CALVINISM- 'Why I Am Not A 5 Point Calvinist' - By Dr. Norman Geisler (5 OF 9)

[Mcfirefly2]

@philipatoz This is exactly right. He wants each individual to be saved, He reaches out to each one—If I be lifted up, I will draw all men to me—but the one thing He won't do is force the will of anyone, in spite of His love. Only with freedom to choose or reject can there even be love or true loyalty of heart.

[Mcfirefly2]

@Calvinism101 We fall in love with Jesus.

[hitthesurf23]

This is right on! And all so 1 John 2:2

[Calvinism101]

Sadly, this Dr. knows little or nothing about the extent of the Atonement. Arminians fall in love with words such as "all" and "world" without looking at the context. In 2 Peter 3:9, Peter is writing to the church and must be understood in that context. He is not writing to worldlings. Besides if God wanted all to be saved then He will do just that. God's decretive will can't be resisted which frustrates the Arminian and his idol of free-will

[Strefanasha]

Limited Atonement is the blasphemy that makes my blood boil.

For God so loved the Elect that he gave his only son?

that they refuse to accept that John 3:16 speaks most clearly to the contrary shows that they are blinded by a doctrinal commitment

[metanoeo1]

The word used for "desires" in 1 Tim 2:4 is never ever, ever used to express the divine decree of God, but his desire. He would like all men to be saved. If he is saying that God desires all men to be saved, then all men will be saved. That is the doctrine of universalism and is clearly not Biblical. He seems to enjoy taking bits of verses or bit of passages and forgetting context altogether.

[TennesseeOwnsMyBones]

@metanoeo1 No, it does not say 'desires'. It says God WILLS. And furthermore, you're getting tangled up in this calvinist web of contradictions in the very same post: your all-sovereign god WOULD LIKE TO all men be saved, but somehow he cannot do this... Why? Because the calvinist god is not sovereign. Only his decree is sovereign.

[sketchbook1]

Here's a question: How come Calvinists don't often shout, "to God alone be the glory, and all thanks and praise belong to Him... for eternally condemning the vast majority of all of mankind regardless of their actions."

[sketchbook1]

@sketchbook1 I mean, they only call it "credit" or "glory" when God saves someone... they don't say it very often when referring to the credit God deserves (in their system) for the condemnation of the reprobate.

[shteve77]

@sketchbook1 That's 100% correct. All praise to the God of Calvinism for imposing Irresistible Grace on men, but they seem to forget to 'praise' God for imposing Irresistible reprobation upon Adam and the whole Human race! They can't have it both ways. If God uses His sovereignty to control everysingle thing that happens including all things that men do, then God is responsible for all good that happens and also all evil that happens!

[shteve77]

@sketchbook1 Yes, the Calvinist praises God for saving them, but it's like a person pushing a whole family of people off a cliff into the ocean, saving one or two of them, leaving most of them to drown, and the ones he saved are supposed to be thankful and bow down in praise to the one who saved them, when the only reason they needed to be saved in the first place is because their "saviour" caused them to fall in the first place.

[philipatoz]

So, Calvinists are CORRECT that God must reach to man FIRST before they can be saved or have the power to have faith and that man can do nothing within his own power, but are mistaken that: 1) God doesn't desire ALL men obey His command of repentance (Does God command ANYTHING He doesn't desire obedience to?); 2) or that God gives man no choice in the process leading to salvation. Man must simply be WILLING - and IF so - THEN God must AND WILL do the rest by HIS enabling one to a saving faith.

[philipatoz]

(Cont) A good analogy is that God has His hand stretched out in front of EVERYONE - be it through knowledge of the Gospel or merely through the so-called "General Revelation" of nature and the knowledge of Him made clear to ALL. Yet God will ONLY grasp the hand of those who RESPOND by reaching out to meet His ALREADY stretched out hand. But He will not reach further, to grasp the hand of one He clearly sees will deliberately resist by stubbornly and FOREVER locking their arms behind their backs!

[philipatoz]

(Cont) So, ALL are born with free will to either be WILLING or UNWILLING to respond to GOD'S initiating. But He Doesn't 'draw ALL to Him? Why? God FOREKNOWS some, no matter his initiatives, will forever be UNWILLING to positively respond - and He won't FORCE or DRAG anyone to Him. But merely being WILLING (receptive) to God doesn't save anyone. But God will draw and save ALL so WILLING, WITH HIS HELP, and will apply HIS power to enable believe and faith, but ONLY to ALL so WILLING. (Cont)

[philipatoz]

God desires ALL to be saved (1 Tim 2:4), but most won't be due to THEIR resistance. Note Man CAN resist the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51). Jesus said, "..you are UNWILLING to come to Me so that you may have life." (John 5:40). Yet no man can come to God lest HE draw them FIRST (John 6:44). No one can earn, one can only RECEIVE God's freely given salvation, only THROUGH FAITH. So what's the deal? ALL are born with free will to either be WILLING or UNWILLING to be receptive to GOD'S initiatives (cont).

[Joyce4Christ]

Do you believe the 5 points of Calvin-ism? If you say YES or NO, then you have chosen to believe or not to believe! If you didn't believe on your own then that belief isn't yours!

[MJOLNIRVII]

Calvinists don't believe Christ died for "some". They believe Christ died for MANY: A huge host of people; billions of people.

