It doesn't matter if you agree or not. Is God's word says it that settles it. God's word stands and everything else Falls. Free Will choice is nowhere found in the Bible your choice in the flash does not stand in heaven that's why all the Angels fell with the Devil cuz they were not wholly like the other two thirds are holy doing the will of God and God Alone. Just like the Lord's Prayer Our Father who art in heaven Hallowed be thy name die kingdom come thy will be done on Earth as it is in heaven. On Earth as it is in heaven we need to live a life down here as the Angels live up in heaven doing God's will
Here is absolute Biblical proof that God does NOT cause or determine everything; In Jeremiah 19:5 God says, “They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal-something I did NOT COMMAND or mention, nor did it enter my mind.” 2nd Peter 3:9 says, “The Lord is…not willing that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance.” and yet, it also has Jesus saying, "Broad is the road that leads to destruction (hell) and many are on it, but straight and narrow is the road that leads to life (Heaven) and few ever find it."
What many seem to fail to understand is that our 'will' is a gift from God (part of 'in His image'). We can not boast about anything. We Must be free to come to God willfully or else it is meaningless. This is the whole point of God's excercise. It brings God pleasure that the believer loves Him because the believer wants to. The 'regeneration first' idea destroys that.
I've read a lot of people saying that the Arminian vs Calvinist debate is not worth arguing about. This suggests that there are no real-life implications which come as a result of one's views on the matter. I think this is not the case - there are big implications, such as the level of one's gratitude for God for salvation. I used to be Arminian and am now convinced by Calvinism, and it has had a huge impact on my love for and gratitude towards the God who unilaterally saved me that *all* the glory should go to him!
@@Vlugazoide Very true Fernando! And yet on Arminianism God is responsible for 95% of salvation, and we get 5% of the credit for exercising our free-will to decide for God. There is a reason the Bible talks of being *born* again - nobody chooses to be born!
@@Crucian1 not exactly the credit, more of the role. Since God is the only one to praise and the only one with worth and holiness. But yes, your point is true. We only act on being like Judas (seeing wonders and wanting God to work our way), Moses (seeing the character of God and just bending into his grace and will) or the people of Israel who were killed by their brethren in the desert (who simply didn't care about their God). So yes, our role is being magnified and giving up
deraquis If you were taking some of the glory when you were an Arminian, then I would say you weren’t really saved. Because it’s by faith, means that you can’t boast. I’m surprised you were revelling in the fact that you believed.
@@markusw.2690 I'm also Arminian, both are true in Biblical standpoint, but different hermeneutics of interpretation The problem you guys (Calvinist) only oppose Arminianism, why don't you guys also oppose Lutheranism, Methodism, and Anglicanism ?? I used to be Calvinist who believed in pre-destined and everything should be God's responsibility. Now I believe there is also our human parts (free-will) in accepting HIS call or ignoring HIS call ( Prov 1:24 )
@@juliansihite1289 sorry, if you think you have done "your part" you must think you are better than your neighbor, who doesn't have done "his part". But Apostle Paul says, that we have nothing to boast of! Nothing! It's all of Grace. OF COURSE we are called to repent and believe in Jesus Christ! But without the initiative of the Holy Spirit - we can't. Why? Because we are DEAD in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2). What can a dead man do by himself?
@@markusw.2690 Paul's election and his calling were based on God's foreknowledge of his decision to believe. (Gal 1:15-16) Judas was given a choice, but he was not saved. Free-will matters (John 6:70; Jude 1:4) I'm more mix between Calvin and Arminian standpoints. But I'm locally rooted in Arminian Pentacost Church
I once was a reformed person. I now believe both sides are true and are married together, since both arguments are based in scripture. (All scripture is breathed out) I love how John taught his message on Tulip, it still rings true in my head. Doctrines are not weapons to win arguments, they are there for us to know God on a deeper level. To enjoy Him, and to be in Awe of His greatness which is unsearchable. Now to Him who is able to keep us from stumbling, be All the Glory!
I think I'd be happier saying both sides take extreme positions verging on error - they tend not to acknowledge that the truth is found in the paradox of the middle ground. Men want to box God in by the level of their reasoning, overlooking that the Lord is much greater than us and not restricted by our inability to cope with paradoxical positions!
John, while I appreciate your desire to be reconciled with the Arminian camp, I fail to understand how on earth you could say that both sides are based in Scripture when in fact they are diametrically opposed! Nowhere in all of Scripture will you find any support for the idea that we have a free will unhindered by the fall so that we can freely choose to place our faith in God, nowhere will you find support for the idea that one who has been genuinely saved can then somehow lose that salvation, and nowhere will you find support for the idea that Christ died only to make it possible for all mankind to be saved. It’s simply not there without taking things out of context, twisting Scripture, or not understanding it’s meaning. For example, if Christ died, NOT for the certain salvation of specific individuals but only to make it possible for all men to be saved, then that means it’s actually possible that all men might be saved and that’s universalism hence no need for hell. It also means that it’s possible in that scenario that all men might reject Christ in which case God’s plan of redemption was a colossal failure. But we know that neither of those is true. Only SOME people are saved. These are the elect to which Scripture refers time and again. The two sides are in agreement on much, yes. But there are some very critical issues on which they are worlds apart.
@Allen Combs Mathew 25 puts some light on the matter. Jesus says to the goats depart from me you cursed into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his Angels. He'll was not a place ever intended by God for man to go to. The goats had made a choice out of their own free will to do wrong, hence why Jesus in the end counts them worthy of going there.
Welcome to the Lutheran view my friend! I’m not a Lutheran but I see it as the best view we can take without overemphasis on either side. The “Crux Theologorum”.
Here is absolute Biblical proof that God does NOT cause or determine everything; In Jeremiah 19:5 God says, “They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal-something I did NOT COMMAND or mention, nor did it enter my mind.” 2nd Peter 3:9 says, “The Lord is…not willing that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance.” and yet, it also has Jesus saying, "Broad is the road that leads to destruction (hell) and many are on it, but straight and narrow is the road that leads to life (Heaven) and few ever find it."
Pastor John Piper ! Thank you for your enlightenment of Ephesians 2:4-7. I understand now about your point of irresistible grace. I now understand that this saving grace is really a blessed and divine assurance throughout eternity. Not only will I be alive in Christ, He will also seated me with Him in the Heavenly realms (Ephesians 2:6) This verse also tells me that Christ's grace is not only incomparable, He will also share His glory with me, as written in Romans 8:17.
I appreciated Pastor John's explanation and trying to represent Arminianism as fairly as possible. I know this question came up in the apologetics class I am currently teaching and we will discuss it next class. I think three things need to be fleshed out before discussing this matter. First, Are we addressing what we think about the labels or the theology behind the labels? Do we have a definition of that theology based on scripture? If we get caught up with theological labels named after men, we may give the appearance of following those men (even if we don't) and this violates 1 Corinthians 1:11-12. We need to define the doctrines behind the theology we're speaking of and have Bible references to back it up. Second, because this is a discussion among Christians, we need to be clear about our view of sin (total depravity), the attributes of God (particularly His sovereignty, omniscience, love, and justice), and again, give Bible references and be able to bring our interpretation of those Bible references to the table. Someone on either side of this discussion (or even someone taking a middle ground) may have different definitions of these things. We need to study our Bibles and check them carefully to see if it is true (2 Timothy 3:16-17, Acts 17:11). Third, this is a theological discussion; therefore we must leave out emotion, philosophy, and are preconceived notions about the labels. Again, the Bible must be our guide, not anything outside of it (because this will violate Proverbs 3:5 and Colossians 2:8). I've seen back and forth in comment sections where I see little or no scripture, but many accusations, insults, and philosophical views (particularly through analogies) instead of going verse by verse through texts. Calvinisms will accuse the other side of not reading their Bibles, not giving glory to God, and accusing them of adding works to salvation. Not every non-Calvinist considers themselves an Arminian and they shouldn't be pigeon-holed by a certain description; they are believers that love the Lord and desire the salvation of the lost. Name calling and lack of respect is not necessary. Many non-Calvinists, on the other hand, will accuse the Calvinist of being unsaved, having a wicked god that is the author of sin, and twisting scripture. This, as well, is unfair since many Calvinists also love the Lord and go proclaim the gospel to the lost. I've made comments about this subject on many posts and have personally been called names by people that profess to be believers. This is not the heart of Jesus' words in John 13:35. Unless both sides can sit down with their scriptures and go through text of scripture verse by verse to flesh out the doctrines in question, it will always be philosophical musings, emotional insults, and no desire to hear the other side. The discussion is not to win an argument, but to see what the Bible says in its entirety.
@iFoundTruth I agree with you. I've been a believer for 20 years and for the first nine or ten, I didn't know what Calvinism or Arminianism was. I was just a born again Christian, my identity first and foremost in Christ (Galatians 3:28, Colossians 3:11). I've shared this in other comments; because of something that happened in the first year of my salvation, I vowed to the Lord that I would read my Bible from beginning to end in a year every year until He took me home. This is my nineteenth year reading the Bible from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21 (not mentioning this to be boastful, but to share a problem I had in about my eight or ninth year of my salvation). Every year I would get to Ephesians 1:4-5 and Romans 9 and the context of it seemed clear. It showed that God was sovereign (along with Isaiah 46:9-11). I asked some brethren at my church about this, and for the first time I heard the word "Calvinism." The crux of the comments about my question of Romans 9 was, "You've been watching Calvinists, haven't you?" I had no clue what they were talking about, and when they described Calvinists or Calvinism to me, it was always in the most wicked of terms. I didn't want anyone to think I was like that. The problem is, there was no Biblical explanation or interpretation of Romans 9 verse by verse (which is what I was asking for) and no Bible verses that explained the "wicked" doctrines of these "wicked" Calvinists. The crux of what they were saying is, "Calvinists twist scripture to make God a wicked god and man a robot. God is a god of love according to John 3:16 and their view makes this a lie." Well, I didn't want to be lumped into that group, but I was still reading my Bible and finding other verses that basically spoke of God's sovereignty and still didn't have an answer. (By the way, Arminianism wasn't mentioned until they contrasted it against Calvinism, but I never got an explanation of what they believed at all.) I did what any good Berean would (Acts 17:11), I studied the scriptures to see if something were true. I began listening to both sides of this "debate." I remember listening to Dave Hunt, a brother whose broadcast have blessed me richly, going back and forth with another guy named James White and for the first time thinking that Dave wasn't answering the question. Then I saw a video on a Christian TV cable network (it was called SkyAngel, but it no longer exists) that talked about God's love and sovereignty, and this video was in several parts so I had to watch it for weeks. It went into all the verses (and others) I questioned and did a good job of explaining it. I actually knew it was truth, but I was still upset and didn't want to believe it because I thought it was unfair. I struggled with this for two years until I finally came to the conclusion that God is God and His goodness is not measured by our standards. The bottom line, the Bible had to be my guide (2 Timothy 3:16-17) based on its context, content, and grammar. I couldn't base any of these doctrines on leaning on my own understanding (which Proverbs 3:5 speaks against) or philosophies and vain deceit after man's traditions (Colossians 2:8 speaks against that). This matter has to be studied through different verses. If Romans 9, John 6:37-44, Ephesians 1:4-5, 2:1-3, Isaiah 46:9-11, Proverbs 16:9, and other verses like this can't be reconciled with John 3:16, 1 Timothy 2:4-6, Titus 2:11, 2 Peter 3:9, 1 John 2:2, and other verses, then we either make God's Word contradictory or we are going to misinterpret the plain context of verses to fit our view. This is the reason no one should truly use the label of Calvinist or Arminian; they should call themselves born again Christians that believe the doctrines of the Bible and flesh out those doctrines without labels. Unfortunately, the preconceived notion of the labels and the in-fighting has caused believers to spout their opinions and not scripture (in love and meekness). Thanks for reading and God bless.
Jason Schmidt Eph 2 isn’t saying this faith is the gift of God. Salvation is. Because you’re saved by grace through faith, therefore salvation is a gift..... Rom 3: 27 ¶ Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Rom 6: 23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
If faith were the gift of God then grace would precede faith. It doesn’t. Rom 5: 1 ¶ Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: 2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. Faith is our access to grace. Calvinism is wrong.
I like John's gracious way to deal with a position he personally disagrees with. Why do we need a man-made system to understand grace, election, and predestination, be it Calvinism or Arminianism? Both systems somehow fall short of the whole truth, otherwise it would be stated as such in the bible. Salvation is a person, not a theory. The gospel is the power of God to save, not a paradigm. I still wonder why God saved me, the gospel is a mystery, and I will take forever to comprehend its depth and wisdom.
macolyis It sounds like you wanted to be able to understand the bible. It sounds like you wanted to be freed from demonic possession. No one claims that we can free ourselves. We say that we can cry out to God for salvation. He’s the one who saves.
The less one knows Fear of the LORD, and ' Go and learn what this means, I desire Mercy , not sacrifice" the more likely one is going to actualize the sovereignty and authority' of the human heart in their understandings..
Here is absolute Biblical proof that God does NOT cause or determine everything as per Calvinism; In Jeremiah 19:5 God says, “They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal-something I did NOT COMMAND or mention, nor did it enter my mind.” 2nd Peter 3:9 says, “The Lord is…not willing that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance.” and yet, it also has Jesus saying, "Broad is the road that leads to destruction (hell) and many are on it, but straight and narrow is the road that leads to life (Heaven) and few ever find it."
If we are dead in our trespasses and sins, as Scripture affirms over and over, then there is no possibility of our deciding anything because we’d have to be spiritually alive to do so. It is Christ who makes us come alive in Him and causes us to see His glory, His love, His forgiveness, so that the only possible thing we CAN do is bow before Him in humility and adoration, committing every aspect of our lives to His service. It’s His decision, from start to finish (from before the foundations of the world) and my insisting that I have a part to play in it comes only from my sinful pride. To God and God alone be the glory forever!
@@josephbrandenburg4373 you absolutely have a part in your sanctification. James said faith without works is dead. Our works are the evidence of a genuine saving faith. The part where we do nothing because a spiritual corpse can do nothing, is in our salvation. Scripture says over and over again that God chooses us. If we are dead in our trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1) then we are completely unable to do anything pleasing to God, especially manufacturing a faith which Scripture says is a gift from God, NOT OF WORKS so that no one can boast. If we choose God then we most certainly have done a good work and have reason to boast. We rob God of His glory. But if He chooses to save a remnant of undeserving sinners for His good pleasure (Eph. 1), then He gets ALL the glory, as He rightly should. To God alone be the glory!!
@@misfitstranger the passage you are referencing is referring to "grace" "and that is not of yourself, it is a gift" refers to the grace (the grammatical gender of "that" and "grace" align in the Greek, "faith" is the wrong gender). You shouldn't misuse the passage, it undermines the better points you're making. I don't ever understand what people mean by "glory" when they talk about this subject. What exactly is "glory"? How do you define it? Why does God want it? Can it be stolen -- and if so, does that mean that God's determination was for himself to be robbed of it? I'm not trying to be difficult here. It's utterly vague to me. So anyways, thank you for answering my first question. I agree that sanctification is a "synergistic" process. But I think that "Perserverence of the saints" is the idea that "remaining" a Christian is monergistic. I don't have a strong opinion about OSAS, but I think it's a better position than either Arminian "apostasy" or Reformed "perserverence". Anyways, I think that the idea that being a believer is the only thing we "CAN" do butts up against a metaphor the Bible uses to describe our relationship with God. How is Christ like a bridegroom if his bride cannot refuse him? Isn't that more like a kidnapper?
By His Stripes Regeneration happens after faith.... Jhn 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) All that believed would receive the Spirit after Jesus’ resurrection and ascension.... Jhn 14: 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. Jhn 15: 26 ¶ But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: Jhn 16: 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. The Holy Spirit is first given here.... Jhn 20: 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: So they didn’t receive the Holy Spirit until after the resurrection as Jesus stated in John 7. That’s well after the disciples believed, and many others as well...... Jhn 2: 23 ¶ Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. Luk 7: 50 ¶ And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace. Even after the resurrection, faith still preceded regeneration..... Eph 1: 13 ¶ In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Acts 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him. Just to clarify what regeneration is. It is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.... Rom 8: 9 ¶ But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. 10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 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. Spiritual life happens after belief..... Jhn 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. The disciples hadn’t received this life before the resurrection of Christ..... Jhn 14:19 ¶ Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. Peter hadn’t yet been converted..... Luk 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. (Matt 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.)
Or is it possible that there is another answer out there that our human minds can’t comprehend 🤷♂️ cause God blows our minds, so he has some answers we can’t comprehend
Agreed. "As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all." (Eccl 11:5)
The distinction between Calvinism and Arminianism regarding the role of God's grace in salvation. - A question is raised about prevenient grace, which is the idea that the Holy Spirit enables potential belief through cooperation. - Calvinism and Arminianism both agree that fallen humanity cannot save themselves, but they differ in how divine grace works within the human heart. - The central difference is whether grace enables a choice to believe or irresistibly draws individuals to faith, with Calvinism emphasizing irresistible grace.
Can we just accept that no matter how much scripture we know we simply don't have all the answers an maybe never will. Trust that Jesus is the way the truth and the life and let him show you the way. Don't be foolish in your own knowledge.
When will those who call themselves "Calvinists" admit that the doctrine began with Augustine's attempt 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. See Dr. Ken Wilson's research on the writings of Augustine in the link below. czcams.com/video/BnOMORGM2Qw/video.html
I agree. People can get way too bogged down in divisive issues and that makes us look bad to the world. Our finite minds can never grasp the full complexity of God and his ways. Especially a danger if they’re writing a book about it!!!!
I once turned on the TV to a program called "Will and Grace," I thought that I was going to be watching a debate between an Arminian and a Calvinist... Boy was I WRONG! Those who subscribe to the idea of man’s “free will” will usually describe it as a "Libertarian Free Will," and to have a Libertarian Free Will means that man is an autonomous being who operates independently and is not controlled by others or outside forces. Friend, that is a description of God, not man, therefore to subscribe to the notion that man has a libertarian free will is to subscribe to the lie that "you will be like God..." (Genesis 3:4-5) But it is actually far worse than that, Libertarian Free Will is an assertion of an autonomy even from God; that man is sovereign over his own heart, and if man is sovereign over his own heart, then even God has no determinative power over the choices that he makes, neither does God even have the power of simple persuasion since man’s autonomy would free his own determinative will from any causation, so instead of an individual merely being "like God" in that His will is neither determined nor persuaded, in asserting that not even God can determine his will, he pushes God out of His throne, stripping Him of His power, and grants to himself a power that is greater than Yahweh, about whom we know that nothing comes to pass without His determining will (Lamentations 3:37), and nothing can be done outside of or against His determinative will (Ephesians 1:11, Psalm 33:9-11, 103:19). Indeed, without realizing it, those who assert libertarian free will are standing with Satan's 5 "I will" statements in Isaiah 14:13-14: "I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God, I will also sit on the mount of the congregation in the sides of the north, I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.” The audacity is terrifying. The question then needs to be asked, is man’s will free to do only as he pleases, or is God’s will free to do only as He pleases? There could only be three possibilities: it may be one or the other, it may be neither, or it may be both. We know that the answer cannot be neither, because if we were to assert that God’s will is not free, then the immediate problem is to determine what it is that places limitations on God? And we know that God is all powerful, able to do all that can be done, and He is subject to no one (Isaiah chapters 40-45). We also know that the answer cannot be both, for if both man and God each have a will that enables them to do only as they please, what then happens when the two wills are contradictory to one another? Nebuchadnezzar certainly understood that man’s will cannot override that of God’s (Daniel 4:35). The answer then is that only God’s will is free; man’s will therefore is subject to, and contingent upon the will of God who works all things after the counsel of His will (Ephesians 1:11). If, however, an individual agrees with scripture that God retains the right to intrude into the will of man at any time, and for any reason that He chooses (cf. Genesis 20:6), then libertarian free will is disproved, and those who continue to assert man’s Libertarian Free Will are shown either to actually believe in some other form of “free will” that they have failed to define, or they are shown to be inconsistent, and inconsistency is a sign of a faulty position.
If God's will is always done that means God is the one responsible for everything that happens. How can he justly punish anyone for doing evil when he is the one that determined that they must do it in the first place? Also, why would God himself do things that are contrary to his own will? Example: He doesn't desire that any perish but that all repent 2 Pt 3:9 and wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth 1Tim 2:4 yet many die unsaved/separated from him and go on to enteral torment. Obviously something is very wrong with this picture.
@@evanu6579 Jesus didn't think that this passage was limited to the king of Babylon. He uses verse 12 to describe Satan's fall; see Luke 10:18 and Revelation 12:8-10. The passage in Isaiah 14 speaks to the king of Babylon AND to Satan who is behind him. Take a look at Ezekiel 28:12-17 for similar language where the passage speaks to both the king of Tyre AND Satan.
