I don’t think that’s what anyone is saying - nor is it the logical outcome of anything anyone is saying. If you think that’s wrong, I’d love to hear why you think that.
When I was a "7 point Calvinist," the one verse that I genuinely could not wrap my head around was 1 Corinthians 10:13 (given here in the Elect Sovereign Version): "No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it." The word "able," as far as I can tell after years of having thought this verse over, cannot be explained by anything other than "libertarian free will." Being "able" makes no sense unless it is a real and genuine POSSIBILITY to endure the temptation. On any deterministic framework, "possibility" is an incoherent concept. Something either happens, as determined, or it does not happen, which is also determined. There is no such thing as "possibility" unless random chance or free will exists, either of which refute deterninism and any theology that entails it. I generally would argue it is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to actually disprove a doctrine from scripture alone, simply because of all the ways a text can be interpreted. This example, though, is as close as I think anyone could get to genuinely disproving a doctrine from the text. The motive behind the words, the context, the varieties of interpretations of the passage, etc, none of them explain how Calvinism can be true given this verse.
DW: Excellent point! The whole narrative within that text which includes an appeal to a "way of escape" is totally absent the notion that every impulse in the human brain is made to come to pass infallibly - totally outside of human control - which is the case in Calvinism. I always find it ironic how the authors of the N.T. express conceptions which easily align with a world which contains Libertarian states of affairs. And what the Calvinist must do to that text - in order to make ti *APPEAR* to align with Exhaustive Determinism In Calvinism - per the doctrine of decrees - there is no such thing as an ALTERNATIVE from that which is decreed So ALTERNATIVE options do not exist within creation for humans But the language of scripture consistently depicts the existence of ALTERNATIVE options Another example - would be "My ways are not your ways says the Lord" If that is not Libertarian language - I don't know what is! In Calvinism - the "ways" that a person is made to go - are simply "ways" that Calvin's god *APPLIES* to that person. They are in fact Calvin's god's ways which he decrees upon that person So the language of scripture is consistently congruent with Libertarian states of affairs If Calvinism is TRUE - then we have a God who programs events to *SIMULATE* Libertarian states of affairs which don't actually exist. So Calvinism can be likened to a huge computer simulation And part of that computer program entails a constant stream of FALSE PERCEPTIONS of ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITIES within every human brain. Why would a God create a world that is 100% pre-programmed to *SIMULATE* Libertarian states of affairs? Thank you for your post! Blessings!
@@dw6528 - "Why would a God create a world that is 100% pre-programmed to SIMULATE Libertarian states of affairs?" It might be to impress the other Gods, of the multiverse, for His glory . . ; ) Only somewhat kidding, since in the "preprogrammed" worldview of Calvinism, God would be getting His glory (the Holy Grail of Calvigod ; ) by way of the minds which this version of a God preprogrammed to be impressed by what He created. Not much of a payoff for all that work He did to create the heavens and the earth, and all the creatures therein, it seems to me. And I often want to ask Calvinism adherents to explain what makes such automated giving of glory so important to Him. (And I truly believe there is a sort of phantom audience of non-preprogrammed beings of some kind, inhabiting the subconscious imaginations of Calvinism adherents, who are freely (and therefore meaningfully) giving glory to the God who made/preprogrammed them to just give glory to Him in a preprogrammed automaton sense.)
I’m curious about this because it would seem the ability of man that we are discussing in this verse is subject to Gods faithfulness and what He firstly allows or does not allow… as that is the language as the passage begins. Im not defending Calvinism, but it would seem that many here would say if you hold man’s ability subject to Gods allowance- this is Calvinism. But isn’t that what the verse says?
@Shark_fishing DW: There is a problem which Calvinists have on this topic - because their doctrine totally eradicates any degree of AUTONOMY granted to anything within creation - including man. And it is not uncommon for Calvinists to affirm this fact by accusing NON-Calvinists of trying to grant man a degree of AUTONOMY. But this back-fires on the Calvinist because it eradicates any AUTONOMY for any impulse that will come to pass within the human brain. Accordingly - all impulses come to pass within the human brain - infallibly and thus irresistibly - and thus totally outside of the brain's control. Consequently - Calvinists themselves are very uncomfortable with the implications - and are constantly trying to use language designed to produce an *APPEARANCE* of AUTONOMY granted to man. Calvinists thus have a very intense need to create *FACADES* of AUTONOMY granted to man which is antithetical to the doctrine. Calvinists create *FACADES* using a form of *CLOAKED* language - and "Permission" is an example of this language pattern. John Calvin -quote When [Augustine] uses the term "permission" the *MEANING WHICH HE ATTACHES TO IT* will best appear from a single passage (De Trinity. lib. 3 cap. 4), where he proves that the will of God is the supreme and primary *CAUSE* of all things….(Institutes 1, 16, 8) So what we see here - is that Calvinists use the word "Permit" as a replacement word for *CAUSE* When the Calvinist says "God permits evil" what he really means is "God CAUSES evil" 1) What Calvin's god CAUSES by infallible decree - he permits 2) What Calvin's god DOES NOT CAUSE by infallible decree - he does not permit
@@dw6528 I appreciate the logical argument; God gives us sound minds and expects us to utilize them so I don't want to discount logic. Scripture also gives us the trinity, which we cannot sort out logically. Along with a number of other logical conundrums. It also gives us the Isaiah 55:8-9 passage. I think it might be my primary concern with Warren's channel, it seems to prioritize mans logic above God's word in many places (not just this one)... I understand the calvinist is often faulted for depending upon mystery. I think there is both virtue and fault to be found, depending upon whether we rely on mystery where God's word is otherwise clear. According to many atheists, the calvinist and the non-calvinist appeal to mystery beyond logic. So the threshold can be subjective to the mind God has given us I suppose. Do you see man's ability unto temptation as subject to God's faithfulness and allowance in 1 Cor 10:13? or would you deny that due to logic? I'm unclear how you're working that out.
Warren, there is nobody on the internet that has thought out every nuance of divine determinism as you have and can honestly actually properly articulate what divine determinism really is. This is why James White will never debate you. Every time you define a part of the doctrine you burn off the dross and leave a person to face the truth of what they actually believe (if the person questioning you fairly gives you the time to advance your position and actually let's down his guard and listens to you 37:09 ). You use lots of technical language but you choose each word carefully and are not flying by the seat of your pants. Every time I hear you go into exhaustively defining what a calvinist truly believes in his or her heart I always say to myself, "I wish so and so calvinist would listen to this." You do this so well because this is how you use to think yourself. I have found that X determinists are the most articulate opponents of calvinism. I myself have never been a determinist because I could never bow my intellect to accept the absurdity of God determining all things and yet being innocent. I have always believed that man is culpable and guilty for his own actions and it is unconscionable to say God determined me to do some evil sin. Yet I was willing to subject my family to stay in a church that went from Christian theology to reformed theology for many years. Looking back on my life I wish I never would have subjected my family (I have 8 kids) to the deterministic nonsense because of the narcissm and confusion it breeds. None of my kids are calvinists but the narcissm and hypocrisy has driven half of them into unbelief. After saying all that I guess there is still a bit of deterministic philosophy that we all hold to as we live our lives and figure it is all in the hands of God in the end. What is important is that we fear God and follow Him to the best of our ability trying to be as honest with scripture as we can and worship God with not only our heart but our mind as well. One person wants to always over emphasize the heart, another the intellectual and another the strength. Why not put them all together and experience as much of God as you can. Whenever we find ourselves fighting against logic and common sense (especially concerning God's justice, character and holiness) we need to come to grips with the obvious that God is not evil. Most Calvinists would never say this but in the back of their mind that is what they are struggling with every time they cling to this deterministic system. If it isn't one thing it will be another that man will always cling to some corrupt philosophy or some lust or stubborn position. We all shake our heads at our fellow man's stubbornness and overlook our own stupidity. Oh that determinism was the way of salvation and such a determinism were capable of determining perfection, but this is not the world in which we find ourselves. We find ourselves having to struggle with doing either good or evil at every turn and this struggle will not end until the golden bowl of our life is broken.
When I was being taught by a Calvinist, there were sooooooo many “conundrums”! When i didn’t see the conundrum he saw, he would get irritated because I couldn’t see what he saw. I couldn’t understand the mystery and the complexities he was teaching. Which ultimately led to him praying for my salvation. Yep - because I didn’t see the conundrum, I must have been unregenerate or a reprobate. It came across as gnostic - which even the old lady in the class recognized. The teacher ended up leaving the class and the church. Hated to loose a brother but I don’t miss his teaching.
Any clear thinker will understand the principles of Input into a black box, and Output out of the black box. If God unchangeably & unconditionally fixed the input, output, and every thought & action within the black box before the foundation of the world, then the Compatiblist’s claims of ‘secondary causes’ are nonsense.
DW: I perhaps have a different understanding of those things. Firstly - Compatibilism Standord Encyclopedia of Philosophy -quote Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. So in Calvinism this simply means "FREEDOM" granted to the creature MUST be COMPATIBLE with what is determined. Calvin's god *MUST* grant FREEDOM to that which he decrees - or he is a house divided against himself But he cannot grant FREEDOM to that which is CONTRARY to the decree Thus 1) The creature is granted FREEDOM to be/do that which is decreed 2) The creature is NOT granted FREEDOM to be/do OTHER than that which is decreed. On the Calvinist's appeals to secondary causes - I understand what they are trying to do is DISTANCE Calvin's god from evil events The strategy is to punt to NATURAL Determinism They want to attribute evil events to nature. But this forces them to compromise Theological Determinism (divine sovereignty) in order to attribute events to nature. However this fails because 1) Every part of every chain of every event is made to come to pass infallibly 2) Thus every part of every secondary event has the attribute of infallibly 3) Nature does not have the attribute of infallibility - it cannot make any movement of itself come to pass infallibly 4) Therefore Calvin's god must directly touch every part within every event in order to endow it with the attribute of infallibly Thus the Calvinist attempt to DISTANCE their god from any event within creation fails.
@@dw6528Brilliant! Another way to refute the Lie of Calvinism & Compatibilism. Multiple styles of refutations are useful to break the Compatibilists out of their madness spell.
FYI: The black box approach is used in science & engineering to make rapid bulletproof feasibility or impossibility assessments. For example, Perpetual Motion Machines are illegal to patent because they are impossible because they violate 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. A multitude of inventors may write hundreds of pages of 'proofs' why their Perpetual Motion Machine works, but the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics proves their 'proofs are false'. Same with Compatibilsm.
@@CC-ii3ij DW: I'm not getting why Compatibilism (as defined by the standard encyclopedia of philosophy) is not logically viable. If we define compatibilism as such 1) Where Calvin's god decrees [X] to infallibly come to pass - he must grant FREEDOM for [X] to come to pass. 2) If he does not grant FREEDOM for what he decrees to come to pass - he is a house divided against himself. 3) For example - if he decrees Adam to infallibly eat the fruit - then he must grant Adam FREEDOM to eat the fruit 4) But there is NO FREEDOM granted to creation to BE/DO OTHER than that which is decreed - because that FREEDOM would NOT be Compatible with what is decreed That is my understanding of compatibilism.
@ My Response: The term ‘FREEDOM’, by definition, requires multiple possible options. The Compatibilists definition of ‘FREEDOM’ is a lie. According to the Westminster Confession affirmed by most Compatibilists states (as I try to remember): “Before the foundation of the world, God unchangeably & unconditionally decreed whatsoever comes to pass”. No other possible thought, action, or ‘escape from sin’ can possibly occur. Anybody who adopts Westminster cannot possibly be an intellectually honest Compatibilists. This is hard determinism, by definition.
The underlying psychological need that makes deterministic theology appealing is the fear of personal autonomy. If we are wheels in a deterministic machine we are safe from the consequences of our choices. We are also not the cause of our past failures. This is the same psychological need (spirit) behind democratic politics/entitlement/fear of responsibility/Marxism/Communism/hierarchical structures/bureaucratic corporatism/Wokeism/form over substance/the letter of the law over the spirit of the law etc. It's the same spirit that motivates individuals to outsource their thinking to "giants of the faith." Personal freedom/autonomy truly is terrifying. Thank GOD we have a model that teaches us how to navigate this. Determinism completely nullifies learning from the example of Christ. Discipleship has no place in the life of a consistent Calvinist. Remind me never to get on a plane with a Calvinist pilot. Think I'll go drive my backhoe around with my terrifying personal autonomy now.
That might account for the "psychological need" felt by those who "fall for" this total Predeterminism worldview, but to me there is a flip side to this coin, so to speak. (Also mirrored within the "Wokinsm" movement.) Inherent in the doctrines of Predeterminism is the Choosing of some to be in positions of authority over congregants (/citizenry). Which is to say a powerful attractant of control freaks, looking for a "system" that gives them unquestioned authority over others.
Christ predestined us to adoption as sons which is sonship in Ephesians 1:5 according to His will, not yours. God predestines eternal destinies ahead of time and the reason that does not make Him the author of evil is because it's done in truth. There is no evil in truth. There is only love in truth. We know the beast and false prophet were heading to perdition before they were born. That means they had 0% chance of being saved. Warren told me that the roles were predestined but who fulfills them was unknown. That has to be the stupidest answer he could have given. That answer makes God the author of sin because He created the roles without having definitive knowledge of who would fulfill those roles which means He acted ignorantly, having predestined according to a lack of knowledge. That would shift the desire of 2 people perishing according to God's desire, in a lottery type scenario. How God can know the actions definitively of these two individuals Rev 13,19 but not know their identities is asinine. At least Chris Fisher took a different route with the question as an open theist, by stating that these two are not humans. He realized that if he admitted what scripture plainly teaches, that they are two humans, then his doctrine is proven false.
@@johnknight3529 Yeah, there are two clear categories in this system, the control freaks and those who want to be controlled while feeling entitled to rights supplied by those in control. Contrast that against the way Jesus made disciples then sent them out on their own.
@@theologicaldarkweb2695 Here is your answer. Revelation 19:20 NKJV [20] Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone.
From what I’ve seen on an emotional level some Calvinists find comfort or pride in theistic determinism. So you can’t convince them with scripture because it’s not a biblical or intellectual issue for them. It’s the ultimate presupposition that can’t be questioned.
DW: The phenomenon of Calvinists claiming to derive comfort from theistic determinism is fairly recent and is very much based (as you insightfully point out) on emotions. Ever since Calvin's death - the trend within Calvinism has been to distance itself from Calvin's writings because he unflinchingly declares the truth that no Calvinist is granted CERTAINTY of election - and thus no Calvinist is granted CERTAINTY of whether or not their god's intent for them is good or evil. Dr. Eric Fromm - social psychologist - researched the writings of Calvinist authors within previous generations - and found them to be replete with thoughts of dread for the possibility they had been given a FALSE FAITH and FALSE perceptions of salvation - and were unknowingly created for eternal torment - for Calvin's god's good pleasure. This - historically in Calvinism - has been called "The dreaded FALSE hope" Calvinists relied very heavily on "good-works" as a way of manufacturing an assurance of salvation. R.C. Sproul - tried to convince himself that he must be saved because he looks within himself and sees a love for Jesus But the doctrine stipulates CHAFF believers are given FALSE PERCEPTIONS So Sproul's attempt to rely upon his PERCEPTIONS of love for Jesus - really amount to wishful thinking. The only TRUE assurance any Calvinist is actually granted - is the assurance that Calvin's god will create people for either damnation of salvation - according to his good pleasure. All other forms of comfort or assurance are manufactured escape mechanisms which require THOUGHT BLOCKING the doctrine stipulates any Calvinist - no matter how faithful - can easily wake up in the lake of fire - and at that point have a CERTAINTY of what he was created for.
@@MineStrongth DW: We need to realize why a Calvinist would say that. John Calvin for example - declared that when he contemplated the decree (i.e. the divine intent for himself and for others) it filled him with a sense of horror. The reason Calvin responded to the doctrine that way - is because Calvin's god creates the *MANY* as vessels of wrath fitted for destruction - which is his intent and provision for the *MANY* within mankind. His other intent and provision is for the *FEW* to save them from his primary provision. And the Calvinist has no way of knowing if he is ELECT or not - because the ELECT are a divine secret which only Calvin's god knows. Calvin's god creates a percentage of believers as CHAFF believers - whom he deceives - giving them a FALSE SENSE of salvation. John Calvin -quote But the Lord....instills into their minds such *A SENSE* ..as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption. (Institutes 3.2.11) -quote He illumines *ONLY FOR A TIME* to partake of it; then he....strikes them with even greater blindness (Institutes 3.24.8) These Calvinists will go through their whole lives experiencing FALSE PERCEPTIONS of salvation - and eventually wake up in the lake of fire - and there realize what they were created for. For the Calvinist - if he allows himself to think about those things - and they make him dreadful - he is taught that dread may be a sign that he is not ELECT. So you can see the Calvinist claiming to be comforted by the doctrine - as a way to escape thoughts of dread.
@@donatist59 DW They assume their election is TRUE yes - because they are Calvinists. Just like the Jehovah Witness assumes he is elect because he is a JW.
In order to show Calvinism isn't that bad he leads off by telling us we are responsible for the actions that God decreed us to perform. If you lead with your best argument, I'd can't wait to see the worst.