"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." (Mark 10:45)

[rbmath]

see the book. "The Potter's Freedom: A Defense of the Reformation and the Rebuttal of Norman Geisler's Choosen But Free by James R. White" ... Mr Geisler eisegesis is truly amazing...

[rbmath]

Mr Geisler is simply wrong because the bible teaches people are dead in sins, slaves to sin, hostile to God, cannot understand the things of God, have a deceitful heart and must be born again. He wrongly ASSUMES that such people are able to to receive the gift of God and use's false reasoning allegory to prove his errors.

[blainer19er]

God DOES want everyone to be saved. He doesn't, however, save everyone. Romans 9 explains this by saying that this is to "show his wrath and to make known his power".

[blainer19er]

Limited atonement says that Christ's sacrifice was SUFFICIENT FOR ALL, but APPLIED TO SOME. If Jesus paid for the sins of all, then he was suffering for the sins of the Sodomites even though they were dead and condemned. If he has paid for the sins of the unsaved, why does God condemn them? Their sins have been paid! Does God "double deal" wrath? Salvation IS OFFERED TO ALL, but only received by those who the Father draws. Christ did die for all, but his atonement is only applied to the saved.

[blainer19er]

As a "five-point calvinist", I affirm that God DOES love everyone. But He loves some differently, in a saving way. Note that Jesus didn't pray for everyone just before he died, but only for believers. Limited Atonement is a doctrine that needs to be addressed after Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace. Note also that Christ lays down his life for the sheep, not the goats.

[RomansGalatians]

Calvinist: Did Christ's death atone for all sinners?

Arminian: yes.

Calvinist: Is unbelief sin?

Arminian: yes

Calvinist: So is everyone going to Heaven?

Armenian: No, only those who don't believe.

Calvinist: Huh?

[JoaquinJB]

@RomansGalatians

Bible Believer: Did sin enter the world to all through one man?

Calvinist: Yes

BB: Does Jesus bring justification of life to all men?

Calvinist: No. Only to the elect!

BB: Romans 5:12-21 says Jesus can justify and reverse all that Adam did, to those who receive the frre gift.

Calvinist: You can't understand scripture, let me grab my commentary to help you.

BB: Your jesus is weaker than Adam? Adam's sin is more powerful than Jesus' obedience?

[RomansGalatians]

@JoaquinJB Well, the Arminian does not believe that all men universally are JUSTIFIED. They too believe that only the seed of Abraham are ACTUALLY justified. So do I.

And I have always said that "all" is defined according to the context. It can mean universal, but usually in language, it does not (just like I dont "always" say that last sentence. Sometimes I say other things, Sometimes I sleep or dont talk at all).

[JoaquinJB]

@RomansGalatians Sounds like you just copied D.James Kennedy in your answer hope I'm wrong.

[RomansGalatians]

@JoaquinJB And my point is that "all" in Romans is modified by "men." And I suppose that the real debate is over the meaning of "men"

If I asked Joe Munzio of the Bronx about that he'd say "Yo, Vinnie, there aint gonna be no dames in heaven, only men."

That's the first definition in Websters and the most common in American English. Joaquin's rule of translation requires "common man's" rendering: All males go to heaven, women go to Hell. "Men" cannot mean any other definition.

[JoaquinJB]

@RomansGalatians Men =mankind=bibles definition, its very simple, the NT was in common man's greek, no one thought the way John Calvin did.

[RomansGalatians]

@JB

Man=Mankind? yes,that's Websters third definition.

Webster's also has for definition #2 "a man belonging to a particular category."

That's the definition that Strong's & Zodiates says that "man" in the book of Romans means: a man of a particular kind or group.

It's pretty common when speaking of races or nationalities to use definition #2. Remember MLK's Dream speach "when all men, black or white, can sit at the table . . ." "Men" there all men meant all groups of men.

[RomansGalatians]

@JoaquinJB Are you telling me that "men" means "some women, too"?

Oh my gosh, you've got to be joking. MEN MEANS MEN. You mean I gotta get out a dictionary? Oh, I suppose that next you're going to say that it also means "some children, too"? Oh give me a break! Just read the text according to its PLAIN COMMON MEANING, and quit trying to twist it with your dictionary.

Youre just hiding behind Webster's and your "linguists" with Master's Degrees. CAN'T THE COMMON MAN JUST READ THE WORD?

[RomansGalatians]

@JoaquinJB And it is your arminian jesus who is too weak to save. he throws his flaccid rope to the boys. "grab on, because i can't swim, let alone walk on water"

[JoaquinJB]

@RomansGalatians Can't defend arminius don't know anything about him really. But call me what you like. The scripture calls me a Christian and a saint by faith in Christ. Your anlogy is sad. And it has not refuted Romans 5, Calvin's Jesus is too weak to reverse Adam sin, sin triumps in Calvinism, sin is more powerful than Jesus' righteousness. Total depravity is more powerful than the gospel light reaching the lost heart. Calvin's God cannot fulfill Romans 10:13,17. Sinner calls then he is saved

[RomansGalatians]

@JB Of course, it didn't mean EVERY SINGLE PERSON. MLK didn't want Son of Sam, the KKK grandmaster, and Hitler sitting at the table with his family. It's just a way of speaking of the races of men: black, white, purple (if you know what I mean).

We can see in Romans that Paul is speaking of "nationalities of men." The preceding context bears this out:

It starts out talking about nations: Rom 1v5 "among all nations" (also, v3 seed of David alludes to Isreal).

