When I hear a name more frequently than I do Jesus then I’ll turn a deaf ear. Calvin didn’t die for me so I respect the perspective but my faith is in Christ alone.
If you’ve ever read John Calvin, you’d understand that he would be in complete agreement with you. He was a humble man who did not want to be made much of. He stood for and affirmed truth, and left a theological framework to help us understand the teachings of the Word.
Every Christian should check these out: ua-cam.com/video/RbBTqaAzel4/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/play/PLVo63FjaBUR-6VC3bM3P1-FcpgYHvJ7zQ.html The emphasis is on God's GRACE. God bless.
lpbl2004 A humble man who bullied and tortured people who didn’t agree with him, and even condoned murder and bragged about it in his later writings. Tell the whole story.
“This is a Calvinist.” *powers up* “This is an ascended Calvinist, or a five-point Calvinist, if you will” *powers up again* “AND THIS-“ *Manly grunting* “IS TO GO EVEN FURTHER BEYOOOOOND!” Awkward DragonBall reference aside, than you for this video! It helps me to realise that it’s certainly possible to take even the most helpful and true doctrines way too far. As an aside, I think that a lot of the gripes that people who disagree with Calvinism have, can be traced down to an assumption that it looks like Hyper-Calvinism!
Every Christian should check these out: ua-cam.com/video/RbBTqaAzel4/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/play/PLVo63FjaBUR-6VC3bM3P1-FcpgYHvJ7zQ.html The emphasis is on God's GRACE. God bless.
Trust Christ Not Myself Extra Nos I’ve been sent this exact “flame” video from about 5 different friends. No one who disagrees with the doctrines of Grace has scripture to back it up. Only their feelings.
Now a video on “Hyper-Grace” is warranted….because the teaching here applies exactly the same to grace as it does calvanism in terms of the “hyper”. Pastor John is spot on….this is confirmation of truth.
So you suggest we focus on someone else other than Christ? Be careful, this could also be extended to our salvation. "He orders all things by his counsel and decree" - John Calvin
"I have a question. Can popular Calvinist pastors and pundits make arguments without calling every other Christian that disagrees with then a self-idolator? Are they capable of doing it?" - Eric Kemp
God knows who the sheep are, we don't. Preach in season and out of season. Look at the text in Ezekiel 3 and 33. Sound the trumpet, His elect will hear His voice. Proverbs 9:8 should also be applied. When the whole truth of the Bible is preached, His sheep will respond accordingly. Read the gospel of John.
Every Christian should check these out: ua-cam.com/video/RbBTqaAzel4/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/play/PLVo63FjaBUR-6VC3bM3P1-FcpgYHvJ7zQ.html The emphasis is on God's GRACE. God bless.
Why worry about being called a "Hyper-Calvinist" if God is responsible for it all? The person had no choice but to make that statement since God is directing everybody's will. Thus, the error. Calvinism, hyper or otherwise, makes God the author of confusion.
@@BiG_SorD God can be sovereign without programming every detail. Even Calvinists believe that God wasn't eternally sovereign because you need creation to be sovereign over it. Arminians believe that God chooses to withdraw from sovereignty and give us libertarian free will, a biblical concept that calvinism denies.
Piper is right to say that 'Calvinism raised to the nth degree' is a meaningless phrase. The question is whether certain beliefs fit with the Bible, not whether they fit with certain labels. Piper suggests that we ask: 'Does Piper silence important biblical teachings by his Calvinism?' I think he probably does silence some passages. The difficulty I have with Calvinism is that there are too many passages that have to be given unnatural interpretations to fit the Calvinist system. Piper also says that human beings have no self-determination about who is saved. But there are many passages which seem to imply that we do have some degree of self-determination. For example, John 3:16 says: 'This is how God loved the world: He gave his only Son so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but have eternal life.' Language works not just by stating things explicitly but also by giving impressions, and this verse seems to give the impression that we have a genuine choice whether or not to accept Christ. Similarly, John 1:11-12 says: 'He came to his own, but his own people didn't accept him. But to all who did accept him, to them he gave the right to become children of God.' Again, this seems to give the impression that we have a genuine choice over whether or not to accept Christ. To say that God's sovereignty is destroyed if people have free will makes no sense. God can sovereignly choose to give people free will. In fact, ironically, those who say that human free will would have to mean that God is not sovereign seem to be denying God the sovereign right to allow human beings to have free will.
Max Aplin John 3:16 is definitely conditional on the basis of “whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” It is simply saying whoever does “x” (believes) then “y” (has eternal life). It is fair to draw the inference you have drawn, but the capacity of truthfulness in your claim is EQUALLY as plausible to the exact opposition of it. How do we know which inference to draw? Well, keep reading. The idea of “world” is not each and every individual persay; but to include both Jews and Gentiles into Gods covenant, of course this is my own inference and I believe it is substantiated in John 4, and his conversation of the Samaritan woman. To say that John 3 teaches/gives the impression that each individual equally has the capacity in and of themselves to make this decision (free will to chose God). I would say is incorrect, because it is no longer consistent with the Bjblical teaching as the Gospel of John continues to teaches and actually address your exact inference. John 6:41-51 and further emphasized in John 10, of Jesus’ personal knowledge of his sheep, and that all the sheep hear and follow his voice. The Jews did not accept him because they could not accept his teaching, about himself and his work and his father. This is shown in John 6:51. The biblical testimony of the “will” of man is not that it is free, but that it is ENSLAVED. And a persons actions are ALWAYS in accordance to their will. Hence the Apostle Paul’s exhortations to believers to “put on the new self”, to remember “In Christ we are a new creation”. And the nature of the will in the biblical paradigm is that it is the PERSON who is held accountable/responsible to their actions, I believe it is in this sense people conflate the idea of “free will” in our day.
I think i had a choice, God let me to know him but i was a man of pride in the flesh that hated God at one point in my life; now i can't live without him you know i want him glorified above all else and i love him for he is perfect and always good, i could of wrote off my experence of him at first and who knows where my pride would of had me today or at the end of my old life had i not accepted the knock at my door so to speak; predestination is biblical but many are called but few are chosen; Hallalujah!
@@peteryang2067 You have said a lot in your comment, and to avoid writing an essay in reply, I will limit myself to a few reflections. First, I disagree with you about what 'world' means in John 3:16. In John's Gospel 'world' is not used to refer to a subset of human beings but to human beings as a whole. I agree with D. A. Carson, when he says about John 3:16: 'I know that some try to take kosmos ('world') here to refer to the elect. But that really will not do. All the evidence of the usage of the word in John's Gospel is against this suggestion.' (The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God, p. 18; IVP, 2000) Second, John 6:51 doesn't suggest that those who rejected Jesus could not have accepted his teaching. This verse reads: 'I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats this bread, he will live forever. The bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.' This verse says that those who accept Christ will be saved. It says nothing about ability or inability to accept him. Third, you say that a free will decision to accept Christ is not consistent with John's Gospel. I think you are probably oversimplifying things. It is true that there are passages which teach that God chooses who is saved, but this doesn't necessarily have to mean that people can't also choose with libertarian free will. I am quite attracted to Molinism because of the way it reconciles these things. Fourth, you say that the will of man is enslaved. I am sure there is a lot of truth in that, but how literally are we to take this? For example, in John 8:34 Jesus says: 'Everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin.' Well, Christians continue to sin. So does that mean we are slaves of sin? I think it does to a certain extent, but it's too simplistic to say that Christians are simply slaves of sin. It's more complicated than that. And I think the same is true of non-believers. Are they slaves of sin? Absolutely! Are they much more the slaves of sin than Christians are? Absolutely! But does this have to mean that with God's gracious drawing and enabling, people are unable to have the ability to choose or reject Christ? I think this issue is much more complex than you realise.
Max Aplin First off, I wanna say; I’m NOT trying to pick a fight with you brother lol I LOVE YOU. I had to take some time to get my heart right before responding again. thank you for the conversation, you don’t have to read my response, you don’t have to reply, at the end of the day I hope we can both be challenged and search the Scriptures more earnestly and with better integrity then before. Yes! AMEN! I believe that is what I was trying to say be world wasn’t it? Categorically Jews and Gentiles encompass the whole “world” and is not to be applied to a subset of it. I believe DA Carson’s expository work on the world is correct, and I believe mine is not in contradiction to his. John 3:14-15 is the key to understanding 16. And the comparison is a historical one, of how the Jews looked upon the serpent lifted up to be healed of the bites from poisonous snakes that happened because of their sin. And so he compares that scenario with how the World will look upon/believe “The Son of Man” and be healed/have eternal life. Although I believe in particular redemption/limited atonement, DA Carson is correct in saying John 3:16s “world” is not referring to the elect specifically here. But I believe you can start to build a case for it in the following verses ex: 17-18. I’m sorry, it is not John 6:51 specifically but the entirety of 6:22-the end of the chapter. But I suggest you look at John 6:35-40 especially in regards to your more Molinist understanding. I believe this portion of Scripture is indeed Jesus talking salvificaly, Jesus used phrases like, “raise it up of the last day”(resurrection language) “believes” “have eternal life”. What determines the “raising on the last day” of any person? That would be v40 “who sees the Son and believes in Him”. What determines the person to believe? I believe the answer is in v37 the “giving of the Father.” Towards the end of Jesus’ dialogue he restates in 6:65 “...For this reason I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it were given him by My Father.” Then v66 “From that time many of His disciples went back and walked no more with Him.” They could not believe nor understand his testimony of who he was and the work he had to accomplish. Contextually what was the basis of that, The Giving (or not giving) Of The Father. I can respect a molinistic view of soteriology, because I have conceived of it in my own intellect as well, but I do not believe it has a substantial exegetical basis, especially in regards to “middle knowledge”. It looks more like a philosophical presupposition, that undermines the basis by which God knows the future (determined by the Bible), desperately trying to hold onto libertarian free will (determines by philosophy). And to consistently believe in a molinistic understanding of soteriology/predestination/election etc. they would have to give me a justification about the basis of their hermeneutical methodology (implication/inferences) in dealing with particular portions in Scripture over against when to not use it. And I believe they have no basis except that of their philosophical presupposition of Molinism itself. Dr. James White has a great deal of dialogue dealing with molinism I found very helpful. They allow philosophical conclusions to determine the reading of the text. “So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.” John 8:36 Thank you Jesus, he has set me free. “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” 1 John 1:8-9 I still sin, and I confess, and he is faithful and just to forgive.
@@peteryang2067 First, I want to say that I never felt that you were trying to pick a fight with me. Your attitude is a refreshingly good one. There are too many people commenting on these videos who seem to have a nasty spirit, but you are certainly not one of them. Second, amen to your desire that we both search the Scriptures better. Third, I said in my last comment that I am quite attracted to Molinism. But I am not convinced enough to say that I am a Molinist. I think there are fewer passages of Scripture are difficult for Molinism than for Calvinism. But I haven't yet been able to reach firm conclusions on all this myself yet. Fourth, I do agree that John 6:35-40 shows that God chooses who believes in him. This passage is very difficult for Arminianism. But other biblical passages seem to suggest that people have libertarian choice as to whether or not they accept Christ. For example, 1 Tim 2:4 says that God wants all people to be saved. It would be very strange for Paul to have said this if he believed that God only offered his grace to the elect. And, as I said earlier, I think John 1:11-12; 3:16 seem to imply this. I think the Bible probably teaches that God chooses who believes AND that at least many people have libertarian choice to believe. I am attracted to Molinism because it fits these things together logically. I don't know if you know of the Christian apologist William Lane Craig. He is a Molinist and has said: 'Molinism is one of the most fruitful theological concepts ever devised.' You have read James White on Molinism, but have you also read Craig on this topic? There are articles online by him. Fifth, I believe the basis for God's knowledge of the future is simply that he is outside time. He sees what I will do tomorrow in the same way that he sees what I am doing right now, because he is outside time. In case you are interested, have written an article combating so-called Open Theism, which can be found here: maxaplin.blogspot.com/2016/10/gods-knowledge-of-future-is-unlimited.html Do get back to me with further comments if you like. God bless.
Almost a third of the Bible deals with prophecy, but I never hear any teaching about prophesy. You said you teach ALL the word. Thank you for explaining your position.
Preaching is good but it is not the means unto eternal salvation. Preaching is to make disciples of God's elect and to save themselves as Peter said, "from this untoward generation" The Gospel doesn't make a child of God, the Gospel tells the elect person that he is a child of God and that he is justified, sanctified and eventually will be glorified, that's the Good news of the Gospel.
I'm yet to meet a hyper-Calvinist but I've seen online comments from people who come across as being one...though I'm not necessarily saying they were/are. Hyper-Calvinism seems to be a bit of a go-to 'insult' to people in debates.
I’m new to this whole Calvinism vs Arminianism thing. Can someone shed light on the basic differences? And one more question. Does a Calvinist believe that an Armenian is a true Christian or is it more like a denomination?
It's more complicated than Calvinist vs Arminian. There are also Molinism and Lutheranism, both of which, in my view, have more to commend them than Calvinism or Arminiansim on the issue of God's election to salvation.
Calvinism teaches that those elected will not and cannot ever lose their calling. Calvinists have a strange twist on "free will." They claim that man has no free will UNTIL he recognizes his "election," and then he does have free will! A calvinist believe that God selects those who will spend eternity with God, and the rest of humanity to be tormented in an eternal fire for eternity. That is the "good" news of the gospel for a Calvinist!
Thanks for the clarification sir. But what then do we call those Calvinists who tell us that anyone who doesn't hold to the Five Points is not really saved?
Scott Thong I would call them prideful and ignorant of the practical implications of Calvinism. Though theology is important, no one is saved by theological perfectionism. I believe that synergism is the natural position of fallen man, but monergism is only concluded when God’s graciously removes the scales of human autonomy from our eyes through the Scriptures.
Almost nobody is a 5 point calvinist upon conversion, it seems to be something God reveals about himself as the Christian matures (his sovereignty, his election, the power of the Holy Spirit to make dead people alive). This does not mean those who are not Calvinists are automatically less mature, that's how we get prideful and treat non Calvinists as "lesser" so we don't hang out with them or talk to them. We'll sometimes make snarky jokes about them behind their back. This ought not be! John Wesley and Jacobus Arminius are in heaven right now around the throne of Jesus worshiping him even though they were not 5 pointers. Us Calvinists have so much to learn about humility, compassion, judgement, and arrogance. We need to spend more time with Jesus.
Tim Sharpe Thanks for the question. Monergism literally means “one working”, and synergism literally means “two cooperating / working together”. Monergism is God accomplishing salvation alone, ensuring the means of salvation (repentance, faith, etc.) will be applied in time. With synergism God provides the opportunity for salvation but it is only actualized by the libertarian “free will” decision of the creature (God does his part; man does his part). Whereas, monergism sees all aspects of salvation (regeneration, repentance, faith, justification, sanctification, and glorification) as a gracious work/gift of God that actually saves not just make someone savable.
