Is Calvinism Heresy? In this video I consider a somewhat strange but common enough question. Recommendation: In Defense of Calvinism by Charles Spurgeon - amzn.to/31YlpA1
Hi , I’m Sim from Singapore ... I was once under word faith movement and that’s heresy ... I’m now a Calvinist after following Pastor Matthew‘s teaching ... Thank you so much pastor.
Hi there! What Calvinist/ Reformed churches do you recommend in Singapore? I know One Covenant Church, Providence Reformed Presbyterian Church... but would like to know which other churches I should visit. I’ve become a Calvinist fairly recently
Hi Dennis, As per the video, Heresy is an unrepentent denial of a "central orthodox teaching" of christianity.. Do you hold to that definition? If so, which central orthodox teaching of christianity is denied by the word/faith movement? I am curious because you identified the movement as a "heresy".
@@Ashwin2584 It is a heresy in 2 ways. Firstly, it draws a lot of its thought from New Age Religion movements. This leads to the second reason; that it puts believers into the position of “little Gods”, where whatever the power comes from the believers’ strength of belief, rather than relying on God’s power.
@@themorningrain5806 Can you put it in terms of violating any particular beliefs of "orthodox christianity"? Can I claim Calvinists are heretics because A) They distort the charecter of God B) atleast some Calvinists teach that Jesus sacrifice cannot atone for the non-elect.
@@Ashwin2584 are you insinuating that Calvinism is a heresy? 1. Calvinism does not distort the character of God. It has probably a more well-rounded and Biblical view of God. The God of Calvinism is true omnipotence. If God were not sovereign over our eternal destinies, we would be stronger than God. The God of Calvinism is true love, loving the elect before they even loved Him and choosing to save them from all eternity. If God’s love and therefore desire to save depended on any expression of our efforts of love, we would have earned our salvation through that. 2. Could Jesus’ death atone for the non-elect? Yes, but it is not applied to the non-elect. In Exodus, we have the first passover, where God’s people (Israel in OT times, Christians now) apply the blood of the lamb to their doorposts. Only the blood of the lamb applied to the doorposts could save them, just as the blood of the lamb applied to an Egyptian household could have saved them. In Calvinist sense, only the elect will have the blood of the lamb applied to their doorposts. The blood of the lamb could atone for the non-elect, but it is not applied to the non-elect. To answer why WOF is a heresy, 1. It draws from New Age Religions, which are pagan and man-centred in their origin. This is clearly not orthodox. 2. To have the idea that our words can impact our destinies, is to make ourselves “little gods”. This goes against the idea that there is no one like God. This is pantheism in sheep’s clothing which goes against orthodox monotheism
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out. - Acts 3:19 :)
Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased. But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help. This is a legit Roman Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit. This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.". .
@robh.4897 1 Corinthians 15 and Ephesians 1-2 have incredible summaries of the Gospel which the Reformed (and all orthodox Christian traditions) hold to.
Oh poor us we just don’t understand Calvinism. No we do and that’s why we’re not Calvinists. You believe that Jesus didn’t die for all of mankind, otherwise all of mankind would be saved. But that makes no sense, since we know that the payment for sin is only part of the equation even you believe that Grace is by faith. And yes it is the fifth of the believer. If it was God‘s gracing God‘s faith then why would there need to be faith? 1.Christ came to seek and save those that are lost 2.All are lost. Therefore Christ came to seek and save all. Luke 19:10 (KJV) For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost. Romans 3:23 (KJV) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Or as the Calvinist say, that Christ Came to only seek and save the elect… and therefore all others are not lost And have no need of a sin sacrifice. [sic] Here is an excerpt from a longer paper than I wrote which gives some verses with arguments to show unlimited atonement. JOHN 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. The only way anyone would ever question that "world" in this verse meant anything other than every human being is that he comes to the verse with a theological conviction that will not allow him to believe that. In this case the burden of proof is on the person who wants to place a restriction upon the scope of the word "world." 1 TIMOTHY 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. The only possible reason for understanding "a ransom for all" any other way than that Jesus' death was a ransom paid for the sins of the whole race is that the person has a conflict between that interpretation and some other doctrine. This verse occurs in a context where Paul says, "Who [God! will have all men to be saved" (Verse 4). The ransom was provided for "all." The "all' of verse 6 is the same as the "all" of verse 4. HEBREWS 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. The burden of proof is upon the person who would place a restriction upon "every man." The only natural reading of Hebrews 2:9 is that Jesus died for every human being. 2 Peter 2:1 (KJV) But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. Here, false prophets and teachers, who deny Christ and brought upon themselves destruction, were even died and paid for. 1 JOHN 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our's only, but for the sins of the whole world. No one should deny that the most natural way to understand this verse is to reckon that the propitatory sacrifice was intended to make atonement for the sins of the whole world. The only people who would think otherwise are those who believe in either Supralapsarianism or Infralap-sarianism. The only reason for taking a verse whose meaning is apparent, and applying a strained interpretation (i.e., trying to make it fit the idea of limited atonement) would be their belief that the decree to elect preceded the decree to provide atonement. In such thinking, God decided whom He would save. Then, He decided to make atonement for those He had elected. Theological Arguments Against Unlimited Atonement It is thought by Classical Calvinists that to hold to the satisfaction view of atonement precludes the possibility of unlimited atonement. They claim there are two insurmountable problems for those who believe in a satisfaction view of atonement if they at the same time reject limited atonement: (1)The only logical alternative to limited atonement for one who believes in the satisfaction view of atonement would be universal salvation. (2) If, as described by the satisfaction view of atonement, Christ died for those who are never saved, it would mean double payment with respect to those who spend eternity in Hell. UNIVERSAL SALVATION OR LIMITED ATONEMENT A NECESSARY RESULT It is argued that if Jesus paid the full penalty for the sins of the whole race, then all for whom Christ died must of necessity be saved. This is true since His death settles their account and therefore forms the necessary basis for their forgiveness. Either Christ died for everybody and everybody would be saved, or He died only for the elect and only the elect will be saved, or so the argument goes. It is thought that for one who believes in the satisfaction view of atonement that the only way to escape universal salvation is to believe in limited atonement. The answer is found in the kind of substitution involved. Christ died for the whole world in a provisionary sense. He suffered the penal wrath of God for sin, but that fact alone does not place His death on everybody's account. It is effectual for the individual only as it is placed on a person's account. It can be placed on a person's account only as a result of a union wilt Christ. Union with Christ is conditioned on faith. The Calvinist may want to insist that the objection is valid and that Christ died only for the elect. The only way this argument could have any validity would be to deny the possibility of provisionary atonement, If there can be no provisionary atonement, it does follow that if Christ died for a person, again justification is never provisionary, but always real. In explaining the view of limited atonement, Louis Berkhof comments: "The Calvinists teach that the atonement meritoriously secured the application of the work of redemption to those for whom it was intended and their complete salvation is certain."28 A close look at what Berkhof said will show that it does not rule out the provisionary principle in atonement. He says that the atonement "makes certain" the salvation of those for whom it was intended. He did not say that the atonement automatically saved everybody for whom it was intend-ed. Calvinists do not teach that the elect are justified before they experience faith. They teach that the person for whom Christ died will of a certainty be justified, but they do not consider a person justified until he experiences faith as the condition of justification. Thus, atonement is provisionary until the time it is applied. The only way to deny the provisionary nature of atonement is to consider all people for whom Christ died to be justified before they experience faith. Once we accept that atonement is provisionary, we invalidate the objection that penal satisfaction either leads to universalism or limited atonement. Provisionary atonement applied on the condition of faith and on the grounds of a union with Christ answers this objection and sustains the penal satisfaction view. The Desire of God and the Salvation of Sinners I believe we are to conclude that God deeply desires His message of salvation to go out to all people, and He desires a positive response from all who hear this message. There are two passages that speak particularly of this concern of God. These are 1 Timothy 2:1-4 and 2 Peter 3:9. I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men: 2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty . 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth (1Timothy 2:1-4). I think it is obvious that the only limitation on how many and which people are saved is: (1) Our failure to confront people with the gospel, and (2) The failure of people who hear the gospel to respond properly to the gospel. Verse 4 is not telling us that God has planned that all people be saved. Rather it tells us that it is His desire that all men be saved. The thought that it means anything other than that God has a desire for all people to be saved would never come up unless a person approaches these verses with a theological bias against this view. Nothing in these verses suggests that God does not desire that all people be saved. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance (2 Pet. 3:9). In verses 3 and 4, Peter reminds us that there would be scoffers who would say, "Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the creation." These scoffers misunderstand the delay of Christ's return. In verse 9, he tells us that we are not to consider that this delay means that Jesus is not coming again. Rather, the delay is an indication that God is giving sinners time to repent. When Peter says that God is "not willing that any should perish," the word for "willing" (boulomai) means "to intend," or "to purpose." It is not God's purpose to plan to unconditionally bring about the eternal death of anybody. He does not unconditionally and sovereignly choose some for damnation. So there is no confusion on the meaning of atonement I’ve given the definitions from three lexicons in order of their importance.
@@BenjaminAnderson21 that should’ve said that Calvinist/reformed theology misrepresent to say politely, and torture to make them say what Calvin is want them to say, to say it accurately
So many of the objections to Calvinism are based on false assumptions or simple, humanistic beliefs, like when people say “well, the God, I worship wouldn’t do that.“ I often wonder how they interpret 1 Corinthians 3:6-7 where Paul clearly states that God is ultimately in charge of salvation, when he says, that the Lord “gives the increase or growth” after Paul and Apollo’s play their parts in evangelism.
@@ironleatherwood I cannot agree with that. As I read the Scriptures these past 49 years or so, I am more convinced than ever that Reformed theology is Biblical.
@@GrantSwanepoeltry reading it without the Calvinist glasses on. One won’t read the Bible and conclude with a Calvinistic understanding, one has to be taught Calvinism extra-biblically.
@@jtcharland I found it the other way around. Grew up with Pentecostal parents who were Wycliffe Bible Translators. They taught me the gospel early and I grew up with a decent understanding of the importance of reading the Scriptures in their literary and historical contexts. As an adult, I started studying the Scriptures deeply and came to a more conservative biblical understanding as a result. I have no doubt that I still have much to learn but my glasses are getting clearer all the time by God's grace. What are your glasses coloured by?
calvin the pope of Geneva, asked that green wood be used to burn Michael Servetus so that the pain and suffering would last longer because michael servetus dared to challenge calvin on his dogma, and calvin was not about to let anyone challenge him and get away with it especially since he held a good amount of sway in Geneva. learntheology.com/the-trial-and-burning-of-michael-servetus-by-john-calvin.html calvinists are no better than modern day Catholics, as this guy refutes all of the history of the catholic church ruclips.net/video/t7ytOZ_L2t0/видео.html if you post anything that is historical evidence against his church he will delete it, as he has been brainwashed that his church is innocent and it is the protestants that are persecuting his church, talk about trying to twist history!!! The baptists will do the exact same thing they will make all kinds of refuting claims that calvin had nothing to do with the death of Michael Servetus, why? because he is the founder of their heretical cult, and if the founder was a murderer that wanted to see Michael Servetus suffer even more by using green wood to burn him alive then that kind of thing would be divisive and cause people to look at their cult with even more disdain.
Internecine religious war could lead to the deaths of thousands. Open dispute of the doctrine of the Trinity was absolutely not permitted. At the time of Calvin Islam was pressing into Europe. Until the mid 19th century Americans could be imprisoned over not being able to pay debts - if many did so it could destroy the commercial of a community. Servetus fled from France after orders were given for him to be executed for heresy and was burned in effigy by the Catholic church.
That is false otherwise known as a lie. Jean Cauvin man in Geneva oversaw everything in the city-state. He attended every council meeting to make sure everything went his way. Every meeting document has a notation in the margin that Cauvin was present. He never missed a meeting. His own words condemn him.....he was eager to get his hands on Servetus to so he could be tortured THEN burned at the stake. He NEVER repented of his evil, in fact bragged about it to others outside Geneva. When Cauvin learned he'd be held responsible for the burning at the stake, that's when he started running around trying to change burning to hanging or head chopping.....because he was so merciful...according to his blind followers.
@@Sirach144 Which Theology is "Biblical Theology"? Share your wisdom. Every church has a Creed. The word 'creed' comes from the Latin 'credo' which means "I believe." So a 'Creed' is a statement of belief or faith. How can you be a Christian without believing something? Saying "I don't believe in Creeds" is a "creed." It's an illogical "creed" but nevertheless it is a "creed."
@garythomas3150 since you claimed this video is a great video so you must be a devout Calvinism. Would you like to support biblically Calvinism belief in "double pre-destination" ? Thank you.
A four pointer here but am wondering if anyone has a good recommendation for a book or course that teaches about the decrees of God. I have a hard time with that doctrine so would appreciate any recommendations. Thank you and thank you for this video.
Sure, Heart Mind Body Soul, love God with these , and neighbor as self, All laws and prophets hang on these . Oh, brought to you by Jesus Christ. Any chance you know Him??
Well said Matt. Anytime I mention predestination or "the elect" around other Christians, it's almost like a trigger word or phrase for them. I really don't understand it other than the fact that these Christians it bothers, simply believe that "everyone" should have the chance to be saved. All I can say to that is it is up to us as Christians to preach the Gospel and let God take care of the rest. With that being said, we can't simply ignore scripture because it makes us feel uncomfortable and doesn't seem fair to some. God decides what is fair and who is saved by Grace. That is not our responsibility.
I think the complaint is that it takes away from God’s justness and makes man more into a victim rather than a criminal. It’s like if I tell my daughter to clean her room and she stiffens her neck and disobeys. I’m righteous in exacting punishment for her disobedience. If I were to purposely drug her with some chemical to make her unresponsive to anything I command and tell her to clean her room, and she doesn’t comply because I made her incapable of doing so, then my punishment is not just and she’s now a victim rather than a criminal. The complaint is more against the character of God. We believe that men are criminals that could have done right and could have accepted the offer of God. God sends criminals to hell, not men designed for the sole purpose of torment. Hope that helps. God bless.
That same argument can be said that words like Predestination or Election are Calvinist's "buzzwords" that get them hook-line-and sinker into Calvinism. Or that these words are the gateway into their doctrine. I can totally understand that someone who believes that you can lose your salvation would struggle with these words. I can totally see that as well.
@@AM-6030 I believe you can lose your salvation and I don’t have an issue with those words. We have certain blessings in Christ. We have to remain in Him through faith to have these blessings. God bless m
@@AM-6030 The same we first came into him. Through faith. If you depart from the faith, you depart from Christ. That’s where sin can be deceitful. If you neglect confessing your sins and forsaking them, you can grow hard and your faith can grow cold. You can be persuaded that the law must be kept in addition to Christ. It’s faith in Christ alone, not trusting in Christ plus your works in the law.
Thanks for this explanation. You've been so helpful in my personal study on Calvinism. Do you go soulwinning, or no because you think if the person is saved, that they will come to the Lord on their own? I am curious of that.
Calvinism respects the ordinary means of grace such as preaching. Most come to faith by being born to Christian parents who teach them about Jesus and the Bible.
I thought the discomfort about being named after Calvin (and denominations, generally) comes from 1Cor 1:10 - 15. I'm not sure any other argument would be necessary, or helpful.
They do. They have a problem with total depravity, unconditional election (or election in any sense), irresistible grace, and sometimes perseverance of the saints. The interwebs are full of closet universalists.
@@fr.davidbibeau621 One of the major fights between Geneva City Council and Calvin was due to the City Council kept indulging into ecclesiastical affairs and Calvin kept pushing back that the church would decide that. The state having too much power was an issue even for Roman Catholics. All Popes during the Reformation wanted the Church to deal with the Reformers without Emperor Charles V getting involved because the RCC knew there would be too much bloodshed. Except Charles V believed that he had the authority over the church. Even before he attacked Protestant princes, he let his “soldiers” sack Rome in 1527 because Pope Clement VII vehemently objected to Charles V overreaching his authority into church matters. After that Sack of Rome, RCC was helpless in trying to prevent wars as millions died in wars between the Holy Roman Emperor and Protestant Kings over next 100 years. It was Calvin who taught Knox and Dutch reformers regarding the separation of church and state that finally came to fruition through the English Reformation and ultimately to the United States. There is a reason why American Revolution was called the Presbyterian War by King George. May want to read up on the history of why RCC was so helpless to prevent as millions of people died in wars between RC and Protestants. Puppies became wolves that start attacking even their owners.
If you dig deep through the mountains of garbage you'll start finding the truth about Jean Cauvin. I used to believe all those beatiful stories about Cauvin. But when I researched the REAL Jean Cauvin, all those stories were nothing but fairy tales as in 100% false. Under Cauvin there was ZERO reliigious freedome quite the opposite and if you were stupic enough to disagree with Calvin then you'd meet his personal torurer. Separation of church/state, that is a good one. His actions were the exact opposite.....church controls the government 100%.
