Sovereignty does not, nor has it ever, meant determinism. Calling determinism "sovereignty" is equivocation, and even if its unintentional, it seems to imply that people who don't believe that God causually determines everything don't believe He is sovereign. The King of England is sovereign over England. That doesn't mean he causually determines the thoughts, actions, and motives of all English people. Likewise, God is sovereign. He is the absolute authority over every single thing. And if He *wanted* to actively control every molecule, He could, because He is God. But just because He is sovereign, doesn't mean that God *wants* to actively control every molecule.
People overthink this. Fortunately I am not that smart. God is sovereign and he chose to give men free will. There is also the small issue I have with following gnostic influenced belief systems(Calvinism/Islam/Buddhism) but I digress.
2:20 or so (Shakespeare/Hamlet's responsibility for the "to be or not to be" speech) I say 100% Shakespeare, since Shakespeare created a fiction that a character called Hamlet performed actions. When we talk about Hamlet "taking decisions,' that's taking the fiction at face value to simplify discussing a work of fiction: in fact, the only decisions made were made by Shakespeare.
Sorry, but 1:12 in and the comparison between God and man with Shakespeare and Hamlet is so flawed there's no reason to continue. How exactly would Shakespeare give Hamlet an actual freewill? That's right, he couldn't, because in that story Shakespeare has a character in a story, within Shakespeare's mind, that CAN'T do anything unless Shakespeare thinks it first and then writes it into the play.. Contrast this with God giving man, a living thinking being, an actual freewill which is limited by man's desire for sin. Which is why God chooses some bc otherwise no one would overcome their love of sin and choose God. Do we have the freewill to choose God? Yep. Will we use that freewill to choose Him? Nope. Why? Because we love sin too much. Thank you God for choosing some of us who instead of getting what we deserve for not using our freewill to choose you, hell, we get grace instead. No one gets less than they deserve. Some get more.
Except the argument goes “God is so much better and stronger and smarter than Shakespeare that He can meticulously determine every thought, choice, and sin you will ever do completely without your ability to do otherwise, from every rape to the flavor of ice-cream you eat, _freely_ “ That’s why so many people in the comments are just saying “It’s just a mystery we have to accept,”
@@littlefishbigmountain I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but what's the mystery? If you mean a mystery in as much as I'm finite and therefore can't totally understand an infinite being, of course. But that doesn't equal, or in any way justify, as non-calvinists do, ignoring parts of the Bible that we don't totally understand. Romans 8:28 says, "And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose." It actually says, "we know". Does that mean that I specifically know HOW God causes rape and picking a flavor of ice cream to work together for good? No. So if that's what you mean by mystery... ok, sure. But does that have any bearing on God being in charge and me accepting that He's in charge? Nope. Does that mean that He created evil? Nope. Did He know it would happen? Of course. So He allowed evil? Of course. Does that make Him ultimately responsible? Responsible for what ultimately works together for good? Yep. The non-calvinist doesn't like this but sorry that's what the Bible says. And as the far as the non-believer complaining about evil. Evil according to what? What Standard for good would the non-believer use to even say that evil exist?
@@firstthes2811 The mystery of how every single thought, intent, and action were written for us by God like Shakespeare wrote Hamlet’s thoughts, intents, and actions, but that He wrote them for us _freely_ . In other words, Compatiblism
This tension will not be figured out in this life. The plain truths, the Bible teaches both so we should believe both. How that gets balanced out??? None of us alive know & that’s apparently how God intended it.
Tension between which truths? If you mean human responsibility for evil AND Devine Determinism, the tension is due to the fact that these are a contradiction. However, if you mean a tension between Divine Sovereignty and genuine libertarian freedom (he could have chosen chocolate), then yes, there is a tension but both can be true at the same time without contradiction and how they coexist is a bit of a mystery. We must affirm both. However, Calvinists do not.
While no Christian can effectively answer my questions. I've asked hundreds of them. Zero well thought out answers. If your position is as firm as you seem to believe, why can it not give a ready answer to my questions?
Calvinists, can anyone explain how Shakespeare can judge Hamlet for what he has authored Hamlet to do? That's where the analogy fails in my opinion. Shakespeare sitting over Hamlet as a judge and saying, "Okay Hamlet, I see what I authored you to do here on page 32, and I'm going to judge you for that, in light of the fact that I did not author you to receive my forgiveness."
I would say the analogy does fail there because it wasn’t really the point. The point is to show that, just as Shakespeare and Hamlet are on different planes of existence, God and man resides in different planes of existence. This is how God can be Sovereign and man responsible both at the same time. This is how Joseph can say to his brothers “you intended it for evil BUT God intended it for good”. What was intended? The wicked acts of the brothers that sold Joseph into slavery. How could Joseph say God had an intention if God was not active in these actions? And I think the point of the analogy stands here: though God was active, He did not force the brothers to do what they did just like Shakespeare doesn’t break the plane of his play and force Hamlet to do anything. As Hamlet acts upon his nature, The brothers acted according to their nature, “And his brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers, and so they hated him and could not speak to him in peace“ Genesis 37:4 LSB. Not only did God not force their hands, He actually had to restrain their evil because they wanted to kill Joseph not sell him, ”And they saw him from a distance, and before he came close to them, they plotted against him to put him to death.“ Genesis 37:18 LSB. But I don’t want to stray too far from the question, analogies usually are trying to make some point, and the downfall of analogies is they can’t make all points, but, even as I was typing I thought, when you see a director or movie producer speaking of a character in their work, they may say things like “such and such is a really bad guy”. While they’re not damning these fictional characters, they are casting a judgment of sort. I know my thread is already long, but please suffer me just a bit longer. I see these conversations go so sideways, especially on the internet where we don’t actually know each other and have relationship, but this is not a topic we should be anathematizing each other over. I know it seems like it’s taking jabs at the gospel, but Calvinist and many non Calvinist would agree that men are saved by the finished work of Christ Jesus, and we can unify around that. This conversation is more of how do we harmonize the reality of God’s Sovereignty and man’s responsibility as presented in the Scriptures. I think this important because this happens so often. I have been told I was not even a Christian over this topic several times and I think that’s ridiculous and really makes us look bad. Let’s debate in love with one another because if you’ve been bought by Christ we are brothers (and sisters obviously).
@@stephentaylor5482 Thank you for your kind comment! I understand what you are saying, but respectfully, if what you are saying is true, then God has authored me to tell you that HE has authored me to tell you Calvinism is not Biblical, or rational. The reality is, if Calvinism is true: God IS going to judge us for all the things He has authored us to do. Shakespeare IS going to judge Hamlet for everything he authored Hamlet to do. I agree that we should always debate in love, but the fact of the matter is the only way anyone will listen to what God has authored you to say is if God has authored for them to listen to you and act accordingly. And when they don't, it is because God has authored them to reject what He authored you to say, and continue to be unloving. Thank you for your comment!
It baffles me how the early church managed without theologians to tell them what and how to believe. Much of theology makes use of Aristotelean logic Neo-platonism, developments of a no -Christian culture. To what extent have they affected the truth of the gospel?
My quick thought: These debates and presentations about sovereignty and free will are interesting or needed only to people who have an emotional problem with either one. If someone is totally fine and at peace with God being both the author of good and evil, then no problem is found! Likewise, if someone is totally fine and at peace with the idea that God's indwelling spirit in us practically makes humans and creation "his body" in a sense, and therefore, we and God together are the author of both good and evil, then no problem! Essentially, if you sever the emotional link between divine determinism and your serotonin release in your blood stream, then these debates become less and less interesting.
Calvinist here. There are certain aspects about God that you can’t “comprehend” because He is God and we are not. “My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD. Isaiah 55:8. We can only confess truths about Him revealed in His word.
