I wonder what kind of character a man must have to search the life time of literature produced by Godly christian men...then isolate a phrase or two that sounds the worst in isolation...reproduce it and publish it to try to "prove" the man a heretic. Bain does this over and over again. It is reprehensible and unconscienable. Bain is an evil man and should be rebuked by Godly men and women.
Here it seems that Dr. Sproul is speaking about the matter of certainty within the limited framework of human philosophy and ideas, as opposed to the special revelation of inspired Scripture.
Please do not jump to conclusions when you may misunderstand the meaning or intent of Dr. Sproul's comments.
Son, Mr. Sproul is talking above your head as you to be able to understand what he is saying ! Jesus said i will speak and the Non-Believers will not be able to understand what I say. If they are believers, they will be able to understand what I am saying !
Take a believer and a non-Believer and let Jesus speak to them and the Non-Believer will not be able to understand what he says at all ! the Believer will be able to understand him very clearly and really make good sense of all he says !
The Holy Spirit witnesses with our Spirit that we are children of God.Since when does a Calvinist believe God is assisted.Taking blind folds off un believers ? There is no truth without the Holy Spirit giving understanding EVER
Now that you have heard from AndrewcBain, hear from the accused himself. R.C. Sproul freely offers many audio presentations which will satisfy any researcher's questions about where he stands. He is most certainly not agnostic. By his own words, R.C. Sproul happily embraces his belief in God and The perfect and only sacrifice for a fallen world who is Jesus Christ.
out of context! his statement that says "that is only for God" says he believes! nice try! i can edit the bible so it leave out many thing, how about you play the whole video and let us make up our minds. but thanks for this view.
It would be nice if we could say for sure with no doubt that God is real and we know Him. But we just cant say that...If we could know God for sure then there would be no need for faith. And every Christian, if they are honest, will admit even after being saved they doubt God's existence and possibly their own salvation at times. We can not perfectly know God because we are not perfect. I really have no problem with what R.C. Sproul is saying here...
I'm laughing out loud!!! just listen to RC Sproul, get his podcast Renewing Your Mind and it won't take you a couple of hours to know that RC is no agnostic.
RC is not doubting the God, but he is doubting the ability of philosophy and logic to attain ultimate truth. And in the context in the description he says he is playing devil's advocate.
I've never heard of you Andrew, but you are obviously a no-brainer :)
This is the most convoluted and silly video I think I've seen in a long time. How does one even respond to such haphazard "reasoning" that you positing in this little production? The part at 4:49 is a lesson I've just finished listening to, and has NOTHING to do with your argument. IF you had listened to it in its entirety you wouldn't be having this problem. Well, actually, since you don't seem to understand the other stuff you just might continue having problems.
For God so loved the elect, that He gave His only Son, that whomsoever He had chosen to not perish but have eternal life should believe in Him. For God sent His Son to condemn the world, and to save the elect.
Son Let me tell you something here. R.C. has forgotten more about the scripture than you know and to come here taking things out of context and expect someone to believe you is just a laugh waiting to happen.
Andrew, when are you going to stop this continual silliness. It's getting boring. You do your self and God no service in posting these rediculous videos. You edit things to your own advantage to make your point, which is really just to discredit godly men. Please stoppppp!!!
This video is a pure LIE. Or made by someone with the Blindfold on! What a pitiful attempt at distorting what a Godly man is saying. Truly Pitiful!!!!
"When I'm talking about certainty, I'm talking about philosophical certainty in a very technically defined manner." Why in the world would you not use this as the basic premise of everything else he says? He is speaking in "very technical" philosophical terms. Please go study philosophy and do not misrepresent Sproul anymore than you already have.
How ridiculous, how about you listen to what he says in context, and you will see he is saying everything you would say. If you don't understand what he's saying then it's ok to admit it.
This is such an easy issue, omniscience necessarily entails absolute knowledge, any being that is finite and non-God does not have omniscience, therefore certainty is not within our realm. But when the omniscient Being - the Holy Spirit indwells you, then you can enjoy His certainty of God's existence. Simply put, finite beings have finite knowledge and when indwelt with an infinite Being you can have assurance of all God wants you to know.
This video is silly. Goal is not to post truth by the one posting. Goal has an alternative motive. "try to make R.C. look bad. It takes and edits different talks and puts them where ever he wants. This is wrong and deceptive. What R.C. is saying is GOD is All Powerful, All Knowing, All loving... We are sinner's saved by Grace... We do not have absolute knowledge but we can know the God who is Creator.
Hyper-Calvinism is unscriptural, false doctrine. It tends to flourish in intellectual pride and in neglect of soul winning, and is a symptom of moral guilt. It is Satan's effort to kill concern and compassion for souls.
I want to say this in love brother. I think you are taking him too literally and overlooking the deeper definition of some of his philosophically worded statements. He is not saying we cannot be certain God exists, a Christian is indeed certain God exists, for the Holy Spirit dwells within him. But in terms of a secular understanding of "certainty" or cognition, we cannot "know" God for certain. No one has seen God, and without secular "proof" no one can be "certain".
Think Tykrug about has it right. We don't have a mathematical certainty, as in geometry or logic where you can "prove" something within the context of the rules of the discipline. That kind of certainty doesn't exist for anything, and Sproul is right to say this. Don't think this makes him an agnostic, though--just makes him a person who understands how to use philosophical terms of art correctly. It might make him fusty, but not an agnostic.
It's possible that you really don't understand Sproul's comments, so you think he's saying that he doesn't know that God exists. I hope that's the case, because the alternative is that you're slandering him.
I'm a Philosophy major and it is very clear that we cannnot KNOW God exists in a philosophical sense. This is true, because there is always the possibility that our brains are hooked up to machines and we are hallucinating in a matrix like fashion. This is PHILOSOPHICAL uncertainty, not practical certainty. W/ a HIGH DEGREE of certainty however, we CAN know God. Please do not make yourself look ignorant in trying to dismantle a great philosopher and stalwart of the Christian faith.
Admittedly I was somewhat confused by Sproul's statement regarding Gods existence, but I passed on this U-tube video to an acquaintance who rightly pointed out that what we are seeing and hearing in it, is but a snippet of the whole, and before one can make an educated comment, the whole would have to be viewed. I agree, that the snippet video on U-tube could be taking Rev: Sproul out of Context, therefore I must give him the benefit of the doubt.
Don't worry - you don't have to give Sproul the benefit of the doubt.
The full context of the quote is in the video description on the right. Simply click "more info" (located in the top right part of this page) to read it.
Hope that helps!
Feel free to tell me what you think - doesn't the whole context still convict Sproul of Agnosticism.
@togglesblock , I agree completely I don't agree with a lot of what RC Sproul teachs but he is very knowledgeable. i believe he is speaking in a context of philosophy and the technical certainty that God exists through mental assent alone. Whereas the believer is given revelation of the truth which is supernatural and surpasses this technical philosophical sense. To say he is an agnostic is either A) an attempt to drive traffic to video or B) a ridiculous ad hoc attack.
Many posts here overstate the extent to which Sproul is being taken out of context. Just because there is a lot of splicing doesn't mean that he is badly distorting the basic idea. Saying Sproul is an "agnostic" isn't much more of a distortion than when theists say atheists practice "religion" because there are some things they believe without overwhelming evidence. The point is that even Xians, when they are being honest (as Sproul is, to his credit), admit they don't "know" that God exists.
Andrew's video post is a sad example of the distortion that blinds many people. But he did do a good job of cutting and pasting certain clips to try to make his point. Taking lines without their context and playing them can prove anyone's point. It would be like me saying, " in the Psalms it says there is no God.' By omitting the first part of the verse " the foolish man says in his heart," I've made the bible say what I want it to, just like Andrew and his distorion of R.C.'s views.
Mr. Bain completely ignores something called "context" and repeatedly twists the words of preachers. He apparently doesn't care that he makes a habit of greatly distorting others' words. Maybe he just wants the attention.
I cant believe this butchery of Spouls statements. You just cant slice and dice the statements of Sproul. ABSOLUTE certainty is NOT the same as confident certainty. Your video hear shows the intellect of your position. Do you know what the word ABSOLUTE means? Obviously you dont and because you ignore it, your position is ABOLISHED. Does man have ABSOLUTE understanding or knowledge of science? If someone answers yes,they have made such a stupid assertion that words could not even describe it!
I happen to think that Sproul is wrong on this point, but Bain is just insane to jump to the conclusion that Sproul is an agnostic.
Notice in all these videos that Bain is always tearing down good men? Maybe after Bain has actually done something constructive & built somethin useful, then he will have the riht to criticize his betters. Politely. Respectfully. A long, long time from now.
RC is merely pointing out the shortcomings of philiosophy and human awareness. The reason we cannot really know anything with absolute certainty is because our knowledge itself is corrupted by sin. One of the greatest consequences of the fall is ignorance.
Judging by the chosen targets of your slander, it seems that you, Andrew McBain, are suffering a particularly severe case of mental corruption. You should repent and stop serving the evil one.
Actually, knowing God exists IS beyond OUR intellectual awareness. We're human. Our own hearts don't produce faith. The Holy Spirit produces faith in our hears through the hearing of the WORD. We didn't seek God. While we were dead (COMPLETELY DEAD) in our sins, Christ made us ALIVE! It was Christ's action--not ours--that gives us certainty.
You embarrass yourself by posting this video. If you were to misunderstand Mr. Sproul's words privately it would be one thing, but to attack him on the basis of your ignorance is another thing all together. Take this video off.