Matthew, would you consider a Christian and a professing Reformed Pastor deny of a literal 6 day creation and affirming billions and even a couple of trillion years old in addition to Adam and Eve not being the first humans heresy?
It has been my long experience that most of the most vile enemies of Calvinism have no idea what it actually teaches. For those individuals, I highly recommend the book, "The Doctrines of Grace, Rediscovering the Evangelical Gospel," by James M. Boice and Philip G. Ryken.
@robh.4897 You said: *"I can't find anything on Calvinism in my King James from Paul's writings???? Please help me find the scripture"* In Ephesians 1:11, we see that God “works all things according to the counsel of His will.” This “all things,” according to verse 10 includes all things in the heavens and all things on the earth. And according to Colossians 1:16, this “all things” both in the heavens and on earth includes all things “visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities,” so it isn't just physical things, but also actions, circumstances, and even the thoughts and wills of men (Cf. Psalm 105:25, Revelation 17:17). The word translated into English as “work” is the transitive verb “ἐνεργέω," which, as a transitive verb, it has a direct object (“all things”) and it means “to effect” that direct object. Since all “effects” must have a sufficient cause, this passage quite literally makes God the ultimate cause of all things in heaven and on earth. The same transitive verb construction is seen in Ephesians 1:19, 1 Corinthians 12:6, 11, Galatians 3:5, Philippians 2:13; see Thayer’s, pg. 215. God’s ordination of whatsoever comes to pass often goes by the term “Sovereignty of God,” but also by some as “Exhaustive Divine Determinism.” Note that the definition of “Determine” is “cause something to occur in a particular way;” something that Paul explains that God does for all things in heaven and on earth (Cf. Romans 11:36). The notion of “free will” (self-determination) did not have its genesis in scripture, but in Stoic philosophy, through the teachings of Irenaeus, Clement, and finally, Origen (“A Free Will: Origins of the Notion in Ancient Thought,” by Michael Frede).
I was reading Romans 8:28-30 this morning, and then I did a short word study on God's "calling," maybe this will be a little help? Romans 8:28-30 - And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. 1. God draws those whom He has loved in eternity for salvation (Jeremiah 31:3, Psalm 25:6, 2 Timothy 1:8-9, Ephesians 1:4, 2 Thessalonians 2:13) 2. God sets individuals apart from the womb and calls them through His grace (Galatians 1:6, 1:15, Isaiah 49:1, 5, Jeremiah 1:5) 3. God calls individuals into fellowship with Jesus (1 Corinthians 1:9, 2 Thessalonians 2:14) 4. No one can come into fellowship with Jesus unless the Father draws him (John 6:44, 65) 5. God’s calling is according to His purpose (Acts 9:15, Romans 1:1, 8:28, 2 Timothy 1:9, John 1:12-13) 6. God calls individuals through the gospel (2 Thessalonians 2:14) 7. God’s calling through the gospel produces faith (Acts 13:48, 16:14, Ephesians 2:8, 1 John 5:1) 8. Those who are called are “a chosen race,” “a royal priesthood,” “a holy nation,” “a people for God’s own possession” (1 Peter 2:9) 9. Those whom God calls receive the promise of the eternal inheritance (Hebrews 9:15, 1 Peter 3:9) 10. God calls from both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:24, John 12:32, Revelation 5:9) 11. God’s calling, and the gifts associated with it are irrevocable (Romans 11:29)
We have free will to be the sinners that we are. We are free to keep on sinning. Apostle Paul teaches us that we are spiritually dead. (Eph. 2). We do not want God. We run away from him. The Holy Spirit must come to us and make our spiritually dead hearts alive. Then we will come to Jesus Christ in faith. Let Ephesians speak for itself. Give thanks to God for the gift of faith.
@@densim333 Hi Dennis, I suggest you carefully read the references shared by @lawrence stanley. Be careful to read atleast the entire para share. For example Jer 31:3- 1 “At that time,” declares the LORD, “I’ll be the God of all the families of Israel, and they will be my people.” 2 This is what the LORD says: “The people who survived the sword, found favor in the desert while Israel was seeking rest. 3 The LORD appeared to Israel from far away and said, “I’ve loved you with an everlasting love, therefore I’ve drawn you with gracious love. 4 I’ll again build you, and you will be rebuilt, Virgin Israel! You will again take up your tambourines and go out to dance with those who are filled with joy The passage about Gods promise to restore the nation of israel back to their and. His everlasting love here is for the entire nation (all families of israel) and there is no guarantee that everyone who was restored to the land is saved to enjoy eternal life. Look at psalm 25, 6 Remember, LORD, your tender mercies and your gracious love; indeed, they are eternal! 7 Do not remember my youthful sins and transgressions; but remember me in light of your gracious love, in light of your goodness, LORD. 8 The LORD is good and just; therefore he will teach sinners concerning the way. 9 He will guide the humble to justice; he will teach the humble his way. 10 All the paths of the LORD lead to gracious love and truth for those who keep his covenant and his decrees. Here again, we see Gods faithfulness to teach Sinners.. the text does not teach that God teaches only sinners that are elect.. so the verses actually supports the idea that God draws all people and there is grace for those who are willing to humble themselves before God.
Just started re-reading Calvin's Institutes (on your recommendation). Last read 1991. A most refreshing thing to get Calvin from Calvin himself rather than from someone else.
Hi Matthew and those who view his channel, Calvinism or Reformed Doctrine claims to be the least man-centered, and the most God-gloryfying and most God- centered. Yet this doctrine intrinsically is taught by men, and these men are hailed as "heroes." (McArthur, Sproul, Pink, Calvin, Augustine, Bauchaum, oh the list goes on.) What make maketh ye of this?
I would simply respond with Hebrews 13:7 - Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith. Scripture actually calls us to mark out those who are godly examples, and to imitate their faith.
@@lawrencestanley8989 Thank you for your reply. But I would argue that Calvinists do not merely do this verse. They would take these men and, dare I say, in some form, idolize them above the Lord. Those who learn their doctrine from a MacArthur Study Bible rather than from the Holy Spirit. Those who would rather quote a man rather than thr Scripture. Those who derive their doctrine from men rather than from Scripture- and then inject the doctrine of man into thr Scripture. That is not how it works.
@@kilgen28 Men who do search these things about and serve the Bosy by doing so are worthy of double honor indeed. But I would honestly say that a Calvinist would have a hard time with their doctrine without relying on the lists of names I've already listed, or without a Macarthur study Bible, for example.
@@AM-6030 And I would simply push back and say that while there certainly are fanatics in this world, I have never met one who idolizes MacArthur as you describe.
My thoughts on the dismay with Reformed theology is the humanistic side of us as creatures...the propensity to think we in our own strength of will choose God and that which is good. I believe reformed theology, thru Jonathan Edwards has taught me that left alone to my own choices of will alone, without the intervention of God himself through the Holy Spirit can only end in sinful choices or at least to say all things that fall short of God's Glory. The ONLY way I can choose God and live a Christian life is through the direct intervention of God himself thru hearing the Gospel preached and the Holy Spirit changing my cold heart of stone. This is not of myself, but a gift from God. No one can come unto the Father unless he draws him. John 6:40-51
Reformed theology makes the most of Jesus and his work. Redemptive history is Christ centered. Jesus is the reason for all of scripture hence Luke 24 and the road to Emaus. Forensic Imputation is the greatist truth of the Chrisitian religon. It saved me from thinking that I could save myself and it leaves salvation in Gods perfectly capable hands. We can rest from guilt and condemnation knowing that Christ fully paid for our sins. It leaves the Christian with such hope and Joy,that they cannot help but do good works out of gratitude. Thank you Pastor Matt.
That's OK. There are plenty of reformed Baptists who hold to reformed soteriology but not to covenant baptism. :) My personal transition from Arminio-dispy-credo to reformed was somewhat gradual.
I actually mean this charitably. You say by no definition. Well from an Eastern Orthodox perspective protestantism was actually condemned as heresy by an Orthodox synod in Jerusalem. This synod adopted the responses of Jeremias II to the Lutheran professors from Germany. This would include much of what Calvinists believe including their understanding of the Trinity and the Nicean Creed. I'm not trying to start an argument. Just pointing out that you cannot say from any charitable perspective. There is no cruelty in my tone.
Do Calvinists evangelize like they believe calvinism? Do you let potential converts know that you will preach the Gospel, but they cannot be saved if they are not one of the elect and were predestined by God for destruction?
If Calvinists believe in John 3:16 the word world means elect, that is clearly a corruption of the gospel, because if you believe in that on the elect can be saved, you can't share the gospel in good faith to a person you are not sure if they are elect.
Pastor Matt, there is a seminary professor that claims that Jonathan Edwards was a moderate calvinist. That he was a 4 pointer and held to a universal atonement. Do you agree? I didn't fully believe him.
Jonathan Edwards was a Puritan minister and a joke goes that "Puritans were more Calvinistic than Calvin himself". He did write in his book “The Freedom of the Will” “I should not take it at all amiss, to be called a Calvinist, for distinction’s sake: though I utterly disclaim a dependence on Calvin, or believing the doctrines which I hold, because he believed and taught them; and cannot justly be charged with believing in every thing just as he taught.” Rather sad that most people only remember Calvin for 5 Points which wasn't even from him, but from Dutch Reformed Theologians. He wrote a whole Systematic Theology, not just the Soteriology. Most Anglosphere countries and churches actually practice what he wrote, btw. Even most Arminianism Protestant churches.
@@thomasc9036 I'm not a seminary student but I like to Study the bible and theology. I have a copy of the institutes I've read parts but not all, but i want to read all of it. Thank you for responding.
@@aleczamora6993 Jesus said the greatest commandment is to Love God. The second is to love our neighbors. This order is critical in understanding the bible. It’s always God first and man second. Westminster Shorter Catechism Q3: Q. What do the scriptures principally teach?” A. The scriptures principally teach 1) what man is to believe concerning God, and 2) what duty God requires of man. There is a reason why Calvin dominated the Reformation although he was not among the first generation Reformers. He always put the knowledge of God. Calvin writes in the Institute “But though the knowledge of God and the knowledge of ourselves are bound together by a mutual tie, due arrangement requires that we treat of the former in the first place, and then descend to the latter.” Most failed pastors always consider the church members first, instead of God. Most failed understanding of scripture comes from trying to search the bible to be better Christians, instead of seeing that the bible reveals God incarnate Jesus Christ. If I knew this early on in my Christianity, I would not have struggled so badly. May God turn his face toward your pilgrimage! May God turn his face toward your pilgrimage!
What is truly sad is that people are so unkind. Even if you believe Calvinism is wrong, to be so unkind in your comments shows you have rejected/ignored scripture on loving a neighbor being gracious and kind. If you are so convinced this man is wrong then pray that he will be enlightened.
During my years as a pastor, I spoke frequently of the subject you raise, namely "adiaphora" (Greek for "things indifferent"). I believe it is a critical factor for our times for this specific reason: it forces us to think of Christian teachings that are NOT indifferent, the doctrines you refer to here as "central." And, why is this critical for our times? Because people no longer have denominational loyalty as 75 years ago. People under 50 seldom say, "I AM a Presbyterian or a Methodist, or a Baptist, or a Nazarene. Instead, they say, "I ATTEND a Presbyterian, etc. etc. church. The church that "feels right to me" or has a good youth group, or is friendly, or has music I like ... these are the factors that are decisive for people, and the younger they are, the more so. These dynamics force us to decide which teachings/doctrines we are willing to be flexible on (agree to disagree) and which we dare not compromise on. Hence: adiaphora versus central. I pastored for a while in the UCC (United Church of Christ). For them, everything is adiaphora. I get the feeling your church, Matthew, is a little different.
Isn't this because most pastors themselves are indifferent? Many PCA pastors who made ordination vows to uphold WCF violate them repeatedly. The ordination vows are made to God and violating them is willfully violating the 3rd commandment, but they still violate them "for the good /love of the church peace". If pastors are indifferent, so will congregation members.
@@thomasc9036 Hi, Thomas. Don't get me started on the clergy. I pastored for thirty years and the clergy are my least favorite bunch of people. Some I highly esteem, but far too many I think are in for a shock come judgment day. They, more than any others, are responsible for the loss of biblical truth in the church and therefore the loss of its biblical witness to the culture. The homosexual movement, for example, can point to all of the liberal mainline denominations for a defense of their position as being approved by God himself. It is the clergy and denominational bureaucrats who have done this. And, don't think for a moment that these comments would upset them. No, they celebrate this fact and call themselves "prophetic" for doing so. Darn it, Tom, I told you not to get me started.
@@johnritter5951 “I pastored for thirty years, and the clergy is my least favorite bunch of people.” That is a very weighty statement, and disheartening to hear. I’m not questioning your statement at all; I’m just kind of shocked by it.
@@johnritter5951 I know how you feel. Jesus and his Apostles warned of false teachers and preachers. One of the reasons I know that the bible is inerrant/infallible is because despite false teachers and preachers and failing congregation, the church still stands. Proves that He was God incarnate!!! Although I am a Presbyterian, I love the quote from Cardinal Consalvi who replied to Napoleon threatening to destroy Roman Catholic Church "You majesty, we, the Catholic clergy, have done our best to destroy the church for the last 1,800 years. We have not succeeded, and neither will you."
I'm not a calvinist but calling it heresy I think is going too far. The themes of the elect and predestination are in scripture the Calvinist just understands these truths differently than I do. I pray we could all be charitable to each other
I think the most controversial aspect of Calvinism is double election, or that God intentionally impedes or hardens hearts of certain people/groups from ever gaining salvation.
If a Calvinist is going to be consistent about His sovereignty, then he must conclude that God created man in such a way that guarantees his damnation. His inability to understand the Gospel is something God designed and decreed in man. God bless.
@Ryan the Presbyterian Do you believe in total depravity? Do you believe that the natural man is incapable of seeking God and has a heart that naturally detests Him? Do you believe that the natural man is born in such a way that makes it impossible to accept an offer of salvation? That he is born spiritually dead and a lover of sin? Who created man and who is sovereignly in control of man’s (God given) characteristics?
@Ryan the Presbyterian Hey friend. Did you get my list of questions? If Calvinism is biblical I would like to know. If it’s not biblical I would think you would like to know. If it’s down right blasphemous then I would think you would really want to know. Look forward to a friendly conversation.
Yes. Jesus Christ died for the whole world. When someone believes on Him (anyone) they get regenerated. They repent and believe the Gospel. It's great. 👍🏻
Free Agency Was A Preferred Term Of Spurgeon. It’s not that people make choices but the real question is why they make the choices they make! Sinners choose quite freely whatever they want … and sometimes relatively good things; the problem is they don’t want the truly goodness of God! And that is exactly why they need FREE GRACE!!
Appreciate a calm discussion. I've had like 4 Calvanists tell me I am not a Christian because I hold to a traditionalist view my whole Christian life. It is perhaps a stretch to say that Calvanism is heresy, however it is imbalanced in that when you study it in depth as I have, that it ultimately sacrifices the goodness of God to emphasize Gods sovereignty. Dr. Leighton Flowers has incredible teaching on this subject.
I love that you come onto the channel of a PCA pastor, a calvinist (reformed christian), and an extremely well read scholar and then you go ahead and say "when you study it in depth as I have" hahaha. If you'd take 20 random viewers of this channel you would see that they all have studied it more in depth than you, and that's something I'd be willing to bet money on. I don't know what you claim the "traditionalist" view is, but within protestantism the traditional view of salvation, original view of salvation, and actual truth about salvation is calvinism. Arminianism/wesleyan/free will theology came later, and are forms of semi-pelagianism, believing that humans are inherently good enough to choose God of their own will. I'd be 100% sure you just believe in a bunch of strawmen about calvinism and don't actually understand it in the slightest, especially if you think it takes away from the goodness of God.
Dr. Flowers is near to a Pelagian. That's a genuine heresy that arose long before Calvin ever lived. In fact, Pelagius was the antagonist to Augustin in the 3rd century, and was anathematized by an ecumenical council. The Flowers position is that of Paul's questioner in Romans 9, that's a bad side to be on. Obviously, the questioner is against the idea that it is God's glory that is central.
