits, including receiving access to the divine nature and access to eternal life. If U. was true, the NT would be all about only broadcasting the good news. What purpose would warnings have?
I believe Adam and Eve had free will and could have chosen not to listen to the serpent. Had they resisted, God could have had a human race that walked with him and was free from sin. Then Christ would not have had to die on the cross. I believe Christ had mercy on us by making a way to free us from eternal separation from the father after they fell. I do not believe the original plan was for Adam and ever to purposely sin as God’s will. God’s will is that none should perish however, so he sent his son who willingly laid down his life for us. When he said he laid down his life for his friends, my take is that his friends are anyone who comes to him by faith. This idea makes it even more glorious that Jesus died for us after we rebelled because he loves us that much. Remember there was a tree of life. God removed them from the garden and did not allow them to eat of the tree of life because living in an eternal state of sin would be like a hell of sorts. Heaven is an absence of sin that we can’t even fathom yet. Revelation 22:14 mentions the tree of life again, and those who’s robes are washed white will have the right to the tree of life once again. That is a beautiful picture of redemption.
Election couldn't mean what Calvinists think it means. Israel was God's elect. Ever heard of the Exile? Many of "God's elect" fell into ruin worshiping Ba'al. There are no Ba'al worshipers in heaven, I can promise you that. Elect simply means you were given the light of truth - the oracles of God. It's now up to YOU what you do with that. You choose... follow the truth and the light or go your own way.
You guys just don’t understand Calvinism. You need to read The Institutes of The Calvin Religion. And you too can become enlightened, and know the great doctrines of grace.
Prevenient grace aka provisionism is Roman Catholic. Wikipedia “Prevenient grace (or enabling grace) is a Christian theological concept rooted in Arminian theology,[1] though it appeared earlier in Catholic theologies.[2] It is divine grace that precedes human decision. In other words, God will start showing love to that individual at a certain point in his lifetime. Prevenient grace is embraced primarily by Arminian Christians who are influenced by the theology of Jacob Arminius or John Wesley. Wesleyan Arminians believe that grace enables, but does not ensure, personal acceptance of the gift of salvation. Wesley typically referred to it in 18th-century language as prevenient grace. In current English, the phrase preceding grace would have a similar meaning, with the doctrine also being called conviction.[3]” Quoted from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Washington, D.C. 2006 “Faith seeks understanding and is a friend of reason. Faith as a grace or gift from God makes it possible to gain some understanding of all that he has revealed to us, including the totality of his plan as well as the many mysteries of faith. Growth in understanding God’s Revelation is a lifelong process. Theology and catechesis help us. We never completely understand these divine mysteries, but we often gain insight into them. In this context, faith and reason work together to discover truth. To ever suppose that human thought or scientific research can or should be in conflict with faith is a mistaken approach because this position denies the basic truth that everything has been created by God. Scholarly and scientific research that is carried out in a manner faithful to reason and to moral law will not conflict with truth as revealed by God (see CCC, no. 159). Faith is a free, human act. Faith is a gift of God which enables us to know and love him. Faith is a way of knowing, just as reason is. But living in faith is not possible unless there is action on our part. Through the help of the Holy Spirit, we are able to make a decision to respond to divine Revelation, and to follow through in living out our response. God never forces his truth and love upon us. He reveals himself to us as free human beings, and our faith response to him is made within the context of our freedom. At Capernaum, Jesus asked the Apostles, “Do you also want to leave?” Peter answers for them, “Master, to whom shall we go?” (Jn 6:67-68). Peter’s response is freely sought and freely given. The same is true with each of us.” www.archspm.org/faith-and-discipleship/catholic-faith/what-is-faith-how-does-it-tie-in-to-what-we-believe-as-catholics/
Arminianism teaches that Men are 'Saved because they have made a "Free Will" choice to believe in Jesus in and of their own Volition. That their Faith in JESUS is of their own Making and is their Gift to God. But Scripture in Ephesians 2 verse 8 and 9 says otherwise. Scripture also states that all Believers have been GIVEN [By GOD] a small measure of Faith, in Roman 12 verse 3. This among other verses in Scripture prove that Ephesians 2 verse 8 and 9 is true, that Saving Faith is Gods Gift to Man, not Man's gift to God. Arminianism teaches that God does not have the Sovereignty to choose whom he will Save and who he won't. Calvinist believe God Is totally sovereign over ALL His Creation and does what He Wills with everything and everyone He's Created.
It’s absolutely true that if God unconditionally predestines all persons to either heaven or hell that he doesn’t love everybody. This is exactly what the Bible teaches between Romans 9 and Psalm 5 for example. Yet it’s also true that 1 Tim 2 clearly explains that God desires for all to be saved (hence the love of God for all). So the Bible teaches both, and we just have to accept it and cherish it.
You people need to understand that God has made as much provision for any and every sinner according to the Calvinist's system as in your provisionist system. Rather than making fun of Calvinists in your echo chamber, perhaps you should interact with what we actually believe. Who do you think you are to suggest that Calvinists can't love sinners and pray for their conversion. Simply because we do not say what you Southern Baptists have been taught you should say in evangelism, does not mean we do not preach the gospel and say what the apostles said when they preached. You will not find in any of their messages words like "God loves you and Jesus died to save you." The question you need to ask Calvinists is whether or not they can say to sinners what the apostles said to sinners. If we can do that, I think we are on pretty solid ground.
Did you watch this episode? Bro. Ronnie was a committed Calvinist for some 20+ years. You believe that Christ made sufficient payment on the cross for every person’s sins?
@@TheProvisionistPerspective Whether you are "keen" on confessions of men or not, they are necessary for definition. It is ridiculous for SBs to pretend that they have any kind of unity. You don't even have the same understanding of the gospel. You can look at the same statement and pretend that you both agree even though your views are diametrically opposed to each other's.
@@TheProvisionistPerspective And NO, we do not agree on the atonement. We agree that it is abundantly sufficient to save anyone who believes but we don't believe the same about its intention and effectual accomplishment. We believe Jesus, as the mediator of the new and better covenant, obtained all the blessings of that covenant including God's promise to write His law in His people's minds and hearts, i.e., incline them to obedience to His law, the greatest commandment of which is to Love Yahweh completely. One of the problems with what you are doing is that you want to define Calvinism according to what so-called Calvinists write on social media and not according to what Calvinists have historically confessed. A person who goes beyond or above [or directly contradicts] those historic confessions is a hyper-Calvinist and not a Calvinist.
