The angel asked: On what basis are you here (Heaven)? The thief that was on the cross responded: The man on the middle cross said “I can come” - Alistair Begg
I was just reading Proverbs 16 this morning and see 4-5 verses that clearly show his sovereignty. A man plans his way but the LORD directs his steps, The LORD works out everything to its proper end- even the wicked for a day of disaster. In their hearts humans plan their course, but the LORD establishes their steps.The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD Over and over throughout scripture shows the absolute sovereignty of God
Yes beautiful scripture and very well put. Thank you. I became conflicted as I read about God hardening Pharaohs heart and was troubled trying to deconflict God as the Author of Evil. Proverbs 16 as well as Joseph and his comment about his brothers actions helped me to understand that it isn't one will's battle for supremacy over and against another. Rather it is more like the action taken and the intentions behind it. "What you intended for evil (same activities) God intended for good". Also the Pharisees and romans guilt at the unjust cruxificiton of Jesus (same activity) God's redemptive plan for man accomplished. #Calvinism
@@dmustakasjr same exact thing here with Joseph and Pharoah. Its interesting as though the holy spirit determined we might be convicted through those examples haha. Seriously though those 2 examples end the author of evil nonsense. God intended those actions for good, but the brothers intended those actions for evil. Its the difference between self defense and murder. Intention in a court of law just like pauls examples of a law court in regard to justification and such
@@dmustakasjr i just think its crazy how they keep saying author of evil when the bible tells us exactly how he is not the author of evil with joseph and Pharoah and the Assyrians
This is fascinating (and a little humorous) to listen through, having been listening to James White dealing with another Wilson (Ken) on the idea of Manichaeism and Augustine.
Please listen to Flowers rebuttals. I haven't missed an episode by either Flowers or White and I am very disappointed with Whites misrepresentations and constant failures to address the true issues. God Bless
@@lukusmaximus It's amazing this is the conclusion you came to. White is just reading Augustine. He doesn't even need to say anything of his own. Ken Wilson is a fraud and Flowers is getting dangerously close to full on plegianism. I would be cautious friend.
retroGRAD3 ya exact White is “just reading Augustine”, in other words he’s interpreting him how he wants and citing his OWN OPINIONS of other sources. Wilson references REFORMED SOURCES that disagree with you so are you going to give your same warning to those guys as well? Is James White’s OPINIONS the ultimate authority now?
@@retrograd332 You, by your comments have either just shown your ignorance or that you are a product of Whites rhetoric and misrepresentations. Pelagius = You can come to God on your own without any divine assistance. Flowers = You can only come to God by the Grace of God. Flowers would say that the Grace of the Gospel is sufficient to save. These two are vastly different.
White has spent a great deal of time on the Augustinian Manichaeism alleged here. Then at 1:13 and forward, listen as Doug allows his opponent to tangle himself up in his inconsistencies. I had to laugh, smh, and yell "YA JUST WON'T LET GO, WILL YA?!!" Doug: "So basically MY WILL is something that can negate every protection in this chapter? So what good's the chapter? What comfort is it? Is it a faith in God or a faith in your will?" Nice respectful debate. Thank you, gentlemen!
Hey Brother, imagine catchin' You here! Lol You speak with Mr. Flowers yet? i jave a question for Ya on a different format. Keep Persevering till the end with Great Endurance, Brother!
Maybe it goes south fast, as I'm only an hour in, but I love the Christian brotherhood displayed by these two men! They are cordial, yet disagreeing. They crack jokes, but respect each other. I wish the stuff going on between flowers and white would be this loving and helpful. The guys in this debate aren't talking past each other, but to each other.
@KTTGHMTJWYCBLAC BUT (interesting name btw) Flowers insists that he's only responded to White. I'm a regular viewer of the dividing line and really like James White. James took some getting used to for me years ago because of his intensity. The fact that this debate was friendly was all I was pointing out.
@KTTGHMTJWYCBLAC Maybe I am making Blaise's point, but I have the opposite view! Flowers argues against White's Calvinistic view, but he does to not attack White personally and sees him as a Christian brother. It is White who has a condescending attitude.
@@jcthomas3408 There's some truth there, but I think it stems from White's dubious approach, when it comes to Leighton's claim of having spent years as a Calvinist. The way Leighton frames even the most rudimentary aspects of reformed theology, betrays not merely disdain, but ignorance on a level that is hard to justify, if one has supposedly spent years imbibing reformed theology. White is rightly skeptical of Flowers because of this and I get it.
@@heartofalegend you must not watch the same videos I watch. Check out the recent one where Leighton reviews the debate between Steve Gregg and James White. White tries to attack Gregg every time he can't justify his own view instead of responding to the debate question.
1:15:34 Doug, "So basically my will is something that can negate every protection in this chapter." Craig: "Yes." Doug: "So what good is the chapter? What comfort is it?" Craig: "It's a great comfort to me because _I_ don't expect any of those things to overpower _MY_ will because _I_ have the choice, _I_ don't have to renounce Christ." That's not a comfort to me at all because if it's up to me and my choices through life to continue in salvation, well, I don't know what I'll be thinking 5 or 10 or 50 years down the road. I'm fickle and change my thinking about different things within one day - God is the unchanging though, the same yesterday, today, and forever. I'm only comforted if I'm saved by His choice alone.
There’s zero comfort at all in reformed theology. How do you not know God has predestined you to fall away from the faith later on in life and it be said of you that you never actually truly believed? How do you know that God has not predestined you to be deceived right now into thinking you’re saved? How do you not know God has predestined you to become a reprobate later on in life and predestined that you actually didn’t truly believe.
Aaron Pilkey I know I am born again because I have been born again. Look at John 3:8, "The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit" (NIV). Dr. Roy Beaman, the outstanding Baptist preacher and professor of the last century, noted the following three points about this illustration Jesus made: 1.) Both the wind and the New Birth are sovereign: "wherever it pleases." 2.) Both are mysterious: "cannot tell." You cannot explain all about the New Birth any more than you can the direction and source of the wind. The New Birth is a mystery, even to the admiring heart of the saint; how much more a puzzle and an enigma to the men of the world. 3.) Both may be known: "You hear its sound." We can see, hear, and feel the effects of the wind. One KNOWS when he is born again just like he knows when the wind is blowing, though he can't explain it in minute detail. Such a great and gracious transaction cannot take place in the soul without one's knowing it and even the world can test the genuineness of Christian faith by the way a Christian lives.
GWCinstitute Q: Where does the wind blow? A: EVERYWHERE! The only way your points support your doctrine is if somehow the wind didn’t go everywhere. EVERYMAN feels the effects of the wind and he doesn’t need to know where it comes from in order to feel it’s effects so that has nothing to do with it. The point is just as the wind blows everywhere do does the Holy Spirit. Do you not believe the Holy Spirit is doing His job properly??? JOHN 16:7-9 7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. 8 And when he is come, HE WILL REPROVE THE WORLD OF SIN, AND OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, AND OF JUDGMENT: 9 OF SIN, BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE NOT ON ME;
Aaron Pilkey The wind doesn't blow everywhere. If it did, sailors couldn't go anywhere but in circles. The wind may blow strongly to the North for a while, and then shift to Northwest, or may stand still for a period of time not blowing at all. Also, God doesn't predestine anyone to be deceived. All people are ALREADY deceived because of Adam's sin. God merely in his infinite wisdom speaks light in the darkened hearts of his saints bringing about the new creation in the same way as the first creation (2 Corinthians 4:3-6; Gen. 1:1). All people are deceived and those who aren't deceived are in such a state because they have been saved by God's grace alone. No one deserves to be undeceived; such would make grace merited.
D N Rowe, I am about thirty minutes into this debate and was floored when Gregg said that Calvinists go to verses and say, "See here," and just proof text, right after he mentioned White. I don't know if he watched White debate Dr. Leighton Flowers on Romans 9; White went verse by verse beginning at the end of Romans 8 and took the twenty minutes he had to exegete the text; it was Dr. Flowers that actually debated against the theology of Calvinism and jumped all over Romans 9 (actually beginning near the end). I'm watching a series of messages on Ephesians 1 and 2 on line by a pastor (whose name escapes me right now) and he has taken weeks to go over a few verses in order. Gregg made many assertions in his opening, but just saying verses don't support reformed theology doesn't mean he's right. I'm going to keep listening and see if he elaborates more.
@@2timothy23 That's absolutely correct. I call it Bible bingo. They jump from verse to verse then shout bingo! All of them do it. Never talked to one that didn't. Never talked to one that went verse by verse line by line following the flow of thought. They wouldn't do that when reading the newspaper but they do it when reading The Bible. That's why James white says that they create a lot of Calvinist. People listen to what they say then they just go read it. Doesn't match up.
@@billyr9162 You are right to call it Bible bingo. And I also agree that we would never read other written works that way (I tell my wife that all the time). I believe some of these folks are sincere about trying to interpret scripture, but the problem they have with these doctrines is just what you described. They read a particular verse they don't like and try to go outside of it to show that it is saying something different though the context doesn't dictate it. Two quick examples. I actually heard Leighton Flowers take the prepositional phrase "in him" in Ephesians 1:4 and separate it from the context of the verse. He asked, "How do we get in him?" His answer basically, "We choose to believe in him." My jaw dropped. Then there's the infamous Romans 9:13 verse where Jacob and Esau stands for Israel and Edom based on context of Malachi 1:2-4. The whole of Romans 9 gives a starting point in verse 6 and works from there, but unfortunately many won't let the Apostle Paul use the Old Testament verses in the context in which he is using in his inspired writing. You make a jumbled mess out of scripture when your interpretation fits your own traditions or leanings instead of letting the text speak for itself based on content, context, and grammar. This is the reason why I thought it was silly and illogical for Gregg to give that "see here" analysis when I've seen the biggest opponents of reformed theology actually do that. And I get it; these doctrines are hard to swallow from a perspective of pride and how we may have been taught in our churches, so I understand no one is going to accept these truths immediately (I certainly didn't; it took two years of wrestling with the verses), but if you prayerfully read the whole of the Bible with 2 Timothy 2:15 and Acts 17:11 in mind, you will find comfort, rest, and peace in knowing God is God and that God is always good.
@majorintherepublick5862 arminianism is not the opposite of calvinism. They're basically the same. Bible believing Christianity reject total depravity, which is only singular depravity because there's only one thing calvinists and arminians say man can't do.
I interpret your stance to mean that our Merciful YHWH predestined whom would be welcomed into His Kingdom, with the rest of us merely superfluous fillers used toward "the chosen" fulfilling their destinies. That our Saviour YAHSHUA would lie by omission. YHWH wants hearts turned perfectly toward HIM, that have made a decision to follow our Messiah voluntarily, so our Elohim knows it is in truly loving HIM that we've made that decision.
In context 'calamity' is judgement and it's always for the best overall for His universe, right? Could God have put the world here knowing things could have turned out a few different ways but He knew how each way could have turned but some things He made unalterable. His plan cant be thwarted. What do you the elders think if you dont mind my inquiring?
Isn't it funny how on Gregg's channel, folks who heard the same exchange we did, come away thinking Gregg dominated? I'm telling you (and I believe this 100%) that folks are going by whose argument resonates better with their human sensibilities, and mistaking that for whose argument harmonizes best with the whole of Scripture. The more of these debates I hear, the more I become convinced of that.
For a guy that only wants to exegete and not use philosophical reasoning, Gregg sure does use a lot of reasoning to hold to "free will" during the cross examination. How about citing veres that say man has a neutral free will? Good luck finding that needle.
@@coryalbright9798 words like "predestined and chosen" must be neutered of any real meaning to escape from the inevitable conclusion of the reading of Scripture that salvation is entirely of the Lord's Sovereign choice. "Before having done good or evil, Jacob I loved, Esau I hated". Free will is only seen through western eyes that value individualism and human autonomy.
@philipmurray9796 no, predestination and election csn be allowed to mean what they say for the non calvinist. Predestination in ephesians 1 is to the adoption which is the redemption of the body, a future event. Election is almost always to service and blessing. Believers are chosen in Him, not chosen to be in Him. No one is chosen outside of Him. How do you get in Him? Faith, receiving the free gift. If you just accept the text for what it says, without assuming calvinism, you'll quickly discover calvinism can't be found in scripture. The jacob and essau passage is always eisegeted by calvinists. Will you use that same hermeneutical approach on Jesus words when he says to hate your mother? No, you won't because calvinists step out of discovery mode everytime they find a fitting proof text. You ignore context of various proof texts and cram man made theology into the bible.
@philipmurray9796 your talking about pre cross events and relating it to salvation of church age gentiles. This is a reason calvinists have so many problems with their theology. I dont believe all men everywhere from all time have the exact same opportunities in front of them. What the text doesn't say though is that Pharoah was predestined to damnation. That's what the calvinist takes from the text though.
Anyone complaining about Calvinists/Reformed Christians asserting the Absolute Predestination of God, simply ask yourselves ONE QUESTION: How does God know stuff? That is, if God is Omni-prescient (knowing all things beforehand; His exhaustive foreknowledge being infallible) HOW is it that God possess this attribute? Molinists assert that God's omni-presience is DEPENDENT upon the creation and the decisions that creatures make, for His knowledge! Dr. William Lane Craig has explicitly assert this nonsense...so has Pastor Mike Winger (both Molinists). What about the "God is outside of time" view of God's omni-prescience? This doesn't answer the question about how God knows stuff. More information must be given. Typically, these folks will answer by claiming an Empiricist Epistemology on the part of God. That is, their answer is that 'God knows stuff because He sees, looks on, or, observes all things as one "eternal now"'. This is pure Empiricism at its worst: that God knows stuff through sensory perception. This view also makes God's knowledge DEPENDENT upon His creation for His knowledge of it; because, without the object of one's sensory perception the subject [God, in this case] could NOT know it. Again, BOTH Molinism and the "eternal now" view assert that God's knowledge is DEPENDENT upon His creation/creatures for His knowledge of it/them. The Reformed, however, have answered the question as to 'how God knows stuff' sufficiently, by stating that omni-prescience in God is an essential attribute of His. And, like all the essential attributes of God, it stems from HIMSELF ALONE! God knows all things that would happen in His creation because He chose it to be so...He foreordained whatsoever would come to pass in His creation. God was never dependent upon His creation/creatures for His knowledge of it/them. Rather, it is the creation which is completely and utterly dependent upon Him for their knowledge of any true thing. Hope this helps. *Soli Deo Gloria*
Ryan Gallmeier Awesome insight! I once heard a pastor say that in order for God to have foreknowledge He either looked through time and LEARNED what would happen or He knows because He DECLARED it. And being that God is INFINITE in His attributes and CANNOT LEARN ANYTHING. He obviously declared it to be so.
@@theeclecticcollective8279 Absolutely correct! The pastor you listened to was spot-on accurate. The fact that God's omni-prescience stems from Himself ALONE maintains what is known as the "Aseity of God" (what God is in-and-of Himself). *Soli Deo Gloria*
@@theeclecticcollective8279 Excellent insight. God is unchanging; thus, he never learns anything new. There is no shadow of turning with him. He knows all because all happens according to his perfect and holy plan.
@@TrueLifeAdventures Seems you are implying that God DIDN'T know what would actually happen in this case. This, of course, would be very much in line with the heresy of Open Theism. Is that the position you hold?
I finally was able to listen to this whole debate; very cordial and both men did their best to present their positions. Though I don't like every way Wilson presented his side, I believe his view is more Biblical than Gregg's because of many things Gregg said that violates scripture. If I misrepresent him, then I apologize, but this is a quick summary of some things I heard him say: 1) God creates all things (Genesis 1:1, Colossians 1:15-17), but he doesn't determine all things. Yet a prayerful reading of Isaiah 46:9-11 shows that God declares the beginning from the end and in that same verses says His counsel will stand and He will do all His pleasure. In verse 11 gives two examples of an animal (bird) and a man being called to do His counsel and ends with "I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it." (verse 11) Notice the cause and effect. God speaks and He brings it to pass. He purposed and He will do it. All of the verb and verb phrases are done by God, showing He is the first cause. There are many other verses that say this as well, but Gregg basically dismissed them because (in his mind) the Bible doesn't "say that" based on the objections to the verses more so than what the verses say. He says the Calvinist system is man-made, but he actually leans on his own understanding or relies on man-made philosophies to avoid what many verses say, and this violates Proverbs 3:5 and Colossians 2:8. 2) He says man is predestined to the "airplane" of salvation. In other words, the airplane has a destination, but we have to get on board. So God is only the captain or pilot of the plane, but it is up to us to jump on it with our own free will. This is the reason he could ask about a verse in Ephesians 1:4-13 and say that we're not predestined to salvation, but only predestined to adoption, etc. What he is missing is that these set of verses are actually one whole statement in the Greek and are interconnected. So when verse 4 says God chose us in Him (Christ) before the foundation of the world, everything from then on is a work of God. He begins by choosing us in Christ (which is salvation) and everything else, predestinating us to adoption, redeeming us, sealing us, etc. is all part of God choosing us to salvation. Even Acts 13:48 ends with "as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." God did the ordaining that led to the belief. 3) When pressed about man's will (particularly about the comforting promise of Romans 8:35-39), he basically dodged the question by not telling us if he could be separated by God's love of his own will? This is crucial. If man has the libertarian free will that I hear so much about, then based on that view man should have the freedom to leave Christ. You can't say man is free to do whatever he wants before salvation, but that doesn't stick after salvation. And notice our assurance in Christ is not based on us, but by Christ and God the Father according to Jesus' own words in John 10:27-29. In fact, we are not even able to come to Christ without the Father drawing us (John 6:36-44), without us first being His sheep (John 10:26 clearly says the audience Jesus spoke to believed not because they were not His sheep; again cause and effect), and our godly sorrow that leads to repentance (2 Corinthians 7:10) is a repentance given/granted by God (Acts 5:31, 11:18, 2 Timothy 2:25). Just asserting these verses don't say what they say doesn't make it true if the content, context, and grammar dictates it. Gregg is articulate and uses logic based on his objections, but not based on scripture. His faulty premise of his logic is "I don't like what that says, so it can't be true because I think it makes God the author of evil and man a puppet." These are arguments that many objectors have, but when you start with your objections and own logic (based on that premise), you either have to ignore many verses, redefine many verses, or just make blanket assertions that they're not true. And in doing so, we belittle God's attributes (to fit our reasoning) and elevate finite man to abilities the Bible says he doesn't possess. It eventually leads to open theism or molinism to find an "escape."
Yes, very well stated. I think of it this way -- this kind of debate gets wearysome and maddening because it's often a practice in listening to the Arminian say we're all standing on our heads, while he's standing on his.
Steve Gregg's definition of sovereignty is from a human perspective and therefore very limited. As Solomon relays to us: "The king’s heart in the hand of Jehovah is as brooks of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will." Nebuchadnezzar also grew to understand the same as he testifies in the 4th chapter of Daniel: "This sentence is by the decree of the watchers, and the decision by the word of the holy ones: that the living may know that the Most High ruleth over the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men." So that head of gold on the image that he saw in his vision, the highest possible sovereign in all of time among human beings, learned that his sovereignty was nothing when compared with Divine sovereignty.
Yeah. I heard the guy teach that people would be burned in hell to unconscious not forever when clearly there is a specific place in the Bible that says the opposite.
No man can come unless the Father draws him. Explained without Calvinist glasses on.... The Bible has taught us that The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit are the one true God. Each having a different role with the human race. Yet one God. The Fathers teaches everyone that God exists. Through the creation! Romans1: 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. NO ONE HAS AN EXCUSE. The Father is not the saviour, that is the role of the Son, The Messiah, The Lord Jesus, The Christ! They are taught by the Father as this verse shows: and the Father sends them that believe that God exists to the Son. It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. John 6:45 So when Jesus said that: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. John 6:44 It is simple saying that the Father makes all men aware that God exists and sends those who respond to Jesus. BUT! not all men will respond even though they have no excuse. They know God exists but they made their choice. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools Romans 1:21-22 Paul verifies this to Timothy: This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. 1 Timothy 2 : 3-6 The Holy Spirit comes into play in a special way only once a person whom the Father sends to the Son for salvation. Those who willingly desire to be right with God. Those who Repent and are Baptized. JESUS John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. TRUTH IN LOVE
@@truth7416 that is a horrible back flip when you could have just walked across the line. You are literally adding everything to that verse because you do not like it. Quick question, if some of it is up to you for salvation, what makes you think you will not keep one crown? Also why would God do 99.9 percent of salvation and leave up to you the 0.01 percent for your eternity. The problem with Armeninism is man self indulged nature wants to say he did something. The only thing man will do is condemn his self to hell while completly knowing and rejecting God. There is none good no not one, making a decision is a good act that is explicitly stated that you do not have in you.
@@truth7416 also you are presenting a modelist theology that is considered a heresy. Jesus said if you have seen me you have seen the father. The trinity is not meant to be separated into different modes.
@@bluecollarapologetics1473 You can't see it because you don't choose to see it. Those that come up through the Reformed system are crippled for life. I do hear of a few that escape but that is rare and that is my I bring the truth of Christ to Calvinist sites like this. Hardliners avoid or hurl that standard calvinist darts. Its easier than considering anything. YOU are apposing Gods plan of salvation for every human that ever lived. YOU stand in between God and the object of His love, mankind. YOU are the ones who object to the little children that are coming to Him. You will of course ignore this because it takes Spiritual Discernment that only a believer has. I don't judge your salvation, that is Gods job. But I fear for you. You say listen to the enemy's teaching then put up and watch this.. "DAVE HUNT WHAT LOVE IS THIS?" LOVE IN TRUTH
@@truth7416 you a very misinformed, I was not brought up reformed and considered God's election his plan before I understood reformed doctrine. You fear for me on my salvation because of a non salvation doctrine. If you search truth I pray you look harder. Not once have I ever said either side was not saved. But I look to God for my salvation as you choose to look in a mirror. Im guessing you are a JW based on our conversation. I do see my self elect as well as many others do. I pray that you realise your choice will never save you because if it can why have you not kept the law since your birth? Again no man is good no not one which includes you brother, if you are not GOOD by God's standards why do you think your choice is good enough to save you. You may go looking for fights on calvinistic sites but if that is all you are after I feel for your soul.
I highly recommend the sermon "The two Wills of God" by Matt Chandler. Graciously that was my first encounter with deep theology. Matt gives lots of verses and unpacks explanations in an easily understandable way.
@@user-mx3kh8rj1t Yes , thank you for adding that warning. ( I should have) It is highly disturbing that Chandler has walked away from the gospel. But it is a sober warning to the rest of us, that no matter how seemingly devoted we may be, even the strongest of us can turn to the side. Much love brother
There are ‘two wills of God”… He has one with different desires. God has a hierarchy of desires. 1) All men to be saved is His highest desire 2) If men refuse to obey the Gospel they will be punished. This is God’s lesser desire as He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Calvinism’s ‘two wills’ theory is an inarticulate mess. Having to contrary wills is also known as schizophrenia.
It is an utterly amazing thing to listen to the mental gymnastics that Mr. Gregg contorted himself through during his presentation but even more so during his interplay with pastor Wilson. The problem of theodicy is indeciferable by the human mind, but thanks be to God that the same is not true for God!
Evan U do u comment on every Calvinism related video on CZcams? Lol Over the past year or so of me becoming reformed, I've watched most of the ones I can find, and I think I've seen u in most of the comment sections lol
MansterBear I don’t like any doctrine that blasphemes the name of God so I certainly do comment on a lot of Calvinist videos. Would you like to discuss scripture?
Strange to quote RC on the matter of Authority and Power... I wonder if he has listen to, watched or read RC Sproul on Free Will. I think he would probably stop using RC as his quoted reference if he had.
@@sambray9888 If you're interested...go check out my other youtube channel "Spirit and Truth Ministries" where I actually post videos. This is an old channel of mine from 10 year ago.
How is it that opponents to what is commonly called "Calvinism" claim that it is a doctrine of man inserted into the scriptures, and yet they cannot see that the libertarian view of the freedom of man's will is a rejection of the totality of the teaching of scripture? Proverbs 20:24 - Man’s steps are ordained by Yahweh The word translated here as “ordained,” in the Septuagint is the word ευθυνω, which speaks of how the helmsman of a ship guides and directs the ship in the direction he wants it to go.
@@coryalbright9798 In this passage, God declares that it never even entered into His mind to command child sacrifice as a part of legitimate worship of Yahweh. Leighton "Choice Meats" Flowers thinks that this passage means that there is something that God didn't know... Please tell me that you don't take his position?
@lawrencestanley8989 no, he doesn't believe there's something God doesn't know. That's an bad misrepresentation. It says He did not decree it. Therefore calvinism is false.
@@coryalbright9798 No, you should listen more to Flowers, he does indeed believe that there are things that God doesn't know - he is REALLY beginning to go down the "open theology" road. So, first off, you have failed to define what you mean by "Calvinism." Next, Jeremiah 19:5 doesn't say anything about God's decree, it simply states that God never commanded child sacrifice to be a part of legitimate worship of Yahweh. This is the problem with Provisionists - they fail to read passages in their context, so they misunderstand the text, then based upon that misunderstanding, they make wild assertions based upon undefined terms, and they make claims about the text that the text doesn't actually say.
