Notice to veiwers - this series of videos and the various responces to it are a dismal waste of a humans time - If you must veiw it then allow your minds eye to decipher if those involved in this theological arguement have lost their grip on reality
iahm: John 12:32 refers to a universal drawing of all men, which can be resisted according to Acts 7:51. On the other hand, John 6:35-45 refers to the inward call of a specific group of people that meet specific conditions.
Lou: if all men are drawn, all men are raised up according to john 6:44. John 12:32 talks about drawing all kinds of men. Please look at the context. Paul says the cross is a stumbling block to jews and foolishness to gentiles.
Edward what does jesus mean when he says no one can come to him in john 6:44? But you will say all men are drawn! If all men are drawn then all men are raised up because the "him" in "unless the father draws him" is the same person as the "him" in "i will raise him up"
Edward, what does it mean when the bible says god is the potter and we are the clay? Can the pot do anything? Have you read romans 9 and studied it carefully? Can someone in the flesh do anything that is pleasing to god? Does man have the ability in and of himself to please god? Are faith and repentance pleasing to god?
'Edward is hellbent on claiming credit for his own saving faith when in fact he received it from God as a gracious gift! This is disturbing...'
I didn't receive my faith from God. That is what salvation is conditioned on, the individual deciding to believe or not. That is why God has a special chapter on the heros of faith who glorified God by their faith, how does it justify God if God gave it them in the first place? You think God chose you over someone else-what makes you special?
"You think God chose you over someone else-what makes you special? "
Nothing makes God's elect more special, THATS EXACTLY WHY SALVATION IS ALL OF GRACE. Unearned, Unmerited.
Do you not understand that?
And yes, you DID recieve your faith from God:
1Co 4:7 For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?
What do you have that you didn't receive Edward? Nothing.
1Cor.4:7 is speaking about the doctrines and gifts that the Corinthian church received. 'Faith' is used in the Bible, not only for individual trust, but also as a body of doctrines (Acts 6:7)
Stop using proof-texts that have nothing to do with the subject.
to skalapunk: Romans 12:3 tells us that God gives every man a measure of faith, nor just His elect. As far as Eph 2:8 is concerned, it is "being saved" which is the gift of God (see Romans 5:12-16).
What are you talking about without grace? Where in the Bible does it say we can't get saved, without grace? Christ knocks on our hearts, and that's grace.. it's up to each of us to open the door or say no, go away. And most do, but everyone has that choice.
No, he doesn't. You're taking the verse Rev 3:20 out of context. This verse is not teaching that jesus stands outside the doors of sinner's hearts.
it's teaching that Christ stands outside the CHURCH (Christians) expecting fellowship with them. Context context context...read the entire chapter of Revelation 3
Christ said He would draw all men to Himself and that is what He does (Jn.12:32). Man is unsaved because man rejects God's grace, not because God didn't choose them.
Read it, as it is written. Children don't know anything about context Joe, but I knew how to get saved.
John 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
Revelation 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if ANY MAN hear my voice, and open the door(JESUS IS THE DOOR), I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
God's grace, quite simply, is God's mercy and goodness toward us, even though we don't deserve it. If it weren't for God's grace, you and I wouldn't be able to live for even one more minute. God's grace sustains us every moment of the day, and without His grace we couldn't even exist. We think we have control of our lives—but if it weren't for God's grace, we wouldn't even be alive.But God's grace is seen in a far greater way in Christ.
Yes, and according to Calvin, Adam was purposefully predestinated to fall, so that God's plan of saving some and letting the rest (or condemning the rest-Calvin believed in double-predestination) could occur.
Did the Fall happen on accident? Is Christ God's backup plan for the fall?
Did it happen without God planning it? Is God God? Is God sovereign? Did God not know Adam would fall? If He did, why did he put the tree there in the first place?
Or, did God decree it? Was it God's plan all along for His mercy and justice to both be glorified for His own greater secret will and purpose?
Did Adam have free will or was God lying to him a commandment God knew Adam COULDN'T (not wouldn't) keep. God did have an alternative plan and it was based on which way Adam would go. Had Adam obeyed, the Cross would not have been necessary. Since God FOREKNEW that Adam would not obey, that disobedience was allowed and Christ chosen to be the Second Adam. This was God's SOVEREIGN choice-to give man free will to make decisions for or against Him.
Sorry, but you are contradicting yourself. I know the Calvinists like to play word games. Did Adam have the ability to obey God and not eat from the tree-YES.
As for mankind, they can choose to believe or not believe in Christ once the Gospel is presented to them. The grace of Christ is greater then the sin of Adam (Rom.5:18)
No, in your view, God is not saving those He COULD save. As for God being 'powerless', God gave man the ability to take or reject the free gift. It is you who is denying God the right to give that power to man. It is the Calvinists who think that God can't do something, like give man the ability to reject him as well as accept him.
@humanistheart All knowing/omniscient just means God knows what's going to happen, before it happens. But God doesn't interfere with our freedom/freewill. He gives us all a choice to sin or not to sin.
@Rachella38 No, if a being was ALL KNOWING, it would know everything it would ever do before it did it. It would thus be incapable of doing anything other than what was already set to happen, anything other than what it knew it would do, and thus there is no choice involved. If there's no choice, there's no free will. So this 'god' wouldn't have free will, and thus by extension neither would it's creations.
Remember what Paul told the jailor, to believe on the name of the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved. Believing is accepting Christ into your heart & life.
Believing/Accepting/Calling on his name...That's what Salvation is...inviting Christ into our life, then, and only then will Christ save anyone. He knocks on our hearts..and by invitation we invite him in.
None of those passages state that so stop lying. Eph.2:8 says 'that' and the 'that' is referring to the grace not the gift. 2Pe.1:1 is referring to 'faith' as the doctrines of the church, Heb.12:2, Christ is the author and finisher of our faith, the example of how we ought to grow in faith and 1Cor.4:7 has nothing to do with anyone receiving faith from God, it is referring to the doctrines that were taught to the Corinthians.
Now, this is typical Calvinistic proof-texting, out of context.
You believe that God picks men who will have that faith, so the faith is irrelevant, it is mere formality, it has nothing to do with someone actually believing anything, God simply MAKES them believe.
You know the problem here....you are siding with the unsaved and guilty. You presuppose that the lost sinner is looking to be saved but just can't get it because they are not elected. Scripture does not teach such a view of man! The lost have willfully submitted themselves as slaves to sin! Sin is according to their fallen nature so sin is natural to sinners as it was to all Christians before salvation. Sinners don't like the Gospel...they hate it and the hate the God who offers it(Rom 8:6-8)
What does it matter if the unsaved is looking to be saved if God never intended to save Him? If it salvation is due to God's unconditional election, than the unsaved man, who wasn't chosen, had no chance to be saved, no matter what he wanted. Now, that is why the Calvinist put man into TOTAL depravity so man CANNOT be saved unless God has elected him. Scripture doesn't teach that view of God!
Is it your position that the condemned sinner DESERVES a chance to be saved?
Scripture doesn't teach that view of God? So God isn't Holy? God isn't righteous? God isn't just? Sinners don't deserve eternal death and just wrath of God?
"Now, that is why the Calvinist put man into TOTAL depravity so man CANNOT be saved unless God has elected him. Scripture doesn't teach that view of God!"
LOL, actually thats ***EXACTLY*** what scripture teaches!
John 6:37, John 6:44, Acts 13:48, Romans 8, Romans 9
Rom 9:16 So then it [God's mercy] depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
Edward, read again, IT DOES NOT DEPEND ON MAN'S WILL OR DESIRE OR EXERTION, but on GOD"S GRACE ALONE
Now, if Piper doesn't have Romans 9-11 dealing with Israel, it is a useless 'exegesis' since that is what those chapters CLEARLY deal with, not INDIVIDUAL salvation.