The American Great Awakening was a reformed puritans movement and the doing of the Lord. Millions came to accept Christ our Lord as there Savior. Claiming that that was the work of a deceiver is crossing a dangerous line. [I rather say Reformed, we do not follow a man. Calvin was just a small part of the reformation. Edwards's earliest writings brought together John Locke and Isaac Newton in a defence of a religious metaphysics. Later, after a career as a practicing clergyman who led the ‘Great Awakening’, Edwards developed a Calvinist theology founded on the covenant of grace whose centre was the experience of an omnipotent God. His views were most significantly spelt out in Religious Affections (1746) and Freedom of the Will (1754). JONATHAN EDWARDS ON THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD (CALVINISM) "The Sovereignty of God is the stumbling block on which thousands fall and perish; and if we go contending with God about His sovereignty it will be our eternal ruin. It is absolutely necessary that we should submit to God as an absolute sovereign, and the sovereign of our souls; as one who may have mercy on whom He will have mercy and harden whom He will" (Jonathan Edwards). The quote above, by Jonathan Edwards, is excerpted from Arminianism: Another Gospel - Jonathan Edwards Most historians consider Jonathan Edwards, a Northampton Anglican minister, one of the chief fathers of the Great Awakening. Edwards’ message centred around the ideas that humans were sinners, God was an angry judge and individuals needed to ask for forgiveness. He also preached justification by faith alone. In 1741, Edwards gave an emotional sermon, entitled “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” No-one in the church had dry eyes. It was not the gifted preacher because Edwards read most of the sermon. It was a strong conviction of the Holy Spirit. News of the message spread quickly throughout the colonies. Edwards was known for his passion. He generally preached in his home parish, unlike other revival preachers who traveled throughout the colonies. Edwards is credited for inspiring hundreds of conversions, which he documented in a book, Narratives of Surprising Conversions. George Whitefield George Whitefield, a minister from Britain, had a significant impact during the Great Awakening. Whitefield toured the colonies up and down the Atlantic coast, preaching his message. In one year, Whitefield covered 5,000 miles in America and preached more than 350 times. Martin Luther said this Gospel of “grace alone” will be for a moment but soon attacked by the Devil. We see so much hate against the sovereignty of God. Daniel 4: 34 At the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives forever, for his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation; 35 all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, “What have you done?” It is time for Leighton to come to this same conclusion. THIS IS HOW CALVIN PREACHED THE GOSPEL FREE OFFER OF THE GOSPEL (Calvin's Wisdom p119-120) He calls all men to himself, without a single exception, and gives Christ to all, that we may be illumined by him. When we pray, we ought, according to the rule of charity, to include all. God invites all indiscriminately to salvation through the Gospel, BUT THE INGRATITUDE OF THE WORLD IS THE REASON why this grace, which is equally offered to all, is enjoyed by few. Other than the result of men’s refusal. Calvin never preached Double predestination as you can see and put the responsibility by men. Listen I say Preached. It is a Biblical Doctrine that God Choose or elected His Own and not the whole human race. 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.
I was a Calvinist for 23 years. Before that, I was Assemblies of God, Wesleyan Methodist, Calvary Chapel, and then Presbyterian. I left Protestantism five years ago largely by reading church history and figuring out that all forms of Protestantism fall into heresies that were condemned by the historic church during the first thousand years. There was no denominationalism during the first thousand years of the church. Denominationalism is largely a fruit of sola Scriptura which is a heresy. I don't talk to Protestants very much because they don't understand that they have the wrong starting points in their system. Protestants also don't have a complete theological vocabulary due to the fact that very important ideas and concepts were lost in Western Christiantiy after Rome split from the Orthodox Church in 1054 AD. These kinds of videos don't really deal with the paradigmatic problems in Protestant theology. You can find all kinds of people on UA-cam giving their testimony of how they converted from Arminianism to Calvinism. You can also find videos like this that give the opposite testimony. Protestantism cannot give you epistemic certainty because it has no normative authority or tradition it can appeal to. It's just every man for himself. Sola Scriptura becomes Sola Mio. Me alone. Anyone who seriously studies church history will be left admitting that all forms of Protestantism have no continuity with anything that was taught by the very men who gave you the cannon of scripture. Protestants believe in the authority of the Bible But Protestants deny what the men who gave you the Bible actually taught. Protestantism is Prelest. It is spiritual delusion.
Randy. It sounds as if you are E. Orthodox. Can you mention briefly examples of the vocabulary and theological ideas that were lost in the west 1000 years ago? Meanwhile, I'm aware of 2 seeming pagan practices that Protestants left behind and RC continued to dabble in. That of the Toll Houses and the extensive emphasis on graven images. There are reasons from within the scriptural heritage that Protestants of all stripes have issues with "traditions of men" that were un-discerningly codified into supposed faith early on (aberrations of non-biblical faith that weren't appropriately weeded out), making the same kinds of tragic syncretistic mistakes that the OT prophets railed against when the Israelites merged pagan Canaanite practices of their neighbors into their Mosaic heritage. While the RCC has the Magisterium to provide boundaries against poor application of Sola Scriptural; without claiming an adherence to Scripture alone, there is no opposite boundary to protect adherents from what the Magisterium got wrong. Catholics are stuck with errors from the past as there is no adequate means for overturning what popes have taught. Does orthodoxy have a legitimate approach for rejecting false doctrine or mistaken spiritual ideas that got codified early on? If so, why have they dug in rather than rejected the toll houses and graven images/relics?
@@chaddonal4331 Sure, some examples would be the Essence/Energy distinction in God. Another would be the Nature/Person distinction. The Western Latins adopted Absolute Divine Simplicity and the Protestants carried ADS into their theology as well. You have the Catholics who adopted Analogia Entis, which the Protestants rejected, and instead invented the Analogia Fide (faith alone) which are both based on the heresy of ADS. The West does not hold to the Cappadocian definition of the Trinity. Nor does it hold to the Christology that was taught for the first thousand years of Christianity. Any Protestant who reads the Canons of Nicea will see that there is nothing even remotely Protestant in anything the Church fathers taught. The West adopted Augustine's doctrine of Predestination and Original Sin, which was rejected by the early church. Augustine's doctrine of Original Sin is one reason the West has a false Anthropology. Based on your questions I can tell that you don't understand Orthodoxy at all. Actually, there is a lot of literature about Toll houses in early writings, but I'm not an expert on that topic. There are different views on this subject even in Orthodoxy, but it is not a central aspect of the Eastern Church. Any Orthodox Christian would agree with you that we should not hold to man-made traditions. That's because we don't believe that Tradition is "man-made" any more than we believe that the Orthodox church is man-made, or the scripture is man-made. Actually, if you study church history it's the Protestant ethos that is man-made. Protestants reject the Traditions of history, but in doing this they establish their own Traditions, (sola scripture being one) which teaches that inspiration is only found in the written text. So if you deny the Holy Traditions you will end up with your own traditions. There are no neutral categories you can appeal to. You ask, "why have they dug in rather than rejected the toll houses and graven images/relics"? Orthodoxy has a much different view of the afterlife. I don't have time to go into the differences but the idea of Toll houses is based on Christ's descent into Hades. 