@lawrencestanley8989 calvinists operate under the assumption that non calvinists are paradigmattically trapped like they are. I'm not a provisionist. Dr flowers does not believe that. You are getting false information...but that's what calvinism is founded on. You must believe what a calvinist tells you the Bible "teaches" instead of what it says or you'll be a pelagian, synergist etc etc. False dichotomies and fear of falling into various labels. Read the Bible without presupposing calvinism. It quickly becomes apparent that nothing unigue to calvinism can be found in scripture.
One side is trapped in dictionary definition of sovereignty versus Biblical definition. Specifically stated in his opening and continuously boxes God into that dictionary definition. Does he get his complete idea of God from dictionary verbiage?
Elementary set theory requires that the common characteristics of the elements of the set are what makes the set the set. Therefore if the church, corporate, the set, is elect, it is so because all of the elements of the set are elect; otherwise there is no set. This is the failure of the corporate election argument.
The debate was won at 1:16:20 Wilson Your faith is in you believing in Christ. Greg If you wish to put it that way but that's not what The Bible says. Wilson ... right. He believes in his faith in himself to have believe. And The Bible definitely doesn't say that.
@StAnthony Abraham's faith was credit to him as righteousness. That's the point. Abraham had faith in God and it was credited to him as righteousness. Abraham's faith was not credit to him because he had faith in a promise. But none of it is really about Abraham. It's about God.
@StAnthony I don't understand why you're putting the word "in" in. Abrahams faith wasn't "in" the promise of God. He believed what God said because he had faith in God. Your wording is strange. Usually when I see people using strange wording is because they're trying to interject their tradition into The Bible
@15:19 he references ISAIAH 46:9-10 9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, 10 Declaring the end FROM the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, my counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: Just read what the passage says without importing any preconceived assumptions or ideas onto the text. Let’s ask some basic questions about each verse using the words contained in the verse. VERSE 9: Q: Is God God and there is none else; He is God, and there is none like Him? A: YES! VERSE 10: Q: Does God declare the end from the beginning? Shall all of His counsel stand? Will He do all of His pleasure? A: YES! Ok we both believe all of this so now you must be taking things a step further beyond what the passage actually says and forcing the text to say what it doesn’t say. You are assuming that in order for all those things to be true that God must be effectually doing them and changing the freewill of men in order to do so. You’re also assuming that when God says His counsel shall stand, and He will do all His pleasure that that automatically means it’s His pleasure to determine and control everything but that’s NOT what it says at all. What if God’s purpose and pleasure and counsel is that man has freewill and He chooses not to violate it? Shall that counsel stand? Is God allowed to do that or is this verse only true if it’s regarding what you want it to be? ...According to 1 Corinthians 1:21 does it pleased God to save those that BELIEVE: 1 CORINTHIANS 1:21 21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that BELIEVE. Q: According to 1 Corinthians 1:21 does it please God to save those that believe or does it please Him to save people so that then they can then believe after they’re born again?
VS10: God says He declared the END FROM THE BEGINNING. This verse makes no mention of Him declaring every meticulous little detail in between. He simply declares the END from the beginning. He declared when He brought this world into existence and He’ll declare when He brings it to an end. Reformers like to ADD to this passage and twist it to say that not only does God declare the end from the beginning but He also declares every little detail in between. But unfortunately that’s NOT what the verse says. VS10: Verse 10 also clearly states that God will do ALL His pleasures. Reformers fail to ask the question “WHAT IS GOD’S PLEASURE?” Well according to the revealed Word of God He is pleased to save all who BELIEVE. So YES, God will do all His pleasure. If it’s God’s pleasure to save all who believe then you better believe He’s gonna do just that. Reformers only believe this verse when God does what they tell Him to do. Are you putting God in a box and forcing Him to have to violate man’s freewill in order to accomplish anything He wants? Or can He STILL accomplish anything He wants without violating man’s freewill? God can call a man to execute His counsel without violating His freewill. This is not impossible with a truly Sovereign and Omnipotent God. This verse makes no mention of God controlling people’s wills and emotions. It simply says God can call a man to execute His counsel. God is compelling and persuasive enough to accomplish anything He wants without violating man’s freewill and He knows the future so it’s actually quite easy for Him.
@@apilkey I read this and it seems that you are putting God in the box by forcing man to have free will. God is not bound by us. We can not make God bend to our will. Look at Judas, at Nebuchadnezzar, at Saul. All examples of people that God changed their will and changed their desires in order to fulfill his purposes. We can not tell God that he does not have the right to violate our supposed "free will" we can simply bow the knee for we are nothing more than mere humans.
Steve The Wizard no definitely not putting God in a box. I couldn’t care less about free will. I care about the Bible and what it teaches and it just so happens to teach freewill so I believe it and submit to it and now my knee to it. If God in His Sovereignty decides to give man freewill would you bow your knee to that?
@@apilkey Yes I would, but that isn't what scripture teaches. It is man's pride that blinds him to believe he has the power and the will to oppose God. God has control over every aspect of his creation, and he does what he pleases with it for the sake of his name. We can not oppose him because we are his creation. Similarly to how the clay can not oppose the potter who is using it for his purposes. That is what scripture teaches.
Steve The Wizard The clay cannot oppose the Potter but it can cry out to Him for mercy. God has power to do what he wants with us but if we humble ourselves and repent He will reshape us into a vessel unto honour. Clay is still mouldable in the Potter’s hand UNTIL HE THROWS IT IN THE KILN and it is permanently hardened. UNTIL it’s cast into the fire. *************************************** Hardening does not mean not chosen for salvation It does NOT say vessels CREATED for destruction but it says vessels FITTED for. *There’s a difference between being created for something and being fitted for something.* ************************************* ROMANS 9:20-23 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath FITTED TO DESTRUCTION: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore PREPARED UNTO GLORY, *************************************** Let’s look at Romans 9 in light of some other passages: ...According to 2 Timothy 2:20,21 if we humble ourselves and repent and purges ourselves then WE SHALL BE A VESSEL OF HONOUR!: 2 TIMOTHY 2:20,21 20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. 21 IF A MAN THEREFORE PURGE HIMSELF from these, HE SHALL BE A VESSEL UNTO HONOUR, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work. *************************************** ...According to Jeremiah 18:1-13 the marred vessel REPENTED and so God took it again in His hands and MADE IT A GOOD VESSEL. IF THE NATION REPENTS then the Lord will relent from the destruction He decreed: JEREMIAH 18:1-13 1The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying, 2 Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words. 3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels. 4 And the vessel that he made of clay was MARRED in the hand of the potter: SO HE MADE IT AGAIN, as seemed good to the potter to make it. 5 Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel. 7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; 8 IF THAT NATION, against whom I have pronounced, TURN FROM THEIR EVIL, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. 9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; 10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them. 11 Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the Lord; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: RETURN YE NOW every one from his evil way, and MAKE YOUR WAYS AND YOUR DOINGS GOOD. 12 And THEY SAID, There is no hope: but we will walk after our own devices, and we will every one do the imagination of his evil heart. 13 THEREFORE thus saith the Lord; Ask ye now among the heathen, who hath heard such things: the virgin of Israel hath done a very horrible thing. *God has clearly revealed in His word that He can do whatever He wants with us and He’s also clearly revealed that He’s chosen to reshape us if we repent.* We must look at Romans 9 in light of the rest of scripture that shows the heart of the Father.
At 34:46, no, God is not the "author" of sin, even though He ordains it, but, I don't think that the gentleman quite understands causality. While God is properly said to ordain, and thus be the ultimate cause of all things (Ephesians 1:11, Romans 11:36) -even evil- (cf. 2 Samuel 12:11-12) He is never the proximate, or efficient, cause of evil, and scripture regards only the proximate or efficient cause of evil as the chargeable or blameworthy party. For example, when wicked men steal Job’s goods, Job recognizes that “Yahweh gave and Yahweh has taken away, blessed be the name of Yahweh” (Job 1:21). The thieves, being the efficient cause of the evil since they were the ones who carried out the deed, are brought on by Satan, the proximate cause of the evil since he was the one into whose power Job was placed and who incited the thieves; they are both guilty of committing evil, but Job doesn’t question the motives of Yahweh, the ultimate cause (cf. Job 1:8, 12, 2:3). This is further substantiated by examining God’s role in sending Joseph into slavery (Genesis 45:5-8, 50:20), in sending Assyria to destroy Israel (Isaiah 10:1-8), and in inciting David to take the census of Israel (2 Samuel 24:1, 10, 15, cf. 1 Chronicles 21:1). In the case of David, we see that (a) God is the ultimate cause of this act, ultimately decreeing that it should be; (b) Satan is a proximate cause, the instrument Yahweh uses to stir up this evil in the heart of David; and (c) David is the efficient cause, having carried it out according to his own sinful inclination, and thus is culpable for the action. The Biblical writers never hesitate to say that God brings about sin and evil, yet never accuse Him of wrongdoing; while God ordains the evil choices of free moral agents, he does not coerce them; rather, they act according to their own freedom of inclination, and are therefore chargeable for their offense.
@@lawrencestanley8989 He called him a despot If you don’t obey I will punish you, is coercion. Beating your child to straighten up and obey is coercion.
It's interesting to hear Doug deny the charge of determinism (most Calvinists I know, including many theologians, would happily accept the label), while simultaneously affirming it in his use of "exhaustive sovereignty". This is contradictory. It's telling later on in his back-and-forth Doug asserts that "God determined everything." This smells bad to reasonable people. My hope is that things like this would encourage one to reexamine the philosophical, soteriological system of Calvinism.
@StAnthony Well, if that is a "redefinition of terms" it is a redefinition that is centuries old now. The Westminster Confession for example says in chapter 3.1 that God ordains whatever comes to pass, but explicitly says that what he ordains establishes man's free will and the contingency of second causes. It even spends a whole chapter on the Reformed understanding of free will in chapter 9. So if anything is a 'redefinition', I submit it is the modern definition that pits free will and theistic determinism at odds with each other, unless we are speculating that Doug has access to a time machine and somehow got changes through all the historic Reformed synods to teach his 'hyper-compatibalism'.
@StAnthony _"The WC attempts a compatibilistic framework unlike the three Forms of Unity, which doesn't directly address the issue of free will. So by no means is compatibalism the Reformed default."_ I do in part prefer the Westminster Confession (and thus the London Baptist Confession) because it spends time explicitly defining the reformed view of man's free will in chapter 9, but the Three Forms of Unity still presume that man has a free will that is compatible with God's determinations all throughout. E.g. Canon of Dort Third and Fourth main point of Doctrine Article 1) the fall is "by their own free will". Rejection of the errors 3) They object to "elevating the power of free choice" rather than the very idea of free choice. It is even clearer in 9) "Who teach that grace and free choice are concurrent partial causes which cooperate to initiate conversion, and that grace does not precede - in the order of causality - the effective influence of the will; that is to say, that God does not effectively help the human will to come to conversion before that will itself motivates and determines itself." Again, notice it never denies that man has a free will, it denies that we dictate or control our salvation by free choice before or concurrent with God's grace. But the terminology of "free will", "compatibalism", "libertarian" etc is philosophical, and the creeds often favor Biblical language instead. For example, the Belgic confession appeals to biblical language of man being in darkness and being slaves to sin in Article 14: The Creation and Fall of Humanity: "“The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.” Here John calls the human race “darkness.” Therefore we reject everything taught to the contrary concerning human free will, since humans are nothing but the slaves of sin and cannot do a thing unless it is given them from heaven." Yet still carefully notice that it doesn't say they reject everything taught concerning human free will, but "everything taught _to the contrary_ concerning human free will." _"What is idiosyncratic about Wilson is not only does he argue that Free Will is compatible with God's determinations, but his argument emphasizes the foundational nature of theistic determinism for free will and that it actually "increases" our free will. Maybe, this is just a rhetorical flourish by Wilson, but it does have certain implications. This is why I am calling it hyper compatibalism."_ But what exactly is so idiosyncratic about that? That's why I pointed out Westminster Confession 3.1 which says that very ordination of God that governs whatsoever comes to pass is equally and without hint of contradiction said to establish man's free will and the contingency of second causes. Rather than being idiosyncratic with historic Calvinism, at least on this point it would seem Wilson is right in line with the historic position and it is the anti-Calvinist that portrays an idiosyncratic version of Reformed thought not found in the historic confessions. _"Again, compatibalism is plagued to its core with issues, beyond Wilson's characterization. Primarily surrounding ite its distinction between first and second causes. ... Thus free will in this scheme refers to a type of will that while operating "necessary, freely or contigently" in its secondary causes is very much decreed in its first cause."_ But that is the very nature of compatibalism. It is the thesis that determinism is compatible with free will. You are begging the question for your incompatibalism by pointing out that the confession finds them compatible and scoffing that they should disagree with you, but what is the argument? It might also be helpful to reflect on what words like 'ordain' and 'decree' actually mean. I notice a lot of non-Calvinists read those words as if they mean 'exhaustive determinism', but that isn't what you will find in the dictionary. From Merriam-Webster *ordain* _transitive verb_ sense 2a: "to establish or order by appointment, decree, or law" _intransitive verb_ to issue an order *decree* _noun_ sense 1: an order usually having the force of law _transitive verb_ sense 1: to command or enjoin by or as if by decree sense 2: to determine or order judicially This isn't language about meticulously controlling every little thing, but legal language. When applied towards God, it is about how God governs his creation. When a king decrees to build a bridge and ordains one to oversee the operation, the king isn't picking up a hammer to build the bridge directly, nor is he micromanaging every bit of the bridge's construction. That the bridge is build is primarily a result of the king's decree, yet that doesn't negate the leadership of the appointed overseer and the hard work of the engineers and builders whose actually did the work to construct the bridge. Primary and secondary causes very naturally (and from my perspective, obviously) goes hand in hand. If anything, I would suggest that the redefinition of 'decree' and 'ordain' to be about philosophical meticulous determinism is the idiosyncratic and ahistorical position.
@StAnthony _"It is in fact hyper-compatibalistic in that it takes theistic determinism as generative of free will, also seeing these determinations as expanding the will."_ And I'm pointing out that Wilson's claims are right in line with the historic confessions, which assert that yes, God ordains all things, and yes, that very ordination establishes free will. Our free will didn't come from nowhere and wasn't invented by man, but comes from God. _"Its beyond compatibilism and into the realm of collapsing one idea into the other. It is no longer to say that free will and determinism are compatible but to say that FW and determinism are the same thing in substance."_ Yet I think Wilson's point is clear, we have free will because God ordains it. It is a denial of libertarian free will, sure, as that theory would demand our will be completely autonomous from God. And sure, it is 'beyond compatibilism' insofar as it is a particular Christian theory and excludes atheistic and other theories that also fall under the umbrella of compatibilism. Our own free will is of the same 'substance' as everything else God determines because free will is one of the things God determined. _"This maybe rhetorically compelling for those that revel in mystical paradoxes, but most will dismiss this as a nonsense statement ."_ Ok, but saying it is nonsense does not make it nonsense. I get that you don't like it, but why? What exactly is the argument against it? You seem to just be begging the question for incompatibilism. When I or Wilson or the confessions point to determinism, you read that as a denial of free will, and when we affirm free will, you retort that 'Calvinism is deterministic!' as if that denies the possibility of free will in our system. Such replies only make sense if we first assume incompatibilism is true, which is the very issue in dispute. _"The WC does in fact teach meticulous determinism. (Which is a different topic)"_ What, you are telling me that a compatibalistic document, that is, a document that affirms that both free will and determinism obtain, affirms that determinism obtains? Say it ain't so! Re WCF 3.1 _""Whatsoever" is an archaic way of saying whatever, which means anything or everything. God ordaining everything is a meticulous view of determinism."_ And the very section you quoted in full says that in ordaining 'whatsoever': "nor is *violence* offered to the *will* of the creatures, nor is the *liberty* or contingency of second causes taken away, *but rather established.* " I've said it several times now, rather than Wilson offering some novel idiosyncratic theory, he is right in line with the bog standard historic and confessional Calvinism. Your incompatibilism is rendering you incapable of allowing the whole statement to stand. _"This is further developed in section 5.2 ... All things clarifies the extent of determination. One can not get more meticulous than this."_ And again, this "all" in section 5.2 is carried out "according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely or contingently." That is a compatibilist statement. You are an incompatibilist, so you think pointing out determinism automatically rules out free or contingent second causes, but that is just begging the question. Disagreeing with compatibilism isn't an argument against compatibilism. _"Again, I understand that contemporary reformed folks seem to think that compatibilism, is a softer form of determinism,.."_ The typical definitions used in philosophy define hard determinism as incompatibilist determinism and soft determinism as a compatibalist determinism. This isn't a reformed thing. _"...but this simply isn't the case as even BB Warfield conceeds that compatibalism is still a form of hard determinism."_ Citation of Warfield confusing the two? _"The no true scotsman fallacy is unfortunately a favorite in this neck of the wood."_ Is this when I point to the historic confession and how Wilson seems right in line and you simply retort that he is no true Calvinist? I am pointing to the Westminster Confession as an objective historical and independent criteria for what is Calvinism, what standard are you using? _"As everyone criticizing calvinism is alway accused of not understanding it or misrepresenting it. This is a common fallacy and a weak defence."_ And when I quote the historic confessions and point out what they are saying in full and you ignore it or only focus on half of what is said? Is that not also a fallacy and a weak defense of your position? I've been pointing to historic standards for what the Calvinist position is, and you have been pointing to personal disagreement and incredulity. Why not offer your own positive case for what historical Reformed Theology teaches and show how Wilson is outside the norm?
@StAnthony _"You have simply restated your original points."_ Yes, I restated my response after you restated your original claims. You didn't advance your case so I didn't advance mine. You made the same mistake, so I made the same correction. _"I read them the first time. However even re reading them a second time I still find them uncompelling."_ Right back at you. _"And that my friend is no longer classic compatibalism, it is something else."_ Again, the same asseertions, and again, I don't see it. Doug is affirming that determinism is compatible with free choice. That is the definition of compatibilism. I don't see why you feel the need to make up the hyper-compatibilism label when it is bog standard theistic compatibilism. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree as you aren't backing up your assertion that Wilson is going beyond (hyper) the compatibalist position by continuing to point to examples of Wilson affirming both determinism and free will. I was wondering if you actually meant monergism.com. I think only the last paragraph is from Warfield. At least I wasn't able to find a source that included the first paragraph. Here you highlight that the view that holds divine determinism and human free will as both being true holds to divine determinism. Here you let your incompatibilism get in your way; you beg the question that any statement that holds determinism and free will as compatible is refuted by any mention of determinism. But that is the very contention under debate. Obviously compatibalists are determinists, you don't need to bold that, and I didn't deny that. But you keep assuming incompatibilism as if determinism refutes compatibilism, which misses the point entirely. I would have highlighted that monergism.com is objectively wrong to say "be clear that neither soft nor hard determinism believes man has a free will." Compatibilism say that free will is compatible with determinism, so I don't know where they get that bit from. I can only assume they are defining 'free will' exclusively as the libertarian theory of free will and excluding any of the other theories of free will one might find. Or they are not approaching it from a philosophical perspective at all and instead from a bondage of the will perspective.
@StAnthony _"Again, this is simply another repetition of your previous repetition of your objections to my analysis."_ Yes, perhaps once your argument accounts for the historic confessional position, then I can give a different response. But as long as you assert the same things over and over, the same response will do. _"I cited Wilson and am familiar with his position. I also explained where his argument broke down."_ You cited Wilson and called his view hyper-compatibilist. You didn't define hyper-compatibilism or show how Wilson is outside of historic Calvinism. In response to the historic confessions, you turn to a very recent source, monergism.com as if it speaks ex-cathedra for all Calvinists and is not itself expressing a view that looks quite unique to the historic view I cited from the Westminster Confession in that it denies free will where the confession affirms it. _"You on the other hand do not even have a consistent definition of it. You originally stated that the position was determinism being compatible with free will, however now you are stating that its determinism being compatible with "free choice.""_ I do not make the same distinction as you make, thus my 'inconsistency' isn't an internal inconsistency, but an inconsistency with the view you impute to me. In my view, words and phrases like free will, free choice, volition, liberty, etc can be used interchangeably and I do so to break up the monotony of using the same word over and over again. Again, you imposing your own definitions on me is not my inconsistency, but a different understanding of the very views being discussed. _"This Warfield/__Monergism.com__ definition of compatibalism is far more careful and theological robust than yours as it makes a distinction between "voluntary choice" and "free will" that you seem incapable of perceiving, as you are confusing the two."_ It would be nice if you would be willing to back that up with some standard works of philosophy. I've repeated that I am going by the standard definition of compatibilism as one can find in any textbook. For example: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy "Compatibilism is the thesis that *free will is compatible with determinism.* Because free will is typically taken to be a necessary condition of moral responsibility, compatibilism is sometimes expressed as a thesis about the compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism." plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/ This contradicts the monergism.com definition when it says "be clear that neither soft nor hard determinism believes man has a free will," a very unique and non-standard view. That was the only bit of the monergism.com article I called out, so I don't know why you take this strange 'all or nothing' approach to what I said. My broader objection, to repeat myself yet again, is to you pointing at a calvinist affirming determinism as if that contradicts the compatibilist position that determinism and free will are compatible. As you seem to be struggling mightily with this, I'll make it clear. I concede that Calvinists believe determinism. They affirm it. They also affirm free will. They deny that affirming free will requires denying divine determinism. They deny that affirming divine determinism requires denying free will. They think determinism is compatible with free will. They think free will is compatible with determinism. You beg the question every time you point to assertions of free will or determinism as if the one denies the other with out providing an argument for why they contradict. Moreover, it seems silly to me to make a distinction between 'voluntary' and 'free', or 'will' and 'choice' as they have related meanings. Voluntary is "having power of free choice". Will is "used to express desire, choice, willingness, consent, or in negative constructions refusal". _"Your reaction is characteristic of the new calvinism that tends to be completely untethered from Calvin and Augustine."_ This is a pretty inane critique given your lack of self refection on how you've presented your case. From my very first post, I referenced the historic confessions that have united Reformed Christians for centuries. In response you cherry picked a single reformed website that seems outside the historic norm in order to back up your point. I'm pretty sure the Westminster Confession has been around a teeny tiny bit longer than that website. You haven't countered my argument that Wilson is contradicting the historic reformed position by running to a modern source, and doubly so by hypocritically claiming I am the one disconnected from historic reformed thought. _"Just another baptist that skimmed through a few reformed confessions. Very sad."_ And here you show you have no idea where I am coming from and are just making it up as you go. I am not a baptist, and if you knew anything about Reformed Theology, you would have guessed that from my preference for the Westminster Confession. My denomination is confessional, we use the confessions in our membership classes and have more in depth studies on them from time to time. I am vary familiar with what they teach, and it is no surprise to me that you haven't even tried to refute my claim that Wilson is in line with the confessions on this point, as you know it is true.
Read Ken Wilson's recent book "The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism", if you want to understand why Augustine came up with the doctrine to explain how infants could become the "elect" through water baptism. Since the child had not come to faith, it must be based on the will of another. It could have nothing to do with the will of the child.
What make the true difference between God will and men will in Salvation? Those who HAVE BEEN CHOSEN KNOW IT'S ALL FROM GOD. This is the difference between Heaven and hell.
So from what you have been saying I sounds like you are sure you are one of the Elected for Heaven. How does it feel to know you are chosen? How do you know that you are one of the predestined for Heaven? How do you know you are one of the Elect? What did it feel like before you were regenerated and had no faith? What did it feel like after you were regenerated and had faith? At what age in you life did that happen? TRUTH IN LOVE
I hold to monergistic soteriology out of sheer reverence for God! If anyone asks me; 'How were you saved?' I will reply 'By the grace of God'! I will die my one and only bodily death a Christian who holds to Calvinist theology.
Truth So from what you have been saying I sounds like you are sure you are one of the Elected for Heaven. How does it feel to know you are chosen? How do you know that you are one of the predestined for Heaven? How do you know you are one of the Elect? What did it feel like before you were regenerated and had no faith? What did it feel like after you were regenerated and had faith? At what age in you life did that happen? TRUTH IN LOVE
We were dead in sin, and made alive in Christ. Amen brother- only thing i believe we need to abandon is the tag of “Calvinist”. It is the clear teaching of Gods grace, and how he works it.
He says that since God presents you with a choice it must mean you have the ability to make that choice ... savingly. Here is where the error is. And Christ and the apostles made clear that no one is Able to please God. Christ vsaud "this is the work if God, that you believe in the one he had sent" all in the context of John 6 clearly saying you cannot come, believe, in and of yourself. Please exegete John 6. If you don't like it, then drop to your knees and cry for mercy. Yet we just blame God for our hatred for Him. Those whose hearts have been changed are thankful. It makes me wonder about those who argue for the haters of God, making God out to be evil.