The problem with this Shakespeare-Hamlet analogy is that God does not author FICTIONS. Shakespeare took a piece of history that played out and wrote a highly fictionalized version of it. The real-life version of "Hamlet" (i.e., "Amleth") wasn't a programmed earthen vessel. This concept is predetermination or predestination on the individual and collective basis -- which many Calvinists simultaneously claim to be a fact yet often pretend that they don't claim to exist -- is part of the fundamental piece-together of the Calvinist thought process. The more I read God's Word cover-to-cover, the more I am convinced that those who push the specific doctrinal peculiarities of Calvinism and its various points do NOT read God's Word cover-to-cover. Yes, they'll point to verses about "predestination" -- but never realize that they are talking about God having a people -- as Abraham's faith was tantamount to making him a father of "many nations" -- who are called by his Name. This sense of predestination is a plural concept -- where we can all be grafted into this vine of faith. Instead, Calvinists are convinced by other Calvinists who drive that doctrine into nearly every message you hear them preach. It's central to a Calvinists' faith. Yet, for something that is so paramount to the faith, it's simply not found in that form in the entirety of Scripture. Those who take a stand on such divisive or fractious topics (on either side of the debate) often do so without ever having read the Scriptures in their totality. So, I would reject the "strongly worded assertions" of ANYONE (on either side of the debate) who has never read the entire Word of God (and I don't include those who think that they've probably read most of it topically over a long period of time). For me, it is vital to have read the Scriptures from cover-to-cover many times in order to even have remote scholarship to take a position on this topic.
ccchhhrrriiisss; Wouldnt you agree, Chris, that the statements of Scripture concerning the way of salvation are plain and simple? '....that whosoever believeth on Him shall not perish but have everlasting life'. God does not take pleasure in the death of any man, but calls every man to repent and to trust in Christ. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. If you shall confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved. I have given to you to choose between life and death. Therefore choose life. Choose this day whom you will serve. I agree with you chris, that one should thoroughly read the scriptures. But the Lord has graciously made the way of salvation easy to understand. It is at the level, designedly, of new testament milk, not of strong meat. Someone with a simple biblical faith in Christ can genuinely witness to any man or woman, and sincerely urge them to accept Christ in order to be saved. The calvinist, however, no matter how scholarly or unscholarly, though he may use the same words and quote the same verses, cannot do this with full integrity, because he privately believes that the person he is talking to may have already been created unequipped by God to have either the desire or the ability to believe the gospel. This is gross error. An error, furthermore, which has forced the calvinist to unilaterally declare that God has made two calls to mankind, one 'effectual' and the other 'innefectual' So, yes, I feel that any believer has the right to strongly assert that this pernicious doctrine is not found anywhere in Scripture,whether they be a scholar or a babe in Christ. Indeed, it is scholars of various types that are often vulnerable to gross errors. They will take the simplest declarations of Scripture, and 'deconstruct' them (in a 'scholarly' way of course) and sow confusion in their own minds and in the minds of those whose simple faith is wholly sufficient for their salvation, but who are vulnerable to being seduced by the sophistication of those with more experience and academic knowledge. People like Calvin himself, and his modern disciples like MacArther, may indeed have a degree of wide scholarship, and be impressively articulate, but the fact that MacArthur promotes 'Lordship Salvation' demonstrates that scholarship does not necessarily guarantee a grasp of the biblical way of salvation.
@@williambunter3311 Very well written. In recent talks with many Calvinists, I have discovered 4 major things about them: 1. They do not really understand the implications of Calvinism. And most have not read what Calvin really taught. 2. Most importantly, they do not read the Bible, like you said "Cover to Cover". They read their Proof texts, not the Scriptures in their proper contexts. 3. Also that most do not argue to really understand what others are saying, but to be heard by others, to push their ideology to the person. 4. Most importantly and appalling is that calvinists glory in their doctrine so much and even though claiming after Sola Scriptura, they lift their doctrine above scripture. This is one of the origins of the pride that they have in elevating their doctrine above others and think most Christians who do not hold to their teaching is less or not a believer. In conclusion, Calvinism thinks it is a God glorifying theology, but in the end, it is not, it is a philosophy that glorifies an ideology that traps its own self and ensnares other people into it. I studied Reformed Theology - Calvinism in Bible school, so I know quiet well what I am talking about. It only took reading the Bible cover to cover to refute it. May God bless the reader.❤ Amen
@@kingiak4931 I am intrigued with the calvinst mindset and often try to figure out why they are so adamant about it. I disagree on point 2 most of the calvinist I know are very well read and their sermons always cover the whole Bible. I do agree that they have lost sight that their views are an interpretation of scripture not the scripture. So why do they push it so hard? Usually much harder than repentance. Most will say it's not a salvation issue so what is their goal? To purge the church of the people who believe they are saved but aren't?
This is not just Calvinists. This is what the Church universal has wrestled with since the second century. Origen's book "On Prayer" concerned this topic broadly. When you are using good and sin you seem to be using it in a moral sense which is fine but when a Classical Theist, like a Calvinist or traditional Roman Catholic, say that God is the source of all good then they mean everything that has existence or that exists. Our moral goodness then is attributed to God because he made us and sustains us in existence for the express purpose to do those good things. He doesn't force us to do them, rather he enables us to do them. Sin on the other hand is a lack of consideration of God's moral law or a lack of action to do good things when we ought to do them. That lack or privation cannot be attributed to God because God lacks nothing. The lack is found in us as sinful creatures. We do this because our nature is corrupted by the sin of Adam. When we do good things we do that because God's grace enables us to desire the things of God. This is not just Calvinistic teaching. This way of thinking goes all the way back to the early church. It goes back to Epicurus at least. All Christians have to answer this problem. You can try the free will defense but that doesn't explain why God can't sin and why believers in the new heaven and new earth won't sin.
Premise 1: God determines all things that come to pass. Premise 2: My desire to sin and be obedient are things that have come to pass. Conclusion: God determines my desires to sin and be obedient.
@@beberean612 I’m willing to have this conversation but you’re gonna need to define your terms or we will just talk past each other. What do you mean by “determines”? Please don’t say causes because that needs a definition too. I’ll just cut to the chase if it saves time. God is the primary cause of all that exists. We are secondary causes. On the level of secondary causes we are the essential cause of our actions including sin. In other words we make our actions what they are. God doesn’t do that but he does keep us in existence and give us the power to move so in that sense he is also a cause of our actions, the existential cause. This is classical theistic thought not just Calvinistic thought.
@@chrismabe2661 Well then, as a secondary cause, with God being the primary cause, I have been determined to inform you that I am a secondary cause He is using to convince you that this concept of God using me as a secondary cause with Him as the primary cause, is not Biblical or rational.
@@beberean612 You do not have to be a smart aleck by saying ridiculous things like that. No one asserts that. Your status as a secondary cause is on the existential level. God does not determine your actions in the sense of choosing them for you. He determines them in the sense that he makes them exist and gives you the power to act.
@@chrismabe2661 My friend, Calvinism does assert that, but it can be difficult to understand how compatibilism is really no less deterministic than hard determinism. If God determines what our greatest desire will be and gives us the power to act on that desire, we can no longer be a responsible secondary cause of our actions, because the only way a secondary cause can be held responsible, is if the secondary cause can affect the outcome of what has been determined. If, however, the secondary cause can have no effect on the outcome, the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate for everyone how this is rational. Just as a cue ball, when it is struck by the pool player, has no ability to affect the outcome of its path toward the eight ball, and so we give credit to the pool player for winning the game; in the same way, we, if we have no ability to affect the outcome of our path, should not be held responsible for the destination. On our view, God is perfectly capable of using us as secondary causes to bring about His purposes, by having a perfect knowledge of all counterfactuals, and allowing us to act freely when we could have done otherwise. An example of this is a police sting operation. If the police know a drug dealer well enough to know that he will freely sell drugs at a given time and place, and that drug dealer meets with the undercover officer at that particular time and place and tries to sell drugs, the drug dealer is held responsible for his actions, because he could have, and should have done otherwise. The police are not held responsible. But if that drug dealer pulls out his gun and kills the undercover officer, no rational person would ever hold the bullet responsible for the murder. Why? Because the bullet has no ability to affect the outcome. It left the barrel when the primer was struck by the hammer, which started moving when the trigger was pulled by the man aiming the gun. None of these "secondary causes" in the chain of events between the shooter and the victim are capable of affecting the outcome determined by the shooter, and therefore the shooter is solely responsible. They may be considered secondary causes, but not in a way where those secondary causes would be considered responsible. What compatibilism is saying is that we are the triggers, hammers, firing pins, primers, bullets, etc, and God is the shooter or primary cause and yet we, as parts of a gun are held responsible for the crime.
It seems like part of the confusion might be coming through equivocation on the concept of "responsibility". You seem to use the word/phrase "responsible [for]" in two senses: 1) "Responsible" in the sense of being morally culpable and 2) "responsible" in the sense of being the ultimate source or cause. The Bible treats these two concepts differently, and it seems like part of the confusion here stems from conflating them. A clear example might be Acts 4:27-28, where it is said that the murder of Jesus by crucifixion was commited by Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles and the people of Israel, who were doing "whatever your [i.e., God's] hand and your plan predestined to take place." (v. 28) If you ask in this verse "who is responsible for the murder of Jesus" in the first sense, the text answers it was Herod, Pilate, the Israelites and the Gentiles. They committed they action and they are morally culpable, which is why they (not God) are being called to repent. If, on the other hand, you are asking in the second sense, the text answers that God had planned and predestined that the murder of Jesus should occur. God planned and predestined, the people acted (in accordance with their own wills and desires) and the people remain morally culpable for their actions. It isn't just the Calvinists that have to deal with this.