2 Peter 3:16 "in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water". When Christ died His human soul was separated from His human nature. Peter says that Jesus went into the lower bowls of the earth where men were held in chains. Jesus preaches to the spirits that were there from the Old Testament. These were people who lived before the flood and had been disobedient perishing in the flood. These were people who did not "obey". Peter says that Jesus preached the gospel of the resurrection to these people and many were saved and even raised from the dead. This passage shows that God is gracious in mercy and He is fair even to those who were rebellious and wicked during their earthly life. This passage does not give all the answers you might want to have, but it shows that people who were ignorant and even lived rebellious immoral lives were delivered by Jesus when he went into hell. The West lost this doctrine. It's called the "Harrowing of Hell". There are many Icons in the history of the church that celebrates and depict this event. Orthodox liturgies celebrate the Harrowing of Hell every year in the liturgical Callender. I was a Protestant for 50 years and never heard a sermon on this text. That's because Protestants can't make sense of 2 Peter 3:16. Orthodoxy teaches that God is nothing but love flowing out from Himself. God will judge all men, but God is free to show mercy even to those who have lived and died. The idea of a toll house is that if a person was ignorant and had no access to the truth, then God treats that person differently than a person who had knowledge and rejected God's grace. There would be some kind of journey of the soul for a person who was in this condition. We don't understand much about death. We don't know how God will judge, but we know that God is predisposed to mercy over wrath. All men will be raised from the dead because Jesus conquered death. The resurrection of Christ benefits all men because all men will live forever in the human nature they possessed in this life. In this sense, all men will be saved from the curse of death. In the West, this doctrine was completely lost and the focus became a limited redemption only for the elect. With regard to Icons or "graven images," Protestants cannot understand the meaning of an Icon because their theology is based on Absolute Divine Simplicity. Protestantism does not make a distinction between Nature and Person. So when you see an Icon of Christ you think it is a depiction of the Divine Nature. No. Christ had two natures human and divine. The Icon (image) is not an image of divine Nature. The Icon is a depiction of Christ's human nature and the Divine PERSON who possessed humanity and divinity. There are no Icons in Orthodoxy depicting the divine Essence of God. That would be heretical. The divine essence of God is unknowable, and will never be known. It is not possible for the human mind to see or know the Divine essence of God. But we know God because the Son became human Nature and reveals to us who the Father is. The image of Christ in the Icon teaches that all Nature will be deified and glorified by the divine energies that rose Christ from the dead. The Icon is made of matter--wood, parchment, and paint. Every aspect of nature and matter will be restored to its deified state. Because the whole creation was brought into captivity to death, sin, and Satan's power. In Orthodoxy, Salvation is Cosmic in its scope. Christ the second Adam restores what the first Adam destroyed. This is called the cosmic scope of redemption. Which was also lost in the West. So for you to compare Icons to graven images of Pagans is nonsensical. Icons were destroyed by the Romans during early Chrisitan history because the Greek world saw NATURE as being evil, not good. Icons teach us that nature is good. If nature was evil the incarnation would not be possible. The Icon of Christ tells us that the incarnation is God's greatest expression of love for the whole world. God the Son became human flesh. Christ identifies with us in our humanity so that he might raise us up by His Divine power. I would suggest that you take the time to study Orthodoxy. The reason you're asking the kind of questions you ask is due to the fact that you have the wrong starting points in your theology. Protestantism collapses Nature into Person and a lot of your confusion comes from not understanding important theological concepts and starting points. Protestantism has the wrong order of theology. Yes, Orthodoxy has a way to identify heresy. Orthodoxy is based on certain transcendental truths that are always true in all times and places. Orthodoxy is not based on Sola Scriptura because the Bible is not alone. The Bible comes out of Liturgy, Tradition, and Church Councils. When you take the Bible out of its historical context - Tradition, and liturgy, you will fall into error by default. Orthodoxy has normative authority. The Pope in Rome came from the Filioque heresy. Which is a doctrinal error on the Holy Spirit. Protestant theology is also based on the error of the Filioque. The Bible came from the Orthodox Church. The Bible belongs to the Orthodox Church. Protestants are using a book that does not belong to them. When you see that you will see how stupid heresy is. The church fathers called heretics stupid. That's because heresy is stupid.
these guys go around pretending to be 'saved' but don't believe in the grace of baptism... of course, they say they believe in Scripture, etc etc... - such poor souls...
What he said about the “mystery” disappearing when you read the verse like a non-Calvinist, that really stood out to me. That’s been a huge factor in my journey away from Calvinism over the last few years.
I think it is exactly right that the "mystery" disappears when one reads the Scripture as a non-Calvinist. No system of Theology that gets rid of mystery can be correct. "How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past tracing out."
Absolutely me too!! Was just talking with my mom about this.. we also uses the word treasure.. it really does open up scripture in a whole new way. I pray for the people I love stuck in this way of thinking. Theyre missing so much
Christ in YOU (plural). The hope of glory.
42:00 oh my goodness. That is the question I asked a Calvinist pastor. He said no, God made them sin and I said I didn't believe that. Then he called me a servant of the devil. It hurt a lot. I didn't understand at the time that I was questioning his "gospel", which was Calvinism.
YIK little fella, but James says exactly the opposite God can't tempting anyone nor doing evil works. How in the world calvinist concludes that God decrees the fall of humans and if not then God isn't sovereign.
The truth will set you free. Praise God!!!
Agreed Linda
What’s really sticking out to me is his gentle spirit. Even though he isn’t being challenged in his thoughts, he’s not at all prideful about anything he is saying, rather there’s a gentleness and humbleness to him.
If I'm doing my math right, he's in his 70s and still going strong! That's inspiring!
So blessed by the humility of Ptr. Rogers.💕
This was very encouraging and informative. I am not a theologian, but a homeschooling mama. I found this to be very accessible, as well as personable. Sir your testimony of your childhood education and where you are now is an incredible display of God's grace and your hard work. While I love and have grown from many of the men you all mentioned who hold to Calvinism, I have always been convicted that on this one BIG thing they are wrong. Thank you as well as Soteriology 101, Leighton Flowers. You all seem very approachable and put the cookies on the bottom shelf for us. Thank you.
Excellent interview, really enjoyed his insights on how he was looking at texts - in what they did not say. This is thinking outside of the box. He indicated that he did not just do this for one or two texts. It is an excellent method to keep us all honest.
"They don't even believe that God can be sovereign over a libertarian free world and He surely can't know what's going on, so that's a diminished view of God." (34:30 - 34:42) This is an underrated point. For all of the talk by Calvinists that only they believe that God is truly sovereign, the opposite is true. Calvinists are the only ones who *don't* believe that God is truly sovereign.
Pastor Ronnie’s awesome!
Great interview! Ronnie's book, 'Reflections of a Disenchanted Calvinist' was one of the first I read after leaving Calvinism. It has helped immensely! Highly recommended.
A few things that stood out:
Calvinist generated mysteries
Entailment violations
Not answering the questions
Reading hard to understand books
I'm slowly working my way through that book.
That was an AMAZING conversation, thanks!!!
Thank you for this. I went to a church for two years and only by going to a membership class was it revealed that the church was Reformed and the pastor is a Calvinist. His preaching NEVER revealed his theology and he always has a salvation message at the end of his sermons. If he had preached his Calvinist doctrine I would've left two years earlier.
My pastor is an obvious Calvinist : big long hairy beard gives him away. But many of his preaches are moderately Calvinist but I tend to De TULIP all the bits that i think are biblically unsound. I find some of the preaches really inconsistent. The more you look into Calvinism the more you realise what a mess it is.
Since when did you think that a Calvinist doesn't call unsaved persons to believe the gospel? Then, you left the church even as he did what you expected. You're the enigma, not that pastor.
Wow great guest and interview! I'm almost done with his book. Ronnie is excellent at dissecting what Calvinism actually means by what it says, and why it doesn't really line up with Scripture.
I'd like you to have him back and focus on one topic at a time. (ie... Total depravity or break down compatiblism etc)
Everyone do yourself a favor and get his book and read it!