@@tannerfrancisco8759 DW: Yes - there is a massive problem with his language. For example - the statement "God is sovereign over creaturely decisions" The problem with this language - is that it allows the audience to assume the term "Decisions" is to be understood in the NORMAL sense of the word - in which a person is granted CHOICE between ALTERNATIVE options. But the TRUTH is - in Calvinism - ALTERNATIVE options are infallibly non-existence within creation - because the existence of any ALTERNATIVE option would falsify the doctrine of decrees. Since ALTERNATIVES do not exist for humans to choose - then what "Decisions" are humans allowed to make? For example - Adam was not granted a "Decision" between [EAT] and [NOT EAT] because the option to [NOT EAT] was not granted existence. And the impulse to [NOT EAT] was not granted existence within Adam's brain. Both of these would be CONTRARY to the decree. And nothing is granted existence within creation that is CONTRARY to the decree. An infallible decree does not permit anything within creation to BE/DO OTHER than that which was decreed So how do humans make "Decisions" when there are no options available to choose?
Are there things about God that are a mystery? Yes. Are there as many things about God that are a mystery as Calvinists seem to think? No. God has revealed a LOT about His nature in scripture. Calvinism outright contradicts a lot of these revelations and then just says "oh, we can't know that, it's a mystery." The argument I get tired of is "God can do whatever He wants. Who are you to limit Him?" We are never saying He can't. We are just saying that He has revealed His nature to us in scripture and it's important that we interpret all scripture in light of that.
"God can do whatever He wants. Who are you to limit Him?" AND!! we will decide when we can and can't limit him... because ONLY we calvies know when God wants to be limited😉😉👍👍
@@atyt11I find the idea that God must cause evil in order for it to have purpose to be much more limiting than saying God can bring purpose out of evil that He did not cause.
There's this interesting assumption many make - that God having limitations is bad. Now of course, they make this assertion because they have taken a kind of omnipotence to be the benchmark of orthodoxy, and as a result they don't permit themselves to see the weaknesses of their particular kind of omnipotence. These weaknesses appear more when we press omnipotence against omniscience, and omnipotence against omnibenevolence. The edgecases appear there, which I think if we consider them, lead us to question what we thought to be omnipotence, and refine what it actually may be. Even omnipotence presses against itself. That which is weakness in one context is strength in another.
Ortlund is a nice guy, unfortunately Calvinism doesn’t make space for actual kindness in practice, only “holiness”: Everyone is trying to out-justify themselves. It’s why the egos go big and hard in the movement.
I think he accepts it based on submission to what was presented to him as the dominant historical protestant view... the parts we see as horrible he views as illusory problems of perspective and the goodness he trusts God is mist resolve everything in ways he can't imagine to tie up all these issues... but it's placing massive pressure on piety to imagine that God resolves these contradictions when we could just... abandon the contradiction and trust that God is RECOGNIZABLY GOOD FOR REAL.
DW: Well said! Interestingly enough - even Calvinism's TULIP is an attempt to white-wash and sugar-coat TRUE Calvinism. The TULIP was created about 100 years after Calvin's death - and he would probably call them traitors for crafting it Calvin would insist divine sovereignty as the 1st and most critical point in the doctrine And he would notice how the crafters of the TULIP totally obfuscate divine sovereignty - and locate the condition of the creature as the 1st point. The "T" in the current TULIP is designed to function as a lie of omission. A lie of omission - is communication designed to mislead - by omitting critical facts which if NOT omitted would not mislead The critical fact omitted in the "T" is the fact that the doctrine stipulates - the state of nature - including every man's nature - at every nano-second in time - is 100% meticulously predestined - and at every instance in time - cannot possibly be other than what it was decreed to be - and man is granted NO SAY In the matter.
Might you explain? Weighty statements like this aren’t great, especially when looking at peoples lives God has worked greatly through (and Christianity in general).
@@ZachFish- I can't speak for Bill here, sorry. What he described, however, is exactly what happened to me. As I've wrestled with the Doctrines of Grace, I've never felt more sure that I'm unsaved. Not simply unsure of my spiritual security; I'm actually quite sure of my spiritual insecurity. I used to just... believe. Now, I feel I maybe haven't believed the right way this whole time. And I can't make myself believe the right way. I have to wait for God to change me by His Spirit. The past 12 months have been some of the most depressing and lethargic of my life. That is the reason why. I have TULIP to thank.
@@Abridgelion No offense, it doesn’t sound like this is the doctrines fault. As clearly many Reformed have assurance and have been extremely studied and devout people, fully devoted to God alone. So when you see people like the puritans in contrast to this culture, where in, God is usually only the focus a fraction of their day, it’s really disappointing to see such a statement.
@@ZachFish- This may surprise you, but my experience is different from that of a devout and learned Puritan. And as such I can't speak for them. I never did. I spoke of my own experience. Could you please address that?
In Gavin's defense, he is the only Calvinist person on UA-cam I can think of offhand that is consistently nice, thoughtful, and behaves well consistently. For the most part, I could say Chris Date also. Too many are just constantly snarling, but there's a milieu reason for that to keep going that way.
13:30 He starts of with "A" does not equal "A" yet it does.🤷🏻♂ He describes the Calvinist/Compatibilist doctrine regarding God's "sovereignty"(as defined by Calvinism) and "mans responsibility" , as equal sides of an "equation"... BUT, two things which are mutually, logically, opposed to one another CAN NOT, by definition, be equal sides of any equation.
DW: Good point! Another thing to recognize - is that in a large amount of his descriptions - he tries to make things like Human Freedom and Human Responsibility *APPEAR* to be the same within Calvinism as they are OUTSIDE of Calvinism - which they most certainly are not. . If Calvin's god decrees [X] to infallibly come to pass - he *MUST* grant FREEDOM for it to come to pass - or else he is a house divided against himself. But FREEDOM is NEVER granted to anything within creation to be/do OTHER than that which is decreed. Thus Adam was not granted FREEDOM to [NOT EAT] the fruit because that would be CONTRARY to the decree - and NOT COMPATIBLE with determinism. On Human responsibility - OUTSIDE of Calvinism - ALTERNATIVES exist within creation - and humans are granted CHOICE between them - and are held responsible for the CHOICES they make. In Calvinism - ALTERNATIVES do not exist within creation - and thus do not exist for humans to choose. So humans are not held accountable for choices they make - because ALTERNATIVES don't exist for them to choose. In Calvinism - human responsibility - just as everything else in creation - is determined by a decree The confession states - the decree is not based on the creature or the condition thereof - but is solely within himself - according to his good pleasure So the divine good pleasure determines what a person will be held accountable for. John Calvin -quote by the eternal *GOOD PLEASURE* of god though the reason does not appear, they are *NOT FOUND* but *MADE* worthy of destruction. - (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of god pg 121) The Calvinist in this presentation wanted to make it *APPEAR* to be the case that humans are held responsible for choices they make. But that is FALSE in Calvinism. Thus he was painting a FALSE picture of human responsiblity
@@dw6528 Yes, Calvin rejected the 'Compatibilist' position as the act of someone unwilling to accept truth. He writes; “Let him, therefore, who would beware of such unbelief, always bear in mind, that there is NO RANDOM POWER OR AGENCY OR MOTION IN THE CREATURES, WHO ARE SO GOVERENED BY THE SECRET COUNSEL OF GOD, THAT NOTHING HAPPENS BUT WHAT HE HAS KNOWINGLY AND WILLING DECREED" (The Institutes of Christian Religion, Bk. 1, Ch. 16, Sect. 3) (emphasis mine)
@@R.L.KRANESCHRADTT DW: I'm not sure that could be construed as a rejection of compatibilism. Determinists have traditionally rejected the idea that anything within a determined world can be random. This is also affirmed by computers which cannot produce real random events - but only simulations of random events. I don't believe the term "Compatibilism" existed however in Calvin's day - but evolved much later - probably within 19th century philosophy. Blessings!
@@dw6528 Right, it wasn't the 'term' Compatibilist, but the argument which was essentially an attempt to mediate the consequences of God being responsible for whatsoever occurs. by those who wanted to distance themselves, and God, from the inevitable. It wasn't a new idea, the 'term' maybe, but not the concept. Calvin dismissed it for what it was an attempt to find refuge from the harsh reality of Calvinism where there is none.
It's wild to me how Calvinists always completely ignore apostasy when explaining how to have assurance of your salvation. I like Gavin and he's often pretty wise, but Calvinism really forces thoughtful and sensible people to twist themselves up affirming things that don't make any sense.
If you examine yourself of faith and see signs, you could be wrong or right about having faith, and you could fall away from faith in other denominational beliefs, therefore if Calvinists see signs, they have confidence in God to preserve their love, while others are hoping they can remain faithful enough.
@@ZachFish- DW: The Calvinist - per the doctrine - cannot rely on any perception he has - because Calvin's god creates a percentage of believers as CHAFF believers - whom he decrees to have FALSE perceptions of salvation and FALSE perceptions of faith. John Calvin -quote But the Lord....instills into their minds such *A SENSE* ..as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption. (Institutes 3.2.11) -quote He illumines *ONLY FOR A TIME* to partake of it; then he....strikes them with even greater blindness (Institutes 3.24.8)
@@dw6528 My comment already covers this. Using the term “Calvin’s God” isn’t great if you want to be historically accurate. I will not further comment.
@@ZachFish- Examining the entailments of the philosophical system isn't even required. All you have to do is look around and see that there are apostates who were formerly devout Christians. The only Calvinist explanation for these people is that they were never saved. However, what aspect of their lives would have indicated to them, or anyone else, that their faith was not genuine? How can you know their own personal life experience to know for sure that their faith was superficial or self deceived, and yours is not? By all accounts we can only assume they felt their convictions and had faith the same as anyone else, and then one day it began to fade away until it was gone. If Calvinism is true, then this was by the decree of God - and your eventual apostasy could also be forthcoming. Do you truly believe no former Christian had ever examined themselves and their faith in order to try and have assurance of their salvation? They never asked these same questions and got these same answers? Tell me precisely how a Christian who eventually will apostatize and one who will not experiences these doubts and attempts at finding assurance differently so that we can know we are one of the for real, truly, actually elect, and not actually a self-deceived reprobate.
21:31 Sorry, assurance of one's salvation' in Calvinism it is NOT possible to know. No one has ever analyzed or mediated on the consequences of Calvinist doctrine more than John Calvin himself. And he wrote, “We cannot imagine any certainty that is not tinged with doubt, or any assurance that is not assailed by some anxiety. . . . Believers are in perpetual conflict with their own unbelief” (Calvin, Institutes, 3.2.18). "perpetual conflict", by definition, does not afford any "assurance". Calvinism affords no assurance of anyone's salvation. This is equally true of one's dear departed grandma, and the man in the mirror. The necessary "Gift of Perseverance" is guaranteed no one. And no one knows if they have it, or will 'get it' until they are dead and buried. Calvinists are literally 'dying' to find out if they are saved. Factor in Evanescent Grace and they cannot even trust the faith they have any more than the God they claim gave it to them. Any Calvinist claiming otherwise is ignorant of the doctrine or just whistling past the graveyard and hoping for the best.
That’s why some would say we forms of assurance that are outside of your feelings, such as Communion, Confession, and Baptism which have promises attached to them. For example, the paralytic that Jesus said “your sins are forgiven.” That man may have felt nothing when he heard that, but when he saw his legs working, it’s a solid witness that the first word was also good.
@@PizzaDisguise The problem the Calvinist has is that all the promises of the Bible are only for the 'truly elect' (as they define election) and they can mean nothing to the non-elect.... Since they still don't know if they're really "picked" and on the "list", or just experiencing an episode of Evanescent Grace, they can't lay claim to a single promise in scripture with any confidence it actually applies to them personally.
@@johnknight3529 Yes, their desire to appear as 'normal' Christians following the Great Commission results in evangelizing others to join them in worshiping a God even they cannot trust themselves. Most of their efforts seem to be directed at other believers. Virtually every Calvinist will admit they were believers in Christ before they became convinced of Calvinism/ TULIP. Usually, by another Calvinist proposing their polished arguments and 'out of context' prooftexts. It's very sad to see believers embrace a doctrine which ultimately undermines any confidence they once had that they are truly loved by our Heavenly Father. Who is it that wants men to doubt God's love for them?...🤔
@@PizzaDisguise The problem the Calvinist has is that all the promises in scripture are only for the 'elect', as the define election. None of them mean anything at all to the non-elect. Since their doctrine does not afford any real 'assurance', only 'perpetual conflict', they cannot lay claim to a single promise in the bible with any confidence. If Calvinism is true, Evanescent Grace hangs over their head like the Sword of Damocles, whether they've thought about it or not.
I'm a bit taken aback by the "we're all on the same team" confessions . . Maybe, I'll grant, but I have the gift of memory (such as it is ; ) "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works."
At any rate, there seems to me to be a stepping back from the logos of total Predeterminism, by Mr. Orland, during which he says some things about there being mystery involved when we consider God and what He's doing. Which apparently means to him that mystery can logically be inserted into one's reasoning at will . . (so to speak ; ) He gives an example wherein it appears to him (as in, he imagines) that those who have no "scholarly credentials" can't read the actual Communication He provided to each of us, for some mysterious reason. As though God would not be able to produce a book that humans can understand, for themselves. (He has little faith in God, to my mind.)
Simply asserting that something is both a circle and a dodechahedron simultaneously while saying that this does not create a logical contradiction is madness. "My wife is simultaneously faithful to me during the act of infidelity."
As I have come to understand the Orthodox position, Christianity at its core is icon based. Man is the icon, image, of God in a way. Jesus is the image of the Father. As Jesus said, he who has seen him has seen the Father. There has to be a question of what is worship, only reserved for God, compared to veneration which respects the Saints and Mary as well as Jesus.
@@JordanBrown-km5kf Its incredible going to Protestant funerals and seeing people bring out literal icons decorated with flowers and parade these things around -- yet if we make images of the saints and do the same thing, thats somehow idolatry? Protestantism is so radically disconnected from traditional religion that even the most simple and basic acts of piety are taken to be idolatry.
@@heremticapffff, give me a break with that nonsense. One doesn't bow to an icon and kiss it and pray to it believing it's got some miraculous power if not because of idolatry. People act like simple objects have powers that only Jesus has. The power to forgive, the power to protect, the power of giving wisdom, the power to heal, etc. Is stupid. Only Jesus has that power and we don't need any type of intermediary between Jesus and us, just prayer and a mind focused on Him and only him. And let's not talk about the exaltation of Mary and the prayers to her and the language thay they use, making her some kind of co redemptrix, another goddess in theory and practice. I'm not fooled by the claim that it is just "veneration", "respect", it's worship, straight up worship, a blasphemous act. And by the way, no protestant act this way, you are lying and looking for excuses to justify your idolatry. Eastern falsely so called "orthodox" is ridiculous, blasphemous and baloney.
I just realized the steve Lawson's statement that ''you should not just a man on one weak moment'' was not.even his own thought. He stole that from Johm MacArthur's response to the Alastair Begg controversy.
“The purpose of thinking is to let the ideas die instead of us dying.” (Alfred Whitehead) Living in contradiction will ultimately implode in a person's life....thus "compatibilism." The problem, for me personally, is that Calvinism begins with a philosophy and then a reach has to be made once again to philosophy to "help" clean it up.
Everything happens by His soveriegn decree. AND, we have free will, we are not coerced into anything. Really? Like those 2 statements go together. I love the way these guys give lip service to free will. But God has unchangeably ordained whatsoever comes to pass. So I do what I do because of God's soveriegn decree, God has ordained it, decreed it, predetermined it, it will happen, I can NOT change that. Oh, but I'm still responsible, because I have free will. Yeh....okaaaay. And we're not robots, even though Super MacArthur says we have been programmed. 🤔
Just have to add that, as a novelist, I can confidently state that the author analogy for God and his "characters" is ridiculous. My characters are FICTIONAL. Duh.
@@ryleighloughty3307 It isn't a description of what God is. And its TULIP is shorthand for Calvinist anthropology and Soteriology. Neither of those is correct. Therefore, the Calvinist gospel that God may have Elected you (who knows?) but he certainly intended and will damn most people without consideration for them, is completely baseless.
@@HoytRoberson The core principle of Calvinism is that God maintains control over all things at all times. Consequently, TULIP logically follows from this biblical truth.
Great stuff!thank you,i now have the answer to my calvinists friends who joined our Church.by the way i am a Filipino working here in Japan.And Church here is scarce so, some Calvinists joined us and at first they are calmed but now they are vulgar and want to interject their belief.I don’t know much about calvinism but for some reason I perceive that their belief is false and i opposed them.but i don’t have the knowledge about Calvinism.Very grateful for this channel,i am having difficulty understanding all the terms as English is not my primary language but i can understand now because you talked slowly and clearly and calmly.I need to refute and defend our Church so ism going to listen to you more often.God bless Idolkiller
"I know this sounds crazy, but it's not I swear! You can trust me, I'm not crazy!" Kinda sus, sounds like something a crazy person would say 😂 But seriously, much love to Gavin, and it's good to see Zach Miller join you in this discussion Warren. Praying for you and the kids!