Matthew 20:16, "So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.." Matthew 24:22, 24 "And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened...For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if [it were] possible, they shall deceive the very elect.." Mark 13:20, 22, 27 "And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days…For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if [it were] possible, even the elect…And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven." Luke 8:10, "And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand." (Matthew 11:25) Luke 18:7, "And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?." John 10:14-16, "I am the good shepherd, and know my [sheep], and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, [and] one shepherd ...But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you." John 13:18, "I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me." John 15:16, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you..." John 15:19, "If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." John 17:9, "I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.." Acts 2:23, "Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:"
That’s great you can reference scripture verses but do you understand them? Just because a verse has the word “elect” in it does NOT mean it means YOUR opinion of what that word means. You referenced John 10. QUESTION: Is not being one of Jesus’ sheep an unchangeable situation?
@@apilkey well Jesus said Matthew 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. Revelation 3:5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. well if one can have their name blotted out that makes once saved a heresy. Replacement theology is a heresy and consists of believing the antichrists are God's chosen people. well chosen for what exactly. 1 John 2:22 - Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. ALL Jews, that is why they are jews, deny that Jesus is the Christ and that makes them antichrist A remnant of some shall come to the Lord at one point. Rev 11:13 - And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven. Jesus in Revelation 2:9 - I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. Galations 3:29 - And if ye be Christ's, then ARE YE Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Those in Christ ARE the seed [children] of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob Israel. Gentile does not mean non-jew either it just means nation God forbid you believe "white Christians" are the chosen people = racist or white supremacist Believing the antichrists who claim to be jews are the chosen people is replacement theology and is a lie from hell
Chaplain Bob Walker B. Th. No one here is talking about replacement theology. Election in the Bible is to SERVICE not salvation. The elect refers to the physic nation of Israel not to unbelievers elected before the foundation of the world to become believers. ISAIAH 45:4 4 For Jacob my servant's sake, and ISRAEL MINE ELECT, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me. Christ is also the Elect One. JESUS IS THE ELECT ONE It was never about what we have in the Father INDEPENDENT of the Son. It’s all about His Son. It’s all about Christ. CHRIST IS THE ELECT ONE. We are merely elect BASED UPON OUR association and IDENTIFICATION WITH CHRIST! It’s impossible to be elect before we have any identity with Christ. That would usurp Christ. Some believe that the FINAL destination of election is to BECOME in Christ, whereas the Bible says that the SOURCE OF ELECTION IS IN CHRIST. With respect to salvation in Christ, predestination speaks not to WHO will be among the elect, BUT WHAT GOD’S ULTIMATE PURPOSES ARE FOR THOSE WHO ARE ELECT IN CHRIST. Predestination is mentioned 4 times in the Bible a NOT ONCE IS IT REFERRING TO SALVATION. *************************************** Jesus is the CHOSEN one: PSALM 89:14;19 14 JUSTICE AND JUDGMENT ARE THE HABITATION OF THY THRONE: MERCY AND TRUTH SHALL GO BEFORE THY FACE. 19 Then thou spakest in vision to thy holy one, and saidst, I have laid help upon one that is mighty; I have exalted one CHOSEN OUT OF THE PEOPLE. *************************************** ...According to Matthew 12:18 Jesus is the chosen one: MATTHEW 12:18 18 BEHOLD MY SERVANT, WHOM I HAVE CHOSEN; MY BELOVED, in whom my soul is WELL PLEASED: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles. *************************************** ... According to Isaiah 42:1 Jesus Christ is God’s elect servant who shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles: ISAIAH 42:1 1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; MINE ELECT, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. *************************************** ... According to 1 Peter 2:6 Jesus is the elect one: 1 PETER 2:6 6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, ELECT, precious: and HE THAT BELIEVETH on him shall not be confounded. Jesus Christ is the elect one. We are only elect IN Him AFTER we believe. *************************************** ...According to Luke 9:35 Jesus is the beloved: LUKE 9:35 35 And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my BELOVED Son: hear him. *************************************** ...According to Luke 23:35 Jesus is the CHOSEN ONE: LUKE 23:35 35 And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be CHRIST, THE CHOSEN OF GOD. *************************************** ...According to Acts 17:31 God ordained Christ: ACTS 17:31 31 Because he hath APPOINTED A DAY, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness BY THAT MAN WHOM HE HATH ORDAINED; whereof he hath given assurance unto ALL MEN, in that he hath raised him from the dead. *************************************** ...According to 1 Peter 1:20 Christ was foreordained before the foundation of the world: 1 PETER 1:20 20 WHO VERILY WAS FOREORDAINED BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD, BUT WAS MANIFEST IN THESE LAST TIMES FOR YOU,
@@apilkey that is right Christians ARE Israel, not the antichrists in the middle east who hate Jesus. Galatians 3:29 “And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Jesus in bible book Revelation 2:9 - I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. King James Bible Jesus speaks to some of the Jews in John 10:23 - 29:And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch. Then came the JEWS (THE JEWS) round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. "But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you." But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. they were not of his sheep.
You need to read the full passage, not just the verse. For instance, John 17:9 is specifically about the disciples. Keep reading. Verse 20 says "“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message,"
Wilson tries to trick Gregg into agreeing with Calvinism towards the end. Believing that God perfectly knew the future before creating the universe and yet still created, does not make one a Calvinist. Calvinists too quickly jump to the "two wills of God" idea. But, what God allows, and what He wills are not always the same thing. The distinction between God's allowance and His will does seem to disappear at the point of creation and at the eschaton, but as history plays out there is indeed a distinction, and that distinction is enough to reject Calvinism.
@@risingdawn5788 God can will for something to happen and then allow that thing not to happen. That does not necessarily mean He secretly willed for that thing not to happen all along.
Great point RisingDawn @Jack Shadow: “Remember this and stand firm, recall it to mind, you transgressors,9 remember the former things of old;for I am God, and there is no other;I am God, and there is none like me,10 declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’ 11 calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass;I have purposed, and I will do it. Isaiah 46:8-11 | ESV If God will accomplish ALL His purpose as stated above, then either everyone will be saved (universalism) or He only purposes some to be saved (Calvinism)... Which would you agree with?
@@risingdawn5788 As history plays out, I think it's clear that many things happen which are against God's will. The question is: Will God get exactly what He wants in the end? I believe He will. That does not make me a Calvinist, and I don't have to adopt the Calvinist definition of sovereignty. The problem when talking about Calvinism is that Calvinists don't always agree on what they believe.
Sir. Thats exactly what Jesus was telling Nicodemus that he Nicodemus needed to be born from above so the birth of Jesus from above is different from what he is telling Nicodemus because Jesus is telling him he needs a spiritual rebirth.
Another classic reminder that all "truth" is by revelation from God Almighty. Is it possible for one truly Born Again believer to be blessed with revelation knowledge that another does not? Is it possible then to reason the ignorant believer into a heightened state of revelation? I don't believe it possible, but, it used to be an entertaining waste of time to observe.
Steve Gregg's opening is incredibly weak. Attacking definitions and terms, rather than using scripture and attacking the ideas and scriptures that those definitions represent. By this argument, the Trinity should be brought into question because the earliest church father's didn't use the terminology. 23:49 That fact that Steve Gregg doesn't even know what true arminianism is, shows that Gregg did not do his homework. It's clear that Steve Gregg is just anti-Calvinism.
@7:50 he references PROVERBS 16:33 33 The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD. One thing that Proverbs 16:33 clearly does NOT state is that every decision on earth is from the Lord. *Rather, it clearly and specifically only states that every decision OF THE LOT is from the Lord.* In Old Testament times, believers would often seek God’s will by casting lots. Lots were typically small stones (or other types of markers) used to determine God’s selection of someone or something out of 2 or more possibilities. So WHEN WE SEEK THE LORD’S DIRECTION and ask for His guidance in faith then of course He will honor that and give the decision of the lot. Today we don’t use lots because we have the Holy Spirit to lead us and guide us into all truth and to direct our steps when we commit our ways to Him and when we seek counsel from Him directly. So to re-iterate; this was a main method of seeking God’s will in the Old Testament So the Proverbs 16:33 promises that in this procedure of seeking God, the lot’s every decision was from the Lord. It’s not about God’s control of all random occurrences, but about His settling of matters SPECIFICALLY BROUGHT BEFORE HIM. This proverb is promising us that WHEN we seek the Lord’s will, He will guide us. PEOPLE WERE SEEKING DIRECTION from God in situations for which they had no other way to discern truth. When the lot was used OBEDIENTLY, THE ACTION EXPRESSED COMMITMENT TO DO AS God WILLED. The method of the lot itself is not the point of emphasis, but rather, TRUST IN GOD WAS THE EMPHASIS. Reformers twist this passage out of context and ADD to God’s Word by stating that the verse says every decision is directed by God when that’s NOT what the passage says at all.
Todd Cote What specifically did you not understand about the casting of a Lot? If God has Sovereignly decreed that mankind should have freewill would you have a problem with that? If God in His Sovereignty has Sovereignly decreed not to ordain and determine every “rogue molecule” would you have a problem with that?
Todd Cote Theres no swinging and missing the ball was hit and went right over your head. That’s two balls over your head now. The first one was my original post. My questions expose the folly of yours. So based on your logic did Jesus Christ Himself “swing and miss” when He answered foolish questions with another question? When you get to Heaven are you going to tell that to Jesus’ face that He swung and missed?
Aaron Pilkey Remember Aaron, calvinists don’t think God is sovereign enough to decree libertarian free choice or powerful enough to accomplish His purposes if He did
I'm trying to be fair as possible here, but it seems that Arminians are intensifying in their utter lack of respect for reformed theology. They're so convinced that it's utter nonsense, that they just casually throw out a few verses and declare the discussion over with, as if these verses haven't already been carefully dealt with and responded to, time and again. The doctrines of grace may offend our human sensibilities and we may even be convinced that they create legitimate Scriptural conundrums, but let's at least show a modicum of respect for the volumes of theological treatises that exist, carefully defining and defending Calvinism by showing a consistent portrait of these doctrines laid out over the course of the entire biblical record. Thankfully, both these men seem to be modeling graciousness and charity, when it comes to this debate. I hope more folks will follow their example.
@HaroldZwingley There's definitely overlap, in the arguments they use to refute Total Depravity. The more I study the reformation, the more evident it becomes.
OK. So the next time someone out of wedlock has a child in Doug Wilson’s church, I’d love to see that couple resist correction by just saying, “Who are you, O man, to question God’s decretive will?” Let’s see how that goes.
They wouldn't be correcting the couple for the decreed will. They would be correcting them for the prescriptive will. You can't correct what God decreed.
Billy R So let’s get this straight. The ultimate will of God that occurs is his decretive will, not his revealed will. So, technically, no one really disobeys God and rebels. That’s all a farce. Got it. You may as well just chunk the Bible in that case because it’s powerless in that view. It means nothing. Nevermind the probably 1,000 verses rebuking adultery, even going so far as to say Christians who practice adultery continuously should be kicked out of the church. So you would have a Calvinist pastor who openly on record says whatever happens is really the true will of God, yet he would turn around in correcting this couple as if he doesn’t know that? Nothing like practicing cognitive dissonance. I wish I was a fly on the wall when a couple in his congregation knows his stance on Calvinism and use his words against him as an excuse to get away with sin. That’s exactly the can of worms Calvinism opens up.
Billy R Nah bro. That’s not how it works. Either the Bible is God’s inspired word given by the Holy Spirit through chosen apostles or it isn’t. Your system has God competing with Himself and being disingenuous. It’s a modern form of dualism. God’s the one who gave me the brain to see the problem, along with conscience and in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit with conviction to know your system is in error.
Calvinism Is all about "see there" as Gregg points out. The entire Old Testament is a repudiation of Calvinism and a celebration and endorsement of man's free will and the responsibility that comes with that.
@@PaDutchRunner Oh really... I didn't know that, thanks. In the future I'll try to run my theological and philosophical ideas past you first to ensure they are orthodox.
Doug, the problem is, you're framing the issue as though Steve is standing on a foundation of his own logic and philosophical assumptions whereas you are standing upon the foundation of straight biblical exegesis. This is patently untrue. The Bible does not categorically state the things which form the foundation of your systematic. You cannot get from anything the Bible says to the conclusion that God is like Shakespeare and we are like Hamlet, without quite a bit of philosophical and logical extrapolation in between. If you were to acknowledge that you yourself are also making logic and phillosophy in order to arrive at your position, you would then have the unenviable task of explaining all the horrendous philosophical ramifications of your view instead of sidestepping them.
Gregg's opening statement only attacks calvinism and assumes his own position. He makes no presentation of his position, so thus I do not know what gregg believes.
Yes men do sin and God is not the author. He allows wicked men to do what they want. This whole story we are in is about God getting glory. He is glorified by those he saves, and glorified by the punishment of the wicked
Scripture is confirming everywhere that God is in control OF ALL IS CREATION. He knew before we are born all days of our life and this is destroying men free will TOTALLY. Event Jesus was predestined to die for our sins ,it was NOT IS CHOICE BUT GOD WILL. You want to elect yourself by your free will well you are in fact ejecting yourself from God own predestined choice concerning is election (is bride) The flesh can not determine is destiny in Heaven ( false determinism, illusion of being saves)
So why create people you have already determined you are going to through into the garbage to suffer for enternity? With Calvanism people aren't paying for their sins they are paying because God said I don't love them.
@@nobusiness8472 We are all born under God wrath but God Grace consist to saves those who believes in the Son and those who believes are the ones destined to eternal life as the bible TEACH ! Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. (we are chosen)
@@michelhaineault6654 GREETINGS. YOU SAY THAT WE WERE BORN UNDER THE WRATH OF GOD. WE WERE BORN WITH A SINFUL NATURE, BUT NOT BORN SINNERS. PROVIDE ME HOLY SCRIPTURE. LET ME ASK YOU THIS. WHAT DOES MY GOD, LORD, AND SAVIOR SAY IN MATTHEW 18: 3-5? THESE ARE INDEED BEAUTIFUL WORDS OF MY RIGHTEOUS, LOVING, HOLY, JUST, AND MERCIFUL GOD. "ASSUREDLY, I SAY TO YOU, UNLESS YOU ARE CONVERTED AND BECOME AS LITTLE CHILDREN, YOU WILL BY NO MEANS ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. THEREFORE WHOEVER HUMBLES HIMSELF AS THIS LITTLE CHILD IS THE GREATEST IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. WHOEVER RECEIVES ONE LITTLE CHILD LIKE THIS IN MY NAME RECEIVES ME." THAT MEANS ALL LITTLE CHILDREN WHO SHOULD HAPPEN TO DIE WILL BE AUTOMATICALLY BE IN THE PRESENCE OF GOD. IT SURE WOULDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE; WE ARE "ALL" BORN UNDER THE WRATH OF GOD. THOSE LITTLE CHILDREN WEREN'T BORN UNDER GOD'S WRATH. GOD BLESS YOU.
No man can come unless the Father draws him. Explained without Calvinist glasses on.... The Bible has taught us that The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit are the one true God. Each having a different role with the human race. Yet one God. The Fathers teaches everyone that God exists. Through the creation! Romans1: 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. NO ONE HAS AN EXCUSE. The Father is not the saviour, that is the role of the Son, The Messiah, The Lord Jesus, The Christ! They are taught by the Father as this verse shows: and the Father sends them that believe that God exists to the Son. It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. John 6:45 So when Jesus said that: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. John 6:44 It is simple saying that the Father makes all men aware that God exists and sends those who respond to Jesus. BUT! not all men will respond even though they have no excuse. They know God exists but they made their choice. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools Romans 1:21-22 Paul verifies this to Timothy: This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. 1 Timothy 2 : 3-6 The Holy Spirit comes into play in a special way only once a person whom the Father sends to the Son for salvation. Those who willingly desire to be right with God. Those who Repent and are Baptized. JESUS John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. TRUTH IN LOVE
@@truth7416 the problem is Calvanist theology doesn't support that. We have no role in salvation. We can't accept as that is a choice. As creatures not go having free will to say yes or no we can't accept. With Calvanism God said certain people would be saved and there is nothing they can do. Also others won't be saved because God made them to be rejected. Again not my view but the theology of Calvanist dictate that
God sees the beginning from the end because he is outside time. He can see the beginning from the end at the same time. It's not a linear equation from Him. He can see what you chose. He doesn't determine what you choose. Free will is necessary for the narrative to be logical. That is, there can't be love without hate. You have to have a choice. Arminious was a man, the same as Calvin, same as the sadducee's same as the Pope. They were and all trying to figure it out they are all fallible and capable of being wrong.
For the arminian contender in this debate (who has not read Arminius yet) and who said that there is not citation in tge Scriptures stating that God is sovereign, here we go: Jude 4 (NASB): For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand [a]marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. Notice the titles for Jesus are Master and Lord. That comes from the greek terms Despotes and Kurios. Does the word Despotes ring a bell? Exactly, it means that God has absolute power and we may call it tyrant if we may, but we are nothing before him anyways, so our opinion doesn't count. Do you understand what we are now? Dust by ourselves and everything He wants since He established his purpose.
Yet according to Calvinism, those men can do nothing. It’s not like they can pull an elect person away from God. So those men are pointless anyway in Calvinism.
@@kenb7536 According to calvinism, we can do something apart from God, that is to sin, and with all their purpose on satisfy themselves. Every election we do is for our own benefit and self glorification. Only God can make us do, and when he does it, then we can do all things in Christ. That is the gospel, Jesus said it: Without me you can do nothing; and then Paul: I can do all things in Christ... So the fact that it is on God's decision to enable us to be able to live for his glory (to obey him in repentance and faith) doesn't disable the fact that the men in his fallen nature is not under judgement. That is maybe the point you struggle to conceal. All men have the faculty to make decisions, but none of those is to glorify God, unless God regenerates the will into glorify God. The will moves the actions, if the will is bonded to sin, the actions will move in that direction and viceversa. And yes, there are men who will remain in their sins and it is just what they are, just as I was thanks to the grace that I wasn't looking for or pursuing in any way. It is stunning and all I feel is a great debt to the Lord for look upon me when I was not looking to please him. Grace is not an obligation from God, it is a decision that we wont understand, but we will appreciate and be glad about for the eternity.
Omar Nevarez What I said is absolutely true in Calvinism. Period. In Calvinism, a false prophet cannot lead any elect person astray. So the number of the elect and reprobate won’t change one bit, even if a false teachers shows up in the church. If that false teacher does lead someone astray, that person was already a reprobate from eternity past in Calvinism.
@@kenb7536 The reprobation is based on the human condition that is in time and it occurs in time based on the sinful will. The election comes from eternity past. If you read Romans 9 it says that the election to salvation is done before anybody did something good or bad. it is not talking about the reprobation. The reprobation on the other hand is based on the sinful nature of the person before the holiness of God and that happens from the conception because we are not eternal, we do born. In saying that both reprobation and election come from the eternity past is stating a double predestination which does not fit with calvinism. The predestination is based on God moving the circumtances and means before hand in favor of a sinner to be saved from the path he is naturally taking in time. The reprobation is letting the person continue his own path without doing nothing to avoid it. Therefore, the person remain lost by his own, not because God makes him do it, but because God leaves him at his will. God just leave that sinner be what he is bacause God is not obligated to save anyone, He does what He pleases and it is good because He is the Only God, we aren't God to decide for him who to save or not. Also, it is importat to mention that no one from the reprobated is looking for salvation, so it is not like God is denying something they are seeking. In fact, the sinners claim they are ok the way they are. Bottomline: Election is not the same as reprobation, one is active and the other one is passive.
Omar Nevarez Again. What I said is true. No need for this explatory big paragraph. And it doesn’t matter whether it’s active or passive or not, God is actively making a choice not to regenerate a reprobate when He could. There’s no way around that for the Calvinist.
A God who cannot decree what He wants is not God of the bible and thats the arminian god. If God decreed what Herod, Pilate, the jews, gentiles did, He can do it again. That means God is not restricted and there is no such thing as libertarian self determining uncaused will or choices. God can determine certain actions of men without becoming unholy. It is frustrating to hear someone again and again use pagan libertarian freewill as a lense to negate and reinterpret scriptures.
I’ve answered it three times in three ways . Your inner man is changed the Bible is speaking about you . Exegete John 3:1-8 where Jesus speaks to Nicodemus and tells him that he (Nicodemus ) must be born again. Nicodemus himself thinks Jesus is talking about the putter man. How can a man return to his mother’s womb (Outterman) Jesus than says That which is born of Spirit is spirit (inner man) He waa speaker to Nicodemus his inner man needed to be born from above.
Humans are born of the flesh. Once again... Romans 8:8,11 [8]So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. [11]But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead *shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you* Romans 7:19-22 [19]For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. [20]Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. [21]I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. [22]For *I* delight in the law of God *after the inward man* Clearly hes not the inner man. In Greek it's the word Kata. It means day-by-day by day according to or by way of.
@@billyr9162 you just completely ignored what I said and ran back to your narrative . I'm asking you to tell me what is Jesus saying to Nicodemus. Did Jesus identify how man is made up in this text
@@donaldstirgus4749 1st of all it's a different metaphor. But 2nd it says born from above not born again. Only Christ is born from above. And 3rd, a birth is the beginning. It takes a lifetime to grow up. That's why the chastising is day-by-day. The outer man dies hard.
@@donaldstirgus4749 Ephesians 4:21-24 [21]If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: [22]That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; [23]And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; [24] *And that ye put on the new man* which after God is *created in righteousness and true holiness* That is 100% Jesus because man is not created righteous and holy. Man is created in flesh. I'm just looking at the verses that actually talk about the metaphor of the inner man And what it says the inner man does.
Ironically, listening to Gregg’s debate with White, Flowers debate with White and Tassi’s debate with White (I was Calvary Chapel) that I would categorically reject “I don’t know what Arminianism is” and syngergism.
There’s a willingness in the comments of this video to, if I might be bold enough to say (I may be very wrong, I do not know the hearts of the crowd) to cast one of these men aside completely To despise whichever one must be wrong (and naturally, to assume the one you don’t agree with is the wrong one deserving this) The interplay here of two naturally fallen men, who by all accounts both appear and I hope are genuinely saved, appears to be EXACTLY how iron sharpens iron to me. Echo chambers don’t seem to sharpen this dialogue and ability to defend and seek truth, because remember, we don’t just pop in knowing these things we SEEK them as likely both Doug and White appear to be doing. The interplay of two men genuinely, in love, exercising these battles of thought towards truth is where the need to know the scripture deeply gets motivated, and I think both men are sharpened. No doubt, since they’re mutually exclusive, one man is wrong, but are they not BOTH being sharpened here?
There is only one aspect of Calvinism that's worth debating -- the aspect people actually want to hear about: God predestining people to hell. If you can convince people that God is still good while predestining people to hell, you win.
Jack Shadow well predestination as Calvinism is clearly false. Does God know who will and who will not make it?? Yes. But salvation is our choice to make. Calvinism contradicts free will, faith, and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Predestination is both true and false. It’s false how it’s taught in Calvinist churches. And true because when we accept Jesus Christ as lord and savior He literally predestines us to heaven. However if we are not careful our names will be blotted out of the lambs book of life. Revelation 3:5
@@barrybaker9173 what is sad is those like you totally ignore the issue of the canaanites who were satanic fallen angel human hybrids (genesis 6) who have no offer of salvation ever. Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are NOT not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (they were never written in the book)
It appears what these two men have spent years considering is ones [freewill], and the ability to surrender our free will to the will of God, that would intern establish interaction with God to become the dominant [Will] over our lives. Thus, predestination, or authoritarian sovereignty is founded in one’s ability to choose freely who he will serve. Interaction establishes our relationship; Christ in the midst thereof, not we in the midst of Christ.
If we want to use analogy from stories, my preferred illustration for Genesis 50:20 or the crucifixion as described in Acts 4 is the Battle of the Black Gate in the Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Aragorn challenged Sauron knowing the latter's arrogance would lead him to send out the army of orcs to fight, clearing the way for Frodo to destroy the One Ring. Sauron meant the battle for evil, destroying the last bastion of good. Aragorn meant it for good, but he did not deterministically make Sauron act in evil and arrogance. This is the best analogy for how God uses the selfish, sinful, evil motivations of humans - which He did not cause - for His plans of good. Aragorn determined the effect... but not the cause.
Just because you are not a Calvinist does not mean you are an Arminian. This is a false dichotomy. A Traditionalist is another option. Arminian is similar to Calvinist in that God chooses who will believe by looking down the corridor of time and choosing who will choose him.
@ThisIsWhatHappened Calvinists claim that if you are not a Calvinist you are an Arminian. John Calvin debated Jacobus Arminius, and they both had flaws in their doctrine.
@@jcthomas3408 They just do that when they think your views are still generally orthodox. You could have a pelagian or open theist or works righteousness or easy believism or some other soteriological view, but if they use those sorts of words, they concluded that your position is outside Biblical teaching and the historic church.