You said, "God planned and predestined, the people acted (in accordance with their own wills and desires) and the people remain morally culpable for their actions." I agree with you, I just don't believe He needed to predestine their desires to bring it about. I believe God is capable of bringing about His purposes in spite of libertarian free will, and I believe a God less than Sovereign would be unable to do that. A God less than sovereign would need to control both sides of the chess board to ensure His victory. We believe God brought about the crucifixion, not by determining desires, or knowing future events, but by having a perfect knowledge of all counterfactuals. And there are many examples in Scripture of God using His omniscience in this way. Like when God told David that Saul was going to come down to the city where he was taking refuge, and the people of that city were going to hand him over to Saul. None of those things came to pass, because God wasn't looking into the future. David left the city and Saul gave up the expedition when he learned that David had left. But God did know what most certainly "would" happen if David stayed on the path he was on.
@@beberean612 I get where you're going, but I don't actually see how this gets you out of the same hot water as Wilson. I assume it is true that God knows all counterfactuals. But this still leaves us with a situation in which God, knowing these counterfactuals, knew what the decisions and actions of His creatures would be if He created the world in a certain way. To put a finer point on it, God knew "If I create the world this way, Jesus will be murdered" and "If I create the world this other way, Jesus will not be murdered". And you, like Doug, believe that God freely chose the murder option. He chose to create the world in such a way that, without fail, the greatest act of evil would be committed by specific people. And, as Christians who adhere to the Bible, you must both grant a) that God was entirely just to determine from the foundation of the world that specific people would commit specific acts of evil and b) that He is also completely just to hold those human agents accountable, even though their actions were set in stone from eternity past. From what you've said so far, your only real disagreement seems to be that you feel that you have a better explanation of the mechanism by which God does all this. And if that's the case, I would simply suggest your argument would be stronger by providing a clear foundation in Scripture for that mechanism. To clarify what I'm suggesting, you seem to consider libertarian free will to be the key to unravelling the alleged problem Doug is in. How might you define the concept of "libertarian free will" if you were restricted to only describing that will in terms that the Bible uses about it. As a counter example, Wilson and others will often point to passages like Romans 8:7, John 6:44 or John 8:34 to argue that man's will is not "free" but "enslaved" by corruption from sin, and so there are at least some choices which, although physically and logically possible, are not in fact possible for a person apart from divine enabling. Where might you go in scripture to spell out what you mean by "libertarian free will"? What passages might you point to that speak of the will of man as being "libertarian" and/or "free"?
I don’t mean to blow up the comment section, but I have questions. Which Calvinist says that Man is responsible for all the bad in the world, yet God is responsible for all the good? Not only that, but what is the context in which this statement was made?
Ultimately, Calvinists need to realize that they don’t get to play it both ways. No appeal to mystery or the incomprehensible nature of God will fix this problem for them. And it’s a cheap cop-out when they try to. Bottom line: If God determines all things, including all sin, then He is responsible for all evil and thus not perfect. Period. Conversely, if Sovereignty does not mean Omni-Determinism, but Kingly Authority over all things, then God can Sovereignly create beings with their own free will without any apparent “tension.” Sovereignty doesn’t mean Determinism. It means Kingship. The Calvinistic understanding of Sovereignty is a Gnostic holdover.
God doesnt "make us Sin". We sin because its our nature. Its our nature as a consiquence of Adam. All must be born with sin because God said it would be so to Adam... He is just in this for He does not change. And He means it for Good because of the works of Christ. We are only enslaved either to sin, or to rightousness. We will always do the will of our master. So if we are not born again, we are of flesh. If we are of flesh, we are spiritually dead and sinful continously. In fact, the bible teaches that God in His MERCY holds us back from sinning as much as we truly would! When we read Him "hardening someones heart", Paul explains that further in Romans to mean He gives people over to their desires (the desires they already had). For example, God didnt harden pharoahs heart in the sense that pharoah was contemplating doing good or evil and God wanted to make sure He chose evil. Paul would be teaching that God restrained Pharoah's evil desires until the perfect time. If pharoah would have let them go and completed a "good" act, it would only be by Gods mercy that pharoahs evil desires were restrained enough for that to happen! If it wasnt for His MERCY sin would be abundant all the more always! That is why we must be born again!!! If our default is to always sin continously, we need a new default. A new nature. To be a new creation... And the good news is once your saved you are no longer a slave to sin, but a slave to rightousness. Therefore your default now is contrary to the flesh. And whats different between now and what Adam and Eve had is we have a merciful and faithful high priest who will ensure we keep the faith, ALWAYS. For just as you didnt choose to be born the first time, you didnt choose to be born the second time. And because you didnt have it in your own strength to change your nature the first time, dont be pridful enough to think you could change it the second time either.
@@beberean612 Show me a verse with the word responsible in it. If men are responsible for sin, wouldn’t you think there’s a verse that would say so? Isn’t it very basic doctrine?
@@aletheia8054 What an utterly absurd statement! Are you seriously trying to argue that because the word 'responsible' is absent, then the individual's moral responsibility before God is not a biblical fact? The word 'trinity' is not found in Scripture. Do you on that basis deny the truth of the trinity? The words 'omnipresent', 'omnipotent' and 'omniscient'' are not found in Scripture, either. Do you therefore deny that God has these characteristics? One of the problems with calvinists is that they deliberately and dishonestly make ridiculous comments like yours which they know full well to be nonsensical, just to try to blur any truth which does not suit their aberrant man-made theology. This goes to demonstrate their lack of integrity and their immaturity, not to mention their customary arrogance. It is the slyness of the serpent manifested for all to see.
Very good video. Calvinist’s have a hard time with logic and thinking. They can only get so deep and when they hit their floor they think they’ve landed on epiphanies. But in reality they have only just pulled back 1 layer of the onion. As soon as you pull back the next layer they’re lost, and comically, accuse you of not understanding. What you’ve done here with exposing the authorship analogy is spot on. No, Doug, in your scenario it is and always was 100% Shakespeare and 0% Hamlet. Anyone with half a brain knows that.
@@stephentaylor5482Sure, in which work entitled “Hamlet”? Shakespeare’s play? Or one of the many other books? If you mean Shakespeare’s, then the teacher would get the answers of what Shakespeare wrote that the character Hamlet said in his play. But it’s still 100% Shakespeare. Are you starting to see this now?
Exactly, and if we're wrong, it's only because God has authored us to speak against what He has authored Calvinist to believe. Thank you for your comment.
The problem here is that God is outside of the morality under which we are held. His ways are higher than our ways. We cannot charge Him with wrong. The biggest mystery is the origine of evil. No one can answer that mystery. The problem of God not being as Sovereign as He claims in Scripture is that there are aspects of reality that God doesn’t control, which is a vastly worse idea than whether God, in His infinite wisdom and immutable nature ordains that evil things happen, which He will use for good, which his creatures cannot comprehend.
@bryntjones, that doesn't sound right. If God is outside of our morality why are we to try to be Christ like? Why did Jesus say only God is good? Who's morality will we use in heaven, the one we have gotten from the Bible or God's unknown morality? Also nobody believes God is less sovereign, we believe he is less deterministic.
@mattgardner145 ok, let me clarify: God holds us to standards/morality that fo not apply to Him. For example, if we kill someone, we've committed murder. If God kills them, He has not. Since He is Sovereign over all things, He ordains each death. So, while someone may be killed by a murderer, and that was ordained by God, the murderer is guilty and responsible, but God, who ordained all things, is not. While this is hard to grasp, with horrors we see, the alternative is that humans have the ability to do things outside of God's sovereignty. And, yes, you are advocating a system that leads right into open theism, and a diminished sovereignty of God. I don't think you mean to, but that becomes the new paradox you create when you attack what you refer to as "Calvinism." The passages where we read that God does as He pleases are all over. And that He is not charged with wrong. Another illustration, while flawed, is that if a man builds a house, then tears it down, he has done no wrong. But if someone else destroys the house they have. Analogies are always poor, to say the least, when discussing God, so I hesitate to use this one. The point being, Biblically, the Potter can do with the clay as he wishes. God, in His grace can save some, not all, and have done no wrong. P.S. I'm no fan of Doug Wilson, and his analogies are flippant, though he thinks they are witty, imo.
@@Bryntjones that's a pretty good example with the murder explanation, but I think your terms are confusing. Would it not be more accurate to say he is not subject to the law? Also I don't believe anybody can do anything outside God's sovereignty, but I believe we all do things outside of his will.