It’s hard to sit and watch someone like Gavin who’s heart is pure, be so wrong and mislead on his interpretation of scripture and neglect of going farther back then Augustine.
🙋♀️one of those that does not like the “ ism”. By Calvinism’s sovereignty of God definition, God is going against his own Word which states not to be a stumbling block or offend another which in those verses means to give way for that person to sin. God would be guilty of doing something he himself is against . This is just how they manipulate verses to defend their doctrine. Every point in TULIP can be disproven by scripture.
I like Gavin, I do see though that he does seem To appeal to tradition, especially denominational tradition first. In other words, “this has been the tradition in the Baptist nomination or in the church since whenever AD, And here is some biblical justification if you need it and here’s why it’s not weird.” Maybe I’ll see it that way just because as I tell people I try my best to be allergic to religious tradition. If a religious tradition is good, I will see it is, justified scriptural and philosophically. But it’s just easier for me for my default position to be “that teaching is suspect merely because it is traditional and seems weird to me.” Not that I think the teaching is wrong just that it’s suspect.
The bible verses which seem to corroborate meticulous determinism are examples of God speaking in a Calvinopromorphic way because he knew Calvinists wouldn't understand plain language.
DW: Yes! Good one! Calvin's god knows an infallible decree does not grant existence to any ALTERNATIVE from what is decreed. But he deceives people by leading them to believe they were granted ALTERNATIVES And he holds them accountable for not choosing the ALTERNATIVE which did not exist for them to choose. Looks to me like Calvin simply manufactured a god out of his own image! :-]
@@dw6528 It does seem Calvin projected his own characteristics into the God he derived and refined from Augustine. Calvinism does attract similar people. I can't tell you how many arrogant, oblivious, self-absorbed, intellectually superior types wandered the grounds at Moody Bible institute looking for opportunities to prove they were more chosen than you. The god they worship is obsessed with his own glory just like them. If they were born into a different political climate they would burn their opponents with greenwood torches. The other type of Calvinist seems to be those terrified of personal autonomy.
Before creation, God predetermined all human thoughts and actions. He also predetermined the actions of every speck of dust and every occurrence, from the mundane to the extraordinary-everything is under his command at all times. Indeed, nothing can happen outside of his authority. This is not only biblical but also logical because if God did not act this way, he could not be God. It is illogical for God to leave any decisions or actions to man or chance. Since man cannot know God's plan, we make our own choices and bear the responsibility for them, even though they always align with God's plan. As humans are inherently sinful, we cannot contribute to our salvation. God chooses whom He will save, and Jesus died explicitly for them. Those who are chosen cannot resist being chosen, nor can they fall away.
@@ryleighloughty3307 DW: That is what Calvinism teaches of course. But with that it follows - every perception in your brain is there only because it was decreed. Which means perceptions in your brain are not TRUTH-BASED they are DECREE-BASED And since nothing can be CONTRARY to that which that is decreed - it follows - your brain is not permitted to PERCEIVE anything that is CONTRARY to what was decreed Which means - your brain is not granted the ability to CHOOSE between TRUE and FALSE because one of those perceptions is CONTRARY to that which was decreed Since your brain cannot choose between TRUE and FALSE - it follows - your brain is not granted the ability to discern TRUE from FALSE on any matter Welcome to Calvinism! :-]
@@dw6528 Who would you prefer to have control over your thoughts and actions-yourself or God? Who would you prefer to have control over everything in the heavens and the earth - serendipity or God?
Enjoyed this dialog very much! I've listened to Leighton on Calvinism, but this brought some misunderstandings from the St. Augustine pov. I get it now...thank you. Interesting how I came out of WOF and NAR then the reformation movement caught me and unknowingly calvinist churches in my search for community. Keep it up! I love your intro...love the ist...question the ism or something to that effect 😊
21:50 Gavin: "if you repent of your sins" This phrasing does not occur in the Bible once, to 'repent of your sins'. Repentance means 'changing of mind' and is a neutral verb. God repents, in time. That goes against the idea that all of history and the future was set in stone. Repenting of your sins is a very vague action. It's never truly finished, so you will never have true assurance (certainty) of your salvation. Most of Gavin's statements are not explanations but just claims to counterarguments.
Are you free grace? The reason why Jesus was put on the cross was BECAUSE of our sins. Repent, change your mind ... not just from unbelief to belief, but about EVERYTHING that's counter to Christ and his message. Jesus said to go and sin NO MORE. Matthew 3:8 Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance Luke 15:7-10 I say to you that likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance. Titus 2 11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, 12 teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, 13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.
Brother I came to a lot I can pray for you even though whatever you're going to man I know your heart and it's tough but no matter what God is good Love you brother praying diligence
A person's demeanor maybe respectable, but a Christian who believes God decrees evil (Calvinism) and that Genesis 1-11 is not meant to be read literally including the clearly layed out genealogies (Long Age), how far can a pastor like Gavin go with all his intelect?
Two questions: where can I get a resource about the Augustine-Pelagius debacle? That was a very interesting way of putting it, and I’d like to read more on it. Also, what do you mean Arminius is a Calvinist? Any resources on that would be helpful as well.
Is it just me or does the calvinist seem to be simply saying, "determinism and free will are compatible!" And then when asked how so? They respond. "Determinism and free will are compatible!" And then when asked again to explain how they are compatible they respond, "determinism and free will are compatible!" And so on and so on and so on. I've never heard it explained. Just restated a different way.
It is wild to me that Gavin even says at one point in this whole thing that there's no room for triumphalism in their view. Okay, I guess they don't believe that their view is true or real or correct. 🤷🏻♂️
What is that sermon in the intro where that fellow says, "when he wants to, he orders those to commit adultery...when HE wants to!" I can't find it, I'm curious to see the context of a statement like that.
Where can I read more on the history of Augustine as you described it in the middle of the video? Most of what I've been able to find doesn't go into it
Check out the following books: The Myth of Pelagianism, by Dr Ali Bonner An Historical Presentation of Augustinism and Pelagianism From the Original Sources, by G. F. Wiggers The Story of Original Sin, by John E. Toews The Transmission of Sin: Augustine and the Pre-Augustinian Sources by Pier Franco Beatrice
While I've enjoyed Ortlund's well-read and even-handed challenges to Catholic doctrine, I haven't tuned into his channel much in recent months, in large part because the "Calvinism Isn't Crazy" video was such a disappointment. Thanks for discussing it.
If Calvinism is true, we are just mechanistically an outgrowth of God like a new bud sprouting from a trunk. I think this means we cannot know what "truth" is. I think the same logical defeater that is used against atheists who deny free will can be used against the Calvinist.
I’m at 1:11 - your mention of the assumption/belief in the part of some Calvinists that every belch and molecule is ordered by God. In your intro, there is a brief clip of a Calvinist teacher whom I don’t recognize (dark hair and glasses, a larger size man if I’m remembering right) who, in that full video (which I saw months ago- it is from a debate) actually argues there is no “rogue molecule”. He gets very passionate in asserting this-even angry. Would you please tell me where you got that clip. I have been searching for that debate to watch again. I can’t recall even if it was Leighton he was debating. It seems to me there were two gentlemen on each side of that particular debate. If you (or anyone) can provide this info for me, I’d appreciate it so much.
Augustine spent I think 8 or 10 years as a mannequin and is the first Christian to bring determinism into Christian thinking. So in other words he brought a heresy, maniquianism, into Christian orthodoxy.
@jolookstothestars6358 Augustine was a Manichaean auditor for ten years. These gnostic views, along with the teaching of the Encratites, Messalians, Stoics and neo-Platonists influenced his interpretation of Scripture. When he read the Latin Vulgate he misunderstood Romans 5, believing it taught we were all literally IN Adam when he sinned. Augustine had a LOT of awful beliefs.
@IdolKiller I agree! The interview that L. Flowers does with Dr. Wilson is an incredible source of information against Augustine!! I need to sit down with coffee ☕ and take alot of notes!! So sorry about your struggles,praying and trying to buy some stuff.😇
Doesn't matter. In Calvinism you cannot know whether you received Evanescent Grace or that it isn't your depraved mind lying to you, because of TD. There is no assurance in Calvinism.
@ I’m a Calvinist and I am fully assured and persuaded that he who began a good work in me will be faithful to complete the work HE BEGAN until the day of Jesus Christ. I’m not worried because He is the author and finisher of my faith :)
@@EliasB100 what if you’re not elect and just deluded into thinking so? No matter what you do or believe it would make zero difference and you’ll be damned
God's character is the entire Biblical story. Jesus does not just show love, He is Love....He does not just speak the truth, He is TRUTH. He is 1 Corinthians 13:4-8. The god of calvinism is weak, sadistic.... he has low self esteam, he needs to see others suffer to glorify himself. Calvinsits seem to think ultimate control is where the power is. They totally miss the real power of love, humbleness, forgiveness and Grace. Hmmmm... Sounds just like the God man.
it never makes sense to me why calvinist preach. If God zaps people with go-go juice, then preaching is useless. why don’t the preachers behave like the rest of the perspiratory and do absolutely nothing for the kingdom
Why tie your study to someone else's theology? The problem with commentaries is that the questions you have are rarely answered. You can't get very far with commentaries. They are OK for baby Christians, or for occasional reference, but if you want to dig deep, learn to study for yourself. Give a man a fish, feed him for a day Teach him how to fish, feed him for a lifetime. Be blessed Take care PS: it just occurred to me. If you're wanting to learn to study in depth, you might want to pick a smaller epistle, like 1st John, Philippians, Ephesians or Colossians. Blessings
@IdolKiller Can you draw out your argument about unable vs unwilling a little more? I didn't follow when you said a question you pose to Calvinists is, "Why don't you accept the spiritual truth of Islam?"
Islam is purported to be the final revelation of the Abrahamic religion, which means if the Bible really does teach total inability (where the unregenerate cannot recognize and accept spiritual truths), it follows that it's totally possible that Islam IS actually true as the conclusion to the progressive revelation of God and the only reason people aren't accepting it is because of their total inability. Someone who claims that people are unable to accept spiritual truths (in their view, Calvinism) without being regenerated can't make a coherent argument to why they know Islam isn't true because their arguments can only depend on human reason and rationality, the very things they say we can't depend on to be able to discern the spiritual truths in the Bible.
Calvinism is a different Gospel. How can we be ecumenical when it comes to the Gospel?! We can agree to disagree on a lot, but the Gospel?! I like to call it STUPID. Sovereignty, Total Depravity, Perseverance of the Saints, Irresistible Grace, Definite Atonement. It's the doctrine of demons.
God's grace is resistible. Calvinists have a hard time recognizing true grace because they espouse an "irresistible grace" that doesn't exist. This is Calvinism's greatest flaw. True grace can be recognized and this contributes to assurance.
@CoffeeCoffee12 I agree. The issue with Theistic Determinism (Calvinism) is all things are said to be determined. That claim has all sorts of problematic entailments.
@@IdolKiller I agree 100%! I, like you was a Calvinist for over 30 yrs. While I do learn from Leighton and by and large agree with him, I do think he ( and those against Reformed theology) can go to far the other way and say nothing has been predetermined. I feel like you Warren have more of an even view on that issue. I also know Ronnie Rogers has the same view of some things are determined. That being said, again I am not a Calvinist, but do you think the lower Calvinist, the Moody Bible or say someone like Greg Khokal might be able to be Calvinistic and go where you and I are of some things are determined and some are not, or do you think even a lower form of Calvinism necessitates the idea of exhaustive divine determinism ?
@@CoffeeWholeBean oh there are numerous Calvinists who do not adhere rigidly to its tenets or entailments. Many are well meaning and even think they're Calvinist when they're not.
One thing can have two properties. For example, light is a wave and a particle. Under some condition, light behaves as a wave and under other conditions light behaves as a particle. The important thought here is to determine whether the two properties in question are mutually exclusive. Are free-will and determinism mutually exclusive properties of a person? If not, then it becomes important to determine the conditions under which people's behaviors are by choice of the person and under what conditions people's behaviors are pre-determined by God. Not an easy task. I do not believe in Calvinism because I believe that a person's behavior is governed both by the person's free-will (given by God in his image!) and by determined responses (governed by God's overall design for the world/universe).
Cool intro...very industrial with the sample clips too. Vipers in diapers & blaming God for our every sin remains the top WTH points that i think of about calvinism(apart from their prideful elect are once saved always saved dogma which overlooks that saved angels fell & all adults of mankind were once children saved by grace despite religious affiliation....& If they disagree, they are right back in damned baby vipers in diapers territory).
Ortlund's approach turns me away. I can't get through his videos because they feel manipulative. Like, I've been there and done that in church, and I don't need someone polishing their approach to seem more reliable. "Winsome." 🤢
Iam so sick of all these internet preacher's, they know everything about everything in scripture and from what I've seen most of them don't know much of anything, iam now at the point iam done with all of them.
Calvinistic pretense that the creature has a will, a real will that is actively opposed to God's willis only so because Calvigod so decreed it, thus it is not ACTUALLY against Calvigod's will. Calvinism where sin is PERFECT obedience that gets you damned.
Jeremiah 9:24. I am YAHWEH who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight, declares YAHWEH. Calvinists say that all things are ordained in order to bring God maximum glory. All that comes to pass (good and evil) does so by his will, it is what He wants for his pleasure and glory. That is not what He said through Jeremiah. Kindness, justice and righteousness are the things He delights in, they are the things that give Him pleasure.
I, for one, DO positively assert the non-christian status of Calvinists, per Galatians. This comment is not about that and is true if one rejects or accepts them as Christian. In Calvinism: 1. Since CalviGod (CG) ordains ALL THINGS THAT COME TO PASS, every single written thing, produced by man is CG breathed and is scripture. 2. In the Bible, both God in the OT and Jesus use analogies that START with man (earthly truths) and after correlate spiritual truths for human understanding. Thus when Satanists like James White claim that those who make "man-centered" analogies, his false God (as the Calvinist assigns the Bible to CG) does it as well, so his and their objection is moot. 3. Since the Bible defines sin as rebelling against God's will the calvinist cannot claim that sin exists because what the Bible calls sin the calvinist calls GG's will. 4. After explaining their doctrines the Calvinists are not permitted to punt to mystery. BECAUSE THEY JUST EXPLAINED IT!
@buzzbbird the issue isn't so much the label as it is the consistent application of their doctrine. Fortunately most Calvinists are wildly inconsistent
Nothing convinced me more about the utter evil wrongness of Calvinism (reformed theology in general) than my twins. They came out of the womb showing nothing but tenderness for each other. They spontaneously shared and helped each other, showing kindness. It wasn't until 2 years later that they started fighting. I accept the Orthodox view that original sin does in no way mean we are born wicked and sinful from the womb like Augustin and others allege. Total Depravity, any way you spin it, is total damnable blasphemous BS. Without Total Depravity the rest of TULIP is philosophical vanity.
Warren - your depiction of Compatibilism in Calvinism is in error: At minute 15.55 you say: "God from all eternity decreed that you would steal 3 butterfingers. Now you are free to NOT steal" This is incorrect In Calvinism creation is never granted FREEDOM to countervail an infallible decree FREEDOM must be *COMPATIBLE* with Determinism - which means it must be *COMPATIBLE* with that which is decreed Therefore 1) The creature is granted FREEDOM to be/do *ONLY* that which is decreed 2) The creature is NOT granted FREEDOM" to be/do *OTHERWISE* Adam - was granted FREEDOM to [EAT] the fruit because [EATING] was what was decreed FREEDOM to [EAT] in such case - is *COMPATIBLE* with determinism. But Adam was NOT FREE to [NOT EAT] because [NOT EAT] is CONTRARY to the decree And that which is CONTRARY to the decree is not granted existence - and NOT COMPATIBLE with Determinism. So in Calvinism - the option to [NOT EAT] did not exist for Adam This is why Dr. Kenneth Wilson calls "Freewill" in Calvinism NON-Free-Freewill
@@IdolKiller DW: I would be concerned about the language regarding that - because your audience could easily not recognize that distinction - and what they would hear - is that in Calvinism humans are granted "Freedom" to choose between CONTRARY options. However - in Calvinism - CONTRARY options do not exist within creation - because nothing is granted existence that is CONTRARY to the decree. Also - Calvinist Jon Edwards has his essay "On the power of CONTRARY choice" in which he shows in Determinism CONTRARY choice (choice between contrary options) does not exist because it would entail an act that is CONTRARY to one's nature - which is determined by a decree. So CONTRARY options do not exist in Calvinism - and CONTRARY choice does not exist either. Blessings!
@@TheWorldViewBros sovereignty means that God is King of kings and Lord of lords, the Highest Authority to which we may appeal, and Judge. It does not mean meticulous effectual divine determinism.
@ I always wonder at people when they thank God for one event turning out one way or another. “If that bullet had been 2mm to the right… thank God it wasn’t.” Seemingly everyone is a Calvinist
@TheWorldViewBros in Luke 10:31-33 Jesus speaks of chance. Regardless of whether it's chance, reaping what we've sown, or an occurance of God's direct involvement, we can trust Him. The problem arises when the claim is made He eternally and effectually decreed everything including all sin and evil.