I think it is telling that Mr. Bain can not even find an actual heretical quote with all of the heresy going on today, but he must twist men's words so that he can make them heresy. There remains a better use of his time and ours, and that is to deal with the words of men and Scripture IN CONTEXT and to know what really is heresy; and to flee from it, but not to produce foolish arguments without profit.
Sproul says: "...omniscience...that we don't have. That belongs to God. We are creatures. We deal ON THE BASIS OF THE INFOMATION AND THE TESTIMONY...WHICH GOD GIVES US." (Emphasis mine, taken from 0:25 of the video)
It would be enlightining here to play the ENTIRE clip without your comments. From what I could see of this pieced-together footage; R. C. Sproul is saying that man cannot have certainty of God through philosophy, and that they have no knowledge of God, except what God reveals to them, i.e., the witness of conscience and the special revelation of God found in His word.
I respect R. C. Sproul and his teachings - but the problem here (as with many teachers) is that they stray away from Theology into philosophy and then they get trapped or they tend to dig a philosophical hole and then fall into it. Let's keep Theology ' pure and simple' or even better, let's REMAIN in the boundaries of Theology and what God has revealed to us in HIS Word. Until we come face to face with our Lord and Savior our knowledge and understanding will remain partial (1 cor.13:12)
This trap nearly nailed me. HOWEVER. One major factor can be overlooked. The definition of "absolute certainty." Sproul is comparing absolute certainty to God's omniscience. AndrewcBain is capitalizing on this and dribbling Sproul back and forth between man's certainty and absolute omniscient certainty. Clever illusion there.
I don't see the point of this video. It certainly doesn't aim to represent what the man truly believes in the context of how he believes. It's common sense just by looking at his second quote. No one can have perfect certainty about anything unless they're omniscient. Humans can fool themselves all too easily.
Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned. Titus 3:10-11
Andrew you are not a servant of God. You are of the Anti-Christ spirit. You have been given over to depravity and a reprobate mind because you refused to repent of secret sins and now you are a seething cauldron of condemnable corruption. Beware Children of God of the False prophets like Andrew that seek to deceive the very elect. Your message is not born of the Spirit of Christ it is born of the Anti-Christ. I pray you repent of your damnable heresy.
This video shows a wordplay that should be offensive to theists and atheists alike, as it perverts both positions. RC Sproul here gives the only reasonable statement regarding God: Everyone is an agnostic. To say one knows absolutely, is to say one has NO FAITH. To say one KNOWS there is no God is to be a fool, for no one could do that either. In the end, one must either believe in God, or one doesn't. Theist or Atheist. Calling someone an Agnostic is not saying anything constructive at all.
I agree. It is easy to take clips from Sproul's lectures and piece them together into something out of context. His summaries at the end of his lectures tie the statements together in a way that clarifies the thought in line with biblical teaching.
I agree. R.C. is using polemics here. He's stating an extreme to provoke a question. Agnostics means "no knowledge" -- so in one sense it's true that we are all agnostics in that since we are fallen creatures, we can't know God in and of ourselves. The only reason we DO know God is that God forms faith in us. That's his point.
Sproul commonly debates both sides of the issue. It is difficult to see the whole thing in context the way it is posted. It is easy with Sproul to take something out of Context. I have a Debate on My site Called Christianity Fact or Fantasy. Some are confused not understanding that SProul takes the position of an unbeliever Role Playing.
You hate every great preacher! You twist what they say into something totally different! Why are you doing this? I'd like to know what preachers YOU think preach the truth (since these are all heretics)!It sounds like you think YOU are the only one who knows anything.
In all your videos that attack great men of God, you portray yourself as such a Christ-centered person.Why then do you CONSTANTLY slander the preachers whose hearts' desire is to proclaim the gospel, and defend the gospel, and spread a worldwide passion for the UNDILUTED gospel of CHRIST to the glory of God?
Andrew, your arguments are pretty bad, but this video really takes the cake.
"Philosophically" you can't be absolutely certain about anything. For all you know, you're a brain in a jar imagining everything around you (and calling you a brain in a jar is a compliment, by the way).
2Co 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
Logic/philosphy are just tools...but Gods ways are not our ways, Gods ways/thoughts are higher then ours. Gods ways seem foolish to men, and that our wisdom (logic philosophy) are foolishness to God. RC Sproul is affirming God's word.
1st John says that our hearts may tell us that we are not saved, but God is stronger then our hearts. I think just as easily you might say My mind tells me that I dont know God exists, or your body in its strength may not adhere to God's law and thereby be in a revolt to the fact and acknowledgement of God.
RETARDED VIDEO: he says he is talking about philosophical certainty. He is right. Philosophically we have the ability to doubt everything and anything. YOU as a human can not prove beyond all doubt that God is real to anyone. Logic provides room for doubt at all levels. Descartes in his attempt to prove certainty gave us the opposite. In philosophy the skeptic is right. RC Sproul understands exactly what he is saying....this poster has no clue
paint a watercolor...lol... a 21 year old has no business teaching the word of god, especially one who clearly has an "intellectual" foundation and not a relationship with God. a morbid interest indeed.
I agree that we cannot have philosophical certainty. Philosophy is a tool for understanding truth, but it is the Spirit that leads to all truth.
Certainity comes from faith. It is faith that is the evidence of things not seen and the substance of things hoped for. It is better to have the certainty of faith than to try to have certainty through philosophy.
You say a person cannot believe and yet be unsaved. I am curious what you would say about one who believes in election and the salvific work of Christ, even in his own life, and yet does not live for God as his Lord, considering Jesus' words, "Not all say to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven," and James', "You believe that God is one. You do well. The demons also believe, and shudder."
AndrewCBain, please spend your efforts on studying God's word, instead of trying to demean and hurt others who are doing so. I am sure that will serve you better in the long run, indeed for eternity. RC's imperfections are as rampant as any of ours, but your dissertations on YouTube do nothing to bring any of those to light. Be peaceful, my bruthah, not hateful. At least you'll sleep better at night without all of that disdain knurling up in your tummy ;-)
Furthermore, God has already revealed himself through the order of nature and the bearing of conscience. Man has rejected that revelation, and can only accept it by being regenerated in the new birth. That's Sproul's doctrine, and no agnostic would admit to God having ever revealed Himself in any way whatsoever. This video is ignorance or jealousy at its worst.
I haven't read all the responses and I'm sure that RC has been adequately defended herein, but just in case it hasn't been said, let me say that whoever posted this choped-up video is either an ignoramus or is purposely misrepresenting Sproul. Sproul is simply saying that God can not be proven through philosophical argement, a fact which any cursory review of historical philosophy would reveal. God does not need to be proven through any medium, least of all philosophy.
Andy, you called Sproul an agnostic, I called you an ignoramus. So I'm willing to call it even on the pejoratives and hyperbole if you are. But I suspect you find provocation beneficial to your cause. Anyway, while I consider myself an amature presuppositionalist, I see no need to build up an evidentialist strawman and call it "agnositic" just to easily know it down.
For my information, are you a scripturalist (Clarkian)?
AndrewcBain you obviously are looking for ways to "discredit" an already established teacher of GOD'S Word. You are obviously jealous to the extent that you are covetous to a degree that you would elevate your status as a 'teacher' from taking R.C.Sproul out of context. That is very unfair, dude! Cut it out!
we are "granted" FREE WILL in this world, along with the ability to reason. Faith is a variable w/no limits. absolutes exist, but not with any certainty. to BELIEVE in god is to fear him. aloha
who was it that said "it doesn't matter the motive as long as the gospel is preached"
oh yeah it's Paul
I think Sproul does a very good job of spreading the gospel, raising awareness and questions. He is a brilliant man. Christianity is a religion based on faith. You have to take that into consideration.
I concur with your EXCELLENT defense of this great student AND teacher of God's Holy Word. What a lot of "religious" people tend to forget is this: We too have to live a Holy lifestyle based upon our "measure of Faith" and GOD is not reflected through us until we are totally submitted to HIM and totally OBEY HIM on every "jot and tittle" of HIS Commandment of LOVE.
I cannot know with certainty who is posting this comment,but I think it is me...lol. Give me a break.Some things can be proved with absolute certainty,but the existence of God is another thing entirely.This doesn't mean I don't believe in God,it simply means there is no way to prove my belief that God exists by reference to the facts of this reality.
Unfortuanately, I don't know if that talk is available at Ligonier, but I seem to remember reading about it in one of his books. A lot of Sproul's book material makes it into taped messages, so with a little persistence, you should be able to find it.
Since Mr. Bain won't tell you all, part of the video (about philosphical certainty) is from a friendly debate done in the early 80's with the late Greg Bahnsen concerning evidential versus presuppositional apologetics. Just "Google" it to get an MP3 download. The clips are not even addressing the same subjects. He's taken the idea of philosophical certainty from a debate on apologetics and pieced it together with another talk on assurance of salvation.
I think you're taking what he's saying out of context. Not withstanding if these clips haven't been edited. Any honest person will tell you that you don't know if God exists 100%. You have a faith that He exists and you have reasons to point out that He exists, but NO ONE has an absolute certainty that He exists. That doesn't mean that you don't have faith that He does exist.
you guys should stop praying for Sprouls salvation and start praying for your own, you can't accept that we have no part in salvation apart from Christ!!! hes simply saying how depraved we are, we dont know and we dont believe, if we did fully believe, we would not sin, because we would understand that Christ is infinately better than sin could ever be
That is SO out of context!!! I've heard a TON of R.C Sprol's messages. The person who posted this viedo is twisting what R.C Sprol said to whatever he wants!!!