Great show. Thank you for the encouragement
Our pleasure! Thanks for your support!
Great discussion!
Enjoyed that interview; thank you for introducing me to Pastor Rogers!
Also appreciate the time stamps in the show notes! Such a helpful tool!
I grew up in Norman, Oklahoma and have driven past Ronnie's church dozens of times, though I've never entered. The church I grew up in used to be on the same street (Frank Street) a few blocks eastward and is now a Chinese Baptist church. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Ronnie and the pastor who baptized me were acquainted at one time or another!
So glad I found this channel. Great interview, going to buy Roger’s book. I also subscribed and look forward to more content
Thanks for the kind words brother! How’d you find us?
@@TheProvisionistPerspective I’ve been struggling with how to respond to Calvinism and your channel popped up. You have what I have been looking for in that while others like Leighton have been great with questions to consider when refuting what “seems right”, this particular episode of yours has provided another resource.
Having Pastor Rogers give his testimony in a manner that is balanced, and the real struggles that he endured as a Calvinist, while seeking truth will challenge other Calvinists to possibly stop and listen. Along with that, both moderators kept going DEEPER, insisting that error absolutely needs to be corrected. The moderators have also provided simple yet profound questions to ask.
A testimony from a former, lifelong, humble Calvinist pastor combined with next steps is a great solution to not only refuting, but going on the offensive in a positive manner. We all learn that way, by not telling each other what they need to do, but asking “Would you consider what I am saying?”
Keep going deeper fellas, and be sure to vote this week. That hasn’t been determined yet either
Blessings MD
BTW, I’ve ordered Roger’s book and Harwood’s systematic theology. Maybe you should consider collecting your thoughts and writing a book also ???
Great interview with Brother Ronnie. I've never heard of him before but appreciated his humbleness. Hoping to read his book. Keep up the good work guys, very blessed by what you do.
I definitely want to read it. I just looked on Amazon it's 38$ for paperback so it'll have to wait but I did add it to my book list. I'm building my library and learning how to witness to Calvinist and Catholics are at the top of my list after apologetics and Biblical marriage and family!
Great discussion! Praise God!
This was an excellent discussion. God bless all of you for making this possible. 🙏🏼✝️🕊️
*You* make this possible by being a listener! 🙏🏻
Having a paradigm shift can be really difficult.
This is very good
Thoughts on the "ought never implies can" argument:
Disclaimer: This is not meant to be an exhaustive treatment of the subject, just some thoughts that come to mind. Questions and comments are welcome!
Terms:
Claimant - The one who says, "You ought to..."
Respondent - The target or subject of "You ought to..."
Observations:
"Ought" implies at least two things about the claimant's opinion of the respondent's abilities:
o _a belief or an expectation of can_
o _a belief or an expectation of choice_
"Ought" can also imply other things about the claimant's opinion:
o _a belief in a correct and an incorrect response to "ought"_
o _a moral aspect to the correctness of "ought"_
Contributing Factors:
o _Logical implications based on the identity of the claimant_
Conclusion(s):
*Identity of the claimant is paramount!*
Human claimant - Since humans can err, ought can never truly imply "literally can." It can only imply a human belief or expectation, the basis of which is imperfect knowledge.
God is the claimant - God has perfect knowledge and does not err, thus if He believes the respondent literally can then it is necessarily true that they literally can.
Yeah!!! The "simple approach" to Scripture is what has always kept me away from getting stray.
My friends and I play D&D once jn a while and it taught me a lot about how God may govern our world. He makes the world, the scenario, the character types, the stats, and sometimes the options we have but doesnt choose the choice that we make. What He does determine is the reaction/ the consequences of those choices or non-choices.
@@gofigure_1 Do you have any to evidence to back up your claims of demon possession or is it just hearsay based on 1980s salem witch trial like logic and reasoning? It's a game and it can be used to the glory of the One True God YHWH. If you do have evidence of said claims, I would love to read/ see them as to correct my views but thus far no possessions to be heard of from anyone ive known to play DnD. I appreciate you looking out for fellow followers of Christ and i hope we can keep each other accountable in every way possible.
That was a super inspiring conversation gentlemen. I’m not a big reader, but I have a desire toward theology, toward knowing God deeper. Good stuff here. Thank you.
I would go to this man’s church if I lived near by
Yes, Drew, still waiting on the timestamps.
50:58 Normie Soteriology Resources
Pastor Ronnie is not there yet. But, he is on the right track. I hope he doesn’t stop moving forward down this track.
Where else do you think he needs to go?
Ronnie needs to detach salvation from the mentions in scripture of words such as elect, election, chosen et al. Case in point e Eph. 1:4
Ephesians 1 lists the blessings of those already who are saved, believers.
Part of the difficulty with Calvinism is that they make absolute claims about everything, whereas most other systems do not make as many absolute metaphysical claims, and so they’re able to actually accept more “Calvinist” verses at face value than vise versa.
I’ve noticed this myself. I always go back to, if we can’t question anything then it should be a red flag. How can we be so sure about every text and it’s meaning? Yes we have the Holy Spirit to guide us, but when we think about how we grow and evolve as a believer some things change. We understand text differently as our wisdom grows in the Lord. But with Calvinism, you must not question anything unless it’s to believe as a Calvinist, cause if it’s to question the doctrine then it often doesn’t turn out well for the one asking.
I have also noticed this. My pastor has said to us many times, " Beware of a Bible teacher who can never use the words 'I don't know the answer to that'"
Eagerly waiting, Sir 👍🏼
I am a former Calvinist. I was a Calvinist for 20 years and pastored 2 Calvinistic churches. I finally saw cracks beginning to form in my theology after exegeting 2 Peter verse by verse. 2 Peter 2:1 and 3:9 led me away from Limited Atonement. When Limited Atonement proved to be unbiblical the other points started cracking as well. I still haven’t figured everything out, but as I am working through verse I thought were Calvinistic, I am amazed at how I misinterpreted them. Everything Ronnie says blows my mind because I have experienced many things that he thought and experienced.
I am going to a bible study/book club where they are reading a book titled "Knowing God" by J.I. Packer. He is a calvinist. The guys at the bible study say they aren't Calvinist and that the book won't effect them. And yet, they don't recognize the Calvinist doctrine when it comes up and they all believe little bits of Calvinism. "We can't know." is one guys answer to just about everything. They are all "mysteries" and "paradoxes" that come up when you believe in Calvinism. It is super frustrating because I am the youngest least educated person there and so anything I say is quickly dismissed. But the church itself doesn't teach Calvinism. Just the people who go there have been indoctrinated. It gets pretty loopy. They don't even know their own beliefs.
That would be frustrating! I wonder how they would take it if you gave some pushback when they say we cant know? Not saying you dont , but I would have a hard time NOT saying, " yes we can! Its right there in the text!" Hold the line, brother!
Who recommended the book? A calvinist? If so, stealth calvinism making its move.
I tried to read J I Packer’s book titled Knowing God. I never got through it both times, it just did not click with me. I now think that Holy Spirit was absent in his teaching. They think they know it all, but the truth did not get into his heart. So sad. Also, the real love of God is not there, as the Bible says, when a person receives God’s love, they can then truly love others like He does. I learned that in the last many years. God’s love is unconditional,not given to people when they have been “good”. God’s gift of salvation is free. But I need to accept it!