@ thanks for your responses. I’m not sure this video moved the ball for me, but I’ll continue to keep open mind. There are so many passages asserting God’s determinism - especially with salvation. Romans 9:6-16 is so clear. Paul even says “shall we say God is unjust?” In other words “you heard me right, I didn’t stutter”
I just cannot understand how they can read the whole Bible, and come to the conclusion that God determines ALL our actions, good and bad. That, to me, is Allah. Why does God, all through the Bible keep holding Israel accountable for not repenting and turning back to Him, if they are *totally incapable* to do so? If He is the one who determines their every action, then why blame them? Calvinism portrays God as both unjust and cruel, and the author of evil... 😮
Does God know the future? Does God know everything that will come to pass? Is he all-knowing? If he knows you are going to steal 3 candy bars at 4:01pm at 7-11, will you do otherwise? Did God know incorrectly?
@Christo1518 God has Dynamic Omniscience. Fatalism is false. God is free and He knows this, thus the future is not only not yet existing, but contingent. So God knows His own intentions and those of His inagebearers and is free to do as He pleases without being bound by some static set of propositions that must be true.
@IdolKiller I just asked if God knows the future. Seems like a yes-or-no type of a question to me. If you can't just say "yes", that's a clue that I overloaded your system by merely asking a simple question. I'm not saying you are wrong, but if I asked a kid at church if God knows the future, I don't think they'd have a problem answering a simple yes.
@Christo1518 you did not just ask if God knows the future. You started there and then nuanced this question with an immediate follow up that presupposes a static view of Omniscience and the truth value of future contingents. It's entirely possible this was done innocently and you were unaware, but regardless I saw this and so I provided a nuanced answer. Yes, God knows the future. Perfectly. No, the truth value of future propositions is not eternally settled. Christians are not fatalists and God is free. I hope this helps explain why I answer the way I do.
@@IdolKiller You are saying my very simple questioning, "presupposes a static view of Omniscience and the truth value of future contingents", and then you affirm that "Yes, God knows the future, perfectly", but follow the yes with a no, "No, the truth value of future propositions is not eternally settled", which sounds like you just answered Yes and no. For if the "truth value of future propositions is not eternally settled" then you are making yes=no. I don't know how else to take your words, because you are very evasive. And you don't owe me an explanation. If all this makes sense in your mind, then somehow you hold a yes as a no and a no as a yes.
@Christo1518 Yes, God knows the future perfectly. No, the future is not exhaustively settled, and God knows all the various possibilities. Your last reply again confirms you're operating on the presupposition of a singular and settled future. That's what I object to... not God's knowledge of the actual future.
Quit trying to be so soft. Who cares? lol. Jesus wasn't soft, he was harsh and strict, and if you do the will of The Father then you are a brother of Jesus, according to Himself.
Before creation, God predetermined all human thoughts and actions. He also predetermined the actions of every speck of dust and every occurrence, from the mundane to the extraordinary-everything is under his command at all times. Indeed, nothing can happen outside of his authority. This is not only biblical but also logical because if God did not act this way, he could not be God. It is illogical for God to leave any decisions or actions to man or chance. Since man cannot know God's plan, we make our own choices and bear the responsibility for them, even though they always align with God's plan. As humans are inherently sinful, we cannot contribute to our salvation. God chooses whom He will save, and Jesus died explicitly for them. Those who are chosen cannot resist being chosen, nor can they fall away.
Is this a parody account of someone trying to debunk Calvinism? Like is he actually serious or is he making fun of people who try and debunk Calvinism but don't know what they're talking about?
DW: This is a common claim by Calvinists. But whenever they are pressed to provide evidence to prove the claim - it always collapses in self-contradiction. This does not serve the Calvinist well - because people conclude he cannot be taken seriously.
I found your channel today after looking for a quick summary of the Lawson situation, and it's been a horrible first impression. You took a situation that should be a sorrowful but factual summary and turned it into spewing anger at Calvinism, best summarized by commenting, "calvanism is a doctrine of demons. Not only is it being done in the wrong spirit, but with an almost purposeful twisting of it. As I've seen yours and others' responses, no it is not "according to you i have no choice God said i had to" it is your own heart that finds joy in how you decide to act. Though you cant understand God being sovreign and man being free to follow his heart and how those work together. Not God forcing someone to sin, but as with Jesus's death, God decreed for it to happen and since he did not restrain them, they gleefully followed their hearts to sin. God did not need to force them to sin or tell them to, he simply did not let them hear. He was not required to give them mercy, to restrain them so that they did not crucify the Lord of Glory, but he may give it to who he wishes. As for author of evil, it is appalling how quickly you ascribe God of sin because you disagree with their working out what scripture teaches and agree with another. Secondly, simply asserting calvanism makes God force people to sin, it does not mean other views dont lead to a similar conclusion. How is God not the author of sin if he puts a king in power knowing that that'll guarantee they do what he decrees ala Asyria. How is he not responsible for using middle knowledge to bring things about that involve rape or murder. How does him looking down the corridor of time, not make him responsible for setting things to go to his plan. Either him creating the tree in the garden makes him force people to sin and all other things that flow out of his foreknowledge that he doesn't stop, or though he decrees sovereignly, it is still man that is responsible for his sinful heart and the two wills work in tandem. Finally, though you take joy in using a strawman answer, you should not be so joyfully misrepresent and accuse so many of calling God the cause of sin. Its disgusting and i will not be watching more videos of yours for that reason. I hope you come to understand the fruit of the spirit and not look at everything as a way to disrespect and slander everyone you disagree with.
I’ve not watched most of this video but I am familiar with much of the content on this channel. I’ve read your response twice and it sounds as though you are offended not only in the approach but that some claim that in Calvinism God causes sin but then go on to ask how God is not the author of sin? Making it seem as though this is how you view God and then finally say that it is slander to say that some believe God causes sin.
Warren is just scratching the surface of divine determinism on this show. He has struck a blow to your deterministic philosophy that you believe is scripture and you cannot handle it so you lash out at him like he is a devil. Maybe instead of foaming at the mouth you ought to actually listen to what he is saying. He use to think like you and honestly you are in the wrong not him on this issue.
@NiBearla Calvinism is the doctrine of demons because Yahweh is actually GLORIFIED by the very sin He abhors yet also decrees. That’s called confusion and God has no hand it such rubbish.
Augustine gets a bad rep but he didn't preach Calvinism. He taught specifically that without grace its impossible to live a Holy life (Pelagianism). St. Thomas expands on this by identifying grace as the mover of all things and that grace moves us to respond to God. Thomas Aquinas believes this grace is resistible. There are some Thomist who hold to a monergestic view which still isn't Calvinism, but comes close. Personally, the congruist position that God gives enough grace for each man to freely choose answers this question for me.
"Augustine is so wholly within me that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fullness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings" (John Calvin) Obviously Augustine didn't preach Calvinism (given the chronology). Calvin was 100% Augustinian. Augustine never forsook his pagan beliefs.
@leenieledejo6849 no you have to read more Augustine. He's addressing people who thought you coule merit grace. Even his latter work affirmed the role of free will, but holds grace as a first mover. Thomism ans later Molinism round this out by addressing how graces moves the will of a person to freely decide.
@39:00 McGrew denies that Calvinists can/should believe in Secondary Causes. ..except that *all* compatibilists (Calvinists and otherwise) believe in Secondary causes. McGrew's denial is not a denial of Calvinism as much as it is a refusal to grant that compatibilists have good reasons for believing there's a way for (a form of) determinism to be compatible with (a form of) free will. Despite his complaint, compatibilism can be seen even among the early Church fathers (eg, Ireneaus). One wonders if McGrew has bothered to differentiate between modes of Causation (efficient, material, formal, and final). That's one way to have God and man be distinct causes (eg, God can be the formal cause of an evil action, but man is the efficient cause, and therefore morally culpable. This is a fairly straightforward way to understand how God can predestine the crucifixion of Jesus to take place on a specific day (Nisan 14) of a specific year (30 or 31AD), starting in a garden (Gethsemane), with a specific traitor, betraying Him to religious rulers, killed, dead for 3 days, and rising on the first day of the week - - - all according to Scripture. "Predestined plan" is a good way to explain it. So if Judas, Pilate, Herod, the high priest, the Jews and the Romans had free will - that's an example of compatibilism. Yet Warren denies this. Instead of making theological videos, he should try doing more homework.
@@Tim.Foster123 I argued ENTAILMENTS. An entailment is a deduction or implication, that is, something that follows logically from or is implied by something else. Smh
So for everyone who sees this and doesn’t know or have the time to look up these terms, that are frankly unnecessary I’ll summarize and respond in understandable colloquial English. God created everything including creatures that have some kind of agency, they really do chose things, however God created them in such a way that they chose what he wants them to chose which for Calvinist Compatabilists makes it so their concept of sovereignty is protected and the unelect are still culpable. They’re basically saying God didn’t make puppets, he made wind up toys that he designed to want to sin so that he could have wind up toys to condemn and wind up toys to save without having responsibility. Or you can just read the Bible that clearly says God made mankind who he wants to freely chose him and love him so for that to be possible they had to have AT LEAST the free will to chose him or not. That’s why there’s so many examples of God basically begging for mankind to chose him, to turn to him, to not do evil, and him saying he doesn’t want anyone to die or be condemned. If Calvinism is true in any form that is consistent then the Bible is at best written in a way it can only be understand by adding tons of extra biblical concepts and philosophical theories to be understood correctly and at worst is deceptive. God through his word given in the scriptures tells us to make choices and take actions. If he’s telling us to do that despite not being able to then yeah the rest is self explanatory.
Warren, why are you first giving a disclaimer as to how wonderful a man Gavin is, etc.? I should remind you that Calvinism's 9 points -not just 5 called Tulip -are False from Genesis to Revelation. They teach that God determined every single thought, word, and action that every single person will think, say, and do. They teach that God is the sinner. They teach man has no ability to choose to follow God's will or run contrary to it- if one can obey or disobey God/the Gospel of his salvation, God is not sovereign and man worked for salvation. They blame God being the only sinner on a secret will of God- which is contrary to God's own words to Israel and the world. They give a false "Gospel"/non Gospel. This is just their foundation that is supposed to support their false flower- TULIP, which is also contradicted from Genesis to Revelation. They contradict how one is saved and contradict the fact of knowing that one is saved and can know that one has eternal life, and that is what all so-called Christian cults teach. Gavin, White, and all of Calvinism's false teachers give a false Gospel and unmitigated, false teachings that are perpetrated on the Body of Christ. Why, to reiterate, do you and Leighton Flowers and others give such disclaimers concerning how wonderful these false teachers are as people? They are False. They should be rebuked, not recognized as good people. Jesus addressing Israel's corrupt shepherds (under the Law of Moses) in the Gospels, Paul, Peter, Jude, John addressing false teachers in the Epistles (specifically addressing the Body of Christ under grace not law) do not first explain to how wonderful, good, kind, etc. they are, they apply language of condemnation and sharp rebuke and warnings and they admonish believers not to be like them, etc. I hope you understand the gravity you point out but seem to ignore when first giving a disclaimer as to the character of them (false teachers poisoning believers).
@rightlydividing I dunno if this has ever happened to you, but it sucks to be wrong on something and have people lambast you and your character for it, all while not knowing what it is that's wrong. I also don't know if you've ever created something, like content, but a measure of respect is warranted for those who actually create, which is unwarranted for mere commenters and critics.
Almost 30 minutes in and not one scripture has been used. Scripture>>>philosophy. And this has all been philosophy. Literally not one Bible passage has been used.
@danielglanville4052 Gavin's arguments were not exegetical in nature. At first I thought your criticism was of this and was about to defend him, until I realized you were leveraging a double-standard to attack us. Oh well
If it weren't for double standards, Calvinism would have none, much like its cousin, leftism. Calvinism and leftism may be different products, but they're made in the same factory, using the same process...
@danielglanville4052 What??? Scripture is rife with philosophy: the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. As a matter of fact all Christian theologies are philosophies based on interpreting Scripture
@@IdolKiller DW: Even R.C.s use of this language "maverick molecule" is designed to sugar-coat the doctrine. He really should have said - no sinful/evil impulse can exist within a Calvinist's brain - unless that impulse is decreed. Thus every impulse within the Calvinist's brain - is determined by antecedent factors totally outside of his brain's control. Burt if R.C. tells people that - he knows most people will reject such a RADICAL doctrine. And that is why Dr. William Lane Craig says: "The Calvinist, unfortunately and yet consistently, will not enunciate the RADICAL distinctions of his doctrine" The first thing I noticed in Gavin's presentation in your video - is how he used language designed to make Calvinism *APPEAR* to have things like Human Freedom and Human Responsibility and Human Choice - exactly as they are OUTSIDE of Calvinism. The NO FORCE argument for example - is designed to paint a FALSE PICTURE of creaturely autonomy which does not exist in Calvinism. Imagine two men arm wrestling. Each man is applying FORCE against the other man But that FORCE is only coherent because it presupposes each man is granted "Autonomy" from the other man In Calvinism there is no such thing as creaturely "Autonomy" So what you have is one man (Calvin's god) determining the impulses in the other man's brain and body I don't have to FORCE you to do what I want - if I can determine the impulses in your brain and body. So the NO FORCE argument is simply a RED-HERRING used by the Calvinist to paint a FALSE picture of human "Autonomy" which does not exist in Calvinism. Blessings!
So you say we do everything? We chose God, we chose to do good, we chose to be moral. We do everything and God does nothing. That sounds wrong?
I don’t think that’s what anyone is saying - nor is it the logical outcome of anything anyone is saying. If you think that’s wrong, I’d love to hear why you think that.
God offers grace and forgiveness. I would not call that nothing. I would call that everything.
who said that at what time stamp? I have never heard a provisionist say that.
@@Neil-yg5gm look up the Cathy Newman "So you're saying meme" then look into why it's a fallacy.
@@IdolKiller I am not the one who says man does everything and God does nothing- you are.
When I was a "7 point Calvinist," the one verse that I genuinely could not wrap my head around was 1 Corinthians 10:13 (given here in the Elect Sovereign Version):
"No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it."
The word "able," as far as I can tell after years of having thought this verse over, cannot be explained by anything other than "libertarian free will." Being "able" makes no sense unless it is a real and genuine POSSIBILITY to endure the temptation. On any deterministic framework, "possibility" is an incoherent concept. Something either happens, as determined, or it does not happen, which is also determined. There is no such thing as "possibility" unless random chance or free will exists, either of which refute deterninism and any theology that entails it.
I generally would argue it is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to actually disprove a doctrine from scripture alone, simply because of all the ways a text can be interpreted. This example, though, is as close as I think anyone could get to genuinely disproving a doctrine from the text. The motive behind the words, the context, the varieties of interpretations of the passage, etc, none of them explain how Calvinism can be true given this verse.
DW: Excellent point! The whole narrative within that text which includes an appeal to a "way of escape" is totally absent the notion that every impulse in the human brain is made to come to pass infallibly - totally outside of human control - which is the case in Calvinism.
I always find it ironic how the authors of the N.T. express conceptions which easily align with a world which contains Libertarian states of affairs.
And what the Calvinist must do to that text - in order to make ti *APPEAR* to align with Exhaustive Determinism
In Calvinism - per the doctrine of decrees - there is no such thing as an ALTERNATIVE from that which is decreed
So ALTERNATIVE options do not exist within creation for humans
But the language of scripture consistently depicts the existence of ALTERNATIVE options
Another example - would be "My ways are not your ways says the Lord"
If that is not Libertarian language - I don't know what is!
In Calvinism - the "ways" that a person is made to go - are simply "ways" that Calvin's god *APPLIES* to that person.
They are in fact Calvin's god's ways which he decrees upon that person
So the language of scripture is consistently congruent with Libertarian states of affairs
If Calvinism is TRUE - then we have a God who programs events to *SIMULATE* Libertarian states of affairs which don't actually exist.
So Calvinism can be likened to a huge computer simulation
And part of that computer program entails a constant stream of FALSE PERCEPTIONS of ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITIES within every human brain.
Why would a God create a world that is 100% pre-programmed to *SIMULATE* Libertarian states of affairs?
Thank you for your post!
Blessings!
@@dw6528 - "Why would a God create a world that is 100% pre-programmed to SIMULATE Libertarian states of affairs?"
It might be to impress the other Gods, of the multiverse, for His glory . . ; )
Only somewhat kidding, since in the "preprogrammed" worldview of Calvinism, God would be getting His glory (the Holy Grail of Calvigod ; ) by way of the minds which this version of a God preprogrammed to be impressed by what He created.
Not much of a payoff for all that work He did to create the heavens and the earth, and all the creatures therein, it seems to me. And I often want to ask Calvinism adherents to explain what makes such automated giving of glory so important to Him.
(And I truly believe there is a sort of phantom audience of non-preprogrammed beings of some kind, inhabiting the subconscious imaginations of Calvinism adherents, who are freely (and therefore meaningfully) giving glory to the God who made/preprogrammed them to just give glory to Him in a preprogrammed automaton sense.)