Matthew, your approach to this question. likely even by the standards of knowledgeable secularists with no skin in the game, is so unspeakably disingenuous, I have to address it at length somewhere. I'm not letting you flee from this by throwing junk out of a dump truck into the paths of chasing pursuers. Honestly, it sickens me to have to do this. Paul Klenk, NYC
Some people like the late RC Sproul focused on the sovereignty and grace of God, while other people focus on their own choice to come to Christ. I simply believe you can't even come to Jesus unless the Father who send Him draws you and also that it's the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no use. God saves, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Fun fact: John Calvin believed Jesus died for everyone. This is called an extension of the atonement. What Jesus accomplished on the cross means is separate from the requirement to believe in him. He made it available to everyone. Limited atonement was helped by Theodore Beza whom John Piper call the first Calvanist.
Calvinism just about destroyed my faith. It's heretical in that the early church didn't believe it (the idea was introduced many, many years after the church was founded), it's anti-gospel (it contradicts the "whosoever believes in me" and "If I be lifted up, I will draw all men to myself" part of salvation message as it is God who chooses who believes and who doesn't). The problematic scriptures for Calvinism are much more difficult to remedy as compared to scriptures supporting it (which are easily remedied, check out the Soteriology101 channel). For example, Jesus explicitly details how God fills his house in Luke 14. God had a list of invites, they irresistibly resisted I guess(?), then he sends his servants out to bring in whoever they find that wants to come in, so that his house may be full, which is literally the gospel message. Calvinism teaches the opposite. Take the concepts of Calvinism, such as God inspiring rapists, murderers, and so on for his own glory, and apply that to a fantasy novel god who does such things. Sounds like an evil god to me, but since it's our god as the Calvinists say, it's a mystery why he does these things, and he's good not because he's good, but because he says he's good, but does the opposite of what his law says (which should reflect his nature). It smears the character of God. God can have all power, but also work within autonomy. God can work his overall perfect will within the realm of autonomy because he can do anything. People hold onto Calvinism, even with the wealth of contradicting scripture, I believe, because there is a draw to being in an exclusive, religious group. It's the same spirit that the pharisees had, they loved being chosen by God. Imagine being a person who is depressed, who has a bad self image, and then hearing that God chooses who receives him, and who does not. A person who was always passed by everyone, only to hear God does the same. It's an evil doctrine.
Good video. Neither Calvinist nor Non-Calvinist systems are heresy. There are multiple forms of Calvinism, as there are multiple forms of Non-Calvinism (including various forms of both Arminianism and Non-Arminianism). They are all attempts to explain the MECHANICS of how salvation is brought about, not over the gospel itself - that people are saved by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone, for the glory of God alone. Instead of recognizing a spectrum of differing views, many people conflate the various perspectives into either ‘Calvinism’ or ‘Arminianism’.
@@rodgermilner7800 That's amazing, I was refuting this same topic elsewhere. I'll just post the meaning of those texts here. 1. Some have tried to use passages like Hebrews 2:9 as a proof text for a universal atonement, if we read just a bit father, we see that this is just not the case. In Hebrews 2:9, the author states that Jesus “tasted death for everyone,” but to get a sense of who this “everyone” is, we only need to read a little further. This “everyone” are all those many sons which God, by His death, intended to bring unto glory, verse 10; those who are sanctified by Him whom He calls brethren, verses 11-12, and the children given to Him by God, verse 13 (cf. John 6:44); the children whom by death, He delivers from the fear of death, verses 14-15; even all the seed of Abraham, verse 16, and “the people,” in verse 17. And we will remember that according to Galatians 3:7 it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham, and, according to John 6:44, no one can come to Jesus (in faith) unless the Father who sent Jesus draws him. According to F.W. Grosheide, “The meaning of ‘everyone’ is not that all men without distinction will reap the fruits of Jesus’ death. To assume such a universalism here would contradict ‘many sons,’ in verse 10; the ‘seed of Abraham,’ in verse 16; and ‘the people,’ in verse 17. ‘Everyone’ is merely the general term that is placed in the foreground and is to be defined subsequently.” 2. 1 John 2:2, John 3:16. This passage is speaking in generic terms of all mankind in general rather than to refer to specific individuals, for if this passage were meant to say that Jesus is the propitiation for ALL of the reprobate without exception, then by extension, propitiation would have been made for Satan himself - such a monstrous idea deserves no refutation. In this passage, John simply says that He - meaning Christ - is the propitiation not only for the Jews, but also for every other tribe and tongue and people and nation (Revelation 5:9). While this passage and others like it such as John 1:29, 3:16, 6:51, 1 Timothy 2:6, and Hebrews 2:9 seem to indicate that Jesus paid for the sins of absolutely every individual who ever lived, we know that this cannot be the case because we also know that most of the world will be eternally condemned to hell to pay for their own sins. These passages must be understood to be referring to all of mankind in general, as opposed to just the Jews. (see: John 10:11, 15, 17:9, 20, Acts 20:28, Romans 8:32, 37, and Ephesians 5:25) There must be a consistent exegetical methodology applied to the text in order to properly understand how words like “world” are being used, otherwise, if a presupposition is read into the text on a word like “world,” then you wind up making John say some very silly and contradictory things: John 3:16 - For God so loved the world… 1 John 2:15 - Do not love the world nor the things in the world… So, does the word “world” mean the exact same thing every time that it is used? Obviously, no. Does the word “world” always mean “absolutely everyone without exception?” Obviously, no. The word “world” can be used to refer to different things in different contexts, and it is the duty of the Bible student to well understand how this word is used in its various contexts in order to keep from having an erroneous understanding of the text. The fact that Jesus’ sacrifice was for all “kinds” of people is made clear in Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus in John 3:14-16 where twice He makes the statement that salvation is not for the Jew only, but for “whoever” (English translation). This of course is not speaking to a universal atonement (cf. John 6:44), but rather, it means that God is not the God of the Jews only, but of the “world” (vs. 16) and that out of all categories of people (Jews and Gentiles), Jesus provides eternal life for “all the believing ones” (πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων, vs. 15 and 16) by propitiating the wrath of God on their behalf; actually removing God’s wrath against them and cancelling their certificate of debt. 3. Lastly, 1 Timothy 2:4 (2 Peter 3:9). The Greek word that is used here for “desire,” is the word θέλει and it is a word that simply speaks of a desire for something to be a certain way, an inclination if you will (cf. 2 Peter 3:9); it is not however the way of speaking that is used to express God’s will of decree, that is, His eternal purpose (Ephesians 1:11, Daniel 4:35), and there is a distinction between the two (Matthew 26:39, cf. Romans 9:22). Sometimes these two forms of desire are aligned, sometimes they are not, for instance, God hates sin with all His being (Psalm 5:4, 45:7), and yet God ordained that Joseph’s brothers sell him into slavery (Genesis 45:7-8, 50:20); God hates and forbids murder (Exodus 20:13), and yet it was the will of the Lord to crush the Son (Isaiah 53:10); God’s actions are always determined by His eternal purposes (Ephesians 3:9-11), not His desires, therefore this means that God disapproves of some of the things that He ordains, and some of the things that He desires, He does not ordain. In this instance, we see that it is God’s inclination that absolutely everyone without exception would be saved; this is a reflection of passages like Ezekiel 18:23 and 32 where, with a view to their future damnation, we see that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, and it is for this reason that God is very patient with all mankind, (cf. 2 Peter 3:9) pouring out temporal blessings indiscriminately upon all the earth so that His children will come to repentance (Romans 2:4-5). His temporal blessings are seen in the fact that God does not kill an individual the very instant that they violate the Law, even though that is what they deserve, He also sends out preachers into all the world to promiscuously declare God’s command to repent (Acts 17:25-29), and gives His warnings of judgment. However, God’s inclination for all to be saved does not drive His actions like a person can be so easily driven by their emotions. The story of God wielding the Assyrians to judge Israel as a man wields a club can be seen in Isaiah 10, and even though their actions were very obviously ordained by God, they receive judgement from Him for acting upon their own wicked intentions; this is a clear example of God ordaining the destruction of not just one man, but in this case, an entire people group, despite His inclination against the death (and damnation) of the wicked. So, if it is God's will of decree that everyone on earth without exception be saved, and we know that YHWH nullifies the councils of the nations and frustrates the plans of the people, and that it is His council and His plans that stand forever (Psalm 33:10-12), knowing that no one frustrates the plans of God (Ephesians 1:11, Job 42:2), how is it then that men are not saved? If man uses his so-called "free will" to reject God, then man has just frustrated the plans of God. If however no one can frustrate the plans of God, as the scriptures say, and yet still, there are men who are not saved, then clearly it is not in God's WILL OF DECREE that everyone on earth without exception be saved, even though it is His inclination to do so (cf. 2 Peter 3:9).
@Golden Arm Are you suggesting that God will bring some sons to glory that He doesn't intend to? Fine, then word it, "by His death is bringing unto glory."
@Golden Arm Wow, that's not what the text is saying at all. For the life of me, I will never understand why free willers refuse to apply proper grammar to scripture. Didn't you read anything that I wrote? The subject of the indefinite pronoun is in the very next verses, and it isn't "absolutely everyone without exception." The Bible does not teach universalism; I wish free willers would understand that.
Are you a high calvinist? Hyper calvinist? Believe the Bible teachs EDD? Where is the good news for the non elect? Isn't Christ's atonement of a higher value and nature since it's for all who choose to come to Him and not just the icing on the cake of the elect who were justified before time? Matthew 23:37, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! Sounds like Jesus desired all Jerusalem to come to Him but they would not come. Calvism that goes so far as to say that God is the cause of every evil action by man is indeed a heresy no matter what you or the PCA says. Common sense and a basic understanding of the English language would make it impossible for one to get to your theology without the gnostic teachings of Augustine.
Calvinism is a heresy. To believe that you must be part of the elect is false. The elect/chosen is the nation of Israel. When you read the full context and tie on dispensationalism, it clearly shows that the elect/chosen one's are the children of Israel. In the new testament, when Chist talks about calling and/or being the chosen, Christ is speaking to the Apaotles who were chosen to go and preach because they were "chosen" from all the disciples to do so. Paul also talks about being chosen, again, for those that are already saved and ready to go and preach. Calvinism is wrong and teaches that in order to be saved, you must show works to prove you're part of the elect. Ephesians 2 vs 8-9. They teach you must perform works such as going to church, reading your Bible daily, preaching to others, etc. They cannot say those are not works because they either are or are not. John 6:29 says believe on him who he hath sent. Again, for by grace through faith we are saved! Remember, Genesis through the book of Acts was meant for the Jews (Nation of Israel) then Romans through Philemon is meant for the church to include both Jews and the Gentiles (us), then the book of Hebrews through Revelation is again, meant for the Jews (Nation of Israel). That's why it's important to study dispensationalism so that you know how to rightly divide the word of God and to whom certain things were meant to be said to. Calvinism will cast doubt on your salvation especially if you were recently saved because they will judge you by your works, believe me, I know, I was raised under Calvinism and I struggled for so long with my salvation because i was always judged by my works until one day my eyes were opened! See Romans 14:22-23 and you'll clearly see since they cast doubt on your salvation, you are damning your soul! You'll never know if your saved or not because if you're not performing works, then you're truly not saved according to Calvinism. That is not what the Bible teaches! If you believe with your heart and confess with your mouth, you are saved, see Romans 10:8-10. Think about this, when the thief was on the cross next to Jesus and he turned to say to him, remember me when you come into your kingdom. What did Jesus say to him? He said, today, you will be with me in paradise (Luke 23:42-43). Jesus didn't say to him, well, you have to go to church, read your Bible, let me see if your part of the elect, NO! The thief chose, by his own free will, to accept Jesus and Jesus immediately did so! Please read thoroughly whenever you come across the word elect, chosen, predestined since it is mentioned throughout the Bible many times and if your read the entire context, you'll see that its either meant for the Jews or meant to be an Apostle! Do not take snippets of the scripture either to fit the narrative such as they do with Jeremiah 31:3 and say, you see, God has drawn man but if you read verses 1&2, you'll clearly see that he was speaking to the families of Israel! Again, it is a false teaching and a heresy for casting doubt because you may not be part of the elect according to their teachings! I pray that i have at least shed some light on this subject and that you are able to study further to see that we do have the free will to accept Jesus as our savior and be saved by grace through faith and nothing else! 🙏
Why do Calvinists evangelize? Not every ministry is for every Christian. Gods calling for my life might be different than Gods calling for your life. Clearly the calling of evangelism is not for the Calvinist, for such obvious reasons no explanation is even necessary.
I'll take Calvin's words instead of any excuses. At least the man was shamelessly unapologetical: "Servetus offers to come hither, if it be agreeable to me. But I am unwilling to pledge my word for his safety, for if he shall come, I shall never permit him to depart alive, provided my authority be of any avail.” - Letter to Farel, 13 February 1546 "Servetus . . . suffered the penalty due to his heresies, but was it by my will? Certainly his arrogance destroyed him not less than his impiety. And what crime was it of mine if our Council, at my exhortation, indeed, but in conformity with the opinion of several Churches, took vengeance on his execrable blasphemies?” "Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death, knowingly and willingly incur their guilt. It is not human authority that speaks, it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for His Church.” Calvin, a Spirit-led teacher, was led to trample all over Christ's words, but yet he gets a free pass. Christ said we should love our enemies; of course Calvin was bigger, when he said: "Thou shalt kill thyne enemies." The Spirit forgot to teach him Christianity 101, like "Thou shalt not kill", or that owning slaves wasn't that good of an idea, either. I guess a douse divided can, in fact, stand. A man that, according to Acts 6, would not qualify to wait the tables, is regarded a theological mastermind.
Definitely a heresy. "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it." Time to return to Catholicism because the scripture demands it.
I have heard a lot of Calvinists call people who hold to arminianism as "pelagians","heretics" etc.. They are just reaping what they have sown. Frankly, i think it's ridiculous to call people Heretics over these issues.
@@FaithRefinedByFire I am referring to the whole group here. Just look at Christian history where different denominations were calling each other heretics and taking violent action against those who disagreed.. John Calvin and his immediate successors also practised these things. Many Calvinists are still clinging on to that culture to some extent at an organisational level.. So, it's only natural that at least some people respond to calvinists in the same way. Individual calvinists may or may not be kind to those who disagree.. however, a calvinists church is more likely to kick out members and leaders who publicly question the doctrine.
@@Ashwin2584 "Calvinists have no assurance. And if grace is irresistible, then that is rape. You are unsaved, trusting in a manmade system and going to hell! As for the word "all," is Romans 3:23 wrong when it says for ALL have sinned? Stupid argument. But that is to be expected from an unsaved Calvinist! Take a hike, you aren't welcome here!!!" (I gave him a whole list of verses in the Bible where ALL MEN could not possibly mean EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE PLANET, and where whole WORLD and ENDS OF THE EARTH could not mean every single place on earth. I guess that got him big mad. I did respond to his weird rant by saying that when you're juxtaposing "all" men with "God," who is only one person, then yes, all includes every single person on the planet but God. In many other cases, however, it does not.) He was already calling Calvinists "retarded," "stupid," and "unsaved." This random man literally told me I was going to hell. (I got told I was going to hell three times in one day. That's a record.) I'm not trying to be rude, but you can keep your idea that we're only getting what we had coming to us. I can hardly enter a chat on RUclips without someone calling Calvinism a damnable heresy. Leighton Flowers doesn't even go that far. I guess he has Christian sensibility, and I have no problem considering him a brother in Christ, because, ya know, you shall know them by their fruits. I have even sat with many of his ideas. I'm just not sure how many of them are right. It's mainly because of all the people who can't simply call someone who loves God and who holds completely orthodox Christian views a brother or sister in Christ that I'm willing to boldly go by any label or defend any "tradition" that you think should be forgotten. It's a tradition that adheres to the Bible. Getting told I'm going to hell by angry people on the internet is not some sort of cosmic karma, which is actually what you are talking about. As I pointed out, it's not "reaping what you sow." It would actually be something maybe closer to repaying evil for evil, but ya know, the Bible says not to do that. I guess we all fall short. Even the people we meet on the internet who make a practice of damning Christians to hell.
@@FaithRefinedByFire That's a long rant. I am just pointing out that it's inevitable. It has nothing to do with karma. Bad behaviour generally attracts bad treatment. It's common sense. Many calvinists claim that "calvinism is the gospel".. i.e.Those who disagree with calvinism are either not saved or inferior Christians. It's only natural that at least some people react in the same way. Don't let internet discussions bother you too much.
@@Ashwin2584 I was a journalism major in college and was trained to over-splain things. Even now I want to explain what Spurgeon meant when he said, "Calvinism is the gospel." He certainly didn't mean you had to be a Calvinist to be saved. However, I can believe that some who hold to reformed theology probably do say that. Touché.
If you pray for a sick person to be positively healed, rather than for God to make it possible for them to be healed, then you are already more Calvinist that you may know.