No man can come unless the Father draws him. Explained without Calvinist glasses on.... The Bible has taught us that The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit are the one true God. Each having a different role with the human race. Yet one God. The Fathers teaches everyone that God exists. Through the creation! Romans1: 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. NO ONE HAS AN EXCUSE. The Father is not the saviour, that is the role of the Son, The Messiah, The Lord Jesus, The Christ! They are taught by the Father as this verse shows: and the Father sends them that believe that God exists to the Son. It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. John 6:45 So when Jesus said that: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. John 6:44 It is simple saying that the Father makes all men aware that God exists and sends those who respond to Jesus. BUT! not all men will respond even though they have no excuse. They know God exists but they made their choice. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools Romans 1:21-22 Paul verifies this to Timothy: This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. 1 Timothy 2 : 3-6 The Holy Spirit comes into play in a special way only once a person whom the Father sends to the Son for salvation. Those who willingly desire to be right with God. Those who Repent and are Baptized. JESUS John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. TRUTH IN LOVE
Dean, I am thirty minutes into this video and I would have to agree. He says sovereignty is not in the Bible and then uses a man-made definition to define God's attribute of sovereignty. This violates Colossians 2:8. In addition, by that line of thinking, then God isn't truly triune the way the Bible says He is because the Word Trinity isn't in the Bible either. I found his line of argumentation weak (but it isn't new because someone actually tried that argumentation with me on a CZcams comment section and I basically told the person I let the Bible define sovereignty, not man; he didn't like that and started being sarcastic).
Eric Smith *You can’t just hi-Jack the definition of sovereignty and give it our own definition to fit your beliefs.* *Sovereignty does NOT mean determinism, it means GOD IS IN CONTROL and His ability to do whatever He wants.* Sovereignty is translated from “LORD, LORD” and is not even found once in the KJV! (It’s only found in the ESV 3 times). Reformers wrongly define the concept of divine sovereignty as meaning “meticulous deterministic control over ever thing, including the evil intentions of creatures.” The scriptures simply never teach this concept. Instead, divine sovereignty is reflected as God’s ability to do whatever He is pleased to do (Ps. 115:3) even if that may include giving the world over to creature’s free dominion (Ps. 115:16). Here’s the definition of sovereignty would you like to submit a new definition to Miriam Webster? (Sorry I’m just joking but seriously it seems like you should) You can make up your own definition of sovereignty all day long but scripture won’t bend to it and the dictionary is not going to re-write itself on your behalf either. ************************************* MIRRIAM WEBSTER- SOVEREIGN SOVEREIGN - noun sov·er·eign | \ ˈsä-v(ə-)rən 1a: one possessing or held to possess supreme political power or sovereignty b: one that exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere c: an acknowledged leader : ARBITER 2: any of various gold coins of the United Kingdom SOVEREIGN - adjective 1a: superlative in quality b: of the most exalted kind : SUPREME sovereign virtue c: having generalized curative powers a sovereign remedy d: of an unqualified nature : UNMITIGATED sovereign contempt e: having undisputed ascendancy : PARAMOUNT 2a: possessed of supreme power a sovereign ruler b: unlimited in extent : ABSOLUTE c: enjoying autonomy : INDEPENDENT sovereign states 3: relating to, characteristic of, or befitting a supreme ruler : ROYAL a sovereign right God’s Word and the BIBLICAL DEFINITION of sovereignty will not bend to your lower view of His sovereignty. God will not be put in a man made box. Sovereignty= Supreme Power and Authority God is definitely sovereign by the BIBLICAL AND TRUE DEFINITION OF SOVEREIGNTY and not by man’s definition imposed upon it in order for it to suit a certain systematic. God is in complete 100% control of everything. That doesn’t mean He’s meticulously controlling everything.
@@apilkey Based on your comments to me on another post, I don't need to engage you more than this one time. You blatantly said I don't want to be sharpened, which I found extremely offensive. You don't know my walk with the Lord or my struggles with doctrine and your previous comments to me were completely unnecessary. So if you want to reply after this, you can do so, but I don't need to respond further than this. You wrote, "You can’t just hi-Jack the definition of sovereignty and give it our own definition to fit your beliefs. " I am not giving it my own definition. The definition comes from scripture; as a Christian, that is where I get it from. You can define many things about God from a human definition and it will be found lacking. Love, grace, mercy, etc. can all have good definitions, but they don't do justice to God's love, grace, and mercy in the scriptures. In the same way, sovereignty is defined not by who God is (which is King, Creator, and Sustainer of all things; Isaiah 33:22 and Colossians 1:15-17 are a set of verses that bear this out), but by what God does. Proverbs 16:4 says, "The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." Proverbs 16:9 says, "A man's heart deviseth his way: but the Lord directeth his steps." Proverbs 19:21 says, "There are many devices in a man's heart; nevertheless the counsel of the Lord, that shall stand." Proverbs 21:1 says, "The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whitersoever he will." Psalm 135:6-7 says, "Whatsoever the Lord pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places. He causeth the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings for the rain; he bringeth the wind out of his treasures." In Hannah's glorious song to the Lord in 1 Samuel 2, verse 6-7 says, "The Lord killeth, and maketh alive; he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up. The Lord maketh poor, and maketh rich: he bringeth low; and lifteth up." In Daniel 4:30-37, we get a comparison of man's so called sovereignty and what God thinks of it, verse 30 says, "The king (which is Nebuchadnezzar) spake, and said, Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of my kingdom by the might of my power, and for the hounour of my majesty?" And Neb's conceit and disobedience to the Daniel's earlier warning (Daniel 4:24-25, and by the way, verse 24 says it is a decree from God) brought punishment from God; He made Neb like an animal. When Neb came back in his right mind, he said in verses 34-35, "And at the end of the days, I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation: And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" It would seem King Nebuchadnezzar knew who was in sovereign control, enough to violate his will and make him act like an animal against this will. I could also mention Genesis 50:20, where Joseph told his brothers what they meant for evil, God meant for good. Notice, like the other verses where God is the subject and the verb phrases are what He did, while Joseph brothers meant (had intent to their actions), God meant for something different. In Acts 2:23, we see God's foreknowledge and determined counsel for the death of Jesus Christ, but the same verse ascribes it to wicked hands, showing sinful man's moral responsibility. Ephesians 1:4 says God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world, which is before Genesis 1:1, which means God's actions are not determined by anything but His own will. Acts 13:48 says "as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." Notice the action of man believing is based on being ordained. Acts 5:31, 11:18, and 2 Timothy 2:25 actually says God gives/grants repentance. And there is also Romans 8:29-30 and all of Romans 9. There are so many verses in scripture that shows God sovereign control in concert with man's decisions. It doesn't make man a puppet at all, but it shows that there is an infinite, eternal, self-existent God that is the first cause of all things. I hope and pray you take the time to study and meditate on these verses further. Finally, you asserted, "God’s Word and the BIBLICAL DEFINITION of sovereignty will not bend to your lower view of His sovereignty. God will not be put in a man made box." I totally agree that God isn't put in a man made box, but I never would do that. I define God's attribute of sovereignty based on the verses I gave and so many more that I could have mentioned. You assert many things about my intent or character that is shameful. I find it easy for Christians to type up comments on a CZcams page and completely forget about the fruit of the Spirit. This is the only reason why I will not go further with you because I will confess that snarkiness and sarcasm hits my emotion buttons and I find myself ready to respond in kind. I will not continue to comment when I feel the other person is doing more provoking than sharpening. Think what you want about me, but my twenty years of being a Christian is not defined by your view of me because we disagree on doctrine. I'm sure you love the Lord and want to serve Him with gladness. When you go into comment sections, it would be prudent to go back and forth with a believer just as if your speaking face to face. And if you want to know my true heart about commenting on social media as Christians, here is a video/audio I made back in 2018: czcams.com/video/epNwL8Qnnyw/video.html If you read all of this, then I am grateful you took the time. Contrary to what you may think, I read whatever is posted towards me. I try to navigate through sarcasm and personal attacks to get to the meat of the discussion, and that's what God says. I take 2 Timothy 2:15 and Acts 17:11 completely seriously. I pray in the future you will think hard about the words you type and perhaps your heart behind them. Jesus said, "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love for one another." (John 14:35) This is serious to me because my disagreement is never personal, it is always Biblical because that is the basis of my faith and life. Thank you if you read this and I am done.
@@apilkey Yes, which means if God ordains who is going to be saved before anybody is born He can and does. Which gives God more Glory, all of Salvation of anybody belongs to God alone or Sinful Depraved Man pretending He has the ability without Regeneration from God to choose God. Ezekiel spells it out quite well. Also you say Aaron has hi-jacked the definition of sovereignty but maybe it has been you that has done the Hi-Jacking.
Eric Smith Ironically in your view I was predestined to reply to you the way I did so your problem is not with me it’s with the god you claim to serve. So we’re you offended at God then? Because He apparently determined that I said what I did. So please take your complaints up with him become he has ordained I say everything I did to you. Shake your fist at your god not me. See the lunacy of your beliefs. And referencing multiple passage that speak of Gods sovereignty does NOT mean they mean your twisted definition of sovereignty. No you’re not letting scripture tell you the definition because not once in scripture is it stated that God has determined everything. You continue to pervert and twist scripture to support your man made belief system. You’re ensnared and entangle and don’t have ears to hear. You have already determined in your heart that you will not change. All those verses you referenced do NOT mean that God has to predetermine man’s free choices for them to come to pass. God can determine events to come to pass WITHOUT determining man’s free choices to bring about those events. The sad thing is you don’t see this and don’t believe God is powerful enough to do so.
The main problem with Calvinism and there are many is that if God ordains from the beginning of time that we are going to heaven and hell (before we have performed any actions on earth)and he gives us a sin nature where we cannot even respond or understand the Bible (aka the gospel) unless he supernaturally regenerates us, that makes God insane and the authour of sin since it is God that decrees everything even our own actions. Many have tried to reconcile this saying it is a paradox but this is not a paradox this is a contradiction. James 1 : 13 says When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;. Calvinism is an interesting debate but there is a reason for the vast majority of churches who are Calvinist. when you read the beliefs of a church why the word Calvinism is not present.
_"The main problem with Calvinism ...is that if God... and _*_he gives us a sin nature_*_ ..."_ Calvinists don't claim God gave us a sin nature. God made man very good. It was Adam through his sin that gave us a sin nature.
No man can come unless the Father draws him. Explained without Calvinist glasses on.... The Bible has taught us that The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit are the one true God. Each having a different role with the human race. Yet one God. The Fathers teaches everyone that God exists. Through the creation! Romans1: 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. NO ONE HAS AN EXCUSE. The Father is not the saviour, that is the role of the Son, The Messiah, The Lord Jesus, The Christ! They are taught by the Father as this verse shows: and the Father sends them that believe that God exists to the Son. It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. John 6:45 So when Jesus said that: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. John 6:44 It is simple saying that the Father makes all men aware that God exists and sends those who respond to Jesus. BUT! not all men will respond even though they have no excuse. They know God exists but they made their choice. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools Romans 1:21-22 Paul verifies this to Timothy: This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. 1 Timothy 2 : 3-6 The Holy Spirit comes into play in a special way only once a person whom the Father sends to the Son for salvation. Those who willingly desire to be right with God. Those who Repent and are Baptized. JESUS John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. TRUTH IN LOVE
I think your perception of God being sovereign is limited as you stated "before we have performed any actions on earth", The thing is that God being all knowing foreknows what you are already going to do. Nothing surprises him. So whatever you do tomorrow morning, it has already happens in Gods eyes. So by this he can does choose because he already knows your choice. The concept is very simple.
Answer this... If God created ALL things, even the nothing then what part of ALL things (like time, space, thought and even consciousness) did He not create to give you the free will you say you have over that creation. And if God didn’t create it, or has absolute control over it then does that uncontrolled, uncreated existence predate God, or how much power does it have over God other that its will?
What definition of free will are you using? I would point to the Westminster Confession chapter 9 and 3.1 for my definition, which affirma free will such that God established it by what he ordains. There is no freedom from God of course, if that's what you mean.
The human will is not axiomatic to soteriology. “Sovereignty” is a fictitious term. Calvinism is repackaged Augustinian Philosophy rooted in Manacheinism.
Determinism is not biblical mr Greg ??? But Scripture teach that God do all things accordingly to is Will and you know what? THIS IS GOD DETERMINISM and the names of all the elects TO COME ARE WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF LIFE of the Lamb. Those who are not DESTINED to eternal life ( not conditional life here) will have their names ERASED from the book of life because they do not have eternal life that we obtain IN Christ trough Faith alone (not trough choice alone) Nobody can resist God call and only THE GOOD EARTH will see the seed of life and love growing in them and they will produce through the work of the Spirit in them MANY GOOD FRUITS ! THEY ARE THE VASES OF GLORY CREATED FOR ETERNAL LIFE. THE OTHER HAVE BEEN CREATED FOR GOD WRATH trough God judgement. This is the double predestination.
GREETINGS. WRONG, WRONG, AND WRONG. EZEKIEL 33:11 "SAY TO THEM, ‘AS SURELY AS I LIVE, DECLARES THE SOVEREIGN LORD, I TAKE NO PLEASURE IN THE DEATH OF THE WICKED, BUT RATHER THAT THEY TURN FROM THEIR WAYS AND LIVE. TURN! TURN FROM YOUR EVIL WAYS! WHY WILL YOU DIE, PEOPLE OF ISRAEL?" GOD WANTS THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL TO TURN FROM THEIR EVIL WAYS AND LIVE. IT MAKES IT SO CRYSTAL CLEAR GOD HASN'T PREDESTINED THE ISRAELITES GOING TO HEAVEN OR HELL. IF MY OMNIPOTENT AND OMNISCIENT GOD WANTS THE ISRAELITES TO TURN THEIR WICKED WAYS AND LIVE. WHY DOESN'T GOD MAKE THE ISRAELITES CHANGE THEIR WICKED WAYS. HE CAN IF HE WASN'T TO IN A HEARTBEAT. PERSON FREEWILL IS THE ONLY ANSWER. GOD BLESS YOU.
@@michelhaineault6654 I WILL ELUCIDATE MY POINTS SO CLEAR IN A VERY FACILITATING WAY. THIS MESSAGE WON'T BE VAGUE TUT-TUTTING BEWILDERING FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND!!! I CERTAINLY HOPE NOT LOL. MY HOLY, RIGHTEOUS, LOVING, JUST, AND MERCIFUL GOD DIED FOR THE SINS OF THE "WHOLE" WORLD. THE BIBLE TELLS US, “[JESUS] IS THE ATONING SACRIFICE FOR OUR SINS, AND NOT ONLY FOR OURS BUT ALSO FOR THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD.” (1 JOHN 2:2) IS JESUS ATONING SACRIFICE FOR THE SINS OF THE WHOLE (HOLOU) WORLD (KOSMOU)? THE GREEK WORD ACTUALLY MEANS COSMOS OR UNIVERSE. FOREKNOWLEDGE AND PREDESTINATION ARE 2 VERY DISTINCT MEANINGS. MY OMNISCIENT GOD FOREKNOWS WHO HAS ACCEPTED OR REJECTED HIS FREE GIFT OF SALVATION MARK 14:18. MATTHEW 7:13-14 ALSO MAKES IT CRYSTAL CLEAR. MY GOD MAY CHOOSE OR ELECT CERTAIN PEOPLE FOR HIS GLORY, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN HE HAS PREDESTINED OR DAMMED ALL OTHERS TO HELL. THANK YOU AND MY LORD GOD BLESS YOU. JOHN 3:16-18
@@mercibeaucoup2639 Wrong Jesus die for the ones the Father gave him, also Jesus did not pray for the world : I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world (so he did not die for all men) but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them. (John 17.9-10) Jesus tells the Jews that the atonement is not for them. He limits the extent of his sacrifice : But you do not believe because you are not of my sheep. (John 10:26) Remember, Jesus has already told us that he is dying for his sheep (John 10:15). But right here he tells them that they cannot hear his words (they do not believe) because they are not of his sheep. The Lord is saying that his death is for those who are his sheep, and they will hear his voice. In other words, Jesus’s death is for the elect and not for those who will not believe.
@@michelhaineault6654 THAT IS ONLY YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION. OBJECTIVE FACT. 1 JOHN 2:2 “2 HE IS THE ATONING SACRIFICE FOR OUR SINS, AND NOT ONLY FOR OURS BUT ALSO FOR THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD.” REMEMBER, I’M NOT HERE TO CHANGE YOUR TULIP THEOLOGY IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM. I’M ACTUALLY HERE FOR OTHER PEOPLE READING OUR MESSAGES TO DETERMINE IF MY GOD REALLY DIED FOR THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD. GOD BLESS YOU.
I am listening to Wilson’s opening and I don’t understand how anyone didn’t see the contradictions in it. He says in one hand that God meticulously controls every aspect of every decision and yet claims that everyone needs to be ready to change their opinion on scripture if they are shown they are wrong through scripture. While I would agree with this later point I don’t see how he can conclude this is even possible given the former. Under Wilson’s concept of meticulous determinism, I can only change my opinion on my interpretation of scripture if and only if God has decreed it. I cannot do it in my own. And God’s decree can never change so what is the point of this argument?? It is completely nonsensical
The contradiction is the incompatiblism you are bringing in from outside. Wilson is a compatiblist, and so sees no inheirant contradiction between God as the ultimate cause and ordainer of all things; and within that God establishing human freedom and the liberty and contingency of second causes. I'm not sure what you mean by "Wilson's" concept of meticulous determinism, as "meticulous determinism" is language I see more often used by anticalvinists to import a concept that doesn't match the confessional position Wilson is defending here.
@@oracleoftroy you can say that he sees no contradiction but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t one. It is like saying A=B and B=C and yet A doesn’t equal C. You can claim because of some made up belief in your part that you don’t see a contradiction but there is in fact still a contradiction whether you admit it or not.
@@mjsabie8517 And likewise, you can insist that there is a contradiction, but without putting forth an argument, it's hard to see why anyone should just take your side. Perhaps you could go the next step and make a case?
@@oracleoftroy I actually already did make a case. Saying that God meticulously controls all of my actions and decisions and also claiming that I should be prepared to change my mind about something is nonsensical. If God controls/decrees all of my decisions then I cannot prepare myself to change my mind unless God has decreed that I will. They are two contrasting points and both cannot be true. If one is true then the other is not.
@@mjsabie8517 _"Saying that God meticulously controls all of my actions and decisions ..."_ I'm not saying that. _"If God controls/decrees all of my decisions..."_ You are equating two ideas that Calvinists distinguish. You have control of your decisions because God decreed it to be that way. You can't do anything outside of God's decree, only because God decreed it. Hold your breath by your own free will (or don't, your choice). You choice to hold or not hold is because God decreed that you would have a physiology that includes lungs and a mouth and that there would be air to breath etc. Within that system God decreed, you can breath as you want, but you can't just freely take in what you need by breathing water like a fish, that is outside of God's decree for humans. The issue is you are treating God's decree like it is a hard deterministic statement and not as Reformed Christians confess it, something that establishes the contingency and liberty of the creature and second causes.
I decided to watch this video because I've watched other Douglas Wilson videos on eschatology and I think he's right on . I especially like his commentary on the book of Revelation. Prior to this debate, I had never heard of Steve Gregg, and I was sure the reformed ideas were absolutely true. I had watched many RC Sproul and James White videos, and I had read books, including "Chosen by God". However, I thought Steve Gregg was more persuasive in this debate, and decided to watch his many videos on Calvinism. I've now watched them all, including his debate with James White, and think he has better ideas about God's sovereignty. I no longer think Calvinism is true. One last thing that's a bit unrelated...I think RC Sproul is the best teacher I've ever listened to, even if I think he's wrong on this. He was truly gifted in his ability to teach in easy-to-understand ways.
The pennies analogy was became ridiculous when Doug said because GOD knew where and how the pennies would land means that GOD determined where and how they would land . How anyone can't see a problem with that logic is just crazy .
Misinterpretation of "calvinism" . Correct interpretation "Every good thing a man does God made him do every wicked thing a man does man made himself do" . This is so that men will be humble . The Bible is full of men who did both good and wicked deeds. David is a very good example . David as child believed in God so much that he stood against the most deadly man on earth yet when he became king he murdered a man so that he could have his wife and he was not forgiven for it either. He plead for his life not for his family so God gave him his life which had became filthy but he lost his family. So yes God determines every good thing and man determines every wicked thing by the temptation of his heart.
How can souls' deeds be judged at the Great White Throne Judgment or the Judgment Seat of Christ if there were no free will and the souls' acts had been predestined? That'd make it a sham, a kangaroo court! No, God is JUST!
The angel asked:
On what basis are you here (Heaven)? The thief that was on the cross responded:
The man on the middle cross said “I can come”
- Alistair Begg
Never happened lol, Jesus atoned for his sin on the cross
@@wellactually21 I think you missed the point
Yes but the man had to ask
Kindest debate I’ve ever listened to. Lol if only every debate could be between two men who respect each other even though they disagree.
I was just listening to this on the Cannon app. The full one isn't there. Do I still need to purchase it or is there a full version there somewhere?
I was just reading Proverbs 16 this morning and see 4-5 verses that clearly show his sovereignty. A man plans his way but the LORD directs his steps, The LORD works out everything to its proper end- even the wicked for a day of disaster. In their hearts humans plan their course, but the LORD establishes their steps.The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD
Over and over throughout scripture shows the absolute sovereignty of God
Yes beautiful scripture and very well put. Thank you. I became conflicted as I read about God hardening Pharaohs heart and was troubled trying to deconflict God as the Author of Evil. Proverbs 16 as well as Joseph and his comment about his brothers actions helped me to understand that it isn't one will's battle for supremacy over and against another. Rather it is more like the action taken and the intentions behind it. "What you intended for evil (same activities) God intended for good". Also the Pharisees and romans guilt at the unjust cruxificiton of Jesus (same activity) God's redemptive plan for man accomplished. #Calvinism
@@dmustakasjr same exact thing here with Joseph and Pharoah. Its interesting as though the holy spirit determined we might be convicted through those examples haha. Seriously though those 2 examples end the author of evil nonsense. God intended those actions for good, but the brothers intended those actions for evil. Its the difference between self defense and murder. Intention in a court of law just like pauls examples of a law court in regard to justification and such
@@repentorperish1386 Thats 100 right there. Thank you.
@@dmustakasjr i just think its crazy how they keep saying author of evil when the bible tells us exactly how he is not the author of evil with joseph and Pharoah and the Assyrians
Funny, the same scriptures that Steve Gregg used to defend his position
This is fascinating (and a little humorous) to listen through, having been listening to James White dealing with another Wilson (Ken) on the idea of Manichaeism and Augustine.
Please listen to Flowers rebuttals. I haven't missed an episode by either Flowers or White and I am very disappointed with Whites misrepresentations and constant failures to address the true issues.
God Bless
@@lukusmaximus It's amazing this is the conclusion you came to. White is just reading Augustine. He doesn't even need to say anything of his own. Ken Wilson is a fraud and Flowers is getting dangerously close to full on plegianism. I would be cautious friend.
@@lukusmaximus zoinks.
retroGRAD3 ya exact White is “just reading Augustine”, in other words he’s interpreting him how he wants and citing his OWN OPINIONS of other sources.
Wilson references REFORMED SOURCES that disagree with you so are you going to give your same warning to those guys as well?
Is James White’s OPINIONS the ultimate authority now?
@@retrograd332 You, by your comments have either just shown your ignorance or that you are a product of Whites rhetoric and misrepresentations.
Pelagius = You can come to God on your own without any divine assistance.
Flowers = You can only come to God by the Grace of God. Flowers would say that the Grace of the Gospel is sufficient to save.
These two are vastly different.
White has spent a great deal of time on the Augustinian Manichaeism alleged here. Then at 1:13 and forward, listen as Doug allows his opponent to tangle himself up in his inconsistencies. I had to laugh, smh, and yell "YA JUST WON'T LET GO, WILL YA?!!" Doug: "So basically MY WILL is something that can negate every protection in this chapter? So what good's the chapter? What comfort is it? Is it a faith in God or a faith in your will?" Nice respectful debate. Thank you, gentlemen!
Is the full debate (in the link) video too or just audio as well?
Hey Brother, imagine catchin' You here! Lol
You speak with Mr. Flowers yet? i jave a question for Ya on a different format. Keep Persevering till the end with Great Endurance, Brother!
Very good debate. Doug's presentation was very helpful.
Maybe it goes south fast, as I'm only an hour in, but I love the Christian brotherhood displayed by these two men! They are cordial, yet disagreeing. They crack jokes, but respect each other. I wish the stuff going on between flowers and white would be this loving and helpful. The guys in this debate aren't talking past each other, but to each other.
@KTTGHMTJWYCBLAC BUT (interesting name btw) Flowers insists that he's only responded to White. I'm a regular viewer of the dividing line and really like James White. James took some getting used to for me years ago because of his intensity. The fact that this debate was friendly was all I was pointing out.