I’m curious about this because it would seem the ability of man that we are discussing in this verse is subject to Gods faithfulness and what He firstly allows or does not allow… as that is the language as the passage begins. Im not defending Calvinism, but it would seem that many here would say if you hold man’s ability subject to Gods allowance- this is Calvinism. But isn’t that what the verse says?
@Shark_fishing DW: There is a problem which Calvinists have on this topic - because their doctrine totally eradicates any degree of AUTONOMY granted to anything within creation - including man.
And it is not uncommon for Calvinists to affirm this fact by accusing NON-Calvinists of trying to grant man a degree of AUTONOMY.
But this back-fires on the Calvinist because it eradicates any AUTONOMY for any impulse that will come to pass within the human brain.
Accordingly - all impulses come to pass within the human brain - infallibly and thus irresistibly - and thus totally outside of the brain's control.
Consequently - Calvinists themselves are very uncomfortable with the implications - and are constantly trying to use language designed to produce an *APPEARANCE* of AUTONOMY granted to man.
Calvinists thus have a very intense need to create *FACADES* of AUTONOMY granted to man which is antithetical to the doctrine.
Calvinists create *FACADES* using a form of *CLOAKED* language - and "Permission" is an example of this language pattern.
John Calvin
-quote
When [Augustine] uses the term "permission" the *MEANING WHICH HE ATTACHES TO IT* will best appear from a single passage (De Trinity. lib. 3 cap. 4), where he proves that the will of God is the supreme and primary *CAUSE* of all things….(Institutes 1, 16, 8)
So what we see here - is that Calvinists use the word "Permit" as a replacement word for *CAUSE*
When the Calvinist says "God permits evil" what he really means is "God CAUSES evil"
1) What Calvin's god CAUSES by infallible decree - he permits
2) What Calvin's god DOES NOT CAUSE by infallible decree - he does not permit
@@dw6528 I appreciate the logical argument; God gives us sound minds and expects us to utilize them so I don't want to discount logic. Scripture also gives us the trinity, which we cannot sort out logically. Along with a number of other logical conundrums. It also gives us the Isaiah 55:8-9 passage. I think it might be my primary concern with Warren's channel, it seems to prioritize mans logic above God's word in many places (not just this one)...
I understand the calvinist is often faulted for depending upon mystery. I think there is both virtue and fault to be found, depending upon whether we rely on mystery where God's word is otherwise clear. According to many atheists, the calvinist and the non-calvinist appeal to mystery beyond logic. So the threshold can be subjective to the mind God has given us I suppose.
Do you see man's ability unto temptation as subject to God's faithfulness and allowance in 1 Cor 10:13? or would you deny that due to logic? I'm unclear how you're working that out.
With regard to Compatibilism, "Nonsense is nonsense even when we talk it about God."--C.S. Lewis
Chefskiss.gif
I don't know if that's really from him or not, since I don't recall it, but I love that man. It definitely sounds like something he would say.
@@Real_LiamOBryan C. S. Lewis "The Problem of Pain", (New York, The Century Press, 1940), p. 18 😃
@@John-bibleinsights Nice! I stayed away from reading that one for fear it might break my heart.
Warren, there is nobody on the internet that has thought out every nuance of divine determinism as you have and can honestly actually properly articulate what divine determinism really is. This is why James White will never debate you.
Every time you define a part of the doctrine you burn off the dross and leave a person to face the truth of what they actually believe (if the person questioning you fairly gives you the time to advance your position and actually let's down his guard and listens to you 37:09 ). You use lots of technical language but you choose each word carefully and are not flying by the seat of your pants.
Every time I hear you go into exhaustively defining what a calvinist truly believes in his or her heart I always say to myself, "I wish so and so calvinist would listen to this." You do this so well because this is how you use to think yourself. I have found that X determinists are the most articulate opponents of calvinism.
I myself have never been a determinist because I could never bow my intellect to accept the absurdity of God determining all things and yet being innocent. I have always believed that man is culpable and guilty for his own actions and it is unconscionable to say God determined me to do some evil sin. Yet I was willing to subject my family to stay in a church that went from Christian theology to reformed theology for many years. Looking back on my life I wish I never would have subjected my family (I have 8 kids) to the deterministic nonsense because of the narcissm and confusion it breeds. None of my kids are calvinists but the narcissm and hypocrisy has driven half of them into unbelief.
After saying all that I guess there is still a bit of deterministic philosophy that we all hold to as we live our lives and figure it is all in the hands of God in the end.
What is important is that we fear God and follow Him to the best of our ability trying to be as honest with scripture as we can and worship God with not only our heart but our mind as well. One person wants to always over emphasize the heart, another the intellectual and another the strength. Why not put them all together and experience as much of God as you can.
Whenever we find ourselves fighting against logic and common sense (especially concerning God's justice, character and holiness) we need to come to grips with the obvious that God is not evil. Most Calvinists would never say this but in the back of their mind that is what they are struggling with every time they cling to this deterministic system. If it isn't one thing it will be another that man will always cling to some corrupt philosophy or some lust or stubborn position. We all shake our heads at our fellow man's stubbornness and overlook our own stupidity. Oh that determinism was the way of salvation and such a determinism were capable of determining perfection, but this is not the world in which we find ourselves. We find ourselves having to struggle with doing either good or evil at every turn and this struggle will not end until the golden bowl of our life is broken.
When I was being taught by a Calvinist, there were sooooooo many “conundrums”! When i didn’t see the conundrum he saw, he would get irritated because I couldn’t see what he saw. I couldn’t understand the mystery and the complexities he was teaching. Which ultimately led to him praying for my salvation. Yep - because I didn’t see the conundrum, I must have been unregenerate or a reprobate. It came across as gnostic - which even the old lady in the class recognized. The teacher ended up leaving the class and the church. Hated to loose a brother but I don’t miss his teaching.
Wonderful testimony! Thank you!
Any clear thinker will understand the principles of Input into a black box, and Output out of the black box. If God unchangeably & unconditionally fixed the input, output, and every thought & action within the black box before the foundation of the world, then the Compatiblist’s claims of ‘secondary causes’ are nonsense.
DW: I perhaps have a different understanding of those things.
Firstly - Compatibilism
Standord Encyclopedia of Philosophy
-quote
Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism.
So in Calvinism this simply means "FREEDOM" granted to the creature MUST be COMPATIBLE with what is determined.
Calvin's god *MUST* grant FREEDOM to that which he decrees - or he is a house divided against himself
But he cannot grant FREEDOM to that which is CONTRARY to the decree
Thus
1) The creature is granted FREEDOM to be/do that which is decreed
2) The creature is NOT granted FREEDOM to be/do OTHER than that which is decreed.
On the Calvinist's appeals to secondary causes - I understand what they are trying to do is DISTANCE Calvin's god from evil events
The strategy is to punt to NATURAL Determinism
They want to attribute evil events to nature.
But this forces them to compromise Theological Determinism (divine sovereignty) in order to attribute events to nature.
However this fails because
1) Every part of every chain of every event is made to come to pass infallibly
2) Thus every part of every secondary event has the attribute of infallibly
3) Nature does not have the attribute of infallibility - it cannot make any movement of itself come to pass infallibly
4) Therefore Calvin's god must directly touch every part within every event in order to endow it with the attribute of infallibly
Thus the Calvinist attempt to DISTANCE their god from any event within creation fails.
@@dw6528Brilliant! Another way to refute the Lie of Calvinism & Compatibilism.
Multiple styles of refutations are useful to break the Compatibilists out of their madness spell.
FYI: The black box approach is used in science & engineering to make rapid bulletproof feasibility or impossibility assessments.
For example, Perpetual Motion
Machines are illegal to patent because they are impossible because they violate 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
A multitude of inventors may write hundreds of pages of 'proofs' why their Perpetual Motion Machine works, but the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics proves their 'proofs are false'.
Same with Compatibilsm.
@@CC-ii3ij DW: I'm not getting why Compatibilism (as defined by the standard encyclopedia of philosophy) is not logically viable.
If we define compatibilism as such
1) Where Calvin's god decrees [X] to infallibly come to pass - he must grant FREEDOM for [X] to come to pass.
2) If he does not grant FREEDOM for what he decrees to come to pass - he is a house divided against himself.
3) For example - if he decrees Adam to infallibly eat the fruit - then he must grant Adam FREEDOM to eat the fruit
4) But there is NO FREEDOM granted to creation to BE/DO OTHER than that which is decreed - because that FREEDOM would NOT be Compatible with what is decreed
That is my understanding of compatibilism.
@ My Response: The term ‘FREEDOM’, by definition, requires multiple possible options. The Compatibilists definition of ‘FREEDOM’ is a lie. According to the Westminster Confession affirmed by most Compatibilists states (as I try to remember): “Before the foundation of the world, God unchangeably & unconditionally decreed whatsoever comes to pass”. No other possible thought, action, or ‘escape from sin’ can possibly occur.
Anybody who adopts Westminster cannot possibly be an intellectually honest Compatibilists. This is hard determinism, by definition.
The underlying psychological need that makes deterministic theology appealing is the fear of personal autonomy. If we are wheels in a deterministic machine we are safe from the consequences of our choices. We are also not the cause of our past failures. This is the same psychological need (spirit) behind democratic politics/entitlement/fear of responsibility/Marxism/Communism/hierarchical structures/bureaucratic corporatism/Wokeism/form over substance/the letter of the law over the spirit of the law etc. It's the same spirit that motivates individuals to outsource their thinking to "giants of the faith." Personal freedom/autonomy truly is terrifying. Thank GOD we have a model that teaches us how to navigate this. Determinism completely nullifies learning from the example of Christ. Discipleship has no place in the life of a consistent Calvinist. Remind me never to get on a plane with a Calvinist pilot. Think I'll go drive my backhoe around with my terrifying personal autonomy now.
That might account for the "psychological need" felt by those who "fall for" this total Predeterminism worldview, but to me there is a flip side to this coin, so to speak. (Also mirrored within the "Wokinsm" movement.)
Inherent in the doctrines of Predeterminism is the Choosing of some to be in positions of authority over congregants (/citizenry). Which is to say a powerful attractant of control freaks, looking for a "system" that gives them unquestioned authority over others.
Christ predestined us to adoption as sons which is sonship in Ephesians 1:5 according to His will, not yours. God predestines eternal destinies ahead of time and the reason that does not make Him the author of evil is because it's done in truth. There is no evil in truth. There is only love in truth. We know the beast and false prophet were heading to perdition before they were born. That means they had 0% chance of being saved. Warren told me that the roles were predestined but who fulfills them was unknown. That has to be the stupidest answer he could have given. That answer makes God the author of sin because He created the roles without having definitive knowledge of who would fulfill those roles which means He acted ignorantly, having predestined according to a lack of knowledge. That would shift the desire of 2 people perishing according to God's desire, in a lottery type scenario. How God can know the actions definitively of these two individuals Rev 13,19 but not know their identities is asinine. At least Chris Fisher took a different route with the question as an open theist, by stating that these two are not humans. He realized that if he admitted what scripture plainly teaches, that they are two humans, then his doctrine is proven false.
@@ChristIsKing777-hr9ki Is there a chance that the beast and false prophet are metaphorical representations of ideologies?
@@johnknight3529 Yeah, there are two clear categories in this system, the control freaks and those who want to be controlled while feeling entitled to rights supplied by those in control. Contrast that against the way Jesus made disciples then sent them out on their own.
@@theologicaldarkweb2695 Here is your answer.
Revelation 19:20 NKJV
[20] Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone.
From what I’ve seen on an emotional level some Calvinists find comfort or pride in theistic determinism. So you can’t convince them with scripture because it’s not a biblical or intellectual issue for them. It’s the ultimate presupposition that can’t be questioned.
DW: The phenomenon of Calvinists claiming to derive comfort from theistic determinism is fairly recent and is very much based (as you insightfully point out) on emotions. Ever since Calvin's death - the trend within Calvinism has been to distance itself from Calvin's writings because he unflinchingly declares the truth that no Calvinist is granted CERTAINTY of election - and thus no Calvinist is granted CERTAINTY of whether or not their god's intent for them is good or evil.
Dr. Eric Fromm - social psychologist - researched the writings of Calvinist authors within previous generations - and found them to be replete with thoughts of dread for the possibility they had been given a FALSE FAITH and FALSE perceptions of salvation - and were unknowingly created for eternal torment - for Calvin's god's good pleasure.
This - historically in Calvinism - has been called "The dreaded FALSE hope"
Calvinists relied very heavily on "good-works" as a way of manufacturing an assurance of salvation.
R.C. Sproul - tried to convince himself that he must be saved because he looks within himself and sees a love for Jesus
But the doctrine stipulates CHAFF believers are given FALSE PERCEPTIONS
So Sproul's attempt to rely upon his PERCEPTIONS of love for Jesus - really amount to wishful thinking.
The only TRUE assurance any Calvinist is actually granted - is the assurance that Calvin's god will create people for either damnation of salvation - according to his good pleasure.
All other forms of comfort or assurance are manufactured escape mechanisms which require THOUGHT BLOCKING the doctrine stipulates any Calvinist - no matter how faithful - can easily wake up in the lake of fire - and at that point have a CERTAINTY of what he was created for.
True. I've had Calvinists tell me they find it very comforting.
@@MineStrongth DW: We need to realize why a Calvinist would say that. John Calvin for example - declared that when he contemplated the decree (i.e. the divine intent for himself and for others) it filled him with a sense of horror.
The reason Calvin responded to the doctrine that way - is because Calvin's god creates the *MANY* as vessels of wrath fitted for destruction - which is his intent and provision for the *MANY* within mankind.
His other intent and provision is for the *FEW* to save them from his primary provision.
And the Calvinist has no way of knowing if he is ELECT or not - because the ELECT are a divine secret which only Calvin's god knows.
Calvin's god creates a percentage of believers as CHAFF believers - whom he deceives - giving them a FALSE SENSE of salvation.
John Calvin
-quote
But the Lord....instills into their minds such *A SENSE* ..as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption. (Institutes 3.2.11)
-quote
He illumines *ONLY FOR A TIME* to partake of it; then he....strikes them with even greater blindness (Institutes 3.24.8)
These Calvinists will go through their whole lives experiencing FALSE PERCEPTIONS of salvation - and eventually wake up in the lake of fire - and there realize what they were created for.
For the Calvinist - if he allows himself to think about those things - and they make him dreadful - he is taught that dread may be a sign that he is not ELECT.
So you can see the Calvinist claiming to be comforted by the doctrine - as a way to escape thoughts of dread.
Pride is the key. 100% of Calvinists are convinced they are the Elect.
@@donatist59 DW They assume their election is TRUE yes - because they are Calvinists. Just like the Jehovah Witness assumes he is elect because he is a JW.
In order to show Calvinism isn't that bad he leads off by telling us we are responsible for the actions that God decreed us to perform. If you lead with your best argument, I'd can't wait to see the worst.
Good one!!!! :-]
His opening statement is mutually exclusive and self-contradictory.
@@tannerfrancisco8759 DW: Yes - there is a massive problem with his language.
For example - the statement "God is sovereign over creaturely decisions"
The problem with this language - is that it allows the audience to assume the term "Decisions" is to be understood in the NORMAL sense of the word - in which a person is granted CHOICE between ALTERNATIVE options.
But the TRUTH is - in Calvinism - ALTERNATIVE options are infallibly non-existence within creation - because the existence of any ALTERNATIVE option would falsify the doctrine of decrees.
Since ALTERNATIVES do not exist for humans to choose - then what "Decisions" are humans allowed to make?
For example - Adam was not granted a "Decision" between [EAT] and [NOT EAT] because the option to [NOT EAT] was not granted existence. And the impulse to [NOT EAT] was not granted existence within Adam's brain. Both of these would be CONTRARY to the decree. And nothing is granted existence within creation that is CONTRARY to the decree.
An infallible decree does not permit anything within creation to BE/DO OTHER than that which was decreed
So how do humans make "Decisions" when there are no options available to choose?
Are there things about God that are a mystery? Yes. Are there as many things about God that are a mystery as Calvinists seem to think? No. God has revealed a LOT about His nature in scripture. Calvinism outright contradicts a lot of these revelations and then just says "oh, we can't know that, it's a mystery." The argument I get tired of is "God can do whatever He wants. Who are you to limit Him?" We are never saying He can't. We are just saying that He has revealed His nature to us in scripture and it's important that we interpret all scripture in light of that.
"God can do whatever He wants. Who are you to limit Him?" AND!! we will decide when we can and can't limit him... because ONLY we calvies know when God wants to be limited😉😉👍👍
@@atyt11I find the idea that God must cause evil in order for it to have purpose to be much more limiting than saying God can bring purpose out of evil that He did not cause.
There's this interesting assumption many make - that God having limitations is bad.
Now of course, they make this assertion because they have taken a kind of omnipotence to be the benchmark of orthodoxy, and as a result they don't permit themselves to see the weaknesses of their particular kind of omnipotence.
These weaknesses appear more when we press omnipotence against omniscience, and omnipotence against omnibenevolence. The edgecases appear there, which I think if we consider them, lead us to question what we thought to be omnipotence, and refine what it actually may be.
Even omnipotence presses against itself. That which is weakness in one context is strength in another.