If a Calvinist told me that those who don't hold to the five points are not really saved, I would ask them if they can name a single saved Christian who lived between 100 AD and 1000 AD. In the first centuries of the church all or almost all Christians believed that some regenerated believers could fall away from the faith and lose salvation. That includes the Christians who correctly heard the Holy Spirit say that our 27 books of the New Testament are Scripture.
Sinners can't repent? Sinners can't believe? Sinners can't turn to Christ? Sinners can't accept Christ? They can only repent and believe if God doing it for them? I dont buy it.
@@cork8843 It is true that 2 Tim 2:25 says that God grants repentance. But I think it is reading too much out of this verse to say that it proves that no freedom of the human will is involved at all.
1 Corinthians 7:37 (KJV) Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath POWER OVER HIS OWN WILL, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.
Hyper Calvinism is a misunderstanding of scripture; it negates the fact that God uses the gospel to bring sinners to salvation. It is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16) and it must be given to sinners by sent Christians for them to hear (Romans 10:14-17). God chooses us in Christ before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4), therefore the plan of salvation happened before Genesis 1:1. But God accomplishes the choosing by the gospel. A hyper Calvinistic view is the other side of the misunderstanding where you would think the elect are chosen without the gospel, while those that reject Calvinism frequently think God's choice is dependent upon the sinner's choice first. Both sides are not correct and unbiblical.
Then why do Calvinists use the argument of being crucified with Christ, having paid our sin debt? Calvinists say that all sin, including unbelief in God or the gospel, are forgiven on that cross 2000 years ago. Making peace 2000 years ago. Arminians say that God died for all, but faith is the precondition for this debt clearing. Makes more sense considering the many verses explaining he died for the whole kosmos, and commanding to people to repent suggesting that they have free will to choose. There's a reason why Israel did what they did in the OT. Certainly wasn't his determination.
You seem to think there is no difference between picking who gets saved, and KNOWING who will get saved. Does knowing who will, equate to PICKING who will ? It does not.
Dr. Piper, You said that we human referring to none-Calvinist: ''PROVIDE THE FINAL DECISIVE CAUSE IN OUR CONVERSION TO CHRIST THAT CANNOT BE FOUND IN THE BIBLE''... CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE ALSO A VERSE FROM THE BIBLE ACCORDING TO THE CALVINIST'S DOCTRINE THAT A MAN SHOULD BE REGENERATED FIRST BY GOD TO RESPOND TO THE CALL OF GOD AND TO BELIEVE IN THE LORD JESUS???? THANKS FOR YOUR ANSWER....
10:10, his inaccurate explanation of free will is frustrating. Free will is most certainly Biblical. Calvinism is the one bringing assumptions based on world view and philosophy. I challenge calvinists to listen to debates on free will. God does NOT choose/pass over/reprobate people to torture them in hell for eternity, for His glory. That is a sick twisting of the God of the Bible that sent Jesus to die for ALL. Please study the scripture and stop listening to calv doctrine
What is hyper-Calvinism? I can say that Pastor John Piper is the epitome of what hyper Calvinism is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Pastor John claim to be a 7 point Calvinist? By the way, no disrespect to Pastor John. However, I thank Jesus that we all do not have to be a modern day Pharisee to be justified.
Saul of Tarsus played no part in his conversion to Christ. Christ used His will, not Saul's, to convert him. Jesus was the one who decided to use Saul as His chosen instrument, Saul expressed no such desire. Whenever I hear anyone preach, no matter how persuasively and convincingly about no such thing as irresistible grace, I always think of Saul's conversion - and mine, and know that those who are chosen, not merely called, can't get away from Christ.
I have a question. When you say we never see that in the Bible, would Jesus saying “Follow me” and the disciples doing so not be one example? Just what immediately came to my mind and wondering honestly! Insightful videos enjoyed it
Quoting the modern world (presumably non-Calvinists) Piper says, “we humans provide the final, ultimate, decisive cause in our conversion to Christ;” he also claims that modern America has a ‘love affair’ with free will. I am going to use my free will to call out Piper as the ‘grand misrepresenter’ of the modern world. In all my years of growing up in the church I have never heard a pastor or teacher say that we are the final, ultimate, decisive cause in our conversion to Christ. Non-Calvinist pastors have always taught that it is by God’s Grace we are saved, by faith. When the free gift of Salvation is offered we have a choice whether to accept this gift or reject it. This is the nature of a gift; to accept or reject. And this is what the Bible teaches - To those who receive Him He gave the power to become sons of God. God gives the power to become sons; God does the saving. In this video Piper uses his free will to claim that the modern world (non-Calvinist) believes “human will power has the capacity for ultimate, final decisive, self-determination in the moment of conversion to Christ.” If Calvinism is true then God determined for Piper to claim a belief which non-Calvinists do not hold to. And if Calvinism is true then God has determined for me to refute that which He determined for Piper to say. This is very confusing. If the Bible clearly taught that God chooses only a small number of His fallen creation to be saved, the vast majority being born without hope, then it would not be necessary for Piper to misrepresent the beliefs of non-Calvinists.
Greg Jay Let me preface to say that while I think the doctrines of sovereign grace are beautiful and biblical, I do think it is a tier two issue, meaning Arminians and Calvinists can disagree, yet still be in the family of God. Most Arminians do believe in prevenient grace, meaning grace which comes before. This grace, they say, enables a man or woman to believe. However, they do believe that said man or woman is the ultimate deciding factor in their salvation. Sure, all would acknowledge that salvation is impossible without the power and prevenient grace of God. But at its core, Arminianism does not believe that scripture teaches that man is totally depraved and unwilling to choose God at his very core; rather, that some men or women, when freed from the bondage of sin by prevenient grace, choose God while others reject Him. Calvinism believes that scripture teaches that man is totally depraved. That if given all opportunity, He would reject or disobey God. Yet in that state, according to Romans 9, God has chosen to have mercy on some and not have mercy on others. And it doesn’t say that this number will be few! It is a narrow gate, but if God wills, many, among all the nations, will be saved! The key thing that Calvinism emphasizes from this scripture is that God has free will and is not bound by our decisions. ‘For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."’ (Romans 9:15) There are many scriptures further to look at, to keep this view in balance with the fullness of God’s council, as Piper advises. Romans 9 is the one which really weighed on me heavily when I was young.
Hyper-Calvinists are those who think they are saved by grace, yet do not obey Him. All grace, no obedience! They want a Savior without Jesus being their Lord. Most act like worldly pagans!
do you think you are saved because you obey? did you know that if you break even one law, you break them all? meaning your obedience is worthless (in regards to salvation). obedience is an act of love and NOTHING else. it has ZERO to do with salvation. or else you are held to the obedience that God demands, which is perfection or nothing (aka being under the curse of the law).
JDA, I think you missed the point. The Bible has a lot to say about how to know if one is saved. We shall know them by their fruit. If a believer doesn’t produce fruit, one has to wonder if they’re truly saved. While it’s true that we are saved by God’s grace alone, and there’s no merit on our part, there is going to be a change in a true convert.
@@horrormovies1307 no, dear, it is actually who missed the point. or do you not know that outside of Christ you have no power to bear fruit? John 15:5 "I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing." anyone who places their faith in Christ (and christ crucified) alone, which is sufficient to receive His grace unto salvation, will bear fruit at the measure which has been appointed from the foundation of the world by the Father. Ephesians 2:10 "For we are God's handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." It is our job to lead people to the true and saving faith, and that's it. We do not dare "teach somebody how to bear fruit" (or ourselves for that matter). If you have placed in your faith in the Rock of Salvation, you have done all that is asked of you. Or do you think you are called to judge others according to the "amount of fruit" or the "quality of fruit" God has prepared for them (as if you can even rightly decide as a mere man who looks at the outward appearance only)? Or do you think you make a better vine then Christ in producing fruit? To some, like the Apostle Paul, much more fruit will be given compared to others (at least in terms of how man can measure good works) and therefore who are we to decide what is considered "enough fruit" for them "to be saved". For we are NOT saved because of the fruit we bear! We are saved by and because of the blood of Christ! I hope i can get a resounding "AMEN!" from all who believe we are saved by faith, and that the righteous shall live by faith, and not of works lest any man boast, and not of works lest Christ died for nothing. And just to directly answer, "one has to wonder if they are truly saved"...no...no YOU DONT. You are not the judge, and you are not called to judge someone whether or not they are saved. my only job is to make sure they know the true and simple and pure gospel as outlined by Paul the apostle (gospel of grace) and the only time I will "question their salvation" is if they tell me they are obligated to "obey the law" as a condition for salvation (i.e. if they start adding any works to their salvation, which is an accursed gospel) For you cannot see their heart, and it is through the heart we are saved! Romans 10:9 "that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." I will defend the pure nature and absolute goodness that is the gospel of grace, the free gift of salvation till the day I die. Praise Jesus, thank for You a new day!
It is a no-brainer that the final decision to receive Christ as his savior MUST rest with man to hold him/her responsible. Otherwise there is no point in even Christ coming down to earth and dying for us to begin with. What is the point in him dying for us if we can't decide one way or the other whether to trust him or not? Calvinists and Piper are missing the forest for the trees! Freewill is all over the Bible.
@@calebmotupalli Who are we to question God? All things will be understood in the next life. One thing is for certain: We'll find there to be no injustice in God's decisions. Isaiah 55:8-9 KJV For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord . For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Romans 9:16 "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." John 15:16 "You did not chose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit...." John 6:44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." John 6:65 "....This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." Ephesians 1:4 "....even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world...." Romans 8:29-30 "For those whom He foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son....And those whom He predestined He also called, and those whom He called He also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified." Jesus did not die on the cross so that people can chose God. Jesus died on the cross, and was raised according to the will of God the Father. According to the will of God the Father Jesus died on the cross as the only sacrifice to take the punishment of our sins, once for all time. Romans 4:25 "....who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for out justification." God changes people hearts according to His will and purpose and those whom believe and confess Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour can only do this because God changed our hearts to believe beforehand.
*HOW MUCH OF CALVINISM IS DOUBLE-SPEAK?* John Piper @minute 1:30 -quote The absolutely crucial thing is that we submit all of out thinking to what the bible teaches How is that DOUBLE-SPEAK? John Calvin explains: -quote Men may *NOT* even agitate anything in their deliberations but what He inspires. (A Defense of the secret providence of god - PDF version pg 190) John Calvin -quote They *CANNOT* by deliberation accomplish anything, except but what he has already decreed with himself, and decrees by his secret direction.(Institutes Vol. i. p. 186.) Calvinist Robert R. McLaughlin explains -quote "God merely *PROGRAMMED* into the divine decrees all our thoughts, motives, decisions and actions"(The Doctrine of Divine Decree pg 4) Calvinist Paul Helms explains -quote Not only is every atom and molecule, *EVERY THOUGHT AND DESIRE* kept in being by god, but every twist and turn of each of these is under the *DIRECT CONTROL* of god (The Providence of God pg 22) CONCLUSION: It is logically impossible to "Submit" something that is *NOT UP TO YOU* to submit. For a creature to "Submit" something would require a degree of AUTONOMY that does not exist. In a predestined world there is no such thing as "Contrary" choice In a predestined world there is no such thing as "The ability to refrain" In a predestined world - there is no such thing as an "Open Future" For every human event and every human impulse - there is granted ONLY ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED RENDERED-CERTAIN option. No Option(S) + No ability to refrain = NO CHOICE
@10:30………NO NO NO NO NO………. The ability of the sinner to respond to the love of Jesus and reach out and say please forgive me is not determinism or whatever he said. That long sentence that PIPER said. That is not true. Stop complicating and confusing the issue. Read and believe John 3:16. AND NO, that it is not silencing another scripture. You are misunderstanding the other scriptures. Believing that God predetermined, before time even began, that only some people can/will be saved is complete nonsense that is not found in the Bible. It is an assumed teaching that misrepresents, misunderstands and takes out of context words and phrases. It is built on sand that is not true. That DOCTRINE is not going to be found anywhere stated in those exact words in the Bible. Nowhere! 🧐
For medical purposes only. Its not legal everywhere and some countries have it as a drug. We have to be sober minded and not drunk or on any kind of infuences of drugs. Weed distorts your brain and you cant think straight and a christian who smokes it can be a christian but deceived and should stop it. Be not the same with the world, pleasing your flesh with earthly desires,intoxicated by alcohol,high on any drug, but by renewing our minds in Gods word.
@@MrBilioner I smoked some after Holy Spirit showed me it would kill me and i had a seisure and threw up all in my moms car door, happened ~3days ago it was an idol to me/really dependent and last night wanted to relapse but i gotta stop FR
@@cristonureste9250 people use it for health in medicine even doctors prescribe it but for recreational purposes its not good at all. How can you be straight if you are high? Some people tell its beneficial in their life but they are lying to themselves thinking they wont be better in task for example if they dont use it but in my experience I did use it every day for 5 years and it gave me nothing but trouble. I did almost lose my mind and if the Lord did not showed me the trurh I would die not just from weed but my life style would drag me to death+ I was depressed and hated evrybody because of it. Alcohol,weed,porn...basically I wanted to try it all and harder drugs were no mistery to me. My healthy advice would be to stop smoking because media is lying to us like it is "not dangerous" but it is. It cost a lot of money, can tear up friends and family,your life and I did witness those things. Pray to God to lead you and give you strenght and He will do it. Sober for more then a year and my senses are so much better, my feelings start to recover and before I was not happy in life but He gives me undescrible joy. It may feel good at the moment like with every sin but at the end brings forth death.