What are you trying to get, by twisting what he said?!
I like Sproul. But to say we can't have certainty about anything shows that he is certain that we can't have certanty. This is self-refuting. I'm very dissapointed in my mentor.
Mr. Bain is not being fair in his clippings, not showing them in their proper context. Mr. Bain has not dealt fairly with people who object to his Hyper Calvinism. He infiltrated my email ministry some time ago and totally disrupted it. He needs to mature some and then maybe people will take him seriously.
This Guy just misquotes and distorts what people say. He is the master of hearing what he wants. He is a deceiver and a liar. I tried to talk to him and he cannot even follow an argument. He twists and contorts the Word of God. Through eisegesis he shows his points. Hes a 1 verse cherry picker...
I dont really like this guy, however he does have a good point. Sin has corrupted everything, including our cognative abilities, Our salvation does not come from our cognate, it comes from G-d. Kierkegaard explains this quite well. We should all concentrate on Jesus comands though, Love G-d, Love people!!!!
Well it seems to me I'm in a room all by my lonesome in a room of non-calvinist or arminian believers. Okay first the calvinistic doctrines vs arminian doctrines have been fought for many years by men greater than ourselfs. In that we are going to need some time we you are truely wanting me to try and persuade you. If so Message me
IF man can only do what they desire, and Paul speaking from the perspective of a non believer has a good desire, and that according to Calvinism can only occur in believers, doesn't that mean unregenerate man can do good and respond to God, thus Total Inabillity is false? Which is it? ALL scriptures you will bring up work out this way because you cant really escape truth.
If you would note ALL OTHER Christian Fathers were NOT Calvinists. Those men were a minority. Calvinism can;t be gotten from scripture, the Greek fathers would have held to it. Jesus and the apostles and prophets certainly didn't.
Eph 1 says that Christians as a whole were eternally elected/favored in Christ/in relationship with Christ and that when an individual HEARS the word of truth its THEN (in time) that they are INCLUDED IN Christ (Eph 1:15). When they become part of Christ, they identify w the kind or type of people God has elected/favored. They then receive Christ, His perfection, election, sonship, and all riches in Christ.
Lol! R.C.'s intellect is so far beyond most of us videos like this pop up. Philosophically he can be regarded as the highest since Jonathon Edwards. Lets take a look at the most influential biblical philosophers that had the greatest impact on Christian theology:
TRUE argumentation, substantial and true philosophy, and correct argumentation that is implied in 2 Cor 10:5-6, Col 2:4+8 that were to use instead of false arg, hollow and deceptive philosophy and or fine sounding arguments (sophistry)=Calvinism. While you can continue to choose to use human intellect to argue for irrational Calvinism, I choose to use reason God gave all men to be able to figure out what is nonsense vs commonsense.
Uh Augustine in his earlier days wrote a book called in defense of FREE WILL. Yuo ought to read it. He didn't hold to determinism until he got frustrated with the Donatists. Many would argue that he changed his view because he viewed that children could be forced to be baptised when young, then why not when theyre older. Its a coersive philosophy that stems from frustration to be control and in power.
Though Scripture could say CALVINISM IS INCORRECT in bold, I doubt ANY Calvinist would change their views. Despite that, Ill just take one other scripture to show how Calvinism makes no sense what so ever. Romans 7:15-25. IF what you say is true in that we only do what we want/desire to do, why does Paul say that HE DOES what he doesn't want to do? Further, if Paul is speaking as a believer why does he say he has a desire to do good, but CANT CARRY IT OUT?
Does that mean all Christians are totally unable to respond to God and or do good? If so whats the point in being a Christian if its no different from being a non believer? If Paul is speaking from a non believers perspective WHY and WHERE is he able to have a GOOD DESIRE??
monergism . com / directory / link_category / HyperCalvinism (delete spaces in urls)
I hope all who visit Andrew's site will peruse aomin . org or monergism . com for solid theology even if they don't watch watch Andrew's contextless exposés.
James White is pretty good on matters of cults and most world religions but in regards to Calvinism vs non Calvinism he doesn't know what he's talking about and contradicts himself all over the place. Hed be better off to test his own views in light of reason which he ignores in light of Calvinism rather than sanctify and popify Calvin and his views apart from criticism or question.
If you will check out his Xanga you'll see that this guy's simply a hyper-Calvinist. Hyper-Calvinists believe that true faith is necessarily manifested in perfect theology; specifically about the extent of the atonement. In other words, a person cannot be saved who believes in anything other than 5 point Calvinism. Even further, Calvinists who believe that a non-5 pointer can be saved are damned. Very sad and interesting.
Do you believe man can cause his own acts and can do otherwise, OR do you believe in circumstantial "freedom"=determinism where man can only act in accord with its nature and must receive a new nature in order to believe?
I have 4 questions for you if you'd be willing to answer them I think MAY start to understand why I say Calvinism is false..I don't expect you to be open to that as you still have not answered my question either due to the fact that you're not willing to discard Calvinism even if its false or you just don't listen or try to understand, which makes considering what I'm saying impossible..though I know you can do otherwise. So what do you say..you going to actually answer my questions?
There are varying interpretations regarding Eph 1:11 and you gave no interpretation for it..you just typed it. Predestination has to do what WHAT a people are determined or chosen to, ie the chosen characteristics of what the elect are like. Election deals with WHO is elect or chosen. Election signifies favor before God.
Again youre not answering my question. I never have nor would say anyone is redeemed because of any merit on their part. Youre making false conclusions based on nothing but assumptions, showing you dont even understand my position, as I have not given it to you, so I don't know how you think you can comment on it.
To go w coherence/consistency as a test for truth is as self tricking mechanism to allow one to feel justified with any proposition, for any possible proposition can be LOGICALLY argued for as abstractly true, by definition, even if its premises are not RATIONALLY true, ie absurd/not ACTUALLY true.
Youre being evasive..Does God change the heart of an individual (ie make him free) in accord with his will or against it? If in accord with his willingness then man is free and calvinism is false. If against a mans will then its a contradictory forced freedom, and that comes from a sick irrational being, who cannot be God.
Coherence is not a test for truth, but a test for falsity. If something is consistent, it can be consistently wrong and consistency doesnt answer whether that self consistent statement corresponds to actual reality. You can have a consistent statement that is merely true abstractly/by definition, but has nothing to do w actuality. Why do you assume that unless God directly acts and determines everything He isn't in control?
I'm saying youre wrong to use coherency as a test for truth, its not one. Logic and reason are different. Logic deals merely with consistency, validity, and whether conclusions follow from premises. Reason on the other hand (which youre not using) deals w material truth abut actual reality. Its just a test for falsity.
I have no problem with you or anyone disagreeing vehemently with my views or anyone elses, but you as a Calvinist go beyond being rude, obnoxious, and just wrong with how you direct insults, ungrounded and unBiblical judgment to people instead of just dealing with the arguments and views themselves. You didn't even understand what I ACTUALLY SAID before you reacted to it, to then call me an ignoramus. Ironic.
Firstly, I must apologize for coming off so rude before. I just reread my comments, and found them ungracious myself. A lapse in judgement, for which I can only ask forgiveness. Now... no, I don't base reformed theology's truth on my own conviction of it. I base my conviction of it on its truth (soteriology included).
Its ok man. Thanks for apologizing. Glad you don;t base conclusions on subjectivity. I don't deny election at all, I just deny the Calvinistic view of election. You probably know there are other possible ways to view election other than a Calvinistic one. Church fathers all held varying positions as do church leaders. I believe God elects, as do ALL christians, the debate is on what basis God elects..
Thank you for calling it Semi-Pelagian and not Pelagian because I am in no way Pelagian. Glad you acknowledge its existence. I hold to Class Election/Corporate Elect because the other possible options are contradictory with itself and with scripture, and because its based in what is self evident and undeniable, it's identical w essential Christian doctrine, and fits the criteria of Hermeneutical principles regarding inductive and deductive logic.
Secondly, I'm glad that you and I agree on various 'primary' issues of Christianity, but I disagree with relegating the doctrine of election to "secondary" status. By denying election, you're affirming that man has some faculty within himself to incline himself to Christ. Yet you chastise me for being un-Biblical.
DThe question is does God elect individuals on the basis of his own predelect/desire, on the basis of his foreknowledge of what certain individuals do, which I find BOTH make God dependent on man, or does God choose individuals in accord with indinviduals wills, or does He elect Christ and those found in Him, identified in a relationship with Him receieve His election (signifying favor).
There are essentials in regards to election 1) Sovereignty of God 2) The Justice of God 3) The genuine responsibillity of man. ALL Christians agree on those essentials, but the way to understand each has been debated throughout the history of the church. I disagree w your understanding of them. While election is secondary that in no way means its unimportant.
Simple question (not one of the 4 I have for you) but when God regenerates a man, and makes him free to respond to God, does the unregenerate want to be made free? You seem to think he does not want or will to be free...if the person doesnt want to be free, and God is making him free against his will, HOW is that NOT COERSION?? How can you escape the fact that that would be God forcing a man to be free AGAINST his will? Forced freedom is a contradiction.
Those who subscribe to libertarian free will often have a hard time understanding that God can regenerate someone, and at the same time maintain that particular person's freedom throughout.
Once, in my falleness, I was an advocate of abortion. But in light of the new wisdom my mind was confronted w/ in Christianity, I then freely rejected abortion. By your reasoning, God made me will against myself, insofar as I willed the advocacy of abortion beforehand, then after God's intervention, I willed the rejection of abortion. But I'm saying that it's IMPOSSIBLE to "will against" oneself. The phraseology is a contradiction in terms.