God CANNOT lie. God CANNOT tempt us. It's against His very nature.
Ortlund is a nice guy, unfortunately Calvinism doesn’t make space for actual kindness in practice, only “holiness”: Everyone is trying to out-justify themselves. It’s why the egos go big and hard in the movement.
I think he accepts it based on submission to what was presented to him as the dominant historical protestant view... the parts we see as horrible he views as illusory problems of perspective and the goodness he trusts God is mist resolve everything in ways he can't imagine to tie up all these issues... but it's placing massive pressure on piety to imagine that God resolves these contradictions when we could just... abandon the contradiction and trust that God is RECOGNIZABLY GOOD FOR REAL.
*Re-reads the comment a couple of times*
🤔… 🤔…
The tulip destroys our spiritual growth in our relationship with our Lord.
DW: Well said! Interestingly enough - even Calvinism's TULIP is an attempt to white-wash and sugar-coat TRUE Calvinism.
The TULIP was created about 100 years after Calvin's death - and he would probably call them traitors for crafting it
Calvin would insist divine sovereignty as the 1st and most critical point in the doctrine
And he would notice how the crafters of the TULIP totally obfuscate divine sovereignty - and locate the condition of the creature as the 1st point.
The "T" in the current TULIP is designed to function as a lie of omission.
A lie of omission - is communication designed to mislead - by omitting critical facts which if NOT omitted would not mislead
The critical fact omitted in the "T" is the fact that the doctrine stipulates - the state of nature - including every man's nature - at every nano-second in time - is 100% meticulously predestined - and at every instance in time - cannot possibly be other than what it was decreed to be - and man is granted NO SAY In the matter.
Might you explain?
Weighty statements like this aren’t great, especially when looking at peoples lives God has worked greatly through (and Christianity in general).
@@ZachFish- I can't speak for Bill here, sorry. What he described, however, is exactly what happened to me.
As I've wrestled with the Doctrines of Grace, I've never felt more sure that I'm unsaved. Not simply unsure of my spiritual security; I'm actually quite sure of my spiritual insecurity. I used to just... believe. Now, I feel I maybe haven't believed the right way this whole time. And I can't make myself believe the right way. I have to wait for God to change me by His Spirit.
The past 12 months have been some of the most depressing and lethargic of my life. That is the reason why. I have TULIP to thank.
@@Abridgelion No offense, it doesn’t sound like this is the doctrines fault.
As clearly many Reformed have assurance and have been extremely studied and devout people, fully devoted to God alone.
So when you see people like the puritans in contrast to this culture, where in, God is usually only the focus a fraction of their day, it’s really disappointing to see such a statement.
@@ZachFish- This may surprise you, but my experience is different from that of a devout and learned Puritan. And as such I can't speak for them. I never did. I spoke of my own experience. Could you please address that?
In Gavin's defense, he is the only Calvinist person on UA-cam I can think of offhand that is consistently nice, thoughtful, and behaves well consistently. For the most part, I could say Chris Date also. Too many are just constantly snarling, but there's a milieu reason for that to keep going that way.
Is he a calvinist?
13:30 He starts of with "A" does not equal "A" yet it does.🤷🏻♂ He describes the Calvinist/Compatibilist doctrine regarding God's "sovereignty"(as defined by Calvinism) and "mans responsibility" , as equal sides of an "equation"... BUT, two things which are mutually, logically, opposed to one another CAN NOT, by definition, be equal sides of any equation.
DW: Good point! Another thing to recognize - is that in a large amount of his descriptions - he tries to make things like Human Freedom and Human Responsibility *APPEAR* to be the same within Calvinism as they are OUTSIDE of Calvinism - which they most certainly are not.
.
If Calvin's god decrees [X] to infallibly come to pass - he *MUST* grant FREEDOM for it to come to pass - or else he is a house divided against himself.
But FREEDOM is NEVER granted to anything within creation to be/do OTHER than that which is decreed.
Thus Adam was not granted FREEDOM to [NOT EAT] the fruit because that would be CONTRARY to the decree - and NOT COMPATIBLE with determinism.
On Human responsibility - OUTSIDE of Calvinism - ALTERNATIVES exist within creation - and humans are granted CHOICE between them - and are held responsible for the CHOICES they make.
In Calvinism - ALTERNATIVES do not exist within creation - and thus do not exist for humans to choose.
So humans are not held accountable for choices they make - because ALTERNATIVES don't exist for them to choose.
In Calvinism - human responsibility - just as everything else in creation - is determined by a decree
The confession states - the decree is not based on the creature or the condition thereof - but is solely within himself - according to his good pleasure
So the divine good pleasure determines what a person will be held accountable for.
John Calvin
-quote
by the eternal *GOOD PLEASURE* of god though the reason does not appear, they are *NOT FOUND* but *MADE* worthy of destruction. - (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of god pg 121)
The Calvinist in this presentation wanted to make it *APPEAR* to be the case that humans are held responsible for choices they make.
But that is FALSE in Calvinism.
Thus he was painting a FALSE picture of human responsiblity
@@dw6528 Yes, Calvin rejected the 'Compatibilist' position as the act of someone unwilling to accept truth. He writes; “Let him, therefore, who would beware of such unbelief, always bear in mind, that there is NO RANDOM POWER OR AGENCY OR MOTION IN THE CREATURES, WHO ARE SO GOVERENED BY THE SECRET COUNSEL OF GOD, THAT NOTHING HAPPENS BUT WHAT HE HAS KNOWINGLY AND WILLING DECREED" (The Institutes of Christian Religion, Bk. 1, Ch. 16, Sect. 3) (emphasis mine)
@@R.L.KRANESCHRADTT DW: I'm not sure that could be construed as a rejection of compatibilism.
Determinists have traditionally rejected the idea that anything within a determined world can be random. This is also affirmed by computers which cannot produce real random events - but only simulations of random events.
I don't believe the term "Compatibilism" existed however in Calvin's day - but evolved much later - probably within 19th century philosophy.
Blessings!
@@dw6528 Right, it wasn't the 'term' Compatibilist, but the argument which was essentially an attempt to mediate the consequences of God being responsible for whatsoever occurs. by those who wanted to distance themselves, and God, from the inevitable. It wasn't a new idea, the 'term' maybe, but not the concept. Calvin dismissed it for what it was an attempt to find refuge from the harsh reality of Calvinism where there is none.
It's wild to me how Calvinists always completely ignore apostasy when explaining how to have assurance of your salvation. I like Gavin and he's often pretty wise, but Calvinism really forces thoughtful and sensible people to twist themselves up affirming things that don't make any sense.
Beautifully said!
If you examine yourself of faith and see signs, you could be wrong or right about having faith, and you could fall away from faith in other denominational beliefs, therefore if Calvinists see signs, they have confidence in God to preserve their love, while others are hoping they can remain faithful enough.
@@ZachFish- DW: The Calvinist - per the doctrine - cannot rely on any perception he has - because Calvin's god creates a percentage of believers as CHAFF believers - whom he decrees to have FALSE perceptions of salvation and FALSE perceptions of faith.
John Calvin
-quote
But the Lord....instills into their minds such *A SENSE* ..as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption. (Institutes 3.2.11)
-quote
He illumines *ONLY FOR A TIME* to partake of it; then he....strikes them with even greater blindness (Institutes 3.24.8)
@@dw6528 My comment already covers this.
Using the term “Calvin’s God” isn’t great if you want to be historically accurate.
I will not further comment.
@@ZachFish- Examining the entailments of the philosophical system isn't even required. All you have to do is look around and see that there are apostates who were formerly devout Christians.
The only Calvinist explanation for these people is that they were never saved. However, what aspect of their lives would have indicated to them, or anyone else, that their faith was not genuine? How can you know their own personal life experience to know for sure that their faith was superficial or self deceived, and yours is not?
By all accounts we can only assume they felt their convictions and had faith the same as anyone else, and then one day it began to fade away until it was gone. If Calvinism is true, then this was by the decree of God - and your eventual apostasy could also be forthcoming.
Do you truly believe no former Christian had ever examined themselves and their faith in order to try and have assurance of their salvation? They never asked these same questions and got these same answers?
Tell me precisely how a Christian who eventually will apostatize and one who will not experiences these doubts and attempts at finding assurance differently so that we can know we are one of the for real, truly, actually elect, and not actually a self-deceived reprobate.
21:31 Sorry, assurance of one's salvation' in Calvinism it is NOT possible to know. No one has ever analyzed or mediated on the consequences of Calvinist doctrine more than John Calvin himself. And he wrote, “We cannot imagine any certainty that is not tinged with doubt, or any assurance that is not assailed by some anxiety. . . . Believers are in perpetual conflict with their own unbelief” (Calvin, Institutes, 3.2.18). "perpetual conflict", by definition, does not afford any "assurance". Calvinism affords no assurance of anyone's salvation. This is equally true of one's dear departed grandma, and the man in the mirror. The necessary "Gift of Perseverance" is guaranteed no one. And no one knows if they have it, or will 'get it' until they are dead and buried. Calvinists are literally 'dying' to find out if they are saved. Factor in Evanescent Grace and they cannot even trust the faith they have any more than the God they claim gave it to them.
Any Calvinist claiming otherwise is ignorant of the doctrine or just whistling past the graveyard and hoping for the best.
Many perhaps, but some insist on spreading the "anxiety" to as many of their fellow humans as they can, rather than just whistle.
That’s why some would say we forms of assurance that are outside of your feelings, such as Communion, Confession, and Baptism which have promises attached to them.
For example, the paralytic that Jesus said “your sins are forgiven.” That man may have felt nothing when he heard that, but when he saw his legs working, it’s a solid witness that the first word was also good.
@@PizzaDisguise The problem the Calvinist has is that all the promises of the Bible are only for the 'truly elect' (as they define election) and they can mean nothing to the non-elect.... Since they still don't know if they're really "picked" and on the "list", or just experiencing an episode of Evanescent Grace, they can't lay claim to a single promise in scripture with any confidence it actually applies to them personally.
@@johnknight3529 Yes, their desire to appear as 'normal' Christians following the Great Commission results in evangelizing others to join them in worshiping a God even they cannot trust themselves. Most of their efforts seem to be directed at other believers. Virtually every Calvinist will admit they were believers in Christ before they became convinced of Calvinism/ TULIP. Usually, by another Calvinist proposing their polished arguments and 'out of context' prooftexts. It's very sad to see believers embrace a doctrine which ultimately undermines any confidence they once had that they are truly loved by our Heavenly Father.
Who is it that wants men to doubt God's love for them?...🤔
@@PizzaDisguise The problem the Calvinist has is that all the promises in scripture are only for the 'elect', as the define election. None of them mean anything at all to the non-elect. Since their doctrine does not afford any real 'assurance', only 'perpetual conflict', they cannot lay claim to a single promise in the bible with any confidence. If Calvinism is true, Evanescent Grace hangs over their head like the Sword of Damocles, whether they've thought about it or not.
I'm a bit taken aback by the "we're all on the same team" confessions . . Maybe, I'll grant, but I have the gift of memory (such as it is ; )
"For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works."
At any rate, there seems to me to be a stepping back from the logos of total Predeterminism, by Mr. Orland, during which he says some things about there being mystery involved when we consider God and what He's doing. Which apparently means to him that mystery can logically be inserted into one's reasoning at will . . (so to speak ; )
He gives an example wherein it appears to him (as in, he imagines) that those who have no "scholarly credentials" can't read the actual Communication He provided to each of us, for some mysterious reason.
As though God would not be able to produce a book that humans can understand, for themselves. (He has little faith in God, to my mind.)
Simply asserting that something is both a circle and a dodechahedron simultaneously while saying that this does not create a logical contradiction is madness. "My wife is simultaneously faithful to me during the act of infidelity."
Goes to show that someone’s “nice” disposition should never be used as a marker of the truth they claim to hold to.
Satan comes as an angel of light
I wish Dr Ortlund would take the same approach to Calvinism that he does to the Icon Veneration issue when he responds to our RC/Orthodox brothers.
As I have come to understand the Orthodox position, Christianity at its core is icon based. Man is the icon, image, of God in a way. Jesus is the image of the Father. As Jesus said, he who has seen him has seen the Father. There has to be a question of what is worship, only reserved for God, compared to veneration which respects the Saints and Mary as well as Jesus.
@@JordanBrown-km5kf Its incredible going to Protestant funerals and seeing people bring out literal icons decorated with flowers and parade these things around -- yet if we make images of the saints and do the same thing, thats somehow idolatry? Protestantism is so radically disconnected from traditional religion that even the most simple and basic acts of piety are taken to be idolatry.
They are not our brothers. They are idolater. A shame.
@@heremticapffff, give me a break with that nonsense. One doesn't bow to an icon and kiss it and pray to it believing it's got some miraculous power if not because of idolatry. People act like simple objects have powers that only Jesus has. The power to forgive, the power to protect, the power of giving wisdom, the power to heal, etc. Is stupid. Only Jesus has that power and we don't need any type of intermediary between Jesus and us, just prayer and a mind focused on Him and only him. And let's not talk about the exaltation of Mary and the prayers to her and the language thay they use, making her some kind of co redemptrix, another goddess in theory and practice. I'm not fooled by the claim that it is just "veneration", "respect", it's worship, straight up worship, a blasphemous act.
And by the way, no protestant act this way, you are lying and looking for excuses to justify your idolatry. Eastern falsely so called "orthodox" is ridiculous, blasphemous and baloney.
@@heremtica the Eastern Orthodox "parade around" icons just like how Protestants do at funerals?
I just realized the steve Lawson's statement that ''you should not just a man on one weak moment'' was not.even his own thought. He stole that from Johm MacArthur's response to the Alastair Begg controversy.
@@lex4929 seriously?
“The purpose of thinking is to let the ideas die instead of us dying.” (Alfred Whitehead) Living in contradiction will ultimately implode in a person's life....thus "compatibilism." The problem, for me personally, is that Calvinism begins with a philosophy and then a reach has to be made once again to philosophy to "help" clean it up.
Everything happens by His soveriegn decree. AND, we have free will, we are not coerced into anything.
Really?
Like those 2 statements go together.
I love the way these guys give lip service to free will. But God has unchangeably ordained whatsoever comes to pass. So I do what I do because of God's soveriegn decree, God has ordained it, decreed it, predetermined it, it will happen, I can NOT change that.
Oh, but I'm still responsible, because I have free will.
Yeh....okaaaay.
And we're not robots, even though Super MacArthur says we have been programmed.
🤔
The intro is sick! Love it.
Just have to add that, as a novelist, I can confidently state that the author analogy for God and his "characters" is ridiculous. My characters are FICTIONAL. Duh.
Obfuscation isn't a valid defense of Calvinism. And no, Calvinism isn't Christian and cannot save anyone.
Calvinism is not meant to 'save anyone'; rather, it is a biblical and logical summary of the Christian faith.
@ryleighloughty3307 The Calvinist gospel isn't the gospel. It is, as Paul said related to another 'gospel,' it is no gospel at all.
@@HoytRoberson
Calvinism is not meant to be the gospel.
It is a biblical summary of who and what God is.
@@ryleighloughty3307 It isn't a description of what God is. And its TULIP is shorthand for Calvinist anthropology and Soteriology.
Neither of those is correct.
Therefore, the Calvinist gospel that God may have Elected you (who knows?) but he certainly intended and will damn most people without consideration for them, is completely baseless.
@@HoytRoberson
The core principle of Calvinism is that God maintains control over all things at all times.
Consequently, TULIP logically follows from this biblical truth.
if someone has to go to sources outside the bible to defend their theology, then it's probably not biblical......
Great stuff!thank you,i now have the answer to my calvinists friends who joined our Church.by the way i am a Filipino working here in Japan.And Church here is scarce so, some Calvinists joined us and at first they are calmed but now they are vulgar and want to interject their belief.I don’t know much about calvinism but for some reason I perceive that their belief is false and i opposed them.but i don’t have the knowledge about Calvinism.Very grateful for this channel,i am having difficulty understanding all the terms as English is not my primary language but i can understand now because you talked slowly and clearly and calmly.I need to refute and defend our Church so ism going to listen to you more often.God bless Idolkiller
"I know this sounds crazy, but it's not I swear! You can trust me, I'm not crazy!"
Kinda sus, sounds like something a crazy person would say 😂
But seriously, much love to Gavin, and it's good to see Zach Miller join you in this discussion Warren.
Praying for you and the kids!
Thank you for always being the channel to go against this wicked heresy
It’s hard to sit and watch someone like Gavin who’s heart is pure, be so wrong and mislead on his interpretation of scripture and neglect of going farther back then Augustine.
Great show as usual. Lana L has an excellent testimony on her freedom from Calvinism, smart girl too!
Alana L, yes. 😊
🙋♀️one of those that does not like the “ ism”.
By Calvinism’s sovereignty of God definition, God is going against his own Word which states not to be a stumbling block or offend another which in those verses means to give way for that person to sin. God would be guilty of doing something he himself is against . This is just how they manipulate verses to defend their doctrine.
Every point in TULIP can be disproven by scripture.