Hyper calvinism is merely striving to be consistent with the claims of calvinism. Some try to argue fatalism is hyper calvinism, and yet when all things come to pass by decree that argument falls apart. The early church taught the responsibility of man and saving grace of God. Determinism of all things is eisegeted into isolated prooftexts. The early church actually fought this view when held by the gnostics, and they used the same verses to justify their interpritation. The reason calvinism leads to fatalism consistently in so many of your listeners, is because it's the logical and consistent end. While I love you, and used to listen until the Spirit convicted me to come out of the cult of calvinism, I do appriciate that you teach people to live as if their calvinism isnt True. This whole tension is only created by your esisgesis of deterministic presups. Augustine was the first in history to teach determinism under the guise of christianity. Also the first to create orginal sin, as equated to inability. If youd like to solve the problem of hypercalvinism, just discard the presups and see the actual balance in the bible. It really divides the church and perverts the gospel. You silence many important issues, with good intention I have no doubt brother. Col 2:8 is the reason I believe. It's how i got taken captive in it. Compatablism and determinism is literally a philosophy. It is contrary to the bible and early church. I love you, and you will give account. I hope you dont just dismiss this and that you take it in the spirit it's intended. What is at stake is the biblical picture of God and his character, I guess believing it's all determined it doesnt matter as much, if you really saw the damage calvinism does, I believe you would change your mind as I did. Anyway, I hope you all hear me
If you think that Calvinism is bare Determinism, then I am afraid, and I say this respectfully, you do not have a proper understanding of what it teaches. It has always defined that God decrees everything that comes to pass, but not in such a way that it violates the creatures will. God is absolutely sovereign over us, yet we are held accountable. How that works, has always been a mystery and will stay a mystery. That is the Biblical tension we are to live with. The claim of eisegeted prooftexts cannot be taken seriously. We find this througout the Scriptures. Joseph and his brothers (Gen. 50:20), the brothers selling Joseph was their sinful choice, yet God purposed it this way to bring about good. Another example is Isaiah 45:21-28, King Cyrus will bring about Gods purpose, to return His people back to the land (Ezra 1:1-4), and to destroy Babylon (isaiah 46, specifically verses 9-11. And the ultimate example, Jesus death on the cross, Acts 2:23. God purposed it, and holds those who killed Jesus, accountable. This is not eisegesis my friend. God's purpose and human responsibility are both in Scripture, it teaches compatibilitism, so far from being a philosophy, it comes straight from Scripture. What John calls for is a balanced reading, to prevent hyper-Calvinism leading into fatalism, likewise, the same balance should prevent people from falling into hyper-free will-ism, making God a mere bystander or incapable of doing anything because God, the Creator is limited by the creatures free will. Lastly, you said that the Spirit called you out of the cult of Calvinism, well the Spirit lead me into it. Where I come from, Calvinism barely exists in my country (and so does Christianity for that matter), so I had zero influence of Reformed thought when I started to read the Bible, and got saved. I naturally came to the conviction of God's sovereignty in election, without any prior information about Calvinism, election, eternal decrees etc. So, the argument from experience is a slippery slope, we go to Scripture for our ultimate authority. That being said, I would like to encourage you to dig a little deeper into what we believe, even if you completely disagree, just so that you would fairly present what we actually believe. Your current, argumentation, I say this respectfully, does not.
@@janpiet1530 I respect your opinion but I was a calvinist a long time. Studied it 8+ hrs a day for 6 years, and was a leader. What your proposing is merely symantics. I believe you have heard that and believe it. When you logically think about it though, you either have consistent calvinism, or inconsistent calvinism. John Calvin, and many today, taught that the very thoughts are decreed by God. Sproul goes as far as to say not one atom moves outside what he has decreed. As it is completely untenable and impossible to think and live out practically; they have to also teach this inconsistent compatablism that contradicts the core claims, then just live in the mystery. They say they believe both and it's because they think scripture teaches both. I dont doubt the motives but it comes from being captive in empty deceit and philosophy rooted in human tradition, that colors the way one reads scripture. For a long time I was just influanced by the rhetoric. When you really begin to think through things though calvinism is determinism no matter how you slice it, though as I said many are really inconsistent and will use symantic games to avoid the logical conclusions and assert things logically contrary to the root claims. Would be happy to talk through some of that if you like, but not understanding calvinism isnt the issue brother.
@@nathanburgett1599 If living in the mystery is not satifying you, it does neither to me, because I also want to understand how it works, but that is not revealed in Scripture, yet I accept that God is way above us. The only thing is to let God be God, if we have a theology that can explain everything about God, then this no longer the Biblical God. How are you going to apply consistent logic when Jesus feeds the 5000 with a few fish and breads? Or Jonah being swallowed by a big fish, and living there for a few days. This has nothing to do with symantic games. There is mystery, and we have to accept it. Regarding church history, if you want to base yourself on that, then you will have a hard time escaping the practice of infant baptism in the early church. My guess is that you are a (general) Baptist, though, I could be wrong. While Church history is helpful, it does not bear the same authority as Scripture. We see Jesus teaching it, hence, our conviction.
@@janpiet1530 I think your missing the point. It's not a mystery the bible affords. How God created something from nothing is a mystery, a biblically afforded one, and I'm fine with it. This is a contradiction that is called a mystery, and only created by adoption of unbiblical presups introduced by Augustine. I'd really encourage you to do some research into it. You wont fond one early church writer who affirms the ideas of inherited guilt, individual election to salvation, or determinism. Which even reformed scholars acknowledge. I'm not concerned if you think I'm wrong. However, it's not an issue of not understanding. I'd encourage you to seek the Truth of it and find out fir yourself, or dont you have the freedom to just listen to the rhetoric or to really dive in and evaluate this stuff. If youd like some good resources to get you started I can recommend some. When I came out of it I just listened to the Spirit and read early writings to try and trace back my beliefs. But I do know of some good literature for both the early church, as well as addressing calvinism from a lot of different angles that shows how it's nothing but empty deceit and philosophy read into the text. Having been a calvinist I do understand people can be saved and deceived, and that their intentions are to believe scripture and stand for what's true. Do or dont that's up to you. I wouldn't have listened so I dont suppose you will so I dont wanna argue endlessly about it. If you want some good resources to investigate lmk. ❤
Man is forever exalting himself. Instead of going back to what Christ taught, we establish our own traditions, and then "sell" that. God tests our faith so that we can see if our faith is truly in Him.
Intimacy with Jesus isn't a set of theological ingredients which produces a Holy cupcake with icing.. but these deep truths (5 points) defined by the Apostles via the Holy Spirit and eventually formed into exegesisical expression are richly used by Jesus to draw us closer Just remember that the "dead" church age of Sardis described by Jesus ( Revelation 3) is historically identified as the Reformation age which Calvin was a supportive pillar
The belief of free will existed in the church LONG before Christianity came to America. The original, orthodox Christians after Christ walked the earth taught the freedom of the will and fought the determinism/fatalism of the Stoics, Gnostics, and Manichaeans. Piper is stretching a bit there and has a poor understanding of church history.
Ken B, If you delve into church history instead of the bible you can never achieve the Spiritual Truth that can be found only in the bible which is the words of God... So don't blame Piper of having a poor church history... Show him the scriptures please to prove him wrong...
Joseph Durraz Nah bro. It doesn’t work that way. People just studying the Bible alone on their own have led to thousands of denominations. Why? People are trying to interpret the Bible through their own paradigm with no frame of reference to the actual context of the writings. When the foundations of your belief system can’t be found for the first 400 years amongst the original orthodox Christians - some who were actually discipled by the apostles directly - but can be found amongst the Stoic and Gnostic cults, that’s a red flag. No way around it. The objective historical FACT is that the early church closest to the context of the writings and directly after Christ walked the earth and the birth of the church taught that man had a level of libertarian freedom. The Stoics and Gnostics taught determinism. You don’t have to like that, but the facts are the facts. Do your research and be a Berean and don’t just take everything Piper says as the gospel. He’s but a flawed man that doesn’t have infallible interpretations of Scripture, and he obviously doesn’t have a grip on church history outside of his biased view.
@@kenb7536, I don't agree with you brother... The bible is the pure words of God... While history is man made and can be biased... It depends on who wrote the history... The bible never suggest that you should check history to be sure... Most of our theologian today derived their knowledge from history, and depend their knowledge to whom they side with... For example some prefer the doctrine of Arminius and others prefer John Calvin... Though both are not 100% true because they also derived their knowledge from other theologian.... But the prophets and the apostles derived their knowledge purely form the words of God... That's why only the bible is reliable for spiritual truth... History can widen your knowledge about the evolution of doctrines but that's all it can help you.... I can prove to you by the bible that the doctrine of Calvinism and Arminian are both wrong without my knowledge of history... For instance the Calvinist said that man is Spiritually dead and evil and cannot respond to the Love of God nor can they believe in Jesus without being regenerated first... But regeneration started only at the day of Pentecost at Acts chapter 2... And the Calvinist also believe that OT saints were generated but that is not true... If David was regenerated he could not commit two very evil sin... Adultery and premeditated murder.... =>>>> >>>> Arminians do not believe that the Elect were predestined to be saved since the foundation of the world and the reprobates are predestined for damnation since the foundation of the world... But that is biblically true... I can prove that to you by the bible....
Joseph Durraz Stick to the actual topic of my original comment. You can disagree with me all you want, but the objective FACT is that determinism was taught by Stoics, Gnostics, and Manichaeans for 400 years before Augustine, a former Manichaen Gnostic, brought it into the church. Meanwhile, the early orthodox Christian church fathers before them in unison - including Augustine for 20 years - clearly taught a level of libertarian freedom and fought off the determinism of the Stoics and Gnostics. In fact, Augustine once he left Manichaeanism and became an orthodox Christian debated one of his former Manichaen leaders named Fortunatus on the freedom of the will. Augustine fully defended free will and won the debate, even by the estimation of Fortunatus who conceded at the end. Oh yeah, Fortuantus actually used Calvinistic prooftexts to defend his position. It wasn’t until later when Augustine debated Pelagius that Augustine suddenly switched his position and started using some of the same arguments against Pelagius that Fortuantus, a Manichaen Gnostic, used against him in their debate. These are just facts. Look it up if you don’t believe me. Even dozens of Refomed scholars and historians who are objective admit that Calvinistic ideas didn’t exist inside the church until after Augustine dealt with Pelagius. Now, they won’t tell you about the previous debate with Fortunatus because it would become clear to all what actually happened. So you are more than welcome to disagree with me, but you’re not disagreeing with an opinion. You’re disagreeing with verifiable, objective historical facts.
Joseph Durraz On a side note in addition to my comment (even though it’s off topic), you are wrong. If you don’t have an actual understanding of the context of the Bible such as the original audience, author’s intent, form of literature and literary techniques, historical context surrounding the situation, etc., you are not qualified to speak as an authority of Scriptual interpretation. There have been many times I thought the Bible said something but when I understood the actual context of a particular passage, I was in error because reading the bare Bible is just me filtering it through my Westernized, flawed, personal lens. That’s exactly what’s led to the thousands of denominations and sub-denominations, especially in the West. Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, even Arminius, etc. imported a new lens to the Bible that didn’t exist in the actual early church. Period. Any objective study will show this. There’s a reason why these Calvinism/Arminianism debates (and more recently Lutherans entering the debate world) only really exist in half of the world.
I wouldn’t put a name on anything, we are Christ’s for He gave Himself for us and saved us and redeemed us, whether it be Calvin or a no name person that emphasized the biblical teaching which Paul wrote about and Peter wrote about of the elect and predestined of God, so let us be Christians and nothing else let us be filled with the Holy Ghost and nothing else let us believe in Jesus Christ and him crucified and his finished work on the cross for it’s by this that we are saved. God the father draws us to Jesus plain and simple
OMG! The answer should've simply been "There's nothing called Calvinism in the first place", if anything: there's only "Jesus'ism/Christ'ism". If what Calvin said happens to be true, that was because of the Holy Spirit revealing it through someone. Why attribute something that God revealed to "an earthly vessel/donkey" which He used for His purpose (like God using the donkey to convince Balaam) to that human being? And ascribe greatness to that "earthly vessel/donkey" by naming that truth after that person, as if it's something that's a new truth not mentioned in the Bible? It'll be like Balaam using the term "donkeyism" to explain his encounter with God. Wake up brother. Calvin was just a donkey/vessel in God's plan, just like me, you & everyone else (both the saved & the unsaved) [2Tim2:21, Romans 9:20-23].
It doesn't matter what it is called...don't get hung up on a name. To me, Calvinism is a brand of theology that is wrong in a lot of ways. But I listen to John Piper because he is a true heaven bound Christian that preaches deep theology. But I am able to separate what I believe and what I don't from him. And I accept him being mostly right.
The thing is that we need to give names to theological ideas to distinguish them from other ideas, and ideas are understandably often named after people who have promoted those ideas.
@@maxaplin4204 I can understand if it's a new idea that God hasn't mentioned in the Bible. But if it's just an explanation of something from the Bible what name are you going to give it? Paulism?! Peterism?! Spurgeonism?! Lewisism?! You'ism?! Me'ism?!
So I'm Christian, one who really enjoys your podcast. But I have a question about the portion on free will. Are you saying humans don't have free will? That we don't have a say in our own personal salvation? That carries a lot of weight. Are some people just made to be sent to Hell? How are humans held responsible for their actions if there isn't free will? Yes, God foresaw those that would be saved, but does that really mean He directly made it so in the course of their lives, or does it mean He knew the outcome, and we as humans still need to live the actions that propel the universe to that outcome? Someone please shed more light onto what Piper means and elaborate more.
Piper and all Calvinists are wrong on this, brother. God can be omniscient but chooses not to encroach into the private space of our minds. He is omnipotent therefore, he can afford not to be omniscient. He operates just like how a chess-master operates his moves. He does not know the n-th move of our's but God sees a pattern and makes his moves. Makes sense, brother? That is, God does not operate with foreknowledge of our moves before the foundation of the world. Compare translations of the Revelation verse 13:8.
Romans 9 shows God's sovereign right as the Potter to create and destroy according to His purpose. Humans are the clay. See verses 20-23 in regards to the Potter and the clay.
@@calebcuffe9438 In that episode, Piper in one breath says *we do not possess* freewill and closes with we *do possess* freewill and we are accountable for the choices we make.
Free will is a facade. We have volition, but God controls what we think and our perception of situations. This is how he is able to control every single move each of us makes. Our sanctification and justification is all entirely dependent on our Creator. By the way, everyone is elect. Do you think the Son will actually be able to memorize every single name in the Book of Life? The reason he knows every name is because every name is in the Book. Faith without reason is fiction.
If you mean that in every single human decision free will is a facade, you couldn't be more wrong. For a start, Adam must have had free will when he sinned. God is good, and it is unthinkable that a good God would have caused Adam to sin. Also, 1 Cor 10:13 implies that Christians have free will.
Pray for converting power??? Why? Calvinists say God does all the work. We do not convert anyone. All of us can agree that God is the one who Does the work of salvation in our hearts. As to raising dead bones. We are NOT raising dead bones. We are not raising dead people. The story of Lazarus is about resurrection. It is not about salvation. And it is very wrong to use that story and say that’s what it means when we are dead in our sin. The story has nothing to do with being dead in sin nor with being quickened unto righteousness. Is that the only story you guys have to use insisting that sinners are incapable of reaching out to God? That's just silly. It is extremely wrong to use that story in that way.
So basically, a hyper calvinist is simply a man who practices his theology. He's a consistent calvinist. And a regular calvinist is a man who is obedient to the passages of scriptures that contradict his theology and is therefore inconsistent in his practice. Got it!
Ive never met nor heard of christian Calvinist or not that said don't preach the gospel. Im sure they are out there but I never seen one. But I meet armenian/provisionalis that call Calvinist a cult all the time. I would call them hyperprevisionalist.