@@mattgardner145 I get where you're coming from, with the "will" vs. Sovereignty. I've heard that as a "moral" will and a "sovereign" will, one we break, while the other is immovable. But the descriptions of God in the Bible don't seem to support that well. Granted, there are passages that condescend to us in ways we would comprehend, or poetic devices that present a side of God in terms we can grasp. But God ordains what people say and what comes to pass Lam. 3:37-38. And when a descendant of Saul hurled insults at David, it was noted that the Lord ordained that he would say those things.
Sounds like you're saying that there should NOT be "Free Will." Are you saying that God has laid out everything for the taking and that Man is the one who decided what is, or is not evil? That nothing should be off limits and that it's wrong for God to punish someone for a "sin" that He created? Or are you saying there is no Free Will BECAUSE He, God, put it there for us to trip on and is therefore the instigator of evil. Is Free Will a bad thing? Or is it a test to determine ones ability to assimilate into Heaven, in order to be in His presence? He is the creator of the parts and we are the one who assembles those parts AT WILL. True, we may be the victim of someone elses Free Will, but that is another reason we are called to acknowledge God, trust that He and His Son, Jesus, are the ONLY ONE who can repair that wrong, though it be in an afterlife or with limitations for the duration on Earth. Sometimes, i leave a dollar on the counter, just laying there. I want to know who is worthy of being in my home. Who i can or can not trust. I think that is what Free Will is about. God DID create all the components or ingredients for a sinful or evil act. But Man is the one responsible for putting enough of those ingredients together to have commited an act against God. Just like if my own children or grandkids, even my closest friends, took that dollar, I would not condemn them to the street until i have given them every opportunity to repent. I may not hear their pentance, but God does, and i will sense that through the further actions of my loved one. It is the Holy Spirit which convicts the thief, if the thief recognizes God as the sovereign. If not, there is no presence of the Holy Spirit to whisper in the ear, "If you take that dollar bill, you will gravely injure yourself through the loss of love or repect of your host ( Granny, in my case). If the thief doesn't believe in God, or does but blames God for the evil that the Man is capable of, and dare I say, it is usually much worse that swipping granny's wrinkled dollar off the kitchen counter, the thief will then blame Granny for enticing his human nature to steal the money, not his fault for using the Free Will which God gave him. What am I to make of your position here? Did i miss something? You sound worse than atheistic to me. You sound as though you are putting God in the same catagory as a Roman or Greek god (little 'g'); a petulent egomaniac. Am i wrong?
The Scriptures plainly teach that God is absolutely sovereign. The Scriptures also teach that we are responsible for our actions. It's no more possible for a finite human mind to explain or understand this than it is to understand how the infinite God was manifested in the flesh. We're not called to explain or understand God, we're commanded to BELIEVE Him.
Acts 2:23 is all you need to read and then accept it as Biblical truth. This all makes sense. I am so glad I have studied this over and over and see that the Calvinist position is biblical. Both must be true Gods eternal plan and mans temporal actions. Any other view and you will change the nature of either God or man.
This is, honestly, Bible 101 stuff. It is not a gotcha. Rather, it's kind of an embarrassing video that reveals your ignorance of the Bible. This isn't even a "Calvinist" claim either. This view you have is only possible when you don't understand the IMMENSE unholiness and importance of sin. I'll explain: - God's number one priority is His own glory. - God made the world and everything in it, as well as supernatural beings too. - God made the world perfect, knowing that man would sin and fall. It is a giant story of redemption that glorifies God. - God didn't make us robots who only worship Him. That wouldn't bring Him glory. He made us with free will. Those small amount of people who choose God (whom God knew beforehand) would bring God more glory than 10 trillion robot worshippers. - Man disobeyed God, sinned, and brought forth generation upon generation of sinful creatures who have no hope of eternally existing with God, due to their sin nature. Heaven requires perfection. - Knowing this, God sent Jesus to bear the wrath of the Father and allow those who trust in Him as their Savior to be free of the punishment they deserve and live eternally with God, in heaven. So, the question: How can God not be responsible for sin but still be responsible for good? Easy: Man chose to sin. God had unbelievable mercy and grace and still chose to save us. God didn't sin, man did. Man is responsible. But, how can God be responsible for good? God is good. He is the epitome of good. Good only exists because God exists as He is the ONLY one who dictates what is good. God sets the standard. Everything he created is good (As stated in Genesis). It was sin that corrupted everything and caused the world to be in a fallen state. Romans 8 directly tells us He works for our good. Also, take a look at the whole Bible. The fact that He hasn't wiped out humanity thousands of years ago is evidence of His abounding mercy and goodness. The fact that we have a loving God is evidence of his kindness, mercy, and goodness. Do I really need to go on? These two things are not in contradiction of each other at all.
I'm going to start responding to these elementary level fallacies by begging my own questions. Sir, you just don't understand the Bible. My view is the correct view, and if it's not, then God authored me to post this video and respond to your comment in this way. Sir, God has authored me to tell you that you are wrong, and that you should reject the doctrines of Calvinism.
@beberean612 Unsurprisingly, you've revealed the extent of your ability to debate, which is close to none. Notice how you didn't speak to any point I made. Instead, you chose to use a circular argument that has nothing to do with what I said. Additionally, you keep strawmanning the idea of Calvinism when I explicitly stated this has nothing to do with calvinism and explained why. I pray that God hides false teachers like you from people, so they are not deceived.
Pointing out your circular reasoning by means of sarcasm is not the same thing as using circular reasoning. But if what you are arguing is true, the only reason I am a "false teacher," as you so kindly label those who disagree with Calvinism, is because God has authored me to believe wrong ideas about Him. Right? It sounds like you are defending Calvinism by making Calvinism sound like Provisionism. Perhaps you are not a Calvinist?
@@beberean612 Let's look at the evidence. We have a poorly argued video followed by two very poor responses that fail to address anything of relevance. So, while your comments could be sarcasm, it's perfectly valid to read them as intentional, seeing as your track record of logic, coherence, and biblical knowledge is not great. Again, you're strawmanning. I said I wasn't arguing from a Calvinist perspective. But, you need that strawman to pretend to win the argument in your head, I guess.
As Calvinists, we believe in total depravity. Every bit of our nature is stained by sin. This is why God’s writing our evil actions does not make him responsible. By that same token, we believe that any good we do is only by the grace of God. In other words, Shakespeare must condescend into the story and change Hamlet’s mind miraculously, whereas the evil actions are simply written in.
It amazes me how 👿 keeps using the same ol' playbook & "Christians" fall for it "Hath God indeed said?". 1st, Calvinistic Total Depravity (more like Total Inability) is from poor Bible study, under-discipled or just being stubbornly bent on an ideology. Romans 3, starting in vs 11 Paul is pulling from Psalm 14 of what the FOOL does & says. 2nd, They conflate God's sovereignty with absolute determinism. God's foreknowledge of all events does not make Him the causal agent of all events (see Jeremiah 19:5 for one of many examples). See Calvin's Institutes book 1 chptr 16 prgph 8 sometime.
@@beberean612 so you don’t believe that God has ordained everything that has come to pass. So you don’t believe God is Omniscient? Or you believe he is but he is not sovereign?
Sovereignty does not, nor has it ever, meant determinism. Calling determinism "sovereignty" is equivocation, and even if its unintentional, it seems to imply that people who don't believe that God causually determines everything don't believe He is sovereign.
The King of England is sovereign over England. That doesn't mean he causually determines the thoughts, actions, and motives of all English people.
Likewise, God is sovereign. He is the absolute authority over every single thing. And if He *wanted* to actively control every molecule, He could, because He is God. But just because He is sovereign, doesn't mean that God *wants* to actively control every molecule.
People overthink this. Fortunately I am not that smart. God is sovereign and he chose to give men free will. There is also the small issue I have with following gnostic influenced belief systems(Calvinism/Islam/Buddhism) but I digress.
2:20 or so (Shakespeare/Hamlet's responsibility for the "to be or not to be" speech) I say 100% Shakespeare, since Shakespeare created a fiction that a character called Hamlet performed actions. When we talk about Hamlet "taking decisions,' that's taking the fiction at face value to simplify discussing a work of fiction: in fact, the only decisions made were made by Shakespeare.
Sorry, but 1:12 in and the comparison between God and man with Shakespeare and Hamlet is so flawed there's no reason to continue. How exactly would Shakespeare give Hamlet an actual freewill? That's right, he couldn't, because in that story Shakespeare has a character in a story, within Shakespeare's mind, that CAN'T do anything unless Shakespeare thinks it first and then writes it into the play.. Contrast this with God giving man, a living thinking being, an actual freewill which is limited by man's desire for sin. Which is why God chooses some bc otherwise no one would overcome their love of sin and choose God. Do we have the freewill to choose God? Yep. Will we use that freewill to choose Him? Nope. Why? Because we love sin too much. Thank you God for choosing some of us who instead of getting what we deserve for not using our freewill to choose you, hell, we get grace instead. No one gets less than they deserve. Some get more.