Listen to me right now. If you are here, because you are searching to figure out if Calvinism is heretical think about this for one second. Doesn’t it seem like when people are saying it is heresy it’s short, simple, to the point. And take lately for instance this video done by this gentleman Matthew ,Who I mean no harm but I say this in truth. He’s going on and on and on that’s the same rhetoric that you get from every Calvinist they just give you this intellectual runaround and what does it cause? Confusion. You wanna know what God isn’t the author of? Confusion. Calvinism is a works based salvation. It is not the gospel. May the Lord keep you
Christians are to not bear false witness and to establish their accusations with great care, presenting several witnesses to support each claim. And as Jesus said, "if you love me, obey my commandments," which would include the above commandments. One way to interpret your comment is that the anticalvinists hate Christ. They jump to judgement and give short statements declaring them heretics without going through the langthy process of laying out the evidence. On the other hand, the Calvinists are the ones who love Christ enough to obey his command and back up their claims with multiple lines of evidence. Judging someone as a heretic is something that should never be done in a "short, simple, to the point" way. It should be taken slowly and somberly with every measure of grace to interpret them in the best light possible to show that they truly are heretics beyond a shadow of a doubt. It is the spirit of antichrist that seems to sow disunity in the body of Christ and condemn without evidence.
There are two different Arminianism, Original and Wesleyan. Wesleyan version (mostly old school Methodists, but not current) is definitely not, but Reformed circle believes to have theological errors. The Original was condemned to be a heresy by Synod of Dort. I read the Original Articles translated into English and wordings are not clear and precise. In fact, Articles 1 and 5 actually contradict each other. It's not well-written to be honest probably due to being written in haste and by students of Arminius. There are clear differences between Wesleyan and Original if you read them. Jacob Arminius died before he can write any clear systematic doctrinal statements like Calvin did. He just taught and wrote negatives of Reformed Theology to his students, but not positives of his theology to replace Reformed Theology.
Note that the Greek word where the term 'heresy' comes from is a word that originally simply meant 'opinion'. (Also by the way the word used for 'sin' simply meant 'error'). The meaning that the term acquired (and all Christians use it that way) is secondary. I personally really believe it is a set of human opinions not based on the true knowledge of God (but, I, personally, do not have true knowledge of God either, so as an individual I am not in any way better than Calvinists. I may very well be worse.) Imho it is perfectly reasonable for those who consider the teachings wrong to condemn it, and even use the term 'heresy'.
Of course Calvinism is heresy. They know they believe in a different gospel than what the Bible teaches and they in no way believe in the clear teachings of the gospel
I think the reformation was needed, but some things where taken to far, but im not sure they had a choice, so its up to use to make the corrections as we are not in the same situation they where
My problem with Calvinism, Luthren, they were men, there interpretation of God's word. Why put a man's name were Yeshua should be??? Just read the true word. If you are a true believer in Yeshua the Holy Spirit will teach you the truth. Denominations are man made. Most teach the importance of scripture... You must be Born again. But they are off on other scripture's. Just trust in Yeshua. Be Bereans and take what you hear, even from your own Pastor and check it with the word. Shalom and blessing's to all.
No. That's not predestination at all. God by virtue of his Sovereign free will decided before the creation of the world who would receive his free gift of Grace and thus upon hearing the Gospel repent and accept Christ.
I don't think it's a heresy, but it's certainly a philosophically driven theology which requires us to lean on our own logical extrapolations and assumptions more heavily than we do the plain sense of many texts which would refuse it.
God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge. If it was pre-ordained that Adam would eat from the tree, then God intended for them to eat from the tree. God set sin in motion and tricked them? This is blasphemy. Also, it is impossible for the Calvinist to know if they are truly saved until after death. A doctrine of walking in doubt, not in faith. Even Calvin wasn't sure at the end. Just die and hope he made the team? This is heresy. Because I believe in Jesus and put my faith in him, I never wonder, he is the elect, it is only through faith in him that I share that election. Of course Calvinists want to escape Calvin, because he would help murder those that questioned him. Doesn't pass the smell test for living as Christ. Did Peter wish death upon those that persecuted him? Obviously not, because he was trying to emulate Christ. There can be no accountability without responsibility. Let me say it again, there can be no accountability without responsibility. If God has truly pre-ordained billions of people to hell (for his glory?) before they were born, it is not their responsibility, and it is not of love. If God is love, teaching pre-ordained damned people is heresy and blasphemy. Faith is not a gift, it is not a work, it is a choice. Salvation, by grace through faith, makes Salvation the gift, grace the kind undeserved offering, and faith the input to receive. All glory is still God's. Limited atonement is absolutely insane because it requires reinterpretation of what Jesus himself said. Probably the biggest heresy of Calvinism. Teaching the lies of Calvinist doctrine and misleading the flock is dangerous. Flee from this.
When you listen to the arguments from the folks who say this for more than 10 mins ..🥴 , yea ok I’m pretty sure you’re half a generation from handling snakes in West Virginia 🤷🏼♂️.
Why do so many Christians accept the modern critical notion that the Gospel of Mark was the first one written despite nearly unanimous testimony of the early church that Matthew was first? Do we really suppose modern textual examination methods are more reliable than the church fathers?
13:35 There are terms in the Bible so therefore you should automatically assume that our dogmatic implementation of them is correct. Except: Pre-destination is about Christ. About God's plan for those who respond with faith to be conformed to the image of the son. Election is about seevice, but Who are the elect in the Parable of the Wedding Feast? It is those who responded to the invitation by coming. When did they become chosen? After they came.
Calvinism is blasphemy. Were Calvinism true, this one verse would show God a liar. Jer: And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech, which I commanded them not, neither came it into My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
@Johnny Rep Under Calvinism, God would be responsible for this. But God clearly states it never entered his mind. Was he lying ? If he was, he can't be God. God is not a liar, men are.
@@dr.alanhales544 When Paul says that statement he is referring to people speaking over one another while teaching. He is not saying that someone will always understand the exact meaning each term upon hearing it for the first time. I'm not taking either side on the position of Calvinism but it is worrying that you would pull someone's sentence and use it for something that they never intended. A good word of advice to someone with a bit of confusion may be to read their Bible and pray for God to help them through His Word. I pray this every single time I open my Bible. To lack confusion is to say that you know everything and have all the answers so I would be hesitant to say something like that to someone is trying to learn these theological terms. Did you not go to college to remove a layer of confusion over different subjects? God Bless. I'm sorry if this sounded differently than I intended but this type of thing hits too close to home and can be very dangerous. Tompa. I would suggest reading God's Word and comparing it to the original texts if it is the langue that is confusing you. If it is the theological terms then there are several dictionaries designed specifically for that purpose as well. Good luck.
@Ryan the Presbyterian Doctrines that men have to teach are not worth learning. Doctrines that the Holy Ghost teaches, are worth listening and learning from.
@Ryan the Presbyterian Simply put, Calvinism redefines words and takes them out of context in order to align with their system. Words like predestination, chosen, elect, etc, are words that the Calvinists uses to push their system. So, Holy Spirit inspired doctrine is simply reading the Bible in context, with an earnest endeavor for the truth, without bringing any pre-suppositions to the text. Simple. Is that clear, Mr. Ryan the Presbyterian?
Where was Calvinism BEFORE Calvin? Were disciples of Jesus wrong for following Scripture BEFORE Jean came around to explain that he was the ONLY one that understood? SMH
Not sure where you are specifically coming from, but I like to point people to the Canon of Orange written over 1000 years before Calvin was born. It seems to explicitly condemn the sorts of beliefs most anticalvinists promote these days while affirming at least 4 of the 5 points of Calvinism as found in the Canons of Dort.
@@oracleoftroy I'm coming from the Bible. The Canon of Orange and Dort are MAN-MADE writings. The Bible is the inerrant, perfect word of God. It requires study, yes, but the more one reads and studies the more the writings of man become obviously ideological and obfuscate the truth.
Calvinism is another gospel. Not first Corinthians 15:3-4. Galatians 1:7-9 Though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received from us, let him be accursed. First John 2:2 And He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world. First Timothy 2:4. God is not willing that any should perish, but all should come to the knowledge of the truth. The gospel. John 3:16-18. Arminianism is another gospel. Lordship salvation is works salvation. Matthew 7:21-23. Not John 6:40 and John 6:29.
Acts 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how He said, John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized by the Holy Spirit. Ephesians 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, (First Corinthians 15:3-4) in whom also AFTER ye believed ye were sealed by that Holy Spirit of promise. Our guarantee of eternal life, by faith alone apart from works for the free gift of eternal life. Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the POWER of God unto salvation to everyone that BELIEVETH, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. Faith is not a work. Romans 3:26-28. It is faith apart from works. Our works can not save sinners. John 3:16-18. Many believe they are chosen, but have never done the will of His Father in heaven. John 6:40 and John 6:29. Matthew 7:21-23 Romans 11:29 For the GIFTS, eternal life, and the calling of God, John 12:32, are without repentance. Irrevocable, can not be changed back. It is Gods will that everyone believe and receive the free gift of eternal life. John 6:47. There is no assurance of salvation in Calvinism. We are all sinners. First John 1:8. First Corinthians 1:21.
The doctrines of men are not the word of God. Calvinism is not grace. Romans 11:6 . I have heard the demonic Calvinist tell their own children they are already condemned to hell because God did not choose them. What a horrible doctrine. Even Calvinist do not know if they are one of the chosen. They have no way to know. Calvinism is against the grace of God to save sinners. It is a perverted gospel. I can have no fellowship with Calvinist who believe that God predestines people to hell no matter if they believe the gospel or not. John Calvin was not a believer in the gospel of all grace to save anyone who would trust Jesus for the free gift of eternal life. John 6:37 Romans 4:5-8. The bible refutes Calvinism as a false gospel. John 3:16-18. Calvinist call God a liar. John 5:24. Faith is not a work. It is faith apart from works. Ephesians 2:8-9. Romans 3:26-28. The gift of God is eternal life to everyone that believeth. Not chosen. Calvinist are the enemy of the cross to save sinners. The tulip is the devils favorite flower.
Calvinist wonder why their children commit suicide. Because they have been told that they are predestined to hell. If you believed you were predestined to hell what would you do? Who says you are not predestined to hell. No one can know if they are one or the other. First John 5:13 says we can know because we have believed. John 3:18 Those that have believed are saved. Not chosen.
Not at all. Romans 4:5-8 John 3:18 No longer condemned to hell. John 6:40 and John 6:29. Romans 3:26-28. Jesus paid it all and I have nothing to boast in. Ephesians 2:8-9 You can not boast in free. Romans 11:6. Romans 6:23 The GIFT of God is eternal life, not faith. First Corinthians 1:21
@Johnny Rep sufficient to save the world from the curse of the law....that held the world into bondage...due to the perfection it required. One must believe the good news to be born again. Yet...all were saved...from bondage of the old covenant system. Everone must choose to believe.
I do agree that Calvinism acknowledged the core essential of historical Christian faith and other essentials. But I strongly disagree to Calvin's teaching on double-predestination and his statement seems to me he had maligned the character of God. The following is the extract of Calvin's teaching on double predestinate; Quote "The facts are: Calvin most definitely did believe in double predestination. This is what he wrote and taught: The predestination by which God adopts some to the hope of life, and adjudges others to eternal death, no man who would be thought pious ventures simply to deny….By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death (Institutes of the Christian Religion 3.21.5). -unquote- Do you as a Calvinist agree to his double-predestination doctrine? Appreciate your comments. Thank you.
Well I thought it was. Then a brother told me that I did not read the Bible enough. I was offended. Then I got over it and then I discovered that it is simply the literal truth of the bible. Period. That is why people hate it. It is the truth. Praise Yahweh.
@@gianpranata5153I agree that it is NOT heretical. What I find disheartening is people are not addressing anything he is speaking about. They just revert to it’s a heresy without any support.
Calvinism does deny the love and mercy of God. To say God created a soul to fight against his will without choice. Then turn around and hold them accountable to suffer eternity in hell for committing sin without choice. I can’t imagine anything more horrific than the Great White Thrown of Judgement. Billion of souls will be casted into the lake of fire for being created to sin and suffer the second death. This is not consistent with Gods character God cannot temp anyone with sin if true how then can He create a soul for sin and punishment. God says it’s my will that all men be saved. Calvinism is suggesting that God creates a sinner who has no choice in the matter then damns them to be hell. I can’t see the mercy or justice in that. It paints a picture of a cruel god not a loving and merciful God. To deny Gods love and mercy so harshly that its changes Gods character could easily be heresy.
You ignore scripture like Romans 8:29 and Romans 8:33? It's all thru the new testament. (A lot of dispensational Baptists write off references to the elect by excluding everything that is not in Romans thru Philemon stating that it does not apply to Gentiles.) Clearly Romans discusses election in great detail. I struggle to understand this compared to the parable of the sower in Mathew 13 where people are clearly given the option of rejecting the word. It's almost as if they are talking about two different groups of people?
Very first word: "No".
I absolutely love it lol!!
Will watch the full vid but appreciate the upfront ness and transparency. God bless!
Hi , I’m Sim from Singapore ... I was once under word faith movement and that’s heresy ... I’m now a Calvinist after following Pastor Matthew‘s teaching ... Thank you so much pastor.
Hi there! What Calvinist/ Reformed churches do you recommend in Singapore? I know One Covenant Church, Providence Reformed Presbyterian Church... but would like to know which other churches I should visit. I’ve become a Calvinist fairly recently
Hi Dennis,
As per the video, Heresy is an unrepentent denial of a "central orthodox teaching" of christianity..
Do you hold to that definition? If so, which central orthodox teaching of christianity is denied by the word/faith movement?
I am curious because you identified the movement as a "heresy".
@@Ashwin2584 It is a heresy in 2 ways. Firstly, it draws a lot of its thought from New Age Religion movements. This leads to the second reason; that it puts believers into the position of “little Gods”, where whatever the power comes from the believers’ strength of belief, rather than relying on God’s power.
@@themorningrain5806
Can you put it in terms of violating any particular beliefs of "orthodox christianity"?
Can I claim Calvinists are heretics because
A) They distort the charecter of God
B) atleast some Calvinists teach that Jesus sacrifice cannot atone for the non-elect.
@@Ashwin2584 are you insinuating that Calvinism is a heresy?
1. Calvinism does not distort the character of God. It has probably a more well-rounded and Biblical view of God.
The God of Calvinism is true omnipotence. If God were not sovereign over our eternal destinies, we would be stronger than God.
The God of Calvinism is true love, loving the elect before they even loved Him and choosing to save them from all eternity. If God’s love and therefore desire to save depended on any expression of our efforts of love, we would have earned our salvation through that.
2. Could Jesus’ death atone for the non-elect? Yes, but it is not applied to the non-elect. In Exodus, we have the first passover, where God’s people (Israel in OT times, Christians now) apply the blood of the lamb to their doorposts. Only the blood of the lamb applied to the doorposts could save them, just as the blood of the lamb applied to an Egyptian household could have saved them. In Calvinist sense, only the elect will have the blood of the lamb applied to their doorposts. The blood of the lamb could atone for the non-elect, but it is not applied to the non-elect.
To answer why WOF is a heresy, 1. It draws from New Age Religions, which are pagan and man-centred in their origin. This is clearly not orthodox.
2. To have the idea that our words can impact our destinies, is to make ourselves “little gods”. This goes against the idea that there is no one like God. This is pantheism in sheep’s clothing which goes against orthodox monotheism
Well said...I'm so tired of people misrepresenting calvinism. It's truly ignorance.
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
- Acts 3:19
:)
Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee.
In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased.
But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.
This is a legit Roman Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit.
This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.".
.
@robh.4897 1 Corinthians 15 and Ephesians 1-2 have incredible summaries of the Gospel which the Reformed (and all orthodox Christian traditions) hold to.
Oh poor us we just don’t understand Calvinism. No we do and that’s why we’re not Calvinists. You believe that Jesus didn’t die for all of mankind, otherwise all of mankind would be saved. But that makes no sense, since we know that the payment for sin is only part of the equation even you believe that Grace is by faith. And yes it is the fifth of the believer. If it was God‘s gracing God‘s faith then why would there need to be faith?
1.Christ came to seek and save those that are lost
2.All are lost.
Therefore Christ came to seek and save all.
Luke 19:10 (KJV) For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.
Romans 3:23 (KJV) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Or as the Calvinist say, that Christ Came to only seek and save the elect… and therefore all others are not lost And have no need of a sin sacrifice. [sic]
Here is an excerpt from a longer paper than I wrote which gives some verses with arguments to show unlimited atonement.
JOHN 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
The only way anyone would ever question that "world" in this verse meant anything other than every human being is that he comes to the verse with a theological conviction that will not allow him to believe that. In this case the burden of proof is on the person who wants to place a restriction upon the scope of the word "world."