@@cbradwilson No, the book was recommended by one of guys who is the least Calvinist out of them all. At first I thought it was a test, but I guess not. I did give some push back, but I got worn out after 10 chapters.
@@margriettalen6713 I certainly think Packer is wrong, but I don't want to in any way presume anything bout anyones walk with God. There is no apparent sin in their life. I often wonder if God will accept me since my knowledge of God has to be filtered through my intellect and biases. So there is a good chance I am wrong about many things. I know a lot of people, who know for sure, that various denominations are headed to hell. I can't say that with any certainty. I got like 80% to 90% in school. I am not sure that intellectually qualifies me to be able to understand God or the book he has given us, if that makes sense. Every denomination claims to have His Spirit leading them into all truth, so perhaps that is a misunderstanding as well... I don't know.
@@margriettalen6713 THIS IS HOW CALVIN PREACHED THE GOSPEL
He calls all men to himself, without a single exception, and gives Christ to all, that we may be illumined by him. When we pray, we ought, according to the rule of charity, to include all. God invites all indiscriminately to salvation through the Gospel, BUT THE INGRATITUDE OF THE WORLD IS THE REASON why this grace, which is equally offered to all, is enjoyed by few.
Other than the result of men’s refusal. Calvin as you can see and put the responsibility by men.
Laughing about the time stamps….Good job Eric! Yes, someone noticed 😂
This one is gonna be spicy!
I'd like to know which non-Calvinistic theologians and bible commentators Ronnie now refers to. This will be helpful for ex Calvinists or those considering leaving Calvinism and who only know reformed theologians/commentators
Ben Witherington comes to my mind but other than him, I don't know any
Eric, he didn't finish the time stamps. He SAYS he'll finish tomorrow, but I don't know if I should believe that...
Lololololol 😬
This touched me. Thank you. This is true way to preach the gospel.
Khun is a must read for anyone who wants to understand how ideas evolve and inform or prevent people from learning certain things.
Another good, short book on this notion is Pollard's "Physicist and Christian: a diskogue between the communities".
Pollard was a catholic priest, so it's not si much that I agree with his theology... but it's that he VERY thoughtfully dissects why different fields produce the communities they do, and as social entities they govern themselves, not by science or theology, but by social games theory and sociological motivators... acceptance, gate keeping, thought policing, shame, competition, etc. And he doesn't criticize that this happens, but explains why and for what reason communities resist change, fail at cross-ideolpgical dislogue, etc.
I noticed time stamps 😁
*UNDERSTANDING CALVINISM'S AS-IF THINKING AND LANGUAGE PATTERN*
In order to fully understand Calvinism - it is critical to understand Calvinism's *AS-IF* thinking pattern - which the Calvinist must unwittingly adopt in order to evade the logical entailments of the doctrine.
American Theoretical Physicist, and Determinist - Sean Carrol
-quote
All Determinists - no matter how Anti-Free-Will they are - will always speak *AS-IF* man makes decisions.
William Lane Craig
-quote
Determinists recognize that they have to act *AS-IF* they have free will such that they can weigh options and decide on what course of action to take.
John Calvin
-quote
“All future things being uncertain to us, we hold them in suspense, *AS-IF* they might happen either one way or another.” (Institutes Vol 1, 16,9)
Here Calvin (as a Determinist) is smart enough to understand that every event which comes to pass in his world is predestined per his doctrine. And he is smart enough to understand - a predestined event - by definition - cannot happen any other way than what was predestined.
And yet he is treating what his doctrine stipulates *AS-IF* it is FALSE
John Calvin
-quote
“Hence as to future time, because the issue of all things is hidden from us, each ought to so to apply himself to his office, *AS-IF* nothing were determined about any part.”(Concerning the eternal predestination of God)
Here Calvin knows his doctrine expressly stipulates that EVERYTHING is determined in EVERY part.
And once again - he is treating what his doctrine stipulates *AS-IF* it is FALSE
Anyone who wants to fully understand Calvinism - must understand this as a part of Calvinist thinking - and Calvinist language.
The process of asserting an aspect of his doctrine as TRUE - while treating it *AS-IF* it is FALSE - eventually becomes an automatic pattern of thinking and speaking for the Calvinist.
When he makes a statement - you need to learn to recognize - when he is speaking in *AS-IF* language.
For example - when he claims that humans are granted multiple options within any given event.
Is he treating that claim as TRUE?
Or is he treating that claim *AS-IF* it is TRUE when something inside him tells him it isn't.
The Calvinist will make a statement which APPEARS to assert something as TRUE.
When what he is really doing is speaking *AS-IF* it is TRUE
His mind is conditioned to flip back and forth - between TRUE and *AS-IF* TRUE without being cognizant he is doing it.
Hmm... Those timestamps at the end are interesting 🤔
I knooooow! 😬
It ended up being our most popular episode too! Lol
If Calvinism were true we would have to change the words to the hymn “The Solid Rock”… My hope is built on nothing less than I am one of God’s elect…. The cross offers no real hope because everything was settled in Heaven even before the elect were created.
Calvinists commonly press issues too far. I'm thinking your comment here is also pressing too far against Calvinist implications. To be fair, in the Calvinist schema: what is determined prior to time still needs to be worked out in time. Specifically, the determination to send Christ to die for the sins of the elect still MUST happen, or there is no salvation. So, the cross can not be legitimately separated from the prior decree.
Thought we wouldn’t notice the unfinished time stamps but we did lololol
If God must have people he allows to go to hell in order to show his full wrath, not only does it demean the death of Christ on the cross, it denies the aseity/self-sufficiency of God. It makes God needy.
And if he made x people for heaven and y people for hell, to show x+y people his full traits, but their seeing anything of him at all is entirely because he made to do whatever they do, the what kind if audience is that anyways? If he doomed the y people not to believe, then aren't they not seeing his glory anyways? So he's glorified less in order to be glorified more by people who only glory or not because he determined them to... it's a contradictory mess.
Note: I'm not saying determinism is contradictory, but calvinistms thoughts about itself, it's feelings about glory, will, rebellion, responsibility, the emotional core of the system... it's all irrational.
You make 2 good points. Thank you.
A 3rd follows for me: From a proportionality standpoint, it seems apparent that for the Calvinist God has determined to receive glory via expressing his wrath far more dominantly than by expressing His mercy (by comparing numbers of people seemingly damned vs. those saved). Yet, every depiction of God's character present God in the opposite light. He always leads with mercy. Judgment is his "strange work."
Music theory, aka sound doctrine
This was a very fruitful discussion thanks
Have either of y’all read Piper’s book The Justification of God?
I have not!
I found this helpful I hope you will too... This is what our Father tells us before the day of the Lord (day of displeasure). does this sound familiar ? If your church is like this it's not good...
“Son of man, say to her, ‘You are a land that is not cleansed or rained upon in the day of displeasure.’