[JoaquinJB]

@RomansGalatians Sorry, then Adam's sin didn't effect every single person, therefore ALL have not sinned and fall short. But if all means all then Jesus made salvation AVAILABLE to ALL, because all have sinned. God's grace is extended to those who are fallen, how many are fallen? Then God's grace is extended to them. Wow what a loving Savior!

[RomansGalatians]

@JB

"sons of Adam" is a term that DOES mean every person universally, because he is the father of everyone.

But "seed of Abraham" is not a universal term. Abraham, who was justified by FAITH and who was THE FATHER OF MANY NATIONS: It means "all who believe" in Jesus, from every nation. iF IT MEANS EVERYONE UNIVERSALY, THEN EVERYONE IS SAVED AND GOES TO HEAVEN!

Those who do not believe are NOT the "seed of Abraham."

[JoaquinJB]

@RomansGalatians Yo, how many people are going to get resurrected? Hitler gets resurrected also because Christ reverses the death in Adam, but he gets resurrected to the second death while those who believe the gospel get resurrected to eternal life. The resurrection is universal, salvation is conditional based on faith in Christ. Your christ cannot save someone before he regenerates them, your god dosen't save sinners he saves saved people!

[RomansGalatians]

@JB Can you see how a fair minded person might think that Webster's def #2 for "men" (men of a kind or group) would be the meaning?

Especially when I read in Strong's and Zodiates (Greek scholars who understood the original language), might I have some grounds? Any at all?

I also consider the Jewish cultural background who thought that only thier RACE was the "chosen people." Is it possible that Paul was showing that it was not just one race but all races. "all races of men"? Possible?

[RomansGalatians]

@JB The it's off to the RACES: v 14 I am a debtor both to Greeks and to barbarians v16 Jew first, also for the Greek Ch 2v9 Jew first, also the Greek, v10 jew first also greek v14 Gentiles v 17 Jews v25 circumcision and uncircumsion v26 uncircumcised v28 Jew v29 Jew

And it just goes on through chapter 3, repeatedly contrasting the Jew with the Gentiles.

Ch 4 shows that the Davidic covenant was not just Jewish. And Most importantly v9-25 show the ABRAHAMIC COVENANT WAS FOR ALL NATIONS.

[RomansGalatians]

@JB Particularly, Ch4v16-18 shows that the promise is to "all the seed" v18 Abraham "BECAME THE FATHER OF MANY NATIONS"

It goes on and on and even more specificly. It would be OVERLY REDUNDANT to say that the topic of Romans is "NATIONALITIES OF MEN"

Can you see how someone might think that Webster's definition #2 for "man" just might be the appropriate meaning for the context of Romans? I'm not asking you to concede the point, but can you see how someone might think this?

[philipatoz]

IF God must regenerate a man before such a man can respond to the Gospel, why all the warnings, admonitions to repent, the pleading? Why were Paul and Peter in the synagogues trying to "convince" and "reason" with the Jews? Why were they debating - going FAR beyond simply sharing the Gospel, IF God must regenerate a man first? Why warn men of the penalty for non-repentance IF only God can regenerate them to be able to? None of this makes sense UNLESS man CAN respond to the Gospel, if so desired?

[philipatoz]

IF GOD must regenerate a man before that man can repent and have faith, then why is the Great Commission or the preaching of the Gospel for? IF God's message striking a man's ears CANNOT be understood without FIRST being regenerated, as prior to regeneration it can only be as mere foolishness to Him, then why preach the Gospel to ANY man BEFORE his regeneration? Isn't it clear a message of instruction is for a response that must be possible NOW, else why would the MESSAGE come FIRST?

[elderaps]

@philipatoz God has not only predestined to save some sinners, but he is also predestined the means by which they will be saved, namely, the preaching of the gospel.

[RomansGalatians]

If you were preaching in a church in a predominantly Hindu culture, how would you prove that "all" didn't mean "all God's creatures"?

Would you interpret the word according to the Hindu culture, or try to explain what it meant in the Jewish culture?

Understand that it is YOUR Armenian presuppositions that are imposing UNIVERSALISM into the text.

[RomansGalatians]

Universalism is not the culturally understood context for Jewish scripture. To the contrary, Jews believed that they were the ONLY RACE to be saved.

But Peter's vision showed that not just Jews, but salvation was offered to all races of the world. "All" in the context of scripture often means "all KINDS" of people. Not universalism.

The greek word translated "all" is rarely used in a universal sense. Often it means "all kinds". Sometimes it is translated "some" in the KJV and NIV.

[RomansGalatians]

"All" means all and that's all that "all" means. So, all animals, too? Insects? All what? See, even here in your emphatic statement, you expect for us to understand that "all" is LIMITED to people, only.

But why? Because you know that we are not conditioned as Hindus. Rather, we are conditioned as universalists. Yet, universalism is not what the Bible teaches elsewhere.

We use the word "all" in a limited sense all the time. Well, not "all" the time, sometimes we use other words :)

[zeph317]

Thanks to the many here who are fighting the good fight by standing up for Good News - that ALL can be saved, for the blood of Christ covers ALL sin! Thanks be to God that we can KNOW that we are saved rather than hope that we were elected. Thanks be to God that we have Grace to choose NOT to sin, for I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live but Christ lives in me!