Except the argument goes “God is so much better and stronger and smarter than Shakespeare that He can meticulously determine every thought, choice, and sin you will ever do completely without your ability to do otherwise, from every rape to the flavor of ice-cream you eat, _freely_ “
That’s why so many people in the comments are just saying “It’s just a mystery we have to accept,”
@@littlefishbigmountain I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but what's the mystery? If you mean a mystery in as much as I'm finite and therefore can't totally understand an infinite being, of course. But that doesn't equal, or in any way justify, as non-calvinists do, ignoring parts of the Bible that we don't totally understand. Romans 8:28 says, "And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose." It actually says, "we know". Does that mean that I specifically know HOW God causes rape and picking a flavor of ice cream to work together for good? No. So if that's what you mean by mystery... ok, sure. But does that have any bearing on God being in charge and me accepting that He's in charge? Nope. Does that mean that He created evil? Nope. Did He know it would happen? Of course. So He allowed evil? Of course. Does that make Him ultimately responsible? Responsible for what ultimately works together for good? Yep. The non-calvinist doesn't like this but sorry that's what the Bible says. And as the far as the non-believer complaining about evil. Evil according to what? What Standard for good would the non-believer use to even say that evil exist?
@@firstthes2811
The mystery of how every single thought, intent, and action were written for us by God like Shakespeare wrote Hamlet’s thoughts, intents, and actions, but that He wrote them for us _freely_ . In other words, Compatiblism
@@littlefishbigmountain And? How does this have any impact on Calvinism?
I know it doesn't make sense to all of us... humans, but trust me, Calvinism is true! Lol!
This tension will not be figured out in this life. The plain truths, the Bible teaches both so we should believe both. How that gets balanced out??? None of us alive know & that’s apparently how God intended it.
Tension between which truths? If you mean human responsibility for evil AND Devine Determinism, the tension is due to the fact that these are a contradiction. However, if you mean a tension between Divine Sovereignty and genuine libertarian freedom (he could have chosen chocolate), then yes, there is a tension but both can be true at the same time without contradiction and how they coexist is a bit of a mystery. We must affirm both. However, Calvinists do not.
@@AdrianVanVactor I’m a Calvinist & I do! I simply believe what the Bible says. Even if I don’t understand it.
God has authored me to tell you that the Bible clearly teaches Calvinism is false.
@@beberean612 lol, good one.
@@redeemedadventures All in good fun! God bless you!
While no Christian can effectively answer my questions. I've asked hundreds of them. Zero well thought out answers. If your position is as firm as you seem to believe, why can it not give a ready answer to my questions?
Calvinists, can anyone explain how Shakespeare can judge Hamlet for what he has authored Hamlet to do? That's where the analogy fails in my opinion. Shakespeare sitting over Hamlet as a judge and saying, "Okay Hamlet, I see what I authored you to do here on page 32, and I'm going to judge you for that, in light of the fact that I did not author you to receive my forgiveness."
I would say the analogy does fail there because it wasn’t really the point. The point is to show that, just as Shakespeare and Hamlet are on different planes of existence, God and man resides in different planes of existence. This is how God can be Sovereign and man responsible both at the same time. This is how Joseph can say to his brothers “you intended it for evil BUT God intended it for good”. What was intended? The wicked acts of the brothers that sold Joseph into slavery. How could Joseph say God had an intention if God was not active in these actions? And I think the point of the analogy stands here: though God was active, He did not force the brothers to do what they did just like Shakespeare doesn’t break the plane of his play and force Hamlet to do anything. As Hamlet acts upon his nature, The brothers acted according to their nature, “And his brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers, and so they hated him and could not speak to him in peace“ Genesis 37:4 LSB. Not only did God not force their hands, He actually had to restrain their evil because they wanted to kill Joseph not sell him, ”And they saw him from a distance, and before he came close to them, they plotted against him to put him to death.“ Genesis 37:18 LSB. But I don’t want to stray too far from the question, analogies usually are trying to make some point, and the downfall of analogies is they can’t make all points, but, even as I was typing I thought, when you see a director or movie producer speaking of a character in their work, they may say things like “such and such is a really bad guy”. While they’re not damning these fictional characters, they are casting a judgment of sort.
I know my thread is already long, but please suffer me just a bit longer. I see these conversations go so sideways, especially on the internet where we don’t actually know each other and have relationship, but this is not a topic we should be anathematizing each other over. I know it seems like it’s taking jabs at the gospel, but Calvinist and many non Calvinist would agree that men are saved by the finished work of Christ Jesus, and we can unify around that. This conversation is more of how do we harmonize the reality of God’s Sovereignty and man’s responsibility as presented in the Scriptures. I think this important because this happens so often. I have been told I was not even a Christian over this topic several times and I think that’s ridiculous and really makes us look bad. Let’s debate in love with one another because if you’ve been bought by Christ we are brothers (and sisters obviously).
@@stephentaylor5482 Thank you for your kind comment! I understand what you are saying, but respectfully, if what you are saying is true, then God has authored me to tell you that HE has authored me to tell you Calvinism is not Biblical, or rational. The reality is, if Calvinism is true: God IS going to judge us for all the things He has authored us to do. Shakespeare IS going to judge Hamlet for everything he authored Hamlet to do. I agree that we should always debate in love, but the fact of the matter is the only way anyone will listen to what God has authored you to say is if God has authored for them to listen to you and act accordingly. And when they don't, it is because God has authored them to reject what He authored you to say, and continue to be unloving. Thank you for your comment!
It baffles me how the early church managed without theologians to tell them what and how to believe. Much of theology makes use of Aristotelean logic Neo-platonism, developments of a no -Christian culture. To what extent have they affected the truth of the gospel?
that is the freaky thinking about calvinist. it’s a story meaning Jesus was just a player in a drama. blasphemy plain and simple.
My quick thought: These debates and presentations about sovereignty and free will are interesting or needed only to people who have an emotional problem with either one.
If someone is totally fine and at peace with God being both the author of good and evil, then no problem is found! Likewise, if someone is totally fine and at peace with the idea that God's indwelling spirit in us practically makes humans and creation "his body" in a sense, and therefore, we and God together are the author of both good and evil, then no problem!
Essentially, if you sever the emotional link between divine determinism and your serotonin release in your blood stream, then these debates become less and less interesting.
Calvinist here. There are certain aspects about God that you can’t “comprehend” because He is God and we are not. “My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD. Isaiah 55:8. We can only confess truths about Him revealed in His word.
No, if Calvinism is true, we can only confess truths God has authored for us to confess.
ua-cam.com/video/uRBZ6CACCpI/v-deo.htmlsi=zFDA_Atxg8h2Lf7r
Let no man say when he is tempted I am tempted of God. For God cannot be tempted; and He Himself tempted no man. James 1
Mystery card.. hehehehe
The problem with this Shakespeare-Hamlet analogy is that God does not author FICTIONS. Shakespeare took a piece of history that played out and wrote a highly fictionalized version of it. The real-life version of "Hamlet" (i.e., "Amleth") wasn't a programmed earthen vessel. This concept is predetermination or predestination on the individual and collective basis -- which many Calvinists simultaneously claim to be a fact yet often pretend that they don't claim to exist -- is part of the fundamental piece-together of the Calvinist thought process.
The more I read God's Word cover-to-cover, the more I am convinced that those who push the specific doctrinal peculiarities of Calvinism and its various points do NOT read God's Word cover-to-cover. Yes, they'll point to verses about "predestination" -- but never realize that they are talking about God having a people -- as Abraham's faith was tantamount to making him a father of "many nations" -- who are called by his Name. This sense of predestination is a plural concept -- where we can all be grafted into this vine of faith.
Instead, Calvinists are convinced by other Calvinists who drive that doctrine into nearly every message you hear them preach. It's central to a Calvinists' faith. Yet, for something that is so paramount to the faith, it's simply not found in that form in the entirety of Scripture. Those who take a stand on such divisive or fractious topics (on either side of the debate) often do so without ever having read the Scriptures in their totality.
So, I would reject the "strongly worded assertions" of ANYONE (on either side of the debate) who has never read the entire Word of God (and I don't include those who think that they've probably read most of it topically over a long period of time). For me, it is vital to have read the Scriptures from cover-to-cover many times in order to even have remote scholarship to take a position on this topic.
ccchhhrrriiisss; Wouldnt you agree, Chris, that the statements of Scripture concerning the way of salvation are plain and simple?