“There is a conspiracy of her prophets in her midst, like a roaring lion tearing the prey. They have devoured life, they have taken wealth and precious matters , they have made many widows in her midst. “Her priests have done violence to My teaching and they profane My set-apart matters . They have not distinguished between the set-apart and profane, nor have they made known the difference between the unclean and the clean. And they have hidden their eyes from My Sabbaths, and I am profaned in their midst. “Her leaders in her midst are like wolves tearing the prey, to shed blood, to destroy lives, and to get greedy gain. “And her prophets have coated them with whitewash, seeing a false vision, and divining a lie for them, saying, ‘Thus said the Master YHVH' when YHVH' had not spoken. “The people of the land have practised oppression, and committed robbery, and have wronged the poor and needy. And they oppressed the stranger without right-ruling. “And I sought for a man among them who would make a wall, and stand in the breach before Me on behalf of the land, that I should not destroy it - but I did not find one! “Therefore I have poured out My displeasure on them, I have consumed them with the fire of My wrath. And I have put their way on their own head,” declares the Master YHVH'.
Ezekiel 22:24-31
Genesis 2:16 "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest *freely* eat:"
What are the roadblocks that we need to be aware of or we'll lose? I want to know them so they don't win...a friend's spiritual health depends on it....
I see there's a new "I am of Paul" movement out there...
Around 20 minutes in there's a discussion of "election" (choosing). He explains that God makes a choice. The calvinist claims there is no reason for the choice other than God's choosing, completely without condition. But how can a "choice" be made without a condition or a reason? The word choice implies there is a reason or a condition. If there is no reason or condition, it's just arbitrary or random. We know that it is not random or arbitrary. God's choice for salvation is choosing those that place faith in Christ.
Calvinistic Election is God choosing who will believe, for unknown reasons. So unknown, the Bible doesn't even tell us He does it!
I noticed the timestamps btw.
BRAVO for fleeing that COLD-BLOODED CULT. There is HEARTLESSNESS to CALVINISM that is TRAGIC!
For Calvinists reading this, before you reply, THINK about this question; DO YOU HAVE FAMILY AND/OR FRIENDS JESUS CHOSE *NOT* TO DIE FOR? Does that idea bother or worry or upset you AT ALL?😮😢
"My name is Dreeewww...." 😂 I don't know why, but it just sounded funny!
DW: Ronnie speaks of what he calls "Folk" Calvinist. And it appears he is saying they are not really Calvinists at all. Can this be explained?
Thanks in advance
It is true that God will save everyone. He had just agreed with universalism. Because God does not have to show his wrath by putting anyone at all in hell. God can save every single person. Because Christ died for all.
Huh? "It is true that God will save everyone"? What do you mean? Typo?
Opposite error of Calvinism, to put all people into the box of the elect.
Better to be biblical: to affirm that Christ is the elect of God. And all who are In Christ receive His benefits, including receiving access to the divine nature and access to eternal life.
If U. was true, the NT would be all about only broadcasting the good news. What purpose would warnings have?
@@chaddonal4331 no doubt! Well said.
No one in scripture is chosen TO SALVATION.
I did notice but I don't care that you didn't actually finish it tomorrow.
*THIS* is what deconstruction can be
I believe Adam and Eve had free will and could have chosen not to listen to the serpent. Had they resisted, God could have had a human race that walked with him and was free from sin. Then Christ would not have had to die on the cross. I believe Christ had mercy on us by making a way to free us from eternal separation from the father after they fell. I do not believe the original plan was for Adam and ever to purposely sin as God’s will. God’s will is that none should perish however, so he sent his son who willingly laid down his life for us. When he said he laid down his life for his friends, my take is that his friends are anyone who comes to him by faith. This idea makes it even more glorious that Jesus died for us after we rebelled because he loves us that much. Remember there was a tree of life. God removed them from the garden and did not allow them to eat of the tree of life because living in an eternal state of sin would be like a hell of sorts. Heaven is an absence of sin that we can’t even fathom yet. Revelation 22:14 mentions the tree of life again, and those who’s robes are washed white will have the right to the tree of life once again. That is a beautiful picture of redemption.
LOL THE TIMESTAMPS! LOL
Great work on the time stamps
Election couldn't mean what Calvinists think it means. Israel was God's elect. Ever heard of the Exile? Many of "God's elect" fell into ruin worshiping Ba'al. There are no Ba'al worshipers in heaven, I can promise you that. Elect simply means you were given the light of truth - the oracles of God. It's now up to YOU what you do with that. You choose... follow the truth and the light or go your own way.
???????
!!!!!!!
@@TheProvisionistPerspective I love the reference to history's shortest telegram conversation between Victor Hugo ("?") and his publisher ("!")!
You guys just don’t understand Calvinism. You need to read The Institutes of The Calvin Religion. And you too can become enlightened, and know the great doctrines of grace.
Prevenient grace aka provisionism is Roman Catholic. Wikipedia “Prevenient grace (or enabling grace) is a Christian theological concept rooted in Arminian theology,[1] though it appeared earlier in Catholic theologies.[2] It is divine grace that precedes human decision. In other words, God will start showing love to that individual at a certain point in his lifetime.
Prevenient grace is embraced primarily by Arminian Christians who are influenced by the theology of Jacob Arminius or John Wesley. Wesleyan Arminians believe that grace enables, but does not ensure, personal acceptance of the gift of salvation. Wesley typically referred to it in 18th-century language as prevenient grace. In current English, the phrase preceding grace would have a similar meaning, with the doctrine also being called conviction.[3]”
Quoted from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Washington, D.C. 2006
“Faith seeks understanding and is a friend of reason. Faith as a grace or gift from God makes it possible to gain some understanding of all that he has revealed to us, including the totality of his plan as well as the many mysteries of faith. Growth in understanding God’s Revelation is a lifelong process. Theology and catechesis help us. We never completely understand these divine mysteries, but we often gain insight into them. In this context, faith and reason work together to discover truth. To ever suppose that human thought or scientific research can or should be in conflict with faith is a mistaken approach because this position denies the basic truth that everything has been created by God. Scholarly and scientific research that is carried out in a manner faithful to reason and to moral law will not conflict with truth as revealed by God (see CCC, no. 159).
Faith is a free, human act. Faith is a gift of God which enables us to know and love him. Faith is a way of knowing, just as reason is. But living in faith is not possible unless there is action on our part. Through the help of the Holy Spirit, we are able to make a decision to respond to divine Revelation, and to follow through in living out our response. God never forces his truth and love upon us. He reveals himself to us as free human beings, and our faith response to him is made within the context of our freedom. At Capernaum, Jesus asked the Apostles, “Do you also want to leave?” Peter answers for them, “Master, to whom shall we go?” (Jn 6:67-68). Peter’s response is freely sought and freely given. The same is true with each of us.” www.archspm.org/faith-and-discipleship/catholic-faith/what-is-faith-how-does-it-tie-in-to-what-we-believe-as-catholics/
I noticed..... lol
Arminianism teaches that Men are 'Saved because they have made a "Free Will" choice to believe in Jesus in and of their own Volition. That their Faith in JESUS is of their own Making and is their Gift to God. But Scripture in Ephesians 2 verse 8 and 9 says otherwise. Scripture also states that all Believers have been GIVEN [By GOD] a small measure of Faith, in Roman 12 verse 3.