@@lmorter7867 You said: *"How can he justly punish anyone for doing evil when he is the one that determined that they must do it in the first place?"* EXCELLENT question! Look at the life of Joseph - God ordained that Joseph go into slavery (Genesis 45:8) so that He might, through Joseph, preserve his people that they might become a nation from whom the Messiah would come. God intended the action (Joseph going to Egypt) for the glory of God while Joseph’s brothers on the other hand, sold him into slavery out of jealousy (a sinful act). Here we see in this one act ordained by God, two intentions: God ordains an action and intends it for good, while men perform the action and intend it for evil (Genesis 50:20). Proverbs 16:9 - The mind of man plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps. God is sovereign over all and ordains whatsoever comes to pass, and whatever He ordains, because God’s will is perfectly righteous and holy, His intention is always for the glory of God, and His will always serves that purpose. Man’s will however is fallen because of Adam’s sin (Romans 5), and unless his will is captivated by the righteousness of God working within his will to do and to work for the glory of God (Philippians 2:12-13), he will always work out what God ordains for his own sinful purposes. In this way, God ordains whatsoever comes to pass, but He is not the author of sin - the existence of sin is in His eternal plan, therefore He has indeed ordained it, but he never commands individuals to act sinfully; that they do out of their own intentions that have become fallen in Adam. God decreed the action and meant it for good, but men performed the action and meant it for evil. Because men perform the action intending it to fulfill their own sinful desires, although the action was decreed by God for His glory, men remain culpable for actions that they perform according to their own wicked intentions. (cf. Isaiah 10:5-11) Remember James 1:13-14 - “Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.” God does not make men evil in order that they might carry out the decrees of God for wicked purposes. All men who are of natural generation from Adam have inherited a fallen nature (Romans 5) and are by nature children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3), and they will naturally act out God's decrees for their own wicked intentions, so, of course God does not tempt men to act wickedly, wickedness is in their nature thanks to Adam, and every man will be held accountable for acting upon the wicked intentions of his heart. You said: *"why would God himself do things that are contrary to his own will?"* Another excellent question. You need to understand that God wills things in two different senses. The Bible demands this by the way it speaks of God’s will in different ways. Edwards uses the terms “will of decree” and “will of command.” Jonathan Edwards explains in his book "The Freedom of the Will" that “God's will of decree (or sovereign will) is not his will in the same sense as his will of command (or moral will) is. Therefore it is not difficult at all to suppose that the one may be otherwise than the other: his will in both senses is his inclination. But when we say he wills virtue, or loves virtue or the happiness of his creature; thereby is intended that virtue or the creature’s happiness, absolutely and simply considered, is agreeable to the inclination of his nature. His will of decree is his inclination to a thing not as to that thing absolutely and simply, but with reference to the universality of things. So God, though he hates a thing as it is simply, (such as sin) may incline to permit it with reference to the universality of things." This is a fundamental truth that helps explain some otherwise perplexing things in the Bible, namely, that God often expresses his will to be one way, and then acts to bring about another state of affairs. o God opposes hatred toward his people, yet ordained that his people be hated in Egypt (Genesis 12:3; Psalm 105:25-”He turned their hearts to hate his people”). o He hardens Pharaoh’s heart, but commands him to let his people go (Exodus 4:21; 5:1; 8:1). o He makes plain that it is sin for David to take a military census of his people, but he ordains that he do it (2 Samuel 24:1; 24:10). o He opposes adultery, but ordains that Absalom should lie with his father’s wives (Exodus 20:14; 2 Samuel 12:11). o He forbids rebellion and insubordination against the king, but ordained that Jeroboam and the ten tribes should rebel against Rehoboam (Romans 13:1; 1 Samuel 15:23; 1 Kings 12:15-16). o He opposes murder, but ordains the murder of his Son (Exodus 20:13; Acts 4:28).
Lawrence Stanley Luk 10 and Rev 12 happened at the cross. Michael was at war with Satan while Jesus was in earth. Jhn 12: 31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. 32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. 33 This he said, signifying what death he should die. Rev 12 specifically says that NOW is salvation. That’s at the cross. Eze 28, is just about the king of Tyre. Satan isn’t mentioned there either.
Without wanting to sound controversial, wouldn't it be great if we could take as much effort to celebrate our shared reformed beliefs rather than arguing about the differences? Not saying which path I walk but some of the comments I'm reading are not what I expect from people who follow Christ. Peace to you all brothers and sisters.
Daniel 4:35 ESV / 1,832 helpful votes All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, “What have you done?”
Prevenient grace to all is Biblical. “From the standpoint of the gospel they (Jews) are enemies for your (Gentiles = all non-Jews) sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.” - Romans 11:28-32 (NASB)
Rascal All of everyone. You can’t affirm the first all to mean every single person and then create a new definition for the second all. That’s not how it works. That’s interpreting Paul’s point through a theological system, not what he actually says. Romans 11 makes it clear throughout the chapter that anyone (Jew or Gentile) can be grafted into God’s covenant people (the body of Christ) if they don’t persist in unbelief. Romans 11 also affirms that any Jew or Gentile can be cut off for unbelief. Because of God’s grace and mercy, there’s not one single person on earth who absolutely CANNOT be grafted into the body of Christ. Ironically, even John Calvin says this. He’s being inconsistent with his other teachings when he says that, but even he understood that he couldn’t overlook passages like this. He just throws it into the mystery bucket.
Draw nigh unto me and I will draw nigh unto you seek and you shall find God's going to do his part with Grace but we still have to do our part and respond and actively stir up the gift though is within us it says in Revelation Jesus says I come to knock on the door and if any man will open the door I will sup with him and he with me citizen John that God gave His only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him will have eternal life so it says who so ever that means everyone God is not willing that any should perish but all coming everlasting life
Ya got it! God is sovereign. He does what He wants, when He wants to do it and to whomever He wants to do it to and He doesn't ask our permission. Romans 9:15 "For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” Verse 18 "Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens." Verse 21 "Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?"
@@AVB2 Hallelujah, what a Savior! From where you're at, keep going to Romans 12:1 especially the 5 beautiful verses before that :) Each in his own order :) as in First Cor. 15 and then wait, trust and obey, like there's no other Way!
@@jhq9064 The five beautiful verses before Romans 12:1 are Romans 11:32-36 "For God has imprisoned everyone in disobedience so he could have mercy on everyone. Oh, how great are God’s riches and wisdom and knowledge! How impossible it is for us to understand his decisions and his ways! For who can know the LORD’s thoughts? Who knows enough to give him advice? And who has given him so much that he needs to pay it back? For everything comes from him and exists by his power and is intended for his glory. All glory to him forever! Amen." REALLY GOOD STUFF!!! THANKS.
he is angry with the wicked all day every day it's a miracle he would want to save anyone it's Gods authority vs mans. your dumbedt down strawman notwithstanding 😅😅😅😅
Although leaning towards Calvinism myself, the scripture given does not adequately support the argument for ultimate self determination. In the Arminian view, Christ is still raising us up and making us alive together, the Grace of God is doing all of the work, they simply say that it is us who allow God to do that. Are there other scriptures that we could turn to in order for a more complete understanding of this fundamental point? I've been wrestling with this for a while now.
FORGET ABOUT CALVINISM OR ARMINIANISM MY FRIEND. IF YOU HAVE DECLARED WITH YOUR MOUTH JESUS IS LORD AND GOD RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD THAT IS ALL YOU NEED TO BE SAVED. THAT DOESN'T MEAN ONCE YOU ARE SAVED ABANDON GOD FOR GOOD. REMEMBER, GOD HAS ORDERED US TO PREACH THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST TO EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING. WORKS WON'T GET YOU SAVED, BUT IMPORTANT OBEYING THE HOLY WORD OF GOD. GOD BLESS YOU. JOHN 3:16-18
Rush Leigh Raising us up and making us sit together in the heavens with Christ is after you’re in Him through faith. Besides that, these are spiritual blessings that we have in Christ Jesus in heavenly places. It’s only because you’re in Him. Before you were in Him you had no hope. None of these blessings were yours.... Eph 2: 11 ¶ Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: 13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. Without hope!! But now in Christ....!!! God bless.
Prevenient grace is another word for "free will". Arminianism would say God's trying his hardest but he is too much a gentleman to override a person's will. In the Arminian worldview, there could be a situation where no one would be saved and heaven would be empty of saved human souls if everyone of their will decided against trusting Jesus for salvation.
Who can resist God’s will? God does not learn. Grace means some are saved not all. Prevenient grace is a total hash and unbiblical. Partial regeneration.... no bueno. Election answers why am I a Christian.
"Jesus went on to say, “This is why I told you (v44) that no one can come to me unless the Father has ENABLED them!" John 6:65 Grace is God working in us called synergy! "Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent!" John 6:28-29 "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is GOD WHO WORKS IN YOU to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose!" Philippians 2:12-13 God gives all Grace by the Holy Spirit which enables all to come to Christ by their free will! In Calvinism some were created and born dead in sin to be damned and have no chance to be saved and no choice in the matter whatsoever! This evil God is not irresistible.
I went to a fantastic Wesleyan seminary with people I consider brothers and sisters in Christ. Even so, I find prevenient grace to be a mess. There’s nothing in Scripture that points to making a person who is dead in sin half alive so he can will himself toward full life.
Anyone that is saved, ask genuinely, did you truly feel like you could resist what was revealed to you at the moment of salvation? Did any of you feel like you could look at the truth of salvation, ball it up and put it in a nutshell and understand jesus saves us and then you take that nutshell and decide to throw it away and walk away not saved and choose to not accept the truth, could you have done that in your own personal testimony? I've asked that myself because we can only personally ask that because our salvation is only between ourselves and God and no one else. I personally know that God opened my eyes and did the work for me to enter in, not ever being able to reject it. If rejection was possible then I think it would have to present its self but it never did because I was chosen. It's like trying to say the sky isn't blue when it actually is. If you are saying it isn't blue then you are insane and choose not to believe its blue. It's not that you don't believe its blue, it's you don't want it to be blue. God meets everyone spiritually where they need God to be and I believe the ones that reject him do so of their own doing because of pride of life not want to accept the truth of bending the knee to christ. The ones that accept him are chosen because of the willingness to bend the knee. Free will is apart of Gods image but can only be God honoring when we bend the knee and we can do that only after jesus died and rose again. After that the holy spirit could influence our free will to bring us to salvation. Before the cross Gods influence was all external but with the holy spirit its internal. God can finally make two become one. God is outside of time and with that he can choose us through predestination but free will in an eternal God image way still determines our salvation. In a carnal, worldly timeline Gods will determines how we become saved. Meaning he decides what our testimony will be and when were born ext.... but we eternally(through free will) have already determined our salvation. So God through his knowledge and being outside of time being infinite has already figured out what makes you tick and if you will accept being 2nd to Him. Then he takes the answer(you). And places you in the when and the where and we will find out the why when we go back to Him in heaven.
I came to faith as a child, so I never had this Damascus Road-type experience. According to Calvinists, they claim everyone is born a hater of God. Well, if I was, it was before I could even comprehend anything. I don’t ever remember consciously hating God in my life. There are millions of testimonies similar to mine that I have yet to hear a Calvinist explain. As for your post, there have been testimonies of people who resisted multiple times and felt a tug but didn’t give in until like the 13th time. So how would a Calvinist explain that?
@@BK-yz7px B K from the moment of the Fall, all humanity is totally deprived and in sin (for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God - Romans 3:23). None is righteous, no one understands, no one seeks for God (Psalms 14:1-3, 53:1-3). You may not have consciously formed the thought that "man, I hate God," but when we love other things - including ourselves - more than God, we are in fact disobeying God's commandments. I too was born into a Christian environment and became a born-again Christian at an early age without the Damascus experience, but that is not to say I had never loved anything else more than God before my salvation. Even afterwards my flesh would be drawn to things other than God if left unchecked and that's the human condition of all, including Christians, even Paul writes "For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate." Just because you weren't aware of your own sin before salvation, it doesn't mean what the bible says is untrue or applies only selectively. If you feel that you have no sins to repent, or you are resisting the idea of total depravity, then that alone is a sin that you need to repent, for no one is holy besides God, no one is blameless besides Jesus, and pride in the form of self-righteousness is the father of all sin.
blingx2sys Stop accusing me of something I never said. I’m merely speaking truthfully of my experience. I’m not going to lie for the sake of Calvinism. Lying is a sin. What I’m pointing out is that almost all Calvinists I hear will say all men are hating God as in they are shaking their fist at God. When you are a 2-year-old, you are not shaking your fist at God. Even in Calvinism if God decided to regenerate me and millions of other people before we are even aware of anything, that still eliminates the idea that everyone is consciously hating God. That’s just a problem in Calvinism, and they never seem to deal with that group of people. Also, even most Calvinists affirm that the Bible implies an age of accountability.
blingx2sys This is John MacArthur on the age of accountability. This is a Calvinist perspective in the link below. Other Calvinists, meanwhile, deny it. But I think John MacArthur makes a great case. Adam Harwood, of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote a whole book on this issue. Here’s the MacArthur link: www.gty.org/library/articles/A264/the-age-of-accountability
@@BK-yz7px I happened to come across your other comment demanding John Piper to explain total depravity, which implied to me that you don't believe that all humanity is completely under sin and fall short of God, which is in contrast of what the bible says. I personally have not heard that expression of "shaking fist" at God from any Calvinist, and if that's what some Calvinists say, I'm sure that's just that - an expression, for the bible does not define sin as simply and exclusively shaking fist at God. As for the 2 year old, or even the newborn - they are all under sin in the sense that they are self-centered and selfish even in their innocence. Parents actually have to teach them to share their toys, they demand 100% of attention all the time, the whole world revolves around them. They are innocently rebellious (ever seen a toddler tantrum?) because they are not naturally going to obey parents, it takes a lot of nurturing and teaching to get them to behave in morally acceptable ways. My nephew when he was just over a yeat old, as sweet and innocent as he was, had no issue disregarding my bodily fatigue and pain while he just wanted to hop on my back for fun, for goodness's sake!! Also, you and I both agree lying is sin, right? Children are natural liars, there are psychology studies after studies proving that they can innocently lie. Yes it may not be a consciously made behaviour - but that just goes to show that, even in our most untainted instinct, we are totally under sin from the moment we are born, whether we are aware of it or not. That's why all humanity, regardless of age, needs Jesus! Why did he ever need to die if humans are not completely deprived and could somehow find their way back to God in the state of sin?
Preveniant grace is best understood by the doctrine of repentance. For example scripture says God calls sinners to repentance. If repentance is irresistible by means of effectual grace than God is merely playing a game with sinners. For scripture says he desires for sinners to repent, waits for us to repent, gets angry when we don't repent. If he is the one making us repent, scripture becomes very confusing.
For whom the Lord loves He chastens, And scourges every son whom He receives.” If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten? But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons. Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live? For they indeed for a few days chastened us as seemed best to them, but He for our profit, that we may be partakers of His holiness. Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. Hebrews 12:6-11 NKJV
I appreciate Piper's attempt to represent classical Arminianism accurately, but his approach is misguided. Working to clarify strengths of Arminian theology and weaknesses of Calvinism on my channel, especially regarding Romans 9-11.
Your video on Rom 9-11 in missional perspective was so helpful. Seeing that God chooses his people to be the instrument by which those who were passed over come to salvation really opened my eyes to the accuracy of the Arminian perspective. Thanks!
Yes! OFE vids helped me understand the Calvinism debate. I hope you are going to do more on Romans 9-11. We need more Arminian interpretations of that passage.
Gen 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger. Act 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, .
Please explain to me how Calvinism explains how God would only chose some and not others; discounting large swaths of people the opportunity to find Salvation? I believe that every person has the freedom to choose, or not, a faith in Jesus as our Lord and Savior. I believe that every person, once saved, should continuously work out their faith, seeking to repent and pick up their cross daily, and that each promise of God is preceded with a caveat that we must follow Him.
God chose only Abraham a sinner among a multitude of sinners ,God chose Israel a sinful nation over other sinful nations ,God chose Jacob a sinner over Esau a sinner ,Isaac over Ishmael,Jesus chose his disciples,He chose Paul. Redemption was at work before God created the heavens and the earth ,and God chose whom he would adopt as his sons Eph 1:4-5
Stephen said “ye do always resist the holy spirit” in Acts 7:51, so resisting the holy spirit IS possible, and could potentially be the very unforgivable sin of the blasphemy of the holy spirit. irresistible grace means God could literally save everyone if He wanted to, but chooses not to. and yet scripture says over and over that “God wills for all men everywhere to be saved.” so while much of calvinism is true, irresistible grace is a plain contradiction to scripture. as for arminians, one problem they have is that it is possible for one to lose their salvation. God repeatedly tells us in His word that He knew who will be saved from the foundation of the world. Romans 8:29-30 says everyone that God once justifies (saves) will also be glorified (new body, etc.). therefore the truth is very much in the middle, and i don’t yet know of a particular denomination that holds to such views.
When we are made alive in Christ, we get a new heart that loves the truth and are drawn to the Truth. Here is irresistible grace. Christ is so irresistable that we cannot but love Him and follow Him and want to know Him more and more! I thank God for this grace. If left to myself I would have never chosen the right thing and would go to hell. But God!!!!!! He saves those He loves. He doesn't lieve the decision to the stupid sheep. How wonderful!!
What I understand is that God has called everyone and made his grace available for everyone through Jesus Christ. But the final decision is up to us to repent and believe in his son and have faith in him. If that wasn't the case, why would call call us to repent? Why would he tell us to turn our hearts? Why does it say "believe and be saved"? It doesn't say "wait for God to make you believe in him". If that wasn't the case, why would he judge people?
Here is absolute Biblical proof that God does NOT cause or determine everything as per Calvinism; In Jeremiah 19:5 God says, “They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal-something I did NOT COMMAND or mention, nor did it enter my mind.” 2nd Peter 3:9 says, “The Lord is…not willing that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance.” and yet, it also has Jesus saying, "Broad is the road that leads to destruction (hell) and many are on it, but straight and narrow is the road that leads to life (Heaven) and few ever find it."
@@Mike-qt7jp ??? This is not the place for an argument but that does not negate that view of Scripture. How about when God says that he chooses some people for hell and some people for heaven or that some are elect. "Calvinists only those who take scripture at face value and don't try to explain it away." That quotes from an Armenian by the way
@@Mike-qt7jp I'm sure you mean well and may love Jesus a whole lot and if you are my brother then I don't want to say anything other than what would be encouraging to you. But in your well meaning, don't dismiss the entirety of scripture for your own comfort.
@@Mike-qt7jp😅😅😅😅 Jeremiah 1 I knew you before.... your passage proves total depravity ignoramus the opposite of your blasphemy 😅 He causes everything good everything bad is in his absence you have no clue what Christianity or Calvinism is sit down and listen zombie self righteous narcissist arminains 🤦
I don't identify as either, though I keep being asked what I believe in. Is it necessary to classify believes to either of the 2? I like David pawson or even Spurgeon's stand on this, where he says: how can you reconcile friends . Is it possible for you, Pastor John, to explain if there is a more biblical theology to salvation than either calvinism or arminianism? Because there seems to be biblical bases for and against either. Perhaps both have borrowed some things from the tradition of man rather than from the word of God.
@From The Darkness To The Light did he explicitly say this or is it inferred by calvinist. I do not know but from the written down sermons of his that I have read. He does not specifically identify with either.
John, do you use the prevenient grace doctrine to witness to the unsaved? Should we completely understand it before we witness to unsaved? I am sarcastic of course. I have been saved 50 years and it has made not a wit of difference in my walk with Jesus. How does Prevenient Grace apply to the thief on the cross who crossed from railing abuse to plea for salvation. Grace did not preceed his plea.
1 Corinthians 3:1-7 KJVS [1] And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. [2] I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. [3] For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? [4] For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? [5] Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? [6] I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. [7] So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase: What we likely have here is a prime example of what Apostle Paul prophesied about. Ephesians 4:14-15 KJVS [14] That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; [15] But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: If you want to understand sound doctrine study the Word and let the unction of the Holy Ghost teach you. 1 John 2:20,27 KJVS [20] But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. [27] But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. www.justifiedfreely.com
Y’all I have a question. If it’s true that Gods grace is irresistible, then why do people resist the Lord? It seems to me that we have a choice to make.
Calvinism understanding of the Bible is that the grace of God that brings salvation is specific to the elect only and is irresistible because it brings them out of darkness in the light but for the non-elect God withholds that same so they they happily continue to be dead in trespasses and sins.
I used to consider myself Calvinist and at one time was deeply studied in it. The Calvinist view is not that all of God's Grace is irresistible, but rather that there is a certain sort of grace, an electing grace which he gives to his eternally chosen over and above his 'common grace.' A term that most calvinists I knew / still find more suitable than "irresistible" is "effectual:" it's a grace that is effective to remove any and all resistance to his gospel work. I no longer call myself a Calvinist (I never did like the term) although I still maintain that election, in the general essence expressed by the "reformed" camp, is a manifestly scriptural doctrine. What I no longer will engage in, however, is the systematizing and logic-chopping of things which are God's business, "neither do I exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me." (Psalm 131) Many Christians, whether Arminian or Calvinist, are fully content to leave as mystery how the Lord is ONE Lord yet expressed in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost... yet somehow find themselves far more confident in their theological systems to discern the mystery discussed in this video. It's better, it would seem, to be as Jesus called us to be: like so many little children (Matt 18:3) who are happy to leave our Father's matters to him. As His kids we should believe with ZERO caveat, that "God is not willing any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" _and_ with ZERO caveat believe him when he says, "no man can come to me except the Father who sent me draw him, and all who the Father draws will come to me."
Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; (Edwards, Wesley, Calvin, Arminius, included) yea further; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it. ECC 8:17
Arminianism is the product of people's belief that it is unfair of God to sentence anyone to eternal hell without giving that person a fair chance to believe. Ask any Arminian. It starts, not with scripture, but with a feeling that Calvinism makes God unjust; God is not unjust; therefore, Calvinism must be wrong. But a right, scriptural analysis reveals that God is just; everything God does is just; therefore, God is just in condemning whom he pleases, and saving whom he pleases.
@@madcow9421 Why would I tell someone that when no one knows who the elect are? That's silly. Read the parable of the wedding feast in Matthew 22. The external call goes to all; God makes the inward call to the elect, which only he can do.
Then, why isn't everyone saved? Some people are not chosen? Yes, the glory is Al His for the hole process of regeneration, but some people chose not to accept His gift.
I think we so proudly proclaim our views as if we are sovereign you find scripture on both sides of views our minds cannot comprehend God and all his ways does not matter how many degrees we have the bible says how beautiful are the feet the bring the good news God does not look at man made doctrines but He does look at how many people have brought into His kingdom we are called to to take the good knews and how He moves in people's hearts we do not know but scripture does say by faith we come to Christ now did He generate all that faith in me or only some so I could accept Chist I dont truly know but I know He does give me a choice to continue in this faith so we are really stretching scripture when we remove free will from man Godbless
I just follow someone no one talks about much, Jesus Christ the Son of God. To me following Calvin or Amenius is the same as following Mary. The Lord has always given Grace, it is His character. Follow Him. Grace is simply unearned favour especially the favour of having our sins forgiven and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Salvation is very simple.