And again, you should read the book yourself...he will take care of all the objections that you have from that text....mabye not convince you, but at least show you on what textual basis he argues from
Again, I have not read Piper on this. I have actually not read any of Piper's books though I would only want to read his "justification of God" which is his exegesis on Romans 9 that has yet to be refuted exegetically.
As such, I cannot answer for Piper. Why don't you ask him?
Here is Spurgeon, on 1Ti.2:4 admitting the text says one thing, but God means something else. In other words, DENYING what God said and rejecting clear scripture.
'There stands the text, and I believe that it is my Father's wish that "all men should be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth." But I know, also, that he does not will it,
No different then Calvin's appeal to the 'hidden purpose' in 2Pe.3:9
Calvinism is gnosticism, it denies what the scriptures SAY for a hidden 'code'
uh...no. There is no hidden "code" when the Bible clearly teaches that He saves according to PROMISE (Romans 9:6-13) and not according to "him who wills or him who runs" (Rom 9:16).
I would encourage you to read an exegetical commentary like William Hendriksen. One thing you never see Spurgeon doing is exegesis. Hence, I think spurgeon missed the grammar and syntax that would have offered better handling of the text. See the scholarly works, not the popular ones. Its better research ;)
I'm not saying Spurgeon got it "wrong" but only that his sermon is not based upon exegesis at the grammatical and syntactical level. Spurgeon was a great preacher but, again, as we all aren't, not infallible.
You need to understand that quoting one calvinist is not the be all and end all of Calvinism. Calvinist have struggled with text offered their best. where they have failed others have succeeded.
Spurgeon took his fellow Calvinists to task for wresting that verse. No, I understand quoting any particular Calvinist is not the end of anything, it just shows that sometimes even Calvinists read the scriptures correctly and STILL reject them.
Such is also the import of the term World.... yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.'
ok...The Bible CANNOT mean that and neither could Calvin. If God has invited ALL MEN INDIVIDUALLY AND UNIVERSALLY, what of those who never heard the Gospel at all and died in their idolatry and sins?
See John Owen's "Death of the Death in the Death of Christ" in which he demonstrates that the word "world" is used in 14 different senses in Scripture, John himself applies it in 12 different ways. I have a similar study on my website on "limited atonement" in my Calvinism section
This always amazes me about Calvinism. Are you telling me that of all those who never heard, none were elect? Rom.1 and Ps.19 is clear that ALL men have a knowledge of God and if they want more of God, God will provide it. That was made clear in Acts 16 where Paul was forbidden to preach the word in Asia, but told to go to Macedonia instead. God knows where those who WANT the Gospel are located and it is there that it is sent.
As for 'world' context tells you the correct meaning.
God makes his elect willing, when he makes them born from above.
Psalms 65:4 Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts: we shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, even of thy holy temple.
and...
Psalms 110:3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.
Ok, if you say it means "all flesh" universally, has "all flesh" come to Christ? Is it your assertion that nobody is going to hell because "all flesh" is going to come to Christ? Wouldn't it be more consistent to say that it means not only the Hebrew people, but people of the Gentiles and other races as well?
I don't see the relevance of Ps 110:3 in this conversation....help me out
Don't you realize your logic consistently hold up even your own doctrines? Jesus clearly defines who he laid his life down for. Unless you can provide a text to show where he lays his life down for somebody else's sheep in the John 10 passage, your position stands refuted.
Now, why would I have to prove it ONLY from the passage in John 10? Heb.2:9 and 1Jn.2:2 state clearly that Christ died for all men. Christ is dying for the sheep, as the Good sheperd, but ANYONE man could become one of his sheep IF he chose to.
uh...no. If you are basing your interpretation of I John 2:2 on the basis of the word "world" what do you make of I John 5:19 which says that "the whole world" lies under the sway of Satan. Is that also all men universally and individually including Christians?
Can you show me where in the text it says how to make yourself a sheep? If that is so, why did Christ say that there were some who were not His sheep(Jn 10:26)? Doesn't this mean that Christ didn't die for all since all are not sheep?
Do you have any concept of context? We are in the world but not OF the world, once we are saved. But the lost world is under the control of Satan, and he blinds those who reject the Gospel (2Cor.4:4), which shows that the unsaved man CAN receive the Light of the Gospel if he wants it.
No, it only means that Christ died for His sheep in particular, not that He didn't die for everyone in general.
So you admit that the word "world" can have different meaning then? Have you identified all the meanings of the word "world" in the Bible? I have seen and can demonstrate 14. Which sense of the word "world" is used in I John 2:2 and how do you know? Can you demonstrate your meaning from the text?
"It only means that Christ died for his sheep in particular..." There, my case has been won on the basis of what SCRIPTURE SAYS. Limited Atonement is true. Thank you
Was Christ death a substitutionary death? If yes, and Christ "tasted death for all men", how is it that the ones for whom Christ died still died eternally when Christ was their substitute? Was it not a real substitition?
If not a substitutionary atonement, how can anybody be saved if Christ did not atonement for anybodies sins?
That is exactly the logic that Roman CAtholics use to argue against the doctrine of "Faith alone". They see the passage that says, "we are justified by faith apart from works of the law" and argue, it doesn't say "faith only" and it doesn't exclude "works of mercy" and "good works"....very weak argument.
The passage in Rom.4:16, 'Therefore it is by faith that it may be by Grace' is simple enough for anyone to understand. The Roman Catholics run to James 2 which isn't even speaking of salvation. Much like the Calvinists running to Rom.9.
yes all men have "knowledge of God" but what does the Bible say that knowledge is the basis of? Their condemnation."They are without excuse"(rom 1:20). Can you demonstrate where in Romans 1 it says that if these people wanted more of God, he will provide it? Does the text not say that God "gave them over" to more sin?
God know where people want it? Can you demonstrate that from the text? Could it be that God knows where His elect are and can guide his apostles to call them out?(Acts 13:48)?
Yes, read Acts 16 and see where Paul is directed to go to. The fact is that Rom.1 and Ps.19 give witness to God and people either respond to that witness or reject it. Some receive it and want to know more of God like Cornilus did in Acts 10. If God knows where the elect are and guides them to them, then why couldn't He also keep them away from areas where He knows no one would respond to the Gospel as well?
like Asia at the time when the apostles wanted to go there and the Holy Spirit didn't let them?
Rom 1 and Ps 19 say that creation gives witness to God's existence. Creation is enough to hold men accountable to God and be without excuse before him when they face him in judgment.
Yes, like Asia-correct, which shows that God directs men to go where there is positive volition. Just as He did with Jonah.
Yes, creation gives evidence of God so that man is without excuse. They also have a conscience as well (Rom.2), all of these things DRAW men to God and that is why they are held accountable for rejecting them.
"where there is positive volition"? According to Romans 2, conscience serves as the basis for condemnation where the law of God was not revealed, not a guide.
HOw do you reconcile Acts 13:48 to the idea of "positive volition". Please tell me your are not going to take the Jehovah's witness rendering of the text and say "as many as disposed themselves..."
Conscience as well as nature lead men to God and they are condemned for rejecting both. For the Jew, he had the additional revelation of the Law, which also was meant to reveal his need for a saviour.
Acts 13:48 doesn't negate the fact that God FOREKNEW(1Pe.1:2) that they would respond to the Gospel and so they were ordained to eternal life.(Eph.1:4) Just like God FOREKNEW that the Ninevites would respond to Jonah and spared them.
Mr. R has the acronyms correct, "Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the Saints".