@KTTGHMTJWYCBLAC Maybe I am making Blaise's point, but I have the opposite view! Flowers argues against White's Calvinistic view, but he does to not attack White personally and sees him as a Christian brother. It is White who has a condescending attitude.
Neither is biblical Calvinism. To say that you can’t love someone and speak seriously if you joke at all is kinda weird if you’re trying to say that.
@@jcthomas3408 There's some truth there, but I think it stems from White's dubious approach, when it comes to Leighton's claim of having spent years as a Calvinist. The way Leighton frames even the most rudimentary aspects of reformed theology, betrays not merely disdain, but ignorance on a level that is hard to justify, if one has supposedly spent years imbibing reformed theology. White is rightly skeptical of Flowers because of this and I get it.
@@heartofalegend you must not watch the same videos I watch. Check out the recent one where Leighton reviews the debate between Steve Gregg and James White. White tries to attack Gregg every time he can't justify his own view instead of responding to the debate question.
1:15:34
Doug, "So basically my will is something that can negate every protection in this chapter."
Craig: "Yes."
Doug: "So what good is the chapter? What comfort is it?"
Craig: "It's a great comfort to me because _I_ don't expect any of those things to overpower _MY_ will because _I_ have the choice, _I_ don't have to renounce Christ."
That's not a comfort to me at all because if it's up to me and my choices through life to continue in salvation, well, I don't know what I'll be thinking 5 or 10 or 50 years down the road. I'm fickle and change my thinking about different things within one day - God is the unchanging though, the same yesterday, today, and forever. I'm only comforted if I'm saved by His choice alone.
There’s zero comfort at all in reformed theology.
How do you not know God has predestined you to fall away from the faith later on in life and it be said of you that you never actually truly believed?
How do you know that God has not predestined you to be deceived right now into thinking you’re saved?
How do you not know God has predestined you to become a reprobate later on in life and predestined that you actually didn’t truly believe.
Aaron Pilkey I know I am born again because I have been born again. Look at John 3:8, "The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit" (NIV). Dr. Roy Beaman, the outstanding Baptist preacher and professor of the last century, noted the following three points about this illustration Jesus made:
1.) Both the wind and the New Birth are sovereign: "wherever it pleases."
2.) Both are mysterious: "cannot tell." You cannot explain all about the New Birth any more than you can the direction and source of the wind. The New Birth is a mystery, even to the admiring heart of the saint; how much more a puzzle and an enigma to the men of the world.
3.) Both may be known: "You hear its sound." We can see, hear, and feel the effects of the wind. One KNOWS when he is born again just like he knows when the wind is blowing, though he can't explain it in minute detail. Such a great and gracious transaction cannot take place in the soul without one's knowing it and even the world can test the genuineness of Christian faith by the way a Christian lives.
GWCinstitute You have no clue if you’ve been predestined to be deceived.
John 3:8 does not disprove that fact.
GWCinstitute Q: Where does the wind blow?
A: EVERYWHERE!
The only way your points support your doctrine is if somehow the wind didn’t go everywhere.
EVERYMAN feels the effects of the wind and he doesn’t need to know where it comes from in order to feel it’s effects so that has nothing to do with it.
The point is just as the wind blows everywhere do does the Holy Spirit.
Do you not believe the Holy Spirit is doing His job properly???
JOHN 16:7-9
7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
8 And when he is come, HE WILL REPROVE THE WORLD OF SIN, AND OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, AND OF JUDGMENT:
9 OF SIN, BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE NOT ON ME;
Aaron Pilkey The wind doesn't blow everywhere. If it did, sailors couldn't go anywhere but in circles. The wind may blow strongly to the North for a while, and then shift to Northwest, or may stand still for a period of time not blowing at all. Also, God doesn't predestine anyone to be deceived. All people are ALREADY deceived because of Adam's sin. God merely in his infinite wisdom speaks light in the darkened hearts of his saints bringing about the new creation in the same way as the first creation (2 Corinthians 4:3-6; Gen. 1:1). All people are deceived and those who aren't deceived are in such a state because they have been saved by God's grace alone. No one deserves to be undeceived; such would make grace merited.
I listened to some debate by a guy, I think his name was James White..LOL
D N Rowe, I am about thirty minutes into this debate and was floored when Gregg said that Calvinists go to verses and say, "See here," and just proof text, right after he mentioned White. I don't know if he watched White debate Dr. Leighton Flowers on Romans 9; White went verse by verse beginning at the end of Romans 8 and took the twenty minutes he had to exegete the text; it was Dr. Flowers that actually debated against the theology of Calvinism and jumped all over Romans 9 (actually beginning near the end). I'm watching a series of messages on Ephesians 1 and 2 on line by a pastor (whose name escapes me right now) and he has taken weeks to go over a few verses in order.
Gregg made many assertions in his opening, but just saying verses don't support reformed theology doesn't mean he's right. I'm going to keep listening and see if he elaborates more.
That was gold! 😂
@@2timothy23
That's absolutely correct. I call it Bible bingo. They jump from verse to verse then shout bingo!
All of them do it. Never talked to one that didn't. Never talked to one that went verse by verse line by line following the flow of thought. They wouldn't do that when reading the newspaper but they do it when reading The Bible.
That's why James white says that they create a lot of Calvinist. People listen to what they say then they just go read it. Doesn't match up.
@@billyr9162 You are right to call it Bible bingo. And I also agree that we would never read other written works that way (I tell my wife that all the time). I believe some of these folks are sincere about trying to interpret scripture, but the problem they have with these doctrines is just what you described. They read a particular verse they don't like and try to go outside of it to show that it is saying something different though the context doesn't dictate it.
Two quick examples. I actually heard Leighton Flowers take the prepositional phrase "in him" in Ephesians 1:4 and separate it from the context of the verse. He asked, "How do we get in him?" His answer basically, "We choose to believe in him." My jaw dropped. Then there's the infamous Romans 9:13 verse where Jacob and Esau stands for Israel and Edom based on context of Malachi 1:2-4. The whole of Romans 9 gives a starting point in verse 6 and works from there, but unfortunately many won't let the Apostle Paul use the Old Testament verses in the context in which he is using in his inspired writing. You make a jumbled mess out of scripture when your interpretation fits your own traditions or leanings instead of letting the text speak for itself based on content, context, and grammar.
This is the reason why I thought it was silly and illogical for Gregg to give that "see here" analysis when I've seen the biggest opponents of reformed theology actually do that. And I get it; these doctrines are hard to swallow from a perspective of pride and how we may have been taught in our churches, so I understand no one is going to accept these truths immediately (I certainly didn't; it took two years of wrestling with the verses), but if you prayerfully read the whole of the Bible with 2 Timothy 2:15 and Acts 17:11 in mind, you will find comfort, rest, and peace in knowing God is God and that God is always good.
@@2timothy23
Yep.
Steve Gregg dug himself hole after hole in this one.
Spiritually and intellectually stimulating, thank you….I’m still a Calvinist, 😎
lol!
Think a second time...
I have been ‘thinking’ for quite some time about this, raised Armenian, discovered Calvinism through my own study, and deep contemplation.
@majorintherepublick5862 arminianism is not the opposite of calvinism. They're basically the same. Bible believing Christianity reject total depravity, which is only singular depravity because there's only one thing calvinists and arminians say man can't do.
I interpret your stance to mean that our Merciful YHWH predestined whom would be welcomed into His Kingdom, with the rest of us merely superfluous fillers used toward "the chosen" fulfilling their destinies. That our Saviour YAHSHUA would lie by omission. YHWH wants hearts turned perfectly toward HIM, that have made a decision to follow our Messiah voluntarily, so our Elohim knows it is in truly loving HIM that we've made that decision.
This arminian guy is incredible. He can look at white and say "look! It's black!". Absolutely astounding.
that's what they do
Yep. Good analogy. That’s the only way Arminianism can be consistently supported by Scriptures.
Arminianism is rationalizing scriptures to fit pagan libertarian freewill philosophy
In context 'calamity' is judgement and it's always for the best overall for His universe, right? Could God have put the world here knowing things could have turned out a few different ways but He knew how each way could have turned but some things He made unalterable. His plan cant be thwarted. What do you the elders think if you dont mind my inquiring?
I just subscribed😎
Gregg's interactions in the cross examination was painful lol
Isn't it funny how on Gregg's channel, folks who heard the same exchange we did, come away thinking Gregg dominated? I'm telling you (and I believe this 100%) that folks are going by whose argument resonates better with their human sensibilities, and mistaking that for whose argument harmonizes best with the whole of Scripture. The more of these debates I hear, the more I become convinced of that.
“Calvinism is the Gospel and nothing else.” - Charles Spurgeon
There is no Gospel in Calvinism.
If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse! (Galatians 1:9)
🙄
But Calvin killed everyone who disagreed, wake up real Jesus followers!
Thats tragic
This is mind blowing to me. Somehow I agree with pretty much everything both of them said.
Likewise!
Excellent point.
James White is right when he says it is the cross examination time when the rubber meets the road. Pastor Doug did an excellent job.
For a guy that only wants to exegete and not use philosophical reasoning, Gregg sure does use a lot of reasoning to hold to "free will" during the cross examination.
How about citing veres that say man has a neutral free will? Good luck finding that needle.
Steve's arguments melted like butter under cross examination.
Calvinism can only be arrived at if first presupposed
@@coryalbright9798 words like "predestined and chosen" must be neutered of any real meaning to escape from the inevitable conclusion of the reading of Scripture that salvation is entirely of the Lord's Sovereign choice.
"Before having done good or evil, Jacob I loved, Esau I hated".
Free will is only seen through western eyes that value individualism and human autonomy.
@philipmurray9796 no, predestination and election csn be allowed to mean what they say for the non calvinist. Predestination in ephesians 1 is to the adoption which is the redemption of the body, a future event. Election is almost always to service and blessing. Believers are chosen in Him, not chosen to be in Him. No one is chosen outside of Him. How do you get in Him? Faith, receiving the free gift.
If you just accept the text for what it says, without assuming calvinism, you'll quickly discover calvinism can't be found in scripture.
The jacob and essau passage is always eisegeted by calvinists. Will you use that same hermeneutical approach on Jesus words when he says to hate your mother? No, you won't because calvinists step out of discovery mode everytime they find a fitting proof text. You ignore context of various proof texts and cram man made theology into the bible.
@@coryalbright9798 did Pharaoh have the same opportunity to trust in the Lord and be saved as did Moses?
@philipmurray9796 your talking about pre cross events and relating it to salvation of church age gentiles. This is a reason calvinists have so many problems with their theology.
I dont believe all men everywhere from all time have the exact same opportunities in front of them. What the text doesn't say though is that Pharoah was predestined to damnation. That's what the calvinist takes from the text though.
Anyone complaining about Calvinists/Reformed Christians asserting the Absolute Predestination of God, simply ask yourselves ONE QUESTION:
How does God know stuff?
That is, if God is Omni-prescient (knowing all things beforehand; His exhaustive foreknowledge being infallible) HOW is it that God possess this attribute?
Molinists assert that God's omni-presience is DEPENDENT upon the creation and the decisions that creatures make, for His knowledge!
Dr. William Lane Craig has explicitly assert this nonsense...so has Pastor Mike Winger (both Molinists).
What about the "God is outside of time" view of God's omni-prescience?
This doesn't answer the question about how God knows stuff.
More information must be given.
Typically, these folks will answer by claiming an Empiricist Epistemology on the part of God.
That is, their answer is that 'God knows stuff because He sees, looks on, or, observes all things as one "eternal now"'.
This is pure Empiricism at its worst: that God knows stuff through sensory perception.
This view also makes God's knowledge DEPENDENT upon His creation for His knowledge of it; because, without the object of one's sensory perception the subject [God, in this case] could NOT know it.
Again, BOTH Molinism and the "eternal now" view assert that God's knowledge is DEPENDENT upon His creation/creatures for His knowledge of it/them.
The Reformed, however, have answered the question as to 'how God knows stuff' sufficiently, by stating that omni-prescience in God is an essential attribute of His. And, like all the essential attributes of God, it stems from HIMSELF ALONE!
God knows all things that would happen in His creation because He chose it to be so...He foreordained whatsoever would come to pass in His creation.
God was never dependent upon His creation/creatures for His knowledge of it/them. Rather, it is the creation which is completely and utterly dependent upon Him for their knowledge of any true thing.
Hope this helps.
*Soli Deo Gloria*
Brilliant. Thank you.
Ryan Gallmeier
Awesome insight!
I once heard a pastor say that in order for God to have foreknowledge He either looked through time and LEARNED what would happen or He knows because He DECLARED it. And being that God is INFINITE in His attributes and CANNOT LEARN ANYTHING. He obviously declared it to be so.
@@theeclecticcollective8279
Absolutely correct!
The pastor you listened to was spot-on accurate.
The fact that God's omni-prescience stems from Himself ALONE maintains what is known as the "Aseity of God" (what God is in-and-of Himself).
*Soli Deo Gloria*
@@theeclecticcollective8279 Excellent insight. God is unchanging; thus, he never learns anything new. There is no shadow of turning with him. He knows all because all happens according to his perfect and holy plan.
@@TrueLifeAdventures
Seems you are implying that God DIDN'T know what would actually happen in this case. This, of course, would be very much in line with the heresy of Open Theism.
Is that the position you hold?
I finally was able to listen to this whole debate; very cordial and both men did their best to present their positions. Though I don't like every way Wilson presented his side, I believe his view is more Biblical than Gregg's because of many things Gregg said that violates scripture. If I misrepresent him, then I apologize, but this is a quick summary of some things I heard him say:
1) God creates all things (Genesis 1:1, Colossians 1:15-17), but he doesn't determine all things. Yet a prayerful reading of Isaiah 46:9-11 shows that God declares the beginning from the end and in that same verses says His counsel will stand and He will do all His pleasure. In verse 11 gives two examples of an animal (bird) and a man being called to do His counsel and ends with "I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it." (verse 11) Notice the cause and effect. God speaks and He brings it to pass. He purposed and He will do it. All of the verb and verb phrases are done by God, showing He is the first cause. There are many other verses that say this as well, but Gregg basically dismissed them because (in his mind) the Bible doesn't "say that" based on the objections to the verses more so than what the verses say. He says the Calvinist system is man-made, but he actually leans on his own understanding or relies on man-made philosophies to avoid what many verses say, and this violates Proverbs 3:5 and Colossians 2:8.
2) He says man is predestined to the "airplane" of salvation. In other words, the airplane has a destination, but we have to get on board. So God is only the captain or pilot of the plane, but it is up to us to jump on it with our own free will. This is the reason he could ask about a verse in Ephesians 1:4-13 and say that we're not predestined to salvation, but only predestined to adoption, etc. What he is missing is that these set of verses are actually one whole statement in the Greek and are interconnected. So when verse 4 says God chose us in Him (Christ) before the foundation of the world, everything from then on is a work of God. He begins by choosing us in Christ (which is salvation) and everything else, predestinating us to adoption, redeeming us, sealing us, etc. is all part of God choosing us to salvation. Even Acts 13:48 ends with "as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." God did the ordaining that led to the belief.
3) When pressed about man's will (particularly about the comforting promise of Romans 8:35-39), he basically dodged the question by not telling us if he could be separated by God's love of his own will? This is crucial. If man has the libertarian free will that I hear so much about, then based on that view man should have the freedom to leave Christ. You can't say man is free to do whatever he wants before salvation, but that doesn't stick after salvation. And notice our assurance in Christ is not based on us, but by Christ and God the Father according to Jesus' own words in John 10:27-29. In fact, we are not even able to come to Christ without the Father drawing us (John 6:36-44), without us first being His sheep (John 10:26 clearly says the audience Jesus spoke to believed not because they were not His sheep; again cause and effect), and our godly sorrow that leads to repentance (2 Corinthians 7:10) is a repentance given/granted by God (Acts 5:31, 11:18, 2 Timothy 2:25). Just asserting these verses don't say what they say doesn't make it true if the content, context, and grammar dictates it.
Gregg is articulate and uses logic based on his objections, but not based on scripture. His faulty premise of his logic is "I don't like what that says, so it can't be true because I think it makes God the author of evil and man a puppet." These are arguments that many objectors have, but when you start with your objections and own logic (based on that premise), you either have to ignore many verses, redefine many verses, or just make blanket assertions that they're not true. And in doing so, we belittle God's attributes (to fit our reasoning) and elevate finite man to abilities the Bible says he doesn't possess. It eventually leads to open theism or molinism to find an "escape."
Yes!
Yes, very well stated. I think of it this way -- this kind of debate gets wearysome and maddening because it's often a practice in listening to the Arminian say we're all standing on our heads, while he's standing on his.
1:16:26 😂🤣🔥
BIG OOF
Steve Gregg's definition of sovereignty is from a human perspective and therefore very limited. As Solomon relays to us: "The king’s heart in the hand of Jehovah is as brooks of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will." Nebuchadnezzar also grew to understand the same as he testifies in the 4th chapter of Daniel: "This sentence is by the decree of the watchers, and the decision by the word of the holy ones: that the living may know that the Most High ruleth over the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men." So that head of gold on the image that he saw in his vision, the highest possible sovereign in all of time among human beings, learned that his sovereignty was nothing when compared with Divine sovereignty.
Yeah. I heard the guy teach that people would be burned in hell to unconscious not forever when clearly there is a specific place in the Bible that says the opposite.
Where is there a chapter and verse that says God gives us free will?
No man can come unless the Father draws him. Explained without Calvinist glasses on....
The Bible has taught us that The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit are the one true God. Each having a different role with the human race. Yet one God.
The Fathers teaches everyone that God exists. Through the creation!
Romans1: 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
NO ONE HAS AN EXCUSE.
The Father is not the saviour, that is the role of the Son, The Messiah, The Lord Jesus, The Christ!
They are taught by the Father as this verse shows: and the Father sends them that believe that God exists to the Son.
It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. John 6:45
So when Jesus said that: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. John 6:44 It is simple saying that the Father makes all men aware that God exists and sends those who respond to Jesus.
BUT! not all men will respond even though they have no excuse. They know God exists but they made their choice.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools Romans 1:21-22
Paul verifies this to Timothy: This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. 1 Timothy 2 : 3-6
The Holy Spirit comes into play in a special way only once a person whom the Father sends to the Son for salvation. Those who willingly desire to be right with God. Those who Repent and are Baptized.
JESUS John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
TRUTH IN LOVE
@@truth7416 that is a horrible back flip when you could have just walked across the line. You are literally adding everything to that verse because you do not like it. Quick question, if some of it is up to you for salvation, what makes you think you will not keep one crown? Also why would God do 99.9 percent of salvation and leave up to you the 0.01 percent for your eternity. The problem with Armeninism is man self indulged nature wants to say he did something. The only thing man will do is condemn his self to hell while completly knowing and rejecting God. There is none good no not one, making a decision is a good act that is explicitly stated that you do not have in you.
@@truth7416 also you are presenting a modelist theology that is considered a heresy. Jesus said if you have seen me you have seen the father. The trinity is not meant to be separated into different modes.
@@bluecollarapologetics1473 You can't see it because you don't choose to see it. Those that come up through the Reformed system are crippled for life. I do hear of a few that escape but that is rare and that is my I bring the truth of Christ to Calvinist sites like this.
Hardliners avoid or hurl that standard calvinist darts. Its easier than considering anything.
YOU are apposing Gods plan of salvation for every human that ever lived.
YOU stand in between God and the object of His love, mankind.
YOU are the ones who object to the little children that are coming to Him.
You will of course ignore this because it takes Spiritual Discernment that only a believer has.
I don't judge your salvation, that is Gods job. But I fear for you.
You say listen to the enemy's teaching then put up and watch this.. "DAVE HUNT WHAT LOVE IS THIS?"
LOVE IN TRUTH
@@truth7416 you a very misinformed, I was not brought up reformed and considered God's election his plan before I understood reformed doctrine. You fear for me on my salvation because of a non salvation doctrine. If you search truth I pray you look harder. Not once have I ever said either side was not saved. But I look to God for my salvation as you choose to look in a mirror. Im guessing you are a JW based on our conversation. I do see my self elect as well as many others do. I pray that you realise your choice will never save you because if it can why have you not kept the law since your birth? Again no man is good no not one which includes you brother, if you are not GOOD by God's standards why do you think your choice is good enough to save you. You may go looking for fights on calvinistic sites but if that is all you are after I feel for your soul.
I highly recommend the sermon "The two Wills of God" by Matt Chandler. Graciously that was my first encounter with deep theology. Matt gives lots of verses and unpacks explanations in an easily understandable way.
@@user-mx3kh8rj1t Yes , thank you for adding that warning. ( I should have)
It is highly disturbing that Chandler has walked away from the gospel. But it is a sober warning to the rest of us, that no matter how seemingly devoted we may be, even the strongest of us can turn to the side.
Much love brother
@@djentile7773 I've heard this my friend . What has Matt done , in what way in has he walked away from the gospel ?
@@cecilspurlockjr.9421 For a while he had got on the social justice bandwagon. I think things are better now at least a little.
Matt Chandler is a woke, CRT affirming fraud .
There are ‘two wills of God”… He has one with different desires. God has a hierarchy of desires. 1) All men to be saved is His highest desire 2) If men refuse to obey the Gospel they will be punished. This is God’s lesser desire as He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.
Calvinism’s ‘two wills’ theory is an inarticulate mess. Having to contrary wills is also known as schizophrenia.
It is an utterly amazing thing to listen to the mental gymnastics that Mr. Gregg contorted himself through during his presentation but even more so during his interplay with pastor Wilson. The problem of theodicy is indeciferable by the human mind, but thanks be to God that the same is not true for God!
Can you give me one example of these “mental gymnastics”?
Thanks.
Evan U do u comment on every Calvinism related video on CZcams? Lol
Over the past year or so of me becoming reformed, I've watched most of the ones I can find, and I think I've seen u in most of the comment sections lol
MansterBear
I don’t like any doctrine that blasphemes the name of God so I certainly do comment on a lot of Calvinist videos.
Would you like to discuss scripture?
MansterBear
Curious what convinced you to become reformed?
Evan U
I don't like any doctrine that places the idol of free will and human sovereignty over Gods.
Strawmen can be fun but not worthwhile.
Strange to quote RC on the matter of Authority and Power... I wonder if he has listen to, watched or read RC Sproul on Free Will. I think he would probably stop using RC as his quoted reference if he had.
Audio only? Who does that these days!? Lol
@@sambray9888 Sam knows what's up
@@sambray9888 If you're interested...go check out my other youtube channel "Spirit and Truth Ministries" where I actually post videos. This is an old channel of mine from 10 year ago.
I wonder if Greg would sing the hymn Blessed Assurance in his church.
Yes we sing Blessed Assurance in our churches. (:
@@donaldstirgus4749
It's a Calvinist hymn isn't it?
@@billyr9162 This is a Calvinist hynm because.......
@@donaldstirgus4749
Written by a calvinist?
Assurance of salvation is Calvin's doctrine
@@billyr9162 so a song is defined by what a person believes who wrote it, that's new on me
How is it that opponents to what is commonly called "Calvinism" claim that it is a doctrine of man inserted into the scriptures, and yet they cannot see that the libertarian view of the freedom of man's will is a rejection of the totality of the teaching of scripture?
Proverbs 20:24 - Man’s steps are ordained by Yahweh
The word translated here as “ordained,” in the Septuagint is the word ευθυνω, which speaks of how the helmsman of a ship guides and directs the ship in the direction he wants it to go.
Read jeremiah 19.5
@@coryalbright9798
In this passage, God declares that it never even entered into His mind to command child sacrifice as a part of legitimate worship of Yahweh. Leighton "Choice Meats" Flowers thinks that this passage means that there is something that God didn't know... Please tell me that you don't take his position?
@lawrencestanley8989 no, he doesn't believe there's something God doesn't know. That's an bad misrepresentation. It says He did not decree it. Therefore calvinism is false.
@@coryalbright9798
No, you should listen more to Flowers, he does indeed believe that there are things that God doesn't know - he is REALLY beginning to go down the "open theology" road.
So, first off, you have failed to define what you mean by "Calvinism." Next, Jeremiah 19:5 doesn't say anything about God's decree, it simply states that God never commanded child sacrifice to be a part of legitimate worship of Yahweh.
This is the problem with Provisionists - they fail to read passages in their context, so they misunderstand the text, then based upon that misunderstanding, they make wild assertions based upon undefined terms, and they make claims about the text that the text doesn't actually say.
@lawrencestanley8989 calvinists operate under the assumption that non calvinists are paradigmattically trapped like they are. I'm not a provisionist. Dr flowers does not believe that. You are getting false information...but that's what calvinism is founded on. You must believe what a calvinist tells you the Bible "teaches" instead of what it says or you'll be a pelagian, synergist etc etc. False dichotomies and fear of falling into various labels.