1 TIMOTHY 2:6
Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
The only possible reason for understanding "a ransom for all" any other way than that Jesus' death was a ransom paid for the sins of the whole race is that the person has a conflict between that interpretation and some other doctrine. This verse occurs in a context where Paul says, "Who [God! will have all men to be saved" (Verse 4). The ransom was provided for "all." The "all' of verse 6 is the same as the "all" of verse 4.
HEBREWS 2:9
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
The burden of proof is upon the person who would place a restriction upon "every man." The only natural reading of Hebrews 2:9 is that Jesus died for every human being.
2 Peter 2:1 (KJV)
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
Here, false prophets and teachers, who deny Christ and brought upon themselves destruction, were even died and paid for.
1 JOHN 2:2
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our's only, but for the sins of the
whole world.
No one should deny that the most natural way to understand this verse is to reckon that the propitatory sacrifice was intended to make atonement for the sins of the whole world. The only people who would think otherwise are those who believe in either Supralapsarianism or Infralap-sarianism. The only reason for taking a verse whose meaning is apparent, and applying a strained interpretation (i.e., trying to make it fit the idea of limited atonement) would be their belief that the decree to elect preceded the decree to provide atonement. In such thinking, God decided whom He would save. Then, He decided to make atonement for those He had elected.
Theological Arguments Against Unlimited Atonement
It is thought by Classical Calvinists that to hold to the satisfaction view of atonement precludes the possibility of unlimited atonement. They claim there are two insurmountable problems for those who believe in a satisfaction view of atonement if they at the same time reject limited atonement:
(1)The only logical alternative to limited atonement for one who believes in the satisfaction view of atonement would be universal salvation.
(2) If, as described by the satisfaction view of atonement, Christ died for those who are never saved, it would mean double payment with respect to those who spend eternity in Hell.
UNIVERSAL SALVATION OR LIMITED ATONEMENT A NECESSARY RESULT
It is argued that if Jesus paid the full penalty for the sins of the whole race, then all for whom Christ died must of necessity be saved. This is true since His death settles their account and therefore forms the necessary basis for their forgiveness. Either Christ died for everybody and everybody would be saved, or He died only for the elect and only the elect will be saved, or so the argument goes. It is thought that for one who believes in the satisfaction view of atonement that the only way to escape universal salvation is to believe in limited atonement.
The answer is found in the kind of substitution involved. Christ died for the whole world in a provisionary sense. He suffered the penal wrath of God for sin, but that fact alone does not place His death on everybody's account. It is effectual for the individual only as it is placed on a person's account. It can be placed on a person's account only as a result of a union wilt Christ. Union with Christ is conditioned on faith.
The Calvinist may want to insist that the objection is valid and that Christ died only for the elect.
The only way this argument could have any validity would be to deny the possibility of provisionary atonement, If there can be no provisionary atonement, it does follow that if Christ died for a person, again justification is never provisionary, but always real.
In explaining the view of limited atonement, Louis Berkhof comments: "The Calvinists teach that the atonement meritoriously secured the application of the work of redemption to those for whom it was intended and their complete salvation is certain."28
A close look at what Berkhof said will show that it does not rule out the provisionary principle in atonement. He says that the atonement "makes certain" the salvation of those for whom it was intended. He did not say that the atonement automatically saved everybody for whom it was intend-ed. Calvinists do not teach that the elect are justified before they experience faith. They teach that the person for whom Christ died will of a certainty be justified, but they do not consider a person justified until he experiences faith as the condition of justification. Thus, atonement is provisionary until the time it is applied. The only way to deny the provisionary nature of atonement is to consider all people for whom Christ died to be justified before they experience faith.
Once we accept that atonement is provisionary, we invalidate the objection that penal satisfaction either leads to universalism or limited atonement. Provisionary atonement applied on the condition of faith and on the grounds of a union with Christ answers this objection and sustains the penal satisfaction view.
The Desire of God and the Salvation of Sinners
I believe we are to conclude that God deeply desires His message of salvation to go out to all people, and He desires a positive response from all who hear this message. There are two passages that speak particularly of this concern of God.
These are 1 Timothy 2:1-4 and 2 Peter 3:9.
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men:
2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty
.
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth (1Timothy 2:1-4).
I think it is obvious that the only limitation on how many and which people are saved is: (1) Our failure to confront people with the gospel, and (2) The failure of people who hear the gospel to respond properly to the gospel. Verse 4 is not telling us that God has planned that all people be saved. Rather it tells us that it is His desire that all men be saved. The thought that it means anything other than that God has a desire for all people to be saved would never come up unless a person approaches these verses with a theological bias against this view. Nothing in these verses suggests that God does not desire that all people be saved.
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance (2 Pet. 3:9).
In verses 3 and 4, Peter reminds us that there would be scoffers who would say, "Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the creation." These scoffers misunderstand the delay of Christ's return. In verse 9, he tells us that we are not to consider that this delay means that Jesus is not coming again. Rather, the delay is an indication that God is giving sinners time to repent. When Peter says that God is "not willing that any should perish," the word for "willing" (boulomai) means "to intend," or "to purpose." It is not God's purpose to plan to unconditionally bring about the eternal death of anybody. He does not unconditionally and sovereignly choose some for damnation.
So there is no confusion on the meaning of atonement I’ve given the definitions from three lexicons in order of their importance.
@@BenjaminAnderson21 that should’ve said that Calvinist/reformed theology misrepresent to say politely, and torture to make them say what Calvin is want them to say, to say it accurately
So many of the objections to Calvinism are based on false assumptions or simple, humanistic beliefs, like when people say “well, the God, I worship wouldn’t do that.“
I often wonder how they interpret 1 Corinthians 3:6-7 where Paul clearly states that God is ultimately in charge of salvation, when he says, that the Lord “gives the increase or growth” after Paul and Apollo’s play their parts in evangelism.
Thank you, Matt. I enjoy your videos a lot and I learn a lot from every one I watch.
Calvinisim is as bad as Kenneth Copland. He doesn't even understand baptism.
@@ironleatherwood I cannot agree with that. As I read the Scriptures these past 49 years or so, I am more convinced than ever that Reformed theology is Biblical.
@@GrantSwanepoeltry reading it without the Calvinist glasses on. One won’t read the Bible and conclude with a Calvinistic understanding, one has to be taught Calvinism extra-biblically.
@@jtcharland I found it the other way around. Grew up with Pentecostal parents who were Wycliffe Bible Translators. They taught me the gospel early and I grew up with a decent understanding of the importance of reading the Scriptures in their literary and historical contexts. As an adult, I started studying the Scriptures deeply and came to a more conservative biblical understanding as a result. I have no doubt that I still have much to learn but my glasses are getting clearer all the time by God's grace. What are your glasses coloured by?
You are historically correct on the Calvin/Servitas affair. Calvin did not pull the strings on that, he was only a witness.
That's called being complicit.
You mean he supports your view and makes it palatable
calvin the pope of Geneva, asked that green wood be used to burn Michael Servetus so that the pain and suffering would last longer because michael servetus dared to challenge calvin on his dogma, and calvin was not about to let anyone challenge him and get away with it especially since he held a good amount of sway in Geneva.
learntheology.com/the-trial-and-burning-of-michael-servetus-by-john-calvin.html
calvinists are no better than modern day Catholics, as this guy refutes all of the history of the catholic church
ruclips.net/video/t7ytOZ_L2t0/видео.html
if you post anything that is historical evidence against his church he will delete it, as he has been brainwashed that his church is innocent and it is the protestants that are persecuting his church, talk about trying to twist history!!!
The baptists will do the exact same thing they will make all kinds of refuting claims that calvin had nothing to do with the death of Michael Servetus, why? because he is the founder of their heretical cult, and if the founder was a murderer that wanted to see Michael Servetus suffer even more by using green wood to burn him alive then that kind of thing would be divisive and cause people to look at their cult with even more disdain.
Internecine religious war could lead to the deaths of thousands. Open dispute of the doctrine of the Trinity was absolutely not permitted. At the time of Calvin Islam was pressing into Europe. Until the mid 19th century Americans could be imprisoned over not being able to pay debts - if many did so it could destroy the commercial of a community. Servetus fled from France after orders were given for him to be executed for heresy and was burned in effigy by the Catholic church.
That is false otherwise known as a lie. Jean Cauvin man in Geneva oversaw everything in the city-state. He attended every council meeting to make sure everything went his way. Every meeting document has a notation in the margin that Cauvin was present. He never missed a meeting. His own words condemn him.....he was eager to get his hands on Servetus to so he could be tortured THEN burned at the stake. He NEVER repented of his evil, in fact bragged about it to others outside Geneva. When Cauvin learned he'd be held responsible for the burning at the stake, that's when he started running around trying to change burning to hanging or head chopping.....because he was so merciful...according to his blind followers.
Thanks for your videos,brother. They are such a blessing. One question: Is the NPP(New Perspective on Paul) heresy? If so, why?
Are you talking about N.T.Wright? John MacArthur says it should be N.T.Wrong.
Great video, pastor. Thank you for making these videos on reformed theology.
Believe in Biblical theology. Not theology of man and catechism and creeds.
@@Sirach144 Which Theology is "Biblical Theology"? Share your wisdom.
Every church has a Creed. The word 'creed' comes from the Latin 'credo' which means "I believe." So a 'Creed' is a statement of belief or faith. How can you be a Christian without believing something?
Saying "I don't believe in Creeds" is a "creed." It's an illogical "creed" but nevertheless it is a "creed."
@garythomas3150 since you claimed this video is a great video so you must be a devout Calvinism. Would you like to support biblically Calvinism belief in "double pre-destination" ? Thank you.
Great summation! Fantastic!
Thank u for the clarification, Pastor Matt
A four pointer here but am wondering if anyone has a good recommendation for a book or course that teaches about the decrees of God. I have a hard time with that doctrine so would appreciate any recommendations. Thank you and thank you for this video.
Sure, Heart Mind Body Soul, love God with these , and neighbor as self, All laws and prophets hang on these . Oh, brought to you by Jesus Christ. Any chance you know Him??
I do appreciate this video, though and it's good to hear from a Calvinist. I was asking myself this question just earlier.
English is not my first language, so this video was incredibly useful. Thank you!
Well said Matt. Anytime I mention predestination or "the elect" around other Christians, it's almost like a trigger word or phrase for them. I really don't understand it other than the fact that these Christians it bothers, simply believe that "everyone" should have the chance to be saved. All I can say to that is it is up to us as Christians to preach the Gospel and let God take care of the rest. With that being said, we can't simply ignore scripture because it makes us feel uncomfortable and doesn't seem fair to some. God decides what is fair and who is saved by Grace. That is not our responsibility.
I think the complaint is that it takes away from God’s justness and makes man more into a victim rather than a criminal.
It’s like if I tell my daughter to clean her room and she stiffens her neck and disobeys. I’m righteous in exacting punishment for her disobedience.
If I were to purposely drug her with some chemical to make her unresponsive to anything I command and tell her to clean her room, and she doesn’t comply because I made her incapable of doing so, then my punishment is not just and she’s now a victim rather than a criminal.
The complaint is more against the character of God. We believe that men are criminals that could have done right and could have accepted the offer of God. God sends criminals to hell, not men designed for the sole purpose of torment.
Hope that helps. God bless.
That same argument can be said that words like Predestination or Election are Calvinist's "buzzwords" that get them hook-line-and sinker into Calvinism. Or that these words are the gateway into their doctrine.
I can totally understand that someone who believes that you can lose your salvation would struggle with these words. I can totally see that as well.
@@AM-6030
I believe you can lose your salvation and I don’t have an issue with those words. We have certain blessings in Christ. We have to remain in Him through faith to have these blessings.
God bless m
@@evanu6579 my question then would be, how does one "remain in Him?"
@@AM-6030
The same we first came into him. Through faith. If you depart from the faith, you depart from Christ.
That’s where sin can be deceitful. If you neglect confessing your sins and forsaking them, you can grow hard and your faith can grow cold.
You can be persuaded that the law must be kept in addition to Christ. It’s faith in Christ alone, not trusting in Christ plus your works in the law.
Thanks for this explanation. You've been so helpful in my personal study on Calvinism. Do you go soulwinning, or no because you think if the person is saved, that they will come to the Lord on their own? I am curious of that.
Calvinism respects the ordinary means of grace such as preaching. Most come to faith by being born to Christian parents who teach them about Jesus and the Bible.
We are commanded to evangelize and make disciples of all the nations. In no way does Calvinism or Reformed theology recommend away from evangelism.
I thought the discomfort about being named after Calvin (and denominations, generally) comes from 1Cor 1:10 - 15. I'm not sure any other argument would be necessary, or helpful.
I think people may also have a problem with Limited Atonement. Another great informative video. Thanks again.
They do. They have a problem with total depravity, unconditional election (or election in any sense), irresistible grace, and sometimes perseverance of the saints. The interwebs are full of closet universalists.
It is sad that Calvin who gave the "freedom of religion" and "separation of church and state" to the world, but so misunderstood and vilified now.
Uh Calvin did not believe in separation of church and state. He was the state.
@@fr.davidbibeau621 One of the major fights between Geneva City Council and Calvin was due to the City Council kept indulging into ecclesiastical affairs and Calvin kept pushing back that the church would decide that.
The state having too much power was an issue even for Roman Catholics. All Popes during the Reformation wanted the Church to deal with the Reformers without Emperor Charles V getting involved because the RCC knew there would be too much bloodshed. Except Charles V believed that he had the authority over the church. Even before he attacked Protestant princes, he let his “soldiers” sack Rome in 1527 because Pope Clement VII vehemently objected to Charles V overreaching his authority into church matters. After that Sack of Rome, RCC was helpless in trying to prevent wars as millions died in wars between the Holy Roman Emperor and Protestant Kings over next 100 years.
It was Calvin who taught Knox and Dutch reformers regarding the separation of church and state that finally came to fruition through the English Reformation and ultimately to the United States. There is a reason why American Revolution was called the Presbyterian War by King George.
May want to read up on the history of why RCC was so helpless to prevent as millions of people died in wars between RC and Protestants. Puppies became wolves that start attacking even their owners.
What Calvin meant for evil, God meant for good.
Calvin advocating murdering people over theological disagreements.
If you dig deep through the mountains of garbage you'll start finding the truth about Jean Cauvin. I used to believe all those beatiful stories about Cauvin. But when I researched the REAL Jean Cauvin, all those stories were nothing but fairy tales as in 100% false. Under Cauvin there was ZERO reliigious freedome quite the opposite and if you were stupic enough to disagree with Calvin then you'd meet his personal torurer. Separation of church/state, that is a good one. His actions were the exact opposite.....church controls the government 100%.
Thank you!
Brandon Griffith. A gracious response. Thank you. BTW: I love a good pun. MikeinMinnesota
Matthew, would you consider a Christian and a professing Reformed Pastor deny of a literal 6 day creation and affirming billions and even a couple of trillion years old in addition to Adam and Eve not being the first humans heresy?
It has been my long experience that most of the most vile enemies of Calvinism have no idea what it actually teaches. For those individuals, I highly recommend the book, "The Doctrines of Grace, Rediscovering the Evangelical Gospel," by James M. Boice and Philip G. Ryken.
@robh.4897
Calvinism isn't the gospel; it is merely shorthand for stressing the grace of God, and God’s own initiative in the salvation of sinners.
@robh.4897
You said: *"I can't find anything on Calvinism in my King James from Paul's writings????
Please help me find the scripture"*
In Ephesians 1:11, we see that God “works all things according to the counsel of His will.” This “all things,” according to verse 10 includes all things in the heavens and all things on the earth. And according to Colossians 1:16, this “all things” both in the heavens and on earth includes all things “visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities,” so it isn't just physical things, but also actions, circumstances, and even the thoughts and wills of men (Cf. Psalm 105:25, Revelation 17:17).
The word translated into English as “work” is the transitive verb “ἐνεργέω," which, as a transitive verb, it has a direct object (“all things”) and it means “to effect” that direct object. Since all “effects” must have a sufficient cause, this passage quite literally makes God the ultimate cause of all things in heaven and on earth. The same transitive verb construction is seen in Ephesians 1:19, 1 Corinthians 12:6, 11, Galatians 3:5, Philippians 2:13; see Thayer’s, pg. 215.
God’s ordination of whatsoever comes to pass often goes by the term “Sovereignty of God,” but also by some as “Exhaustive Divine Determinism.” Note that the definition of “Determine” is “cause something to occur in a particular way;” something that Paul explains that God does for all things in heaven and on earth (Cf. Romans 11:36). The notion of “free will” (self-determination) did not have its genesis in scripture, but in Stoic philosophy, through the teachings of Irenaeus, Clement, and finally, Origen (“A Free Will: Origins of the Notion in Ancient Thought,” by Michael Frede).
thanks firstly for the definition of what heresy is. That helped. Struggling with the whole elect v's free will thing, being honest.