But the UNDERSTANDING that he conveys is NOT what Calvinist teach. For instance, in unconditional election, this does not mean that God chose randomly or without reason. The "unconditional" means that the "conditions" were not based on anything in us (our faith, our works, etc...)...Rather, the reasoning was according to God's own grace and purposes.
According to Ephesians 1:3-6 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. IN LOVE, he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, ACCORDING TO THE PURPOSE OF HIS WILL, TO THE PRAISE OF HIS GLORIOUS GRACE...."
I'm sorry, you were saying? Faith is a GIFT...NOT OF YOURSELVES.
Can you define for me sir what your definition of original sin is, and how specifically you believe Arminius viewed original sin in contradistinction to Calvin?
Ofcourse God doesn't 'owe' man anything. But the difference between Calvin and the Bible is that Calvin has God placing man in the situation of being condemned so He could glorify Himself. and just saving some and rejecting others,
The Bible says that Man got himself in that position, but God in His great mercy and Love took pity on us and paid the price for ALL mankind, not wanting ANY to perish (see Calvin's comments on 2Pe.3:9)
The thing you need to understand is that when Calvin says "all mankind" he is using that to represent all kinds of men (get it? all mankind?) That is, not only for the Jews (which was a common thought among the Jews about the Messiah). Instead, salvation is open to any and every kind of person; tall, short, dark, light, of every tribe, nation, tongue and gender, etc.... "all kinds".
Calvin does not say that he "died for all universally and individually".
You had better read his comments on Jn.3:16 again, he states it refers to all men without EXCEPTION.
In 2Pe.3:9 he states,
'But it may be asked, If God wishes none to perish, why is it that so many do perish? Clearly, Calvin is speaking about God's will to save ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION who are perishing despite what God's REVEALED will is.
What does that have to do with what Calvin stated in Jn.3:16 and 2Pe.3:9. God doesn't owe man anything, but because He is a loving God wants all men to be saved, that is what Calvin admitted those verses SAID-DO YOU AGREE?
That has nothing to do with the issue of the will, which was the question you asked.
So, once again you jump from an answer that you cannot deal with to another question.
Still waiting for the answer to the question of why you sin if God can prevent you from doing so but doesn't? Is it God's will that you sin? Why does He punish if you do then if it is really His will that you do it?
God can prevent ANYTHING He wants from happening in his creation but that does not make Him OBLIGATED to. God has willed to ALLOW people to sin. God punishes us because it was really us who sinned. God did not force it or do it through us. It really came from our own desires and our own will.
This is the 4th time I have answered this question! Are you not reading the previous post!!
So, you are then RESISTING what God really wants you to do, since God commanded you not to grieve or quench the Holy Spirit which is what you do when you sin. You haven't answered anything, you are avoiding the key issue of why a Christian sins if God controls everything. If God is ALLOWING christians to sin it means that He is granting them free will decisions AGAINST Himself, those are not sins He WANTS to be committed since God HATES sin. Your will is resisting God's will.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I find it amazing that you consider yourself an "apologist"... I also find it hard to believe that you read those books you mentioned, if any, besides Geisler. If you did indeed read John Piper's work on Romans 9, what is your response?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
...you indeed do NOT understand the basic doctrines of so called calvinism. What I hope to see in your future videos is the following: 1) Justifying your interpretation by walking through the text and not proof-texting, 2)Not relying on emotional argumentation 3)Not relying on philosophical argumentation primarily.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You'll be lucky to see any of those things. I have followed his "ministry" on PalTalk, he just hop-scotches through the text. Exegesis needs not apply...
'1) Justifying your interpretation by walking through the text and not proof-texting, 2)Not relying on emotional argumentation 3)Not relying on philosophical argumentation primarily.'
You typed,"Those ARE the foundations of Calvinism!" Since I didn't ask you how 1-3 does not apply to a semi-pelagian/pelagian understanding of scripture, can you be so kind as to show me how Calvinism (not to be confused with Hyper-calvinism) does?
Setting up strawman by labeling is the first Calvinistic tactic. Pelegius rejected original sin, who is rejecting it? But you think that if one doesn't follow Augustine all the way, one must be following Pelegius in an argument that has nothing to do with Original sin? Arminius accepted the view of original sin.
Hypercalvinism is also a non-issue. The question over the non-elect actually being decreed to hell or allowed to go to hell is mute, since the EFFECT is the same.
How do you figure? Semi-Pelagianism is the teaching that while we are affected by sin, it is not so radical that it destroyed the power of our will to be a slave to sin (Augustinianism). Instead, the will is simply sick and may still freely choose between righteousness and sin with equal ease. Surely are aware of these theological distinctions so as not simply dismiss them at a drop of the hat.
"works" are not mere things of the law, but anything what we contribute from ourselves...
Because Arminius never believed that! He believed in depravity, that man was born dead in sin, but he did not believ in the total INABLILITY of man. IF God wanted to reach man with the light of the Gospel, man COULD respond to it. That is why Satan attempts to blind man from it (2Cor.4:4) Moreover, semi-Pelagianism is a faith plus WORKS system of the RCC, Arminius believed that one was saved by faith alone.
Semi-pelagianism is not a statement about HOW to be saved. It is a doctrine and statement about the nature of the will after the fall. That is what that whole controversy was about.
Yes Arminius still held to sola fide, but inconsistently as Luther could well demonstrate in his work "the bondage of the will". and John Girardeaux has demonstrated superbly in his work "Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism".
'Semi-Pelagianism was nowhere near this extreme, but it still denied important points of the faith. Its basic claims were: (1) the beginning of faith (though not faith itself or its increase) could be accomplished by the human will alone, unaided by grace; (2) in a loose sense, the sanctifying grace man receives from God can be merited by natural human effort, unaided by actual grace...
the first part is the relevant part. (2) is actually in regards to sanctification and not salvation, which Protestants agree that sanctification is synergistic and not monergistic.
No, not if salvation is considered part of the sanctification process and thus, works are part of it.
I got that from a Roman Catholic source, who are semi-Pelegians
'Over the course of time, Semi-Pelagian doctrine (although couched in terms of grace) became the dominant theological perspective of the Roman Catholic Church, and essentially remains so today.'
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Geisler demonstrated time and time again that he 1)Redefined historical terminology regarding the Calvinist/Arminian debate, 2)Is philosophical rather than exegetical in argumentation (and I would submit the logic is inconsistent, 3)and probably didn't even write the appendix responding to Dr. White (there were basic errors made in fallacy-finding). Brother, let me just say that based on your overall videos, and also to comments that "Preachdaword" has made in reference to your videos,...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Wow brother. Let me just make some comments in passing. First, I would consider myself of the reformed position regarding God's sovereign freedom in election. Let me say also, that I was once a big fan of Norman Geisler. I was surprised that you gave such a great endorsement of his book, since I found his book to be riddled with error page after page.
By they way Lou, I really appreciated that you suggested books on calvinism, both pros and cons, for those people(such as myself) who are interested in further researching this topic. Also, I completely agree with you regarding us having a firm grasp on scripture prior to diving into other material such as the books you've suggested.
hey Lou, nice to see ya. I'm glad you're doing this series on calvinism. I think it's needed. I've refuted a few videos on youtube regarding calvinism, however most of my comments were deleted since I clearly showed the evils of calvinism. I hope that people really come to understand that calvinism is NOT christianity. As you and I both know, calvinism completely change the nature of who God is. I look forward to watching more of your videos.
To Sukikaki2: Thank you. I may not succeed in convincing the Calvinists that they are in error, but perhaps this series will succeed in strengthening the body of Christ and educate them on how to respond to this madness.