'....that whosoever believeth on Him shall not perish but have everlasting life'.
God does not take pleasure in the death of any man, but calls every man to repent and to trust in Christ.
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.
If you shall confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved.
I have given to you to choose between life and death. Therefore choose life.
Choose this day whom you will serve.
I agree with you chris, that one should thoroughly read the scriptures. But the Lord has graciously made the way of salvation easy to understand. It is at the level, designedly, of new testament milk, not of strong meat. Someone with a simple biblical faith in Christ can genuinely witness to any man or woman, and sincerely urge them to accept Christ in order to be saved.
The calvinist, however, no matter how scholarly or unscholarly, though he may use the same words and quote the same verses, cannot do this with full integrity, because he privately believes that the person he is talking to may have already been created unequipped by God to have either the desire or the ability to believe the gospel. This is gross error. An error, furthermore, which has forced the calvinist to unilaterally declare that God has made two calls to mankind, one 'effectual' and the other 'innefectual' So, yes, I feel that any believer has the right to strongly assert that this pernicious doctrine is not found anywhere in Scripture,whether they be a scholar or a babe in Christ.
Indeed, it is scholars of various types that are often vulnerable to gross errors. They will take the simplest declarations of Scripture, and 'deconstruct' them (in a 'scholarly' way of course) and sow confusion in their own minds and in the minds of those whose simple faith is wholly sufficient for their salvation, but who are vulnerable to being seduced by the sophistication of those with more experience and academic knowledge.
People like Calvin himself, and his modern disciples like MacArther, may indeed have a degree of wide scholarship, and be impressively articulate, but the fact that MacArthur promotes 'Lordship Salvation' demonstrates that scholarship does not necessarily guarantee a grasp of the biblical way of salvation.
@@williambunter3311 Very well written.
In recent talks with many Calvinists, I have discovered 4 major things about them:
1. They do not really understand the implications of Calvinism. And most have not read what Calvin really taught.
2. Most importantly, they do not read the Bible, like you said "Cover to Cover". They read their Proof texts, not the Scriptures in their proper contexts.
3. Also that most do not argue to really understand what others are saying, but to be heard by others, to push their ideology to the person.
4. Most importantly and appalling is that calvinists glory in their doctrine so much and even though claiming after Sola Scriptura, they lift their doctrine above scripture.
This is one of the origins of the pride that they have in elevating their doctrine above others and think most Christians who do not hold to their teaching is less or not a believer.
In conclusion, Calvinism thinks it is a God glorifying theology, but in the end, it is not, it is a philosophy that glorifies an ideology that traps its own self and ensnares other people into it.
I studied Reformed Theology - Calvinism in Bible school, so I know quiet well what I am talking about.
It only took reading the Bible cover to cover to refute it.
May God bless the reader.❤
Amen
@@kingiak4931both of you are absolutely correct
@@kingiak4931 I am intrigued with the calvinst mindset and often try to figure out why they are so adamant about it. I disagree on point 2 most of the calvinist I know are very well read and their sermons always cover the whole Bible. I do agree that they have lost sight that their views are an interpretation of scripture not the scripture. So why do they push it so hard? Usually much harder than repentance. Most will say it's not a salvation issue so what is their goal? To purge the church of the people who believe they are saved but aren't?
This is not just Calvinists. This is what the Church universal has wrestled with since the second century. Origen's book "On Prayer" concerned this topic broadly. When you are using good and sin you seem to be using it in a moral sense which is fine but when a Classical Theist, like a Calvinist or traditional Roman Catholic, say that God is the source of all good then they mean everything that has existence or that exists. Our moral goodness then is attributed to God because he made us and sustains us in existence for the express purpose to do those good things. He doesn't force us to do them, rather he enables us to do them. Sin on the other hand is a lack of consideration of God's moral law or a lack of action to do good things when we ought to do them. That lack or privation cannot be attributed to God because God lacks nothing. The lack is found in us as sinful creatures. We do this because our nature is corrupted by the sin of Adam. When we do good things we do that because God's grace enables us to desire the things of God. This is not just Calvinistic teaching. This way of thinking goes all the way back to the early church. It goes back to Epicurus at least. All Christians have to answer this problem. You can try the free will defense but that doesn't explain why God can't sin and why believers in the new heaven and new earth won't sin.
Premise 1: God determines all things that come to pass.
Premise 2: My desire to sin and be obedient are things that have come to pass.
Conclusion: God determines my desires to sin and be obedient.
@@beberean612 I’m willing to have this conversation but you’re gonna need to define your terms or we will just talk past each other. What do you mean by “determines”? Please don’t say causes because that needs a definition too. I’ll just cut to the chase if it saves time. God is the primary cause of all that exists. We are secondary causes. On the level of secondary causes we are the essential cause of our actions including sin. In other words we make our actions what they are. God doesn’t do that but he does keep us in existence and give us the power to move so in that sense he is also a cause of our actions, the existential cause. This is classical theistic thought not just Calvinistic thought.
@@chrismabe2661 Well then, as a secondary cause, with God being the primary cause, I have been determined to inform you that I am a secondary cause He is using to convince you that this concept of God using me as a secondary cause with Him as the primary cause, is not Biblical or rational.
@@beberean612 You do not have to be a smart aleck by saying ridiculous things like that. No one asserts that. Your status as a secondary cause is on the existential level. God does not determine your actions in the sense of choosing them for you. He determines them in the sense that he makes them exist and gives you the power to act.
@@chrismabe2661 My friend, Calvinism does assert that, but it can be difficult to understand how compatibilism is really no less deterministic than hard determinism. If God determines what our greatest desire will be and gives us the power to act on that desire, we can no longer be a responsible secondary cause of our actions, because the only way a secondary cause can be held responsible, is if the secondary cause can affect the outcome of what has been determined. If, however, the secondary cause can have no effect on the outcome, the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate for everyone how this is rational. Just as a cue ball, when it is struck by the pool player, has no ability to affect the outcome of its path toward the eight ball, and so we give credit to the pool player for winning the game; in the same way, we, if we have no ability to affect the outcome of our path, should not be held responsible for the destination. On our view, God is perfectly capable of using us as secondary causes to bring about His purposes, by having a perfect knowledge of all counterfactuals, and allowing us to act freely when we could have done otherwise. An example of this is a police sting operation. If the police know a drug dealer well enough to know that he will freely sell drugs at a given time and place, and that drug dealer meets with the undercover officer at that particular time and place and tries to sell drugs, the drug dealer is held responsible for his actions, because he could have, and should have done otherwise. The police are not held responsible. But if that drug dealer pulls out his gun and kills the undercover officer, no rational person would ever hold the bullet responsible for the murder. Why? Because the bullet has no ability to affect the outcome. It left the barrel when the primer was struck by the hammer, which started moving when the trigger was pulled by the man aiming the gun. None of these "secondary causes" in the chain of events between the shooter and the victim are capable of affecting the outcome determined by the shooter, and therefore the shooter is solely responsible. They may be considered secondary causes, but not in a way where those secondary causes would be considered responsible. What compatibilism is saying is that we are the triggers, hammers, firing pins, primers, bullets, etc, and God is the shooter or primary cause and yet we, as parts of a gun are held responsible for the crime.
It seems like part of the confusion might be coming through equivocation on the concept of "responsibility". You seem to use the word/phrase "responsible [for]" in two senses: 1) "Responsible" in the sense of being morally culpable and 2) "responsible" in the sense of being the ultimate source or cause. The Bible treats these two concepts differently, and it seems like part of the confusion here stems from conflating them.
A clear example might be Acts 4:27-28, where it is said that the murder of Jesus by crucifixion was commited by Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles and the people of Israel, who were doing "whatever your [i.e., God's] hand and your plan predestined to take place." (v. 28) If you ask in this verse "who is responsible for the murder of Jesus" in the first sense, the text answers it was Herod, Pilate, the Israelites and the Gentiles. They committed they action and they are morally culpable, which is why they (not God) are being called to repent. If, on the other hand, you are asking in the second sense, the text answers that God had planned and predestined that the murder of Jesus should occur. God planned and predestined, the people acted (in accordance with their own wills and desires) and the people remain morally culpable for their actions. It isn't just the Calvinists that have to deal with this.
You said,
"God planned and predestined, the people acted (in accordance with their own wills and desires) and the people remain morally culpable for their actions."
I agree with you, I just don't believe He needed to predestine their desires to bring it about. I believe God is capable of bringing about His purposes in spite of libertarian free will, and I believe a God less than Sovereign would be unable to do that. A God less than sovereign would need to control both sides of the chess board to ensure His victory. We believe God brought about the crucifixion, not by determining desires, or knowing future events, but by having a perfect knowledge of all counterfactuals. And there are many examples in Scripture of God using His omniscience in this way. Like when God told David that Saul was going to come down to the city where he was taking refuge, and the people of that city were going to hand him over to Saul. None of those things came to pass, because God wasn't looking into the future. David left the city and Saul gave up the expedition when he learned that David had left. But God did know what most certainly "would" happen if David stayed on the path he was on.