In Ephesians, chapter 2, St Paul addresses the mainly Gentile believers as : ' you were dead in trespasses and sins...', yet he himself had also been dead, but a different version of 'dead', dead in self-righteous religious works (Hebrews 6:1.) ! How can the Judge of all the Earth hold someone responsible, if he had no say in the decision or the final outcome whatsoever (hyper-calvinism) ? Human beings are certainly not lifeless clay (Romans 9:21.) after all, nor are they mindless animals (according to godless Darwinism), but somewhere in between, cooperation is required (Psalm 32:8,9.) !
According to Jesus, Paul was dead in his trespasses and sins. "For sin is the transgression of the law." 1 John 3:4 God-the-Son said to the Pharisees which had come from Jerusalem , Mark 7, "For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition (Grk paradosis) of men as the washing of pots and cups; and many other such like things do ye." A former Pharisee from Jerusalem: "And I profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions (Grk. paradosis) of my fathers." - Paul, Galatians 1 But Jesus said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition (paradosis). _ This said, I agree with the end of what you said. We are responsible. We can choose whatever we want. No caveat. But, when and if we do choose, we give ALL glory and credit to God. This is a mystery, but one the Bible teaches. I think we do well to leave God's matters to him and just believe all that he says as little children. (Matt 18:3) :] Thanks for reading.
In Ephesians 2:8, grace is the gift from God and not faith. Faith is our response to the grace that God is giving... Man has the free will to receive or reject the goodness of GOD... if you read the entire Bible nowhere you can find a word SOVEREIGN attached to the word GRACE..
And nowhere in the Bible can you find the words "free will", but you WILL find that man's plans WILL be frustrated by God, meaning He has ultimate say in all things.
bible is very clear that you have no free will to be born of your physical birth and you have no free will to be born of your spiritual birth. john chapter 3 makes it extremely clear. next
Referencing a verse and then saying next before hearing another perspective reminds me of Aminians who quote John 3:16 and then ignore any thoughtful Calvinist interpretations
@Hosanna well I'm not a Calvinist, but I guess I don't see the problem for calvinism in that section. Why do you think Calvinists would have trouble with that text?
@Hosanna Okay, I see what your saying now. I think Calvinists believe in a type of free will called compatibilism. They believe a person always chooses their greatest desire at any given moment, and since their desires are all determined by factors outside of them (ie God), their choices are likewise determined. That's why Calvinists will say that you do what you want and are therefore accountable. Whether you think this is a sufficient explanation for how sinners are morally responsible under determinism is a separate point. In this case, I think a Calvinist would take john 3:16 as an example of total depravity and people following their own desires. "he’s clearly saying men willfully love to do evil things like steal and fornicate. That’s free choice" I assume that a Calvinist would agree with you here. Calvinists believe sinners "freely" and "willfully" choose their sin. As long as you define "freely" in the context of always following your greatest desire.
At 3:15 Piper got it a little wrong. People like lightened flowers do say that men can produce their own faith in God completely apart from God. And that after they produce their own faith and God sees it, then God chooses them. In an interview with dr. Olson Flowers expressed that view and Olson disagreed. Which would make Flowers a Pelagian.
You are wrong about Flowers. He doesn't teach that people can produce their own faith apart from God. He agrees that all men must be drawn by God (John 6:44) as scripture clearly teaches. Paul teaches in Romans that God reveals himself to all through his creation which is why all can and must be held accountable when they are commanded to believe. Jesus goes on to explain in John 6:45 how God draws people to himself - "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.". He explains that they are drawn by what they hear and believe. We need the power of the Holy Spirit in order to be regenerated. No where does scripture teach that God regenerates men first. It teaches the opposite. The Holy Spirit is received after you believe not before. Paul says in Gal 3:2 that the Spirit is received by hearing and believing. He says in Eph 1:13 that we were included in Christ when we heard the message of truth and were marked in him with the seal of the Holy Spirit when we believed not before. Calvinists have the cart before the horse on this one. They conflate faith with works so they had to come up with the idea that regeneration precedes faith. Paul contrasts faith with works. Faith is not a work. Everyone is capable of believing God or rejecting him. Jesus explains how God's free grace works with faith and trust in the beautiful story of the Prodigal son. The son was dead to the father yet he came to his senses on his own and went back to the father. The father didn't forcibly make his son come to him or make him work to earn his love back. He received him with open arms simply because his son humbled himself and came to him. This is a picture from Jesus of our heavenly Father. Until we "humble ourselves (which require free will) we can't receive God's free grace. God gives favor/grace to the humble but opposes the proud (too many vs that say this to list). Everyone is fully capable of recognizing God and believing Him. Jesus also said - "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself." He was lifted up on the cross. Prior to the cross God drew men
This post could not be less accurate. I've been following Leighton Flowers for years and every broadcast where faith is brought up he denounces the idea that man can produce faith in and of themselves. I listened to that whole interview. Please send a time stamp of where he said that "man can produce faith completely apart from god." soteriology101.com/2019/05/04/is-faith-effectually-given/ Flowers believes that faith is granted, enabled, and a gift from God, just not an effectual gift As a brother in Christ I'm asking that you don't make comments like this is if you are uninformed, or that you don't spread lies if you are informed
If determinism is true, than Leighton is a "pelagian" because God willed that he be so to glorify himself. So I see no problem with being a pelagian or anything else for that matter.
“Dead in tresspasses” should be read as a phrase not “Dead, in trespasses.” The tresspasses made it us dead. We are condemned with a sentence of death.
+Marty Blackman..Jesus definition of "church" was revelation from the Holy Spirit to you personally. That is how Peter knew that Jesus was the Christ. Paul's definition of "church" is a Heirarchy of titled men to Tell you what to Do. They are Very different. Paul taught that obeying the commandments will Not get you to Heaven and to Seek titled men for your help. Just as you are doing Here. Seeking Piper instead of Christ..Himself.
What about Lutheranism and Provisionism (Traditional Southern Baptist, Eastern Orthodox, all of the early church for 400 years before Augustine, etc.)? Why do church “leaders” continue to insist on constantly painting a false dichotomy?
I like this. But still disagree with him lol. He is all caught up on this idea that we have to participate in some way in order to be saved.. an analogy that comes to mind is that of turning on a light in the house. What is powering the light? Is it the switch you had to hit, or the electricity? If no electricity was coming to the switch, the switch wouldn’t do anything. So the prevenient grace brings the electricity to the switch then we hit the switch, then the electricity is able to power the light. All the “work” is done by the electricity yet we still find that we have to freely participate.
The Arminian believes total depravity. If this is true, in your analogy the sinner has no desire to flip the light switch on. Actually, he can’t, because he’s dead and dead men can’t choose to do anything, let alone chose God.
@@albertchanggg that's why, paraphrasing John Wesley, we NEED God's grace in us to even make us consider hearing the truth about the gospel. And this is made by the holy spirit, and he nicknamed it prevenient grace, a grace that "flows" with the preaching
Fernando Gonçalves irresistible grace is a better term hahaha. Prevenient Grace is conditional... total depravity makes it impossible to respond in faith... that’s the point we bible believing Calvinists are making. We can’t muster up the faith to respond in our sinful rebellion.
I came across this You Tube channel by Dr. Gene Kim. He just put up a video called: "Top 10 Christian CZcamss you must delete!" because according to him they preach Calvinism and it is wrong. Well, he sent me here, and I'm glad, because I just found out that I am indeed a Calvinist, and if I have to delete a channel it will be his.
@@jacksobrooks it is, but if it's not a "salvation issue" in my opinion, it's not something to argue over. I tend to find that when people argue over things like this that people's minds are usually already made up on the issue.
@@jacksobrooks it then turns into a pointless, heated argument with each side claiming they are the more spiritual Christian and it just looks bad to the world. Unbelievers just use things like that to mock us. I think it's better, that if you feel like a brother or sister is in error to perhaps have a short conversation with them. If they are not receptive then let it go and pray for them. Better to show the love of Christ than to argue with each other. That is what will draw unbelievers to Christ. Not bickering about things like this.
If you don't read the Bible and study the verses you quote by context please do us a favor and don't comment here..you're just confusing people with your opinions and self made ideas!
I agree. Even as someone who considers themselves more Calvinistic. Arminianism doesn’t teach that we saved ourselves. It does however teach that we atleast make a choice in accepting Gods offer of salvation and then God does everything else and seals us with his holy spirit creating a new heart in us. A Calvinist would consider accepting this offer through faith to be a work of man in and of itself which they would consider synergistic.
This is the way I see it, help me if I am wrong please. You are an unbeliever you hear Gods word and become curious, you hear what the gospel is and decide if you want to give it a shot or not. You believe Jesus is the one true God and you are truly repentant in your heart and ask God to forgive you and guide you. Then he enters your heart by the holy spirit, opens your eyes to see the light. You then declare a war on your sin through a repentant heart and your new found light and the holy spirit guiding you, and live the rest of your life in faithfulness to Him because he has revealed is love to you. You respond by worshiping Him and learning what he wants for you through His word to keep you spiritually wise and to keep your faith strong this is the sanctification process. BUT if you have seen the light and you CHOOSE to instead not worship or read the bible... you read less and less you return to your old ways of sin, you start to backpedal. Then you could lose the light and ultimately fall away.
@@tommymcdonagh8566 the problem of most christians is the lack of studying the Bible and understanding it by context and also looking at the verses in the wholeness of the Bible..so nothing will contradict ...actually God commanded that we continue to study.."study to show yourself approve by God" the word study there is in the future perfect tense which means continually...I just hope more Christians read their Bible...😌
God has made men w free will. Not robots. He is looking for relationship and love not puppets He controls. YOU must choose Christ or you will never enter His kingdom.
How many verses are not in red letters or are they all in red letters spoken by Jesus? NO MAN 🚹 CAN COME TO ME unless the father who sent me DRAWS HIM 💘, and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:44 John 15:18 19 if the world hated you, you know it hated me before I hate you. If you were of the world the world would love its own but because you are not of the world, BUT I HAVE CHOSEN YOU OUT OF THE WORLD 🌎, therefore the world hates you. John 3:16-21 King James Version (KJV) 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH ( IS GOD'S CHOSEN ELECT) in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him MIGHT BE SAVED. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is CONDEMNED ALREADY, (BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD 🌎) BECAUSE HE HATH NOT BELIEVED IN THE NAME OF THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, AND MEN LOVED DARKNESS RATHER THAN LIGHT, BECAUSE THEIR DEEDS WERE EVIL. 20 FOR EVERY ONE THAT DOETH EVIL HATETH THE LIGHT, NEITHER COMETH TO THE LIGHT, lest his deeds should be REPROVED OR EXPOSED. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. So now if we were all born with sin and it takes the Holiness of God to break the bondage of sin how did Darkness decide to allow God into their life? How could mankind who was in bondage of sin break themselves free to ask God into their heart When God Says in HIS word that he CHOSEN HIS OWN BEFORE the FOUNDATION of the WORLD 🌎 in the BOOK of LIFE were SEALED and closed. Then he said let there be light. Ephesians 1:4 5 and Romans 8:29 30 John 15:4-5 4 Abide in me, and I in you. AS THE BRANCH CANNOT BEAR FRUIT OF ITSELF, EXCEPT IT ABIDE IN THE VINE; NO MORE CAN YE, EXCEPT YE ABIDE IN ME. 5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: FOR WITHOUT ME YE CAN DO NOTHING.
Jeffrey Martin Jesus chose the apostles as faithful witnesses to bring His message to the world. Read John 6;45. Those who were taught by the Farher and learned would come to Jesus. The Father taught through prophets. John the Baptist was sent to turn the hearts of the people to the Lord that all men through him might believe. Luk 7: 29 ¶ And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. 30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him. I feel like you need to widen your lens and discover the entire story of the bible. Zooming in on a passage here and there has skewed your conclusions. God bless
Faith is not an alien invasion into the "elect's" life. Faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God. Romans 10:10 (ESV) "For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved." And because the human spirit is dead in sin, with the heart therefore he believes after hearing the Gospel and is justified and with his mouth he confesses his faith unto salvation.
Exactly. God divinely works through the will of dead sinners to accomplish his purpose in election perfectly, not apart from the hearing of the gospel, but through it. However, let's let Romans 8 and 9 undergird the following chapters 10 and 11 as Paul intended it to. He makes it clear that it is God who chooses to mercy whom He desires in order to display His grace, and harden whom He desires in order to demonstrate His power and justice. How we see that function through human agency follows in the next two chapters.
@@nathanthoren2890 @Nathan Thoren I think Chapter 9 deals with the Israelites in particular who repeatedly rejected the gospel and the grace of God thereby causing God to harden their hearts. But there's a reason to it as mentioned in 11:25. Comparing chapters 8 & 10 I understand God forknew, not foreordained, the group of 10:9-13.
its your meaning of "free will" that is distorted. We only choose to follow Christ because God ENABLED us. (this is biblical) Without the Holy Spirit's awakening of our soul, we become self-righteous religious people. We are so broken and filthy that If it was up to us, we would pursue our flesh desires 100% guaranteed. But because its the work of God's Grace we can humbly cry out, "I was once blind, but now I see". You can't produce this by your own nature. IMPOSSIBLE.
Rofl. Ephesians 2:4-7. So you literally skip the next verse that clarifies that "made us alive with Christ" is through faith. Paul says "made us alive with Christ" = "by grace you have been saved". Then Paul immediately says in the next sentence, By grace you have saved THROUGH faith. We are regenerated THROUGH faith, or as John Calvin says in his Ephesians 2:8-9 commentary "received by faith alone".
The strongest argument for calvinism (I hate that term) is the work of the trinity in salvation. Also, when Jesus saud he came for His sheep, that whole passage. Also, the bible refers to goats and sheep, but I cannot think of any place where goats turn into sheep?
M. D.D The sheep and goats was decided from their works Read Ezekiel 34. The goats were the Israelites who rejected God. God hardened them so that they couldn’t become sheep. Read Rom 11. God bless.
Ephesians 2:1-3 describes how we all were once "goats." Just doesn't use that term, but Paul says we were all, BY NATURE, children of wrath, like the rest. Our natures have been changed.
Dan Adams Amen. 1Cor 6: 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
Calvinism teaches that God humbles us and makes the choice for us. The Bible doesn't teach this. It's says we must humble ourselves. It can't be both ways.
@@billyr9162 If you think about it you will see that is exactly what it teaches. A person is not humbling themselves if someone else is making them do it. That's called force. True humility must come willingly from the heart which requires a free will.
Why Don't you People just Follow Jesus..Like He asked you To? Instead of contending over men's opinions? Jesus Made is very Clear and Simple What He Wants us to Teach and Do in Matthew 5 6 7. I never hear any of Jesus actual Real Gospel on this site.
I find it interesting that Calvinists always offer only 2 alternatives when it comes to Salvation; Calvinism (irresistible grace) and Arminianism (prevenient grace). The Bible does not teach either of these views. There are many sinners like Charles Templeton who, having placed their faith in Christ, became atheists later in life. Were Templeton, and many others, brought to faith by God’s irresistible grace as described by Piper or were they free to respond to the Gospel having been aided by God’s prevenient grace as taught by Arminianism? If such people were effectually called then this calling must have failed. If they responded to the Gospel having first received prevenient grace then they must have lost their Salvation. Neither of these situations align with Scripture. It is clear from Scripture that God loves all His fallen creation and that He has provided for all. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, and, as John said, we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. It is also clear from Scripture that Jesus paid the penalty for sin for all sinners. Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world and Jesus has tasted death for all men. God desires that all come to repentance and a knowledge of the Truth, and in fact, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent. The Bible even says that the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men. The Bible is very clear that anyone can be saved. Whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life and for whoever will call on the name of the lord will be saved. Paul was trying to persuade them concerning Jesus, from morning until evening. Some were being persuaded by the things spoken, but others would not believe. John wrote that these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. We are made in the image of God and have all that is required in order to believe or reject the message. And of course we have the Holy Spirit who convicts the world of sin, righteousness and judgement. Hence, the two options provided by Piper are not Biblical and the answer to Salvation is that faith comes by hearing and hearing of the Word of God; and all can hear and respond to the message of Truth.
It's very interesting me that your so called 'proof' comes from an anecdotal experience (not even your own), and not from an exegetical exposition of the Scriptures themselves. Sure, you took a few verses out of their context and attempted to twist them to suit your view, but you have no meaningful, objective basis for your claim, at least not presented here.
@@justinbirkelo6806 [your so called 'proof' comes from an anecdotal experience (not even your own), and not from an exegetical exposition of the Scriptures] Sounds like you have been listening to James White. If you have a good answer to explain how evangelist Charles Templeton responded to the Gospel and then became an atheist, then please provide it here. [you took a few verses out of their context] Please explain how these verses have been taken out of context. If you know what these verses really mean then please explain it here. [attempted to twist them to suit your view] How have I twisted them? So what did John really mean when he said, “we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.” When you have explained what John really meant to say then perhaps you can explain what the other verses really mean. [you have no meaningful, objective basis for your claim] Spoken like a true Calvinist. Since you are so knowledgeable concerning God’s Word, please explain how an infinitely loving God, who is rich in mercy and grace, and kind in all His deeds, would provide saving faith to so few of His fallen creation. In the case of the Japanese people this would be just 1% of the population .
@@gregjay9933 I simply asserted that you have not presented any meaningful, scriptural, or objective basis for the claim you made concerning Charles Templeton. Based on the way you phrased the statements made in the earlier comment, I assume you hold to the doctrine of conditional security, in which case you would - by necessity - need to back that up with Scripture, properly exegeted; as with any other doctrine. That's all that was being said there. As to the answer concerning Charles Templeton, I would say this: I do not know his story. So, I cannot speak concerning him specifically, nor did I ever claim to be able to, as that would be presumptuous. The point being made, again, was that it was a folly argument to point to his 'testimony' of falling away as an authoritative example to validate your doctrine. As for the verse quoted above in John, I believe it means exactly what it says, that '...we have seen and testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world...', that is, that '...we...', i.e., John and they who believe, aka the apostles, aka, those counted among the elect, have seen, and testify that Jesus,the Son, was sent by the Father, to be the Savior of the world. {Insert Arminian eisegesis of the word 'world', substituted for 'every individual of the world'}. You make a chief mistake in the insertion of a word or words into the text that do not exist within the text itself. Bear in mind that despite the consistent testimony of the Old Testament, the Jews did, and still do to this day, hold to a view which secludes them from the rest of the world in terms of salvation. They believe much as is presented in the beginning of Romans 9, that because they are mere descendants of Abraham according to the flesh, they are children of God. When John and others write in terms of Jesus being the '...Savior of the world...' this is what they are referring to, and it would have been understood as such by those who originally received these words. It was a radical thought to the ancient world that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was the Savior of more than just Israel, but indeed has a chosen remnant from every tribe, tongue and nation. This is what it means. Counter point to this particular piece of your response, if Jesus atoned for every individual, elect or not, how then, do you account for the testimony of God unto Samuel in 1 Samuel 3:14? ' "...Therefore I swear to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever." ' (see context for fuller understanding). Exegetically, there is no way around this. The Old Testament saints were never justified by the works of the Law, I'm sure we can agree, though they served a purpose as a tutor to point to Messiah. Since Adam, all have been justified by grace through faith in Christ alone, some looking forward, others backward in time. So, please explain the words of the Living God, that Eli's house would NEVER be atoned for by sacrifice or offering FOREVER. Is God lying? As for your last point about God being infinitely loving, I suppose you would have to further define what you mean by infinitely loving. If by infinitely loving, you mean to say, 'all loving', then you are simply mistaken. According to Scripture, the wicked are equally the objects of God's hatred as well as His temporal grace and love (in a way we can perhaps never understand as finite beings). If by infinitely loving, you mean that He has chosen a specific people upon which to lavish the boundless depths of His glorious grace and love, His riches of mercy, into the eternal ages to come, then yes, I would agree. This is consistent with the teaching of Ephesians 2. To be honest, the fundamental issue with this is that we as sinful creatures tend to lean toward a belief system which mandates the sovereign God to indiscriminately pour out His love and grace and mercy equally upon all, in terms of eternal salvation. Not only is this inconsistent with Scripture, it is blatantly prideful, arrogant, and wickedly entitled for creatures to assert that if God does what He pleases with His creation, then that God cannot be loving. It was the correction of this fundamental misunderstanding of who God is, and who I am as a created being of His in relation to Him, that led me to eventually cast aside my pride and entitlement that I held against these teachings for years, and to buckle under the eternal weight of these truths. What a freeing, peaceful, empowering thing! What a MERCIFUL God we serve, who chose us in Him apart from anything beyond Himself. What a beautiful truth, that salvation, from start to finish, is ENTIRELY a work of the sovereign, holy One.
I'll take "Supposedly more knowledgeable than people who have spent entire lifetimes and have even died arguing the finer points of the faith" for $500.
Why do some Christian describe themselves as Calvinist or Arminian? Paul warned about this in 1 Corinthians 1:10-16. Or are these two just ways of thinking people ascribe to?
@@tommy11sixorozco9 I agree, but my point was Christian's saying, "I am a Calvininst" or "I am a Armenian." Why not call oneself a Christian with an different understanding of the Bible?