To Amanda: I'm use to the Calvinists responding in this fashion. Just remember, sometimes I may choose not to respond. Just because I choose not to, doesn't mean that there isn't an answer. Reformers generally react by reading from a script. Many of their rhetorical comebacks will be responded to in due course. After these lessons are concluded, I will be happy to answer all of their arguments.
Hi Lou, & welcome. I think some Calvinists were predestined to be very mean spirited. It may have something to do with their view of God. I on the other hand was predestined to disagree with them. As my girl Amanda there is well aware. Some of them are just, well not very nice. You should see Amanda work. She puts up with some real creepy people. I will say no more because,I promised Amanda I would try to control my temper. That girl has a great head on her shoulders. grasshopper is the Man too.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
If it isn't the man that is Lou Rugg from PalTalk? I guess your heresies could draw a large enough audience on PalTalk so YouTube is the new wave of the future...
Yes this is the Lou Rugg from paltalk, this man has some grace of God about him same cant be said for others know what I mean ? :) Lou Good job ! its always a treat to listen to you and your refutations on the modernistic attacks on the diety of christ! Regards simonmickelson from paltalk.
welcome to Youtube, Louis. You're absolutely right about not having to be Calvinist OR Arminian. As a matter of fact, Laurence Vance himself correctly stated that Calvinism and Arminianism teach the same thing regarding perservering. The Arminians teach those who do not perservere lose their salvation, while Calvinists teach those who don't were NEVER saved, and the quotes vance used by both Calvinists and Arminians were shockingly similar in this teaching.
I notice you recomend a long list of books, and give their credentials. I also notice that the bible is not in your list.
Are you truly telling people that they cannot understand the bible and have to follow someone else who is telling them what the bible really says?
ASerousWorld 11 months ago
roflvh
Ellijay100 1 year ago
Notice to veiwers - this series of videos and the various responces to it are a dismal waste of a humans time - If you must veiw it then allow your minds eye to decipher if those involved in this theological arguement have lost their grip on reality
5thrabbi 3 years ago
iahm: John 12:32 refers to a universal drawing of all men, which can be resisted according to Acts 7:51. On the other hand, John 6:35-45 refers to the inward call of a specific group of people that meet specific conditions.
LOUISRUGG 3 years ago
iahm: Who said the nation of Israel didn't have free will? I know I didn't!
LOUISRUGG 3 years ago
So the nation of israel didnt have free will and we do?
iahm87 3 years ago
Lou: if all men are drawn, all men are raised up according to john 6:44. John 12:32 talks about drawing all kinds of men. Please look at the context. Paul says the cross is a stumbling block to jews and foolishness to gentiles.
iahm87 3 years ago
To iahm: All men are drawn (John 12:32). The only problem is that God's grace is resistible (Acts 7:51) so not all men respond positively.
LOUISRUGG 3 years ago
to Iahm: In Romans 9:18-21, when Paul said that God is the Potter and we are the clay, he was referring to the nation of Israel (see Jeremiah 18:1-6)
LOUISRUGG 3 years ago
Edward what does jesus mean when he says no one can come to him in john 6:44? But you will say all men are drawn! If all men are drawn then all men are raised up because the "him" in "unless the father draws him" is the same person as the "him" in "i will raise him up"
iahm87 3 years ago
Edward, what does it mean when the bible says god is the potter and we are the clay? Can the pot do anything? Have you read romans 9 and studied it carefully? Can someone in the flesh do anything that is pleasing to god? Does man have the ability in and of himself to please god? Are faith and repentance pleasing to god?
iahm87 3 years ago
'Edward is hellbent on claiming credit for his own saving faith when in fact he received it from God as a gracious gift! This is disturbing...'
I didn't receive my faith from God. That is what salvation is conditioned on, the individual deciding to believe or not. That is why God has a special chapter on the heros of faith who glorified God by their faith, how does it justify God if God gave it them in the first place? You think God chose you over someone else-what makes you special?
edwardpf123 3 years ago 2
"You think God chose you over someone else-what makes you special? "
Nothing makes God's elect more special, THATS EXACTLY WHY SALVATION IS ALL OF GRACE. Unearned, Unmerited.
Do you not understand that?
And yes, you DID recieve your faith from God:
1Co 4:7 For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?
What do you have that you didn't receive Edward? Nothing.
skalapunk 3 years ago
No, no one receives their faith from God,
1Cor.4:7 is speaking about the doctrines and gifts that the Corinthian church received. 'Faith' is used in the Bible, not only for individual trust, but also as a body of doctrines (Acts 6:7)
Stop using proof-texts that have nothing to do with the subject.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
to skalapunk: Romans 12:3 tells us that God gives every man a measure of faith, nor just His elect. As far as Eph 2:8 is concerned, it is "being saved" which is the gift of God (see Romans 5:12-16).
LOUISRUGG 3 years ago
Absolutely correct! The GIFT is the grace of God.
edwardpf123 3 years ago 2
"I believe in salvation by grace THROUGH faith"
So do Calvinists, but we likewise do not conveniently IGNORE the verses that tell us that faith also is a GIFT FROM GOD
Eph 2:8, 2 Pet 1:1, Heb 12:2, 1 Cor 4:7
Edward is hellbent on claiming credit for his own saving faith when in fact he received it from God as a gracious gift! This is disturbing...
skalapunk 3 years ago
skalapunk, What is so disturbing about accepting Christ?
Rachella38 3 years ago
"skalapunk, What is so disturbing about accepting Christ? "
Oh nothing! but accepting Christ without grace is unbiblical for sure!
skalapunk 3 years ago
What are you talking about without grace? Where in the Bible does it say we can't get saved, without grace? Christ knocks on our hearts, and that's grace.. it's up to each of us to open the door or say no, go away. And most do, but everyone has that choice.
Rachella38 3 years ago
"Christ knocks on our hearts, and that's grace.."
No, he doesn't. You're taking the verse Rev 3:20 out of context. This verse is not teaching that jesus stands outside the doors of sinner's hearts.
it's teaching that Christ stands outside the CHURCH (Christians) expecting fellowship with them. Context context context...read the entire chapter of Revelation 3
skalapunk 3 years ago
Christ said He would draw all men to Himself and that is what He does (Jn.12:32). Man is unsaved because man rejects God's grace, not because God didn't choose them.
edwardpf123 3 years ago 2
Amen edward!
Rachella38 3 years ago
Read it, as it is written. Children don't know anything about context Joe, but I knew how to get saved.
John 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
Revelation 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if ANY MAN hear my voice, and open the door(JESUS IS THE DOOR), I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
Rachella38 3 years ago
Are you saved because of God's grace, or because of your certain choice.
You act as if salvation was simply walking through door A instead of door B.
Salvation is when God comes in, rescues you from your path to hell, changes you, redeems you.
He does everything, you do nothing. It's all of grace. Salvation is a work of God, not man.
skalapunk 3 years ago
I'm saved because of the grace of God who has given me the ability to choose. In God's Sovereignty he's given mankind freewill.
scala, you don't believe God loves everyone, do you?
Rachella38 3 years ago 4
"scala, you don't believe God loves everyone, do you? "
Yes I do.
skalapunk 3 years ago
How can you believe God loves everyone, when you believe God does the saving of a few, and condemns the majority to hell?
Rachella38 3 years ago
"and condemns the majority to hell? "
Um, I never said I believed he condemns anyon to hell. God doens't condemn anyone nor predestine anyone to hell.
Everyone born a descendant of adam is born ALREADY CONDEMNED to hell by sin.
God is gracious and instead of justly letting the entire human perish, He decided to save some out of love and mercy.
skalapunk 3 years ago
"God is gracious and instead of justly letting the entire human perish, He decided to save some out of love and mercy."