1 Corinthians 3:2-7 KJVS [2] I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. [3] For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? [4] For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? [5] Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? [6] I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. [7] So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
What the Bible teaches and what the Bible says are not necessarily the same thing. The Bible can say something clear and plainly. The Bible teaches whatever the interpretation of the preacher is.
If "No free will to choose" were true then the Judgment Seat of Christ and the Great White Throne Judgment would be a joke. Think on these things:. how could souls be judged and held responsible if their actions had been predestined without free will? That would be such an unjust God!
Content = Perspectives = Faith = Worship! The content of the Bible as a whole shapes one’s perception on the subject of God’s reality which give principled reasoning for why humanity exists! It’s amazing how two scholarly individuals can read the same bible regarding the Sovereignty of God and perceive that reality in two different views. The mysteries of God and His reality is endless!
Calvinism seeks to maintain the primacy of true grace. Those that revile God electing do not understand the gospel clearly. The general gospel call goes to all, the question answered by Romans 9 is why do some believe? Answer God’s regenerating Grace regenerating ♥️ hearts! John 6:37-40.
I am very uncomfortable with the idea that we are to be preaching the HOPE of Jesus to a lost world, if Calvinism were true. That means I would inevitably be preaching the HOPE of salvation to "non-elect" people, who are (on Calvinism) unable to believe no matter what. If God determines some people to be unbelievers, then they never have salvation truly available and within their reach. So Piper, do you believe that God is asking us to LIE...? If I am telling someone there is hope for them, when there really isn't any hope for them at all... because God might of created them only for damnation to display His glory (that is what you teach), then I am lying to their face. And we are to go on doing this because "we just don't know who the elect are"? Calvinism is absolutely vile.
We preach repent and believe because we do not know who the elect are. It is not lying, it is a commandment. Tell people if they believe and repent they will be saved thats not a lie, its a truth, let God worry about election and grace.
@@StudioEnergizerMV I firmly believe that God would never require His ambassadors to hold people responsible for repenting if they cannot even do so. It does not matter that we don't know who is who.
“Believe and teach what the whole Bible rightly understood teaches, Believe it and teach it in biblical proportion, biblical balance. No scripture is used to silence the meaning and importance of other scriptures.” Is he saying that he does not believe that scriptures should confirm scripture? Is he saying this because this is his way of getting around when scripture seems to contradict another scripture? So that the Calvinist can maintain that what the Bible teaches is etc. etc. etc.? We are to let the Bible speak for itself. We are to believe what the Bible SAYS. This is a mistake that is being made. Don't presume to think and figure out what the Bible teaches. Read the words. The exact words. In context. Using English grammar rules. And Believe what the word says. All of the words put together without pulling anything out as a specific phrase, like the huge mistake that is made Reading Ephesians 1:4, “he has chosen us in him before the foundation of the world." THAT IS NOT THE WHOLE SENTENCE! Calvinism has based their doctrine on a phrase leaving OUT the rest of the SENTENCE instead of believing what the WORD OF GOD IN TOTALITY in context ACTUALLY SAYS in this passage. I cannot believe PIPER said do not let one scripture silence another scripture. Scripture says exactly what it means. Rightly dividing the word is key. If the Bible contradicts itself the problem is with us, not with the word of God. BELIEVE WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS!!!💥💥💥
Piper is right that the gospel should be proclaimed indiscriminately to everyone. Hyper-Calvinism goes wrong by saying that this shouldn't be done. But even ordinary 5-point Calvinism goes wrong by saying that Jesus didn't die on the cross to pay the price for the sins of all human beings. We should not just proclaim the gospel indiscriminately to non-believers, but we should tell them indiscriminately that Jesus died to pay the price for their sins.
Max Aplin if Christ died for everyone, and we know that few enter the narrow gate, but MANY take the wide road to destruction than Satan has a better performance record than Jesus. Satan will successfully lead many to Hell while Christ sits weeping and helpless. Thankfully that’s not what the Bible teaches.
@@FrontPorchStep You are absolutely right that most people will end up in hell (leaving aside those who have died before reaching an age of moral accountability) (Matt 7:13-14). However, the rest of what you say doesn't really make sense in the light of Scripture: First, we know that Jesus wept over Jerusalem (Luke 19:41-44), and also that he said: 'Jerusalem, Jerusalem, . . . How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing' (Luke 13:34 // Matt 23:37). Jesus' response to Jerusalem reveals the heart of God. When sinners refuse to accept him, he weeps! This is scriptural. You seem to be implying that Jesus is not genuinely bothered when people reject him and choose the road to hell. Your comment highlights a real problem I have with high Calvinism, namely that this theological system doesn't seem to understand properly that God is affected by his creation. He genuinely hurts when people reject him. Second, you also talk about Christ being helpless if many people he died for end up in hell. But this is incorrect. If God has ordained that people have a genuine choice as to whether or not they are able to accept Christ in faith - and I prefer this view - then he has sovereignly chosen to do this. It's not about helplessness. It's about what God in his wisdom has chosen to do. Christians who accept the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election say that God has sovereignly decided who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. Christians who say that God (to some extent and in some cases) allows people a choice about whether they go to heaven or hell say that God has sovereignly decided to allow them that choice. Under neither of these scenarios is Christ helpless. If you are interested, I have written an article on so-called Limited Atonement/Particular Redemption, which can be found here: maxaplin.blogspot.com/2018/11/did-jesus-die-for-everyone-part-1.html
Max Aplin i believe you’re taking that verse out of Context. You can’t simply say Why Jesus wept for sure. Theologians and scholars have been debating that for years. And also limited (or definite atonement) was in the Old Testament long before the new. “"For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.” Deuteronomy 7:6 ESV
@@maxaplin4204 ... the Bible does not teach "an age of moral accountability". That statement only demonstrates a lack of understanding of what "eternal" salvation means. You assume that all children have "eternal life"... and then you assume many LOSE that "eternal life"... what part of "eternal" do you not understand?
@@FrontPorchStep Jesus was surely weeping over the sufferings that would come on the Jewish people in the Jewish War and destruction of Jerusalem. Verses 43-44 make that clear. And v. 42 shows why Jerusalem suffered the fate it did: '. . . because you did not recognise the time when God visited you'. This implies that Jesus was grieved by the rebellion of the Jews and the prospect of them suffering what they would because of their rebellion. If you think that God is not grieved by human sin and rebellion, then you have failed to recognise a major biblical theme. Here are some texts: 'Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? This is the declaration of the LORD GOD. Instead, don't I take pleasure when he turns from his ways and lives? (Ezek 18:23) '. . . God . . . wants everyone to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth'. (1 Tim 2:4) 'The Lord . . . is not wanting any to perish but all to come to repentance' (2 Pet 3:9) And see God's deep emotional reaction to Israel's sin in Hos 11. God hates sin and is pained by it and, on one level, regrets punishing people. Second, Deut 7:6 is referring to election, not atonement. And there is another reason why this verse doesn't support your case. The people referred to in Deut 7:6 were the ethnic people of Israel. But most of them WERE NOT saved, as Paul makes clear in Gal 3:7: 'You know, then, that those who have faith are Abraham's sons.' And see how Paul laments the unbelief of most Jews in his day in Rom 9:1-3.
Guys if you are discussing about God use the Holy Scripture. not the word of yourself or your knowledge or whatever. because the word of men is worthless and useless. and may be false. but if we are focused on word of God, the truth of God will increase in our mind and heart. i do not believe in the word of men. i believe in The word of God and that is Jesus Christ His Scripture.
Humility + Grace of God + Faith in the work of Christ (Freewill in placing our trust in Christ) + Fruit (Works) = Salvation. John 5:39 "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life..." Matthew 11:25 "...You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants."
@@gjshaw384 You thought you could twiddle your thumbs and go heaven, huh? Faith alone is the devil's lullaby putting you to sleep (where you think no one is looking as you sin).
@@calebmotupalli You fail to understand and you are yet to respond to my questions of the scriptures relating to God's grace alone not our works. Romans 9:11 "...in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls..." 1 Timothy 1:9 "Who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of of our works but because of His own purpose and grace, which He gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began."
@@gjshaw384 Romans 9:11 "...in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls..." Answer: He elects (chooses) when we humble ourselves on seeing the man on the cross and being told we are sinners for whom He died. Then we are given the Gospel that he rose again to show that He was successful in paying the penalty for your sins and mine. Then we place our trust in Him by our own decision/freewill. *No brainer.* 1 Timothy 1:9 "Who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of of our works but because of His own purpose and grace, which He gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began." Answer: Yes, by Grace through faith in the works of Christ that we have been saved *TO BEGIN WITH.* However, we must "continue in the faith" (Col1:23) with our works not His anymore. The Holy Spirit helps. But ultimately the wedding garments are our's.
Can we start using the term hyper-charismatic to disguise the difference in-between those who believe that God is alive and shows up in our lives in supernatural ways verse the sick TV 'evangelist' who mock God and rob the flock? I'm sick and tired of listening to good people like John Macarthur throwing me under the bus with people who practice heresy. Sorry... I just listened to a Macarthur sermon.... he can't help himself but to paint all 'charismatics' with a wide and ugly brush in almost every sermon....
Yeah the backlash against NAR/WoF heresies and false teachers has caused most people to just reject any sort of personal touch from God (outside of the biblical canon)
I do use the term hyper charismatic, and I have heard other people use it. I am Charismatic, but against the hyper charismatic excesses or charismania. IE I believe in and experience the gifts of the Holy Spirit, as in the Bible. But all preaching must be biblical and we shouldn't pursue experiences that are not found in the bible. Nor should we elevate experiences above the scriptures. And the "prosperity gospel " is a false gospel.
Calvinism is Man Crap. Hyper-Calvinism is Hyper-Man Crap. Why not just Do what Jesus Asked you to? And Leave God to His Own Business. God does not Have to Do according to your criteria.
Rick Caldwell The Bible is a lot of Man Crap. That is the point..That is why every Christian disagrees. That is why there are Catholics and Protestants..and everything in-between.
Rick Caldwell It would take five degrees in theology and philosophy to even begin to support the Calvinist belief “system”. Frankly, none of us has the time and/or energy, or the desire, to study our way into this doctrine...or any doctrine for that matter. The true gospel is meant to be easily understood. Jesus taught three simple premises that give us all the insight we will ever need in order to adopt the spirit of his mind and thus understand the wisdom that is the gospel. All the drama that we add to it is simply the over imagination of men attempting to know things that they are absolutely clueless about. Defending religious beliefs with their endless warehouse of books is a worthless endeavor.
kathleen Wharton Hi Kathleen. Mr C. In the house. Your comment is absolutely true. This begs the question...how can we reduce scripture to its simplest form so that all of the rhetoric and endless libraries of books become obsolete? As you know, I’ve offered three premises that Christ taught exclusively. They have served me extremely well over the years and they continue to be consistent in value and revelation. I offer them to others on a daily basis and those who take them to heart and test them are equally amazed. What will it take to convince believers that the gospel isn’t merely a three part rehearsed speech?
Mr. C Hello! Mr. C! I took a little rest. Jesus has taken me further. As you know I loved Matthew 5 6 7. But..now I am down to Matthew 6:33. "Seek ye First the kingdom of God and His Righteousness..and all these things will be added unto you.". The kingdom of God is Gods Love for me and to Know that He Loves me..as I am..and He will Provide Everything I Need. The man crap in the bible and the men who teach it destroyed my relationship with Jesus and my life. But Jesus has now repaired it and I will Heal..Completely! I believe God has provided you everything you need too. You do Know that God Loves you..just as you are..don't you? Because He Does! I know Humility and Gratitude. What is 3rd premise?
When I hear a name more frequently than I do Jesus then I’ll turn a deaf ear. Calvin didn’t die for me so I respect the perspective but my faith is in Christ alone.
So true👍🏽
If you’ve ever read John Calvin, you’d understand that he would be in complete agreement with you. He was a humble man who did not want to be made much of. He stood for and affirmed truth, and left a theological framework to help us understand the teachings of the Word.
Every Christian should check these out:
ua-cam.com/video/RbBTqaAzel4/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/play/PLVo63FjaBUR-6VC3bM3P1-FcpgYHvJ7zQ.html
The emphasis is on God's GRACE.
God bless.
lpbl2004 A humble man who bullied and tortured people who didn’t agree with him, and even condoned murder and bragged about it in his later writings. Tell the whole story.
@@kenb7536, peace. Can you provide me with some evidence for the claims your making?
God bless.
Wow! Just when I precisely needed this exact topic explained!!!
“This is a Calvinist.”
*powers up*
“This is an ascended Calvinist, or a five-point Calvinist, if you will”
*powers up again*
“AND THIS-“ *Manly grunting* “IS TO GO EVEN FURTHER BEYOOOOOND!”
Awkward DragonBall reference aside, than you for this video! It helps me to realise that it’s certainly possible to take even the most helpful and true doctrines way too far.
As an aside, I think that a lot of the gripes that people who disagree with Calvinism have, can be traced down to an assumption that it looks like Hyper-Calvinism!
Level one is an Amyraldian, not a Calvinist lol
His Calvinist level is over 9000!
DB reference: much appreciated.
Every Christian should check these out:
ua-cam.com/video/RbBTqaAzel4/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/play/PLVo63FjaBUR-6VC3bM3P1-FcpgYHvJ7zQ.html
The emphasis is on God's GRACE.
God bless.
Trust Christ Not Myself Extra Nos I’ve been sent this exact “flame” video from about 5 different friends. No one who disagrees with the doctrines of Grace has scripture to back it up. Only their feelings.
Now a video on “Hyper-Grace” is warranted….because the teaching here applies exactly the same to grace as it does calvanism in terms of the “hyper”. Pastor John is spot on….this is confirmation of truth.
Sorry i couldn’t help myself. I have to say it. Hyper piper
Lol
John Piper's definition of a hyper calvanist is designed to not make himself one.
@@MV-fj3fd bro chill it’s a joke
LOL
Very true! Anything we focus too much other than Christ is never a good idea.
So you suggest we focus on someone else other than Christ? Be careful, this could also be extended to our salvation. "He orders all things by his counsel and decree" - John Calvin
"I have a question. Can popular Calvinist pastors and pundits make arguments without calling every other Christian that disagrees with then a self-idolator? Are they capable of doing it?" - Eric Kemp
7:47 "nothing can separate us"
Love the ways he says it 👌
God knows who the sheep are, we don't. Preach in season and out of season. Look at the text in Ezekiel 3 and 33. Sound the trumpet, His elect will hear His voice. Proverbs 9:8 should also be applied. When the whole truth of the Bible is preached, His sheep will respond accordingly. Read the gospel of John.
Brandon Rogers Amen
Amen
Brandon Rogers Amen!