You have never in your life done ONE THING that you did not ENTIRELY WANT to do (it's important that you not confuse the word 'want' w/ the word 'enjoy'). You are absolutely free in terms of your will. And you [all men] freely reject Christ, as a result of that freedom.
And not until God starts a work within you, can you submit to the truth of Christianity. You think that faith is separate from the gift. I'm saying that your faith IN the gift, is also a part of the gift.
Maybe we can talk about this somewhere else? Youtube SUCKS for having discussions. I want to hear your thoughts not someone elses but if you need to give a url all you need to do is replace the . with dot, and type out worldwide web.
I don't want to do the dishes, but I WILL DECIDE to do them based on certain rational reasons..it has nothing to do with my wishes or desires but what needs to be done despite my desires, feelings, or wants. You confuse want with being a cause when its not. You cause your own actions, your desires don't cause anything. They can be influences but theyre no more causes than chance is.
I'm sorry but that's just absolutely false and self negating. If you take the time to actually listen and try to understand what I'm saying you may see why I say this. I have done lots of stuff I don't want to do. How could character be developed without that. Actually I'm going to do two things I don't want to do the moment I'm done w this reply..the dishes and take the garbage out. Are acts rationally based or desire based? Do men do what they WANT to do OR what they DECIDE to do?
Ok so YOU first accepted then later rejected abortion based on you reasoning w the natural ability God gave you as you observed the light of evidence..Ok. How do you figure God MADE you do anything there or that I argue the way you just stated I did?? How is willing for then against a PROPOSITION=to willing for then against ones SELF??
I agree and disagree with that statement. I agree that we always(regenerate and unregenerate) act upon our strongest inclination. I disagree that an unregenerate "freely" reject Christ. The Bible clearly teaches that the lost have no other option but to reject Christ because they are bound to sin. The beautiful thing about being regenerated is that we now have the "freedom" to choose Christ, and sadly sometimes we often choose the other.
Look the fact that you can say I am using my OWN COMMONSENSE is itself a contradiction and its scary you can say that without blushing. The problem isnt scripture its your willingness to read philosophical determinism into scripture. Where in Scripture do you have the idea that men do what they desire to do vs what they decide to do? The Bible in NO WAY teaches Total Inabillity.
Uhh you still are not dealing w my argument. When God regenergates a person PRIOR to being saved, and makes them free, what is the state of the persons will..is it willing to accept being free or is it unwilling and against being free to respond to God? If the person is unwilling and does not want to be free, and God makes him free against his will..how is that NOT forced freedom??
Uhh so you do or do not believe that ALL men can cause their own actions and can do otherwise or do you believe they cannot respond to Gods light and goodness? If you say they can choose good how can you consistently affirm they can't respond to the source of good when all good has its source in God?
I'm sorry but that's just absolutely false and self negating. If you take the time to actually listen and try to understand what I'm saying you may see why I say this. I have done lots of stuff I don't want to do. How could character be developed without that. Actually I'm going to do two things I don't want to do the moment I'm done w this reply..the dishes and take the garbage out. Are acts rationally based or desire based? Do men do what they WANT to do OR what they DECIDE to do?
Thirdly, and lastly (& most pertinently), you posited that if Sproul really believes we can know nothing w/ certainty, then he's sorely mistaken. I mean only to enlighten with you that Sproul does not mean this. He believes God's existence of irrefutably provable, via reason & rationality. And I believe he's right. Forgive me for being uncharitable before. But also allow me to prove to you why election is true (Biblical).
(seriously) Lastly, forgive poor grammar/syntax in last post. "Enlighten you" not "enlighten WITH you".. and also "God's existence IS irrefutably provable" not "God's existence OF irrefutably..." note: *must proofread comments before posting*
But in all sincerity- why is it that you embrace semi-Pelagianism? B/c this seems the most fair & logical to you? [serious question]
What secondary issues reflect how one interprets scripture, and effects the practical issues of how one lives their Christian life and will effect their rewards at the end. Its just not something that defines what a christian is nor is it something ones eternal destiny hinges on. Just because someone is a calvinist or determinist in no way=he/she is a christian, anymore than just bcause someone believes in another view of election does it mean that person is a christian just because of that.
I wonder what kind of character a man must have to search the life time of literature produced by Godly christian men...then isolate a phrase or two that sounds the worst in isolation...reproduce it and publish it to try to "prove" the man a heretic. Bain does this over and over again. It is reprehensible and unconscienable. Bain is an evil man and should be rebuked by Godly men and women.
prairiemark 1 month ago 2
I am certain God is. Maybe God will give you grace and God will be your Father and give you a new nature. A man only has of God what God gives him.
rbaxter119 7 months ago
I do not believe Dr. Sproul is other than a true believer.
Brucev7 7 months ago
Here it seems that Dr. Sproul is speaking about the matter of certainty within the limited framework of human philosophy and ideas, as opposed to the special revelation of inspired Scripture.
Please do not jump to conclusions when you may misunderstand the meaning or intent of Dr. Sproul's comments.
lhorn0828 9 months ago
Son, Mr. Sproul is talking above your head as you to be able to understand what he is saying ! Jesus said i will speak and the Non-Believers will not be able to understand what I say. If they are believers, they will be able to understand what I am saying !
Take a believer and a non-Believer and let Jesus speak to them and the Non-Believer will not be able to understand what he says at all ! the Believer will be able to understand him very clearly and really make good sense of all he says !
turtle4aire 1 year ago
Are you for real? Do you really think this will fool anybody?
faiiiill234532 1 year ago
@faiiiill234532 Non-Believers will never understand what Jesus or any real good preacher is speaking about
! Jesus said i have come to the earth to make the blind see and the seeing become blind ! this fellow is a good example of this in action !
turtle4aire 1 year ago
The Holy Spirit witnesses with our Spirit that we are children of God.Since when does a Calvinist believe God is assisted.Taking blind folds off un believers ? There is no truth without the Holy Spirit giving understanding EVER
polopowers1 1 year ago
Now that you have heard from AndrewcBain, hear from the accused himself. R.C. Sproul freely offers many audio presentations which will satisfy any researcher's questions about where he stands. He is most certainly not agnostic. By his own words, R.C. Sproul happily embraces his belief in God and The perfect and only sacrifice for a fallen world who is Jesus Christ.
ariadne12345 1 year ago
out of context! his statement that says "that is only for God" says he believes! nice try! i can edit the bible so it leave out many thing, how about you play the whole video and let us make up our minds. but thanks for this view.
MediumShag 1 year ago
It would be nice if we could say for sure with no doubt that God is real and we know Him. But we just cant say that...If we could know God for sure then there would be no need for faith. And every Christian, if they are honest, will admit even after being saved they doubt God's existence and possibly their own salvation at times. We can not perfectly know God because we are not perfect. I really have no problem with what R.C. Sproul is saying here...
daffy4Christ 1 year ago
I'm laughing out loud!!! just listen to RC Sproul, get his podcast Renewing Your Mind and it won't take you a couple of hours to know that RC is no agnostic.
RC is not doubting the God, but he is doubting the ability of philosophy and logic to attain ultimate truth. And in the context in the description he says he is playing devil's advocate.
I've never heard of you Andrew, but you are obviously a no-brainer :)
nathanjonessr 1 year ago 2
This is the most convoluted and silly video I think I've seen in a long time. How does one even respond to such haphazard "reasoning" that you positing in this little production? The part at 4:49 is a lesson I've just finished listening to, and has NOTHING to do with your argument. IF you had listened to it in its entirety you wouldn't be having this problem. Well, actually, since you don't seem to understand the other stuff you just might continue having problems.
Basically this is hogwash.
stegokitty 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here is the Calvinist translation of John 3:16
For God so loved the elect, that He gave His only Son, that whomsoever He had chosen to not perish but have eternal life should believe in Him. For God sent His Son to condemn the world, and to save the elect.
calvinismisacult 2 years ago
dude,...seriously?
CripForChrist 2 years ago
Son Let me tell you something here. R.C. has forgotten more about the scripture than you know and to come here taking things out of context and expect someone to believe you is just a laugh waiting to happen.
Please give us a break here !
turtle4aire 2 years ago
hey Andy let me more direct. I believe I have said this before on some other dumba** vid you made. YOU ARE A MORON!!!!!!!
flagranger 2 years ago
GODISNOWHERE.
How do you read it?
GOD IS NOW HERE
or
GOD IS NO WHERE.
You can read into it anything you want.
Same is true of this selective editing.
In Matthew 27:5 we read Judas "...went off and hanged himself.
In Luke 10:37, Jesus said "Go and do likewise."
aletheia29642 2 years ago
Andrew, when are you going to stop this continual silliness. It's getting boring. You do your self and God no service in posting these rediculous videos. You edit things to your own advantage to make your point, which is really just to discredit godly men. Please stoppppp!!!
doulostheou777 2 years ago 4
This video is a pure LIE. Or made by someone with the Blindfold on! What a pitiful attempt at distorting what a Godly man is saying. Truly Pitiful!!!!
timnanFrancis 2 years ago 5
Can anyone tell me if Macbain has ever made a video that was worth anything?