[MrHawklan]

If God only wants to save the elect and he already KNEW who the elect WOULD BE. He should just come NOW and take the elect off this world and into heaven. And destroy this earth and everyone else since it would be like 'sodom and gormorrah'. Why wait till the beast or the anti-christ to come? Since he wanna pick and choose who to save.

[ElasticGiraffe]

Systematic theology should be developed subsequent to and in light of good biblical theology and exegesis, but Calvinists do it backwards. They interpret the Bible through the lens of their warped theological system and then act like their interpretations are obvious. Furthermore, they pretty much abandon historical theology altogether. The interpretations of the earliest Christians mean nothing to them; the only church father they care about is Augustine, who couldn't even read the NT in Greek.

[pdean12345]

After reading most of these posts there is one thing clear, humans are sick.

[apollos6640]

Calvins "god" acts NOT by LOVE, but by "the good pleasure of His will", he will damn most of the Human Race, rob man of his humanity and put him on a level of a machine or a puppet, for "the good pleasure of His will". He gives man a law that it cannot obey and threatens him with eternal damnation for NOT believing. He doesn't respond to anyone but simply acts because HE is pleased to save some and damn others.

[philipatoz]

Yes! I wonder WHO most Calvinists think God wrote the Bible for? For every verse Calvinists say shows that Jesus died only for the Elect or they insist show God pre-ordained most to lives of misery and eternal damnation later, there are many more supporting that God desires ALL to come to belief and repentance. Any common, theologically unsophisticated man reading the Bible would think God desires ALL repent and be saved. And the Bible was written for and primarily aimed at the COMMON man!

[hbomb121x]

whats the difference between "whosoever believeth in him" and "every believer in him"?

[denn034]

"Dr." Geisler's Chosen But Free book is a waste of paper!!!!!

[J90820]

LOL. the funniest part of this is where he says that 5 pointers are stronger Calvinists then John Calvin. It's very true. Calvin himself believed in Unlimited Atonement (yes, I've read Institutes), and had a completely different understanding of irresistible grace then modern '5 pointers' do. He gave man a much stronger role to play then 5 pointers do. He believed that salvation was recieved upon repentance and faith, not before. So, I'd say Calvin was a three point Calvinist, as am I.

[cherubimX]

Great video.

[thor2me]

Here's a joke:

What do you get when you put a philosopher Doctor through a seminary?

Answer: Norm Geisler

[philipatoz]

Very Christ-like, thor2me! By trying to be cute and play to YOUR audience, you also degenerate MANY, MANY prayerful, Godly men teaching in seminaries - conservative, inerrancy believing evangelicals, who echo the beliefs of millions of conservative Believers around the world, that God died for ALL and offers His salvation to ALL. NO, all won't ultimately be saved - due to their stubborn rejection of His freely given offer. You act as if ALL seminaries are simply full of liberals.

[thor2me]

..... "that God died for ALL"...

Sorry, Norm is liberal in his soteriology. "Conservative" isn't defined just by inerrancy but by the orthodox doctrines that have always been taught by the church.

Not all seminaries are liberal, but most are liberal.

[philipatoz]

WHICH "orthodox" church are you talking about? Five Point Calvinism is only taught by a relatively small percentage of Christians believing in inerrancy and justification by (totally unearned) faith in Christ. Up until the post-Donatist controversy, virtually ALL of the church fathers believed in contrary free choice, as did early Augustine. Even CALVIN affirmed the EXTENT of the Atonement is UNLIMITED, but its application is limited to only Believers.

[thor2me]

Ugh... Have you read ALL of Calvin's Institutes, or just clippings from Norm's or Davey Hunt's propaganda?

"Contrary free will"? You don't understand the Calvinist position. I recommend you reading Luther's "De Servo Arbitrio" or especially Edwards' "Freedom of the Will". See! Look! A die hard Calvinist saying "FREEDOM of the WILL" ! ...

The problem has never been solved by the freedom of the will, the problem is CAUSED by the FREE Will.

[philipatoz]

My problem is NOT that I don't understand the FIVE point Calvinist position, but that I strongly disagree with it. I've been studying this issue for MANY years and I find it a dark twisting of both Scripture and God's character. How is it that Five Pointers always seem to think they are smarter, more understanding of Scripture than millions of other conservative Christians? Why do you think such Christians find Calvinism repulsive - and spiritually dangerous - a "strange doctrine" to be refuted?

[thor2me]

I don't question your studying but the intention of it.

There's a difference in studying something with a "goal" to find that it is untrue rather than studying it to see if it is true or not.

Why is it so common to believe in autonomous free will? Is commonality the standard? Why do ALL the cults believe in autonomy as you and find Calvinism repulsive? Shouldn't that be alarming?

The very same man centered philosophy that is based in the cults is based in most Christian theologies.

[philipatoz]

Actually, my study of Calvinism grew out of being extremely disturbed by its teachings, as its key components contradicted much of what I knew about the characteristics of God. Nonetheless, I knew that I must trust God and his purposes, and that IF He had so deemed that the non-Elect were created so as to NEVER have a chance at salvation or IF we have NO role in ACCEPTANCE of any supposed choice, then I wanted to understand and trust such. I was TRULY and PRAYERFULLY open to knowing the truth.

[thor2me]

So what Calvinistic books did you read?