Every Christian should check these out:
ua-cam.com/video/RbBTqaAzel4/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/play/PLVo63FjaBUR-6VC3bM3P1-FcpgYHvJ7zQ.html
The emphasis is on God's GRACE.
God bless.
One is not his sheep until they repent and believe the gospel.
Doesn't the Bible say that "God is not willing that ANY should perish"????? Calvinism is not of God, hyper or otherwise.
That is specifically talking about themselves the church but there are other verses that suggest the same idea.
Why worry about being called a "Hyper-Calvinist" if God is responsible for it all? The person had no choice but to make that statement since God is directing everybody's will. Thus, the error. Calvinism, hyper or otherwise, makes God the author of confusion.
That’s hyper Calvinism lol
Where does sin come from?
@@BiG_SorD from calvinist god apparently. Makes satan redundant, that's for sure.
@@anon-x1 I just have to always remember that Christ holds In the palm of his hand. He guides the course of our lives ✌🏽
@@BiG_SorD God can be sovereign without programming every detail. Even Calvinists believe that God wasn't eternally sovereign because you need creation to be sovereign over it. Arminians believe that God chooses to withdraw from sovereignty and give us libertarian free will, a biblical concept that calvinism denies.
Piper is right to say that 'Calvinism raised to the nth degree' is a meaningless phrase. The question is whether certain beliefs fit with the Bible, not whether they fit with certain labels.
Piper suggests that we ask: 'Does Piper silence important biblical teachings by his Calvinism?' I think he probably does silence some passages. The difficulty I have with Calvinism is that there are too many passages that have to be given unnatural interpretations to fit the Calvinist system.
Piper also says that human beings have no self-determination about who is saved. But there are many passages which seem to imply that we do have some degree of self-determination.
For example, John 3:16 says:
'This is how God loved the world: He gave his only Son so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but have eternal life.'
Language works not just by stating things explicitly but also by giving impressions, and this verse seems to give the impression that we have a genuine choice whether or not to accept Christ.
Similarly, John 1:11-12 says:
'He came to his own, but his own people didn't accept him. But to all who did accept him, to them he gave the right to become children of God.'
Again, this seems to give the impression that we have a genuine choice over whether or not to accept Christ.
To say that God's sovereignty is destroyed if people have free will makes no sense. God can sovereignly choose to give people free will. In fact, ironically, those who say that human free will would have to mean that God is not sovereign seem to be denying God the sovereign right to allow human beings to have free will.
Max Aplin John 3:16 is definitely conditional on the basis of “whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” It is simply saying whoever does “x” (believes) then “y” (has eternal life). It is fair to draw the inference you have drawn, but the capacity of truthfulness in your claim is EQUALLY as plausible to the exact opposition of it. How do we know which inference to draw? Well, keep reading. The idea of “world” is not each and every individual persay; but to include both Jews and Gentiles into Gods covenant, of course this is my own inference and I believe it is substantiated in John 4, and his conversation of the Samaritan woman. To say that John 3 teaches/gives the impression that each individual equally has the capacity in and of themselves to make this decision (free will to chose God). I would say is incorrect, because it is no longer consistent with the Bjblical teaching as the Gospel of John continues to teaches and actually address your exact inference. John 6:41-51 and further emphasized in John 10, of Jesus’ personal knowledge of his sheep, and that all the sheep hear and follow his voice.
The Jews did not accept him because they could not accept his teaching, about himself and his work and his father. This is shown in John 6:51.
The biblical testimony of the “will” of man is not that it is free, but that it is ENSLAVED. And a persons actions are ALWAYS in accordance to their will. Hence the Apostle Paul’s exhortations to believers to “put on the new self”, to remember “In Christ we are a new creation”. And the nature of the will in the biblical paradigm is that it is the PERSON who is held accountable/responsible to their actions, I believe it is in this sense people conflate the idea of “free will” in our day.
I think i had a choice, God let me to know him but i was a man of pride in the flesh that hated God at one point in my life; now i can't live without him you know i want him glorified above all else and i love him for he is perfect and always good, i could of wrote off my experence of him at first and who knows where my pride would of had me today or at the end of my old life had i not accepted the knock at my door so to speak; predestination is biblical but many are called but few are chosen; Hallalujah!
@@peteryang2067 You have said a lot in your comment, and to avoid writing an essay in reply, I will limit myself to a few reflections.
First, I disagree with you about what 'world' means in John 3:16. In John's Gospel 'world' is not used to refer to a subset of human beings but to human beings as a whole. I agree with D. A. Carson, when he says about John 3:16:
'I know that some try to take kosmos ('world') here to refer to the elect. But that really will not do. All the evidence of the usage of the word in John's Gospel is against this suggestion.' (The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God, p. 18; IVP, 2000)
Second, John 6:51 doesn't suggest that those who rejected Jesus could not have accepted his teaching. This verse reads:
'I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats this bread, he will live forever. The bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.'
This verse says that those who accept Christ will be saved. It says nothing about ability or inability to accept him.
Third, you say that a free will decision to accept Christ is not consistent with John's Gospel. I think you are probably oversimplifying things. It is true that there are passages which teach that God chooses who is saved, but this doesn't necessarily have to mean that people can't also choose with libertarian free will. I am quite attracted to Molinism because of the way it reconciles these things.
Fourth, you say that the will of man is enslaved. I am sure there is a lot of truth in that, but how literally are we to take this? For example, in John 8:34 Jesus says:
'Everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin.'
Well, Christians continue to sin. So does that mean we are slaves of sin? I think it does to a certain extent, but it's too simplistic to say that Christians are simply slaves of sin. It's more complicated than that.
And I think the same is true of non-believers. Are they slaves of sin? Absolutely! Are they much more the slaves of sin than Christians are? Absolutely! But does this have to mean that with God's gracious drawing and enabling, people are unable to have the ability to choose or reject Christ? I think this issue is much more complex than you realise.
Max Aplin First off, I wanna say; I’m NOT trying to pick a fight with you brother lol I LOVE YOU. I had to take some time to get my heart right before responding again. thank you for the conversation, you don’t have to read my response, you don’t have to reply, at the end of the day I hope we can both be challenged and search the Scriptures more earnestly and with better integrity then before.
Yes! AMEN! I believe that is what I was trying to say be world wasn’t it? Categorically Jews and Gentiles encompass the whole “world” and is not to be applied to a subset of it. I believe DA Carson’s expository work on the world is correct, and I believe mine is not in contradiction to his. John 3:14-15 is the key to understanding 16. And the comparison is a historical one, of how the Jews looked upon the serpent lifted up to be healed of the bites from poisonous snakes that happened because of their sin. And so he compares that scenario with how the World will look upon/believe “The Son of Man” and be healed/have eternal life. Although I believe in particular redemption/limited atonement, DA Carson is correct in saying John 3:16s “world” is not referring to the elect specifically here. But I believe you can start to build a case for it in the following verses ex: 17-18.
I’m sorry, it is not John 6:51 specifically but the entirety of 6:22-the end of the chapter. But I suggest you look at John 6:35-40 especially in regards to your more Molinist understanding. I believe this portion of Scripture is indeed Jesus talking salvificaly, Jesus used phrases like, “raise it up of the last day”(resurrection language) “believes” “have eternal life”. What determines the “raising on the last day” of any person? That would be v40 “who sees the Son and believes in Him”. What determines the person to believe? I believe the answer is in v37 the “giving of the Father.” Towards the end of Jesus’ dialogue he restates in 6:65 “...For this reason I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it were given him by My Father.” Then v66 “From that time many of His disciples went back and walked no more with Him.” They could not believe nor understand his testimony of who he was and the work he had to accomplish. Contextually what was the basis of that, The Giving (or not giving) Of The Father.
I can respect a molinistic view of soteriology, because I have conceived of it in my own intellect as well, but I do not believe it has a substantial exegetical basis, especially in regards to “middle knowledge”. It looks more like a philosophical presupposition, that undermines the basis by which God knows the future (determined by the Bible), desperately trying to hold onto libertarian free will (determines by philosophy). And to consistently believe in a molinistic understanding of soteriology/predestination/election etc. they would have to give me a justification about the basis of their hermeneutical methodology (implication/inferences) in dealing with particular portions in Scripture over against when to not use it. And I believe they have no basis except that of their philosophical presupposition of Molinism itself. Dr. James White has a great deal of dialogue dealing with molinism I found very helpful. They allow philosophical conclusions to determine the reading of the text.
“So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.”
John 8:36 Thank you Jesus, he has set me free.
“If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
1 John 1:8-9 I still sin, and I confess, and he is faithful and just to forgive.
@@peteryang2067 First, I want to say that I never felt that you were trying to pick a fight with me. Your attitude is a refreshingly good one. There are too many people commenting on these videos who seem to have a nasty spirit, but you are certainly not one of them.
Second, amen to your desire that we both search the Scriptures better.
Third, I said in my last comment that I am quite attracted to Molinism. But I am not convinced enough to say that I am a Molinist. I think there are fewer passages of Scripture are difficult for Molinism than for Calvinism. But I haven't yet been able to reach firm conclusions on all this myself yet.
Fourth, I do agree that John 6:35-40 shows that God chooses who believes in him. This passage is very difficult for Arminianism.
But other biblical passages seem to suggest that people have libertarian choice as to whether or not they accept Christ.
For example, 1 Tim 2:4 says that God wants all people to be saved. It would be very strange for Paul to have said this if he believed that God only offered his grace to the elect.
And, as I said earlier, I think John 1:11-12; 3:16 seem to imply this.
I think the Bible probably teaches that God chooses who believes AND that at least many people have libertarian choice to believe. I am attracted to Molinism because it fits these things together logically.
I don't know if you know of the Christian apologist William Lane Craig. He is a Molinist and has said:
'Molinism is one of the most fruitful theological concepts ever devised.'
You have read James White on Molinism, but have you also read Craig on this topic? There are articles online by him.
Fifth, I believe the basis for God's knowledge of the future is simply that he is outside time. He sees what I will do tomorrow in the same way that he sees what I am doing right now, because he is outside time. In case you are interested, have written an article combating so-called Open Theism, which can be found here:
maxaplin.blogspot.com/2016/10/gods-knowledge-of-future-is-unlimited.html
Do get back to me with further comments if you like. God bless.
Almost a third of the Bible deals with prophecy, but I never hear any teaching about prophesy. You said you teach ALL the word. Thank you for explaining your position.
Give me a Jesus, give me Jesus . Let me be rooted him and the word. God bless you all.
Preaching is good but it is not the means unto eternal salvation. Preaching is to make disciples of God's elect and to save themselves as Peter said, "from this untoward generation" The Gospel doesn't make a child of God, the Gospel tells the elect person that he is a child of God and that he is justified, sanctified and eventually will be glorified, that's the Good news of the Gospel.
I'm yet to meet a hyper-Calvinist but I've seen online comments from people who come across as being one...though I'm not necessarily saying they were/are. Hyper-Calvinism seems to be a bit of a go-to 'insult' to people in debates.
Thank you
I’m new to this whole Calvinism vs Arminianism thing. Can someone shed light on the basic differences? And one more question. Does a Calvinist believe that an Armenian is a true Christian or is it more like a denomination?
Arminians are saved, though they are wrong on this issue. Just google the five points of calvinism, you'll get the idea.
Mr. Truxton so I’m assuming you are referring to TULIP. So the basic difference is Calvinists believe in predestination and Armenians don’t?
@@calebwofford471 Calvinists believe in predestination literally and don't try to mix it with a free will decision.
Mr. Truxton thanks! This certainly gives me a lot to chew on because I feel as if I’ve always been taught free will. God be with you!
It's more complicated than Calvinist vs Arminian. There are also Molinism and Lutheranism, both of which, in my view, have more to commend them than Calvinism or Arminiansim on the issue of God's election to salvation.
Calvinism teaches that those elected will not and cannot ever lose their calling. Calvinists have a strange twist on "free will." They claim that man has no free will UNTIL he recognizes his "election," and then he does have free will! A calvinist believe that God selects those who will spend eternity with God, and the rest of humanity to be tormented in an eternal fire for eternity. That is the "good" news of the gospel for a Calvinist!
Do you believe humans deserve for God to provide the option to be saved?
Thanks for the clarification sir. But what then do we call those Calvinists who tell us that anyone who doesn't hold to the Five Points is not really saved?
Scott Thong I would call them prideful and ignorant of the practical implications of Calvinism. Though theology is important, no one is saved by theological perfectionism. I believe that synergism is the natural position of fallen man, but monergism is only concluded when God’s graciously removes the scales of human autonomy from our eyes through the Scriptures.
Almost nobody is a 5 point calvinist upon conversion, it seems to be something God reveals about himself as the Christian matures (his sovereignty, his election, the power of the Holy Spirit to make dead people alive). This does not mean those who are not Calvinists are automatically less mature, that's how we get prideful and treat non Calvinists as "lesser" so we don't hang out with them or talk to them. We'll sometimes make snarky jokes about them behind their back. This ought not be! John Wesley and Jacobus Arminius are in heaven right now around the throne of Jesus worshiping him even though they were not 5 pointers. Us Calvinists have so much to learn about humility, compassion, judgement, and arrogance. We need to spend more time with Jesus.
synergism and moergism? Could you explain these new terms to me Rick ? Thank you sir ! 😁
Tim Sharpe Thanks for the question. Monergism literally means “one working”, and synergism literally means “two cooperating / working together”. Monergism is God accomplishing salvation alone, ensuring the means of salvation (repentance, faith, etc.) will be applied in time. With synergism God provides the opportunity for salvation but it is only actualized by the libertarian “free will” decision of the creature (God does his part; man does his part). Whereas, monergism sees all aspects of salvation (regeneration, repentance, faith, justification, sanctification, and glorification) as a gracious work/gift of God that actually saves not just make someone savable.
If a Calvinist told me that those who don't hold to the five points are not really saved, I would ask them if they can name a single saved Christian who lived between 100 AD and 1000 AD. In the first centuries of the church all or almost all Christians believed that some regenerated believers could fall away from the faith and lose salvation. That includes the Christians who correctly heard the Holy Spirit say that our 27 books of the New Testament are Scripture.
Sinners can't repent? Sinners can't believe? Sinners can't turn to Christ? Sinners can't accept Christ?
They can only repent and believe if God doing it for them?
I dont buy it.
D Muolo - You need to learn how sinners get saved.
D Muolo 2 Timothy 2:25. God grants Repentance.
@@cork8843 It is true that 2 Tim 2:25 says that God grants repentance. But I think it is reading too much out of this verse to say that it proves that no freedom of the human will is involved at all.
To those who would have faith in Jesus Christ to the Jew and Gentile alike, we dont fight the human but demons
Again, bible - bible - bible. You might not buy it, but unless God moves, show in the bible dead people coming to life on their own free will.
Thanks to Jesus a lot for this, Amen !