Calvinists (Highly respected Sproul, etc) believe God the Father the first person of the Trinity poured out His wrath and cursed and cut off His Son the second person of the Trinity while on the cross thereby splitting apart the Trinity which is the heresy of Arianism and Nestorianism. See 1 Corinthians 12:3 John 10:30 There was no imputation or transfer of our sins onto Jesus, an innocent victim, while on the cross! Sin is not a thing! Proverbs 17:15 Deuteronomy 24:16 Jesus died in order to raise from the dead thereby conquering death, sin, and the devil for everybody, otherwise even unbelievers would not raise from the dead. 2 Corinthians 5:14-16 Hebrews 2:14-15 1 Corinthians 15:22 Calvinists believe God created people, and all people are born dead in sin through zero fault of their own, but God only chooses to save some and be regenerated. The others go to hell. So, Calvinists basically say God creates some people who have no choice but to go to hell. How does the Calvinist explain away their evil wrathful God? There is no wrath in the eternal Trinity of God. "God is love!" 1 John 4:8 When people reject the love and grace of God, God's love becomes wrath for them! Judas Iscariot committed suicide having rejected Christ's love! John 3:19-21, 36 The conversion of Lydia, Read Acts 16:13-15! God in His providence brings Lydia and Paul together. Lydia is dead in sin, but God gives her grace and opens her heart to respond to Paul's message in either repentance or rejection. (Acts 26:20) Lydia responds in repentance and has her sins washed away in Baptism (Acts 22:16) being buried and raised with Christ in washing and regeneration and made righteous! Romans 6:1-5 Colossians 2:11-15 Acts 2:38-39 John 3:5 1 Corinthians 6:11 Nicene Creed Like Lydia everybody is given grace in some manner to repent and are responsible and without excuse. Romans 1:18-23 Acts 17:30-31 "And Christ died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again. So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view!" 2 Corinthians 5:14-16 1 Timothy 2:3-6 John 6:51
All due respect, my issue with Calvinism is that, in one hand God is saying He is Just and merciful and “not willing that any should perish”; on the other, He chooses whom will be saved, then condemn those He didnt choose for “rejecting” His offer. How can they “reject” when they didnt have any choice in the matter? Further, if (accdg to Ptr John in 14:00) God’s grace is so compelling, making it irresistible, then can I assume He didnt offer the same to those who arent saved? Which again contradicts to the “not willing that any should perish” verse. My view on this is God’s grace allows for “a state of understanding” (not “partial regeneration” as Arminians put it). The parable of the sower illustrates this. Without this grace, one is impaired to understand what is at stake (because one is dead in sin). With this “moment of understanding”, free will kicks in. The image is that of a person walking in a very dark road with all worldly pleasures along the way, but not knowing that at the end awaits torment. This “moment of understanding” is like a flash of light that illuminates the pleasures, the danger ahead and, unknown to him before, The Way out (Salvation through) Christ. It is at this point where God allows the person to choose. God does NOT choose for that person. This is vital because if he rejects the Way out, he can no longer accuse God of being unjust. This is a very scrappy way of explaining my thoughts but i hope you get the gist. Godbless
_"not willing that any should perish"_ Any who? Who exactly does God not want to see perish in 2 Pe 3? The reprobate of 1-7 for whom he is storing up fire for the day of judgment, or the beloved in verse 8 who are actually in view in verse 9? The thing I find odd about most of the verses that 'disprove' Calvinism is that they tell a completely different story when one reads the surrounding context.
oracleoftroy Deu 5: 29 O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever! Jer 2: 9 Wherefore I will yet plead with you, saith the LORD, and with your children's children will I plead. Jer 26: 3 If so be they will hearken, and turn every man from his evil way, that I may repent me of the evil, which I purpose to do unto them because of the evil of their doings Eze 18: 23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live? Mat 23: 37 ¶ O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Luk 19: 41 ¶ And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, 42 Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. Is Jesus weeping for the glory He didn’t receive from them??? No, He has a heart for all people. Rom 11: 31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. 1Tim 2: 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
@@evanu6579 Deu 5: 29 - Not sure what this is doing here, seems in line with WCF 9 and total depravity. Jer 2: 9 - Here again, I'm not sure what you think this is saying. Verses 4-8 establish that Israel is against God and so God is contending and bringing a case against them (as modern translations use). Is the KJ throwing you off? God isn't begging them to listen to him, he is pleading in a legal sense, showing their guilt and their transgression of the law. Jer 26: 3 - I assume you aren't acknowledging the primary second cause distinction? Eze 18: 23 - You seem to have a serious misunderstanding of Calvinism if you think we think God punishes people for his own jollies. Please step outside the anti-Calvinist circlejerk and at the very least read and base your arguments off our confessions. Mat 23: 37 - I have no idea why anti-Calvinists use this verse. What do you think it is saying, and what do you think Calvinists believe that wouldn't make sense under this verse? If you are reading some sort of universal something into this verse, notice that Jesus isn't all that concerned with the leaders, just the children. Luk 19: 41 - Again, I'm not sure what assumption you are holding about this verse and Calvinism. I note that the people are passive in the hiding from their eyes, so this can't be a free will thing. _"Is Jesus weeping for the glory He didn’t receive from them??? No, He has a heart for all people."_ If Jesus has a heart for all people, why is he only weeping over Jerusalem, and not all the other cities that rejected him? I think you want these verses to prove more than they actually say. They are directly about Jerusalem. Indirectly, you might say its about what Jerusalem represents - the Israelites. I don't see how you get "all people" from that verse; you are importing that from elsewhere. Rom 11: 31,32 - Um, this disproves Calvinism? This is the key chapter in Romans that shows God is saving not just the Jews, but all people - Romans, Samaritans, Ethiopians, and every other people-group. It calls these gentiles Israelites as they are grafted into Israel even as the Israelites by blood are pruned out. It is interesting you included 32 where it is God that has consigned all to disobedience. If your point is that it says "mercy upon all" where you assume it means "mercy upon every individual person who ever was or ever will be," I think that ignores the entire point of the chapter, which is about all people (as in nations/ethnic groups/etc) and not just Jewish people. 1 Tim 2: 4 - You ignore verse 2. First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for *all people,* _for kings and all who are in high positions,_ that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires *all people* to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. Notice how Paul, after saying it the first time, immediately qualities "all people" to be "kings and all those in authority / high positions" so that we don't mistake him as saying we need to pray for 7+ billion people, but for people from all stations in life. I see no indication that his second use of "all people" has changed the referent.
oracleoftroy The discussion I entered into was about whether or not God was willing that most people perish. The discussion seemed to be about God’s character and His desire for mankind. It’s a little more specific than just Calvinism. Deu. 5: 29 O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever! The obvious point is that God desires their good. He wanted them to fear Him so that it would be well with them. I concede Jer 2:9. I guess the KJV did throw me off :) Jer 26: 3 If so be they will hearken, and turn every man from his evil way, that I may repent me of the evil, which I purpose to do unto them because of the evil of their doings. God cannot lie. He desired them to turn away from their sins so that He could have mercy on them. Eze 18:23. Virtually every Calvinist claims that God justly damns people for His glory. That’s why He doesn’t save all people. He gets glory from both saving and exacting judgement. So does God delight in getting glory or not? Either way, the point is God’s heart. His character. He doesn’t desire that any perish. Matt 23: 37 ¶ O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! “Children of Jerusalem” is a phrase for the people of Jerusalem. I’m pretty sure you’re aware of that. Jesus’ desire was to gather them together unto Himself. Was He struggling between their souls and the glory He would receive by exacting Justice? In the end He chose justice as being more glorifying for Himself? Is that how you see this? It seems obvious that He allows free will choices in these matters and stretched out His arm to them that they might be saved but they would not. Luk 19:41, Jesus is weeping over them. That goes along with His heart, His desire. There may not be anything recorded about weeping over other cities but that doesn’t mean He didn’t. It seems like that comment was a bit of a dodge tactic. He was in Jerusalem and looked upon that city and wept over it. Rom 11 is about God hardening the Israelites to bring salvation to the Gentiles. The Gentiles in turn will make the Israelites jealous so that they too will come to faith. God is working all things out that He MIGHT have mercy on them all. The two groups of humanity are Jew and Gentile. If you’re not a Jew, you’re a Gentile. It’s all inclusive. 1Tim 2: 1 ¶ I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. The prayer in verse 1 is so that we may lead a peaceable life. For Paul to clarify to Timothy (who knew the Holy scriptures from a child) that kings and those in authority could be saved as well, is a pretty silly notion. He knew about King David and Jehoshaphat and Josiah. He knew about Daniel in his place of authority and Joseph. As a matter of fact, Timothy would have been more familiar with God’s Grace to people in authority than any other group. Verse 6 clarifies who the “all” are. It’s all men. Who gave himself a ransom for all men. To say that this means all hierarchies of men is a stretch. Paul definitely could have worded it much better if that’s what he meant.
@@evanu6579 _"The discussion I entered into was about whether or not God was willing that most people perish."_ That's odd then, I don't believe that most people will perish. I think by the final tally, more people will be saved than condemned, perhaps even a vast majority of people. Part of the reason I believe this is that it is God doing the saving, and he is not leaving any part of it up to men who got themselves into that situation in the first place, but is mighty to save. _"The discussion seemed to be about God’s character and His desire for mankind. It’s a little more specific than just Calvinism."_ Well, my point was that most anti-Calvinists interpretations of verses at best must assume a conclusion to refute Calvinism, or are themselves refuted when the context is considered. _"Deu. 5: 29 ... The obvious point is that God desires their good. He wanted them to fear Him so that it would be well with them."_ The verse is descriptive of the blessings their fear would have brought them, and doesn't demand that it is about a wish God had.I'm not sure what that disproves about Calvinism. _"Jer 26: 3 ... God cannot lie. He desired them to turn away from their sins so that He could have mercy on them._" Again, this is descriptive of what would happen if they repent. This isn't God wishing really hard that man would stop acting like a 2 year old. _"Eze __18:23__. Virtually every Calvinist claims that God justly damns people for His glory. That’s why He doesn’t save all people. He gets glory from both saving and exacting judgement. So does God delight in getting glory or not?"_ Is this a question about whether God's delight is in his glory or in condemning people. His delight is in his glory, not in his condemning people. He is a just God and it is good to praise him for his justice. In demonstrating his justice, he condemns wicked sinners that fully deserve his condemnation. The glory isn't received for the condemnation (or he could also condemn innocent people as well), but in his justice. _"Either way, the point is God’s heart. His character. He doesn’t desire that any perish."_ Agreed. But any *who* does he desire to not perish? 2 Pe 3: 8-9 says he doesn't want his beloved to perish, and he is storing up fire for the reprobate in 1-7. Words like 'any', 'all', 'world', etc have referents that often need to be ignored to make a case against Calvinism. _"Matt 23: 37 ... “Children of Jerusalem” is a phrase for the people of Jerusalem. I’m pretty sure you’re aware of that. Jesus’ desire was to gather them together unto Himself. ... It seems obvious that He allows free will choices in these matters and stretched out His arm to them that they might be saved but they would not."_ I agree that the children of Jerusalem is the people of the city. But Jesus isn't condemning the children, he is condemning the religious leaders for leading the people of Jerusalem astray with false teaching. You seem to blur the line between the children and Jerusalem, the killer of prophets and the one stopping the children. BTW, I, like centuries of Calvinists before me, don't deny free will. See WCF chapter 9. _"Was He struggling between their souls and the glory He would receive by exacting Justice?"_ No. He was condemning the religious leadership for their false teachings that mislead the people of Jerusalem. _"In the end He chose justice as being more glorifying for Himself?"_ "More glorifying" than what? God is just and he is merciful. In order to display either of these qualities, God needs a world with injustice in it, both so he can condemn and show mercy. If there is no injustice, there is nothing to condemn, nor is there anything to forgive. _"Luk __19:41__, Jesus is weeping over them. That goes along with His heart, His desire. There may not be anything recorded about weeping over other cities but that doesn’t mean He didn’t. It seems like that comment was a bit of a dodge tactic. He was in Jerusalem and looked upon that city and wept over it."_ I don't really disagree with this, but I don't see what this has to do with Calvinism. As I stated, God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked, so why shouldn't Jesus weep over the lost. Though this particular verse has a prophetic element to it, foreshadowing the sacking of Jerusalem in AD 70: 43-44 - "For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation." So with this particular passage, Jesus might just be weeping because he knows what is about to happen in a few dozen years and is warning the people about it, as he and his apostles did elsewhere. _"Rom 11 is about God hardening the Israelites to bring salvation to the Gentiles. The Gentiles in turn will make the Israelites jealous so that they too will come to faith. God is working all things out that He MIGHT have mercy on them all."_ Ok... what does that have to do with Calvinism? _"The two groups of humanity are Jew and Gentile. If you’re not a Jew, you’re a Gentile. It’s all inclusive."_ Yes, which highlights a problem with many of the 'all' verses. Many people have a post-1st century view of Christianity where obviously all people groups, not just the Jews, could be saved, and don't realize how hard the NT authors had to fight against the notion that salvation wasn't just for Jewish people, but all peoples. _"1Tim 2: 1-6 ... The prayer in verse 1 is so that we may lead a peaceable life. For Paul to clarify to Timothy (who knew the Holy scriptures from a child) that kings and those in authority could be saved as well, is a pretty silly notion."_ If so, then why do you think Paul made that clarification? _"He knew about King David and Jehoshaphat and Josiah. He knew about Daniel in his place of authority and Joseph. As a matter of fact, Timothy would have been more familiar with God’s Grace to people in authority than any other group."_ Except Timothy isn't living in Israel or Judea under a God anointed King, he is living in a pagan Roman-controlled provence under pagan rulers. _"Verse 6 clarifies who the “all” are. It’s all men."_ I don't think verse 6 redefines who the referent to all is, especially given that verse 7, Paul seems to stress that he is a preacher of Gentiles for sake of that 'all men', indicating that kinds of men are still in view. But noted. Agree to disagree. _"Who gave himself a ransom for all men. To say that this means all hierarchies of men is a stretch. Paul definitely could have worded it much better if that’s what he meant."_ That's fine. To say it is about all men seems a stretch given what else Paul has said about salvation. So much of Paul's focus has been on all peoples (i.e. Gentiles) and not excluding them just because they aren't Jews. To make it about all individual people who ever existed and ever will exist seems completely foreign to the context. Anyway, again noted. You haven't excluded the possibility of the Calvinist understanding, but I recognize that you have to read it differently.
Arminianism does not worship a sovereign God. If anything happens outside of God determining it, then it is outside of God’s sovereignty. God is not sovereign then. Arminians are atheists worshiping a false god. This is truth and love.
+Odd Fish..Jesus Would Like people to recognize and Follow HIS Gospel. He has offered you personal revelation and you prefer to listen to Piper regurgitate Paul. He prompts me to do this or I wouldn't. Maybe He thinks someone might repent! It doesn't sound like it will be you. I never called Piper a heretic or a demon. I called him a clown.
Ah yes the most hated doctrine. That He is sovereign in salvation. 🙂 ARMINIANISM AND CALVINISM - THE RADICAL DIFFERENCE A.W. Pink The radical difference between Arminianism and Calvinism is that the system of the former revolves about the CREATURE, whereas the system of the latter has the CREATOR for its centre of orbit. The Arminian allots to MAN the first place, the Calvinist gives GOD that position of honor. Thus the Arminian begins his discussion of salvation with justification, for the sinner must believe before he can be forgiven; further back he will not go, for he is unwilling that man should be made nothing of. But the instructed Calvinist begins with election, descends to regeneration, and then shows that being born again (by the sovereign act of God, in which the creature has no part) the sinner is made capable of savingly believing the Gospel. [A.W. Pink - ‘Salvation from the pleasure of sin’] And incidentally whatever gives God ALL the glory, THAT is what is right! “Not unto us, O LORD, not unto us, but unto Thy name give glory, for Thy mercy, and for Thy truth’s sake”! [Psalm 115:1]
I think the Calvinist argument is too deterministic. I definitely believe God does all the work, but there is free will to choose or reject God. If God makes his mercy so irresistible then how do you explain believers falling away from Christ? Does God decide to name his mercy less resistible so that some might fall? That seems like the opposite of mercy. I do think the Armenian position puts man in a bit too strong of a position. God does all the work and man mostly just nods or shakes his head.
I used to think like you! Keep reading the Bible, especially Romans 9, and keep reading greats like Piper, Spurgeon and indeed Calvin to make sure you fully understand what Calvinism is claiming.
@@Skyace13 Dear Skyace, here is a bit more detail: You ask "Does God decide to name his mercy less resistible so that some might fall?" The key is the overarching theme in the Bible that God chooses some and not others. He chose the people of Israel to set them apart (when he could have chosen all nations), in order to show both his mercy and his justice towards those who reject him. Romans 9:22-23 - What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory? This shows that God shows mercy to us whom he has saved that we might rejoice all the more in his mercy as we see it against the background of his wrath against sin. We would not know what we had been delivered from or set apart from if we did not see God's wrath displayed in those who have rejected him.
deraquis God chose the Israelites because of His promises to Abraham. Abraham believed God which is why the promises were made and kept. Because Abraham was faithful, God was faithful to Abraham and brought those promises through Israel. They were protected by God in order for those promises to make good. The promises were fulfilled in Christ. God was long suffering towards the Israelites in their rebellion for the sake of His promises to Abraham so that He could have mercy on the vessels of mercy through Jesus. Rom 9: 4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and 👉🏻the promises;👈🏻 5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. 6 ¶ Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall 👉🏻thy seed be called.👈🏻 Paul is comparing those through whom the promises came with spiritual Israel (TO whom the promises were given). Abraham wasn’t an Israelite and not all who received the lineage of Jesus were saved. There were wicked men in His ancestry. Also, men like Job and Lot weren’t in His lineage. “The seed” isn’t about salvation in the old covenant. The heart is what mattered for salvation. Look for the illustrations that Paul is making from Rom 9-Rom 11. It’s pretty obvious once you start seeing it. Here’s an example.... Rom 9: 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Rom 11: 7 ¶ What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded 8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. Paul is explaining how not all Israel is of Israel. The promises Indeed have taken effect but it’s not about works. It’s about faith. He has mercy on whom He wills.... Rom 9: 30 ¶ What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. 31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; So the Isaac illustration means that it’s not about lineage. Ishmael was Abraham’s son and he wasn’t chosen for the seed. Jacob and Esau illustrates that it’s not about good works. They hadn’t done anything good or evil yet God chose to bring the promises through one and not the other. Just like faith without works. Rom 2:17-11:13 is pretty much dealing with the Jews and their high view of the law. Paul is correcting that view. That’s what Rom 9 is about as well. God bless
I understand the Crux of Calvinism being Regeneration proceeds faith I think piper being a mature Calvinist clarifies Calvinism better than most I believe God provides a way... For us to come to faith in Christ. Or has provided a way... Ultimately Calvinism is difficult for me mainly due to unconditional election and limited attornment. it calls into question God's good character. A small child knows God is good and can't make us sin.. or design us in such a way to be instruments of his wrath all while God receives his glory . None the less I can't to read Piper's book about Providence....
Pastor John's fair treatment of this matter is an example of how to treat those we disagree with.
It doesn't matter if you agree or not. Is God's word says it that settles it. God's word stands and everything else Falls. Free Will choice is nowhere found in the Bible your choice in the flash does not stand in heaven that's why all the Angels fell with the Devil cuz they were not wholly like the other two thirds are holy doing the will of God and God Alone. Just like the Lord's Prayer Our Father who art in heaven Hallowed be thy name die kingdom come thy will be done on Earth as it is in heaven. On Earth as it is in heaven we need to live a life down here as the Angels live up in heaven doing God's will
It’s all the Lords work. Give him all the glory
Here is absolute Biblical proof that God does NOT cause or determine everything; In Jeremiah 19:5 God says, “They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal-something I did NOT COMMAND or mention, nor did it enter my mind.” 2nd Peter 3:9 says, “The Lord is…not willing that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance.” and yet, it also has Jesus saying, "Broad is the road that leads to destruction (hell) and many are on it, but straight and narrow is the road that leads to life (Heaven) and few ever find it."
God made me alive with Christ! Praise God! All the glory to Him!
Oly MH
After you believed. ;)
What many seem to fail to understand is that our 'will' is a gift from God (part of 'in His image'). We can not boast about anything. We Must be free to come to God willfully or else it is meaningless. This is the whole point of God's excercise. It brings God pleasure that the believer loves Him because the believer wants to. The 'regeneration first' idea destroys that.
I've read a lot of people saying that the Arminian vs Calvinist debate is not worth arguing about. This suggests that there are no real-life implications which come as a result of one's views on the matter. I think this is not the case - there are big implications, such as the level of one's gratitude for God for salvation. I used to be Arminian and am now convinced by Calvinism, and it has had a huge impact on my love for and gratitude towards the God who unilaterally saved me that *all* the glory should go to him!
Yet arminianism also agrees with both Soli Deo Gloria and Sola Gratia...
@@Vlugazoide Very true Fernando! And yet on Arminianism God is responsible for 95% of salvation, and we get 5% of the credit for exercising our free-will to decide for God. There is a reason the Bible talks of being *born* again - nobody chooses to be born!
@@Crucian1 not exactly the credit, more of the role. Since God is the only one to praise and the only one with worth and holiness. But yes, your point is true. We only act on being like Judas (seeing wonders and wanting God to work our way), Moses (seeing the character of God and just bending into his grace and will) or the people of Israel who were killed by their brethren in the desert (who simply didn't care about their God). So yes, our role is being magnified and giving up
@@Vlugazoide Even if its 5% in our sinful flesh we are prone to easily multiply that 5% to way more than it is.
deraquis
If you were taking some of the glory when you were an Arminian, then I would say you weren’t really saved.
Because it’s by faith, means that you can’t boast. I’m surprised you were revelling in the fact that you believed.
What a beautiful way of explaining the differences with love and respect.
I am Armininan and the message in this video is beautiful
Why then are you still arminian?
@@markusw.2690 I'm also Arminian, both are true in Biblical standpoint, but different hermeneutics of interpretation
The problem you guys (Calvinist) only oppose Arminianism, why don't you guys also oppose Lutheranism, Methodism, and Anglicanism ??
I used to be Calvinist who believed in pre-destined and everything should be God's responsibility.
Now I believe there is also our human parts (free-will) in accepting HIS call or ignoring HIS call ( Prov 1:24 )
@@juliansihite1289 sorry, if you think you have done "your part" you must think you are better than your neighbor, who doesn't have done "his part". But Apostle Paul says, that we have nothing to boast of! Nothing! It's all of Grace. OF COURSE we are called to repent and believe in Jesus Christ! But without the initiative of the Holy Spirit - we can't. Why? Because we are DEAD in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2). What can a dead man do by himself?