I haven't seen one yet.
rdm0001 2 years ago 3
"When I'm talking about certainty, I'm talking about philosophical certainty in a very technically defined manner." Why in the world would you not use this as the basic premise of everything else he says? He is speaking in "very technical" philosophical terms. Please go study philosophy and do not misrepresent Sproul anymore than you already have.
dmac14af 2 years ago 6
How ridiculous, how about you listen to what he says in context, and you will see he is saying everything you would say. If you don't understand what he's saying then it's ok to admit it.
stevestutz 2 years ago 5
This is such an easy issue, omniscience necessarily entails absolute knowledge, any being that is finite and non-God does not have omniscience, therefore certainty is not within our realm. But when the omniscient Being - the Holy Spirit indwells you, then you can enjoy His certainty of God's existence. Simply put, finite beings have finite knowledge and when indwelt with an infinite Being you can have assurance of all God wants you to know.
kristjanerik 2 years ago 5
An intellectual ascent to Jesus lacks heart and knows Him not.
Terri3210 2 years ago
Wow, good thing you posted this.
tipsband004 2 years ago
Oh please! Philosophical certainty =/= garden variety experimental certainty.
If you are a Christian the Holy Spirit is going to have a field day with you for this!
You are grossly misrepresenting RC and bringing shame on yourself - you should be embarrassed enough to remove this video.
He's an awesome theologian and believer in God. I just listened to him preach
on his personal intimate experience of the Holiness of the Father - I have NO doubts about his sincerity.
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago 6
This video is silly. Goal is not to post truth by the one posting. Goal has an alternative motive. "try to make R.C. look bad. It takes and edits different talks and puts them where ever he wants. This is wrong and deceptive. What R.C. is saying is GOD is All Powerful, All Knowing, All loving... We are sinner's saved by Grace... We do not have absolute knowledge but we can know the God who is Creator.
1metooyou1 3 years ago 13
This has been flagged as spam show
Hyper-Calvinism is unscriptural, false doctrine. It tends to flourish in intellectual pride and in neglect of soul winning, and is a symptom of moral guilt. It is Satan's effort to kill concern and compassion for souls.
chookna 3 years ago
this is a sloppy hack job.
revlooshin 3 years ago 4
I want to say this in love brother. I think you are taking him too literally and overlooking the deeper definition of some of his philosophically worded statements. He is not saying we cannot be certain God exists, a Christian is indeed certain God exists, for the Holy Spirit dwells within him. But in terms of a secular understanding of "certainty" or cognition, we cannot "know" God for certain. No one has seen God, and without secular "proof" no one can be "certain".
stevestutz 3 years ago 4
R.C. Sproul? Agnostic? Please. Find something better to do .
brenden7 3 years ago 6
Think Tykrug about has it right. We don't have a mathematical certainty, as in geometry or logic where you can "prove" something within the context of the rules of the discipline. That kind of certainty doesn't exist for anything, and Sproul is right to say this. Don't think this makes him an agnostic, though--just makes him a person who understands how to use philosophical terms of art correctly. It might make him fusty, but not an agnostic.
acsumor 3 years ago 3
It's possible that you really don't understand Sproul's comments, so you think he's saying that he doesn't know that God exists. I hope that's the case, because the alternative is that you're slandering him.
berettaNZ 3 years ago 3
I'm a Philosophy major and it is very clear that we cannnot KNOW God exists in a philosophical sense. This is true, because there is always the possibility that our brains are hooked up to machines and we are hallucinating in a matrix like fashion. This is PHILOSOPHICAL uncertainty, not practical certainty. W/ a HIGH DEGREE of certainty however, we CAN know God. Please do not make yourself look ignorant in trying to dismantle a great philosopher and stalwart of the Christian faith.
tykrug 3 years ago 6
I think your wrong
jmagdell 3 years ago
"God's existence uncertain"
Admittedly I was somewhat confused by Sproul's statement regarding Gods existence, but I passed on this U-tube video to an acquaintance who rightly pointed out that what we are seeing and hearing in it, is but a snippet of the whole, and before one can make an educated comment, the whole would have to be viewed. I agree, that the snippet video on U-tube could be taking Rev: Sproul out of Context, therefore I must give him the benefit of the doubt.
togglesblock 3 years ago
Hi.
Thank you for your comment.
Don't worry - you don't have to give Sproul the benefit of the doubt.
The full context of the quote is in the video description on the right. Simply click "more info" (located in the top right part of this page) to read it.
Hope that helps!
Feel free to tell me what you think - doesn't the whole context still convict Sproul of Agnosticism.
AndrewcBain 3 years ago
@togglesblock , I agree completely I don't agree with a lot of what RC Sproul teachs but he is very knowledgeable. i believe he is speaking in a context of philosophy and the technical certainty that God exists through mental assent alone. Whereas the believer is given revelation of the truth which is supernatural and surpasses this technical philosophical sense. To say he is an agnostic is either A) an attempt to drive traffic to video or B) a ridiculous ad hoc attack.
frimports 11 months ago
Many posts here overstate the extent to which Sproul is being taken out of context. Just because there is a lot of splicing doesn't mean that he is badly distorting the basic idea. Saying Sproul is an "agnostic" isn't much more of a distortion than when theists say atheists practice "religion" because there are some things they believe without overwhelming evidence. The point is that even Xians, when they are being honest (as Sproul is, to his credit), admit they don't "know" that God exists.
acsumor 3 years ago 2
Andrew's video post is a sad example of the distortion that blinds many people. But he did do a good job of cutting and pasting certain clips to try to make his point. Taking lines without their context and playing them can prove anyone's point. It would be like me saying, " in the Psalms it says there is no God.' By omitting the first part of the verse " the foolish man says in his heart," I've made the bible say what I want it to, just like Andrew and his distorion of R.C.'s views.
skullcrushers777 3 years ago
I agree with R.C. Sproul! Andrew is drawing faulty conclusions because he doesn't understand what Sproul is saying.
SeinUndZeit 3 years ago
Mr. Bain completely ignores something called "context" and repeatedly twists the words of preachers. He apparently doesn't care that he makes a habit of greatly distorting others' words. Maybe he just wants the attention.
joey21122112 3 years ago
i've seen two of your videos already- Andrew - and I've come to the conclusion that you are stupid and are hateful
mutumbo99 3 years ago
I cant believe this butchery of Spouls statements. You just cant slice and dice the statements of Sproul. ABSOLUTE certainty is NOT the same as confident certainty. Your video hear shows the intellect of your position. Do you know what the word ABSOLUTE means? Obviously you dont and because you ignore it, your position is ABOLISHED. Does man have ABSOLUTE understanding or knowledge of science? If someone answers yes,they have made such a stupid assertion that words could not even describe it!
ryeroe1975 3 years ago
Straw man. Sproul is spot on.
RedlandsCRC 3 years ago
I happen to think that Sproul is wrong on this point, but Bain is just insane to jump to the conclusion that Sproul is an agnostic.
Notice in all these videos that Bain is always tearing down good men? Maybe after Bain has actually done something constructive & built somethin useful, then he will have the riht to criticize his betters. Politely. Respectfully. A long, long time from now.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
RC is merely pointing out the shortcomings of philiosophy and human awareness. The reason we cannot really know anything with absolute certainty is because our knowledge itself is corrupted by sin. One of the greatest consequences of the fall is ignorance.
Judging by the chosen targets of your slander, it seems that you, Andrew McBain, are suffering a particularly severe case of mental corruption. You should repent and stop serving the evil one.
joyo8729 3 years ago
Actually, knowing God exists IS beyond OUR intellectual awareness. We're human. Our own hearts don't produce faith. The Holy Spirit produces faith in our hears through the hearing of the WORD. We didn't seek God. While we were dead (COMPLETELY DEAD) in our sins, Christ made us ALIVE! It was Christ's action--not ours--that gives us certainty.
idsman75 3 years ago
Wow, who ever posted this really is blind.
raggedy80 3 years ago
You embarrass yourself by posting this video. If you were to misunderstand Mr. Sproul's words privately it would be one thing, but to attack him on the basis of your ignorance is another thing all together. Take this video off.
treismac 3 years ago 14
I concur with treismac
loveliberty1776 3 years ago
I think it is telling that Mr. Bain can not even find an actual heretical quote with all of the heresy going on today, but he must twist men's words so that he can make them heresy. There remains a better use of his time and ours, and that is to deal with the words of men and Scripture IN CONTEXT and to know what really is heresy; and to flee from it, but not to produce foolish arguments without profit.
Studier101 3 years ago
Sproul says: "...omniscience...that we don't have. That belongs to God. We are creatures. We deal ON THE BASIS OF THE INFOMATION AND THE TESTIMONY...WHICH GOD GIVES US." (Emphasis mine, taken from 0:25 of the video)
Studier101 3 years ago
It would be enlightining here to play the ENTIRE clip without your comments. From what I could see of this pieced-together footage; R. C. Sproul is saying that man cannot have certainty of God through philosophy, and that they have no knowledge of God, except what God reveals to them, i.e., the witness of conscience and the special revelation of God found in His word.
Studier101 3 years ago
I respect R. C. Sproul and his teachings - but the problem here (as with many teachers) is that they stray away from Theology into philosophy and then they get trapped or they tend to dig a philosophical hole and then fall into it. Let's keep Theology ' pure and simple' or even better, let's REMAIN in the boundaries of Theology and what God has revealed to us in HIS Word. Until we come face to face with our Lord and Savior our knowledge and understanding will remain partial (1 cor.13:12)
darenloster 3 years ago
This trap nearly nailed me. HOWEVER. One major factor can be overlooked. The definition of "absolute certainty." Sproul is comparing absolute certainty to God's omniscience. AndrewcBain is capitalizing on this and dribbling Sproul back and forth between man's certainty and absolute omniscient certainty. Clever illusion there.