[philipatoz]

And after reading the writings of so many Calvinist theologians and adherents, seeing its impact, comparing its teachings against God's Word and character, its denial of the plain meaning of so MANY Scriptures, its incomprehensible leaps of logic, and its MASSIVE contradictions - my sincere verdict is that Calvinism is a dark and dangerous theology that can very well hurt the faith of Believers and can be a "stumbling block" to faith for others. THESE are why I care about this important issue!

[thor2me]

You didn't answer my question. I asked you which ones?

[hbomb121x]

@philipatoz

"Five Point Calvinism is only taught by a relatively small percentage of Christians believing in inerrancy and justification by (totally unearned) faith in Christ"

You cannot be a born again Christian unless you believe in inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture (How else can we know how to be saved) and justification by faith alone...

[philipatoz]

@hbomb121x - I don't think you understand what my point was. Nonetheless, one certainly CAN be saved without believing in inerrancy - Scripture DOES say that to be saved one must believe in Christ, repent, confess Him as Lord - but it never adds the requirement that you also must believe in inerrancy. While belief in inerrancy is important and desirable, it is NOT, however, a Biblical requirement for salvation.

[hbomb121x]

Right...but what about *earning* justification...how is that orthodoxy?

[philipatoz]

NO conservative, Bible-believing, evangelical, inerrancy believing Christian that I've ever met thinks they either have or EVER were able to "earn" their salvation. ALL believers are saved by the totally unmerited, unearned GRACE of God - THROUGH FAITH. YOU may say the many millions of Christians and countless thousands of missionaries believe they have "earned" their salvation, but I've not heard it from one of such Christians, as it is universally known to be un-Biblical.

[hbomb121x]

Right again...so how is this statement valid?

"Five Point Calvinism is only taught by a relatively small percentage of Christians believing in inerrancy and justification by (totally unearned) faith in Christ"

[philipatoz]

Because the VAST majority of conservative, spirit-filled, transformed Christians across the GLOBE, who believe in inerrancy, also believe that our salvation is TOTALLY UNEARNED and UNMERITED and believe that it is BY GRACE and THROUGH FAITH that we are saved - this same VAST ocean of believers also REJECTS the teachings of Five Point Calvinism, as these same believe that God offers His FREE, UNMERITED gift of salvation to ALL men, and that He desires NONE perish and wishes ALL to repent. Clear?

[philipatoz]

@hbomb121x - Do a little research on estimated numbers of evangelicals and churches holding to an inerrant view of the Bible. Compare that to estimated numbers of reformed believers - it's truly the comparing an ocean to a pond. And I do NOT make this statement just because many denominations merely call themselves Christian, as clearly, many are not.

[Sanctum85]

so many elemental mistakes.

[hbomb121x]

sorry...Geisler doesn't teach Chemistry! lol

[Sanctum85]

He should, he'd probably be better at it.

[GreekTrustsJesus]

Nice!

[heymikey802]

... was 2 cor 5 written to the whole world?

2 Peter 3:9 "longsuffering **toward us** ... all should come to repentance" -- all of whom? all of us.

"all means all and that's all that all means" is absurd. Mark 1 -- "all Jerusalem" came out to see John the Baptist ...? Really.

"all" is limited to the context.

[JoaquinJB]

Rom 3:23 for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Really ,does this teach that ALL sinned, how absurd...

everyone knows only the elect have sinned because all "always" means elect (whenever the calvinist wants it too).

[RomansGalatians]

@JoaquinJB "All men" means all nationalities of men, not necessarily universally. But not necessarily not, either. It's pretty clear from the context. The book starts out saying that grace is available "among all nations" Rom 1 v 5. Then, it contrasts about 50 times Jew and Gentile, circumcised and uncircumcised, Greeks, Barbarians, and Romans. You cannot miss the contrast between nationalities of men.

This in no way proves Arminianism or Calvinism, but you cannot miss this PREVALENT theme.

[RomansGalatians]

@JoaquinJB So, Romans goes on to prove that "Seed of Abraham" didn't mean the one nationality: JEWS. But rather, Abraham was the "father of many nations," and the Seed, Jesus, was not limited to the JEWISH nationality, only. God's grace is given to ALL nationalities.

I agree that "sons of Adam," just so happens to mean not only all nations, but also all men universally.

But does "Seed of Abraham" mean all men, universally?

[RomansGalatians]

@JoaquinJB I agree that "all" may or may not mean "universal" depending on the context. But to insist that "all" means "universal" ALL THE TIME, is quite preposterous. Any fair person would admit this.

Consider Rev 13 v 3 "all the world marveled and followed the beast"

Do all CHRISTIANS follow the beast?

The funny thing is, admitting this point neither disproves Arminianism nor Calvinism. It's just giving a fair shake.

[JoaquinJB]

@RomansGalatians

Friend you have proven my point with your explaination. "all the time"? Is that a use of all universally. Rev. example is not valid because the world is contrasted with those who follow (current tense) Jesus and keep God's commandments. The only time Calvinists fight for the word "all" to mean elect only is when the scripture speaks of the offer of salvation, every other place it can be used normally. Like the JW's use of the word worship, it's only wrong toward Jesus!

[JoaquinJB]

@JoaquinJB I was referencing Rev. 14:12 earlier. "All" scripture inspired by God? " ...the firstborn of "all" creation? For by Him "all" things were created, ..."all" things have been created through Him and for Him?

I could go on, I wish people would become Christians and not Calvinists. Some think if they defend the teaching of John Calvin they are defending the Bible. I have no knowledge of Arminius, I'm guilty of reading the Bible without commentary, it can be dangerous to do that!