@@markusw.2690 Paul's election and his calling were based on God's foreknowledge of his decision to believe. (Gal 1:15-16)
Judas was given a choice, but he was not saved. Free-will matters (John 6:70; Jude 1:4)
I'm more mix between Calvin and Arminian standpoints. But I'm locally rooted in Arminian Pentacost Church
@@juliansihite1289 Again: What can a dead man do? You need to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit in the first place before you can (and want) believe.
I once was a reformed person. I now believe both sides are true and are married together, since both arguments are based in scripture. (All scripture is breathed out) I love how John taught his message on Tulip, it still rings true in my head. Doctrines are not weapons to win arguments, they are there for us to know God on a deeper level. To enjoy Him, and to be in Awe of His greatness which is unsearchable. Now to Him who is able to keep us from stumbling, be All the Glory!
I think I'd be happier saying both sides take extreme positions verging on error - they tend not to acknowledge that the truth is found in the paradox of the middle ground. Men want to box God in by the level of their reasoning, overlooking that the Lord is much greater than us and not restricted by our inability to cope with paradoxical positions!
John, while I appreciate your desire to be reconciled with the Arminian camp, I fail to understand how on earth you could say that both sides are based in Scripture when in fact they are diametrically opposed! Nowhere in all of Scripture will you find any support for the idea that we have a free will unhindered by the fall so that we can freely choose to place our faith in God, nowhere will you find support for the idea that one who has been genuinely saved can then somehow lose that salvation, and nowhere will you find support for the idea that Christ died only to make it possible for all mankind to be saved. It’s simply not there without taking things out of context, twisting Scripture, or not understanding it’s meaning. For example, if Christ died, NOT for the certain salvation of specific individuals but only to make it possible for all men to be saved, then that means it’s actually possible that all men might be saved and that’s universalism hence no need for hell. It also means that it’s possible in that scenario that all men might reject Christ in which case God’s plan of redemption was a colossal failure. But we know that neither of those is true. Only SOME people are saved. These are the elect to which Scripture refers time and again.
The two sides are in agreement on much, yes. But there are some very critical issues on which they are worlds apart.
@Allen Combs Mathew 25 puts some light on the matter. Jesus says to the goats depart from me you cursed into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his Angels. He'll was not a place ever intended by God for man to go to. The goats had made a choice out of their own free will to do wrong, hence why Jesus in the end counts them worthy of going there.
Welcome to the Lutheran view my friend! I’m not a Lutheran but I see it as the best view we can take without overemphasis on either side. The “Crux Theologorum”.
Here is absolute Biblical proof that God does NOT cause or determine everything; In Jeremiah 19:5 God says, “They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal-something I did NOT COMMAND or mention, nor did it enter my mind.” 2nd Peter 3:9 says, “The Lord is…not willing that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance.” and yet, it also has Jesus saying, "Broad is the road that leads to destruction (hell) and many are on it, but straight and narrow is the road that leads to life (Heaven) and few ever find it."
Best Tony intro ever
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom.. all glory to CHRIST. Explained well pastor John! Thanks. Greetings from Hongkong
Pastor John Piper ! Thank you for your enlightenment of Ephesians 2:4-7. I understand now about your point of irresistible grace. I now understand that this saving grace is really a blessed and divine assurance throughout eternity. Not only will I be alive in Christ, He will also seated me with Him in the Heavenly realms (Ephesians 2:6) This verse also tells me that Christ's grace is not only incomparable, He will also share His glory with me, as written in Romans 8:17.
I appreciated Pastor John's explanation and trying to represent Arminianism as fairly as possible. I know this question came up in the apologetics class I am currently teaching and we will discuss it next class. I think three things need to be fleshed out before discussing this matter.
First, Are we addressing what we think about the labels or the theology behind the labels? Do we have a definition of that theology based on scripture? If we get caught up with theological labels named after men, we may give the appearance of following those men (even if we don't) and this violates 1 Corinthians 1:11-12. We need to define the doctrines behind the theology we're speaking of and have Bible references to back it up.
Second, because this is a discussion among Christians, we need to be clear about our view of sin (total depravity), the attributes of God (particularly His sovereignty, omniscience, love, and justice), and again, give Bible references and be able to bring our interpretation of those Bible references to the table. Someone on either side of this discussion (or even someone taking a middle ground) may have different definitions of these things. We need to study our Bibles and check them carefully to see if it is true (2 Timothy 3:16-17, Acts 17:11).
Third, this is a theological discussion; therefore we must leave out emotion, philosophy, and are preconceived notions about the labels. Again, the Bible must be our guide, not anything outside of it (because this will violate Proverbs 3:5 and Colossians 2:8).
I've seen back and forth in comment sections where I see little or no scripture, but many accusations, insults, and philosophical views (particularly through analogies) instead of going verse by verse through texts. Calvinisms will accuse the other side of not reading their Bibles, not giving glory to God, and accusing them of adding works to salvation. Not every non-Calvinist considers themselves an Arminian and they shouldn't be pigeon-holed by a certain description; they are believers that love the Lord and desire the salvation of the lost. Name calling and lack of respect is not necessary. Many non-Calvinists, on the other hand, will accuse the Calvinist of being unsaved, having a wicked god that is the author of sin, and twisting scripture. This, as well, is unfair since many Calvinists also love the Lord and go proclaim the gospel to the lost. I've made comments about this subject on many posts and have personally been called names by people that profess to be believers. This is not the heart of Jesus' words in John 13:35.
Unless both sides can sit down with their scriptures and go through text of scripture verse by verse to flesh out the doctrines in question, it will always be philosophical musings, emotional insults, and no desire to hear the other side. The discussion is not to win an argument, but to see what the Bible says in its entirety.
I'm not gonna act like I read all of that but I liked the last part lol.
@iFoundTruth I agree with you. I've been a believer for 20 years and for the first nine or ten, I didn't know what Calvinism or Arminianism was. I was just a born again Christian, my identity first and foremost in Christ (Galatians 3:28, Colossians 3:11). I've shared this in other comments; because of something that happened in the first year of my salvation, I vowed to the Lord that I would read my Bible from beginning to end in a year every year until He took me home. This is my nineteenth year reading the Bible from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21 (not mentioning this to be boastful, but to share a problem I had in about my eight or ninth year of my salvation).
Every year I would get to Ephesians 1:4-5 and Romans 9 and the context of it seemed clear. It showed that God was sovereign (along with Isaiah 46:9-11). I asked some brethren at my church about this, and for the first time I heard the word "Calvinism." The crux of the comments about my question of Romans 9 was, "You've been watching Calvinists, haven't you?" I had no clue what they were talking about, and when they described Calvinists or Calvinism to me, it was always in the most wicked of terms. I didn't want anyone to think I was like that. The problem is, there was no Biblical explanation or interpretation of Romans 9 verse by verse (which is what I was asking for) and no Bible verses that explained the "wicked" doctrines of these "wicked" Calvinists. The crux of what they were saying is, "Calvinists twist scripture to make God a wicked god and man a robot. God is a god of love according to John 3:16 and their view makes this a lie." Well, I didn't want to be lumped into that group, but I was still reading my Bible and finding other verses that basically spoke of God's sovereignty and still didn't have an answer. (By the way, Arminianism wasn't mentioned until they contrasted it against Calvinism, but I never got an explanation of what they believed at all.)
I did what any good Berean would (Acts 17:11), I studied the scriptures to see if something were true. I began listening to both sides of this "debate." I remember listening to Dave Hunt, a brother whose broadcast have blessed me richly, going back and forth with another guy named James White and for the first time thinking that Dave wasn't answering the question. Then I saw a video on a Christian TV cable network (it was called SkyAngel, but it no longer exists) that talked about God's love and sovereignty, and this video was in several parts so I had to watch it for weeks. It went into all the verses (and others) I questioned and did a good job of explaining it. I actually knew it was truth, but I was still upset and didn't want to believe it because I thought it was unfair. I struggled with this for two years until I finally came to the conclusion that God is God and His goodness is not measured by our standards.
The bottom line, the Bible had to be my guide (2 Timothy 3:16-17) based on its context, content, and grammar. I couldn't base any of these doctrines on leaning on my own understanding (which Proverbs 3:5 speaks against) or philosophies and vain deceit after man's traditions (Colossians 2:8 speaks against that). This matter has to be studied through different verses. If Romans 9, John 6:37-44, Ephesians 1:4-5, 2:1-3, Isaiah 46:9-11, Proverbs 16:9, and other verses like this can't be reconciled with John 3:16, 1 Timothy 2:4-6, Titus 2:11, 2 Peter 3:9, 1 John 2:2, and other verses, then we either make God's Word contradictory or we are going to misinterpret the plain context of verses to fit our view. This is the reason no one should truly use the label of Calvinist or Arminian; they should call themselves born again Christians that believe the doctrines of the Bible and flesh out those doctrines without labels. Unfortunately, the preconceived notion of the labels and the in-fighting has caused believers to spout their opinions and not scripture (in love and meekness). Thanks for reading and God bless.
Thank you for this... You did great👏
@@2timothy23 Thank u brother
Eric Smith well said. Thank you brother
Thank you so much
you should make this into a little booklet, very clarifying on the subject :)
We are saved by grace through faith. Faith is a gift from God, so no man can boast.
Where does your faith come from?
Jason Schmidt
Eph 2 isn’t saying this faith is the gift of God. Salvation is. Because you’re saved by grace through faith, therefore salvation is a gift.....
Rom 3: 27 ¶ Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Rom 6: 23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
If faith were the gift of God then grace would precede faith. It doesn’t.
Rom 5: 1 ¶ Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Faith is our access to grace.
Calvinism is wrong.
It isn't "this faith". Look at the gender in the Greek.
Faith comes from hearing a message about Christ.
What a blessed birthday gift
Cub Art happy birthday 🥳
"The power of God's grace."
Very well explained!
I like John's gracious way to deal with a position he personally disagrees with.
Why do we need a man-made system to understand grace, election, and predestination, be it Calvinism or Arminianism? Both systems somehow fall short of the whole truth, otherwise it would be stated as such in the bible. Salvation is a person, not a theory. The gospel is the power of God to save, not a paradigm. I still wonder why God saved me, the gospel is a mystery, and I will take forever to comprehend its depth and wisdom.
macolyis
It sounds like you wanted to be able to understand the bible. It sounds like you wanted to be freed from demonic possession.
No one claims that we can free ourselves. We say that we can cry out to God for salvation. He’s the one who saves.
The less one knows Fear of the LORD, and ' Go and learn what this means, I desire Mercy , not sacrifice" the more likely one is going to actualize the sovereignty and authority' of the human heart in their understandings..
so beautifully explained although I've been a Calvinist beforehand.
Here is absolute Biblical proof that God does NOT cause or determine everything as per Calvinism; In Jeremiah 19:5 God says, “They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal-something I did NOT COMMAND or mention, nor did it enter my mind.” 2nd Peter 3:9 says, “The Lord is…not willing that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance.” and yet, it also has Jesus saying, "Broad is the road that leads to destruction (hell) and many are on it, but straight and narrow is the road that leads to life (Heaven) and few ever find it."
If we are dead in our trespasses and sins, as Scripture affirms over and over, then there is no possibility of our deciding anything because we’d have to be spiritually alive to do so. It is Christ who makes us come alive in Him and causes us to see His glory, His love, His forgiveness, so that the only possible thing we CAN do is bow before Him in humility and adoration, committing every aspect of our lives to His service. It’s His decision, from start to finish (from before the foundations of the world) and my insisting that I have a part to play in it comes only from my sinful pride. To God and God alone be the glory forever!
So if I don't have any part to play in it- why is sanctification a difficult process?
@@josephbrandenburg4373 you absolutely have a part in your sanctification. James said faith without works is dead. Our works are the evidence of a genuine saving faith. The part where we do nothing because a spiritual corpse can do nothing, is in our salvation. Scripture says over and over again that God chooses us. If we are dead in our trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1) then we are completely unable to do anything pleasing to God, especially manufacturing a faith which Scripture says is a gift from God, NOT OF WORKS so that no one can boast. If we choose God then we most certainly have done a good work and have reason to boast. We rob God of His glory. But if He chooses to save a remnant of undeserving sinners for His good pleasure (Eph. 1), then He gets ALL the glory, as He rightly should. To God alone be the glory!!
@@misfitstranger the passage you are referencing is referring to "grace" "and that is not of yourself, it is a gift" refers to the grace (the grammatical gender of "that" and "grace" align in the Greek, "faith" is the wrong gender). You shouldn't misuse the passage, it undermines the better points you're making.
I don't ever understand what people mean by "glory" when they talk about this subject. What exactly is "glory"? How do you define it? Why does God want it? Can it be stolen -- and if so, does that mean that God's determination was for himself to be robbed of it?
I'm not trying to be difficult here. It's utterly vague to me.
So anyways, thank you for answering my first question. I agree that sanctification is a "synergistic" process. But I think that "Perserverence of the saints" is the idea that "remaining" a Christian is monergistic. I don't have a strong opinion about OSAS, but I think it's a better position than either Arminian "apostasy" or Reformed "perserverence".
Anyways, I think that the idea that being a believer is the only thing we "CAN" do butts up against a metaphor the Bible uses to describe our relationship with God. How is Christ like a bridegroom if his bride cannot refuse him? Isn't that more like a kidnapper?
Calvinism is HIGHLY misunderstood by its opponents. No need to debate!
That is part of the problem with some of the arguments against it.
Calvinists also misunderstand their opponents too
@@albinsiby729 way more than Arminians misunderstand calvinists, sadly. This is not a criticism, is a call to approximation
Five Points is an excellent book.
THE HOLY BIBLE IS EVEN BETTER. GOD BLESS YOU.
@@mercibeaucoup2639 Agreed! =)
Two conflicting terms, irresistible and willingly.
Union of the spirit before union of faith
By His Stripes
Regeneration happens after faith....
Jhn 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
All that believed would receive the Spirit after Jesus’ resurrection and ascension....
Jhn 14: 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
Jhn 15: 26 ¶ But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
Jhn 16: 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.
The Holy Spirit is first given here....
Jhn 20: 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
So they didn’t receive the Holy Spirit until after the resurrection as Jesus stated in John 7. That’s well after the disciples believed, and many others as well......
Jhn 2: 23 ¶ Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.
Luk 7: 50 ¶ And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.
Even after the resurrection, faith still preceded regeneration.....
Eph 1: 13 ¶ In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
Acts 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.
Just to clarify what regeneration is. It is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit....
Rom 8: 9 ¶ But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
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.
Spiritual life happens after belief.....
Jhn 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
The disciples hadn’t received this life before the resurrection of Christ.....
Jhn 14:19 ¶ Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
Peter hadn’t yet been converted.....
Luk 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
(Matt 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.)
Nice
Or is it possible that there is another answer out there that our human minds can’t comprehend 🤷♂️ cause God blows our minds, so he has some answers we can’t comprehend
Agreed.
"As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all." (Eccl 11:5)
The distinction between Calvinism and Arminianism regarding the role of God's grace in salvation.
- A question is raised about prevenient grace, which is the idea that the Holy Spirit enables potential belief through cooperation.
- Calvinism and Arminianism both agree that fallen humanity cannot save themselves, but they differ in how divine grace works within the human heart.
- The central difference is whether grace enables a choice to believe or irresistibly draws individuals to faith, with Calvinism emphasizing irresistible grace.
Can we just accept that no matter how much scripture we know we simply don't have all the answers an maybe never will. Trust that Jesus is the way the truth and the life and let him show you the way. Don't be foolish in your own knowledge.
Do you believe man is the potter or maker of God making Him an actual eternal Savior by man's will?
When will those who call themselves "Calvinists" admit that the doctrine began with Augustine's attempt 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.
See Dr. Ken Wilson's research on the writings of Augustine in the link below.
czcams.com/video/BnOMORGM2Qw/video.html
@@SpotterVideo do you think that's why people are still fighting over this issue if that ever was the reason which I don't think it was?
I agree. People can get way too bogged down in divisive issues and that makes us look bad to the world. Our finite minds can never grasp the full complexity of God and his ways. Especially a danger if they’re writing a book about it!!!!
@@Beth-ju7nb agree as well. I declare myself an Arminian, but I don't think my doctrine is in any way flawless or complete in any sense.
I once turned on the TV to a program called "Will and Grace," I thought that I was going to be watching a debate between an Arminian and a Calvinist... Boy was I WRONG!
Those who subscribe to the idea of man’s “free will” will usually describe it as a "Libertarian Free Will," and to have a Libertarian Free Will means that man is an autonomous being who operates independently and is not controlled by others or outside forces. Friend, that is a description of God, not man, therefore to subscribe to the notion that man has a libertarian free will is to subscribe to the lie that "you will be like God..." (Genesis 3:4-5) But it is actually far worse than that, Libertarian Free Will is an assertion of an autonomy even from God; that man is sovereign over his own heart, and if man is sovereign over his own heart, then even God has no determinative power over the choices that he makes, neither does God even have the power of simple persuasion since man’s autonomy would free his own determinative will from any causation, so instead of an individual merely being "like God" in that His will is neither determined nor persuaded, in asserting that not even God can determine his will, he pushes God out of His throne, stripping Him of His power, and grants to himself a power that is greater than Yahweh, about whom we know that nothing comes to pass without His determining will (Lamentations 3:37), and nothing can be done outside of or against His determinative will (Ephesians 1:11, Psalm 33:9-11, 103:19). Indeed, without realizing it, those who assert libertarian free will are standing with Satan's 5 "I will" statements in Isaiah 14:13-14: "I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God, I will also sit on the mount of the congregation in the sides of the north, I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.” The audacity is terrifying.
The question then needs to be asked, is man’s will free to do only as he pleases, or is God’s will free to do only as He pleases? There could only be three possibilities: it may be one or the other, it may be neither, or it may be both. We know that the answer cannot be neither, because if we were to assert that God’s will is not free, then the immediate problem is to determine what it is that places limitations on God? And we know that God is all powerful, able to do all that can be done, and He is subject to no one (Isaiah chapters 40-45). We also know that the answer cannot be both, for if both man and God each have a will that enables them to do only as they please, what then happens when the two wills are contradictory to one another? Nebuchadnezzar certainly understood that man’s will cannot override that of God’s (Daniel 4:35). The answer then is that only God’s will is free; man’s will therefore is subject to, and contingent upon the will of God who works all things after the counsel of His will (Ephesians 1:11).
If, however, an individual agrees with scripture that God retains the right to intrude into the will of man at any time, and for any reason that He chooses (cf. Genesis 20:6), then libertarian free will is disproved, and those who continue to assert man’s Libertarian Free Will are shown either to actually believe in some other form of “free will” that they have failed to define, or they are shown to be inconsistent, and inconsistency is a sign of a faulty position.
Lawrence Stanley
Isaiah 14 isn’t Satan. It’s the king of Babylon.
If God's will is always done that means God is the one responsible for everything that happens. How can he justly punish anyone for doing evil when he is the one that determined that they must do it in the first place?
Also, why would God himself do things that are contrary to his own will? Example: He doesn't desire that any perish but that all repent 2 Pt 3:9 and wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth 1Tim 2:4 yet many die unsaved/separated from him and go on to enteral torment. Obviously something is very wrong with this picture.
@@evanu6579
Jesus didn't think that this passage was limited to the king of Babylon. He uses verse 12 to describe Satan's fall; see Luke 10:18 and Revelation 12:8-10. The passage in Isaiah 14 speaks to the king of Babylon AND to Satan who is behind him. Take a look at Ezekiel 28:12-17 for similar language where the passage speaks to both the king of Tyre AND Satan.
@@lmorter7867
You said: *"How can he justly punish anyone for doing evil when he is the one that determined that they must do it in the first place?"*
EXCELLENT question! Look at the life of Joseph - God ordained that Joseph go into slavery (Genesis 45:8) so that He might, through Joseph, preserve his people that they might become a nation from whom the Messiah would come. God intended the action (Joseph going to Egypt) for the glory of God while Joseph’s brothers on the other hand, sold him into slavery out of jealousy (a sinful act). Here we see in this one act ordained by God, two intentions: God ordains an action and intends it for good, while men perform the action and intend it for evil (Genesis 50:20).
Proverbs 16:9 - The mind of man plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps.
God is sovereign over all and ordains whatsoever comes to pass, and whatever He ordains, because God’s will is perfectly righteous and holy, His intention is always for the glory of God, and His will always serves that purpose. Man’s will however is fallen because of Adam’s sin (Romans 5), and unless his will is captivated by the righteousness of God working within his will to do and to work for the glory of God (Philippians 2:12-13), he will always work out what God ordains for his own sinful purposes. In this way, God ordains whatsoever comes to pass, but He is not the author of sin - the existence of sin is in His eternal plan, therefore He has indeed ordained it, but he never commands individuals to act sinfully; that they do out of their own intentions that have become fallen in Adam. God decreed the action and meant it for good, but men performed the action and meant it for evil. Because men perform the action intending it to fulfill their own sinful desires, although the action was decreed by God for His glory, men remain culpable for actions that they perform according to their own wicked intentions. (cf. Isaiah 10:5-11)
Remember James 1:13-14 - “Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.” God does not make men evil in order that they might carry out the decrees of God for wicked purposes. All men who are of natural generation from Adam have inherited a fallen nature (Romans 5) and are by nature children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3), and they will naturally act out God's decrees for their own wicked intentions, so, of course God does not tempt men to act wickedly, wickedness is in their nature thanks to Adam, and every man will be held accountable for acting upon the wicked intentions of his heart.
You said: *"why would God himself do things that are contrary to his own will?"*
Another excellent question. You need to understand that God wills things in two different senses. The Bible demands this by the way it speaks of God’s will in different ways. Edwards uses the terms “will of decree” and “will of command.” Jonathan Edwards explains in his book "The Freedom of the Will"
that “God's will of decree (or sovereign will) is not his will in the same sense as his will of command (or moral will) is. Therefore it is not difficult at all to suppose that the one may be otherwise than the other: his will in both senses is his inclination. But when we say he wills virtue, or loves virtue or the happiness of his creature; thereby is intended that virtue or the creature’s happiness, absolutely and simply considered, is agreeable to the inclination of his nature. His will of decree is his inclination to a thing not as to that thing absolutely and simply, but with reference to the universality of things. So God, though he hates a thing as it is simply, (such as sin) may incline to permit it with reference to the universality of things."