1 Corinthians 7:37 (KJV)
Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath POWER OVER HIS OWN WILL, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.
Hyper Calvinism is a misunderstanding of scripture; it negates the fact that God uses the gospel to bring sinners to salvation. It is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16) and it must be given to sinners by sent Christians for them to hear (Romans 10:14-17). God chooses us in Christ before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4), therefore the plan of salvation happened before Genesis 1:1. But God accomplishes the choosing by the gospel. A hyper Calvinistic view is the other side of the misunderstanding where you would think the elect are chosen without the gospel, while those that reject Calvinism frequently think God's choice is dependent upon the sinner's choice first. Both sides are not correct and unbiblical.
Then why do Calvinists use the argument of being crucified with Christ, having paid our sin debt? Calvinists say that all sin, including unbelief in God or the gospel, are forgiven on that cross 2000 years ago. Making peace 2000 years ago.
Arminians say that God died for all, but faith is the precondition for this debt clearing. Makes more sense considering the many verses explaining he died for the whole kosmos, and commanding to people to repent suggesting that they have free will to choose. There's a reason why Israel did what they did in the OT. Certainly wasn't his determination.
You seem to think there is no difference between picking who gets saved, and KNOWING who will get saved. Does knowing who will, equate to PICKING who will ? It does not.
Hyper Calvinism= that's what happens when you leave the caged stage, but the caged stage doesn't leave you
Please translate into Japanese. I don't understand what you're saying.
Submit our thinking on what the bible teaches.
Agreed
A Calvinist male is hairy; a hyper-Calvinist is hyper-hairy - unless you're Dr James White.
I would love to have a conversation with Pastor Piper about what Christ was writing in the sand in John 8.
Covenant Theology = Calvinism = The Truth of God's word
You just said it right sir. Bible! Bible!!Bible!!!, Not just philosophies or Theology.
Dr. Piper, You said that we human referring to none-Calvinist: ''PROVIDE THE FINAL DECISIVE CAUSE IN OUR CONVERSION TO CHRIST THAT CANNOT BE FOUND IN THE BIBLE''... CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE ALSO A VERSE FROM THE BIBLE ACCORDING TO THE CALVINIST'S DOCTRINE THAT A MAN SHOULD BE REGENERATED FIRST BY GOD TO RESPOND TO THE CALL OF GOD AND TO BELIEVE IN THE LORD JESUS???? THANKS FOR YOUR ANSWER....
10:10, his inaccurate explanation of free will is frustrating. Free will is most certainly Biblical. Calvinism is the one bringing assumptions based on world view and philosophy. I challenge calvinists to listen to debates on free will. God does NOT choose/pass over/reprobate people to torture them in hell for eternity, for His glory. That is a sick twisting of the God of the Bible that sent Jesus to die for ALL. Please study the scripture and stop listening to calv doctrine
What is hyper-Calvinism? I can say that Pastor John Piper is the epitome of what hyper Calvinism is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Pastor John claim to be a 7 point Calvinist? By the way, no disrespect to Pastor John. However, I thank Jesus that we all do not have to be a modern day Pharisee to be justified.
Saul of Tarsus played no part in his conversion to Christ. Christ used His will, not Saul's, to convert him. Jesus was the one who decided to use Saul as His chosen instrument, Saul expressed no such desire. Whenever I hear anyone preach, no matter how persuasively and convincingly about no such thing as irresistible grace, I always think of Saul's conversion - and mine, and know that those who are chosen, not merely called, can't get away from Christ.
I have a question. When you say we never see that in the Bible, would Jesus saying “Follow me” and the disciples doing so not be one example? Just what immediately came to my mind and wondering honestly! Insightful videos enjoyed it
Literally huh?
Quoting the modern world (presumably non-Calvinists) Piper says, “we humans provide the final, ultimate, decisive cause in our conversion to Christ;” he also claims that modern America has a ‘love affair’ with free will. I am going to use my free will to call out Piper as the ‘grand misrepresenter’ of the modern world. In all my years of growing up in the church I have never heard a pastor or teacher say that we are the final, ultimate, decisive cause in our conversion to Christ. Non-Calvinist pastors have always taught that it is by God’s Grace we are saved, by faith. When the free gift of Salvation is offered we have a choice whether to accept this gift or reject it. This is the nature of a gift; to accept or reject. And this is what the Bible teaches - To those who receive Him He gave the power to become sons of God. God gives the power to become sons; God does the saving.
In this video Piper uses his free will to claim that the modern world (non-Calvinist) believes “human will power has the capacity for ultimate, final decisive, self-determination in the moment of conversion to Christ.” If Calvinism is true then God determined for Piper to claim a belief which non-Calvinists do not hold to. And if Calvinism is true then God has determined for me to refute that which He determined for Piper to say. This is very confusing.
If the Bible clearly taught that God chooses only a small number of His fallen creation to be saved, the vast majority being born without hope, then it would not be necessary for Piper to misrepresent the beliefs of non-Calvinists.
Greg Jay Let me preface to say that while I think the doctrines of sovereign grace are beautiful and biblical, I do think it is a tier two issue, meaning Arminians and Calvinists can disagree, yet still be in the family of God.
Most Arminians do believe in prevenient grace, meaning grace which comes before. This grace, they say, enables a man or woman to believe. However, they do believe that said man or woman is the ultimate deciding factor in their salvation. Sure, all would acknowledge that salvation is impossible without the power and prevenient grace of God. But at its core, Arminianism does not believe that scripture teaches that man is totally depraved and unwilling to choose God at his very core; rather, that some men or women, when freed from the bondage of sin by prevenient grace, choose God while others reject Him.
Calvinism believes that scripture teaches that man is totally depraved. That if given all opportunity, He would reject or disobey God. Yet in that state, according to Romans 9, God has chosen to have mercy on some and not have mercy on others. And it doesn’t say that this number will be few! It is a narrow gate, but if God wills, many, among all the nations, will be saved!
The key thing that Calvinism emphasizes from this scripture is that God has free will and is not bound by our decisions. ‘For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."’ (Romans 9:15)
There are many scriptures further to look at, to keep this view in balance with the fullness of God’s council, as Piper advises. Romans 9 is the one which really weighed on me heavily when I was young.
Hyper-Calvinists are those who think they are saved by grace, yet do not obey Him. All grace, no obedience! They want a Savior without Jesus being their Lord. Most act like worldly pagans!
do you think you are saved because you obey? did you know that if you break even one law, you break them all? meaning your obedience is worthless (in regards to salvation). obedience is an act of love and NOTHING else. it has ZERO to do with salvation. or else you are held to the obedience that God demands, which is perfection or nothing (aka being under the curse of the law).
JDA, I think you missed the point. The Bible has a lot to say about how to know if one is saved. We shall know them by their fruit. If a believer doesn’t produce fruit, one has to wonder if they’re truly saved. While it’s true that we are saved by God’s grace alone, and there’s no merit on our part, there is going to be a change in a true convert.
@@horrormovies1307 no, dear, it is actually who missed the point. or do you not know that outside of Christ you have no power to bear fruit? John 15:5 "I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing." anyone who places their faith in Christ (and christ crucified) alone, which is sufficient to receive His grace unto salvation, will bear fruit at the measure which has been appointed from the foundation of the world by the Father. Ephesians 2:10 "For we are God's handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." It is our job to lead people to the true and saving faith, and that's it. We do not dare "teach somebody how to bear fruit" (or ourselves for that matter). If you have placed in your faith in the Rock of Salvation, you have done all that is asked of you. Or do you think you are called to judge others according to the "amount of fruit" or the "quality of fruit" God has prepared for them (as if you can even rightly decide as a mere man who looks at the outward appearance only)? Or do you think you make a better vine then Christ in producing fruit? To some, like the Apostle Paul, much more fruit will be given compared to others (at least in terms of how man can measure good works) and therefore who are we to decide what is considered "enough fruit" for them "to be saved". For we are NOT saved because of the fruit we bear! We are saved by and because of the blood of Christ! I hope i can get a resounding "AMEN!" from all who believe we are saved by faith, and that the righteous shall live by faith, and not of works lest any man boast, and not of works lest Christ died for nothing. And just to directly answer, "one has to wonder if they are truly saved"...no...no YOU DONT. You are not the judge, and you are not called to judge someone whether or not they are saved. my only job is to make sure they know the true and simple and pure gospel as outlined by Paul the apostle (gospel of grace) and the only time I will "question their salvation" is if they tell me they are obligated to "obey the law" as a condition for salvation (i.e. if they start adding any works to their salvation, which is an accursed gospel) For you cannot see their heart, and it is through the heart we are saved! Romans 10:9 "that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." I will defend the pure nature and absolute goodness that is the gospel of grace, the free gift of salvation till the day I die. Praise Jesus, thank for You a new day!
@@joela.5933 Amen. I needed clarity on this. Thank you!
It is a no-brainer that the final decision to receive Christ as his savior MUST rest with man to hold him/her responsible. Otherwise there is no point in even Christ coming down to earth and dying for us to begin with. What is the point in him dying for us if we can't decide one way or the other whether to trust him or not? Calvinists and Piper are missing the forest for the trees! Freewill is all over the Bible.
Free will exists but our free will is not autonomous.
@@MitsuMitsu385 Humility + Grace of God + Faith in the work of Christ + Fruit (Works) = Salvation.
@@anthonya8478 As Mingo Rolince
has said, "Why even give us the illusion of choice if the choice is already made?"
@@calebmotupalli
Who are we to question God?
All things will be understood in the next life. One thing is for certain: We'll find there to be no injustice in God's decisions.
Isaiah 55:8-9 KJV
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord . For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Romans 9:16
"So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy."
John 15:16
"You did not chose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit...."
John 6:44
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him."
John 6:65
"....This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."
Ephesians 1:4
"....even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world...."
Romans 8:29-30
"For those whom He foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son....And those whom He predestined He also called, and those whom He called He also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified."
Jesus did not die on the cross so that people can chose God.
Jesus died on the cross, and was raised according to the will of God the Father.
According to the will of God the Father Jesus died on the cross as the only sacrifice to take the punishment of our sins, once for all time.
Romans 4:25
"....who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for out justification."
God changes people hearts according to His will and purpose and those whom believe and confess Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour can only do this because God changed our hearts to believe beforehand.
*HOW MUCH OF CALVINISM IS DOUBLE-SPEAK?*
John Piper @minute 1:30
-quote
The absolutely crucial thing is that we submit all of out thinking to what the bible teaches
How is that DOUBLE-SPEAK?
John Calvin explains:
-quote
Men may *NOT* even agitate anything in their deliberations but what He inspires. (A Defense of the secret providence of god - PDF version pg 190)
John Calvin
-quote
They *CANNOT* by deliberation accomplish anything, except but what he has already decreed with himself, and decrees by his secret direction.(Institutes Vol. i. p. 186.)
Calvinist Robert R. McLaughlin explains
-quote
"God merely *PROGRAMMED* into the divine decrees all our thoughts, motives, decisions and actions"(The Doctrine of Divine Decree pg 4)
Calvinist Paul Helms explains
-quote
Not only is every atom and molecule, *EVERY THOUGHT AND DESIRE* kept in being by god, but every twist and turn of each of these is under the *DIRECT CONTROL* of god (The Providence of God pg 22)
CONCLUSION:
It is logically impossible to "Submit" something that is *NOT UP TO YOU* to submit.
For a creature to "Submit" something would require a degree of AUTONOMY that does not exist.
In a predestined world there is no such thing as "Contrary" choice
In a predestined world there is no such thing as "The ability to refrain"
In a predestined world - there is no such thing as an "Open Future"
For every human event and every human impulse - there is granted ONLY ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED RENDERED-CERTAIN option.
No Option(S) + No ability to refrain = NO CHOICE
@10:30………NO NO NO NO NO………. The ability of the sinner to respond to the love of Jesus and reach out and say please forgive me is not determinism or whatever he said. That long sentence that PIPER said. That is not true.
Stop complicating and confusing the issue. Read and believe John 3:16.
AND NO, that it is not silencing another scripture. You are misunderstanding the other scriptures. Believing that God predetermined, before time even began, that only some people can/will be saved is complete nonsense that is not found in the Bible. It is an assumed teaching that misrepresents, misunderstands and takes out of context words and phrases. It is built on sand that is not true.
That DOCTRINE is not going to be found anywhere stated in those exact words in the Bible. Nowhere! 🧐
@AskPastorJohn can you do a video on marijuana? What would Jesus do with it, are the uses legit; does it help; is it good?
For medical purposes only. Its not legal everywhere and some countries have it as a drug. We have to be sober minded and not drunk or on any kind of infuences of drugs. Weed distorts your brain and you cant think straight and a christian who smokes it can be a christian but deceived and should stop it. Be not the same with the world, pleasing your flesh with earthly desires,intoxicated by alcohol,high on any drug, but by renewing our minds in Gods word.
@@MrBilioner I smoked some after Holy Spirit showed me it would kill me and i had a seisure and threw up all in my moms car door, happened ~3days ago it was an idol to me/really dependent and last night wanted to relapse but i gotta stop FR
@@MrBilioner Had 3 seisures in my life all 3 within an hour of smoking cannabis.
Only 19 yrs old
@@cristonureste9250 people use it for health in medicine even doctors prescribe it but for recreational purposes its not good at all. How can you be straight if you are high? Some people tell its beneficial in their life but they are lying to themselves thinking they wont be better in task for example if they dont use it but in my experience I did use it every day for 5 years and it gave me nothing but trouble. I did almost lose my mind and if the Lord did not showed me the trurh I would die not just from weed but my life style would drag me to death+ I was depressed and hated evrybody because of it. Alcohol,weed,porn...basically I wanted to try it all and harder drugs were no mistery to me. My healthy advice would be to stop smoking because media is lying to us like it is "not dangerous" but it is. It cost a lot of money, can tear up friends and family,your life and I did witness those things. Pray to God to lead you and give you strenght and He will do it. Sober for more then a year and my senses are so much better, my feelings start to recover and before I was not happy in life but He gives me undescrible joy. It may feel good at the moment like with every sin but at the end brings forth death.