Oophorectomy 3 years ago
I don't see the point of this video. It certainly doesn't aim to represent what the man truly believes in the context of how he believes. It's common sense just by looking at his second quote. No one can have perfect certainty about anything unless they're omniscient. Humans can fool themselves all too easily.
phazt 4 years ago
God does reveal himself t believers it is called general revelation read the book of Romans maybe
hastetheday1902 4 years ago
Dude out of all the false teachers really out there you are aiming your week arsenal on true bible believing God fearing men. shame on you!!!
............................P.S are you on some atheist group payroll???
addstatic 4 years ago
Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned. Titus 3:10-11
truth2liberty 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Andrew you are not a servant of God. You are of the Anti-Christ spirit. You have been given over to depravity and a reprobate mind because you refused to repent of secret sins and now you are a seething cauldron of condemnable corruption. Beware Children of God of the False prophets like Andrew that seek to deceive the very elect. Your message is not born of the Spirit of Christ it is born of the Anti-Christ. I pray you repent of your damnable heresy.
truth2liberty 4 years ago
This video shows a wordplay that should be offensive to theists and atheists alike, as it perverts both positions. RC Sproul here gives the only reasonable statement regarding God: Everyone is an agnostic. To say one knows absolutely, is to say one has NO FAITH. To say one KNOWS there is no God is to be a fool, for no one could do that either. In the end, one must either believe in God, or one doesn't. Theist or Atheist. Calling someone an Agnostic is not saying anything constructive at all.
davidbpearson2 4 years ago
Great video Andrew, RC is definitely showing his atheistic colors here, trying to make God look like a bad communicator. Can't wait for another one.
kentkim23 4 years ago
You and Michael Moore could work famously well together.
cbband 4 years ago
what an out of context piece of garbadge, is there no preacher you leave alone
mrjgardiner 4 years ago
I agree. It is easy to take clips from Sproul's lectures and piece them together into something out of context. His summaries at the end of his lectures tie the statements together in a way that clarifies the thought in line with biblical teaching.
charlitunaman2002 4 years ago
I agree. R.C. is using polemics here. He's stating an extreme to provoke a question. Agnostics means "no knowledge" -- so in one sense it's true that we are all agnostics in that since we are fallen creatures, we can't know God in and of ourselves. The only reason we DO know God is that God forms faith in us. That's his point.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
Sproul commonly debates both sides of the issue. It is difficult to see the whole thing in context the way it is posted. It is easy with Sproul to take something out of Context. I have a Debate on My site Called Christianity Fact or Fantasy. Some are confused not understanding that SProul takes the position of an unbeliever Role Playing.
SKYSPLASH 4 years ago
you suck! you suck! you suck! seriously why do you bother making videos?
why ask the question on this video why he says we can't be certain? Are you slow? He explained why in the first 10 seconds!!
fromfictiontofact 4 years ago
You hate every great preacher! You twist what they say into something totally different! Why are you doing this? I'd like to know what preachers YOU think preach the truth (since these are all heretics)!It sounds like you think YOU are the only one who knows anything.
TheLewie 4 years ago 2
In all your videos that attack great men of God, you portray yourself as such a Christ-centered person.Why then do you CONSTANTLY slander the preachers whose hearts' desire is to proclaim the gospel, and defend the gospel, and spread a worldwide passion for the UNDILUTED gospel of CHRIST to the glory of God?
TheLewie 4 years ago 2
Andrew, your arguments are pretty bad, but this video really takes the cake.
"Philosophically" you can't be absolutely certain about anything. For all you know, you're a brain in a jar imagining everything around you (and calling you a brain in a jar is a compliment, by the way).
MellaniaEQ 4 years ago
I got a sense of empathy from this video. This "agnostic" sounds as certain about his confusion as I am about mine. That's a start right :-)
NLPNVC 4 years ago
2Co 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
Edentulate 4 years ago
Logic/philosphy are just tools...but Gods ways are not our ways, Gods ways/thoughts are higher then ours. Gods ways seem foolish to men, and that our wisdom (logic philosophy) are foolishness to God. RC Sproul is affirming God's word.
Edentulate 4 years ago
1st John says that our hearts may tell us that we are not saved, but God is stronger then our hearts. I think just as easily you might say My mind tells me that I dont know God exists, or your body in its strength may not adhere to God's law and thereby be in a revolt to the fact and acknowledgement of God.
Edentulate 4 years ago
RETARDED VIDEO: he says he is talking about philosophical certainty. He is right. Philosophically we have the ability to doubt everything and anything. YOU as a human can not prove beyond all doubt that God is real to anyone. Logic provides room for doubt at all levels. Descartes in his attempt to prove certainty gave us the opposite. In philosophy the skeptic is right. RC Sproul understands exactly what he is saying....this poster has no clue
Edentulate 4 years ago
paint a watercolor...lol... a 21 year old has no business teaching the word of god, especially one who clearly has an "intellectual" foundation and not a relationship with God. a morbid interest indeed.
nobooks 4 years ago 2
I agree that we cannot have philosophical certainty. Philosophy is a tool for understanding truth, but it is the Spirit that leads to all truth.
Certainity comes from faith. It is faith that is the evidence of things not seen and the substance of things hoped for. It is better to have the certainty of faith than to try to have certainty through philosophy.
mawapeak 4 years ago
There's no certain proof that Andrew C Bain exists.
OntoLogos 4 years ago
You say a person cannot believe and yet be unsaved. I am curious what you would say about one who believes in election and the salvific work of Christ, even in his own life, and yet does not live for God as his Lord, considering Jesus' words, "Not all say to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven," and James', "You believe that God is one. You do well. The demons also believe, and shudder."
lookitsstupendousman 4 years ago
Andrew, in all sincerity, I think you need to stop trying to fit God inside your head.
Take a year off and serve God with your body ... volunteer helping the poor and sick for a while. Paint a watercolor. Write a story.
pbcinla 4 years ago
Sure God's existence is uncertain. That's what faith is for and why we have to BELIEVE.
You're trying to get to God through REASON and that's a dead end. You need to BELIEVE first, then you have REASON.
pbcinla 4 years ago
If I didn't think it would feed your ego too much I would make a video called Andrew McBAin is an Muslim.
sonofcohen 4 years ago
Andrew, you still spouting out this garbage?
sonofcohen 4 years ago
Van Til is an Agnostic- 'God cannot be known comprehensively'
'If we know him [God], we know him [God] truly though not comprehensively'.
-The Defense of the Faith '67 pg.43
Is Van Til here denying Romans 1:19?
You want to live as a graceless pre-sup Andrew, you will die the death of a thousand qualifications as well.
Ron
vanberean123 4 years ago
AndrewCBain, please spend your efforts on studying God's word, instead of trying to demean and hurt others who are doing so. I am sure that will serve you better in the long run, indeed for eternity. RC's imperfections are as rampant as any of ours, but your dissertations on YouTube do nothing to bring any of those to light. Be peaceful, my bruthah, not hateful. At least you'll sleep better at night without all of that disdain knurling up in your tummy ;-)
LigonierVidProd 4 years ago 3
You go to ligonier dot org you can see HIs videos in proper context.
Furiousblue42 4 years ago
I think you are missing the point here my friend....you are not getting it...pray to the Lord for understanding these type of messages.
dchawkins 4 years ago
Furthermore, God has already revealed himself through the order of nature and the bearing of conscience. Man has rejected that revelation, and can only accept it by being regenerated in the new birth. That's Sproul's doctrine, and no agnostic would admit to God having ever revealed Himself in any way whatsoever. This video is ignorance or jealousy at its worst.
joeldwatson 4 years ago
I haven't read all the responses and I'm sure that RC has been adequately defended herein, but just in case it hasn't been said, let me say that whoever posted this choped-up video is either an ignoramus or is purposely misrepresenting Sproul. Sproul is simply saying that God can not be proven through philosophical argement, a fact which any cursory review of historical philosophy would reveal. God does not need to be proven through any medium, least of all philosophy.
joeldwatson 4 years ago 3
Hi Joel. Thanks for the feedback.
You wrote me, "Sproul is simply saying that God can not be proven through philosophical argument"
My response: Umm. Sorry. That's not the case. Here's the full context, proving that Sproul is an agnostic...
Godnoliar.**com/Sproul_vs_Bahnsen.htm
(Remove **s)
AndrewcBain 4 years ago
Andy, you called Sproul an agnostic, I called you an ignoramus. So I'm willing to call it even on the pejoratives and hyperbole if you are. But I suspect you find provocation beneficial to your cause. Anyway, while I consider myself an amature presuppositionalist, I see no need to build up an evidentialist strawman and call it "agnositic" just to easily know it down.