This is a fundamental truth that helps explain some otherwise perplexing things in the Bible, namely, that God often expresses his will to be one way, and then acts to bring about another state of affairs.
o God opposes hatred toward his people, yet ordained that his people be hated in Egypt (Genesis 12:3; Psalm 105:25-”He turned their hearts to hate his people”).
o He hardens Pharaoh’s heart, but commands him to let his people go (Exodus 4:21; 5:1; 8:1).
o He makes plain that it is sin for David to take a military census of his people, but he ordains that he do it (2 Samuel 24:1; 24:10).
o He opposes adultery, but ordains that Absalom should lie with his father’s wives (Exodus 20:14; 2 Samuel 12:11).
o He forbids rebellion and insubordination against the king, but ordained that Jeroboam and the ten tribes should rebel against Rehoboam (Romans 13:1; 1 Samuel 15:23; 1 Kings 12:15-16).
o He opposes murder, but ordains the murder of his Son (Exodus 20:13; Acts 4:28).
Lawrence Stanley
Luk 10 and Rev 12 happened at the cross. Michael was at war with Satan while Jesus was in earth.
Jhn 12: 31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
33 This he said, signifying what death he should die.
Rev 12 specifically says that NOW is salvation. That’s at the cross.
Eze 28, is just about the king of Tyre. Satan isn’t mentioned there either.
Without wanting to sound controversial, wouldn't it be great if we could take as much effort to celebrate our shared reformed beliefs rather than arguing about the differences? Not saying which path I walk but some of the comments I'm reading are not what I expect from people who follow Christ. Peace to you all brothers and sisters.
If you study both, you will se they agree in more super important gospel points and disagree in other ones, way less in the core.
Sadly there must be explanation like this. It was very good. The sad part is the debate that is preached rather than the Gospel.
Jesus HIMSELF Said that no one can come to the FATHER UNLESS the THE FATHER DRAWS him....Yes?
Agreed. That's why prevenient grace is necessary
When Our Father reveals himself, how can He be denied?
Adam and Eve
Of course God makes us alive. We cannot do it ourselves. That’s what Arminians believe.
Daniel 4:35 ESV / 1,832 helpful votes
All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, “What have you done?”
You know what, just let's preach the gospel, hard! That's it.
Prevenient grace to all is Biblical.
“From the standpoint of the gospel they (Jews) are enemies for your (Gentiles = all non-Jews) sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.” - Romans 11:28-32 (NASB)
Rascal All of everyone. You can’t affirm the first all to mean every single person and then create a new definition for the second all. That’s not how it works. That’s interpreting Paul’s point through a theological system, not what he actually says. Romans 11 makes it clear throughout the chapter that anyone (Jew or Gentile) can be grafted into God’s covenant people (the body of Christ) if they don’t persist in unbelief. Romans 11 also affirms that any Jew or Gentile can be cut off for unbelief. Because of God’s grace and mercy, there’s not one single person on earth who absolutely CANNOT be grafted into the body of Christ. Ironically, even John Calvin says this. He’s being inconsistent with his other teachings when he says that, but even he understood that he couldn’t overlook passages like this. He just throws it into the mystery bucket.
There is another position other than Calvinism and Arminianism. This either-or only is not a fair debate.
Draw nigh unto me and I will draw nigh unto you seek and you shall find God's going to do his part with Grace but we still have to do our part and respond and actively stir up the gift though is within us it says in Revelation Jesus says I come to knock on the door and if any man will open the door I will sup with him and he with me citizen John that God gave His only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him will have eternal life so it says who so ever that means everyone God is not willing that any should perish but all coming everlasting life
In a nutshell, it's God wants to save all but can't, vs God can save all but won't.
Ya got it! God is sovereign. He does what He wants, when He wants to do it and to whomever He wants to do it to and He doesn't ask our permission. Romans 9:15 "For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” Verse 18 "Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens." Verse 21 "Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?"
@@AVB2 Hallelujah, what a Savior! From where you're at, keep going to Romans 12:1 especially the 5 beautiful verses before that :) Each in his own order :) as in First Cor. 15 and then wait, trust and obey, like there's no other Way!
@@jhq9064 The five beautiful verses before Romans 12:1 are Romans 11:32-36 "For God has imprisoned everyone in disobedience so he could have mercy on everyone. Oh, how great are God’s riches and wisdom and knowledge! How impossible it is for us to understand his decisions and his ways! For who can know the LORD’s thoughts? Who knows enough to give him advice? And who has given him so much that he needs to pay it back? For everything comes from him and exists by his power and is intended for his glory. All glory to him forever! Amen." REALLY GOOD STUFF!!! THANKS.
he is angry with the wicked all day every day it's a miracle he would want to save anyone
it's Gods authority vs mans.
your dumbedt down strawman notwithstanding 😅😅😅😅
@@CarmenCastille Love never fails
Although leaning towards Calvinism myself, the scripture given does not adequately support the argument for ultimate self determination. In the Arminian view, Christ is still raising us up and making us alive together, the Grace of God is doing all of the work, they simply say that it is us who allow God to do that.
Are there other scriptures that we could turn to in order for a more complete understanding of this fundamental point? I've been wrestling with this for a while now.
FORGET ABOUT CALVINISM OR ARMINIANISM MY FRIEND. IF YOU HAVE DECLARED WITH YOUR MOUTH JESUS IS LORD AND GOD RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD THAT IS ALL YOU NEED TO BE SAVED. THAT DOESN'T MEAN ONCE YOU ARE SAVED ABANDON GOD FOR GOOD. REMEMBER, GOD HAS ORDERED US TO PREACH THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST TO EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING. WORKS WON'T GET YOU SAVED, BUT IMPORTANT OBEYING THE HOLY WORD OF GOD. GOD BLESS YOU. JOHN 3:16-18
Rush Leigh
Raising us up and making us sit together in the heavens with Christ is after you’re in Him through faith. Besides that, these are spiritual blessings that we have in Christ Jesus in heavenly places. It’s only because you’re in Him. Before you were in Him you had no hope. None of these blessings were yours....
Eph 2: 11 ¶ Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
Without hope!! But now in Christ....!!!
God bless.
Prevenient grace is another word for "free will". Arminianism would say God's trying his hardest but he is too much a gentleman to override a person's will. In the Arminian worldview, there could be a situation where no one would be saved and heaven would be empty of saved human souls if everyone of their will decided against trusting Jesus for salvation.
I am a Christian
@Jamie Hampton which one is the correct one?
Surely an all-knowing God could have inspired a book with clearer instructions.
Who can resist God’s will? God does not learn. Grace means some are saved not all. Prevenient grace is a total hash and unbiblical. Partial regeneration.... no bueno. Election answers why am I a Christian.
"Jesus went on to say, “This is why I told you (v44) that no one can come to me unless the Father has ENABLED them!"
John 6:65
Grace is God working in us called synergy!
"Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent!"
John 6:28-29
"Work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is
GOD WHO WORKS IN YOU
to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose!"
Philippians 2:12-13
God gives all Grace by the Holy Spirit which enables all to come to Christ by their free will!
In Calvinism some were created and born dead in sin to be damned and have no chance to be saved and no choice in the matter whatsoever!
This evil God is not irresistible.
I went to a fantastic Wesleyan seminary with people I consider brothers and sisters in Christ. Even so, I find prevenient grace to be a mess. There’s nothing in Scripture that points to making a person who is dead in sin half alive so he can will himself toward full life.
Anyone that is saved, ask genuinely, did you truly feel like you could resist what was revealed to you at the moment of salvation? Did any of you feel like you could look at the truth of salvation, ball it up and put it in a nutshell and understand jesus saves us and then you take that nutshell and decide to throw it away and walk away not saved and choose to not accept the truth, could you have done that in your own personal testimony? I've asked that myself because we can only personally ask that because our salvation is only between ourselves and God and no one else. I personally know that God opened my eyes and did the work for me to enter in, not ever being able to reject it. If rejection was possible then I think it would have to present its self but it never did because I was chosen. It's like trying to say the sky isn't blue when it actually is. If you are saying it isn't blue then you are insane and choose not to believe its blue. It's not that you don't believe its blue, it's you don't want it to be blue. God meets everyone spiritually where they need God to be and I believe the ones that reject him do so of their own doing because of pride of life not want to accept the truth of bending the knee to christ. The ones that accept him are chosen because of the willingness to bend the knee. Free will is apart of Gods image but can only be God honoring when we bend the knee and we can do that only after jesus died and rose again. After that the holy spirit could influence our free will to bring us to salvation. Before the cross Gods influence was all external but with the holy spirit its internal. God can finally make two become one. God is outside of time and with that he can choose us through predestination but free will in an eternal God image way still determines our salvation. In a carnal, worldly timeline Gods will determines how we become saved. Meaning he decides what our testimony will be and when were born ext.... but we eternally(through free will) have already determined our salvation. So God through his knowledge and being outside of time being infinite has already figured out what makes you tick and if you will accept being 2nd to Him. Then he takes the answer(you). And places you in the when and the where and we will find out the why when we go back to Him in heaven.
I came to faith as a child, so I never had this Damascus Road-type experience. According to Calvinists, they claim everyone is born a hater of God. Well, if I was, it was before I could even comprehend anything. I don’t ever remember consciously hating God in my life. There are millions of testimonies similar to mine that I have yet to hear a Calvinist explain. As for your post, there have been testimonies of people who resisted multiple times and felt a tug but didn’t give in until like the 13th time. So how would a Calvinist explain that?
@@BK-yz7px B K from the moment of the Fall, all humanity is totally deprived and in sin (for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God - Romans 3:23). None is righteous, no one understands, no one seeks for God (Psalms 14:1-3, 53:1-3). You may not have consciously formed the thought that "man, I hate God," but when we love other things - including ourselves - more than God, we are in fact disobeying God's commandments. I too was born into a Christian environment and became a born-again Christian at an early age without the Damascus experience, but that is not to say I had never loved anything else more than God before my salvation. Even afterwards my flesh would be drawn to things other than God if left unchecked and that's the human condition of all, including Christians, even Paul writes "For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate." Just because you weren't aware of your own sin before salvation, it doesn't mean what the bible says is untrue or applies only selectively. If you feel that you have no sins to repent, or you are resisting the idea of total depravity, then that alone is a sin that you need to repent, for no one is holy besides God, no one is blameless besides Jesus, and pride in the form of self-righteousness is the father of all sin.
blingx2sys Stop accusing me of something I never said. I’m merely speaking truthfully of my experience. I’m not going to lie for the sake of Calvinism. Lying is a sin. What I’m pointing out is that almost all Calvinists I hear will say all men are hating God as in they are shaking their fist at God. When you are a 2-year-old, you are not shaking your fist at God. Even in Calvinism if God decided to regenerate me and millions of other people before we are even aware of anything, that still eliminates the idea that everyone is consciously hating God. That’s just a problem in Calvinism, and they never seem to deal with that group of people. Also, even most Calvinists affirm that the Bible implies an age of accountability.
blingx2sys This is John MacArthur on the age of accountability. This is a Calvinist perspective in the link below. Other Calvinists, meanwhile, deny it. But I think John MacArthur makes a great case. Adam Harwood, of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote a whole book on this issue. Here’s the MacArthur link: www.gty.org/library/articles/A264/the-age-of-accountability
@@BK-yz7px I happened to come across your other comment demanding John Piper to explain total depravity, which implied to me that you don't believe that all humanity is completely under sin and fall short of God, which is in contrast of what the bible says. I personally have not heard that expression of "shaking fist" at God from any Calvinist, and if that's what some Calvinists say, I'm sure that's just that - an expression, for the bible does not define sin as simply and exclusively shaking fist at God. As for the 2 year old, or even the newborn - they are all under sin in the sense that they are self-centered and selfish even in their innocence. Parents actually have to teach them to share their toys, they demand 100% of attention all the time, the whole world revolves around them. They are innocently rebellious (ever seen a toddler tantrum?) because they are not naturally going to obey parents, it takes a lot of nurturing and teaching to get them to behave in morally acceptable ways. My nephew when he was just over a yeat old, as sweet and innocent as he was, had no issue disregarding my bodily fatigue and pain while he just wanted to hop on my back for fun, for goodness's sake!! Also, you and I both agree lying is sin, right? Children are natural liars, there are psychology studies after studies proving that they can innocently lie. Yes it may not be a consciously made behaviour - but that just goes to show that, even in our most untainted instinct, we are totally under sin from the moment we are born, whether we are aware of it or not. That's why all humanity, regardless of age, needs Jesus! Why did he ever need to die if humans are not completely deprived and could somehow find their way back to God in the state of sin?
Preveniant grace is best understood by the doctrine of repentance. For example scripture says God calls sinners to repentance. If repentance is irresistible by means of effectual grace than God is merely playing a game with sinners. For scripture says he desires for sinners to repent, waits for us to repent, gets angry when we don't repent. If he is the one making us repent, scripture becomes very confusing.
Your name makes your Arminian defense confusing.
For whom the Lord loves He chastens, And scourges every son whom He receives.” If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten? But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons. Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live? For they indeed for a few days chastened us as seemed best to them, but He for our profit, that we may be partakers of His holiness. Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.
Hebrews 12:6-11 NKJV
I appreciate Piper's attempt to represent classical Arminianism accurately, but his approach is misguided. Working to clarify strengths of Arminian theology and weaknesses of Calvinism on my channel, especially regarding Romans 9-11.
Your video on Rom 9-11 in missional perspective was so helpful. Seeing that God chooses his people to be the instrument by which those who were passed over come to salvation really opened my eyes to the accuracy of the Arminian perspective. Thanks!
Yes! OFE vids helped me understand the Calvinism debate. I hope you are going to do more on Romans 9-11. We need more Arminian interpretations of that passage.
@@stevesmith8974 Thanks so much!
@@ronjackson3066 Glad you found the videos helpful!
Subscribed to OFE. Great material. So clear! Thanks!
Gen 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.
Act 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
.
I absolutely agree with John Swenson.
Please explain to me how Calvinism explains how God would only chose some and not others; discounting large swaths of people the opportunity to find Salvation? I believe that every person has the freedom to choose, or not, a faith in Jesus as our Lord and Savior. I believe that every person, once saved, should continuously work out their faith, seeking to repent and pick up their cross daily, and that each promise of God is preceded with a caveat that we must follow Him.
Why did God only choose Israel as His people in the Old Testament? It’s the same for His spiritual Israel of the new covenant.
God chose only Abraham a sinner among a multitude of sinners ,God chose Israel a sinful nation over other sinful nations ,God chose Jacob a sinner over Esau a sinner ,Isaac over Ishmael,Jesus chose his disciples,He chose Paul. Redemption was at work before God created the heavens and the earth ,and God chose whom he would adopt as his sons Eph 1:4-5
Stephen said “ye do always resist the holy spirit” in Acts 7:51, so resisting the holy spirit IS possible, and could potentially be the very unforgivable sin of the blasphemy of the holy spirit.
irresistible grace means God could literally save everyone if He wanted to, but chooses not to. and yet scripture says over and over that “God wills for all men everywhere to be saved.”
so while much of calvinism is true, irresistible grace is a plain contradiction to scripture.
as for arminians, one problem they have is that it is possible for one to lose their salvation. God repeatedly tells us in His word that He knew who will be saved from the foundation of the world. Romans 8:29-30 says everyone that God once justifies (saves) will also be glorified (new body, etc.).
therefore the truth is very much in the middle, and i don’t yet know of a particular denomination that holds to such views.
Learning some Greek would really help. Because The Bible surely was not written in English. It says something very different in Greek.
When we are made alive in Christ, we get a new heart that loves the truth and are drawn to the Truth. Here is irresistible grace. Christ is so irresistable that we cannot but love Him and follow Him and want to know Him more and more! I thank God for this grace. If left to myself I would have never chosen the right thing and would go to hell. But God!!!!!! He saves those He loves. He doesn't lieve the decision to the stupid sheep. How wonderful!!
What I understand is that God has called everyone and made his grace available for everyone through Jesus Christ. But the final decision is up to us to repent and believe in his son and have faith in him. If that wasn't the case, why would call call us to repent? Why would he tell us to turn our hearts? Why does it say "believe and be saved"? It doesn't say "wait for God to make you believe in him". If that wasn't the case, why would he judge people?
When there are two views, ask yourself:
Which one glorifies God more?
Isaiah 42:8 "... my glory I give to no other..."
Here is absolute Biblical proof that God does NOT cause or determine everything as per Calvinism; In Jeremiah 19:5 God says, “They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal-something I did NOT COMMAND or mention, nor did it enter my mind.” 2nd Peter 3:9 says, “The Lord is…not willing that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance.” and yet, it also has Jesus saying, "Broad is the road that leads to destruction (hell) and many are on it, but straight and narrow is the road that leads to life (Heaven) and few ever find it."
@@Mike-qt7jp ??? This is not the place for an argument but that does not negate that view of Scripture. How about when God says that he chooses some people for hell and some people for heaven or that some are elect.
"Calvinists only those who take scripture at face value and don't try to explain it away."
That quotes from an Armenian by the way
@@Mike-qt7jp I'm sure you mean well and may love Jesus a whole lot and if you are my brother then I don't want to say anything other than what would be encouraging to you. But in your well meaning, don't dismiss the entirety of scripture for your own comfort.
@@Mike-qt7jp😅😅😅😅
Jeremiah 1 I knew you before....
your passage proves total depravity ignoramus the opposite of your blasphemy 😅
He causes everything good everything bad is in his absence you have no clue what Christianity or Calvinism is sit down and listen
zombie self righteous narcissist arminains 🤦
So people who reject Christ, does not have the Grace Of God
I don't identify as either, though I keep being asked what I believe in. Is it necessary to classify believes to either of the 2? I like David pawson or even Spurgeon's stand on this, where he says: how can you reconcile friends . Is it possible for you, Pastor John, to explain if there is a more biblical theology to salvation than either calvinism or arminianism? Because there seems to be biblical bases for and against either. Perhaps both have borrowed some things from the tradition of man rather than from the word of God.
@From The Darkness To The Light did he explicitly say this or is it inferred by calvinist. I do not know but from the written down sermons of his that I have read. He does not specifically identify with either.
John, do you use the prevenient grace doctrine to witness to the unsaved? Should we completely understand it before we witness to unsaved? I am sarcastic of course. I have been saved 50 years and it has made not a wit of difference in my walk with Jesus. How does Prevenient Grace apply to the thief on the cross who crossed from railing abuse to plea for salvation. Grace did not preceed his plea.
1 Corinthians 3:1-7 KJVS
[1] And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. [2] I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. [3] For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? [4] For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? [5] Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? [6] I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. [7] So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase:
What we likely have here is a prime example of what Apostle Paul prophesied about.
Ephesians 4:14-15 KJVS
[14] That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; [15] But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
If you want to understand sound doctrine study the Word and let the unction of the Holy Ghost teach you.
1 John 2:20,27 KJVS
[20] But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. [27] But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
www.justifiedfreely.com
Y’all I have a question. If it’s true that Gods grace is irresistible, then why do people resist the Lord? It seems to me that we have a choice to make.
You could see a miracle and deny God, but when He enters your life, you are his. Calvinists just believe that God does this with the elected.
Calvinism understanding of the Bible is that the grace of God that brings salvation is specific to the elect only and is irresistible because it brings them out of darkness in the light but for the non-elect God withholds that same so they they happily continue to be dead in trespasses and sins.
"They resist always" it says.... Unpardonable sin is what all people do who are not chosen to believe. They resist the Holy Spirit ALWAYS.
I used to consider myself Calvinist and at one time was deeply studied in it. The Calvinist view is not that all of God's Grace is irresistible, but rather that there is a certain sort of grace, an electing grace which he gives to his eternally chosen over and above his 'common grace.' A term that most calvinists I knew / still find more suitable than "irresistible" is "effectual:" it's a grace that is effective to remove any and all resistance to his gospel work.
I no longer call myself a Calvinist (I never did like the term) although I still maintain that election, in the general essence expressed by the "reformed" camp, is a manifestly scriptural doctrine. What I no longer will engage in, however, is the systematizing and logic-chopping of things which are God's business, "neither do I exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me." (Psalm 131)
Many Christians, whether Arminian or Calvinist, are fully content to leave as mystery how the Lord is ONE Lord yet expressed in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost... yet somehow find themselves far more confident in their theological systems to discern the mystery discussed in this video. It's better, it would seem, to be as Jesus called us to be: like so many little children (Matt 18:3) who are happy to leave our Father's matters to him.
As His kids we should believe with ZERO caveat, that "God is not willing any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" _and_ with ZERO caveat believe him when he says, "no man can come to me except the Father who sent me draw him, and all who the Father draws will come to me."
Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; (Edwards, Wesley, Calvin, Arminius, included) yea further; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it.
ECC 8:17
Arminianism is the product of people's belief that it is unfair of God to sentence anyone to eternal hell without giving that person a fair chance to believe. Ask any Arminian. It starts, not with scripture, but with a feeling that Calvinism makes God unjust; God is not unjust; therefore, Calvinism must be wrong.
But a right, scriptural analysis reveals that God is just; everything God does is just; therefore, God is just in condemning whom he pleases, and saving whom he pleases.
God then very pleased to condemn you. Just tell everyone you’re the object of wrath chosen for destruction. You surely believe the truth?
@@madcow9421 Why would I tell someone that when no one knows who the elect are? That's silly. Read the parable of the wedding feast in Matthew 22. The external call goes to all; God makes the inward call to the elect, which only he can do.
Then, why isn't everyone saved? Some people are not chosen? Yes, the glory is Al His for the hole process of regeneration, but some people chose not to accept His gift.