Hyper calvinism is merely striving to be consistent with the claims of calvinism. Some try to argue fatalism is hyper calvinism, and yet when all things come to pass by decree that argument falls apart. The early church taught the responsibility of man and saving grace of God. Determinism of all things is eisegeted into isolated prooftexts. The early church actually fought this view when held by the gnostics, and they used the same verses to justify their interpritation. The reason calvinism leads to fatalism consistently in so many of your listeners, is because it's the logical and consistent end. While I love you, and used to listen until the Spirit convicted me to come out of the cult of calvinism, I do appriciate that you teach people to live as if their calvinism isnt True. This whole tension is only created by your esisgesis of deterministic presups. Augustine was the first in history to teach determinism under the guise of christianity. Also the first to create orginal sin, as equated to inability. If youd like to solve the problem of hypercalvinism, just discard the presups and see the actual balance in the bible. It really divides the church and perverts the gospel. You silence many important issues, with good intention I have no doubt brother. Col 2:8 is the reason I believe. It's how i got taken captive in it. Compatablism and determinism is literally a philosophy. It is contrary to the bible and early church. I love you, and you will give account. I hope you dont just dismiss this and that you take it in the spirit it's intended. What is at stake is the biblical picture of God and his character, I guess believing it's all determined it doesnt matter as much, if you really saw the damage calvinism does, I believe you would change your mind as I did. Anyway, I hope you all hear me
If you think that Calvinism is bare Determinism, then I am afraid, and I say this respectfully, you do not have a proper understanding of what it teaches. It has always defined that God decrees everything that comes to pass, but not in such a way that it violates the creatures will. God is absolutely sovereign over us, yet we are held accountable. How that works, has always been a mystery and will stay a mystery. That is the Biblical tension we are to live with. The claim of eisegeted prooftexts cannot be taken seriously. We find this througout the Scriptures. Joseph and his brothers (Gen. 50:20), the brothers selling Joseph was their sinful choice, yet God purposed it this way to bring about good. Another example is Isaiah 45:21-28, King Cyrus will bring about Gods purpose, to return His people back to the land (Ezra 1:1-4), and to destroy Babylon (isaiah 46, specifically verses 9-11. And the ultimate example, Jesus death on the cross, Acts 2:23. God purposed it, and holds those who killed Jesus, accountable. This is not eisegesis my friend. God's purpose and human responsibility are both in Scripture, it teaches compatibilitism, so far from being a philosophy, it comes straight from Scripture. What John calls for is a balanced reading, to prevent hyper-Calvinism leading into fatalism, likewise, the same balance should prevent people from falling into hyper-free will-ism, making God a mere bystander or incapable of doing anything because God, the Creator is limited by the creatures free will.
Lastly, you said that the Spirit called you out of the cult of Calvinism, well the Spirit lead me into it. Where I come from, Calvinism barely exists in my country (and so does Christianity for that matter), so I had zero influence of Reformed thought when I started to read the Bible, and got saved. I naturally came to the conviction of God's sovereignty in election, without any prior information about Calvinism, election, eternal decrees etc. So, the argument from experience is a slippery slope, we go to Scripture for our ultimate authority. That being said, I would like to encourage you to dig a little deeper into what we believe, even if you completely disagree, just so that you would fairly present what we actually believe. Your current, argumentation, I say this respectfully, does not.
@@janpiet1530 I respect your opinion but I was a calvinist a long time. Studied it 8+ hrs a day for 6 years, and was a leader. What your proposing is merely symantics. I believe you have heard that and believe it. When you logically think about it though, you either have consistent calvinism, or inconsistent calvinism. John Calvin, and many today, taught that the very thoughts are decreed by God. Sproul goes as far as to say not one atom moves outside what he has decreed. As it is completely untenable and impossible to think and live out practically; they have to also teach this inconsistent compatablism that contradicts the core claims, then just live in the mystery. They say they believe both and it's because they think scripture teaches both. I dont doubt the motives but it comes from being captive in empty deceit and philosophy rooted in human tradition, that colors the way one reads scripture. For a long time I was just influanced by the rhetoric. When you really begin to think through things though calvinism is determinism no matter how you slice it, though as I said many are really inconsistent and will use symantic games to avoid the logical conclusions and assert things logically contrary to the root claims.
Would be happy to talk through some of that if you like, but not understanding calvinism isnt the issue brother.
@@janpiet1530 when you read the earliest church, you'll find they actually combated many of the ideas espoused in calvinism today.
@@nathanburgett1599 If living in the mystery is not satifying you, it does neither to me, because I also want to understand how it works, but that is not revealed in Scripture, yet I accept that God is way above us. The only thing is to let God be God, if we have a theology that can explain everything about God, then this no longer the Biblical God. How are you going to apply consistent logic when Jesus feeds the 5000 with a few fish and breads? Or Jonah being swallowed by a big fish, and living there for a few days. This has nothing to do with symantic games. There is mystery, and we have to accept it.
Regarding church history, if you want to base yourself on that, then you will have a hard time escaping the practice of infant baptism in the early church. My guess is that you are a (general) Baptist, though, I could be wrong.
While Church history is helpful, it does not bear the same authority as Scripture. We see Jesus teaching it, hence, our conviction.
@@janpiet1530 I think your missing the point. It's not a mystery the bible affords. How God created something from nothing is a mystery, a biblically afforded one, and I'm fine with it. This is a contradiction that is called a mystery, and only created by adoption of unbiblical presups introduced by Augustine. I'd really encourage you to do some research into it. You wont fond one early church writer who affirms the ideas of inherited guilt, individual election to salvation, or determinism. Which even reformed scholars acknowledge. I'm not concerned if you think I'm wrong. However, it's not an issue of not understanding. I'd encourage you to seek the Truth of it and find out fir yourself, or dont you have the freedom to just listen to the rhetoric or to really dive in and evaluate this stuff. If youd like some good resources to get you started I can recommend some. When I came out of it I just listened to the Spirit and read early writings to try and trace back my beliefs. But I do know of some good literature for both the early church, as well as addressing calvinism from a lot of different angles that shows how it's nothing but empty deceit and philosophy read into the text. Having been a calvinist I do understand people can be saved and deceived, and that their intentions are to believe scripture and stand for what's true. Do or dont that's up to you. I wouldn't have listened so I dont suppose you will so I dont wanna argue endlessly about it. If you want some good resources to investigate lmk. ❤
Man is forever exalting himself. Instead of going back to what Christ taught, we establish our own traditions, and then "sell" that. God tests our faith so that we can see if our faith is truly in Him.
The only consistent Calvinist is a hyper-Calvinist...
Nice.
Intimacy with Jesus isn't a set of theological ingredients which produces a Holy cupcake with icing..
but these deep truths (5 points) defined by the Apostles via the Holy Spirit and eventually formed into exegesisical expression are richly used by Jesus to draw us closer
Just remember that the "dead" church age of Sardis described by Jesus ( Revelation 3) is historically identified as the Reformation age which Calvin was a supportive pillar
I always thought hyper Calvinists taught that God chooses who will be damned as well as who will be elect
Westboro Baptist is rooted in Hyper-Calvinism.
The belief of free will existed in the church LONG before Christianity came to America. The original, orthodox Christians after Christ walked the earth taught the freedom of the will and fought the determinism/fatalism of the Stoics, Gnostics, and Manichaeans. Piper is stretching a bit there and has a poor understanding of church history.
Ken B, If you delve into church history instead of the bible you can never achieve the Spiritual Truth that can be found only in the bible which is the words of God... So don't blame Piper of having a poor church history... Show him the scriptures please to prove him wrong...
Joseph Durraz Nah bro. It doesn’t work that way. People just studying the Bible alone on their own have led to thousands of denominations. Why? People are trying to interpret the Bible through their own paradigm with no frame of reference to the actual context of the writings. When the foundations of your belief system can’t be found for the first 400 years amongst the original orthodox Christians - some who were actually discipled by the apostles directly - but can be found amongst the Stoic and Gnostic cults, that’s a red flag. No way around it. The objective historical FACT is that the early church closest to the context of the writings and directly after Christ walked the earth and the birth of the church taught that man had a level of libertarian freedom. The Stoics and Gnostics taught determinism. You don’t have to like that, but the facts are the facts. Do your research and be a Berean and don’t just take everything Piper says as the gospel. He’s but a flawed man that doesn’t have infallible interpretations of Scripture, and he obviously doesn’t have a grip on church history outside of his biased view.
@@kenb7536, I don't agree with you brother... The bible is the pure words of God... While history is man made and can be biased... It depends on who wrote the history... The bible never suggest that you should check history to be sure... Most of our theologian today derived their knowledge from history, and depend their knowledge to whom they side with... For example some prefer the doctrine of Arminius and others prefer John Calvin... Though both are not 100% true because they also derived their knowledge from other theologian.... But the prophets and the apostles derived their knowledge purely form the words of God... That's why only the bible is reliable for spiritual truth... History can widen your knowledge about the evolution of doctrines but that's all it can help you.... I can prove to you by the bible that the doctrine of Calvinism and Arminian are both wrong without my knowledge of history... For instance the Calvinist said that man is Spiritually dead and evil and cannot respond to the Love of God nor can they believe in Jesus without being regenerated first... But regeneration started only at the day of Pentecost at Acts chapter 2... And the Calvinist also believe that OT saints were generated but that is not true... If David was regenerated he could not commit two very evil sin... Adultery and premeditated murder.... =>>>> >>>> Arminians do not believe that the Elect were predestined to be saved since the foundation of the world and the reprobates are predestined for damnation since the foundation of the world... But that is biblically true... I can prove that to you by the bible....
Joseph Durraz Stick to the actual topic of my original comment. You can disagree with me all you want, but the objective FACT is that determinism was taught by Stoics, Gnostics, and Manichaeans for 400 years before Augustine, a former Manichaen Gnostic, brought it into the church. Meanwhile, the early orthodox Christian church fathers before them in unison - including Augustine for 20 years - clearly taught a level of libertarian freedom and fought off the determinism of the Stoics and Gnostics.
In fact, Augustine once he left Manichaeanism and became an orthodox Christian debated one of his former Manichaen leaders named Fortunatus on the freedom of the will. Augustine fully defended free will and won the debate, even by the estimation of Fortunatus who conceded at the end. Oh yeah, Fortuantus actually used Calvinistic prooftexts to defend his position. It wasn’t until later when Augustine debated Pelagius that Augustine suddenly switched his position and started using some of the same arguments against Pelagius that Fortuantus, a Manichaen Gnostic, used against him in their debate.
These are just facts. Look it up if you don’t believe me. Even dozens of Refomed scholars and historians who are objective admit that Calvinistic ideas didn’t exist inside the church until after Augustine dealt with Pelagius. Now, they won’t tell you about the previous debate with Fortunatus because it would become clear to all what actually happened. So you are more than welcome to disagree with me, but you’re not disagreeing with an opinion. You’re disagreeing with verifiable, objective historical facts.
Joseph Durraz On a side note in addition to my comment (even though it’s off topic), you are wrong. If you don’t have an actual understanding of the context of the Bible such as the original audience, author’s intent, form of literature and literary techniques, historical context surrounding the situation, etc., you are not qualified to speak as an authority of Scriptual interpretation. There have been many times I thought the Bible said something but when I understood the actual context of a particular passage, I was in error because reading the bare Bible is just me filtering it through my Westernized, flawed, personal lens. That’s exactly what’s led to the thousands of denominations and sub-denominations, especially in the West. Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, even Arminius, etc. imported a new lens to the Bible that didn’t exist in the actual early church. Period. Any objective study will show this. There’s a reason why these Calvinism/Arminianism debates (and more recently Lutherans entering the debate world) only really exist in half of the world.
Amen!
I wouldn’t put a name on anything, we are Christ’s for He gave Himself for us and saved us and redeemed us, whether it be Calvin or a no name person that emphasized the biblical teaching which Paul wrote about and Peter wrote about of the elect and predestined of God, so let us be Christians and nothing else let us be filled with the Holy Ghost and nothing else let us believe in Jesus Christ and him crucified and his finished work on the cross for it’s by this that we are saved. God the father draws us to Jesus plain and simple
OMG! The answer should've simply been "There's nothing called Calvinism in the first place", if anything: there's only "Jesus'ism/Christ'ism".
If what Calvin said happens to be true, that was because of the Holy Spirit revealing it through someone. Why attribute something that God revealed to "an earthly vessel/donkey" which He used for His purpose (like God using the donkey to convince Balaam) to that human being? And ascribe greatness to that "earthly vessel/donkey" by naming that truth after that person, as if it's something that's a new truth not mentioned in the Bible? It'll be like Balaam using the term "donkeyism" to explain his encounter with God.
Wake up brother. Calvin was just a donkey/vessel in God's plan, just like me, you & everyone else (both the saved & the unsaved) [2Tim2:21, Romans 9:20-23].
It doesn't matter what it is called...don't get hung up on a name. To me, Calvinism is a brand of theology that is wrong in a lot of ways. But I listen to John Piper because he is a true heaven bound Christian that preaches deep theology. But I am able to separate what I believe and what I don't from him. And I accept him being mostly right.
The thing is that we need to give names to theological ideas to distinguish them from other ideas, and ideas are understandably often named after people who have promoted those ideas.
@@strohdog242 I agree that Calvinism is problematic in some ways, but a large majority of what Piper teaches is very good.
@@maxaplin4204
I can understand if it's a new idea that God hasn't mentioned in the Bible. But if it's just an explanation of something from the Bible what name are you going to give it?
Paulism?!
Peterism?!
Spurgeonism?!
Lewisism?!
You'ism?!
Me'ism?!
@@strohdog242
You know of a non-heaven bound Christian?
So I'm Christian, one who really enjoys your podcast. But I have a question about the portion on free will. Are you saying humans don't have free will? That we don't have a say in our own personal salvation? That carries a lot of weight. Are some people just made to be sent to Hell? How are humans held responsible for their actions if there isn't free will? Yes, God foresaw those that would be saved, but does that really mean He directly made it so in the course of their lives, or does it mean He knew the outcome, and we as humans still need to live the actions that propel the universe to that outcome?
Someone please shed more light onto what Piper means and elaborate more.
Piper and all Calvinists are wrong on this, brother. God can be omniscient but chooses not to encroach into the private space of our minds. He is omnipotent therefore, he can afford not to be omniscient. He operates just like how a chess-master operates his moves. He does not know the n-th move of our's but God sees a pattern and makes his moves. Makes sense, brother? That is, God does not operate with foreknowledge of our moves before the foundation of the world. Compare translations of the Revelation verse 13:8.
Romans 9 shows God's sovereign right as the Potter to create and destroy according to His purpose.
Humans are the clay.
See verses 20-23 in regards to the Potter and the clay.
www.desiringgod.org/interviews/is-god-sovereign-over-my-free-will
@@calebmotupalli
Phillipians 2:13
"for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure."
@@calebcuffe9438 In that episode, Piper in one breath says *we do not possess* freewill and closes with we *do possess* freewill and we are accountable for the choices we make.
Free will is a facade. We have volition, but God controls what we think and our perception of situations. This is how he is able to control every single move each of us makes. Our sanctification and justification is all entirely dependent on our Creator.
By the way, everyone is elect. Do you think the Son will actually be able to memorize every single name in the Book of Life? The reason he knows every name is because every name is in the Book. Faith without reason is fiction.