For my information, are you a scripturalist (Clarkian)?
joeldwatson 4 years ago 2
Andrew, did he fail you in one of his classes?
raneroc 4 years ago 2
AndrewcBain you obviously are looking for ways to "discredit" an already established teacher of GOD'S Word. You are obviously jealous to the extent that you are covetous to a degree that you would elevate your status as a 'teacher' from taking R.C.Sproul out of context. That is very unfair, dude! Cut it out!
plainwain 4 years ago
we are "granted" FREE WILL in this world, along with the ability to reason. Faith is a variable w/no limits. absolutes exist, but not with any certainty. to BELIEVE in god is to fear him. aloha
kalo711 4 years ago
who was it that said "it doesn't matter the motive as long as the gospel is preached"
oh yeah it's Paul
I think Sproul does a very good job of spreading the gospel, raising awareness and questions. He is a brilliant man. Christianity is a religion based on faith. You have to take that into consideration.
videophobic 4 years ago 2
I concur with your EXCELLENT defense of this great student AND teacher of God's Holy Word. What a lot of "religious" people tend to forget is this: We too have to live a Holy lifestyle based upon our "measure of Faith" and GOD is not reflected through us until we are totally submitted to HIM and totally OBEY HIM on every "jot and tittle" of HIS Commandment of LOVE.
plainwain 4 years ago
I cannot know with certainty who is posting this comment,but I think it is me...lol. Give me a break.Some things can be proved with absolute certainty,but the existence of God is another thing entirely.This doesn't mean I don't believe in God,it simply means there is no way to prove my belief that God exists by reference to the facts of this reality.
loudnmouthy 4 years ago
I guess this is a good example of why you shouldn't take everything for granted (web videos especially).
There are many people like Andrew Bain taking things out of context and telling half truths.
hoots7 4 years ago
Unfortuanately, I don't know if that talk is available at Ligonier, but I seem to remember reading about it in one of his books. A lot of Sproul's book material makes it into taped messages, so with a little persistence, you should be able to find it.
barbaralisette 4 years ago
Since Mr. Bain won't tell you all, part of the video (about philosphical certainty) is from a friendly debate done in the early 80's with the late Greg Bahnsen concerning evidential versus presuppositional apologetics. Just "Google" it to get an MP3 download. The clips are not even addressing the same subjects. He's taken the idea of philosophical certainty from a debate on apologetics and pieced it together with another talk on assurance of salvation.
barbaralisette 4 years ago
this is pure out of context audio trickery, garbage
felixayala05 4 years ago
I think you're taking what he's saying out of context. Not withstanding if these clips haven't been edited. Any honest person will tell you that you don't know if God exists 100%. You have a faith that He exists and you have reasons to point out that He exists, but NO ONE has an absolute certainty that He exists. That doesn't mean that you don't have faith that He does exist.
MirageRC3 4 years ago
What RC Sproul is saying makes perfect sense to me.
To be all knowing is a attribute that belongs only to God. Anything we learn or know is by his grace.
mfc2525 4 years ago 3
omgosh this is so stupid! it feels like you're trying to twist everything around, making truth appear as false and light as darkness.
Hayzues2 4 years ago 3
you're taking this out of context and you know it. he is giving you the foundation for FAITH.
jesusfreak0704 4 years ago 3
you guys should stop praying for Sprouls salvation and start praying for your own, you can't accept that we have no part in salvation apart from Christ!!! hes simply saying how depraved we are, we dont know and we dont believe, if we did fully believe, we would not sin, because we would understand that Christ is infinately better than sin could ever be
joshbox7 4 years ago
That is SO out of context!!! I've heard a TON of R.C Sprol's messages. The person who posted this viedo is twisting what R.C Sprol said to whatever he wants!!!
What are you trying to get, by twisting what he said?!
mangafreek4me 4 years ago
He does that with everyone, I don't think he's saved. Keep praying for his salvation.
Daninkorea 4 years ago 3
Hu? pray for R.c Sproll's salvation, or the person who posted this viedo's salvation?
mangafreek4me 4 years ago
I like Sproul. But to say we can't have certainty about anything shows that he is certain that we can't have certanty. This is self-refuting. I'm very dissapointed in my mentor.
PIPERGILL 4 years ago
Mr. Bain is not being fair in his clippings, not showing them in their proper context. Mr. Bain has not dealt fairly with people who object to his Hyper Calvinism. He infiltrated my email ministry some time ago and totally disrupted it. He needs to mature some and then maybe people will take him seriously.
TheExpositor 4 years ago
This Guy just misquotes and distorts what people say. He is the master of hearing what he wants. He is a deceiver and a liar. I tried to talk to him and he cannot even follow an argument. He twists and contorts the Word of God. Through eisegesis he shows his points. Hes a 1 verse cherry picker...
doolos 4 years ago
I dont really like this guy, however he does have a good point. Sin has corrupted everything, including our cognative abilities, Our salvation does not come from our cognate, it comes from G-d. Kierkegaard explains this quite well. We should all concentrate on Jesus comands though, Love G-d, Love people!!!!
jimdawg185 4 years ago
Well it seems to me I'm in a room all by my lonesome in a room of non-calvinist or arminian believers. Okay first the calvinistic doctrines vs arminian doctrines have been fought for many years by men greater than ourselfs. In that we are going to need some time we you are truely wanting me to try and persuade you. If so Message me
mellamogoose 4 years ago
RC Sproul doesn't know what he's talking about and the perpetually constipated look on his face I think indicates that.
Dominick7 4 years ago
IF man can only do what they desire, and Paul speaking from the perspective of a non believer has a good desire, and that according to Calvinism can only occur in believers, doesn't that mean unregenerate man can do good and respond to God, thus Total Inabillity is false? Which is it? ALL scriptures you will bring up work out this way because you cant really escape truth.
Dominick7 4 years ago
If you would note ALL OTHER Christian Fathers were NOT Calvinists. Those men were a minority. Calvinism can;t be gotten from scripture, the Greek fathers would have held to it. Jesus and the apostles and prophets certainly didn't.
Dominick7 4 years ago
Eph 1 says that Christians as a whole were eternally elected/favored in Christ/in relationship with Christ and that when an individual HEARS the word of truth its THEN (in time) that they are INCLUDED IN Christ (Eph 1:15). When they become part of Christ, they identify w the kind or type of people God has elected/favored. They then receive Christ, His perfection, election, sonship, and all riches in Christ.
Dominick7 4 years ago
Lol! R.C.'s intellect is so far beyond most of us videos like this pop up. Philosophically he can be regarded as the highest since Jonathon Edwards. Lets take a look at the most influential biblical philosophers that had the greatest impact on Christian theology:
1. Augustine
2. Martin Luther
3. John Calvin
4. Jonathon Edwards
5. R.C. Sproul
fatkovaos 4 years ago
TRUE argumentation, substantial and true philosophy, and correct argumentation that is implied in 2 Cor 10:5-6, Col 2:4+8 that were to use instead of false arg, hollow and deceptive philosophy and or fine sounding arguments (sophistry)=Calvinism. While you can continue to choose to use human intellect to argue for irrational Calvinism, I choose to use reason God gave all men to be able to figure out what is nonsense vs commonsense.
Dominick7 4 years ago
Uh Augustine in his earlier days wrote a book called in defense of FREE WILL. Yuo ought to read it. He didn't hold to determinism until he got frustrated with the Donatists. Many would argue that he changed his view because he viewed that children could be forced to be baptised when young, then why not when theyre older. Its a coersive philosophy that stems from frustration to be control and in power.
Dominick7 4 years ago
Though Scripture could say CALVINISM IS INCORRECT in bold, I doubt ANY Calvinist would change their views. Despite that, Ill just take one other scripture to show how Calvinism makes no sense what so ever. Romans 7:15-25. IF what you say is true in that we only do what we want/desire to do, why does Paul say that HE DOES what he doesn't want to do? Further, if Paul is speaking as a believer why does he say he has a desire to do good, but CANT CARRY IT OUT?
Dominick7 4 years ago
Does that mean all Christians are totally unable to respond to God and or do good? If so whats the point in being a Christian if its no different from being a non believer? If Paul is speaking from a non believers perspective WHY and WHERE is he able to have a GOOD DESIRE??
Dominick7 4 years ago
James White, a Calvinist, has great blurbs responding to hyper-Calvinism at
aomin . org / index . php ? itemid = 242 &catid = 4
and also at
aomin . org / HyperCalv . html
and
monergism . com / directory / link_category / HyperCalvinism (delete spaces in urls)
I hope all who visit Andrew's site will peruse aomin . org or monergism . com for solid theology even if they don't watch watch Andrew's contextless exposés.
beefamato 4 years ago
James White is pretty good on matters of cults and most world religions but in regards to Calvinism vs non Calvinism he doesn't know what he's talking about and contradicts himself all over the place. Hed be better off to test his own views in light of reason which he ignores in light of Calvinism rather than sanctify and popify Calvin and his views apart from criticism or question.
Dominick7 4 years ago
Hey all.
If you will check out his Xanga you'll see that this guy's simply a hyper-Calvinist. Hyper-Calvinists believe that true faith is necessarily manifested in perfect theology; specifically about the extent of the atonement. In other words, a person cannot be saved who believes in anything other than 5 point Calvinism. Even further, Calvinists who believe that a non-5 pointer can be saved are damned. Very sad and interesting.
beefamato 4 years ago
Do you believe man can cause his own acts and can do otherwise, OR do you believe in circumstantial "freedom"=determinism where man can only act in accord with its nature and must receive a new nature in order to believe?
Dominick7 4 years ago
I have 4 questions for you if you'd be willing to answer them I think MAY start to understand why I say Calvinism is false..I don't expect you to be open to that as you still have not answered my question either due to the fact that you're not willing to discard Calvinism even if its false or you just don't listen or try to understand, which makes considering what I'm saying impossible..though I know you can do otherwise. So what do you say..you going to actually answer my questions?
Dominick7 4 years ago
There are varying interpretations regarding Eph 1:11 and you gave no interpretation for it..you just typed it. Predestination has to do what WHAT a people are determined or chosen to, ie the chosen characteristics of what the elect are like. Election deals with WHO is elect or chosen. Election signifies favor before God.