I like Gavin, I do see though that he does seem To appeal to tradition, especially denominational tradition first. In other words, “this has been the tradition in the Baptist nomination or in the church since whenever AD, And here is some biblical justification if you need it and here’s why it’s not weird.”
Maybe I’ll see it that way just because as I tell people I try my best to be allergic to religious tradition. If a religious tradition is good, I will see it is, justified scriptural and philosophically. But it’s just easier for me for my default position to be “that teaching is suspect merely because it is traditional and seems weird to me.” Not that I think the teaching is wrong just that it’s suspect.
The bible verses which seem to corroborate meticulous determinism are examples of God speaking in a Calvinopromorphic way because he knew Calvinists wouldn't understand plain language.
DW: Yes! Good one! Calvin's god knows an infallible decree does not grant existence to any ALTERNATIVE from what is decreed.
But he deceives people by leading them to believe they were granted ALTERNATIVES
And he holds them accountable for not choosing the ALTERNATIVE which did not exist for them to choose.
Looks to me like Calvin simply manufactured a god out of his own image! :-]
@@dw6528 It does seem Calvin projected his own characteristics into the God he derived and refined from Augustine. Calvinism does attract similar people. I can't tell you how many arrogant, oblivious, self-absorbed, intellectually superior types wandered the grounds at Moody Bible institute looking for opportunities to prove they were more chosen than you. The god they worship is obsessed with his own glory just like them. If they were born into a different political climate they would burn their opponents with greenwood torches.
The other type of Calvinist seems to be those terrified of personal autonomy.
Before creation, God predetermined all human thoughts and actions.
He also predetermined the actions of every speck of dust and every occurrence, from the mundane to the extraordinary-everything is under his command at all times.
Indeed, nothing can happen outside of his authority.
This is not only biblical but also logical because if God did not act this way, he could not be God.
It is illogical for God to leave any decisions or actions to man or chance.
Since man cannot know God's plan, we make our own choices and bear the responsibility for them, even though they always align with God's plan.
As humans are inherently sinful, we cannot contribute to our salvation.
God chooses whom He will save, and Jesus died explicitly for them.
Those who are chosen cannot resist being chosen, nor can they fall away.
@@ryleighloughty3307 DW: That is what Calvinism teaches of course.
But with that it follows - every perception in your brain is there only because it was decreed.
Which means perceptions in your brain are not TRUTH-BASED they are DECREE-BASED
And since nothing can be CONTRARY to that which that is decreed - it follows - your brain is not permitted to PERCEIVE anything that is CONTRARY to what was decreed
Which means - your brain is not granted the ability to CHOOSE between TRUE and FALSE because one of those perceptions is CONTRARY to that which was decreed
Since your brain cannot choose between TRUE and FALSE - it follows - your brain is not granted the ability to discern TRUE from FALSE on any matter
Welcome to Calvinism! :-]
@@dw6528
Who would you prefer to have control over your thoughts and actions-yourself or God?
Who would you prefer to have control over everything in the heavens and the earth - serendipity or God?
Enjoyed this dialog very much! I've listened to Leighton on Calvinism, but this brought some misunderstandings from the St. Augustine pov. I get it now...thank you.
Interesting how I came out of WOF and NAR then the reformation movement caught me and unknowingly calvinist churches in my search for community. Keep it up! I love your intro...love the ist...question the ism or something to that effect 😊
21:50 Gavin: "if you repent of your sins"
This phrasing does not occur in the Bible once, to 'repent of your sins'. Repentance means 'changing of mind' and is a neutral verb.
God repents, in time. That goes against the idea that all of history and the future was set in stone.
Repenting of your sins is a very vague action. It's never truly finished, so you will never have true assurance (certainty) of your salvation.
Most of Gavin's statements are not explanations but just claims to counterarguments.
Are you free grace? The reason why Jesus was put on the cross was BECAUSE of our sins. Repent, change your mind
... not just from unbelief to belief, but about EVERYTHING that's counter to Christ and his message. Jesus said to go and sin NO MORE.
Matthew 3:8
Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance
Luke 15:7-10
I say to you that likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance.
Titus 2
11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, 12 teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, 13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.
All you need is that starter video it shows what Calvinism does and is lol
Brother I came to a lot I can pray for you even though whatever you're going to man I know your heart and it's tough but no matter what God is good Love you brother praying diligence
A person's demeanor maybe respectable, but a Christian who believes God decrees evil (Calvinism) and that Genesis 1-11 is not meant to be read literally including the clearly layed out genealogies (Long Age), how far can a pastor like Gavin go with all his intelect?
Thanks!
Thank you!
His opening makes me think he sees himself as some kind of rockstar lol
I think it's all tongue-in-cheek. ☺️
This sounds like Calvinist Cookie's Paradox. you can't have the cookie, bit if you have the cookie, you know you have the cookie.
Mmmm, cookies... 🤤
Two questions: where can I get a resource about the Augustine-Pelagius debacle? That was a very interesting way of putting it, and I’d like to read more on it.
Also, what do you mean Arminius is a Calvinist? Any resources on that would be helpful as well.
Hey friend, said I prayer for you, and I continue to pray for your family situation. Can't imagine it.
Is it just me or does the calvinist seem to be simply saying, "determinism and free will are compatible!" And then when asked how so? They respond. "Determinism and free will are compatible!" And then when asked again to explain how they are compatible they respond, "determinism and free will are compatible!" And so on and so on and so on. I've never heard it explained. Just restated a different way.
I really enjoy Gavin's work. Looking forward to the video.
He's too smart to hold to these things... so weird.
It is wild to me that Gavin even says at one point in this whole thing that there's no room for triumphalism in their view.
Okay, I guess they don't believe that their view is true or real or correct. 🤷🏻♂️
What is that sermon in the intro where that fellow says, "when he wants to, he orders those to commit adultery...when HE wants to!"
I can't find it, I'm curious to see the context of a statement like that.
@@randall_ward that is Theodore Zachariades and Sonny Hernandez debating Leighton Flowers and Johnathan Pritchett.
@@IdolKiller Thanks! I appreciate your response
Where can I read more on the history of Augustine as you described it in the middle of the video? Most of what I've been able to find doesn't go into it
Check out the following books:
The Myth of Pelagianism, by Dr Ali Bonner
An Historical Presentation of Augustinism and Pelagianism From the Original Sources, by G. F. Wiggers
The Story of Original Sin, by John E. Toews
The Transmission of Sin: Augustine and the Pre-Augustinian Sources by Pier Franco Beatrice
While I've enjoyed Ortlund's well-read and even-handed challenges to Catholic doctrine, I haven't tuned into his channel much in recent months, in large part because the "Calvinism Isn't Crazy" video was such a disappointment. Thanks for discussing it.
If Calvinism is true, we are just mechanistically an outgrowth of God like a new bud sprouting from a trunk. I think this means we cannot know what "truth" is. I think the same logical defeater that is used against atheists who deny free will can be used against the Calvinist.
I’m at 1:11 - your mention of the assumption/belief in the part of some Calvinists that every belch and molecule is ordered by God. In your intro, there is a brief clip of a Calvinist teacher whom I don’t recognize (dark hair and glasses, a larger size man if I’m remembering right) who, in that full video (which I saw months ago- it is from a debate) actually argues there is no “rogue molecule”. He gets very passionate in asserting this-even angry. Would you please tell me where you got that clip. I have been searching for that debate to watch again. I can’t recall even if it was Leighton he was debating. It seems to me there were two gentlemen on each side of that particular debate. If you (or anyone) can provide this info for me, I’d appreciate it so much.
When I said 1:11, I meant 1 hour and 11 minutes.
Praying for you from Finland. Ps. Gavin's latest book is great.
Augustine spent I think 8 or 10 years as a mannequin and is the first Christian to bring determinism into Christian thinking. So in other words he brought a heresy, maniquianism, into Christian orthodoxy.
@jolookstothestars6358 Augustine was a Manichaean auditor for ten years. These gnostic views, along with the teaching of the Encratites, Messalians, Stoics and neo-Platonists influenced his interpretation of Scripture.
When he read the Latin Vulgate he misunderstood Romans 5, believing it taught we were all literally IN Adam when he sinned.
Augustine had a LOT of awful beliefs.
@IdolKiller I agree! The interview that L. Flowers does with Dr. Wilson is an incredible source of information against Augustine!! I need to sit down with coffee ☕ and take alot of notes!! So sorry about your struggles,praying and trying to buy some stuff.😇
Great intro
As most Calvinists I became a Calvinist AFTER I became a Christian.
Doesn't matter.
In Calvinism you cannot know whether you received Evanescent Grace or that it isn't your depraved mind lying to you, because of TD.
There is no assurance in Calvinism.
@ I’m a Calvinist and I am fully assured and persuaded that he who began a good work in me will be faithful to complete the work HE BEGAN until the day of Jesus Christ. I’m not worried because He is the author and finisher of my faith :)
@@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi
That makes no sense.
@@EliasB100 what if you’re not elect and just deluded into thinking so? No matter what you do or believe it would make zero difference and you’ll be damned
@@EliasB100If He finishes your faith. He knows. We don't.
Gavin seems to be unaware of “Evanescent Grace”.
God's character is the entire Biblical story. Jesus does not just show love, He is Love....He does not just speak the truth, He is TRUTH. He is 1 Corinthians 13:4-8. The god of calvinism is weak, sadistic.... he has low self esteam, he needs to see others suffer to glorify himself. Calvinsits seem to think ultimate control is where the power is.
They totally miss the real power of love, humbleness, forgiveness and Grace. Hmmmm... Sounds just like the God man.
I think that Calvinism is easy to refute but it doesn't seem that way because they continue to use their most powerful response, "nuh-uh" LOL
Please include your snail mail address for those of us who like to donate by check. Appreciate your work here, brother!
it never makes sense to me why calvinist preach. If God zaps people with go-go juice, then preaching is useless. why don’t the preachers behave like the rest of the perspiratory and do absolutely nothing for the kingdom
Could you recommend a book of Romans commentary???
Why tie your study to someone else's theology?
The problem with commentaries is that the questions you have are rarely answered. You can't get very far with commentaries.
They are OK for baby Christians, or for occasional reference, but if you want to dig deep, learn to study for yourself.
Give a man a fish, feed him for a day
Teach him how to fish, feed him for a lifetime.
Be blessed
Take care
PS: it just occurred to me. If you're wanting to learn to study in depth, you might want to pick a smaller epistle, like 1st John, Philippians, Ephesians or Colossians.
Blessings
@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi Because all I can find is calvinists commentary and I definitely don't want that!!!
N.T. Wright has one.
A.W. Tozer might
Heed i.e obey Jesus's words in John 14:26 & 16:13!
Trust in him.
Don't be an unbeliever by definition (i.e one who doesn't trust).
@IdolKiller Can you draw out your argument about unable vs unwilling a little more? I didn't follow when you said a question you pose to Calvinists is, "Why don't you accept the spiritual truth of Islam?"
Islam is purported to be the final revelation of the Abrahamic religion, which means if the Bible really does teach total inability (where the unregenerate cannot recognize and accept spiritual truths), it follows that it's totally possible that Islam IS actually true as the conclusion to the progressive revelation of God and the only reason people aren't accepting it is because of their total inability.
Someone who claims that people are unable to accept spiritual truths (in their view, Calvinism) without being regenerated can't make a coherent argument to why they know Islam isn't true because their arguments can only depend on human reason and rationality, the very things they say we can't depend on to be able to discern the spiritual truths in the Bible.
Thanks!
Since when does Zach Miller not dress as a gladiator? :D
Haven't even watched the video and yes, it is crazy.
Calvinism is a different Gospel. How can we be ecumenical when it comes to the Gospel?! We can agree to disagree on a lot, but the Gospel?!
I like to call it STUPID. Sovereignty, Total Depravity, Perseverance of the Saints, Irresistible Grace, Definite Atonement.
It's the doctrine of demons.
God's grace is resistible. Calvinists have a hard time recognizing true grace because they espouse an "irresistible grace" that doesn't exist. This is Calvinism's greatest flaw. True grace can be recognized and this contributes to assurance.
I would submit biblically it is both.
Some things are determined and some things are not.
We see this all through scripture. I’m content with that.
@CoffeeCoffee12 I agree. The issue with Theistic Determinism (Calvinism) is all things are said to be determined. That claim has all sorts of problematic entailments.
@@IdolKiller I agree 100%! I, like you was a Calvinist for over 30 yrs.
While I do learn from Leighton and by and large agree with him, I do think he ( and those against Reformed theology) can go to far the other way and say nothing has been predetermined.
I feel like you Warren have more of an even view on that issue. I also know Ronnie Rogers has the same view of some things are determined.
That being said, again I am not a Calvinist, but do you think the lower Calvinist, the Moody Bible or say someone like Greg Khokal might be able to be Calvinistic and go where you and I are of some things are determined and some are not, or do you think even a lower form of Calvinism necessitates the idea of exhaustive divine determinism ?
@@CoffeeWholeBean oh there are numerous Calvinists who do not adhere rigidly to its tenets or entailments. Many are well meaning and even think they're Calvinist when they're not.
@
Agree. Most think they are because they listen to Mac or Piper or Sproul but never read The Institutes
One thing can have two properties.
For example, light is a wave and a particle. Under some condition, light behaves as a wave and under other conditions light behaves as a particle.
The important thought here is to determine whether the two properties in question are mutually exclusive. Are free-will and determinism mutually exclusive properties of a person? If not, then it becomes important to determine the conditions under which people's behaviors are by choice of the person and under what conditions people's behaviors are pre-determined by God.
Not an easy task.
I do not believe in Calvinism because I believe that a person's behavior is governed both by the person's free-will (given by God in his image!) and by determined responses (governed by God's overall design for the world/universe).
Cool intro...very industrial with the sample clips too. Vipers in diapers & blaming God for our every sin remains the top WTH points that i think of about calvinism(apart from their prideful elect are once saved always saved dogma which overlooks that saved angels fell & all adults of mankind were once children saved by grace despite religious affiliation....& If they disagree, they are right back in damned baby vipers in diapers territory).
Adult diapers, you mean?😅
Ortlund's approach turns me away. I can't get through his videos because they feel manipulative. Like, I've been there and done that in church, and I don't need someone polishing their approach to seem more reliable. "Winsome." 🤢
Warren, I love your content, but I can’t give financial support to an unspoken prayer request.
@@breadznfishz4132 can you still please take this before the Lord and pray for me?
@@IdolKiller Already on it! Been praying for this off and on since you first mentioned it on the channel. 😁🫶🏼
@@breadznfishz4132 thank you! I hope to be able to offer an update and details soon.
Iam so sick of all these internet preacher's, they know everything about everything in scripture and from what I've seen most of them don't know much of anything, iam now at the point iam done with all of them.
Calvinistic pretense that the creature has a will, a real will that is actively opposed to God's willis only so because Calvigod so decreed it, thus it is not ACTUALLY against Calvigod's will.
Calvinism where sin is PERFECT obedience that gets you damned.
Jeremiah 9:24. I am YAHWEH who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight, declares YAHWEH.
Calvinists say that all things are ordained in order to bring God maximum glory. All that comes to pass (good and evil) does so by his will, it is what He wants for his pleasure and glory.
That is not what He said through Jeremiah. Kindness, justice and righteousness are the things He delights in, they are the things that give Him pleasure.
I, for one, DO positively assert the non-christian status of Calvinists, per Galatians.
This comment is not about that and is true if one rejects or accepts them as Christian.
In Calvinism:
1. Since CalviGod (CG) ordains ALL THINGS THAT COME TO PASS, every single written thing, produced by man is CG breathed and is scripture.
2. In the Bible, both God in the OT and Jesus use analogies that START with man (earthly truths) and after correlate spiritual truths for human understanding. Thus when Satanists like James White claim that those who make "man-centered" analogies, his false God (as the Calvinist assigns the Bible to CG) does it as well, so his and their objection is moot.
3. Since the Bible defines sin as rebelling against God's will the calvinist cannot claim that sin exists because what the Bible calls sin the calvinist calls GG's will.
4. After explaining their doctrines the Calvinists are not permitted to punt to mystery. BECAUSE THEY JUST EXPLAINED IT!
@buzzbbird the issue isn't so much the label as it is the consistent application of their doctrine. Fortunately most Calvinists are wildly inconsistent
You won’t have to worry about this endless debate if you just come to the Holy Orthodox Church 😆😃
Dude, how did I just find you. Probably Jesus.
@corex72 welcome to the channel!
Nothing convinced me more about the utter evil wrongness of Calvinism (reformed theology in general) than my twins. They came out of the womb showing nothing but tenderness for each other. They spontaneously shared and helped each other, showing kindness. It wasn't until 2 years later that they started fighting. I accept the Orthodox view that original sin does in no way mean we are born wicked and sinful from the womb like Augustin and others allege. Total Depravity, any way you spin it, is total damnable blasphemous BS. Without Total Depravity the rest of TULIP is philosophical vanity.