If you mean that in every single human decision free will is a facade, you couldn't be more wrong. For a start, Adam must have had free will when he sinned. God is good, and it is unthinkable that a good God would have caused Adam to sin.
Also, 1 Cor 10:13 implies that Christians have free will.
Pray for converting power??? Why? Calvinists say God does all the work. We do not convert anyone. All of us can agree that God is the one who Does the work of salvation in our hearts.
As to raising dead bones. We are NOT raising dead bones. We are not raising dead people. The story of Lazarus is about resurrection. It is not about salvation. And it is very wrong to use that story and say that’s what it means when we are dead in our sin. The story has nothing to do with being dead in sin nor with being quickened unto righteousness.
Is that the only story you guys have to use insisting that sinners are incapable of reaching out to God? That's just silly. It is extremely wrong to use that story in that way.
So good
So basically, a hyper calvinist is simply a man who practices his theology. He's a consistent calvinist. And a regular calvinist is a man who is obedient to the passages of scriptures that contradict his theology and is therefore inconsistent in his practice. Got it!
as a Calvinist, Hyper-Calvinists scare me.
Ive never met nor heard of christian Calvinist or not that said don't preach the gospel. Im sure they are out there but I never seen one.
But I meet armenian/provisionalis that call Calvinist a cult all the time. I would call them hyperprevisionalist.
1 Corinthians 3:2-7 KJVS
[2] I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. [3] For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? [4] For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? [5] Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? [6] I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. [7] So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
What the Bible teaches and what the Bible says are not necessarily the same thing. The Bible can say something clear and plainly. The Bible teaches whatever the interpretation of the preacher is.
If "No free will to choose" were true then the Judgment Seat of Christ and the Great White Throne Judgment would be a joke. Think on these things:. how could souls be judged and held responsible if their actions had been predestined without free will? That would be such an unjust God!
Determinism and fatalism is hyper-Calvinism.
All calvinists are determinist, and the consistent ones are hard determinist.
Content = Perspectives = Faith = Worship!
The content of the Bible as a whole shapes one’s perception on the subject of God’s reality which give principled reasoning for why humanity exists!
It’s amazing how two scholarly individuals can read the same bible regarding the Sovereignty of God and perceive that reality in two different views.
The mysteries of God and His reality is endless!
I agree .🙏
Calvinism seeks to maintain the primacy of true grace. Those that revile God electing do not understand the gospel clearly. The general gospel call goes to all, the question answered by Romans 9 is why do some believe? Answer God’s regenerating Grace regenerating ♥️ hearts! John 6:37-40.
Definitely not a Calvinist, But an interesting view point to consider and ponder on
I think "what is hyper delusional" might be more appropriate..
"We're so heavy on the truth, we are hyper-truth". What a nonsense. Calvinist, Hyper-Calvinist. It's all the same.
All the same nonsense.
I am very uncomfortable with the idea that we are to be preaching the HOPE of Jesus to a lost world, if Calvinism were true. That means I would inevitably be preaching the HOPE of salvation to "non-elect" people, who are (on Calvinism) unable to believe no matter what. If God determines some people to be unbelievers, then they never have salvation truly available and within their reach. So Piper, do you believe that God is asking us to LIE...?
If I am telling someone there is hope for them, when there really isn't any hope for them at all... because God might of created them only for damnation to display His glory (that is what you teach), then I am lying to their face. And we are to go on doing this because "we just don't know who the elect are"? Calvinism is absolutely vile.
We preach repent and believe because we do not know who the elect are. It is not lying, it is a commandment. Tell people if they believe and repent they will be saved thats not a lie, its a truth, let God worry about election and grace.
@@StudioEnergizerMV I firmly believe that God would never require His ambassadors to hold people responsible for repenting if they cannot even do so. It does not matter that we don't know who is who.
@@regandanielle did God not give us the law knowing we can not keep it so in His love He provides us a savior that can?
@@StudioEnergizerMV That's right. God gave us the law to show us our sin. That does not make Calvinism true.
@@regandanielle I was implying that God tells us stuff we cannot do
Hyper-Calvinism is honest, consistent Calvinism. Ugly, odious, but employment of plain speech. Example: AW Pink.
“Believe and teach what the whole Bible rightly understood teaches, Believe it and teach it in biblical proportion, biblical balance. No scripture is used to silence the meaning and importance of other scriptures.”
Is he saying that he does not believe that scriptures should confirm scripture? Is he saying this because this is his way of getting around when scripture seems to contradict another scripture? So that the Calvinist can maintain that what the Bible teaches is etc. etc. etc.?
We are to let the Bible speak for itself. We are to believe what the Bible SAYS. This is a mistake that is being made. Don't presume to think and figure out what the Bible teaches. Read the words. The exact words. In context. Using English grammar rules. And Believe what the word says. All of the words put together without pulling anything out as a specific phrase, like the huge mistake that is made Reading Ephesians 1:4, “he has chosen us in him before the foundation of the world."
THAT IS NOT THE WHOLE SENTENCE! Calvinism has based their doctrine on a phrase leaving OUT the rest of the SENTENCE instead of believing what the WORD OF GOD IN TOTALITY in context ACTUALLY SAYS in this passage.
I cannot believe PIPER said do not let one scripture silence another scripture. Scripture says exactly what it means. Rightly dividing the word is key. If the Bible contradicts itself the problem is with us, not with the word of God. BELIEVE WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS!!!💥💥💥
Thank God I'm not a Calvinist
Piper is right that the gospel should be proclaimed indiscriminately to everyone. Hyper-Calvinism goes wrong by saying that this shouldn't be done.
But even ordinary 5-point Calvinism goes wrong by saying that Jesus didn't die on the cross to pay the price for the sins of all human beings. We should not just proclaim the gospel indiscriminately to non-believers, but we should tell them indiscriminately that Jesus died to pay the price for their sins.
Max Aplin if Christ died for everyone, and we know that few enter the narrow gate, but MANY take the wide road to destruction than Satan has a better performance record than Jesus. Satan will successfully lead many to Hell while Christ sits weeping and helpless.
Thankfully that’s not what the Bible teaches.
@@FrontPorchStep You are absolutely right that most people will end up in hell (leaving aside those who have died before reaching an age of moral accountability) (Matt 7:13-14).
However, the rest of what you say doesn't really make sense in the light of Scripture:
First, we know that Jesus wept over Jerusalem (Luke 19:41-44), and also that he said:
'Jerusalem, Jerusalem, . . . How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing' (Luke 13:34 // Matt 23:37).
Jesus' response to Jerusalem reveals the heart of God. When sinners refuse to accept him, he weeps! This is scriptural. You seem to be implying that Jesus is not genuinely bothered when people reject him and choose the road to hell.
Your comment highlights a real problem I have with high Calvinism, namely that this theological system doesn't seem to understand properly that God is affected by his creation. He genuinely hurts when people reject him.
Second, you also talk about Christ being helpless if many people he died for end up in hell. But this is incorrect. If God has ordained that people have a genuine choice as to whether or not they are able to accept Christ in faith - and I prefer this view - then he has sovereignly chosen to do this. It's not about helplessness. It's about what God in his wisdom has chosen to do.
Christians who accept the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election say that God has sovereignly decided who goes to heaven and who goes to hell.
Christians who say that God (to some extent and in some cases) allows people a choice about whether they go to heaven or hell say that God has sovereignly decided to allow them that choice.
Under neither of these scenarios is Christ helpless.
If you are interested, I have written an article on so-called Limited Atonement/Particular Redemption, which can be found here:
maxaplin.blogspot.com/2018/11/did-jesus-die-for-everyone-part-1.html
Max Aplin i believe you’re taking that verse out of Context. You can’t simply say Why Jesus wept for sure. Theologians and scholars have been debating that for years.
And also limited (or definite atonement) was in the Old Testament long before the new. “"For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.”
Deuteronomy 7:6 ESV
@@maxaplin4204 ... the Bible does not teach "an age of moral accountability". That statement only
demonstrates a lack of understanding of what "eternal" salvation means. You assume that
all children have "eternal life"... and then you assume many LOSE that "eternal life"...
what part of "eternal" do you not understand?
@@FrontPorchStep Jesus was surely weeping over the sufferings that would come on the Jewish people in the Jewish War and destruction of Jerusalem. Verses 43-44 make that clear.
And v. 42 shows why Jerusalem suffered the fate it did:
'. . . because you did not recognise the time when God visited you'.
This implies that Jesus was grieved by the rebellion of the Jews and the prospect of them suffering what they would because of their rebellion.
If you think that God is not grieved by human sin and rebellion, then you have failed to recognise a major biblical theme. Here are some texts:
'Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? This is the declaration of the LORD GOD. Instead, don't I take pleasure when he turns from his ways and lives? (Ezek 18:23)
'. . . God . . . wants everyone to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth'. (1 Tim 2:4)
'The Lord . . . is not wanting any to perish but all to come to repentance' (2 Pet 3:9)
And see God's deep emotional reaction to Israel's sin in Hos 11.
God hates sin and is pained by it and, on one level, regrets punishing people.
Second, Deut 7:6 is referring to election, not atonement. And there is another reason why this verse doesn't support your case. The people referred to in Deut 7:6 were the ethnic people of Israel. But most of them WERE NOT saved, as Paul makes clear in Gal 3:7:
'You know, then, that those who have faith are Abraham's sons.'
And see how Paul laments the unbelief of most Jews in his day in Rom 9:1-3.
Amén
Guys if you are discussing about God
use the Holy Scripture. not the word of yourself or your knowledge or whatever.
because the word of men is worthless and useless. and may be false. but if we are focused on word of God, the truth of God will increase in our mind and heart. i do not believe in the word of men.
i believe in The word of God and that is Jesus Christ His Scripture.
Humility + Grace of God + Faith in the work of Christ (Freewill in placing our trust in Christ) + Fruit (Works) = Salvation.
John 5:39
"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life..."
Matthew 11:25
"...You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants."
By adding works to God's way of salvation you are showing that you are yet to understand God's way.
@@gjshaw384 You thought you could twiddle your thumbs and go heaven, huh? Faith alone is the devil's lullaby putting you to sleep (where you think no one is looking as you sin).
@@calebmotupalli
You fail to understand and you are yet to respond to my questions of the scriptures relating to God's grace alone not our works.
Romans 9:11
"...in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls..."
1 Timothy 1:9
"Who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of of our works but because of His own purpose and grace, which He gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began."
@@gjshaw384
Romans 9:11
"...in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls..."
Answer: He elects (chooses) when we humble ourselves on seeing the man on the cross and being told we are sinners for whom He died. Then we are given the Gospel that he rose again to show that He was successful in paying the penalty for your sins and mine. Then we place our trust in Him by our own decision/freewill. *No brainer.*
1 Timothy 1:9
"Who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of of our works but because of His own purpose and grace, which He gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began."
Answer: Yes, by Grace through faith in the works of Christ that we have been saved *TO BEGIN WITH.* However, we must "continue in the faith" (Col1:23) with our works not His anymore. The Holy Spirit helps. But ultimately the wedding garments are our's.
Salvation is by faith and not by doing good deeds, but where there is genuine, saving faith it is always ACCOMPANIED BY good deeds.
Sounds science fiction
Like hyperdrive
Can we start using the term hyper-charismatic to disguise the difference in-between those who believe that God is alive and shows up in our lives in supernatural ways verse the sick TV 'evangelist' who mock God and rob the flock? I'm sick and tired of listening to good people like John Macarthur throwing me under the bus with people who practice heresy.
Sorry... I just listened to a Macarthur sermon.... he can't help himself but to paint all 'charismatics' with a wide and ugly brush in almost every sermon....
That's an interesting idea to use the term 'hyper-charismatic'. And MacArthur really has got this seriously wrong.
Yeah the backlash against NAR/WoF heresies and false teachers has caused most people to just reject any sort of personal touch from God (outside of the biblical canon)
I do use the term hyper charismatic, and I have heard other people use it. I am Charismatic, but against the hyper charismatic excesses or charismania. IE I believe in and experience the gifts of the Holy Spirit, as in the Bible. But all preaching must be biblical and we shouldn't pursue experiences that are not found in the bible. Nor should we elevate experiences above the scriptures. And the "prosperity gospel " is a false gospel.
Hypercalvinism is just calvinism with ADHD.
HYPERCALVINISM IS JUST CALVINISM WITH BATH SALTS.
"Hyper" Calvinism is just consistent calvinism.
HYPER CALVINISM IS JUST 2 DANGEROUS.
@@mercibeaucoup2639 All Calvinism is dangerous in my opinion
@@regandanielle
THIS CHRISTIAN CATHOLIC CONCURS. GOD BLESS YOU.
Calvinism is Man Crap. Hyper-Calvinism is Hyper-Man Crap. Why not just Do what Jesus Asked you to? And Leave God to His Own Business. God does not Have to Do according to your criteria.
kathleen Wharton Calvinism is not a philosophy looking for a proof-text. Instead, it is the biblical and expositional revelation of the entire bible
Rick Caldwell
The Bible is a lot of Man Crap. That is the point..That is why every Christian disagrees. That is why there are Catholics and Protestants..and everything in-between.
Rick Caldwell
It would take five degrees in theology and philosophy to even begin to support the Calvinist belief “system”.
Frankly, none of us has the time and/or energy, or the desire, to study our way into this doctrine...or any doctrine for that matter.
The true gospel is meant to be easily understood. Jesus taught three simple premises that give us all the insight we will ever need in order to adopt the spirit of his mind and thus understand the wisdom that is the gospel. All the drama that we add to it is simply the over imagination of men attempting to know things that they are absolutely clueless about. Defending religious beliefs with their endless warehouse of books is a worthless endeavor.
kathleen Wharton
Hi Kathleen. Mr C. In the house.
Your comment is absolutely true. This begs the question...how can we reduce scripture to its simplest form so that all of the rhetoric and endless libraries of books become obsolete? As you know, I’ve offered three premises that Christ taught exclusively. They have served me extremely well over the years and they continue to be consistent in value and revelation. I offer them to others on a daily basis and those who take them to heart and test them are equally amazed. What will it take to convince believers that the gospel isn’t merely a three part rehearsed speech?
Mr. C
Hello! Mr. C! I took a little rest. Jesus has taken me further. As you know I loved Matthew 5 6 7. But..now I am down to Matthew 6:33. "Seek ye First the kingdom of God and His Righteousness..and all these things will be added unto you.". The kingdom of God is Gods Love for me and to Know that He Loves me..as I am..and He will Provide Everything I Need. The man crap in the bible and the men who teach it destroyed my relationship with Jesus and my life. But Jesus has now repaired it and I will Heal..Completely! I believe God has provided you everything you need too. You do Know that God Loves you..just as you are..don't you? Because He Does! I know Humility and Gratitude. What is 3rd premise?
please go to Gene Kim's channel "Real Bible Believers" for primarily correct doctrine