I was reading Romans 8:28-30 this morning, and then I did a short word study on God's "calling," maybe this will be a little help?
Romans 8:28-30 - And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
1. God draws those whom He has loved in eternity for salvation (Jeremiah 31:3, Psalm 25:6, 2 Timothy 1:8-9, Ephesians 1:4, 2 Thessalonians 2:13)
2. God sets individuals apart from the womb and calls them through His grace (Galatians 1:6, 1:15, Isaiah 49:1, 5, Jeremiah 1:5)
3. God calls individuals into fellowship with Jesus (1 Corinthians 1:9, 2 Thessalonians 2:14)
4. No one can come into fellowship with Jesus unless the Father draws him (John 6:44, 65)
5. God’s calling is according to His purpose (Acts 9:15, Romans 1:1, 8:28, 2 Timothy 1:9, John 1:12-13)
6. God calls individuals through the gospel (2 Thessalonians 2:14)
7. God’s calling through the gospel produces faith (Acts 13:48, 16:14, Ephesians 2:8, 1 John 5:1)
8. Those who are called are “a chosen race,” “a royal priesthood,” “a holy nation,” “a people for God’s own possession” (1 Peter 2:9)
9. Those whom God calls receive the promise of the eternal inheritance (Hebrews 9:15, 1 Peter 3:9)
10. God calls from both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:24, John 12:32, Revelation 5:9)
11. God’s calling, and the gifts associated with it are irrevocable (Romans 11:29)
We have free will to be the sinners that we are. We are free to keep on sinning. Apostle Paul teaches us that we are spiritually dead. (Eph. 2). We do not want God. We run away from him. The Holy Spirit must come to us and make our spiritually dead hearts alive. Then we will come to Jesus Christ in faith. Let Ephesians speak for itself. Give thanks to God for the gift of faith.
@@lawrencestanley8989 ... Thank you so much Bro Lawrence for providing so many related verses ... It certainly helps me a lot 🙏🏼
@@densim333
Sure thing!
@@densim333
Hi Dennis,
I suggest you carefully read the references shared by @lawrence stanley. Be careful to read atleast the entire para share. For example
Jer 31:3-
1 “At that time,” declares the LORD, “I’ll be the God of all the families of Israel, and they will be my people.”
2 This is what the LORD says: “The people who survived the sword, found favor in the desert while Israel was seeking rest.
3 The LORD appeared to Israel from far away and said, “I’ve loved you with an everlasting love, therefore I’ve drawn you with gracious love.
4 I’ll again build you, and you will be rebuilt, Virgin Israel! You will again take up your tambourines and go out to dance with those who are filled with joy
The passage about Gods promise to restore the nation of israel back to their and. His everlasting love here is for the entire nation (all families of israel) and there is no guarantee that everyone who was restored to the land is saved to enjoy eternal life.
Look at psalm 25,
6 Remember, LORD, your tender mercies and your gracious love; indeed, they are eternal!
7 Do not remember my youthful sins and transgressions; but remember me in light of your gracious love, in light of your goodness, LORD.
8 The LORD is good and just; therefore he will teach sinners concerning the way.
9 He will guide the humble to justice; he will teach the humble his way.
10 All the paths of the LORD lead to gracious love and truth for those who keep his covenant and his decrees.
Here again, we see Gods faithfulness to teach Sinners.. the text does not teach that God teaches only sinners that are elect.. so the verses actually supports the idea that God draws all people and there is grace for those who are willing to humble themselves before God.
Just started re-reading Calvin's Institutes (on your recommendation). Last read 1991. A most refreshing thing to get Calvin from Calvin himself rather than from someone else.
@robh.4897 In the KJV or any other version, you should find the Gospel of Christ. John Calvin was good at presenting that Gospel.
Hi Matthew and those who view his channel,
Calvinism or Reformed Doctrine claims to be the least man-centered, and the most God-gloryfying and most God- centered.
Yet this doctrine intrinsically is taught by men, and these men are hailed as "heroes." (McArthur, Sproul, Pink, Calvin, Augustine, Bauchaum, oh the list goes on.)
What make maketh ye of this?
I would simply respond with Hebrews 13:7 - Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith.
Scripture actually calls us to mark out those who are godly examples, and to imitate their faith.
Thank God these men, and many others, are carefully and faithfully interpreting what the Bible teaches. We can search this out for ourselves.
@@lawrencestanley8989 Thank you for your reply.
But I would argue that Calvinists do not merely do this verse. They would take these men and, dare I say, in some form, idolize them above the Lord. Those who learn their doctrine from a MacArthur Study Bible rather than from the Holy Spirit. Those who would rather quote a man rather than thr Scripture. Those who derive their doctrine from men rather than from Scripture- and then inject the doctrine of man into thr Scripture. That is not how it works.
@@kilgen28 Men who do search these things about and serve the Bosy by doing so are worthy of double honor indeed.
But I would honestly say that a Calvinist would have a hard time with their doctrine without relying on the lists of names I've already listed, or without a Macarthur study Bible, for example.
@@AM-6030
And I would simply push back and say that while there certainly are fanatics in this world, I have never met one who idolizes MacArthur as you describe.
Did John Calvin believe John 3:16? And what about Romans 10:9-13? did he believe in that?
Yes sir he did
Of course! What's your argument?
@@datchet11, trolls don't usually have a valid argument.
@@jamesmiller210 are you a Christian?
I wasn't predestined to be a Calvinist, but I am glad that the PCA sticks to its theological guns.
My thoughts on the dismay with Reformed theology is the humanistic side of us as creatures...the propensity to think we in our own strength of will choose God and that which is good. I believe reformed theology, thru Jonathan Edwards has taught me that left alone to my own choices of will alone, without the intervention of God himself through the Holy Spirit can only end in sinful choices or at least to say all things that fall short of God's Glory. The ONLY way I can choose God and live a Christian life is through the direct intervention of God himself thru hearing the Gospel preached and the Holy Spirit changing my cold heart of stone. This is not of myself, but a gift from God. No one can come unto the Father unless he draws him. John 6:40-51
Reformed theology makes the most of Jesus and his work. Redemptive history is Christ centered. Jesus is the reason for all of scripture hence Luke 24 and the road to Emaus. Forensic Imputation is the greatist truth of the Chrisitian religon. It saved me from thinking that I could save myself and it leaves salvation in Gods perfectly capable hands. We can rest from guilt and condemnation knowing that Christ fully paid for our sins. It leaves the Christian with such hope and Joy,that they cannot help but do good works out of gratitude. Thank you Pastor Matt.
I love the brother, but I wish to remain a Baptist.
That's OK. There are plenty of reformed Baptists who hold to reformed soteriology but not to covenant baptism. :) My personal transition from Arminio-dispy-credo to reformed was somewhat gradual.
I actually mean this charitably. You say by no definition. Well from an Eastern Orthodox perspective protestantism was actually condemned as heresy by an Orthodox synod in Jerusalem. This synod adopted the responses of Jeremias II to the Lutheran professors from Germany. This would include much of what Calvinists believe including their understanding of the Trinity and the Nicean Creed. I'm not trying to start an argument. Just pointing out that you cannot say from any charitable perspective. There is no cruelty in my tone.
Do Calvinists evangelize like they believe calvinism? Do you let potential converts know that you will preach the Gospel, but they cannot be saved if they are not one of the elect and were predestined by God for destruction?
Thank you o' chosen one. Lucky for you. You've been predestined to believe.
Would have been better to define at the start what Calvinism actually is...
Calvinism is heresy. Saviour didn't die for all?????
Not understanding doesn't equal heresy or even error.
If Calvinists believe in John 3:16 the word world means elect, that is clearly a corruption of the gospel, because if you believe in that on the elect can be saved, you can't share the gospel in good faith to a person you are not sure if they are elect.
But God does love everyone He just saves some. The world does not mean elect in that passage it means both Jews and Gentiles.
Yes, but unfortunately calvinist doesn’t interpret all in such a way.
Pastor Matt, there is a seminary professor that claims that Jonathan Edwards was a moderate calvinist. That he was a 4 pointer and held to a universal atonement. Do you agree? I didn't fully believe him.
Jonathan Edwards was a Puritan minister and a joke goes that "Puritans were more Calvinistic than Calvin himself". He did write in his book “The Freedom of the Will” “I should not take it at all amiss, to be called a Calvinist, for distinction’s sake: though I utterly disclaim a dependence on Calvin, or believing the doctrines which I hold, because he believed and taught them; and cannot justly be charged with believing in every thing just as he taught.”
Rather sad that most people only remember Calvin for 5 Points which wasn't even from him, but from Dutch Reformed Theologians. He wrote a whole Systematic Theology, not just the Soteriology. Most Anglosphere countries and churches actually practice what he wrote, btw. Even most Arminianism Protestant churches.
@@thomasc9036 I'm not a seminary student but I like to Study the bible and theology. I have a copy of the institutes I've read parts but not all, but i want to read all of it. Thank you for responding.
@@aleczamora6993 Jesus said the greatest commandment is to Love God. The second is to love our neighbors. This order is critical in understanding the bible. It’s always God first and man second.
Westminster Shorter Catechism Q3:
Q. What do the scriptures principally teach?”
A. The scriptures principally teach 1) what man is to believe concerning God, and 2) what duty God requires of man.
There is a reason why Calvin dominated the Reformation although he was not among the first generation Reformers. He always put the knowledge of God. Calvin writes in the Institute “But though the knowledge of God and the knowledge of ourselves are bound together by a mutual tie, due arrangement requires that we treat of the former in the first place, and then descend to the latter.”
Most failed pastors always consider the church members first, instead of God. Most failed understanding of scripture comes from trying to search the bible to be better Christians, instead of seeing that the bible reveals God incarnate Jesus Christ.
If I knew this early on in my Christianity, I would not have struggled so badly. May God turn his face toward your pilgrimage!
May God turn his face toward your pilgrimage!
@@thomasc9036 Thank you Sir, for sharing your wisdom and experience. I'll take this into account in my pilgrimage.
What is truly sad is that people are so unkind. Even if you believe Calvinism is wrong, to be so unkind in your comments shows you have rejected/ignored scripture on loving a neighbor being gracious and kind. If you are so convinced this man is wrong then pray that he will be enlightened.
During my years as a pastor, I spoke frequently of the subject you raise, namely "adiaphora" (Greek for "things indifferent"). I believe it is a critical factor for our times for this specific reason: it forces us to think of Christian teachings that are NOT indifferent, the doctrines you refer to here as "central."
And, why is this critical for our times? Because people no longer have denominational loyalty as 75 years ago. People under 50 seldom say, "I AM a Presbyterian or a Methodist, or a Baptist, or a Nazarene. Instead, they say, "I ATTEND a Presbyterian, etc. etc. church. The church that "feels right to me" or has a good youth group, or is friendly, or has music I like ... these are the factors that are decisive for people, and the younger they are, the more so.
These dynamics force us to decide which teachings/doctrines we are willing to be flexible on (agree to disagree) and which we dare not compromise on. Hence: adiaphora versus central.
I pastored for a while in the UCC (United Church of Christ). For them, everything is adiaphora. I get the feeling your church, Matthew, is a little different.
Isn't this because most pastors themselves are indifferent? Many PCA pastors who made ordination vows to uphold WCF violate them repeatedly. The ordination vows are made to God and violating them is willfully violating the 3rd commandment, but they still violate them "for the good /love of the church peace". If pastors are indifferent, so will congregation members.
@@thomasc9036 Hi, Thomas. Don't get me started on the clergy. I pastored for thirty years and the clergy are my least favorite bunch of people. Some I highly esteem, but far too many I think are in for a shock come judgment day.
They, more than any others, are responsible for the loss of biblical truth in the church and therefore the loss of its biblical witness to the culture.
The homosexual movement, for example, can point to all of the liberal mainline denominations for a defense of their position as being approved by God himself. It is the clergy and denominational bureaucrats who have done this. And, don't think for a moment that these comments would upset them. No, they celebrate this fact and call themselves "prophetic" for doing so.
Darn it, Tom, I told you not to get me started.
@@johnritter5951 “I pastored for thirty years, and the clergy is my least favorite bunch of people.” That is a very weighty statement, and disheartening to hear. I’m not questioning your statement at all; I’m just kind of shocked by it.
@@johnritter5951 I know how you feel. Jesus and his Apostles warned of false teachers and preachers. One of the reasons I know that the bible is inerrant/infallible is because despite false teachers and preachers and failing congregation, the church still stands. Proves that He was God incarnate!!!
Although I am a Presbyterian, I love the quote from Cardinal Consalvi who replied to Napoleon threatening to destroy Roman Catholic Church "You majesty, we, the Catholic clergy, have done our best to destroy the church for the last 1,800 years. We have not succeeded, and neither will you."
@@thomasc9036 That's a good one. God Bless
I'm not a calvinist but calling it heresy I think is going too far. The themes of the elect and predestination are in scripture the Calvinist just understands these truths differently than I do. I pray we could all be charitable to each other
I think the most controversial aspect of Calvinism is double election, or that God intentionally impedes or hardens hearts of certain people/groups from ever gaining salvation.
If a Calvinist is going to be consistent about His sovereignty, then he must conclude that God created man in such a way that guarantees his damnation. His inability to understand the Gospel is something God designed and decreed in man.
God bless.
@Ryan the Presbyterian
Do you believe in total depravity? Do you believe that the natural man is incapable of seeking God and has a heart that naturally detests Him? Do you believe that the natural man is born in such a way that makes it impossible to accept an offer of salvation? That he is born spiritually dead and a lover of sin?
Who created man and who is sovereignly in control of man’s (God given) characteristics?
@Ryan the Presbyterian
Hey friend. Did you get my list of questions? If Calvinism is biblical I would like to know. If it’s not biblical I would think you would like to know.
If it’s down right blasphemous then I would think you would really want to know.
Look forward to a friendly conversation.
Limited Atonement is heresy. There are mutliple scriptures that clearly present that Jesus died for the whole world.
Yes. Jesus Christ died for the whole world. When someone believes on Him (anyone) they get regenerated. They repent and believe the Gospel. It's great. 👍🏻
But I do like some Calvinist pastors, a lot of them - actually. Plus Spurgeon is great also.
No, it,s not.
@@gianpranata5153 it literally is. It contradicts scripture directly
Free Agency Was A Preferred Term Of Spurgeon. It’s not that people make choices but the real question is why they make the choices they make! Sinners choose quite freely whatever they want … and sometimes relatively good things; the problem is they don’t want the truly goodness of God! And that is exactly why they need FREE GRACE!!
Appreciate a calm discussion. I've had like 4 Calvanists tell me I am not a Christian because I hold to a traditionalist view my whole Christian life. It is perhaps a stretch to say that Calvanism is heresy, however it is imbalanced in that when you study it in depth as I have, that it ultimately sacrifices the goodness of God to emphasize Gods sovereignty. Dr. Leighton Flowers has incredible teaching on this subject.
I don’t know what a traditionalist view is, but I do not believe that Non-Calvinists are automatically not Christians.
I love that you come onto the channel of a PCA pastor, a calvinist (reformed christian), and an extremely well read scholar and then you go ahead and say "when you study it in depth as I have" hahaha. If you'd take 20 random viewers of this channel you would see that they all have studied it more in depth than you, and that's something I'd be willing to bet money on. I don't know what you claim the "traditionalist" view is, but within protestantism the traditional view of salvation, original view of salvation, and actual truth about salvation is calvinism. Arminianism/wesleyan/free will theology came later, and are forms of semi-pelagianism, believing that humans are inherently good enough to choose God of their own will. I'd be 100% sure you just believe in a bunch of strawmen about calvinism and don't actually understand it in the slightest, especially if you think it takes away from the goodness of God.
@Nathan Dudeman Yes, very bad.
Dr. Flowers is near to a Pelagian. That's a genuine heresy that arose long before Calvin ever lived. In fact, Pelagius was the antagonist to Augustin in the 3rd century, and was anathematized by an ecumenical council. The Flowers position is that of Paul's questioner in Romans 9, that's a bad side to be on. Obviously, the questioner is against the idea that it is God's glory that is central.
@@blchamblisscscp8476He is a Provisionist.
Before calling others ill-informed, reproduce what the man says.