And of course you feel that you're one of the lucky ones God chose to save, while the other poor saps aren't so lucky
Rachella38 3 years ago
Wow...apparently you have no idea what the meaning of GRACE is.
You'll never understand what the Bible means by predestination if you don't even know what GRACE means!!!
The chosen aren't "LUCKY", they are given UNEARNED, UNMERITED GRACE!!!!
skalapunk 3 years ago
God's grace, quite simply, is God's mercy and goodness toward us, even though we don't deserve it. If it weren't for God's grace, you and I wouldn't be able to live for even one more minute. God's grace sustains us every moment of the day, and without His grace we couldn't even exist. We think we have control of our lives—but if it weren't for God's grace, we wouldn't even be alive.But God's grace is seen in a far greater way in Christ.
Rachella38 3 years ago
We deserve to die for our sins—but in His grace, God sent His Son into the world to die in our place. Who is the OUR? The whole world= John 3:16
Rachella38 3 years ago
Yes, and according to Calvin, Adam was purposefully predestinated to fall, so that God's plan of saving some and letting the rest (or condemning the rest-Calvin believed in double-predestination) could occur.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
"Adam was purposefully predestinated to fall,"
Did the Fall happen on accident? Is Christ God's backup plan for the fall?
Did it happen without God planning it? Is God God? Is God sovereign? Did God not know Adam would fall? If He did, why did he put the tree there in the first place?
Or, did God decree it? Was it God's plan all along for His mercy and justice to both be glorified for His own greater secret will and purpose?
skalapunk 3 years ago
Did Adam have free will or was God lying to him a commandment God knew Adam COULDN'T (not wouldn't) keep. God did have an alternative plan and it was based on which way Adam would go. Had Adam obeyed, the Cross would not have been necessary. Since God FOREKNEW that Adam would not obey, that disobedience was allowed and Christ chosen to be the Second Adam. This was God's SOVEREIGN choice-to give man free will to make decisions for or against Him.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
Did Adam have free will? - Yes
Did God decree the fall? - Yes
Did Adam freely and willingly choose to disobey even though God decreed the fall? - Yes
Do Adam's descendants have free will to choose between holiness and sin, obedience or disobedience? - No
skalapunk 3 years ago
Sorry, but you are contradicting yourself. I know the Calvinists like to play word games. Did Adam have the ability to obey God and not eat from the tree-YES.
As for mankind, they can choose to believe or not believe in Christ once the Gospel is presented to them. The grace of Christ is greater then the sin of Adam (Rom.5:18)
A fact that Calvinists want to ignore.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
Oh, stop blowing smoke! If God could save them and didn't, God is condemning them to hell. At least Calvin was honest about it.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
"If God could save them and didn't, God is condemning them to hell"
Ed, this same statement can be thrown at your very own position.
In your view, God is powerless to save unless the man "let him"
skalapunk 3 years ago
No, in your view, God is not saving those He COULD save. As for God being 'powerless', God gave man the ability to take or reject the free gift. It is you who is denying God the right to give that power to man. It is the Calvinists who think that God can't do something, like give man the ability to reject him as well as accept him.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
@Rachella38 Not quite, all knowing means no free will for anyone.
humanistheart 9 months ago
@humanistheart All knowing/omniscient just means God knows what's going to happen, before it happens. But God doesn't interfere with our freedom/freewill. He gives us all a choice to sin or not to sin.
Rachella38 7 months ago
@Rachella38 No, if a being was ALL KNOWING, it would know everything it would ever do before it did it. It would thus be incapable of doing anything other than what was already set to happen, anything other than what it knew it would do, and thus there is no choice involved. If there's no choice, there's no free will. So this 'god' wouldn't have free will, and thus by extension neither would it's creations.
humanistheart 7 months ago
That is what taking the FREE GIFT is about, taking it by faith.
Salvation is a work of God, and man receives it BY FAITH which ISN'T a work.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
Remember what Paul told the jailor, to believe on the name of the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved. Believing is accepting Christ into your heart & life.
Believing/Accepting/Calling on his name...That's what Salvation is...inviting Christ into our life, then, and only then will Christ save anyone. He knocks on our hearts..and by invitation we invite him in.
Rachella38 3 years ago
None of those passages state that so stop lying. Eph.2:8 says 'that' and the 'that' is referring to the grace not the gift. 2Pe.1:1 is referring to 'faith' as the doctrines of the church, Heb.12:2, Christ is the author and finisher of our faith, the example of how we ought to grow in faith and 1Cor.4:7 has nothing to do with anyone receiving faith from God, it is referring to the doctrines that were taught to the Corinthians.
Now, this is typical Calvinistic proof-texting, out of context.
edwardpf123 3 years ago 2
"Now, this is typical Calvinistic proof-texting, out of context. "
Edward, you are the person who reads into Rom 8:29 that "Whom He did foreknown" means "What He did foresee"
Don't talk to me about out of context..you smash all kinds of implications into this verse that the Apostle Paul never put there.
skalapunk 3 years ago
You believe that God picks men who will have that faith, so the faith is irrelevant, it is mere formality, it has nothing to do with someone actually believing anything, God simply MAKES them believe.
edwardpf123 3 years ago 2
Three Reasons Why the Doctrine of Unconditional Election Is Good News-John Piper
It is good news because it means no unbeliever is so bad that they can say in response to our gospel pleading....
preserves the praise of Gods glorious grace at every point in our salvation....
this doctrine of election assures you that the roots of your salvation the roots of Gods almighty commitment to save you
THE ONE REASON IT IS BAD NEWS IS IF YOU WEREN'T PICKED! TOO BAD.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
You know the problem here....you are siding with the unsaved and guilty. You presuppose that the lost sinner is looking to be saved but just can't get it because they are not elected. Scripture does not teach such a view of man! The lost have willfully submitted themselves as slaves to sin! Sin is according to their fallen nature so sin is natural to sinners as it was to all Christians before salvation. Sinners don't like the Gospel...they hate it and the hate the God who offers it(Rom 8:6-8)
prchdaword 3 years ago
What does it matter if the unsaved is looking to be saved if God never intended to save Him? If it salvation is due to God's unconditional election, than the unsaved man, who wasn't chosen, had no chance to be saved, no matter what he wanted. Now, that is why the Calvinist put man into TOTAL depravity so man CANNOT be saved unless God has elected him. Scripture doesn't teach that view of God!
edwardpf123 3 years ago
Is it your position that the condemned sinner DESERVES a chance to be saved?
Scripture doesn't teach that view of God? So God isn't Holy? God isn't righteous? God isn't just? Sinners don't deserve eternal death and just wrath of God?
prchdaword 3 years ago
"Now, that is why the Calvinist put man into TOTAL depravity so man CANNOT be saved unless God has elected him. Scripture doesn't teach that view of God!"
LOL, actually thats ***EXACTLY*** what scripture teaches!
John 6:37, John 6:44, Acts 13:48, Romans 8, Romans 9
Rom 9:16 So then it [God's mercy] depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
Edward, read again, IT DOES NOT DEPEND ON MAN'S WILL OR DESIRE OR EXERTION, but on GOD"S GRACE ALONE
Are you saved by grace?
skalapunk 3 years ago
I will look for a used copy on Amazon.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
Now, if Piper doesn't have Romans 9-11 dealing with Israel, it is a useless 'exegesis' since that is what those chapters CLEARLY deal with, not INDIVIDUAL salvation.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
read the book yourself....its not scholarly to blow smoke about something you know nothing about
prchdaword 3 years ago
You talking about Piper's book? I know if he is defending Calvinism from that chapter he is WRONG.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
how do you know that?