Warren - your depiction of Compatibilism in Calvinism is in error:
At minute 15.55 you say:
"God from all eternity decreed that you would steal 3 butterfingers. Now you are free to NOT steal"
This is incorrect
In Calvinism creation is never granted FREEDOM to countervail an infallible decree
FREEDOM must be *COMPATIBLE* with Determinism - which means it must be *COMPATIBLE* with that which is decreed
Therefore
1) The creature is granted FREEDOM to be/do *ONLY* that which is decreed
2) The creature is NOT granted FREEDOM" to be/do *OTHERWISE*
Adam - was granted FREEDOM to [EAT] the fruit because [EATING] was what was decreed
FREEDOM to [EAT] in such case - is *COMPATIBLE* with determinism.
But Adam was NOT FREE to [NOT EAT] because [NOT EAT] is CONTRARY to the decree
And that which is CONTRARY to the decree is not granted existence - and NOT COMPATIBLE with Determinism.
So in Calvinism - the option to [NOT EAT] did not exist for Adam
This is why Dr. Kenneth Wilson calls "Freewill" in Calvinism NON-Free-Freewill
I noted that "freedom" in that context was a philosophical move, not a real possibility as it has a probability of 0%
@@IdolKiller DW: I would be concerned about the language regarding that - because your audience could easily not recognize that distinction - and what they would hear - is that in Calvinism humans are granted "Freedom" to choose between CONTRARY options.
However - in Calvinism - CONTRARY options do not exist within creation - because nothing is granted existence that is CONTRARY to the decree.
Also - Calvinist Jon Edwards has his essay "On the power of CONTRARY choice" in which he shows in Determinism CONTRARY choice (choice between contrary options) does not exist because it would entail an act that is CONTRARY to one's nature - which is determined by a decree.
So CONTRARY options do not exist in Calvinism - and CONTRARY choice does not exist either.
Blessings!
Truly Crazy... 😮
If God’s sovereignty over history is not total, how do we determine His limits?
@@TheWorldViewBros sovereignty means that God is King of kings and Lord of lords, the Highest Authority to which we may appeal, and Judge. It does not mean meticulous effectual divine determinism.
@ I always wonder at people when they thank God for one event turning out one way or another. “If that bullet had been 2mm to the right… thank God it wasn’t.” Seemingly everyone is a Calvinist
@TheWorldViewBros in Luke 10:31-33 Jesus speaks of chance. Regardless of whether it's chance, reaping what we've sown, or an occurance of God's direct involvement, we can trust Him. The problem arises when the claim is made He eternally and effectually decreed everything including all sin and evil.
@ thanks for your responses. I’m not sure this video moved the ball for me, but I’ll continue to keep open mind. There are so many passages asserting God’s determinism - especially with salvation. Romans 9:6-16 is so clear. Paul even says “shall we say God is unjust?” In other words “you heard me right, I didn’t stutter”
@TheWorldViewBros i understand, but remember Romans 9 is dealing with a Jewish objector, not an Arminian from a Calvinist perspective.
He sure could have put his attributes on display when he judges Satan and his angels.
I just cannot understand how they can read the whole Bible, and come to the conclusion that God determines ALL our actions, good and bad.
That, to me, is Allah.
Why does God, all through the Bible keep holding Israel accountable for not repenting and turning back to Him, if they are *totally incapable* to do so?
If He is the one who determines their every action, then why blame them?
Calvinism portrays God as both unjust and cruel, and the author of evil... 😮
Does God know the future? Does God know everything that will come to pass? Is he all-knowing? If he knows you are going to steal 3 candy bars at 4:01pm at 7-11, will you do otherwise? Did God know incorrectly?
@Christo1518 God has Dynamic Omniscience. Fatalism is false. God is free and He knows this, thus the future is not only not yet existing, but contingent. So God knows His own intentions and those of His inagebearers and is free to do as He pleases without being bound by some static set of propositions that must be true.
@IdolKiller I just asked if God knows the future. Seems like a yes-or-no type of a question to me. If you can't just say "yes", that's a clue that I overloaded your system by merely asking a simple question. I'm not saying you are wrong, but if I asked a kid at church if God knows the future, I don't think they'd have a problem answering a simple yes.
@Christo1518 you did not just ask if God knows the future. You started there and then nuanced this question with an immediate follow up that presupposes a static view of Omniscience and the truth value of future contingents. It's entirely possible this was done innocently and you were unaware, but regardless I saw this and so I provided a nuanced answer.
Yes, God knows the future. Perfectly.
No, the truth value of future propositions is not eternally settled. Christians are not fatalists and God is free.
I hope this helps explain why I answer the way I do.
@@IdolKiller You are saying my very simple questioning, "presupposes a static view of Omniscience and the truth value of future contingents", and then you affirm that "Yes, God knows the future, perfectly", but follow the yes with a no, "No, the truth value of future propositions is not eternally settled", which sounds like you just answered Yes and no. For if the "truth value of future propositions is not eternally settled" then you are making yes=no. I don't know how else to take your words, because you are very evasive. And you don't owe me an explanation. If all this makes sense in your mind, then somehow you hold a yes as a no and a no as a yes.
@Christo1518 Yes, God knows the future perfectly. No, the future is not exhaustively settled, and God knows all the various possibilities.
Your last reply again confirms you're operating on the presupposition of a singular and settled future. That's what I object to... not God's knowledge of the actual future.
In heaven we will realize who is behind Calvinism - El Diablo
Quit trying to be so soft. Who cares? lol. Jesus wasn't soft, he was harsh and strict, and if you do the will of The Father then you are a brother of Jesus, according to Himself.
I see an unhealthy obsession forming
Before creation, God predetermined all human thoughts and actions.
He also predetermined the actions of every speck of dust and every occurrence, from the mundane to the extraordinary-everything is under his command at all times.
Indeed, nothing can happen outside of his authority.
This is not only biblical but also logical because if God did not act this way, he could not be God.
It is illogical for God to leave any decisions or actions to man or chance.
Since man cannot know God's plan, we make our own choices and bear the responsibility for them, even though they always align with God's plan.
As humans are inherently sinful, we cannot contribute to our salvation.
God chooses whom He will save, and Jesus died explicitly for them.
Those who are chosen cannot resist being chosen, nor can they fall away.
Is this a parody account of someone trying to debunk Calvinism? Like is he actually serious or is he making fun of people who try and debunk Calvinism but don't know what they're talking about?
He’s serious. And was a Calvinist for most be of his life
@5Solas.2
No. A parody account would be your Twitter page.
DW: This is a common claim by Calvinists.
But whenever they are pressed to provide evidence to prove the claim - it always collapses in self-contradiction.
This does not serve the Calvinist well - because people conclude he cannot be taken seriously.
Calvinism is a personality type. And an annoying one at that.
I appreciate your videos, but I hate, truly hate, your opening music.
I found your channel today after looking for a quick summary of the Lawson situation, and it's been a horrible first impression. You took a situation that should be a sorrowful but factual summary and turned it into spewing anger at Calvinism, best summarized by commenting, "calvanism is a doctrine of demons. Not only is it being done in the wrong spirit, but with an almost purposeful twisting of it. As I've seen yours and others' responses, no it is not "according to you i have no choice God said i had to" it is your own heart that finds joy in how you decide to act. Though you cant understand God being sovreign and man being free to follow his heart and how those work together. Not God forcing someone to sin, but as with Jesus's death, God decreed for it to happen and since he did not restrain them, they gleefully followed their hearts to sin. God did not need to force them to sin or tell them to, he simply did not let them hear. He was not required to give them mercy, to restrain them so that they did not crucify the Lord of Glory, but he may give it to who he wishes. As for author of evil, it is appalling how quickly you ascribe God of sin because you disagree with their working out what scripture teaches and agree with another. Secondly, simply asserting calvanism makes God force people to sin, it does not mean other views dont lead to a similar conclusion. How is God not the author of sin if he puts a king in power knowing that that'll guarantee they do what he decrees ala Asyria. How is he not responsible for using middle knowledge to bring things about that involve rape or murder. How does him looking down the corridor of time, not make him responsible for setting things to go to his plan. Either him creating the tree in the garden makes him force people to sin and all other things that flow out of his foreknowledge that he doesn't stop, or though he decrees sovereignly, it is still man that is responsible for his sinful heart and the two wills work in tandem. Finally, though you take joy in using a strawman answer, you should not be so joyfully misrepresent and accuse so many of calling God the cause of sin. Its disgusting and i will not be watching more videos of yours for that reason. I hope you come to understand the fruit of the spirit and not look at everything as a way to disrespect and slander everyone you disagree with.
I’ve not watched most of this video but I am familiar with much of the content on this channel. I’ve read your response twice and it sounds as though you are offended not only in the approach but that some claim that in Calvinism God causes sin but then go on to ask how God is not the author of sin? Making it seem as though this is how you view God and then finally say that it is slander to say that some believe God causes sin.
Warren is just scratching the surface of divine determinism on this show. He has struck a blow to your deterministic philosophy that you believe is scripture and you cannot handle it so you lash out at him like he is a devil. Maybe instead of foaming at the mouth you ought to actually listen to what he is saying. He use to think like you and honestly you are in the wrong not him on this issue.
It's only slander if the info is false
@NiBearla
Calvinism is the doctrine of demons because Yahweh is actually GLORIFIED by the very sin He abhors yet also decrees. That’s called confusion and God has no hand it such rubbish.
DW: Did Warren say Calvinism is a doctrine of demons - or was that your projection?
Augustine gets a bad rep but he didn't preach Calvinism. He taught specifically that without grace its impossible to live a Holy life (Pelagianism). St. Thomas expands on this by identifying grace as the mover of all things and that grace moves us to respond to God. Thomas Aquinas believes this grace is resistible. There are some Thomist who hold to a monergestic view which still isn't Calvinism, but comes close. Personally, the congruist position that God gives enough grace for each man to freely choose answers this question for me.
"Augustine is so wholly within me that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fullness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings" (John Calvin)
Obviously Augustine didn't preach Calvinism (given the chronology).
Calvin was 100% Augustinian.
Augustine never forsook his pagan beliefs.
@leenieledejo6849 no you have to read more Augustine. He's addressing people who thought you coule merit grace. Even his latter work affirmed the role of free will, but holds grace as a first mover. Thomism ans later Molinism round this out by addressing how graces moves the will of a person to freely decide.
@39:00 McGrew denies that Calvinists can/should believe in Secondary Causes. ..except that *all* compatibilists (Calvinists and otherwise) believe in Secondary causes. McGrew's denial is not a denial of Calvinism as much as it is a refusal to grant that compatibilists have good reasons for believing there's a way for (a form of) determinism to be compatible with (a form of) free will. Despite his complaint, compatibilism can be seen even among the early Church fathers (eg, Ireneaus).
One wonders if McGrew has bothered to differentiate between modes of Causation (efficient, material, formal, and final). That's one way to have God and man be distinct causes (eg, God can be the formal cause of an evil action, but man is the efficient cause, and therefore morally culpable. This is a fairly straightforward way to understand how God can predestine the crucifixion of Jesus to take place on a specific day (Nisan 14) of a specific year (30 or 31AD), starting in a garden (Gethsemane), with a specific traitor, betraying Him to religious rulers, killed, dead for 3 days, and rising on the first day of the week - - - all according to Scripture. "Predestined plan" is a good way to explain it. So if Judas, Pilate, Herod, the high priest, the Jews and the Romans had free will - that's an example of compatibilism.
Yet Warren denies this.
Instead of making theological videos, he should try doing more homework.
@@Tim.Foster123 I argued ENTAILMENTS. An entailment is a deduction or implication, that is, something that follows logically from or is implied by something else. Smh
@@IdolKiller A distinction without a difference, imho.
Is it your opinion that compatibilism doesn't exist?
Define your term
So for everyone who sees this and doesn’t know or have the time to look up these terms, that are frankly unnecessary I’ll summarize and respond in understandable colloquial English.
God created everything including creatures that have some kind of agency, they really do chose things, however God created them in such a way that they chose what he wants them to chose which for Calvinist Compatabilists makes it so their concept of sovereignty is protected and the unelect are still culpable.
They’re basically saying God didn’t make puppets, he made wind up toys that he designed to want to sin so that he could have wind up toys to condemn and wind up toys to save without having responsibility.
Or you can just read the Bible that clearly says God made mankind who he wants to freely chose him and love him so for that to be possible they had to have AT LEAST the free will to chose him or not. That’s why there’s so many examples of God basically begging for mankind to chose him, to turn to him, to not do evil, and him saying he doesn’t want anyone to die or be condemned.
If Calvinism is true in any form that is consistent then the Bible is at best written in a way it can only be understand by adding tons of extra biblical concepts and philosophical theories to be understood correctly and at worst is deceptive. God through his word given in the scriptures tells us to make choices and take actions. If he’s telling us to do that despite not being able to then yeah the rest is self explanatory.
@@thanevakarian9762💯 Brilliant summary and analogy!
Warren, why are you first giving a disclaimer as to how wonderful a man Gavin is, etc.?
I should remind you that Calvinism's 9 points -not just 5 called Tulip -are False from Genesis to Revelation.
They teach that God determined every single thought, word, and action that every single person will think, say, and do.
They teach that God is the sinner.
They teach man has no ability to choose to follow God's will or run contrary to it- if one can obey or disobey God/the Gospel of his salvation, God is not sovereign and man worked for salvation.
They blame God being the only sinner on a secret will of God- which is contrary to God's own words to Israel and the world.
They give a false "Gospel"/non Gospel.
This is just their foundation that is supposed to support their false flower- TULIP, which is also contradicted from Genesis to Revelation.
They contradict how one is saved and contradict the fact of knowing that one is saved and can know that one has eternal life, and that is what all so-called Christian cults teach.
Gavin, White, and all of Calvinism's false teachers
give a false Gospel and unmitigated, false teachings that are perpetrated on the Body of Christ.
Why, to reiterate, do you and Leighton Flowers and others give such disclaimers concerning how wonderful these false teachers are as people?
They are False. They should be rebuked, not recognized as good people. Jesus addressing Israel's corrupt shepherds (under the Law of Moses) in the Gospels, Paul, Peter, Jude, John addressing false teachers in the Epistles (specifically addressing the Body of Christ under grace not law) do not first explain to how wonderful, good, kind, etc. they are, they apply language of condemnation and sharp rebuke and warnings and they admonish believers not to be like them, etc.
I hope you understand the gravity you point out but seem to ignore when first giving a disclaimer as to the character of them (false teachers poisoning believers).
@@Rightlydividing-wx1xb one can like a man and hate some of his beliefs.
@rightlydividing I dunno if this has ever happened to you, but it sucks to be wrong on something and have people lambast you and your character for it, all while not knowing what it is that's wrong.
I also don't know if you've ever created something, like content, but a measure of respect is warranted for those who actually create, which is unwarranted for mere commenters and critics.
Almost 30 minutes in and not one scripture has been used. Scripture>>>philosophy. And this has all been philosophy. Literally not one Bible passage has been used.
Thanks for sharing. I hope you can help me understand your view better. Do you think truth is only found in the Bible?
@danielglanville4052 Gavin's arguments were not exegetical in nature. At first I thought your criticism was of this and was about to defend him, until I realized you were leveraging a double-standard to attack us. Oh well
If it weren't for double standards, Calvinism would have none, much like its cousin, leftism. Calvinism and leftism may be different products, but they're made in the same factory, using the same process...
He's replying to the arguments made by a calvinist.
It's not his fault the calvinist used so little scripture.
What an odd complaint.
@danielglanville4052
What??? Scripture is rife with philosophy: the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.
As a matter of fact all Christian theologies are philosophies based on interpreting Scripture
Where is "maverick molecule" in God's word. I'll wait...
It's not there... RC claimed this... that's the whole point
@@IdolKiller DW: Even R.C.s use of this language "maverick molecule" is designed to sugar-coat the doctrine.
He really should have said - no sinful/evil impulse can exist within a Calvinist's brain - unless that impulse is decreed.
Thus every impulse within the Calvinist's brain - is determined by antecedent factors totally outside of his brain's control.
Burt if R.C. tells people that - he knows most people will reject such a RADICAL doctrine.
And that is why Dr. William Lane Craig says:
"The Calvinist, unfortunately and yet consistently, will not enunciate the RADICAL distinctions of his doctrine"
The first thing I noticed in Gavin's presentation in your video - is how he used language designed to make Calvinism *APPEAR* to have things like Human Freedom and Human Responsibility and Human Choice - exactly as they are OUTSIDE of Calvinism.
The NO FORCE argument for example - is designed to paint a FALSE PICTURE of creaturely autonomy which does not exist in Calvinism.
Imagine two men arm wrestling.
Each man is applying FORCE against the other man
But that FORCE is only coherent because it presupposes each man is granted "Autonomy" from the other man
In Calvinism there is no such thing as creaturely "Autonomy"
So what you have is one man (Calvin's god) determining the impulses in the other man's brain and body
I don't have to FORCE you to do what I want - if I can determine the impulses in your brain and body.
So the NO FORCE argument is simply a RED-HERRING used by the Calvinist to paint a FALSE picture of human "Autonomy" which does not exist in Calvinism.
Blessings!
Wrong. A sovereign rule of law, means there is a rule of law. Part of sovereignty would be that the sovereign has a specific set of beliefs
Wrong? Are you really denying Calvinists use "Sovereignty" to describe exhaustive divine determinism?