Dominick7 4 years ago
Again youre not answering my question. I never have nor would say anyone is redeemed because of any merit on their part. Youre making false conclusions based on nothing but assumptions, showing you dont even understand my position, as I have not given it to you, so I don't know how you think you can comment on it.
Dominick7 4 years ago
To go w coherence/consistency as a test for truth is as self tricking mechanism to allow one to feel justified with any proposition, for any possible proposition can be LOGICALLY argued for as abstractly true, by definition, even if its premises are not RATIONALLY true, ie absurd/not ACTUALLY true.
Dominick7 4 years ago
Youre being evasive..Does God change the heart of an individual (ie make him free) in accord with his will or against it? If in accord with his willingness then man is free and calvinism is false. If against a mans will then its a contradictory forced freedom, and that comes from a sick irrational being, who cannot be God.
Dominick7 4 years ago
Coherence is not a test for truth, but a test for falsity. If something is consistent, it can be consistently wrong and consistency doesnt answer whether that self consistent statement corresponds to actual reality. You can have a consistent statement that is merely true abstractly/by definition, but has nothing to do w actuality. Why do you assume that unless God directly acts and determines everything He isn't in control?
Dominick7 4 years ago
I'm saying youre wrong to use coherency as a test for truth, its not one. Logic and reason are different. Logic deals merely with consistency, validity, and whether conclusions follow from premises. Reason on the other hand (which youre not using) deals w material truth abut actual reality. Its just a test for falsity.
Dominick7 4 years ago
I have no problem with you or anyone disagreeing vehemently with my views or anyone elses, but you as a Calvinist go beyond being rude, obnoxious, and just wrong with how you direct insults, ungrounded and unBiblical judgment to people instead of just dealing with the arguments and views themselves. You didn't even understand what I ACTUALLY SAID before you reacted to it, to then call me an ignoramus. Ironic.
Dominick7 4 years ago
Firstly, I must apologize for coming off so rude before. I just reread my comments, and found them ungracious myself. A lapse in judgement, for which I can only ask forgiveness. Now... no, I don't base reformed theology's truth on my own conviction of it. I base my conviction of it on its truth (soteriology included).
theChromeLamma 4 years ago
Its ok man. Thanks for apologizing. Glad you don;t base conclusions on subjectivity. I don't deny election at all, I just deny the Calvinistic view of election. You probably know there are other possible ways to view election other than a Calvinistic one. Church fathers all held varying positions as do church leaders. I believe God elects, as do ALL christians, the debate is on what basis God elects..
Dominick7 4 years ago
Thank you for calling it Semi-Pelagian and not Pelagian because I am in no way Pelagian. Glad you acknowledge its existence. I hold to Class Election/Corporate Elect because the other possible options are contradictory with itself and with scripture, and because its based in what is self evident and undeniable, it's identical w essential Christian doctrine, and fits the criteria of Hermeneutical principles regarding inductive and deductive logic.
Dominick7 4 years ago
Secondly, I'm glad that you and I agree on various 'primary' issues of Christianity, but I disagree with relegating the doctrine of election to "secondary" status. By denying election, you're affirming that man has some faculty within himself to incline himself to Christ. Yet you chastise me for being un-Biblical.
theChromeLamma 4 years ago
DThe question is does God elect individuals on the basis of his own predelect/desire, on the basis of his foreknowledge of what certain individuals do, which I find BOTH make God dependent on man, or does God choose individuals in accord with indinviduals wills, or does He elect Christ and those found in Him, identified in a relationship with Him receieve His election (signifying favor).
Dominick7 4 years ago
There are essentials in regards to election 1) Sovereignty of God 2) The Justice of God 3) The genuine responsibillity of man. ALL Christians agree on those essentials, but the way to understand each has been debated throughout the history of the church. I disagree w your understanding of them. While election is secondary that in no way means its unimportant.
Dominick7 4 years ago
Simple question (not one of the 4 I have for you) but when God regenerates a man, and makes him free to respond to God, does the unregenerate want to be made free? You seem to think he does not want or will to be free...if the person doesnt want to be free, and God is making him free against his will, HOW is that NOT COERSION?? How can you escape the fact that that would be God forcing a man to be free AGAINST his will? Forced freedom is a contradiction.
Dominick7 4 years ago
Those who subscribe to libertarian free will often have a hard time understanding that God can regenerate someone, and at the same time maintain that particular person's freedom throughout.
theChromeLamma 4 years ago
Once, in my falleness, I was an advocate of abortion. But in light of the new wisdom my mind was confronted w/ in Christianity, I then freely rejected abortion. By your reasoning, God made me will against myself, insofar as I willed the advocacy of abortion beforehand, then after God's intervention, I willed the rejection of abortion. But I'm saying that it's IMPOSSIBLE to "will against" oneself. The phraseology is a contradiction in terms.
theChromeLamma 4 years ago
You have never in your life done ONE THING that you did not ENTIRELY WANT to do (it's important that you not confuse the word 'want' w/ the word 'enjoy'). You are absolutely free in terms of your will. And you [all men] freely reject Christ, as a result of that freedom.
theChromeLamma 4 years ago
And not until God starts a work within you, can you submit to the truth of Christianity. You think that faith is separate from the gift. I'm saying that your faith IN the gift, is also a part of the gift.
theChromeLamma 4 years ago
Y'know, it's frustrating trying to squeeze in sentences on youtube. Click on my profile and I'll have a link for you to check out my response.
theChromeLamma 4 years ago
Nevermind, it won't let me put a url in my profile..
theChromeLamma 4 years ago
Maybe we can talk about this somewhere else? Youtube SUCKS for having discussions. I want to hear your thoughts not someone elses but if you need to give a url all you need to do is replace the . with dot, and type out worldwide web.
Dominick7 4 years ago
I don't want to do the dishes, but I WILL DECIDE to do them based on certain rational reasons..it has nothing to do with my wishes or desires but what needs to be done despite my desires, feelings, or wants. You confuse want with being a cause when its not. You cause your own actions, your desires don't cause anything. They can be influences but theyre no more causes than chance is.
Dominick7 4 years ago
I'm sorry but that's just absolutely false and self negating. If you take the time to actually listen and try to understand what I'm saying you may see why I say this. I have done lots of stuff I don't want to do. How could character be developed without that. Actually I'm going to do two things I don't want to do the moment I'm done w this reply..the dishes and take the garbage out. Are acts rationally based or desire based? Do men do what they WANT to do OR what they DECIDE to do?
Dominick7 4 years ago
Ok so YOU first accepted then later rejected abortion based on you reasoning w the natural ability God gave you as you observed the light of evidence..Ok. How do you figure God MADE you do anything there or that I argue the way you just stated I did?? How is willing for then against a PROPOSITION=to willing for then against ones SELF??
Dominick7 4 years ago
I agree and disagree with that statement. I agree that we always(regenerate and unregenerate) act upon our strongest inclination. I disagree that an unregenerate "freely" reject Christ. The Bible clearly teaches that the lost have no other option but to reject Christ because they are bound to sin. The beautiful thing about being regenerated is that we now have the "freedom" to choose Christ, and sadly sometimes we often choose the other.
fatkovaos 4 years ago
Look the fact that you can say I am using my OWN COMMONSENSE is itself a contradiction and its scary you can say that without blushing. The problem isnt scripture its your willingness to read philosophical determinism into scripture. Where in Scripture do you have the idea that men do what they desire to do vs what they decide to do? The Bible in NO WAY teaches Total Inabillity.
Dominick7 4 years ago
Uhh you still are not dealing w my argument. When God regenergates a person PRIOR to being saved, and makes them free, what is the state of the persons will..is it willing to accept being free or is it unwilling and against being free to respond to God? If the person is unwilling and does not want to be free, and God makes him free against his will..how is that NOT forced freedom??
Dominick7 4 years ago
Uhh so you do or do not believe that ALL men can cause their own actions and can do otherwise or do you believe they cannot respond to Gods light and goodness? If you say they can choose good how can you consistently affirm they can't respond to the source of good when all good has its source in God?
Dominick7 4 years ago
I'm sorry but that's just absolutely false and self negating. If you take the time to actually listen and try to understand what I'm saying you may see why I say this. I have done lots of stuff I don't want to do. How could character be developed without that. Actually I'm going to do two things I don't want to do the moment I'm done w this reply..the dishes and take the garbage out. Are acts rationally based or desire based? Do men do what they WANT to do OR what they DECIDE to do?
Dominick7 4 years ago
Thirdly, and lastly (& most pertinently), you posited that if Sproul really believes we can know nothing w/ certainty, then he's sorely mistaken. I mean only to enlighten with you that Sproul does not mean this. He believes God's existence of irrefutably provable, via reason & rationality. And I believe he's right. Forgive me for being uncharitable before. But also allow me to prove to you why election is true (Biblical).
theChromeLamma 4 years ago
(seriously) Lastly, forgive poor grammar/syntax in last post. "Enlighten you" not "enlighten WITH you".. and also "God's existence IS irrefutably provable" not "God's existence OF irrefutably..." note: *must proofread comments before posting*
But in all sincerity- why is it that you embrace semi-Pelagianism? B/c this seems the most fair & logical to you? [serious question]
theChromeLamma 4 years ago
What secondary issues reflect how one interprets scripture, and effects the practical issues of how one lives their Christian life and will effect their rewards at the end. Its just not something that defines what a christian is nor is it something ones eternal destiny hinges on. Just because someone is a calvinist or determinist in no way=he/she is a christian, anymore than just bcause someone believes in another view of election does it mean that person is a christian just because of that.
Dominick7 4 years ago