[heymikey802]

I think his appeal to Calvin's interesting. Anyone got specific references?

Most of those I've looked up were cherry-picked, and in context actually contradict what this guy's saying.

[CBALLEN]

The natural man can only chose evil,he can chose nothing good.Only after God regenerates the heart can man come to Him and then man runs to Him.

[CBALLEN]

For the love of money is the root of ALL evil.Does the love of money cause one to rape a child?Or is it really,For the love of money the root of ALL kinds of evil?

[jaybramer]

This man clearly does NOT understand Calvinism. To make God some arbitrary farmer, such blasphemy. Those "boys" aren't innocent either The bible describes them as "desperately wicked" and haters of God. What a ridiculous representation of God and calvinism. Thank you God, that you welcome everybody who comes to you, even the worst sinner in the world. Yet, no one on their own will ever come because they hate you. Thus, you give grace for some to believe instead of damning us all. 2 God b glory.

[jaybramer]

God is never called love, love, love, but Holy Holy Holy and also sovereign. God is truly love. So, how is it loving to Jesus, to punish Him billions of times over for people who are going to hell anyway? Our God truly is a God of love, and I can tell you that just as He would never punish two people in hell for the guilt of one, He certainly would not punish His son for people who are going to hell anyway. EVERYONE is free to come/but God's not crushing His Son for nothing. That ain't love.

[tim3687]

Thanks for posting! Excellent sermon!

[Dominick7]

Therefore its not that a non believer CANT respond to the source of good, they can do good, its that they GENERALLY won't because they are generally more so unwilling. ROm 6 if talking about a believer then a believer cant do good because it says the good that I want to do I CANNOT do. If speaking about a non believer its saying a non believer can DESIRE GOOD because it says the GOOD THAT I WANT to do I do not do..so contrary to Calvinism a non believer can desire and do good+ can respond 2God

[CmRoddy]

*sigh*

Listening to Geisler TOTALLY misunderstand the doctrines of grace is like speaking to a Mormon who says "Well, you know that James said that faith without deeds is dead..."

Dr. Geisler, do some meaningful exegesis and not cut/paste Scripture that sounds like they fit your theology.

[IDH77]

Calvinism is Gnosticism!

[dave55toglorifygod]

Actually Gnosticism is the ancient heresy that developed most likely out of greece from their dualistic viewpoints. ie the physical is evil and the spiritual is good. And because of this they cannot attribute the creation of the physical to the true spiritual God, and therefore Jesus christ is the mightiest aeon, a god created from God, but not the pure form of the spiritual God. How you could even remotely believe calvinism resembled gnosticism is beyond me.

[IDH77]

I'm aware of the origins of Gnosticism.

It is the belief that some people are predestined to Hell and some to heaven that is straight out of Gnosticism! The Early Christians did not believe in this!

[curvalecce]

Matthew 25:46? Mark 3:29? Luke 10:25? John 6:27? Acts 13:48? Romans 2:7? Galatians 6:8? Ephesians 3:11? 2 Thess 1:9? Titus 1:2? 1 John 2:25?

Need I go on? Our Saviour Himself proclaimed the eternal nature of judgment. Let's remember John's letters were written AGAINST gnostics.

[IDH77]

Yes but Calvinism simply adopted some aspects of Gnosticism.

The early Christians believed in Free will! That is the ability to accept or reject Gods offer of salvation.

Calvinism is NOT the faith of the early Church but a man made distortion of the Gospel!

Don't forget 5 point Calvinism BEGINS with MAN and ENDS with MAN!

The true Gospel start with JESUS and his unlmited atonement. John 3:16 & 1 Tim 4:10

[curvalecce]

You seem to have a very selective concept of 'early Christians'. Wouldn't the testimony of Jesus Christ have... well, influenced the views of the very earliest Christians? He proclaimed eternal Judgement.

Have you read any of the gnostic 'gospels'? My point is that Calvinism proposes looking to the CLEAR and consistent teaching of OT/NT scripture, whereas gnosticism aims at mysterious texts and non-OT beliefs. That is why there is no relationship between Calvin's thought and gnosticism.

[IDH77]

I am not talking about the Gnostic gospels, obviously there is a lot of gnosticism that no Calvinist would agree with.

My point is that the concept of Total Depravity is taken from the Gnostics. The Ante Nicene Fathers spoke out against this idea as one opposing the teachings of the Apostles. They taught Free Will.

I am NOT saying anything about the Final judgement which I believe in.

[johnpolanco18]

@IDH77 Wow, this debate has been since the church fathers. Augustine VS Pelagius. You need to do some research buddy.

[IDH77]

@johnpolanco18 Actually I’ve done plenty of research. If you’re a non-Calvinist it doesn't automatically mean you're a Pelagian.

In fact I don’t even think that Pelagius was a Pelagian.

The doctrines of Calvinism are merely man-made traditions, named after a man and following man-made writings.

There are some good Christian men who are Calvinist's but the system is deeply flawed.

[AgApE010]

@IDH77

-

Really? What doctrines did Calvinism adopt from Gnosticism?

-

The early Church was very monergistic. Read the opening of Ignatius' epistle to the Ephesians, for crying out loud. He smacks your argument right in the face by laying out Unconditional Election in his opening words.