@@beberean612
I get where you're going, but I don't actually see how this gets you out of the same hot water as Wilson. I assume it is true that God knows all counterfactuals. But this still leaves us with a situation in which God, knowing these counterfactuals, knew what the decisions and actions of His creatures would be if He created the world in a certain way. To put a finer point on it, God knew "If I create the world this way, Jesus will be murdered" and "If I create the world this other way, Jesus will not be murdered". And you, like Doug, believe that God freely chose the murder option. He chose to create the world in such a way that, without fail, the greatest act of evil would be committed by specific people. And, as Christians who adhere to the Bible, you must both grant a) that God was entirely just to determine from the foundation of the world that specific people would commit specific acts of evil and b) that He is also completely just to hold those human agents accountable, even though their actions were set in stone from eternity past. From what you've said so far, your only real disagreement seems to be that you feel that you have a better explanation of the mechanism by which God does all this. And if that's the case, I would simply suggest your argument would be stronger by providing a clear foundation in Scripture for that mechanism.
To clarify what I'm suggesting, you seem to consider libertarian free will to be the key to unravelling the alleged problem Doug is in. How might you define the concept of "libertarian free will" if you were restricted to only describing that will in terms that the Bible uses about it. As a counter example, Wilson and others will often point to passages like Romans 8:7, John 6:44 or John 8:34 to argue that man's will is not "free" but "enslaved" by corruption from sin, and so there are at least some choices which, although physically and logically possible, are not in fact possible for a person apart from divine enabling. Where might you go in scripture to spell out what you mean by "libertarian free will"? What passages might you point to that speak of the will of man as being "libertarian" and/or "free"?
I have a genuine question: do those here who oppose Calvinism hold to the Covenant of Works and that Adam is the federal of all those after him?
I don’t mean to blow up the comment section, but I have questions. Which Calvinist says that Man is responsible for all the bad in the world, yet God is responsible for all the good? Not only that, but what is the context in which this statement was made?
When a Calvinist explains something this way do they think they're making sense?
You should call up Doug and see if he can explain
Ultimately, Calvinists need to realize that they don’t get to play it both ways.
No appeal to mystery or the incomprehensible nature of God will fix this problem for them. And it’s a cheap cop-out when they try to.
Bottom line: If God determines all things, including all sin, then He is responsible for all evil and thus not perfect. Period.
Conversely, if Sovereignty does not mean Omni-Determinism, but Kingly Authority over all things, then God can Sovereignly create beings with their own free will without any apparent “tension.”
Sovereignty doesn’t mean Determinism. It means Kingship. The Calvinistic understanding of Sovereignty is a Gnostic holdover.
Well said!
Doug Wilson's "ice cream" analogy sounds quite a bit like the argument made by Job's friends. They weren't right either.
Stop trying to use your finite logic and philisophical deductions, and read what the Bible clearly teaches
The Bible clearly teaches Calvinism is false. This is your argument turned back around on you. i.e., begging the question.
@@beberean612 So, I did a 3 part podcast explaining how the Bible clearly teaches Calvinism
God doesnt "make us Sin". We sin because its our nature. Its our nature as a consiquence of Adam. All must be born with sin because God said it would be so to Adam... He is just in this for He does not change. And He means it for Good because of the works of Christ.
We are only enslaved either to sin, or to rightousness. We will always do the will of our master. So if we are not born again, we are of flesh. If we are of flesh, we are spiritually dead and sinful continously.
In fact, the bible teaches that God in His MERCY holds us back from sinning as much as we truly would! When we read Him "hardening someones heart", Paul explains that further in Romans to mean He gives people over to their desires (the desires they already had).
For example, God didnt harden pharoahs heart in the sense that pharoah was contemplating doing good or evil and God wanted to make sure He chose evil. Paul would be teaching that God restrained Pharoah's evil desires until the perfect time. If pharoah would have let them go and completed a "good" act, it would only be by Gods mercy that pharoahs evil desires were restrained enough for that to happen! If it wasnt for His MERCY sin would be abundant all the more always!
That is why we must be born again!!! If our default is to always sin continously, we need a new default. A new nature. To be a new creation... And the good news is once your saved you are no longer a slave to sin, but a slave to rightousness. Therefore your default now is contrary to the flesh. And whats different between now and what Adam and Eve had is we have a merciful and faithful high priest who will ensure we keep the faith, ALWAYS. For just as you didnt choose to be born the first time, you didnt choose to be born the second time. And because you didnt have it in your own strength to change your nature the first time, dont be pridful enough to think you could change it the second time either.
Please like and subscribe! Thank you for watching and God bless!
Which Bible verse has the word responsible in it in Greek?
What do you mean? Can you be more specific?
@@beberean612 Show me a verse with the word responsible in it. If men are responsible for sin, wouldn’t you think there’s a verse that would say so?
Isn’t it very basic doctrine?
@@aletheia8054 What an utterly absurd statement! Are you seriously trying to argue that because the word 'responsible' is absent, then the individual's moral responsibility before God is not a biblical fact? The word 'trinity' is not found in Scripture. Do you on that basis deny the truth of the trinity? The words 'omnipresent', 'omnipotent' and 'omniscient'' are not found in Scripture, either. Do you therefore deny that God has these characteristics? One of the problems with calvinists is that they deliberately and dishonestly make ridiculous comments like yours which they know full well to be nonsensical, just to try to blur any truth which does not suit their aberrant man-made theology. This goes to demonstrate their lack of integrity and their immaturity, not to mention their customary arrogance. It is the slyness of the serpent manifested for all to see.
@@williambunter3311 I’m not arguing or denying anything.
@@aletheia8054 Just so! Slippery as a calvinist eel.
Very good video. Calvinist’s have a hard time with logic and thinking. They can only get so deep and when they hit their floor they think they’ve landed on epiphanies. But in reality they have only just pulled back 1 layer of the onion. As soon as you pull back the next layer they’re lost, and comically, accuse you of not understanding. What you’ve done here with exposing the authorship analogy is spot on. No, Doug, in your scenario it is and always was 100% Shakespeare and 0% Hamlet. Anyone with half a brain knows that.
So on a quiz a teacher could never ask for the content of Hamlet’s soliloquy of to be or not to be?
@@stephentaylor5482Sure, in which work entitled “Hamlet”? Shakespeare’s play? Or one of the many other books? If you mean Shakespeare’s, then the teacher would get the answers of what Shakespeare wrote that the character Hamlet said in his play. But it’s still 100% Shakespeare. Are you starting to see this now?
@@stephentaylor5482
It’s a good thing God wrote you to be saved, right? Too bad for all those reprobates!
Exactly, and if we're wrong, it's only because God has authored us to speak against what He has authored Calvinist to believe. Thank you for your comment.
The problem here is that God is outside of the morality under which we are held. His ways are higher than our ways. We cannot charge Him with wrong.
The biggest mystery is the origine of evil. No one can answer that mystery.
The problem of God not being as Sovereign as He claims in Scripture is that there are aspects of reality that God doesn’t control, which is a vastly worse idea than whether God, in His infinite wisdom and immutable nature ordains that evil things happen, which He will use for good, which his creatures cannot comprehend.
@bryntjones, that doesn't sound right. If God is outside of our morality why are we to try to be Christ like? Why did Jesus say only God is good? Who's morality will we use in heaven, the one we have gotten from the Bible or God's unknown morality?
Also nobody believes God is less sovereign, we believe he is less deterministic.
@mattgardner145 ok, let me clarify: God holds us to standards/morality that fo not apply to Him. For example, if we kill someone, we've committed murder. If God kills them, He has not. Since He is Sovereign over all things, He ordains each death. So, while someone may be killed by a murderer, and that was ordained by God, the murderer is guilty and responsible, but God, who ordained all things, is not. While this is hard to grasp, with horrors we see, the alternative is that humans have the ability to do things outside of God's sovereignty. And, yes, you are advocating a system that leads right into open theism, and a diminished sovereignty of God. I don't think you mean to, but that becomes the new paradox you create when you attack what you refer to as "Calvinism."
The passages where we read that God does as He pleases are all over. And that He is not charged with wrong.
Another illustration, while flawed, is that if a man builds a house, then tears it down, he has done no wrong. But if someone else destroys the house they have. Analogies are always poor, to say the least, when discussing God, so I hesitate to use this one. The point being, Biblically, the Potter can do with the clay as he wishes. God, in His grace can save some, not all, and have done no wrong.