And again, you should read the book yourself...he will take care of all the objections that you have from that text....mabye not convince you, but at least show you on what textual basis he argues from
prchdaword 3 years ago
Here is Piper on Heb.2:9 denying what it clearly says because HE doesn't understand it.
'But to say what the Bible says and to mean what the Bible means are not necessarily the same thing.'
So, don't believe what the Bible actually SAYS, believe your own theology.
His argument (parroted by other second hand Calvinists) is that if Christ paid for the sins of all, what are they being judged for?
Read Rev.20 and you will see they are NOT judged for sins, but for WORKS.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
Again, I have not read Piper on this. I have actually not read any of Piper's books though I would only want to read his "justification of God" which is his exegesis on Romans 9 that has yet to be refuted exegetically.
As such, I cannot answer for Piper. Why don't you ask him?
prchdaword 3 years ago
Here is Spurgeon, on 1Ti.2:4 admitting the text says one thing, but God means something else. In other words, DENYING what God said and rejecting clear scripture.
'There stands the text, and I believe that it is my Father's wish that "all men should be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth." But I know, also, that he does not will it,
No different then Calvin's appeal to the 'hidden purpose' in 2Pe.3:9
Calvinism is gnosticism, it denies what the scriptures SAY for a hidden 'code'
edwardpf123 3 years ago
uh...no. There is no hidden "code" when the Bible clearly teaches that He saves according to PROMISE (Romans 9:6-13) and not according to "him who wills or him who runs" (Rom 9:16).
I would encourage you to read an exegetical commentary like William Hendriksen. One thing you never see Spurgeon doing is exegesis. Hence, I think spurgeon missed the grammar and syntax that would have offered better handling of the text. See the scholarly works, not the popular ones. Its better research ;)
prchdaword 3 years ago
So Spurgeon got it wrong! LOL! The passage SAYS what it says and attempting to hide behind a phony exegesis won't change that fact.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
I'm not saying Spurgeon got it "wrong" but only that his sermon is not based upon exegesis at the grammatical and syntactical level. Spurgeon was a great preacher but, again, as we all aren't, not infallible.
You need to understand that quoting one calvinist is not the be all and end all of Calvinism. Calvinist have struggled with text offered their best. where they have failed others have succeeded.
prchdaword 3 years ago
Spurgeon took his fellow Calvinists to task for wresting that verse. No, I understand quoting any particular Calvinist is not the end of anything, it just shows that sometimes even Calvinists read the scriptures correctly and STILL reject them.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
'The thing you need to understand is that when Calvin says "all mankind" he is using that to represent all kinds of men (get it? all mankind?)'
Calvin in Jn.3:16-
Such is also the import of the term World.... yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.'
GET IT-ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION.
I thought you said you read Calvin! LOL!
edwardpf123 3 years ago
ok...The Bible CANNOT mean that and neither could Calvin. If God has invited ALL MEN INDIVIDUALLY AND UNIVERSALLY, what of those who never heard the Gospel at all and died in their idolatry and sins?
See John Owen's "Death of the Death in the Death of Christ" in which he demonstrates that the word "world" is used in 14 different senses in Scripture, John himself applies it in 12 different ways. I have a similar study on my website on "limited atonement" in my Calvinism section
prchdaword 3 years ago
This always amazes me about Calvinism. Are you telling me that of all those who never heard, none were elect? Rom.1 and Ps.19 is clear that ALL men have a knowledge of God and if they want more of God, God will provide it. That was made clear in Acts 16 where Paul was forbidden to preach the word in Asia, but told to go to Macedonia instead. God knows where those who WANT the Gospel are located and it is there that it is sent.
As for 'world' context tells you the correct meaning.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
what about Romans 3 Ps 14 Eph 2? man doesn't want God!
got2liv4him 3 years ago
Man may not want God, but God wants man,
'For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost'(Lk.19:10)
edwardpf123 3 years ago
so... tell me, how does one get what one doesn't want? could it be... regeneration?
got2liv4him 3 years ago
If you don't want to be saved, you won't be saved.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
but the Bible says noone wants to be saved, so how do people get saved?
got2liv4him 3 years ago
God makes his elect willing, when he makes them born from above.
Psalms 65:4 Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts: we shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, even of thy holy temple.
and...
Psalms 110:3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.
Testallthings 3 years ago
Funny, how you left out 'unto thee shall all flesh come' in Ps.65:2
Ps.110:3 is a Millennial Psalm in which Christ is ruling as King of Kings, that is why His people will be willing.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
left out? I didn't even quote that text?
Ok, if you say it means "all flesh" universally, has "all flesh" come to Christ? Is it your assertion that nobody is going to hell because "all flesh" is going to come to Christ? Wouldn't it be more consistent to say that it means not only the Hebrew people, but people of the Gentiles and other races as well?
I don't see the relevance of Ps 110:3 in this conversation....help me out
prchdaword 3 years ago
Did the same Jesus say that he lays his life down only for the sheep? and that there are those who are not of his sheep? John 10:11,14, 26
prchdaword 3 years ago
Jesus never said He 'only' gives His life for his sheep.
Amazing how Calvinists love to add and subtract words to the 'text'
edwardpf123 3 years ago
Don't you realize your logic consistently hold up even your own doctrines? Jesus clearly defines who he laid his life down for. Unless you can provide a text to show where he lays his life down for somebody else's sheep in the John 10 passage, your position stands refuted.
prchdaword 3 years ago
Now, why would I have to prove it ONLY from the passage in John 10? Heb.2:9 and 1Jn.2:2 state clearly that Christ died for all men. Christ is dying for the sheep, as the Good sheperd, but ANYONE man could become one of his sheep IF he chose to.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
uh...no. If you are basing your interpretation of I John 2:2 on the basis of the word "world" what do you make of I John 5:19 which says that "the whole world" lies under the sway of Satan. Is that also all men universally and individually including Christians?
Can you show me where in the text it says how to make yourself a sheep? If that is so, why did Christ say that there were some who were not His sheep(Jn 10:26)? Doesn't this mean that Christ didn't die for all since all are not sheep?
prchdaword 3 years ago
Do you have any concept of context? We are in the world but not OF the world, once we are saved. But the lost world is under the control of Satan, and he blinds those who reject the Gospel (2Cor.4:4), which shows that the unsaved man CAN receive the Light of the Gospel if he wants it.
No, it only means that Christ died for His sheep in particular, not that He didn't die for everyone in general.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
So you admit that the word "world" can have different meaning then? Have you identified all the meanings of the word "world" in the Bible? I have seen and can demonstrate 14. Which sense of the word "world" is used in I John 2:2 and how do you know? Can you demonstrate your meaning from the text?
"It only means that Christ died for his sheep in particular..." There, my case has been won on the basis of what SCRIPTURE SAYS. Limited Atonement is true. Thank you
prchdaword 3 years ago
No, Christ died for His sheep, but ANYONE can become His sheep since ALL of the sins of the world were paid for when He tasted death for ALL men.
You are welcome for the Bible lesson.
edwardpf123 3 years ago 2
Was Christ death a substitutionary death? If yes, and Christ "tasted death for all men", how is it that the ones for whom Christ died still died eternally when Christ was their substitute? Was it not a real substitition?