Romans 3:10-17
Read christopher ness book
An antidote against armininism
I think we so proudly proclaim our views as if we are sovereign you find scripture on both sides of views our minds cannot comprehend God and all his ways does not matter how many degrees we have the bible says how beautiful are the feet the bring the good news God does not look at man made doctrines but He does look at how many people have brought into His kingdom we are called to to take the good knews and how He moves in people's hearts we do not know but scripture does say by faith we come to Christ now did He generate all that faith in me or only some so I could accept Chist I dont truly know but I know He does give me a choice to continue in this faith so we are really stretching scripture when we remove free will from man Godbless
I just follow someone no one talks about much, Jesus Christ the Son of God. To me following Calvin or Amenius is the same as following Mary. The Lord has always given Grace, it is His character. Follow Him. Grace is simply unearned favour especially the favour of having our sins forgiven and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Salvation is very simple.
AMEN.
In Ephesians, chapter 2, St Paul addresses the mainly Gentile believers as : ' you were dead in trespasses and sins...', yet he himself had also been dead, but a different version of 'dead', dead in self-righteous religious works (Hebrews 6:1.) !
How can the Judge of all the Earth hold someone responsible, if he had no say in the decision or the final outcome whatsoever (hyper-calvinism) ?
Human beings are certainly not lifeless clay (Romans 9:21.) after all, nor are they mindless animals (according to godless Darwinism), but somewhere in between, cooperation is required (Psalm 32:8,9.) !
According to Jesus, Paul was dead in his trespasses and sins. "For sin is the transgression of the law." 1 John 3:4
God-the-Son said to the Pharisees which had come from Jerusalem , Mark 7, "For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition (Grk paradosis) of men as the washing of pots and cups; and many other such like things do ye."
A former Pharisee from Jerusalem: "And I profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions (Grk. paradosis) of my fathers."
- Paul, Galatians 1
But Jesus said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition (paradosis).
_
This said, I agree with the end of what you said. We are responsible. We can choose whatever we want. No caveat.
But, when and if we do choose, we give ALL glory and credit to God.
This is a mystery, but one the Bible teaches. I think we do well to leave God's matters to him and just believe all that he says as little children. (Matt 18:3)
:] Thanks for reading.
In Ephesians 2:8, grace is the gift from God and not faith. Faith is our response to the grace that God is giving... Man has the free will to receive or reject the goodness of GOD... if you read the entire Bible nowhere you can find a word SOVEREIGN attached to the word GRACE..
And nowhere in the Bible can you find the words "free will", but you WILL find that man's plans WILL be frustrated by God, meaning He has ultimate say in all things.
bible is very clear that you have no free will to be born of your physical birth and you have no free will to be born of your spiritual birth. john chapter 3 makes it extremely clear. next
Referencing a verse and then saying next before hearing another perspective reminds me of Aminians who quote John 3:16 and then ignore any thoughtful Calvinist interpretations
@Hosanna well I'm not a Calvinist, but I guess I don't see the problem for calvinism in that section. Why do you think Calvinists would have trouble with that text?
@Hosanna Okay, I see what your saying now. I think Calvinists believe in a type of free will called compatibilism. They believe a person always chooses their greatest desire at any given moment, and since their desires are all determined by factors outside of them (ie God), their choices are likewise determined. That's why Calvinists will say that you do what you want and are therefore accountable. Whether you think this is a sufficient explanation for how sinners are morally responsible under determinism is a separate point.
In this case, I think a Calvinist would take john 3:16 as an example of total depravity and people following their own desires.
"he’s clearly saying men willfully love to do evil things like steal and fornicate. That’s free choice"
I assume that a Calvinist would agree with you here. Calvinists believe sinners "freely" and "willfully" choose their sin. As long as you define "freely" in the context of always following your greatest desire.
At 3:15 Piper got it a little wrong. People like lightened flowers do say that men can produce their own faith in God completely apart from God. And that after they produce their own faith and God sees it, then God chooses them.
In an interview with dr. Olson Flowers expressed that view and Olson disagreed.
Which would make Flowers a Pelagian.
You are wrong about Flowers. He doesn't teach that people can produce their own faith apart from God. He agrees that all men must be drawn by God (John 6:44) as scripture clearly teaches. Paul teaches in Romans that God reveals himself to all through his creation which is why all can and must be held accountable when they are commanded to believe. Jesus goes on to explain in John 6:45 how God draws people to himself - "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.". He explains that they are drawn by what they hear and believe.
We need the power of the Holy Spirit in order to be regenerated. No where does scripture teach that God regenerates men first. It teaches the opposite. The Holy Spirit is received after you believe not before. Paul says in Gal 3:2 that the Spirit is received by hearing and believing. He says in Eph 1:13 that we were included in Christ when we heard the message of truth and were marked in him with the seal of the Holy Spirit when we believed not before. Calvinists have the cart before the horse on this one. They conflate faith with works so they had to come up with the idea that regeneration precedes faith. Paul contrasts faith with works. Faith is not a work.
Everyone is capable of believing God or rejecting him. Jesus explains how God's free grace works with faith and trust in the beautiful story of the Prodigal son. The son was dead to the father yet he came to his senses on his own and went back to the father. The father didn't forcibly make his son come to him or make him work to earn his love back. He received him with open arms simply because his son humbled himself and came to him. This is a picture from Jesus of our heavenly Father. Until we "humble ourselves (which require free will) we can't receive God's free grace. God gives favor/grace to the humble but opposes the proud (too many vs that say this to list).
Everyone is fully capable of recognizing God and believing Him. Jesus also said - "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself." He was lifted up on the cross. Prior to the cross God drew men
Billy R
All men have faith. God doesn’t make men exercise their faith in Christ. He actually had to prevent some from doing it.
This post could not be less accurate. I've been following Leighton Flowers for years and every broadcast where faith is brought up he denounces the idea that man can produce faith in and of themselves. I listened to that whole interview. Please send a time stamp of where he said that "man can produce faith completely apart from god."
soteriology101.com/2019/05/04/is-faith-effectually-given/
Flowers believes that faith is granted, enabled, and a gift from God, just not an effectual gift
As a brother in Christ I'm asking that you don't make comments like this is if you are uninformed, or that you don't spread lies if you are informed
If determinism is true, than Leighton is a "pelagian" because God willed that he be so to glorify himself. So I see no problem with being a pelagian or anything else for that matter.
@@user-zl8fd8ko7d
It has nothing to do with determinism. It has to do with family. Agope
“Dead in tresspasses” should be read as a phrase not “Dead, in trespasses.” The tresspasses made it us dead. We are condemned with a sentence of death.
+Marty Blackman..Jesus definition of "church" was revelation from the Holy Spirit to you personally. That is how Peter knew that Jesus was the Christ. Paul's definition of "church" is a Heirarchy of titled men to Tell you what to Do. They are Very different. Paul taught that obeying the commandments will Not get you to Heaven and to Seek titled men for your help. Just as you are doing Here. Seeking Piper instead of Christ..Himself.
No, we are just asking help
What about Lutheranism and Provisionism (Traditional Southern Baptist, Eastern Orthodox, all of the early church for 400 years before Augustine, etc.)? Why do church “leaders” continue to insist on constantly painting a false dichotomy?
I guess because that wasn't the question which was asked.
And Molinism
Why everyone forgets molinism? I don't believe in it, but is interesting!!!
Because molonism is not orthodoxy. It’s a radically different view of the orthodox view of God which both Calvinists and Arminians affirm
I like this. But still disagree with him lol. He is all caught up on this idea that we have to participate in some way in order to be saved.. an analogy that comes to mind is that of turning on a light in the house. What is powering the light? Is it the switch you had to hit, or the electricity? If no electricity was coming to the switch, the switch wouldn’t do anything. So the prevenient grace brings the electricity to the switch then we hit the switch, then the electricity is able to power the light. All the “work” is done by the electricity yet we still find that we have to freely participate.
The Arminian believes total depravity. If this is true, in your analogy the sinner has no desire to flip the light switch on. Actually, he can’t, because he’s dead and dead men can’t choose to do anything, let alone chose God.
@@albertchanggg that's why, paraphrasing John Wesley, we NEED God's grace in us to even make us consider hearing the truth about the gospel. And this is made by the holy spirit, and he nicknamed it prevenient grace, a grace that "flows" with the preaching
Fernando Gonçalves irresistible grace is a better term hahaha. Prevenient Grace is conditional... total depravity makes it impossible to respond in faith... that’s the point we bible believing Calvinists are making. We can’t muster up the faith to respond in our sinful rebellion.
@@albertchanggg not advocating to my theology, just defending its non-heresy status and explainin some points. Btw, I'm a lover of calvinism as well
I came across this You Tube channel by Dr. Gene Kim. He just put up a video called: "Top 10 Christian CZcamss you must delete!" because according to him they preach Calvinism and it is wrong. Well, he sent me here, and I'm glad, because I just found out that I am indeed a Calvinist, and if I have to delete a channel it will be his.
Your a woman and women are easily deceived. CALVINISM WILL SEND YOU TO HELL.
I try personally to stay out of the whole calvinist vs arminian thing. I don't like getting into things like that, that divide us as believers.
Amen
I think the content of what we believe is of great importance. Very important subject.
@@jacksobrooks it is, but if it's not a "salvation issue" in my opinion, it's not something to argue over. I tend to find that when people argue over things like this that people's minds are usually already made up on the issue.
@@jacksobrooks it then turns into a pointless, heated argument with each side claiming they are the more spiritual Christian and it just looks bad to the world. Unbelievers just use things like that to mock us. I think it's better, that if you feel like a brother or sister is in error to perhaps have a short conversation with them. If they are not receptive then let it go and pray for them. Better to show the love of Christ than to argue with each other. That is what will draw unbelievers to Christ. Not bickering about things like this.
@@steveparks2976 I agree. What, in your opinion, is something that would be worth disputing over?
If you don't read the Bible and study the verses you quote by context please do us a favor and don't comment here..you're just confusing people with your opinions and self made ideas!
And telling them to go to hell. May God help us...we became childish buffoons...
Piper is wrong. Arminianism doesn’t say we save ourselves. That’s ridiculous.
I agree. Even as someone who considers themselves more Calvinistic. Arminianism doesn’t teach that we saved ourselves. It does however teach that we atleast make a choice in accepting Gods offer of salvation and then God does everything else and seals us with his holy spirit creating a new heart in us. A Calvinist would consider accepting this offer through faith to be a work of man in and of itself which they would consider synergistic.
This is the way I see it, help me if I am wrong please. You are an unbeliever you hear Gods word and become curious, you hear what the gospel is and decide if you want to give it a shot or not. You believe Jesus is the one true God and you are truly repentant in your heart and ask God to forgive you and guide you. Then he enters your heart by the holy spirit, opens your eyes to see the light. You then declare a war on your sin through a repentant heart and your new found light and the holy spirit guiding you, and live the rest of your life in faithfulness to Him because he has revealed is love to you. You respond by worshiping Him and learning what he wants for you through His word to keep you spiritually wise and to keep your faith strong this is the sanctification process. BUT if you have seen the light and you CHOOSE to instead not worship or read the bible... you read less and less you return to your old ways of sin, you start to backpedal. Then you could lose the light and ultimately fall away.
Scary.
Then your salvation is your work which clearly go againts scripture! 😓
@@jpneri6570 amen.
@@jpneri6570 people believe in the human power. But Gods devine power keeps his children.
@@tommymcdonagh8566 the problem of most christians is the lack of studying the Bible and understanding it by context and also looking at the verses in the wholeness of the Bible..so nothing will contradict ...actually God commanded that we continue to study.."study to show yourself approve by God" the word study there is in the future perfect tense which means continually...I just hope more Christians read their Bible...😌
God has made men w free will. Not robots. He is looking for relationship and love not puppets He controls.
YOU must choose Christ or you will never enter His kingdom.
How many verses are not in red letters or are they all in red letters spoken by Jesus?
NO MAN 🚹 CAN COME TO ME unless the father who sent me DRAWS HIM 💘, and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:44
John 15:18 19 if the world hated you, you know it hated me before I hate you. If you were of the world the world would love its own but because you are not of the world,
BUT I HAVE CHOSEN YOU OUT OF THE WORLD 🌎,
therefore the world hates you.
John 3:16-21 King James Version (KJV)
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH ( IS GOD'S CHOSEN ELECT) in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him MIGHT BE SAVED.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is CONDEMNED ALREADY, (BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD 🌎) BECAUSE HE HATH NOT BELIEVED IN THE NAME OF THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, AND MEN LOVED DARKNESS RATHER THAN LIGHT, BECAUSE THEIR DEEDS WERE EVIL.
20 FOR EVERY ONE THAT DOETH EVIL HATETH THE LIGHT, NEITHER COMETH TO THE LIGHT, lest his deeds should be REPROVED OR EXPOSED.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
So now if we were all born with sin and it takes the Holiness of God to break the bondage of sin how did Darkness decide to allow God into their life? How could mankind who was in bondage of sin break themselves free to ask God into their heart When God Says in HIS word that he CHOSEN HIS OWN BEFORE the FOUNDATION of the WORLD 🌎 in the BOOK of LIFE were SEALED and closed. Then he said let there be light.
Ephesians 1:4 5 and Romans 8:29 30
John 15:4-5
4 Abide in me, and I in you. AS THE BRANCH CANNOT BEAR FRUIT OF ITSELF, EXCEPT IT ABIDE IN THE VINE; NO MORE CAN YE, EXCEPT YE ABIDE IN ME.
5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: FOR WITHOUT ME YE CAN DO NOTHING.
Jeffrey Martin
Jesus chose the apostles as faithful witnesses to bring His message to the world.
Read John 6;45. Those who were taught by the Farher and learned would come to Jesus. The Father taught through prophets. John the Baptist was sent to turn the hearts of the people to the Lord that all men through him might believe.
Luk 7: 29 ¶ And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.
30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.
I feel like you need to widen your lens and discover the entire story of the bible. Zooming in on a passage here and there has skewed your conclusions.
God bless
Faith is not an alien invasion into the "elect's" life. Faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God. Romans 10:10 (ESV) "For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved." And because the human spirit is dead in sin, with the heart therefore he believes after hearing the Gospel and is justified and with his mouth he confesses his faith unto salvation.
Exactly. God divinely works through the will of dead sinners to accomplish his purpose in election perfectly, not apart from the hearing of the gospel, but through it. However, let's let Romans 8 and 9 undergird the following chapters 10 and 11 as Paul intended it to. He makes it clear that it is God who chooses to mercy whom He desires in order to display His grace, and harden whom He desires in order to demonstrate His power and justice. How we see that function through human agency follows in the next two chapters.
@@nathanthoren2890 @Nathan Thoren I think Chapter 9 deals with the Israelites in particular who repeatedly rejected the gospel and the grace of God thereby causing God to harden their hearts. But there's a reason to it as mentioned in 11:25. Comparing chapters 8 & 10 I understand God forknew, not foreordained, the group of 10:9-13.
How do you explain in ACTS.."those who are destined for eternal life believe"..
I'm confused... Where does free will fit in for the Calvinist?
its your meaning of "free will" that is distorted. We only choose to follow Christ because God ENABLED us. (this is biblical) Without the Holy Spirit's awakening of our soul, we become self-righteous religious people. We are so broken and filthy that If it was up to us, we would pursue our flesh desires 100% guaranteed. But because its the work of God's Grace we can humbly cry out, "I was once blind, but now I see". You can't produce this by your own nature. IMPOSSIBLE.
Rofl. Ephesians 2:4-7. So you literally skip the next verse that clarifies that "made us alive with Christ" is through faith. Paul says "made us alive with Christ" = "by grace you have been saved". Then Paul immediately says in the next sentence, By grace you have saved THROUGH faith. We are regenerated THROUGH faith, or as John Calvin says in his Ephesians 2:8-9 commentary "received by faith alone".
The strongest argument for calvinism (I hate that term) is the work of the trinity in salvation. Also, when Jesus saud he came for His sheep, that whole passage. Also, the bible refers to goats and sheep, but I cannot think of any place where goats turn into sheep?
Some reformed pastors in Brazil offer the term calvinian, as "like Calvin, not as disciples of calvin"
M. D.D
The sheep and goats was decided from their works
Read Ezekiel 34. The goats were the Israelites who rejected God. God hardened them so that they couldn’t become sheep. Read Rom 11.
God bless.
Ephesians 2:1-3 describes how we all were once "goats." Just doesn't use that term, but Paul says we were all, BY NATURE, children of wrath, like the rest. Our natures have been changed.
Dan Adams
Amen.
1Cor 6: 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
Calvinism teaches that God humbles us and makes the choice for us. The Bible doesn't teach this. It's says we must humble ourselves. It can't be both ways.
Wrong Calvinism didn't teach that. Please pay attention.
@@billyr9162 If you think about it you will see that is exactly what it teaches. A person is not humbling themselves if someone else is making them do it. That's called force. True humility must come willingly from the heart which requires a free will.
@@lmorter7867
Quit using your fickled human reason as the basis for what is true.
Billy R is mad
@@adamh5153
Im not mad
Why Don't you People just Follow Jesus..Like He asked you To? Instead of contending over men's opinions? Jesus Made is very Clear and Simple What He Wants us to Teach and Do in Matthew 5 6 7. I never hear any of Jesus actual Real Gospel on this site.
kathleen Wharton these are questions that people send in
@Odd Fish I think she comes on here to complain about St Paul and John Piper being false teachers 😁
I find it interesting that Calvinists always offer only 2 alternatives when it comes to Salvation; Calvinism (irresistible grace) and Arminianism (prevenient grace). The Bible does not teach either of these views.
There are many sinners like Charles Templeton who, having placed their faith in Christ, became atheists later in life. Were Templeton, and many others, brought to faith by God’s irresistible grace as described by Piper or were they free to respond to the Gospel having been aided by God’s prevenient grace as taught by Arminianism?
If such people were effectually called then this calling must have failed. If they responded to the Gospel having first received prevenient grace then they must have lost their Salvation. Neither of these situations align with Scripture.
It is clear from Scripture that God loves all His fallen creation and that He has provided for all. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, and, as John said, we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. It is also clear from Scripture that Jesus paid the penalty for sin for all sinners. Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world and Jesus has tasted death for all men. God desires that all come to repentance and a knowledge of the Truth, and in fact, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent. The Bible even says that the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men.
The Bible is very clear that anyone can be saved. Whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life and for whoever will call on the name of the lord will be saved. Paul was trying to persuade them concerning Jesus, from morning until evening. Some were being persuaded by the things spoken, but others would not believe. John wrote that these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.
We are made in the image of God and have all that is required in order to believe or reject the message. And of course we have the Holy Spirit who convicts the world of sin, righteousness and judgement.
Hence, the two options provided by Piper are not Biblical and the answer to Salvation is that faith comes by hearing and hearing of the Word of God; and all can hear and respond to the message of Truth.
Greg Jay Agreed. Both Calvinism and Arminianism come from Augustine and are not rooted in the teachings of the true orthodox, original Christians.
It's very interesting me that your so called 'proof' comes from an anecdotal experience (not even your own), and not from an exegetical exposition of the Scriptures themselves. Sure, you took a few verses out of their context and attempted to twist them to suit your view, but you have no meaningful, objective basis for your claim, at least not presented here.
@@justinbirkelo6806 [your so called 'proof' comes from an anecdotal experience (not even your own), and not from an exegetical exposition of the Scriptures] Sounds like you have been listening to James White. If you have a good answer to explain how evangelist Charles Templeton responded to the Gospel and then became an atheist, then please provide it here.
[you took a few verses out of their context] Please explain how these verses have been taken out of context. If you know what these verses really mean then please explain it here.
[attempted to twist them to suit your view] How have I twisted them? So what did John really mean when he said, “we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.”
When you have explained what John really meant to say then perhaps you can explain what the other verses really mean.
[you have no meaningful, objective basis for your claim] Spoken like a true Calvinist.
Since you are so knowledgeable concerning God’s Word, please explain how an infinitely loving God, who is rich in mercy and grace, and kind in all His deeds, would provide saving faith to so few of His fallen creation. In the case of the Japanese people this would be just 1% of the population
.
@@gregjay9933 I simply asserted that you have not presented any meaningful, scriptural, or objective basis for the claim you made concerning Charles Templeton. Based on the way you phrased the statements made in the earlier comment, I assume you hold to the doctrine of conditional security, in which case you would - by necessity - need to back that up with Scripture, properly exegeted; as with any other doctrine. That's all that was being said there. As to the answer concerning Charles Templeton, I would say this: I do not know his story. So, I cannot speak concerning him specifically, nor did I ever claim to be able to, as that would be presumptuous. The point being made, again, was that it was a folly argument to point to his 'testimony' of falling away as an authoritative example to validate your doctrine. As for the verse quoted above in John, I believe it means exactly what it says, that '...we have seen and testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world...', that is, that '...we...', i.e., John and they who believe, aka the apostles, aka, those counted among the elect, have seen, and testify that Jesus,the Son, was sent by the Father, to be the Savior of the world. {Insert Arminian eisegesis of the word 'world', substituted for 'every individual of the world'}. You make a chief mistake in the insertion of a word or words into the text that do not exist within the text itself. Bear in mind that despite the consistent testimony of the Old Testament, the Jews did, and still do to this day, hold to a view which secludes them from the rest of the world in terms of salvation. They believe much as is presented in the beginning of Romans 9, that because they are mere descendants of Abraham according to the flesh, they are children of God. When John and others write in terms of Jesus being the '...Savior of the world...' this is what they are referring to, and it would have been understood as such by those who originally received these words. It was a radical thought to the ancient world that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was the Savior of more than just Israel, but indeed has a chosen remnant from every tribe, tongue and nation. This is what it means. Counter point to this particular piece of your response, if Jesus atoned for every individual, elect or not, how then, do you account for the testimony of God unto Samuel in 1 Samuel 3:14? ' "...Therefore I swear to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever." ' (see context for fuller understanding). Exegetically, there is no way around this. The Old Testament saints were never justified by the works of the Law, I'm sure we can agree, though they served a purpose as a tutor to point to Messiah. Since Adam, all have been justified by grace through faith in Christ alone, some looking forward, others backward in time. So, please explain the words of the Living God, that Eli's house would NEVER be atoned for by sacrifice or offering FOREVER. Is God lying? As for your last point about God being infinitely loving, I suppose you would have to further define what you mean by infinitely loving. If by infinitely loving, you mean to say, 'all loving', then you are simply mistaken. According to Scripture, the wicked are equally the objects of God's hatred as well as His temporal grace and love (in a way we can perhaps never understand as finite beings). If by infinitely loving, you mean that He has chosen a specific people upon which to lavish the boundless depths of His glorious grace and love, His riches of mercy, into the eternal ages to come, then yes, I would agree. This is consistent with the teaching of Ephesians 2. To be honest, the fundamental issue with this is that we as sinful creatures tend to lean toward a belief system which mandates the sovereign God to indiscriminately pour out His love and grace and mercy equally upon all, in terms of eternal salvation. Not only is this inconsistent with Scripture, it is blatantly prideful, arrogant, and wickedly entitled for creatures to assert that if God does what He pleases with His creation, then that God cannot be loving. It was the correction of this fundamental misunderstanding of who God is, and who I am as a created being of His in relation to Him, that led me to eventually cast aside my pride and entitlement that I held against these teachings for years, and to buckle under the eternal weight of these truths. What a freeing, peaceful, empowering thing! What a MERCIFUL God we serve, who chose us in Him apart from anything beyond Himself. What a beautiful truth, that salvation, from start to finish, is ENTIRELY a work of the sovereign, holy One.