Read the Bible without presupposing calvinism. It quickly becomes apparent that nothing unigue to calvinism can be found in scripture.
One side is trapped in dictionary definition of sovereignty versus Biblical definition. Specifically stated in his opening and continuously boxes God into that dictionary definition. Does he get his complete idea of God from dictionary verbiage?
Elementary set theory requires that the common characteristics of the elements of the set are what makes the set the set. Therefore if the church, corporate, the set, is elect, it is so because all of the elements of the set are elect; otherwise there is no set. This is the failure of the corporate election argument.
That and they can’t figure out yet a pronoun is.
The debate was won at 1:16:20
Wilson
Your faith is in you believing in Christ.
Greg
If you wish to put it that way but that's not what The Bible says.
Wilson ... right.
He believes in his faith in himself to have believe. And The Bible definitely doesn't say that.
@StAnthony
I'm pretty sure Abraham's faith was in God not "the promise".
@StAnthony
Paul is not giving a history lesson. He is using Abraham to make his point.
Yep. Abraham faith was credited to him as righteousness.
@StAnthony
Abraham's faith was credit to him as righteousness. That's the point.
Abraham had faith in God and it was credited to him as righteousness.
Abraham's faith was not credit to him because he had faith in a promise.
But none of it is really about Abraham. It's about God.
@StAnthony
I don't understand why you're putting the word "in" in. Abrahams faith wasn't "in" the promise of God. He believed what God said because he had faith in God.
Your wording is strange.
Usually when I see people using strange wording is because they're trying to interject their tradition into The Bible
@StAnthony
I'm not suggesting that. You are suggesting that.
@15:19 he references ISAIAH 46:9-10
9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
10 Declaring the end FROM the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, my counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
Just read what the passage says without importing any preconceived assumptions or ideas onto the text.
Let’s ask some basic questions about each verse using the words contained in the verse.
VERSE 9:
Q: Is God God and there is none else; He is God, and there is none like Him?
A: YES!
VERSE 10:
Q: Does God declare the end from the beginning?
Shall all of His counsel stand?
Will He do all of His pleasure?
A: YES!
Ok we both believe all of this so now you must be taking things a step further beyond what the passage actually says and forcing the text to say what it doesn’t say.
You are assuming that in order for all those things to be true that God must be effectually doing them and changing the freewill of men in order to do so.
You’re also assuming that when God says His counsel shall stand, and He will do all His pleasure that that automatically means it’s His pleasure to determine and control everything but that’s NOT what it says at all.
What if God’s purpose and pleasure and counsel is that man has freewill and He chooses not to violate it?
Shall that counsel stand?
Is God allowed to do that or is this verse only true if it’s regarding what you want it to be?
...According to 1 Corinthians 1:21 does it pleased God to save those that BELIEVE:
1 CORINTHIANS 1:21
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that BELIEVE.
Q: According to 1 Corinthians 1:21 does it please God to save those that believe or does it please Him to save people so that then they can then believe after they’re born again?
VS10: God says He declared the END FROM THE BEGINNING.
This verse makes no mention of Him declaring every meticulous little detail in between.
He simply declares the END from the beginning.
He declared when He brought this world into existence and He’ll declare when He brings it to an end.
Reformers like to ADD to this passage and twist it to say that not only does God declare the end from the beginning but He also declares every little detail in between.
But unfortunately that’s NOT what the verse says.
VS10: Verse 10 also clearly states that God will do ALL His pleasures.
Reformers fail to ask the question “WHAT IS GOD’S PLEASURE?”
Well according to the revealed Word of God He is pleased to save all who BELIEVE.
So YES, God will do all His pleasure.
If it’s God’s pleasure to save all who believe then you better believe He’s gonna do just that.
Reformers only believe this verse when God does what they tell Him to do.
Are you putting God in a box and forcing Him to have to violate man’s freewill in order to accomplish anything He wants?
Or can He STILL accomplish anything He wants without violating man’s freewill?
God can call a man to execute His counsel without violating His freewill.
This is not impossible with a truly Sovereign and Omnipotent God.
This verse makes no mention of God controlling people’s wills and emotions.
It simply says God can call a man to execute His counsel.
God is compelling and persuasive enough to accomplish anything He wants without violating man’s freewill and He knows the future so it’s actually quite easy for Him.
@@apilkey I read this and it seems that you are putting God in the box by forcing man to have free will. God is not bound by us. We can not make God bend to our will. Look at Judas, at Nebuchadnezzar, at Saul. All examples of people that God changed their will and changed their desires in order to fulfill his purposes. We can not tell God that he does not have the right to violate our supposed "free will" we can simply bow the knee for we are nothing more than mere humans.
Steve The Wizard no definitely not putting God in a box.
I couldn’t care less about free will.
I care about the Bible and what it teaches and it just so happens to teach freewill so I believe it and submit to it and now my knee to it.
If God in His Sovereignty decides to give man freewill would you bow your knee to that?
@@apilkey Yes I would, but that isn't what scripture teaches. It is man's pride that blinds him to believe he has the power and the will to oppose God. God has control over every aspect of his creation, and he does what he pleases with it for the sake of his name. We can not oppose him because we are his creation. Similarly to how the clay can not oppose the potter who is using it for his purposes. That is what scripture teaches.
Steve The Wizard The clay cannot oppose the Potter but it can cry out to Him for mercy.
God has power to do what he wants with us but if we humble ourselves and repent He will reshape us into a vessel unto honour.
Clay is still mouldable in the Potter’s hand UNTIL HE THROWS IT IN THE KILN and it is permanently hardened.
UNTIL it’s cast into the fire.
***************************************
Hardening does not mean not chosen for salvation
It does NOT say vessels CREATED for destruction but it says vessels FITTED for.
*There’s a difference between being created for something and being fitted for something.*
*************************************
ROMANS 9:20-23
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath FITTED TO DESTRUCTION:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore PREPARED UNTO GLORY,
***************************************
Let’s look at Romans 9 in light of some other passages:
...According to 2 Timothy 2:20,21 if we humble ourselves and repent and purges ourselves then WE SHALL BE A VESSEL OF HONOUR!:
2 TIMOTHY 2:20,21
20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.
21 IF A MAN THEREFORE PURGE HIMSELF from these, HE SHALL BE A VESSEL UNTO HONOUR, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.
***************************************
...According to Jeremiah 18:1-13 the marred vessel REPENTED and so God took it again in His hands and MADE IT A GOOD VESSEL.
IF THE NATION REPENTS then the Lord will relent from the destruction He decreed:
JEREMIAH 18:1-13
1The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying,
2 Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words.
3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels.
4 And the vessel that he made of clay was MARRED in the hand of the potter: SO HE MADE IT AGAIN, as seemed good to the potter to make it.
5 Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying,
6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.
7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
8 IF THAT NATION, against whom I have pronounced, TURN FROM THEIR EVIL, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.
11 Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the Lord; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: RETURN YE NOW every one from his evil way, and MAKE YOUR WAYS AND YOUR DOINGS GOOD.
12 And THEY SAID, There is no hope: but we will walk after our own devices, and we will every one do the imagination of his evil heart.
13 THEREFORE thus saith the Lord; Ask ye now among the heathen, who hath heard such things: the virgin of Israel hath done a very horrible thing.
*God has clearly revealed in His word that He can do whatever He wants with us and He’s also clearly revealed that He’s chosen to reshape us if we repent.*
We must look at Romans 9 in light of the rest of scripture that shows the heart of the Father.
What to do with," we have been pre destined from the foundation of the world
If Calvinism is not biblical I don’t know what is!
At 34:46, no, God is not the "author" of sin, even though He ordains it, but, I don't think that the gentleman quite understands causality. While God is properly said to ordain, and thus be the ultimate cause of all things (Ephesians 1:11, Romans 11:36) -even evil- (cf. 2 Samuel 12:11-12) He is never the proximate, or efficient, cause of evil, and scripture regards only the proximate or efficient cause of evil as the chargeable or blameworthy party.
For example, when wicked men steal Job’s goods, Job recognizes that “Yahweh gave and Yahweh has taken away, blessed be the name of Yahweh” (Job 1:21). The thieves, being the efficient cause of the evil since they were the ones who carried out the deed, are brought on by Satan, the proximate cause of the evil since he was the one into whose power Job was placed and who incited the thieves; they are both guilty of committing evil, but Job doesn’t question the motives of Yahweh, the ultimate cause (cf. Job 1:8, 12, 2:3). This is further substantiated by examining God’s role in sending Joseph into slavery (Genesis 45:5-8, 50:20), in sending Assyria to destroy Israel (Isaiah 10:1-8), and in inciting David to take the census of Israel (2 Samuel 24:1, 10, 15, cf. 1 Chronicles 21:1). In the case of David, we see that (a) God is the ultimate cause of this act, ultimately decreeing that it should be; (b) Satan is a proximate cause, the instrument Yahweh uses to stir up this evil in the heart of David; and (c) David is the efficient cause, having carried it out according to his own sinful inclination, and thus is culpable for the action.
The Biblical writers never hesitate to say that God brings about sin and evil, yet never accuse Him of wrongdoing; while God ordains the evil choices of free moral agents, he does not coerce them; rather, they act according to their own freedom of inclination, and are therefore chargeable for their offense.
The Bible says he causes it, yet he is not the one doing it. People don’t like that.
@@aletheia8054
That's a good way to put it.
@@lawrencestanley8989 But I wouldn’t attack the word freedom to that. It is coercion
@@aletheia8054
Interesting. Job didn't accuse God of coercion.
@@lawrencestanley8989 He called him a despot
If you don’t obey I will punish you, is coercion.
Beating your child to straighten up and obey is coercion.
It's interesting to hear Doug deny the charge of determinism (most Calvinists I know, including many theologians, would happily accept the label), while simultaneously affirming it in his use of "exhaustive sovereignty". This is contradictory. It's telling later on in his back-and-forth Doug asserts that "God determined everything."
This smells bad to reasonable people. My hope is that things like this would encourage one to reexamine the philosophical, soteriological system of Calvinism.
@StAnthony Well, if that is a "redefinition of terms" it is a redefinition that is centuries old now. The Westminster Confession for example says in chapter 3.1 that God ordains whatever comes to pass, but explicitly says that what he ordains establishes man's free will and the contingency of second causes. It even spends a whole chapter on the Reformed understanding of free will in chapter 9. So if anything is a 'redefinition', I submit it is the modern definition that pits free will and theistic determinism at odds with each other, unless we are speculating that Doug has access to a time machine and somehow got changes through all the historic Reformed synods to teach his 'hyper-compatibalism'.
@StAnthony _"The WC attempts a compatibilistic framework unlike the three Forms of Unity, which doesn't directly address the issue of free will. So by no means is compatibalism the Reformed default."_
I do in part prefer the Westminster Confession (and thus the London Baptist Confession) because it spends time explicitly defining the reformed view of man's free will in chapter 9, but the Three Forms of Unity still presume that man has a free will that is compatible with God's determinations all throughout.
E.g. Canon of Dort Third and Fourth main point of Doctrine Article 1) the fall is "by their own free will".
Rejection of the errors 3) They object to "elevating the power of free choice" rather than the very idea of free choice.
It is even clearer in 9) "Who teach that grace and free choice are concurrent partial causes which cooperate to initiate conversion, and that grace does not precede - in the order of causality - the effective influence of the will; that is to say, that God does not effectively help the human will to come to conversion before that will itself motivates and determines itself." Again, notice it never denies that man has a free will, it denies that we dictate or control our salvation by free choice before or concurrent with God's grace.
But the terminology of "free will", "compatibalism", "libertarian" etc is philosophical, and the creeds often favor Biblical language instead. For example, the Belgic confession appeals to biblical language of man being in darkness and being slaves to sin in Article 14: The Creation and Fall of Humanity:
"“The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.” Here John calls the human race “darkness.” Therefore we reject everything taught to the contrary concerning human free will, since humans are nothing but the slaves of sin and cannot do a thing unless it is given them from heaven."
Yet still carefully notice that it doesn't say they reject everything taught concerning human free will, but "everything taught _to the contrary_ concerning human free will."
_"What is idiosyncratic about Wilson is not only does he argue that Free Will is compatible with God's determinations, but his argument emphasizes the foundational nature of theistic determinism for free will and that it actually "increases" our free will. Maybe, this is just a rhetorical flourish by Wilson, but it does have certain implications. This is why I am calling it hyper compatibalism."_
But what exactly is so idiosyncratic about that? That's why I pointed out Westminster Confession 3.1 which says that very ordination of God that governs whatsoever comes to pass is equally and without hint of contradiction said to establish man's free will and the contingency of second causes. Rather than being idiosyncratic with historic Calvinism, at least on this point it would seem Wilson is right in line with the historic position and it is the anti-Calvinist that portrays an idiosyncratic version of Reformed thought not found in the historic confessions.
_"Again, compatibalism is plagued to its core with issues, beyond Wilson's characterization. Primarily surrounding ite its distinction between first and second causes. ... Thus free will in this scheme refers to a type of will that while operating "necessary, freely or contigently" in its secondary causes is very much decreed in its first cause."_
But that is the very nature of compatibalism. It is the thesis that determinism is compatible with free will. You are begging the question for your incompatibalism by pointing out that the confession finds them compatible and scoffing that they should disagree with you, but what is the argument?
It might also be helpful to reflect on what words like 'ordain' and 'decree' actually mean. I notice a lot of non-Calvinists read those words as if they mean 'exhaustive determinism', but that isn't what you will find in the dictionary.
From Merriam-Webster
*ordain* _transitive verb_ sense 2a: "to establish or order by appointment, decree, or law"
_intransitive verb_ to issue an order
*decree* _noun_ sense 1: an order usually having the force of law
_transitive verb_ sense 1: to command or enjoin by or as if by decree
sense 2: to determine or order judicially
This isn't language about meticulously controlling every little thing, but legal language. When applied towards God, it is about how God governs his creation. When a king decrees to build a bridge and ordains one to oversee the operation, the king isn't picking up a hammer to build the bridge directly, nor is he micromanaging every bit of the bridge's construction. That the bridge is build is primarily a result of the king's decree, yet that doesn't negate the leadership of the appointed overseer and the hard work of the engineers and builders whose actually did the work to construct the bridge. Primary and secondary causes very naturally (and from my perspective, obviously) goes hand in hand.
If anything, I would suggest that the redefinition of 'decree' and 'ordain' to be about philosophical meticulous determinism is the idiosyncratic and ahistorical position.
@StAnthony _"It is in fact hyper-compatibalistic in that it takes theistic determinism as generative of free will, also seeing these determinations as expanding the will."_
And I'm pointing out that Wilson's claims are right in line with the historic confessions, which assert that yes, God ordains all things, and yes, that very ordination establishes free will. Our free will didn't come from nowhere and wasn't invented by man, but comes from God.
_"Its beyond compatibilism and into the realm of collapsing one idea into the other. It is no longer to say that free will and determinism are compatible but to say that FW and determinism are the same thing in substance."_
Yet I think Wilson's point is clear, we have free will because God ordains it. It is a denial of libertarian free will, sure, as that theory would demand our will be completely autonomous from God. And sure, it is 'beyond compatibilism' insofar as it is a particular Christian theory and excludes atheistic and other theories that also fall under the umbrella of compatibilism. Our own free will is of the same 'substance' as everything else God determines because free will is one of the things God determined.
_"This maybe rhetorically compelling for those that revel in mystical paradoxes, but most will dismiss this as a nonsense statement ."_
Ok, but saying it is nonsense does not make it nonsense. I get that you don't like it, but why? What exactly is the argument against it? You seem to just be begging the question for incompatibilism. When I or Wilson or the confessions point to determinism, you read that as a denial of free will, and when we affirm free will, you retort that 'Calvinism is deterministic!' as if that denies the possibility of free will in our system. Such replies only make sense if we first assume incompatibilism is true, which is the very issue in dispute.
_"The WC does in fact teach meticulous determinism. (Which is a different topic)"_
What, you are telling me that a compatibalistic document, that is, a document that affirms that both free will and determinism obtain, affirms that determinism obtains? Say it ain't so!
Re WCF 3.1 _""Whatsoever" is an archaic way of saying whatever, which means anything or everything. God ordaining everything is a meticulous view of determinism."_
And the very section you quoted in full says that in ordaining 'whatsoever': "nor is *violence* offered to the *will* of the creatures, nor is the *liberty* or contingency of second causes taken away, *but rather established.* "
I've said it several times now, rather than Wilson offering some novel idiosyncratic theory, he is right in line with the bog standard historic and confessional Calvinism. Your incompatibilism is rendering you incapable of allowing the whole statement to stand.
_"This is further developed in section 5.2 ... All things clarifies the extent of determination. One can not get more meticulous than this."_
And again, this "all" in section 5.2 is carried out "according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely or contingently." That is a compatibilist statement. You are an incompatibilist, so you think pointing out determinism automatically rules out free or contingent second causes, but that is just begging the question. Disagreeing with compatibilism isn't an argument against compatibilism.
_"Again, I understand that contemporary reformed folks seem to think that compatibilism, is a softer form of determinism,.."_
The typical definitions used in philosophy define hard determinism as incompatibilist determinism and soft determinism as a compatibalist determinism. This isn't a reformed thing.
_"...but this simply isn't the case as even BB Warfield conceeds that compatibalism is still a form of hard determinism."_
Citation of Warfield confusing the two?
_"The no true scotsman fallacy is unfortunately a favorite in this neck of the wood."_
Is this when I point to the historic confession and how Wilson seems right in line and you simply retort that he is no true Calvinist? I am pointing to the Westminster Confession as an objective historical and independent criteria for what is Calvinism, what standard are you using?
_"As everyone criticizing calvinism is alway accused of not understanding it or misrepresenting it. This is a common fallacy and a weak defence."_
And when I quote the historic confessions and point out what they are saying in full and you ignore it or only focus on half of what is said? Is that not also a fallacy and a weak defense of your position? I've been pointing to historic standards for what the Calvinist position is, and you have been pointing to personal disagreement and incredulity. Why not offer your own positive case for what historical Reformed Theology teaches and show how Wilson is outside the norm?
@StAnthony _"You have simply restated your original points."_
Yes, I restated my response after you restated your original claims. You didn't advance your case so I didn't advance mine. You made the same mistake, so I made the same correction.
_"I read them the first time. However even re reading them a second time I still find them uncompelling."_
Right back at you.
_"And that my friend is no longer classic compatibalism, it is something else."_
Again, the same asseertions, and again, I don't see it. Doug is affirming that determinism is compatible with free choice. That is the definition of compatibilism. I don't see why you feel the need to make up the hyper-compatibilism label when it is bog standard theistic compatibilism. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree as you aren't backing up your assertion that Wilson is going beyond (hyper) the compatibalist position by continuing to point to examples of Wilson affirming both determinism and free will.
I was wondering if you actually meant monergism.com. I think only the last paragraph is from Warfield. At least I wasn't able to find a source that included the first paragraph.
Here you highlight that the view that holds divine determinism and human free will as both being true holds to divine determinism. Here you let your incompatibilism get in your way; you beg the question that any statement that holds determinism and free will as compatible is refuted by any mention of determinism. But that is the very contention under debate. Obviously compatibalists are determinists, you don't need to bold that, and I didn't deny that. But you keep assuming incompatibilism as if determinism refutes compatibilism, which misses the point entirely.
I would have highlighted that monergism.com is objectively wrong to say "be clear that neither soft nor hard determinism believes man has a free will." Compatibilism say that free will is compatible with determinism, so I don't know where they get that bit from. I can only assume they are defining 'free will' exclusively as the libertarian theory of free will and excluding any of the other theories of free will one might find. Or they are not approaching it from a philosophical perspective at all and instead from a bondage of the will perspective.
@StAnthony _"Again, this is simply another repetition of your previous repetition of your objections to my analysis."_
Yes, perhaps once your argument accounts for the historic confessional position, then I can give a different response. But as long as you assert the same things over and over, the same response will do.
_"I cited Wilson and am familiar with his position. I also explained where his argument broke down."_
You cited Wilson and called his view hyper-compatibilist. You didn't define hyper-compatibilism or show how Wilson is outside of historic Calvinism. In response to the historic confessions, you turn to a very recent source, monergism.com as if it speaks ex-cathedra for all Calvinists and is not itself expressing a view that looks quite unique to the historic view I cited from the Westminster Confession in that it denies free will where the confession affirms it.
_"You on the other hand do not even have a consistent definition of it. You originally stated that the position was determinism being compatible with free will, however now you are stating that its determinism being compatible with "free choice.""_
I do not make the same distinction as you make, thus my 'inconsistency' isn't an internal inconsistency, but an inconsistency with the view you impute to me. In my view, words and phrases like free will, free choice, volition, liberty, etc can be used interchangeably and I do so to break up the monotony of using the same word over and over again. Again, you imposing your own definitions on me is not my inconsistency, but a different understanding of the very views being discussed.
_"This Warfield/__Monergism.com__ definition of compatibalism is far more careful and theological robust than yours as it makes a distinction between "voluntary choice" and "free will" that you seem incapable of perceiving, as you are confusing the two."_
It would be nice if you would be willing to back that up with some standard works of philosophy. I've repeated that I am going by the standard definition of compatibilism as one can find in any textbook. For example:
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
"Compatibilism is the thesis that *free will is compatible with determinism.* Because free will is typically taken to be a necessary condition of moral responsibility, compatibilism is sometimes expressed as a thesis about the compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism."
plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/
This contradicts the monergism.com definition when it says "be clear that neither soft nor hard determinism believes man has a free will," a very unique and non-standard view. That was the only bit of the monergism.com article I called out, so I don't know why you take this strange 'all or nothing' approach to what I said. My broader objection, to repeat myself yet again, is to you pointing at a calvinist affirming determinism as if that contradicts the compatibilist position that determinism and free will are compatible.
As you seem to be struggling mightily with this, I'll make it clear. I concede that Calvinists believe determinism. They affirm it. They also affirm free will. They deny that affirming free will requires denying divine determinism. They deny that affirming divine determinism requires denying free will. They think determinism is compatible with free will. They think free will is compatible with determinism. You beg the question every time you point to assertions of free will or determinism as if the one denies the other with out providing an argument for why they contradict.
Moreover, it seems silly to me to make a distinction between 'voluntary' and 'free', or 'will' and 'choice' as they have related meanings. Voluntary is "having power of free choice". Will is "used to express desire, choice, willingness, consent, or in negative constructions refusal".
_"Your reaction is characteristic of the new calvinism that tends to be completely untethered from Calvin and Augustine."_
This is a pretty inane critique given your lack of self refection on how you've presented your case. From my very first post, I referenced the historic confessions that have united Reformed Christians for centuries. In response you cherry picked a single reformed website that seems outside the historic norm in order to back up your point. I'm pretty sure the Westminster Confession has been around a teeny tiny bit longer than that website. You haven't countered my argument that Wilson is contradicting the historic reformed position by running to a modern source, and doubly so by hypocritically claiming I am the one disconnected from historic reformed thought.
_"Just another baptist that skimmed through a few reformed confessions. Very sad."_
And here you show you have no idea where I am coming from and are just making it up as you go. I am not a baptist, and if you knew anything about Reformed Theology, you would have guessed that from my preference for the Westminster Confession. My denomination is confessional, we use the confessions in our membership classes and have more in depth studies on them from time to time. I am vary familiar with what they teach, and it is no surprise to me that you haven't even tried to refute my claim that Wilson is in line with the confessions on this point, as you know it is true.
Read Ken Wilson's recent book "The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism", if you want to understand why Augustine came up with the doctrine to explain how infants could become the "elect" through water baptism. Since the child had not come to faith, it must be based on the will of another. It could have nothing to do with the will of the child.
What make the true difference between God will and men will in Salvation? Those who HAVE BEEN CHOSEN KNOW IT'S ALL FROM GOD. This is the difference between Heaven and hell.
So from what you have been saying I sounds like you are sure you are one of the Elected for Heaven.
How does it feel to know you are chosen?
How do you know that you are one of the predestined for Heaven?
How do you know you are one of the Elect?
What did it feel like before you were regenerated and had no faith?
What did it feel like after you were regenerated and had faith?
At what age in you life did that happen?
TRUTH IN LOVE
I hold to monergistic soteriology out of sheer reverence for God! If anyone asks me; 'How were you saved?' I will reply 'By the grace of God'! I will die my one and only bodily death a Christian who holds to Calvinist theology.
Only to be “corrected” by God on the other side my friend!
Truth
So from what you have been saying I sounds like you are sure you are one of the Elected for Heaven.
How does it feel to know you are chosen?
How do you know that you are one of the predestined for Heaven?
How do you know you are one of the Elect?
What did it feel like before you were regenerated and had no faith?
What did it feel like after you were regenerated and had faith?
At what age in you life did that happen?
TRUTH IN LOVE
Ephesians 1 and 2.
We were dead in sin, and made alive in Christ. Amen brother- only thing i believe we need to abandon is the tag of “Calvinist”. It is the clear teaching of Gods grace, and how he works it.