If not a substitutionary atonement, how can anybody be saved if Christ did not atonement for anybodies sins?
prchdaword 3 years ago
That is exactly the logic that Roman CAtholics use to argue against the doctrine of "Faith alone". They see the passage that says, "we are justified by faith apart from works of the law" and argue, it doesn't say "faith only" and it doesn't exclude "works of mercy" and "good works"....very weak argument.
prchdaword 3 years ago
The passage in Rom.4:16, 'Therefore it is by faith that it may be by Grace' is simple enough for anyone to understand. The Roman Catholics run to James 2 which isn't even speaking of salvation. Much like the Calvinists running to Rom.9.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
if you see my videos on "faith alone" you will see their arguments yourself. Believe me, I have dealt with Roman CAtholics for almost 5 years now.
prchdaword 3 years ago
I have dealt with them also-and their main argument is James 2 and Phil.2:12
edwardpf123 3 years ago
yes all men have "knowledge of God" but what does the Bible say that knowledge is the basis of? Their condemnation."They are without excuse"(rom 1:20). Can you demonstrate where in Romans 1 it says that if these people wanted more of God, he will provide it? Does the text not say that God "gave them over" to more sin?
God know where people want it? Can you demonstrate that from the text? Could it be that God knows where His elect are and can guide his apostles to call them out?(Acts 13:48)?
prchdaword 3 years ago
Yes, read Acts 16 and see where Paul is directed to go to. The fact is that Rom.1 and Ps.19 give witness to God and people either respond to that witness or reject it. Some receive it and want to know more of God like Cornilus did in Acts 10. If God knows where the elect are and guides them to them, then why couldn't He also keep them away from areas where He knows no one would respond to the Gospel as well?
edwardpf123 3 years ago
like Asia at the time when the apostles wanted to go there and the Holy Spirit didn't let them?
Rom 1 and Ps 19 say that creation gives witness to God's existence. Creation is enough to hold men accountable to God and be without excuse before him when they face him in judgment.
prchdaword 3 years ago
Yes, like Asia-correct, which shows that God directs men to go where there is positive volition. Just as He did with Jonah.
Yes, creation gives evidence of God so that man is without excuse. They also have a conscience as well (Rom.2), all of these things DRAW men to God and that is why they are held accountable for rejecting them.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
"where there is positive volition"? According to Romans 2, conscience serves as the basis for condemnation where the law of God was not revealed, not a guide.
HOw do you reconcile Acts 13:48 to the idea of "positive volition". Please tell me your are not going to take the Jehovah's witness rendering of the text and say "as many as disposed themselves..."
prchdaword 3 years ago
Conscience as well as nature lead men to God and they are condemned for rejecting both. For the Jew, he had the additional revelation of the Law, which also was meant to reveal his need for a saviour.
Acts 13:48 doesn't negate the fact that God FOREKNEW(1Pe.1:2) that they would respond to the Gospel and so they were ordained to eternal life.(Eph.1:4) Just like God FOREKNEW that the Ninevites would respond to Jonah and spared them.
The only rendering I follow is the KJB.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
Can you show me where in the Bible is says that "conscience and nature LEAD MEN TO GOD"? In English, of course ;)
KJV Onlyism... =(
prchdaword 3 years ago
Sure read Rom.2 and Ps.19, it is all there in English.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
This man is heretical.
Testallthings 3 years ago
Which man?
edwardpf123 3 years ago
The man in the video.
Testallthings 3 years ago
Bro R.? No, he is speaking exactly what the word of God says. It is Calvinism (TULIP) that is heresy.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
Edward, TULIP is not heresy.
You are unregenerate and blind to the truth of the gospel.
You believe in salvation conditioned on the free will choice of the sinner, we believe in salvation by God's free grace.
Testallthings 3 years ago
I believe in salvation by grace THROUGH faith, which is a condition. So what is your definition of TULIP?
edwardpf123 3 years ago 6
Mr. R has the acronyms correct, "Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the Saints".
But the UNDERSTANDING that he conveys is NOT what Calvinist teach. For instance, in unconditional election, this does not mean that God chose randomly or without reason. The "unconditional" means that the "conditions" were not based on anything in us (our faith, our works, etc...)...Rather, the reasoning was according to God's own grace and purposes.
prchdaword 3 years ago
No, you cannot state what God's reason was for choosing you over someone else.
That is what Bro.R is speaking about. There is no objective reason for choosing one sinner over another to save.
And the Bible states that FAITH is the condition by which man is saved (Eph.2:8-9)
edwardpf123 3 years ago
According to Ephesians 1:3-6 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. IN LOVE, he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, ACCORDING TO THE PURPOSE OF HIS WILL, TO THE PRAISE OF HIS GLORIOUS GRACE...."
I'm sorry, you were saying? Faith is a GIFT...NOT OF YOURSELVES.
prchdaword 3 years ago
Can you define for me sir what your definition of original sin is, and how specifically you believe Arminius viewed original sin in contradistinction to Calvin?
Reformedbeliever 3 years ago
Arminius and Calvin agreed totally on original sin, and in fact, on most things.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
In what way did they agree on topics other than original sin Edward? Please be more specific.
Reformedbeliever 3 years ago
My view of original sin is that a person is born spiritually dead in Adam. Arminius held the same exact view as Calvin did.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
how does spiritual death affect the will toward God?
prchdaword 3 years ago
It means that man must wait for God to initiate His grace to him, to give him LIGHT, just as Calvin explained.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
Calvin also explained that God does not owe man this grace and in fact reserves and uses his right to not give it. Do you agree?
prchdaword 3 years ago
Ofcourse God doesn't 'owe' man anything. But the difference between Calvin and the Bible is that Calvin has God placing man in the situation of being condemned so He could glorify Himself. and just saving some and rejecting others,
The Bible says that Man got himself in that position, but God in His great mercy and Love took pity on us and paid the price for ALL mankind, not wanting ANY to perish (see Calvin's comments on 2Pe.3:9)
edwardpf123 3 years ago
The thing you need to understand is that when Calvin says "all mankind" he is using that to represent all kinds of men (get it? all mankind?) That is, not only for the Jews (which was a common thought among the Jews about the Messiah). Instead, salvation is open to any and every kind of person; tall, short, dark, light, of every tribe, nation, tongue and gender, etc.... "all kinds".
Calvin does not say that he "died for all universally and individually".
prchdaword 3 years ago
You had better read his comments on Jn.3:16 again, he states it refers to all men without EXCEPTION.
In 2Pe.3:9 he states,
'But it may be asked, If God wishes none to perish, why is it that so many do perish? Clearly, Calvin is speaking about God's will to save ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION who are perishing despite what God's REVEALED will is.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
What does that have to do with what Calvin stated in Jn.3:16 and 2Pe.3:9. God doesn't owe man anything, but because He is a loving God wants all men to be saved, that is what Calvin admitted those verses SAID-DO YOU AGREE?
edwardpf123 3 years ago
That has nothing to do with the issue of the will, which was the question you asked.
So, once again you jump from an answer that you cannot deal with to another question.
Still waiting for the answer to the question of why you sin if God can prevent you from doing so but doesn't? Is it God's will that you sin? Why does He punish if you do then if it is really His will that you do it?
edwardpf123 3 years ago
God can prevent ANYTHING He wants from happening in his creation but that does not make Him OBLIGATED to. God has willed to ALLOW people to sin. God punishes us because it was really us who sinned. God did not force it or do it through us. It really came from our own desires and our own will.
This is the 4th time I have answered this question! Are you not reading the previous post!!
prchdaword 3 years ago
So, you are then RESISTING what God really wants you to do, since God commanded you not to grieve or quench the Holy Spirit which is what you do when you sin. You haven't answered anything, you are avoiding the key issue of why a Christian sins if God controls everything. If God is ALLOWING christians to sin it means that He is granting them free will decisions AGAINST Himself, those are not sins He WANTS to be committed since God HATES sin. Your will is resisting God's will.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I find it amazing that you consider yourself an "apologist"... I also find it hard to believe that you read those books you mentioned, if any, besides Geisler. If you did indeed read John Piper's work on Romans 9, what is your response?