-

"Calvinism begins and ends with man"? Calvinism is the most God-centered theology there is. GOD is the one doing the saving, not man. It's YOUR view that says "I'm saved cause *I* chose it. It's all up to ME."

[IDH77]

@AgApE010 In actual fact the early church didn’t know ANYTHING about Calvinism! The doctrine of Total Depravity was introduces by Augustine who got it directly from his Gnostic background.

Try reading the book ‘Will The Real Heretics Please Stand Up’ by David W Bercot an expert in early Christian history.

“All up to me” sorry you don’t even understand what non-Calvinist’s actually believe!

Don’t believe the misrepresentations! Rev 7:10

[AgApE010]

@IDH77

-

So you ignore Ignatius. Typical.

-

This slander of Augustine by Arminians is really getting old. Gnostics did not have a Christian view of total depravity as Augustine did. Furthermore, Augustine completely broke away from them, even writings works against them. Yet your kind accuses him nonetheless, and you throw in the face of a Christian his past from which God has saved him. How strictly, therefore, you will be judged with the same measure that you use to judge another.

[IDH77]

@AgApE010 I didn’t ignore Ignatius. Non-Calvinist’s believe in predestination too it’s the DEFINITION of that doctrine that’s the problem and its one that Ignatius DIDN’T hold nor did ANY Ante-Nicene Father!

Calvinist’s are lyingly taught that theirs is not only the only interpretation possible but that non-Calvinist’s don’t even believe in predestination when they only don’t believe in ABSOLUTE predestination!

[IDH77]

@AgApE010 If the church believed in Total Depravity why did the Church move away from it for centuries?

The answer they never believed in it in the first place!

It’s a non-Biblical doctrine as belief precedes regeneration as Eph 1:13 clearly teaches.

Don’t forget Roman Catholicism wasn’t fully formed then and wouldn’t be until the Middle Ages!

[AgApE010]

@IDH77

-

Not all Calvinists believe that regeneration proceeds faith. They're simultaneous. Paul taught total depravity in Romans 3, Ephesians 1, and Jesus taught it when He perfectly described the heart of man. The Church didn't move away from it; there just wasn't reason to discuss it. The Apostolic Fathers dealt with Gnosticism; Origen dealt with philosophy; Cyprian dealt with ecclesiastical matters. It wasn't until Pelagius caused a stir up that the Church examined the matter from Scripture.

[IDH77]

@AgApE010 Again it’s the definition of man’s fall that the point. The point is that there is a biblical order to regeneration which contradicts Total Depravity.

Ephesians 1:13 NKJV In Him you also trusted, AFTER you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,

First the word then faith then regeneration! Total Depravity then cannot be true because faith precedes regeneration.

[AgApE010]

@IDH77

-

Of course they trusted after they heard. Who is disagreeing with you here? Lol. You're arguing for an established truth in a way as if Calvinists disagree. That is a STRAW-MAN. Knock it off. But that verse does not give you a chronological order of faith preceding regeneration. Indeed, verses like 1 Peter 1:23, 25 and James 1:18 seem to imply that the two are simultaneous.

[IDH77]

@AgApE010 Oh so lets just totally ignore the Biblical order of things and invent what you want to hear instead!

If hearing and believing happen BEFORE regeneration then TOTAL Depravity cannot be true but must instead point to Prevenient Grace instead.

And if TD is not true then the whole stack of cards come falling down and Calvinism is shown to be false!

[AgApE010]

@IDH77

-

For the third time, I'm not arguing that regeneration is before faith. I pointed you to Scriptures which teach that it's simultaneous. If you're not going to acknowledge what I'm actually saying, why are you even commenting?

[IDH77]

@AgApE010 Why am I commenting? Because you're an inconstant Calvinist who won't admit that regeneration is not totally instantaneous but in a certain order that refutes Calvinism.

The only way that Total Depravity makes sense is if regeneration precedes faith but the Scriptures say the opposite.

[AgApE010]

@IDH77

-

The ARMINIAN position does indeed state that you are saved because you exercised your libertarian free will and chose to come to Christ. In this view, it is indeed up to you: you can choose to go to Christ or you can stand against Almighty God and say "NO!" to Him when He calls you. THAT is the view that begins and ends with man.

[IDH77]

@AgApE010 The problem is that I'm not an Arminian I'm just a Bible believer! It’s simply Calvinistic brain washing that labels any non-Calvinist an Arminian.

I believe in Prevenient Grace which means that according John 6:44 we can't simply work up the will to get saved. God has to call us!

Irresistible Grace is not only a non-Biblical teaching it’s an oxymoron!

Its Calvinistic gurus who LIE about non-Calvinist’s!

[AgApE010]

@IDH77

-

Hmm, a non-Calvinist...believes in prevenient grace...works up the will to get saved. Yup, you're an Arminian. At least be honest; that's more commendable. And shame on you for thinking that you're saved because you "worked up the will." Salvation is not of yourself, it is the gift of God. That gift includes faith, as Paul said, "it has been granted to you, not only to believe in Christ, but also to suffer for His sake." (Philippians 1:29).

[IDH77]

@AgApE010 I totally deny the ability to ‘work up the will’ to get saved! That’s not the true definition of Prevenient Grace.

That’s totally dishonest of you to accuse me of it! But then what do you expect of the brainwashing that is Calvinism?

I believe in Eternal Security which counts me out of being an Arminian.