Great debate. Steve Gregg did a great job!
Zoinks, Calvin
He says that since God presents you with a choice it must mean you have the ability to make that choice ... savingly. Here is where the error is. And Christ and the apostles made clear that no one is Able to please God. Christ vsaud "this is the work if God, that you believe in the one he had sent" all in the context of John 6 clearly saying you cannot come, believe, in and of yourself. Please exegete John 6. If you don't like it, then drop to your knees and cry for mercy. Yet we just blame God for our hatred for Him. Those whose hearts have been changed are thankful. It makes me wonder about those who argue for the haters of God, making God out to be evil.
Matthew 20:16, "So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.."
Matthew 24:22, 24 "And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened...For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if [it were] possible, they shall deceive the very elect.."
Mark 13:20, 22, 27 "And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days…For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if [it were] possible, even the elect…And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven."
Luke 8:10, "And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand." (Matthew 11:25)
Luke 18:7, "And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?."
John 10:14-16, "I am the good shepherd, and know my [sheep], and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, [and] one shepherd ...But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you."
John 13:18, "I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me."
John 15:16, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you..."
John 15:19, "If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you."
John 17:9, "I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.."
Acts 2:23, "Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:"
That’s great you can reference scripture verses but do you understand them?
Just because a verse has the word “elect” in it does NOT mean it means YOUR opinion of what that word means.
You referenced John 10.
QUESTION: Is not being one of Jesus’ sheep an unchangeable situation?
@@apilkey well Jesus said Matthew 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.
Revelation 3:5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.
well if one can have their name blotted out that makes once saved a heresy.
Replacement theology is a heresy and consists of believing the antichrists are God's chosen people. well chosen for what exactly.
1 John 2:22 - Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
ALL Jews, that is why they are jews, deny that Jesus is the Christ and that makes them antichrist
A remnant of some shall come to the Lord at one point.
Rev 11:13 - And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell,
and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven.
Jesus in Revelation 2:9 - I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
Galations 3:29 - And if ye be Christ's, then ARE YE Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Those in Christ ARE the seed [children] of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob Israel.
Gentile does not mean non-jew either it just means nation
God forbid you believe "white Christians" are the chosen people = racist or white supremacist
Believing the antichrists who claim to be jews are the chosen people is replacement theology and is a lie from hell
Chaplain Bob Walker B. Th. No one here is talking about replacement theology.
Election in the Bible is to SERVICE not salvation.
The elect refers to the physic nation of Israel not to unbelievers elected before the foundation of the world to become believers.
ISAIAH 45:4
4 For Jacob my servant's sake, and ISRAEL MINE ELECT, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.
Christ is also the Elect One.
JESUS IS THE ELECT ONE
It was never about what we have in the Father INDEPENDENT of the Son.
It’s all about His Son.
It’s all about Christ.
CHRIST IS THE ELECT ONE.
We are merely elect BASED UPON OUR association and IDENTIFICATION WITH CHRIST!
It’s impossible to be elect before we have any identity with Christ.
That would usurp Christ.
Some believe that the FINAL destination of election is to BECOME in Christ,
whereas the Bible says that the SOURCE OF ELECTION IS IN CHRIST.
With respect to salvation in Christ, predestination speaks not to WHO will be among the elect, BUT WHAT GOD’S ULTIMATE PURPOSES ARE FOR THOSE WHO ARE ELECT IN CHRIST.
Predestination is mentioned 4 times in the Bible a NOT ONCE IS IT REFERRING TO SALVATION.
***************************************
Jesus is the CHOSEN one:
PSALM 89:14;19
14 JUSTICE AND JUDGMENT ARE THE HABITATION OF THY THRONE: MERCY AND TRUTH SHALL GO BEFORE THY FACE.
19 Then thou spakest in vision to thy holy one, and saidst, I have laid help upon one that is mighty; I have exalted one CHOSEN OUT OF THE PEOPLE.
***************************************
...According to Matthew 12:18 Jesus is the chosen one:
MATTHEW 12:18
18 BEHOLD MY SERVANT, WHOM I HAVE CHOSEN; MY BELOVED, in whom my soul is WELL PLEASED: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.
***************************************
... According to Isaiah 42:1 Jesus Christ is God’s elect servant who shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles:
ISAIAH 42:1
1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; MINE ELECT, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.
***************************************
... According to 1 Peter 2:6 Jesus is the elect one:
1 PETER 2:6
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, ELECT, precious: and HE THAT BELIEVETH on him shall not be confounded.
Jesus Christ is the elect one.
We are only elect IN Him AFTER we believe.
***************************************
...According to Luke 9:35 Jesus is the beloved:
LUKE 9:35
35 And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my BELOVED Son: hear him.
***************************************
...According to Luke 23:35 Jesus is the CHOSEN ONE:
LUKE 23:35
35 And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be CHRIST, THE CHOSEN OF GOD.
***************************************
...According to Acts 17:31 God ordained Christ:
ACTS 17:31
31 Because he hath APPOINTED A DAY, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness BY THAT MAN WHOM HE HATH ORDAINED; whereof he hath given assurance unto ALL MEN, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
***************************************
...According to 1 Peter 1:20 Christ was foreordained before the foundation of the world:
1 PETER 1:20
20 WHO VERILY WAS FOREORDAINED BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD, BUT WAS MANIFEST IN THESE LAST TIMES FOR YOU,
@@apilkey that is right Christians ARE Israel, not the antichrists in the middle east who hate Jesus. Galatians 3:29
“And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
Jesus in bible book Revelation 2:9 - I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
King James Bible Jesus speaks to some of the Jews in John 10:23 - 29:And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch. Then came the JEWS (THE JEWS) round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
"But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you."
But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. they were not of his sheep.
You need to read the full passage, not just the verse. For instance, John 17:9 is specifically about the disciples. Keep reading. Verse 20 says "“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message,"
Is the Gospel biblical? Yes, the Gospel is biblical.
lol
🙄
Lol! Yes. Is JESUSism Biblical?
@@jackshadow325 what do you meam when you say that Doug tries to trick; do you mean in an deceitfully evil, sinful way?
@@Chirhopher I mean as in the spirit of a public debate.
Wilson tries to trick Gregg into agreeing with Calvinism towards the end. Believing that God perfectly knew the future before creating the universe and yet still created, does not make one a Calvinist. Calvinists too quickly jump to the "two wills of God" idea. But, what God allows, and what He wills are not always the same thing. The distinction between God's allowance and His will does seem to disappear at the point of creation and at the eschaton, but as history plays out there is indeed a distinction, and that distinction is enough to reject Calvinism.
You speak about the "two wills of God". How is this different from you speaking of what God allows, and what He wills?
@@risingdawn5788 God can will for something to happen and then allow that thing not to happen. That does not necessarily mean He secretly willed for that thing not to happen all along.
@@jackshadow325 So God's will can be stopped? Or do you mean He changes His mind?
Great point RisingDawn
@Jack Shadow:
“Remember this and stand firm, recall it to mind, you transgressors,9 remember the former things of old;for I am God, and there is no other;I am God, and there is none like me,10 declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’ 11 calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass;I have purposed, and I will do it.
Isaiah 46:8-11 | ESV
If God will accomplish ALL His purpose as stated above, then either everyone will be saved (universalism) or He only purposes some to be saved (Calvinism)...
Which would you agree with?
@@risingdawn5788 As history plays out, I think it's clear that many things happen which are against God's will. The question is: Will God get exactly what He wants in the end? I believe He will. That does not make me a Calvinist, and I don't have to adopt the Calvinist definition of sovereignty.
The problem when talking about Calvinism is that Calvinists don't always agree on what they believe.
Sir. Thats exactly what Jesus was telling Nicodemus that he Nicodemus needed to be born from above so the birth of Jesus from above is different from what he is telling Nicodemus because Jesus is telling him he needs a spiritual rebirth.
Another classic reminder that all "truth" is by revelation from God Almighty. Is it possible for one truly Born Again believer to be blessed with revelation knowledge that another does not? Is it possible then to reason the ignorant believer into a heightened state of revelation? I don't believe it possible, but, it used to be an entertaining waste of time to observe.
Steve Gregg's opening is incredibly weak. Attacking definitions and terms, rather than using scripture and attacking the ideas and scriptures that those definitions represent.
By this argument, the Trinity should be brought into question because the earliest church father's didn't use the terminology.
23:49 That fact that Steve Gregg doesn't even know what true arminianism is, shows that Gregg did not do his homework. It's clear that Steve Gregg is just anti-Calvinism.
@7:50 he references PROVERBS 16:33
33 The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.
One thing that Proverbs 16:33 clearly does NOT state is that every decision on earth is from the Lord.
*Rather, it clearly and specifically only states that every decision OF THE LOT is from the Lord.*
In Old Testament times, believers would often seek God’s will by casting lots.
Lots were typically small stones (or other types of markers) used to determine God’s selection of someone or something out of 2 or more possibilities.
So WHEN WE SEEK THE LORD’S DIRECTION and ask for His guidance in faith then of course He will honor that and give the decision of the lot.
Today we don’t use lots because we have the Holy Spirit to lead us and guide us into all truth and to direct our steps when we commit our ways to Him and when we seek counsel from Him directly.
So to re-iterate; this was a main method of seeking God’s will in the Old Testament
So the Proverbs 16:33 promises that in this procedure of seeking God, the lot’s every decision was from the Lord.
It’s not about God’s control of all random occurrences, but about His settling of matters SPECIFICALLY BROUGHT BEFORE HIM.
This proverb is promising us that WHEN we seek the Lord’s will, He will guide us.
PEOPLE WERE SEEKING DIRECTION from God in situations for which they had no other way to discern truth.
When the lot was used OBEDIENTLY, THE ACTION EXPRESSED COMMITMENT TO DO AS God WILLED.
The method of the lot itself is not the point of emphasis, but rather, TRUST IN GOD WAS THE EMPHASIS.
Reformers twist this passage out of context and ADD to God’s Word by stating that the verse says every decision is directed by God when that’s NOT what the passage says at all.
Are you willing to say that random things can and do happen without God bringing it to pass?
Todd Cote What specifically did you not understand about the casting of a Lot?
If God has Sovereignly decreed that mankind should have freewill would you have a problem with that?
If God in His Sovereignty has Sovereignly decreed not to ordain and determine every “rogue molecule” would you have a problem with that?
@@apilkey
You dodged my question and postulated hypothetical universes.
Swing and a miss.
Todd Cote Theres no swinging and missing the ball was hit and went right over your head.
That’s two balls over your head now.
The first one was my original post.
My questions expose the folly of yours.
So based on your logic did Jesus Christ Himself “swing and miss” when He answered foolish questions with another question?
When you get to Heaven are you going to tell that to Jesus’ face that He swung and missed?
Aaron Pilkey Remember Aaron, calvinists don’t think God is sovereign enough to decree libertarian free choice or powerful enough to accomplish His purposes if He did
I agree with doug. This other guy is saying that God is sorta Sovereign. God is not on the back foot
I'm trying to be fair as possible here, but it seems that Arminians are intensifying in their utter lack of respect for reformed theology. They're so convinced that it's utter nonsense, that they just casually throw out a few verses and declare the discussion over with, as if these verses haven't already been carefully dealt with and responded to, time and again. The doctrines of grace may offend our human sensibilities and we may even be convinced that they create legitimate Scriptural conundrums, but let's at least show a modicum of respect for the volumes of theological treatises that exist, carefully defining and defending Calvinism by showing a consistent portrait of these doctrines laid out over the course of the entire biblical record. Thankfully, both these men seem to be modeling graciousness and charity, when it comes to this debate. I hope more folks will follow their example.
@HaroldZwingley There's definitely overlap, in the arguments they use to refute Total Depravity. The more I study the reformation, the more evident it becomes.
OK. So the next time someone out of wedlock has a child in Doug Wilson’s church, I’d love to see that couple resist correction by just saying, “Who are you, O man, to question God’s decretive will?” Let’s see how that goes.
They wouldn't be correcting the couple for the decreed will. They would be correcting them for the prescriptive will.
You can't correct what God decreed.
Billy R So let’s get this straight. The ultimate will of God that occurs is his decretive will, not his revealed will. So, technically, no one really disobeys God and rebels. That’s all a farce. Got it. You may as well just chunk the Bible in that case because it’s powerless in that view. It means nothing. Nevermind the probably 1,000 verses rebuking adultery, even going so far as to say Christians who practice adultery continuously should be kicked out of the church. So you would have a Calvinist pastor who openly on record says whatever happens is really the true will of God, yet he would turn around in correcting this couple as if he doesn’t know that? Nothing like practicing cognitive dissonance. I wish I was a fly on the wall when a couple in his congregation knows his stance on Calvinism and use his words against him as an excuse to get away with sin. That’s exactly the can of worms Calvinism opens up.
@@jeremiahb9718
You're telling me it goes against your brain. Yeah I get it. I'm sure it does.
Billy R Nah bro. That’s not how it works. Either the Bible is God’s inspired word given by the Holy Spirit through chosen apostles or it isn’t. Your system has God competing with Himself and being disingenuous. It’s a modern form of dualism. God’s the one who gave me the brain to see the problem, along with conscience and in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit with conviction to know your system is in error.
@@jeremiahb9718
How can God be disingenuous? Who's gonna judge on that?
Calvinism Is all about "see there" as Gregg points out. The entire Old Testament is a repudiation of Calvinism and a celebration and endorsement of man's free will and the responsibility that comes with that.
You misunderstand God, Scripture and the very nature of reality.
@@PaDutchRunner Oh really... I didn't know that, thanks. In the future I'll try to run my theological and philosophical ideas past you first to ensure they are orthodox.
Mitchell Scott That would be wonderful!
Now now children... play nice😁
well you are entitled to your opinion. I would say the Old Testament is the absolute proof of God's absolute sovereignty.
Defending libertarian freewill is futile
Mr. Greggs position completely falls apart once they get into the cross examination. Talk about mental gymnastics.
Woe. Around 30minutes in the Hypocrisy is astounding.
Where is the new man being put?
Doug, the problem is, you're framing the issue as though Steve is standing on a foundation of his own logic and philosophical assumptions whereas you are standing upon the foundation of straight biblical exegesis. This is patently untrue. The Bible does not categorically state the things which form the foundation of your systematic. You cannot get from anything the Bible says to the conclusion that God is like Shakespeare and we are like Hamlet, without quite a bit of philosophical and logical extrapolation in between. If you were to acknowledge that you yourself are also making logic and phillosophy in order to arrive at your position, you would then have the unenviable task of explaining all the horrendous philosophical ramifications of your view instead of sidestepping them.
Gregg's opening statement only attacks calvinism and assumes his own position. He makes no presentation of his position, so thus I do not know what gregg believes.
Yes men do sin and God is not the author. He allows wicked men to do what they want. This whole story we are in is about God getting glory. He is glorified by those he saves, and glorified by the punishment of the wicked
@28:20 there is, Acts 4 v24? (ESV) Sovereignty was derived from the Scripture, just like the Trinity?
I'm sure this guy Steve Gregg is a nice guy, but he's patently dishonest here.
a different gospel.
You know when someone brings up manicheanism when talking about calvinsim they understand neither.
Scripture is confirming everywhere that God is in control OF ALL IS CREATION. He knew before we are born all days of our life and this is destroying men free will TOTALLY. Event Jesus was predestined to die for our sins ,it was NOT IS CHOICE BUT GOD WILL. You want to elect yourself by your free will well you are in fact ejecting yourself from God own predestined choice concerning is election (is bride) The flesh can not determine is destiny in Heaven ( false determinism, illusion of being saves)
So why create people you have already determined you are going to through into the garbage to suffer for enternity?
With Calvanism people aren't paying for their sins they are paying because God said I don't love them.
@@nobusiness8472 We are all born under God wrath but God Grace consist to saves those who believes in the Son and those who believes are the ones destined to eternal life as the bible TEACH ! Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. (we are chosen)
@@michelhaineault6654
GREETINGS. YOU SAY THAT WE WERE BORN UNDER THE WRATH OF GOD. WE WERE BORN WITH A SINFUL NATURE, BUT NOT BORN SINNERS. PROVIDE ME HOLY SCRIPTURE. LET ME ASK YOU THIS. WHAT DOES MY GOD, LORD, AND SAVIOR SAY IN MATTHEW 18: 3-5? THESE ARE INDEED BEAUTIFUL WORDS OF MY RIGHTEOUS, LOVING, HOLY, JUST, AND MERCIFUL GOD. "ASSUREDLY, I SAY TO YOU, UNLESS YOU ARE CONVERTED AND BECOME AS LITTLE CHILDREN, YOU WILL BY NO MEANS ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. THEREFORE WHOEVER HUMBLES HIMSELF AS THIS LITTLE CHILD IS THE GREATEST IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. WHOEVER RECEIVES ONE LITTLE CHILD LIKE THIS IN MY NAME RECEIVES ME." THAT MEANS ALL LITTLE CHILDREN WHO SHOULD HAPPEN TO DIE WILL BE AUTOMATICALLY BE IN THE PRESENCE OF GOD. IT SURE WOULDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE; WE ARE "ALL" BORN UNDER THE WRATH OF GOD. THOSE LITTLE CHILDREN WEREN'T BORN UNDER GOD'S WRATH. GOD BLESS YOU.
No man can come unless the Father draws him. Explained without Calvinist glasses on....
The Bible has taught us that The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit are the one true God. Each having a different role with the human race. Yet one God.
The Fathers teaches everyone that God exists. Through the creation!
Romans1: 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
NO ONE HAS AN EXCUSE.
The Father is not the saviour, that is the role of the Son, The Messiah, The Lord Jesus, The Christ!
They are taught by the Father as this verse shows: and the Father sends them that believe that God exists to the Son.
It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. John 6:45
So when Jesus said that: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. John 6:44 It is simple saying that the Father makes all men aware that God exists and sends those who respond to Jesus.
BUT! not all men will respond even though they have no excuse. They know God exists but they made their choice.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools Romans 1:21-22
Paul verifies this to Timothy: This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. 1 Timothy 2 : 3-6
The Holy Spirit comes into play in a special way only once a person whom the Father sends to the Son for salvation. Those who willingly desire to be right with God. Those who Repent and are Baptized.
JESUS John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
TRUTH IN LOVE
@@truth7416 the problem is Calvanist theology doesn't support that.
We have no role in salvation. We can't accept as that is a choice. As creatures not go having free will to say yes or no we can't accept.
With Calvanism God said certain people would be saved and there is nothing they can do. Also others won't be saved because God made them to be rejected. Again not my view but the theology of Calvanist dictate that
God sees the beginning from the end because he is outside time. He can see the beginning from the end at the same time. It's not a linear equation from Him. He can see what you chose. He doesn't determine what you choose. Free will is necessary for the narrative to be logical. That is, there can't be love without hate. You have to have a choice. Arminious was a man, the same as Calvin, same as the sadducee's same as the Pope. They were and all trying to figure it out they are all fallible and capable of being wrong.
For the arminian contender in this debate (who has not read Arminius yet) and who said that there is not citation in tge Scriptures stating that God is sovereign, here we go: Jude 4 (NASB): For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand [a]marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. Notice the titles for Jesus are Master and Lord. That comes from the greek terms Despotes and Kurios. Does the word Despotes ring a bell? Exactly, it means that God has absolute power and we may call it tyrant if we may, but we are nothing before him anyways, so our opinion doesn't count. Do you understand what we are now? Dust by ourselves and everything He wants since He established his purpose.
Yet according to Calvinism, those men can do nothing. It’s not like they can pull an elect person away from God. So those men are pointless anyway in Calvinism.
@@kenb7536 According to calvinism, we can do something apart from God, that is to sin, and with all their purpose on satisfy themselves. Every election we do is for our own benefit and self glorification. Only God can make us do, and when he does it, then we can do all things in Christ. That is the gospel, Jesus said it: Without me you can do nothing; and then Paul: I can do all things in Christ... So the fact that it is on God's decision to enable us to be able to live for his glory (to obey him in repentance and faith) doesn't disable the fact that the men in his fallen nature is not under judgement. That is maybe the point you struggle to conceal. All men have the faculty to make decisions, but none of those is to glorify God, unless God regenerates the will into glorify God. The will moves the actions, if the will is bonded to sin, the actions will move in that direction and viceversa. And yes, there are men who will remain in their sins and it is just what they are, just as I was thanks to the grace that I wasn't looking for or pursuing in any way. It is stunning and all I feel is a great debt to the Lord for look upon me when I was not looking to please him. Grace is not an obligation from God, it is a decision that we wont understand, but we will appreciate and be glad about for the eternity.
Omar Nevarez What I said is absolutely true in Calvinism. Period. In Calvinism, a false prophet cannot lead any elect person astray. So the number of the elect and reprobate won’t change one bit, even if a false teachers shows up in the church. If that false teacher does lead someone astray, that person was already a reprobate from eternity past in Calvinism.
@@kenb7536 The reprobation is based on the human condition that is in time and it occurs in time based on the sinful will. The election comes from eternity past. If you read Romans 9 it says that the election to salvation is done before anybody did something good or bad. it is not talking about the reprobation. The reprobation on the other hand is based on the sinful nature of the person before the holiness of God and that happens from the conception because we are not eternal, we do born. In saying that both reprobation and election come from the eternity past is stating a double predestination which does not fit with calvinism. The predestination is based on God moving the circumtances and means before hand in favor of a sinner to be saved from the path he is naturally taking in time. The reprobation is letting the person continue his own path without doing nothing to avoid it. Therefore, the person remain lost by his own, not because God makes him do it, but because God leaves him at his will. God just leave that sinner be what he is bacause God is not obligated to save anyone, He does what He pleases and it is good because He is the Only God, we aren't God to decide for him who to save or not. Also, it is importat to mention that no one from the reprobated is looking for salvation, so it is not like God is denying something they are seeking. In fact, the sinners claim they are ok the way they are. Bottomline: Election is not the same as reprobation, one is active and the other one is passive.
Omar Nevarez Again. What I said is true. No need for this explatory big paragraph. And it doesn’t matter whether it’s active or passive or not, God is actively making a choice not to regenerate a reprobate when He could. There’s no way around that for the Calvinist.
A God who cannot decree what He wants is not God of the bible and thats the arminian god. If God decreed what Herod, Pilate, the jews, gentiles did, He can do it again. That means God is not restricted and there is no such thing as libertarian self determining uncaused will or choices. God can determine certain actions of men without becoming unholy. It is frustrating to hear someone again and again use pagan libertarian freewill as a lense to negate and reinterpret scriptures.
Yes. Otherwise you’ve got God the Almighty failure.
I’ve answered it three times in three ways . Your inner man is changed the Bible is speaking about you . Exegete John 3:1-8 where Jesus speaks to Nicodemus and tells him that he (Nicodemus ) must be born again. Nicodemus himself thinks Jesus is talking about the putter man. How can a man return to his mother’s womb (Outterman) Jesus than says That which is born of Spirit is spirit (inner man) He waa speaker to Nicodemus his inner man needed to be born from above.
Humans are born of the flesh.
Once again...
Romans 8:8,11
[8]So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
[11]But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead *shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you*
Romans 7:19-22
[19]For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
[20]Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
[21]I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
[22]For *I* delight in the law of God *after the inward man*
Clearly hes not the inner man.
In Greek it's the word Kata. It means day-by-day by day according to or by way of.
@@billyr9162 you just completely ignored what I said and ran back to your narrative . I'm asking you to tell me what is Jesus saying to Nicodemus. Did Jesus identify how man is made up in this text
@@donaldstirgus4749
1st of all it's a different metaphor.
But 2nd it says born from above not born again. Only Christ is born from above.
And 3rd, a birth is the beginning.
It takes a lifetime to grow up. That's why the chastising is day-by-day. The outer man dies hard.
@@donaldstirgus4749
Ephesians 4:21-24
[21]If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus:
[22]That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
[23]And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
[24] *And that ye put on the new man* which after God is *created in righteousness and true holiness*
That is 100% Jesus because man is not created righteous and holy. Man is created in flesh.
I'm just looking at the verses that actually talk about the metaphor of the inner man And what it says the inner man does.
The outer man is changed by the inner man, Christ.
Ironically, listening to Gregg’s debate with White, Flowers debate with White and Tassi’s debate with White (I was Calvary Chapel) that I would categorically reject “I don’t know what Arminianism is” and syngergism.
Doug keeps saying before the foundation of the world in verses that don't say before but it says from the foundations . Big difference .
There’s a willingness in the comments of this video to, if I might be bold enough to say (I may be very wrong, I do not know the hearts of the crowd) to cast one of these men aside completely
To despise whichever one must be wrong (and naturally, to assume the one you don’t agree with is the wrong one deserving this)
The interplay here of two naturally fallen men, who by all accounts both appear and I hope are genuinely saved, appears to be EXACTLY how iron sharpens iron to me.
Echo chambers don’t seem to sharpen this dialogue and ability to defend and seek truth, because remember, we don’t just pop in knowing these things we SEEK them as likely both Doug and White appear to be doing.