This among other verses in Scripture prove that Ephesians 2 verse 8 and 9 is true, that Saving Faith is Gods Gift to Man, not Man's gift to God. Arminianism teaches that God does not have the Sovereignty to choose whom he will Save and who he won't. Calvinist believe God Is totally sovereign over ALL His Creation and does what He Wills with everything and everyone He's Created.
Drew. Your whistling nasal cavity… you might want to get that looked at bro. ;)
I think that was me sucking on the water bottle every now and again 😬 but we’ve been made aware! 😅
It’s absolutely true that if God unconditionally predestines all persons to either heaven or hell that he doesn’t love everybody. This is exactly what the Bible teaches between Romans 9 and Psalm 5 for example. Yet it’s also true that 1 Tim 2 clearly explains that God desires for all to be saved (hence the love of God for all). So the Bible teaches both, and we just have to accept it and cherish it.
You people need to understand that God has made as much provision for any and every sinner according to the Calvinist's system as in your provisionist system. Rather than making fun of Calvinists in your echo chamber, perhaps you should interact with what we actually believe. Who do you think you are to suggest that Calvinists can't love sinners and pray for their conversion. Simply because we do not say what you Southern Baptists have been taught you should say in evangelism, does not mean we do not preach the gospel and say what the apostles said when they preached. You will not find in any of their messages words like "God loves you and Jesus died to save you." The question you need to ask Calvinists is whether or not they can say to sinners what the apostles said to sinners. If we can do that, I think we are on pretty solid ground.
Did you watch this episode? Bro. Ronnie was a committed Calvinist for some 20+ years.
You believe that Christ made sufficient payment on the cross for every person’s sins?
@@TheProvisionistPerspective Of course. Have you never read the Canons of Dort, second head of doctrine?
@@TheBereanVoice great. Then we agree on the atonement.
As for Dordrecht, I’m not too keen on the confessions of men.
@@TheProvisionistPerspective Whether you are "keen" on confessions of men or not, they are necessary for definition. It is ridiculous for SBs to pretend that they have any kind of unity. You don't even have the same understanding of the gospel. You can look at the same statement and pretend that you both agree even though your views are diametrically opposed to each other's.
@@TheProvisionistPerspective And NO, we do not agree on the atonement. We agree that it is abundantly sufficient to save anyone who believes but we don't believe the same about its intention and effectual accomplishment. We believe Jesus, as the mediator of the new and better covenant, obtained all the blessings of that covenant including God's promise to write His law in His people's minds and hearts, i.e., incline them to obedience to His law, the greatest commandment of which is to Love Yahweh completely. One of the problems with what you are doing is that you want to define Calvinism according to what so-called Calvinists write on social media and not according to what Calvinists have historically confessed. A person who goes beyond or above [or directly contradicts] those historic confessions is a hyper-Calvinist and not a Calvinist.
The American Great Awakening was a reformed puritans movement and the doing of the Lord. Millions came to accept Christ our Lord as there Savior. Claiming that that was the work of a deceiver is crossing a dangerous line. [I rather say Reformed, we do not follow a man. Calvin was just a small part of the reformation.
Edwards's earliest writings brought together John Locke and Isaac Newton in a defence of a religious metaphysics. Later, after a career as a practicing clergyman who led the ‘Great Awakening’, Edwards developed a Calvinist theology founded on the covenant of grace whose centre was the experience of an omnipotent God. His views were most significantly spelt out in Religious Affections (1746) and Freedom of the Will (1754).
JONATHAN EDWARDS ON THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD (CALVINISM)
"The Sovereignty of God is the stumbling block on which thousands fall and perish; and if we go contending with God about His sovereignty it will be our eternal ruin. It is absolutely necessary that we should submit to God as an absolute sovereign, and the sovereign of our souls; as one who may have mercy on whom He will have mercy and harden whom He will" (Jonathan Edwards).
The quote above, by Jonathan Edwards, is excerpted from Arminianism: Another Gospel -
Jonathan Edwards
Most historians consider Jonathan Edwards, a Northampton Anglican minister, one of the chief fathers of the Great Awakening.
Edwards’ message centred around the ideas that humans were sinners, God was an angry judge and individuals needed to ask for forgiveness. He also preached justification by faith alone.
In 1741, Edwards gave an emotional sermon, entitled “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” No-one in the church had dry eyes. It was not the gifted preacher because Edwards read most of the sermon. It was a strong conviction of the Holy Spirit. News of the message spread quickly throughout the colonies.
Edwards was known for his passion. He generally preached in his home parish, unlike other revival preachers who traveled throughout the colonies.
Edwards is credited for inspiring hundreds of conversions, which he documented in a book, Narratives of Surprising Conversions.
George Whitefield
George Whitefield, a minister from Britain, had a significant impact during the Great Awakening. Whitefield toured the colonies up and down the Atlantic coast, preaching his message. In one year, Whitefield covered 5,000 miles in America and preached more than 350 times.
Martin Luther said this Gospel of “grace alone” will be for a moment but soon attacked by the Devil. We see so much hate against the sovereignty of God.
Daniel 4: 34 At the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives forever, for his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation; 35 all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, “What have you done?” It is time for Leighton to come to this same conclusion.
THIS IS HOW CALVIN PREACHED THE GOSPEL
FREE OFFER OF THE GOSPEL (Calvin's Wisdom p119-120)
He calls all men to himself, without a single exception, and gives Christ to all, that we may be illumined by him. When we pray, we ought, according to the rule of charity, to include all. God invites all indiscriminately to salvation through the Gospel, BUT THE INGRATITUDE OF THE WORLD IS THE REASON why this grace, which is equally offered to all, is enjoyed by few.
Other than the result of men’s refusal. Calvin never preached Double predestination as you can see and put the responsibility by men. Listen I say Preached. It is a Biblical Doctrine that God Choose or elected His Own and not the whole human race.
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.
I was a Calvinist for 23 years. Before that, I was Assemblies of God, Wesleyan Methodist, Calvary Chapel, and then Presbyterian. I left Protestantism five years ago largely by reading church history and figuring out that all forms of Protestantism fall into heresies that were condemned by the historic church during the first thousand years. There was no denominationalism during the first thousand years of the church. Denominationalism is largely a fruit of sola Scriptura which is a heresy. I don't talk to Protestants very much because they don't understand that they have the wrong starting points in their system. Protestants also don't have a complete theological vocabulary due to the fact that very important ideas and concepts were lost in Western Christiantiy after Rome split from the Orthodox Church in 1054 AD. These kinds of videos don't really deal with the paradigmatic problems in Protestant theology. You can find all kinds of people on UA-cam giving their testimony of how they converted from Arminianism to Calvinism. You can also find videos like this that give the opposite testimony. Protestantism cannot give you epistemic certainty because it has no normative authority or tradition it can appeal to. It's just every man for himself. Sola Scriptura becomes Sola Mio. Me alone. Anyone who seriously studies church history will be left admitting that all forms of Protestantism have no continuity with anything that was taught by the very men who gave you the cannon of scripture. Protestants believe in the authority of the Bible But Protestants deny what the men who gave you the Bible actually taught. Protestantism is Prelest. It is spiritual delusion.
Catholicism is not true Christianity.
@Philippians 44 I know CALVINISM isn't true.
@Philippians 44 No problem. 😀
Randy. It sounds as if you are E. Orthodox. Can you mention briefly examples of the vocabulary and theological ideas that were lost in the west 1000 years ago?