You can't even get the Scriptures right! It’s THROUGH faith so faith is NOT the gift!

[AgApE010]

@IDH77

-

"That's totally dishonest of you to accuse me of it!"

-

It is the inevitable conclusion of your theology. If you believe hat it is in your power to say "No" to God, it is because YOU did something that someone else didn't or couldn't that you're going to heaven. YOU were able to choose to respond positively because you were smarter or holier than the rest of sinful man who sinfully rejected God. Get a clue; your theology is man-centered and man-glorifying... continued

[IDH77]

@AgApE010 It’s obvious that you don’t actually understand non-Calvinism! Which is to say you understand man-made traditions rather than the Bible.

It is a fact that both the Bible and common sense teach that some people are more wicked than others while teaching that none of us can save ourselves through good works. Compare Judges 9:22 (see KJV sons of Belial) Luke 1:5-6.

However to a certain extent we DO save ourselves by accepting a free gift! See Acts 2:37-40

[AgApE010]

@IDH77

-

"However to a certain extent we DO save ourselves by accepting a free gift!"

-

At least you admit to it.

[IDH77]

@AgApE010 I admit to believing in what the Bible says and not trying to twist Scripture.

Acts 2:40 KJV And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, SAVE YOURSELVES from this untoward generation.

[AgApE010]

@IDH77

-

contd ...And just because you believe in Eternal Security doesn't mean you're not Arminian. It just means you reject one out of the 5 Articles of Arminianism. Finally, put your gloves back on. I'm not brainwashed; I'm a Christian who believes that the Reformed view lines up perfectly with the Bible. So let's not let this conversation go to the "you're not a Christian" extreme, ok?

-

"faith is NOT the gift!"

-

There you go ignoring Scripture. What, then, is Philippians 1:29 saying?

[IDH77]

@AgApE010 I didn’t say your not a Christian I said I'm not an Arminian. In other words I don’t follow the teachings of a mere man. In fact I'd never heard of Arminius until I came across Calvinism!

[IDH77]

@AgApE010 So no-one has free will to reject God?

Luke 7:30 NKJV But the Pharisees and lawyers REJECTED THE WILL OF GOD FOR THEMSELVES, not having been baptized by him.

Would you like a pen to cross this out of your Bible? Or like most Calvinist's would you simply like to totally IGNORE what the Scriptures ACTUALLY SAY in order to keep to your man-made traditions?

Irresistible Grace is an oxymoron not supported by the Bible!

[AgApE010]

@IDH77

-

"So no one has free will to reject God?"

-

No, man DOES has the free will within the framework of his sinful nature to reject God. Romans 3:11 says "There is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God." Man does NOT have the type of free will to accept God apart from Him granting us the ability to believe and man does NOT have the type of free will say "No" to God when He calls them to salvation. That's why Paul can say "these whom He called, He also justified" (Rom. 8:30).

[IDH77]

@AgApE010 Typical Calvinist! Completely ignoring the text of Luke 7:30 and trying to make it mean the exact opposite.

The entire point is that the Pharisees rejected the will of God and THEY were responsible for their own actions not some mythical ‘secret will of God’!

Therefore Irresistible Grace is a non-Biblical doctrine.

It’s the same as John 5:40. They were not WILLING to come to Christ and they were 100% responsible not God!

[HolyMisfit]

@AgApE010 Are you saying that it's up to God to save us?

[AgApE010]

@HolyMisfit

-

Yes, my friend. We are fully dependent on God for our salvation, start to finish. When we choose to believe in God, it is because He drew us to Christ and granted us the faith. Thus, all thanks and praise belongs to Him.

[HolyMisfit]

@AgApE010 ok I've been having this discussion with a friend of mine that also sides with this view and I cannot phantom the idea that we as God's creatures have been given the freedom of choice and were given the gift of salvation through Jesus Christ have no part in our salvation. It kinda defeats the purpose of Christ dying for us. I believe anyone who accepts Jesus Christ with all their heart can be saved. Guess we'll know when we die and if we're lukewarm he'll spew us out.

[AgApE010]

@HolyMisfit

-

"I believe anyone who accepts Jesus Christ with all their heart can be saved"

-

I believe this as well. Everyone does. But the question is "how did that person come about to believe?" Man, left to his own, will never choose Christ. That's why God has to draw the person to Christ. See John 6:44, for instance.

God taking the initiative in saving people in now way defeats the purpose of the death of Christ. I fail to see the connection that you're trying to make there.

[Dougeroma]

Why did you "perceive and receive" and the lost did "perceive but did NOT receive"? Whatever the answer, there remains in such a system a grounds for boasting. The unregenerate will never perceive themselves as mere beggars receiving a gift from Someone (God) they despise about Someone (Christ) they "perceive" as repulsive. If you ever "receive" Christ as He is presented in the Gospel, it is on the basis of a prior regeneration rooted in an unconditional election (Jn. 1:12-13). Boast in the Lord

[Dominick7]

Lame eisegesis ala determinism. Th descriptions of behavior in the Bible are NOT black and white, they are general characteristics of a way of life. When it says the rightteous do what is good, it DOESNT mean they ALWAYS do what is good, but rather the general characteristic of their life is more so of good, indicating the direction of their life is towards the source of good, ie God. Likewise wen it says the unrighteous do wat is bad they dont ALWAYS do bad, but the general charac. is of bad.

[scot67car]

Amen! Amen!