The interplay of two men genuinely, in love, exercising these battles of thought towards truth is where the need to know the scripture deeply gets motivated, and I think both men are sharpened.
No doubt, since they’re mutually exclusive, one man is wrong, but are they not BOTH being sharpened here?
24:25 yeah you cant prove it cause its not true
There is only one aspect of Calvinism that's worth debating -- the aspect people actually want to hear about: God predestining people to hell. If you can convince people that God is still good while predestining people to hell, you win.
Judas Iscariot anyone? How about the man of sin? What about Satan? Did God not know he would fall?
@@ChaplainBobWalkerBTh I'm not talking about knowing. I'm talking about predestining.
Jack Shadow well predestination as Calvinism is clearly false. Does God know who will and who will not make it?? Yes. But salvation is our choice to make.
Calvinism contradicts free will, faith, and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
Predestination is both true and false. It’s false how it’s taught in Calvinist churches. And true because when we accept Jesus Christ as lord and savior He literally predestines us to heaven. However if we are not careful our names will be blotted out of the lambs book of life. Revelation 3:5
Barry Baker Revelation 3:5 says The Lamb will _never_ blot out the names of those who wear white garments. You represented it exactly backwards.
@@barrybaker9173 what is sad is those like you totally ignore the issue of the canaanites who were satanic fallen angel human hybrids (genesis 6) who have no offer of salvation ever.
Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are NOT not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (they were never written in the book)
It appears what these two men have spent years considering is ones [freewill], and the ability to surrender our free will to the will of God, that would intern establish interaction with God to become the dominant [Will] over our lives. Thus, predestination, or authoritarian sovereignty is founded in one’s ability to choose freely who he will serve. Interaction establishes our relationship; Christ in the midst thereof, not we in the midst of Christ.
If we want to use analogy from stories, my preferred illustration for Genesis 50:20 or the crucifixion as described in Acts 4 is the Battle of the Black Gate in the Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.
Aragorn challenged Sauron knowing the latter's arrogance would lead him to send out the army of orcs to fight, clearing the way for Frodo to destroy the One Ring.
Sauron meant the battle for evil, destroying the last bastion of good. Aragorn meant it for good, but he did not deterministically make Sauron act in evil and arrogance.
This is the best analogy for how God uses the selfish, sinful, evil motivations of humans - which He did not cause - for His plans of good.
Aragorn determined the effect... but not the cause.
The scriptures teach a heavenly, completed position in Christ, but Doug Wilson doesn't.
Why no video? That’s a shame.
I don't think all five points are biblical but I'm listening .
Seems a lot of commenters here don't know how to graciously disagree.
@@Thunderlord1738 what did I say ungraciously ?
Just because you are not a Calvinist does not mean you are an Arminian. This is a false dichotomy. A Traditionalist is another option. Arminian is similar to Calvinist in that God chooses who will believe by looking down the corridor of time and choosing who will choose him.
@ThisIsWhatHappened that's right, you are not an Arminian.
@ThisIsWhatHappened Calvinists claim that if you are not a Calvinist you are an Arminian. John Calvin debated Jacobus Arminius, and they both had flaws in their doctrine.
@@jcthomas3408 They just do that when they think your views are still generally orthodox. You could have a pelagian or open theist or works righteousness or easy believism or some other soteriological view, but if they use those sorts of words, they concluded that your position is outside Biblical teaching and the historic church.
No man can come unless the Father draws him. Explained without Calvinist glasses on....
The Bible has taught us that The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit are the one true God. Each having a different role with the human race. Yet one God.
The Fathers teaches everyone that God exists. Through the creation!
Romans1: 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
NO ONE HAS AN EXCUSE.
The Father is not the saviour, that is the role of the Son, The Messiah, The Lord Jesus, The Christ!
They are taught by the Father as this verse shows: and the Father sends them that believe that God exists to the Son.
It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. John 6:45
So when Jesus said that: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. John 6:44 It is simple saying that the Father makes all men aware that God exists and sends those who respond to Jesus.
BUT! not all men will respond even though they have no excuse. They know God exists but they made their choice.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools Romans 1:21-22
Paul verifies this to Timothy: This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. 1 Timothy 2 : 3-6
The Holy Spirit comes into play in a special way only once a person whom the Father sends to the Son for salvation. Those who willingly desire to be right with God. Those who Repent and are Baptized.
JESUS John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
TRUTH IN LOVE
26:15 There is your problem Craig, your using the word Sovereignty compared to Who and what Man can do. Psalm 50:21
Dean, I am thirty minutes into this video and I would have to agree. He says sovereignty is not in the Bible and then uses a man-made definition to define God's attribute of sovereignty. This violates Colossians 2:8. In addition, by that line of thinking, then God isn't truly triune the way the Bible says He is because the Word Trinity isn't in the Bible either. I found his line of argumentation weak (but it isn't new because someone actually tried that argumentation with me on a CZcams comment section and I basically told the person I let the Bible define sovereignty, not man; he didn't like that and started being sarcastic).
Eric Smith *You can’t just hi-Jack the definition of sovereignty and give it our own definition to fit your beliefs.*
*Sovereignty does NOT mean determinism, it means GOD IS IN CONTROL and His ability to do whatever He wants.*
Sovereignty is translated from “LORD, LORD” and is not even found once in the KJV!
(It’s only found in the ESV 3 times).
Reformers wrongly define the concept of divine sovereignty as meaning “meticulous deterministic control over ever thing, including the evil intentions of creatures.”
The scriptures simply never teach this concept.
Instead, divine sovereignty is reflected as God’s ability to do whatever He is pleased to do (Ps. 115:3)
even if that may include giving the world over to creature’s free dominion (Ps. 115:16).
Here’s the definition of sovereignty would you like to submit a new definition to Miriam Webster? (Sorry I’m just joking but seriously it seems like you should)
You can make up your own definition of sovereignty all day long but scripture won’t bend to it and the dictionary is not going to re-write itself on your behalf either.
*************************************
MIRRIAM WEBSTER- SOVEREIGN
SOVEREIGN - noun
sov·er·eign | \ ˈsä-v(ə-)rən
1a: one possessing or held to possess supreme political power or sovereignty
b: one that exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere
c: an acknowledged leader : ARBITER
2: any of various gold coins of the United Kingdom
SOVEREIGN - adjective
1a: superlative in quality
b: of the most exalted kind : SUPREME sovereign virtue
c: having generalized curative powers
a sovereign remedy
d: of an unqualified nature : UNMITIGATED sovereign contempt
e: having undisputed ascendancy : PARAMOUNT
2a: possessed of supreme power a sovereign ruler
b: unlimited in extent : ABSOLUTE
c: enjoying autonomy : INDEPENDENT sovereign states
3: relating to, characteristic of, or befitting a supreme ruler : ROYAL
a sovereign right
God’s Word and the BIBLICAL DEFINITION of sovereignty will not bend to your lower view of His sovereignty.
God will not be put in a man made box.
Sovereignty= Supreme Power and Authority
God is definitely sovereign by the BIBLICAL AND TRUE DEFINITION OF SOVEREIGNTY and not by man’s definition imposed upon it in order for it to suit a certain systematic.
God is in complete 100% control of everything.
That doesn’t mean He’s meticulously controlling everything.
@@apilkey Based on your comments to me on another post, I don't need to engage you more than this one time. You blatantly said I don't want to be sharpened, which I found extremely offensive. You don't know my walk with the Lord or my struggles with doctrine and your previous comments to me were completely unnecessary. So if you want to reply after this, you can do so, but I don't need to respond further than this.
You wrote, "You can’t just hi-Jack the definition of sovereignty and give it our own definition to fit your beliefs.
" I am not giving it my own definition. The definition comes from scripture; as a Christian, that is where I get it from. You can define many things about God from a human definition and it will be found lacking. Love, grace, mercy, etc. can all have good definitions, but they don't do justice to God's love, grace, and mercy in the scriptures. In the same way, sovereignty is defined not by who God is (which is King, Creator, and Sustainer of all things; Isaiah 33:22 and Colossians 1:15-17 are a set of verses that bear this out), but by what God does.
Proverbs 16:4 says, "The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." Proverbs 16:9 says, "A man's heart deviseth his way: but the Lord directeth his steps." Proverbs 19:21 says, "There are many devices in a man's heart; nevertheless the counsel of the Lord, that shall stand." Proverbs 21:1 says, "The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whitersoever he will." Psalm 135:6-7 says, "Whatsoever the Lord pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places. He causeth the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings for the rain; he bringeth the wind out of his treasures." In Hannah's glorious song to the Lord in 1 Samuel 2, verse 6-7 says, "The Lord killeth, and maketh alive; he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up. The Lord maketh poor, and maketh rich: he bringeth low; and lifteth up."
In Daniel 4:30-37, we get a comparison of man's so called sovereignty and what God thinks of it, verse 30 says, "The king (which is Nebuchadnezzar) spake, and said, Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of my kingdom by the might of my power, and for the hounour of my majesty?" And Neb's conceit and disobedience to the Daniel's earlier warning (Daniel 4:24-25, and by the way, verse 24 says it is a decree from God) brought punishment from God; He made Neb like an animal. When Neb came back in his right mind, he said in verses 34-35, "And at the end of the days, I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation: And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" It would seem King Nebuchadnezzar knew who was in sovereign control, enough to violate his will and make him act like an animal against this will.
I could also mention Genesis 50:20, where Joseph told his brothers what they meant for evil, God meant for good. Notice, like the other verses where God is the subject and the verb phrases are what He did, while Joseph brothers meant (had intent to their actions), God meant for something different. In Acts 2:23, we see God's foreknowledge and determined counsel for the death of Jesus Christ, but the same verse ascribes it to wicked hands, showing sinful man's moral responsibility. Ephesians 1:4 says God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world, which is before Genesis 1:1, which means God's actions are not determined by anything but His own will. Acts 13:48 says "as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." Notice the action of man believing is based on being ordained. Acts 5:31, 11:18, and 2 Timothy 2:25 actually says God gives/grants repentance. And there is also Romans 8:29-30 and all of Romans 9. There are so many verses in scripture that shows God sovereign control in concert with man's decisions. It doesn't make man a puppet at all, but it shows that there is an infinite, eternal, self-existent God that is the first cause of all things. I hope and pray you take the time to study and meditate on these verses further.
Finally, you asserted, "God’s Word and the BIBLICAL DEFINITION of sovereignty will not bend to your lower view of His sovereignty.
God will not be put in a man made box." I totally agree that God isn't put in a man made box, but I never would do that. I define God's attribute of sovereignty based on the verses I gave and so many more that I could have mentioned. You assert many things about my intent or character that is shameful. I find it easy for Christians to type up comments on a CZcams page and completely forget about the fruit of the Spirit. This is the only reason why I will not go further with you because I will confess that snarkiness and sarcasm hits my emotion buttons and I find myself ready to respond in kind. I will not continue to comment when I feel the other person is doing more provoking than sharpening. Think what you want about me, but my twenty years of being a Christian is not defined by your view of me because we disagree on doctrine. I'm sure you love the Lord and want to serve Him with gladness. When you go into comment sections, it would be prudent to go back and forth with a believer just as if your speaking face to face. And if you want to know my true heart about commenting on social media as Christians, here is a video/audio I made back in 2018: czcams.com/video/epNwL8Qnnyw/video.html
If you read all of this, then I am grateful you took the time. Contrary to what you may think, I read whatever is posted towards me. I try to navigate through sarcasm and personal attacks to get to the meat of the discussion, and that's what God says. I take 2 Timothy 2:15 and Acts 17:11 completely seriously. I pray in the future you will think hard about the words you type and perhaps your heart behind them. Jesus said, "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love for one another." (John 14:35) This is serious to me because my disagreement is never personal, it is always Biblical because that is the basis of my faith and life. Thank you if you read this and I am done.
@@apilkey Yes, which means if God ordains who is going to be saved before anybody is born He can and does. Which gives God more Glory, all of Salvation of anybody belongs to God alone or Sinful Depraved Man pretending He has the ability without Regeneration from God to choose God. Ezekiel spells it out quite well. Also you say Aaron has hi-jacked the definition of sovereignty but maybe it has been you that has done the Hi-Jacking.
Eric Smith Ironically in your view I was predestined to reply to you the way I did so your problem is not with me it’s with the god you claim to serve.
So we’re you offended at God then?
Because He apparently determined that I said what I did.
So please take your complaints up with him become he has ordained I say everything I did to you.
Shake your fist at your god not me.
See the lunacy of your beliefs.
And referencing multiple passage that speak of Gods sovereignty does NOT mean they mean your twisted definition of sovereignty.
No you’re not letting scripture tell you the definition because not once in scripture is it stated that God has determined everything.
You continue to pervert and twist scripture to support your man made belief system.
You’re ensnared and entangle and don’t have ears to hear.
You have already determined in your heart that you will not change.
All those verses you referenced do NOT mean that God has to predetermine man’s free choices for them to come to pass.
God can determine events to come to pass WITHOUT determining man’s free choices to bring about those events.
The sad thing is you don’t see this and don’t believe God is powerful enough to do so.
The main problem with Calvinism and there are many is that if God ordains from the beginning of time that we are going to heaven and hell (before we have performed any actions on earth)and he gives us a sin nature where we cannot even respond or understand the Bible (aka the gospel) unless he supernaturally regenerates us, that makes God insane and the authour of sin since it is God that decrees everything even our own actions. Many have tried to reconcile this saying it is a paradox but this is not a paradox this is a contradiction. James 1 : 13 says When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;. Calvinism is an interesting debate but there is a reason for the vast majority of churches who are Calvinist. when you read the beliefs of a church why the word Calvinism is not present.
_"The main problem with Calvinism ...is that if God... and _*_he gives us a sin nature_*_ ..."_
Calvinists don't claim God gave us a sin nature. God made man very good. It was Adam through his sin that gave us a sin nature.
No man can come unless the Father draws him. Explained without Calvinist glasses on....
The Bible has taught us that The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit are the one true God. Each having a different role with the human race. Yet one God.
The Fathers teaches everyone that God exists. Through the creation!
Romans1: 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
NO ONE HAS AN EXCUSE.
The Father is not the saviour, that is the role of the Son, The Messiah, The Lord Jesus, The Christ!
They are taught by the Father as this verse shows: and the Father sends them that believe that God exists to the Son.
It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. John 6:45
So when Jesus said that: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. John 6:44 It is simple saying that the Father makes all men aware that God exists and sends those who respond to Jesus.
BUT! not all men will respond even though they have no excuse. They know God exists but they made their choice.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools Romans 1:21-22
Paul verifies this to Timothy: This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. 1 Timothy 2 : 3-6
The Holy Spirit comes into play in a special way only once a person whom the Father sends to the Son for salvation. Those who willingly desire to be right with God. Those who Repent and are Baptized.
JESUS John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
TRUTH IN LOVE
I think your perception of God being sovereign is limited as you stated "before we have performed any actions on earth", The thing is that God being all knowing foreknows what you are already going to do. Nothing surprises him. So whatever you do tomorrow morning, it has already happens in Gods eyes. So by this he can does choose because he already knows your choice. The concept is very simple.
Answer this...
If God created ALL things, even the nothing then what part of ALL things (like time, space, thought and even consciousness) did He not create to give you the free will you say you have over that creation. And if God didn’t create it, or has absolute control over it then does that uncontrolled, uncreated existence predate God, or how much power does it have over God other that its will?
What definition of free will are you using? I would point to the Westminster Confession chapter 9 and 3.1 for my definition, which affirma free will such that God established it by what he ordains. There is no freedom from God of course, if that's what you mean.
The human will is not axiomatic to soteriology. “Sovereignty” is a fictitious term.
Calvinism is repackaged Augustinian Philosophy rooted in Manacheinism.
Determinism is not biblical mr Greg ??? But Scripture teach that God do all things accordingly to is Will and you know what? THIS IS GOD DETERMINISM and the names of all the elects TO COME ARE WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF LIFE of the Lamb. Those who are not DESTINED to eternal life ( not conditional life here) will have their names ERASED from the book of life because they do not have eternal life that we obtain IN Christ trough Faith alone (not trough choice alone) Nobody can resist God call and only THE GOOD EARTH will see the seed of life and love growing in them and they will produce through the work of the Spirit in them MANY GOOD FRUITS ! THEY ARE THE VASES OF GLORY CREATED FOR ETERNAL LIFE. THE OTHER HAVE BEEN CREATED FOR GOD WRATH trough God judgement. This is the double predestination.
GREETINGS. WRONG, WRONG, AND WRONG. EZEKIEL 33:11 "SAY TO THEM, ‘AS SURELY AS I LIVE, DECLARES THE SOVEREIGN LORD, I TAKE NO PLEASURE IN THE DEATH OF THE WICKED, BUT RATHER THAT THEY TURN FROM THEIR WAYS AND LIVE. TURN! TURN FROM YOUR EVIL WAYS! WHY WILL YOU DIE, PEOPLE OF ISRAEL?" GOD WANTS THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL TO TURN FROM THEIR EVIL WAYS AND LIVE. IT MAKES IT SO CRYSTAL CLEAR GOD HASN'T PREDESTINED THE ISRAELITES GOING TO HEAVEN OR HELL. IF MY OMNIPOTENT AND OMNISCIENT GOD WANTS THE ISRAELITES TO TURN THEIR WICKED WAYS AND LIVE. WHY DOESN'T GOD MAKE THE ISRAELITES CHANGE THEIR WICKED WAYS. HE CAN IF HE WASN'T TO IN A HEARTBEAT. PERSON FREEWILL IS THE ONLY ANSWER. GOD BLESS YOU.
@@mercibeaucoup2639 you completely ignore the sacred scripture the true Israel is from THE SPIRITUAL SEED OF ABRAHAM.
@@michelhaineault6654
I WILL ELUCIDATE MY POINTS SO CLEAR IN A VERY FACILITATING WAY. THIS MESSAGE WON'T BE VAGUE TUT-TUTTING BEWILDERING FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND!!! I CERTAINLY HOPE NOT LOL. MY HOLY, RIGHTEOUS, LOVING, JUST, AND MERCIFUL GOD DIED FOR THE SINS OF THE "WHOLE" WORLD. THE BIBLE TELLS US, “[JESUS] IS THE ATONING SACRIFICE FOR OUR SINS, AND NOT ONLY FOR OURS BUT ALSO FOR THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD.” (1 JOHN 2:2) IS JESUS ATONING SACRIFICE FOR THE SINS OF THE WHOLE (HOLOU) WORLD (KOSMOU)? THE GREEK WORD ACTUALLY MEANS COSMOS OR UNIVERSE. FOREKNOWLEDGE AND PREDESTINATION ARE 2 VERY DISTINCT MEANINGS. MY OMNISCIENT GOD FOREKNOWS WHO HAS ACCEPTED OR REJECTED HIS FREE GIFT OF SALVATION MARK 14:18. MATTHEW 7:13-14 ALSO MAKES IT CRYSTAL CLEAR. MY GOD MAY CHOOSE OR ELECT CERTAIN PEOPLE FOR HIS GLORY, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN HE HAS PREDESTINED OR DAMMED ALL OTHERS TO HELL. THANK YOU AND MY LORD GOD BLESS YOU. JOHN 3:16-18
@@mercibeaucoup2639 Wrong Jesus die for the ones the Father gave him, also Jesus did not pray for the world : I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world (so he did not die for all men) but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them. (John 17.9-10)
Jesus tells the Jews that the atonement is not for them. He limits the extent of his sacrifice : But you do not believe because you are not of my sheep. (John 10:26)
Remember, Jesus has already told us that he is dying for his sheep (John 10:15). But right here he tells them that they cannot hear his words (they do not believe) because they are not of his sheep. The Lord is saying that his death is for those who are his sheep, and they will hear his voice. In other words, Jesus’s death is for the elect and not for those who will not believe.
@@michelhaineault6654
THAT IS ONLY YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION. OBJECTIVE FACT. 1 JOHN 2:2 “2 HE IS THE ATONING SACRIFICE FOR OUR SINS, AND NOT ONLY FOR OURS BUT ALSO FOR THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD.” REMEMBER, I’M NOT HERE TO CHANGE YOUR TULIP THEOLOGY IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM. I’M ACTUALLY HERE FOR OTHER PEOPLE READING OUR MESSAGES TO DETERMINE IF MY GOD REALLY DIED FOR THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD. GOD BLESS YOU.
A debate with no video? C'mon guys.
Is the video necessary?
@@TheBluntNinja Are your arms necessary? No....but they sure are helpful.
@@TomBreazeal 🤷♂️
@@TheBluntNinja lol
I am listening to Wilson’s opening and I don’t understand how anyone didn’t see the contradictions in it. He says in one hand that God meticulously controls every aspect of every decision and yet claims that everyone needs to be ready to change their opinion on scripture if they are shown they are wrong through scripture. While I would agree with this later point I don’t see how he can conclude this is even possible given the former. Under Wilson’s concept of meticulous determinism, I can only change my opinion on my interpretation of scripture if and only if God has decreed it. I cannot do it in my own. And God’s decree can never change so what is the point of this argument?? It is completely nonsensical
The contradiction is the incompatiblism you are bringing in from outside. Wilson is a compatiblist, and so sees no inheirant contradiction between God as the ultimate cause and ordainer of all things; and within that God establishing human freedom and the liberty and contingency of second causes. I'm not sure what you mean by "Wilson's" concept of meticulous determinism, as "meticulous determinism" is language I see more often used by anticalvinists to import a concept that doesn't match the confessional position Wilson is defending here.
@@oracleoftroy you can say that he sees no contradiction but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t one. It is like saying A=B and B=C and yet A doesn’t equal C. You can claim because of some made up belief in your part that you don’t see a contradiction but there is in fact still a contradiction whether you admit it or not.
@@mjsabie8517 And likewise, you can insist that there is a contradiction, but without putting forth an argument, it's hard to see why anyone should just take your side. Perhaps you could go the next step and make a case?
@@oracleoftroy I actually already did make a case. Saying that God meticulously controls all of my actions and decisions and also claiming that I should be prepared to change my mind about something is nonsensical. If God controls/decrees all of my decisions then I cannot prepare myself to change my mind unless God has decreed that I will. They are two contrasting points and both cannot be true. If one is true then the other is not.
@@mjsabie8517 _"Saying that God meticulously controls all of my actions and decisions ..."_
I'm not saying that.
_"If God controls/decrees all of my decisions..."_
You are equating two ideas that Calvinists distinguish. You have control of your decisions because God decreed it to be that way. You can't do anything outside of God's decree, only because God decreed it. Hold your breath by your own free will (or don't, your choice). You choice to hold or not hold is because God decreed that you would have a physiology that includes lungs and a mouth and that there would be air to breath etc. Within that system God decreed, you can breath as you want, but you can't just freely take in what you need by breathing water like a fish, that is outside of God's decree for humans.
The issue is you are treating God's decree like it is a hard deterministic statement and not as Reformed Christians confess it, something that establishes the contingency and liberty of the creature and second causes.
I decided to watch this video because I've watched other Douglas Wilson videos on eschatology and I think he's right on . I especially like his commentary on the book of Revelation. Prior to this debate, I had never heard of Steve Gregg, and I was sure the reformed ideas were absolutely true. I had watched many RC Sproul and James White videos, and I had read books, including "Chosen by God". However, I thought Steve Gregg was more persuasive in this debate, and decided to watch his many videos on Calvinism. I've now watched them all, including his debate with James White, and think he has better ideas about God's sovereignty. I no longer think Calvinism is true. One last thing that's a bit unrelated...I think RC Sproul is the best teacher I've ever listened to, even if I think he's wrong on this. He was truly gifted in his ability to teach in easy-to-understand ways.
Calvinism is partly Biblical...
The pennies analogy was became ridiculous when Doug said because GOD knew where and how the pennies would land means that GOD determined where and how they would land . How anyone can't see a problem with that logic is just crazy .
Greg is absolutely right. Calvinism is a proof texting system. Exegesis isn't involved much
God can be adequately heard from. God can be adequately talked to. But, God can not be adequately talked about.
Interesting stuff Jack
Canon Press
Why did I hear that in Si (from duck dynastys) voice.
false. what then is the point of scripture, preaching, or evangelizing?
He is actually have to teach Doug how to exegete here .
Misinterpretation of "calvinism" . Correct interpretation "Every good thing a man does God made him do every wicked thing a man does man made himself do" . This is so that men will be humble . The Bible is full of men who did both good and wicked deeds. David is a very good example . David as child believed in God so much that he stood against the most deadly man on earth yet when he became king he murdered a man so that he could have his wife and he was not forgiven for it either. He plead for his life not for his family so God gave him his life which had became filthy but he lost his family. So yes God determines every good thing and man determines every wicked thing by the temptation of his heart.
How can souls' deeds be judged at the Great White Throne Judgment or the Judgment Seat of Christ if there were no free will and the souls' acts had been predestined? That'd make it a sham, a kangaroo court! No, God is JUST!