Matthew, your approach to this question. likely even by the standards of knowledgeable secularists with no skin in the game, is so unspeakably disingenuous, I have to address it at length somewhere. I'm not letting you flee from this by throwing junk out of a dump truck into the paths of chasing pursuers. Honestly, it sickens me to have to do this. Paul Klenk, NYC
Some people like the late RC Sproul focused on the sovereignty and grace of God, while other people focus on their own choice to come to Christ. I simply believe you can't even come to Jesus unless the Father who send Him draws you and also that it's the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no use. God saves, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Fun fact: John Calvin believed Jesus died for everyone. This is called an extension of the atonement. What Jesus accomplished on the cross means is separate from the requirement to believe in him. He made it available to everyone. Limited atonement was helped by Theodore Beza whom John Piper call the first Calvanist.
Calvinism just about destroyed my faith. It's heretical in that the early church didn't believe it (the idea was introduced many, many years after the church was founded), it's anti-gospel (it contradicts the "whosoever believes in me" and "If I be lifted up, I will draw all men to myself" part of salvation message as it is God who chooses who believes and who doesn't).
The problematic scriptures for Calvinism are much more difficult to remedy as compared to scriptures supporting it (which are easily remedied, check out the Soteriology101 channel). For example, Jesus explicitly details how God fills his house in Luke 14. God had a list of invites, they irresistibly resisted I guess(?), then he sends his servants out to bring in whoever they find that wants to come in, so that his house may be full, which is literally the gospel message. Calvinism teaches the opposite.
Take the concepts of Calvinism, such as God inspiring rapists, murderers, and so on for his own glory, and apply that to a fantasy novel god who does such things. Sounds like an evil god to me, but since it's our god as the Calvinists say, it's a mystery why he does these things, and he's good not because he's good, but because he says he's good, but does the opposite of what his law says (which should reflect his nature). It smears the character of God. God can have all power, but also work within autonomy. God can work his overall perfect will within the realm of autonomy because he can do anything.
People hold onto Calvinism, even with the wealth of contradicting scripture, I believe, because there is a draw to being in an exclusive, religious group. It's the same spirit that the pharisees had, they loved being chosen by God. Imagine being a person who is depressed, who has a bad self image, and then hearing that God chooses who receives him, and who does not. A person who was always passed by everyone, only to hear God does the same. It's an evil doctrine.
Good video.
Neither Calvinist nor Non-Calvinist systems are heresy. There are multiple forms of Calvinism, as there are multiple forms of Non-Calvinism (including various forms of both Arminianism and Non-Arminianism). They are all attempts to explain the MECHANICS of how salvation is brought about, not over the gospel itself - that people are saved by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone, for the glory of God alone.
Instead of recognizing a spectrum of differing views, many people conflate the various perspectives into either ‘Calvinism’ or ‘Arminianism’.
It may be because som of us believe that limited atonement denies the Gospel (Good news) that Christ died for all
But nothing in scripture says that Jesus died for absolutely everyone without exception.
@@lawrencestanley8989 2 Peter 3:9, 1 John 2:2 - just the first two that came to mind
@@rodgermilner7800
That's amazing, I was refuting this same topic elsewhere. I'll just post the meaning of those texts here.
1. Some have tried to use passages like Hebrews 2:9 as a proof text for a universal atonement, if we read just a bit father, we see that this is just not the case. In Hebrews 2:9, the author states that Jesus “tasted death for everyone,” but to get a sense of who this “everyone” is, we only need to read a little further. This “everyone” are all those many sons which God, by His death, intended to bring unto glory, verse 10; those who are sanctified by Him whom He calls brethren, verses 11-12, and the children given to Him by God, verse 13 (cf. John 6:44); the children whom by death, He delivers from the fear of death, verses 14-15; even all the seed of Abraham, verse 16, and “the people,” in verse 17. And we will remember that according to Galatians 3:7 it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham, and, according to John 6:44, no one can come to Jesus (in faith) unless the Father who sent Jesus draws him.
According to F.W. Grosheide, “The meaning of ‘everyone’ is not that all men without distinction will reap the fruits of Jesus’ death. To assume such a universalism here would contradict ‘many sons,’ in verse 10; the ‘seed of Abraham,’ in verse 16; and ‘the people,’ in verse 17. ‘Everyone’ is merely the general term that is placed in the foreground and is to be defined subsequently.”
2. 1 John 2:2, John 3:16. This passage is speaking in generic terms of all mankind in general rather than to refer to specific individuals, for if this passage were meant to say that Jesus is the propitiation for ALL of the reprobate without exception, then by extension, propitiation would have been made for Satan himself - such a monstrous idea deserves no refutation.
In this passage, John simply says that He - meaning Christ - is the propitiation not only for the Jews, but also for every other tribe and tongue and people and nation (Revelation 5:9). While this passage and others like it such as John 1:29, 3:16, 6:51, 1 Timothy 2:6, and Hebrews 2:9 seem to indicate that Jesus paid for the sins of absolutely every individual who ever lived, we know that this cannot be the case because we also know that most of the world will be eternally condemned to hell to pay for their own sins. These passages must be understood to be referring to all of mankind in general, as opposed to just the Jews. (see: John 10:11, 15, 17:9, 20, Acts 20:28, Romans 8:32, 37, and Ephesians 5:25)
There must be a consistent exegetical methodology applied to the text in order to properly understand how words like “world” are being used, otherwise, if a presupposition is read into the text on a word like “world,” then you wind up making John say some very silly and contradictory things:
John 3:16 - For God so loved the world…
1 John 2:15 - Do not love the world nor the things in the world…
So, does the word “world” mean the exact same thing every time that it is used? Obviously, no. Does the word “world” always mean “absolutely everyone without exception?” Obviously, no. The word “world” can be used to refer to different things in different contexts, and it is the duty of the Bible student to well understand how this word is used in its various contexts in order to keep from having an erroneous understanding of the text.
The fact that Jesus’ sacrifice was for all “kinds” of people is made clear in Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus in John 3:14-16 where twice He makes the statement that salvation is not for the Jew only, but for “whoever” (English translation). This of course is not speaking to a universal atonement (cf. John 6:44), but rather, it means that God is not the God of the Jews only, but of the “world” (vs. 16) and that out of all categories of people (Jews and Gentiles), Jesus provides eternal life for “all the believing ones” (πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων, vs. 15 and 16) by propitiating the wrath of God on their behalf; actually removing God’s wrath against them and cancelling their certificate of debt.
3. Lastly, 1 Timothy 2:4 (2 Peter 3:9). The Greek word that is used here for “desire,” is the word θέλει and it is a word that simply speaks of a desire for something to be a certain way, an inclination if you will (cf. 2 Peter 3:9); it is not however the way of speaking that is used to express God’s will of decree, that is, His eternal purpose (Ephesians 1:11, Daniel 4:35), and there is a distinction between the two (Matthew 26:39, cf. Romans 9:22). Sometimes these two forms of desire are aligned, sometimes they are not, for instance, God hates sin with all His being (Psalm 5:4, 45:7), and yet God ordained that Joseph’s brothers sell him into slavery (Genesis 45:7-8, 50:20); God hates and forbids murder (Exodus 20:13), and yet it was the will of the Lord to crush the Son (Isaiah 53:10); God’s actions are always determined by His eternal purposes (Ephesians 3:9-11), not His desires, therefore this means that God disapproves of some of the things that He ordains, and some of the things that He desires, He does not ordain.
In this instance, we see that it is God’s inclination that absolutely everyone without exception would be saved; this is a reflection of passages like Ezekiel 18:23 and 32 where, with a view to their future damnation, we see that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, and it is for this reason that God is very patient with all mankind, (cf. 2 Peter 3:9) pouring out temporal blessings indiscriminately upon all the earth so that His children will come to repentance (Romans 2:4-5). His temporal blessings are seen in the fact that God does not kill an individual the very instant that they violate the Law, even though that is what they deserve, He also sends out preachers into all the world to promiscuously declare God’s command to repent (Acts 17:25-29), and gives His warnings of judgment. However, God’s inclination for all to be saved does not drive His actions like a person can be so easily driven by their emotions. The story of God wielding the Assyrians to judge Israel as a man wields a club can be seen in Isaiah 10, and even though their actions were very obviously ordained by God, they receive judgement from Him for acting upon their own wicked intentions; this is a clear example of God ordaining the destruction of not just one man, but in this case, an entire people group, despite His inclination against the death (and damnation) of the wicked.
So, if it is God's will of decree that everyone on earth without exception be saved, and we know that YHWH nullifies the councils of the nations and frustrates the plans of the people, and that it is His council and His plans that stand forever (Psalm 33:10-12), knowing that no one frustrates the plans of God (Ephesians 1:11, Job 42:2), how is it then that men are not saved? If man uses his so-called "free will" to reject God, then man has just frustrated the plans of God. If however no one can frustrate the plans of God, as the scriptures say, and yet still, there are men who are not saved, then clearly it is not in God's WILL OF DECREE that everyone on earth without exception be saved, even though it is His inclination to do so (cf. 2 Peter 3:9).
@Golden Arm
Are you suggesting that God will bring some sons to glory that He doesn't intend to? Fine, then word it, "by His death is bringing unto glory."
@Golden Arm
Wow, that's not what the text is saying at all. For the life of me, I will never understand why free willers refuse to apply proper grammar to scripture. Didn't you read anything that I wrote? The subject of the indefinite pronoun is in the very next verses, and it isn't "absolutely everyone without exception." The Bible does not teach universalism; I wish free willers would understand that.
Are you a high calvinist?
Hyper calvinist?
Believe the Bible teachs EDD?
Where is the good news for the non elect?
Isn't Christ's atonement of a higher value and nature since it's for all who choose to come to Him and not just the icing on the cake of the elect who were justified before time?
Matthew 23:37,
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!
Sounds like Jesus desired all Jerusalem to come to Him but they would not come.
Calvism that goes so far as to say that God is the cause of every evil action by man is indeed a heresy no matter what you or the PCA says. Common sense and a basic understanding of the English language would make it impossible for one to get to your theology without the gnostic teachings of Augustine.
Calvinism is a heresy. To believe that you must be part of the elect is false. The elect/chosen is the nation of Israel. When you read the full context and tie on dispensationalism, it clearly shows that the elect/chosen one's are the children of Israel. In the new testament, when Chist talks about calling and/or being the chosen, Christ is speaking to the Apaotles who were chosen to go and preach because they were "chosen" from all the disciples to do so. Paul also talks about being chosen, again, for those that are already saved and ready to go and preach. Calvinism is wrong and teaches that in order to be saved, you must show works to prove you're part of the elect. Ephesians 2 vs 8-9. They teach you must perform works such as going to church, reading your Bible daily, preaching to others, etc. They cannot say those are not works because they either are or are not. John 6:29 says believe on him who he hath sent. Again, for by grace through faith we are saved! Remember, Genesis through the book of Acts was meant for the Jews (Nation of Israel) then Romans through Philemon is meant for the church to include both Jews and the Gentiles (us), then the book of Hebrews through Revelation is again, meant for the Jews (Nation of Israel). That's why it's important to study dispensationalism so that you know how to rightly divide the word of God and to whom certain things were meant to be said to. Calvinism will cast doubt on your salvation especially if you were recently saved because they will judge you by your works, believe me, I know, I was raised under Calvinism and I struggled for so long with my salvation because i was always judged by my works until one day my eyes were opened! See Romans 14:22-23 and you'll clearly see since they cast doubt on your salvation, you are damning your soul! You'll never know if your saved or not because if you're not performing works, then you're truly not saved according to Calvinism. That is not what the Bible teaches! If you believe with your heart and confess with your mouth, you are saved, see Romans 10:8-10. Think about this, when the thief was on the cross next to Jesus and he turned to say to him, remember me when you come into your kingdom. What did Jesus say to him? He said, today, you will be with me in paradise (Luke 23:42-43). Jesus didn't say to him, well, you have to go to church, read your Bible, let me see if your part of the elect, NO! The thief chose, by his own free will, to accept Jesus and Jesus immediately did so! Please read thoroughly whenever you come across the word elect, chosen, predestined since it is mentioned throughout the Bible many times and if your read the entire context, you'll see that its either meant for the Jews or meant to be an Apostle! Do not take snippets of the scripture either to fit the narrative such as they do with Jeremiah 31:3 and say, you see, God has drawn man but if you read verses 1&2, you'll clearly see that he was speaking to the families of Israel! Again, it is a false teaching and a heresy for casting doubt because you may not be part of the elect according to their teachings! I pray that i have at least shed some light on this subject and that you are able to study further to see that we do have the free will to accept Jesus as our savior and be saved by grace through faith and nothing else! 🙏
Why do Calvinists evangelize? Not every ministry is for every Christian. Gods calling for my life might be different than Gods calling for your life. Clearly the calling of evangelism is not for the Calvinist, for such obvious reasons no explanation is even necessary.
I'll take Calvin's words instead of any excuses. At least the man was shamelessly unapologetical:
"Servetus offers to come hither, if it be agreeable to me. But I am unwilling to pledge my word for his safety, for if he shall come, I shall never permit him to depart alive, provided my authority be of any avail.” - Letter to Farel, 13 February 1546
"Servetus . . . suffered the penalty due to his heresies, but was it by my will? Certainly his arrogance destroyed him not less than his impiety. And what crime was it of mine if our Council, at my exhortation, indeed, but in conformity with the opinion of several Churches, took vengeance on his execrable blasphemies?”
"Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death, knowingly and willingly incur their guilt. It is not human authority that speaks, it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for His Church.”
Calvin, a Spirit-led teacher, was led to trample all over Christ's words, but yet he gets a free pass. Christ said we should love our enemies; of course Calvin was bigger, when he said: "Thou shalt kill thyne enemies."
The Spirit forgot to teach him Christianity 101, like "Thou shalt not kill", or that owning slaves wasn't that good of an idea, either.
I guess a douse divided can, in fact, stand. A man that, according to Acts 6, would not qualify to wait the tables, is regarded a theological mastermind.
The Gospel of Humanism would try to claim it is!
Definitely a heresy. "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it." Time to return to Catholicism because the scripture demands it.
I have heard a lot of Calvinists call people who hold to arminianism as "pelagians","heretics" etc.. They are just reaping what they have sown.
Frankly, i think it's ridiculous to call people Heretics over these issues.
So, you responded to those who said those things personally, or you think a whole group of people reaps what other specific people sow?
@@FaithRefinedByFire
I am referring to the whole group here. Just look at Christian history where different denominations were calling each other heretics and taking violent action against those who disagreed.. John Calvin and his immediate successors also practised these things.
Many Calvinists are still clinging on to that culture to some extent at an organisational level.. So, it's only natural that at least some people respond to calvinists in the same way.
Individual calvinists may or may not be kind to those who disagree.. however, a calvinists church is more likely to kick out members and leaders who publicly question the doctrine.
@@Ashwin2584 "Calvinists have no assurance. And if grace is irresistible, then that is rape. You are unsaved, trusting in a manmade system and going to hell! As for the word "all," is Romans 3:23 wrong when it says for ALL have sinned? Stupid argument. But that is to be expected from an unsaved Calvinist! Take a hike, you aren't welcome here!!!"
(I gave him a whole list of verses in the Bible where ALL MEN could not possibly mean EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE PLANET, and where whole WORLD and ENDS OF THE EARTH could not mean every single place on earth. I guess that got him big mad. I did respond to his weird rant by saying that when you're juxtaposing "all" men with "God," who is only one person, then yes, all includes every single person on the planet but God. In many other cases, however, it does not.)
He was already calling Calvinists "retarded," "stupid," and "unsaved." This random man literally told me I was going to hell. (I got told I was going to hell three times in one day. That's a record.) I'm not trying to be rude, but you can keep your idea that we're only getting what we had coming to us. I can hardly enter a chat on RUclips without someone calling Calvinism a damnable heresy. Leighton Flowers doesn't even go that far. I guess he has Christian sensibility, and I have no problem considering him a brother in Christ, because, ya know, you shall know them by their fruits. I have even sat with many of his ideas. I'm just not sure how many of them are right. It's mainly because of all the people who can't simply call someone who loves God and who holds completely orthodox Christian views a brother or sister in Christ that I'm willing to boldly go by any label or defend any "tradition" that you think should be forgotten. It's a tradition that adheres to the Bible.
Getting told I'm going to hell by angry people on the internet is not some sort of cosmic karma, which is actually what you are talking about. As I pointed out, it's not "reaping what you sow." It would actually be something maybe closer to repaying evil for evil, but ya know, the Bible says not to do that. I guess we all fall short. Even the people we meet on the internet who make a practice of damning Christians to hell.
@@FaithRefinedByFire
That's a long rant. I am just pointing out that it's inevitable. It has nothing to do with karma. Bad behaviour generally attracts bad treatment. It's common sense.
Many calvinists claim that "calvinism is the gospel".. i.e.Those who disagree with calvinism are either not saved or inferior Christians. It's only natural that at least some people react in the same way.
Don't let internet discussions bother you too much.