Reformedbeliever 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
...you indeed do NOT understand the basic doctrines of so called calvinism. What I hope to see in your future videos is the following: 1) Justifying your interpretation by walking through the text and not proof-texting, 2)Not relying on emotional argumentation 3)Not relying on philosophical argumentation primarily.
Reformedbeliever 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You'll be lucky to see any of those things. I have followed his "ministry" on PalTalk, he just hop-scotches through the text. Exegesis needs not apply...
YoungCalvinist08 3 years ago
'1) Justifying your interpretation by walking through the text and not proof-texting, 2)Not relying on emotional argumentation 3)Not relying on philosophical argumentation primarily.'
Those ARE the foundations of Calvinism!
edwardpf123 3 years ago 3
Hello Edward,
You typed,"Those ARE the foundations of Calvinism!" Since I didn't ask you how 1-3 does not apply to a semi-pelagian/pelagian understanding of scripture, can you be so kind as to show me how Calvinism (not to be confused with Hyper-calvinism) does?
Reformedbeliever 3 years ago
Setting up strawman by labeling is the first Calvinistic tactic. Pelegius rejected original sin, who is rejecting it? But you think that if one doesn't follow Augustine all the way, one must be following Pelegius in an argument that has nothing to do with Original sin? Arminius accepted the view of original sin.
Hypercalvinism is also a non-issue. The question over the non-elect actually being decreed to hell or allowed to go to hell is mute, since the EFFECT is the same.
Calvin saw that.
edwardpf123 3 years ago 2
he did say semi-pelagian
prchdaword 3 years ago
Pelagianism in any form has nothing to do with Arminianism. Arminianism (in its classical form) has nothing to do with salvation by works.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
How do you figure? Semi-Pelagianism is the teaching that while we are affected by sin, it is not so radical that it destroyed the power of our will to be a slave to sin (Augustinianism). Instead, the will is simply sick and may still freely choose between righteousness and sin with equal ease. Surely are aware of these theological distinctions so as not simply dismiss them at a drop of the hat.
"works" are not mere things of the law, but anything what we contribute from ourselves...
prchdaword 3 years ago
Because Arminius never believed that! He believed in depravity, that man was born dead in sin, but he did not believ in the total INABLILITY of man. IF God wanted to reach man with the light of the Gospel, man COULD respond to it. That is why Satan attempts to blind man from it (2Cor.4:4) Moreover, semi-Pelagianism is a faith plus WORKS system of the RCC, Arminius believed that one was saved by faith alone.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
Semi-pelagianism is not a statement about HOW to be saved. It is a doctrine and statement about the nature of the will after the fall. That is what that whole controversy was about.
Yes Arminius still held to sola fide, but inconsistently as Luther could well demonstrate in his work "the bondage of the will". and John Girardeaux has demonstrated superbly in his work "Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism".
prchdaword 3 years ago
'Semi-Pelagianism was nowhere near this extreme, but it still denied important points of the faith. Its basic claims were: (1) the beginning of faith (though not faith itself or its increase) could be accomplished by the human will alone, unaided by grace; (2) in a loose sense, the sanctifying grace man receives from God can be merited by natural human effort, unaided by actual grace...
In other words, WORKS.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
the first part is the relevant part. (2) is actually in regards to sanctification and not salvation, which Protestants agree that sanctification is synergistic and not monergistic.
Where was that quote from?
prchdaword 3 years ago
No, not if salvation is considered part of the sanctification process and thus, works are part of it.
I got that from a Roman Catholic source, who are semi-Pelegians
'Over the course of time, Semi-Pelagian doctrine (although couched in terms of grace) became the dominant theological perspective of the Roman Catholic Church, and essentially remains so today.'
Theopedia
edwardpf123 3 years ago
No, the only inconsistency is holding that faith is a work which is not scriptural.(Rom.4:4-5)
I am still waiting for you to tell me when you sin, are you doing God's will or not?
edwardpf123 3 years ago
ad hom
prchdaword 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Geisler demonstrated time and time again that he 1)Redefined historical terminology regarding the Calvinist/Arminian debate, 2)Is philosophical rather than exegetical in argumentation (and I would submit the logic is inconsistent, 3)and probably didn't even write the appendix responding to Dr. White (there were basic errors made in fallacy-finding). Brother, let me just say that based on your overall videos, and also to comments that "Preachdaword" has made in reference to your videos,...
Reformedbeliever 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Wow brother. Let me just make some comments in passing. First, I would consider myself of the reformed position regarding God's sovereign freedom in election. Let me say also, that I was once a big fan of Norman Geisler. I was surprised that you gave such a great endorsement of his book, since I found his book to be riddled with error page after page.
Reformedbeliever 3 years ago
By they way Lou, I really appreciated that you suggested books on calvinism, both pros and cons, for those people(such as myself) who are interested in further researching this topic. Also, I completely agree with you regarding us having a firm grasp on scripture prior to diving into other material such as the books you've suggested.
-Angelic Earthling
angelicearthling 3 years ago 8
hey Lou, nice to see ya. I'm glad you're doing this series on calvinism. I think it's needed. I've refuted a few videos on youtube regarding calvinism, however most of my comments were deleted since I clearly showed the evils of calvinism. I hope that people really come to understand that calvinism is NOT christianity. As you and I both know, calvinism completely change the nature of who God is. I look forward to watching more of your videos.
-Angelic Earthling
angelicearthling 3 years ago 7
To Sukikaki2: Thank you. I may not succeed in convincing the Calvinists that they are in error, but perhaps this series will succeed in strengthening the body of Christ and educate them on how to respond to this madness.
LOUISRUGG 3 years ago
Amen Lou welcome to youtube!
Sukikaki2 3 years ago 4
To Amanda: I'm use to the Calvinists responding in this fashion. Just remember, sometimes I may choose not to respond. Just because I choose not to, doesn't mean that there isn't an answer. Reformers generally react by reading from a script. Many of their rhetorical comebacks will be responded to in due course. After these lessons are concluded, I will be happy to answer all of their arguments.
LOUISRUGG 3 years ago
Hi Lou, & welcome. I think some Calvinists were predestined to be very mean spirited. It may have something to do with their view of God. I on the other hand was predestined to disagree with them. As my girl Amanda there is well aware. Some of them are just, well not very nice. You should see Amanda work. She puts up with some real creepy people. I will say no more because,I promised Amanda I would try to control my temper. That girl has a great head on her shoulders. grasshopper is the Man too.
JKODarthrat 3 years ago 3
Welcome to youtube Louis! I see that within a day the calvinists are after you? What ARE they like?
Good work brother! Keep it up!
amanda366 3 years ago 7
Some of you Calvinist love your pity personal attacks.
danielsdad681 3 years ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If it isn't the man that is Lou Rugg from PalTalk? I guess your heresies could draw a large enough audience on PalTalk so YouTube is the new wave of the future...
YoungCalvinist08 3 years ago
Yes this is the Lou Rugg from paltalk, this man has some grace of God about him same cant be said for others know what I mean ? :) Lou Good job ! its always a treat to listen to you and your refutations on the modernistic attacks on the diety of christ! Regards simonmickelson from paltalk.
simonmickelson 3 years ago 5
welcome to Youtube, Louis. You're absolutely right about not having to be Calvinist OR Arminian. As a matter of fact, Laurence Vance himself correctly stated that Calvinism and Arminianism teach the same thing regarding perservering. The Arminians teach those who do not perservere lose their salvation, while Calvinists teach those who don't were NEVER saved, and the quotes vance used by both Calvinists and Arminians were shockingly similar in this teaching.
grasshopperjax 3 years ago 6