Meanwhile, I'm aware of 2 seeming pagan practices that Protestants left behind and RC continued to dabble in. That of the Toll Houses and the extensive emphasis on graven images. There are reasons from within the scriptural heritage that Protestants of all stripes have issues with "traditions of men" that were un-discerningly codified into supposed faith early on (aberrations of non-biblical faith that weren't appropriately weeded out), making the same kinds of tragic syncretistic mistakes that the OT prophets railed against when the Israelites merged pagan Canaanite practices of their neighbors into their Mosaic heritage.
While the RCC has the Magisterium to provide boundaries against poor application of Sola Scriptural; without claiming an adherence to Scripture alone, there is no opposite boundary to protect adherents from what the Magisterium got wrong. Catholics are stuck with errors from the past as there is no adequate means for overturning what popes have taught.
Does orthodoxy have a legitimate approach for rejecting false doctrine or mistaken spiritual ideas that got codified early on?
If so, why have they dug in rather than rejected the toll houses and graven images/relics?
@@chaddonal4331 Sure, some examples would be the Essence/Energy distinction in God. Another would be the Nature/Person distinction. The Western Latins adopted Absolute Divine Simplicity and the Protestants carried ADS into their theology as well. You have the Catholics who adopted Analogia Entis, which the Protestants rejected, and instead invented the Analogia Fide (faith alone) which are both based on the heresy of ADS. The West does not hold to the Cappadocian definition of the Trinity. Nor does it hold to the Christology that was taught for the first thousand years of Christianity. Any Protestant who reads the Canons of Nicea will see that there is nothing even remotely Protestant in anything the Church fathers taught. The West adopted Augustine's doctrine of Predestination and Original Sin, which was rejected by the early church. Augustine's doctrine of Original Sin is one reason the West has a false Anthropology. Based on your questions I can tell that you don't understand Orthodoxy at all.
Actually, there is a lot of literature about Toll houses in early writings, but I'm not an expert on that topic. There are different views on this subject even in Orthodoxy, but it is not a central aspect of the Eastern Church. Any Orthodox Christian would agree with you that we should not hold to man-made traditions. That's because we don't believe that Tradition is "man-made" any more than we believe that the Orthodox church is man-made, or the scripture is man-made. Actually, if you study church history it's the Protestant ethos that is man-made. Protestants reject the Traditions of history, but in doing this they establish their own Traditions, (sola scripture being one) which teaches that inspiration is only found in the written text. So if you deny the Holy Traditions you will end up with your own traditions. There are no neutral categories you can appeal to.
You ask, "why have they dug in rather than rejected the toll houses and graven images/relics"? Orthodoxy has a much different view of the afterlife. I don't have time to go into the differences but the idea of Toll houses is based on Christ's descent into Hades. 2 Peter 3:16 "in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water".
When Christ died His human soul was separated from His human nature. Peter says that Jesus went into the lower bowls of the earth where men were held in chains. Jesus preaches to the spirits that were there from the Old Testament. These were people who lived before the flood and had been disobedient perishing in the flood. These were people who did not "obey". Peter says that Jesus preached the gospel of the resurrection to these people and many were saved and even raised from the dead. This passage shows that God is gracious in mercy and He is fair even to those who were rebellious and wicked during their earthly life. This passage does not give all the answers you might want to have, but it shows that people who were ignorant and even lived rebellious immoral lives were delivered by Jesus when he went into hell. The West lost this doctrine. It's called the "Harrowing of Hell". There are many Icons in the history of the church that celebrates and depict this event. Orthodox liturgies celebrate the Harrowing of Hell every year in the liturgical Callender. I was a Protestant for 50 years and never heard a sermon on this text. That's because Protestants can't make sense of 2 Peter 3:16. Orthodoxy teaches that God is nothing but love flowing out from Himself. God will judge all men, but God is free to show mercy even to those who have lived and died. The idea of a toll house is that if a person was ignorant and had no access to the truth, then God treats that person differently than a person who had knowledge and rejected God's grace. There would be some kind of journey of the soul for a person who was in this condition. We don't understand much about death. We don't know how God will judge, but we know that God is predisposed to mercy over wrath. All men will be raised from the dead because Jesus conquered death. The resurrection of Christ benefits all men because all men will live forever in the human nature they possessed in this life. In this sense, all men will be saved from the curse of death. In the West, this doctrine was completely lost and the focus became a limited redemption only for the elect.
With regard to Icons or "graven images," Protestants cannot understand the meaning of an Icon because their theology is based on Absolute Divine Simplicity. Protestantism does not make a distinction between Nature and Person. So when you see an Icon of Christ you think it is a depiction of the Divine Nature. No. Christ had two natures human and divine. The Icon (image) is not an image of divine Nature. The Icon is a depiction of Christ's human nature and the Divine PERSON who possessed humanity and divinity. There are no Icons in Orthodoxy depicting the divine Essence of God. That would be heretical. The divine essence of God is unknowable, and will never be known. It is not possible for the human mind to see or know the Divine essence of God. But we know God because the Son became human Nature and reveals to us who the Father is. The image of Christ in the Icon teaches that all Nature will be deified and glorified by the divine energies that rose Christ from the dead. The Icon is made of matter--wood, parchment, and paint. Every aspect of nature and matter will be restored to its deified state. Because the whole creation was brought into captivity to death, sin, and Satan's power. In Orthodoxy, Salvation is Cosmic in its scope. Christ the second Adam restores what the first Adam destroyed. This is called the cosmic scope of redemption. Which was also lost in the West. So for you to compare Icons to graven images of Pagans is nonsensical. Icons were destroyed by the Romans during early Chrisitan history because the Greek world saw NATURE as being evil, not good. Icons teach us that nature is good. If nature was evil the incarnation would not be possible. The Icon of Christ tells us that the incarnation is God's greatest expression of love for the whole world. God the Son became human flesh. Christ identifies with us in our humanity so that he might raise us up by His Divine power.
I would suggest that you take the time to study Orthodoxy. The reason you're asking the kind of questions you ask is due to the fact that you have the wrong starting points in your theology. Protestantism collapses Nature into Person and a lot of your confusion comes from not understanding important theological concepts and starting points. Protestantism has the wrong order of theology.
Yes, Orthodoxy has a way to identify heresy. Orthodoxy is based on certain transcendental truths that are always true in all times and places. Orthodoxy is not based on Sola Scriptura because the Bible is not alone. The Bible comes out of Liturgy, Tradition, and Church Councils. When you take the Bible out of its historical context - Tradition, and liturgy, you will fall into error by default.
Orthodoxy has normative authority. The Pope in Rome came from the Filioque heresy. Which is a doctrinal error on the Holy Spirit. Protestant theology is also based on the error of the Filioque.
The Bible came from the Orthodox Church. The Bible belongs to the Orthodox Church. Protestants are using a book that does not belong to them. When you see that you will see how stupid heresy is. The church fathers called heretics stupid. That's because heresy is stupid.
You guys don't truly understand calvinism
these guys go around pretending to be 'saved' but don't believe in the grace of baptism... of course, they say they believe in Scripture, etc etc... - such poor souls...
Does the Holy Spirit live inside you?