@@Ashwin2584 I was a journalism major in college and was trained to over-splain things. Even now I want to explain what Spurgeon meant when he said, "Calvinism is the gospel." He certainly didn't mean you had to be a Calvinist to be saved. However, I can believe that some who hold to reformed theology probably do say that. Touché.
If you pray for a sick person to be positively healed, rather than for God to make it possible for them to be healed, then you are already more Calvinist that you may know.
Listen to me right now. If you are here, because you are searching to figure out if Calvinism is heretical think about this for one second. Doesn’t it seem like when people are saying it is heresy it’s short, simple, to the point. And take lately for instance this video done by this gentleman Matthew ,Who I mean no harm but I say this in truth. He’s going on and on and on that’s the same rhetoric that you get from every Calvinist they just give you this intellectual runaround and what does it cause? Confusion. You wanna know what God isn’t the author of? Confusion. Calvinism is a works based salvation. It is not the gospel. May the Lord keep you
Christians are to not bear false witness and to establish their accusations with great care, presenting several witnesses to support each claim. And as Jesus said, "if you love me, obey my commandments," which would include the above commandments.
One way to interpret your comment is that the anticalvinists hate Christ. They jump to judgement and give short statements declaring them heretics without going through the langthy process of laying out the evidence. On the other hand, the Calvinists are the ones who love Christ enough to obey his command and back up their claims with multiple lines of evidence.
Judging someone as a heretic is something that should never be done in a "short, simple, to the point" way. It should be taken slowly and somberly with every measure of grace to interpret them in the best light possible to show that they truly are heretics beyond a shadow of a doubt. It is the spirit of antichrist that seems to sow disunity in the body of Christ and condemn without evidence.
So here’s another question? Is Arminianism heresy?
There is a difference between error and heresy. Heresy is a belief that prevents you from being saved and has abandoned core Christian fundamentals.
@@aleczamora6993 I like this answer
There are two different Arminianism, Original and Wesleyan. Wesleyan version (mostly old school Methodists, but not current) is definitely not, but Reformed circle believes to have theological errors. The Original was condemned to be a heresy by Synod of Dort. I read the Original Articles translated into English and wordings are not clear and precise. In fact, Articles 1 and 5 actually contradict each other. It's not well-written to be honest probably due to being written in haste and by students of Arminius. There are clear differences between Wesleyan and Original if you read them.
Jacob Arminius died before he can write any clear systematic doctrinal statements like Calvin did. He just taught and wrote negatives of Reformed Theology to his students, but not positives of his theology to replace Reformed Theology.
No, for the same reasons pastor Matt listed why Calvinism is not. Arminianism does not deny any of the central beliefs 😊
@@garythomas3150 I agree with you
I actually like John Calvin. But I'm not a Calvinist.
It was ironically the rabid anti-Calvinists that convinced me that the Calvinist position on predestination and election is the correct one!
I'm a Calvinist because consistent synergism leads to open theism.
Have fun with Determinism.
Note that the Greek word where the term 'heresy' comes from is a word that originally simply meant 'opinion'. (Also by the way the word used for 'sin' simply meant 'error').
The meaning that the term acquired (and all Christians use it that way) is secondary.
I personally really believe it is a set of human opinions not based on the true knowledge of God (but, I, personally, do not have true knowledge of God either, so as an individual I am not in any way better than Calvinists. I may very well be worse.)
Imho it is perfectly reasonable for those who consider the teachings wrong to condemn it, and even use the term 'heresy'.
Of course Calvinism is heresy. They know they believe in a different gospel than what the Bible teaches and they in no way believe in the clear teachings of the gospel
I think the reformation was needed, but some things where taken to far, but im not sure they had a choice, so its up to use to make the corrections as we are not in the same situation they where
My problem with Calvinism, Luthren, they were men, there interpretation of God's word. Why put a man's name were Yeshua should be??? Just read the true word. If you are a true believer in Yeshua the Holy Spirit will teach you the truth.
Denominations are man made. Most teach the importance of scripture... You must be Born again. But they are off on other scripture's. Just trust in Yeshua. Be Bereans and take what you hear, even from your own Pastor and check it with the word.
Shalom and blessing's to all.
God knew ahead of time who would believe in him and who wouldn’t. That simple.
No. That's not predestination at all. God by virtue of his Sovereign free will decided before the creation of the world who would receive his free gift of Grace and thus upon hearing the Gospel repent and accept Christ.
I turned off the video when you said no because I won't listen to a liar.
I don't think it's a heresy, but it's certainly a philosophically driven theology which requires us to lean on our own logical extrapolations and assumptions more heavily than we do the plain sense of many texts which would refuse it.
Trying to defend Calvin against what he did is like when the catholics try to defend themselves against the Inquisition. So sad
Yes, unfortunately Calvinism is Heretical and Novel. Traditions of men.
No. Calvinism is biblical.
Of course. All protestantism is heresy. Damnable heresy.
God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge. If it was pre-ordained that Adam would eat from the tree, then God intended for them to eat from the tree. God set sin in motion and tricked them? This is blasphemy.
Also, it is impossible for the Calvinist to know if they are truly saved until after death. A doctrine of walking in doubt, not in faith. Even Calvin wasn't sure at the end. Just die and hope he made the team? This is heresy. Because I believe in Jesus and put my faith in him, I never wonder, he is the elect, it is only through faith in him that I share that election.
Of course Calvinists want to escape Calvin, because he would help murder those that questioned him. Doesn't pass the smell test for living as Christ. Did Peter wish death upon those that persecuted him? Obviously not, because he was trying to emulate Christ.
There can be no accountability without responsibility. Let me say it again, there can be no accountability without responsibility. If God has truly pre-ordained billions of people to hell (for his glory?) before they were born, it is not their responsibility, and it is not of love. If God is love, teaching pre-ordained damned people is heresy and blasphemy.
Faith is not a gift, it is not a work, it is a choice. Salvation, by grace through faith, makes Salvation the gift, grace the kind undeserved offering, and faith the input to receive. All glory is still God's.
Limited atonement is absolutely insane because it requires reinterpretation of what Jesus himself said. Probably the biggest heresy of Calvinism.
Teaching the lies of Calvinist doctrine and misleading the flock is dangerous. Flee from this.
@KTTGHMTJWYCBLAC quite boastful.
There is some disagreement with Augustine and Luther, as neither affirmed the Calvinist doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints.
Calvinism is Augustinian philosophies.
Election in the least is very much biblical.
When you listen to the arguments from the folks who say this for more than 10 mins ..🥴 , yea ok I’m pretty sure you’re half a generation from handling snakes in West Virginia 🤷🏼♂️.
@Ryan the Presbyterian there is a large dose of sarcasm in my comment
@Ryan the Presbyterian
No, I come from the Pentecostal "non" denomination. It's pretty close.
Why do so many Christians accept the modern critical notion that the Gospel of Mark was the first one written despite nearly unanimous testimony of the early church that Matthew was first? Do we really suppose modern textual examination methods are more reliable than the church fathers?
I'll be sure to ask a Jehovah's Witness if The Watchtower is heresy and a Mormon if Mormonism is heresy too while I am at it...
Yes reformed theology is Calvinism and heresy
13:35 There are terms in the Bible so therefore you should automatically assume that our dogmatic implementation of them is correct.
Except:
Pre-destination is about Christ. About God's plan for those who respond with faith to be conformed to the image of the son.
Election is about seevice, but
Who are the elect in the Parable of the Wedding Feast? It is those who responded to the invitation by coming. When did they become chosen? After they came.
No, of course it's not, I'm a Calvinist and so it can't be. Great reasoning. And yes, Calvinism is a blasphemous and vile Heresy.
Ikr lol
Calvinism will never be understood by people who are lazy in their Theology.
Calvinism is blasphemy.
Were Calvinism true, this one verse would show God a liar.
Jer:
And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech, which I commanded them not, neither came it into My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
@Johnny Rep
Under Calvinism, God would be responsible for this.
But God clearly states it never entered his mind.
Was he lying ?
If he was, he can't be God.
God is not a liar, men are.
Yes
All these terms are confusing.
Tompa, God is not the author of confusion, So DO NOT believe Calvinist's.
@@dr.alanhales544 When Paul says that statement he is referring to people speaking over one another while teaching. He is not saying that someone will always understand the exact meaning each term upon hearing it for the first time. I'm not taking either side on the position of Calvinism but it is worrying that you would pull someone's sentence and use it for something that they never intended. A good word of advice to someone with a bit of confusion may be to read their Bible and pray for God to help them through His Word. I pray this every single time I open my Bible. To lack confusion is to say that you know everything and have all the answers so I would be hesitant to say something like that to someone is trying to learn these theological terms. Did you not go to college to remove a layer of confusion over different subjects? God Bless. I'm sorry if this sounded differently than I intended but this type of thing hits too close to home and can be very dangerous. Tompa. I would suggest reading God's Word and comparing it to the original texts if it is the langue that is confusing you. If it is the theological terms then there are several dictionaries designed specifically for that purpose as well. Good luck.
@Ryan the Presbyterian Calvinist's need to get wisdom.
@Ryan the Presbyterian Doctrines that men have to teach are not worth learning. Doctrines that the Holy Ghost teaches, are worth listening and learning from.
@Ryan the Presbyterian Simply put, Calvinism redefines words and takes them out of context in order to align with their system. Words like predestination, chosen, elect, etc, are words that the Calvinists uses to push their system.
So, Holy Spirit inspired doctrine is simply reading the Bible in context, with an earnest endeavor for the truth, without bringing any pre-suppositions to the text.
Simple. Is that clear, Mr. Ryan the Presbyterian?
I used to believe in calvinism but then I read the Bible
@KTTGHMTJWYCBLAC yeah and they have the right to being wrong...so get over it
@@JH324 can you explain what exactly in scripture made you reconsider your Calvinism
Great job. Just read your Bible. It alone has everything we need to live for Christ.
Lol
@@chasbrewer5705 What did God say to Cain?
Where was Calvinism BEFORE Calvin? Were disciples of Jesus wrong for following Scripture BEFORE Jean came around to explain that he was the ONLY one that understood? SMH
Not sure where you are specifically coming from, but I like to point people to the Canon of Orange written over 1000 years before Calvin was born. It seems to explicitly condemn the sorts of beliefs most anticalvinists promote these days while affirming at least 4 of the 5 points of Calvinism as found in the Canons of Dort.
@@oracleoftroy I'm coming from the Bible. The Canon of Orange and Dort are MAN-MADE writings. The Bible is the inerrant, perfect word of God. It requires study, yes, but the more one reads and studies the more the writings of man become obviously ideological and obfuscate the truth.
Calvinism is another gospel. Not first Corinthians 15:3-4. Galatians 1:7-9 Though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received from us, let him be accursed.
First John 2:2 And He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world. First Timothy 2:4. God is not willing that any should perish, but all should come to the knowledge of the truth. The gospel. John 3:16-18.
Arminianism is another gospel. Lordship salvation is works salvation. Matthew 7:21-23. Not John 6:40 and John 6:29.
Acts 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how He said, John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized by the Holy Spirit. Ephesians 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, (First Corinthians 15:3-4) in whom also AFTER ye believed ye were sealed by that Holy Spirit of promise. Our guarantee of eternal life, by faith alone apart from works for the free gift of eternal life.
Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the POWER of God unto salvation to everyone that BELIEVETH, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. Faith is not a work. Romans 3:26-28. It is faith apart from works. Our works can not save sinners. John 3:16-18.
Many believe they are chosen, but have never done the will of His Father in heaven. John 6:40 and John 6:29. Matthew 7:21-23
Romans 11:29 For the GIFTS, eternal life, and the calling of God, John 12:32, are without repentance. Irrevocable, can not be changed back. It is Gods will that everyone believe and receive the free gift of eternal life. John 6:47.
There is no assurance of salvation in Calvinism. We are all sinners. First John 1:8. First Corinthians 1:21.
The doctrines of men are not the word of God. Calvinism is not grace. Romans 11:6 . I have heard the demonic Calvinist tell their own children they are already condemned to hell because God did not choose them. What a horrible doctrine. Even Calvinist do not know if they are one of the chosen. They have no way to know. Calvinism is against the grace of God to save sinners. It is a perverted gospel.
I can have no fellowship with Calvinist who believe that God predestines people to hell no matter if they believe the gospel or not. John Calvin was not a believer in the gospel of all grace to save anyone who would trust Jesus for the free gift of eternal life. John 6:37 Romans 4:5-8. The bible refutes Calvinism as a false gospel. John 3:16-18. Calvinist call God a liar. John 5:24. Faith is not a work. It is faith apart from works. Ephesians 2:8-9. Romans 3:26-28. The gift of God is eternal life to everyone that believeth. Not chosen.
Calvinist are the enemy of the cross to save sinners. The tulip is the devils favorite flower.
Calvinist wonder why their children commit suicide. Because they have been told that they are predestined to hell. If you believed you were predestined to hell what would you do? Who says you are not predestined to hell. No one can know if they are one or the other. First John 5:13 says we can know because we have believed. John 3:18 Those that have believed are saved. Not chosen.
@@jimkraft9445
Is it hard for you to sleep at night with all those scarecrows burning in your yard?
Not at all. Romans 4:5-8 John 3:18 No longer condemned to hell. John 6:40 and John 6:29. Romans 3:26-28. Jesus paid it all and I have nothing to boast in. Ephesians 2:8-9 You can not boast in free. Romans 11:6. Romans 6:23 The GIFT of God is eternal life, not faith. First Corinthians 1:21
Yes. Yes it is
Jesus died for the whole world. 1 john 2:2. This is central in the gospel. You are in a delusion.
@Johnny Rep sufficient to save the world from the curse of the law....that held the world into bondage...due to the perfection it required. One must believe the good news to be born again. Yet...all were saved...from bondage of the old covenant system. Everone must choose to believe.
The salvation that occurred for the world was conditional. Ifcyouvfail to believe the gospel...you will be cut off. Romans explains it well.
I found a youtuber named Mike Winger he gives many excellent, loving, unemotional arguments against Calvinism.
I do agree that Calvinism acknowledged the core essential of historical Christian faith and other essentials. But I strongly disagree to Calvin's teaching on double-predestination and his statement seems to me he had maligned the character of God.
The following is the extract of Calvin's teaching on double predestinate;
Quote "The facts are: Calvin most definitely did believe in double predestination. This is what he wrote and taught:
The predestination by which God adopts some to the hope of life, and adjudges others to eternal death, no man who would be thought pious ventures simply to deny….By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death (Institutes of the Christian Religion 3.21.5). -unquote-
Do you as a Calvinist agree to his double-predestination doctrine? Appreciate your comments. Thank you.
Well I thought it was. Then a brother told me that I did not read the Bible enough. I was offended. Then I got over it and then I discovered that it is simply the literal truth of the bible. Period. That is why people hate it. It is the truth. Praise Yahweh.
Calvinism is completely heretical. All five points. Especially the limited atonement, is unspeakably heretical.
No it is not.
@@JC-sj2pd lol. It’s a heresy contradicting the teachings of the Bible and the early church.
@@gianpranata5153I agree that it is NOT heretical. What I find disheartening is people are not addressing anything he is speaking about. They just revert to it’s a heresy without any support.
i am a calvinish in a way
Never meant a Calvinist who thought they (and coincidentally their families) were not part of the elect.
I"am Calvinist in my Theology and none of my family are saved. I pray they will be saved.
@@martinlohstroh They should be praying for you. That your eyes will be opened to the heresy of Calvinism.
Question, then why do Calvinist go out of their way to tell non-Calvinist that they are heretics?
Of course you’re that. Calvinism is blasphemous as well.
Calvinism does deny the love and mercy of God. To say God created a soul to fight against his will without choice. Then turn around and hold them accountable to suffer eternity in hell for committing sin without choice. I can’t imagine anything more horrific than the Great White Thrown of Judgement. Billion of souls will be casted into the lake of fire for being created to sin and suffer the second death. This is not consistent with Gods character God cannot temp anyone with sin if true how then can He create a soul for sin and punishment. God says it’s my will that all men be saved. Calvinism is suggesting that God creates a sinner who has no choice in the matter then damns them to be hell. I can’t see the mercy or justice in that. It paints a picture of a cruel god not a loving and merciful God. To deny Gods love and mercy so harshly that its changes Gods character could easily be heresy.
You ignore scripture like Romans 8:29 and Romans 8:33? It's all thru the new testament. (A lot of dispensational Baptists write off references to the elect by excluding everything that is not in Romans thru Philemon stating that it does not apply to Gentiles.) Clearly Romans discusses election in great detail. I struggle to understand this compared to the parable of the sower in Mathew 13 where people are clearly given the option of rejecting the word. It's almost as if they are talking about two different groups of people?
No it does not deny God's love.