P.S. I'm no fan of Doug Wilson, and his analogies are flippant, though he thinks they are witty, imo.
You are begging the question my friend, which is good for everyone to see.
@@Bryntjones that's a pretty good example with the murder explanation, but I think your terms are confusing. Would it not be more accurate to say he is not subject to the law? Also I don't believe anybody can do anything outside God's sovereignty, but I believe we all do things outside of his will.
@@mattgardner145 I get where you're coming from, with the "will" vs. Sovereignty. I've heard that as a "moral" will and a "sovereign" will, one we break, while the other is immovable. But the descriptions of God in the Bible don't seem to support that well. Granted, there are passages that condescend to us in ways we would comprehend, or poetic devices that present a side of God in terms we can grasp. But God ordains what people say and what comes to pass Lam. 3:37-38. And when a descendant of Saul hurled insults at David, it was noted that the Lord ordained that he would say those things.
Sounds like you're saying that there should NOT be "Free Will."
Are you saying that God has laid out everything for the taking and that Man is the one who decided what is, or is not evil?
That nothing should be off limits and that it's wrong for God to punish someone for a "sin" that He created?
Or are you saying there is no Free Will BECAUSE He, God, put it there for us to trip on and is therefore the instigator of evil.
Is Free Will a bad thing? Or is it a test to determine ones ability to assimilate into Heaven, in order to be in His presence?
He is the creator of the parts and we are the one who assembles those parts AT WILL.
True, we may be the victim of someone elses Free Will, but that is another reason we are called to acknowledge God, trust that He and His Son, Jesus, are the ONLY ONE who can repair that wrong, though it be in an afterlife or with limitations for the duration on Earth.
Sometimes, i leave a dollar on the counter, just laying there. I want to know who is worthy of being in my home. Who i can or can not trust. I think that is what Free Will is about. God DID create all the components or ingredients for a sinful or evil act. But Man is the one responsible for putting enough of those ingredients together to have commited an act against God.
Just like if my own children or grandkids, even my closest friends, took that dollar, I would not condemn them to the street until i have given them every opportunity to repent. I may not hear their pentance, but God does, and i will sense that through the further actions of my loved one.
It is the Holy Spirit which convicts the thief, if the thief recognizes God as the sovereign. If not, there is no presence of the Holy Spirit to whisper in the ear, "If you take that dollar bill, you will gravely injure yourself through the loss of love or repect of your host ( Granny, in my case). If the thief doesn't believe in God, or does but blames God for the evil that the Man is capable of, and dare I say, it is usually much worse that swipping granny's wrinkled dollar off the kitchen counter, the thief will then blame Granny for enticing his human nature to steal the money, not his fault for using the Free Will which God gave him.
What am I to make of your position here? Did i miss something? You sound worse than atheistic to me. You sound as though you are putting God in the same catagory as a Roman or Greek god (little 'g'); a petulent egomaniac.
Am i wrong?
Yes, you are wrong.
@beberean612 thank you. How so? Are you disagreeing with the gentleman or not. And do you think the gentleman's use of Shakspeare was apt?
The Scriptures plainly teach that God is absolutely sovereign. The Scriptures also teach that we are responsible for our actions. It's no more possible for a finite human mind to explain or understand this than it is to understand how the infinite God was manifested in the flesh. We're not called to explain or understand God, we're commanded to BELIEVE Him.
Acts 2:23 is all you need to read and then accept it as Biblical truth. This all makes sense. I am so glad I have studied this over and over and see that the Calvinist position is biblical. Both must be true Gods eternal plan and mans temporal actions. Any other view and you will change the nature of either God or man.
Excellent! Keep up the fine the work.
Thank you and God bless!
Please Doug stop talking you’re making me dizzy.
In Calvinism their god can no more make a wind up clock or a rumba. That makes decisions based on inputs.
This is, honestly, Bible 101 stuff. It is not a gotcha. Rather, it's kind of an embarrassing video that reveals your ignorance of the Bible. This isn't even a "Calvinist" claim either. This view you have is only possible when you don't understand the IMMENSE unholiness and importance of sin. I'll explain:
- God's number one priority is His own glory.
- God made the world and everything in it, as well as supernatural beings too.
- God made the world perfect, knowing that man would sin and fall. It is a giant story of redemption that glorifies God.
- God didn't make us robots who only worship Him. That wouldn't bring Him glory. He made us with free will. Those small amount of people who choose God (whom God knew beforehand) would bring God more glory than 10 trillion robot worshippers.
- Man disobeyed God, sinned, and brought forth generation upon generation of sinful creatures who have no hope of eternally existing with God, due to their sin nature. Heaven requires perfection.
- Knowing this, God sent Jesus to bear the wrath of the Father and allow those who trust in Him as their Savior to be free of the punishment they deserve and live eternally with God, in heaven.
So, the question: How can God not be responsible for sin but still be responsible for good?
Easy: Man chose to sin. God had unbelievable mercy and grace and still chose to save us. God didn't sin, man did. Man is responsible.
But, how can God be responsible for good? God is good. He is the epitome of good. Good only exists because God exists as He is the ONLY one who dictates what is good. God sets the standard. Everything he created is good (As stated in Genesis). It was sin that corrupted everything and caused the world to be in a fallen state.
Romans 8 directly tells us He works for our good. Also, take a look at the whole Bible. The fact that He hasn't wiped out humanity thousands of years ago is evidence of His abounding mercy and goodness. The fact that we have a loving God is evidence of his kindness, mercy, and goodness. Do I really need to go on? These two things are not in contradiction of each other at all.
I'm going to start responding to these elementary level fallacies by begging my own questions. Sir, you just don't understand the Bible. My view is the correct view, and if it's not, then God authored me to post this video and respond to your comment in this way. Sir, God has authored me to tell you that you are wrong, and that you should reject the doctrines of Calvinism.
@beberean612 Unsurprisingly, you've revealed the extent of your ability to debate, which is close to none.
Notice how you didn't speak to any point I made. Instead, you chose to use a circular argument that has nothing to do with what I said.
Additionally, you keep strawmanning the idea of Calvinism when I explicitly stated this has nothing to do with calvinism and explained why.
I pray that God hides false teachers like you from people, so they are not deceived.
Pointing out your circular reasoning by means of sarcasm is not the same thing as using circular reasoning. But if what you are arguing is true, the only reason I am a "false teacher," as you so kindly label those who disagree with Calvinism, is because God has authored me to believe wrong ideas about Him. Right? It sounds like you are defending Calvinism by making Calvinism sound like Provisionism. Perhaps you are not a Calvinist?
@@beberean612 Let's look at the evidence. We have a poorly argued video followed by two very poor responses that fail to address anything of relevance. So, while your comments could be sarcasm, it's perfectly valid to read them as intentional, seeing as your track record of logic, coherence, and biblical knowledge is not great.
Again, you're strawmanning. I said I wasn't arguing from a Calvinist perspective. But, you need that strawman to pretend to win the argument in your head, I guess.
As Calvinists, we believe in total depravity. Every bit of our nature is stained by sin. This is why God’s writing our evil actions does not make him responsible. By that same token, we believe that any good we do is only by the grace of God. In other words, Shakespeare must condescend into the story and change Hamlet’s mind miraculously, whereas the evil actions are simply written in.
That doesn’t make sense, if you’re also going to argue that God is the one who originally wrote the evil in.
@solokesselrun1619 God is not the author of evil, which makes this debate, essentially about the origin of evil, which we have no way of knowing.
It amazes me how 👿 keeps using the same ol' playbook & "Christians" fall for it "Hath God indeed said?".
1st, Calvinistic Total Depravity (more like Total Inability) is from poor Bible study, under-discipled or just being stubbornly bent on an ideology.
Romans 3, starting in vs 11 Paul is pulling from Psalm 14 of what the FOOL does & says.
2nd, They conflate God's sovereignty with absolute determinism. God's foreknowledge of all events does not make Him the causal agent of all events (see Jeremiah 19:5 for one of many examples).
See Calvin's Institutes book 1 chptr 16 prgph 8 sometime.
@@mikelyons2831 No. Jeremiah 19:5 does not support your open theism heresy.
@@Bryntjones Your judging me an Open Thiest by giving a scripture? Did I strike a Calvinist nerve within you?
The Bible is a Catholic book ❤
Wait you dont believe that God has ordained everything that has come to pass?
Chanano: Wait, you're not a Calvinist like me? Haha! .......No sir, I reject Calvinism.
@@beberean612 so you don’t believe that God has ordained everything that has come to pass. So you don’t believe God is Omniscient? Or you believe he is but he is not sovereign?