Why do calvinists always think it's that can speak for the bible; and the apostles must be wrong?
I'll take false dichotomies for $200, Alex.
I'll take "Supposedly more knowledgeable than people who have spent entire lifetimes and have even died arguing the finer points of the faith" for $500.
Why do some Christian describe themselves as Calvinist or Arminian? Paul warned about this in 1 Corinthians 1:10-16. Or are these two just ways of thinking people ascribe to?
I mention that I am Calvinist so people know I believe in scripture.
@@jacksobrookshaha ok. Only Calvinist believe in scripture.
@Odd Fish that's what I was hoping just wondering what everyone's opinion was.
well biblically speaking, both cannot be correct. it's one or the other.
@@tommy11sixorozco9 I agree, but my point was Christian's saying, "I am a Calvininst" or "I am a Armenian." Why not call oneself a Christian with an different understanding of the Bible?
Calvinists (Highly respected Sproul, etc) believe God the Father the first person of the Trinity poured out His wrath and cursed and cut off His Son the second person of the Trinity while on the cross thereby splitting apart the Trinity which is the heresy of Arianism and Nestorianism.
See 1 Corinthians 12:3
John 10:30
There was no imputation or transfer of our sins onto Jesus, an innocent victim, while on the cross! Sin is not a thing!
Proverbs 17:15
Deuteronomy 24:16
Jesus died in order to raise from the dead thereby conquering death, sin, and the devil for everybody, otherwise even unbelievers would not raise from the dead.
2 Corinthians 5:14-16
Hebrews 2:14-15
1 Corinthians 15:22
Calvinists believe God created people, and all people are born dead in sin through zero fault of their own, but God only chooses to save some and be regenerated. The others go to hell.
So, Calvinists basically say God creates some people who have no choice but to go to hell.
How does the Calvinist explain away their evil wrathful God? There is no wrath in the eternal Trinity of God.
"God is love!"
1 John 4:8
When people reject the love and grace of God, God's love becomes wrath for them! Judas Iscariot committed suicide having rejected Christ's love!
John 3:19-21, 36
The conversion of Lydia,
Read Acts 16:13-15!
God in His providence brings Lydia and Paul together. Lydia is dead in sin, but God gives her grace and opens her heart to respond to Paul's message in either repentance or rejection. (Acts 26:20)
Lydia responds in repentance and has her sins washed away in Baptism (Acts 22:16) being buried and raised with Christ in washing and regeneration and made righteous!
Romans 6:1-5
Colossians 2:11-15
Acts 2:38-39
John 3:5
1 Corinthians 6:11
Nicene Creed
Like Lydia everybody is given grace in some manner to repent and are responsible and without excuse.
Romans 1:18-23
Acts 17:30-31
"And Christ died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.
So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view!"
2 Corinthians 5:14-16
1 Timothy 2:3-6
John 6:51
all your saying is you don't believe the bible and God is unjust
zombie minion fake
All due respect, my issue with Calvinism is that, in one hand God is saying He is Just and merciful and “not willing that any should perish”; on the other, He chooses whom will be saved, then condemn those He didnt choose for “rejecting” His offer. How can they “reject” when they didnt have any choice in the matter? Further, if (accdg to Ptr John in 14:00) God’s grace is so compelling, making it irresistible, then can I assume He didnt offer the same to those who arent saved? Which again contradicts to the “not willing that any should perish” verse.
My view on this is God’s grace allows for “a state of understanding” (not “partial regeneration” as Arminians put it). The parable of the sower illustrates this.
Without this grace, one is impaired to understand what is at stake (because one is dead in sin). With this “moment of understanding”, free will kicks in.
The image is that of a person walking in a very dark road with all worldly pleasures along the way, but not knowing that at the end awaits torment. This “moment of understanding” is like a flash of light that illuminates the pleasures, the danger ahead and, unknown to him before, The Way out (Salvation through) Christ. It is at this point where God allows the person to choose. God does NOT choose for that person. This is vital because if he rejects the Way out, he can no longer accuse God of being unjust.
This is a very scrappy way of explaining my thoughts but i hope you get the gist. Godbless
_"not willing that any should perish"_ Any who? Who exactly does God not want to see perish in 2 Pe 3? The reprobate of 1-7 for whom he is storing up fire for the day of judgment, or the beloved in verse 8 who are actually in view in verse 9?
The thing I find odd about most of the verses that 'disprove' Calvinism is that they tell a completely different story when one reads the surrounding context.
oracleoftroy
Deu 5: 29 O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!
Jer 2: 9 Wherefore I will yet plead with you, saith the LORD, and with your children's children will I plead.
Jer 26: 3 If so be they will hearken, and turn every man from his evil way, that I may repent me of the evil, which I purpose to do unto them because of the evil of their doings
Eze 18: 23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?
Mat 23: 37 ¶ O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
Luk 19: 41 ¶ And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
42 Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
Is Jesus weeping for the glory He didn’t receive from them??? No, He has a heart for all people.
Rom 11: 31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
1Tim 2: 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
@@evanu6579 Deu 5: 29 - Not sure what this is doing here, seems in line with WCF 9 and total depravity.
Jer 2: 9 - Here again, I'm not sure what you think this is saying. Verses 4-8 establish that Israel is against God and so God is contending and bringing a case against them (as modern translations use). Is the KJ throwing you off? God isn't begging them to listen to him, he is pleading in a legal sense, showing their guilt and their transgression of the law.
Jer 26: 3 - I assume you aren't acknowledging the primary second cause distinction?
Eze 18: 23 - You seem to have a serious misunderstanding of Calvinism if you think we think God punishes people for his own jollies. Please step outside the anti-Calvinist circlejerk and at the very least read and base your arguments off our confessions.
Mat 23: 37 - I have no idea why anti-Calvinists use this verse. What do you think it is saying, and what do you think Calvinists believe that wouldn't make sense under this verse? If you are reading some sort of universal something into this verse, notice that Jesus isn't all that concerned with the leaders, just the children.
Luk 19: 41 - Again, I'm not sure what assumption you are holding about this verse and Calvinism. I note that the people are passive in the hiding from their eyes, so this can't be a free will thing.
_"Is Jesus weeping for the glory He didn’t receive from them??? No, He has a heart for all people."_
If Jesus has a heart for all people, why is he only weeping over Jerusalem, and not all the other cities that rejected him? I think you want these verses to prove more than they actually say. They are directly about Jerusalem. Indirectly, you might say its about what Jerusalem represents - the Israelites. I don't see how you get "all people" from that verse; you are importing that from elsewhere.
Rom 11: 31,32 - Um, this disproves Calvinism? This is the key chapter in Romans that shows God is saving not just the Jews, but all people - Romans, Samaritans, Ethiopians, and every other people-group. It calls these gentiles Israelites as they are grafted into Israel even as the Israelites by blood are pruned out. It is interesting you included 32 where it is God that has consigned all to disobedience. If your point is that it says "mercy upon all" where you assume it means "mercy upon every individual person who ever was or ever will be," I think that ignores the entire point of the chapter, which is about all people (as in nations/ethnic groups/etc) and not just Jewish people.
1 Tim 2: 4 - You ignore verse 2.
First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for *all people,* _for kings and all who are in high positions,_ that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires *all people* to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Notice how Paul, after saying it the first time, immediately qualities "all people" to be "kings and all those in authority / high positions" so that we don't mistake him as saying we need to pray for 7+ billion people, but for people from all stations in life. I see no indication that his second use of "all people" has changed the referent.
oracleoftroy
The discussion I entered into was about whether or not God was willing that most people perish. The discussion seemed to be about God’s character and His desire for mankind. It’s a little more specific than just Calvinism.
Deu. 5: 29 O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!
The obvious point is that God desires their good. He wanted them to fear Him so that it would be well with them.
I concede Jer 2:9. I guess the KJV did throw me off :)
Jer 26: 3 If so be they will hearken, and turn every man from his evil way, that I may repent me of the evil, which I purpose to do unto them because of the evil of their doings.
God cannot lie. He desired them to turn away from their sins so that He could have mercy on them.
Eze 18:23. Virtually every Calvinist claims that God justly damns people for His glory. That’s why He doesn’t save all people. He gets glory from both saving and exacting judgement. So does God delight in getting glory or not?
Either way, the point is God’s heart. His character. He doesn’t desire that any perish.
Matt 23: 37 ¶ O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
“Children of Jerusalem” is a phrase for the people of Jerusalem. I’m pretty sure you’re aware of that. Jesus’ desire was to gather them together unto Himself. Was He struggling between their souls and the glory He would receive by exacting Justice? In the end He chose justice as being more glorifying for Himself? Is that how you see this? It seems obvious that He allows free will choices in these matters and stretched out His arm to them that they might be saved but they would not.
Luk 19:41, Jesus is weeping over them. That goes along with His heart, His desire. There may not be anything recorded about weeping over other cities but that doesn’t mean He didn’t. It seems like that comment was a bit of a dodge tactic. He was in Jerusalem and looked upon that city and wept over it.
Rom 11 is about God hardening the Israelites to bring salvation to the Gentiles. The Gentiles in turn will make the Israelites jealous so that they too will come to faith. God is working all things out that He MIGHT have mercy on them all.
The two groups of humanity are Jew and Gentile. If you’re not a Jew, you’re a Gentile. It’s all inclusive.
1Tim 2: 1 ¶ I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
The prayer in verse 1 is so that we may lead a peaceable life. For Paul to clarify to Timothy (who knew the Holy scriptures from a child) that kings and those in authority could be saved as well, is a pretty silly notion. He knew about King David and Jehoshaphat and Josiah. He knew about Daniel in his place of authority and Joseph. As a matter of fact, Timothy would have been more familiar with God’s Grace to people in authority than any other group.
Verse 6 clarifies who the “all” are. It’s all men.
Who gave himself a ransom for all men. To say that this means all hierarchies of men is a stretch. Paul definitely could have worded it much better if that’s what he meant.
@@evanu6579 _"The discussion I entered into was about whether or not God was willing that most people perish."_
That's odd then, I don't believe that most people will perish. I think by the final tally, more people will be saved than condemned, perhaps even a vast majority of people. Part of the reason I believe this is that it is God doing the saving, and he is not leaving any part of it up to men who got themselves into that situation in the first place, but is mighty to save.
_"The discussion seemed to be about God’s character and His desire for mankind. It’s a little more specific than just Calvinism."_
Well, my point was that most anti-Calvinists interpretations of verses at best must assume a conclusion to refute Calvinism, or are themselves refuted when the context is considered.
_"Deu. 5: 29 ... The obvious point is that God desires their good. He wanted them to fear Him so that it would be well with them."_
The verse is descriptive of the blessings their fear would have brought them, and doesn't demand that it is about a wish God had.I'm not sure what that disproves about Calvinism.
_"Jer 26: 3 ... God cannot lie. He desired them to turn away from their sins so that He could have mercy on them._"
Again, this is descriptive of what would happen if they repent. This isn't God wishing really hard that man would stop acting like a 2 year old.
_"Eze __18:23__. Virtually every Calvinist claims that God justly damns people for His glory. That’s why He doesn’t save all people. He gets glory from both saving and exacting judgement. So does God delight in getting glory or not?"_
Is this a question about whether God's delight is in his glory or in condemning people. His delight is in his glory, not in his condemning people. He is a just God and it is good to praise him for his justice. In demonstrating his justice, he condemns wicked sinners that fully deserve his condemnation. The glory isn't received for the condemnation (or he could also condemn innocent people as well), but in his justice.
_"Either way, the point is God’s heart. His character. He doesn’t desire that any perish."_
Agreed. But any *who* does he desire to not perish? 2 Pe 3: 8-9 says he doesn't want his beloved to perish, and he is storing up fire for the reprobate in 1-7. Words like 'any', 'all', 'world', etc have referents that often need to be ignored to make a case against Calvinism.
_"Matt 23: 37 ... “Children of Jerusalem” is a phrase for the people of Jerusalem. I’m pretty sure you’re aware of that. Jesus’ desire was to gather them together unto Himself. ... It seems obvious that He allows free will choices in these matters and stretched out His arm to them that they might be saved but they would not."_
I agree that the children of Jerusalem is the people of the city. But Jesus isn't condemning the children, he is condemning the religious leaders for leading the people of Jerusalem astray with false teaching. You seem to blur the line between the children and Jerusalem, the killer of prophets and the one stopping the children.
BTW, I, like centuries of Calvinists before me, don't deny free will. See WCF chapter 9.
_"Was He struggling between their souls and the glory He would receive by exacting Justice?"_
No. He was condemning the religious leadership for their false teachings that mislead the people of Jerusalem.
_"In the end He chose justice as being more glorifying for Himself?"_
"More glorifying" than what? God is just and he is merciful. In order to display either of these qualities, God needs a world with injustice in it, both so he can condemn and show mercy. If there is no injustice, there is nothing to condemn, nor is there anything to forgive.
_"Luk __19:41__, Jesus is weeping over them. That goes along with His heart, His desire. There may not be anything recorded about weeping over other cities but that doesn’t mean He didn’t. It seems like that comment was a bit of a dodge tactic. He was in Jerusalem and looked upon that city and wept over it."_
I don't really disagree with this, but I don't see what this has to do with Calvinism. As I stated, God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked, so why shouldn't Jesus weep over the lost.
Though this particular verse has a prophetic element to it, foreshadowing the sacking of Jerusalem in AD 70:
43-44 - "For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation."
So with this particular passage, Jesus might just be weeping because he knows what is about to happen in a few dozen years and is warning the people about it, as he and his apostles did elsewhere.
_"Rom 11 is about God hardening the Israelites to bring salvation to the Gentiles. The Gentiles in turn will make the Israelites jealous so that they too will come to faith. God is working all things out that He MIGHT have mercy on them all."_
Ok... what does that have to do with Calvinism?
_"The two groups of humanity are Jew and Gentile. If you’re not a Jew, you’re a Gentile. It’s all inclusive."_
Yes, which highlights a problem with many of the 'all' verses. Many people have a post-1st century view of Christianity where obviously all people groups, not just the Jews, could be saved, and don't realize how hard the NT authors had to fight against the notion that salvation wasn't just for Jewish people, but all peoples.
_"1Tim 2: 1-6 ... The prayer in verse 1 is so that we may lead a peaceable life. For Paul to clarify to Timothy (who knew the Holy scriptures from a child) that kings and those in authority could be saved as well, is a pretty silly notion."_
If so, then why do you think Paul made that clarification?
_"He knew about King David and Jehoshaphat and Josiah. He knew about Daniel in his place of authority and Joseph. As a matter of fact, Timothy would have been more familiar with God’s Grace to people in authority than any other group."_
Except Timothy isn't living in Israel or Judea under a God anointed King, he is living in a pagan Roman-controlled provence under pagan rulers.
_"Verse 6 clarifies who the “all” are. It’s all men."_
I don't think verse 6 redefines who the referent to all is, especially given that verse 7, Paul seems to stress that he is a preacher of Gentiles for sake of that 'all men', indicating that kinds of men are still in view. But noted. Agree to disagree.
_"Who gave himself a ransom for all men. To say that this means all hierarchies of men is a stretch. Paul definitely could have worded it much better if that’s what he meant."_
That's fine. To say it is about all men seems a stretch given what else Paul has said about salvation. So much of Paul's focus has been on all peoples (i.e. Gentiles) and not excluding them just because they aren't Jews. To make it about all individual people who ever existed and ever will exist seems completely foreign to the context. Anyway, again noted. You haven't excluded the possibility of the Calvinist understanding, but I recognize that you have to read it differently.
Arminianism does not worship a sovereign God. If anything happens outside of God determining it, then it is outside of God’s sovereignty. God is not sovereign then. Arminians are atheists worshiping a false god. This is truth and love.
yes indeed 😢
+Odd Fish..Jesus Would Like people to recognize and Follow HIS Gospel. He has offered you personal revelation and you prefer to listen to Piper regurgitate Paul. He prompts me to do this or I wouldn't. Maybe He thinks someone might repent! It doesn't sound like it will be you. I never called Piper a heretic or a demon. I called him a clown.
Ah yes the most hated doctrine. That He is sovereign in salvation. 🙂
ARMINIANISM AND CALVINISM - THE RADICAL DIFFERENCE
A.W. Pink
The radical difference between Arminianism and Calvinism is that the system of the former revolves about the CREATURE, whereas the system of the latter has the CREATOR for its centre of orbit. The Arminian allots to MAN the first place, the Calvinist gives GOD that position of honor.
Thus the Arminian begins his discussion of salvation with justification, for the sinner must believe before he can be forgiven; further back he will not go, for he is unwilling that man should be made nothing of.
But the instructed Calvinist begins with election, descends to regeneration, and then shows that being born again (by the sovereign act of God, in which the creature has no part) the sinner is made capable of savingly believing the Gospel.
[A.W. Pink - ‘Salvation from the pleasure of sin’]
And incidentally whatever gives God ALL the glory, THAT is what is right!
“Not unto us, O LORD, not unto us, but unto Thy name give glory, for Thy mercy, and for Thy truth’s sake”! [Psalm 115:1]
Piper misrepresents Arminianism. Smh.
I think the Calvinist argument is too deterministic. I definitely believe God does all the work, but there is free will to choose or reject God. If God makes his mercy so irresistible then how do you explain believers falling away from Christ? Does God decide to name his mercy less resistible so that some might fall? That seems like the opposite of mercy. I do think the Armenian position puts man in a bit too strong of a position. God does all the work and man mostly just nods or shakes his head.
I used to think like you! Keep reading the Bible, especially Romans 9, and keep reading greats like Piper, Spurgeon and indeed Calvin to make sure you fully understand what Calvinism is claiming.
@@Crucian1 Thanks, I'll do that. I wish you had given more of a direct answer though :(
@@Skyace13 Dear Skyace, here is a bit more detail: You ask "Does God decide to name his mercy less resistible so that some might fall?" The key is the overarching theme in the Bible that God chooses some and not others. He chose the people of Israel to set them apart (when he could have chosen all nations), in order to show both his mercy and his justice towards those who reject him. Romans 9:22-23 - What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory?
This shows that God shows mercy to us whom he has saved that we might rejoice all the more in his mercy as we see it against the background of his wrath against sin. We would not know what we had been delivered from or set apart from if we did not see God's wrath displayed in those who have rejected him.
deraquis
God chose the Israelites because of His promises to Abraham. Abraham believed God which is why the promises were made and kept. Because Abraham was faithful, God was faithful to Abraham and brought those promises through Israel. They were protected by God in order for those promises to make good. The promises were fulfilled in Christ.
God was long suffering towards the Israelites in their rebellion for the sake of His promises to Abraham so that He could have mercy on the vessels of mercy through Jesus.
Rom 9: 4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and 👉🏻the promises;👈🏻
5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
6 ¶ Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall 👉🏻thy seed be called.👈🏻
Paul is comparing those through whom the promises came with spiritual Israel (TO whom the promises were given).
Abraham wasn’t an Israelite and not all who received the lineage of Jesus were saved. There were wicked men in His ancestry. Also, men like Job and Lot weren’t in His lineage. “The seed” isn’t about salvation in the old covenant. The heart is what mattered for salvation.
Look for the illustrations that Paul is making from Rom 9-Rom 11. It’s pretty obvious once you start seeing it. Here’s an example....
Rom 9: 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Rom 11: 7 ¶ What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded
8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
Paul is explaining how not all Israel is of Israel. The promises Indeed have taken effect but it’s not about works. It’s about faith. He has mercy on whom He wills....
Rom 9: 30 ¶ What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
So the Isaac illustration means that it’s not about lineage. Ishmael was Abraham’s son and he wasn’t chosen for the seed.
Jacob and Esau illustrates that it’s not about good works. They hadn’t done anything good or evil yet God chose to bring the promises through one and not the other. Just like faith without works.
Rom 2:17-11:13 is pretty much dealing with the Jews and their high view of the law. Paul is correcting that view. That’s what Rom 9 is about as well.
God bless
I understand the Crux of Calvinism being Regeneration proceeds faith
I think piper being a mature Calvinist clarifies Calvinism better than most
I believe God provides a way... For us to come to faith in Christ. Or has provided a way...
Ultimately Calvinism is difficult for me mainly due to unconditional election and limited attornment. it calls into question God's good character. A small child knows God is good and can't make us sin.. or design us in such a way to be instruments of his wrath all while God receives his glory .
None the less I can't to read Piper's book about Providence....
you don't understand anything incoherent drivel boy😅